Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disaster Recovery.contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carter County split over renewing disaster-recovery contractor amid questions about costs and reimbursements
Summary
Commissioners debated whether to renew an auto-renewing professional-services contract with Shouse LLC, the county's disaster-recovery consultant; supporters said Shouse brings FEMA/TEMA expertise needed to secure reimbursements, while skeptics asked for the total paid to date and alternatives.
Carter County commissioners held a protracted debate over whether to extend the county's contract with Shouse LLC, the firm handling disaster documentation and FEMA/TEMA submissions after recent storm damage.
The finance committee moved to allow the Shouse contract to automatically renew for an additional one-year term on the same terms and rates, with a 30-day termination clause. "If this does not pass, good luck," the finance committee chair said in urging continuation, arguing the vendor's expertise is essential for answering federal and state questions and preserving reimbursement eligibility.
Opponents pressed for more transparency on fees and performance. Several commissioners said other counties manage similar work without that contractor and asked staff to provide the total amount paid to Shouse to date. Finance staff later reported the county had paid $858,273.97 in total to date across vendors and projects related to disaster work (debris, roads, mitigation grants and other assistance) and said they would provide a vendor-total breakdown.
Supporters said Shouse has helped capture reimbursable items the county would otherwise miss, and that its staff have worked on-site with county departments to prepare paperwork and answer federal queries. "They pull my time," the finance director said, describing how consultant expertise helped identify reimbursable administrative costs and other eligible items.
Commissioners asked for a consolidated total of payments to Shouse prior to a final decision; multiple commissioners moved to delay a vote and request a report that lists the company's historical invoices. The meeting transcript shows extensive discussion and requests for follow-up; it does not record a final roll-call result on the renewal within the provided excerpt.
Next steps: commissioners directed staff to produce a total-paid report for Shouse and to provide that information for the commission's next meeting or a prompt special meeting so members can decide whether to authorize renewal.
