About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 [1] (February 14, 2018)

handle is hein.crs/crsmthzzaag0001 and id is 1 raw text is: CRS INSIGHT Administration's Infrastructure Program Emphasizes New Nonfederal Revenue February 14, 2018 (IN10859) Related Author • WilliamJ Malltt William J. Mallett, Specialist in Transportation Policy (wmll r IQ , 7-2216) The Trump Administration's legislative onlinc for infrastructure, released on February 12, 2018, proposes a new Infrastructure Incentives Program to make grants to state and local governments. This would be the largest single piece of the Administration plan in terms of dedicated federal funding, with an allotment of half of the $200 billion the Administration proposes to spend on infrastructure over 10 years. The grants could be used for transportation, water resources, drinking water, and wastewater, as well as for cleanup of Superfund sites. This Insight focuses on the potential of the program for projects submitted to the Department of Transportation (DOT), one of the agencies that would be charged with administering the program in addition to the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency. The proposal does not break out the funds that would be directed to specific agencies or types of infrastructure. The Infrastructure Incentives Program would depart from previous federal grant programs for infrastructure in two important ways. First, project sponsors would have to prove that they will generate new nonfederal revenue to build and maintain the project. Applications for funding would be evaluated by a set of criteria laid out in the proposal. Of these, the most important, accounting for half the total score, would be the creation of new, nonfederal revenue for capital investments. The second most important criterion, weighted at 20%, is the creation of nonfederal revenue sources to pay for operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation over the life of the project. Other factors, such as project cost (10%), innovative approaches to procurement, project delivery, and operations (10%), use of new technologies (5%), and economic and social returns on investment (5%), would matter much less in the government's