|

Supporting Reauthorization and Appropriations for the Department

of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration ....................................................1

On the National Housing Trust Fund .........................................................................................2

On FY 2016 Appropriations for the Department of Housing and Urban Development ............4

On Allowing Publicly Owned Treatment Works to Operate as Designed,

Including Peak Wet Weather Flow Management Techniques Such as Blending ................6

On the Environmental Protection Agency’s Efforts to Tighten

Ozone Air Quality Regulations ............................................................................................7

On the Creation of a National Program to Allow States to Offset Air

Pollution Exceedances .........................................................................................................8

On Executive Order Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard .......................8

On Federal Voting Systems Standards ....................................................................................10

Supporting Amendment of 42 CFR Privacy Provisions to Create a Uniform Set of

Regulations Based on HIPAA Privacy Rules ....................................................................11

On Changes to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ...............................12

On the Medicaid Institution for Mental Disease Exclusion .....................................................13

On the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program ..........................................14

On Maintenance of Effort for Essential Support Services for Persons

with Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities ...................................................14

On Treatment of Substance Use Conditions ............................................................................15

On Urging and Requesting Congress to Consider Reinstating Universal

Military Service .................................................................................................................17

On Funding to Combat Child Sex Trafficking and to Assist its Victims ................................18

Urging the Federal Government to Suspend, Instead of Terminate, Medicaid

Coverage for Incarcerated Individuals ...............................................................................19

Urging Federal, State and Local Adoption of a Presumption Against the Use of

Unnecessary Restraints of Juveniles in Court ....................................................................20

On Reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevision Act .................................21

|

Supporting the Delisting of the American Burying Beetle ......................................................22

On Opposing the Proposed Listing of the Black Pine Snake as a Threatened

Species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ..................................................................22

To Allow the Re-Classification of Diseased and Insect Infested Forest Products ..................23

On Sharing Post-Fire Litigation Settlement Funds with Counties...........................................24

Supporting Reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools

and Community Self-Determination Act and Providing Expedited Payments

For FY 2014 .......................................................................................................................25

Supporting Revised Wildfire Disaster Funding .......................................................................26

Supporting Amending Title III of Secure Rural Schools to Provide for Reimbursement

of Patrol Expenditures........................................................................................................27

On Federal Freight Goods Movement Investment in the United States ..................................29

On Equitable Funding and Expenditures of the Highway Trust Fund .....................................30

On Local Transportation Safety Funding (SHPS Local Coordination) ...................................31

On Local Transportation Safety Funding (Establishment of TZD Grant Program)………… 31

COMMUNITY, ECONOMIC AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 1

STEERING COMMITTEE 2

3

Proposed Resolution Supporting Reauthorization and Appropriations for the Department 4

of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration 5

6

Issue: Appropriations and reauthorization legislation for the U.S. Department of Commerce’s 7

Economic Development Administration (EDA). 8

9

Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to support reauthorization and appropriations for the 10

U.S. Department of Commerce’s EDA to keep communities strong and economically viable at a 11

time when our nation needs it the most. 12

13

Background: The EDA provides direct resources to counties to support economic development 14

efforts through planning grants to regional Economic Development Districts to support 15

comprehensive economic development strategy planning and implementation as well as 16

financing for Public Works and Technical Assistance projects. It is focused solely on private 17

sector job creation and retention. 18

19

With its modest budget, EDA has developed an impressive track record of making strategic 20

investments and building partnerships that help regions and communities respond to shifts in 21

international markets, address severe unemployment challenges and recover from plant closures, 22

major natural disasters, and other chronic, sudden and severe economic hardships. 23

24

Despite its solid performance and traditional bipartisan support, EDA’s regular budget has 25

declined by nearly 36 percent since FY2001. NACo supports $273 million for EDA, the FY 26

2016 Obama Administration budget request. EDA is currently funded at $250 million in the 27

FY2015 “CRomnibus” spending bill (PL. 113-235). This is a $3 million increase over the 28

FY2014 level. 29

30

At a time when the nation must make the regional and local investments necessary to compete in 31

the modern global economy, the flexibility, partnership structure and accountability of EDA’s 32

programs should be at the forefront of the federal toolbox. EDA’s portfolio of economic 33

development infrastructure, business development finance, regional innovation strategies and 34

public-private partnerships are tailored to support the unique needs of each region. 35

36

EDA grants are awarded on a competitive basis to local governments, nonprofits and 37

communities by the agency’s six regional offices. By federal law, EDA projects typically require 38

a local cost share and significant private sector investment, ensuring that local leaders and 39

businesses are committed to the project’s success. EDA investments are focused on high quality 40

jobs, especially in advanced manufacturing, science and technology, and emerging knowledge-41

based industries and sectors. 42

43

EDA and its local partners focus on the fundamental building blocks for economic development. 44

EDA’s infrastructure investments are targeted at essential facilities and assets like water and 45

wastewater systems, middle mile broadband networks, workforce training centers, business 46

incubators, intermodal facilities and science and research parks. These assets are often lacking in 47

the nation’s most distressed areas, yet they are a prerequisite for private industry to remain or 48

locate in these areas. 49

The keys to EDA’s repeated successes remain its flexible program tools, its long-standing 1

partnerships with regional and local economic development organizations, and its focus on 2

investing in locally- and regionally-driven strategies and infrastructure projects that are tied to 3

leveraging private sector job creation and retention activities. 4

5

Fiscal Urban/Rural Impact: EDA’s programs provide critical funding for economic and 6

community development initiatives and key projects important for creating and retaining jobs. 7

8

Approved | Community, Economic and Workforce Development Steering Committee | 9

Unanimous 10

11

Proposed Resolution on the National Housing Trust Fund 12

13

Issue: Allocation of National Housing Trust Fund (HTF) resources. 14

15

Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 16

Development (HUD) to provide for the allocation of HTF funds to local governments. Driving 17

HTF resources to the local and county levels will ensure these federal affordable housing 18

resources are effectively targeted and tailored to meet the unique and individualized affordable 19

housing needs of local communities across the nation. In the event that increased HTF resources 20

become available, Congress and HUD are also urged to provide a formula allocation of HTF 21

resources directly to local governments. 22

23

Background: In December 2014, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announced it 24

was lifting the suspension of payments the Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) are 25

required to make to the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) and Capital Magnet Fund (CMF). The two 26

programs were authorized as part of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA; 27

P.L. 110-289) to fund affordable housing activities. However, shortly after HERA’s enactment 28

FHFA suspended the mandatory payments to the Funds. 29

30

FHFA Director Mel Watt indicated the suspension was being lifted due to Fannie Mae and 31

Freddie Mac’s return to profitability and repayment of the government’s investment in the two 32

GSEs. The GSEs will be assessed 4.2 basis points (.042 percent) on new business purchases. 33

These fees will be directed to the HTF and CMF—65 percent of the fees will flow to the HTF 34

and 35 percent to the CMF. FHFA has ordered the GSEs to begin setting aside these funds 35

beginning in January 2015, but funds will not be distributed until 2016. Estimates indicate that 36

$300 million-$700 million could be collected from the assessments annually, which will be 37

administered and overseen by HUD. 38

39

HTF grants will be distributed on an annual formula basis to states (or state-designated entities), 40

of which at least 80 percent must be used for rental housing; up to 10 percent for 41

homeownership; and up to 10 percent for the grantee's administrative and planning costs. 42

43

HTF funds may be used for the production or preservation of affordable housing through the 44

acquisition, new construction, reconstruction, and/or rehabilitation of non-luxury housing with 45

suitable amenities. All HTF-assisted units will be required to have a minimum affordability 46

period of 30 years. Eligible activities and expenses include: real property acquisition; site 47

improvements and development hard costs; related soft costs; demolition; financing costs; 48

relocation expenses; operating cost assistance for rental housing (not more than 20 percent of 49

each annual grant); and, “reasonable” administrative and planning costs. 1

2

Eligible forms of assistance include: equity investments; interest-bearing loans or advances; non-3

interest bearing loans or advances; interest subsidies; deferred payment loans grants; and other 4

forms of assistance approved by HUD. 5

6

In addition, the HTF statute requires 75 percent of funds for rental housing must benefit 7

extremely low-income households (incomes of 30 percent of area median or less) or households 8

with incomes below the federal poverty line. All funds must benefit very low-income households 9

(incomes of 50 percent of area median or less). 10

11

States and state-designated entities serve as HTF-eligible grantees. States are required to submit 12

an allocation plan to HUD, which must describe the distribution methodology they intend to use. 13

The state must also provide the opportunity for public feedback on the plan. The state may 14

distribute funds through eligible sub-grantees, which would include state agencies or units of 15

general local government that have filed an approved consolidated plan with HUD. 16

17

Currently, no guidance or direction is in place to ensure county governments receive an 18

allotment of HTF resources to ensure their locally-determined and managed affordable housing 19

programs are served. 20

21

Counties have a long history in the effective and efficient administration of federal resources for 22

affordable housing and community development including a variety of HUD formula block grant 23

programs, such as: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, HOME Investment 24

Partnership Program, Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Program, and Housing Opportunities 25

for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Program. 26

27

Counties have responsibly invested these federal resources for home purchase and rehabilitation 28

assistance; construction and rehabilitation of affordable multi-family housing; property 29

acquisition and improvement for affordable housing; and partnering with community-based 30

groups to increase the local supply of affordable housing. In addition, many counties are 31

involved in the administration and management of locally-based and funded housing trust funds. 32

