5 steering 2-7-final

370 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Real Estate
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
370
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

5 steering 2-7-final

  1. 1. Steering Committee Kick-Off February 7, 2013 Scott Conference Center Omaha, Nebraska
  2. 2. The region Saunders County Mills County Douglas County Sarpy County Pottawattamie County Harrison County Cass County Washington County 680 80 29 80 29 80 Wahoo Plattsmouth Omaha Council Bluffs Bellevue Valley Blair Papillion La Vista Gretna Ralston Carter Lake Boys Town Bennington Waterloo Springfield Glenwood 75 Logan ²0 10 20 305 Miles Iowa Nebraska PROJECT GEOGRAPHYHEARTLAND 2050
  3. 3. Why a regional vision? The metro area’s residents’ pocketbooks, jobs,• education, and quality of life are inter-related. Planning for the future allows the region to be more• competitive. 2013 >> 2050•
  4. 4. MAPA Founded in 1967, MAPA is a voluntary council of governments serving five counties of the Omaha-Council Bluffs Metropolitan area, and the Federally-designated Metropolitan Planning Organization. MAPA does: Transportation planning• Community and economic development• Cross-jurisdictional studies and projects•
  5. 5. Background Heartland 2050 has its origins in the convening of a “development forum” by MAPA in 2005, which provided a space for cross-jurisdiction collaboration and discussions on matters of planning and development, beyond the typical project-based framework.
  6. 6. Shift in Federal policy-making In 2009, three Federal agencies created a new “Partnership for Sustainable Communities,” an interagency effort to achieve greater efficiencies in Federal investment by eliminating redundancy and contradiction in funding programs.
  7. 7. Assessment of readiness In 2010, MAPA undertook an assessment of readiness to engage in a regional visioning process. This assessment engaged many of the counties in the region, as well as cities and special- purpose districts. It resulted in a decision to apply for a planning grant through HUD. mapa Heartland Vision 2050 Assessment of Regional Readiness Final Draft Report August 23, 2010
  8. 8. Planning grant MAPA submitted applications to two rounds of the HUD Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant program, winning $2.045 million in the FY 2011 competition. Our application focused on the following structural conditions: Demographic change• Economic restructuring• Climate volatility and resilience•
  9. 9. A Systems Approach We realized that these trends and conditions can be better observed in distinct thematic areas, or forms of capital. mobility shelter water food education health economic development transit Places People Resources
  10. 10. The population is growing... 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000 PopulationGrowth MSA Cass County, NE Douglas County, NE Sarpy County, NE Saunders County, NE Harrison County, IA Mills County, IA Pottawattamie County, IA + 143,147 (+ 912%) + 236,090 (+ 84%) +420,536 (+95%) + 23,476 (+ 34%) Washington County, NE + 8,880 (+ 54%) + 8,723 (+ 76%) + 3,857 (+ 23%) + 995 (+ 7%) - 4,632 (- 24%) TotalPopulation Growth 2010200019901980197019601950
