HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 2020/08/03
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA
MOUNDS VIEW CITY HALL
Monday, August 3, 2020
6:30 p.m.
Virtual Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81379028665?pwd=ckg4cG42OVMvTDJHQkFwZkdFa3FDUT09
Passcode: 066332
Or iPhone one-tap :
US: +16465588656,,81379028665# or +13017158592,,81379028665#
Or Telephone:
US: +1 646 558 8656 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 669 900 9128 or +1 253
215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799
Webinar ID: 813 7902 8665
ROLL CALL: Mueller, Gunn, Hull, Meehlhause, Bergeron
Council Workshops are informal gatherings of the council at which no final decisions
are made, rather consensus discussion to direct staff on council decision items.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Citizens may speak to issues not on tonight’s agenda. Before speaking, please share your full
name and address. Also, please limit your comments to three minutes.
AGENDA ITEMS DISCUSSED BY CONSENSUS
1. YMCA Contract – Don and Nyle
2. Strategic Plan Quarter 2 Department Updates - Brian Beeman
3. Business Licensing – Late Fees - Nyle
4. Storm Water/Sump Pump Discharge into Storm Water System - Don
5. Rental Licensing - Jon
6. CARES Act Grant - Mark
7. LGU – Nyle and Don
NEXT COUNCIL WORK SESSION: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 6:30 pm
NEXT COUNCIL MEETING: Monday, August 10, 2020 at 6:30 pm
Item No: __01__
Meeting Date: __August 3, 2020
Type of Business: ____WS___
Administrator Review: ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Nyle Zikmund, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: YMCA Contract
Introduction:
This past June we received communication from the YMCA of a desire to severe or alter the
relationship. Council had a brief discussion at a council meeting and more in-depth discussion
at the July workshop with consensus to have the YMCA make a presentation at the August 3,
2020 workshop on what they would need to keep operating.
Discussion:
Since then we have received a termination letter from the YMCA (attached) that does not
comply with our contractual agreement. I have verbally informed Mr. Waibel that the contract
states they must notice us 180 days before it expires, not provide a 180 day notice. The letter
does lay out deadlines by which we need to come to an agreement and if not, deadline for the
transition.
Since then we have seen the YMCA announce the closures of 4 YMCA facilities and news
reports that they are the 3rd or 4th YMCA in the nation but are down over 30% on revenues.
Don has begun some preliminary work on a transition plan should we not be able to reach an
agreement.
Recommendation:
Receive presentation, discuss and determine next step.
Respectfully submitted,
Nyle Zikmund
City Administrator
Attachments:
July Workshop Staff Report
YMCA Contract Options
YMCA Contract Termination Letter
July 10, 2020
City Administrator
City of Mounds View
2401 County Road 10
Mounds View, MN 55112
RE: Mounds View Community Center, Parks and Recreation Management Agreement dated
September 1, 2015
Dear Nyle Zikmund:
As we have been discussing, YMCA of the Greater Twin Cities would like to negotiate modified
terms to the above-referenced Agreement with the City of Mounds View related to management
of the City’s Community Center.
To that end, we have provided COVID-appropriate staffing for delivering services at the
Community Center. We will continue to monitor and adjust as needed based on community
demand and government authorizations to operate.
We ask that you immediately begin working with us towards reaching agreement on modified
terms to the Agreement for the longer term, with the goal that those discussions are finalized
within 90 days, which is October 14th.
If we are unable to reach agreement on modified terms by then, we would move towards
transitioning the services back to the City (or an alternate vendor) within 90 days thereafter.
While we are hopeful that we can find a mutually agreeable modification to the current
Agreement, this letter is intended to serve as notice of our intent to terminate the Agreement on
January 14, 2021, in the event that we do not find such a mutually agreeable modification.
We look forward to working with on these matters.
Yours very truly,
Greg Waibel
Chief Operating Officer, YMCA of the Greater Twin Cities
1
MOUNDS VIEW
CONTRACT PROPOSAL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Contact:
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW AND YMCA AGREEMENT
The YMCA of the Greater Twin Cities (YGTC) is proposing a restructured contract for operation of the
Mounds View Community Center and Recreational program for the City of Mounds View.
Terms: August 1, 2020 thru July 31, 2023.
Proposal 1: YGTC receives 40% gross revenues to include all business lines annually. All revenue and
expense will be received and incurred by The City of Mounds View. The YMCA will have first right of refusal
when the current child care lease ends.
Proposal 2: YGTC receives a management fee of $300,000 annually, increasing by 5% each year. All
revenue and expense will be received and incurred by The City of Mounds View. The YMCA will have first
right of refusal when the current child care lease ends.
Revenue & Expenses: All revenue and expenses associated with the Mounds View Community Center,
parks, fields and recreation programing will be transferred to the City of Mounds View. Compensation from
the City to the YMCA will not be included in revenue.
Sample Financials under new Agreements:
Proposal 1:
2019 - $315,147
2020 - $345,052
50% 2020 budget – $199,038
Item No: __01__
Meeting Date: __July 6, 2020
Type of Business: ____WS___
Administrator Review: ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Nyle Zikmund, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: YMCA Contract
Introduction:
The City and YMCA have been partners for over 15 years. We provide the facility and the
YMCA provides staff and programs. We operate under a 5 year contract which is due in August
of this year.
Discussion:
COVID-19 resulted in the YMCA reflecting on their overall operations. All staff but Andy
Thomas had been furloughed despite the city paying those salaries. When staff reached out to
ascertain what would be needed to bring them back, and correspondence was transmitted as
requested and supported by council – the Y responded with an email indicated a need to
discuss the contract.
Chief Operating Officer Greg Waibel’ s email (attached) indicated they wanted to severe the
relationship at worst, or re-negotiate the contract if we were to move forward. A conference all
was set up with Directors Beer and Peterson.
Attorney Riggs was consulted on contract language and has opined that the YMCA failed to
notify us 180 days prior to the contract expiring as compared to within 180 days as Mr. Waibel’ s
email indicates. We have not shared our opinion with him at this time.
During the conference call later that week, Mr. Waibel was asked and responded in the
affirmative that he will assemble a proposal for our review as to what they would need to
continue operations.
While we had wanted to bring the staff back, and we are paying for them, that issue is still on
hold pending this discussion.
I have had two conversations with Andy, who is understandably distressed and asked him to
attend the July 6 workshop.
Both Greg Waibel and Andy Thomas indicate an ability to still “participate” in some of the YMCA
programs such as the Youth in Government program.
Financial Analysis/Comparison/Information: The 2020 contract requires the City to make
quarterly payments of $75,610.53 for an annual total of $302,442.12. In addition the city will
pay a technology support fee of $2,935. Other charges include additional staffing for the Event
Center ($21,757 – 2019) and staffing for the Warming Houses ($2,231 – 2019). The City also
incurs facility operating expenses (2019) of $218,287 and debt service on the Energy Savings
improvements of $53,119. ($600,771)
The revenues excluding the childcare lease and City transfer and General Fund payments total
$240,014 which breaks down to Event Center - $117,585, Program Profit Share - $53,141,
Room and Gym rentals - $42,040, Open Gym participant fees - $26,429, and Miscellaneous -
$819. (Childcare lease $132,000, General Fund transfer $190,000, General Fund Recreation
department payment $122,612) ($684,626) The YMCA contract provides for an annual
increase in the contract amount of inflation plus 1.5%.
Options:
1. Invoke contract clause of 180 days prior was not met and proceed forward.
2. Same as one but only for one year extension and use year for transition.
3. Severe relationships and hire staff directly.
4. Explore options with adjacent communities.
5. Combination of the Above
Recommendation:
Respectfully submitted,
Nyle Zikmund
City Administrator
Attachments:
Item No. 3.
Meeting Date: August 3, 2020
Type of Business: Work Session
City Administrator Review: ______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Nyle Zikmund, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: Business Licensing Late Fee
Business licenses expire June 30th and during discussion on the renewal process this past
renewal, Council directed staff to investigate chronic tardy businesses specific to relicensing and
inquired whether an increased penalty may motivate those who fail to comply.
