The Agenda: Federal grants
Some of your city councils meet tonight. They're busy trying to get federal funding for local projects.
Bentonville will vote on:
Accepting a $2.08 million federal Climate Pollution Reduction Grant for stream restoration, land preservation and trail reconstruction for Town Branch Creek.
A resolution expressing the willingness of the city to use a federal grant worth more than $2.5 million to make improvements to the Airport Boulevard and Vaughn Road intersections. The city would be on the hook to pay $636,000.
A similar resolution, in partnership with Centerton, to use another federal grant worth more than $2.5 million for improvements to Greenhouse Road. The city's share would be about $643,000.
Rogers will vote on:
A resolution expressing the willingness of the city to use federal money to develop a bicycle and pedestrian master plan. The city expects the project to cost $250,000 with the city covering 20%.
Springdale will vote on:
A resolution expressing the willingness of the city to use an $8 million federal grant to extend Gene George Boulevard to the south and add a roundabout at New Hope Road. The city's share is $2 million.
A similar resolution for a $328,000 federal grant to widen the sidewalk on 40th Street with the city paying $82,000.
And another for a $444,800 federal grant with a matching $111,200 from the city to construct a connecting path at Elmdale Elementary, improved sidewalks at Westwood Elementary and a creek crossing and sidewalk at Turnbow Elementary.
If you go: 6pm at Bentonville and Springdale city halls and 6:30pm at Rogers City Hall.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
E&E News
13-05-2025
- E&E News
Republicans' ‘clearly unprecedented' gambit to kill climate programs
House Republicans want to use their sprawling budget reconciliation bill not only to zero out climate programs — but also to make it harder for subsequent Congresses to restore them. The budget bill the House Energy and Commerce Committee released Sunday night would pull back about $6.5 billion in unspent grant funding for green energy finance, clean manufacturing, community pollution abatement and carbon-cutting projects at ports and schools. It would also repeal the authorizing language for the 17 programs that it targets. Advertisement Bill Hoagland, who served as director of budget and appropriations for former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), called that move 'clearly unprecedented.' 'I have never seen in my career any reconciliation language that would strike authorization language for a discretionary program,' he said. The gambit is risky, given the strict rules of the budget reconciliation process. But it would have some practical advantages for Republicans if it succeeds. A subsequent Congress and administration would have a harder time restoring funding for programs like EPA's $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund or $7 billion Climate Pollution Reduction Grant program — both of which the Energy and Commerce proposal would terminate. 'It's always better to still have authorizations on the books, because it's always easier to get funding for existing authorizations instead of starting from a complete blank slate,' said Adrian Deveny, a former aide for Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). The repeals would also let Republicans claim credit for killing programs they've decried as wasteful and corrupt, even as they rescind only a fraction of the programs' funding. The Energy and Commerce Committee is not attempting to claw back the lion's share of grants, which are already under contract; committee spokesman Ben Mullany said Monday that the panel would 'continue to honor the obligated funds.' Language to repeal program authorizations may survive the House. But Hoagland said it probably won't square with the Senate's strict rules for the kinds of policy provisions that can move through budget reconciliation. Republicans are using the reconciliation process to move their bill to avoid a filibuster by Senate Democrats. It's the same maneuver Democrats used in 2022 to enact the climate spending law, because it allows legislation to pass the Senate with a simple majority vote. But Senate rules extend this privilege only to provisions that raise or spend revenue. And while the Energy and Commerce language rescinding unspent climate law dollars will pass muster, experts say the deauthorization language probably won't. 'Striking language that simply authorizes appropriations but doesn't do anything to appropriate funds doesn't have any budgetary impact, and that therefore violates the Byrd rule,' said Hoagland, referring to a long-established procedural rule named for the late Sen. Robert Byrd ( a former chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The rule prohibits the inclusion of 'extraneous' policy provisions in a bill that moves through reconciliation. But whether or not Republicans succeed in revoking program authorizations, supporters of the climate law say the loss of unobligated funds will have consequences. EPA, for example, has already obligated much of the money the climate law appropriated for grant programs. What's left at the agency is mostly its grant-management and oversight budgets — which were small to begin with. 'Members of Congress expect programs to be implemented and crises addressed even when the budget for staff is cut,' said Zealan Hoover, a former Biden administration official who led Inflation Reduction Act implementation at EPA. 'If I was still at EPA I would be very worried about the volume of angry Hill calls coming if anything close to this budget is enacted.'
