FEMA denies $751,645 for DD4 repairs, Kossuth County schedules meeting as consultant offers document review

Kossuth County supervisors spent an extended portion of the meeting on Drainage District 4 after landowners requested access to documents related to FEMA-funded repairs. Consultant Leon Freeman joined the meeting by phone to explain FEMA's determination and to discuss what records he can provide.

Freeman summarized the issue: FEMA obligated roughly $1,267,000 for the work but the project closed at about $1,982,000, and FEMA denied an amount Freeman cited as approximately $751,645 because it could not trace where the additional quantities — particularly earth-moving quantities — were applied. "You went way outside the scope of work. Most of it being on DD4," Freeman said, adding later, "they just went general. We're just taking the whole damn thing." Freeman emphasized the county has an active appeal and that the denied amount could change as the appeal progresses.

Board members asked whether Freeman held documents that the auditor's office did not. Freeman said most records routed through the drainage clerk and the auditor and that he has emailed damage inventory (DI) line items and other files to county staff; he identified three DI items that were never completed and removed from the record (roughly $32,500). Freeman offered to forward the FEMA determination memo and the DI lists and said he could prepare an Excel spreadsheet that breaks down the loss, engineering differences and how DI items contributed to the denial to help landowners and supervisors understand the determination.

Supervisors raised concerns about the sheer volume of underlying paperwork and about the time and potential cost of duplicating hundreds of documents. Several board members suggested a targeted approach: landowners should list specific documents they believe are missing so staff or Freeman can retrieve only the requested items. Others asked whether the auditor's office already has the requested material and recommended coordination between Freeman and the auditor to avoid duplicated effort.

Freeman offered to meet in person without billing to review files and proposed that the board add the matter to a future agenda. "I can break it down to the point where I think it would be in a scenario of the losses with engineering and the difference between what was approved and what we actually spent," Freeman said. The board agreed to schedule a meeting where Freeman, county staff, and concerned landowners can review available records and identify any remaining gaps.

No final determination on document release was made at the meeting; board members asked staff to coordinate the agenda and to consider a narrowly targeted document request process to limit cost and effort.