EVENT BRIEFING Event: Date: Location: The Business Council Thursday, May 8th Park Hyatt, Washington, DC KEY ATTENDEES *Those who are highlighted are current Metro Prospects. All others are current Metro donors. Robert H. Benmosche, President & CEO, American International Group, Inc. Brookings Activity: ? AIG total giving to Brookings is $600,160; ? Last gift of $100K on 1/6/14 went to IFP Metro GenOPs; ? AIG is a Met Council Member; ? Robert Benmosche has no Brookings giving history. Robert H. Benmosche joined American International Group, Inc. as President and Chief Executive Officer in August 2009, when he was also elected to the AIG Board of Directors. Mr. Benmosche retired as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of MetLife, Inc. in 2006 after an eleven-year career during which he led the transition of MetLife from a mutual to a public company in April 2000. Before joining MetLife, Mr. Benmosche spent more than 13 years at PaineWebber Group Incorporated, where he served in several capacities. These included Senior Vice President of Marketing, CFO of the Retail Brokerage Division, and as Executive Vice President from 1989-1995, serving as the head of Operations and Technology and Director and Sales Manager for over 1,500 retail investment advisors. He also directed the merger of Kidder Peabody into PaineWebber in 1994. Earlier in his career, Mr. Benmosche was a Chase Manhattan Bank Vice President and a staff consultant with Arthur D. Little. Mr. Benmosche received his bachelor's degree from Alfred University and served in Korea as a Lieutenant in the United States Army Signal Corps. He is a member of the Board of Directors of Credit Suisse Group AG. He has also served on the Boards of Directors of the New York Philharmonic and Alfred University. He is a native of Brooklyn, New York. Lloyd C. Blankfein, Chairman & CEO, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.- ID Brookings Activity: ? Goldman has no direct funding to Brookings, but many executives donate individually. ? Lloyd Blankfein does not have a Brookings giving history. Lloyd Blankfein has been the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. since June 2006, and a Director since April 2003. He serves as a member of the Goldman Sachs Management Committee and Board of Directors. Previously, he had been the firm's President and Chief Operating Officer and prior to that, from April 2002 until January 2004, he was a Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs, with management responsibility for Goldman Sachs' Fixed Income, Currency and Commodities Division (FICC) and Equities Division. Prior to becoming a Vice Chairman, he had served as Co-Head of FICC since its formation in 1997. From 1994 to 1997, he headed or co-headed the Currency and Commodities Division. Mr. Blankfein is not currently on the board of any public company other than Goldman Sachs. He is affiliated with certain nonprofit organizations, including as a member of the Dean's Advisory Board at Harvard Law School, the Board of Dean's Advisors of Harvard, the Dean's Council of Harvard University, the Advisory Board of the Tsinghua University School of Economics and Management, the Board of Overseers of Weill Cornell Medical College and the Board of the Partnership for New York City. CONFIDENTIAL 1 Ursula M. Burns, Chairman & CEO, Xerox Corporation Brookings Activity: ? Xerox has given a total of $427,300 to Brookings; ? Last gift was $10K to corporate unrestricted funding; ? Ursula Burns has no Brookings giving history. Ursula M. Burns is chairman and chief executive officer of Xerox. When Burns joined Xerox in 1980 as a mechanical engineering summer intern, the company was the leader in the global photocopying market. In 2000, Burns was named senior vice president, Corporate Strategic Services, heading up manufacturing and supply chain operations. In April 2007, Burns was named president of Xerox, expanding her leadership to also include the company's IT organization, corporate strategy, human resources, corporate marketing and global accounts. At that time, she was also elected a member of the company's Board of Directors. Burns was named chief executive officer in July 2009 and shortly after, made the largest acquisition in Xerox history, the $6.4 billion purchase of Affiliated Computer Services, catapulting the company's presence in the almost $600 billion business services market and extending the company's reach into diverse areas of business process and IT outsourcing. On May 20, 2010, Burns became chairman of the company, leading the more than 140,000 people of Xerox who serve clients in more than 180 countries. Burns earned a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering from Polytechnic Institute of NYU and a Master of Science degree in mechanical engineering from Columbia University. In addition to the Xerox board, she is a board director of the American Express Corporation and Exxon Mobil Corporation. Burns also provides leadership counsel to community, educational and non-profit organizations including FIRST - (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology), National Academy Foundation, MIT, and the U.S. Olympic Committee, among others. She is a founding board director of Change the Equation, which focuses on improving the U.S.'s education system in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). In March 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama appointed Burns vice chair of the President's Export Council. H. Lawrence Culp Jr., President & CEO, Danaher Corporation- AI prospect Brookings Activity: ? Danaher does not have a giving history with Brookings; ? H. Lawrence Culp Jr. does not have a history of giving to Brookings. Mr. Culp is President and Chief Executive Officer of Danaher, a position he has held since May 2001. Mr. Culp has played a key role in the creation of the Company's strategic vision, including the evolution of Danaher's portfolio to a leading science and technology company. Mr. Culp has also played a leadership role in the development of the Danaher Business System, the common operating philosophy and model deployed across Danaher. During Mr. Culp's tenure, Danaher's revenues and market capitalization have increased fourfold to nearly $20 billion and $50 billion, respectively. Mr. Culp began his Danaher career in 1990 at Veeder-Root where he became President in 1993. He subsequently became a Group Executive and Corporate Officer in 1995 where he had primary leadership responsibility for Danaher's Environmental and Test and Measurement businesses. In 1999 he was appointed Executive Vice President and became Chief Operating Officer in 2000. Prior to joining Danaher, Mr. Culp held positions with Accenture. Mr. Culp is a member of the Board of Visitors and Governors for Washington College and chair of the Board of Trustees for Potomac School. He is also a member of the Business Roundtable and The Business Council. Mr. Culp earned his B.A. from Washington College and his MBA from Harvard Business School. CONFIDENTIAL 2 James Dimon, Chairman & CEO, JPMorgan Chase & Co. Brookings Activity: ? Total of $17 million given to Brookings; ? Latest payment of $1.7 million came 12/31/14; ? James does not have a giving history with Brookings. Mr. James Dimon, also known as Jamie, has been the Chairman, Chief Executive and President of JPMorgan Chase & Co. since December 31, 2006, December 31, 2005 and July 1, 2004 respectively. Mr. Dimon served as the Chief Executive Officer of Bank One Corporation from March 27, 2000 to July 2004. He served as the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Bank One Wisconsin. Mr. Dimon served as Co-Chief Executive Officer of Salomon Smith Barney Holdings Inc., is a subsidiary of Citigroup Inc. from October 1998 to November 1998. He served as the President of Citigroup Inc., from October to November 1998. From November 1993 to October 1998, he served as President and Chief Operating Officer of Travelers Group Inc., as well as serving in several other executive positions with Travelers' subsidiaries Smith Barney Inc. and Salomon Barney Inc. Mr. Dimon serves as Director of Kennedy Center Corporate Fund, The Partnership for New York City, Inc., and Catalyst Inc. He also serves as Vice Chairman of The Business Council, Director of College Fund/UNCF and Harvard Business School Trustee of The University of Chicago and New York University Medical Center and a Director of the National Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse. He served as a Director of Chicago Clearing House Association and Director of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He serves as Co-Chair of Commission to Enhance Competitiveness for Financial Services Roundtable. He is Member of Executive Committee at Business Roundtable, The. Mr. Dimon graduated from Tufts University in 1978 and received an MBA from Harvard Business School in 1982. Charles O. Holliday Jr., Chairman, Bank of America Brookings Activity: ? Bank of America has given a total of $1.5 million; ? Last gift was $250K in June, 2013, of which Metro received $125K; ? Charles does not have a giving history with Brookings. Charles O. Holliday, Jr. is chairman of the board, Bank of America Corporation, a position he has held since April 2010. Since 2012 he has also served as chairman of the National Academy of Engineering. Holliday previously served as chairman of the board of DuPont from January 1999 until his retirement in December 2009. In 1990, Holliday became vice president and then president of DuPont Asia Pacific, based in Tokyo, Japan. Holliday was elected director and then president of DuPont in 1997. He served as chief executive officer beginning in February 1998, and chairman and chief executive officer beginning in January 1999. He retired as chief executive officer in January 2009. Besides serving on the board of Deere & Company and chairing the board of directors for Bank of America Corporation, Holliday serves as chairman of the National Academy of Engineering, of which he has been a member since 2004, and director of CH2M HILL Companies, Ltd. and Royal Dutch Shell plc. He is a director of the National Geographic Foundation-Education, the STS Forum, and the World Wildlife Fund. Holliday also serves as chairman of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the Council on Competitiveness Worldwide Federation, the Yale University Environment Advisory Board, and the U.N./World Bank-Sustainable Energy for All. He is chairman emeritus of the U.S. Council on Competitiveness. Additionally, Holliday is a founding member of the International Business Council. CONFIDENTIAL 3 Jeffrey R. Immelt, Chairman & CEO, General Electric Company Brookings Activity: ? GE has given a total of $61K to Brookings; ? The last gift of $25K in 2011 went to IFP Clean Energy; ? Jeffrey does not have a giving history with Brookings. Mr. Immelt has held several global leadership positions since coming to GE in 1982, including roles in GE's Plastics, Appliances, and Healthcare businesses. In 1989 he became an officer of GE and joined the GE Capital Board in 1997. Mr. Immelt has been named one of the "World's Best CEOs" three times by Barron's, and since he began serving as chief executive officer, GE has been named "America's Most Admired Company" in a poll conducted by Fortune magazine and one of "The World's Most Respected Companies" in polls by Barron's and the Financial Times. Mr. Immelt was the chair of President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. He is a member of The American Academy of Arts & Sciences. Mr. Immelt earned a B.A. degree in applied mathematics from Dartmouth College in 1978 and an M.B.A. from Harvard University in 1982. He and his wife have one daughter. Klaus Kleinfeld, Chairman & CEO, Alcoa Inc. ? Alcoa has given a total of $226K to Brookings, ? Last gift of $50K in 2013 went to corporate unrestricted; ? Klaus does not have a giving history with Brookings. Klaus Kleinfeld is chairman and chief executive officer of Alcoa. He joined the company in 2007 as president and chief operating officer, and seven months later assumed CEO responsibilities. He has served on Alcoa's board of directors since 2003 and was named chairman in April 2010. Before Alcoa, Mr. Kleinfeld had a 20year career with Siemens, where he served as chief executive officer of Siemens AG starting in 2005. Prior to his service on the Managing Board of Siemens AG, Mr. Kleinfeld was president and chief executive officer of the U.S. subsidiary, Siemens Corporation, which represents the company's largest region. In addition to serving on Alcoa's board, he is a member of the Supervisory Board of Bayer AG and the Board of Directors of Morgan Stanley. In 2009, Mr. Kleinfeld was appointed Chairman of the U.S.-Russia Business Council (USRBC), which is dedicated to promoting trade and investment between the United States and Russia. He is a member of the Brookings Institution Board of Trustees, as well as a member of the Board of Directors of the World Economic Forum USA. CONFIDENTIAL 4 Henry R. Kravis, Co-Chairman and Co-CEO, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. Brookings Activity: ? KKR has given a total of $350K to Brookings; ? Last gift came in on 3/27/14 for $150K to Metro; ? Henry has donated $75K to Brookings, most going to the individual unrestricted fund. Mr. Kravis co-founded KKR in 1976 and is Co-Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer. He is actively involved in managing the Firm and serves on each of the regional Private Equity Investment and Portfolio Management Committees. Mr. Kravis currently serves on the boards of First Data Corporation and China International Capital Corporation Limited. He also serves as a director, chairman emeritus or trustee of several cultural, professional, and educational institutions, including The Business Council, Claremont McKenna College, Columbia Business School, Mount Sinai Hospital, Partnership for New York City, Partnership Fund for New York City, Rockefeller University, Sponsors for Educational Opportunity and Tsinghua University School of Economics and Management. He earned a B.A. from Claremont McKenna College in 1967 and an M.B.A. from the Columbia Business School in 1969. Mr. Kravis has more than four decades of experience financing, analyzing, and investing in public and private companies, as well as serving on the boards of a number of KKR portfolio companies. Ellen J. Kullman, Chair of the Board & CEO, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company- AI Prospect Brookings Activity: ? DuPont has given a total of $733K to Brookings; ? Last gift of $20K came in 2001; ? Ellen does not have a giving history with Brookings. Ellen Kullman has been the chair of the board of directors and chief executive officer of DuPont since 2009. She was named CEO on Jan. 1 and board chair on Dec. 31, 2009. She is the 19th executive to lead the company since DuPont was founded in 1802. A native of Wilmington, Del., Ellen has championed the power of DuPont science and global market knowledge to transform industries. Prior to being appointed chair of the board and chief executive officer, Ellen served as president, executive vice president and a member of the company's office of the chief executive. During her 25-year career with DuPont, Ellen has led the company's focus on growth in emerging international markets, led double-digit growth of the company's Safety & Protection business portfolio, started-up two successful high-growth businesses known today as DuPont Industrial Biosciences and DuPont Sustainable Solutions and run several industrial businesses, including White Pigment & Mineral Products. Ellen began her career at DuPont in 1988 as a marketing manager for the DuPont medical imaging business. Prior to joining DuPont, Ellen worked for Westinghouse and General Electric. She is a board director of United Technologies Corp. Ellen is chair of the U.S. China Business Council and member of the U.S. India Business Council. Ellen is executive committee member of the Business Council and board member of Catalyst, Inc, board member of Change the Equation (CTEq), a national coalition of more than 100 CEOs committed to improving science, technology, engineering and mathematics learning (STEM) for U.S. pre-kindergarten to grade 12 students. Ellen is on the board of trustees of Tufts University and the board of overseers for Tufts School of Engineering. CONFIDENTIAL 5 Andrew N. Liveris, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, The Dow Chemical Company- AI Prospect Brookings Activity: ? Dow has given a total of $168K to Brookings; ? Last gift of $10K in 2008 went to JEP; ? Andrew does not have a giving history with Brookings. Andrew N. Liveris is President, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The Dow Chemical Company, global specialty chemical, advanced materials, agrosciences and plastics company based in Midland, Michigan with 2012 annual sales of approximately $57 billion. He joined Dow in 1976 in Australia, and spent a large proportion of his career in Asia where his formative roles included 14 years in Hong Kong, general manager for the company's operations in Thailand, and president of all Asia-Pacific operations. Liveris became a member of Dow's Board of Directors in February 2004, and was named CEO in November 2004. He was elected as Chairman of the Board effective April 1, 2006. An advocate for the criticality of manufacturing to the long-term health of a nation's economy, Liveris is the author of Make It in America, a book which presents a comprehensive set of practical policy solutions and business strategies to achieve the Company's vision of an 'Advanced Manufacturing' economy (updated in paperback January 2012), and serves as co-chair of U.S. President Obama's Advanced Manufacturing Partnership in the United States. He sits on the board of directors of IBM and the Special Olympics, is chairman of the U.S. Business Council, vice chair of the Business Roundtable, and a member of the U.S. President's Export Council. Liveris is a member of the U.S. China Business Council, the U.S.-India CEO Forum, the Peterson Institute for International Economics and the American Australian Association. He serves on the board of trustees for the California Institute of Technology and the United States Council for International Business. In 2012, Liveris co-founded The Hellenic Initiative, to support economic renewal in Greece through entrepreneurship, business development and investment, and serves as chairman of the Board. William R. McDermott, Co-Chief Executive Officer, SAP AG Brookings Activity: ? SAP has given a total of $200K to Brookings; ? Last gift of $50K in February 2013 went to Metro; ? William does not a have a giving history with Brookings. Bill McDermott was appointed co-CEO of SAP alongside Jim Hagemann Snabe in February 2010. McDermott was first named to the SAP Executive Board in 2008 to manage global field operations, a responsibility he continues to maintain as co-CEO. Prior to his role on the SAP Executive Board, McDermott led SAP's operations in the Americas (United States, Canada, and Latin America) and Asia Pacific Japan regions. Before joining SAP, McDermott served as executive vice president of Worldwide Sales and Operations at Siebel Systems, and president of Gartner, Inc., where he led the company's core operations. He spent 17 years at Xerox Corporation, where he progressively rose through the ranks to become the company's youngest corporate officer and division president. McDermott is a member of several external boards, including the boards of ANSYS, a company that designs and develops engineering simulation solutions used to predict how product designs will behave in manufacturing and real-world environments; and Under Armour, a performance apparel company dedicated to technologically advanced products. He is also a member of the Dean's Advisory Council for Villanova School of Business and an active member of the Business Roundtable and the Business Council, associations of chief executive officers of leading global companies. CONFIDENTIAL 6 Matthew K. Rose, Executive Chairman, BNSF Railway Company- Infrastructure Brookings Activity: ? BNSF has given $35.5K to Brookings; ? Last gift of $5K came in 1990; ? Matthew does not have a giving history with Brookings. Matthew K. Rose is Chairman of the Board of Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC (a freight rail system based in Fort Worth, Texas and a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., formerly known as Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation) and has served in this capacity since 2002, having also served as Chief Executive Officer until 2013 and as President until 2010. Before serving as its Chairman, Mr. Rose held several leadership positions there and at its predecessors, including President and Chief Executive Officer from 2000 to 2002, President and Chief Operating Officer from 1999 to 2000, and Senior Vice President and Chief Operations Officer from 1997 to 1999. Since 2002, Mr. Rose has also been Chairman of BNSF Railway Company (a subsidiary of Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC), having also served as Chief Executive Officer until 2013 and as President until 2010. He earned his B.S. in marketing from the University of Missouri. Mr. Rose has been a Director of AT&T since 2010. He is a member of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee and the Human Resources Committee. Mr. Rose is also a Director of BNSF Railway Company; Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC; and Fluor Corporation. He previously served as a Director of AMR Corporation (2004-2013) and Centex Corporation (2006-2009). David T. Seaton, Chairman and CEO, Fluor Corporation- Infrastructure Brookings Activity: ? Fluor does not have a giving history with Brookings; ? David does not have a giving history with Brookings; David Seaton is chairman and chief executive officer of Fluor Corporation, one of the world's leading and largest engineering, procurement, construction and maintenance services companies. He was elected to the role of chairman in February 2012. He was named CEO and became a member of Fluor's board of directors in February 2011. Since joining the company in 1984, Mr. Seaton has held numerous positions in both operations and sales globally. Prior to assuming his current position, Mr. Seaton served as Fluor's chief operating officer. He has served as the senior group president over Energy & Chemicals, Government and Power Groups and was responsible for Fluor's activities in China and the Middle East. He led the company's global business activities in the upstream, downstream, pipeline, offshore, gas processing, oil and gas production, chemicals, integrated petrochemical and petroleum refining industries including ICA Fluor, the company's joint venture in Mexico. Mr. Seaton has also served as senior vice president and group executive for Fluor's global corporate sales function. Active in a variety of professional and business organizations, Mr. Seaton serves on the board of directors of The Mosaic Company (NYSE: MOS) and is a member of the Business Roundtable and the International Business Council. He is a board member of the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the U.S.-Saudi Arabian Business Council. He is an active leader and board member of the World Economic Forum's Partnering Against Corruption Initiative, the co-chair of the Forum's Global Agenda Council on Corruption, and the chairman of the PACI Vanguard initiative. He is also the chairman for the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Southwest Region. CONFIDENTIAL 7 Frederick W. Smith, Chairman, President & CEO, FedEx Corporation Brookings Activity: ? FedEx has given a total of $310K to Brookings; ? Last gift of $100K in March, 2014 went to IFP Practice Work and Metro PLC; ? Frederick does not have a giving history with Brookings. Frederick W. Smith is chairman and chief executive officer of FedEx Corporation. Smith is responsible for providing strategic direction for all FedEx Corporation operating companies, including FedEx Services, FedEx Express, FedEx Ground and FedEx Freight. Since founding FedEx in 1971, Smith has been an active proponent of regulatory reform, free trade and "open skies agreements" for aviation around the world. Most recently, he has advocated for vehicle energy-efficiency standards and a national energy policy. Smith is co-chairman of the Energy Security Leadership Council, a Trustee for the United States Council for International Business and a member of the Business Roundtable. He served as chairman of the U.S.-China Business Council and is co-chairman of the French-American Business Council. Smith has served on the boards of several large public companies and the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital and Mayo Foundation Boards. He was formerly chairman of the Board of Governors for the International Air Transport Association and the U.S. Air Transport Association. Born in 1944 in Marks, Miss., Smith attended Yale University, where he earned a B.A. in 1966. Smith served as an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps from 1966-1970. BROOKINGS Bruce Katz CONFIDENTIAL 8 ! " # ! $ % & ' ( % ) ! * + , ! - . + ) ! * + , ! - . + / * 0 1+2 30$ 4 , " * . " 3 .% ! " . *! " "# # . + 5 ! " 6 3/ % . % ! , * / " " $ + " 7 ! 8 . 9 "% $: ( % + - . 5 # 5 ! " / ; . ! ; / 4 + ; " / " ! " " . .% * " 6 % < # " $ * 6 = , ! " % , 3 + % " * ? . . $$# $1 @ A ** , 5 ! / " / / 3 % " / " ; # " ,! B )% , . ! % 3 ! * C " % " # $ $ % # ! & + < " ( D , ! # # ! # # 3+ D # E # - . " !. D , # E # D * F # + # . 3 ! D < " / # + # ! / , D & & # + " F " * - / & & # + " F " * - / D + A / # AG + + * - / # A * " F 3-A F H " + A / # AG + + * - / # A * " F 3-A F H " D ** , D 6 , ! " / / * C # !" I .! " C I * " % .! " ** * * # "/ " .! * " / " " / % - $@ . . * ! " ! ! % ' ( ⎯ - . + ( - . 5 # ) 5 ! " / 3. " " ⎯ " " 3 . " " ( / " . J% % . C !" C # " # # 5 )# " ; # * ! ! 4 . " = % ) ' " # * ( ⎯ < + ! " . . " ! " * ( ! " " ! # , " ! ! % ⎯ + " K / . ⎯ + ! " . * K * ! " " J% % ⎯ , ( " * " * + ; # J% % + I / ! " % ⎯ + . * ! " " " !. / " + . * ! " " " !. / " # !" % 3 " 0 11, / . % ⎯ + / " .! " " " H < ) + ⎯ . * " # # ""# L # " !. . , " , ⎯ / " . .! "/ "! / " . .! "/ "! ! % ⎯ + " J% % " ⎯ ! * * / " ** * C * ! # "! / " . # % CONFIDENT AL Global Cities Initiative September 12, 2011 PMORGAN CHASE CO. GLOBAL CITIES INITIATIVE Executive Summary • The top 100 metropolitan areas represent two-thirds of the U.S. population and three-quarters of U.S. GDP. They concentrate the assets that drive economic success – and they are also under immense financial pressure as federal and state government support wanes. • JPMC is one of the leading banks financing cities, and we are uniquely positioned to help U.S. metropolitan centers plan for future economic growth, using both our balance sheet and our expertise. • The Brookings Institution is a highly-respected policy think tank, with 15 years of experience working with U.S. cities. Brookings has a multi-year agenda to elevate the economic position of U.S. cities in the global marketplace. Financing Commitment JPMC-Brookings Partnership • [$XX] billion in 2012 (relative to expected $XX billion in 2011) to lending and equity investments in U.S. metro areas • $10 million over 5 years to finance research on economic growth potential in the top 100 metro areas and business planning in selected cities • Clear evidence of the firm’s commitment to use its balance sheet and expertise to help drive economic growth and job creation • Includes Public Finance, GNPH, TOI, and Community Development Banking • 4-5 major regional conferences each year to convene key civic and business leaders to drive discussion, consensus and action about the region’s potential for economic growth • Chaired by Richard Daley Public announcement in Sept/Oct 2011 1 JPMC’S INVESTMENT IN CITIES • Throughout the financial crisis and in 2010 alone, JPMC provided tens of billions of dollars in credit to cities across the U.S. Across each line of business, JPMC has longstanding relationships with cities and is uniquely positioned to support an initiative that would be an economic catalyst for metro centers. • JPMC has a current total debt exposure of $XX billion and equity exposure of more than $X billion to U.S. cities in addition to the numerous retail and T&SS services we provide to U.S. cities. 2 BROOKINGS METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM • Over the last 15 years, the Brookings Institution – a highly-respected policy think tank – has worked closely with key city leaders to design plans for economic growth that are focused on developing tradable industries and trading partnerships with cities abroad. • Brookings provides city leaders with detailed research on exports, trading partners, commercialization of new technologies, employment in high-tech industries, workers’ skills, and potential to attract new business and R&D investment, and other topics. • The research drives Brookings’ work with local leaders to develop detailed business plans for economic development. The business plans are detailed operational and finance plans with performance metrics around a single, lead investment initiative. • Brookings is also working with cities on export plans that focus on building tradable industries. • Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa о ƚŚĞ new President of the U.S. Conference of DĂLJŽƌƐ о ůĂƐƚ ŵŽŶƚŚ ĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐĞĚ ƚŚĞ ƚŽƉ ϱϬ mayors to work with Brookings to make 25 cities export-ready as soon as possible. 3 JPMC-BROOKINGS GLOBAL CITIES PARTNERSHIP Our 5-year partnership with Brookings would finance: • 5 major conferences per year to drive the discussion about economic growth and showcase our financing commitment • • • Conferences in 3-4 U.S. cities and 1-2 global cities, convening local civic and business decisionmakers in a data-driven discussion about economic growth and the development of export-driven industries; conferences will produce actionable ideas/recommendations and provide opportunities to amplify JPMC’s contributions to U.S. cities (lending, CDFIs) Include participation across the LOB’s with business goals in these regions, connecting them with decisionmakers Research on the economic potential of U.S. and global cities • • Major research projects would include (but not limited to) the performance of U.S. cities in key export markets, trading relationships between U.S. and global cities, the role of foreignowned companies in U.S. cities, immigration trends, and the flow of goods and services between the U.S. and emerging markets in Latin America and Asia Collaboration between JPMC (Terry Belton) and Brookings research teams Leadership role for Richard Daley • Mayor Daley would chair the JPMC-Brookings Global Cities Partnership and host the conferences, advising other metropolitan areas based on his achievements in Chicago, including his role in structuring global investments • Daley to convene mayors across the country to share ideas and best practices (“Deer Valley for Mayors”) • Daley would also host smaller meetings in a broader set of cities with clients and local leaders, as well as promote our Global Cities Initiative at major JPMC conferences 4 BENEFITS AND NEXT STEPS Benefits • • • Financial and intellectual commitment to growth of U.S. cities demonstrates our dedication and capacity to serve the country and our communities Deepens/extends relationships with important client base among business and civic leaders both in the U.S. and abroad Emphasis on export relationships coincides with JPMC’s international growth strategy Next Steps • • • • Gain Operating Committee approval for initiative scope and components Formalize partnership with Brookings Finalize 2012 financing commitment (dollar-level and components) Plan public announcement of both the Brookings partnership and the financing commitment for Sept/Oct with Brookings and Mayor Daley Cities Initiative Working Group Public Finance Jeff Bosland James Lansing CB TSS P. DeCorrevont David Maya Will Williams Mary Sedarat Priscilla Almodovar CFS Kristin Lemkau Asset Mgmt John O’Shea Corporate Mark Rigdon Jonathan Teplitz Karen Keogh POTENTIAL CONFERENCE CITIES U.S. REGIONS/CITIES WITH LOB PRIORITIES IDENTIFIED YEAR ONE Southern California (LA, San Diego) Florida (Jacksonville, Miami/Ft. Lauderdale, Orlando, Tampa) Greater NY Metropolis (New York, Newark) Ohio (Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton) YEARS 2-5 – LIST MAY BE EXPANDED BEYOND THESE CITIES Northern California (Sacramento, San Jose) Midwest (Chicago, Indianapolis, Milwaukee) Heartland (St. Louis, Kansas City, Omaha) Intermountain West (Denver, Las Vegas, Salt Lake) Kentucky (Louisville, Lexington) Michigan (Detroit, Grand Rapids) New England (Hartford, Boston, New Haven, Providence) New York (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse) North Carolina (Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham) Pacific NW (Portland, Seattle) Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh) Tennessee (Knoxville, Memphis, Nashville) Texas (Austin, Houston, Dallas) GLOBAL REGIONS/CITIES • Latin America (Buenos Aires, Bogota, Lima, Sao Paulo) • Delhi, Bangalore • Munich PF/TOI 9 9 9 9 CB 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 • • CFS Branches 9 9 9 9 CFS Mortgage 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Shanghai Mexico City 6 BROOKINGS INDEPENDENCE. IMPACT. The Brookings Institution and JPMorgan Chase Gi? Agreement This Gilt Agreement (the 'Agreement']. dated as of October 20. 201 1 {'Efleotlve Date") sets forth an agreement between JPMongen Chase 3. Co. (hereafter called the ?Donor') and the Brookings Institution [hereafter called 'Brooidngs'}. a tax exempt 501(c)(3) organization under the 0.3. Internal Revnue Code at 1988. as amended {the 'Code'] whereby the Donor agrees to contribute $10 million toward ?Global Cities Initiative: A Joint Project of Bmokings and JPMorgan Chase? as part of the Brookinga's Seated Conan-y Campaign. This Agreement states the purpose. paw-rem scitedlile. recognition. and administration of the Donors gift. For good and valuable consideration. the receipt and su?iciency of which is acknowledged. Donor and Brookings hereby agree as follows: I- PURPOSE. The Donor wishes to support Metropolitan Policy Program's inlttative to help metropolitan areas elevate lheir economic position in the global market through a robust research agenda and a series of national and international convenings. The details of the projects and activities to be undertaken by the parties in connection with Donors pledged donation. and any rights and responsibilities otthe partieswith respectto such activities are subjectto a Memorandum ol' Understanding {an which is being negotiated in good faith by the parties and will be executed notaterthan Decembar31.2011 orsuchotherdate as isagreed upon in Inthe event that the parties. working in good faith. are not able to execute the MOD by such date. then this Gilt Agreement shall be void. II. PAYMENT SCHEDULE. The Donor will ful?ll the pledge of $10 million to support the 'Global Cities Initiative: A Joint Protect of Brookirtgs and JPMorgan Chase" by attributing $8.5 million in cash and 81.5 million in continuum The Donor agrees to pay the 38.5 millon cash contribution to Brook?s-lgs according to the following payment schedule: $1.?00.000 on or betora December 31. 2011 $1,700,000 on or before December 31. 2012 i 1775 Mum Avenue NW. DC 20033 202 it? 6000 in 202 397.5004 la 31.700.000 $1 300,000 on or before December 31. 2013 on or before December 31. 2014 31.700.000 on or before December 31.2015 Brookings will provide the Donor with a written invoice no less than 31 days before the payment due date. The Donor will ful?ll the pledge of $1.5 million it in-idnd support by paying for $300000 worth of travel. lodging. and event organizing expenses annually over the ?ve years of the project. Any in-idnd support in excess of this annual amount must be agreed upon in writing by the parties. The MOU will detail the types of expenses that will count toward the $1.5 million in in-kind support The Donor will provide an accounting of expenses to be applied to this amount on a quarterly basis. Breaking: Mil comply with any reasonable reporting requirements agreed upon in writing by the parties with regard to its use of the donation. Brookings will use the donation only for charitable. scientific. literary or educatian purposes and will not use the donation: to attempt to in?uence legislation or regulation: (it) to in?uence the outcome of any specific public election or to carry on. directly or indirectly. a voter registration drive; to matte a grant to another organization (other than to public charities or exempt operating foundations complying with the requirements of Code Section 4945{dlt4liei): or (iv) as collateral. RECOGNITION. Brookings will acknovnedge the Donor for its gift in Annual Report ?Honor Roll of Conn-tuners: as well as other Breaking: publications related to the Second Century Campaign. when moroprlete. All acknowledgments of Donor by Brackian in connection with this Agreement will be given to "JPMorgan Chase? unless othenvise agreed by the parties. Additionally. Chase will dralt a press release arnouncing the gift and will work with its newscoverageofthe project Brookings will take the lead in developing a logo to brand the initiative. which will appear on publications. invitations. signage and other Initiative-rotated material. Brookings and JPMorgen Chase will mutmtIy agree on the ?nal design of the logo. Brookings will prominently feature the initiative on itswebsite with a link to a dedicated webpage fortha initiative. The design for the dedicated webpage is subject to JPMO's review and approval. not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Exceptas setforth herein or in theMOU. each partyw?l not: use the nameortrademark. logoor outer identifying marks of the other party or any member of the other party?s staff. in any publicity without the prior written approval of the other party. or issue any press release. interviews or other public statement regarding this Agreement or the lillOU without the prior written consent of both the JPMC Corporate Marketing and Communications Department and Brooklnga's Office of Communications. Brookings represents. warrants and agrees that no goods or services have been or will be provided by Brookings to Donor or its af?liates in consideration for the donation hereunder. except acknowledgements provided pursuant to the above in this Article lli. All contributions will be used and administered in accordance with the Dcnor's BROOKINGS 2 VI. VII. BHOOKINGS wishes. subject to regulations governing gifts and policies relating to the management and investment of funds as we! as applicable state and traders! law. In the event it) of a material change in circumstances that. at the determination of the parties. greatly reduces or eliminates the need for the funds for the purpose set out above: (ii) Brooidngs?s use of the funds becomesaviolation of?ten-mrrentlew: thatiffora reason agreed upon inwriting bythe parties. the funds may not be spentfor the purposes set forth above. Brookings will work in consultation with Donor to redirect the employment of the funds to another Brookings project in the best interest of the parties and as close to the Donor?s original intent as possible. The Vice President of the Breakings Metropolitan Policy Program or his designee will be charged with administeng this account CHARITABLE QUALIFICATION. By letter dated June 10, 2005. the United Statee Internal Roi-tonne Service has con?rmed Brookings (federal tax identi?cation number 534193577) is a duly quali?ed charitable organization under the Code. Bmokings represents and warrants that as of the effective date of this Agreement it is a duly charitable organization under the Code and will be so for as long as Donors contributions are held by Brookings. Brookings wil not directly or indirectiy communicate with any' party for the purpose of obtaining or retaining rmnic'pal securities business fer Donor or its af?liates. NEITHER PARTY WILL BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER PARTY. FOR ANY INDIRECT. INCIDENTAL. CONSEQUENTIAL. EXEMPLARY. PUNITIVE OR SPECIAL DAMAGES. INCLUDING LOST PROF ITS, REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF THE ACTION OR THEORY OF RECOVERY. EVEN IF THAT PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THOSE DAMAGES. This Agreement will be governed and construed in accordance with the applicable have of the State of NewYork. This moment constiutes the entire agreement of the parties. superseding all prior agreements and understandings as to the subject matter. notwithstanding any oral representations or statemnts to the contrary. and cannothe amended withoutthe written consent ofthe parties. Lu WHEREOF. Donor and Breakian agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement as of the date ?rst writum above. snoueom 7-0 dayof .201! JPMorgan Chase 3 Co. Vice resident and Director of Metropolitan Policy Program Please sign and return this Gift Agreement to Kinberty Churches. Vice President for Development. at 1?75 Massachusetts Avenue NW. Washington DC 20036. Please keep a copy for your records. If you have questions. please contact the Brookings Development Of?ce at or {202) 6220. BROOKINGS !" ! # $ % & ! " " # ! $ % & ' ()*+ , % - . # ! (/0 1 &$ ' ( $%233 233 • • • • :233 2 3 ;233 0 2 , 4 4 5 0 6 / 7 7 . / 4 .' 4 6 2 ' 2 ' 8,/6 # 1 4 8,/6 8,/6 # 1 4 8,/6 1 8,/6 # 1 4 8,/6 1 . 9 *)!02 # / 8,/6 4 , # 2 • < '= ( * 8 • > ' # < # ( / / 18 1 • = # '= 1 8,/6 1 = # '= 1 8,/6 1 ? ? 1 * .( .@(6/ ? 1 * .( .@(6/ • A # 6 ./ B )$ *$ ' ( @(6 A # 6 6 C233 D 6 = # ? @(6 , / * @(6 # C2$ / 7 6 C2 3 8,/6 • E # & C2 3 ' F - $32%3 , 4 * 0 .0 , G 5 • • • / F 5 *,5 , 2 / 60) 0 6 G 8,/6 B , 4 2 D F 4 D # D # * ! 5 ' -? H - 4 2 E ./ 8 . ' F - D . : $$2%3 I. $$2 3 ' $%233 4 $%2: 8,/6 4 G $%2 3 7 / A / 5 A / • ( / 2 / F $2 3 & %233 , , 6 • = . " " ! 8 J # # ! . ! 6 / * .( B 6 ( 6 B % ($ +&$ %* , • • E 9 4 / %3$ B = & 7 E K L ( 4 ! ( 4 ! B < B < < B E B = # B '=.8,/6 ! ( A ;233 A ( A / ( 1 / A 1 '= A ( A / ( 1 / A A ( A / ( 1 / A 1 '= 1 8,/6 (& ' ( M233 $3233 1 '=1 8,/6 ' . / ( 1 ( A < *% $ $, * $ % --.# / 0 1 / / 2 / --.# .# / 0 1 / / 2 / / 0 1 / / 2 / / / / / 3 4 02 40 / 0 ! ) / 5 / 4 1 5 3 / 3 4 02 40 / 0 ! ) / 5 / 4 1 6 1 3 / / 1 / 4 5 / 40 /! 02 6 1 3 / / 1 / 4 5 / 40 /! 02 / 0 // / / 3 1 1 / / 7/ /! .# 3 62 / / 6 5 /! ! " ! " # " # $ " % • • ! " # $ % & ' ' ( • ) ! * % +,- + 1 ,+-- 4+,- 1+ 1 1+41 . ( ! / ! 0 2 . 3 2 3 ! 5 / 2 5 & ' % ' '6 6 6 : ; ( 6 < & = • 2 '6 7 86 9 6 : ' 6 : ; & ' $ ' & ' $6 : • ( ( < 0 • > • . + ' - & $ " % • $ & & ' & & , ! 9 + ?+-- ?+41 +,- % C+41 D+-- @ A ; ( ( ! < & /' 7 8 2 ' # ! • 7 8 ; • 9 : ; ( • B 2 @5E F + 1 , + 1 ,2 '6 7 86 9 6 & ( 2 '6 2 '6 7 86 9 6 & ( 7 86 9 6 & ( 6 ; ' B 6 < & / / 6 : ; ; ! / & = & ' 6 & ' ! / & = & ' 6 & ' ! ! / & = & ' 6 & ' ! & ( / ! & ( / ! '6 & ' < : ; $ ; $ # $ / % / % ( ) $ ! " " * % / + < ) > ( * % • 5$ ! ' ' / ' • G / " 'H I ( ' • ( ! / J & ' ! / ' • @ ! ! / 3 ! / ! * % C+,- < & ! / D+-1 K & /' L9 ; E & & L9 & / ! ' ( D+ 1 @ & /' M / @ ; 2 ' ! J D+,- 9 / & = 7 8 D+,1 < 7 8 ! & / ' • 5$ ! • 9 ( / ' • 5$ ( / / -+-- L / 9 • . + ( / ) ' ! " # • + L9 2 & 2 / & ! $ # < / M 8/ F ( )2 ( / < . & ( +-- > / ' 9 & ! # ) 3 + 2 ! > ! % # M / ( ; 2 ! < & ! # < 7 8 ; + ' > @ ! # ; ' ( • . + @ 9 / 5 • F + ( / ! &' ( ) # ( / + ; ) 2 8 ( ' > ( / ( ) ' : / : / ! # ( < / ! # + ; @ < E 9 > @ J : / ! ! # 9 + ; @ # ! J : / 8 % 9 2 9 / ; + 7 @' / ; G; & H ! 5! 2 L9 / 9 : +-- +41 < $ & ( & ' • ; ' B ; ' @ 2 ' • . + @ " @ ! " # • ; ; & ' 7 ! # +1- < 7 8 +-- +,- 2 ! ! 9 2 + 2 '6 7 86 9 # ! %6 < 6 < > 6 ; 6 )5 1+-- ! 9 2 M + L9 M ,? < ' 9 2 D - & $ ! " " % $ & 9 • $ & 9 2 ; ' : ' 9 2 ; ' : ' 9 & ' / 2 ; ' : ' 9 & ' / & ' : ; / & & ' % ' • 4 # ! ' F ! ' $% ?+-- ?+- ! 2 L9 M F F 2 L9 M F F C+ 1 C+,- @5E ( ) $ " % • < & ' 9 2 & ' ! ! ; ' ! ! ! ! ; ' 2 ' = < 7 8 • ! 9 2 J / ' ' • ! & ' ' ! & ' ' ' ! ! ! ; ' 2 ' < 7 8 & ' % ' • ' ,- ,1 & ' & ' ,- ,1 & ' & ' ' ; 9 2 '6 7 86 9 # ! %6 : ; 9 2 / & = 6 ; ' 9 9 2 2 / & = 6 ; ' 9 9 2 / / & ' / 6 92 & ' / 6 92 / & ' / 6 92 ! 6 < & : ; ; $ % C+ 1 C+,- & L 9 M F & ! E & < & 9 2 • ; ' 9 = & • < 7 8 • ; ' 2 ' & • • 2 +-- • / ! ! ! "# $ $ % ! " & # $ " & ' ! % & & $ " * ! " " ' "# & + $ $ % ! ) & " !* $+ !! , ) ( $ ! ! $ $ ! $ ) ( $ ! ! % + ! ) ( $ ! ! $ " $&' "# ! ( ) ( ' $ ) ( $ ! ! " $ ( $ ( $ " , & ) ( $ ! ! " $ "# ! - ) ( $ ! ! ( ! ! ) ( $ ! ! ' ( $ !! , . ) ( $ ! ! ' / !! , ) ( $ ! ! $ !! , ! ) ( $ ! ! ! $ ! 0 ) ( $ ! ! + $ !! , $ ! 0 0 ) ( $ ! ! $ !! , ) ( $ ! ! - +$ ! ! ) ( $ ! ! $ . & '! ( ' $ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 14, 2015 CONTACT: Ivry Karamitros, (816) 374-5469, karamitros@kcchamber.com Anthony Fiano, (202) 238-3113, afiano@brookings.edu Kansas City’s Global Cities Initiative Releases Export Market Assessment, Positioning Region for Growth in Global Marketplace KANSAS CITY, Mo., October 14, 2015 – Kansas City has released an export market assessment, a critical step LQ LWV GHYHORSPHQW RI D UHJLRQDO H[SRUW VWUDWHJ\ WKDW ZLOO RXWOLQH VSHFL¿F VWHSV ORFDO EXVLQHVV FLYLF DQG government leaders can take to increase their exports and grow global engagement. This strategy is the centerpiece of the Global Cities Initiative, a joint project of the Brookings Institution and JPMorgan Chase. “Smart economic development leaders are reorienting their efforts from a one-dimensional focus on domestic business attraction toward a broader array of strategic growth initiatives that includes regional collaboration to strengthen international connections and competitiveness,” said Marek Gootman, Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program director of strategic partnerships and global initiatives. “The market assessment enables Kansas City to understand its position in the export game so it can develop a global trade strategy that will adapt to rapidly changing dynamics and contribute to regional business growth and job creation.” With an estimated 95 percent of consumers living beyond U.S. borders, exports are a critical component of a regional economic development strategy. Yet exports are an under-utilized economic development tool — only ¿YH SHUFHQW RI 8 6 ¿UPV FXUUHQWO\ H[SRUW 7KLV H[SRUW VWUDWHJ\ ZLOO KHOS .DQVDV &LW\ EXVLQHVVHV LQFUHDVH WKHLU exports and capitalize on the growing global consumer market. Led by the World Trade Center Kansas City, participation in the Global Cities Initiative is an essential international element of KC Rising. “The completed export plan will be an important component of the KC Rising strategies for growing the region’s economy. We appreciate the leadership of the Global Cities Initiative Steering Committee and the opportunity to work collaboratively to ensure a positive economic future for the region,” says Scott Smith, Co-Chair, KC Rising, and former President and CEO of HNTB Infrastructure. The Global Cities Initiative committee surveyed area businesses to evaluate the region’s current export economy and LWV SRWHQWLDO IRU JURZWK .H\ ¿QGLQJV IURP .DQVDV &LW\¶V PDUNHW DVVHVVPHQW LQFOXGH ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ Exports are growing nationally, which presents local opportunity Small & mid-size enterprises are ripe for export expansion Few area businesses actively engage in export activity Exports have not been a priority for area businesses Area businesses are unaware of the numerous export resources available Robust transportation & logistics assets are a regional strength and competitive advantage Local economic development agencies have great potential for partnership ³7KH PDUNHW DVVHVVPHQW LV WKH QHFHVVDU\ ¿UVW VWHS LQ RXU XOWLPDWH JRDO RI JURZLQJ .DQVDV &LW\ H[SRUWV ´ H[SODLQV Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Jim Heeter. “The report shows both the challenges and opportunities we have as a business community and will serve as a solid foundation for what will EH D WKRXJKWIXO ± DQG DFWLRQDEOH ± VWUDWHJLF SODQ 2XU XOWLPDWH JRDO WR LQFUHDVH WKH QXPEHU RI SURGXFWV DQG services we send beyond our borders and ultimately expand the Kansas City economy.” “International trade and investment represent a promising pathway for local businesses to create jobs, attract capital and grow our economy,” adds Ward Nixon, a JP Morgan Chase executive director based in Kansas City. “As we worked our way through the market assessment process, we were pleased to see that export service providers in the region were highly regarded by the companies that use them. Black & Veatch uses the services of many of these providers and we give the ones we use an A-plus rating,” states Paul Weida, Black & Veatch vice president of government affairs and co-chair Global Cities Initiative committee. “The U.S. Commercial Service Kansas City Export Assistance Center and World Trade Center Kansas City are examples of such service providers, yet most companies in the area are unaware of these organizations, giving us a great opportunity to create connections with prospective exporters and export service providers.” “My hope is that the export plan generated from Kansas City’s participation in the Global Cities Intiative will encourage small and mid-sized businesses, many of which have limited resources, to proactively pursue an export VWUDWHJ\ WR JURZ WKHLU EXVLQHVV ´ VDLG $QWKRQ\ +DQFR[ *DUPLQ GLUHFWRU RI ¿QDQFH DQG DQDO\VLV DQG *OREDO &LWLHV Initiative committee member. In the coming months, the Kansas City team participating in the Global Cities Initiative team will be working to GHYHORS VWUDWHJLHV DQG UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV WR DGGUHVV WKHVH ¿QGLQJV ,I \RX ZRXOG OLNH WR EH LQYROYHG RU OHDUQ PRUH about this process, please contact Ivry Karamitros at the World Trade Center Kansas City. The Global Cities Initiative is a joint project of the Brookings Institution and JPMorgan Chase to help business and civic leaders grow their metropolitan economies by strengthening international connections and competitiveness. GCI activities include producing data and research to guide decisions, fostering practice and policy innovations, and facilitating a peer learning network. For more information, see KWWS ZZZ EURRNLQJV HGX SURMHFWV JOREDO FLWLHV DVS[ or ZZZ MSPRUJDQFKDVH FRP JOREDOFLWLHV. World Trade Center Kansas City serves domestic and international companies within the Kansas City region as well as international companies that want to do business in Kansas City through a variety of services from internships and eduction to networking events and seminars. World Trade Center Kansas City is a partnership between the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, KC SmartPort and Kansas City Area Development Council — three organizations well versed in the critical importance of improving our region’s competitiveness in the global economy. For more information, please visit ZZZ NFFKDPEHU FRP :RUOG 7UDGH &HQWHU +RPH DVS[. KC Rising is a regional, collaborative, business community-led effort to develop a path for the KC region to reach its full economic potential. KC Rising will develop strategies for accelerating the region’s economic growth and ensure its continued competitiveness in the global economy. KC Rising is supported by the leadership and staff of the Civic Council of Greater Kansas City, Mid-America Regional Council, the Kansas City Area Development Council and regional chambers of commerce. www.kcrising.com. ### Elaine Agather Anne Motsenbocker Chairman, Chase Dallas President, Chase Dallas cordially invite you and a guest to a seated dinner and panel presentation featuring Honorable Richard M. Daley Former Mayor of Chicago, Senior Advisor to JPMorgan Chase Bruce Katz Vice President and Founding Director, Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program and Todd Maclin Chairman, Chase Commercial and Consumer Banking Wednesday, May 15, 2013 6:30 p.m. Dallas Country Club 4155 Mockingbird Lane Dallas, Texas Please reply to Amie Mayes at jpmc.dallas.events@jpmorgan.com or 214.965.2016 by Monday, May 13, 2013. Honorable Richard M. Daley The longest-serving mayor in Chicago's history, Richard M. Daley has earned an international reputation as a leading innovator in urban development, fiscal policy and government stewardship. As mayor, Mr. Daley enhanced Chicago's quality of life, improved the public school system and infrastructure, strengthened the economy, reduced crime, improved transportation and made Chicago one of the most environmentally friendly cities in the world. He is now a senior advisor to JP Morgan Chase and chairs the "Global Cities Initiative: A Joint Project of Brookings and JPMorgan Chase," which is an effort to help cities identify and leverage their greatest economic development resources. Bruce Katz Bruce J. Katz is a vice president at the Brookings Institution and founding director of the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program. He is also co-author of The Metropolitan Revolution (Brookings Press, 2013), a distillation of his work on the emerging metropolitan-led "next economy" and its practitioners around the country working to produce more and better jobs driven by innovation, exports and sustainability. Katz regularly advises federal, state, regional and municipal leaders on policy reforms that advance the competitiveness of metropolitan areas. He counsels on shifting demographic and market trends as well as on policies critical to metropolitan prosperity (e.g. innovation, human capital, infrastructure, housing) and new forms of metropolitan governance. If you are an elected or public official and any state law or local ordinance prohibits you from accepting this complementary event and requires you to pay for the cost of your food and beverage, the cost of food and beverage is estimated to be $100 per person. Checks should be made payable to JPMorgan Chase and will be accepted at the entrance when you arrive. If you have questions, please call Brian Finch at (202) 585-3764. 