City Council Memorandum
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 2026 FROM: FINANCE DEPARTMENT WARDS: ALL SUBJECT: PURCHASING RESOLUTION AMENDMENTS: PROCUREMENT THRESHOLDS, CITY MANAGER DELEGATED AUTHORITY, PROCUREMENT DEFINITIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTIONS ISSUE:
Consider adoption of an amended Purchasing Resolution that: (1) updates procurement thresholds and solicitation methods for goods, services, and professional services; (2) establishes the City Manager’s delegated approval authority for qualifying agreements; (3) updates purchasing exceptions and definitions; and (4) makes administrative corrections.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the City Council:
Approve and Adopt the technical and administrative amendments to the Purchasing Resolution, including revised definitions, purchasing exceptions, and ministerial corrections; Approve and Adopt one procurement method threshold alternative for goods, services, and professional services. Charter Section 1109 construction procurement and approval requirements remain unchanged under each alternative:
Procurement Thresholds
Option 1 – Single Citywide Procurement Threshold: One quote for purchases of $15,000 or less, informal competitive procurement for purchases from $15,000.01 - $350,000, Formal Over $350,000 Option 2 Dual Procurement Threshold by funding source: One quote for purchases of $15,000 or less, informal competitive procurement for non-federally funded purchases from $15,000.01 - $220,000 and federally funded purchases from $15,000.01 through $350,000; and formal competitive procurement above the applicable threshold.
Option 3 Current thresholds: No change to the current procurement method thresholds.
City Manager Approval Authority alternative for qualifying goods, services, and professional services agreements, subject to the transparency and control measures described in this report and incorporated in the amended Purchasing Resolution:
Option 1 ($350,000 or less)
Option 2 ($220,000 or less)
Option 3 (Current authority - No change);
Repeal Purchasing Resolution No. 24101; and
Direct staff to provide a report to the City Council within 12 months of implementation evaluating procurement-cycle impacts, use of delegated authority, compliance with reporting requirements, vendor participation, contract amendments, and any recommended refinements to procurement or delegated authority controls.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
City Charter Section 1105, Centralized Purchasing, and the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 3.16, Centralized Purchasing requires the City to have a Centralized Purchasing System. Section 601(d) of the City Charter, Powers and Duties of the City Manager, requires the City Manager to prepare rules and regulations governing contracting/purchases, subject to approval of the City Council.
City Charter section 1202(b) authorizes the Board of Public Utilities to “[a]uthorize, and let public works contracts in compliance with Section 1109, within the limits of the budget of the Department of Public Utilities, any purchase of equipment, materials, supplies, goods or services, or any acquisition, construction, improvement, extension, enlargement, diminution, or curtailment of all or any part of any public utility system when the amount exceeds $50,000, and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute contracts or issue purchase orders for the same.” BACKGROUND:
The City of Riverside maintains a centralized purchasing system pursuant to City Charter Section 1105 and Chapter 3.16 of the Riverside Municipal Code. The Purchasing Resolution establishes the rules and regulations governing the procurement of Goods, Services, Professional Services, and Construction, including competitive procurement requirements, delegated approval authority, procurement exceptions, and contract administration requirements.
The City Manager is authorized and directed by City Charter Section 601 and Chapter 3.16 of the Riverside Municipal Code to prepare and recommend adoption of rules and regulations governing procurement and is authorized by Section 419 of the City Charter to bind the City to contracts. One of the primary components of the framework of City Council resolutions and administrative policies and procedures that govern the City's procurement activities is the signature authority that has been delegated by City Council to the City Manager, and by the City Manager to Department Heads.
The City Manager’s signature authority was previously increased under City Council Resolution Number 20943, adopted on May 17, 2005. The primary reasons for the increase were the changes to the City Charter, aiming to bring consistency to various procurement regulations and establish a uniform threshold of $50,000. A City Council report detailed the reasons for the change, emphasizing the need for consistency in signature authorities for Riverside Public Utilities and all other City departments. Before the 2005 change, different authorizing resolutions established varying signature authorities for professional services and construction contracts.
On March 19, 2024, the City Council adopted Purchasing Resolution No. 24101, which increased the City Manager’s delegated authority for Goods, Services, and Professional Services from $50,000 to $100,000, expanded the City’s Local Vendor Preference Program, and made other administrative updates to the City’s procurement requirements. The increase in delegated authority was supported by a review of the City’s procurement and contract approval processes, existing internal controls, the administrative resources required to process routine contracts for City Council consideration, and a comparison of City Manager delegated signature authority with cities of comparable size in California.
Beginning in 2024, the Purchasing Division participated in a comprehensive strategic procurement reform initiative that ultimately included a partnership with the Harvard Kennedy School Government Performance Lab, now Partners for Public Good. The initiative evaluated the City’s procurement processes through data analysis, process mapping, interviews with more than 100 City staff, a survey of more than 400 vendors, and extensive stakeholder engagement.
