Partnership for Regional Livability Atlanta Meeting October 7 & 8, 1999 October 7: Day One Peter Bahouth: Welcome to Atlanta; Atlanta has been growing in ways that don't promote a healthy quality of life. Interesting because of explosion of interest in regionalism and sprawl that there is attention paid to this issue. Turner interested because it impacts everything we care about. Federal government has acted as guardian in Atlanta by killing some funding because of poor air; federal government has to be involved, as well as city and state. We were asked by Rebecca Riley to be a regional sponsor. Decided to enter partnership because we had no choice - on smart growth; Great skepticism and giant leap of faith. Made great progress. In each region, elements of the work are at different stages and levels; that's ok; a healthy pushing and pulling. We are establishing relationships. I know federal officials now with whom we can work together. Our regional partners are still at the table. Not another initiative in the country that matches this. Trying to be mindful and timeless. Keith Laughlin, CEQ, White House, Policy Director, new White House Livability Initiative Way for federal government to show its commitment to building livable communities on the ground; this is the fifth meeting over a yearlong period. Issue has ripened over the past year; only become more relevant. More awareness about what livable communities are - addressing whole area of quality of life issues. Awareness of the importance of partnerships, especially across geography: urban, suburban, and rural. "Deepening and expanding the circle of innovation" -- now getting into the substance, as well as broadening. Need some patience over the next two days. You will find that much of this will become clearer. Veterans also need to be patient. Both needed in this expanding and deepening process. Introduction to Meeting Ralph Hamilton In the beginning of the project, we winnowed prospects down to those most ready to go. But Wim last night reported that one of the projects in Chicago not selected has made enormous progress as a result of the screening progress, and may make faster progress than the one selected. Bringing sectors together and support in developing out of box solutions can really work. Last meeting in San Francisco, focused on the regions - are ideas clear enough, is support enough etc. Seen lots of progress and labor in the regions to create broad-based partnerships and define processes and agendas to make change in the long term. It has been slower, tougher, but also deeper and more powerful than expected. People are coming from different places: some foundations are national, others place specific etc. We have tried to accommodate multiple goals in designing the meeting: (1) Clarifying next steps in the regional projects (2) Learning and harvesting (3) Transfer of information through information project, new tools (4) How to position projects and issues broadly to last beyond this Administration and long enough to have an impact (5) Think out the future of PRL (6) Communications and how to sell this message in the regions (7) Boundaries of the livability agenda: equity, rural, embedded in transportation and housing concerns Today, about the regional flow of work; tomorrow about the future of the project. Federal/Regional Partnerships (1) Asked the regions to describe where they are (2) Challenges they are facing (3) What it will take to move forward Denver Regional Workforce Collaborative Katherine Archuleta Focused on bringing regional perspective to workforce issue, combining county agencies, non-profits and businesses. In bringing federal partners together, HHS, DOL, SBA, DOT, HUD. Thanks to Keith Laughlin and Dave Garrison. Tom Dowd is the lead person with DoL. Our challenge is one of focus: lots of competing needs, from employers and service providers. Help received from PRL on that focus in three areas: (1) Job Link, bringing all parties together (2) Job Support, resources needed for employer/worker matching (3) Job Mapping, the information we need to project into the future Folks know how to communicate regionally, but not sure how to collaborate regionally. Sharing is a critical part of collaboration; now have to go forward to full collaboration. Bay Area Projects Andrew Michael & James Nixon (See handouts of overhead presentation) Developed out of Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development: (1) accommodate housing for regional growth (2) focus growth on older neighborhoods (3) restore ecosystems Bay Area Livability Footprint: An information -based tool (GIS based) What is the capacity of the Bay Area to meet the housing demand to meet the job growth projected? Potential usable land; capacity of infill and redevelopment within the existing urban footprint - to maximize the urban core and existing infrastructure Developed methodology based on available land to look at possible capacity for infills. How to grow smartly and tackle poverty at the same time. Mobilize business and community to mobilize capital for 46 neighborhoods with high and persistent poverty. Place based: focused on poor neighborhoods Sector based: connect them to economic drivers People based: build capacity for development and prevent displacement Community Capital Investment Initiative: See "proposed draft agreement" and "proposed draft letters of agreement" Bay Area's version of the Reverse RFP. Appreciative of the federal support, especially the community builders, Xavier Briggs and Keith Laughlin. Precedents in the Bay area for this activity: Federal Task Forces (for East Palo Alto and Richmond); and human services collaboration. Based on those precedents, a memorandum of understanding would be developed to be signed by the Alliance and the federal government. Proposed Draft Letters of Agreement: (1) Support for keystone developments (2) Support for communities seeking keystone developments (3) ways to support infrastructure (4) support for the government structures (1) Keystone Developments Outcomes (a) Comprehensive data base of relevant federal programs (b) Collaborate in a national directory of developers interested in smart growth (c) Work with Federal Reserve on CRA and safety and soundness (d) Increase equity funds (e) Collaboration with New Markets Initiative (f) New forms of development for learning circles, CDFIs, transit villages, ecoindustrial parks etc. (g) Siting federal offices (h) Capacity building (i) Work with federal offices on leadership for their communities (j) Improving federal infrastructure: e.g. Location Efficient Mortgage etc. (2) Link infrastructures (a) Secondary markets for business investment (b) Military base and brownfield redevelopment (c) etc. Chicago Tim Brown Since March, Regional Clean Air Dialogue has been working. Organized as a partnership between US EPA, IL EPA, City of Chicago, Regional Mayors Caucus. It had DOE and HUD playing key roles. All ideas have been packaged in ways to target sectors of the emissions inventories (1) Workplaces (2) Industries (3) Communities and municipalities (4) Developers (5) Households (6) State agencies Each campaign would involve a menu of clean air actions, operations and maintenance, and energy. Each campaign would have quantifiable clean air benefits result from them. Determining how they would be marketed and what incentives can be put in place. Just finished first effort at quantification. The challenge: developing an implementation structure to support these campaigns. How to assemble the resources and leadership, leveraging governmental resources and civic leadership. Bringing idea generation to a close by December; beginning implementation early next year. As we work through developing incentives to support campaigns, federal agencies can be very helpful. PRL offers efficiency in engaging federal agencies. Need to develop transparency about PRL; work on how to link the two efforts in the most effective way. Don't want people to feel that their efforts are swept away in this broader effort. Rather, look at PRL as an enhancement. Dialogue was already going when PRL was started. Looked for regional lead, Dave Ullrich, EPA Region V, with support from Jim van deer Kloot Jim: Menomonee Valley, tried similar effort, so there is some precedent in Region V. Tim: Want to work out federal partnership piece with other federal players to look at the campaigns and brainstorm what the reverse RFP might look like. Regional dialogue group would be asking for support for campaigns; response would be in the context of the RFP. Atlanta John Sibley, Jeff Rader and Hattie Dorsey Atlanta has three projects: (1) Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (2) Chattahoochee Riverway (3) Mixed Income Initiative GRTA Still being put in place; doesn't have executive director yet. PRL has been great resource help in start up in assembling tools. Also need assistance in information tools. So far, PRL has been access to resources. A federal partnership team which in some ongoing way can be responsive to GRTA is not in place, and GRTA may not be ready yet. Chattahoochee Riverway The most ready initiative. 180 mile greenway across the state; drinking water for 50% of the state of Georgia. We don't have enough water. Critical resource issue. First meeting with feds on this issue was yesterday. Raised issues. Federal officials had a complete open willingness to be supportive, but a variety of voices, pick off our menu, or need organizational structure. There really is a challenge to figure out how to take this out of the box, flexible federal response has yet to be developed. Going to take infinite painstaking effort to make it work. As PRL begins to raise its head, people start getting nervous. Need to massage existing relationships so it doesn't get in the way. The PRL vision of a new way to link federal abilities and regional issues has a long way to go. Mixed Income Initiative Our concern is similar challenges to the Bay Area: increasing rate of poverty within the city limits; workiing in outer cities to include affordable housing; Now trying to bring in other layers, including an Urban Land Institute conference on gentrification. How to manage growth without displacement. How to protect that population. Also how to engage the city that will be threatened by political gentrification with population changes. We have engaged the Brookings Institution on gentrification. Need dialogue with policy makers. Housing/job link is a GRTA concern, but metro Atlanta is a low-density area. If talking about increasing density, have to deal with Bell South issue which is trying to move into the city, but the neighbors are fighting it. Atlanta Regional Commission is supportive, and the Sierra Club. But, we are at the beginning in a region where people don't deal with each other. Conversation can best happen within GRTA. Three Key Lessons from Regional Reports Keith Laughlin: It's difficult. First, I want to highlight the fact that it can begin to make people nervous. Knew it, but we're beginning to see it materialize. Second, federal government doesn't know how to do this yet. We are not organized to do it yet, but just beginning. The more complicated, the harder it is. Third, learned more from doing it on the ground than in years of policy discussions. It will be an ongoing learning experience for all of us Dave Garrison: Add, each venture is idiosyncratic, on its own path. We need to listen and be ready to adapt. We've got to find ways to relate to them on their own terms, and it's going to be different in every case. It is not "a" thing, but many. Katherine Archuleta: See huge differences in the four projects as well as similarities. It is