Law
and Legislation Report
915 I Street, 1st Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2022-00075 May 17, 2022 Consent Item 02
Ti
tle: Legislative Advocacy Correspondence
Locati
on: Citywide
Recom
mendation: Receive and file.
Cont
act: Consuelo Hernandez, Director of Governmental Affairs, (916) 808-7395, [email protected], Office of the City Manager Pr
esenter: None
At
tachments:
1-Legislative Advocacy Correspondence_April 2022
Date Bill/Subject Author Description of Issue Position Notes 4/29/2022 IIJA Implementation
FHWA Request for Public Input on the Implementation of the Infrastructure and Investment Jobs Act
Federal Highways Administration
Request for Input - Coalition Letter
4/29/2022 IIJA Implementation
FHWA Request for Public Input on the Implementation of the Infrastructure and Investment Jobs Act
Federal Highways Administration
Request for Input - City Cover Letter
4/19/2022 SB 1410 Caballero CEQA: Transportation Impacts Oppose Senate Environmental Quality
Committee
4/7/2022
RAISE Grant
Application
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission’s application for RAISE program to implement the North Lathrop Transfer Station and Lathrop Wye Project
Support
3/24/2022 SB 1369 Wieckowski Adaptive Reuse Projects: By-Right: Funding Support Senate Governance and Finance
Committee
3/22/2022 SB 1370 Pan Alcoholic Beverages: Licensees Support Senate Governmental Organization
Committee
3/22/2022 SB 907 Pan Electronic Benefits Transfer Systems: Farmers' Markets Support Senate Human Resources Committee 3/22/2022 AB 2120 Friedman Transportation Finance: Federal Funding: Bridget Support Assembly Transportation Committee 3/17/2022 AB 1858 Wicks Substandard Buildings Support
Assembly Housing and Community
Development Committee
3/17/2022 AB 1939 Rivas Pupil Instruction: Science Requirements: Climate Change Support Assembly Education Committee 3/14/2022 AB 2142 Gabriel
Income Taxes: Exclusion: Turf Replacement Water Conservation Program Support
Assembly Revenue and Taxation
Committee
Position Letters 2021-2022
3/8/2022 SB 1065 Eggman Abandoned and Derelict Commercial Vessels Support Senate Natural Resources and Water
Committee
2/20/2022
SJRRC/SJJPA Valley
Rail Program
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) and San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority (SJJPA) grant application requesting funding to continue expansion of the SJRRC/SJJPA Valley Rail Program Support
1/18/2022 AB 1400 Kalra California Guaranteed Health Care for All Act Support Assembly Appropriations Committee 1/11/2022 SB 513 Hertzberg Homeless Shelter Grants: Pets and Veterinary Services Support 12/27/2021 AB 1400 Kalra California Guaranteed Health Care for All Act Support 11/16/2021
Comments on proposed Disadvantaged Community Designation, CalEnviroScreen 4.0
Support with
concerns
9/20/2021 SB 792 Glazer Sales and use tax: reporting: retailers Request for
Governor signature
9/17/2021 AB 122
Boerner
Horvath Vehicles: required stops: bicycles
Request for
Governor signature
9/14/2021 AB 970 McCarty Electric vehicle charging stations: permit approvals Request for
Governor signature
9/14/2021 AB 1443 McCarty Mental health: involuntary treatment Request for
Governor signature
8/31/2021 SB 222 Dodd Water Rate Assistance Program Support 8/12/2021 AB 988 Bauer-Kahan Mental health: 988 crisis hotline Support Governmental Organization
Committee
8/12/2021 AB 988 Bauer-Kahan Mental health: 988 crisis hotline Support Health Committee 8/12/2021 SB 222 Dodd Water Rate Assistance Program Support if amended 7/1/2021 AB 970 McCarty Electric vehicle charging stations: permit approvals Support 6/30/2021 AB 1443 McCarty Mental health: involuntary treatment Sponsor 6/29/2021
Support of San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission’s (SJRRC) application for $25 million from USDOT’s Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) program
Support
6/25/2021 AB 122
Boerner
Horvath Vehicles: required stops: bicycles Support
6/25/2021 SCR 51 Pan Sacramento Municipal Utility District: zero-carbon emissions goal Support Coalition letter 6/16/2021 AB 777 McCarty State property: transfer: housing Support 6/7/2021 H.R. 3404 Rep. Huffman The FUTURE Western Water Infrastructure Drought Resiliency Act Support 6/7/2021 Cannabis state budget request Support
5/26/2021 Transportation state budget request Support
5/26/2021 CA Child Savings Accounts state budget request Support Coalition letter 5/17/2021 SB 210 Wiener Automated license plate recognition systems: use of data Opposition 5/4/2021 State Historic Tax Credit Program state budget request Support 4/22/2021 AB 777 McCarty State property: transfer: housing Support 4/20/2021 AB 859 Irwin Mobility devices: personal information Oppose Unless