2014 GCI | Metro Talking Points for Q1 Strategy Session | March 27, 2014 Big Picture Objective (for 2014-2015 programming): ?????To strengthen the base of core GCI activities while simultaneously experimenting with new partnership activities and looking ahead to the endgame for 2016 Goals of the Meeting 1. Agree on what success looks like in 2016. What impact do we want to have achieved? What do we want the media to say about what we did? 2. Identify and agree on the key strategies required to get us there, including global expansion through international roundtables between now and 2016. a. Share what we learned in Cannes and begin to forecast our vision for a "T40" like network. (understanding that JP may decide this won't be their goal, but it is good for them to understand what we are thinking and where we'd like to be headed as a Program) 3. Make decisions on the following: b. Chicago summit in 2016 (culminating event) c. London export plan as second international GCX engagement (there is a possibility that JP doesn't understand that the work of creating an export plan is not a GCEP like Chicago/MC, so we need to be clear on this point in this meeting) d. Yes/no on Seoul as the global forum site for 2015, and if no, what is the next global metro to focus on. Progress toward Outcomes 1. Outcome: There are dozens of U.S. metros taking leadership on trade as a key source of economic growth, acting in line with business today and delivering results. Progress: ? We've defined a new paradigm for economic development through original research and numerous new publications, which have been cited in approximately 400 media clips since 2012. 2. Outcome: Federal and state leaders, as well as public/private sector entities, recognize the importance of U.S. metros and metro leaders in advancing global economic growth. Progress: ? While this is clearly an opportunity area, our events, which in part target these audiences, have yielded 100+ media hits, with 97% of them referencing GCI and 90% referencing JPMorgan; by the end of this year, we will have held events in 13 domestic markets and 9 international markets. 3. Outcome: An informal network of U.S. and international cities emerges, one interested in partnering together to advance global trade and commerce. Progress: ? With the launch of the Exchange last year, the network has been formally established. ? There are 12 metros actively involved in designing export plans with eight more in the pipeline; six metros will produce FDI plans this year. ? More needs to be done to: 2014 GCI | Metro Talking Points for Q1 Strategy Session | March 27, 2014 Connect JPMC banking services/expertise to successes in Exchange cities o Help U.S. metros understand the resources available from JPMC commercial bank o Align JPMC philanthropic investments to ensure plans succeed (e.g. Louisville) Several international metros are also forging global engagement strategies, and we are actively working with Mexico City on its Global Cities Economic Partnership with Chicago. We are also interested in working with London on their regional export plan. o ? City News JP Morgan g Chase awards $200,000 to create BEAM-Kentucky y export p p g program Posted Date: 12/17/2013 9:45 AM Contact: Mayor’s OfficeɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾChase ɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾ Susan StraubɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾEmily Smith ɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾ Office: 859-258-3111 ɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾOffice: 614-244-0304 ɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾ Cell: 859-576-2564ɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾCell: 614-314-2285 ɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾɾ Emily.m.smith@chase.com Today, the JPMorgan Chase Foundation awarded $200,000 to create the BEAMKentucky Export Promotion Program. BEAM, the Bluegrass Economic Advancement Movement, is a regional economic growth partnership between Louisville and Lexington that encompasses 22 counties. The newly launched, BEAM-Kentucky Export Promotion program will offer grants up to $4,500 for the purpose of connecting small businesses in Kentucky and Southern Indiana to export and business development resources. Eligibility requirements and applications are available at www.lexingtonky.gov/beam. “We are grateful to JPMorgan Chase, who shares our vision to build a world class manufacturing hub here in Central Kentucky,” Mayor Jim Gray said. “This program targets small businesses, working with them to become powerful exports of Kentucky goods. That’s how jobs are created, and we are excited to help make that happen.” In 2012, Gray and Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer launched a goal to increase export successes by 50% in five years, measuring the number of companies that begin selling outside of the United States for the first time and/or the number of new countries to which companies begin selling. There have been 327 export successes counted to date out of the 290 needed to meet the goal for the end of 2013. “Today’s award from the JPMorgan Chase Foundation will continue to support efforts to reach this goal, and provide our small businesses with the encouragement they need to take the next step and grow into foreign markets,” said Paul Costel, President of the Kentucky Chase Bank. The BEAM Regional Export plan was also released today. This plan outlines activities such as targeted outreach, trainings for economic development professionals and promoting the sale of Kentucky-made products to the world. All of these efforts have contributed to increasing exports around the region. The Regional Export Plan was produced after Louisville and Lexington were selected to participate in the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Export Exchange along with seven other cities including: Charleston, SC; Chicago, IL; Columbus, OH; Des Moines, IA; San Antonio, TX; San Diego, CA; and Tampa Bay, FL. “This unique and innovative program will support the growth of small businesses here in Louisville and around the region,” Fischer said. “By diversifying and expanding customer bases, small businesses are more likely to last through generations, employ more people and become bigger companies.” In addition to the award, it was announced that the Louisville-Lexington region has b een selected to participate in the Global Cities Exchange, a new program of the been Global Cities Initiative: A Join Project of the Brookings Institution and JPMorgan Chase, that will serve as a four-year learning and action network in which regions w ill develop and implement strategies to boost global trade and investment. The will Louisville-Lexington, BEAM region will also host a Global Cities forum in June 2014. Applications for the BEAM Export Promotion grant are available at www.lexingtonky.gov/beam. A copy of the regional export plan is also available. SPONSORED CONTENT What Can San Diego Teach the World? By Bruce Katz, Vice President, Brookings Institution M October 14, 2014 etropolitan areas are home to large-scale innovation, quality jobs and global economic opportunities — and, now, the majority of the world’s population. By 2050, 70% of the 1 global population will call urban areas home. Despite their scale, metropolitan areas also produce a disproportionate amount of output for the United States. In fact, the top 100 U.S. metro areas (there are close to 400 in total) occupy 12% of the nation’s landmass, and yet they generate 68% our jobs, 75% of our national GDP, and are home to 65% of the population. Bruce Katz, co-director of the Global Cities Initiative and vice president of the Brookings Institution, has called this shift the “metropolitan revolution.” The U.S. economy is really made up of all of its individual metropolitan economies so 2 MOST POPULAR Top Stories, Videos & Photos 1 Obama's plan to save the Senate 2 The pot primary driving progress in metro areas leads to growth for the nation as a whole. The Global Cities Initiative, a joint initiative of the Brookings Institution and JPMorgan Chase & Co., aims to help leaders in U.S. metropolitan areas reorient their economies 3 Who's leaving Congress? 4 The GOP's Obama obsession 5 Fallon, Springsteen parody Christie toward greater engagement in world markets. JPMorgan Chase & Co. recently spoke to Bruce Katz about capitalizing on the potential for metropolitan areas to be the engines of economic prosperity and social transformation in the United States. Q: Why are cities and metropolitan areas so important to the U.S. right now? Bruce Katz: In the U.S., cities and metropolitan areas have important roles and responsibilities— land use, zoning, managing our children’s education and housing our institutions of higher education as well as our biggest private companies and leading-edge entrepreneurs. All that taken together is the innovation ecosystem that drives economies forward. So, when our national government is adrift and our states begin to wander, cities and metros can step up. Cities and metropolitan areas are succeeding because they have the assets that the economy requires and the infrastructure to move people, goods, energy, services and ideas. They’re home to incredible innovation — not just idea generation but also production, advanced manufacturing and skilled workers. We’re a preeminent economy in the world precisely because we’re a metropolitan economy. There really is no American economy, frankly. What we are is a collection of metropolitan economies. When they’re humming, when they’re focused in strategic ways on their own distinctive economies, then the country as a whole does well. Q: What impact has the economic downturn had on the metropolitan economy? Bruce Katz: After the downturn, cities and metropolitan areas realized they had to go back to basics. Pre-recession they were focused on what we would call the consumption economy — home building, coffee chains, and sports stadia. Post-recession, they’ve really begun to focus on those things that drive consumption — innovation, production, exports, foreign direct investment and investments in infrastructure. So, they really have begun to focus on leveraging their own distinct position in the global economy through smart and strategic investments. Q: How can cities make smarter economic development decisions? Bruce Katz: We have 100 metropolitan areas that really power our economy forward. They all have really distinct economic profiles — what they make, the services they provide, what they trade, who they trade with. Buffalo is not like Boston. San Diego is not like Syracuse. In the great words of Dolly Parton: “find out who you are and do it on purpose.” Cities should invest in those things that will really power their distinct economy forward — in some places that might be an investment in a port or an airport. Everywhere it will require an investment in skills but it needs to be really customized to the kind of economy you have. Q: How can cities become strong global competitors? Bruce Katz: U.S. metros not only need to grow more jobs to make up the jobs they lost during the recession, they need to grow better jobs — jobs that pay decent wages, provide decent benefits. Many of those jobs are going to be in the STEM economy: science, technology, engineering, and math. Those are the kind of the jobs we desperately need in the U.S. so that both places and people prosper and thrive. Q: Why is San Diego a great example of a metropolitan area succeeding with these new approaches? Bruce Katz: San Diego exemplifies the metropolitan revolution. It’s got a great platform for a productive, innovative and sustainable economy. They’re attracting life sciences and biotech, telecom, and clean technology, because they have a great base of innovative companies and talented workers and advanced research institutions. A lot of this was intentional. Individuals, CEOs, major philanthropists came together and made smart bets for the future of their region —attracting talented workers and growing talented workers from within through training. You don’t attract investment from around the world unless you are really good at what you do, and that’s the San Diego story, as it is in many parts of the United States. They sharpen their distinctive edge in the global economy and then they push goods or services abroad or attract investment from elsewhere. The second thing about San Diego is they collaborate to compete. It’s not government against business. It’s not business against universities. It’s all of them coming together to power the region forward. San Diego is the 17th largest metropolitan area in the U.S., but when you look at what matters — talented workforce, patents and other signs of innovation — they’re consistently in the top five or the top ten. San Diego is punching above its weight, and that’s because these different sector’s institutions are working together. The Global Cities Initiative is a five-year collaboration between the Brookings Institution and JPMorgan Chase that aims to help leaders in U.S. metropolitan areas reorient their economies toward greater engagement in world markets. The Initiative aims to equip business, civic and government leaders with the information, policy ideas and connections they need to help their metropolitan areas thrive in the global economy. The Global Cities Initiative is helping city and metropolitan leaders become more globally fluent by providing an in-depth, data-driven look at their regions' standings on crucial global economic measures, highlighting best policy and practice innovations from around the world and, through the Global Cities Exchange, developing and implementing regional strategies to boost global trade and investment. The Global Cities Initiative: A Joint Project of Brookings and JPMorgan Chase. For more information, visit www.jpmorganchase.com or connect with us on YouTube and Twitter. 1 UN State of World Cities report 2 MetroPolicy: Shaping a New Federal Partnership for a Metropolitan Nation, The Brookings Institution, 2008 The above column is sponsor-generated content from JPMorgan Chase & Co. JPMorgan Chase & Co. is proud to present POLITICO Magazine’s “What Works,” a yearlong, independently reported editorial series, on the innovative ideas coming out of America’s cities. For more content from JPMorgan Chase & Co., click here. To learn more about sponsor-generated content, click here. JPHURELEN on WHAT WORKS in Making San Diego 3 Global City What Works in Making San Diego 61 Global City - Chase Welcome To Chase BRUCE KATZ VP, Institution a Director; Metropolitan Patio},r Program :49 araa What Works in Making San Diego a Global City Welcome To Chase I . .u .Ia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• ( !! . / . / ! 0 1 % ' % % ) 5 ) / 4 ' % % ) 4% % 4 ' -(6 ' -(6 ! " % ' ) & 2 % -(6 ? 4 5 4 % %&# % ' (' () * (' ' ( , • ( !! 0 0 2 0 . 1/ > % % % A 'B ) ) 4 ) % % C * C 4% % ) ' = * 4 - 4 ' 5 % " ' ) ) % 2 2 ' % 4 5 ) ) 5 * * ' % ) ) ) 2 4 % 2 ) % 4 " 5 % ) % 0 " 0 :% % ? 5) ) 5 % 2 4 % % ( ) ) 2 4 4 2 + 5 ) ' 2 % ) ' = * 4 % * 4 • ( !! ! &1 1 3 $ ! ! ! 0 4 / 0 1 + ! ) ) % • 0 !! 1 + 2 ' 5 ) ) < % % 5 A ) B % 2 % 2 % 2 2 % " ' 5) # ? ' % 2 5 ) 2 " 4 ? $ 6 ) ) ) % 4 % ) 4 % " ) % ' 5 1% 2 3 ? % 5 )5 ) 2 1 = 4 5 3 % 4 ? 5 C2 'C 2 C ) 'C# % 2 ( ) % 2 D) ' = 4 % % ) '# 5 ? " 4 0 ) # ? ,:/E/.( + ! ) ) % ! " 5 D) 5 ( %&# % ' (' () * )% ' # +%(& + 0 !0 $1 6 4 " % ) % % 5 % 5 ) % ) % 5 % 2 " ' " ) " ' : 4 2 5' 5 • 5 2 5 ( ) ) % " ' F G $ % 5 ) < (./E # $ & 2 # 8 ' ( : - % # 8 ' H) 5 0 /.( 8 + -) • ( !! # ! * 3 + ! 3 # ! ) 3 ! ! 0 2 ! ! 1 6 ) % ) % ) • ( !! 5 $ &1 1 ! ! 0 2 !! ! 0 1 :% 4 4% % 0 % ) % 4 % 2 % ) 2 % ' 2 -(6 ( ' 0 D) 4% % 5 -(6 " % ' ) ' 5 ) :% ) ) 4 ) ' 4 " ) 2 1 4 3 + % ) ) % 5 5' A 4 % 5 ) C ) % 5 +I .? 5 % ' / ) ) 5) ) 4 " -(6 5) ) ? ) " 1 ) % J 0 ' ? 3 6 4 % ( ) ' % / ? % ) ' ) -(6 ' ) 5 ! " 4 ' # 5' 5 % % ) ' ' ' 5 ) D) ' ! " 2 ) % 5 % 2 4 ' %&# % ' (' () * % +%(& • 2 ! 0 ! $ $ 0 ! ! ! 3 0 * 5 ' ! 3 $ 1 :% 2 5 2 4%' 2 " 4 ' 5 :% C ) % 4 5 % " 5 % " C % - ( " 4% % 4 " ? 2 ' 4 % 8 5) % > % " 5 4 ' ) % % ) % 5 4 " • & 2 % 5 - 0 ) 5 % 4 5 ' 5 % 2 A ' =) B % 4 ) ) 5 5 %) ) 5 % 1 5 4% % 5 2 ) 5 4 "3 % ) 5 % % 5 6 % ) 4 ) 5 % % ' 4 ' @ ? 0 < ! 2 % 5 4% 5 A ' =) B • ( + ! +5 % ) % ? ( ' % % 5 % 5 ) :% ) % ) 5 ) 5 % ) % % % ' 5 % % ) % 5 @ 2 ' ) ) 2 ! $ % % % % 2 ' % ? + % % 2 ) % ) ) 5 4 ) % % + % ! " > ( 5 ) % 4 % 5 % ) > ' 5 5 ( • ( !! 0 1 :% ) ) < % % ' 5 ) # # ( ( " " # # " " # # 1 5 ) ' ) 1 5 ) ' ) 3 # ) % 1 < .0+ .3# ) % 1 < .0+ .3 # ? 5 ? 5 # # ? % # E 5 ' 2 ' " • (E! " : 2 % ' ( !! 0 50 $ 3 3 0 3 0 ! !0 1 ( ) % % ? 5 ? % ' ' ) % % - ( 2 ( ) % 6 ) 5 : 2 % @ % , ! " /.( % •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• ' + 45 ' + + + ' • ' % ) * 7 ' 8 ' ' • • • ' + ' ' % ' + ' : + # ' ' ' + + % : ' + '' % ' ' ' 2 + ? 6 ( " ( ( ( '@ # ' ) * % ' ' % 9 '. ' - . + % ' • ' $ . + . % ?5 ( A B ( . @ + % ' ( + / ' • 9 + ( + ' .( % ' ) + * . 5 '' ' + & C % '' # . ' + ( ( ' ' # . + ' + % '.' . . ' + )- .* % . + % 2 ' ' ' % . ' + % ' % • " ' + ' ' % ' ' . + % ' C + . % ' %. ' & ( % . . % 7 ' ' + . % /+ / D . % ' . 7 ' & % 5 " # & ' ? $ 2 E@ & . . % = A ' ' + ' % 7 ' ' % ' = ' + % ' . ' . " ' ; % ' . '' ) ' * ' ' " + ' ' + ' ' % % % ' + % '.' '' ' + % % % ' + ' ' ' % F ' = ' ' & ( + ' ' + !#" 2 ' " ' 2 ' ' ' ' ' ' " + + ' % ' ' ' . 5 + 3 ? ' @ + . & ' ' ' 7 8 + + 45 = #. ' + % = • •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• • • • • ' C 4 C ' 5 ' % ' ' . 7 ' ' % ' ' . % ' 3 " ' % ( ' . ' 3 + ' ( 5 ' .( + . . ' ' ' % ( ' % + D 5 ( " ' :' 5 ( D $ ;$ % : ' + + ; $ A + ( + . + + + ' 3 % . 3 ' ' . 45 5 ' : ' ' + ' = • • • • • • " 5 5+ 8 B # . % ' + ' ' ' & 3 ' ' % . % % ($9 $JUJFT 4FMFDUJPO .BUSJY JPMC Priority Markets Atlanta Boston Dallas Denver* Houston Indianapolis Jacksonville Overlap with Las Vegas potential GCX Miami Cities Milwaukee New Orleans Philadelphia/Wilmington Phoenix* Sacramento Salt Lake City Seattle/Tacoma* Chicago* Columbus Los Angeles Overlap with Louisville-Lexington* current Portland Exchange San Antonio metros San Diego Syracuse* Tampa No overlap Bay Area (SF, Oak, SJ) Detroit* New York City* Orlando Providence* Rochester Washington DC Current GCI Sites Atlanta Denver Houston Miami Potential GCI Cities Las Vegas Phoenix Seattle Current Exchange Metros Columbus Los Angeles Portland Chicago Columbus Los Angeles Louisville-Lexington Portland San Antonio San Diego Syracuse Tampa Bay New York Washington DC Charleston Des Moines Minneapolis-St. Paul* Potential GCX Cities Atlanta Boston Dallas-Ft. Worth Denver Houston Indianapolis Jacksonville Las Vegas Miami Milwaukee/Madison New Orleans Philadelphia Phoenix Sacramento Salt Lake County Seattle Boise Charlotte Fresno Greenville SC Inland Empire (Riverside/San Bernardino) Nashville* NE Ohio* New England Orlando Wichita The Global Cities Initiative: Proposed Communications and Engagement Strategy Introduction This communications and engagement plan endeavors to provide a comprehensive strategy for elevating the Global Cities Initiative. A long-term partnership such as this one, which entails significant research, teaching, and practice components, has a lifespan: Each global and domestic forum, each research project, each relationship begun and nurtured builds upon what has come prior. It is incumbent upon us to tell this story, using the evidence we have. The plan offers strategies to aggregate all of the components of GCI in a way that tells this narrative with the primary goal of drawing the attention of national and international media and policymakers. We see this as a working document that provides the basis for discussion and will be updated over time. The document is structured as follows: I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. Goals Messages Audiences Audience-Specific Goals Branding Strategies Tactics and Process Fall Rollout (September — December 2013) I. Communications and Engagement Goals Š Communicate the basic notion, in the United States and select global markets, that metro areas are the engines of the global economy and the locus of trade and commerce. Š Change the economic debate regarding how the global economy can best be revitalized and sustained over the long term by making the case that metro global fluency – that is, global economic understanding, reach, and capability – is essential. Š Help targeted U.S. and international metropolitan areas adopt global trade and commerce strategies through tools, resources, and peer-to-peer networks and help individual firms in these areas become more globally competitive. Š Elevate and brand the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program and JPMorgan Chase as institutional sources of information and expertise on how cities can make the global connections necessary to thrive in the global economy, both in the United States and in targeted international markets. II. Messages Š Cities and metropolitan regions are the drivers of the global economy. Š The world is being remade as a network of globalizing metro areas that trade together based on distinctive clusters of firms, specialized expertise, and cultural affinity. Š To achieve economic growth, cities and metropolitan regions must capitalize on their distinctive assets and expand upon their global trade and investment strategies. Š The Global Cities Initiative equips metropolitan leaders around the world with the best information, policy ideas, and on-the-ground practices they need to strengthen their position in the global economy. III. Audiences Š National and international media, particularly business and economic reporters and columnists, including those at non-English-speaking outlets. Š Local and regional business and economic media. Š Domestic and international metropolitan leaders and future leaders in the government, business, labor, civic, and university spheres, including past GCI forum participants. Š Federal and state policymakers in targeted foreign countries and the United States. Š International institutions such as the World Bank, International Trade Administration, the Inter-American Development Bank, Eurocities, and The New Cities Foundation. Š JPMorgan Chase market presidents, commercial, and investment bankers. Š Private-sector firms who are engaging or could engage globally. IV. Audience-Specific Goals While the goals listed above apply to all audiences, some goals can be more finely tuned for specific audiences. These are detailed here: Š National and international media, particularly business and economic reporters and columnists. o Goal: Achieve “breakthrough” stories, opinion and editorial pieces that explore the economic growth model GCI promotes and the successes that it has helped to produce. Š Local and regional business and economic media. o Goal: Maintain track record of thorough, high-quality local and regional media coverage. Š Current and future metropolitan leaders in the government, business, labor, civic, university spheres, including past forum participants, in the United States and targeted global cities. o Goal: Help city and metropolitan leaders better understand and leverage their global position by providing research on key global indicators and innovative global engagement strategies. o Goal: Persuade metro leaders that international trade and commerce must be an essential component of regional economic development and show them how to implement key action strategies. Š Federal and state policymakers in targeted foreign countries and the United States. o Goal: Position JPMorgan Chase and the Brookings Institution as a resource on how the global economy can be revitalized and sustained by encouraging metro areas to adopt global trade and commerce strategies. Š International institutions such as the World Bank, International Trade Administration, the Inter-American Development Bank, Euro-Cities, and the New Cities Foundation. o Goal: Persuade key decision makers that the adoption of global trading strategies by cities and metro areas is essential to sustained, long-term economic growth. Š Private-sector firms who are or could engage globally. o Goal: Persuade firms that they would benefit financially by expanding into global markets. Š JPMorgan Chase market presidents and commercial and investment bankers o Goal: Position GCI as a smart and helpful resource of information that will help them perform their jobs better by elevating their position as thought leaders in their communities. V. Branding In order to communicate the joint nature of the GCI partnership, the full name of the initiative and/or the logo will be incorporated into Initiative materials, including research products (e.g. papers, metro profiles), event materials (e.g. invitations, agenda, signage), and press materials (e.g. advisories and press releases). Specifically, on research and content products solely supported by GCI, the full name of the project will be used on the title page of the work, and the GCI logo will be used on the back cover, when there is one. VI. Strategies The first two years of GCI have been marked by programmatic, communications, and engagement achievements. It is now time to integrate the different components of GCI in order to convey its successes and promise to a national audience. GCI’s framework is bringing about critical change on the ground in cities and metropolitan areas, and we are approaching the time when we can make the case to national and international media, opinion leaders, and policymakers that the economic model upon which GCI is based is a proven model for job creation and economic revitalization. We will show that the GCI economic model is a groundbreaking trend. The following strategies are suggested ways to impart both the theory behind and the evidence of GCI’s information, ideas, and action proposals. We feel they are the path to national media coverage and public recognition by opinion leaders and policymakers. Once we’ve chosen which of these strategies to pursue, deployment would require close collaboration between the Brookings Institution and JPMorgan Chase. Š Ensure that research related to GCI is branded and promoted as such. Š Continue to seek elite media and policymaker attention for research of national interest. Š Release a GCI paper (possibly with a set of case studies) that summarizes mid-point key outcomes and conveys impact. Š Host an event at the Brookings Institution where cumulative learning and on-the-ground change would be highlighted, and the paper referenced above would be released. Š Blue sky idea worth considering per Mayor Daley: Persuade the Obama administration to host a public event and private dinner with mayors from fifty cities. Š Seek speaking opportunities for high level Brookings Institution and JPMorgan Chase leadership at high profile events, such as Davos and the Aspen Ideas Festival. Š Engage government leaders (e.g. senior administration officials, senators, and governors) in GCI events. Š Write and seek placement for joint Brookings Institution and JPMorgan Chase op-ed in high profile outlet. Š Use the Brookings Institution and JPMorgan Chase in house capabilities to produce engaging, shareable digital products (e.g. interactive web features, infographics, videos, or motion graphic animations) that explain the GCI worldview. Š Explore additional social and new media channels, such as YouTube, Facebook, LinkedIn, Google+ and Google Hangout. Š Make current online presence stronger and more useful to GCI audiences. Š Invite targeted reporters to travel to forums, particularly international forums. Š Explore the possibility of a media partnership for some aspect of the Initiative, for example, on a series of roundtable discussions or print profiles of regional successes. Š Develop materials designed to appeal to a broader audience, such as one-pagers on completed region plans. Š Toward close of project, release closing report and host event in Washington D.C. VII. Tactics and Process The Brookings Institution will use all communications and engagement tools available to ensure that GCI products and events receive strong media coverage and encourage metro leaders to take action. Specific preliminary communications plans for upcoming research and events follow, incorporating the following: Š Traditional media strategies, such as press advisories and releases, opinion pieces, editorial board meetings, press conference calls, radio actualities, and press availabilities; Š Digital media strategies, such as the Brookings Institution website, The Avenue blog, social media, and e-newsletters; Š Engagement strategies, such as public events, private roundtables, webinars, and one-on-one meetings with stakeholders. Š Stakeholder outreach, such as distributing e-newsletters to past participants on the day of events. Similarly, JPMorgan Chase will leverage the appropriate communication tools at their disposal. Once a release date for a project is finalized, the Brookings Institution will develop a communications and engagement plan for the project. Below is a template timeline we will employ with each event and research release to ensure close collaboration: 12 weeks prior ** Share prospectus with JPMorgan Chase 7 weeks prior ** Share communications and engagement plan draft with JPMorgan Chase ** Determine possible JPMorgan Chase executive expertise and involvement 6 weeks prior ** Finalize plan 4 weeks prior ** Share draft media list 3 weeks prior ** Begin outreach to top media targets, draft media outreach materials 2 weeks prior ** Finalize media outreach materials 1 week prior ** Distribute materials to media under embargo, schedule interviews 1 week following ** Finalize communications and engagement report 2 weeks following VIII. ** Assess ways to incorporate research and forum outcomes into future activities to build to a greater whole Fall Rollout (September – December 2013) In the final four months of 2013, the Global Cities Initiative will release a number of newsworthy papers and hold events in London, England; Queretaro, Mexico; and Mexico City, Mexico. Below are brief descriptions of some of these upcoming papers with proposed communications and engagement strategies. We will still develop detailed plans surrounding the London and Mexico engagements. Brookings will take the lead on crafting and executing these strategies and will share detailed plans with JPMorgan Chase well in advance of each release and each event. We will work with JPMorgan Chase to utilize other resources, such as video capabilities and foreign public relations firms. We will develop a detailed plan for GCI London, the Global Ten Traits paper, and the Ten Traits Workbook when more details have been finalized. Salon Dinner Draft Concept Paper 9/24/2013 Basic concept: We know that metropolitan areas lead the country on innovation, job growth, economic policies, human capital development, etc. There are several elected leaders at the federal level who, based on their experience as locally-elected officials, know what it means to solve problems and produce results regardless of the political climate. These dinners would serve to bring together two former mayors with influence who can, along with a short list of esteemed guests, generate new ideas. Parameters: x Small, private dinners hosted by Bruce and Peter (not so much a Brookings or JPMC event but JP more building upon the relationships of each). x Ideal make up is two electeds (senators, reps, govs or mayors),, one senior enior Administration Adm stration person, two senior scholars, two JPMC execs or clients (i.e. CEO of company mpany in New Jersey erse who (10-12 is client of JPMC), two former federal gov’t leaders, plus Peter and nd Bruce Br (10 (10--12 people, peop maximum). x First invitation would go to Senator-elect Corey Booker (D-NJ) from Bruce. Then, most likely, to Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) x At a restaurant in DC, paid for by Brookings (need to confirm since JPMC, for compliance reasons, will need each elected or administration person pay for their own meal – need to confirm). x Purpose is to discuss the nature of US global competitiveness, the work of GCI, but most importantly, how ideas/innovations/pressure from cities & metros can help provide examples and strategies for change at the federal level. Next Steps: x Bruce will reach out to Corey Booker after the election. x Likely timing will be December or January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~r ii Scheduie to the Sponsorship Agreement Dated aSi' l5- 2013 between JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nationai Association and Brookings Institution This Schedule ("Schedule") is entered into as of Matt i5- 2013 (?Schedule Effective Date?) between PMorgan Chase Bank, National As?sociation and Brookings Institution together with the Sponsorship Agreement, dated 2013 between JPMC and Brookings (the ?Agreement?), constitutes an agreement pur [ant to which JPMC wilt act as a sponsor in support of the Brookings? project known as the Global Cities Exchange (?Exchange?) which is a component ofthe ?Global Cities Initiative: A Joint Project of Brookings and iPMorgan Chase? In exchange for JPMC acting as a sponsor for the Exchange, Brooking?s shall provide certain sponsorship benefits as more fully described below. l. INCORPORATION OF AGREEMENT. The terms and conditions of the Agreement shalt apply to this Schedule and such terms and conditions are fuily incorporated by this reference. Capitalized terms not otherwise de?ned in this Schedule will have the meanings ascribed to .them in the Agreement. Unless otherwise speci?cally noted, alt references in this Schedule to Sections, Exhibits or Attachments wili refer to the Sections, Exhibits or Attachments of this Schedule. II. TERM. The term o'fthis Schedule shall commence on July 1, 2613, and shot] continue in full force- and effect until June 30, 201? PURPOSE OF EXCHANGE he goals ofthe Exchange are to: undertake a four-year research and peer learning effort to help both domestic and international metropolitan areas become more globally fluent; (2) work with US. metropolitan areas to create actionable trade and investment strategies that enhance local ecOnomies and establish global connections; (3) help key political, business, and civic leaders in targeted non?US. cities advance a core economic development priority that builds on such city?s distinctive position in giobal trade and investment; and capture and comniunicate innovations emerging from this effort to inform new policies and practices in cities and institutions in emerging markets. IV. SPONSORSHIP BENEFITS. In recognition of the support of the SCI and the Exchange, PMC is entitled to the bene?ts afforded to Brookings? most generous donors. Kim Churches, Vice President of Development, and Mary Eilen Fraser, Senior Director of Corporate and Foundation Rotations, will work closely with JPMC executives to create a customized suite of special bene?ts. These will include but not be limited to the following: I. Donor Recognition Wall: JPMC will be prominently listed on the donor recognition wall in perpetuity in the 1775 Massachusetts Avenue lobby ofBrookings? main building. JPMC will be recognized as ?.lPMorgan ChaSc Co." at the 10 million and above? ievei. Special Event: Brookings will hold a special event to recognize new investment in the Exchange. The special event will be attended by Brooltings? President Strobe Talbott, select trustees, Exchange staff, relevant Brookings scholars, .IPMC executives and clients, experts, as well as other relevant stakeholders. The subject and details ofthis Special event will be determinedjointly by Brookings and Website and Annual Report: in recognition of generous support, Stockings will prominently feature JPMC in its Annual Report and will include a donor pro?le story, found under the ?Support Brookings? section of its website, in concert with and at the express written approval Access to Senior Leadership: JPMC will receive one private meeting with Strobe Talbott, President of Brookings, annually in Washington. In addition, Strobe Talbott or another senior executive of Brooltings will be available for one private meeting a year orrtside of Washington, D.C. Please note that Brooltings will work with JPMC on scheduling and timing ofthesc meetings, as travel schedules are subject to change and advance notice is necessary. Interactions with Brookings? Scholars: JPMC will have the opportunity to request nine (9) private briefings or conference calls with Brookings? scholars in Washington, D.C., three (3) briefings in New York, NY and three (3) opportunities to invite Brookings? scholars to participate in private events outside of DC or New York on an annuai basis. Scholar travel may additional costs, depending on the individual request. Additional requests will be considered on a priority basis, but may require compensation in addition to scholar travel. Special Invitations: Invitations to an exclusive reception and dinner with Strobe albott and members of the Brookings? Board of Trustees and International Advisory Council featuring a distinguished guest speaker; an invitation for a senior JPMC executive and a guest tojoin Strobe Talbott and other Breakings scholars on an international study tour, and invitations for senior executives tojoin high-level private events both here and abroad. Exclusive Bene?ts in the Chairman?s Circle ofthe Brookings Corporate Council: PMC executives will be included in the weekly emails to all Corporate Council members, which include invitations to public events, where PMC will receive reserved VIP seats. Additionally, these executives will receive invitations to private Brookings Corporate Council events in DC, New York and other locations in the US. Quarterly Reports on JPMC and Brookings interactions: Brooltings? Centrai Development Office will prepare quarterly reports detailing chronological interactions with JPMC executives outside of the GCI and Exchange work with the Exchange. The activities tracked include attendance at events, briefings, one-on-one meetings and conference calls. JPMC shall have the opportunity, as appropriate and practicable, to provide relevant experts to participate in discussions and events, as well as to provide data to support the Exchange activities and goals. (ii) (iv) (V) (vi) (vii) (ix) IIRANDING VISIBILITY 1. Branding and Placement The official name of the Exchange is: ?The Globe! Cities Exchange: A Joint Project of Brookings and JP?dorgon Chase (?Project Name"). The Exchange will be a component oliGCl and will be described and branded as a component of Brooltings agrees the name and logo shall be used in connection with the Exchange to the greatest extent possible. Subject to the terms and conditions under this Seheduie, use of the individual logos of JPMC or Brookings shall be governed by the applicable party?s brand guidelines, which in some instances prohibit the use of a party?s trademarks on certain materials. Use of Trademarks is governed by Sections 4.1-4.2 under the Agreement and any branding tier JPMC relating to the Exchange will be ?JPMorgan Chase? unless otherwise directed by JPMC. Any use ofa party?s marks in any manner outside of the terms of this Agreement or applicable brand guidelines shalt require the prior Written consent from the- applicable party before implementing any such use. The name and logo shall be used on non?research GCI and Exchange materials including but not limited to: Invitations Agendas Signage Event materials Follow up and thank-you letters Brooltings agrees to prominentiy feature the GCI name on the-title page and the GCI logo on the back page of research and content product which is supported by JPMC as part of GCI or the Exchange. Brookings will also use the GCI name or logo where appropriate on any research, white papers, practitioner guides, case studies, metro dashboards or other similar products where the content for such material was supported by GCI or the Exchange. The parties agree to feature GCI and Exchange products on their reSpeetive websites. Brooki'ngs? website shall refer to the compiete name of GCI. Brookings shall retain copyright to intellectual property created in connection with the Exchange (?Copyrights?). Brookings grants to PMC a perpetual, transferable, royalty- t'ree, f?uliy paid-up, non?exclusive, irrevocable, non-commercial, worldwide license with a right to use, exploit, publish, display, reproduce, distribute, copy or assign to the public and display the Copyrights in any media whether now known or subsequently developed. JPMC and Brooltings are permitted to use the name and logo in association with projects and events related to metropolitan economic growth and trade that either party may initiate with other partnersi?organizations. Creation of such projects or events and use of the GCI name and logo by one party will be subject to the other party?s review and approvai, not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. LIJ (ii) (iv) 2. Communication and Independence. The parties agree to develop and implement a joint communications plan for the Exchange. The plans will emphasize acknowledgment of partnership and substantive contributions. Brookings and JPMC will explore new and innovative ways to connect with and reach new audiences both for the GCI and the Exchange. For the purposes oftimely and effective planning, a comprehensive plan will be deveiOped by September 2013 and will include but is not limited to: Announcement: The parties will come to a mutually agreed upon plan and timing for the announcement of the creation of the Exchange including creation of press releases .to be released simultaneously. Both Parties will work with their networks of media contacts to encourage news coverage of the Exchange. Formal oral or written announcements or communications about the Exchange whether public or private will be mutually revievved and approved by the parties. FAQ: The parties will create ajointlyuapproved list ofFrequentiy Asked Questions that will be made available to a list of mutually approved individuals. The FAQ will include links to appropriate supporting materials which will be updated as needed by the parties. Use by the Patties of materials from the FAQ in response to press queries and in press interviews will not require prior approval of the other Party. Sustained engagement: The parties agree to develop and implement strategies for sustained engagement and communications with each Exchange metro over the term ofthe Agreement. JPMC acknowledges Brookings? quality and independence and agrees that Brookings will have full control over the topics, methodology, and conclusions of the research and the structure and content of the convenings and pecr~to~peer learning process and events. On approved materials related to GCI and the Exchange including research, content and meeting materials, a standard statement that iays out the Brookings? mission, aeknowiedges support yet disclaims influence on the ?nai research {the ?disclaimer") will be prominently displayed: ?The Brookings institution is a private non-pro?t organization. its tnission is to conduct high-anaiity, independent research and, hosed on that research, to provide innovative, practicai and the pahiic. The cot-icittsions anti recotntnendations ofany Brookin gs pub iication are soieiy those of its (tnthor?s), and do not re?ect the views ofthe Institution, its management, or its other schoiars. Support for this [projectfpahiicationi i-ras generoasiy provided by the Giobai Cities Initiative: A Joint. Project ofBroohingr and JPMorgan hose or when appropriate) Simportfor the Giohai Cities initiative was generonsiy provided by JPMorgan Chase. VI. (ii (is) (V) Bi?ookings recognizes (lent the value it provides is in its obsolete commitment to quality, independence and inmost. Activities semporteo? by its donors re?ect this commitment. DELIVERABLES U.S. Metros in the Exchange The Exchange will launch a four-year effort establishing a network of practitioners from 28 US. metropolitan areas to learn about enhancing trade and investment together and to develop and implement concrete strategies to strengthen their economies. The format and curriculum of the domestic Exchange will center on a metropolitan area?s core commitment to develop or re?ne an exports strategy or an integrated ex-portsr?foreign direct investment strategy. The first year of the Exchange will engage 2D LLS. metropolitan areas l2 metropolitan areas with existing export strategies and eight new metropolitan areas. The Exchange will incorporate eight additional metropolitan areas in its second year, resulting in a total of 28 US. metropolitan areas creating, adopting and implementing trade and investment strategies by the end of the fouruyear Exchange process. To facilitate that outcome, the Exchange will execute two core working conveniugs in each of its first two years, with varied in-person engagement in subsequent years. The first convening ofthe ?rst eight metros will involve an interactive two-day format to help participants learn the necessary steps to develop a metropolitan-driven trade and investment strategy, starting with experts. The second convening of the ?rst eight metros will enable the metropolitan areas to present their draft strategies or report on their progress and challenges to date, and receive feedback from their peers, Brooltings scholars, and other eXperts. At each convening, state and federal leaders will be invited to participate, in addition to non-US. economic experts, non-US. city leaders, and embassy representatives. 