NACo Transportation Steering Committee 2015 Legislative Conference Packet

Transcription

1 NACo Transportation Steering Committee 2015 Legislative Conference Packet Staff Contact: Jessica Monahan cell:

2 NACo Transportation Steering Committee 2015 Legislative Conference Packet Contents (Click item to jump ahead) Transportation Steering Committee Schedule Washington Marriott Wardman Park Maps Draft Subcommittee/Full Committee Agendas Transportation Steering Committee 2015 Legislative Priorities Transportation Steering Committee Platform Submitted Interim Resolutions for Consideration FAA Reauthorization Fact Sheet MAP-21 Reauthorization Fact Sheet NACo s MAP-21 Reauthorization Priorities MAP-21 and Counties Handout Road and Bridge Funding Under MAP-21 Highway Trust Fund Information Highway Trust Fund Advocacy Toolkit Committee Roster Additional Items

3 Transportation Steering Committee Master Schedule Saturday, February 21 12:00 pm 1:00 pm Ports Subcommittee Meeting 1:00 pm 2:00 pm Airports Subcommittee Meeting 2:00 pm 3:00 pm Transit Subcommittee Meeting 3:00 pm 4:00 pm Highway Subcommittee Meeting Sunday, February 22 9:00 am 12:00 pm Transportation Steering Committee Meeting (Full Committee) Monday, February 23 Thurgood Marshall South/West Thurgood Marshall South/West Thurgood Marshall South/West Thurgood Marshall South/West Thurgood Marshall South/West 9:00 am 10:30 am Opening General Session Marriott Ballroom 10:45 am 12:00 pm WORKSHOP: Say What you Need to Say: Tips for Effective Advocacy Lincoln 5 10:45 am 12:00 pm WORKSHOP: PPPs: A Valuable Tool for Counties to Advance Critical Infrastructure Projects :00 pm 1:30 pm Attendees Luncheon Marriott Ballroom 1:45 pm 3:00 pm 3:15 pm 4:15 pm WORKSHOP: Power in Numbers: Forging Regional Economic Development Partnerships WORKSHOP: County Transportation and Infrastructure Investments Driving Economic Growth Tuesday, February 24 Delaware A Delaware A 10:00 am 11:45 am General Session Marriott Ballroom 12:30 pm 1:30 pm 2:30 pm 3:30 pm CAPITOL HILL BRIEFING The Road Ahead for County Infrastructure (Briefing on County Transportation and Infrastructure Funding and Financing) WORKSHOP: MAP-21 Reauthorization: A Path to Better Health and Safety for Your County OFF SITE Capitol Visitors Center SVC Delaware B 6:30 pm 9:00 pm NACo President s Reception Marriott Ballroom

4 EXHIBITION LEVEL

5 LOBBY LEVEL

6 MEZZANINE LEVEL

7 TRANSPORTATION STEERING COMMITTEE PORTS SUBCOMMITTEE NACo 2015 LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE Marriott Wardman Park Hotel ROOM: Thurgood Marshall South/West SATURDAY, February 21, :00 pm 1:00 pm Chair: Vice Chair: Hon. Scott Haggerty, Supervisor, Alameda County, Calif. Hon. Christian Leinbach, Commission Chair, Berks County, Pa. MEETING AGENDA Call to Order and Welcome Hon. Scott Haggerty, Supervisor, Alameda County, Calif. Presentation on Port Infrastructure The nation s ports are critical drivers for county economies which connect the nation s farmers, manufactures and consumers to the global marketplace. Port-related infrastructure facilitates the increasing export of American-made goods, create and sustain jobs and help generate federal, state and local tax revenue. During this presentation, the subcommittee will hear from the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) about federal funding and policy issues impacting ports, port-related infrastructure and the movement of freight. John Young, Director of Freight and Surface Transportation Policy, AAPA Committee Resolutions Discussion Proposed Resolution on Federal Freight Goods Movement Investment in the United States Adjourn NACo Committee Staff Liaison: Jessica Monahan, Associate Legislative Director, or jmonahan@naco.org National Association of Counties 25 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC

8 TRANSPORTATION STEERING COMMITTEE AIRPORTS SUBCOMMITTEE NACo 2015 LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE Marriott Wardman Park Hotel ROOM: Thurgood Marshall South/West SATURDAY, February 21, :00 pm 2:00 pm Chair: Vice Chair: Hon. Mike White, Councilmember, Maui County, Hawaii Hon. Gary Moore, County Judge/Executive, Boone County, Ky. MEETING AGENDA Call to Order and Welcome Hon. Mike White, Council Member, Maui County, Hawaii Presentation on the Role Counties Play in the National Air System Emilia Istrate, Research Director, NACo Panel Discussion on FAA Reauthorization Counties play a critical role in the nation s transportation systems, including the nation s air transportation system. With the current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) authorization set to expire September 31, 2015, Congress will soon be addressing many aspects of aviation policy and funding, including a number of programs that benefit counties. During this panel, the subcommittee will hear from industry experts representing the nation s airports and regional airlines regarding the path forward for FAA reauthorization and what may be at stake for county-owned airports and communities that depend on regional air service. Annie Russo, Managing Director, Government and Political Affairs, Airports Council International-North America Faye Malarkey Black, Senior Vice President-Government Affairs, Regional Airline Association Adjourn NACo Committee Staff Liaison: Jessica Monahan, Associate Legislative Director, or jmonahan@naco.org National Association of Counties 25 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC

9 TRANSPORTATION STEERING COMMITTEE TRANSIT / RAIL SUBCOMMITTEE NACo 2015 LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE Marriott Wardman Park Hotel ROOM: Thurgood Marshall South/West SATURDAY, February 21, :00 pm 3:00 pm Chair: Vice Chair: Vice Chair: Hon. Gary W. Moore, County Judge Executive, Boone County, Ky. Hon. William R. Altimus, Police Jury Administrator, Bossier Parish, La. Hon. James D. Healy, Board Member, DuPage County, Ill. MEETING AGENDA Call to Order and Welcome Hon. Gary W. Moore, County Judge Executive, Boone County, Ky. Presentation on MAP-21 Reauthorization (Transit Policy) The nation s counties are involved with the ownership and/or operation of roughly a third of the country s public transportation systems. As a part of the nation s surface transportation system, public transportation policy and funding will be up for debate in the reauthorization of MAP-21. During this presentation, the subcommittee will hear from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) about historical and emerging trends in public transportation, APTA s priorities for reauthorization and ways to effectively advocate for NACo s public transportation priorities. Speaker from the American Public Transportation Association Committee Resolutions Discussion Proposed Resolution on Equitable Funding and Expenditures of the Highway Trust Fund Proposed Resolution on Federal Freight Goods Movement Investment in the United States Additional Subcommittee Business Adjourn NACo Committee Staff Liaison: Jessica Monahan, Associate Legislative Director, or jmonahan@naco.org National Association of Counties 25 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC

10 TRANSPORTATION STEERING COMMITTEE NACo 2015 LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE Marriott Wardman Park Hotel ROOM: Thurgood Marshall South/West SUNDAY, February 22, :00 am 12:00 pm Chair: Vice Chair: Vice Chair: Vice Chair: Vice Chair: Hon. Peter McLaughlin,, Hennepin County, Minn. Hon. Cindy Bobbitt,, Grant County, Okla. Hon. Edward M. Emmett, County Judge, Harris County, Texas Hon. Gary Fickes,, Tarrant County, Texas Hon. Jim Healy, Board Member, DuPage County, Ill. MEETING AGENDA Call to Order and Welcome Hon. Peter McLaughlin,, Hennepin County, Minn. Presentation on the Highway Trust Fund: Possible Solutions to the Impending Funding Crisis The Highway Trust Fund, which supports federal highway and transit programs, has experienced growing shortfalls since Rather than providing a solution to ensure the trust fund s long-term solvency, Congress has used short-term measures to keep the trust fund afloat. Without a long-term funding solution, it s unlikely that Congress will be able to pass a reauthorization of MAP-21. During this presentation, the committee will hear from Ms. Kathy Ruffalo, a former staff member for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee who was appointed to serve as a member of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, a commission created by Congress to make recommendations regarding alternative approaches to financing transportation infrastructure. Ms. Ruffalo will cover what caused the funding crisis, the possible solutions considered by the commission and the commission s final recommendations. Kathy Ruffalo, President, Ruffalo and Associates, LLC Presentation on the Administration s Proposal for MAP-21 Reauthorization Last year, the Administration submitted to Congress the Generating, Renewal, Opportunity, and Work with Accelerated Mobility, Efficiency and Rebuilding of Infrastructure and Communities throughout America or GROW AMERICA Act. This bill was a comprehensive four-year, $302 billion reauthorization proposal that called for substantial funding increases and policy reforms to federal surface transportation programs. Earlier this month, the President released his 2016 Budget proposal which included a six-year, $478 billion multimodal reauthorization proposal that builds on the initial version of the GROW AMERICA Act. During this presentation, the committee will hear from the Administration about its vision for MAP-21 reauthorization and other proposals to fund and finance the nation s transportation infrastructure. National Association of Counties 25 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC

11 Presentation on the Road Ahead for County Priorities in MAP-21 Reauthorization Last year, the Transportation Steering Committee developed a comprehensive set of priorities for MAP- 21 reauthorization. Since that time, NACo and its members have been advocating for these priorities and urging Congress to fix the Highway Trust Fund and pass a long-term reauthorization of MAP-21. During this presentation, the committee will receive an update on the path forward for MAP-21 reauthorization and NACo s priorities. Jessica Monahan, Associate Legislative Director, NACo Discussion on Advocacy Messaging and Opportunities Committee members will reflect on the information presented on MAP-21 reauthorization and Highway Trust Fund and discuss advocacy strategy, messaging and opportunities. This discussion is designed to prepare committee members to advocate for county priorities in MAP-21 reauthorization on Capitol Hill and back home in their communities. Discussion Leader: Peter McLaughlin,, Hennepin County, Minn. Committee Resolutions Discussion and Voting Resolution Requesting a Modification of Procedures for Environmental Review and Challenges Involving Federal Highway Construction Resolution on Federal Freight Goods Movement Investment in the United States Resolution on Equitable Funding and Expenditures of the Highway Trust Fund Resolution on Local Transportation Safety Funding (SHPS Local Coordination) Resolution on Local Transportation Safety Funding (Establishment of TZD Grant Program) Adjourn NACo Committee Staff Liaison: Jessica Monahan, Associate Legislative Director, or jmonahan@naco.org National Association of Counties 25 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC

12 NACo Transportation Steering Committee 2015 Legislative Priorities This fall, the Transportation Steering Committee completed a survey on potential legislative priorities for The results of the survey identified the following four legislative items as priorities for the committee this year. These priorities serve as points of emphasis for the committee s work and help direct NACo s lobbying activities. MAP-21 Reauthorization and the Highway Trust Fund: Urge Congress to fix the Highway Trust Fund and pass a multi-year surface transportation authorization bill that provides long-term certainty and supports county surface transportation priorities. Transportation Infrastructure Financing: Protect the tax free status of municipal bonds and support innovative financing mechanisms that allow counties to finance critical transportation infrastructure investments. Transportation Safety: Support policies and regulations that help counties increase transportation safety across all modes. FAA Reauthorization: Advocate for the passage of a FAA reauthorization bill that supports airport development and continues air service to large and small communities.

13 TRANSPORTATION STATEMENT OF BASIC PHILOSOPHY The National Association of Counties (NACo) believes that the nation s transportation system is a vital component in building and sustaining communities, moving people and goods, and developing competitive economies at local and regional levels, and on a global scale. The nation s counties play a critical role in the nation s transportation system. Counties own 45 percent of the nation s roads and 39 percent of the nation s bridges, and are involved with over a third of the transit systems and airports in the United States that connect citizens, communities and businesses. NACo believes that counties should be recognized as major owners of transportation infrastructure and provided levels of funding and authority that adequately reflect their role in the nation s transportation system. FUNDING AND FINANCING TOOLS NACo believes that a user-pay approach should continue to be the cornerstone of federal transportation funding and that federal policy should provide counties the flexibility to use additional financing tools, such as tax-exempt bonds and public-private financing for delivering transportation projects. A. Highway Trust Fund: NACo supports using Highway Trust Fund revenue for a total public transportation program (roadways and transit) and that Congress and the Administration should retain the existing budget treatment of the highway and mass transit accounts within the Highway Trust Fund. In addition, NACo supports increasing and indexing the federal motor fuel user fees to meet current and future highway and transit funding needs, provided all additional revenue resulting from such an increase is dedicated for highway, bridge and transit programs. B. Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund: NACo supports the full expenditure of harbor maintenance trust fund collections on dredging and harbor maintenance, and providing equity for deep draft ports that contribute collections to the fund but do not have significant dredging needs by allowing them to utilize trust fund dollars for limited port-related uses other than dredging. C. Airport and Airway Trust Fund: NACo supports funding the airports and airway trust fund at levels that will meet current and future infrastructure needs and allow for the steady flow of authorized funds without cuts or delays. NACo also supports retaining the existing budget treatment of the trust fund, which requires mandatory spending of its funds and ensures that the taxes collected from users of the aviation system are spent on their designated purposes. D. Passenger Facility Charge (PFC): NACo supports the continued collection of PFC fees for every boarded passenger by public agencies that control commercial airports. E. Airport Rates and Charges: NACo supports local governments and airport operators having the full authority to impose and enforce fees, rates and charges that dedicate all airport revenue to airport development, capital financing and operations. F. Off-Airport User Fees: NACo supports the continued authority of local governments and other public airports to set fees, rates, and charges for the use of airport facilities by off-airport business, with the proceeds being dedicated to airport development, capital financing and operations. G. Innovative Financing: NACo supports innovative financing mechanisms including, but not limited to, qualified tax credit bonds; infrastructure banks; the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA); and public-private partnerships that would allow local governments and transportation authorities, such as counties, to leverage federal financing for capital projects. The American County Platform and Resolutions

