[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PERSPECTIVES ON THE LIVABLE
COMMUNITIES ACT OF 2010
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 23, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services
Serial No. 111-157
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
62-682 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
MAXINE WATERS, California MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York PETER T. KING, New York
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina RON PAUL, Texas
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
BRAD SHERMAN, California WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York Carolina
DENNIS MOORE, Kansas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts GARY G. MILLER, California
RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri Virginia
CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York JEB HENSARLING, Texas
JOE BACA, California SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
AL GREEN, Texas TOM PRICE, Georgia
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois JOHN CAMPBELL, California
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin ADAM PUTNAM, Florida
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
RON KLEIN, Florida THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio KEVIN McCARTHY, California
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado BILL POSEY, Florida
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana LYNN JENKINS, Kansas
BILL FOSTER, Illinois CHRISTOPHER LEE, New York
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota
JACKIE SPEIER, California LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey
TRAVIS CHILDERS, Mississippi
WALT MINNICK, Idaho
JOHN ADLER, New Jersey
MARY JO KILROY, Ohio
STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio
SUZANNE KOSMAS, Florida
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
JIM HIMES, Connecticut
GARY PETERS, Michigan
DAN MAFFEI, New York
Jeanne M. Roslanowick, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on:
September 23, 2010........................................... 1
Appendix:
September 23, 2010........................................... 21
WITNESSES
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Abariotes, Andriana, Executive Director, Twin Cities Local
Initiative Support Corporation (LISC).......................... 10
Blumenauer, Hon. Earl, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon................................................ 1
Gouge, Julia W., President, Board of County Commissioners,
Carroll County, Maryland....................................... 12
Knight, Bruce A., Planning Director, City of Champaign, Illinois,
and President, American Planning Association (APA)............. 14
Murphy, Hon. Bob, Mayor, City of Lakewood, Colorado.............. 8
Sires, Hon. Albio, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New Jersey..................................................... 3
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Sires, Hon. Albio............................................ 22
Abariotes, Andriana.......................................... 24
Gouge, Julia W............................................... 30
Knight, Bruce A.............................................. 39
Murphy, Hon. Bob............................................. 51
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Waters, Hon. Maxine:
Written statement of the National Association of Home
Builders (NAHB)............................................ 54
Perlmutter, Hon. Ed:
Written statement of the National Center for Healthy Housing. 58
Gouge, Julia W.:
Additional information submitted for the record.............. 61
Written responses to questions submitted by Representative
Miller..................................................... 62
PERSPECTIVES ON THE LIVABLE
COMMUNITIES ACT OF 2010
----------
Thursday, September 23, 2010
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Perlmutter
presiding.
Members present: Representatives Moore of Kansas, Green,
Perlmutter; Capito, Hensarling, Jenkins, Paulsen, and Lance.
Mr. Perlmutter. [presiding] This hearing of the Committee
on Financial Services will come to order.
Without objection, all members' opening statements will be
made a part of the record.
Mrs. Capito and I have just discussed how we want to
proceed, because we have a number of votes coming up on the
Floor. What we would like to do is have our first panel--Mr.
Blumenauer and Mr. Sires--make their statements for the record.
Then Mrs. Capito and I, if there is time before the votes are
called, will make our opening statements.
Then I think we will have to take a break for the Floor
votes that we have, and I apologize to everybody who is in
attendance, because there will be about six of them, so it will
take some time. Then, we will reconvene for the testimony of
the second panel.
So, with that, without objection, your written statements
will be made a part of the record. You will each be recognized
for a 5-minute summary of your testimony.
Congressman Blumenauer, if you would proceed.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Mrs.
Capito. I appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of
H.R. 4690, the Livable Communities Act. I appreciate the
attention your committee is giving this critical issue and I
look forward to working with committee members to move the
legislation as quickly as possible.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your particular work in
introducing this legislation, which will improve the quality of
life for communities large and small across the country.
I have done a lot of work over the years on livable
communities, working with urban, suburban, and rural
communities in all parts of the United States, and I have found
that these issues are generally widely accepted as being vital
for American families, for where those families live, how they
get around, whether their children can walk or bicycle to
school safely, whether older members of a family can continue
not just to live, but to thrive in their neighborhoods.
These communities seek not just assistance and resources
from the Federal Government on these issues, but in many cases,
they would actually like the Federal Government to maybe get
out of the way a little bit and let them move forward.
This legislation will help on both counts. The Livable
Communities Act establishes a grant program to help communities
develop comprehensive plans that coordinate land use, housing,
transportation, and infrastructure planning so that they can
grow the way they want to grow. It does not dictate any
specific plan, or tell communities how to plan, but it does
provide important resources and a framework.
Communities need funding, research, and sometimes they need
ideas. The one Federal program that currently offers some of
these services, EPA's Office of Sustainable Communities, is
constantly oversubscribed. Each year, this program receives
more than 100 requests for technical assistance, but it can
only meet about 5 percent of them.
In addition to providing resources and technical
assistance, the Livable Communities Act establishes an
Interagency Council on Sustainable Communities to formulate
this Administration's effort to bring HUD, DOT, and EPA
together to work on behalf of communities. For too long, these
agencies have been working sometimes at cross purposes, sending
mixed signals, and, in too many cases, issuing rules and
regulations that prevent integration of housing,
transportation, and land use planning. Codifying sustainable
community partnerships will help the Federal Government to be a
better partner on community livability and ensure a more
efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
It must be stressed that these programs and the assistance
in the bill are entirely voluntary and flexible enough so that
communities of all shapes and sizes can take advantage of them.
