2011-01 FundBook January Issue

The FundBookJanuary 2011

Upcoming grants

timeline

p.26

Actionable funding information, visible results.

View from the capitol:

Wrapping up 2010

p.8

By the numbers: Water- related

accounts with increasing grant funds

p.10

p.12

In search of

water infrastructure funding

Articles

6 Grants news in brief

8 View from the CapitolWrapping up 2010

15 Perspective from the HillStaff from EPA’s Clean and Drinking

Water Program on State Revolving Funds

17 Upcoming grant events & conferences

20 On the docketFederal legislation affecting grants

21 Grants in Focus:Build America Bonds Expire

22 Perspective from the HillJay Fletcher from USDA discusses water & environmental programs

24 Editorial By James Alfano

Rural Innovation Fund Program (p.41)Due: Feb 28, 2011This program provides support to address the prob-lems of concentrated rural housing distress and com-munity poverty.

Featured grants:

Features

10 By the numbers: No earmarks, but grants increase, Part 2

12 In search of water infrastructure funding

18 The Legislative DeskHow to interact with your elected

26 Timeline of currently available grants for local governments

January to-do list:

Evaluate what federal assistance is available for clean water and drinking water programs

Visit our Legislative Desk to determine your next step towards working with your delegation (p.18)

Review grants section to see if any current opportunities match your needs (p.26-50)

WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants (p.39)Due: Feb 17, 2011This program promotes projects that save water, im-prove energy efficiency, address endangered species and other environmental issues, and facilitate transfers to new uses.

Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) Grants Program (p.41)Due: Feb 4, 2011Funds provided through this program are to enhance the safety of the public and firefighters from fire and related hazards through pre-emptive activities.

Dear Reader,

We hope that you’ve enjoyed a great holiday season, and have made some productive resolutions for the New Year. While many local governments will continue to face fiscal difficulties in 2011, the beauty of America is the initiative and creative resolve with which we will solve those problems.

While tough times will pass, this year is likely to be a trying time for federal assistance to local gov-ernments. The Republican takeover of the House of Representatives is expected to lead to trimmed budgets and even some cut grant programs. In 2011 you can expect to see many of the programs local governments make use of — Preserve America, Promise/Choice Neighborhoods, and even formula disbursements — come up on the chopping block. Even if a program is not dissolved, many will likely have reduced funding as the House’s republican majority pushes hard to reduce budget outlays.

However, it is our goal to provide you with the information to make effective decisions, and priori-tize your efforts to seek federal funding. Our staff has been working and researching tirelessly dur-ing the holidays to ensure that the January 2011 issue is the sole source of information you need. In this month’s issue of the FundBook, our staff provides in depth information on how one can pursue assistance for water-related projects. Additionally, in Part 2 of an ongoing By the Numbers series we examine various water-related federally funded programs and how they are likely to change without the presence of earmarks.

In addition to actionable water project information, this issue of The Legislative Desk (p. 18), provides you with best practices concerning how to stay in touch with your congressional delegation, and downloadable letter templates which will reduce your own time spent putting communications to-gether. With this overview of what important dates are upcoming, your community will stay abreast of the legislative process and be able to use it to influence those developments more effectively.

As always, we provide the latest regarding available grants for the over 40 federal grants currently available to local governments. In addition to analysis of legislative developments affecting national grant programs, we keep you aware of important announcements, conferences, and webinar dates where grant program decisions will be made.

We promise that our articles will be clear, concise, and informative, and we look forward to assisting you now and in the future. Cheers to a new year!

Sincerely,

Toby Hicks, Editor

Foreword

www.fundbook.org October 2010 | The Fundbook ~ p.23

December 1

January 1

MMS Grant: Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) - p.36

Dec 31

USDA Grant: Rural Community Development Initiative - p.33Dec 22

IMLS Grant: Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program - p.29Dec 15

NOAA Grant: Regional Ocean Partnership Funding Program - p.37Dec 10

HUD Grant: Continuum of Care Home-less Assistance Program - p.35

HUD Grants: Hazards in Housing (1) - p.39

HRSA Grant: Health Center New Access Points Program - p.25

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program - p.31

Dec 3FEMA Grants

Severe Repetitive Loss Program - p.30

Repetitive Flood Claims Program - p.32

Flood Mitigation Assistance Program - p.32

HUD Grant: HOPE VI Revitalization Grants Program - p.34

USDA Grant: Solid Waste Managment Grant - p.40

Two Months From Now Three Months From Now

Icon Legend

p.22 ~ The Fundbook | October 2010

Upcoming Grants TimelineGrant descriptions follow

October 1

November 1

HUD Grant: Choice Neighborhoods Initiative - p.34Oct 26

Oct 15

FY 2011 MCSAP New Entrant Funding - p.28

FY 2011 High Priority Grant Opportunity - p.28DOT Grants:

Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Grants - p.27

Brownfields Assessment Grants - p.27

EPA Grants: Brownfields Cleanup Grants - p.26

EPA Grant: Market Based Approaches to Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions - p.38

Oct 27

FWS Grant: North American Wetlands Conservation Act Small Grants - p.33

Oct 28

IMLS Grant: Museums for America - p.29

NOAA Grant: Community-based Marine Debris Removal Project Grants - p.37

Nov 1Nov 18

DOC Grant: MBDA Busi-ness Center (MBC) - p.24

Nov 10

HUD Grants: Hazards in Housing (3) - p.38, 39

Nov 16

Nov 8

Nov 17

Nov 22

Now One Month From Now

Commerce/Business -Health/Medical -Ocean/Coastal -

Rural -Transportation -

Housing -Museums/Art -

Green/Environment -Disaster{

www.fundbook.orgp.30 ~ The Fundbook | October 2010 www.fundbook.orgp.30 ~ The Fundbook | October 2010

Number of AwardsMany: 50

Amount AvailableLarge: $100,000,000

FOA #DHS-11-MT-110-000-99

AgencyDepartment of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency

DeadlineNot soon: Dec 3, 2010

Severe Repetitive Loss Program



FOA #DHS-11-MT-047-000-99



Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program


Hazard Mitiga-

tion Grant Program Flood

Mitigation Assistance

Repetitive Flood Claims

Severe Repetitive Loss

Pre-Disaster

Mitigation

Federal Emergency Agency Hazard Mitigation Programs

PDM Planning Selectivity (%) PDM Project Grant Selectivity (%)

PD

M Funding (m

illions)

Number of AwardsMedium: 11

Amount AvailableMedium: $11,000,000

AgencyEnvironmental Protection Agency

FOA #EPA-OSWER-OBLR-10-11

DeadlineSoon: Oct 15, 2010

Brownfields Cleanup Grants

Job Train-

ing Grants, Number of AwardsMany: 185





Cleanup Revolving

Loan Fund Programs

Assess-

ment Cleanup Programs






Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Grants

Brownfields Assessment Grants


EPA Brownfields Grants

Targeted Brownfields Assess-

ment (TBA)

$52,400,000

$11,000,000$29,500,000

www.fundbook.orgp.26 ~ The Fundbook | October 2010


C o n g r e s s i o n a l l y -directed funding

Congressional funding for increasing the energy efficiency of government buildings is difficult to come by, but not impos-sible. The two sources it is most likely to be fund-ed though are the Depart-ment of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renew-able Energy (EERE) ac-count in the Energy and Water appropriations bill, or through the Hous-ing and Urban Develop-ment’s Economic Devel-opment Administration (EDA) account in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill.

In FY10, there were four instances of con-

gress ional ly-di rec ted funds for energy effi-ciency in local govern-ment buildings projects. The City of Oakdale, MN, the City of Red-lands, CA, the Township of Branchburg, NJ, and the Noble County Health Department of Caldwell, OH were the recipients of between $400 thousand and $1 million in funds each. Three of these were through EERE and the latter was through EDA. There were no compa-rable instances in FY09 or FY08 which may in-dicate that this is a trend that may develop further this coming year, or that this FY10 congressional-ly-directed funding was a fluke.

Regardless, if you in-tend to pursue this type of funding through ap-propriations, your chanc-es will be best if your congressional delegation is associated with either the House or Sen-ate com-

mittees on appropria-tions, or

the relevant subcommit-tees – Energy and Water when pursuing EERE funds, or Transportation, Housing and Urban de-velopment when pursu-

Funds for a local government building energy efficiency projects

ing EDA funds. When naming your project, keep in mind that “energy efficiency” projects are how they are described for local governments, while non-profits and universities tend to use the terminology “green building.”

Competitive Grant Programs

Outside of EECBG, should it be funded again, there are limited grant programs for this project type at the fed-eral level. Two of the most natural candidates to provide these grants -- the Environmental Pro-tection Agency and the Department of Energy -- do not currently provide funding for green build-ing projects. However, the Department of Agri-culture (USDA) and the Economic Development Administration (EDA) do both offer annually re-curring grant programs.

The USDA’s High Energy Cost

Program provides finan-cial assistance for the improvement of energy generation, transmis-sion, and distribution fa-cilities serving eligible rural communities with home energy costs that are over 275 percent of the national average. In

FY10 this program con-sisted of $15.5 million split among 20 awards and will almost certainly be available again in the coming year. The ap-plication period closed September 8 this year, so there is some time to plan a competitive grant before the new applica-tion cycle begins.

The EDA’s Global Climate Change Mitiga-tion Fund (GCCMF) was established to strengthen the linkages between eco-nomic development and environmental quality. One of the project types supported through this program is new construc-tion or renovation that leads to a “green build-ing” with an LEED™ or comparable certification. Projects that are chosen must lead to a net posi-tive outcome in terms of energy, materials, and/or water use efficiency. In FY10 this program con-sisted of $25 million and will almost certainly be

available again in the coming year. The ap-plication period is roll-ing, so there is as much time as necessary to plan a competitive grant be-fore applying. (See p.11 Demystifying the EDA Grant Process

Additionally, one of the most promising re-sources for local govern-ments looking for this kind of federal funding is through their state’s State Energy Program (SEP). However, SEPs vary as the Department of Energy emphasizes the state’s role as decision maker and administrator for SEP activities within each state. Priorities, and the amount available for this project type, are set by the state. To find out if funding is available in

your state, contact your area State Energy Of-fice.

Other funding mecha-nisms

There are also other funding types available for local government en-ergy efficiency in build-ings projects, though most are available at the state, not federal, level. An ex-cellent resource that lists state programs relevant to this project type is the Database of State Incen-tives for Renewables & Efficiency, which can be accessed at goo.gl/h4b6

One federally available option is Qualified En-ergy Conservation Bonds (QECBs) which can assist

financing quali-fied energy con-servation proj-ects – a term that includes energy efficiency capital expenditures for public buildings. QECB funding is available on a state-by-state basis, based on whether the fed-erally issued funds have al-ready been com-mitted. Interested officials should contact their State Energy Office for additional in-formation about availability.

www.fundbook.orgOctober 2010 | The Fundbook ~ p.11

Demystifying the Eco-nomic Development

Project Grant Process

Pu

blic Work

s

Econ

omic A

djustm

ent A

ssis-

tance

Finding funding to enhance your

local government’s vehicle fleet

www.fundbook.org


Get more in format ion or subscr ibe today by v i s i t ing www.fundbook.org or contacting our office at 202-681-FUND (3863)

The FundBook

• Actionable quantitative analyses of current grant opportunities available to local governments.

• In-depth articles with analyses and recommendations of how to pursue federal funding for different capital improvement projects.

• Timeline of current grant opportunities to ensure that you and your staff stay organized and don’t miss important application deadlines.

Actionable funding information, visible results.

• Dual focus on both grants and appropriations for expanded options and security.

• According to the Office of Management and Budget, the costs of subscriptions to business professional and technical periodicals are allowable expenses, meaning you can use your federal grants funds for this subscription.

• A single local government’s subscription can be sent monthly to as many full-time staff as requested.

The purpose of The FundBook is to empower America’s local governments by increasing their

awareness of, and ability to pursue, federal financial assistance for local projects. This is via a monthly

publication which describes federal programs that are currently available, how to best pursue available

funds, and trends in federal funding for projects relevant to local governments. Our product is designed

to be the most user-friendly federal funding awareness resource for all sizes of local government.

www.fundbook.orgp.� ~ The Fundbook | January 2011

Congress Passes

Stormwater Funding

Bill

Before adjourning, Congress last month passed legislation (S.3481) amending the Clean Wa-ter Act to clarify that the federal government must pay stormwater util-ity fees to local govern-ments.

More specifically, the bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (or the Clean Water Act) to provide that rea-sonable service charges applicable to federal en-tities for water pollution include the same reason-able fees or assessments for stormwater manage-ment applicable to any nongovernmental entity.

Previously, federal government refused to pay a new D.C. storm wa-ter fee, saying it amounts to a tax the government is precluded from paying even though the proceeds go toward meeting U.S. clean water standards. The federal government

claimed that it did not have to pay stormwater utility fees to local gov-ernments based on claims of sovereign immunity. The new legislation will remedy this problem and ensure that the federal government pays for the pollution it creates. Refer to the On the Docket section (p.20) for more information on important legislation. §

Bike-ped advocates

release “How To”

guide

The League of Ameri-can Bicyclists and the Alliance for Biking and Walking last month re-leased a report named Bridging the Gaps in Bi-cycling Networks: An advocate’s guide to get-ting bikes on bridges. In their 22-page report, the Bike League and the Al-liance walk advocates through the most com-mon obstacles to gaining bike-ped access on bridg-es and discusses how oth-er groups have been suc-

cessful. It also contains recommendations based on the experience of sev-eral ongoing advocacy campaigns. §

FEMA extends lower

cost flood insurance

option

Beginning January 1, 2011, the Federal Emer-gency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Na-tional Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is offer-ing a new insurance rat-ing option that will allow many property owners to take advantage of low-er-cost flood insurance for two years before they are required to pay stan-dard rates. The program will make Preferred Risk Policies (PRPs), which start at just $129 a year and are typically only available for properties in moderate to low-risk areas, available for prop-erties that have been newly mapped into high-risk areas due to a flood map revision on or after October 1, 2008. §

New census numbers

shift political map

The Census Bureau last month announced the reapportionment of the 435 congressional districts, reshaping the political map to be used for the next decade. The announcement coincides with the start of consti-tutionally-mandated re-districting that will take place in states across the country.

Based on the nation’s population data gath-ered in the 2010 census, Texas will gain four con-gressional districts and Florida two. In addition to these large gains, Ari-zona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington all will gain one seat.

Among the losers were New York and Ohio, which lost two seats each. Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania all will lose one seat. The average population per congres-sional district is about 710,000 people. §

HUD launches new

website for economic

& housing data

The Department of Housing and Urban De-velopment last month unveiled a new website that consolidates a wide variety of economic and housing market data at the regional, state, metropolitan area and county levels. Using data from the Census Bureau, Labor Department, State and Local governments, housing industry sourc-es, as well as HUD’s own field economists, the new website employs interac-tive maps that allow visi-tors to access a variety of reports – from a region-wide look at employment and housing activity to individual county-level figures on population trends, rental activity and vacancy rates. The site is designed to be helpful to state and local leaders, developers, the real estate industry, and the general public who need the lat-est available data on their markets. §

Grant requirements

lead to lower airfares

An oft-lamented aspect of many grants are the requirements and strings that the funding is some-times shackled to. At the North Central West Vir-ginia Airport, officials found themselves coming up short for the required number of passengers taking flights from their airport. In order to trig-ger the Federal Aviation Administration grant, which the airport uses for improvements, they announced several dif-ferent deals incentivizing the extra travellers.

