|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
Implementing Comprehensive Plans: |
||
| David Rouse, AICP; Vicki Noteis, AIA; and Jon Arason, AICP, | |||
| Session: Sunday, April 16, 2000, 1:00 - 2:15 p.m. | Author Info | ||
Contemporary, "values-driven" comprehensive plans possess two key attributes. First, they are shaped by the issues and values identified by citizen participants in the planning process. Second, they connect citizen values and goals with a clearly defined agenda for action. Given this emphasis on implementation, it is reasonable to ask whether these plans are making a difference in the real world. This paper explores the experiences of two communities – Kansas City, MO and Annapolis, MD – that are implementing comprehensive plans prepared using values-driven planning processes.
INTRODUCTION
A new form of comprehensive or community plans has been emerging in recent years. These plans differ from the top-down, data or policy based plans of the past in that they are driven by citizen-defined issues and values. They also differ from pure vision planning in the way that they link process with outcome and emphasize implementation. The basic attributes of contemporary, "values-driven" comprehensive plans are:
The growing popularity of values-driven plans reflects citizen demand for local government that is responsive to community concerns and is held accountable to these concerns in its actions. An essential component of such plans is a schedule that sets priorities and a timeline for implementing plan recommendations. Numeric indicators or other performance measures can be included as a tool to assess progress in achieving the goals of the plan. Because the success of implementation is subject to changing political, fiscal, economic, and social circumstances, the plan should define an on-going process to periodically review progress and make "mid-course" corrections. By combining citizen support built through the planning process with the accountability provided by a clearly defined and measurable action program, the plan will function as a true guide for decision-making and its potential for success will be maximized.
This paper explores the experiences of two very different cities – Kansas City, MO and Annapolis, MD – that are implementing contemporary, values-driven plans prepared with extensive citizen participation. Kansas City has a population of approximately 435,000, anchoring a metropolitan region of 1.5 million inhabitants in Missouri and Kansas. FOCUS Kansas City was an ambitious comprehensive planning initiative that culminated in a multi-component plan adopted in 1997. The FOCUS Kansas City Comprehensive Plan was the American Planning Association’s Plan of the Year in 1999.
A small city with a population of approximately 35,000, Annapolis is best known for its historic downtown and waterfront and for being the site of the U.S. Naval Academy and the state capital of Maryland. The Annapolis Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1998 and won the Outstanding Municipal Comprehensive Planning Award from APA’s Maryland Chapter in that year.
FOCUS KANSAS CITY
The FOCUS ("Forging Our Comprehensive Urban Strategy") Kansas City Plan is an integrated strategic and comprehensive document that links recommendations from seven different plan components into a cohesive blueprint for "Building the New American City – Making Connections for the 21st Century." After five years of intensive citizen involvement, the FOCUS Kansas City Plan was unanimously adopted by the City Council in October 1997. During the last two years, the City has been concentrating on implementation of this complex plan.
One of the most frequently asked questions during the planning process and after its completion was: "How can we be sure that all these great ideas will be implemented"? Since FOCUS Kansas City is a strategic plan that goes beyond the more traditional physical comprehensive plan to also address governance (taxing, financial strategies, citizen involvement, and city services) and human investment (education, health care, racism, and cultural issues), this question was well-deserved.
When the FOCUS Kansas City Plan was completed in 1997, it included a list of 168 programs and initiatives, along with milestone dates for their initiation, in a "First Steps" matrix. As of today, progress has been made on about half of the programs and initiatives included in the matrix. As mandated by the FOCUS governance plan, the City has taken the lead in not only setting a new agenda but also in forging the necessary partnerships to begin solving community-wide problems with a more strategic and innovative approach.
Several factors have contributed to the progress made in implementing the plan:
The City Planning and Development staff has taken the lead in implementing the plan. Implementation efforts have been focused in three major areas:
It is not easy to change mindsets from "creating" the plan to "implementing" its contents. In fact, many government employees who are more program-oriented have a difficult time with the creativity required to rethink how the City operates. However, if provided with strong, creative leadership, they are more than willing to participate and change. In fact, most city employees are "implementers" by nature. The key lies in persuading department heads and upper management to think about FOCUS and how they can help. Employee orientation sessions and open discussions about the plan and what it means are helpful.