14 H. Municipal Bonds: NACo believes the tax free status of bonds used for transportation infrastructure development should be continued with no imposition of additional restrictions on arbitrage and advanced refunding of bonds. COORDINATION AND CONNECTIVITY NACo believes that an ideal transportation system is balanced, coordinated and encompasses all modes of transportation, including land (roadways, rail and transit), aviation (airports), and marine transport (ports). NACo also believes that continuous, cooperative, and comprehensive planning is an essential part of a coordinated and balanced transportation system. A. Intergovernmental Coordination: NACo believes a coordinated and balanced transportation system supports the interrelationship and connectivity of transportation infrastructure and services across all levels of government, including county/municipal, state, and federal transportation assets. B. County Role in Transportation Planning: NACo supports opportunities for counties to participate in local/regional and statewide transportation planning processes and believes local/regional transportation planning organizations (such as Metropolitan Planning Organizations) should be made up of a majority of local elected officials and that local elected officials should be able to re-designate their local/regional transportation planning organization, in consultation with the state, if their organization is not adequately comprised of local elected officials. C. Funding for Transportation Planning: NACo believes funds devoted to comprehensive planning should be reasonably related to identifiable beneficial results through a benefit-cost analysis. D. Funding for Multimodal Transportation Projects: NACo supports federal funding for multi-modal transportation projects through discretionary programs and believes local governments should be eligible as sole applicants for these programs. HIGHWAYS While counties own more road miles in the United States than any other form of government, NACo recognizes that the nation s transportation system depends on roads and bridges owned by all levels of government and that the role counties play within a state varies greatly state-by-state. Therefore, NACo supports a federal highway program that supports investments on both state and locally owned roads and bridges. A. Requirements for Local Projects: NACo believes counties should be permitted to make a distinction between projects that are statewide and local in character, with requirements for local projects being much less complex. B. Regional Planning: NACo believes that regional planning organizations, in cooperation with state and local governments, should be limited to planning for services and facilities of regional significance. C. Statewide Planning: NACo supports states, with local governmental review and approval, developing multiyear plans and programs for highway improvements and believes that the federal government should review and approve these annual state plans and programs. D. Increased Funding for Local Infrastructure: NACo believes Congress should increase funding for highways and bridges owned by local governments by redirecting amounts authorized strictly for state-owned highways and bridges. E. Off-System Investments: NACo supports federal investments for certain projects that are off the federal-aid system, including: The American County Platform and Resolutions

15 Programs that target the rehabilitation of critical elements of the transportation system in our aging regions and communities, including high-risk rural roads; Funding for the replacement or rehabilitation of critically deficient bridges which may not be on the federal-aid system, particularly those off-system bridges under county control; Funding to eliminate or grade-separate the most serious hazards among the 165,000 rail-highway grade crossings not on the federal-aid or state-aid systems. F. Trucks and Vehicle Size and Weights: NACo believes adequate federal funding should be provided to compensate state and local governments for any infrastructure upgrades necessary to accommodate the vehicle size, weight, and configurations mandated by Congress. NACo also supports the continued requirement that all trucks have underride protection devices and believes that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should periodically review the adequacy of such regulations. G. Standards for Center and Edge Line Markings: NACo opposes mandated standards for center and edge line markings and believes local governments should be allowed to implement their own policies and procedures. H. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS): NACo believes counties should be provided flexibility and federal funding to adopt ITS technologies and related infrastructure. I. Highway Safety Plans: NACo supports the requirement that states develop and update State Strategic Highway Safety Plans in an effort to reduce accidents and fatalities on our nation s roads and believes states should be required to, at a minimum, cooperate with local government officials in the development their statewide safety plans. J. Metropolitan Congestion: NACo supports increasing, and expanding local control over, funding to urban and suburban counties to address congestion. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION NACo believes Congress should provide funds, in partnership with state and local governments, to improve existing public transportation systems and to establish new transit systems where needs and benefits have been determined by local elected officials. In addition, NACo believes the federal government should more fully recognize the appropriateness of counties as a basic area-wide government for planning and operating public transportation services and coordinating specialized transportation. A. Interlocal Cooperation: NACo supports providing flexibility to counties and municipalities in metropolitan areas to join together and establish area-wide public transit authorities. B. Formula Funding for Urban Transit Systems: NACo supports full funding of the urbanized area formula grant program at historic levels for both capital and operating assistance. C. Funding for Rural Public Transportation: NACo supports increased funding to the small urban and rural public transportation program. D. Discretionary Funding for Transit: NACo supports federal funding for transit projects through discretionary programs that support rail modernization, new start and small start system investments and extraordinary bus capital needs, and believes projects should be evaluated based on its cost effectiveness, responsiveness to community transportation needs, and state and/or local financial support of the operations and/or maintenance of such projects and facilities. E. Commuter Benefits: NACo supports increasing the monthly amount that commuters may set aside pre-tax for mass transit to a level that exceeds the allowable pre-tax amount for parking. The American County Platform and Resolutions

16 AIRPORTS NACo believes the federal government should more fully recognize the ability of counties, as area-wide governments, to plan and coordinate aviation with other modes of transportation and to control land use for future airport development. A. Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and PFC Funds: NACo supports flexibility for airport sponsors to invest AIP and PFC funds, and local fees, rates and charges, for the financing of intermodal transportation facilities, including but not limited to roads, interchanges, public transit, and safety projects that are an integral component to the growth and sustainability of the airport. B. Small Community Air Service Program: NACo supports continued, sufficient and guaranteed funding to meet the needs of small communities to retain, expand and attract air service. C. Essential Air Service (EAS): NACo believes the federal government should continue subsidies for assisting airlines serving small communities and fully fund the EAS program. D. Federal Share of Airport Development Projects: NACo supports an increased federal share on airport development projects to help local governments with inadequate local revenue sources. E. Local Control over Airport Investments: NACo supports increased flexibility for public airport sponsors in dedicating available airport grant funds to finance projects determined to be of highest priority by the sponsoring county/community. F. Military Airports: NACo believes the federal government should work cooperatively with counties in establishing the joint use of existing military airports for the purpose of achieving considerable public savings. G. Air and Noise Pollution Control: NACo believes the federal government should continue research of air and noise pollution caused by civilian and military aircraft, and enforce existing standards, rules, and regulations. H. Airport Security: NACo supports providing sufficient federal funding to both commercial and general aviation airports to guarantee adequate security and to ensure that no financial burdens or federal security requirements are imposed on local governments or public authorities that operate these facilities. RAILROADS NACo believes there should be a coordinated federal-state-local effort to return rail service to its appropriate place in a balanced national transportation system. In this effort, NACo supports expanding and improving longdistance passenger service, and providing needed regulatory reform at the federal level. A. Freight Rail Assistance: NACo believes Congress should provide assistance to local governments, states, and railroads for the rehabilitation, preservation, and improvement of rail lines with the goal of maintaining and improving needed freight service. B. Amtrak: NACo believes Congress should continue to provide subsidies to Amtrak at a level consistent with maintaining a reasonable level of service and to provide necessary capital improvements with appropriate accountability controls. However, NACo opposes using any transportation trust fund dollars to address Amtrak s financial problems. C. Short Line Railroads: NACo believes Congress should enact legislation that would preserve and restore short line railroads in urban and rural communities. D. High-Speed Rail: NACo supports efforts to improve and expand regional and national high-speed rail service to serve those counties and regions that would benefit from such service. However, NACo opposes The American County Platform and Resolutions

17 the use of funds from the Highway Trust Fund for high-speed rail and believes there should be no preemption of state and local taxing authority and no negative impact on any current commuter rail funding. PORTS AND WATERWAYS NACo believes that a vibrant waterway transportation system is vital to our economy and provides our nation with the ability to meet the needs of the shipping public. NACo supports legislation that provides increased funding and regulatory relief to facilitate the revitalization, modernization, and maintenance of port facilities, including legislation that ties the expenditure of harbor maintenance trust fund revenues to their intended purpose harbor maintenance projects. NACo also believes that federal policy should ensure that state and local officials responsible for administration and security at U.S. ports are consulted before the sale of port facilities in their jurisdiction to foreign state-owned entities. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT NACo believes the federal government, in cooperation with states, local governments and industry, should continue and expand research, development, and deployment programs that focus on new and existing modes of transportation, including but not limited to the development of reasonable, safe and cost effective low volume roads. TRANSPORTATION RESOLUTIONS Resolution on County Priorities for MAP-21 Reauthorization Issue: This year, the nation s transportation system will face two looming crises: the expiration of the current surface transportation authorization law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21); and the dwindling solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. Adopted Policy: With MAP-21 set to expire on September 30, 2014 and the Highway Trust Fund nearing a major fiscal cliff, NACo urges Congress to adopt a secure and long-term funding strategy for the future of the Highway Trust Fund and pass a long-term surface transportation bill (preferably six years in length) that provides sufficient funding and supports counties surface transportation priorities. County surface transportation priorities in the reauthorization of MAP-21: Provide Long-Term Funding Certainty: Support passage of a new surface transportation authorization that provides long-term funding certainty by raising the federal gas tax and/or finding alternative sources of revenue to make the Highway Trust Fund solvent. Increase Funding for County Road and Bridge Projects: Support county road and bridge projects by: 1) maintaining the set-aside for off-system bridges and continuing states ability to reduce the set-aside requirement if there are insufficient off-system bridge needs; and 2) providing more funding for locallyowned on-system roads and bridges by increasing the overall funding level for the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and continuing the STP suballocation to local areas but increasing the share to greater than 50 percent. Increase the Role of Counties in Statewide Planning: Provide an increased role for counties in statewide transportation planning by: 1) requiring state departments of transportation, at a minimum, cooperate with local government officials (including county transportation officials) in the development of planning and funding allocation processes, including the development of State Strategic Highway Safety Plans; and 2) requiring state departments of transportation coordinate with local government officials in defining the term high risk rural road or developing a federal definition of the term high risk rural road after considering input from state and local stakeholders and other performance measurements. The American County Platform and Resolutions

18 Build on Reforms from MAP-21 that Strive to Expedite Project Delivery: Continue and expand efforts to streamline and expedite project delivery by: 1) maintaining the categorical exclusion for projects receiving limited federal assistance ($5 million or less); and 2) simplifying the process for pursuing categorical exclusions. Support Public Transportation Systems of all Sizes: Support rural, small and large transit systems by: 1) continuing to fund transit programs through the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund; 2) increasing federal funding for rural transportation systems; 3) continuing and expanding transit operators flexibility to use federal dollars for operating assistance; 4) restoring historic funding levels for the Bus and Bus Facilities program and revising the program to require that all funds for Urbanized Areas with a population of 50,000 or more be apportioned directly to the designated recipients of 5307 funding; and 5) providing discretionary funding for both rural and urban transit systems to address one-time and/or major investments. Make Safety a Priority on all Roads and Bridges: Emphasize safety on all roads and bridges by: 1) revising the High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) safety rule under the Highway Safety Improvement Program, which requires an increase in existing fatality rates on HRRRs over a two-year period before a state must obligate funds to improve rural road safety rather than waiting for safety problems to get worse, states should either be required or incentivized to decrease existing fatality rates on HRRRs through safety investments; 2) prioritizing investments for federal-aid bridges to address safety and infrastructure improvements for bridges with the greatest need regardless of whether they are on or off the National Highway System; and 3) continuing existing limits on truck size and weight due to the enormous threat larger and heavier trucks pose to road safety and locally-owned infrastructure. Support Innovative Funding and Financing Methods: Continue and encourage alternative financing methods that help local governments stretch federal, state and local investments farther by: 1) continuing robust funding for the TIFIA program; 2) incentivizing innovative project funding and financing through an increased federal match (up to 100 percent) or by allowing local governments to use savings realized through innovative contracting methods toward their local match; and 3) creating a pilot program or providing technical assistance to local governments that support the planning for and design of multi-jurisdictional project bundling. Invest in Passenger Rail: Include funding for passenger rail in the reauthorization of MAP-21 that supports current rail service and the development of high-speed rail. Continue Funding for the Reservation Road Program: NACo believes reservation road funding should be continued for the improvement and maintaining of roads that are used to transport children to or from school or Head Start programs on or near reservations. Approved July 14, 2014 Resolution on Modifying the Train Horn Rule Issue: Supporting feasible and safe implementation of railroad quiet zones through modification of the Train Horn Rule Adopted Policy: NACo urges the U.S. Congress and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to reexamine the Train Horn Rule (49 CFR, Part 222, the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings) in order to determine how local communities can feasibly implement quiet zones without insurmountable costs, requirements and processes while also continuing to protect public safety. Additionally, NACo encourages Congress to provide new or unobligated federal funds to localities for the express purpose of establishing quiet zones. Approved July 14, 2014 The American County Platform and Resolutions

19 TRANSPORTATION STEERING COMMITTEE PROPOSED INTERIM POLICY RESOLUTIONS WASHINGTON D.C. FEBRUARY

20 TABLE OF PROPOSED INTERIM POLICY RESOLUTIONS TRANSPORTATION Requesting a Modification of Procedures for Environmental Review And Challenges Involving Federal Highway Construction...1 On Federal Freight Goods Movement Investment in the United States...1 On Equitable Funding and Expenditures of the Highway Trust Fund...2 On Local Transportation Safety Funding (SHPS Local Coordination)...4 On Local Transportation Safety Funding (Establishment of TZD Grant Program)...4 Proposed Interim Policy Resolutions 2015 NACo Legislative Conference February 2015 i