We licensed 38 operations this year. 3 were tardy or just under 10%. Our penalty is 20%. Fees
range from $204 to $560 depending on type and size of operation. Thus, a penalty is $44 to
$102.
Of the 3 late this year, 2 are chronic. We typically have 3 every year and this year one of the
regulars filed on time and a new one was late, we believe it to be an oversight related to COVID.
Thus we are down to 2. Of those 2, one is a corporate franchise and it simply takes more time
which Ms. Benesch has made note of and will start the process sooner. That leaves a single
current situation at this time (future may bring more).
Staff does feel a 20% penalty is insufficient on the lower license fee and arguably then, given fees
are higher based on scale, is likely insufficient for the higher if the purpose is to motivate prompt
response.
Recommendation
Council requested staff to review and report back. If council wishes to amend the Fee Schedule
that is the will of the council.
Respectfully Submitted,
Nyle Zikmund
Item No. 4.
Meeting Date: August 3, 2020
Type of Business: Work Session
City Administrator Review: ______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Don Peterson, Public Works Director
Item Title/Subject: Storm Water/Sump Pump Discharge
As you are aware, storm water management and sump pump discharge are two of the most
vexing issues facing our residents and council. In the past year, we amended our ordinance to
allow sump pump discharge into the storm sewer as long as it did not cross the sidewalk or impair
the road (no discharge in winter).
Staff continues to work with a number of residents, primarily but not all in the NW quadrant where
the issue is more pronounced.
Based on a resident who piped his sump pump discharge to the storm drain, staff is proposing
we explore the cost, via the issuance of an RFP, to directionally bore into the storm structure
allowing this piping to be both underground and directly into the system versus being above grade
and causing the problems that accompany surface discharge. The City would absorb the cost of
boring through the structure and up to the easement line, the resident would absorb the cost from
the easement line to their discharge from the house.
Conclusion
Staff is looking for any additional direction from the Council on how they would like to proceed
with staff preparing and issue an RFP consistent with the above.
Respectfully Submitted,
Don Peterson
Item No: 05
Meeting Date: Aug 3, 2020
Type of Business: WS
City Administrator Review: _____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director
Item Title/Subject: Rental Licensing
Introduction:
Mounds View licenses about 1,800 rental units. Annual rental licenses expire December 31st.
License renewals are due November 30th, and require a completed application form, fees, and
that current utility bills and property taxes be paid. In 2019, a number of owners did not
complete renewals on-time, resulting in fines. This prompted some complaints, and a
commitment from Staff to research others’ ordinances to determine fairness. This research is
on-going. The intent of this Staff Report is to provide a progress report. If any changes are
needed to the ordinance or to Staff’s administration of the program, the intent is to figure it all
out prior to when 2021 license renewal notices are sent (September/October).
Discussion:
All rental units must be licensed, with some exceptions 1. In 2019, Staff more strictly enforced
the rental ordinance than in previous years, regarding rental owners renewing their license on-
time. This resulted in 43 (16%) of owners not renewing on-time, and about $11,000 in fines. In
2018, 14% of owners were late. The most common cause were owners who did not pay fees
and/or utility bills, or did not pay the correct amount. General complaints from owners included;
• The City’s use of email (vs. paper mail)
• Requiring Utility Bills to be paid (3rd quarter utility billing date does not coincide with
November 30th rental license due date)
• Late fees are excessive
This prompted Staff to compare our ordinance and practices to that of similar cities, with
populations between 10,000 and 30,000, and which license rentals. Of the 37 cities that meet
this population criteria, 25 have license programs. Staff have reviewed about half of these
programs (this is on-going).
Findings (partial):
Issue 1: The rental license application form requires applicants to list an email address.
Email is the primary means for the City to communicate with applicants and
license holders. Although license holders may have email, and list it on their
application, many do not use it.
Question 1: Is the City’s dependence on email (as opposed to US Mail) in communicating
with applicants, standard in comparison to other cities?
Answer 1: (to be determined)
Issue 2: Prior to the City issuing a rental license, public utility bills and property taxes
must be paid. Second half property taxes are due October 15th. Third Quarter
1 City Code, Section 1012.03, Subd 1(b) Exceptions: A rental dwelling license is not required for residences
occupied by the owner where no more than two (2) sleeping rooms are rented and the renters have access to the
entire residence, or for residences occupied only by the owner’s children or parents.
Item 05
Page 2 of 3
The Mounds View Vision
A Thriving Desirable Community
utility bills are due in mid-November. Rental license renewals are due November
30th. These dates create a short window between the date that 3rd quarter utility
bills are issued, and the rental license deadline of November 30th. If an applicant
submits early (e.g. October), the license cannot be approved until the 3rd quarter
utility bill is paid in November. If a utility bill is delinquent, the City has the ability
to certify it to the owner’s property taxes 2. In 2018, 25 of the 36 applicants (69%)
whose license renewals were late, were due to unpaid utility bills.
Question 2: If the City has assurance that delinquent utility bills will be paid through property
tax assessments, is it necessary to require payment prior to issuing a rental
license?
Answer 2: (to be determined). The research thus far has not presented a pattern. There’s
a least one city who requires utility bills to be paid prior to issuing any type of
license or permit.
Issue 3 Annual rental licenses renewals are due November 30th, and expire on
December 31st. If unlicensed, beginning January 1st, the license fee is doubled.3
Additional penalties add $150 on February 1st, $300 on March 1st, and $450 on
April 1st (compounded). Example: the license fee for one-unit is $100. If unpaid,
the fee becomes $1,100 after April 1st. If our largest complex went through this
(Scotland Green), their fees would go from $10,725 to $22,350 after April 1st.
Question 3: Are the late penalties fair? This is a philosophical question of how high of a
penalty is enough to deter owners from paying late.
Answer 3: (to be determined). The research thus far has not presented a pattern. If a 10%
late fee for utility bills resulted in 12% delinquency (2019), and a 100% late fee
for rental licenses resulted in 16% delinquency (2019), then the __% late fee is
not an effective deterrent. There are other causes & effects in our program that
need to be explored.
Strategic Plan Strategy/Goal:
Operate under a balanced budget that meets the needs and goals of the community without the
reliance upon the levy reduction fund and any LGA funds.
Financial Impact:
Undetermined. The intent of rental license fees is to reimburse the City’s cost of administering
the rental program ($72,000 est). The City collected about $48,000 in 2019 4 and about $56,000
in 2018.
Recommendation:
Once Staff completes its research, a recommendation will be provided if any Ordinance
amendments are necessary. Staff is also looking at how the Crime Free Multi-Family Housing
2 In 2018 and in 2019, 12% of utility bills were paid late.
3 For comparison, Mounds View charges a 10% late fee for unpaid public utility bills. A double fee is charged for
construction started prior to a permit being issued (building, zoning, or public works related).
4 2019 License fees (rental license & rental conversion) were for 5 quarters ($60,701) due to changing the due date
from September 30 to December 31. For simplicity, the text in this report took $60,701 divided by 15 months, or
$48,560 for one year (2019).
Item 05
Page 3 of 3
The Mounds View Vision
A Thriving Desirable Community
program is working. This is a more critical, and complicated topic.
Respectfully,
Jon Sevald, AICP
Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS
Jan 9, 2020 CC Memo
M EMORANDUM
to: Mounds View City Council
from: Jon Sevald, Community Development Director
re: Rental Licensing Renewals (update)
date: January 9, 2020
SUMMARY
Status of delinquent 2020 Rental License Renewals:
Rental Type Total
Nothing
Received
Utility Bill –
Not Paid
Need Payment/
Paid Short
Single Family 25 4 5 16
4 Unit Dwellings 3 2 0 1
6 Unit Dwellings 2 0 2 0
11 Unit Dwellings 1 0 0 1
12 Unit Dwellings 11 0 0 11
23 Unit Dwellings 1 1 0 0
Totals 43 7 7 29
DISCUSSION
A Rental License is required if a home, townhome, condominium, or apartment is to be occupied
by someone other than the homeowner. Exceptions: (1) if a home is occupied by the homeowner
and up to two sleeping rooms are rented, in which the renters have full access to the home; and,
(2) Group Homes licensed through Ramsey County.