Leadership is absolutely critical. City Hall, citizens, and civic leaders have to know and trust the people in charge of the Plan and its implementation or nothing will happen. That leadership has to be built during the planning process or the Plan is not likely to be completed or to succeed. Carrying over the same civic steering committee, staff, and possibly consultants if needed should contribute to building credibility for implementation.
Political leadership is essential and is ALWAYS worth cultivating, especially if a member of council has concerns about a particular controversial aspect of the plan. It is critical to ensure political support for plan initiatives, or else to change the timing until it exists.
The following text illustrates how Kansas City has implemented some of the FOCUS recommendations in four key areas:
Neighborhood Assessment Process
The Neighborhood Prototypes Plan of FOCUS Kansas City recommended a process of continual self-improvement, beginning with an assessment in which each individual neighborhood would participate in a workshop to enable it to select a neighborhood type. There are four neighborhood types that describe the levels of organization, development, and blight within the neighborhood boundaries. These types are Developing, Conservation, Stabilization, and Redevelopment.
The first round of assessments were initiated for Troost Avenue, which has been described as a significant racial and economic barrier in the community. Neighborhoods along both sides of Troost conducted individual workshops identifying their own assets as well as priorities for improvement, and also met together to determine common priorities and concerns for the corridor. The Troost Community Association continues to meet nearly two years after completion of the initial assessments. Cooperative successes include a community market that combines fresh produce, crafts, and activities with fashion shows and music, all contributing to a festive atmosphere. In addition, one neighborhood is receiving millions of public/private dollars for in-fill housing (an assessment priority), while several are looking at receiving CDBG funding for property maintenance (another assessment priority).
In the second year of the assessment process, a team was hired consisting primarily of neighborhood advocates from a wide spectrum of the community. After extensive training, the team began with neighborhoods that had an organizational structure in place and in which development issues were being considered. During this year, about 50 assessments were completed and a number of issues are beginning to surface regarding the best ways to provide follow-up with the neighborhoods. There have already been some fairly significant successes. In one blighted neighborhood with an elderly population, the issue of renovating an area park became a high priority. In conjunction with a private/public approach to solution seeking, the park is being equipped with new and safer playground equipment, new lighting, and walking trails. There is considerable optimism that the park will be reclaimed from drug dealers for the use of residents, their children, and grandchildren. Other successes include finding solutions to issues related to chronic storm water problems, street cut coordination, codes enforcement, and capacity building.
An evaluation matrix has been designed to help identify areas where more extensive follow-up is needed. This effort will involve the entire community as well as City staff.
Capital Improvement Programming
Another area of implementation of the FOCUS Kansas City Plan is the Capital Improvement Planning Program. Funding for the $270 million capital improvement program comes from General Municipal Programs, including general funds, gaming revenues, and revenue from a one-percent sales tax. Capital improvements are also paid for from aviation funds and water funds, both of which are enterprise funds.
Kansas City’s Capital Improvement Program is developed by the Public Improvement Advisory Committee (PIAC). PIAC consists of 12 members appointed by each member of the City Council and a chair who is appointed by the Mayor. The responsibility of PIAC is to solicit input and make recommendations regarding the appropriation of funds for capital improvements.
The principles and recommendations of the FOCUS Kansas City Plan are deeply embedded in the capital improvement programming process. Some of the key initiatives that have been implemented as a result of FOCUS include the continued improvement and construction of Kansas City’s boulevard system, improved east-west mobility in Kansas City’s Northland (the portion of the City north of the Missouri River), additional funding for the construction of sidewalks, and others.
More important than specific capital improvements completed as a result of FOCUS are the changes to the process of allocating funds. From the initial screening of projects to the objective rating criteria, the Plan is now in a position to guide key decisions regarding funding and prioritization of capital improvements in Kansas City. Over time, these changes in the process will give FOCUS longevity.
