Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Airport topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Airport gate, hangar and painting purchase orders stall as court and auditor clash over procurement rules
Summary
Commissioners and the county auditor clashed Aug. 15 over rejected purchase orders for an airport gate and hangar work, with commissioners saying delays threaten grant deadlines and the auditor saying required grant documentation and advance review were missing.
A dispute over procurement and grant processing at Maverick County's airport dominated an Aug. 15 discussion after commissioners said purchase orders (POs) for a security gate and other airport work were rejected by the auditor's office, stalling projects that are on tight grant timelines.
What happened: the airport commissioner said a PO for a gate required by TxDOT Aviation was submitted in June/July but was rejected by the auditor, delaying a project that must be completed under grant rules by Aug. 31. The auditor told the court the rejection stemmed from uncertainty whether the gate expense was part of the airport's capital-improvement plan (CIP) or a separate grant-funded project; the airport commissioner provided an email from a TxDOT contact stating the gate is part of the grant (not the CIP).
Court reaction: commissioners sharply criticized the auditor's office for what they described as stop-and-go reviews that delay projects. The judge acknowledged the need for timely information and offered to have staff provide grant agreements and backup to the auditor in advance. The court said it would take purchasing-policy issues to executive session and asked auditors and purchasing staff to work directly with the airport to clarify requirements.
No immediate procurement decision: the court did not overrule the auditor on the spot; instead it moved several items related to purchasing and the airport to executive session for legal and procurement review. Commissioners asked the auditor to accept grant award notices and other documentation in advance to expedite review in future meetings.
Ending: The court directed staff to bring the disputed POs and supporting grant documentation for executive-session review and to return with a recommended path forward so grant deadlines and construction schedules can be met without circumventing procurement controls.
