Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mowing Inhouse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select board weighs bringing municipal mowing in‑house to save about $100,000
Summary
Town staff proposed replacing three contracted mowing agreements by hiring seasonal crews and buying equipment; staff estimate first‑year savings of roughly $100,000–$130,000 but board members raised concerns about management time, equipment maintenance, liability, and whether full‑time hires or longer contractor terms would be preferable.
Town staff presented a proposal to replace the town’s three separate mowing contracts with an in‑house program that would hire four seasonal employees and purchase mowers and a trailer. The plan—reflected in the Buildings & Grounds budget—would increase capital outlays for equipment while reducing the town’s contracted expenditures; staff estimate the first‑year net savings at roughly $100,000 to $130,000 once equipment purchases are included.
The discussion, which dominated the budget hearing, centered on whether those estimated savings would hold up after accounting for management and oversight, liability and insurance costs, equipment maintenance, and seasonal hiring churn. “Sounds to me like we want to hire a superhuman to do this work,” Select Board member Bill said while reading the proposed job description for the new Director of Public Services and expressing general skepticism about adding permanent staff for work that can be contracted. John, who presented the budget, said he supports the effort to reduce overall costs: “I do support it because I’m looking for ways to try to keep the budget down.”
Board members pressed staff on several operational points. Concerns included whether the town has space and shop capacity to store and service multiple $20,000‑plus mowers, how often replacement and maintenance costs would erode the projected savings, and whether workers’ compensation and unemployment costs for seasonal staff would increase insurance burdens. Members also asked whether hiring two year‑round employees (who could plow in winter and mow in summer) would produce a better outcome than four seasonal hires, and whether the town could negotiate a longer contract with the incumbent contractor, Farley, to obtain more price certainty.
Staff asked Budget Director Megan to return with targeted scenarios: a full mowing‑year comparison of contract versus in‑house costs, a breakout of the proposed staffing/wage line, and a model that compares two full‑time year‑round hires versus the seasonal crew. The board agreed to postpone any final decision until those numbers are available so the committee can weigh short‑term capital costs against multi‑year operating savings.