Be sure that you are prepared to meet the re-quirements of grant fund-ing you accept. It’s likely there will be a solution that isn’t obvious. §

FY11 Comprehensive

Earmark Request

Database

Each congressional office in Washington is managed by the elected official. Without any standardized system in

place, this often leads to very different practices as to how elected officials disclose which earmark requests they are sup-porting in the appropria-tions process. Taxpay-ers for Common Sense, a D.C. non-profit dedicated to government transpar-ency, in conjunction with two other groups created a FY11 appropriations request database from the disparate data sources. Such databases are useful in a variety of ways, and especially for a local gov-ernment leader looking for regional partners, or see which kinds of proj-ects nearby congressmen are likely to support.

The database is avail-able online at the Tax-payers for Common Sense website. §

Broadcasting facility

grants may be phased

out

In last year’s Presiden-tial budget as well as the current YouCut website, certain Broadcasting Fa-cility Grant Programs are prime candidates to be

cut. However, this is not a loss to communities as the conversion to digital broadcasting was com-pleted in 2009. President Obama justified the cut saying “Since 2004, the USDA Public Broadcast-ing Grants program has provided grants to sup-port rural public televi-sion stations’ conversion to digital broadcasting. Digital conversion efforts mandated by the Federal Communications Com-mission are now largely complete, and there is no further need for this program.” It was not cut yet because under a con-tinuing resolution fund-ing levels are typically not altered. (Although no funds were provided for programs designated to be cut).

Similar to this month’s legislative desk entry, this is why it is impor-tant to check the Pres-ident’s budget request when it is released. Grant programs do not only change funding levels, they can also be phased out completely. §

Grants news in brief

www.fundbook.org January 2011 | The Fundbook ~ p.�

Congress Passes

Stormwater Funding

Bill

Before adjourning, Congress last month passed legislation (S.3481) amending the Clean Wa-ter Act to clarify that the federal government must pay stormwater util-ity fees to local govern-ments.

More specifically, the bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (or the Clean Water Act) to provide that rea-sonable service charges applicable to federal en-tities for water pollution include the same reason-able fees or assessments for stormwater manage-ment applicable to any nongovernmental entity.

Previously, federal government refused to pay a new D.C. storm wa-ter fee, saying it amounts to a tax the government is precluded from paying even though the proceeds go toward meeting U.S. clean water standards. The federal government

claimed that it did not have to pay stormwater utility fees to local gov-ernments based on claims of sovereign immunity. The new legislation will remedy this problem and ensure that the federal government pays for the pollution it creates. Refer to the On the Docket section (p.20) for more information on important legislation. §

Bike-ped advocates

release “How To”

guide

The League of Ameri-can Bicyclists and the Alliance for Biking and Walking last month re-leased a report named Bridging the Gaps in Bi-cycling Networks: An advocate’s guide to get-ting bikes on bridges. In their 22-page report, the Bike League and the Al-liance walk advocates through the most com-mon obstacles to gaining bike-ped access on bridg-es and discusses how oth-er groups have been suc-

cessful. It also contains recommendations based on the experience of sev-eral ongoing advocacy campaigns. §

FEMA extends lower

cost flood insurance

option

Beginning January 1, 2011, the Federal Emer-gency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Na-tional Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is offer-ing a new insurance rat-ing option that will allow many property owners to take advantage of low-er-cost flood insurance for two years before they are required to pay stan-dard rates. The program will make Preferred Risk Policies (PRPs), which start at just $129 a year and are typically only available for properties in moderate to low-risk areas, available for prop-erties that have been newly mapped into high-risk areas due to a flood map revision on or after October 1, 2008. §

New census numbers

shift political map

The Census Bureau last month announced the reapportionment of the 435 congressional districts, reshaping the political map to be used for the next decade. The announcement coincides with the start of consti-tutionally-mandated re-districting that will take place in states across the country.

Based on the nation’s population data gath-ered in the 2010 census, Texas will gain four con-gressional districts and Florida two. In addition to these large gains, Ari-zona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington all will gain one seat.

Among the losers were New York and Ohio, which lost two seats each. Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania all will lose one seat. The average population per congres-sional district is about 710,000 people. §

HUD launches new

website for economic

& housing data

The Department of Housing and Urban De-velopment last month unveiled a new website that consolidates a wide variety of economic and housing market data at the regional, state, metropolitan area and county levels. Using data from the Census Bureau, Labor Department, State and Local governments, housing industry sourc-es, as well as HUD’s own field economists, the new website employs interac-tive maps that allow visi-tors to access a variety of reports – from a region-wide look at employment and housing activity to individual county-level figures on population trends, rental activity and vacancy rates. The site is designed to be helpful to state and local leaders, developers, the real estate industry, and the general public who need the lat-est available data on their markets. §

Grant requirements

lead to lower airfares

An oft-lamented aspect of many grants are the requirements and strings that the funding is some-times shackled to. At the North Central West Vir-ginia Airport, officials found themselves coming up short for the required number of passengers taking flights from their airport. In order to trig-ger the Federal Aviation Administration grant, which the airport uses for improvements, they announced several dif-ferent deals incentivizing the extra travellers.

Be sure that you are prepared to meet the re-quirements of grant fund-ing you accept. It’s likely there will be a solution that isn’t obvious. §

FY11 Comprehensive

Earmark Request

Database

Each congressional office in Washington is managed by the elected official. Without any standardized system in

place, this often leads to very different practices as to how elected officials disclose which earmark requests they are sup-porting in the appropria-tions process. Taxpay-ers for Common Sense, a D.C. non-profit dedicated to government transpar-ency, in conjunction with two other groups created a FY11 appropriations request database from the disparate data sources. Such databases are useful in a variety of ways, and especially for a local gov-ernment leader looking for regional partners, or see which kinds of proj-ects nearby congressmen are likely to support.

The database is avail-able online at the Tax-payers for Common Sense website. §

Broadcasting facility

grants may be phased

out

In last year’s Presiden-tial budget as well as the current YouCut website, certain Broadcasting Fa-cility Grant Programs are prime candidates to be

cut. However, this is not a loss to communities as the conversion to digital broadcasting was com-pleted in 2009. President Obama justified the cut saying “Since 2004, the USDA Public Broadcast-ing Grants program has provided grants to sup-port rural public televi-sion stations’ conversion to digital broadcasting. Digital conversion efforts mandated by the Federal Communications Com-mission are now largely complete, and there is no further need for this program.” It was not cut yet because under a con-tinuing resolution fund-ing levels are typically not altered. (Although no funds were provided for programs designated to be cut).

Similar to this month’s legislative desk entry, this is why it is impor-tant to check the Pres-ident’s budget request when it is released. Grant programs do not only change funding levels, they can also be phased out completely. §

Grants news in brief

www.fundbook.orgp.� ~ The Fundbook | January 2011

FY11 will be a pivotal year when it comes to government spending. While President Obama may be well on his way towards completing

his budget request for FY12, Congress still has not passed a functioning budget for FY11. Political dead-lock throughout last year and then Republican resis-tance in December led to passage of only a temporary measure. This continuing resolution, which will keep the federal government functioning until March, has many drawbacks and was mainly a power play to transfer spending decisions to the now-Republican House of Representatives in the new Congress.

Congress passes continuing resolution, drops earmarks

Last month Congress passed a short-term funding measure (HR 3082) for government operations into the new year. The measure was necessary to keep the government operating because none of the 12 regular FY11 spending bills had been enacted. The previous funding resolution had expired on December 21st.

Democrats had hoped to clear a comprehensive FY11 omnibus spending measure before adjourn-ing, but Republicans wanted a shorter stopgap so they would have an early opportunity to shape fed-eral government operations when they take over the House this month. House and Senate appropria-tors worked for months to pull together an omnibus package including all 12 regular spending bills that would fit under the GOP-demanded cap of $1.108 tril-lion in regular spending for the year. That package included more than 6,500 earmarks worth more than $8 billion.

The continuing resolution sent to President Obama’s desk would fund most of the government at FY10 levels through March 4, 2011, but it provides

extra money for some programs and makes a number of policy changes. Some of the measure’s policy pro-visions and exceptions from level funding include a freeze in the pay of federal civilian employees in calen-dar years 2011 and 2012, funding to maintain a $5,550 ceiling on Pell grants to low-income college students, and increased funding for the Veterans Benefits Ad-ministration. As expected, the continuing resolution also extends the authorization for surface transporta-tion programs through March 4th and drops all of the 6,500 earmarks which were in the omnibus.

Drawbacks of the temporary spending billCongress’ passage of only temporary funding has

left many agencies unable to proceed with projects. This inability includes a 27-year-old program that helps support food pantries and homeless shelters across the country, a pilot program aimed at helping the elderly stay in their homes, and an AIDS drug as-sistance program that will leave thousands on wait-ing lists.

The resolution also does not account for growth in demand or costs, so it is a cutback for some agencies. In other cases, agencies are hesitant to proceed with-out knowing precisely how much money they have to work with — particularly with Republicans prom-ising dramatic cuts to discretionary spending when they take control of the House in the 112th Congress. Finally, federal agencies are prohibited from funding some grant programs before a full-year budget is ap-proved.

House republicans unveil new spending rulesBefore recessing for the New Year, House Repub-

licans unveiled their draft rules package, which in-cludes provisions intended to make it easier to cut

View from the CapitolWrapping up 2010

www.fundbook.org January 2011 | The Fundbook ~ p.9

spending. Central to the proposed changes is a “defi-cit reduction lockbox” mechanism under which all appropriations bills must include a “spending reduc-tion” account. This account is where savings from House floor amendments to cut program spending would be transferred so that the money can’t be reallocated to other programs. The GOP plan also eliminates “Gephardt rule” which provides for au-tomatic House adoption of legislation increasing the debt limit, it creates a point of order against legisla-tion that would increase mandatory spending by $5 billion or more in any of the next four decades, and it replaces the Democrats’ “paygo rule” with a new

GOP “cut-go rule” which requires that increases in mandatory spending be offset by other cuts to man-datory spending.

Other rules changes include those making it eas-ier to cut highway and mass transit spending in ap-propriations bills and modifying the rule regarding House consideration of reconciliation legislation to bar use of the process for measures that would result in net increases in direct spending. The rules pack-age also provides for the Budget Committee Chair-man to set spending caps for the year and set the stage for GOP efforts to cut domestic spending. §

February

S M T W T F S

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28

February is normally an important month because the current year’s (FY12) appropriations season is in full swing. However, with the Republican House’s de facto ban on earmarks, this will not be as much of a concern in 2011. But February will still be a busy month because the current FY11 appropriations con-tinuing resolution only funds government through March 4th and will need to be extended. This is a good month to start longer conversations with your delega-tion as they will have better settled in and likely have more time to work with you. Refer to the Legislative Desk section (p.18) for a template letter inviting your delegation to one of your project sites during one of their district work periods.

X Senate in session X House in session X Federal Holiday

January

S M T W T F S

1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30 31

January 5th will be the first meeting of the first ses-sion of the 112th Congress. While the House is poised to be in session eleven days during the month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) recently extend-ed the Martin Luther King Jr. Day recess this month by one week, moving the start of recess to January 10 from the previously planned date of January 17. The shift means that senators will be in town for just a few days during the week after New Year’s, for the swear-ing-in of new members and a few other ceremonial activities. Legislative action will start during the final week of January. A Democratic leadership aide said that the January schedule was updated to give mem-bers added time off next month because the lame-duck session continued late into December.

www.fundbook.orgp.10 ~ The Fundbook | January 2011

Over the last two decades congressionally-di-rected earmarks have specified projects to be funded out of monies provided for specific

grant programs. However, it is looking almost inevi-table that, for at least the next two fiscal years, they will only exist in very specialized situations. Continu-ing last month’s By the Numbers investigation, this article will delve into the federal budget and explore the grant programs that will increase in funding by not being earmarked. To tie in with the theme of this issue, we examine specific accounts related to water infrastructure and projects from the annual Energy and Water (E&W) bill and the annual Interior appro-priations bill.

State and Tribal Assistance Grants

State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG), distrib-uted through the Environmental Protection Agency and funded through the annual Interior appropria-tions bill, provide funds to implement environmental laws and regulations at the state and local level. These programs are the main source of water program funds from federal sources. At the state level these funds are disbursed through both the Clean Water State Revolv-ing Funds, and the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, along with other programs.

In recent years the amount of funding in the STAG account has increased drastically. In FY08, the funding was only $2.972 billion, while in FY10 the amount was $4.970 billion. The proposed FY11 omnibus that failed to pass this last December held STAG at the similar amount of $4.768 billion of which $145 million would have been specific earmarks. The advantage that a com-munity would have had by successfully securing an earmark in this legislation is that they would not have had to compete for funding through the state-level list of priorities.

With the congressional earmark ban, communities no longer have the choice of bypassing their state-level priorities list or other competitive funding programs run by EPA.

Federal Emergency Management Agency -

Pre-disaster Mitigation Grants

Pre-disaster Mitigation Grants (PDM) are distrib-uted through the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) and funded through the annual Homeland Security appropriations bill. These grants provide implementation funding for natural hazard mitigation plans that reduce overall risk to the popu-lation and structures from future hazard events, while also reducing reliance on Federal funding from fu-ture disasters. Funding is dis-tributed to the vast majority of states, and a p p l i c a t i o n s are submitted to the federal g o v e r n m e n t through a sin-gle point of contact in each state.

PDM is in-teresting be-cause recently it has been hy-bridized to be both competi-tive and for-mula by state programs. Each state is guar-anteed to re-ceive at least $500,000 dis-tributed among their projects. In FY10, for example, $25 million of $100 million, was required to be distributed equally among the 50 states. The remaining $75 million was available for the competitive grants and earmarked projects regardless of the $500,000 state minimum.

Since FY08, PDM funds have had quite a few ear-marks which diminish the competitive grant pro-gram’s pot of money. In the recently failed FY11 omnibus, for example, $19 million of the $85 million total would have been earmarked. In FY10, $24.6 mil-lion of the $100 million total was earmarked. Since a continuing resolution for FY11 has been passed, the

By the numbers: No earmarks, but grants increaseA look into federal water programs with earmarks absent

FY09

50%25%

25%

Earmarks in the Pre-disaster Mitigation AccountMinimum state allocationsEarmarks Competitive funding

FY11 Failed Omnibus

48%29%

22% 71%

29%

FY11 Continuing Resolution


$100 million total will stay the same, $25 million will be formula, but without any earmarks. Thus in FY11, the competitive application funding pool will be 50% percent larger.

Army Corps of Engineers Accounts

Various accounts within the Army Corps of En-gineers’ (USACE) Civil Works Program, funded through the annual Energy and Water appropria-tions bill, provide funds for investigating, developing and maintaining water and related environmental re-

sources. Fund-ing is available for a variety of projects from levee work to ports to beach projects. Ear-marking is in-tegral to these p r o g r a m s f u n c t i o n i n g and will not disappear in full. That is be-cause, unlike other federal agencies, the Corps oper-ates on a list of projects indi-vidually fund-ed by Congress — via earmark. H o w e v e r , these earmarks are based on

study results, and therefore more merit-based than earmarks in other accounts. After a project study is completed and authorized, projects are specifically requested by the President in February, and subse-quently funded through the congressional appropria-tions process.

There are several USACE accounts within the Civ-il Works Program, the most well known of which are the Investigations, Construction, and Operations & Maintenance (O&M) accounts. Generally, the Inves-tigations account provides funding to asses and plan for other expenditures of funds; the Construction ac-

count provides funds for the actual projects to be com-pleted; and O&M provides funding for the upkeep of areas where funds had been previously expended. In order to receive funding for any of these areas, the prospective community must first secure authoriza-tion language through the Water Resources and Re-development Act (WRDA), last passed in 2007.

