Greenlee County approves Peterson Landscaping for Loma Linda park irrigation, asks staff to firm up sod specs

The Greenlee County Board of Supervisors voted to award installation of an irrigation system at the Loma Linda Park ball field to Peterson Landscaping LLC, approving the contract by voice vote with a not-to-exceed cap of $30,000.

Tony Hines, Public Works facility fleet manager, told the board the county solicited three bids and separated the sprinkler work from sod and seeding. Hines said Peterson’s sprinkler-only proposal came in substantially lower than competitors — “a hair under 85¢” per square foot by the calculation used during the meeting — and that Peterson provided references. Hines said Peterson’s lower price reflected a smaller scope and use of different controllers but that the quoted Hunter-brand equipment is still “a good quality sprinkler product.”

The vote resolved only the irrigation installation. The board discussed how to finish the field — seed, hydroseed, sod or artificial turf — and directed staff to develop firm specifications and updated quotes for turf before any turf installation.

Why it matters: the irrigation contract enables immediate work on the ball field’s water system, but supervisors paused a final decision on surfacing so the county can specify square footage and sod type, compare costs and confirm installation timing and warranties before committing larger funds.

Most important facts

- The board approved awarding the irrigation installation to Peterson Landscaping LLC with a not-to-exceed amount of $30,000. The motion and second were made on the record; names for mover and seconder were not recorded in the meeting transcript.

- Staff told the board they had three vendor proposals for the irrigation-only scope. Using vendors’ area estimates, the meeting discussion converted bids to per-square-foot installed costs: Peterson approximately $0.85 per square foot and Curtis Landscaping about $1.25 per square foot. Using an estimated 32,500 square-foot area, the board observed that Curtis’s per-square-foot price would equate to roughly $40,062.50 for the same area.

- Supervisors and staff agreed to return with a precise square-footage measurement and a specified sod variety to ensure apples-to-apples bids for turf. The board asked staff also to include estimated availability/timing from contractors and to confirm any installation warranty.

Supporting details and discussion

Hines presented a breakdown of the bids and said the county had asked vendors to separate irrigation from sod and seeding. He explained that Peterson’s initial electronic calculation of the irrigated area produced a lower square-foot figure (about 32,500) because that quote treated the site more like a practice field rather than the entire ballpark area (about 65,000–70,000 square feet if the whole field is counted). Hines recounted that when the county requested references, one (Craig Bloomfield of Velocity Builders) responded positively about Peterson’s work on residential jobs.

Board members expressed competing priorities: several supervisors noted that Curtis Landscaping is a known local firm with a history of satisfied customers and that Curtis’ proposal included a two-year warranty for work on the irrigation system, while Peterson’s lower price prompted questions about material quality and long-term durability. One supervisor said, “I think we want instant gratification” and preferred sod but asked staff to spell out square footage and the specific sod type before soliciting final bids.

On turf and maintenance, the board discussed types of sod and maintenance needs rather than approving turf now. A supervisor recommended specifying the sod variety so bidders propose the same product; the transcript includes discussion of varieties and brand names referenced during the meeting (vendor brands mentioned included Hunter for irrigation equipment and Rainbird, Toro and Tifway varieties for irrigation or turf products). One speaker recommended specifying a “mid‑iron” sod variety (contrasted with Tifway 419) and factoring longer-term maintenance and mower compatibility into the procurement.

Direction to staff and next steps

- Staff was directed to: measure and provide exact square footage for the area to receive sod; specify the turf variety to be used in future bids; solicit updated bids based on that specification; check vendor availability/timing for installation; and confirm warranty terms for installation and equipment.

- The irrigation award to Peterson is limited to the irrigation scope; any turf purchase and installation will require additional solicitation and a subsequent board decision if the cost approaches or exceeds the county’s purchasing threshold noted in the discussion (staff said the $100,000 threshold may affect procurement rules for larger turf contracts).

Ending

With the irrigation contract approved, the county will proceed to install the sprinkler system while staff returns with the clarified turf specifications, vendor quotes for sod or other surfacing options and warranty information for supervisors’ consideration at a future meeting.