Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a six-year transportation bill, with funding for three years. It passed without an amendment proposed by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Oregon, that would have raised the nation’s gas tax by 15 cents per gallon. Currently, the federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon – a rate that hasn’t changed since 1993. He still says it’s the only way to pay for much-needed infrastructure fixes.

Blumenauer recently answered some questions from the 91ĘÓƵ about what is next.

91ĘÓƵ: What did your constituents think of the plan?

Earl Blumenauer: I had countless meetings with folks at home, and I have a very substantial base of support from people who understand that we can’t keep paying for 2015 infrastructure with 1993 dollars. Around the country there have been seven red, Republican states this year that have raised the gas tax. People are stunned to find out that there has been no gas tax increase since 1993. And we have probably the broadest base of support – people who are involved with construction, transit, with business, labor, people who represent automobiles, AAA, the American and Oregon trucking associations – all are on record supporting raising the user fee. Just like Ronald Reagan did in 1982.

91ĘÓƵ: What are you hearing from your Republican colleagues in Washington, D.C.? Does the issue of infrastructure funding put them in a weird spot?

Blumenauer: It does. I had conversations with three Republican colleagues in the last few hours who told me they thought we should raise the gas tax, so it’s not something where all Republicans are opposed – they’re not. As I said, seven very Republican states have already raised it.

91ĘÓƵ: Is this maybe not the right time to pass a gas tax?

Blumenauer: What do you mean? It’s been 22 years. Gas prices are low. The need is critical. We’re going to be in big trouble in our region if the federal partnership falls apart. This is the first time in over 50 years that there is no major federal transportation project in the pipeline – the first time in over 50 years. When we cut the ribbon on the Tilikum Crossing on September 12th, that was it. We’re done. And it’s been over 50 years.

91ĘÓƵ: Who have you been working with?

Blumenauer: Contractors, unions, developers, people who care about transit, who care about bicyclists, truckers. I mean this is everybody who uses, builds, maintains or depends on infrastructure is on board. They want this badly.

91ĘÓƵ: In Oregon, what projects do you see that need immediate attention?

Blumenauer: We don’t have any major projects in the pipeline. There are concerns people have about extending transit, and being able to maintain the infrastructure that we’ve got. There are needs in multimodalism and freight movement. And someday we’re going to have to address the Columbia River and the I-5 bridge. That’s a big project.

91ĘÓƵ: Portland City Commissioner Steve Novick wants to let voters look at a 10-cent city gas tax for street repairs and others projects. Might this be a way forward for communities?

Blumenauer: We’re watching that. But people need to be able to have partnerships to make this happen, and you have to have local funding. Even if we got the federal gas tax increased and got money in the pipeline, there would still be a requirement to put up local money. In Portland, this was something I was fighting to correct. When I was on the Portland City Council more than 20 years ago, we were working to adequately address just our maintenance needs – not even the need for new capacity. We’ve fallen behind. So you’re seeing people in communities large and small across the country, in other states, doing this. I think it’s wise to do it locally.

91ĘÓƵ: What about a state gas tax?

Blumenauer: At some point the state of Oregon’s got to figure out what its approach is going to be, because we don’t have enough money right now in the current state highway fund to be able to do any new projects. We can barely deal with maintenance. There was a pretty aggressive program in the past years to bond and build projects faster. But these bonds have to be paid off, and bond repayment interest takes up a very substantial portion of our existing money.

The post A Q-and-A with U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Every day, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, 7 billion gallons of clean drinking water spill from leaky pipes around the country.

According to a 2007 assessment by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the nation’s aging water infrastructure needs approximately $334.8 billion worth of improvements over the next 20 years. However, the U.S. is facing an annual $11 billion shortfall to pay for that work, according to the ASCE.

To that end, Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., last week visited the Portland Water Bureau’s operations facility on North Interstate Avenue to introduce new legislation that could help the nation access money for water infrastructure improvements.

The Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act is designed to increase the availability of capital at a lower cost by authorizing the federal government to make low-interest loans via the U.S. Treasury for drinking water and wastewater projects.

“If we can borrow money at a better rate than we’re currently borrowing that means our debt service is lower and our rates are lower,” said David Shaff, administrator for the Portland Water Bureau.

