Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03172000 City of Sebastian, Florida 1225 Main Street [] Sebastian~ Florida 32958 Telephone (561) 589-5330 [] Fax 1561) 589-5570 City Council Information Letter March 17, 2000 Con.qratulations and Good Luck! Walter Barnes and James Hill Happy St. Patrick's Day! National Lea.que of Cities Conference You will recall my attendance at the National League of Cities Conference in Washington, D.C. last weekend. Meetings were quite productive in that I ' had an opportunity to digest proposed federal legislation that, if adopted, can have either positive or negative impacts on local government. As such, attached is a synopsis of issues, as distributed to conference participants. Items possibly critical to Sebastian, Florida outlined in the document include proposed measures relative to public safety (e.g. efforts to continue the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program, Community Oriented Policing Services Program, etc.) and property/asset forfeiture requirements. In fact, a primary rationale for attending this conference is to ascertain recommended federal initiatives, as well as to lobby accordingly. For this reason, I wish to support that members of the City Council attend such meetings each year. Most communities represented send delegations of at least three to four officials, consisting of respective city council members, city managers, and perhaps one or two other appointed officials (e.g. department head, city clerk). Staff will therefore formally incorporate such recommendations in the Fiscal Year 2001 budget process, whereby you will have the opportunity to debate which elected officials, if any, are to represent Sebastian, Florida at said functions. The Florida League of Cities Annual Conference will take place in Fort Lauderdale in August. In coming weeks, perhaps we should make arrangements to send a delegation for the aforementioned reasons. City Council Information Letter March 17, 2000 Page 2 Community Development Block Grant Economic Development Pro.qram Please be advised that a recommendation is anticipated to be made to have the City of Sebastian submit an application to participate in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Economic Development Program. Funding from this initiative would provide financial assistance towards various improvements along Barber Street, including necessary road reconstruction and other relevant projects outlined in the City's Capital Improvement Program. As such, a presentation (via a necessary public hearing) is being planned for the April 12th City Council meeting, whereby a proposed resolution will be presented for your consideration. In addition, a second public hearing will be required during your following meeting (April 26th) as other logistics are to be addressed, including a formal agreed upon partnership with Boos Development Group and Publix, as job creation is a prerequisite to receive funding (per yesterday evening's authorization by the Planning and Zoning Commission to permit the Publix Development at Barber Street and United States Highway One). This proposal is being coordinated in effort to procure outside funding, which may yield tremendous cost savings to the City of Sebastian over a two year period (obviously, the City of Sebastian is ultimately responsible for said improvements, no matter if a grant is awarded or not. However, we feel that a prime opportunity exists, so as to perhaps reallocate appropriated road and drainage funds for other projects). Logistical information is outlined in the attached memorandum from Craig Smith and Associates, Inc., who will provide ancillary staff assistance if the City is successful in receiving a CDBG grant. Riverview Park Sidewalk Expansion Pro.qram I am pleased to report that the Riverview Park Sidewalk Expansion Program will commence beginning Monday March 20th. This arrangement (as you may recall) is primarily possible by money raised by the Lion's Club in conjunction with the City of Sebastian's Capital Improvement Program. It is anticipated that work will be completed in approximate two weeks, utilizing resources from both the Public Works Department and Regan Masonry, Inc., the City's contractor on an as need basis for concrete and masonry related projects. City Council Information Letter March 17, 2000 Page 3 Land Development Code I am also pleased to report that the Sebastian Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved the revised Land Development Code document in its entirety (as presented and discussed during the last two weeks). During next week's meeting, Tracy Hass will address logistics accordingly, whereby you will have the opportunity to schedule a respective workshop. Wireless Microphones for City Council Chambers Please be advised that wireless microphones previously ordered by staff per direction of City Council a few months ago, are scheduled to be installed Thursday, March 23rd. As such, these devices will be available for your use beginning the following week. Enclosures: National League of Cities 2000 Hot Issues Memorandum, Craig Smith and Associates, Inc. My Documents/InfoLeffer34 National League of Cities 2000 Hot Issues Health Care Background Both the House and Senate passed legislation in 1999 aimed at protecting patients and changing the way managed care companies operate. The two bills (t-IR 2990 and S 1344) were sent to a House and Senate Conference Committee to resolve their differences. Major obstacles, including liability for employers who offer health care coverage through association plans or risk pools, the scope of the legislation, and access provisions will make agreement in conference difficult If a final package emerges, it must withstand presidential scrutiny. Therefore, some are calling for language to be added to the final bill to protect the privacy of medical records and to prevent medical errors. This should make it more difficult for the President to veto the final bill Meanwhile, the President's proposals to expand Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP) to include parents of children who are eligible for these programs are part of his 2001 budget proposal, and are expected to face numerous challenges as budget negotiations go forward. Cotl~gl'e$$]onal Status Members of the Republican leadership have pledged to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights by late spring or early summer. Some believe that passage of this legislation is critical, as the Republicans endeavor to continue their control of the House and Senate. However, given the abbreviated election year calendar and the major differences that must be resolved between the House and Senate versions of health cate bills, passage of a final reform package this year is a tall order. Some members of the Conference Committee have indicated that there is behind-the-scenes movement toward consensus on the liability portion of the legislation. Senate Republic=s, previously unwilling to entertain any discussion of a private right of action, are now said to be willing to consider a limited liability provision. In the same vane, House Democrats, who were vehemendy opposed'to any constraints on the right to sue HMOs, also appear willing to discus a compromise. Any liability provision, even if 1/mited, could have negative consequences for clries of ail sizes. NLC Posit~on and Polio_ w;C supports expanding access to quality alth care for the 44 million Americans who currently lack health insurance coverage. Any reform of the health care industry should benefit all Americans, protect their right to privacy, ensure quality services, and be affordable. At the same time, however, reform measures must not have the unintended consequences of increasing costs, reducing flexibility for employers offering health coverage, or creating unfunded and administratively burdensome mandates. Let your congressional delegation know the multi- faceted roles dries play in health care as providers of health insurance for employees, dependents, and retirees; and as health care providers to the poor, the el&dy, and the