  11. 11. in spite of a declining birth rate 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 MSA Cass County, NE Douglas County, NE Sarpy County, NE Saunders County, NE Washington County, NE Harrison County, IA Mills County, IA Pottawattamie County, IA Douglas County, NE Sarpy County, NE Cass County, NE Washington County, NE Saunders County, NE Pottawattamie County, IA Harrison County, IA Mills County, IA 28.5 31.2 26.0 23.3 23.0 21.8 19.9 12.5 0.3 8.1 16.1 15.9 14.4 13.0 10.4 10.4 5.1 3.6 MSA Crude Birth Rate (per 1,000 persons)
  12. 12. and rate of natural growth. 2010200019901980197019601950 MSA Cass County, NE Douglas County, NE Sarpy County, NE Saunders County, NE Washington County, NE Harrison County, IA Mills County, IA Pottawattamie County, IA Douglas County, NE Sarpy County, NE Cass County, NE Washington County, NE Saunders County, NE Pottawattamie County, IA Harrison County, IA Mills County, IA 1.89 2.64 1.67 1.37 1.37 1.10 0.93 0.19 -0.84 0.02 1.15 0.88 0.74 0.31 0.16 0.26 -0.44 -0.78 MSA Rate of Natural Increase (%)
  13. 13. Steady future growth? 39 Appendix A1 Outlook for Population and Employment in Five-Year Intervals Table A1.1 Total Population, All Counties, 2000 to 2050 Counties 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Core Counties Douglas 463,585 486,929 511,227 532,354 550,918 567,702 583,538 599,274 615,742 633,724 653,888 Sarpy 122,595 139,371 156,696 174,201 191,540 208,441 224,709 240,236 254,997 269,023 282,393 Suburban Counties Nebraska Counties Burt 7,791 7,455 7,240 7,207 7,320 7,550 7,885 8,331 8,897 9,586 10,396 Cass 24,334 25,734 27,733 30,037 32,600 35,385 38,381 41,601 45,060 48,764 52,712 Dodge 36,160 36,078 36,176 36,625 37,367 38,377 39,673 41,296 43,294 45,708 48,565 Otoe 15,396 15,509 15,704 16,005 16,399 16,868 17,414 18,054 18,808 19,694 20,722 Saunders 19,830 20,458 21,220 22,525 24,306 26,500 29,084 32,072 35,487 39,348 43,661 Washington 18,780 19,772 21,235 23,053 25,140 27,460 30,024 32,860 35,994 39,439 43,203 Iowa Counties Fremont 8,010 7,759 7,541 7,474 7,546 7,734 8,028 8,429 8,943 9,573 10,317 Harrison 15,666 15,884 16,242 16,752 17,385 18,099 18,879 19,735 20,686 21,750 22,941 Mills 14,547 15,284 16,213 17,164 18,100 18,999 19,879 20,783 21,752 22,816 23,990 Pottawattamie 87,704 89,738 92,378 95,111 97,943 100,850 103,872 107,104 110,663 114,651 119,143 Core Counties Total 586,180 626,300 667,923 706,555 742,458 776,143 808,247 839,510 870,739 902,747 936,282 Suburban Counties Total 248,218 253,671 261,682 271,954 284,105 297,820 313,118 330,265 349,583 371,328 395,652 Grand Total All Counties 834,398 879,971 929,606 978,509 1,026,563 1,073,962 1,121,365 1,169,775 1,220,322 1,274,075 1,331,933 Source: Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce (historic data), and UNL Bureau of Business Research (outlook) Population projections through 2050 Source: UNL BBR 2007
  14. 14. Challenges to human capital Percentage of 18-24 year-olds without a HS degree 0 - 10% 10% - 15% 15% - 25% 25% - 50% 50% - 69.5% Educational Attainment
  15. 15. Challenges to human capital Unemployment Unemployment Rate - workers 16 - 64 0 - 4% 4% - 8% 8% - 15% 15% - 25%
  16. 16. Challenges to human capital Poverty Percent of adults in poverty 0 - 5% 5% - 10% 10% - 25% 25% - 50% 50% - 85%
  17. 17. Implications How do we increase net migration through attraction of• talent to the region will be the key to its future growth? How do we narrow socioeconomic disparities• to strengthen the native human capital base and contribute to the region’s economy and attractiveness?
