Johnson County Supervisor Jon Green says new U.S. Treasury guidance allows 'excluded workers fund'

Johnson County Supervisor Jon Green is asking to delay a program that would send $1,400 checks to hundreds of residents after he received guidance from the U.S. Department of the Treasury on how to move forward.

An email between Green and Namrata Mujumdar, a senior policy adviser at the Treasury, contradicts the reasoning behind decisions made by the Board of Supervisors to create a lottery-style system to distribute $3.5 million of federal relief money to low- and moderate-income individuals.

Green said he favors a return to the original idea of funneling the money to Johnson County workers who did not receive previous stimulus payments.

"The assertion from county staff was that we could not do an excluded workers fund. What the message from Treasury clarifies is that we can, and it's up to the Board of Supervisors to make the political decision on how we proceed," Green told the Press-Citizen on Friday.

The language originally passed in an informal vote by the Supervisors stated that Johnson County would give "payments to workers who were ineligible for previous relief programs." But several subsequent unanimous decisions by the five Supervisors, guided by county staff's understanding of the final rule of the American Rescue Plan Act, resulted in a plan that would encompass all residents who could prove they suffered financially as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. That means not all qualified residents would receive checks.

The Fund Excluded Workers Coalition has spent months advocating for ARPA funds given to local governments to be distributed as direct payments to people who didn't receive previous federal checks. The way the program has evolved has left many of the excluded workers and their supporters frustrated. Green's email with Treasury is sure to restore some hope for them.

In the email sent to the Treasury last week, Green asked these questions:

• If an individual could file an affidavit to establish that they qualified for ARPA money, attesting to their residency, income and exclusion from previous payments.
• Is it acceptable for Johnson County to limit its program to those who have not received previous stimulus money?
• If the program must be opened to a broader category of low- to moderate-income individuals,  can Johnson County design the lottery to give higher preference to those excluded from previous payments?

Mujumdar, who is the lead for policy outreach for the ARPA State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds program, responded to Green:

• That an affidavit would be acceptable to establish all but proof of identity.
• That it is acceptable to limit a cash assistance program to a subset of an eligible population that has been especially impacted by the pandemic, including prioritizing money for households that have not already received payments.
• That nothing in the statute requires Johnson County to expand the program to low- to moderate-income residents.

The Board of Supervisors was set to consider a resolution creating its $3.5 million program — a combination of Johnson County and Iowa City money — as a lottery aimed at low- to moderate-income individuals who can prove they were impacted by the pandemic under categories like experiencing food insecurity or being excluded from previous stimulus checks.

In an email sent Thursday to the Board of Supervisors and county staff obtained by the Press-Citizen, Green wrote:

"The decision to reconfigure the Excluded Workers Fund into a Direct Assistance Program, is, therefore, a political decision, not one mandated by the Final Rule."

Green added that he has tried to build consensus as the board's liaison on this project, but was informed by staff that his preferences were "unacceptable," and he felt forced to accept a project he referred to as a "half loaf." He said the decision is up to the county to "take the full loaf," arguing that barriers brought up by county staff about complying with ARPA guidelines are moot, leaving the opportunity to create the program that was originally proposed.

Green asked for the program to be put back on a work session agenda as soon as at the next meeting Wednesday. He said it would be premature to approve the lottery-style program that was set to be voted on Thursday.

More:Debate over Johnson County Supervisors' salary leads to criticism of Jon Green's work ethic

Supervisor Jon Green: 'It's a political question. Not a legal one.'

In an interview with the Press-Citizen, Green said this is the second time he has corresponded with Treasury because he has wanted clarity directly from the source.

Green said late Friday morning that had not yet gotten a response from any of the Supervisors or from county staff to his Thursday email.

Green said his email exchange with Treasury made it clear to him that "it's a political decision, not a legal one," to change the program from "payments to workers who were ineligible for previous relief programs," to what it is now.

"Now the decision is, do we choose to (create an excluded workers fund)," he said. "I hope that we do that."

Green said he doesn't mean "political" as a bad thing because politics is the practice of what elected officials do. Green said he promised to create an excluded workers fund and he has heard from the public that it is overwhelmingly wanted.

Green said it is important to take this opportunity to "correct a discriminatory injustice," of the federal COVID-19 pandemic relief payments that left out populations like undocumented immigrants and formerly incarcerated people.

Green said he does not know whether the rest of the board will support moving toward an excluded workers fund.

"I realize that this must be frustrating for (county staff) having to potentially tear up all this work they've been doing the past couple of months," he said. "But unfortunately that's part of the job."

