I've said before that cities need another round of stimulus money, according to them. According to The Christian Science Monitor, President Obama agrees. Their article on the 2010 budget starts, "In President Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget proposal, the nation’s cities are winners."
The budget proposal contains another $100 Billion in economic stimulus money, much of which should go to cities. Low income projects reap the benefits of several of these proposals, including increased Medicaid funding, additional funding for low-income housing, and extension of unemployment benefits.
Subsidies for the Build America Bonds program are projected to continue, which should help with capital improvements in cities. The new proposal makes these subsidies permanent. Will this help Jackson with their water and sewer improvements? Maybe; we'll wait and see. Above all, remember that this is the President's PROPOSED budget. No fortune teller can accurately predict what will actually be squeezed from the budget process in Congress.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Mayors Want New Round of Stimulus Funding
According to the New York Times, the United States Conference of Mayors said that they need another round of stimulus funding. There have been layoffs and shortfalls, and job creation is a high priority in urban areas.
According to a June, 2009 study conducted by the conference, 48 percent of approved surface-transportation financing was allocated to metropolitan areas by the states. These areas represent 63 percent of the population and 73 percent of the states' gross domestic product. Of course, statistics can be used selectively to say pretty much whatever you want. What is a logical measurement for allocating surface-transportation dollars? Population? GDP? Road mileage? The cities make a good argument, and the need is there (see my last post, "Where's the Beef?"), but I'm not so sure that population and gdp are the best measurement for distribution of transportation dollars.
Saying that the cities need another infusion of stimulus dollars, Mayor Riley of Charleston, South Carolina said “In the Great Depression they let up too soon and there was further recession. Right now the president needs to avoid making that same mistake.”
Maybe so.
According to a June, 2009 study conducted by the conference, 48 percent of approved surface-transportation financing was allocated to metropolitan areas by the states. These areas represent 63 percent of the population and 73 percent of the states' gross domestic product. Of course, statistics can be used selectively to say pretty much whatever you want. What is a logical measurement for allocating surface-transportation dollars? Population? GDP? Road mileage? The cities make a good argument, and the need is there (see my last post, "Where's the Beef?"), but I'm not so sure that population and gdp are the best measurement for distribution of transportation dollars.
Saying that the cities need another infusion of stimulus dollars, Mayor Riley of Charleston, South Carolina said “In the Great Depression they let up too soon and there was further recession. Right now the president needs to avoid making that same mistake.”
Maybe so.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Where's the Beef?
Anybody remember the Wendy's commercial that had the little old lady (Clara Peller) look at a tiny hamburger on a "big fluffy bun," then holler "Where's the Beef?" Now we need to look at "Where's the Stimulus?"
The City of Jackson, Mississippi, spent the first part of 2010 in the deepest, coldest freeze since 1940. Anybody care to guess what that exposed? It showed us some $300 Million in repairs to the water and sewer system that need to be addressed. Approximately 150 breaks developed in the water mains across the city, and the city was without drinkable water or enough water pressure for toilets and building sprinklers for a week. Much of the city, including hotels, restaurants, and any building with a sprinkler system, was shut down for a week.
What broke? Pipes that are as much as a hundred years old or more, including cast iron pipes, did not stand up to the icy weather. City crews, along with crews from neighboring communities and state crews, worked night and day to dig up pipes, patch them, and close up the holes. Some streets in Jackson now appear to have been bombed out, because there was no time to pave over the patchwork.
Now, what does this have to do with ARRA? It brings up questions about where the money went or is going. In my opinion, this is the sort of project that ARRA should be funding. Cities around the country have old infrastructure, like Jackson's pipes, that they cannot afford to replace. There's no glamour or flash in replacing a sewer pipe; building things that are buried underground does not leave something a politician can show off as something he or she did. This is where a major need lies, but it is unlikely that Congress will spend more money on a new round of ARRA projects when this money runs out. ARRA may stimulate the economy, but we will still be left with gaping needs that have been unaddressed.
The City of Jackson, Mississippi, spent the first part of 2010 in the deepest, coldest freeze since 1940. Anybody care to guess what that exposed? It showed us some $300 Million in repairs to the water and sewer system that need to be addressed. Approximately 150 breaks developed in the water mains across the city, and the city was without drinkable water or enough water pressure for toilets and building sprinklers for a week. Much of the city, including hotels, restaurants, and any building with a sprinkler system, was shut down for a week.
What broke? Pipes that are as much as a hundred years old or more, including cast iron pipes, did not stand up to the icy weather. City crews, along with crews from neighboring communities and state crews, worked night and day to dig up pipes, patch them, and close up the holes. Some streets in Jackson now appear to have been bombed out, because there was no time to pave over the patchwork.
Now, what does this have to do with ARRA? It brings up questions about where the money went or is going. In my opinion, this is the sort of project that ARRA should be funding. Cities around the country have old infrastructure, like Jackson's pipes, that they cannot afford to replace. There's no glamour or flash in replacing a sewer pipe; building things that are buried underground does not leave something a politician can show off as something he or she did. This is where a major need lies, but it is unlikely that Congress will spend more money on a new round of ARRA projects when this money runs out. ARRA may stimulate the economy, but we will still be left with gaping needs that have been unaddressed.
Friday, January 8, 2010
New FAQs from OMB
OMB has some new information on their FAQ as of January 7, under clarification of the December 18, 2009 guidance. Here is basically what the clarification says:
1. What information are prime recipients and subrecipients with delegated reporting responsibility required to report for vendor payments?
"A: All vendor payments must be reported. Individual payments greater than $25,000 must be reported separately with the following data elements for each payment:
◦Vendor identity either through DUNS number OR the Vendor Name and the zip + 4 digit code of the vendor’s headquarters.