Providing for a conduit of HTF funds to local and county governments would ensure timely 33

allocation of HTF resources that meet community-identified affordable housing priorities. 34

35

Finally, given the unique role HTF resources are designed to play in serving extremely low- and 36

very low-income populations it is important that HTF resources not be used to offset or supplant 37

other federal grant resources for affordable housing, such as the HOME program. HTF funds are 38

designed with a targeted purpose of accommodating the nation’s shortfall in affordable housing, 39

particularly multi-family housing. Supplanting existing affordable housing and community 40

development grant programs with HTF resources will create gaps in the ability of local 41

governments to provide much needed assistance to serve other specialized populations and fund 42

specific development programs. 43

44

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Adequate resources to support locally-identified priorities are 45

crucial in ensuring counties have the ability and funds needed to provide for and sustain the 46

demand for affordable housing. 47

48

Approved | Community, Economic and Workforce Development Steering Committee | 37-1 49

1

Proposed Resolution on FY2016 Appropriations for the Department of Housing and Urban 2

Development 3

4

Issue: Support FY2016 Appropriations for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 5

Development (HUD). 6

7

Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to support the following levels of funding for core U.S. 8

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs in the FY2016 9

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill: no 10

less than $3.3 billion in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) formula funding; no less 11

than $1.2 billion in formula funding for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME); 12

$2.1 billion for Homeless Housing Assistance grants, including at least $250 million for the 13

Emergency Solutions Grant program plus an amount to fully fund expiring supportive housing 14

and Shelter Plus Care rent subsidy contracts; full funding for existing Section 8 project-based, 15

tenant-based contracts and administrative fees and $500 million in Section 108 Loan Guarantee 16

authority. 17

18

In addition, NACo opposes the imposition of a funding threshold to receive CDBG formula 19

funds directly or elimination of “grandfathering” provisions that allow cities and counties to 20

maintain their entitlement status. NACo also does not support diverting CDBG formula funds to 21

other categorical grant programs. 22

23

Background: The CDBG and HOME programs have been model federal block grant programs 24

for expanding affordable housing opportunities and undertaking neighborhood revitalization. 25

26

Local governments use CDBG funds for critical community development activity such as, 27

expanding homeownership opportunities; eliminating slum and blight; infrastructure 28

improvements such as roads, water and sewer systems; services at libraries, community centers, 29

adult day care and child and after school care facilities; homeless housing assistance; 30

employment training; transportation services; crime awareness; and, business and job creation. 31

According to HUD, every $1 million in CDBG funding supports nearly 26 jobs and since 2005 32

CDBG program resources have created over 300,000 jobs. However, CDBG funding has 33

declined by over 30 percent, which has severely hampered local government ability to foster 34

sustainable and economically resilient communities. 35

36

For counties across the nation, the HOME program is vital to increasing home ownership and 37

expanding the availability of affordable rental housing. Since 1990, over one million units of 38

housing have been produced with HOME funds. HUD indicates that every dollar of HOME 39

funding leverages an additional $4 in other public and private funding. Every $1billion in HOME 40

funding creates or preserves more than 17,000 jobs. Despite the program’s performance, HOME 41

funding has been cut in half since 2010. 42

43

In December 2014, Congress passed the FY2015 Consolidated and Further Continuing 44

Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-235). It provided: CDBG program with $3 billion; $500 million in 45

Section 108 loan guarantee authority; HOME program with $900 million; $2.1 billion in 46

Homeless Assistance, including $250 million for the Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) and 47

full funding of Shelter Plus Care and Supportive Housing rent subsidies. 48

1

Last year, the Administration’s FY2015 proposed budget included provisions to amend the 2

Community Development Block Grant statute to include a funding threshold of approximately 3

$350,000 for communities to receive formula funding directly from HUD and it would eliminate 4

the “grandfathering” of metropolitan cities and urban counties who fall below the population 5

level at which they initially qualified. HUD has indicated that approximately 340 cities would 6

lose direct funding under the threshold. It is believed that some counties would be eliminated 7

from entitlement status if the grandfathering provisions were eliminated from the statute. It is 8

anticipated that the Administration will again propose these, or similar, revisions to the CDBG 9

program. 10

11

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Funding of HUD's core programs is crucial to state and local 12

governments that provide services to communities at the grassroots level. 13

14

Approved | Community, Economic and Workforce Development Steering Committee 15

37-0 (1 abstention) 16

17

ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY AND LAND USE STEERING COMMITTEE 1

2

Proposed Resolution on Allowing Publicly Owned Treatment Works to Operate as 3

Designed, Including Peak Wet Weather Flow Management Techniques Such as Blending 4

5

Issue: During heavy rain events Publicly Owned Treatment Works (“POTWs” a/k/a wastewater 6

treatment plants) “overflow” the increased storm water around the primary treatment plant, blend 7

the overflow back into the treated water from the primary treatment plant, and then discharge 8

(“blending”). The EPA is attempting to bypass the normal rulemaking process and ban blending. 9

10

Proposed Policy: NACo supports the crafting and uniform application of Clean Water Act 11

regulations and permits such that Publicly Owned Treatment Works can operate their facilities in 12

the manner in which they were designed and permitted, including the use of peak wet weather 13

flow management techniques such as blending. 14

15

Background: Most POTWs process storm water through their primary treatment plant before it 16

is released. However, when there is a heavy rain event, primary treatment plants can get 17

overwhelmed with the influx of storm water. These primary treatment plants are designed to 18

“overflow” the increased storm water around the primary treatment plant to a secondary system, 19

treat the excess storm water to a lesser standard than the primary treatment plant, and then 20

“blend” the overflow back into the water from the primary treatment plant and discharge 21

(“blending”). 22

23

The EPA has attempted to ban blending through guidance documents, rather than going through 24

a formal rule-making process where all impacted communities can submit comments. The EPA’s 25

own calculation is a blending ban would cost over $150 billion nationwide to implement. This 26

cost would be borne by the units of local government running the POTWs, who may, or may not, 27

be able to pass this cost on to the residents in the community. 28

29

In 2012, the EPA attempted to ban blending in Iowa. In 2013, the Iowa League of Cities filed 30

suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, challenging the EPA’s ban. The Eighth 31

Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the EPA’s blending ban. 32

33

The Court held the EPA’s use of guidance documents to institute a policy decision to ban 34

blending went further than the EPA’s statutory authority allowed. The Court’s ruling held the 35

EPA must follow the formal rule making process, which would allow impacted communities and 36

others to submit comments on any proposed rule before it could make such a far reaching policy 37

decision. 38

39

After the ruling, the EPA stated the Court’s ruling was only binding within the jurisdiction of the 40

Eighth Circuit (Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, North and South Dakota). 41

Outside of the Eighth Circuit, the EPA has attempted to ban blending on a case-by-case basis. 42

43

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: The EPA’s blending ban would cost in excess of $150 billion to 44

units of local government / POTWs. 45

46

Approved | Environment, Energy and Land Use Steering Committee | Unanimous 47

48

Proposed Resolution on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Efforts to Tighten Ozone 1

Air Quality Regulations 2

3

Issue: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) effort to tighten ozone air quality 4

standards. 5

6

Proposed Policy: NACo opposes implementation of the EPA’s proposed 2015 National 7

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone until the 2008 NAAQS for ozone have been 8

fully implemented. 9

10

Background: The EPA has a mission to improve the quality of the air we breathe. On Dec. 17, 11

2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a new proposed rule on the 12

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone that would tighten current federal air 13

pollution rules and increase the number of counties impacted by the proposed rule from 227 to a 14

range of 358—558 counties or more. The proposed rule would tighten the current ozone 15

standard from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to a range of 65 to 70 ppb. Additionally, the agency 16

indicated they will accept comments on a 60 ppb standard, raising the possibility the standard 17

would be set higher. 18

19

The current ozone standard of 75 ppb was set in 2008, however, has yet to be implemented due 20

to litigation. The 1997 standard of 80 ppb is still generally used. It is premature to discuss 21

tightening the standard until the 2008 standards are implemented. 22

23

Being named as a non-attainment area places communities and their residents in a difficult spot 24

because communities must make drastic and costly changes that ultimately impact a 25

community’s ability to attract and keep jobs. Economic development efforts become more 26

challenging because existing or potential businesses choose to site their facilities in attainment 27

counties so they do not have to meet the tighter air quality standards within non-attainment 28

counties. This approach is akin to using a stick, rather than a carrot, to encourage communities to 29

buy-in to tighter air quality standards. Finally, immediate investments must be made by all 30

industries in the region regardless of their individual air quality measurements as they are now 31

being impacted by the regional status. 32

33

The proposed standards, the timeline for implementation, and the inability to regionalize the air 34

across adjacent arbitrary political lines will cost communities funding, businesses will delay or 35

cancel expansions or new investments, and the daily lives of the community will be altered with 36

no cross-regional actual air quality benefit. 37

38

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Left unchanged, the proposed ambient air quality standards will 39

immediately place hundreds of counties across the nation into non-attainment status and 40

effectively halt economic development projects, negatively impact the lives of the residents of 41

those regions, and effectively tax existing industries to come into compliance irrespective of the 42

source of the pollutant in the region. Driving patterns will be impacted and reduced resulting in 43

less revenues being collected from the gas tax further reducing the funding available for 44

transportation projects. 45

46

Approved | Environment, Energy and Land Use Steering Committee | 53-3 47

48

49

Proposed Resolution on the Creation of a National Program to Allow States to Offset Air 1

Pollution Exceedances 2

3

Issue: Giving states the flexibility to manage air pollution within their borders. 4

