HomeMy WebLinkAboutweekly Notes- June 26th 2020 CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS—WEEKLY NOTES for: June 26th 2020
TO: City Council Members& Staff
FROM: Eric Johnson,City Administrator
441—
Zoning &Development Items:
1. No new applications have been received;We might see an application for a duplex construction on 64th street—converting from a
single-family home;Also,possible Amended PUD for Palmer Station-shifting the home pads towards the street by 10'to save trees
and expand neighbor space in the backyards—lots 7,8&9
2. The City Attorney did communicate with FURY MOTORS indicating to them that their July 15t deadline is fast approaching;they did
respond indicating work is to commence next week.Hopefully.
3. The first Xcel Energy Advisory Panel Meeting is slated for September 16th—the enclosed invitation letter and planned agenda-has
been issued.What the COVID-19 impact is we are unsure on location or group size.As that date approaches—we can refine these
issues with the group.
4. The City did need to engage with a FOOD TRUCK operator that was parked at the former McCormick's site. Mr.Donuts was advised
that FOOD TRUCKS are not permitted to generally operate at-large in the City.They did comply.
5. As outlined by the Council Resolution,Staff did reach out to the County expressing concerns about the South Frontage Roadway;
also,STANTEC continues to perform is studies on the roadway elements including the market impact analysis.A short survey has
been sent to other local grocers to understand market conditions;copy of that is enclosed.
COVID-19 Matters:
This is the Governor's - PORTAL— Many documents/ Exec. Orders can be found: https://mn.gov/covidl9 Washington County has
initiated a County Dashboard containing more localized COVID-19 Impacts and rates LINK->>HERE
The City has updated its Park Shelter rental policy and we have begun to accept reservations again—but only for groups of up to 25
persons.The update policy is enclosed.
The State has issued directive to distribute COVID-19 Relief funds to local units of government. The expected amount to the City is
$361,709 or$75.34 per capita. There will be of course restrictions on how these funds can be used and staff is reviewing these;enclosed
is various releases of information form METRO CITIES and Lockridge Grindal; More guidance is forthcoming—but the City will want to
find ways to allocate all these dollars!
'�ASHI%TON ',LAK PARK HE 5HT5 4 Mn +4 361,709
--------------------------------
Other Items:
• The position announcements for the Police Officer and Chief of Police are on the City's website and LMC.The closing date for both
positions is July 15th.Here is a 4 LINK
• The LMC has indicated that they will be holding their membership rates stable for FY20-21 —or 0%increase. The enclosed letter
outlines some of their comments and positions.
• The MCES has sent the preliminary SEWERAGE CHARGE RATES for the upcoming year-they estimate a 2.91%increase over
2020. Staff still needs to compare sewerage flow to water pumped from the wells.
Mayor McComber provided:
1. Information from Lockridge Grindal--Federal Update...
2. MAOSC Update for 6/22 and Special Bulletin
3. METRO CITIES NEWS for 6/19&6/24
4. NLC—"Use of Force"resolution and other items
1 of 50 Please let me know if you have any questions-651-253-7837 Call Anytime.
I
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574
June 25, 2020
Dear Xcel Energy—Allen S. King Plant-Advisory Panel Member:
Congratulations on your appointment to the City of Oak Park Heights — Xcel Energy —Allen S. King Plant
Advisory Panel. We hope this Panel affords you an opportunity to learn about the complexities of
decommissioning this power plant— slated for 2028. But, to also become a local advocate for how the City
can best plan for this Site and its reuse for the next several decades. It is a unique opportunity!
We have some important updates at this time:
1. Naturally, we all remain a bit unsure about the COVID-19 matter and our ability to hold in-person
meetings. Assuming the best, please plan for an IN-PERSON— Kick-off meeting on Wednesday,
September 16th 2020—4 PM to 6 PM and will be held at the Oak Park Heights City Hall.
2. The totality of the Advisory Panel process will be facilitated by Mr. John Shardlow, a short "BIO" is
enclosed. Mr. Shardlow is an employee of STANTEC—which also serves as the City 's consulting
engineering firm.
3. The CO-CHAIRS of the Advisory Panel are Mr. Tim Freeman and Ms. Gina Zeuli — both long-term
City residents and who have served and chaired the Planning and Parks Commission, respectively.
They are tasked to keep meetings flowing and facilitate sound discussions.
4. Enclosed is a DRAFT Agenda for this first meeting as well as the underlying City Resolution 20-01-
04 and Formation Policy that will further guide the Panel.
5. Attached is a listing of all persons appointed to the Advisory Panel and their email contact
information.
As the date approaches, I will be sending out some further communications and will be doing so via email.
Please let me know if you have any questions 651-439-4439
We look forward to the process!
Kind regards
e4l_
Eric Johnson
City Administrator
2 of 30 6-25-20 Update
f
City of Oak Park Heights
Allan S. King Plant Reuse Advisory Panel "
Agenda — Kickoff Meeting
September 16, 2020
4:00-6:00 P M
Location:TBD
1. Welcome and Orientation to Advisory Panel Process—John Shardlow
2. Introductions
• Introduce yourself
• Tell us why this process is important to you
3. Roles and Responsibilities
• Relationship with the City Council and Xcel Energy
4. Purpose, Objectives and Desired Outcomes
• How can the Panel best support the City Council?
• Realistic expectations
• Extraordinary opportunities
5. Process Overview
• Focus and sequence of workshop meetings, history and over-arching issues overview
6. Logistics and Schedule
7. Next Steps
2 of 50 6-25-20 Update
BIOGRAPHY, PROJECT FACILITATOR
John W. Shardlow, FAICP is a Senior Principal at Stantec Consulting Services. He is a land planning
consultant with a 42-year career advising both government and the private sector on a broad and
diverse spectrum of land use issues. In addition to having assisted over 100 cities and counties with the
preparation and implementation of their comprehensive plans, he also has extensive experience
planning business and industrial parks, commercial centers, master planned residential communities,
college campuses and more.
His experience includes numerous complicated and challenging redevelopment projects. For example,
Arbor Lakes, the redevelopment of 2,000 acres of gravel mines in Maple Grove, Silver Lake Village,the
redevelopment of the Apache Plaza Shopping Center in St. Anthony, and Heart of the City, awarded one
of the Twin Cities Great Places.
He recently assisted the Washington County CDA with the preparation of its Strategic Plan for Economic
Development and helped the City of Oakdale plan all the remaining 3M Foundation land located to the
north of the former Imation, now Forefront building. The latter will break ground next spring and will be
an excellent example of a successful advisory panel process that has led to a unique neighborhood that
will far succeed what would have occurred without strategic and sustained community engagement.
Sustainability and environmental stewardship are cornerstones of John's work. He is the past chair of
the Urban Land Institute's Sustainable Development Council nationally and the ULI Resilient
Communities Council in Minnesota. He is a past chair and current Board member of the Minnesota Land
Trust. He was a founding board member of the Sensible land Use Coalition, past chair of ULI Minnesota
and a member of the Minnesota Brownfields Advisory Committee.
a of 50 6-25-20 Update
City of Oak Park Heights
ADVISORY PANEL LISTING-Updated 6-25-20
NOMINATED PERSON Represented Group/Firm/Entity Email
Gina Zeuli CO CHAIR gzeuli@q.com
Tim Freeman CO CHAIR freeman@ffsurveying.com
David White City of OPH Planning Commission david.white@avivomn.org
Judith Chirhart City of OPH Parks Commission jfc326@comcast.net
Colette Jurek Xcel Energy colette.c.jurek@xcelenergy.com
Brian Behm Xcel Energy Brian.Behm@xcelenergy.com
Chris Eng Washington County CDA ChrisE@washingtoncountycda.org
Deb Ryun The St.Croix River Association debryun@scramail.com
Brian Zeller Watershed District-MSCWMO bzeller@ccim.net
TBD Andersen Corporation
Sara Taylor City of Bayport staylor@ci.bayport.mn.us
Tom McCarty City of Stillwater tmccarty@ci.stillwater.mn.us
Jim Levitt Minnesota Department of Natural Resources jim.levitt@state.mn.us
Adam Josephson Minnesota Department of Transportation Adam.josephson@state.mn.us
Robin Anthony Greater Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce director@greaterstillwaterchamber.com
Julie Galonska National Park Service Julie_Galonska@nps.gov
TBD Stillwater Area School District
Shane Zahrt or Greg Pruzinski Coalition of Utility Cities SAZahrt@flaherty-hood.com
Kathryn Hoffman Centerfor Environmental Advocacy khoffman@mncenter.org
Tim Axel Citizen Member taxel@msn.com
Jim Kremer Citizen Member
mbjim87@gmail.com
Tim Holden Citizen Member timjholden777@aol.com
AJ Paron Citizen Member
ajparon72@gmail.com
John Regal Citizen Member johnregall3@icloud.com
Larry Schneider Citizen Member
ischneider5267@msn.com
Kate Hanson Citizen Member kateh2573@gmail.com
4 of 50 6-25-20 Update
RESOLUTION 20-01-04
A RESOLUTION BY THE OAK PARK HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE
FORMATION OF THE ALLEN S.KING PLANT DECOMMISSIONING AND REUSE
ADVISORY PANEL
Whereas, the Xcel Energy-Allen S. King Plant (King Plant) is a 511 mega-watt, coal fired base-load
electricity plant that has commercially operated in the City of Oak Park Heights since 1968; and,
Whereas, the King Plant is located on 170 acres lying east of STH 95 with more than 4,500 linear feet of
shoreline upon the St.Croix River—a nationally designated Wild and Scenic River; and,
Whereas,the King Plant is the largest tax generator in the City accounting for more than 35 percent of the
City's tax revenues,typically over$2,000,000 annually; and,
Whereas, it is anticipated that the King Plant will be decommissioned in the next decade as both Xcel
Energy and the State of Minnesota seek to further advance carbon-free power generation and rene�N able
targets; and,
Whereas,with any decommissioning the City has a deep interest in the King Plant property being returned
to a productive use including advancing elements to provide tax base and job creation but to also enhance
and restore lands along the Wild and Scenic St. Croix River along with our community's access and
interface with it; and,
Whereas,the City is the requisite local land-use authority with zoning responsibilities for such lands as well
being the primary public infrastructure utility provider; and.
