Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contract Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lake County approves $187,640 amendment for PlaceWorks to finish Lake County 2050 elements
Summary
The Lake County Board unanimously approved Amendment 3 to its PlaceWorks planning contract, adding $187,640.04 (total not to exceed $2,312,594.04) to cover added work including a climate adaptation plan, tribal review and related outreach; public commenters urged clearer scopes and timelines.
Get email alerts on the Contract Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Lake County Board of Supervisors approved Amendment 3 to its contract with PlaceWorks on a 5-0 vote, increasing compensation by $187,640.04 to bring the total contract amount to $2,312,594.04 and authorizing the chair to sign.
Community Development Director Mireya Turner told the board the amendment is primarily intended to cover work added after the original agreement, including a climate adaptation plan and a tribal review period. "We created this tribal review process ... we facilitated some meetings and accepted comments and did some revisions," Turner said, explaining ARPA funds were set aside to pay for the added tribal outreach and revisions.
Turner and staff said some additions came from reallocated APGP partnership grant funds and from previously assigned ARPA dollars that the county had reserved to allow for upsizing parts of the project. Staff noted the climate adaptation plan was added to the project's scope through later amendments and that the countywide evacuation study will appear as an appendix to the general plan and is available on lakecounty2050.org.
During discussion, Supervisor Sabatier pressed why elements such as the climate adaptation plan, the countywide evacuation study and management or funding for LEPAC/GPAC meetings were not included in the contractor's original scope. Staff replied that some meeting management was handled in-house and other items were added later when additional grant funds became available.
Several members of the public criticized the timing and documentation around the amendment. An unidentified participant said the county’s approach—doing work and seeking retroactive approval—"is clearly not a best practice. It's not good governance." Margo Cambara told the board the consent item was "missing" an explicit scope of work, identified deliverables and a delivery schedule, and urged more scrutiny for contracts that will guide long-term planning.
Betsy Kohn, a member of the General Plan Advisory Committee, said advisory committee members have expressed concerns about substantive content and that the rush to spend expiring funds could pressure decisionmakers to process incomplete documents. Turner and other staff acknowledged the ARPA funding deadline and said they are working a tight timeline to avoid relying on the general fund; staff said anticipated public hearings before the planning commission and the board are scheduled for August and September.
Supervisor Spatola said she would support the amendment because it is grant-funded but asked staff to improve transparency about cumulative costs and to provide the original agreements and amendments together so supervisors and the public can follow contract evolution. County staff said the Lake County 2050 timeline matches the initial three‑year agreement and that the tribal review period enriched the project by adding workshops and comments.
A supervisor moved to approve the amendment and another seconded; the motion carried 5-0.
The board authorized the chair to sign the amendment. The planning process will continue with the stated public hearings and additional meetings; supervisors asked staff to ensure contract packages include original agreements and amendments and to provide clearer timelines and deliverables going forward.