1n the first two years, the twelve (12) metres with existing export plans will use the Exchange as an opportunity to expand upon their global work to date. In addition to furthering implementation of their export strategies (and providing lessons for new exchange metros), these I2 metro areas will also more strategically integrate foreign direct investment strategies into their base plans. As the component is developed, the Exchangemay convene one or more sessions dedicated to help those metros to integrate into their export plans. in years three and four, the Exchange will a) convene one session dedicated to help new metros integrate into their export plans; and b) convene a second session bringing all participating metros together to learn lessons from implementation as well as other strategies that can help the regions become more globally ?uent. As appropriate, Brookings and JPMC may invite leaders from non-US. cities to participate, eSpeeially where there is natural mutual interest in FDI and other aspects of global competitiveness. Throughout the duration ofthe Exchange, participants will be asked to join periodic conference calls and webinars organized by Brooltings to check~in, solve problems together at key points ofthe planning or ilnplementation process, and learn about new tools, new data, or policy changes to refine their strategies. in subsequent phases, the Exchange will reconvene participants to integrate new components into their strategies and assist with implementation issues. Brookings will execute. ongoing, regular programming (ti) (vii) (ii) (an (iv) (it) at a minimum on a calendar quarterly basis to maintain Engagement with the Exchange metros outside ol?the more intense and less Frequent phases oFeXport and plan development. This regular programming may include webinars, conference calls, and social networking to keep the metros engaged and learning between convenings and strategy development phases. The Exchange programming will incorporate JPMC experts, expertise and materials where mutually determined appropriate by JPMC and Brookings. This Agreement includes $4,500,0{30 for Brookings? work with U.S. metros in the Exchange. Over the course of the Exchange, JPMC may host up to two (2) receptions or brie?ngs per year for groups of metro leaders who are attending meetings in D.C., such as national organizations of mayors or county officials. JPMC will coordinate all logistics, including arrangements with the national organizations and invitations, and will pay For any hard costs, such as facilities and Foodfbeverage incurred For these events. Subject to availability, Brooltings will provide a speaker to provide a brief update on and the progress made under the Exchange. Metros in the Exchange In order to expand, widen and deepen current GCI engagement and to provide follow up and action, the Exchange will help networks of leaders and practitioners in Sao Paulo and Mexico City design an actionable economic development strategy that leverage their distinctive position in global trade and commerce. Foilowing the GCI forum, the Exchange will hold a conference or similar event in each city with the local leadership (mayors or governors, business, civic, non-profit leaders) as well as JPMC executives who will enable to engage locally and help advance action on a topic related to global trade and commerce. At this working session, the Exchange will bring in other US. and non-US. metros that have relevant experience. Brookings will produce a report on the outcomes, best practices, or implications for action emerging from the non-US. conference or similar event for distribution to the participants and to a broader audience; the report will be released within a mutually agreed upon timeline. This Agreement includes $650,006 for .Brbokings? work with Sao Paulo and Mexico City in the Exchange. Global Cities Roundtables To satisfy the demand for content, PMC may organize 1?2 hour roundtable events with local business, civic, and government leaders to discuss the development oftheir local economies in the areas of trade and competitiveness in the global economy. A senior scholar from Brookings? Metropolitan Policy Program will travel it? requested by JPMC to make a presentation to and Facilitate. the discussion at such a roundtable event. This Agreement includes $300,0?0 for roundtable events at a cost per event. The parameters of these US. domestic GCI Roundtables are: Events are initiated, planned, organized and run by JPMC. 4. Metro scholar is to attend the eventigathering as part of approximately a half-day on the ground. Scholar is to plan for either a GCLliite presentation or speech and will participate in a roundtable discussion. .FPMC will set up and implement the program including all outreach to and preparation ofother speakers and participants. A roundtable event will require approximater one-half of a day of a Brooltings {Metro Program} scholar?s time at the roundtable location. Metro will cover all scholar and stat?l?titne (including preparation and customization of the research, data and presentation, plus administrative and travel time} and all costs associated with travel to and from domestic metro. Outside the U.S., JPMC will host up to three (3) conferences, briefings, receptions, or other events each year with other research partners on GCI topics. Brookings will assist in the development of the event by helping JPMC identify an appropriate research partner; assisting with development ofthe agenda to help ensure consistency with the intellectual framework of and providing other guidance for such events. As appropriate and if mutually agreed upon, a Brooltings scholar will participate in these events. Any financial payments from JPMC 'to Brookings for these events will be separately determined as amendments to this Agreement. Products The Parties anticipate products to be developed from the Exchange events and available on the Exchange Website, including: (ii) (iv) (ii) An informational piece on the Exchange that includes a description of the work and Exchange activities as well as integration of Exchange information into GCI materials. Brookings and JPMC willjointly develop branding rules and product onmership disclaimer language to be incorporated into each reports or strategic plans from the US. cities participating in the Exchange. Reports detailing?and analyzing the outcomes emerging from theworking sessions held in non-US. metros participating in the Exchange will be delivered on a mutually?agreed upon timetable. in addition, Brookings will send a ?thank you? note or other appropriate follow-up communications from the working sessions within one (1) week of such session The Exchange will also capture and communicate innovations emerging from this effort to inform new policies and practices in cities and institutions in emerging markets. it is anticipated this will result in a series of blogs, white papers, case studies, practitioner how- to guides and other practitioner materials that will be. relevant, useful and available to other domestic and international metro cities. Relevant market data, planning guides, tools and resources for US. and international practitioners will be published, as they become available. Reports Brookings. will provide JPMC reports on activities related to the Exchange on a semi~ annual basis or as reasonable requested by .l PMC. Brookings? Central Development Of?ce will prepare moutth reports detailing chronological interactions with JEMC executives outside ofthe SCI and the Exchange (ii) VII. (0 (ii) (iv) L) (ii) (iv) work with the Exchange. The activities tracked include attendance at events, briefings, onesonsone- meetings and conference calls. Citv Selection and Application Process. In order to make sure each metre has a high level ofpreparedness and commitment, the process of selecting metros to participate in the Exchange will be run by Brookings. Brookings will consult with JPMC on city selection and will give strong consideration to feedback in the final selection of cities for the Exchange. JPMC will seek to participate in any ?steering? committee established to advise and guide each metro"s participation in the Exchange. KEY EXCHANGE PERSONNEL For the Exchange work related to the domestic metros, Brookings will provide: Leadership: executive leadership and engagement from Amy Liu (setting overall agenda, initial relationship management, and. initial project design and direction). dedicated senior-level scholar (on staffand contracted supplemental) and analyst to coach metros and oversee peer-to-peer sessions and conduct FDI research; from research assistants. initiative Management: time from events staff (for peer-to-peer gatherings); project management; metro partnership office, and coordination with Allocation of ftnancet?administration and communications staff. For the Exchange work related to the international metros, Brookings will provide: Leadership: executive leadership and engagement from Bruce Kata, Amy Liu, Alan Berube {setting overall agenda, initial relationship management, participation in non-US. cities workshops, and initial project design and direction). dedicated seniorvlevel staff person with non-US. experience to facilitate en gagement and work with non-US. metros; support from research assistants. initiative Management: Support from events staff (for non-US. working sessions) and project management; coordination with GCI. Support: Allocation of financex?administration and communications staff. PAYMENT In support of the Exchange, JPMC agrees to pay Brookings a sum total of $5,450,000. JPMC will make four payments on an annual basis {?Annual Payment?) as follows: $1,525,000 will be due within thirty (30) days following the Schedule Effective Date; $1,525,000 will be due August 1,2014; $300,000 will be due August 1, 2015; and $1,200,000 will be due August 1, 20i6. Bi?eekinge agrees te provide JPMC with an invoice for the Annual Payment at least sixty {60) days prior to the payment date For aueh applicable year. Duly authorized representatives of each of the parties have executed this Schedule as of the Schedule Ef?eetive I re 1 seeiatiuu Bro By: I Name: L. Sch-6V" ne: in Title; EXWW Vite Pr?SliCl?t/d? Title: Na SPONSORSHIP ENT Thie Agreemem ("Agrermem") is made as of lm l~ l? 2013 ("Agruemcnl Eireeiive Dale") and IS emeied hy JPMoi-gaii Chase Bank, iumuc") iimee loomed (11270 Park Avenue, New York. New York 10017 and liisiiuirieii llaVilIg its place ml Avenue. NW, no 200300 in. gum! ihe mid or which is acknowledged, rhe parties agree [0 rlie and as rolliiws. ARTICLE I AGREEM STRUCTURE Section LI Ove This ihe ieriris mid eonrhiions to which milc will provide a la Recipicnl Fur p|llp05EURPage 2 Arm: Contracts Manager- To Recipient, llisliuninli Aitn: Amy Liu l775 Avclulc, NW Washington. DC 20036 With copies to Brookili Section 2.2 Pnblici Except ns otherwise allowed under this Agreement and as set forth in Reci ierit's Donor- Recognition Guidelines Recipieill will Hall to) inrnish the name, logo or other identifying oI ul'Ji'Mol'gali Chase EL Co, or any Amlintc" iliul'eof, in aiw i announcements, sales, ninrteting. pioltiulioiml or activities (including testimonials. quotations, cast: studies and other enricrsenrci. s) in any olliei medium or other terms or or(b) issue any press release, interviews or other public statement regattlillg this Agreement or the parlies' relationship, No exceptions are the wi'illen conscm ofthe Global Media Relations Dcparlmenl oi iPMorgtin Chase 03,, such consent to be granted or in the sole tinrt tihsolutc discictiou or Chase 5t Co. Far purposes oi'tliis Agreement, the term "Affiliates" mean an entity owned by, controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, directly or indirectly, a party. For lliis purpose. one entity "controls" another entity if it has the power to direct the management and policies ol' the other ei . (for example, through the ownership of voting securities or other equity interest, representntion on its board or other govelning body or by eoittrtieii ARTICLE 3 CONFIDENTIALITY "Confidential Information" means information ex nut-ti by the parties that is not generally known la lite public and at lite lime OfdiSClOSlH't: is identified as, or would reamiiahly be limit: Page 3 performance of this Agreement; commercially exploit any Confidential Information ofthe Disclosing Party; or acquire any right in, or assert any lien against, the Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party. Con?dential information shall also include the terms of this Agreement. This paragraph shall survive the termination of this Agreement. ARTICLE 4 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND APPROVALS Section 4.1 Trademark License. Upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, and in consideration of Recipient executing this Agreement, JPMorgan Chase Co with its Affiliates grants to Recipient a nonexclusive, non-transferable, revocable license ("Trademark License?) to use those trademarks, trade names, service marks, copyrights and logos (whether registered or not) in accordance with brand guidelines at solely in connection with the Program or as otherwise approved by JPMC (collectively the The Trademark License shall terminate immediately upon the termination of this Agreement for any reason, with or without cause. Recipient shall not incorporate any Trademarks, any derivative of the Trademarks or any mark which is similar to any Trademark, into Recipient's name, and shall not use any Trademark or any mark similar to any Trademark, in the promotion ofany products or services other than as authorized under this Agreement or in the promotion of any individual or entity other than .lPMorgan Chase Co. or its Affiliates. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, JPMorgan Chase Co., at any time in its- sole discretion, may modify or eliminate Trademarks subject to the Trademark License, or limit or terminate the 'l"rademark License, with or without cause. Section 4.2 Approvals. All materials including, advertising, web and collateral materials, produced by or for the Recipient containing any Trademarks Materials?) will be sent to JPMC for review prior to printing/postingffabrication. All .IPMC Materials will be sent to: Jill Blickstein at the address set forth in Section 2.1. Section 4.3 Recipient?s Registered Marks. JPMC will be permitted to publicize Sponsorship of Recipient and to use Recipient?s registered marks for the purpose of publicizing the sponsorship and Program provided that any and all materials relating to the sponsorship and Program or using Recipient?s registered marks are sent to Recipient for review prior to printingfpostingffabrication. ARTICLE 5 GOVERNING LAW AND WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL Section 5.1 Compliance with Laws. Recipient will perform all of its obligations to .ll?MC and will use any funds it receives under this Agreement in compliance at all times with all United States federal, state and local laws, rules, statutes, enactments, orders and regulations,- including those related to terrorism, ethics, bribery and corruption and money laundering or of any governmental agency, and all interpretations of and changes, supplements or replacements to, any of the foregoing that are applicable to Recipient in performing its obligations to Page at JPMC. Recipient is duly licensed, authorized or qualified to do business and is in good standing in every jurisdiction in which a license, authorization or quali?cation is required for ownership or leasing of assets 'or the transaction of business of the character transacted by it except where the failure to be so licensed, authorized or qualified would not have a material adverse effect on Recipient?s ability to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement and the Schedule. Section 5.2 Status. Recipient represents and warrants that it is a not-for-protit organization exempt from federal income taxation under Code Section 50l(e)(3) and agrees that it will be so exempt for so long as any funds it receives under this Agreement are held by Recipient. Recipient agrees it will also provide to JPMC a tax receipt that meets the requirements of a. contemporaneous written acknowledgement described in Section l70{fj(8) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1936, as amended, and the underlying Treasury Regulations. Section 5.3 Representation Regarding Af?liations in Appendix A. Rocipient represents and warrants that the information in Appendix A regarding its affiliation with Covered Official(s} (as defined in the Appendix) is accurate and complete. Section 5.4 Use of Funds. Recipient will use any money it receives under this Agreement only for charitable, scienti?c, literary or educational purposes and will not use such funds: to attempt to influence legislation or regulation; (ii) to influence the outcome of any specific public election or to carry on, directly or indirectly, a voter registration drive; to make a grant to another organization except for sub-contracts to carry out the activities authorized by this Agreement; (iv) to tnake grants to individuals for travel, study or other similar purposes by such individuals (such as scholarships, fellowships or grants for research); or as collateral. Section 5.5 Governing Law agd Waiver Trial. This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the applicable laws of the State of New York, without giving effect to the principles of that State relating to conflicts of laws. Each party irrevocably agrees that any legal action, suit or proceeding brought by it in any way arising out of this Agreement must be brought solely and exclusively in, and will be subject to the service of process and other applicable procedural rules of, the state or federal courts in the state of New York, and each party irrevocably submits to the sole and exclusive personal jurisdiction of the courts in New York, generally and unconditionally, with respect to any action, suit or proceeding brought by it or against it by the other party. Notwithstanding the. foregoing, claims for equitable relief may be brought in any court with proper jurisdiction within the United States. Both parties agree to waive any right to have a jury participate in the resolution of the dispute or claim, whether sounding in contract, tort or otherwise, between any of the parties or any of their respective af?liates arising out of, connected with, related to or incidental to this Agreement to the fullest extent permitted by law. Page 5 ARTICLE 6 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Section 6.1 Indemni?cation. Recipient will indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably satisfactory to .IPMC) and hold harmless JPMC and all of its direct and indirect of?cers, directors, employees, agents, successors and assigns (each, a Indemnified Person?) from any and all third party ciairns, demands, actions or threat of action (whether in law, equity or in an alternative proceeding and whether groundless or otherwise), losses, liabilities, damages (including taxes), and all related costs and expenses, including reasonable legal fees and disbursements and costs of investigation, litigation, settlement, judgment, interest and penalties (collectively, ??Losses?), and threatened Losses due to, arising from or relating to: acts or omissions that occur on any property owned, controlled .or utilized by Recipient; (ii) any actual or alleged infringement, violation or IniSappropriation of the Intellectual Property Rights of any third person by Recipient or the use thereof; the negligent, willful or reckless acts or omissions of or by Recipient; or (iv) death, personal injury, bodily injury or property damage caused by Recipient Indemni?ed Claim?). For purposes of this Agreement, ?Intellectual Property Rights? means patent, copyright, trade secret, trademark or other intellectual property or proprietary rights of JPMC or any third party. If Recipient fails to defend a JPMC indemnified Person as provided in this Section after reasonable notice of an Indemni?ed Claim, Recipient will be bound: to indemnify and reimburse the JPMC indemnified Person for any Losses incurred by such Indemnified Person, in its sole discretion, to defend, settle or compromise the indemnified Claim; and (ii) by the determination of facts common to an action and subsequent action to the .IPMC Indemni?ed Person?s reimbursement rights. No settlement or compromise that imposes any liability or obligation on any Indemnified Person will be made without the Indemnified Person?s prior written consent (not to be unreasonably withheld). will indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonany satisfactory to Recipient} and hold harmless Recipient and all of its direct and indirect officers, directors, employees, agents, successors and assigns (each, a ?Recipient Indemni?ed Person?) from any and all third party claims, demands, actions or threat of action (whether in law, equity or in an alternative proceeding and whether groundless or otherwise), losses, liabilities, damages (including taxes), and all related costs and expenses, including reasonable legal fees and disbursements and costs of investigation, litigation, settlement, judgment, interest and penalties (collectively, ?Losses?), and threatened Losses due to, arising from or relating to: acts or omissions that occur on any property owned, controlled or utilized by (ii) any actual or alleged infringement, violation or misappropriation of the Intellectual Property Rights of any third person by JPMC or the use thereof; the negligent, willful or reckless acts or omissions of or by or {iv} death, personal injury, bodily injury or property damage caused by JPMC (?Recipient Indemni?ed Claim?). For purposes of this Agreement, ?Intellectual Property Rights? means patent, copyright, trade secret, trademark or other intellectual property or proprietary rights of Recipient or any third party. fails to defend a Recipient Indemnified Person as provided in this Section after reasonable notice of an Indemni?ed Claim, .IPMC will be bound: to indemnify and reimburse the Recipient Indemni?ed Person for any Losses incurred by such indemni?ed Person, in its sole discretion, to defend, settle or compromise the indemnified Claim; and (ii) by the determination of facts common to an action and subsequent action to enforce the Recipient Indemnified Person?s reimbursement rights. No settlement or compromise that imposes any liability or obligation on any Indemnified Person will be made without the Indemnified Person?s prior written consent (not to- be unreasonably withheld}. Page 6 Section 6.2 Limitation of PARTY WILL BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER PARTY, FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, EXEMPLARY, PUNITWE OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, REGARDIESS OF THE FORM THE ACTION OR THEORY OF RECOVERY, EVEN 1F THAT PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THOSE DAMAGES. The limitations and exculpations of liability set forth above in Section ?lial shall not apply to: Recipient?s indemni?cation obligations under this Agreement or a Schedule; (ii) Recipient?s repudiation of its obligations under this Agreement or the Schedule; Recipient?s breach of its obiigations of con?dentiaiity set forth in this Agreement or the Schedule; and (iv) claims against Recipient invoiving fraud, gross negligence or willful misconduct. Section 7.1 Assinnment. Neither party may assign any rights or delegate any obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. I'lowever, JPMC may assign this Agreement, any Schedule, or any of its rights under each ofthe preceding, in whole or in part, with Recipient?s consent: to any existing or future JPMC entity; or to another JPMC Af?liate or to an acquirer or successonin-interest to .IPMC or one ofits Af?liates in the case ot?a JPMC merger, acquisition, divestiture, consolidation or corporate reorganization (whether or not is the surviving entity). The Recipient shall have the-right to assess, renegotiate or terminate the agreement should such a transaction fundamentally alter the relationship. Any assignment or attempted assignment contrary to this Section 7.1 will be a material breach ofthis Agreement and nuil and void. This Agreement and each Schedule. will be binding upon the successors, legal representatives and permitted assigns of the parties. For purposes of this Section any merger or other combination by operation of law with respect to Recipient constitutes an assignment requiring consent. Section 7.2 Insurance. Recipient will, at its own cost and expense, maintain in Full force and effect while this Agreement is in effect {and thereafter as may be required] the insurance policies listed on the Insurance Exhibit. Section 7.3 Force Maienre. Each party shall be excused from performance under this Agreement and shall have no liability to the other party for any period it is prevented from performing any of its obligations, in whole or in part, as a result of material delay caused by the other party or by an act of God, war, terrorism, civil disturbance, court order, or natural disaster {each, a "Force Majeure Event"), but speci?cally excluding: labor and union-related activities, and the non?performance of Recipient (unless such noituperfortnance is due to a Force Majeure Event}. If any of the above-enumerated circumstances prevent performance ol? Recipient's obligations under this Agreement, Recipient agrees to refund to JPMC all monies or fees paid to Recipient under this Agreement. Page 7 Section 7.4 Diversity. in the application of its resources to serve the public interest, PMC gives high priority to the realization of equality of-opportunity for all members of society. Accordingly, it is expectation that in utilizing the sponsorship, Recipient wili make commercially reasonable efforts with respect to the inclusion of members of protected groups in its activities and to the extent required under law and regulations applicable to Recipient, make its services available to those with disabilities. Section 7.5 Miscellaneous. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts (including by facsimile), each of which will be considered an original but all of which together will constitute one agreement. They are not to affect the interpretation of this Agreement. No amendment, modification or change of this Agreement will be valid unless in writing and signed {not in electronic form) by an authorized representative of the party to be bound. Unless expressly stated otherwise in this Agreement, all rights and remedies provided for in this Agreement will be cumulative and in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other remedies available to either party at law, in equity or otherwise. If any provision of this Agreement conflicts with the law under which this Agreement is to be construed or if any provision of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competentjurisdiction, that provision will be deemed to be restated to re?ect as nearly as possible the original intentions of the parties in accordance with applicable law. The remaining provisions of this Agreement and the application of the challenged provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is invalid or unenforceable will not be affected, and each of those provisions will be valid and enforceable to the fall extent permitted by law. This Agreement, including the Exhibits and Appendices attached to this document, and the Schedule executed under this Agreement are folly incorporated into this Agreement and constitute the entire agreement of the parties, superseding all prior agreements and understandings as to the subject matter, notwithstanding any oral representations or statements to the contrary. Any JPMC rights not expressly granted are reserved by .FPMC. Any Recipient rights not expressly granted are reserved by Recipient. Duly authorized representatives of each of the parties have executed this Sponsorship Agreement as of the Agreement Eftective Date. JPMORGAN CHASE ANK, NATIONAL ASSO BROOKJN GS INSTITUITION By: r. Name: Sci/lav Name: Title: Elith V1116, Title: .iPMorgan Chase Bank, NA. Brookings Institution Page 8 Insurance Exhibit Recipient, within live (5) ?Business Days" (meaning, Monday through Friday, excluding any of?cial lPl'vIC holidays) after the execution of this Agreement, shall procure and maintain, at its own expense, the Following required insurance of the following kinds and limits, with companies carrying a financial strength rating of not less than and in a ?nancial size category of Class or better, each as rated in the most current Best?s Insurance Reports, and permitted to insure risks in each jurisdiction where a claim or claims might arise or who are otherwise acceptable to JPMC. Should Recipient at any time neglect or refuse to provide the required insurance, or should such insurance be canceled, JPMC shall have the right to procure such insurance and the cost thereof shall be deducted from monies then due or thereafter to become due to Recipient. Recipient may carry, at its own expense, such additional insurance as it may deem necessary. Recipient shall not be deemed to be relieved of any responsibility by the fact that it carries insurance. A. REQUIRED INSURANCE. Conunercial General Liability insurance written on ISO occurrence i?orm CG 00 01 {or a substitute l'orm providing equivalent coverage) covering the Program, the performance and provision of the Program and everything incidental thereto, with limits ol?not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence, or in whatever higher amounts as may be requested by from time to time and mutually agreed, in writing, by the parties, and extended to cover: Contractual Liability, with defense provided in addition to policy limits for indemnitees ot' the named insured; if any obligations under this Agreement are subcontracted, Independent Contractors Liability providing coverage in connection with such portion ol? the obligations which may be subcontracted; Broad Form Property Damage Liability; Products Completed Operations; Personal and Advertising injury Liability and Hired and Non-Ownership Automobile Liability, not covered under Automobile- Liability Insurance. The policy will include: a waiver of subrogation against all parties named as additional insureds, a severability of interest provision and ?.JPMorgan Chase 8r. Co. and any and all subsidiaries, directors, of?cers, employees, and agents as their interest may appear? as additional insureds. it? such Commercial General Liability insurance contains a general aggregate limit, it will apply separately to the location or project that is the subject of the applicable Schedule. The Commercial General Liability insurance required under this paragraph will be raised to not less than $5,000,000 per occurrence combined single limit if Recipient?s provision of the Program, in the ordinary course, involves hazardous trades (ag, mechanical, electrical, plumbing or construction services or trades requiring the use of heavy machinery). The required limit of liability may be satis?ed through a combination of primary Commercial General Liability and Umbrella Liability insurance. Additional insured status for lPMorgan Chase Co. and any of its subsidiaries, directors, of?cers, agents, employees or any other party required to be named as additional insureds under this Agreement will extend to the full limits ofliability maintained by the Recipient even if those limits of liability are in excess ot?those required by this Agreement. Recipient?s insurance will be primary and all insurance carried by JPMorgan Chase Co. is strictly excess and secondary and will not contribute with Recipient?s insurance. The requirements of" this Agreement as to insurance limits and acceptability of insurers and insurance to be maintained by Recipient are not intended to and will not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations assumed by Recipient under this Agreement. Page 9 B. CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE. In the event of any renewal, termination, cancellation, or expiration in any policy of insurance required under this Agreement, Recipient will deliver to JPMC a Certi?cate of Insurance with respect to any such renewal, termination, cancellation, or expiration, as the case may be prior to inception of any such coverage. Certi?cates must disclose all applicable policy deductibles and self-insured 'retentions Recipient agrees to be liable for all costs within the deductibles and SIR. Any self-insured retentions or dednctibles maintained by Recipient must be approved in writing by With respect to additional insured endorsements, coverage will be no less broad than one or the other of the following alternatives: the coverage at?tbrded to the named insured under the policy-with respect to the Program .to be provided or performed under this Agreement; or the coverage afforded by Insurance Services Of?ce Endorsement entitled (?Additional insured Designated Person or Organization"). Recipient will, on request, permit JPMC to examine original insurance policies. Where allowed or required by law to allow indemnification for ?action?over? claims, Recipient speci?cally and expressly waives any immunity that may be granted it under the applicable State workers insurance Act. Further, the indemni?cation obligation under this Agreement will not be limited in any way by any amount or type of damages, compensation or benefits payable to or for any third party under workers compensation acts, disability bene?t acts, or other employee benefits acts; provided Recipient?s waiver of immunity by the provisions of this paragraph extends only to ?action- over? claims against Recipient by JPMC, and does not include, or extend to, any claims by Recipient?s employees directly against Recipient. if the Program is administered by persons other than Recipient who are not parties to any Agreement with JPMC, Recipient will arrange to have such subcontractors furnish to Recipient evidence of insurance, subject to terms and conditions determined adequate to satisfy Recipient, at least two weeks prior to commencing with the performance or provision of the Program. It is understood and agreed Recipient?s determination of adequate insurance carried by subcontractors in no way relieves Recipient from liability assumed by Recipient or insurance required of Recipient. Page 10 APPENDIX A Federal Of?cial Affiliation Disclosure The parties acknowledge that JPMC is required to report information regarding grant recipients? affiliations with certain federal officials, referred to as "Covered Qijficiois. This requirement derives from the US. Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (#200? (the ?Hi Af?iiations to be Reported: Recipient will provide the name of each Covered Of?cial who participated in the establislnnent of Recipient or as of the date of this Agreement, participates in the direction and controi of Recipient by sitting on its board of directors or acting as a director or chairperson. "Covered Of?ciai" means any current: Member of Congress; Congressional staffer; employee of the Executive Of?ce of the President; employee of the Of?ce of Management and Badget; Presidential Appointee [Deputy Assistant Secretary level and above) and hisiher "Schedule Assistants of any executive branch agency or department; or officer ranking Brigadier General, Rear Admiral or above. Recipient's Af?liations: In the ?rst box below is Recipient's response (if any) from its Grant Preposal regarding its Covered Officials. Prior to signing this Agreement, Recipient will updater'revise this information as needed by crossing out any names/titles in the ?rst box below, anti adding any additional of Recipient's Covered Officiais in the second oox below. If Recipient does not have an af?liation with any Covered Officials, pieasc write in the second box. Reference below to "Title" is to a person's government title, not that person's position with Recipient. None Name: TitlefNature of Af?iiation: Nix-t Recipient acknowledges and agrees that the information it provides in this Appendix wiil be reported to- government authorities under the I-ILOGA and will become public information. • • • ! ! " " #! $% & ! ' ( $))* +' ( , %- +.$/ 0 - % ;?! 1% 2 ! 3 4 5 0 4 6 ' ( 7 0 4 2 8 4 94 3 4 ' ( 4 4 4 % ( ;2I< 2 M 2I 22! "$# "1# :% ; < ! 3 ' ( ; < = 4 +2 3 - 4 ' ( % >% ; 2 ? ! ' ( 0 2 8 4 3 4 & % ; 4 2 8 3 $ 0 @ & % 2 4 0 4 A % *% 3 7 2 ! ' ( A B = 3 7 4 &% 4 : = CD : 3 7 & C D % E% 2 ! 2 8 0 0 3 7 3 8 ; F ' ( 5 2 8 3 4 5 G % 6 "N# 0 ! • < A N 0 ! •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• . / 0 / * 12 !"#3% 0 - 4 * 5 5 5 * % . 6 7 * % 0 . * 5 % & 8%2% 9 * 4 : % ; $ - <' !"#= >? @ % & ! "# A & "BC * #! * 5 D % $ E 8%2% / $ & , 2 * 1& * D 3 0 % ) F B GC? " B?C % " 58 2 $ & 2 6 * • " # * & H * . / H ( % & ?!! ( 6 8. D . . % • ! ! " # $ , & H I 0 ( 1A !"#3% 0 - & J J 7 5 ( I $ % E 7 "!! C? % "? % , * % ; $ - & B KB "?? "K / 2 / , % & I ( / & 8 ( ( & / , 2 & ( . A ! /A& +% & 9 * 5 * ( 2 / 9 * % • $ # % ! & !" # ! ' ! ! ' ! ! ! H ( , . 1 !"#3% 0 - , 7 5 , 7 8%2% , & , % 0 $ % ; $ - # " # ! &# ' ( ) * % & @ (0 # " D & . AD0 * / % & "! !!! " !!! % $ * * 5 % / . I 6 H ( < , &, L = # + &# " % ) % & - • H , - * . . * % & " !!! C !!! @ % 2 M " !!! . * % & F "! & C !!! % & - <& D ) 5( L = * & M <$ D 0 & 2 = , 4 H ( M <& N D , 0 = * M % & . " / 0 / /% , R. * K! !! !!! % +,. ! $ S % ) 5 8%2% * , , &, !">% , # " H ( , . % ( D F S H '% 6 * 6 / % & * 6 . I 6 H( D 4 & / ' / ) L 4 H % & , 8 S 18 ,S3 . 7 . I 6 H( 2 ' 4 6 S 2 2 / 4 6 8 ,S ( H 6 : 0 6 . : ( A H % S 5 % ' - • , / * 0 * . * 4 , $ 2 / H( L . * 0 % & F J ) ' , 6 ( 8%2% 2 2 % • ) * 2 5 2 2 , $ $ 1$ A3% A * - • ) * $ AD H ( M • $ * H( D H% A . M • , * I * . U% 6 6M • D 0 * / M • , . I 6 # " M • , 2 & ( , 4 ) A ' 2 'A 4 ( 'A % 4V 6 , 6 ( 8%2% 2 2 M • , ( ( W 2 ' $ P : * H( D 6 1: D F @ 3% 0 ' Y ' ( 6 % & I *D ( 6 6 S[, ' H( ' : ( L 0 ( 2 % 2 5 7 &# " . .2 % K ( , 4 * A * 5 5 % ( H + 'A ) . M 2 I / M / 2 ( 2 M & H( M % ' H . I 6 <2 = & % ) * , 4 % /% % 2 ' / 2 * ) . 'A H + 5 % 2 * " 5 * % $ D * % & • & $ H ( , . # " 5 % & 7 <& 8 2 D "! , , = # " < "! %= & >? % • 2 % 8 2 % & >C , # 1 / 2 * " 3 0 4 - 2 4 & / " 5 , 0 0 / 4 4 2 5 , B 4 4 / 4 6 / 5 7 6 7 & / / * / 4 5 , 0 6 / 8 " , 5 ( &# " . .2 % ) / 0 ( + 0 * . * 4 , • • ) D + $5 * , % 4, P 7 $ % 2 / • • • ) $ & $ % 0 2 / / ' % 2 / P 7 $ % • • • ) F $ % . * D H . ! ! ' / / P 7 $ % • ) & 4 % & • ) & + % $ % , C • , P ' * + % , . 6 0 , !">% • ) , 0 * L Q/ • ) L D * P @ * P % • ) * L / 6 ' % 8 / % L % / • ) / F 4 H $ % 5 $ • ) 4, 2 / & $5 % • ) 8%2% $% • ) + 0 ' , ( % • & * L % (.!# / & ' % $ 7 5 * % . / & ' % H( D . H( % , 7 ' J , M 2% %M $ M H * %M * M ( M 2 %M ) I J 5 G * / % & * + % , • ( 7 + * * • 5 2 ( 2 ( 4 , % • 8%2% / , 8 $ & I L 2 82, ' / : & $ & , ' / ' ( ( 2 * % • ) * . * D ' / 7 & ( 7 ( & & $ ( + % • A 6 # 1 # - 0 , 5H 6 , ' % & & "# "! Global Cities Initiative Semi-Annual Report Detailing Activities between July 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014 —”‹‰ –Š‡ •‡…‘† ŠƒŽˆ ‘ˆ ʹͲͳͶǡ ”‘‘‹‰• …‘–‹—‡† ˆ—”–Š‡”‹‰ ‹–• ‰‘ƒŽ• ‘ˆ ’”‘‰”‡•• ‘ ‘„Œ‡…–‹˜‡• ‘ˆ ’”‘†—…‹‰ ”‡•‡ƒ”…Šǡ —†‡”–ƒ‹‰ †‡‘•–”ƒ–‹‘ ’”‘Œ‡…–•ǡ ”‡’Ž‹…ƒ–‹‰ „‡•– ’”ƒ…–‹…‡•ǡ …‘˜‡‹‰ …ƒ–ƒŽ›–‹… †‹ƒŽ‘‰—‡•ǡ ƒ† „—‹Ž†‹‰ ‡–™‘”• ‘ˆ ‡–™‘”‹‰ †‘‡•–‹… ƒ† ‹–‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ‡–”‘ Ž‡ƒ†‡”• –‘ ’”‘‘–‡ ‰Ž‘„ƒŽ …‘‡…–‹‘• ƒ† …‘’‡–‹–‹˜‡‡••Ǥ ƒŒ‘” ƒ…–‹˜‹–‹‡• ‹…Ž—†‡†ǣ ͳǤ ‡Ž‡ƒ•‡ ‘ˆ ‡™ ”‡’‘”–• ƒƒŽ›œ‹‰ ˆ‘”‡‹‰ •–—†‡–• ƒ† ‰‘‘†• ‘˜‡‡–Ȁˆ”‡‹‰Š– ‡–™‘”•Ǣ ʹǤ Žƒ‹‰ ƒ† ‡š‡…—–‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‡ —‹…Š •–—†› –‘—”Ǣ ͵Ǥ ”‰ƒ‹œƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ ƒ† ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‹‘ ‹ †‘‡•–‹… ”‘—†–ƒ„Ž‡• ‹ Š‹Žƒ†‡Ž’Š‹ƒǡ ƒŽ– ƒ‡ǡ ”‡•‘ǡ ƒ† ”ƒ‰‡ ‘—–›ǡ Ǣ ͶǤ ‘Ž‹…‹–ƒ–‹‘ ƒ† •‡Ž‡…–‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‡ Žƒ•– ‡‹‰Š– ‡–”‘ ƒ”‡ƒ• –‘ Œ‘‹ –Š‡ š…Šƒ‰‡ ‹ –Š‡ ‡š’‘”– ’Žƒ‹‰ ’Šƒ•‡Ǣ ͷǤ ‘’Ž‡–‹‘ ‘ˆ ƒŽŽ ‡š’‘”– ’Žƒ ƒ”‡– ƒ••‡••‡–• ™‹–Š –Š‡ …—””‡– ‡š’‘”– …‘Š‘”–ǡ …‘–‹—‹‰ –‘ ƒ†˜ƒ…‡ •–”ƒ–‡‰› †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ˆ‘” ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡ ‘ˆ ‘•– ˆ‹ƒŽ ‡š’‘”– ’Žƒ• ™‹–Š‹ –Š‡ ˆ‹”•– “—ƒ”–‡” ‘ˆ ʹͲͳͷǢ ͸Ǥ ‘’Ž‡–‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ƒ –‘‹‘ ’‹Ž‘– ’”‘Œ‡…– ƒ† ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡ǡ …‘–‹—‡† ™‘” –‘ ˆ‹ƒŽ‹œ‡ –Š‡ ˆ‹˜‡ ‘–Š‡” ’Žƒ•ǡ ƒ† ‹‹–‹ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ ƒ ‡™ ƒ’’Ž‹…ƒ–‹‘ ’”‘…‡•• ˆ‘” –Š‡ ‡š– ‡–”‘ ’Žƒ ”‡’Ž‹…ƒ–‹‘ …‘Š‘”–Ǣ ͹Ǥ †˜ƒ…‡‡– ‘ˆ –Š‡ Ž‘„ƒŽ ‹–‹‡• …‘‘‹… ƒ”–‡”•Š‹’ ƒ…–‹˜‹–‹‡• ™‹–Š Š‹…ƒ‰‘ ƒ† ‡š‹…‘ ‹–› Ž‡ƒ†‡”•Ǣ ͺǤ —”–Š‡”‹‰ ‘ˆ ‘†‘ ƒ† …‘”‡ …‹–‹‡• …‘ŽŽƒ„‘”ƒ–‹‘• ‹ ‘”‰ƒ‹œ‹‰ ƒ ™‘”‹‰ •‡••‹‘ ‘ ‡š’‘”– ’Žƒ‹‰ ƒ† ‘–Š‡” –Š‡‡•Ǣ ƒ† ͻǤ ‘’Ž‡–‹‘ ‡˜‡– ’”‘‰”ƒ‹‰ ˆ‘” ʹͲͳͷǤ Research ƒŒ‘” ‡™ ”‘‘‹‰• ”‡•‡ƒ”…Š ƒ…–‹˜‹–› …‡–‡”‡† ‘ –Š‡ ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡ ‘ˆ –™‘ ”‡’‘”–•ǡ Dz Š‡ ‡‘‰”ƒ’Š› ‘ˆ ‘”‡‹‰ –—†‡–• ‹ Ǥ Ǥ ‹‰Š‡” †—…ƒ–‹‘dz ƒ† Dz ƒ’’‹‰ ”‡‹‰Š–ǡdz –Š‡ Žƒ––‡” ‘ˆ ™Š‹…Š ‹…Ž—†‡† ƒ —‹“—‡ ‹–‡”ƒ…–‹˜‡ –‘‘Ž –‘ ‹ŽŽ—•–”ƒ–‡ –Š‡ ‘˜‡‡– ‘ˆ ‰‘‘†• –Š”‘—‰Š‘—– –Š‡ ™‘”Ž†Ǥ ‘–Š ”‡’‘”–• ™‡”‡ …‘’Ž‡‡–‡† ™‹–Š ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡• ‘ˆ –ƒ”‰‡–‡†ǡ –‹‡Ž› „Ž‘‰ ’‘•–•ǡ ™‡„‹ƒ”• ƒ† ‘–Š‡” ‘—–”‡ƒ…Š –Š”‘—‰Š‘—– –Š‡ •‡…‘† ŠƒŽˆ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ›‡ƒ”Ǥ  —‰—•– ʹͻǡ ”‘‘‹‰• ’—„Ž‹•Š‡† Dz Š‡ ‡‘‰”ƒ’Š› ‘ˆ ‘”‡‹‰ –—†‡–• ‹ Ǥ Ǥ ‹‰Š‡” †—…ƒ–‹‘ǣ ”‹‰‹• ƒ† ‡•–‹ƒ–‹‘•dz „› ‡‹Ž —‹œǡ ƒ ˆ‹”•– ‘ˆ ‹–• ‹† ƒƒŽ›•‹• ‘ˆ ‹–‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ •–—†‡–• ƒ– –Š‡ ‡–”‘’‘Ž‹–ƒ Ž‡˜‡Ž ‹ –Š‡ Ǥ Ǥ Š‡ ƒƒŽ›•‹• ‹…Ž—†‡† ‡ƒ•—”‡• ‘ˆ ˆ‘”‡‹‰ •–—†‡– ‹–‡•‹–›ǡ ˆ‹‡Ž†• ƒ† †‡‰”‡‡• ‘ˆ •–—†›ǡ …‘—–”› ƒ† …‹–› ‘ˆ ‘”‹‰‹ǡ ’”‘’‘”–‹‘• •–—†›‹‰ ˆ‘” †‡‰”‡‡• ‹ ˆ‹‡Ž†•ǡ ”‡–‡–‹‘ ‹ ‡ƒ…Š ‡–”‘ ƒˆ–‡” ‰”ƒ†—ƒ–‹‘ǡ ƒ† ‡…‘‘‹… ‹’ƒ…–Ǥ Š‡ ”‡’‘”– ƒŽ•‘ ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡† ‡šƒ’Ž‡• ˆ”‘ •‡Ž‡…– š…Šƒ‰‡ ‡–”‘•ǡ •—‰‰‡•–‹‰ ™ƒ›• –‘ Ž‡˜‡”ƒ‰‡ –Š‡ ’”‡•‡…‡ ‘ˆ ‹–‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ •–—†‡–• ˆ‘” ‡…‘‘‹… †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–Ǥ ‹†‹‰• ‹…Ž—†‡†ǣ 1 x x x x x Š‡ —„‡” ‘ˆ ˆ‘”‡‹‰ •–—†‡–• ‘ Ǧͳ ˜‹•ƒ• ‹ Ǥ Ǥ …‘ŽŽ‡‰‡• ƒ† —‹˜‡”•‹–‹‡• ‰”‡™ †”ƒƒ–‹…ƒŽŽ› ˆ”‘ ͳͳͲǡͲͲͲ ‹ ʹͲͲͳ –‘ ͷʹͶǡͲͲͲ ‹ ʹͲͳʹǤ ‘”‡‹‰ •–—†‡–• ƒ”‡ …‘…‡–”ƒ–‡† ‹ Ǥ Ǥ ‡–”‘’‘Ž‹–ƒ ƒ”‡ƒ•Ǥ ‘•– ˆ‘”‡‹‰ •–—†‡–• …‘‡ ˆ”‘ Žƒ”‰‡ ˆƒ•–Ǧ‰”‘™‹‰ …‹–‹‡• ‹ ‡‡”‰‹‰ ƒ”‡–•Ǥ ‘”‡‹‰ •–—†‡–• †‹•’”‘’‘”–‹‘ƒ–‡Ž› •–—†› ƒ† „—•‹‡•• ˆ‹‡Ž†•Ǥ ‘”–›Ǧˆ‹˜‡ ’‡”…‡– ‘ˆ ˆ‘”‡‹‰ •–—†‡– ‰”ƒ†—ƒ–‡• ‡š–‡† –Š‡‹” ˜‹•ƒ• –‘ ™‘” ‹ –Š‡ •ƒ‡ ‡–”‘’‘Ž‹–ƒ ƒ”‡ƒ ƒ• –Š‡‹” …‘ŽŽ‡‰‡ ‘” —‹˜‡”•‹–›Ǥ Š‡ ”‡’‘”– ‰ƒ”‡”‡† •‹‰‹ˆ‹…ƒ– ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ƒ† ”‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡†‹ƒ ƒ––‡–‹‘ǡ ™‹–Š …‘˜‡”ƒ‰‡ ‹ Š‡ …‘‘‹•–ǡ ƒŽŽ –”‡‡– ‘—”ƒŽǡ ƒ•Š‹‰–‘ ‘•–ǡ ‘•–‘ Ž‘„‡ǡ Š‹…ƒ‰‘ —Ǧ ‹‡•ǡ Š‹ŽŽ›Ǥ…‘ ȋ “—‹”‡”Ȍǡ –Žƒ–ƒ ‘—”ƒŽ ‘•–‹–—–‹‘ ‹–› ƒ„ ˆ”‘ –Š‡ –Žƒ–‹…ǡ ‡™•ǡ ƒ”‡‡” †‹ƒǡ ‹‡• ‘ˆ †‹ƒǡ ‹‰Š–• Ž‘‰ǡ ‘‡›ǡ ƒ˜ƒƒŠ ‘”‹‰ ‡™•ǡ Š‡ †‹ƒ š’”‡••ǡ ƒ—†‹Ǧ ”ƒ†‡ ”‘—’ǡ Š‹‘ —„Ž‹… ƒ†‹‘ǯ• Š‡ ‘—† ‘ˆ †‡ƒ• ƒ† †‹ƒ ‡•–Ǥ ‹‡ …‘˜‡”‡† –Š‡ ”‡’‘”–ǡ Š‹‰ŠŽ‹‰Š–‹‰ –Š‡ ˆ‹†‹‰ –Šƒ– ‡š‹…‘ ‹• Š‹‰ŠŽ› —†‡””‡’”‡•‡–‡† ‹ –Š‡ Ǥ Ǥ ˆ‘”‡‹‰ •–—†‡– ’‘’—Žƒ–‹‘Ǥ ‘ …‘’Ž‡‡– –Š‡•‡ ‡ˆˆ‘”–•ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• —•‡† –Š‡ ˜‡—‡ „Ž‘‰ –‘ …‘–‹—‡ –‘ ’”‘‘–‡ –Š‡ ”‡’‘”– ƒ† …‘‡…–‹‘• –‘ „”‘ƒ†‡” –Š‡‡•ǡ ‹…Ž—†‹‰ǣ x x x x Dz ‘’ ͳͲ Ž‘„ƒŽ ‘‡–‘™• ‘ˆ ‡”‹…ƒ̵• ‘”‡‹‰ –—†‡–•dz „› ‡‹Ž —‹œ Dz ‘’ ͷ Žƒ…‡• ‡–ƒ‹‹‰ ‘”‡‹‰ –—†‡–•dz „› ‡‹Ž —‹œ Dz Š‘ ”‡ –Š‡ ‘”‡‹‰ –—†‡–• –—†›‹‰ ‹ Ǥ Ǥ ‹‰Š‡” †ǫdz „› ‡‹Ž —‹œ Dz Ž‘„ƒŽ ‘Ž‡ ˆ‘” ‹˜‡”•‹–‹‡•ǣ ‡Ž’‹‰ ‹”• ‘‘•– š’‘”–•dz „› ™‡ ƒ•Š„—” ƒ† ”ƒ† … ‡ƒ”ƒ  ‘’Ǧ‡†ǡ …‘Ǧƒ—–Š‘”‡† „› ƒ›‘” ƒŽ‡› ƒ† ”—…‡ ƒ–œǡ ™ƒ• ’—„Ž‹•Š‡† ‹ ‘”„‡• ‹ Žƒ–‡ ‡…‡„‡” ʹͲͳͶǡ …‘‹…‹†‹‰ ™‹–Š –Š‡ ”‡•‹†‡–ǯ• ƒ‘—…‡‡– ‘ˆ ‡š‡…—–‹˜‡ ƒ…–‹‘ ‹‹‰”ƒ–‹‘ ”‡ˆ‘”Ǥ ‹ƒŽŽ›ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• Ž‡† ƒ ™‡„‹ƒ” ˆ‘” š…Šƒ‰‡ ‡„‡”• ’”‹‘” –‘ –Š‡ ”‡’‘”–ǯ• ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡Ǥ Š‡ ƒ†˜ƒ…‡ ’”‡˜‹‡™ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ”‡•‡ƒ”…Š …”‡ƒ–‡† ƒ ’Žƒ–ˆ‘” ˆ‘” –Š‡•‡ ƒ—†‹‡…‡• –‘ ‹–‡”ƒ…– †‹”‡…–Ž› ™‹–Š ”‘‘‹‰• •…Š‘Žƒ”•ǡ ƒ† ˆ—”–Š‡” †‹••‡‹ƒ–‡ ƒ† ƒ’’Ž› –Š‡ ‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘Ǥ  ‘˜‡„‡” ͸ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡† –Š‡ •‡…‘† ‹•–ƒŽŽ‡– ‹ ‹–• ‡–”‘ ”‡‹‰Š– •‡”‹‡•Ǥ Dz ƒ’’‹‰ ”‡‹‰Š–ǣ Š‡ ‹‰ŠŽ› ‘…‡–”ƒ–‡† ƒ–—”‡ ‘ˆ ‘‘†• ”ƒ†‡ ‹ –Š‡ ‹–‡† –ƒ–‡•dz „› †‹‡ ‘‡” ƒ† ‘•‡’Š ƒ‡ ƒƒŽ›œ‡† –Š‡ –”ƒ†‡ ‡–™‘”• –Šƒ– Ž‹ –Š‡ –‘’ ͳͲͲ ‡–”‘ ƒ”‡ƒ• –‘ ‘–Š‡” ”‡‰‹‘• ‹ –Š‡ Ǥ Ǥ ƒ† ƒ”‘—† –Š‡ ™‘”Ž†ǡ ™‹–Š ƒ ˆ‘…—• ‘ •’‡…‹ˆ‹… –”ƒ†‹‰ …‘””‹†‘”•ǡ ˆ”‡‹‰Š– ‡–™‘”• ™‹–Š …‘‡…–‹‰ ‹–‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ –”ƒ†‹‰ ‰”‘—’•ǡ ‹’Ž‹…ƒ–‹‘• ˆ‘” ’‘Ž‹…› ƒ† ‹˜‡•–‡–ǡ ƒ† ‘–Š‡” ”‡Žƒ–‡† ‹••—‡•Ǥ Š‡ ”‡’‘”– ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡† ƒ —‹“—‡ ‹–‡”ƒ…–‹˜‡ –‘‘Ž –Šƒ– •Š‘™• –”ƒ†‡ ˆŽ‘™• ‘ˆ ƒŽŽ …‘‘†‹–‹‡• ƒ‘‰ –Š‡ ͹ͷ Žƒ”‰‡•– †‘‡•–‹… ƒ”‡–• ƒ† ʹͷ Žƒ”‰‡•– ‰Ž‘„ƒŽ ƒ”‡–•Ǥ ‹†‹‰• ‹…Ž—†‡†ǣ x x x x Š‡ …‘—–”›ǯ• ͳͲͲ Žƒ”‰‡•– ‡–”‘’‘Ž‹–ƒ ƒ”‡ƒ• †”‹˜‡ ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ‰‘‘†• –”ƒ†‡ǡ ™‹–Š ‘”‡ –Šƒ ͺͲ ’‡”…‡– ‘ˆ ƒŽŽ ‰‘‘†• ‡‹–Š‡” •–ƒ”–‹‰ ‘” ‡†‹‰ ‹ –Š‡•‡ ƒ”‡ƒ•Ǥ —•– ͳͲ ’‡”…‡– ‘ˆ –Š‡ …‘—–”›ǯ• –”ƒ†‡ …‘””‹†‘”• ‘˜‡ ͹ͻ ’‡”…‡– ‘ˆ ƒŽŽ ‰‘‘†•ǡ –Š‡ ‘•– ˜ƒŽ—ƒ„Ž‡ ‘ˆ ™Š‹…Š ƒ”‡ …‘…‡–”ƒ–‡† ‹ –Š‡ …‘—–”›ǯ• ͳͲͲ Žƒ”‰‡•– ‡–”‘’‘Ž‹–ƒ ƒ”‡ƒ•Ǥ ˜‡”› ”‡‰‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‡ …‘—–”› ”‡Ž‹‡• ‘ ƒ– Ž‡ƒ•– ‘‡ ƒŒ‘” ‡–™‘” Š—„ –‘ ‘˜‡ Žƒ”‰‡ ˜‘Ž—‡• ‘ˆ ‰‘‘†• ƒŽ‘‰ †‹ˆˆ‡”‡– …‘””‹†‘”• †‘‡•–‹…ƒŽŽ› ƒ† ‹–‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽŽ›Ǥ ‡–”‘’‘Ž‹–ƒ ƒ”‡ƒ• –‡† –‘ –”ƒ†‡ ‘”‡ ‰‘‘†• ™‹–Š ‡ƒ…Š ‘–Š‡” ™Š‡ –Š‡› ƒ”‡ Ž‘…ƒ–‡† …Ž‘•‡ –‘‰‡–Š‡”ǡ ‡’Ž‘› ƒ •‹œƒ„Ž‡ —„‡” ‘ˆ Ž‘‰‹•–‹…• ™‘”‡”•ǡ ƒ† Š‘—•‡ Žƒ”‰‡ ’‘’—Žƒ–‹‘•Ǥ 2 x ‹–Š ‘˜‡” ͹͹ ’‡”…‡– ‘ˆ –Š‡ ƒ–‹‘ǯ• ˆ”‡‹‰Š– ‘˜‹‰ „‡–™‡‡ †‹ˆˆ‡”‡– •–ƒ–‡•ǡ –Š‡ ‹–‡† –ƒ–‡• —•– ‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Š ƒ ‘”‡ …‘‘”†‹ƒ–‡† ˆ”‡‹‰Š– •–”ƒ–‡‰› ƒ…”‘•• ƒŽŽ Ž‡˜‡Ž• ‘ˆ –Š‡ ’—„Ž‹… ƒ† ’”‹˜ƒ–‡ •‡…–‘”•Ǥ ‹˜‡ ‹–• •…ƒŽ‡ ƒ† …‘’Ž‡š‹–›ǡ …‘—‹…ƒ–‹‘• ‡ˆˆ‘”–• ˆ‘” Dz ƒ’’‹‰ ”‡‹‰Š–dz ’”‹‘”‹–‹œ‡† ”‡ƒ…Š‹‰ ’‘Ž‹…›ƒ‡”• ƒ† –ƒ”‰‡–‡† ‡Ž‹–‡ ‡†‹ƒǤ Š‡ ”‡’‘”– ƒ––”ƒ…–‡† ƒ––‡–‹‘ ˆ”‘ The New York Times Upshot ‹ –Š‡‹” ™‡‡Ž› Dz –—ˆˆ ‡ ‹‡†dz •‡‰‡–ǡ The Washington Post’s Wonkblog ‹ Dz ƒ‡ Šƒ– ƒ–ƒǡdz ƒ† The Houston ChronicleǤ Š‡ ”‡’‘”– ƒŽ•‘ ”‡…‡‹˜‡† •’‡…‹ƒŽ ƒ––‡–‹‘ ˆ”‘ –Š‡ ’”‘‹‡– —”„ƒ‹• ‘—–Ž‡–• ‹–› ƒ„, Fast Company’s Co.Exist ƒ† Planetizenǡ ƒŽ‘‰ ™‹–Š Politico’s ‘”‹‰ –”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘ ”‡’‘”–. ˜‡ ™‹–Š‘—– ‡š–‡•‹˜‡ ”‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ’‹–…Š‹‰ǡ Ž‘…ƒŽ „—•‹‡•• Œ‘—”ƒŽ• ƒ† ƒ‰ƒœ‹‡• ‹ Šƒ”Ž‘––‡ǡ Šƒ”Ž‡•–‘ǡ †‹ƒƒ’‘Ž‹•ǡ ƒ…•‘˜‹ŽŽ‡ǡ ‹––•„—”‰Šǡ ’•–ƒ–‡ ǡ ƒ† ‘–Š‡” …‹–‹‡• ’‹…‡† —’ –Š‡ ”‡’‘”–ǡ ‹ ’ƒ”– †—‡ –‘ š…Šƒ‰‡ ‡–”‘ ‘—–”‡ƒ…ŠǤ ‹‹Žƒ” –‘ Dz ‘”‡‹‰ –—†‡–•ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• —•‡† –Š‡ ˜‡—‡ „Ž‘‰ –‘ …‘–‹—‡ –‘ ’”‘‘–‡ –Š‡ ”‡’‘”– ƒ† …‘‡…–‹‘• –‘ „”‘ƒ†‡” –Š‡‡•Ǥ Š‡ ’‘•–• ‹…Ž—†‡†ǣ x x Dz Šƒ– –Š‡ ‘’ ‹‰Š– ”‡‹‰Š– ‘””‹†‘”• ‡ŽŽ • „‘—– ”ƒ†‡dz „› †‹‡ ‘‡” ƒ† ‘•‡’Š ƒ‡ Dz Žƒ…‡ ‡–”ƒŽ –‘ ‡–”‘’‘Ž‹–ƒ ”ƒ†‡ ƒ† ”‡‹‰Š– ˜‡•–‡–dz „› †‹‡ ‘‡” ƒ† ‘•‡’Š ƒ‡ Š”‘—‰Š ”‘‘‹‰•ǯ• ƒ†˜ƒ…‡ ™‘” ™‹–Š š…Šƒ‰‡ ‡–”‘•ǡ †‹ƒƒ’‘Ž‹• ƒ† ’•–ƒ–‡ ‹••—‡† ’”‡•• ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡• ’”‘‘–‹‰ ”‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ˆ‹†‹‰• ƒ† ‹’Ž‹…ƒ–‹‘•Ǥ Forthcoming Reports ”‘‘‹‰• ’”‡’ƒ”‡† ƒ †”ƒˆ– ”‡•‡ƒ”…Š ’ƒ’‡” ‘ –Š‡ ‡”ƒ ™‘”ˆ‘”…‡ †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ƒ† ƒ—ˆƒ…–—”‹‰ ‡…‘•›•–‡• –‘ ’”‘˜‹†‹‰ …‘–‡š– ˆ‘” †‡Ž‡‰ƒ–‡• ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‹‰ ‹ –Š‡ —‹…Š •–—†› –‘—”Ǥ  —’†ƒ–‡† ”‡’‘”–ǡ Dz ‹ŽŽ• ƒ† ‘˜ƒ–‹‘ –”ƒ–‡‰‹‡•ǣ ‡••‘• ˆ”‘ ‡”ƒ›ǡdz ™‹ŽŽ „‡ ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡† ƒ• ƒ ’”ƒ…–‹–‹‘‡”• ‰—‹†‡ǡ ƒ††‹‰ „‡•– ’”ƒ…–‹…‡• ƒ† Ž‡••‘• Ž‡ƒ”‡† ˆ”‘ –Š‡ –”‹’Ǥ Š‡ Žƒ–‡•– ˜‡”•‹‘ ‹• —†‡”‰‘‹‰ ‡š–‡”ƒŽ ”‡˜‹‡™ǡ ƒ–‹…‹’ƒ–‡† ˆ‘” ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡ ‹ –Š‡ Žƒ•– ™‡‡ ‘ˆ ‡„”—ƒ”› ʹͲͳͷǤ ‹–Š ”‘‘‹‰•ǯ• ‹’—– ƒ† ‡†‹–•ǡ ”‡‰ Žƒ” ƒ† ‹ ‘‘‡ …‘’Ž‡–‡† Dz —‹…Šǣ Ž‘„ƒŽŽ› Ž—‡– ‡–”‘’‘Ž‹–ƒ ”‡ƒǡdz ™Š‹…Š ™ƒ• ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡† ‹ –Š‡ „”‹‡ˆ‹‰ „‘‘ ƒ† ƒ– —‹…Š ‡˜‡–•Ǥ —„•‡“—‡–Ž›ǡ ‹– ™ƒ• ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡† ‘ –Š‡ ”‘‘‹‰• ™‡„•‹–‡Ǥ Ž‘„ƒŽ ‡–”‘ ‘‹–‘”ǣ Š‡ ʹͲͳͷ Ž‘„ƒŽ ‡–”‘ ‘‹–‘” ™‹ŽŽ ‹…Ž—†‡ ƒ ƒƒŽ›•‹• ‘ˆ ’‡” …ƒ’‹–ƒ ƒ† ‡’Ž‘›‡– …Šƒ‰‡• „› •‡…–‘” „‡–™‡‡ ʹͲͳ͵ ƒ† ʹͲͳͶ ˆ‘” –Š‡ Žƒ”‰‡•– ͵ͲͲ ‡–”‘’‘Ž‹–ƒ ‡…‘‘‹‡• ™‘”Ž†™‹†‡Ǥ ˆ–‡” ˆ‹ƒŽ‹œ‹‰ –Š‡ †ƒ–ƒ ƒƒŽ›•‹• ƒ† ’”‡Ž‹‹ƒ”› ˆ‹†‹‰•ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• …‹”…—Žƒ–‡† ƒ ˆ‹”•– †”ƒˆ– ˆ‘” ‹–‡”ƒŽ ƒ† ‡š–‡”ƒŽ ”‡˜‹‡™ †—”‹‰ –Š‡ ™‡‡ ‘ˆ ‘˜‡„‡” ͳ͹Ǥ Š‡ ”‡’‘”– ‹• –ƒ”‰‡–‡† ˆ‘” ’—„Ž‹…ƒ–‹‘ ‘ ƒ—ƒ”› ʹʹǡ ʹͲͳͷǡ ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰ ƒ ™‡‡ǦŽ‘‰ ‡„ƒ”‰‘ ’‡”‹‘† ˆ‘” ‡†‹ƒ ƒ† š…Šƒ‰‡ —•‡Ǥ Š‡ ’ƒ’‡” ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡ ™‹ŽŽ „‡ ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‡† „› ƒ …‘””‡•’‘†‹‰ „Ž‘‰ •‡”‹‡• …—””‡–Ž› —†‡” †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–Ǥ Ž‘„ƒŽ ”‘ˆ‹Ž‡•ǣ ”‘‘‹‰• †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡† ƒ ’”‘’‘•ƒŽ –‘ ’”‘†—…‡ ƒ† †‹••‡‹ƒ–‡ ‡™ ‡…‘‘‹… ƒ† –”ƒ†‡ ’”‘ˆ‹Ž‡• ˆ‘” •‹š ‹–‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ‡–”‘•ǡ ’Ž—• ƒ …‘’ƒ”ƒ–‹˜‡ …‘’‹Žƒ–‹‘ •Žƒ–‡† ˆ‘” …‘’Ž‡–‹‘ „› ƒ Ž‘„ƒŽ ‘”— ‹ ʹͲͳ͸Ǥ Š‡ ’”‘’‘•ƒŽ ƒŽ•‘ ‡–ƒ‹Ž• …”‡ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ ƒ ‹–‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ †ƒ–ƒ„ƒ•‡ ƒ† –‡’Žƒ–‡ ˆ‘” ƒƒŽ›•‹• ‘ˆ ‰Ž‘„ƒŽ ‡–”‘ –”ƒ†‡ …‘’‡–‹–‹˜‡‡•• ƒ† …‘‡…–‹‘• ƒ† ‡–”‘Ǧ•’‡…‹ˆ‹… ”‡’‘”– …‘–‡– –ƒ‹Ž‘”‡† –‘ ‹••—‡• ”‡Ž‡˜ƒ– ‹ –Š‡ •‡Ž‡…–‡† ”‡‰‹‘•Ǥ Š‡ ‡ˆˆ‘”– ™‹ŽŽ –‡•– –Š‡ ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ ˆ‘” ƒ ‹–‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ‡–™‘” ‘ˆ ”‡•‡ƒ”…Š ‘”‰ƒ‹œƒ–‹‘• ƒ† ‡…‘‘‹… †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ’”ƒ…–‹–‹‘‡”• ˆ‘…—•‡† ‘ ‡–”‘ǦŽ‡˜‡Ž –”ƒ†‡† •‡…–‘” ‡ˆˆ‘”–•Ǥ ”‘‘‹‰• •—„‹––‡† ƒ †‡–ƒ‹Ž‡† •–ƒˆˆ‹‰ ’Žƒ ƒ† ’”‘Œ‡…– „—†‰‡– ˆ‘” †‹•…—••‹‘ ƒ– –Š‡ “—ƒ”–‡”Ž› ‡‡–‹‰Ǥ 3 ‡–”‘ Žƒ —‹†‡•ǣ ”‘‘‹‰• „‡‰ƒ –‘ ™”‹–‡ ƒ ’”ƒ…–‹–‹‘‡”ǯ• ‰—‹†‡„‘‘ ˆ‘” †‡˜‡Ž‘’‹‰ ƒ ‡–”‘ ’ŽƒǤ Š‹• ‰—‹†‡ǡ –‘ „‡ ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡† ƒ– –Š‡ ‡–”‘‹– ˆ‘”— ‹ ’”‹Ž ʹͲͳͷǡ ™‹ŽŽ …ƒ’–—”‡ Ž‡ƒ”‹‰• ˆ”‘ –Š‡ ‡–”‘ ’‹Ž‘– –Š”‘—‰Š ƒ …‘ŽŽ‡…–‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‡‡• –Šƒ– ‡–”‘ ƒ”‡ƒ• •Š‘—Ž† –Š‹ ƒ„‘—– ™Š‡ †‡˜‡Ž‘’‹‰ ƒ ‰Ž‘„ƒŽ –”ƒ†‡ ƒ† ‹˜‡•–‡– ’Žƒǡ ‹ŽŽ—•–”ƒ–‡† „› …ƒ•‡ •–—†‹‡• ‘ˆ …‘’ƒ‹‡• ƒ† •‡Ž‡…– ‡–”‘ ƒ”‡ƒ•Ǥ  ƒ††‹–‹‘ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• ’”‡’ƒ”‡† –™‘ •—’’Ž‡‡–ƒŽ ‘’‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ‰—‹†‡• ˆ‘” –Š‡ ‡–”‘ ’‹Ž‘– ‘ Š‘™ –‘ †‡˜‡Ž‘’ –Š‡ ƒ”‡– ƒ••‡••‡– ƒ† Š‘™ –‘ ™”‹–‡ ƒ …‘’”‡Š‡•‹˜‡ ‰Ž‘„ƒŽ –”ƒ†‡ ƒ† ‹˜‡•–‡– ’ŽƒǤ Š‡•‡ †”ƒˆ–• ™‹ŽŽ „‡ —’†ƒ–‡† ‹ ʹͲͳͷ ˆ‘” †‹•–”‹„—–‹‘ ƒ– –Š‡ ‡–”‘‹– ”‘—†–ƒ„Ž‡ ƒ† –Š‡ ‡š– š…Šƒ‰‡ …‘Š‘”–Ǥ Dz š’‘”– ƒ–‹‘ ʹͲͳͶdzǣ ”‘‘‹‰• ”‡•‡ƒ”…Š‡”• …‘’Ž‡–‡† ƒ —’†ƒ–‡ ‘ˆ ‹–• ‡–”‘ǦŽ‡˜‡Ž ‡š’‘”– •–ƒ–—• •–—†‹‡• —•‹‰ ʹͲͳ͵ †ƒ–ƒǡ ‹…Ž—†‹‰ ƒƒŽ›•‡• ‘ˆ ‡™ •‘—”…‡• ƒ† ƒ†Œ—•–‡–• –‘ ‹’”‘˜‡ –Š‡ ƒ……—”ƒ…› ‘ˆ ‡•–‹ƒ–‡•Ǥ Š‡ •–ƒ–‹•–‹…• ™‡”‡ •Šƒ”‡† ™‹–Š –Š‡ š…Šƒ‰‡ •‹–‡• ˆ‹”•– ˆ‘” –Š‡‹” ‹–‡”ƒŽ —•‡Ǥ ”‘‘‹‰• ™‹ŽŽ ‹••—‡ ƒ Ǧ„”ƒ†‡† ’—„Ž‹… ”‡’‘”– —•‹‰ –Š‡ Žƒ–‡•– †ƒ–ƒ ˆ‘” „‘–Š ʹͲͳ͵ ƒ† ʹͲͳͶ ‹ –Š‡ ˆ‹”•– “—ƒ”–‡” ‘ˆ ʹͲͳͷǤ Communications  ƒ††‹–‹‘ –‘ ’”‘‘–‹‰ –Š‡•‡ ”‡’‘”–•ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• …‘–‹—‡† –‘ ’—”•—‡ ‘’’‘”–—‹–‹‡• –‘ •—„•–ƒ–‹˜‡Ž› ‡‰ƒ‰‡ ™‹–Š –Š‡ ‡†‹ƒǡ ’”ƒ…–‹–‹‘‡”•ǡ ’‘Ž‹…›ƒ‡”•ǡ ƒ† ‹ˆŽ—‡–‹ƒŽ •–ƒ‡Š‘Ž†‡”• ’‹–…Š‹‰ǡ ‹–‡”˜‹‡™•ǡ …‘‡–ƒ”‹‡•ǡ ƒ† ‘–Š‡” ‹–‡”ƒ…–‹‘•Ǥ • †‡•…”‹„‡† Žƒ–‡” ‹ –Š‹• ”‡’‘”–ǡ ƒ› ‘ˆ –Š‡•‡ ‘’’‘”–—‹–‹‡• ƒŽ‹‰‡† ™‹–Š –Š‡ ‘‰‘‹‰ ƒ…–‹˜‹–‹‡• ”‡Žƒ–‡† –‘ –Š‡ š…Šƒ‰‡ ƒ† ‘”—•Ǥ ‹ƒŽŽ›ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• ƒ† …‘—‹…ƒ–‹‘• –‡ƒ• ‡– †—”‹‰ –Š‹• ”‡’‘”–‹‰ ’‡”‹‘† –‘ †‹•…—•• –Š‡ …‘—‹…ƒ–‹‘• ‰—‹†‡Ž‹‡•ǡ –ƒŽ‹‰ ’‘‹–•ǡ ƒ† ʹͲͳͷ …‘—‹…ƒ–‹‘• ˆ‘…—• ƒ”‡ƒ•Ǥ Š‡ ‡‡–‹‰ ƒŽ‹‰‡† „‘–Š –‡ƒ•ǯ ‹–‡”‡•–• ƒ† •‡– ƒ …Ž‡ƒ” ’ƒ–Š ‘˜‹‰ ˆ‘”™ƒ”†Ǥ ‹–Š ‹’—–ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• ‡š’‡…–• –‘ ˆ‹ƒŽ‹œ‡ …‘—‹…ƒ–‹‘• ‰—‹†‡Ž‹‡• „› –Š‡ ‡† ‘ˆ ƒ—ƒ”› ʹͲͳͷǤ Stakeholder Engagement ‘ ‡š’ƒ† –Š‡ ‹’ƒ…– ‘ˆ ”‡•‡ƒ”…Šǡ …‘˜‡‹‰•ǡ ƒ† š…Šƒ‰‡ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• ‡‰ƒ‰‡† ‡š–‡•‹˜‡Ž› ™‹–Š ‡› ’—„Ž‹…ǡ ’”‹˜ƒ–‡ǡ ƒ† …‹˜‹… •–ƒ‡Š‘Ž†‡”•Ǥ Š‡•‡ ƒ…–‹˜‹–‹‡• ‹…Ž—†‡† ‡†—…ƒ–‹‰ ˆ‡†‡”ƒŽ ‘ˆˆ‹…‹ƒŽ• ƒ„‘—– –Š‡‡•Ǣ ’”‘˜‹†‹‰ ‰—‹†ƒ…‡ –‘ ”‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ƒ† •–ƒ–‡ Ž‡ƒ†‡”•Ǣ ‹–‡”ƒ…–‹‰ ™‹–Š ’”ƒ…–‹–‹‘‡”•ǡ ƒ„‘—– –Š‡‡•Ǣ ’”‘˜‹†‹‰ ‰—‹†ƒ…‡ –‘ ”‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ƒ† •–ƒ–‡ Ž‡ƒ†‡”•Ǣ ‹–‡”ƒ…–‹‰ ™‹–Š ’”ƒ…–‹–‹‘‡”•ǡ „—•‹‡•• Ž‡ƒ†‡”•ǡ ƒ† …‘•–‹–—‡– ‘”‰ƒ‹œƒ–‹‘•Ǣ ˆ‹‡Ž†‹‰ ‹“—‹”‹‡• ”‡‰ƒ”†‹‰ ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ ˆ—–—”‡ „—•‹‡•• Ž‡ƒ†‡”•ǡ ƒ† …‘•–‹–—‡– ‘”‰ƒ‹œƒ–‹‘•Ǣ ˆ‹‡Ž†‹‰ ‹“—‹”‹‡• ”‡‰ƒ”†‹‰ ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ ˆ—–—”‡ ‡‰ƒ‰‡‡–•Ǣ ƒ† ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰ —’ ‘ ’ƒ•– ƒ…–‹˜‹–‹‡•Ǥ ‘” ‡šƒ’Ž‡ǣ ‡‰ƒ‰‡‡–•Ǣ ƒ† ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰ —’ ‘ ’ƒ•– ƒ…–‹˜‹–‹‡•Ǥ ‘” ‡šƒ’Ž‡ǣ ‡†‡”ƒŽ ‰ƒ‰‡‡–ǣ ”‘‘‹‰• —†‡”–‘‘ ‘—–”‡ƒ…Š –‘ ˜ƒ”‹‘—• ˆ‡†‡”ƒŽ ƒ‰‡…› ƒ† …‘‰”‡••‹‘ƒŽ ‡†‡”ƒŽ ‰ƒ‰‡‡–ǣ ”‘‘‹‰• —†‡”–‘‘ ‘—–”‡ƒ…Š –‘ ˜ƒ”‹‘—• ˆ‡†‡”ƒŽ ƒ‰‡…› ƒ† …‘‰”‡••‹‘ƒŽ ’‘Ž‹…› ‹ˆŽ—‡…‡”•ǡ ‹…Ž—†‹‰ǣ x ˜‡•–‹‰ ‹ ƒ—ˆƒ…–—”‹‰ ‘—‹–‹‡• ƒ”–‡”•Š‹’ ȋ Ȍ —‹– Ȁ Ǥ Ǥ ‡’ƒ”–‡– ‘ˆ ‘‡”…‡ Ȃ ”‘‘‹‰• ‘”‰ƒ‹œ‡† ƒ ™‘”•Š‘’ ˆ‘” ͵ͲΪ †‡•‹‰‡‡• ƒ† ƒ’’Ž‹…ƒ– ”‡‰‹‘• ‘ Ž‡••‘• ”‡Žƒ–‡† –‘ „”ƒ†‹‰ǡ ƒ”‡–‹‰ǡ ƒ† Ž‡˜‡”ƒ‰‹‰ †‡•‹‰ƒ–‹‘ •–ƒ–—•Ǥ Š‡ •‡••‹‘ ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡† ’ƒ‡Ž‹•–• ƒ† ”‡•’‘†‡–• ˆ”‘ ‘”–Žƒ†ǡ ‹…Š‹–ƒǡ ‡ƒ––Ž‡ǡ ƒ† Š‡ •‡••‹‘ ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡† ’ƒ‡Ž‹•–• ƒ† ”‡•’‘†‡–• ˆ”‘ ‘”–Žƒ†ǡ ‹…Š‹–ƒǡ ‡ƒ––Ž‡ǡ ƒ† ‹Ž™ƒ—‡‡Ǣ ‘–Š‡” š…Šƒ‰‡ ƒ––‡†‡‡• ‹…Ž—†‡† ”‡’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹˜‡• ˆ”‘ Š‹…ƒ‰‘ǡ ‘• ‰‡Ž‡•ǡ ‹Ž™ƒ—‡‡Ǣ ‘–Š‡” š…Šƒ‰‡ ƒ––‡†‡‡• ‹…Ž—†‡† ”‡’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹˜‡• ˆ”‘ Š‹…ƒ‰‘ǡ ‘• ‰‡Ž‡•ǡ ‹‡ƒ’‘Ž‹•ǡ †‹ƒƒ’‘Ž‹•ǡ ƒ ‹‡‰‘ǡ Š‘‡‹šǡ ƒ† –Žƒ–ƒǤ ”‘‘‹‰• •–ƒˆˆ ƒŽ•‘ ‡– ™‹–Š ‹‡ƒ’‘Ž‹•ǡ †‹ƒƒ’‘Ž‹•ǡ ƒ ‹‡‰‘ǡ Š‘‡‹šǡ ƒ† –Žƒ–ƒǤ ”‘‘‹‰• •–ƒˆˆ ƒŽ•‘ ‡– ™‹–Š ƒ––‡†‡‡• ˆ”‘ Šƒ”Ž‘––‡ǡ ‘„‹Ž‡ǡ ƒ† —––‡ –‘ †‹•…—•• ‹–‡”‡•–•ǡ ƒ† ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‡† ‹ ƒ ƒ––‡†‡‡• ˆ”‘ Šƒ”Ž‘––‡ǡ ‘„‹Ž‡ǡ ƒ† —––‡ –‘ †‹•…—•• ‹–‡”‡•–•ǡ ƒ† ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‡† ‹ ƒ ™‘”•Š‘’ ‘ ƒ––”ƒ…–‹‘ǡ ™‹–Š –Š‡ ”‰ƒ‹œƒ–‹‘ ˆ‘” –‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ˜‡•–‡– ”‡’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹˜‡• ”‡ˆ‡”‡…‹‰ ‡š’‘”– ƒ† ’”‘Œ‡…–• †—”‹‰ ”‡ƒ”•Ǥ ”‡’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹˜‡• ”‡ˆ‡”‡…‹‰ ‡š’‘”– ƒ† ’”‘Œ‡…–• †—”‹‰ ”‡ƒ”•Ǥ x Ǥ Ǥ …‘‘‹… ‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– †‹‹•–”ƒ–‹‘ Ȃ ”‘‘‹‰• „”‹‡ˆ‡† –Š‡ ‡™ ••‹•–ƒ– Ǥ Ǥ …‘‘‹… ‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– †‹‹•–”ƒ–‹‘ Ȃ ”‘‘‹‰• „”‹‡ˆ‡† –Š‡ ‡™ ••‹•–ƒ– ‡…”‡–ƒ”› ƒ† •‡‹‘” •–ƒˆˆ ”‡‰ƒ”†‹‰ ƒ…–‹˜‹–‹‡•ǡ ƒ† ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽŽ› Ž‡˜‡”ƒ‰‹‰ …‘–‡– ƒ† •‹–‡ …‘‡…–‹‘• ‹ –”ƒ˜‡Žǡ ’—„Ž‹… ‡˜‡–•ǡ ƒ† ’—„Ž‹…ƒ–‹‘•Ǥ ƒ† •‹–‡ …‘‡…–‹‘• ‹ –”ƒ˜‡Žǡ ’—„Ž‹… ‡˜‡–•ǡ ƒ† ’—„Ž‹…ƒ–‹‘•Ǥ 4 x x x Ǥ Ǥ ‡’ƒ”–‡– ‘ˆ ‘‡”…‡ Ȃ ”‘‘‹‰• ‡– ™‹–Š ‘‡”…‡ ”‡’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹˜‡• ˆ”‘ –Š‡ ‡…”‡–ƒ”›ǯ• ˆˆ‹…‡ǡ –‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ”ƒ†‡ †‹‹•–”ƒ–‹‘ǡ ”ƒ†‡ ”‘‘–‹‘ ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‰ ˆ ‡…”‡–ƒ”›ǯ• ˆˆ‹…‡ǡ –‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ”ƒ†‡ †‹‹•–”ƒ–‹‘ǡ ”ƒ†‡ ”‘‘–‹‘ ‘‘”†‹ƒ–‹‰ ‘—…‹Žǡ ƒ† ‘–Š‡”• ‘ Š‘™ …‘–‡– ƒ† –Š‡‡• ™‹ŽŽ ˆ‹– ‹–‘ –Š‡‹” –™‘Ǧ›‡ƒ” •–”ƒ–‡‰‹… ‘—…‹Žǡ ƒ† ‘–Š‡”• ‘ Š‘™ …‘–‡– ƒ† –Š‡‡• ™‹ŽŽ ˆ‹– ‹–‘ –Š‡‹” –™‘Ǧ›‡ƒ” •–”ƒ–‡‰‹… ’ŽƒǤ ”‘‘‹‰• ‡‰ƒ‰‡† –Š‡ ‡•—• –Š”‘—‰Š †ƒ–ƒ ’”‘†—…– ”‡ˆ‘”•ǡ ƒ• ™‡ŽŽ ƒ• ‘ Dz ‘‘ ‘—–Šdz ‹‹–‹ƒ–‹˜‡ ‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘Ǥ ”‘‘‹‰• ƒ†˜‹•‡† ‘ˆˆ‹…‹ƒŽ• ‘ Ǧ”‡Žƒ–‡† ‹••—‡• ˆ‘” ƒ ‘—–Šdz ‹‹–‹ƒ–‹˜‡ ‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘Ǥ ”‘‘‹‰• ƒ†˜‹•‡† ‘ˆˆ‹…‹ƒŽ• ‘ Ǧ”‡Žƒ–‡† ‹••—‡• ˆ‘” ƒ ‡‡–‹‰ „‡–™‡‡ –Š‡ ‘• ‰‡Ž‡• ƒ›‘” ƒ† –Š‡ ‡’—–› ‡…”‡–ƒ”›Ǥ ‡‡–‹‰ „‡–™‡‡ –Š‡ ‘• ‰‡Ž‡• ƒ›‘” ƒ† –Š‡ ‡’—–› ‡…”‡–ƒ”›Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ”ƒ†‡ ‡’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹˜‡ Ȃ ”‘‘‹‰• ‡– ™‹–Š ‡š–‡”ƒŽ ƒ† ‹–‡”‰‘˜‡”‡–ƒŽ ƒˆˆƒ‹”• Ǥ Ǥ ”ƒ†‡ ‡’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹˜‡ Ȃ ”‘‘‹‰• ‡– ™‹–Š ‡š–‡”ƒŽ ƒ† ‹–‡”‰‘˜‡”‡–ƒŽ ƒˆˆƒ‹”• ”‡’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹˜‡• ”‡‰ƒ”†‹‰ ‹–‡”‡•–• ‹ Ž‡˜‡”ƒ‰‹‰ …‘–‡– ƒ† •‹–‡ …‘‡…–‹‘• ‹ ”‡’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹˜‡• ”‡‰ƒ”†‹‰ ‹–‡”‡•–• ‹ Ž‡˜‡”ƒ‰‹‰ …‘–‡– ƒ† •‹–‡ …‘‡…–‹‘• ‹ –”ƒ˜‡Žǡ ’—„Ž‹… ‡˜‡–•ǡ ƒ† ’—„Ž‹…ƒ–‹‘•Ǥ –”ƒ˜‡Žǡ ’—„Ž‹… ‡˜‡–•ǡ ƒ† ’—„Ž‹…ƒ–‹‘•Ǥ ‘‰”‡••‹‘ƒŽ —–”‡ƒ…Š Ȃ ”‘‘‹‰• …‘–ƒ…–‡† •–ƒˆˆ –‘ †‹•…—•• –Š‡ †ƒ–ƒ ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡ǡ ‘‰”‡••‹‘ƒŽ —–”‡ƒ…Š Ȃ ”‘‘‹‰• …‘–ƒ…–‡† •–ƒˆˆ –‘ †‹•…—•• –Š‡ †ƒ–ƒ ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡ǡ ‹…Ž—†‹‰ –Š‡ ‘—•‡ ƒ›• ‡ƒ• ‘‹––‡‡ǡ ‹ƒ…‹ƒŽ ‡”˜‹…‡• ‘‹––‡‡ ƒ† ‹…Ž—†‹‰ –Š‡ ‘—•‡ ƒ›• ‡ƒ• ‘‹––‡‡ǡ ‹ƒ…‹ƒŽ ‡”˜‹…‡• ‘‹––‡‡ ƒ† ’’”‘’”‹ƒ–‹‘• ‘‹––‡‡Ǣ ƒ† –Š‡ ‡ƒ–‡ ‹ƒ…‡ ‘‹––‡‡ ƒ† ‘‡”…‡ ‘‹––‡‡Ǥ ”‘‘‹‰• ‹…Ž—†‡† ‘—•‡ ƒ›• Ƭ ‡ƒ• ‘‹––‡‡ ƒ† ‡ƒ–‡ ‘‡”…‡ ‘‹––‡‡ ”‘‘‹‰• ‹…Ž—†‡† ‘—•‡ ƒ›• Ƭ ‡ƒ• ‘‹––‡‡ ƒ† ‡ƒ–‡ ‘‡”…‡ ‘‹––‡‡ ”‡’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹˜‡• ‹ –Š‡ …‘Š‘”– ‡‡–‹‰Ǥ ”‘‘‹‰• ‡– ™‹–Š ‡ƒ–‘” ‹ŽŽ‹„”ƒ† ȋ Ȍǯ• •–ƒˆˆ ‘ ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ ‡š’‘”– ƒ† ˆ‘…—•‡† Ž‡‰‹•Žƒ–‹˜‡ ’”‘’‘•ƒŽ• ”‡Žƒ–‡† –‘ –Š‡‡•Ǥ ”‘‘‹‰• ƒŽ•‘ ‡– ™‹–Š ‡ƒ–‘” ‡‹•–‡‹ǯ• •–ƒˆˆ –‘ ’”‘˜‹†‡ „ƒ…‰”‘—† ‘ –Š‡‡•Ǥ ”‘‘‹‰• ƒŽ•‘ ‡– ™‹–Š ‡ƒ–‘” ‡‹•–‡‹ǯ• •–ƒˆˆ –‘ ’”‘˜‹†‡ „ƒ…‰”‘—† ‘ ƒ…–‹˜‹–› –Š”‘—‰Š‘—– ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒǤ ”‘‘‹‰• ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡† …‘–ƒ…– ™‹–Š –Š‡ ‘‰”‡••‹‘ƒŽ ‘”–• ƒ—…—• ƒ„‘—– –”ƒ†‡ ‹‹–‹ƒ–‹˜‡• ƒ† ’‡†‹‰ Ž‡‰‹•Žƒ–‹‘Ǥ ƒ—…—• ƒ„‘—– –”ƒ†‡ ‹‹–‹ƒ–‹˜‡• ƒ† ’‡†‹‰ Ž‡‰‹•Žƒ–‹‘Ǥ ‹–› ‰ƒ‰‡‡–ǣ ”‘‘‹‰• ‹–‡”ƒ…–‡† ™‹–Š •–ƒ–‡ǦŽ‡˜‡Ž ‹–‡”‡•–• –‘ ƒ†˜ƒ…‡ ƒŽ‹‰‡– ™‹–Š ƒ† •—’’‘”– ˆ‘” ‡–”‘ ‡š’‘”– ƒ† ‹˜‡•–‡– •–”ƒ–‡‰‹‡•ǡ ‹…Ž—†‹‰ǣ x ‘• ‰‡Ž‡• Ȃ ”‘‘‹‰• ‡– ‹ ‘• ‰‡Ž‡• ™‹–Š ƒ›‘” ƒ”…‡––‹ǡ Š‹• •‡‹‘” •–ƒˆˆǡ ƒ† Ž‘…ƒŽ ’ƒ”–‡”• –‘ †‹•…—•• ‘’’‘”–—‹–‹‡• –‘ ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‡ ‹ –Š‡ ’Šƒ•‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ š…Šƒ‰‡ǡ –Š‡ ‘ˆ‡”‡…‡ ‘ˆ ƒ›‘”•ǯ ”ƒ†‡ ƒ† –Š‡ ‡”‹…ƒ• ƒ• ‘”…‡ ƒ…–‹˜‹–‹‡•ǡ ƒ† –Š‡ ƒ›‘”ǯ• —’…‘‹‰ –”‹’ –‘ ‘”‡ƒǤ ”‘‘‹‰• ƒŽ•‘ ’”‡•‡–‡† ‘ ‰‡‡”ƒŽ ‡…‘‘‹… †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– –‘’‹…• ƒ– –Š‡ —•‹‡•• ‘—…‹Ž ƒ›‘”ƒŽ ‘—•‹‰ǡ ”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘ǡ ƒ† ‘„• —‹–ǡ ‡–‹‘‹‰ ƒ…–‹˜‹–›Ǥ ‹–‡ “—‹”‹‡•ǣ ”‘‘‹‰• ”‡‰—Žƒ”Ž› ”‡•’‘†‡† –‘ ‹“—‹”‹‡• ˆ”‘ Ž‘…ƒŽ ƒ† •–ƒ–‡ ‹–‡”‡•–• ƒ„‘—– Œ‘‹‹‰ ˆ—–—”‡ š…Šƒ‰‡ …‘Š‘”–•ǡ ”‡’Ž‹…ƒ–‹‰ š…Šƒ‰‡ ‡ˆˆ‘”–•ǡ ‘” ‘–Š‡”™‹•‡ ‡‰ƒ‰‹‰ ™‹–Š ǡ •—…Š ƒ•ǣ x ”‡•‘ǡ x ƒŽ–‹‘”‡ǡ x ƒ’–‘ ‘ƒ†•ǡ ȋ ‹”‰‹‹ƒ ‡ƒ…ŠȌ x ‹––Ž‡ ‘…ǡ x ƒ†‹•‘ǡ x –Ǥ ‘—‹•ǡ x ‘—•–‘ǡ x ƒ•ƒ• ‹–›ǡ Ȁ x ƒŽŽƒ• Ǧ –Ǥ ‘”–Šǡ x Šƒ”Ž‘––‡ǡ x Š‹Žƒ†‡Ž’Š‹ƒǡ x ƒ• ‡‰ƒ•ǡ x ‘„‹Ž‡ǡ x ‘—‰•–‘™Ǧ ƒ””‡ǡ x ‹…Š‘†ǡ x —„Ž‹ǡ ”‡Žƒ† –Š‡” —–”‡ƒ…Šǣ x ”‘‘‹‰• ”‡•’‘†‡† –‘ Ǧ”‡Žƒ–‡† †ƒ–ƒ ƒ† ”‡•‡ƒ”…Š “—‡•–‹‘• ˆ”‘ ‘”‰ƒ‹œƒ–‹‘• ƒ† …‘’ƒ‹‡•ǡ •—…Š