McLennan County approves addendum to hazard mitigation contract, files GLO profit-negotiation paperwork
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up FreeSummary
Commissioners approved an amendment to the county's contract with H2O Partners for an update to the McLennan County Hazard Mitigation Plan and authorized staff to provide a profit-negotiation compliance statement the Texas General Land Office required to secure grant reimbursement.
McLennan County commissioners on July 1 approved an addendum to the professional services agreement with H2O Partners Inc. to continue work on the county's hazard mitigation plan and authorized a compliance statement required by the Texas General Land Office so the county can seek grant reimbursement.
The court voted to accept the proposed amendment to the contract with H2O Partners and to authorize filing the negotiation-of-profit statement that the GLO requires under the Code of Federal Regulations, 2 CFR Part 200, procurement rules. County staff said the addendum responds to items the GLO identified during its review and brings contract language into alignment with federal procurement rules.
County staff said the changes are largely procedural and flagged reimbursement as the principal operational impact. A staff member said the amendment lets the county obtain grant reimbursements tied to the project. Another staff member explained the profit-negotiation statement documents how much profit the vendor will receive and is a condition of the GLO grant.
Court discussion was limited to clarifying the reason for the addendum and confirming that the changes were standard grant-related language. The motion to approve the addendum and the motion to authorize submission of the GLO compliance/negotiation statement passed by voice vote.
The amendment and the compliance statement are steps to keep the county's hazard mitigation plan update on schedule and to allow the county to claim eligible costs under the GLO-managed grant.
Questions about the precise dollar value of the addendum, or any changes to the project scope beyond what staff described as procedural, were not raised at the meeting. The court did not request a separate public hearing on the amendment.