a difficult process, which goes in ebbs and tides. Peter B: When funders asked people to get involved, we were conscious that this be worth while. Conversations are not sufficient. Something needs to get signed and get to work. Need to break that barrier or we may loose momentum. What would it take to get that done. John S: One size fits all won't work. Going to take a lot more effort and attention than originally conceived to get even one going. In Atlanta, may have to get smaller than the projects we have been talking about. Maybe start with one part of the Chattahoochee. Wim W.: It is clear that one size fits all doesn't work. Need loosening up of the expectations on timeline or product; at same time there has to be a "there" there. Broadening the number of projects. Why not two or three Chicago projects, as we acknowledge that different ones go at different paces. Andrew M.: Inventory of knowledge has been promoted by interagency involvement. Helped us to figure out what even to ask from federal partners. Can't know what to ask for without knowing what's possible. It is an iterative process. Timeline has provided momentum and benchmarks, which has been helpful. Sunny McPeak: I am the plate spinner. Need power to get to the next level. Moving to getting that agreement and, on the footprint, getting mapping started, is essential to promote discussion among agencies. Need to put numbers and other constraints on a map. Need a lead agency Susan Walker: Gearing up to help you at HUD. Sunny: On CCII, opportunities for private capital investment at hand, but need help in defining new mechanisms for developing community equity. A new aspect of capital investment that communities will want to see, and a way to address gentrification. PRL helps keep us on track. Nick: Bay Area Alliance superstructure being put in place is a new form of regional governance with regional stakeholders with various levels of government. If that is happening, that is a mighty challenge because we have to rethink the allocation of scarce resources, fairness, and implications for broader policy. When get to scale, we need to be ready to answer these questions in the federal government. Keith: A proposal is underway for a Wingspread Conference in December to build federal capacity more broadly. What are all the issues; how to build in incentives to encourage this. Hattie: As we talk about a federal intervention, since they work through the state and city, how can we get buy in, the "how to" to make it happen. How do we educate other government officials at other levels? In Atlanta, we have so many governmental units that don't talk with each other. Is there going to be a bypass of old structures. Keith: Need to look for ways to minimize nervousness. Need foundation help here. Federal folks won't do a top down thing telling local officials what to do, but there are carrots, information and other ways to assist local folks. Xav Briggs: Need for more than simple buy in. It is also raising smart growth and livability literacy. We welcome advice from local folks and foundations on how to do that. Like an Academy effort to help people plug into national efforts. HUD is facing fact that our imagination is greater that what Congress will let us do. So helpful to be part of something that can demonstrate what new partnerships and dance steps can produce. Ralph: Image of laying track as fast as we can as the train is moving. The track is not laid: Tensions: (1) Structure vs. Flexibility (2) People vs. Institutions: individual leadership and entrepreneurs helping the regions vs. broader institutional buy in (3) Concept and Dreams vs. Practice of Doing it: policy discussion are great, but chose to ground ourselves in practical work (4) Cherry Picking vs. Innovation: Narrowing things down, picking from what's easier may preclude something that is really new New Federal Agencies Keith: Perhaps agencies you have not yet thought about tapping. They are potential resources. Department of Labor: workforce issues Center for Disease Control: healthy communities General Services Administration: federal landlord; presence in all four communities; work with you so that GSA is supportive of local plans Federal Emergency Management Plan: could be player in Chattahoochee, mapping and building disaster resistance through design Department of Energy: energy efficiency (also a design issue) and excellent work in information (see web site www.sustainable.doe.gov an excellent resource on land use, energy efficiency, best practices etc. Scott: Delighted that the circle has continued to expand. At the beginning, the question was "what can the federal government do…?" See book by Dewitt John (1) Information (2) Incentives and Resources to move Investment differently (3) Rulemaking that enables activities instead of as a barrier Agencies that have joined have been doing this all along. FEMA: Excellent job in disaster relief, but also increasingly mine information where risk is, get it out to the insurance industry, innovative changes moving people off of flood GSA: Federal government is 18% of economy, and laborforce DoL: put information out about how the laborforce works DoE: Possibility of mining the ineffiency in the national economy place by place is more real some places than others; If we can turn this inefficiency around to create jobs, Collectively we are creating something with tangible benefits Transportation A leverage point for air quality etc. Jeff Anderson: Federal perspective; connection to other concerns in other agencies John: Regional perspective: why GRTA is focusing on transportation to achieve clean air and leveraging transportation into everything else Roy: Leveraging transportation investmetns into inner city housing, jobs/housing match etc. Jeff: We have historically focused on point sources of emissions and some mobile sources with end of pipe controls. Pretty successful. Technology driven. But still have over 100 million people who live in areas that don't meet EPA's air quality standards Mobile sources are increasingly important. End of pipe has decreased emissions/mile by 90% over 30 years, but driving is growing. Countered many of the technological gains. Recognition of relative success in point sources and problem with mobile sources has us lookin at new methods: more flexibility etc. Air/Brownfield Project: lets find ways to better reconcile air quality and inner city redevelopment; Atlantic Steel redeveloped modeled to show long term reductions in emissions Looking at new strategies. Tie to this group. Atlantic Steel was very hard. Working relationships were hard; also finding consulting who can do all the unconventional technical and process tasks John Sibley: GRTA: trying to make linkages between transportation and a comprehensive planning process. Also main initiative of Atlanta for PRL. Historical context: 1989, Georgia Planning Act: Three tiered planning process, local regional, state Mechanisms for cooperation within regions Protection for sensitive areas Mediation process State funds as carrot Looks good but didn't work. Local plans are done; regional plans are getting finished; but did not achieve goals. Three places it failed: At state level, governor would be the lead planner for the state. Next governor had no desire to be the lead planner; so state plan didn't happen At regional level, mediation process didn't work. Dialogues happened, but there were not teeth. State funds, not many funds available. Road money was not in the pot; indeed transportation not part of the comprehensive plan; DOT could put over whatever plans they wanted. In 1998: Atlanta became the poster child for sprawl; one corporate citizen decided not to build because transportation was bad; then Jeff cut off road money. Law suits on highways; and a new government. Now air was an economic development issue. How can we get the road money back? Now, Georgia Regional Transportation Authority; At regional level Regional transportation agency Head of transportation planning At state level Governor's development council GRTA Toolkit: Gets to approve MPO and DOT plans by 2/3 vote; can negotiate adjustments; can adopt regional plan on its own if it has to. GRTA needs to approve a development or regional impact to get road money or get local supermajority support. Road money is now at risk if you don't play by the rules; GRTA controls curb cuts on all state and local roads. Putting a stakeholder participation structure from government, business, and environment; feed into task forces for land use, environment, economic development, air quality, health and safety, and infrastructure (transportation water and sewers). Roy Kienitz: On issue of commonality vs. specificity, need to recognize that there is considerable commonality on what people are doing; less on the language being used. Human infrastructure, infrastructure investments, local environmental issues, and money to make them worse Transportation is a classic example of a sectoral approach to problems. Perfect example also of a narrow set of actions with broad outcomes. We're trying to get transportation decisions to take in all these outcomes. Bring multiplicity of goals and impacts back up through the system. Each piece that the federal government needs to do to make it work, the feds already do. (1) Pursuing larger social goals (2) Focus on specific projects (3) Cross sectoral/across agencies (4) Work at the community level (5) Work at the regional level (6) Robust relationships with complex teams Trying to get them to do all of these things in the same context. Want the federal government to routinize this and not have it only be tied to inspired personal leadership. Good news: Our experience is that community and feds talking is possible simultaneously. Also, create a powerful understanding of the federal process and adapt language and goals to the constraints of that process. Cherry Pick vs. Innovate: Need to do both. Transportation is example in which evolution of structures is possible over time. Lots of programs have evolved through this kind of engagement. How to make this "the system" rather than pilot progress? That's politics. Got to show good things to Congress and convince them that they should support it. Although we have explicitly not focused on that in this project, ultimately has to be decided in that forum. Potential Value Added of Feds Scott: Common themes: (1) value of linkage, make it a culture; transportation law is written with linkages in it to be implemented at the place based level (2) making change count: Jeff's brownfield project asked can't we credit for good news as collective motivation; need to motivate lots of small actions (3) Standing: what counts in the federal system is the federal/state/local relationship; regions and communities are not on that map; new models evolving in Georgia etc.; where does my community count? There may be some new understanding on why this is important enough to win. Instead of just the transportation, land use, air quality, we're talking about the health implications. How do we make that linkage to performance? Transportation expenditures are the #2 household expenditures in all regions, and it creates no wealth. Can we make that link? Also 4/5 of trips are for non work purposes; linkage to livable communities agenda; Can we make these facts a strong driver? Ralph: How to integrate these transportation opportunities into your regional projects? Andrew: Relationship between transit corridors and targeted poor neighborhoods. What is the gentrification breaking point? How can transportation investments effect that? Many of the poor neighborhoods are not in the transit corridors. How do we adapt transportation