Chapter 6

Before reading any further, please turn to the back of this chapter and read two short case studies: one about White House, the other about Loudon County.

These are just two examples of how Tennessee towns and counties are tackling growth issues; there undoubtedly are many more. These two cases illustrate very different approaches to conducting a visioning and planning process. One used a small citizens’ group as the focus; the other, a set of public workshops and open houses. Each approach has strengths and limitations.

From these cases, and from what has been said in the preceding chapters of this guide, a few key messages can be distilled:

With these key messages in mind, we suggest below a basic, 12-step sequence for a visioning and planning process. At each step, there are choices to be made. Information on these choices has been given in the preceding chapters, especially Chapter 3. These choices cannot be made out of context; they should be made by the community, taking into account its own particular make-up.

Form a core group, such as a committee or task force, to lead the process. Initial activities of the group may include setting the time horizon for the visioning and planning activity (e.g., 10 or 20 years), sketching out the process, establishing the ground rules under which it will operate, and identifying information to be gathered in Step 2, as well as possible computer-based tools to aid later steps in the process.

Step 1 is crucial, and factors to consider in choosing the core group could take up a whole report in itself. For guidance, check some of the resources shown in Chapter 7 (including a September 1993 report, Stakeholder Involvement, by English et al.). See also Chapter 3’s section, "Identifying Values and Setting Goals," for a discussion of committees and task forces.

The members of the core group should be instructed to think of themselves, not mainly as representatives of special interests, but as "trustees" for the community. The group may include agency staff as well as citizens, but they should operate as equals. To help foster a climate of equality, the chair (if the group has one) perhaps should be a private citizen, not an elected or administrative official, or a private citizen might serve as co-chair with a local official.

Gather and distill basic information about the community. This might be pulled together as a "community profile," and it might be compiled solely by staff or also by the core group. See Chapter 3’s section, "Gathering, Integrating, and Forecasting Information," for information on community profiles, indicators, and geographic information systems. See also Chapters 4 and 5 for information on, respectively, computer-based tools and indicators, and Appendices A-D for data sources.

Communicate the results of Steps 1 and 2 to the community’s members, and then consult with them about their values concerning the community and its future (particularly its environmental, social, and economic dimensions). During this step, such techniques as surveys (including visual preference surveys), public forums (or meetings and workshops), and public access cable TV programs might be used. See Chapter 3’s section, "Identifying Values and Setting Goals," for information on these techniques. See Appendix E for a list of sources of facilitation assistance.

Hold a "visioning retreat" over a single evening, a weekend, or several closely-spaced meetings. This might be led by the core group (perhaps with an outside facilitator—see Appendix E), and perhaps augmented with other community leaders. At the retreat, the results of Step 3 should be taken into account, and techniques such as scenario-building might be used to help develop a vision statement with goals. See Chapter 3’s section, "Identifying Values and Setting Goals" for information on such techniques.

Select indicators, if they are to be used, and identify their data sources and other information to be gathered; then get this information. While the core group would initiate this step and decide how information should be gathered and integrated, the actual work might be carried out by others (e.g., outside experts, a research committee, community mapping teams, Key Performance Area task forces). See Chapter 3’s section, "Gathering, Integrating, and Forecasting Information," for information on these techniques. See also Chapter 5 for information on indicators and Appendices A-D for data sources.

During this step, the use of a computer-based tool to integrate information and assist in Steps 6 through 9 might be considered, if it wasn’t considered already in Step 1. See Chapter 4 for information on computer-based tools.

During this step, the core group also should lay preliminary plans for later monitoring (e.g., using indicators or benchmarks), including considering who might do the monitoring (e.g., trustees, Key Performance Area task forces, agency staff, outside experts, stakeholders). See Chapter 3’s section, "Monitoring Change," for information on these techniques, and Chapter 5 for information on indicators.

Forecast where the community is headed in terms of key factors (population, employment, land use, agriculture, wildlife habitat, transportation, education, public finances, etc.) over the planning time period. Short-range (e.g., five-year) as well as longer-range forecasts may be needed. This step might be carried out by the core group and/or others involved in Step 5. Formal, quantitative techniques such as trends extrapolation and models might be used, but they should be accompanied with more qualitative techniques based upon collective good judgment, such as making comparisons to other communities, conducting intention and expectation surveys, and preparing forecasting scenarios. See Chapter 3’s section, "Gathering, Integrating, and Forecasting Information," for information on these techniques.