Whereas, as any replacement use is being explored, a comprehensive and deliberate public narrative must
be initiated that begins to outlines the City's goals for such site, outlines the steps necessary to achieve a
successful decommissioning and how the City. Xcel Energy and other entities can begin to engage and
contribute to discover a shared vison for this land..
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights that the
City shal I take an initial step in this exploratory process and shall form an Advisory Panel that will endeavor
to educate its members and the general public as to the complex issues associated with a coal-plant
decommissioning as well as the exploration of future uses and development of visioning concepts.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Council will develop policies and protocols as to the makeup
of such Advisory Panel which shall generally seek to be inclusive of economic development interests, St.
Croix River advocates, local public agencies and other relevant parties.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Advisory Panel shall regularly report its discussions and finding
to the City Council and shall undertake the costs, steps and programming as outlined in Exhibit A to this
Resolution as its primary responsibility.
Passed by the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights this 14 T``of January 2020.
L.
l t'
M Comber, Mayor
A st:
ri so City Administrator
6 of 50 6-25-20 Update
t-%LJllr ILV L/e-.J/LV
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
POLICIES RELATING TO THE ALLEN S.KING PLANT DECOMMISSIONING AND REUSE
ADVISORY PANEL—APPOINTMENTS AND ROLES
PURPOSE:
The City Council desires to appoint an Advisory Panel to inform and support the City Council's decision making
regarding the future of the Allen S. King Plant.The following policy shall govern the formulation of this group,
describes its role and relationship with the Council and what the expectations are from participating members.
Invitation to Serve on the Advisory Panel:
The City desires participation from a number of parties generally known in the community with an apparent
stake or clear interest in such dialogue and which includes the organizations listed below.
These entities will be sent a Letter of Invitation to participate in the City's process and such invitation shall be
signed by the Mayor and every Council member. Each group, or organization if they desire to participate shall
nominate a SINGLE representative, who is expected to be available to attend 10-12 monthly meetings. The
City's desire is that such person would generally relay the views of the organization they represent where
possible.All members so appointed shall be reviewed and approved by unanimous consent of the City Council.
1. City of OPH Planning Commission(1 member)
2. City of OPH Parks Commission(1 member)
3. Xcel Energy
4. Washington County CDA
5. The St. Croix River Association
6. Watershed District-MSCWMO
7. Andersen Corporation
8. The City of Bayport—MUST BE A NON—ELECTED OFFICIAL
9. The City of Stillwater-MUST BE A NON—ELECTED OFFICIAL
10. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
11. Minnesota Department of Transportation
12. Greater Stillwater Area Chamber of Commerce
13. National Park Service
14. Greater Stillwater Area School District-MUST BE A NON—ELECTED OFFICIAL-(2 seats one must be a
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT expected to be able to serve through the term of the discussions)
15. Coalition of Utility Cities
16. Sierra Club
17. Center for Environmental Advocacy
18. Union Pacific Railroad
19. Real Estate Group—TBD(such as the SPAAR... https://spaar.com/)St.Paul Area Association of Realtors
20. Three(3)At-Large Members(may be either City residents,or business owners)may be invited to serve on the
Panel. Interested individuals shall submit a letter and application to the Council explaining their role in the
community and interest in serving on the Advisory Panel. Depending on the level of interest,the Council may
choose to decrease or increase the number of at-large members.
Locally Elected Officials are precluded from serving on this Panel where they directly represent a given city,
school district, county's interest. In the case of these public organizations the appointment of staff, volunteers,
or other appointed officials to their respective bodies is requested. For example: The City of Stillwater may
appoint their Planning Commission Chair who is a non-elected person but is appointed by the City Council.
In circumstances where there is a"joint-powers"organization such as the MSCWMO or WCCDA,appointment
of Staff or Non-elected officials is preferred. However, this may result on overtime expenses or budgetary
constraints that may preclude participation.If such staff or other volunteer is not available and if such JPA board
members are elected individuals and are available,the City Council may evaluate these on a case-by-case basis
so as to ascertain their underlying entity and relationships.Any person so appointed would be expected to clearly
represent the joint-powers entity,not their primary jurisdiction.
6 of 50 6-25-20 Update
Appointment of Co-Chairs:
The City Council also desires the appointment of CO-CHAIRS positions so as to better ensure continuity of the
process in the event one person cannot attend.The role of the"co-chair"is to ensure the meetings move forward
and to facilitate the discussion and presentations and in allotted time. In all respects, the CO-CHAIR position
acts only as manager to ensure the process remains vital and fluid and not to advocate for any given position.
The Mayor or a Council Member may nominate and the Council shall appoint up to two co-chairs, any such
appointment shall be by unanimous vote of the City Council.If no chair(s)can be determined,the Panel shall be
managed by City Staff or City Consultant until such time as a CO CHAIR can be found.A CO-CHAIR may be
removed from the Panel by simple majority of the Council. The appointed CO-Chair individuals may or may
not be otherwise listed in the invited participation listing stated above, if not listed they shall become full
members of the Panel once appointed.
Further Expectations of the Advisory Panel:
The meetings are generally anticipated to be a method by which Panel Member can avail themselves of the best
available information regarding the many facets of regulations, challenges and opportunities related to this site.
Fundamentally, few —if any, decisions are expected to be made by the Panel itself. As the discovery process
unfolds, all members of the Advisory Panel are expected to follow a Code of Conduct that will be provided by
the City and which will outline rules of discussion and how any collective recommendations might be made.All
members serve at the pleasure of the City Council and the City Council may amend the number of participants
or which participants at any time at its sole discretion.
Guests&Public Visibility:
The City would expect to invite elected or appointed officials to attend the meetings —not as a panelist, but
instead offer them an opportunity to listen and gain more information as to what is being accomplished. These
guests would include: Metropolitan Council Sector 12 - Board Member Local legislators, MPCA, and other
governmental organization representatives. Guests will be welcomed at meetings and materials will be shared
with them, as supplies permit. Otherwise copies will be available for download from the City Website.
The general public is also welcome to view and listen to these meetings as space allows,but such meetings are
not PUBLIC HEARINGS and data presented and dialogue held is for the primary benefit and consumption of
the Panel Members.
City Council Role:
Oak Park Heights elected officials may not serve on the Advisory Panel as the work of the Advisory Panel
is intended to support the Council in its decision making regarding the future of this property.The Council
will be fully briefed by the Consultant,following every working meeting.The Council will have the opportunity
to either accept and embrace Panel recommendations, or direct course corrections, as needed. As it relates to
City Council general interface with City Consultants,these communications should be channeled through City
Staff similar to current City protocols.
9 of 50 6-25-20 Update
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574
6/25/20
TO: Kevin Corbid, County Administrator
Washington County, MN-via email only/PDF-Kevin.Corbid@co.washington.mn.us
RE: Requested Action-South Frontage Road.
Dear Kevin,
Over the past several weeks the City has informed Washington County that it holds significant concerns about its immediate
pursuit of the South Frontage Road [Project]for a possible 2021/2022 construction as such timeline remains inconsistent with
past positions of being " in the future"and that there was not a meritorious public dialogue, nor an evaluation impacts or public
vetting of alternatives with the community at large—nor our City- before there was decision made to move forward.
At this time, we would ask that Washington County please disengage from the further development of this Project; and in
alternative please initiate a genuine public dialogue that outlines the public needs of the roadway, addresses its impacts to the
community and invites those impacted parties to the table—including the City of Oak Park Heights business community. This
discussion would not be a "layout dialogue" similar to what is being suggested now; Rather, it would be an antecedent
examination of need,impacts and alternatives where the community can weigh in on the decision to move forward or not.Again,
this was not done,
Beyond this, the City would hope the County would first seek City concurrence before there any final decision to move forward
as the City is the most impacted entity; not to mention the fact that the County would seek to acquire and/or impact substantial
City interests. This may have been a staff oversight, but needs to be corrected with the processes noted.
In the interim,the City would also request that the County visibly withdraw from the formal pursuit of grant funding that suggests
that such a public dialogue was previously held (MET COUNCIL) and refrain from formal pursuit of any such funding or
identification of timelines until this conversation is completed. The City does appreciate what the underlying concepts might be
relative to STH 36;however not affirmatively engaging our City and our community members in this major discussion may simply
be an oversight—but must be overtly corrected with withdrawal actions.