I am impressed that it is supported by a broad collection of
stakeholders, from the American Association of Retired People,
to the American Public Health Association, to the Realtors, to
the National Association of Counties.
As the bill moves through committee, I would encourage you,
however, to consider one small addition to the bill that will
make it even more effective in improving community livability.
I have introduced legislation, H.R. 5824, to provide home
buyers and policymakers with information about the costs
associated with the location of a home.
The average American family spends over half its income on
transportation and housing costs. For some, the cost of
transportation is even greater than housing.
As people move further from their jobs, and community
development patterns require communities to drive for most of
their outings, this has a powerful impact on how families spend
their money.
Living in a neighborhood closer to work, school, stores,
and other services can significantly reduce the amount that
families have to spend on transportation. However,
transportation costs and savings are not currently taken into
account in government affordability measures and standards, and
information is not generally available to consumers looking to
purchase or rent homes.
This legislation could easily be incorporated into your
Act. It would require HUD to develop a transportation
affordability index to measure and disclose the transportation
costs associated with the location of a home and make that
information available to consumers and local governments.
Using this information, consumers will be better able to
price the trade-offs between housing and transportation costs
and to measure potential savings associated with living closer
to work, school, shopping, and transit.
It will also make the cost of housing transparent for
policymakers. Low-income communities can use this information
to assist low-income families to live in areas with access to
transit and services. This legislation is supported by a
growing number of organizations including the Realtors,
Reconnecting America, the National Housing Trust, and the
National Low Income Housing Coalition.
I would also like to support the efforts on behalf of my
friend, Mr. Sires, the leader on livability for the State of
New Jersey, in his legislation that he is about to reference,
which I am proud to cosponsor.
Finally, I would like to offer support for the proposal by
the Association of State Floodplain Managers that would
incorporate hazard risk reduction and resilience into the
efforts to promote community sustainability. This committee has
been working for far too long dealing with the consequences of
the failure to do this as you deal with a seriously flawed
flood insurance program.
I think these would be valuable additions. Thank you for
your courtesy. I look forward to working with you on this
legislation.
Mr. Perlmutter. We thank the gentleman.
Now, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sires.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ALBIO SIRES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mrs. Capito. Thank
you very much. I want to thank Chairman Frank and Ranking
Member Bachus for holding this important hearing and my
esteemed colleague's, Congressman Ed Perlmutter's legislation,
H.R. 4690, the Livable Communities Act of 2010. As a former
member of this committee, I appreciate the opportunity to sit
down before you today.
I also would like to thank Congressman Blumenauer for his
testimony. I am a proud cosponsor of his legislation, H.R.
5824, the Transportation and Housing Affordability Transparency
Act, also called THAT Act, and I am eager to see this
legislation move forward through this legislative process.
There is a great need for livable communities legislation,
and I applaud Congressman Perlmutter for introducing the
Livable Communities Act and leading efforts here in the House.
The Livable Communities Act represents an important tool to
improve communication and coordination between Federal
agencies. Specifically, this bill will create the Interagency
Council of Sustainable Communities to bring agencies such as
the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department
of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and
other agencies to the same table.
Additionally, the Office of Sustainable Housing and
Communities would be established to administer the Department
of Housing and Urban Development's sustainability initiatives.
Lastly, the Livable Communities Act will administer two
grants program, the Challenge Grant Program and the
Comprehensive Planning Grant Program, both of which partner
with local communities. These competitive grants would allow
communities to integrate sustainable development projects and
incorporate public transportation and affordable housing.
I also would like to take this opportunity to discuss my
legislation, H.R. 3734, the Urban Revitalization and Livable
Communities Act. Some of you may be familiar with this bill,
since 21 cosponsors of the 131 total cosponsors sit on this
committee. I thank all of those members for their support.
As a former mayor, I know firsthand the benefits that parks
bring to communities. During my three terms as mayor, I
revitalized all the parks in West Newark, New Jersey, and saw
our community benefit economically, environmentally, and
socially. As a result, I introduced legislation to create four
Federal grants programs to urban parks and recreation agencies
that must be matched by local funds.
There are four major grant programs with H.R. 3734. First,
rehabilitation grants would be used for the purposes of
remodeling and rebuilding recreation areas and facilities.
Second, innovation grants would be used to cover costs of
personnel, facilities, and equipment designed to demonstrate
innovative and cost-effective recreation opportunities.
Third, at-risk youth recreation grants would be either for
new programs or continuing program support for existing
programs that provide alternatives to at-risk youth.
Lastly, there are recovery action program grants which will
be used for the development of local parks and recreation
programs, including citizens involvement and planning.
Research shows that healthy and vibrant urban areas play
key roles in improving the economy, health, and quality of life
of our communities. Urban parks and recreation centers are
instrumental in helping our Nation achieve important national
goals, such as increasing exercise and improving health.
The statistics speak for themselves. Our Nation's obesity
rate is rising. Over the last 25 years, obesity among youth
between ages 12 and 19 has tripled. Nearly one-third of
Americans live in neighborhoods without sidewalks, and less
than half of our country's children have a playground within
walking distance of their homes.
My legislation will ultimately create economic benefits
through job creation, environmental benefits through
improvement of green spaces, and health benefits by creating
opportunities for Americans to become more active.
In addition to having 131 cosponsors, I have the support of
30 diverse organizations, including the National Recreation and
Parks Association, the American Society of Landscapers and
Architects, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the
United States Soccer Foundation.
