Skip to main content
Image
img

Pappas Calls on Treasury to Create Strong Consistent Guidance to Support Local Police, Fire, and Public Health Workers

September 24, 2020

Today, Congressman Chris Pappas (NH-01) sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin supporting his Department's decision to again allow local governments to utilize CARES Act funding for all public safety and health payroll expenditures during the pandemic, and encouraging Treasury to maintain clarity on the use of CARES Act funding by local governments.

The sharp economic downturn caused by COVID-19 coupled with the increased need for public services has left state and local governments in need of increased federal aid. Unfortunately, as local governments were feeling the crunch, the Treasury Department backtracked on its guidance for local governments that all public health and safety payroll expenses they incur would be assumed to be COVID-related and reimbursable with CARES Act funds. In many, if not all cases, this documentation simply does not exist because prior guidance from the Treasury did not require it leaving our localities without the federal aid they were promised.

This would have meant many local governments in New Hampshire would have been unable to use CARES Act funds to pay for their police officers, fire fighters, EMS, and other key positions, or they must fund them at unsustainably lower levels.

Fortunately, the Treasury reversed this decision following the calls of lawmakers and local governments. However, as our state and local leaders work around the clock to safeguard their communities, it is more important than ever that the federal government provides clear and consistent support.

"I am glad The Treasury Department did not turn its back on New Hampshire law enforcement, fire fighters, and other local public health and safety workers who are putting their lives on the line for their communities," said Congressman Pappas. "The fact is, local governments shouldn't have been put in this position in the first place. This funding was provided to ensure that local public health and public safety could continue to address COVID-19 in the face of a significant loss of municipal tax revenue, not to cause confusion or create more loops for our local governments to jump through. I urge the Treasury to continue supporting our localities and refrain from implementing further policy changes that are unfair and leave our police, fire, and public health workers without the support they need."

"Lack of clarity, consistency, and flexibility in the guidelines for use of CARES Act and other federal funding will prevent towns and cities from taking advantage of the funding available to them to address the financial crisis the pandemic has caused. This undercuts the purpose of the funding and ultimately leaves the taxpayers to shoulder the burden," said Margaret M.L. Byrnes, Executive Director of the New Hampshire Municipal Association.

Pappas called on the Treasury to provide clear and consistent guidance for the use of additional federal assistance.

Since the onset of this pandemic, Pappas has recognized the burden this pandemic has placed on localities and pushed for increased state and local aid. In May, Congressman Pappas led the call for House leadership to include robust funding for local governments in the next COVID-19 response package, and thanks to his advocacy the Heroes Act includes more than $1.5 billion in direct assistance to New Hampshire localities and $3.5 billion to the state government.

The full text of the letter can be found HERE and below.

Dear Secretary Mnuchin:

In recent months, local governments across the country have been forced to grapple with tough choices in the face of spiraling costs and severely reduced tax revenues. Unfortunately, the capacity of these governments to address the challenges posed by COVID-19 was undermined by a contradictory policy change announced by the Treasury Department. Specifically, recently released Treasury guidance would have required municipalities that have already incurred public safety-related costs to retroactively document that these funds were specifically directed towards efforts to fight the coronavirus. This change was both unfair and unnecessary, and we are glad that you recently clarified this policy so that state and local governments can continue to be reimbursed in a timely manner. We urge you to continue to maintain clarity for state and local governments and not require them to maintain unnecessary documentation for these expenses.

In June, a "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)" page on the Treasury Department website stated that state and local governments "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."

However, on September 2nd, the Treasury Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) publicly posted information directly contradicting this policy. In its own FAQ, the OIG states that, "the relevant unit of government should maintain documentation of the ‘substantially dedicated' conclusion with respect to its employees." Your department also subsequently updated its Coronavirus Relief Fund Guidance to state that, "The relevant unit of government should maintain documentation of the ‘substantially dedicated' conclusion with respect to its employees."

This abrupt reversal was unjustified and would have harmed local governments reeling from the impact of pandemic. It was confusing and disruptive to state that public safety funds are "presumed" to be pandemic-related costs and then issue conflicting guidance requiring municipalities to maintain documentation for expenses that they incurred months earlier.

This funding was appropriated by Congress to ensure that our firefighters, police officers, EMTs, and other public safety officials could continue to battle the devastating effects of COVID-19, even in the face of a significant loss of municipal tax revenue. This sudden policy change, and its retroactive application, was unfair to these frontline public safety workers and to state and local governments that made funding decisions with the presumption that they would be reimbursed based on the original guidance. You were correct to reverse this guidance and clarify that these workers are eligible for reimbursement.

Again, we respectfully urge you to continue to maintain clarity with these policies and avoid creating any further confusion so that states and local governments may continue to fund public safety and health officials on the front lines of this crises. Thank you for your urgent attention to this request.