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