Because of the recommendations of the FOCUS Kansas City Plan, the City of Kansas City has made great strides towards improving the quality and condition of its infrastructure. In response to the emphasis that the Plan places on maintaining and repairing existing infrastructure, a Maintenance Program has been created to address deferred maintenance of basic infrastructure such as streets, bridges, curbs, and sidewalks. In the year 2000, $33 million was allocated to this program and increases of $5 million per year are recommended to reach a target level of $60 million per year. Funding for this program comes from the general fund, ensuring that maintenance of infrastructure will not be dependent on funding sources that are subject to periodic renewal or reauthorization.
The FOCUS Kansas City Plan has also been instrumental in securing new sources of funding for programs that will improve the City’s ability to execute capital improvement projects. One such example is the new fee structure for impervious surfaces. By changing the method in which impervious surface fees are levied from a fixed rate to one that is based on the amount of impervious surface as a percentage of total lot area, revenues from these fees have increased by about $6 million per year. The additional funds are being used for ongoing maintenance of the City’s watersheds and to complete the City’s stormwater management master plan. These simple yet effective measures recommended by the Plan will allow the City to meet other FOCUS objectives dealing with drainage issues.
Another area where the FOCUS Kansas City Plan has had a positive impact is in funding for neighborhood conservation projects, which are financed primarily by the one-percent sales tax for capital improvements. Thirty percent of the revenue from this tax is allocated for neighborhood conservation projects, amounting to approximately $18 million per year. Traditionally, funding for neighborhood conservation projects was divided among the City’s six council districts. Starting this year, half of the funding available for neighborhood conservation projects (about $9 million per year) will be distributed according to the four neighborhood types identified through the Plan’s neighborhood assessment process. This change in the method of funding allocation will enable the City to tie investments in capital improvements to the strategic initiatives being developed by neighborhoods through the assessment process.
City Budget
To implement the various initiatives outlined in the FOCUS Kansas City Plan, all stakeholders in the community will need to evaluate their activities for consistency with the community priorities outlined by the Plan. The City of Kansas City, which has an annual budget of approximately $850 million, is one of the major community stakeholders that must evaluate and realign its spending priorities in accordance with FOCUS.
As prescribed by the FOCUS Governance Plan, city departments are asked to evaluate their funding requests against the five priority services outlined by FOCUS. The five priority services are as follows:
In addition to evaluating city services against the five priorities outlined above, city departments and agencies are asked to include in their budget requests specific FOCUS projects/initiatives for implementation. A list of projects identifying the departments and agencies responsible for implementation is circulated during the budgeting process. Rather than requesting new funds, City departments and agencies are directed to incorporate the specific projects/initiatives into their current operations.
This thorough evaluation and redirection of resources is a necessary step to help eliminate a projected "structural imbalance" (a situation in which expenditures exceed revenues) in the City’s budget. The FOCUS Governance Plan recognizes the danger of such an imbalance and recommends that on-going revenues be used to pay for on-going expenditures. A thorough evaluation of services is a useful step in making sure that the City optimizes the use of its resources.
Community Anchors
The issue of business, philanthropic, and institutional investment in the community emerged as such an important concept during the planning process that it became one of the FOCUS Kansas City Plan’s 12 "building blocks" for implementation. "Community anchors" are organizations or institutions that contribute to the identity, stability, and growth of specific neighborhoods or of the community at large. In the last 18 months, a large corporation has embraced this initiative as a key project for its involvement. A representative of this corporation has been charged with the responsibility of convening meetings of prospective community anchors. In the first several meetings, representatives of businesses and institutions along key development corridors have met and begun to discuss the organizational structure of the group and what it means to become a community anchor. They are also addressing issues of incentives for anchor involvement, the role of mentoring other businesses who could/should become anchors, and what recognition would be helpful in this regard.
The first real business undertaken by the group has been to evaluate the results of the neighborhood assessments to determine what kinds of projects would be suitable for the involvement of community anchors. The group also has begun to look at the strategies used by a few major businesses to enhance neighborhood vitality. These issues are being analyzed in more detail through the participation of representatives of the group on committees that are evaluating the neighborhood assessments for implementation.
