Economic Development Briefs
Updated January 8, 2009
FFO Now Available for EDA $400 Million in Disaster Assistance
In response to hurricanes, floods and other natural disasters occurring during 2008, EDA is pleased to announce that it is now accepting applications to support long-term post-disaster economic recovery through an additional $400 million in emergency funding provided through a Second Supplemental under the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, signed into law on September 30, 2008.
This FFO follows EDA’s August, 2008 announcement of the availability of $100 million through the First Supplemental Appropriations Disaster Relief Opportunity pursuant to Act of June 30, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-252, 122 Stat. 2323 (2008).
Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO) notices for both of these Supplemental Appropriations, totaling $500 million, may be viewed at: http://www.eda.gov/InvestmentsGrants/FFON.xml.
As with the First Supplemental, funding for the Second Supplemental Appropriations Disaster Relief Opportunity will be allocated entirely to EDA’s six Regional Offices for competitive awards.
The $400 million will be allocated to the Regional Offices according to a formula designed to maximize funding to those regions most severely affected by 2008 natural disasters, as follows:
The EDA notice encourages the submission of several types of innovative projects for funding under the $400 million Second Supplemental Appropriations Disaster Relief Opportunity, such as “mother grants” obligated to a State for redistribution to individual projects; regional, multi-State strategy development grants; and grants to universities and research institutions to undertake multi-disciplinary activities to develop disaster-resilient economies.
As background, EDA is the primary Department of Commerce bureau to assist with post-disaster economic recovery. While it does not have “first responder” duties or capabilities, EDA has a long and successful history of supporting long-term recovery following natural disasters. EDA played an effective role in previous disasters such as the Midwest Floods of 1993 and 1997, the 1994 California Northridge Earthquake, Hurricane Floyd in 2000, the Florida hurricanes of 2004, and the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes.
EDA disaster recovery efforts assist communities in shifting their focus when appropriate from the short-term emergency response to the long-term economic impacts of the disaster, and enabling the development of an economic recovery program that reflects local priorities.
Please contact your EDA Regional Office with questions on this funding opportunity. EDA Regional Office contact information can be found at: http://www.eda.gov/AboutEDA/Regions.xml.
Updated November 19, 2008
Communities Measure Up on Smart Growth
Release date: 11/19/2008
Contact Information: Dave Ryan, 202-564-4355 / ryan.dave@epa.gov
(Washington, D.C. – November 19, 2008) EPA is recognizing four communities for innovative approaches to development that expand economic opportunity and protect public health and the environment. The 2008 National Award for Smart Growth Achievement goes to the Silver Spring Regional Center in Montgomery County, Md.; the Atlanta Regional Commission; the Urban Edge Housing Corporation in Roxbury, Mass.; and Mercy Housing California and the San Francisco Housing Authority.
"By adopting smart growth approaches, the recipients of the 2008 National Award for Smart Growth Achievement are helping improve the quality of life and the quality of the environment for their residents," said EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. "This year's award winners are responsibly building toward a healthier, brighter future, and I encourage other communities to follow their fine example."
As communities around the country look for ways to grow that protect and enhance their natural environments and create prosperity, many are turning to smart growth strategies. They are cleaning and reusing previously developed land, providing more housing and transportation choices, preserving critical natural areas, and using a variety of green building techniques. In addition to developing vibrant places to live, work, shop and play, these smart growth strategies also protect the quality of our air, water and land.
This year's competition was open to public and private sector entities. Winners were selected based on how effectively they used smart growth strategies to improve their communities and how well they engaged citizens and fostered partnerships.
EPA created the National Award for Smart Growth Achievement in 2002 to recognize outstanding approaches to development that benefit the economy, the community, public health, and the environment. Since 2002, EPA has recognized 32 smart growth leaders from among 523 applications representing 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
In addition to presenting the annual awards, the program conducts research and policy analysis on growth issues, provides direct technical assistance to state and local governments, delivers outreach and public education, coordinates EPA's green building efforts, and collaborates with partners in the Smart Growth Network, a coalition of more than 30 state and national organizations focused on development issues.
More information on the winners and EPA's smart growth program: http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth
More information on the Smart Growth Network: http://www.smartgrowth.org
The award categories and winners are:
Overall Excellence: Silver Spring Regional Center in Montgomery County, Md. for the Downtown Silver Spring Redevelopment Project that united public and private organizations in revitalizing their historic downtown.
Policies and Regulations: Atlanta Regional Commission for the Livable Centers Initiative that helps communities meet air quality goals by planning transportation improvements in concert with revitalization of existing development centers and corridors.
Built Projects: Urban Edge Housing Corporation for the Egleston Crossing project, which helped renew a neglected corridor in Boston's Roxbury and Jamaica Plain neighborhoods with two new buildings that used green building techniques and provided new amenities and much-needed affordable housing.
Equitable Development: Mercy Housing California and the San Francisco Housing Authority for the Mission Creek Senior Community project, which transformed a brownfield site into an attractive, mixed-use, low-income senior community.
Updated November 18, 2008
Deadlines for GASB 45: What Do They Mean?
Lee Epstein, of Invest by Design, a NARC Corporate Partner, answers several questions that were raised during a recent Learning Series webinar. If you would like to receive receive a CD copy of the webinar, please contact Lindsey Riley, Member Service Manager, 202-986-1032 x200 or lindsey@NARC.org.
Is it too late for a COG to set up an investment program?
Absolutely not. Let's begin with a little background. GASB 45 changes the way governments account for other post-employment benefits (OPEB) liabilities. Up until now, most governments have paid these costs on a pay-as-you-go basis. GASB 45 requires them to report both present and future liabilities on an accrual basis. That means that they have to declare the total liability they'll owe to their retirees in the future. To comply, they need to change their accounting practices.
The deadlines, December 15, 2008 and June 15, 2009, do not directly speak to investments. They change the way governments account for retiree healthcare costs. A natural consequence of these changes is that many governments now need to start setting aside and investing funds to meet those liabilities. If a COG can step in with a trusted, lowest-cost investment program, chances are, their members will be very interested.
Why are investment programs necessary for GASB 45?