Amended Coalition letter
4/13/2021 Independent Live Venues state budget request Support 4/13/2021 Green Means Go state budget request Support
4/13/2021 AB 1443 McCarty Mental health: involuntary treatment Sponsor AB 43 Friedman Setting speed limits to enhance traffic safety Support 4/12/2021 AB 550 Chiu The Safe Streets and Work Zones Act of 2021 Support 4/12/2021 AB 1500 Garcia
Water, Wildfire, Prevention, Drought Preparation, Flood Protection, Extreme Heat Mitigation, and Workforce Development Bond Act of 2022
4/1/2021 AB 859 Irwin Mobility devices: personal information Oppose Unless
Amended
3/30/2021 SB 369 Pan
Flood control: Yolo Bypass Cache Slough Partnership Multibenefit Program Support
2/3/2021 AB 122
Boerner
Horvath Vehicles: required stops: bicycles Support
Letter to California High-Speed Rail Authority re draft 2020 Business Plan Support
2/3/2021 SB 323 Caballero Local government: water and sewer service: legal actions Support Coalition letter with the Assn of CA
Water Agencies (ACWA) and others
2/3/2021 SB 45 Portantino
Wildfire Prevention, Safe Drinking Water, Drought Preparation, and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2022 Support
Coalition letter with other water
agencies
1/26/2021 AB 80/SB 91
Assembly &
Senate Budget
Committees COVID-19 relief: tenancy: federal rental assistance Support December 2020 AB 15 Chiu COVID eviction protection Support 12/15/2020
Letters to Dept. of Public Health asking that essential water services workers be included in Phase 1-B vaccine distribution
Regional Water Authority and
California Municipal Utilities Assn
coalition letters
12/14/2020
Letter to CA Air Resources Board requesting Sacramento be included in year 3 of the AB 617 Community Air Protection Program
915 I Street New City Hall 5th Floor
Sacramento, California 95814-2604
[email protected] O: 916.808.7005 F: 916.264.7680
April 7, 2022
The Honorable Pete Buttigieg
Secretary
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Ave, SE
Washington, DC 20590
RE: NORTH LATHROP TRANSFER STATION AND LATHROP WYE PROJECT RAISE
GRANT APPLICATION
Honorable Secretary Buttigieg:
On behalf of the City of Sacramento (City) and as the northern terminal city of San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority’s (SJJPA) Valley Rail Expansion Program, I am writing to express our strong support for the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission’s (SJRRC) application for $25 million from USDOT’s Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) program to implement the North Lathrop Transfer Station and Lathrop Wye Project (‘the Project’). The Project would be matched with state funds already secured by SJRRC to complete this project.
The Project is a key component to the SJRRC and SJJPA Valley Rail Expansion Program, an ambitious expansion of commuter and intercity rail services in the Northern California Megaregion that will provide Sacramento commuters access to the East Bay, San Jose, and expanded service to the Central Valley with a future transfer to high-speed rail in Merced. The transfer station will benefit Sacramento commuters by providing more destination options for commuters to the Tri-Valley and Silicon Valley, as well as access to Sacramento and Sacramento International Airport via the Natomas Station shuttle.
Valley Rail improves geographic equity by connecting key locations in the Central Valley including Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, and Fresno Counties to
each other and beyond to the Bay Area and the greater California rail network via three future high-speed rail (HSR) connections in Madera, Merced, and San Jose. This transformative, megaregional project helps further the State’s vision for an integrated rail network and provides direct mobility and air quality benefits to citizens in nine counties, including over 30% of the disadvantaged communities in California.
The Project’s delivery and operation will result in significant and diversified economic impacts and benefits to the City’s established neighborhoods, as well as new growth areas in the City’s Natomas area. It will provide enhanced commuter and intercity passenger rail and transit access and connectivity that our General Plan and Climate Action Plan policies that seek to aggressively combat climate change through smart land use planning and reduction in single-vehicle use.
The City urges the Department to approve SJRRC's RAISE Grant application for the North Lathrop Transfer Station and Lathrop Wye Project. Thank you for your attention to this request.
