Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contracts Fema Project Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carter County officials review proposed consultant contract to manage FEMA project filings
Summary
Carter County workshop participants discussed separating local FEMA project submissions from county processes and reviewed recommended changes to a proposed contract with a consultant identified as Shouse, including termination, billing and travel clauses. No formal vote was taken.
At a Carter County workshop, Dr. Carpenter, a Carter County official, outlined a plan to separate the county’s FEMA projects from broader county processes and discussed a proposed contract with a consultant or firm identified in the transcript as “Shouse.” The board did not take a vote on the contract at the meeting.
The proposal would create a distinct contract for handling FEMA submittals and oversight, which Dr. Carpenter said was intended to “straight line the process and make things clear.” He said the consultant has requested the county sign a contract and that legal review is underway: “I still have a contract to Mister Bennett and let him look through it,” Carpenter said.
Carpenter described several recommended revisions suggested during review. He said an auto-renewal clause after 2025 should be removed and that the contract term could be limited to one year if the board prefers. He also noted a recommended change to travel-expense language so that out-of-state travel would not be automatically reimbursed without prior approval. Another recommended safeguard would require the consultant to provide documentation supporting hourly charges and to prohibit double-billing for work rendered by more than one Shouse employee. Carpenter said a 30-day termination clause is included in the draft.
No formal motion or vote on the contract occurred at the meeting. Carpenter said he planned to meet with the consultant the following day and to circulate a revised contract to the board “2 or 3 days before” any decision so members could review it. He told the board that if the consultant does not accept requested edits, the board could either negotiate further or decline to proceed.
Carpenter framed the rationale as a practical measure to avoid mistakes that could cost the county access to FEMA funds: “I do think that we need somebody…to make sure that we are kind of transparent politically because you don't want to miss out on a huge chunk of money because I made an error or a man that made work just sent me again.”
Carpenter also said separating FEMA project work from other county filings could increase the number of discrete project submissions the consultant handles — he estimated more projects for the county and school system would make processing easier — and emphasized the board could still decline the contract after review.
Looking ahead, Carpenter said the consultant could attend a future meeting to answer questions. The meeting closed the contract discussion with no action taken and a plan to bring a revised draft back to the board for further review.
The discussion focused on contract terms and procedural oversight; no binding decisions were adopted, and no vote tallies were recorded.