Mounds View licenses 1,802 units, and 271 owners/managers (2019). Licenses are valid January
1st thru December 31st. License renewals are due by November 30th each year. Complete rental
license renewals are to include; a completed application form and fees; 2nd half of property taxes
paid (Oct 15th), and 3rd quarter public utility bills paid (Nov 27th).
In 2018, the City made three significant changes: (1) all fire inspections were conducted by staff
(instead of SBM), often in conjunction with rental inspections; (2) changed the license expiration
date from September 30th, to December 31st to coincide with the calendar year; and, (3) used
email to disseminate letters to owners/managers instead of US mail. As of October 1, 2018,
there were 43 incomplete license renewals. As of January 1, 2019, there were 54 incomplete
license renewals.
When the City transitioned from US Mail to email, there was some pushback from owners who
were not frequent users of email. It is the City’s position that email is the dominate form of
communicating detailed and time sensitive information.
In 2019, the City made three significant changes: (1) increased license fees to be commensurable
with expenses and comparable to other suburbs; (2) revived the Crime-Free Multi-Family
Housing program; and (3) enforced late fee penalties. As of December 3, 2019, there were 74
incomplete license renewals. As of January 8, 2020, there were 43 incomplete license renewals.
Page 2 of 2
Owners/managers participating in the Crime-Free Multi-Family program may receive a 25%,
33%, or 50% discount on rental fees depending on their level of participation. In 2019, four
owners/managers received a 25% discount, and 21 received a 33% discount. The discount does
not apply to late fees.
When the City enforced late fee penalties (double fees), there have been some objections from
owners/managers (3 or 4 to date). A five business-day grace period was permitted. Depending
on the number of units, late fees range between $100 and $4,400.
Delinquent Rental License owners/managers were mailed notice on December 11, 2019 and
mailed (certified) notice on or about January 10, 2019. If non-compliant, in addition to the
double fee penalty, Administrative Fines will be charged on February 1st ($150); March 1st
($300); and April 1st ($450). After April 1st, the City will pursue court citations for owners
renting without a license.
NEXT STEPS
Staff will provide the Council with updates on the status of delinquent rental license renewals.
Staff will research rental licensing programs of similar suburbs for improvements to our program
and ordinances, and present at a future Council Work Session. Both owners/managers, and staff
have experienced frustration. The cause is likely a combination of the ordinance, Staff’s
administration/communications, and owners/managers lack of responsibility.
Item No. 6.
Meeting Date: August 3, 2020
Type of Business: Work Session
City Administrator Review: ______
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Mark Beer, Finance Director
Item Title/Subject: 2020 CARES Act Grant
The City has received $1,004,135 in CARES Act grant funding. The funds need to be spent or
disbursed by November 15 and any remaining funds will need to be returned to Ramsey County.
The CARES Act provides that payments can only be used to cover costs that:
1. Are necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect
to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19);
2. Were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020 (the
date of the enactment of the CARES Act) for the State or government; and
3. Were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020, and ends on December
30, 2020.
City staff has been exploring the most efficient ways to utilize the CARES Act Grant, we have
many small expenditures that would satisfy the grant requirements but there would be a significant
balance remaining. Many cities with police departments have focused on U.S. Treasury guidance
for public safety payroll to satisfy eligibility and fully utilize the grant funds.
The guidance provided by the U.S. Treasury (attached) on page 3 item 3 indicates that “Payroll
expenses for public safety, public health, health care, human services, and similar
employees whose services are substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the
COVID-19 public health emergency”, would be eligible expenses. The Q&A (attached)
provides further that Public Safety payroll expenditures “as a matter of administrative
convenience in light of the emergency nature of this program, a State, territorial, local, or
Tribal government may presume that payroll costs for public health and public safety
employees are payments for services substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding
to the COVID-19 public health emergency.”
The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) has also provided some guidance on eligible public safety
expenses.
Q15. The guidance provides that funding may be used to meet payroll expenses for public safety,
public health, health care, human services, and similar employees whose services are
substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health
emergency. May CFR payments be used to cover such an employee’s entire payroll cost or
just the portion of time spent on mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health
emergency?
A15. According to U.S. Treasury guidance dated June 24, 2020, the fund is designed to provide
ready funding to address unforeseen financial needs and risks created by the COVID-19
public health emergency. For this reason, and as a matter of administrative convenience in
light of the emergency nature of this program, a state, territorial, local, or tribal government
may presume that payroll costs for public health and public safety employees are payments
for services substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public
health emergency, unless the chief executive (or equivalent) of the relevant government
determines that specific circumstances indicate otherwise. An employer may also track time
spent by employees related to COVID-19 and apply CRF payments on that basis but would
need to do so consistently within the relevant agency or department.
The League encourages cities to document the reasons the expenses were determined to satisfy
the three-part test. These findings can be used later to explain decisions to auditors and show the
council’s careful consideration. I have attached a proposed resolution documenting our reasons
for your review. I have also reached out to our auditors and expect to hear back from them by
the time of this meeting.
Using public safety payroll expense would be the most efficient administratively. The City Council
would still have the flexibility to utilize the funds for other COVID-19 related expenses if they
desired. We would fully spend the grant by mid-August using public safety payroll expenses.
Conclusion
Staff is looking for any additional direction from the Council on how they would like to proceed.
Respectfully Submitted,
Mark Beer
1
Coronavirus Relief Fund
Frequently Asked Questions
Updated as of July 8, 2020
The following answers to frequently asked questions supplement Treasury’s Coronavirus Relief Fund
(“Fund”) Guidance for State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal Governments, dated April 22, 2020,
(“Guidance”).1 Amounts paid from the Fund are subject to the restrictions outlined in the Guidance and
set forth in section 601(d) of the Social Security Act, as added by section 5001 of the Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”).
Eligible Expenditures
Are governments required to submit proposed expenditures to Treasury for approval?
No. Governments are responsible for making determinations as to what expenditures are necessary due to
the public health emergency with respect to COVID-19 and do not need to submit any proposed
expenditures to Treasury.
The Guidance says that funding can be used to meet payroll expenses for public safety, public health,
health care, human services, and similar employees whose services are substantially dedicated to
mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency. How does a government
determine whether payroll expenses for a given employee satisfy the “substantially dedicated”
condition?
The Fund is designed to provide ready funding to address unforeseen financial needs and risks created by
the COVID-19 public health emergency. For this reason, and as a matter of administrative convenience
in light of the emergency nature of this program, a State, territorial, local, or Tribal government may
presume that payroll costs for public health and public safety employees are payments for services
substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency, unless the
chief executive (or equivalent) of the relevant government determines that specific circumstances indicate
otherwise.
The Guidance says that a cost was not accounted for in the most recently approved budget if the cost is
for a substantially different use from any expected use of funds in such a line item, allotment, or
allocation. What would qualify as a “substantially different use” for purposes of the Fund eligibility?
Costs incurred for a “substantially different use” include, but are not necessarily limited to, costs of
personnel and services that were budgeted for in the most recently approved budget but which, due
entirely to the COVID-19 public health emergency, have been diverted to substantially different
functions. This would include, for example, the costs of redeploying corrections facility staff to enable
compliance with COVID-19 public health precautions through work such as enhanced sanitation or
enforcing social distancing measures; the costs of redeploying police to support management and
enforcement of stay-at-home orders; or the costs of diverting educational support staff or faculty to
develop online learning capabilities, such as through providing information technology support that is not
part of the staff or faculty’s ordinary responsibilities.
Note that a public function does not become a “substantially different use” merely because it is provided
from a different location or through a different manner. For example, although developing online
instruction capabilities may be a substantially different use of funds, online instruction itself is not a
substantially different use of public funds than classroom instruction.
1 The Guidance is available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Coronavirus -Relief-Fund-Guidance-for-
State-Territorial-Local-and-Tribal-Governments.pdf.
2
May a State receiving a payment transfer funds to a local government?