Proposed Policy: NACo supports the creation of an EPA policy to grant states and local 5

governments the authority to leverage air quality improvements in one region to offset the non-6

attainment status of another adjacent region during the same period to avoid non-attainment 7

status in the region whose air quality exceeds the current standards. 8

Approved | Environment, Energy and Land Use Steering Committee | Unanimous 9

10

Proposed Resolution on Executive Order Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management 11

Standard 12

13

Issue: The President issued an executive order creating a Federal Flood Risk Management 14

Standard (FFRMS) that directs all agencies to use one of three resiliency criteria in their policies, 15

projects, and programs receiving federal funding. 16

17

Proposed Policy: NACo urges the comment period on Executive Order 13690 be extended until 18

June 30, 2015 and that the President and Congress direct all federal agencies to engage NACo 19

and state and local government agencies prior to implementation. 20

21

Background: On January 30, 2015, President Obama signed Executive Order (EO) 13690 on 22

“Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting 23

and Considering Stakeholder Input.” Among other things, EO 13690 made amendments to EO 24

11988 on Federal Policy on Floodplain Management (1977). As part of the implementation 25

process, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), on behalf of the Mitigation 26

Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG), the multi-agency group that developed the standard, 27

published a draft Guidelines for implementing the amended EO 11988 requiring all federal 28

agencies to be consistent with the FFRMS. The draft Guidelines has been released for a 60 day 29

Public Comment Period for consideration of implementation by the agencies. 30

31

The EO supplants an overarching shift in Federal Policy: 32

33

1) Away from flood control and protection to a risk management strategy. 34

From the Guidelines: “… the FFRMS reflects a transition beyond a former emphasis on 35

“flood control and protection” to a broader focus on “flood risk management.” “Changes 36

in terminologies from “protection” to a broader focus on resilience and risk management 37

reflect the recognition that floodwaters cannot be fully controlled, full protection from 38

floods cannot be provided by any measure or combination of measures, and risk cannot 39

be completely eliminated.” 40

41

2) To avoid directly or indirectly encouraging development in a floodplain. 42

From the EO: “… requires executive departments and agencies (agencies) to avoid, to the 43

extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy 44

and modification of floodplains and to avoid direct or Indirect support of floodplain 45

development wherever there is a practicable alternative.” 46

From the Guidance: “The preferred method for satisfying this requirement is to avoid 1

sites in the base floodplain.” “The Guidelines do not intend to prohibit floodplain 2

development in all cases, but rather to create a consistent government policy against such 3

development under most circumstances.” 4

5

3) The new standard is intended for all federal agencies in all actions. 6

From the Guidance: “The basic concepts expressed in Section 1 of the Order are: (1) all 7

agencies are covered; (2) all actions are covered; (3) all agencies are to affirmatively 8

carry out efforts to, and provide a good example of, sound floodplain management 9

practices; and (4) all agencies are required to act, not merely consider, reducing risk, 10

minimizing adverse impacts, and restoring and preserving floodplain values.” 11

12

4) Where the previous EO relied on the use of the FEMA derived 1% annual flood 13

Plain (100yr.) for federal agency consideration, the new EO broadens the floodplain 14

by directing the agency to consider any and all actions against a floodplain defined 15

by one of the following: 16

i) A climate informed science approach that uses best available actionable data 17

and methods that integrate current and future changes in flooding based on 18

climate science. 19

ii) Expanding the horizontal and vertical size of the flood plain by adopting a 2 20

foot freeboard above the FEMA NFIP base flood Elevation for non-critical 21

actions and a 3 foot freeboard for critical actions. 22

iii) Using the 0.2 percent annual chance flood (500 year). 23

iv) Using another elevation and flood hazard area identified in a future update of 24

the FFRMS. 25

26

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: If Implemented, Executive Order 13690 could prohibit federal 27

agencies from making any federal investment in the expanded floodplain through any policy, 28

project, or program. Possible federal programs/projects impacted could include: SBA, HUD, 29

DOTD, TIGER grants, the National Flood Insurance Program, Federally backed home and 30

business loans, Army Corps of Engineers, USDA, and Disaster Response. 31

32

Approved | Environment, Energy and Land Use Steering Committee | 48-3 33

Approved | Justice and Public Safety Steering Committee | Voice Vote 34

35

FINANCE, PENSIONS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 1

STEERING COMMITTEE 2

3

Proposed Resolution on Federal Voting Systems Standards 4

5

Issue: Federal voting system standards. 6

7

Proposed Policy: NACo endorses the principles developed by the Future Voluntary Voting 8

System Guidelines (VVSG) Working Group that articulate a vision for the federal VVSG to 9

effectively foster innovation and reduce the costs of upgrading and purchasing voting equipment. 10

11

Background: The Help America Vote Act of 2002 required the U.S. Election Assistance 12

Commission (EAC), with assistance from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, to 13

regularly review and update nationwide standards for voting systems. The agency adopted one 14

iteration of the VVSG in 2005. An updated draft has been pending a vote since 2007. The agency 15

has not had a quorum since 2010 to move forward with that draft, let alone develop future 16

guidelines. Pending nominations were approved by the U.S. Senate late in the 113th Congress 17

and on January 13, 2015, three commissioners were sworn in. 18

19

The process has struggled to balance the twin goals of encouraging innovation and providing 20

minimum technical requirements. The costs of testing have been high and difficult to anticipate, 21

and have left counties in a position of being unable to make even minor modifications to current 22

systems while waiting for vendors to develop and test a future generation of equipment. In 23

December of 2014, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission convened a working group that 24

drafted the following statements of principle for the future development of the VVSG: 25

26

1) The purpose and scope of the VVSG must be defined and confirmed. 27

2) The VVSG (and supporting process) must be consistent with Federal Statute and Rule. 28

3) The VVSG must accurately reflect the bottom-up reality of election administration. 29

4) The application of the VVSG must benefit election administration. 30

5) The VVSG must be implementable. 31

6) The VVSG must accommodate the interoperability of election systems. 32

7) The VVSG must bridge existing standards. 33

8) The VVSG should not impose unanticipated costs onto organizations. 34

9) The VVSG must include cost analysis estimate of conformance testing. 35

10) The VVSG requirements must be technology neutral. 36

37

While the draft VVSG development goals may change over time, the spirit of these ten 38

statements is consistent with the American County Platform. 39

40

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Development of new voting system standards consistent with 41

these principles would reduce the costs of upgrading and purchasing voting equipment. 42

43

Approved | Finance, Pensions and Intergovernmental Affairs Steering Committee | 44

Unanimous 45

46

HEALTH STEERING COMMITTEE 1

2

Proposed Resolution Supporting Amendment of 42 CFR Privacy Provisions to Create a 3

Uniform Set of Regulations Based on HIPAA Privacy Rules 4

5

Issue: Interagency coordination to assist “high utilizers” 6

7

Proposed Policy: NACo supports an amendment to 42 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 8

2 privacy provisions to coordinate with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 9

(HIPAA) privacy provisions. 10

11

Background: There is a need to support the development of protocols and systems among law 12

enforcement, mental health, substance abuse, housing, corrections, and emergency medical 13

service operations to provide coordinated assistance to high utilizers. A high utilizer: (a) 14

manifests obvious signs of substance abuse, mental illness, or has been diagnosed by a qualified 15

mental health professional as having a mental illness; and (b) consumes a significantly 16

disproportionate quantity of public resources, such as emergency, housing, judicial, corrections, 17

and law enforcement services. 18

19

The privacy provisions in 42 CFR were motivated by the understanding that stigma and fear of 20

prosecution might dissuade persons with substance use disorders from seeking treatment. 42 21

CFR laws protect substance abusers’ rights and, in cases where it is more stringent, overrule 22

HIPAA regulations. HIPAA laws were passed to protect personal health information from being 23

disclosed electronically on an unsecured site and without consent. As a result, confidentiality is 24

two-fold: 1) all information identifying a person as a substance abuser is confidential and may 25

not be released without a consent by the client or legal guardian (42 CFR, Part 2), and 2) all 26

personal health information, including demographic data, that is created by the provider and 27

relates to the person’s medical or mental health, services provided, and payment falls under the 28

protection of HIPAA and may not be released without consent by the client or legal guardian. 29

30

In most cases, addiction treatment providers fall under the more stringent laws of 42 CFR, Part 2, 31

but there is still confusion about the two sets of laws that define who and what is to be protected. 32

Under 42 CFR, when a person is identified as a substance abuser no information, even 33

confirmation of the person being in treatment, may be released without a written authorization by 34

the client or guardian. In contrast, the HIPAA privacy rule is balanced so that it permits the 35

disclosure of health information needed for patient care and other important purposes (i.e., 36

coordination of care, consultation between providers and referrals). 37

38

To develop and support multidisciplinary teams that coordinate, implement, and administer 39

community-based crisis responses and long-term plans for high utilizers, a uniform set of privacy 40

rules for the proper dissemination of information between agencies needs to exist. Information 41

sharing is essential to the coordination of care across service providers. The confusion caused by 42

the differences between HIPAA and 42 CFR often result in reduced information sharing and 43

coordination, even when it is permissible. 44

45

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Individuals with mental illnesses are overrepresented at every 46

stage of the criminal justice process. In response, many jurisdictions have developed a range of 47

policy and programmatic responses that depend on collaboration among the criminal justice, 48

mental health, and substance abuse treatment systems. A critical component of this cross-system 1

collaboration is information sharing, particularly information about the health and treatment of 2

people with mental illnesses who are the focus of these responses. At the program level, this 3

information can be used to identify target populations for interventions, evaluate program 4

effectiveness, and determine whether programs are cost-efficient. However, legal and technical 5

barriers, both real and perceived, often prevent a smooth exchange of information among these 6

systems and impede identifying individuals with mental illness or substance abuse issues and 7

developing effective plans for appropriate diversion, treatment, and transition from a criminal 8

justice setting back into the community. 9

10

Approved | Health Steering Committee | Unanimous 11

12

13

Proposed Resolution on Changes to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 14