More:Iowa's 'Back the Blue' law results in large raises for many county sheriffs

Grants Coordinator Donna Brooks: 'We're providing public service to help people, not to hurt people.'

Donna Brooks, Johnson County's grants coordinator, said the email from Green and the assertions it makes caught her and other county staff off guard. Brooks and a team of staffers have largely spearheaded the direct assistance program and other ARPA projects under board guidance.

Brooks said what county staff and the county attorney's office have presented to the board in public meetings is that nowhere in the ARPA rules does the Treasury define an "impacted" or a "disproportionately impacted population" as undocumented workers who were excluded from previous stimulus payments. A lottery system was then crafted to ensure an equal chance for all qualifying applicants to receive relief money.

"Staff and the board have not had the discussion of whether or not it's possible (to create an excluded workers fund). We've identified that it isn't explicitly in the rules," she said.

County staff has never referred to the program as an “excluded workers fund” in meetings. That is largely a term used by the grassroots activists.

It was the board that unanimously chose to create a relief program to address negative economic impacts on low- and moderate-income residents, not "payments to workers who were ineligible for previous relief programs."

These were all head-knod decisions made by the Supervisors to direct county staff, not by the staff itself. This took place over the course of three public meetings at which county staff presented different options based on research, legal opinions and models from other local governments, according to Brooks 

Brooks said she and other county staff are also frustrated by what has occurred, including the uncertainty over the rules. She compared it to building an airplane while flying it, without parachutes. She said that the goal was to reach as many people as possible. 

"We're providing public service to help people, not to hurt people," she said.

Among all the ARPA projects, the direct assistance program has taken up a majority of the county staff's time and the Board of Supervisors' attention.

"We're catching some flak for not sharing more information, but as you can see this program changes every day with statements made in public meetings and emails forwarded to the press," she said. "We are trying not to perpetuate misinformation by putting out program materials that are subject to change prior to board approval."

Johnson County has established a website with information on the direct assistance program. The program is not final until a formal vote is held, which could happen Thursday.

Brooks said it is hard to say whether the Board of Supervisors should have waited for the final rules on ARPA money to come out. Those didn't arrive until January. She said no one anticipated it would take this long.

The county has also faced increasing pressure from activists to get the program started as fast as possible. The people excluded from federal stimulus payments have largely gone without any aid, including unemployment benefits, throughout the pandemic while the rest of the U.S. population that was eligible received  $3,200 over the course of several months in 2020 and '21.

Brooks said it is likely the new information Green brought forth could derail the program or delay it, leaving people without assistance for longer.

"I wish we could just help people who need help and do it in a way that doesn't target any one race or represented group. Just help provide economic stabilization, help rebuild the economy and build a Johnson County that is more resilient for the next pandemic," she said.

More:Iowa City housing update: Developers silent on progress of two major downtown projects

Supervisor Rod Sullivan: 'We have to make the best decision we can.'

In an interview with the Press-Citizen on Friday, Supervisor Rod Sullivan said he is viewing the information Green received as new guidance and that the Board of Supervisors will have to meet and dissect it together to make a decision.

"We're going to have to talk about what it means, why we have conflicting information and figure out what's real," he said. "We have to make the best decision we can."

Sullivan said he isn't surprised the county is getting different answers from different people. He said that can often happen when dealing with the federal government.

Sullivan submitted the idea of "payments to workers who were ineligible for previous relief programs" in a discussion on ARPA money by department heads and elected officials last year.

He said the board "played the hand they were given" and has done the best within its understanding of ARPA, but now there are questions about what exactly are the constraints on spending the money. He said he is confident Johnson County can work through it.

Sullivan didn't say whether his preference would be to stick with the program as is or revert to the original idea he proposed to the board.

"In light of this new information, maybe we'll be able to adjust back," he said. "We just need to get this straightened out and out the door."

Sullivan said the county has done much for people who are generally impoverished and he is happy with the expansions made to the General Assistance program.

"Rather than assigning heroes and villains in this process, we need to just move forward and do what's right," he said.

Sullivan said he hopes the program appears on the Wednesday agenda for more discussion and wants no further delays.

Vice Chair Lisa Green-Douglass and Supervisor Pat Heiden did not respond to requests for comment. Chair Royceann Porter was not available to speak before deadline.

More:Johnson County backs off implementing COVID-19 vaccine test policy for its employees

George Shillcock is the Press-Citizen's local government and development reporter covering Iowa City and Johnson County. He can be reached at GShillcock@press-citizen.com and on Twitter @ShillcockGeorge