Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council probes $48,320 engineering amendment and may pursue liquidated damages on pumping station project

Trappe Town Council · June 3, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The council reviewed Engineer’s Amendment #3 that adds $48,320.64 to the pumping station rehabilitation engineering total (bringing it to $571,911.64), discussed contractor performance and directed staff to explore liquidated damages and inspection records relating to contractor Schummer.

Jason Lytle of GMB presented Amendment #3 for the Pumping Station Rehab project, requesting $48,320.64 in additional hourly services and incorporating a previously submitted invoice, which brings total engineering services on the project to $571,911.64. Lytle told the council that the additional charges stem from the project extending beyond the substantial completion date and that USDA loan records require a signed amendment to reconcile the accounts.

Council members questioned why the engineering budget was far exceeded and asked whether the contractor’s delays and work quality could be recouped. Lytle said an inspector "was on-site most of the time" and that the contractor had been notified about outstanding issues. After discussion, President Newnam moved — and the council approved — a motion to explore the Town’s options for pursuing liquidated damages against the contractor, to review GMB’s inspection records, and to examine notifications made to the contractor Schummer. Public commenters including Mark Courtney and John Farwell urged the council to examine contract deadlines and defective paving and grading issues.

The motion passed unanimously. The council also discussed a remaining three-item punch list where the contractor and engineer disagree about responsibility for corrections.