Moving forward, the City will expect Washington County to fund 100 percent of every aspect of its Project, including but not
limited to all City costs associated with impacted utilities,soft costs, roads,surveying, as-builts, as well as 100%of all Regional
Trails—including funding commitment on all maintenance elements. Please be prepared for these costs as it would be a County
Project and a Regional Trail (not local sidewalks). As you can appreciate, further City staff conversations to relative to this
funding wil a d' ctly from this perspective.
It is uch to ns' er but I am sure your office can understand our concerns.
I e me now if you have any questions.
c Joh
City A istrator
Cc- Lee Mann, STANTEC
Enclosure: City Resolution 20-06-29
9 of 50
RESOLUTION U-Qf "2.1
A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS OUTLINING CURRENT POSITION
ON PROPSED SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD—MANNING AVE AND STH 36.
Whereas,the City of Oak Park Heights,the"City",has offered written support for the development of traffic
solutions at the interface of Manning Ave 1 STH 36 including the development of an interchange;and,
Whereas,the City was presented information throughout the development of that interchange layout that any
frontage road lying in the south east quadrant was entirely defined and presented as an undefined "futum
project"and was not a meritorious element of the interchange discussion or layout parameters and was not
engaged as an element of public discussion;and,
Whereas,in early 2020,Washington County altered its position of this South Frontage Road,the-Project"
from an"in the future"project to instead immediately seek a construction ofthis South Frontage Road in 2021
or 2022 and has begun the active pursuit of funding of such Project with various grants from other public
agencies,such as the Metropolitan Council;and,
Whereas,this timeline alteration is in direct conflict with the numents positions presented to the community
and to the City throughout the development of the Manning'STH 36 Interchange;and,
Whereas,Washington County did not hold a prior meritorious or transparent public dialogue outlining the
clear public need for such roadway,did not develop and present to the community a listing of alternatives nor
develop a listing of expected impacts upon the community such Project would most significantly impact,
namely the City of Oak Park Heights,
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RE-SOLVED that, the City does not support the further advancement of this
Proposal as the impacts to the City,its tax base and expected traffic operations remain wholly unknown and
have not been reasonably vested in timely and transparent fashion.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City requests the County withdraw from the further advancement of
this Project—including the pursuit any final layout development or funding with outside entities and instead
undertake a transparent public process that addresses the elements noted relating to demonstration of need,
investigation of collateral impacts and the development of alternatives.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does direct its Staff to advise Washington County that
the County will he solely responsible for any and all City related costs associated with this Project should it
be pursued as City taxpayers are not in a position to subsidize State,County or Regional projects;these costs
include but are not limited to:impacts to City utilities and roadways,design,review and inspections as well
as any proposed Regional Trails and their perpetual maintenance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does direct its Staff to inform other public agencies of
the positions taken in this Resolution and to encourage them to advise Washington County reinitiate a
transparent public dialogue prior to any further Project advancement.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Helghts�dayq Gii> -- 2020
h ary.lc ber,Mayor
I
o Gott,City Administrator
10 of 50
I
City of Oak Park Heights
14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574
June 25th, 2020
TO: Local Grocery Retailer:
The City of Oak Park Heights is evaluating the impact of the proposed Hy-Vee grocery store at
Highway 36 and Manning on existing grocery stores within our collective community. See the
attached map.
We would value your feedback as part of that study. If you are willing to participate, please
respond to the following questions:
1. What is the primary trade area for your store (i.e. the area from which HALF of your
customers originate)? You can describe that area in any way that may you like, or draw
it on a map and attach that in your response as well.
2. In your own words, what would be the impact on your store of a 10% reduction in total
sales? A 25% reduction in total sales?
3. We would also appreciate any additional thoughts regarding the competitive impact upon
your store upon the introduction of a Hy-Vee store at Highway 36 and Manning; please
share your comments.
Please direct your responses - via email- to our consultant by July 9th 2020:
Mr. Tom Leighton - Tom.Lei ghton(a-)-stantec.com
STANTEC is the City's consulting / engineering Firm.
Note that your responses will not be attributed to you in the study findings and will be held as
confidential as possible.
For questions or other comments, please call Eric Johnson — 651-439-4439— City Administrator
Thank you very much
Eric Johnson
City Administrator
11 of 50
4W�
v*
i
:
_ a
„+ Aa °ry "4i y � '' r„ w '°�� •fie--,
A ad
Y„ u
• s
��d t r ti. � tip.:" dt� •. ,,�� ., q;
d
r
..x
s.
d r
+a
i
r+
r,.
i4
x
1)(P til", � •• ,�" <• i,
�++ a
.'b
r
M'
R{
Fu
T
k
i
r.y
r.
p
r
1.
12 of 50
From: Lenczewski,Ann T.
To: marvmccomberCabaol.com
Cc: Eric Johnson; Huss.Angela A.
Subject: 6/25/20 Interim Update#2
Date: Thursday,June 25,2020 2:21:29 PM
Governor Walz, Lt. Governor Flanagan Announce Coronavirus Relief
Funding for Communities Across the State
Funding will support local governments and food security efforts
[ST. PAUL, MN] — Governor Tim Walz and Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan today
announced a plan to distribute $853 million in relief to communities across the state impacted
by the COVID-19 pandemic. $841 million will be distributed to Minnesota counties, cities, and
towns to support local government coronavirus relief efforts. $12 million will be allocated
toward food shelves and food banks to help combat hunger across Minnesota. The funding
was authorized under the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
"As we work to support the health and safety of all Minnesotans during the COVID-19
pandemic, we are also taking steps to build a stronger and more equitable economy," said
Governor Walz. "This funding will bring much-needed relief to communities across the state
as we continue to battle this pandemic together."
Approximately 300,000 Minnesotans have visited food shelves each month since the
pandemic began, representing approximately a 30 percent increase over typical visits. Food
banks are distributing approximately 2.4 million pounds of food per week, representing a 20-
40 percent increase since 2019. To help meet this unprecedented demand, the Governor and
Lt. Governor are allocating $12 million in emergency support for food shelves, food banks, and
other emergency food efforts across the state.
"Access to nutritious food is a cornerstone of a safe and healthy life, and for too many
Minnesotans, that need hasn't gone away during this pandemic—it has increased," said
Lieutenant Governor Flanagan. "Using CARES Act funding to alleviate this need is one way
we can directly improve the lives of Minnesotans most impacted by COVID-19. While the
Legislature was not able to come to a final agreement to distribute this funding, their work
was critical in determining the greatest needs across our state."
The $841 million for local governments across the state can be used to support local
government services as well as grants to businesses, hospitals, and individuals who have been
impacted by COVID-19.
13 of 50
The Minnesota Department of Revenue will distribute the funding to local governments. Local
governments will receive a direct payment based on the per capita formula developed by the
state legislature during special session.
Counties with population under 500,000: $121.28 x county population
Cities with population over 200: $75.34 x city population
Organized towns with population over 5,000: $75.34 x organized town population
Towns with population over 200 and under 4,999: $25.00 x town population
Cities or towns with a population of less than 200 will have their distribution sent to their
county:
Cities with population under 200: $75.34 x city population
Organized towns with population under 200: $25.00 x town population
Prior to distributing the aid, local governments must certify their intent to follow federal
guidelines for the use of funds received. The CARES Act requires that payments may only be
used to cover costs that are necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health
emergency, were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved for the state or
local government, and were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020, and
ends on December 30, 2020.
"Local governments urgently need this funding in order to effectively respond to this
unprecedented public health emergency," said Department of Revenue Commissioner
Cynthia Bauerly. "The Department of Revenue has a long track record of distributing aid to
local governments. The infrastructure already in place will ensure this aid is distributed
quickly and accurately."
The Governor is submitting this proposal today to the Legislative Advisory Commission for
their review and is requesting their swift approval so the funds can be distributed. The
Department of Revenue will distribute funds on a rolling basis beginning the week of June 29,
2020. Any remaining unspent funding must be returned to the state by December 10, 2020,
and the state must recoup money if local governments are found to have spent the aid
improperly.
Additional information is available on the Minnesota Department of Revenue website.
Ann Lenczewski I State Government Relations
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
14 of 50
100 Washington Avenue S I Suite 2200 1 Minneapolis MN 55401
C: 612-396-6439 1 www.locklaw.com
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you
are not the intended recipient or otherwise have received this message in error, you are not authorized to read,
print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you are not the intended recipient or otherwise
have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, discard any paper copies and delete
all electronic files of the message.
15 of 50
Coronavirus Relief Fund
Frequently Asked Questions
Updated as of June 24,2020
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").' 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 diffferent 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.
'The Guidance is available at https://home.treasurygov/system/files/136/Coronavirus-Relief-Fund-Guidance-for-
State-Territorial-Local-and-Tribal-Governments.pdf.
1
16 of 50
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.
2
17 of 50
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.
3
18 of 50
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.
4
19 of 50
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 ofgrants 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.
5
20 of 50
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 "[pjayroll 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.
6
21 of 50
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 ofpayments 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.
7
22 of 50
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
8
23 of 50
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 meatprocessors 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.
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?
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?
9
24 of 50
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-
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
10
25 of 50
or otherwise, are used in accordance with section 601(d)of the Social Security Act as implemented in the
Guidance.
