1. Steering Committee Kick-Off
February 7, 2013
Scott Conference Center
Omaha, Nebraska

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

11. 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

12. 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)

13. 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
(%)

14. 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

15. 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

16. Challenges to human capital
Unemployment
Unemployment Rate - workers
16 - 64
0 - 4%
4% - 8%
8% - 15%
15% - 25%

17. Challenges to human capital
Poverty
Percent of adults in poverty
0 - 5%
5% - 10%
10% - 25%
25% - 50%
50% - 85%

18. 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?

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

21. in howwe manage growth
Current urban growth and sewerable land

22. and use land.
Parcel-based land use in MSA
Green = ag or ag trust
Red = commercial
Dark grey = residential
Light grey = reserved

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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?•

28. 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

29. and revenue sources shrinking
Source: CBO 2012

30. but demand continues
Current Level of Service
A
B
C
D
E
F
Present roadway level of service

31. to intensify.
Forecasted 2035 LOS
A
B
C
D
E
F
2035 projected roadway LOS

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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?

36. The Approach

37. 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.•

38. 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

39. 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

40. Example: Chicago Go To 2040
1
COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL PLAN
Full Version October 2010

41. 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

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

43. Questions/Discussion

44. Project Timeline

45. What we’ve beenup to so far
Grant paperwork and set-up•
Project branding and communications/outreach•
strategy
Process design•
Relationship-building•

46. 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•

47. 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•

48. 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

49. 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•

50. Phase 3 Preferred Vision Scenario Identification
Deliverables:
Draft vision scenarios (for Steering Committee review)•
Regionally preferred vision scenario report•

51. 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•

52. 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

53. 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.

54. 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.

55. Lunch