What the Heck is a Brownfield?

So here is the legal definition of a Brownfield:

With certain legal exclusions and additions, the term "brownfield site" means real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. [as defined in Public Law 107-118 (H.R. 2869) - "Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act" signed into law January 11, 2002]

Throughout the inner cores of cities in the US there are pieces of property that are lying vacant because they at one time had a gas station, a manufacturing facility or some other type of hazardous use performed on them.  Now that the New Urbanists are singing the praises of inner city living, more and more people are looking for places to live.  Unfortunately there's only so many housing units, but there is property that can be developed for housing if it can be cleaned up first, the brownfield.


The Environmental Protection Agency has a program that encourages the cleanup and reuse of brownfields.
The EPA

provides direct funding for brownfields assessment, cleanup, revolving loans, and environmental job training. To facilitate the leveraging of public resources, EPA's Brownfields Program collaborates with other EPA programs, other federal partners, and state agencies to identify and make available resources that can be used for brownfields activities. In addition to direct brownfields funding, EPA also provides technical information on brownfields financing matters.

Funding and grants are provided for anything from coming up with an area wide assessment, to cleanup money, to job training grants.  They also have links to other federal agencies and private groups that offer grants and assisstance.  There is even a National Brownfield Association, a non-profit dedicated to sustainable development of previously undevelopable land.

Some successful brownfield developments are a Senior Citizen housing facility in Houston and and the Evans Avenue redevelopment project in  Fort Worth.  San Antonio's most well known brownfield redevelopment project is the old Alamo Cement Factory at Basse and Hwy 281, now the Quarry Market.  Even part of the San Antonio BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) plan includes the Fort Sam Houston sustainable neighborhood revitalization plan

One way to preserve valuable landscapes while accommodating a growing population is
to redevelop previously used urban lands, sometimes known as "brownfields."
Even with the expense of environmental clean-up, a recycled parcel is often less
expensive to develop than new land, because it is already serviced by roads, utilities,
and other infrastructure. Brownfield development also relieves some pressure to
develop farms and other open space.

In San Antonio, Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones (TIRZ) are used to faciliate brownfield redevelopment. 

The City uses TIF in areas where little to no private sector investment is currently taking place, and where redevelopment would not occur solely through private investment in the reasonably foreseeable future.

TIF allows future ad valorem and sales tax revenue to pay for the construction of public infrastructure improvements.

By leveraging private investment for certain types of development within a targeted area, TIF can be used to finance new and/or enhanced public improvements and infrastructure. These improvements and infrastructure, in turn, attract additional private investment in surrounding areas.

If you are interested in brownfield redevelopment contact the City of San Antonio Housing and Neighborhood Services Department's TIF Unit.

Bexar County borders

Here's a fun fact from the San Antonio Remembers blog

January 5 in San Antonio history...

1837

Bexar County is created by order of the Republic of Texas Congress. It was originally much, much larger. By 1850, it went all the way to the panhandle! 128 Texas counties have been created from Bexar County.

City County Merger? Would it Make Sense?

Lyle Larson, State Representative Elect, R-San Antonio, is proposing a consolidation of city and county government functions.  This is not a new idea, The late State Senator Frank Madla was a proponent of consolidation, but always faced huge opposition. 

So why consolidate?

According to the Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington

The proponents of consolidation argue that fewer and larger local governments will be more efficient and effective than many small governments.  Costs can be held down and perhaps reduced through the elimination of duplicative services, personnel, and equipment. Larger governments may also be able to take advantage of “economies of scale” or lower per-unit costs for government services. Further, a single unified government will be better able to coordinate policies and decisions for activities, such as regional planning and economic development, than several independent governments.

The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Policy Research Institute did a study that looked at consolidations in seven metro areas in order to determine if consolidation would work for Milwaukee.

Each consolidation is different.

