Building liveable cities for NC’s future.
News Archives
ltColExample
Our Mission
To promote strategies to advance North Carolina’s urban centers.

CITIES IN OUR COALITION

Archive for September, 2009

Shortchanged again, WNC demands highway dollars back (Smokey Mountain News)

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

Shortchanged again, WNC demands highway dollars back

Western North Carolina has steadily lost out on tens of millions in federal highway dollars over the past decade, despite the money being specifically earmarked for the region.

Mountain leaders sent a message to both Raleigh and Washington this week to restore a special pot of money for highway projects in the mountains. The money was being siphoned off by Raleigh and doled out across the entire state rather than going to WNC as intended by federal legislation dating back to 1965.

“This money was set aside to help the far western counties, but over time it got put into the general pool,” said Ronnie Beale, Macon County commissioner chairman.

The special pot of highway money was supposed to improve the lot of Appalachian people. The region historically suffered from higher poverty and unemployment rates. Its isolation and lack of high-speed highways was considered a major culprit.

The interstate system connecting the rest of the country largely bypassed Appalachia, skirting the rugged region when possible due to high costs of road construction in the mountains. To counter the topographic challenges and rectify the isolation brought about by lack of highways, federal lawmakers earmarked a special pot of money each year to fund the Appalachian Development Highway System.

But a minor accounting change that occurred in the mid-1990s kept the money from reaching its intended destination. Instead of arriving as a special appropriation, the money was bundled along with the rest of the federal transportation budget when being sent to the state. The state claimed it could not unbundle the money. Once bundled in with the rest, the state claimed it was obligated to divvy it up among the entire state as it did the rest of the federal transportation money.

“It wasn’t considered extra money, and North Carolina law says if it is not extra money, it gets caught up in the state’s distribution formula,” said Joel Setzer, head of the N.C. Department of Transportation Division 14, a 10-county mountain region. “It is my belief that violates the spirit of the Appalachian program. It is a belief shared by many,” Setzer said.

A committee of leaders from six counties that comprise the Southwestern Regional Transportation Planning Organization adopted a resolution this week condemning the practice. The committee includes commissioners from six counties and mayors of several towns. The resolution calls on the special highway funding to be restored to the region. In particular, it asks the federal government to separate the money from the rest of the state’s transportation budget so the state wouldn’t face the challenge of unbundling it.

The special federal pot designated for WNC is supposed to be $30 million a year. One road project that stands to benefit from the Appalachian highway construction dollars is a missing link of Corridor K (see related article.) The road would blaze a four-lane highway around Robbinsville, relieving a narrow two-lane bottleneck for people traveling to Murphy. It has been in the planning stages for decades, but carries a price tag of nearly $800 million to finish a 17-mile missing link through Graham County.

Setzer suggested that the message would carry even more weight if a similar resolution was adopted by counties and towns across the region. Macon and Graham counties have already done so. “We have to keep hollering louder and louder and louder,” Beale said. The state has stockpiled some of the money, with around $150 million accumulated but unspent, Setzer said. Setzer hopes the mountains can draw from the funds once the accounting classification is changed.

By Becky Johnson • Staff writer

Week of 9/30/09

The Countdown Clock Is On for Federal Transportation Funding

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

Here’s the latest and greatest out of DC. 

The Continuing Appropriations Resolution (CR), passed by the House and being debated in the Senate today, should be voted on at 5:30pm.  This is the bill to fund the federal government whose fiscal year ends tonight and begins anew tomorrow, October 1st.  Through a technical mishap, the one month extension of federal highway money is not included at this point. 

In order for the one month extension to be a part of the CR the Senate must have unanimous consent to allow a vote on H. Con. Res. 191.  If this does not happen federal transportation funding will be cut off tomorrow. 

Now the “unless.”  The Senate is also trying to negotiate unanimous consent to allow a vote today to extend federal transportation funding for three months in a separate bill.  This is considered more of a long shot. 

Might this three month extension bill include a repeal of the rescission?  The House has said they will only consider legislation from the Senate on the repeal that includes a $490m offsetting spending reduction to cover the cost. 

I will let you know what happens at the end of the day!   

Julie

The Countdown Clock Is On for Federal Transportation Funding

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

Here’s the latest and greatest out of DC. 

