Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vernon council hears $65,000 change order after misordered generators; debate over who should pay
Summary
Council members discussed a $65,000 change order tied to two generators ordered single‑phase instead of three‑phase on a grant project, with councilors saying the error was contractor- or engineer‑driven and debating use of $105,000 in grant contingency to address the issue.
The City of Vernon council discussed a $65,000 change order this meeting after two generators purchased under a grant were ordered as single‑phase units rather than the three‑phase units the city expected. Council member Keith said the change order appeared to stem from an outside error and that the grant still has $105,000 in contingency funds that could be used to finish the project.
Why it matters: The generators are part of a grant‑funded upgrade to lift‑station equipment; using contingency for a supplier or engineering error would mean grant funds and, effectively, taxpayers would cover a mistake that council members said was not the city’s fault.
Keith told the council, “The change order was for $65,000,” and that the two single‑phase units had been ordered months after the city specified three‑phase equipment. He said he “didn’t sign the consent order” and urged the council to ensure contingency dollars are spent on necessary system improvements, not to fix contractor or design mistakes. Keith also reported that at a later meeting the explanation shifted from a contractor mistake to an engineer’s drawing error, with the contractor ordering what the engineer showed.
Others on the council agreed that responsibility should rest with the vendor or designer rather than the city. Council members discussed options including submitting a change order to use contingency funds, or requesting the contractor or engineer to correct the error at their own cost. Keith noted the state isn’t pressing the city for immediate action and that “we can get another hundred and 40 day extension” to resolve the matter.
Council did not record a final policy decision at the meeting; members said they would continue to meet with project staff and the grant manager to determine whether to accept the change order, seek reimbursement from the contractor/engineer, or use contingency funds for critical system needs. Keith emphasized that nine generators are expected across lift stations and that the council wants the remaining funds spent on pumps and motors the system needs rather than on correcting the procurement mistake.
The public comment period included concerns about general maintenance and public‑safety issues—matters councilors said staff would follow up on—but no public speaker disputed the technical description of the generator error. The council moved on to other agenda items and retained the issue for follow up at meeting staff levels.
