Blog

Water Has No Bounds: Regional Councils Take the Lead on Flood Planning

According to the National Resources Defense Council, flooding throughout the country will continue to be intensified by sea level rise and extreme weather. In fact, the nation’s floodplains are expected to grow an average of 45% by the year 2100. 500-year and 100-year floods are now occurring more often than expected, leaving communities everywhere at risk for major economic and public safety concerns. As local officials grapple with these new trends, many are looking regionally to tackle this widespread problem.

Whether flooding takes place on the gulf coast, the urban streets of Pittsburgh, or a small town along the Missouri River, communities across the U.S. must develop ways to handle the aftermath of flooding. Flooding does not start and stop at jurisdictional boundaries. This is evident from previous years’ hurricanes, flash floods up and down the east coast, and the recent flooding devastation that urban and rural communities in the Midwest are still recovering from. The Omaha-Council Bluffs Metropolitan Area Planning Agency (MAPA) is helping local officials in Nebraska and Iowa coordinate resources in the aftermath of the Missouri River flooding. The region is focused on recovering and reestablishing what has been damaged and lost in the region’s worst flooding event in history. MAPA is hopeful to one day establish a committee dedicated to providing information to local officials, reduce redundancies across governing bodies, and coordinate planning efforts in both states. The increased frequency of these climate-related flooding events is causing many regional leaders to seek new and inventive solutions to mitigate this problem.

Many of NARC’s members are acting as regional partners to combat major flooding through a complex consortium of stormwater user fees and taxes, green infrastructure, zoning regulations, long-term stormwater designs, and flood risk mapping tools.

Risk Mapping Tools

Hazard and risk mapping are extremely valuable in times of crisis and disaster management. The Houston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC) provides its region with a zip zone map so residents know what evacuation zone they’re in. This includes state-supported evacuation routes with identified resources such as fuel and Texas Department of Public Safety troopers. These mapping and zoning resources, coupled with the HGAC regional plan, improve the quality of life for Texans. In HGAC’s Our Great Region 2040 plan, they highlighted the necessity for structural solutions – including dikes, flood gates, and drainage improvements – to protect key assets, but their cost means this approach must be carefully targeted. HGAC’s Regional Flood Management Committee also addresses these issues to effectively manage the floodplain and provide coordination among all parties involved to ensure the entire watershed is protected. Tools like these help ensure cooperation and coordination takes place within a region in the event of a major flood.

Green Infrastructure

Green infrastructure uses vegetation, soils, and other elements and practices to restore some of the natural processes required to manage water and create healthier urban environments. Both urban and rural communities are using green infrastructure to reduce and treat stormwater at its source while delivering environmental, social, and economic benefits to their areas. The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) is developing a regional green strategy by providing the region with a Great Lakes Green Streets Guidebook,which provides a sampling of projects throughout the region utilizing green infrastructure techniques. Another tool SEMCOG uses in their regional strategy is the Wisconsin Green Infrastructure Guide – an audit of local codes and ordinances that often create a barrier to green infrastructure projects. SEMCOG is also working on an asset management project that will coordinate projects across jurisdictional boundaries and planning sectors in a cohesive and cost-saving manner.

Stormwater Taxes and Fees

Stormwater fees are another tool regions are using to better prepare for flooding. In Pennsylvania, for example, several municipalities are in the process of implementing local stormwater ordinances. Stormwater fees and authorities are especially important for municipalities that operate municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), because they allow local and regional areas to charge system users and generate funds to help pay for upgrades and future improvement projects. The Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (SPC) produces a  Forces of Change Exploratory Scenario Reportsdocument listing stormwater fees as a primary proactive strategy to protect communities from flooding and harmful pollution. This is produced by the Water Resource Center (WRC), first formulated in 2013 to address water-related concerns in the region. In addition to stormwater fees, 518 of the 548 municipalities in the SPC region are a part of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and three municipalities (Upper St. Clair, Etna, and Shafer) in Allegheny County have opted into Community Rating Systems (CRS) to manage activities that exceed minimum NFIP requirements.

