Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
|
Supporting Reauthorization and Appropriations for the Department
of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration ....................................................1
On the National Housing Trust Fund .........................................................................................2
On FY 2016 Appropriations for the Department of Housing and Urban Development ............4
On Allowing Publicly Owned Treatment Works to Operate as Designed,
Including Peak Wet Weather Flow Management Techniques Such as Blending ................6
On the Environmental Protection Agency’s Efforts to Tighten
Ozone Air Quality Regulations ............................................................................................7
On the Creation of a National Program to Allow States to Offset Air
Pollution Exceedances .........................................................................................................8
On Executive Order Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard .......................8
On Federal Voting Systems Standards ....................................................................................10
Supporting Amendment of 42 CFR Privacy Provisions to Create a Uniform Set of
Regulations Based on HIPAA Privacy Rules ....................................................................11
On Changes to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ...............................12
On the Medicaid Institution for Mental Disease Exclusion .....................................................13
On the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program ..........................................14
On Maintenance of Effort for Essential Support Services for Persons
with Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities ...................................................14
On Treatment of Substance Use Conditions ............................................................................15
On Urging and Requesting Congress to Consider Reinstating Universal
Military Service .................................................................................................................17
On Funding to Combat Child Sex Trafficking and to Assist its Victims ................................18
Urging the Federal Government to Suspend, Instead of Terminate, Medicaid
Coverage for Incarcerated Individuals ...............................................................................19
Urging Federal, State and Local Adoption of a Presumption Against the Use of
Unnecessary Restraints of Juveniles in Court ....................................................................20
On Reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevision Act .................................21
|
Supporting the Delisting of the American Burying Beetle ......................................................22
On Opposing the Proposed Listing of the Black Pine Snake as a Threatened
Species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ..................................................................22
To Allow the Re-Classification of Diseased and Insect Infested Forest Products ..................23
On Sharing Post-Fire Litigation Settlement Funds with Counties...........................................24
Supporting Reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools
and Community Self-Determination Act and Providing Expedited Payments
For FY 2014 .......................................................................................................................25
Supporting Revised Wildfire Disaster Funding .......................................................................26
Supporting Amending Title III of Secure Rural Schools to Provide for Reimbursement
of Patrol Expenditures........................................................................................................27
On Federal Freight Goods Movement Investment in the United States ..................................29
On Equitable Funding and Expenditures of the Highway Trust Fund .....................................30
On Local Transportation Safety Funding (SHPS Local Coordination) ...................................31
On Local Transportation Safety Funding (Establishment of TZD Grant Program)………… 31
COMMUNITY, ECONOMIC AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 1
STEERING COMMITTEE 2
3
Proposed Resolution Supporting Reauthorization and Appropriations for the Department 4
of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration 5
6
Issue: Appropriations and reauthorization legislation for the U.S. Department of Commerce’s 7
Economic Development Administration (EDA). 8
9
Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to support reauthorization and appropriations for the 10
U.S. Department of Commerce’s EDA to keep communities strong and economically viable at a 11
time when our nation needs it the most. 12
13
Background: The EDA provides direct resources to counties to support economic development 14
efforts through planning grants to regional Economic Development Districts to support 15
comprehensive economic development strategy planning and implementation as well as 16
financing for Public Works and Technical Assistance projects. It is focused solely on private 17
sector job creation and retention. 18
19
With its modest budget, EDA has developed an impressive track record of making strategic 20
investments and building partnerships that help regions and communities respond to shifts in 21
international markets, address severe unemployment challenges and recover from plant closures, 22
major natural disasters, and other chronic, sudden and severe economic hardships. 23
24
Despite its solid performance and traditional bipartisan support, EDA’s regular budget has 25
declined by nearly 36 percent since FY2001. NACo supports $273 million for EDA, the FY 26
2016 Obama Administration budget request. EDA is currently funded at $250 million in the 27
FY2015 “CRomnibus” spending bill (PL. 113-235). This is a $3 million increase over the 28
FY2014 level. 29
30
At a time when the nation must make the regional and local investments necessary to compete in 31
the modern global economy, the flexibility, partnership structure and accountability of EDA’s 32
programs should be at the forefront of the federal toolbox. EDA’s portfolio of economic 33
development infrastructure, business development finance, regional innovation strategies and 34
public-private partnerships are tailored to support the unique needs of each region. 35
36
EDA grants are awarded on a competitive basis to local governments, nonprofits and 37
communities by the agency’s six regional offices. By federal law, EDA projects typically require 38
a local cost share and significant private sector investment, ensuring that local leaders and 39
businesses are committed to the project’s success. EDA investments are focused on high quality 40
jobs, especially in advanced manufacturing, science and technology, and emerging knowledge-41
based industries and sectors. 42
43
EDA and its local partners focus on the fundamental building blocks for economic development. 44
EDA’s infrastructure investments are targeted at essential facilities and assets like water and 45
wastewater systems, middle mile broadband networks, workforce training centers, business 46
incubators, intermodal facilities and science and research parks. These assets are often lacking in 47
the nation’s most distressed areas, yet they are a prerequisite for private industry to remain or 48
locate in these areas. 49
The keys to EDA’s repeated successes remain its flexible program tools, its long-standing 1
partnerships with regional and local economic development organizations, and its focus on 2
investing in locally- and regionally-driven strategies and infrastructure projects that are tied to 3
leveraging private sector job creation and retention activities. 4
5
Fiscal Urban/Rural Impact: EDA’s programs provide critical funding for economic and 6
community development initiatives and key projects important for creating and retaining jobs. 7
8
Approved | Community, Economic and Workforce Development Steering Committee | 9
Unanimous 10
11
Proposed Resolution on the National Housing Trust Fund 12
13
Issue: Allocation of National Housing Trust Fund (HTF) resources. 14
15
Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 16
Development (HUD) to provide for the allocation of HTF funds to local governments. Driving 17
HTF resources to the local and county levels will ensure these federal affordable housing 18
resources are effectively targeted and tailored to meet the unique and individualized affordable 19
housing needs of local communities across the nation. In the event that increased HTF resources 20
become available, Congress and HUD are also urged to provide a formula allocation of HTF 21
resources directly to local governments. 22
23
Background: In December 2014, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announced it 24
was lifting the suspension of payments the Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) are 25
required to make to the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) and Capital Magnet Fund (CMF). The two 26
programs were authorized as part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA; 27
P.L. 110-289) to fund affordable housing activities. However, shortly after HERA’s enactment 28
FHFA suspended the mandatory payments to the Funds. 29
30
FHFA Director Mel Watt indicated the suspension was being lifted due to Fannie Mae and 31
Freddie Mac’s return to profitability and repayment of the government’s investment in the two 32
GSEs. The GSEs will be assessed 4.2 basis points (.042 percent) on new business purchases. 33
These fees will be directed to the HTF and CMF—65 percent of the fees will flow to the HTF 34
and 35 percent to the CMF. FHFA has ordered the GSEs to begin setting aside these funds 35
beginning in January 2015, but funds will not be distributed until 2016. Estimates indicate that 36
$300 million-$700 million could be collected from the assessments annually, which will be 37
administered and overseen by HUD. 38
39
HTF grants will be distributed on an annual formula basis to states (or state-designated entities), 40
of which at least 80 percent must be used for rental housing; up to 10 percent for 41
homeownership; and up to 10 percent for the grantee's administrative and planning costs. 42
43
HTF funds may be used for the production or preservation of affordable housing through the 44
acquisition, new construction, reconstruction, and/or rehabilitation of non-luxury housing with 45
suitable amenities. All HTF-assisted units will be required to have a minimum affordability 46
period of 30 years. Eligible activities and expenses include: real property acquisition; site 47
improvements and development hard costs; related soft costs; demolition; financing costs; 48
relocation expenses; operating cost assistance for rental housing (not more than 20 percent of 49
each annual grant); and, “reasonable” administrative and planning costs. 1
2
Eligible forms of assistance include: equity investments; interest-bearing loans or advances; non-3
interest bearing loans or advances; interest subsidies; deferred payment loans grants; and other 4
forms of assistance approved by HUD. 5
6
In addition, the HTF statute requires 75 percent of funds for rental housing must benefit 7
extremely low-income households (incomes of 30 percent of area median or less) or households 8
with incomes below the federal poverty line. All funds must benefit very low-income households 9
(incomes of 50 percent of area median or less). 10
11
States and state-designated entities serve as HTF-eligible grantees. States are required to submit 12
an allocation plan to HUD, which must describe the distribution methodology they intend to use. 13
The state must also provide the opportunity for public feedback on the plan. The state may 14
distribute funds through eligible sub-grantees, which would include state agencies or units of 15
general local government that have filed an approved consolidated plan with HUD. 16
17
Currently, no guidance or direction is in place to ensure county governments receive an 18
allotment of HTF resources to ensure their locally-determined and managed affordable housing 19