Both Congressman Perlmutter's bill and my Livable
Communities bill and Revitalization Act share the common thread
of using grant programs to stimulate and create healthy,
livable communities. The Livable Community Act is a bill that
will benefit our local communities in our Nation by assisting
local efforts to make affordable places to live and work.
Just last month, the Senate marked up the Livable
Communities Act, and I am looking forward to Congressman
Perlmutter's version moving forward as well. I believe that my
legislation complements the Livable Communities Act, and I look
forward to working with this committee in the future.
I applaud this committee's work on this important issue,
and I thank you again for allowing me to testify. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Representative Sires can be
found on page 22 of the appendix.]
Mr. Perlmutter. I thank the gentleman. You were right on 5
minutes, so congratulations.
Any questions for either of these gentleman?
Thank you.
What we will do is yield 3 minutes to Mrs. Capito for her
opening statement. You two can head to the Floor, if you like.
We have about 6 minutes until the clock is closed. Then we will
take a break, unless the gentleman from Kansas has an opening
statement he would like to make before the votes?
Mr. Moore of Kansas. No, I would rather wait.
Mr. Perlmutter. I yield 3 minutes to Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank my fellow
members, too, for their testimony.
Thank you for holding the hearing today on promoting
livable communities and smart growth in this legislation
introduced by Congressman Perlmutter.
I certainly support the goal of promoting livable
communities and smart growth by coordinating services,
transportation, educational opportunities, and affordable
housing. I can't tell you how many initiatives we have had
before this committee over the last several years, particularly
in the housing area, to try to get better coordinating done
cross-agency and within agencies.
But I am concerned about a couple of the proposals in 4690,
one of which would be is, it completely necessary to create a
new office, like the Office of Sustainable Housing and
Communities at HUD, and then a Federal Interagency Council on
Sustainable Communities? I think the goals of both of these are
good, but do we need to create another new bureaucracy?
In the case of the interagency council, it would be headed
by an executive director who would not be subject to any
confirmation by the Senate but would have full discretion over
the staffing and outsourcing decisions. Maybe these are issues
that we can work on as this legislation moves forward.
But from my perspective, this does bring about visions of
some of the President's appointees, either czars or whatever
you want to call them, new directors, who don't have oversight
in their appointment process through the United States Senate.
Also I have questions, there was a model cities program
that was in effect in the 1960's that was found to be
ineffective. What is the difference between that and the
structure of this? We want to make sure we don't repeat issues
that were found to be ineffective and not meet the lofty goals
that I think are set forward in this legislation.
The other issue, of course, is the issue of cost. We are in
a high debt and deficit position right now, we all know this,
and I think that we have to look long and hard before we create
a grant program that would be $3.25 billion over 4 years.
So, I would be interested in hearing from the panelists,
and I hope I can come back. I do have to work a bill on the
Floor, the flood insurance bill, to see what they have to say
in developing sustainable communities and why this issue is
something that we need to handle at the Federal level.
I read some of the initial testimony. It seems like there
is a lot at the local and State level in terms of trying to
develop and provide the sustainable communities that we all
seek.
Thank you for being here, and thank you for the
opportunity.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, and this panel is dismissed.
What I would like to do is recess. We have six votes, so it
will probably take between 45 minutes and an hour. We will
reconvene at 3:45. So, with that, we will stand in recess. The
second panel will be up next.
[recess]
Mr. Perlmutter. The committee will now come back to order,
if the panelists would take their seats, please.
I thank the panel for waiting through that delay. We had
six votes, and I actually called the time on it pretty closely.
So I appreciate your attendance here today.
I think the gentleman from Texas has an opening statement
he would like to share. If that is the case, Mr. Hensarling, I
would yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Hensarling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perlmutter. How much time do you need, 3 minutes?
Mr. Hensarling. The other opening statements, forgive me?
Mr. Perlmutter. The only opening statement so far was Mrs.
Capito, and that was for 3 minutes.
Mr. Hensarling. I will try not to hold up progress, Mr.
Chairman. Why don't you give me 3 minutes?
Mr. Perlmutter. Sure. The gentleman is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. Hensarling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, Mr.
Chairman, I think you know that I have a lot of respect for you
personally, and I know you are a very engaged and diligent
member of this particular committee. I have no doubt that this
is a very sincere effort on your part to achieve worthy goals.
But I must admit after earlier today, just seeing one more
new Federal program that costs $30 billion, one more
opportunity to borrow money from the Chinese and send the bill
to our children and our grandchildren, when I think about the
largest national debt in the history of our Nation, red ink as
far as the eye can see, when I think about the fact that we are
coming off of 2 years in a row of trillion dollar-plus
deficits, I think to myself, at what point does the madness
end? At what point do we finally say enough is enough? The
American people want to know what part of ``broke'' does this
Congress not understand?
So I have no doubt that very worthy things can be done with
the $3 billion or $4 billion authorization. And I understand by
the standards of this place, that might be not even a rounding
error. To the American people, it is real money, particularly
at a time when we are drowning in debt, when the torch of
Liberty is being mortgaged.
I know this is about livable communities, but I have to
tell you, in my neighborhood, in Dallas, Texas, where two of my
neighbors have lost their jobs, to me, a livable community is
where my neighbor has a job.
So I am trying to figure out how the expenditure of an
additional $4 billion, creating a new government program, a new
government interagency council, a new czar, a new agency
ostensibly to help micromanage our community infrastructure,
how is that going to get my neighbors employed in Dallas,
Texas? Quite frankly, it is the debt that is helping create
greater uncertainty, that is causing businesses not to create
jobs.
