Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Arpa Reallocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Marcos council directs staff to pursue ARPA reallocation for home-repair programs, requests more data
Summary
City staff told the council that roughly $320,000 in ARPA funds are available for reallocation; staff recommended $100,000 more each for Operation Triage and Mission Able and an extension for the ARPA consultant. Council signaled support but asked staff to return with recipient geography, selection criteria and final consultant costs before a vote.
San Marcos City Council members on March 3 reviewed the city’s remaining American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds and gave staff direction to prepare a formal reallocation to support existing, contractually obligated programs that help homeowners repair and preserve their homes.
City staff told the council they have spent or encumbered nearly all ARPA dollars and that unused balances total about $320,000. "We have spent almost 95% of the $18,000,000 the city received," said Hayden Meegle, director of administrative services, while outlining a staff proposal to move leftover dollars to already-obligated projects. Staff said ARPA funds must be obligated by Dec. 31, 2024 and spent by Dec. 31, 2026.
As presented, staff recommended moving $100,000 to Operation Triage and $100,000 to Mission Able to continue home-rehabilitation work; both organizations have provided home repairs and volunteer labor in recent years. Meegle also described a proposed additional year of contract services with Booth Management Consulting to complete closeout, compliance reviews and documentation for the city’s 78 ARPA projects.
Several council members said they supported the focus on owner-occupied home repairs but requested more information before formal approval. "For me to feel comfortable allocating money I need to see the deliverables — geographic distribution, selection criteria and the socioeconomic profile of recipients," said Council Member Garza. Council Member Gonzales urged staff to also consider other needs such as rental or utility assistance and food distribution programs, noting those programs generally serve more households per dollar.
Council asked staff to provide: a map of prior recipients and pending applicants; a description of each program’s selection process; the number of households served historically; and a finalized quote for the consultant contract. Staff said the detailed breakdown appears in the meeting packet and on the message board, and that they would include the requested data when the reallocation returns on a regular meeting agenda. Meegle said he is awaiting the consultant’s finalized quote and that staff may use CRF as needed to finalize the contract.
Public commenter Maxfield Baker urged clearer packet background information and asked whether council would consider waiving executive-session confidentiality in a separate matter; staff said the packet and message-board spreadsheet include the allocation and spending details and pledged fuller packet materials when the item is presented for a vote.
Next steps: council provided a preference for the staff-recommended reallocations and directed staff to return with the additional information and a resolution for formal consideration at a future regular meeting. No final vote on the reallocation occurred during the March 3 work session.
