2010-12 FundBook December Issue

The FundBookDecember 2010

Upcoming grants timeline

p.24

Actionable funding information, visible results.

By the numbers: No earmarks, but grants increase

p.10

Tough road for the highway bill

p.14

ar arks

GOP

local

ar arks

b n

g v e r n m e n t s

m

1

1 2

3

o p p o t u n i t y2

t r a n i t i n4

GOP

3

How will the funding game changewithout earmarks? p.12

Articles

6 Grants news in brief 8 View from the CapitolPolitical winds sweep GOP into House, FY11

appropriations in limbo

14 Novembers elections are a game-changer for transportation funding15 Perspective from the HillStaff from Rep. Micas office on transportation

earmarks

17 Upcoming grant events & conferences

20 On the docketFederal legislation affecting grants21 Grants in Focus:Incoming T&I Chairman will scrutinize TIGER

grants

Joint Public Works, Economic Adjustment, and GC-CMIF Programs Opportunity (p.30)Due: Dec 15, 2010Be sure not to miss one of the first three rounds of these well known economic development grants as funding drops off significantly in the fourth quarter!

Featured grants:

Features

10 By the numbers: No earmarks, but grants increase12 Earmarks: The end of an era?

18 The Legislative DeskHow to interact with your elected24 Timeline of currently available grants for local governments

December to-do list:

Review grants section to see if any current opportunities match your needs (p.24-52)

Visit our Legislative Desk to determine your next step for relating with Congress (p.18)

Learn how federal funding for local governments will change soon (p.10,12)

National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program (p.39)Due: Jan 13, 2011A popular fleet enhancement project for many types of applicants. Help keep your air clean, and your com-munity functioning.

2011 Conservation Innovation Grant (p.46)Due: Dec 28, 2011With less than a month for applicants to get their pro-posals organized and submitted, these 50 conserrva-tion grants will help utilize innovative approaches for awardees environmental efforts.

Dear Reader,

With the dust still settling from last months elections, implications of a Republican House takeover are already staring local officials right in the face. After two years in which the federal government provided unprecedented financial support to local governments across the nation, Congress will be-gin to pull back this assistance in the days ahead. Mirroring state efforts to address their fiscal health, Congress will soon turn to reform not only the amount of federal funding going to cities and counties, but also the mechanisms used to distribute those funds.

In light of these developments, the future of all types federal funding has never been more uncertain. Those who have made requests in the FY11 spending bills are anxiously waiting to see if Republicans will ban earmarking indefinitely, while the federal agencies have already begun to solicit applications for grant programs despite the fact that their funding levels have yet to be determined. There has never been a greater need for local governments to keep an eye on what is happening here in Washington.

It is our goal to provide you the information needed to make informed decisions; we have been work-ing around the clock on our December 2010 issue so that you dont miss a beat. In this months issue of the FundBook, our staff begins Part 1 of an ongoing series that will examine various federally funded programs and how they are likely to change without the presence of earmarks. As you will read in this first installment, popular funding programs may disappear entirely. For December, we examine specific accounts within the annual Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development (THUD) and Agriculture appropriations bills.

We are also pleased to introduce The Legislative Desk (pg. 18), a new section designed to enhance your communitys advocacy efforts in Washington by providing you with actionable advice corresponding to vital points on the federal legislative calendar. With this overview of what important dates are up-coming, your community will stay abreast of the legislative process and be able to use it to influence those developments more effectively.

In addition to analyses of over 40 federal grants currently available to local governments, the Decem-ber issue analyzes important legislative developments affecting national grant programs of relevance and keeps you aware of important announcement, conference, and webinar dates where grant pro-gram decisions will be made.

As always, we promise that our articles will be clear, concise, and informative, and we look forward to assisting you now and in the future.

Sincerely,

Toby Hicks, Editor

Foreword

Sincerely,

James Alfano, Editor

Hicks | Park LLP

Hicks | Park LLP

offers the highest quality of legal services by providing effective and creative solutions to legal issues in a rapidly changing and dynamic marketplace. Above all, we recognize that every client has unique goals. To achieve those goals, we tailor our solutions to respond to the demands of each individual client and situation. Our partners came from AmLaw 100 law firms to form a practice that provides pre-cisely this level of responsiveness and attention to our clients. Furthermore, they have been recommended by their peers as among the best in their respective fields, and their combined leadership, practical experience, and legal talents are well-suited to meet our clients needs. To continue maintaining our excellence, we also require our attorneys and economic pro-fessionals to come equipped with a diversity of business and legal expertise. Based on this philosophy, we consistently sat-isfy our clients with top-tier legal and economic services that utilize a broad knowledge base. By leveraging several fields of expertise, we have earned our reputation for helping our clients navigate a wide range of legal issues on a national and international basis.

Visit us online or contact Gary Park to see how we can assist you

www.hicksparklaw.com

Telephone: (213) 612-0007

Fax: (213) 612-0373

E-mail: [email protected]

A name local governments can trust.

Hicks | Park LLP

824 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 300

Los Angeles, California 90017

Experienced local government representation

www.fundbook.orgp.6 ~ The Fundbook | December 2010

Look out for reprogrammed and unobligated federal funds

If and when Congress passes an FY11 spend-ing omnibus, as opposed to enacting a long-term continuing resolution (CR), any funds that were authorized under previ-ous CRs but not spent by the agency will be lost by that agency. Agen-cies may resolve this by either announcing com-petitive grant programs with quicker deadline cycles than usual, or by providing non-competi-tive grants to previous grantees who have han-dled their funding well. To help you become the lucky grant administra-tor contacted by your program officer, make sure that you have obli-gated the funds already received and met any re-porting requirements of the grant. By being the ideal grant administra-tor, you may receive ad-ditional grant funds.

Lobbying firms shift focus from earmarks to policy

Earmarking has been the bread and butter of many D.C. lobbying firms contracts with lo-cal governments. This is because results are easy to measure in dollar terms and directly affect the local government client. With Republican caucus voluntarily foregoing earmarks for two years and an outright ban in the House, an increasingly likely outcome, govern-ment affairs firms will likely attempt to provide value to their local gov-ernment clients by in-fluencing the policy that is passed instead. This is fraught with problems because tracking how much a single firm con-tributed to a new policy is difficult to track to say the least. Additionally, at least within the local government sphere, such firms may simply dupli-cate efforts of existing organizations like the National League of Cit-

ies, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and National Association of Counties.

Ensure that your lob-bying firm is providing value at least equal to their monthly retainer. If they are not, you might consider a more short-term lobbying solution.

Uncertain future for Promise, Choice Neighborhoods grants

With the Republican takeover of Congress, two programs that have often come up on the chopping block to decrease federal spending are the Promise and Choice Neighbor-hoods programs. The two programs stand a better chance of being funded in FY11 if the Democrats are able to push an omni-bus spending bill in be-fore the new year. If the spending decision is put off through Continuing resolutions to the new congress, funding is like-ly to be cut.

These two grant pro-grams, along with Byrne grants are some of the largest sources of federal neighborhood funding.

More than $150 billion issued in Build America Bonds

Build America Bonds are a financing mecha-nism that allows local governments to take out a bond at federally-sub-sidized below-market rates. According to the Treasury Department, more than $150 billion worth of these bonds have been issued over the last 18 months. While initially created through the Recovery Act in 2009 to increase liquidity for local governments, the program has seen so much demand that it will likely be continued.

See On the Docket p.20 for more information about the future of Build America Bonds.

TIGER grant winners scrutinized

Representative Mica (R-FL), expected to be named Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Com-mittee when the 112th Congress convenes in January, plans to review those projects allocat-

ed funds this past year through the widely-sub-scribed TIGER grant program. Citing con-cerns that funding deci-sions were made by the Department of Trans-portation without Con-gressional oversight and behind closed doors, certain projects could see funding revoked by the federal government to be reclaimed by the Treasury or assigned to a project that was not se-lected initially.

See On the Docket p.20 for additional informa-tion about this.

Grants.gov quarterly stakeholder webcast

In the quarterly stake-holder webcast on No-vember 17, Grants.gov announced its coming updates -- which were all back-end and will not result in a different user experience. Submitted questions from the audi-ence included requests for better search functions, the ability to revise sub-missions with additional documents like resumes, and the ability to print

completed pdf applica-tions more easily than is currently available.