indigent Please write or call members of the Conference Committee (listed below) and your representative and urge them to pass legislation that would: Offer patient protections to all Americans, as offered in the House version of the Patients' Bill of Rights (HR 2990); · Keep insurance costs down by not imposing additional liability, as proposed in the Senate version of the Patients' Bill of Rights (S 1344); · Promote greater access to coverage and flexibility for employers through "Health Marts," Association Health Plans, or similar entities, as proposed in S 1344; · Foster collaboration with local authorities on developing policies that prevent medical errors and protect patient privacy before enacting any legislation or regulations; and · Extend Medicaid and SCHIP coverage to needy families, as proposed in the President's FY 2001 budget Con~ete. r~ce Committee _~rembet$: Senate: James Jeffords (R-VI), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Bill Frist (R-TN), Tim Hutchinson O-_A_R), Don Nicldes (R-OK), Phil Gramm (R- TX), M/chad Enzi (R-WY), Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Christopher Dodd (D-CN), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Barbara M/kulski (D-MD,John Rockefeller (D-WV) House: Tom Bliley (R-VA), Dan Burton (R-12q), Michael Bilirakis (R-FL), Bill Archer (R-TX), Joe Scarborgugh (R-FL), Bill Thomas (R-CA), James Talent (R-MO), Porter Goss (R-FL),John Shadegg (R-AZ), Jim McCrery (R-LA), Nancy Johnson CN), Emie Fletcher (R-KY), John Dingell (D-MI), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Charles Rangel (D-NY), Pete Stark (D-CA), William Clay (D-MO), Robert Andrews (D-NJ), Henry Waxman (D-CA), Marion Be=y For more information contact Jennifer Pike Senior Legislative Counsel Center for Policy and Federal Relations (202) 626-3020/Fax: (202) 626-3043 Pike~NLC.org J:2000 Health National League of Cities 2000 Hot Issues Public Safety Funding Bac~oronnd coe fist session of the 106th Congress nsidered various public safety bills ranging om gun control to juvenile justice and appropriations for justice programs such as the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG). As Congress begins its second session, many public safety issues remain unresolved. This hot issue paper covers multiple areas of public safety funding that are currently being addressed in the juvenile justice legislation gt.R. 1501 and S. 254) which has been sent to a House/Senate conference committee. You will find synopses of these current legislative issues, followed by summaries of NLC's policies and positions, and suggested actions for advocating your city's position on these issues. Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG): NLC was successful in securing funding for the LLEBG for FY2000 at $523 million. However, after a .38 percent across-the-board ftmding cut in 2000 federal appropriations was agreed to by the President and Congress in January, the 1J.F. BG, like many other programs, was cut. We expect this year's debate over the IIY.BG's 2001 funding to focus on the differences between dries and counties on disparate allocations and formula changes. Current grant requirements designate the Attorney General of each state to settle grant funding differences between dries and counties. Problematically, the Administration is not supportive of the lJ .V. GB, and is not expected to request any 2001 funding for the program. NLCPoMtiorz. NLC supports a five-year authorization of the LLEBG program at $750 million per year with no formula changes. N"LCPoli~_. NLC supports direct federal crime prevention funding to cities and towns, and believes that federal assistance, which enables local governments to improve public safety services, will always be key in reducing crime, planning for and predicting disasters, and responding to emergencies. ~Acdom Let yot~r congressional delega~on lo. ow the ~pomce EL ~BG ~g ~ yom CO~ ~d ~ve ~em ex--pies o~ how you ha~ uHlized yo~ts. Urge yo~ ddegaffon to work to ~illlon pe~ ye~ For ~ve ye~s ~ no ~o~a ch~s. Gun Control / Juvenile Justice: Gun control measures were debated by the Senate last May after several incidents of school violence (with passage of the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability Act, S. 254). This debate heated up again in February when the Senate voted on amendments to bankruptcy legislation. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) introduced an amendment that would allow cities to collect damages for gun violence from firearms manufacturers that file bankruptcy because of municipal lawsuits. Even though this amendment failed, NLC supports the concept and will urge Congress to reconsider it. The two juvenile justice bills (S. 254 and H.IL 1501), now in conference, would impose greater eligibility mandates on localities that receive funding, and would impose greater sanctions for juvenile offenders. Other provisions in these bills would reauthorize and streamline the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act and would make the records of juvenile offenders committing violent crimes available via the NCIC system which is shared by local, state, and federal law enforcement agendes. Such records would be treated thc same as adult criminal records within a state. NLCPoli_c~. NLC urges all levels of government to adopt statutory, regulatory, and policy actions to confront, curb, and eventually eliminate the firms violence in America. NLC supports federal assistance to establish and operate youth courts to ensure swift and appropriate sanctions. NLC supports direct, flexible fimding to municipalities for local iuvenile justice and de!~" '.:ency prevenrion initiatives with strict limits on ac :xative costs. NLC supports continued federal tc~. 2i assistance to train local government personnel regarding how to apply for federal funds administered through states. NLC supports federal efforts to establish and maintain a national system to track juvenile criminal records and assistance to states and localiries to update their record keeping procedures. NLC believes decisions regarding the transfer of violent juveniles to the adult criminal justice system should be left to state and local governments, and the federal government should not pass laws ot regulations that significantly kinder the ability of local governments to develop and implement alternative sentencing programs for juveniles. NLCPositio~ NLC opposes the juvenile justice provisions in the pending conference bills because of the federal mandates that would be imposed and the funding changes which would be directed away from dries to states. There are provisions in these bills that would benefit localities such as more funding for public safety technology, school safety, and domestic violence. All of these warrant further review. ~'Acdou. Contact yout congtessionM delegation amd m'ge them to push for a cot~eea~lIce conlawdttee meeting to l~ali~.e the juvetlile justice legislation (I-I.R. 1501 amd S. 2&l) before the 106~ Congress ad]oma. Ask your members, in their con~nunicadons with the comeetees, to emphaMze the hnpottance to cities of direct, tlexible liznding to local crime prevention programs that ptesetve local authority and federalism. COPS Reauthorization: With the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services authorized one additional year beyond its expiry date, Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) have introduced legislation (S. 1760 and H.IL 3144) to reauthorize the program for an additional five years. ]VLCPoli_cw. NLC supports community policing efforts along with direct federal anti-drug and anti- violence funding to dries and towns that can be directed towards community policing efforts, anti- crime and violence activities, and rural enforcement programs. N-LCPosMon: NLC supports community policing, but would like to change the program's structure which mandates employee retention after the federal COPS grant period when there is no further federal assistance. Additionally, the program suffered recent appropriations cuts in technology and technical assistance which dries and