Yes, provided that the transfer qualifies as a necessary expenditure incurred due to the public health
emergency and meets the other criteria of section 601(d) of the Social Security Act. Such funds would be
subject to recoupment by the Treasury Department if they have not been used in a manner consistent with
section 601(d) of the Social Security Act.
May a unit of local government receiving a Fund payment transfer funds to another unit of
government?
Yes. For example, a county may transfer funds to a city, town, or school district within the county and a
county or city may transfer funds to its State, provided that the transfer qualifies as a necessary
expenditure incurred due to the public health emergency and meets the other criteria of section 601(d) of
the Social Security Act outlined in the Guidance. For example, a transfer from a county to a constituent
city would not be permissible if the funds were intended to be used simply to fill shortfalls in government
revenue to cover expenditures that would not otherwise qualify as an eligible expenditure.
Is a Fund payment recipient required to transfer funds to a smaller, constituent unit of government
within its borders?
No. For example, a county recipient is not required to transfer funds to smaller cities within the county’s
borders.
Are recipients required to use other federal funds or seek reimbursement under other federal programs
before using Fund payments to satisfy eligible expenses?
No. Recipients may use Fund payments for any expenses eligible under section 601(d) of the Social
Security Act outlined in the Guidance. Fund payments are not required to be used as the source of
funding of last resort. However, as noted below, recipients may not use payments from the Fund to cover
expenditures for which they will receive reimbursement.
Are there prohibitions on combining a transaction supported with Fund payments with other CARES
Act funding or COVID-19 relief Federal funding?
Recipients will need to consider the applicable restrictions and limitations of such other sources of
funding. In addition, expenses that have been or will be reimbursed under any federal program, such as
the reimbursement by the federal government pursuant to the CARES Act of contributions by States to
State unemployment funds, are not eligible uses of Fund payments.
Are States permitted to use Fund payments to support state unemployment insurance funds generally?
To the extent that the costs incurred by a state unemployment insurance fund are incurred due to the
COVID-19 public health emergency, a State may use Fund payments to make payments to its respective
state unemployment insurance fund, separate and apart from such State’s obligation to the unemployment
insurance fund as an employer. This will permit States to use Fund payments to prevent expenses related
to the public health emergency from causing their state unemployment insurance funds to become
insolvent.
3
Are recipients permitted to use Fund payments to pay for unemployment insurance costs incurred by
the recipient as an employer?
Yes, Fund payments may be used for unemployment insurance costs incurred by the recipient as an
employer (for example, as a reimbursing employer) related to the COVID-19 public health emergency if
such costs will not be reimbursed by the federal government pursuant to the CARES Act or otherwise.
The Guidance states that the Fund may support a “broad range of uses” including payroll expenses for
several classes of employees whose services are “substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to
the COVID-19 public health emergency.” What are some examples of types of covered employees?
The Guidance provides examples of broad classes of employees whose payroll expenses would be eligible
expenses under the Fund. These classes of employees include public safety, public health, health care,
human services, and similar employees whose services are substantially dedicated to mitigating or
responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Payroll and benefit costs associated with public
employees who could have been furloughed or otherwise laid off but who were instead repurposed to
perform previously unbudgeted functions substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the
COVID-19 public health emergency are also covered. Other eligible expenditures include payroll and
benefit costs of educational support staff or faculty responsible for developing online learning capabilities
necessary to continue educational instruction in response to COVID-19-related school closures. Please
see the Guidance for a discussion of what is meant by an expense that was not accounted for in the budget
most recently approved as of March 27, 2020.
In some cases, first responders and critical health care workers that contract COVID-19 are eligible
for workers’ compensation coverage. Is the cost of this expanded workers compensation coverage
eligible?
Increased workers compensation cost to the government due to the COVID-19 public health emergency
incurred during the period beginning March 1, 2020, and ending December 30, 2020, is an eligible
expense.
If a recipient would have decommissioned equipment or not renewed a lease on particular office space
or equipment but decides to continue to use the equipment or to renew the lease in order to respond to
the public health emergency, are the costs associated with continuing to operate the equipment or the
ongoing lease payments eligible expenses?
Yes. To the extent the expenses were previously unbudgeted and are otherwise consistent with section
601(d) of the Social Security Act outlined in the Guidance, such expenses would be eligible.
May recipients provide stipends to employees for eligible expenses (for example, a stipend to employees
to improve telework capabilities) rather than require employees to incur the eligible cost and submit for
reimbursement?
Expenditures paid for with payments from the Fund must be limited to those that are necessary due to the
public health emergency. As such, unless the government were to determine that providing assistance in
the form of a stipend is an administrative necessity, the government should provide such assistance on a
reimbursement basis to ensure as much as possible that funds are used to cover only eligible expenses.
4
May Fund payments be used for COVID-19 public health emergency recovery planning?
Yes. Expenses associated with conducting a recovery planning project or operating a recovery
coordination office would be eligible, if the expenses otherwise meet the criteria set forth in section
601(d) of the Social Security Act outlined in the Guidance.
Are expenses associated with contact tracing eligible?
Yes, expenses associated with contract tracing are eligible.
To what extent may a government use Fund payments to support the operations of private hospitals?
Governments may use Fund payments to support public or private hospitals to the extent that the costs are
necessary expenditures incurred due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, but the form such
assistance would take may differ. In particular, financial assistance to private hospitals could take the
form of a grant or a short-term loan.
May payments from the Fund be used to assist individuals with enrolling in a government benefit
program for those who have been laid off due to COVID-19 and thereby lost health insurance?
Yes. To the extent that the relevant government official determines that these expenses are necessary and
they meet the other requirements set forth in section 601(d) of the Social Security Act outlined in the
Guidance, these expenses are eligible.
May recipients use Fund payments to facilitate livestock depopulation incurred by producers due to
supply chain disruptions?
Yes, to the extent these efforts are deemed necessary for public health reasons or as a form of economic
support as a result of the COVID-19 health emergency.
Would providing a consumer grant program to prevent eviction and assist in preventing homelessness
be considered an eligible expense?
Yes, assuming that the recipient considers the grants to be a necessary expense incurred due to the
COVID-19 public health emergency and the grants meet the other requirements for the use of Fund
payments under section 601(d) of the Social Security Act outlined in the Guidance. As a general matter,
providing assistance to recipients to enable them to meet property tax requirements would not be an
eligible use of funds, but exceptions may be made in the case of assistance designed to prevent
foreclosures.
May recipients create a “payroll support program” for public employees?
Use of payments from the Fund to cover payroll or benefits expenses of public employees are limited to
those employees whose work duties are substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the
COVID-19 public health emergency.
May recipients use Fund payments to cover employment and training programs for employees that
have been furloughed due to the public health emergency?
Yes, this would be an eligible expense if the government determined that the costs of such employment
and training programs would be necessary due to the public health emergency.
5
May recipients use Fund payments to provide emergency financial assistance to individuals and
families directly impacted by a loss of income due to the COVID-19 public health emergency?
Yes, if a government determines such assistance to be a necessary expenditure. Such assistance could
include, for example, a program to assist individuals with payment of overdue rent or mortgage payments
to avoid eviction or foreclosure or unforeseen financial costs for funerals and other emergency individual
needs. Such assistance should be structured in a manner to ensure as much as possible, within the realm
of what is administratively feasible, that such assistance is necessary.
The Guidance provides that eligible expenditures may include expenditures related to the provision of
grants to small businesses to reimburse the costs of business interruption caused by required closures.
What is meant by a “small business,” and is the Guidance intended to refer only to expenditures to
cover administrative expenses of such a grant program?
Governments have discretion to determine what payments are necessary. A program that is aimed at
assisting small businesses with the costs of business interruption caused by required closures should be
tailored to assist those businesses in need of such assistance. The amount of a grant to a small business to
reimburse the costs of business interruption caused by required closures would also be an eligible
expenditure under section 601(d) of the Social Security Act, as outlined in the Guidance.
