Headquarters 6262 N. Swan Rd., Ste. 105 Tucson, AZ 85718 P 520.529.2521 F 520.529.2499

Washington D.C. Office 10 G St. NE, Ste. 710 Washington D.C. 20002 P 202.248.5026 F 202.248.5099 www.aurp.net

• A National Strategy for America’s Communities of Innovation WHITE PAPER ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Association of Defense Communities Michael A. Houlemard, Board President Executive Officer, Fort Ord Reuse Authority

Council on Competitiveness Deborah L. Wince-Smith, President Samuel Leiken, Senior Director of Policy Studies

Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable Susan Sauer Sloan, Director

The National Academies Charles W. Wessner, Director, Technology, Innovation, & Entrepreneurship

National Association of Seed and Venture Funds Richard A. Bendis, Acting Chair President, Chief Executive Officer, Bendis Investment Group LLC

National Business Incubation Association Dinah Adkins, President, Chief Executive Officer

National Center for Smart Growth Research & Education Gerrit Knaap, Professor, Executive Director

National Council of Entrepreneurial Tech Transfer Tony Stanco, Executive Director

National Governors Association Raymond C. Scheppach, Executive Director Erin Lamos, State Technology Policy Analyst

State Science and Technology Institute Dan Berglund, President, Chief Executive Officer

The University Financing Foundation Kevin Byrne, Chief Investment Officer

The individuals named above served in their individual capacities. The endorsement of the views expressed in this document, of each advisory committee member or their associated organizations, is not implied. tors, university financing foundations, seed and venture capital groups, and science and technology development organizations.

The Power of Place explores a number of suggested federal initiatives, reforms October 2, 2008 and investments that will leverage the power of innovation in this country. Dear Colleagues: With the new Presidential Administra- tion and Congress in 2009, we hope The last decade vividly demonstrates The Power of Place stimulates discus- the economic forces leading to the sion, legislation, and the expansion globalization of science and innova- of and support for Communities of tion. Delegations of federal officials Innovation within the United States. have visited China, India, the Middle East and other countries, and returned The Power of Place: Better Science; amazed at the speed and scale at Better Innovation; A Better World. which national governments outside of the United States are developing university research and science Sincerely yours, and centers, national laboratories, and other physical manifestations of sci- ence and technology. J. Michael Bowman Within our own nation, research and President, Association of University science parks, technology incubators, Research Parks venture accelerators and research Chairman and President universities traditionally have been the Delaware Technology province of state and local govern- Incorporated ments. Individual entrepreneurship, local financial investment, and world- class research universities are part of the genius of the American innovation Michael Bowman system that still leads the world.

The United States government annually funds billions of dollars of Brian Darmody research and development, and it AURP Power of Place Advisory Board plays a major role in setting national Chair and Principal Author economic development programs. Associate Vice President for Research Earlier this year, the Association of and Economic Development University Research Parks (AURP), in University of Maryland conjunction with the National Academy of Sciences, conducted a forum in Washington D.C. to examine the role of research and science parks within the global context. As a result of that forum, AURP has developed a set of recommendations and assembled an advisory board who represent research and science parks, technology incuba-

RECOMMENDATIONS

Sustaining Members and Sponsor List 4 5

introduction6

Creating Communities of Innovation rewarding communities of innovation 10

Collaboration and Commerciali15zation

17Investing in Capital

concl18usion 20 policy RECOMMENDATIONS

· Establish American Innovation · Reform Federal Tax Provisions · Establish a Federal Zones: The Innovation Zones would for Facilities Funded by Technology Foundation serve as the centerpiece of efforts Tax-Exempt Financing: A federal technology foundation to modernize the U.S. approach to Current federal policy on corporate should be established to work with fostering competitive research and sponsored and/or funded research government managed federal labs. development. Innovation Zones are performed in facilities funded through A foundation modeled on existing a critical next step towards Ameri- tax-exempt bonds unduly restricts university research foundations could can competitiveness, encourag- flexibility in negotiating corporate enable these laboratories to more ing research in such a way as to intellectual property (IP) rights. Elimi- effectively commercialize technology accelerate investment and economic nating the current IRS restrictions or and use existing federal research development around research clus- increasing the safe harbors under assets for local technology-led eco- ters. The Innovation Zone approach IRS regulations in American Zones of nomic development. envisions establishing objective Innovation to allow greater flexibility in criteria for national innovation assets, intellectual property negotiations will · Develop Comprehensive including research parks, technol- improve U.S. competitiveness, and Government-wide Database ogy incubators, universities, federal increase the likelihood that corporate Access to a government-wide laboratories, and adjacent proper- R&D will stay in the U.S. database on all federal R&D funding ties, and then providing regulatory is necessary to ensure that impor- reforms and economic incentives for · Create Enhanced Preferences tant national innovation assets are their accelerated development. for Small Business Innovative properly understood and leveraged Research (SBIR)/Small Business for technology innovation. · Enact Federal Innovation Zone Technology Transfer (STTR) and Partnership Program: The federal National Institute of Standards · Fully Fund the America government should establish a plan and Technology (NIST) Technol- COMPETES Act to competitively create research ogy Innovation Program (TIP): The The U.S. Congress took a great centers within the Innovation Zones federal government should provide step forward in passing the America that would require matching grants incentives to small technology start- COMPETES Act in 2007. The Act from state governments, local gov- up companies located in American authorizes a substantial federal ernments and private industry. These Zones of Innovation to be awarded investment in high risk, high reward centers would focus on areas of high SBIR, STTR, and NIST’s new TIP research and improves funding to national needs, including energy contracts and grants. Cluster devel- many of the U.S. science agencies. research, homeland security, food opment, collaboration, and target- Research institutions and companies safety, and global climate change. ing the benefits of federal research in Innovation Zones stand to benefit dollars will provide incentive for new from the America COMPETES Act, · Build Sustainable Communities of investment in the Innovation Zones, but the Act has not been fully funded Innovation: Incentives for sustain- and improve the quality of research by Congress. The new Administra- able ‘smart growth’ development through greater cooperation among tion and the next Congress must should be central to establishing public and private researchers. make funding the America COM- American Innovation Zones. The PETES Act a priority. U.S. Department of Housing should · Solidify the Tax Benefits for explore best practices nationally to Research and Development: · Import Innovation: Research parks encourage density and mixed-use By reauthorizing the research and and incubators in American Innova- development in American Innova- development tax credit, Congress tion Zones should be targeted to tion Zones in urban areas, which will will return the U.S. to an even playing recruit foreign technology companies encourage researchers and entrepre- field with many of its global competi- using ‘soft landing’ techniques similar neurs to live where they work, and tors for research investment. Beyond to those pioneered by the National reduce sprawl. this first step, Congress should offer Business Incubation Association an enhanced benefit for companies (NBIA). · Encourage Federal Leasing and that perform their research within an Federal Lab in Innovation Zone, or who contract · Welcome Human Innovation Capi- Innovation Zones: The federal gov- with Innovation Zones entities for tal to the U.S.: In order to ensure ernment should target federal leases research or development. continued retention of highly-skilled for research and federal lab construc- researchers and technicians, the tion and related activities within Ameri- · Expand Enhanced Use Leasing U.S. must offer competitive im- can Innovation Zones. (EUL) Authority: Expand current migration incentives that welcome enhanced use lease authority to foreigners into our Communities of all federal agencies to create more Innovation, and retain their talents American Innovation Zones adjacent through the H-1B visa process. to federal labs. the power of place P

ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY RESEARCH PARK SUSTAINING Members

Alexandria Real Estate Equities Incorporated, Pasadena, California Arizona State University Research Park, Tempe, Arizona BHDP Architecture, Cincinnati, Ohio Biomedical Research Foundation of Northwest Louisiana, Shreveport, Louisiana Booz Allen Hamilton, McLean, Virginia Clemson University - International Center for Automotive Research, Greenville, South Carolina Centennial at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina Research Park, Orlando, Florida Cummings Research Park, Huntsville, Alabama DilksConsulting Incorporated, , Pennsylvania The Facility Group, Smyrna, Georgia Forest City Science + Technology Group Georgia Institute of Technology, , Georiga KlingStubbins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Valley Research Park, Dayton, Ohio Piedmont Triad Research Park, Winston Salem, North Carolina Purdue Research Park, West Lafayette, Indiana The Research Park at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois Foundation of North Carolina, , North Carolina Sandia Science & Technology Park, Albuquerque, New Mexico Sasaki Associates Incorporated, Watertown, Massachusetts University City Science Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania The Science & Technology Park, Tucson, Arizona The University Financing Foundation, Atlanta, Georgia University of Kentucky - Coldstream Research Campus, Lexington, Kentucky University of Maryland, (UMB) BioPark, Baltimore, Maryland The University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi University of Missouri System-Missouri Research Park, Chesterfield, Missouri University of Nebraska Technology Park LLC, Lincoln, Nebraska University of New Orleans Research and Technology Park, New Orleans, Louisiana University of South Carolina - Innovista, Columbia, South Carolina University Research Park, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin University Wellness, Lavellette, New Jersey Wexford Science & Technology LLC, , Maryland The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, Baltimore, Maryland

SPECIAL RECOGNITION AND THANKS TO OUR POWER OF PLACE SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONs

Arizona State University Research Park, Incorporated, Tempe, Arizona BayBio, South San Francisco, California Bio-Research & Development Growth Park at the Danforth Plant Science Center, Saint Louis, Missouri Center for Emerging Technologies, Saint Louis, Missouri The Chesapeake Crescent Initiative: Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia Delaware Technology Park, Incorporated, Newark, Delaware Maryland Technology Development Corporation, Columbia, Maryland The Mississippi e-Center at Jackson State University, Jackson, Mississippi North Dakota State University Research & Technology Park, Fargo, North Dakota Ohio Agricultural Research & Development Center, The Ohio State University, Wooster, Ohio Piedmont Triad Research Park, Winston Salem, North Carolina Purdue Research Park, West Lafayette, Indiana The Research Park at the University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign, Champaign Illinois Research Parks Maryland, State of Maryland The Research Triangle Park, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina Sandia Science & Technology Park/Science and Technology Park Development Corporation, Albuquerque, New Mexico Texas Research & Technology Foundation, , Texas University City Science Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania The University of Arizona Science & Technology Park, Tucson, Arizona The University Financing Foundation, Atlanta, Georgia University of New Orleans Research & Technology Park, New Orleans, Louisiana University Research Park, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin UT-Baptist Research Park, Memphis Bioworks Foundation, Memphis, Tennessee West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia The Power of

PA Nationallace Strategy for Building America’s Communities of Innovation

Art is ‘I’; Science is ‘We’ – Claude Bernard Historically, American research innovation has led the way to progress in countless scientific disciplines.F rom establishing the first research park in the world, to building world-class research universities and fed- eral laboratories while pioneering technology transfer and patent reform for public-private research partnerships, the U.S. has led the world in attracting research talent, funding scientific advances, and commercial- izing new discoveries. Innovations spawned in the basements, garages, dorm rooms, classrooms and laboratories of countless Americans will create jobs, foster the reversal of the U.S. trade imbalance, reduce U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources and attract and retain the bright- est human capital. It will ultimately return the United States to the pre- mier position it has historically enjoyed.

The United States is losing ground competitively. The ambitious entre- preneurs and scientists who are willing to invest time and money into an idea are being lost at a staggering pace to other countries. These foreign governments provide incentives for this U.S. human capital to uproot and move. These individuals find that the challenge of surviving in a foreign country is outweighed by the tremendous economic ben- efit these foreign communities provide. the power of place P