11
26 of 50
From: Nauman,Patricia
To: Nauman.Patricia
Subject: Distribution of Federal Funds to Local Governments
Date: Thursday,June 25,2020 2:33:17 PM
Importance: High
Good afternoon:
Metro Cities learned this afternoon from the Governor's administration that$841.4 million from the Federal Coronavirus
Relief Fund (FCRF)will be distributed to cities,counties and townships,through the Legislative Advisory Commission (LAC)
process. The distribution formula and amount is consistent with what was proposed in SF 47-Rosen,with the exception
of disbursement dates due to the 10-day LAC process. City officials are expected to receive an official communication
from the MN Department of Revenue(DOR)with information on the process for local governments to use in accessing
funds. The funding will be distributed through a certification process,more information on which will be provided in the
communication sent from DOR this afternoon. Allowed expenses will be consistent with the federal guidance;a new FAQ
from the US Treasury is included below. Metro Cities has consistently advocated for$841.4 million in funding,with an
equitable distribution among local government jurisdictions.
Metro Cities will participate in a meeting tomorrow morning with administration officials and local government
representatives to learn more about the processes for the funds. My understanding is that Department of Revenue
(DOR) and MN Management and Budget(MMB)officials will put together an FAQ and at some point a webinar,to
address questions that may come up on allowed uses for the funds and other questions that may arise. Administration
officials will encourage city officials to pass along questions you may have to city organizations which we can pass along,
to ensure an efficient process.
This link shows the amounts that cities will be eligible to receive:
https://mcamm.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/WebsiteDocs/20200612%20SF47%2C%20CRF%20city%20run.pdf. Again,
the amounts are consistent with the amounts proposed in SF 47-Rosen. A new federal guidance FAQ was also released
last week:
file:///C:/Users/Nauman Patricia/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/I NetCache/Content.Outlook/V8QZ8C8W/Coronavirus-
Relief-Fund-Frequently-Asked-Questions%20(2).odf
I will follow up with additional information once I receive it. Metro Cities encourages cities to complete the certification
form as soon as possible,and to continue tracking COVID-19 related expenses.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! More information to come soon.
Patricia Nauman I Executive Director
Metro Cities(Association of Metropolitan Municipalities)
145 University Ave W
St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
(651)215-4002
patricia(@metrocitiesmn.org
27 of 50
0
LFICLAGUE
MINNESOTA
CITIES
June 19, 2020
Dear Mayors and Administrators,
Life-changing events have made for extraordinary times here in Minnesota and worldwide. We
wish you the best as your communities respond to both the new realities posed by the COVID-19
pandemic, and a renewed social movement to address racial equity following the recent death of
George Floyd,
The League of Minnesota Cities understands that the next few months will be particularly
challenging for our members in terms of budgeting and financial resource concerns. We know that
many cities are already making tough choices involving staff furloughs and layoffs, and service
cuts to make ends meet in the short term.
We will do everything we can to support you in those efforts and want to let you know that,
in recognition of these unique times, the League's Board of Directors voted yesterday to
refrain from implementing a membership dues increase for the next fiscal year.
That means a preliminary maximum member dues schedule increase of zero percent (0%) for the
League's 2021 fiscal year that runs from September 1, 2020 through August 31, 2021.1
The League's final dues schedule is similar to how your city sets its preliminary levy increase in
that it cannot be higher than the maximum that is set. The Board will make its final decision on
annual dues when it meets in August to approve the League's FY 2021 budget.
COVID-19 has already changed many of the ways the League has conducted business over the
past several months, particularly in the areas of communication and member relations. Please rest
assured, though, that neither flat dues or effects of the pandemic will in any way compromise the
delivery of service that our members need and expect from the League. We are well-positioned
financially to s,arrilessly sustain a period of lower revenu,s without making program or service
reductions.
As a matter of fact, you may have noticed that the League has upped-our-game to match your
unique needs during this unparalleled time in our history. At a rapid pace, we are developing and
sharing information through our web site and publications related to both coronavirus response and
race equity resources. Our Intergovernmental Relations team is diligently working to advocate for
our member's interests during the special legislative session and all of our staff are working on
high alert to address ongoing member questions and concerns. We do this to help make your jobs
easier.
1 Actual dues include a population factor so a net change for each city may vary based on your population changes.
145 UnivM nt�fe$s$f ,ue est PH: (651) 281-1200 FX: (651) 281-1299
7 F: (800)925-1122 www.Imc.org
Page 2
We thank you for your continued support of our work done on your behalf. The League is your
organization, and we sincerely welcome your feedback and your ideas for how we can better serve
your needs. Feel free to contact Dave Unmacht at (651) 281-12.05 or du=acht lmc.or .
Michael J. Mornson David Unmacht
League of Minnesota Cities President Executive Director,
Manager, City of Hopkins League of Minnesota Cities
Twitter: @Uru-nachtMnCities
29 of 50
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS,MINNESOTA
PARK SHELTER RENTAL POLICY
DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC
PARK SHELTERS OPEN JUNE 1,2020
RESERVATIONS BEING ACCEPTED FOR GROUPS OF 25 OF FEWER
Following the Governor's Executive Orders closing many public and civic operations due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, the City of Oak Park Heights suspended most Park shelter reservations. With
the recent modifications to such Orders and with careful consideration on how the City can keep
visitors and staff safe the City has made the following determinations:
1. Park shelters and bathrooms will be open to the public starting June 1, 2020. These will be
cleaned once daily by available staff.
2. Existing reservations made before March 18t1' for an event that hosts 25 or fewer people will
be allowed to proceed. Reservations with larger groups will be suspended until such time as
there may be new guidance from the Office of the Governor.
3. Effective June 15, 2020, we will be accepting NEW shelter reservations for groups of 25 or
fewer people. Please check our website for updates as we continue to monitor the health
emergency.
4. When a shelter is not in use for a reservation, they operate on a first-come first serve basis.
Keep in mind the other rules of the Executive Order remain including limits on gathering
sizes.
Carefully note, due to the pandemic the City has not hired the usual seasonal staff. Due to this limited
staffing throughout 2020, please understand that service levels may not be what you may be used to
and we ask that you plan accordingly. City staff will be cleaning and disinfecting the shelters and
bathrooms only once daily. Due to possible limitation of supplies we will try to provide hand soap or
sanitizers in all bathrooms,but please consider bringing your own if possible.
Keep in mind that City Parks and Shelters are shared facilities. We ask that you follow guidelines
from health experts:
• Stay home if you are sick.
• Keep your gatherings to 25 or fewer people.
• Stay at least six feet away from people who aren't from your household.
• Cover your cough with a tissue (then throw it away)or the inside of your elbow.
• Leave no trace:pack out everything you bring with you.
Because of the rapidly changing nature of this public health emergency,this policy is subject to
change. Please check www.cilyofoLkparkheights.com ofoakparkheights.com for updates. If you have a current reservation
that you need to cancel,please call City Hall at 651-439-4439. All deposits paid will be refunded
upon cancellation and any alcohol permit fees paid will be refunded upon cancellation.
30 of 50 City of Oak Park Heights
Park Shelter Rental Policy During COVID-19
Updated:06/15/2020
2021 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER CHARGE (MWC)
City of Oak Park Heights Community Map; see next page for details.
For 2021, the estimated wastewater service fee for your community is
$473,411.56, a change of 2.91%from 2020. The table below details your
wastewater flow, in millions of gallons (mg), and allocated cost of service:
Community Allocation 2021 2020 2019
Metered flow(mg) 181.00 161.60 166.40
Unmetered flow(mg) 10.00 10.00 10.00
Total flow(mg) 191.00 171.60 176.40
l.l ht
Percent of regional flow 0.20% 0.20% 0.20%
Municipal wastewater charge $473,412 $460,043 $445,828
Cost change from prior 2.91% 3.19% -15.09%
Your fee is based on the portion of wastewater flow discharged from your
community to the regional system in the past year (2019) multiplied by the
regional wastewater charge for the next year(2021). Year-to-year changes
are affected by growth, water conservation, and inflow and infiltration.
Region 2021 2020 2019
Regional allocated flow(mg) 96,967.05 87,891.72 89,991.18
Flow change from prior 10.33% -2.33% -0.83%
Regional wastewater charge $240,342,000 $235,629,000 $227,441,000
Cost change from prior 2.0% 3.6% 3.5%
Some wastewater may enter or leave your community but not be included in the metered flow total. These unmetered flows are
shown below.Assigned wastewater volumes per unit, such as single-family unit (SFU) or residential equivalent connection (REC),
vary based on past flow response to wet weather,age of services, and other available data.