towns need to augment their equipment and training needs. ~'~'Action: If your ci~, or tou,n would l~e to have ~e COPS pro~ teau~o~e~ contact yo~ con~sMonM dde~don ~d pm~de ~ples of how yo~ co~ h~ b~e~ted ~om ad~donM o~c~s ~d ~g pto~s. Howe~ please note ~at Eot ~ success to con~ue, mo~e asMst~ce is needed for pub~c s~e~ tec~olo~ ~d ~' ~d mote ~g is needed to con~ue emplo~g o~c~ ~er ~e ~tp~s ~d ~o hdp co~des absorb ~e lo~-t~ costs o/COPS ~ded o~cers. For more information contac~ Deborah Rigsby Senior Legislative Counsel Center for Policy & Federal Relations (202) 626-3020/Fax: (202) 626-3043 E-mail: Rigsby~NLC.org j:2000 Public Safety Funding National League of Cities 2000 Hot Issues Takings & "The Religtous Liberty Protection Act" Two takings bills, aimed specifically at local government authority, would perm/t landowners to bypass state and local courts and procedures and take their land use grievances directly into federal court. The bills are H.1L 2372, "The Private Property Implementation Act of 1999," introduced by Rep. Canady (R-FL), and S. 1028 "The Citizens Access to Justice Act of 1999," introduced by Sen. Hatch (R-UT). Both bills would permit an award of attorney's fees to any prevailing plaintiff. In a nutshell, these bills seek to federalize land use law because, ff enacted, local land use derisions would be made increasingly by the non-elected federal judiciary, not by local communities. This legislation would also overturn existing law which requires that state courts review local land use decisions before a case is "ripe" for federal court Th/s rule of law was first laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Will/amson Coun .ty Planning Commi~sinn v. t--Iamflton Bank of Johnson City in 1985. The Wflliamson County case stated that in order to present a ripe taMng e-l~iro in federal court, a taking daimant must: (1) present a "final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue" from "the governmental entity charged with implementing the regulations'; and (2) demonstrate that the claimant requested "compensation through the procedures the State has provided for doing soft In other words, a property owner must first make every effort to resolve Land use disputes through the local public be~rlng, review and appeals process before going into federal court. The proposed legislation would essentially eliminate both prongs of this established Supreme Court ripeness test. NLC Position and Polio_ rrveC has specific policy wh/ch "opposes federal guladons, statutes or amendments which place restrictions on state and local government actions regulating private property or requiring additional compensation beyond the continually evolving judicial interpretations of the Fifth Amendment of the Umted States Constitution." (NadonalMunicipalPolicy ~ 1.060). Local dected officials adopt ordinances, approve building permits and grant zoning wri*nces, not for the purpose of infringing on property fights, but rather for the opposite reason, to protect the property fights of all members of the community. Because the bills propose bypassing of local procedures and state court review, there would be an adverse impact on local governments. First, there would be more frequent and more expensive litigation against local gov~'nments because, by circumventing administrative procedures at the local level, land use disputes xvould be in court at a far earlier point in the process. In addition, the bills would force local governments to defend challenges to their land use decisions in distant and more expensive federal courts. This would result in an enormous financial burden on smaller cornmullities that do not have the resources to allocate to cosily federal court litigation. In sum, these bills place a huge unfunded federal mandate on cities and towns across Amer/ca. Second, this legislation would sexioualy undermine the ability of local elected officials to protect public health and safety, safeguard the environment, and support the property values of all residents of a community. By granting developers a number of significant new procedural advantages in land use litigation, the bills would provide developers and other cl~i,-~nts greater leverage to challenge local land use phnnlng regulations. Local elected officials would be forced into the position of either having to approve a project or face daunting legal expenses. Developers would have little incentive to resolve their disputes with the ne/ghbors or negotiate for a reasonable settlement outside of the courtroom. Finally, the proposed legislation would circumvent the careful and open processes that have been established under state law to assure that other property owners have an opportunity to make their case, and that all the facts of the situation have been thoroughly examined. By-passing the local he~4,g and appeals process would effectively undevmln¢ the ability of interested citizens to comment upon and influence land use decisions which are important to the fiature of their communities. H.IL 2372 has sutwived a markup and vote in the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and is awaiting full Judiciaxy Committee action. The Senate is watching the House bill's progress and therefore has not scheduled S. 1028 for acdon, but this bill will move quickly if the House bill receives a favorable vote in the House Judiciary Committee. ~Action! Please urge your congresMonal delegation not to co- sponsor or support ~n any way I-I. It 2372 or S. 1028. Point out to your congressional delegation that the exis~publgc hear~ug and appeals p~ocess is RLPA "The Religious Liberty Protection Act nfL099' Back~r_ound: H.IL 1691, "The Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1999" (ItL,PA), seeks to replace the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (R_FR~) which was ruled unconstitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court in the 1997 case of the CityofBoernev. Flores. InBoeme the court held that no intent to disc~Lminate is found in local ordinances that are generally_applicable to the population at large. In expl~inlng is ruling, the Supreme Court said in Boeme that neutral, ordinances, such as zoning and land use regulations, fire and building codes, local historic preservation and env~zonmental laws, and local laws protecting the health, safety and wolfare of women and children are not an improper exercise of a local government's authority when applied to religious institutions because they only busden one's religious beliefs in an ineidentaJ, manner._ In addition, a recent National Congregations Study (a survey of a nationally representative sample of congregations) shows a distinct lack of discrimination toward religious organizations by local governing bodies. Only fiw'e congregations, out of the 450 congregations surveyed nationwide, had thek zoning and land use pema/t requests denied by local authorities. Of the frye, two stated the outcome of the request had not yet been determined and three stated that they had received an 1WLC PoH~_ and Position NLC's policy opposes the federal preemption of traditional local government authority such as zoning and land use. From a municipal perspective, RLPA would essentially exempt religious practices from a wide variety of state and local laws regarding child abuse, alcohol and drug abuse enforcement, jail i~rn~te restrictions and employee safety requirements. It would also preempt local zoning and land use laws, an area traditionally within the purview of state and local goverrmaents, by providing religious institutions with preferential tteatment for their structures and activities. Under RLPA, religious facilities would be effectively immune from most local laws. Conversely, a secular entity would not enjoy such immunity. ILLPA would also force cities to permit religious facilities to disregard local fire and safety codes, and open space requirements regardless of that fit)es zoning requirements. In addition, the Religious Liberty Protection Act permits clalm~nts to bypass local appeals processes and state courts, allowing them to file cases directly in federal