Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grants And Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners pause vote on countywide grant‑writing contract after debate over fees and guarantees
Summary
A proposed contract to hire Grants by Gabrielle for county 9‑1‑1 grant strategy and administration at $5,000 per month was discussed at length; commissioners voted to table the agreement for further review.
The Wagoner County Board of County Commissioners on May 20 discussed and then tabled a proposed grant services agreement for the 9‑1‑1 project that would retain Grants by Gabrielle for strategy, applications and post‑award administration at a $5,000 monthly retainer.
Gabrielle (Gabby) Perry presented a scope that included grant identification and strategy, state 9‑1‑1 revolving fund and NTIA programs, homeland security and hazard mitigation grants, legislative earmark advocacy, and post‑award reporting and administration. She said preparing a full grant proposal would take one to two weeks and monthly strategy meetings and a client portal would be part of the contract.
Commissioners and other speakers pressed Perry on price and outcomes. Commissioner comments in the meeting noted that similar services in the market were priced differently; Perry said comparable full‑service contracts ranged widely and that her retainer offered “unlimited number of proposals” within the monthly fee and included reporting and compliance. The proposed agreement would have run concurrently with an existing contract Perry has with the sheriff’s office; she said the sheriff separately pays $4,700 per month and work for 9‑1‑1 would be an additional retainer.
Under‑sheriff Mark Seacker and others described recent grant awards they attributed in part to Perry’s work, including grants to the sheriff’s office and other public‑safety funds. Commissioners asked for documentation of prior awards and of the proposed contract terms.
After extended discussion and questions about the lack of guaranteed award outcomes (Perry and other speakers emphasized there are no guarantees in grant funding) and about procurement options, a motion to table the proposed 9‑1‑1 grant services agreement was made and seconded and carried on a roll call vote.
The board asked staff to circulate the proposed contract, pricing comparisons, and a list of recent grants the consultant has secured for the county and sheriff’s office. Commissioners said they wanted time to compare market options and confirm procurement best practices before returning the matter to the agenda.
No action to approve the contract was taken; commissioners set the matter for further review.