Shaff said the bureau sold $76 million worth of bonds last month with an interest rate of 2.91 percent. Hypothetically, if that rate were to drop to 2 percent through the proposed legislation, the city would save $400,000 a year – or $10 million over the life of the bonds, he said.

Shaff said that is especially significant because the only other funds now available for water infrastructure are those that are available through the State Revolving Loan Fund, which has a cap of $6 million per loan. And those loans are competitive, he said.

“That’s incredibly useful to a small system,” he said. “But a system as big as Portland eats up $6 million in a bite pretty quickly.”

That’s because Portland’s 115-year-old water system needs some significant improvements. Shaff said that cast-iron pipes are becoming brittle, pump stations are wearing out and several reservoirs are well beyond their useful years.

Shaff said a fire hydrant on his block is the original one that was installed when the block was built in the 1890s. Other larger, more vital structures also need to be replaced.

“We have six crossings under the Willamette River,” he said. “But only one of those crossings is relatively new – and when I say new, it’s … 30 years old.”

That’s the Washington County water supply line. Whether that line or any of the others can endure the impact of a large earthquake is a huge question mark, Shaff said.

Shaff said the Portland Water Bureau is hoping to break ground within the next two months on a $35 million project to renovate its Interstate Avenue maintenance, construction and operations facilities, which are hugely susceptible to seismic events.

“It’s a 1920s-era unreinforced brick masonry building,” he said of the maintenance and construction building. “It will collapse.”

Shaff said the bureau is looking to address $400 million worth of capital infrastructure needs over the next five years. The bureau already has a AAA rating from Moody’s, but any assistance in making that borrowing easier and cheaper is valuable, he said.

Courtney Warner Crowell, deputy communications director for Merkley’s office, said the new bill likely would not be passed before November. She said the idea was to get it out in the open so that it could move forward next spring.

Shaff said multiple benefits would be produced by the legislation.

“It enables us to borrow money,” he said, “which enables us to do important work, which results in people getting jobs.”

The post Merkley proposes bill to repair water infrastructure appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

After months of heated discussions between congressional Democrats and Republicans, a two-year transportation bill was passed today.

Although not enough time has been given for the 599-page document to be digested entirely, state officials and local transportation organizations both say the outcome could have been worse.“We see flat funding coming out of this – no increase in funding, no decrease in funding. And that, in the current environment, is a significant victory,” said Travis Brouwer, federal affairs liaison for the Oregon Department of Transportation. “Flat is the new up, as people are saying in the public sector.”

In the months leading up to the approval, ODOT assumed federal funding would fall by as much as 20 percent. Instead, the bill, which will allocate $8.4 billion per year in total funding, sets the decrease at around 5 percent. As a result, the transportation department will not have to make any significant cuts to projects, Brouwer said.

In fact, ODOT will actually stand to gain from some of the bill’s provisions. Presently, any transportation project using federal funding must go through a number of environmental procedures to be approved. The process can add significant delays and costs and is often unnecessary, Brouwer said. As part of the bill, shorter timetables on review processes will be imposed and states will have broader authority to exempt projects from environmental analysis.

“We in Oregon shoot for green outcomes, not red tape,” Brouwer said. “(It’s a) reasonable way to account for potential environmental impacts and to allow the public to weigh in without completely tying up projects.”

Brouwer said ODOT still needs to examine the bill more closely in order to fully understand exactly how the process will be streamlined.

The Bicycle Transportation Alliance, a Portland-based transportation group, also had feared the worst for the bill. BTA members expected deep federal funding cuts, which likely would have spelled the end for several transportation programs. The group also worried about efforts by House Republicans to eliminate the Safe Routes to School Program. That resolution to cut the program, which has given states millions of dollars in grants, was left off the bill’s final language.

“(The bill) still allows a lot of what we want to do in the state of Oregon,” said Rob Sadowsky, executive director of BTA. “Because we have a forward-thinking state in terms of transportation, particularly active transportation, we believe we’ll continue to do OK.”

But Sadowsky believes the bill could still cause some problems. One of its provisions will allow states to opt out of federal mandates that require spending on transportation programs. As a result, programs will have to compete with all state transportation projects for money. That means a small program like Create-a-Commuter, which provides underserved adults in Portland with bicycles and rider education, will have to compete with a multimillion-dollar project like the Columbia River Crossing, according to Sadowsky.

“It’s less money to go around, with more competition for that pot,” he said. “The bill is better than we expected, but that’s not saying much.”

