Carroll County commissioners discussed how to use $2,000,000 in congressional funding tied to a U.S. Department of Agriculture grant and asked staff for two design options for the county annex: one retaining a wing and one removing it.

The discussion mattered because USDA requires updated project budgets and written grant assurances before funds can be spent, and commissioners were clear that asbestos removal and other work tied to the USDA grant will need USDA sign-off before proceeding.

Executive Director Siemens told the board the county has received $2,000,000 through Sen. Shaheens office and that USDA requires an updated budget, project plan and the standard federal assurances before the grant moves forward. Siemens said commissioners must decide how much of the annex complex to renovate and what portions to remove or retain, and that the uncertainty over the final scope makes it hard to map the $2,000,000 to specific work.

Commissioner Parker pressed for clarity on which wings of the annex would be preserved. Commissioners debated options: some favored keeping the original yellow central section and the green entrance portion for storage and office use while demolishing one or both of the front wings. Commissioners and staff discussed space needs for county storage (bulk supplies, spare beds and medical equipment) if wings were removed and said that removing wings would require planning for replacement storage or a rebuilt facility.

The board discussed building systems and redundancy. Commissioner Parker and others reviewed the estate of pellet boilers installed years ago via a grant: the boilers were rarely used because propane has been cheaper in recent years; a full silo of pellets costs about $9,000. Some commissioners said keeping the pellet boilers as a redundant heat source was prudent; others favored removal, noting disposal would incur cost and likely scrap value would be small.

Commissioners noted an earlier Siemens plan estimated an approximately $8,000,000 project when first proposed; commissioners said the board now needed scaled options to match the $2,000,000 grant and any additional local or delegation-supplied funds. They cited prior demolition costs (about $350,000 for two wings roughly 12 years ago) and an annual maintenance/utility cost of about $40,000 for the unused wings when weighing demolition vs. retention.

Several commissioners said the county may not proceed with asbestos removal or substantive renovation tasks that would use USDA money until USDA signs off. Siemens said the county was able to perform routine roof repairs as regular maintenance, but asbestos abatement or other grant-funded demolitions would have to wait for USDA approval.

Commissioners asked staff (Melissa and other administrators) to return with two simple designs and a one-page outline: one plan keeping the wing and one plan removing it, including likely uses for retained space and a rough cost outline. The board set no formal vote; the matter was left for staff to bring back at a future meeting for further direction.

The board also asked staff to document which parts of the building are being used for bulk storage by multiple departments so the county can identify alternate storage if demolition proceeds.

An open question remained about the timetable: commissioners were told there is not an immediate USDA deadline but that the county should produce a concise plan so it can meet USDA requirements and accept the funds in a timely manner.

The boards discussion combined program-level direction (seek two design options) with technical clarifications about grant conditions and hazardous-material constraints; no formal appropriations or demolition contracts were approved at the meeting.

Ending: Commissioners directed staff to prepare the two schematic options and the brief written outline for review at a future meeting so the county can satisfy USDA requirements and decide whether to proceed with partial demolition, rehabilitation or a mixed approach.