21 TRANSPORTATION STEERING COMMITTEE Proposed Resolution Requesting a Modification of Procedures for Environmental Review and Challenges Involving Federal Highway Construction Issue: Environmental review and challenges for federal highway construction projects result in unnecessary delays and excessive litigation. Proposed Policy: NACo urges the proposal of legislation to modify the relevant laws and regulations to streamline and limit when legal challenges to environmental studies for highways can be filed, being no more than two years from when a highway is formally proposed. Background: Transportation infrastructure is a critical component of any local economic development program. There are numerous regulations in place concerning highway environmental studies and challenges to such studies. These challenges are often done very late in the process in which highways are being examined, and can even be made after approval is given by the necessary regulating agencies. As a result, highway construction is often needlessly stalled or unnecessary expenses to litigate such challenges must be undertaken. Limiting the period when legal challenges to environmental studies can be made will streamline the highway construction process. Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: It is in the economic interest of counties to have revised procedures in which environmental challenges to highway projects are made, so they can done earlier in the highway planning process. This would result in faster and better road construction, as less resources will be diverted to litigate frivolous claims. Sponsor: Joe Carpenter,, Gaston County, N.C. Proposed Resolution on Federal Freight Goods Movement Investment in the United States Issue: The slowly deteriorating national surface transportation infrastructure needs real investment to adequately address the continued growth of the global economy and increases in imports and exports in and out of the United States. Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to examine the viability of including dedicated funding for freight goods movement in the reauthorization of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century Act (MAP-21), the surface transportation law. NACo also supports the creation of a multi-modal freight office within the Department of Transportation (DOT) in the next surface transportation reauthorization bill. NACo further supports provisions in the next surface transportation reauthorization bill that incentivize freight planning at the local level. Background: Freight is forecasted to grow, with indicators showing that United States shipments will more than double between 2010 and 2040 to roughly $39.5 trillion annually, with an estimated $10.3 trillion worth of goods using multiple modes of transportation each year. Proposed Interim Policy Resolutions 2015 NACo Legislative Conference February

22 By 2020, the Nation s projected surface transportation infrastructure deficiencies are expected to cost the national economy cumulatively almost $900 billion in gross domestic product, rising to $2.7 billion through An elevated focus on freight related infrastructure could allow Congress the opportunity to examine whether the most effective funding allocation mechanisms to States and localities is through formula, competitive grant programs or a combination of the two. An examination by Congress would also need to evaluate whether the dedicated freight funding program would be funded out of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) or general funds through appropriations. These funds could be used for multi-modal transportation projects that expedite freight goods movement. NACo generally supports an increased investment in federal transportation infrastructure, especially when the investment expands capacity and increases efficiency for freight goods movement. Creating an office to focus on the expanding list of national and local freight issues is also critical to addressing federal transportation policy. This office would work with federal, state and local officials and stakeholders on locating funding and financing, on ensuring freight related projects across all transportation modes are being completed in an expeditious manner and help with writing and interpreting rules and regulations across the entire DOT. NACo encourages a focus on freight goods movement because investment in this area of federal transportation policy goes to the critical importance of freight to United States businesses and global economic competitiveness. Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Federal freight funding would benefit states and local governments all over the United States and additional staff at DOT with policy expertise on freight investment would be helpful for counties all over the U.S. Sponsor: Suzanne Hart, Legislative & Policy Chair, Will County, Ill. Proposed Resolution on Equitable Funding and Expenditures of the Highway Trust Fund Issue: The long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to ensure the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund by considering revenue sources that will better capture all users of the nation s highways and account for vehicles that have low or no dependency on gasoline. Congress should also consider reducing the allowable administrative costs in order to direct more funding toward highway improvement funding. Background: The Highway Trust Fund was established in 1956 to finance highway construction and maintenance with the passage of the Federal-Aid Highway and the Highway Revenue Acts. It was established at three cents per gallon and has been increased to its current rate of 18.4 cents per gallon on gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon on diesel. It is comprised of three accounts, the Highway Account which funds road construction and maintenance, a smaller Mass Transit Proposed Interim Policy Resolutions 2015 NACo Legislative Conference February

23 Account which was created in 1982 to support public transit with a one-cent increase in fuel tax rates and also a Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund which is.1 cent per gallon. The fund also receives earmarked funding from sales of heavy trucks and trailers as well as truck tires. The fuel tax rates have not increased since 1993 so America is trying to fund a 2015 transportation on 1993 dollars. The 18.4 cents per gallon rate enacted in 1993 for gasoline is worth about 11.5 cents in today s dollars. Without action by Congress the highway and transit programs will sustain an estimated 92 percent cut and become reliant on general fund appropriations to fund highway construction and maintenance which would be unpredictable. Predictability and sustainability are essential to highway planning. The current system of fuel tax collections does not capture equitable revenue from all users of our highway system, some of which contribute little or nothing to the highway system they are using, such an electric powered vehicles, vehicles using Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) and those having low dependency on petroleum fuels. An October 2014 GAO Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works, US Senate stated that in 2013, 9 percent, of the Highway Trust Fund Obligations were for Safety improvements, 1 percent was for sidewalks and trails, and another 1% was for other enhancements such as cultural enrichment activities such as beautification efforts and historic preservation, rehabilitation of historic transportation buildings, structures or facilities, preservation of abandoned railway corridors, control and removal of outdoor advertising, mitigation of water pollution due to highway run-off and establishment of transportation museums: In fiscal year 2013, FHWA obligated about $41 billion from the Highway Trust Fund, most of which (about $39 billion) was apportioned to states for activities to improve the nation s roadway and bridge infrastructure through the federal-aid highway program. Our analysis of fiscal year 2013 federal-aid highway program obligations shows that states obligated most of this funding for road and bridge improvements (47 percent for roads in addition to 17 percent for bridges). States obligated about 20 percent of Highway Trust Fund monies for project development activities including planning, engineering, and acquiring rights-of-way. Additionally, 9 percent was obligated for safety, enhancements and other improvements, including about 1 percent for sidewalks and bicycle trails. The same GAO Report, on page 26, stated that in 2013 $752 million was used for administrative costs, with $439 million to the Federal Highway Administration, $250 million to the Federal Motor Carriers Administration and $63 million to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Will benefit both Urban and Rural counties by assuring the longterm sustainability of the Highway Trust Fund. Sponsor: John Ostlund., Yellowstone County, Mont. Proposed Interim Policy Resolutions 2015 NACo Legislative Conference February

24 Proposed Resolution on Local Transportation Safety Funding (SHPS Local Coordination) Issue: Need for elevated coordination with local governments in the development of State Strategic Highway Safety Plans Proposed Policy: NACo urges Congress to make safety on county roads a priority in the reauthorization of MAP-21 by requiring that state departments of transportation, at a minimum, cooperate with local government officials (including county transportation officials) in the development of State Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs) and by directing proportionate Highway Safety Improvement Program funding to areas of safety concern regardless of roadway ownership. Background: Historically there has been significant variation in how the state departments of transportation include counties in the development of the Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSP) and subsequently allocate safety funding within the state based on the (SHSP). NACo urges Congress to require states to coordinate with local governments in developing Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs) Suggested Language: Section 1112 Highway Safety Improvement Plan (12)(A) is developed in coordination with local government agencies responsible for highway construction and maintenance. Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Would provide additional federal funds to counties and community based organizations to address safety on local roads across the nation. Sponsors: Daniel J. Fedderly, Executive Director, Wisconsin County Highway Association; Richie Beyer, County Engineer, Elmore County, Ala. Proposed Resolution on Local Transportation Safety Funding (Establishment of TZD Grant Program) Issue: Need for additional funding for safety improvements in the reauthorization of MAP-21 Proposed Policy: NACo supports the establishment of a federal Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) grant program that will provide funding to local governments and non-profit organizations for the purpose of implementing proven safety practices and programs. Background: Several States have currently adopted and implemented TZD at the state level, which has proven successful in the reduction of incidents and resulted in increased transportation safety. NACo urges Congress to establish Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) Grants to local and nonprofit organizations to implement proven safety practices and programs on the local transportation system to increase transportation safety across the nation. Suggested Language: Toward Zero Deaths. (1) The Secretary shall make grants available to local agencies and non-profit organizations for development and implementation of Toward Zero Deaths programs (2) ROLE OF THE GRANTS. To achieve the goals of achieving Toward Zero Deaths, recipients of grants shall provide technical assistance, information sharing of best practices, and training in the use of tools and decision making processes that can assist local agencies in effectively implementing Toward Zero Death programs. Proposed Interim Policy Resolutions 2015 NACo Legislative Conference February

25 Fiscal/Urban/Rural Impact: Would provide additional federal funds to counties and community based organizations to address safety on Local roads across the nation. Sponsors: Daniel J. Fedderly, Executive Director, Wisconsin County Highway Association; Richie Beyer, County Engineer, Elmore County, Ala. Proposed Interim Policy Resolutions 2015 NACo Legislative Conference February

26 SUPPORT FAA REAUTHORIZATION ACTION NEEDED: Advocate for the passage of an FAA reauthorization bill that supports airport development and continues air service to large and small communities. BACKGROUND: Counties play a critical role in the nation s transportation systems, including the nation s air transportation system. Counties own 34 percent of the nation s publically-owned airports and spend $4.5 billion annually on air transportation, which supports nearly 12,000 employees across the country. In February of 2012, Congress passed a four-year reauthorization of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) programs known as the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of The bill was the first long-term authorization of federal civil aviation programs since 2007 and was finally enacted after 23 short-term extensions. The FAA reauthorization process allows Congress to address many aspects of FAA policy and funding, including a number of programs that benefit counties. The current authorization is set to expire at September By that time, Congress will have to either pass a reauthorization bill or an extension to avert a shutdown of agency operations. KEY ISSUES FOR COUNTIES IN FAA REAUTHORIZATION: There are several policy questions Congress is likely to address in the next FAA bill that are important to counties, including airport development funding and subsidies for remote and rural air service. Airport Improvement Program (AIP): The AIP provides federal grants to airports for airport development and planning. AIP funding can support a wide range of airports, including many large commercial airports and small general aviation airports. However, commercial revenue-producing facilities are generally ineligible for AIP funding. The main advantage to the AIP program is that it provides funds for capital projects without the financial burden of debt financing, although airports are required to provide a local match (between 5 and 25 percent depending on the airport size and eligible costs). The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 authorized the AIP at $3.35 billion for four years. In FY 2014, counties received $927.7 million in AIP funding. NACo supports continued funding for the AIP and increasing the federal share on airport development projects. QUICK FACTS Counties play a critical role in nation s air transportation system Counties own 34 percent of the nation s publically-owned airports Counties spend $4.5 billion annually on air transportation, which supports nearly 12,000 employees across the country The current FAA authorization expires September 30, 2015 Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs): The PFC is a state, local or port authority fee, not a federally imposed tax. The money raised from PFCs are required to be spent on eligible airport-related projects, such as projects to enhance safety, security or capacity at airports; and projects that reduce noise or increase air carrier competition. Unlike AIP funds, PFC funds may be used to service debt incurred to carry out projects. Although PFCs are not imposed by the federal government, Congress does set a ceiling on PFCs. In 2000, legislation raised the PFC ceiling to $4.50, with an $18 limit on the total PFCs a passenger can be charged per round trip. NACo supports the continued collection of PFCs and providing airport sponsors flexibility in determining how PFC funds may be spent. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 25 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, D.C FAX FB.COM/NACODC TWITTER.COM/NACOTWEETS YOUTUBE.COM/NACOVIDEO LINKEDIN.COM/IN/NACODC

27 Essential Air Service (EAS) Program: The EAS program was created to guarantee that small communities being served by certified airlines maintained commercial service following the deregulation of the airline industry. When Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, airlines were given almost complete freedom to determine areas of service and what airfares to charge, inherently putting less profitable markets at a disadvantage. Since its establishment, the EAS program has ensured continued commercial service to eligible communities by providing subsidizes to carriers providing service between EAS communities and major hub airports. The EAS program was among the most contentious issues in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, with a final compromise including reductions in discretionary spending for the program and limiting the program to only those communities participating in the program in FY For FY 2015, the program received $155 million in discretionary funding and $100 million in mandatory funding to subsidize air service to 160 communities. NACo supports continuing EAS subsidies to carriers serving small communities and fully funding the program. Small Community Air Service Program (SCASDP): The SCASDP is a grant program designed to help small communities address air service and airfare issues. Compared to the EAS program, SCASDP provides communities the opportunity to self-identify their air service needs and propose solutions. Participation in the program is limited to those communities where the airport is not larger than a primary small hub, the service is insufficient and the air fares to the community are unreasonably high. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 authorized the program at $6 million per year. NACo supports continued, sufficient and guaranteed funding for the SCASDP. For further information, contact: Jessica Monahan at or jmonahan@naco.org NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 25 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, D.C FAX