The Guidance provides that expenses associated with the provision of economic support in connection
with the public health emergency, such as expenditures related to the provision of grants to small
businesses to reimburse the costs of business interruption caused by required closures, would
constitute eligible expenditures of Fund payments. Would such expenditures be eligible in the absence
of a stay-at-home order?
Fund payments may be used for economic support in the absence of a stay-at-home order if such
expenditures are determined by the government to be necessary. This may include, for example, a grant
program to benefit small businesses that close voluntarily to promote social distancing measures or that
are affected by decreased customer demand as a result of the COVID-19 public health emergency.
May Fund payments be used to assist impacted property owners with the payment of their property
taxes?
Fund payments may not be used for government revenue replacement, including the provision of
assistance to meet tax obligations.
May Fund payments be used to replace foregone utility fees? If not, can Fund payments be used as a
direct subsidy payment to all utility account holders?
Fund payments may not be used for government revenue replacement, including the replacement of
unpaid utility fees. Fund payments may be used for subsidy payments to electricity account holders to the
extent that the subsidy payments are deemed by the recipient to be necessary expenditures incurred due to
the COVID-19 public health emergency and meet the other criteria of section 601(d) of the Social
Security Act outlined in the Guidance. For example, if determined to be a necessary expenditure, a
government could provide grants to individuals facing economic hardship to allow them to pay their
utility fees and thereby continue to receive essential services.
6
Could Fund payments be used for capital improvement projects that broadly provide potential
economic development in a community?
In general, no. If capital improvement projects are not necessary expenditures incurred due to the
COVID-19 public health emergency, then Fund payments may not be used for such projects.
However, Fund payments may be used for the expenses of, for example, establishing temporary public
medical facilities and other measures to increase COVID-19 treatment capacity or improve mitigation
measures, including related construction costs.
The Guidance includes workforce bonuses as an example of ineligible expenses but provides that
hazard pay would be eligible if otherwise determined to be a necessary expense. Is there a specific
definition of “hazard pay”?
Hazard pay means additional pay for performing hazardous duty or work involving physical hardship, in
each case that is related to COVID-19.
The Guidance provides that ineligible expenditures include “[p]ayroll or benefits expenses for
employees whose work duties are not substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the
COVID-19 public health emergency.” Is this intended to relate only to public employees?
Yes. This particular nonexclusive example of an ineligible expenditure relates to public employees. A
recipient would not be permitted to pay for payroll or benefit expenses of private employees and any
financial assistance (such as grants or short-term loans) to private employers are not subject to the
restriction that the private employers’ employees must be substantially dedicated to mitigating or
responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency.
May counties pre-pay with CARES Act funds for expenses such as a one or two-year facility lease,
such as to house staff hired in response to COVID-19?
A government should not make prepayments on contracts using payments from the Fund to the extent that
doing so would not be consistent with its ordinary course policies and procedures.
Must a stay-at-home order or other public health mandate be in effect in order for a government to
provide assistance to small businesses using payments from the Fund?
No. The Guidance provides, as an example of an eligible use of payments from the Fund, expenditures
related to the provision of grants to small businesses to reimburse the costs of business interruption
caused by required closures. Such assistance may be provided using amounts received from the Fund in
the absence of a requirement to close businesses if the relevant government determines that such
expenditures are necessary in response to the public health emergency.
7
Should States receiving a payment transfer funds to local governments that did not receive payments
directly from Treasury?
Yes, provided that the transferred funds are used by the local government for eligible expenditures under
the statute. To facilitate prompt distribution of Title V funds, the CARES Act authorized Treasury to
make direct payments to local governments with populations in excess of 500,000, in amounts equal to
45% of the local government’s per capita share of the statewide allocation. This statutory structure was
based on a recognition that it is more administratively feasible to rely on States, rather than the federal
government, to manage the transfer of funds to smaller local governments. Consistent with the needs of
all local governments for funding to address the public health emergency, States should transfer funds to
local governments with populations of 500,000 or less, using as a benchmark the per capita allocation
formula that governs payments to larger local governments. This approach will ensure equitable
treatment among local governments of all sizes.
For example, a State received the minimum $1.25 billion allocation and had one county with a population
over 500,000 that received $250 million directly. The State should distribute 45 percent of the $1 billion
it received, or $450 million, to local governments within the State with a population of 500,000 or less.
May a State impose restrictions on transfers of funds to local governments?
Yes, to the extent that the restrictions facilitate the State’s compliance with the requirements set forth in
section 601(d) of the Social Security Act outlined in the Guidance and other applicable requirements such
as the Single Audit Act, discussed below. Other restrictions are not permissible.
If a recipient must issue tax anticipation notes (TANs) to make up for tax due date deferrals or revenue
shortfalls, are the expenses associated with the issuance eligible uses of Fund payments?
If a government determines that the issuance of TANs is necessary due to the COVID-19 public health
emergency, the government may expend payments from the Fund on the interest expense payable on
TANs by the borrower and unbudgeted administrative and transactional costs, such as necessary
payments to advisors and underwriters, associated with the issuance of the TANs.
May recipients use Fund payments to expand rural broadband capacity to assist with distance learning
and telework?
Such expenditures would only be permissible if they are necessary for the public health emergency. The
cost of projects that would not be expected to increase capacity to a significant extent until the need for
distance learning and telework have passed due to this public health emergency would not be necessary
due to the public health emergency and thus would not be eligible uses of Fund payments.
Are costs associated with increased solid waste capacity an eligible use of payments from the Fund?
Yes, costs to address increase in solid waste as a result of the public health emergency, such as relates to
the disposal of used personal protective equipment, would be an eligible expenditure.
May payments from the Fund be used to cover across-the-board hazard pay for employees working
during a state of emergency?
No. The Guidance says that funding may be used to meet payroll expenses for public safety, public
health, health care, human services, and similar employees whose services are substantially dedicated to
mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency. Hazard pay is a form of payroll
expense and is subject to this limitation, so Fund payments may only be used to cover hazard pay for such
individuals.
8
May Fund payments be used for expenditures related to the administration of Fund payments by a
State, territorial, local, or Tribal government?
Yes, if the administrative expenses represent an increase over previously budgeted amounts and are
limited to what is necessary. For example, a State may expend Fund payments on necessary
administrative expenses incurred with respect to a new grant program established to disburse amounts
received from the Fund.
May recipients use Fund payments to provide loans?
Yes, if the loans otherwise qualify as eligible expenditures under section 601(d) of the Social Security Act
as implemented by the Guidance. Any amounts repaid by the borrower before December 30, 2020, must
be either returned to Treasury upon receipt by the unit of government providing the loan or used for
another expense that qualifies as an eligible expenditure under section 601(d) of the Social Security Act.
Any amounts not repaid by the borrower until after December 30, 2020, must be returned to Treasury
upon receipt by the unit of government lending the funds.
May Fund payments be used for expenditures necessary to prepare for a future COVID-19 outbreak?
Fund payments may be used only for expenditures necessary to address the current COVID-19 public
health emergency. For example, a State may spend Fund payments to create a reserve of personal
protective equipment or develop increased intensive care unit capacity to support regions in its
jurisdiction not yet affected, but likely to be impacted by the current COVID-19 pandemic.
May funds be used to satisfy non-federal matching requirements under the Stafford Act?
Yes, payments from the Fund may be used to meet the non-federal matching requirements for Stafford
Act assistance to the extent such matching requirements entail COVID-19-related costs that otherwise
satisfy the Fund’s eligibility criteria and the Stafford Act. Regardless of the use of Fund payments for
such purposes, FEMA funding is still dependent on FEMA’s determination of eligibility under the
Stafford Act.
Must a State, local, or tribal government require applications to be submitted by businesses or
individuals before providing assistance using payments from the Fund?
Governments have discretion to determine how to tailor assistance programs they establish in response to
the COVID-19 public health emergency. However, such a program should be structured in such a manner
as will ensure that such assistance is determined to be necessary in response to the COVID-19 public
health emergency and otherwise satisfies the requirements of the CARES Act and other applicable law.
For example, a per capita payment to residents of a particular jurisdiction without an assessment of
individual need would not be an appropriate use of payments from the Fund.