The initiative identified three primary areas of focus for improving the City’s procurement function: developing cohesive and enhanced processes to reduce duplicated effort and process delays; clarifying roles, responsibilities and decision-making authority to support timely and effective procurement actions; and improving access and outreach to make it easier for new businesses to identify and pursue City contracting opportunities.
As part of the initiative, the City implemented 21 procurement reforms focused on process improvement, collaboration between Purchasing and City departments, and vendor accessibility. The initiative also emphasized the need to standardize requirements, clarify roles and responsibilities, and continue updating City policies to support a more efficient and understandable procurement system.
Following implementation of these reforms, the Purchasing Division reviewed Purchasing Resolution No. 24101 to identify provisions requiring clarification, modernization, or alignment with current procurement practices. As part of this review, staff also evaluated the City’s procurement thresholds in relation to the federal procurement thresholds applicable to federal awards.
Title 2, Part 200 of the Code of Federal Regulations (2 CFR Part 200), commonly referred to as the Uniform Guidance, establishes administrative requirements and procurement standards for federal financial assistance. The Uniform Guidance incorporates the federal Micro-Purchase Threshold and Simplified Acquisition Threshold established under the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Effective October 1, 2025, the general federal Micro-Purchase Threshold increased from $10,000 to $15,000, and the general Simplified Acquisition Threshold increased from $250,000 to $350,000.
The proposed amendments to Purchasing Resolution No. 24101 incorporate these updated thresholds into the City’s general procurement framework, align applicable delegated authority with the revised procurement thresholds, clarify procurement requirements, and make additional modifications based on operational data and the City’s procurement transformation efforts.
The policy question presented by this report is broader than an adjustment to internal processing. Procurement method thresholds determine the form of competition and solicitation applicable to a transaction. City Manager delegated approval authority determines whether the final approval of a qualifying agreement occurs administratively or through City Council action. These are related but distinct policy determinations and are presented separately to support transparent City Council direction.
For clarity, a change in delegated approval authority does not authorize an expenditure outside the adopted budget, alter applicable competitive procurement requirements, waive legal or financial review requirements, or supersede matters that require City Council action pursuant to the Charter, Municipal Code, grant conditions, debt or real-property requirements, or other applicable law or policy.
DISCUSSION:
Alignment of Procurement and Delegated Authority Thresholds Following implementation of the City's Strategic Procurement Reform initiative, the Purchasing Division reviewed procurement thresholds, delegated approval authority, and purchasing practices to determine whether the existing Purchasing Resolution continues to support timely, consistent, and accountable delivery of City programs. The review considered three years of procurement activity, current federal procurement standards, operational workflow, internal controls, and procurement practices among comparable California public agencies.
The review identified an opportunity to apply procurement and approval processes in proportion to transaction value, risk, complexity, and public significance. The proposed alternatives are intended to shorten the time required to complete qualifying, budgeted procurements; support timely implementation of City Council approved programs and grant funded projects; maintain competitive procurement requirements; and focus formal solicitations and City Council agenda capacity on high value, complex, or policy sensitive matters.
The City’s current thresholds are lower than the applicable general federal thresholds and can require a formal procurement process or City Council action for transactions that may be appropriately addressed through documented informal competition and administrative approval. Maintaining different thresholds based on funding source can also require departments and Purchasing staff to apply different processes to similar transactions. The alternatives presented in this report provide differing approaches to addressing those issues while retaining established safeguards.
The proposed procurement threshold alternatives are intended to improve operational efficiency while preserving appropriate fiscal oversight and accountability. Under both Option 1 and Option 2, procurements would continue to be competitively solicited in accordance with the Purchasing Resolution. The proposed changes do not eliminate competition or reduce procurement transparency; rather, they expand the range of procurements that may be completed through the City's existing informal competitive procurement process. Departments would continue to obtain competitive quotations, Purchasing would continue to oversee procurement activities, and all procurements would remain subject to adopted budget appropriations, Purchasing Resolution requirements, ethical procurement standards, and applicable City policies and procedures.
Option 1 aligns the City's procurement practices with current federal procurement standards. Aligning with the federal Micro-Purchase Threshold and Simplified Acquisition Threshold provides greater flexibility when administering federally funded projects, reduces the need to maintain separate procurement processes based solely on funding sources, and allows the City to respond more efficiently to grant opportunities while remaining compliant with applicable federal procurement requirements. These changes improve the City's ability to act quickly when grant funding opportunities become available while maintaining the competitive procurement requirements required under federal regulations.
