Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Contract Renewal topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commissioners renew website/marketing contract with MDTPS LLC; one dissent over reporting

Maverick County Commissioners Court · October 15, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The court renewed a $3,000/month marketing and website contract with MDTPS LLC after commissioners questioned whether the firm had provided monthly analytical reporting; staff said invoices existed and the vendor appeared willing to provide reports. Commissioner Morales voted against approval.

Maverick County approved a renewal of a marketing and website services contract with MDTPS LLC on Tuesday, despite at least one commissioner saying the county had not received the monthly analytical reporting specified in the contract.

Judge noted the contract rate of $3,000 per month, lower than a prior vendor rate of $3,500. Commissioner 4 and others questioned whether monthly analytical reporting and itemized backup had been provided since the county hired the firm in 2023. "For the past 2 years, have they been providing that because the contract states they have to be providing a monthly report?" a commissioner asked.

Mister Rodriguez and legal staff said invoices had been provided and that the company was amenable to adding or clarifying reporting terms in the contract. "I don't foresee that there'd be an issue with that, and I think that, of course, the company would be completely amenable to providing information," staff said.

The motion to approve the contract was made, seconded and called for the question. The court recorded one dissent: Commissioner Morales voted against the renewal; the remainder voted in favor.

The court did not make additional amendments to contract language on the record but agreed staff could incorporate reporting requirements if the court wished to modify terms in follow-up.