At the present time, the U.S. is losing · fully funding the America a robust system of private enterprise. ground because we do not provide the COMPETES Act of 2007; Individual states, including Michigan Place for the Creative Class to prosper. and Pennsylvania, have enacted new We have left the responsibility of creat- · Expanding the availability of visas programs to create clusters of innova- ing Place to local communities, many for skilled researchers; and tion through the support of technology of which cannot bear the specula- · Encouraging in-migration of foreign companies and research conducted tive burden of creating Place without start-ups through “soft landing” in knowledge zones. The State of governmental financial support. Policy programs. Maryland, for example, has targeted support to attract foreign direct invest- state infrastructure investment and ment from across the globe into the Each of these initiatives are elements of tax increment financing tools to areas U.S. is also urgently needed. a single strategy to increase innova- adjacent to U.S. military research and tion and competitiveness. We call on development labs. These areas are To that end, the Association of Univer- Congress and the new Administration absorbing the influx of thousands of sity Research Parks (AURP) offers a se- to enact comprehensive legislation in- researchers moving into the state that ries of urgent recommendations for the corporating the initiatives listed above to resulted from the latest Base Realign- U.S. Government, so that it can more increase U.S. competitiveness and en- ment and Closure Commission (BRAC) precisely support American innovation sure that we remain the world’s leader round in 2005. and American innovators with both eco- in science and technology innovation. nomic and policy-based changes. Our However, U.S. federal economic proposal targets the following: U.S. Communities of Innova- development tools do not meet the global technology development tion in 2008: The Challenge · Creating American Innovation Zones to challenges that competing nations The global competition for scientific drive the creation of modern research and individual U.S. states have been advances, research funding, and and development collaboration; addressing. research talent threatens to eliminate any U.S. advantage. Many countries · formalizing a series of incentives that Many useful strategies for the U.S. are now surpassing the U.S. with the will support growth in these com- have been promulgated, such as the creation of Place through direct na- munities, including: National Academies’ Rising above tional government funding of research the Gathering Storm. The Gathering parks and science cites. They are · Reforming the tax code for tax- Storm makes the case for a greater building new universities and national exempt financing of research park emphasis on Science, Technology, labs, and attracting top research development; Engineering and Math (STEM) educa- talent and corporate funding to these tion and other reforms of a broader · Creating a permanent and en- new international Communities of In- and longer term nature. hanced research and development novation. These countries have more tax credit; than matched U.S. policies, and are The Power of Place notes emerging providing financial and regulatory in- · Expanding Enhanced Use Leasing trends in the competitive landscape for centives for international corporations (EUL) authority; research. It highlights a series of initia- looking to establish research activities tives that will ensure that the United in particular districts and zones. · Making government-managed States is positioned to remain a leader federal labs more effective part- in building “Communities of Innova- The United States has the necessary ners in technology-led economic tion.” These Communities of Innovation ingredients to match global competi- development; are colleges and universities, research tion—including world-class universi- parks, technology incubators, venture ties, individual entrepreneurship, and accelerators, federal labs and adjoining w.

neighborhoods. With the rise of energy ties, and federal intramural research of research park and technology prices, clustering researchers where facilities – changes in the environment incubator development. The total they can both live and innovate is for innovative research require these North American employment impact also timely. research participants to evaluate how of research and science parks is over to adapt to new market forces. 700,000 jobs.1 The Power of Place is not about . Rather, it focuses In 1951, the United States became People are the key to improving on the enhancement of U.S. research home to the first research park in the economic development, and people by providing initiatives for economic world, Stanford Research Park in Palo need a Place in which to innovate. and policy reforms. These will empow- Alto, California. Over the last three de- The Communities of Innovation that er U.S. entrepreneurs and scientists cades, other U.S. research institutions are developed through research and in the commercialization of their intel- have continued to pioneer new Com- science parks are precisely this kind lectual property, thus retaining U.S. munities of Innovation. Beyond estab- of Place. The results are evident. Hun- economic competitiveness. lishing new structures where research dreds of thousands of high-paying, could be nurtured and then launched high-skilled jobs have been created, Outcomes commercially, many local communities and U.S. intellectual property has The economic growth associated enacted policies to favor these types of been kept at home. with existing U.S. research and sci- investments in research. ence parks has been substantial. What the AURP-Battelle Study does New commercialization opportunities The U.S. Landscape not reflect is how many companies, have created multiplier effects for job In 2007, AURP partnered with Battelle innovators and scientists (i.e. U.S. pay- growth and start-up company sup- Technology Partnership to review the roll) have left the U.S. because, when . By encouraging collaboration current state of research and science compared to other countries, the price and the creation of Communities of park development in the U.S. and of Place in America is too expensive. Innovation, The Power of Place policy Canada. This comprehensive study recommendations will increase do- identified trends and emerging chang- An Expanding International mestic U.S. research and technology es in research and science parks, and Landscape development and increase the effec- demonstrated the significant positive U.S.-led Communities of Innovation tiveness of federal research spending. economic impact of research parks have been emulated across the globe, These recommendations will also and technology incubators. Among with large research and science parks create a more attractive environment the key findings: developing in China, India, and the for in-bound foreign direct investment Middle East. The global landscape in research. · A new model for research park has not remained static. Presently, of development is emerging that the top ten largest research parks in New Realities and focuses on mixed-use space, the world, only one—The Research New Solutions planned multi-tenant facilities, and Triangle Park in North Carolina—is Global technology competition, intel- greater emphasis on partnerships located within the United States. lectual property challenges, “off-shor- with non-university entities, such as Brazil has developed a network of ing” of domestic U.S. research and federal labs or corporate research technology incubators financed by development, private equity involve- and development. the national government that includes ment, and new approaches to com- direct funding of hundreds of millions mercialization are all forces that impact · for every core research park job of dollars for start-up technology com- innovation. For the centers of research created, an additional 2.5 jobs are panies. India and China are building – research parks, technology incuba- created within the local community, large research and science parks, and tors, smart growth corridors, universi- demonstrating the multiplier effect the increasing oil revenues in many

1 Characteristics and Trends in North American Research Parks: 21st Century Directions (Executive Summary) October 2007. w.