For most governments, investing is a natural consequence of complying with GASB 45. Once you recognize looming liabilities, you also have to do something about them. A huge, consistently unfunded liability will eventually cause a government's credit rating to be downgraded. That will make it more expensive for the government to raise money for everything from daily operations to long term expenditures. This is a critical issue for many COG members.
In order to avoid such a situation, governments must begin setting aside additional funds each year to pay for future OPEB liabilities. Then what? Obviously, the funds should be prudently invested in order to achieve a return before they are needed.
Currently 64% of pension plan funds come from investments, rather than contributions. GASB 45 funds are similar to pension plans, so investments are very necessary to them.
Why can't governments simply invest money on their own? How can a COG make a difference?
First of all, some governments can and will go it alone. Phase 1 governments, which have revenues in excess of $100 million, are a good example of this. These are large cities, state governments, and so on. Typically, they already have investment resources of their own and the infrastructure to deal with this problem.
Phase II governments have revenues between $10 and $100 million. Just like the Phase I governments, they need to set aside and invest money for GASB 45. But they face several challenges. First, they usually lack an investment infrastructure. They also have little experience in the field. But most importantly, they don't have a lot of money to invest. Of course, they would consider their GASB 45 contributions a lot, but they're not a lot to Wall Street. As a result, they'll likely only be able to afford expensive "wrap fee" investment programs and other non-institutional investment schemes that drain them of money through commissions and fees.
What would be the advantage of a COG-led program?
A COG-led program does a number of things better. First, it allows all of the participating members to share one trust. That saves a bundle on legal fees. Second, it pools the money into one investment fund. As a result, instead of having to settle for those expensive wrap fee accounts, members have a whole different and less expensive set of institutional options and services.
The savings can be dramatic. I'll repeat again that 64% of all pension plan funds come from investments, not contributions. If you can reduce costs by 1% in your investment fund, your members could reduce the amount they have to pay each year for OPEB liabilities by 12-20%.
That means that instead of paying $500,000 per year, a government might be able to pay only $400,000. That's $100,000 they can spend on other important projects. And in many cases, a COG-led program could reduce its members' costs by much more than that.
That's why a COG-led program can not only save its members money, but also generate revenue for the COG. The amount you'll enable your members to save with a low cost program is large enough that you will have some revenue left over.
So it's not too late to set up a GASB 45 investment program?
Definitely not. In fact, it's a great time to provide this new service for your members.
Updated September 19, 2008
EDA Reauthorization Update
On Wednesday, September 17, 2008, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee marked up reauthorization legislation for the Economic Development Administration (EDA). The legislation represents a compromise, five-year reauthorization developed by Sen. Baucus (D-MT) and Sen. Inhofe (R-OK). With congress scheduled to adjourn in less than three weeks, it remains unclear when the reauthorization will be brought before the full Senate. The House Infrastructure and Transportation Committee also has yet to move forward with an EDA reauthorization bill.
The legislation from Sen. Baucus and Sen. Inhofe would maintain funding at the 2004 levels, with $400 million available in 2009 increasing incrementally up to $500 million in 2013. The legislation would also provide for the inclusion of Economic Development Districts (EDDs) in several programs, as well as language promoting “regional collaboration among local jurisdictions and organizations” within the planning process requirements for grants for planning.
For more information or a copy of the currently unnumbered bill, please contact Shannon Menard at Shannon@NARC.org.
Updated August 15, 2008
NARC Hosts Economic & Community Development Committee Webinar
NARC's Economic & Community Development Committee held its first webinar on Wednesday, August 13th, engaging regional leaders, practitioners and issue area experts, focusing on national, regional and local economic development policies, programs and regional and industry best practices. See full agenda below with speaker and presentation information. Click HERE for the Committee’s packet of materials and click HERE to view the presentations.
NARC is excited to offer these new communications tools to its members as an easy, cost effective and environmentally friendly way share information and experiences with members. Please contact Shannon Menard for more information or if you have ideas for an upcoming webinar theme, speakers or content.
Introductions and Welcome
Sean Dey, Executive Director, West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission
Policy/Washington Update
Shannon Menard, NARC
EDA Reauthorization Roundtable
Camille Osborne, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration (EDA)
University of Michigan EDA Center and Real-Time Job Training
Larry Molnar, Director, University of Michigan Office of the Vice President for Research EDA University Center for Economic Diversification
The Census Bureau: Local Employment Dynamics (LED) Data and Economic Development Tools
Jeremy Wu, U.S. Census Bureau
National Innovation Foundation; Clusters and Competitiveness; The Federal Role in Regional Economic Development
Liz Reynolds, MIT Industrial Performance Center
Open Roundtable Discussion
Member Examples of Best Practices and Innovations
EDA Letters of Support
NARC sent letters of support to applicable House and Senate Committee members and leaders urging the reauthorization of the Economic Development Administration before its September 30, 2008 expiration. EDA reauthorization is essential, particularly in these difficult economic times, to providing cost-effective programs, efficient investment of federal resources, creation and retention of jobs, generation of important tax revenues in distressed communities, and tools to achieve regional and global competitiveness. NARC encourages members and local elected officials to reach out to these Committee members and leaders, as well as their own Congressional delegation. Click HERE for a sample letter (and supporting materials) and click HERE to see the letter sent from NARC President Betty Knight, Platte County, MO Commissioner to Congressman Sam Graves, minority leader on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Economic Development Subcommittee. For more information, please contact Shannon Menard.
EDA Status:
The Economic Development Administration’s current law will expire on September 30, 2008 and must be reauthorized to keep funding flowing to critical programs that support improved economic development opportunities, particularly in distressed or struggling regions around the country. In April 2008, the Administration introduced their bill, which maintains the President’s FY09 funding request, providing $100 million for FY09 and funding as necessary for the out years. The Administration’s bill proposes to extend the authorization for appropriations under the Public Works and Economic Development Act through fiscal year 2013. Click HERE to access the Administration’s bill. Click HERE for a summary of their reauthorization package.
