Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Engineering Retainer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council considers 24‑month retainer with Crawford Engineering for municipal engineering work
Summary
Council reviewed a proposal from Crawford Engineering offering municipal engineering support at $120 per hour (lump sum $4,800/month for up to 40 hours) under a 24‑month agreement; members asked for a 12‑month check‑in, quarterly reports on hours and for staff to circulate other proposals before action.
The Charles City Council reviewed a proposed retainer agreement with Crawford Engineering that would provide ongoing municipal engineering support at a lump sum of $4,800 per month for up to 40 hours (equivalent to $120 per hour) and a contract term of 24 months.
The nut graf: councilors praised the vendor’s local municipal experience but raised several questions about the contract term, seasonal variability of engineering needs, invoice transparency and oversight — and asked staff to circulate competing proposals before any vote.
A Crawford representative described the firm’s municipal practice and said the company would provide a consistent point of contact for Charles City. The representative emphasized relationship building: "The first thing we want to do is build a relationship... we don't want to come into any sort of arrangement with any sort of animosity ... and we'll continue to do that," (Crawford representative).
Council members debated whether a 24‑month period is appropriate, with some expressing comfort that 40 hours a month will be used and others asking for a one‑year review to adjust monthly hours or renegotiate the lump sum. One councilor supported a middle course: a two‑year contract with a one‑year check‑in to review invoices and average usage before making further changes (Krista).
Other practical concerns included whether travel or meeting time would be billed, how frequently Crawford would attend council or project meetings in person versus by video, and how the city would receive quarterly documentation of hours and services. Staff told the council the retainer could be adjusted if regular usage proved to be consistently below (or above) the contracted hours.
Councilors also contrasted a retainer arrangement with in‑house staffing, noting the proposed retainer plus a planned development coordinator hire could together replace some functions previously performed by the city’s in‑house engineer. Several members asked staff to circulate proposals from larger regional firms so the council could compare price, staffing model and contract terms before any Monday action.
Next steps: staff will circulate proposals from other firms for council review and bring the Crawford contract back with clearer language on renewal, reporting and a proposed 12‑month review mechanism; the council may vote or table the item at the next meeting.