Grants.gov holds regu-lar quarterly stakeholder sessions. The next ses-sion will be on January 19, 2011.

Incoming Committee Chairman Predicts Government Diet

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Govern-ment Reform Commit-tee, thinks it s time for the federal government to close down some of its agencies and termi-nate certain programs. During his recent ad-dress to the federal in-spectors general at the National Procurement and Grant Fraud Con-ference in Philadelphia, Issa outlined bold plans for reforming the bu-reaucracy and closing the $1.4 trillion federal budget deficit: Gov-ernment will need to go on a diet. . .The vast majority of $1.4 tril-lion will have to come out of government

spending, of that I am sure. Our committee is going to focus on plac-es where money can be saved, where we can literally close agencies or subagencies or pro-grams. And we are go-ing to work mostly on that. The Congress-man has yet to cite any particular agencies in mind for closure.

First round winners of AFG 2010 announced

$5.67 million of Americas Firefighter Grants will be divided among 81 fire depart-ments. The amount of awards ranged from a mere $2 thousand for training in White Earth, MN to a full $1 million for equipment in Day-ton, OH. Announce-ments for this program tend to come out fast and furious with a dif-ferent funding round announced around ev-ery two weeks.

AFG grants is one of the largest and most re-liable annual sources for firefighter funding.

Senate Passes Food Safety Bill, Includes Grants for Local Capacity

On November 30, the Senate passed (73-25) the Food Safety Moderniza-tion Act (S. 510), which overhauls the FDAs food safety authority for the first time in 70 years, giv-ing the agency more au-thority to inspect food processing facilities and to order mandatory recalls of contaminated foods. The legislation would also im-prove coordination across federal, state, and local governments and provide grants to build state and local capacity for food-borne illness detection, surveillance, testing, and response.

The bill now heads to the House, which passed its own measure (HR 2749) last year. Representative John Dingell (D-MI), who sponsored the House bill, has worked with sena-tors as they developed the Senate-passed bill in hopes that the House will clear it for the president without further amend-ment.

Grants news in brief

www.fundbook.org December 2010 | The Fundbook ~ p.

Look out for reprogrammed and unobligated federal funds

If and when Congress passes an FY11 spend-ing omnibus, as opposed to enacting a long-term continuing resolution (CR), any funds that were authorized under previ-ous CRs but not spent by the agency will be lost by that agency. Agen-cies may resolve this by either announcing com-petitive grant programs with quicker deadline cycles than usual, or by providing non-competi-tive grants to previous grantees who have han-dled their funding well. To help you become the lucky grant administra-tor contacted by your program officer, make sure that you have obli-gated the funds already received and met any re-porting requirements of the grant. By being the ideal grant administra-tor, you may receive ad-ditional grant funds.

Lobbying firms shift focus from earmarks to policy

Earmarking has been the bread and butter of many D.C. lobbying firms contracts with lo-cal governments. This is because results are easy to measure in dollar terms and directly affect the local government client. With Republican caucus voluntarily foregoing earmarks for two years and an outright ban in the House, an increasingly likely outcome, govern-ment affairs firms will likely attempt to provide value to their local gov-ernment clients by in-fluencing the policy that is passed instead. This is fraught with problems because tracking how much a single firm con-tributed to a new policy is difficult to track to say the least. Additionally, at least within the local government sphere, such firms may simply dupli-cate efforts of existing organizations like the National League of Cit-

ies, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and National Association of Counties.

Ensure that your lob-bying firm is providing value at least equal to their monthly retainer. If they are not, you might consider a more short-term lobbying solution.

Uncertain future for Promise, Choice Neighborhoods grants

With the Republican takeover of Congress, two programs that have often come up on the chopping block to decrease federal spending are the Promise and Choice Neighbor-hoods programs. The two programs stand a better chance of being funded in FY11 if the Democrats are able to push an omni-bus spending bill in be-fore the new year. If the spending decision is put off through Continuing resolutions to the new congress, funding is like-ly to be cut.

These two grant pro-grams, along with Byrne grants are some of the largest sources of federal neighborhood funding.

More than $150 billion issued in Build America Bonds

Build America Bonds are a financing mecha-nism that allows local governments to take out a bond at federally-sub-sidized below-market rates. According to the Treasury Department, more than $150 billion worth of these bonds have been issued over the last 18 months. While initially created through the Recovery Act in 2009 to increase liquidity for local governments, the program has seen so much demand that it will likely be continued.

See On the Docket p.20 for more information about the future of Build America Bonds.

TIGER grant winners scrutinized

Representative Mica (R-FL), expected to be named Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Com-mittee when the 112th Congress convenes in January, plans to review those projects allocat-

ed funds this past year through the widely-sub-scribed TIGER grant program. Citing con-cerns that funding deci-sions were made by the Department of Trans-portation without Con-gressional oversight and behind closed doors, certain projects could see funding revoked by the federal government to be reclaimed by the Treasury or assigned to a project that was not se-lected initially.

See On the Docket p.20 for additional informa-tion about this.

Grants.gov quarterly stakeholder webcast

In the quarterly stake-holder webcast on No-vember 17, Grants.gov announced its coming updates -- which were all back-end and will not result in a different user experience. Submitted questions from the audi-ence included requests for better search functions, the ability to revise sub-missions with additional documents like resumes, and the ability to print

completed pdf applica-tions more easily than is currently available.

Grants.gov holds regu-lar quarterly stakeholder sessions. The next ses-sion will be on January 19, 2011.

Incoming Committee Chairman Predicts Government Diet

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the incoming chairman of the House Oversight and Govern-ment Reform Commit-tee, thinks it s time for the federal government to close down some of its agencies and termi-nate certain programs. During his recent ad-dress to the federal in-spectors general at the National Procurement and Grant Fraud Con-ference in Philadelphia, Issa outlined bold plans for reforming the bu-reaucracy and closing the $1.4 trillion federal budget deficit: Gov-ernment will need to go on a diet. . .The vast majority of $1.4 tril-lion will have to come out of government

spending, of that I am sure. Our committee is going to focus on plac-es where money can be saved, where we can literally close agencies or subagencies or pro-grams. And we are go-ing to work mostly on that. The Congress-man has yet to cite any particular agencies in mind for closure.

First round winners of AFG 2010 announced

$5.67 million of Americas Firefighter Grants will be divided among 81 fire depart-ments. The amount of awards ranged from a mere $2 thousand for training in White Earth, MN to a full $1 million for equipment in Day-ton, OH. Announce-ments for this program tend to come out fast and furious with a dif-ferent funding round announced around ev-ery two weeks.

AFG grants is one of the largest and most re-liable annual sources for firefighter funding.

Senate Passes Food Safety Bill, Includes Grants for Local Capacity

On November 30, the Senate passed (73-25) the Food Safety Moderniza-tion Act (S. 510), which overhauls the FDAs food safety authority for the first time in 70 years, giv-ing the agency more au-thority to inspect food processing facilities and to order mandatory recalls of contaminated foods. The legislation would also im-prove coordination across federal, state, and local governments and provide grants to build state and local capacity for food-borne illness detection, surveillance, testing, and response.

The bill now heads to the House, which passed its own measure (HR 2749) last year. Representative John Dingell (D-MI), who sponsored the House bill, has worked with sena-tors as they developed the Senate-passed bill in hopes that the House will clear it for the president without further amend-ment.

Grants news in brief

www.fundbook.orgp. ~ The Fundbook | December 2010

While we thought the political winds of change had settled down after 2008s his-toric election, Republicans last month achieved the largest congressional mid-term shift the country has seen in nearly 70 years. When the new 112th Congress convenes in January, Republicans will be in control of the House (having gained over 60 seats) with Democratic control remaining in the Sen-ate (despite Republicans having picked up six seats) and White House.

This electoral shift was fueled mainly by growing concerns over the nations economic recovery and fiscal health. Emboldened by the new House major-ity and Senate gains, Republican leaders have openly declared that it is their collective aim to cut back the size and scope of the federal government.

While change will occur in the months ahead, mainly in the form of program cuts, local govern-ments should not expect federal investments in im-portant funding programs to dry up. Even under the most draconian cuts in domestic discretionary budget proposed by Republicans, the federal spending level would return to that of FY08. In FY08 the federal gov-ernment was a major investor in local projects and spent $456 billion in domestic, non-defense discre-tionary outlays. To give some perspective: Congress spent roughly $477 billion this last year in FY10.