Senator Inhofe (R-OK), ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, recently introduced S 3264, to reauthorize EDA for five years. The bill is similar to Administration’s, but allocates higher and more specific funding levels for the five years, representing level funding from the 2002 law:
$400,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; same as 2004
$425,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; same as 2005
$450,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; same as 2006
$475,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; same as 2007
$500,000,000 for fiscal year 2013; same as 2008
There are talks on the Hill that Senator Baucus (D-MT) is working on a bill that he intends to move in September. Currently a hearing is scheduled for September 9th. There has been no action as of yet in the House.
It is critical that these programs get reauthorized before the current law expires, particularly in an election year. Contact your Congressional Delegation and urge the reauthorization of EDA today!
FY09 Appropriations Update for Economic and Community Development
Click HERE for the fiscal year 2009 appropriations status with a breakdown for economic and community development. Please contact Shannon Menard if you have any questions or require further information.
Updated May 14, 2008
Farm Bill Conference Highlights
From Congressional Quarterly
-
Direct payments, subsidies that farmers always get, would be cut overall by $313 million by reducing the percentage of acres for which a farmer can collect those payments from 85 percent to 83.3 percent.
-
With the exception of those who are poor or socially disadvantaged, farmers with fewer than 10 base acres would no longer get payments.
-
Farmers would no longer be able to collect subsidies on more than one property.
-
The bill contains an authorization of $1.3 billion to enroll new acreage in the Wetlands Reserve Program, a program that pays property owners to preserve fragile land.
-
The bill would allow fruits and vegetables to be planted on 75,000 acres of land typically used to grow government-subsidized crops such as corn and soybeans, so long as that produce was used for processed and canned foods. That would change the current planting restrictions that prevent farmers from growing fruits and vegetables on land subsidized by the government.
-
The Conservation Reserve Program, a program that pays farmers to preserve land instead of farm it, would be reduced from 39.2 million acres to 32 million acres.
-
The government would subsidize the purchase of excess sugar in the American market to make sugar-based ethanol. That plan is meant to keep U.S.-grown sugar prices high even if the market is glutted with Mexican sugar, which can come into the country tariff-free as of this year.
-
The definition of “rural” would be changed to make sure that USDA dollars go to rural areas with the greatest need.
-
The ethanol tax credit would be reduced 6 cents to 45 cents per gallon. The ethanol tariff would be extended for two years.
-
The legislation would create the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, which would provide incentives for producers to establish and grow cellulosic energy crops.
Click HERE for a one-page fact sheet on the conference report.
Bush, Congress set for clash over $300B farm bill
From USA Today
Congress and the White House this week head toward a collision over a five-year, $300 billion farm bill that the Bush administration says is stuffed with wasteful handouts to wealthy growers, but that supporters defend as a needed rural safety net that also expands nutrition aid for the poor.
President Bush is promising to veto the measure, which is expected to be on the House floor later this week and go to the Senate quickly thereafter.
Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer acknowledges the administration could have a tough time mustering enough votes to make a veto stick, given wide support for the bill. Urban lawmakers back the legislation's increases in nutrition assistance, while those from rural areas support increases in conservation and subsidy payments. Congress can override a veto with a two-thirds majority vote in each house.
"When people can't afford to meet their grocery budgets, why should their tax dollars be going to people who have record net farm income?" Schafer said Friday.
Farm income is projected to reach a record $92.3 billion this year as strong demand, tight supplies and a growing biofuels sector push crop prices to historic highs.
Those factors have also sparked the highest food inflation in decades — and food riots in some nations.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., says the bill contains "significant reform" of farm programs. She termed the increased nutrition funding vitally important.
The legislation would:
-
End some subsidies to farmers with more than $750,000 in adjusted gross farm income. Individuals who make more than $500,000 in off-farm income could not receive subsidies. Limits would be higher for couples.
The White House wanted to eliminate subsidies for farmers earning more than $200,000.
-
Create a $4 billion disaster program for farmers buffeted by flood, drought or other weather damage.
-
Increase funding for conservation programs, including expanding an existing program to protect fragile wetlands and a new initiative to protect the Chesapeake Bay.
"There are some big victories here,"says Ralph Grossi of the American Farmland Trust.
-
Require the federal government to support domestic sugar prices by buying any surplus supplies for use in ethanol production.
-
Increase domestic nutrition programs, such as food stamps, by $10.5 billion. The bill boosts funding to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to low-income children, as well as aid to food banks.
-
Create a $60 million pilot program, under which the U.S. government could respond to international emergencies by buying food from overseas sources. The White House had wanted to set aside a quarter of international food aid for local purchases.
Bush to veto farm bill according to USDA Secretary Schafer – read statement.
Wisconsin Schools Stand to Lose Millions with Faulty OPEB Investments
Recently, articles that discuss Government Accounting Standard Board Statement 45 (GASB45) and the looming crisis facing COG members have been featured in the news.
Unfortunately, a cautionary tale has emerged of what happens when governments extend their reach beyond their capabilities. Five Wisconsin school districts relied on poor advice and set aside OPEB money in risky investments. They are now facing default.
The school districts had borrowed money from an Irish bank to buy complicated mortgage debt securities, known as collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs. Until recently, this strategy was a favorite tactic of Wall Street brokers, who profited heavily by selling what seemed like perfect investments: AAA, asset-backed debt that with high returns. Unfortunately, with the credit crunch and the rapid deterioration of mortgage markets, the school districts have learned that they are holding much riskier investments than they believed.
“It’s a sad situation for the investors,” says Lee Epstein of Invest by Design, a corporate partner of NARC. “It’s unlikely that the brokers who sold these securities truly understood how they would perform or properly represented them to their clients.”
The prognosis for the securities may not be good. Standard and Poor’s (S&P) recently revised their estimated chances of recovery on A and AA rated CDOs to zero and five per cent, respectively, making it likely that the school districts are not only holding valueless investments, but may also have to raise additional funds to pay back the loans.
To avoid such dangers, governments should seek out competent investment advice when investing OPEB trusts. To this end, Invest by Design will be attending NARC’s Annual Conference and Exhibition, June 15th – 17th, in Des Moines, IA, both as a panelist and exhibitor. This will provide attendees the opportunity to speak with Invest by Design directly.
For more information as to what happened to the Wisconsin schools, click here to view this article.
Updated April 24, 2008
Center for Neighborhood Technology and the Brookings Institute released web-based tool to measure housing affordability.
