Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Lighting Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community Partnerships Committee moves to include Troy in joint street-lighting negotiations
Summary
The committee authorized the Miami Valley Communications Council to add Troy to a 24-member negotiation for renewal of a 10-year street-lighting contract set to expire at year end; staff said the effort covers leases, fixtures and possible pole purchases and would carry a consultant fee estimated under $2,200.
The Community Partnerships Committee on April 14 moved to authorize the Miami Valley Communications Council to include Troy in negotiations with 23 other entities for renewal of a 10-year street-lighting contract that is set to expire at year end.
The action, introduced at the start of the meeting, would join Troy with 24 communities that have previously worked together through the Miami Valley Communications Council on street-lighting procurement. "Tonight, we are here to authorize the Miami Valley Communications Council to include Troy in the negotiations with 23 other entities for a street lighting contract," Mr. Siebert said.
Committee members described the arrangement as a joint procurement intended to secure a better contract than individual communities typically obtain. Mrs. Marshall, chair of the Community Partnerships Committee, said the contract covers monthly leases, fixtures commonly known as "cobra heads," and multiple fixture and pole options — "wooden, aluminum, black, gray, silver" — and noted the agreement could also address the purchase of poles owned by some communities. She said the committee was not requesting emergency legislation and that the consultant fee for Troy's participation is estimated to be less than $2,200.
Discussion at the meeting was brief. A committee member asked whether past experiences with the vendor had been satisfactory; Marshall replied that the group had been "as happy as we can be" while noting the usual desire to pay less. No roll-call vote or recorded tally was provided in the transcript; the meeting record contains a motion to "move forward" and the chair said, "We will move forward with that." The transcript does not specify a mover, a seconder, or a formal vote tally.
Next steps beyond authorizing inclusion in the negotiations were not specified. The committee did not set a follow-up timeline in the recorded discussion, nor did the transcript indicate when any new contract would be presented for formal approval.
The meeting closed shortly after the committee agreed to proceed.
