The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title August 25, 2020 V): Background and State and Local Data Grant A. Driessen The sudden decline in economic output following the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Analyst in Public Finance outbreak has significantly altered the fiscal outlook for state and local governments. A sizable share of economic output derives from state and local government activity. These governments are generally required to balance their operating budgets every one or two years. Early Available evidence suggests that the COVID-19 economic shock will have a notable impact on state and local budgets.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136), ), signed into law on March 27, 2020, created the Coronavirus Relief Fund, which provides $150 billion in direct assistance for domestic governments. The CARES Act stipulates that the $150 billion provided to the Coronavirus Relief Fund is allocated to governments in states, territories, and tribal areas as follows: (1) $139 billion is allocated to state governments in the 50 states, with allocations based on their populations and with no state receiving less than $1.25 billion; (2) $8 billion is set aside for governments in tribal areas; and (3) $3 billion is allotted to governments in territories, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

Coronavirus Relief Fund assistance is provided to state governments. Local governments serving a population of at least 500,000, as measured in the most recent census data, may elect to receive assistance directly from Treasury. Such direct local assistance allocations reduce the allocation that is made to the state government (keeping the state allocation constant), and an d are equal to the product of (1) the state or territory allocation amount, (2) the share of the state or territory population served by the local government, and (3) 45%.

T Treasury data indicate that roughly $36 billion in fund costs were incurred as of June 30, 2020, representing roughly 25% of the $142 billion in funds allocated to eligible state and local governments (excluding eligible tribal governments). Congressional Research Service link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 6 link to page 9 link to page 11 link to page 18 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data Contents Background .............................................................................................................. 1 Eligible Purposes....................................................................................................... 2 Allocations Across States, Territories, and Tribal Areas ................................................... 2 Allocations to Governments Within States and Territories ................................................ 6 Figures Figure 1. Costs Incurred as a Percentage of Initial Allocations to State Governments ................. 7 Figure 2. Costs Incurred as a Percentage of Direct Al ocations to Local Governments, by State ........................................................................................................................... 8 Tables Table 1. Total Allocations and Costs Incurred (as of June 30, 2020) by State ............................ 3 Table 2. Total Allocations and Costs Incurred (as of June 30, 2020) by Territory ....................... 6 Table 3. Al ocations and Costs Incurred by Government Recipient.......................................... 8 Contacts Author Information ....................................................................................................... 15 Congressional Research Service link to page 6 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 11 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data he sudden decline in economic output following the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has significantly altered the fiscal outlook for state and local governments. T The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136), ), signed into law on March 27, 2020, created the Coronavirus Relief Fund, which provides $150 billion bil ion in direct assistance for state and local governments. This report briefly summarizes the background, purpose, and allocational ocation details of the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Table 1 provides total Coronavirus Relief Fund al ocations and costs incurred by states, and provides Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates of Coronavirus Relief Fund allocations to states, Table 2 provides al ocations and costs incurred for territories. A total of $149.5 bil ion was al ocated to eligible governments as of August 12, 2020.1 As of June 30, 2020, eligible state and local governments (excluding tribal governments) reported $35.6 bil ion (or 25%) in costs incurred from al ocated funds.2 Figure 1 and Figure 2 show state-level percentages of al ocations incurred (through June 30, 2020) to state and local governments, respectively. Individual government al ocations and costs incurred are provided in Table 3. Background provides allocation amounts to territories, and Table 3 shows CRS estimates of local government direct assistance eligibility by state and territory.

Background

A sizable share of economic output derives from state and local government activity. State and local governments spent $3.7 trilliontril ion in 2017, 19% of gross domestic product (GDP), divided about equallyequal y across state governments (55% of combined state and local expenditures) and local governments (45% of combined state and local expenditures). ¹3 These governments are generally general y required to balance their operating budgets every one or two years. For more on how economic shocks affect state and local government activity, see CRS Insight IN11258, State and Local Fiscal Conditions and Economic Shocks.

