Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disaster Recovery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pecost Water District updates on federal and state disaster funds; management-cost reimbursement unresolved
Summary
District staff reported recent federal and state disaster funding awards and grant applications tied to creek and bank restoration work, but said questions remain about reimbursable management costs and the timing of obligated funds.
At its June 23 meeting, the Pecost Water District reported progress on multiple federal and state disaster grant applications for bank restoration and storm‑damage repairs, while flagging uncertainty over whether the district will be reimbursed for management costs tied to those projects.
District staff told trustees that several projects are through the application or obligation stage and that portions of state and federal funds have been approved. Staff said some awards cover large infrastructure efforts and others are smaller, project‑level allocations. The district has submitted invoices and expects some reimbursements but said it is not yet certain which management‑level costs will be reimbursed by FEMA or state partners.
Why it matters: how management and administrative costs are handled will affect the district’s near‑term cash flow and how much of the work can move from planning into construction. Staff said the district may need to advance some costs pending final agency determinations.
Staff summary and numbers: District staff summarized several funding strands. They described an example project where federal/state funding and local shares interact and said the total available from different programs runs in the low millions across multiple awards; exact amounts and timing vary by program and remain in flux. Staff also described a separate, larger allocation—reported in discussion as roughly nine million dollars across related regional infrastructure awards—that could be leveraged for design and future work in the watershed. Staff cautioned trustees that some management‑cost line items submitted for reimbursement are processed differently by state agencies and FEMA and may be denied or only partially reimbursed.
On reimbursement timing, staff said only a portion of obligated funds have been paid to date and that the district does not know when additional payments will arrive. "We don't know when the rest [of the FEMA funds] will be obligated," a staff speaker said. The district plans to continue submitting invoices and working with county partners and state grant managers to clarify which costs are eligible.
County role and interagency agreements: staff said county public‑works involvement has been important to moving projects forward and that the district is exploring formal agreements with the county to clarify which entity will provide project management and which costs the county would absorb. Trustees discussed having county counsel or county staff formalize responsibilities in writing.
What remains open: staff said the district has not yet received final determinations on some management‑cost reimbursements and that trustees will be updated as agencies complete their reviews. No formal policy changes or budget reallocations were adopted at the meeting.
Ending: Staff recommended continuing to press for invoice processing while coordinating with county partners on a written management arrangement; trustees did not take formal action on management‑cost policy at this meeting.
