Committee delays decision on authorizing contracts for appropriated capital projects after scope concerns

The Parks & Public Works Committee reviewed agenda bill 26-030 on June 2, a resolution asking the council to authorize the mayor to execute contracts for capital projects already appropriated in the city’s budget.

Staff said the request stems from a recent shift to ‘‘life of project’’ appropriations so projects already authorized by council would not lose funding between biennia, and asked permission to execute contracts up to the appropriated amounts rather than returning for separate contract approval each time. Staff identified the source-of-supply improvement project on Schedule A, which shows an appropriation of $1,548,000, as the immediate item for which they seek contract authority.

Council members pressed for concrete details about what contracts would authorize and whether the next contracts would be construction deals or studies. Council member Hoy said the approach ‘‘is a gross overreach of authorization’’ and insisted that contracts beyond director- or mayor-level thresholds come back to committee and council for approval. The mayor responded, ‘‘There’s nothing gross about this. We’re coming back and asking you. … Nobody’s trying to pull any fast one on you. It's just trying to streamline the process.’’

Staff described technical work tied to the source-of-supply project: completing ASR feasibility steps, preparing an application to Ecology for an underground reservoir permit, additional geotechnical evaluation and monitoring at Canyon Springs, and follow-on professional services for the South Wellfield. Staff said they plan to seek a new contract with Geocentex, the consultant that has been doing the existing work, to complete modeling, permitting, monitoring and related field work.

Council members sought to ensure the work matched the project description approved in the appropriation. One council member noted the original project description was prepared years ago and may not reflect the current work and asked that staff update and narrow the scope. Staff acknowledged the need to revise the materials and provide a clear scope and fee proposal.

Given the outstanding scope questions and the imminent expiration of an existing consultant contract, the mayor proposed withdrawing the item and returning with a revised request in about two weeks. The committee did not vote on agenda bill 26-030; the item was withdrawn for revision and will be brought back with a clearer contract scope and proposed fees.

What’s next: staff will prepare a revised scope and fee proposal and return the item to committee for further review; no contract authority was granted at the meeting.