Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disaster Recovery Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Liberty County approves solicitations to chase GLO disaster‑recovery grants, selects evaluators
Summary
At a March 4 special meeting, the Liberty County Commissioners Court approved soliciting RFP 2604 and RFQ 2605 to pursue General Land Office disaster‑recovery funds (awards roughly $500,000–$5 million) and named a three‑member evaluator team; the votes were unanimous (3‑0).
The Liberty County Commissioners Court on March 4 voted unanimously to solicit proposals and qualifications to help the county pursue General Land Office (GLO) disaster‑recovery funding. The court approved RFP 2604 for grant administration services and RFQ 2605 for engineering services and selected a three‑member evaluator team to review submissions.
Commissioner Bruce moved to approve the RFP for grant administration services and Commissioner Gerald seconded; the motion passed by voice vote. The court then approved the RFQ for engineering services with the same mover and seconder. The court recorded three affirmative votes on both motions.
County staff and a presenter identified as Brian told the court Liberty County scored highly among roughly 750 applicants and is “way up there,” putting the county in a favorable position to secure awards in the current phase, which staff characterized as roughly $500,000 to $5 million per award. Staff said about $97 million had been set aside for the program overall and described a process in which the county could submit an initial application and, if funds remain, apply again.
Staff clarified a 5% local match is expected to make an application competitive; presenters and commissioners said that match can be planned into a future fiscal year rather than paid immediately. Officials also said they intend to prioritize a project in Precinct 4 using existing hydrology data from prior GLO work, but emphasized the timeline is tight and approvals were needed now so staff could publish the solicitations and prepare applications.
The court discussed who should serve as evaluators; the panel ultimately named county staff and officials including Harold (staff), a representative of the county attorney's office, and the county emergency manager. Commissioners noted an odd number of evaluators helps avoid tie scores.
Next procedural steps noted by staff included publishing the solicitations in the local newspaper and returning to the court on March 23 with any necessary follow‑up or contract actions. The court did not specify award amounts or individual project selections at the meeting.