Act 15

16

Issue: Treatment providers for substance abuse disorders such as opiate abuse are not always 17

fully aware of what the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) does/does 18

not allow when it comes to disclosing patient safety concerns to appropriate parties (i.e. family 19

members or law enforcement officials). Furthermore, treatment providers are confined by strict 20

language within HIPAA, which indicates disclosure is limited to when there is a threat of both 21

“serious and imminent” danger to the patient or others. 22

23

Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to amend language in HIPAA to clarify that treatment 24

providers may disclose their concerns about a patient’s safety to appropriate parties when they 25

believe in “good faith” that there is a threat of "serious or imminent" danger to the patient or 26

others. Currently, disclosure is limited to when there is a threat of “serious and imminent” danger 27

to the patient or others. 28

29

Background: The usage of opiates is a growing concern among residents of communities across 30

the United States. Heroin (opiate) usage has increased 100 percent in the last five years with 1.5 31

million users in the United States. A 23 year old male from Illinois passed away in January 2014 32

as a result of a relapse with opiates. The young man’s treatment providers did not notify his 33

parents that he had signed himself out of treatment against medical advice. If treatment providers 34

had a clear understanding of when they can disclose their concerns about young man’s safety to 35

his parents or law enforcement, the young man may be alive today. 36

37

Fiscal/Rural/Urban Impact: This policy change would better enable local substance abuse 38

providers and law enforcement officials to address the increasing abuse of opiates and help 39

prevent unnecessary relapses, recidivism, and even fatalities. When substance abuse providers 40

are able to disclose to appropriate parties (including local law enforcement officials) when their 41

patients are in “serious or imminent” danger, individuals have a better chance of getting the help 42

they need and preventing harm to themselves and members of the public. In the long run, they 43

have a better chance of overcoming their addiction and not being unnecessarily involved in the 44

county justice system. These changes to HIPAA will work in concert with other efforts at local, 45

state, and federal levels to comprehensively address opiate abuse and overdose deaths that are 46

devastating our nation’s counties. 47

48

Approved | Health Steering Committee | 18-7 49

1

2

Proposed Resolution on the Medicaid Institution for Mental Disease Exclusion 3

4

Issue: Needed revisions to the Medicaid Institution for Mental Disease (IMD) exclusion. 5

6

Proposed Policy: NACo calls on Congress to amend, but not eliminate, the current IMD 7

exclusion for adults between ages 21 and 64, as follows: 8

9

For non-hospital, community-based mental health and substance use residential care for adults 10

ages 21 to 64, the exclusion should be revised to reflect modern evidence based practices and 11

current economic realities. Thus, for persons ages 21 to 64 served in these non-hospital 12

residential placements of size 17 and larger through evidence based programs, up to 90 days of 13

care per year should be eligible for federal reimbursement. Beyond 90 days, the IMD exclusion 14

should still remain in effect. 15

16

For hospital-based mental health and substance use care for adults ages 21 to 64, the exclusion 17

should be revised to reflect improvements and efficiencies that have been made in hospital-based 18

care, plus the economic reality of modern managed care, which assures that only the most 19

minimal, necessary, inpatient care is provided. Thus, for persons ages 21 to 64 served in these 20

hospital placements of size 17 and larger through evidence-based programs, up to 15 days of care 21

per year should be eligible for reimbursement. Beyond 15 days, the IMD exclusion should 22

remain in effect. 23

24

Background: Since the founding of the federal-state Medicaid Program in 1965, inpatient 25

hospital care in a psychiatric hospital for persons with mental illness, including a substance use 26

condition, has been excluded from federal reimbursement. Facilities meeting these criteria were 27

defined as IMDs. Over the intervening years, exemptions were granted gradually for children 28

and youth, elderly persons, and facilities with 16 or fewer beds. However, in the same period, the 29

exclusion has not been revised to take account of developments in community based mental 30

health and substance use care, reforms due to the Affordable Care Act, new financing models, 31

such as case and capitation rate reimbursement, and modern managed care practices. Thus, it is 32

timely to revisit the IMD exclusion. 33

34

Modern mental health and substance use care practices, coupled with modern managed care 35

practices, have reduced inpatient care to a minimum. Hence, the original IMD argument 36

regarding overuse of inpatient care no longer is valid. Hence, when actually needed, inpatient 37

and residential care should be a viable option for providers. 38

39

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: These policies will not require additional county resources, rather 40

just slight adjustment of current practice. The impact of these policies will be substantial not only 41

in urban areas, but will also affect rural areas, where such inpatient and residential services 42

currently are very sparse. 43

44

Approved | Health Steering Committee | Unanimous 45

Approved | Justice and Public Safety Steering Committee | Unanimous 46

47

48

49

Proposed Resolution on the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program 1

2

Issue: The eligibility of county jails for designation as health professional shortage areas for the 3

purpose of the National Health Service Corps. 4

5

Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to amend the National Health Service Corps loan 6

repayment program to allow county and municipal jails to be eligible for the program. Currently 7

county jails are prohibited from being desimentalnated as health professional shortage areas. 8

NACo urges Congress to review this policy and allow county and municipal jails to be 9

designated as health professional shortage areas. 10

11

Background: The National Health Service Corps was established in 1970 and is a scholarship 12

and loan repayment program that helps underserved communities across the nation receive 13

medical care. Since 2011 county and municipal jails have not been eligible to take part in this 14

program even if the county is in a health professional shortage area. Federal and state prisons are 15

still eligible for this program. 16

17

Not being eligible for loan repayment hurts in recruitment and as a result there are many medical 18

professional positions that county jails are no longer able to fill. Providers who are interested in 19

filling positions inquire about National Health Service Corps eligibility and acknowledge that 20

ineligibility is a major factor in not accepting a position at a county jail. This difficulty in 21

recruiting medical professionals could jeopardize access to much needed care at county jails as 22

inmates tend to be in poorer health than other age matched local populations. 23

24

Jails tend to have sizeable populations with behavioral health issues. Adequate staffing in jails is 25

critical in serving those with mentally illness and substance use disorders that are a significant 26

proportion of the local jail population. 27

28

Fiscal Impact: Would allow medical professionals at county jails to be eligible for loan 29

repayment programs. 30

31

Approved | Health Steering Committee | Unanimous 32

Approved | Justice and Public Safety Steering Committee | Unanimous 33

34

35

Proposed Resolution on Maintenance of Effort for Essential Support Services for Persons 36

with Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities 37

38

Issue: State and local maintenance of effort for support services for persons with behavioral 39

health and developmental disabilities 40

41

Proposed Policy: NACo encourages, during implementation of the Affordable Care Act 42

(ACA), maintenance of effort for federal, state, county, mental health and behavioral health 43

authorities and city general revenue funds for social support programs that serve persons with 44

behavioral health and developmental disabilities, including the newly insured disability 45

population; these programs, particularly affordable housing and job supports, must be available 46

so that persons with disabilities can become and remain fully independent in their home 47

communities. 48

49

Background: Close coordination across health and social service programs is essential to assure 1

the effectiveness of care and supports for persons with disabilities. County behavioral health and 2

developmental disability authorities are concerned that appropriate support programs should be 3

available to persons with disabilities, including the newly insured, as we implement the ACA, 4

and that care coordination should be available to make these support programs operate 5

efficiently. 6

7

Health services are less effective and more costly when needed social services are either not 8

available or are not coordinated well. Failure to maintain care for these individuals will result in 9

increased costs to emergency departments, local law enforcement/public safety, and social 10

services in communities. Requiring state and local maintenance of effort addresses this problem 11

directly, both for the currently insured and the new populations to be insured through the ACA. 12

Maintaining the supports provided by the county behavioral health system is important for 13

persons with disabilities to be able to live independently in their own communities. 14

15

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: These policies will not require additional resources, rather just 16

maintenance of current effort. However, over the longer run, this investment will pay off in a 17

greater contribution of persons with disabilities to the economic recovery and productivity of the 18

United States. The impact of these policies will be substantial not only in urban areas, but will 19

also greatly affect rural areas, where such services are currently very sparse. 20

21

Approved | Health Steering Committee | Voice Vote 22

Approved | Human Services and Education Steering Committee | Unanimous 23

24

25

Proposed Resolution on Treatment of Substance Use Conditions 26

27

Issue: Need for new policy on treatment for substance use conditions 28

29

Proposed Policy: Treatment for substance use conditions should be based upon proven 30

evidence based practices, including, when appropriate and necessary, medication assisted 31

treatment. Such care always should be accompanied by assessments of improvement and 32

outcome to assure that the care provided actually is working. 33

34

Background: Together, the advent of health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act 35

for substance use conditions, other recent legislation on parity of substance use insurance 36

benefits, and recent developments in treatment of these conditions increase the necessity for 37

counties to develop an overarching policy on substance use care. 38

39

The Essential Health Benefit, which defines mandatory insurance coverage for the state Health 40