28 COMMITTEES OF JURISDICTION: FAA REAUTHORIZATION U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Majority: Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska) John J. Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.) John L. Mica (R-Fla.) Frank A. LoBiondo (R-N.J.) Gary G. Miller (R-Calif.) Sam Graves (R-Mo.) Candice S. Miller (R-Mich.) Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) Lou Barletta (R-Pa.) Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio) Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) Jeff Denham (R-Calif.) Reid Ribble (R-Wis.) Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) Tom Rice (R-S.C.) Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) Scott Perry (R-Pa.) Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) Rob Woodall (R-Ga.) Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) John Katko (R-N.Y.) Brian Babin (R-Texas) Cresent Hardy (R-Nev.) Ryan Costello (R-Pa.) Garret Graves (R-La.) Mimi Walters (R-Calif.) Barbara Comstock (R-Va.) Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) David Rouzer (R-N.C.) Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) Minority: Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.) Ranking Member Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) Michael E. Capuano (D-Mass.) Grace F. Napolitano (D-Calif.) Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.) Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) Albio Sires (D-N.J.) Donna Edwards (D-Md.) John Garamendi (D-Calif.) André Carson (D-Ind.) Janice Hahn (D-Calif.) Rick Nolan (D-Minn.) Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.) Dina Titus (D-Nev.) Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.) Lois Frankel (D-Fla.) Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.) Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) Julia Brownley (D-Calif.) U.S. Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Majority: John Thune (R-S.D.) Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) Ted Cruz (R-Texas) Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) Dean Heller (R-Nev.) Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) Steve Daines (R-Mont.) Minority: Bill Nelson (D-Fla). Ranking Member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) Richard Blumenthal (D- Conn.) Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) Cory Booker (D-N.J.) Tom Udall (D-N.M.) Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) Gary Peters (D-Mich.) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 25 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, D.C FAX

29 SUPPORT COUNTY SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES ACTION NEEDED: Urge Congress to fix the Highway Trust Fund and pass a multi-year surface transportation authorization bill that provides long-term certainty and supports county surface transportation priorities. BACKGROUND: Counties play a critical role in the nation s transportation system. They own 45 percent of all public roads (compared to the 32 percent of public roads owned by cities and townships, 19 percent by states, and 3 percent by the federal government) and 39 percent of the nation s bridge inventory, and are involved with a third of the nation s transit systems and airports that connect residents, communities and businesses. The nation s transportation system is currently facing two looming policy crises: the expiration of the current surface transportation authorization law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21); and the declining solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. Unless Congress acts, MAP- 21 will expire and the Highway Trust Fund will become insolvent. MAP-21 passed Congress in the summer of 2012 following four years of short-term patches. While MAP-21 supported a number of county transportation priorities, like continued funding for off-system bridges, it also eliminated and consolidated several highway programs which reduced the funding available for locally owned highways and bridges by 30 percent. In addition, MAP-21 eliminated almost all discretionary programs for transit, making it difficult for local communities to pursue major transit investments. The upcoming expiration of MAP-21 provides Congress an opportunity to reauthorize the federal surface transportation programs, make policy changes and set funding levels for years to come. QUICK FACTS Counties play a critical role in nation s transportation system Counties own and maintain 230,690 (or roughly 39 percent) of all public bridges Counties own and maintain 45 percent of all public roads Counties own or sit on governing authorities that operate over a third of the nation s transit systems and airports However, in order to reauthorize MAP-21, Congress must determine how to pay for it. The programs authorized by MAP-21 are primarily funded through the Highway Trust Fund, which collects revenue from a number of sources including the federal gasoline tax. The federal gasoline tax has not been raised since Due to several factors, including a reduction in vehicle miles traveled, increased fuel efficiency, and decreased purchasing power, the trust fund has faced growing shortfalls since Rather than addressing the trust fund s growing insolvency by raising the federal gasoline tax, or pursuing other alternative means of raising revenue, Congress has relied on transfers from the General Fund of the Treasury. As a result, the Highway Trust Fund will have insufficient revenues to meet obligations next spring. Without a long-term solution for the Highway Trust Fund, MAP-21 will likely be extended through temporary measures. Counties need a strong federal vision and funding certainty to pursue long-range planning and major capital projects. Only being able to forecast federal funding in short increments holds up projects and often leads to reductions in public transportation services. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 25 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, D.C FAX FB.COM/NACODC TWITTER.COM/NACOTWEETS YOUTUBE.COM/NACOVIDEO LINKEDIN.COM/IN/NACODC

30 COUNTY PRIORITIES FOR MAP-21 REAUTHORIZATION: Provide Long-Term Funding Certainty: Support passage of a new surface transportation authorization that provides long-term funding certainty by raising the federal gas tax or finding alternative sources of revenue to make the Highway Trust Fund solvent. Increase Funding for County Road and Bridge Projects: Support county road and bridge projects by: 1) maintaining the set-aside for off-system bridges and continuing states ability to reduce the set-aside requirement if there are insufficient off-system bridge needs; and 2) providing more funding for locally- owned on-system roads and bridges by increasing the overall funding level for the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and continuing the STP suballocation to local areas but increasing the share to greater than 50 percent. Increase the Role of Counties in Statewide Planning: Provide an increased role for counties in statewide transportation planning by: 1) requiring that state departments of transportation, at a minimum, cooperate with local government officials (including county transportation officials) in the development of planning and funding allocation processes, including the development of State Strategic Highway Safety Plans; and 2) requiring that state departments of transportation coordinate with local government officials in defining the term high risk rural road or developing a federal definition of the term high risk rural road after considering input from state and local stakeholders and other performance measurements. Build on Reforms from MAP-21 that Strive to Expedite Project Delivery: Continue and expand efforts to streamline and expedite project delivery by: 1) maintaining the categorical exclusion for projects receiving limited federal assistance ($5 million or less); and 2) simplifying the process for pursuing categorical exclusions. Support Public Transportation Systems of all Sizes: Support rural, small and large transit systems by: 1) continuing to fund transit programs through the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund; 2) continuing federal funding for rural transportation systems; 3) continuing and expanding transit operators flexibility to use federal dollars for operating assistance; 4) restoring historic funding levels for the Bus and Bus Facilities program and revising the program to require that all funds for Urbanized Areas with a population of 50,000 or more be apportioned directly to the designated recipients of 5307 funding; and 5) providing discretionary funding for both rural and urban transit systems to address one-time and/or major investments. Make Safety a Priority on all Roads and Bridges: Emphasize safety on all roads and bridges by: 1) revising the High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) safety rule under the Highway Safety Improvement Program, which requires an increase in existing fatality rates on HRRRs over a two-year period before a state must obligate funds to improve rural road safety rather than waiting for safety problems to get worse, states should either be required or incentivized to decrease existing fatality rates on HRRRs through safety investments; 2) prioritizing investments for federal-aid bridges to address safety and infrastructure improvements for bridges with the greatest need regardless of whether they are on or off the National Highway System; and 3) continuing existing limits on truck size and weight due to the enormous threat larger and heavier trucks pose to road safety and locally-owned infrastructure. Support Innovative Funding and Financing Methods: Continue and encourage alternative financing methods that help local governments stretch federal, state and local investments farther by: 1) continuing robust funding for the TIFIA program; 2) incentivizing innovative project funding and financing through an increased federal match (up to 100 percent) or by allowing local governments to use savings realized through innovative contracting methods toward their local match; and 3) creating a pilot program or providing technical assistance to local governments that support the planning for and design of multi- jurisdictional project bundling. Invest in Passenger Rail: Include funding for passenger rail in the reauthorization of MAP-21 that supports current rail service and the development of high-speed rail. Improve Access to Tribal lands: Continue funding for the Tribal Transportation Program to improve and maintain roads that are used to transport children to or from school or Head Start programs on or near reservations. For further information, contact: Jessica Monahan at or jmonahan@naco.org NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 25 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, D.C FAX

31 COMMITTEES OF JURISDICTION: MAP-21 REAUTHORIZATION U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (Highways and Transit) Majority: Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska) John J. Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.) John L. Mica (R-Fla.) Frank A. LoBiondo (R-N.J.) Gary G. Miller (R-Calif.) Sam Graves (R-Mo.) Candice S. Miller (R-Mich.) Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) Lou Barletta (R-Pa.) Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio) Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) Jeff Denham (R-Calif.) Reid Ribble (R-Wis.) Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) Tom Rice (R-S.C.) Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) Scott Perry (R-Pa.) Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) Rob Woodall (R-Ga.) Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) John Katko (R-N.Y.) Brian Babin (R-Texas) Cresent Hardy (R-Nev.) Ryan Costello (R-Pa.) Garret Graves (R-La.) Mimi Walters (R-Calif.) Barbara Comstock (R-Va.) Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) David Rouzer (R-N.C.) Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) Minority: Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.) Ranking Member Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) Corrine Brown (D-Fla.) Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) Michael E. Capuano (D-Mass.) Grace F. Napolitano (D-Calif.) Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.) Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) Albio Sires (D-N.J.) Donna Edwards (D-Md.) John Garamendi (D-Calif.) André Carson (D-Ind.) Janice Hahn (D-Calif.) Rick Nolan (D-Minn.) Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.) Dina Titus (D-Nev.) Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.) Lois Frankel (D-Fla.) Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.) Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) Julia Brownley (D-Calif.) U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Highways) Majority: James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) Chairman David Vitter (R-La.) John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) Shelley Moore Capito (R- W.Va.) Michael D. Crapo (R-Idaho) John Boozman (R-Ark.) Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) Michael Rounds (R-S.D.) Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) Minority: Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) Ranking Member Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) Cory Booker (D-N.J.) Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) U.S. Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee (Transit) Majority: Minority: Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) Chairman Ranking Member Michael D. Crapo (R-Idaho) Jack Reed (D-R.I.) Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) David Vitter (R-La.) Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) Jon Tester (D-Mont.) Mark S. Kirk (R-Ill.) Mark Warner (D-Va.) Dean Heller (R-Nev.) Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) Tim Scott (R-S.C.) Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) Michael Rounds (R-S.D.) Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 25 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, D.C FAX

32 COMMITTEES OF JURISDICTION: HIGHWAY TRUST FUND U.S. House Ways and Means Committee U.S. Senate Finance Committee Majority: Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) Chairman Sam Johnson (R-Texas) Kevin Brady (R-Texas) Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) Pat Tiberi (R-Ohio) Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) Charles Boustany Jr. (R-La.) Peter Roskam (R- Ill.) Tom Price (R-Ga.) Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) Adrian Smith (R-Neb.) Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.) Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.) Kenny Marchant (R-Texas) Diane Black (R-Tenn.) Tom Reed (R-N.Y.) Todd Young (R-Ind.) Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) James B. Renacci (R-Ohio) Patrick Meehan (R-Pa.) Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) George Holding (R-N.C.) Jason Smith (R-Mo.) Minority: Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) Ranking Member Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) John Lewis (D-Ga.) Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.) Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) John B. Larson (D-Conn.) Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) Ron Kind (D-Wis.) Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.) Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.) Linda T. Sánchez (D-Calif.) Majority: Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) Michael D. Crapo (R-Idaho) Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) Michael B. Enzi (R-Wyo.) John Cornyn (R-Texas) John Thune (R-S.D.) Richard M. Burr (R-N.C.) Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) Rob Portman (R-Ohio) Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.) Dan Coats (R-Ind.) Dean Heller (R-Nev.) Tim Scott (R-S.C.) Minority: Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) Ranking Member Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) Bob Casey (D-Pa.) Mark Warner (D-Va.) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 25 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, D.C FAX

33 COUNTY PRIORITIES IN MAP-21 REAUTHORIZATION Counties play a critical role in the nation s transportation system. They are responsible for building and maintaining 230,690 bridges and 45 percent of all public roads (compared to the 32 percent of public roads owned by cities and townships, 19 percent by states, and 3 percent by the federal government), and are involved in a third of the nation s transit systems and airports that connect residents, communities and businesses. Although counties are major owners and operators of the nation s transportation assets, they are significantly limited in their ability to raise revenue for transportation investments. In fact, 43 states have some type of limitation on the property taxes collected by counties, including 38 states that impose statutory limitations on property tax rates, property tax assessments or both. Only 12 states authorize counties to collect their own local gas taxes, which are limited to a maximum rate in most cases and require additional approvals for implementation. Due to these funding constraints, counties need a strong federal program that supports locallyowned roads, bridges and transit systems. With the extension of MAP-21 expiring in May and the Highway Trust Fund heading back toward insolvency, NACo urges Congress to fix the trust fund and pass a multi-year surface transportation authorization bill (preferably six years in length) that provides long-term certainty and supports county surface transportation priorities. County surface transportation priorities in the reauthorization of MAP-21: Provide Long-Term Funding Certainty: Support passage of a new surface transportation authorization that provides long-term funding certainty by raising the federal gas tax or finding alternative sources of revenue to make the Highway Trust Fund solvent. Increase Funding for County Road and Bridge Projects: Support county road and bridge projects by: 1) maintaining the set-aside for off-system bridges and continuing states ability to reduce the set-aside requirement if there are insufficient off-system bridge needs; and 2) providing more funding for locallyowned on-system roads and bridges by increasing the overall funding level for the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and continuing the STP suballocation to local areas but increasing the share to greater than 50 percent. Increase the Role of Counties in Statewide Planning: Provide an increased role for counties in statewide transportation planning by: 1) requiring that state departments of transportation, at a minimum, cooperate with local government officials (including county transportation officials) in the development of planning and funding allocation processes, including the development of State Strategic Highway Safety Plans; and 2) requiring that state departments of transportation coordinate with local government officials in defining the term high risk rural road or developing a federal definition of the term high risk rural road after considering input from state and local stakeholders and other performance measurements. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 25 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, D.C FAX FB.COM/NACODC TWITTER.COM/NACOTWEETS YOUTUBE.COM/NACOVIDEO LINKEDIN.COM/IN/NACODC