the power of place P

nations in the Middle East are funding remains a significant force for growth The U.S. must develop a compre- large-scale research and development and development in Asia.4 hensive national strategy to utilize investments that far surpass those physical and intellectual property, being built in the United States. Top–ranked researchers from the along with federal, state and local United States are being recruited assets, to develop innovation zones Asia also provides several examples to lead teams within international supporting our research partnerships, of world-class that have research parks and centers associ- research and science parks, and started development with innovative ated with adjacent universities. Many technology incubators. Congress and approaches. Beyond their size, these of these international parks are led federal agencies should break down new research and science parks dem- and financed by their national govern- existing limits and restrictions on the onstrate the importance of consolidat- ments. Canada, which has a robust flow of public and private resources ing research, industry, education, system of research parks, has begun to fund joint research initiatives, and and investment in a single cluster. to consider how research parks stress The Power of Place - the physi- These include: and incubators can become central cal proximity of innovation assets in to Canadian technology-led formal zones of innovation. · Vedanta, India: With $1 billion (US) competitiveness strategy. of planned investment over the next decade, the public-private non-profit At the same time, innovation systems venture will link university students, are changing. Science is becoming a education, and state-of-the-art re- more interdisciplinary, inter-institutional, search in a single campus. Vedanta and inter-global process. Innovations will nearly half a million resi- stemming from collaborations with dents, and will be linked by design university and federal lab spin-offs are to major commercial centers and accounting for a much larger share of global commerce by rail, highway innovations, according to a new study infrastructure, and air.2 by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF).5 · Biopolis, : Founded in 2003, Biopolis now encompasses U.S. policymakers should be con- approximately 12 million square cerned about the decline of industrial feet of research space focused support for U.S. academic research almost exclusively on pharmaceuti- and development. A 2006 study by the cal research and development. This National Science Foundation highlights park was filled to near capacity the fact that many corporations are within a year of its opening as Glaxo finding greater incentives in foreign SmithKline, Isis Pharmaceuticals, countries, and increasing barriers to and other significant corporate play- research in the U.S.6 Federal funding ers occupied its space. Significant of academic science and engineering 2 Chronicle of Higher Education (http://chronicle. growth has continued over the past research and development in the U.S. com/media/flash/v53/i45/vedanta/); The 3 Stanford Daily, Indian College to be Modeled five years. failed to outpace inflation for the sec- After Stanford, Oct. 24, 2007. ond year in a row, according to a 2008 3 Nature, Singapore: Filling Biopolis, Nature 425, 7 · /Suzhou, National Science Foundation study. 746-747 (16 October 2003). China: More than 100 Fortune 500 4 Chemical and Engineering News, Chinese companies have established a All of these developments require for Industrial Parks Up the Ante, Vol. 84, No. 44 presence in Suzhou, linking com- new federal policies that recognize the (Oct. 30, 2006). mercial manufacturing with research, changing nature of innovation, and 5 Where Do Innovations Come From? Transfor mations in the U.S. National Innovation System, substantial corporate investment, create hot spots of innovation which 1970-2006”, By Fred Block

creatING communities of innovation THE AMERICAN INNOVATION ZONE, Where Intellectual Property Intersects Real Property; Human Capital Connects Financial Capital

AURP proposes the creation of a new concept for innovation in the U.S.: a system of American Innovation Zones. The Innovation Zones would serve as the centerpiece of efforts to modernize the U.S. approach to fostering competitive research and development. Innovation Zones are a critical next step towards American competitiveness: encouraging research in such a way as to accelerate investment and economic development around research clusters. The Innovation Zone approach envisions establishing objective criteria for national innovation assets, including research parks, technology incubators, universities, federal laboratories, and adjacent properties – and then providing regulatory reforms and economic incentives for their accelerated development.

Objective Content-Based Criteria Federal Labs · Trends towards greater intramural Entities eligible for designation as an (as defined in the Stevenson-Wylder cooperation between federal labs American Innovation Zone would be Technology Innovation Act) and university researchers; This definition includes federal labora- those research institutions that have tories, federally-funded research and historically been producers of intellectual · A focus on sustainability as a central development centers, or other centers property and high technology economic element of research park design; owned, leased, or otherwise funded development. The newly created In- by a federal agency and the federal novation Zone designation would apply · Greater emphasis on business incu- government, whether operated by the to the following types of entities: bation and focused research niches; government or by a contractor. Research and Science Parks · Administrative and programmatic Enhanced Use Lease (including technology incubators and resources for the management of venture accelerators) (EUL) Locations federal research grants; These clusters of research encompass Certain federal agencies are currently a wide universe of cooperating entities, authorized to lease land and improve- · Experience in commercializing including institutions of higher educa- ments to land to private sector technology; tion, start-up incubators, stand-alone in- entities. We recomend expanding this cubators, federal labs and their partners authority to all other federal agencies. · Demonstrated local or state support that are designed to promote technol- for development initiatives; and ogy transfer, research and business By establishing objective criteria for partnerships, and economic growth. recognizing Innovation Zones, the ability to develop centers of innovation · The existence of international partnerships. Colleges and Universities will be focused on the key character- This would include accredited colleges istics and trends of effective research Incentives and Regulatory Reforms and universities, including community and development. The entity must be Unlike other national governments, colleges (those that are eligible for fed- involved in the creation, promotion and the U.S. Government is not leading eral financial aid), and facilities located commercialization of intellectual prop- the effort to build research parks and on land owned or controlled by one of erty. Manifestation of this activity will be related innovation clusters. Neverthe- these entities, as defined in the Higher considered through key attributes of less, the U.S. Government does have Education Reauthorization Act. successful Communities of Innovation to date, including: at its command a number of resources w