May Fund payments be provided to non-profits for distribution to individuals in need of financial
assistance, such as rent relief?
Yes, non-profits may be used to distribute assistance. Regardless of how the assistance is structured, the
financial assistance provided would have to be related to COVID-19.
May recipients use Fund payments to remarket the recipient’s convention facilities and tourism
industry?
Yes, if the costs of such remarketing satisfy the requirements of the CARES Act. Expenses incurred to
publicize the resumption of activities and steps taken to ensure a safe experience may be needed due to
9
the public health emergency. Expenses related to developing a long-term plan to reposition a recipient’s
convention and tourism industry and infrastructure would not be incurred due to the public health
emergency and therefore may not be covered using payments from the Fund.
May a State provide assistance to farmers and meat processors to expand capacity, such to cover
overtime for USDA meat inspectors?
If a State determines that expanding meat processing capacity, including by paying overtime to USDA
meat inspectors, is a necessary expense incurred due to the public health emergency, such as if increased
capacity is necessary to allow farmers and processors to donate meat to food banks, then such expenses
are eligible expenses, provided that the expenses satisfy the other requirements set forth in section 601(d)
of the Social Security Act outlined in the Guidance.
The guidance provides that funding may be used to meet payroll expenses for public safety, public
health, health care, human services, and similar employees whose services are substantially dedicated
to mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency. May Fund payments be used to
cover such an employee’s entire payroll cost or just the portion of time spent on mitigating or
responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency?
As a matter of administrative convenience, the entire payroll cost of an employee whose time is
substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency is eligible,
provided that such payroll costs are incurred by December 30, 2020. An employer may also track time
spent by employees related to COVID-19 and apply Fund payments on that basis but would need to do so
consistently within the relevant agency or department.
May Fund payments be used to cover increased administrative leave costs of public employees
who could not telework in the event of a stay at home order or a case of COVID-19 in the
workplace?
The statute requires that payments be used only to cover costs that were not accounted for in the
budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020. As stated in the Guidance, a cost meets
this requirement if either (a) the cost cannot lawfully be funded using a line item, allotment, or
allocation within that budget or (b) the cost is for a substantially different use from any expected
use of funds in such a line item, allotment, or allocation. If the cost of an employee was
allocated to administrative leave to a greater extent than was expected, the cost of such
administrative leave may be covered using payments from the Fund.
Questions Related to Administration of Fund Payments
Do governments have to return unspent funds to Treasury?
Yes. Section 601(f)(2) of the Social Security Act, as added by section 5001(a) of the CARES Act,
provides for recoupment by the Department of the Treasury of amounts received from the Fund that have
not been used in a manner consistent with section 601(d) of the Social Security Act. If a government has
not used funds it has received to cover costs that were incurred by December 30, 2020, as required by the
statute, those funds must be returned to the Department of the Treasury.
What records must be kept by governments receiving payment?
10
A government should keep records sufficient to demonstrate that the amount of Fund payments to the
government has been used in accordance with section 601(d) of the Social Security Act.
May recipients deposit Fund payments into interest bearing accounts?
Yes, provided that if recipients separately invest amounts received from the Fund, they must use the
interest earned or other proceeds of these investments only to cover expenditures incurred in accordance
with section 601(d) of the Social Security Act and the Guidance on eligible expenses. If a government
deposits Fund payments in a government’s general account, it may use those funds to meet immediate
cash management needs provided that the full amount of the payment is used to cover necessary
expenditures. Fund payments are not subject to the Cash Management Improvement Act of 1990, as
amended.
May governments retain assets purchased with payments from the Fund?
Yes, if the purchase of the asset was consistent with the limitations on the eligible use of funds provided
by section 601(d) of the Social Security Act.
What rules apply to the proceeds of disposition or sale of assets acquired using payments from the
Fund?
If such assets are disposed of prior to December 30, 2020, the proceeds would be subject to the
restrictions on the eligible use of payments from the Fund provided by section 601(d) of the Social
Security Act.
Are Fund payments to State, territorial, local, and tribal governments considered grants?
No. Fund payments made by Treasury to State, territorial, local, and Tribal governments are not
considered to be grants but are “other financial assistance” under 2 C.F.R. § 200.40.
Are Fund payments considered federal financial assistance for purposes of the Single Audit Act?
Yes, Fund payments are considered to be federal financial assistance subject to the Single Audit Act (31
U.S.C. §§ 7501-7507) and the related provisions of the Uniform Guidance, 2 C.F.R. § 200.303 regarding
internal controls, §§ 200.330 through 200.332 regarding subrecipient monitoring and management, and
subpart F regarding audit requirements.
Are Fund payments subject to other requirements of the Uniform Guidance?
Fund payments are subject to the following requirements in the Uniform Guidance (2 C.F.R. Part 200): 2
C.F.R. § 200.303 regarding internal controls, 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.330 through 200.332 regarding subrecipient
monitoring and management, and subpart F regarding audit requirements.
Is there a Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number assigned to the Fund?
Yes. The CFDA number assigned to the Fund is 21.019.
If a State transfers Fund payments to its political subdivisions, would the transferred funds count
toward the subrecipients’ total funding received from the federal government for purposes of the
Single Audit Act?
Yes. The Fund payments to subrecipients would count toward the threshold of the Single Audit Act and 2
C.F.R. part 200, subpart F re: audit requirements. Subrecipients are subject to a single audit or program-
11
specific audit pursuant to 2 C.F.R. § 200.501(a) when the subrecipients spend $750,000 or more in federal
awards during their fiscal year.
Are recipients permitted to use payments from the Fund to cover the expenses of an audit conducted
under the Single Audit Act?
Yes, such expenses would be eligible expenditures, subject to the limitations set forth in 2 C.F.R. §
200.425.
If a government has transferred funds to another entity, from which entity would the Treasury
Department seek to recoup the funds if they have not been used in a manner consistent with section
601(d) of the Social Security Act?
The Treasury Department would seek to recoup the funds from the government that received the payment
directly from the Treasury Department. State, territorial, local, and Tribal governments receiving funds
from Treasury should ensure that funds transferred to other entities, whether pursuant to a grant program
or otherwise, are used in accordance with section 601(d) of the Social Security Act as implemented in the
Guidance.
1
Coronavirus Relief Fund
Guidance for State, Territorial, Local, and Tribal Governments
Updated June 30, 2020 1
The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to recipients of the funding available under section
601(a) of the Social Security Act, as added by section 5001 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act (“CARES Act”). The CARES Act established the Coronavirus Relief Fund (the “Fund”)
and appropriated $150 billion to the Fund. Under the CARES Act, the Fund is to be used to make
payments for specified uses to States and certain local governments; the District of Columbia and U.S.
Territories (consisting of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands); and Tribal governments.
The CARES Act provides that payments from the Fund may only be used to cover costs that—
1. are necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to
the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19);
2. were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020 (the
date of enactment of the CARES Act) for the State or government; and
3. were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020, and ends on December 30,
2020.2
The guidance that follows sets forth the Department of the Treasury’s interpretation of these limitations
on the permissible use of Fund payments.
Necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency
The requirement that expenditures be incurred “due to” the public health emergency means that
expenditures must be used for actions taken to respond to the public health emergency. These may
include expenditures incurred to allow the State, territorial, local, or Tribal government to respond
directly to the emergency, such as by addressing medical or public health needs, as well as expenditures
incurred to respond to second-order effects of the emergency, such as by providing economic support to
those suffering from employment or business interruptions due to COVID-19-related business closures.
Funds may not be used to fill shortfalls in government revenue to cover expenditures that would not
otherwise qualify under the statute. Although a broad range of uses is allowed, revenue replacement is
not a permissible use of Fund payments.
The statute also specifies that expenditures using Fund payments must be “necessary.” The Department
of the Treasury understands this term broadly to mean that the expenditure is reasonably necessary for its
intended use in the reasonable judgment of the government officials responsible for spending Fund
payments.
