Dickenson County board approves USDA flood‑cleanup agreement, contingent on attorney review
Loading...
Summary
The Dickenson County Board approved participation in a USDA Emergency Watershed Protection (EWPP) grant that identifies five cleanup sites. Approval is contingent on the county attorney’s written signoff; staff warned construction may require a 25% county cost share and that final site work will follow engineering estimates.
The Dickenson County Board of Supervisors voted to accept a USDA Emergency Watershed Protection Program (EWPP) grant agreement, approving board participation contingent on the county attorney’s written approval and assurances the county will be protected from cost overruns.
Staff member Mister Martin told the board he met with Kelly from the USDA, who explained USDA and partner agencies FEMA and BDM helped select five potential project sites. Martin said USDA will provide 100% funding for initial engineering and technical assistance — roughly $20,000 for engineering and $9,500 for technical assistance — so the county can get firm cost estimates before committing to construction work.
The vote followed questions from supervisors who said some selected sites appeared to favor particular districts. One board member argued Pine Creek has more residents affected and asked whether sites could be changed; Martin answered that engineering had not yet been completed and that USDA’s selection included sites coordinated with FEMA and BDM. Martin cautioned that if the grant funding does not cover all five sites after engineering estimates, the county could reduce the number of sites to four or three.
Martin provided the grant figures the board reviewed: $241,061.25 proposed for the on‑the‑ground work and $28,500 for technical and engineering support. He also said the construction component carries a 25% county cost share, which the county hopes to meet in part with in‑kind work and smaller in‑house tasks.
After discussion, a supervisor moved to approve the agreement with the condition that the county attorney see and approve written terms from USDA clarifying the county’s liability; another member seconded. The motion passed on the recorded voice vote. The board noted they would continue working with USDA and the county attorney before final commitments on construction.
The board’s action allows staff to move forward with the funded engineering work. If engineering estimates show the grant cannot cover all five sites, the county will narrow the scope and return to the board for further direction.