Early Available evidence suggests that the COVID-19 economic shock will wil have a notable impact on state and local budgets. Consumption declines following nonessential business closures and social distancing efforts are likely to produce a sharp drop in sales tax revenues (35% of state and local own-source revenues in 2017). Spikes in unemployment and decreased firm profitability are expected to have a similar effect on individual and corporate income tax receipts (26% of own-source revenues). ²4 Use of state and local spending programs is likely to increase, particularly for public welfare programs (19% of 2017 expenditures) as well wel as hospital and public health expenses (8% of 2017 expenditures).

The Coronavirus Relief Fund, established through Section 5001 of the CARES Act, offers a means of assistance for state and local governments. The Coronavirus Relief Fund provides a total of $150 billion bil ion in federal fiscal support for state and local governments, with eligibility dependent upon the location, level of government, and use of potential funds. Separately, Section 4003 of the CARES Act authorized use of Federal Reserve capacity to support up to $454 billion in debt issued by state governments, local governments, and eligible businesses. A similar fund, the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, was created during the 2007-2009 recession by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund provided $54 billion A similar fund, the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, was created during the 2007-2009 recession by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund 1 U.S. T reasury, “Daily T reasury Statement for August 12, 2020,” available at https://fsapps.fiscal.treasury.gov/dts/files/20081200.pdf. 2 U.S. T reasury, “Interim Report of Costs Incurred by State and Local Recipients through June 30,” July 23, 2020; and U.S. T reasury, “ Interim Report of Costs Incurred by the District of Columbia and T erritories through June 30,” July 23, 2020; both available at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments. 3 All state and local government finance data used in this report draw from U.S. Census Bureau, “2017 Survey of State & Local Government Finances,” October 2019, available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/gov-finances.html. 4 T here are no indications as yet of a comparable effect on the base for property taxes (32% of 2017 own -source revenues), which are predominantly collected by local governments. Congressional Research Service 1 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data provided $54 bil ion to state and local governments, most of which was targeted to certain types of spending for education programs.³

5 Separately, Section 4003 of the CARES Act authorized use of Federal Reserve capacity to support up to $454 bil ion in debt issued by state governments, local governments, and eligible businesses Eligible Purposes Eligible Purposes

Section 5001(d) of the CARES Act provides the eligible purposes for which Coronavirus Relief Fund payments may be used. Specifically, it allowsSpecifical y, it al ows state and local governments to make payments for programs that

(1) are necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19);

(2) were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of the date of enactment [March 27, 2020] of this section for the State or government; and

(3) were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020 and ends on December 30, 2020.⁴

6 Per Section 5001(f) of the CARES Act, the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury determines whether Coronavirus Relief Fund payments are used for eligible purposes. Fund payments that are deemed for ineligible purposes are treated as a debt owed by the implementing government to Treasury.

As clarified in Treasury guidance, Coronavirus Relief Fund payments may not be used to directly account for revenue shortfallsshortfal s related to the COVID-19 outbreak.7 Such funds, however, may indirectly assist with revenue shortfallsshortfal s in cases where expenses paid for by the Coronavirus Relief Fund would otherwise widen the gap between government outlays and receipts. For instanceexample, if $3 billion bil ion in Coronavirus Relief Fund assistance is sent to a government with revenues that are $10 billion bil ion lower than expected and $5 billion bil ion in new COVID-19-related expenses, that assistance will wil reduce the fiscal gap (from $15 billionbil ion to $12 billion) bil ion) by the same amount regardless of whether it applies to revenues or spending. Only in cases where governments have revenue shortfallsshortfal s and less related spending than the program provides are governments limited by the eligible purpose restrictions. For instance, in that same example but with no new COVID-19-related expenses, the government could not use Coronavirus Relief Fund assistance despite its decrease in revenues.