court. The resulting inc£ease in federal court suits means that state and local taxpayexs will face an increased financial buxden each time a religious el~irn~r~t is unhappy with a state or local law. ~Action! RLPA (H.R. 1691) is cun'ently awad-'~o~ action fi~ the Senate Judiciaty Committee. Iris vetyqfi':nportant that local elected ot~c~aI$ contact their Senators and urge them to oppose any Rf_~A because iris a~ unconstitutional federaI preenaptioa of local authod(y. Provide your Senators udth conczete examples of how your commmzity and lts ~o~ ~sdmdoas have wozked to~ ~ep~t ~ ~e ~ea of zo~g ~d l~d u~. Show yo~ ~a~ts ~at ~e~ h~ not be~ ~mm,~ aimed at t~O~ ~sdmffons ~d pmcdces. For more information contact: Susan Pamas, Senior Legislative Counsel Center for Policy & Federal Relations (202) 626-3020/Fax: (202)626-3043 Emalk Pamas~24LC.org j:2000 Taking~ & RLPA National League of Cities 2000 Hot Issues Electric Dereg da tion 7aditional/y, electricity utilities operated as egulated monopolies, with specific areas to serve. Under the Energy policy Act of 1992, deregulation responsibility was divided between the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and Congress. FERC has jurisdiction over wholesale wheeling, wh/ch is the selling of electricity in the wholesale market. In April of 1996, the FERC issued an order to deregulate the wholesale market, which required utilities to open access to their transmission lines. Congress has jurisdiction over retail wheeling, which is selling electricity m the electticity customer the person who turns on the light. Simultaneously with many proposed congressional initiatives affecting deregulation, the majority of states (29) have either begun or completed steps to deregulate the electricity industtT without federal authority. Soon consumers, businesses, and cities will have a choice in deciding from whom to buy electricity. A consumer will be able to buy from a number of competitors offering different services at different prices. However, having a choice does not necessarily translate into lower electricity prices because only the generating portion of the electricity bill would be deregulated, roughly- twenty five percent of the total costs. Also, large users, such as manufacturing industries, may reap the benefits rather than municipaliries and their residents. Furthemaore, regions of the country that akeady have iow electricity prices may actually see a price increase in their electricity bills. Finally, "undesirable" service areas may have no company that wants to sell them elecmicity. P~ate Use Issue Publicly owned electric utilities are currently subject to very strict federal "private use" tax rules that control what they can do with the proceeds of tax- exempt bond offerings. In a regulated electric utility market, these rules are cumbersome, but manageable. As states deregulate, however, the private use rules are threatening many public power communities with significant financial penalties if they expand'theJx services to compete outside their current boundaries. In effect, abiding by the iaw shuts publicly owned utilities out of competing in a new deregulated market and expansion outside thei~ t~aditional service boundaries jeopardizes their ability to issue t~x- exempt municipal bonds. Co&awessionM Status The Administration and some members of Congress are calling for quick passage of electric utility deregulation legislation. Last year, Representative Joe Barton (R-TX), Chairman of the House Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, introduced legislation to promote a national restructuring plan. The Elec~dty Compedrion and Reliability Act of 1999 (II.IL 2944) was approved by Barton's Subcommittee last October. The measure includes the Bond Fairness Act (H.R. 721) to help deal with the private use issue for public power cities. House Commerce Committee Chairman Thomas Bliley (R- VA) has indicated his intention to rewrite the subcommittee bill. Bliley and Ranking Member John Dingetl (D-M/) are sO discussing whether national restructuring legislation is needed at all, and if so, what that legislation should contain. On the Senate side, Senator Frank Mttrkowski (R-AK), Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, ckcuhted a discussion ckaft bill last fall which he plans to introduce early this year. The Munkowski proposal does not contain private use language, but does includes a provision which would gnmclfather state restractu~g plans passed before the enactment ~fthe new hw. Although he, rlnge and discussions ~re expected to continue this year, Congress win likely not be able to complete work on a comprehensive electdc restructuring package. To date, the~e is ~itde agreement in Congress as to what an Mc-al restructuring package would entail. NLC Position and PoH~_ NLC opposes federal preemption of local government authority regarding rights-of-way and revenue authority. Cities and towns should have the ability to become aggregators. The policy emphasizes that any restructuring program should result in all consumers receiving benefits. NLC opposes federal electric utility deregulation legislation. Congress should leave this issue to states and local governments. Such federal legislation could preempt traditional and historic land use and zoning authority or franchise and equitable tax authority. NLC urges the Administration and Congress to ensure municipal authority to issue municipal bonds for the provision of essential public power: Specific issues affecting local governments that Congress should consider. Preemption: Federal reform of the ufilityindustty could preempt local land-use, zonl-ug and fights-of- way authority. Grandfather Provisions: Cities and states stand to lose substantial ground if their work at the state level is not incorporated into a national restructurkng bill. The federal government should not preempt state energy laws, but should pass legislation that will compliment state and local measures. Reliability: A recent Depmunent of Energy report wams that as the industry deregulates, reliability of electric supply may be compromised. Furthermore, consumers in certain areas may be undersex'ved in a competitive market, as providers target only the most profitable areas for power distribution. Tax Reform: Absent changes in tax hws, competition is likely to reduce local tax revenues, including franchise fees for the use of right-of-way, sales and use taxes, and property taxes. Unless current tax regulations are changed, electric utility deregulation could take away the tax-exempt stares of current and future municipal public power bonds. Aggregation: Federal electricity utility deregulation legislation could bar local government authority to aggregate 0oin together) to pmchase power at lower prices. Action/ Contact your congressional delegation and urge em to oppose any electric utility deregulation legislation. Let them know that federal utility deregulation means: Federal intrusion or preemption of local government authority and revenue sources; Reliability of the power supply will be j~opardized by a competitive market; Both public and private power authorities w/ii be financially devastated by stranded costs unless broad provisions for gtandfathering are made; · State legislation already passed and pending will be preempted from applying solutions' that work specific to their situations; and · The potential loss of tax-exempt stares for municipal bonds would rause electric rates in dries across the country to dramatically increase. For more information contacm Melissa White and Jennifer Pike Legislative Counsels Center for Policy and Federal Relations (202) 626-3020/(202) 626-3043 Emaih White@NLC.org / Pike~NLC.org National League of Cities 2000 Hot Issues ElementmT/ and SecondmTr Education Act Background Established in 1965 as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson' s War on Poverty, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESF-.