Over the past decade more flooding in the United States is occurring in the Mississippi River Valley, Midwest, and Northeast, while domestic coastal flooding has doubled in a matter of decades. Advanced preparation can save communities time and money and protect citizens. Regional strategies are critical to establish emergency and disaster preparation to minimize flood impacts.

How Can Regional Councils Help Increase Affordable Housing?

A March 2018 report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition found that the U.S. has a shortfall of more than 7.2 million affordable and available rental homes for low-income households. Despite government attempts bridge the gap, three out of four low income households in need of housing assistance are denied federal help with their housing, primarily due to chronic underfunding.

As housing affordability has developed into a national crisis, communities have been looking for more ways to become more actively engaged in increasing affordable housing options for low and moderate-income individuals and families. Many communities have already implemented solutions including rent control, inclusionary housing, tax incentives and trust funds, but more efforts are needed.

Housing is a regional issue and regional coordination, information sharing, and funding generation can make a large impact, particularly in metropolitan areas.

Here are a few examples of the activities and programs that regional councils are carrying out across the US to help tackle the impacts of the affordable housing crisis in their regions.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG)

MWCOG plays a variety of roles in the Washington D.C. region, working with local governments on plans for residential growth. In September 2018, MWCOG identified a long-term goal of creating 100,000 additional homes in the region by 2045. Some of their recent activities to further this goal include:

  • Partnering with Urban Institute to conduct a research study entitled Housing Security in the Washington Region. This study was influential for local government officials and the community by outlining critical gaps in the region’s affordable housing for a wide range of household incomes. It also outlines specific housing policies and programs which are funded by local governments and philanthropic support. Much of their research is also being shared to community members and government officials through forums and conferences.
  • MWCOG is targeting housing preservation alongside production. They have been working with the Nonprofit Roundtable of Greater Washington to create the Capital Area Foreclosure Network (CAFN), which was designed to combat the region’s foreclosure crisis. The network provides grants and technical assistance, while counseling and organizing stakeholders, non-profits, banks and state agencies as they work towards solutions.

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP)

In CMAP’s GO TO 2040 and ON TO 2050 long-term regional plans, they have outlined goals and steps to sustain and rebuild their region’s infrastructure. Their priorities include affordable housing and inclusionary housing to create more opportunities throughout every community. One of the specific goals of the GO TO 2040 plan is to increase housing options by lowering prices, which is being tackled by their Regional Housing Initiative (RHI). With RHI, CMAP has partnered with various groups to increase collaboration between organizations such as the Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC), Illinois Housing Development Authority (IHDA), and ten housing authorities in the region. Their objective is to support affordable and mixed-income housing developments in opportunity zone areas that they have found to be the most in need.

Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC)

ARC has taken an innovative approach toward finding solutions for affordable housing via social media. By joining Enterprise Community Partner’s 100 Great Ideas Facebook Campaign as part of the host committee and one of the event’s moderators, they were able to virtually unite residents within the Atlanta Metro Region for five days of brainstorming and exchanging ideas that could improve housing affordability. The forum was open to anyone in the region to participate and generated over 3,400 posts, comments and reactions. ARC is currently working with Enterprise Community Partners and the other local agencies involved in the campaign to synthesize ideas into a final report that can be presented to local officials for implementation.

Greater Portland Council of Governments (GPCOG)

Being the fastest growing region in their state, GPCOG provides a wide range of planning services for affordable housing, including comprehensive planning, neighborhood master planning, ordinance development, workshop facilitation and advocacy. They act as a resource to other governing agencies as they help communities assess their needs and develop a personalized plan for the future. A recent example of this work includes the South Portland West End Neighborhood Master Plan, which looks at how South Portland’s West End neighborhood can preserve housing affordability for current and future residents as demand rises in the region.

Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC)

PVPC assists its region by helping members identify and plan ways to meet their current and future housing needs. Their team helps people create Housing Production Plans and Housing Needs Assessments and Action Plans that are compliant with the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development guidelines. They are also the convener for the Pioneer Valley Regional Housing Committee, bringing together regional stakeholders on a quarterly basis to discuss housing successes and challenges and work towards achieving the goals outlined in PVPC’s Pioneer Valley Regional Housing Plan.

The Cost of the Citizenship Question

As the debate over adding the citizenship question to the 2020 census rages on, concerns over the effects of an undercount remain. According to a study by the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, including the citizenship question, which would specifically ask participants about their citizenship status and birthplace, would lead to an undercount of 6 million Hispanics, or about 12 percent of the U.S. Hispanic population.

The Washington Post worked with those who produced the Harvard study to estimate where the citizenship question would have the greatest impact. California and Texas would be the most impacted states, with undercounting of 1.84 million and 1.15 million Hispanics, respectively. Florida (601,803 undercounted) and New York (454,095 undercounted) would be close to follow. Undercounting the Hispanic population would have economic effects and impact congressional representation.

An undercount of six million Hispanics could dramatically change the makeup of congressional districts in several states. Under the estimated undercount scenario discussed above:

  • California would be projected to lose 2 congressional seats;
  • Arizona would lose its projected gain of one seat;
  • Montana could gain an additional seat; and
  • Alabama, Minnesota, and Ohio could avoid their projected loss of a seat.

The potential economic impacts of adding the citizenship question are substantial. Lower Hispanic response rates related to citizenship will drive up the cost of doing the census, as the U.S. Census Bureau will make multiple attempts at a series of follow-up contacts and in-person interviews to reach this population.

Hundreds of billions of dollars in census supported federal programs are also at risk of being misappropriated. Half of the nation’s largest federal programs are calculated using state or regional per-capita income to allocate funds. An undercount will not change the amount of funds, rather the distribution of funds will be allocated incorrectly. One particularly vulnerable program is Medicaid. In Texas, an undercount could cost the state an estimated $378 million in annual Medicaid funds, whereas Illinois would gain over $9 million in annual Medicaid funds. California would see significant reductions in WIC funds, estimated at $10.6 million annually.

Census data is arguably the most powerful tool for local, state, and regional governments to make accurate decisions affecting budgeting, disaster response, land-use and transportation planning, measuring environmental and economic impacts, and more. So, the question remains, can the United States withstand a decade of inaccurate population data?

Many state and local governments have voiced serious concern over the inclusion of a citizenship question and subsequent undercount. Regional councils are encouraged to reach out to their members of Congress and share how undercounting could impact their region for the next ten years. Regional councils are also encouraged to continue educating their constituents virtually and in person (though Complete Count Committee meetings and outreach, public service announcements, social media, etc.) on why it is important that they participate in the upcoming 2020 census.

The Argument for Regionally Based Job Training Programs

Prior to passage of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) in 1973, job training programs were largely federally operated.  Moreover, they were very fragmented and there seemed to be no rhyme or reason to the way the programs were organized.  CETA changed all that. Though it remained federally funded, all funds were passed through to states and localities, and for the first time the job training system was locally operated through a system of “prime sponsors” – units of general purpose government such as cities or counties.

President Richard Nixon underscored this point when he signed CETA into law.  He said,  

“For the first time, [funds will] be made available to State and local governments without any Federal strings as to what kind of services or how much of those services should be provided. From now on, State and local governments will be the decision makers concerning the mix of manpower services, which they make available.”

Over the next 40 years, the nation’s job training system was transformed from one that began as city- or county-based to one that required a regional response to the workforce needs of business, industry, and workers.[1]

This transformation was not always without controversy.  States sought to control the program and deliver services statewide, and individual cities and counties sought to maintain their control over the funds and the program. Yet time and time again policymakers decided that America’s federally funded job training system should be delivered locally through a system of regionally based workforce programs that were multi-jurisdictional and reflected labor markets, economic development areas, and regional economies.

Why?  Regions, rather than individual cities or counties, are more likely to reflect the true labor market of an area.  Workers of course will cross governmental boundaries to get to work, employers will draw upon workers from a wide area and not just the municipality or county in which they are located, and wage rates are likely to be similar across these areas, thereby ensuring that individual workers would consider a variety of locations for work. 

