The Town Council spent considerable time at its most recent meeting trying to untangle the status of its purchasing policy, after Council Chair Ron Dunn raised concerns that the Council had not formally extended its temporary purchasing rules following a failed vote earlier in the month. The discussion highlighted the ongoing uncertainty surrounding how the town should handle purchasing approvals while two competing policy drafts remain unresolved and the existing policy has already been rescinded.
The issue stems from a long running effort to overhaul the town’s purchasing procedures. Town Manager Shaun Mulholland has been working on a revised policy for months, while Town Council Vice Chair Shawn Faber has drafted his own version that would significantly shift purchasing authority away from the Town Manager and toward the Town Council. At the Council’s previous meeting, Faber’s proposal was brought forward for a vote, but it failed on a 2–2 tie because Faber was absent. Without a majority, the town was left without a clear purchasing framework.
A memo presented at that earlier meeting outlined the complicated history of the policy. The Town Council first adopted a purchasing policy in 2002, amending it in 2007, 2011, and 2013. In September 2025, the Council passed Ordinance 202509, which rescinded the old Town Code chapter and renumbered it as ADM910, effectively clearing the way for a new policy. Faber’s draft would make sweeping changes, including shifting approval for all consulting agreements and many other expenditures from the Town Manager to the Town Council.
With no new policy in place, Dunn said the town needed to maintain the $15,000 purchasing threshold that had been used temporarily while the new policy was being drafted. Under that threshold, any purchase above $15,000, aside from specific exemptions, must come before the Town Council for approval. Dunn said this safeguard needed to remain in place until the Council adopts a permanent policy.
Mulholland, however, said he needed clarity on exactly what the exemptions were. He noted that the Council had referenced exemptions at the previous meeting but had not clearly defined them. “My concern is if you don’t even know what they are, how am I supposed to know?” he said. “That’s why it’s important to get this motion correct.”
Dunn said the exemptions were intended to cover essential commodities such as salt, gas, and oil, which fluctuate in price and are purchased frequently. But Mulholland pressed for more precise language, saying ambiguity could lead to confusion or even accusations that he had violated the Council’s directive. “It’s important because I don’t want to get in a situation where I’m violating the motion that you made because I don’t know what it is,” he said. “It was really unclear what those were too.”
Mulholland added that staff had already encountered situations where they had to determine whether certain purchases fell under the exemptions, underscoring the need for clarity. He said the town should not be improvising its purchasing rules while waiting for a final policy.
The Council ultimately agreed to temporarily adopt only the purchasing thresholds outlined in Faber’s draft policy, without implementing any of the other rules or procedures contained in his proposal. This compromise allows the town to operate under a clearer set of spending limits while the broader policy debate continues.
“It will just be draft for now, and we will go under those conditions,” Faber said, noting that the thresholds alone would guide purchasing decisions until the Council finalizes a full policy.
The Council is expected to revisit the purchasing policy in the coming weeks, but the discussion made clear that members remain divided on how much authority should rest with the Town Manager versus the Town Council. Until a final policy is approved, the town will continue operating under temporary rules, rules that both Dunn and Mulholland say must be clearly defined to avoid confusion and ensure compliance.