AgdaPkt 2007-06-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8A Page 3 o $5 billion in FY 2010 and 2011 o $6 billion in FY 2012 Key Benefits of EEBG . Significant Energy Savings in the New Building Sector: The updating and revision of building codes within cities and counties will result in significant increases in energy efficiency . Energy Audits and Retrofits for Existing Buildings: Existing buildings utilize significantly less- efficient energy technology, accounting for the majority of energy consumed by building sectors. Local energy audits to identify cost-efficient retrofits in the public. residential and business sectors would increase energy efficiency . Community-based Transportation Programs: President Bush has asked the public to reduce gasoline consumption by 10 percent. Cities and counties are well-positioned to launch programs that encourage activities such as car pooling. increased transit readership. flex- time by employers. and other initiatives to reduce vehicle miles traveled . Promotion of Alternative Energy Technologies: Cities and communities are laboratories for new energy technologies that can serve as models prior to public use. Cities can expedite the acceptance of new and innovative technologies resulting in significant energy . Design for Energy Efficient Communities: Cities can increase energy efficiency through transit-oriented and mixed-use development; alternative transportation use; pedestrian- oriented communities; and other design approaches that encourage fewer vehicle miles traveled Where the Legislation Stands H.R. 2447 has been referred to both the House committee on Energy and Commerce and also the Committee on Science and Technology. For more information on H.R. 2447, contact League legislative Analyst Genevieve Morelos at Qmorelos@cacities.orQ. 'Inflll Funds In Prop. iC' Continued from Page 1... Both SB 1053 and SB 46 contemplate a combination of basic threshold criteria (such as having a certified housing element. general plan consistency, and a basic percentage of affordable housing) and optional preferences (number of units of housing created. increased affordability levels, proximity to mass transit, consistency with reduction in greenhouse gases). How the Bills Differ The major difference between these bills is how the funds will be allocated and who will be eligible to receive the funding. AB 1053 divides the funds into fIVe separate pots: . $450 million for infill related to housing administered by the California Oepartment of Housing and Community Oevelopment (HCO) . $100 million to the state Infrastructure Bank for (nfill infrastructure . $100 million for the California ReUse (Brownfield) Program . $100 million for a Workforce Housing Reward Program to reward smart growth projects · $100 million to the Multifamily Housing Program for infi" affordable housing projects SB 46, on the other hand, allocates the entire fund to one program administered by HCO for infrastructure and housing. Another difference between the two measures is whether the $850 million should be used solely for infrastructure projects related to housing or for actual housing projects. SB 46 allows nonprofit and for-profit developers to compete with cities, counties and redevelopment agencies for the funds and to use the money directly for housing projects. AB 1053, however, allocates $100 million directly to the Multifamily Housing Program, but reserves the remaining $750 million in competitive loans and grants for local agencies. Another significant difference is how the two bills intend to leverage other funds. AB 1053 specifically seeks to leverage additional matching funds to increase the funding availability for 3