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: Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]
Target Audience
Population: People living in the Northern Border Regional Commission states impacted by economic, infrastructure, and health projects.
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill reauthorizes regional development commissions focused on specific U.S. areas, especially near the northern border, where identified states are Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont.
- Grants are aimed at projects related to economic development, infrastructure, and health, including efforts focused on business retention and expansion in targeted counties.
- The bill mentions the enhancement of efforts to combat substance use disorders, indicating a focus on health improvement.
- Projects related to climate adaptation and workforce capacity building indicate that a broad range of community members may benefit, including workers, families, and community service users.
Reasoning
- The bill is targeted towards states within the Northern Border region; thus, simulation focuses on residents within Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont.
- The target population, including both directly impacted individuals and unaffected ones, is significant but not all encompassing, so some interviews include broader perspectives.
- While some individuals will directly benefit from improvements in infrastructure or healthcare as a result of the policy, others might not see direct impact due to the policy's limited budget and focus areas.
- The impact of grants aimed at economic development may not be widespread immediately, but it could have a substantial long-term effect on employment and community wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Healthcare worker (Syracuse, New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The grants focused on healthcare and substance use will probably enhance our clinic's ability to help more people.
- I expect to see some improvements in my daily work because of better resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Software Engineer (Burlington, Vermont)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't foresee the policy affecting me directly, as my job is remote and not tied to these local infrastructure projects.
- However, improved infrastructure can enhance community life overall.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Construction Worker (Nashua, New Hampshire)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Infrastructure grants may increase job opportunities in construction temporarily.
- I'm hopeful but cautious, as the improvements might not lead to steady work year-round.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (Portland, Maine)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the grants enhance local tourism and business infrastructure, more traffic could benefit my café.
- It's critical these plans actually come to fruition without getting stuck in planning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired (Buffalo, New York)
Age: 65 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy sounds promising, but I worry if it will truly reach and help all in need.
- Development commissions need to focus more on inclusive community engagement.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Teacher (Rochester, New York)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improving infrastructure for climate adaptation could offer educational opportunities and increase awareness.
- Our students might benefit from real-world learning connections to these projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Factory Worker (Manchester, New Hampshire)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Local economic growth might prevent plant shutdowns, giving my job more stability.
- The policy could bring hope, if managed effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Local Government Official (Plattsburgh, New York)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides vital support to local development efforts and can make substantial community impact.
- It's essential to ensure transparency and effective fund allocation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (Augusta, Maine)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Grants for climate adaptation can advance local sustainability projects.
- Supporting a future-ready workforce aligns with long-term sustainable goals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Nurse (Concord, New Hampshire)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy's emphasis on addressing substance use is crucial.
- Community health centers may see better outcomes and resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $210000000 (Low: $155000000, High: $265000000)
Year 3: $220000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $280000000)
Year 5: $240000000 (Low: $170000000, High: $310000000)
Year 10: $260000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $340000000)
Year 100: $350000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $450000000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring state-level alignment and collaboration will be key to successful outcomes from grant programs aimed at business and infrastructure development.
- Sustained federal funding and oversight will be crucial to achieving the proposed projects' long-term goals, especially in rural or economically challenged areas.
- Natural disasters and economic shifts could impact the infrastructure initiatives and economic activities, altering cost estimates.