Regions, rather than individual cities or counties, are more likely to be able to generate successful economic development strategies.  The many jurisdictions within a region are better able to develop effective land use and tax policies, make better use of the human capital throughout the region, and generate business and industrial development and jobs.

With passage of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act in 2014, policymakers finally made it clear that workforce development and job training programs must be regionally based. 

The law states that each state when drawing up its workforce development areas shall develop planning regions that consist of labor market areas, economic development regions, and other “contiguous sub-areas” of the states.  And as part of the identification process, the state will use the following regional criteria:

What began as a single city- or county-based job training system some 45 years ago has morphed into a robust, multi-jurisdictional job training system that reflects how and why economies emerge. Going beyond governmental boundaries, this system provides workforce development based on labor markets, economic development areas, local economies, industrial composition, labor force conditions and participation, and much more. 

[1] The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) in 1983, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1988, and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) in 2014 succeeded CETA. 

The Ongoing Debate Over Disaster Relief and Climate Change Collide

After more than a year of negotiations, the Senate appears to have moved closer to an agreement on disaster funding for Puerto Rico, Florida, and California. 

According to Politico, Senators Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the chair and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, respectively, and the President are near an agreement that will provide $17 billion in assistance to communities recently impacted by disasters, though the amount going directly to Puerto Rico remains under discussion.  

Sadly, it is likely that the debate around how much the federal government should spend to respond to the impacts of disasters on states, counties, cities, and regions will continue as more and more data suggest that climate change and weather-related disasters are likely to be on-going and have more severe consequences than previously thought. 

Early Monday, hundreds of scientists, working under the auspices of the United Nations, gathered in Paris for the release of a summary report that was approved by 132 nations, including the United States.  The report focuses on the unanticipated impact that climate change and weather-related disasters are likely to have.  New and profoundly significant impacts on plants and animals and the ecosystems in which they live, and upon which humans are dependent, are now predicted.  

The report states that changes in weather patterns such as those being experienced in the Midwest and Mississippi and Missouri River Basins right now, the severity of storms and sea level rise, the elimination of coastal wetlands and inundation of fresh water supplies by salt water, and continued melting of the polar ice caps, will result in the extinction of a million plant and animal species. The report adds that once flourishing ecosystems are likely to all but disappear because humans are transforming the earth’s natural landscapes so dramatically.

While short term political battles, such as the one we are seeing over disaster relief for Puerto Rico and some states, are likely to continue, there can be no doubt, given the most recent reports on climate change, that funding for disaster relief will continue into the foreseeable future as we face an increasing number of climate change and weather-related disasters.

The Importance of a Federally-funded Job Training System

Workforce development programs – whether the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, the Job Training Partnership Act, the Workforce Investment Act or the current Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act – have a long history in this nation, and have always had bipartisan support.

The problem is that at a time of very low unemployment, the need for an effective and well-funded federal job training system may be greatest.  

More recently, however, budget constraints at the federal level have kept funding for workforce development programs well below what most job training experts believe is necessary, and historically low unemployment rates have been used as an excuse to recommend that workforce development funding be cut each fiscal year.

The problem is that at a time of very low unemployment, the need for an effective and well-funded federal job training system may be greatest.  

Here’s why.  

First, the federal government is the most effective distributor of funding for programs like the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). Every state and every workforce development area is assured of receiving funds that reflect the numbers of unemployed adults, dislocated workers, and youth in need of job training assistance. Left to be funded by the states or localities, there is a significant chance that the funding of these programs will be less likely, and even if states choose to fund the program, the funding will prove irregular at best with some states making substantial investments while others may make no investments at all.

Second, while unemployment is at record lows, underemployment is at record highs:

  • Approximately 21 million or 14 percent of all working Americans are at a job for which they are overqualified.
  • An estimated 4.5 million or three percent of all Americans are working part-time but would prefer to work full-time.
  • Eighteen million, or 12 percent, of all Americans are working two or more jobs in order to make ends meet.

