Live Oak, Texas — The Live Oak City Council on Oct. 14, 2025, unanimously approved a set of administrative measures that city officials said align local rules with state law and current market conditions: a review of the city's investment policy and list of authorized brokers, adoption of an updated procurement policy reflecting a new state competitive-bidding threshold, and an ordinance amending portions of the city fee schedule to increase two penalty amounts.

The actions matter because they set how the city invests cash, how it buys goods and services, and how it penalizes certain permitting violations. Council members and staff said the changes are administrative updates intended to bring policies into conformity with state law and local practice rather than to change the city's overall spending or oversight approach.

City staff said the city's annual review of its investment policy was conducted by the investment committee, which includes the mayor, the city manager and a staff member on the committee. Mr. Gualik, a member of that committee, told the council the committee recommended no changes to the current policy and to remain focused on short-term maturities given market conditions. "It was recommended that we do not have any changes or no changes to be made. Everything in there kind of meets the environment that we're at," Mr. Gualik said during the presentation. The council voted to accept the investment policy and the list of authorized brokers and dealers by a 5-0 vote.

On procurement, staff said the update reflects Senate Bill 1173, which raised the state competitive-bidding threshold for local governments from $50,000 to $100,000 effective Sept. 1, 2025. Mr. Gualik explained the change gives local governments "more flexibility allowing them to respond to needs quickly and reduce administrative overhead." The council adopted the procurement policy to conform to the new threshold and to keep the city's existing oversight, audit and transparency provisions in place; that resolution also passed 5-0.

The council also adopted an ordinance amending the Live Oak fee schedule to finalize two fees that had been held at the Sept. 30 meeting for additional review. Assistant City Manager Ruthven told the council the changes are intended to target noncompliant contractors rather than businesses that follow the rules: the proposed penalty for "failure to maintain a CFO" was changed to $500 per day (rather than a single $500 amount), and the penalty for working without a required permit was raised to a minimum of $750 (up from a $500 minimum). The fee ordinance passed 5-0.

Votes at a glance

- Consent agenda: approved (motion; second by Dr. Perez); outcome: passed, 5-0.
- Resolution accepting the investment policy and authorized list of brokers and dealers: outcome: passed, 5-0. (Investment committee recommended no changes.)
- Resolution adopting updated procurement policy (to reflect Senate Bill 1173, raising the competitive bid threshold to $100,000): outcome: passed, 5-0.
- Ordinance amending the Live Oak fee schedule (adjusting penalties: $500 per day for failure to maintain a CFO; working without a permit minimum $750): outcome: passed, 5-0.

City staff and council emphasized these were administrative updates rather than new spending authorizations. The council did not change the city's internal controls or audit practices as part of the procurement update, staff said. The meeting packet included a benchmark comparison with neighboring cities for the fee amounts and a note that the two fees were withheld at the Sept. 30 meeting pending this additional review.

Several items scheduled for later in the agenda were not discussed; the council pulled one item because the presenter from Linebarger was not present and that item will be rescheduled. The next council meeting was announced as an in-person special meeting for Nov. 4, 2025, at 7 p.m.

Funding and timeline details: staff did not present a change to any active budget appropriation during the meeting; the procurement policy change is intended to take effect immediately to mirror state law. The ordinance did not list a formal effective date in the discussion beyond the usual adoption language in the motion.