Increasing the informal procurement threshold also streamlines procurement operations by reducing administrative processing time for routine purchases, allowing Purchasing staff to dedicate additional resources to complex procurements, strategic sourcing initiatives, and high-value contracts that require formal solicitation. As demonstrated through the City's Strategic Procurement Reform initiative, simplifying procurement processes and reducing unnecessary administrative requirements improves operational efficiency, shortens procurement cycle times, and enables departments to more quickly deliver projects, services, and programs that benefit the community while maintaining appropriate fiscal oversight and internal controls.
To assist the City Council in evaluating the proposed amendments, Staff prepared three supporting analyses, which are attached in detail as Exhibits A through C and summarized below. Together, these analyses evaluate the operational, fiscal, and policy impacts of the proposed procurement threshold and delegated approval authority alternatives, quantify the effect of each option on City operations and City Council oversight, and compare the City's current procurement framework with comparable California public agencies.
Exhibit A – Procurement Threshold Decision Model analyzes procurement activity over a three-year period (Fiscal Years 2023-2024 through 2025-2026) and evaluates the operational impacts of the three procurement threshold alternatives. The analysis demonstrates that both Option 1 and Option 2 reduce the number of procurements requiring formal solicitation while maintaining competitive procurement requirements through the City's informal procurement process. Option 1 provides the greatest operational efficiency by establishing a single citywide procurement threshold aligned with current federal procurement standards, while Option 2 provides many of the same operational benefits through a dual-threshold approach that differentiates between federally funded and non-federally funded procurements. Under both options, Charter Section 1109 construction procurement requirements remain unchanged.
Exhibit B – City Manager Approval Authority Analysis evaluates three delegated approval authority alternatives and the resulting impact on City Council oversight. The analysis demonstrates that both proposed approval authority options preserve City Council review of the vast majority of procurement expenditures while reducing the number of routine contracts requiring Council approval. Option 1 provides the greatest reduction in Council agenda items while retaining Council review of 87.4 percent of the affected procurement spend, whereas Option 2 retains Council review of 94.0 percent of the affected spend while providing a more moderate reduction in Council actions. In both cases, all Charter Section 1109 construction procurements remain subject to existing City Council approval requirements.
Exhibit C – Peer Agency Procurement Threshold Analysis compares Riverside's procurement thresholds and delegated approval authority with comparable California public agencies. The analysis demonstrates that Riverside's current procurement thresholds and City Manager approval authority are below the average of comparable agencies, providing additional policy support for increasing the City's procurement thresholds and delegated authority while maintaining appropriate fiscal oversight and accountability.
Option 1 provides a single citywide procurement threshold that aligns with current federal procurement standards and simplifies procurement administration by applying one procurement methodology regardless of funding source. As reflected in Exhibit A, this option provides the greatest reduction in formal procurements while maintaining formal competitive procurement for high-dollar purchases and preserving all Charter Section 1109 construction requirements.
Option 2 maintains the current Charter-required construction procurement requirements while establishing separate informal procurement thresholds for federally and non-federally funded procurements. This option allows federally funded procurements to align with current federal procurement standards while maintaining a lower threshold for non-federal procurements. If the City Council selects this option, staff intend to return to the appropriate City Charter review committee and subsequently the City Council with a recommendation to amend the City Charter to increase the construction bidding threshold to align with future State of California statutory limits, if approved by the voters. Until such time, all Charter Section 1109 construction procurement requirements would remain unchanged.
Collectively, these analyses demonstrate the operational, financial, and policy implications associated with each alternative and provide the basis for Staff's recommendation.
Council Oversight and Public Transparency
The proposed changes to City Manager delegated approval authority do not reduce the City Council’s budgetary or policy authority. The City Council will continue to adopt appropriations, establish procurement requirements, approve matters otherwise requiring City Council action, and retain authority to amend or rescind the delegation. The proposed change affects only the final approval venue for qualifying, budgeted goods, services, and professional services transactions.
All delegated transactions will remain subject to applicable purchasing requirements, documentation standards, funding verification, departmental and financial approvals, Purchasing review, contract review procedures, and City Attorney review where applicable. A transaction that otherwise requires City Council action will continue to be presented to the City Council regardless of the delegated dollar threshold.
To preserve transparent City Council and public visibility of delegated actions, the amended Purchasing Resolution will provide for: (1) cumulative contract value and anti-fragmentation requirements and (2) City Council approval when an agreement or series of amendments exceeds the delegated approval limit, unless the City Council previously approved a higher not-to-exceed amount. In addition, staff will continue to provide an annual public reporting of delegated agreements and amendments and will provide a public evaluation of the amended Purchasing Resolution within 12 months following implementation.
Procurement Threshold Alternatives
The City Council is presented with three procurement method threshold alternatives. Each alternative retains applicable competitive procurement requirements, fiscal controls, and public accountability while providing differing levels of process simplification and administrative flexibility. These procurement method alternatives are separate from the City Manager delegated approval authority alternatives described later in this report. The primary differences between the alternatives are the procurement thresholds that determine when formal competitive bidding is required and the resulting impact on procurement processing, federal grant administration, and City operations. The alternatives are summarized below and evaluated in detail in Exhibit A.
