From auditing services, computer software, ice machines to fence repairs, the discussion surrounding the city’s recent claims docket covered a wide variety of purchases.
About six items were closely examined during the recent Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting. With a total payment surrounding the six items of about $36,500, the purchases covered a variety of services and goods on behalf of the city, sparking a few questions from some city leaders.
The payment to Bridgers, Goodman, Baird & Clarke, PLLC in the amount of $19,600 drew a few questions from Alderwoman Elizabeth Thomas. According to the city’s claims docket, the payment covered “the audit/financial statements for the year ending Sept. 30, 2024.”
Thomas said she was curious why payment to the firm was made prior to the audit and financial presentation to the city council. She said it had been a problem in the past with payments being made before the firm’s presentation.
“Do we normally pay them before we get it,” Thomas asked. “Back when this board first came onboard, they submitted a bill but had not come in and presented the audit. We were paying them before the work was actually given. My question is why are we paying them in full when we haven’t got it yet.”
City Clerk Kaneilia Williams said the payment is the firm’s “initial fee.”
“This is the 2024 audit that they have already started in April of this year,” William said. “They have already started, and this is their initial fee.”
Mayor David Startling also added that timing surrounding the audit and financial statements are running extremely well in comparison to years prior.
“But I still don’t see us paying somebody for something we have not seen,” Thomas continued. “How much will the actual bill be?”
“We don’t get the final bill until they are done,” Williams replied.
“But this is the same amount we paid before they were completed, and the man came and gave his presentation,” Thomas said. “How much more are we going to owe them for 2024.”
Lilli Evans-Bass, board attorney, said the city’s contract with firm can easily provide the total amount to be paid for the services.
“That is what (Williams) is saying,” Evans-Bass added. “This is the first payment, and the different is the balance left.”
From audits to ice machines, Alderman Charlie Jenkins then questioned the purchase of an ice machine for $4,618 from Office Depot. Chief Terry Gann said the ice machine was purchased for the inmates within the police department, adding that it was a new purchase item within the department.
Back to the city clerk’s office, Thomas said she needed an explanation for the $3,377 payment to Granicus. But Williams said it was merely the costs associated with the software program the city uses with its meeting agendas, packets and public reports surrounding the city council meetings.
“This is the software used to make the board packets,” Williams said. “These are different things on the Granicus platform that we use.”
The Granicus breakdown includes the meeting efficiency suite, $1,266.39; encoding appliance, $422.13; and peak agenda management for July 1 to Sept. 30, $1,688.52.
“They bill on a quarterly basis,” Williams added. “The total is about $12,000.”
Continuing to inspect the claims docket, Jenkins returned to the police department for clarity on the bills associated with the department’s recent fence repairs.
Gann explained that the $7,450 payment to Iron Works Manufacturing and Supply covered the repair of the drive-through portion of the station’s security fence. The $1,065 to Jefcoat Fencing was made to repair the walk-through portion of the security fence.
And the street department’s street sweeper continues to be a thorn in the city council’s side. The piece of equipment remains in the repair shop, now with a busted hydraulic hose. But that was before the faulty piece of equipment required a tow from Fourteenth Street and Grand Avenue to the police station with a bill of $400, which the city council noticed on the claims docket.
“We should have left that thing in surplus,” Starling added, much to the agreement of the remaining board members.
The claims docket was approved by the city board on a 3-2 vote with Jenkins and Thomas both in opposition.
