May 17, 2011
|
F E D E R A L |
House Appropriations Allocations Levels Announced for FY 2012
CUTS TO TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND AGRICULTURE The House Appropriations Committee's proposed spending allocations for FY 2012 contain huge cuts to all non-defense spending. A spending allocation, referred to as a 302(b), is an amount set by each chamber of Congress limiting the amount appropriators are allowed to spend for each of the 12 appropriations bills. These allocations do not set spending levels for individual programs, just overall limits for agencies. That work will happen as the bills move through committee deliberations. The allocations do not bode well for several federal agencies of key concern for planners. Hardest hit were Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) and Agriculture. THUD was reduced by $7.7 billion or 14 percent, and Agriculture was reduced by $2.67 billion or 13 percent. These cuts are compounded by reductions already made in the 2011 budget, which hit the same departments hard. |
| In this issue: F E D E R A L
House Appropriations Allocations Levels Announced for FY 2012 F E D E R A L
Complete Streets Legislation Introduced F E D E R A L
HUD Webcast Will Discuss Planning Grants, HOPE VI, Choice Neighborhoods F E D E R A L
EPA and Army Corps of Engineers Issue Guidance on Waterways F E D E R A L
National Flood Insurance Program Authorization Marked Up in Committee | If the proposed cuts are enacted, the THUD budget will be cut by a total of 30 percent from FY10 levels, and 36 percent from the President's FY12 budget request. Programs targeted in the FY11 budget battle, such as the Sustainable Communities Initiative and Community Development Block Grants, are likely to be once again the object of drastic cuts. While THUD and Agriculture sustained the worst cuts by percentage, other areas of the budget would also be affected. The Interior and the Environment budget was reduced by $2.086 billion, or 7 percent, and the Energy and Water budget survived relatively unscathed with a proposed $1.043 billion, 3 percent cut. Now that allocations have been set, the 12 appropriations subcommittees will begin marking up their appropriations bills. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) released a schedule calling for a subcommittee vote on THUD on July 14 and full committee action on July 26. Members of the House have until May 20 to submit letters to the THUD subcommittee identifying key funding priorities. Letters of support for the Community Development Block Grant program and Partnership for Sustainable Communities are currently circulating. Ask your representative to support these important programs. |
|
|
F E D E R A L | Complete Streets Legislation Introduced
$100 MILLION FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES AND HOPE VI The Safe and Complete Streets Act of 2011 was introduced in the House on May 5. This bipartisan legislation, HR 1780, is sponsored by Reps. Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio) and Doris Matsui (D-Cal.). The bill is designed to ensure safety and ease of access for all users of transportation by requiring accommodation of their needs during planning and development. If approved, the legislation would direct all states to pass a law, and MPOs to approve an explicit statement of policy, that all transportation projects will comply with Complete Streets principles. To date, more than 200 local jurisdictions and 23 states have adopted Complete Streets policies. APA has endorsed the legislation and included support for complete streets policies in its newly updated and approved policy guide on surface transportation. Two years ago, Rep. Matsui introduced similar legislation, which picked up support from Rep. LaTourette and 62 other cosponsors. That legislation was referred to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, but was never marked up. Work is also progressing on the next transportation reauthorization bill. In the beginning of the month, an early version of the Obama administration's reauthorization proposal was leaked to some transportation media outlets. Overall, it was similar to the outline included in February's budget request — a big boost in transportation spending, consolidation, and streamlining of programs, but no set plan for new revenue. The administration's draft contains significant changes to the planning process and an expanded emphasis on community livability. It is unclear whether or when a final version of the administration's proposal will be released. Congress is moving forward. The House is hoping to move a bill out of committee by early June, and the Senate is expected to release legislation this summer. Despite the progress, funding issues remain a significant obstacle. |
|
|
F E D E R A L | HUD Webcast Will Discuss Planning Grants, HOPE VI, Choice Neighborhoods
