Fresno Council Cuts Water Project Price by $154,000, Adds Five Months to Timeline

The Fresno City Council approved a final change order in January 2020 that reduced the cost of a major water transmission project by $154,421.66 while adding 141 days — nearly five months — to the construction timeline.

The vote adjusted the contract with Vido Artukovich & Son, Inc./VIDMAR, Inc., a joint venture, for the Phase 2 Regional Transmission Main Segments B&C Project from an original total of $11,705,238.53 down to $11,550,816.87. The project, which spans Council Districts 4, 5, and 7 plus unincorporated Fresno County, was complete and operational when the Council voted.

This was the third change order on the contract. Combined with two earlier approvals, the Council added a total of 215 days to the original timeline and increased the original contract amount by 0.53% overall.

The price reduction came from unused contingency funds the contract set aside for mediation and supplemental work, plus credits for bid items that cost less than estimated. The added time came from construction delays the material does not detail.

The Breakdown

• Change Order No. 3 reduced the contract price by $154,421.66 and added 141 days to the schedule.
• The adjusted contract total: $11,550,816.87 of taxpayer money.
• The project was already finished and running when the Council voted to approve the final accounting.
• The cumulative effect of three change orders: 215 extra days and a 0.53% increase in the original contract price.

What This Means for You

This is how your elected City Council manages public infrastructure spending after the work is done. A project that ran five months over schedule still came in nearly flat on cost — 0.53% over the original bid. The Council approved this with no debate documented, so you have no record of whether any member asked why the timeline stretched or what the delay cost in other ways.

What to Watch

The material gives you a bottom-line number and no explanation for the 141-day extension. What caused it? Weather, permitting, contractor performance, design problems the city created, or something else? The staff report says the project is “complete and operational,” but it does not say when it was supposed to be operational or what the gap cost.

Who profited from this contract? The material names the joint venture that built it but gives no breakdown of what the $11.5 million paid for, no record of change-order costs beyond the net total, and no detail on whether the contractor ate the cost of the delay or the city absorbed it in other budgets. Contract awards, bid records, and the earlier change orders would show that.

The Council approved this in January 2020 with no documented discussion. That is standard for final accounting on finished work, but it also means no elected official asked these questions on the record. If a project runs over schedule, even when it comes in nearly on budget, the voter paying for it should know why.