Table Summary No. 1:
Procurement Type
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3 (Current – No Change)
One Quote
$0–$15,000
$0–$15,000
$0–$10,000
Informal Procurement
$15,000.01–$350,000
$15,000.01–$220,000 (Non-Federal) $15,000.01–$350,000 (Federal) $10,000.01–$50,000
Formal Procurement
Over $350,000
Over $220,000 (Non-Federal)
Over $350,000 (Federal)
Over $50,000
Charter Section 1109 Construction
No Change
No Change
Over $50,000
The thresholds in Table Summary No. 1 apply to goods, services, and professional services as provided in the amended Purchasing Resolution. Charter Section 1109 construction procurement and approval requirements remain unchanged.
Option 1 – Single Citywide Procurement Threshold
Option 1 establishes a single procurement framework for goods, services, and professional services: One-quote for purchases of $15,000 or less, documented informal competitive procurement for purchases from $15,000.01 through $350,000, and formal competitive procurement for purchases exceeding $350,000. Charter Section 1109 construction procurement and approval requirements remain unchanged.
This option aligns the City’s general procurement thresholds with current federal micro purchase and simplified acquisition thresholds, applies one consistent process regardless of funding source, and provides the greatest reduction in the number of procurements requiring formal solicitation. Transactions moved from formal to informal procurement would continue to be competitively solicited and subject to all applicable documentation, budgetary, ethical, and internal control requirements.
Option 2 – Dual Procurement Threshold by Funding Source Option 2 increases the one-quote threshold to $15,000 while establishing separate informal procurement thresholds based on the funding source. Non-federally funded procurements would require formal competitive bidding above $220,000, while federally funded procurements would align with the current federal Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $350,000. This option provides many of the operational benefits of Option 1 while maintaining a lower formal procurement threshold for non-federally funded procurements. It also allows the City to utilize the higher federal threshold when administering federally funded procurements, improving flexibility, responsiveness, and compliance with federal procurement requirements.
Establishing a $220,000 threshold for non-federally funded procurements also positions the City for future alignment with State procurement practices. The California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (CUPCCAA) currently authorizes participating agencies to utilize informal bidding procedures for qualifying public works projects up to $220,000. Although the City's Charter currently establishes different construction bidding requirements under Charter Section 1109, adopting the same dollar threshold for non-construction procurements creates a consistent policy framework should the City Council elect to pursue a future Charter amendment to align the City's construction bidding threshold with State law.
Staff anticipate returning to the appropriate Charter Review Committee and subsequently the City Council with a recommendation to consider a future Charter amendment addressing construction procurement thresholds. Until such time, all Charter Section 1109 construction procurement and approval requirements would remain unchanged.
Option 3 – No Change
Option 3 maintains the City's current procurement thresholds and approval framework. Under this option, the one-quote threshold would remain at $10,000, informal procurement would continue to apply to procurements between $10,000.01 and $50,000, and formal competitive bidding would continue to be required for procurements exceeding $50,000. While this option preserves the existing procurement framework, it does not address the operational inefficiencies identified through the Strategic Procurement Reform initiative, does not align with current federal procurement thresholds, and does not provide the administrative efficiencies or increased flexibility identified in Exhibit A.
Staff is recommending Option 2, a dual procurement threshold by funding source, as this option increases procurement flexibility to support timely delivery of Council-approved and grant-funded programs and preserves competition while maintaining existing established controls and safeguards.
Operational Impact
The operational impacts of the procurement alternatives were evaluated using 8,352 procurement actions processed between Fiscal Years 2023-2024 and 2025-2026. The analysis examined how each alternative would affect the number of transactions subject to formal solicitation, the amount of procurement spending subject to formal procurement, and the consistency of procurement administration. The analysis does not identify budget savings or a reduction in authorized staffing. Rather, it identifies capacity that may be redirected to activities that strengthen procurement outcomes, including contract administration, compliance monitoring, procurement planning, vendor outreach, strategic sourcing, and complex solicitations. The operational impacts associated with each procurement threshold alternative are summarized below.
Table Summary No. 2:
Measure
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3 (Current – No Change)
Formal Procurements
501
669
1,397
Reduction in Formal Procurements
896
728
—
Formal Procurement Dollars Retained
$993 Million
$1.039 Billion
$1.119 Billion
Procurement Framework
Single Citywide Process
Dual Thresholds Based on Funding Source
Current
Option 1 provides the greatest process simplification benefit by applying one threshold regardless of funding source. It would reduce the number of formal procurement actions while continuing to require formal competitive procurement for high dollar purchases. The resulting administrative capacity may be directed to high value, complex, or policy sensitive procurements; contract administration; compliance; strategic sourcing; vendor outreach; and timely implementation of City Council approved programs. As demonstrated in Exhibit A, the procurement thresholds significantly reduce administrative workload while maintaining formal procurement for most procurement expenditures. The analysis also concludes that a single procurement framework provides greater consistency and is operationally preferable to administering multiple procurement thresholds based upon funding sources.
