Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
weekly Notes- march 12th REDUCED 2021
r-r CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS—WEEKLY NOTES for: March 12, 2021 TO: City Council Members& Staff �0 FROM: Eric Johnson,City Administrator vf�r✓ Zoninq &Development Items: 1. No new applications have been received. 2. Wright Tree Service(a contractor for Xcel Energy)has been given a TREE WORKER'S PERMIT to trim in the transmission line corridor lying within the City.The City's permit is largely without any true ability to manage their operations and the City cannot really deny the application. We have asked that they communicate and work with property owners to resolve any conflicts prior to engaging in any activities-,but again,the City cannot really require that they anything specific and these disputes largely become civil matters. 3. The City has not received feedback from the concerns expressed to the Baytown Engineer related to the Cahanes Farm housing development—and the groundwater"pollution plume".The Dept of Health or MPCA was additionally sent related correspondence for information as to any concerns or data they may have.Both entities have websites related to this pollution matter: • https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment(hazardous/sites/baytown.htmI • https://www.pca.state.mn.us/waste/baytown-township-groundwater-contamination-site Who can get their vaccine now? COVID-19 Matters: • n.alith a,. aged56arPdeP g porde, + Heal¢h care workers antl eo re warkm a[nealtn care hc�ilnes.`first res who promAe tlrcect pauene case as part o•the EMs syssemane primary caTegiwers • This is the Governor's - PORTAL https://mn.gov/covidl9 — Many documents / Exec. Po rpeopewnhcompie—edcaineeds ar61abd0es • Lang-term care restlent5 antl Staff members a[longterm care iaCIIItIeS In Orders can be found. Washington County has initiated a County Dashboard containing more Urn—ta • w-kindergarten through Houk Sas ano Community Ed-1—school staff localized COVID-19 Impacts and rates LINK->>HERE. members. Mrarted chpcl gaffm,rocr9.at pchwil mM,nnesota ata' • Child care f members at.eased and certsfied child rare renters or programs m M.n esota =e�ple with spe[iflc underlying Health cdndilioh:: • The State has issued a general VACCINATION process for all Minnesotans-Sign up p Sickle cell dlseaae DcZ 5yddrome.or.%--depenlchrdn¢flung u: heart nd mnse who arc in—i-cancer treatment or at Vaccine Connector(https:/tyacclfleconnector.mn.goyimmunocompromised from organ rvanspan[ • Targeted essential worLerS goad process.ng prams • Cit Public Works are defined as ESSENTIAL FRONTLINE STAFF and we hoe this • peopled B45and ode ow[h ONE of moeo oe;,nem adical crnrk City p v p g y gmedrea4ondrt,ons or.age 16 a no over with rW0 or mere ndefll o lcal cenaitlorsx allows them to qualify for COVID-19 Vaccine under the new protocol as issued by Gov. Walz. people 5e mu tl.generaT,pna i haps ng • E—hir.a l o..t..ne—rkers Public Works staff have been given the enclosed letter that hopefully affords them some access. a A1;r W2,ral.a,rpartstaff•add,,Ionalchildrarert not pre„ous.yel,g,ble carrW.c,ral settings,hr;¢res ppnders,food peodLct.—foci rood,fppp sen,r= oz' •,tFn r.C'.:e r;,man�ra[nnng..pUbllc heath werkcr5�wblk Other Items: va,;r -.; • 2nd round interviews were held—8 candidates were interviewed on 3/10/21.Out of these eight, Chief Hansen will be taking 3 or 4 of them to further background 11 AbJ1for anact checks. 1.7 relating to capital m estment appropriating money far site preparation for 13 tederclopmentot7dwAllens.Kmgptmerp1mtsite wthe otyafOakParkHaehts, • Spring Weight Restrictions have been applied to City Streets-you may see 5 IA authorising the sale and issuance of state bonds. TONS PER AXLE signs across the City. 1.5 BE H EIS ACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE ST.A=OF MINNESOTA: 1.6 Section 1.OAK PARK HEIGHTS;ALLEN S.KL1G POWER PLANT SIFE. • Maps from Washington County showing the 5-year plan for road projects.2021- 1.T Subditdsionl.apptroptiafil$10,000,000isappropriatedfromthebondproceeds 2025 IS fund to the commissioner of employment and economic development for a grant to the city 1.9 of Oak Pack Heights to predesign,design,construct.furnish.and equip public infrastructure • There is an anticipated allocation to cities in the recent$1.9 Trillion— l.,o for development oftheAllen S.Fingpowerplant site intite cityclfOl Park Heights Public $1,900,000,000,000--COVID-19 Relief Bill passed this week.We will need to see 11C nfrastn nue ncludesclea Wate sfse s,sar;,at�, e,,ers5 rems,stoTnw,,ersys�<ms, what,if any is allocated to Oak Park Heights and what the rules associated with 11, mads andsid—ahcs This appropmaficLsalwhen the conmissionerofmaragen,ent using such funds may be.The LMC or other entities might be issuing guidance 1.13 and budget detemtines that sufficient resources have been committedto complete the project. next week. LA as required by Niimlesota.Statutes:section 16A.502. 1.15 Suhd 2.Hood sale.To protide the money apptapnued m this section from the band • The City's third legislative bill—seeking funding for the Allen S.King Plant— 114 proceeds ful t1w conarussi�®er of—Lgement and budget shall sell and issue bonds of related to site utilities,roads and trails is expected to be introduced VERY SOON 1,1) the state an amount up to S 10,000,000 in the manner,upon the terms,and with the effect —this is the DRAFT LAN GAU GE--> 118 pre—bed by Nameso,a S=tates,weams 16A 631 to 16A 675,and by the M—esot, 1.19 Constitution,Miele)I.sections 4 to 7. • Council Member Johnson did provide some language and concepts for the 1,,c EFFECIT{'E DATE.This section is effective the day fallowing final enactment. identifying volunteers for a volunteer garden club/committee.This matter will be in our upcoming newsletter and via his LINK below if people might like to establish such an effort. hup s:Hdocs.google.com/forms/d/lVm8u2l s-WI8ZkwNxXPA4GaDD 1 zWlk-sbZASpJxYkDKU/edit?usp=sharing Mayor McComber provided: 1. Information from the Non-Profit Group—Meals from the Heart—located in the City and their upcoming event on March 27tH 2. Youth Service Bureau—May 12th Gala Information 3. NLC Updates and LMC Federal Issue Highlights 1 of 29 Please let me know if you have any questions-651.253.7837 Call Anytime. City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 3/8/21 TO: Brigitte Hay Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ***via email only brigitte.hay(a)state.mn.us*** Justine Greene 625 North Robert Street PO Box 64975 St. Paul, MN 55164-0975 ***also via email justine.greene()state.mn.us*** FROM: Eric. Johnson, City Administrator RE: Cahanes Farm–Well Development There has been discussion in the community related to the above development;which is of course nothing too new, but...in reviewing the documents found on the City of Bayport website related to the concepts, it appears that the Developer is proposing some high-capacity wells for irrigation systems to serve this area as the City of Bayport can only offer potable systems. Accordingly,we would like to know if these irrigation wells are in fact part of the proposal and has Baytown Township inquired or determined what impact these well may have–if any on the"POLLUTION PLUME"that may exist in the area? Has modeling and/or identification been done on this impact?Could it draw the plume northward? See attached. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/waste/baytown-township-groundwater-contamination-site The City of Oak Park Heights would like feedback from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Health as to the proposal associated with the installation of such wells and its possible impacts on this PLUME. If there is not a concern from the STATE OF MINNESOTA relative to this matter we would appreciate that affirmative determination be made in written form to our attention. Perhaps it is not an issue, but we would like to know if it has been looked into and if you would please provide to us your findings. Kind regards, 441— Eric Johnson, City Administrator Cc: Lee Mann, City Engineer Matt Downing, MSCWMO Adam Bell, City of Bayport Jim Studenski,TKDA–Baytown Engineer 2 of 29 �► C Of O � � W 0 R J 0 Z a N' N OW Z s C z o w U) to w N Z v� O w a 00 *Wld r V Q 4- W w o rn rn W V o v L mm. v o 0 0 oN0 0o � 7 O Q v O C W d v o (��€ v LO `Ir (n U F� z Ce00 0O U o ui 0 tr r O C O ��O c c - y ~ y 1 1 1 1 Zz U fO o a E o o o J vl O 00• w O > m o I O N S D o. Mame S'S L2 i 3rd Sts ' a r 2n8 gtN 5--1% �-- -M�951 MN85=U z sIsuls m QN,5419U S 1S 419 a - L a 4 x County y � _d i°O C."tv Hwy 2z i �A •�� 1 NO dN`a �, \ S .io•�� h � e o w m a• a m A No .yZ.RmH.Rluno9 IN N.any.po06sO .. NO a z O rn N • J -N-"V--" __ aIN a z rn m I EOriol'e�Ave< m few voi w - _ .N—V,egiwO.. a1 • �Na pie m O Brien Ave N OIN 0 N:a'V_.. O,ieq - Z 2 g• `O0 z I = L`n✓ a V �• in 0 �4 ,any>I n.N 66 r n w a� 2 A rn �• Z o 000170 A 7 NlAVIe 0aN _ \ c m % ' � o \ I 106— fes_I•I I Jll /• I 1 ` "" a s� N 2 lae� h „ v 1 � v,. .. d�'ieaa_•O �µ � NLanµuol6a�y 154 I Pxw'9lOZ suo!{er{uaouo0301�nld uePl°f 9lOZ l00 ZEL09lfl9lOZ sawnld 301 1001soopdeyylapS umoyfe8-b8 21SIHOdYVls7ua!IOIA Z L z Q CO 7y� VAT "• ........ :.e�.:. . ... . a w i 0a 2 L a, r LOU rmu Al i,4oz ^{ K 4M , Y r¢ � .µ.• ��;� �t` ::'L� $`:. "`+. Tett _,� 8 ti T , ` y w a w � O I LL Z ~ lo � w Z O w '�ti,-roa,-•<wr+r,�„.. �.._ a Y�� , /F t � Ips ..� a 777 Er °^its . w r „3 1 / i wLLp Jlo `wed w LL 0, a „ o 2lo <i . i tiw *. '= •11. g O U 0. LU z Ir ■ �- City of Oak Park Heights 14168 Oak Park Blvd. N•Oak Park Heights,NEN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 3/11/21 TO: CITY PUBLIC WORKS STAFF: Andy Kegley Lisa Danielson Jaryd Marks Andrew Swenson FROM: Eric Johnson, City Administrator RE: Essential Frontline Worker The City has reviewed the recent Governor's amendments (effective 3/10/21) to the COVID-19 vaccine applicability tables. As the City would define you as an "Essential Frontline Worker" for our operations and which includes the delivery of potable water to homes and operations of critical public infrastructure including but not limited to making critical visits inside private residences for the distribution of essential public services as well as to ensure local transit functions. If you are interested in securing such vaccine, please use this documentation if necessary. If anyone may have questions relating to this documentation, they may contact me at 651-439-4439. Thank you Eric Johnson City Administrator 5 of 29 _ --- -- -- -- - - Washington ijjod RB-2669 Coun 91 ty z1 FOREST LAKE UNDIA 5 Year Capital Improvement Program �o j - -- Road & Bridge i MAR N I I - sT Proposed program subject to change due to funding availability IONS CROIand coordination with other agencies. I tiM1Av This map identifies transportation projects approved in the a TOWNSHIP ----- _ Washington County Capital Improvement Plan 2021-2025. 4-2666xF Huco Additional projects,not shown on this map are included in that plan. ,j! ?�B-264 Projects Shown in Expected Construction Year If �" *UNLESS NOTED OTHERWiSE* 61 1 2029 Projects sl = RB-2588 CSAH 15&TH 36 Interchange u wood RB-2673 5TI WATER ro''"' RS-2625 CSAH 19-Dale Road to CSAH 18 TO NSHIP GRANT RB-2661 CSAH 24 and TH 36 Frontage Road �- — RB-2670 CSAH 14&1-694 and Trail R -2639 2022 Projects _ R11-2613 RB-2664 RB-2623 CSAH 13-CSAH 14 to 44th St-Phase II i-.� ��. STIL ATrR RS-2627 CSAH 15-CSAH 15&3oth Intersection RB-2 88AIL -2661 RB-2664 CSAH 12-County Line Road to Stillwater Road LHi5 RB-2567 2023 Projects -2 7 ll RB-2623 IRB-2567 CSAH 14&CSAH 24 RB-2677 RB-2613 CSAH 5-CR 64 to Sycamore St W AKF ELfvM1O 8 Multi-Use Trail RB-2 27 1` RB-2660 CSAH 3 AKD�E 2024 Projects ET ft LAKEL4No Iz 1118-2611 CSAH 33_ TowNSHtP 33 CSAH 32 to CSAH 2 12 " -_-- —Ji RB-2663 CSAH 12 East Ave/Hallam Ave to CSAH 9 � RB-2666 CSAH 8&Oneka Parkway Intersection RB-2669 CSAH 2 Concrete Repair 2025 Projects AFTON wooD$uav< R8 2627 CSAH 15-CSAH to to CSAH 14 POR i —, - RB-2639 CSAH 5-Sycamore St to TH 96 RBi z '6 RB-262 RB-2641 CSAH 3-CSAH 7 to CSAH 4 R8-z673 CSAH 15-Rumble Strips Other County Wide Project St PDL11 RB-2201 Intersection Control Projects JJ• COTTAGE GROVE - 81 RB-2203 Misc.Safety/Traffic Capacity Projects RB-2216 Structures va DENMARK R8_i651 Construction Engineering,Inspection&Survey - ,° TOWNSHIP RB-2665 Traffic Signal Communications Upgrades RRA-2297-11 Goldline Bus Rapid Transit(BRT)Year:2022-2023 -... ` d jr�L3 6 E Thsmap s'he.esu;ofz complaton „�,/'' ,Id andrepmnucxionm a e,: Road Classification t r -. avacarn.ar ouswa:h'ne. c o�e. ui�HsiATE purposes only.Washington<cunry is nat I!.5.iP.IJHh HiLH1VAY..........................EiI3 (Pof 29 1 2 4 6 $ —Powible for any inaccuracies. SiAic inurlti Rrc R^vAv.._...............—■ `" Miles The Scarce otlhepmjects shown on this map [CUNT—,,YLAP-1,H:,'+A'!............... Is the WasMngtan County Capital Improvement Plan son zea5•adopled Oxembert5lh,coxa COUNTY ROAD.....__-........