Council declines immediate $478,356 change order for WR‑2 bridge shaft replacement

Deputy Mayor Melody Koenig presided over a study-session discussion July 16 on a contractor change order to repair WR‑2, a shaft that supports an ADA ramp for the bridge project. Public Works Director Mark Ryan McBee presented the contractor estimate and engineering recommendation and asked the council for authorization to execute a change order, not to exceed $478,356.

The item mattered because the contractor says the remediation requires replacing the shaft with two cased shafts and a straddle cap; the work would be below grade and would not change the bridge’s finished appearance. McBee said the engineer recommended the alternative after a boulder fragment damaged the shaft’s reinforcing cage so the structure could not be certified by the engineer.

Council members pressed on contract interpretation and public notice. Councilmember Colin Moore summarized discussions that had taken place in executive session and during staff briefings: the city’s engineer has characterized the event as a differing site condition but the geotechnical report had warned of boulders in the valley, and “the contract was for them to drill knowing that that was there,” Moore said. He said that, before spending taxpayer dollars, the council and the public deserved clarity about whether the contractor or the city would bear the cost.

Councilmember Hogan moved to authorize the mayor or designee to execute a change order with Quick Brothers Inc. for WR‑2 shaft replacement, not to exceed $478,356; Councilmember Holland seconded. After discussion about public notice and whether citizens had had a reasonable prior opportunity to comment, the council took a roll-call vote. The record in the meeting shows Councilmember Holland and Councilmember Hogan voting in favor and Councilmembers Gunther, Moore and Sprowl voting against; Deputy Mayor Koenig indicated she was not prepared to support the change order that evening. The tally on the record therefore did not produce a majority to approve the change order.

Outcome: No immediate authorization. Staff said it can return the item for further council consideration and noted the contract language, cost estimate and sub‑contractor drilling specialist materials are on file with the city. The council also discussed options for bringing the matter back at a future meeting with additional public notice.

Why this matters: The proposed work addresses a structural defect revealed during construction; who pays—contractor or city—affects both the project budget and precedent for future differing‑site‑condition claims.

What’s next: Staff indicated they will continue researching contract claims and corrective options and can bring a revised recommendation and additional documentation to a future meeting for a new vote.