The Continuing Appropriations Resolution (CR), passed by the House and being debated in the Senate today, should be voted on at 5:30pm.  This is the bill to fund the federal government whose fiscal year ends tonight and begins anew tomorrow, October 1st.  Through a technical mishap, the one month extension of federal highway money is not included at this point. 

In order for the one month extension to be a part of the CR the Senate must have unanimous consent to allow a vote on H. Con. Res. 191.  If this does not happen federal transportation funding will be cut off tomorrow. 

Now the “unless.”  The Senate is also trying to negotiate unanimous consent to allow a vote today to extend federal transportation funding for three months in a separate bill.  This is considered more of a long shot. 

Might this three month extension bill include a repeal of the rescission?  The House has said they will only consider legislation from the Senate on the repeal that includes a $490m offsetting spending reduction to cover the cost. 

I will let you know what happens at the end of the day!   

Julie

NCGA Bills Eligible for Short Session

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

This is a memo by the General Assembly staff outlining which bills are considered eligible in the Short Session beginning in May. 

Click here to go to memo

How will the Rescission Effect NC? (NCDOT)

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

From Mark Foster, CFO @ NCDOT

Rescissions occur when federal revenues are insufficient to cover previous budget authority. The budget authority given each year is the “maximum” available. The amount of “real billable” dollars is set by the annual obligation limit that is generally 80-90% of obligation authority. Even with that buffer, federal revenues have fallen short and in order to cover federally approved commitments (obligated projects), they have to take back budget authority in the form of rescissions. In essence, they are cleaning up the books to match fiscal reality. This is the 12th rescission since July, 2002.

Prior to this one, the Federal Government gave each State DOT the flexibility to choose where to take the cuts. As a result, certain programs, like the MPO direct attributable, were not previously reduced. This rescission is different because the Federal Government has mandated that the cuts will be across all programs and that FHWA will calculate the reductions. All programs with unobligated balances (budget authority not specifically tied to a federally approved project – i.e., one with a complete PS&E package and right of way certification) will lose budget authority.

North Carolina has enough unobligated budget authority to cover this rescission. What this means is that it will not have to deobligate an approved project (this is possible in other states). However, should Congress enact another significant rescission, North Carolina may not have enough buffer to protect all approved projects. Also, with less “real” budget authority, the selection and delivery of future projects will have to be prioritized to fit a smaller, federal program.

SENATE LEADERS EXPLORE POSSIBLE 3-MONTH SURFACE EXTENSION (TRANSPORTATION WEEKLY)

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

SENATE LEADERS EXPLORE POSSIBLE 3-MONTH SURFACE EXTENSION (TRANSPORTATION WEEKLY)

The chairman and ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee are exploring the possibility of dropping their insistence on the eighteen-month extension of federal surface transportation programs requested by the White House and agreeing to the three-month timetable proposed in legislation passed by the House last week (H.R. 3617). There is not a deal in place yet.

However, the Senate would likely insist on using the same legislative language from the Senate eighteen-month bill (S. 1498 et al), shortened in duration to three months, instead of using the language in H.R. 3617. This would include the repeal of the $8.708 billion rescission of highway contract authority scheduled to take effect tomorrow by section 10212 of the SAFETEA-LU law.

The rescission would be repealed by the Senate bill but not by the House bill. Scheduling any such measure for a vote between now and midnight tomorrow night will require the unanimous consent of all 100 Senators. As of this writing, the EPW Committee has not given any legislative language to the Democratic and Republican leadership offices for leadership to shop around to their membership to see if there are any objections (the “hotlining” process which is necessary before they can begin to negotiate a time agreement).

House Democratic leaders have indicated that they will not bring up any Senate extension that repeals the $8.7 billion rescission unless it also contains $490 million in offsetting mandatory spending cuts or tax increases to make the measure deficit-neutral over a ten-year window to satisfy the House PAYGO rule.

A press secretary for Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) was quoted earlier this afternoon as suggesting that unobligated stimulus funds be rescinded to pay for the cost of repealing the highway rescission, but this would have trouble getting unanimous consent on the Democratic side of the aisle and also would not technically meet the PAYGO rule requirement (the stimulus was emergency spending, and budget rules prohibit rescinding emergency spending to pay for non-emergency spending).