Distill the information and predictions from Steps 5 and 6 into understandable, easily communicated messages. Communicate large patterns, not minutiae; let people know where they can get more detailed information. This step might be done by staff, outside help, or the core group. See Chapter 3’s section, "Gathering, Integrating, and Forecasting Information"; see also Chapter 5 for information on indicators.

Brainstorm on options, taking into account the results of the preceding steps. This might be done through a charette with the core group and staff, or it might be done within Key Performance Area task forces and then integrated by the core group. See Chapter 3’s section, "Developing and Assessing Options," for information on these techniques.

Narrow, assess, and refine the options. This activity should be done by the core group, using techniques such as a decision matrix, charting the options’ pros and cons, the Delphi technique, or indicators as assessment tools. See Chapter 3’s section, "Developing and Assessing Options," for information on these techniques; see also Chapter 5 for information on indicators.

Present the refined options to the community for feedback, using techniques similar to those used in Step 3. This step should be led by the core group, assisted by staff.

Select the final options to be put together as the plan, and refine and finalize the plans for monitoring begun in Step 5. This activity should be led by the core group, with staff or outside assistance in preparing the plan. The accompanying monitoring plan should have the input of those who did the information gathering and prediction in Steps 5 and 6. See Chapter 3’s section, "Monitoring Change," for a discussion of various monitoring techniques; see also Chapter 5 for a more detailed discussion of indicators.

At last . . . the plan is reviewed and approved (one hopes!) by the local planning commission and decision-making body, with the required public hearings. They also may want to use a non-binding referendum to get formal input on the plan, or key aspects of it. If they do so, however, they should be sure that the plan has been very well-publicized. See Chapter 3’s section, "Making Decisions," for a discussion of this crucial step.

. . . The process does not stop with these 12 steps, of course. First, the plan must be turned into actions with implementation strategies. (Strategies may have been discussed beginning at Step 8.) Second, ongoing monitoring of both incremental change and major events should be conducted. Despite the best effort to predict and guide its future, every community is subject to unexpected forces for change. And third, every community should anticipate that its visioning and planning process will need to be revisited. To stretch community tolerance for this activity, small-scale, interim visioning and planning efforts can be conducted between larger-scale efforts.

During the process, one important corollary activity not mentioned above is evaluation. At key steps in the process (especially Steps 3, 4, 8, 9, and 10), those guiding it can learn from participants about whether it is going well. This can help them improve later steps in the process; it also can be instructive for other, similar efforts within the community and for other communities.

In Step 1, when the core group is formed, a useful activity might be to discuss the group’s expectations of the process—in effect, setting standards for later evaluations. Expectations should not be set too high, as the following box illustrates, but making expectations explicit helps let the group know when it is straying off course.

As this box suggests, a process may fall somewhat short of the ideal and still be successful, or it may fall woefully short and be a flop.

The success of a smart growth visioning and planning process will, in the final analysis, be determined mainly by its tangible, on-the-ground outcomes: Is the community’s environmental, social, and economic well-being improved as a result? Is the community on a sustainable path? But it will also be determined by whether the process helps build a stronger, more resilient and cohesive community. As noted in the Preface, communities aren’t just places; they are social phenomena that must be nurtured. A good visioning and planning process can help nurture the social community, even as it makes the physical community a more sustainable, enjoyable place to live.

WHITE HOUSE

The White House in Tennessee predates the White House in Washington, D.C. Around 1796, a two-story house painted white was built about 30 miles north of Nashville, up on the Highland Rim along the pike to Louisville, Kentucky. The house, which became a stage coach inn, was referred to informally as "the white house," and for more than a century, the town that grew up around the inn also was called "The White House." Around 1950, it dropped the article and became White House.

White House, for most of its life, was a small but thriving community of farms and local businesses. In 1971, when the city incorporated, its population was 574. (It previously had incorporated twice but both times had dissolved its incorporated status after a few years.) With the advent of Interstate 65, White House began to grow. By 1980 its population was 2,225; by 1997, it was 5,594. Most of this growth has occurred in the 1990s.