Allocations Across States, Territories, and Tribal Areas

The CARES Act stipulates that the $150 billion bil ion provided to the Coronavirus Relief Fund is allocated al ocated to governments in states, territories, and tribal areas as follows:⁵

• $139 billion is allocated8 5 For more information about this program, see U.S. Department of Education, “State Fiscal Stabilization Fund,” March 7, 2009, available at https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/stabilization-fund.html. 6 Section 5001(d) of the CARES Act, p. 603. 7 U.S. T reasury, “Coronavirus Relief Fund Frequently Asked Questions,” August 10, 2020, available at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments. 8 T his allocation methodology differs from what was implemented by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, which treated the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico uniformly when implementing allocation procedures. Congressional Research Service 2 link to page 6 link to page 6 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data  $139 bil ion is al ocated for governments in the 50 states based on their for governments in the 50 states based on their populations (as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2019), with no state receiving less than $1.25 billion.
• $8 billion bil ion.  $8 bil ion is set aside for governments in tribal areas, with each tribal area's allocation’s al ocation based on its share of aggregate tribal expenditures in FY2019, as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior.
• $3 billion is allocated  $3 bil ion is al ocated to the territories of the District of Columbia (DC), Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa, with each territory receiving an amount based on its share of the total population across all al territories, with populations determined by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Table 1 shows state allocationsal ocations for Coronavirus Relief Fund payments. Due to the $1.25 billion minimum allocationbil ion minimum al ocation for states, every state with an allocational ocation greater than the minimum amount receives a smaller allocationsmal er al ocation share (excluding amounts provided to tribal areas) than its share of the population. Most states with a minimum allocational ocation amount, in contrast, have a larger allocation al ocation share than their population share. Treasury has al ocated al amounts designated for nontribal governments.9 Information on Coronavirus Relief Fund amounts incurred by state is also provided in Table 1. State and local governments (exclusive of territorial and tribal governments) incurred $34.7 bil ion in fund costs through June 30, 2020, or 25% of amounts al ocated to those governments. Table 1. Total Allocations and Costs Incurred (as of June 30, 2020) by State (combined amounts to al direct recipients) Allocation Costs Incurred Costs Incurred as a % State ($ Billions) ($ Billions) of Allocation Alabama 1.90 <0.01 0% Alaska 1.25 0.35 28% Arizona 2.82 0.56 20% Arkansas 1.25 0.26 21% California 15.32 11.42 75% Colorado 2.23 1.26 56% Connecticut 1.38 0.63 46% Delaware 1.25 0.08 6% Florida 8.33 0.97 12% Georgia 4.12 0.94 23% Hawai 1.25 0.15 12% Idaho 1.25 0.06 5% Il inois 4.91 0.75 15% Indiana 2.61 0.93 36% 9 U.S. T reasury, “Payments to States and Eligible Units of Local Government,” May 11, 2020, available at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments. Congressional Research Service 3 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data Allocation Costs Incurred Costs Incurred as a % State ($ Billions) ($ Billions) of Allocation Iowa 1.25 0.58 46% Kansas 1.25 0.02 1% Kentucky 1.73 0.11 6% Louisiana 1.80 0.56 31% Maine 1.25 0.30 24% Maryland 2.34 1.01 43% Massachusetts 2.67 0.96 36% Michigan 3.87 0.31 8% Minnesota 2.19 0.03 1% Mississippi 1.25 0.02 2% Missouri 2.38 0.63 26% Montana 1.25 0.08 6% Nebraska 1.25 0.05 4% Nevada 1.25 0.22 18% New Hampshire 1.25 0.43 34% New Jersey 3.44 0.16 5% New Mexico 1.25 0.09 8% New York 7.54 4.02 53% North Carolina 4.07 0.36 9% North Dakota 1.25 0.12 9% Ohio 4.53 0.55 12% Oklahoma 1.53 0.07 5% Oregon 1.64 0.14 8% Pennsylvania 4.96 1.32 27% Rhode Island 1.25 0.25 20% South Carolina 2.00 <0.01 0% South Dakota 1.25 0.08 6% Tennessee 2.65 0.45 17% Texas 11.24 1.37 12% Utah 1.25 0.24 19% Vermont 1.25 0.12 10% Virginia 3.31 0.82 25% Washington 2.95 0.13 4% West Virginia 1.25 0.61 49% Wisconsin 2.26 0.13 6% Wyoming 1.25 0.04 4% Congressional Research Service 4 link to page 9 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data Allocation Costs Incurred Costs Incurred as a % State ($ Billions) ($ Billions) of Allocation Total 139.00 34.73 25% Source: U.S. Treasury, “Interim Report of Costs Incurred by State and Local Recipients through June 30 ,” July 24, 2020, available at share than their population share.