ODOT believes the opt-out provision could actually help transportation programs gain funding. Previously, a group of ODOT employees in Salem chooses which programs will be awarded funding. Now, with the bill passed, ODOT will set up a new system that will make it more regionalized and easier for local communities to apply for money.

However, ODOT is not entirely pleased with the bill, either. The bill does little to address the long-term funding shortage as a result of the failing federal gasoline tax. Consequently, ODOT is planning on significantly cutting back on the money it spends on project after 2014, when the bill will expire. While that move will not affect any projects currently under construction or planned, Brouwer said it could impact proposed projects in the future.

“Going forward, those same fiscal challenges remain in the highway trust fund,” he said. “We’re likely going to have a prudent approach (to funding).”

For the time being, though, you won’t find any ODOT officials complaining, Brouwer said.

The post For transportation funding, no change is better than a decrease appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Senate today overwhelmingly approved a two-year, $109 billion transportation and infrastructure bill, which will extend several programs supported by Oregon legislators if it’s approved by the House of Representatives.

The bipartisan measure, which passed with a vote of 74-22, would preserve bicycle, pedestrian and Safe Routes to Schools programs that House Republicans targeted for elimination in their transportation bill.

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., representing Southwest Oregon, has made impassioned speeches to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee defending the inclusion of transit, bike and pedestrian programs in the next transportation bill.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., wrote an amendment attached to the Senate’s bill that will extend the Secure Rural Schools program, which provides support to rural counties that are struggling to pay for roads and schools. If the Senate bill is passed, Oregon counties will receive $102 million during the 2012 fiscal year.

The Senate’s approval adds pressure to the House of Representatives to set aside their transportation bill before the current funding expires at the end of the month. But House Republicans are pushing for a five-year, $260 billion that links infrastructure spending to the expansion of oil drilling and has elicited opposition in Oregon.

If the House and Senate cannot agree on a new bill by March 31, federally financed construction jobs could be left in the lurch on April 1, when money from the highway trust fund could no longer be used. However, an extension of the present law could allow more time for negotiations.

The post Senate transportation bill passes with Oregon legislators’ interests intact appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

A group of Democrats last week introduced to the U.S. Senate a new piece of legislation that seeks to rebuild the housing market – literally.

The Project Rebuild Act would inject $15 billion into the rehabilitation of residential and commercial properties left vacant following foreclosure. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., introduced the bill.

“Right now we’re in a cycle where we have more and more foreclosed homes that are empty; they drive down the value and that leads to more foreclosed homes, and we’ve got to reverse that downward cycle,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., who is co-sponsoring the measure.

The federal government would issue $10 billion in formula grants and $5 billion in competitive grants. There would be a minimum of $20 million for each of the 50 states, but Merkley said Oregon could get as much as $150 million, based on its population.

That could be helpful for Oregon homebuilders, considering foreclosures have a particularly nasty side effect for those businesses.

“A lot of guys are gone; a lot of contractors that were here are no longer here,” said James Fagan, co-owner of in Bend. “There are a whole number of companies that have gone out of Bend. It’s been kind of tough for a lot of people. We’ve contracted too, but we’ve managed to hang in there.”

Fagan said that with distressed home prices well below the cost of new construction, the latter doesn’t pencil out these days. As a result, he said, the company has had to lay off all four of its full-time carpenters, cut its margins and transition to subcontracting out all of its work.

So, with the list of cash-strapped clientele growing, the company recently tried something new.

It bought a distressed home for $280,000, pumped $90,000 into renovations and sold it this past week for $430,000. Fagan said that after accounting for real estate commissions and a few other incidental fees, the profit was fairly modest. But the project was certainly worthwhile.

“ We put some guys to work and made a little bit of money and we got ourselves out there as doing remodels, which we haven’t done a whole lot of in Bend,” he said.

The Project Rebuild Act could build on that effort by adding as many as 200,000 jobs across the nation, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Merkley said foreclosures are bad for business.

“Those dropping home prices make it almost impossible for new home construction to start, and because there’s just too much inventory of below-market homes for folks to choose from, construction comes to a standstill,” Merkley said. “The nice thing about restoring, maintaining and selling these homes is it directly puts people to work, as well as stopping the foreclosed home downward spiral.”

Based on statistics, the grant money could go a long way in Oregon.