programs are served. 20
21
Counties have a long history in the effective and efficient administration of federal resources for 22
affordable housing and community development including a variety of HUD formula block grant 23
programs, such as: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, HOME Investment 24
Partnership Program, Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Program, and Housing Opportunities 25
for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Program. 26
27
Counties have responsibly invested these federal resources for home purchase and rehabilitation 28
assistance; construction and rehabilitation of affordable multi-family housing; property 29
acquisition and improvement for affordable housing; and partnering with community-based 30
groups to increase the local supply of affordable housing. In addition, many counties are 31
involved in the administration and management of locally-based and funded housing trust funds. 32
Providing for a conduit of HTF funds to local and county governments would ensure timely 33
allocation of HTF resources that meet community-identified affordable housing priorities. 34
35
Finally, given the unique role HTF resources are designed to play in serving extremely low- and 36
very low-income populations it is important that HTF resources not be used to offset or supplant 37
other federal grant resources for affordable housing, such as the HOME program. HTF funds are 38
designed with a targeted purpose of accommodating the nation’s shortfall in affordable housing, 39
particularly multi-family housing. Supplanting existing affordable housing and community 40
development grant programs with HTF resources will create gaps in the ability of local 41
governments to provide much needed assistance to serve other specialized populations and fund 42
specific development programs. 43
44
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Adequate resources to support locally-identified priorities are 45
crucial in ensuring counties have the ability and funds needed to provide for and sustain the 46
demand for affordable housing. 47
48
Approved | Community, Economic and Workforce Development Steering Committee | 37-1 49
1
Proposed Resolution on FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Housing and Urban 2
Development 3
4
Issue: Support FY2016 Appropriations for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 5
Development (HUD). 6
7
Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to support the following levels of funding for core U.S. 8
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs in the FY2016 9
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill: no 10
less than $3.3 billion in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) formula funding; no less 11
than $1.2 billion in formula funding for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME); 12
$2.1 billion for Homeless Housing Assistance grants, including at least $250 million for the 13
Emergency Solutions Grant program plus an amount to fully fund expiring supportive housing 14
and Shelter Plus Care rent subsidy contracts; full funding for existing Section 8 project-based, 15
tenant-based contracts and administrative fees and $500 million in Section 108 Loan Guarantee 16
authority. 17
18
In addition, NACo opposes the imposition of a funding threshold to receive CDBG formula 19
funds directly or elimination of “grandfathering” provisions that allow cities and counties to 20
maintain their entitlement status. NACo also does not support diverting CDBG formula funds to 21
other categorical grant programs. 22
23
Background: The CDBG and HOME programs have been model federal block grant programs 24
for expanding affordable housing opportunities and undertaking neighborhood revitalization. 25
26
Local governments use CDBG funds for critical community development activity such as, 27
expanding homeownership opportunities; eliminating slum and blight; infrastructure 28
improvements such as roads, water and sewer systems; services at libraries, community centers, 29
adult day care and child and after school care facilities; homeless housing assistance; 30
employment training; transportation services; crime awareness; and, business and job creation. 31
According to HUD, every $1 million in CDBG funding supports nearly 26 jobs and since 2005 32
CDBG program resources have created over 300,000 jobs. However, CDBG funding has 33
declined by over 30 percent, which has severely hampered local government ability to foster 34
sustainable and economically resilient communities. 35
36
For counties across the nation, the HOME program is vital to increasing home ownership and 37
expanding the availability of affordable rental housing. Since 1990, over one million units of 38
housing have been produced with HOME funds. HUD indicates that every dollar of HOME 39
funding leverages an additional $4 in other public and private funding. Every $1billion in HOME 40
funding creates or preserves more than 17,000 jobs. Despite the program’s performance, HOME 41
funding has been cut in half since 2010. 42
43
In December 2014, Congress passed the FY2015 Consolidated and Further Continuing 44
Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-235). It provided: CDBG program with $3 billion; $500 million in 45
Section 108 loan guarantee authority; HOME program with $900 million; $2.1 billion in 46
Homeless Assistance, including $250 million for the Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) and 47
full funding of Shelter Plus Care and Supportive Housing rent subsidies. 48
1
Last year, the Administration’s FY2015 proposed budget included provisions to amend the 2
Community Development Block Grant statute to include a funding threshold of approximately 3
$350,000 for communities to receive formula funding directly from HUD and it would eliminate 4
the “grandfathering” of metropolitan cities and urban counties who fall below the population 5
level at which they initially qualified. HUD has indicated that approximately 340 cities would 6
lose direct funding under the threshold. It is believed that some counties would be eliminated 7
from entitlement status if the grandfathering provisions were eliminated from the statute. It is 8
anticipated that the Administration will again propose these, or similar, revisions to the CDBG 9
program. 10
11
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Funding of HUD's core programs is crucial to state and local 12
governments that provide services to communities at the grassroots level. 13
14
Approved | Community, Economic and Workforce Development Steering Committee 15
37-0 (1 abstention) 16
17
ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND LAND USE STEERING COMMITTEE 1
2
Proposed Resolution on Allowing Publicly Owned Treatment Works to Operate as 3
Designed, Including Peak Wet Weather Flow Management Techniques Such as Blending 4
5
Issue: During heavy rain events Publicly Owned Treatment Works (“POTWs” a/k/a wastewater 6
treatment plants) “overflow” the increased storm water around the primary treatment plant, blend 7
the overflow back into the treated water from the primary treatment plant, and then discharge 8
(“blending”). The EPA is attempting to bypass the normal rulemaking process and ban blending. 9
10
Proposed Policy: NACo supports the crafting and uniform application of Clean Water Act 11
regulations and permits such that Publicly Owned Treatment Works can operate their facilities in 12
the manner in which they were designed and permitted, including the use of peak wet weather 13
flow management techniques such as blending. 14
15
Background: Most POTWs process storm water through their primary treatment plant before it 16
is released. However, when there is a heavy rain event, primary treatment plants can get 17
overwhelmed with the influx of storm water. These primary treatment plants are designed to 18
“overflow” the increased storm water around the primary treatment plant to a secondary system, 19
treat the excess storm water to a lesser standard than the primary treatment plant, and then 20
“blend” the overflow back into the water from the primary treatment plant and discharge 21
(“blending”). 22
23
The EPA has attempted to ban blending through guidance documents, rather than going through 24
a formal rule-making process where all impacted communities can submit comments. The EPA’s 25
own calculation is a blending ban would cost over $150 billion nationwide to implement. This 26
cost would be borne by the units of local government running the POTWs, who may, or may not, 27
be able to pass this cost on to the residents in the community. 28
29
In 2012, the EPA attempted to ban blending in Iowa. In 2013, the Iowa League of Cities filed 30
suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, challenging the EPA’s ban. The Eighth 31
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the EPA’s blending ban. 32
33
The Court held the EPA’s use of guidance documents to institute a policy decision to ban 34
blending went further than the EPA’s statutory authority allowed. The Court’s ruling held the 35
EPA must follow the formal rule making process, which would allow impacted communities and 36
others to submit comments on any proposed rule before it could make such a far reaching policy 37
decision. 38
39
After the ruling, the EPA stated the Court’s ruling was only binding within the jurisdiction of the 40
Eighth Circuit (Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, North and South Dakota). 41
Outside of the Eighth Circuit, the EPA has attempted to ban blending on a case-by-case basis. 42
43
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: The EPA’s blending ban would cost in excess of $150 billion to 44
units of local government / POTWs. 45
46
Approved | Environment, Energy and Land Use Steering Committee | Unanimous 47
48
Proposed Resolution on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Efforts to Tighten Ozone 1
Air Quality Regulations 2
3
Issue: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) effort to tighten ozone air quality 4
standards. 5
6
Proposed Policy: NACo opposes implementation of the EPA’s proposed 2015 National 7
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone until the 2008 NAAQS for ozone have been 8
fully implemented. 9
10
Background: The EPA has a mission to improve the quality of the air we breathe. On Dec. 17, 11
2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a new proposed rule on the 12
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone that would tighten current federal air 13
pollution rules and increase the number of counties impacted by the proposed rule from 227 to a 14
range of 358—558 counties or more. The proposed rule would tighten the current ozone 15
standard from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to a range of 65 to 70 ppb. Additionally, the agency 16
indicated they will accept comments on a 60 ppb standard, raising the possibility the standard 17
would be set higher. 18
19
The current ozone standard of 75 ppb was set in 2008, however, has yet to be implemented due 20
to litigation. The 1997 standard of 80 ppb is still generally used. It is premature to discuss 21
tightening the standard until the 2008 standards are implemented. 22
23
Being named as a non-attainment area places communities and their residents in a difficult spot 24
because communities must make drastic and costly changes that ultimately impact a 25
community’s ability to attract and keep jobs. Economic development efforts become more 26
challenging because existing or potential businesses choose to site their facilities in attainment 27
counties so they do not have to meet the tighter air quality standards within non-attainment 28
counties. This approach is akin to using a stick, rather than a carrot, to encourage communities to 29
buy-in to tighter air quality standards. Finally, immediate investments must be made by all 30
industries in the region regardless of their individual air quality measurements as they are now 31
being impacted by the regional status. 32
33
The proposed standards, the timeline for implementation, and the inability to regionalize the air 34
across adjacent arbitrary political lines will cost communities funding, businesses will delay or 35
cancel expansions or new investments, and the daily lives of the community will be altered with 36