In FY10, $124 million of the $160 million total for Investigations would have been earmarked. Similarly $1.90 billion of the $2.03 billion total for Construc-tion would have been earmarked. And $2.25 billion of the $2.40 billion total for O&M would have been earmarked. These earmarked amounts represent ef-fectively the entire amount provided to USACE.

Bureau of Reclamation

The Bureau of Reclamation, funded through the annual Interior appropriations bill, provides funds to promote water conservation, recycling, and reuse in the Midwest. Like the USACE projects above, the Bureau of Reclamation’s projects are specifically re-quested by the President in February of each year, and subsequently funded through the congressional appro-priations process.

Such earmarks for Water and Related Resources funding are typically spread throughout the Water and Energy Management and Development, Land Man-agement and Development, Fish and Wildlife Man-agement and Development , Facility Operations, and Facility Maintenance and Rehabilitation functions. Because of the directed nature of these funds, a pseudo-earmarking process will persist in this account. Grant programs like WaterSMART, which is also funded through the Water and Related Resources account, will not increase in size with the earmark ban. §

Earmarks in the Pre-disaster Mitigation AccountMinimum state allocationsEarmarks Competitive funding

FY10

50%25%

25%

71%

29%

FY11 Continuing Resolution

Despite earmarks being banned, some accounts will continue to carry earmarks in FY11, and

other accounts are likely to. This is because ear-marks are a spending mechanism that cannot be dis-pensed with in all cases. Most notably the funding for the Army Corps of Engineers will continue to be earmarked because these earmarks do not only des-ignate specific projects, but also fund the personal costs for the Corps members carrying out the proj-ects. Secondly, transportation reauthorization ac-counts may also continue to carry earmarks because of dissent within the Republican party as to whether a transportation earmark is an earmark.

The national recession has had a huge im-pact on municipal water and wastewater utilities across the country. Communities,

hit hard because of aging infrastructure and more stringent federal regulations regarding clean or drinking water, are increasingly unable to keep up their water systems.

When communities write a check for a large in-frastructure project, they normally find the funds in one of three places: their current revenues and reserve funds, the private capital market, or public funding programs. Communities with significant investment needs that do not have cash on hand or access to private capital invariably turn to the federal government or their state government for capital funds for water and wastewater infrastruc-ture.

While private capital and municipal bond mar-kets can provide much of the lending for domes-tic infrastructure, many smaller water systems are often underserved by private lenders. Thankfully, there is a clear federal role in ensuring adequate access to infrastructure financing through direct loan and grant allocations by a number of federal agencies. Working together, federal and state agen-cies — and the communities themselves — can go a long way to help meet local wastewater and drink-ing water needs and to promote economic develop-ment at the same time. Funding programs typically include grants, subsidized loans, or a combination of the two.

While there are many federal funding pro-grams available, these programs vary in the type and amount of assistance they provide, the re-quirements they set for recipients, their applica-tion processes, their funding schedules, and their goals. Navigating this network of available federal funding sources can be time consuming, confusing, and overwhelming for water systems, particularly small systems that often need help the most. In an effort to simplify what options are available to your community, this article analyzes five of the most robust federal programs that routinely offer assistance to municipal water systems across the nation.

1) EPA State Revolving FundsAs the nation’s guardian of the environment, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the first place communities should look in their search for funding. EPA has several programs that offer finan-cial and technical assistance to help small communi-ties plan, design, and build wastewater treatment sys-tems.

EPA’s Office of Water manages two separate but related water programs: the Clean Water State Re-volving Loan Fund (CWSRF) for wastewater facili-ties and the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) for drinking water facilities.

EPA allocates annual appropriations for these capital-ization grants among the states according to an existing formula detailed in the Clean Water Act. Grants under the Safe Drinking Water Act are allocated to states based on the results of a needs survey conducted by states. Un-der both SRF programs states must provide 20 percent matching funds in order to receive the federal funds. States com-bine their m a t c h i n g funds with the federal monies to c a p i t a l i z e their SRFs, which they use to issue low-interest or no-inter-est loans to finance local water infra-s t r u c t u r e projects in communi-ties. Com-m u n i t i e s r e c e i v i n g f u n d i n g must repay their loans to the issuing state, repayments that

In Search of Water Infrastructure Funding


are then deposited back into the SRFs to provide capital for issuing new loans. In this sense, the SRFs are intend-ed to be “revolving” and eventually self-sustaining over the long term.

Three types of available loans help cities, public wa-ter supplies, counties, sanitary districts, or utility man-agement organizations upgrade their water and waste-water systems.

A: Planning and Design (P&D) loans are provided at zero percent interest for up to three years to cover the costs of preparing facility plans and project specifica-tions. The loans will be rolled into SRF construction loans or repaid by another source of permanent financ-ing. Many facilities use P&D loans to prepare for apply-ing for grants and other financing as well as for SRF loans. There is no minimum or maximum amount for P&D loans.

B: Construction loans are offered at 3 percent inter-est. Loans durations are generally for 20 years; however extended financing of up to 30 years based on the useful life of the facility is available for all wastewater projects and for disadvantaged communities taking drinking water loans. The minimum loan amount is $50,000, with no maximum amount.

C: Source water protection loans are offered at zero percent interest. These loans can help

public water supplies acquire land and conservation easements or

work with facilities in their wellhead or source water

protection areas.

2) EPA Hard-ship Grants Program

While the CWSRF allows below market interest rates,

it does not pro-vide grant fund-

ing or loan for-giveness, which

are vital to finance replacement or upgrades to some

of the smallest com-munity wastewater sys-

tems. As a result, EPA developed the Hardship Grants Program to assist small, disadvantaged rural communi-ties (less than 3,000 residents) address their wastewater treatment needs.

Designed to complement the CWSRF loan program, states identify eligible projects and may commit a por-tion of their grants for technical assistance depending on the number of rural communities lacking access to centralized water treatment. Eligible communities can qualify for hardship assistance from states program if they have no access to centralized wastewater treatment or collection systems, or need improvements to on-site wastewater treatment systems. Qualifying communi-ties can use the funding to plan, design, and construct a municipal system or onsite treatment system.

Communities should first apply for Clean Water SRF funding for their projects. Those that meet the criteria for the hardship grants program may receive a combi-nation SRF loan and hardship grant. To apply for as-sistance under the hardship grants program, your com-munity will need to contact your state hardship grants program representative to obtain state-specific and na-tional hardship grants program guidelines.

3) State Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program

The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), dis-

Did you know?

Almost all water and wastewater are fundamentally local services, provided by cities and towns, rural wa-ter supply cooperatives, and even some homeowner’s associations. At present, municipalities own and con-trol roughly 85 percent of the nation’s water systems. Nationwide 53,000 community water systems provide basic drinking water services for 282 million Ameri-cans. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines a “community water system” (CWS) as a public water system that supplies water to the same population year-round. Some 17,000 publicly owned treatment works also process wastewater to our high-er “secondary” effluent standards adopted in the 1970s. For most of these utilities, the physical infrastructure has been in place for many decades, and has reached the time for rehabilitation or replacement.

See Water p.1�


Hicks | Park LLP

Hicks | Park LLP

offers the highest quality of legal services

by providing effective and creative solutions to legal issues in a rapidly changing and dynamic marketplace. Above all, we recognize that every client has unique goals. To achieve those goals, we tailor our solutions to respond to the demands of each individual client and situation. Our partners came from AmLaw 100 law firms to form a practice that provides pre-cisely this level of responsiveness and attention to our clients. Furthermore, they have been recommended by their peers as among the best in their respective fields, and their combined leadership, practical experience, and legal talents are well-suited to meet our clients’ needs. To continue maintaining our excellence, we also require our attorneys and economic pro-fessionals to come equipped with a diversity of business and legal expertise. Based on this philosophy, we consistently sat-isfy our clients with top-tier legal and economic services that utilize a broad knowledge base. By leveraging several fields of expertise, we have earned our reputation for helping our clients navigate a wide range of legal issues on a national and international basis.

Visit us online or contact Gary

Park to see how we can assist you

www.hicksparklaw.com

Telephone: (213) 612-0007

Fax: (213) 612-0373

E-mail: [email protected]

A name local governments can trust.

Hicks | Park LLP

824 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 300

Los Angeles, California 90017

Experienced local government representation


Perspective from the HillStaff from EPA’s Clean and Drinking Water Program discuss water infra-structure funding through State Revolving Funds

Q: With Congress still working on finishing up its spending bills for FY11, has the delay in enacting that legislation negatively impacted EPA’s ability to assist communities with water and sewer projects?

A: Each state and Puerto Rico maintain revolving loan funds to provide independent and perma-nent sources of low-cost financing. Funds to es-tablish or capitalize the State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs are pro-vided through federal government grants and state matching funds (equal to 20 percent of federal gov-ernment grants). Today, all 50 states and Puerto Rico are operating successful Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund programs. The SRFs are to be a continuing source of financing, as loan repayments sup-plement capitalization and leveraged funds, thus a delay in award of federal capitalization grant has limited im-pact. As an example, in 2010, the Clean Water SRF had $7.0 billion available to fund projects, of which only $2.5 billion was from the federal capitalization grant.

Q: Is there any advice that you would have for those communities whose projects typically do not make it onto state revolving fund lists, especially if the option of targeted congressional funding is no longer on the table? Are there any ways in which lo-cal governments can make their smaller, less ex-pansive projects more competitive?

A: The State Revolving Loan Fund programs have historically funded a wide variety of proj-ects, in terms of both size of project and size of re-cipient communities. States may also customize loan terms to meet the needs of small and disadvantaged communities. In 2009, 77 percent of all CW SRF loans (23 percent of funding) were made to communities with populations less than 10,000. In addition, some states provide specialized assistance for communities that are

disadvantaged or experiencing financial hardship. These states might offer lower or no-interest loans to provide greater subsidies for disadvantaged communities. State priority systems are geared to achieve the public health, environmental protection and compliance mandates of

the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Wa-ter Act, so projects best serve these purposes are most competitive.

Q: Do you foresee the agency’s programmatic funding for water and sewer-related projects in-creasing or decreasing in the years ahead?

A: The President’s FY11 budget requested $2.0 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund

and $1.287 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolv-ing Fund. The President’s FY11 budget did include out-year budget estimates for the EPA STAG account (which covers 26 programs, including the SRFs), but did not provide separate estimates for the SRFs.

Q: Are there any future plans to increase EPA’s grant offerings or efforts to assist communities update or pre-serve their water and sewer systems?

A: EPA continues to support technical assistance and training in areas including capacity development, asset management, energy management, and effective util-ity management. For example, EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water works with State Drinking

Water Programs and others to promote and support efforts to strengthen the tech-nical, financial, and managerial capabili-ties of water systems, especially small and

disadvantaged systems. Under the DWSRF Program, states have the option of taking a variety of “Set-Asides” for use in funding State programs to provide training, technical assistance, and project planning support to wa-ter systems. These efforts are closely allied and coordinat-ed with the Agency focus on sustainable infrastructure. §

In 2009, 77 percent of all CW SRF loans (23 percent of funding) were made to communities with popula-tions less than 10,000.

”

“A delay in award of federal capitalization grant has limited impact [on SRFs]

”

“

www.fundbook.orgp.1� ~ The Fundbook | January 2011

tributes grants directly to the states, which then allocate funds to small cities and non-urban coun-ties. Since 1981, HUD has distributed block grants directly to entitlement communities and to states for distribution to non-entitlement communities, which include cities with populations of fewer than 50,000 and counties with populations of fewer than 200,000.

Grants may be used for community and economic development activities, but are primarily used for housing rehabilitation, public infrastructure proj-ects (including wastewater and drinking water facil-ities) and economic development. Systems have used assistance from block grants to meet state and fed-eral regulations by developing new water sources, improving treatment, replacing distribution system pipes, and taking other actions.

Historically, the majority of grant funds must be

used for activities that principal-

ly benefit

low- and moderate-income persons. On average, grants cover 50 percent of project costs, although areas undergoing significant economic distress are eligible for grants of up to 80 percent of their proj-ect costs. As most states administer their respective CDBG program, eligibility varies across the nation.

To give some perspective on the size and scope of funding available for water infrastructure each year, allocations totaled more than $4.3 billion in FY 2002. Of that funding, Entitlement communities spent about 1.7 percent ($63.7 million) of their FY 2002 block grants on drinking water and wastewater infrastructure improvements, while non-entitle-ment communities spent about 33.6 percent ($423.9 million) improving drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.

4) USDA Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants Program

The Department of Agriculture, Rural Development administers financial and technical assistance programs to help rural communities develop safe and affordable sewage treatment and waste disposal systems. The pro-grams that target wastewater treatment needs are run by the Water Programs Division of the Rural Utilities Service (RUS). The Water and Waste Disposal Loans and Grants Program provides loans, guaranteed loans, and grants for water, sewer, storm water, and solid

WaterContinued from p.13

See Water p.23

Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund

(DWSRF)

Established by the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the DWSRF provides capitalization grants to states. State DWSRF pro-grams provide low-interest loans or other assistance to public water systems to finance infrastructure projects needed to maintain or achieve compliance with the SDWA.

Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund

(CWSRF)

Authorized by the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA), the CWSRF provides capitaliza-tion grants to states. State CWSRF programs pro-vide low-interest loans or other assistance to publicly owned wastewater systems and nonpoint source pol-lution control and estuary management projects.

www.fundbook.org January 2011 | The Fundbook ~ p.1�

Upcoming grant events & conferences

www.fundbook.org October 2010 | The Fundbook ~ p.1�

We Want to Hear from You! As we have come to learn quite well here at The FundBook, no city

or county is created equal. Whether your community is small and rural or large and coastal, you have unique needs that can’t always be lumped together in one of the traditional categories of capital improvement projects. That is why we are always looking to our readers for information on their ever-changing lists of needs. If you would like to submit information on a particular proj-ect or initiative for which your community currently seeks outside funding, we would very much appreciate the opportunity to address such in a future issue. To do so, please contact us at the email below. As it is our mis-sion to stay on top of the most pressing funding issues facing communities like yours, we thank you in advance for your suggestions!

Sincerely, The FundBook Team, [email protected]

Grants.gov - Quarterly Stakeholder MeetingOnline ~ January 19, 2011This is the next Grants.gov quarterly stakeholder webcast. Topics discussed are generally more admin-istrative than related to funding opportunities. More info at: http://goo.gl/SsXeR

EPA - Climate Change Adaptation for State and Local Governments Webcast (Part Three: Federal Resources and Support for Climate Change Adaptation)Webcast ~ January 13, 2011 (2:00 - 3:30 p.m. EST)The third webcast in this series will discuss the role of the federal government in promoting adaptation to climate change in the United States. Presenters will summarize the recent recommendations of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for creating a national climate change adapta-tion strategy; next steps for implementing this strat-egy; and the existing guidance, data, tools, and other resources that state and local governments can access to support their adaptation efforts. More information at: http://goo.gl/YG6B0

The Conservation Fund - Inaugural National Green Infrastructure ConferenceShepherdstown, WV ~ February 23-25, 2011The Conference will bring together policy-makers, practitioners, and on-the-ground implementers of green infrastructure practices and design from around the country to discuss key elements for success and lessons-learned. Featured sessions will include green in-frastructure and public health, social equity, transporta-tion, economic development, and climate change. More information at: http://goo.gl/Cpnu9

Department of Veteran’s Affairs - Grant writing workshopsChicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, Houston, New York ~ Jan 6-2Regional grant-writing workshops focused on the SSVF Program application will take place through-out the month of January. Each workshop will provide attendees with (i) an overview of the SSVF Program, (ii) an overview of the NOFA, and (iii) advice on completing the application. Attendance is free. More info at: http://goo.gl/3WXUU


The Legislative DeskThe Legislative Desk is designed to enhance your community’s advocacy efforts in Washington by pro-viding you with actionable advice corresponding to vital points on the federal legislative calendar. With this overview of what important dates are upcoming, your community will stay abreast of the legislative process and be able to use it to influence those developments more effectively.