Third, the workplace and the nature of work are evolving rapidly. In the last few years we have seen a substantial increase in the use of robotics, artificial intelligence, and autonomous systems.  More progress has been made in the past five to eight years than in all the previous 50 years and the changes that are occurring today are very different than the automation cycles that occurred in the 1950s, 1980s, and 1990s. During those cycles the perception was that we were automating mechanical, clerical and routine work, and that automation in those cycles was designed to help workers be more productive and to reduce some of the hard physical labor often required in manufacturing, construction and related types of jobs.

The fact is that our nation suffers from a skills shortage.

Today, however, the machines we are building seem capable of doing wholly new things. They appear to have their own cognitive and knowledge skills, and are capable of machine learning.

The fact is that our nation suffers from a skills shortage. Yes, we have more college graduates than ever. Yes, we have more community college graduates than ever. But all too often, key industries in our country are unable to find enough sufficiently trained workers to perform the jobs they have because there is a mismatch between the skills workers have and the skills employers need. And this gap is likely to grow over time unless we make the right kinds of investments in workforce training that address the problem.

According to the National Skills Coalition, we can close this gap by “adopting policies that support sector partnerships and career pathways, and by making job-driven investments [and using] data to better align workforce and education investments with employer skill needs.”

To that end, a workforce development system that is funded at the federal level to meet these needs can help address this ongoing problem, and ultimately remedy it.  

Next week:  Why a Regional Job Training System Makes the Most Sense

Earth Day 2019: Regional Councils are Gearing Up for Bike to Work Events

Happy Earth Day! Regional councils across the country are celebrating today by spreading information on environmental issues and earth-friendly activities.

One of the activities that councils are promoting today is bicycle commuting. National Bike to Work Day will be held May 17th, and many councils have biking events planned either on the 17th or another date in May and June.

As both transportation and environmental planners can tell you, transportation leaves a significant environmental footprint. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 29% of greenhouse gas emissions originate from the transportation sector.

Each commuter who chooses to bike to work and keep a car off the road lowers emissions. Each individual trip adds up, and studies indicate that even a moderate increase in biking trips can create a significant regional impact.

Check out the events below to see how regional councils are planning and supporting regional Bike to Work and Bike Month initiatives.

Hosting your own Bike to Work event? Send your stories to eli.spang@narc.org or use the hashtag #RegionsLead on social media!

Regional Bike to Work Events:

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG)

On May 17, MWCOG’s Commuter Connections program is partnering with the Washington Area Bicyclist Association for their annual bike to work event. The first 20,000 Bike to Work registrants will receive an event T-shirt that they can pick up at one of the 115 pit stops that will be set up throughout the greater DC area. The pit stops will offer refreshments and a raffle for a new bike. More information can be found on the event site.

Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG)

Colorado’s weather can be unpredictable in May, so the State of Colorado declared the fourth Wednesday of June as Bike to Work Day (June 26). DRCOG’s Way to Go program convenes city and county governments and local organizations to plan the event, which aims to educate commuters on the benefits of biking. The event features pit stops, food, group rides, apparel, and awesome posters.  

Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC)

HGAC holds a Bike to Work event on May 16, and also celebrates the entire month of May as Bike Month. As commuting only makes up a portion of all trips, H-GAC also uses Bike Month to encourage other biking trips to go to schools, libraries, and restaurants; and to visit friends and family.

North Central Texas Council of Government (NCTCOG)

NCTCOG also celebrates Bike Month. This includes a Bike to Work Day on May 17 and multiple local Bike to Work and Bike with the Mayor events. NCTCOG also uses Bike Month to encourage use of TryParkingIt.com, their ride-match and trip-logging program, which helps commuters in the region match up with transit, biking, and walking buddies.

More Uncertainty for Capital Investment Grants (CIG) in 2019 and 2020

Last Tuesday, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announced a $1.36 billion allocation of Capital Investment Grant (CIG) funding. The money, drawn from streams of both fiscal years (FY) 2018 and 2019 allocated funds, will be directed at 11 existing projects and 5 new projects.

