The Tumwater City Council will have less to deal with moving forward after passing an ordinance that allows the city to bypass the council for certain contract amendments.
The council adopted the ordinance at a meeting on Tuesday, June 3. The move expands the delegated authority given to the mayor and department directors.
The ordinance updates Chapter 2.14 of the city’s municipal code, which deals with the execution of contracts.
City Administrator Lisa Parks told the council the chapter had remained unchanged since 2009, when it was first adopted by the council.
Parks said the city has grown since then, so staffers are dealing with more contracts. The update allows staff to act more efficiently when it comes to managing contracts.
The ordinance specifically allows the mayor to move forward with amendments to interlocal agreements and memorandums of understanding (MOUs) without the approval of the city council as long as three conditions are met.
The conditions are as follows: Any funds committed for the agreement should not exceed more than 10% of the original amount, funds are available, and the amendment is consistent with the underlying intent of the original agreement.
Before city staff came up with the current version of the update, the city’s Budget and Finance Committee met three times to review it. The section of the ordinance concerning interlocal agreements was a key focus of those discussions.
City staff originally proposed allowing the mayor to approve interlocal agreements and MOUs without the council’s approval if it involved a financial commitment of less than $100,000.
Council member Michael Althauser, who serves on the committee, raised concerns about the idea, leading to the current update which only deals with amendments.
“I do think that what we have here is a healthy compromise that I think will improve administrative efficiencies a bit without sort of reaching too far within the prerogatives of the legislative branch,” said Althauser said at the meeting on Tuesday.
Althauser mentioned the ordinance would streamline the approval of amendments that only deal with time extensions and would likely therefore get approved by the council anyway.
He added it would reduce stress for staff, especially toward the end of the year when several amendments are packed on the council’s agenda.
On the other hand, Council member Leatta Dahlhoff requested staff to further explain how the amendment was deemed consistent with the underlying intent of the original agreement.
Dahlhoff said there have been times when she had expected an amendment would be brought before the council, only to be told it didn’t contain enough substantive changes to warrant the council’s review.
City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick said the ordinance does not elaborate on the matter, but noted staff could develop a criteria for it within the city’s purchasing guidelines.
The ordinance also exempts certain documents dealing with real property so that they no longer require the council’s approval. The provision covers documents relating to the sale, transfer or acquisition of real property provided the property is needed for a capital improvement project that has already been approved by the council.
The provision also covers the dedication of property for public use as a condition of the permitting process, as well as temporary licenses and access to rights-of-way for the purpose of construction activities.
The ordinance also expands the delegated authority given to department directors, allowing them to approve contracts of less than $100,000 in value, the same as the mayor’s given authority. Currently, department directors are only allowed to authorize contracts of not more than $50,000.
Department directors may now also sign change orders to contracts provided it does not exceed 10% of the original contract amount. That authority was previously only provided to the director of the public works department.
2 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
PamelaJHanson
Leatta contributed a valid concern. The current mayor went too far in the past without council having the stopping/veto power of her unreasonable actions (Oak Tree). This current vote was a mistake that won't easily be reversed. The Port of Olympia and the airport expansion proponents are probably drooling with anticipation... The oak tree people sued. The oak tree people, as a group, may need to rise again if need be - especially if it is regarding the airport. Our Tumwater clean airspace, clean peaceful sound level, and peaceful traffic level cannot be bought, sold, or collusioned to damage our lives and as taxpayers. (Honestly, some days I wish Tumwater City Hall was never built there so that we could have the drive-in theatre back instead of council meetings with elected connected people that didn't grow up here. They are politicians and they are obviously not at all historically invested to preserve our quality of life that may be slightly better than Olympia that has a stinky lake and a downtown that is becoming a commercial ghost town.) Bad growth travels and destroys, interlocally. Anybody want to go to an arcade?
Saturday, June 7 Report this
Southsoundguy
Pamela raises very good points. This is unlikely to end well. Cities naturally need to expand and consume more land and it won’t be anything productive or beneficial to the legacy ways of life. The future is going to end up looking like a crappier version of Blade Runner, but all the politicians will call it progress.
Monday, June 9 Report this