Sincerely,
Jay Schenirer
Chair, Law and Legislation Committee
915 I Street New City Hall 5th Floor Sacramento, California 95814-2604 [email protected] O: 916.808.7005 F: 916.264.7680 April 19, 2022 Senator Benjamin Allen Chair, Senate Committee on Environmental Quality 1021 O Street, Suite 3230 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: SB 1410 (CABALLERO) CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS - OPPOSE Dear Senator Allen: On behalf of the City of Sacramento (City), I write to respectfully express our opposition to SB 1410. SB 1410 would mandate the revision of the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) based methodology to analyze transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that was carefully developed over many years with cross-interest input, pursuant to SB 743 (2013). The proposal would restrict this new methodology to solely consider greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, rather than additional land use and multi-modal transportation factors as directed by SB 743 – which are essential inputs to the effectiveness of the current methodology. SB 1410 would further limit the application of the new methodology only to Transit Priority Areas (TPAs), thereby eliminating any State guidance for transportation significance analysis for all other areas. The City is proud to be the first recipient of California’s Prohousing Designation based on the State Housing and Community Development Department’s recognition of the City’s commitment to housing and actions taken to increase our housing supply. Unfortunately, SB 1410 will negatively impact our efforts. If the bill passes, then the basis for our General Plan CEQA analysis (which uses VMT) could be compromised and our City’s prioritization of infill development less effective. In terms of statewide impact, the State is currently not making sufficient progress toward attaining the 2030, 2035, and 2050 GHG goals. The proposed legislation waters down requirements outside of TPA’s and will only encourage more sprawl and further slow that progress.
SB 743 was one of the most transformative laws passed in the nation in the last decade. If implemented effectively, SB 743 methodology will be one of the strongest policy tools we have to meet California’s climate and equity goals. It is in the City’s and State’s best interest to allow SB 743 to take its course and not take a step backwards with SB 1410. For the reasons stated above, the City must respectfully oppose SB 1410. Should you have any questions about our opposition, please contact Consuelo Hernandez, Director of Governmental Affairs, at 916-808-7395 or [email protected]. Sincerely, Jay Schenirer Chair, Law and Legislation Committee
915 I Street New City Hall 5th Floor
Sacramento, California 95814-2604
[email protected] O: 916.808.7005 F: 916.264.7680
April 26, 2022
The Honorable Phil Ting
Chair Assembly Budget Committee
Capitol Office, 1021 O Street, Suite 8239
P.O. Box 94289, Sacramento, CA 94249-0019
RE: SUPPORT OF SACRAMENTO REGION WATER RESILIENCY $16.7 MILLION STATE BUDGET REQUEST:
Dear Chair Ting:
The City of Sacramento (City) supports a one-time state budget appropriation of $16.7 million to fund multi-benefit water infrastructure projects in the Sacramento Region that would significantly expand the use of below-ground water. By way of background, the City delivers about 37 billion gallons of potable water per year. Our one-half million customers are in a 100 square-mile service area in Sacramento, and we are located at the confluence of two major rivers, the American and the Sacramento. Our water system includes two water treatment plants, 12 storage reservoirs, over 25 municipal groundwater wells, and approximately 1,700 miles of pipeline. The City is one large pressure zone operating at 45 psi, with the exception of one small secondary pressure zone (about 1% of our geographic area) that is equipped with an inline booster pump to bring water to the remainder of the system. Beyond customer use, water is used for a variety of non-revenue, but otherwise beneficial uses. Examples include firefighting and water main flushing to ensure clean safe drinking water.
State, federal and local investments in water infrastructure projects in the Sacramento Region are necessary to accelerate the state’s comprehensive plan to build a more climate resilient water system.
The projects that would benefit from the $16.7 million request will expand the ability to store groundwater during wet times and shift to groundwater during dry times – away from more environmentally sensitive surface water sources. These projects, the Sacramento Regional Water Bank and the River Arc project, will relieve strain on Folsom Reservoir and the delicate ecosystem of the lower American River.
According to studies by the state Department of Water Resources (DWR), there are 20 times the available groundwater storage in the state as compared to all the surface water storage in the state. As it relates to the Sacramento Region, DWR studies demonstrate that its basin is sustainably managed and has seen increasing groundwater levels over the past two decades resulting from its proactive management.
With more severe effects of climate change increasing, we must increase the pace and scale of these kinds of proven multi-benefit projects.
Thank you for your consideration of this state budget request.
Sincerely,
Jay Schenirer
Chair, Law and Legislative Committee
915 I Street New City Hall 5th Floor
Sacramento, California 95814-2604
[email protected] O: 916.808.7005 F: 916.264.7680
April 29, 2022
Docket Management Facility
United States Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 20036
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140
Washington, DC 20590-0001
RE: FHWA REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INPUT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND INVESTMENT JOBS ACT, DOCKET NO. FHWA–2021–26145
Dear Secretary Buttigieg and Deputy Administrator Pollack, Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on how the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) can administer the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) funding to accelerate cities’ equitable climate actions. Locally, the City of Sacramento, led by Mayor Darrell Steinberg, has been a leader in planning for and implementing a carbon-neutral city. Together with former Mayor of West Sacramento Christopher Cabaldon, Mayor Steinberg convened the Mayors’ Commission on Climate Change in 2018 to advise on amplified, rapid action to achieve carbon neutrality. Our City is now committed to advancing these ambitious goals, including placement of bicycle and pedestrian travel at the top of the modal hierarchy, and accelerating ambitious active streets planning process for neighborhoods on our high-injury network.
