Matt, representing public works, told the commission that project 679955 covers repair of three bridge abutments damaged in the 2022 flood and that FEMA reimbursement would not cover repairs for all three bridges. "FEMA is only reverting reimbursing us a certain amount, and that won't cover the repairs for all 3 bridges," he said, and described two options: pursue an alternate project and accept partial reimbursement for work already done or complete all repairs and pay roughly $50,000 more than FEMA has allocated.

Public commenter Anne Hallowell questioned the public-works executive summary and asked why documents list $71,704 as both spent and unbudgeted. She asked whether $79,699 was a 2025 or 2026 expense, raised concerns about deficit fund balances in public works and urged the commission to pause contract and payment authority for the public works director until questions are answered.

Other public commenters and commissioners discussed inflation, staffing and the risks of leaving repairs incomplete. One commissioner said that taking the alternate project would limit county exposure to about $54,000 instead of roughly $71,000, and moved to apply for the alternate project; that motion was not seconded. A later motion to apply for the alternate project was made and, when no second was offered, failed.

Why it matters: If the county abandons the bridge project, public commenters warned it would leave partially completed work and could forfeit funds already spent. Public works said FEMA funds require project completion for reimbursement and that engineering and contractor scheduling affects timeline; the county was advised it had until mid-June of next year to complete the work.

Outcome: The commission did not approve applying for an alternate project; no contract authority change was recorded in the transcript. Public commenters raised concerns about project reporting and budgetary transparency that were left unresolved in the meeting record.