Table 2 provides Coronavirus Relief Fund estimated allocations made to territories. Territory allocations Cost incurred entries of “<0.01” indicate positive costs of less than $0.005 bil ion. There are several reasons why governments facing budgetary pressures may not have immediately incurred costs equal to their fund al ocations. There is typical y a lag between when new, unexpected funds are distributed to state and local governments (which in this case general y occurred in April 2020) and when that money can be spent, as state and local governments need time to plan and approve use of the new budget authority. A subsequent lag can occur between the issuance of such authority and when costs are incurred. Governments may also be responding to evolving federal guidance on eligible fund programs, with the latest Treasury update provided in August 2020.10 Final y, following enactment of the CARES Act, there have been multiple proposals to expand the eligible uses of Coronavirus Relief Fund payments, including in the HEROES Act (H.R. 6800) and the American Workers, Families, and Employers Assistance Act (S. 4318). Table 2 provides Coronavirus Relief Fund estimated al ocations made to areas designated for fund purposes as territories, including the District of Columbia. Territory al ocations are made in direct proportion to the relevant population estimate, with no minimum amount provided. AllocationAl ocation shares for all al territories except Puerto Rico are smallersmal er than the state minimum amount. Treasury has al ocated al amounts designated for territorial governments.11 10 U.S. T reasury, “Coronavirus Relief Fund Frequently Asked Questions,” August 10, 2020, available at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments. 11 U.S. T reasury, “Interim Report of Costs Incurred by the District of Columbia and T erritories through June 30,” July 23, 2020, available at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments. Congressional Research Service 5 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data Table 2. Total Allocations and Costs Incurred (as of June 30, 2020) by Territory Allocation Costs Incurred Costs Incurred as a Territory ($ Billions) ($ Billions) % of Allocation American Samoa 0.04 0.01 25% District of Columbia 0.50 0.14 29% Guam 0.12 0.03 25% Northern Mariana Islands 0.04 0.01 14% Puerto Rico 2.24 0.63 28% U.S. Virgin Islands 0.07 0.02 27% Total 3.00 0.83 28% Source: U.S. Treasury, “Interim Report of Costs Incurred by the District of Columbia and Territories through June 30,” July 24 than the state minimum amount.

The CARES Act provided a total of $8 bil ion to be distributed to tribal governments through the Coronavirus Relief Fund. The CARES Act further stipulated that fund al ocations to individual tribal governments were to be based on increases in government expenditures from FY2019 to FY2020, through a process established by the Department of the Treasury and Department of the Interior.12 That process resulted in two rounds of payments.13 The first round of payments distributed 60% of the tribal total, with al ocations based on tribal population data. The second-round payments were distributed based on tribal employment and expenditure data after such data were provided. Treasury has provided al fund al ocations to tribal governments except those designated for governments of Alaska Native Corporations, whose participation is the subject of ongoing litigation.14 Allocations to Governments Within States and Territories Allocations to Governments Within States and Territories

Coronavirus Relief Fund assistance is generallygeneral y provided to state governments. Local governments serving a population of at least 500,000, (as measured in the most recent census datadata), however, may elect to receive assistance directly from Treasury. Such direct local assistance allocationsal ocations reduce the allocational ocation made to the state government (keeping the state allocation al ocation constant) and are equal to the product of

•  the state or territory allocation amount;
• al ocation amount;  the percentage of the state or territory population attributed to the local government; and
• 45%.⁶

 45%.15 The CARES Act does not explicitly prevent local governments (regardless of their eligibility for direct assistance) from receiving Coronavirus Relief Fund payments from state governments, so long as the funds are used for eligible purposes. State governments transferred $534 billion to local governments in 2017, or 28% of all local government revenues.

