Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Federal Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee seeks clarity from Army Corps on validation study, cost-share and county-funded match
Summary
Staff told the committee the Design Agreement (DA) executed Nov. 8, 2004 specifies a 75% federal / 25% non-federal cost share; Army Corps indicated it cannot return county funds used to match Corps expenditures. Members asked for in-person meetings with Army Corps leadership and requested letters of support from DWR and congressional liaison.
Michael Bedar summarized recent correspondence from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and reminded members of the project's Design Agreement, saying "The DA stipulates a 75% federal 25% non-federal cost share split for this phase of the project." He told the committee that the Corps "will not be able to return these funds" the county provided to match Corps expenditures because those funds have been applied against Corps-matched expenditures.
Supervisor Sabatier emphasized county investment: "Congressman Thompson gave $750,000 and we also put aside $800,000." Committee members urged ongoing communication with Congressman Thompson and asked staff to pursue in-person meetings with Army Corps district leadership. Dr. Harry Lyons and others differentiated the validation study from the main design work, noting the design is estimated at $3.2 million and that the validation phase covers outstanding feasibility items; members asked staff to clarify which costs in the Corps correspondence refer to remaining design work versus the validation study.
Elizabeth Bryson said she did not object to requesting DWR letters of support and encouraged that requests include detailed background history of the project. The committee directed staff to pursue clearer accounting of outstanding project phases, to seek support letters, and to continue outreach to federal partners to protect the county's investment and progress in the validation study.
