Council approves Weber Geo building‑department services after debate over contract timing and procurement

The Ione City Council on Sept. 2 approved a professional services agreement with Weber Geo (also referenced in the meeting as Weber Guillot) to provide on‑call building‑department services, after an extended discussion over procurement procedures and invoices already paid.

Council discussion and public comment focused on procurement process and invoices. A resident who identified herself during public comment cited the city’s bidding and purchasing policy (referred to during remarks as Ordinance 505, adopted in 2019) and said the agreement had been signed by the vendor in January and signed by city representatives in February without prior council review. The commenter said expenditures exceeding the city’s $15,000 threshold require council approval and formal solicitation; she asked how the contract had been executed without an agenda item or council vote before being signed.

Council members asked for clarifications: one council member noted the agreement had been drafted in January and questioned why the contract was not brought to the council earlier and why invoices totaling roughly $66,000 to date appeared in warrants. Staff said the city does not employ an in‑house building inspector and that outsourcing can save costs compared with hiring a full‑time employee. Several council members and residents praised the individual inspector who frequently attends inspections (named in public comment as Larry White) and said responsiveness mattered to builders.

After discussion, a council member moved to approve the professional services agreement for building‑department services but to remove the engineering Exhibit A from the contract; another council member seconded the motion. The council voted in favor; the mayor announced “Ayes have it.” The council also instructed that invoices are public record and that council members may review invoices in city offices. No immediate formal penalty or contract invalidation was ordered; staff was asked to provide invoices and to clarify the contract history and bid/solicitation steps taken.

Why it matters: The item raised procurement and transparency concerns because residents and at least one council member said the signed contract and subsequent invoices were not previously presented for council review despite policy language requiring formal bids for contracts above a threshold.

Next steps: Staff was asked to provide detailed invoices and documentation of the contract’s procurement history to the council for review, and the council directed the city to clarify how similar services will be solicited in the future.