investments to get access and mobility in those neighborhoods? Roy: Hardest issues: equity and gentrification from improvements in transportation services. Conundrum for transit is that highway construction lowers values near the highway; transit creates value in a very local way. If you don't do your homework before you make those investments, hard to use transportation investments to promote equity. Because of difference between bus and rail riders, creates an opportunity for building rail lines to pockets of poverty. The decade to get rail service gives the community the time to protect equity. Andrew: Changes in the economy need to be thought through now. Jeff: Need an expanded view of transportation investment. John H: Access is a function of the local neighborhood and the ability to walk and bicycle. Those kinds of neighborhoods like we had a long time ago are where poverty is today and where gentrification will occur. People are moving closer to jobs and to shopping, that will impact people who live there already. Ralph: Communities need to do homework. Roy: People talk about how the neighborhood level CDC community (who are the mediators of citizen financial equity in neighborhoods) - don't say don't make our neighborhood nicer; rather give the people their stakes in it so that they can share the growth in wealth. Part of staging is a conversation over the long term between those planning long-term transportation investments and local CDCs who don't have a citywide metro council. Need coordination. Big chasm between regional planners and CDCs. Andrew: Brought regional regulatory agencies together; they are looking for transit oriented development opportunities; linked welfare to work in East Bay (development personal transportation plans). Keith: Footprint project: will it pull in transportation plans? Andrew: A significant degree. One overlay is the value of infrastructure, transportation and other; and in community stability, talk about access to transportation. We are looking at scenarios for build out with our local COG. MPO doesn't now do that. Scott: When you get into the decision making room in transportation, what counts is what can be programmed by government. So private investment is seen as nice, but doesn't really count for them. The value of mapping might show how to get by with one less car, that is more money into people's pockets. But it doesn't morph into another transit line. That choice is not on the table in transportation planning, but collectively mapping could show how moving 1% out of road funds could permit other choices. The federal government has the authority to enable such an experiment. PRL might facilitate this. James: Fruitvale area is poster community for transit-oriented development in relationship to transit lines that already exist. Local CDC got development rights in the BART parking lot after years of effort. Multimillion-dollar effort, but not one commercial penny has gone into this so far; all financed by public agencies and foundations. Yet Fruitvale district is the bulls eye in target that is going to go in development one way or another in Oakland which is going to develop rapidly. We're trying to help Fruitvale find partners in development around the developing core; that community will develop wealth for residents. Otherwise, mainstream developers will make money from the social equity that the CDC has made in transforming development options. How can the feds help leverage dollars in the next area out from transit cores. Need to capture the value that is being created so that communities are full partners in the value capture. One needed tool is how to use TEA 21 flexibility in investment of transportation dollars in eight transit villages. Another: pull together folks who should think through the concept of transit village development life cycle with best thinkers in each of the stakeholders. Nick: Land use and transportation planning should emerge from a livable community plus need to prevent displacement plus cost benefit analysis of whether transportation funds should better be spent on land banking for public benefit (to ensure low-income benefits). The tool has to be in the land, purchase and easements. Scott: Urban infill, transit oriented development has not worked yet. What else? (1) Can't balance TOD on back of one community - design. (2) make these values tradable assets; tradable gentrification rights; (3) got to get developers and communities at the same table Need broader best practice work Ralph's summary: Bay Area has talked about need for: (1) different types of technical assistance (2) broader set of intellectual resources to think through the long term implications of TOD (3) specific alternative analysis of uses of transportation funds to prevent gentrification and displacement (4) information tools to model and clarify choices to be made Leon Eplan: In Atlanta, state passed legislation gave Atlanta enterprise zone opportunities where we can use the tax system to generate development in certain areas. Allows to forgive school tax for 10 years. Now with market coming back to the city, we've been able to give tax benefits that require that 25-30% of the housing be affordable. Now piggybacking on the private sector. But state allowed that to happen. And when transit is being planned, created districts with higher density around stations. Donna Ducharme: Chicago work: trying to look at how to integrate other dimensions of the transportation issue, like air quality, such as construction equipment, materials (longevity of infrastructure) and freight movement. Another set of dimensions of transportation issue. Also, to get attainment strategy that supports development, how can we influence voluntary decisions that promote clean air? What are the actual incentives? How to get them created? Transit line does not automatically lead to use of transit. Employers may need incentives on where they locate the next plant; consumers and municipalities need other incentives. Tim Brown: Incentives thought through by government agencies, and quantified by them; the challenge is to get them implemented. Hattie: Add to toolbox: land bank authority for Atlanta. Authority has right to recapture vacant lots etc. but tax commissioner for Atlanta and Fulton County is not in agreement with it. An equity tool. George Ranney: Idea of pulling themes together is important. A market response is key. We've started to look at rail lines; development community has not gotten on to this as an opportunity. Controlled by local government, so need model ordinances, employer-assisted housing etc. But not available today. Linda Lawson: Transportation and land use is an area we need to learn more about trade offs. Many decisions are made at the local level. Local transportation planners aren't talking with economic development folks locally. Getting to Agreement: The Reverse RFP Julia Parzen: We need to leave this meeting knowing what a "Reverse RFP is", who receives it, etc. Also, other difficult issues (1) Structure vs. Flexibility (2) Cherry picking vs. Innovation (3) Dreaming vs. Practice (4) People vs. Institutions: Codification of Agreements vs. Relationships The premise: The regions should ask the feds to play a role rather than the feds setting the terms In June, decision to start conversations. Today, all want to continue conversations, but others want to codify My intention: Lay out basic conceptions and definitions; lay out options; then open to discussion Definitions: Reverse Request for Participation: a request by a regional leadership team to launch a federal-regional partnership to achieve specific regional livability goals. The two key components of the Reverse RFP is (1) the request "in reverse," i.e. from the regions of the feds (2) the demonstration that the regional projects meet the PRL Success Criteria The Agreement is the written document that affirms and memorializes mutual commitments, designating certain people will be available and work with regional projects over a certain period of time on specific activities. To address the PRL Success Criteria, the Reverse RFP should include: · purpose to be achieved: regional significance and strategy (to demonstrate that the projects are of regional significance and well defined) · ripeness of the Project (to demonstrate importance to regional livability, public awareness, and opportunity to achieve its purposes) · skills and tools for the regional team (to demonstrate capacity of the regional team to carry the project forward including funding) · breadth and depth of civic, business and community involvement in the support of the project across the region (to demonstrate that there is broad civic support) · breadth and depth of government involvement and support for the project across the region See schematic Option 1: One step option Federal - regional dialog to get to an agreement Submit final Reverse RFP with proposed agreement incorporated into it PRL Review of Success Criteria Transmit to White House Task Force on Livable Communities Whites House designates lead agency Willingness to finalize agreement before it is fully fleshed out Openness as to what emerges Option 2: Two step plan Submit Final Reverse FRP to PRL via Rebecca Riley PRL Review of Success Criteria PRL perhaps, ask for more information, say on inclusively Finally, Federal agreement to engage in dialogue to get an agreement Agreement wouldn't be negotiated until later No answers to form(s) of agreement, which Question 1: questions on conceptual approach Who is the PRL Coordinating Committee? core foundation supporters (Rebecca, Peter, Nick, core federal team (Keith, Dave and Steve) and core resource people (Ralph, Scott and Doug Henton) Both are options James: Bay Area moving on Option 1 track. Looking for the integration of the June meeting document which includes final version of the agreement today with whatever specific agreements we have been able to work out plus elaboration of June document with local support garnered. Wim: Chicago: Option 1 sounds reasonable. Legal status of such an agreement? Who can sign at the federal level? Keith: depends on what is included in the agreement. Smart rules, regulatory flexibility requires more review. Dave: Opportunity where there is some public commitment that goes on to the venture. At that moment, you cut a ribbon or something that commits the parties to best efforts. Need to be clear that something like that will be necessary. A way to memorialize what we are trying to accomplish. Moral persuasion. Wim: how structured so that the moral commitment transcends the individuals at the table when signed. Keith: no certainty. Have to be careful about expectations. An agency would try to provide resources over time to hold up their end of the bargain. But may not be enforceable with a change of administration. Scott: In Chattahoochee meeting yesterday, A.J. said, "You have to help us find creative ways to fulfill our mission - long term ecological preservation mission" Would welcome ways to do better than they could absent such an agreement. Tom G.: For example, the head of USGS agency can sign agreement of intent to request funds from Congress. Tim B: A single federal agency can enter into agreement, but PRL brings several agencies together. Keith: as part of federal end, create central White House agency to coordinate these relationships, to help feds participate as a team. But there would be a lead agency for each site. Head of each lead agency would provide the response; Depends on the nature of the agreement. Option 2 would be a formal agreement by all the agencies. Have to refer to Option 1 if the agreement is incorporated into the