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Yahoo
Judge targeted by GOP for impeachment deals blow to Trump's FEMA objectives
A Rhode Island federal judge targeted for impeachment dealt the Trump administration a legal blow on Friday, ordering it to lift a freeze on federal funds. U.S. District Judge John McConnell ordered the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to unfreeze federal funds to states after plaintiffs alleged the agency had failed to comply with an earlier court order. The lawsuit was originally launched by 22 states and the District of Columbia, challenging the Trump administration's decision to block funding for programs like the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Climate Pollution Reduction Grant and other environmental initiatives. Lawsuit Tracker: New Resistance Battling Trump's Second Term Through Onslaught Of Lawsuits Taking Aim At Eos Plaintiffs in the suit, including the states of New York, California, Illinois and Rhode Island, argued that FEMA's implementation of a manual review process for payment requests violated a previous preliminary injunction issued by McConnell. The states argued that the review "constitutes 'a categorical pause or freeze of funding appropriate by Congress.'" The defendants, which include President Donald Trump and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), responded that the review did not violate the order because "FEMA is relying on its own independent authorities to implement the process rather than the OMB Directive." Read On The Fox News App McConnell concluded that the plaintiffs had "presented evidence that strongly suggests that FEMA is implementing this manual review process based, covertly, on the President's January 20, 2025 executive order." Courtroom Combat: Inside The Federal Judiciary System Where Trump's Agenda Is Under Assault "The Court reaffirms its preliminary injunction order," McConnell wrote. McConnell had issued a restraining order in late January that enjoined the defendants from freezing federal funds. This came after OMB released a memo on Jan. 27 announcing the administration's plans to temporarily pause federal grants and loans. The White House later rescinded the memo on Jan. 29. However, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the move didn't equate a "recission of the federal funding freeze." 'Corrupt, Dangerous': Gop Rep Moves To Impeach Judge Who Blocked Trump Federal Funds Freeze After McConnell ordered the administration to comply with the restraining order, the government appealed to the First Circuit — which refused to stay the orders. McConnell also recently made headlines after becoming one of several federal judges hit with impeachment articles. Georgia Republican Rep. Andrew Clyde formally introduced his articles of impeachment against McConnell on March 24, after his initial announcement in February. The articles, first shared with Fox News Digital, charged McConnell with abuse of power and conflicts of interest, stating he "knowingly politicized and weaponized his judicial position to advance his own political views and beliefs." "The American people overwhelmingly voted for President Trump in November, providing a clear mandate to make our federal government more efficient," Clyde told Fox News Digital. "Yet Judge McConnell, who stands to benefit from his own injunction, is attempting to unilaterally obstruct the president's agenda and defy the will of the American people. Judge McConnell's actions are corrupt, dangerous, and worthy of impeachment." Fox News Digital's Diana Stancy contributed to this article source: Judge targeted by GOP for impeachment deals blow to Trump's FEMA objectives
Fox News
04-04-2025
- Fox News
Judge targeted by GOP for impeachment deals blow to Trump's FEMA objectives
A Rhode Island federal judge targeted for impeachment dealt the Trump administration a legal blow on Friday, ordering it to lift a freeze on federal funds. U.S. District Judge John McConnell ordered the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to unfreeze federal funds to states after plaintiffs alleged the agency had failed to comply with an earlier court order. The lawsuit was originally launched by 22 states and the District of Columbia, challenging the Trump administration's decision to block funding for programs like the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Climate Pollution Reduction Grant and other environmental initiatives. Plaintiffs in the suit, including the states of New York, California, Illinois and Rhode Island, argued that FEMA's implementation of a manual review process for payment requests violated a previous preliminary injunction issued by McConnell. The states argued that the review "constitutes 'a categorical pause or freeze of funding appropriate by Congress.'" The defendants, which include President Donald Trump and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), responded that the review did not violate the order because "FEMA is relying on its own independent authorities to implement the process rather than the OMB Directive." McConnell concluded that the plaintiffs had "presented evidence that strongly suggests that FEMA is implementing this manual review process based, covertly, on the President's January 20, 2025 executive order." "The Court reaffirms its preliminary injunction order," McConnell wrote. McConnell had issued a restraining order in late January that enjoined the defendants from freezing federal funds. This came after OMB released a memo on Jan. 27 announcing the administration's plans to temporarily pause federal grants and loans. The White House later rescinded the memo on Jan. 29. However, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the move didn't equate a "recission of the federal funding freeze." After McConnell ordered the administration to comply with the restraining order, the government appealed to the First Circuit — which refused to stay the orders. McConnell also recently made headlines after becoming one of several federal judges hit with impeachment articles. Georgia Republican Rep. Andrew Clyde formally introduced his articles of impeachment against McConnell on March 24, after his initial announcement in February. The articles, first shared with Fox News Digital, charged McConnell with abuse of power and conflicts of interest, stating he "knowingly politicized and weaponized his judicial position to advance his own political views and beliefs." "The American people overwhelmingly voted for President Trump in November, providing a clear mandate to make our federal government more efficient," Clyde told Fox News Digital. "Yet Judge McConnell, who stands to benefit from his own injunction, is attempting to unilaterally obstruct the president's agenda and defy the will of the American people. Judge McConnell's actions are corrupt, dangerous, and worthy of impeachment."
