Alex Sievers, the city's GrantWorks representative, briefed the La Marque City Council on Aug. 7 about four major grant-funded infrastructure projects and several closeout or billing issues the city needs to resolve.

Why it matters: the projects account for millions in state, federal and local money and several include city match commitments that the council and staff are still reconciling. Delays or mis‑applied match sources can affect grant compliance and whether work can proceed without additional city funds.

Sievers outlined the Wisteria drainage project (listed in project materials as C287) as largely complete and said closeout reporting is pending with the Texas General Land Office. He told council the grant end date shown in the grant paperwork is listed as "November 31" and that the city is working with the GLO on monitoring closeout steps.

He described the citywide manhole and sewer rehabilitation project (listed in materials as D208) as underway with a construction budget he said is "a little over $7,000,000." Sievers said the project has a documented city match of approximately $75,000 that has not yet been paid; he said that amount would be documented to the GLO as the city's match and would be routed to the construction contractor, Southern Trenchless Solutions.

On the lift stations and wastewater treatment plant expansion (D223), Sievers said the awarded project total is about $48,904,004 and that the city's match commitment is roughly $490,000 (about 10 percent). He said the city has not yet remitted that match and that staff are discussing ways to break the payment into installments. He also told the council that several lift stations are nearly complete and that the wastewater treatment plant contract had mobilized.

Alice Ashley of Provisions, the city's local grants consultant, said the Westlawn TDA project (CDV23‑0327) — a storm‑sewer and culvert installation — has a $500,000 TDA award and a local match of $75,000. Ashley said construction is essentially complete but the city has not yet billed TDA because federal single‑audit paperwork (the FY24 single audit) has not yet been accepted in the federal clearinghouse; until that audit is in place the city cannot submit bills for reimbursement.

City manager Holly (first name only in the record) and finance staff also told council the city was awarded about $4.4 million in ARPA funds and that ARPA allocations must be executed by December 2026; Holly said staff are tracking ARPA items and trying to avoid double‑counting matches or using ARPA funds where grant rules forbid it.

Several council members and staff raised an outstanding difficulty: the same match lines appear in different internal documents as coming from different sources, often appearing on earlier spreadsheets as ARPA and in later ones as the 2020 CO bond. Finance staff (listed in the meeting as "Nance") told council the 2020 CO bond remaining balance shown in the budget book was $2,325,978.48 and that the total 2020 CO bond amount is listed in the bond documents as $18,750,000. Both Ashley and Sievers told the council that past administrations often reallocated ARPA designations while pursuing other grant funding, which has left some project sheets inconsistent.

Council members asked staff to reconcile where each required city match will be paid from (ARPA, CO bond 2020, utility/stormwater funds or other) before contract change orders are approved. Sievers said there will be a change‑order item related to D208 on the next regular meeting agenda to move funds within an existing construction contract; the change order will not require new city funds but will reallocate work within the contractor's scope.

What's next: staff said they will (a) deliver a clearer, monthly presentation to council showing each grant's original award, the city's remaining match and the funding source; (b) work with the GLO and TDA to finalize outstanding closeouts and billing steps; and (c) confirm in writing which matches the city is committed to and the intended funding source so council can consider any required budget adjustments.

Ending: Council members asked that GrantWorks and the city's grant consultant return to a future meeting with a concise list of each project (award, contractor, remaining city match and proposed funding source) so the council could vote or provide direction on outstanding commitments.