With roughly 30,000 foreclosures in each of the past few years, the percentage of loans in the foreclosure process at the end of the fourth quarter of 2011 in Oregon was 3.61 percent – slightly below the national rate of 4.38 percent, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association. That was down slightly from the third quarter.

Within the state, the foreclosure epidemic hit the Bend Metropolitan Statistical Area hardest. Bend’s foreclosure rate is 4.87 percent, according to LPS Applied Analytics. The Medford MSA and the Salem MSA followed, at 4.4 percent and 3.4 percent respectively.

Those numbers hurt sales prices for surrounding homes. HUD estimates that foreclosed homes decrease the values of others in the neighborhood by an average of $5,000.

And in Bend, the average sales price for a foreclosed property is approximately 15 percent below the normal average sales price. So homes that normally would sell for $170,000 are selling for closer to $146,000, according to LPS.

Fagan said Timberline Construction would consider renovating more distressed properties in the future, especially if grant money is available.

“There’s lots (of foreclosed properties), and I think there’s more coming,” Fagan said. “They’re in every neighborhood.”

Merkley estimates that foreclosure will strike 5 million more U.S. homes within the next few years. He said funding for the Project Rebuild Act isn’t identified yet. Right now, the plan is to educate people why it’s needed.

“We have to understand that housing brought us into this recession and economists say we’re out of the recession,” he said. “It doesn’t look like we’re out of the recession if you’re on the ground in America. … We are going to have to have to turn the housing cycle around to have a broader economic recovery – this is one approach.”

The post Proposed legislation would provide funds for renovating foreclosed homes appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) today released its analysis of the Obama Administration’s budget proposal for the fiscal year 2013.

According to the analysis, the budget, which was sent to Congress on Monday, proposes the U.S. government invest $74.5 billion in transportation improvements this year – an increase of $1.7 billion over the amount invested in 2011 and close to $1.9 billion above the amount enacted for 2012.

Within that total, a six-year investment of $476 billion is proposed for surface transportation, which includes highways, public transportation, passenger rail and highway safety.

Different from last year, the administration identified a funding source for its proposed investments in highways and public transportation: budgetary savings resulting from the winding-down wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Last year, the administration stated that it would have to work with Congress to identify the resources needed to finance its proposal.

While this year’s investment total for surface transportation may seem significantly less than last year’s $556 billion recommendation, the ARTBA points out that last year’s total also included the proposed $50 billion for the Immediate Transportation Investment and $30 billion for the National Infrastructure Bank – neither of which are in this year’s reauthorization proposal.

The budget also reiterates multiple program changes recommended last year, including collapsing 55 current highway programs into five programs that would give states and localities more flexibility with federal highway funds.

To read the ARTBA’s full analysis of the budget, go .

The post ARTBA weighs in on Obama Administration’s transportation budget appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

A new federal transportation bill unveiled by House Republicans last week elicited resounding opposition in Oregon.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s chairman, John Mica, R-Fla., last week introduced the . It’s a $260 billion proposal to repair U.S. infrastructure, reauthorize transportation programs for five years and increase opportunities for domestic oil drilling.

Cyclists’ perspective on House Resolution 7

“This bill reverses decades of progress we’ve made to create safe routes to school and encourage safety on our streets for all users of the roadway,” said Gerik Kransky, advocacy director for the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, a Portland-based nonprofit.

“It’s time to kill House Resolution 7,” he said. “It eliminates dedicated funding for biking and walking, slashes funding for transit services, and the way we see it – will actually make streets less safe.”

According to Kransky, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said last week that the highway spending plan is “the worst transportation bill” he’s seen in decades.

The bill would eliminate the Transportation Enhancements program, which sets aside money for pedestrian and bicycle projects not normally required on highway or transportation projects. The program, since its creation in 1992, has generated 190 Oregon projects worth a total of $97 million.

Projects approved in last year’s Transportation Enhancements program were awarded a total of $15.99 million in federal money. Including local matches, $19.13 million was spent on Oregon projects. They included:

• Completion of The Dalles Riverfront Trail – $1.55 million federal award;
• Pedestrian access to Powellhurst-Gilbert neighborhood schools on Southeast Holgate Boulevard and Ramona Street in Portland – $1.48 million federal award; and
• Construction of the second phase of the Middle Fork Willamette River Path between Springfield and Eugene – $1.6 million federal award.