Flow from Oak Park Heights= 10.00 mg; added to allocated flow:
To: Calculation/Description 1St Q 2nd Q 3rd Q 4th Q Notes
Stillwater 125 REC x 80,000 2.47 2.49 2.52 2.52 Sunnyside
Flow to Oak Park Heights= 0.00 mg; deducted from allocated flow:
From: I Calculation/Description 1St Q 2nd Q 3rd Q 4th Q Notes
Unmetered flow total = 10.00 mg
31 of 50
May 7, 2020
MUNICIPALMetropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES)
I A
2021 ■ CHARGE
City of Oak Park Heights
M6U�
M607
r
P
a
City of Oak Park Heights MCES Facilities
Mxxx Metershed
Gravity Unmetered Unmetered
Interceptor (Flow From) (Flow To)
Meters Forcemain
LI, ............. ® Not Adjusted ® Not Adjusted
I Interceptor
Effluent ® Adjusted
32 of 50
May 7, 2020
From: Mary Mccomber
To: Eric Johnson
Subject: Fwd:LGN Federal Update:June 22,2020
Date: Monday,June 22,2020 1:26:54 PM
For weekly notes
-----Original Message-----
From: Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. <rfsherman@locklaw.com>
To: marymccomber@aol.com<marymccomber@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Jun 22, 2020 1:00 pm
Subject: LGN Federal Update: June 22, 2020
View • F—]Forward
logo image
FN
II
J. Kanninen
33 of 50
Partner
load image House Appropriators Set July Markup Schedule
House appropriators plan to hold all of their fiscal year 2021 markups
in a two-week sprint starting July 6, as members attempt to do their
jobs under far-from-normal circumstances due to the coronavirus.
House appropriators plan to hold all 12 subcommittee markups in three
days, from July 6 to 8, House Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey
told members in a letter last Friday. The full committee plans to hold
Emily J. Tranter markups later that week and into the following week. Full committee
Lead Lobbyist, Policy and markups are set to continue July 13 and finish July 16.
Federal Government Chairwoman Lowey had already told members to keep their schedules
Affairs clear in early July so the committee could quickly mark up their bills,
load image Representative Marcy Kaptur, chairwoman of the Energy and Water
Subcommittee, said last week.
The Appropriations Committee faces"a limited number of spaces
where we can meet and practice social distancing," Lowey said. Full
committee markups will likely take place in the Ways and Means
Committee room, and members will be required to wear masks.
Members who cannot attend in person will be able to participate
remotely.
Nathaniel C. Mussell
Partner Senate, House Plan Votes on Police Reform Bills
load image Both chambers of Congress have votes planned this week for their
respective police reform bills. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last
week she wants the House and Senate to go to conference on the
e legislation so lawmakers can negotiate the differences between the two
bills. The House is scheduled to vote on its measure this Thursday.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to file cloture on a
motion to proceed on the Senate's bill this week as well.
Qualified immunity for police officers is currently standing out as the
Lianne M. Endo biggest point of contention between the proponents of the House and
Federal Relations Senate bills. House leaders want to give people the ability to sue police
load image officers for civil rights violations,while Senate leaders and White
House officials have described that proposal as a"poison pill."
White House Virus Task Force Will No Longer Brief Public
White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said last Friday that
the White House coronavirus task force will no longer brief the public,
now that the U.S. is pressing ahead with reopening its economy.
McEnany said that she will relay any further information about the
coronavirus outbreak.
Megan G. Knight
Federal Relations "Those happened in the very early days of Covid-19 and the pandemic,
we were making major decisions,"she said of the briefings that
featured the nation's top infectious disease expert,Anthony Fauci, and
task force coordinator and epidemiologist Deborah Birx. "We don't
have regular updates for you other than the updates I give you, as
news merits, and I'm regularly in consultation with Dr. Birx and the
34 of 50
load image
others," McEnany said.
House Set for Historic Vote on D.C. Statehood
The House of Representatives will hold a floor vote this Friday on a
Robert F. Sherman measure that would grant statehood to Washington, D.C.A similar bill
Federal Relations was approved on a 21-16 vote by the House Committee on Oversight
load image and Government Reform in February. The measure, if passed, is not
expected to be taken up by the Senate.
Minnesota Delegation Notes
•Senator Amy Klobuchar(D-MN)joined a number of her colleagues
in in re-introducing a bicameral bill to remove Confederate statues from
the U.S. Capitol. Read more here.
•Senator Tina Smith (D-MN) and three of her Senate colleagues
Vince Spinner introduced the bipartisan Enhancing Preparedness Through Telehealth
Federall R Relations Act,which would direct HHS to inventory telehealth programs across
load image the country to learn how telehealth can be used more effectively in
future health emergencies. Rad more here.
•Congressman Jim Hagedorn (R-MN-01)visited St. Peter to discuss
issues with local leaders including rural healthcare, the economy, and
policing. Read more here.
•Congresswoman Angie Craig (D-MN-02) introduced legislation, the
Prioritized Paycheck Protection Program Act,which would allow small
Randy Kelly businesses who have received Paycheck Protection Program (PPP)
Senior Advisor loans to apply for a second round of PPP funding to keep their
load image businesses going. Read more here.
•Congressman Dean Phillips(D-MN-03) closed his offices in
observance of Juneteenth and released a video discussing the
decision. Read more here.
•Congresswoman Betty McCollum(D-MN-04)visited Johnson High
School in St. Paul to speak with staff members who have distributed
nearly four million meals since March. Read more here.
•Congresswoman Ilhan Omar(D-MN-05) released a statement
following the death of her father from COVID-19. Read more here.
•Congressman Tom Emmer(R-MN-06)was interviewed for a
podcast from WJON in St. Cloud,where he discussed police reform
efforts and COVID-19 response in Minnesota. Read more here.
•Congressman Collin Peterson (D-MN-07) hosted a virtual
Congressional Biofuels Caucus event featuring Members of Congress
and CEOs from the ethanol industry. Read more here.
35 of 50
From: Mary Mccomber
To: Eric Johnson
Subject: Fwd: MAOSC Special BULLETIN: COVID-19 Aid Dollars Allocated for MN Cities
Date: Thursday,June 25,2020 7:04:03 PM
For weekly notes
-----Original Message-----
From: Minnesota Small Cities <cap@maosc.org>
To: marymccomber@aol.com
Sent: Thu, Jun 25, 2020 4:29 pm
Subject: MAOSC Special BULLETIN: COVID-19 Aid Dollars Allocated for MN Cities
SPECIAL BULLETIN
June 25, 2020
Dear Oak Park Heights Leaders and/or Staff
Today the Governor announced his intention to distribute the Federal CARES Act dollars to
cities,towns and counties across the state. Cities wishing to access these funds will need to sign a
certification sent out by the Department of Revenue. You can find answers to most of your questions
HERE, on the MMB website, as well as the forms you will need, and a schedule of certification dates with
an estimated time frame for disbursement of funds.
All cities are entitled to a distribution of$75.34 per resident. This chart shows the dollar amount
allocated for each Minnesota city, assuming they meet the eligibility criteria.
For cities with a population under 200, your state allocation will be distributed to your local
county, where you can submit a reimbursement request for qualifying expenses. The deadline for
submission of expenses to the county is Sept 1st and counties must reimburse by Sept 20th.
All cities must spend any funds received by Nov. 15th. Any unused funds at that point must be
redirected to your local county(regardless of city population).
The first certification date is tomorrow,June 26th, so cities should complete this form and submit it to
PropTax.Admin(cbstate.mn.us as soon as possible. Certifications will be accepted until Sept. 15,
2020. Certifications received after Sept. 15 will not be eligible for a distribution.
State and Federal guidance documents are also included on the MMB pace but additionally, MN Small
36 of 50
Cities has had -and will continue to have -ongoing discussions with the Dept. of Revenue about the
distribution of these funds.
Feel free to email me any questions so I can get all members the information you need. I'm
happy to help in any way I can.
Sincerely,
Cap O'Rourke
Executive Director
MN Small Cities
612 483 1863
cap(a)maosc.org
Minnesota Association of Small Cities I maosc.ora ® 0 0 0
MAOSC 1 145 University West, St. Paul, MN 55103
Unsubscribe marymccomber(cbaol.com
Update Profile I About Constant Contact
Sent by cap@maosc.org in collaboration with
I—I
Try email marketing for free today!
37 of 50
From: Mary Mccomber
To: Eric Johnson
Subject: Fwd: MAOSC Special Session Update-June 22,2020
Date: Monday,June 22,2020 7:23:46 AM
For weekly notes
-----Original Message-----
From: Minnesota Small Cities <cap@maosc.org>
To: marymccomber@aol.com
Sent: Mon, Jun 22, 2020 7:06 am
Subject: MAOSC Special Session Update -June 22, 2020
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
,8
Special Session Update
June 22, 2020
Dear Oak Park Heights Leaders and/or Staff
As you know,Governor Walz called the legislature back into a special session on June 12 in order to extend his
peacetime emergency(they must be in session for that to happen) -AND-to continue working on the lengthy list
of items left unresolved from regular session,as well as some new business related to policing and the civil unrest
of early June. Going in,the most significant items were: 1)a bonding bill; 2)distribution of Federal Covid19 Relief
money for cities,towns&counties;and 3) police reform measures. However,as of Sine Die approx 4am Saturday
morning,the actual progress made on these significant items was,shall we say... limited.
So what's the hold up?Well,think of it like a 3-legged stool.Although these are three separate bills and technically
three separate issues,they've sort of morphed into one negotiation with each leg being used as leverage for both
bodies to get what they want on the other two issues(politics).Also, it's an election year and that's not helping to
foster any kumbaya moments or cooperation. Each legislator understands that how they vote on each of these
important issues will make a difference to Minnesota voters in November.