The Chairman of the Federal Reserve sat before us at that
very table and told us it was important to put a plan on the
table today to solve the spending crisis, that it would have a
beneficial impact on job creation. And job creation ought to be
job one, and adding even this amount to the Federal debt works
against job creation.
So with all due respect, I cannot support this Act.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Perlmutter. The gentleman yields back.
I will just take a moment for a brief opening statement,
and then I don't know if the gentleman from New Jersey or the
gentlewoman from Kansas has an opening statement, but they
certainly can share if they wish.
I appreciate the comments of my friend from Texas, but what
we are here today to really discuss is H.R. 4690, the Livable
Communities Act of 2010. Probably the difference of opinion is
expenditure versus investment.
In my opinion, the effort here is to invest in the future
of this country, which ultimately will reap rewards for the
people who live in the communities, as well as the country as a
whole, and that it is an investment that will save people money
in their daily lives, as well as provide well-planned, well-
structured communities where business can thrive.
This bill is companion legislation to Chairman Dodd's
Livable Communities Act which was favorably reported out by the
Senate Banking Committee in August. Since its introduction,
this bill has generated lots of interest in local communities
across the country. The Livable Communities Act is an example
of legislation crafted with comprehensive input.
At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the letters of
support be entered into the hearing record. These letters show
livable communities have a variety of support, including the
U.S. Green Building Council, the National League of Cities,
Enterprise Community Partners, the National Association of
Realtors, and many, many more, both nationwide and at the local
level. Without objection, they will be made a part of the
record.
This legislation is drafted to be incentive-based,
providing local communities the tools and resources necessary
to develop and implement comprehensive regional plans. Liveable
communities are about creating better and more affordable
places to live, work, and play.
In addition, this legislation will eliminate current
barriers by creating an interagency council for HUD, DOT, EPA,
and other Federal agencies to coordinate. It will also codify
the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities within the
Housing and Urban Development Department.
Liveable communities provide benefits to communities across
the country, including my congressional district. My mayor, Bob
Murphy, is here from Lakewood, Colorado, today to testify about
the impact this type of legislation would have on Lakewood, as
well as the rest of metropolitan Denver.
Colorado is already beginning cooperative projects that fit
within the goals of this bill. H.R. 4690 will enhance the
process, capabilities, and efficiency of executing these
collaborative projects and eliminate barriers to Federal
agencies working together to provide the necessary resources
and technical assistance.
For these reasons, I introduced the Livable Communities Act
of 2010, and I look forward to working with members of the
committee and other committees of jurisdiction to move this
important legislation forward.
Does the gentleman from New Jersey have any opening
remarks?
Thank you.
With that, the Chair will now take testimony from the
second panel. The Chair now recognizes Mayor Bob Murphy from
Lakewood, Colorado, a friend and a neighbor of mine and an
outstanding mayor, to speak for 5 minutes.
The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BOB MURPHY, MAYOR, CITY OF LAKEWOOD,
COLORADO
Mr. Murphy. Thank you. I would like to thank Chairman
Frank, Ranking Member Bachus, and, of course, Representative
Perlmutter, our terrific Congressman from Colorado's Seventh
District, for this opportunity to appear before you today to
talk about the importance of the Livable Communities Act to
towns and cities across the Nation.
As you heard, I am the mayor of Lakewood, Colorado, a first
tier suburb of 150,000 adjacent to the west side of Denver. I
also chair the Metro Mayors Caucus, a unique organization of 39
communities that collaborates on issues of transportation,
economic development, sustainability, and health and wellness.
One of our best known examples of collaboration even here
inside the Beltway is the manner in which we coalesced around
the 2004 fast tracks ballot initiative. This voter-approved
measure launched the Nation's current transit construction
project, 122 miles of new rail, 54 new transit stations, and 18
miles of BRT.
The first line, the West Corridor, is currently under
construction through Lakewood, connecting the major employment
centers of downtown Denver, the Denver Federal Center, and the
Jefferson County Government Center in Golden. The West
Corridor, indeed every transit corridor, presents unique
opportunities for community building and job creation, but
along with it comes daunting challenges.
Simply put, transit and the communities we designed around
the new stations have the potential to create equal access to
opportunity for everyone, including enhanced access to
employment and educational opportunities, more housing choices,
improved access to medical care and healthy food options, and
better access to regional amenities.
These opportunities expand to benefit our regional
economies and our environment by: reducing auto trips and
greenhouse gas emissions, thus bettering air quality; improving
public health; lowering health care costs because of more
walking, bicycling, and exercise; creating jobs through design,
building, and operation of infrastructure, housing, and
commercial centers; lowering the public subsidy of transit
through increased ridership; and creating a green dividend for
regional economies as savings on household transportation costs
become discretionary income for food, clothing, and education.
The average American household spends over 50 percent of
their budget on housing and transportation. This burden falls
even heavier on low- to moderate-income households. These
households use transit more than those with higher income, and
as we build our communities near transit, they stand to benefit
the most from transportation cost savings, a wider variety of
housing choices, and better accessibility to work, schools,
daycare, and recreational options, all resulting in more
opportunity, productivity, and time with family.
Affordable housing stimulates the local economy. A 2010
homebuilders study in Denver measured the 1-year estimated
economic impact of building 615 new low-income housing tax
credit units and found $57 million injected into the economy,
$5 million in additional revenue to local governments, and 732
new local jobs.