34 Build on Reforms from MAP-21 that Strive to Expedite Project Delivery: Continue and expand efforts to streamline and expedite project delivery by: 1) maintaining the categorical exclusion for projects receiving limited federal assistance ($5 million or less); and 2) simplifying the process for pursuing categorical exclusions. Support Public Transportation Systems of all Sizes: Support rural, small and large transit systems by: 1) continuing to fund transit programs through the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund; 2) continuing federal funding for rural transportation systems; 3) continuing and expanding transit operators flexibility to use federal dollars for operating assistance; 4) restoring historic funding levels for the Bus and Bus Facilities program and revising the program to require that all funds for Urbanized Areas with a population of 50,000 or more be apportioned directly to the designated recipients of 5307 funding; and 5) providing discretionary funding for both rural and urban transit systems to address one-time and/or major investments. Make Safety a Priority on all Roads and Bridges: Emphasize safety on all roads and bridges by: 1) revising the High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) safety rule under the Highway Safety Improvement Program, which requires an increase in existing fatality rates on HRRR over a two-year period before a state must obligate funds to improve rural road safety rather than waiting for safety problems to get worse, states should either be required or incentivized to decrease existing fatality rates on HRRR through safety investments; 2) prioritizing investments for federal-aid bridges to address safety and infrastructure improvements for bridges with the greatest need regardless of whether they are on or off the National Highway System; and 3) continuing existing limits on truck size and weight due to the enormous threat larger and heavier trucks pose to road safety and locally-owned infrastructure. Support Innovative Funding and Financing Methods: Continue and encourage alternative financing methods that help local governments stretch federal, state and local investments farther by: 1) continuing robust funding for the TIFIA program; 2) incentivizing innovative project funding and financing through an increased federal match (up to 100 percent) or by allowing local governments to use savings realized through innovative contracting methods toward their local match; and 3) creating a pilot program or providing technical assistance to local governments that support the planning for and design of multijurisdictional project bundling. Invest in Passenger Rail: Include funding for passenger rail in the reauthorization of MAP-21 that supports current rail service and the development of high-speed rail. Improve Access to Tribal Lands: Continue funding for the Tribal Transportation Program to improve and maintain roads that are used to transport children to or from school or Head Start programs on or near reservations. For further information, contact: Jessica Monahan at or jmonahan@naco.org NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 25 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, D.C FAX FB.COM/NACODC TWITTER.COM/NACOTWEETS YOUTUBE.COM/NACOVIDEO LINKEDIN.COM/IN/NACODC

35 Local governments and map-21 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OWN: 43% 78% OF THE NATION S FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY MILES OF THE NATION S ROAD MILES 50% 67% OF THE NATION S BRIDGE INVENTORY OF THE NATION S STRUCTURALLY DEFICIENT BRIDGES UNDER MAP-21, THE FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR LOCALLY OWNED BRIDGES AND FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS Decreased by 30% O. org FIX CRACKS IN FUNDING

36 map-21 and counties With the extension of MAP-21 expiring in May and the Highway Trust Fund heading back toward insolvency, NACo urges Congress to fix the trust fund and pass a longterm surface transportation authorization bill that provides increased funding for county-owned infrastructure. Quick Facts ss Counties play a critical role in nation s transportation system ss Counties own and maintain 230,690 (or roughly 39 percent) of all public bridges ss Counties own and maintain 45 percent of all public roads ss Counties are involved with over a third of the nation s transit systems and airports ss MAP-21 made significant changes to federal highway programs that decreased the funding available for locally owned highways and bridges by 30 percent. As major owners of the nation s transportation system, counties urge Congress to fix the cracks in federal funding by returning these dollars to the local areas. FIX CRACKS IN FUNDING For further information, contact: Jessica Monahan at or jmonahan@naco.org Scan the QR code to check out NACo s Resource Hub and learn more about COUNTY PRIORITIES FOR @NACoVideo in/nacodc 25 Massachusetts Ave, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC

37 ROAD AND BRIDGE FUNDING UNDER MAP-21 NACo asks Congress to increase funding for the Surface Transportation Program and increase the suballocation for local areas to support locally-owned road and bridge projects. Background: MAP-21 made changes to Federal-aid highway funding that significantly impacted the funding available to local governments for road and bridge projects. NHPP 58% CMAQ/ Other 9% STP 27% MAP-21 HIGHWAY FUNDING Highway Safety 6% Under MAP-21, funding for the nation s bridges and Federal-aid highways were consolidated and are now primarily funded through two core programs, the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) and the Surface Transportation Program (STP). Surface Transportation Program The STP program provides flexible funding that may be used by states and localities for projects to preserve or improve conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway and bridge projects on any public road, as well as facilities for nonmotorized transportation, transit capital projects and public bus terminals and facilities. Under MAP-21, 50 percent of a state s STP funds are to be distributed to local areas based on population (suballocated), with the remainder to be used in any area of the state. Prior to MAP-21, 62.5 percent of a state s STP funds were suballocated to local areas. National Highway Performance Program The NHPP Program provides funding to support the condition and performance of the National Highway System (NHS). Prior to MAP-21, projects on the NHS received funding from the Interstate Maintenance program and the National Highway System program. Projects on the NHS are also eligible for STP dollars. Federal-aid Highway Miles There are 1 million miles of Federal-aid highways in the United States. Under MAP-21, 220,000 or 22% of those miles are designated as the NHS. Local governments own 52% of the Federal-aid highway miles that are not a part of the NHS. 1 FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY MILES 78% 22% NHS Road Miles Other Federal-aid Highway Miles

38 ROAD AND BRIDGE FUNDING UNDER MAP-21 MAP-21 PROGRAM CONSOLIDATION SAFETEA-LU (FY 2011) MAP-21 (FY 2014) Interstate Maintenance $5.7 billion National Highway System $7 billion National Highway Performance Program $21.8 billion Highway Bridge Program (85% for on- and off-system bridges) $5 billion Off-System Bridge Set-Aside (15% of Highway Bridge Program) $885 million Surface Transportation Program $10 billion Surface Transportation Program $7.3 billion Bridge Funding Changes Under MAP-21 Prior to MAP-21, all bridges were eligible for funding under the Highway Bridge Program. MAP-21 eliminated the Highway Bridge Program, shifting a majority of the program s funding under the NHPP program and putting funding for off-system bridges under the STP program. Since only 23% of the nation s bridges are a part of the NHS, the remaining 77% are only eligible for the STP program and have to compete with other eligible projects for very limited funding. Highway Funding Under MAP-21 While the NHPP program only supports projects on 23% of the nation s bridges and 22% of the Federalaid highway miles, it receives two-thirds of the combined funding available for the NHPP and STP programs, and more than half of the total Federal highway funding under MAP-21. Meanwhile, 78% of all Federal-aid highway miles and 77% of the nation s bridges are not eligible for the NHPP program and primarily rely on STP dollars. 2

39 ROAD AND BRIDGE FUNDING UNDER MAP NHS vs. Non-NHS Funding Amount in Billions SAFETEA-LU MAP-21 0 Bridges and Any Highway Funding Type NHS-Only MAP-21 significantly increased (by 74%) the funding available only to projects that are a part of the NHS, partially by shifting the majority of the old Highway Bridge Program to the NHPP program. Highway Bridge Program (excluding off-system bridge set-aside) Surface Transportation Program (excluding set-asides) Off-System Bridge Set-Aside SAFETEA-LU (FY 2011) MAP-21 (FY 2014) % Change $5,012,212, $8,281,841,603 $9,048,542,623 +9% $884,508,092 $776,523,176-12% Total $14,178,562,207 $9,825,065,799-31% Meanwhile, the funding available for bridges and Federal-aid highway projects that are not a part of the NHS, and therefore rely on STP dollars, decreased by about 30% under MAP-21. This funding is responsible for supporting 77% of the nation s bridges and 78% of the Federal-aid highway miles. The decrease in available funding for bridges and highways that are not a part of the NHS has a significant impact on local governments since they own 52% of the highway miles that are not eligible for NHPP funding and 50% of the nation s bridges. In addition, local governments only receive suballocated funds through the STP program, which accounts for a third of the total funding available for the NHPP and STP programs. For further information, contact: Jessica Monahan at or jmonahan@naco.org. 3

40 Congress Focuses Attention on Transportation Funding as Deadline Looms By, Jessica Monahan, NACo Associate Legislative Director On January 6, the 114th Congress was sworn in and with the new Congress came a renewed interest to address the future of the Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Trust Fund, which collects federal gas tax revenue to pay for highway and transit programs, will become insolvent by the end of May 2015 unless Congress acts. The threat of insolvency or the trust fund going broke is not a new issue for Congress. In fact, spending from the Highway Trust Fund has outpaced revenue since Rather than addressing the trust fund s solvency by finding more revenue or reducing spending, Congress has transferred $65 billion from the general fund since Most recently, Congress transferred $11 billion before the beginning of FY 2015 to avoid a serious funding crisis. That $11 billion was tied to an extension of the current surface transportation authorization law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century Act (MAP-21). Together, the short-term measures provides enough funding and spending authority to continue federal highway and transit programs through the end of May. In anticipation of that deadline, Congress is increasing its focus on how to move forward with the Highway Trust Fund. In the Senate, a number of Republican committee chairmen have recently commented on the potential to increase the federal gas tax as a means to shore up the trust fund. Among the group of Senate Republicans considering a gas tax increase is Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), whose committee has jurisdiction over revenue measures, and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.), whose committee is responsible for the highway title of the next surface transportation law that will replace MAP-21. This is noteworthy because historically Republicans have not entertained the concept of increasing the gas tax. While there appears to be a new openness to considering a gas tax increase in the Senate, a different message was delivered by the Republicans in the House when Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), was quoted in an article that was published December 29, as ruling out a gas tax increase and other user-fee based revenue sources like vehicle-miles taxes to fix the Highway Trust Fund. As the owners of 45 percent of the nation s roads and 39 percent of the nation s bridges, it is critical to counties that Congress works toward a long-term solution for the Highway Trust Fund. Without a trust fund fix, Congress will be unable to pass a multi-year reauthorization of MAP-21 and is likely to continue to pass short-term measures that inhibit counties ability to plan and deliver critical highway and transit projects. That is why NACo is encouraging its members to reach out to their congressional delegation in Washington and explain why it s critical to their counties that Congress fixes the trust fund. Specifically, members are encouraged to utilize NACo s Highway Trust Fund advocacy toolkit, which can be found at

41 Highway Trust Fund 101 How does trust fund work? The Highway Trust Fund was established by Congress in 1956 as a dedicated funding source for highway construction and maintenance projects. In 1982, Congress created a second account within the Highway Trust Fund to pay for mass transit capital costs. Currently, the Highway Trust Fund collects 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline, a rate that was set in 1993, along with a 24.4 cents per gallon tax on diesel and other transportation fees to pay for federal highway, transit and transportation safety programs. The revenue collected is divided between the Highway and Mass Transit Accounts, with 83.9 percent of gas tax revenue going to the Highway Account and 15.5 percent going to the Mass Transit Account. Diesel fuel tax revenue is similarly divided with 87.9 percent going to the Highway Account and 11.7 percent going to the Mass Transit Account. What caused this crisis? Several factors have contributed to the current funding crisis facing the Highway Trust Fund. One of those reasons is that spending has outpaced revenue coming into the trust fund since 2000, primarily due to the dynamics plaguing the federal gas tax. Since the gas tax constitutes almost two-thirds of the Highway Trust Fund s total revenues, the rate at which Americans purchase and use gasoline greatly influences the solvency of the trust fund. With greater fuel efficiency standards and more gasoline-independent vehicles on the roads, the rate of gasoline consumption has decreased. In addition, the last time the gas tax was raised occurred over two decades ago and it was not indexed to inflation at that time. So, while construction and labor costs increased at a rate that exceeded regular inflation, the gas tax remained fixed. As a result, those 18.4 cents per gallon have decreased in purchasing power. If the gas tax had been indexed in 1993, it would be equal to 29 cents today or in other words, the trust fund has lost about 38 percent of its purchasing power. In sum, we are trying to run a 2015 transportation system on 1993 dollars that are not being collected at a rate to meet demand. How much money do we need? The amount of money needed to keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent for the near and long-term varies based projected spending levels. For example, if Congress merely tried to maintain spending at current levels with an increase for inflation, the Highway Trust Fund would need an additional $170 billion over the next 10 years. In order to fill this gap, Congress would need to increase the taxes on motor fuels (both gas and diesel) by about 10 cents per gallon. However, the U.S. Department of Transportation has estimated that simply maintaining the current performance of nation s surface transportation system would require at least $13 billion per year more in spending and that funding for all highway projects whose benefits exceeded their costs would require even more spending up to $83 billion per year more than current spending. How are counties impacted? Uncertainty in the Highway Trust Fund means counties cannot invest in the kinds of infrastructure projects that benefit families, businesses and the economy. In fact, many counties have already started operating under a worst-case scenario, in which the Highway Trust Fund is unable to reimburse the cost for projects. In numerous counties, current projects have been stalled and projects in counties long-term plans are facing an unclear future due to the uncertainty in future federal investment. This uncertainty stymies job growth and makes transportation projects more costly for counties and less dependable and safe for families and businesses.