Without question, the President’s budget request is the starting point for consideration of all federal funding levels. Even during the toughest times, the President will direct money to the issues and programs that re-flect his priorities. Upon release, you should carefully watch which pro-grams the President seeks to cut funding for (which will also be analyzed in The FundBook). Look specifically at how programs that you may be interested in applying to may change.

Agencies are preparing to cut some programs. In June 2010, the Office of Management and Budget issued two memoranda directing non-secu-rity federal departments and agencies to submit separate plans in their FY12 budget submissions to reduce spending and eliminate low-priority programs. Agencies must identify either entire programs for elimination or “substantial cuts amounting to at least 50 percent of total spending within a program or subprogram.”

President’s FY12 Budget

request

Type: Monitoring

When: First week of February

Read analysis of the President’s

proposed budget in the March

issue of the FundBook.

Visiting your delegation in Washington is regarded by most munici-pal lobbyists as a critical step towards any effective advocacy effort. A visit associates a personality with project requests and allows officials to discuss your community’s needs in a less formal, more impactful way. While you shouldn’t expect to get much time with your Representatives or Senators (in many cases you may only meet with congressional staff), do not be dissuaded by what may seem like a snub. Each congressional members’ time is strained and their legislative schedule may prohibit a meeting on the day(s) you are in Washington.

It is vitally important that representatives from your community not only meet with congressional offices but also visit those executive branch agencies from which your community will seek funding. Typically local officials should consider visiting Washington at least one time per year, but additional trips may be beneficial in some cases.

This year will be a unique congressional session, in that early February is would be right before the FY12 appropriations process begins but will instead be continued consideration of the FY11 budget. Since there will be no earmarks however, it is unnecessary to synchronize your visit with such considerations.

Trip to Washington, D

C

Type: In-person outreach

When: late January, early February

Download a template letter to

request a meeting with your rep-

resentative here:

http://goo.gl/CXyVK

While it may seem easier and more cost-effective to combine your vis-it with a municipal conference trip to Washington, doubling up efforts should be avoided if at all possible. During these conferences, congressio-nal offices are inundated with meetings with locally elected officials and can’t focus on your projects. The National League of Cities, U.S. Confer-ence of Mayors, and National Association of Counties often fall around this time of year so while doubling up is tempting, it is ineffective.


112th Congress convenes

Type: Letter outreach

When: January 5, 2011

Download a template letter to introducing yourself you your representatives here:

http://goo.gl/czig6

A new Congress means a new chance to start fresh with your Congres-sional delegation. With over 70 new congressional members taking the gavel in the 112th Congress, the coming month presents an invaluable opportunity to introduce (or reintroduce) your community to your con-gressional delegation. Plan on sending your delegation a letter that con-gratulates the member if they were just elected/reelected, describes your community, your existing relationship with your congressional delega-tion, a few of challenges your community is confronting, and what needs resulting from those challenges that you would like to apply for external assistance with. Staying in contact with your member shows that you are aware of what they are doing and can lead to their assistance providing letters of support or pressure on federal agencies if you are being given the cold shoulder.

To build support with your congressional delegation, you must main-tain frequent communication with your elected representatives and staff from relevant agencies, as they will be even more effective advocates for your community if they are kept well-informed.

It is important to develop strong ties with not only the congressional members themselves, but also their staff. While it is not made widely known, congressional staff can be extremely helpful resources when trying to navigate the maze of the federal government. Although they can rarely guarantee a specific grant outcome, they can help you obtain reliable federal information, order agency forms, avoid common appli-cations errors that local governments make when requesting federal as-sistance, and inquire on your behalf with federal agency staff. One tried and tested way to keep an office apprised of the developments inside and pressing issues facing your community is to provide them with a short, quarterly newsletter.

Quarterly outreach to

federal officials

Type: Letter/phone outreachWhen: March

A sample quarterly outreach newsletter will be provided in

the February 2011 issue.

Congressional members will be back home in the third week of Feb-ruary for a President’s Day District Work Period. District work periods present the perfect time for you try and set up a site visit for your con-gressional delegation. Plan early and send a formal letter of invitation to a member’s district office (not the Washington, D.C. office). Be sure to include a few dates that would work for a visit, the more flexible you can be in scheduling, the more likely district staff will be able to schedule a visit. While your delegation may not be able to work a site visit into their schedules, continue to invite them for a tour of your community. Having your elected see your projects firsthand will increase your officials’ will-ingness and ability to assist your community.

Scheduling a district visitType: In-person outreachWhen: mid-FebruaryDownload a template letter to schedule a district visit here: http://goo.gl/vYBMy


On the docketFederal legislation affecting federal fundingTANF Block Grant Extended

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant (TANF), which was scheduled to expire Decem-ber 3, got a last minute reprieve from Congress and will now be funded through FY11. The TANF exten-sion was included in the Claims Resolution Act, which the president signed into law December 8, 2010.

The extension did not include increased program funding or flexibility, but it did add two new reporting requirements. The first requires information on indi-viduals engaged in activities that do not count as work. The second reporting requirement involves state ex-penditures that fall under the category of “other ser-vices and benefits” that are used to meet the TANF maintenance of effort requirement.

The reporting language has a quick first deadline of March 31, 2011, which is of concern to TANF program directors. The second report is due by June 30. The new language also carries a 4 percent penalty for failure to report, but the penalty is rescinded if the first report is filed by June 15 and the second one by September 15.

Senate passes reauthorization of FEMA’s

Pre-disaster Mitigation Program

A recent bill passed by the House (H.R. 1746) would reauthorize the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) program for three years. It would authorize a total of $580 million from FY11 through FY13 for grants to states and localities for pre-disas-ter mitigation programs, such as constructing levies, relocating homes from flood-prone areas, and retro-fitting buildings in earthquake zones. However, if this bill is not signed into law by the President be-fore the 111th Congress adjourns for the last time at the end of December, this bill will be automatically be “pocket vetoed” through inaction.

Before Senate passage by unanimous consent, the bill was modified with a substitute amendment from Joseph I. Lieberman, I-Conn., the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Com-mittee. The amendment increased the amount a state would be able to receive each year to $575,000, from $500,000. However, it maintains a stipulation in an earlier House version that each state should receive the lesser of $575,000 or 1 percent of total funding.

The Pre-disaster Mitigation program (PL 106-390) was first authorized in 2000. Without it, FEMA can-not provide advance funding for future disasters. The current bill initially passed the House by a vote of 339-56 in April 2010.

Housing Assistance Bills Signed into Law

Last month, President Obama signed into law two measures aimed at promoting the construction of more housing facilities for the elderly and changing certain standards for rental assistance for people with disabilities.

The elderly housing assistance bill (S 118) will up-date existing law (PL 86-372) that governs a Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grant program for housing assistance for low-income seniors. The leg-islation will create a national clearinghouse of hous-ing facilities in an effort to ease the search for seniors and their families. It also would provide increased re-financing options for property owners. The measure includes a provision to provide grants for a new cat-egory of housing options, “service-enriched housing,” to make health and other supportive services avail-able to residents. Under current law these processes are time-consuming and bureaucratic, often requiring waivers and special permission from HUD.

See Docket p.24


Despite predictions that Congress would include a last-minute extension of the program

in year-end tax legislation, conference negotiators ultimately decided not to extend funding

for Build America Bonds (BAB) program. The federally subsidized program was created as

part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to drive down borrowing costs

for localities on bridge, road and other infrastructure projects. BABs provided a 35% interest-

rate subsidy from the federal government on taxable bonds issued by municipalities.

Since the government started the BAB program in April 2009, more than $165 billion

worth of bonds had been sold, accounting for about 22% of all new municipal debt, accord-

ing to data from the U.S. Treasury Department. Many municipal-bond market participants

expect that, without BABs, state and local governments will issue more tax-exempt bonds

next year and may overwhelm investor demand for that debt. If that were to occur, states and

cities would have to raise their rates to attract buyers -- higher interest rates that BABs were

intended to prevent.

Representative John Mica (R-FL), the incoming House Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee chairman, plans to introduce legislation that would restore the program in the

next Congress. “I can almost guarantee a reiteration of the Build America Bond program,”

Mica recently stated. According to the Congressman, the proposed bond program would be

part of a broader measure he intends to introduce that would include spending for roads,

transit, railways and waterways.

But, with Republicans critical of the stimulus program and poised to take control of the

House in January, any measures to restore BABs will face stiff opposition in both chambers.

Representative Dave Camp (R-MI), the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means

committee, last month said that the securities were a relic of the “failed stimulus bill” that

“subsidized state and local governments going deeper into debt.” In addition, Senator Jon Kyl

(R-AZ) has voiced similar concerns. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the

10-year cost of the program will add $36 billion to the federal deficit. §

Grants in Focus:

Build America Bonds Expire


Perspective from the HillJay Fletcher from USDA Public Affairs discusses water & environmental programs

Q: What types of water infrastructure projects does USDA usually assist rural communities in upgrading or replacing altogether?

A: USDA provides loans and grants in four general categories: drinking water, sanitary-sewer, solid waste disposal, and water drainage. These four cat-egories taken collectively are considered as our water and environmental program. Within these confines, it’s up to the communities to decide what types of projects they want to pursue. Our job is to evaluate the strengths and merits of each project application. There really is no typical project.

These loans and grants are generally provided to cities and towns under 10,000 in population in rural areas and to give some perspective, in FY10 USDA spent $3.5 billion to help communities upgrade and build water infrastructure. $1.8 billion of that funding came through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which funded 854 infrastructure projects.

Q: Is there any advice that you would have for a com-munity that would like to make their project a more likely candidate for USDA funding?

A: The first and most important thing a community should do is to work with our state and local area loan specialists. Those are the people who know the com-munities very well, as they work and live there. That is where the vast majorities begin important for anyone considering a project should go meet with an area office. I always encourage local representatives to meet with USDA representa-tives at both the local and state level. Regardless of where a community is located in any state, there is always an area office within reach. Each state has between 5 and 8 area offices.

Q: Does USDA ever offer full grants, or will a rural community always receive a loan-grant mix?

A: There are circumstances under which USDA offers

full grants. Of course those circumstance vary based on the income of the applicant and the types of assistance al-ready available to them. Some of the other factors taken into consideration are an applicant’s ability to repay the loan, whether or not the applicant is going to raise the wa-ter-sewer rates, whether or not those rates are sufficient

to repay the loan, and what types of outside funding are already available to the ap-plicant. So there are many factors involved, that’s why it’s so important to come to USDA early in the process so we can help them under-stand all of the financials.

Q: Are there ever circumstances where USDA will forgive a loan in full?

A: Unfortunately there are circumstances where bor-rowers have difficulties repaying their loans. Sometimes loans will be capitalized, but we work with borrowers on an individual basis.

Q: Within USDA, do you see rural water develop-ment growing priority in USDA in the future?

A: Like any federal agency, we receive our direction from congress. I encourage your readers to visit US-DA’s rural development homepage at www.rurdev.usda.gov, which includes a 2009 progress report on

what we’ve done in our water and waste pro-gram nationally between 2002-2009 as well as in each state. Our website also has a list of state offices, as well as very clear easy to understand summaries of funding available, eligibility terms and application procedures. We really encourage people to visit the web-site and of course they’re welcome to call or email me with any questions. The critical message I’d like to make clear is that we work

very closely with local communities. It is up to them to tell us what their needs are, we find ways to help them either through loans or grants or loan-grant combinations. §

It is up to local communi-ties to tell us what their needs are, we find ways to help them either through loans or grants or loan-grant combinations.

”

“

...in FY10 USDA spent $3.5 billion to help communities upgrade and build water infrastructure.

”“

waste disposal facilities.Cities and counties serving rural areas may be eligible

for loans or grants from the water and waste disposal program. The program makes assistance available only to rural areas with 10,000 or fewer people.

Small communities with wastewater treat-ment or disposal needs can apply for loans and grants to construct, repair or modify waste collection and waste disposal facilities. To receive loans small communities must show that they (1) can’t get funds at reasonable rates from commercial sources, (2) have the capacity to borrow and repay loans, and pledge security, and (3) can operate and maintain the affected facilities. Depending on the economic status of the service area, borrowers may receive one of three interest rates: the poverty rate (median household income is below poverty or below 80 percent of the statewide metropolitan median and the project is necessary to meet applicable health or sani-tary standards), market rate (where median household income exceeds the statewide non-metropolitan house-hold income), or the intermediate rate.

5) Economic Development Administration (EDA) Public Works Grants

The Department of Commerce’s EDA provides grants to eco-nomically distressed areas for public works projects, including water and wastewater facilities. Eligible proj-ects must promote economic develop-ment, create long-term jobs, and benefit low- income persons or the long-term unemployed.

On average, EDA grants cover 50 percent of project costs. However, grants of up to 80 percent are avail-able for severely distressed communities.

[For more information on Public Works Grants, take a look back to our recent piece “Demystifying EDA’s Grants,” in our October 2010 issue]

The future, proposed legislation aheadAs USDA RD, SRF, and CDBG appropriations

are subject to cyclical and political budget pressures that reduce discretionary federal domestic spend-ing, establishing a trust fund to finance water and wastewater infrastructure would remove these bud-get pressures and move toward stable and adequate financing for the needs of the next century.

Congress is considering a proposed water and wastewater national infrastructure bank or trust, but for one to be a viable option, an adequate and eq-uitable dedicated funding source must first be iden-tified. When a trust fund is established, it is impor-tant that it ensure access to affordable financing for the smallest and high cost water and sewer utilities.

Moving forward, the United States will continue to face infrastructure funding issues. While there is some movement nationally to implement low cost renewal and replacement strategies, local communi-ties are still expected to upgrade their systems in or-der to meet increasingly rigid federal requirements. Regardless of what new funding mechanisms come to fruition in the years ahead, communities must be v i g i l a n t in taking full advantage of all federal

assistance currently available to them. §

WaterContinued from p.16


The rental assistance measure (S 1481) would autho-rize $300 million for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015 for certain programs for tenant-based rental as-sistance for people with disabilities. It would amend

the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Hous-ing Act (PL 101-625) to establish minimum standards for leases to tenants for the units. It would generally require HUD to provide the assistance through local housing authorities. The bill would also authorize the HUD secretary to use funds to grant technical support to public housing agencies involved in administering the voucher program for people with disabilities.The bill also would direct the secretary to assess how the housing authorities are administering the program’s tenant-based rental assistance. If the authority fails to meet agency guidelines, HUD could retake control of administrative functions. §

EditorialBy James Alfano

Aside from the political hangover, 2011 also brings with it a changed partisan landscape in our nation’s capital. Whereas President

Obama was once accompanied by Democratic majori-ties in both houses of Congress, he now faces a newly empowered opposition that has taken control of the House of Representatives. With Republicans having made it no secret that they desire to deny Obama a second term in office, there is every indication that the next two years will be anything but productive. But despite all the predictions of continued partisan-ship over every conceivable policy issue, those long-ing for bipartisanship have reason to renew their flagging hopes.

Last month, Congress concluded one the most pro-ductive lame-duck sessions ever. In the unusually successful twilight of the 111th Congress, Democrats and Republicans joined together (in some instances) to vote to extend tax cuts, ratify the New START treaty and repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” among other items. In the wake of such compromise, there are signs that some lawmakers are looking to continue working across the aisle in order to pass vital legislation.

