Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Deer Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oakmont weighs USDA-managed deer program against private contractor as fall season nears
Summary
Council compared two deer-management proposals — one from USDA and one from a private firm — and flagged contract language, insurance and public-notice concerns; staff will seek clarifications and return answers before council action.
At the July 7 work session councilors debated two options for deer management in borough open spaces: a USDA-run program and a proposal from a private firm (Suburban Whitetail Management). The discussion centered on scope, contract terms, insurance and resident notification ahead of the hunting season.
Solicitor summarized contract concerns: USDA's proposal comes with federal terms and references to the Federal Tort Claims Act and may limit the borough's ability to impose indemnification; the private contractor's agreement would need stronger indemnification and insurance requirements. The solicitor also flagged a clause that would require coordination before media responses and asked for an exception language for statutory open-records requirements.
Council members asked staff to request clarifications from both providers on (1) invoicing/payment timing, (2) specific indemnity and insurance limits, (3) the contractor's approach to background checks and participant standards, and (4) how safety zones and property permissions would be determined. Staff estimated per-contract costs in the range of $10,000–$13,000 for a single engagement and said typical program costs have been between roughly $10,000 and $13,000 and that prior program estimates suggested $10,000–$13,000 for similar efforts.
Several councilors noted that USDA's federal involvement can deliver public confidence because of name recognition, but that the borough may have less contractual leverage with a federal partner. The solicitor recommended conditioning any award on contract changes approved by the solicitor if the borough were to use a private vendor. Council asked staff to contact USDA and return with legal answers and specifics before taking any final vote at a later meeting.
No vote occurred at the work session; staff were directed to follow up with both providers and to report back to council with clarified contract language and insurance information prior to any authorization.