42 Proposals for averting a crisis in the Highway Trust Fund Members of Congress and independent groups have proposed both user-fee and general fund options to address the short and long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. As an association, NACo has adopted a position to support an increase in the federal gas tax and is in favor of Congress pursuing alternative user-fee based revenue sources to ensure the trust fund s long-term certainty as drivers dependency on gasoline continues to decrease. Below you will find a brief summary of some of the key proposals considered by Congress. Source / Proposer National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission (2008) Congress created The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission in 2005 to examine short and longterm alternatives to replace or supplement the fuel tax as the principal revenue source to support the Highway Trust Fund over the next 30 years. National Surface Transportation Financing Commission (2009) Congress created the National Surface Transportation Financing Commission to make recommendations regarding alternative approaches to financing transportation infrastructure. National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Simpson-Bowles (2010) President Obama created the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to address our nation's fiscal challenges. GROW AMERICA Act (2014) The Obama Administration released its plan for MAP-21 reauthorization in 2014, which included a proposal to pay for the proposed $302 billion fouryear bill. Recommendations Gas Tax Recommendation: Increase the gas tax by 25 to 40 cents and the diesel tax by 15 cents; and index both rates to inflation. Alternative Revenue Options: Examine mileage based user fees as potential replacement for the gas tax. Gas Tax Recommendation: Increase the gas tax by 10 cents and diesel tax and commensurate taxes by 15 cents; and index all rates to inflation. Alternative Revenue Options: Examine mileage based user fees as a potential replacement for the gas tax. Gas Tax Recommendation: Increase the gas tax by 15 cents per gallon. Alternative Revenue Options: Not addressed. Gas Tax Recommendation: Continue at current rates. Alternative Revenue Options: Pay for the four-year proposal by supplementing the existing gas tax and other highway-related taxes with an infusion of $150 billion in transition revenues raised by addressing untaxed profits U.S. multinationals have accumulated overseas.

43 Source / Proposer Former Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp s Discussion Draft (2014) While chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, former Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.) released a discussion draft outlining proposals for comprehensive tax reform. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Options (2014) On May 6, 2014, Joseph Kile, the assistant director for microeconomic studies at CBO testified before the Senate Finance Committee and outlined options for Congress to keep the trust fund solvent. UPDATE Act (2013/2015) In 2013, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) introduced the UPDATE Act of 2013, which turned the recommendations from prior commissions into proposed law. Rep. Blumenauer reintroduced the UPDATE Act on Feb. 3, Corker-Murphy Proposal (2014) In 2014, Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) proposed a bill to address the Highway Trust Fund s insolvency. Recommendations Gas Tax Recommendation: Continue at current rates. Alternative Revenue Options: Dedicate $126.5 billion in revenue generated from corporate and international tax reform to maintain the trust fund s solvency through 2021 (assuming level funding). Gas Tax Recommendation: Raise the tax on motor fuels by between 10 cents and 15 cents per gallon beginning in FY 2015 in order to meet projected obligations for the trust fund (in lieu of spending cuts). Alternative Revenue Options: While not a revenue option, the CBO warned Congress that relying solely on spending cuts to keep the trust Fund solvent would require bringing spending authority down to zero in FY 2015 and then reducing highway spending by 30 percent and transit spending by 65 percent from 2015 to Gas Tax Recommendation: Phase in a 15 cent gas tax increase starting in 2014 and index the rate to inflation. Alternative Revenue Options: Bill confirms Congress intention to replace the gas tax with a more equitable, stable source of funding by Gas Tax Recommendation: Phase in a 12 cent increase for the gas and diesel taxes (6 cents per year for two years) and index the rates to inflation. The increase would be fully offset. Alternative Revenue Options: Not addressed. In addition to the options outlined above, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) examined existing excise taxes and 33 other transportation-related revenue sources as options to shore-up the Highway Trust Fund. These options range from a 10 cent increase in the gas tax, which would yield $78.12 billion between ; and a $100 registration fee for electric vehicles that would yield $60 million over the next five years. In addition to revenue estimates, AASHTO laid out the pros and cons for each option. For one of the more popular alternative revenue options a vehicle miles traveled fee AASHTO acknowledges that while the fee would

44 generate a large revenue yield ($ billion between ) and be highly sustainable, public and political opposition is high, particularly with regards to privacy.

45 TAKE ACTION! COUNTIES CAN T AFFORD FOR WASHINGTON TO WAIT. TELL CONGRESS TO FIX THE TRUST FUND NOW! COUNTIES CAN T AFFORD FOR WASHINGTON TO WAIT. Background and Talking Points Transportation and infrastructure are critical components that support the economies of our nation s counties and improve the standard of living for all Americans. As the owners of 45 percent of the nation s roads and 230,690 bridges, and stewards of nearly a third of the nation s transit systems and airports, counties understand the nation s infrastructure needs and the cost of inaction at the federal level. Counties are invested in building and maintaining a safe, efficient transportation system that connects and serves our communities while allowing our nation s economy to remain competitive in an increasingly global market. However, counties cannot do it alone. Transportation funding from the federal government that flows to the states and down to counties comes from the Highway Trust Fund, which collects revenues from the federal gas tax. Due to several factors, including a reduction in vehicle miles traveled, increased fuel efficiency and decreased purchasing power, the trust fund has faced growing shortfalls since Before the current transportation authorization law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), expires and funding runs out on May 31, 2015, Congress needs to adopt a long-term sustainable revenue source for the Highway Trust Fund that will provide sufficient funding to fix and grow our nation s transportation system. The federal government is an important partner in delivering locally-developed transportation projects. At the local level, counties see the direct impact of federal dollars spent on transportation. In addition to moving goods and people, federal transportation investments are major economic drivers for local communities. However, in order to plan and execute large and small-scale transportation projects that are critical to commerce and the American quality of life, counties need long-term funding certainty and a reliable federal partner. If Congress continues to kick the can down the road, counties and the transportation infrastructure they own will pay the price. When funding needs go unmet, county budgets are strained, projects are delayed, services are cut and local economies suffer the consequences. With the cost of project construction outpacing the rate of inflation, counties can t afford for Congress to wait. The closer we get to May 31, 2015 without a resolution, the greater the threat will be to counties infrastructure and economies. Therefore, counties are urged to tell congress to fix the trust fund now! To access additional background information on the Highway Trust Fund and MAP-21, click here. FB.COM/NACODC TWITTER.COM/NACOTWEETS YOUTUBE.COM/NACOVIDEO LINKEDIN.COM/IN/NACODC 25 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, NW SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, DC FAX

46 TAKE ACTION! Give a Tour! While members of Congress are in their states and districts in the lead up to the November elections, county officials should invite their federal lawmakers to tour transportation facilities and projects. These site visits give legislators an opportunity to see the impacts of transportation investments in their own communities. These opportunities also support further community collaboration, which can be achieved by co-hosting a tour or event with local business leaders, other local or statewide elected officials and operators of various modes such as transit. These events are also good opportunities to earn media coverage around your advocacy. County officials should reach out to local media to make the most of these events. Write a Letter! Send a letter written on county letterhead, either through the U.S. Postal Service or via , which explains why it s critical to your county that Congress passes a long-term solution for the Highway Trust Fund. View a draft letter to Congress here. Information on office locations and contact numbers can be found on members websites. Links to U.S. House of Representatives websites can be found here and links to U.S. Senate websites can be found here. Get Social! Tell Congress why your county can t afford for Washington to wait via social media. Take pictures of your county s roads, bridges and transit systems that need federal support and tell Congress to #FixTheTrustFund NOW! Most Senators and Representatives are on Twitter and monitor their Twitter feeds regularly. The easiest way to find your members of Congress is to utilize the search function on Twitter or by visiting your members website. In addition to reaching out to your members of Congress on Twitter, consider targeting House and Senate leadership. Sample Congressional inaction on the Highway Trust Fund is creating uncertainty for counties. #FixTheTrustFund #Counties own 45% of roads and 40% of bridges. Counties can t afford for Congress to wait. #FixTheTrustFund #Counties can t afford for Congress to wait. #FixTheTrustFund County infrastructure needs a long-term commitment from Congress. #FixTheTrustFund Short-term patches for the Highway Trust Fund cripple long-term transportation planning. #FixTheTrustFund Inadequate federal funding for roads & bridges hurts county infrastructure and local economies. #FixTheTrustFund Long-term federal transportation funding is critical to County. #FixTheTrustFund NOW! For additional support on your advocacy efforts, please contact Jessica Monahan, NACo Associate Legislative Director for transportation policy at jmonahan@naco.org or FB.COM/NACODC TWITTER.COM/NACOTWEETS YOUTUBE.COM/NACOVIDEO LINKEDIN.COM/IN/NACODC 25 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, NW SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, DC FAX

47 TAKE ACTION! Engage the Media! Work with local media outlets to draw attention to the need for an immediate Highway Trust Fund fix. Inform your community about tours and other events through press releases and advisories. NACo s Media Relations Guide for Counties is available to assist county officials with local media outreach. Write and submit op-ed columns or guest commentaries to local newspapers outlining the local need for long-term federal investment in surface transportation and urging Congress to take action. Below are issue-specific message points to consider and general guidance on writing op-ed pieces. Remember, your ability to craft and tailor the message to fit your community is very important to placing an op-ed. County-specific examples and other local information would significantly enhance the points below. Op-Ed Guidance An opinion column written in your own words for publication in your local newspaper can be a very effective communications tool. Less rigid than a news release, an opinion column also known as an op-ed because it is often placed opposite of the editorial page in a newspaper can frame issues and messages precisely the way you want. Here are some points on writing a compelling op-ed. An effective op-ed will make a clear and effective argument supported by facts and examples. It will be informative, focused, persuasive and interesting. Columns should clearly communicate why the issue is important and specifically how it affects readers. Op-eds are commonly written in a conversational style less formal than a news release or fact sheet. Connecting your position to a specific or timely issue of local importance will make it more likely that a newspaper will publish your piece. Typically, op-eds are words. Newspapers often publish specific requirements and instructions for submission on their websites. In many cases, a newspaper will only publish your piece if it does not or will not appear in another newspaper. Op-Ed Format and Message Points The opening sentence or paragraph should grab readers attention and spark their interest to read more. Consider starting the column with a local reference or recent news item. Examples: This holiday season, about 35 million Americans will take to our nation s roads, bridges and transit systems to visit their loved ones. But those transportation systems we often take for granted are in serious jeopardy if Congress fails to act. DO NOT ENTER! That is the message you got if you tried to cross the ABC Bridge last week. After years of wear and tear, the bridge is no longer safe to cross and we don t have the funds to fix it. We have historically looked to our federal partners for help, but Congress failure to secure a long-term fix for the nation s transportation system has brought major projects like the ABC Bridge repair to a screeching halt. FB.COM/NACODC TWITTER.COM/NACOTWEETS YOUTUBE.COM/NACOVIDEO LINKEDIN.COM/IN/NACODC 25 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, NW SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, DC FAX

48 TAKE ACTION! Counties across the country play a critical role in our nation s transportation system. They own and maintain the greatest share of the nation s road miles and more than 230,000 bridges - 39 percent of the total. Counties are also the stewards of more than a third of the nation s transit systems. [Include local information and statistics describing the county role.] Counties are doing all they can with limited resources. [Give examples of the county s innovative progress on transportation.] Fixing funding for our roads and bridges takes leadership at all levels of government federal, state and local. Letters to the Editor Guidance If your local paper publishes an opinion column or news article on transportation, provide the county perspective by writing a letter to the editor responding to the piece or one of its points. Letters to the editor are a good way to spread the message in roughly words, depending on the paper. Example letter to the editor published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune (Aug. 29, 2014): Transportation Funding: It also must be made a federal priority In addition to transportation being a focus for Minnesota candidates, as the Aug. 22 editorial suggests, it also needs to be a priority for members of Congress and congressional candidates. Congress has failed to make long-term headway on key transportation measures the Highway Trust Fund and the Moving Ahead for Progress for the 21st Century Act. Rather, it passed yet another stopgap measure. No great nation has ever made lasting progress on infrastructure by setting its policy six months at a time. Fixing our roads and bridges takes leadership at all levels of government federal, state and local. In fact, counties play a critical role; in Minnesota, they own more than a third of the public road miles and four out of 10 bridges. They are the biggest nonfederal investors in the expansion of our transit system; there would be no Green Line without county investment. Without long-term support from our federal partners, many local government efforts are stuck in gridlock. Peter McLaughlin, Minneapolis The writer is a member of the Hennepin County Board and chair of the National Association of Counties Transportation Steering Committee. For additional support on your media relations efforts, please contact Brian Namey, NACo Director of Media Relations at bnamey@naco.org or Tell NACo! Please be sure to let NACo know about your advocacy efforts. Send copies of your letters to Congress, pictures from events and media coverage to Jessica Monahan, NACo s Associate Legislative Director for transportation policy at jmonahan@naco.org or FB.COM/NACODC TWITTER.COM/NACOTWEETS YOUTUBE.COM/NACOVIDEO LINKEDIN.COM/IN/NACODC 25 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, NW SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, DC FAX

49 The Honorable [congressional member s name] [Address] Washington, DC TAKE ACTION! Sample Letter to Congress Dear (member s name): Please work with your colleagues in Congress to ensure that the federal government continues investing in our infrastructure. Before the current transportation authorization law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) expires and funding runs out on May 31, 2015, Congress needs to identify a long-term sustainable revenue source for the Highway Trust Fund that will provide sufficient funding to fix and grow our nation s transportation system. Transportation and infrastructure are critical components that support the economies of our nation s counties and improve the standard of living for all Americans. As the owners of 45 percent of the nation s roads and 230,690 bridges, and stewards of nearly a third of the nation s transit systems and airports, counties understand the nation s infrastructure needs and the cost of inaction at the federal level. Counties are invested in building and maintaining a safe, efficient transportation system that connects and serves our communities while allowing our nation s economy to remain competitive in an increasingly global market. However, we cannot do it alone. The federal government is an important partner in delivering locally-developed transportation projects. At the local level, we see the direct impact of federal dollars spent on transportation. In addition to moving goods and people, federal transportation investments are major economic drivers for local communities. If funding needs go unmet, county budgets are strained, projects are delayed and services are cut, and local economies suffer the consequences. In order to plan and execute large and small-scale transportation projects that are critical to commerce and the American quality of life, federal transportation programs need a reliable, steady source of revenue. For far too long, the Highway Trust Fund has been on a path toward insolvency. Although Congress has taken action to provide temporary solutions, the lack of long-term funding at the federal level has created uncertainty for counties, which inhibits our ability to plan and deliver projects. I urge you to do what s best for our nation s infrastructure, economy and local communities by finding a long-term solution for the Highway Trust Fund. The closer we get to May 31, 2015 without a resolution, the greater the threat will be to my county s infrastructure and economy. Therefore, I encourage you and your colleagues in Congress not to wait but to act now. Sincerely, FB.COM/NACODC TWITTER.COM/NACOTWEETS YOUTUBE.COM/NACOVIDEO LINKEDIN.COM/IN/NACODC 25 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, NW SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, DC FAX