no cross-regional actual air quality benefit. 37
38
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Left unchanged, the proposed ambient air quality standards will 39
immediately place hundreds of counties across the nation into non-attainment status and 40
effectively halt economic development projects, negatively impact the lives of the residents of 41
those regions, and effectively tax existing industries to come into compliance irrespective of the 42
source of the pollutant in the region. Driving patterns will be impacted and reduced resulting in 43
less revenues being collected from the gas tax further reducing the funding available for 44
transportation projects. 45
46
Approved | Environment, Energy and Land Use Steering Committee | 53-3 47
48
49
Proposed Resolution on the Creation of a National Program to Allow States to Offset Air 1
Pollution Exceedances 2
3
Issue: Giving states the flexibility to manage air pollution within their borders. 4
Proposed Policy: NACo supports the creation of an EPA policy to grant states and local 5
governments the authority to leverage air quality improvements in one region to offset the non-6
attainment status of another adjacent region during the same period to avoid non-attainment 7
status in the region whose air quality exceeds the current standards. 8
Approved | Environment, Energy and Land Use Steering Committee | Unanimous 9
10
Proposed Resolution on Executive Order Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management 11
Standard 12
13
Issue: The President issued an executive order creating a Federal Flood Risk Management 14
Standard (FFRMS) that directs all agencies to use one of three resiliency criteria in their policies, 15
projects, and programs receiving federal funding. 16
17
Proposed Policy: NACo urges the comment period on Executive Order 13690 be extended until 18
June 30, 2015 and that the President and Congress direct all federal agencies to engage NACo 19
and state and local government agencies prior to implementation. 20
21
Background: On January 30, 2015, President Obama signed Executive Order (EO) 13690 on 22
“Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting 23
and Considering Stakeholder Input.” Among other things, EO 13690 made amendments to EO 24
11988 on Federal Policy on Floodplain Management (1977). As part of the implementation 25
process, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), on behalf of the Mitigation 26
Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG), the multi-agency group that developed the standard, 27
published a draft Guidelines for implementing the amended EO 11988 requiring all federal 28
agencies to be consistent with the FFRMS. The draft Guidelines has been released for a 60 day 29
Public Comment Period for consideration of implementation by the agencies. 30
31
The EO supplants an overarching shift in Federal Policy: 32
33
1) Away from flood control and protection to a risk management strategy. 34
From the Guidelines: “… the FFRMS reflects a transition beyond a former emphasis on 35
“flood control and protection” to a broader focus on “flood risk management.” “Changes 36
in terminologies from “protection” to a broader focus on resilience and risk management 37
reflect the recognition that floodwaters cannot be fully controlled, full protection from 38
floods cannot be provided by any measure or combination of measures, and risk cannot 39
be completely eliminated.” 40
41
2) To avoid directly or indirectly encouraging development in a floodplain. 42
From the EO: “… requires executive departments and agencies (agencies) to avoid, to the 43
extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy 44
and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct or Indirect support of floodplain 45
development wherever there is a practicable alternative.” 46
From the Guidance: “The preferred method for satisfying this requirement is to avoid 1
sites in the base floodplain.” “The Guidelines do not intend to prohibit floodplain 2
development in all cases, but rather to create a consistent government policy against such 3
development under most circumstances.” 4
5
3) The new standard is intended for all federal agencies in all actions. 6
From the Guidance: “The basic concepts expressed in Section 1 of the Order are: (1) all 7
agencies are covered; (2) all actions are covered; (3) all agencies are to affirmatively 8
carry out efforts to, and provide a good example of, sound floodplain management 9
practices; and (4) all agencies are required to act, not merely consider, reducing risk, 10
minimizing adverse impacts, and restoring and preserving floodplain values.” 11
12
4) Where the previous EO relied on the use of the FEMA derived 1% annual flood 13
Plain (100yr.) for federal agency consideration, the new EO broadens the floodplain 14
by directing the agency to consider any and all actions against a floodplain defined 15
by one of the following: 16
i) A climate informed science approach that uses best available actionable data 17
and methods that integrate current and future changes in flooding based on 18
climate science. 19
ii) Expanding the horizontal and vertical size of the flood plain by adopting a 2 20
foot freeboard above the FEMA NFIP base flood Elevation for non-critical 21
actions and a 3 foot freeboard for critical actions. 22
iii) Using the 0.2 percent annual chance flood (500 year). 23
iv) Using another elevation and flood hazard area identified in a future update of 24
the FFRMS. 25
26
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: If Implemented, Executive Order 13690 could prohibit federal 27
agencies from making any federal investment in the expanded floodplain through any policy, 28
project, or program. Possible federal programs/projects impacted could include: SBA, HUD, 29
DOTD, TIGER grants, the National Flood Insurance Program, Federally backed home and 30
business loans, Army Corps of Engineers, USDA, and Disaster Response. 31
32
Approved | Environment, Energy and Land Use Steering Committee | 48-3 33
Approved | Justice and Public Safety Steering Committee | Voice Vote 34
35
FINANCE, PENSIONS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 1
STEERING COMMITTEE 2
3
Proposed Resolution on Federal Voting Systems Standards 4
5
Issue: Federal voting system standards. 6
7
Proposed Policy: NACo endorses the principles developed by the Future Voluntary Voting 8
System Guidelines (VVSG) Working Group that articulate a vision for the federal VVSG to 9
effectively foster innovation and reduce the costs of upgrading and purchasing voting equipment. 10
11
Background: The Help America Vote Act of 2002 required the U.S. Election Assistance 12
Commission (EAC), with assistance from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, to 13
regularly review and update nationwide standards for voting systems. The agency adopted one 14
iteration of the VVSG in 2005. An updated draft has been pending a vote since 2007. The agency 15
has not had a quorum since 2010 to move forward with that draft, let alone develop future 16
guidelines. Pending nominations were approved by the U.S. Senate late in the 113th Congress 17
and on January 13, 2015, three commissioners were sworn in. 18
19
The process has struggled to balance the twin goals of encouraging innovation and providing 20
minimum technical requirements. The costs of testing have been high and difficult to anticipate, 21
and have left counties in a position of being unable to make even minor modifications to current 22
systems while waiting for vendors to develop and test a future generation of equipment. In 23
December of 2014, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission convened a working group that 24
drafted the following statements of principle for the future development of the VVSG: 25
26
1) The purpose and scope of the VVSG must be defined and confirmed. 27
2) The VVSG (and supporting process) must be consistent with Federal Statute and Rule. 28
3) The VVSG must accurately reflect the bottom-up reality of election administration. 29
4) The application of the VVSG must benefit election administration. 30
5) The VVSG must be implementable. 31
6) The VVSG must accommodate the interoperability of election systems. 32
7) The VVSG must bridge existing standards. 33
8) The VVSG should not impose unanticipated costs onto organizations. 34
9) The VVSG must include cost analysis estimate of conformance testing. 35
10) The VVSG requirements must be technology neutral. 36
37
While the draft VVSG development goals may change over time, the spirit of these ten 38
statements is consistent with the American County Platform. 39
40
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Development of new voting system standards consistent with 41
these principles would reduce the costs of upgrading and purchasing voting equipment. 42
43
Approved | Finance, Pensions and Intergovernmental Affairs Steering Committee | 44
Unanimous 45
46
HEALTH STEERING COMMITTEE 1
2
Proposed Resolution Supporting Amendment of 42 CFR Privacy Provisions to Create a 3
Uniform Set of Regulations Based on HIPAA Privacy Rules 4
5
Issue: Interagency coordination to assist “high utilizers” 6
7
Proposed Policy: NACo supports an amendment to 42 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 8
2 privacy provisions to coordinate with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 9
(HIPAA) privacy provisions. 10
11
Background: There is a need to support the development of protocols and systems among law 12
enforcement, mental health, substance abuse, housing, corrections, and emergency medical 13
service operations to provide coordinated assistance to high utilizers. A high utilizer: (a) 14
manifests obvious signs of substance abuse, mental illness, or has been diagnosed by a qualified 15
mental health professional as having a mental illness; and (b) consumes a significantly 16
disproportionate quantity of public resources, such as emergency, housing, judicial, corrections, 17
and law enforcement services. 18
19
The privacy provisions in 42 CFR were motivated by the understanding that stigma and fear of 20
prosecution might dissuade persons with substance use disorders from seeking treatment. 42 21
CFR laws protect substance abusers’ rights and, in cases where it is more stringent, overrule 22
HIPAA regulations. HIPAA laws were passed to protect personal health information from being 23
disclosed electronically on an unsecured site and without consent. As a result, confidentiality is 24
two-fold: 1) all information identifying a person as a substance abuser is confidential and may 25
not be released without a consent by the client or legal guardian (42 CFR, Part 2), and 2) all 26
personal health information, including demographic data, that is created by the provider and 27
relates to the person’s medical or mental health, services provided, and payment falls under the 28
protection of HIPAA and may not be released without consent by the client or legal guardian. 29
30
In most cases, addiction treatment providers fall under the more stringent laws of 42 CFR, Part 2, 31
but there is still confusion about the two sets of laws that define who and what is to be protected. 32
Under 42 CFR, when a person is identified as a substance abuser no information, even 33
confirmation of the person being in treatment, may be released without a written authorization by 34
the client or guardian. In contrast, the HIPAA privacy rule is balanced so that it permits the 35
disclosure of health information needed for patient care and other important purposes (i.e., 36
coordination of care, consultation between providers and referrals). 37
38
To develop and support multidisciplinary teams that coordinate, implement, and administer 39
community-based crisis responses and long-term plans for high utilizers, a uniform set of privacy 40
rules for the proper dissemination of information between agencies needs to exist. Information 41
sharing is essential to the coordination of care across service providers. The confusion caused by 42
the differences between HIPAA and 42 CFR often result in reduced information sharing and 43
coordination, even when it is permissible. 44
45
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Individuals with mental illnesses are overrepresented at every 46
stage of the criminal justice process. In response, many jurisdictions have developed a range of 47