It is also important to note that Democrats have maintained control of the Senate and will be able to block any excessive cuts by the Republican House. While we expect the GOP-led House to serve as a ma-jor obstacle for much of what the Democratic leader-ship planned to accomplish before 2012, Republican leaders will find it very difficult to pass any legisla-tion through the upper chamber without major bi-partisan support. On the flip side, the small majority that Democrats now hold will make the passage of

any significant legislation all but impossible. Quite simply, the Senate has become an institution in which 60 votes are necessary to approve any legislation.

Beyond federal spending, the 112th Congress and the Obama Administration will continue to engage in policy debates about federal priorities and programs. This will include debates and congressional oversight on issues important to local governments and public agencies, such as methods for funding infrastructure, the proper focus for federal incentives, the role of the private sector and free markets, support for strug-gling state and local governments, federally regulated activities, and the impacts of unfunded federal man-dates.

FY11 Appropriations in Limbo:The lame duck session, which officially began last

month with a long agenda of must complete leg-islative items, is already proving to live up to what one would expect from its name. Demoralized by Novembers elections, Democrats simply want to re-group and get out of Washington as quickly as pos-sible. Republicans too would rather have these fights in January, when they will be in majority. As a result, neither party has the stomach for tackling large legis-lative items right now.

Under this dynamic, it is hard to tell what Con-gress will do with regard to passing its FY11 spending bills. The House is poised to pass an extension of the stopgap spending measure that is funding the gov-ernment, as senior Senate appropriators continue to maneuver on a possible omnibus spending bill. The continuing resolution that the House will consider today would keep the government funded through December 18. The stopgap spending measure (PL 111-242) that is now funding the government expires

View from the CapitolPolitical winds sweep GOP into House, FY11 appropriations in limbo

www.fundbook.org December 2010 | The Fundbook ~ p.9

December 3. The short-term extension is expected to pass easily, as Democrats need more time to figure out how they will complete the fiscal 2011 appropriations process.

Democrats are expected to continue their efforts dur-ing the lame duck to pull together an omnibus spending package or a CR that would keep current spending levels but would not include members congressionally-directed spending items. As an omnibus represents the last chance for the Democratic majority to set their spending priori-ties, as well as include their earmarks, it is currently their preferred option.

But many Republicans want only a short-term stop-gap into early next year. Under this scenario, Republicans would gain leverage with their new House majority to re-duce domestic discretionary spending for FY11 to FY08 levels. (If an omnibus cleared, then earmark elimination and spending cuts will occur later in the FY12 bills.)

The Senate is still working on an omnibus, and Ap-

propriations Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-HI) believes that his spending package will garner the 60 votes needed to get the measure through the Senate amid Republican opposition. The mostly likely supporters on the GOP side include retiring Republican appropri-ators. To move an omnibus, Democratic leaders have talked about a strategy under which the House would pass a year-long CR and the Senate would then try to substitute in the omnibus. But with calls to control federal spending and a recently-approved GOP mora-torium on requesting earmarks in the 112th Congress have complicated these efforts. And with Senate Mi-nority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) having re-cently said that he opposes moving an omnibus in the lame duck session, the odds that an agreement can be reached before January are slim.

At present course, the prospects for a quick wrap-up of FY11 appropriations is pragmatic.

December January

S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31

S M T W T F S

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30 31

December will be the last month of the second ses-sion of the 111th Congress. This is the last chance for Democrats to push through an omnibus spending package of the FY11 bills before they would have to be renegotiated without earmarks in the 112th Congress. Congress will adjourn on the 24th for the holidays, but may reconvene if there is a possibility of passing legislation. The 111th Congress will of-ficially conclude on January 3, 2011.

January fifth will be the first meeting of the first session of the 122nd Congress. This Congress will differ markedly from the 111th Congress with the much higher numbers of Republicans present on the Hill. As polarized as the last two years have been, the 112th session is almost guaranteed to be even more so. The full calendar is not yet available for the month of January, and so the one published below is incomplete.

X Senate in session X House in session X Federal Holiday


While the prevalence of congressionally-directed funding (earmarks) took years to build up, it is looking increasingly likely that it will take just one year for the majority of them to disappear. Contrary to popular belief, however, a decrease in earmarks will not decrease the annual fed-eral budget. This is because earmarks are a spending mechanism, not a decision to spend additional funds. The money that would be earmarked will still be dis-tributed through different mechanisms -- predomi-nantly competitive grant programs.

This article is Part 1 of an ongoing series that will examine various federally funded programs and how they are likely to change without the presence of ear-marks. In some cases the programs themselves may disappear, though the money will simply be redis-tributed. In this article we examine specific accounts from the annual Transpor-tation, Housing, and Urban Development (THUD) bill and the annual Agriculture appropriations bill.

The last year when there were no significant ear-marks was in FY07 when Congress failed to pass the annual appropriations bills. To keep the govern-ment functioning they in-stead passed four Continu-ing Resolutions (CRs) that maintained FY06s funding levels until FY08. While it is still likely that a budget will be passed for this FY11 fiscal year, FY07 sets the precedent for what may happen in FY11 and FY12 in budgets without earmarks.

One should note that, even without formal ear-marks, some accounts will still specify spending di-rection. The most straightforward example of this is through the Energy & Water appropriations bill Army Corps of Engineers accounts. These accounts, which provide for dredging and maintenance activi-ties in ports and on beaches, begin as a list of projects selected by the President in his annual budget request. Because the President initiates the vast majority of these requests, Congress does not consider them ear-

marks and will include them in the eventual law. About 85 percent of the Corps $5.4 billion in funding was earmarked last year.

Community Development Fund: Economic Development Initiatives and Neighborhood Initiatives

For local governments, one of the most well known sections of the THUD bill is the Community Development Fund through which the Community Development Block Grants are funded annually. Two additional programs which draw funding from the Community Development Fund are the Econom-ic Development Initiatives (EDI) and neighborhood initiatives. For the past several years EDI has con-sistently played host to approximately $170 million

divided among three to four hundred earmarks per year while neigh-borhood initiatives has annually split $20-$40 million between ap-proximately twenty ear-marks per year. These hundreds of earmarks are all relevant to local governments and non profits, and were among the most competitive accounts to pursue ear-marks through.

In the FY07 Continu-ing Resolutions, the bill text specified that no Com-munity Development Fund money would go to EDI, neighborhood initiatives, or youthbuild program ac-tivities. If no funds are provided to earmarks in these accounts in FY11, the Community Development Block Grant program will simply increase by the cor-responding amount and be distributed through its usual formula mechanisms.

Federal Highways Administration: Surface Transportation Priorities and Transporta-tion & Community & System Preservation

Also located in the THUD bill, under the Federal

By the numbers: No earmarks, but grants increaseA look into where federal money will be with earmarks absent

Despite earmarks being banned, some accounts will continue to carry earmarks in FY11, and other accounts are likely to. This is because ear-marks are a spending mechanism that cannot be dis-pensed with in all cases. Most notably the funding for the Army Corps of Engineers will continue to be earmarked because these earmarks do not only des-ignate specific projects, but also fund the personal costs for the Corps members carrying out the proj-ects. Secondly, transportation reauthorization ac-counts may also continue to carry earmarks because of dissent within the Republican party as to whether a transportation earmark is an earmark.


Highways Administration are the Surface Transportation Priorities (STP) and the Transportation & Community & System Preserva-tion (TCSP) accounts. These ac-counts have contained many earmarks annually which were mainly distributed to local gov-ernments and communities for a wide range of transportation projects.

Senators requested FY11 earmarks in the two accounts totalled $173.7 and $28.9 mil-lion respectively. Any earmarks posted to these accounts come from the amounts of money that are distributed to states through the Federal Highway Administration. Essentially this means that without STP and TCSP earmarks this year, local governments should look towards their state agencies and state lists of transportation pri-orities to get additional fund-ing. Hopefully the funding will be as widely distributed by the states as it has been by the fed-eral government.

While there has been talk among the Republican party about retaining earmarks for transportation spending pur-poses, this does not refer to annual accounts like STP and TCSP. Transportation ear-marks possibly exempt from the ban would be those in the upcoming highway reathoriza-tion bill see p.14.

