May 25, 2022 Hood County Special Called Workshop ARPA Update

Open with transcript & summary →Search this meeting's transcript →

Hood County held a special called workshop on May 25, 2022, to review the status of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds totaling approximately $5.986 million, with discussion covering completed expenditures, the radio system project budget approaching $3 million, and compliance challenges with emergency management plans. The workshop addressed grant funding opportunities and capacity constraints, including a proposal to establish volunteer committees of retired professionals to assist with grant writing, while acknowledging the county's existing portfolio of grants and the need for dedicated grant management staffing. Discussion also covered ARPA-specific requirements including federal revenue replacement rules, spending categories, and the anticipated arrival of the second funding tranche, as well as regional infrastructure needs such as wastewater systems and water planning. Leadership indicated that no immediate allocation decisions would be made and that multiple public input sessions and meetings would be required before final ARPA fund distribution.

• Call to order and opening remarksThe special workshop was called to order with an opening prayer before discussing ARPA funds.
• ARPA funds expenditure status and radio system budgetCounty staff presented completed expenditures and authorized purchases totaling nearly the full $5.986 million ARPA allocation, with radio project costs approaching $3 million of the budgeted $3.5 million.
• Public comment on grant funding and other people's money (OPM)A citizen raised concerns about the county's historical practice of using taxpayer funds rather than exploring available grants, mutual aid agreements, and other funding sources before spending county money.
• Grant process and timeline discussionDiscussion clarified grant-writing process requirements, timelines, and the importance of advance preparation before RFP announcements.
• Grant writer hiring and internal resourcesCounty staff clarified that a grant writer has not been hired; an emergency management planner was brought in for compliance work, and discussion centered on exploring free local resources.
• Emergency management plan compliance issuesCounty staff outlined extensive compliance challenges with outdated emergency management plans requiring comprehensive rewrites to meet state and FEMA requirements.
• Mutual aid agreements and resource limitationsCounty staff discussed limitations of mutual aid agreements when neighboring jurisdictions face simultaneous emergencies and the need for self-sufficiency in emergency response.
• State relationships and resource availability for emergency responseEmergency resources secured through state relationships are temporary and shift when larger incidents occur elsewhere.
• Grant identification and application bandwidth constraintsA list of nearly 300 potential grants exists but the county office lacks bandwidth to research and pursue them.
• Utilizing citizen committees and volunteer grant writersProposal to establish volunteer committees of retired professionals to review and write grants without county staff burden.
• Grants already held: compliance burden and hidden costsCounty already manages several grants with significant administrative burden that often exceeds financial benefit.
• Current county grants and existing funding streamsCounty already receives substantial funding through adult probation, juvenile probation, and other state-supported programs.
• Dedicated grant management staffing needsCounty needs a dedicated staff member to manage grant compliance and reporting, separate from grant writing.
• University and institutional grant writing resourcesLocal universities offer grant writing resources through student interns and faculty that have been underutilized or declined.
• Bookmobile capital outlay and project statusBookmobile project required $82,000 down payment with remaining $287,000 due on delivery, plus additional funds allocated for books and interior equipment.
• ARPA budget independence from regular operationsARPA rescue funds keep county 2022 budget separate and intact; only future Jay salary and secretary salary require regular budget adjustment.
• Second ARPA tranche receipt timeline and banking processSecond tranche estimated to arrive 12 months after first check (June 10-15), requiring system verification and banking information re-entry.
• Revenue replacement standard deduction rules and strategyFederal treasury introduced a $10 million standard deduction allowing counties to claim lost revenue without proving actual losses.
• April 1 guidance changes and instructional video complianceNew instruction book released April 1 requiring rapid relearning within 30-day reporting period; instructional video emphasized standard deduction deadline.
• Standard deduction selection and compliance approachChose standard deduction button before deadline; first tranche spending follows old guidelines while new tranche allows more flexibility.
• Treasury priorities and county spending approachFederal treasury encourages three spending categories: workforce expansion, affordable housing access, and community safety.
• ARPA flexibility and first responder categoryThe ARPA funds allow greater flexibility within the first responder category, though federal guidance encourages staying within the original intent.
• Revenue replacement category and system lock-downThe second ARPA check of approximately $6 million was accepted and placed in a revenue replacement category, locking the system until the next reporting period.
• Hamilton County cautionary exampleA neighboring county that declined its ARPA funding now faces costs it could have avoided with federal dollars.
• Water infrastructure and regional/area-wide systemsHood County has spent millions on water planning studies since the 1990s but lacks a regional wastewater system despite clear need.
• TCEQ permit hearing and OPEC decisionThe Office of Public Interest Counsel (OPEC) at TCEQ sided with protestants against the city's proposed wastewater discharge permit in an unprecedented outcome.
• Granberry growth projections and infrastructure needsEconomic analysis shows Granberry growth is accelerating to seven percent annually, comparable to historic Plano and Frisco growth patterns.
• Community opposition and petitionOver 1,000 residents opposed the city's proposed sewer plan with unprecedented participation in the TCEQ process.
• Public participation challenges and meeting accessibilityCitizens lack awareness of meetings due to limited digital access and daytime scheduling that conflicts with working hours.
• Onsite sewage and population density regulationsHood County regulations requiring onsite sewage systems limit population density and prevent low-income apartment sprawl.
• Beneficial reuse water and alternative funding modelsCities across Texas use treated wastewater for non-potable purposes and sell beneficial reuse water to farmers, creating revenue and reducing strain on drinking water.
• Short-term rental fee proposalA proposed housing development in Granberry will operate as short-term rentals only, creating county burden; other jurisdictions impose fees on VRBOs.
• Federal spending deadlines and project phasingARPA funds have two key deadlines and can be spent in phases rather than as complete projects.
• Charitable organization funding formatThe commissioners' court has not yet decided the format, selection criteria, or vetting process for distributing ARPA funds to charitable organizations.
• Prioritization rubric and veteran bonus pointsDiscussion addressed the need for a formal scoring system to avoid arbitrary decision-making in project prioritization.
• Bridge project proposal behind dead gum damA bridge project was proposed as an infrastructure solution to alleviate traffic congestion south of 377 on the west side.
• Point system methodology for project evaluationThe group discussed establishing a numerical scoring framework based on defined priority criteria for ARPA fund allocation.
• Decision timeline and public input processLeadership clarified that no immediate decision will be made, and multiple meetings and public input sessions are required before funding allocation.
• Public survey recommendation for input gatheringA participant suggested conducting a county-wide public survey to identify priorities and projects not yet discussed by leadership.
• Adjournment and next meeting announcementThe meeting was adjourned with announcement of a separate afternoon workshop on Tyler Odyssey software.