We are also committed to address the environmental injustices prevalent in our diverse communities. But we are challenged due to inadequate local transportation funding revenue and highly competitive grant programs that serve as barriers to implementation. We require greater direct support from the federal government to address the legacy of federal and state transportation investments in Sacramento and impacts of historic redlining practices, which displaced our historic communities of color, and solidified a dispersed, car- centric transportation network for our 100-square mile city.
Adding to the structural inequities in our transportation system, Sacramento has amongst the worst air quality in the nation, with the metro region ranked as the seventh worst for 24-hour particle pollution. The region consistently falls in the top ten nationally for various rankings of dirty air. We also have amongst the highest per-capita rate of recorded traffic injuries and fatalities in California, most recently ranked as the top worst in 2021. But we consistently fall at the end of the funding list to make necessary improvements to reverse these trends.
We strongly urge you to strengthen the capacity of cities with renewed focus on accelerated local action. For FHWA’s programs to yield a greater impact, we strongly recommend:
1. Stronger direct support from the federal government to cities that have adopted climate, vision-zero, and transportation policies consistent with federal priorities. For example, Sacramento’s Vision Zero Action Plan
commits to eliminate traffic fatalities
and serious injuries by 2027.
2. Expansion of direct formula funding to cities, and prioritization of local implementation action at the local level. Too often we are unable to move aggressively to implement our ambitious goals of a safe and viable active transportation network. Provide greater streamlining for agencies like ours, to reduce the time spent wasted on laborious, highly competitive national, state, and regional programs; greater and higher-impact results can be achieved by simply increasing the direct flow of funding for implementation.
3. Prioritize the implementation of greenhouse-gas reducing projects over continued regional planning. Given the need to act quickly to address the climate crisis, there is no longer time to accommodate additional extensive regional planning processes, which delay local implementation opportunities. While regional planning is important to achieving our collective climate goals, should local governments be ready to implement projects, they should not be held up at the expense of larger scale planning efforts. Federal funds for regional funding allocations should prioritize implementation of rapid and climate-friendly transportation investments.
4. More closely tie regional funding opportunities to support local climate action.
We request that the administration hold regions accountable for the cumulative impact of their decisions. Federal direction could help ensure that any new federal funding counters local trends that challenge climate implementation. Cities such as ours require more support from the federal government if rapid, impactful transportation investment is to happen.
If IIJA funding is not administered with cities’ needs in mind and continues to be allocated under business-as-usual decisions, the FHWA’s IIJA funding risks missing key climate opportunities before it’s too late. The City of Sacramento, like other agencies, requires greater help for funding and implementation.
In addition to our comments, we echo and reaffirm those coming from leading climate action collaboratives. In March 2022, we attended a workshop hosted by climate action non-profit RMI, environmental NGO Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and transportation
association National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) to develop specific recommendations in response to this request for public input. Attached (with our support) are these comments. They include overarching recommendations for the funding process, as well as recommendations for specific competitive and formula programs.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide input. We look forward to capitalizing on this historic opportunity – together.
Sincerely,
Jay Schenirer
Chair, Law and Legislation Committee
1 Docket Management Facility
United States Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 20036
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140
Washington, DC 20590-0001
Friday, April 29, 2022
Re: FHWA request for public input on the implementation of the Infrastructure and Investment Jobs Act, Docket No. FHWA–2021–26145
Dear Secretary Buttigieg and Deputy Administrator Pollack, Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on how the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will implement Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) funds.
Our two priorities in writing this commentary are to ensure that the FHWA administers IIJA funds in a way that , 1) accelerates local governments’ equitable climate actions , and, 2) streamlines access for local governments to sufficient and relevant funding. We believe these two priorities can go hand-in-hand. Cities understand their needs, have a variety of shovel-ready clean mobility projects, and are best positioned to address local congestion, safety, air quality , and mobility justice concerns.
This letter reflects the insights generated during a workshop with local governments, as well as the experience of the three non -profit organizations who led it. On March 25, 2022, US-based non-profit organizations RMI, Natural Resources Defense Council ( NRDC), and the National Association of City Transportation Officials ( NACTO) hosted a virtual workshop with city and county governments from across the country to generate recommendations for how the FHWA should implement IIJA funding to accelerate cities’ equitable climate action priorities.
RMI is a 40-year-old global climate action non -profit that works to decarbonize the world’s most polluting industries by unlocking market transformations. NACTO is an association of 89 major North American cities and transit agencies formed to exchange transportation ideas, insights, and practices and cooperatively approach national transportation issues. NRDC is one of the nation’s largest conservation organizations with the mission to safeguard the earth — its people, plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends.
The participants in the workshop represented a true cross -section of America’s cities. Sixty -five (65) local government staff participated from 37 US cities and counties, which were evenly distributed across small (15,000 -100,000), medium (100,000 -500,000), and large (more than 500,000) populations. Local government participants came from 14 states: California, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Washington . More than twice the number of participants registered for the workshop, but due to facilitation constraints, we could only accommodate 65 people. Clearly, local governments are very interested in receiving more guidance on how to implement their equitable climate action goals through this new funding.