Airport Improvement Program

Also located in the THUD bill, the Airport Improve-ment Program (AIP) is one of the five main sources of fund-ing for airports across the nation, and possibly the most important

source for small, locally-operated airports. Appropriated funds are usually spent to support aircraft operations through enhancements

to runways, taxiways, aprons, noise abatement, land purchase, and safety or emergency equip-

ment. Since 2001, the AIP has been funded annually at between $3 and $3.5 billion, of which $2 billion is distributed by formula.

Federal Aviation Adminis-tration programs, including the AIP, are running on exten-sion-only until December 31, 2010. The current lame duck Congress is unlikely to remedy this with a multi-year authori-zation during December, and so the program will probably be extended so that the 112th Congress will work on the longer authorization.

AIP provides funding through both formula and discretionary mechanisms. Rather than earmarking in this account, Congress place names, which directs the Fed-eral Aviation Administration to give priority consideration to designated projects. These place names have accounted for about 5 percent of discre-tionary funds in recent years, but prior to FY07 earmark-ing in this account was much higher.

In FY07 this program car-ried no congressionally-di-rected spending which allowed the Federal Aviation Admin-istrations discretionary grant program to be about 5 percent larger at $2 billion. If all the FY11 earmarks became law, they would only account for a maximum of $35 million or 2 percent.

Watersheds ProgramThis is the only earmarked

account relevant to local gov-ernments in the Agriculture bill.

See Grants up p.22

Earmarks in the Watersheds Account

Earmarked funds

Competitive grants

FY09

97%

FY10

73%

FY11 with earmarks

81%

0%

FY11 without earmarks


Congressionally-directed spending (or ear-marking) has come under historic levels of scrutiny in recent months, but the future of the practice is not entirely clear. On November 30, the Senate voted down (39 for, 56 against) a proposed ban on congressionally-directed spending. Under an agreement between Party leaders in the Senate, a two-thirds majority was required to advance the ban pro-posed by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). Despite being voted down, House and Senate Republicans have al-ready voted among themselves to voluntarily abstain from earmarking in the next Congress. Furthermore, with a Republican majority in the House and more than enough Senate seats to successfully filibuster any bill, it appears unlikely that any legislation including earmarks will be able to get through Congress even without a formal ban in place. Further darkening the prospects for congressionally-directed spending were Presidents Obamas recent statements praising the Republican decision to give up earmarks while offer-ing to work across the aisle on an earmark freeze.

The ongoing debate has left local governments un-sure about their prospects of securing federal fund-ing for a growing list of needs. With the fiscal 2011 spending bills containing more than 3,000 earmarks worth over $3 billion likely to remain unfinished, cit-ies and counties across the country will likely lose out on millions of dollars worth of funding for capital projects ranging from water infrastructure upgrades to streetscaping improvements. For these communi-ties, earmarks play a vital role in solving basic infra-structure needs that they would otherwise be unable to address.

Unintended Consequences For all of the negative headlines, earmarks account

for less than half of one percent of total federal spend-ing. But while they only represent a small fraction of the nations overall budget, these funding requests made by individual members of Congress for specific projects are a more important part of the federal bud-get process than you might think. For some domestic programs, where earmarks have become the primary funding source driving new projects, an end to con-gressionally-directed spending would have a whole host of unintended consequences.

The Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), for in-stance, is an Executive Branch agency within the Department of Defense and is predominantly funded by congressional earmarks in the Energy and Wa-ter Appropriations bills. Because the Corps receives direction on how to spend, defining an earmark

Health Care Facilities & Con-struction GrantsHealth Resources & Services Ad-ministration within the Depart-ment of Health and Human ServicesThe Administration proposed to eliminate this fund-ing account because Congress appropriated $383 mil-lion in FY10 for congressionally-directed local health projects. The Health Care Facilities and Construc-tion program supports construction, renovation, and equipment acquisition for identified public and private sector recipients. Projects funded under these programs should compete for funding in a transpar-ent manner and funds should be awarded based on merit.

E a r m a r k s :

E n d o f a n e r a


in terms of the Corps budget is difficult. After the Corps goes through its budget internally, it goes to the White Houses Office of Management and Budget where revisions and comments are made. Eventually the Corps budget comes out as part of the presidents budget which then goes through appropriations com-mittees in the House and Senate.

At the direction of Congress, primarily through Water Resources Development Acts (WRDA), the Corps undertakes water resources development proj-ects under its civil works program. Most of the agen-cys $5 billion annual budget goes toward dredging harbors and investing in locks, channels, and other works that members of Congress direct it to work on. As a result, the Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program would be greatly affected by a ban on con-gressional earmarking. Under the two-year earmark moratorium adopted by Republicans last month, the partys lawmakers would not be able to direct the Corps to undergo projects.

Programs at the Mercy of the Executive Scalpal Earmark critics have for years maintained that the

process erodes public confidence in federal spending by allowing powerful lawmakers and not the merits of a projects or needs of a community to determine how money is spent in a small portion of the federal budget. And while an earmark ban would effectively limit Con-gress right to allocate federal resources, these same crit-ics contend that the legislative body will ultimately step up scrutiny of the Administration and issue more-strin-gent directives on how agencies spend their money.

In the meantime, an end to congressional earmark-ing would mean that some of the programs Congress has relied upon most to support local projects will be at the mercy of the Executive Branch. With members less likely to fight to protect funding for certain programs where they previously sought earmarks, the President will have more power to eliminate or trim programs that have resisted cuts for years.

Programs crafted by Congress (and even those cre-ated by Executive Order), but never fully embraced by the White House will be particularly susceptible in the days ahead. For instance, the White House is trying to scuttle a health-care facility construction program that cost a combined $383 million annually, all kept alive by earmarking. Likewise, the National Park Services Save Americas Treasures and Preserve America grants have survived the White House hit list, at least for now. And

despite being utilized effectively utilized by communi-ties all across the country, the Administration contin-ues its campaign to terminate congressionally-directed spending through EPAs State and Tribal Assistance Grant program.

Funding Will Not Go AwayEven if the President were to make every proposed ter-

mination and reduction listed in his FY10 budget request, the federal government would continue to provide fund-ing to local governments in one form or another. And de-spite their pledges and public statements, many lawmak-ers (including Republicans) will undoubtedly try to pull strings to help get their constituents funding for projects.

n e w w a y

See Earmarks end p.22

Save Americas Treasures & Preserve America GrantsNational Park Service within the Department of the InteriorAs reported in past issues, the Ad-ministration seeks to eliminate the Save Americas Treasures (SAT) and Preserve America (PA) grant programs so the National Park Service can focus re-sources on managing national parks and other activi-ties that most closely align with its core mission. The SAT and PA programs have not demonstrated how they contribute to nationwide historic preservation goals. The programs lack rigorous performance met-rics and evaluation efforts, so benefits remain unclear. At least half of SAT funding is provided without us-ing merit-based criteria.


How will this election im-pact local governments abilities to access trans-portation funding? There are some immediate consequences resulting from a new House majority, and more that can-not be predicted yet. First and foremost, transportation stake-holders hoping for significant amounts of additional spending next year will almost certainly be disappointed. Republicans campaigned on a platform of belt-tightening and fiscal pru-dence they plan on fulfilling those campaign promises with a host of cost-cutting efforts and earmark strictures.

Representative John Mica (R-FL), who is expected to take the reins of the House Transporta-tion and Infrastructure Commit-tee in the 112th Congress, said that he will sign on to whatever policy document the GOP Con-ference produces: I can tell you that whatever we do will take into consideration the strong message that was sent to Wash-ington on spending and utiliza-tion of taxpayer money.

But while Republicans are in-tent on cutting fat from the fed-eral budget, they also see trans-portation investments as the clearest path towards economic growth. With voters having ap-proved bonding and new taxes in more than three-quarters of state and local ballot measures across the county, Republicans cannot ignore the nations grow-ing list of transportation needs.

Tough road for the High-way Bill

General sentiment in Washing-ton says its unlikely that we will see a highway transportation bill within the next two years. The last highway bill (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users ab-breviated as SAFETEA-LU) expired September 30, 2009 and Congress has since relied upon continuing ap-propriations to fund highway con-struction. While almost all experts view these extensions as a terrible way to fund our nations transpor-tation infrastructure, Congress has been unable to reach any agreement on a new source of revenue to fund additional infrastructure spending. As a result, lawmakers have repeat-edly passed short-term extensions of surface transportation programs, the latest of which, PL 111-147, ex-pires December 31st.