~) opened a new era of federal support for education. It was designed particularly for students who would gain the most from it, such as those from high-poverty communities who are at risk of academic failure. Through the assistance of ESF_.,A programs, state and local governments are able to provide extra smwices to school districts with special needs, such as urban and rural schools and isolated and under-served schools that use technology for long distance learning. The law was designed to improve overall education in the United States and advance educational equity. It was the first federal attempt to focus aid through categorical programs aimed at specific needs rather than to provide general aid to education. Since 1965, the law has been reauthorized every five ~ars. Its original provisions, which were to aid public schools affected by poverty, to fund die purchase of mat~uls for school libraries and classrooms, to establish model schools and use community centers to supplement school services, and to strengthen state dep?tments of education, have been considerably broadened. Over the past few years, ESF_.A has evolved as needs have changed and new concerns have been identified. ESEA's programs were reauthorized in 1994, in the Improving America's Schools Act (LASA), and the law is sometimes referred to by this name. The 1994 revisions gave states and localities more flexibility in attaining educational goals and implemengug reforms. Last year Congress reauthotized only Tide I of ESE. A. The Students Results Act of 1999 (H.tL 2), which renewed Tide I, rewards excellence by giving states the option of setmag aside up to 30 percent of Tide I funding to provide cash few=ds to schools that make substantial progress in achievement gaps between students. The bill also gave rural schools unprecedented flexibility to consolidate federal funds. In addition, Tide I requirements were changed to reflect research demonstrating that improving the whole school raises the quality of teaching and learning for all children. Tide I reforms are based on the principle that all children can achieve and learn both basic and advanced skill~. Through the assistance of ESE, A programs, states and school districts aid students in achieving "challenging" and high standards, as mandated in Tide I. As part of the accountability process, schools must assess student achievement using the same assessment tools for all children, including those who are Iow achieving, limited English proficient, and disabled. JVLC Posidoo o_~d PoH~_ N1LC supports programs that supplement state and ocal efforts to provide all children with a high- quality education. ESF_.A programs that target specific national priorities, such as ass-,~,~g equity in education, improving the achievement of disadvantaged children, and decreasing the dropout rate are crucial to our nation's cities. For state and local governments, an ESEA reauthorizafion could provide increased funds and greater flexibility. The Department of Education gathers and dissem;nates to state and local educators statistics on children, schools, and education; the results of national studies; evaluations of national programs; and reports on education methods and issues. This information is extremely useful for state and local educators and policy makers. -ActJold Explain to yottt congressional delegation that all cldldten cat~ leara at;d cat; meet educational standards. To do so, theymust have adequate oppotturdties £o~ success in ~clud~g access to necessary sup~olet~e~tal set,ice. Encourage your Sel;atots al~d tepzesentatire to support more local school-based decision-maldazg ha the ESF_~ ~eattthol'Jzatlon. U~oe yottr congressional delegation to support the Fzmdi~g needed to provlde schools with the zesottrces needed to ~tegtate technology i~to their cuttictda ~l'ld to ttse techt~ology as one tool to ~cpease the acadetIlic actderelTaent atlId co~dre ~ o{ s~d~ts. Fo~: fro'th, er information contact: Samantha Guastella Legislative Counsel Center for Policy & Federal Relations (202) 626-3020/Fax: (202) 626-3043 Email: Guastella~2qLC.org J:2OOO Educafon National League of Cities 2000 Hot Issues Asset Background -~e passage of the Civil Asset Forfeiture eform Act (H.1L 1658) by the House of epresentatives last June marked a threat to local law enforcement's ab'flity to seize property in c6minal cases. The bill would establish new rules on how the federal govemment can confiscate cars, houses, boats, cash, and other properties where the goverrmaent would have 1) to notify owners before seizing property, and 2) provide "dear and convincing" evidence of an owner's criminality, rather than alleged connection(s) to a crime. The b'fll also extends the period in which property owners can challenge a seizure in court from 10 days to 30 days. H.IL 1658 was sent to the Senate Judiciaxy Committee, which is also considering two other asset forfeiture bills (S. 1701) introduced by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), and S. 1931, introduced by Senator Otrin Hatch (R-UT). NLC Posiffon and Polio_ NLC supports seizing the assets ofindiv/duals convicted for involvement in illegal drug activity. These funds should go to the local law enforcement agencies for anti-drag activities and to fund a special fund for victims of drag-related The passage of such legislation (ILIL 1658, S. 1701, and S. 1931) would limit the power of police and prosecutors to seize property in narcotics cases and other criminal cases. Despite this, H.IL 1658 would not affect state forfeiture laws; however, the possibility of preemption is problematic, particularly in situations where local and federal authorities share in the distribution of seized assets. Asset forfeiture is a powerful anti-crime tool for local law enforcement; and local police depa~u~ents across the country rely on property from asset forfeiture cases to fund budgets for and-crime activities. Such measures would affect both local authorities' ability to fight crimes and local budgets for crime prevenfi6n. 3-3- Action .t Please contact your congressional delegation znd urge them to reconsider legislation that would alt'ect your police depa, i~,~ent's authority to seize property connected with illegal drug activity ~nd other criminal cases. Descffbe how civil asset forfeiture has helped p~ovide needed resoawces for ctfine p~evention, and how these proposed changes would threaten federal, state, and local drug control efforts and other crime prevention activities. For further information contact: Deborah Rigsby Senior Legislative Counsel Center for Policy & Federal Relations 202/626-3020 Fax: 202/626-3043 Email: RigsbT~qLC.org National League of Cities 2000 Hot Issues Broadband By all accounts, the "open access" fray has been one of the most expensive, body Contested policy disputes since the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The City of Portland, Oregon led the way in the spring of 1999 when authorities there voted to require AT&T to open its cable network to Intemet competitors. In response, AT&T sued the city and lost in federal court in June. The case is now on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The quesdon AT&T has raised is whether local governments have the legal authority to pass mandatory open access ordinances. The National League of Cities, in conjunction with other local organizations, has submitted an amicus brief in support of a local government's authority to decide whether to place such a condition on businesses operating within its jurisdiction. More recently, authorities in Broward County, Flotida, St. Louis, Missouri, and Cambridge and Weymouth, Massachusetts voted to require open access, while dries like Sacramento, California, rejected it. The struggle over open access, however, will likely be resolved at the federal level, through litigation, legislation, or rule making by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Currendy, there are numerous proposals in Congress that are either for or against "open access." Measures are being considered that would require cable open access - but in a way that would deprive local governments of cable franchise fees on cable operators' Intemet access revenues. These measures may seek to "clarify" that broadband access over cable