Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Municipal Procurement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Fort Meade Commission approves four resolutions and auditing contract on unanimous votes

City of Fort Meade City Commission · December 10, 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 Fort Meade City Commission unanimously approved Resolutions R2024-93 through R2024-96, covering lobbying services, an interagency data-sharing agreement with the Polk County Sheriff's Office, an RFQ issuance for continuing services, and an independent audit contract; all passed 4-0.

The Fort Meade City Commission on Dec. 10 unanimously approved four resolutions covering contracts, interagency agreements and procurement actions. The motions for each resolution were recorded as passing by a 4-0 vote.

Interim City Attorney Markeishia Smith read titles for each item: R2024-93 (2nd revised contract with Griffin Group for lobbying services), R2024-94 (an interagency agreement between the Polk County Sheriff's Office and the Fort Meade Fire Department for criminal justice information exchange and computer usage), R2024-95 (issuance of RFQ 24-04 for continuing services), and R2024-96 (bid award for RFP 24-03 for independent auditing services). For each resolution the minutes record motions (mover and seconder) and a unanimous 4-0 outcome; for example, "Motion to approve Resolution R2024-93 passed by a unanimous vote of 4-0."

The votes were taken without recorded dissent. Commissioners who made and seconded motions for these items included Commissioner James Possum Schaill and Commissioner James Watts. The minutes do not record extended deliberation on these items. The commission did not attach conditions to the recorded approvals in the meeting minutes.

The actions advance contract administration and procurement steps for the city; specific contract amounts, vendor names beyond Griffin Group, and implementation timelines were not specified in the meeting minutes.