House. Senate leadership work deep into the night—but agreement remains elusive
'Train wreck': Minnesota lawmakers adjourn after failina to aaree on major issues
COVID Relief/ CARES ACT:At one point,there was agreement among the four caucuses on how to distribute
federal COVID relief dollars to local governments.The$841 million proposal sailed through the Senate.Then,the
House amended it to include additional budget items and passed it on a mostly partisan vote Friday morning, but
the Senate could not get behind these additions.At this juncture,the governor could now appropriate the funds on
his own but he would have to notify the Legislative Advisory Committee and this would delay distribution by at
least 10 days. In that scenario the governor would not be bound by any verbal agreements reached so far and
38 of 50
could distribute the money differently.Alternatively,the governor could call another special session and let the
legislature take another stab at addressing the disbursement of funds.
1841M in federal COVID-19 aid for cities,counties tied up at State Capitol
Bonding: Early last week the Senate passed out of committee,a slightly higher($1.1 billion)version of their
previous bonding bill but it never got a floor vote.The House did not move on a bonding bill at all during the
special session. On Friday it was announced that there would be NO bonding bill during this special session BUT,
that they may have agreement on an overall number of$1.35 Billion ("may" being the operative word). The House
Republicans have said that they will not support a bonding bill unless the governor relinquishes his emergency
powers,while some DFL legislators have tied votes for a bonding bill to public safety and police reform legislation.
Senate bill
A month after reaular session concluded. Minn. Legislature has yet to agree to bonding bill
Public Safety, Police Reform and Justice Reform: Both bodies passed versions of police reform last week but
ultimately they were unable to work out the differences.This issue was the subject of significant late-night
negotiations and will certainly continue to be a focus,since Governor Walz has made it a top priority.
House passes package of police accountability legislation,sends to Senate
Minnesota Senate debates GOP police accountabilily proposals
So,the bottom line?The special session was not all that"special"after all. That being said,they DID pass over
S60 Million in small business relief grants plus a number of other policy items in various bills. It is unknown IF or
when the legislature will return but it could be in a month if Governor Walz decides to extend the peacetime
emergency again, in July. You can click HERE to see everything the governor signs into law.
TIMELY REMINDERS:
June 23: The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development(DEED) has announced that the
MN Small Business Relief Grants Program will begin accepting applications tomorrow. You may want to pass this
information on to your small business community.
June 29: Under Executive Order 20-74 cities must pass a Covid Preparedness Plan by June 29. DEED says
they will be posting guidance on their website. If needed,you can also see a draft preparedness plan and get
some help from the League of MN Cities at: https://www.Imc.ora/resources/return-to-work-Guidance-covid/
July 8: The MAOSC 2020 Annual Meeting will take place via Zoom meeting on July 8,from loam to Noon.
Interested members are WELCOME to join us on the call. Here are the call in details: Join Zoom Meeting >>
Meeting ID: 833 8216 5783
ASAP: City Clerks,Administrators, Managers,Council Members,or Mayors-if you would like to serve on the
MAOSC Board of Directors and if your city is located in one of the counties listed below-we'd love to hear from
you! Applications will be reviewed and voted on during the Annual Meeting on July 8. Contact Cap O'Rourke at
caoC maosc.oro with any questions. MAOSC Board of Directors Application
Region 4: Cass,Crow Wing, Morrison, Wadena,Todd, Hubbard
Region 7: Benton, McLeod,Wright, Meeker, Sherburne, Stearns
Region 10: Blue Earth, Brown, Martin, Nicollet, Faribault,Jackson, Sibley Watonwan
FYI:The 2020-2021 MN Small Cities new membership year begins July 1st. Renewal notices were sent out
via email on June 2nd. If you did not receive one please contact Lynda at lynda@maosc.org. Your continued
membership is very much appreciated! It's been our sincere pleasure to serve you this past year and we look
forward to working with you again, in 2020-2021!
Keep up the great work,small city leaders!As always, if you have any questions for me or MAOSC please
feel free to reach out and ask. We're always happy to assist in any way we can.
Sincerely,
Cap O'Rourke
Executive Director
39 of 50
MN Small Cities
612 483 1863
cap1amaosc.org
nnnr---
Minnesota Association of Small Cities I maosc.ora �' ' ! H
MAOSC 1 145 University West, St. Paul, MN 55103
Unsubscribe marymccomber(a)aol.com
Uadate Profile I About Constant Contact
Sent by cap@maosc.org in collaboration with
I—I
Try email marketing for free today!
40 of 50
Metro Cities News 06/24/20 Pagel of 3
C
TRC]TIES Member Login a Search our site... U4
9etropolitan MurioiReltl4as
Home Metro Cities News About Us Meetings&Events Membership Advocacy Policies&Resources MAMA
Return to the blog Upcoming Events
Metro Cities News 06/24/20 by:Jennifer Dorn Thu Jal16,2020
Category:Newsletter Metro Cities Board of Directors
Meetina
Category:Metro Cities Board of Directors
Jun Mon Jul 20,2020
24 Transportation&General
In This Issue: Government
Category:Policy Committee
• Special Session Ends Without Agreement on Key Items Tue Jul 21,2020
COVID-19 Re-Opening Plans for Cities Municipal Revenues
Category:Policy Committee
Municipal Permit Fee and Expense Report Due June 30
Wed Jul 22,2020
REMINDER:Information Session:Federal CARES Act EDA Funding Opportunity Metropolitan Agencies
Metro Cities'Policy Committees
Category:Policy Committee
Wed Jul 22,2020
Housina&Economic
Development
Category:Policy Committee
Special Session Ends Without Agreement on Key Items View Full Calendar
Legislators ended a special session at 6:30 am Saturday,without agreement on identified priority items
including federal funding for local governments,police reforms,a bonding bill or tax bill.The Senate Our Tweets
passed a resolution to eliminate the Governor's peacetime emergency order;the House did not take up Tweets by MetroCitiesMN
or pass a similar resolution.
Federal COI ID-19 Funding for Local Governments
Bills to distribute$841.4 million of the state's share of Federal CARES Act funding passed the Senate
and House during the special session but an agreement on a final bill was not reached prior to
adjournment.SF 47-Rosen passed the Senate on a 62-4 vote Tuesday.As the bill was considered later
in the week by the House Ways and Means Committee,an amendment was added to include several
supplemental budget items that were part of the Governor's supplemental budget recommendations.
The formula for distributing$841.4 million is the same in both bills.The amended bill passed the House
on a 77-55 vote,along partisan lines and was sent back to the Senate.The Senate did not take up the
amended bill and did not request a conference committee to resolve language differences in the bills.
See HERE for a spreadsheet showing the distribution to cities under the bills.
On Monday,Metro Cities sent a joint letter with other city organizations to Governor Walz and
Lieutenant Governor Flanagan,as well as members of his administration and members of the
Legislative Advisory Commission(LAC)to express our continued strong support for a prompt
distribution of$841.4 million to local governments.The Governor can choose to distribute these federal
funds using the LAC process,and it is widely expected he will do so.For additional information,contact
Patricia Nauman at 651-215-4002 or patriciaZmetrocitiesmn.org
Public Safety
The Senate and House exchanged offers on public safety proposals Friday,and legislators met behind
the scenes throughout the evening.The Senate offer included funding for enhanced training related to
mental health,crisis intervention and cultural sensitivity,clarifying changes in state law related to
mental health training,requiring autism training for officers,providing peer counseling for officers,
expanding mandatory background checks when hiring law enforcement employees,mandatory
reporting of police deadly incidences to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension(BCA),requiring officers
to intercede when witnessing another officer using excessive force,a ban on chokeholds,instructing
41 of 50
https://www.metrocitiesmn.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&yea... 6/26/2020
Metro Cities News 06/24/20 Page 2 of 3
officers to preserve the sanctity of life,changes to the POST Board and changes to the binding of police
arbitration decisions.Leaders in the Senate indicated they would not support changes to voting
eligibility for those convicted of a felony,defunding or disbanding police departments,and provisions to
have the state Attorney General lead on officer involved deaths.
The House proposed a counter-offer with some provisions supported by the Senate including arbitration
reform,peer counseling for officers,reporting deadly force to the BCA,a ban on choke holds,use of
force reforms,a duty to intercede requirement when officers witness excessive force,POST Board
changes,autism training and mental health training.
The House proposal supported other public safety provisions including a prohibition on warrior style
training,allowing cities to adopt residency requirements for law enforcement officers,removing the
statute of limitations on wrongful death and assault cases involving law enforcement officers,
provisions to require local governments with law enforcement agencies of 50 or more officers to create
police oversight councils,the creation of an independent investigatory unit at the BCA,the creation of
an Office of Community Led Public Safety and mandatory police officer critical incident review.
To view the Senate offer,click HERE.To view the House offer,click HERE.
Please see Metro Cities'June 17th and June 19th newsletters for information on bills that passed or
were considered during the special session,including small business assistance grants,a bill creating a
metropolitan redevelopment corporation,and details on police and public safety bills.
COVID-19 Re-Opening Plans for Cities
As a reminder,by June 29,Critical Sector businesses are required to develop and implement a COVID-
19 Preparedness Plan.This includes cities.For COVID-19 Preparedness Plan templates,please visit
dli.mn.gov/updates.