But in a committee vote last week, every Democrat and even one Republican opposed the bill. Lawmakers, however, are expected to search for a compromise before the present law expires on March 31.

Opponents have a slew of objections to the nearly 900-page bill, including its emphasis on new highway construction, the elimination of money dedicated for projects to aid bicyclists and pedestrians, and reduction of long-term planning for public transit.

“This bill says it’s a waste to spend highway trust dollars to protect cyclists, pedestrians or children, (and that) all of that money should just go into highway projects,” said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., who represents Southwest Oregon and is a senior member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. “It takes us back to pre-1980 in terms of the federal government’s participation in transit. It’s quite radical stuff.”

The bill would eliminate the Transportation Enhancements program, which requires states to set aside a percentage of federal money for bike and pedestrian programs. Instead, those allocations would be left entirely up to each state.

Mica and the bill’s supporters hail the proposal for cutting red tape and addressing critical transportation needs without earmarks.

But Travis Brouwer, federal affairs advisor for the Oregon Department of Transportation, said that even without mandated spending, Oregon is likely to continue investing a portion of its federal money in biking and pedestrian programs now being paid for via Transportation Enhancements.

“(The bill) wouldn’t have a major impact on bike and pedestrian projects,” Brouwer said. “We’d have to modify our Transportation Enhancement program, but we’d still be allowed to continue funding those projects.”

Andrew Cotugno, a policy advisor for Metro, is not as optimistic that active transportation would trump other infrastructure projects for funding if federal mandates were eliminated.

“There is a strong level of support in Oregon around a comprehensive transportation system, but we don’t know if it would remain once new flexibility is provided,” Cotugno said. “In other parts of the country that are antagonistic toward these programs, advocates are saying that spending on bike and pedestrian programs will go away in an instant.”

Supporters of public transportation investments also are concerned about potential impacts of the bill.

“If transit is not part of the highway trust fund, it seems like a very dangerous place to be,” said Alan Lehto, director of planning and policy for TriMet. “My concern is that there wouldn’t be as much federal funding available at all, no matter how forward-thinking we are about what kinds of infrastructure we need.”

While states would have more power to decide how to spend federal money, some programs would be eliminated entirely. The bill, for instance, would prohibit federal money from being used on the Safe Routes to School Program, which provides infrastructure improvements, education programs, and safety training to encourage kids to bike or walk to school.

Oregon receives an annual allocation of approximately $2 million, according to Brouwer.

“I’ve visited a number of schools in my district that participated. The parents are thrilled; the kids are away from dangerous intersections … it’s a great success nationwide,” DeFazio said. “That program was created when Republicans were in charge … but this is a much more mean-spirited bunch.”

By a narrow 29-27 margin, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last week voted against restoring money for Safe Routes to School and Transportation Enhancements.

The bill is expected to go to the House floor for a vote by the end of the month, although if it were to pass in its present form, it likely would not be signed into law, according to DeFazio and several others.

The Senate drafted a transportation reauthorization bill with bipartisan support, and a temporary extension of the present law likely would pass in order to allow more time for negotiations.

The post Transportation bill jeopardizes fate of bike, pedestrian programs appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

As more details emerge about President Obama’s proposed American Jobs Act, as much as $770.6 million could be injected into Oregon’s construction industry.

The White House today released a breakdown of how the plan, if passed by Congress, would affect each state. In it, the President has earmarked more than $770 million, in addition to the several tax cuts, that would directly affect Oregon construction companies that work on transportation, education and residential projects.

According to , Oregon will receive at least $426.2 million of the $50 billion set aside for immediate investments in highway, transit, rail and aviation projects. The money could support as many as 5,500 local jobs, according to the fact sheet.

Additionally, the president would send $253.2 million to public K-12 schools in Oregon for modernizations and maintenance, as well as $71.2 million to community colleges for upgrades to learning spaces.

Oregon would also see at least $20 million of the President’s suggested $15 billion for rehabilitating and refurbishing hundreds of thousands of vacant and foreclosed homes and businesses. The funds would be available through a competitive application process.

The post Oregon construction industry would get $770M from Obama’s jobs plan appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Oregon public schools could be eligible for modernization and infrastructure improvement funds if President Obama’s American Jobs Act is approved by Congress.