The announcement arrives amid criticism that the FTA has been slow to release funds. Transit advocacy groups like Transportation for America are vocally campaigning to speed delivery of allocated funds, claiming the Administration is intentionally stalling delivery.

In addition to criticism of delays, advocates have larger existential concerns regarding the program. The president’s FY 2018 and FY 2019 budgets excluded funding for new CIG projects and indicated a desire by the Administration to wind down the entire program.

The president’s recently released  FY 2020 budget and the Federal Transit Authority FY 2020 CIG recommendations include a billion dollar overall cut to the program, but also provide $500 million for new projects, the first new project funding since FY 2017. The Administration has reached a fork in the road and appears to be trying to go both directions.

CIG Background

The CIG Program, overseen by FTA, funds transit capital investments under three primary grant programs: Small Starts, New Starts, and Core Capacity. More information on the three programs can be found here.

Congress most recently authorized CIG under the 2015 FAST Act at $2.3 billion annually for fiscal years 2016 through 2020. As a discretionary program, CIG is subject to the annual appropriations process.

CIG Within the FTA Budget

Since the signing of the FAST Act, CIG dollars have constituted approximately eighteen percent of the overall appropriations provided for the FTA. As shown in Table 1 below, the president’s FY 2020 budget proposes cutting CIG funding by $1 billion. If enacted, this cut would drop the CIG’s portion of overall FTA funding to approximately twelve percent.

Winding Down the Program?

The Administration recommended massive cuts of $1.2 billion for FY 2018 and $1.0 billion for FY 2019. Congress ultimately appropriated CIG funds for FY 2018 and FY 2019 at authorized levels, but the Administration’s signaling on the program was clear: stop funding new projects and phase out existing work.

The FY 2019 FTA Annual Report on Funding Recommendations spelled this out. “For the remaining projects in the CIG program, FTA is not requesting or recommending funding. Future investments in new transit projects would be funded by the localities that use and benefit from these localized projects.” (emphasis FTA)

After Congress appropriated full CIG funding for FY 2019, Director of the Office of Management and Budget Mick Mulvaney responded with a letter stating that “the Administration believes the additional resources provided …would be better utilized by being allocated to the State of Good Repair Formula Program.”*

*For added context on administration positions regarding CIG funding: the Obama Administration recommended $3.5 billion of funding in FY 2017. Appropriators did not, however, follow this recommendation and funded the program at $2.4 billion, near its authorization level.

Breaking Down CIG Appropriations

The president’s FY 2020 budget includes limited detail of how the total $1.505 billion of recommended funding will be distributed between the different CIG programs. The only detail provided is that $995.29 million of the funding will be used for 11 existing projects and $494.85 million will be used for new projects under the three primary grant programs as well as the recently developed Expedited Delivery Pilot Program.

How Will FTA Distribute the $500 Million for New Projects?

Prior to FY 2018, money allocated to new projects was distributed among specific projects named within the president’s budget. As funding for new projects was not written into FY 2018 and FY 2019 budgets, there was no need to name projects.

The president’s FY 2020 budget proposal provides new project money, but like the FY 2018 and FY 2019 budgets, does not specifically name new projects. This lack of project naming, as well as the complaints made about slow fund distribution, has resulted in changes to the CIG selection process.

Without a clear pipeline for selection and fund distribution, Congress chose to set deadlines by which CIG funds need to be allocated. While solving the problem of fund withholding, these new deadlines also created a side effect: the Administration now treats readiness as a top criterion for project selection.

Project Selection Criteria for CIG in FY 2020

FTA lists the following general guidelines for project selection:

  • Readiness of funding for CIG grant obligation by statutory deadlines;
    • Non-CIG funding committed,
    • Critical third party agreements complete,
    • Firm and final cost/scope/schedule,
    • Technical capacity of the project sponsor,
  • Geographic diversity of project for a national funding program;
  • Extent of overmatch proposed by the project sponsor; and
  • Extent of innovative funding proposed including value capture, joint development, and public-private partnerships.