Option 2 provides many of the same operational efficiencies while maintaining separate procurement thresholds for federally funded and non-federally funded procurements. Under this alternative, formal procurements would decrease from 1,397 to 669, reducing the formal procurement workload by 728 procurement actions, while $1.039 billion in procurement expenditures would continue to receive formal competitive procurement. This option allows federally funded procurements to align with current federal procurement standards while maintaining a more conservative threshold for non-federally funded procurements. Although administration would continue to require identification of the applicable funding source before selecting the procurement method, the option still provides a significant reduction in administrative workload while supporting improved responsiveness for federally funded projects and positioning the City for future alignment with State procurement practices.
City Manager Delegated Approval Authority
The City Manager's delegated approval authority is a separate policy decision from the competitive procurement requirements. A contract may be competitively procured through either an informal or formal process and still require City Council action if it exceeds the applicable delegated approval limit or is otherwise reserved for City Council approval. Accordingly, staff evaluated three alternatives for delegated approval authority for qualifying goods, services, and professional-services agreements. Charter Section 1109 construction procurement and approval requirements remain unchanged.
Table Summary No. 3:
Option
Delegated Authority
Council Actions Remaining
Council Actions Removed
Procurement Dollars Remaining Under Council Review
Option 1
$350,000 or Less
266
358
87.4%
Option 2
$220,000 or Less
406
218
94.0%
Option 3
$100,000 (Current)
624
0 100%
The “Procurement Dollars Remaining Under Council Review” measure reflects the three-year dataset of affected procurement actions analyzed in Exhibit B. It should not be interpreted as the percentage of all City expenditures or all City contracts that will remain subject to City Council review.
The proposed alternatives would reduce the number of agreements requiring City Council approval solely because the transaction exceeds the current delegated dollar limit. This may shorten the period between completion of a compliant procurement process and contract execution for qualifying, budgeted transactions. It also allows City Council agenda capacity to be concentrated on transactions that exceed the selected delegated threshold or otherwise require City Council consideration.
Applying this methodology to the City Manager Approval Authority analysis (Exhibit B) provides an estimate of the operational efficiencies associated with each approval authority alternative. Based on the three-year procurement analysis (Fiscal Years 2023-2024 through 2025-2026), Option 1 would reduce by approximately 119 per year the number of City Council agenda actions required solely by the current delegated dollar limit; Option 2 would reduce those actions by approximately 73 per year. These figures describe a change in approval routing, not a reduction in City Council authority over appropriations, policy, or matters independently requiring City Council action. The resulting administrative capacity may be redirected to procurement planning, contract administration, compliance monitoring, vendor outreach, complex solicitations, and support for timely delivery of City Council approved programs.
As detailed in Exhibit B, increasing the City Manager's delegated authority to $350,000 would shift approximately 358 agreement actions over the three-year evaluation period from City Council approval to administrative execution, where the action is otherwise eligible for delegation. Based on the affected procurement dataset, approximately 87.4 percent of associated procurement dollars would remain subject to City Council approval. The proposed delegation does not affect construction procurements governed by Charter Section 1109 or any transaction otherwise requiring City Council action. Increasing delegated approval authority does not eliminate procurement competition or internal controls. Procurements within the City Manager’s delegated authority remain subject to budget appropriations, applicable procurement requirements, agreement review and execution procedures, legal review where applicable, and all other City policies and financial controls. These controls operate independently of the dollar amount the City Manager is authorized to approve. Accordingly, increasing the City Manager's delegated authority would change the level of final approval for qualifying transactions but would not eliminate or reduce the underlying controls governing the expenditure of City funds.
Purchasing Resolution No. 24101, Delegated Authority and Public Accountability. Purchasing Resolution No. 24101 establishes the City's procurement framework and defines the authority delegated to the City Manager to bind the City in acquisitions up to an established monetary limit. Transactions within that delegated authority remain subject to all applicable procurement requirements, documentation standards, approvals, and ethical requirements. Increasing the City Manager's approval authority would therefore expand the value of transactions that may receive administrative approval but would not expand the underlying authority of departments to procure goods or services outside of established City requirements.
Administrative Policies and Agreement Process. The City's Administrative Policies and established purchasing and contracting procedures provide operational controls that remain applicable regardless of whether final approval is provided administratively or by the City Council. When an agreement is required, the agreement must continue through the City's established review and execution process, including applicable departmental, Purchasing, Contract Management, Finance, and City Attorney review. Increasing the City Manager's delegated authority would not eliminate these review steps or permit agreements to bypass established contracting requirements; it would change only the final approval authority for agreements that fall within the increased delegated limit.