  18. 18. A paradigm shift approaches... Current sewerable extent in core urbanized area
  19. 19. in howwe manage growth Current urban growth and sewerable land
  20. 20. and use land. Parcel-based land use in MSA Green = ag or ag trust Red = commercial Dark grey = residential Light grey = reserved
  21. 21. Challenges to natural capital L S L L L S L L S L L L L L L SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL U.S. Drought Monitor S January 29, 2013 Valid 7 a.m. EST The Drought Monitor focuses on broad-scale conditions. Local conditions may vary. See accompanying text summary for forecast statements. Released Thursday, January 31, 2013 Author: Mark Svoboda, National Drought Mitigation Center L S Intensity: D0 Abnormally Dry D1 Drought - Moderate D2 Drought - Severe D3 Drought - Extreme D4 Drought - Exceptional http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ Drought Impact Types: S = Short-Term, typically <6 months (e.g. agriculture, grasslands) L = Long-Term, typically >6 months (e.g. hydrology, ecology) Delineates dominant impacts Climate volatility
  22. 22. Challenges to natural capital Urban encroachment on habitat, ag land Land Cover Open Water Developed, Open Space Developed, Low Developed, Medium Developed, High Barren Land Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest Mixed Forest Shrub/Scrub Grassland/Herbaceous Pature/Hay Cultivated Crops Woody Wetlands Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
  23. 23. Challenges to natural capital Growth throug 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2012 Growth through annexation 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2012 Expanding urban footprint relative to population gain
  24. 24. Implications How do we maximize use of land within sewerable• areas to provide a stronger tax base to leverage new water infrastructure investment in the future? How do we minimize risks posed by climate volatility?•
  25. 25. Infrastructure costs are rising... Core urbanized area estimated costs of transportation costs Source: MAPA LRTP 2035. Number given in thousands Metropolitan Area Planning Agency Long Range Transportation Plan 2035 FIGURE 7.3 PROJECT LIST SUMMARY TABLE Project List Summary Table 2011‐2035     Nebraska Jurisdictions Iowa Jurisdictions        Total Project Cost (YOE) Total Project Cost (YOE) TIP  NE‐TIP‐Local  $120,070 TIP  IA‐TIP‐Local $11,898 NE‐TIP‐NDOR  $66,390 IA‐TIP‐NDOR $324,980 Short  Term  NE‐2015‐2020 Local   $468,696 Short  Term  IA‐2015‐2020 Local  $68,838 NE‐2015‐2020 NDOR  $178,614 IA‐2015‐2020 IDOT $414,900 Long Term  NE‐2021‐2025 Local  $398,786 Long Term  IA‐2021‐2025 Local $48,972 NE‐2021‐2025 NDOR  $308,918 IA‐2021‐2025 IDOT $212,704 NE‐2026‐2030 Local  $544,779 IA‐2026‐2030 Local $44,544 NE‐2026‐2030 NDOR  $0 IA‐2026‐2030 IDOT $382,109 NE‐2031‐2035 Local  $541,468 IA‐2031‐2035 Local $54,868 NE‐2031‐2035 NDOR  $0 IA‐2031‐2035 IDOT $0    TOTAL NE‐2011‐2035  $2,627,721 TOTAL IA‐2011‐2035  $1,563,813    Total LRTP Project Cost 2011‐2035 (YOE)  $4,191,534 7.8 BELTWAY The MAPA Beltway Feasibility study concluded that a Beltway along the edges of the metro area was part of the solution to meet future transportation needs in the MAPA region and that future study for the project should continue. While a particular alignment was not identified in the Study, a generalized mile-wide swath shows the approximate area that would be considered for a future high speed, limited access facility. This facility would provide mobility around the MAPA region as it grows in
  26. 26. and revenue sources shrinking Source: CBO 2012
  27. 27. but demand continues Current Level of Service A B C D E F Present roadway level of service
  28. 28. to intensify. Forecasted 2035 LOS A B C D E F 2035 projected roadway LOS
  29. 29. Challenges to built capital Generational shifts in housing/ community preferences HOW BIG IS THE MARKET FOR SMART GROWTH? ALMOST HALF OF THE ANNUAL MARKET WANTS TO WALK 3,500,000 4,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 Gen Y Gen X Boomers Eisenhowers 1,000,000 1,500,000 Eisenhowers 0 500,000 Prefer Downtown Prefer City, Prefer Small Town Prefer Rural Prefer Suburb, Prefer Suburb, RCLCO13 y, Residential , Mixed Use , Residential Only Source: RCLCO 2012
  30. 30. Housing Age 0 - 25% 25% - 40% 40% - 70% 70% - 85% 85% - 100% Percent of Housing 30+ years Challenges to built capital The region’s housing stock is aging - many areas over national median
  31. 31. Challenges to built capital Growing/Shrinking Places 2000-2010 -3,833 people -3833 - 0 0 - 500 500 - 1,500 1,500 - 2,500 2,500 - 5,000 5,000 - 10,440
  32. 32. Implications How do we balance new growth with reinvestment in• existing places? How do we maximize return on investment in• infrastructure while minimizing long-term cost liabilities?
