U.S. Conference of Mayors Talking Points

George J Kimmerle, PhD AIA, PP, NCARB Affiliate of KIMMERLE GROUP

Kimmerle Group/Kimmerle Urban Studio

New Jersey Conference of Mayors Atlantic City National Survey of U.S. Conference of Mayors Members Infrastructure Needs and Spending Local Priorities

By George J. Kimmerle, PhD, AIA, PP, NCARB Principal highlights from the survey: 1. As now is evident by the survey results, the so-called blue state / red state divide begins to dissolve in-light-of substantive questions about real community needs across all demographics and regional preferences/settings, all of which were addressed in our nationwide (grassroots) survey of sitting mayors.

2. Traditional infrastructure investment in roads and bridges gained anticipated widespread support survey-wide, however an across-the-board interest in clean water infrastructure emerged as the highest point of concern across all segments that directly impact the lives of average Americans.

3. There is an overwhelming interest in communications and broadband capacity indicating that mayors across-the-board understand the extent to which the American economy and business practices have transformed over the past number of decades, now being completely dependent on unfettered access to internet and cellular service, in rural, urban and suburban areas alike.

4. There is also an immense bi-partisan interest in investments in the areas of housing, healthcare and education as well as other community building programs, many of which are embraced by the Biden Build Back Better Bill.

1

George J Kimmerle, PhD AIA, PP, NCARB Affiliate of KIMMERLE GROUP

Kimmerle Group/Kimmerle Urban Studio

Subtext: 1. It is vital to understand just how the spending formulas for each of these bills have come about and their correlation to the actual scale of demand if that assessment in fact exists at all.

2. Overall, in terms of spending and allocation, unfortunately, we are left with a limited understanding of how these allocations have come about and despite the congressional budget office’s attempt to examine the long-term economic impacts of the legislation, the entire analysis is lacking in terms of a true understanding of the ramifications of any individual area of investment or the long-term needs and the national scale of the need in any one area of funding. (For example, will the $70 billion investment in roads, and the $40 billion investment in bridge repair address all (or only a portion) of the actual needs and whether a subsequent and like-investment is in the offering to address the total future cost of remediation, or is the funding formula devoid of the actual scale of the need being addressed.)

3. Social isolation and the breakdown of traditional social and political structures have been cited as contributing factors to a long list of social ailments impacting the country.

Homelessness, drug abuse, general isolation and a national mental health ailment crisis that contribute to criminal acts and prison/jail overcrowding are all outcomes associated with social isolation. (Support systems in communities (some previously mentioned) upon which our economic systems rely, can help assuage issues relating to isolation e.g., broadband internet, wi-fi, cellular phone communications, and power are four areas of investment that most clearly come to mind in this respect.)

2

George J Kimmerle, PhD AIA, PP, NCARB Affiliate of KIMMERLE GROUP

Kimmerle Group/Kimmerle Urban Studio

4. The concept of “social infrastructure” underlies the second of the two pieces of legislation.

Biden’s Build Back Better Bill is particularly interested in addressing issues that go well beyond traditional definitions of public infrastructure to address issues in housing, education, childcare, and a host of social services that target “social infrastructure” as an end unto itself. (These two definitions of “hard” versus “soft” or “social infrastructure” can be viewed in competition, but they really address the larger issue of community revival and sustainability, albeit from differing perspectives. The former is built on a perspective that is economic in nature with a focus on job creation, while the latter focused on an interest in people and family sustainability.)

5. Overall and with a few clear exceptions, the mayors’ survey results indicate a wide acceptance and support for investment areas that support the human services and social infrastructure programs being advanced under the Biden Build Back Better agenda. (Given the cross sections of city size and regional locations profiled in our multiple (survey) proofs, we are left to conclude that the apparent agreement that leans towards human service investments is in fact one of a universal nature, and one that occurs across all demographics.)

3

George J Kimmerle, PhD AIA, PP, NCARB Affiliate of KIMMERLE GROUP

Kimmerle Group/Kimmerle Urban Studio

Overall areas of consensus and disagreement as found among the respondents: Our complete list of identified program areas includes roads, bridges, communications, water supply, flood control, and power generation and extends to health and hospitals, education, transportation, recreation, housing, and others.

1. While road and bridge repair remain a central and important priority in most infrastructure spending plans - water and concerns for the national public water supply ranked first followed by road repair as the area of overall need. (This was especially so in areas west and southwest where water supply and prolonged droughts are having a significant impact on reservoir levels, agricultural production, and the overall distribution of available supplies.)

Clean water concerns extend into the northeast and mid-west where public water infrastructure has been discovered to be impacted by levels of lead contamination and in place infrastructure, some a century or more in age.)

2. Concerns for flood control including seasonal rising river levels as well as coastal and tidal inundation are apparent given the recent history of extreme weather events. Mayors understand that beyond hard solutions likes dikes and flood walls that flood control investments must address coastal and freshwater wetlands preservation as well as potential buy outs of flood prone properties.

3. Housing of all types are highly ranked as an important area of infrastructure investment receiving some of the highest marks in the survey overall. Affordable housing, senior, and special needs housing all received high marks with workforce housing rounding out the list of favored priorities.