ƒ• ƒ•• ‘ƒŠ—‡ •–‹–—–‡ ‘ ƒ••‡••‡– ‘ˆ ‡–”‘ǦŽ‡˜‡Ž ‡š’‘”– †ƒ–ƒ –‘ ‹ˆ‘” ƒ ƒ••ƒ…Š—•‡––• •–ƒ–‡™‹†‡ ‡š’‘”–‹‰ ƒ••‡••‡–ǡ ƒ† Ž‘„ƒŽ ‘”™ƒ”†‹‰ ‘ ‡–”‘ǦŽ‡˜‡Ž ‡š’‘”– †ƒ–ƒ ƒ† ˆ”‡‹‰Š– ‘„‹Ž‹–› ƒƒŽ›•‡•Ǥ x ‘” –Š‡ Ǥ Ǥ ‘ˆ‡”‡…‡ ‘ˆ ƒ›‘”• ƒ† ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ••‘…‹ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ ‘—–‹‡•ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• …‘‡…–‡† ™‹–Š •–ƒˆˆ Ž‡ƒ†• ƒ„‘—– ‹…‘”’‘”ƒ–‹‰ –Š‡‡• ‹–‘ –Š‡‹” ƒ—ƒŽ …‘ˆ‡”‡…‡• ‹ ƒ—ƒ”› ƒ† ƒ”…Š ʹͲͳͷǤ 5 x x ”‘‘‹‰• ’”‘˜‹†‡† ˆ‡‡†„ƒ… –‘ –Š‡ ƒ•ƒ• ‡…”‡–ƒ”› ‘ˆ ƒ„‘” ƒ† ƒ•ƒ• ‡…”‡–ƒ”› ‘ˆ ‘‡”…‡ ”‡‰ƒ”†‹‰ –Š‡‹” ‰Ž‘„ƒŽ –”ƒ†‡ ƒ† …‘’‡–‹–‹˜‡‡•• ƒ‰‡†ƒǡ ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰ ƒ ’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹‘ –‘ –Š‡ ‘˜‡”‘”ǯ• ‘—…‹Ž ‘ˆ …‘‘‹… †˜‹•‘”•Ǥ ”‘‘‹‰• ”‡•’‘†‡† –‘ “—‡”‹‡• ˆ”‘ –Š‡ Š‹…ƒ‰‘ ‘—…‹Ž ‘ Ž‘„ƒŽ ˆˆƒ‹”• ”‡‰ƒ”†‹‰ ’‘••‹„Ž‡ ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‹‘ ‹ –Š‡‹” ʹͲͳͷ ‹–‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ˆ‘”— ‘ Ž‘„ƒŽ ‹–‹‡•Ǥ š–‡”ƒŽ ˜‡–•ǣ ”‘‘‹‰• ’”‡•‡–‡† ‘ –Š‡‡• ƒ– Š‹‰ŠǦ’”‘ˆ‹Ž‡ ‡š–‡”ƒŽ ‡˜‡–•ǡ •—‹–•ǡ ƒ† …‘ˆ‡”‡…‡•ǡ ‹…Ž—†‹‰ǣ x ‘—–Š ƒ•ƒ• ˜‡•–‹‰ ‹ ƒ—ˆƒ…–—”‹‰ ‘—‹–‹‡• ƒ”–‡”•Š‹’ǯ• ‡ƒ†‡”•Š‹’ ‡‡–‹‰ ȋ ƒ”‡ ‘‘–ƒ ǦǦ —‰—•– ͳͺȌ ’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹‘ ƒ– ƒ ™‘”‹‰ •‡••‹‘ ™‹–Š ”‡’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹˜‡• ƒ† Ž‘…ƒŽ Ž‡ƒ†‡”• ƒ„‘—– –Š‡ ˆ‹– „‡–™‡‡ ‡ˆˆ‘”–• ƒ† –Š‡ ‰”ƒ– ƒ™ƒ”†ǡ ™Š‹…Š ™‹ŽŽ …‘–”‹„—–‡ •‘‡ ˆ—†‹‰ –‘™ƒ”† ‘—–Š ƒ•ƒ•ǯ ‡š’‘”– •–”ƒ–‡‰› ˆ‘” ƒ—ˆƒ…–—”‹‰ …‘’ƒ‹‡•Ǣ x ‘Šƒ‡•„—”‰ ȋ Ȍ –‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ —‹…‹’ƒŽ ‡ƒ†‡”•Š‹’ ‡Ž‡‰ƒ–‹‘ ȋ ƒ”‡ ‘‘–ƒ ǦǦ —‰—•– ͳ͹Ȍ •’‡‡…Š –‘ ƒ ‰”‘—’ ‘ˆ ‡…‘‘‹… †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– Ž‡ƒ†‡”• ƒ† –Š‡ ‡’—–› Šƒ‹” ‘ˆ –Š‡ ƒ›‘”ƒŽ ‘‹––‡‡ ƒ† …‘‘‹… ‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ‘‹––‡‡ ‹ ‘Šƒ‡•„—”‰ ƒ„‘—– –Š‡‡• ƒ† ‹–‡”‡•– ‹ …”‡ƒ–‹‰ ƒ ”‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡š’‘”–Ȁ •–”ƒ–‡‰›ǡ ƒ• ™‡ŽŽ ƒ• Ǥ Ǥ —‹…‹’ƒŽ ƒƒ‰‡‡–ǡ ˆ‹ƒ…‡ǡ ‰‘˜‡”ƒ…‡ǡ ƒ† ‰”‘™–Š ‘†‡Ž•Ǣ x ƒ•ƒ• ‘˜‡”‘”ǯ• ‘—…‹Ž ‘ˆ …‘‘‹… †˜‹•‘”• ȋ ƒ”‡ ‘‘–ƒ ǦǦ —‰—•– ͳͻȌǣ ‡›‘–‡ ‘ –Š‡‡• ƒ† ‡…‘‘‹… †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– •–”ƒ–‡‰‹‡•Ǥ Š‡ ‡›‘–‡ ™ƒ• ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‡† „› ƒ ”‘—†–ƒ„Ž‡ †‹ƒŽ‘‰—‡ ™‹–Š –Š‡ ‘˜‡”‘” ƒ† „—•‹‡•• …‘—…‹Ž‡„‡”•ǡ ’Ž—• •‡’ƒ”ƒ–‡ ‡‡–‹‰• ™‹–Š –Š‡ ‘˜‡”‘” ƒ† –Š‡ ‡…”‡–ƒ”‹‡• ‘ˆ ‘‡”…‡ǡ ”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘ǡ ƒ† ƒ„‘”Ǥ • ƒ ”‡•—Ž–ǡ –Š‡ ‘˜‡”‘” ’—„Ž‹…Ž› †‹”‡…–‡† –Š‡ ‘‡”…‡ ‡…”‡–ƒ”› –‘ ”‡’‘”– „ƒ… ‘ …—””‡– •–ƒ–‡ •’‡†‹‰ ƒ† •—‰‰‡•– ”‡ƒŽŽ‘…ƒ–‹‘• „ƒ•‡† ‘ ‰”‘™–Š ‘†‡Ž•Ǥ ”‘‘‹‰• …‘•—Ž–‡† ˆ—”–Š‡” ™‹–Š –Š‡ ‡…”‡–ƒ”› ‹ Žƒ–‡ ‡’–‡„‡”Ǣ x –‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ”ƒ†‡ †‹‹•–”ƒ–‹‘ –”ƒ–‡‰‹… ƒ”–‡”• —‹– ȋ ƒ”‡ ‘‘–ƒ ǦǦ ‡’–‡„‡” ͶȌ ’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹‘ ‘ –‘ ƒ„‘—– ͻͲ ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–• ˆ”‘ „—•‹‡••‡• ƒ† –”ƒ†‡ ƒ••‘…‹ƒ–‹‘• ™‹–Š ˆ‘”ƒŽ …‘ŽŽƒ„‘”ƒ–‹‘• ™‹–Š –‘ ‹…”‡ƒ•‡ ‡š’‘”–‹‰Ǥ Š‡ ‡˜‡– Ž‡ƒ† –‘ ͳʹ ”‡“—‡•–• ˆ‘” ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™Ǧ—’ †‹•…—••‹‘• ™‹–Š ”‡’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹˜‡• ˆ”‘ –”ƒ•’‘”–ƒ–‹‘ǡ ˆ‹ƒ…‹‰ǡ …‘•—Ž–‹‰ǡ –”ƒ†‡ ‡š’‘ǡ ƒ† ‹–‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ …Šƒ„‡” ‹–‡”‡•–• x ”‡ƒ–‡” ‘”–Žƒ† …Ǥ ͹–Š —ƒŽ …‘‘‹… —‹– ȋ › ‹— ǦǦ …–‘„‡” ͳ͵Ȍ ‡›‘–‡ •’‡‡…Š ‘ ǡ ™Š‹…Š Š‹‰ŠŽ‹‰Š–‡† ‘”–Žƒ†ǯ• ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‹‘ ‹ –Š‡ š…Šƒ‰‡Ǥ x ”‹•„ƒ‡ Ž‘„ƒŽ ƒˆ± ȋ Žƒ ‡”—„‡ ƒ† ”‡‰ Žƒ” ǦǦ ‘˜‡„‡” ͳͳǦͳ͸Ȍ ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‹‘ ‹ •‡˜‡”ƒŽ ’ƒ‡Ž• ƒ† ƒ ‡›‘–‡ ’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹‘ ƒ– –Š‡ ”‹•„ƒ‡ Ž‘„ƒŽ ƒˆ±ǡ ƒ ‡˜‡– Š‘•–‡† „› –Š‡ ‹–› ‘ˆ ”‹•„ƒ‡ –‘ ‰ƒ–Š‡” –Š‘—‰Š– Ž‡ƒ†‡”• ˆ”‘ ƒ”‘—† –Š‡ ™‘”Ž† ‹ –Š‡ ƒ”‡ƒ• ‘ˆ ‡–”‡’”‡‡—”•Š‹’ ƒ† †‹‰‹–ƒŽǡ Ž‹ˆ‡ •…‹‡…‡•ǡ Ž‘™ ‡‹••‹‘• ‡…‘‘‹‡•ǡ ˆ‘‘† ˆ—–—”‡• ƒ† –‘—”‹• ’”‹‘” –‘ –Š‡ ʹͲͳͶ ʹͲ ‡ƒ†‡”• —‹–Ǥ Žƒ ‡”—„‡ ƒŽ•‘ ‡– ™‹–Š –Š‡ ˜‹…‡ …Šƒ‹” ‘ˆ ‘”‰ƒ ˆ‘” •‹ƒǡ ‹‰ Ž”‹…Šǡ ™Š‘ •’‘‡ ‘ •‡˜‡”ƒŽ ’ƒ‡Ž• ƒ– –Š‡ ‡˜‡–ǡ ƒ• ™‡ŽŽ ƒ• ƒ› ‘–Š‡” ‰Ž‘„ƒŽ –”ƒ†‡ ƒ† ‹†—•–”› ‡š’‡”–• ™Š‘ ™‹ŽŽ „‡ Š‡Ž’ˆ—Ž ƒ††‹–‹‘• –‘ –Š‡ ‡–™‘”Ǥ ”‡‰ Žƒ” …Šƒ‹”‡† –Š‡ Dz ‹–‹‡• ‘ˆ –Š‡ —–—”‡dzǡ ’ƒ‡Ž ™Š‹…Š ˆ‘…—•‡† ‘ …‘’‡–‹–‹˜‡ ‹††Ž‡™‡‹‰Š– …‹–‹‡• –Šƒ– ƒ”‡ —•‹‰ …”‡ƒ–‹˜‡ ‹†—•–”‹‡• –‘ Žƒ—…Š –Š‡•‡Ž˜‡• ‹–‘ –Š‡ ‰Ž‘„ƒŽ ‡…‘‘›Ǥ x ‘Ž‹–‹…‘ Šƒ– ‘”• —‹– ȋ ”—…‡ ƒ–œ Ȃ ‡…‡„‡” ͵Ȍ ‘†‡”ƒ–‡† ’ƒ‡Ž •’‘•‘”‡† „› ‘Ž‹–‹…‘ Šƒ– ‘”• —‹– ȋ ”—…‡ ƒ–œ Ȃ ‡…‡„‡” ͵Ȍ ‘†‡”ƒ–‡† ’ƒ‡Ž •’‘•‘”‡† „› ‘”‰ƒ Šƒ•‡ –Šƒ– ˆ‘…—•‡† ‘ —”„ƒ ‹‘˜ƒ–‹‘ ƒ† ‡…‘‘‹… †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– –‘’‹…•Ǥ Convenings  –Š‡ •‡…‘† ŠƒŽˆ ‘ˆ ʹͲͳͶǡ ”‘‘‹‰• ƒ† ‘”‰ƒ Šƒ•‡ ’Žƒ‡† ƒ† ‡š‡…—–‡† –Š‡ —‹…Š •–—†› –‘—”ǡ ƒ† ‘”‰ƒ‹œ‡† ƒ†Ȁ‘” ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‡† ‹ –Š”‡‡ †‘‡•–‹… ”‘—†–ƒ„Ž‡•Ǥ ŽŽ ˆ‘—” ‘ˆ –Š‡•‡ 6 ƒ…–‹˜‹–‹‡• ‡–ƒ‹Ž‡† ƒŒ‘” ‡ˆˆ‘”–• ƒ”‘—† ’Žƒ‹‰ǡ Ž‘‰‹•–‹…•ǡ ƒ† …‘–‡– †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– –‘ …ƒ–ƒŽ›œ‡ Š‹‰ŠǦŽ‡˜‡Ž †‹•…—••‹‘• ƒ† ƒ†˜ƒ…‡ •’‡…‹ˆ‹… Ž‘…ƒŽ ƒ…–‹‘•Ǥ —‹…Š ǣ —”‹‰ –Š‡ –Š‹”† ™‡‡ ‘ˆ ‘˜‡„‡”ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• „”‘—‰Š– ͶͲ „—•‹‡••ǡ …‹˜‹… ƒ† ‰‘˜‡”‡– Ž‡ƒ†‡”• ˆ”‘ ƒ…”‘•• –Š‡ Ǥ Ǥǡ ƒ• ™‡ŽŽ ƒ• ʹͲ •–ƒˆˆ‡”• ˆ”‘ ”‘‘‹‰• ƒ† ‘”‰ƒ Šƒ•‡ǡ –‘ —‹…Š ƒ† —”‡„—”‰ ˆ‘” ƒ –Š”‡‡Ǧ†ƒ› •–—†› –‘—”Ǥ Š‡ ’—”’‘•‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ –”‹’ ™ƒ• –‘ Ž‡ƒ” ƒ† •Šƒ”‡ „‡•– ’”ƒ…–‹…‡• –‘ •—’’‘”– ƒ†˜ƒ…‡† ‹†—•–”‹‡• –Š”‘—‰Š ‹˜‡•–‡–• ‹ •‹ŽŽ• ƒ† ‹‘˜ƒ–‹‘Ǥ Š‡ –”‹’ ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡†ǣ x x x x x ”‡…‡’–‹‘ ƒ– –Š‡ —‹…Š ‹–› ƒŽŽ Š‘•–‡† „› ‘”† ƒ›‘” ‹‡–‡” ‡‹–‡” –‘—” ‘ˆ ‹‡‡•ǯ• ˆƒ…–‘”› ƒ† –”ƒ‹‹‰ …‡–‡” ‹ —”‡„‡”‰ ”‡…‡’–‹‘ ƒ– ‹‡‡•ǯ• Š‡ƒ†“—ƒ”–‡”•ǡ ˆ‡ƒ–—”‹‰ Ǥ Ǥ „ƒ••ƒ†‘” –‘ ‡”ƒ› ‘Š ‡”•‘ ƒ† ‘—‹•˜‹ŽŽ‡ ƒ›‘” ”‡‰ ‹•…Š‡” ”‘—†–ƒ„Ž‡• ƒ† –‘—”• ƒ– –™‘ ‹†Ǧ•‹œ‡† …‘’ƒ‹‡• ȋ ‡‹†‡ƒ†‡” ƒ† Ȍ –‘ †‹•…—•• „‡•– ’”ƒ…–‹…‡• ‹ ™‘”ˆ‘”…‡ ƒ† ‹‘˜ƒ–‹‘ǡ ƒ† –‘—” ƒ† ”‡…‡’–‹‘ ƒ– ǯ• ‰Ž‘„ƒŽ Š‡ƒ†“—ƒ”–‡”•Ǥ ”‹‘” –‘ –Š‡ •–—†› –‘—”ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• ’”‘˜‹†‡† ƒŽŽ ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–• ™‹–Š „”‹‡ˆ‹‰ ƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ•ǡ ‹…Ž—†‹‰ ƒ ‘˜‡”˜‹‡™ ’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹‘ ˆ”‘ ”—…‡ ƒ–œǡ –Š‡ ˆ”ƒ‹‰ ’ƒ’‡” ‘ ‡”ƒ •‹ŽŽ• ƒ† ‹‘˜ƒ–‹‘ •›•–‡•ǡ ƒ† …ƒ•‡ •–—†› ‘ Dz —‹…Šǣ Ž‘„ƒŽŽ› Ž—‡– ‡–”‘’‘Ž‹–ƒ ”‡ƒǤdz ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰ –Š‡ •–—†› –‘—”ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• ’”‡’ƒ”‡† ƒ …‘’”‡Š‡•‹˜‡ –”‹’ ‘˜‡”˜‹‡™ –‘ …ƒ’–—”‡ –”‹’ †‡•…”‹’–‹‘•ǡ „Ž‘‰ ’‘•–•ǡ ’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹‘•ǡ ’Š‘–‘•ǡ ƒ† –™‡‡–•Ǥ Š‡ •–—†› –‘—” ”‡…‡‹˜‡† •–”‘‰ ‡†‹ƒ …‘˜‡”ƒ‰‡Ǥ —”‘’‡ ‡–‹‘‡† –Š‡ Ž‘„ƒŽ ‹–‹‡• ‹–‹ƒ–‹˜‡ Š‡ •–—†› –‘—” ”‡…‡‹˜‡† •–”‘‰ ‡†‹ƒ …‘˜‡”ƒ‰‡Ǥ —”‘’‡ ‡–‹‘‡† –Š‡ Ž‘„ƒŽ ‹–‹‡• ‹–‹ƒ–‹˜‡ ‹ –Š‡‹” ‹–‡”˜‹‡™ ™‹–Š ‡‹‘” ‘—–”› ˆˆ‹…‡”ǡ ƒ”–‹ ‡‹•ƒǤ ƒ ‹‡‰‘ —•‹‡•• ‘—”ƒŽ ‹ –Š‡‹” ‹–‡”˜‹‡™ ™‹–Š ‡‹‘” ‘—–”› ˆˆ‹…‡”ǡ ƒ”–‹ ‡‹•ƒǤ ƒ ‹‡‰‘ —•‹‡•• ‘—”ƒŽ ™”‘–‡ ƒ ’‹‡…‡ ‘ ƒ ‹‡‰‘ǯ• ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‹‘ ‹ –Š‡ Ž‡ƒ”‹‰ –‘—”Ǥ  ƒ††‹–‹‘ǡ –™‘ ‡”ƒ ‘—–Ž‡–•ǡ ™”‘–‡ ƒ ’‹‡…‡ ‘ ƒ ‹‡‰‘ǯ• ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‹‘ ‹ –Š‡ Ž‡ƒ”‹‰ –‘—”Ǥ  ƒ††‹–‹‘ǡ –™‘ ‡”ƒ ‘—–Ž‡–•ǡ —‡”„‡”‰ ƒ…Š”‹…Š–‡ ƒ† ƒ†‡Ž•„Žƒ––ǡ ™”‘–‡ ƒ„‘—– –Š‡ †‡Ž‡‰ƒ–‹‘ –‘—” ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‹‡‡• ˆƒ…–‘”› ƒ† –Š‡ ™‡Ž…‘‡ ”‡…‡’–‹‘ ƒ– ‹–› ƒŽŽǡ ”‡•’‡…–‹˜‡Ž›Ǥ  ƒ††‹–‹‘ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• —•‡† –Š‡ ˜‡—‡ „Ž‘‰ –‘ ’”‘‘–‡ –Š‡ •–—†› –‘—”ǡ –‘–ƒŽ‹‰ •‡˜‡”ƒŽ Š—†”‡† ˜‹‡™•ǣ x Š‡ ‡…”‡–• ‘ˆ —‹…Šǯ• —……‡•• „› ‘•‡’Š ƒ”‹ŽŽƒ ƒ† Žƒ ‡”—„‡ x —”‡„‡”‰ ƒ† —‹…Š ‡ƒ† ‡”ƒ …‘‘‹… ”‘™–Š ‹ ʹͲͳͶ „› ‘•‡’Š ƒ”‹ŽŽƒ ƒ† Žƒ ‡”—„‡ x ”ƒ‹‹‰ ƒ ‡š–Ǧ ‡‡”ƒ–‹‘ ‘”ˆ‘”…‡ ‹ —”‡„‡”‰ „› ‘•‡’Š ƒ”‹ŽŽƒ ƒ† Žƒ ‡”—„‡ x ƒŽ‹‰ ‘˜ƒ–‹‘ ‹ —‹…Šǣ  š…Šƒ‰‡ „› ƒ” —”‘ x ’‘”–‹‰ –Š‡ ‡”ƒ ’’”‘ƒ…Š –‘ ƒ”‡‡” —‹Ž†‹‰ „› › ‹— ‘‡•–‹… ‘—†–ƒ„Ž‡• x Š‹Žƒ†‡Ž’Š‹ƒ ȋ …–‘„‡” ͳͶȌ Ȃ ”‰ƒ‹œ‡† „› –Š‡ ”‡ƒ–‡” Š‹Žƒ†‡Ž’Š‹ƒ …‘‘› ‡ƒ‰—‡ ƒ† –Š‡ ‘”Ž† ”ƒ†‡ ‡–‡”ǡ ƒ„‘—– Ͷͷ ”‡’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹˜‡• ˆ”‘ –Š‡ •–ƒ–‡ǡ –Š‡ ƒ›‘”ǯ• ‘ˆˆ‹…‡ǡ ”‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡…‘‘‹… †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ‰”‘—’•ǡ —‹˜‡”•‹–‹‡•ǡ ƒ† ’Š‹Žƒ–Š”‘’› ‰ƒ–Š‡”‡† –‘ †‹•…—•• ™Šƒ– ƒ ‡š’‘”– •–”ƒ–‡‰› ˆ‘” Š‹Žƒ†‡Ž’Š‹ƒ ™‘—Ž† Ž‘‘ Ž‹‡ ƒ† –Š‡‹” ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‹‘ ‹ –Š‡ š…Šƒ‰‡Ǥ 7 x x x ”‡•‘ ȋ …–‘„‡” ͳ͹Ȍ Ȃ – –Š‹• ”‘—†–ƒ„Ž‡ ‘”‰ƒ‹œ‡† „› –Š‡ ƒ›‘”ǯ• ‘ˆˆ‹…‡ ƒ† –Š‡ ‡‰‹‘ƒŽ Šƒ„‡” ”‘‘‹‰• ƒ† ‘”‰ƒ Šƒ•‡ „”‹‡ˆ‡† –Š‡ ‰”‘—’ ‘ ƒ† š…Šƒ‰‡ ‘’’‘”–—‹–‹‡• ƒ† ˜‹•‹–‡† ƒ Ž‘…ƒŽ ƒ‰”‹…—Ž–—”ƒŽ „—•‹‡••ǡ ƒ ™ƒ–‡” –‡…Š‘Ž‘‰› ‹…—„ƒ–‘”ǡ ƒ† ”‡•‘ –ƒ–‡ ‹˜‡”•‹–› …‘‘‹… ‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– Ž‡ƒ†•Ǥ ƒŽ– ƒ‡ ‹–› ȋ ‘˜‡„‡” ͳͶȌ Ȃ ”‘‘‹‰• ƒ† ‘”‰ƒ Šƒ•‡ ”‡’”‡•‡–‡† ƒ– –Š‹• ”‘—†–ƒ„Ž‡ …‘˜‡”•ƒ–‹‘ ™‹–Š …‹–› ƒ† •–ƒ–‡ ‘ˆˆ‹…‹ƒŽ•ǡ ™Š‹…Š ˆ‘…—•‡† ‘ ƒŽ– ƒ‡ ‹–›ǯ• ‡…‘‘‹… ’‡”ˆ‘”ƒ…‡ ƒ† Š‘™ ‹– …ƒ „‡ ‡Šƒ…‡† –Š”‘—‰Š ‡š’‘”–• ƒ† Ǥ Š‡ ‘”‰ƒ Šƒ•‡ ƒ”‡– Ž‡ƒ† ˆ‘” –Š‡ ‘”–Š™‡•– ”‡‰‹‘ ™ƒ• ƒŽ•‘ ‹ ƒ––‡†ƒ…‡Ǥ Š‡ ‡˜‡– Š‡Ž’‡† –‘ †”— —’ ‡š…‹–‡‡– ƒ‘‰•– ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–• ˆ‘” –Š‡‹” ƒ’’Ž‹…ƒ–‹‘ –‘ „‡ ’ƒ”– ‘ˆ –Š‡ ˆ‹ƒŽ š…Šƒ‰‡ …‘Š‘”–Ǥ ”ƒ‰‡ ‘—–› ȋ ‘˜‡„‡” ʹͲȌ Ȃ ”‘‘‹‰• ‘Ǧ ‡•‹†‡– ‡‹‘” ‡ŽŽ‘™ǡ ”ƒ…‹•…‘ ƒ…Š‡œǡ ”‡’”‡•‡–‡† ”‘‘‹‰• ƒ– ƒ ”‘—†–ƒ„Ž‡ †‹•…—••‹‘ Š‘•–‡† „› –Š‡ ”ƒ‰‡ ‘—–› —•‹‡•• ‘—…‹Ž ƒ† •’‘‡ ‘ –Š‡‡• ‘ˆ ‰Ž‘„ƒŽ ˆŽ—‡…› ™‹–Š ‡šƒ’Ž‡• ˆ”‘ –Š‡ š…Šƒ‰‡ ‡–”‘•Ǥ Forthcoming Convenings ‘‡•–‹… ‘”—•ǣ ”‘‘‹‰• ƒ† ƒ‰”‡‡† ‘ –Š‡ …‹–‹‡• ƒ† †ƒ–‡• ˆ‘” ƒŽŽ ʹͲͳͷ †‘‡•–‹… ˆ‘”—•ǣ x †‹ƒƒ’‘Ž‹• ȋ ‡„”—ƒ”› ͳͺǦͳͻȌ Ȃ Š‡ ˆ‘”— ˆ‘” †‹ƒƒ’‘Ž‹• ™‹ŽŽ …‘‹…‹†‡ ™‹–Š –Š‡ ˆ‹”•– ™‘”‹‰ •‡••‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ˆ‹ƒŽ š…Šƒ‰‡ ‡š’‘”– …‘Š‘”–Ǥ ’”‹˜ƒ–‡ ”‘—†–ƒ„Ž‡ ™‹ŽŽ ’”‡˜‹‡™ –Š‡ Žƒ—…Š ‘ˆ ‡–”‘ †›ǯ• š’‘”– ŽƒǤ Š‡ ’—„Ž‹… ˆ‘”—ǡ ˆ‡ƒ–—”‹‰ ƒ›‘” ”‡‰‘”› Ǥ ƒŽŽƒ”†ǡ ™‹ŽŽ ˆ‘…—• ‘ –Š‡ ‡š’‘”– ’Žƒ ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡ǡ ™‹–Š ‡••ƒ‰‹‰ …‘‡…–‡† ‹–‘ ”‡•Šƒ’‹‰ –Š‡ ˆ‹˜‡Ǧ›‡ƒ” ”‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡…‘‘‹… †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– •–”ƒ–‡‰‹… ’Žƒ‹‰ ‡ˆˆ‘”– —†‡”™ƒ›ǡ ’ƒ”–‹…—Žƒ”Ž› ‡’Šƒ•‹œ‹‰ ƒ •Š‹ˆ– –‘ ‡’Šƒ•‹œ‡ –”ƒ†‡† •‡…–‘”•ǡ ™‘”ˆ‘”…‡ ‡‡†•ǡ ƒ† ‰Ž‘„ƒŽ …‘’‡–‹–‹˜‡‡••Ǥ ‡˜‡”ƒŽ š…Šƒ‰‡ ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–• ™‹ŽŽ …‘–”‹„—–‡ –‘ –Š‡ ”‘—†–ƒ„Ž‡ ƒ† ’—„Ž‹… ˆ‘”— –‘ ‹ˆ‘” ƒ† ˜ƒŽ‹†ƒ–‡ –Šƒ– ƒ‰‡†ƒǤ x ‡–”‘‹– ȋ ’”‹Ž ʹͳǦʹʹȌ Ȃ Š‡ ‡–”‘‹– …‘‘‹… Ž—„ ™‹ŽŽ Š‘•– –Š‡ ˆ‘”— ˆ‘” ‡–”‘‹–ǡ …‡–‡”‡† ‘ †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ‘ˆ ƒ ‡–”‘‹– ’ŽƒǤ Š‡ ‡˜‡– ™‹ŽŽ „‡‰‹ ™‹–Š ƒ ’”‹˜ƒ–‡ ”‘—†–ƒ„Ž‡ ˆ‘” –Š‘•‡ Ž‘…ƒŽ •–ƒ‡Š‘Ž†‡”• –Šƒ– ™‹ŽŽ „‡ ‹˜‘Ž˜‡† ‹ –Š‡ ’Žƒ‹‰ ’”‘…‡••ǡ ˆ‡ƒ–—”‹‰ ‡™ ”‡•‡ƒ”…Š ‘ –Š‡ ‡–”‘‹– ’”‘ˆ‹Ž‡Ǥ Š‡ ’—„Ž‹… ˆ‘”— ™‹ŽŽ •Š‘™…ƒ•‡ Ž‡••‘• Ž‡ƒ”‡† ˆ”‘ –Š‡ ‡–”‘ ’‹Ž‘–• ™‹–Š ƒ ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ‡š’‡”– ’ƒ‡Žǡ ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‡† „› ƒ ‡–”‘‹–Ǧ •’‡…‹ˆ‹… †‹•…—••‹‘ ƒ‘‰ Ž‘…ƒŽ „—•‹‡••ǡ …‹˜‹…ǡ ƒ† ‰‘˜‡”‡– Ž‡ƒ†‡”• ƒ„‘—– ƒ’’Ž‹…ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ –Šƒ– ‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘ –‘ ƒ…–‹‘Ǥ x ƒŽ– ƒ‡ ȋ —‡ ͳͲǦͳʹȌ Ȃ ”‘‘‹‰• „‡‰ƒ ‹–‡”ƒŽ ’Žƒ‹‰ †‹•…—••‹‘• ™‹–Š ƒŽ– ƒ‡ …‘—–‡”’ƒ”–• ”‡‰ƒ”†‹‰ ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ …‘–‡–ǡ Ž‹‡Ž› ˆ‡ƒ–—”‹‰ ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‡š’‘”– ƒ”‡– ƒ••‡••‡– ˆ‹†‹‰•Ǥ ȏnote that dates have changed to July 20-22, to coincide with the second export plan cohort meetingȐ x Ǥ Ǥ ȋ ‡’–‡„‡” ʹͻǦ͵ͲȌ Ȃ ”‘‘‹‰• ‹‹–‹ƒ–‡† ’”‡Ž‹‹ƒ”› …‘–ƒ…–• ™‹–Š •‘‡ ”‡‰‹‘ƒŽ •–ƒ‡Š‘Ž†‡” ‰”‘—’•ǡ ƒ–‹…‹’ƒ–‹‰ ƒ ‰‡‡”ƒŽ ‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘ •‡••‹‘ ‘ Ž‡ƒ”‹‰• ƒ† ‹’Ž‹…ƒ–‹‘• ˆ‘” Ž‡˜‡”ƒ‰‹‰ ‰Ž‘„ƒŽ …‘‡…–‹‘• –‘™ƒ”† ‡…‘‘‹… †‹˜‡”•‹ˆ‹…ƒ–‹‘Ǥ ȏnote that dates have changed to November 2-5 range, to accommodate involvement of David RubensteinȐ Ž‘„ƒŽ ‘”—ǣ ˆ–‡” ”‡ƒ••‡••‹‰ ‘’–‹‘• ˆ‘” ƒ •‹ƒǦ ƒ…‹ˆ‹… ˆ‘…—• ‹ ʹͲͳͷǡ ”‘‘‹‰• ”‡…‘‡†‡† ‹˜‘Ž˜‡‡– ‹ –™‘ ƒ…–‹˜‹–‹‡•ǣ x •‹ƒ ƒ…‹ˆ‹… ‹–‹‡• —‹–ǡ ƒ† ›†‡› ȋ —Ž› ͷǦͺȌ Ȃ ”‘‘‹‰• ’”‘’‘•‡† –‘ ‘”‰ƒ‹œ‡ ƒ Ǧ „”ƒ†‡† ’Ž‡ƒ”› ƒ† ™‘”•Š‘’ –”ƒ… ƒ– –Š‡ •‹ƒ ƒ…‹ˆ‹… ‹–‹‡• —‹– ƒ† ƒ›‘”ǯ• ‘”— ȋ Ȍǡ ƒ ’”‡‹‡” „‹‡‹ƒŽ …‘ˆ‡”‡…‡ ˆ‘” ‹–‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ …‹–› ‡–™‘”• ƒ† „—•‹‡•• ”‡Žƒ–‹‘•Š‹’•ǡ –‘ „‡ Š‡Ž† ‹ ”‹•„ƒ‡ǡ —•–”ƒŽ‹ƒǤ Š‡ •—‹– ‘ˆˆ‡”• ƒ ‘’’‘”–—‹–› –‘ ’”‡•‡– 8 x –Š‡‡• ƒ† •–”ƒ–‡‰‹‡• –‘ ƒ„‘—– ͳǡͲͲͲ ‰‘˜‡”‡–ǡ „—•‹‡••ǡ ƒ† …‹˜‹… •‡…–‘” Ž‡ƒ†‡”• ˆ”‘ ‘”‡ –Šƒ ͳͲͲ •‹ƒ ƒ…‹ˆ‹… …‹–‹‡•ǡ ƒ† ‡ƒ„Ž‡ ‹–‡”‡•–‡† Ǥ Ǥ †‡Ž‡‰ƒ–‹‘• ˆ”‘ –Š‡ š…Šƒ‰‡ –‘ ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‡ ƒ† ‹–‡”ƒ…– ™‹–Š …‘—–‡”’ƒ”–•Ǥ Š‡ ’”‹˜ƒ–‡ ƒ›‘”•ǯ ‘”— ‘ –Š‡ –Š‹”† †ƒ› ‡•—”‡• …‘–‡– ƒ† Ž‡ƒ†‡”• ™‹ŽŽ „‡ ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡† ™‹–Š ƒ„‘—– ͹Ͳ •‹ƒǦ ƒ…‹ˆ‹… ƒ›‘”• ƒ† †‡’—–› ƒ›‘”• ‹ ƒ ‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘Ǧ•Šƒ”‹‰ •‡••‹‘ǡ ˆƒ…‹Ž‹–ƒ–‡† „› ”‘‘‹‰• ‘”‡•‹†‡– ‡ŽŽ‘™ ”‡‰ Žƒ”ǡ ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‡† „› ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡ ‘ˆ ƒ ƒ›‘”•ǯ ……‘”† –Šƒ– ”‡ˆ‡”‡…‡• Ǥ Š‡ –”‹’ ™‘—Ž† ‹…Ž—†‡ ƒ ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ •–‘’‘˜‡” ‹ ›†‡› ˆ‘” ƒ ‡˜‡– ™‹–Š ƒ Ž‘…ƒŽ ’ƒ”–‡”ǡ ™Š‡”‡ ‹–‡”‡•–‡† š…Šƒ‰‡ ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–• ƒŽ”‡ƒ†› ƒ––‡†‹‰ …ƒ •Šƒ”‡ –Š‡‹” ‡š’‡”‹‡…‡ ™‹–Š ›†‡› •–ƒ‡Š‘Ž†‡”• ƒ† ƒ‡ ƒ††‹–‹‘ƒŽ „—•‹‡•• …‘‡…–‹‘•Ǥ ‹‰ƒ’‘”‡ ȋ ‘˜‡„‡” ͳʹȌ Ȃ ‹˜‡ –Š‡ …‘‹–‡– –‘ ƒ ƒ…–‹˜‹–› ‹ ‹‰ƒ’‘”‡ †—”‹‰ ˆƒŽŽ ʹͲͳͷ ƒ† –Š‡ Ǧ•’‘•‘”‡† •‹ƒ ‘…‹‡–› ˜‡– ƒ”‘—† –Š‡ •ƒ‡ –‹‡ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• •—‰‰‡•–‡† ‹…Ž—†‹‰ ƒ •’‡ƒ‡” ƒ• ’ƒ”– ‘ˆ ƒ ’ƒ‡Ž †—”‹‰ –Š‡ •‹ƒ ‘…‹‡–› •‡••‹‘ǡ …‘•‹•–‡– ™‹–Š ‘–Š‡” ‹–‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ”‘—†–ƒ„Ž‡•Ǥ ‘†‘ ƒ›‘” ‘Š•‘ǯ• ‹•‹–ǣ ‡•’‘†‹‰ –‘ …‘–ƒ…–• ˆ”‘ ‘†‘ •‡‡‹‰ ƒ†˜‹…‡ ‘ –Š‡ ƒ›‘”ǯ• —’…‘‹‰ Ǥ Ǥ –”ƒ†‡ ‹••‹‘ ‹ ‡„”—ƒ”›ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• ‘ˆˆ‡”‡† –‘ Š‘•– –Š‡ ƒ›‘” ˆ‘” ƒ ’—„Ž‹… ‡˜‡–Ǥ • ƒ ”‡•—Ž–ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• ™‹ŽŽ Š‘Ž† ƒ Ǧ„”ƒ†‡† †‹ƒŽ‘‰—‡ „‡–™‡‡ ‘†‘ ƒ›‘” ‘Š•‘ ƒ† ƒ ‹‡‰‘ ƒ›‘” ƒ—Ž…‘‡” ‘ Dz ‘˜‡”‹‰ Ž‘„ƒŽ ‹–‹‡•dz –‘ „‡ ‘†‡”ƒ–‡† „› ”—…‡ ƒ–œ ™‹–Š ‘’‡‹‰ ”‡ƒ”• ˆ”‘ ‡–‡” …Š‡”Ǥ ʹͲͳ͸ ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ —‹–ǣ ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰ •‡˜‡”ƒŽ ”‘—†• ‘ˆ •–ƒˆˆ ‡†‹–•ǡ ƒ •ƒŽŽ ‰”‘—’ ˆ”‘ ”‘‘‹‰• ƒ† ‡– –‘ †‹•…—•• –Š‡ Žƒ–‡•– †”ƒˆ– ‘ˆ –Š‡ ʹͲͳ͸ ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ —‹– ‘” ŽƒǤ Š‡ ‰”‘—’ ƒ‰”‡‡† —’‘ –Š‡ ‘—–Ž‹‡† ‰‘ƒŽ•ǡ ‡ƒ•—”‡• ‘ˆ •—……‡••ǡ ƒ† ƒ ʹͲͳͷ ™‘”’Žƒ –Šƒ– ™ƒ• ’”‡•‡–‡† ƒ– –Š‡ ‡…‡„‡” ͳͷ “—ƒ”–‡”Ž› ‡‡–‹‰Ǥ GCI Exchange ”‘‘‹‰• …‘–‹—‡† –‘ ƒ‡ •‹‰‹ˆ‹…ƒ– ’”‘‰”‡•• ‘ –Š‡ ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰ š…Šƒ‰‡ ƒ…–‹˜‹–‹‡•ǣ x Š‘•–‹‰ –Š‡ •‡…‘† ™‘”‹‰ •‡••‹‘ ˆ‘” –Š‡ ‡–”‘ ’‹Ž‘– ȋ ‡’–‡„‡” ʹͲͳͶȌǡ x ™‘”‹‰ ™‹–Š –Š‡ …—””‡– š…Šƒ‰‡ ‡š’‘”– ƒ† ’‹Ž‘– ‡–”‘• –‘ ˆ‹ƒŽ‹œ‡ –Š‡‹” ’Žƒ•ǡ x •‘Ž‹…‹–‹‰ ƒ† •‡Ž‡…–‹‰ –Š‡ ‡š– ‡š’‘”– ’Žƒ …‘Š‘”–ǡ –Š—• ”‡ƒ…Š‹‰ –Š‡ ‰‘ƒŽ ‘ˆ ʹͺ ‡–”‘• ‹ –Š‡ š…Šƒ‰‡ ‡–™‘”ǡ x ’”‡’ƒ”‹‰ ƒ† ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‹‰ –Š‡ ƒ’’Ž‹…ƒ–‹‘ ˆ‘” –Š‡ ‡š– ’Žƒ …‘Š‘”–ǡ x ’Žƒ‹‰ ƒ† ‡š‡…—–‹‰ ‡š– •–‡’• ‹ –Š‡ Ž‘„ƒŽ ‹–‹‡• …‘‘‹… ƒ”–‡”•Š‹’ „‡–™‡‡ Š‹…ƒ‰‘ ƒ† ‡š‹…‘ ‹–›ǡ ‹…Ž—†‹‰ ƒ ”‡˜‡”•‡ „—•‹‡•• –”‹’ –‘ ‡š‹…‘ ‹–› ȋ ’”‹‰Ǧ —‡” ʹͲͳͷȌǡ ƒ† x ’Žƒ‹‰ ƒ ™‘”•Š‘’ ‘ ‡š’‘”– ’Žƒ‹‰ ƒ† ‘–Š‡” ‹••—‡• ˆ‘” Ǥ Ǥ …‹–›Ǧ”‡‰‹‘• ƒ† Ǥ Ǥ š…Šƒ‰‡ ‡–”‘•Ǥ • ‡–‹‘‡† ƒ„‘˜‡ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• ™‘”‡† ™‹–Š š…Šƒ‰‡ ’ƒ”–‡”• –‘ †‡˜‡Ž‘’ ƒ† ƒ’’”‘˜‡ ’”‡•• ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡•ǡ ˆ‘”ƒŽ ƒ‘—…‡‡–•ǡ ƒ† ‘–Š‡” …‘—‹…ƒ–‹‘• ƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ• –‘ ƒš‹‹œ‡ ‡†‹ƒ …‘˜‡”ƒ‰‡ ˆ‘” ‡› ‹Ž‡•–‘‡•Ǥ ‘”‡‹‰ ‹”‡…– ˜‡•–‡– ‹Ž‘–ǣ  ‡’–‡„‡”ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• …‘˜‡‡† –Š‡ ’‹Ž‘– ‡–”‘• ˆ‘” ƒ •‡…‘† –™‘Ǧ†ƒ› ™‘”‹‰ •‡••‹‘ ‹ ƒ•Š‹‰–‘ Ǥ – –Š‡ •‡••‹‘ǡ ‡–”‘ –‡ƒ• ’”‡•‡–‡† –Š‡ ‡› ˆ‹†‹‰• ˆ”‘ –Š‡‹” ƒ”‡– ƒ••‡••‡–•ǡ ƒ• ™‡ŽŽ ƒ• –Š‡‹” ’”‡Ž‹‹ƒ”› ‰‘ƒŽ•ǡ ‘„Œ‡…–‹˜‡• ƒ† •–”ƒ–‡‰‹‡•ǡ ˆ‘” ’‡‡” ˆ‡‡†„ƒ… ƒ† ‹•‹‰Š–Ǥ ‡ƒ• ƒŽ•‘ Ž‡ƒ”‡† Š‘™ –‘ †‡˜‡Ž‘’ ƒ …Ž‡ƒ” ™‘”’Žƒ ˆ‘” ™”‹–‹‰ ƒ† …Šƒ’‹‘‹‰ –Š‡‹” –”ƒ†‡ ƒ† ‹˜‡•–‡– ’Žƒǡ †‹•…—••‡† –Š‡ „‡•– ‡–”‹…• ˆ‘” –”ƒ…‹‰ –Š‡‹” ’Žƒǯ• ‹’Ž‡‡–ƒ–‹‘ǡ ƒ† Š‡ƒ”† ˆ”‘ ’‘Ž‹…› ƒ† ’”ƒ…–‹…‡ ‡š’‡”–• ‹˜‘Ž˜‡† ‹ Ǥ ƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ• ˆ”‘ –Š‡ ™‘”‹‰ •‡••‹‘ ™‡”‡ •—„•‡“—‡–Ž› ƒ†‡ ƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„Ž‡ –‘ ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–• ‘Ž‹‡Ǥ 9 ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰ –Š‡ ™‘”‹‰ •‡••‹‘ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• …‘–‹—‡† –‘ ‡‰ƒ‰‡ …Ž‘•‡Ž› ™‹–Š –Š‡ ’‹Ž‘– ‡–”‘• –‘ ’”‘˜‹†‡ ˆ‡‡†„ƒ…ǡ ‰—‹†ƒ…‡ǡ ƒ† ƒ†˜‹…‡ ƒ• –Š‡› ”‡ƒ…Š‡† –Š‡ ‹Ž‡•–‘‡• –‘™ƒ”†• –Š‡ …‘’Ž‡–‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‡‹” ’Žƒ•ǣ x ƒ –‘‹‘ ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡† ‹–• ˆ‹ƒŽ ’Žƒ Dz ƒ –‘‹‘ ”ƒ†‡ ƒ† ˜‡•–‡– –”ƒ–‡‰› ʹͲͳͷdz ‹ ‡…‡„‡” ƒ– ƒ ‡˜‡– –Šƒ– ‹…Ž—†‡† ”‡ƒ”• ˆ”‘ ”ƒ† … ‡ƒ”ƒǤ x ‡ƒ––Ž‡ ™‹ŽŽ ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡ ‹–• ˆ‹ƒŽ ’Žƒ ‘ ƒ—ƒ”› ͳͷ ƒ– –Š‡ …‘‘‹… ‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ‘—…‹Ž ‘ˆ ‡ƒ––Ž‡ ƒ† ‹‰ ‘—–›ǯ• Ͷ͵”† —ƒŽ …‘‘‹… ‘”‡…ƒ•– ‘ˆ‡”‡…‡ǡ ™Š‹…Š ™‹ŽŽ ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡ › ‹— ƒ• –Š‡ ‡›‘–‡ •’‡ƒ‡”Ǥ x ƒ ‹‡‰‘ ™‹ŽŽ ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡ ‹–• ˆ‹ƒŽ ’Žƒ ‘ ƒ”…Š ͳͳ ƒ– ƒ ’—„Ž‹… ‡˜‡– ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰ –Š‡ ƒ ‹‡‰‘ …‘‘‹… ‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ‘”’‘”ƒ–‹‘ „‘ƒ”† ‡‡–‹‰ǡ ™Š‹…Š ™‹ŽŽ ˆ‡ƒ–—”‡ ”—…‡ ƒ–œǤ x Š‡ ”‡ƒ‹‹‰ ’‹Ž‘– –‡ƒ• ȋ ‘Ž—„—•ǡ ‹‡ƒ’‘Ž‹•Ǧ –Ǥ ƒ—Žǡ ƒ† ‘”–Žƒ†Ȍ ™‹ŽŽ ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡ –Š‡‹” ’Žƒ• ‹ –Š‡ ˆ‹”•– “—ƒ”–‡” ‘ˆ ʹͲͳͷǤ ‡–”‘ š’‘”– Žƒ ‘Š‘”–ǣ ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰ –Š‡‹” •‡…‘† ™‘”‹‰ •‡••‹‘ ‹ Š‘‡‹šǡ ”‘‘‹‰• …‘–‹—‡† –‘ ‡‰ƒ‰‡ …Ž‘•‡Ž› ™‹–Š ‡š’‘”– ’Žƒ‹‰ ‡–”‘• –Š”‘—‰Š …‘ˆ‡”‡…‡ …ƒŽŽ•ǡ ™‡„‹ƒ”•ǡ ƒ† ‘‡Ǧ‘Ǧ‘‡ …‘•—Ž–ƒ–‹‘• –‘ ’”‘˜‹†‡ ˆ‡‡†„ƒ…ǡ ‰—‹†ƒ…‡ǡ ƒ† ƒ†˜‹…‡ ƒ• –Š‡› ”‡ƒ…Š‡† –Š‡ ‹Ž‡•–‘‡• –‘™ƒ”†• –Š‡ …‘’Ž‡–‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‡‹” ’Žƒ•Ǥ  ƒ††‹–‹‘ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡† …‘—‹…ƒ–‹‘• ‰—‹†‡Ž‹‡• ƒ† –‡’Žƒ–‡ ’”‡•• ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡• ˆ‘” –Š‘•‡ š…Šƒ‰‡ ‡–”‘• ’”‡’ƒ”‹‰ –‘ ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡ –Š‡‹” ‡š’‘”– ’Žƒ• ‹ Žƒ–‡ ʹͲͳͶǦ‡ƒ”Ž› ʹͲͳͷǤ x ”‘‘‹‰• …‘•—Ž–‡† ™‹–Š ‘”Ž† —•‹‡•• Š‹…ƒ‰‘ǡ ‘‘ ‘—–›ǡ ƒ† ‘–Š‡” •–ƒ‡Š‘Ž†‡”• ‘ —’†ƒ–‡• –‘ –Š‡‹” ‘’‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ƒ† ’—„Ž‹… Žƒ—…Š ‘ˆ –Š‡ ”‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡š’‘”– ƒ……‡Ž‡”ƒ–‘” ‡ˆˆ‘”– ‹ Žƒ–‡ ‡’–‡„‡” ʹͲͳͶǤ x ƒ…•‘˜‹ŽŽ‡ ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡† –Š‡‹” ˆ‹ƒŽ ƒ”‡– ƒ••‡••‡– ‹ ‡…‡„‡” ʹͲͳͶǤ x †‹ƒƒ’‘Ž‹• ™‹ŽŽ ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡ ‹–• ˆ‹ƒŽ ‡š’‘”– ’Žƒ ‘ ‡„”—ƒ”› ͳͻǡ ʹͲͳͷǡ ƒ– –Š‡ †‹ƒƒ’‘Ž‹• ‘”—Ǥ x Š‡ ‘–Š‡” …‘Š‘”– ‡–”‘• ȋ –Žƒ–ƒǡ ‹Ž™ƒ—‡‡ǡ Š‘‡‹šǡ ƒ…”ƒ‡–‘ǡ ’•–ƒ–‡ ǡ ‹…Š‹–ƒȌ ™‹ŽŽ ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡ –Š‡‹” ’Žƒ• ‹ –Š‡ ˆ‹”•– “—ƒ”–‡” ‘ˆ ʹͲͳͷǤ ‡š– š’‘”– ƒ† Žƒ ‘Š‘”–•ǣ ”‘‘‹‰• —†‡”–‘‘ ‘—–”‡ƒ…Š ƒ† •‘Ž‹…‹–‡† ƒ’’Ž‹…ƒ–‹‘• ˆ‘” –Š‡ ˆ‹ƒŽ š…Šƒ‰‡ …‘Š‘”– –Šƒ– ™‹ŽŽ †‡˜‡Ž‘’ ƒ ‡–”‘’‘Ž‹–ƒ ‡š’‘”– ’Žƒǡ ”‡•’‘†‹‰ –‘ “—‡•–‹‘• ƒ† ”‡“—‡•–• ˆ‘” ‰—‹†ƒ…‡ ˆ”‘ •‡˜‡”ƒŽ ‡–”‘•Ǥ –‘–ƒŽ ‘ˆ ͳʹ ‡–”‘ ƒ”‡ƒ• ƒ’’Ž‹‡† ƒ† ™‡”‡ ƒ””‘™‡† †‘™ –‘ –Š‡ ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰ ͺ ‡–”‘•ǣ ƒŽ–‹‘”‡ǡ Ǣ ”‡•‘ǡ Ǣ ‘—•–‘ǡ Ǣ ƒ•ƒ• ‹–›ǡ Ǧ Ǣ Š‹Žƒ†‡Ž’Š‹ƒǡ Ǣ ƒŽ– ƒ‡ ‘—–›ǡ Ǣ ‡ƒ––Ž‡ǡ ȋ…—””‡–Ž› ‹ –Š‡ ’‹Ž‘–ȌǤ Š‡ •‡Ž‡…–‡† ‡–”‘ ƒ”‡ƒ• ™‡”‡ ‘–‹ˆ‹‡† ƒ– –Š‡ ‡† ‘ˆ ‡…‡„‡”Ǥ Š‹• ‰”‘—’ ”‡ƒ…Š‡• –Š‡ –‘–ƒŽ ‘ˆ ʹͺ ‡–”‘’‘Ž‹–ƒ ƒ”‡ƒ•ǡ –Š—• ‡‡–‹‰ –Š‡ ‘”‹‰‹ƒŽ ‡–™‘” ‰‘ƒŽǤ ˆ–‡” –Š‡ •‡Ž‡…–‡† ‡–”‘ ƒ”‡ƒ• ™‡”‡ ‘–‹ˆ‹‡†ǡ –Š‡ ”‘‘‹‰• ƒ† …‘—‹…ƒ–‹‘• –‡ƒ• †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡† ƒ ’Žƒ –‘ Š‡Ž’ •‡Ž‡…–‡† ‡–”‘• –‘ ’—„Ž‹…ƒŽŽ› ƒ‘—…‡ –Š‡‹” ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‹‘ ‹ –Š‡ š…Šƒ‰‡ ‹ ‡ƒ”Ž› ƒ—ƒ”› ʹͲͳͷǤ ‡Ž‡…–‡† ‡–”‘• ™‡”‡ ’”‘˜‹†‡† ™‹–Š –‡’Žƒ–‡ ’”‡•• ”‡Ž‡ƒ•‡• ˆ‘” –Š‡‹” ”‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ƒ‘—…‡‡–•Ǥ  ‘˜‡„‡”ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• …‘’Ž‡–‡† ƒ ‡™ ƒ’’Ž‹…ƒ–‹‘ ƒ† ‹˜‹–‡† ͳͶ …—””‡– š…Šƒ‰‡ ‡–”‘• –‘ •—„‹– ˆ‘” –Š‡ ‡š– …‘Š‘”– –Šƒ– ™‹ŽŽ †‡˜‡Ž‘’ ‡–”‘ ’Žƒ•Ǥ ‹ƒŽ ƒ’’Ž‹…ƒ–‹‘• ƒ”‡ †—‡ ‹ ‹†Ǧ ƒ—ƒ”› ʹͲͳͷǡ ƒ† •‡Ž‡…–‡† ‡–”‘• ™‹ŽŽ „‡ ‘–‹ˆ‹‡† ‹ ‡„”—ƒ”› ʹͲͳͷǤ Š—• ˆƒ”ǡ ‡–”‘• ‹†‹…ƒ–‹‰ –Š‡› ‹–‡† –‘ ƒ’’Ž› ‹…Ž—†‡ –Žƒ–ƒǡ Š‹…ƒ‰‘ǡ ‡• ‘‹‡•ǡ †‹ƒƒ’‘Ž‹•ǡ ‘• ‰‡Ž‡•ǡ ‘—‹•˜‹ŽŽ‡Ǧ ‡š‹‰–‘ǡ ‹Ž™ƒ—‡‡ǡ ›”ƒ…—•‡ǡ ’•–ƒ–‡ ǡ ƒ† ‹…Š‹–ƒǤ Ž‘„ƒŽ ‹–‹‡• …‘‘‹… ƒ”–‡”•Š‹’ǣ ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰ –Š‡ ƒ› ʹͲͳͶǡ ‡š‹…‘ ‹–› †‡Ž‡‰ƒ–‹‘ ˜‹•‹– –‘ Š‹…ƒ‰‘ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• „‡‰ƒ ™‘”‹‰ …Ž‘•‡Ž› ™‹–Š Š‹…ƒ‰‘ ƒ† ‡š‹…‘ ‹–› ‘ˆˆ‹…‹ƒŽ• –‘ ƒ†˜ƒ…‡ ƒ 10 ”‡˜‡”•‡ „—•‹‡•• –”‹’ –‘ ‡š‹…‘ ‹–› ‹ ʹͲͳͷǤ ”‘‘‹‰• †”ƒˆ–‡† ƒ ’”‘’‘•ƒŽ ™‘”’Žƒ ˆ‘” –Š‡ –”‹’ –Šƒ– ™‘—Ž† ˆ‘…—• ‘ ȋͳȌ ’”‘‘–‹‘ ‘ˆ –”ƒ†‡ǡ ˆ‘”‡‹‰ †‹”‡…– ‹˜‡•–‡– ȋ Ȍǡ ƒ† ‡š…Šƒ‰‡ ‘ˆ Š—ƒ …ƒ’‹–ƒŽ –Š”‘—‰Š „—•‹‡••Ǧ–‘Ǧ„—•‹‡•• ‡‡–‹‰•ǡ …‡–‡”‡† ‘ ƒ† ƒ†˜ƒ…‡† ƒ—ˆƒ…–—”‹‰ •‡…–‘”•ǡ ƒ† ȋʹȌ Žƒ—…Š ‘ˆ ƒ ‡™ ’—„Ž‹…Ǧ’”‹˜ƒ–‡ ‡š‹…‘ ‹–› ‡…‘‘‹… †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ‘”‰ƒ‹œƒ–‹‘Ǥ Š‡ ’”‘’‘•ƒŽ ™ƒ• ”‡˜‹‡™‡† ƒ† ƒ’’”‘˜‡† „› „‘–Š ‘”Ž† —•‹‡•• Š‹…ƒ‰‘ ƒ† –Š‡ ‡š‹…‘ ‹–› ˆˆ‹…‡ ‘ˆ …‘‘‹… ‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–Ǥ • ƒ ‡š– •–‡’ǡ ™‹ŽŽ ƒ••‹‰ –Š‡ ‡™Ž›ǦŠ‹”‡† Ž‡ƒ† ˆ‘” –Š‡‹” ‡–”‘ ‡š’‘”– ‹‹–‹ƒ–‹˜‡ ȋ•Žƒ–‡† –‘ „‡‰‹ ™‘” ‹ ƒ—ƒ”› ʹͲͳͷȌ –‘ ˆ—”–Š‡” †‡ˆ‹‡ ƒ† ‹’Ž‡‡– –Š‡ –”‹’Ǥ –Š‡” •’‡…‹ˆ‹… ’”‘‰”‡•• •‹…‡ –Š‡ Š‹…ƒ‰‘ –”‹’ ‹…Ž—†‡•ǣ x x x  ‘˜‡„‡”ǡ –ƒ”–—’ ‡š‹…‘ ƒ† ͳͺ͹ͳ ƒ‘—…‡† ƒ –Š”‡‡Ǧ›‡ƒ” ’ƒ”–‡”•Š‹’ –Š”‘—‰Š ™Š‹…Š –Š‡ –™‘ –‡…Š •–ƒ”–Ǧ—’ ‹…—„ƒ–‘”• ™‘—Ž† •Šƒ”‡ ”‡•‘—”…‡• ƒ† „‡‡ˆ‹–•ǡ ƒ† ˆ‘•–‡” ‡–”‡’”‡‡—” …‘‡…–‹‘•Ǥ Š‡ Š‹…ƒ‰‘ ”‹„—‡ Š‹‰ŠŽ‹‰Š–‡† ǯ• ”‘Ž‡ ‹ ‡ƒ„Ž‹‰ –Š‹• ’ƒ”–‡”•Š‹’Ǥ ‡š‹…‘ ‹–›ǯ• ”‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ‡…‘‘‹… †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ’Žƒ …‘–‹—‡† –‘ ™‘” ™‹–Š –Š‡ … ‹•‡› –‡ƒ …‘’Ž‡–‹‰ ƒ „‡•– ’”ƒ…–‹…‡ ”‡˜‹‡™ ‘ˆ ’Žƒ• ˆ”‘ ƒ”‘—† –Š‡ ™‘”Ž†Ǥ … ‹•‡› ‹†‡–‹ˆ‹‡† ‹‰ƒ’‘”‡ ƒ• ƒ Š‡Ž’ˆ—Ž ‘†‡Ž ƒ†’ƒ”–‡”‡† ™‹–Š –Š‡‹” ‹‰ƒ’‘”‡ ‘ˆˆ‹…‡ ƒ† Ž‡ƒ† ™”‹–‡” ‘ˆ –Šƒ– ’Žƒ –‘ •—’’‘”– –Š‡ ‡š‹…‘ ‹–› ‡ˆˆ‘”–Ǥ ˆ‹ƒŽ ’”‘†—…– ”‡ˆŽ‡…–‹‰ –Š‡ Š‹…ƒ‰‘ ƒ† ‹‰ƒ’‘”‡ ƒ’’”‘ƒ…Š‡• ™‹ŽŽ „‡ ˆ‹‹•Š‡† ˆ‘” Žƒ—…Š ‹ ʹͲͳͷǤ ”‘‘‹‰• ˆƒ…‹Ž‹–ƒ–‡† ƒ ”‡“—‡•– –‘ ‡š‹…‘ ‹–› ƒ›‘” ‹‰—‡Ž ƒ…‡”ƒ ˆ‘” ƒ ™”‹––‡ ‹–‡”˜‹‡™ ”‘‘‹‰• ˆƒ…‹Ž‹–ƒ–‡† ƒ ”‡“—‡•– –‘ ‡š‹…‘ ‹–› ƒ›‘” ‹‰—‡Ž ƒ…‡”ƒ ˆ‘” ƒ ™”‹––‡ ‹–‡”˜‹‡™ –Šƒ– ™ƒ• ‹…Ž—†‡† ‹ ƒ „‘‘Ž‡– Š‹‰ŠŽ‹‰Š–‹‰ ‘”‰ƒ Šƒ•‡ ‘”’‘”ƒ–‡ ‡•’‘•‹„‹Ž‹–› ‹‹–‹ƒ–‹˜‡• ‹ ƒ–‹ ‡”‹…ƒǤ Š‡ ‹–‡”˜‹‡™ ™ƒ• †‹•–”‹„—–‡† „”‘ƒ†Ž› ƒˆ–‡” –Š‡ –‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ‹‹–‹ƒ–‹˜‡• ‹ ƒ–‹ ‡”‹…ƒǤ Š‡ ‹–‡”˜‹‡™ ™ƒ• †‹•–”‹„—–‡† „”‘ƒ†Ž› ƒˆ–‡” –Š‡ –‡”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ‘—…‹Ž ‡‡–‹‰ ‹ ‡š‹…‘ ‹–› ‹ …–‘„‡”Ǥ ‘†‘ Ȁ ”‘Œ‡…–ǣ ”‘‘‹‰• ‡‰ƒ‰‡† ™‹–Š ǡ ‡–”‡ ˆ‘” ‘†‘ǡ ”‡ƒ–‡” ‘†‘ —–Š‘”‹–›ǡ ƒ† ‘–Š‡” •–ƒ‡Š‘Ž†‡”• –‘ —†‡”–ƒ‡ ƒ ™‘”‹‰ •‡••‹‘ ƒ„‘—– ‡š’‘”– ’Žƒ‹‰ ƒ† ‘–Š‡” –Š‡‡• ˆ‘” …‹–›Ǧ”‡‰‹‘• ƒ† š…Šƒ‰‡ ‡–”‘•Ǥ …Š‡†—Ž‡† ˆ‘” ‡„”—ƒ”› ʹ͸Ǧʹ͹ǡ –Š‡ •‡••‹‘ ™‹ŽŽ ˆ‘…—• ‘ǣ ȋͳȌ •Šƒ”‹‰ –Š‡ ‡š’‘”– ’Žƒ‹‰ ‘†‡Žǡ •–”ƒ–‡‰‹‡•ǡ ƒ† ‘—–…‘‡• ™‹–Š ”‡‰‹‘•ǡ ƒ• ™‡ŽŽ ƒ• ‡ƒ”Ž› ‡š’‡”‹‡…‡Ǣ ȋʹȌ …‘‡…–‹‰ ‡–”‘• ƒ† š…Šƒ‰‡ …‘—–‡”’ƒ”–• ˆ‘” Ž‘‰‡”Ǧ–‡” ‡…‘‘‹… Ž‹ƒ‰‡• ƒ”‘—† …‘‘ ‹†—•–”› •‡…–‘”•Ǣ ƒ† ȋ͵Ȍ ˆƒ…‹Ž‹–ƒ–‹‰ …‹–› ƒ…–‹‘ ‘ †‡˜‘Ž—–‹‘ ‘ˆ ‡…‘‘‹… †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– …‘’‡–‡…‹‡•Ǥ ”‘‘‹‰• …‘ŽŽƒ„‘”ƒ–‡† ‘ …‘–‡– †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ǡ •–”—…–—”‡ǡ •—’’Ž‡‡–ƒŽ ”‡•‡ƒ”…Š ‘’–‹‘•ǡ „ƒ…‰”‘—† ƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ …‘’‹Žƒ–‹‘•ǡ ƒ† ‡†‹ƒ •–”ƒ–‡‰‹‡•Ǥ  ƒ††‹–‹‘ǡ ”‘‘‹‰• „‡‰ƒ –‘ ‹†‡–‹ˆ› ƒ† ‡‰ƒ‰‡ ”‡Ž‡˜ƒ– š…Šƒ‰‡ ‡–”‘ ƒ”‡ƒ• ˆ‘” ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‹‘Ǥ 11 • ! " # $ %$ % $& ' # # " ( $ ) ( ( * + # % $ ) $ ) *, , ( & ( ) & -% ( % $%( $ ! $ ' % $ % ( !$ ! # # ( *, ! " " # $% & ' " & " % ( ., ) ( $$ # !, % * %$ " , / ( ' $ ( $ 0 ! $ & 12 ( 3 % ( ( # ) ' $ 42 $ ) 5 # ( ! $ (, 6 5 7 %$ $ ! $ % ( # ' $ ! $ % , , 8% ) * " " ' , 2 • 9 3" ( : ( # ( ( " $ % $ ( % % # %!$ # " ! ( ' $& ( $ , , 8% + ' , ' ) * , 2 • 9 $ $ $& % & % " # %( " & $( ( ; ( # < = ( < = 12 > !& ( & # # $$ " $( " . ( ) ( < $ ) , ., 8% - " * ' , 2 • 9 $ % 4' $ & # ) ! $$& !$ (, • " $& " $" ( ( ' $ # $ > ' # $$ (% ?@ $ & , • ( ! ( 12 ! ) " 5 ' % 4' A $ B,7, 12 % ( ( % " $ !$ 12 $ $ ! ) ! ) +$ 12 $ " , , 1 % $ % ( , , / % " $$ 7 " $ $ $ $ ! $ ( # " $& # ) # ' & $ ! $ 4 2 # , 9 $ ( # ) # / ( $ ' $ , • Statement from Peter Scher, chairman of the Washington, D.C. region, and head of corporate responsibility,JPMorgan Chase & Co Overall Summary Quote PETER: We have a lot of economic challenges in this country. The private sector needs to be part of solving them. Corporations should be doing more of these types of initiatives. 1. Is the Global Cities Initiative a branding exercise for JPMC and Brookings? PETER: This was about growing the economy and we are incredibly proud of the results of this initiative. We believe it's had a huge impact in more than 30 cities that are involved, and we look for ways to promote its impact so that more organizations are aware and can benefit from it. 2. Where does the money for GCI come from - the Foundation or Corporate? PETER: All philanthropic contributions that go to Brookings for the Global Cities Initiative are paid by the corporation. BACKGROUND FROM JPMC: The firm makes charitable contributions both directly and through its corporate foundation. The firm receives the same charitable tax deduction through either approach. We receive the same level of tax deduction whether the bank gives directly to a charitable organization or gives it to our foundation. The decision to fund from the bank or the foundation is based on practical considerations such as budget and timing of grants. Irrespective of whether the money is from the bank or directly through the foundation, the firm's charitable contributions are made in compliance with the Internal Revenue Code and applicable Treasury regulations. 3. Is JPMC essentially paying Brookings for a reputational benefit? PETER: This was about growing the economy, and if the Global Cities Initiative strengthens the economic competitiveness of cities, it's a win for small businesses, job creation and everyone involved in these communities, including us. 4. What is our role in city selection? BACKGROUND FROM JPMC: Brookings selects the cities. Of the 37 metro regions that the Global Cities Initiative has engaged, seven are locations where we have little or no presence. Ten markets are metros that Brookings had already engaged with prior to our support. We informed Brookings on the cities where we had the capacity to help support logistics needs, including the development of events. BROOKINGS RESPONSE: QUESTION SEVEN AND QUESTION EIGHT: The SEX cities selection matrix, (Chase Documents, page 56) is another of many documents that shows how iPMargan's market priorities were a factor in selecting the cities where was set up. Salt Lake City, for example, was added as a city after not being included in the anginal list after this matrix listed it as a Priority Market. Or when JPMorgan wanted some academic work it could pass out at events in Detroit, it simply amended the contract with Brookings, giving more money, and getting workfor its planned Detroit events (Chase Documents page 115) What does this say about the integrity of the program? IPMorgan, from the start of conversations about made clear in a number of documents as the donation was being discussed that it saw the partnership with Eroakings as a way to position itself as a "the major financial institution that has the capacity and leadership to grow US cities, (Chase Documents Page 2), and it listed the Lines of Business that it hoped could benefit from the partnership. A communications plan (Chase Documents Page 64) also talks about how the will help elevate the brand of both Erookings and Chase. And {Page 65), that the program will position iPMargan "as a resource on how the global economy can be revitalized, and how it would perhaps create "speaking opportunities? for JPMorgan executives at high profile events (Page 67). The JPMorgan Chase documents also demonstrate how JPMorgan?s market priorities shape your work at the Metropolitan Policy Program, in terms of which cities are selected for the and where you hold events. For example, there is a specific reference to how JPMorgan sees San Diego as a "very important market? (CHASE DOCUMENTS PAGE 16), and it wanted Brookings to organize events on the ground there as part of the kickoff, as Brookings then agreed to do, even though such events were not previously planned. The schedule for San Diego then includes this language: SD Private Dinner Wednesday, March 21, 2012 Goal: - Allow off-the-record dialogue and networking with San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, surrounding key business leaders, key JPMC bankers/clients Invitation lists, which we also have, show that many JPMorgan Chase executives were then invited to these and similar events, with the bills for these gatherings paid for by JPMorgan, including airfare for Brookings sta?. But it was Brooking?s presence that helped JPMorgan Chase gather such a high level group of business executives and government officials, in each of these locations, while Brooking worked to make sure that various Chase executives (Chase Documents Page 53) in charge of lending or public finance were included in events in their particular market areas. You also provide regular updates on how many times news media mentioned JPMorgan Chase?like a public relations firm would?as part of your proof that the donation was worth the cost, (Page 110, among others). The Oct. 2011 signed agreement says that Brookings is not going to play a role, directly or indirectly in helping Chase win public finance business. (Chase Documents page 12) But taken together, the GCl?clearly an e??ort created to help cities expand their economies?also looks at times, at least in part, like a marketing, public relations, business development and government relations effort for JPMorgan Chase, facilitated for a large fee by Brookings. In short, this relationship has tangible and frequently reported by Brookings benefits for JPMorgan Chase?~a return on its investment that benefited Chase specifically, and not just cities or lenders nationwide. Is this appropriate? 15 BROOKINGS RESPONSE: These assertions misunderstand andlor misconstrue the goals of the Global Cities Initiative and the structure of this endeavor between Brookings Metro and lPMor?a? Chase. It is important to understand that Brookings is the driver on the researchI proiect designI city engagements and outreach. On all issues related to the proiectI Brookings retains the ?nal say. a The Global Cities Initiative is part ofJPMorgan Chase?s Corporate Social Responsibility program. GCI is one of a number of their grants and initiatives to better local communities. JPMC may have bene?ted from its collaboration with Brookings by raising its profile as a good corporate citizen, but JPMC did not interfere with Brookings research, decide on cities, or promote their lines of business. - G0 is designed to assist in the achievement of the economic objectives of local and regional communities. 0 Brookings conceived GCI to help metropolitan areas grow their economies through exports, foreign direct investment and global engagement. Using research, forums, and peer-to-peer learning, GCI has catalyzed the adoption of global trade strategies in more than two-dozen American metro areas. For many U.S. cities, GCI is a sought-after resource because it is viewed as an economic game changer - a clear public good. 0 The GCI strategies that these cities and metro areas are adopting, such as small business outreach, freight and logistics modernization, and collaborations with international business schools to tap talent and business counseling, are not focused on or designed to bene?t any financial institution?s for-profit agenda, including JPMC. GCI is an outgrowth of work at Brookings Metro that Ere-dated JPMC involvement. Brookings had conducted research about the importance of exports as a source of economic growth for U.S. metropolitan areas in the wake of the Great Recession. With support from the Rockefeller Foundation, Brookings launched export-planning efforts in 12 U.S. metro areas. gift enabled Brookings to scale up its work, deepen and broaden its research, and extend its outreach and impact in cities across the United States. 16 RE: SELECTION OF CITIES FOR GCI Brookings Metro chooses and controls city participation in the Global Cities Initiative based primarily on local impact?the extent to which leaders in the city or metro area embrace the research findings and express interest in following up with local initiatives. 0 designation of certain metros as "priority markets? is a consideration in that process, presence supports local impact through their leadership in the community and support for the regional forums. 0 Brookings?not JPMC?controls the city selection process in the 28?metro Global Cities Exchange The Global Cities Exchange is a peer-to-peer learning network. Participating metros develop regional export and FDI plans using data and advice from Brookings Metro. Selection for the GCX is a competitive process run independently by Brookings Metro that requires each metro to complete a detailed application.23 JPMC has no role in receivingI reviewingI or evaluating applications. Brookin sselects winnin a lications usin ecific ri orous criteria that demonstrate "commitment, readinessI and capacitf to effectively execute global trade strategies.? Brookings also considers the importance of geographic locationI sizeI and economic diversity in the network. JPMC presence is not among the criteria. However, in cases where all other criteria have been met, Brookings does consider the potential of a JPMC presence as a local advantage. Houston leaders named a JPMC market president to their local steering committee because the executive was chair of the Greater Houston Partnership, a leading civic organization.) As part of the application process, Brookings actively encourages city applicants to include private sector participation in steering committees and core teams given the private sector?s role in exports. In some cases, private sector participation includes representatives from other ?nancial institutions that are JPMC competitors. For instance: I In Sacramento, a Bank of America representative chaired the export planning steering committee. 23 See Global Cities Exchange Application. September 2013; and Global Cities Initiative: Exchange - Metro Plan Application. November 2015. 24 Criteria include: clear rationale for participation; ?t within an existing regional plan or efforts; clear organizational leads and capabilities; identified members of a core working group; de?nitive commitments by high-level government, civic, and business leaders as supporters and/or members of a steering committee. Re: I In Phoenix, the project funders and steering committee members included Alliance Bank and BBVA Compass, as well as JPMC. The ?nal set of GCX sites demonstrates that JPMC preferences were not a pregguisite for selection. 0f the 28 metro areas in the Global Cities ExchangeI one-third are not JPMC pr_iorities: 0 Nine are not markets that were labeled as JPMC priorities, and some of those have no JPMC presence whatsoever. Nine other GCX metros are markets where Brookings Metro had engaged in helping promote exports and economic development prior to JPMC support (Chicago, Columbus, Los Angeles, Louisville, Phoenix, Portland, San Diego, Seattle, and Syracuse). In all cases, Brookings actively encourages GCX metros to assemble the strongest steering committees and core teams to ensure the long-term success of the project. There is no requirement for, or expectation of, JPMC representation on the steering committees or core teams regardless of whether it is a JPMC "priority market.? 0 Finally, Brookings makes the plans, data and planning tools, and lessons from the Global Cities Exchange publicly available so that any metro area can also benefit. These resources can be found at: Salt Lake City: The assertion that Salt Lake City was considered on the basis interest is factually incorrect. The Salt Lake City metropolitan area, including Salt Lake County, was under consideration by Brookings for engagement before the GCI MOU was even signed.? From the start, Salt Lake City regularly appeared on Brookings-generated lists of potential cities for participation in GCI because of geographic diversity and our long familiarity with the leaders and local priorities there. Like many cities, Salt Lake registered its own interest in being involved with Brookings Metro?s work as early as 2011, with the Economic Development Director 25 Email from Salt Lake City of?cial to Bruce Katz on October 21, 2011 "I?ve just learned about Global Cities Initiative. Global trade and engagement is an important component of Salt Lake City?s economic development efforts. We would like to become involved and participate as you develop your plans for the initiative. are very much interested in participating in GCI and wish to be considered as a location for one of the planned conferences." 18 Re: proactively sending a note requesting participation after learning of the launch of GCI. Mayor McAdams reached out to Brookings in 2013, immediately after his election to explore ways to engage with Brookings. That deep local interest is the reason why Brookings invited Salt Lake City to apply for the Global Cities Exchange. Detroit Contrary to Mr. Lipton?s assertion, Brookings agreed to undertake Detroit GCI research and dissemination after the Mayor?s Office, the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation, and the Detroit Chamber of Commerce demonstrated their interest in acting on foreign investment and trade opportunities as part of their economic revitalization agenda. The research undertaken responded both to local Detroit interests and an independent Brookings assessment of what was needed to advance foreign direct investment in a city struggling to emerge from the Great Recession. Adding resources to cover an expanding scope of work is common in any funder relationship and is not unique to JPMorgan Chase. The contract amendment and additional funding was for speci?c analysis on foreign direct investment in Detroit and a public forum and leadership roundtable that were not funded under the original GCI proposal. Brookings Metro?s deep engagement with Detroit dates back more than a decade-- at least five years before GCI was even contemplated--with support from the Kresge Foundation, Mott Foundation, and others. San Diego: The information on San Diego is incorrect and misinterpreted. As our records show, Brookings?not JPMC?wanted to add the roundtable session in San Diego after the Los Angeles forum where GCI was launched in 2012.26 Brookings has a long history of advising and learning from the leaders in San Diego, given that region?s leadership in tech-based innovation, university-industry partnerships, and entrepreneurship.27 26 Email from Brookings employee to JP employee dated 11/22/11: ?1 think San Diego is weighty enough to stand on its own, and will be tough to engage adequately in an LA-centric event. Also, I talked with the Mayor?s of?ce about a ?rst quarter economic summit several weeks back and this might fit their idea as well so that they would take more leadership in organizing for big impact." 19 The original idea for the launch in Los Angeles was to include significant participation by San Diego, but Brookings determined that was not feasible given the regional differences and geographic distance. a The specific phrase that San Diego is a ?very important market? was written by Brookings, not by JPMC.28 San Diego is an important city because it is a bi-national region, with shared industries and infrastructure with Tijuana. Brookings organized the roundtable with three local economic development organizations, all of which Brookings independently worked with prior to GCI.29 These groups contributed to the development of the agenda, identified participants, extended invitations and co-hosted the session. Re: ?Positioning? .IPMC The quotation about JPMC ?positioning? itself comes from notes taken during the first meeting between Brookings and JPMC, which took place three months before the gift agreement and MOU were signed establishing GCI (October 2011 and January 2012, reSpectively). None of this language can be found in either agreement?, nor can it be found in the GCI Work Plan.31 0 A PowerPoint prepared by JPMC for Brookings dated September 12, 2011 also predating the gift agreement and MOU establishing the Initiative included language about lines of business. This document was provided as a way to introduce JPMC to Brookings Metro. There is no reference to lines of business in the Brookings-JPMC MOU establishing the joint project, nor in the GCI Work Plan. 27 The ?Rationale for the San Diego Roundtable? (March 22, 2012) document demonstrates San Diego?s importance to Brookings. 28 See: Draft event schedule from 11/21/11 stating on page 2 that ?we (Brookings) have not broached this extra day w/ JPMC yet,? clearly indicating that Brookings was advancing the concept of a San Diego session; Updated draft event schedule from 11/30/11 stating on page 2 RE: SAN DIEGO -- JPMC is intrigued with the idea of doing a separate event/s in San Diego, they did bring up budget issues. We think this can be done in a lower key, smaller way that will not break the budget. The upside of giving San Diego the individual attention they deserve is worth the extra cost. JPMC does consider San Diego a very important market? 29 These groups included: Office of the Mayor, San Diego Economic DeveIOpment Corporation, San Diego Chamber of Commerce 30 The Brookings Institution and JPMorgan Chase Gift Agreement, October 20, 2011 31 The GCI Workplan: An Integrated Strategy for Enhancing the Competitiveness of U.S. Cities and Metros in the Global Economy, February 2012 20 The GCI Communications and Engagement Plan from 2013 is "a working document? and puts forth four goals, one of which includes elevating both the Brookings Metro Program and JPMorgan Chase'q?2 0 One of the related strategies includes seeking high pro?le speaking engagements ?to impart both the theory behind and evidence of information, ideas, and action proposals to key audiences.? The purpose of these strategies was to promote GCII not JPMC's business or bottom line. 0 In addition to the Communications and Engagement Plan, Brookings_produced GCI branding and commpnications guidelines and GCI communications policies specifically to protect the independence of the proiect and ensure GCI proppm were accurately and approoriatelv positioned in the media. Sample guidance includes: 0 "JPMorgan Chase advertising about GCI can promote GCI but not JPMorgan Chase. For example, JPMorgan Chase can run ads that use the GCI logo, but the ads cannot also use the JPMorgan Chase name or logo except to communicate that JPMorgan Chase paid for the ad or that JPMorgan Chase funds Brookings cannot include quotes from JPMorgan Chase employees or representatives in press releases about research. QUESTION NINE: lhave included copies we were provided by our sources?as recently as this month?on some of your internal policies, as well as your ongoing strategic planning effort. (Brookings Policies) Do any of the issues we raise in these questions or in the documents lead you to conclude that you should review your policies again regarding relationships with donors? Or do you believe you would do everything just the way you did it, in all these cases. BROOKINGS RESPONSE: We review and evaluate our policies, practices, and rules on an ongoing basis. In fact, since the documents you procured were written, we have continued to clarify and further refine our policies and practices ?and will continue to do so?to maximize our ability to fulfill our mission of serving the public good while maintaining the independence of our scholars and of the Institution as a whole. 32 The exact wording is: ?Elevate and brand the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program and JPMorgan Chase as institutional sources of information and expertise on how cities can make the global connections to thrive in the global economy, both in the U5. and in targeted international ma rkets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assachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 telephone 202.797.6000 fax 202.797.6004 web brookings.edu July 29, 2010 Metropolitan Policy Program Kofi Bonner Executive Vice President, Lennar Urban Lennar Corporation 1 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5401 Christian Marlin Deputy General Counsel Lennar Corporation 700 NW 107th Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33172 Dear Kofi and Christian: I am extremely pleased with Lennar’s commitment to join the Metropolitan Policy Program’s Leadership Council. I am very grateful for your support, and I believe that your leadership and expertise will greatly enhance this initiative. As a member of the Metropolitan Leadership Council, you will advise and support the design and development of our work to advance systemic reforms that empower metropolitan areas to compete and prosper in the new century. To give you further background on the benefits of joining the Met Council,, please see the p attached document, which also includes a list of other current members. Additionally, y Carrie would be happy with you Kolasky, y Metro’s Director of Development, p ppy to speak p y further about membership the ways y in which we can tailor your y p to best fit the needs of Lennar, so that this can become a productive, mutually beneficial relationship. If you have any questions regarding the Met Council, please do not hesitate to contact Carrie at (202) 797-6418 or ckolasky@brookings.edu. Also, I would like to extend an invitation to our next Met Council strategy session to be held in New York City on the evening of October 26th, and on October 27th, from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (locations to be determined). These strategy sessions allow us the chance to hear from the Met Council and obtain valuable feedback on our message and approach. We will be in touch with additional information. Thank you again for your support. It is a pleasure to have you as a member of the Metropolitan Policy Program Leadership Council, and I look forward to our future collaboration. Sincerely, Bruce Katz Vice President and Director Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program BROOKINGS Metropolitan Putin Program September 13. 2010 Kofi Bonner Executive Vice President, Lennar Urban Lennar Corporation 1 California Street San Francisco. CA 94111-5401 Dear Kofi: I want to thank you for the receipt of your recent contribution to the Metro Program in the amount of $50,000. As you know. your commitment means a great deal to me. as well as to the program, especially during these challenging economic times. I hope that you will be able to join us for the next Met Council strategy session on October 27| from 8:30 am. to 4:00 pm. at the Rockefeller Foundation in New York City. On the evening of October Brookings Trustee and Met Leadership Council Member, Cheryl Cohen Etfron. will be hosting a reception at her home in New York City beginning at 6:30 pm. The purpose of the strategy session will be to provide an overview of the Metro Program's three year agenda and work plan. and to preview the December 7-8. 