Benton County supervisors send proposed safety footwear, eyewear policy back to safety committee for revision

Benton County supervisors discussed a proposed countywide policy on protective footwear and prescription safety eyewear and directed the county safety committee to revise the draft and return with a refined proposal.

The discussion focused on where to set minimum technical standards and whether the county should partially reimburse employees for safety footwear. Ray (staff member), who drafted the policy language, described a starting point for definitions and reimbursement procedures and said the draft was intended as “a starting point, a talking point.” Dan Meyer (staff member) and Myron (staff member) urged using specific technical standards — in particular ASTM F2413 (often cited as F2413-18) — rather than broad language such as “leather or comparable material.” Dan Meyer also recommended changing references from “steel toe” to the broader term “safety toe” to allow composite or aluminum toe options.

“My recommendation is safety toe,” Dan Meyer said, adding that choosing the ASTM standard would open a wider variety of footwear styles that meet puncture resistance, slip resistance and impact/compression ratings.

Members discussed potential reimbursement amounts and whether the county should require footwear for all employees or limit requirements to field and heavy-equipment staff. Board members and staff mentioned examples from other counties; suggested annual allowances ranged in discussion from about $110 to $175 per year, with one county’s policy noted at $300. Several members said OSHA does not mandate specific footwear but relies on hazard assessment and the agency can cite an employer under the general duty clause if a recognized hazard is not addressed.

Supervisors and staff agreed that the draft needs additional work: clarifying which employee groups are covered (for example, excluding purely office staff), specifying the ASTM performance levels desired (participants suggested impact/compression rating 75 as an upper-spec option), establishing procedures for receipts and recordkeeping, and setting a reimbursement maximum. The board directed the safety committee to refine the policy language, work with department heads (including Secondary Roads and Conservation), and return with a revised draft for future consideration; no formal policy vote was taken.

Quotations used in this story come from speakers in the meeting transcript and are attributed to those individuals as identified during the discussion.

The safety committee will meet with Shelby (staff member), Myron and department heads to produce a revised draft that includes explicit ASTM references, determines reimbursement caps, and lays out recordkeeping procedures for issued and reimbursed safety equipment.