Opportunities abound to plan and build livable communities
along transportation corridors and rail stations, but
significant barriers remain. The areas surrounding future fast
track stations in our cities and suburbs are encumbered by
aging infrastructure, Brownfield sites, lack of bike and
sidewalk connectivity, absence of open space, and fragmentation
of parcel ownership. The costs for remediation are often beyond
the scope of local governments, even in partnership with the
private sector.
Historically, existing Federal funding has been focused on
specific aspects of the metropolitan landscape like
transportation, housing, and environmental quality, rather than
on comprehensively what it takes to build resilient communities
that will sustain for generations.
Many programs of DOT, HUD, and EPA have had a high level
focus on the same outcome, better communities, but have been
hamstrung by different regulatory requirements and embedded
organizational cultures.
The 2009 formation of the Office for Sustainable Housing in
Communities inspired the Denver region to, once again, take a
collaborative approach to meeting our challenges. The West
Corridor formed a unique partnership involving our cities,
housing authorities, and transportation authorities to
comprehensively plan for station area land use, affordable
housing, infrastructure needs, and future economic development
along the corridor.
Our Denver Regional Council of Governments, 55 members, are
cooperating to update our Metrovision plan with a new centers
and corridor strategy aligned with the new urban centers
developing along our new transit corridors. Through DRCOG, the
Denver region applied for the first HUD sustainability planning
grant. Many regions around the country did the same thing, and
that is my exact point. This is already working.
Applicants, even if unsuccessful, have had to forge the
precise type of regional coalitions that will be vital to
provide services in a future with restrained resources.
It is for this reason I want to commend the groundbreaking
partnership that has already occurred between these three
agencies. Secretaries Donovan and LaHood and Administrator
Jackson should be commended for their foresight in linking
these programs, policies, and funding. And a special thanks,
too, by the way, to Shelly Poticha, Director for the Office of
Sustainable Housing and Communities, for her advice,
inspiration, and on-the-ground implementation of these
policies. Together, we will all build better communities.
Thank you for the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mayor Murphy can be found on
page 51 of the appendix.]
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you.
Next, we have Andriana Abariotes from Minnesota. I am sorry
that Mr. Ellison is not here to introduce you today, but you
are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ANDRIANA ABARIOTES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TWIN
CITIES LOCAL INITIATIVE SUPPORT CORPORATION (LISC)
Ms. Abariotes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, and I would like to also offer my thanks to
Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus, and the members of the
committee. I am pleased to be here today to speak about the
Livable Communities Act of 2010.
My name is Andriana Abariotes. I am the executive director
of the Twin Cities Office of the Local Initiative Support
Corporation, or LISC, which includes the Minneapolis and St.
Paul metropolitan region.
Congressman Ellison certainly has been supportive of our
work and has been a true leader in our community. I would also
like to thank you, Congressman Perlmutter, for your leadership
on this important bill.
For almost 3 decades, LISC has been connecting community
developers with resources to revitalize neighborhoods and
improve quality of life, a strategy we call building
sustainable communities. Historically, LISC has invested over
$9.6 billion in communities across the country. In the Twin
Cities, this has translated into over $370 million in
investments, resulting in over 9,000 affordable homes and 1.3
million square feet of retail, community and educational space.
I am here today to talk about the relationship between
community development activities and the Livable Communities
Act. We applaud the coordination promoted by the Livable
Communities Act, which has the potential to combine community-
based planning with regional planning efforts. In the Twin
Cities, we have seen this integration take place with a great
deal of success. I would like to provide a specific example.
The central corridor is a new 11-mile light rail corridor
and will be the second line in the Twin Cities regional transit
system, that when complete, connects the downtown of
Minneapolis to the University of Minnesota through the capital
campus into downtown St. Paul. This new corridor will run
through the heart of one of St. Paul's most historic African-
American communities, the Rondo community.
When planning began for the light rail, there was a great
deal of apprehension and mistrust by residents and community
leaders due to the checkered history of transportation in this
particular community. Forty years ago, Interstate 94 was built
on top of Rondo Avenue, cutting right through the heart of the
neighborhood and displacing residents and a whole range of
community institutions, including housing, community
businesses, and services.
LISC has partnered in the central corridor with the City of
St. Paul and 10 community-based organizations to engage
community leaders and residents in connecting a broader vision
for the corridor with housing preservation, small business
support, neighborhood jobs, and minority contracting and energy
improvements.
LISC's work in this area is not unique to the Twin Cities.
Sixteen of LISC's 28 local offices are participating in
regional partnerships that have applied for HUD's sustainable
community grants program, including Boston, where LISC is
working with four community-based community development
corporations, or CDCs, to organize residents in a planning
vision for new developments on vacant, underutilized land along
the region's Fairmont commuter rail line, which is in
Congressman Capuano's district.
We know that community-based nonprofit CDCs provide vital
services to residents in low-income communities, particularly
communities of color. In order to ensure that input from
nonprofits is considered early in the planning process and
before critical decisions are made, they should be included in
the regional planning processes at the time of application
rather than one year after the grant is awarded, as required by
the Act. The benefit will be a much more robust community
involvement component which could mitigate future opposition by
gaining community buy-ins early in the process.
It is our hope that as the bill moves forward through
Congress, it retains the provisions that seek to promote
integration of low-income and affordable housing planning in
the Act's grant programs.
The cost of acquisition of land for transit-oriented
development is often the barrier to keeping housing units
affordable, and this planning early in the process can help
affordable housing developers make development decisions before
land prices escalate beyond their reach.