• In Nashville-Davidson County, Tennessee, the governments are completely merged, except for a few smaller municipalities within the county that remained separate.  However there are two taxing districts, one for the urban areas and one for the less populated areas and services are divided accordingly.  
• The Jacksonville-Duval County, Florida governments are partially merged with several independent authorities and boards, such as the Electric Authority and the Public Beaches Hospital Board.  
• Indianapolis-Marion County, Indiana, has multiple tiers and layers, with some services consolidated and some run independently by the county or the city. 
• Lexington-Fayette County, Kentucky has a true consolidation of all city and county services, and all services are provided for all citizens across the county.  
• In Louisville-Jefferson County, Kentucky, the Board of Aldermen and the County Fiscal Court were replaced by a Mayor-Council form of government, but 85 incorporated cities (22% of the county population) within the county remain independent.  Also some county officials still maintain their offices, such as the sheriff and the county attorney.  
• Miami-Dade County, Florida is not a formal consolidation, but more of a federation, although the governments are independent of each other, they are closely linked.  The merger links activities such as transportation, airport facilities, and sewer and water facilities while leaving policing and fire protection up to individual municipalities.  
• Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, which is more similar to San Antonio in that it was not in crisis, like several of the other cities that consolidated, and the idea had been batted around for several years before it was implemented.  The city and county governments still exist but they are highly linked in service functions, with like services merged, such as Public Works. 

But does Consolidation truly promote efficiency?? According to Chris Pineda of the Government Innovators Network at the Harvard Kennedy School

In theory, consolidation should produce economies of scale which allows cost savings to be achieved – average costs are reduced when spread out over a wider set of users. The reality is that this may not always occur—but why? Why do city-county consolidations not always produce cost savings and, in some case, actually lead to higher costs? To help local and state officials grappling with this issue, we have summarized recent literature on the causes of diseconomies of scale in city-county consolidations and listed useful online resources.

What Causes Diseconomies of Scale in a City-County Consolidation?

• Labor intensive services. Consolidated city services that are labor intensive and require replication from one neighborhood to the next cannot always achieve economies of scale and may in fact result in diseconomies of scale. Labor intensive services can include: police, general fire protection, public works, and parks and recreation services. [based on studies by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington]

• Bureaucracy growth. According to some economists, diseconomies of scale in consolidated local governments occur because bureaucrats and politicians become removed from day-to-day contact with residents. When these officials are “out-of-touch” with citizen concerns, there may be no incentive to cut costs, or to stop increased spending. [based on a study by the Cato Institute]

• Merging personnel-related costs. In city-county consolidations, personnel-related costs may actually rise as two pre-existing personnel systems and benefits packages merge. One explanation is that the wages and benefits of employees are equalized to the highest level of comparable employees. Similarly, existing employees may have job security as part of the merge agreement. [based on a study of Athens-Clarke County by Campbell and Selden, University of Georgia]

• Merging service quality costs. When pre-existing delivery systems are merged in a city-county consolidation, an “averaging up” effect may occur with service levels and standards for equipment and facilities. These increased service quality costs then become ongoing expenditures. [Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington]                                                                                                              

• One-time transition costs. Consolidating city services may require one-time operating and capital expenses that can quickly add up. One-time transition costs can include: merging and upgrading computer systems and consulting fees to resolve conflicting rules and regulations. [Campbell and Selden, University of Georgia]

But it would still be nice to make our local governments more efficient, so here are some alternatives, proposed by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, study that could work for San Antonio.

• Increased Citizen Responsibility for Themselves and Others
• Functional Consolidation Among Governments
• Efficiency Gains Within City and County Government
• Regional Government
• Regional Cooperation On Selected Services

Increased Citizen Responsibility, basically means we act in a volunteer capacity to improve our neighborhoods, for example, through neighborhood watches and/or organizations.  Functional Consolidations could include mergers of police and sheriff departments, public works and procurement (to name a few).  Efficiency gains would include internal audits of government agencies to find ways to lower costs.  A regional government, that say included all the counties that contain the Edwards Aquifer and recharge zone, could more easily implement environmental and water policies.  Regional cooperation however may be more palitable, leaving local authority for local issues, while addressing regional issues in a more coordinated manor.  We could even implement more than one of these recommendations, such as more citizen involvement, greater efficiency within government, some functional mergers and regional cooperation. 

I'm all for efficiency in government, but before we rush off into something, we need to take a closer look.