invitation. Donna: Duration of these agreements given the fact that these are long term issues. Keith: have to be very flexible to match the project itself. Need a point where people come back together to consider re-upping. Continuous improvement. Ralph: Need the best strategic option as to when and for how long: a function of the agency, region and project. Dave: set for benchmarks that would trigger a renewal of the agreement. Also, media and political support: if an agreement, perhaps, media strategy needs to be in place and it will have higher visibility. Adela: "head of agency would sign the agreement" Would that head be speaking for the federal government or the agency? Keith: speaking for the federal government. An agreement "to be your partner" If some will take funds, agreement has to be predicated on the budget process. But we can contribute lots that does not rely on the budget process; need to be recognized and spelled out in the agreement. Tim: How comfortable are the federal agencies in signing an agreement with the region? Need diverse local support, but that won't be a single agency. Is it viable to have an agreement with a regional steering committee with no authority? Keith: Not legally enforceable agreements, but agreement to work together on specified issues and roles as ongoing partners. Can't make it legally binding. The point is moral suasion with accountability on both sides. Dave: Wouldn't just want letterhead with no named parties. It is the participants who are the heart and soul. Whoever the parties would need to be shown. Tim: That would be great. Julia: When broad enough for presentation? Still to be worked out. Tom Dowd: I've gone to one too many federal agency cooperation meetings. Need a memorandum of understanding; other wise nothing really happens. But also seen in PL 177 (for Native American Tribes) where money that previously from totally independent sources that could not be commingled now are pulled together into a single funding stream. Doug Wheeler, In California, such agreements are common and are seen as binding and more or less enforceable. All parties at the table in the "problemshed". Julia: State and local government are signatories. Ann: Agreements are strategic agreements for the region to achieve a goal and use them at a particular time and way to move them along. Likelihood that there is public event around them. Opportunity for mutual accountability. But depends on the trust developed between those engaged in the process. Agreement is a step in that process. Tom G: Agreements mostly are about agreement to participating in the process. Under this umbrella specific support can be provided. Scott: Agreement is toward an agreed-upon goal. Agreement need to say that this is intended to add value to achieving such a goal. Clean Air Act specifies measurable goal. Gives something to hold each other accountable Katherine: Difficulty at regional level in developing agreements is getting local officials to sign on. County commissioners, mayors etc. Needs some language that lets them sign it that does not overstep the concerns of their legal counsel. Dave: Feds have same problem. All levels of inter-governmental system will face the same system. Yet the sorts of things talked about here are signed frequently. Keith: Bias toward Option 2: The two step process is preferable: invitation and then negotiation of an agreement. First allows feds to enter into negotiation; manages nervousness better because it shows broad support up front. Option 1 potentially gets you into talking through issues before demonstrating the political support you need. Riskier, because you many not have all your ducks in order. Peter Beard: Trying to decide when we get married. So focused on the vow as opposed to what it takes to get married. Jim V: On brownfield issue, EPA's Washington office negotiated agreements with 15 other agencies in principle that we would work together. Locally, pointed to agreement to get cooperation. Media Dave Goldberg: Covered transportation in 1993 for Atlanta Constitution; got more interested in ancillary stories, rather than transportation per se. Obsessed with Olympics; then editors looked around and asked what to do with all the people. Proposal that we cover suburban issues, including business. What to do with a Monday section? Doug Monroe and I created Horizon, which looks at intersection of business and public policy. What does a new mall mean to everything from traffic to schools? Discovered people were interested in these issues. Especially developers. 70% over previous ad revenue. Also successful on readership because it covered issues that touched people's lives. Increasingly concern about loss of tree cover. Loosing 50 acres/day; increase in heat island effect. All relate to sprawl. A euphemism for metropolitan/regional issues. Most compelling information about how coverage affected peoples thinking was 1 survey of leadership and 1 poll. 200 leaders responded to survey: first year, in both, people fairly complacent: traffic, air quality barely registered. Next year, traffic was #1 issue overall and fears about quality of life were much greater. Key portals through which talk about sprawl issues; perception of declining quality of life in suburbs, traffic/transportation problems, school overcrowding; loss of trees; and loss of open space. Other media within a couple of months of Horizon, PBS TV started town hall sessions (5 of them over 2+ years) About all major news affiliates have done their own series on some sprawl-related topics. Hard to do story on TV. John H: How to deal with density as an alternative to sprawl. Dave: One tough issue. In my writing, I try not to use density because so relative. Density=traffic. Not seen as part of the normal part of city life=misery. "Compact development" "live/work/walk" DeWitt: Ads. Who is placing them? Dave: Real estate, automobile ads, business-related ads not tied to development. John S: Do you cover group activity around traffic issues? Dave: I now write editorials. Recommend rail lines. Scott: Didn't find anything else around the country; no in-depth coverage of driving issues. Any advice on how to replicate this? Dave: We've been contacted by many media, but no one else is doing anything like it. Many places where growth is the dominant topic. Sheila: Any recommendations on how to spin these issues to get coverage? Dave: Hard part, where there is no one tasked with covering sprawl, don't have region-wide beats. More and more papers have people covering sprawl. But don't cover region as a whole. Very Balkanized in coverage. So few editors understand; need to educate the editors. Judith: Did regional piece combat segmentation of the region into various papers. Dave: yet another of the confounding effects of sprawl. We've opened more and more bureaus; we want affluent who move farther out so we open more bureaus to cover them. People say they want the big picture or local to neighborhood. Need to give them that. But ripping them off if don't give them story of larger picture of which they are a part. We've covered balkanization through Horizon and level of awareness throughout the metro group going up. George Ranney: Newspaper zoning. Confusion between what weeklies and dailies do well in the same area. What was the impact on the competition in the newspaper business as you follow your policy? Dave: Competition was the Atlanta Business Chronicle. Ramped up on coverage. Don't know about weeklies. MaryAnn Lyle: Permeates entire newspaper. To get residential back into metro area, what about waste water? Dave: Don't know. Hear about moratoria in some places. Astounding levels of investment in infrastructure will be required. Doug: What about political response? Dave: Ability of hundreds of millions of dollars to focus the political mind is strong. Loosing that money, it became very important. Both parties are trying to figure out where they stand. Barnes came into office with open space as top priorities, even through it wasn't part of what he ran on originally. But Republicans represent the areas that are most effected. Parts of the issue are becoming partisan. Peter: Dave created quite an atmosphere and culture for this region to address this issue. Also wrote a book on this. Story about city council ordinance to ban new drive through restaurants because of idling; defeated. No magic bullet; million of things to do and none are acceptable to everyone. Incredible fight against transit stations and live/work/walk scenarios proposed. Dave: It is called "Rethinking the American Dream". A manual for broadcast journalists; overview of story ideas; how to localize issues. Dave: I'm advocating light rail down my street. We're just starting to go into it. "Everyone hates sprawl and no one likes density" Just beginning the process of conflict that would lead to accommodation and compromise. Ralph: Advice to national funders? Ben: Transcription of previous talk to funders. Visibility for PRL Up to now, low profile. Has been useful. Heard today, in regions, "what is this PRL thing" as federal meetings are being scheduled. Also, conversation tomorrow about sustaining the durability of project in bipartisan why. How do talk about it? Something has to be said. Start building our message(s). Arlie Schardt: (See handout) (1) Bipartisan, or better, nonpartisan (2) No acronyms How to describe this to your social friends? (3) Not ready for outside media; need more meat on the bones, Sooner the better to get a few agreements underway Internal messaging: (1) Obstacles: Government intrusion, loss of freedom, interference with property rights (2) Pluses: Traffic congestion, air pollution, water quality, housing affordability, underfunded and overcrowded schools See "reinforcement messages" in handout Ben: messages are process oriented now. No messages about PRL as something that eliminates red tape or will result in great cities or beautiful places to live or clean air Nancy Fishman: Who is the audience? Very insider messages. What are the problems? Needs to be more concrete; start further back. Doug: As to lack of specifics, solution could be to talk about intended results in some specific projects; it's the objective we care about: clean air in Chicago, housing in the Bay area; outcome oriented Roy: Staging: Now can talk with each other. Later: "new process to help development and anti-poverty efforts in the Bay Area. Nothing like having something to sell. We're going to clean up the Chattahoochee River… Pete: Was there a decision not to use word "region"? Important to get it out there Gwen: use messages differently in each of the four regions Rebecca: If Doug is going to reach out to build bi-partisan support, we have to be saying the same thing to everyone. Scott: Possible conflict in these messages: Local people can do it alone, take charge vs. We're going to do it together. Nature of regional is to think about local in a different way. Unless know how to network with folks like you, you can't solve many of these problems. Have to convey rational for "doing it together." It's about partnership. Wim: Early in Chicago, asked people for examples of good regional/federal cooperation. Brownfield forum was good example. Try to do it in more areas. Nick: Three parts to the message: (1) Very much the local story: outcome we're trying to achieve (2) Effort to change the way government behaves, more efficient, closer to the people, save dollars (3) Something about the process; building new partnerships (if we get to it) Try to rebuild a broader consensus on the role of government from the bottom up, but that's the third message James: In Bay Area, suffer from "entity proliferation" Try to take