Interning at Governor Rendell’s Office of Policy and Planning Melissa Carn, 2010

Analyses of House and Senate Bills HB 42 PN 265 Freeman etc. Background: DCED currently funds historic building façade improvements under the Main and Elm Street programs. However, the funding is limited to designated streets and restricted by budget appropriations each year. Only communities out of 2,565 receive funding annually through the program. HB 42 is the reintroduction of HB 221 of 2007, which passed in the House but was not brought before the full Senate to be voted upon due to time constraints the same year. Funds for exterior improvements will help fight blight in older, historic communities, and improve community and economic revitalization. Bill: This bill would create a Historic Preservation Incentive Grant Program to provide reimbursement grants to individuals and businesses for the exterior renovation of historic residential properties. DCED and PHMC will administer the Program jointly. PHMC will review applicants and DCED would process individual grants. 3% of the requested funds (no more than $500,000) will cover the administration cost of the Program. Residential properties must be listed on the National Register of Historic Places or be a contributing property in a local government historic or National Register historic district. The applicant must own or agree to own the property for at least five years. Eligible commercial applicants would receive tax credits for renovations as well. Priority will be given to properties in Main or Elm Street districts, enterprise zones, and local government historic districts. A commercial applicant can receive a tax credit of up to 25% of expenditures (no more than $500,000 per property.) DCED will spend no more than $10,000,000 on commercial properties. A commercial applicant will carry unused funds over to the next year. Properties may be sold.

DCED may cancel a commercial grant if within five years of the completion of the project if the property is removed from the National Register or the owner makes new improvements to the exterior that do not meet standards. The bill requests funds from the Environmental Stewardship Fund that would normally be transferred to PENNVEST to be transferred to the General Fund for this program. There should have no fiscal impact, and will only have an impact if administrative costs rise above the proposed 3%. Agency Positions: Historic preservation groups and the Main Street and Elm Street organizations approve this program. Budget: Oppose (already transfers to the General Fund up to $10,000,000 from General Environmental Stewardship Fund money allocated by PENNVEST. The original funding mechanism for this program was included in Act 45 of Growing Greener II.) OGC: Neutral (uniformity concerns) DCED: Supports with amendments: DCED recommends minor amendments to the language of the bill to maximize operational efficacy, including incorporating the Main or Elm Street program in the program, and clarifying DCED contract requirements. DCED recommends language be amended to allow a Main or Elm Street program or organization for historic preservation be eligible for funding under this program to assist in the administration of the program. DCED also recommends the term “Eligible Commercial Property” be defined in the bill. DCED would hire up to four additional members to process applications. However, if DCED’s recommended amendments are adopted, only two additional staff would be needed, as the Main or Elm Street programs and local historic preservation organizations could handle more duties.

Other Projects Example: SB 850 Budget Cuts SB 850 Cuts Pennsylvania State Police Department Monetary Impact Overall funding cut by $84 million; officer and trooper layoffs; cuts will deprive officers of necessary tools and technology to track and catch criminals; will take longer to process background checks$25 million of the cut is from the purchase and maintenance of technology and specialized computer systems; $22.8 million cut from Commonwealth Technology Services which supports the PA Justice Network; $3.1 million from the State Police Law Enforcement Information Technology line, which supports the entire criminal history system, the PA Instant Gun Check System, the Commonwealth Law Enforcement Agency Network, and the Megan’s Law list of sex offenders. Agency Impact Estimated 800 State Trooper layoffs; amount of federal COPS grant funding available to PSP decreased (grant money is typically used to hire new cadets and pay Trooper salaries) PSP technology and computer systems are imperative for keeping PSP one step ahead of criminals, tracking registered sex offenders, and possessing constant access to criminal information. Overall Community Impact 1,720 communities (2/3 of all PA’s communities) will face decreased service; PA communities will be more dangerous, cities less safe, and police officers more at risk of injury or death; estimated 13,000 fewer criminal arrests and nearly 3,000 fewer arrests for DUI each year; information for communities about sex offenders in the area may be unavailableHigher instances of crime in communities; more traffic violations left unchecked as there will be less of a PSP presence; citizens unaware of sex offenders living in their neighborhoods; longer waiting periods for background checks for jobs, volunteer work, and purchasing hunting weapons; false arrests (funds for PennDOT photo archive may be cut). SummaryWill hurt PA communities; 800 State Troopers jobless with no chance of re-hire; PSP eligible for less federal funding (which cannot be used to re-hire laid-off Troopers)Decreased funds and decreased technology will lead to increased crime

Meetings, Shadowing, Press Conferences, Special Events

Learning How Legislation Passes Watching the House and Senate in Action Senate Gallery House Gallery

Budget Controversy

Meeting the Governor < Ginger Rendell