Looking Ahead

The FY 2020 budget and appropriations process has only just begun, and the only certainty is that there will be more changes before any funding levels are finalized. While the Administration’s inclusion of $500 million for new projects is a notable shift in tone from FY 2018 and FY 2019, the overall cuts to the program prevent this new funding from serving as an endorsement of the program.

Transportation planners and officials hoping to have their project selected for CIG funds will need to continue to assess the ways in which selection criteria are affected by both the overall funding structure of the program as well as the Administration’s view of the program within the context of other infrastructure funding.

NARC will continue to track CIG funding during the budget and appropriations process, as well as during upcoming discussions on transportation reauthorization and the development of an infrastructure package.

Addressing Public Health Concerns Using Regional Solutions

Happy National Public Health Week! This annual week-long celebration, spearheaded by the American Public Health Association (APHA), celebrates the nation’s public health successes while calling attention to our most pressing health-related challenges.

In the words of APHA’s Executive Director Dr. Georges Benjamin: “We all have a responsibility to the health of our community and our country. We know our needs are as varied as our communities themselves.”

That is why the role of regional councils in public health is so critical. Their relationships with all the major stakeholders in their communities – local government officials, business executives, and nonprofit and community leaders – gives them a broad view of what the most pressing health concerns are today.

With their wide lense across communities, regional councils recognize that health intersects many areas of public life, including transportation, the economy, housing, energy, the rise of extreme weather events, and the environment. With their long-term planning strengths, these organizations can also identify and analyze what potential impacts that current public health issues could look like ten, twenty, and even thirty years from now.

As highlighted in NARC’s health one-pager, the work of regional councils around public health has been primarily driven by two considerations: 1) planning for future development to improve public health, and 2) mitigating the negative consequences of the existing built environment.

Many regional efforts overlap with this year’s themes for National Public Health Week: healthy communities, violence prevention, rural health, technology and public health, and climate change. Several more ways regional councils are improving health outcomes include:

  • Prioritizing transportation and pedestrian safety;
  • Improving air and water quality;
  • Increasing access to local, healthy food;
  • Providing safe, stable homes for families through affordable housing; and
  • Bringing community resources to those who need it most.

Here are just a few examples of the different ways regional councils are working to understand and address public health concerns in their communities:

  • The Metropolitan Area Planning Council works to integrate public health perspectives in all of their projects, from planning to data collection to policy development. Their public health work focuses on healthy community design; health and equity assessments; food systems and healthy food access; and local public health collaboration and shared services.

  • The Brazos Valley Council of Governments, supported in part by the Healthcare Connect Fund, has been deploying a private broadband network to connect rural hospitals, clinics, and schools that provide healthcare services. This will help drastically expand the healthcare options of the 62 percent of residents living in rural areas within the region. 

  • The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments recently published a report that aims to better understand health disparities in the region. They discovered that the health of a community is shaped less by healthcare and more by factors like income, education, housing, transportation, and the environment.

  • The Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission has launched several transportation safety campaigns to keep motorists, bicyclists, and the public safer during their commutes. They have also developed air quality awareness campaigns to share ways residents can help reduce traffic congestion and air pollution, improving the health of the region.

  • The South Florida Regional Planning Council – in conjunction with the Florida Institute for Health Innovation and the Florida Atlantic University’s Center for Environmental Studies – developed a report titled Health and Sea-Level Rise: Impacts on South Florida. The report mapped out zones most prone to sea level rise impacts, described associated public health risks, and identified the region’s most vulnerable communities to these sea level rise health effects.
  • The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments has developed the Green Infrastructure Vision for Southeast Michigan, which seeks to protect undisturbed areas, promote built infrastructure that improves water and air quality, and encourage outdoor physical activity and recreation. The plan highlights how green infrastructure improves not just the health of a region’s environment, but also the health of its residents.

Census Day is a Year Away!