Adopted Budget and Budgetary Controls. The City's adopted budget establishes financial authority for expenditure before the City Manager exercises delegated approval authority. Departments may only expend funds within authorized appropriations and for approved purposes, and the City Manager's signature authority does not independently create or increase budgetary authority. Existing budget controls, including funding availability and applicable departmental and financial approvals, therefore remain in place regardless of the amount the City Manager is authorized to approve. An increase in delegated authority would allow the City Manager to approve qualifying transactions within existing appropriations but would not authorize expenditures beyond those approved through the City's budget process.
Legal Review, Legistar, and City Council Oversight. Increasing the City Manager's delegated authority would not eliminate legal review or City Council consideration when either is independently required. Agreements subject to City Attorney review would continue to receive the required legal review before execution. Similarly, matters requiring City Council action for reasons other than the monetary limit of the City Manager's delegated authority would continue through the City's established Legistar process and applicable departmental and administrative review before being presented to the City Council. The proposed increase would remove Council consideration only when the transaction requires Council approval solely because it exceeds the current monetary limit of the City Manager's delegated authority.
Collectively, these existing controls provide a framework for increasing the City Manager's delegated authority without reducing oversight, accountability, or compliance. The proposed increase would streamline the final approval of qualifying transactions while preserving the City's existing budgetary controls, procurement and agreement requirements, legal review, and City Council oversight where independently required. This allows the City to achieve greater administrative efficiency while maintaining the safeguards governing the expenditure of public funds.
To maintain City Council and public visibility of delegated transactions, staff will continue to provide a public annual report identifying delegated agreements and amendments, including the department, vendor, original and amended not-to-exceed amount, funding source, term, and cumulative value. A contract may not be divided into separate procurements, phases, or amendments for the purpose of avoiding the applicable approval threshold or procurement requirement. If an agreement or a series of amendments causes the cumulative not-to-exceed amount to exceed the delegated approval threshold, City Council approval will be required unless City Council previously approved a higher not-to-exceed amount.
Nothing in the delegated authority authorizes administrative approval of a matter that is required by the Charter, Municipal Code, grant condition, adopted City policy, or other applicable requirements to be approved by the City Council. Staff may also present a transaction to the City Council where its policy significance, community impact, material risk, nonstandard terms, or other circumstances warrant City Council consideration.
Staff is recommending Option 2, $220,000 City Manager delegated approval authority, as this option will streamline the final approval of qualifying transactions and improve administrative efficiency while maintaining existing budgetary, procurement, legal review, transparency, and City Council oversight requirements.
Implementation and Administrative Impact
The proposed delegated approval authority alternatives are intended to improve the timeliness of executing qualifying, budgeted agreements after applicable procurement and review requirements have been completed. They do not reduce the City Council’s authority over appropriations, purchasing policy, Charter required matters, or transactions otherwise requiring City Council action.
Based on the three-year procurement analysis in Exhibit B, Option 1 would reduce by approximately 119 annually the number of agenda actions required solely by the current delegated dollar limit, and Option 2 would reduce those actions by approximately 73 annually. The City’s prior Legistar routing analysis estimated that a procurement related City Council agenda item requires approximately 13.7 staff hours across multiple departments and review levels. Applying that methodology produces estimated administrative capacity of approximately 1,635 hours annually under Option 1 and 996 hours annually under Option 2.
These estimates are not budget savings and do not assume a reduction in staffing. They identify administrative capacity that may be redirected to contract administration, compliance monitoring, procurement planning, vendor outreach, strategic sourcing, complex procurements, and support for timely implementation of City Council approved programs.
Peer Agency Comparison
As part of the evaluation of the proposed procurement threshold and delegated approval authority alternatives, the Purchasing Division compared Riverside's procurement framework with comparable California public agencies to determine whether the City's current thresholds remain consistent with prevailing public procurement practices. The analysis demonstrates that Riverside's current procurement thresholds and delegated approval authority are lower than many comparable agencies. Riverside's current formal procurement threshold of $50,000 is below the peer average of $116,923, and the City's current delegated approval authority of $100,000 is below the peer average of $178,831. Seven of thirteen surveyed peer agencies use a higher formal procurement threshold, and nine of the thirteen delegate greater purchasing authority to their chief administrative officer.
The peer comparison supports consideration of an increase from the current $100,000 delegated authority level. However, the proposed $350,000 or $220,000 authority is a City policy and operational recommendation; it is not presented as the peer group average or as a threshold independently established by the peer analysis.