Insurance Marketplace and the state Medicaid Expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), 41

includes a parity substance use care benefit and a medication benefit. This represents the first 42

time that most private and public clients with substance use conditions will have access to 43

covered substance use services. At the same time, evidence-based treatment practices have 44

evolved to include new medication assisted treatments, each with demonstrated good 45

effectiveness This Proposed Resolution is an effort to improve substance use care directly, both 46

for the currently insured and the new populations to be insured through the ACA. 47

48

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: These policies will not require additional resources, rather just 1

maintenance of current effort because of how Affordable Care Act health insurance is funded. 2

However, over the longer run, this investment will pay off in a greater contribution of persons 3

with substance use disabilities to the economic recovery and productivity of the United States. 4

The impact of these policies will be substantial not only in urban areas, but will also greatly 5

affect rural areas, where such substance use services currently are very sparse. 6

7

Approved | Health Steering Committee | Unanimous 8

9

HUMAN SERVICES AND EDUCATION STEERING COMMITTEE 1

2

Proposed Resolution Urging and Requesting Congress to Consider Reinstating Universal 3

Military Service 4

5

Issue: The burden of recent military efforts by the United States has impacted communities 6

significantly as a result of a volunteer military. 7

8

Proposed Policy: NACO urges and requests the United States Congress to consider reinstating 9

universal military service for men and women during its current and future consideration of the 10

authorization for use of military force. 11

12

Background: The shift from a conscription based military to a volunteer military in 1973 has 13

resulted in unintended consequences for both society and government in our nation. 14

15

The decision to establish a volunteer military is leading to a chasm between the military and the 16

rest of society. This chasm is only widened by recent revelations regarding the quality of medical 17

care afforded current and retired members of the military. 18

19

The economic justification for a volunteer military disregards the moral hazard of one party 20

choosing to force involvement in a high risk situation knowing that someone else likely will bear 21

the costs. Or, put another way, assuming that economic status correlates with political power, 22

those who are recruited into the military (low economic power) have less participation in the 23

decision to place the military in harm’s way than those who are the decision makers (high 24

economic power). 25

26

And, last but certainly not least, universal military service would reestablish the principle that 27

service to one’s country is an obligation, not an advertising slogan. And universal military 28

service would restore the military’s proper place in society instead of being offered as an 29

economic option for those who do not have alternatives. Plus universal military service would 30

strengthen Congress’s role in use of the military. 31

32

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: The volunteer military has not been able to supply sufficient forces 33

to prosecute recent and current military efforts overseas. The current system of relying on 34

Reserves and National Guard to make up the slack in available forces for recent military efforts 35

has had a significant impact on communities in that citizens - rooted in their communities and 36

holding down jobs and parenting children in those communities – are being ripped out of those 37

communities for repeated, lengthy tours of duty overseas. 38

39

Approved | Human Services and Education Steering Committee | 16-12 40

41

JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY STEERING COMMITTEE 1

2

Proposed Resolution on Funding to Combat Child Sex Trafficking and to Assist its Victims 3

4

Issue: The commercial sex trafficking of children in urban and rural communities throughout 5

the nation 6

7

Proposed Policy: NACo supports increased Department of Justice (DOJ) funding for grants to 8

state and local governments to combat child sex trafficking and assist its victims, including 9

funding for victim-centered services, law enforcement, training, and multi-agency collaborations. 10

Congress should enact legislation to authorize and appropriate additional funding for such grants, 11

and the DOJ should allocate a higher percentage of its trafficking victim services appropriations 12

for grants to state and local governments. 13

14

Background: The trafficking of children for commercial sex is widely believed to be a 15

pervasive problem throughout the United States though the exact number of victims is unknown 16

due to the lack of nationwide reporting and data collection. There is a growing recognition that 17

children arrested for prostitution should be treated as victims who are in need of services and 18

protection rather than as offenders who should be punished. Studies, in fact, have found that 19

most child sex trafficking victims have a prior history of child sexual abuse, have been in the 20

child welfare system, or have run away from home. 21

22

Child victims typically are identified when they are arrested by law enforcement and enter the 23

juvenile justice system. Training is needed on how to better identify at-risk youth and victims, 24

both before and after arrest, and how to better supervise and serve victims. Instead of 25

incarceration, children who are arrested for prostitution need to be protected and a wide array of 26

services, ranging from food and shelter to health, mental health, counseling and other supportive 27

services. Given the role of county governments in law enforcement, juvenile justice, child 28

welfare, and the delivery of health, mental health, and social services, counties are well-equipped 29

to play a leading role in combatting child sex trafficking and helping its victims. 30

31

At the federal level, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has the lead responsibility for combatting 32

human trafficking (including child sex trafficking) and administering human trafficking grants. 33

To date, the DOJ’s Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), which administers such grants, has 34

provided very little funding to state and local governments with which to combat child sex 35

trafficking and assist its victims. This is largely because the amount appropriated for OVC grants 36

has been small and because none of the grant funding has been aimed at funding state and local 37

child sex trafficking services or projects. 38

39

The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Public Law 113-4) importantly 40

authorized two new state and local grant programs to combat trafficking: (1) a sex trafficking 41

grant to provide a wide range of coordinated services to child sex trafficking victims for which 42

$8 million a year is authorized in Fiscal Years (FYs) 2014 through 2017; and (2) a grant for law 43

enforcement to develop or strengthen programs to investigate and prosecute human trafficking 44

and to train law enforcement personnel for which $10 million a year is authorized in FYs2014 45

through 2017. These new programs were not funded in FY2014. However, Congress nearly 46

tripled the appropriation for trafficking victim services from $14.25 million in FY2014 to $42.25 47

million in FY2015, and provided DOJ with the authority to use part of this appropriation to fund 48

these state and local grants. As of January 28, 2015, DOJ has not yet announced whether it 1

would fund these new grants in FY2015. 2

3

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: The sexual exploitation and trafficking of children contributes to 4

higher law enforcement, juvenile justice, child welfare, health, and other costs, including major 5

costs after victims become adults because they often suffer lasting health and mental health 6

problems and are at-greater risk of becoming incarcerated, impoverished, and homeless. 7

Children are victimized by child sex trafficking in urban rural counties alike. All counties, 8

therefore, would benefit if increased Federal funding were authorized and appropriated by 9

Congress and awarded by DOJ for state and local grants to combat child sex trafficking and 10

assist its victims. 11

12

Approved | Justice and Public Safety Steering Committee | Unanimous 13

14

Proposed Resolution Urging the Federal Government to Suspend, Instead of Terminate, 15

Medicaid Coverage for Incarcerated Individuals 16

17

Issue: Medicaid benefits may be withdrawn when an individual is incarcerated as opposed to 18

convicted. 19

20

Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to pass legislation that: 21

(a) amends federal law to prohibit states from terminating eligibility for individuals who 22

are inmates of public institutions or residents of IMDs based solely on their status as 23

inmates or residents; and 24

(b) requires states to establish a process under which an inmate or resident of an Institute 25

for Mental Disease, who continues to meet all applicable eligibility requirements, is 26

placed in a suspended status so that the state does not claim FFP for services the 27

individual receives, but the person remains on the state’s rolls as being eligible for 28

Medicaid; and 29

(c) Once release or discharge from the facility is anticipated, require states to take 30

whatever steps are necessary to ensure that an eligible individual is placed in payment 31

status so that he or she can begin receiving Medicaid-covered services immediately 32

upon leaving the facility. 33

34

Background: Medicaid benefits may be withdrawn when an individual is incarcerated; and 35

currently, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) allows for and encourages 36

states to suspend rather than terminate Medicaid eligibility when a person is incarcerated or 37

detained in a public institution or Institute for Mental Disease (IMD). Suspension of Medicaid 38

coverage allows for quicker reinstatement of benefits when a person leaves a public institution or 39

IMD and fewer challenges in obtaining mental health, substance abuse, and other health services 40

upon community re-entry. When a state terminates instead of suspends coverage, it can take 41

months for an individual to be reapproved for Medicaid upon release from custody. 42

43

Currently, thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia terminate Medicaid coverage when an 44

individual is incarcerated. Terminating instead of suspending creates a disruption in access to 45

needed medical, mental health, and substance abuse treatment services for individuals to re-enter 46

the community, which can impact health outcomes, lead to re-arrest, and contribute to 47

homelessness. 48

1

Current federal law (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(29)(A)) prohibits the use of federal funds for 2

individuals while they are incarcerated, with the exception of a 24-hour inpatient care provided 3

to inmates outside of a jail. The statutory federal financial participation (FFP) exclusion applying 4

to inmates of public institutions and residents of IMDs affects only the availability of federal 5

funds under Medicaid for health services provided to that individual while he or she is an inmate 6

of a public institution or a resident of an IMD. The payment exclusion under Medicaid that 7

relates to individuals residing in a public institution or an IMD does not affect the eligibility of 8

an individual for the Medicaid program and individuals who meet the requirements for eligibility 9

for Medicaid may be enrolled in the program before, during, and after the time in which they are 10

held involuntarily in secure custody of a public institution or as a resident of an IMD. 11

12

The States that currently suspend Medicaid benefits when an individual is incarcerated include: 13

California, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts (recently passed legislation 14

requiring suspension and is in the process of creating a plan for its suspension and reactivation 15

procedure), Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon and Texas (suspends for only 16