The Center for Neighborhood Technology, an SGA coalition member, along with the Brookings Institution, released a fantastic web-based tool to measure housing affordability — by adding the oft-ignored transportation costs tied to a home’s location. Traditionally, housing is said to be “affordable” when its cost consumes no more than 30 percent of a family’s income. But homes come with a location cost that is rarely acknowledged. As the Index shows, families in areas that are closer to jobs and activities and have transit access may pay a little more for housing, but they pay a lot less to get around, especially as gas prices rise. The Index measures housing and transportation costs as a percentage of income on a neighborhood-level basis in 52 metro areas.
Seeing the link between transportation and affordability clearly illustrated raises a critical question: How do we get more housing that doesn’t result in huge chunks of a family’s budget going into excessive transportation costs? On the Urban Land Institute blog (The Ground Floor,) ULI’s Jamie McAfee suggests a logical remedy:
According to research presented in Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change, a new book from ULI, a concerted push for compact development would produce a decline of 12 to 18 percent in total metropolitan vehicle miles traveled by 2050. The best ways to reduce vehicle travel is compact development: building places in which people can get from one place to another without driving — mixed-use developments in pedestrian-friendly settings.
Check out the Housing + Transportation Affordability Index from the Center for Neighborhood Technology. Read articles in the Washington Post and The Stranger in Seattle, view a test case in Atlanta on the SGA blog, and view a (shocking) test case in Nashville by Kaid Benfield on the NRDC Switchboard.
Updated April 23, 2008
Workforce Skills Briefing on Capitol Hill
April 30, 2008
12:00 p.m. - 1:30 p.m.
253 Russell Senate Office Building
Contact: Jennifer Carr
T 202 969 3405
F 202 682 5150
jcarr@compete.org
The Council on Competitiveness and Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) will convene a briefing on Capitol Hill to address how the United States can achieve a competitive advantage in the global skills race. The briefing, directed toward congressional staff and policymakers, will address the findings and action agenda presented in the Council’s upcoming report on skills in the U.S. workforce.
The briefing is part of the Council’s Compete 2.0 series, which launched in January to highlight the essential competitiveness issues to sustained prosperity in the United States. Compete 2.0: Skills is the first theme of the ongoing series; topics to come include, manufacturing, financial services, infrastructure, and health care. The Council will publish a benchmarking report for each of these areas and convene a series of events centered on each report, targeting policy makers, the administration and the media.
Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program
In early Spring 2008, the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program will begin publishing a series of Blueprint policy briefs that argue for specific reforms in selected areas of federal policy. Topics to be examined include, among others:
Productive Growth
A Foundation for Growth: A Federal Role for Boosting Innovation
Clustering for Competitiveness: Stimulating Regional Economies with Cluster Development Grants
Making Markets Work in Inner Cities: A Next Generation Policy Agenda
Pathways to Postsecondary Success: Improving Educational Transitions in Metropolitan America
Knowledge that Motivates: Using Information to Catalyze Metropolitan Problem-solving
Inclusive Growth
Platforms for Social Mobility: Rethinking U.S. Workforce Housing Policy
Metro Raise: Strengthening Tax Credits to Help Low-Income Urban and Suburban Workers
A Federal Agenda to Unleash Innovation and Entrepreneurialism in Urban Schools
All Integration is Local: Advancing Immigration Policy with a National New Americans Initiative
Investing in the Divested: A New Financial Services Policy for Building Wealth and Prosperity
Promise of Prosperity: Supporting Community Compacts for Human Capital and Economic Renewal
Sustainable Growth
Connecting America: A Transportation Policy for the 21st Century
Greening the American Dream by Extending Greenbuilding to the Middle Class
A Greener Way to Develop: Policies to Evoke More Energy-Efficient Land Use Patterns
Additional details about the Policy Program and the Blueprint policy briefs are available by visiting Brookings’ website.
Updated April 22, 2008
GAO Releases Report on Workforce Development and Training Centers
"Employment and Training: Most One-Stop Career Centers Are Taking Multiple Actions to Link Employers and Older Workers" focuses on recommendations from the GAO's research on the Department of Labor's identification of one-stop career centers (one-stops) as a means to link older workers with employers through employment and training services. To address the role of one-stops in serving older workers, GAO examined: (1) Labor’s actions to help one-stops link employers and older workers and (2) one-stops’ actions to help employers hire and retain older workers. Click HERE to access the full report with slides from a January 2008 Congressional briefing.
Updated April 17, 2008
NARC Joins Other Associations to Advocate for EDA Funding in Second Economic Stimulus Package
NARC, the National Association of Development Organizations (NADO), the American Public Works Association (APWA), the Center for Automotive Research (CAR) and the National Association of Counties (NACo) sent a letter to Capitol Hill requesting that economic stimulus legislation currently being developed by Congress include supplemental funding for the economic development assistance programs of the Economic Development Administration (EDA). Click to view Senate Letter and House Letter.
Updated April 11, 2008
NARC and NADO to Establish Economic Development Coalition
NARC and NADO are working together to build a coalition to address the reauthorization of the Economic Development Administration (EDA). EDA was created in 1965 to create and maintain jobs, as well as stimulate industrial and commercial growth in economically distressed areas, rural and urban alike. EDA programs address bottoms-up economic development strategies and are an invaluable resource to the nation’s communities by implementing regional strategies that promote innovation and global competitiveness.
This recharged coalition is starting its initial outreach to other national stakeholder organizations, including those who represent local government, university research centers, business and industry. NARC is interested in your thoughts on these coalition activities and expanding the effort beyond EDA reauthorization to examine national economic and workforce development strategies, programs and policy. We are interested in hearing your feedback. Please email or call Shannon Menard at 202.986.1032, x.217 with questions or ideas. Click HERE for coalition talking points.
Updated April 9, 2008
NARC Attends University of Michigan Economic Development Briefing
Last week, NARC attended a briefing on Capitol Hill for the Michigan, Ohio and Indiana delegations presented by the University of Michigan Economic Development Administration (EDA) University Center for Economic Diversification and the Center for Automotive Research (CAR) on the transition of industry, future workforce trends and needs, and work of the two organizations. The University of Michigan EDA University Center links businesses, communities and non profit organizations with University of Michigan faculty and staff and other resources that can help with management, technical, and other types of assistance. The University of Michigan Center performs research including market and feasibility analyses to help local economic development initiatives achieve goals of job creation, new business formation and the creation of wealth.