Just the other day, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) expressed hope that the productive lame-duck session represented a potential shift away from the acrimony that marked much of the last two years on Capitol Hill. Schumer said Republicans’ heightened responsibility (by virtue of their control of the House) and lawmak-ers’ desire to start legislating more would make for a more productive Congress. There’s good reason to

think “the next sixth months to a year will be very good — not as partisan as the last two,” Schumer said.

In the House, Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD), who will be minority whip in the 112th Congress, believes that Democrats and Republicans can work together to ensure the solvency of Social Security, improve math and science education, boost scientific research, streamline regulations that affect businesses and reduce discretionary defense spending. The elec-tion results “were from a public that wanted us to share responsibility, to find common ground on our common problems — to put forward a domestic agen-da that thinks in terms of decades, not election cycles or news cycles,” he said.

Even the White House seems to think that there is growing room for agreement on a whole host of do-mestic issues. Following his signing of the “If there’s any lesson to draw from these past few weeks, it’s that we’re not doomed to endless gridlock.”

With Democrats still in control of the Senate and the White House, the political dynamic is not nec-essarily conducive to large-scale achievements. De-spite glaring divisions, though, Democrats and Re-publicans should be able to reach agreements in the 112th Congress on issues such as rewriting the tax code and cutting the federal deficit. Whether much will get done will depend on everyone’s willingness to compromise. As 2011 begins, the left is seething and conservatives are emboldened. Get ready for a few months of sharp rhetoric, ultimately followed by calm and compromise. §

DocketContinued from p.20


Upcoming Issues: The February issue will evaluate emergency responder grants for police, fire fighters, and other emergency operations. This issue will also keep local governments up-to-date on the status of appropriations and the earmark ban to ensure that they successfully stay on track and in touch with their delegation by using proven strategies.

The March issue will pick apart the President’s FY12 budget request to see which programs may be seeing increases, as well as those that may be seeing cuts. The President’s Budget is important because it sets the precedent for the appropriations action that will ensue in Congress. Your action (and quick reaction) to the budget announcement can have a meaningful impact on grant programs your community utilizes.

Ensure that you are providing the best service to your citizens. Subscribe to The FundBook today.

Prioritize Effectively. Your subscription includes twelve issues packed with actionable analysis of federal funding programs so that you can make informed decisions about the best way to allocate limited resources when pursuing either federal grants or appropriations.


December 1

January 1

MMS Grant: Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) - p.36

Dec 31

USDA Grant: Rural Community Development Initiative - p.33Dec 22

IMLS Grant: Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program - p.29Dec 15

NOAA Grant: Regional Ocean Partnership Funding Program - p.37Dec 10

HUD Grant: Continuum of Care Home-less Assistance Program - p.35

HUD Grants: Hazards in Housing (1) - p.39

HRSA Grant: Health Center New Access Points Program - p.25

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program - p.31

Dec 3FEMA Grants

Severe Repetitive Loss Program - p.30

Repetitive Flood Claims Program - p.32

Flood Mitigation Assistance Program - p.32

HUD Grant: HOPE VI Revitalization Grants Program - p.34

USDA Grant: Solid Waste Managment Grant - p.40


Icon Legend


Upcoming Grants TimelineGrant descriptions follow

October 1

November 1

HUD Grant: Choice Neighborhoods Initiative - p.34Oct 26

Oct 15

FY 2011 MCSAP New Entrant Funding - p.28

FY 2011 High Priority Grant Opportunity - p.28DOT Grants:

Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Grants - p.27

Brownfields Assessment Grants - p.27

EPA Grants: Brownfields Cleanup Grants - p.26

EPA Grant: Market Based Approaches to Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions - p.38

Oct 27

FWS Grant: North American Wetlands Conservation Act Small Grants - p.33

Oct 28

IMLS Grant: Museums for America - p.29

NOAA Grant: Community-based Marine Debris Removal Project Grants - p.37

Nov 1Nov 18

DOC Grant: MBDA Busi-ness Center (MBC) - p.24

Nov 10

HUD Grants: Hazards in Housing (3) - p.38, 39

Nov 16

Nov 8

Nov 17

Nov 22




Housing -Museums/Art -

Green/Environment -Disaster{

Stay Organized. Our unique timeline of upcoming grants helps you plan and prepare.

Get more in format ion or to subscr ibe today by v i s i t ing www.fundbook.org or contacting our office at 202-681-FUND (3863)

A single local government’s subscription can be sent monthly to as many full-time staff as requested.

www.fundbook.orgp.30 ~ The Fundbook | October 2010 www.fundbook.orgp.30 ~ The Fundbook | October 2010



FOA #DHS-11-MT-110-000-99



In 2009 the largest SRL funding recipients were Louisiana, Texas, and New Jersey. However, there are funds in other state propor-tional to the state’s needs.

An example of a SRL grant funded this year is $5.9 million to Little Falls, NJ for a project that will elevate 34 homes out of the lo-cal flood plain. Little Falls is an in-teresting example because not only

Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) grants are designed to reduce flood dam-ages to residential properties that have experienced severe repeti-tive losses under flood insurance coverage and that will result in the greatest savings to the NFIP in the shortest period of time.

The Basics:

Severe Repetitive Loss Program



FOA #DHS-11-MT-047-000-99



PDM provides funds on an an-nual basis for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disas-ter to reduce overall risk to the pop-ulation and structures. At the same, program administrators also seek to reduce reliance on federal funding from actual disaster declarations.

For the most part, grants for protecting public buildings or pri-vate residences are the awards most closely associated with PDM. While the majority of program funding is spent on mitigation projects, a por-tion of the funding is spent on the de-velopment and improvement of state and local hazard mitigation plans. In FY06, for instance, planning grants made up almost 50 percent of total grants selected for further review. It is important to note, however, that actual funding amounts for plan-ning are quite low. During FY2006, planning grant ap-plications selected for further review totaled only $3.9 million out of a to-tal of $50 million.

PDM is an un-usual program in

Pre-Disaster Mitigation grants are designed to implement a sustained pre-disaster natural hazard mitiga-tion program to reduce overall risk to the population and structures from future hazard events, while also reducing reliance on Feder-al funding from future disasters.

The Basics:

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program


Each year, FEMA provides Hazard Mitigation Assistance

(HMA) to States and local govern-ments through a portfolio of fund-ing programs: the Hazard Mitiga-

tion Grant Program, the Flood

Mitigation Assistance program, the Repetitive Flood Claims pro-gram, the Severe Repetitive Loss

program, and the Pre-Disaster

Mitigation program. Although all five programs have unique statu-tory authorities, program require-ments, and triggers for funding, all of the programs share the common goal of providing funds to reduce the loss of life and property from natural hazard events.

Although all of these programs are important, one program stands out amongst the rest: whereas the

Federal Emergency Agency Hazard Mitigation Programsfirst four programs fund projects that reduce or eliminate the long-term risk to structures insured un-der the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), or in areas previ-ously declared presidential disaster areas, Pre-Disaster Mitigation pro-gram (PDM) funding is not bound

by such restrictions. Only if a community has been identified as having Special Flood Hazard Area (a FHBM or FIRM has been issued) must it be participating in NFIP to eligible to apply for funding. §

that it is both competitive and for-mula-driven. Recent changes have created a new kind of hybrid pro-gram, in which grants are awarded through a competitive process and also through guaranteed formula amounts for each state ($500,000) with eligible projects or plans. For example, from a total program amount of $100 million, up to $25 million is in the formula pool and the remaining $75 million is avail-able for the competitive grants and Congressionally-directed spending items.Eligible activities include:• acquisition or relocation of hazard-

prone property for conversion to open space in perpetuity,

• structural and non-structural ret-rofitting of existing buildings and facilities for wildfire, seismic, wind or flood hazards

• minor structural hazard control or protection projects that may include vegetation management, stormwater management, or shoreline/landslide stabilization

• localized flood control projects, such as certain ring levees and

floodwall systems, that are de-signed specifically to protect criti-cal facilities and that do not con-stitute a section of a larger flood control system.

• hazard Mitigation Planning & Management Costs §

did they receive this SRL grant in October 2010, but they also re-ceived a Repetitive Flood Claims grant for $365 thousand in early September. §

FY06 FY07 FY08

PDM Planning Selectivity (%)

50%

30%

40%

20%

10%

PDM Project Grant Selectivity (%)

PD

M Funding (m

illions)

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

While all of these programs’ federal deadlines are listed in the following pages, the various states often

have different deadlines prior to these federal deadlines for indi-vidual local governments to be included in with the state’s com-mon application for FEMA assistance. Keep in mind that when a local government submits its application to be consolidated within a state’s application there may be a question of ranking or prioriti-zation. Ranking forces the state to choose which local government projects it would most like to see funded. Out of the HMA pro-grams, the PDM and HMGP programs force the state applicant to rank subapplicants. Lobby your state office for a good ranking.






Brownfields Cleanup Grants

Brownfields Cleanup Grants provide funds for cleanup ac-tivities at a specific brownfield site owned by the applicant.

The Basics:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has three grant

opportunities currently available to assist with a local government’s contaminated land. There is a fourth grant program, Job Train-

ing Grants, which provides envi-ronmental training for residents of brownfields communities.

Brownfields sites are defined as “real property, the expansion, rede-velopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contami-nant.” This includes land that has been previously used for industrial purposes, certain commercial pur-poses, or other applications like landfills.

One of the best ways to see if






Brownfields Assessment Grants provide funds to empower states, communities, tribes, and non-prof-its to prevent, inventory, assess, clean up, and reuse brownfield sites.

The Basics: The Brownfields Assessment Grants (BAGs) are the most com-mon type of brownfields grant. They provide full federal funding with no local cost match to test whether a site is contaminated or not. If the site is found to be con-taminated, grantees often apply for the Cleanup or Revolving

Loan Fund Programs available through the Environmental Pro-tection Agency (EPA).

BAG applicants can apply for one hazardous substance assess-ment grant and one petroleum as-sessment grant at a time. However the combined amount applied for cannot be larger than $750,000 per year. Assessment periods under these grants are three years. §

The RLF grant is slightly dif-ferent from the other two listed here because it gives much more flexibility and control to the re-cipient. Instead of the three year timeline afforded to the Assess-

ment and Cleanup Programs,the RLF has a five year period of performance. Additionally, RLF grants can be awarded up to $1 million dollars rather than capped at $200 thousand dollars like the

Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund (RLF) Grants provides funds for grant recipients to capitalize a re-volving fund and to make loans and provide subgrants to carry out assessment and/or cleanup activities at brownfield sites.

The Basics:






Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Grants

Brownfields Assessment Grants

Since 2003, the Environmen-tal Protection Agency (EPA) has awarded over 587 distinct Brown-fields Cleanup Grants to communi-ties of all sizes across the country.

For cleanup grants the appli-cants must own the property, and must have a Phase I assessment completed which includes a thor-ough visual site assessment and an examination of historical docu-ments and information concerning the property. Applicants that have completed a Phase II or higher as-sessment, which includes scientific


EPA Brownfields Grantsyour land is potentially a brown-fields site is to access the online database of EPA’s previous brown-fields grant awards which is avail-able at goo.gl/7txF. The database is searchable by grant type, state or region, and year so it is simple to see nearby projects. However, to search more specifically by num-ber of acres, applicant type, or other values the user may end up clicking through many previous awards to find comparable awards.

For a more in-depth look at a smaller number of projects there are many success stories for all of brownfields programs available online at goo.gl/YphU.

If none of these grant opportu-nities fit your project type, there is an additional brownfields non-

grant program offered called the Targeted Brownfields Assess-

ment (TBA) which is specifically made available for communities without EPA Brownfields Assess-ment Grants. §

sampling of the property to test for contaminants, are more favor-ably scored on their applications.

Unlike the Assessment Grants described above, Cleanup Grants have a 20% cost share which can be fulfilled through non-monetary contributions. §

$52,400,000

$11,000,000$29,500,000

other two programs have. Finally, and possibly most importantly, RLF grants can be used for both as-sessment and cleanup at the same time rather than simply one or the other. However, the assessment ac-tivities are would have to be Phase II or higher as RLF grants will not be awarded to communities which have not done at least a Phase I as-sessment.

While RLF funds are designed to be lent out to third party con-tractors, grantees can loan funds to themselves to perform cleanup activities. §



As energy efficiency and community liv-

ability becomes a more common goal, local gov-ernments are finding themselves searching for funding resources to equip their government buildings with energy ef-ficient options. This type of project is not only an excellent gesture for the environment and the community, but often good economic sense as it can lead to significant savings. Examples from three very differently sized cities illustrate the feasibility of these proj-ects at any scale: the City of Bellevue, WA (popu-lation 126,000) spends $70,000 less per year on utilities for its City Hall after its energy retro-fit, the City of Hurst, TX (population 36,000) expects to save $13,500 annually and forecasts a 7.5 year payback period on their City Hall’s en-ergy efficiency project, and the City of Belen, NM (population 7,000) installed a 9kw solar sys-tem on their City Hall and saves $14,400 annu-ally in addition to profit from selling the excess electricity produced.

The Energy Efficien-cy and Conservation Block Grants (EECBG),

which were funded for the first time through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ignited a firestorm of interest from local governments interested in implementing energy efficient technologies. Those with populations of 35,000 or more were allocated funding by formula, while smaller local governments com-peted for funds that were distributed through their state energy of-fices. These funds were snapped up quite quickly, and the EECBG program is one of the most com-monly inquired about as to whether it will be funded again. It likely will be funded again, but not in FY11. (See p.17 No Funding for EECBG in FY11) Additionally, it will certainly not con-tinue at the $3.2 billion funding level it received in FY10 which included $454 million of competi-tive grants.

Local government leaders must then seek other options if they wish to augment their funding levels for the energy efficiency of their buildings. At the federal level there are some, but not many, op-tions available between

congressionally directed funding and competitive grants for equipping lo-cal buildings with energy efficiency technology.

C o n g r e s s i o n a l l y -directed funding

Congressional funding for increasing the energy efficiency of government buildings is difficult to come by, but not impos-sible. The two sources it is most likely to be fund-ed though are the Depart-ment of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renew-able Energy (EERE) ac-count in the Energy and Water appropriations bill, or through the Hous-ing and Urban Develop-ment’s Economic Devel-opment Administration (EDA) account in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill.

In FY10, there were four instances of con-

gress ional ly-di rec ted funds for energy effi-ciency in local govern-ment buildings projects. The City of Oakdale, MN, the City of Red-lands, CA, the Township of Branchburg, NJ, and the Noble County Health Department of Caldwell, OH were the recipients of between $400 thousand and $1 million in funds each. Three of these were through EERE and the latter was through EDA. There were no compa-rable instances in FY09 or FY08 which may in-dicate that this is a trend that may develop further this coming year, or that this FY10 congressional-ly-directed funding was a fluke.

Regardless, if you in-tend to pursue this type of funding through ap-propriations, your chanc-es will be best if your congressional delegation is associated with either the House or Sen-ate com-

mittees on appropria-tions, or

the relevant subcommit-tees – Energy and Water when pursuing EERE funds, or Transportation, Housing and Urban de-velopment when pursu-

Funds for a local government building energy efficiency projects

ing EDA funds. When naming your project, keep in mind that “energy efficiency” projects are how they are described for local governments, while non-profits and universities tend to use the terminology “green building.”

Competitive Grant Programs

Outside of EECBG, should it be funded again, there are limited grant programs for this project type at the fed-eral level. Two of the most natural candidates to provide these grants -- the Environmental Pro-tection Agency and the Department of Energy -- do not currently provide funding for green build-ing projects. However, the Department of Agri-culture (USDA) and the Economic Development Administration (EDA) do both offer annually re-curring grant programs.

