Boone County commissioners voted to reallocate $50,000 in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding that had been set aside for an outside IT assessment, approving instead a motion to put the money toward road projects and postpone final vendor selection until after the first of the year.

The move followed a contentious discussion at a special meeting about two competing vendor proposals: a $50,000 proposal from Exos IT (doing business as SANDI) and a $25,000 proposal from Impact. County IT staff and several commissioners said the proposals had different scopes, and some commissioners raised transparency concerns after the second, lower-cost proposal arrived in the days after the prior meeting.

Why it matters: the county must use ARPA funds for allowable projects and, according to staff statements during the meeting, an executed contract needed to be on file by the end of the calendar year to avoid returning the money to the federal government. Commissioners said timing and vendor choice created urgency and disagreement about the best use of the remaining funds.

Boone County IT Director Sean Horan told commissioners he reviewed both proposals and that each would meet the insurance company’s requirements for an assessment after a recent power failure. “We have worked with both of these vendors, multiple times, on multiple projects, over the last several years,” Horan said. “I can tell you that, we’ve had nothing but success with Impact and their projects. Everything’s been on budget. Everything’s been on time.” Horan recommended Impact and suggested the county could use any savings to buy needed backup hardware.

Several commissioners disagreed about reopening the decision after the board previously approved an IT contract subject to insurance verification at an earlier meeting. One commissioner objected to signing a $50,000 contract when a $25,000 option was available and described the late arrival of the second bid as appearing nontransparent.

A resident, Jody Stewart, criticized the timing and delivery of contracts to the board. “This is not being transparent with your community,” Stewart said during public comment, citing the late disclosure of competing documents and asking whether the higher-cost contract contained tasks that could lead to later change orders.

After further discussion about whether elements of the higher-cost scope could be cut or renegotiated, Commissioner Jeff moved to release the $50,000 to road projects and to revisit the IT assessment procurement after the new year. The motion was seconded and approved by the commission.

The board also approved a separate, noncontroversial item: renewal of the county’s Monday.com project-management license for $6,240 for the year, to continue use on county construction/project work.

The decision leaves the IT assessment procurement unresolved. Commissioners directed staff to revisit contracting options in January; staff noted the county has options to adjust contract scopes but emphasized that an executed contract was required before the deadline to retain ARPA funds.

The meeting record shows continued disagreement among commissioners about procurement practice and transparency when service agreements arrive close to meeting times. Commissioners and staff said they will reconvene on the IT matter after the holiday period and that any future contract would be evaluated against insurance requirements and the county’s needs.