The University Center Economic Development Program is funded through the reauthorization of EDA and is a partnership between the Federal government and academia that helps to make the varied and vast resources of universities available to economic development communities.
NARC looks forward to continuing work with the University of Michigan and CAR to bolter EDA policies, funding and expand new opportunities for economic development and the workforce.
Breathing Room: States that give localities greater leeway to raise revenue help create robust partners for investing in the future
By Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene
On January 29, Florida's voters will decide whether to approve a constitutional amendment — sent to them by the state legislature — that would set sharp limits on what the state's localities can collect in property taxes. While end-of-year polling data suggest that the amendment is not likely to pass, the specter of losing $2 billion for schools and yet more dollars for infrastructure, technology updates, public amenities and all the things that attract business, has been a constant worry for cities, counties and school districts.
Without flexibility, a locality is at the mercy of economic ups and downs and decisions made elsewhere. The locality can't even work with its local business community and taxpayers to craft a system that might best meet all their needs.
To read the rest of the article, visit Governing.com’s website.
Updated April 3, 2008
EDA Update: April 9, 2008, "Connecting Regional Economies with the Worldwide Marketplace"
The Economic Development Administration's (EDA) 30- minute broadcast will focus on how U.S. economic regions can capitalize on the expanding opportunities offered by international markets.
For additional information or to register, visit EDA's Broadcast Website.
Updated April 1, 2008
Farm Bill: Making it worse
From SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD
Congress could make a poor farm bill even worse. Two powerful Democratic senators would achieve that by cutting into the bill's redeeming points and raising its already over-the-top spending on farm payments.
Sens. Max Baucus of Montana and Kent Conrad of North Dakota want to rework negotiators' plans by nearly doubling, to $4 billion, the expenditures for so-called permanent disaster assistance. That proposed new program would provide an assured incentive for farmers to plant in environmentally sensitive spots along rivers or in drought-prone areas such as their states.
The Environmental Defense Fund complains that the proposal, as described by CongressDaily PM, would mainly come at the expense of conservation programs. It would also take some money from long-neglected specialty crops and energy programs.
President George Bush has agreed to sign the extension passed Wednesday by the House and Senate to extend the 2002 Farm Bill until April 18. However the President says that should Congress fail to complete a new farm bill by that date, he will call upon them to extend current farm law for at least a year. According to Bush, that is not what he wants, but he says the nation's farmers and ranchers need a program in place to base decisions on.
The special-interest maneuverings come as Congress faces an April 18 end of a short-term farm bill extension. President Bush is said to want a five-year farm bill renewal by then.
We hope Bush is ready for a veto fight on the kind of farm bill he most likely will receive. Early on, he presented valuable proposals for reforming the entire farm subsidy system in ways that would comply with international trade rules, provide assistance when farmers really need it and cut out the richest recipients of aid.
Instead, Congress has largely neglected reform and the savings that would have followed. That has drastically limited the bill's ability to put new money toward conservation or improving U.S. diets. Even in the context of a blown opportunity for reform, however, the Baucus-Conrad spending grab would stand out as an example of poor congressional leadership.
Updated March 14, 2008
Rough Road Ahead for Farm Bill
Bush says he will sign extension.
March 13, 2008
By Jason Vance
From Farm Futures
President George Bush has agreed to sign the extension passed Wednesday by the House and Senate to extend the 2002 Farm Bill until April 18. However the President says that should Congress fail to complete a new farm bill by that date, he will call upon them to extend current farm law for at least a year. According to Bush, that is not what he wants, but he says the nation's farmers and ranchers need a program in place to base decisions on.
Although progress has been made recently on moving forward with the bill there is the potential for a serious split. House Ag Committee Chair Collin Peterson has discussed taking the House version of the Farm Bill commodity title and with a few changes, essentially extending current legislation. Funding reductions to meet baseline would be required in the areas of conservation, nutrition and rural development.
A major stumbling block is the question of funding, which the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees have been wrangling over for quite sometime. Making the task even more difficult is the recent hospitalization and continued illness of Representative Charles Rangle, D-N.Y., chairman of Ways and Means.
Another issue that is bogging down forward movement is the fact that the Senate Finance Committee wants to retain control over the portion of the bill they are funding. According to the Senate Ag Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, that is unacceptable to the ag leadership of both parties in the House and Senate as well as Rangle.
Harkin says relinquishing control of agriculture from agricultural interests is a slippery slope. "That almost seems like an argument you would hear our urban friends saying," Harkin says. "I think they would leap at the chance to take jurisdiction away from agriculture and put it in Finance and Ways and Means."
Harkin says while the Agriculture Committee limits itself to strictly agricultural issues, while Finance and Ways and Means have so many tax issues dealing with Wall Street, banking and other issues that he could see trade-offs where the committees could tighten ag purse strings to garner support for other policy.
"I think that is a dangerous, dangerous slope for those of us concerned about agriculture and rural America," Harkin says. "Now it is true that Baucus and Grassley are rural people. They are chairman and ranking member of Finance now. What about later on? Who's next in line? You have to start looking at that and thinking about what happens when they're not here. Once somebody starts establishing a principle like that, boy it's hard to end."
Chairmen Frank and Dodd offer Plans to Address Housing Market Problems
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) unveiled draft legislation that would expand dramatically the government’s role in stabilizing the housing market. The plan would allow the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to guarantee up to $300 billion in refinanced mortgages to distressed borrowers. Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Chairman Dodd (D-CT) is working on a similar effort and the two will band together with the two separate pieces of legislation for support in both Chambers.
Under both plans, the banks and other institutions that service mortgages would opt in to the program voluntarily — and only after writing down mortgages so that they are more affordable to the borrowers. Mortgage servicers would have to find an FHA-approved lender to refinance their distressed loans. The plans, however, would expose the government to losses if the borrowers did not repay on the refinanced loans. It would also have a budgetary cost, in the form of a credit subsidy for the FHA guarantees. The program would be temporary and the loans would be sequestered in a separate FHA fund to avoid imperiling the agency, which already backs mortgages for low-income borrowers.