Table Summary No. 4:
Measure
City of Riverside
Peer Average
Formal Procurement Threshold
$50,000
$116,923
City Manager Delegated Authority
$100,000
$178,831
Peer Agencies with Higher Formal Thresholds
7 of 13
—
Peer Agencies with Greater Delegated Authority
9 of 13
—
Option 1 establishes a formal procurement threshold of $350,000, aligning the City's procurement framework with the current federal Simplified Acquisition Threshold. This approach provides the greatest operational efficiency by creating a single procurement framework applicable to both federally funded and non-federally funded procurements, reducing administrative complexity and improving the City's ability to efficiently administer grant-funded projects while maintaining competitive procurement requirements and fiscal oversight.
Option 2 establishes a formal procurement threshold of $220,000 for non-federally funded procurements while maintaining the federal threshold of $350,000 for federally funded procurements. This alternative provides a balanced approach by preserving many of the operational benefits identified in Exhibit A while maintaining a more conservative threshold for non-federal procurement. The proposed $220,000 threshold is consistent with procurement practices already utilized by several comparable California agencies, including the City of Los Angeles, City of Madera, City of Oxnard, and the County of Riverside, demonstrating that the proposed threshold reflects an established public procurement practice rather than a significant departure from peer agencies. In addition, establishing a $220,000 threshold creates a logical policy framework should the City Council elect to pursue a future Charter amendment to align the City's construction procurement thresholds with future State-authorized limits under the California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (CUPCCAA), subject to voter approval.
While Option 1 provides the greatest operational efficiency, administrative simplicity, and alignment with current federal procurement standards, the peer agency analysis demonstrates that both Option 1 and Option 2 are supported by established public procurement practices. Option 1 provides the greatest operational benefits through a single citywide procurement framework, whereas Option 2 provides a measured alternative that increases procurement flexibility, supports future policy alignment, and maintains a greater degree of consistency with procurement thresholds currently utilized by several comparable California agencies. Under both options, competitive procurement requirements, fiscal oversight, and Charter Section 1109 construction procurement requirements remain unchanged. Additional analysis information is summarized in Exhibit C.
Purchasing Exceptions
The Purchasing Resolution identifies limited circumstances in which competitive procurement is not required, or an alternative procurement method may be used. Staff reviewed the existing exceptions to determine whether they continue to reflect current City operations and whether additional narrowly defined exceptions are necessary.
Fleet Exception
The proposed Resolution expands the existing vehicle procurement exceptions to provide greater flexibility for the acquisition, lease, maintenance, repair, outfitting, and support of vehicles and related equipment necessary for City operations.
Fleet procurement presents market conditions that differ from many traditional purchases. Vehicle pricing and availability may be affected by manufacturer production schedules, model-year transitions, order-bank opening and closing dates, dealer inventory, production allocations, supply-chain conditions, and the availability of specialized configurations. These conditions can create a limited period during which a particular vehicle or piece of equipment is available at a quoted price.
The City has experienced situations in which vendors were unable to hold vehicle pricing or inventory for the time required to complete the traditional procurement and approval process. A delay can result in the loss of quoted pricing, available inventory, or the opportunity to acquire a vehicle that meets the City’s operational requirements. The City may then be required to restart the procurement process, purchase a later model year at a higher price, accept a different configuration, or continue operating an older vehicle while awaiting a replacement.
The proposed Fleet exception is intended to provide the flexibility necessary to respond to these market conditions and obtain the best overall value for the City. Depending on the circumstances, the City could utilize competitive quotations, negotiated procurement, Piggy-Backing, Cooperative Purchasing, State of California contracts, or other procurement methods authorized by the Purchasing Resolution.
The State of California similarly recognizes fleet vehicles as a specialized procurement category and maintains dedicated statewide Fleet Vehicle contracts that provide contracted pricing to both the State and local governmental agencies. The State also uses statewide contracts to leverage governmental purchasing power.
The proposed exception may also create opportunities for the City to obtain greater overall value through local purchases when pricing, availability, service, and other terms are advantageous. A local vendor may have an available vehicle that can be acquired immediately when a manufacturer or cooperative contract requires a lengthy production lead time. Local acquisition may also facilitate delivery, inspection, warranty coordination, recalls, repairs, parts availability, and other post-purchase support.
Purchasing locally may also provide an economic benefit when applicable sales and use taxes are allocated to Riverside. The allocation of California local sales and use taxes depends on the circumstances of the transaction, and motor vehicle dealers have specific local tax reporting and allocation requirements. Therefore, the potential local revenue benefit must be evaluated based on the individual transaction rather than assumed in every case.
Employee Benefits Exception
The proposed Resolution adds a limited exception for employee-negotiated and employee-authorized voluntary benefit programs that are paid mostly by participating employees. These benefits are unique because the City serves primarily as the administrative sponsor or facilitator rather than the purchaser of the benefit itself. Employees voluntarily elect whether to participate, and the associated costs are borne entirely by the participating employees without direct expenditure of City funds.