a 12-step program to get off it. Left to our own devices, PRL and audience for these messages would be the federal agencies. Fly under our own flags. But may conversation about its national utility. Kristin Pauley: What is the partnership? Is it a model? A demonstration? A snowball? Congress is going to ask how it relates to my region, my area. What happens after these four? Ralph: Give your comments on this draft to Julia Peter: There are some standard talking points, but any federal action has the potential to get before a congressional hearing. How do you respond in a way that doesn't raise that? "They were asked by a group of regional leaders to help." Center for Disease Control Dick Jackson Three content areas in health and environment: (1) Injury protection: how environments are designed to have a big impact (2) Obesity: overeating; environments hostile to activity are being built; design environments for physical activity for kids and adults (3) Lead Poisoning/Healthy Homes: Programs to rebuild old housing stock and narrow asthma programs need to be brought together in an integrated approach. Want to break down walls between groups and issues. Medical community has marginalized itself. How you classify issues has power. Learning to do it Together: Access to Information and Decision making Scott Bernstein Vision and Goal: Network of learning regions with place-based tools for rapid learning Drafted proposal; reviewed activities of agencies; marketplace networks; Aurora Partnership (public/private); private agencies working to showcase decision making software. Four Easy Pieces: (1) Demand Side Getting the data we need; Make request to feds (2) Capacity Building Using new tools; Consider creation of regional resource centers Use tool; showcase them (3) Capacity Building Inclusiveness and Advanced Participation Getting close to real participation; regions are large; Start to use cable TV; electronic town forum; real time polling Requiring testing of current tools and invention (4) Supply Side There really needs to be capacity in the regions if we are going to use GIS technology; need investment banking function; missing hardware, software, capacities Vision of a network together Needs specification for this; could get private investment What we need to do: Action Step #1: Focused data partnership to access requests as a network of four regions; figure out the system Action Step #2: Work with, attend the Tools for Community Decision Support Systems III Nov 30-Dec 1 Action Step #3: Tools for Enhanced Participation Action Step #4: Explore supply-side improvements Action Step #1: Tom: yes; Scott: need to define what our data requirements are or define a system that could define data needs; Andrew: inventory of available data underway; John: Atlanta supports it: Action Step #2: Group going to conference; Nick: outcome? Attendee could come back and be a teacher of what is learned; in California, like train the trainer programs; would fund that; Jeff: working on Smart Growth Index which answers some of these needs and specifies available data; Andrew: good idea to go as delegation with idea of costing out what we need and have people who can answer the questions; to what extent can it be discounted for discounting it; Tom: lots of talk about creating a new curriculum at various levels to use these tools; one of the leading groups is at Stanford working with the fed; Also another Santa Barbara group; industry interested in generating demand for GIS; on cost, there are benefits to networking; all have enormous investment in GIS already; in some cases efforts to create consortium already in place would save a lot of money. Action Step #3: Idea of a systematic choice on decision making; requires deeper consideration than tools; requires organizing; organize bigger, better, more inclusive decision making: Ben: enhanced participation would fit with the anticipated project of the Funders Network; Gates, Markel Foundations; looking at these issues; opportunity for collaborative work; Susan: very useful to go as a group; start a dialogue about what would be useful, may find overlap in what we want and help direct the industry; James: Bay Area Alliance has created a draft compact for a Sustainable Bay Area; now in year long participation involving every local government entity; provides direction for a more sustainble Bay area. Already committed to a major region-wide decision making process; if this can be a test, we'd like to participate; also like to be helpful if we can be useful. Steve: Add an independent evaluation component Action Step #4: Investment Bank for Regional Centers Wim: can't overestimate the complexity of this; October 8, 1999: Day Two Welcome Rebecca Riley I want to recognize the private funders who have been patient support and partnership for this project: Peter Bayhew and Kevin Kelly, Turner Foundation; Nick Bollman, Irvine Foundation; Judith Stockdale, Donnelley Foundation; Nancy Fishman, Grand Victoria Foundation; Peter Baird, Fannie Mae Foundation; and George Ranney, MacArthur Foundation Introduction to the Day Ralph Hamilton Today the issue is long term (political) sustainability; Then regional caucuses; Then information issue wrap-up; then the future of PRL. We will close with Pete Plastrik's summary of his observations Building Bi-Partisan Support Doug Wheeler My task: expanding the political constituency for what we are doing. Don't walk to talk in terms of partisan politics; we will be successful if we are non-partisan around an issue around which there is substantial agreement on ends, if not means. We ought to think about the way we introduce the project to the broader political community. Roy K. said that the political apparatus is the way that we will routinize regionalism. It is already in the dialogue; but we have concrete projects to offer and want to offer these projects on our terms. The whys of political engagement are easier than the what and who. We can engage political candidates on political solutions to sprawl issues. A little late. But an opportunity to talk to each presidential candidate. Ask them to be thoughtful about these issues. More complicated and need for tailored message at the state level: we're operating in four states with 2 Republican and 2 Democratic governors. Tell them about the participation of the Executive Branch of the Federal government in a way that has not happened before at the state level. We need their support, especially if we need their signature on a memorandum of agreement. (1) inform them and enlist support (2) invite their participation and (3) signatory to public document Each governor has a different agenda, so message has to be tailored to each. Most helpful if the participants in each project would engage their own governor. At the local level, need to engage mayors etc not only because helpful, but need legal and/or financial support. Another reason to approach government at three levels: sustainability of the project itself. Change of national administration. Want to inspire the routinization of the project continuing beyond the duration of administrations at all levels. Need to ensure government that we are in this for the long haul. If we develop bi-partisan support, change of administration would not adversely affect the rhythm of the project. A difficult case: we are enough committed - foundations, civics, government - and it is not dependent upon any particular administration. How: Need for a cohesive message. Is it process? Or is it outcome? It is different things to different people. But, how much detail do we provide? We need to introduce the project so we are not surprised over an upwelling of interest over which we have no control. But we don't have a whole lot to say that's relevant. More interest when we have decided what we are going to do. Again, need to tailor the message. Sprawl and smart growth will be part of the dialogue, if not PRL. On Republican side, not a natural affinity among Republican candidates for what they perceive to be a Gore initiative. So we won't position it that way. Another problem: Armey's memo is unhappy about another federal role in the management of resources etc. targeted to a suburban constituency. But, as conservative as he is, he acknowledges that it will resonate with Republican voters. He and the Republicans are going to have to address the issue. "We have to be creative in our response to Gore?" Have to tailor our characterization to their needs: It is grassroots; in partnership with the private sector; acknowledgement both of economic, equity and environment which is not anathema to a Republican philosophy. Bush's principal advisor is the Mayor Goldsmith of Indianapolis who has been at the forefront of growth management. There is a message, which will resonate with Republicans. To the extent we can, Keith and I will try to make this a non-partisan issue. This is a promising approach to tackling these issues. How: Where we need your guidance. I won't know how to effect the political environment in Denver, Atlanta, Chicago, Bay Area. You know that best about strategy, messages, messenger, etc. Possible means: form a little committee concerned with this political message, both locally and nationally, with one or two people from each region. George Ranney: Just an excellent idea; an important one. Enough here that is ready. Right on the mark. Make the courtesy calls now, especially to people who if misinformed would give you trouble. Enough now to say that this is professional people of good will who are trying to do the right thing. Participants need to be willing to be identified with the project. Doug: First phase is inoculation. Dave: in Denver, governor's office involved from the beginning. Please differentiate more on equation. National conversation is very different than the regional conversation. If Governor isn't in, feds see a core problem. I'm assuming the governor is in already. Need also to reach out to congressional delegation, which will be important to the project. The national think is not entirely clear. Why talk to the candidates? Doug: Process is not going to be grist for scintillating debate. But, ought to be a national discussion about sprawl and smart growth. You can help shape that discussion, become big government/no big government. Not a partisan issue. Dave: Do you envision an administration which, looking at the four projects; would trash them. Inconceivable to me. With four mature projects with gubernatorial support, any new administration will go along. Doug: If a new administration says "that's a Gore initiative, we want our own approach" Not invited here… There is an advantage to getting candidates signed up now. Scott: Put more attention to thinking about the issues in the projects. Partnership is not just smart growth; it is broad. There is an intermediate step: "working families" message rather than smart growth as a bi-partisan conversation. May be a process in helping the political message by looking more specifically at the issues being dealt with by each project. Nick: Useful to separate regional and state political report from national. Everyone agrees on governor, legislature, mayors etc. locally. Need to be systematic. Nationally, I share Doug's concern about wanting to inoculate this, a defensive reaction to this and other related issues. I would urge we think about who the "we" is here; who is the messenger(s). The regions speaking to the people who are part of the national dialogue about regional solutions to regional problems is the right formula. PRL should not be the lead; it should be an example of a way to solve problems more comprehensively and lastingly. Regional infrastructure, regional