The USDA’s High Energy Cost

Program provides finan-cial assistance for the improvement of energy generation, transmis-sion, and distribution fa-cilities serving eligible rural communities with home energy costs that are over 275 percent of the national average. In

FY10 this program con-sisted of $15.5 million split among 20 awards and will almost certainly be available again in the coming year. The ap-plication period closed September 8 this year, so there is some time to plan a competitive grant before the new applica-tion cycle begins.

The EDA’s Global Climate Change Mitiga-tion Fund (GCCMF) was established to strengthen the linkages between eco-nomic development and environmental quality. One of the project types supported through this program is new construc-tion or renovation that leads to a “green build-ing” with an LEED™ or comparable certification. Projects that are chosen must lead to a net posi-tive outcome in terms of energy, materials, and/or water use efficiency. In FY10 this program con-sisted of $25 million and will almost certainly be

available again in the coming year. The ap-plication period is roll-ing, so there is as much time as necessary to plan a competitive grant be-fore applying. (See p.11 Demystifying the EDA Grant Process

Additionally, one of the most promising re-sources for local govern-ments looking for this kind of federal funding is through their state’s State Energy Program (SEP). However, SEPs vary as the Department of Energy emphasizes the state’s role as decision maker and administrator for SEP activities within each state. Priorities, and the amount available for this project type, are set by the state. To find out if funding is available in

your state, contact your area State Energy Of-fice.

Other funding mecha-nisms

There are also other funding types available for local government en-ergy efficiency in build-ings projects, though most are available at the state, not federal, level. An ex-cellent resource that lists state programs relevant to this project type is the Database of State Incen-tives for Renewables & Efficiency, which can be accessed at goo.gl/h4b6

One federally available option is Qualified En-ergy Conservation Bonds (QECBs) which can assist

financing quali-fied energy con-servation proj-ects – a term that includes energy efficiency capital expenditures for public buildings. QECB funding is available on a state-by-state basis, based on whether the fed-erally issued funds have al-ready been com-mitted. Interested officials should contact their State Energy Office for additional in-formation about availability. §

www.fundbook.orgOctober 2010 | The Fundbook ~ p.11

Demystifying the Eco-nomic Development

Project Grant ProcessA ll across the country, local officials are asking

themselves whether to raise property taxes,

turn off street lights, make further cuts to

staff, or delay capital improvement projects. Strug-

gling with falling revenues and cuts in state aid, local

governments have been forced to reexamine even the

humblest of economic development projects.

In light of these growing fiscal pressures, the fed-

eral government has provided an unprecedented level

of economic development assistance to local govern-

ments through a host of grants across multiple agen-

cies. Perhaps of greatest assistance to city and county

governments are those programs administered by the

Economic Development Administration (EDA).

Originally enacted as a core piece of President Lyn-

don Johnson’s domestic agenda, EDA today serves as a

robust economic driver through its multitude of grant

assistance programs.

Helping distressed commu-

nities stimulate economic growth,

EDA makes strategic investments in pub-

lic infrastructure and local capital markets across

the nation. EDA’s grant programs predominantly sup-

port the activities of strategic planning and project

implementation. Funding is often used to mitigate the

effects of severe job dislocation by addressing the im-

mediate needs of communities through new and proac-

tive approaches for economic competitiveness.

The ProgramsEDA distributes the bulk of its funding through the

Pu

blic Work

s and Econ

omic A

djustm

ent A

ssis-

tance programs. Public Works grants empower dis-

tressed communities to revitalize, expand, and upgrade

their physical infrastructure to attract new industry

and encourage business expansion. Whenever possible,

this program seeks to redevelop existing facilities and

industrial/commercial locations. EDA encourages such

redevelopment projects because they promote sustain-

able economic development by taking advantage of

Finding funding to enhance your

local government’s vehicle fleet

Alocal govern-

ment’s vehicle

fleet of cars,

buses, light-, medium-,

and heavy-duty trucks

is absolutely essential

to the proper function-

ing of the incorporated

area. However, not only

are the initial vehicle

purchases expensive, but

fuel costs have also in-

creased in recent years.

Even fleet maintenance

costs have been trending

upwards as shrinking lo-

cal government budgets

result in delaying the

replacement of their ag-

ing vehicles. Therefore,

locating funding sources

to keep local govern-

ment fleets functioning

and current is essential.

Besides tax increases,

creative financing strat-

egies, and state aid, one

funding avenue that is

often overlooked by lo-

cal government leaders is

the possibility of federal

dollars to supplement

their project. Federal dol-

lars can come through

formula disbursements,

congressionally direct-

ed spending, and com-

petitive grant programs.

While formula disburse-

ments will be distributed

to a local government au-

tomatically, congressio-

nally directed spending

and competitive grant

programs require more

information and proac-

tive action on the local

government’s part. This

article will outline some of

the most effective meth-

ods for pursuing com-

petitive federal aid for a

local government’s fleet.

C o n g r e s s i o n a l l y -

directed funding

Congressionally di-

rected funding for local

government fleet proj-

ects most often originates

from either the annual

Transportation, Housing,

and Urban Development

(THUD) appropriations

bill or the bi-decade Safe,

Accountable, Flexible,

Efficient Transportation

Equity Act: A Legacy for

Users (SAFETEA-LU)

bill. Between these two

bills there are several dif-

ferent opportunities for

fleet projects available

to local governments.

In the THUD bill the

section of particular in-

terest for this type of

project is the Federal

Transit Administration

(FTA). As is illustrated by

the Breakdown of FY10

FTA Congressionally-

directed spending items

in the graph on page X,

about 16% of FTA fund-

ing was spent on local

government projects in

FY10. While 16% may

not seem impressive, it

represents a full $300

www.fundbook.org


www.fundbook.org

USDA Grant: Solid Waste Management Grant - p.44

p.2� ~ The Fundbook | January 2011

Upcoming Grants Timeline Grant descriptions follow

January 1

February 1


HUD Grant: Capital Fund Education and Training Community Facilities - p.31

Jan 14

DOT Grant: Value Pricing Program - p.37

Jan 18

HUD Grant: Public Housing Family Self-Sufficiency Program - p.35

Jan 19

NEH Grant: Challenge Grants for Two-Year Colleges - p.31

Feb 2

EAC Grant: Pre-Elec-tion Logic and Ac-curacy Testing & Post-Election Audit Initiative - p.47

Feb 15

HUD Grant: Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS) Service Coordinators - p.46

Feb 23

Jan 3

BJA Grant: Jus-tice and Mental Health Collabo-ration Program - p.42

Feb 3

EPA Grant: Clean Die-sel Fund-ing As-sistance - p.37

Jan 13

HRSA Grant:

Service Area Com-

petitions - p.29

Jan 10

USDA Grant:

Section 515 Multi-

Family Housing

Preserva-tion Re-volving

Loan Fund (PRLF) - p.34

Clean Diesel Emerging Tech-

nologies Funding Assistance Pro-

gram - p.36

Jan 27

Reclamation: Rural Water Supply Program

- p.38

Jan 31

FEMA Grant: Fire Prevention and Safety Grants - p.41

Feb 4

Reclamation: WaterSMART Feasibility Studies under Title

XVI Water Program - p.39

Feb 11

Reclamation: Title XVI Water Construction Activities - p.40

Reclamation: Water Conservation Field Services Program - p.40

Reclamation: Wa-terSMART Water and Energy Efficiency Grants - p.39

Feb 17

EPA Grant: Source Reduction Assistance Program - p.45

Feb 24


March 1

April 1


Icon Legend

One Month From Now

HUD Grant: Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS) Service Coordinators - p.46

FWS Grant: Urban Bird Treaty New Cities - p.42

Feb 28

EDA Grant: Planning and Local Technical

Assistance - p.29

Rolling

EPA Grant: Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies Funding Assistance - p.36

Feb 27

Reclamation: Wa-terSMART Water and Energy Efficiency Grants - p.39

EPA Grant: Environ-mental Workforce Development and Job Training - p.34

Mar 18

EPA Grant: Source Reduction Assistance Program - p.45

Feb 24



Housing -Museums/Art /Educ-

Green/Environment -Emergency/Disaster -

Water/Wastewater -{

Mar 10EDA Grants: Public Works, Economic Adjustment, and GCCMIF Round 2 - p.32

Mar 11VA Grant: VA Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program - p.28

Mar 1EPA Grant: Woody Biomass Utilization - p.30

www.fundbook.org

How to use the grants section of The FundBookBroadly, The FundBook is split

into two sections; this latter grants half focuses exclusively on currently open grant programs which are of interest to local gov-ernments. Grants are chronologi-cally listed on the timeline on the previous page, and their descrip-tions are grouped together themat-ically in the following pages.

Each program description has three multicolored boxes that are color-coded to indicate the due date, amount of funds to be awarded, and projected number of grants. Favor-able attributes are green, less favor-able are yellow, and least favorable are red. A caveat is that these col-ors can be misleading as a “small” (colored red) grant program may

still be exactly what your commu-nity is searching for regardless of program size. Additionally, larger programs often draw more appli-cants, so smaller grant programs may be less competitive.

There are links included in many of the grants descriptions and in the index at the end of the grants section. Each link is short-ened so that it is easier to type into your web browser. The FundBook uses “goo.gl/XXXX” as the format for these links. Please be aware that the shortened links are case-sensi-tive.

The process of applying for federal grant funding is almost always done through the website www.grants.gov. If your commu-

nity does not yet have an account on this site, it is advisable to sign up as soon as it is convenient. The process includes verification steps that can take as little as three busi-ness days or up to one month to complete.

Please keep in mind that any list-ed grant program’s attributes are subject to change without warning from The FundBook. Although ev-ery effort is made to ensure that de-tails are correct at the time of pub-lishing, be sure to closely monitor deadlines of any upcoming grant(s) your community might pursue. Additionally, grants included in this section are at the discretion of The FundBook. §

p.2� ~ The Fundbook | January 2011



FOA #VA-SSVF-121710

AgencyDepartment of Veteran’s Affairs

DeadlineNot soon: Mar 11, 2011

The program is in its first year, and as such is an excellent tool to learn about now. Unlike HUD’s re-lated VA programs, it is important to note that this program does not directly provide housing. Addi-tionally while local governments themselves are ineligible to com-pete for one of these grants, a local non-profits may be encouraged to do so.

Grant writing seminars are be-ing held throughout January and

Funds awarded are to provide supportive services to very low-income veterans and their families residing in or transi-tioning to permanent housing.

The Basics:

Supportive Services for Veteran Families NEW

February in many major cities. More information about, and free registration, can be found on the VA website. §


This grant program is only rel-evant to those local governments that operate a health center. Addi-tionally, this is the last of the FY10 SAC grant opportunities available. The SAC program is an annual competition where existing Section 330 grantees (previously known as Federally Qualified Health Center [FQHC]) including Community Health Centers (CHCs), Migrant Health Centers (MHCs), Health Care for the Homeless, and Public

Service Area Competition (SAC) Grants provide funds for financial assistance to provide comprehen-sive primary health care services to the underserved areas or popula-tions specified in the announcement.

The Basics:



FOA #HRSA-11-014

AgencyDept. of Health & Human ServicesHealth Resources & Services Administration

DeadlineSoon: Jan 10, 2011

Service Area CompetitionsHousing Primary Cares (PHPCs) reapply for funding.

This is not a single grant pro-gram, but rather eight separate competitions with different sub-mission dates based on region. The earliest submission date is October 25, 2010 and the latest is January 10, 2011.

If the health center in question is not currently receiving Section 330 funding, then the Health Cen-ter New Access Points Program described above is the appropriate choice to apply to. §

Technical assistance grants are perfect for smaller communities to pursue because they can generally demonstrate the greatest need for such technical assistance. A typical project might include figuring out how to better utilize an abandoned facility in the area in keeping with a larger regional strategy.

An additional positive aspect of this program is that once created,

The Local Technical Assistance Program helps community leaders create regional economic develop-ment plans in order to stimulate and guide the economic development efforts of a community or region.

The Basics:


Amount AvailableSmall: $1,350,000

FOA #EDA11242010PAT

DeadlineRolling

Planning and Local Technical Assis-tance Programs Opportunity

a Comprehensive Economic De-velopment (CED) plan will allow the local community to more ef-fectively pursue additional funds from the EDA and other agencies.

Total funds will be divided be-tween the six regional offices. Sub-ject to the availability of appropri-ations, there will be approximately 4.5 projects per region. §

AgencyEconomic Development Agency


This program exists to promote projects that use low-value woody biomass material to create renew-able energy by reducing market barriers, reducing inherent costs, or create incentives to use bio-mass. A grant winner can use the plans resulting from this project to further apply for grants, funds or loans related to the facility’s goal.

When applying consider that quite a bit of work should have al-ready been done on planning the

A grant in this program pro-vides funds to further the en-gineering/planning of woody biomass utilization facilities that produce thermal, electri-cal, or liquid/gaseous bioenergy.

The Basics:

Woody Biomass Utilization Grant



FOA #USDA-FS-TMU-2011

DeadlineNot soon: March 1, 2011

AgencyDepartment of Agriculture

proposed project. Grant winners will be applicants who have at least performed some preliminary and feasibility assessments. There is a 20 percent cost match required for grant funds. §

These grants are intended to disseminate knowledge of housing finance, land use planning, eco-nomics, energy efficient design, community development, trans-portation planning, accessible design, and job creation strate-gies. HUD intends to provide well crafted information, case studies that serve as models and illustrate

This program is designed to help communities better implement federal community development, affordable housing, economic de-velopment, or special needs federal funding with assessment tools to better make use of those grant funds.

The Basics:

Number of AwardsUnknown


FOA #FR-5415-N-30

DeadlineTwo months: Feb 24, 2011

Technical Assistance and Capacity Build-ing under the Transformation Initiative

AgencyDept. of Housing & Urban Development

NEW

NEW

choices, peer-to-peer training, and regionally and market fo-cused training. These grants are meant only to assist previous award winners make better use of the funds they have and fund-ing comes from the Transporta-tion Initiative Fund. Since this is a new program, data is not yet available to compare across pre-vious years. §




FOA #FR-5415-N-21


Administered by the National Endowment for the Humani-ties (NEH), grants not to exceed $500,000 may be used to establish or enhance endowments and one-time capital expenditures (such as construction and renovation, purchase of equipment, and acqui-sitions) that bring long-term ben-efits to the institution and to the humanities more broadly. NEH is especially interested in applica-tions for programs that respond

Challenge Grants for Two-year Col-leges are capacity-building grants intended to help community colleg-es (including those owned by local governments) secure long-term im-provements in and support for their humanities programs and resources.

The Basics:

Capital Fund Education and Training Community Facilities Program


Amount AvailableUnknown

FOA #20110202-CZ

AgencyNational Endowment for the Humanities

DeadlineSoon: Feb 2, 2011

The funding can also be used to revitalize an existing community center that will offer comprehen-sive integrated services to help pub-lic housing residents achieve better educational and economic outcomes

The Capital Fund Education and Training Community Facilities Program (CFCF), a new program under the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), provides public housing authori-ties funding to construct new fa-cilities, rehabilitate existing struc-tures or purchase facilities that will provide early childhood and adult education, and/or job training pro-grams for public housing residents.

The Basics:

Challenge Grants for Two-Year Colleges


to the new Endowment-wide ini-tiative Bridging Cultures. While only two-year colleges may apply under this initiative, communities can partner with a two-year col-lege or a consortium of two-year colleges.

In an effort to further strengthen the humanities by encouraging non-federal sources of support, NEH requires grantees to match every grant dollar with two dollars in new non-federal donations. Eligible institutions have six years in which to raise the required match. In-kind gifts or donated services are eligible only if the material or service provided is clearly related to the nature of the humanities activities being supported. §

resulting in long-term economic self-sufficiency. While use of the fa-cility is primarily for public housing residents, families in the community may utilize and benefit from the new centers and their resources.