Chairman Frank believes that budget score for his proposal could be roughly $5 billion over five years, which would have to be offset under House pay-as-you-go budget rules. Frank is working with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to minimize the score.
Updated March 11, 2008
Overview of FY2009 Presidential Budget Request for Economic & Community Development
The Bush Administration’s budget for fiscal year 2009 proposes the following impacting economic and community development issues and programs:
-
Cuts to eliminate important Rural Housing Service (RHS) program, which provide affordable rental housing for low income rural families. The budget proposes a 50% increase in the loan fee for RHS guaranteed, unsubsidized single family loans – by raising the upfront fee from 2% to 3% for an estimated 43,000 families buying a home in rural areas.
-
Eliminates funding for a number of RHS programs that provide affordable rental housing for low income rural families generally making less than $10,000 a year.
-
Eliminates funding for the RHS Section 515 program, which provided $70 million in low interest loans in FY08 for the construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable federally subsidized rental housing units.
-
Eliminates funding for Section 523 Mutual and Self-Help Housing Program grants, which families can use to build their own homes through mutual exchange of labor.
-
Eliminates funding for Section 514 Farm Labor Housing Program direct loans, and for Section 516 Farm Labor Housing Grants.
The HUD budget for critical housing and community development programs is once again under-funded and fails to take into account the needs of low-and moderate-income families all across the nation. The President’s budget does the following to important HUD programs:
-
Cuts the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) by over $865 million (down 22% from FY08).
-
Cuts to Section 8 housing voucher renewals.
-
Cuts to the Public Housing Capital Fund by $469 million (23% decrease from FY08).
-
Eliminates funding to HOPE VI, which transforms distressed public housing into vibrant mixed income communities.
-
Cuts Section 202, Senior Housing by almost $200 million (27% from FY08).
-
Cuts Section 811, Housing for People with Disabilities by $77 million (32% from FY08).
In agricultural programs, the President’s budget takes away over 20 percent of the farm bill mandatory funding that is already committed by the Food Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA) to support conservation on working lands. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program is cut by $220 million, to $1.05 billion, and the Conservation Security Program is scaled back by $141 million to $360 million. The President’s budget also proposes reducing significantly investment in rural communities, including:
-
Cuts to the Business and Industry loan guarantee program, which helps improve, develop, or finance business, industry and employment and improve the economic climate and opportunities in rural communities by 30 percent from the FY08 level. This program.
-
Eliminates funding for Rural Business Program grants. The rural business grants, rural business enterprise grants, rural business opportunity grants and grants for broadcasting systems would all be zeroed out.
-
Reduces the water and wastewater grant program by 54%.
-
Eliminates funding for the single family housing direct loan program, which would force families toward the more costly guaranteed loan program designed to assist individuals with considerably higher incomes. The President’s proposal also eliminates direct loans for multi-family housing. These housing programs are intended to assist low-income individuals who would otherwise be unable to buy decent, safe and sanitary housing through conventional financing methods.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) is provided $132.8 million, a cut of nearly $147 million, cutting $141 million to the public works account. Funding in the budget for specific EDA programs includes:
-
$27 million for planning which is equal to the level established in the 2003 reauthorization legislation.
-
$9 million for technical assistance, which is level funding from FY08.
-
$7 million for public works, representing a $141 million cut.
-
$40 million for economic adjustment, representing a $2.3 million cut.
-
$1 million for research, which represents an increase of $500,000.
-
$14 million of level funding for trade adjustment assistance.
-
$2 million for a global climate change initiative, a cut of nearly $7.5 million.
The President’s budget more than doubled the Census Bureau’s Periodic Censuses and Programs from $1 billion to $2.3 billion.
The President’s budget provided the following for regional commissions:
-
$65 million, a cut of $8 million from last year, for the Appalachian Regional Commission’s (ARC). $53.9 million is provided for area development (less $7.4 million from FY08), $5.3 million is for local development districts (less $684,000 from FY08) and $5.7 million is for salaries and expenses (less $130,000 from FY08).
-
$6 million, $5.7 million less than FY08, for the Delta Regional Authority (DRA).
-
$1.8 million for the Denali Commission in Alaska, representing a $20 million cut.
Editorial: Stuck on the Farm
While food prices soar, Congress dithers over agricultural subsidies.
From The Washington Post
AS CONGRESS and the administration wrangle over a new farm bill before the current version expires next Saturday, here are two numbers that may help clarify the issues: $5.74 and $92.3 billion. The former is the price of a bushel of corn on Wednesday, a historic high. The latter is the Agriculture Department's estimate for farm income; it is 4.1 percent above the $88.7 billion farmers made in 2007 and 51 percent above the average for the past 10 years.
Yet in this flush time for farmers, House and Senate conferees are contemplating a farm bill that might cost $10 billion more over the next decade than the current law would have. The tentative $280 billion-plus price tag includes needed spending on nutrition and soil conservation programs -- but also about $5 billion a year in cash transfers to corn, soybean, wheat, cotton and rice farmers over the next five years. So far, there are no meaningful limits on the amount each farm enterprise can receive. Thus, plenty of this federal largess will be showered on people much richer than the average American, who is struggling with higher food costs.
The current discussion among the House, the Senate and the Bush administration centers on how to finance the 10-year spending increase. Reported proposals range from tightening Internal Revenue Service rules on listing certain business expenses to tweaks in Medicare reimbursements for medical equipment. Presumably, negotiators think that they can sell such changes as neither tax increases -- which the administration has said it will not allow -- nor Medicare cuts. Agreement has so far proven elusive, and the bill, for the moment, is stalled.
The real point is that there is no justification whatsoever for spending billions more on agriculture, no matter how it's paid for. Instead, the bill should have been redrafted to reflect new economic realities. Congress should cut crop subsidies and cap payments to well-to-do farmers, devoting the savings to deficit reduction and increases in food stamps, so that the poor can afford higher grocery prices. Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) recently circulated a letter among his colleagues showing how this could be done, through 10 modest changes to the law, among them a means test for subsidies that would still let farm households making up to $200,000 a year get federal help. But cotton interests, represented powerfully in the Senate by Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), have historically resisted any serious limitation on federal payments to growers of those crops. Meanwhile, the Bush administration is insisting on at least some form of means-testing. Hence the current standoff.