__- „�. a � Washington 61 FOREST LAKE 91 County unxon.m[n � SCANDIA mm 2021 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION sd & CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Proposed Program subject to change due to funding availability 61 "�^ ,�" and coordination with other agencies. as Projects shown are expected in 2021 construction year. HUGO 5? MAY TOWNSHIP } �� ss �M 61 51 ry _ a a STILLTEPavement Rehabilitation UVAR i, 61 TOWN HIP,/' = CSAR 18-Lakeland& Lakeland Shores St Croix Tr!S: 7th 5t 5 to 1-94 -Pavement Improvement asC,R A"T CSAH 3-Scandia a p� - _ Olinda Ti N:Old Marine Tri to County Line Remove&Replace o Highway Construction Projects LAKE ELMO' CSAR 21 -Denmark Twp 'rn,i y Trl C Rn. - -Box Culvert Replacement - 3 $ WEST LAKELAND o q. CSAH 19- Woodbury V `a0. zQa TOWNSHIP 08 9 Woodbury Dr:Dale Rd to CSAH 18(Bailey Rd) -Roadway Reconstruction iia' ii; � 2 � ® 12r CSAH 24-Oak Park Heights OSr 4 Ave 8 36 Intersection South Frontage Road Realignment AFTON ' s 6 CSAH 15-Stillwater,Stillwater Twp, 'i Grant, Lake Elmo WOODBURY ManningAve& TH3F' I SAIL`"n° °`H515 '` -Tree Removal(SPRING) CSAH 15-Stillwater, Stillwater Twp, Grant, Lake Elmo �a s5T, Manning AveIT I - - Interchange Construction (SUMMER through 2022) r� 6, 76 s Park Projects fi, DENMARK® j Lake Elmo Park Reserve COTTAGE 1y I TOWNSHP GROVE 78 SS -FornF 0eek Dam Dam Repair&Pipe Replacement 9 Lake Elmo Park Reserve -Cep*r�1 ^+anal Trail February 8th,2o2i 51 ios -Pavement Improvements map is the resuhaf a compilation appca. sningnd reproduNon of lan,%Cnron., as[hey arnunry efl5ces. 0 1 2 Q 6 8 perma'p slaoueltl be used far reference pce......:•. -gtn"c—ty Miles siec of oiry'n ccuraoes. O r la• F 1 i r anhwv 16 A •* 1•►. 4 F CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS C; ar en Clu THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS IS ALWAYS IN NEED OF VOLUNTEERS TO AID IN THE MAINTENANCE OR EVEN THE FURTHER ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNITY GARDENS. IF YOU OR A GROUP OF LOCAL COMMUNITY MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER FORMING A VOLUNTEER GROUP TO HELP BEAUTIFY THE CITY PARKS AND TRAILS, WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU. 0 13 To join the team or for more iy information sign • by �'a• L�ti't*�l SCAN ME scanning code • by callingthe number: • • • • • or • 9 ■ NCfpNI� ALL TH IS MORTON MERLS FROM THE HERRTTOmp Naadk FOR ONLY .aatsrM •svur� •sour- • • . • $ 10 Soo ` AUCE Pic -' ... , Grocery Budget Stretcher ! Get $50 worth of groceries for JUST $ 10 ! Each FOOD BOX contains various popular packaged grocery and food items that can be used to create several healthy and flavorful meals. 4& Oft We&,ot",i tach box Meals From The Heart �` �6'� I& po lwhdft 5600 Memorial Ave North Oak Park Heights Saturday, March 27 9:00 a.m. to Noonr� Curbside delivery directly to your vehicle. NO RESERVATIONS! 651-829- 3232 Ext.2 CALL FOR INFORMATION MEALS �~-�-�- FROMTHE 9of29 mea lsfromtheheart.org OL S3, i > 'O 'F L u t10 vias+ 0 V ra 2 4 � c v, • ° ° ° u 7 ° to 'O 'O C, O .0 M u C u L j t10 L N +N+ C > O N C L U E N N Ln N O i L 14 cl_0 > _ -O O3 N -0 Q LU N y L -0 N • Yr _ L ra — V)W r O N, o u ° �^ u Y (y u a a to =5 J 2 0.. 3 - C tua ^ a v E o m ° -° E E c Cc, 00 H/�� a°) 03. E i N Cl C 03. C >.: -O C U m — Cl.O W Q O++ •• Q u n. n. Q Q u O N ° o ma 2 , L to ° a O W Y� U U +N+ +`�+ N C .� u C ra N i co 'm u LL I " L 03. c\-� -°° +L+ N .'L'' 3 L `^ C .Oc t °° 1 C r- co Cl) r- co r- r- o C 3 Y 3 i i C i L u Y Y N i • ` ;. La N c a o a E E +M+ N N N Cl O N 'O O L Z = S3. °O O d to ° 03. L 'O '� vi ° m►= 1 .A Y 4 f0 -° .0 V > O vOi -°p c -p +L, !-' N I 3 E W C C ra V 7 ° 00 C U C ra O L L i L ++ S3 o m v E � 0 to c o a >, Q \ o ,� •3 E .� v t + e Z � n. aan Cl Cl Z = o a a x a > E � a� L o > L L N N 03. N O 01 \ O C 1 O 1— N N N d lb to 03. to L V tY co H (7 O R L (U � M L N L O U t 7 LL • N u O Lt U U L O L m. ' 03, p X c it N ++ Y 0 O L Y 0 L M L O LL 'O • *, + Q � N L m N Ln=r O N Lu E O =5 E m c a:EccJHcc oo(u N fQ C N N L 30: c o ryWOW m UN ra L '3 03. L N L ) 0 _0 o c a to 6 u F '., _ 'O t10 V 'O L O .. � N C Ln *' — Y '6 ra " d c u tri M N N to n°n E E m nn Z o u .E x a= ° o o p ° .E N o r- 0 E o ° to � °c -0 O ° lJJ N E 3 N L E V > L L C U ,W E r- O L N a, L C O ° c o U U to � -LL) O E • U' W u C is O 7 C <Y m O Q, m C C — d' ra •V -0 O .� L •u F N L O N 'vi Za n n n n Q Z a v" u Q -o = u C > U a V H cin n. s r V n. E CU N COCON C N co 4 Ln -6 n 06 f� 4-; V • C k T N L L ° E > a E c ° o 7 5 ' N OU N L NL O X _ E OU 3 Y O L O O N N • N N 03. O m L40W r 0 0) 0 .= r c _a J~=_a —i ° Cl ^ L ° WOW ° a 'O u u +' ra > L LL I L u N 7 ] C N t10 °O L u °C u N m E ai �- o tii a Z E > 'a E ° E E L — - Y E ° • Z — ° E °� ° O o O `-' .N m to 0 W ra O 3 O U T O t 6 0 is i m • •N N O L Q O E c L N W C n0 o S3. N Y ra u O O � O 00� fQ - S3. U F U 'L N ++ U C L O > N Z Q 7 Q ° N L Z Q R L L L > r H a N u u a H in CO H H L -p fR ra O) C vi 'O W � K' _ E N O p n N ° u N U •C C N O x • _ r �. E ° O U E C U w r 0.2. ��y/ 0._ • O) O) E O) o U J L.L U E C O °0 r L cl p p `� rLU a E � ix LL •N N 7 '� N O)cl O W E LL 2 O) 0.0 v7 vi -O -° o O) n.- L N Y L - `-' ° 0 r L 0 r o v a o ° � E Ji ° c O o • • Z - a O o o c o u °� ° °� c --0 w O mnz o p E V L n. U O OU x C `� N C n.L > O) a, W o c m ? N u D c O 0 E ° o o L O nb C w vi *' r0 d' is U C i N u .x C C ° c n. aaa N v ° -o -0 -p -0 0 � -0 > • Z � c u u N Z a a Q in Q m vni Q w u a -0 C EI- uN � V V • n. 0 p O A N p Y Q r ° N ° ° u o u a o •a ° x Y� E o i E L O > nz L (n W 0 0 r L L JHS \u O m c C Q (i a a L WRQ O+ p U +L+ Ca'W_ L N r. .. r E N 3 CLL 'C O) O C n.- O) L p — p U L p O C y r L N E O nz O) V L Ym O N u C C o E Z U U U N Z -p U i +w C C C C n, n. 'O • gi /► u u u u u u /► Q ° •� 1 ' nz � L C • Q O — 4 u •+ '` U L vii ° N LD o O ° a • �� /V o o 0 3c r c > o 0 Cl °CUU 4-i6' 0 °�' w� ° O v c In c o a • L.. as a a °CU °°° E .c o o Q Q �°aur N N O++ ° c � °�' c p L E °� WOW nz LL U C O E Uj N L C LL I O) 00 a o 'S; 0 a E L °' C ° v E 'o L ° p 07 Ln 00 Ln L: > 7 r0 x 7 00 O L L L N CO X L C L p C 'E C .ti O . a0+ l/) C CT L: U Y O) C nz -p L E E In L 7 Z O) O L r0 7 E N 0 O) O pp L H 7 0Q.0 C O > n, nz n. O) L p n. 7 O • '� Z ° - p o ° nz a c ° E v a c ° a � 0 c a V c ° ? i u o m m O r vi ° O a c w Q) 0 °c - °c E ° o aU a " > o Z u 7 Q � Q0 w u o �u c' o f aci a ua u > Cl a Cla _ • • N u uu u' a E nz a ° O ° > L a cn a cn a E a V w a C ~ ~ C N .--� .\-� .\-� .\-� ti (V M QLD I� 00 P o ti 00 O 3 a ° m ° o a) 00 E C= a u �° � v C-1 - � �°^.fp -�� �� 00 a a0+ a s.m N0 0bo OL a N O _0 a OU 00 N • uY c ++ av_i N N X c fQ L i -O 00on N -0 a s a a a a O L N O 1nW ° N •• '0 N +'�+ +N+ U +�+ N o b c _O an J=pr�y/ 0•Q N N V 00 .0 U Q t L.L 00 U C ~ \ \ \ \ ~ c L U \L�T L L `° ry ry ry ry ry .X N 0 fQ rCy La: E bb ra Q. E 0 c C LL= N bo 66 N 3 >.' U E (n N 'O O L.L 3 N N i 1 �IV, c _0 -0 w 0 O -0 •,� N _C 0 L• L 0 �, .