the power of place P11

that can help the local development · Federal Innovation Zone · Federal Leasing and Federal of innovation hubs across the country. Partnership Program Lab Construction Collocation and intramural cooperation The federal government should The federal government should target between federal labs and Communities establish a plan to competitively federal leases for research and federal of Innovation result in higher quality create research centers within the lab construction and related activities research and improved technology. Innovation Zones that would require within American Innovation Zones. There are several categories of incen- matching grants from state gov- tives that are essential to this proposal, ernments, local governments and · Importing Innovation to driving new advances within Innova- private industry. These centers would Research parks and incubators tion Zones, and to encouraging univer- focus on areas of high national in American Innovation Zones sities, incubators, and communities to needs, including energy research, should be targeted to recruit foreign develop and grow these communities. homeland security, food safety, and technology companies using ‘soft They include: global climate change. landing’ techniques similar to those pioneered by the National Business · Federal Tax Reform for Facilities · Fully Fund the America Incubation Association (NBIA).9 Funded by Tax-Exempt Financing: COMPETES Act Decouple Intellectual Property Rights The U.S. Congress took a great While the federal government needs from Tax Exempt Status Analysis step forward in passing the America to take a leadership role in this arena, Current federal policy on corporate COMPETES Act in 2007. The Act partnerships with state and local sponsored and/or funded research authorizes a substantial federal governments, universities and other performed in facilities funded through investment in high risk, high reward partners will be essential. In order to tax-exempt bonds unduly restricts research and improves funding to make the concept of the American flexibility in negotiating corporate in- many of the U.S. science agencies. Innovation Zone a reality, state govern- tellectual property (IP) rights. Corpo- Research institutions and compa- ments must also review their current rations based in the U.S. now have nies in Innovation Zones stand to approaches to economic development a choice of where to conduct their benefit from the America COM- to ensure that they foster these com- research and development activity. PETES Act, but the Act has not munities in a fashion that parallels the Countries competing with the U.S. been fully funded by Congress. The federal effort. have no parallel intellectual property new Administration and the next restrictions, meaning more corpora- Congress must make funding the tions are choosing to off-shore their America COMPETES Act a priority. research. Eliminating the current IRS restrictions or increasing the · Solidify the Tax Benefits for safe harbors under IRS regulations Research and Development in American Zones of Innovation to By reauthorizing the research and allow greater flexibility in intellectual development tax credit, Congress property negotiations will improve will return the U.S. to an even playing U.S. competitiveness, and increase field with many of its global competi- the likelihood that corporate R&D will tors for research investment. Beyond stay in the U.S. this first step, Congress should offer an enhanced benefit for companies · Enhanced Preference for Small Busi- that perform their research within an ness Innovative Research (SBIR)/ Innovation Zone, or who contract Small Business Technology Transfer with Innovation Zones entities for (STTR) and National Institute of research.8 Standards and Technology (NIST) Technology Innovation Program (TIP) · Build Sustainable Communities of The federal government should Innovation: Dense is Smart provide incentives to small technol- Incentives for sustainable ‘smart ogy start-up companies located in growth’ development should be American Zones of Innovation to be central to establishing American awarded SBIR, STTR, and NIST’s Innovation Zones. The U.S. Depart- new TIP contracts and grants. ment of Housing should explore best Cluster development, collaboration, practices nationally to encourage and targeting the benefits of federal density and mixed-use development research dollars will incentivize new in American Innovation Zones in investment in the Innovation Zones, urban areas, which will encourage and improve the quality of research researchers and entrepreneurs to live through greater cooperation among where they work, and reduce sprawl. public and private researchers. 8 Greater detail on the Research and Development Tax Credit is outlined in Section III. 9 These “soft landing” offerings are more fully detailed in Section IV. w

power of place

Better Science According to officials at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the probability of detection of thunderstorms rose from 59% to 89% after they moved their National Weather Service Research Center to the Centennial Campus at North Carolina State University. NOAA attributes this to faculty and student partnerships possible because of their location. It is because of projects like these that AURP honored Centennial Campus at North Carolina State University as the 2007 AURP Award of Excellence for Outstanding Research/ Achievement Award.

Better Innovation Technology transfer is more than just licensing and patents - it is human capital, conferences, and core research. Our goal should be to balance tech transfer, and grow commercialization. A 2002 study demonstrates that university technology commercialization is facilitated by conferences, consulting, conversations, and co-supervision, all of which take place in the physical connectedness in America’s Communities of Innovation. These factors are cited more often than patents as vehicles of commercialization to the private sector. Clustering of research centers, venture accelerators, hotels, housing and mixed-use activities within Innovation Zones will improve technology commercialization in the U.S.

LICENSES AND PATENTS COMPARED TO OTHER ROUTES OF UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER; FROM SEAN SAFFORD NSF WORKSHOP 3 DECEMBER 2007

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0% Source: Agrawal and Henderson, 2002 ConferenConsulces ConversaCollaborPa RecruitingCo Gr-supaduaervPisionublica a tents & Licenses

ting tions tions tive Research

tes w

the power of place P13

NOAA Center for Weather & Climate Prediction at the university of Maryland research park

The power of research and science parks to improve technology commercialization can be demonstrated by the example of Purdue chemistry professor Peter Kissinger. Thirty-two years ago, Dr. Kissinger started Bioanalytical Systems at the Purdue Research Park in West Lafayette, Indiana. The company has since developed drugs that treat depression, migraine head- aches, cancer, and pain. It now employs over 380 people.

A Better World The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also moved a large component of its national prediction and research centers to the University of Maryland Research Park. This relationship is already improving science. Dr. Rita Colwell, the former director of the National Science Foundation, is a Distinguished University of Maryland Professor. One of her long- term international interests is examining methods of reducing cholera, which continues to be a major water-borne pathogen and scourge in many developing countries. Thanks to the NOAA partnership, Dr. Colwell was introduced to remote-sensing software modeling tools that NOAA had used for coastal prediction. Through the use of these tools, Dr. Colwell models the spread of cholera, thereby improving predictability and saving lives. Scientific discovery and data analysis that would have taken her months, if not years, will now take place in weeks thanks to these new NOAA tools. Dr. Colwell’s scientific contri- bution to pathogen research has been enhanced in a way that could not have been imagined had NOAA and the university not become research park partners. w

Clemson University - International Center for Automotive Research Photography by Rob Belknap

A number of American Innovation Smith (R-TX), this legislation offers research and science parks, and a Zone initiatives were offered as a part several proposals to foster further series of studies designed to focus on of the Building a Stronger America development of science and research international partnerships and further Act (S. 1372/H.R. 4250). Sponsored parks. These proposals offer a critical research and science park expansion. by U.S. Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) counterpart to the Innovation Zone and by U.S. Representatives Heather concept, offering initial funding for Wilson (R-NM), Gabrielle Giffords (D- development of construction plans, AZ), John Spratt (D-SC), and Lamar loan guarantees for construction of

Key Features of S. 1373

Amends the Stevenson-Wydler Act to authorize grants for the development of feasibility studies and plans for the construction of new or expansion of existing science parks.

Creates loan guarantees for project construction related to science parks.