Banning the Bag

Brownsville will soon be the first city in Texas to ban retail stores from using single-use plastic bags.  It's interesting that Brownsville, a medium sized border town, and not known for its environmental stance, is the first city to ban the bag, I would of thought it would be Austin, the hip, environmentally concious, capitol of Texas.

Texas Budget: Opt out of Medicaid??

Right now Texas legislators are looking at all sorts of ways to reduce the Texas budget.   One option being batted about is opting out of Medicaid, but opponents say this is too costly and could lead to no health services for the poor.  So what is really going on here?

According to the Fiscal Size Up
the Total Health and Human Services budget for the 2010-2011 biennium is $59.747 billion, $33.832 billion
of which comes from the federal government.  According to the LBB

The $4.4 billion increase [between 2008-09 and 2010-11] for Health and Human Services is primarily due to increased funding for the state’s Medicaid program.

Federal Funds are the largest source of funding for the HHS function. Many federal funding streams require General Revenue Fund (or other state fund) expenditures to draw down Federal Funds. State contributions can be a match, wherein General Revenue Funds comprise a set percentage of total expenditures, or a maintenance of effort, wherein the state expends a set dollar amount that is tied to previous expenditures.

The 2010–11 GAA establishes the following average monthly service levels for fiscal year 2011:
• health insurance for almost 3.2 million Medicaid recipients (including 2.2 million children);
• health insurance for more than 500,000 Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) enrollees;
• cash grants to approximately 100,000 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) clients;
• adoption subsidies for over 30,000 children; and
• foster care payments for nearly 15,000 children per month.
Eligibility for many of these programs is based on income in relation to the federal poverty level (FPL)

When Politifact looked at Rick Perry's claim that the 

federal health care overhaul will cost Texas state government "upwards of $30 billion over the next 10 years."

they found that

An essential fact underlying all these figures: Health care reform becomes more expensive for the state as time goes on. Among the factors driving up costs down the line is the federal government's declining contribution for Medicaid. During the first three years of the Medicaid expansion (2014-2016), the feds pay all the cost of newly eligible enrollees. Starting in 2017, that federal share starts to drop, reaching 90 percent by 2020.

Another essential fact: So far, we've only mentioned the cost of health care reform to the Health and Human Services Commission. A June report by State Comptroller Susan Combs enumerates other costs — as well as some financial benefits — to the state as a whole, although it doesn't offer a net figure. (The comptroller's report also uses a different time period than the commission's, focusing on the 10 years from 2010 through 2019.)

For instance, on the expense side of the ledger is the mandated expansion of health plans administered by the Employees Retirement System of Texas, the University of Texas System and the Texas A&M University System.

One of the pluses: The comptroller's office estimates that the state will receive $1.3 billion in new revenue from a tax on premiums charged by insurers and health maintenance organizations licensed by the Texas Department of Insurance.

As for the projected increase in Medicaid costs, the comptroller's report jibes with the health commission's estimates. But it also tabulates the hefty federal contribution. For every dollar the state spends on new Medicaid enrollees through 2019, the federal government will spend $13, according to the figures in the report. The total federal contribution: $76 billion.

So Perry's claim was considered barely true because he exaggerated the state's contribution ($27 billion instead of $30 billion) and claimed that the costs would start immediately, when they actually don't start until 2014.  But Texas still has a $21 billion budget shortfall so one of the biggest state expenses, Medicaid, has to be looked at to find ways to lower the costs.

The Heritage foundation, a conservative think tank, has done a study bemoaning the burden of Medicaid on state budgets.

Unfortunately, states have lost considerable flexibility to reduce Medicaid’s burden on their budgets. As a condition for receiving the additional federal dollars, both the stimulus bill and PPACA [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act] contain maintenance-of-effort (MOE) provisions that prohibit states from changing eligibility levels. States have resorted to slashing provider reimbursement rates and benefit packages to cope with rising Medicaid expenses and reduced revenue attributed to the recession. Forty-one states and the District of Columbia cut provider reimbursement rates in 2009 or 2010, and 29 states and the District did so in both years. Additionally, 39 states and the District cut Medicaid pharmacy benefits, and 22 states cut Medicaid medical benefits over the past two years.

 In the short term, however, the best solution is to remove the MOE requirements and give the states greater flexibility to manage the cost of their programs. 