We are officially one year away from the decennial census. By April 1, 2020 – National Census Day – the U.S. Census Bureau plans to send a letter or a door knocker to every U.S. household to conduct a constitutionally-mandated, nationwide headcount.

Each year, our regions continue to grow and increase in diversity. Because this opportunity comes around only once every 10 years, it is critical that regions do everything they can to ensure a fair and accurate count for all our communities. The decennial census determines:

  • How more than $600 billion in federal financial assistance is dispersed annually for state, regional, and local government programs and services.
  • How many representatives will represent each of our regions in the U.S. House of Representatives.
  • Key decisions that regional leaders make regarding long-term planning initiatives.

The 2020 census is already facing significant challenges, including years of underfunding, the challenges of the first “high-tech” census count, and the potential inclusion of a citizenship question. So what can regional councils do to help make sure the hard-to-count communities – like people of color, low-income folks, LGBTQ people, immigrant communities, rural communities, and young children—are not missed?

Several regional councils are already ahead of the game, undertaking efforts in their communities to prepare local governments, private partners, nonprofit and community leaders, and the public for participation in the 2020 census. Some of our members’ regional initiatives are highlighted below:

Central Texas Council of Governments (CTCOG)

View Presentation

Recognizing that they have been historically undercounted in the decennial census, they have continued with their critical efforts to validate mapping and local addresses with the U.S. Census Bureau for most of the entities in their region. To do this, CTCOG:

  1. Provided education to their member governments on the problems an undercount could cause.
  2. Offered to review member’s census materials for errors and omissions, using 911 address files the first cycle and adding digital map comparison in the second cycle.
  3. Convinced their board of directors that the initiative was in the best interest of the region and should be covered with in-house funds where possible. They also asked each entity to sign an Interlocal Agreement with a not-to-exceed amount for any cost beyond CTCOG’s ability to cover. 

Alamo Area Council of Governments (AACOG)

View Presentation

AACOG served as their region’s local update of census addresses (LUCA) coordinator, informing their board of directors and membership governments of the opportunity to review and comment on the Census Bureau’s residential address list for jurisdictions prior to 2020 Census. AACOG was designated to conduct LUCA on behalf of four of their member counties, providing the service at no cost. The organization chose not to create their own Complete Count Committee (CCC) but is working closely with the U.S. Census Bureau in their outreach to their rural leaders, member governments, and their board of directors. AACOG is also the region’s coordinator for the Participant Statistical Area Program (PSAP). They are providing information on PSAP to their member governments and will assist counties and communities lacking capacity or resources with their participation.

Mid-America Regional Council (MARC)

View Presentation

MARC is currently undergoing the process to form a regional CCC, which will bring together stakeholders to educate and motivate residents to participate in next year’s census. The organization continues to offer support to other local CCCs as well. MARC will spend the next few months developing a 2020 census communications and outreach plan and engage diverse community organizations in the effort. Later down the road, they will implement their communications plan on all fronts using social media, traditional media, and outreach from community partners. They will also identify locations for residents to obtain assistance with their census questions and look for ways that they can ease the region’s cybersecurity concerns through educational efforts. 

Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC)

View Presentation

On the technical side, MORPC provided support to local governments in the region so they could participate in LUCA and the consolidated boundary and annexation survey (BAS). MORPC also serves as the lead agency for PSAP in the region; they are currently seeking input on potential tract and block group changes and will start undertaking related GIS analyses soon. The organization continues to build local awareness for the upcoming census by sharing the potential challenges and impacts with regional stakeholders, engaging with partners across sectors and communities. The City of Columbus and Franklin County have recently launched their own CCC with 29 subcommittees – MORPC will be chairing the local government subcommittee and staffing many others to get the work of this new CCC off the ground.

It is not too late to start getting involved in 2020 census activities! As you can see from the regional examples above, there are several ways that your organization and the stakeholders throughout your communities can help. We encourage you to take a look at our NARC census one-pager for ideas. You should also check out resources from organizations such as the National League of Cities, Census Counts, and the U.S. Census Bureau.