The above examples illustrate some of the ways in which the enthusiasm and ideas of the numerous citizens and community leaders involved in developing the FOCUS Kansas City Plan are being translated into action. From the beginning, FOCUS Kansas City was conceived as a process that would not end with plan adoption, but which would continue into implementation. The collaborative processes used in plan development established a constituency for the Plan and laid the groundwork for the continuing involvement of the Kansas City community in implementation initiatives. These initiatives go well beyond the traditional focus of comprehensive planning and its implementation on land use, physical development, and regulations to address issues such as governance and human investment, budgeting and capital programming, and partnerships between city government and private businesses and institutions. The result is a plan that has begun to change the "culture" of city government and the way it does business, as Kansas City seeks to realize the FOCUS vision of the "New American City."
ANNAPOLIS, MD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
One of the most hackneyed expressions in planning process is the assertion that "this plan is not going to sit on the shelf." One hears this again and again throughout the plan development and adoption process. As voiced by planners, committee members, and others with a direct role in plan development and/or implementation, this expression is an affirmation that somehow the plan is different from previous ones, and in this difference lies the commitment of the elected officials to support its implementation.
In reality, and in spite of the difficulties that are encountered in implementing a comprehensive or any other type of plan, few plans actually "sit on the shelf." It might appear that plans are not being implemented, but this is not usually for lack of effort. The implementation process is complicated by personal, institutional, and political barriers to action, as well as physical, social, and psychological changes that occur over the span of time during which a plan is developed, adopted, and implemented. Additionally, given the vicissitudes of municipal life, the various aspects of planning, programming, and budgeting tend to be out of sync with each other and especially out of sync with the opportunities that arise in the real world from time to time. Nevertheless, plans still manage to move forward in one way or another.
Initiated in 1996, the process of preparing the City of Annapolis’ most recent comprehensive plan was explicitly designed to express community values both in an overall vision and in specific action recommendations linked to the vision. In the two years since the adoption of the plan in February 1998, the City has undertaken its implementation in an environment that can be characterized as being at the same time institutionally static and economically dynamic. During this time, the plan has proven to be a flexible document that has facilitated proactive response to the rapid changes affecting the community. Experience has shown that the "values-based" Comprehensive Plan’s ability to address a rapidly changing environment has outstripped the City’s institutional ability address the same issues.
The Annapolis Comprehensive Plan
The Annapolis Comprehensive Plan establishes a holistic community vision that emphasizes healthy neighborhoods, a prosperous economy, and enhancement of the built and natural environments as being key to maintaining a healthy and viable city. The Plan grew from this basic vision.
A citizens committee of over 70 persons met continually over a one and one-half year period to develop the vision and plan with the assistance of a consultant team. Within the framework provided by the vision statement, the committee made numerous program and policy recommendations in the areas of land use, transportation, housing, economic development, community facilities, natural resources, and urban design. The Plan also addresses the regional nature of Annapolis’ planning challenges.
Priority actions are identified in an implementation chapter that synthesizes the recommendations of the various plan elements. Twenty initiatives are listed in three categories: "new initiatives – highest priority," "new initiatives – high priority," and "ongoing programs." These initiatives are the basis of public review of the Planning Department’s progress in implementing the Plan. Due to the inclusive nature of the plan development process, public ownership of the Plan and interest in its implementation is high and the department is held accountable for action.
Perhaps more important than the pursuit of particular projects or initiatives are the subtler aspects of implementation that have been enhanced by the Plan’s emphasis on values and vision. The ability of the Planning Department to rely on and quote chapter and verse from the plan (and the community aspirations it represents) has greatly strengthened its ability to influence both public and private sector proposals and its position when conflicts occur between city departments on city actions.
It’s A Planning Department Thing
One of the greatest difficulties in implementing a comprehensive plan is obtaining a true "buy-in" from other city departments. The Annapolis Comprehensive Plan was developed under the auspices of the Planning Department by the broadly representative committee noted above. Yet other city departments were reluctant to participate in this "planning department thing." Once adopted, the plan was viewed as a soft, policy document with little bearing on the "real" activities of municipal government: law enforcement, sewer lines, roads, and other direct, easily understandable, and quantifiable activities.
