Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Operations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff propose bringing fertilization in-house to cut contractor costs and add seasonal staff
Summary
Parks staff told the Herriman City Council that moving lawn fertilization from contractors to an in-house program could improve quality and yield modest cost savings; staff proposed hiring one seasonal/full-time position and asked council to authorize a budget/staffing amendment for later placement on the consent agenda.
Herriman City Council — Parks staff recommended the city move its fertilization program from contracted vendors to an in-house operation, citing rising contractor costs and operational oversight burdens.
Speaker 7 presented the proposal, saying the city maintains roughly 8,000,000 square feet (about 180 acres) of manicured turf and typically applies fertilizer four times a year. “Since I’ve taken over in 2018, contractor costs have gone up 67% while acreage increased only about 50%,” Speaker 7 said, arguing city control could improve product quality and scheduling.
Staff laid out the anticipated budgetary impact: the current contracted services line is $144,000; an in-house plan would likely cost roughly the same in year one, composed of an estimated $88,000 annual salary (with family insurance) for a staffer who would work roughly six months on fertilization and support other park duties the remainder of the year, plus about $55,000 for materials. Staff also noted minimal additional O&M for existing equipment and cited a potential specialized sprayer priced near $15,000 for future efficiency gains.
Council members asked about omitted costs and operational assumptions: Speaker 3 asked whether oversight savings from “babysitting” contractors had been factored in (staff: not yet), and multiple members urged a one- to two-year pilot with a follow-up report showing realized savings and costs. Staff said it had not issued a formal RFP for fertilization but had solicited vendor bids and compared prices informally.
Speaker 6 cautioned about long-term payroll burden: “People cost way more, which is usually why you contract these sorts of things,” he said, urging the council to weigh ongoing personnel costs against vendor price volatility.
Staff recommended returning the proposal to the consent agenda after the council directed a budget amendment and staffing plan; council members generally supported trying smaller near-term steps with a required report back to verify whether projected savings and service improvements materialize.
The council did not adopt a final budget amendment during this meeting; staff will bring a formal budget and staffing proposal to a future consent agenda and report back after an initial trial period.
