Yes!

The Interim Final Ruling, also includes behavioral health care as an eligible expense under the “addressing the public health impact” category: “…new or enhanced…local…services may be needed to meet behavioral health needs exacerbated by the pandemic…these services include mental health treatment…other behavioral health services…crisis intervention…and services or outreach to promote access to physical or behavioral health primary care and preventative medicine.”  (see page 26791 of the Interim Final Ruling here).

In November, the IRS released new FAQs related to the taxability of uses of ARP Recovery Funds — specifically related to direct cash assistance and premium pay.

Key highlights of the guidance include:

• Premium pay must be included in gross income as compensation for services. This includes an employee of a state/local government AND an individual that received premium pay from a third-party employer that received a grant from a state/local government.
• Cash bonuses must be included in gross income as compensation for services. This includes a bonus directly from a local government AND from a third-party employer
• Direct cash transfers to households/families (cash used for child care assistance, utility, etc.) is NOT included in gross income since these are payments made by the state/local government are intended to pay for family expenses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, a qualified disaster
• If a county is providing a direct cash transfer to individuals/families with Recovery Funds, it does NOT need to file a Form 1099 other information return with respect to the payment
• If a utility company that uses Recovery Funds to pay overdue utility balances for individuals, it does NOT have an obligation to file a Form 1099 other information return with respect to this payment.

Source: NACo 11/22/2021

Here is the definition of Essential Work from the Interim Final Ruling (“page” 26798):

“…defines essential work as work involving regular in-person interactions or regular physical handling of items that were also handled by others.  A worker would not be engaged in essential work, and accordingly may not receive premium pay, for telework performed from a residence.”

The US Treasury’s FAQ (page 26-27) goes into a bit more detail:

What criteria should recipients use in identifying essential workers to receive premium pay? Essential workers are those in critical infrastructure sectors who regularly perform inperson work, interact with others at work, or physically handle items handled by others.

Critical infrastructure sectors include healthcare, education and childcare, transportation, sanitation, grocery and food production, and public health and safety, among others, as provided in the Interim Final Rule. Governments receiving Fiscal Recovery Funds have the discretion to add additional sectors to this list, so long as the sectors are considered critical to protect the health and well-being of residents.

The Interim Final Rule emphasizes the need for recipients to prioritize premium pay for lower income workers. Premium pay that would increase a worker’s total pay above 150% of the greater of the state or county average annual wage requires specific justification for how it responds to the needs of these workers.

While the Interim Final Ruling, lists various uses for funds, it also gives wide discretion.

“…to assess whether a program or service is included in this category of eligible uses (Public Health & Economic Impact), a recipient should consider whether and how the use would respond to the COVID-19 public health emergency.  Assessing whether a program or service “responds to” the COVID-19 public health emergency requires the recipient to, first, identify a need or a negative impact of the COVID-19 public health emergency, and, second, identify how the program, service or other intervention addresses the identified need or impact…eligible uses under this category must be in response to the disease itself or the harmful consequences of the economic disruptions…”

In summary, recipients should consider:

1. Identify a need or negative impact of the COVID-19 public health emergency
2. Identify how the program, service, or intervention addresses the identified need or impact

Yes, so long as the use of the grant is for an eligible use and fulfills the obligation and expenditure timeline in ARPA.

From the US Treasury FAQ (citations reference the Interim Final Ruling)

May recipients pool funds for regional projects? [7/14]
Yes, provided that the project is itself an eligible use of funds and that recipients can track the use of funds in line with the reporting and compliance requirements of the
CSFRF/CLFRF. In general, when pooling funds for regional projects, recipients may expend funds directly on the project or transfer funds to another government that is
undertaking the project on behalf of multiple recipients. To the extent recipients undertake regional projects via transfer to another government, recipients would need to
comply with the rules on transfers specified in the Interim Final Rule, Section V. A recipient may transfer funds to a government outside its boundaries (e.g., county transfers
to a neighboring county), provided that the recipient can document that its jurisdiction receives a benefit proportionate to the amount contributed.