� C N OO L a c N E (6 -, 'O 'O •• i. L E -° 4J C fQ L L E L • Z C o _° +� p — •,n aN+ N E O O E O i N W ra rri fa •O F N N 0 V OL 2 C bA'O 00 N Z +0+ ra L N L . waw -u no co: ° u u 'E .x m a c •N N a c o 3 U ° N i V N O L O E O C 7 N N . $�IL-.-Ash— Z a a a a o Z a Q Q m 2 a cn cn > u N co a u I c,o N' O •• •��ywa,,,,��y .--Y .--Y co .--Y .--i \ N .--i (V M V -i L> r". N Cl. .--Y c -O - c = c 6 0 3 E �O 3 O X_ a O L ra N Q O' N N C 0 +�+•L 00 E -0 N C V 4 C cu (U v c L c E au Cl o c > c m c o o f _Q N a� m L ° m ° E a v L = M is u N ti bA 3 N c N T o" E bA m c 0 0q X \ \ c 0-O O 3 N 3 N 0 X E O 00 vY •C L N �O no.c� m > co m L �� E o -0 L' -0 c rri m N N— N 00 N = N �W r 0 •X E ° X Y•- 3 L L O a n0 c aU o f +� 0 2 �.- <' 0-0 a - o c Yv ^� ° m ^ o JHS v u-6 QEu'v nEm3u c 3 E 2 m 3 Q °D� c o 3 o L o Q o- 3mnn v ,� oa > T °c a rWOW O N -a a > -O N y m L E m is (7 p, 3 ° co 3 -o O LL I O 00 3 U c N Y ra LL L ami n°0oo o �c u" a � ° c T .°c0 .. u a+w O O T ra - x O M .--Y ti O c O ra ° IRV7to ': Ji M -oov 3 Ems° N Ji -0m °� EE . w Z co 00 ZO o c u � oY.� E ZO N °c a ° o •. uJ 0 Ln u U N O O N 4 is w H •� v3i •O E o m �. > �-o c a ° J L u U c o u ° W - m a W O 00 3 O N m C CW W >, ra U E • a, 0�.0 co O `� � ra .E c ru 0 E m O E G 7U -a m � 7 O O > 0 Z a Z ° Eo.E ma Nuc �Q/ Z �� Z � � c E o > U L L fR O.� U =; -° L Q) O yyjj9� N D N n- > m E u Q 'N V Q m a' V 1 M ti C ti (V M U C ti C ti N M 'I: Lr) 4" ti r 00 U Y E 3 M..,•�pal c 0 yr O 'O N c U co N N Q. C *� m E E E 3 0 u 0 E L • — ° a E �° . . °0.E u ° c c G a .S c c ' ' > a -Cl cl OL-a cu0 E c c t InWr� o I _j .--Y .--Y M N co �D .--Y a0+ N ra L,- 0 Q q- 4:5 ++ .M E a V a - an s W OLLJ ma M L _C m +' 7 3 0m.0 LL I w L • _ w bo -0 -0 c O N L N . .{. .4; O Q) .x ra bA OL c t c m L 0 M co O U ra L E a Z 0 E c c 3 E 2 c c Z^o �k H 6 0 0 •u c Y c � a� o • w c u o O c a u > E c c E •o e.. c n0 U > u u no m o '0 3 c o m •4.... ra c L D 0 N N 00 0 C N a 'O c c k aw O p�.p N �6 m 030 F- � cy 0 c E L c�-Y *N' ° • u n0 m a L o ° a� L o =r L N 3 a a 4 m Lq N ,ti CO m 4- .. C N m 0 � N 0 C p From: Mary Mmomber To: Eric Johnson Subject: Fwd:YSB"s May 13th Gala-Change of Date! Date: Tuesday,Mardi 9,20214:38:29 PM For weekly notes -----Original Message----- From:Youth Service Bureau,Inc.<info@ysb.net, To:marymccomber@aol.com Sent:Tue,Mar 9,2021 4:30 pm Subject:YSB's May 13th Gala-Change of Date! Having trouble viewing this email?View as a web pace. IN Youth Service Bureau, Inc.helps youth and families learn the skills they need to be more successful at home,in school and throughout the community. YSB has learned that our 2021 Gala was inadvertently scheduled on the same night as a local partner organization's event. Out of respect to our community partner, YSB is moving our 5th Annual Gala to Thursday,May 13,2021. In a year of endless changes and resiliency,we hope that you will be able to attend our Gala on the new date of Thursday, May 13th. U Questions: Call us at:(651)439-88001 Email us at: info2_.ysb.net Please visit our Event Page at httos://bidoal.net/vsb2021 for event details, to donate auction items,or to become a sponsor. Share This Email: u Ni ®❑ 13 of 29 From: Mary Mccomber To: Eric Johnson Subject: Fwd:Celebrate Women in Local Government During Women's History Month and Beyond Date: Sunday,March 7,2021 7:36:48 AM For weekly notes -----Original Message----- From: National League Of Cities (NLC)<news@nlc.org> To: marymccomber@aol.com Sent: Sat, Mar 6, 2021 6:03 am Subject: Celebrate Women in Local Government During Women's History Month and Beyond News,resources and events for local leaders and staff. of Celebrate Women in Local Government During Women's History Month and Beyond NLC has been uniting and uplifting Women in Local Government since 1974, encouraging them to run for local office. It is also one of the only NLC groups that grant non-members the opportunity to join and connect with peers. WIMG serves as a vehicle for members to discuss problems and explore solutions, debate policy issues, and contribute to the success of American cities and towns. ■ 14 of 29 JR R A, Why Equity in Vaccine Rebuilding Our Local How the City of Saint Paul Distribution is Critical: Four Economies with Hope used strategic partnerships Areas to Prioritize through Children's Savings to fight hunger in a pandemic Accounts .- .- ■ ■ ■ IF Industry News What We're Reading: • With Congress poised to give states and local governments $350 billion, pandemic budget hit for many was smaller than predicted - CNN(March 5, 2021) • Harris says relief bill will help cities innovate - StateScoop (March 1, 2021) • Managing Childcare: The Power Of Family-Friendly And Inclusive Cities -Forbes (February 27, 2021) • We Must Have Equity in COVID-19 Vaccinations -AARP (February 26, 2021) 15 of 29 Announcements Mayoral Virtual Roundtable: Innovation: Recovering, Reimagining and Rebuilding The threat of COVID-19 has magnified the inequities that exist in all aspects of society from education, to the economy, to the digital divide, and everything in between. Hear from Mayors Sylvester Turne and Steve Adler how they addressing this challenging in an innovative and creative way. Register Now> Job Openings See who's hiring right now: • City Manager-Town of Grottoes • Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement -City of San Jose • Director of Finance -City of Dayton ■ Helpful NLC Links: Articles Upcoming Events 101 Resources &Training Advocacy If this message is not displaying properly, please view in browser. National League of Cities 8 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 16 of 29 Privacy Policy I©2021 NLC, All Rights Reserved Powered by Higher Logic 17 of 29 NATIONAL LEAGUE NLCOF CITIES STRONG TOGETHER We work with Washington tomove Americaforward. The National League of Cities (NLC) represents cities of all sizes, from the IDEOLOGY OF ELECTED OFFICIALS IN 8.4 million residents of New York City NLC-MEMBER CITIES to the five residents of Thurmond, West 29% 30% Virginia. 24°i We are not partisan, but we are passionate about making America's 8% 8% cities great. • • Very Somewhat Somewhat Very LIBERAL MIDDLE CONSERVATIVE We believe in the values of local Source NLC Member Survey,October 2016 authority, ethics, civility, diversity, and collaboration. Policy ideas from around the country NLC works closely with local officials to elevate policy ideas built on the best practices of local governments across the country. We have the city perspective that can inform your work as a Member • • of Congress. NLC also conducts original research, from emerging issues like drones and driverless cars to annual studies of city fiscal conditions and the issues most important to mayors. We know what matters to our nation's cities. 