30 days, then terminates). 17

18

Suspension of Medicaid coverage permits an individual incarcerated or detained in a public 19

institution or IMD to remain on the Medicaid rolls in a suspended status, which retains his or her 20

eligibility for Medicaid coverage while cutting off payment of benefits during incarceration or 21

detention. The importance of suspension instead of termination to Counties (Counties run the 22

jails) includes ensuring access to care which improves public safety, public health and county 23

budgets. For example, a Monterey County, CA study found that inmates from the county jail 24

who received treatment for behavioral health disorders after release spent an average of 51.74 25

fewer days in jail per year. 26

27

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Counties could experience a decline in resources spent on 28

delivering health and human services to those covered by Medicaid while incarcerated. Urban 29

and rural areas would be affected similarly. 30

31

Approved | Justice and Public Safety Steering Committee | Unanimous 32

Approved | Health Steering Committee | Unanimous 33

34

Proposed Resolution Urging Federal, State and Local Adoption of a Presumption Against 35

the Use of Unnecessary Restraints of Juveniles in Court 36

37

Issue: Many youth in custody are forced to appear in court proceedings in restraints that 38

unnecessarily humiliate, stigmatize and traumatize young people. Restraining youth who pose no 39

safety threat is inconsistent with the rehabilitative goals of juvenile justice. 40

41

Proposed Policy: NACo urges federal, state and local government adoption of a presumption 42

against the use of unnecessary restraints of juveniles in court and to only allow restraints after an 43

in-person opportunity to be heard and a finding that restraints are the least restrictive means 44

necessary to prevent flight or harm to the juvenile or others. 45

46

Background: Models for Change states that: “Many youth in custody are forced to appear in 47

court shackled with leg irons, belly chains, and handcuffs. The practice of restraining youth who 48

pose no safety threat unnecessarily humiliates, stigmatizes, and traumatizes young people. 1

Shackling youth is inconsistent with the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system and 2

offends due process.” Additionally, the Campaign Against Indiscriminate Juvenile Shackling 3

notes the following harms when youth are restrained in court proceedings: “The indiscriminate 4

shackling of youth unnecessarily humiliates, stigmatizes, and traumatizes them. The practice 5

impedes the attorney-client relationship, chills juveniles’ constitutional right to due process, runs 6

counter to the presumption of innocence, and draws into question the rehabilitative ideals of the 7

juvenile court.” 8

9

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Fiscal impact if it exist, is minimal. No difference among urban 10

and rural impacts. 11

12

Approved | Justice and Public Safety Steering Committee | Unanimous 13

14

Proposed Resolution on Reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice Delinquency 15

Prevention Act 16

17

Issue: The Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act has not been reauthorized since 2002. 18

19

Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to support the reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice 20

and Delinquency Prevention Act. 21

22

Background: This act brings significant benefits to juvenile justice reform efforts. The Act 23

endeavors to keep children out of the juvenile and criminal justice system creating significant 24

obstacles to their future opportunities. JJDPA will save local jurisdictions services, police, 25

juvenile courts and detention services as well as significant costs. JJDPA aims to represent 26

alternatives to juveniles that merit assistance and alternative opportunities. JJDPA will assist in 27

furthering efforts of prevention and diversion of youthful offenders and delinquent acts. The 28

reauthorization will strengthen the JJDPA’s requirements related to incarceration of youth in 29

adult jails and addressing racial and ethnic disproportionality within juvenile justice systems. 30

31

Impact: Fiscal impact: could decrease county costs related to incarcerating juveniles. No 32

difference among urban and rural impacts. 33

34

Approved | Justice and Public Safety Steering Committee | Unanimous 35

36

37

PUBLIC LANDS STEERING COMMITTEE 1

2

Proposed Resolution Supporting the Delisting of the American Burying Beetle 3

4

Issue: Delisting the American Burying Beetle from the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 5

6

Proposed Policy: NACo urges removal of the American Burying Beetle from the list of 7

endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 8

9

Background: The American Burying Beetle (ABB) is protected under the Endangered Species 10

Act (ESA) in the states of Arkansas, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, 11

Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Texas. In 1989, Fewer than 12 American Burying 12

Beetles (ABB) were believed to exist in Eastern Oklahoma and around 520 beetles were off the 13

coast of Rhode Island. Today, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), who oversees the ESA 14

program, has identified an ABB population in the Midwest region that far exceeds the targets it 15

set in its 1991 recovery plan. In Nebraska, there is estimated to be more than 3,000 ABB, making 16

it among the largest known populations, even though none were known to exist there prior to 17

1989. In Oklahoma, the ABB population is believed to be well into the thousands and exists in 18

45 of the 77 counties. The total number of populations has increased from one (1) to six (6) 19

between 1990 and 2005. 20

21

The American Burying Beetle’s population growth has occurred despite very limited recovery 22

projects by the FWS, underscoring how little we actually know about the ABB and its risk of 23

extinction. ESA is designed to protect species that may go extinct, and the ABB is showing signs 24

of increasing resiliency. According to U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), delisting the ABB is an 25

appropriate step given the expansion of the population since 1989 and the lack of understanding 26

about what may pose a risk to the species’ health. 27

28

This listing has prevented and slowed counties, cities and states from completing infrastructure 29

projects that contribute to the overall vitality and economy of our counties. The delisting of the 30

beetle would relieve our counties of unnecessary regulation, mitigation and financial costs. We 31

continue to suffer from the impacts of this listing as the range of the ABB grows, compounded 32

with the historic mitigation requirements. This regulation is costing tax payers unnecessarily and 33

diverting shrinking funds that could be used on critical infrastructure that promotes economic 34

development. 35

36

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: The removal of the ABB from the endangered species list under 37

ESA would allow counties to continue to use valuable citizen resources for needed infrastructure 38

projects without the overreaching regulatory and financial costs that are no longer needed. 39

40

Approved | Public Lands Steering Committee | Unanimous 41

42

On Opposing the Proposed Listing of the Black Pine Snake as a Threatened Species by the 43

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 44

45

Issue: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed listing the black pine snake as a threatened 46

species 47

48

Proposed Policy: NACo urges the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to withdraw the proposed 1

listing of the black pine snake as a threatened species. 2

3

Background: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed listing the black pine snake as a 4

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, adversely impacting not only 5

future development but also existing land uses in parts of fourteen south Mississippi counties, 6

including the DeSoto National Forest, and parts of Alabama and Louisiana. The proposed listing 7

contemplates special rules to be implemented in the affected areas that will adversely impact the 8

active management of timber resources, current military training activities at Camp Shelby 9

critical to the local and regional economy and to the national security of the United States, and 10

industrial, commercial, and residential development. 11

12

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: In addition to the loss of tax revenue from private activities, the 13

proposed listing will adversely impact future public activities in the affected areas, which include 14

not only Camp Shelby but also thousands of acres of sixteenth section lands held in trust for the 15

benefit of public schools and the routes of existing and planned roadways, highways, and other 16

public infrastructure. The listing will also require expensive surveying and potential long-term 17

monitoring of black pine snake populations, imposing undue economic burdens on taxpayers 18

even in the absence of future development. The listing comprises yet another unnecessary 19

restriction on the economic productivity of south Mississippi and adjoining states, where 20

extensive lands held by the federal government are already barred from development and exempt 21

from local taxation. 22

23

Approved | Public Lands Steering Committee | Unanimous 24

25

Proposed Resolution to Allow the Re-Classification of Diseased and Insect Infested Forest 26

Products 27

28

Issue: The abundance of forest products (trees) that are affected by disease and insect 29

infestation, yet still classified as a Federal Asset and regulated as such. 30

31

Proposed Policy: NACo urges the Federal land management agencies to establish the ability of 32

local land managers to reclassify trees and timber products that have been affected by insect 33

infestation or disease to a classification that would allow for the removal of these products 34

without the accountability and oversight necessary for the harvesting of undamaged (green) 35

timber for commercial use. 36

37

Background: At this time it is estimated that there are over 4.5 million acres of federal lands 38

affected by disease and insect infestation. This dead and dying timber effects public safety, 39

ecosystems, and economies. Vast amounts of dead trees also pose a threat of promoting 40

catastrophic wildfires. As a result of this these products become a liability to our communities 41

and public lands. 42

43

Historically timber products on National Forest System and other public lands are classified as 44

national assets. This naturally and logically requires careful accountability, oversight and 45

responsibility by those federal land managers delegated responsibility for management of federal 46

assets. In the Forest Service, this is line officers (i.e. District Rangers, Forest Supervisors, 47

Regional Foresters, etc.) 48

1

Although the management of federal land always comes with a cost to the taxpayer, the 2

management of treatments associated with recognized federal liability or not having federal 3

assets is much lower. This is mainly due to not having the added burden of oversight and 4

tracking of the federal asset. 5

6

An example using the fuels treatment analogy above is in the southwest (Colo., N.M., Ariz., etc.) 7

where there are extensive treatments to pinion and juniper woodlands adjacent to communities to 8

reduce fuel loads. These are generally done with biomass removal service contracts at a very 9

low cost per acre compared to a timber sale. The accountability and oversight regulations are 10

much lower in this example, thus the much reduced “up front” cost to the land management 11

agency and ultimately the taxpayer. 12

13

The ability to re-classify acreage of dead or dying timber would both reduce risk on our public 14

lands as well as establish a mechanism to economically remove the product for uses other than 15

conventional lumber. 16

17

Fiscal/ Rural Impact: Diseased and infested forest lands pose a significant threat of wildfire to 18

communities across the United States and threaten the health of our nation’s timber reserves as a 19

whole, yet the ability to remove dead, dying and infested timber from our forest lands is impeded 20

by regulations that were meant to be applied to the management of healthy timber. Supporting a 21

streamlined process for removing dead, dying and infected timber from forest lands would create 22

jobs in local communities, help prevent catastrophic wild fires and improve the health of our 23

nation’s forests as a whole. 24

25

Approved | Public Lands Steering Committee | Unanimous 26

27

Proposed Resolution on Sharing Post-Fire Litigation Settlement Funds with Counties 28