◦Payment description and payment amount (required to be reported by prime recipients; optional for subrecipients)"
This one goes on to talk about reporting in the aggreagate or individually.
The other questions all deal with reporting, the $25,000 threshhold, and multiple quarters. If you need to know this, check it out. If something still does not make sense, let me know, and I'll see if I can't get an answer for you.
1. What information are prime recipients and subrecipients with delegated reporting responsibility required to report for vendor payments?
"A: All vendor payments must be reported. Individual payments greater than $25,000 must be reported separately with the following data elements for each payment:
◦Vendor identity either through DUNS number OR the Vendor Name and the zip + 4 digit code of the vendor’s headquarters.
◦Payment description and payment amount (required to be reported by prime recipients; optional for subrecipients)"
This one goes on to talk about reporting in the aggreagate or individually.
The other questions all deal with reporting, the $25,000 threshhold, and multiple quarters. If you need to know this, check it out. If something still does not make sense, let me know, and I'll see if I can't get an answer for you.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Second Quarterly Reporting Period Opens
The 2nd quarterly reporting period for ARRA funds opened January 1, 2010. All reports are due by January 10. Sort of.
Actually, ARRA requires the reports to be submitted by the 10th. The problem is that January 1 is a holiday, while January 2, 3, 9, & 10 are weekend days, so the deadline in reality would be the 8th, with only 5 working days in the reporting period. The solution? The reporting website will be available for reporting through January 15, so everyone has a full work week beyond the due date to actually submit the reports.
There is new guidance on reporting jobs that pretty much restates the old calculation method, but agency-specific guidance on job calculation can be found here - http://www.recovery.gov/FAQ/recipient/Pages/AgencyGuidance.aspx .
There are a few enhancements to the reporting. There are hard edits to certain fields, so data has to be corrected before the system allows it. Prior data can be carried forward, so some data fields do not have to be repopulated. Overall, we'll see what happens now.
Actually, ARRA requires the reports to be submitted by the 10th. The problem is that January 1 is a holiday, while January 2, 3, 9, & 10 are weekend days, so the deadline in reality would be the 8th, with only 5 working days in the reporting period. The solution? The reporting website will be available for reporting through January 15, so everyone has a full work week beyond the due date to actually submit the reports.
There is new guidance on reporting jobs that pretty much restates the old calculation method, but agency-specific guidance on job calculation can be found here - http://www.recovery.gov/FAQ/recipient/Pages/AgencyGuidance.aspx .
There are a few enhancements to the reporting. There are hard edits to certain fields, so data has to be corrected before the system allows it. Prior data can be carried forward, so some data fields do not have to be repopulated. Overall, we'll see what happens now.
Happy New Year
Happy New Year!. I've taken a break over the holidays, but will begin posting again this week with more ARRA-related materials.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Recovery.gov Correcting the Obvious (Mostly)
The Chairman of the Recovery And Accountability Board (RAT Board), Earl Devaney, said in his December 15 message that transparency and accountability for stimulus money has been less than desired. The accuracy of the data provided has had some flaws as well. They are implementing some fixes that will cause some people to react with a "duh."
Under "Improving data quality," the Chairman addresses the problem of a twenty-day window in which data can be corrected. Federalreporting.gov will be changed to allow corrections to data submitted on a continuing basis (starting January 30), with updates posted every two weeks. Let's see now, who thought they would get accurate data by shutting down corrections after 20 days in the first place? If that was a threat, designed to make recipients do it right the first time, I believe the powers that be overestimated some of their recipients. Maybe this will help.
Second, the system will be changed so that it checks zip codes against a database of Congressional districts. Did you realize that reporting entities had to show which Congressional districts received the money? I've never understood why the reporters had to do that. Why doesn't the system simply determine the district, rather than requiring it as input? Since the same system will be checking the input against their database, it would be simpler to just have the system make that determination and, duh, make the reporting simpler.
The system will now have internal logic checks to kick out obviously wrong data. The two examples given are when more stimulus money is reported spent than the entity received, and when projects are reported as completed when the entity has not received any ARRA funding yet. These are obvious checks that should have been built into the system, but were probably not included because of the rapidity with which the system was implemented. Going that fast, you can't think of everything, and sometimes even the obvious slips by when the work has that tight a deadline.
So improvements are on the horizon, and, even though they may seem like obvious flaws in the system, they are being corrected. Maybe it is time for reporters to complain about other quirks in the system that need repair. Any suggestions for improvements?
Under "Improving data quality," the Chairman addresses the problem of a twenty-day window in which data can be corrected. Federalreporting.gov will be changed to allow corrections to data submitted on a continuing basis (starting January 30), with updates posted every two weeks. Let's see now, who thought they would get accurate data by shutting down corrections after 20 days in the first place? If that was a threat, designed to make recipients do it right the first time, I believe the powers that be overestimated some of their recipients. Maybe this will help.
Second, the system will be changed so that it checks zip codes against a database of Congressional districts. Did you realize that reporting entities had to show which Congressional districts received the money? I've never understood why the reporters had to do that. Why doesn't the system simply determine the district, rather than requiring it as input? Since the same system will be checking the input against their database, it would be simpler to just have the system make that determination and, duh, make the reporting simpler.
The system will now have internal logic checks to kick out obviously wrong data. The two examples given are when more stimulus money is reported spent than the entity received, and when projects are reported as completed when the entity has not received any ARRA funding yet. These are obvious checks that should have been built into the system, but were probably not included because of the rapidity with which the system was implemented. Going that fast, you can't think of everything, and sometimes even the obvious slips by when the work has that tight a deadline.
So improvements are on the horizon, and, even though they may seem like obvious flaws in the system, they are being corrected. Maybe it is time for reporters to complain about other quirks in the system that need repair. Any suggestions for improvements?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
