Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheridan County commissioners press Parks & Rec over costly landscaping bid and unpaid fence invoice
Summary
At a Oct. 20 staff meeting, commissioners said a landscaping contract for a roughly 5‑acre site appeared expensive and asked Parks & Recreation to seek more bids; they also raised concern that a Town and Country fencing invoice reached the county without a recorded Parks & Rec vote and that the vendor had already been paid.
Sheridan County commissioners on Monday raised procurement and oversight concerns about two Parks & Recreation items: a landscaping contract for the "Yami Inch" site and a fencing warrant paid to Town and Country.
A commissioner serving as liaison to the Parks and Recreation Board apologized to the public for not reviewing the landscaping contract more closely and said the project seemed expensive for about 5 acres. "I wanted to apologize to the public because I did not look into this contract further. I think it's it's around 5 acres but it seems pretty expensive," the commissioner said, and asked permission to press Parks & Rec to solicit multiple bids next year.
County staff and other commissioners agreed. One commissioner noted tradeoffs of turf management: "If you're gonna water grass, you're gonna have to mow it," arguing the board should consider alternatives that reduce long‑term maintenance and mowing costs. Another commissioner suggested county crews and existing trailers might perform some work at far lower cost than the contractor's proposal.
Separately, the board discussed a Town and Country fencing warrant that, according to a commissioner, had not been voted on by the Parks and Recreation Board before reaching the county. County staff member Cameron said the check had already been cut and sent to the company, making it difficult to reverse. "The check had already been cut and sent to the company. So it's kinda hard to pull it back now," Cameron said.
Commissioners instructed the liaison to reiterate to the Parks and Recreation Board that expenditures must be approved by vote before being forwarded for payment. The board did not take a formal vote on new procurement policy at the meeting; the discussion resulted in direction to the liaison and an agreement to raise the issue at the Parks and Recreation meeting.
The commissioners did not provide contract amounts or the exact vendor bids during the meeting; those figures were not specified in the public discussion.
The county plans to ask Parks and Recreation to present formal votes on future warrants before processing payments and to explore alternative landscaping and maintenance options for the site.