It is critically important that low-income and moderate-
income neighborhoods, rural communities, and cities that have
experienced significant population loss have equal access to
the type of planning and development opportunities promoted in
the Livable Communities Act. We believe that this can be
accomplished through the equitable inclusion of communities of
all races, ethnicities, ages and income levels, a setaside of
15 percent of the grant dollars for rural communities, and the
creation of community regeneration planning grant programs for
communities that have lost population, both of which were
passed in the Senate Banking Committee's version of this Act.
This concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to answer
any question you may have. Thank you again for the opportunity
to speak with you today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Abariotes can be found on
page 24 of the appendix.]
Mr. Perlmutter. And thank you. We appreciate your
testimony.
Now, we will hear from Julia Gouge, president of the Board
of County Commissioners in Carroll County, Maryland, so she is
our neighbor.
STATEMENT OF JULIA W. GOUGE, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, CARROLL COUNTY, MARYLAND
Ms. Gouge. Good afternoon, Chairman Frank, Ranking Member
Bachus, and members of the Financial Services Committee, and to
you, Representative Perlmutter, we appreciate very much your
introducing this bill.
I am Julia Gouge, president of the Carroll County Board of
Commissioners, member of the National Association of Counties,
NACo Board of Directors, Environment, Energy and Lands Use
Steering Committee, and the Rural Action Caucus. I would like
to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this
Livable Communities Act.
NACo is the only national organization representing
America's 3,068 counties, and we support the Livable
Communities Act which provides incentive grants to local areas
for regional planning around housing, transportation, the
environment, energy, land use, and health initiatives. NACo has
passed a resolution supporting the Livable Communities Act.
NACo has worked to support members in achieving sustainable
development for over 15 years through assistance on issues
including smart growth and planning, economic development, and
business retention. Priorities now include clean energy
development and disaster recovery.
In 2007, NACo began the Green Government Initiative,
providing comprehensive resources for local governments on all
things green. NACo will soon release a survey on 2010
sustainability efforts which captures close to 600 counties'
differing levels of sustainability.
Planning for sustainability communities is, by nature, a
regional effort. Whether individually, with neighboring
jurisdictions, or through regional councils, counties have the
primary role in planning and economic development decisions
impacting and determining growth, development, and livability.
Many rural and mid-sized counties would like to begin
development and planning, but lack the resources to do so. This
legislation will be effective because it meets communities
where they are, at the planning and implementation stage.
Carroll County, Maryland, has a population of 175,000. We
have created three lead-certified green buildings oriented for
site optimum lighting, storm water management, geothermal
systems, and the use of high recycled content materials. To
reduce our carbon footprint, we invested in the purchase of
hybrid cars for our fleet, as well as hybrid vans for our
transportation system.
Carroll County participates in the Energy Management
Initiative provided through the Baltimore Metropolitan Council,
and in Fiscal Year 2009, Carroll County estimated an
electricity savings of over $8900,000.
To preserve our rural history, we implemented an
installment purchase agreement program for farm preservation.
This allows us to purchase development rights by leveraging our
money so more land can be purchased at today's prices. To date,
we have placed over 60,000 acres in permanent preservation.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD,
has created the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities.
This legislation would formally establish this office and the
Interagency Council, and we appreciate HUD taking the lead with
EPA and the Department of Transportation to break down the
silos within the Federal Government. HUD also has grant money
available for Fiscal Year 2010 on sustainable planning, and
Carroll County has utilized block grants from HUD extensively
over the past 30 years.
In addition to Section 8 funding, we have been awarded
Community Development Block Grants from the Maryland Department
of Housing and Community Development continuum of care for the
homeless. We have also received home funding which we use for
transitional housing programs and rental assistance.
NACo continues to believe sustainability should be
voluntary and encouraged through a Federal grant program,
rewarding communities undertaking sustainable programs. We do
not believe sustainability should be a condition for receiving
housing, transportation, and other traditional sources of
Federal funding. What we do support is having a setaside for a
subcategory of rural areas, such as the one included in the
Senate committee-passed bill.
Our rural communities represent the majority of the
Nation's land mass. Of the over 3,068 counties, over 90 percent
have populations under 200,000, with many under 100,000 or
50,000. When Federal funding is involved, efforts at integrated
local and regional planning are often hindered by the States
when funds are not granted directly to local governments, and
NACo appreciates that the bill allows local entities to receive
direct funding.
I would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify,
and I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gouge can be found on page
30 of the appendix.]
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Now, the committee will recognize Mr. Bruce Knight from
Champaign, Illinois, to testify for 5 minutes. You are
recognized, sir.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE A. KNIGHT, PLANNING DIRECTOR, CITY OF
CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS, AND PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PLANNING
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Knight. Good afternoon, and thank you, Chairman Frank,
Ranking Member Bachus, and the distinguished members of the
committee for holding this important hearing, and I also thank
you, Congressman Perlmutter, for your leadership in this issue,
and congratulations on being APA's Legislator of the Year.
I am Bruce Knight, planning director for the City of
Champaign, Illinois, and president of the American Planning
Association. At a time when planners are hard at work laying
the foundation for economic recovery and on behalf of our
40,000-plus members, I am very pleased to be able to testify in
support of legislation that offers vital resources for good
planning, breaks down barriers to efficient infrastructure
investment, and advances local quality of life.
The Livable Communities Act provides critical support for
good planning. There are, I believe, six innovations and
benefits that make the bill an important step forward: it
promotes integrated planning and eliminates barriers to
regional cooperation; it recognizes the importance of
comprehensive planning; it is driven by data and performance
indicators; it supports both planning and plan implementation;
and it provides particular benefits for communities hit hard by
recession.
