Infrastructure in the News: Winter Weather Water Woes
January 22nd, 2016 | By: Olivia Wolfertz
With heavy snow targeting the Northeast and a contaminated water crisis in Flint, Mich., our water and transportation infrastructure have become a heavy topic of discussion this week. Besides snow days and curling up by the fire, winter weather brings wear and tear on our nation’s roads, water pipes and power lines. Colorado, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee, have all experienced water main breaks in the past week due to cold weather conditions. This time of year also magnifies the many potholes that plague our nation’s roads. Oregon, New York, South Dakota, Iowa and Idaho all have their fair share of pothole damage that is exacerbated by the cold weather. In Houston, Texas, Mayor Sylvester Turner even launched an initiative to fill potholes that Houstonians report within 24 hours by using a website where residents can track and report potholes. In addition to water main breaks, water infrastructure has also been under scrutiny due to the recent water crisis in Flint, Mich. In his State of the State Address, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder noted that there are pipes underneath Michigan roads that are more than 100 years old. He requested $28 million in additional funds from the state legislature to provide for the residents affected by the crisis, provide additional testing for high risk locations and conduct an infrastructure integrity study to fix the pipes and other connections. In Vermont, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that the five-year cost of cleaning up Vermont’s water is about $154 million. Clearly the importance of diligent maintenance and funding cannot be over-stressed when it comes to our nation’s transportation and water infrastructure. It’s up to our elected leaders at the federal, state, and local levels to continue prioritizing investment into the backbone of our economy.Missourians Reject Sales Tax for Infrastructure
August 6th, 2014 | By: Maria Matthews
On August 5 Missouri voters defeated a measure that would have established a dedicated infrastructure fund from revenue earned through three-quarters of a cent sales tax increase. Constitutional Amendment 7 was dismissed in a 59% to 41% vote. “We are very disappointed in the result, but the people have spoken and we respect that.” Stephen Miller, chairman of the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission, commented. “As we have seen for the past several years, I think Missourians have a clear understanding that more resources need to be invested in our transportation infrastructure, but there just isn’t any consensus on how to pay for it. We need to continue working toward that end.” The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) Long Range Transportation Plan estimates that over the next 20 years, Missouri has at least $70 billion of infrastructure projects requested throughout the state, but only $17.3 billion of available funds are expected to be available. Had the measure passed it would have made an estimated $5.4 billion available over the next 10 years for state and local transportation projects. In fact, in July MoDOT release a list of “priority projects” that would have received funding with the revenue generated by the tax increase. The future of this list remains to be seen. Dave Nichols, director of the Missouri Department of Transportation, “We will continue our focus on safety, maintaining our roads and bridges, and providing outstanding customer service with the resources we have.” If Missourians wish to “raise the grade” on roads and bridges, adequate revenue must be collected and allocated to maintain and improve the state’s transportation infrastructure.Tags: Funding, infrastructure investment, Missouri, transportation
No Comments »
How Your State Funds School Construction
July 24th, 2014 | By: Infrastructure Report Card
In every community across the U.S. is a school building. They’re used for learning, libraries, sports, and feeding kids, but they’re also used for community meetings, school programs, and in emergencies. Each one of these schools is different, and so it’s probably not a surprise that they’re all funded differently. The Pennsylvania Department of Education recently put together a summary of how all the states fund their capital planning projects like new buildings and modernizations in their Planning and Construction Workbook: A Report to the General Assembly. Here is what they found:
Alabama: The Alabama Department of Education provides annual grants to school districts.
Alaska: The Alaska Department of Education and Early Development provides debt reimbursement and grant funding for individual projects.
Arizona: The Arizona School Facilities Board, through use of the Building Renewal Fund, provides project level grants on a competitive basis for capital improvements to existing facilities. The state also provides formula driven grants for new construction.
Arkansas: The Arkansas Division of Public School Academic Facilities and Transportation provides funds directly to local school districts for qualifying new construction, renovation, or alteration projects.