Table 3 provides the number of cities and counties in each state eligible for direct assistance and estimates of the total amount of available direct assistance for eligible local governments. Direct assistance eligibility varies greatly across states, ranging from those with no eligible localities (20 states) to those with local governments eligible for 38% of a state's allocation (Massachusetts and California). CRS calculates that local governments are eligible to receive $29.3 billion (21% of nontribal allocations) in direct assistance.⁷

In many cases, populations are served by more than one local government that is eligible for 12 Section 5001(c)(7) of the CARES Act. 13 U.S. T reasury, “Coronavirus Relief Fund T ribal Allocation Methodology,” August 11, 2020, available at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments. 14 U.S. T reasury, “T ribal Allocation Methodology for Second Distribution,” June 17, 2020, available at https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/state-and-local-governments. 15 Section 5001(c)(5) of the CARES Act. Congressional Research Service 6 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 10 link to page 11 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data long as the funds are used for eligible purposes. State governments transferred $534 bil ion to local governments in 2017, or 28% of al local government revenues. In many cases, populations are served by more than one local government that is eligible for direct assistance from the Coronavirus Relief Fund (e.g., a city with a population of 700,000 located in a county with 200,000 other people, and thus with a county population of 900,000). Guidance from the Secretary of the Treasury clarified that in such cases, all al overlapping governments are eligible for assistance. However, direct assistance payments to larger localities will wil be calculated using only their unique population, or will wil be reduced by any amounts also attributable to smallersmal er localities receiving assistance (i.e., in the above example the county government only uses a population of 200,000 for its direct payment calculation). Figure 1 and Figure 2 il ustrate the percentage of al ocated funds incurred through June 30, 2020, by state, for state and local governments, respectively. Total costs incurred represent 25% of the initial amount al ocated to both state governments and local governments, with most cost activity confined to a smal group of states. (Recipients may transfer funds to other governments within their jurisdiction, which is reflected in the data.) As seen in Figure 1, only three states had incurred more than half of their initial state al ocation as of June 30, while 30 states had incurred less than 20% of their al ocation. The only state with more than half of its direct local al ocations incurred through June 30 was New York, while 24 of the 34 states with local recipients reported under 20% of costs incurred over the same time frame (Figure 2). Figure 1. Costs Incurred as a Percentage of Initial Allocations to State Governments (Costs Incurred Data as of June 30, 2020) Source: U.S. Treasury, “Interim Report of Costs Incurred by State and Local Recipients through June 30,” July 23, 2020. Notes: The figure captures information for al al ocations to state governments. Recipients may choose to transfer funds to governments within their jurisdiction, but are not obligated to do so. The data reflect incurred Congressional Research Service 7 link to page 11 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data costs from those governments. The data do not include information on the $8 bil ion provided to tribal governments. Figure 2. Costs Incurred as a Percentage of Direct Allocations to Local Governments, by State (Cost Incurred Data as of June 30, 2020) Source: U.S. Treasury, “Interim Report of Costs Incurred by State and Local