Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
City staff outlines draft plan to allocate roughly $740,000 in CDBG funds; council debates small-grant burden
Loading...
Summary
City staff presented recommended allocations for about $740,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds, prioritizing affordable housing, public services and facilities. Council questioned reporting burdens for small providers and discussed using upcoming HUD overage or ARPA funds to adjust awards; final allocations will return July 7 for decision.
City staff presented a draft Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) action plan and recommended allocations for the 2026–27 program year during a public hearing on April 7. Carol Griffith, housing and community development manager, told the council the city budgeted the plan to the $740,000 amount shown on the posted agenda but that HUD subsequently announced an increased national allocation that will raise San Marcos’s total to roughly $774,000; staff asked council to provide direction based on the posted figure and said staff will publish a draft action plan and a separate staff proposal to allocate any overage for a 30‑day public comment period.
Griffith said HUD rules cap spending on public services at 15% and administration at 20%, leaving about $481,000 for projects from the $740,000 baseline. The staff review committee recommended a mix of short‑term and long‑term assistance: in the rental assistance category the committee recommended $25,000 to Blanco River Regional Recovery Team (BR3T) for case management, $15,000 to Hayes Caldwell Women’s Center for its SafeStart housing program and $5,000 for transitional housing tied to Hays County’s mental‑health court. For services targeting specific populations the committee recommended $23,000 for court‑appointed special advocates, $13,000 for Greater San Marcos Youth Council and $5,000 for Home Center; emergency assistance recommendations included $10,000 to Central Texas Food Bank and $15,000 to the local Salvation Army. For projects the committee recommended, among other items, $91,000 to Habitat for Humanity for housing repair and $75,000 to Combined Community Action for energy‑efficiency improvements. The committee also found one application (Cataboose Museum design work) ineligible because design‑only projects do not provide an immediate, direct benefit under CDBG rules.
Council members pressed staff about the scoring matrix, evidence of past program outcomes and whether the federal reporting burden makes small awards impractical. "We do ask them what their outcomes are, tell us about your cost effectiveness," Griffith said, adding that CDBG recipients file quarterly reports that include demographic data and program outcomes. Several council members suggested requiring standardized deliverables or key performance indicators in awards above a threshold while acknowledging that low‑dollar grants (for example, $5,000) may not be able to absorb robust post‑award surveys.
Council discussion also centered on whether some requests (for example, Home Center’s $35,000 ask, of which staff recommended $5,000) should instead come from the Human Services Advisory Board (HSAB) or be topped up with ARPA or the HUD overage. One council member suggested a strategy to direct federal, reporting‑heavy funds to larger, more administratively capable organizations and reserve HSAB dollars for smaller groups. Griffith and the city attorney cautioned about posting and timeline constraints: staff will publish the draft action plan now, solicit public comment, and return to council on July 7 with HSAB recommendations and a final allocation recommendation; the budget adoption in September will be the ultimate control on available dollars.
The hearing produced no final vote; staff will publish the recommended allocations and the staff overage proposal for public comment and return on July 7 for further action.