2010. Global Summit agenda, presentation. communications strategy and follow-up (latest summit overview. attached). We will be sending out a formal invite. shortly. Again. thank you for your support of the Metro Policy Program. I look forward to our future collaboration. okings Metropolitan Policy Program Cc: Christian Marlin Roberta Aachienberg Transformative Investments in the United States October 2011 HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD & CANDLESTICK POINT LOCATION: San Francisco, California PROJECT SPONSORS: City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, and Lennar Urban TYPE: Mixed-use Development, Innovation District COST: $2.7 billion DESCRIPTION: Transformation of 800 acres of former military brownfields and underutilized land into a “green zone” that will serve as a clean technological hub and foothold for regional prosperity. PROJECT OVERVIEW The vision for the project is rooted in technological innovation and environmental sustainability—from the project’s physical footprint to its social, economic, cultural, infrastructure and residential components. The development will feature a “Clean Technology Hub” designed to be a 3 million square foot urban research and development campus focused on clean technology and related industries. The anchor tenant is the United Nations Global Compact Center that focuses on green technology, international tech transfer and climate change. The Hub will be surrounded by 12,100 residential units, with 32% offered at below market rates, including the reconstruction of the Alice Griffith public housing site. It also includes 352 acres of public parks and open space, and community serving facilities such as a new fire station and school. Lastly, the project will include an Arts District to integrate the existing artist community, as well as retail opportunities to improve access to goods and services in the community. Phase 1 is underway and entitlements for Phase 2 of the project have been secured. PROJECTED BENEFITS The project fulfills the region’s long-term economic strategy to focus high density infill development around existing transit infrastructure. The Clean Technology Hub is the culmination of the city’s strategy to create an Innovation Corridor that reinforces technological, intellectual, cultural and financial links among the city’s established and emerging companies and research institutions. The project will create more than 1,500 construction jobs annually throughout build-out and 12,200 permanent jobs across a wide range of industries and occupation levels. An $18 million workforce development program will prepare residents from southeast San Francisco—an area of high poverty and unemployment—to access these jobs. The project incorporates $83 million in community benefits including education scholarships, health facilities, aid for local community home ownership, and dedicated ground floor retail for local businesses and organizations. Bus rapid transit service to BART, Caltrain and light rail, as well as dedicated express service to downtown will reconnect the neighborhood with the region’s transportation infrastructure. community-based education and employment programs. The main source of funding will come from a combination of private capital and land-secured public financing. The private capital contribution will be $1.1 billion (combined debt/equity). $1.55 billion in land secured public financing will be generated by special taxes for Community Facilities Districts and tax increment allocation from new property tax revenues. Once the project has achieved a marketbased return, subsequent revenue will be split between Lennar and a Community Benefits Fund established to support local community and economic improvement efforts. BARRIERS Due to its complexity, enormous scale, and extended construction period, the project is often ineligible or uncompetitive for federal, state, and local government grant programs which seek short-term results or have specific “readiness” requirements. For example, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program seeks to fund projects that deliver immediate increases in employment, which does not match the long-term economic development timeframe of this project. Similarly, while federal Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program funding may provide a low-interest funding source in early stages of development, the loan’s underwriting requirements make it difficult for projects like this to qualify for an investment-grade rating, prior to completion of horizontal development. Another barrier is the “significance threshold” for evaluating impacts under local and federal environmental review. These thresholds related to traffic, noise, air and water quality and other impacts are often incompatible with the goals of projects like this as they do not properly account for the environmental benefits which accrue from urban infill development. Proposed Clean Technology Hub FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT The project is a public-private partnership between Lennar Urban and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Lennar is responsible for constructing the site’s horizontal infrastructure including wet and dry utilities, transportation improvements, public open spaces, and community facilities. In addition, the Project includes dedicated land and cash subsidies for affordable housing and a wide range of Jennifer Thompson 202-797-6403 jthompson@brookings.edu Transformative Investments in the United States October 2011 HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD & CANDLESTICK POINT LOCATION: San Francisco, California PROJECT SPONSORS: City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, and Lennar Urban TYPE: Mixed-use Development, Innovation District COST: $2.7 billion DESCRIPTION: Transformation of 800 acres of former military brownfields and underutilized land into a “green zone” that will serve as a clean technology hub. PROJECT OVERVIEW Vision For decades the site has been largely vacant and neglected; the neighborhood is characterized by high poverty and unemployment, aging infrastructure and significant environmental contamination. The vision of the project is to convert the former military lands and underutilized space into a hub of clean technology and innovation and a foundation for positive change at the local, regional and national levels. This vision for the project is rooted in sustainability—from its physical design to its social, economic, cultural, transportation, infrastructure and residential components. The project builds from the premise that what is locally transformative can be regionally and nationally transformative. In an effort to address the local conditions, the project incorporates an $83 million community benefits package, one-for-one phased redevelopment of the Alice Griffith public housing site, and scholarship and workforce development programs for local residents. ‘Green Zone’ in San Francisco The project is envisioned as a “green zone” in San Francisco, where the design, development, implementation, and practice of sustainable technologies is a dominant, celebrated theme. At the center of this strategy is a 3 million square foot “Clean Technology Hub,” an urban research and development campus focused on clean technology and other emerging industries. Plans for the Clean Technology Hub take a cue from the redevelopment of nearby Mission Bay, which uses the University of California to facilitate global thinking and collaborative competition. The first anchor tenant Clean Tech Hub will be the United Nations (UN) Global Compact Center. The UN Global Compact Center is a strategic policy initiative that focuses on green technology, international technology transfers, and climate change. Future Hunters Point Clean Technology Hub Opportunity for Neighborhood Residents Integrated with the Clean Technology Hub will be 12,100 residential units, approximately one-third of which will be offered at below market rates. The residential program includes affordable and workforce housing which enables employees to live near their jobs. The early phases of the development plans also include the reconstruction of the Alice Griffith public housing site, which will provide one-for-one replacement of the existing public housing units that are beyond repair. The reconstruction is led by McCormack Baron Salazar in partnership with Lennar Urban and will use land adjacent to the site to ensure that existing residents are able to move directly into new homes as they are completed. In addition, the project will include: Transformative Investments in the United States x x x x October 2011 352 acres (nearly 50 percent of project site) of public parks, recreational fields, open spaces, waterfront trails and plazas; New community services facilities, such as a fire station and school site; 225,000 square feet of new and renovated studio space for artists, including an arts education center to leverage the existing community of more than 300 artists; and 885,000 square feet of neighborhood and regional retail to improve access to goods and services in a historically underserved community. Background and Current Project Status Though designs for revitalization of the area have been under underway for more than 40 years, planning began in earnest following the passage of the Base Realignment and Closure Act (the Hunters Point Shipyard Naval Base closed in 1974), with the adoption of the first redevelopment plan in 1997. Work on Phase 1 of the project began in 2005 with conveyance of the first portion of the shipyard to the city’s Redevelopment Agency. In 2007 planning for Phase 2 of the shipyard was integrated with the nearby Candlestick Point stadium site, home to the San Francisco 49ers. In 2008 San Francisco voters approved a local ballot initiative that established the goals and principles that served as the basis for the current proposed project. In August 2010, all required local approvals and entitlements from the city’s Board of Supervisors, the Redevelopment Agency Commission and other city boards and commissions for the Phase 2 and Candlestick portions of the development. The development team is currently finalizing the permits as well as state and regional approvals needed to begin construction on the Phase 2/Candlestick Point project. The project is a public-private partnership between the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Lennar Urban. Phase 1, the development of the Hilltop and Hillside areas of Hunters Point Shipyard, is underway. All of the infrastructure needed to support development in this area has been completed and construction of the first residential units is scheduled to begin by the end of 2011. PROJECTED BENEFITS Long-term Economic Development San Francisco Innovation Corridor The Hunters Point Shipyard/Candlestick Point project is aligned with the region’s long-term economic strategy for focused urban development around transportation infrastructure at the region’s core. The Clean Technology Hub is a culmination of the city’s long-term strategy to develop an innovation corridor that reinforces technological, intellectual, cultural, and financial links among established and emerging firms, organizations, and institutions from the Financial District through Mission Bay to Hunters Point. The project will have several long-term economic and employment benefits to the city: x Environment: LEED-gold equivalent construction, innovations in public housing, waste management, environmental design, storm water management and energy efficiency. x Jobs: Over a 25-year timeline, the project will create approximately 1,500 annual construction jobs due to the horizontal and vertical improvements through the build out. The project will create an additional 12,200 permanent jobs across a wide range of industries and occupations, from entry-level to advanced, leading to aggregate wages of more than $1 billion per year. x Transit Accessibility: The project is located in southeast San Francisco, a neighborhood that is underserved by transit connections to the larger regional network. The project aims to remedy this problem by ensuring that 75 2 Transformative Investments in the United States October 2011 percent of project residents are within a quarter mile of transit. Dedicated express bus service will provide residents with direct service to downtown San Francisco and Transbay Transit Terminal. Bus rapid transit will create high-frequency connections to regional BART, Caltrain, and the T-Third Light Rail line. Regional and National Competitiveness of San Francisco Innovation Corridor The project reinforces the city’s vision of an innovation corridor within San Francisco that strengthens informal networks and creates spillover effects in the region’s core. In recent years, the region has seen a shift to new companies opening offices in San Francisco, from information technology to green building and design, life sciences, and clean technology. Over 220 clean technology companies are located in San Francisco, and in 2009 more than 50 percent of venture capital investment in San Francisco was directed toward clean technology companies. Between 2003 and 2010, clean technology jobs grew at an average rate of 5.4 percent a year in San Francisco, ahead of 4.2 percent pace of job creation nationally (Figures are from The Brookings Institution 2011 report, Sizing the Clean Economy: A National and Regional Green Jobs Assessment). Hunters Point Shipyard/Candlestick Point Community Benefits Plan An integral part of this project is the Community Benefits Agreement, a legally binding agreement between the developer and community organizations (the San Francisco Labor Council, the San Francisco Organizing Project and Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment) that sets forth conditions on the development of the project and ensures community support. Some of the proposed programs under the Community Benefits Agreement include: x Scholarship Fund/Education Improvement Fund: Developer will contribute $3.5 million to a scholarship fund that will support education opportunities for youths and adults (up to age 30) living in the district. The Education Improvement Fund provides $10 million to be used for education enhancements (to facilities or existing resources) in the Bayview Hunters Point area. x Community First Housing Fund: The contribution of $28.7 million to be held by San Francisco Foundation to assist qualifying residents in the purchase of market rate homes through opportunities like payment assistance, rent-to-own, and others. x Community Facilities: Dedicated space within buildings or dedicated land to provide community resources including social series, education, art, public safety facilities and other services. x Legacy Fund: A Community Benefits Fund of approximately $21.3 million that will be funded by contribution of .05 percent of the initial sale price of each market rate residential unit, deposited at close of escrow. x Workforce Development: A contribution of $8.9 million (with 100 percent in-kind match from the city) to the San Francisco Foundation to fund programs designed to create a gateway to career development for residents of the district. Included in the Community Benefits Agreement is a plan for no less than 31 percent of new housing units to be sold or rented at below-market-rate, well beyond the city ordinance of 15 percent and the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan benchmark of 25 percent. Fifteen percent of those units would be affordable housing rentals for families with incomes 60 percent below San Francisco average monthly income. FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT Project Costs The total cost for horizontal development of the site is approximately $2.7 billion. This includes the construction of the horizontal infrastructure including grading the site for development, building the backbone wet and dry utilities, building on and off-site public transportation improvements, completing public open space improvements, building new community and public facilities, and delivering sites for affordable housing and public housing projects to the Redevelopment Agency in developable condition. In addition, the U.S. Navy must complete almost $1 billion (not included in project costs) in site remediation from contamination left by shipyard activities prior to the transfer of land to the Redevelopment Agency. 3 Transformative Investments in the United States October 2011 Financing Structure The project is a public-private partnership, with funding coming from a combination of private capital and land-secured public financing. The private capital will be in the form of equity and debt amounting to $1.1 billion. Land-secured public financing for the construction of public infrastructure and community benefits is expected to amount to $1.5 billion. Land-secured financing uses tax-exempt financing tools made possible through the developer’s investment of private capital to capture tax revenues that would otherwise not exist. The tax-exempt financing will take the form of levying of special taxes in designated community facility districts and issuance of bonds supported by those taxes, and allocation of property tax increment associated with the new property tax revenues and issuance of tax allocation bonds. The primary source of repayment to the developer for investment in horizontal infrastructure will be the sale or lease of finished horizontal lots for “vertical” market rate development. Risk Sharing The cost of the project is projected over a long timeline—the project is anticipated to take at least 16 years to build and could take 25 years or longer depending market conditions. Thus, significant capital is invested upfront with revenues not anticipated to be generated until much later. The financing structure allows the developer to receive a risk-adjusted market rate of return with no financial downside risk to the city. BARRIERS State and Federal Regulatory Barriers In June 2011, the Governor signed, ABXI 26 and 27 into law as a part of a large budget package to reduce the state’s $9.6 billion deficit. ABXI 26 eliminates all of California’s redevelopment agencies effective October 1, 2011. ABXI 27 allows the city to avoid dissolution of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency by opting into an “alternative voluntary redevelopment program” requiring substantial annual contributions to local schools and special districts. Opting into this program would constrain the city budget, costing $20 million to $25 million in fiscal year 2011-2012, and $4 million to $6 million annually after that. Recently, the Court has granted a stay on the ABXI 26 and 27 due to a pending lawsuit, and while this delays the possible dissolution of redevelopment agencies, it prohibits them from engaging in any new activity including issuing bonds, gaining land, or pursuing new projects. The project also requires environmental review under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) due to use of federal and state funds and the scale of the project. The NEPA review involves four different agencies, each with different interpretations and guidance. Working with the NEPA division offices causes significant delays (up to two years in some cases) due to the overwhelming task of the review. These thresholds related to traffic, noise, air, and water quality and other impacts are often incompatible with the goals of projects like this as they do not properly account for the environmental benefits which accrue from urban infill development. Financing Barriers In addition to private and local sources of funding, the project has also pursued federal and state grant programs. These grant programs are generally not calibrated for large complex, multi-year economic development projects. For example, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program funds projects that are “shovel ready” or will deliver immediate increases to employment, both which are out of step with the long-term timeline of a large urban development project like Hunters Point. Another U.S. DOT program, Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) allows an entity to secure financing early in the project development, before the project has generated enough revenue to pay back its loans, but it requires project to have an “investment grade rating” to do so. This is a challenge for the Hunters Point project because it is hard to determine the value of the land because horizontal infrastructure has to be built first. On the state level, a $2.85 billion bond measure for infill housing financial assistance was passed in California in 2006, but it requires the project to be completed in six years. The long-term timeline and structural nature of the project causes it to be left out of these types of grant programs that are looking for increases in jobs, economic impact and housing in the short term. 4 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Friday, November 11, 2011 Contact: Mayor’s Office of Communications, 415-554-6131 *** PRESS RELEASE *** HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD – CANDLESTICK POINT PROJECT RECOGNIZED AS NATIONAL TRANSFORMATIVE INVESTMENT Development Project Earns Top Recognition by Brookings Institution & Others San Francisco, CA—Mayor Edwin M. Lee today announced that the Hunters Point Shipyard – Candlestick Point redevelopment project has been selected as one of just three Transformative Investments in the United States by the Brookings Institution. “All of San Francisco should be proud that the Hunters Point Shipyard – Candlestick Point project is being recognized as a national model for new development,” said Mayor Lee. “Many residents, particularly from the Bayview and Hunters Point neighborhoods, have worked long hours to provide input and guidance for the much-needed redevelopment of this area, and the City will move forward without delay to transform the blighted shipyard to bring new housing, parks and thousands of jobs to the Southeast community.” The Brookings Institution, a leading nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, D.C., and Lazard, one of the nation’s top financial advisory and asset-management firms, hosted a forum in October on Transformative Investments in the United States. Experts selected three projects currently underway as models for transformative physical, social and economic change toward a more productive, sustainable and inclusive economy, at either the metropolitan, regional or national scale. “San Francisco’s Shipyard project is both physically and economically transformative for the Bay Area and globally significant,” said Brookings Vice President and Director of the Metropolitan Policy Program Bruce Katz. “The effort is exceptional in its scale and scope by seamlessly integrating a new clean tech innovation district and broader urban revitalization. It is the result of creative private and public sector leadership, and extraordinarily inclusive community engagement in the planning and development process. This project promises to set a new paradigm for successfully conceiving, financing, and delivering transformative infrastructure projects in the United States.” Hunters Point Shipyard – Candlestick Point is the largest redevelopment effort in San Francisco since the 1906 earthquake. This $8 billion, 700-acre development project will transform a former military base into a thriving community of more than 25,000 residents in San Francisco’s southeast corner. In additional to homes, the sustainable and green project will include office, research and development, retail and arts and community spaces, which will create more than 12,000 permanent jobs. Some 350 acres will be parkland. The project continues to attract interest from investors. The City’s selected development partner, Lennar Urban, is continuing meetings with potential investors in China this month. Recognition from Brookings is just the latest honor for the San Francisco project. Hunters Point Shipyard – Candlestick Point also received the prestigious Gold Nugget Grand Award at the Pacific Coast Builders Conference in San Francisco earlier this year and received the award for Best “On the Boards” Site plan, competing against national and international entries. The project also received the Hard Won Victory award from the American Planning Association’s California chapter, which is given for a planning initiative “undertaken by a community, neighborhood, citizens group or jurisdiction in the face of difficult or trying circumstances.” ### Francis Tsang Chief Deputy Communications Director Office of Mayor Edwin M. Lee 415.554.6467 San . I Water k? Sewer dl?t?lmm momma? EDWIN M. LEE MAYOR ANSON MORAN PRESIDENT ART TORRES VICE FRESSDENT ANN MULLER CAEN COMMISSIONER Francesca wares VINCE COURTNEY GOWISSDHER ED HARRINGTON GENERAL MANNEER SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 1755 Market 31.. 11th Floor. San Francisco, CA 94103 - Tel. {415) 554-3155 Fax {415) 5544161 - TTY {415] 554.3433 AGENDA ITEM #53 December 9, 201] LETTERS RECEIVED FROM November 10,2011 TO December 9, 2011 RECEIVED FROMSENT T0 Mayor Ed Lee President Anson B. Moran President Anson B. Moran Ed Harrington, General Manager Ed Harrington, General Manager Dr. Don Q. Griffin, Chancellor, City College of San Francisco Ivy Fine, Manager of Contracts Alameda County Supervisor Scott Haggerty 85 Supervisor Nadia Lockyer SUMMARY November 11, 2011 Press release Hunters Point Shipyard Candlestick Point Project recognized as national transfonnative investment November 9. 2011 email to the Commissioners requesting their review and suggestions for updating the Commission?s Rules of Order November 17, 2011 Letter to Mr. Mike Marshall Executive Director, Restore Hetch Hetchy regarding his request for a hearing November 10.. 2011 the O?Shaughnessy Reservation Quarterly Report November 17. 2011 Letter to Southeast Community Facility Commission re SFPUC and . CCSF Collaboration and Commitment to the Southeast Community November 14. 2011 - Copy of memorandum regarding Contract Advertisement Report: November 22, 2011, meeting. December ?011 Copy of memorandum regarding Contract Advertisement Report: December 13, 20] 1, meeting November 28, 2011 Letter regarding SFPUC activities in the Sunol Valley. Of?ce of the Mayor . Edwin M. Lee City a County ol ban Faun-ism FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Friday, November 1 l, 20] I Contact: Mayor?s Office of Communications, 4 I 5654-6131 PRESS RELEASE HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD CAN DLESTICK POINT PROJECT RECOGNIZED AS NATIONAL TRANSFORMATIVE INVESTMENT Development Project Earns Top Recognition by Brookings Institution Others San Francisco, CA?Mayor Edwin M. Lee today announced that the Hunters Point Shipyard Candlestick Point redevelopment project has been selected as one of just three Trans-formative Investments in the United States by the Brookings Institution. ?All of San Francisco should be proud that the Hunters Point Shipyard Candlestick Point project is being recognized as a national model for new development,? said Mayor Lee. ?Many residents, particularly from the Bayview and Hunters Point neighborhoods, have worked long hours to provide input and guidance for the much-needed redevelopment of this area, and the City will move forward without delay to transform the shipyard to bring new housing, parks and thousands of jobs to the Southeast community.? The Brookings Institution, :1 leading nonpro?t public policy organization based in Washington, D.C., and Lazard, one of the nation?s top ?nancial advisory and asset-management firms, hosted a forum in October on Investments in the United States. Experts selected three projects currently underway as models for transforrnative physical, social and economic change toward a more productive, sustainable and inclusive economy, at either the metropolitan, regional or national scale. ?San rancisco?s Shipyard project is both physically and economically transformative for the Bay Area and globally significant," said Brookings Vice President and Director of the MetrOpolitan Policy Program Bruce Katz. ?The effort is exceptional in its scale and scope by seamlessly integrating a new clean tech innovation district and broader urban revitalization. [t is the result of creative private and public sector leadership, and extraordinarily inclusive community engagement in the planning and development process. This project promises to set a new paradigm for Successfully conceiving, ?nancing, and delivering transformative infrastructure projeCts in the United States.? Hunters Point Shipyard Candlestick Point is the largest redevelopment effort in San Francisco since the 1906 earthquake. This $8 billion, TOD?acre development project will transform a former military base into a thriving community of more than 25,000 residents in San rancisco?s southeast corner. In additional to homes, the sustainable and green project will include office, research and development, retail and arts and community spaces, which will create more than 12,000 permanentjobs. Some 350 acres will be parkland. The project continues to attract interest from investors. The City?s selected development partner, Leaner Urban, is continuing meetings with potential investors in China this month. Dr. Carlton B. Goodletl Place, Room 200, San Pmnciscu. California 94103?46? Hm 534-514: From Bruce To: Chris Marlin Cc: Roberta, Carrie, Marek, Sue Chris, I am really looking forward to seeing you at our Met Council meeting at which time I can thank you in person for Lennar’s continued, and increased, commitment to the Metro Program. We really value and count on support from those whose vision and work matches our own, and it is helpful and validating to know Lennar will be with us. Marek has shared with me that you feel Lennar cannot make a formal multi-year commitment as is our typical Met Council membership, which we understand. It is, however, our sincere hope that you view our work as contributing to the long-term health of Lennar and the U.S. economy, and therefore, while not in writing, will consider support for Metro beyond FY13. We have no doubt that Metro and Lennar will collaborate for the foreseeable future. Let me know what questions you have for me. And I look forward to seeing you on November 14th. Best, Bruce BROOKINGS 1 ii; Msuusenusetts Avenue Nw VOICE De leleuilulleQOZ igi bDOfl November 2,2012 Christian Marlin Deputy General Counsel Thank you for your support, which helps ensure Brookings's ability to conduct high- quality, independent research and provide innovative, practical recommendations to solve the world's greatest challenges. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Payment to support the Metropolitan Policy Program and renew $100,000 membership in the Metropolitan Leadership Council( TOTAL $100,000 Please print below how you would like your name to appear in the Annual Report and other acknowledgment materials: To MAKE A PAYMENT Please make checks payable to the Institution and send to: Kimberly cnurenes, Vice President rm Development The Emokings institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington DC 20035 Broakings is a non-profit. 501(c)3 organization (Federal Tax ID is 53-0196577). Contributions are tax-deductible as allowed by u.s. law. Thank you far your support. BROOKINGS Participants~ Bruce Katz and Kofi Banner Wednesday, March 19, 2014; Phone -- Bruce will call Kofi's assistant, Kitti, and be placed through Call Purpose/I'alfillg Points: 0 This call was scheduled as part of a recommendation hum Roberta that Bruce make the direct pitch to ani for Lennar's support of SiE's Innovation Districts Work at Kofi remarked to Roberta that he believes he can only do $50,000: If he pushes back on the Roberta thinks she could work with Bob Linscheid to raise, from a number of possible sources, the additional needed to realize the ID work in S.F. Bruce: 1) Good seeing you last month in Sacramento 2) Sorry we didn't get a chance to really catch up but so glad that you have been granted nonrresident scholar statuss lots to do together (see below for outline of his role) 3) I wanted to talk to you today about Lennar's support of our Innovation Districts work around Hunter '5 Point and really hope that you'll be able to make a contribution to the effun 4) Provide update on the ID paper to be released this spring and the other IDs popping up around the country; talk about upcoming trip to Pittsburgh Additional Background; 0 Kofi's role at Brookings was toreseen as: 0 He would be a trusted advisor in the toll out of our innovation districts paper, with San Francisco and Hunters Point as key innovation districts to watch. We anticipated working closely with Lennar on this ettort; Brookings would travel to San Francisco atter the paper is released and discuss a major San Francisco play with Mayor Lee and major business stakeholders from Market Street, Mission Bay, and Hunter '5 Point: 0 CosauLhoring an Dpsed on market potentials for innovation districts. Recent Contacts with ani Rnherta: 0 February 26, 20147 Bruce saw Roberta and Kofi in Sacramento but not able to connect on Lennar's gilt January 23, 20147 Roberta met with Bruce, then Liza to discuss ID work, Lennar's contribution to the effort, and Kofi's designation as a nonresident scholar September, 20137 Bruce and Liza spent luts of time with Kofi and Roberta in San Franciscu, including reception at the home of Joyce Newstat and Susan Lowenberg Lennar Giving to B1: 0 Liza Cole 7 6069 Lennar has given in total to Metro; The last gift was in December 2012 for 3/18/14 4:30pm BROOKINGS RESEARCH EVENTS EXPERTS SUPPORT BROOKINGS Former pert Kofi Bonner ca "53' Nonresident Senior Fellow. Metropolitan Policy Program .0, Print Bio l0 BDHHEF Full Biography Kofi Bonner serves as regional vice president of Lennar Urban. In this role, Bonner oversees all land acquisition and urban development activities in Northern California, including the Hunters Point Shipyard: Candlestick Point and Treasure Island developments. The Hunters Point Shipyard-Candlestick Point revitalization project is possibly the largest urban redevelopment project in the country with over 000 acres. 12.000 homes. 3.000.000 square feet of Business and Industrial space. and 000.000 sq. ft. of retail. This project has received numerous awards. including the Grand Award from the Pacific Coast Building Council. the Best Land Plan 2010. San Francisco. and recently has been named a finalist forthe World Architecture Festival Award. Located in the middle ofthe San Francisco Bay. the Treasure island development includes 0000 homes. 200.000 so. it. of retail and commercial space and 300 acres of parkland. The sustainable aspects of the development plan have been widely acclaimed and have received the Clinton Global initiative Sustainable Development Award. The Development received approval from the City of San Francisco in .June 2011. Born in Ghana. Bonner began his career as an affordable housing developer for Oakland Community Housing Inc.. and then in 1000 served as head of redevelopment in Emeryville. in this capacity. he played a crucial role in planning and developing the public financing and infrastructure, and attracting key businesses that led to the successful transformation of Emeryville from an aging industrial city to a mixed use mecca fortechnology companies and high end retail and housing. Bonner later held the positions deputy executive director of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and director of community and economic development forthe City of Oakland. in 1005. he became the interim city manager for the City of Oakland where he helped lead efforts to revitalize the city's downtown neighborhood. During his term as Mayor. the Honorable Willie L. Brown appointed Bonner to serve as his chief economic policy advisor. Bonner was in charge ofleading the major redevelopment projects and economic growth in San Francisco. including planning and implementing the redevelopment of the City's Mission Bay neighborhood. From 1000 through 2004. Bonner wasthe executive vice president and chief administrative or?cer for the Cleveland Browns where he was responsible for the business affairs of the team. Additionally: he directed the construction of the 0:100 million Cleveland Browns Stadium. Later. Bonner became the regional director and executive vice president of MBNA. Bonner is a 2011 UC Berkeley College of Environmental Design distinguished fellow and a member of the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Leadership Council= a non-profit public Policy "thinktank" organization based in Washington. DC. He is also a member of Lambda Alpha International. a Land Economics society where he recently received the Member ofthe Year" Award. He serves on the boards of the Bay Area Council, UC Berkeleyis College of Environmental Design Alumni Association. and Executive Committee of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Bonnerfregoently guest lectures and speaks upon requests from UC Berkeley Haas Business School. Urban Land Institute and the Executive Leadership Program at UC Davis. Bonner. received a Bachelor of Science degree with honors from the University of Science and Technology in Ghana. He holds Masters degrees in City planning and Architecture from the University of California. Berkeley. Bonner is married to Gladys and has three children. Conference Call Agenda April 14, 2014 1:15 PST / 4:15 p.m. EST Liza will call Bob at: 415-352-8820 Bob Linscheid, President & CEO of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce with Liza Cole, Corporate Relations Manager of Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program I. Overview of Brookings Innovation Districts work i. Bruce’s upcoming paper II. Update on Brookings-Lennar partnership i. Kofi as non-resident senior fellow ii. Recent discussions III. Potential role for the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce i. Host forums, act as convenor, other opportunities? IV. Role for universities- CSU and UC V. Prospect Outreach i. Wells Fargo ii. Yingli Energy iii. Medium/small tech start-ups (ie. Square) iv. Ron Conway v. Dick Blum and Diane Feinstein as validators/connectors The Bmokings Institution Lennar Call Briefing Meeting Participants: Bruce Katz, Jenniter Vey and Liza Cole with Koti Bonner and Robena Achtenherg (Lennar) and Bob Linscheid (SF Chamber) Date/Time: Tuesday May 6, 2014 Location: Bruce's office: Phone: _Vbdemion Bru- Purpose of the Meeting: Discuss specific opportunities for the partnership around "Innovation Alley" (outlined in background sections below) Taudng points: 0 Thank Lennar for its recent payment towards Met Council membership received last week); Discuss Innovation Districts paper release on June 9"2 excited to have Kofi's participation in the event (now at Brooking - Bruce will send drafts of both long and short papers tomorrow (they are going through a round of ed this evening): Respond directly to Kofi's vision for our partnership; Discuss specific next steps for our Collaboration, including pol hle trip to SF. in September around the SF Forecast event; convenings with tech companies; and meetings with prospective funders Background: . Koti sees participation for the innovation Alley as: 1) Creating the early narrative 2) Putting the essential components together 3) Branding it well and purposelully- something that will resonate locally and internationally 4) Creating dynamic hetween the commercial side of the district and the housing side 5) Convening forums in the City and Silicon Valley to highlight how the collaborations and plans provide 'value upon value" for the businesses, the City and the developers 6) Establishing a system of metrics to measure success, and to provide opportunities to -calihrate the plan as it expands into the remaining 25 million sfol entitled commercial space in the remainder oi the Shipyard 7) Creating a San Francisco Challenge with CEO participation (something we had previously discussed hut not in his recent email) . Koti highlighted 2 important upcoming changes that will aid the development otlnnovation Alley 1) Navy moving out and will hand offAO acres 2) Commercial market is experiencing a boom . Koti wants to include universities and schools into the mix 1) San Francisco State University has interest in moving their engineering program 2) Also interest trom the school district to create a STEM high school at the Shipyard SF Chamber ot Commerce is willing to act as the connector and convenor We discussed with Bob Linscheid his willingness to help reach out to possible prospects, including Wells Fargo Foundation, IBM and other board members of the Chamber BI mg Hislury: . lennar has given a total ot with a recent gin oi Hem-rt: bm??nswdu an RESEARCH EVENTS SUPPORT BROOKINGS PAS-T EVENT EVENT 9 The Rise of Innovation Districts: A New Geography of Innovation in America ?video Audio What Are Innovation Districts? High'ights Eta? - Jr; i= Happens Anywhere and Evelywhere Kofi Bonner. Lennar Communities: "Growing innovation" tal-tes connectivity and capital. To the extent that innovation is present bringing foruvard the connectivity and the capital should enable jurisdictions to create something at least the Summary Details June 9. 2014 Arvl - art-I EDT Brookings Institution Fallt Auditorium r-.-lassacnusetts NJN. lvlap FOR MORE INFORMATION I I l?llLl The geography? of innovation is shifting and a new model for innovative grovvth is emerging. In contrast to suburban corridors of isolated corporate campuses. innovation districts combine research institutions. innovativetimis and business incubators with the benefits of urban living. These districts have the unique potential to spur productive. sustainable and inclusive economic development On June 9. the Metropolitan PDiiEv Program at Elroolcings released 'The Rise of Innovation Districts." a new report analvzing this trend. The authors ofthe paper. Eurool-cings ?v?ice President Bmce Katz and Nonresident Senior Fellow Julie Wagner. were joined by leaders from emerging innovation districts across the country to discuss this shift and provide guidance to LI 5 metro areas on ways to harness its potential. Join the conversation on Twitter using #InnovationDistricts Presentation by Bruce Kat: 1 INNOVATION-2014/06/09 THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION THE RISE OF INNOVATION DISTRICTS: A NEW GEOGRAPHY OF INNOVATION IN AMERICA Washington, D.C. Monday, June 9, 2014 Opening Remarks: BENJAMIN R. JACOBS Senior Advisor and Co-Founder The JBG Companies Presentation: BRUCE KATZ Vice President and Director, Metropolitan Policy Program The Adeline M. and Alfred I. Johnson Chair in Urban and Metropolitan Policy The Brookings Institution Moderator: LYDIA DEPILLIS Reporter The Washington Post Panelists: KOFI BONNER Regional Vice President Lennar Communities JOHN A. FRY President Drexel University NICOLE FICHERA General Manager Boston District Hall JULIE WAGNER Nonresident Senior Fellow The Brookings Institution ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 706 Duke Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703) 519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 22 INNOVATION-2014/06/09 rooms that can be rented for different things. So it’s really meant as a gathering place. We have quite a lot of co-working spaces and office spaces that give people a permanent place to call home. But it’s a place to kind of strengthen strong ties and work on that kind of weak ties network that Bruce was really talking about and how can we bring those two together so we’re building trust face-to-face as people connect with each other, see each other over and over again and you sort of understand that, yes, there really is a community here that we can connect into. MS. DEPILLIS: Does it pay for itself or does the city just (inaudible)? MS. FICHERA: No, it’s actually it’s privately funded and built so I would say it’s a public private partnership with a triple capital P. It was a public vision from the Mayor’s office to have this gathering place for the innovation district. It was privately funded and built by Boston Global Investors as part of their 23-acre Seaport Square development really as a community benefit as a part of their larger master plan. And then it’s actually run by the Venture Café Foundation, which is the not-for-profit sort of sister organization to the Cambridge Innovation Center, which we’ve heard about today also. So it’s really this kind of public vision, private funding and private operation that really keeps it going. But it’s a civic space. We have sponsors. We’re a non-profit space as well. So it’s a combination of sort of event revenue along with sponsorship revenues that really keep us going and we’ve been open for, you know, eight months or something now so check back with us in a year and. MS. DEPILLIS: All right, Kofi, so you’re current baby is Hunters Point Shipyard. Tell us how big that is. What it means. Where it is in San Francisco, and how it fits in to some of the concerns we see with the tech economy, perhaps driving a little bit of inequality, and just a really inflated housing bubble in San Francisco. MR. BONNER: Sure, thank you. I will say, Nicole, don’t be surprised if I ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 706 Duke Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703) 519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 23 INNOVATION-2014/06/09 steal the idea of District Hall and recreate it -MS. FICHERA: You won’t be the first one. MR. BONNER: -- in the shipyard. I think it’s fabulous. You’re doing a great job there. So, yes, I am working in San Francisco in a fabulous property. It’s 800 acres. Eight hundred acres about 15 minutes from the financial center of downtown and 10 minutes from the airport. It’s in the southeastern part of the city and right on the edge of the Hunters Point Bayview Community. And to any of you that may know San Francisco, you would know that the Bayview-Hunters Point Community is a fabulously proud and historic community, but it is also the area that has a significant amount of underemployment and unemployment. And so we work very closely with the community there. So 800 acres, the property was formerly a naval shipyard, a decommissioned naval shipyard. The property also includes the former home now of the San Francisco 49ers as they’re moving down the street to Santa Clara. And the property also entails about a 300-home community that’s a public housing development. So we are working with some fairly interesting properties in that portion of town. What we’re working on directly, we started construction, is building 12,500 homes in a variety of prototypes, from walk-up apartments, townhomes, to high rises. We also will be building about 800,000 square feet of not just regional serving retail, but also neighborhood amenities. And, of course, we’ll be providing another three and a half million square feet of office and commercial space and R&D space in San Francisco. All these properties are linked with fiber, of course, all linked by 300 acres of Waterfront Park, and they’re also linked by a bus rapid transit system. I think perhaps what’s most interesting and most pertinent perhaps to today’s conversation, is those things that we’re very purposefully doing. We’re working ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 706 Duke Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703) 519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 24 INNOVATION-2014/06/09 with the mayor’s office and the Chamber of Commerce to really introduce some key components that we think are critical to the future sustainable development of this property. There’s no question, as you mentioned, Nicole, that there are a number of very large developments that in and of themselves are livable. They’re green, will lead and be gold, and they will essentially be sustainable. But I think the critical piece here is we’re going out and looking for very specific components to bring to this community. We’re working with a major university in town to bring their STEM campus on the ground and we would hope that over the next six months, we’ll be able to initiate the planning and programming for about 300,000 square feet of as I say, a STEM campus there. And the conversation so far has been quite exciting. There’s a notion of introducing a high school adjacent to that university piece to also bring some talented high school folks onto the property. We’re also working very closely with some potential technology companies that are currently located in San Francisco, but unfortunately are feeling some of the pressures from the fairly significant growth in the tech industry there. It’s no secret that San Francisco has become a fabulous tech hub over the last few years and more recently, many of the Silicon Valley companies are beginning to move their offices into San Francisco further exacerbating some of the pressures in the commercial space. So we have the opportunity to really work with some of those companies that perhaps haven’t yet matured to the let’s say the Ciscos and the Googles, et cetera, but are really doing innovative work in the city. And we’re working with the Chamber of Commerce and the mayor’s office to retain those companies and have them grow and thrive within the city, and we’d like to create those spaces. We recently received approval for an artist studio. There are currently 300 artists working in the shipyard. Well, we just think that creative energy should be ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 706 Duke Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703) 519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 25 INNOVATION-2014/06/09 retained as part of our overall development. So we’ve created and received approvals for a new artist studio and we’ll obviously work very closely with the artists to bring that energy and sort of a hipness, if you will, to the shipyard. So we think these key components in addition to sort of more than mundane redevelopment and community development type features that are already imbedded in the plan, will only, again, make sure that we add value, not only to the adjacent communities, but also to the city, and obviously to our bottom line too. And I will add that as part of our relationship with the community, we’re working very, very closely with a number of key non-profits within the community and a Citizens Advisory Commission that is located in the city. And we provide a significant amount of funding and opportunity to not only provide funding for variety of very important social needs, but we also have local hire requirements and job training facilities that we hope will enable the folks working through the unions to transition onto our properties and ultimately frankly not only work in our properties and gain a, you know, really sustainable wages, but ultimately to live on the properties and grow their families right there within the neighborhood in which they were born. So we’re quite excited by the opportunities. MS. DEPILLIS: Such a cool opportunity to be able to work with that amount of space. And I should also mention that Kofi worked on the Mission Bay, which is another giant rapidly developing space on the waterfront. Julie comes to us from Europe, where she’s worked in depth in a bunch of cities and so what are they doing that we’re not? What can we learn from them? Anything or is it all a one way transaction? MS. WAGNER: Oh, no, it’s definitely two-way, definitely. They’re learning as much from us as, frankly, as we can learn from them. So Europe has a number of innovation districts and they are highly distinctive from one another, which is a ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 706 Duke Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703) 519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 39 INNOVATION-2014/06/09 make that adjustment? How do you pivot in a way that you make sure that you're standing true to your principles? I mean, this is really what they are -- this is how they are operating even still today. They are consistently reevaluating how they are doing and where they need to go. MR. BONNER: So I have -- I have two, sort of, responses I think. One is sort of specifically with what we are doing. You know, we are fortunate in that we have 800 acres, and in the 800 acres we are building 12,500 homes. Within the 12,500 homes we have a variety of housing types. As I said earlier, we have town homes, we have podium products, we have apartments and we have high rises. And within some of the homes we also have what we -- multi-generational type facilities, so people, of various ages and maturities can live within the same home. But I think the key point is, as part of the negotiation with the city and the community, we have 32 percent of those homes will be affordable. And the key with the city was to ensure that the affordability was over a very wide spectrum. It's not just the sort of public housing, low income, very low income families, but also the workforce families. And so we have -- of the -- as I said, 32 percent of the homes will be affordable, and it's, again, sprinkled in a -- almost exactly the same kinds of homes as the folks who will be living in the market-rate homes. And I think that’s important for any real thinking of development in a fairly significant scale. So that’s how we are dealing with it, and obviously there are people who have the access to all the amenities living within the community. But there's no question, that housing is a significant issue. I mean, San Francisco is blessed with this wonderful surge in job growth, and with that creates a variety of issues that you are probably experiencing here. But part of that problem, as somebody who used to work in the public ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 706 Duke Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703) 519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 40 INNOVATION-2014/06/09 sector for many, many years, is the fundamental way we look at the creation and distribution of housing. We think of housing as a local asset, and we think of jobs as a local asset. Actually they are regional. If you think about, both housing and jobs are regional assets. Unfortunately, the job that’s created in San Francisco the person may be living in another city, and would like to live in San Francisco, and that’s what we are trying to deal with, but the city in which they live may have a pretty politically stern policy against certain kinds of homes. And that happens in the Bay Area, unfortunately, quite a bit. There are some cities that have some of the highest office rents, have a very low density of, say, housing policy. And I always sort of go back to how we think about these assets. So one of the reasons we are never done, is because we continue to think about them in a less-than-strategic fashion, and we tend to think about them -MS. FICHERA: Well, that wasn’t my point, but you know -MR. BONNER: But that’s how -- unfortunately that’s the result of what happens if you -- if one city has to try to deal with the jobs-housing balance -SPEAKER: Yeah. MR. BONNER: -- and another city says, well we want the jobs, we don't want the housing. And another says, you know, we'll do the housing and we don't want -you know, it goes on and on, you will never, in a region, ever get to that balance where everybody actually wants the jobs and the -- and the tax dollars associated with the jobs. So I would just say that from within our development, we think we have a policy in place that is quite egalitarian in some respects, but even when we are finished, and we are hugely successful, this problem will remain. MR. FRY: Right. Ad new shouldn’t forget the importance of local ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 706 Duke Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703) 519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 Innovation Districts Opportunities for Support and Engagement Presented to Lennar Urban July 2014 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program (Metro Program) respectfully requests that Lennar Urban consider a contribution of $50,000 to the Metro Program’s Innovation District Initiative. This gift will allow the Metro Program to counsel Lennar as it realizes an “Innovation Alley” around Hunters Point. Our proposed work with Lennar would be a key component of Brookings’ new research, policy, and network building initiative aimed at helping metropolitan areas—with support from state, federal, and private sector partners—take crucial steps toward creating and implementing Innovation Districts. Driven by a series of profound demographic, economic, and cultural forces, innovation districts are a cutting-edge, place-based economic strategy for cities and metropolitan areas pursuing an innovation-driven economy. As part of the Innovation Districts Initiative, Brookings will directly engage with several cities that are seeking to establish innovation districts, or are already in various stages of development and implementation. Overall, we will continue to develop and disseminate the research and framework so stakeholders better understand the paradigm. This will provide cities and metropolitan areas the information and tools needed to establish and develop their own innovation districts. We will conduct research on financing models, and work with private sector partners to create tools or modify existing models to support the development of innovation districts. Additionally, we will connect these cities with their peers and to appropriate experts, both informally and through meetings and events. Support from Lennar, and other intellectual partners, will help Brookings accomplish these ambitious goals. More specifically, a formal collaboration with Lennar will allow Brookings to help Lennar realize its goals around the Hunters Point Innovation Alley. II. SCOPE OF ENGAGEMENT WITH LENNAR With the development of Innovation Alley, Lennar is at the cusp of delivering a unique and impactful economic, demographic, and social trend to the Bay Area. Lennar’s work at Hunter’s Point will provide a district full of flexible, affordable space around which collaborative and innovative ecosystems are built. Learning lessons from other re-imagined urban area models, Lennar can take advantage of best practices in other markets to incorporate into Innovation Alley. And, as it has done so well already, Lennar can continue to tap into San Francisco’s innovative climate to foster collaboration between entrepreneurs and global organizations. Brookings can play a distinct and supportive role in the formation of Lennar’s Innovation Alley. First—and at the heart of this engagement—we can use our convening power, research expertise, network connections, and knowledge of innovative practices to help further drive the ultimate impact and success of Lennar’s Innovation Alley. Second, we can facilitate peer-to-peer learning and information exchange between San Francisco and other cities, both in the Bay Area and nationally, that are at various stages of designing and implementing an Innovation District Strategy. Finally, Brookings can engage with national media to develop stories that highlight Lennar’s innovative approach. 