Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement And Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mount Pleasant RDA debates using in‑house labor versus contractors for special projects
Summary
The RDA discussed whether to continue a special‑projects approach that uses city staff to reduce costs on projects such as the equestrian center and playground, weighing grant match rules, contractor relations, and accounting for in‑kind contributions.
Mount Pleasant’s Community Development and Renewal Agency spent the bulk of its Dec. 10 meeting reviewing special projects, recent grant awards and constraints on using in‑house labor as grant match.
A board member outlined several grants and projects pending or completed this year, including a roughly $94,000 combined PARP budget for three projects, a $25,000 grant to move an engine the RDA owns, and a $24,000 heritage area grant tied to equestrian center work. The board was told the Main Street committee also functions as the city’s historic commission and that Certified Local Government (CLG) grants are administered through the state Department of Culture and Community Engagement.
Much of the discussion centered on a long‑standing 'special projects' practice under which in‑house staff (and one individual who described being appointed during a previous mayoral administration) have performed construction, conduit installation and other work to save costs. The speaker who described those projects said in‑house work produced significant savings when paired with some contracted tasks, citing past work on the industrial park and arena preparation.
Board members raised several constraints and potential downsides. Multiple members noted federal and state grant rules typically limit the extent to which in‑kind labor counts toward required cash match, and staff confirmed in‑kind work generally does not count except in narrow circumstances. Members also emphasized procurement risks: soliciting bids and then choosing to do the work in‑house could discourage contractors and generate community or contractor pushback. Concern was also raised about whether public works has sufficient capacity to complete larger projects on schedule and how to allocate payroll and equipment costs for accounting and grant reporting purposes.
Speakers proposed evaluating projects individually: for major contract work, use contractors to meet match requirements and to avoid overburdening staff; for landscaping or punch‑list tasks, consider in‑house crews to reduce cost. The board did not make a formal decision at the meeting; staff asked members for direction on whether to continue using a special‑projects approach and, if so, how to structure that work under public works or another arrangement.
The next steps noted by staff were to provide detailed project costs and designs (including contractor bid comparisons) so the board can make an informed policy decision at a later meeting.