policy and programmatic responses that depend on collaboration among the criminal justice, 48
mental health, and substance abuse treatment systems. A critical component of this cross-system 1
collaboration is information sharing, particularly information about the health and treatment of 2
people with mental illnesses who are the focus of these responses. At the program level, this 3
information can be used to identify target populations for interventions, evaluate program 4
effectiveness, and determine whether programs are cost-efficient. However, legal and technical 5
barriers, both real and perceived, often prevent a smooth exchange of information among these 6
systems and impede identifying individuals with mental illness or substance abuse issues and 7
developing effective plans for appropriate diversion, treatment, and transition from a criminal 8
justice setting back into the community. 9
10
Approved | Health Steering Committee | Unanimous 11
12
13
Proposed Resolution on Changes to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 14
Act 15
16
Issue: Treatment providers for substance abuse disorders such as opiate abuse are not always 17
fully aware of what the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) does/does 18
not allow when it comes to disclosing patient safety concerns to appropriate parties (i.e. family 19
members or law enforcement officials). Furthermore, treatment providers are confined by strict 20
language within HIPAA, which indicates disclosure is limited to when there is a threat of both 21
“serious and imminent” danger to the patient or others. 22
23
Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to amend language in HIPAA to clarify that treatment 24
providers may disclose their concerns about a patient’s safety to appropriate parties when they 25
believe in “good faith” that there is a threat of "serious or imminent" danger to the patient or 26
others. Currently, disclosure is limited to when there is a threat of “serious and imminent” danger 27
to the patient or others. 28
29
Background: The usage of opiates is a growing concern among residents of communities across 30
the United States. Heroin (opiate) usage has increased 100 percent in the last five years with 1.5 31
million users in the United States. A 23 year old male from Illinois passed away in January 2014 32
as a result of a relapse with opiates. The young man’s treatment providers did not notify his 33
parents that he had signed himself out of treatment against medical advice. If treatment providers 34
had a clear understanding of when they can disclose their concerns about young man’s safety to 35
his parents or law enforcement, the young man may be alive today. 36
37
Fiscal/Rural/Urban Impact: This policy change would better enable local substance abuse 38
providers and law enforcement officials to address the increasing abuse of opiates and help 39
prevent unnecessary relapses, recidivism, and even fatalities. When substance abuse providers 40
are able to disclose to appropriate parties (including local law enforcement officials) when their 41
patients are in “serious or imminent” danger, individuals have a better chance of getting the help 42
they need and preventing harm to themselves and members of the public. In the long run, they 43
have a better chance of overcoming their addiction and not being unnecessarily involved in the 44
county justice system. These changes to HIPAA will work in concert with other efforts at local, 45
state, and federal levels to comprehensively address opiate abuse and overdose deaths that are 46
devastating our nation’s counties. 47
48
Approved | Health Steering Committee | 18-7 49
1
2
Proposed Resolution on the Medicaid Institution for Mental Disease Exclusion 3
4
Issue: Needed revisions to the Medicaid Institution for Mental Disease (IMD) exclusion. 5
6
Proposed Policy: NACo calls on Congress to amend, but not eliminate, the current IMD 7
exclusion for adults between ages 21 and 64, as follows: 8
9
For non-hospital, community-based mental health and substance use residential care for adults 10
ages 21 to 64, the exclusion should be revised to reflect modern evidence based practices and 11
current economic realities. Thus, for persons ages 21 to 64 served in these non-hospital 12
residential placements of size 17 and larger through evidence based programs, up to 90 days of 13
care per year should be eligible for federal reimbursement. Beyond 90 days, the IMD exclusion 14
should still remain in effect. 15
16
For hospital-based mental health and substance use care for adults ages 21 to 64, the exclusion 17
should be revised to reflect improvements and efficiencies that have been made in hospital-based 18
care, plus the economic reality of modern managed care, which assures that only the most 19
minimal, necessary, inpatient care is provided. Thus, for persons ages 21 to 64 served in these 20
hospital placements of size 17 and larger through evidence-based programs, up to 15 days of care 21
per year should be eligible for reimbursement. Beyond 15 days, the IMD exclusion should 22
remain in effect. 23
24
Background: Since the founding of the federal-state Medicaid Program in 1965, inpatient 25
hospital care in a psychiatric hospital for persons with mental illness, including a substance use 26
condition, has been excluded from federal reimbursement. Facilities meeting these criteria were 27
defined as IMDs. Over the intervening years, exemptions were granted gradually for children 28
and youth, elderly persons, and facilities with 16 or fewer beds. However, in the same period, the 29
exclusion has not been revised to take account of developments in community based mental 30
health and substance use care, reforms due to the Affordable Care Act, new financing models, 31
such as case and capitation rate reimbursement, and modern managed care practices. Thus, it is 32
timely to revisit the IMD exclusion. 33
34
Modern mental health and substance use care practices, coupled with modern managed care 35
practices, have reduced inpatient care to a minimum. Hence, the original IMD argument 36
regarding overuse of inpatient care no longer is valid. Hence, when actually needed, inpatient 37
and residential care should be a viable option for providers. 38
39
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: These policies will not require additional county resources, rather 40
just slight adjustment of current practice. The impact of these policies will be substantial not only 41
in urban areas, but will also affect rural areas, where such inpatient and residential services 42
currently are very sparse. 43
44
Approved | Health Steering Committee | Unanimous 45
Approved | Justice and Public Safety Steering Committee | Unanimous 46
47
48
49
Proposed Resolution on the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program 1
2
Issue: The eligibility of county jails for designation as health professional shortage areas for the 3
purpose of the National Health Service Corps. 4
5
Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to amend the National Health Service Corps loan 6
repayment program to allow county and municipal jails to be eligible for the program. Currently 7
county jails are prohibited from being desimentalnated as health professional shortage areas. 8
NACo urges Congress to review this policy and allow county and municipal jails to be 9
designated as health professional shortage areas. 10
11
Background: The National Health Service Corps was established in 1970 and is a scholarship 12
and loan repayment program that helps underserved communities across the nation receive 13
medical care. Since 2011 county and municipal jails have not been eligible to take part in this 14
program even if the county is in a health professional shortage area. Federal and state prisons are 15
still eligible for this program. 16
17
Not being eligible for loan repayment hurts in recruitment and as a result there are many medical 18
professional positions that county jails are no longer able to fill. Providers who are interested in 19
filling positions inquire about National Health Service Corps eligibility and acknowledge that 20
ineligibility is a major factor in not accepting a position at a county jail. This difficulty in 21
recruiting medical professionals could jeopardize access to much needed care at county jails as 22
inmates tend to be in poorer health than other age matched local populations. 23
24
Jails tend to have sizeable populations with behavioral health issues. Adequate staffing in jails is 25
critical in serving those with mentally illness and substance use disorders that are a significant 26
proportion of the local jail population. 27
28
Fiscal Impact: Would allow medical professionals at county jails to be eligible for loan 29
repayment programs. 30
31
Approved | Health Steering Committee | Unanimous 32
Approved | Justice and Public Safety Steering Committee | Unanimous 33
34
35
Proposed Resolution on Maintenance of Effort for Essential Support Services for Persons 36
with Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities 37
38
Issue: State and local maintenance of effort for support services for persons with behavioral 39
health and developmental disabilities 40
41
Proposed Policy: NACo encourages, during implementation of the Affordable Care Act 42
(ACA), maintenance of effort for federal, state, county, mental health and behavioral health 43
authorities and city general revenue funds for social support programs that serve persons with 44
behavioral health and developmental disabilities, including the newly insured disability 45
population; these programs, particularly affordable housing and job supports, must be available 46
so that persons with disabilities can become and remain fully independent in their home 47
communities. 48
49
Background: Close coordination across health and social service programs is essential to assure 1
the effectiveness of care and supports for persons with disabilities. County behavioral health and 2
developmental disability authorities are concerned that appropriate support programs should be 3
available to persons with disabilities, including the newly insured, as we implement the ACA, 4
and that care coordination should be available to make these support programs operate 5
efficiently. 6
7
Health services are less effective and more costly when needed social services are either not 8
available or are not coordinated well. Failure to maintain care for these individuals will result in 9
increased costs to emergency departments, local law enforcement/public safety, and social 10
services in communities. Requiring state and local maintenance of effort addresses this problem 11
directly, both for the currently insured and the new populations to be insured through the ACA. 12
Maintaining the supports provided by the county behavioral health system is important for 13
persons with disabilities to be able to live independently in their own communities. 14
15
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: These policies will not require additional resources, rather just 16
maintenance of current effort. However, over the longer run, this investment will pay off in a 17
greater contribution of persons with disabilities to the economic recovery and productivity of the 18
United States. The impact of these policies will be substantial not only in urban areas, but will 19
also greatly affect rural areas, where such services are currently very sparse. 20
21
Approved | Health Steering Committee | Voice Vote 22
Approved | Human Services and Education Steering Committee | Unanimous 23
24
25
Proposed Resolution on Treatment of Substance Use Conditions 26
27
Issue: Need for new policy on treatment for substance use conditions 28
29
Proposed Policy: Treatment for substance use conditions should be based upon proven 30
evidence based practices, including, when appropriate and necessary, medication assisted 31
treatment. Such care always should be accompanied by assessments of improvement and 32
outcome to assure that the care provided actually is working. 33
34
Background: Together, the advent of health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act 35
for substance use conditions, other recent legislation on parity of substance use insurance 36
benefits, and recent developments in treatment of these conditions increase the necessity for 37
