Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dixie Fire Recovery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plumas County outlines nearly $30 million in post-Dixie Fire grants, housing and infrastructure investments
Summary
County administrative staff told supervisors the county has directed roughly $3 million to businesses and about $26 million to housing and infrastructure through ARPA, state recovery grants, PG&E/insurance settlements and other programs, and proposed steps to prioritize remaining settlement funds.
Plumas County administrative staff on Jan. 21 presented a multi-hour briefing cataloging recovery work since the Dixie Fire, including direct grants, housing programs, and settlement funds available for long-term rebuilding.
The presentation grouped investments into three types: (1) direct funds to businesses and nonprofits (ARPA business grants, micro-enterprise recovery grants), (2) additional state and federal partner support (Recover California grants and CDBG disaster recovery programs), and (3) longer-term investments and planning (housing studies, energy resilience projects, broadband infrastructure, and economic development coordination).
Tracy Ferguson, the county planning director, highlighted the state-administered Recover California program, which can provide up to $500,000 per household for rebuilding and up to $75,000 for fire mitigation measures; Ferguson said the county has been able to adjust income limits to assist more households in need.
Staff summarized recent awards and obligations: ARPA business grants ($540,000), a micro-enterprise recovery grant pool (~$409,462), a 2021 Dixie Fire business recovery grant (up to $567,500) and library/digital-equity investments. When combined with housing and infrastructure commitments, staff said roughly $29 million has been allocated or obligated across multiple programs and funding streams when factoring in auction proceeds and settlements.
Officials reviewed settlement balances: PG&E settlement funds were described as $10.9 million (with some restricted portions) and the county's insurance settlement figures were updated in remarks by the auditor-controller. Staff also noted outstanding restricted amounts that must be routed to state or federal partners (CalOES, FEMA) and said a formal policy for prioritizing settlement dollars has not yet been adopted by the board.
“Recovery includes both meeting immediate needs and planning for the long term,” the CAO's presentation said, pointing to ongoing projects such as the Greenville Safety Center (a proposed $1.5M allocation) and a proposed down-payment assistance program discussed later in the meeting.
Board members and the public asked detailed questions about fund balances, restricted amounts, interest earned on settlement accounts and the mechanics of grant stacking. Supervisors said they want a clear prioritization process for settlement funds and recommended discussing prioritization during the midyear budget workshop.
What happens next: Staff will bring more detailed accounting of restricted funds, transfers to state/federal partners and recommended priorities to upcoming budget and workshop sessions so the board can adopt a formal policy for allocating recovery settlements.
