Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Senior Center Rehabilitation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Marshall County court commits up to $484,649 as potential match for senior center rehab grant

Marshall County Fiscal Court · August 20, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Marshall County Fiscal Court voted Aug. 19 to pledge up to $484,649 from excess occupational‑tax interest to cover any gap if CDBG and state funds fall short for a senior center rehabilitation project; the PAD office said the CDBG application is due Sept. 2.

The Marshall County Fiscal Court voted Aug. 19 to commit up to $484,649 from excess occupational‑tax interest carryover as a potential county match or gap for a planned rehabilitation of the county senior center.

Kyle Rogers of the PAD office told the court the county has prepared a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application “ready to be sent in,” adding the application is due Sept. 2. Urban Fabric’s engineer estimate put the project between $1,085,000 and $1,419,649; Rogers said if outside grant or state budget support does not cover the full cost, the county’s maximum potential exposure would be $484,649.

Judge’s designee Speaker 1 asked for a motion to authorize the funding; Speaker 9 moved the measure, it was seconded and carried by voice vote.

Rogers said state legislators (Sen. Carroll and Rep. Freeland) had been given a letter from the court seeking additional state budget support, but he cautioned that neither state funds nor the CDBG award are guaranteed and that CDBG timing varies. “CDBG I would expect to hear something by the end of the year, if not the first of the year,” Rogers said.

Court members discussed procurement timing and said formal bids for construction would follow any award. The court identified the occupational‑tax interest carryover as the likely funding source and noted a budget amendment would be required to appropriate the funds if the grant is awarded and the court proceeds.

The court’s formal vote to approve the county commitment was recorded as a voice vote with “Motion carries.”