Novembers landslide Republi-can victory has radically changed the transportation players in the House as almost half of the Demo-crats on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (18 of 45) lost their elections. In a post-election statement, Rep. Mica said that one of his top priorities is to pass a long-term reauthorization of the federal highway program, and there is a chance to get a reautho-rization bill passed in the first half of 2011.

Despite Rep. Micas bold words, and the shift in power, there is no clear solution to funding the feder-al highway bill. Estimates place its cost somewhere between $400 and

Novembers elections are a game-changer for transportation funding

Incoming Transpor-tation Committee Chair John Mica has three goals for the surface transportation bill reauthorization:

1Stabilize the Highway Trust Fund which is currently spending more than it brings in from gas tax revenues (the fund spends roughly $50 bil-lion a year, with revenues of just $35 billion). Since 2008, Congress has had to take $34.5 billion from general revenues in order to keep the fund solvent.

2

3

Leverage existing revenue sources by promoting Public-private Partnerships, tolls for new roads, and bonds (includ-ing private activity bonds and tax-preferred bonds like Build America Bonds). Mica also supports leveraging federal spending through public-private partnerships, and has spoken in favor of creating an infrastructure bank similar to the $50 bil-lion bank proposed by the Obama administration in their February 2010 budget request. We need a $250 bil-lion infrastructure bank, he said earlier this year.Halve the time for projects to be built. This could be done by shifting responsibility for project reviews to the states, limiting environmental reviews, or mandating dead-lines for resource agencies to review and approve projects.See Highway p.16


Perspective from the HillStaff from Representative John Micas office (FL-7) discusses the earmark ban and transportation earmarks

Q: What do you see as being the major issue with ear-marks that has led Republican Leadership to effectively ban them?

A: In the past 15 months, the Administration, with Congress approval, is incurring more than $5 trillion in additional debt. That is two years of budget deficits plus more than a trillion dollars in bail-outs and new spending programs. While I dont think that a rigid ban is particularly effective in controlling spending, I understand why certain Mem-bers are pushing for an outright ban. Earmarks really should be considered on a case-by-case basis though as there are some bills that require legislative language to direct funds. Otherwise you end up writing a blank check to the Administration.

Q: How would an earmark moratorium affect au-thorization legislation like the upcoming surface trans-portation reauthorization? Without the ability to di-rect funding to specific projects, do you think smaller communities whose projects typically dont rank high enough when evaluated via federal formula will be neg-atively affected?

A: Well first and foremost, more and more incoming members are signing pledges for no new taxes, which is fine as far as Congressman Mica is con-cerned. But without the significant new rev-enues that would accompany a gas tax hike or a vehicle-miles-traveled fee, well ultimately be forced to lower our sights well below the ambi-tious funding mark Chairman Oberstar had in mind and possibly even below current fund-ing levels, which have proved to be more than the rev-enues brought in by the current fuel tax rates. Were going to have to do a lot more with a lot less regardless of whether earmarks will be in the bill or not.

Q: What are the prospects that we will see a new highway reauthorization in FY11?

A: If he does become the Chairman of the House T&I Committee, the Congressmans main focus will be pass-ing a long-term federal highways and transit reauthori-

zation, a long-overdue Federal Aviation Admin-istration reauthorization, a new water resources measure, and a long-term Coast Guard reauthori-zation. That being said, he will not be operating in a vacuum in the 112th Congress. Agreement among the Republican House, the Democratic Senate, and the White House is likely to be diffi-cult to come by on any issue, which means that finding revenue sources to pay for a new trans-

portation bill will be quite difficult.

Q: In what ways do you think congressional members will adjust the ways in which they support local gov-ernments searching for federal funding? Having worked hand-in-hand with local officials in the Congressmans district office, do you have any advice on what commu-nities should be doing if their delegation is unable to re-quest congressionally-directed spending in their behalf?

A: At the local level, our primary focus has been to expand economic opportunity and employment. In the past few months, the Congressman has conducted five forums and seminars in his district to assist individuals in improving or developing various business activities.

Three of these ses-sions brought togeth-er leading experts and knowledgeable of-ficial with the Small Business Administra-tion, finance agencies and Federal, state, lo-

cal and private business assistance and resource person-nel. Hundreds of individuals and small business entre-preneurs attended those events and hopefully benefited from their participation. Were not waiting around for the federal government to pass overdue legislation.

Were not waiting around for the federal government to pass overdue legislation.

Earmarks really should be considered on a case-by-case basis


$500 billion over the course of six years. House Repub-licans have shown themselves unwilling to embrace any proposals raising the current gasoline tax of 18.4 cents per gallon to pay for the new bill. A possibility is that the next reauthorization will rely less on new federal outlays and instead feature plans to attract pri-vate investments for infrastructure improvements. If there is no tax increase, and thus the bill relies on private funding, local governments can look forward to smaller transportation projects and fewer grant op-portunities.

In the Senate, where the transportation committee leadership has not changed, committees have been drafting their versions of a reauthorization bill. Nothing more than concept papers have emerged yet.

The politically divided government ensures that efforts to reauthorize sur-face transportation programs next year will require a major test of political strength. While agreement over fund-ing continues to be exceptionally difficult to achieve, there is growing national pressure to enact a bill. With a narrow window for action before the 2012 presidential election, Congress is under considerable pressure to get something done.

Earmarks for Local ProjectsWhatever the current hysteria over the size of the

annual federal deficit, the local demand for financial aid for the construction and maintenance of transportation projects will not subside anytime soon. Following re-peated warnings by advocacy groups like the American Society of Civil Engineers about the failure of our pub-lic infrastructure, there will have to be some agreement about how to move forward on collecting revenues and allocating grants for the purpose of relieving those de-mands.

Given the new political landscape in Washington, communities are right to be worried that the next high-

way bill might not include congressionally-directed spending for local projects. In SAFETEA-LU there were over 6,000 earmarks totaling nearly $24 billion inserted in the bill, including the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska. This time around, it looks that there will be a tougher fight over a smaller funding pie. Not only could entire major programs be consolidated or elimi-nated, but earmarks will likely be greatly reduced, if not stricken completely.

Striking out earmarks from the highway bill does not mean federal transportation dollars will disappear; the power to decide which projects are worthy of fund-ing would default to administrative departments under control of the White House. The states are provided with a set amount of funding for transportation proj-ects based on a formula, highway bill earmarks simply tell the state where and how to spend a particular por-tion of its allotted funding. Despite criticism, earmarks are almost the only mechanism that a geographically-specific project can get funded through. Regardless of how a project is funded, highway bill requests must

meet the eligi-bility criteria under Title 23 (Highways) or Chapter 53 (Public Transit) of the United States Code.

If a project that has been earmarked in the past is to continue, it would have to compete for funding with other projects.

One of the major components of the Obama Admin-istrations approach to transportation spending has been its nationwide scope. Prominent examples of this are the TIGER discretionary grants distributed to all but three states and funding for construction and plan-ning of high-speed rail projects going to 36 states. De-partment of Transportation (DOT) officials are already been trying to make transportation funding more stra-tegic and less scattershot. The TIGER program is a step in that direction, but the funding pot is a small fraction of what is disbursed to state DOTs annually, and that hasnt been sufficient to bring entire transportation networks into the 21st century. DOT officials have been looking for ways to connect different programs and shape regional transportation systems something earmarks will never be able to do.

A recent Brookings Institute report found that of the 6,373 earmarks in SAFETEA-LU, only about half of the total funding from these earmarks went to the 100 largest metropolitan areas, home to two-thirds of Americans and producers of 75 percent of GDP. Transportation earmark distribution, it seems, favors smaller communities.

HighwayContinued from p.14


Upcoming grant events & conferences

www.fundbook.org October 2010 | The Fundbook ~ p.1

EPA - Climate Change Adaptation for State and Local Governments - Part Two: Adaptation Planning and ImplementationOnline ~ December 15, 2010, 2:00 - 3:30 p.m. (EST)This is the second of a three part series on how local governments can integrate climate change planning into their current development efforts. The third part of the series will deal specifically with what federal as-sistance is available for this, and how to utilize it. More info at: http://goo.gl/NYzo0

We Want to Hear from You! As we have come to learn quite well here at The FundBook, no city or county is created equal. Whether your community is small and rural or large and coastal, you have unique needs that cant always be lumped together in one of the traditional categories of capital improvement projects. That is why we are always looking to our readers for information on their ever-changing lists of needs. If you would like to submit information on a particular proj-ect or initiative for which your community currently seeks outside funding, we would very much appreciate the opportunity to address such in a future issue. To do so, please please contact us at the email below. As it is our mission to stay on top of the most pressing funding issues facing communities like yours, we thank you in advance for your suggestions!