counties to develop an overarching policy on substance use care. 38
39
The Essential Health Benefit, which defines mandatory insurance coverage for the state Health 40
Insurance Marketplace and the state Medicaid Expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), 41
includes a parity substance use care benefit and a medication benefit. This represents the first 42
time that most private and public clients with substance use conditions will have access to 43
covered substance use services. At the same time, evidence-based treatment practices have 44
evolved to include new medication assisted treatments, each with demonstrated good 45
effectiveness This Proposed Resolution is an effort to improve substance use care directly, both 46
for the currently insured and the new populations to be insured through the ACA. 47
48
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: These policies will not require additional resources, rather just 1
maintenance of current effort because of how Affordable Care Act health insurance is funded. 2
However, over the longer run, this investment will pay off in a greater contribution of persons 3
with substance use disabilities to the economic recovery and productivity of the United States. 4
The impact of these policies will be substantial not only in urban areas, but will also greatly 5
affect rural areas, where such substance use services currently are very sparse. 6
7
Approved | Health Steering Committee | Unanimous 8
9
HUMAN SERVICES AND EDUCATION STEERING COMMITTEE 1
2
Proposed Resolution Urging and Requesting Congress to Consider Reinstating Universal 3
Military Service 4
5
Issue: The burden of recent military efforts by the United States has impacted communities 6
significantly as a result of a volunteer military. 7
8
Proposed Policy: NACO urges and requests the United States Congress to consider reinstating 9
universal military service for men and women during its current and future consideration of the 10
authorization for use of military force. 11
12
Background: The shift from a conscription based military to a volunteer military in 1973 has 13
resulted in unintended consequences for both society and government in our nation. 14
15
The decision to establish a volunteer military is leading to a chasm between the military and the 16
rest of society. This chasm is only widened by recent revelations regarding the quality of medical 17
care afforded current and retired members of the military. 18
19
The economic justification for a volunteer military disregards the moral hazard of one party 20
choosing to force involvement in a high risk situation knowing that someone else likely will bear 21
the costs. Or, put another way, assuming that economic status correlates with political power, 22
those who are recruited into the military (low economic power) have less participation in the 23
decision to place the military in harm’s way than those who are the decision makers (high 24
economic power). 25
26
And, last but certainly not least, universal military service would reestablish the principle that 27
service to one’s country is an obligation, not an advertising slogan. And universal military 28
service would restore the military’s proper place in society instead of being offered as an 29
economic option for those who do not have alternatives. Plus universal military service would 30
strengthen Congress’s role in use of the military. 31
32
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: The volunteer military has not been able to supply sufficient forces 33
to prosecute recent and current military efforts overseas. The current system of relying on 34
Reserves and National Guard to make up the slack in available forces for recent military efforts 35
has had a significant impact on communities in that citizens - rooted in their communities and 36
holding down jobs and parenting children in those communities – are being ripped out of those 37
communities for repeated, lengthy tours of duty overseas. 38
39
Approved | Human Services and Education Steering Committee | 16-12 40
41
JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY STEERING COMMITTEE 1
2
Proposed Resolution on Funding to Combat Child Sex Trafficking and to Assist its Victims 3
4
Issue: The commercial sex trafficking of children in urban and rural communities throughout 5
the nation 6
7
Proposed Policy: NACo supports increased Department of Justice (DOJ) funding for grants to 8
state and local governments to combat child sex trafficking and assist its victims, including 9
funding for victim-centered services, law enforcement, training, and multi-agency collaborations. 10
Congress should enact legislation to authorize and appropriate additional funding for such grants, 11
and the DOJ should allocate a higher percentage of its trafficking victim services appropriations 12
for grants to state and local governments. 13
14
Background: The trafficking of children for commercial sex is widely believed to be a 15
pervasive problem throughout the United States though the exact number of victims is unknown 16
due to the lack of nationwide reporting and data collection. There is a growing recognition that 17
children arrested for prostitution should be treated as victims who are in need of services and 18
protection rather than as offenders who should be punished. Studies, in fact, have found that 19
most child sex trafficking victims have a prior history of child sexual abuse, have been in the 20
child welfare system, or have run away from home. 21
22
Child victims typically are identified when they are arrested by law enforcement and enter the 23
juvenile justice system. Training is needed on how to better identify at-risk youth and victims, 24
both before and after arrest, and how to better supervise and serve victims. Instead of 25
incarceration, children who are arrested for prostitution need to be protected and a wide array of 26
services, ranging from food and shelter to health, mental health, counseling and other supportive 27
services. Given the role of county governments in law enforcement, juvenile justice, child 28
welfare, and the delivery of health, mental health, and social services, counties are well-equipped 29
to play a leading role in combatting child sex trafficking and helping its victims. 30
31
At the federal level, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has the lead responsibility for combatting 32
human trafficking (including child sex trafficking) and administering human trafficking grants. 33
To date, the DOJ’s Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), which administers such grants, has 34
provided very little funding to state and local governments with which to combat child sex 35
trafficking and assist its victims. This is largely because the amount appropriated for OVC grants 36
has been small and because none of the grant funding has been aimed at funding state and local 37
child sex trafficking services or projects. 38
39
The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Public Law 113-4) importantly 40
authorized two new state and local grant programs to combat trafficking: (1) a sex trafficking 41
grant to provide a wide range of coordinated services to child sex trafficking victims for which 42
$8 million a year is authorized in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2014 through 2017; and (2) a grant for law 43
enforcement to develop or strengthen programs to investigate and prosecute human trafficking 44
and to train law enforcement personnel for which $10 million a year is authorized in FYs2014 45
through 2017. These new programs were not funded in FY2014. However, Congress nearly 46
tripled the appropriation for trafficking victim services from $14.25 million in FY2014 to $42.25 47
million in FY2015, and provided DOJ with the authority to use part of this appropriation to fund 48
these state and local grants. As of January 28, 2015, DOJ has not yet announced whether it 1
would fund these new grants in FY2015. 2
3
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: The sexual exploitation and trafficking of children contributes to 4
higher law enforcement, juvenile justice, child welfare, health, and other costs, including major 5
costs after victims become adults because they often suffer lasting health and mental health 6
problems and are at-greater risk of becoming incarcerated, impoverished, and homeless. 7
Children are victimized by child sex trafficking in urban rural counties alike. All counties, 8
therefore, would benefit if increased Federal funding were authorized and appropriated by 9
Congress and awarded by DOJ for state and local grants to combat child sex trafficking and 10
assist its victims. 11
12
Approved | Justice and Public Safety Steering Committee | Unanimous 13
14
Proposed Resolution Urging the Federal Government to Suspend, Instead of Terminate, 15
Medicaid Coverage for Incarcerated Individuals 16
17
Issue: Medicaid benefits may be withdrawn when an individual is incarcerated as opposed to 18
convicted. 19
20
Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to pass legislation that: 21
(a) amends federal law to prohibit states from terminating eligibility for individuals who 22
are inmates of public institutions or residents of IMDs based solely on their status as 23
inmates or residents; and 24
(b) requires states to establish a process under which an inmate or resident of an Institute 25
for Mental Disease, who continues to meet all applicable eligibility requirements, is 26
placed in a suspended status so that the state does not claim FFP for services the 27
individual receives, but the person remains on the state’s rolls as being eligible for 28
Medicaid; and 29
(c) Once release or discharge from the facility is anticipated, require states to take 30
whatever steps are necessary to ensure that an eligible individual is placed in payment 31
status so that he or she can begin receiving Medicaid-covered services immediately 32
upon leaving the facility. 33
34
Background: Medicaid benefits may be withdrawn when an individual is incarcerated; and 35
currently, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) allows for and encourages 36
states to suspend rather than terminate Medicaid eligibility when a person is incarcerated or 37
detained in a public institution or Institute for Mental Disease (IMD). Suspension of Medicaid 38
coverage allows for quicker reinstatement of benefits when a person leaves a public institution or 39
IMD and fewer challenges in obtaining mental health, substance abuse, and other health services 40
upon community re-entry. When a state terminates instead of suspends coverage, it can take 41
months for an individual to be reapproved for Medicaid upon release from custody. 42
43
Currently, thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia terminate Medicaid coverage when an 44
individual is incarcerated. Terminating instead of suspending creates a disruption in access to 45
needed medical, mental health, and substance abuse treatment services for individuals to re-enter 46
the community, which can impact health outcomes, lead to re-arrest, and contribute to 47
homelessness. 48
1
Current federal law (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(29)(A)) prohibits the use of federal funds for 2
individuals while they are incarcerated, with the exception of a 24-hour inpatient care provided 3
to inmates outside of a jail. The statutory federal financial participation (FFP) exclusion applying 4
to inmates of public institutions and residents of IMDs affects only the availability of federal 5
funds under Medicaid for health services provided to that individual while he or she is an inmate 6
of a public institution or a resident of an IMD. The payment exclusion under Medicaid that 7
relates to individuals residing in a public institution or an IMD does not affect the eligibility of 8
an individual for the Medicaid program and individuals who meet the requirements for eligibility 9
for Medicaid may be enrolled in the program before, during, and after the time in which they are 10
held involuntarily in secure custody of a public institution or as a resident of an IMD. 11
12
The States that currently suspend Medicaid benefits when an individual is incarcerated include: 13
California, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts (recently passed legislation 14
