Story County IRVM budget proposes truck replacement, debris-site seeding; $10,000 grant sought

Story County supervisors and staff reviewed the Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management budget during a Feb. 3 budget work session, discussing a planned truck replacement, seed and tree planting at a county debris site and a small drainage program.

The most immediate line-item question involved a $59,000 fleet replacement programmed in a grant account with an anticipated $10,000 Living Roadway Trust Fund award. Ty Hamill, IRVM director, described the vehicle as a routine replacement and said staff expects the grant application to offset $10,000 of the purchase. If the county does not receive the grant, the full $59,000 purchase would be paid from county equipment lines (general/rural funds), staff said.

Why it matters: supervisors pressed staff to clarify where the net cost would appear in the budget narrative so the public and board members would not assume the grant covers the full amount. Supervisor Linda Merkin said the narrative made it appear the grant would pay the entire $59,000, and asked staff to show the $49,000 general-fund (or rural-fund) impact separately when appropriate.

Staff also reviewed spending on seed and trees at the county debris site, where conservation staff programmed a combined $10,000 for supplemental seed and bare-root trees. Mike Cox, conservation director, explained the $10,000 “supplemental seed” amount and said the planting requirement for a visual barrier required plantings on three sides of the site. Cox said quotes showed a large cost difference for mature or “started” trees versus bare-root stock and told the board that planting started trees would have “been in the neighborhood of $50,000 plus,” while bare-root trees could be obtained "for, for under $1,000." He and other staff said they opted for bare-root trees for cost and establishment reasons.

Drainage program revenue and expense were also discussed. The IRVM budget keeps an $11,000 line as a placeholder that staff said represents routine maintenance work for drainage districts and open ditches; Ty Hamill said he expected some of that $11,000 to be used in the near future after staff review.

Other equipment changes in the budget reflect a normal replacement schedule; staff said the FY25 year had no large equipment replacements, which made the FY26 jump in equipment and machinery appear larger. The department also examined options for fuel transfer and decided on transfer tanks as the most economical choice.

No formal actions or votes were taken on these items during the work session; supervisors asked staff to clarify how grant offsets and general-fund impacts would be displayed in budget narratives and to separate out the debris-site seeding cost for future discussion of funding sources.

The board moved next to the conservation budget after staff finished IRVM questions.