Establishes a framework for the Secretary of Commerce to evaluate, in partnership with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a recurring three year review of science park development. w

the power of place P15

Rewarding communities of innovation EXPANDING THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT

Once a unique and innovative idea formula, and the “alternative incremen- have considerably more flexibility than pioneered in the U.S., research and tal research credit” (AIRC). In general, start-up businesses in terms of where development tax credits and incentives the credit can be claimed against they choose to conduct research. have now become a standard element Qualified Research Expenses (QRE’s), of encouraging investment in research. including in-house wages and sup- In 2005, roughly 30 percent of the However, while the U.S. was once a plies, computer “time sharing” costs, entities claiming the tax credit had as- leader in advancing these credits, it and up to 65 percent of contract sets of $1 million or less. More than 50 now lags behind many other nations research expenses. percent had assets less that $5 million. in offering tax incentives. Congress For these firms, the percentage of the must take action to ensure that the The Research and Development credit tax credit was higher than other busi- U.S. restores its competitive advantage not only provides a direct tax benefit nesses. In total, more than $6.3 billion by reauthorizing the Research and for tenants in incubators and research in credits were claimed in the 2005 tax Development Tax Credit, expanding its parks, but also encourages private year. Importantly, roughly 70 percent reach to favor Innovation Zones, and sector partners to outsource research of the credits claimed were related making the credit permanent. initiatives to claim the credit. More to wages - meaning that the direct importantly, among countries with impact of the credit is focused heavily The Research and Development Tax significant research and development on paying research teams.10 Credit expired at the close of 2007. investments, the U.S. is falling behind Under the last extension, Congress those nations that offer permanent created an Alternative Simplified tax benefits for research and develop-

In 2003, despite the existence of a U.S. research and development tax credit, U.S. subsidiaries nevertheless invested $2.5 billion on research and development in Canada, which offers a 20 percent tax deduction, and has made a concerted effort to market their research environment to U.S. business. This demonstrates the critical importance of tax credits that support research initiatives.

Credit (ASC) of 12 percent, which was ment. Australia, Canada, France, India, designed to offer a more robust credit Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, the Nether- for small businesses and entities that lands, Pakistan, Portugal, Singapore, are largely research-driven (i.e., without Spain, and the United Kingdom all offer commercial products in the pipeline). permanent credits, creating substantial The ASC was offered as an additional incentives in an already competi- option for calculating the credit, adding tive global market. This is particularly to the existing 20 percent “traditional” important to global companies, who 10 Supporting Innovation and Economic Growth, April 2008 Ernst & Young study (http://www. investinamericasfuture.org/PDFs/ R&DTaxCreditStudy2008final.pdf). w

Extending a permanent research and tage for any effort to attract the best Organization of Economic Cooperation development credit, with an expanded available talent and to spur research and Development (OECD). By 2004, benefit available in American Innova- investment by the private sector. the U.S. had fallen to 17th. America tion Zones, is a critical component must recommit to offering robust of any effort to maintain the U.S. as In 1990, the U.S. ranked first in tax incentives that attract investment. a center for innovative research. Its generosity of R&D among the 30 lead- absence is a competitive disadvan- ing industrial nations that made up the

U.S. Rank in Tax Generosity of R&D Among 30 OECD Nations, 200430

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

2004 17

1996 7

1990 1

OECD data including Jacek Warda, op. cit. from Robert Atkinson testimony before US Committee on Science and Technology, US Congress Oct. 4, 2007 w

the power of place P17

Collaboration and Commercialization Integrating federal labs: Integrating Federal Labs into Communities of Innovation; Data Mining of Federal Research

Integrating Federal Labs into universities. These labs are home to entrepreneurial instincts and passion. A Communities of Innovation many Nobel Prize researchers. To federal lab-wide foundation, based on Federal and national labs managed by more effectively transfer developed university models, could take on tech- the U.S. Government have not been as technologies, a federal technology nology commercialization and related central to local technology development foundation should be established to activities for intramural research labs. as they could be. They suffer from a work with federal government labs. This could help unlock these resources lack of administrative and legal flexibility, This could enable them to more ef- more effectively for national technology limited resources for technology com- fectively commercialize technology and competitiveness. mercialization and the lack of a mission use existing federal research assets. to work with private sector firms. Universities have used such founda- Data mining of federal research tions to manage the non-linear and Sophisticated algorithms and data By contrast, labs managed as govern- business aspects of technology trans- mining tools are being used with ment owned-contractor operated (go- fer, and engage the university in the research databases to discover pat- cos) have associated research parks, local business community. The Wis- terns of knowledge and create new venture funds and entrepreneurial leave consin Alumni Research Foundation companies to populate our nation’s policies for researchers. The Sandia (WARF) is the best-known example. research parks and incubators. In an Science and Technology Park in New information-dominated society, data is Mexico, adjacent to the Sandia National Some federal foundation models ex- one of the key enablers of innovation. Laboratories, is a leading example. ist—such as the congressionally-char- The U.S. funded-RaDiUS, a database tered Jackson Foundation at the U.S. originally created by the Office of The National Governors Association Uniform Heath Sciences University— Science and Technology Policy, was has called for better technology trans- but a national foundation would ensure the principal database of research fer from federal labs, and we echo that that all federal labs are being optimized grants funded by the U.S. Govern- call. Federal labs should be considered to contribute to national technology ment. However, federal funding for key elements in our national innova- competitiveness and reduce legal and RaDiUS was discontinued in 2007. tion strategy, and local partners in our bureaucratic barriers. Additionally, such This lack of funding creates an infor- Innovation Zones with universities, a foundation could link federal equip- mation void and no government-wide incubators, and Enhanced Use Lease ment and federal researchers more database. To ensure our Communities tenants. Many national labs in other effectively with the private sector, and of Innovation have an understanding countries have technology develop- help to address conflicts of interest of the billions of dollars of research ment missions and are key players in and related topics. and development funded by the regional technology development. U.S. Government, a comprehensive With the impending retirement of many government-wide database is neces- Federal labs perform nearly $20 billion of the nation’s top scientists from U.S. sary to ensure that important national a year in internal intramural research, federal labs, we need to ensure that innovation assets are which is approximately the same these labs recruit young scientists properly leveraged. amount performed by colleges and and researchers, many of whom have DOD HHS FEDERAL R&D BY PERFORMER (FY2002) NASA DOE FEDERAL LAB (GOVERNMENT OWNED - CONTRACTOR OPERATED) NSF USDA FEDERAL LAB Operated by USG (intramural) DOC Other SMALL BUSINESS