approaches to problem, bottom up message. Jim: Endorse original formulation as non-partisan rather than bi-partisan. Mayor of Oakland is not registered in any party. Mayor of Oakland is not in any party. We're starting with business and expanding out to community development, equity and environment communities. If "bipartisan, we miss part of our constituency. Going beyond partisan issues addressing an essential issue whatever our party or non-party affiliation. Also, if governor and mayor should sign the MOU, we now formulate it as only federal signatories. Doug: Role of state and cities both essential. I am an advocate for including them as signatories. I suspect that the feds would agree. Keith: I have been thinking them about signatories of the MOU, but to have letters of political support. Arlie: Second "regionalism" and "inoculation." This election cycle has a speeded up timetable. Regardless of process and haven't got a firm message, the issues in PRL will come up. In January, two debates, Dem. and Repub. candidates where the topic is the environment. Make sure that all candidates are equally informed; one way or another, these issues will be part of that debate. Nice if a candidate would talk about PRL as a grassroots strategy. Ralph: Nick said: conversation with candidates around the usefulness of building a regional civic infrastructure to solve problems; PRL should be a part as one example. Arlie agrees Tom: There are messages that could be built on: Western Governors Assn. adopted In Libra (national standards, local solutions). "Local" is not meant to contrast with federal. This is an implementation of what is being called for by various groups. PRL is one example of several approaches: Yellowstone, Front Range, Bay Area etc. Part of message is a fundamental shift to treat feds as a resource for problem solving. Doug: These organizations offer an opportunity to reach wide audience. Ralph: Total link between messaging and political positioning. Should the committee cover both? Tim: Yesterday, talking points were internal. Today, jumping into the political process. Have to make sure that the communication to media or politicians or public help to support the local efforts. Need to focus in on the issues rather than PRL. Issues that regions have in common, and there are laboratories…. Let's focus in more on these common issues. Need to talk about what's unique about these underlying issues. That dialogue here would inform the message to media or politicians. Whatever gets ramped up, major consideration with how it ultimately supports the regional projects. In Chicago, working toward going public, but don't want to say we're releasing a PRL in Chicago; Rather, trying to implement the Regional Dialogue Strategy and the federal government has a unique role to play; we've been able to organize the federal agencies to help it out. Collectively, the issues deal with regionally would be an interesting national agenda. Even name makes it seem like part of the Gore reelection campaign. Ralph: does anyone disagree with building message out of the substance of the regional projects. [No one did.] Pete: National goal" "inoculate", "inoculate", "inoculate"; No Bush person here; not friendly here; goal is to survive the national dialogue. Beauty now is that you haven't gotten solutions. We need a regional civic capacity to solve problems. Once you get to solutions, you will have enemies because people won't like your solutions. "We're not picking sides on what the solutions are yet." Motherhood and apple pie messages yesterday. Keith: Build on Pete's thoughts: Not a Gore initiative. It's not a federal initiative. It's about regional partnerships across boundaries etc. Locally driven. Kevin: Can blame it on the foundations. But can be viewed as elitist. Nick: Polling: seem to be a popular idea. Jim: two main themes: make taxpayers dollars go farther and make the federal government responsive to local needs. Not limited to current administration. Ann: Most people don't believe that government can be responsive. How do you suggest positioning as a vehicle for overcoming that lack of government credibility? Doug: valuable point. There is distrust of government. PRL response is "make government more efficient; broad the partnership to include other levels of government closer to the problems; and many participants with no relationships to government" Role of government in this process is fundamentally different - as a resource responding to a local problem, rather than imposing a solution. Steve R: Consider briefly changing the name: Partnership for Supporting Regional Partnerships. Take livability out. Partnership for Regional Learning. Ralph: Useful to think about name of entity? Yes Keith: Livability gives an impression that it is an outcome of the process. Need some thinking that indicates why. Ralph: Refer to coordinating committee. Welcome suggestions. Provoked interdependence of messaging and politics: both need targeted purpose; Issues of staging are critical and complicated; Importance of growing message and politics out of the work of the regions; Use salable language, say "working families", to communicate it effectively, not in "policy speak." First order task: state and regional tasks. Coming out of that grounding, second task about being part of a national dialogue on regional problem solving. Sustained committee ought to be happening. If you are interested, let the staff know. Someone from each of the regions is critical. Nonfederal people only. On Coming to Agreement Pete Plastrik Ralph: complexities that did not come out Pete: My role is to listen, watch, let me into meetings etc. Without trying to compromise confidentiality. Coming to Agreement sounds like to a third party: 13 year old son, different from me; tried experiment: filled glass half full, some would say half full, half empty. What do you see: "both". Is the partnership half full or half empty? Didn't know upon leaving San Francisco. Today, more than half full. A lot you are going through is the "stuff of being in partnerships" Trust building going on with 45 different reactions to it. There are all kinds of exchanges of information; some pleased, some not so pleased. High variability. Brainstorming on shared problems sometimes; other times not. Give and take about the "must haves" in the project. Some revisions have resulted. Frustration and fear/ risk taking is being experienced. Some clarification and reshaping of expectations based on what's possible, rather than what is wished for; taking a more evolutionary process. Talking about, rather than talking to, to some extent. Interesting problem of making others outside of the room nervous. Inherent tensions. Although nowhere a deal yet, there has been movement towards making a deal happen. Getting to yes: Not at "go for it" quite. If Arabs and Israelis can get to yes, we should be able to do it. Fundamentally is "trust is the key." They built trust: personal, a walk in the woods, away from the attorneys, experienced informally first. What does local state buy-in mean? What is PRL's role in this partnering? Why are the feds telling us the program menus instead of out of the box? Why regional wish list, when we can't give it? Do the regions mean what "no money" means? Yes, and no, they need more money Different feds are playing this differently. High variation in the room. "All want this to work." 20 different descriptions of what it is and can be. Regions playing it differently: Denver, loose and evolutionary: The Bay Area is down to detailed asks. What kinds of reciprocal accountability? Conversation further down the road. Put yourself in the other person's shoes; keep anxiety "in proportion." (1) if you are uncertain, everyone else is too; (2) if nervous about expectations, meeting them, reasonableness, so is everyone else (3) if misunderstood, both, and maybe disagreeing (4) not sure how to interpret other parties actions or words; other party having the same problem with you (5) Everyone wants to make this work; not sure how to do so Reports from Regional Break out Sessions Denver Erma Zamora and Barbara DesMarteau Denver will have three focuses going forward: · Jobs Network · Job Support · Job Mapping Job Network: Improve policy What are the policy implications in context of regional approach? Job Support: Improve performance Operational piece Practitioners look at what is really going on and how to deliver better services Barbara and Erma are co-chairs; include private sector Best practices; flexibility in TANF etc. Look at problems of Workforce Investment Act Job Mapping: Improve information Get together map of relevant information Proposed head by Tom Dowd, DoL Build capacity in the region; utilize universities etc. Mapping: advance intelligence unit; project out market information into the future Role of CRNA: make things happen, rather than run them Give feedback to PRL Act as a clarifying switchboard Focus on policy and learning What can we ideally see in next 4 years? From PRL: resources; we can't do it on our own Suggestion of someone "seconded" to the project from a federal agency an "IPA" to do some mapping work Chicago Julia Parzen Focused on what it would like to get from PRL: (1) Continue to hold this kind of meeting periodically, bringing agencies and experts together informally (2) Start to have more discussion about the content of the projects, surface common analytical needs - specifically analysis of collateral benefits of getting to clean air in the Chicago Region; PRL could draw right technical people together (3) Break chicken and egg: needing people who know federal program so well and know what regions are trying to do: "have you thought about these 10 things" (4) Setting up progress for capturing ideas where changes in policy could move things forward; capture where existing authorities can go only so far, but need legislative solutions persuaded by the regions (5) Systematic about sharing what is being learned in the regions; what's being created; program nuances; can bring other things into core purpose when they are understood well (6) Understood that initial projects succeed before spreading out (7) Staffing implications of these recommendations Atlanta Kevin Kelly Briefly discussed two projects: (1) mixed income communities initiative: lots of work to build constituencies before it is ripe for federal participation (2) working with GRTA: set up something different because GRTA is moving so rapidly that we need something less formal to respond to TA needs; no comprehensive project; building GRATA wide support Most conversation was about the Chattahoochee Looking for meeting in early December; local partners refine asks based on feedback; Federal folks looking at asks more carefully Making sure about political support Bay Area James Nixon Could have usefully gone on for a couple more hours; frustration with general structure. Sustained conversation focused on each of the region's activities hasn't happened to the degree that it would have benefited us. Appreciative of what has taken place; if more to structure meeting with parallel tracks in a consistent way, could have sustained conversations two or three times; would have strengthened relationships and quality of thought; suggestion for future meetings Proposal made yesterday will be treated as acceptable to launch federal conversations that Keith will convene; look at list of requests and identify for them a reformulation of them and specific agreements and candidate list of specific agreements. Form of this: shift away from MOU. Memorandum of Partnership instead. Will allow us to proceed the real relationships; folks spelling out what they can expect from