Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners ask for itemized bids, correct attorney signature on multiple construction contracts
Summary
Butte-Silver Bow commissioners approved several construction agreements but asked staff to provide per-job cost breakdowns for multi-job contracts and corrected a county attorney signature line on three contracts before placing them on file.
Butte-Silver Bow commissioners on the consent agenda approved a set of construction agreements and asked staff to provide a per-job cost breakdown for multi-job contracts while removing the word “interim” from the county attorney signature line on three contracts.
The request was raised while discussing communication number 2025-251, a construction agreement with High Country Concrete, Inc., and similar communications later in the agenda. Commissioners voted to concur and place the communications on file after the clarifications and amendments were offered and accepted; the roll-call vote recorded was 9 yeas, 0 nays.
Commissioner Fisher said he wanted individual line-item amounts for each project included in future packets because “with 8 different jobs at $83,000, we don't know whether one's $40,000, one's $10,000, one's $8,000.” He asked that staff break out how much each named job is worth so commissioners can see individual project costs.
Department of Reclamation Construction Manager Chad Anderson told the commission, “We have the breakdown so that we know how to award. But for the purpose of these contracts, it's just all of the jobs that they have won and then the total amount that they'll be awarded through that contract.” Anderson said staff can include the per-job breakdown in the packet going forward and offered to send an interim email with the details.
On communications 2025-253 (Ponderosa Escalating LLC), 2025-254 (Northwest Enterprises) and 2025-255 (Mining City Services), Commissioner Morgan asked that the contract signature line be corrected to remove the term “interim” before placing those communications on file. County Attorney Enruth confirmed that striking “interim” and listing the office as “County Attorney” would be appropriate for clarity if the contract otherwise clearly showed the breakdowns.
The commission then approved each amended communication; clerks recorded unanimous votes. Commissioners did not change award decisions or reject the firms; the changes were to documentation and transparency of individual job amounts.
The motion outcomes recorded in the meeting minutes: concurrence and placement on file for communication 2025-251 (construction agreement with High Country Concrete, Inc.), 2025-253 (Ponderosa Escalating LLC), 2025-254 (Northwest Enterprises) and 2025-255 (Mining City Services), with the requested contract edits and commitments to supply per-job breakdowns.
The commissioners did not adopt any new procurement rules during the meeting; they directed staff to provide more itemized documentation and corrected contract signature language. If additional follow-up or separate approvals are required for individual jobs, those will appear on future agendas.