Developing this buy-in from other city departments, especially as it relates to capital budgeting and programming, is as essential as it is difficult. The Annapolis Comprehensive Plan, for example, values neighborhood planning and sound urban design. In the capital budgeting process (which had been a closed process for many years) funds were requested by the Planning Department for "Neighborhood Small Projects" (i.e., small sidewalk repairs or installations, street trees, park upgrades, signs, or other projects identified by the neighborhoods in the neighborhood planning process). The purpose of the fund was to have some cash on hand to make immediate improvements as neighborhood planning progressed to show that positive actions could result from neighborhood participation. Without targeted funds, experience has shown that the City is unable to deliver on even the most meager of expectations raised in a small area planning process due to the rigidity of budgeting procedures. In the Comprehensive Plan, a "toolkit" of neighborhood improvement actions was identified, including small-scale physical and identity enhancements in addition to other actions such as regulatory changes and community facility improvements. In spite of this plan recommendation, the requested funds were cut from the capital budget by administrative staff based upon the opinion that these should be public works dollars, not planning department dollars. (In reality they are public dollars going for public purposes.) Once the administrative decision-makers were reminded of the recommendation of the plan for such improvements, funds were restored, although not in the amount requested.
Urban design has been an even harder sell. Despite Annapolis’ reputation as one of the country’s foremost examples of historic city design, urban design is seen by many as fluff that increases project costs without adding to function or efficiency. Managers of capital projects are reluctant to hire architects or landscape architects for urban buildings or spaces, and will do so only as subcontractors to engineering firms. In contrast to this established practice, the Annapolis Comprehensive Plan identifies quality urban design as a key community value and a primary consideration in all public projects.
The emphasis placed on urban design in the plan has enabled the Planning Department and Planning Commission to take a much more active role in the programming and design of capital projects. Members of the business and residential community are taking a keen interest in city projects and are demanding that they incorporate sound urban design principles. These persons have gone beyond merely requesting action by the City to become actively involved through volunteer committee and other input and oversight roles. Indeed, one project was literally stopped dead in its tracks pending a joint review of the project by the residential and business community. Many persons felt that municipal actions in the furtherance of the project did not reflect the overall values of the community related to urban design and historic preservation.
On a theoretical level in planning school and on a practical level in the world of public practice – including both physical and policy planning – plan implementation is seen as the primary tool to ensure accountability. The defense of a department’s annual budget (and much of the defense of the planning director’s job!) rests with the ability to show that a plan is being and will continue to be implemented. The big projects are easy to document: comprehensive rezoning, recodification of the zoning ordinance, major urban design and streetscape plans, and new neighborhood initiatives, to name a few. What is more difficult to demonstrate, but perhaps more important, is how the community values as expressed in the Comprehensive Plan are incorporated into the decision-making processes of the City. As long as the Plan is current the inclusion of these values in decision-making is facilitated. But as the length of time since plan adoption increases, addressing community values in project planning becomes more difficult as, once again, they are seen as adding unnecessary costs for the jurisdiction. This happens as institutional resistance to continued inclusion of these "softer" aspects of public projects or policies increases and officials becomes more confident in directly expressing the additional costs and time delays that are being incurred due to citizen or other "outside" input. In these instances, it is exceedingly helpful to be able to address the political decision-makers in terms of community values – in other words, to speak about those things that citizens have said are important to their quality of life and to the quality of their community.
Given the constraints of staffing and time, Annapolis’ experience has been that the pursuit of major implementation projects has been slowed because of an ongoing commitment to including the community and its values in the day-to-day project planning and development review process. This effect is difficult to quantify on an annual basis to the City Council, so it is important to make sure that the Council is kept aware of these activities throughout the year. It is also important to maintain a constituency that continues to support these efforts and that recognizes their importance to implementing the comprehensive plan.
