Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors review capital projects lists, seed‑shop options and courthouse renovation placeholder
Summary
County staff presented options for seed‑shop expansion, jail repairs and planned facility projects. Department 85 seed‑shop expansion has two competing options; department 44 includes recurring ADA work, a series of facility repairs and a placeholder for courthouse renovation phase 4.
Johnson County financial staff and department leads on Tuesday reviewed proposed FY26 capital projects in Department 85 (Capital Projects Fund) and Department 44 (Capital Expenditures), highlighting alternatives for a seed‑shop expansion, estimated jail repairs and several courthouse and exhibit projects.
Adam Kirko, the county financial analyst, said Department 85 currently holds no definitive projects and that two seed‑shop expansion options remain under consideration. Kirko said option 3 was preferred by some supervisors because it may fall below the county’s bonding threshold; option 2 was kept on the table because it is under the bonding threshold. He said final budgeting will depend on the board’s informal project approvals in the upcoming vote cycle.
Kirko and staff also noted a recent estimate for jail repairs derived from the sheriff’s study; Kirko said he did not have additional details beyond the sheriff’s estimate. Supervisors pressed for cost estimates and timing for any repairs.
For Department 44, Kirko said recurring items include replacement vehicles identified by fleet management, a $75,000 recurring line for Americans with Disabilities Act compliance renovations, and a $300,000 recurring facility‑repair allocation. Additional decision‑list items staff identified include: an epidemic‑exhibit project (FY25 spending to date $412,000 with a requested additional $300,000 for FY26), a courthouse renovation phase 4 request (proposed at $2.3 million) and various equipment requests from county departments.
Allison Wells, grants manager, told supervisors that initial project estimates grew as design work continued: “We know it's gonna cost more than the $4.12 that we have in this fiscal year,” she said, adding the committee expects bids and more concrete prices soon and that the project likely will carry into FY26. Wells said the total for the project will likely be “more 600? 7 hundred thousand, maybe 800,000, depending on what the design looks like” and that the FY26 request is a placeholder to avoid repeated large amendments.
Supervisors raised questions about which seed‑shop option to select for budgeting and how courthouse and exhibit projects will be phased. Financial staff said the board could choose among the seed‑shop options during the first formal vote and re‑evaluate after that initial action.
No binding appropriation or bond authorization was made in the work session; staff recommended the board pick between options and consider project bids when they arrive.
