Bill Overview
Title: Northern Border Regional Commission Reauthorization Act of 2022
Description: This bill makes various changes to the authorities and programs of regional economic and infrastructure development commissions. Specifically, the bill reauthorizes the Southwest Border Regional Commission, the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, and the Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC) and establishes and expands NBRC grant programs. The NBRC must establish a state capacity building program to provide grants to commission states (Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont) to better support business retention and expansion in eligible counties and for other specified purposes. Each commission state shall provide to the NBRC an annual work plan that includes the proposed use of the grant. Additionally, the NBRC may make grants for the planning, construction, equipment, and operation of demonstration health, nutrition, and child care projects. Such grants must give special emphasis to projects and activities to address substance use disorders, including opioid and methamphetamine use. The bill authorizes these regional commissions (as part of economic and infrastructure development grants) to (1) design, build, implement, or upgrade transportation or basic public infrastructure or workforce capacity to support the adaptation to and mitigation of climate challenges; and (2) promote the production of housing to meet economic development and workforce needs.
Sponsors: Rep. Kuster, Ann M. [D-NH-2]
Target Audience
Population: People living in the Northern Border Regional Commission areas (Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont)
Estimated Size: 4000000
- The Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC) serves a specific region including Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont, focusing on economic and infrastructure development.
- The population affected includes individuals in eligible counties within these states, particularly those involved or benefiting from economic development and infrastructure projects.
- Infrastructure projects like transportation, public utilities, and housing will likely impact all residents in these areas by potentially improving their living conditions and economic opportunities.
Reasoning
- The Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC) targets specific areas in Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. This implies that individuals directly involved or benefiting from projects may see more significant impacts.
- The projects funded by the NBRC, mainly infrastructure, economic development, and workforce capacity building, potentially enhance general living conditions and economic opportunities for affected residents thought not directly involved.
- The emphasis on addressing substance use disorders is likely to have health and social benefits in communities struggling with such issues, indirectly improving community wellbeing.
- Considering the policy budget and duration, not everyone will experience immediate or significant change. Many impacts may be long-term, especially infrastructure-related benefits.
Simulated Interviews
Restaurant Owner (Burlington, Vermont)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The grants for infrastructure are great. They might bring more tourists to my restaurant, which would help my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
High School Teacher (Rural Maine)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy helps reduce drug issues in our community, it would make a huge difference for the kids I teach.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Civil Engineer (Albany, New York)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This funding is crucial for our aging infrastructure. It's a win for the environment and local employment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired (Manchester, New Hampshire)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope these projects can lower my utility bills or improve local infrastructure. It feels like a long-awaited change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Social Worker (Portland, Maine)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These grants are a step in the right direction. We can really tackle substance abuse with this level of support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Factory Worker (Syracuse, New York)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Economic development could secure my job and maybe provide raises. Investment in local industries is needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Nurse (Concord, New Hampshire)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More funding for healthcare projects is excellent. It could directly improve patient care and community health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Freelance Graphic Designer (Plattsburgh, New York)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If infrastructure improvements mean better internet services, it could expand my freelance opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Small Farm Owner (Newport, Vermont)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better roads and infrastructure will help transport goods efficiently. Hope there is support for climate impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
College Student (Montpelier, Vermont)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Excited to see real investments in sustainable infrastructure. It aligns with my studies and future goals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $150000000)
Year 2: $125000000 (Low: $105000000, High: $155000000)
Year 3: $130000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $160000000)
Year 5: $140000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $170000000)
Year 10: $160000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $200000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $300000000)
Key Considerations
- Successful implementation of grant programs requires effective administration and coordination among state and commission stakeholders.
- The focus on health and nutrition projects, especially addressing substance use disorders, aligns with public health priorities, potentially multiplying social benefits.
- Variability in regional economic conditions can affect the scope and scale of projects undertaken and their impacts.
- Economic conditions and government priorities may affect future appropriations, influencing the stability of funding.