29

Issue: The continuing increase in catastrophic wildfire loss of timber resources on public lands 30

and its impacts on available revenue return for counties. 31

32

Proposed Policy: NACo urges the strengthening, through additional funding, by adhering to the 33

following; 16 U.S. Code 500-Payment and evaluation of receipts to State or Territory for schools 34

and road; moneys received. NACo urges Congress to change the current language in USC579c 35

to allow fire settlement dollars that are determined upon the timber value lost, to return 25 36

percent of such settlement to counties as stipulated above in 16 U.S. Code 500. This change will 37

recognize the timber revenue lost to counties by catastrophic wildfire and the Federal 38

Government's obligation to counties under the Act of May 23, 1908. 39

40

Background: With the recognition of climate change and the lack of management on public 41

lands, our public lands forests and watersheds have seen dramatic increase and losses due to an 42

increase in catastrophic wildfire. These conditions and losses are adding to the financial 43

hardship of our rural counties that are dominated by public lands. Currently losses to the public 44

land timber resource and potential revenue to counties are not recognized in USC579c when the 45

Department of Justice is awarded fire settlement dollars from such loss. As stated in 16 U.S. 46

Code 500-Payment and evaluation of receipts to State or Territory for schools and road; moneys 47

received; 48

1

On and after May 23, 1908, an amount equal to the annual average of 25 percent of all 2

amounts received for the applicable fiscal year and each of the preceding 6 fiscal years 3

from each national forest shall be paid, at the end of such year, by the Secretary of the 4

Treasury to the State or Territory in which such national forest is situated, to be expended 5

as the State or Territorial legislature may prescribe for the benefit of the public schools 6

and public roads of the county or counties in which such national forest is situated: 7

Provided, That when any national forest is in more than one State or Territory or county 8

the distributive share to each from the proceeds of such forest shall be proportional to its 9

area therein. In sales of logs, ties, poles, posts, cordwood, pulpwood, and other forest 10

products the amounts made available for schools and roads by this section shall be based 11

upon the stumpage value of the timber. 12

13

Counties should receive 25 percent of such settlements when timber loss and revenue 14

determination is part of a settlement. 15

16

NACo urges Congress to recognize this impact to counties when such a revenue income is not 17

appropriately shared with the counties with public lands. 18

19

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: This change in USC579c would provide additional funds as 20

directed by the Act of May 23, 1908 to counties with public lands. These fire settlement funds 21

would supplement the current reduction in 25 percent funds to counties that have been lost by the 22

reduction in management on our public lands. Such funds would allow for the financial support 23

of schools and roads. 24

25

Approved | Public Lands Steering Committee | Unanimous 26

Approved | Environment, Energy and Land Use Steering Committee | 48-3 27

28

Proposed Resolution Supporting Reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and 29

Community Self-Determination Act and Providing Expedited Payments for FY 2014 30

31

Issue: Urgent need to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination 32

Act (SRS) and expedite the disbursement of retroactive FY 2014 payments. 33

34

Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to reauthorize SRS for FFY 2014 with an 35

appropriation equal to the full funding amount as authorized in FFY 2013. NACo further urges 36

Congress to direct SRS payments to states and counties and provide retroactive payments to 37

counties in FFY 2014 expeditiously. 38

39

In order to expedite payments, NACo is urging Congress to eliminate barriers and provide the 40

flexibility to counties with the use of Title I, II and III funds. 41

42

Background: Since 1908, federal law provided that schools and counties share in receipts 43

generated from the sale of timber from federal lands. The commitment to shared receipts was 44

given by Congress to secure public support for retention of forest lands under federal 45

management, and beyond the reach of local school and county taxing authority. Over the last 25 46

years, schools and counties experienced substantial declines in funding due to steep declines in 47

federal timber harvests. In 2000, Congress passed SRS to provide payments to help support 48

schools and county services, with payments made soon after the end of each federal fiscal year 1

(FY). 2

3

The SRS legislation was adopted to replace a portion of those lost revenues until management 4

actions on federal lands could restore harvest revenue levels to acceptable levels. NACo has 5

supported and continues to support the SRS program as a temporary substitute that should be 6

continued only until necessary land management reforms are implemented. 7

8

The SRS program has always made payments retroactively, for the previous fiscal year, 9

following the historic timber harvest revenue sharing model, under which payments were always 10

made for a particular fiscal year after the close of that fiscal year. The SRS payment that was 11

made during FY2014 was made for FY2013. No payment has been made for FY2014. 12

13

SRS has always required eligible counties to make a complicated series of choices (elections) 14

regarding participation and allocation of portions of SRS payment amounts to projects under 15

Title II and Title III. The normal elections process is time consuming and requires at least 6 16

months to complete before SRS payments can finally be made. A reauthorization that eliminates 17

the elections process would permit delivery of the full payment amounts within 30 days. 18

19

It is urgently necessary for Congress to reauthorize SRS for one year with provisions making it 20

possible for the FY2014 payment to be made on an expedited basis. 21

22

Fiscal Impact: Reauthorization of SRS as requested would result in prompt payments totaling 23

$328,961,250 to 746 counties across 41 states and Puerto Rico. 24

25

Approved | Public Lands Steering Committee | Unanimous 26

27

Proposed Resolution Supporting Revised Wildfire Disaster Funding 28

29

Issue: Needed mechanisms to fund wildfire suppression adequately and stop counterproductive 30

“fire borrowing” 31

32

Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to enact legislation like the Wildfire Disaster Funding 33

Act so that the budgets of the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management will have 34

protection of its resources appropriately devoted to hazardous fuel treatments through active 35

management of the federally owned landscape, rather than having those resources drained by 36

wildland fire suppression. 37

38

Background: Federal fire suppression spending has increased substantially over the past 20 39

years. Most recent fire seasons have cost upwards of $1 billion, compared to $200 million in the 40

1990s. Spending to fight these infernos drain resources from the very programs designed to 41

prevent fires and to improve economic, social, and environmental conditions on the federally 42

owned landscape. One percent of wildland fires represent 30% of costs. Routine fire-fighting 43

costs should be funded through the normal budgeting and appropriations process, while freeing 44

as much as $412 million in discretionary funding for urgently needed active management 45

projects to improve the condition of federal lands. 46

47

The U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have been forced to spend increasing 1

proportions of their budgets on wildland fire suppression, diverting critical resources from the 2

very programs designed to prevent fires. To illustrate, the proportion of budgets of the U.S. 3

Forest Service devoted to wildland fire suppression has increased from 13 percent in 1991 to 41 4

percent in 2013. Congress should adopt legislation to move any spending above 70 percent of the 5

10-year rolling average for fire suppression outside of the agency’s baseline budget by making 6

additional costs eligible to be funded under a separate disaster account. 7

8

Fiscal Urban/Rural Impact: This concept would protect agency resources that fund on-the-9

ground active management of federal lands, increasing employment, social conditions of nearby 10

communities, and ecological conditions of federal landscapes, all to the benefit of rural and 11

urban communities alike. 12

13

Approved | Public Lands Steering Committee | Unanimous 14

15

Proposed Resolution Supporting Amending Title III of Secure Rural Schools to Provide for 16

Reimbursement of Patrol Expenditures 17

18

Issue: Support amending Title III of the Secure Rural Schools Act (SRSA) to provide for the 19

reimbursement of sheriff patrol expenditures on federal lands. 20

21

Proposed Policy: NACo supports amending Title III of the Secure Rural Schools Act (SRSA) to 22

include reimbursement to counties for sheriff patrol expenditures on eligible federal Forest 23

Service and BLM lands. Patrol expenditure reimbursements were disallowed with the release of 24

a 2012 GAO report to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Before the GAO 25

report, many counties used Title III funds to carry out routine law enforcement patrols on federal 26

land. These patrols helped reduce and deter criminal activity and enhanced the safety of visitors 27

to federal lands. County deputies are able to serve as first responders to any search and rescue or 28

other emergency situation. Limiting the ability of counties to use Title III funds for patrol on 29

federal lands has increased criminal activity and stretches the resources of sheriffs’ offices to 30

unsustainable levels. 31

32

Background: Counties containing federal lands have historically received a percentage of the 33

revenues generated by the sale or use of natural resources on these lands. A steep decline in 34

federal timber sales during the 1990s, however, significantly decreased revenues from national 35

forests managed by the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service and from some public lands 36

managed by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Secure 37

Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, reauthorized in 2008, was 38

enacted in part to address this decline by stabilizing payments to counties dependent on revenues 39

from federal timber sales. The act covers all National Forest lands, as well as certain BLM lands 40

in western Oregon. 41

42

Under the Act, Title III funds can be used for, among other things, “Search and rescue and other 43

emergency services.” The definition states that a county may use funds to reimburse the 44

participating county for search and rescue and other emergency services, including firefighting, 45

that are performed on federal land and paid for by the participating county. 46

47

Many counties use Title III funds to carry out routine law enforcement patrols on federal land. 1

These patrols help reduce and deter criminal activity and enhance the safety of visitors to federal 2

lands. County deputies are able to serve as first responders to any search and rescue or other 3

emergency situation. 4

5

A July 2012 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to the Senate Committee on 6

