Yuma council approves second water-line change, lifting Gila-Redondo contract 19.8%

Yuma City Council approved a second change order Oct. 7 that adds $99,763.07 to a water-line contract on 5th Street, raising the award to Taylor Engineering from $1,381,777 to $1,654,769.73. Legistar lists the item, MC 2026-185, as Passed with final action on Oct. 7. The page’s action table does not show a vote tally.

The City says the work addressed a mismatch between construction plans and the location of an existing water main. The contractor completed the modifications with City staff approval before the item came to Council for ratification, according to the council report. The public record does not identify which staff member authorized the work or when.

A 19.8% increase across two changes

Council awarded the construction contract to Taylor Engineering on Jan. 7, 2026, under bid RFB-25-283. The approved meeting minutes show a $1,381,777 award. The City’s June 17 first change-order report added $173,229.66 for delays and work around an obstruction under the Union Pacific Railroad right of way. Council approved that change.

The second change added $99,763.07. Together, the two changes total $272,992.73, or 19.75% of the original award. The calculation is $1,381,777 + $173,229.66 + $99,763.07 = $1,654,769.73. The revised figure is the approved contract value. The reports reviewed do not provide invoices, payment totals or a final project accounting, so it should not be described as the amount already paid.

Plans placed the existing main west of the road

The project was intended to install a water distribution line along 5th Street between Gila Street and Redondo Center Drive. A contemporaneous archived procurement listing describes a 30-inch PVC main and says the existing 20-inch main was undersized for current demand. The Council reports focus on construction changes and do not explain the project’s capacity rationale. The City’s June 3 road notice said work would start June 8 and was expected to finish in late June, an advance estimate rather than a verified completion date. The Oct. 7 report separately describes a 16-inch main at the tie-in; the public records reviewed do not explain whether it is the same line referenced in the procurement listing or a different pipe.

For the second change, the City report says the construction plans showed an existing 16-inch PVC water main west of Redondo Center Drive. Multiple potholing attempts did not find it there. Further field investigation located it beneath the Redondo Center Drive roadway. That required the tie-in excavation to extend beyond the expected work area and added water-main pipe, asphalt paving, curb and gutter restoration. The report does not identify who supplied the original location information or explain why it differed from conditions in the field.

Two changes, both presented for ratification

The first change order addressed a different issue. The City said an obstruction under the railroad right of way was discovered during jack-and-bore work. The contractor coordinated with Union Pacific Railroad, RailPros and City departments, submitted work-plan variances, added safety measures and removed the obstruction. The June report said the response added two weeks to the schedule. It described the item as a ratification, but the public report does not attach the original directive or state when that work was authorized.

The City’s purchasing code says change orders exceeding 10% of an original contract, where the amount also exceeds the $100,000 threshold in state law, require Council approval unless the Council-approved contract provides otherwise. The first change was about 12.5% of the original award and $173,229.66; it received Council approval in June. The second was about 7.2% and $99,763.07 considered by itself, while the two changes together are 19.75%. The code does not, by itself, establish what contract term or delegation applied to this project’s field authorization. See City Code § 36-34 and A.R.S. § 41-2535.

The City Code also places procurement authority with the City Administrator and Purchasing Agent. City Code § 36-16 The report says City staff approved the modifications but does not name the official or provide the written approval. Its action form lists no additional supporting documents on file with the City Clerk. Those gaps leave open whether the approval followed the applicable contract terms and written delegation; the records reviewed do not establish a violation.

Design disclosure and remaining records

At the January 7 award meeting, Mayor Douglas Nicholls declared a conflict because his firm was involved in the contract, left the dais and abstained; the motion passed 6-0-1. The prior day’s work-session minutes state that his firm had performed the project design. The public records reviewed do not say that the firm supplied the disputed utility-location information or connect its work to the mismatch.

The City’s Sept. 29-dated report says Taylor Engineering completed the project work by the time Council considered the second change. It does not give a completion or final-inspection date. Records needed to answer the remaining cost-control questions include the signed original contract and change-order terms, the field directive and written staff approvals, the design and utility-location records, final inspection documents, invoices and payments, and any later change orders.