each other in partnership. We will receive back a reformulation of our proposed agreement; identification of specific federal agencies in first set of specific agreements; Washington and bay area point person for those agencies. Wind up with a depth of collaboration already wit HUD, Fed reserve, HHS. Ultimately, strong relationship with each of the agencies we will work with. On Bay Area side, we will complete our process of generating political support; bring those letters. Challenge is to make sure that there isn't anyone the feds don't know about who could cause problems. Our responsibility is to reduce the risk/reward ratio. Make it a risk adverse relationship for our federal partners. Opening of discussion of participation of the various communities in both initiatives in CCII; a number of levels that we want to have. Good job of community engagement at the level of regional advocacy groups; relatively good with local economic development groups that have stepped forward to produce keystone developments; more challenging is to engage with communities that are not to that stage or where there is conflict between CDCs and other local advocacy groups. One agreement: we have a lot of information in those various communities that we want to share with the federal agencies, and feds also have info to share with us. So acting out of shared, common information. Can move on to resource acquisition of support participation of communities in this process. Both at level of regional structure and level of communities whether keystone development ready to go, close, or don't have it yet but want to move in that direction. How do we structure return on that investment? Will include foundation partners in that discussion as well. The Information Project Scott Bernstein Developing a Timeframe for the Information Project Action #1: Form a partnership with the federal government, perhaps through the Federal Geographic Data Committee, affiliated with other place-based projects Engage with appropriate federal staff people; mine our own priorities Tom: Short term action: meet with John Miller; try to identify priorities for PRL communities; do overlaps with other place-based efforts. Set up in next few weeks. Volunteers; Ken Snyder, Andy, Mark Wolcott A memorialized, PRL-wide agreement would result Action #2: Delegation to December Information Technology Conference: visualization, computer simulation, consequences of changing picture Ken Snyder: Proactively participate in this: PRL, develop a needs or requirements document for decision support tools; use for discussion at the meeting. Meeting itself Day One focused on what federal agencies have to provide and what they can contribute to communities decision support. Day Two, show and tell of tools and case studies that have used these tools. Option: have Bay Area showcase what they have learned. Day Three: small group on next steps. Tom: a lot of the developers of these tools are looking for feedback from communities. Mark: Can advance Regional Resource Centers; also, see tools and learn quickly how they work. Scott: delegation from all four regions. Rebecca: Doesn't necessarily have to be the regional folks in room; might be other local allies Fee: $185 for three days; Nov 30, Dec 1 & 2 Volunteers: Andrew, Rebecca Action #3: Tools for Enhanced Participation; aim toward some actual PRL project. How to get to scale; expand beyond usual groups; parallel techniques; work with people who have done experiments; look for applicability; if so, try it out. Ken: Florida meeting: if interested in particular groupware technology, try it out. Scott: Technology to fulfill high standard for citizen participation by many federal agencies. Do background paper; spec it Adela, Ben, Nick (Debbie Drake), Tom, Steve, Andy, Action #4: Regional Information Investment Bank: design GIS capacity from the ground up; make sure that centers of excellence emerge in each of the four regions. Volunteers: Ken, Pete, James Ken: Venture capitalist idea of Peter Katz to use citizen participation tools to promote new urbanism Web sites: www.fgdc.gov www.nsdi.gov www.ncat.org/comtool/tcddm.htm The Future of PRL Ralph: Successful if we have framed the right questions. Julia: Process of PRL has been inventing one step at a time; first set up as a four-month experiment. Learned that it was good to be adaptable, but resourced in that way. Conclusion: plan for a longer period Briefing book had lots of stuff on lessons. Focus on a few assumptions: (1) Regions are ready; feds are ready; can get things going quickly; experience, takes more time, more complicated; and need to build capacity to facilitate process (2) If bring regions together and feds, everyone would know how to add value; been hard to figure out; hard to think outside the box; had a few people playing that role; need larger number of people (3) The main value added is facilitating federal involvement in regional projects; yes, but other threads of value: TA on innovative projects, deadlines and structure; cross-regional learning (4) Foundations are important both at regional and federal levels; having them for base, cover, reputation, not just money; hard for foundations to do to be responsive in short term, be out there; (5) Successful regional federal partnership will lead to replication and reinvention: originally no agreement on what happens after first four examples to a systematic change Rebecca: We are facing one of the few planned changes in PRL. When Julia accepted this consulting contract, to get us up and running. Keith and I are committed to keeping her involved; she will be stepping out of the main coordination role. She has done an extraordinary job. What high standards she set. New challenge: ability to operate as a loose federation of partners; nimble, flexible, opportunistic; also, one lesson is that this experiment is not appropriate to help the regions really accomplish their goals. We worked together in making recommendations on the future of the project; our joint draft attempt for 3 year future for the experiment; reflects lessons learned; hopefully maintains some of the culture of the project; still need to reflect on today. Purpose is to get feedback on that. Ralph's document, extremely useful; includes work by Pete and Julia. Page 13: three substantive goals: Goal #1: Developing capacity of four sites to be successful Closed deals Improve capacity of feds Focus on substantive content of work Goal #2: National Learning Network For practitioners Tension between focus vs. Expansion; if we can do a percentage of these right, that would be impressive; but demand from California and elsewhere that want to be connected, learn from, and offer more information Goal #3: How to shape an emerging field Building capacity of funders Building bipartisan support Analytic and research agenda Page 18: Begun to discuss structure: Clearly not planning to build an organization; having a network rather than an institution; still, there are staffing functions using consultants 3/5 of budget is dedicated to nursing the four sites Next steps: Julia and I are going to call the leaders of the four sites over the next week to have a candid discussion as to whether this outline meets needs; opened major support from a national funder. Now, frame questions as we go towards making the plan real Ralph: What resonated or raised alarms Nick: three thoughts (1) With regard to National Learning Network, services offered feel as though flat landscape, but actually shifting and varied terrain; some will participate; by using our materials; others will access services through consultations; will change over next three years; need to be supply conscious even as we are demand drive; think demand will increase rapidly; there is an effort underway to develop and alliance of regional stewards, network of civic entrepreneurs around the country; that network will have good working relationship and PRL (2) Political support: wondering why we think it will only take a few months into the next presidency; my sense this is a three year piece of work; not just a transitional piece of work; continuing capacity in the regions and at the core; think about budget and staffing implications (3) Innovative thinkers: Wingspread conference is first step; need to planfully project a set of activities, homes etc to address national policy, how do you integrate enforcement functions and support functions; many bid issues here; someone needs to be working on this over the next three years Doug: Character of project going forward and spiking of demand: whether this is to be an initiator of new partnerships or a provider of services to existing partnerships; clear to me that Chicago and San Francisco don't need support to initiate, but to nurture and expand. In future, may not be initiator, but a support mechanism for regional partnerships Ralph: Network not initiator but a harvester and nurturer of activity, which is happening in isolation; hunger for same sort of technical assistance useful to PRL regions. Adela: What about rural America? Need to talk about how we handle the pounding on my door for a partnership/link with regional work. Something like this in one or more rural regions. Brainstorming session in June or July; many got notice by the Conservation Fund (N. Carolina) of conversation among rural folks to develop something - totally different from this, one or more rural pilot sites, something similar but different with a link. How do we approach it on October 22nd? Don't want loose opportunity to gain strength by partnering together. Ralph: (1) The pilot notion: didn't think we could handle more core pilot sites; reconsider adding rural sites? (2) if not, regional lear4ning network might include rural sites Mark Wolcott: Call from the Appalachian Regional Commission on Regional Resource Center; some interest in that nexus; candidate on how to reach out to rural community. Judith: Think about how regions are constructed; each has a rural hinterland; actors we have are almost exclusively urban, but they needn't be for any of the four regions. Jim: Been ruining my prejudice against federal government; my lifelong position leads me to question: is this aberrant or "to what degree can the federal government respond to these kinds of question. Our answer must be responsive to this capacity question. Keith: Federal capacity is component of this already; it is designed to enhance our capacity; A typical federal program, we would be underwriting all this, which is beyond our capacity. Now focus capacity questions on our own participation in the project. Part of the answer gets down to staffing of PRL because our capacity is enhanced as central capacity is enhanced. Extremely helpful the work that Julia, Steve and Sheila have done. Central need for that staff. If enhanced, we would be able to deliver more on our end as well. Within White House, increased desire to do this kind of work; lots of interest, compared with a year ago when they didn't know what it was. Need to get deeper into the existing four projects to know our capacity Scott: Nature of potential synergy: Why don't we more deliberately look at the larger rural areas around our regions; also economic logical relationships that go beyond our boundaries; also political reasons to do this. Third, more general learning; enormously helpful to have variety of size and scale of sustainability efforts Tom: Information part of this: the government should be doing more of this; an appropriate role. Expression of demands from communities forces us to think about economies of scale and standard way of working by the feds. Important signal to the feds on how to do business Nick: Distinguish