I also want to underscore the fact that the bill is not
top-down. It is incentive-based, and the plans are driven by
engagement, participation, and vision of local residents.
Much of this committee's attention has been focused on
housing and the foreclosure crisis. This bill provides another
opportunity to help places struggling to restore prosperity and
offers desperately needed tools to help communities. Virtually
every HUD program would be more effective and efficient as a
result of the plans and the tools in this bill.
The planning in this legislation supports your work
promoting greater energy and location efficiency in housing
policy. It is easy to focus on individual buildings and the
effort to green neighborhoods, but it is critical that the
issues of job access, travel options, and housing choices also
be considered.
This committee took bold bipartisan action earlier in the
year in approving the Green Act. This bill takes those same
concerns to a broader scale.
The bill advances integration and interagency coordination.
APA applauds the efforts of HUD, DOT, and EPA in forming an
interagency partnership on sustainable communities. This
important collaboration is long overdue.
The agencies have already taken steps to promote closer
integration, but passage of this bill would take that
integration further by establishing a common planning process
that is comprehensive and coordinates with capital investments.
The legislation would ensure that these efforts are not a
momentary occurrence. The bill encourages regional cooperation.
True regionalism is notoriously difficult to achieve. Our
system of multiple, sometimes overlapping units of local
government, make regional collaboration hard. That said, many
of our most important challenges are regional in nature,
including housing affordability, transportation options,
community development, and watershed protection.
The bill brings together municipalities in the region and
key stakeholders from the private and nonprofit sectors. The
plans that emerge from this process will support Federal
livability principles, and guide infrastructure investment,
while informing local plans and codes that are vital to the
coordination and effectiveness.
To achieve the outcomes that citizens envision in the
planning process, plans must be implemented. The legislation
also provides critical support for these activities.
Communities can choose to apply for support to move plans to
implementation to those outcomes that residents wants and need.
In my own city, we are seeking initial funding to support a
new green code that will help implement key sustainability
components of our comprehensive plan.
In my role as president of the American Planning
Association, I have spent much of the last year and a half
traveling to communities across the country. I have seen
firsthand the serious economic challenges confronting many
neighborhoods.
Planners in places large and small are struggling to cope
with tough problems. All too often, I have also seen serious
cuts in planning in these same communities. This disinvestment
comes at the worst possible moment.
The places that are investing in good planning will be the
placing best positioned for recovery. After all, the planning
process provides a clear strategy to efficiently achieve
outcomes, good choices, choices where we live and work and how
we travel, safe neighborhoods, affordable housing, and a clean
environment, outcomes which residents value and demand.
I firmly believe that now is the time to invest in
planning, and that those communities that do so will recover
from the Great Recession first. That is because they are the
communities that will be prepared to reinvent themselves and
take advantage of new opportunities.
This is only likely to happen if policymakers are making
decisions also guided by smarter, greener plans leading to
development regulations designed to promote greener, more
sustainable communities. This is why the Livable Communities
Act is so important and invests in plans that lay the
foundation for economic vitality.
I thank you for holding this important hearing and the
opportunity to testify today. I encourage you to move forward
with this legislation, and I am happy to respond to any
questions. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Knight can be found on page
39 of the appendix.]
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Knight.
I appreciate the testimony of this panel.
I am just going to make a couple of comments. I have a
couple of questions, then I will yield to Mrs. Capito for her
questions. Since there are only two of us here, we won't waste
a lot of time, but I know we do have some questions and
comments.
What I would like to comment on are both concerns that Mrs.
Capito raised as well as Mr. Hensarling in the need to make
sure that whatever structure the organization has put together,
and we have certainly the structure in the livable communities,
but to the degree there are ways to utilize metropolitan
planning organizations or use the same terminology so that
there is no confusion that it is a system that we know can get
the grants to the local governments so that the local
governments can then work together in a regional and
cooperative basis. That is what I want to see. So I certainly
am willing to work with you all on that, in that regard.
With respect to the grants themselves, to the degree that
local governments can put them to good use to plan their
communities for decades to come, I think we are putting money
to good purpose.
I would say to my friend from Lakewood, Colorado, recently,
he and I had an instance of working on a project which was a
former Remington arms plant that was created by the United
States of America for World War II purposes, and at its height
was producing 6 million rounds of bullets a day.
The City of Lakewood, working in conjunction with the
Federal Government and with the regional transportation
district with a variety of organizations cleaned up what was
the shooting range for that property, added light rail, has a
hospital, will have affordable housing, will have a whole
variety of things, to take what was a mess and really make it a
livable, sustainable community.
It is that goal that I think that I know I seek, something
like that, for other towns and communities around the country.
Obviously, it is happening. But these grants would allow those
communities who for whatever reason don't have the opportunity
to do regional or really forward-thinking kinds of plans the
opportunity to integrate transit, housing, cleanups,
brownfields, energy issues.
So, I would ask you, Ms. Gouge, just a couple of questions.
You said in Carroll County you have been able to take some
grants and work in a regional way with the City of Baltimore
and others, and through your savings, you have come up with
some 60,000 acres of preservation? How has that worked? After
that, I will yield to Mrs. Capito for her questions.
Ms. Gouge. We have been working on farm preservation for a
number of years. As money has become more scarce, and farmland
has become more expensive, I gave a challenge a couple of years
ago to our staff to come up with a plan. That plan uses zero-
based bonding. We have worked with our bond counsel and with
other attorneys to have a plan so that we can go to the farmers
and offer them the money. But we are leveraging our money,
through the zero-based bonds.