50 Transportation Steering Committee Chair Hon. Peter McLaughlin Hennepin County th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN Phone: (612) (612) Vice Chairs Hon. Cindy Bobbitt, Chair Grant County 524 N Front St Medford, OK Phone: (580) (580) gtcommd2@wiredok.com Hon. Edward M. Emmett County Judge Harris County 1001 Preston Road, Suite 911 Houston, TX Phone: (713) judge.emmett@cjo.hctx.net Hon. Gary Fickes Tarrant County 645 Grapevine Hwy Ste 6 Hurst, TX Phone: (817) (817) ggfickes@tarrantcounty.com Hon. James D. Healy Board Member DuPage County 1205 Heatherton Drive Naperville, IL Phone: (630) (630) jdh@gsrnh.com Subcommittee Chairs Mr. Daniel J. Fedderly Transit Commission Chair Dunn County N th St Boyceville, WI Highway/Highway Safety Phone: hwype@wwt.net Hon. Scott Haggerty Supervisor Alameda County 1221 Oak St Rm 536 Oakland, CA Ports Phone: (510) (510) scott.haggerty@acgov.org Hon. Gary W. Moore County Judge/Executive Boone County 2950 Washington St Burlington, KY Transit Phone: (859) (859) judgemoore@boonecountyky.org 2/12/2015 Page 1 of 15

51 Hon. Mike White Council Chair Maui County 200 S. High Street, 8th Floor Wailuku, HI Airports Phone: (808) Subcommittee Vice Chairs Hon. William R. Altimus Police Jury Administrator Bossier Parish PO BOX 70 Benton, LA Transit Phone: (318) Mr. Richie Beyer County Engineer Elmore County 155 County Shop Rd Wetumpka, AL Highway/Highway Safety Phone: (334) (334) Hon. James D. Healy Board Member DuPage County 1205 Heatherton Drive Naperville, IL Transit Phone: (630) (630) Hon. Christian Leinbach Commission Chair Berks County 633 Court St Fl 13Th County Courthouse Reading, PA Ports Phone: (610) (3) (610) Hon. Ernest Y. Martin Council Chair Honolulu City and County 530 S King St Ste 202 Honolulu, HI Transit Phone: emartin@honolulu.gov Hon. Gary W. Moore County Judge/Executive Boone County 2950 Washington St Burlington, KY Airports Phone: (859) (859) judgemoore@boonecountyky.org Members Hon. Steven Abrams Palm Beach County 301 N Olive Ave County Courthouse West Palm Beach, FL Phone: (561) sabrams@pbcgov.org Ms. Emily Ackland County Road Program Manager Association of Oregon Counties 1201 Court St Ne Salem, OR Phone: (503) eackland@aocweb.org 2/12/2015 Page 2 of 15

52 Hon. Randy Ahrens Mayor Broomfield City and County 1901 Aspen Street Broomfield, CO Phone: (303) (303) Hon. Jim Allen Johnson County 111 S Cherry St Ste 3300 County Courthouse Olathe, KS Phone: (913) jim.allen@jocogov.org Hon. Robert A. Anaya Santa Fe County 102 Grant Ave. Santa Fe, NM Phone: (505) (505) ranaya@santafecountynm.gov Hon. Jonathan Barfield Chairman New Hanover County 230 Government Center Dr Ste 175 Wilmington, NC Phone: (910) jbarfield@nhcgov.com Hon. Scott Belt Supervisor Pottawattamie County 227 South Sixth Street County Courthouse Council Bluffs, IA Phone: (712) scott.belt@pottcounty.com Hon. Thomas C. Bloom Monongalia County 243 High Street Morgantown, WV Phone: (304) (304) moncom@aol.com Hon. Robert Boyd, Chair Riley County 6601 Mill Cove Road Manhattan, KS Phone: (785) (785) rboyd@rileycountyks.gov Mr. Alan Brubaker Engineer Summit County 538 E South Street Akron, OH Phone: (330) abrubaker@engineer.co.summit.oh.us Ms. Julie Bueren Director of Public Works Contra Costa County 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA Phone: (925) jbuer@pw.cccounty.us Mr. Jon Burgstrum County Engineer Scott County 500 W 4Th St Davenport, IA Phone: (563) (563) jon.burgstrum@scottcountyiowa.com 2/12/2015 Page 3 of 15

53 Hon. James Burnsed Chairman Bryan County 173 Davis Road Richmond Hill, GA Phone: (912) (912) Hon. Jon H. Burrows County Judge Bell County P.O. Box 768 Belton, TX Phone: (254) (254) Mr. Derin Campbell Chief Engineer Boone County 801 E Walnut St, Room 315 County Government Center Columbia, MO Phone: (573) (573) dcampbell@boonecountymo.org Hon. Salud Carbajal Supervisor Santa Barbara County 105 E Anapamu St Santa Barbara, CA Phone: (805) (805) scarbajal@sbcbos1.org Mr. J. Rodney Carmical TCHOA Executive Director Tennessee County Services Association 226 Capitol Boulevard, Suite 700 Nashville, TN Phone: (615) (615) tchoa.carmical@tncounties.org Hon. Joe D. Carpenter Gaston County 414 Pinnacle Road Kings Mountain, NC Phone: (704) (704) kingspinnacle@aol.com Hon. Steven Carter, Chair Sequoyah County 1404 North Main Gore, OK Phone: (918) (918) dr.cindycarter@hotmail.com Hon. Damon M Connolly Supervisor Marin County 3501 Civic Center Drive, Suite 329 San Rafael, CA Phone: dconnolly@marincounty.org Mr. Daniel Copeland Public Works Director Bannock County 5500 S. 5th Ave. Pocatello, ID Phone: (208) (208) (208) mandie@bannockcounty.us 2/12/2015 Page 4 of 15

54 Hon. R. Douglas Corcoran Ross County 2 N Paint St Ste H Chillicothe, OH Phone: (740) (740) dougcorcoran@rosscountycommissioners.co m Hon. Dave Cortese Supervisor Santa Clara County 70 W Hedding St, 10Th Floor East Wing San Jose, CA Phone: (408) dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org Hon. David Cox Caddo Parish 2633 Lyles Ln Parish Courthouse Shreveport, LA Phone: (318) dcox@caddo.org Hon. Gordon Cruickshank, Chair Valley County PO BOX 133 McCall, ID Phone: (208) (208) glc55@cwomc.com Hon. Patrick E. Darlington Tucker County 211 First St.., Ste. 307 Parsons, WV Phone: pdarlington@performancechevywv.com Mr. Patrick DeChellis Deputy Director, Dept. of Public Works Los Angeles County 900 S Fremont Ave Alhambra, CA Phone: (626) pdechellis@dpw.lacounty.gov Hon. David Decker LaPorte County 555 Michigan Ave. Ste. 202 LaPorte, IN Phone: (219) ddecker3@laportecounty.org Hon. Marina Dimitrijevic Board Chair Milwaukee County 901 N 9Th St Rm 201 Milwaukee, WI Phone: (414) (414) marina.dimitrijevic@milwcnty.com Hon. Donald Disselkoen Ottawa County 300 Farington Blvd Apt 2 Holland, MI Phone: (616) (616) ddisselkoen@miottawa.org Mr. Gordon Dunagan Safety Director Cullman County 440 Beech Grove Road, Cullman Cullman, AL Phone: (256) safety@co.cullman.al.us 2/12/2015 Page 5 of 15

55 Hon. Larry Ellertson Utah County 100 E Center St # 2300 Provo, UT Phone: (851) (851) larrye@utahcounty.gov Hon. Patrick K. Farrell Chatham County PO BOX 8161 Savannah, GA Phone: (912) (912) patfarrell@bellsouth.net Hon. David Finigan Supervisor Del Norte County 981 H St Ste 200 Crescent City, CA Phone: (707) (707) dfinigan@co.del-norte.ca.us Mr. Jeffrey Fontaine Executive Director Nevada Association of Counties 304 S Minnesota Street Carson City, NV Phone: (775) (775) jfontaine@nvnaco.org Mr. Ramon Gavarrete County Engineer Highlands County 4344 George Blvd Sebring, FL Phone: (863) (863) rgavarre@hcbcc.org Hon. Kathleen A. Gaylord Dakota County 1590 Highway 55 Hastings, MN Phone: (651) (651) kathleen.gaylord@co.dakota.mn.us Hon. Dan Gibbs Summit County PO BOX 68 Breckenridge, CO Phone: (970) dang@co.summit.co.us Hon. Douglas Graupe Divide County PO Box 237 Crosby, ND Phone: (701) (701) dcgraupe@nccray.com Hon. Gary Gray Hughes County PO BOX Dustin, OK Phone: (405) (405) hughescountydist2@gmail.com Hon. Charles F. Gruber Chairman Baldwin County 201 E Section Ave Foley, AL Phone: (251) (251) cgruber@baldwincountyal.gov 2/12/2015 Page 6 of 15

56 Hon. Ken Hagan Hillsborough County 601 E Kennedy Blvd 2Nd Floor Tampa, FL Phone: (813) (813) hagank@hillsboroughcounty.org Hon. Jane Hague Councilmember King County 516 Third Avenue, Room 1200 Seattle, WA Phone: (206) (206) jane.hague@kingcounty.gov Hon. Dayvin M.A. Hallmon Supervisor Kenosha County Th St Kenosha, WI Phone: dayvin.hallmon@kenoshacounty.org Hon. Erik Hansen Adams County 4430 S Adams County Pkwy 5Th Fl., Ste. C5000a Brighton, CO Phone: (720) ehansen@adcogov.org Mr. Josh Harvill County Engineer Chambers County PO BOX 650 Lafayette, AL Phone: (334) josh.harvill@chamberscountyal.gov Hon. Jason G. Heitkamp Richland County 921 Dakota Ave Suite A Wahpeton, ND Phone: (701) jgheitkamp@co.richland.nd.us Hon. Bill L. Holen Arapahoe County 5334 South Prince Street County Administration Building Littleton, CO Phone: (303) (303) bholen@co.arapahoe.co.us Hon. Lisa Janicki Skagit County 1800 Continental Pl # 100 County Courthouse Mount Vernon, WA Phone: (360) (360) ljanicki@co.skagit.wa.us Ms. Debra S. Jenkins Surveyor Indianapolis and Marion County 200 E Washington St Ste 742 Indianapolis, IN Phone: (317) Debra.Jenkins@indy.gov 2/12/2015 Page 7 of 15

57 Hon. Kim Johnson St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Ave. Fort Pierce, FL Phone: (772) (772) Hon. Wayne Johnson Bernalillo County One Civic Plaza NW, 10th Floor, Room Albuquerque, NM Phone: (505) Mr. Brian Keierleber Engineer Buchanan County St St E Independence, IA Phone: (319) (319) bkeierleber@co.buchanan.ia.us Mr. Todd Kinney Engineer Clinton County PO Box 2957 Clinton, IA Phone: (563) (563) tkinney@clintoncounty-ia.gov Hon. Steven Klika Johnson County 111 S Cherry Street, Suite 3300 County Courthouse Olathe, KS Phone: (913) (913) steve.klika@jocogov.org Hon. Paul E. Koeper Associate Cape Girardeau County One Barton Square Jackson, MO Phone: (573) pkoeper@capecounty.us Hon. Mark Labhart Tillamook County 201 Laurel Tillamook, OR Phone: (503) (503) mlabhart@co.tillamook.or.us Mr. Edward Labrador Director Broward County Government Center, Suite South Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL Phone: (954) (954) elabrador@broward.org Hon. Randy Maluchnik Carver County Ramsey Ct Chaska, MN Phone: (612) (952) rmaluchnik@co.carver.mn.us Hon. Tim Mauck Clear Creek County PO BOX 2000 Georgetown, CO Phone: (303) tim@timmauck.com 2/12/2015 Page 8 of 15

58 Hon. William McClure St. Johns County 500 San Sebastian View St. Augustine, FL Phone: (904) (904) Hon. Timothy P. McCormick Commission President Ohio County 216 Debbie Ann Dr Wheeling, WV Phone: (304) (304) Mr. Michael E. McHaney Public Works Director Jefferson County PO BOX 709 Madras, OR Phone: (541) (541) Hon. Gerald McLeod Police Juror Beauregard Parish PO BOX 141 Singer, LA Phone: (318) (337) Hon. Bret Millburn, Chair Davis County PO BOX 618 Farmington, UT Phone: (801) (801) Hon. Paul Mosley Supervisor, President Clarke County PO BOX 616 Quitman, MS Phone: (601) (601) Hon. James G. Moustis Board Member Will County 302 N. Chicago St. Joliet, IL Phone: (815) (815) Hon. Joan Patricia Murphy Cook County 118 N Clark St Rm 567 County Building Chicago, IL Phone: (312) (312) joan.murphy@cookcountyil.gov Rev. Tyrone E. Nelson Supervisor Henrico County PO Box County Government Center Henrico, VA Phone: (804) (804) varina@co.henrico.va.us 2/12/2015 Page 9 of 15