Costs not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020
The CARES Act also requires that payments be used only to cover costs that were not accounted for in
the budget most recently approved as of March 27, 2020. A cost meets this requirement if either (a) the
1 This version updates the guidance provided under “Costs incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020,
and ends on December 30, 2020”.
2 See Section 601(d) of the Social Security Act, as added by section 5001 of the CARES Act.
2
cost cannot lawfully be funded using a line item, allotment, or allocation within that budget or (b) the cost
is for a substantially different use from any expected use of funds in such a line item, allotment, or
allocation.
The “most recently approved” budget refers to the enacted budget for the relevant fiscal period for the
particular government, without taking into account subsequent supplemental appropriations enacted or
other budgetary adjustments made by that government in response to the COVID-19 public health
emergency. A cost is not considered to have been accounted for in a budget merely because it could be
met using a budgetary stabilization fund, rainy day fund, or similar reserve account.
Costs incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020, and ends on December 30, 2020
Finally, the CARES Act provides that payments from the Fund may only be used to cover costs that were
incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020, and ends on December 30, 2020 (the “covered
period”). Putting this requirement together with the other provisions discussed above, section 601(d) may
be summarized as providing that a State, local, or tribal government may use payments from the Fund
only to cover previously unbudgeted costs of necessary expenditures incurred due to the COVID–19
public health emergency during the covered period.
Initial guidance released on April 22, 2020, provided that the cost of an expenditure is incurred when the
recipient has expended funds to cover the cost. Upon further consideration and informed by an
understanding of State, local, and tribal government practices, Treasury is clarifying that for a cost to be
considered to have been incurred, performance or delivery must occur during the covered period but
payment of funds need not be made during that time (though it is generally expected that this will take
place within 90 days of a cost being incurred). For instance, in the case of a lease of equipment or other
property, irrespective of when payment occurs, the cost of a lease payment shall be considered to have
been incurred for the period of the lease that is within the covered period, but not otherwise.
Furthermore, in all cases it must be necessary that performance or delivery take place during the covered
period. Thus the cost of a good or service received during the covered period will not be considered
eligible under section 601(d) if there is no need for receipt until after the covered period has expired.
Goods delivered in the covered period need not be used during the covered period in all cases. For
example, the cost of a good that must be delivered in December in order to be available for use in January
could be covered using payments from the Fund. Additionally, the cost of goods purchased in bulk and
delivered during the covered period may be covered using payments from the Fund if a portion of the
goods is ordered for use in the covered period, the bulk purchase is consistent with the recipient’s usual
procurement policies and practices, and it is impractical to track and record when the items were used. A
recipient may use payments from the Fund to purchase a durable good that is to be used during the current
period and in subsequent periods if the acquisition in the covered period was necessary due to the public
health emergency.
Given that it is not always possible to estimate with precision when a good or service will be needed, the
touchstone in assessing the determination of need for a good or service during the covered period will be
reasonableness at the time delivery or performance was sought, e.g., the time of entry into a procurement
contract specifying a time for delivery. Similarly, in recognition of the likelihood of supply chain
disruptions and increased demand for certain goods and services during the COVID-19 public health
emergency, if a recipient enters into a contract requiring the delivery of goods or performance of services
by December 30, 2020, the failure of a vendor to complete delivery or services by December 30, 2020,
will not affect the ability of the recipient to use payments from the Fund to cover the cost of such goods
or services if the delay is due to circumstances beyond the recipient’s control.
3
This guidance applies in a like manner to costs of subrecipients. Thus, a grant or loan, for example,
provided by a recipient using payments from the Fund must be used by the subrecipient only to purchase
(or reimburse a purchase of) goods or services for which receipt both is needed within the covered period
and occurs within the covered period. The direct recipient of payments from the Fund is ultimately
responsible for compliance with this limitation on use of payments from the Fund.
Nonexclusive examples of eligible expenditures
Eligible expenditures include, but are not limited to, payment for:
1. Medical expenses such as:
• COVID-19-related expenses of public hospitals, clinics, and similar facilities.
• Expenses of establishing temporary public medical facilities and other measures to increase
COVID-19 treatment capacity, including related construction costs.
• Costs of providing COVID-19 testing, including serological testing.
• Emergency medical response expenses, including emergency medical transportation, related
to COVID-19.
• Expenses for establishing and operating public telemedicine capabilities for COVID-19-
related treatment.
2. Public health expenses such as:
• Expenses for communication and enforcement by State, territorial, local, and Tribal
governments of public health orders related to COVID-19.
• Expenses for acquisition and distribution of medical and protective supplies, including
sanitizing products and personal protective equipment, for medical personnel, police officers,
social workers, child protection services, and child welfare officers, direct service providers
for older adults and individuals with disabilities in community settings, and other public
health or safety workers in connection with the COVID-19 public health emergency.
• Expenses for disinfection of public areas and other facilities, e.g., nursing homes, in response
to the COVID-19 public health emergency.
• Expenses for technical assistance to local authorities or other entities on mitigation of
COVID-19-related threats to public health and safety.
• Expenses for public safety measures undertaken in response to COVID-19.
• Expenses for quarantining individuals.
3. Payroll expenses for public safety, public health, health care, human services, and similar
employees whose services are substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the COVID-
19 public health emergency.
4. Expenses of actions to facilitate compliance with COVID-19-related public health measures, such
as:
• Expenses for food delivery to residents, including, for example, senior citizens and other
vulnerable populations, to enable compliance with COVID-19 public health precautions.
• Expenses to facilitate distance learning, including technological improvements, in connection
with school closings to enable compliance with COVID-19 precautions.
• Expenses to improve telework capabilities for public employees to enable compliance with
COVID-19 public health precautions.
4
• Expenses of providing paid sick and paid family and medical leave to public employees to
enable compliance with COVID-19 public health precautions.
• COVID-19-related expenses of maintaining state prisons and county jails, including as relates
to sanitation and improvement of social distancing measures, to enable compliance with
COVID-19 public health precautions.
• Expenses for care for homeless populations provided to mitigate COVID-19 effects and
enable compliance with COVID-19 public health precautions.
5. Expenses associated with the provision of economic support in connection with the COVID-19
public health emergency, such as:
• Expenditures related to the provision of grants to small businesses to reimburse the costs of
business interruption caused by required closures.
• Expenditures related to a State, territorial, local, or Tribal government payroll support
program.
• Unemployment insurance costs related to the COVID-19 public health emergency if such
costs will not be reimbursed by the federal government pursuant to the CARES Act or
otherwise.
6. Any other COVID-19-related expenses reasonably necessary to the function of government that
satisfy the Fund’s eligibility criteria.
Nonexclusive examples of ineligible expenditures 3
The following is a list of examples of costs that would not be eligible expenditures of payments from the
Fund.
1. Expenses for the State share of Medicaid.4
2. Damages covered by insurance.
3. Payroll or benefits expenses for employees whose work duties are not substantially dedicated to
mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency.
4. Expenses that have been or will be reimbursed under any federal program, such as the
reimbursement by the federal government pursuant to the CARES Act of contributions by States
to State unemployment funds.
5. Reimbursement to donors for donated items or services.
6. Workforce bonuses other than hazard pay or overtime.
7. Severance pay.
8. Legal settlements.
3 In addition, pursuant to section 5001(b) of the CARES Act, payments from the Fund may not be expended for an
elective abortion or on research in which a human embryo is destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of
injury or death. The prohibition on payment for abortions does not apply to an abortion if the pregnancy is the result
of an act of rape or incest; or in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or
physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that
would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.