requiring suspension and is in the process of creating a plan for its suspension and reactivation 15
procedure), Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon and Texas (suspends for only 16
30 days, then terminates). 17
18
Suspension of Medicaid coverage permits an individual incarcerated or detained in a public 19
institution or IMD to remain on the Medicaid rolls in a suspended status, which retains his or her 20
eligibility for Medicaid coverage while cutting off payment of benefits during incarceration or 21
detention. The importance of suspension instead of termination to Counties (Counties run the 22
jails) includes ensuring access to care which improves public safety, public health and county 23
budgets. For example, a Monterey County, CA study found that inmates from the county jail 24
who received treatment for behavioral health disorders after release spent an average of 51.74 25
fewer days in jail per year. 26
27
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Counties could experience a decline in resources spent on 28
delivering health and human services to those covered by Medicaid while incarcerated. Urban 29
and rural areas would be affected similarly. 30
31
Approved | Justice and Public Safety Steering Committee | Unanimous 32
Approved | Health Steering Committee | Unanimous 33
34
Proposed Resolution Urging Federal, State and Local Adoption of a Presumption Against 35
the Use of Unnecessary Restraints of Juveniles in Court 36
37
Issue: Many youth in custody are forced to appear in court proceedings in restraints that 38
unnecessarily humiliate, stigmatize and traumatize young people. Restraining youth who pose no 39
safety threat is inconsistent with the rehabilitative goals of juvenile justice. 40
41
Proposed Policy: NACo urges federal, state and local government adoption of a presumption 42
against the use of unnecessary restraints of juveniles in court and to only allow restraints after an 43
in-person opportunity to be heard and a finding that restraints are the least restrictive means 44
necessary to prevent flight or harm to the juvenile or others. 45
46
Background: Models for Change states that: “Many youth in custody are forced to appear in 47
court shackled with leg irons, belly chains, and handcuffs. The practice of restraining youth who 48
pose no safety threat unnecessarily humiliates, stigmatizes, and traumatizes young people. 1
Shackling youth is inconsistent with the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system and 2
offends due process.” Additionally, the Campaign Against Indiscriminate Juvenile Shackling 3
notes the following harms when youth are restrained in court proceedings: “The indiscriminate 4
shackling of youth unnecessarily humiliates, stigmatizes, and traumatizes them. The practice 5
impedes the attorney-client relationship, chills juveniles’ constitutional right to due process, runs 6
counter to the presumption of innocence, and draws into question the rehabilitative ideals of the 7
juvenile court.” 8
9
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Fiscal impact if it exist, is minimal. No difference among urban 10
and rural impacts. 11
12
Approved | Justice and Public Safety Steering Committee | Unanimous 13
14
Proposed Resolution on Reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice Delinquency 15
Prevention Act 16
17
Issue: The Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act has not been reauthorized since 2002. 18
19
Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to support the reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice 20
and Delinquency Prevention Act. 21
22
Background: This act brings significant benefits to juvenile justice reform efforts. The Act 23
endeavors to keep children out of the juvenile and criminal justice system creating significant 24
obstacles to their future opportunities. JJDPA will save local jurisdictions services, police, 25
juvenile courts and detention services as well as significant costs. JJDPA aims to represent 26
alternatives to juveniles that merit assistance and alternative opportunities. JJDPA will assist in 27
furthering efforts of prevention and diversion of youthful offenders and delinquent acts. The 28
reauthorization will strengthen the JJDPA’s requirements related to incarceration of youth in 29
adult jails and addressing racial and ethnic disproportionality within juvenile justice systems. 30
31
Impact: Fiscal impact: could decrease county costs related to incarcerating juveniles. No 32
difference among urban and rural impacts. 33
34
Approved | Justice and Public Safety Steering Committee | Unanimous 35
36
37
PUBLIC LANDS STEERING COMMITTEE 1
2
Proposed Resolution Supporting the Delisting of the American Burying Beetle 3
4
Issue: Delisting the American Burying Beetle from the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 5
6
Proposed Policy: NACo urges removal of the American Burying Beetle from the list of 7
endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 8
9
Background: The American Burying Beetle (ABB) is protected under the Endangered Species 10
Act (ESA) in the states of Arkansas, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, 11
Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Texas. In 1989, Fewer than 12 American Burying 12
Beetles (ABB) were believed to exist in Eastern Oklahoma and around 520 beetles were off the 13
coast of Rhode Island. Today, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), who oversees the ESA 14
program, has identified an ABB population in the Midwest region that far exceeds the targets it 15
set in its 1991 recovery plan. In Nebraska, there is estimated to be more than 3,000 ABB, making 16
it among the largest known populations, even though none were known to exist there prior to 17
1989. In Oklahoma, the ABB population is believed to be well into the thousands and exists in 18
45 of the 77 counties. The total number of populations has increased from one (1) to six (6) 19
between 1990 and 2005. 20
21
The American Burying Beetle’s population growth has occurred despite very limited recovery 22
projects by the FWS, underscoring how little we actually know about the ABB and its risk of 23
extinction. ESA is designed to protect species that may go extinct, and the ABB is showing signs 24
of increasing resiliency. According to U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), delisting the ABB is an 25
appropriate step given the expansion of the population since 1989 and the lack of understanding 26
about what may pose a risk to the species’ health. 27
28
This listing has prevented and slowed counties, cities and states from completing infrastructure 29
projects that contribute to the overall vitality and economy of our counties. The delisting of the 30
beetle would relieve our counties of unnecessary regulation, mitigation and financial costs. We 31
continue to suffer from the impacts of this listing as the range of the ABB grows, compounded 32
with the historic mitigation requirements. This regulation is costing tax payers unnecessarily and 33
diverting shrinking funds that could be used on critical infrastructure that promotes economic 34
development. 35
36
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: The removal of the ABB from the endangered species list under 37
ESA would allow counties to continue to use valuable citizen resources for needed infrastructure 38
projects without the overreaching regulatory and financial costs that are no longer needed. 39
40
Approved | Public Lands Steering Committee | Unanimous 41
42
On Opposing the Proposed Listing of the Black Pine Snake as a Threatened Species by the 43
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 44
45
Issue: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed listing the black pine snake as a threatened 46
species 47
48
Proposed Policy: NACo urges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to withdraw the proposed 1
listing of the black pine snake as a threatened species. 2
3
Background: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed listing the black pine snake as a 4
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, adversely impacting not only 5
future development but also existing land uses in parts of fourteen south Mississippi counties, 6
including the DeSoto National Forest, and parts of Alabama and Louisiana. The proposed listing 7
contemplates special rules to be implemented in the affected areas that will adversely impact the 8
active management of timber resources, current military training activities at Camp Shelby 9
critical to the local and regional economy and to the national security of the United States, and 10
industrial, commercial, and residential development. 11
12
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: In addition to the loss of tax revenue from private activities, the 13
proposed listing will adversely impact future public activities in the affected areas, which include 14
not only Camp Shelby but also thousands of acres of sixteenth section lands held in trust for the 15
benefit of public schools and the routes of existing and planned roadways, highways, and other 16
public infrastructure. The listing will also require expensive surveying and potential long-term 17
monitoring of black pine snake populations, imposing undue economic burdens on taxpayers 18
even in the absence of future development. The listing comprises yet another unnecessary 19
restriction on the economic productivity of south Mississippi and adjoining states, where 20
extensive lands held by the federal government are already barred from development and exempt 21
from local taxation. 22
23
Approved | Public Lands Steering Committee | Unanimous 24
25
Proposed Resolution to Allow the Re-Classification of Diseased and Insect Infested Forest 26
Products 27
28
Issue: The abundance of forest products (trees) that are affected by disease and insect 29
infestation, yet still classified as a Federal Asset and regulated as such. 30
31
Proposed Policy: NACo urges the Federal land management agencies to establish the ability of 32
local land managers to reclassify trees and timber products that have been affected by insect 33
infestation or disease to a classification that would allow for the removal of these products 34
without the accountability and oversight necessary for the harvesting of undamaged (green) 35
timber for commercial use. 36
37
Background: At this time it is estimated that there are over 4.5 million acres of federal lands 38
affected by disease and insect infestation. This dead and dying timber effects public safety, 39
ecosystems, and economies. Vast amounts of dead trees also pose a threat of promoting 40
catastrophic wildfires. As a result of this these products become a liability to our communities 41
and public lands. 42
43
Historically timber products on National Forest System and other public lands are classified as 44
national assets. This naturally and logically requires careful accountability, oversight and 45
responsibility by those federal land managers delegated responsibility for management of federal 46
assets. In the Forest Service, this is line officers (i.e. District Rangers, Forest Supervisors, 47
Regional Foresters, etc.) 48
1
Although the management of federal land always comes with a cost to the taxpayer, the 2
management of treatments associated with recognized federal liability or not having federal 3
assets is much lower. This is mainly due to not having the added burden of oversight and 4
tracking of the federal asset. 5
6
An example using the fuels treatment analogy above is in the southwest (Colo., N.M., Ariz., etc.) 7
where there are extensive treatments to pinion and juniper woodlands adjacent to communities to 8
reduce fuel loads. These are generally done with biomass removal service contracts at a very 9
low cost per acre compared to a timber sale. The accountability and oversight regulations are 10
much lower in this example, thus the much reduced “up front” cost to the land management 11
agency and ultimately the taxpayer. 12
13
The ability to re-classify acreage of dead or dying timber would both reduce risk on our public 14
lands as well as establish a mechanism to economically remove the product for uses other than 15
conventional lumber. 16
17
Fiscal/ Rural Impact: Diseased and infested forest lands pose a significant threat of wildfire to 18