According to a released today by the White House, Oregon K-12 public schools will be eligible for $253 million of the $25 billion set aside for improving public schools if the bill is passed as presented to Congress. Additionally, community colleges in Oregon would be eligible for $71.2 million.

White House officials estimate that this money could attract or retain as many as 3,300 jobs.

The money for K-12 schools would be allocated to the state once the bill is passed. The state Department of Education would then have until Sept. 30 to obligate those funds or they would be redistributed to other states.

Oregon would be required to direct half the funding to local school districts on a formula basis, and the other half through an application process in the most high-need districts, with a priority for rural districts.

The money for community colleges could only be used for repair, renovation or modernization of facilities used primarily for instruction and research.

Additionally, $10 billion of the $25 billion would be directed straight to the 100 largest high-need public school districts. No school districts in Oregon or Washington made that list.

The post Obama jobs bill could send $324.2M to Oregon public schools appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

President Barack Obama on Thursday night asked Congress to quickly approve his $477 billion American Jobs Act proposal, which includes $105 billion for infrastructure and construction spending.

Initial reaction from built industry professionals – both locally and nationally – is that any increase in federal spending on infrastructure and other construction projects is sorely needed and much appreciated. But as with Obama’s $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009, industry professionals say they think any positive effects will most likely be short lived.

“Any effort is appreciated as we can all agree that we need more jobs,” said John Killin, president of the Oregon chapter of the Associated Builders and Contractors. “But as an organization we bought into the stimulus package, which this looks an awful lot like. As soon as the stimulus money dried up, our unemployment rate in Oregon rose again.”

A large portion of Obama’s plan focuses on the extension of unemployment benefits and tax breaks for small businesses. The rest focuses on short-term spending to modernize schools, fund federal infrastructure projects, and rehabilitate and repurpose vacant space in neighborhoods across the country.

While Killin likes the intent of the effort – getting people back to work – he doesn’t agree that the package offers a real solution to that problem.

“These tweaks and holidays don’t work,” he said. “We need to roll back these barriers to doing business and remove the regulations that are hurting the people that create jobs.”

U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., a senior member of the House Budget and Ways and Means committees, voiced similar concerns in a statement he released following the president’s speech. But Blumenauer said he wants to keep an open mind until he is able to examine the plan in greater detail.

“I don’t believe that tax cuts will create as many jobs as investing in infrastructure, but I look forward to reading the president’s plan and to (learning) more details,” Blumenauer said in his statement. “We must guard against people just taking the easy political step of cutting taxes and not the heavy lifting of tax reform and funding our failing infrastructure.”

Others had fewer reservations, if any.

John Mohlis, executive secretary-treasurer with the Columbia Pacific Building Trades Council, said he considers any proposal that pays for infrastructure and puts people back to work to be a good thing in the current economy.

Tom Chamberlain, president of Oregon AFL-CIO, agreed. He believes the plan could really benefit Oregon.

“I saw a lot of good stuff, especially the transportation stuff,” Chamberlain said. “Hopefully there’s some money in there for the (Columbia River Crossing) project. That would have a direct positive impact not only on Oregon construction workers but our entire unemployment rate and the economy in general.”

The American Institute of Architects also voiced strong support for the president’s plan, especially the money dedicated to construction spending. The organization estimates that every $1 billion invested in nonresidential design and construction results in 28,500 full-time jobs. By that calculation, Obama’s plan could result in nearly 3 million jobs.

But while the AIA supports the spending in the plan, the organization is also calling for at least one more addition – the continuation of the Build America Bonds program.

“In the two short years that the program was authorized, state and local governments used Build America Bonds to finance roughly $180 billion (of) new construction projects, preserving tens of thousands of jobs,” AIA President Clark Manus said. “We estimate that at least $45 billion of that amount was used in the construction sector to finance schools, offices, hospitals and other building projects that improve communities.”

The U.S. Green Building Council took a similar stance. Rick Fedrizzi, president and CEO of the U.S. Green Building Council, offered the organization’s full support of the proposal and its passage. But he also mentioned several energy-efficient tax incentives that could be included to create more jobs.

“Specifically in commercial building, we know fixing the tax incentive for energy-efficient commercial buildings, Section 179D, could create 77,000 additional jobs in energy efficiency,” he said in a statement about the plan. “I hope Congress will strongly consider this commonsense tax fix.”

The post Reactions mixed to Obama’s jobs plan for construction industry appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.