What goes up must come down; crop prices will moderate sooner or later. But growing food demand in developing countries such as India and China strongly suggests that grain commodities will stay relatively expensive for the near future, buoying farm income in the United States. This is the time to slash these wasteful and expensive subsidies, not lock them into law. Both reformers in Congress and the Bush administration must stand their ground.
Farm Bill to Soon Expire — No Compromise Met Yet
With the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees and the White House still working out funding for a new farm bill, it looks like another extension of the 2002 Farm Bill is unavoidable. The current extension is set to expire Saturday, March 15.
Although general agreement has been reached that $10 billion above baseline will be spent on the new Farm Bill, there is still a lot of wrangling to do as far as how that funding will be obtained. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) says he wants to have a general agreement on the farm bill by midweek. Congress is recessing this Friday for Easter, so the hope is that staff can work over recess to form a final bill can be completed in the next few weeks.
The Case for a Housing Rescue
From the House Financial Services Committee
Problems that began in the U.S. mortgage markets have led to the most serious international economic crisis since the late 1990s. Huge losses and concern about credit quality have spread far beyond the housing sector. America faces the prospect of a sharp recession, made all the likelier by the probable default of several million additional mortgages in the coming year and the resulting displacement of millions of families.
To avert a recession, or at least diminish its severity, Congress and President Bush recently collaborated to pass an economic stimulus package, and the Federal Reserve has lowered interest rates. But the unusual nature of the problems means that these measures, while necessary, are not sufficient. Determining what must be added to the policy mix requires understanding how this economic crisis is different from all others. The deterioration of credit and underwriting standards that went unchecked by regulators has weakened many financial institutions and made all of them reluctant to provide the flow of credit that is necessary to fuel economic growth.
The negative consequence of this cascade of foreclosures has turned out to be more damaging than predicted. Of course, individuals whose homes are foreclosed suffer the most, and in some cases it is a suffering to which their own irresponsibility contributed. If they were the only ones being hurt, the arguments for simply letting things take their course without intervention would be stronger.
But there are concentric circles of victims. First, the people who own homes in those neighborhoods that have a high rate of foreclosures will see their property values decline, and a spread of blight will diminish the quality of their lives. Second, communities where foreclosures cluster are hit with a double whammy -- a need for more public safety and other services to deal with the foreclosed properties as well as a drop in the tax revenue that occupied homes contribute. Third, the economy as a whole weakens as the problems spread even more widely.
With all this in mind, the House Financial Services Committee is developing legislation to limit the damage done by the record number of foreclosures in the past 12 months and to reduce the number going forward. No matter what we do, there will still be more mortgage failures in the coming year, but a substantial reduction in the expected incidence can help prevent the economic consequences from being as dire as they might otherwise be.
In concept, we propose to tell those who either originated or purchased mortgages that are now extremely unlikely to be repaid that they should write down their existing obligations to a level that represents current market value. After -- and only after -- the loss is taken, the government would facilitate refinancing mortgages for homeowners who could meet repayment obligations at the new, written-down level. Of course, not all borrowers would be able to refinance, but the number of foreclosures could still be substantially reduced. This plan would use the Federal Housing Administration's authority to guarantee certain loans to induce a renewed willingness to lend by private entities that are either unwilling or unable to do so.
Some will object that this is "bailing out" people who made mistakes.
Yes, some people borrowed imprudently. On the other hand, though, it is clear that many of the people in this situation were misled, were deceived or were in other ways the victims of unfair lending practices.
Refusing to respond to their plight would not only be lacking in compassion but would also be bad economics. Everybody -- homeowners, lenders, neighbors, indeed our entire economy -- is worse off when a foreclosure occurs instead of a prudent write-down and appropriate refinancing.
In addition, we will be proposing a program of loans and grants to help states and cities acquire foreclosed properties and facilitate returning them to the tax rolls as owner-occupied or rental units.
Taken together, these initiatives will help meet three crucial objectives. First, they will allow millions of families to avoid the disaster of losing their homes. Second, they will help hard-pressed local jurisdictions avoid the cascade of deteriorating neighborhoods and abandoned homes that follow in the wake of large-scale foreclosures. Finally, they will help stem the steep and destabilizing decline in house prices that led to and is intensifying the financial crisis. We cannot allow this crisis to continue unabated.
Posted October 12, 2007
House Passes Regional Commissions Bill
Last week, the House passed HR 3246, which would expand economic development assistance by authorizing $1.25 billion through 2012 for commissions to serve economically depressed areas of the country. The White House issued a veto threat on this bill’s passage, saying it would duplicate existing development programs. The president also opposes language that would make projects funded by the commissions subject to the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires workers to receive local prevailing wages and benefits.
The bill would authorize funding for five economic development commissions - Northern Great Plains Regional Commission, Delta Regional Commission, Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, Southwest Border Regional Commission and Northern Border Regional Commission. Each would serve a geographic region, using the Appalachian Regional Commission as a model. The commissions would award grants to state and local governments, American Indian tribes, nonprofits and other “public organizations.” The grants would go toward infrastructure, job training, tourism programs and other projects.
NARC actively supports the passage of this bill. To read more information on NARC’s positions, please visit http://narc.org/uploads/Regional%20Commissions%20policy%20one-pager(1).pdf.
Incoming!
FY 2003-2006 Per Capita Personal Income by State Just Released
The U.S. as a whole showed an increase of 5.41 percent in per capita personal income from fiscal year 2005, according to second quarter 2006 estimates of state personal income data released by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
Using BEA data, the State Science and Technology Institute has compiled a table ranking all 50 states and the District of Columbia by per capita personal income and percent change between FY 2003-06. Twenty-four states showed an increase in per capita personal income over the four-year period greater than the national average of 15.51 percent. Among those states, Wyoming led the nation with a 22.1 percent increase, followed by Oklahoma (20.8 percent), the District of Columbia (19.7 percent), Louisiana (19.4 percent), and Hawaii (19.4 percent).