1 To these ends, the Brookings Metro Program will specifically: x x x x III. Conduct a private assessment of Lennar’s work providing feedback on successful components and identifying any “issue areas”; Provide public validation of San Francisco’s efforts through national and local media coverage, placement on Metro’s website as a best-in-class re-imagined urban area model, and Brookings’ participation at the Fall 2014 Forecast SF event; Provide connections to and networking opportunities with other organizations and practitioners engaged in Innovation District efforts across the country. This peer-to-peer learning will foster discussion on best practices in the development and implementation of innovation districts. Engage with regional economic development leaders in Fremont, Alameda, Vallejo, Oakland and Concord to identify strategic opportunities to promote economic growth in the East Bay. CONCLUSION We believe that Lennar is at the cusp of showing that the re-imagination of urban areas can be spearheaded by savvy developers working with business, civic, philanthropic, and educational leaders. Innovation Alley will serve as a template for future metropolitan areas to emulate as they strive to repurpose underutilized neighborhoods into hubs of innovation and economic growth. A collaboration with Brookings will provide Lennar with a private assessment of its work, public validation of its efforts in the Bay Area, and networking opportunities with leaders across the country. We look forward to continuing our discussions to further develop this synergistic relationship. Thank you for your consideration of our proposal. ʹ BROOKINGS 1 us Mauuatnusetts Avenue NW ngtan DL 20036: July 9, 2014 Mr. Kofi Bonner President Lennar Urban One California 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Thank you for your support. This gift helps Brookings maintain its ability to conduct high-quality, Independent research and analysis and provide innovative, practical recommendations to metro areas as they act on some oftheir greatest economic opportunities and challenges. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Payment to support the Metropolitan Policy Program's $50,000 Innovation District work in San Francisco Retererite. Metro Number. 72304033767001 TOTALV $50,000 Please print below how you would like your name to appear in the Brookings Annual Report and other acknowledgment materials: To MAKE A PAYMENT Please make checks payable to the Funds may be wired directly to Wells Fargo: institution and send to: The Brookings institution Klmberly Churches, Vlce President for To contribute by credit card please Visit supportbmokings edu Please note that can Brookings is a non-profit. 501(c)(3) organization (Federal Tax ID is 53-0196577). Contributions are tax-deductible as allowed by u.s. law. Thank you far your support. Date: September 10, 2014 Location: Julia Morgan Ballroom – 465 California Street, San Francisco Time: 7:00-11:00 AM Theme: Managing Economic Success and Growing Innovation Focus: The Metropolitan Revolution: How Cities and Metros Are Fixing Our Broken Politics and Fragile Economy Confirmed Speakers: x x John Silvia - Managing Director, Chief Economist – Wells Fargo Bruce Katz - Vice President at the Brookings Institution and Founding Director, Metropolitan Policy Program The Adeline M. and Alfred I. Johnson Chair in Urban and Metropolitan Policy. Co-author of The Metropolitan Revolution Panel on Innovation Districts: x Former Mayor Will L. Brown, Jr., President Leslie Wong, SF State, Nancy McFadden, Chief of Staff-Governor of California, Kim Majerus, Vice President, US Public Sector- Cisco Systems o Moderated by Kofi Bonner, Lennar Urban Draft Agenda: 7:00-8:00 AM 8:10-8:20 AM 8:20-9:00 AM 9:10-9:20 AM 9:20-9:50 AM 9:50-10:00 AM 10:00-10:05AM 10:05-10:30 AM 10:30-10:50 AM 10:50-11:00 AM Registration, Continental Breakfast, Networking Welcome and Introduction John Silvia – Managing Economic Success and Innovation Acceleration Audience Q&A (prescreened written questions) Featured Speaker: Bruce Katz: The Metropolitan Revolution: How Cities and Metros Are Fixing Our Broken Politics and Fragile Economy Introduction of the Innovation District Panel and Moderator Perspective on Innovation Districts from a development opportunity Panel Discussion: Innovation Districts Q&A Next Steps and Concluding Remarks Top Sponsors: Wells Fargo, Dignity Health, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Hathaway Dinwiddie, Kaiser Permanente, Lennar Urban, Webcor August 25, 2014 Mett'txpulimu Policy 8201: Progmm we, Mr Chris Maan Preswdem urn DEM wank you for Lsnna' \nternatmnm'scommune"! to me Mama Program, (hereby sururinfi mumbeuhp m. we Mutmpuhldn LeddL-rs'uu Comm {Mm Commfl). We are gratefulfor emu:de partnersh wim lennar' Your 0150,0005 payamr In ME Rrookmgfi ms [on two of $25,000 each, mums 30, 2015 am December 31, 2015. We terms of agreewent are sansfacm'v you, mease sign below and remm It to the auenuan of Liza Co'e ax --or at my above address, your est com/e" once markvou agam 'or you'stport, cm, and I 'ook forward to oJrconaborajon S'ncevmy, Bruce Kan We President and Dwreclor Accou 4 m; Milr'lr Dom Hamburg Trip Itinerary A5 aflune 19, 1015 Tuesday, June 13,1015 10:30 am -- 11:30 am 3:00 pm -- 5:00 pm 3:00 pm 4:30 pm -- 5:00 pm Coffee/Meeting with Roberta, Kof'l Chris, nanny, Sheryl and Jul'le Meet in hotel lobby Hafencity Discussion and Tour Brigitte Witthoeffl, Assistant to the Executives Hafencity Hamburg Osakaallee 11 20457 Hamburg Go to the 1" floor reception desk Presentation and theoretical background and the relevant information about HaienCity, followed by a discussion Tour starting at HatenCity hamburg GmbH, either guided by Jurgen Brunssfierentag or colleagues, showing you the western and the central part of hatenCity 1Sandtorhafen/Grasbrookhafen, possibly the Unilever building at the Elbe river, Grasbrookpark, Magdeburger Haien, Lohsepark and the eastern development area of HaferlC'lty, each with a stress on urban planning and sustainability). nirenions (53 km): Take a cabl 5:30 pm Dinner with the whole group Fischereihalen Restaurant Grosse Reservation under Bruce Katz Short Bios of Tour attendees: Roberta Achtenberg Roberta Achtenberg is the Advisor in Community Development for Lennar Urban. She is also a Commissioner on the United States Commission on Civil Rights, and Vice Chair of the Board of Directors of Bank of San Francisco. Achtenberg served in the Clinton Administration as Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Kofi Bonner Kofi Bonner serves as regional vice president of Lennar Urban. In this role, Bonner oversees all land acquisition and urban development activities in Northern California, including the Hunters Point Shipyard, Candlestick Point and Treasure Island developments. Danny Cooke Danny Cooke is EVP in charge of development for Lennar Urban on The Shipyard, Hunters Point/Candlestick Point and Treasure Island. Cooke was educated and initially worked in architecture in Belfast, N. Ireland, immigrating in 1980 to northern California where he joined Turner Construction Company. During his career he became VP/Operations Manager for Turner’s northern California division, successfully managing many project types and developments. Cooke was recognized with two Staff Awards, voted National Community Affairs Operations Manager of the Year and personally applauded by the Company President at an Annual Senior Management Meeting. In 2007, Cooke joined Sunset Development Company as SVP to manage the new San Ramon City Center project. During the recession he spent 2 years managing the New Zealand operation of a U.S. Company during the recovery from the 2011 earthquake. Cooke joined Lennar Urban in 2013. Bruce Katz Bruce Katz is a vice president at the Brookings Institution and co-director of its Metropolitan Policy Program. He is a co-author of The Metropolitan Revolution (Brookings Press, 2013). After the 2008 presidential election, Bruce co-led the housing and urban transition team for the Obama Administration and served as a senior advisor to Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan for the first 100 days of the Administration. He is also a member of the RSA City Growth Commission in the UK and a visiting professor at the London School of Economics. Before joining Brookings, Bruce served as chief of staff to Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry G. Cisneros. Bruce has also served as the staff director of the Senate Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs. He is a graduate of Brown University and Yale Law School. Didier Manning Didier Manning has been Global Program Director for Smart Cities at Bosch Software Innovations since November 2012. Previously, as key account manager for diesel projects worldwide in the commercial vehicle and off-highway areas, he has gained experience in complex ecosystems, one of the key prerequisites for working with cities of any size all around the world. Didier also has an in-depth knowledge of the Bosch Group: he has worked within several divisions in the past 15 years. After his mechanical engineering degree focusing on automotive technology in Bath (England) and Aachen (Germany), this certified engineer began his Bosch career in diesel systems and chassis systems where he worked as a project manager and application engineer. Didier is fascinated by the interaction of organizational challenges with higher-level needs of the various stakeholders within Smart City projects. His multinational background helps him to adapt quickly to new situations and build bridges between people. Didier is a keen musician, enjoys restoring vintage cars and spends a lot of time with his three children. He lives with his family near Stuttgart. Chris Marlin Chris Marlin is founder and President of Lennar International, a division of one of America’s largest homebuilders, Lennar Corporation (NYSE:LEN). Lennar International focuses on foreign direct investment through traditional home sales and the United States’ EB-5 immigrant investor program as well as matching foreign capital with Lennar’s varied real estate interests including project level debt and equity and asset dispositions. Chris is a member of the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Leadership Council whose efforts focus on building strong cities in the United States. Chris was elected to serve on the Board of Directors for the leading immigrant investment association, Invest In the USA (IIUSA). He is a member of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition and the Young Presidents’ Organization, a global network of chief executives. He is a founding director of the FloridaNext Foundation – one of the state’s leading think tanks. Close to his south Florida home, Chris serves as a director of the Zoological Society of Florida and the Thelma Gibson Health Initiative which provides health-related care and education to diverse and underserved groups. A former Director of the Florida Bar Foundation and Renaissance Institute attendee, Chris graduated from Emory University Law School where he was involved with the Conflict Resolution Program at the Carter Presidential Center. He also served as an adjunct professor at his undergraduate alma mater, the University of Central Florida. Sheryl McKibben Ms. McKibben serves as Vice President of Marketing and Sales for Lennar Urban. She is a results driven executive with thirty years of real estate marketing and management experience. Her leadership role oversees marketing, sales, and customer care. McKibben's expertise lends itself to Lennar Urban's place making efforts, and product programming. McKibben’s background includes prior work with top developers, Essex Property Trust, Regis Homes, Prometheus and The Bozzuto Group. Luise Noring Luise Noring, Program Director, Copenhagen Business School; Luise is the founder of CBS’ programs SULP and GIC EEP. She holds a Ph.D. from CBS in partnerships and communities. Since then, she has focused on partnerships, communities and social innovation communities in sustainable cities. Luise also works on ‘green field’ projects, all of which are characterized by being cross-disciplinary, crossinstitutional and cross-cultural. Julie O'Donnel Julie O’Donnell recently joined Lennar Urban as Director of Marketing. She came to Lennar Urban with over ten years of real estate and marketing experience. Prior to Lennar Urban, Julie worked for leading multifamily management and development companies including BRE Properties, Archstone Apartments and Essex Property Trust. Most recently Julie lead branding and marketing initiatives for Carmel Partners’ robust development pipeline, in markets that include San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, Seattle and New York City. Ute Weiland Ute Elisabeth Weiland is the Deputy Director of the Alfred Herrhausen Society, Deutsche Bank's international forum. She joined the Alfred Herrhausen Society in 2003. Since 2004 she is member of the Executive Board of the Urban Age conference series at the London School of Economics, and from 2010 member of the Governing Board of LSE Cities. Ute E. Weiland has coordinated the deutsche Bank Urban Age Award from its beginning in 2007 in seven different cities. She co-edited the book “Handmade Urbanism – from Community Initiatives to Participatory Models” together with the architect Marcos Rosa. Ute E. Weiland graduated from the Academy of Music in Weimar. After unification she became chief of staff to the Secretary of State for Education in Saxony. In 1997 she co-founded the Erich Pommer Institute for Media Law and Media Management at the University of Potsdam and was its deputy managing director until 2003. Ute Weiland is a member of the German-Israeli Young Leaders Exchange of the Bertelsmann Foundation and young leader of the Atlantik Brücke. Gabriel Wetzel Gabriel Wetzel is responsible for the Product Group “Internet of Things and Smart City” at Bosch Software Innovations GmbH. Having been in various management positions during his career with Robert Bosch GmbH, Gabriel has extensive experience in project and product management of Bosch’s innovative products. Gabriel studied technical cybernetics at the University of Stuttgart and at the Ecole Centrale Paris. Lennar-Brookings Innovation Districts Module for MIPIM 2016 May 4, 2015 version Overall Session: x 2 hour session on U.S. innovation districts on Tuesday 15th, Wednesday 16 or Thursday 17th Proposed Roles During the MIPIM Module: Master of Ceremonies Lennar Expert Presenter: Brookings, 20-25 minute presentation max (20 is better). Faciliator of Session: Brookings Panel: Three U.S. innovation district leaders and three/four investors and/or developers engaged in these and other U.S. innovation districts. Proposed Content: x To share a new urban development trend: the rise of innovation districts in the United States and across all global regions (emphasis placed on the U.S.) x To surface how this economy-shaping, placemaking, and networking building model is different compared to other urban development models. x To distill how both development and investment leaders are viewing innovation districts as places of potential and profitability. x To discuss how this emerging model is forcing various actors to think and act, and invest differently. Proposed Sequence of Activities: 1. Either Lennar or Brookings opens the module introducing the concept and the panel (TBD). 2. Brookings presenter provides a 20-25 minute presentation on the rise of innovation districts. 3. Three panel presentations, each 15 minutes. a. Each panelist outlines their work on an advancing an innovation district in the U.S. Emphasis will be placed on the kinds of planning and investment that makes this type of urban model different from other urban models (e.g., organized around commercial real estate; mixed use development projects, transit oriented development projects, convention/stadia projects). Each presenter visually shows plan and large investments anticipated over the next five years. b. After each panel, additional comments from investors/developers to signal how they are approaching this innovation district different as an investment proposition. c. Expert from Brookings also weighs in. Aim here is to have some additional insights from others to help “complete the planning and investment picture,” before proceeding to the next case study. d. Audience weighs in after each panel or after the third panel including 2-3 European innovation districts with practitioners in the audience (need to be identified in advance) will offer their insights from their work. 4. Brookings concludes with key insights gained from this module, where this emerging model is headed in the U.S., and how this is changing investment models. Status on Speakers/Panelists: Name, Affiliation Role Chris Marlin, President, Lennar International Master of Ceremonies and Panelist on investment Bruce Katz, Brookings, Co-author Expert Presenter and of ID Paper Commentor Julie Wagner, Brookings, Coauthor of ID Paper Panel facilitator Kofi Bonner, Regional Vice President, Lennar Urban Presents case study: Hunter Point in San Francisco Presents case study: Drexel Innovation Neighborhood in Philly Presents case study: Detroit Innovation District in DT/MT Detroit Panelist on investment John Fry, President, Drexel University Rip Rapson, President and CEO, Kresge Foundation Tom Osha, Managing Director, Innovation and Economic Development, Wexford Science & Technology Tim Rowe, Founder and CEO, Cambridge Innovation Center Ken Mehlman Panelist on investment and providing intermediary services to IDs Panelist on investment Current Status Confirmed and available for all three days Confirmed and available for all three days Confirmed and available for all three days Confirmed and available for all three days Confirmed and available for all three days Confirmed and available for all three days All three days on hold; follow up to be conducted by Julie Wagner Confirmed an available for all three days Formal invitation sent Innovation Districts on the Rise by Alex Lopez Innovation districts are on the rise globally. Brookings Institution plans on shedding light on why. BEBE A new urban model is emerging giving birth to "innovation districts." By de?nition theSe geographic areas are where leading?edge institutions and companies cluster and connect with start-ups, business incubators and accelerators. These areas are also physically compact, transit-accessible, and technically wired and they offer mixed-use housing, office and retail for all inhabitants. Cortex Master Plan (innovation District), St. Louis The trend can be traced back to locales such as Silicon Valley and is expanding into more areas while becoming a driver of the real estate sector. "Innovation districts are the manifestation of mega?trends altering the location preferences of people and ?rms and, in the process, re?conceiving the very link between economy shaping, place making and social networking according to a Brookings Institution white paper The Rise of Innovation Districts. At MIPIM 2.016, one of the world?s leading real estate market, conference and networking events. a session titled "Innovation Districts: ANew Urban Development Model Emerging in the United States? will examine research findings on the creation of innovative urban developments conducted by Brookings Institution, a private nonpro?t organization devoted to independent research and innovative policy solutions The panel, which was made possible by Sponsor Lennar District Hail (Boston?s innovation Dif?'?i?iub) I International, focus on the heightened clustering of anchor institutions, companies and startups in small geographic areas of central cities, which are emerging across the United States, Europe, and other global regions. "Lennar has worked with the Brookings Institution for years as they've developed their thinking behind what makes innovation districts in urban areas engines of progress and jobs producers of consequence," said Chris Marlin, president of Lennar International. "We are thrilled to bring this thinking?and the imaginations and intellects of Bruce Katz and our panel?to the MIPIM experience this year. It won?t disappoint.? The conference session will examine three innovation districts and how a diverse set of city builders and investors are altering the way they design and develop districts to realize their full innovation potential. ?The rise of innovation districts in urban areas around the world is both predicated on smart real estate and design decisions and provides a tremendous opportunity for the real estate community going forward,? said Bruce Kata, Brookings Institution vice president and co? author of The Rise of Innovation Districts. r?These open-innovation economic hubs prosper when creative business, residential, and leisure spaces exist in close pr0ximity; real estate is essential to their Success? Great Lake's Coffee. Detroit innovation District The "Innovation Districts" panel will take place on Wednesday, March 16?? as part of MIPIM 2016 in Cannes, France, March 15?18, 2016, and will be moderated by Julie Wagner, nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and co?author of The Rise of Innovation Districts. 15-13 MARCH 2015 Emu. Puma woman-rm MYPROCRAHHE arm HYMAHSE wonderful lthhESl?t INNOVATION DISTRICTS: A NEW URBAN DEVELOPMENT MODEL EMERGING IN THE UNITED STATES .II 0" -I .I- yr. "Ural 3M4 .emu-.5? 51mm I?uz Hal -- Lu' .Ilv -I f:-I r-l-I-?u Speaker Metropolitan Palm,- Program The BrmJI-Ings Institution Brute Kat: Is a wee president atthe EIrneLIngs .?mrl I'numllnu :1"me nr F'mumm He Is a ELI-author of mneym germs Smaller Ln?nr- 'u Ir Ie'?ai?f'i' 'e'Jar-r: i i Til-T"- HM swam .amLInrJge Innovanoe Ilemer IF- Feunner and HIM l' Lunar-HI Illh WWII-1 uleuu .1?:er heuelng earl; SIEQE technaluw W. 9- Moderator Nt'lmesldanr'iienl?rFE'IDV?I? Irma HenrewentSemcheHea Jrrhe my Fuse 0' Im~ run- 51:50 "1"ij mipirri mipim mipim UK suumrav-z JAPAN MR. LIPTON: Okay, sure. All right. So let’s talk about Kofi -MS. CHURCHES: MR. LIPTON: MR. INDYK: Kofi Bonner. Yeah. Okay. So he was appointed a non-resident senior fellow in February 2014. MR. LIPTON: MR. INDYK: Right. Then in June 2014 he was disappointed. MR. LIPTON: MR. INDYK: Okay. What’s the word for -- is that the right word to say? MS. CHURCHES: He completed his non-residency fellowship. MR. INDYK: We did not reappoint him. MS. CHURCHES: Right. MR. LIPTON: Okay. MR. NASSAR: He’s not renewed. MS. CHURCHES: MR. INDYK: Right. The point, in the general terms, non- resident fellows and senior fellows are appointed on an annual basis and we review it on an annual basis. MR. LIPTON: MR. INDYK: Okay? Okay. The reason for appointing him was because he was a nationally respected urban developer with considerable expertise and experience in urban development when it comes to the innovation districts. We appoint non- residents to these positions not just because they have some -- they are in university and have some academic expertise. The majority of them are in that category, but we also appoint people, particularly in the Metro program, because that’s, as I said, it’s a different methodology, we often appoint them because they have particular expertise that we want to draw on and we want to work with them. We’ve given you three other examples of -MS. CHURCHES: MR. LIPTON: MR. INDYK: category. Bottom of Page 13. Okay. -- people that fit into that Okay? MR. LIPTON: Okay. MR. NASSAR: Who are not donors? MR. INDYK: Who are not donors, it’s true. And in terms of merit, Bonner has all of the qualifications that would be necessary for appointing a non-resident scholar in terms of his experience and his education and background. So just to go over that there for you as well. MR. LIPTON: MR. INDYK: Okay. Okay. We’re not aware of any instance in which Kofi Bonner used his Brookings affiliation to promote the business interest of Lennar or published work using his Brookings non-resident scholar title. I don’t believe he used it in any of those ways. He did appear as an expert panelist at a single Brookings event on June 9, 2014. That was the launch of Bruce’s Rise of Innovation Districts White Paper which we’ve provided to you, and his affiliation with Lennar was clearly communicated at that event. MR. LIPTON: MR. INDYK: Okay. The reason that he was not reappointed was because Metro recognized that there was an appearance of a conflict of interest, and that was the reason he was not reappointed. MR. LIPTON: MR. INDYK: Do you share that view? Yes. One thing I want you to understand, this is a decision of the reseaRch vice presidents. They decide who’s appointed and who’s not reappointed. MR. LIPTON: But you, personally, also agree with those -MR. INDYK: Yes, that there was a perception of conflict of interest, even though I believe that he was appointed on merit and there was justification for it. Because he was, Lennar was a donor, it created an appearance of conflict of interest. So, yes, I think they did the right thing by not reappointing him. MR. LIPTON: Is that something you will attempt to avoid doing in the future? MR. INDYK: last time. Yes. And I think we talked about it We have been working on the issue of conflict of interest for non-resident scholars actively in the last year. That’s what generated the whole Litan affair. Because we’ve instituted new rules that are designed to avoid not just conflict of interest, but the appearance of conflict of interest. MR. LIPTON: What about that arrangement would reasonably create even an appearance from your perspective? What about that arrangement left you (inaudible)? MR. INDYK: MR. LIPTON: MR. INDYK: Because Lennar was a donor. Right. He was getting a title, an affiliation with Brookings. MR. LIPTON: MR. INDYK: Right. So it created the impression that because Lennar was giving money he was getting the title. MR. LIPTON: MR. INDYK: Right, okay. That’s why we did not -- Metro, it was Metro?s decision not to reappoint. Mr. Lipton: Thank you for the opportunity to answer your questions in writing and, specifically, the offer to respond with “any other thoughts/comments” about your reporting on the Brookings Institution. We are providing detailed responses and comments so that you and your editor can carefully weigh all of the facts before deciding whether to include Lennar Corp. as part of your story. Per our conversation yesterday, we are responding in two parts. The first part consists of our off-the-record comments. We agreed that the off-the-record comments will not be published in print or posted online in any form and will not be shared outside The New York Times. The second part consists of answers to your specific questions that, should The Times decide to include Lennar in a story about Brookings, are attributable to “a Lennar spokesman.” . PART TWO: ON THE RECORD Question 1: If someone observed this series of events and said it appeared as if Lennar was buying assistance from Brookings to help promote the Shipyard project domestically and internationally, before audiences that included government officials and potential investors in this project and others you are undertaking, how would you react to that assertion? Is that a fair statement, and if not, why not? Answer: Your assertion is unfair and misleading. Lennar’s support of Brookings is entirely appropriate. Our donations to Brookings were not made to promote Lennar or any individual development. The Shipyard is a world-class project that enjoys strong support from federal, state and local governments as well as Lennar partners and investors. The project is fully entitled and has cleared all regulatory hurdles. Lennar has a public-private partnership with the City of San Francisco to develop the Shipyard. Thus, there was nothing needed in the way of assistance for Lennar to “buy” from Brookings. Q2: Given this commitment, as described in this document and others like it, which detail services Brookings intended to provide in exchange for a request for a payment, is it fair to call this support for Brookings a charitable contribution or is it a fee-for-service consulting arrangement? Please explain your position on this one. A: Lennar did not make contributions to Brookings as a “fee for service.” Rather, we provided financial support because we believe the good work of Brookings improves the communities in which we do business. Q3: Brookings has said it was a mistake, in hindsight, to have named Kofi Bonner as a non-resident senior fellow, at the same time as Lennar was making donations to Brookings, as it created the impression that such a title could be bought. Brookings feels Kofi was qualified and an appropriate expert to hold such a post. It is just the appearance it created was inappropriate, even if there was no real conflict. Was this a mistake? A: There was nothing improper or inappropriate with Mr. Bonner accepting the Brookings position. Also, it is our understanding that Brookings representatives never stated the appointment was “a mistake” as you claim. We suggest you contact them directly. Q4: Did Lennar pay the cost of travel for Brookings staff to attend the Cannes event in March 2016, an event that included potential international investors in your real estate investment projects? A: No. Q5: Do you think that your relationship with Brookings --payments made to a non-profit organization that they repeatedly took steps to highlight or promote your project --has been appropriate? A: Lennar acted appropriately in all of our dealings with Brookings. Q6: I see that the engagement with Brookings began around the time that concerns were being raised in the San Francisco community related to aspects of the Hunters Point/Shipyard project, more specifically, the commencement of the 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury of the City and County of San Francisco regarding the project (see attached) and also to a complaint filed by the SLAM Coalition of Bayview Hunters Point Community Organizations concerning actions by EPA Region 9 officials regarding the project. Was the decision to engage with Brookings part of an effort to build positive press regarding the project that could counter this criticism? A: The decision to support Brookings had nothing to do with these issues. We fail to understand the logic of how Brookings could provide any assistance regarding a civil grand jury proceeding or an EPA regulatory matter. Q7: How much in total has Lennar contributed to Brookings since 2010? I want to make sure my count is accurate. A: Our records indicate a total of $400,000 in contributions to Brookings. ## ouzulz Participants: Bruce Katz and Kim Churches with: Ken Mehlman Managing Director and Head of Global Public Affairsl Kohlberg, Kravis and Roberts Co. (KKR) Date/rim Wednesday, October 23" at 1:00 pm Lou) KKR Background . Bruce spoke with Ken on October Afterwards Ken requested a meeting to discuss how to continue a collaborative relationship between Metro and KKR, considering the firm's recent substantial investments in real estate and infrastructure. . Ken had also proposed a corwritten piece on P35 that would combine points made in The Metro Revolution with KKR's investor/operator perspective. The piece would be corbranded with Metro and the Global Institute, and published in late November. Ken sent Bmce a draft outline (see attached.) . Meeting Goal: Renewed Engagement with KKR About Ken Mehlman . Before joining KKR in April zoos, Mr. Mehlman was a Partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP. . He was chairman ot the Republican National Committee from 2005 to 2007s and served as the campaign manager for George w. Bush's 2004 res election campaign. . Mr. Mehlman is a tmstee of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and Franklin Marshall College a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and serves on the Senior Advisory Committee of the Harvard University Institute of Politics the American Enterprise Institute's National Council, the Robin Hood Veterans Advisory Board and is a member ot the boards of directors at the American Foundation for Equal Rights and the IDEAL School of Manhattan. . Mr. Mehlman received his undergraduate degree in 1988 from Franklin and Marshall College and his JD from Harvard law School in 1991. Giving History: Total: both in FY09 and FY 10) to Met Council KKR Relationship with Brookings . July 2011: Bruce met with Ken Mehlman to discuss renewal tor the Met Council. They did not renew in FY11. . June 2009: Bruce had a stewardship meeting with Ken Mehlman to discuss the shape of the Brookings KKR relationship. . December 2008: Ken Mehlman became the point person for the Met Council atter George Bilicic (former Manager Director and Head of Infrastructure), who began the relationship with Metro in June 2008, returned to Lazard. Ken met with Carrie Kolasky, Mary Ellen Fraser and Rob Puentes to discuss the relationship with Brookings. . October 2008: Ken Mehlman met with Strobe to discuss his interest in Brookings and KKR's alliance with the Environmental Detense Fund (see KKR x June 2008: Philanthropy below). Prior to his meeting with Strobe, Ken met with Charley Ebinger, David Sandalow and Bill Antholis. KKR joined the Met Council in FY09 through George Bilicic. George later participated in a panel discussion in Minneapolis on transportation at the invitation of Rob Puentes. About the KKR Global Institute x The Institute was founded in 2013, and announced the appointment of former General David Petraeus as Chairman in June. x The Institute’s goal is to analyze economic forecasts, communications, public policy and emerging markets. It will also help the firm’s portfolio companies expand globally. x Mr. Petraeus’s team at the Institute includes Ken Mehlman, and Henry McVey, KKR’s global head of macro and asset allocation. KKR and Infrastructure x In 2012, KKR announced it had gathered about $4 billion to invest in infrastructure and energy deals as the firm looks beyond corporate takeovers. Board Member Joseph Grundfest Start Date 2010 Locations Stanford, CA John Hess 2011 New York, NY Henry Kravis - New York, NY Dieter Rampl 2010 New York, NY George Roberts - Menlo Park, CA Patricia “Pat” Russo 2011 New York, NY Thomas “Tom” Schoewe 2011 Falls Church, VA Robert Scully 2010 New York, NY Positions William A. Franke Professor of Law and Business, School of Law, Stanford University CEO, Hess Corporation Co-Founder, CoChairman and CoCEO, KKR Director, Board of Directors, KKR & Co. L.P. Co-Founder, CoChairman and CoCEO, KKR Chairman, Board of Directors, Partnership for a Drug-Free America Director, Board of Directors, Northrop Grumman Corporation Director, Board of Directors, KKR & Co LP The Brookings Institution KKR Call Briefing Meeting Participants: Bruce Katz and Liza Cole with Ken Mehllnan, Global Head Public Affairs Travers Garvinl Directorl Public Affairs Justin Pattnerl Directorl Real Estate Brett Kelly, Associate, Real Estate Date/Time: Tuesday April 22' 2014 from 4:30 7 5:00 pm Location: Bruce's Office Purpose of the Meeting: To provide a detailed overview of our Innovation Districts work which KKR has expressed interest in supporting along with our infrastructure work. Talking paints: . Provide specific examples of le popping up around the country and ways that KKR might engage with leadership in those tnetros (they would like to connect with Pittsburgh and Detroit, in particular, and have connected with Houston's Ed Emmetlr I think) Provide examples of real estate companies KKR might be able to connect to in those cities Pitch KKR on supponing our general Innovation Districts work with an additional investment of$lSOK: we are happy to submit a fortnal proposal on what that engagement would look like in various cities (Pittsburgh, Houstonl Detroit, San Francisco, Philadelphia) Goal: Get KKR to commit to supporting this body of work for one yearl with a goal of engaging longrterln About Ken Mehlman . Before joining KKR in April 2008, Mr. Mehlman was a Partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP. . He was chairman of the Republican National Committee from 2005 to 2007' and served as the campaign manager for George w. Bush's 2004 rerelection campaign. . Mr. Mehlman is a trustee of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and Franklin Marshall College, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and serves on the Senior Advisory Committee of the Harvard University Institute of Politics the American Enterprise lnstitute's National Council the Robin Hood Veterans Advisory Board and is a member of the boards of directors at the American Foundation for Equal Rights and the IDEAL School of Manhattan. . Mr. Mehllnan received his undergraduate degree in 1988 from Franklin and Marshall College and his JD from Harvard Law School in 1991. . l-las given both in FY09 and FY 10) to Met Council. About Travers Garvin: . Prior to joining KKR in 2008, Mr. Garvin was an attorney at Akin Gump Strauss l-lauer Feld LLP where he represented clients on public policy matters before Congress and the Administration. . Before practicing law, he worked as a policy aide in the US. Congress focusing on issues before the Energy and Commerce committee. . Mr. Garvin holds a BA. from the College of the Holy Cross and a cum laude, from the George Mason University School of Law. . Mr. Travers recently contributed to Norm Coleman's Senate campaign. About Justin Pattner: x Prior to joining KKR in 2011, Mr. Pattner was at Eton Park Capital Management where he focused on real estate and real estate related opportunities. x Before going to Eton Park, he worked with Lehman Brothers Real Estate Private Equity and Lubert Adler Partners where he was involved in sourcing, evaluating and managing private real estate transactions. x He holds a B.A., magna cum laude, from the University of Pennsylvania. About Brett Kelly: x Joined KKR real estate in 2013 x Before going to KKR, Brett worked with AREA Property Owners and Lazard Freses and Co. x Graduated from Cornell with degree in Real Estate. KKR General Information: x Founded in 1976, KKR now controls $70 billion in assets; x KKR invests in a variety of sectors such as private equity, energy & infrastructure, and real estate; x Total revenues and income have steadily risen the last 3 years with a sharp increase from 2011 to 2012; x Current income for 2013 is near $700 million; x KKR started real estate investing in 2011 and commits around $700 million in equity to 13 projects in the US and Europe; x KKR has not invested in infrastructure for the last 40 months, leaving committed investments around $1B; x Investments through the infrastructure fund did not occur until 2011; Recent BI contact: x x x 1/24/14 meeting to discuss approval for $450K/3yrs for infrastructure; 11/25/13 call to discuss January infrastructure piece; 10/23/13 Bruce and Kim met with Ken Mehlman. Board of Directors: x Henry R. Kravis x George R. Roberts x David Drummond x Joseph A. Grundfest x John B. Hess x Dieter Rampl x Patricia F. Russo x Thomas M. Schoewe x Robert W. Scully A May 2014 The Institution KKR Call Briefing Meeting Participants: Bruce Katz and Steven Pearson with Ken Mehlman, Global Head. Public Affairs Travers Garvin. Director. Public Affairs Jusiin Pailner. Director. Real Estate Breil Kelly, Associate, Real Esiale Date/Time: Friday, May 2"r1 from 10:00 to 10:30 am. Location: Bruce's Office Purpose of the Meeting: To provide a detailed overview of our innovation Districts work. which KKR has expressed interest in supporting along with our infrastructure work. Talking points: . Provide specific examples of le popping up around the country and ways that KKR might engage with leadership in those metros (they would like to connect with Pittsburgh and Detroit, in particular, and have connected with Houston's Ed Emmetir i think) Provide examples of real estate companies KKR might be able to connect to in those cities Pitch KKR on supponing our general lnnovation Districts work with an additional investment of$lSOKz we are happy to submit a formal proposal on what that engagement would look like in various cities (Pittsburgh Houston. Detroit, San Francisco, Philadelphia) Update on the Infrastructure Essay: Rob Puentes talked to Travers on Tuesday evening, April 29,that the longer version will be coauthored by Bruce. Rob, Marc Lipschultz and Raj Agrawal. KKR will do all outreach and put on their website. Bruce/Rob will do Oped and link to longer essay for BI website. Goal: To have KKR commit to supponing the Innovation District work for one year, with a goal of engaging long term. This would be in addition to the over 3 years suppon they are giving to our Infrastructure work. About Ken Mehlman . Before joining KKR in April 2008, Mr. Mehlman was a Panner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP. . He was chairman of the Republican National Committee from 2005 to 2007, and served as the campaign manager for George w. Bush's 2004 reelection campaign. . Mr. Mehlman is a trustee of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and Franklin Marshall College, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. and serves on the Senior Advisory Committee of the Harvard University institute of Politics. the American Enterprise lnstitute's National Council. the Robin Hood Veterans Advisory Board and is a member of the boards of directors at the American Foundation for Equal Rights and the IDEAL School of Manhattan. . Mr. Mehlman received his undergraduate degree in 1988 from Franklin and Marshall College and his JD from Harvard Law School in 1991. Ken was our contact when KKR gave both in FY09 and FY 10) to Met Council. About Travers Garvin: x Prior to joining KKR in 2008, Mr. Garvin was an attorney at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP where he represented clients on public policy matters before Congress and the Administration. x Before practicing law, he worked as a policy aide in the U.S. Congress focusing on issues before the Energy and Commerce committee. x Mr. Garvin holds a B.A. from the College of the Holy Cross and a J.D., cum laude, from the George Mason University School of Law. x Mr. Travers recently contributed $250K to Norm Coleman’s Senate campaign. About Justin Pattner: x Prior to joining KKR in 2011, Mr. Pattner was at Eton Park Capital Management where he focused on real estate and real estate related opportunities. x Before going to Eton Park, he worked with Lehman Brothers Real Estate Private Equity and Lubert Adler Partners where he was involved in sourcing, evaluating and managing private real estate transactions. x He holds a B.A., magna cum laude, from the University of Pennsylvania. About Brett Kelly: x Joined KKR real estate in 2013 x Before going to KKR, Brett worked with AREA Property Owners and Lazard Freses and Co. x Graduated from Cornell with degree in Real Estate. KKR General Information: x Founded in 1976, KKR now controls $70 billion in assets; x KKR invests in a variety of sectors such as private equity, energy & infrastructure, and real estate; x Total revenues and income have steadily risen the last 3 years with a sharp increase from 2011 to 2012; x Current income for 2013 is near $700 million; x KKR started real estate investing in 2011 and commits around $700 million in equity to 13 projects in the US and Europe; x KKR has not invested in infrastructure for the last 40 months, leaving committed investments around $1B; x Investments through the infrastructure fund did not occur until 2011; Recent BI contact: x x x x x 4/25 & 4/29/14 Rob P. in talks with Travers/KKR about Infrastructure Essay, details, authorship & promotion. $150,000 payment p y received 3/27/14 for support pp of MPP Infrastructure work. 1/24/14 meetingg to discuss approval pp for $450K/3yrs y for infrastructure; 11/25/13 call to discuss Januaryy infrastructure ppiece; 10/23/13 Bruce and Kim met with Ken Mehlman. Board of Directors: x Henry R. Kravis x George R. Roberts x David Drummond x Joseph A. Grundfest x John B. Hess x Dieter Rampl x Patricia F. Russo x Thomas M. Schoewe x Robert W. Scully THE WAY FORWARD A New Economic Vision for America’s Infrastructure MAY 2014 BY ROBERT PUENTES, The Brookings Institution BRUCE KATZ, The Brookings Institution MARC LIPSCHULTZ, KKR RAJ AGRAWAL, KKR Summary Disruptive market, demographic, fiscal, and environmental dynamics are fundamentally reshaping America’s economic landscape. In this new reality, the United States should think of infrastructure not in the general but in the specific, understanding the ways in which different infrastructure sectors—such as transportation, energy, and water—are governed, financed, and delivered. At the same time, metropolitan areas need to outline their priorities given their distinct economies, competitive advantages, and infrastructure needs. As public dollars become scarcer, we expect that the next generation of American infrastructure will require the public, private, and civic sectors to engage and partner in new ways. This white paper details the critical role infrastructure plays in the American economy, outlines the disruptive trends that are redefining the marketplace, and lays out a new path forward. COMPANY LOCATIONS AMERICAS New York, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Menlo Park, Houston, Louisville, São Paulo, Calgary EUROPE London, Paris, Dublin, Madrid ASIA Hong Kong, Beijing, Singapore, Dubai, Riyadh, Tokyo, Mumbai, Seoul AUSTRALIA Sydney www.kkr.com © 2014 Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. All Rights Reserved. Why Infrastructure Matters Today We live in a pivotal decade. The United States faces an unprecedented number of economic, demographic, fiscal, and environmental challenges that compel both the government and the private sector to rethink the way they do business. While these new forces are incredibly diverse—including everything from the shale gas revolution to renewed consumer preferences for urban living— they share one underlying need: modern, efficient, and reliable infrastructure. Tangible assets made of concrete, steel, and fiber-optic cable are essential building blocks of the American economy. Infrastructure enables global trade, powers businesses, connects workers to their jobs, creates new opportunities for struggling communities, and protects America from an unpredictable natural environment. From private investments in telecommunication systems, broadband networks, freight railroads, energy projects, and pipelines, to public investments in transportation, water, public buildings, and parks, America’s infrastructure is the backbone of a healthy national economy. Infrastructure also supports American workers, providing millions of jobs each year to build and maintain the structures and facilities that power our economy. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics reveals that approximately 14 million Americans are employed in fields directly related to infrastructure. From locomotive engineers, electrical power line installers and truck drivers to airline pilots, construction laborers and meter readers, infrastructure jobs account for nearly 11 percent of the nation’s workforce, offering many employment opportunities that have low barriers to entry and are projected to grow over the next decade.1 Infrastructure is necessary for the achievement of important national goals. It supports the growth of advanced industries, a high-value, manufacturing-intensive sector of the economy that needs reliable infrastructure to connect supply chains and efficiently move goods and services across domestic and international borders. Infrastructure also connects households across metropolitan areas to higher quality opportunities for employment, health care, and education. Investments in clean energy and public transit have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help achieve resiliency and sustainability goals. This same economic logic applies to a range of different infrastructure assets, including broadband networks, water systems, and energy production and distribution. Disruptive Factors Affecting Infrastructure Design Today, a remarkable set of demographic and cultural changes, such as the aging and diversification of our society, shrinking household sizes, domestic migration, and an increasingly collaborative and ecosystem-driven work culture, place new emphasis on things like transportation alternatives and telecommunications to connect people and communities. For example, the percentage of licensed drivers among young Americans is the lowest in three decades, correlating with increased public transit use in some metropolitan areas and KKR new innovations such as car and bicycle sharing.2 The prototypical family of the suburban era, a married couple with school-age children, now represents only 20 percent of households, down from more than 40 percent in 1970. A recent survey by the Urban Land Institute found that 55 percent of Generation Y respondents said close proximity of their home to public transportation is important.3 Moreover, the United States is still a growing country. We’ve added nearly 25 million people in the last ten years. This tremendous growth, concentrated in the nation’s 50 largest metros,4 will place new demands on already overtaxed infrastructure assets, including water systems, transportation, and data networks. Metropolitan areas should be ready to adapt these systems, not only to serve millions of new customers, but also to maximize the potential for low-income residents who already face disproportionately high unemployment levels. For example, a recent Brookings analysis found that only about onequarter of jobs in low- and middle-skill industries are accessible via transit within 90 minutes for a typical metropolitan commuter.5 Successful metropolitan areas will be those that find innovative ways to connect workers to jobs and to overcome the digital divide between high- and low-income neighborhoods. Even though the White House points out that broadband speeds have doubled since 2009 and over 80 percent of Americans now have access to highspeed wireless broadband, adoption rates for low-income and minority households remain disproportionately low (about 43 and 56 percent, respectively).6 “ Infrastructure enables global trade, powers businesses, connects workers to their jobs, creates new opportunities for struggling communities, and protects America from an unpredictable natural environment. “ These societal changes in our country are matched by the intensity of its economic transformation. Over 80 percent of global GDP growth is expected to occur outside the United States over the next five years and, due to rapid globalization, will be concentrated within cities.7 This development offers an unprecedented opportunity for American companies to export more goods and services and to create high-quality jobs at home. It also amplifies the role of our logistics infrastructure, such as seaports, air hubs, freight rail, border crossings, and highways. These assets move more than $51 billion worth of goods each day quickly and efficiently in support of the complex supply chains that are integral to our modern economy.8 THE WAY FORWARD: A NEW ECONOMIC VISION FOR AMERICA’S INFRASTRUCTURE 3 Our rapidly diversifying domestic energy portfolio is similarly disruptive for infrastructure. The windfall of unconventional natural gas necessitates new and traditional methods for energy transportation, requiring the accelerated growth of new truck, pipeline, and rail networks. Rooftop solar has rattled electric utilities as they scramble for new ways to incorporate and store the energy while keeping the grid operating. At the same time, we expect smart grid and clean energy challenges to remain complex as hundreds of thousands of small- and large-scale projects are projected to come to fruition in the coming decades. As the United States continues its shift towards a more researchand development-intensive, innovation-based economy, businesses are seeking new ways to take advantage of proximity to boost their bottom lines. The spatial geography of innovation is shifting from isolated science parks and secluded corporate campuses to mixeduse, transit-connected urban enclaves. These “Innovation Districts” are where existing clusters of advanced research universities, medical complexes, and technology and creative firms are sparking business expansion, as well as residential and commercial growth. “ Infrastructure spending as a share of U.S. GDP is around 2.5 percent, much lower than the 3.9 percent in peer countries such as Canada, Australia, and South Korea. “ Despite infrastructure’s fundamental and multifaceted role in maintaining national growth and economic health, the United States has underinvested in its infrastructure for decades. Today, infrastructure spending as a share of U.S. GDP is around 2.5 percent, much lower than the 3.9 percent in peer countries, such as Canada, Australia, and South Korea, while this figure for Europe is close to 5 percent, and between 9 percent and 12 percent for China.10 The McKinsey Global Institute estimates that the United States should spend at least an additional $150 billion a year on infrastructure through 2020 to meet its needs. This investment is expected to add about 1.5 percent to annual GDP and create at least 1.8 million jobs.11 The federal government has not taken the actions required to reinvest in our nation’s infrastructure and, in many cases, these infrastructure projects are the purview of state and local authorities. For the foreseeable future, federal support for infrastructure programs, such as the Highway Trust Fund and State Revolving Funds for water, will likely continue to face cuts and budgetary shortfalls. Other experiments, such as the National Infrastructure Bank (though noteworthy), seem too complex and politically challenging in the current legislative environment. Regulation and a pervasive “not-inmy-backyard” attitude also present hurdles. Furthermore, given the rise in interest payments, increases in entitlement spending, and decline in traditional sources of government revenue such as the gasoline tax, competition for limited resources is fierce. A handful of states and a number of cities are developing new ways to select, fund, and build economically important projects. Unfortunately, many of these efforts remain hamstrung due to the lingering effects of the Great Recession. The 2008 financial crisis cut deep into both state and local government revenue streams. Many have dipped into rainy-day funds, took on additional debt, fired essential staff, and otherwise tightened their belts throughout the last several years. High-profile natural disasters, such as Superstorm Sandy, elevated the profile of America’s water infrastructure challenges. Overwhelmed wastewater systems, washed-out roads, shorted electrical circuitry, and flooded train stations not only highlighted the economy’s reliance on these networks, but also revealed the poor and aging condition of many of these important systems. Consequently, a whole range of new investments and practices are being deployed to rebuild the nation’s water systems. Cities are also working to capture and soak up storm and rain water rather than building expensive infrastructure to channel it away. For example, in a recent report, the Center for Urban Future describes how New York City plans to invest $2.4 billion over the next 18 years in socalled “green” infrastructure, such as rooftop vegetation, porous pavements, and soils, to make the city more permeable.9 Some cities and states now see budget surpluses due in part to increases in property tax revenues and state level sales tax collections. However, it will take years for most localities to build back their reserves, repay the additional debt incurred during the recession, and pay for deferred maintenance on a range of infrastructure assets. Meanwhile, insufficient retirement security, in the form of unfunded pension obligations for many Americans who are living longer, and other debt burdens facing government continue to limit the availability of public funds to pay for necessary infrastructure. And, though interest rates remain at historically low levels, the ability of many governments to borrow from the capital markets is hindered by debt caps and weak credit ratings. Finally, expectations of an ability to borrow at today’s low rates would likely create long-term challenges for governments should interest rates rise in the future. Disruptive Factors Affecting Infrastructure Funding and Finance Pressures on federal and state governments to become leaner and more efficient, along with financial challenges at the local level, are driving leaders to seek out new tools to deliver economically important infrastructure. However, innovation is particularly difficult considering that many communities have spent the last 50 years deferring their most pressing infrastructure challenges and pursuing stop-gap budgetary measures, instead of developing long- In addition to the types of infrastructure needed in the coming years, another set of disruptive forces is leading to a change in how projects are funded and financed. 