$65 MILLION FOR CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS EXPECTED IN FY11 HUD will hold a webcast on June 3 to discuss the FY 2011 funding allocations for HOPE VI and Choice Neighborhoods, as well as FY11 competitive planning grants. HUD recently announced that a portion of the $100 million allocated for the HOPE VI program for FY11 will go to Choice Neighborhoods. A HUD spokesman said that up to $65 million could be allocated, and the exact amount is expected to be announced in the webcast. Choice Neighborhoods was proposed by the President in his FY10 budget request to expand upon the goals of HOPE VI. Designed to eradicate severely distressed public housing and revitalize struggling neighborhoods, HOPE VI focused on physical improvements to public housing and integration of social and community services to transform neighborhoods. While still embracing those goals, Choice Neighborhoods is an attempt to address the systematic causes of neighborhood distress through mixed-income housing, public transportation, education, and job access. Choice Neighborhoods awards competitive planning grants and implementation grants to achieve those goals. In FY10, HOPE VI received $200 million in funding, and Choice Neighborhoods received $65 million for a demonstration program. Authorization for Choice Neighborhoods is still pending. In the 111th Congress, legislation to authorize the program was passed out of the House Financial Services Committee, but was never brought to the House floor. Similar legislation has been introduced in the current Congress by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Cal.) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.). To participate in the webcast, RSVP to choiceneighborhoods@hud.gov. The webcast will be viewable at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/
press/multimedia/videos. |
|
|
F E D E R A L | EPA and Army Corps of Engineers Issue Guidance on Waterways
CLARIFIES PROTECTIONS FOR WETLANDS AND OTHER BODIES OF WATER The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers released new draft guidance in late April giving a clearer, more predictable definition of waters and what is protected by the Clean Water Act. The guidelines determine whether a waterway, water body, or wetland is protected, and the proposed guidance would replace previous standards that were criticized for their ambiguity. In 2001 and 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court heard cases regarding the scope of the Clean Water Act as it applies to wetlands, streams, rivers, lakes, and other waters. APA submitted an amicus brief in 2001 in the case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANNC) v. Army Corps of Engineers. In SWANNC, the Court held that the Clean Water Act did not extend to an "isolated" Illinois body of water solely because it was used by migratory birds. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers updated the guidance in 2003 and 2008 to reflect the SWANNC case, but that resulted in conflicting regulatory interpretations of the ruling between the agencies regarding non-contiguous waterways. APA has supported attempts by Congress to amend the legislation by clarifying the intended scope of the Clean Water Act, but the efforts have so far been unsuccessful. The White House is seeking comments on the proposed draft until July 1. |
|
|
F E D E R A L | National Flood Insurance Program Authorization Marked Up in Committee
HOUSE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE MOVES BILL TO FLOOR The House Financial Services Committee unanimously approved legislation on May 13 that reauthorizes the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for five years and incrementally implements updated floodplain maps. While there is no current schedule for the bill to be considered on the House floor, and the Senate has not introduced companion legislation, the goal is to have the bill signed into law before the current authorization expires on September 30. The National Flood Insurance Program has been extended temporarily several times since the last long-term reauthorization expired in 2008. On advice from the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), the sponsor of the bill, offered a technical amendment to protect the federal government in the event program information is not adequately disclosed. This concern had been raised in the subcommittee markup as amendments were added to require notifying home buyers of their potential obligations. The updated floodplain maps adjust the areas in which owners are required to purchase flood insurance. The NFIP administrator will be allowed to hold a flood zone designation from going into effect for one year. After that year, a local government can apply to have the designation stayed for another year if any part of the local jurisdiction is affected. Local governments are allowed to apply to have the designation delayed twice, which potentially gives local communities three years to prevent the designation from going into effect. Coverage for individual policy-holders on newly mapped areas will take place on a five-year plan. The first year, purchasers must pay only 50 percent of the projected premium, after which the rates may be raised by 20 percent per year until the premium rates are due in full, thereby staggering the expense to home owners. Overall, the number of communities affected by the mandatory coverage will rise only slightly with the implementation of updated floodplain maps, but some areas will be subject to significant shifts as new development patterns have influenced the watershed. |
|
|