18 of 29 An unparalleled coalition of Federal Government to work in partnership with 19,000 cities city leaders on solutions that move our country forward. We help make that happen. In addition to our member cities, NLC partners with state-level municipal leagues. Together An advocate for city priorities we are connected with the more than 19,000 We stand for sensible policies that help cities build municipalities in the U.S. We are the voice for economic prosperity. Cities help build a bridge to America's cities of all sizes. We are also the best the middle class and help our communities grow. resource to help the Federal Government get information to the leaders of America's cities. We look forward to serving as both a resource and partner as we work together to build better A partner to implement change communities. We provide on-the-ground assistance to cities on all sorts of issues: attracting businesses, education, and land use to name a few. Federal policies get implemented locally. That's why it's critical for the CITIES DRIVE THE U.S. ECONOMY. METROPOLITAN AREAS ARE HOME TO 86% -savo isa yo %01% of the nation's of total non-farm of total real of real gross population employment income domestic product 78% The majority of rural of road miles Americans live within a reasonable commute of a city. 50% of bridges Local governments invest $1.7 trillion 9570Am IF annually on services such as transportation, public safety and education. of water infrastructure are owned by local government. Sources:IHS Global Insight,"U.S.Metro Economies:GMP and Employment Report 2015-2017"; Brookings Instutition,2011;US Census Bureau,2013. NATIONAL LEAGUE NLCOF CITIES STRONG TOGETHER Local Governments Bear 111aft Disproportionate Brunt ofTob Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction The fiscal conditions of state and local governments have been front and center in recent weeks as the American Rescue Plan wends its way through Congress before landing on President Biden's desk for signing. At issue for some is the notion that state and local governments are not struggling and have already received sufficient funding to cover less-than-anticipated revenue losses.' While it is true that worst-case scenarios for state budgets have generally not been borne out, the same cannot be said for local governments. The job losses experienced by city and county governments in the wake of the COVID-induced recession demonstrate the severe budget challenges they face. Although state government and local government relief have been grouped together in terms of a Federal recovery bill, states and localities are experiencing quite different fiscal realities. Resilient high wage employment and stock market gains have buoyed state revenues, while struggling Main Street businesses, decimated commercial property markets and outsized shares of unemployment in low to middle income jobs have more heavily influenced local revenue streams. Local governments are also enduring significant COVID- related expenditures from health and emergency services to shelters, food banks and utilities. About the National League of Cities.The National League of Cities(NLC) is the voice of America's cities,towns and villages, representing more than 200 million people. NLC works to strengthen local leadership, influence federal policy and drive innovative solutions. NLC's Center for City Solutions provides research and analysis on key topics and trends important to cities and creative solutions to improve the quality of life in communities. Authors.Christiana K. McFarland, PhD is the Research Director of the National League of Cities.Spencer Wagner is senior specialist and Joshua Pine is specialist in the Center for City Solutions. The authors gratefully acknowledge the editorial and research contributions of Rose Kim, specialist in the Center for City Solutions,and the support of NLC's Federal Advocacy team, Irma Esparza Digs, Michael Gleeson and Rohan Narayanan. 20 of 29 Local Governments Bear Disproportionate Brunt of Job Loss Despite these differences, some would suggest that government job loss is not an indicator of fiscal stress but instead the result of conservative budgeting.' The evidence, however, does not demonstrate that cities are proactively shedding costs by laying off workers in anticipation of declining revenues. On the contrary, they are making every effort to avoid employment cuts. For example, to address an additional $3.5 million in medical costs, the Mayor of Mount Vernon, NY initially proposed 15 days of furloughs for all city employees or 60 layoffs, including public safety employees.' The new proposal instead increases taxes and utilizes $4.7 million from reserves.' While it will not include furloughs and layoffs, it will eliminate 33 vacant jobs citywide.s Layoffs or furloughs will be revisited if the city does not collect the expected revenues. Local governments do not come to decisions about personnel cuts lightly and utilize these actions only as a fiscal policy option of last resort. Job losses illustrate fiscal stress and the difficult choices city and county governments make to balance their budgets. To better understand the disparate fiscal impact of the COVID-19 recession on general purpose state and local governments, we analyze state and local employment data (excluding education) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics from March 2020 - December 2020. Specifically, this white paper explores how changes in local government employment vary by state and how state government employment changes compare with those in the local government sector. Our findings are clear. Thus far city and county governments have lost substantially more jobs, both in terms of sheer number and share of workforce, than their state government counterparts. Local governments have lost nearly a quarter million jobs, representing 85% of the overall state and local government workforce loss since the start of the downturn. Severe employment declines in city and county governments underscore the differential impact of the pandemic on localities and the imperative of our Federal leadership to carefully consider their needs. Local Government Job Loss During COV I D-19 Over the course of the pandemic, the local public sector has been hit hard. Nearly a quarter million local public sector jobs (excluding positions in education) have been lost across the country from March through December 2020.6 When examining change in city and county government employment on a state-by-state basis, we find that, on average, local governments experienced a 3.5% decline in employment. 