  33. 33. The Approach
  34. 34. Goals Create a vision, based in shared community values, for• the sustainable future growth of the Omaha-Council Bluffs metropolitan area Develop a strategic framework for infrastructure• investment rooted in an understanding of trade-offs Improve data quality and access to foster more• collaboration and evidence-based policy-making Engage and involve all segments of the population.•
  35. 35. What this means... The vision and strategy framework will give decision- makers a good reading of the region’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as the opportunities and threats associated with various courses of action
  36. 36. What this does not mean... This process will not create a new level of government or usurp local control of land use. It will not make rules or laws. Each jurisdiction will ultimately decide the degree to which it wishes to align with the outcome of the visioning process
  37. 37. Example: Chicago Go To 2040 1 COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL PLAN Full Version October 2010
  38. 38. Advisory structure H2050CONSO RTIUM EQUITY & ENGAGEMENT FOCUS GROUPS PUBLIC WORKSHOPS EXISTING PLANS RELATED INITIATIVES Natural Capital Committee Resources Built Capital Committee Places Human Capital Committee People Steering Committee Community Engagement
  39. 39. Key elements of the process Values research• Asset inventorying• Visioning through scenario planning• Strategic frameworks for infrastructure investment• Indicators to track progress•
  40. 40. Questions/Discussion
  41. 41. Project Timeline
  42. 42. What we’ve beenup to so far Grant paperwork and set-up• Project branding and communications/outreach• strategy Process design• Relationship-building•
  43. 43. Phase 1 Baseline Assessment & Forums When: now through July 2013 Activities: Complete asset inventory and document existing• conditions Roll out up to 30 community forums around the region• Launch MindMixer web outreach• Analyze and feed back results of community forums to• project committees Host a knowledge exchange summit in July 2013•
  44. 44. Phase 1 Baseline Assessment & Forums Outcomes: Large dataset of values research to inform scenario• development Better understanding of regional development issues• and among citizens, stakeholders Indicators to be used to measure scenario performance• Deliverables: Existing conditions and baseline assessment report•
  45. 45. Phase 2 Regional Vision Scenario Development When: August 2013 through December 2013 Activities: Scenario planning workshops held throughout the• region Online scenario development tool• Outcomes: Dataset capturing wide range of thoughts on growth• trajectories to be used in compiling final scenarios Better public and stakeholder understanding of trade-• offs between policies and various growth model
  46. 46. Phase 3 Preferred Vision Scenario Identification When: December 2013 through April 2014 Activities: Develop a final range of scenarios drawing on outputs• from previous phases of the project Plan and host a regional town hall (or several town• halls) presenting scenarios Outcomes: Regionally preferred vision scenario identified•
  47. 47. Phase 3 Preferred Vision Scenario Identification Deliverables: Draft vision scenarios (for Steering Committee review)• Regionally preferred vision scenario report•
  48. 48. Phase 4 Preferred Vision Scenario Identification When: May 2014 to December 2014 Activities: Develop task forces around specific vision elements• (housing, transportation, natural resources) Outcomes: Strategic framework and partnerships for each vision• element in place Deliverables: Regional blueprint document•
  49. 49. Project Phasing Timeline FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER 2013 2014 Baseline Assessment & Community Forums Regional Vision Scenario Development Scenario Finalization & Preferred Vision Scenario Development of Regional Blueprint and Strategy Documents Implementation
  50. 50. Steering Committe’s role The Steering Committee is the primary decision-making body of the Heartland 2050 regional visioning effort. Charged with formal review of all policy documents or• deliverables that originate from the process Empowered with the right to approve, approve• with qualification, or reject any such documents or deliverables.
  51. 51. Looking ahead Meeting frequency We anticipate bimonthly meetings of the Steering Committee through this year Meeting times: We propose first Thursdays of the month (?) The next three meetings will be dedicated to learning about the state of the “three domains of capital” in our region, and feature panel discussions with subject matter experts.
  52. 52. Lunch

×