4 KKR THE WAY FORWARD: A NEW ECONOMIC VISION FOR AMERICA’S INFRASTRUCTURE term solutions. The American cities, metropolises, and states that will succeed in the next century are those that break the cycle of “short-termism” to develop new ways to invest in infrastructure. The Current Infrastructure Narrative is Too Abstract The United States has a long way to go to correct a half-century of bad habits and underinvestment and make new solutions for infrastructure the norm rather than the exception. There are three critical problems: First, despite important progress over the last decade in framing infrastructure as a key economic driver, it remains an amorphous and simplistic discussion. Infrastructure is made up of interrelated sectors as diverse as a water treatment plant is from an airport, a wind farm, a gas line, or a broadband network. We believe the focus on infrastructure in the abstract led to unrealistic “silver-bullet” policy solutions that fail to capture the unique attributes of each of these critical enablers of the American economy. In reality, each of the individual sectors of infrastructure are very different in terms of project design, market attributes, and how they are governed, regulated, owned, and operated. Second, we believe this generalization overemphasizes the federal role and fails to recognize the diverse and highly fragmented ways that America selects, builds, maintains, operates, and pays for assets as different as public transit, telecommunications, and water. For certain sectors, federal spending is relatively high, such as transportation and water for which federal spending averaged $92.15 billion each year from 2000 to 2007.12 But even for those sectors, the federal share of total spending was never higher than 27 percent during that time.13 For other sectors, such as freight rail, telecommunications, and clean energy, the federal role in funding and finance is actually quite limited (though they may be affected by federal regulations). Third, this lack of precision means the United States failed to develop customized solutions to distinctive challenges, in our view. The United States should design infrastructure investments in service of the next economy, not the current or prior one. Over the last 25 years, many infrastructure investments were designed to support a post-industrial economic growth model that prioritized consumption and amenities over investments in innovation and production. Yet, one of the lessons we’ve learned from the Great Recession is the need to grow and support the tradable sectors—typically manufacturing and high-end services—that are concentrated in our metropolitan areas. Our 100 largest metropolitan areas house almost two-thirds of our population, generate 74 percent of our gross domestic product, and disproportionately concentrate assets like infrastructure that drive economic success.14 In our view, prioritizing metropolitan infrastructure around this next economy means, for example, making investments in freight connectivity to enable access to metropolitan markets through modern global value chains. It means making investments that support the transition to cleaner and more abundant domestic KKR energy sources. It means reimagining and redeveloping older industrial properties by leveraging their enviable location near waterfronts and downtowns and along transit lines. It means having a greater focus on green infrastructure to absorb and manage water rather than relying on costly over-engineered solutions. “ The United States should design infrastructure investments in service of the next economy, not the current or prior one. “ Yet even here, infrastructure priorities differ from one metropolitan area to another depending on the nature of its economy, physical location, past investments, growth trajectory and other factors. What Phoenix needs, for example, is likely quite different from what Portland needs, which is likely quite different from what Pittsburgh needs. By defining and designing infrastructure investments from the bottom up, the fundamentals of individual metropolitan economies can be taken into consideration and better matched to each area’s needs. This approach would help make clear what our infrastructure priorities really are and what stakeholders want. It also means enabling metropolitan leaders to work on ambitious and creative strategies to make their infrastructure goals a reality. These strategies include everything from multi-state infrastructure collaborations, to new partnerships, to special infrastructure trusts, and direct voter approval. America Needs a New Path Forward So what does all this mean for how America designs, finances, delivers, and governs its infrastructure? We expect it means that almost all solutions will have a public and private character. As a country, we should endeavor to move beyond simplistic notions of “privatization” to a future of infrastructure with true partnerships between government agencies, private firms, financiers, and the general public. This is how many nations successfully develop infrastructure around the world today. But here again, the nature and mix of public and private arrangements will likely be customized depending not only on individual transactions, but also on the nature of the particular infrastructure sector. First, for some sectors like intra-metropolitan transportation (roads, bridges, and transit), we expect the lion’s share of revenue will need to be raised by public means or through innovative market mechanisms. THE WAY FORWARD: A NEW ECONOMIC VISION FOR AMERICA’S INFRASTRUCTURE 5 Capturing Value in Public Assets: Virginia Air Rights As cities and states continue to look for sources of revenue, new efforts are emerging to capture the enormous value in the land the public sector already owns. Pioneered in the 1950s at New York’s Grand Central Terminal, the idea of selling or leasing the right to develop real estate above an existing infrastructure asset— known as “air rights”—is attracting new interest across metropolitan America. Recently, Boston used this value capture technique to derive revenue from the Central Artery/Tunnel Project (the “Big Dig”). New York pursued a similar contract to build out a portion of the Barclay’s Center in Brooklyn. Today, an idea in Arlington, Virginia, could literally pave the way for a new, economically integrated, model of air rights development. activity is isolated from the riverfront and the Capital by the busy urban freeway, limiting opportunities for Rosslyn’s growth. Through an internal analysis, and in consultation with the real estate investment firm Jones Lang LaSalle, the state determined that it could potentially “create” over 10 acres of developable land, drive hundreds of millions of dollars in private sector investment, provide $24 million in additional tax revenue for the county, and generate several million dollars a year in recurring revenue for the state.16 potential to reduce its future road building costs. Achieving these goals would require innovative partnerships between public agencies, all levels of government, private developers and local residents. This project is particularly complex given the multitude of federal approvals required from the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Aviation Administration. However, the common interest, alignment, and clear articulation of goals on key economic The idea of pursuing a partnership on air rights came out of a drive to secure new revenues for the state. Fortunately, Virginia’s Office of Transportation Public Private Partnerships (OTP3) already has a strong track record in negotiating a wide range of risk and capital sharing projects between the state and the private sector. Notably, OTP3 successfully negotiated the complex high occupancy toll lane project on Virginia’s portion of the Washington beltway with a private partner, Transurban, as well as more than $6.3 billion in other projects within the last two years. However, the air rights project required the state to fundamentally change the way it normally thinks about what it owns and controls, not just as a steward and a builder, but also as property owner and redevelopment partner. An initial scan of the state’s transportation assets surfaced a number of potential properties in dense urban areas. The most promising is above Interstate 66 in the Rosslyn area of Arlington. Directly across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C., Rosslyn is a business hub hosting a variety of different corporations, including Corporate Executive Board, IBM, and others. Unfortunately, this center of business 6 KKR In addition to revenue goals, the transportation department also took an expansive vision of its role by considering its work as an extension of regional economic development priorities. Further, the department recognized that Arlington’s model for dense, walkable, and transit-oriented development has the THE WAY FORWARD: A NEW ECONOMIC VISION FOR AMERICA’S INFRASTRUCTURE development priorities is moving the project forward. While still in process, the Rosslyn air rights project demonstrates a new funding and financing future where public assets are used in tandem with private sector expertise and capital. Ballot measures have traditionally played an important role in securing funds for infrastructure investment, particularly at the local level. Because such projects are often financed using general obligation bonds (which, in many places, require popular approval first), many municipalities go to voters for decisions on financing infrastructure projects. Many cities are also following this trend. This has especially been popular in the western United States where cities such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Salt Lake City are taxing themselves, dedicating substantial local money, and effectively contributing to the construction of the nation’s critical infrastructure system. Initiatives for intra-metropolitan transportation are popular among voters. According to the Center for Transportation Excellence, 73 percent of intra-metropolitan transportation measures passed in 2013, as did 79 percent in 2012.15 While state level ballot measures on infrastructure investments are far less common, in 2013, eight states voted to raise taxes to pay for infrastructure projects. This includes both conservative states like Wyoming and democratic controlled legislatures in states like Maryland. At the local level, a number of cities are using market mechanisms that capture the increased value in land that accrues from certain infrastructure investments. This can provide a more targeted way to finance new or existing transportation projects by matching the benefit from infrastructure with its cost. These techniques include impact fees through which land developers are assessed a charge to support associated public infrastructure improvements, generally local roads and public works like sidewalks. The lease or sale of air rights is another practice that has been used to finance development around transit stations for decades, famously around Grand Central Station in New York, and more recently in Boston and Dallas. Another growing trend is the use of tax increment financing (TIF) districts. TIFs support infrastructure projects by borrowing against the future stream of additional tax revenue the project is expected to generate. For example, a TIF was used to finance infrastructure improvements for the Atlantic Station project in Atlanta. A similar strategy was used to fund a streetcar in Portland, Oregon, by creating a local improvement district that leveraged the economic gains of nearby property owners. Furthermore, the city of Fort Worth, Texas, used a TIF in the mid1990s to spur renewal projects that provide significant benefits to the downtown area today. We believe that the federal government should allow greater flexibility for states and cities to innovate on projects that connect metros. For example, passenger facility charges, which are used to fund airport modernization, are artificially capped at $4.50 and do not do nearly enough to cover the airport’s operating and long-term investment costs. We believe the busiest passenger airports need to be empowered with the ability to meet their larger-than-average congestion and investment costs without federal impositions or caps. The archaic restrictions on tolling the Interstates should also be lifted, in our view. Metropolitan and local leaders (in conjunction with the states) are in the best position to determine which Interstate roadway segments are the strongest candidates for pricing strategies. KKR Second, there are other infrastructure classes and projects that we believe are potentially appropriate as public-private partnerships (PPPs). These are often complex agreements that allow the public sector to engage with private enterprises to take an active role in one or more aspects of the lifecycle of an infrastructure asset. PPPs can take a wide range of forms, but, at their heart, include risk and cost sharing in the design, building, maintenance, financing, or operations of an asset. There is no doubt that public sector interest in these new partnerships is motivated by the funding and financial squeeze. In the postrecession United States, low-credit ratings, debt caps, and limited options for credit enhancements continue to burden many states and localities with high debt costs. These factors often make PPPs appealing, as issuing additional tax-exempt debt may be financially or politically unfeasible. While PPPs are not “free money,” these innovative partnerships can offer cities a wide range of benefits including lifecycle cost savings, increased budgetary accountability, higher quality deliverables, and faster project delivery. “ Infrastructure PPPs potentially provide large investors with access to stable, long-term cash flows, a hedge against inflation, low volatility, stable and predictable returns, and low correlation with other asset classes. “ Institutional investor interest in infrastructure PPP investments is also growing. For many of these investors, PPPs are often the best way to gain exposure to the American infrastructure market. Furthermore, infrastructure PPPs potentially provide large investors with access to stable, long-term cash flows, a hedge against inflation, low volatility, stable and predictable returns, and low correlation with other asset classes. In addition, many of these investors, such as those from the private equity sector, have longterm capital that can allow them to focus on results measured in years, not quarter to quarter. We believe this long-term focus aligns with public needs in that it allows for both significant operational improvements and for proper engagement with a wide variety of stakeholders who have an interest in the positive outcome of these investments. However, not all infrastructure sectors or projects are appropriate for such risk/reward sharing arrangements between the public and private sectors. Some investments may not be profitable enough for the private sector, though they may meet a host of public policy priorities, such as certain green infrastructure or public parks without a revenue stream. For example, private conservancies provide maintenance and oversight for parks in cities such as New York, Pittsburgh, Houston, and St. Louis, but they are typically THE WAY FORWARD: A NEW ECONOMIC VISION FOR AMERICA’S INFRASTRUCTURE 7 Leveraging Private Sector Resources and Innovation: Bayonne Water PPP Bayonne, New Jersey, is located on the western side of the Upper New York Bay across from Brooklyn. Given its geography, Bayonne has long been an industrial and manufacturing center, home to petroleum refineries and fishing operations. With the decline of those industries in the area, the city is working to rebuild its economy around technology, logistics, and transportation due to its proximity to the Port of New York and New Jersey. Bayonne’s Municipal Utilities Authority (BMUA), the city’s water and sewer utility, is also reinventing itself. In 2012, it installed the first wind turbine in metropolitan New York to supply power to its pumping stations. Also in 2012, the city finalized an innovative public-private partnership (PPP) to improve and operate the city’s water system. At the time of the PPP deal, BMUA was burdened with nearly $125 million in debt, which dragged down its credit 8 KKR rating and degraded its ability to raise the funds necessary to reinvest in an aging, neglected, and outmoded system. BMUA needed to reevaluate the way it did business in order to bring in new capital, talent, and technology to get things back on track. Fundamentally, the agency realized that, despite myriad problems, its assets held real economic potential. BMUA provided water for a growing community with a number of economic strengths, including one of the country’s largest ports, a major medical center, and a robust manufacturing and distribution sector. The water utility was an asset for the city, not a liability. Making the most of this community asset required BMUA to draw up a key set of management priorities. First, it wanted to maintain ownership over the system. Second, it wanted to make sure that it identified and operationalized strong quality and reliability standards for the system. Third, it wanted to cushion ratepayers from THE WAY FORWARD: A NEW ECONOMIC VISION FOR AMERICA’S INFRASTRUCTURE excessive price fluctuations. Finally, BMUA wanted to ensure that the employees were treated fairly. With these core requirements in place, the city determined that these needs could be fulfilled outside the existing structure of BMUA and through a partnership with the private sector. Through a competitive bid process, BMUA selected a proposed joint venture between United Water, a water service company, and KKR, an investment firm. In exchange for a 40year concession with BMUA, United Water and KKR agreed to pay off $125 million of the utility’s debt, invest nearly $110 million to modernize the system, retrain and bolster the utility’s staff, and eventually save the utility an estimated $35 million over the lifetime of the contract, based on the city’s analysis. The deal also leveraged United Water’s significant regional presence, bringing a larger pool of highly skilled engineers and high-tech equipment to the utility. The benefits of the partnership are already evident. The completion of the investment helped the city of Bayonne to receive a credit upgrade from Moody’s. Rates will increase modestly for the community, though the city projects it to be at a lower rate of increase than if it had continued to manage the system. Within the first year, the United WaterKKR joint venture made significant investments in upgrading pipes and equipment by installing advanced monitoring equipment across the entire system. These investments have helped to improve the system to provide better service. In addition, new fleet vehicles have been purchased, employees have received over 2,500 hours of training, and the system’s first comprehensive asset management plan has been developed. Although the Bayonne water investment is in its early days, it is representative of a new movement in American infrastructure investment in which cities are finding new ways to build partnerships that turn infrastructure liabilities into productive assets. nonprofit organizations that exist for the sole benefit of the parks with no risk sharing between the public and private sectors. In our view, infrastructure projects most ripe for PPPs include those with a clear revenue stream from rate-payers, such as water infrastructure. In these cases, there is ample opportunity for the private sector to increase capital investment, bring in new technologies, and improve services. Thoughtful infrastructure procurement can also open the door to a wide range of PPP projects that do not include ratepayers. We believe that nearly any asset may be suitable for a PPP as long as there is a mechanism to spread risk between the public and private sector, even without a user fee structure. So-called “availability payment models” can allow for the public sector to pay a recurring user fee for the use of an asset based on its condition and accessibility. These availability payments can come from gas taxes, general funds, or any other non-asset-specific revenue stream. In these cases, it is important that there is a real understanding of the underlying economics and an appropriate capital structure. Strong candidates for successful PPPs also typically need stable policy environments and strong political leadership, clear and defined responsibilities for the partners, data to support financial planning and usage projections, and be large enough in scale to attract private sector interest. Since there are no standards for contracts and pricing, risk sharing, and returns, a mix of public, private, and civic groups will likely have to help develop the models for this new path forward for infrastructure. An emerging example is the West Coast Infrastructure Exchange (WCX), which is partially supported by the nonprofit Rockefeller Foundation. The WCX is a collaborative effort between California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia to create a pipeline of investable projects and develop standards for important factors, such as transparency, contracts, labor and risk allocation, among others. The overarching goal is to build an organic marketplace of projects and to create a platform from which public, private, and nonprofit partners can learn. By sharing these details in a transparent and accessible manner, project finance and delivery methods can be scaled and replicated. If successful, we think that the WCX could serve as a model for a series of state, city, and metro-led infrastructure exchanges across the United States. Each regional exchange would be able to focus on the infrastructure delivery and finance strategies best tailored to their own culture, traditions, and needs. An East Coast or Mid Atlantic Exchange may focus on infrastructure needs related to rebuilding coastlines and climate resiliency post-Superstorm Sandy, or on transit and transportation projects that cross state borders. A Midwestern Exchange may hone in on challenges of rebuilding water infrastructure in a largely slow growth environment. A Southern Exchange may focus on new infrastructure to accommodate fast growth and the new geography of manufacturing, supply chains, and goods movement. Irrespective of the precise focus, these individual exchanges could be linked up through a project clearinghouse to share data, information, and best practices. Third, other sectors of infrastructure, such as energy, KKR telecommunications, and freight rail, will likely remain dominated by the private sector, typically with federal and state regulatory oversight. But we expect there will also be new types of public and private relationships in these sectors. For example, while broadband networks are still delivered by private sector companies, local governments recognize that network access is equally important to the economic success of households as well as businesses. As cities like Los Angeles and other markets explore ways to extend broadband access to all homes in order to take full advantage of modern computing capabilities, they are also working to figure out the financing arrangements and business opportunities for firms interested in developing those networks. “ Nearly any asset may be suitable for a PPP as long as there is a mechanism to spread risk between the public and private sector. “ Similarly, the country’s trade and logistics industry is highly decentralized, with private operators owning almost all of the trucks and rails, and the public sector owning the roads, airports, and waterway rights. Unlike some of our international peers, such as Germany, Canada, and Australia, the United States does not have a unified strategy that aligns disparate owners and interests around national economic objectives. That is why we think innovative partnerships are necessary to improve the efficiency and reliability of freight movements in and around major metropolitan areas. The Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program (CREATE) aligns several of these interests in a metropolitan-wide effort to unblock freight and passenger bottlenecks that contributes to delays in the system. The $2.5 billion for the program will come from a mix of traditional sources (federal grants), private investments (railroads), state loans (bonds), and existing local sources.17 Innovation Districts are another example of an emerging trend in blended public and private investment. These highly integrated redevelopment projects leverage a city’s existing civic, corporate, and philanthropic assets to take advantage of the shifting spatial geography of innovation mentioned earlier. Fundamentally, Innovation Districts knit together large institutions like hospitals and universities with large corporations, spin-off companies, business incubators, mixed-use housing, office, retail, and modern urban amenities to form clusters of economic growth. By their very nature, these ventures require constant access to a broad array of private, public, and civic capital. Leading examples of Innovation Districts around the United States are utilizing everything from commercial lending, to basic science and applied research grants, to place-based infrastructure investments, and even seed grants from philanthropies. THE WAY FORWARD: A NEW ECONOMIC VISION FOR AMERICA’S INFRASTRUCTURE 9 Public/Private/Philanthropic/Partnerships: A P4 for Detroit While the widely reported narrative about Detroit’s bankruptcy reflects the city’s precarious fiscal outlook, it fails to recognize tremendous market momentum concentrated in the downtown and midtown areas of the city. Evidence of this resurgence—years in the making— can be seen throughout the city’s urban core, manifested in new residents, new businesses, and a renewed sense of hope in the city’s future. CBD. According to Opportunity Detroit, a nonprofit organization focused on revitalizing the city, Gilbert’s Rock Ventures has acquired over 40 downtown properties, accounting for 4 million square feet of office and retail and space, and another 3.7 million square feet of parking. Since August 2010, approximately 100 companies have moved to or relocated to Rock Ventures-owned buildings in the CBD.20 In tandem with both the private and philanthropic investments, major civic anchor institutions are leveraging their balance sheets to catalyze urban renewal. The Detroit Medical Center is currently investing $850 million in upgrades, renovations, and expansions of its facilities. The Henry Ford Health System, Wayne State University, the College for Creative Studies, Michigan State, and the University of Michigan are These investments build off of a significant philanthropic presence in Detroit. An analysis of the Foundation Center Grants Database conducted by the Reinvestment Fund found that between 2007 and 2011, foundations made 3,587 grants totaling approximately $551 million to organizations in the District; this represented 78 percent of all philanthropic dollars invested in Detroit during this period.21 Some of the most ambitious philanthropic initiatives are tied to the Kresge Foundation’s plan to invest in the M-1 light rail system that will run 3.3 miles through the heart of the city. With 11 stops along the way, the transit system will provide physical connections through the area and serve as a stimulant for more dense development in existing neighborhoods. also making millions of dollars’ worth of investments.22 Such activity did not occur by happenstance, but is the result of a new type of intentional, coordinated investments from private, civic, and philanthropic organizations, supported by targeted governmental action. According to the 7.2 Square Mile Report on Greater Downtown, approximately $880 million was invested in the Detroit Central Business District (CBD), the adjacent Lafayette Park, and Rivertown areas between 2010 and 2012. An additional $1.2 billion was invested in midtown during this period, with much of that investment concentrated in the North Cass and Medical Center areas.19 These investments are representative of a major shift in the way cities are working to fund and finance urban redevelopment and infrastructure. Traditionally, federal and state governments make direct or indirect investments in transit, roads, parks, and assisted housing, as well as in other capital improvements. States and cities also regulate building codes and standards of construction, establish how tax delinquent properties can be foreclosed, and dictate the ground rules for using eminent domain. However, with increasingly tight budgets at all levels of government, cities like Detroit are finding new ways to comingle public, private, and philanthropic resources to fund physical and economic development projects and initiatives. Private investors, spearheaded by Quicken Loans founder Dan Gilbert, are taking the lead in investing and revitalizing real estate throughout the 10 KKR THE WAY FORWARD: A NEW ECONOMIC VISION FOR AMERICA’S INFRASTRUCTURE Furthermore, these investments are bolstered by governmental action on specific regulatory issues, such as revised zoning ordinances and targeted infrastructure improvements, including a street light replacement program. Partly as a result, from 2009 to 2011, the number of jobs in the CBD grew by 5 percent, while they declined 6 percent in the city as a whole.23 The growing momentum in Detroit’s core illustrates how the private, government, and nonprofit sectors can come together to meet mutual goals. Such focused, intentional partnerships should provide a model for other metros. There are several examples of Innovation Districts. New York City deployed millions in municipal capital for necessary investments in infrastructure to lure universities and private tech firms to its Roosevelt Island redevelopment area; Detroit benefited from local and national philanthropies’ support and creation of innovation funds for start-ups in the city’s Midtown and Downtown neighborhoods; and, in St. Louis, a business model is being developed to install gigabit-speed fiber optic cable under the street at the same time construction is underway for a planned trolley line to serve the city’s Innovation District.18 While healthy skepticism exists concerning the public sector’s role in traditional real estate development, the openness and transparency surrounding these new arrangements stand in sharp contrast to what is normally a highly compartmentalized lending, planning, and public policy. Regardless of the funding arrangement, we think it is clear that projects are getting more complex. There is no universally ideal mix of funds; it depends on the specific time and place and the particulars of each project. Any public revenue source should be balanced among administrative efficiency, equity, political acceptability and other factors. The level of private engagement would depend on market and business opportunities. But in the end, traditionally public funded sectors like water and transportation are including more private interests while private sectors like energy and telecommunications are exhibiting public attributes. This tends to shift the notion of public-private partnerships away from individual transactions towards the nature and purpose of the infrastructure asset. In this way, the different sectors of infrastructure come together in an integrated manner as metropolitan areas implement and replicate tailored strategies that promote productive, inclusive and resilient economic growth. KKR Conclusion In many respects, we believe America’s ability to fully realize its competitive potential depends on making smart infrastructure choices. These choices should be responsive to game-changing economic, demographic, fiscal, and environmental realignments that will fundamentally alter the kind of infrastructure America needs for people, places, and businesses to thrive and prosper. At the same time, we should recognize the financial and political challenges ahead and the complexities inherent in today’s infrastructure investments. “ We believe America’s ability to fully realize its competitive potential depends on making smart infrastructure choices. “ At stake is our nation’s economic future. We believe that a better understanding of the role of the public and private sectors, as well as the partnerships between them, will serve to provide Americans with the reliable and modern infrastructure they need to build greater economic opportunity and create more and better jobs. As a result, metropolitan areas would be better connected to global and domestic marketplaces, and better supported by improved water, telecommunications, and public infrastructure. A greater variety of energy sources would be available to households and businesses, and all sectors will be made more resilient to natural and economic shocks. But this will only happen if new solutions for the delivery, design, and financing of infrastructure become the norm rather than the exception. It is time for a new path forward for infrastructure in America. THE WAY FORWARD: A NEW ECONOMIC VISION FOR AMERICA’S INFRASTRUCTURE 11 ENDNOTES 1. Joseph Kane and Robert Puentes, “Beyond Shovel-Ready: The Extent of Infrastructure Jobs in the U.S.,” Washington: Bookings Institution, 2014. 2. OECD/International Transport Forum, “Long-Run Trends in Car Use,” Paris: ITE Round Table 152, 2013. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/transport/longrun-trends-in-car-use_9789282105931-en 3. Urban Land Institute, “America in 2013,” Washington: 2013. http://uli.org/ wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/America_in_2013_web.pdf 4. William H. Frey, “Population Growth in Metro America since 1980: Putting the Volatile 2000s in Perspective,” Washington: Brookings Institution, 2012. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/3/20 population frey/0320_population_frey.pdf 5. 16. Illinois Department of Transportation , “CREATE: A Project of National and Regional Significance,” Chicago, 2014. http://www.createprogram.org/ about.htm 17. Brian Feldt, “Loop Trolley Funding Good News for Internet Users,” St. Louis Business Journal, March 26, 2014 18. Virginia Office of Transportation Public Private Partnerships, “Air Right Development Project Request for Information Response Summary,” 2013. http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/air_rights_development.asp 19. The Hudson-Webber Foundation and others, “7.2 SQ MI: A Report on Greater Downtown Detroit,” Detroit, 2013. http://detroitsevenpointtwo.com/ resources/sevenpointtwosquaremilesfullreport.pdf Adie Tomer, Elizabeth Kneebone, Robert Puentes, and Alan Berube, “Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan America,” Washington: Brookings Institution, 2011. http://www.brookings.edu/~/ media/research/files/reports/2011/5/12%20jobs%20and%20transit/0512_ jobs_transit.pdf 20. Rock Ventures, “Detroit Engagement Timeline,” Detroit: 2013. http://www. quickenloans.com/press-room/opportunity-detroit/ 6. U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy and The National Economic Council, “Four Years of Broadband Growth,” 2013. http://www.whitehouse. gov/blog/2013/06/14/four-years-broadband-growth 22. Bruce Katz and Jennifer Bradley, “A Growth Strategy for Post-Bankruptcy Detroit,” Washington: Brookings Institution, 2013. http://www.brookings. edu/research/opinions/2013/07/19-detroit-bankruptcy-katz-bradley 7. International Monetary Fund, “World Economic Outlook Database,” 2014. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/02/weodata/index.aspx 23. Detroit Future City, “Detroit Strategic Framework Plan,” 2013. http://detroitfuturecity.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/DFC_ ExecutiveSummary_2ndEd.pdf 8. Adie Tomer, Robert Puentes, and Joseph Kane, “Metro-to-Metro: Global and Domestic Goods Trade in Metropolitan America,” Washington: Brookings Institution, 2013. http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/10/22metro-freight-tomer-kane-puentes 9. Adam Forman, “Caution Ahead: Overdue Investments for New York’s Aging Infrastructure,” New York: Center for an Urban Future, 2014. http:// nycfuture.org/pdf/Caution-Ahead.pdf 10. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Strategic Transport Infrastructure Needs to 2030,” Paris, 2012. http://www.oecd.org/ futures/infrastructureto2030/strategictransportinfrastructureneedsto2030. htm 11. Susan Lund et al, “Game Changers: Five Opportunities for US Growth and Renewal,” Washington: McKinsey Global Institute, 2013. http://www. mckinsey.com/insights/americas/us_game_changers 12. Congressional Budget Office, “Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure,” Washington: 2010. http://www.cbo.gov/ publication/21902 13. Ibid. 14. Brookings Analysis of Moody’s Analytics Data, 2014 15. Center for Transportation Excellence, “Transportation Ballot Measures,” 2014. https://www.cfte.org/elections 12 KKR 21. Brookings analysis of Foundation Center Data, 2014. https://fdo. foundationcenter.org THE WAY FORWARD: A NEW ECONOMIC VISION FOR AMERICA’S INFRASTRUCTURE Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Patrick Sabol, Adie Tomer, and Joseph Kane from the Brookings Institution for their contributions to this white paper. Important Information The views expressed in this publication are the views of the KKR Global Institute and do not necessarily reflect the views of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. (together with its affiliates, “KKR”). This publication is not intended to endorse any particular candidate or party. It is being provided merely to provide a framework of the lending market landscape in Europe and its potential impact on non-bank lending in Europe more broadly. The views expressed reflect the current, good-faith views of the KKR Global Institute as of the date hereof and it does not undertake to advise you of any changes in the views expressed herein. In addition, the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the opinions of any investment professional at KKR, and may not be reflected in the strategies and products that KKR offers. It should not be assumed that KKR or the KKR Global Institute will make investment recommendations in the future that are consistent with the views expressed herein, or use any or all of the techniques or methods of analysis described herein in managing client accounts. KKR and its affiliates may have positions (long or short) or engage in securities transactions that are not consistent with the information and views expressed in this document. This publication has been prepared solely for informational purposes. The information contained herein is only as current as of the date indicated, and may be superseded by subsequent political or market events or for other reasons. Charts and graphs provided herein are for illustrative purposes only. The information in this document has been developed internally and/or obtained from sources believed to be reliable; however, neither the KKR Global Institute nor KKR guarantees the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of such information. Nothing contained herein constitutes investment, legal, tax or other advice nor is it to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. This publication should not be viewed as a current or past recommendation or a solicitation of an offer to KKR buy or sell any securities or to adopt any investment strategy. The information in this publication may contain projections or other forward-looking statements regarding future events, targets, forecasts or expectations described herein, and is only current as of the date indicated. There is no assurance that such events or targets will be achieved, and may be significantly different from that shown here. The information in this document, including statements concerning political events and financial market trends, is based on current political or economic conditions, which fluctuate and may be superseded by subsequent events or for other reasons. The KKR Global Institute assumes no duty to, nor undertakes to update forward looking statements. No representation or warranty, express or implied, is made or given by or on behalf of the KKR Global Institute, KKR, or any other person as to the accuracy and completeness or fairness of the information contained in this publication and no responsibility or liability is accepted for any such information. By accepting this document, the recipient acknowledges its understanding and acceptance of the foregoing statement. THE WAY FORWARD: A NEW ECONOMIC VISION FOR AMERICA’S INFRASTRUCTURE 15 . The Bmokings institution KKR Call Briefing Meeting Participants: Bruce Katz. Steven Pearson and Liza Cole with Ken Mehllnan, Global Head. Public Affairs Travers Garvin. Director. Public Affairs Justin Pattner. Director. Real Estate Brett Kelly, Associate, Real Estate Date/Time: Wednesday. July 2"d from 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. Location: Purpose of the Meeting: To reconnect following KKR's recenr trips to Detroit and Philly, and to further discuss Metro's work plan around Innovation Districts. Talking points: I Ask Ken aboul his conversations /meelings with local stakeholders in Detroil and Philly; hope they were helpful to you . Discuss our work plan moving forward in Detroit, Philly, Pittsburgh, Houston, Ballimore and other cities of interest to KKR - Pileh investing in our Innovations Districts work for FY IS ON TOP OF Infrastructure, for a Iota] of annually Goal: Have KKR commit to supporting the Innovation District work for FY '15 with a goal of engaging longrterm. This would be in addition to the annual support they are giving to our Infrastructure work. Recent Engagement with KKR: . Liza provided Travers with information on history and current situation and where we see the city going for their trip to Detroit. 0 Introduced KKR to Dave Egner (of the NED. Mark Coliechia (VP and CIO of the Henry Ford Health System), and Sue Mosey (of Midtown Detroit Inc.) for KKR's trip Io Detroit. . KKR met with John Fry (Dreer President) on Friday, June 6, right before he made his appearance at Metro": June event. 6/9/14 Travers Garvin attended the Innovations District event 5/12/14 Travers Garvin attended Infrastructure Week events including the May 16'" Brookings Fonlm 5/2/14 spoke with Bmce before KKR to Detroit 4/25 4/29/14 Rob P. in talks with Travers/KKR about Essay. details. authorship promonon. $150,000 payment received 3/27/14 for support of MPP Infrastructure work. 1/24/14 meeting to discuss approval {or $450K/3yrs for 1 1/25/13 call to discuss January infrastructure piece: 10/23/13 Bruce and Kim met with Ken Mehlman. About Ken Mehlman x Before joining KKR in April 2008, Mr. Mehlman was a Partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. x He was chairman of the Republican National Committee from 2005 to 2007, and served as the campaign manager for George W. Bush's 2004 re-election campaign. x Mr. Mehlman is a trustee of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and Franklin & Marshall College, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and serves on the Senior Advisory Committee of the Harvard University Institute of Politics, the American Enterprise Institute's National Council, the Robin Hood Veterans Advisory Board and is a member of the boards of directors at the American Foundation for Equal Rights and the IDEAL School of Manhattan. x Mr. Mehlman received his undergraduate degree in 1988 from Franklin and Marshall College and his JD from Harvard Law School in 1991. x Ken was our contact when KKR gave $200K ($100K both in FY09 and FY 10) to Met Council. About Travers Garvin: x Prior to joining KKR in 2008, Mr. Garvin was an attorney at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP where he represented clients on public policy matters before Congress and the Administration. x Before practicing law, he worked as a policy aide in the U.S. Congress focusing on issues before the Energy and Commerce committee. x Travers holds a B.A. from the College of the Holy Cross and a J.D., cum laude, from the George Mason University School of Law. x Travers recently contributed $250K to Norm Coleman’s Senate campaign. About Justin Pattner: x Prior to joining KKR in 2011, Mr. Pattner was at Eton Park Capital Management where he focused on real estate and real estate related opportunities. x Before going to Eton Park, he worked with Lehman Brothers Real Estate Private Equity and Lubert Adler Partners where he was involved in sourcing, evaluating and managing private real estate transactions. x He holds a B.A., magna cum laude, from the University of Pennsylvania. About Brett Kelly: x Joined KKR real estate in 2013 x Before going to KKR, Brett worked with AREA Property Owners and Lazard Freses and Co. x Graduated from Cornell with degree in Real Estate. KKR General Information: x Founded in 1976, KKR now controls $70 billion in assets; x KKR invests in a variety of sectors such as private equity, energy & infrastructure, and real estate; x Total revenues and income have steadily risen the last 3 years with a sharp increase from 2011 to 2012; x Current income for 2013 is near $700 million; x KKR started real estate investing in ‘11 and commits ~$700M in equity to 13 US and European projects; x KKR has not invested in infrastructure for the last 40 months, leaving committed investments around $1B; x Investments through the infrastructure fund did not occur until 2011; Board of Directors: x Henry R. Kravis x George R. Roberts x David Drummond x Joseph A. Grundfest x John B. Hess x Dieter Rampl x Patricia F. Russo x Thomas M. Schoewe x Robert W. Scully BROOKINGS Lu Hm Vm \u Brookin Metro Pro ram and KKR Meetin July 24, 2014 Kohlberv Robens Co. LP. 1. Welcome and Inlroducuons KKR and Brookmgs Teams II. Overview of KKR's Real Estate Work KKR Overvlew of Brookillgs's Innovallon Inilmnve Bruce Kalz/ I. Framing me Nallonal Vey ll. Nelworks m. Resources w. Developlng Models 21. Illveslmem Prospectus IV. Overvlew ol Illnovallon Invenme Bruce sz/ I. Prlonly Markets Vey ll. Secondary Markets V. Quesliolls/Nexl Sleps KKR and Brookmgs Teams June 2016 & %## " & $%#) " & %) & " + " #% #" ' #"- • #0 & * 1) & #% . '%#1& *#% & # (& #" !$%#) " ! '%# % &. 0 0 $%#) " $( ## " ' & %#&& ' " ' ' ' &0 %' # ' ! ' # # # , & '# ( $( 4$% ) ' $ %'" %& $& ' ' # ) 0 ", "'%# ( ' #"& % ! * ' ' ' $(%$#& " ! " " #% ' " ' # ' #& #!!(" ' &0 "'%# ( ' #"& ! 5% % " " ( , <" ! !#6 * % '# #) %"! "' # &0 %' ,#( % % " * & &# "' " '# " ' #!!(" ' & , % " ( " & ' %#( 1& " '*#% &0 & ' $$%#$% ' #% %## " & '# $ #"#% $% $ % #%$#% ' $( % ' #"& % " $ $ %- • $ $ % ,#( % % " * & , ", % &#" $ %&#"1& &' " % & "#' $( % ' #"& $ $ %0 ' * & &'( , $( & , ' # "&' '(' ' ' " ' ! '%# % & * ' #"'% (' #"& %#! %## " & & # %& " +$ %'& " ' 0 • & % # (& #" $( $% ) ' $ %'" %& $& & " # $# "' #% #(% " % &'%( '(% " ' ' ) #% ! ", , %&. #" #% #") %& ' #"& * ' " <:;= %#(" #4$%# ( $ $ %0 % % ' % + !$ &. !#" ! ",. # %## " & $( ' #"& # (& #" &/ o %#! & & " ' & " ( 4 % ) ' %'" %& $& #% % "&$#%' ' #" , # %' ( "' & 5 ( , <::A6 o #) " #%* % #" ( % ) ' %'" %& $&/ 0 0 " "' %" ' #" +$ % " * ' " '& , ! &'% ' " # %' ( "' & 5 ! % <:;;6 o % ) ' $ ' . ( ## / % ) %& # ( && ( " % &'%( '(% ( 4 % ) ' %'" %& $& , '% # " # %' ( "' & 5 ! % <:;>6 & ' & #% & %) % ' #"& $- • #. %## " & # & "#' " " 2 4 #%4& %) 3 %% " ! "'&0 $(%$#& # ' $%# '& (" , & '# " ' ' #!!