So how would you remove the MOE requirements?  Opt out of Medicaid, it's a voluntary program. Here is a proposition by the Heritage Foundation for fixing the part of the problem, not enough doctors to treat Medicaid patients.

A Better Policy.
There is a better way. Rather than expand the funding for HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration], Congress should convert the various training-related (and perhaps other) programs funded by this agency into block grants to the states. This would enable states to build upon their critical roles in the oversight of the health care workforce and encourage them to craft solutions relevant to their unique requirements. When the Reagan Administration collapsed the separate mental health service programs supported by the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration into block grants to the states, the clinical care system that emerged was able to “bend” the cost curve while offering more choice to patients and families through a more diverse workforce and other innovative strategies.[5] By virtue of the breadth of their oversight, states are in the best position to define the needs and develop the models for the future workforce across the health professions.

 But do these block grants exist already?? The CHIP program is covered by block grants.  So what's the difference in the way Medicaid is currently funded and the way block grants work

Source:  Kaiser Family Foundation 

So Medicaid would continue with block grants, but rolls would probably not be allowed to increase.  At a time when the Texas population is expanding twice as fast as the entire US this might become a problem.  According to Rick Perry everyone has access to health care in Texas.  Here's Politfact's analysis

Everyone? Even people without health insurance?

When we asked for back-up for Perry's statement, his campaign didn't offer any data or additional analysis.

Next, we looked at hospital emergency rooms, often the portal through which uninsured people seek treatment.

Some background: In 1986, Congress responded to concerns that emergency rooms were refusing to treat indigent and uninsured people — a practice known as patient dumping — by approving the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. The act requires all hospitals with emergency rooms that participate in the Medicare program to medically screen, treat and stabilize any patient (including illegal immigrants) who shows up with an emergency medical condition. The law doesn't require hospitals to offer preventive or follow-up care.
However, not every condition that merits treatment is an emergency, and not every town has an emergency room. In Texas, 64 of the state's 254 counties don't have a hospital because it isn't economically viable, "particularly in the Panhandle and West Texas," said Amanda Engler, spokeswoman for the Texas Hospital Association. Still, Engler said "everyone should be able to access some level of care through the community."

A national health care expert, Henry Aaron at the left-leaning Brookings Institution, echoed Engler, saying that "everyone has access to some health care. The issue is what care and how much of it... If you live in a place where few physicians practice and you don't have a car, you may not get much."

Also the health care provided by emergency rooms tends to be a lot more expensive than visits to the doctor. Us tax payers will bear the burden whether the care is received through Medicaid or the emergency room at the county hospital.  I'm not convinced that going to block grants would be the end of health care for the needy, but at the same time it seems that it would definitely limit our options and could be more costly in the end if the poor spend most of our health care dollars in the emergency room.

Texas Grows, but what about the budget?

Some preliminary population numbers are out from the Census Bureau and Texas has grown twice as fast as the rest of the nation.   This is good news if you want to be a Congressman.  Texas will get 4 new congressional districts.  But it also means the Texas budget has to grow to keep up.  Funding sources for the Texas budget have not grown and that's why Texas legislators face a big budget deficit in 2011.  There are two ways to deal with the deficit, raise taxes (ain't gonna happen) or cut spending.  In my next post about the Texas budget I'm going to talk about options for Medicaid, the second largest portion of the Texas budget. 

Will California Lead to Way to Cap and Trade?

California regulators just passed a new plan for a cap and trade market place to give monetary incentives to big polluters to clean up their act.  When I first read the article I was wondering, where are they going to get the money to do this.  Apparently the plan is to get the polluters to pay for it, first by getting permits to pollute and then when some are greener, selling their carbon permits to other companies that pollute more.  The regulators even claim polluters could make money, it would be a carbon emissions stock market. 

Of course it has its detractors, companies who say it will raise electricity prices because some of the biggest polluters are coal plants, and others who are worried the system can be cheated and not really lower pollution at all.  I guess we'll have to see.  It will certainly be a good test case to see if this kind of system can actually work.  Most innovative ideas come from states and if they become popular, then they are adopted by the Federal Government.