Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves procurement policy, forms finance ad hoc and awards $104,000 fee-study contract
Summary
At its Oct. 23 meeting the Wyandotte Creek Sustainability Agency board adopted a standalone procurement policy, formed a short-term financial and administrative ad hoc committee and approved a $104,000 professional services contract for a fee study with Hansford Economic Consulting, waiving a competitive procurement process.
The Wyandotte Creek Sustainability Agency board on Oct. 23 approved three administrative items by voice vote: adoption of a GSA procurement policy, formation of a temporary financial and administrative systems ad hoc, and a direct professional-services contract with Hansford Economic Consulting for a fee study and Proposition 26–compliant fee report.
Procurement policy: Agency staff proposed adopting a tailored procurement policy to give the GSA more flexibility than relying solely on Butte County procurement rules. The proposed policy allows the program manager to execute purchases under $25,000 with a management-committee sign-off and requires board approval for contracts between $25,000 and $100,000. Contracts over $100,000 generally require a competitive procurement, with a documented exception process for direct awards when justified. The board adopted the procurement policy by voice vote.
Financial and administrative systems ad hoc: The board approved forming a temporary ad hoc committee to advise staff on financial systems, cost-share arrangements with Butte County, and potential fee mechanisms; the ad hoc will include two board members supported by staff and is expected to run about nine months. Kyle Daley and Bruce Wriston will serve as the ad hoc members.
Fee study contract and procurement waiver: The board approved a $104,000 contract with Hansford Economic Consulting to update the agency’s fee study and prepare a Proposition 26–compliant fee report, with staff recommending a direct award (no competitive solicitation). Staff said the contract builds on prior fee work and that the Vina GSA used the same consultant and process successfully. Staff said approximately $100,000 in SGMA grant funds were available to offset the cost; they estimated roughly 80% of the contracted work could be completed before the grant deadline in March. The board also explicitly waived the competitive procurement process for this contract.
Votes at a glance: all three measures were adopted by voice vote with no recorded opposition. The board did not record roll-call tallies in the transcript; a voice vote produced the outcome “passes.”
Ending: Staff indicated outreach for the fee study will begin with stakeholder meetings and an advisory-committee discussion in early November; the board may schedule additional meetings to accommodate the accelerated timeline tied to available grant funding.