Energy and Natural Resources disallowed law enforcement patrol expenses as eligible costs 7

under Title III. The Secretary of Agriculture was asked to review the ruling and provide more 8

flexibility to cash strapped rural counties. To date, there has been no resolution or revised 9

reimbursement rate policy implemented by the Agency. Inclusion of language in the SRSA 10

reauthorization or future extensions would provide clarity and allow sheriff patrol operations on 11

federal lands as an eligible expenditures under Title III. 12

13

Without Title III funding, many counties will not be able to provide any law enforcement 14

services on federal lands, especially given other large budget cuts already experienced. Title III 15

funds are especially critical to search and rescue operations because of worsening county fiscal 16

conditions. 17

18

Counties with significant federal lands continue to face unprecedented budget challenges. Public 19

safety, fire, school and other basic functions of local government are not being met. Limiting 20

the ability of counties to use Title III funds for patrol has increased criminal activity on federal 21

lands and stretches the resources of police and sheriffs offices to unsustainable levels. 22

23

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Would allow counties to use already allocated federal funds to 24

maintain law enforcement activity in federal forests. 25

26

Approved | Public Lands Steering Committee | Unanimous 27

Approved | Justice and Public Safety Steering Committee | Unanimous 28

29

TRANSPORTATION STEERING COMMITTEE 1

2

3

Proposed Resolution on Federal Freight Goods Movement Investment in the United States 4

5

Issue: The slowly deteriorating national surface transportation infrastructure needs real investment 6

to adequately address the continued growth of the global economy and increases in imports and 7

exports in and out of the United States. 8

9

Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to examine the viability of a new dedicated funding 10

source for freight goods movement in the reauthorization of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 11

Century Act (MAP-21) that does not take funding away from currently authorized programs. 12

NACo further supports provisions in the next surface transportation reauthorization bill that 13

incentivize freight planning at the local level. 14

15

Background: Freight is forecasted to grow, with indicators showing that United States shipments 16

will more than double between 2010 and 2040 to roughly $39.5 trillion annually, with an estimated 17

$10.3 trillion worth of goods using multiple modes of transportation each year. 18

19

By 2020, the Nation’s projected surface transportation infrastructure deficiencies are expected to 20

cost the national economy cumulatively almost $900 billion in gross domestic product, rising to 21

$2.7 billion through 2040. 22

23

An elevated focus on freight related infrastructure could allow Congress the opportunity to 24

examine whether the most effective funding allocation mechanisms to States and localities is 25

through formula, competitive grant programs or a combination of the two. An examination by 26

Congress would also need to evaluate whether the dedicated freight funding program would be 27

funded out of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) or general funds through appropriations. These funds 28

could be used for multi-modal transportation projects that expedite freight goods movement. 29

30

NACo generally supports an increased investment in federal transportation infrastructure, 31

especially when the investment expands capacity and increases efficiency for freight goods 32

movement. Creating an office to focus on the expanding list of national and local freight issues is 33

also critical to addressing federal transportation policy. 34

35

This office would work with federal, state and local officials and stakeholders on locating funding 36

and financing, on ensuring freight related projects across all transportation modes are being 37

completed in an expeditious manner and help with writing and interpreting rules and regulations 38

across the entire DOT. 39

40

NACo encourages a focus on freight goods movement because investment in this area of federal 41

transportation policy goes to the critical importance of freight to United States businesses and 42

global economic competitiveness. 43

44

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Federal freight funding would benefit states and local governments 45

all over the United States and additional staff at DOT with policy expertise on freight investment 46

would be helpful for counties all over the U.S. 47

48

Approved | Transportation Steering Committee | Unanimous 1

Tabled | Agriculture and Rural Affairs Steering Committee 2

3

Proposed Resolution on Equitable Funding and Expenditures of the Highway Trust Fund 4

5

Issue: The long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund 6

7

Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to ensure the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust 8

Fund by considering revenue sources that will better capture all users of the nation’s highways 9

and account for all vehicles. Congress should also consider reducing the allowable administrative 10

costs in order to direct more funding toward highway improvement funding. 11

12

Background: The Highway Trust Fund was established in 1956 to finance highway construction 13

and maintenance with the passage of the Federal-Aid Highway and the Highway Revenue Acts. 14

It was established at three cents per gallon and has been increased to its current rate of 18.4 cents 15

per gallon on gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon on diesel. It is comprised of three accounts, the 16

Highway Account which funds road construction and maintenance, a smaller Mass Transit 17

Account which was created in 1982 to support public transit with a one-cent increase in fuel tax 18

rates and also a Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund which is .1 cent per gallon. The 19

fund also receives earmarked funding from sales of heavy trucks and trailers as well as truck 20

tires. 21

22

The fuel tax rates have not increased since 1993 so America is trying to fund a 2015 23

transportation on 1993 dollars. The 18.4 cents per gallon rate enacted in 1993 for gasoline is 24

worth about 11.5 cents in today’s dollars. Without action by Congress the highway and transit 25

programs will sustain an estimated 92 percent cut and become reliant on general fund 26

appropriations to fund highway construction and maintenance which would be unpredictable. 27

Predictability and sustainability are essential to highway planning. 28

29

The current system of fuel tax collections does not capture equitable revenue from all users of 30

our highway system, some of which contribute little or nothing to the highway system they are 31

using, such an electric powered vehicles, vehicles using Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), 32

Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) and those having low dependency on petroleum fuels. 33

34

An October 2014 GAO Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public 35

Works, US Senate stated that in 2013, 9 percent, of the Highway Trust Fund Obligations were 36

for Safety improvements, 1 percent was for sidewalks and trails, and another 1% was for “other” 37

enhancements such as cultural enrichment activities such as beautification efforts and historic 38

preservation, rehabilitation of historic transportation buildings, structures or facilities, 39

preservation of abandoned railway corridors, control and removal of outdoor advertising, 40

mitigation of water pollution due to highway run-off and establishment of transportation 41

museums: 42

43

In fiscal year 2013, FHWA obligated about $41 billion from the Highway Trust Fund, 44

most of which (about $39 billion) was apportioned to states for activities to improve the 45

nation’s roadway and bridge infrastructure through the federal-aid highway program. Our 46

analysis of fiscal year 2013 federal-aid highway program obligations shows that states 47

obligated most of this funding for road and bridge improvements (47 percent for roads in 48

addition to 17 percent for bridges). States obligated about 20 percent of Highway Trust 1

Fund monies for project development activities including planning, engineering, and 2

acquiring rights-of-way. Additionally, 9 percent was obligated for safety, enhancements 3

and other improvements, including about 1 percent for sidewalks and bicycle trails. 4

5

The same GAO Report, on page 26, stated that in 2013 $752 million was used for administrative 6

costs, with $439 million to the Federal Highway Administration, $250 million to the Federal 7

Motor Carriers Administration and $63 million to the National Highway Traffic Safety 8

Administration. 9

10

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Will benefit both Urban and Rural counties by assuring the long-11

term sustainability of the Highway Trust Fund. 12

13

Approved | Transportation Steering Committee | Unanimous 14

15

Proposed Resolution on Local Transportation Safety Funding (SHPS Local Coordination) 16

17

Issue: Need for elevated coordination with local governments in the development of State 18

Strategic Highway Safety Plans 19

20

Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to make safety on county roads a priority in the 21

reauthorization of MAP-21 by requiring that state departments of transportation, at a minimum, 22

cooperate with local government officials (including county transportation officials) in the 23

development of State Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs) and by directing proportionate 24

Highway Safety Improvement Program funding to areas of safety concern regardless of roadway 25

ownership. 26

27

Background: Historically there has been significant variation in how the state departments of 28

transportation include counties in the development of the Strategic Highway Safety Plans 29

(SHSP) and subsequently allocate safety funding within the state based on the (SHSP). NACo 30

urges Congress to require states to “coordinate” with local governments in developing Strategic 31

Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs) Suggested Language: Section 1112 Highway Safety 32

Improvement Plan (12)(A) “is developed in coordination with local government agencies 33

responsible for highway construction and maintenance.” 34

35

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Would provide additional federal funds to counties and 36

community based organizations to address safety on local roads across the nation. 37

38

Approved | Transportation Steering Committee | Unanimous 39

40

Proposed Resolution on Local Transportation Safety Funding (Establishment of TZD 41

Grant Program) 42

43

Issue: Need for additional funding for safety improvements in the reauthorization of MAP-21 44

45

Proposed Policy: NACo supports the establishment of a federal Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) 46

grant program that will provide funding to local governments and non-profit organizations for 47

the purpose of implementing proven safety practices and programs. 48

1

Background: Several States have currently adopted and implemented TZD at the state level, 2

which has proven successful in the reduction of incidents and resulted in increased transportation 3

safety. NACo urges Congress to establish Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) Grants to local and non-4

profit organizations to implement proven safety practices and programs on the local 5

transportation system to increase transportation safety across the nation. 6

7

Suggested Language: Toward Zero Deaths.—‘‘(1) The Secretary shall make grants available to 8

local agencies and non-profit organizations for development and implementation of Toward Zero 9

Deaths programs ‘‘(2) ROLE OF THE GRANTS.—To achieve the goals of achieving Toward 10

Zero Deaths, recipients of grants shall provide technical assistance, information sharing of best 11

practices, and training in the use of tools and decision making processes that can assist local 12

agencies in effectively implementing Toward Zero Death programs. 13

14

Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Would provide additional federal funds to counties and 15

community based organizations to address safety on Local roads across the nation. 16

17

Approved | Transportation Steering Committee | Unanimous 18

19