California: The state distributes facility funding directly to the local school districts through matching grants and reimbursements for individual projects. Generally, funds are distributed on a first come, first served basis, based on eligibility for funding, as determined by projected unhoused students for new construction and age of facilities for modernization.
Colorado: The Colorado Department of Education provides matching grants to local school districts on a competitive basis through the BEST program. The state’s minimum match is determined using several measures of school district wealth in comparison with statewide averages, as well as bond election effort and success over the past decade.
Connecticut: The Connecticut Department of Education provides matching grants to local school districts, with the state share (between 20 and 80 percent) determined by relative district wealth ranking.
Delaware: The Delaware Department of Education provides funding to local school districts for specific projects. The share of state support for public school facilities ranges from 60 to 80 percent and is determined by using an ability construction ratio that looks at the relative property wealth of a school district.
D.C.: The District of Columbia provides the Office of Public Educational Facility Modernization (OPEFM) capital funds for building improvements to the schools within the District of Columbia’s Public School system.
Florida: The Florida Department of Education provides monthly disbursements to local school districts based on available revenues, which are allocated by statutory formulas. (In January of 2012, Florida temporarily halted funding for all school construction projects due to lack of available resources. As a result of this decision, funding for projects was discontinued and schools and colleges were asked to return $250 million to the state until a solution could be identified and agreed upon.)
Georgia: The Georgia Department of Education provides reimbursements to school districts for approved facility projects, with the state facility funding level set by formula in state law.
Hawaii: The Hawaii Department of Education pays directly for local facility projects. Prioritization and state funding allocation is determined based on school building age and condition, as well as student demographics, building health and safety and maintenance needs.
Idaho: The Idaho Department of Education provides local school districts with facility assistance in the form of bond repayment subsidies, allocations for maintenance and emergency funds.
Illinois: The state provides grants to local schools districts for approved projects, with an automatic set‐aside of 20 percent of available state school construction funds allocated to Chicago Public Schools. The level of state funding depends upon district wealth and project type.
Indiana: Indiana provides no funds for school district capital outlay.
Iowa: The Iowa Department of Education provides grants to local school districts using a per pupil allocation formula. An equalization formula is used to distribute aid, with lower wealth school districts getting a higher share of state facility support.
Kansas: The Kansas Department of Education provides funding to local school districts for individual approved projects through three funding streams: bond and interest aid, capital outlay aid and new facilities weighting.
Kentucky: The Kentucky School Facilities Construction Commission provides annual appropriations to local school districts for facility funding through three primary funding sources.
Louisiana: Louisiana provides no funding for school capital outlay projects.
Maine: The Maine Department of Education provides reimbursements to local school districts for capital projects, with funding determinations made based on building condition.
Maryland: Maryland provides direct payments to vendors and reimbursements to local school districts.
Massachusetts: The Massachusetts School Building Authority provides matching reimbursement funds to cities, towns and regional school districts for individual projects. Project funding is determined based on building condition and overcrowding, with funds going to the neediest projects first. The state aid matching percentage varies depending on district wealth, with up to 80 percent of project costs covered for low‐wealth districts.
Michigan: Michigan provides school districts with loans (which must be repaid) to assist in making debt service payment on their qualified bonds.
Minnesota: The Minnesota Department of Education provides facility funding to local school districts through three primary mechanisms: Operating Capital Revenue as a component of the general education funding formula, Debt Service Equalization Aid and Maximum Effort School Aid loans.
Mississippi: The Mississippi Department of Education provides funds to local school districts for approved projects with the amount determined by project type and square footage.
Missouri: Missouri provides no funding to local school districts for capital projects.
Montana: The Montana Office of Public Instruction pays local school districts’ debt service, with state funding dependent on district wealth.
Nebraska: Nebraska provides no financial support to local school districts for capital outlay.