2 Over the course of two hours, participants learned about the FHWA’s role in IIJA implementation, new and existing competitive programs, and apportioned programs. They also weighed in with recommendations based on their experience s – or inexperience. Of the 65 participants , 63% indicated that their city or county had received competitive grant funding from the FHWA in the past two years; 37% indicated they had not.
Their insights are organized into this letter’s three sections:
1. General guidance for the FHWA to consider when executing IIJA, including for formula programs;
2. General guidance on competitive funding programs; and
3. Guidance by program on specific competitive funding programs.
In addition to what is shared in this letter, the local government participants universally agreed that more workshops like this one – i.e., jargon-free, not assuming prior knowledge of how the federal government works, and tailored to cities’ timelines, budgets, staffi ng, and resource constraints – are essential. And that easy -to-read educational materials for new staff , simple online tools to filter and evaluate funding opportunities, and one-to-one coaching on applications would dramatically reduce the amount of time and money local governments devote to applications and increase the amount of funding they request.
As you read through these recommendations, we hope that you consider how they might be implemented. We also ho pe that you recognize our gratitude for all the work you are doing to implement IIJA funding for equitable climate action.
General Guidance for the FHWA
One of the primary challenges local governments face with IIJA is h aving adequate staff to vet and apply for competitive funding or engage with metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and state governments on formula funding. For example, nearly two-thirds (61%) of the workshop participants had no staff dedicated to writing grants, 39% said they had one to three staff, and just 4% had more than three. A little less than half of the participants (46%) responded that they planned to use consultants to develop grant applications. Further, capacity constraints limit their ability to manage federal funding and all the reporting and other obligations that come with it.
A second challenge is aligning timelines across the federal government, state governments, MPOs, and city governments , and having transparency in those timelines . Participants were unclear about the FHWA’s timelines for issuing Notice of Funding Opportunity ( NOFOs) and requests for information ( RFIs), and many shared that they were sometimes caught flat -footed once NOFOs were released . Similarly, participants referenced examples of their state ’s department of transportation (DOT) releasing funding for projects within three months of the IIJA’s passage – an insufficient time period for them to put climate action priority projects on state transportation improvement programs (STIPs) or transportation improvement programs (TIPs) .
Since cities do not regularly engage in these processes , climate projects are not systematically included. Finally, participants across the 14 different states compared and contrasted their 14 different sets of experiences, as state DOT and MPO processes vary and, at times, can best be described as black boxes.
Based on these experiences, participants made the following recommendations to the FHWA.
3 I. Create a “Cheat Sheet” with three Key Components
1. Clear direction on what funds can be used for what projects. Some cities do not realize that the additional $345 billion in “highway funding” made possible through the IIJA can be used for things other than construction and expansion of highways. With so many new programs, it is difficult for them to know where to spend their time researching the funding opportunity and applying. The FHWA should create a chart for all programs similar to the “DOT Funding and Financing Programs with EV Eligibilities” table released on page 3 of the “Federal Funding is Available For Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure” report. This chart should include all types of projects that accelerate equitable climate action, such as safe streets redesign, protected bike infrastructure, sidewalk improvements, public transit operations and expansions, priority bus lane infrastructure, safe routes to school programs, transportation demand management programs, and more. An example of what this type of chart might look like is included below.
In addition to cities and local governments, producing this type of resource for recipients for state and MPO recipient of federal formula funds as well.
II. Clear timeline s all in one place of when formula funding and competitive grants are distributed over the next four years. The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) recently released an Upcoming NOFO Opportunities website that makes it much easier to track when
4 future NOFOs will be released. Expanding this resource to include all the competitive and formula grant funding over the life of IIJA would be incredibly helpful for cit ies as they plan staffing and resources and align federal funding timelines with city budget timelines . Making the timeline s more transparent will enable cities to plan ahead for the projects that best fit the funding opportunities, rather than trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. An example of what this type of timeline might look like is included below.
3. Point of contact for cities: Navigating all these new and existing programs is complex. It is difficult for cities to figure out who their main point of contact should be to help answer questions about programs and applications. For NOFOS where there is not a direct point of contact, USDOT and the FHWA should provide points of contact to regional intergovernmental affairs office s, as applicable.
II. Create Guidance to Cities on How to Engage Directly with MPOs, DOTs, and Legislators, Appointed Officials, and Others to Add Projects to or Delete Projects from the TIP/STIP
1. Given that apportionments are currently the only available data, we recommend FHWA track how states and MPOs are spending federal formula funds.
2. FHWA should also publish states’ schedules for finalizing annual STIPs or at least require them to be standardized.
3. FHWA should draw from FEMA’s example, which similarly distributes funding through state agencies, but also facilities regular stakeholder workshops to identify priorities and develop projects as part of the state hazard mitigation planning process.