Without an offset, opponents of the bill will say that the rescission repeal increases the federal deficit by $490 million and will be a non-starter in the House. But any offsetting spending cut will upset somebody, somewhere, and make it difficult for the legislation to get the unanimous consent of all 100 Senators needed to schedule the legislation for a vote before tomorrow night.

The use of an abbreviated version of S. 1498 rather than H.R. 3617 for the base bill language would also highlight another key difference between the House and Senate extensions. The Senate bill would take all of the money allocated to states in FY 2009 from earmarked high priority projects and from the major “above the line” earmarked accounts from SAFETEA-LU (secs. 1301, 1302, 1307, 1934, and the bridge set-aside in title 23) and give states a pro-rated amount of that money in FY 2010 for the length of the extension (in the case of a three-month extension, one-fourth of the FY 2009 total) for use as STP formula money. But the House bill would take the money from sections 1301 and 1302 and give it to DOT for use as discretionary grants.

This makes a big difference for California and Illinois, which got disproportionately large shares of the 1301 and 1302 earmarks in SAFETEA-LU. Over three months, the Senate language guarantees California $55.5 million more than does the House language (the comparable number for Illinois is $30.2 million). If the Senate can garner unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3617 (with the shortened Senate language substituted for the House language) by tomorrow, and can pass the bill without offsetting the cost of the rescission repeal, the House Democratic leadership has vowed not to bring up the legislation (unless someone in the House can find a PAYGO offset, which Transportation and Infrastructure chairman James Oberstar (D-MN) has to this point been unwilling to do).

The Senate leaders are very aware of this, so it is not known how much of today’s efforts are a serious attempt to extend the surface transportation programs and repeal the rescission and how much is an attempt to make it look like the House, and not the Senate, is at fault for letting the rescission take place.

UPDATE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 – 5:10 P.M

NC Fiscal Staff General Fund Revenue Report and Economic Outlook

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

GENERAL FUND REVENUE REPORT & ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Highlights

• The first two months of the fiscal year continue the trend
established in the last quarter of FY 2008-09 with negative
year-over-year growth in the economy-based taxes.

• The May consensus forecast anticipated an additional 1%
decline for 2009-10 in General Fund revenues (-1.7%
baseline).

• FY 2008-09 General Fund revenues were $3.22 billion below
the $20.85 budgeted amount. The fall in revenues represents
an unprecedented 10.8% decline over the previous year.

• The latest expectations are that the recession is over, but it
will continue to feel like we are still in a recession as current
economic conditions show little sign of recovery. These
conditions are expected to persist through this fall and well
into 2010.

See the full presentation here.

Boxer, Inhofe Agree on [SAFETEA-LU] Extension (National Journal)

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

Boxer, Inhofe Agree on Extension (National Journal)

Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer and ranking member James Inhofe have agreed on extending surface transportation law by three months, putting them on par with what the House approved last week, sources on and off Capitol Hill said.

They have also agreed that any extension must retain $8.7 billion in unused transportation funding that would be eliminated when current law expires Thursday, a problem the House bill did not address.

But obstacles remain that could thwart lawmakers, including finding the funds to pay for eliminating that $8.7 billion rescission and getting floor time in a packed Senate schedule.

Inhofe’s solution is to use stimulus funds, his spokesman said today. “We would certainly be open to other ideas,” Matt Dempsey said. But using stimulus funds “is the easiest one to be done in the limited amount of time we have,” he said.

A spokesman for Boxer was unavailable. A spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Reid said it is unlikely there is time on the floor to do anything more than bring something up to be approved under unanimous consent.

The rescission fix is necessary to save jobs, including an estimated 1,350 in Oklahoma, Inhofe has said, along with $40 million in projects in his state.

According to the Federal Highway Administration, Boxer’s home state of California would lose $793.5 million in spending authority. Other examples include $407 million lost in New York and $61 million in contract authority in Reid’s home state of Nevada, resulting in a loss of $48 million for projects.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has estimated at least 90,000 jobs would be eliminated if the rescission goes into effect.

A spokesman for House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James Oberstar, who successfully challenged the Obama administration and Senate Democratic leaders to push a three-month extension through the House, declined to comment until “there is a solid proposal on the table.”