(" ' & " ! '%# % & ' ' % ' # (& # %## " & '%# %# % ! *#% 0 #* !( " '#' & #"'% (' %#! <::A ("' '# ,- • 8@?:.::: ! " #$ % & ' (' ) * + % , +& - ! " # . /$00 ' $ $ & ' % & $ /$00 /$/0$ /$00 /12$ /$12 1$32$ % % ' ( # ! 4 5 ' , ! & & # • $ ! 6 ' & % 77 ' 8 # 9 ' ) & , ' & , ' * : ); < - 7 ' & ' * ' ' ' & % # 7 ' & ' * ' ' ' & % # + , ' , ! 6 =/00 # • & # ! 4 >- ' & 6 ? @ ) ,*# ! A 6 & # • B " % , )! 6 , & '' * % & 7 "( C3 # • ' , # ! 4 , 5 # • ) ( 9 , ,$ *+ ,- 3..3 ./+-$ - '' ' =/00 ./+-$ =CD#2 , E! E((( ' ) 7 * ./+-$ =30 ./++ =C2 ) , * , E! E((( ' C030 ./+0$ =30 ./01$ =20 , • • • • • • • &-B 7+ B97(" 3 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •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• • ' , 9 7 , : ( ' ) * 9 # . ' -0++$ , # 9 ! 6 , # 7 -0++$ ' 9 - : ( ' 7 ' 9 , & 9 # " 6 # 6 • ! & 8 D0G ) =C2 *# & *# & 3/G ! 6 # • ! C00. , ! C00. , ' # ' # ! , ' , ( , # &-B 7+ B97(" / Mr. Kensuke Okra President and CEO BROOKINGS ms MassachusensAvenue NW web Mm" 26' 2012 Metropolitan Policy Program Hitachi Americas. Ltd. 50 Prospect Avenue NY 10591 Dear Mr. Oka: We are delighted to welcome Hitachi, as one of our intellectual, substantive and financial supporters of the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program. As a member of the Metropolitan Leadership Council, l-titachi will receive the tollowing benefits and opportunities tor engagement with the Metro Program: Membership in a network of elite metropolitan leaders from both the business and philanthropic sectors. Invitations to attend public forums and private events hosted by the Metropolitan Policy Program, including public report releases in Washington, DC, and around the country. Briefings for Hitachi executives when they are visiting Washington, DC. An annual consultation with Bruce Katz, as well as his participation in meetings with Hitachi executives either in Washington, DC or in New York. Briefings with Robert Puentes and other Metro Program scholars on research policy and legislative discussions, particularly in areas of interest. Advance copies of all Metro Program publications, including groundbreaking research and policy briets. Participation in annual Met Council strategy sessions. Formal acknowledgement in Brookings' publications oi Met Council members as advisors and supporters. Regular updates on areas of interest and substantive impact. Customized benefits developed through dialogue with Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program staff. More specifically, in our proposal dated December 14, 2011, the foLlowing deliverables and activities are planned for the next 18 months as part of the Next Metropolis research and couveuiugs agenda: A set of research papers and policy briefs that collectively aim to identify the most promising city-building/reshaping efforts underway around the world, distill the implications of these efforts, and provide specific policy lessons for the United States. We anticipate the first of these papers will be informed by the industry roundtable we plan to convene at the suggestion of MI. Kohno as a forum to discuss technical standards for the development and deploymenl of small cities technology in the USY to be dflfied by the fall of 2012. A signature integrative piece co--authored by Bruce Katz and Robert Puentes on the Next Metropolis that presents a vision for an American metropolis that is economically productive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no creaking: Meme, July 17, 2012 Mr. Takashi Hatchoji Group Chairman for the Americas Hitachi America, Ltd. 90 Park Avenue, Suite 200 New York, NY 10016 Dear Hatchojivsan: On behalf of the Board of Trustees, I would like to thank Hitachi for its generous commitment of $300,000 over three years to the Brookings Institution. This contribution will support the work ofthe Metropolitan Policy Program, which is led by Vice President and Founding Director Bruce Katz. I am also pleased to acknowledge receipt of $100,000 as the in al payment on this grant. In addition to welcoming Hitachi to the Metropolitan Leadership Council, we are pleased to continue Hitachi's place on the Chairman's Circle of the Brookings Corporate Council. We are grateful for Hitachi's investment in the Institution and we continue to value your engagement, especially your participation at this year's International Advisory Council meeting. Through your personal efforts and those of your colleagues, the Hitachi-Brookings relationship continues to strengthen. I look forward to continuing our collaboration on the Brookings Forum this fall. In the meantime, I hope to see you at Brookings again soon. Warm regards, Ml Strobe Talbert President cc: Mr. shoji Okuyoshi Mr. Takashi Ohde In compliance with the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993. we confirm that no goods or services are received In exchange for your gift, making it fully deductible within the limits or the law. ! " ## $ " % & '( ) ! " * + ) ! " + + , * % * , + , +- + .................................................. ............................. / 0 1 * 2 ! ' 3 4 ! 5 67 1 * 8 8 6 ! 5 9' 3 : 1 * 7 / ; 9' + < : + + + 6 3 6 + + $ % 4 # + $ ) 4 7 / , 9' 3 : + '( =3 >?@'3 6 * $ 9' : + + + '( 4 + + % A # + / * + '( 6 / = 1 * 2 +- 7 7 7 % 9' 3 A + : 7 ! ' , 1 * * 8 B 2 $ %CD 4 * + &' 0 '= 2 3 + * '( =3 >?@'3 @E< % 8 B' % + CD A # * + &' + * '( % 8 ' % = % ( D 2 4 ! 5 % 0 D 2 4 + % % 4 2 %D 9' 3 A + : 2 9' 3 A + : + + % ) %D % F / % # D ' + +- % ' , % ( 2 0 D 1 * * % 2 + %D 8 * + % % / 2 %D ' 8 * 7 + ! " # $ % ! " % & % '( ) )* + ** # & % $ $ % & ! " ! ,- % . . - / $ . / # . 0 . / .% / .% 0 . / . / ! • % . . - 0 . . 0 ..% . . $ % ! • ! " ! ,- % .. / & % . .% /! • ' & . / 0 / () *+ '11' ,-./0,-)+ 2'* ..% ,-.10,-)2 2'** ..% 3 4 ! - 5, 3 0 6 • ,-))0,-)+ 27( ..% . 5 3 - / 8 8 9 % 7*'* • ,-)2 2)** : ; . 3 0 • ,-.3 2(* 9 / . % • ,-.3 0 <- . / % - -% 4 - 6! • ,-.4 2=** . / % - -% 42(** % 2'** - 6 • • • 5 6 . / 0 . .. ; . / 0 . .. / ; ; 0 # . .. / / ..% / > %? . . ..% / > %? . . % / % 0 / % / 0 / % / / ! 7 5 77 % 8 % 2.)209 2.)+: • '7 . 8 8 - / 9 • 7= 8 • 7@ 8 8 - / 9 >5 <5 / / / A .. / ? • 7B 3 .. / % • 7B % • ,:93$5: 3 C ' • • • • • • : 0 @ : 0 '+ " ,- % . / : 0 7* A . . /% $ ( & % '( / & % 'B 5 6 • ! % 2.)2 % 5.. 9 5. . - , : 4: 6 - 4$ % . / A / 6 5 3! • % 2.)2 $ / 9 $ ! " D 4 0 $ 5; 0 E 5; 0 , . 5 / /6 C . ! . . % 5 / % 5.. 9 ! - - 4 / " 3 $ 0 A F 5 0 . / . . / C !6 % - 4 / 0 F 5; . . $ 0 6 - - 4 / 3 . /% $ 0 6 : - " / . % % 5.. ! • % 2.)2 ! " ! ,- % : - 3 %- 5. . % .G C / ! • % 2.)2 % 5.. 9 . / - , 4 , . / $ , 6 - / % / ! • 9 2.)2 . % 5 / & .. - & / % - 4 3 6 - , : - D /. . /% ! • 9 2.)2 -% - ! " ! ,- % / 3 / ! % 4 / 0 5; . . 6 # . . 3 0 0 & '1 ! • 9 2.)2 ! " 3 / 0 ! ! , % 2.)2 % 5.. 9 0 # % -% ! % 5.. J - % 4 0 / $ , 6 J 4E 5; 0 , 6! • , % 2.)2 . % 5 / - - 4 E , 6 0 / -% ! $ 4 / C / . $ 6 - , : - ! - ! • 9 2.)2 % 5.. 9 . : - .. < / / ! " # / 0 %! / # . : ; . 3 0 4 . / 0 & 7*'76! • % 2.)) . - ! " - , $ ! . C 4 6 $ ! . 4 6 /! % • ! " " '1@* 0 / / D 0 %! ,:93$5: 3 C 7 • • • 9 % 7*''! 5; 0 E 5; 0 , C ! 7**=<7**@ E 5; 0 , 7**+<7**= E 5; 0 , 7**)<7**+! 3 7**) . / C / . ,, , 3 F . % 7**7<7**)! 0 .% 5; 0 . / . % $ 0 7**' . / . / F $ 0 . , '11@! . 0 $ 3 C ! 7**@<7**1! ,:93$5: 3 C ) ankings Instium'nn 2014 Meeting Briefing Participants: Bruce Katz. Rob Puentes and Mary Ellen Fraser with representatives at Hitachi: 'I'akashi Chaimian, Hitachi America. Ltd. Yushi Alriyarua, Director. Strategic Business Planning ottice Date; Monday, May 19m at 2:30 pm Location: Hitachi Office: 90 Park Avenue (between 39m and 40'" Streets) Mary Ellen Fraser's cell phone-- Purpnse and Background To thank Hitachi fur their support at Metro's work (the 3ryeai' grant expires in June) and ask fur their support tor a renewal. Thank Hitachi for their final payment on the previous 3ryear commitment (just came in 5/15 for Discuss the ways that Metro has been a critical partner to Hitachi over these past three years (see detail heluw). Present the Power Point to Mr. Hatchoji to talk about Metro's unique approach to understanding and helping metros develop strategies to drive economic development. Yushi saw this presentation in January at a meeting with Bruce Katz, Rob Puentes, Adie Tomer. Mary Ellen Fraser. and Sue Burnett. Mr. Hatchoji then joined the group for dinner atter the meeting. Note that Himaki Nakanishi replaced Takashi Kawamura as Chainnan and CEO of Hitachi in Math 2014. Bruce met with Mr. Nakanishi when Hitachi's huai'd visited Broukings in December 2013. TALKING POINTS: CONFIDENTIAL 9 ' • ( ' ' ; ' $ • B $ • " ' ' 9 9 $ • )$ 8 . ! • ' 3 9 "8 ' : • 33 " . C ' • " 33 &. 3 ' ' < : • & 33 D ' ' . ' . ' ; • 7 ' E ' ' ! ' )- 3 ' ! 9 : D$&$ 8 ' ! 9 A 8 / ! % 1 ' $ ! ; A $ ! % 1 ' $ ! ; A $ 1 ' F +5 . ' $ ' 7 9 ! ' ' ' $ ! 3 < ' /, """& ' / ) '1$ '1 D ' ! <"""&< . ' 3 ' ' A $ 7 " . 3 ' ' A $ 7 " . 3 ' ' ' % % 7 ! 2 % $ D . / 2 ' % 1$ +$ . 8 • ; ' ' ' ' D & $ • 7 > . ' ' ' 8 % '' ' ' ' > > G 2 ,$ 7 ! ' • ! ' ' H 33 ' )--3 . 33 D ' . D& ' ' 9 (@ 8% @78"# + )--3 A 'D # & < ' % I " ' B ' ' B ' ' ' ' $ 7 ' ' $ ' 33 ' ' ' ' D$&$ ' $ ! " # • +J3+* $ ! ; 8" '$ • * 7 . ( $ • 6 . ' 7 : 7 . @ /& K 9 ( 1 ' : $ • +5 $ ! ; A F . ' $ • " +5 7 . ( $ • : ,- " 7 & . ? ". 2 . $ ! ; ? $ • % , . ' ! ' % H • @ +-3+, 7 . ! ; 8" & 7 ! 2 $ • ( )5 . ' ' " ' A 2 " $ ! ! . @ . > ' L2H ' ' 9 2 N ' ! 2 O 87 $ GH P ; $2Q 0 • $ ! ; +-)) ' 9 K 9 ( ' D ' % & % & ' & ' ! # ' R " ' A ' & ( 8 ! A & ' ( A ' & ( 8 $ (@ 8% @78"# 0 • • • ! % ! 8 # $ +--63+--*$ 9 K 9 ( +--53+--6 & K 9 ( +--03+--5 K 9 ( +--,3+--0$ 8 +--, A ' # ' ' (( 7( 8 R 7 & A +--+3+--,$ ' 9 A ' & & % +--) A ' ' R % ( )**6$ $ ! ; ; ! )*6- ' " ! D $ 0 • ? % & ' ' ( +-),$ • % A ' 7 . +-)) I +-),$ • +--6 I +-)) ' ' ! 2 ' ' ' D$& : $ ! """& ! # & $ • +--43+--6 $ ". ' ! " 2 9 ( @ ? .$ • 8 +--- ' ' ! 2 ' D $ • ? ' ! )**4 7 . $ • ! " 8 ' @ D $ •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magining the Next Metropolis BY ROBERT PUENTES February 4, 2011 Here in Tokyo this week it would be easy (and expected) to write about how the United States lags when it comes to infrastructure. From rapid and reliable transit, to renewable energy production, to modern gleaming airports, the evidence is literally all around. Most Americans probably suspect this is true but until you see it ¿UVWKDQG LW LV KDUG WR DSSUHFLDWH KRZ ZLGH WKH JDS LV EHWZHHQ RXU two countries. But just as amazing is how highly integrated Japanese infrastructure is. Executives from Hitachi, Ltd. discussed with Bruce Katz and me that company’s “Smart City” efforts to deploy advanced infrastructure as part of a total urban system that is not RQO\ PRUH HI¿FLHQW EXW DOVR KHOSV PHHW D YDULHW\ RI VRFLDO DQG policy goals. This means smart grid and energy management systems for both the home and the community to promote low carbon, high quality, and economical power while dealing with challenges such as electric vehicle adoption. It means smart transportation to seamlessly integrate people and information among modes. And it means smart phone and payment technology so your handheld device can pay your transit fare, buy your coffee when you leave the station, and get you through security as you enter the building where you work. So our initial takeaway from this trip is that in the United States neither public sector agencies, nor our political leadership, operate in such an integrated fashion. We are compartmentalized instead of holistic. Instead of wringing our hands about the fact that the United States has no bullet trains, or that our energy grid is not as reliable as it could be, we should take a page from corporations like Hitachi, IBM, Cisco, Siemens, and SAP. Companies like this are leading efforts around smart and intelligent cities precisely because they can take a total systems approach, and there are PDQ\ PDQ\ HI¿FLHQFLHV WR EH KDG PDQ\ PDQ\ HI¿FLHQFLHV WR EH KDG 6R IRU WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV WKH global megatrend to watch when it comes to the “Next Metropolis” is all about integration: the kind of infrastructure you don't see. . Hitachi Grou Hitachi Grou HITACHI Search use, . [nsP?m the Nut - Products 8. Semces Corporate lntorrnanon H'rtachi in the U.S.A. Hitachi Global Sitemap ContactUs Products Social Innovation About Us News Releases Case Studies Careers Site Top 1-.t-outIJs Hitath ir the LISA. Eco-Engineering Forurr? 2014: The New of Information: Harr! essir'g the Potential of Big Data Eco-Engineering Forum 2014: The New Eco-System of Hitachi intheU SA. Information: Harnessing the Potential of Big Data Corporate Broc hure Corporate Social Responsibility U. S.A Directory Hitachi America Hitachi Events Hitachi Social innovation FonJm 2015 in North America Eco-E ngine-ering Forum 2014 2014 Sloomberg New Energy Finance Summit How to Utilize Tet: hnology June 10. 201-4 marked the sixth anniversary of a joint annual forum presented by Hitachi. Ltd. the American and [mom-rattan ?:17le the Association for the Advancement of Science and the Etrooitings institution. The focus of this year's Lead" in Racing and Fortune forum was "The New Eco-System of information: Harnessing the Potential of Big Data." The forum was held at 590 Businesses the headqualters in Washington. DC. and featured a Keynote presentation from Virginia governor Terry Two panel discussions on subtopics related to big data followed: one on the transportation applications for big data. and the other on how big data can be used to meet environmental challenges. 2013 World Business FonJm Luncheon Program with Sam Palmisano To Viewldownload Eco-Engineering Forum 2014 Summary Report. please click the link below: 2013 U.S.-Japan Council Annual Conference Downioad Forum Summarv Report tonnat. 396KB) Keeping Up With The Event Details Quanta HBR webinar Eco-Engineering Forum 2013 Date' Saturday February 20 201E. EcceEngine-ering Fomm 2012 Venue: American .Association for the Advancement of Science Auditorium use New York Avenue. NW 'v'ashington or: ECO-Ensineenns Forum 2011 Climate Change Fomm 2010 Organizer. The Brookil'lgs Institution and Hitachi. I Climate Change Forum 2009 Video Gallery Opening Remarks Hitachi illustrated insights Edward Derrick Hitachi Global Chief Program Director Center of Science Policy. and Society Programs American Assoolan?on for the Advancement of Sotence Visit Us 0 a Bruce Kat: Vice President and Co-Director Metropolitan Policy Program The Adeline M. and Alfred I. Johnson Chair in Urban and Matropolitan Policy The institution Masahiko Yamaguchi General Manager Hitachi Corporate Of?ce. DC Hr?tacnt Ltd. Keynote Address The Honorable Terry McAuliffe Governor Commonwealth ofVirginia PABEL #1 PANEL #2 Three Keys to Sustainable Urban Communities: Water, Power and Transportation The second annual climate change forum sponsored by Hitachi, featuring panels organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and The Brookings Institution. Details for the Event Date: Thursday, May 27, 2010 Venue: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Auditorium Address: 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005 Forum Schedule Thursday, May 27, 2010 12:00 - 1:00 p.m. Registration Opens 1:00 - 1:30 p.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks Master of Ceremonies - Dr. Vaughan Turekian, Chief International Officer, AAAS Opening Remarks - Dr. Alan Leshner, Chief Executive Officer, AAAS and Executive Publisher, Science - Bruce Katz, President and Director of Brookings' Metropolitan Policy Program, The Brookings Institution - Tadahiko Ishigaki, Chief Executive for the Americas, Hitachi, Ltd. 1:30 - 3:00 p.m. Panel One: "Electricity/Energy" Moderator - Dr. Charles Ebinger, Senior Fellow and Director, Energy Security Initiative, The Brookings Institution Panelists - Michael Miller, Director, Environment and Renewables, Electric Power Research Institute - William Parks, Senior Technical Advisor, U.S. Department of Energy - Naofumi Sakamoto, Chief Researcher, Hitachi Research Institute 3:00 - 3:30 p.m. Coffee Break 3:30 - 4:00 p.m. Keynote Presentation by the Honorable Lisa Jackson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 4:00 - 5:30 p.m. Panel Two: "Transportation" Moderator - The Honorable Dave McCurdy, President and CEO, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (former Congressman) Panelists - Matthew J. Klein, President, Akridge - Dr. Michael Meyer, Director, Georgia Transportation Institute, Georgia Institute of Technology - Robert Puentes, Senior Fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program, The Brookings Institution 5:30 - 5:45 p.m. Closing Remarks 5:45 - 7:30 p.m. Sushi and Sake Reception page top © Hitachi America, Ltd. 1995, 2009. All rights reserved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• 4 ! ! & , " " & • 2 # >2 0 + 0 <9 + 2 " 0 * . & • +, " " 7 + @ 6 " + + +, " ' + @ $ " + A4 4 ! & • 0 ' + @ $ " + A4 & • 0 ++ 9 / , % & 1$=1$%& %. 01;. %. 1.1$ 6 & ' !- ;0 . . 0 " 8 ! • . 9 / , B-) + & 3 4 $ "" • 9 / 7 # $% =& 2 # > 4 2 • ! = C& 9 / BD- + & 2 # !! 2 A " • &= 9 / B- & $% = ! , 0 $2 7 , & ! (2 ' > 7 + 8 • A = 9 / BDB + & $ $ , 3 7 , 8 / • 8 / $2 > & (( # / 2 4 7 + 8 • ++ 7 , $% = $% ) " " < & • . , " E ( 0 / , & . %( * " + / + 5 2 • A BB + & 1.0# .&#% = #&1 ; # # F + E 2 8 • .3 < CD & 9 / B- $% B& 2 6 # 2 % 8 ! . / / 8 ! F + % + / • >9 - 9 / + & 2 # 2 % ' + 8 ! • > !! 7 , @ 0 / 7 , 2 , + & . ! ) $% ) =C " + $% A$% =& - ' # %( # / A$ 3"" + 8 > 7 4 7 + "" , 2 0 + + & / 7 • , , * 2 $% & - # 2 F / ' 7 + "" • , , BBC& . $% 0 !! % / @ + +, !& . & 3 " 5 2 • * . , $% & ' $% ) " * +, & • . , " " & 1 = ( 2 . • 3 $2 $% $% =& ( 2 E 7 , ! ' 4 3"" 8 8 4 + • + # $% = 0 " " & . D @ $ + " + $% G $% & : 2 6 %( * < 7 , 9 8 ' 8 • # F =)B 9 / B- * 2 $% B& 1.0# .&#% ) ' 4 "" • , $2 $% & & & + , + • . , 9 / C& • $% ) ! , 0 $2 7 , & • . + +, " @ $ @ & &$; & % % ( 7 8 / !" • # , & + +, " 9 $ + 4 !+ 6 ++ & A + " & • ++ D +! 4 +, H & ++ = ! & #. #># ;% 1.1$ • > , 9 / $% -& 0 " 0 " & $ ' • . 9 / # $% = 0 " " ! & 0 + $ * $ + 4 & • E !! * 2 : A ; & * +, & - 3 ( ' & ' • $% A$% =& # $% =& • ) + ! 9 / 0 , 0 + & - ( • . E $% & . 3 , & - $ • , + +, )& - : 6 • # , 0A 9 / $% )& ' " * +, & 1.0# .&#% = ' & ( • 2 $% & 3; & # + 5 2 7 ! • 0 , $2& • ! = " 0 B 0 0 "" $% B " ! # + + & = - 7 • 2 " & % " ( 5 2 4 2 7 8 / !" • " % % ( & 1.0# .&#% C From: Nagamoto, Tamie Date: Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 9:09 PM Subject: RE: Speaking with someone at Hitachi To: "Lipton, Eric" > Dear Mr. Lipton, I apologize for the late reply. Please find the answers to your questions as follows. ++ What is Hitachi's goal when it funds think tanks, like say the Brookings Institution, and what benefits does it gain, given that Hitachi has contributed at least $1.8 million to Brookings over the last decade? Hitachi participates in activities and events of leading think tanks in order to expand its understanding of U.S. and global issues and policies. The U.S. is an important market for Hitachi and the US Government is an important actor globally. It is important for Hitachi to understand and try to anticipate what the future holds in markets where Hitachi provides technologies and services, such as energy and the environment, smart transportation systems, transportation infrastructure, healthcare, etc. Please note Hitachi does not engage in lobbying activities in the US. Hitachi has a long-standing relationship with the Brookings Institution. We understand it to be a common practice for think tanks, and other academic research institutions to receive financial contributions from corporations that participate in their programs. ++ Is it proper for Hitachi to get benefits from think tanks, such as private advice on corporate strategy, or assistance in networking with US government officials through events that think tanks convene, in exchange for your contributions? Hitachi does not seek any private advice from any think tanks on corporate strategy or assistance on networking with government officials. Moreover, the Brookings Institution does not provide any proprietary information to Hitachi. Hitachi supports the independent research and mission of the Brookings Institution, the results of which are also available to the general public. ++ Do these services rendered as a result of the donation mean that this is in fact not a charitable contribution but instead, and it should be recorded as a business expense? Your question regarding contributions and business expenses appears to refer to the US Internal Revenue Code. It is our Japanese parent company, Hitachi, Ltd., which has made contributions to the Brookings Institution. Hitachi, Ltd is not a U. S. taxpayer and has not claimed any U.S. charitable deduction. ++ Are donations to think tanks like Brookings part of an effort to try to influence the United States government or to promote your products here? No, the contributions to Brookings are not part of any effort to influence the United States Government in any way. Neither are they part of an effort to promote Hitachi products in the United States. Promoting Hitachi products and technologies in the United States is done through numerous traditional marketing channels entirely separate from the relationship with Brookings or other think tanks. Thanks very much and regards, Tamie Nagamoto Hitachi America, Ltd. BROOKINGS INSTITUTION RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM ERIC LIPTON 1/28/16 QUESTION ONE: How is it appropriate for Brookings to be making written commitments to help for-profit companies that are major contributors--like Hitachi and Lennar--to help them pursue their corporate agendas in the United States? Brookings offered access to its scholars and, in the case of Hitachi, also organized a Special private briefing at Brookings headquarters that included a State Department official and executives from Hitachi, as the documents show. How is that not a fee-for?service arrangement? Brookings?s relationship with corporate and other funders is to advance our mission. which is to conduct obiective, independent research and, based on that research, provide recommendations for policymakers, community leaders, and the public. Helping corporate donors pursue their for-profit agendas is not part of our agenda. The Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings (Metro) is focused on promoting innovative and inclusive growth in cities. Metro works with a broad range of players, including business associations, universities, developers, philanthropies, corporations, and nonprofit institutions, to address major urban economic challenges. Working with these coalitions, Metro provides a public benefit by designing solutions that support growth and job creation, increase affordable housing, and improve the urban environment. We have clear rules of conduct for all Brookings scholars as they engage with the private and public sectors: 0 Research conducted must be objective and independent. It may be informed?but not directed or manipulated?by outside actors, regardless of whether those actors provide funding to Brookings; The results of Brookings research are not proprietary to any donor and are made available to all stakeholders and the general public; Brookings does not engage in ?fee-for-service? arrangements. The purpose of the proiects funded by JPMorgan Chase, Hitachi, and Lennar is to benefit the communities and metro areas where Brookings works. EXAMPLE: FROM Hitachi documentI Page 38 May 19, 2014 Review of services delivered to Hitachi in past three years [reporter?s characterization] "Discuss the ways that Metro has been a critical partner to Hitachi over these past three We have engaged Hitachi through: I More than 10 in-depth meetings with Hitachi executives from Japan and the US. 0 Including Hitachi executives in four GCI forums (Columbus, Miami, Houston, Dallas), plus introducing Mr. Hatchoji to Gov. Calzada of Queretaro at Feb 26th lunch at Brookings. 0 Two sets of extensive review of Hitachi materials including meetings and conference calls. 0 Production and participation in four other Hitachi?sponsored events/convenings (3 forums, 1 board meeting). 0 Upcoming Eco-Engineering forum will have Gov. Terry McAuliffe as keynote, and the Metro-organized panel on Big Data and Transportation will have Hitachi?s Dr. Umeshwar Dayal as speaker (he?s their Big Data Research director). EXAMPLE: FROM HITACHI DOCUMENTI Page 45 The Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program An Opportunity for Support and Collaboration Submitted to Hitachi June 11, 2015 Smart Cities: Beginning in 2012, Brookings provided advice and guidance as Hitachi worked to develop its Vision of the Smart City. This included in-person meetings with Hitachi officials, teleconferences connecting us with officials in Japan, and a thorough review of a draft white paper document and direct feedback to Hitachi. The nature of our review included suggestions to provide a more direct economic frame, a clear distillation of the complex governance structure of U. 5. cities and metros, and shaper messaging that would better appeal to an American audience. We also provided an ongoing list of smart city events happening in the U.S., which we keep apprised through our extensive We also believe the relationship is mutually beneficial to Hitachi. Brookings produces rigorous quantitative research products that expose the unique infrastructure characteristics of metro areas across the country, and then situates those metrics across key market-based indicators like industrial output and demographic changes. Those insights have helped inform and educate Hitachi officials to better design infrastructure solutions that befit markets? specialized needs by uncovering the chief economic and social concerns that will motivate future infrastructure Brookings? unsurpassed expertise in how U.S. cities and metros operate and govern themselves also helps firms like Hitachi navigate complex relationships with key decision makers. Many of the decisions around infrastructure investment are made at the local level and, though our extensive network of partners, we help build public and private relationships, especially in the 100 largest metros. We also have deep understanding of federalist systems which is especially important when considering the multiple actors involved in designing and financing projects, and how those projects often involve vertical and horizontal intergovernmental relationships. Therefore, Brookings respectfully requests a $100,000 renewed membership in our Met Council and support of the Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative. This support will enable Brookings and Hitachi to collaborate on several critical priorities for both organizations over the next year. BROOKINGS RESPONSE RE HITACHI: Brookings did not advance the corporate agenda of Hitachi? something that would have been antithetical to its mission. The bullets extracted by Mr. Lipton from the May 19, 2014 document mischaracterize those as ?services delivered.? The May 19th document is a briefing memo, produced for internal use only, that summarizes the past and upcoming smart infrastructure research that the Hitachi contribution is supporting. The bullets in question detail ways Hitachi has been directly engaged in the project, including participation in public education forums. These do not reflect services promised, rendered, or requested. Brookings Metro scholars regularly interact with a range of stakeholders. Corporate donors, along with foundations and individuals support the Brookings Metro program because they see it as a catalyst for impactful change. Reviewing a draft white paper written by Hitachi on smart cities was a natural part of Metro?s interaction with the corporations involved with smart cities. Brookings had nothing to do with the publication or dissemination of Hitachi?s paper. Hitachi?s gift to Brookings after its Board of Directors visited Brookings on December 3. 2013 did not constitute a fee-for-service arrangement. 0 In the summer of 2013, Brookings asked Hitachi, to consider hosting a Brookings Council event in the fall. Brookings Council events are substantive programs for Brookings-wide donors and, as evidenced by the event briefing (page 24), are attended by a wide range of donors. Hosts for Brookings Council events typically pay for the event expenses and provide welcoming remarks. It is routine for individuals and corporations to serve as hosts for Council events. Hitachi identified December 3, 2013 as a date they would be interested in hosting a Brookings Council lunch since their Board of Directors was scheduled to have a meeting in the United States at that time. 0 Hitachi then asked to hold their Board of Directors meeting at Brookings, also on December When space is available, Brookings allows its rooms to be used for non- 3 Brookings events. In this case, the space was available, so we allowed Hitachi to use it on a cost-reimbursable basis. 0 This was a Hitachi event and should not be confused with the Brookings Council lunch that was held on the same day. 0 Hitachi reimbursed Brookings $5,300 for the Brookings Council luncheon and $1,900 for expenses related to its Board of Directors meeting (catering, room fee and AV costs). 0 Hitachi requested scholar briefings for their Board meeting. Metro?s director, Bruce Katz acted as a facilitator during those briefings. Brookings scholars regularly brief donors and other visitors to Brookings, including the media and foreign government officials. 0 One week later, Hitachi provided Brookings with an additional $25,000 gift. Brookings did not request this gift and it was not part of any understanding with Hitachi related to the events of December 3. Contrarv to the reporter?s assertion, Brookings did not arrange for Julia Nesheiwat, whoI at the timeI was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of StateI to give a private briefing for Hitachi. I Hitachi took the initiative to invite Ms. Nesheiwat (see email dated October 11, 2013). Brookings was not involved in the invitation. I Hitachi had a prior relationship with Ms. Nesheiwat, who had previously served as the Hitachi Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (see Hitachi docs page 21). Brookings Metro?s work on ?smart cities? with Hitachi was not designed to help it advance its corporate agenda: rather it was designed to better understand how investments in digital infrastructure can enhance urban services, promote economic opportunity, and improve citizen engagement. 0 Five years ago, Brookings?s infrastructure experts at Metro decided to conduct research on ?smart cities,? and that project required an understanding of the practices of leading corporations in the ?smart cities? ?eld. 0 Metro approached Hitachi to learn more about its smart city work because it was a pioneer in the field. At the time, Hitachi was a corporate member of the Brookings International Advisory Council, providing unrestricted support to the institution as well as support to other programs. 0 Metro also engaged other corporations with similar expertise. Some were existing donors (IBM, Microsoft, SAP) and others were not (Alstom, Nissan, Pegasus, Phillips, Valmont, Audi, Schneider Electric). 0 As evidence that Brookings was not supporting Hitachi?s corporate agenda, Brookings?s scholars ultimately recommended a city-led, bottom-up strategy for smart cities that was antithetical to the corporate-led, top-down approach typically favored by corporations in this ?eld. Examples of Brookings scholars who made that point: I Adie Tomer and Robert Puentes: "Our technology-first approach has failed the city of the future. [By] focusing on the cutting-edge technologies themselves and relying on private companies to move forward, we have lost sight of what we even want our cities to achieve with all that tech."1 I Amy Liu and Robert Puentes: technology-first approach to smart city development, without a clear map of a city?s future direction, will often lead to new technology that will fail to result in sustained, community-wide change.?2 I Shamika Ravi and Robert Puentes: "From the perspective of individual private firms, a smart city is often whatever that firm happens to be selling.?3 1 Adie Tomer and Robert Puentes, ?Here?s the Right Way to Build the Futuristic Cities of our Dreams," Wired, April 2014. 2 Amy Liu and Robert Puentes, "Delivering on the Promise of India's Smart Cities,? Brookings, January 2015, 3 Shamika Ravi and Robert Puentes, ?Uniqueness of India?s Smart Cities,? Brookings, December 2015. EXAMPLE: From Lennar Document, Page 6 "First?and at the heart of this engagement?we can use our convening power, research expertise, network connections, and knowledge of innovative practices to help further drive the ultimate impact and success of Lennar?s Innovation Alley. Second, we can facilitate peer-to-peer learning and information exchange between San Francisco and other cities, both in the Bay Area and nationally, that are at various stages of designing and implementing on Innovation District Strategy. Finally, Brookings can engage with national media to develop stories that highlight Lennar?s innovative approach? "To these ends, the Brookings Metro Program will specifically: Conduct a private assessment of Lennar?s work providing feedback on successful components and identifying any "issue areas.? 0 Provide public validation of San Francisco?s efforts through national and local media coverage, placement on Metro?s website as a best-in-class re-imagined urban area model, and Brookings? participation at the Fall 2014 Forecast SF event; 0 Provide connections to and networking opportunities with other organizations and practitioners engaged in Innovation District e?orts across the country. This peer-to-peer learning will foster discussion on best practices in the development and implementation of innovation districts. 0 Engage with regional economic development leaders in Fremont, Alameda, Vallejo, Oakland and Concord to identify strategic opportunities to promote economic growth in the East Bay? BROOKINGS RESPONSE RE: LENNAR 0 Since 2011, Metro has been creating a network of city builders, helping them work with city governments to develop world class ?innovation districts? based on Brookings?s objective analysis of market trends and independent assessments of best practices. 0 Brookings research focuses on developing effective strategies to expand job opportunities for local residents, increase the supply of affordable housing, and help revitalize surrounding neighborhoodsf' 0 Lennar, like many other public, private and civic entities involved in building innovation districts, is applying Brookings research and observations to its Shipyard Project. 0 For example, Brookings has written extensively about the central role that universities and educational institutions play in innovation districts. Lennar 4 This research is best exemplified by The Rise of innovation Districts report published by Brookings in June 2014. See also: Tom Ashbrook, ?Innovation Districts: Reshaping Our Cities. Changing Our Economies" On Point with Tom Ashbrook, July 2014; Bruce Katz and Julie Wagner, ?The Rise of Innovation Districts: A New Geoeraphv of Innovation in America?, June 2014; Fred Bows and Elina Saxena, ?Innovation Districts Are a Clear Path Forward for Cities and Metros", June 2014. adjusted its development plans to attract San Francisco State University and other educational offerings to the Shipyard Project.5 0 Lennar does not receive exclusive benefits or any proprietapy research products from Brookings. No research and writing has been conducted exclusively for Lennar or the Shipyard Proiect QUESTION TWO: The terms of the agreements here in several cases look more like a consulting firm or public relations firm that is providing services to clients than a think tank that is soliciting donations to help the public and industry players at large to address societal issues. Is that the case? And if not, how do you characterize the relationship? Again this language (Lennar Documents, Page 6): "To these ends, the Brookings Metro Program will specifically: Conduct a private assessment of Lennar?s work providing feedback on successful components and iden tifying any "issue areas?; 0 Provide public validation of San Francisco?s efforts through national and local media coverage, placement on Metro?s website as a best-in-class re-imagined urban area model, and Brookings? participation at the Fall 2014 Forecast SF event; BROOKINGS RESPONSE: - Brookings engages with corporations?donors and non-donors?on proiects that help communities. Brookings does not do public relations work for Lennar or any other corporation. 0 Brookings has provided the same assessments and advice to Lennar that it provides to other cities, districts and deveIOpers. In all cases, the advice is based on research and observations that already exist in the public domain. 0 Metro scholars have provided advice to for-profit and non-profit developers of projects who are not donors to Brookings University of Alabama/Birmingham?s, University of South Florida in Tampa7, Rock Ventures in downtown Detroits, Argent in London?s Kings Crossg, and Vulcan Real Estate in Seattle?s South Lake Unionm). 5 Emily Fancher, State Universitv wants to expand at Hunters Point?, San Francisco Business Journal, September 2014. 6 Mark Kelly, "You?re on Your Own?, Birmingham Weid, October 2015. 7 Robert Trigaux, "Brookings advocate Bruce Katz stops by to encourage Tampa's emerging innovation district?, Tampa Bay Times, October 2015. 8 Natalie Broda, ?Detroit launches Innovation District to sour iob growth?, Cram ?5 Detroit, June 2014. 9 Bruce Katz and Greg Clark, ?Forget big suburban campuses. innovative corporations are moving downtown?, Quartz, May 2014. 10 INNOVATION THROUGH NEIGHBORHOOD Vuican inc., May 2014. Brookings has provided peer-to-peer learning opportunities for leaders of innovation districts from across the country irrespective of whether they are donors to Brookings Midtown Atlanta, Brooklyn Navy Yard, Detroit Innovation District). 0 Brookings scholars? judgment and commentag on Lennar?s Shipyard Proiect are based on merit and reflect a broader strategy by Brookings to identi? and publicly validate the best practices of innovation districts around the United States. 0 Metro scholars regularly write about the merits of projects in particular cities regardless of whether any actors involved are donors to Brookings je.g. Atlanta?s Tech Square.11 Buffalo?s Niagara Medical Campus,12 Chattanooga?s downtown innovation district,13 St. Louis?s Cortex District,? and Sheffield?s Advanced Manufacturing Research Park?). 0 As one of the largest urban regeneration projects in the United States, Lennar?s innovative practices at the Shipyard Project are highly relevant to similar revitalization efforts underway elsewhere. 0 Lennar?s Shipyard Project has been recognized by regional and national organizations for the quality of its design and scale of its ambitions.16Lennar was already innovating on community benefit agreements, affordable housing commitments, and mixed use design before they provided funding to Brookings. Given the high profile of the Shipyard Project, Brookings would be writing about these innovations irrespective of whether the Institution received funding from Lennar.17 Audie Cornish, "'Innovation Districts' Mav Be Cornerstones Of New Urban Economv? Morning Edition, July 2013. 12 Bruce Katz, ?Delivering the Next Economv in the Buffalo?Niagara Region" Brookings Speech, June 2012. 13 Bruce Katz, "An innovation district grows in Chattanooga? Brookings The Avenue Biog, September 2015. 14 Brian Feldt, St. Louis? Cortex highlighted in Brookings report on innovation districts? St. Louis Business Journal, June 2014. 15 Bruce Katz and Kelly Kline, ?An advanced manufacturing innovation district grows in Sheffield, England? Brookings, March 2015. 16 Kristy Wang "At Last, Thousands of New Housing Units on the Wav in SPUR, December 2014.; Jeffrey Betcher, ?B_ayview Hunters Point: NEN Comeback Neighborhood-winner?? Bayview Footprints, December 2015; "Straight Talk with Kofi Bonner? Urban Land Institute, April 2013. 17 In 2012, for example, Metro scholars were highlighting the international ?nancing that was being considered for the Shipyard Project. See Bruce Katz and Robert Puentes, "The Future of U.S. Redevelooment Financing: China??, Atlantic Cities, July 2012. QUESTION THREE: ln Brookings most recent Form 990, and in forms filed over the last four years, it has consistently reported 50 dollars of PROGRAM SERVICE REVENUE, which is on the first page of the 990, line 9. A private sector non-profit lawyer who I asked to review some of these documents, with companies like Hitachi and Lennar, said that based on the terms of the donation agreements that he read, his assessment was that Brookings should have recorded some of the donations as program service revenue. Most pointedly, the donations that related to the visit by the Hitachi board to Brookings were made to cover these costs, as direct compensation for a series of private briefings and even ts organized for the company and its executives. Brookings did work, as part of a payment agreement with Hitachi and Lennar, to provide specific deliverables, such as helping Lennar do public relations work on its San Francisco project and helping Hitachi shape its Smart Cities marketing plan. Brookings is entitled to serving as a consultant to these for profit ventures. How is that not program service revenue? BROOKINGS RESPONSE: Brookings is con?dent that it properly reported its revenue in the Form 9905. Brookings consulted a leading nonprofit tax specialist, Douglas Varley, of Caplin and LLP, a prominent tax law firm, which has had no previous relationship with Brookings. After reviewing the documents provided by the New York Times, as well as interviewing key Brookings personnel, Mr. Varley and his colleague Sharon P. Want concluded: Based on our review and the analysis presented below, it is our opinion that, given the applicable legal standards, Brookings has reported the payments from Hitachi, JPMorgan Chase and Lennar appropriately on its Form 990. When viewed in the context of all the facts and circumstances, Brookings? conclusion that all of these activities it engaged in with these donors primarily benefited the public rather than the donors is consistent with the applicable federal tax standards. 0 Brookings also consulted its external auditors, RSM. After reviewing all of the documents provided by the New York Times, RSM affirmed that Brookings appropriately classified its revenue in its Form 9905. Brookings has had a four-star rating from Charity Navigator and a perfect score on its Accountability and Transparency Metrics every year since FY10. 0 Regarding Brookings?s relationships with Hitachi and Lennar, see answers to previous questions. QUESTION FOUR: The documents show that you introduced or set up meetings at which company officials from Hitachi, Lennar and JPMorgan had an opportunity to interact with senior US government officials, local and state officials, as well as o?icials from Mexico and other nations, as part of the agreements you made with these donors. You also at times provide detailed briefings to the donors on government relations work, such as a July 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014 memo, (Chase Document page 121). At one point, you discuss setting up private ?salon? meetings,(Chase Document page 77) between Brookings/JPMorgan and members of Congress, Senators Corker and Booker. During the Hitachi board visit, you arranged a private briefing for the company with a State Department o?icial. How do you distinguish this from lobbying? BROOKINGS RESPONSE: Brookings does not lobby and does not reguest meetings with government officials on behalf of donors. 0 To advance its mission, Brookings scholars routinely meet with government of?cials, testify before Congress, and host events that often involve government of?cials. 0 Engagement of Brookings scholars with government officials is explicitly tied to the objective of informing policy in order to improve governance. 0 During meetings with government officials, Brookings scholars share data, information, and ideas, but are proscribed from endorsing or advocating for any specific legislation. Re: JPMorgan Chase 0 The Global Cities Initiative (GCI) is designed to help cities across the United States generate growth through exports to the global economy and foreign direct investment. - GCI does not promote the business interests ofJPMorgan Chase (JPMC). Brookings did not conduct any outreach to government officials at the request of JPMC. 0 No ?salon? dinners were organized by Brookings. The Metro Program considered organizing dinners with stakeholders for brainstorming on strategies for increasing the impact of GCI. However. Metro chose not to proceed with this idea to ensure compliance with Brookings?s policies and guidelines. 0 Government officials at the local, state and federal levels regularly interact with Brookings scholars involved in GCI. Those officials initiate requests to Brookings 10 Re: scholars to provide expert analysis by government officials and entities, as was the case in all the instances provided by Mr. Lipton.18 When discussing GCI with government officials, Brookings scholars always disclose that it is funded by JPMC, but note that the research, activities, and findings are Brookings?s independent work products. The semi-annual grant reports to JPMorgan Chase do not cite any examples of introductions to government officials made on behalf Reporting to donors on scholar interactions with government officials does not constitute making introductions for those donors or constitute evidence that Brookings sought to influence the officials on behalf of those donors. It is standard practice to provide donors 3 list of all activities that the program accomplished during the relevant funding period. The reports to JPMC on GCI activities were the same as other Brookings reports to donors, including reports to foundations. As part of its mission, Brookings routinely disseminates GCI research and ?ndings to a range of Congressional and Administration contacts with a likely interest in these issues, as well as local philanthropic, civic, and business leaders. Lennar Brookings?s introduction of Lennar personnel to other innovation districts practitioners, and Brookings?s meetings with economic development leaders in the Bay Area accord with our long history of working with local leaders to promote peer-to-peer learning and share our research. 0 Brookings participated in a meeting with economic development officials from various Bay Area cities in fall 2014. This session, convened by the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and Wells Fargo (with representatives from Lennar present), enabled Brookings to communicate the findings of our innovation districts work to a group of interested stakeholders. 13 Examples of requests from government of?cials or entities for briefings by Brookings Metro scholars on their GCI research include: House Ports Caucus staff; Congressional Caucus for Middle Market Growth; House Small Business Committee; Senator Gillibrand?s staff (seeking advice on export promotion and input on advanced manufacturing); Senator Wyden?s Finance Committee staff (seeking advice on the experience of GCI localities in working with federal export assistance providers on regional export planning and implementation); and US. Department of Commerce staff. 11 Re: Hitachi Brookings does not arrange meetings for its donors with government officials at any level representing any country. Brookings did not arrange for Julia Nesheiwat, who at the time was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, to give a private brie?ng for Hitachi. 0 Hitachi invited Deputy Assistant Secretary Nesheiwat19 Hitachi had a prior relationship with Ms. Nesheiwat, who had previously served as a Council on Foreign Relations20 International affairs fellow in Japan, sponsored by Hitachi 2009-2010. a Brookings learned that Mexican Governor Calzada of Queretaro would be in Washington and agreed to host him. 0 Brookin sre ularl hosts forei overnment of?cials in Washin on to speak at events which, in many casesI are open to the public arg to which Brookings invites a wide array of contacts, many of whom are not donors. Recent high-level foreign government of?cials who have spoken at Brookings include: I President Joko Widodo of Indonesia I President Juan Orlando Hernandez of Honduras I Susana Malcorra, Chef de Cabinet United Nations I Prime Minister Stefan Lofven of Sweden I Abdullah Abdullah, Chief Executive Officer of Afghanistan I Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the European Union and Vice-President of the European Commission Metro?s relationship with Governor Calzada was established in 2013 when a GCI delegation traveled to Queretaro to study Mexico?s role in the North American aerospace supply chain in light of the 20th anniversary of NAFTA. The Calzada luncheon at Brookings wasjointly hosted by the Metro, Foreign Policy and Global Economic Development programs at Brookings and was not organized on behalf of any Metro donors. Among the many invitees, a Hitachi executive was invited and attended the event along with other Brookings donors as well as non-donors with interests in the subject, as is standard practice.21 19 Email dated October 11, 2013 from Hitachi employee to Brookings employee "Today, we received an message from Ms. Julia Nesheiwat, deputy assistant secretary, Bureau of Energy Resources, that she is happy to accept our [Hitachi] proposal that is being part of a 12/3 (Tue) Brookings Hitachi session in the afternoon.? October 11, 2013. 1? CFR link: 12 0 As a major employer in Queretaro with an established presence since 1994, Hitachi has no need to have Brookings ?introduce? the firm to the governor.22 QUESTION FIVE: Brookings, in the course of negotiations {Lennar documents page 4) with Lennar over a donation, agreed to name a Lennar executive who was negotiating the donation to Brookings as a nonresident scholar at Brookings. This title gave the Lennar executive a certain platform to promote the company?s work, on its San Francisco project. How is that not a conflict of interest? BROOKINGS RESPONSE: 0 Mr. Bonner was a Nonresident Senior Fellow from February 2014 until June 2015. 0 Mr. Bonner was appointed because he is a nationally respected urban developer with considerable expertise angexperience in urban development. 0 Brookings regularly draws on the specialized knowledge and experience of outside experts, often appointing them as nonresident scholars because of their ongoing involvement with a particular research project. These experts are drawn from academia, other think tanks, the non-profit sector and the for-profit sector. 0 Mr. Bonner was eminently quali?ed to be appointed a non-resident scholar. He had served as Redevelopment Director for the City of Emeryville, Director of Community and Economic Development for Oakland, Interim City Manager for Oakland, and Chief Economic Policy Advisor to San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. He also holds a Masters in City planning from UC Berkeley. 0 Metro has appointed several Nonresident Senior Fellows who, like Kofi Bonner, are respected urban practitioners rather than traditional scholars and researchers: 0 Andy Altman, one of the most reSpected city planners in the United States and Europe, former head of the Olympic Legacy Corporation in London, former Deputy Mayor of Economic Development in Philadelphia, and former head of the Department of Planning in Washington, DC. 0 Jeremy Nowak, one of the most respected innovative urban financiers in the United States, founder of The Reinvestment Fund in Philadelphia, one of the largest community development financial institutions in the United States. 21 See email BI_Calzada Lunch_Guest List 022514, January 31, 2014; List of Participants, Lunch in Honor of Jose Eduardo Calzada Rovisrosa, February 25, 2014; and Gov. Calzada Luncheon 2.25.14, Invitation List. 22 See: 2493 13 0 Wolfgang Nowak, former high level of?cial in the federal and state governments in Germany, former head of the Alfred Herrhausen Society in Berlin which was the initial funder of the Urban Age Program at the London School of Economics. 0 Brookings is not aware of any instance in which Mr. Bonner used his Brookings af?liation to promote the business interests of Lennar or published work using his Brookings nonresident title. 0 He appeared as an expert panelist at a single Brookings event on June 9, 2014, the launch of The Rise of Innovation Districts white paper. His af?liation with Lennar was clearly communicated at that event.