Nevada: Nevada provides no funding to school districts or public charter schools for capital outlay.
New Hampshire: New Hampshire provides reimbursements to school districts for approved capital projects. State funds are allocated based on community wealth equalization and the number of towns that utilize the school.
New Jersey: The New Jersey Department of Education provides project‐level funding to Regular Operating Districts, while Abbott districts are managed by the state with funds paid directly to contractors.
New Mexico: The New Mexico Public School Facilities Authority provides matching grants to local school districts for capital outlay as determined based on state‐established facility adequacy standards. The amount of the state match is based on district wealth.
New York: The New York Department of Education provides school districts with reimbursements for specific projects with state funds allocated based on district wealth and need.
North Carolina: The North Carolina Department of Public Infrastructure provides annual grants to school districts based on average daily membership and tax rate (higher tax rate qualifies for more state funds).
North Dakota: North Dakota provides no regular funding for capital outlay, although recently there have been one‐time appropriations of grant funds to local school districts for capital improvements.
Ohio: The Ohio School Facilities Commission provides matching grants to local school districts based on a legislative formula and rank of the district on the equity list.
Oklahoma: Oklahoma provides no funding to school districts for capital outlay.
Oregon: The Oregon Department of Education provides no funding to local school districts for capital outlay. However, the State Department of Energy has in the past provided $10 million annually for school energy conservation.
Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania Department of Education provides reimbursements to local school districts for approved school construction projects.
Rhoda Island: The Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education provide annual reimbursements to local school districts for approved capital projects. State facility funds are distributed first come, first served, based on need as determined by a community wealth index.
South Carolina: The South Carolina Department of Education provides reimbursements to school districts for approved capital projects, with funding levels determined by a formula that considers need and economy of the school district.
South Dakota: South Dakota provides no funding to local school districts for capital outlay.
Tennessee: Tennessee provides annual capital funds to local school districts through a formula as part of the Basic Education Program (BEP) funds.
Texas: The Texas Education Agency provides debt assistance to local school districts for capital projects through the Existing Debt Allotment (EDA) and Instructional Facilities Allotment (IFA) programs. State funds are allocated by statutory formula, with funding determinations made based on district wealth.
Utah: Utah provides annual non‐matching grants to local school districts based on formula.
Vermont: Vermont provides reimbursements to local school districts for approved projects. State reimbursement levels depend on project type.
Virginia: Virginia provides no grants to counties and cities for their public school capital projects. However, the state does permit the local municipalities to use the state’s credit rating and it provides some school construction funds at subsidized interest rates to school districts that meet program criteria.
Washington: Washington provides reimbursements to local school districts for approved projects. The level of state funding is determined by building condition and need for new space, with a funding formula based on maximum construction cost allocation.
West Virginia: The state provides reimbursements directly to individual approved capital projects. The School Building Authority evaluates projects for funding using established criteria that includes health and safety, reasonable travel time, regional planning, adequate space for projected enrollment, history of efforts to pass local bond issues, regularly scheduled preventative maintenance, and efficient use of funds.
Wisconsin: The state provides no facilities funding to local school districts.
Wyoming: The Wyoming School Facilities Commission (SFC) provides non‐matching grants to local school districts for approved capital projects. Project funding is determined by combining scores from a facility condition assessment, educational functionality, and capacity to create a prioritized needs index that identifies the most critical projects across the state. The SFC pays the full cost of all projects it funds – no local match is required.