Sincerely, The FundBook Team, [email protected]

Grants.gov - Quarterly Stakeholder MeetingOnline ~ January 19, 2011This is the next Grants.gov quarterly stakeholder web-cast. Topics discussed are generally more administrative than related to funding opportunities. More info at: http://goo.gl/SsXeR

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) - NFIP Reform Public MeetingWashington, DC ~ December 2, 2010 (10:00-5:00 EST)FEMA will be hosting two public meetings to describe, update, and explain the NFIP policy options for delib-eration, and to answer questions and hear comments from interested stakeholders. Through these public meetings, FEMA will also accept stakeholder input on the evaluation criteria through the pair-wise com-parison worksheet. This process will allow stakehold-ers to participate in the evaluation process used in the policy analysis. The second public meeting will be held on December 9, 2010, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. MST. The second meeting will be held in Denver, CO. More info at: http://goo.gl/FY0iH

Department of Transportation - Aviation Advisory Committee Meeting1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington DC ~ December 15, 9:30am ESTFuture of Aviation Advisory Committee meeting dis-cussing the environment, safety, and funding policies. To register, send an e-mail with the subject title Reg-istration to [email protected]. More info at: http://goo.gl/bYrWn

American Council on Renewable Energy - Renewable Energy Policy ForumWashington DC ~ December 9, 8:30 a.m.The Phase II National Policy Forum will lay the ground-work for a new, collaborative national renewable energy policy agenda. It will explore the key issues on renewable energy supply, national security, economic development and jobs, and the environment and cli-mate. More info at http://goo.gl/lzpHw

EPA - New Grants Award Process WebinarOnline Webinar ~ December 8, 2pm ESTThe webinar will cover grants management topics, in-cluding: how to find and apply for grant opportunities; new Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) reporting requirements; and preparing a proper budget detail. More info at http://goo.gl/Mpe0s


The Legislative DeskThe Legislative Desk is designed to enhance your communitys advocacy efforts in Washington by pro-viding you with actionable advice corresponding to vital points on the federal legislative calendar. With this overview of what important dates are upcoming, your community will stay abreast of the legislative process and be able to use it to influence those developments more effectively.

Congress has not passed any of the 12 appropriations bills for FY11, which began October 1. The federal government has been funded through stopgap continuing resolutions since then, and the current one (PL 111-242) expires December 3. While appropriators are still deciding whether to move ahead with a continuing resolution that would fund the govern-ment into the next year or proceed with a FY11 omnibus spending bill, it is important that you continue to support your appropriations requests regardless of whether or not earmarks will ultimately be included in the spending bill. A short letter thanking thanking your congressional mem-ber but also reminding him or her that more work in support of your funding request is needed serves as an appropriate reminder that your community is watching developments in Washington closely. (This step is only needed if your member has secured a funding mark for your proj-ect in the draft legislation.)

Continue to support

any FY11 appropriations requests

Type: Letter outreach

When: Immediate

Download a template letter to

support your appropriations re-

quests here: http://goo.gl/EAi7h

112th Congress convenes

Type: Letter outreach

When: January 5, 2011

Download a template letter to introducing yourself you your representatives here:

http://goo.gl/czig6

A new Congress means a new chance to start fresh with your Congres-sional delegation. With over 70 new congressional members taking the gavel in the 112th Congress, the coming month presents an invaluable opportunity to introduce (or reintroduce) your community to your con-gressional delegation. Plan on sending your delegation a letter that con-gratulates the member if they were just elected/reelected, describes your community, your existing relationship with your congressional delega-tion, a few of challenges your community is confronting, and what needs resulting from those challenges that you would like to apply for external assistance with. Staying in contact with your member shows that you are aware of what they are doing and can lead to their assistance providing letters of support or pressure on federal agencies if you are being given the cold shoulder.

It is important to gain community support for your projects by build-ing coalitions and public-private partnerships. With Congress and fed-eral agencies increasingly prioritizing funding requests made by multiple entities, the power of coalition building cannot be overstated. Starting now to secure support commitments from other public and private en-tities will absolutely pay off in the long term. Possible partners include local non-profits, national non-profits that work in your community, housing agencies, community organizations, academic organizations, and others.

Build local coalitions & public-private partnershipsType: Groups, application supportWhen: January, ongoing


Build local coalitions & public-private partnershipsType: Groups, application supportWhen: January, ongoing

Begin a technical review of your communitys known capital needs or proposed projects/initiatives and begin preparing or updating briefing materials for each. In light of what is expected to be a chaotic year, you must be ready to move quickly to take advantage any funding opportu-nity that presents itself.

Before a congressional office can support a funding request, it must carefully review the project or initiative to determine whether it meets federal requirements, whether it is a good use of taxpayer funds, and whether it will provide sufficient local/regional/national benefit. Be-cause federal funds available for local projects have been reduced in re-cent years, a member of congress cannot seek funding for every request that he or she receives. That is why the onus is on your community to start preparing early. A technical review should be coupled with an ef-fort to prepare concise briefing materials that emphasize the job-creation components of each project, identify any national/regional significance, and discuss how federal dollars could be used to leverage other public and private dollars.

Your ongoing review begins with the annual Appropriations process, and should continue with grant funding opportunities and any addition-al funding programs that become available throughout the year.

Start Organizing Capital Needs

Type: Preparation for outreachWhen: January, ongoing

Visiting your delegation in Washington is regarded by most munici-pal lobbyists as a critical step towards any effective advocacy effort. A visit associates a personality with project requests and allows officials to discuss your communitys needs in a less formal, more impactful way. While you shouldnt expect to get much time with your Representatives or Senators (in many cases you may only meet with congressional staff) do not be dissuaded by what may seem like a snub. Each congressional members time is strained and their legislative schedule may prohibit a meeting on the day(s) you are in Washington.

It is vitally important that representatives from your community not only meet with congressional offices but also visit those executive branch agencies from which your community will seek funding. Typically local officials should consider visiting Washington at least one time per year, but additional trips may be beneficial in some cases. While 2011 looks like it will be a unique congressional session, early February is typically the best time of year to visit your delegation as it is right before the ap-propriations process begins. Such advocacy efforts should be ongoing and include follow-up letters thanking each office for taking the time to meet with you.

Trip to Washington, D

C

Type: In-person outreach

When: late January, early F

ebruary

A sample meeting request tem

plate

will be provided in the Januar

y 2011

issue..

While it may seem easier and more cost-effective to combine your vis-it with a municipal conference trip to Washington, doubling up efforts should be avoided if at all possible. During these conferences, congressio-nal offices are swamped with meetings with locally elected officials and cant focus on your projects. The National League of Cities, U.S. Confer-ence of Mayors, and National Association of Counties often fall around this time of year so while doubling up is tempting, it is ineffective.


On the docketFederal legislation affecting federal fundingSustainable States Act of 2010

Recently introduced by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), the Sustainable States Act of 2010 (S. 3970) would create an Environmental Protection Agency grant program for State consortia to establish and carry out municipal sustainability certification programs. This grant program would allow coalitions within states to apply for an receive a grant annually to fund a certifi-cation program. Eligible certification program topics are proposed to be energy demand and water supply, water resources management, waste production and management, pollution, environmental stewardship, and economic competitiveness, growth and develop-ment. Only one such consortium per state would be eligible, though the certification program would pre-sumably be open to many local government leaders to take.

Congress Likely to Extend Build Ameri-ca Bond Program

According to Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the outgoing minority leader on the Senate Finance Com-mittee, Congress will likely extend the Build America Bond (BAB) program for another year. The Senator recently hinted that the Senate could have a draft tax bill that would include a one-year BAB extension at 32 percent or less interest cost and an extension of the higher bank-qualified limit as early as this week. But because the municipal bond-related tax provisions will be a small part of a larger, more controversial tax bill that includes extensions of the Bush tax cuts, its unlikely that this bill will be passed until closer to Christmas.