44 states registered local government job losses and six registered minimal to no growth (equal to or less than one percent). City and county governments in no state reported meaningful gains, on average (see Figure 1). NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 1 2 21 of 29 Local Governments Bear Disproportionate Brunt of Job Loss CHANGE IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT EXCLUDING EDUCATION March 2020 - December 2020 by state <-3% 0<-5% 0<-7% 0<-11% Source:NLC analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics employment data Figure 1. On average, local governments lost 3.5% of jobs to the pandemic, with losses of 5% or greater in 15 states Local job loss has been most prevalent in Connecticut (11% decrease), Illinois (8% decrease), Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada and Virginia (all experiencing a 7% decrease). After experiencing sustained growth following severe fiscal challenges in the last decade, the city of Detroit, MI laid off 200 part-time workers, cut hours for 2,200 full-time city employees, froze planned pay increases and cut top executive official salaries by five percent since March 2020 due to an estimated $348 million budget deficit! Revenue shortfalls in the city of Sparks, NV resulted in reduction of the city's Parks and Recreation department, resulting in layoffs of 177 city employees.' The sentiments of the city manager of Augusta, ME in a budget memo last year discussing personnel cuts are indicative of those being felt in local governments across the country, "We are blessed with a wonderful, dedicated workforce and the steps being taken to be financially responsible are painful ones."9 Local vs. State Government Job Loss States governments, on the other hand, have not lost as many jobs. In total, state governments have lost approximately 25,000 jobs March 2020 through December 2020, excluding positions in education. Losses and gains, however, vary extensively by state. Some states, such as North Dakota and Alaska have seen increases in their state government jobs while others, such as Mississippi and Wisconsin, have seen decreases as great as five percent. NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 1 3 22 of 29 Local Governments Bear Disproportionate Brunt of Job Loss Although any job loss is unfortunate, the scale of loss represents much more steady employment for the state government sector overall as compared with cities and counties. When comparing state and local government job loss by state, the weight of job loss falls disproportionately on local governments. City and county governments account for 85% of the overall state and local government workforce loss since the start of the downturn (see Appendix). Local government job losses outpace those in state government in 31 states (see Figure 2). In eight of these states (North Dakota, Illinois, Louisiana, Connecticut, Arizona, Rhode Island, Colorado and Maine), the difference is greater than five points. City and county job loss is on par with state government job loss in 14 states, while local government job loss trails state job loss in five states (Georgia, New Hampshire, Wyoming, New York, Mississippi). Even in states with greater state government job losses, the difference between state and local declines is only two points on average. COMPARISON OF CHANGE IN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT EXCLUDING EDUCATION March 2020 - December 2020 by state -10% -5% LOSS 0% GAIN 5% 10% IND I Local L State LA CT A RI CO ML MN CA NV AK SD VA N NM MDIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIM OR UT U AL DE PA NJ MT MI VI OIL M KS SC TN KY HI OK NE TX AR MO IN WA tFL IA WI GA NH WY NY MS Source:NLC analysis or Bureau or Labor Statistics employment data Figure 2. Local government job loss outpaces state government job loss in 31 states NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 1 4 23 of 29 Local Governments Bear Disproportionate Brunt of Job Loss For example, while the state of Arizona grew its workforce by three percent, city and county governments shed eight percent of jobs during the pandemic, resulting in an 11-point difference between state and local government job loss. Potentially contributing to this gap in Arizona are state and local taxing structures. The state of Arizona collects property, sales, and income taxes, the latter of which has proven to be more reliable during the pandemic.10 Arizona's general fund revenues for fiscal year 2021 will increase 9.5 percentage points making up for the 2.3-point decrease in fiscal year 2020.11 Municipalities in Arizona, on the other hand, are more limited in their revenues relying heavily on sales taxes.12 As Tempe, AZ prepared its fiscal year 2021 budget, it had to cut $14 million from its budget specifically tied to lost sales tax revenues. Departments were asked to identify a total of $24 million in potential budget adjustments, including personnel, representing approximately 10% of the city's general fund.13 Conclusion Cities, towns and villages provide the backbone of services in a local community. From firefighters and police to librarians and public works employees—local jobs are visible and meaningful. Municipalities alone employ nearly three million people nationwide. Approximately 80% of these jobs are full-time, with most providing middle-class income and benefits.14 Local government employees significantly impact our communities and have been essential during the pandemic. While the economic and health outlook continues to improve, uncertainty still looms and local governments are suffering the costs of the being on the frontlines of the pandemic. Cities and counties are helping to alleviate financial hardships of residents and businesses and managing with fewer revenues, greater needs and balanced budget requirements. Additionally, the sudden and deep decline in local revenues during 2020 does not imply a sudden and steep rise in revenues when the economy (and public health crisis) turns around.15 Damage to city fiscal conditions by the Great Recession took more than a decade to repair, and even then, local workforces never fully recovered. If the Great Recession provides a lesson, it is that it takes years for cities' fiscal capacities, and workforces, to rebound. States, meanwhile, have very different tax structures and have received greater direct support from the federal government to help lessen their revenue losses and keep their workforces stable, on average. With payroll and associated expenses accounting for nearly half of local budgets, the fiscal challenges facing local governments because of the COVID-19 recession have translated to massive cuts in employment. 