DEED has also prepared industry-specific guidance documents for businesses to aide in the
development of their COVID-19 Preparedness Plans.For additional information or assistance in
developing a plan,businesses can contact MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation at 651-284-5060 or
OSHA.consu Itation Zstate.mn.us.
Municipal Permit Fee and Expense Report Due June 30
Cities that received at least$5,000 in permit fees in 2019 are required to submit the Municipal
Construction and Development Fee Revenue and Expenses Annual Report to the Department of Labor
and Industry by June 30.
This is the same report and form that has been required in previous years.This year,DLI has taken input
from Metro Cities,the League of Minnesota Cities and builders to revise the form for 2020 permit fees
and expenses,due June 2021.Contact Charlie Vander Aarde at 651-366-7564 or
charlie(a)metrocitiesmn.org with any questions.
REMINDER:Information Session:Federal CARES Act EDA Funding Opportunity
Cities are invited to participate in a GREATER MSP's Information Session on applying for federal EDA
CARES Act Funding.
GREATER MSP will discuss the Regional Economic Framework(REF),the regional economic
development strategy document that cities can attach to a project application to EDA.GREATER MSP,
Metropolitan Council,and the Center for Economic Inclusion will provide an update on the REF and
more details about how you can view the draft document,and provide input,in the coming weeks.
Darrin Fleener,Economic Development Administration,will give an overview of EDA's process to
evaluate projects when they are being considered for funding and will be available to answer questions
about the EDA's CARES Act Notice of Funding Opportunity(NOFO).This session will be recorded and
will be publicly accessible afterwards.
Thursday,June 25,2020
11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
Register here
42 of 50
https://www.metrocitiesmn.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&yea... 6/26/2020
Metro Cities News 06/24/20 Page 3 of 3
Resources to prepare for the Information Session
Part I Information Session recording
Part I Information Session Presentation
Snapshot of the Regional Economic Framework
Metro Cities'Policy Committees
Metro Cities is preparing for its 2020 policy development process,and your participation is encouraged!
Meetings will be conducted remotely.Four policy committees will meet in July,August and September;
see below for committees and schedules.Policy committees are open for participation by member city
elected officials and staff.Whether you are new to the process or have participated in a committee in
the past,your participation is welcome and encouraged.To sign up,click here.Please note:Due to site
maintenance the registration form will be unavailable from 8am—8pm on July 3rd.
Remember:
Committees will meet either Monday,Tuesday,or Wednesday in the morning from 9:00-11:30 am
or the afternoon from 1:00-3:30.Committees and dates are listed below and on our website.
Additional information,including remote meeting processes and access,will be posted on these
pages as it becomes available.
Please be sure to sign up for the committee(s)you wish to attend.This will help us keep our
rosters current and accurate.
Again,due to the COVID-19 Pandemic,meetings will be conducted virtually.
We look forward to seeing you this summer!More information to follow.
Transportation&General Government
Mondays:July 20,August 17,September 21/9-11:30a.m.
Chair:Jason Gadd,Mayor,Hopkins
Municipal Revenues
Tuesdays:July 21,August 18,September 22/9-11:30a.m.
Chair:Patrick Trudgeon,City Manager,Roseville
Metropolitan Agencies
Wednesdays:July 22,August 19,September 23/9-11:30a.m.
Chair:Gary Hansen,Councilmember,Eagan
Housing&Economic Development
Wednesdays:July 22,August 19,September 23/1-3:30p.m.
Chair:Bryan Hartman,HRA Program Manager,Bloomington
Share this post:
Metro Cities(Association of Metropolitan Municipalities)
145 University Ave W,Suite 125
St.Paul,MN 55103
651-215-4000 Backtotop A
powered by r\Members icks
43 of 50
https://www.metrocitiesmn.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&yea... 6/26/2020
Metro Cities News 06/19/20 Page 1 of 4
METRO
CITIESMember Login a Search our site... U4
Asaaciation d hAetrvpvlitap MuriciReltl4as
Home Metro Cities News About Us Meetings&Events Membership Advocacy Policies&Resources MAMA
Return to the biog Upcoming Events
Metro Cities News 06/19/20 by:Jennifer Dorn Thu Jui 16,2020
Category:Newsletter Metro Cities Board of Directors
Meetina
Category:Metro Cities Board of Directors
Jun Mon Jul 20,2020
19 Transportation&General
In This Issue: Government
Category:Policy Committee
• Special Session Update Tue Jul 21,2020
Federal CARES Act Funding and Local Government Distribution Municipal Revenues
Category:Policy Committee
House Passes Public Safety Reform Bill
Wed Jul 22,2020
TAB Approves Draft TIP for Public Comment
Metropolitan Aaencies
MHFA QAP Public Comment Period Open
Category:Policy Committee
Metropolitan Council Discusses Joining Climate Tracking Group Wed Jai 22,2020
Safety Plan Template for Re-Opening Critical Sector Businesses Housina&Economic
Small Business Relief Grants Program to Begin Accepting Applications on June 23 Development
EVENT:City Information Session on Federal CARES Act Funding Opportunity-June 25 Category:Policy Committee
View Full Calendar
Our Tweets
Special Session Update
Tweets by MetroCitiesMN
Today marks one week since the special session began.The session has been marked by debates on
several significant bills including police reform,community assistance following the civil unrest,and
federal funding for local governments for COVID-19 expenses.See below for specific items of interest
to Metro Cities and follow Metro Cities via twitter @MetroCitiesMN for additional updates.
Federal CARES Act Funding and Local Government Distribution
Earlier this week,as reported in Metro Cities'6/17/20 News,the Senate passed SF 47-Rosen,which
distributes$841.4 million to local governments for COVID-19 expenses from the Federal Coronavirus
Relief Fund(FCRF).Metro Cities supports an$841.4 million distribution.Today,the House passed SF
47,with several amendments addressing supplemental budget recommendations of the Governor.The
bill passed on a 77-55,mostly partisan vote,and was sent back to the Senate.Several members of the
House minority objected to the amendments added to the bill as it was debated,first in the House Ways
and Means Committee,and then on the House floor.Its fate at this point is not certain.
Metro Cities sent a legislative alert earlier this week encouraging city officials to express support for
this funding with your local legislators and continues to encourage city officials to make these contacts.
Contact Patricia Nauman at 651-215-4002 or email:patriciaZmetrocitiesmn.org with any questions.
House Passes Public Safety Reform Bill
The House passed SF 104-Mariani a public safety reform bill.This bill was amended to include
language from three public safety reform bills(House Files 1,92,and 93).To view a previous newsletter
article on these proposals,click HERE.
44 of 50
https://www.metrocitiesmn.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&yea... 6/26/2020
Metro Cities News 06/19/20 Page 2 of 4
SF 104 includes$1.9 million to local governments,to offset costs for those with law enforcement
agencies with 50 or more sworn officers,that would be mandated to create Community Relations
Councils.The bill was amended to clarify that the provision allowing cities to adopt residency
requirements for law enforcement officers would apply to those hired after July 1 st,2020.An
amendment was also added to provide training for peace officers to learn more about the need to
intercede if they witness a fellow peace officer using excessive force.An amendment to preempt cities
from disbanding or defunding their law enforcement agencies without an agreement from another
agency to provide law enforcement services was considered but not adopted.
Some members voiced concern about the bill's statewide approach.Supporters of the bill stated the bill
addresses concerns that are experienced by people across the state.The bill passed 71-59 and has
been sent back to the Senate for consideration.
TAB Approves Draft TIP for Public Comment
The Transportation Advisory Board(TAB)approved a draft Transportation Improvement Program(TIP)
for public comment.The TIP is a four-year list of federally funded transportation projects required for all
metropolitan planning organizations(MPOs).The TIP must include all projects funded with federal
transportation funds along with all regionally significant projects.Federal regulations require that a TIP
be developed at least every four years and the Metropolitan Council revises its TIP every year in
conjunction with the Minnesota Department of Transportation's State Transportation Improvement
Program(STIP).The comment period will run from June 24th to August 9th.To view the draft TIP,click
HERE.
Comments can be shared with the Met Council Transportation Committee at their virtual meeting on
July 13th at 4:00 pm.Comments can also be submitted in the following methods:
Mail:Metropolitan Council,390 Robert St.N.,St.Paul,MN 55101
E-mail:infoC@metc.state.mn.us
Public Comment Line:651-602-1500
MHFA QAP Public Comment Period Open
Minnesota Housing is soliciting comments for its allocation plan for Low Income Housing Tax Credits
(LIHTC).The 2022-2023 Qualified Allocation Plan is available for public review and comment.
You can view the 2022-2023 QAP Summary of Proposed Changes here.proposed 2022-2023 Housing
Tax Credit Qualified Allocation Plan here and proposed 2022-2023 Self-Scoring Worksheet here.
The formal comment period closes July 22 at 5:00 p.m.Presentation and final action on the 2022-2023
QAP is expected to occur at Minnesota Housing's board meeting in late fall,2020.
Public Comment&Engagement
Join a Monday,June 22 webinar from 12-1:30 p.m.with Metropolitan Consortium of Community
Developers and Minnesota Housing Partnership,a co-sponsored discussion with Minnesota Housing.
Registration information here.
Participate in a public hearing on Tuesday,July 14 from 10:00-11:00 a.m.Public hearing via conference
call.Dial-In toll-free number:1.888.742.5095,Conference Code:603-415-8008.You may register in
advance for this meeting via email at HTC.MHFAC@state.mn.us.