Because these programs are negotiated or selected for the benefit of employees rather than procured for the City's operational use, the traditional competitive procurement process may not always provide the greatest value or flexibility. Benefit offerings often depend upon employee participation, provider specialization, administrative compatibility, and negotiated program features rather than the procurement of standardized goods or services. The proposed exception provides the City with the flexibility necessary to administer these voluntary programs while continuing to ensure that providers are evaluated based on the overall value and benefit offered to participating employees.
The proposed exception does not eliminate appropriate review or oversight. Employee benefit programs will continue to be administered in coordination with Human Resources and remain subject to applicable legal requirements, administrative approvals, and any collective bargaining obligations. The exception is intended solely to recognize the unique nature of voluntary employee-paid benefit programs and to provide a procurement process better suited to their administration.
K-9 Exception
The proposed Resolution adds a procurement exception for the acquisition, care, feeding, boarding, veterinary services, healthcare, equipment, supplies, and specialized training associated with Police Department K-9 units.
Unlike many City purchases, K-9-related procurements involve specialized services and equipment that are directly tied to the health, safety, readiness, and operational effectiveness of an individual working animal. Veterinary care, emergency medical treatment, boarding, specialized training, and the acquisition of replacement equipment or supplies are often time-sensitive and may only be available from qualified providers possessing the necessary expertise or certifications. Delays associated with traditional competitive procurement processes may negatively affect the health or readiness of a K-9 or limit the City's ability to obtain specialized services from the most qualified provider.
The proposed exception provides the flexibility necessary to obtain specialized K-9’s and related goods and services in a timely manner while supporting the operational needs of the Police Department.
Definitions and Clarifications
The proposed Resolution adds and revises definitions to improve consistency and reduce uncertainty in applying procurement requirements.
A definition of “Piggy-Backing” is added to distinguish this procurement method from Cooperative Purchasing. Piggy-Backing occurs when the City utilizes a contract competitively awarded by another public agency or governmental entity and enters into its own purchase order, agreement, or other contractual arrangement directly with the awarded vendor. The clarification reflects the City’s procurement process and distinguishes the City’s contractual relationship with the vendor from the originating agency’s contract.
The definition of “Field Order” and related provisions are also revised to clarify the distinction between a Field Order and a formal contract modification in connection with applicable Construction and Design-Build activities.
The proposed Resolution also adds references to Professional Services throughout provisions where the term was not expressly included. These amendments clarify that applicable procurement, bid rejection, preference, Purchase Requisition, and bidder-list requirements apply to Professional Services where appropriate.
The Strategic Procurement Reform initiative identified unclear responsibilities and inconsistent requirements as contributors to delays and stalled procurements. The proposed clarifications further the City’s efforts to establish standardized procedures and make procurement requirements easier for City staff and vendors to understand and administer.
Change Orders
Section 1104 of the Purchasing Resolution governs modifications to existing Purchase Orders and establishes when additional approval by the original Awarding Entity is required. Staff identified this section as an area that has caused confusion regarding the types of changes that may be processed by Change Order and when a modification must return to the City Council or other applicable Awarding Entity for approval.
The proposed amendments reorganize and clarify the Change Order requirements and align applicable non-construction approval thresholds with the proposed delegated authority. The amendments are intended to provide clearer direction regarding cumulative Change Order authority and the circumstances requiring approval by the applicable Awarding Entity.
The clarification supports the broader Procurement Reform objective of establishing clear roles, responsibilities, and decision-making authority. The Transformation Project found that uncertainty regarding responsibilities and required approvals contributed to missed actions, additional follow-up, and stalled procurements.
Implementation Review
Within 12 months following implementation, staff will return to the City Council with a public evaluation of the amended Purchasing Resolution. The evaluation will include, as applicable: procurement cycle times; number and value of delegated agreements; number and value of agreements presented to City Council; procurement method used; competition and vendor participation information; use of exceptions; contract amendments and cumulative contract values; compliance findings; protests or disputes; and recommended adjustments to thresholds, reporting, or internal controls.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with the recommendations in this report. No direct reduction in appropriations, staffing, or operating costs is assumed as a result of the proposed Purchasing Resolution amendments. The proposed changes are expected to affect administrative routing and the allocation of staff capacity. Any resulting capacity will be directed to procurement planning, contract administration, compliance monitoring, vendor outreach, strategic sourcing, complex solicitations, and support for timely implementation of City Council approved programs.
Prepared by: Jennifer McCoy, Purchasing Manager
Approved by: Julie Nemes, Finance Director
Certified as to
availability of funds: Julie Nemes, Finance Director
Approved by: Edward Enriquez, Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer/Treasurer Approved as to form: James Johnson, City Attorney
Attachments:
Exhibit A – Procurement Threshold Analysis City Manager Threshold Analysis Exhibit B – City Manager Threshold Analysis
Exhibit C – Peer Agency Analysis
Purchasing Resolution No. 24101 – Redlined
Purchasing Resolution Clean Version
Presentation
Purchasing Resolution Update ● Page 2