Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates municipal-adviser RFQ and contested contract renewal date; city attorney says notice was timely
Summary
Councilors reviewed a contested municipal-adviser contract renewal and a recent RFQ that drew a single respondent, with the city attorney saying notice to terminate was timely and a council member asserting the contract automatically renewed.
Crossville councilors spent substantial time reviewing the city's municipal-adviser procurement after the audit committee circulated a request for qualifications and received only one response.
Council members raised a dispute over whether the prior municipal-adviser contract remained in force. One council member who reviewed records asserted the contract carried a 36-month renewal clause and that the contract automatically renewed because no timely notice to terminate was recorded. The member said the signature page in city records showed differing dates (a signed date in September 2021 and an executed/"as of" date of November 10, 2021) and argued the later executed date would trigger renewal notice timing.
The city attorney responded that, in his written opinion, notice had been timely given and that the city manager had authority to terminate the contract. "I believe notice was timely given. Contract was terminated. I believe the city manager had full authority to do it," the attorney told council.
Council also discussed the practical outcome of proceeding with a new municipal adviser: whether to accept the single RFQ response (the firm present at the session said it had submitted qualifications) or to re-run a procurement. A council member suggested the city could proceed with a request for proposal to get fee proposals and then decide.
The council considered the option of filing a declaratory action in court to resolve the legal question, and the city attorney noted courts sometimes decline purely advisory opinions but that a real dispute would be adjudicated if a suit were filed.
No binding decision was recorded. Council asked staff to add the RFQ and municipal-adviser selection to a future agenda and to provide additional documentation about the prior contract and notice timeline.
Ending: Council directed staff to include the municipal-adviser RFQ on a future meeting agenda and to provide contract documentation; no contract award or termination vote occurred during the session.