systems is a "telecommunications service" under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and not a "cable service." If these approaches become law (either through legislation or through arguments in lifigafion like the Portland appeal), cities could lose millions in future cable franchise fees. For the immediate future neither Congress nor the FCC is moving quickly, and the entire debate in Washington is enveloped in a heated ideological and rhetorical fog. WlJatisBzoadbazad? "Broadband" technology offers a high-speed digital connection to the Inremet that is "always on" - a permanent connection from your home or office to the Net that will make going online more convenient than ever before. Broadband technology will allow users to download more information, including new multimedia applications, and eventually video programming similar to current television and cable services. It will be up to one hundred times faster than today's dial-up modems. The largest beneficiary of this system has been AT&T, which controls about 60 percent of America's cable lines and has required anyone who wants to use them to channel their Intemet traffic through Excite~Home. For dries and towns across the nation to remain competitive, affordable broadband access will be essential. Currendy, less than a million subscribers have cable Intemet service, and about 650,000 customers have digital subscriber lines. But the broadband market is expected to grow rapidly, reaching more than 11 million households by the end of 2002. Over the past year, anticipating the commereial potential of broadband, AT&T has spent more than $100 billion to acquire two of the largest cable companies, TCI and MediaOne, giving it direct connections to some 16 million homes (one-fourth of ~11 cable households) and, tlwough various partnerships and affiliations, access to many more. It is unclear, whether a single company will, in fact, be permitted to dominate what is likely to be the nation's most important commurfications medium in the twenty-first century. Until the AOL/Time-Wamer merger, AOL had been one of AT&T's chief critics. As an Lntemet service provider and not a cable company, AOL had mainly sold its customers access to the Intemet over phone lines. And, as more and more consumers began using cable to connect to the Interact--lines to which AOL lacked access--the company faced potential extinction. Not surprisingly, AOL spent much of the past two yeaxs demanding that AT&T provide open access to its cable lines to all Eatemet service providers. AOL applauded dries Like Portland, Oregon, that passed open-access laws, and called on the FCC to make open access a national requirement But AT&T denounced AOL for seeking a 'free ri&," and the FCC refused to act, contewAing that the flee market would one day solve the problem. By purchasing Time-Warner, AOL acquired the second- largest cable company in America, and now controls 20 percent of the nation's broadband lines. Now AOL has a chance to put its prindples into practice: Will it allow other Lqtemet providers access to Time Wamer's cable lines, as AT&T has not and at what price? AOL executives, who face antitrust heatings in Congress and must win approval from the FCC and the Justice Department for their merger. Truly insist that consumers who Eve in dries, wked only by T~ne- Warner, will not face the same problem a~ those who live in cities wired only by AT&T. NLC Position & PoB~. NfC supports the rapid universal deployment broadband information technologies. NLC further believes that, in addressing broadband access issues, the federal government should reserve existing local government authority to regulate cable television or telecommunications entities. NLC urges the federal government to recognize longstanding municipal authority m assure universally avaihble communications and information technology through mnnidpally initiated development and by working with the private sector in negotiating, franchising, licensing or any other prudent means. Action ! Contact your delegation and urge them to oppose any federal intrusion or preemption of local govemmems' authority and revenue sourcing in setting cable- franchising agreements. Municipal elected officials should meet with their key city officials involved with Intemet set-v-ices to discuss and determine the current and future needs o~f their dties so they can advise their Congressional delegations regarding the best steps Gongress could take to make universal broadband access available in a timely manner. Contact the FCC and Congress and make clear that municipalities must retain authority to act in the interest of their citizens; especially where there is no competition or where affordable service, or any service, does not exist. The FCC's web site is htrp://va~v.fcc.gov. For further informarion contact:: Juan Otero Sen/or Legislative Counsd Center for Policy & Federal Relations (202) 626-3020 Fax: (202) 626-3043 Email:Otero~nlc.urg National League of Cities 2000 Hot Issues FEDERAL ISM 'l--~edetal preemption of local laws is a prevalent ~ * and serious problem affecting America's dries. -.[- Examples of such proposed federal preemption abound in pending private property rights legislation (Takings), telecommunications, and of course the taxation of sales over the Internet. As a result, this past year marked the beginning of NLC's aggressive legislarive push to require the federal government to examine the preemptive impact of federal legislation and regulations on state statutes and local ordinances prior to enactment or finalization. The following represents some of NLC's major achievements in this critical area and outlines where we need to go from here. NLC Position and Polio_ sn;Cpolicy the federal of opposes preemption te and local authority. NEC supports the passage of federal legislation which would make Congress and the federal agencies more accountable to state and local elected officials when either seeks to preempt state and local authority. 1. Last summer, with input from NLC and the other state and local government interest groups, the President signed a new Executive Order on Federal/sm (E.O. 13132). The new Order states that federai regulations may preempt state and local laws only when Congress expressly d/ctates they do so or gives an executive agency clear authority to superoede state and local government. In cases where there are sigoJficant uncertainties about whether national action is authorized or appropriate, the new Order requires agencies to consult with appropriate state and local officials to determine "whether federal objectives can be obtained by other means." The Order also requires each agency to designate an official to oversee the implementation of the Order. The Order also requires that agencies "consult" with state and local elected officials or their national representatives prior to issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking with federalism implications. This neyr Executive Order, although not law, represents an important first step toward achieving greater federal sensitivity to state and local preemption concerns. 2. NLC has been instrumental in helping to draft and promoting the passage of two bipartisan federalism bills - H.1L 2245, "The Federalism Act of 1999" and S. 1214, "The Federalism Accountability Act of 1999." H.IL 2245 passed out of subcommittee and is ready for full committee action. S. 1214 was passed by the Senate Government Reform Committee by an overwhelming 12-2 vote last summer. Despite the early success of both bills, strong opposition to the bills has surfaced. Both S. 1214 and H.tL 2245 have great benefits to dries for the following key reasons: The bills contain a requirement for increased consultation with state and local officials and their representative national organizations prior to the promulgation of federal regulations which would interfere with, or intrude upon, historic and ttaddfional state and local rights and responsibilities. The bills also require an analysis of any federal legislation that addresses the federal preemption of state and local laws to be contained in every committee or conference report. The bills contain a "role of construction" which provides that if Congress intends m preempt state and local hw, it must expressly state its intent to preempt in the federal legislation. Any ambigu/ties regarding this intent shall be resolved against the federal government and in favor of state and local law. The bills contain a "fix" to the Unfunded Federal Mandates Reform Act (UM2RA) so that the mandates law will cover the nation's largest entitlement programs to ensure that they are subject to the same laws as all other federal programs affecting state and local governments. 