LARGE BUSINESS

UNIVERSITIES & COLLEGES

0 5 10 15 20 25 Federal R&D by Funding Agency and by Performer (FY2002 $B) w w

the power of place P19

Investing In Capital The Need for human capital from global players

The marketplace for research talent and capital is global and increasingly competitive. In this en- vironment, the skilled U.S. research workforce is declining, with fewer Americans attaining higher education in research sciences. Across the globe, other nations are seeking ways to attract new talent, or to encourage their citizens that study abroad to return home. These initiatives include:

· The proposed European Union (EU) In the arena of foreign investment, · Translation services; “Blue Card” that would allow non-EU the U.S. is currently in the process of · language training; skilled workers to be employed in clarifying its foreign investment rules as any EU country, a significant liberal- a result of the passage of the Foreign · Regulatory and administrative ization of EU policy. Investment and National Security Act transition assistance; of 2007 (FINSA). FINSA formalized the · Cultural training; · China’s “green passage” program, existing process for reviewing foreign initiated in 2007, which offers acquisitions in the U.S., and required · Visa assistance; returning Chinese a series of tax the Department of Treasury to issue · Patent assistance; benefits, guaranteed university new regulations governing the foreign placements for returning children, transaction (Committee on Foreign · Resources for meeting import/ and exemption from household Investment, or CFIUS) review process. export laws. registration requirements. Many in the business community have filed comments in support of these Federal support, and greater coordina- In 2008, under existing immigration new regulations, particularly because tion among agencies, could bolster restrictions, the H-1B visa cap was they contain an express exemption for these efforts and link the soft landing limited to 85,000 visas. 65,000 of “Greenfield” investment in the U.S. by concept with additional governmental those visas are available as a base foreign entities. This creates a clear support or preferences in the arena amount, with an additional 20,000 expression of support for foreign direct of grants, research, or visa alloca- visas available for foreign graduates investment in research, but there tions. Encouraging foreign companies with advanced degrees from the U.S. remain other policy initiatives that could and start-up businesses to engage in Universities. The severe limitations further encourage “in-migration” of research in the U.S., creating Com- on visas for highly skilled workers are research resources, and ideally foreign munities of Innovation that welcome one area where the U.S. lags many start-up companies, into the U.S. global cooperation, will serve a central countries around the globe. Congres- role in ensuring that America remains sional efforts to address immigration To increase the ability of the U.S. to at- competitive in the race for international policy have become mired in political tract this type of investment, Congress talent and resources. gridlock, with high profile legislation should support the “soft landing” strat- failing to survive a Senate filibuster, and egy developed and supported by the election-year politics effectively halting National Business Incubation Associa- further action until 2009. In order to tion (NBIA). This program recognizes ensure continued retention of highly- those incubators that have fostered an skilled researchers and technicians, the environment that provides critical re- U.S. must offer competitive immigra- sources to foreign businesses seeking tion incentives that welcome foreigners to expand into new markets. Business into our Communities of Innovation, incubators that receive the NBIA Soft and retain their talents through the Landings designation frequently offer H-1B visa process. some or all of the following resources:

Policy Recommendation: Expand H-1B Visa and Explore New Visa Initiatives for Research w

CONCLUSION

America stands at a crossroads for competitiveness and innovation. We can choose to adopt policies that enhance collaboration, encour- age new models for research, and attract global talent to our Commu- nities of Innovation, or we can continue to lose access to the best the world has to offer. The landscape for research is changing dramatically as countries across the globe are investing substantial sums in devel- oping large, well-funded research communities, offering expanded in- centives to attract corporate research and development, and breaking down public-private barriers to collaboration. As members of our own Communities of Innovation across the U.S., we call on the new Admin- istration, along with Congress, and federal government to take action on these core issues of American competitiveness.

Across the country, Communities of Innovation continue to support U.S. economic growth, providing an important employment multiplier, commercializing new technologies, and advancing new scientific re- search. A central priority for the government must be the cultivation and expansion of these success stories, and the development of poli- cies that allow the U.S. to remain at the forefront of innovation and technological success. www.aurp.net Headquarters 6262 N. Swan Rd., Ste. 105 Tucson, AZ 85718 P 520.529.2521 F 520.529.2499

Washington D.C. Office 10 G St. NE, Ste. 710 Washington D.C. 20002 P 202.248.5026 F 202.248.5099 www.aurp.net w

2008 Board of Directors

OFFICERS Jim Currie, Director J. Michael Bowman, President BioHio Research Park, Ohio State University Chairman & President Ohio Agricultural Research & Development Center Delaware Technology Park Incorporated Wooster, Ohio Newark, Delaware Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Brian Darmody, Asst. Vice President Austin Beggs, Immediate Past President Research & Economic Development Vice President, Corporate Relations The University of Maryland Innovation Place College Park, Maryland , Saskatchewan Canada Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Michael Donovan, Senior Associate Vice President Gregory Deason, 1ST Vice President Real Estate Management Vice President, Real Estate & Research Park Dev. University Purdue Research Park Boston, Massachusetts West Lafayette, Indiana Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Dale Gann, Vice President Harold Strong, Jr., 2ND Vice President Technology Parks, The University of Victoria Director Vancouver Island Technology Park University of North Texas Discovery Park Victoria, British Columbia Canada Denton, Texas Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Robert Geolas, Director Greg Hyer, Treasurer Clemson University-Int’l Center for Automotive Research Associate Director Greenville, South Carolina University Research Park, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison Email: [email protected] Madison, Wisconsin Email: [email protected] Scott Levitan, Sr. Vice President, Development Director Forest City - New East Baltimore Partnership Lora Lee Martin, Secretary Baltimore, Maryland Director, Strategic Policy Initiatives and Gov’t Affairs Email: [email protected] California Council on Science and Technology Santa Cruz, California Teresa McKnight, Chief Exec. Officer, Exec. Director Email: [email protected] South Dakota State University Innovation Campus Brookings, South Dakota Email: [email protected]

Jane Shaab, Assistant Vice President University of Maryland, Baltimore Office of Research and Development Baltimore, Maryland Email: [email protected]

Rick Weddle, President, Chief Executive Officer Research Triangle Foundation of North Carolina Research Triangle Park, North Carolina Email: [email protected]

AURP Chief Executive Officer Eileen Walker Email: [email protected]

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Headquarters 6262 N. Swan Rd., Ste. 105 · Tucson, AZ 85718 · P 520.529.2521 F 520.529.2499 Washington D.C. Office10 G St. NE, Ste. 710 · Washington D.C. 20002 · P 202.248.5026 F 202.248.5099 www.aurp.net w

FACTS

The Association of University Research Parks (AURP) is a 22-year-old professional association of university related research and science parks. AURP’s mission is to promote and support the development of university research and science parks worldwide.

