Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press staff on proposed purchasing-card policy; item continued for one week
Summary
Robert Baxter presented revisions to Utah County's purchasing-card policy including a $2,500 purchase-order threshold, tightened unauthorized-use language, and some proposed exceptions; commissioners asked for clarifying edits on custodial responsibility, tax-exempt handling, receipts, retention schedules and disciplinary references, then continued the item one week to allow revisions.
Utah County staff brought proposed revisions to the county's purchasing-card (p-card) policy to the Board of County Commissioners, and the board continued the item for one week after detailed line-by-line discussion.
Robert Baxter outlined changes intended to both enable greater use of p-cards (to capture rebate benefits) and to prevent circumvention of procurement rules. One explicit change would require a purchase order in advance for any p-card purchase over $2,500; Baxter said that threshold would be uncommon because most cards carry lower limits.
Commissioners pressed multiple operational questions: whether custodial responsibilities should be reworded to make department heads responsible rather than "custodians," how to handle travel charges when the UMB travel card or vendor tax-exempt processes fail, whether IT equipment and software purchases should remain restricted to the IT department, how to treat small-dollar sales-tax reconciliation, and how long p-card logs must be retained. Several commissioners argued for clearer wording on exceptions (allowing purchasing-agent prior approval in rare emergency cases) and for referring personnel-disciplines to HR policies rather than embedding separate procedures in the p-card policy.
After staff agreed to revise the draft to address the commissioners' concerns, a motion to continue the item one week passed by voice vote (3-0). The commission directed staff to return with a consolidated draft that clarifies custodian versus department-head responsibilities, retention schedules consistent with the state records schedule, and specific guidance on tax-exempt handling and limited exceptions.