16Without support, local government employment declines will impede broader economy recovery. NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES I 5 24 of 29 Local Governments Bear Disproportionate Brunt of Job Loss Appendix ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT CHANGES (MARCH - DECEMBER 2020) BY STATE STATE COMPARED PERCENTAGE WITH LOCAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATE GOVERNMENT OF LOSS STATE EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT CHANGE EMPLOYMENT CHANGE FROM LOCAL CHANGE (% POINT VS. STATE DIFFERENCE) ....................................................................................................................................................................................... Number Percentage Number Percentage ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Alabama -3,100 -3% 500 1% 100% -4% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Alaska -200 -1% 600 4% 100% -5% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Arizona -6300 -5% 1200 3% 100% -8% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Arkansas -1400 -3% -1400 -3% 50% 0% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... California -34300 -4% 2700 1% 100% -5% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Colorado -5000 -4% 1300 2% 100% -6% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Connecticut -5900 -11% -600 -2% 91% -9% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Delaware -200 -3% 100 1% 100% -3 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Florida 4700 1% 800 1% 0% 1% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Georgia -2600 -1% -2100 -3% 55% 2% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Hawaii* 200 1% 500 2% 0% -1% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Idaho -900 -2% 200 1% 100% -4% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Illinois -18800 -8% 1800 3% 100% -11% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Indiana -1600 -1% -500 -1% 76% 0% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Iowa -2300 -3% -1100 -4% 68% 1% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Kansas -2200 -3% -300 -1% 88% -2% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Kentucky -3000 -4% -1300 -3% 70% -1% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Louisiana -2900 -3% 3000 7% 100% -10% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Maine -1200 -6% 100 1% 100% -6% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Maryland -6300 -7% -1500 -3% 81% -4% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Massachusetts -4700 -5% -2100 -3% 69% -2% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Michigan -12700 -7% -3600 -5% 78% -2% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Minnesota -9700 -7% -600 -1% 94% -5% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Mississippi -1300 -2% -1700 -5% 43% 3% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Missouri* -10000 -4% -3700 -3% 73% 0% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Montana 100 0% 400 3% 0% -3% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Nebraska -100 0% 100 1% 100% -1% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Nevada -3400 -7% -400 -2% 89% -5% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... New Hampshire -1200 -5% -900 -7% 57% 2% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 1 6 25 of 29 Local Governments Bear Disproportionate Brunt of Job Loss ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... New Jersey -6200 -4% -1400 -1% 82% -3% ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... New Mexico -2500 -5% -200 -1% 93% -4% ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... New York 0 0% -3900 -2% 0% 2% ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... North Carolina -11600 -5% -200 0% 98% -4% ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... North Dakota -1100 -4% 800 8% 100% -12% ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Ohio -8600 -4% -1200 -2% 88% -2% ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Oklahoma -3700 -3% -700 -2% 84% -1% ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Oregon -3800 -4% 0 0% 100% -4% ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Pennsylvania -6100 -3% -100 0% 98% -3% ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Rhode Island -700 -6% 100 1% 100% -7% ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... South Carolina -2700 -2% -400 -1% 87% -2% ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... South Dakota -800 -3% 100 1% 100% -5% ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Tennessee -5000 -3% -800 -2% 86% -1% ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Texas -7500 -2% -2200 -1% 77% 0 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Utah -900 -2% 700 2% 100% -4% ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Vermont -400 -5% -300 -3% 57% -2% ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Virginia -11100 -7% -1500 -2% 88% -5% ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Washington -6800 -4% -2700 -4% 72% 0% ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... West Virginia -300 -1% -300 -1% 50% 0% ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Wisconsin -5300 -4% -2100 -5% 72% 1% ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Wyoming -100 0% -200 -2% 33% 2% ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Total/Average -221500 -3.52% -25000 -0.66% 77% -3% ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Source:Bureau of Labor Statistics,State and Area Employment `Due to data limitations,the analysis presented for Missouri and Hawaii are for total local and state government employment,including education. NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 1 7 26 of 29 Local Governments Bear Disproportionate Brunt of Job Loss Endnotes State and Local Governments Do Not Need Half a Trillion in COVID Relief. (2021, February 17). Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. httr)s://www.crfb.org/blogs/state-and-local-govern- ments-do-not-need-half-trillion-covid-relief Z Sheiner, L. (2020, December 23). Why is the state and local employment falling faster than reve- nues? The Brookings Institution. httQs://www.brookings.edu/bloc/ur)-front/2020/12/23/why-is- state-and-local-employment-falling-faster-than-revenues/ 3 Bandler, J. (2021, February 2). Furloughs and layoffs shelved in Mount Vernon under new pro- posed budget. Loh ud. https://www.Iohud.com/story/news/local/westchester/mount-ver- non/2021/02/02/furloughs-and-layoffs-shelved-mount-vernon-under-new-budget- plan/4358159001/ 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Note: As of 2019 according to the Annual Survey of Public Employment & Payroll, 11.2 million peo- ple were employed in state and local education systems out of the total 19.7 million jobs offered by state and local governments, or roughly 57 percent of jobs, with general purpose state and local government positions accounting for the other 43 percent. For the purposes of this white paper, we focused on general government jobs excluding education. However, the analyses for Missouri and Hawaii are based on total local and state government employment, including educa- tion, due to data limitations. ' Oosting, J. (2020, April 16). Government layoffs, service cuts start as coronavirus guts Michigan budgets. Bridge Michigan. https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/government-lay- offs-service-cuts-start-coronavirus-guts-michigan-budgets 8 Northern Nevada cities making cuts in hourly and part-time employees. (2020, May 4). KOLO. httQs://www.koIotv.com/content/news/Northern-Nevada-cities-making-cuts-in-hourlv-and-part- time-employees-570179921.htm I g Edwards, K. (2020, May 1). Augusta laying off about 30 city employees. Central Maine. htt s: www.centralmaine.com/2020/04/30/augusta-to-lav-off-dozens-of-city-employees/?utm medi- um=webpush&utm source=browser&utm campaign=pushnotifications ° McFarland, C. K., Gleeson, M., & Pine, J. (2021, February 8). The Danger of Conflating State and Local Pandemic Relief. National League of Cities. httr)s://www.nlc.org/article/2021/02/08/the- danger-of-conflating-state-and-local-pandemic-rel ief/ " The Fiscal Survey of States. (2020). National Association of State Budget Officers. https://www. nasbo.ora/reports-data/fiscal-survey-of-states 12 McFarland, C. K., & Hoene, C. W. (2015). Cities & State Fiscal Structure. National League of Cities. https://www.nlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/NLC CSFS Report WEB.pdf 3 Potter, M. (2020,June 26). Tempe City Council makes default budget decisions, bids Mitchell fare- well. The State Press. https://www.stateQress.com/article/2020/06/Sppolitics-temQe-city-coun- ci I-holds-budget-meeting 14 United States Census Bureau. (2020). Annual Survey of Public Employment & Payroll (ASPEP). httQs://www.census.gov/;Drograms-surveys/a;pes.html 15 McFarland, C. K., & Pagano, M. A. (2020). City Fiscal Conditions 2020. National League of Cities. httQs://www.nlc.org/wQ-content/uploads/2020/08/City Fiscal Conditions 2020 FINAL.pdf 16 United States Census Bureau. (2020, March 17). 2017 ASPEP Datasets &Tables. httr)s://www.cen- sus.gov/data/datasets/2017/econ/apes/annual-aQes.html NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 1 8 27 of 29 Local Decision-Making Authority Locally elected mayors and councilmembers are in the best position to determine what health, safety, and Federal welfare regulations will have the greatest benefit for their constituents. Cities must have sufficient authority and flexibility to meet the challenges of governing and Issue providing citizens with public services that meet their specific needs. Highlights We urge Congress to work to strengthen the federal, state, and municipal relationship and preserve the critical 2 • 21 principle of local control. Direct and Flexible Federal Relief to Address the Impacts of COVID-19 Cities remain on the frontlines of the pandemic, working to keep residents safe, economies strong, and public services operational. The challenges that each city faces, and the solutions local leaders are deploying in doing so, are as unique as the communities they serve. Yet decreases in revenue due to COVID-19 and unbudgeted COVID-19 expenditures make it more difficult for many cities to provide the responsive, localized solutions their communities need. While Minnesota cities received a portion of the state's Coronavirus Relief Funds, the funds could not be used to address revenue losses resulting from the pandemic. These fiscal pressures have Daniel Lightfootforced some cities to make painful cuts, initiate hiring Intergovernmental Relations freezes and furloughs, and delay capital projects. Representative We urge Congress to pass fair and appropriate • direct federal funding to cities of all sizes that can be • • • deployed quickly with the ability to address all health and economic consequences that have arisen from the David Unmacht pandemic — including loss of revenue due to COVID-19. Executive Director • • • • • Infrastructure Investments Cities are committed to supporting the nation's economic recovery. In order to do so, long overdue federal funding for roads, transit, airports, railways, and ports, as well as resources for water and wastewater infrastructure, must be passed. The previous backlog of infrastructure improvements needed to keep essential workers, services, and commerce moving has been exacerbated by a lack of funding and painful delays related to COVID-19. After years of debate at the federal level, it's time to take decisive action. We urge Congress to support broad, long-term investment in infrastructure that addresses the transportation and essential utility infrastructure needs of 0 all cities. LEAGUE of L F1 C MINNESOTA CITIES c)2021 League of Minnesota Cities.All Rights Reserved. JAN2021 The Nonpartisan The League of Minnesota Cities advocates on behalf of Minnesota cities, connecting Voice the realities of local governance to the of legislative processes in St. Paul and Washington, D.C. Minnesota The League partners with the National League of Cities to bring the voice of Minnesota's local government officials to Congress Citiesand the executive branch. MINNESOTA!SPOPULATION Under 25,000 Under 5,000 Under 500 The League of Minnesota Cities serves as the single most important advisor, advocate, and partner for all Minnesota cities. In addition to advocacy at the Capitol, the League serves its members through: • Education and training • Insurance and risk management (LMC Insurance Trust) • Guidance and analysis on member issues • Problem-solving and mediation services • Research and information resources © MinnesotaCities © MinnesotaCities#LMCIeg Gee` www.imc.org LHCLEAGUE )f IC-51 MINNESOTA CITIES ©2021 League of Minnesota Cities.All Rights Reserved. FEB2021