The maximum grant award is $5 million. Applicants must “leverage” or have financial commitments of at least 5 percent of the grant amount and identify at least one education or training supportive service pro-vider, such as a community college, that will partner with the housing authority to provide the services required. Agencies that are awarded funding are given four years to have an operating facility. §

receives FY11 appropriations of approximately the same level as in FY10, EDA expects to use approxi-mately 30 percent of its appropria-tions for the Public Works, Eco-nomic Adjustment Assistance, and GCCMIF programs to fund those applications submitted before the publication of its recent announce-ment. The remaining 70 percent will be used to fund three funding cycles in FY11. During each of the first two funding cycles, EDA ex-pects to fund projects totaling ap-proximately 30 percent of EDA’s FY11 appropriation for the three programs. In the third cycle, if funds remain, EDA expects to fund projects with the remaining 10 percent of the agency’s FY11 ap-propriation and with any funds that may become available during the first two funding cycles.

Public Works & Economic Development Facilities Program

EDA will provide strategic Pub-lic Works investments to support the construction or rehabilitation of essential public infrastructure and facilities to help communities and regions leverage their resourc-es and strengths to create new and better jobs, drive innovation, be-come centers of competition in the global economy, and ensure resilient economies. For example, EDA may provide funding to a county to expand a rural economic development center, allowing the center to increase its capacity to provide services to the State’s most underserved and vulnerable com-munities and small businesses.


The Economic Development Administration recently an-nounced that for FY11 it will no longer process applications for its Public Works, Economic Adjust-ment Assistance, and GCCMIF programs on a continuing basis. Instead, the agency will implement a new process under which it con-siders applications at a set time in roughly quarterly funding cycles. This new process is intended to en-hance the competitiveness, trans-parency, and efficiency of EDA’s grants-making process.

EDA will continue to accept applications on a continuing ba-sis, but if an applicant wishes to be considered for a particular funding cycle, EDA must receive a complete application before one of the FY11 funding cycles closes. For FY11, the funding cycle deadlines are as follows: December 15 for funding cycle 1; March 10 for funding cycle 2; June 10 for funding cycle 3; and September 15 for funding cycle 1 of FY12. Applications for financial assistance submitted under EDA’s Planning, Partnership Planning, Local Technical Assistance, Uni-versity Center, and Research and National Technical Assistance Programs are not subject to same deadlines.

Because EDA is currently op-erating under a continuing resolu-tion that allocates funding based on FY10 funding levels until the enactment of the FY11 appropria-tions, we are still left to speculate how much funding will be avail-able for the first cycle of the above grant programs. Assuming EDA

Joint Public Works, Economic Adjustment, and GCCMIF Programs Opportunity

EDA allocated $133,280,000 for the Public Works and Economic Development Facilities Program in FY10. The average size of a Public Works investment was ap-proximately $1.7 million, though investments ranged in size from $500,000 to $2,000,000.

Economic Adjustment Assistance Program

Through the Economic Adjust-ment Assistance Program, EDA provides a wide range of construc-tion and non-construction as-sistance, including public works, technical assistance, strategies, and revolving loan fund (RLF) projects, in regions experiencing severe eco-nomic dislocations that may occur suddenly or over time. This pro-gram is designed to respond flex-ibly to pressing economic recov-



FOA #EDA10142010EDAP

AgencyEconomic Development Agency

DeadlineRound 2: Mar 10, 2011

NEW


ery issues and is well suited to help address challenges faced by U.S. communities and regions. For ex-ample, EDA might provide fund-ing to a university or community college to launch a Regional Inno-vation Cluster (RIC) strategy that supports or provides technical as-sistance to smaller manufacturers to promote the growth of varied industrial clusters, stem job losses in manufacturing businesses as a result of foreign competition, ac-celerate the commercialization of research, support high-growth en-trepreneurship, and promote the successful diversification of the region’s economy. As another ex-ample, EDA might provide fund-ing to a city for the construction of a multi-tenant business and indus-trial facility to house early-stage businesses that successfully gradu-ate from a business incubator that EDA also funded.

EDA allocated $38,620,000 to the Economic Adjustment Assis-tance Program in FY10. The av-erage size of an Economic Adjust-ment Assistance investment was approximately $550,000, though investments ranged from $100,000 to $1,250,000.

Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund

EDA allocates funds for the Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive (GCCMIF) to support projects that foster economic com-petitiveness while advancing the green economy. Grants awarded support projects that create jobs through and increase private capi-tal investment in initiatives to limit the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels, enhance energy effi-ciency, curb greenhouse gas emis-sions, and protect natural systems. GCCMIF assistance is available to

finance a variety of sustainabil-ity focused projects, including re-newable energy end-products, the greening of existing manufactur-ing functions or processes, and the creation of certified green facili-ties. For example, EDA might pro-vide funding to a non-profit work-ing in cooperation with a county to construct a technology-focused business incubator that achieves platinum status under the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leader-ship in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system and to expand job training opportuni-ties in industrial and green tech-nologies.

EDA allocated $25,000,000 in FY10 for the GCCMIF, with invest-ments ranging between $200,000 and $1,500,000. §

0%

Percent of total FY11 Funding

Pr

e-N

otifi

ca

tio

n C

yc

le

Ap

plic

atio

ns S

ub

mitte

d B

efo

re

O

cto

be

r, 2

010

10%

20%

30%

Percent of funding allocated to the four FY11 application rounds

1st C

yc

le

De

ce

mb

er

15

, 2

010

2n

d C

yc

le

Ma

rc

h 10

, 2

011

3r

d C

yc

le

Ju

ne

10

, 2

011

1st C

ycle

(FY

201

2)Se

ptem

ber

15, 2

011


Previously known as the Brown-fields Job Training Grants Program, the transition to EWDJT grants ex-pands the grant program’s scope be-yond just environmental assessment and cleanup job skills.

Proposed projects are expected to take the local community into con-

The Environmental Workforce Development and Job Training (EWDJT) Grants Program sup-ports environmental assessment and cleanup job skills training co-operative agreements that include expanded training in other envi-ronmental media outside the tra-ditional scope of just brownfields.

The Basics:




DeadlineNot soon: Mar 18, 2011

Environmental Workforce Development and Job Training Grants


NEW

sideration when developing the proposed curriculum. In addition to brownfields-standard hazardous and solid waste remediation and health and safety training, addition-al curricula include innovative and alternative treatment technologies, leaking underground storage tank prevention, and training related to solid waste management or cleanup.

In FY10 this program had $78.9 million to award. However, this was an abnormally large amount; in FY09 and FY08 the program had just $6.8 and $2.5 million respectively. This year the program has returned to its usual levels at $4 million which should yield slightly more than ten awards. §



FOA #n/a


Housing that is assisted by this demonstration program must be financed by Rural Development through its MFH loan program under Sections 515, 514 and 516 of the Housing Act of 1949. Revolv-ing loans will provide funds to intermediaries which will in turn serve the occupants of the MFH. §

This program aims to provide re-volving loans for the preservation and revitalization of low-income Multi- Family Housing (MFH).

The Basics:

Section 515 Multi-Family Housing Pres-ervation Revolving Loan Fund (PRLF)



“Emergency capital repairs” are repairs at a project to correct a situation that presents an im-mediate threat to the life, health and safety of project tenants. Ap-plications are processed on a first-come-first-serve basis, so while the closing date for applications is al-most a year away, it is best to apply as soon as possible. The maximum grant size is $500,000 with no local cost match requirement. §

This program provides funds to make emergency capital re-pairs to multifamily projects that are designated for oc-cupancy by elderly tenants.

The Basics:



FOA #FR-5415-N-28

DeadlineNot soon: Nov 29, 2011

Emergency Capital Repair Grants for Multifamily Elderly Housing Projects


NEW

Essentially recipient public housing agencies work with wel-fare agencies, schools, businesses, and other local partners to de-velop a comprehensive program that gives participating FSS fam-ily members the skills and expe-

The purpose of the Public Housing FSS (PH FSS) program is to promote the development of local strategies to coordinate the use of assistance under the Public Housing program to enable participating families to increase earned income, reduce or eliminate the need for welfare assistance and make progress to-ward achieving economic indepen-dence and housing self-sufficiency.

The Basics:

Public and Indian Housing Family Self-Sufficiency Program



FOA #FR-5415-N-19



rience to enable them to obtain employment that pays a living wage. Grants are only to housing authorities and are typically in the range of $35-$70 thousand. Appli-cants must have an approved PH-FSS Action Plan on file with their local HUD field office prior to the application deadline. §

Number of AwardsFew: 8


FOA #EPA-OAR-OTAQ-11-02


Like the National Clean Diesel Funding assistance program de-scribed above, this grant reduces diesel pollution. The difference between these two programs how-ever is that this grant funds new technologies that, while promis-ing, have not yet been introduced on a large scale. Among all four DERA programs, this one is allo-

The Clean Diesel Emerging Tech-nologies program funds projects that reduce the amount of die-sel pollution using technologies which are not yet verified or cer-tified by EPA or other sources.

The Basics:

Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies Funding Assistance Program


Diesel Emissions Reduction National Program


The Diesel Emissions Reduction National Program (DERA) was au-thorized in 2005 and first funded in 2008. It aims to award grants and loans that significantly reduce the emissions of all types of diesel ve-hicles. There are four grants asso-ciated with this program, although only two are useful for local gov-ernment projects. The useful pro-grams are the National Clean Die-sel Funding Assistance Program and the Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies Funding Assistance Program which are elaborated on below. The two other grants called the Smartway Finance Program and the State Clean Diesel Grant Program are geared towards larger projects where a local government might participate in, but could do

better by focusing on other grant applications.

Emissions from older diesel vehicles and equipment can be re-duced between 20 and 90 percent with retrofit technology. EPA es-timates that, if DERA was fully

funded, it would reduce particu-late matter emissions by 70,000 tons, generate nearly $20 billion in economic benefit, and yield a return on investment of $13 for every $1 invested. §

cated up to 10% of total appropri-ated funds. §




FOA #DOT-FHWA-VPP-11-001

AgencyDepartment of Transportation


This grant program is best-suit-ed to local governments that are the center of a transportation hub and/or have congestion trouble. In the last two years, grants have gone to local governments in California, Florida, Minnesota, North Caroli-na, New York, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. While grants have ranged from $25,000 to $3 million, there are vastly more at the high-end of the spectrum. However, the fact that such small grants are giv-

The Value Pricing Program (VPP) encourages implementation and evaluation of value pricing pi-lot projects to manage conges-tion on highways through tolling and other pricing mechanisms.

The Basics:

Value Pricing Programen provides an opportunity for a smaller local governments to propose a project. Some example projects include testing parking disincentives to discourage daily driving, providing alternatives to parking, implementing priced lanes to reduce traffic, or encour-aging carpooling with participa-tion incentives. §

This is the third year this grant program has opened for applica-tions. What makes this program especially appealing is the wide variety of possible projects. The only commonality among the grant winners is that they have a large active fleet. Previous win-ners include school districts, ports, solid waste districts, and local governments. While the majority grants are concentrated in states

The Clean Diesel Funding As-sistance program is designed to reduce the amount of diesel pollution produced, especially in areas with poor air quality.

The Basics:



FOA #EPA-OAR-OTAQ-11-01


National Clean Diesel Funding Assis-tance Program


with large cities and population centers, almost all states are repre-sented among the winners. Typical projects are either refitting exist-ing diesel vehicles to make them cleaner, or replacing entire vehi-cles with cleaner options. §

Bureau of Reclamation GrantsThe Bureau of Reclamation is

a federal agency in the Depart-ment of the Interior tasked with the purpose of conservation, re-cycling, and reuse in the western states. Reclamation is the largest wholesaler of water in the coun-try, bringing water to 31 million people and over 10 million acres of farmland. While the bureau sponsors larger projects, like the Yuma Project and the Hoover Dam, Reclamation provides sig-nificant amounts of funds to com-munities to leverage local dol-lars as a match to federal dollars. Two of its most important local programs are its Title XVI and WaterSMART grants which are currently available. Most of the bureau’s programs are increas-

ing in size, which makes them appealing for applicants. Recla-mation’s opportunities are only available to applicants located in Arizona, California, Colo-rado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico,

North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ore-gon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, or Wyoming. §



FOA #R11SF80307

AgencyBureau of Reclamation


This program provides funds for either an appraisal or feasibil-ity study. Appraisals are a prelimi-nary analysis which is fully funded up to $200,000 and then 50 percent of the excess. A feasibility study comes after an appraisal and exam-ines more in depth how a specific option can be implemented. Fea-sibility studies can be performed outside of the program and then evaluated by Reclamation, but an appraisal must precede a feasibil-

This program aims to work with small communities in rural areas on a cost-shared basis to assess their po-table water supply needs and to iden-tify options to address those needs.

The Basics:

Rural Water Supply Program


NEW

ity study application. Feasibility studies have 50 percent cost share requirements. Rural is defined as a community of less than 50,000.

If you are planning on altering and resubmitting an application which was used last year, be aware that the number of prioritization criteria used to evaluate statements of interest and full proposals was reduced from six to five. §

www.fundbook.org January 2011 | The Fundbook ~ p.39www.fundbook.orgp.39 ~ The Fundbook | January 2011

Title XVI project promote wa-ter reuse for urban and irrigation water supplies. Reclaimed water can be used in a variety of ways and is very useful when in a period of short water supply. This grant program allows applicants to de-velop a Title XVI study and submit it for authorization. After such au-thorization, construction funding can be sought through other Rec-lamation grant programs. §

This program provides funds for the development of a new Title XVI feasibility study.

The Basics:



FOA #R11SF80310


WaterSMART: Development of Feasi-bility Studies under the Title XVI Water


WaterSMART (Sustain and Manage America’s Resources for Tomorrow) grants are part of a rapidly expanding water conser-vation program. Between 2004 and 2010, $73.8 million was awarded through WaterSMART, and in FY11 an additional $27 million will be awarded -- up almost 50 percent from just last year. These grants help entities with entities with water or power delivery authority

The program promotes projects that save water, improve energy ef-ficiency, address endangered species and other environmental issues, and facilitate transfers to new uses.

The Basics:

Number of AwardsLarge: 60-75


FOA #R11SF80303


WaterSMART: Water and Energy Effi-ciency Grants


NEW

NEW

to help serve their population bet-ter through conservation efforts. A local cost match of 50 percent is required. §


Title XVI project promote wa-ter reuse for urban and irrigation water supplies. Reclaimed water can be used in a variety of ways and is very useful during periods of short water supply. This grant is for previously authorized Title XVI projects to go through to gain funding. To become authorized for this Title XVI funding, an ap-plicant must first perform a study. There is another Reclamation grant available to assist with study fees.

This program provides construc-tion funding for sponsors of au-thorized Title XVI projects.

The Basics:



FOA #R11SF80311


Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program Construction Activities




FOA #R11AF20002


Plans developed through this grant program can improve reli-ability of existing water supplies, reduce overall operating costs for water users, postpone the need for new or expanded water sup-plies, storage capacity, treatment works, or drainage remediation, result in higher crop yields, re-duce soil erosion and drainage problems, reduce the impacts of drought, or yield conserved water

This grant promotes preparation of written water management/conservation plans and implemen-tation of activities identified in written water management plans.

The Basics:

Water Conservation Field Services Program


NEW

NEW

The local grant winner has a 75 percent cost share require-ment. §

for additional agricultural, urban, or environmental need. §


This is the first (and possibly only) year for this particular grant program as no funds were request-ed for FY11. Projects supported under this application are meant to better the quality of life in the entire community, not just a small project area. USDA primarily en-visions this happening through creating jobs and expanding the supply of affordable housing in ru-ral areas. Applicants who plan to coordinate this funding with other federal funding are given priority

The program provides sup-port to address the problems of concentrated rural housing dis-tress and community poverty.

