Council members press administration for clarity after ARP payout list leaves some employees unpaid

Council members and residents pressed for clarity on how the city’s ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) premium-pay distributions were assembled after a packet listing recipients and non-recipients prompted questions about who was eligible and why some workers were paid while others were not.

At the meeting, multiple speakers said the administration — not the council — selected the people who ultimately received payments. “It was up to the administration to determine the ones that was gonna get paid,” a speaker told the council, describing the list as prepared by the mayor’s office and the administration.

Why it matters: The council asked for an accounting because payments were made before some members said they had seen or approved the lists, and residents said people who worked during the ARP-eligible period were omitted. Council members voiced concern that paying some employees and not others could create legal and budgetary problems and asked staff and legal counsel to clarify what rules and timelines governed the payments.

City Attorney Attorney Jones told the council he supplied the ARP rules when asked but did not pick recipients: “I did not have a seat at the table in that decision. I don't make those decisions,” he said, adding that his role was to advise on what ARP rules allowed. Council members and residents repeatedly asked for documentation showing the administration’s eligibility criteria and any approval votes or minutes that led to the payouts.

Several current and former employees and residents spoke during public comment. One resident, Carolyn Harris, said she had been employed by the city during the relevant timeframe and expected to be included in the distribution. Other commenters said they saw inconsistencies in the list of paid and unpaid employees.

Council direction and next steps: A motion was proposed that a council member work with the mayor and administration to “narrow down these names” and return to the council with a full accounting and recommendations about funding sources for any additional payments. The motion was made on the record; the transcript records the motion being moved but does not record a formal recorded vote or tally. The council also discussed whether funds that were obligated after the ARP obligation deadline could be reallocated; Attorney Jones and staff advised that funds obligated under ARP by the federal deadline cannot be reallocated without federal approval and that any additional payouts likely would have to come from the city’s general fund, which would require later council action.

What council members emphasized: Council members repeatedly stressed fairness and transparency. Several asked that Laura Hart, the CPA who prepared the ARP computations and who appears in the meeting packet, be asked to return to explain how she compiled lists and figures. Council members also expressed a preference to reconcile the list before authorizing payments from non-ARPA sources.

Evidence and provenance: The council packet included a letter from Laura Hart that was discussed at the meeting. Attorney Jones summarized the legal framework for ARP premium-pay and described the limits on un-obligating funds after the federal obligation deadline.

Ending: The council asked administration and legal counsel to provide documentation of the eligibility rules and the timeline of actions; council members said they would reconvene on the matter when the mayor’s office and staff return the requested materials. The meeting record includes motions to have a council member work with the mayor and administration to reconcile recipients and to report back to the council; the transcript does not show a recorded roll-call vote on those specific motions.