Commissioners debate sheriff vehicle purchases; motion to use PILT tabled for legal review

Valley County commissioners spent extended time discussing sheriff vehicle acquisitions and funding options on April 28, but postponed a final decision pending legal review of procurement rules and local-purchase preferences.

Sheriff Capari described options for acquiring police vehicles and noted timing issues tied to manufacturer ordering windows. Commissioners discussed buying two vehicles this year and setting aside three more in next year’s budget to catch up on a multi-year replacement plan. The sheriff said Cascade fund balances could cover one vehicle now.

Commissioners debated using Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) funds to purchase a second vehicle. Clerk Miller reported the county’s PILT fund balance and said an upcoming fiscal-year PILT payment would add to available cash. During the exchange, Miller said: “we will be getting our fiscal year 20 25 PILT payment probably in the next month to 2 months.” The sheriff and commissioners discussed whether local purchase (to support warranty work and local vendors) should override accepting the lowest bid; one commissioner said the county’s prosecuting attorney has advised that the 10% local-preference policy is not a legal substitute for bid law.

A motion was made to take enough funds from PILT to buy the second vehicle and to pay the first vehicle from the sheriff’s capital fund. The motion was seconded with a caveat that purchases be made locally. Commissioners then agreed to table the motion and consult the prosecuting attorney to confirm procurement legality and whether local purchase preferences could be applied given state bid rules.

Discussion points and uncertainties included: - Whether state procurement law requires acceptance of the lowest responsible bid even when a local dealer is available. A commissioner said the county’s prosecuting attorney had previously told the board the county policy on a 10% local preference was not legally binding. - Differences in total costs when ordering locally versus using state bid pricing, and the additional expense of transporting vehicles if not drop-shipped to county pickup locations. - The practical effect of COVID-era supply delays on vehicle ordering and the county’s multi-year plan to reduce the lead time.

Next steps: Commissioners directed staff to consult with the prosecuting attorney about legal procurement limits, to provide cost comparisons (including transport and warranty considerations) and to return to the board later the same day or at the afternoon session with legal guidance and updated figures.

No binding purchase was approved at the meeting; the procurement decision remains pending legal review.