a CULTURE of COOPERATION Intergovernmental Planning in McLean County 29 th Annual IDOT Fall Planning Conference Bloomington, Illinois October 10, 2014

Today’s presentation  Structure & process  Outcomes  Essentials

Structure & process 3 Getting underway on a typical Friday morning… Yes, doughnuts are part of the process. Don’t judge.

Structure & process 4  Began with engineering and TIP project selection  Regional comprehensive plan implementation  Primary purpose – development review  Plan compliance  Discussion with developers  Early alert for potential pitfalls

Structure & Process 5  Administered by MCRPC  Meets as needed  Group review of project proposals  Specific discussions requested by participants  Bloomington, Normal, McLean County  Staff planners and engineers  MCRPC staff

Structure & Process 6

7  Process for development review  Local staff alerts MCRPC re project  MCRPC prepares review form  Intergovernmental staff committee reviews project  Committee review forwarded to local government  Project may be reviewed multiple times at various phases

Structure & Process 8 Project review form

Structure & Process  Regionally significant ≥ 5 acres  Updated as issues emerge  Follows comprehensive plan  Condensed project outline for staff and commissions 9

Structure & Process  Minimal features  No answers in this section fail the project  Considers aspects of land use, transportation, utilities, open space, other features based on goals, objectives & strategies 10

Structure & Process  Optional features  May improve score; cannot rescue failed project  Features of land use, transportation, housing, redevelopment, open space & other amenities and commercial use 11

Structure & Process  Project scoring  Scoring formula balances minimal and optional features  High scores are rare; failing scores prompt revisions  All scores are advisory for local governments  Staff comments provide guidance for discussion with developers 12

Structure & Process 13  So where does transportation come in?  In minimal (required) features

Structure & Process 14  So where does transportation come in?  And in optional features

Structure & Process 15  Still a few bugs in the system  Coordinating with various planning commission schedules is a challenge  Complaints from development community  Ever-more-complicated review form  Form must accommodate multiple jurisdictional requirements and preferences  New issues to accommodate

Outcomes 16  It used to be pretty busy around here.

Outcomes  Less so in recent years. 17

Outcomes  Some years things go well… 18

Outcomes  Some years projects get approved despite a low review score. 19

Outcomes 20  Tales from the trenches…

Essentials 21  Why does it work for us?  Buy-in from the powers-that-be  Genuine consensus as our goal and practice  Backing for local staff discussion with developers  Recognition of realistic limits  A framework for ongoing collaboration…

Essentials 22  A framework for ongoing collaboration…  Stormwater ordinance  Coordinated policy and procedures Access management Manual of Practice  Bicycle/pedestrian planning  Transportation planning  GIS Consortium started with the intergovernmental committee in 1995

Essentials 23  Making coordination/collaboration work  Willing and informed partners Define the partnership Get consensus partners’ use of the process  Agreement on scope of the effort  Agreement on the evaluation criteria  Reasonable flexibility as issues evolve

Questions?