Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press for clearer fee schedule in Engineering Associates agreement and approve chair preauthorizations
Summary
The board reviewed a master payment and task-order arrangement with Engineering Associates, questioned potential hidden fees and the anticipated 10-hour monthly cap, and approved chair signatures on two credit-card preauthorizations (Assessor and County Attorney victim/witness).
The board considered a master payment/engagement with Engineering Associates and raised concerns about unclear fee language and potential additional charges.
Speaker 1 introduced the master payment with Engineering Associates and said staff had discussed indemnity provisions; Speaker 3 and others pressed for a clear fee schedule and asked that work not proceed without written authorization. Discussion focused on an expected 10-hour-per-month scope and the need for explicit fee schedules when task orders are issued.
Separately, the board approved the chairman's signature on two credit-card preauthorization requests — one for the Assessor's Office and one for the Western County Attorney's Office victim’s witness expenses — after a motion from Speaker 3 and a second from Speaker 1. Members discussed that using local vendors (OfficeMax in Gillette) was preferable where possible.
Why it matters: the way the county structures master agreements and task orders affects how much it may be billed for consultant services. Board members emphasized written task authorization and upfront fee disclosures to avoid unapproved charges.
What’s next: board members requested that staff obtain and circulate the fee schedule and scope-of-work documents and to ensure that any additional hours beyond the anticipated 10 hours per month receive explicit board authorization before proceeding.