The Basics:



FOA #FR-5415-N-35


Rural Innovation Fund Program

A large and reliable part of the annual federal budget is the As-sistance to Firefighters grants programs. The FP&S program fo-cuses on projects which promote General Education/Awareness, Code Enforcement/Awareness, Fire & Arson Investigation, or Na-tional/State/Regional Programs and Studies. General education and awareness can include anything from smoke alarm installations, sprinkler awareness or other pub-

Funds provided through this program are to enhance the safe-ty of the public and firefight-ers from fire and related hazards through pre-emptive activities.

The Basics:

Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S)



FOA #DHS-10-GPD-044-000-02

AgencyFederal Emergency Management Agency

DeadlineSoon: Feb 4, 2011


NEW

NEW

lic education, risk assessments, or training.

The amount of funding is similar to last year’s $37 million distributed, and is far above the required $19.5 million the FEMA is legally mandated to award as FP&S funding. Last year’s funding was distributed among around 230 projects with an av-erage value of $160 thousand. Of the projects, 165 were below $100 thousand, and 45 were below just $10 thousand. §

consideration. All non-tribe appli-cants should apply to Category 1 of this solicitation. §


After New Orleans became the first city to join the Urban Bird Treaty in 1999, many more cities from Portland to Anchorage to Philadelphia have joined as well. Many of these cities are positioned along migration routes, but there are other factors that go into se-lecting participant cities as well.

One of the great hallmarks of the program is the flexibility with which grant funds may be used. Many activities satisfy the pro-

The Urban Bird Treaty New Cit-ies program provides funds for lo-cal governments to protect bird habitats, reduce bird hazards, edu-cate urban residents, and promote outdoor bird-related experiences.

The Basics:

Number of AwardsFew: 9

Amount AvailableSmall: $630,000

FOA #FWSR9MB1011NEW


Urban Bird Treaty New Cities

AgencyDepartment of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Essentially this grant program is intended to provide additional support for individuals who both are mentally ill with possible sub-stance abuse problems and come into contact with the justice sys-tem through performing a non-violent offense. Grant funds can be used to begin a new program or continue an existing one.

Successful applicants will iden-tify a local subcommunity in need

This program is intended to encour-age cross-system collaboration for individuals with mental illnesses or co-occurring mental health and substance abuse disorders who come into contact with the justice system.

The Basics:



FOA #BJA-2011-2861

AgencyDepartment of Justice

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Justice and Mental Health Collaboration DeadlineOne month: Feb 3, 2011

gram requirements from edu-cation programs in schools to bird-related outreach activities at a festival. Even some light infrastructure improvements can be made such as bird deter-rents or electrocution-preven-tion upgrades on exposed power lines. A comprehensive program handbook with many more addi-tional ideas can be found online at http://goo.gl/P8lb0

A separate grant program is funded for existing urban bird cities. §

and further explain how they will unite disparate existing services for them into a more cohesive whole.

Applicants can either choose to pursue a planning grant, a plan-ning and implementation grant, or an expansion grant. Local cost share is 20 percent. §

Number of AwardsMany: 500+


FOA #’smultiple

AgencyDepartment of JusticeNational Institute of Justice

DeadlineOne month: Feb 3-14, 2011

These programs encourage re-search, development, and evalu-ation to further understand the causes of crime and violence, methods of crime prevention, and criminal justice system responses to crime and violence. Many of the grants available through this program can be used for limited implementation/evaluation proj-ects at local police departments that aim to enhance their capa-bilities with regard to the relevant dimensions. However, it should be noted that these are not typi-cal equipment or personnel fund-ing grants; these are designed to explore very specific topics, often in conjunction with another party

-- such as an academic institution. These are an opportunity for a po-lice department to gain in-depth knowledge on a subject and par-ticipate in furthering the field of law enforcement while improving their department’s practices. This year there are several topic-spe-cific grants available through this program which are listed below and may be useful for certain local governments.

Crime Evaluation, and Development Project Grants


Electronic Crime and Digital Evidence RecoveryFocuses on developing forensic tools for mobile cellular devices, data forensics in the Internet-based (Cloud Computing) environment, forensic tools for Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) commu-nications, and forensic tools for vehicle computer systems.

Location and Tracking Technologies for Correc-tions ApplicationsFocuses on evaluation of tracking devices currently used to monitor the location of offenders under community supervision or used to monitor staff and detainees in correctional institutions.

Electronic Surveillance Technologies for Crimi-nal Justice ApplicationsFocuses on electronic surveillance is a vital crime-fighting tool, and includes evaluation projects.

Sensor, Surveillance, and Biometric Technologies for Criminal Justice ApplicationsFocuses on remote detection of concealed hand-guns, integrated sensor systems, crime scene evidence identification, and biometric technolo-gies authorizing legislation.

Performance Management Information Systems for Law Enforcement and Corrections Applica-tionsFocuses on evaluation of the efficacy of perfor-mance management information systems (PMIS) currently in use with law enforcement agencies, research on how the PMIS currently in use might be improved, and research identifying how PMIS used by law enforcement agencies might be adapted to corrections applications.




FOA #RDUP-SWMGRANT-100110-FY11


DeadlineSoon: Jan 3, 2010local governments. The remainder

goes mainly to either non-profits or universities, or sometimes tribes.

Grant funds can be used to evalu-ate if a landfill is threatening water resources, provide technical assis-tance/training to enhance the oper-ator’s skills, provide technical assis-tance/training to help communities reduce the amount of their solid waste, provide technical assistance/training to help with closing a land-fill properly. §

The U.S. population generates about 230 million tons of trash per year, or about 4.6 pounds per per-son per day. Because of this deluge of trash it is common for landfills to fill up quickly, and sometimes contami-nate nearby groundwater in the pro-cess. This grant program aims to aid rural populations with both of these difficulties.

Many of the grants awarded through this program, approximate-ly one third in FY10, go directly to

Solid Waste Management Grants provide funds to reduce or elimi-nate pollution of water resources in rural areas and improve the planning and management of solid waste sites in rural areas.

The Basics:

Solid Waste Management Program

While the prospect may sound cumbersome, wildlife manage-ment projects can fit well with many types of land use -- especial-ly farming and ranching. Types of restoration projects vary by state and the types of natural resources present in each region.

Projects in the Partners program are typically small, but are a wel-come funding aid to for conserva-tion efforts. This annual program is quite reliably funded and as it

The Partners program provides direct technical and financial as-sistance to private landowners interested in restoring, enhanc-ing, and managing fish and wild-life habitats on their own lands.

The Basics:

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program

Number of AwardsMany: 1,000


FOA #PARTNERS-11

DeadlineNot soon: Sep 30, 2011



generates significant local interest and cost-matching. The first step for this program is to contact your local state program coordinator. §






FOA #COASTAL-11

DeadlineNot soon: Sep 30, 2011

Projects can include (1) acquisition of a real property interest in coastal lands or waters from willing sellers or part-ners for long‐term conservation or (2) restoration, enhancement, or manage-ment of coastal wetlands ecosystems.

The FWS expects that approxi-mately $16 million will be available for grants in FY11. Awards typically range from $200,000 (there is no spe-cific minimum) to a maximum of

Through the Coastal Grants Pro-gram, established by the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (Act) of 1990, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) provides matching grants for acqui-sition, restoration, management or enhancement of coastal wetlands.

The Basics:

Coastal Program$1,000,000, and award announcements are expected in December 2010 or Jan-uary 2011. Funding for the program originates from excise taxes on fish-ing equipment and motorboat engine fuels.

Coastal States bordering the Atlan-tic, the Gulf of Mexico (minus Loui-siana, which has its own program), Pacific and Great Lakes are eligible to apply for this funding. But while only State agencies can apply for and receive grants from this program, FWS en-courages partnering with local govern-ments on projects. A state will provide 50 percent of the total costs of the proj-ect unless it has established and main-tains a special fund for acquiring coastal wetlands, other natural areas or open spaces. In that case, the federal share can be increased to 75 percent. §

Different regions have dif-ferent priorities, but in general projects should use new, innova-tive techniques, surveys, studies or use research, investigations, experiments, and/or training promoting source reduction ef-forts. An ideal project reduces or suppresses the source of some contaminant rather than clean-ing up that contaminant. Proj-ects with primarily cleanup and implementation activities will not be considered.

While the entire program has

This program supports proj-ects that reduce or elimi-nate pollution at the source.

The Basics:



FOA #EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-03


Source Reduction Assistance Grant


NEW

$1,170,000, each EPA region will have $130,000 to award. Applicants are required to pro-vide a minimum 5 percent cost-share match to the federal grant funds. §




FOA #FTA-2011-004-TPM


An important aspect of the pro-gram is that any solutions pro-posed should be scalable from the a possibly small recipient to a larger organization once -- and if -- the proposed method has proven via-ble. Awardees will receive funds to implement their plan to fine-tune their transportation asset manage-ment.

Successful Transit Asset Manage-ment projects are those that in-troduce proven technology for innovative approaches to asset management to enhance local pub-lic transportation providers’ ability to maintain their assets in a state of good repair and/or make more in-formed resource allocation decisions.

The Basics:

Transit Asset Management (TAM) Pilot

AgencyDepartment of Transportation

Proposed projects will be evalu-ated on their ability to demon-strate innovative approaches to public transportation system, pro-vide a transit capital asset inven-tory database, demonstrate proven asset inspection methods, provide methodologies to better prioritize reinvestment needs, simplify and improve the integrity of asset con-dition data collection. §



FOA #FR-5415-N-20



ROSS service coordinators are essentially the staff that work to make the PH FSS and HCV FSS programs function. These staff work to develop a local program to improve the lives of public hous-ing residents. The ROSS Service Coordinators program provides three-year funding and requires a 25% match. Grants include admin-

The purpose of the ROSS Service Coordinator program is to provide funding to hire and maintain Service Coordinators who will assess the needs of residents of conventional Public Housing or Indian housing and coordinate available resources in the community to meet those needs.

The Basics:

Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS) Service Coordinators

istrative expenses and training as eligible uses of the funds. Local governments are not eligible to be the primary applicant to this pro-gram, but they can team up, en-courage, or support Public Hous-ing Authorities, non-profits, or Resident Associations to apply for the local community. §


Local governments can apply for a grant to improve either the pre-election logic and accuracy testing of their voting machines, or their post election audits of the results. It is expected that funding awards will be split be-tween both of these categories. The end goal of the grant is to develop and document processes for increasing the efficiency and minimizing the cost of these ini-

This initiative will provide com-petitive grants to research, dem-onstrate, document, and rec-ommend improvements to the elections processes and best practices.

The Basics:



FOA #EAC-10-002

AgencyElection Assistance Commission


Pre-Election Logic and Accuracy Testing & Post-Election Audit Initiative

tiatives for communities. While grants can go to many different sizes of local government, the funds predominantly go to larger organizations, like those at the county level. §

Number of AwardsLarge: 60


FOA #USDA-NRCS-NHQ-11-02


The grantee would secure the participation of agricultural pro-ducers, determine baseline values of greenhouse gas emissions and/or carbon sequestration, verify the implementation and maintenance of GHG benefiting practices, and determine GHG benefits so that these benefits can be successfully registered in a commonly recog-nized carbon registry. The ma-jority of grant recipients are uni-versities and organizations with

This program is intended to stimu-late the development and adoption of innovative conservation approach-es and technologies of greenhouse gas reductions on agricultural land.

The Basics:

Conservation Innovation - Greenhouse Gas


NEW

pro-environmental agendas, however even county-level con-servation districts are among the winners.

There is a 50 percent cost match for this grant. Only half of the local cost match can be in in-kind contribution. §


Upcoming Grants Index Grant Name Page Link

Supportive Services for Veteran Families 28 http://goo.gl/oMiRn

Planning and Local Technical Assistance Programs Opportunity 29 http://goo.gl/VmKqH

Service Area Competitions 29 http://goo.gl/rXOM

Technical Assistance and Capacity Building 30 http://goo.gl/xUwtT

Woody Biomass Utilization Grant 30 http://goo.gl/zAHFR

Challenge Grants for Two-Year Colleges 31 http://goo.gl/BcEW

Capital Fund Education and Training Community Facilities Program 31 http://goo.gl/fHnU

Joint Public Works, Economic Adjustment, and GCCMIF Programs 32 http://goo.gl/vs1t

Environmental Workforce Development and Job Training Grants 34 http://goo.gl/zHVzr

Section 515 Multi-Family Housing Preservation Revolving Loan Fund 34 http://goo.gl/GkK0t

Emergency Capital Repair Grants for Multifamily Housing Projects 35 http://goo.gl/S3R9W

Public and Indian Housing Family Self-Sufficiency Program under ROSS 35 http://goo.gl/axcw

Clean Diesel Emerging Technologies Funding Assistance Program 36 http://goo.gl/FrRys

National Clean Diesel Funding Assistance Program 37 http://goo.gl/TRVPT

Value Pricing Program 37 http://goo.gl/B6JL

Rural Water Supply Program 38 http://goo.gl/vhXT1

WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 39 http://goo.gl/hfyFS

WaterSMART: Development of Feasibility Studies under the Title XVI 39 http://goo.gl/vorui

Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program Construction Activities 40 http://goo.gl/BzNkt

Water Conservation Field Services Program 40 http://goo.gl/AuTQ0

Rural Innovation Fund Program 41 http://goo.gl/m4zpd

Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) 41 http://goo.gl/AHcbO

Urban Bird Treaty New Cities 42 http://goo.gl/hT3PU

Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program 42 http://goo.gl/LdcxD

Crime Evaluation, and Development Project Grants 43 On line below

1) http://goo.gl/uggkL 2) http://goo.gl/d4txi 3) http://goo.gl/Mfwol 4) http://goo.gl/1tqKH 5) http://goo.gl/GemTl

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 44 http://goo.gl/MwIA

Solid Waste Management Program 44 http://goo.gl/aaUJ

Coastal Program 45 http://goo.gl/b1Rr

Source Reduction Assistance Grant 45 http://goo.gl/U64U5

Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency (ROSS) Service Coordinators 46 http://goo.gl/uO7l

Transit Asset Management (TAM) Pilot Program 46 http://goo.gl/KzDNH

Pre-Election Logic and Accuracy Testing & Post-Election Audit Initiative 47 http://goo.gl/ipUVa

Conservation Innovation - Greenhouse Gas 47 http://goo.gl/xLZ7W

The FundBookThis form allows the local government to designate multiple recipients for its subscription. We ask that all recipients be part of your organization, though it is not

necessary to provide a company email address for each recipient.

First Last Position Email

Recipient 1

Recipient 2

Recipient 3

Recipient 4

Recipient 5

Recipient 6

Form FAQs

Is there any cost to having more recipients?

There is no additional cost for designating additional recipients.

What if we have more than six Commissioners/Alderman/Council Members/Managers etc?

If you wish to have more than six recipients, simply fill out this form twice and submit both copies.

When should we expect emails from The FundBook?

New issues are published on a monthly basis. You should expect a new issue on the first of each month. On occasion, you may receive unscheduled communication from us regarding funding opportunities that do not fit into the monthly cycle.

Will our contact information be distributed to third parties?

No.

This form can be filled in using Adobe Reader. Please email the completed form to [email protected]. If you are unable to complete the form on the computer, you may mail the form to:

The FundBookAttn: Distribution1503 30th St. NW, Suite B1Washington, D.C. 20007


www.fundbook.org


www.fundbook.org

2011-01 FundBook January Issue

Documents

Transcript of 2011-01 FundBook January Issue