Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Website Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bonita, VUA and VITA approve renewed CivicPlus website contract, city to pay $2,872.43 share
Summary
The Veneta Utilities Authority, Bonita Utilities Authority and Bonita City Council approved a renewed CivicPlus website contract effective July 1, 2025, with a total cost of $8,617.27 and a per-entity share of roughly $2,872.42–$2,872.43; the agreement includes a $4,000 one-time implementation fee.
Get email alerts on the Municipal Website Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Bonita Utilities Authority and the Bonita City Council on July 1 approved a one-year renewal of the municipal website contract with CivicPlus effective July 1, 2025, with the cost split roughly in thirds among the utilities authority, the city’s economic development budget and VITA.
The contract carries an annual fee of $4,617.27 and a one-time implementation fee of $4,000, for a total contract amount of $8,617.27. According to the staff presentation, that produces a per-entity cost of about $2,872.42 (the city stated $2,872.43 when moved for the council vote). City staff said the renewal includes an upgraded platform and modules intended to make the site more user-friendly and easier for staff to update.
At the Veneta Utilities Authority meeting, Mrs. DeFeynold presented the renewal and explained the three-way cost split and that VITA had already approved its portion. A motion to approve the contract at the VUA meeting passed unanimously. At the subsequent Bonita City Council meeting, city staff again described the same terms and the council voted to approve the city’s one-third share; that motion also passed without opposition.
The contract will be administered by municipal staff, and the one-time implementation fee will be paid as part of the total contract cost approved by the boards. No speaker identified any alternative vendor or additional funding sources during the discussions, and no public comments were offered on the item.
Officials did not attach an ordinance or resolution number to the contract at the meetings and did not specify a multiyear commitment beyond the annual renewal described by staff.