4. Education-related investments in public education programs were significantly favored, while a negative response was observed for public investment in private or charter schools. (The 4

George J Kimmerle, PhD AIA, PP, NCARB Affiliate of KIMMERLE GROUP

Kimmerle Group/Kimmerle Urban Studio

scale of negative responses was another surprising result and it occurred across all regions and population sectors.)

5. When asked to prioritize investments in inner city versus rural health, most of the respondents’ favored investments in inner city hospitals, and by a smaller margin investment in hospital systems in rural America. Given the well-documented need for healthcare in rural locations this result was surprising.

6. Public power and power generation received surprisingly low marks. There is less of a concern or focus on this area of need then might otherwise have been expected. Histories of brown outs and power interruption in the west or due to extreme weather events did not result in an across-the-board interest in these programs. (We do know that securing the nations power grid is receiving significant funding in the current and final form of the legislation, something that evokes the question – just how real is creating wider Wi-Fi connectivity which did receive significant responses? ) 7. The issue of transit and public transportation historically a significant candidate for public infrastructure investment was also addressed and support on a general basis was apparent, that said it was clear that bus and jitney services were favored over all other modes of transit.

8. There was a surprising was a lack of support for airport infrastructure across the board and on a relative basis. Perhaps because of the cross-section of responses which favored moderate-sized communities - access to regional and international air traffic is simply not a point of concern.

9. Aid to emergency services received significant support. This category includes fire, rescue, and EMT / health services. Safety and direct aid police and fire services have been deferred 5

George J Kimmerle, PhD AIA, PP, NCARB Affiliate of KIMMERLE GROUP

Kimmerle Group/Kimmerle Urban Studio

to other legislative venues including the post-pandemic American Rescue and Recovery Act, but its absence in these pieces of legislation is inconsistent with the survey results obtained.

10. Recreation investments in all its forms received also received significant support. This response included active and passive parks as well as land use acquisitions to support same.

11. By-in-large, support for indoor community centers including places for civic engagement for seniors, teens and others received high marks across all regions and city sizes. That result correlates directly with prior discussions related to social infrastructure and the literature that cites civic engagement as an important aspect of social infrastructure investment.

12. Significantly the mayors surveyed in our program cited federal, state and local infrastructure investment as important and necessary at this time, with a consensus of 97% across the survey.

13. In terms of sources for funding for these projects, the mayors split on a 60/40 basis when addressing that need between federal and state/local budgets. (Interestingly the east and mid-west favored federal funding by a margin of 60% and 80% respectively, while the west leaned toward state and local funding by a margin of 40%. The southeast and southwest were more neutral on this point at 50%. – possibly suggesting that a tradition of states’ rights and local control plays a significant factor here, an issue to be further explored in subsequent work in this area of investigation.)

14. Also, when asked if there was a role for private investment in infrastructure investments 70% agreed that in fact there was. The margin was as high as 80% in the northeast, southeast, southwest, and as low as 60% in the west. (Reminiscent of back to the early days of the roll out of power and communication systems (telephone and radio licensing) at the end of the 19th century where private ownership and investment through publicly regulated private 6

George J Kimmerle, PhD AIA, PP, NCARB Affiliate of KIMMERLE GROUP

Kimmerle Group/Kimmerle Urban Studio

entities and authorities (many now transitioned as publicly owned utilities) emerged as the formula to achieve wider distribution.) In fact, much of the nation’s rail infrastructure remained under private control up until the early sixties and until the merging of the Penn Central and NY Central systems into Conrail and Amtrak in the early seventies. Investments that built much of the nation’s rail beds were privately funded.

15. The private ownership of internet entities such as Microsoft search engines and Google have come under current scrutiny, the need for wider private investment in areas of public access are not lost on this list of mayors or their constituents. (Nonetheless, the relationship between these private entities and the public need are areas of inquiry that will over time receive wider scrutiny, as they should.)

7

George J Kimmerle, PhD AIA, PP, NCARB Affiliate of KIMMERLE GROUP

Kimmerle Group/Kimmerle Urban Studio

Closing Our study and (white) paper go on to suggest a framework that advances a strategic approach to leveraging these infrastructure investments toward community revival and redevelopment - the underlying interest and eventual goal of our executive leadership. The next steps in the process of infrastructure reinvestment are about implementation, our white paper begins to outline a framework and an approach to maximize the effectiveness of these investments and their desired outcomes.

Infrastructure spending and community development should be advanced from a larger, more thought-out and encompassing perspective. As a framework for discussion, our study and white paper portray a realistic outline of priorities and approaches typically leveraged toward redevelopment and reinvestment outcomes in small towns and big cities as well and spell out what the mayors actually want! KG/Kimmerle Urban Studio (KUS) and Community Design Workshop’s (CDW) interest in performing this survey relates specifically to the potential impacts these pieces of legislation can (and will) have on community building and the redevelopment goals of communities across the country. If managed correctly these investments can jump-start a wave of public and private investment unrivaled in several generations. It is prudent to constantly and continually review the basic parameters which community revival hinges upon.

8