3. NLC is also working to secure passage of the "Regulatory Right to Know Act"(S. 59, H.R. 1074). This bill would require and annual aggregate accounting of costs and benefits of major regulations with over $100 milJSon in economic impact on state and local governments. The bill would give state and local governments the opporttmity to comment on the comprehensive annual regulatory report prepared by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and to have action on those comments disclosed. The OMB report would include the impact of federal regulations on state and local governments, the private sector and the national economy. l!is critical that your congressional delegation hear om you how important it is to local elected ffidals that federal officials examine the preemptive impacts of federal laws and rules on clries before they are enacted. In',4te your congressional delegation to your dry to demonstrate specific problems and concerns with the federal preemption of state and local laws Urge your federal delegation to support S. 1214 and H.R. 2245, which make Congress and the agendes more accountable for their legislative and administrative actions. For more information contact:. Susan Pamas Senior Legislative Counsel Center for Policy & Federal Relations (202) 626-3020/Fax. (202) 626-3043 Email: Parnas@NLC.org j:2000 Federal/sm MEMORANDUM CRAIG A. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 242 ROYAL PALM BEACH BOULEVARD ROYAL PALM BEACH, FL 33411 (561) 791-9280 FAX (561) 791-9818 E-mail: casrpb@craigsmith.com From: Date: Subject: City of Sebastian FFY 2000 CDBG Economic Development Potential Applicant c/o Mr. David Morse, Boos Development Group VIA FACSIMILE 727-524-8864 - 11 pages Nancy S. Phillips, Director- Grant Administration Services//~'~ March 13, 2000 Information on Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for Potential Project in the City of Sebastian CAS Project No. 86-9999-5NC-PRO It is the intention of this memorandum to provide information about any potential company who is interested in requesting that the City of Sebastian apply for a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for infrastructure (road, water, and sewer) required for their project. As the City's potential grant consultant, I will be preparing most of the required documentation and providing any potential applicant with drafts of vadous documents for execution on the company's letterhead. The CDBG grant program forms a partnership between the business who will be creating the jobs, the developer, if applicable who usually provides the financial support to the project, and the City who will be providing the required infrastructure. Throughout this memorandum, the term "participating party" is utilized for the business who will be the job creator. I would like to briefly explain the CDBG program and the responsibility that the participating party would have if your company decides to become a partner in the CDBG grant. CDBG Economic Development category is a job creation grant. One (1) new full-time job or part-time equivalent must be created for every $35,000 in grant funds awarded to the City on behalf of this project. The City of Sebastian is eligible to apply for up City of Sebastian Potential FFY 2000 CDBG Economic Development Applicant Page Two to $600,000 in grant funds that could be utilized for infrastructure required for this project. The grant pedod is normally for a two (2) year period or until the jobs are created and monitored by the State of Florida.. Any information provided to the City as part of this grant application will be affected by the Sunshine Law and becomes a part of public record. As a partner in the grant, the participating party would have to commit to create at least 18 new full-time jobs and/or pad-time equivalents. Of these 18 FTE, 51% or 10 jobs would have to be occupied by individuals whose family income is in the Iow-to- moderate income (LMI) range for the City based upon family size. As part of the application process, every potential new and existing (transferred) employee for the City of Sebastian facility would complete a Household Income Survey Form. I have attached a sample of this form for your perusal. If more than 18 new full-time jobs are created, then 51% of all full-time jobs created must be occupied by individuals from the LMI range. If the participating party will commit to hidng one (1) WAGES individual, the City may receive points in the application process. The number of jobs to be created CAN be less than 18; however, it will decrease the amount of award available to the City. The participating party and any developer would be required to sign a commitment letter that specifically explains the project, the jobs to be created, and the funds required to complete the project. At the appropriate time, I will provide a draft letter for your review and execution on your firm's letterhead. The participating party and the developer of the leased ~pace, as partners to the grant, would be required to sign a legally binding Participating Party Agreement. I have attached a draft of this document for your review. However, this draft has not as yet been reviewed by the City Attorney and is subject to additional changes. The participating party would also be required to submit a business plan for the City of Sebastian facility. The business plan must be prepared by the participating pady and must contain the following information: A description of the business from an ownership, organizational, historical, and structure perspective; The market for its products and its marketing plan; City of Sebastian Potential FFY 2000 CDBG Economic Development Applicant Page Three 4. 5. 6. The competition it faces in the marketplace; A management plan, including operational and financial issues; Schedule for expansion or initiation of operations; and Cdtical dsks and perceived problems. o The Participating party would be required to complete "CDBG-E-10 - A Listing of Current Employees and a Listing of Proposed New Jobs Creation Information". Copies of these two forms are also attached. The participating party would also have to document the amount and sour~ df working capital that would be required for at least the first six months of operation or the source of additional amount of cash investment that would be required to provide additional working capital for the relocation or expansion of an existing organization. If the partidpating party has established a line of credit for the expansion, a letter from the financial institution who would be issuing the LOC would be required. If the participating party intends to utilize retained earnings for th~ working capital, then the most current Annual Report would be required to document the retained earnings. 10. The developer for this project would be required to provide a copy of the signed lease agreement for this project or provide a market analysis for this project. At some point in time, flnancials on the participating party might will be necessary. It will depend upon the type of. project and use of CDBG funds that might tdgger this requirement. I look forward to meeting you on Thursday, March 16~ at 1:00 p.m. to further discuss your potential project. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need further information about the CDBG grant process. /nsp Attachments - Draft Participating Pady Agreement - 5 pages Sample Household Income Survey Form - 1 page Form CDBG-E-10 -2 pages C; Martha Campbell, City of Sebastian Engineer - VIA FACSIMILE - 561-589-5570 - 11 pages P:~PHILLIPS\WPDOCS'~sebastian~2000newg ranteememo.wpd PARTICIPATING PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN AND PARTICIPATING PARTY TI-HS CONTRACT AND AGREEMENT, by and between the, political subdivision of the State of Florida and located at 32958, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY", corporation, its successors and assigns, of , hereinafter referred to and called effective as of the day of requirements hereinafter referred to and called "CDBG" Department &Community Affairs, 2555 ', 2100, hereinafter referred to and called to-wit: ~ 1. The application ~ agrees to Agreement wit: a Florida , the Florida Florida 32399- mutually agree as follows, to the DEPARTMENT for . CITY and the DEPARTMENT, CDBG ts this reference. BUSINESS provisions of the Award oas apply to BUSINESS. agrees to each and every one of the following provisions, to- (A) I BUSINESS shall create and satisfactorily document the creation of at (18) equivalent permanent net new jobs, of which ten (10) full-time net new jobs are to be made available to members of low or moderate as specified in the Application. If more than eighteen (18) full-time equivalent permanent net new jobs are created, fifty-one percent (5 t%) of those jobs shall be made available to members of low and moderate income families. These jobs sliall be created no later than the termination date of this Agreement, as it may be amended. Documentation shall be provided on the Florida Small Cities CDBG Program Household Income Survey Form or its equivalent for each job created. The documentation of the creation of these jobs shall be retained by BUSINESS for a period of five (5) years following the expiration of this Agreement; (B) That the failure of BUSINESS to create or cause satisfactorily document the creation of the eighteen ten (10) are to be made available to members in the Application, (C) That BUSINESS shall provide c members of families of low and moderate income as skills required for them to obtain and retain the jobs to (D) That, if requested by the its agents such reasonable information as the ( conditions of the grant; (E) thereto must be approved b, granted to the DEPARTMENT CITY to (n) of which equip the CITY or relates to the ' amendment ~ as to and content. The right of approval he BUSINESS Participating Party term of this Agreement. The or responsibility for the accuracy or enforceability through the exercise of this right of approval; pursuant to Fla. Admin. Code of the BUSINESS Participating Party Agreement. extension shall not invalidate this provision; BUSINESS shall hire at least one (1) Work and Gain Economic Self- client after (the date of site visit) and prior to the of the grant; and g-r) That BUSINESS shall furnish or cause to be furnished to the CITY the total number of persons employed by BUSINESS on the date of the execution of the Participating Party Agreement by name, job title, date hired, race, ethnicity, gender, and handicapped status. THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH IS OPTIONAL AND SHOULD BE DISCUSSED WITH CITY ATTORNEY. 3. Should BUSINESS fail to create or cause to be created or document the creation of the agreed upon number of jobs or the ~ be made available to members of low and the CITY an amount equal to $35,000 for each agreed created. Payment to the CITY under this the termination date of the CDBG Award DEPARTMENT. obs to shall reimburse er 4. Under the Award Agreement CIT5 DEPARTMENT. Further, the DEPARTMENT, provisions herein. For such including I CITY. 5. the discretion of the a to the grant, including the CITY and its agents providing any data, reports, and attending any meetings required by the ~ to its records and facilities by the by any other state or federal agency or their agents asserting with any condition of the CDBG program or the Award including State and Federal law. BUSINESS shall promptly notify soon is informed that any such agency intends to seek access, or to access or monitor for compliance. period of five (5) years following the expiration of this Agreement, BUSINESS shall retain all original records related to the implementation of the CDBG program and to its compliance with the CDBG application, the Award Agreement, and this Agreement. This period of record retention shall be automatically extended by the period of time that the DEPARTMENT extends the Award Agreement. 7. BUSINESS acknowledges that under the Award Agreement, the DEPARTMENT may substitute itself for the CITY in enforcing any provision of this Agreement a~er thirty (30) days written notice to the CITY. 8. This Agreement is subject to the truth a~ representations and materials submitted by BUSINESS in submission in response to the CITY's DEPARTMENT or an authorized agency, of this Agreement. 9. This Agreement shall, the total number of new jobs and the moderate income families as It is specifically 10. Agreement. 11. For purposes to be furnished by BUSINESS t to I or the r created of low and essence in the reports, or papers required to the CITY OF SEBASTIAN Sebastian, Florida 32958. any notices, records, reports, or papers required shall be delivered to the (Business , , Florida 4 ACCEPTED THIS DAY OF , A.D., 2000. CITY OF SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL By: MAYOR By: ATTEST: CLERK PARTICIPATING PARTY: By: BUSINESS, President CDBG-E-~2 PRE-EMPLOYMENT HOUSEHOLD INCOME VERIFICATION FORM City of Sebastian - FFY 2000 NAME OF JOB APPLICANT PHONE HOME ADDRESS MAILING ADDRESS NUMBER OF PERSONS LIVING AT THE ABOVE HOME ADDRESS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF PERSONS IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD, PLEASE STATE WHETHER THE INCOME FOR YOUR HOUSEHOLD WAS BELOW THE SPECIFIED RANGE DURING THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS. NUMBER OFPERSONSIN HOUSEHOLD INCOME RANGE WASYOURINCOME BELOW THIS RANGE 1 $ 0.00 TO $ 26,400 Yes No 2 $0.00 TO $30,150 Yes No- 3 $0.00 TO $33,900 Yes-- No- 4 $ 0.00 TO $ 37,700 Yes -- No -- 5 $ 0.00 TO $ 40,700 Yes No -- 6 $ 0.00 TO $ 43,700 Yes No-- 7 $ 0.00 TO $ 46,700 Yes No 8 $ 0.00 TO $ 49,750 Yes No -- Please Indicate how many people in each of the following categories reside in the household. Some household members may need to be counted in more than one category. American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander Black, Non-Hispanic Elderly (60+) Female Head of Household Handicapped.__ Hispanic__ White, Non-Hispanic Hasidic Jew The above information is required by the federal government solely to monitor compliance with equal opportunity employment laws and will not be used for other purposes. Should a job applicant decline to disclose the above information, the employer is required to note race and sex based on visual observation or surname. I affirm that the information stated on this form is true and accurately reflects the composition and income data of the household in which I reside. JOB APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE CDBG-E-'I0 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION THAT MUST BE SUBMI/H-D WiTH THE APPLICATION PARTICIPATING PARTY(S) CURRENT EMPLOYEE INFORMATION NAME OF Participating Party I 2 3 4 5* JOB TITLE OF HOURLY TOTAL FTE TOTAL F'rE TOTAL ANNUAL TOTAL ANNUAL RETAINED JOB PAY RATE JOBS TO BE JOBS TO BE PAYROLL PAYROLL FOR OR RETAINED RETAINED FOR THIS JOB JOBS HELD BY ANNUAL BY LMI TITLE LMI PERSONS PAY RATES PERSONS TOTALS ~ * Columns 5-6 do not have to be completed unless job retention Fs being used as a method of meeting a national objective. Ii CDBG-E-10 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION THAT MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION PARTICIPATING PARTY(S) PROPOSED NEW JOB CREATION INFORMATION NAME OF Pa~cipating Pa~y 1 2 3 4 5 JOB TITLE OF HOURLy TOTAL FTE TOTAL FTE TOTAL TOTAL ANNUAL PROPOSED CREATED JOB PAY R~TE JOBS TO JOBS TO BE ANNUAL PAYROLL FOR HIRING DATE OR ANNUAL BE CREATED PAYROLL JOBSTOBE MONTHFt'EAR PAY RATES CREATED FOR I. MI FOR THIS JOB CREATED FOR PERSONS TITLE LMI PERSONS