Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents object to AECOM task order; council declines Royal Oak study
Summary
Citizens told council the $77,510 Royal Oak small‑area study contract raised conflict‑of‑interest and procurement transparency concerns; the council voted separately to not approve the study item after public comment.
A contentious public comment period on May 12 put procurement and potential conflicts of interest at center stage after staff recommended a $77,510 small‑area study of the Royal Oak property.
Multiple residents said the contract with ACOM (also referenced as AECOM/ACOM in the meeting) risked bias because of prior relationships between the firm and people who previously worked in the city. "He should not be anywhere near anything going on in this city," one resident said of a former water resources director who now works for the firm, urging the council to exclude him from stormwater work. Other speakers requested release of procurement documentation, selection rationale, and conflict‑review materials so the public could see why the firm was chosen and whether the process was competitive.
Residents including Elizabeth Parker and Dr. Kathleen O. argued the scope excluded critical hydrologic and hydrogeologic modeling and other technical analyses needed to assess environmental and flood risks for the parcel, which residents said functions as a recharge basin that supports city water supply. "This is not just any piece of property. This is a piece of property that acts as a sponge for a 500‑acre basin," one commenter said, and she listed hydrologic analyses and FEMA floodplain assessments she considered essential.
Council members described the selection as being handled under a continuing consultant services master agreement that precludes a new RFP for studies below specified thresholds. Staff said prior continuing services awards (2017 and 2020 rounds) allow use of consultants on public‑works planning tasks under those master agreements. Several council members, however, expressed discomfort with the public perception and recommended more resident engagement before proceeding.
On a separate roll call, council moved to not approve item 8D (the Royal Oak study task order). The clerk recorded unanimous votes by Mayor Andrew Connors, Vice Mayor Cole, Member Stokel and Member Mscoso in favor of not approving the item.
Council did not adopt alternative procurement language that night; members asked staff to provide procurement records and to consider more participatory approaches to any future study.
The motion to withhold approval leaves the staff recommendation unimplemented, and residents and council members asked for clearer disclosure on consultant selection and stronger public engagement in future small‑area studies.
