Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Road And Bridge Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Road and bridge report: Straws Mill funding unapproved; officials discuss resubmitting and duplicate grant projects
Summary
Road and bridge staff told commissioners that earlier community project funding for Straws Mill Road was not approved by Congress and discussed options to resubmit for future cycles; they also flagged a possible duplication between an SS4A application and a CDBG-MIT-funded Shoal Creek/Bald Knob project.
During the regular meeting, Coryell County road and bridge staff updated commissioners on surface projects and grant options, including community project funding for Straws Mill Road and possible duplication between an SS4A application and a CDBG-MIT award for Shoal Creek/ Bald Knob.
Road and bridge director Mister Latham told the court he had received a late Friday message from Congressman Carter's office indicating the county's earlier community project funding request for Straws Mill Road was not enacted by Congress. "This was what you'd selected as Straws Mill Road from a year ago, so that everybody's aware that [the funding bill] was not approved," Latham said. The office asked whether the county wanted to resubmit the same project for fiscal year 2026 or 2027.
Commissioners said they were comfortable with resubmitting the project in a future cycle and asked staff to proceed with a response to the congressman's office.
Latham also raised potential duplication between projects submitted to different grant programs. He said the Shoal Creek/Bald Knob project appeared in both an SS4A application and in a CDBG-MIT submission that recently received approval. "I don't need an answer right now, but I need to either, a, know that we're gonna drop that project from SS4A and just move forward with that application, or do we wanna substitute that in the SS4A grant application?" he said. Commissioners directed staff to evaluate whether to remove the duplicate from SS4A or substitute another project.
When asked about cost-share requirements for one of the grants, a county staff member replied, "It is, it's an 80/20 or 75/25. It's one of those. There is a cost match that goes along with that." The court said staff would review match requirements and follow up with the county's grant team.
Separately, county staff updated the court on other grant matters: the hazard mitigation plan reimbursement remains on the list until funding is returned from the Texas General Land Office (GLO); the county is awaiting assignment of a GLO project manager for the CDBG-MIT award; and county staff reported progress on DR-47.81 (disaster recovery) discussions intended to restore funding for emergency repairs.
No formal votes were taken on these grant-submission decisions; commissioners scheduled follow-up meetings with staff for project screening and to coordinate grant administration.