Tags: capital, Funding, school, school facilities, state
No Comments »
Bipartisan Governors Coalition Presses Congress to Act on Transportation Funding
January 31st, 2014 | By: America's Infrastructure Report Card
This week, 17 Governors signed a letter urging congressional members to act to find a long-term revenue solution for the Highway Trust Fund and avoid a potential nationwide transportation funding crisis. The Highway Trust Fund, the funding mechanism that drives our nation’s investment in transportation infrastructure, is facing its fifth revenue shortfall since 2008. Motor fuel and truck excises supporting the Highway Trust Fund have not been adjusted in 20 years. As a result, the trust fund will be insolvent by the end of the year. “If Congress does not act to address this shortfall, we expect Federal support of highway and transit projects led by state transportation departments will cease in October,” said North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory. “Without renewed federal funding, states are left in a very serious financial crisis that impacts public safety and local economies,” McCrory added. Added Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, “Investment in our transportation system is part of the backbone of a strong national economy. The Federal Government should do all it can to avoid the insolvency of the Federal Highway Trust fund. These dollars directly fund construction and maintenance projects, and provide needed construction jobs in states across the country.” On January 14, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin (R-OK), testified before Congress in her capacity as Chairman of the National Governor’s Association and urged Congress to take action. “States need federal funding stability and certainty to pursue long-term planning and project delivery,” said Governor Fallin. “All funding options must be on the table for evaluation because existing resources are no longer adequate,” she added. The following 17 governors signed the letter urging congress to act: Governor Mike Beebe (D-AR), Governor John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Governor Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Governor Patt Quinn (D-IL), Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Governor Mark Dayton (DFL-MN), Governor Steve Bullock (D-MT), Governor Pat McCrory (R-NC), Governor Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Governor Jack Dalrymple (R-ND), Governor John Kitzhaber (D-OR), Governor Tom Corbett (R-PA), Governor Lincoln Chafee (D-RI), Governor Dennis Daugaard (R-SD), Governor Peter Shumlin (D-VT), Governor Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Governor Scott Walker (R-WI). ASCE is an active member of the National Transportation Coalition, a bipartisan group of governors and transportation advocates working together to push Congress to take immediate action on vital federal highway legislation.Tags: congress, Funding, governors, highway trust fund, leadership, transportation
No Comments »
On Infrastructure, Funding is the Challenge
December 2nd, 2013 | By: America's Infrastructure Report Card
In a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Philip Howard, of the small-government reform group Common Good, said that when it comes to U.S. infrastructure, “funding is not the challenge.” Where to begin? Funding is an immense, complicated, and ever-changing challenge facing our country’s roads, bridges, water systems, dams, and other infrastructure. Our inability to fund our infrastructure hurts our economic competitiveness, meaning fewer jobs for American families. In the 2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, we found that the U.S. faces a $1.6 trillion infrastructure investment need by 2020. We found that unless our infrastructure investment trajectory changes, the United States will lose 3.5 million jobs and $3.1 trillion in gross domestic product by 2020. Simply, funding our infrastructure and funding for future needs is a colossal challenge—a challenge we are not currently meeting. But don’t just take our word for it. Thomas Donohue, president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, has repeatedly come out in support of raising the federal fuel tax in order to boost federal transportation funding. The American Enterprise Institute, a prominent conservative think-tank, is so concerned about our lack of infrastructure funding that that are hosting a policy discussion this December to share policy ideas to fill our funding gap. Howard’s main argument seems to be that we need to reduce red-tape. Obviously, over-stressed bureaucracy hurts our ability to move projects forward. As we recently saw with the passage of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act, Congress and state legislatures all over the country are working to make the infrastructure process more efficient. Reforms to streamline project delivery are a key part of the equation. However, reforms aren’t enough to cover the investment shortfall we face by 2020, particularly for transportation. In 2015, about one year from now, the Highway Trust Fund will be bankrupt. The Fund supports road, bridge, and mass transit projects across the country. The Fund provides millions of dollars annually to repair and strengthen the economic foundation of our nation. If we fail to act, U.S. highway and transit programs will sustain a 92% cut. If this is not an immediate and pressing funding challenge, then what is? Downplaying the impact of funding on our infrastructure is shortsighted. The longer we wait to act and create sustainable funding mechanisms for our infrastructure, the more it will cost.Tags: Funding, highway trust fund, report card
No Comments »