between rural area without urban central vs. an urban edge rural area. Issues one addresses in each of these are sufficiently different to specialize them. The Bay Area projects are focusing on rural issues, especially footprint, and small rural town issues. Alliance for Regional Stewards will include rural regions. There needs to be a dotted line relationship to what develops here; capacity challenges us. There are rural funders are looking equivalent funders. Close working relationship without having to be under the same tent Jim: There are some topics and focuses of the larger conversation that would be useful for us to identify. This partnership also done a good job of doing some of this, especially information tools. Coordinating national conversation about information tools. The one on transportation has been pretty good; ongoing look. Useful. Haven't thought about as creatively in the Bay Area. Another is two sides of topic of how do we create greater equity participation in all of the aspects, especially economic; also what are the new development forms (like transit villages, ecoindustrial parks) that can be brought to bear on these issues; explore best thinking nationally, applied regionally. Would be useful to identify other nexus of conversation that would be equally useful. Ralph: Close out rural issues: (1) Capacity and interest to add regional areas to core list (2) expanding information project to include rural concerns/areas might be a possibility (3) as we begin to flesh out conceptual idea of learning network, perhaps add rural sites (4) if rural partnerships continue to form, what linkages could be established and any number of activities in the partnership Dave: Task for feds, learn more about state rural development boards on which federal agencies already sit; Doug: Ask Adela to ask this group what linkages they would think most appropriate Adela: Want core projects in rural areas either in PRL or independently; Burlington Vermont etc. Mark: One connection, Michael Portlier being funded by the Orton Foundation interested in rural areas Ralph: Leaving with responsibility to respond to these questions in short order Scott and Keith attending the meeting. Funders might want to talk with PRL funders. Keith: Addressing "building the field", expanding the substantive work that is emerging. Jim suggested two themes: · Equity/community participation · Development forms and vehicles Are there others? Ann · Healthy regions referring to the CDCs, useful in messaging, constituency development as well as developing healthy regions · Community Equity Participation about roles or economic capacity of individuals in communities; both are themes on the list Jim: (1) Investment banking approach to equity ownership in deals that they don't have financial capital to put in and (2) Forms that that ownership should take; need menus Ann: Intentional about building: How individuals develop economic capacity and regional implications of that What does it take to actually have the community (however defined) less enfranchised be active participants in these dialogues Steve: Broader policy issues: governance; no regional government structure and varying decision making process; achieving legitimacy and making them step; solved in different way; another aspect, democratic and inclusive meaningful participation; not just an elite movement which lacks legitimacy and grounding Ann: I wouldn't' frame as governance; don't need to be at that edge too quickly. Heather: Relevant to CCII; in current discussion on regionalism and smart growth opportunity to develop equity structure; but equity partners don't have the capacity; working on issues at the neighborhood level; need to structure those players to come forward and understand them in their self interest; have to increase resources early on Scott: On James' transportation activity; Roy, George and I over lunch cooked up scheme that could be responsive; also, out of Denver, still no way to say how to take new economic activity and capture the jobs value out of them; we're working on clean air, watersheds, etc; make the job linkage; also, learning about how to help government officials and employees play role at the federal level; is there an analogous role at the state and local level; we are dependent on local partners. Ann: On process, many themes are very challenging; need someone to do thinking and writing about them in order for the discussion to be informed; have to pay for it Ben: Funders network has been working with Policy Link on paper on promoting social equity in smart growth; some work is beginning. Copies are available Ralph: Need to consider whether a National Learning Network among a larger group of regions (metro an/or rural) is a good idea. Go back to Learning Network: Add more stuff, take time and energy; question "would you benefit by being part of a broader learning network"? Coming in contact with other actors, relationships; also on political side and want to position self to get changes in authority or funding, long term is it going to be useful to you to network deliberately with larger group of regions so that ask is not just from 1-4, but from 10-12 of you. Ann: Testing of information tools across four sites would allow us to determine whether they become a useful and less burdensome way to expand the dialogue. With electronic capacities, other people can share information and get into conversations; not everyone has to participate. Maybe, test it out first among four regions and within regions. Use as guide for how we expand. Adela: Idea of a Learning Network has always been a component of working in rural areas because not as located together as metropolitan people are and because of the expanse; learn better person-to-person; not just Internet-based; Idea behind this began years ago, Sustainable Extension Network. Would be hubs of GIS and other activities; Four Regional Development Centers might provide this kind of mechanism. Tom: On information tools, a lot of development whether GIS or modeling, or participatory tools are developing one way or another in response to demand from both urban or rural; range of places, all wanting access to this information. Also, how would we exclude them? Jim: In sustainable development/smart growth movement, in addition to the social equity community dimension and land use/transportation dimensions, another dimension is the resource efficiency/pollution prevention performance/building dimension. Has not been engaged as part of PRL, to our detriment. If we can find ways to engage in this discussion, it would strengthen everything we are doing. Make a stronger connection to that body of work. Keith: Agree. Surprised we didn't receive anything on that. Tim: Interested? Yes. Learning Network does make sense. Beginning with issues address by presentations and build out from there Donna: Start with substance of four projects; Learning should be as broad as possible; lots to be learned from other initiatives. Ralph: Resources for designing this would be helpful. Good experience to trap and professional assistance. Structure by which we move forward: So far, using best skills; soft redundancy, part time people. On three year basis, ambitious on reach and depth. What would the questions be on administrative/structural side? Proposing to continue with web/flexible structure moving forward. Tom: In June, National GeoData forum was Dee Hack, now promoting his chaotic organization idea; does it apply here. Nick: goal: worlds flattest high performance organization; glue is trust, vehicle is all about communication; with goals evolving and being accountable to them. No idea of institutionalization here. This works because we are out of that box Closeout Comments and Questions Adela: Thank you for consideration of rural stuff; please take what Judith said to heart; incorporate rural folks and concepts and perceptions Scott: Thank you to everyone; challenging and great effort. We tried to follow those principles; Love to have Dee Hock discover that his ideas bled out; Ken: How to get people involved, integrate tools with process and community involvement? Appreciate contact on this issue. Steve: Think about federal capacity as elastic, which expands slowly Donna: In coordination, regions should be represented. Edward Geitler GSA: learned a lot James: Keith suggested that at point of coming to agreement, he would come out with a gathering as federal folks and regional folks as rich as this focused on the Bay Area. Strengthen victory and sign agreement at that point. Come join that event as model; What it is we are trying to accomplish is the creation of the appropriate infrastructure for smart growth; trying to create smart infrastructure. Relatively good approximation of smart infrastructure Mark: Jeffersonian democracy: place-based analysis. Local control, local decision making. Skunk factory; there is a sunset clause; think of ourselves a disbanding in three years. Will focus us and inhibit ourselves from becoming a bureaucracy. Ann: Flat is good. When this group needs to have voice in a policy environment may provoke the need for an ad hoc structure; not determine that yet. Pilots should be both rural and urban; if they come to fruition but with no rural context, they won't really be regional. Dave: Risks to current strategy: still purposely staying out of conversations with more organized groups on regional issues all the time. Not a risk we should take much longer. Need to engage them Ben: Goal #3: clear perspectives on reporting work from philanthropic federal and community sectors; easier for us to share them across philanthropy; also, values piece: gnashing of teeth that is organic, political uncertainty, etc.: mood of optimism that work here can be successful and make a difference. Jim: My first meeting; going home with an understanding of my role Leon: Come away with impression of enormous resources human, intellectual, financial that can be drawn together. Resource not expressed here is at the universities. Think about tapping into that. Jim: Need for early success; needs sense of urgency Chris K: Need things we can touch and feel to get ball rolling George; Feeling an interest in some focus; a lot going on here; not too anxious about time; I do think in each area reported on, there is enough to engage additional discussion and progress; encourage people to make good on those initiatives Kevin: Persevere Keith: Glass ¾ full; lots of progress. Institutionally created something of tremendous promise. Outcomes are promising. Julia has been instrumental on keeping us on task. Julia: Scott said I could work for 50 smart people. Very challenging; also incredibly stimulating; need time to collect my thoughts. So many ideas; lots of potential; challenge is not to loose important threads and turn them into products that are broadly helpful. On process, I got to see the Visa principles in action. Very exciting. Instead of hiring one person to do all the jobs; rather hire five or six people to do pieces. Works when people are willing to pick up the ball so it appears that things are going well. Ralph: Responsibility here with one document is to respond to questions raised here. Some are immediate; other longer-term considerations. Closing Second Part of Pete's Reflection INSERT CORRECTED HANDOUT FROM PETE Ralph: Pete provided a summary. Let that serve. Thanks to Feds: Ann, Dave, Steve, Keith To foundations: Nick Peter Kevin and Rebecca Especially co-chairs Keith and Rebecca Remarkable work in four regions Extraordinary partnership Celebrate extraordinary leadership Next meeting probably in February, perhaps in Chicago

Return to main page.

Last updated July 28, 1999.