Steering Committee Kick-OffFebruary 7, 2013Scott Conference CenterOmaha, Nebraska

The region

Saunders County

Mills County

Douglas County

Sarpy County

Pottawattamie County

Harrison County

Cass County

Washington County680

80

29

80

29

80

Wahoo

Plattsmouth

Omaha

Council Bluffs

Bellevue

Valley

Blair

PapillionLa Vista

Gretna

Ralston

Carter Lake

Boys Town

Bennington

Waterloo

Springfield Glenwood

75

Logan

²0 10 20 305

Miles

IowaNebraska

PROJECT GEOGRAPHYHEARTLAND 2050

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•

MAPAFounded 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•

BackgroundHeartland 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.

Shift in Federal policy-makingIn 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.

Assessment of readinessIn 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

HeartlandVision2050

Assessment ofRegionalReadiness

Final Draft ReportAugust 23, 2010

Planning grantMAPA 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•

A Systems ApproachWe 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

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

Po

pu

lati

on

Gro

wth

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%)

Total Population Growth

2010200019901980197019601950

in spite of a declining birth rate

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

MSA

Cass County, NE

Douglas County, NESarpy 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, NEPottawattamie County, IA

Harrison County, IA

Mills County, IA

28.5

31.2

26.0

23.323.021.8

19.9

12.5

0.3

8.1

16.115.9

14.4

13.0

10.4

10.4

5.1

3.6

MSA

Crude Birth Rate(per 1,000 persons)

and rate of natural growth.

2010200019901980197019601950

MSA

Cass County, NE

Douglas County, NE

Sarpy County, NE

Saunders County, NEWashington 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

1.371.37

1.10

0.93

0.19

-0.84

0.02

1.15

0.88

0.74

0.31

0.160.26

-0.44

-0.78

MSA

Rate of Natural Increase(%)

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 CountiesDouglas 463,585 486,929 511,227 532,354 550,918 567,702 583,538 599,274 615,742 633,724 653,888Sarpy 122,595 139,371 156,696 174,201 191,540 208,441 224,709 240,236 254,997 269,023 282,393

Suburban CountiesNebraska Counties

Burt 7,791 7,455 7,240 7,207 7,320 7,550 7,885 8,331 8,897 9,586 10,396Cass 24,334 25,734 27,733 30,037 32,600 35,385 38,381 41,601 45,060 48,764 52,712Dodge 36,160 36,078 36,176 36,625 37,367 38,377 39,673 41,296 43,294 45,708 48,565Otoe 15,396 15,509 15,704 16,005 16,399 16,868 17,414 18,054 18,808 19,694 20,722Saunders 19,830 20,458 21,220 22,525 24,306 26,500 29,084 32,072 35,487 39,348 43,661Washington 18,780 19,772 21,235 23,053 25,140 27,460 30,024 32,860 35,994 39,439 43,203

Iowa CountiesFremont 8,010 7,759 7,541 7,474 7,546 7,734 8,028 8,429 8,943 9,573 10,317Harrison 15,666 15,884 16,242 16,752 17,385 18,099 18,879 19,735 20,686 21,750 22,941Mills 14,547 15,284 16,213 17,164 18,100 18,999 19,879 20,783 21,752 22,816 23,990Pottawattamie 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 586,180 626,300 667,923 706,555 742,458 776,143 808,247 839,510 870,739 902,747 936,282Suburban Counties Total 248,218 253,671 261,682 271,954 284,105 297,820 313,118 330,265 349,583 371,328 395,652Grand 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

Challenges to human capital

Percentage of 18-24year-olds without a HS degree

0 - 10%

10% - 15%

15% - 25%

25% - 50%

50% - 69.5%

Educational Attainment

Challenges to human capital

UnemploymentUnemployment Rate - workers16 - 64

0 - 4%

4% - 8%

8% - 15%

15% - 25%

Challenges to human capital

PovertyPercent of adults in poverty

0 - 5%

5% - 10%

10% - 25%

25% - 50%

50% - 85%

ImplicationsHow 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?

A paradigm shift approaches...Current sewerable extent in core urbanized area

in how we manage growthCurrent urban growth and sewerable land

and use land.Parcel-based land use in MSA

Green = ag or ag trust

Red = commercial

Dark grey = residential

Light grey = reserved

Challenges to natural capital

L

S

L

L

L

S

L

L

S

L

L

L

LL

L

SL

SL

SL

SL

SL

SL

SL

SL

SLSL

SL

SL

U.S. Drought MonitorS

January 29, 2013Valid 7 a.m. EST

The Drought Monitor focuses on broad-scale conditions.Local conditions may vary. See accompanying text summaryfor forecast statements. Released Thursday, January 31, 2013

Author: Mark Svoboda, National Drought Mitigation Center

L

S

Intensity:D0 Abnormally DryD1 Drought - ModerateD2 Drought - SevereD3 Drought - ExtremeD4 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

Challenges to natural capitalUrban 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

Challenges to natural capital

Growth through annexation

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

ImplicationsHow 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?•

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

Page | 95

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 future decades. It would also act as alternate routes for external traffic passing through the region along I-80 or I-680, thereby relieving congestion and freight traffic on the freeway system in the inner core of the metro area. Some have raised concerns that this project would accelerate urban sprawl or the decentralization of the region’s resources, although land use controls could be utilized to prevent this from occurring.