5 General Guidance on Competitive Funding Programs
During our workshop, we asked local governments what was preventing them from pursuing competitive grants and what made competitive grants particularly onerous for them. Responses fell into 6 categories of recommendations.
Category Challenges facing local
governments
Solutions local governments suggest FHWA adopt
Help local
governments
understand relevant
grants (quickly)
Lack capacity to review the over
thirty discretionary programs and
determine which to apply for
• Create a short decision matrix for prospective applicants to identify the programs best suited for their project.
Simplify the
application process
Lack time to submit an application(s) • Share when a program’s NOFO will be available, ideally with a year’s notice to the month or quarter of release, like the timeline example above.
• Provide more time between NOFO and the grant due date (90 days at a minimum). • Space out competitive grants so due dates do not occur all at the same time , as well as opportunities to receive grants from the same program . If these were released multiple times per year versus just once annually , local governments could apply when their political, budgetary, or other calendars allow.
• Simplify the grant application and reporting. Many cities do not have dedicated grant writers, so making this as simple as possible will allow more cities to participate. • Release online grant writing guides, templates, or other how -to products, as well as pre - planning assistance and workshops for prospective city grant writers. • Release list of pre-vetted consultants who can help write grants effectively. • Request a “concept paper” (under 5 pages) before the full application deadline, similar to the US Department of Energy’s standard, and reply with an "Encouraged to Submit Full Application” or “Not Encouraged to Submit Full Application." This threshold screening would vet ineligible or unlikely to succeed projects , and it would be an opportunity to direct applicants to other programs their project does qualify for or provide guidance on how to improve their application to apply again in the future.
• Create a "common application" outline for all agency program applications that applicants can download and complete. This will ease the burden of navigating often complex NOFO requirements and ensure you receive the information truly needed to evaluate applications.
Make grant
administration an
allowable cost
Lack enough capacity to implement
the funding they receive
• Offer à la cart options for funding that include prescribed projects with contractors already set up to minimize administrative costs. This could look like a joint procurement vehicle, which allows local governments to “ride” on federal or state contracts. • In eligibility, include sufficient funding to pay for administrative positions.
Provide clarity on
eligible matching
funds
Lack ability to match funds • Be lenient on matching funds for cities, as USDOT already does for rural applicants, or expand support to help local governments find matching funds.
• Allow cities to provide the local match step-by-step rather than all upfront. • Provide clarity on eligible match sources and make them as consistent as possible across programs.
6 Implement new
tools and
processes to
support local
governments who
lack technical
expertise
Lack technical capabilities to provide
information requested
• When a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is required, DOT and FHWA should provide a CBA template for applicants to use. Local governments feel typical CBAs are too onerous and do not capture the true benefits of funding their priority projects. Optional tabs could be offered for additional co-benefits. Too often, CBA requirements either deter or require expensive outsourcing of services.
• Provide guidance on how to calculate CO2e impacts of a project. • Provide technical assistance and pre-submission grant application review. For instance, the US Environmental Protection Agency provides this through its regional Technical Assistance to Brownfields (TAB) program. This could function like a technical assistance chat feature on the website. In addition, provide clear guidance about point of contact(s) during application writing and post-submission along with virtual office hours held the week prior to submission deadline.
Lack time to coordinate with
community groups and difficulty
evaluating equity considerations
during the application process
• Develop clear diversity, equity, and inclusion requirements and guidance, specifically more guidance on Justice40. Cities value and welcome the Justice40 Initiative and its application to this funding, but they need more guidance on how to identify communities and assess benefits and how best to collaborate and engage with disadvantaged communities given the tight application timeline.
• Provide longer lead times (and possibly even funding) for applications to allow for community engagement, especially with disadvantaged communities who can offer ideas and help create programming.
Lack understanding of what the
specific requirements or evaluation
criteria of applications are
• Work with state procurement officials before the NOFO comes out to ensure their state contracting requirements don’t restrict cities from engaging. States often prevent cities from applying for certain funding because cities can only purchase what the city allows in their collective purchasing agreement. This can occur with new types of vehicles (electric trucks) or equipment with specific requirements (Buy America).
• Provide guidance to DOTs and MPOs to reform how congestion is accounted for in a way that values projects that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) at the metropolitan scale. Currently , congestion is counted as “slowness” and “hours of delay”. Those numbers are high for cities because they are not designed for traffic liquidity. Cities are also dense, so small numbers of additional minutes or hours o f delay per household add up faster in denser places. This inappropriately disadvantages dense cities from receiving funding if congestion is part of the evaluation criteria, even though they typically have lower VMT.
Offer feedback as
to why local
governments were
not chosen for
grants
Lack clarity on why they were not
selected for past competitive grants,
which makes them less likely to
apply again
• Broadly advertise the opportunity for a post -grant application debrief with FHWA staff if an application is unsuccessful to get feedback before a future application. • Encourage and support DOTs to be consistent in sharing feedback and scored applications.