In per capita personal income, the District of Columbia led the nation from FY 2003-06 with an average of $56,307 per person in FY06. Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland and New York ranked 2-6, respectively, throughout the four-year period. Of the remaining top 10 states, Wyoming moved up eight places to seventh in FY06 (the largest jump in rank over the four-year period), New Hampshire moved down one rank to eighth, Delaware moved up 12 places to ninth, and Virginia remained tenth. View the SSTI table.
Farming Entrepreneurial Talent
Case Studies Focus on Rural Innovation
The Center for Rural Entrepreneurship, part of the Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI), has released a new series of case studies that examine various programs designed to support entrepreneurs in rural America. The primary goal of the Center is to be the focal point for efforts to stimulate and support private and public entrepreneurship development in communities throughout rural America.
The new studies are entitled Energizing Youth Entrepreneurs in Rural Communities, An Evaluation of the Kentucky Entrepreneurial Coaches Institute, and Innovative Approaches to Entrepreneurial Development. The studies examine: innovative local programs in the Northwest, and include case studies of initiatives in Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, and Iowa; the Kentucky Entrepreneurial Coaches Institute, an effort to train "coaches" and mentors for rural business owners; and the strategies for energizing youth entrepreneurs in small towns and rural communities. View these case studies online.
R + D = $60 M
Funding Competition for Innovative Research Projects
Approximately $60 million is expected to be available under a new Advanced Technology Program (ATP) competition to support high-risk industrial R&D projects. As part of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, ATP offers funding for specific research projects by individual companies or industry-led joint ventures to accelerate the development of innovative technologies. Multiyear awards are made on a cost-shared basis for technically challenging, high-risk research that has the potential for broad national benefit. The program encourages path-breaking research on emerging or enabling technologies that lead to revolutionary new products and industrial processes and services that address national priorities and generate large societal benefits.
A single company can receive a total of up to $2 million for R&D activities over a three-year period. For single-company recipients, ATP funds may only be used to pay direct costs. A joint venture can receive funds for R&D activities for up to five years, with no funding limitation other than available funds. Project proposals must be submitted to ATP by 3pm EDT, Monday, May 21, 2007. Read complete details.
Posted March 30, 2007
The Digital Edge
IT Boom Adds to Prosperous Economic Development Forecast
A new report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation examines the role of information technology in driving economic prosperity. The authors contend that the "IT engine" does not appear ready "to run out of gas soon." They predict that IT advances will continue to drive productivity improvements, thus improving quality of life, for decades. The report concludes with a series of recommendations for improving the IT field and ensuring that its benefits are equitably shared. Among the recommendations are a reform of tax policies to encourage additional IT investment, public policies to ensure equal access to IT advances, and, perhaps most importantly, a caution to policymakers that they must be careful to avoid new rules and regulations that can strangle innovations in the IT sector.
View an online copy of the March 2007 Information Technology and Innovation Foundation report, Digital Prosperity: Understanding the Economic Benefits of the Information Technology Revolution, by Robert D. Atkinson and Andrew S. McKay.
Giving Back to the Community
U.S. Chamber of Commerce Development Conference Just Announced
The Business Civic Leadership Center will be holding its 2007 "National Partnership Conference: Corporate Community Investment," on May 10–11, 2007 at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, DC. The Conference will bring together high-level business, government, and nonprofit leaders to advance and improve the effectiveness of public-private partnerships for community development. Visit the conference website for more information.
Repairing Economies
Highlights from the NCRC Annual Conference
From March 14 to 17, 2007, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) held its Annual Conference in Washington, DC. This year’s theme was Broken Economies: Making Markets and Government Work for All Communities. The conference represents one of the largest gatherings of economic justice proponents and supporters of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) as a tool for economic development, and the conference drew over 500 participants from the U.S. and abroad. The conference is widely acknowledged for its presentation of cutting-edge ideas and information on the hottest topics – such as predatory lending and "globalization" of the financial industry.
Richard Lukas, NARC Program Analyst, was invited by Joshua Silver, VP of Research and Policy with NCRC, to learn firsthand how the coalition’s efforts support the flow of credit and the provision of banking services in neighborhoods throughout the nation. Like NARC, NCRC sees community reinvestment as a regional issue that should not be addressed on a parochial level.
Keynote speakers included Rev. Jesse Jackson, Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Linda Chavez-Thompson, Executive Vice President, AFL-CIO, John Reich, Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, Martin Gruenberg, and Vice Chairman FDIC Board of Directors, Dr. Julianne Malveaux. View the program’s featured sessions and more information on NCRC.
Southern Living
Participate in Southern Growth’s Online Survey
Southern Growth Policies Board is polling citizens on their attitudes and ideas about building a competitive Southern Workforce. The board is a non-partisan public policy think tank based in Research Triangle Park, NC, which develops and advances visionary economic development policies by providing a forum for partnership and dialog among a diverse cross-section of the region’s governors, legislators, business and academic leaders and the economic- and community-development sectors. This unique public-private partnership is devoted to strengthening the South’s economy and creating the highest possible quality of life.
The survey is seeking ideas on how to build a competitive, entrepreneurial workforce to support the southern region’s economic development initiatives in high-growth industries. Participate in the 16-question survey. The survey’s findings will be included in Southern Growth’s 2007 Report on the Future of the South and in presentations at the Southern Workforce Summit conference on June 3-5, 2007 in St. Louis, MO. Learn more about the Southern Workforce Summit conference.
- Atlanta Regional Office: 14.38% or $57,500,000 (covering Ala., Fla., Ga., Ky., Miss., N.C., and Tenn.)
- Austin Regional Office: 33.58% or $134,300,000 (covering Ark., La., N.M., Okla., and Texas)
- Chicago Regional Office: 15% or $60,000,000 (covering Ill., Ind., Mich., Minn., Ohio, and Wis.)
- Denver Regional Office: 26.14% or $104,600,000 (covering Iowa, Kan., Mo., Mont., Neb., and S.D.)
- Philadelphia Regional Office: 6.93% or $27,700,000 (covering Maine, N.H., Vt., W.Va., and Virgin Islands)
- Seattle Regional Office: 3.96% or $15,800,000 (covering Alaska, Calif., Hawaii, Idaho, and Nev.).