Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Story County supervisors approve multiple contracts, funding allocations and operational policies; ‘Votes at a glance’ lists outcomes
Summary
The Story County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 11 approved a package of contracts, funding recommendations and operational policy changes including a $10,900 change order for a park shop, a design contract for the Annas Mill Dam mitigation, a revised employee badge policy and the FY26 ASSET funding recommendations.
The Story County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 11 approved a series of contracts, budget and policy items that county staff said are routine or previously vetted by advisory boards. Actions included a change order for a park shop renovation, contracting for dam mitigation design, adopting a revised ID‑badge policy and design, approving FY26 ASSET funding recommendations and authorizing purchase of roof stair towers for the Justice Center.
Board members and staff described most items as either previously reviewed by advisory bodies (Conservation Board, Conservation staff) or necessary to keep projects on schedule. Where funding was required, staff identified sources in the meeting and, for one parks change order, the Conservation Board agreed to use the Friends of Conservation Trust Fund.
Votes at a glance - Change Order No. 2, Harold Pike Construction — McFarland Park Shop: Approved. Net increase to contract $10,900. Conservation Board approved funding from Friends of Conservation Trust Fund and recommended the change order. Motion carried on roll call (Merkin: aye; Basil: aye; Edens: aye). - Contract, Houston Engineering — Annas Mill Dam mitigation (design services): Approved. Board authorized contracting for design work to advance a long‑studied low‑head dam mitigation project; grant funds will cover the contract portion. Motion carried on roll call (Basil: aye; Merkin: aye; Heddens: aye). - Revised identification badge policy and badge redesign; waiver of seven‑day review: Approved. Policy edits are procedural (submitting badge requests through the county work‑order system rather than email); the board accepted a new back design that includes the county mission statement and agreed to proceed with the front design using full names (first name emphasized, last name retained). Motion carried on roll call (Merkin: aye; Hazel: aye; Edens: aye). - FY26 ASSET final funding recommendations and carryover request: Approved. Of $1,868,513 available through the asset process, $1,749,598 were allocated and $118,915 designated for basic needs (housing, food, childcare); board also approved carrying over unspent FY25 set‑aside dollars into FY26. Motion carried on roll call (vote recorded as aye by board members present). - Purchase of two roof stair towers for the Justice Center: Approved. Cost $25,940; fund source cited as current funding and savings from other projects. Motion carried on roll call (Merkin: aye; Basil: aye; Heddens: aye).
Board discussion and context Conservation and parks staff explained the McFarland Park change order was needed after demolition revealed an unexpected structural condition in a common wall; the net change to the contract is just under $11,000 after credits. Conservation Board considered and recommended the expenditure.
County staff explained the Annas Mill Dam mitigation contract follows many years of public vetting and partial grant funding; the contract sought authorization to complete design documents now so construction can proceed once bond funds become available this summer.
On the badge redesign, staff presented three visual options and cost estimates. The board preferred retaining full names (with first name emphasized in larger type) and removing department names from the face to reduce reprinting when employees change departments; the board also approved allowing employees to decide whether to update photos. The policy change formalizes using the county’s work‑order software to request badges rather than email submissions.
Why it matters: these approvals free several projects to proceed to design, procurement or construction, and finalize the county’s annual social‑service funding allocations through the ASSET process. Most items were described as previously vetted and noncontroversial.
What’s next: staff will complete procurement, finalize design documents, and return to the board or place items on consent when required by contracting procedures or funding amendments.