communities across the United States and threaten the health of our nation’s timber reserves as a 19
whole, yet the ability to remove dead, dying and infested timber from our forest lands is impeded 20
by regulations that were meant to be applied to the management of healthy timber. Supporting a 21
streamlined process for removing dead, dying and infected timber from forest lands would create 22
jobs in local communities, help prevent catastrophic wild fires and improve the health of our 23
nation’s forests as a whole. 24
25
Approved | Public Lands Steering Committee | Unanimous 26
27
Proposed Resolution on Sharing Post-Fire Litigation Settlement Funds with Counties 28
29
Issue: The continuing increase in catastrophic wildfire loss of timber resources on public lands 30
and its impacts on available revenue return for counties. 31
32
Proposed Policy: NACo urges the strengthening, through additional funding, by adhering to the 33
following; 16 U.S. Code 500-Payment and evaluation of receipts to State or Territory for schools 34
and road; moneys received. NACo urges Congress to change the current language in USC579c 35
to allow fire settlement dollars that are determined upon the timber value lost, to return 25 36
percent of such settlement to counties as stipulated above in 16 U.S. Code 500. This change will 37
recognize the timber revenue lost to counties by catastrophic wildfire and the Federal 38
Government's obligation to counties under the Act of May 23, 1908. 39
40
Background: With the recognition of climate change and the lack of management on public 41
lands, our public lands forests and watersheds have seen dramatic increase and losses due to an 42
increase in catastrophic wildfire. These conditions and losses are adding to the financial 43
hardship of our rural counties that are dominated by public lands. Currently losses to the public 44
land timber resource and potential revenue to counties are not recognized in USC579c when the 45
Department of Justice is awarded fire settlement dollars from such loss. As stated in 16 U.S. 46
Code 500-Payment and evaluation of receipts to State or Territory for schools and road; moneys 47
received; 48
1
On and after May 23, 1908, an amount equal to the annual average of 25 percent of all 2
amounts received for the applicable fiscal year and each of the preceding 6 fiscal years 3
from each national forest shall be paid, at the end of such year, by the Secretary of the 4
Treasury to the State or Territory in which such national forest is situated, to be expended 5
as the State or Territorial legislature may prescribe for the benefit of the public schools 6
and public roads of the county or counties in which such national forest is situated: 7
Provided, That when any national forest is in more than one State or Territory or county 8
the distributive share to each from the proceeds of such forest shall be proportional to its 9
area therein. In sales of logs, ties, poles, posts, cordwood, pulpwood, and other forest 10
products the amounts made available for schools and roads by this section shall be based 11
upon the stumpage value of the timber. 12
13
Counties should receive 25 percent of such settlements when timber loss and revenue 14
determination is part of a settlement. 15
16
NACo urges Congress to recognize this impact to counties when such a revenue income is not 17
appropriately shared with the counties with public lands. 18
19
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: This change in USC579c would provide additional funds as 20
directed by the Act of May 23, 1908 to counties with public lands. These fire settlement funds 21
would supplement the current reduction in 25 percent funds to counties that have been lost by the 22
reduction in management on our public lands. Such funds would allow for the financial support 23
of schools and roads. 24
25
Approved | Public Lands Steering Committee | Unanimous 26
Approved | Environment, Energy and Land Use Steering Committee | 48-3 27
28
Proposed Resolution Supporting Reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and 29
Community Self-Determination Act and Providing Expedited Payments for FY 2014 30
31
Issue: Urgent need to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination 32
Act (SRS) and expedite the disbursement of retroactive FY 2014 payments. 33
34
Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to reauthorize SRS for FFY 2014 with an 35
appropriation equal to the full funding amount as authorized in FFY 2013. NACo further urges 36
Congress to direct SRS payments to states and counties and provide retroactive payments to 37
counties in FFY 2014 expeditiously. 38
39
In order to expedite payments, NACo is urging Congress to eliminate barriers and provide the 40
flexibility to counties with the use of Title I, II and III funds. 41
42
Background: Since 1908, federal law provided that schools and counties share in receipts 43
generated from the sale of timber from federal lands. The commitment to shared receipts was 44
given by Congress to secure public support for retention of forest lands under federal 45
management, and beyond the reach of local school and county taxing authority. Over the last 25 46
years, schools and counties experienced substantial declines in funding due to steep declines in 47
federal timber harvests. In 2000, Congress passed SRS to provide payments to help support 48
schools and county services, with payments made soon after the end of each federal fiscal year 1
(FY). 2
3
The SRS legislation was adopted to replace a portion of those lost revenues until management 4
actions on federal lands could restore harvest revenue levels to acceptable levels. NACo has 5
supported and continues to support the SRS program as a temporary substitute that should be 6
continued only until necessary land management reforms are implemented. 7
8
The SRS program has always made payments retroactively, for the previous fiscal year, 9
following the historic timber harvest revenue sharing model, under which payments were always 10
made for a particular fiscal year after the close of that fiscal year. The SRS payment that was 11
made during FY2014 was made for FY2013. No payment has been made for FY2014. 12
13
SRS has always required eligible counties to make a complicated series of choices (elections) 14
regarding participation and allocation of portions of SRS payment amounts to projects under 15
Title II and Title III. The normal elections process is time consuming and requires at least 6 16
months to complete before SRS payments can finally be made. A reauthorization that eliminates 17
the elections process would permit delivery of the full payment amounts within 30 days. 18
19
It is urgently necessary for Congress to reauthorize SRS for one year with provisions making it 20
possible for the FY2014 payment to be made on an expedited basis. 21
22
Fiscal Impact: Reauthorization of SRS as requested would result in prompt payments totaling 23
$328,961,250 to 746 counties across 41 states and Puerto Rico. 24
25
Approved | Public Lands Steering Committee | Unanimous 26
27
Proposed Resolution Supporting Revised Wildfire Disaster Funding 28
29
Issue: Needed mechanisms to fund wildfire suppression adequately and stop counterproductive 30
“fire borrowing” 31
32
Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to enact legislation like the Wildfire Disaster Funding 33
Act so that the budgets of the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management will have 34
protection of its resources appropriately devoted to hazardous fuel treatments through active 35
management of the federally owned landscape, rather than having those resources drained by 36
wildland fire suppression. 37
38
Background: Federal fire suppression spending has increased substantially over the past 20 39
years. Most recent fire seasons have cost upwards of $1 billion, compared to $200 million in the 40
1990s. Spending to fight these infernos drain resources from the very programs designed to 41
prevent fires and to improve economic, social, and environmental conditions on the federally 42
owned landscape. One percent of wildland fires represent 30% of costs. Routine fire-fighting 43
costs should be funded through the normal budgeting and appropriations process, while freeing 44
as much as $412 million in discretionary funding for urgently needed active management 45
projects to improve the condition of federal lands. 46
47
The U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have been forced to spend increasing 1
proportions of their budgets on wildland fire suppression, diverting critical resources from the 2
very programs designed to prevent fires. To illustrate, the proportion of budgets of the U.S. 3
Forest Service devoted to wildland fire suppression has increased from 13 percent in 1991 to 41 4
percent in 2013. Congress should adopt legislation to move any spending above 70 percent of the 5
10-year rolling average for fire suppression outside of the agency’s baseline budget by making 6
additional costs eligible to be funded under a separate disaster account. 7
8
Fiscal Urban/Rural Impact: This concept would protect agency resources that fund on-the-9
ground active management of federal lands, increasing employment, social conditions of nearby 10
communities, and ecological conditions of federal landscapes, all to the benefit of rural and 11
urban communities alike. 12
13
Approved | Public Lands Steering Committee | Unanimous 14
15
Proposed Resolution Supporting Amending Title III of Secure Rural Schools to Provide for 16
Reimbursement of Patrol Expenditures 17
18
Issue: Support amending Title III of the Secure Rural Schools Act (SRSA) to provide for the 19
reimbursement of sheriff patrol expenditures on federal lands. 20
21
Proposed Policy: NACo supports amending Title III of the Secure Rural Schools Act (SRSA) to 22
include reimbursement to counties for sheriff patrol expenditures on eligible federal Forest 23
Service and BLM lands. Patrol expenditure reimbursements were disallowed with the release of 24
a 2012 GAO report to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Before the GAO 25
report, many counties used Title III funds to carry out routine law enforcement patrols on federal 26
land. These patrols helped reduce and deter criminal activity and enhanced the safety of visitors 27
to federal lands. County deputies are able to serve as first responders to any search and rescue or 28
other emergency situation. Limiting the ability of counties to use Title III funds for patrol on 29
federal lands has increased criminal activity and stretches the resources of sheriffs’ offices to 30
unsustainable levels. 31
32
Background: Counties containing federal lands have historically received a percentage of the 33
revenues generated by the sale or use of natural resources on these lands. A steep decline in 34
federal timber sales during the 1990s, however, significantly decreased revenues from national 35
forests managed by the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service and from some public lands 36
managed by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Secure 37
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, reauthorized in 2008, was 38
enacted in part to address this decline by stabilizing payments to counties dependent on revenues 39
from federal timber sales. The act covers all National Forest lands, as well as certain BLM lands 40
in western Oregon. 41
42
Under the Act, Title III funds can be used for, among other things, “Search and rescue and other 43
emergency services.” The definition states that a county may use funds to reimburse the 44
participating county for search and rescue and other emergency services, including firefighting, 45
that are performed on federal land and paid for by the participating county. 46
47
Many counties use Title III funds to carry out routine law enforcement patrols on federal land. 1
These patrols help reduce and deter criminal activity and enhance the safety of visitors to federal 2
lands. County deputies are able to serve as first responders to any search and rescue or other 3
emergency situation. 4
5
A July 2012 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to the Senate Committee on 6
Energy and Natural Resources disallowed law enforcement patrol expenses as eligible costs 7
under Title III. The Secretary of Agriculture was asked to review the ruling and provide more 8
