ANTIOCH – The Antioch City Council approved a payment to a consulting firm for work done two years ago despite not having a formal contract in place.
After discussion, the council voted 4-1 Tuesday to authorize a payment of $65,920 to David Taussig & Associates, Inc, now known as DTA, with Councilmember Donald Freitas dissenting.
Related Articles
Letters: Donald Trump’s tax law is no gift to the U.S.
At July 4 celebration, Trump signs tax and spending cut bill
Here’s how millions of people could lose health insurance if Trump’s tax bill becomes law
How a GOP rift over tech regulation doomed a ban on state AI laws in Trump’s tax bill
California boosts film and TV tax credit to $750 million to preserve jobs
According to a staff report, Antioch had inked a three-year agreement with DTA in October 2017. That agreement expired at the end of December 2020.
The city then amended the agreement and continued to receive services, extending the firm’s agreement to Dec. 31, 2021.
Antioch Public Works Director Scott Buenting said that although the contract expired at the end of 2021, city staff had continued to engage DTA for various work, including the preparation of administrative budgets and assessment rules to support the city’s Community Facility Districts through 2023.
“Although a formal contract was not in place during this period, staff have verified that DTA performed the invoice of service and staff is recommending the City Council authorize payment in the amount of $65,920 to DTA,” said Buenting during Tuesday’s meeting.
Freitas said he was “astounded” and raised questions on oversight, as work was done without a formal contract in place.
“Mr. Buenting, when there is a consultant services agreement approved by the City Council, when the consultant is doing the work, I’m assuming, the consultant sends the billing to the city of Antioch,” said Freitas. “Does it just go to the project manager? Does it go to finance? Who gets the bill?”
Buenting said in most cases, the bill goes to the person in charge of the contract.
Freitas said he hoped the situation was an “outlier,” adding he was “shocked” that the consultant continued the work without receiving payment.
“I mean, the consultant didn’t come forward? Finance didn’t raise an issue? Was it just put in a file and forgotten?” questioned Freitas. “Yet the work was done. I don’t get it.”
Freitas asked if only a project manager’s signature was required when a bill is received in order for finance to authorize a payment or if a second signature is required as well.
Buenting said it depends on the “size of the bill” being processed, adding that the system used by the city at the time was different from the current one, which has “better checks and balances.”
“I agree with you, more contact should have been made from both the consultant and staff. It did not happen, we became aware of this situation, and this is our attempt to make it right,” said Buenting.
Beuting said the new electronic system implemented by the city requires signatures from multiple parties, and reduces paperwork for staff. He said it provides the city with a “better chance” to keep track of oversights on contracts.
“This is an outlier, agreed, two years late, but the truth is, we’re trying to make it right now and trying to make sure that this does not happen,” said Buenting.