Local governments reported inconsistent experiences when seeking feedback on their unsuccessful applications.
• Provide history of existing programs of how many applications are likely to be funded and how many applications the FHWA tends to receive, so cities understand the time and risk associated with applying.
7 Guidance by Program
Below are recommendations for specific competitive funding programs, organized in alphabetical order by program title.
Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (Sec. 11401)
The Charging and Fueling Infrastructure funding is equally divided between community and corridor charging. Subsection(f)(8)(a) states “the Secretary shall reserve 50 % of the amounts made available each fiscal year to carry out [Community Grants].” In the resource put out by FHWA, this was interpreted by some as indicating 50% of funding is for corridors and 50% is for community grants. Given RMI research, outlined in our EV Charging RF I comments, that only $1.7B of the $5B in formula funding was required to meet the minimum corridor buildout for EV charging infrastructure , we encourage FHWA to read this legislative language as a minimum threshold for community grants and allow up to 100% of the $2.5B to be allocated to community grants since the corridor need is already served by the formula funding.
For the community portion of this competitive grant, we recommend prioritizing projects that will support disadvantaged communities. This includes:
• Emphasizing areas with concentration of multi-family buildings with no off-street parking; • Installing charging infrastructure in multifamily units with parking ( and ensure parking is open to public);
• Prioritizing mobility hubs; and
• Prioritizing electric charging, not hydrogen or propane for personal vehicles.
Evaluation criteria should include anticipated utilizati on rate, installations in charging deserts, and disadvantaged communities.
To support the application process, it would be helpful to share guidance on site selection, streamlined data standards for equity areas, public-private partnership models, and how to ensure local governments get access to utilization data.
Finally, when the NEVI funding guidance was released in February, many local governments felt left behind. We think there was some confusion because the EV RFI included both the formula and competitive program, but the guidance only addressed the formula funding that flows to states. It will be important to have a sim ilarly large public launch for the charging and fueling infrastructure competitive grant, so local governments know there is EV charging funding coming their way, too.
Congestion Relief Program (Sec. 11404)
Many cities will only have the capacity to apply to one or two grant applications, and so they will go on title alone to identify a funding opportunity to support their priority projects. Several of the local government staff we spoke with had no idea this program could fund multi -modal infrastructure and assumed it was just for congestion pricing.
Given the wide applicability this program offers applicants, cities would encourage FHWA to enable and prioritize funding for application with Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) components. To achieve their transportation emission reduction goals, cities need to reduce VMT by shortening distances between housing, jobs, and other key destinations in their regions.
Cities’ comprehensive and transportation plans identify residential-commercial activity hubs, and include shovel ready projects to provide these sites with pedestrian, bike, and transit
8 infrastructure. Moreover, consider enabling these g rant funds to go toward the construction of housing and other TOD buildings, if possible. The widely studied and established congestion and emission reduction potential of TOD are significant.
Cities also expressed a desire for FHWA to prioritize projects that fund f irst- and last-mile mobility options, especially in communities where household car ownership is low. City planning studies show which communities are cut off from mass transit, as well as where freight could and should be downsized from large trucks to smaller, electric delivery vehicles. Cities have various zero- or low-emission zone and first mile-last mile projects shovel ready.
A primary obstacle to implementing cities’ multi -modal transportation initiatives is meeting the ADA requirements. When selecting project proposals, FHWA should appreciate that a big line item for many of these projects is the costs of providing ADA accommodations, signage, and lighting. These facilities are critical to delivering th ose projects inclusively and legally but may not be captured in the Congestion Relief Program’s applicable spending uses. Other features — like tree shading, landscaping, and the maintenance of each — while necessary, are also significant expenses for cities and should be eligible funding expenditures. The presence of these features is critical to whether or not many people decide to use these new modes and not travel via a private vehicle. Moreover, many cities are still struggling with transit ridership. Allowing this funding to support analysis and marketing to inform riders about the safety measures they are taking will help return service to pre-pandemic levels and thus relieve congestion.
National Infrastructure Project Assistance (Sec. 21201) Cities would encourage FHWA to prioritize Nationally Significant Multimodal Freight and Highway Projects program’s INFRA grant applications that would help greenlight projects that are not big enough for National Infrastructure Project Assistance ’s MEGA grants or small enough for Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) grants, as well as projects that have broad scopes with economic development potential.
FHWA should allow a wide latitude for what kinds of projects cities submit to enable multimodal freight and highway improvements that improve freight safety, efficiency, and reliability.
Cities e ncourage FHWA to prioritize projects that include new zero -carbon freight amenities in neighborhoods where daily air quality and asthma rates are particularly poor.