AURP’s membership includes planned and operating parks, many of which contain technology incubators. A variety of university, governmental, not-for-profit and private companies interested in the development and op- eration of high technology economic development projects comprise AURP’s membership.

What is a Research Park? AURP defines a university research park as a property-based venture, which has: · Existing or planned land and designed primarily for private and public research and development facilities, high technology and science based companies, and support services · A contractual and/or formal ownership or operational relationship with one or more universities or other institutions of higher education and science research · A role in promoting research and development by the university in partnership with industry, assisting in the growth of new venture, and promoting economic development · A role in aiding the transfer of technology and business skills between the university and industry teams. · A role in promoting technology-led economic development for the community or region.

About Research Parks in the United States and Canada: · University research parks in the United States and Canada encompass more than 47,000 acres and include 124 million square feet of space · At full build out, these research parks will include 275 million square feet of space · More than 300,000 workers in North America work in a university research park · Every core job in a research park generates an average of 2.57 jobs in the economy

Upcoming AURP Events: 2008 Annual Conference December 10-12 in St. Petersburg, Florida “21st Century University-Industry Networks: Global, Sustainable, and Connected” AURP 2009 Washington Summit Meeting February 26 in Washington, D.C. BioParks 2009 May 16 in Atlanta, Georgia 2009 Annual Conference October 21-23 in Vancouver, British Columbia

Get the latest information about membership benefits, regional meetings, sponsorship opportunities, breaking industry news, and trends in park development: visit www.AURP.net w

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

· Establish American Innovation · Reform Federal Tax Provisions · Establish a Federal Zones: The Innovation Zones would for Facilities Funded by Technology Foundation serve as the centerpiece of efforts Tax-Exempt Financing: A federal technology foundation to modernize the U.S. approach to Current federal policy on corporate should be established to work with fostering competitive research and sponsored and/or funded research government managed federal labs. development. Innovation Zones are performed in facilities funded through A foundation modeled on existing a critical next step towards Ameri- tax-exempt bonds unduly restricts university research foundations could can competitiveness, encourag- flexibility in negotiating corporate enable these laboratories to more ing research in such a way as to intellectual property (IP) rights. Elimi- effectively commercialize technology accelerate investment and economic nating the current IRS restrictions or and use existing federal research development around research clus- increasing the safe harbors under assets for local technology-led eco- ters. The Innovation Zone approach IRS regulations in American Zones of nomic development. envisions establishing objective Innovation to allow greater flexibility in criteria for national innovation assets, intellectual property negotiations will · Develop Comprehensive including research parks, technol- improve U.S. competitiveness, and Government-wide Database ogy incubators, universities, federal increase the likelihood that corporate Access to a government-wide laboratories, and adjacent proper- R&D will stay in the U.S. database on all federal R&D funding ties, and then providing regulatory is necessary to ensure that impor- reforms and economic incentives for · Create Enhanced Preferences tant national innovation assets are their accelerated development. for Small Business Innovative properly understood and leveraged Research (SBIR)/Small Business for technology innovation. · Enact Federal Innovation Zone Technology Transfer (STTR) and Partnership Program: The federal National Institute of Standards · Fully Fund the America government should establish a plan and Technology (NIST) Technol- COMPETES Act to competitively create research ogy Innovation Program (TIP): The The U.S. Congress took a great centers within the Innovation Zones federal government should provide step forward in passing the America that would require matching grants incentives to small technology start- COMPETES Act in 2007. The Act from state governments, local gov- up companies located in American authorizes a substantial federal ernments and private industry. These Zones of Innovation to be awarded investment in high risk, high reward centers would focus on areas of high SBIR, STTR, and NIST’s new TIP research and improves funding to national needs, including energy contracts and grants. Cluster devel- many of the U.S. science agencies. research, homeland security, food opment, collaboration, and target- Research institutions and companies safety, and global climate change. ing the benefits of federal research in Innovation Zones stand to benefit dollars will provide incentive for new from the America COMPETES Act, · Build Sustainable Communities of investment in the Innovation Zones, but the Act has not been fully funded Innovation: Incentives for sustain- and improve the quality of research by Congress. The new Administra- able ‘smart growth’ development through greater cooperation among tion and the next Congress must should be central to establishing public and private researchers. make funding the America COM- American Innovation Zones. The PETES Act a priority. U.S. Department of Housing should · Solidify the Tax Benefits for explore best practices nationally to Research and Development: · Import Innovation: Research parks encourage density and mixed-use By reauthorizing the research and and incubators in American Innova- development in American Innova- development tax credit, Congress tion Zones should be targeted to tion Zones in urban areas, which will will return the U.S. to an even playing recruit foreign technology companies encourage researchers and entrepre- field with many of its global competi- using ‘soft landing’ techniques similar neurs to live where they work, and tors for research investment. Beyond to those pioneered by the National reduce sprawl. this first step, Congress should offer Business Incubation Association an enhanced benefit for companies (NBIA). · Encourage Federal Leasing and that perform their research within an Federal Lab Construction in Innovation Zone, or who contract · Welcome Human Innovation Capi- Innovation Zones: The federal gov- with Innovation Zones entities for tal to the U.S.: In order to ensure ernment should target federal leases research or development. continued retention of highly-skilled for research and federal lab construc- researchers and technicians, the tion and related activities within Ameri- · Expand Enhanced Use Leasing U.S. must offer competitive im- can Innovation Zones. (EUL) Authority: Expand current migration incentives that welcome enhanced use lease authority to foreigners into our communities of all federal agencies to create more innovation, and retain their talents American Innovation Zones adjacent through the H-1B visa process. to federal labs.

Headquarters 6262 N. Swan Rd., Ste. 105 · Tucson, AZ 85718 · P 520.529.2521 F 520.529.2499 Washington D.C. Office10 G St. NE, Ste. 710 · Washington D.C. 20002 · P 202.248.5026 F 202.248.5099 www.aurp.net