flexibility to cash strapped rural counties. To date, there has been no resolution or revised 9
reimbursement rate policy implemented by the Agency. Inclusion of language in the SRSA 10
reauthorization or future extensions would provide clarity and allow sheriff patrol operations on 11
federal lands as an eligible expenditures under Title III. 12
13
Without Title III funding, many counties will not be able to provide any law enforcement 14
services on federal lands, especially given other large budget cuts already experienced. Title III 15
funds are especially critical to search and rescue operations because of worsening county fiscal 16
conditions. 17
18
Counties with significant federal lands continue to face unprecedented budget challenges. Public 19
safety, fire, school and other basic functions of local government are not being met. Limiting 20
the ability of counties to use Title III funds for patrol has increased criminal activity on federal 21
lands and stretches the resources of police and sheriffs offices to unsustainable levels. 22
23
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Would allow counties to use already allocated federal funds to 24
maintain law enforcement activity in federal forests. 25
26
Approved | Public Lands Steering Committee | Unanimous 27
Approved | Justice and Public Safety Steering Committee | Unanimous 28
29
TRANSPORTATION STEERING COMMITTEE 1
2
3
Proposed Resolution on Federal Freight Goods Movement Investment in the United States 4
5
Issue: The slowly deteriorating national surface transportation infrastructure needs real investment 6
to adequately address the continued growth of the global economy and increases in imports and 7
exports in and out of the United States. 8
9
Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to examine the viability of a new dedicated funding 10
source for freight goods movement in the reauthorization of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 11
Century Act (MAP-21) that does not take funding away from currently authorized programs. 12
NACo further supports provisions in the next surface transportation reauthorization bill that 13
incentivize freight planning at the local level. 14
15
Background: Freight is forecasted to grow, with indicators showing that United States shipments 16
will more than double between 2010 and 2040 to roughly $39.5 trillion annually, with an estimated 17
$10.3 trillion worth of goods using multiple modes of transportation each year. 18
19
By 2020, the Nation’s projected surface transportation infrastructure deficiencies are expected to 20
cost the national economy cumulatively almost $900 billion in gross domestic product, rising to 21
$2.7 billion through 2040. 22
23
An elevated focus on freight related infrastructure could allow Congress the opportunity to 24
examine whether the most effective funding allocation mechanisms to States and localities is 25
through formula, competitive grant programs or a combination of the two. An examination by 26
Congress would also need to evaluate whether the dedicated freight funding program would be 27
funded out of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) or general funds through appropriations. These funds 28
could be used for multi-modal transportation projects that expedite freight goods movement. 29
30
NACo generally supports an increased investment in federal transportation infrastructure, 31
especially when the investment expands capacity and increases efficiency for freight goods 32
movement. Creating an office to focus on the expanding list of national and local freight issues is 33
also critical to addressing federal transportation policy. 34
35
This office would work with federal, state and local officials and stakeholders on locating funding 36
and financing, on ensuring freight related projects across all transportation modes are being 37
completed in an expeditious manner and help with writing and interpreting rules and regulations 38
across the entire DOT. 39
40
NACo encourages a focus on freight goods movement because investment in this area of federal 41
transportation policy goes to the critical importance of freight to United States businesses and 42
global economic competitiveness. 43
44
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Federal freight funding would benefit states and local governments 45
all over the United States and additional staff at DOT with policy expertise on freight investment 46
would be helpful for counties all over the U.S. 47
48
Approved | Transportation Steering Committee | Unanimous 1
Tabled | Agriculture and Rural Affairs Steering Committee 2
3
Proposed Resolution on Equitable Funding and Expenditures of the Highway Trust Fund 4
5
Issue: The long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund 6
7
Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to ensure the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust 8
Fund by considering revenue sources that will better capture all users of the nation’s highways 9
and account for all vehicles. Congress should also consider reducing the allowable administrative 10
costs in order to direct more funding toward highway improvement funding. 11
12
Background: The Highway Trust Fund was established in 1956 to finance highway construction 13
and maintenance with the passage of the Federal-Aid Highway and the Highway Revenue Acts. 14
It was established at three cents per gallon and has been increased to its current rate of 18.4 cents 15
per gallon on gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon on diesel. It is comprised of three accounts, the 16
Highway Account which funds road construction and maintenance, a smaller Mass Transit 17
Account which was created in 1982 to support public transit with a one-cent increase in fuel tax 18
rates and also a Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund which is .1 cent per gallon. The 19
fund also receives earmarked funding from sales of heavy trucks and trailers as well as truck 20
tires. 21
22
The fuel tax rates have not increased since 1993 so America is trying to fund a 2015 23
transportation on 1993 dollars. The 18.4 cents per gallon rate enacted in 1993 for gasoline is 24
worth about 11.5 cents in today’s dollars. Without action by Congress the highway and transit 25
programs will sustain an estimated 92 percent cut and become reliant on general fund 26
appropriations to fund highway construction and maintenance which would be unpredictable. 27
Predictability and sustainability are essential to highway planning. 28
29
The current system of fuel tax collections does not capture equitable revenue from all users of 30
our highway system, some of which contribute little or nothing to the highway system they are 31
using, such an electric powered vehicles, vehicles using Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), 32
Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) and those having low dependency on petroleum fuels. 33
34
An October 2014 GAO Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public 35
Works, US Senate stated that in 2013, 9 percent, of the Highway Trust Fund Obligations were 36
for Safety improvements, 1 percent was for sidewalks and trails, and another 1% was for “other” 37
enhancements such as cultural enrichment activities such as beautification efforts and historic 38
preservation, rehabilitation of historic transportation buildings, structures or facilities, 39
preservation of abandoned railway corridors, control and removal of outdoor advertising, 40
mitigation of water pollution due to highway run-off and establishment of transportation 41
museums: 42
43
In fiscal year 2013, FHWA obligated about $41 billion from the Highway Trust Fund, 44
most of which (about $39 billion) was apportioned to states for activities to improve the 45
nation’s roadway and bridge infrastructure through the federal-aid highway program. Our 46
analysis of fiscal year 2013 federal-aid highway program obligations shows that states 47
obligated most of this funding for road and bridge improvements (47 percent for roads in 48
addition to 17 percent for bridges). States obligated about 20 percent of Highway Trust 1
Fund monies for project development activities including planning, engineering, and 2
acquiring rights-of-way. Additionally, 9 percent was obligated for safety, enhancements 3
and other improvements, including about 1 percent for sidewalks and bicycle trails. 4
5
The same GAO Report, on page 26, stated that in 2013 $752 million was used for administrative 6
costs, with $439 million to the Federal Highway Administration, $250 million to the Federal 7
Motor Carriers Administration and $63 million to the National Highway Traffic Safety 8
Administration. 9
10
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Will benefit both Urban and Rural counties by assuring the long-11
term sustainability of the Highway Trust Fund. 12
13
Approved | Transportation Steering Committee | Unanimous 14
15
Proposed Resolution on Local Transportation Safety Funding (SHPS Local Coordination) 16
17
Issue: Need for elevated coordination with local governments in the development of State 18
Strategic Highway Safety Plans 19
20
Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to make safety on county roads a priority in the 21
reauthorization of MAP-21 by requiring that state departments of transportation, at a minimum, 22
cooperate with local government officials (including county transportation officials) in the 23
development of State Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs) and by directing proportionate 24
Highway Safety Improvement Program funding to areas of safety concern regardless of roadway 25
ownership. 26
27
Background: Historically there has been significant variation in how the state departments of 28
transportation include counties in the development of the Strategic Highway Safety Plans 29
(SHSP) and subsequently allocate safety funding within the state based on the (SHSP). NACo 30
urges Congress to require states to “coordinate” with local governments in developing Strategic 31
Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs) Suggested Language: Section 1112 Highway Safety 32
Improvement Plan (12)(A) “is developed in coordination with local government agencies 33
responsible for highway construction and maintenance.” 34
35
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Would provide additional federal funds to counties and 36
community based organizations to address safety on local roads across the nation. 37
38
Approved | Transportation Steering Committee | Unanimous 39
40
Proposed Resolution on Local Transportation Safety Funding (Establishment of TZD 41
Grant Program) 42
43
Issue: Need for additional funding for safety improvements in the reauthorization of MAP-21 44
45
Proposed Policy: NACo supports the establishment of a federal Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) 46
grant program that will provide funding to local governments and non-profit organizations for 47
the purpose of implementing proven safety practices and programs. 48
1
Background: Several States have currently adopted and implemented TZD at the state level, 2
which has proven successful in the reduction of incidents and resulted in increased transportation 3
safety. NACo urges Congress to establish Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) Grants to local and non-4
profit organizations to implement proven safety practices and programs on the local 5
transportation system to increase transportation safety across the nation. 6
7
Suggested Language: Toward Zero Deaths.—‘‘(1) The Secretary shall make grants available to 8
local agencies and non-profit organizations for development and implementation of Toward Zero 9
Deaths programs ‘‘(2) ROLE OF THE GRANTS.—To achieve the goals of achieving Toward 10
Zero Deaths, recipients of grants shall provide technical assistance, information sharing of best 11
practices, and training in the use of tools and decision making processes that can assist local 12
agencies in effectively implementing Toward Zero Death programs. 13
14
Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Would provide additional federal funds to counties and 15
community based organizations to address safety on Local roads across the nation. 16
17
Approved | Transportation Steering Committee | Unanimous 18
19