The BABs program, due to expire at year-end, was created under President Obamas economic-stimu-lus program and provides federal subsidies to state and local governments borrowing for construction

projects. With Republicans critical of the stimulus program and poised to take control of the House in January, local governments and other advocates of the program are pressing to have it extended before then. Measures to keep BABs in place have previously passed the House (H.R. 4849, Small Business and In-frastructure Jobs Tax Act of 2010), only to stall in the Senate. To date, it is estimated that more than $160 billion of the taxable securities have been sold since the first BAB issue in April 2009.

Department of Education to Review Competitive Grant Processes

The Department of Education announced last month that it will be conducting a far-reaching re-view of all its competitive grant programs to evalu-ate how the rules that govern them can be refined and improved. Department officials stated that the review will focus not just on its recent Race to the Top program, but also on popular and well-funded competitive grant programs the agency administers, such as the Teacher Incentive Fund, Teacher Quali-ty Partnership Grants, and Promise Neighborhoods. In addition, it will cover hybrid grant programs, administered by the department with some level of coordination and decision-making from the states, such as School Improvement Grants, a major effort to turn around low-performing schools. One of the main goals is to see what lessons other competitive grant programs overseen by the departmentthe agency manages dozens of competitions each yearcould learn from the Race to the Top process. The departments review will also consider the competi-tive grant processes used at other federal offices and agencies, including the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Energy, officials said.


Representative John Mica (R-FL), w

ho is expected to chair the House T

ransportation

and Infrastructure Committee, said

last month that his committee plan

s on scrutinizing

popular Obama administration tra

nsportation infrastructure initiativ

es when Repub-

licans assume control of the U.S. H

ouse of Representatives. He also p

lans to reevaluate

grant programs that bypassed con

gressional review possibly pulling

back some funds

dedicated to specific road and rail p

rojects

Of particular interest to the Congre

ssman are the more than $10 billion

in high-speed

rail awards and a $1.5 billion trans

portation construction financing u

nder the so-called

TIGER grant program in which fu

nds were sent directly to states on

the merits of pro-

posed projects. More specifically, M

ica hinted that he plans to scrutiniz

e how the admin-

istration went about distributing T

IGER infrastructure grants (Transp

ortation Invest-

ment Generating Economic Recove

ry) funded by last years economic s

timulus package.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaH

ood announced a $600 million secon

d round of TIGER

grants in October for 75 innovativ

e projects, including three in Flori

da.

TIGER grants have been oversubs

cribed and state capitals want them

extended, but

there is no commitment from Con

gress to do that. Some of the money

could come back

to the federal government, accordi

ng to Mica, who also said that he w

ould look at how

to expedite funding in other cases.

Micas scrutiny of high-speed rail p

rojects and other construction spen

ding is shared

by some critical Republicans at th

e state level. Mica says he favors

high speed rail in

regions where it makes economic

sense. Trains, he said, must carry e

nough people and

truly reach high speeds as they do i

n Europe and Asia. Much of the U.

S. high speed rail

network in the planning stages now

would serve short-haul corridors.

Mica has also been highly critical of

funding set aside for rail projects, ar

guing that the

administration has awarded grants

based on political considerations an

d funded projects

that are not actually high-speed rai

l service.

Grants in Focus:

Incoming T&I Chairman will scrutini

ze TIGER grants


The watersheds funding, managed by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), is provided to assist local organizations in conducting watershed surveys and investigations, and in plan-ning and installing structural and land treatment measures for watershed protection and flood preven-tion. Multiple grants encompassing surveys and plan-ning, operations, and rehabilitation are made avail-able through the NRCS.

Removing earmarks from the watersheds program will very likely lead to a much larger amount of com-petitively distributed funds. The account was nearly fully earmarked at 92, 97, and 73 percent in FY08, FY09, and FY10. Earmarks submitted for the FY11 bill would have accounted for approximately 81 per-cent of funds, though it remains to be seen if those earmarks will be preserved.

If the programs are in the budget, they are by defini-tion not earmarks. And with fewer overall earmarks, the White House will have far more discretion over where remaining federal spending ends up, a great worry of many congressional Republicans. Already, two promi-nent Republicans, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), have argued that federal dollars directed to cities and counties for transportation projects and emergency management preparation should not be considered earmarking. Similarly, there is grow-ing support amongst some House Republicans to create block grants to send directly to state governments. This is likely to become a popular tactic of House Republi-cans, as state officials, not federal agencies, would decide where money should be allocated. To some degree, this setup would indirect earmark, allowing state agencies rather than members of Congress to pick the winners and losers.

To date, the fate of earmarks remains unclear be-cause the Republican ban is, at present, voluntary, and

Democrats have not yet to embrace a proposed mora-torium. That being said, the best thing you can do for your community is to plan strong projects and be ready for anything. Regardless of how funding is ultimately allocated, it is important to keep your projects at the top of your delegations list of priorities.

Earmarks endContinued from p.13

State & Tribal Assistance GrantsEnvironmental Protection AgencyFor FY11, the Administration pro-posed eliminating $157 million provided in 2010 for 333 wastewa-ter and drinking water projects targeted to specific communities. Because this funding program does not through a competitive or merit-based allocation the Administration argued that grants are duplicative of funding available for such projects through the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRF), but are not subject to the State priority-setting process for these programs, which typically funds cost-effective and higher priority activities first. The Administration also argues that congressionally-directed projects funded through this account require more oversight and technical assistance than standard grants because many recipients (mostly small to mid-sized local governments) are unprepared to spend or manage the funds provided to them.

Grants upContinued from p.11

Upcoming Issues: The January issue will go in depth into the Public Utilities grants for rural communities offered by the United States Department of Agriculture. This funding source is one of the most important for local governments struggling with providing services like electricity, telephone, water, and wastewater. This issue will also keep local governments up-to-date on the status of appropriations to ensure that they successfully stay on track with the appropriations process by using proven strategies.

The February issue will go into emergency responder grants for police, fire departments, and other emergency vehicles. This issue will also keep local governments up-to-date on the status of appropriations and the earmark ban to ensure that they successfully stay on track and in touch with their delegation by using proven advocacy strategies.

Ensure that you are providing the best service to your citizens. Subscribe to The FundBook today.

Prioritize Effectively. Your subscription includes twelve issues packed with actionable analysis of federal funding programs so that you can make informed decisions about the best way to allocate limited resources when pursuing either federal grants or appropriations.


Decem

ber 1

Januar

y 1

MMS Grant: Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) - p.36

Dec 31

USDA Grant: Rural Community Development Initiative - p.33Dec 22

IMLS Grant: Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program - p.29Dec 15

NOAA Grant: Regional Ocean Partnership Funding Program - p.37Dec 10

HUD Grant: Continuum of Care Home-less Assistance Program - p.35

HUD Grants: Hazards in Housing (1) - p.39

HRSA Grant: Health Center New Access Points Program - p.25

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program - p.31

Dec 3FEMA Grants

Severe Repetitive Loss Program - p.30

Repetitive Flood Claims Program - p.32

Flood Mitigation Assistance Program - p.32

HUD Grant: HOPE VI Revitalization Grants Program - p.34

USDA Grant: Solid Waste Managment Grant - p.40

Two Months From Now Three Months From Now

Icon Legend

p.22 ~ The Fundbook | October 2010

Upcoming Grants TimelineGrant descriptions follow

Octobe

r 1

Novem

ber 1

HUD Grant: Choice Neighborhoods Initiative - p.34Oct 26

Oct 15

FY 2011 MCSAP New Entrant Funding - p.28

FY 2011 High Priority Grant Opportunity - p.28DOT Grants:

Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Grants - p.27

Brownfields Assessment Grants - p.27

EPA Grants: Brownfields Cleanup Grants - p.26

EPA Grant: Market Based Approaches to Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions - p.38

Oct 27

FWS Grant: North American Wetlands Conservation Act Small Grants - p.33

Oct 28

IMLS Grant: Museums for America - p.29

NOAA Grant: Community-based Marine Debris Removal Project Grants - p.37

Nov 1Nov 18

DOC Grant: MBDA Busi-ness Center (MBC) - p.24

Nov 10

HUD Grants: Hazards in Housing (3) - p.38, 39

Nov 16

Nov 8

Nov 17

Nov 22

Now One Month From Now

Commerce/Business -Health/Medical -Ocean/Coastal -

Rural -Transportation -

Housing -Museums/Art -

Green/Environment -Disaster{

Stay Organized. Our unique timeline of upcoming grants helps you plan and prepare.