Furthermore, no government which receives payments from the Fund may discriminate against a health care entity
on the basis that the entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
4 See 42 C.F.R. § 433.51 and 45 C.F.R. § 75.306.
RESOLUTION 9XXX
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ACCEPTING AND ALLOCATING CARES ACT FUNDING
WHEREAS, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act
provided federal funds to the State of Minnesota and the legislature and Governor thereby
distributed these funds to local governments throughout Minnesota to deal with the financial
impacts of COVID 19; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View staff have worked with the League of Minnesota
Cities and in-turn the National League of Cities, Department of Treasury and the White House
for clarification of eligible uses; and
WHEREAS, the CARES funding requires a three-point test for utilization of the funds
that they be necessary expenditures for responding to COVID 19, not accounted for in the
original budget process and incurred during the period of March 1, 2020 to November 15, 2020;
and
WHEREAS, guidance from the United States Treasury for State, Territorial, Local and
Tribal Governments outlined in their Frequently Asked Questions, most recently updated on July
8, 2020, indicated that local governments “may presume that payroll costs for the public health
and public safety employees are payments for services substantially dedicated to mitigating or
responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency…”; and
WHEREAS, League of Minnesota Cities, Minnesota Association of Counties, and
Minnesota Association of Townships have worked in consultation with Minnesota Management
and Budget’s Minnesota COVID Response Accountability Office and Minnesota Department of
Revenue to provide further direction on the use of CARES funding for regular police and fire
payroll and also indicated we may presume these regular payroll public safety expenses as being
dedicated to a COVID-19 response; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View public safety personnel have adopted new
COVID-19 response procedures, given direction on the Governor’s Executive Orders to
monitor/enforce COVID provisions for EO 20-04, modified other internal policies and restricted
vacation leave requests, developed messaging for the “Stay at Home” EO, dealt with COVID
patients, been a full partner with Ramsey County Public Health in the Emergency Operations
Center efforts, served as the point of contact for the City’s adopted pandemic plan, had other
training and programs modified or cancelled to the extent these all present a modification of their
operations, caused by the pandemic, and otherwise not provided for in our annual budget now
become a reimbursable cost under CARES funding; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has incurred many additional expenses related to
COVID-19 but for administrative simplicity and otherwise having adequate expenses for police
payroll during the expense period have chosen not to itemize these expenses; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The City Council recognizes regular payroll
expenses, consistent with Federal and State direction, that these expenses shall be deemed due to
the public health emergency related to COVID 19, not accounted for in our regular budget
process as a part of an administrative convenience for itemization and within the time period of
March 1, 2020 and November 15, 2020 are eligible for reimbursement of City’s apportionment
of $1,004,135 in CARES funding.
Adopted this 10th day of August, 2020
_______________________________
Carol A. Mueller, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Nyle Zikmund, City Administrator
(SEAL)
Item No: __07__
Meeting Date: __August 3, 2020
Type of Business: ____WS___
Administrator Review: ____
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Nyle Zikmund, City Administrator
Item Title/Subject: LGU Designation
Introduction:
The Minnesota Legislature created Storm Water Management structure in the early 1970s. As
a result of that legislation, many metro cities joined together to form Watershed Districts.
Mounds View joined in creation of the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWS).
Watershed Districts are managed by a board of Commissioners who are appointed by elected
County Commissioners. Watersheds are geographically created following natural water flowage
and named after a distinctive water feature within the district. RCWS district encompasses an
area of 185 square miles that traverses parts of Anoka, Ramsey and Washington Counties as
well as 27 local political subdivisions. Mounds View is one of about half of those that wholly is
within the watershed (as compared, for example – Blaine and Spring Lake Park which is
covered in part by Coon Creek Watershed as well.
Discussion:
The City of Mounds View has experienced difficulties and challenges working with the
Watershed on permitting issues and storm water management. This has been going on for
more than a decade.
In the past several years the City has;
1. Reached out to RCWS to discuss storm water management specific to infiltration basins
(Rain Gardens) and was unable to resolve the issue.
2. Following statutory guidelines, provided a slate of nominees for RCWS Commissioner
appointment by the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners resulting in a new board
appointment.
3. Formed with other concerned communities, an ad-hoc committee to explore legislation
and legal recourse.
4. Followed efforts by several (5) Anoka County cities who followed similar statutory
guidelines advocate for a change in Commission Board members which is currently now
under legal challenge by the Cities as the Anoka County Board rejected the slate of
nominees.
5. Worked with every single developer in the City over the last 3-5 years on the permitting
process as 100% get rejected the first time by RCWS on their storm water management.
6. Discovered a Significant failure in their inspection process on a development (Long View
Estates) that will cost in excess of $10,000 to remedy. They are reviewing and will get
back to us.
7. Met with them numerous times – face to face and virtual to share our concerns and
frustration regarding infiltration ponds, inspection, permitting and now concerns
regarding the Quincy street project.
8. Duplicate regulations from RCWD, the City already is required to meet these regulations
under the MS4 permit under the MPCA.
Current Situation:
Circle Pines has taken the lead for the five cities in Anoka County with respect to the
Commissioner Appointment. An early September summary judgement hearing has been
scheduled to hear the case. The City is requesting the seat be vacated and the board appoint
from the slate of nominees submitted, per statute, by the five city group.
Circle Pines and Hugo, both of which have significant water and storm water issues in their
communities have taken over the Local Governing Until (LGU) designation which allow them to
issue the permits.
I have spoken with my counterparts in Blaine and Spring Lake Park with both indicating they are
watching with great interest. SLP does not have much territory and minimal storm water
whereas Blaine has significant issue. Mayor Ryan has been outspoken and critical of RCWS
and supported a change in Commissioner Appointments.
Becoming the LGU:
By undertaking the LGU, the City becomes the permitting entity specific to Storm Water
Management. Instead of residents and/or developers contacting Rice Creek whenever
development occurs, they would contact the City.
The LGU is specific to Storm Water Management Plans – Rule C of Rice Creek. We must
follow that rule and have no ability to change it (always have ability to advocate but no legal
authority to do it). Thus, we are permitting and inspecting to their rule.
There are 7 steps or items to be undertaken in order for us to become the LGU. They are;
1. Amend the City Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) to reflect the City’s
plan to assume permitting responsibilities – state that the City adopts RCWD
Rules C, D, E, and F by reference. List goals and policies that are consistent with
these rules.
2. Execute a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the RCWD that the City
will take on permitting responsibilities and inspections.
3. Pass ordinances adopting Rules C, D, E, and F
4. Adopt a resolution taking on WCA responsibility
5. Create a protocol guide for issuing permits for submittal to the RCWD. It should
lay out various procedures including permit application review and closeout
process, hydraulics/hydrology data submittal to the RCWD, and the auditing
process.
6. Create a permit application form (including a fee schedule)
All of these are reasonably easy and inexpensive to do as Stantec would simply amend
the SWMP as part of the current update that is in process and both Circle Pines and
Hugo have provided samples for 2-6 and I have included some of those in the packet.
Reasons against becoming the LGU:
1. Additional burden onto staff, primarily Public Works administering permits and
inspections, Public Works staff would be reviewing/inspecting job sites.
2. Rice Creek has levy authority and thus, collects revenue to provide this function.
Neither Hugo nor Circle Pines receives any remuneration for taking on the
permitting and inspection process despite an argument that could be made they
should.
Reasons for becoming the LGU.
1. Staff is more than confident that the additional time needed by staff will actually be an
overall reduction based on substantial staff time dealing with the watershed on infiltration
basins, permitting, inspections, and storm water management. On average, over the
past 5 years, there are 5 to 7 applications per year.
2. Expanding our engineering contract to undertake the technical review will allow one less
– very expense, review of plans. Furthermore, our contract engineer knows our storm
water system which will allow the developer design team to work directly with the city
resulting in fewer rejections and subsequent modifications.
3. Both Circle Pines and Hugo report taking on the LGU was one of the best decisions they
have ever made. Their developers and residents are more comfortable working with the
City and both administrators have shared that they now promote, in the Economic
Development efforts, that they are the LGU and one stop shopping with numerous
developers applauding and reaching out to them (more in Hugo).
4. RCWS has a culture or regulation versus customer service and partnership with
municipalities . We have little influence on changing that but control our culture which is
strong on Customer Service. By becoming the LGU, we are better positioned to
continue our model of extraordinary customer service.
Recommendation:
Receive presentation, discuss and determine next step.
Respectfully submitted,
Nyle Zikmund
City Administrator
Attachments:
Draft MOA
Draft Permit
Draft Permit Fee (Current RCWS Fee Schedule
Draft Storm Water Management Plan