Oktibbeha supervisors approve annual contract with UHY Advisors after extended debate on costs and priorities

Oktibbeha County Board of Supervisors voted Feb. 20 to enter a one-year master services agreement with UHY Advisors to locate, write and administer grants for county projects, after an extended discussion about budget exposure and project prioritization.

The board heard a prepared presentation from a UHY representative describing a pay-for-work approach: staff and senior consultants would bill at hourly rates, the firm offered a not-to-exceed annual cap in its proposal materials, and the contractor said many client contracts include recovery of fees from awarded grants’ administrative line items. The presenter said the engagement could be scaled month to month and billed only for hours worked.

Supervisors asked how the arrangement would affect the county budget, whether the firm would attend board meetings in person, and how soon the county could expect deliverables. Several supervisors said they were willing to commit to a multiyear effort if the board agreed on a focused set of priorities and allowed the firm time to develop relationships and find suitable grant opportunities.

Debate focused on two budget issues: how costs would be billed (hourly, only for work done) and the proposal documents the presenter referenced during the meeting included differing not-to-exceed figures in separate remarks (the presenter referenced both an annual figure in the $87k range and, elsewhere in the presentation, a larger annual not-to-exceed figure). Supervisors repeatedly said they wanted transparency on which projects UHY would pursue and tighter controls on monthly billing and on tasks requiring additional board authorization.

Supervisor Train moved to enter the annual contract with UHY and Supervisor Williams seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The contract approved by the board is for a one-year term with annual review and renewal; the board directed staff to return with a prioritized list of projects and to require monthly written updates from the contractor so the board can track activity and costs.

Why it matters: county officials said they lack dedicated in-house capacity to pursue a large number of state and federal funding opportunities while also performing daily operations. Supporters argued a contractor could increase the county’s ability to secure infrastructure, water, sewer and economic development grants. Critics cautioned the expense and urged the board to identify a small set of near-term priorities to avoid dispersing effort and funds.

What’s next: the board asked staff to draft a short priority list for the contractor and to provide a monthly progress report at board meetings. The board also required that administrative fees included in awarded grants be used where feasible to offset the firm’s costs so local tax dollars are not the primary source of contractor payment.

Speakers quoted in this account are those recorded speaking during the UHY presentation and board discussion and are listed in the article’s speaker roster below. All attributions here match the meeting record; direct quotations are limited to statements captured in the meeting record and attributed only to the speakers who made them.