Fulton County fiscal court moves insurance and FEMA funds into dedicated accounts, approves policy updates and disaster grants

Fulton County fiscal court members approved a series of finance and policy actions that move insurance proceeds and FEMA funds into dedicated accounts for fire-rescue projects, revise local procurement and drug policies, and accept federal disaster recovery dollars and related contractor arrangements.

Court members voted to create a satellite-building bank account inside the Fire and Rescue fund and to set aside insurance proceeds in a separate “future projects” account before any obligations are made. The court also authorized a $2,200.20 transfer back to the general fund to reimburse a vehicle claim that was included in an insurance settlement. In a separate vote the court dissolved a “safe operating” account and moved its balance into the sinking (debt-service) fund for the county’s state loan obligation.

The moves follow an extended discussion of insurance and grant proceeds tied to a damaged building and related satellite-building projects. Meeting materials and the court’s summary identified the insurance deposits and other receipts for the rebuilding account as: $343,005.26 (initial insurance check), $390,760.49, $55,041.45, and $73,545.83. The presenter told the court an additional roughly $50,000–$60,000 may be withheld by the insurer because the county exceeded a contractor start-time window; the county has requested an extension and noted it has been waiting about 15–16 months for a state building permit. The court’s motion does not obligate the funds for construction now; members said they intend to preserve the funds and revisit spending decisions after further planning and, where required, any waiver or approval from state grantors.

The court approved using FEMA funds and the earnings on those funds to seed a satellite-building account, estimating the FEMA package plus interest could grow to more than $415,000 on the schedule presented. Separately, the court’s proposed “future projects” account would hold the insurance proceeds plus interest (minus the $2,200.20 general-fund claim) to be available for future county projects tied to the damaged facility or related needs.

Members discussed ongoing quarterly payments into a state loan sinking fund tied to prior borrowing. The court heard a staff explanation of how the sinking fund and the satellite accounts will be tracked through separate bank accounts embedded in the county’s existing fund structure so audits and reconciliations show each fund’s beginning and ending bank balances.

On county administrative policy, the court approved two changes to its administrative code. Resolution 25-3 replaces the existing drug policy contained in chapter 5 (section cited in meeting comments as 5.4.5.5) with a new policy; the presenter said the rewrite includes language about an employee-assistance program and noted the county will confirm referral details and training modules before the policy is implemented. Resolution 25-2 replaces the county’s procurement policy (chapter 9) and increases the small-purchase threshold from $20,000 to $30,000; staff described the change as aligning county purchasing thresholds with state guidance and as an attempt to reduce administrative burden while preserving paperwork needed for audits.

The court also approved acceptance of Community Development Block Grant–Disaster Recovery money and related implementation steps. The county had applied for $5,000,000 and received an initial award of $2,000,000; the court authorized entering agreements that would make the county the recipient and Community Ventures the implementing contractor for homeowner-focused recovery work. The court adopted a series of related resolutions (numbered in meeting materials as 25-4 through 25-8) to accept the CDBG-DR award, authorize the contractor relationship, and adopt related fair-housing and program rules outlined in the grant documents.

Court members authorized staff to apply for state bridge-replacement funding for two locally owned bridges identified as Saw Mill Road and Cross Mill Road after a district engineer told the county the piers supporting those spans are deteriorated and would likely require full replacement.

Other routine actions included approval of purchase specifications and authorization to advertise for bids for copiers and conference equipment, approval of several transfers and the monthly bills and treasurer’s report, and appointment of Garrett Hutchins to the listed board vacancy.

Votes at a glance - Creation of satellite building account inside Fire & Rescue fund (motion approved by voice vote). - Move insurance proceeds into a “future projects” account (insurance proceeds plus interest, minus $2,200.20) inside Fire & Rescue fund (motion approved by voice vote). - Transfer $2,200.20 to the general fund for a vehicle claim included in the insurance settlement (motion approved by voice vote). - Dissolve the safe operating account and transfer its balance into the sinking fund (motion approved by voice vote). - Resolution 25-3: adopt new county drug policy replacing existing chapter 5 policy (motion approved by voice vote). - Resolution 25-2: adopt revised procurement policy (raises small-purchase threshold to $30,000) (motion approved by voice vote). - Authorize filing for state bridge-replacement grant for Saw Mill Road and Cross Mill Road (motion approved by voice vote). - Adopt CDBG-DR related resolutions (25-4 through 25-8) to accept funds and authorize contractor arrangements with Community Ventures (motions approved by voice vote). - Approve purchase specifications and advertise for bids for copiers/conference units (motion approved by voice vote). - Appointment of Garrett Hutchins to the listed board vacancy (motion approved by voice vote).

What court members said and next steps Court members emphasized that the approved fund moves are bookkeeping and safeguarding actions, not immediate construction authorizations. Staff were directed to continue pursuing the state building permit, seek any necessary waivers for FEMA or other grant conditions before obligating funds for construction, and return to the court with specific contract documents and a spending plan before any major expenditures. Staff also said they will provide the court with updated administrative-code pages reflecting the procurement and drug-policy rewrites for insertion into the county code book.

The meeting record shows the votes were taken by voice; the minutes record “aye” with no roll-call tallies recorded in the transcript excerpt.