Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Committee hears sports-court bid update; award to low bidder tabled amid conflict-of-interest and cost concerns

November 21, 2025 | Humboldt County, California


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Committee hears sports-court bid update; award to low bidder tabled amid conflict-of-interest and cost concerns
The Parks & Recreation Committee received an update on the proposed sports court project and the competitive bidding process. Staff reported bids were opened Oct. 30 and five submissions were received; the apparent low bidder is Ben McMahon Construction.

Chris said the current plan focuses on building one court — a basketball court with two integrated pickleball courts — and that additive alternatives (a second court and other features) were part of the bid documents. "Right now, we're focusing on just the 1 court and the basketball court with the 2 pickle pickle ball courts in it," Chris said.

Committee members raised concerns about fencing costs in the bids, saying some contractors had quoted substantially higher amounts for fencing and that separating fencing from the main contract could reduce overall expense. One committee member said the fencing component was "marked up really substantially" and that separating it from the project could save "maybe more than $15,000." Chris showed alternative fencing layouts (partial perimeter, mixed heights) intended to reduce cost.

A committee member also raised a potential conflict-of-interest related to a prior vote in which a board member (referred to as Kristen) recused herself; Chris said he is seeking clarification from legal counsel. Because of the outstanding conflict-of-interest question, the award or resolution to issue a contract to Ben McMahon was tabled and will be revisited at the December board meeting.

Members also warned that awarding to the lowest bidder could increase change orders and unanticipated costs; one member said the low-bid approach left "a lot of room for change orders" that could drive up the district’s total cost.

The committee did not take a final award action; staff will return in December with further information, legal counsel feedback and a recommendation.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep California articles free in 2026

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI
Family Portal
Family Portal