City staff and council members discussed a proposed outsourcing plan for park mowing and grounds maintenance that would change how the parks department handles routine duties and could increase short-term budgeted expenses while reducing staff workload and risk of lapses in maintenance.

Why it matters: staff reported the parks department currently has four employees (one recently added) and an open position in the street department that could be transferred. The proposed contract would remove sports-complex mowing from the city’s internal work program and add those services to a contractor; until a city employee position is vacated, staff said the FY2026 budget would reflect an approximately $51,000 increase in expenses. After a position leaves and is not refilled, staff said the ongoing increase would be about $35,000 compared with current direct staff costs.

Contract details and procurement: staff said they received three bids and based line-item awards on lowest-cost offers for each scope; two of the bids were lower on most line items and the third bidder was higher on nearly all items. The proposed contract term discussed was five years with two single-year renewal options. The contract includes a performance clause and annual maximum price adjustments capped at 3 percent that must be justified and approved by the city.

Service expectations and special items: staff and council talked about scheduling around frequent special events, cemetery mowing standards and responsiveness during wet years. The meeting recorded a mowing-trigger threshold: parks areas must be mowed when grass exceeds six inches, while a specific cemetery standard was stated as four inches. Council members discussed enforcement language and using performance metrics and schedules so contractor work aligns with event preparations.

Equipment and staffing implications: staff factored equipment replacement costs into the contract analysis—city mowers previously purchased at large one-time costs were cited as a driver of internal maintenance expense. Staff also discussed reallocating some in-house positions for oversight and the potential to add jail work crews or part-time assignments to fill gaps. No contract award was approved at the workshop; staff asked the council whether they wished to pursue an RFP and to further evaluate the trade-offs between contracting and retaining in-house capacity.

Next steps: staff asked council direction to explore the contract path; council members generally supported exploring the option and requested additional details about bidders, scoring, performance expectations and budget timing. No formal vote or contractual authorization occurred during the workshop.