During MAPA’s public input process for this LRTP, significant concern was raised by numerous citizens and public groups regarding the Beltway’s potential negative impacts. The issues raised included the potential for worsening the economic deterioration within the urban core of the metro area by accelerating decentralization of employment and population, as well as environmental concerns regarding contributing to urban sprawl with accompanying about auto-dominated suburban development. Some expressed the view that no project of the magnitude of the Beltway should be done until more is done to improve conditions in the urban core.

and revenue sources shrinking

Source: CBO 2012

but demand continues

Current Level of Service

A

B

C

D

E

F

Present roadway level of service

to intensify.

Forecasted 2035 LOS

A

B

C

D

E

F

2035 projected roadway LOS

Challenges to built capitalGenerational 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

2,000,000Gen 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

Housing Age

0 - 25%

25% - 40%

40% - 70%

70% - 85%

85% - 100%

Percent of Housing 30+ years

Challenges to built capitalThe region’s housing stock is aging - many areas over national median

Challenges to built capital

Growing/Shrinking Places2000-2010

-3,833 people

-3833 - 0

0 - 500

500 - 1,500

1,500 - 2,500

2,500 - 5,000

5,000 - 10,440

ImplicationsHow 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?

The Approach

GoalsCreate a vision, based in shared community values, for •the sustainable future growth of the Omaha-Council Bluffs metropolitan areaDevelop a strategic framework for infrastructure •investment rooted in an understanding of trade-offsImprove data quality and access to foster more •collaboration and evidence-based policy-makingEngage and involve all segments of the population.•

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

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

Example: Chicago Go To 20401

COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL PLANFull Version October 2010

Advisory structure

H20

50 C

ONSO

RTIUM EQUITY & ENGAGEM

ENT

FOCUS GROUPS PUBLIC WORKSHOPS

EXISTING PLANS RELATED INITIATIVES

Natural CapitalCommittee

Resources

Built CapitalCommittee

PlacesHuman Capital

Committee

People Steering Committee

CommunityEngagement

Key elements of the processValues research•Asset inventorying•Visioning through scenario planning•Strategic frameworks for infrastructure investment•Indicators to track progress•

Questions/Discussion

Project Timeline

What we’ve been up to so farGrant paperwork and set-up•Project branding and communications/outreach •strategyProcess design•Relationship-building•

Phase 1 Baseline Assessment & Forums

When: now through July 2013

Activities:Complete asset inventory and document existing •conditionsRoll out up to 30 community forums around the region•Launch MindMixer web outreach•Analyze and feed back results of community forums to •project committeesHost a knowledge exchange summit in July 2013•

Phase 1 Baseline Assessment & Forums

Outcomes:Large dataset of values research to inform scenario •developmentBetter understanding of regional development issues •and among citizens, stakeholdersIndicators to be used to measure scenario performance•

Deliverables:Existing conditions and baseline assessment report•

Phase 2 Regional Vision Scenario Development

When: August 2013 through December 2013

Activities:Scenario planning workshops held throughout the •regionOnline scenario development tool•

Outcomes:Dataset capturing wide range of thoughts on growth •trajectories to be used in compiling final scenariosBetter public and stakeholder understanding of trade-•offs between policies and various growth model

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 projectPlan and host a regional town hall (or several town •halls) presenting scenarios

Outcomes:Regionally preferred vision scenario identified•

Phase 3 Preferred Vision Scenario Identification

Deliverables:Draft vision scenarios (for Steering Committee review)•Regionally preferred vision scenario report•

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•

Project Phasing TimelineFE

BR

UA

RY

MA

RC

H

AP

RIL

MA

Y

JUN

E

JULY

AU

GU

ST

SEP

TE

MB

ER

OC

TO

BE

R

NO

VE

MB

ER

DE

CE

MB

ER

JAN

UA

RY

FEB

RU

AR

Y

MA

RC

H

AP

RIL

MA

Y

JUN

E

JULY

AU

GU

ST

SEP

TE

MB

ER

OC

TO

BE

R

NO

VE

MB

ER

DE

CE

MB

ER

2013 2014

Baseline Assessment& CommunityForums

Regional Vision Scenario Development

Scenario Finalization & Preferred Vision Scenario

Development of Regional Blueprint and Strategy Documents

Imp

lemen

tatio

n

Steering Committe’s roleThe 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 processEmpowered with the right to approve, approve •with qualification, or reject any such documents or deliverables.

Looking aheadMeeting 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.

Lunch