59 Mr. Burke O'Brien Public Works Director Morrow County P.O. Box 428 Lexington, OR Phone: (541) (541) Mr. Eric Olafson Manager, Intergovernmental Affairs and Cargo Development Miami-Dade County 1015 N America Way Miami, FL Phone: (305) Olafson@miamidade.gov Hon. Thomas O'Neill Board Chairman Peoria County 4908 W. Wanda Room 502 Peoria, IL Phone: (309) (309) toneill@peoriacounty.org Hon. Rafael E. Ortega Ramsey County 15 Kellogg Blvd W Ste 220 Saint Paul, MN Phone: (651) (651) rafael.e.ortega@co.ramsey.mn.us Hon. Michael Ortner Commission Chair Fall River County PO BOX 629 Hot Springs, SD Phone: (605) (605) ortner1942@yahoo.com Hon. John Ostlund Yellowstone County PO BOX Billings, MT Phone: (406) (406) Jostlund@co.yellowstone.mt.gov Mr. Greg Parker Engineer Johnson County 4810 Melrose Ave W Iowa City, IA Phone: (319) (319) gparker@co.johnson.ia.us Hon. G. Frederick Payne Council Member Greenville County 1907 Bethel Road Simpsonville, SC Phone: (864) (864) gfp2kmp@yahoo.com Hon. Craig Pope Polk County 850 Main St Dallas, OR Phone: (503) pope.craig@co.polk.or.us Hon. Helen Price Johnson, Chair Island County 6695 Cliffordsville Clinton, WA Phone: (360) (360) h.price_johnson@co.island.wa.us 2/12/2015 Page 10 of 15

60 Mr. Duane Ratermann County Engineer Knox County 1214 U.S. Hwy. 150 East Knoxville, IL Phone: (309) (309) Hon. Ellen Reckhow Durham County 11 Pine Top Place Durham, NC Phone: (919) (919) Mr. Randy Robinson OCCEDB Transportation Engineer Association of County s of Oklahoma 429 NE 50th Street Oklahoma City, OK Phone: (405) (405) randyr@okacco.com Hon. Donald Rosier Jefferson County 100 Jefferson County Pkwy, Suite 4500 County Government Center Golden, CO Phone: (303) commish3@jeffco.us Hon. Drucilla Russ-Jackson Sumter County PO BOX Jackson Lane Panola, AL Phone: (205) (205) drucillaj@centurylink.net Hon. Matt Ryan Supervisor, Chair Coconino County 219 E Cherry Ave Flagstaff, AZ Phone: (928) (928) mryan@coconino.az.gov Hon. Terry Ryan Councilmember Snohomish County 3000 Rockefeller M/S #609 Everett, WA Phone: (425) (425) Terry.Ryan@snoco.org Mr. Richard Sanders County Engineer Polk County 820 Old Highway 75 South Crookston, MN Phone: (218) (218) sanders.rich@co.polk.mn.us Hon. Paul Savas Clackamas County 2051 Kaen Rd Oregon City, OR Phone: (503) psavas@clackamas.us 2/12/2015 Page 11 of 15

61 Mr. Chris Schroder Administrative Assistant Association of County s of Oklahoma 429 NE 50th Oklahoma City, OK Phone: (405) chriss@okacco.com Mr. Mark K. Servi Highway Barron County 260 N 7Th St County Highway Dept. Barron, WI Phone: (715) (715) mark.servi@co.barron.wi.us Hon. Christopher Shoff Freeborn County 411 South Broadway Albert Lea, MN Phone: (507) christopher.shoff@co.freeborn.mn.us Mr. Bradley Skinner Engineer Montgomery County PO Box 95 Red Oak, IA Phone: (712) (712) bskinner@montgomerycoia.us Hon. Anthony Smith Supervisor, Chairman Pinal County W. Smith Enke Road Bldg #12, Suite 128 Maricopa, AZ Phone: (520) (520) Anthony.Smith@pinalcountyaz.gov Mr. Vincent Spagnoletti Of Public Works Steuben County 3 E Pulteney Sq Bath, NY Phone: (607) (607) vinces@co.steuben.ny.us Hon. Rochelle Spector Council Member Baltimore City 100 Holliday St Rm 521 Baltimore, MD Phone: (410) (410) rikki.spector@baltimorecity.gov Hon. James Spering Supervisor Solano County 675 Texas St Ste 6500 Fairfield, CA Phone: (707) (707) jpspering@solanocounty.com Mr. Brian Stacy County Engineer Pierce County 4301 South Pine St. Suite 628 Tacoma, WA Phone: (253) bstacy@co.pierce.wa.us 2/12/2015 Page 12 of 15

62 Hon. Lee Staker Bonneville County 605 N Capital Ave Idaho Falls, ID Phone: (208) (1366) (208) lstaker@co.bonneville.id.us Mr. Douglas P. Stanley County Administrator Warren County 220 North Commerce Ave. Suite 100 Front Royal, VA Phone: (540) (540) dstanley@warrencountyva.net Hon. Norm Steen Teller County PO Box 959 Cripple Creek, CO Phone: (719) (719) steenn@co.teller.co.us Mr. Bruce G. Stelzner Highway Chippewa County 801 East Grand Avenue Chippewa Falls, WI Phone: (715) (715) bstelzner@co.chippewa.wi.us Hon. Karn Stiegelmeier Summit County PO Box E Lincoln Ave Breckenridge, CO Phone: (970) karns@co.summit.co.us Hon. Vance Stuehrenberg Blue Earth County 204 S 5Th St Mankato, MN Phone: (507) vances@blueearthcountymn.gov Hon. J. Walter Tejada Board Member Arlington County 2100 Clarendon Blvd Ste 300 One Courthouse Plaza Arlington, VA Phone: (703) (703) wtejada@arlingtonva.us Hon. Jesse Thompson Supervisor, Chairman Navajo County PO BOX 668 Holbrook, AZ Phone: (928) (928) Jesse.Thompson@Navajocountyaz.Gov Hon. Clayton Tucholke Grant County Th Ave Labolt, SD Phone: (605) claytont@sstel.net 2/12/2015 Page 13 of 15

63 Hon. Raymond L. Vaughn, Chair Oklahoma County 320 Robert S Kerr Ave Ste 621 Oklahoma City, OK Phone: (405) (405) rvaughn@oklahomacounty.org Mr. Dan Waid Engineer Hamilton County 2300 Superior St, Suite 4 Webster City, IA Phone: (515) (515) dwaid@hamiltoncounty.org Ms. Gayle Ward Executive Director Association of County s of Oklahoma 429 Ne 50Th St Oklahoma City, OK Phone: gaylew@okacco.com Hon. John D. Ward, Chair Coal County Four N Main, Suite 3 Coalgate, OK Phone: (580) (580) coalcocommjdward@yahoo.com Mr. George T. Webb County Engineer Palm Beach County 301 N Olive Ave Ste 1105 West Palm Beach, FL Phone: (561) (561) gwebb@pbcgov.org Hon. Bonnie Weber Washoe County PO BOX Washoe County Administrative Complex Reno, NV Phone: (775) (775) bweber@washoecounty.us Hon. Lisa Weik Washington County 3393 Commonwealth Ave Woodbury, MN Phone: (651) lisa.weik@co.washington.mn.us Ms. Liane Welch Public Works Director Tillamook County 503 Marolf Lp. Tillamook, OR Phone: (503) (503) lwelch@co.tillamook.or.us Hon. James H. Westbrook Weakley County PO BOX 295 Dresden, TN Phone: (731) (731) jhwest@frontiernet.net Hon. Gloria D. Whisenhunt Forsyth County 456 North Hawthorne Road Winston-Salem, NC Phone: (336) (336) holtcd@forsyth.cc 2/12/2015 Page 14 of 15

64 Hon. Tom White Supervisor Apache County PO BOX 1170 Fort Defiance, AZ Phone: (928) Hon. Paul Wilson Olmsted County Th St SE Rochester, MN Phone: (507) (507) Hon. Ronald Winterton, Chairman Duchesne County PO BOX 270 Duchesne, UT Phone: (435) (435) Hon. Tom Worthan Chairman Douglas County 8700 Hospital Drive Douglasville, GA Phone: (770) (770) Hon. Dan Wright Walker County P.O. Box 1447 County Courthouse Jasper, AL Phone: (205) NACo Staff Liaison Ms. Jessica Monahan Associate Legislative Director National Association of Counties 25 Massachusetts Ave NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC Phone: (202) (202) /12/2015 Page 15 of 15

65 October 22, 2014 The Honorable Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader S-221, U.S. Capitol Building Washington, DC The Honorable John Boehner Speaker of the House of Representatives H-232, U.S. Capitol Building Washington, DC Dear Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Boehner: On behalf of the nation s 3,069 counties, the National Association of Counties (NACo) urges Congress to continue investing in our infrastructure. Before the current transportation authorization law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) expires and funding runs out on May 31, 2015, it s critical that Congress identifies a long-term sustainable revenue source for the Highway Trust Fund that will provide sufficient funding to fix and grow our nation s transportation system. Transportation and infrastructure are critical components that support the economies of our nation s counties and improve the standard of living for all Americans. As the owners of 45 percent of the nation s roads and 230,690 bridges, and stewards of nearly a third of the nation s transit systems and airports, counties understand the nation s infrastructure needs and the cost of inaction at the federal level. Counties are invested in building and maintaining a safe, efficient transportation system that connects and serves our communities while allowing our nation s economy to remain competitive in an increasingly global market. However, we cannot do it alone. The federal government is an important partner in delivering locally-developed transportation projects. At the local level, counties see the direct impact of federal dollars spent on transportation. In addition to moving goods and people, federal transportation investments are major economic drivers for local communities. If funding needs go unmet, county budgets are strained, projects are delayed and services are cut, and local economies suffer the consequences. In order to plan and execute large and small-scale transportation projects that are critical to commerce and the American quality of life, federal transportation programs need a reliable, steady source of revenue. For far too long, the Highway Trust Fund has been on a path toward insolvency. Although Congress has taken action to provide temporary solutions, the lack of long-term funding at the federal level has created uncertainty for counties, which inhibits their ability to plan and deliver projects. NACo believes that what is best for our nation s infrastructure, economy and local communities is a long-term solution for the Highway Trust Fund. We are also concerned that with the cost of project 25 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, NW SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, DC FAX FB.COM/ NACODC TWITTER.COM/NACOTWEETS YOUTUBE.COM/NACOVIDEO LINKEDIN.COM/IN/NACODC

66 construction outpacing the rate of inflation, the closer we get to May 31, 2015 without a resolution, the greater the threat will be to county governments. That is why we are encouraging you and your colleagues in Congress not to wait but to act now. Thank you for your consideration of this important issue. As intergovernmental partners, the nation s counties stand ready to work with you to secure a long-term funding solution for our country s transportation infrastructure. If you have any questions, please contact Jessica Monahan at or jmonahan@naco.org. Sincerely, Riki Hokama President cc: The Honorable Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader Senate Finance Committee House Ways and Means Committee 25 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, NW SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, DC FAX FB.COM/ NACODC TWITTER.COM/NACOTWEETS YOUTUBE.COM/NACOVIDEO LINKEDIN.COM/IN/NACODC

67 October 21, 2014 The Honorable Barbara Boxer Chairman Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 410 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC The Honorable David Vitter Ranking Member Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 456 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC The Honorable Bill Shuster Chairman House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 2165 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC The Honorable Nick Rahall Ranking Member House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 2163 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC Dear Chairmen Boxer and Shuster, and Ranking Members Vitter and Rahall: On behalf of the local government community and its elected and specialized transportation officials, we are writing to thank you for your efforts to stave off any disruption in the flow of critical transportation funding for federally-assisted bridge, highway, transit, and other transportation projects. With a MAP-21 extension in place, we are also writing to ask you to support an adequately-funded, multi-year surface transportation reauthorization that addresses our nation s transportation infrastructure needs by directing a greater share of available funds to local governments and their regional agencies. Specifically, our organizations are united in requesting that the next authorization bill increase the amount of Surface Transportation Program and other program funding that is suballocated to local areas. Cities, counties and townships collectively own 78 percent of the nation s road miles, 43 percent of the nation s federal-aid highway miles, and 50 percent of the nation s bridge inventory, and operate a majority of the nation s ports, airports and transit systems. Additionally, local governments maintain nearly all public parking structures, sidewalks and other ancillary transportation facilities, other related infrastructure, and oversee all land use and development practices. It is our firm belief that local elected officials, who are responsible for the vast majority of the system, are best situated to direct available transportation resources to projects serving their communities and regions. Despite owning a majority share of our country s transportation network and being the level of government closest to the people, local governments and their metropolitan and regional planning organizations are suballocated a very limited share of federal highway funding less than 15 percent of the total highway program. MAP-21 further strained local governments by decreasing by 30 percent the amount of highway funding available for the transportation infrastructure they own. In this next reauthorization, we urge you to reaffirm your commitment to the nation s transportation system by increasing funding to its majority owners using the planning, decision-making and allocation processes modeled after those of the Surface Transportation Program. It is our belief that supporting locally owned infrastructure and emphasizing locally and regionally based decision-making will secure the most cost-effective, and economy- and mobility-enhancing investments to build our future.