Get more in format ion or to subscr ibe today by v i s i t ing www.fundbook.org or contacting our office at 202-681-FUND (3863)

A single local governments subscription can be sent monthly to as many full-time staff as requested.

www.fundbook.orgp.30 ~ The Fundbook | October 2010 www.fundbook.orgp.30 ~ The Fundbook | October 2010

Number of AwardsMany: 50

Amount AvailableLarge: $100,000,000

FOA #DHS-11-MT-110-000-99

AgencyDepartment of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency

DeadlineNot soon: Dec 3, 2010

In 2009 the largest SRL funding recipients were Louisiana, Texas, and New Jersey. However, there are funds in other state propor-tional to the states needs.

An example of a SRL grant funded this year is $5.9 million to Little Falls, NJ for a project that will elevate 34 homes out of the lo-cal flood plain. Little Falls is an in-teresting example because not only

Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) grants are designed to reduce flood dam-ages to residential properties that have experienced severe repeti-tive losses under flood insurance coverage and that will result in the greatest savings to the NFIP in the shortest period of time.

The Basics:

Severe Repetitive Loss Program



FOA #DHS-11-MT-047-000-99

AgencyDepartment of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency

DeadlineNot soon: Dec 3, 2010

PDM provides funds on an an-nual basis for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disas-ter to reduce overall risk to the pop-ulation and structures. At the same, program administrators also seek to reduce reliance on federal funding from actual disaster declarations.

For the most part, grants for protecting public buildings or pri-vate residences are the awards most closely associated with PDM. While the majority of program funding is spent on mitigation projects, a por-tion of the funding is spent on the de-velopment and improvement of state and local hazard mitigation plans. In FY06, for instance, planning grants made up almost 50 percent of total grants selected for further review. It is important to note, however, that actual funding amounts for plan-ning are quite low. During FY2006, planning grant ap-plications selected for further review totaled only $3.9 million out of a to-tal of $50 million.

PDM is an un-usual program in

Pre-Disaster Mitigation grants are designed to implement a sustained pre-disaster natural hazard mitiga-tion program to reduce overall risk to the population and structures from future hazard events, while also reducing reliance on Feder-al funding from future disasters.

The Basics:

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program


Each year, FEMA provides Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) to States and local govern-ments through a portfolio of fund-ing programs: the Hazard Mitiga-tion Grant Program, the Flood Mitigation Assistance program, the Repetitive Flood Claims pro-gram, the Severe Repetitive Loss program, and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation program. Although all five programs have unique statu-tory authorities, program require-ments, and triggers for funding, all of the programs share the common goal of providing funds to reduce the loss of life and property from natural hazard events.

Although all of these programs are important, one program stands out amongst the rest: whereas the

Federal Emergency Agency Hazard Mitigation Programsfirst four programs fund projects that reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to structures insured un-der the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), or in areas previ-ously declared presidential disaster areas, Pre-Disaster Mitigation pro-gram (PDM) funding is not bound

by such restrictions. Only if a community has been identified as having Special Flood Hazard Area (a FHBM or FIRM has been issued) must it be participating in NFIP to eligible to apply for funding.

that it is both competitive and for-mula-driven. Recent changes have created a new kind of hybrid pro-gram, in which grants are awarded through a competitive process and also through guaranteed formula amounts for each state ($500,000) with eligible projects or plans. For example, from a total program amount of $100 million, up to $25 million is in the formula pool and the remaining $75 million is avail-able for the competitive grants and Congressionally-directed spending items.Eligible activities include: acquisition or relocation of hazard-

prone property for conversion to open space in perpetuity,

structural and non-structural ret-rofitting of existing buildings and facilities for wildfire, seismic, wind or flood hazards

minor structural hazard control or protection projects that may include vegetation management, stormwater management, or shoreline/landslide stabilization

localized flood control projects, such as certain ring levees and

floodwall systems, that are de-signed specifically to protect criti-cal facilities and that do not con-stitute a section of a larger flood control system.

hazard Mitigation Planning & Management Costs

did they receive this SRL grant in October 2010, but they also re-ceived a Repetitive Flood Claims grant for $365 thousand in early September.

FY06 FY07 FY08

PDM Planning Selectivity (%)

50%

30%

40%

20%

10%

PDM Project Grant Selectivity (%)

PD

M Funding (m

illions)

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

While all of these programs federal deadlines are listed in the following pages, the various states often have different deadlines prior to these federal deadlines for indi-

vidual local governments to be included in with the states com-

mon application for FEMA assistance. Keep in mind that when a

local government submits its application to be consolidated within

a states application there may be a question of ranking or prioriti-

zation. Ranking forces the state to choose which local government

projects it would most like to see funded. Out of the HMA pro-

grams, the PDM and HMGP programs force the state applicant to

rank subapplicants. Lobby your state office for a good ranking.

Number of AwardsMedium: 11

Amount AvailableMedium: $11,000,000

AgencyEnvironmental Protection Agency

FOA #EPA-OSWER-OBLR-10-11

DeadlineSoon: Oct 15, 2010

Brownfields Cleanup Grants

Brownfields Cleanup Grants provide funds for cleanup ac-tivities at a specific brownfield site owned by the applicant.

The Basics:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has three grant opportunities currently available to assist with a local governments contaminated land. There is a fourth grant program, Job Train-ing Grants, which provides envi-ronmental training for residents of brownfields communities.

Brownfields sites are defined as real property, the expansion, rede-velopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contami-nant. This includes land that has been previously used for industrial purposes, certain commercial pur-poses, or other applications like landfills.

One of the best ways to see if






Brownfields Assessment Grants provide funds to empower states, communities, tribes, and non-prof-its to prevent, inventory, assess, clean up, and reuse brownfield sites.

The Basics: The Brownfields Assessment Grants (BAGs) are the most com-mon type of brownfields grant. They provide full federal funding with no local cost match to test whether a site is contaminated or not. If the site is found to be con-taminated, grantees often apply for the Cleanup or Revolving Loan Fund Programs available through the Environmental Pro-tection Agency (EPA).

BAG applicants can apply for one hazardous substance assess-ment grant and one petroleum as-sessment grant at a time. However the combined amount applied for cannot be larger than $750,000 per year. Assessment periods under these grants are three years.

The RLF grant is slightly dif-ferent from the other two listed here because it gives much more flexibility and control to the re-cipient. Instead of the three year timeline afforded to the Assess-ment and Cleanup Programs,the RLF has a five year period of performance. Additionally, RLF grants can be awarded up to $1 million dollars rather than capped at $200 thousand dollars like the

Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Grants provides funds for grant recipients to capitalize a re-volving fund and to make loans and provide subgrants to carry out assessment and/or cleanup activities at brownfield sites.

The Basics:


Amount AvailableMedium: $29,500,000




Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Grants

Brownfields Assessment Grants

Since 2003, the Environmen-tal Protection Agency (EPA) has awarded over 587 distinct Brown-fields Cleanup Grants to communi-ties of all sizes across the country.

For cleanup grants the appli-cants must own the property, and must have a Phase I assessment completed which includes a thor-ough visual site assessment and an examination of historical docu-ments and information concerning the property. Applicants that have completed a Phase II or higher as-sessment, which includes scientific


EPA Brownfields Grantsyour land is potentially a brown-fields site is to access the online database of EPAs previous brown-fields grant awards which is avail-able at goo.gl/7txF. The database is searchable by grant type, state or region, and year so it is simple to see nearby projects. However, to search more specifically by num-ber of acres, applicant type, or other values the user may end up clicking through many previous awards to find comparable awards.

For a more in-depth look at a smaller number of projects there are many success stories for all of brownfields programs available online at goo.gl/YphU.

If none of these grant opportu-nities fit your project type, there is an additional brownfields non-

grant program offered called the Targeted Brownfields Assess-ment (TBA) which is specifically made available for communities without EPA Brownfields Assess-ment Grants.

sampling of the property to test for contaminants, are more favor-ably scored on their applications.

Unlike the Assessment Grants described above, Cleanup Grants have a 20% cost share which can be fulfilled through non-monetary contribu

Date post:	31-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	the-fundbook
View:	215 times
Download:	1 times

2010-12 FundBook December Issue

Documents