Laserfiche WebLink
Public Comments <br />Several commenters suggested that debt service and reserve replenishment should qualify <br />as the provision of a government service and be an eligible use of funds, up to the amount of <br />revenue loss due to the pandemic. Many commenters indicated that they had been forced to <br />borrow money or dip into reserve funds to continue providing government services during the <br />public health emergency and that using SLFRF funds for resulting debt service or reserve <br />replenishment costs should therefore be considered a government service. <br />Many comments from Tribal governments noted that their governments depend on <br />revenue from Tribal enterprises to pay government debts and provide services. The comments <br />suggest that it should be an eligible use of SLFRF to replace lost revenue from these enterprises <br />that would typically be used to pay debt service costs. Other commenters argued that paying the <br />interest or principal on debt should in some cases be considered provision of government <br />services and an eligible use of funds as such expenditures facilitate the provision of government <br />services. <br />Some commenters argued that debt costs or reserve drawdowns during the public health <br />emergency constitute a negative economic impact to recipient governments, and thus debt <br />service or reserve replenishment should be an eligible use to respond to that negative economic <br />impact. For example, several commenters suggested that there should be a specific carve -out <br />allowing the use of SLFRF funds for debt service on debt incurred for government services after <br />January 27, 2020, the start of the public health emergency, or short-term debt incurred for this <br />purpose. Others suggested that recipient governments should be able to service debt, up to the <br />amount of debt incurred in direct response to the pandemic. These commenters generally <br />342 <br />