Recipients through June 30,” July 23, 2020. Notes: The figure captures information for al local governments that received al ocations directly from Treasury. Many states have multiple recipients. Recipients may choose to transfer funds to governments within their jurisdiction, but are not obligated to do so. The data reflect incurred costs from those governments. The data do not include information on the $8 bil ion provided to tribal governmen ts. Table 3 lists the al ocation and incurred cost amount for each direct recipient of a Coronavirus Relief Fund al ocation. Five recipients reported more than 90% of their costs incurred as of June 30: (1) California state; (2) Detroit city, Michigan; (3) Las Vegas city, Nevada; (4) Nassau County, New York; and (5) New York City, New York. Of the 206 direct recipients, 84 reported less than 10% of their al ocation incurred over that time period. Table 3. Allocations and Costs Incurred by Government Recipient (Costs Incurred Data as of June 30, 2020) State or Allocation Costs Incurred Costs Incurred as Government Territory ($ Billions) ($ Billions) a % of Allocation Alabama state Alabama 1.79 0.00 0% Jefferson County Alabama 0.12 0.00 2% Alaska state Alaska 1.25 0.35 28% Congressional Research Service 8 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data State or Allocation Costs Incurred Costs Incurred as Government Territory ($ Billions) ($ Billions) a % of Allocation American Samoa American Samoa 0.04 0.01 25% territory Arizona state Arizona 1.86 0.29 15% Maricopa County Arizona 0.40 0.01 3% Pima County Arizona 0.09 0.01 13% Mesa city Arizona 0.09 0.04 48% Phoenix city Arizona 0.29 0.17 58% Tucson city Arizona 0.10 0.04 38% Arkansas state Arkansas 1.25 0.26 21% California state California 9.53 9.53 100% Alameda County California 0.29 0.13 43% Contra Costa California 0.20 0.06 28% County Fresno County California 0.08 0.03 33% Kern County California 0.16 0.05 32% Los Angeles County California 1.06 0.30 28% Orange County California 0.55 0.10 18% Riverside County California 0.43 0.08 18% Sacramento County California 0.18 0.15 82% San Bernardino California 0.38 0.08 21% County San Diego County California 0.33 0.13 39% San Joaquin County California 0.13 0.02 12% San Mateo County California 0.13 0.03 19% Santa Clara County California 0.16 0.10 60% Stanislaus County California 0.10 0.01 13% Ventura County California 0.15 0.03 18% Fresno city California 0.09 0.01 13% Los Angeles city California 0.69 0.35 50% Sacramento city California 0.09 0.01 8% San Diego city California 0.25 0.09 38% San Francisco city California 0.15 0.10 65% San Jose city California 0.18 0.06 35% Colorado state Colorado 1.67 1.17 70% Adams County Colorado 0.09 0.02 17% Arapahoe County Colorado 0.12 0.00 2% El Paso County Colorado 0.13 0.05 36% Jefferson County Colorado 0.10 0.02 24% Congressional Research Service 9 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data State or Allocation Costs Incurred Costs Incurred as Government Territory ($ Billions) ($ Billions) a % of Allocation Denver city Colorado 0.13 0.00 2% Connecticut state Connecticut 1.38 0.63 46% Delaware state Delaware 0.93 0.08 8% New Castle County Delaware 0.32 0.00 1% District of Columbia District of 0.50 0.14 29% city Columbia Florida state Florida 5.86 0.57 10% Brevard County Florida 0.11 0.00 2% Broward County Florida 0.34 0.13 38% Hil sborough County Florida 0.26 0.00 1% Jacksonvil e city/ Florida 0.17 0.05 31% Duval County Lee County Florida 0.13 0.02 16% Miami-Dade County Florida 0.47 0.05 11% Orange County Florida 0.24 0.01 4% Palm Beach County Florida 0.26 0.04 15% Pasco County Florida 0.10 0.03 31% Pinel as County Florida 0.17 0.02 9% Polk County Florida 0.13 0.04 33% Volusia County Florida 0.10 0.01 8% Georgia state Georgia 3.50 0.88 25% Cobb County Georgia 0.13 0.00 0% DeKalb County Georgia 0.13 0.02 15% Fulton County Georgia 0.10 0.02 20% Gwinnett County