The administration and Senate leaders initially wanted to extend current law for 18 months due to other priorities, such as healthcare and climate change legislation. But Oberstar has successfully sought so far to keep the pressure on lawmakers to act on a six-year reauthorization bill.

Leaders in both parties on Oberstar’s committee have offered the skeleton of a six-year, $500 billion bill. The House Ways and Means Committee still needs to draw up a way to finance the bill before the full House could take it up. A six-year bill has not been introduced in the Senate.

By Darren Goode
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cdp_20090929_1523.php

Nation needs smarter policies and funding system for the 21st Century (Detroit Free Press)

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

EDITORIAL: Changing gears on transportation (Detroit Free Press)
Nation needs smarter policies and funding system for the 21st Century

Nearly a decade into the 21st Century, the United States still lacks a comprehensive national plan to drive hundreds of billions of dollars of transportation investments that connect communities, fuel the economy, and shape patterns of growth and development. Given the energy, environmental and national security needs of the new century, continuing to put the nation’s transportation system on cruise control is wasteful, shortsighted and reckless.

Developing a balanced transportation system will take the same commitment, vision and sacrifice that built the interstate highway system 50 years ago. Yes, it will take more money — perhaps double the current investment. But equally important, it will require a blueprint to guide those investments, ensuring that they complement sustainable land use and housing developments that help create communities, and commuting patterns, that reflect how Americans want to live.

The current transportation law — the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act — expires Sept. 30. The House favors an extension of three months, while the Senate and President Barack Obama favor an extension of up to 18 months. Congress has extended every transportation bill in the last 30 years. The more important issue is getting the next six-year bill right.

The next long-term authorization bill shouldn’t simply authorize hundreds of unrelated pork projects that incumbent lawmakers can exploit in their re-election campaigns. It should, instead, chart a course for rebuilding and maintaining the nation’s aging road and bridge networks and creating intercity rail and transit systems that relieve congestion, conserve energy, reduce global warming gases and reduce the enormous cost of maintaining and expanding highways.

It’s a tall order, demanding a visionary understanding of how transportation policy can create jobs, promote energy independence and national security, rebuild cities, and preserve green space. A bill that meets this challenge would include:

• A fairer return to cities and metropolitan regions, with more flexibility for local governments seeking to make the most of their transportation dollars.

One study by the Environmental Working Group found that commuters in 176 metropolitan areas paid $20 billion more in federal gas taxes than they received in federal Highway Trust Fund money from 1998 through 2003. Highway construction interests and transportation mind-sets more suited to the 1960s still dominate state transportation departments. Metropolitan planning agencies like the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments should have more authority over how federal transportation dollars are spent in their regions.

• Restrictions on the use of federal transportation funds for highway expansion.

The nation cannot build its way out of traffic congestion. Preservation and maintenance should be the watchwords of our national road policy. America’s mature and aging freeway system must be maintained, while regions develop transit alternatives to relieve congestion without exacerbating suburban and exurban sprawl.

Preservation programs are especially important for states like Michigan, whose road systems are relatively older than average. Says Carmine Palombo, SEMCOG’s transportation chief: “We want to make sure this bill treats us fairly, compared to growth states with expanding systems.”

• A bigger slice for mass transit, which gets only 18% of government’s transportation funding under the current bill.

The nation’s economic, environmental and security interests all demand less dependence on foreign oil. Transit systems nationwide, including Michigan’s, report record ridership. Light rail, trains and conventional and rapid-transit buses are needed to meet national energy and environmental goals, as well as carry entry-level workers without cars from central-city neighborhoods to suburban jobs.

Federal aid for public transit can trigger wider economic development, as metropolitan regions such as Denver have demonstrated. States and metropolitan regions also should have greater flexibility in using federal transit aid, including the freedom to subsidize operating costs while new or newly expanded transit systems attract riders.

• A big increase in spending.

The $286 billion authorized in the transportation bill that expires this Wednesday fell far short of what was needed to keep the nation’s transportation grid from deteriorating. The Highway Trust Fund, which historically enjoyed huge surpluses, has also been dangerously depleted.

To fix the nation’s flagging highway and rail systems over the next 50 years, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission last year urged Congress to raise the gas tax by up to 40 cents a gallon over the next five years, and more than double the current levy.