Institutional Stagnation in a Dynamic World
There is little doubt that economic and development activity in the last five years has placed great strains on local government. The pressures involve both responding to the development community and addressing the concerns of citizens who are frustrated with development. There is also little doubt that, in general, government has not exhibited the flexibility required to effectively deal with either of these pressures, which are of a vastly greater intensity than they were 20 years ago. There is now a heightened sense of urgency, a greater overall awareness, stiffer competition, more money at stake, less time, more impatience, a faster propensity to condemn, more skepticism, and less tolerance – as well a greater determination on the part of the public to be involved.
The conservative nature of government has dictated an institutional response that is less than comforting to the public. Government has responded to these pressures by becoming even less introspective and more cynical about the role of the public in day-to-day decision-making. The term "micro-management" is used in a pejorative manner to dismiss public involvement in the public’s business. Planners are not allowed this luxury. Instead, we are expected to maintain a continuous dialogue with the public and to be the liaison between the public and other administrative staff and between the public and the development community.
In Annapolis, understanding that zoning and other land use and development regulations cannot keep pace with citizen attitudes and expectations, the values-based policies and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan have proven to be an invaluable tool for decision-making. In addition to the specific recommendations, the Plan stresses the importance of city action that supports the overall community vision, irrespective of location. The guidance provided by the Plan has been invaluable in providing planning staff the basis for making recommendations on a broad range of projects, from convenience stores on a commercial strip highway to large, multi-building, mixed-use developments proposed in the downtown. The rationale for denying the former and supporting the latter come not from area-specific recommendations, but from a consideration of the values-based principles elucidated in the Plan.
The ability to review a project based upon its merits as contributing (or not contributing) to community well-being has provided the Annapolis Planning Department with a great deal of flexibility in negotiating with the development community to achieve a scope and scale that may not be specifically referenced in the development regulations. The Department is able to begin project review by asking fundamental questions about the relationship between the project and community values:
If the answer to these (and other questions) is "yes," then project review and approval can be expedited. If the answer is "no," then the next step is to determine if the project can be changed to make the answer "yes." If this proves not to be possible, then a more appropriate location is recommended (i.e., somewhere outside of the City).
The above process does not replace the review based upon specific code requirements. Nevertheless, in the case of permitted uses, it provides the basis for achieving modifications to projects to reflect community values. In the case of special exceptions, conditional uses, and other applications that require discretionary review, the values provide a basis for analysis, discussion, and recommendation. It is much easier to review projects and enhances staff credibility when consistent community standards, based upon an adopted plan, can be applied in a consistent manner.
Experiences in implementing plans vary from municipality to municipality according to the unique nature of each community. Due to factors such as its small size, relatively limited fiscal resources, and an institutional structure that is resistant to change, Annapolis has had a distinctly different experience than Kansas City in implementing its comprehensive plan. Nevertheless, like FOCUS Kansas City, the Annapolis Comprehensive Plan is an example of how a citizen-driven plan based upon community values can lead to positive results in implementation. Beyond the progress made on specific initiatives or projects – which are moving forward within the constraints imposed by available fiscal and human resources – the Annapolis Plan has proven to be especially valuable by facilitating continuing citizen involvement in municipal affairs and by providing a cohesive conceptual framework to guide civic action in an era of change.
Copyright 2000 By Author
David Rouse, AICP, is a Senior Associate with Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC (WRT), 260 South Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102. He was project manager of WRT's work as prime consultant for the Northland Plan (one of the components of the FOCUS Kansas City Comprehensive Plan) and the Annapolis Comprehensive Plan. David can be reached at 215-732-5215 or via email at drouse@ph.wrtdesign.com.
Vicki Noteis, AIA, is Director of the Kansas City Department of Planning and Development, 15th Floor, City Hall, 414 E. 12th Street, Kansas City, MO 64106. She was Director of FOCUS Kansas City while the Plan was developed. Vicki can be reached via email at vicki_noteis@kcmo.org.
Jon Arason, AICP is Director of the City of Annapolis Department of Planning and Zoning, 160 Duke of Gloucester Street, Annapolis, MD 21401. He was Planning Director during preparation of the Annapolis Comprehensive Plan and is currently managing its implementation. Jon can be reached at 410-263-7941 or via email at jla@ci.annapolis.md.us.