Georgia 0.16 0.01 5% Atlanta city Georgia 0.09 0.01 15% Guam territory Guam 0.12 0.03 25% Hawai state Hawai 0.86 0.09 10% Honolulu County Hawai 0.39 0.06 16% Idaho state Idaho 1.25 0.06 5% Il inois state Il inois 3.52 0.51 14% Cook County Il inois 0.43 0.02 5% DuPage County Il inois 0.16 0.00 2% Kane County Il inois 0.09 0.01 11% Lake County Il inois 0.12 0.00 0% Wil County Il inois 0.12 0.00 0% Chicago city Il inois 0.47 0.21 45% Congressional Research Service 10 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data State or Allocation Costs Incurred Costs Incurred as Government Territory ($ Billions) ($ Billions) a % of Allocation Indiana state Indiana 2.44 0.93 38% Indianapolis Indiana 0.17 0.01 3% city/Marion County Iowa state Iowa 1.25 0.58 46% Kansas state Kansas 1.03 0.01 1% Johnson County Kansas 0.12 0.01 9% Sedgwick County Kansas 0.10 0.00 1% Kentucky state Kentucky 1.60 0.10 6% Louisvil e/Jefferson Kentucky 0.13 0.01 6% County metro government Louisiana state Louisiana 1.80 0.56 31% Maine state Maine 1.25 0.30 24% Maryland state Maryland 1.65 0.83 50% Anne Arundel Maryland 0.10 0.04 43% County Baltimore County Maryland 0.14 0.02 15% Montgomery County Maryland 0.18 0.04 24% Prince George’s Maryland 0.16 0.02 13% County Baltimore city Maryland 0.10 0.05 49% Massachusetts state Massachusetts 2.46 0.94 38% Plymouth County Massachusetts 0.09 0.00 1% Boston city Massachusetts 0.12 0.01 8% Michigan state Michigan 3.08 0.09 3% Kent County Michigan 0.12 0.01 6% Macomb County Michigan 0.15 0.01 8% Oakland County Michigan 0.22 0.05 21% Wayne County Michigan 0.19 0.05 26% Detroit city Michigan 0.12 0.11 91% Minnesota state Minnesota 1.87 0.00 0% Hennepin County Minnesota 0.22 0.02 11% Ramsey County Minnesota 0.10 0.00 4% Mississippi state Mississippi 1.25 0.02 2% Missouri state Missouri 2.08 0.61 29% Jackson County Missouri 0.12 0.01 5% St. Louis County Missouri 0.17 0.01 6% Montana state Montana 1.25 0.08 6% Congressional Research Service 11 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data State or Allocation Costs Incurred Costs Incurred as Government Territory ($ Billions) ($ Billions) a % of Allocation Nebraska state Nebraska 1.08 0.05 5% Douglas County Nebraska 0.17 0.00 2% Nevada state Nevada 0.84 0.09 11% Clark County Nevada 0.30 0.02 6% Las Vegas city Nevada 0.12 0.11 93% New Hampshire New Hampshire 1.25 0.43 34% state New Jersey state New Jersey 2.39 0.05 2% Bergen County New Jersey 0.16 0.01 4% Camden County New Jersey 0.09 0.01 7% Essex County New Jersey 0.14 0.01 9% Hudson County New Jersey 0.12 0.01 5% Middlesex County New Jersey 0.14 0.01 4% Monmouth County New Jersey 0.11 0.02 18% Ocean County New Jersey 0.11 0.00 0% Passaic County New Jersey 0.09 0.05 60% Union County New Jersey 0.10 0.00 1% New Mexico state New Mexico 1.07 0.02 2% Bernalil o County New Mexico 0.03 0.00 13% Albuquerque city New Mexico 0.15 0.07 45% New York state New York 5.14 2.17 42% Erie County New York 0.16 0.03 16% Monroe County New York 0.13 0.04 28% Nassau County New York 0.10 0.10 100% Suffolk County New York 0.26 0.19 73% Westchester County New York 0.17 0.05 27% Hempstead town New York 0.13 0.01 5% New York city New York 1.46 1.45 99% North Carolina state North Carolina 3.59 0.30 8% Guilford County North Carolina 0.09 0.02 22% Mecklenburg County North Carolina 0.04 0.00 5% Wake County North Carolina 0.19 0.01 7% Charlotte city North Carolina 0.16 0.02 12% North Dakota state North Dakota 1.25 0.12 9% Northern Mariana Northern Mariana 0.04 0.01 14% Islands territory Islands Ohio state Ohio 3.75 0.44 12% Congressional Research Service 12 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data State or Allocation Costs Incurred Costs Incurred as Government Territory ($ Billions) ($ Billions) a % of Allocation Cuyahoga County Ohio 0.22 0.03 13% Franklin County Ohio 0.08 0.03 36% Hamilton County Ohio 0.14 0.00 1% Montgomery County Ohio 0.09 0.04 