The federal gas tax, now at 18.4 cents a gallon, has not risen since 1993. Nationwide, each cent raises $1.7 billion a year for the Highway Trust Fund.

Besides raising critically needed revenue for highway maintenance and expanded public transit, a higher gas tax would sustain consumer demand for both the economically fuel-efficient vehicles Detroit’s car companies are retooling to build and the sustainable public transit systems America needs to reduce global warming gases and diminish our dependence on autocratic regimes abroad. The House is considering a $500-billion bill, including $50 billion for high-speed rail that would meet the nation’s needs and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.

• Pilot projects to evaluate new methods of financing a 21st Century transportation system.

As fuel efficiency increases, gasoline taxes can’t keep up with transportation needs. Increasing federal gas taxes would provide a short-term solution. In the long run, however, the gas tax should be scrapped and replaced with a system that taxes motorists by the mile. Other sources of transportation money could come from tolls, public-private partnerships and property taxes on development that benefits from the availability of public transit options.

At stake is nothing less than the nation’s economic and environmental health. It shouldn’t take another oil embargo, oil-financed terror attack, or man-made disaster (like the 2007 collapse of a four-lane bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis) to muster the political will to fix the nation’s transportation system.

Raising the gas tax would cost Americans relatively little, but more money is only part of the answer. The next six-year transportation bill must provide a clear vision of the national transportation network we need and a practical blue-print for building it.
Posted: Sept. 27, 2009
http://www.freep.com/article/20090927/OPINION01/909270451/1322/Changing-gears-on-transportation

N.C. household income down, poverty up, census shows (WRAL.com)

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

N.C. household income down, poverty up, census shows (WRAL.com)

Raleigh, N.C. — Newly released census figures show the median household income in North Carolina declined more than $3,500 over the past eight years and the percentage of households below the poverty line increased 2.3 percent.

The Office of Management and Budget defines the poverty threshold based on the Consumer Price Index. In 2008, the weighted average poverty threshold for a family of four was $22,025; for a family of three, $17,163; for a family of two, $14,051; and for unrelated individuals, $10,991. More than 12 percent of North Carolina residents are living in poverty, the figures show.

The U.S. Census Bureau’s annual American Community Survey includes social, housing demographic and select economic data collected throughout 2008 for areas with populations of 65,000 or more.

The median household income statewide in 2008 was $46,549, down from $50,155 in 2000. Both figures are in 2008 dollars.

Wake County had the highest median income of $65,180, followed by Union County with $62,087. Wilkes County had the lowest – $29,705, followed by Robeson at $30,932.

Figures for other counties in central North Carolina and elsewhere are as follows:

Cleveland County – $36,748
Cumberland County – $44,786
Durham County – $51,028
Forsyth County – $46,912
Guilford County – $47,553
Harnett County – $43,547
Johnston County – $52,484
Mecklenburg County – $57,033
Moore County – $46,697
Nash County – $45,482
Orange County – $54,390
Pitt County – $40,025
Robeson County – $30,932
Rockingham County – $37,678
Wayne County – $39,388
Wilson County – $38,004
Data released also show about 5 percent of the population in Wake County receiving food stamps – the lowest rate in the state.

Robeson County had one of the highest, with 19 percent of the population receiving food stamps. Wilson County had the second highest with 17 percent, and Cleveland County in western North Carolina had 15 percent.

Figures for other counties in central North Carolina and elsewhere are as follows:

Cumberland County – 12 percent
Durham County – 9 percent
Forsyth County – 9 percent
Guilford County – 8 percent
Harnett County – 10 percent
Johnston County – 9 percent
Mecklenburg County – 7 percent
Moore County – 6 percent
Nash County – 13 percent
Orange County – 6 percent
Pitt County – 11 percent
Rockingham County – 13 percent
Wayne County – 12 percent
Wilson County – 17 percent
Other central North Carolina counties, including Chatham, Franklin, Edgecombe, Greene and Hoke counties were not included in the data.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/6099503/
Posted: Today at 11:55 a.m.
Updated: Today at 12:57 p.m.

215 north Dawson Street • raleigh, nc 27603 • phone 919.715.7895 •  fax 919.301.1098