May recipients fund a project with both ARP funds and other sources of funding (e.g., blending, braiding, or other pairing funding sources), including in conjunction with financing provided through a debt issuance? [7/14]
Cost sharing or matching funds are not required under CSFRF/CLFRF. Funds may be used in conjunction with other funding sources, provided that the costs are eligible costs under each source program and are compliant with all other related statutory and regulatory requirements and policies. The recipient must comply with applicable
reporting requirements for all sources of funds supporting the CSFRF/CLFRF projects, and with any requirements and restrictions on the use of funds from the supplemental
funding sources and the CSFRF/CLFRF program.

Specifically,
• All funds provided under the CSFRF/CLFRF program must be used for projects, investments, or services that are eligible under the CSFRF/CLFRF statute,
Treasury’s Interim Final Rule, and guidance. See 31 CFR 35.6-8; FAQ 4.6. CSFRF/CLFRF funds may not be used to fund an activity that is not, in its entirety, an eligible use under the CSFRF/CLFRF statute, Treasury’s Interim
Final Rule, and guidance. For example,
o CSFRF/CLFRF funds may be used in conjunction with other sources of funds to make an investment in water infrastructure, which is eligible under the CSLFRF statute, and Treasury’s Interim Final Rule.
o CSFRF/CLFRF funds could not be used to fund the entirety of a water infrastructure project that was partially, although not entirely, an eligible use under Treasury’s Interim Final Rule. However, the recipient could use
CSFRF/CLFRF funds only for a smaller component project that does constitute an eligible use, while using other funds for the remaining portions of the larger planned water infrastructure project that do not
constitute an eligible use. In this case, the “project” under this program would be only the eligible use component of the larger project.
• In addition, because CSFRF/CLFRF funds must be obligated by December 31, 2024, and expended by December 31, 2026, recipients must be able to, at a
minimum, determine and report to Treasury on the amount of CSFRF/CLFRF funds obligated and expended and when such funds were obligated and expended.

The US Treasury has published this page with details on compliance & reporting click here

Or visit: https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/assistance-for-state-local-and-tribal-governments/state-and-local-fiscal-recovery-funds/recipient-compliance-and-reporting-responsibilities

Yes, so long as:

1. All costs are obligated for the project by December 31, 2024 and spent by December 31, 2026
2. Justify the capital improvements as expenses to address the “pandemic operational needs”, which has been interpreted to include accommodations for social distancing 

Counties can use Recovery Funds to provide premium (hazard) pay to essential employees performing essential work.

When providing premium pay, the IFR names a number of qualifying sectors, including health care, public health and safety, education, transportation, and food production and services, but also provides governments with the ability to add other sectors deemed critical during the pandemic.

ARP allows for premium pay to be awarded at up to $13 per hour (on top of the individual’s regular hourly rate), to a maximum of $25,000 per worker (can be provided in a lump sum). The rule clarifies that governments should prioritize compensation for lower-income eligible workers, and imposes additional reporting requirements if they award premium pay to workers such that they would earn at least 50% more than their state’s average wage.

The county can apply premium pay retrospectively for work performed at any time since the start of the pandemic (Jan. 27, 2020). At the same time, the rule also provides flexibility to recipient governments to apply premium pay prospectively. This means that counties can also consider using the funds to provide incentives (essentially, hiring bonuses) to workers to fill in-person occupations with an abundance of vacancies, such as in health care, care work, public safety, retail, and restaurants.

Overall, the individual must be an essential employee performing essential work (they could not be teleworking since that doesn’t involve regular in-person interactions). They can do this either on an hourly rate or again provide a lump sum – but this cannot exceed $25,000.

Yes, this is an eligible use according to the Interim Final Ruling:

“Building Stronger Communities through Investments in Housing and Neighborhoods….Eligible services include…Affordable Housing Development to Increase Supply of affordable and high quality living units”

Source: Department of Treasury’s, Interim final rules, page 26796 (available here)