Such amenities could include zero- or low-emission zones and green corridors, as well as lanes reserved specifically for zero-emission freight and equipped with charging infrastructure. There is a clear correlation to the recent and radical expansion of urban freight and PM2.5 levels in disadvantaged communities near freight corridors.
Promoting, Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost -Saving Transportation (PROTECT) Program (Sec. 11405)
As mentioned in our general recommendations, there is a strong need to reform the CBAs as they push projects to traditional engineering. For PROTECT projects, cities are looking to deliver holistic projects, the benefits of which are often more qualitative than quantitative returns on investment. FHWA needs to factor this into their project prioritization.
Cities feel the FHWA needs to prioritize PROTECT funding applications that show a significant shift away from business -as-usual projects designed to brace transportation infrastructure for rising sea levels and climate events. Rather than prioritizing projects that add new roads for temporary evacuation routes, prioritize forward -thinking projects that improve existing roads’ evacuation capacity, incorporate innovative materials, and serve historically
9 underserved communities. We were excited to see natural infrastructure included in the “System Resilience ” subsection (c)(3)(C), and we encourage FHWA to prioritize these more innovative projects in their evaluation criteria.
Reconnecting Communities (Sec. 11509)
Cities appreciate that more transit in historically segregated and disenfranchised communities can be as important as design factors blocking that access. Local governments see this program as very in-line with their efforts to restore community connectivity in historically disadvantaged neighborhoods. However, removing, retrofitting, and mitigating physical transportation barriers is only one piece of reconnecting communities. FHWA should consider allowing this program to fund the creation and expansion of transportation services that improve community connectivity, as well. Consider prioritizing projects that feature:
• Highway-to-urban-boulevard conversions that include walking, cycling, and dedicated bus lanes, as well as adaptation infrastructure to support these mode users (e.g., tree cover and other shading along lanes and at bus stops);
• Highway teardowns along waterfronts, given the community value of reclaiming those spaces for public access;
• Main street and downtown revitalization efforts, given the benefits for local businesses; • Gearing roads towards residential travel, rather than commute trips; and • Improved evacuation routes.
For this program, local governments also suggest FHWA not request a standard CBA to apply. In cities’ experiences, CBAs cannot capture the true benefits of this type of program and provide an easy justification for not including new and needed amenities in such projects.
When reviewing applications, FHWA should also consider the targeted neighborhood’s area median income and other demographic data since the highway and facility was constructed, as well as the benefit to residents rather than commuters.
Safe Streets and Roads for All (Sec. 24112)
Vision Zero or equivalent initiatives are well studied, planned, and valued by cities , so releasing these funds quickly to them could enable a slew of projects in short order. For those cities without the staff or capacity to take on the preconstruction activities for safe streets, they need both time and funding to support their design and environmental efforts.
Since 40% of program funds are reserved for planning, it is important that FHWA make a wide variety of activities eligible for planning funds. The research is already clear on the types of projects that will increase safety, and as we wait for studies to be complete d, more lives are lost due to unsafe streets. Further prioritizing the safety projects that will increase the likelihood of safe multimodal transportation will reduce congestion and carbon emissions. Since disadvantaged communities are far less likely to be car owners than high-income individuals, prioritizing safe active modes of transportation will also “ensure equitable investment in the safety needs of underserved communities in preventing transportation-related fatalities and injuries,” as stated in subsection (d)(3)(E). Protected lanes will dramatically improve the convenience, safety, and speed of using bicycles, e -bikes, and scooters as true commuting options . For example, protected bike lanes reduced fatal crash rates by more than 60% in Seattle and 38% in Chicago.
Furthermore, most cities across the country suffer from a gross undersupply of sidewalks — arguably the most overlooked and effective mobility solution, particularly for disadvantaged and transit-dependent communities.
10 Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on how best to implement the IIJA programs under FHWA’s jurisdiction. We would be happy to discuss any of these recommendations further with you and connect you with local voices to shed more light on the concerns and solutions they raised.
Kind Regards,
Rushad Nanavatty, Managing Director of Urban Transformation at Rocky Mountain Institute 1850 M Street NW, Suite 280
Washington DC, 20036
(202) 492-2387
[email protected]
Corinne Kisner, Executive Director of NACTO
120 Park Avenue, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10017
[email protected]
Deron Lovaas, Senior Policy Advisor of EEFA, Resilient Communities, Healthy People & Thriving Communities Program at Natural Resources Defense Council 1152 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
[email protected]
Veronica O. Davis, Director of Transportation & Drainage for the City of Houston 901 Bagby Street
Houston, TX 77002
(832)
395-2500
[email protected]
James F. Murley, Chief Resilience Officer for Miami-Dade County Stephen P. Clark Center
111 NW 1st Street, 12th Floor
Miami, FL 33128
(305) 375-5593
[email protected]
(Sign here)
(Sign here)
(Sign here)
(Sign here)
(Sign here)
11 Appendix - Workshop Participant Analysis