Consequently, it is 40 percent of the value of the land at
that time. We are offering that to the people now, so we are
getting more farm for our dollar. We are actually able to give
them tax-free money on those bonds for the time that they have
that.
We have set it up for 20 years, so the bond money will be
there and the interest will be there for those folks. That is
the reason it has become so important.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you.
Mrs. Capito has to go back to the Floor, so she won't be
asking any questions. That is good for all of us.
What I would like to do now is to yield to Mr. Al Green
from Texas. I know you just are sitting down and you may want
to collect your thoughts, but generally he will get right to
the point.
So, Mr. Green?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
witnesses for appearing.
Mr. Chairman, I apologize for my late arrival. I am also a
member of the Homeland Security Committee, and we had a hearing
that was taking place that required my attention. So, my
apologies to all.
But I do want to talk to Ms. Abariotes, and I trust I will
pronounce your name correctly, Ms. Abariotes. Is that close?
Ma'am, you referenced, I believe, an 11-mile rail line you
have been working on. We have a similar circumstance in
Houston, Texas. It is 8.27 miles, and it connects the medical
center with an urban area.
I am interested in your rail line because it seems quite
similar to what we are doing, and I would like to get more
intelligence on how you are perfecting this project, because we
are in our infancy and it seems you are much more along the way
than we are. So I welcome any comments that you can share with
me.
Ms. Abariotes. Thank you for the question, Congressman
Green. I would also probably turn to my colleagues here on the
panel, because they may have other experiences in communities
where they are far ahead of us, and I am thinking of the Denver
area as well.
In the City of St. Paul, and really between the two cities
of Minneapolis and St. Paul, the 11-mile stretch is actually a
second line of a transit system. So there were a greet deal of
learnings in the first line, which is the Hiawatha corridor
that links the Minneapolis downtown business district with the
Mall of America and the airport. When the initial planning was
done, it was much more important to get the line built than to
think about the development opportunities around it. So the
community has been playing catch-up.
In the case of building up the new central corridor line, I
think the opportunity to do things differently, to engage
residents and small business owners, institutions that align
what will be the new line, was the opportunity, and it really
sparked both the creativity on the part of the city, both
cities, the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, but also to
engage the philanthropic community, to create a learning forum
called the Central Corridor Funders Collaborative.
They were able to raise, I believe they have raised $5
million collectively toward the goal of raising $20 million to
put towards both planning around station areas and future rail
transit line opportunities in the whole region.
So I think it is both sparking new partnerships on the
ground between residents and different community institutions
where there might be transit stations, sparking the ability to
learn more about how to do transit-oriented development, and
how to do deep community engagement with residents in new and
different ways. And I think the opportunity, like the Livable
Communities Act, would be to be able to leverage those
additional resources that would be beyond the resources
outlined in the bill that would include both private and
philanthropic resources and create more synergy and more
attention.
Mr. Green. Thank you. I would welcome any additional
comments. Yes, sir?
Mr. Knight. I would just comment that I think this is a
classic example of how the separate planning requirements of
Federal funding areas has led to a disconnect between issues of
transportation and housing and job placement, and that is what
the Livable Communities Act is all about.
If we can, instead of having these separate planning
requirements, bring them together, look at these issues
comprehensively and think about how transit operates in
conjunction with where housing is located, where jobs are
located, how that impacts the environment, how we can reduce
housing costs because people now can not only live in
affordable housing, but they have affordable transportation
choices to their places of destination, that is the key
difference that we believe this Livable Communities Act will
bring by again having communities think comprehensively and
regionally about these solutions, rather than thinking about
them independent of each other.
Mr. Murphy. I would just add, sir, that in Denver, we have
a situation that may or may not be similar to yours. We have a
12-plus mile line going out from our core city out to the
western suburbs, and it has caused us, of course, to work
together in collaboration, the representatives from each city,
the housing authority is a very important component to site
affordable housing at the appropriate station areas, and the
transportation district, and the General Services
Administration which runs the Denver Federal Center. So we have
been working for over a year and put together a plan that
coordinates the land use, not just at each station, but
hopefully along the entire corridor.
One of the things you find as you get into this, it is not
easy, but in a citizen-involved process, you can plan for what
you think is the appropriate land use, then you evolve into how
do you create a sense of place at each of these stations, how
do you incentivize people to get off the line at each of the
stations? And the result of all of that is more and more
regional collaboration and more and more citizen buy-in.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Perlmutter. I appreciate, obviously, we appreciate the
testimony of the panel today. This is a subject that I think
really needs the attention of the Congress. We are happy that
the Senate has acted on its bill and will hopefully bring it to
the Floor of the Senate. This is something that I believe,
contrary to what Mr. Hensarling had to say, is really an
investment. And this country needs to make investments. We
have, over time, deferred a lot of investments, whether it is
in our transportation system, our housing, and certainly we
need to be building our jobs, wherever they may be, whether it
is Lakewood or Minneapolis or Baltimore or Champaign. So we
appreciate your testimony. Obviously, you all are experts in
this arena, and you can be assured you will be consulted with
as we go forward trying to make a package here that really
works for local governments as well as works at the Federal
level with these agencies talking to one another and not
operating in isolation.
So, with that, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
insert statements for the record from the National Association
of Home Builders and the National Center for Healthy Housing.
And without hearing any objection from Mr. Green, they will be
inserted into the record.
The Chair notes that some members may have additional
questions for this panel which they may wish to submit in
writing. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open
for 30 days for members to submit written questions to these
witnesses and to place their responses in the record. With
that, this hearing is adjourned and the panel is dismissed.
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
September 23, 2010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2682.044