If you would like to comment by phone,you may call Nicola Viana at 651.296.8277.
Send comments to:HTC.MHFAC@state.mn.us,by phone at 651.296.8277,or by mail to
Attn.Tamara Wilson,Minnesota Housing,400 Wabasha Street North,
Suite,400,St.Paul,MN 55102
Metropolitan Council Discusses Joining Climate Tracking Group
The Community Development Committee discussed plans for the Metropolitan Council to join a global
climate leadership effort at its June 15 meeting.Staff presented how the Council would engage in a
three-year commitment with The Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy(GCoM).
45 of 50
https://www.metrocitiesmn.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&yea... 6/26/2020
Metro Cities News 06/19/20 Page 3 of 4
Council staff explained how the Met Council applied in April 2019 to commit to GCoM as a Metro-Scale
Climate Leader,a pilot program by GCoM,but the Council was unsuccessful at that time.Since then,
GCoM approached the Council to offer the same opportunity.Several other U.S.regions are currently
enrolled in the pilot program,including the Chicago Metropolitan Region,Kansas City Region,and the
Metropolitan(DC)Region.
With this commitment,the Council would pledge to develop,formally adopt,and report on the following:
a.A community-scale greenhouse gas(GHG)emission inventory
b.An assessment of climate hazards and vulnerabilities
c.Ambitious,measurable,and time-bound target(s)to reduce/limit greenhouse gas emissions
d.Ambitious adaptation vision and goals,based on quantified scientific evidence when possible,to
increase local resilience to climate change
e.Ambitious and just goal to improve access to sustainable energy
f.Plan(s)to address climate change mitigation/low emission development,climate resilience and
adaptation,and access to sustainable energy,including provisions for regular(annual or biennial)
progress reports
Council staff explained the GCoM commitment does not require any new Council projects or initiatives.
The Council would pledge to complete several tasks,many of which the Council is developing,has
underway,has already completed,or is part of current work plans.
At the CDC meeting,it was explained several cities are participating in similar activities through Green
Step Cities.Any direct Council engagement with cities on this initiative was not defined.
More information on the program and the Council's potential involvement can be found here and here.
The full Council is expected to vote on the proposal June 24.
Safety Plan Template for Re-opening Critical Sector Businesses
DEED and Labor and Industry have provided guidance on safely reopening Minnesota workplaces.Non-
Critical Sector businesses and employers must develop and implement a COVID-19 Preparedness Plan
prior to reopening.Businesses must ensure the plan is evaluated,monitored,executed,and updated
under the supervision of a designated Plan Administrator.Employers must ensure the plan is posted at
all of the business's workplaces in readily accessible locations that will allow for the plan to be readily
reviewed by all workers,as required.Plans are not required to be submitted to the state for approval.
By June 29,Critical Sector businesses are also required to develop and implement a COVID-19
Preparedness Plan.This includes cities.For COVID-19 Preparedness Plan templates,please visit
dli.mn.gov/updates.
DEED has also prepared industry-specific guidance documents for businesses to aide in the
development of their COVID-19 Preparedness Plans.For additional information or assistance in
developing a plan,businesses can contact MNOSHA Workplace Safety Consultation at 651-284-5060 or
OSHA.consu Itation Zstate.mn.us.
Small Business Relief Grants Program to Begin Accepting Applications on June 23
The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development(DEED)announced the
Minnesota Small Business Relief Grants Program,which was approved by the Minnesota Legislature
last week and signed by Governor Tim Walz on Tuesday,will begin accepting applications June 23.
This program will provide$10,000 grants to small businesses that have been impacted by the COVID-19
pandemic.Businesses with 50 or fewer full-time employees are eligible.Half of the funding will go to
businesses in the metro and the other half to greater Minnesota.
The application period will begin on Tuesday,June 23 and close at 5:00 p.m.on Thursday,July 2 to
fulfill the 10-day period required by the law.A randomized,computer-generated lottery process will be
used to select eligible businesses that will receive awards.All awards will be administered by qualified
local and regionally based nonprofit agencies,and the grant funds can be used for working capital to
support payroll expenses,rent,mortgage payments,utility bills,and other similar business expenses.
To be eligible,businesses must have a permanent physical location in Minnesota and be majority
owned by a permanent resident of Minnesota.Businesses must be able to demonstrate hardship as a
46 of 50
https://www.metrocitiesmn.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&yea... 6/26/2020
Metro Cities News 06/19/20 Page 4 of 4
result of the COVID-19 outbreak.Additional eligibility requirements and application information can be
found online at DEED's Small Business Relief Grants pace.
EVENT:City Information Session on Federal CARES Act Funding Opportunity—June
25
Cities are invited to participate in GREATER MSP's Information Session series on applying for federal
EDA CARES Act Funding.
In this second Information Session,GREATER MSP will discuss the Regional Economic Framework
(REF),the regional economic development strategy document that cities can attach to a project
application to EDA.GREATER MSP,Met Council,and the Center for Economic Inclusion will provide an
update on the REF and more details about how you can view the draft document,and provide input,in
the coming weeks.
Darrin Fleener,regional representative with the Economic Development Administration,will give an
overview of EDA's process to evaluate projects when they are being considered for federal funding.He
will also be available to answer questions about the EDA's CARES Act Notice of Funding Opportunity
(NOFO).This session will be recorded and will be publicly accessible afterwards.
Thursday,June 25,2020
11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
Resister here
Resources to prepare for the Information Session
Part I Information Session recording
Part I Information Session Presentation
Snapshot of the Regional Economic Framework
Share this post:
Metro Cities(Association of Metropolitan Municipalities)
145 University Ave W,Suite 125
St.Paul,MN 55103
651-215-4000 Backtotop A
powered by r\Members icks
47 of 50
https://www.metrocitiesmn.org/index.php?option=com_dailyplanetblog&view=entry&yea... 6/26/2020
From: Mary Mccomber
To: Eric Johnson
Subject: Fwd:A New Resolution: "On The Use of Force"by Municipal Law Enforcement Officers
Date: Saturday,June 20,2020 9:16:07 AM
For weekly notes
-----Original Message-----
From: National League Of Cities (NLC)<news@nlc.org>
To: marymccomber@aol.com
Sent: Sat, Jun 20, 2020 6:03 am
Subject: A New Resolution: 'On The Use of Force' by Municipal Law Enforcement Officers
View in browser.
nlc resolution blog
On The Use of Force by Municipal Law Enforcement
Officers
On Thursday, June 18, the National League of Cities (NLC) took emergency
action and its board of directors unanimously passed a Resolution on the Use
of Force by Municipal Law Enforcement Officers. And right now, for the sake
of all of America's residents, cities, towns and villages across the country local
leaders must look within institutions, particularly police and law enforcement,
to remove longstanding racial biases and inequities. Read more.
48 of 50
Celebrating Juneteenth: America's Second
Independence Day
Yesterday, June 19th, Juneteenth gained prominence in
8 the corporate world. More than two dozen Fortune 500
companies have publicly stated their support for it as a
paid holiday and announced their decision to make it one
for their employees. Read more.
scotus Igbtq ruling SCOTUS Rules Employers May Be Sued for Sex
Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination
On Monday, in a 6-3 decision in Bostock v. Clayton
,8 County, the Supreme Court held that gay and
transgender employees may sue their employers under
Title VII for discriminating against them because of their
sexual orientation or gender identity. Read more.
DACA Survives... For Now
In a 5-4 decision in DHS v. Regents of the University of
California, the Supreme Court held that the decision to
® wind-down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
(DACA) program violated the Administrative Procedures
Act (APA). It is possible the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) will try again to end DACA. Read more.
News
Cities turn to K Street for help with coronavirus
Politico — June 19, 2020
Lobbying Group Seeks Police Reforms Beyond Trump Executive Order
BNN Bloomberg— June 18, 2020
Some Lawmakers Argue Unrest Heightens Need for Aid to States and Cities
The Wall Street Journal— June 13, 2020
Announcements
VIDEO: Why This City Leader Took a Risk on Racial Equity Legislation
Advancing racial equity in governing requires that municipalities confront the
very history that a community is built on — the policies, practices and
procedures that direct services and laws that sustain a city, and the outcomes
they create. Watch here.
49 of 50
WEBINAR: Voting and Elections In a Pandemic
NLC's Local Democracy Initiative (LDI) invites you to explore innovative ways
to help voters safely exercise their right to vote this November through an
interactive workshop with ideas42. Register here.
WEBINAR: Public Playspaces: Guide to Open Safely and Equitably
Learn critical information on providing safe spaces to play for kids and
families, with a focus on ensuring equitable access. Discuss guidance on
traveling vs. using close-to-home recreation and the physical and mental
health benefits of accessing the outdoors instead of staying indoors. Register
here.
Job Postings
Finance Director -- City of Allentown
Senior Director, Cities of Service -- John Hopkins University
Social Services Director - City of Cleveland
National League of Cities
JR, 8 ,8 ®4
You may opt out of email communications from NLC at any time. Update your communication preferences.
This message was intended for: marymccomber@aol.com
660 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 450, Washington, DC 20001
Privacy Policy I @ 2020 NLC, All Rights Reserved
Powered by Higher Logic
50 of 50