Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors spar over ~ $43,000 county grass‑cutting bill for large privately owned property
Summary
Board members criticized an interim staff decision to authorize county crews to cut roughly 390–440 acres owned, per testimony, by a foreign company; the invoice of about $43,000 and lack of competitive bids and prior board notice prompted staff to promise policy review and potential lien collection.
A debate over procurement and oversight dominated part of the Southampton County Board of Supervisors meeting on Dec. 17 after public comments flagged a county payment of roughly $43,000 to cut the grass on a large private property described in meeting testimony as owned by a Chinese company.
Several public commenters and supervisors said they were alarmed that a community development interim director authorized the contractor without competitive quotes and that county staff neither obtained multiple bids nor brought the nonbudgeted expense to the board before payment. "Almost $43,000 to cut their grass is ridiculous," said Jamie Lee, a resident who identified the contract in a newspaper article and urged the board to hold those who authorized it accountable.
County staff and the new community development director told the board that the proper policy had not been followed: certified‑mail notices sent to the property owner were returned unaccepted and the interim director authorized the cut during a transition period in staff. Staff acknowledged the error, said multiple quotes were not solicited, and said the expense had been charged against the community development maintenance/services line (a line with an $8,000 budget) producing the large variance.
Supervisors pressed staff on what approvals were required for nonbudgeted expenditures and asked staff to bring a proposed tightening of purchase/authorization thresholds to a January work session. Board members and staff discussed options for collecting the cost if the owner does not pay (including a lien or tax sale) and for clarifying that items above a threshold must be presented to the board.
Clarifying note: transcript references to the property’s acreage and the timing of the invoice varied in the hearing. Witnesses used both "about 390 acres" and "440 acres" to describe the lot; the invoice amount was repeatedly cited as "almost $43,000" or about $43,000 during the meeting. We report those figures as approximations drawn from in‑meeting testimony.
Next steps: staff will present procurement/purchase‑policy revisions at the Jan. 8 work session and consult the county attorney about collection options and any required steps to place a lien or otherwise recover costs.
