Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure And Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Finney County commission approves MOUs, bids and service agreements in routine business session
Summary
The Finney County commission unanimously approved an MOU extension for Empirical Foods, an updated juvenile-detention placement agreement with Reno County, two public-works bids for the 2025 chip-seal program, and a staffing-analysis contract with consulting firm Raftelis.
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure And Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Finney County commissioners on a series of motions during their regular meeting approved an extension of a memorandum of understanding for Empirical Foods, accepted bids for the county’s 2025 chip‑sealing program and CMA material, authorized an updated juvenile-detention placement agreement with Reno County, and approved a $79,750 contract for an organizational staffing analysis with consulting firm Raftelis.
Empirical Foods MOU: Lana Duvall, president and CEO of the county’s economic development office, asked the commission to extend a previously agreed memorandum of understanding to give Empirical Foods additional time to complete its manufacturing facility. Duvall said the county appraiser estimates the manufacturing facility is about 90% complete and ancillary buildings are similarly close. The commission moved, seconded and approved the extension of the project MOU to Empirical Foods; no member recorded a dissent on the record.
Juvenile placement agreement: Sheriff Steve Martinez presented an updated intergovernmental agreement with Reno County that sets the county’s rate for placing juveniles at Reno County’s detention facility at $165 per day. Martinez said the amount is an update to a 2015 agreement and recommended the commission approve the contract and authorize the chair to sign. Commissioners approved the recommendation.
Public-works bids: Right-of-way supervisor Larry Brungard briefed the commission on two procurement actions for the 2025 chip-seal program. The public-works department had advertised two separate bids: one for CMA (chip matrix asphalt) material and one for chip-seal contract work. Bids received included Huber Sand at $156,825 for 7,650 tons of CMA material and another bid from Clot Sand Incorporated at $236,867.80 for the same quantity. For chip-seal work, B and H Paving submitted a bid of $892,819.56 to chip-seal about 45 miles of county roads. The commission accepted Huber Sand’s CMA bid and B and H Paving’s chip-seal bid. Brungard said the fiscal impact will draw $600,000 from the road-and-bridge budget and $449,644.56 from special highway reserves.
Staffing analysis contract: Interim county administrator Gary Meager reviewed a request-for-qualifications (RFQ) process that produced a single proposal from consulting firm Raftelis to perform a staffing analysis and organizational review. The review committee recommended accepting Raftelis’ proposal for $79,750, to be paid from the general fund, with the contract subject to county counselor review. Commissioners moved, seconded and approved the contract.
Why it matters: The actions keep infrastructure maintenance, economic-development incentives and county operations on schedule. The chip-seal contracts fund preservation work on about 45 miles of county roads; the juvenile-placement agreement ensures an updated out-of-county placement rate is in place if the regional facility is full; the MOU extension keeps an economic development project on track for tax-roll consideration; the Raftelis contract begins a review intended to inform staffing and budget decisions.
Details: The juvenile-placement rate was presented as $165 per day for contract counties; the county indicated it charges $250 per day for non-contracting counties. The chip‑seal package covers 45 miles and includes separate funding lines and reserves to preserve roads that missed planned mill-and-overlay work because of budget cuts.
All motions were made and carried by voice vote; individual roll-call tallies were not specified in the meeting record.