43% Summit County Ohio 0.09 0.01 13% Columbus city Ohio 0.16 0.00 1% Oklahoma state Oklahoma 1.26 0.07 5% Oklahoma County Oklahoma 0.05 0.00 0% Tulsa County Oklahoma 0.11 0.00 1% Oklahoma City city Oklahoma 0.11 0.00 3% Oregon state Oregon 1.39 0.12 8% Multnomah County Oregon 0.03 0.01 25% Washington County Oregon 0.11 0.01 8% Portland city Oregon 0.11 0.00 3% Pennsylvania state Pennsylvania 3.94 1.13 29% Al egheny County Pennsylvania 0.21 0.01 6% Bucks County Pennsylvania 0.11 0.00 0% Chester County Pennsylvania 0.09 0.03 34% Delaware County Pennsylvania 0.10 0.03 25% Lancaster County Pennsylvania 0.10 0.01 5% Montgomery County Pennsylvania 0.15 0.01 3% Philadelphia city Pennsylvania 0.28 0.12 42% Puerto Rico territory Puerto Rico 2.24 0.63 28% Rhode Island state Rhode Island 1.25 0.25 20% South Carolina state South Carolina 1.91 0.00 0% Greenvil e County South Carolina 0.09 0.00 1% South Dakota state South Dakota 1.25 0.08 6% Tennessee state Tennessee 2.36 0.38 16% Nashvil e-Davidson Tennessee 0.12 0.03 28% metropolitan government Shelby County Tennessee 0.05 0.01 16% Memphis city Tennessee 0.11 0.03 25% Texas state Texas 8.04 0.83 10% Bexar County Texas 0.08 0.01 10% Col in County Texas 0.17 0.10 57% Dal as County Texas 0.24 0.01 6% Congressional Research Service 13 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data State or Allocation Costs Incurred Costs Incurred as Government Territory ($ Billions) ($ Billions) a % of Allocation Denton County Texas 0.15 0.03 20% El Paso County Texas 0.03 0.00 4% Fort Bend County Texas 0.13 0.00 1% Harris County Texas 0.43 0.01 3% Hidalgo County Texas 0.15 0.02 10% Montgomery County Texas 0.11 0.02 20% Tarrant County Texas 0.21 0.05 25% Travis County Texas 0.06 0.01 11% Wil iamson County Texas 0.09 0.04 38% Austin city Texas 0.17 0.08 45% Dal as city Texas 0.23 0.04 18% El Paso city Texas 0.12 0.00 0% Fort Worth city Texas 0.16 0.02 12% Houston city Texas 0.41 0.04 9% San Antonio city Texas 0.27 0.06 24% U.S. Virgin Islands U.S. Virgin Islands 0.07 0.02 27% territory Utah state Utah 0.94 0.20 21% Salt Lake County Utah 0.20 0.03 17% Utah County Utah 0.11 0.01 6% Vermont state Vermont 1.25 0.12 10% Virginia state Virginia 3.11 0.77 25% Fairfax County Virginia 0.20 0.05 26% Washington state Washington 2.17 0.01 0% King County Washington 0.26 0.05 21% Pierce County Washington 0.16 0.01 8% Snohomish County Washington 0.14 0.02 15% Spokane County Washington 0.09 0.00 1% Seattle city Washington 0.13 0.03 23% West Virginia state West Virginia 1.25 0.61 49% Wisconsin state Wisconsin 2.00 0.08 4% Dane County Wisconsin 0.10 0.03 33% Milwaukee County Wisconsin 0.06 0.01 21% Milwaukee city Wisconsin 0.10 0.01 6% Wyoming state Wyoming 1.25 0.04 4% Source: U.S. Treasury, “Interim Report of Costs Incurred by State and Local Recipients through June 30,” July 23, 2020; and U.S. Treasury, “Interim Report of Costs Incurred by the District of Columbia and Territories through June 30,” July 23, 2020. Congressional Research Service 14 The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CARES Act, Title V): Background and State and Local Data Notes: Recipients may choose to transfer funds to governments within their jurisdiction, but are not obligated to do so. The data reflect incurred costs from those governments. The data do not include information on the $8 bil ion provided to tribal governments. Cost incurred entries of “<0.01” indicate positive costs of less than $0.005 bil ion. Author Information Grant A. Driessen Analyst in Public Finance Acknowledgments The author wishes to thank Jameson Carter, Gene Falk, and Maggie McCarty for their helpful contributions to this report. Disclaimer This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. Congressional Research Service R46298 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED 15 government only uses a population of 200,000 for its direct payment calculation).