Colleagues,
As you know, Resolution No. 25-2155 on our October 2nd agenda would adopt the updated Purchasing & Procurement Policy, raising the competitive bidding threshold from $50,000 to $100,000 in line with SB 1173: (Pg 9) https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.n...e5-e473-47e0-9d06-6d298598ff63-1758899673.pdf
I want to share some concerns I’ve heard from residents and from my own perspective. Several people at my Roundtable last night expressed trepidation that $100,000 feels more appropriate for larger cities with much larger budgets. For a city like ours, with a ~$34 million annual budget, a single $100,000 expenditure is not insignificant — it represents nearly a third of one percent of our entire budget.
One citizen pointed out that new police vehicles, which now cost in the $80,000 range, would no longer require competitive bidding or Council approval under this new threshold. While I understand the intent of SB 1173 is to provide flexibility and reduce administrative burden, I think we need to weigh those efficiency benefits against the transparency and Council oversight our residents expect.
For discussion:
—Paul
As you know, Resolution No. 25-2155 on our October 2nd agenda would adopt the updated Purchasing & Procurement Policy, raising the competitive bidding threshold from $50,000 to $100,000 in line with SB 1173: (Pg 9) https://d3n9y02raazwpg.cloudfront.n...e5-e473-47e0-9d06-6d298598ff63-1758899673.pdf
I want to share some concerns I’ve heard from residents and from my own perspective. Several people at my Roundtable last night expressed trepidation that $100,000 feels more appropriate for larger cities with much larger budgets. For a city like ours, with a ~$34 million annual budget, a single $100,000 expenditure is not insignificant — it represents nearly a third of one percent of our entire budget.
One citizen pointed out that new police vehicles, which now cost in the $80,000 range, would no longer require competitive bidding or Council approval under this new threshold. While I understand the intent of SB 1173 is to provide flexibility and reduce administrative burden, I think we need to weigh those efficiency benefits against the transparency and Council oversight our residents expect.
For discussion:
- Should Lago Vista consider adopting a lower local threshold (e.g., $50,000 or $75,000) rather than going all the way to $100,000?
- Alternatively, should we add a reporting requirement for purchases in the $50k–$100k range, so Council and the public still have visibility?
- Or should we carve out exceptions (like vehicles or capital purchases) that always require formal bids and Council action above $50,000?
—Paul
