Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate mowing, custodian duties and use of highway equipment
Summary
Officials discussed options for courthouse grounds maintenance after complaints about uneven mowing; key issues included whether highway funds and equipment can be used for courthouse properties, a potential $10,000 stipend or contract for mowing, and whether to eliminate the building superintendent position and contract custodial work.
Scott County's commissioners and council members discussed courthouse and property maintenance on Oct. 7, focusing on who should mow county-owned sites, how to fund that work and whether to restructure the custodian position.
County leaders raised repeated legal and fiscal questions about using highway department equipment or highway funds to mow courthouse property. "We can't use County Highway money to mow non-County Highway properties," one commissioner said during the session, and staff cautioned that motor-vehicle or highway funds are restricted to highway uses and could raise audit questions if used for non-highway sites.
Council members suggested alternatives: (1) contracting out mowing for roughly $10,000 a year; (2) transferring a full-time position into the highway garage to perform mowing and maintenance (with the counties sharing cost); or (3) reallocating existing building-maintenance lines into a consolidated building-maintenance budget that would include mowing, utilities and custodial services. One commissioner said the county could split responsibility and costs across budgets rather than pay exclusively from highway funds.
Staff and commissioners also discussed reorganizing the building superintendent/custodian lines. A proposal aired at the meeting would reduce the full-time custodian line and instead contract cleaning services a few days a week, while consolidating building-superintendent duties and building maintenance budgets under a single manager.
Why it matters: The debate reflects the county's fiscal constraints and the legal limits on fund usage. Officials said leaving county buildings and grounds poorly maintained could affect the county's public image and operations, but using restricted highway funds for non-highway work would risk audit penalties.
What happens next: Commissioners said they will review job descriptions, legal restrictions on fund use and potential contracts; some members suggested any staffing/operator changes should be handled in executive session because of personnel implications. No final vote was recorded during the session.
Ending: County staff will return with specific budget transfer options, proposed contract language and legal guidance on use of highway and general-fund equipment.