White House straddles the boundary between Robertson and Sumner counties, which are part of the eight-county Nashville Metropolitan Statistical Area — a rapidly growing part of Tennessee. White House’s annual growth rate since 1990 has averaged 15 percent, making it one of the fastest growing cities in this region. Much of its growth has come from middle-income families, many with young children, who previously lived in Nashville and, while retaining their jobs in the city, have sought a quieter, safer, more rural place to live. Interstate 840, which — if plans go through — will connect Interstate 40 east of Nashville with Interstate 65 just north of White House, is likely to spur even greater growth.

Shortly after the city incorporated in 1971, the city enacted a zoning ordinance and adopted subdivision controls as well as a comprehensive plan. In the late 1980s, a process called "Vision 2000" was undertaken, but with limited public input and with an emphasis on strategic planning within the city’s departments. In the early 1990s, the city hired its first Planning and Codes Director, Larry Allen, who had worked as a planner in the greater Nashville area for a number of years. (Until then, the city had relied upon the Local Planning Assistance Office within the TN Department of Economic and Community Development’s Middle Tennessee Regional Office.)

In 1995, concern about the effects of rapid growth on city services prompted an impact fee study prepared for White House by James Duncan and Associates, which in turn led to the November 1995 adoption of an impact fee structure covering new residential, commercial, and industrial development. Resulting revenue may be used for such capital projects as road, drainage, lighting, fire and police protection, and recreation improvements related to new development. And in 1996, spurred by concern that the city’s growth not impair its small-town character, White House embarked upon a comprehensive planning process, using a planning horizon of 2020 and an intensive, citizen-based approach.

The 1996-97 comprehensive planning process was orchestrated by Larry Allen with the help of a Nashville-based consulting firm, RM Plan Group, using a citizens task force as the focal point. The process was first suggested by one of White House’s aldermen and had the backing of its long-standing mayor, Billy Hobbs. (Hobbs has lived in White House for 40 years — he came to the city as its high school principal — and has been mayor for all but 5 years since the city was incorporated 27 years ago.) The process also had the support of other elected and administrative officials, including the city’s planning commission, but the intent was to make it non-political. In other words, private citizens, not city officials or representatives of special interests, were to serve on the task force.

Using such means as newspaper ads, together with some arm-twisting, White House citizens were encouraged to apply to serve on the task force. The main objective was to have representation from each neighborhood. In all, 25 members were selected by Larry Allen in consultation with Billy Hobbs. While geographic diversity was the sole criterion, the task force had a mix of ages, men and women, and professions. Of the initial membership, approximately half remained committed throughout the process.

The process began in September 1996 and was completed in July 1997. It included a newspaper survey conducted mid-way through the process and periodic public meetings (about a half-dozen in all). Nevertheless, the main work was done by the citizens task force in conjunction with the planning director and Al Raby, the consultant from RM Plan Group. The task force chose to have no chair, although it did select a spokesperson to report on the proposed plan at the conclusion of the process. The task force met once or twice per month, with each meeting lasting two to three hours. All meetings were open; a few non-members attended occasionally, including, at times, local officials. The meetings entailed an iterative effort to develop and refine the comprehensive plan concepts and translate them into land use scenarios. The consultant would supply information, pose "what if" questions, record task force members’ suggestions, and then follow up at succeeding meetings with design alternatives that translated their suggestions into mapped land uses.

The consultant’s work was facilitated by photodigital maps owned by the White House Utility District which, for a $6000 fee, were transferred to the consultant and used to generate land use maps. The total cost of the process was approximately $40,000. This sum was mainly spent on consultant fees; it does not include staff time and the unpaid but extensive time spent by the task force members.

The result of the task force process was a 49-page comprehensive plan prepared by the consultant for the task force and released for public review in June 1997. It included chapters on the planning background, growth determinants, development goals and objectives, existing and future land use, urban design, "mobility" (roadways, bike paths, and sidewalks), parks and open space, water and wastewater, and implementation (including zoning, development financing, and clustering to conserve land and minimize trips). It was concurred to by the planning commission and was then sent to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen, where it was adopted with no changes after a reading and public hearing.

The plan covered both White House’s incorporated area (approximately 5,400 acres as of mid-1997) and the surrounding unincorporated area within its Planning Area (approximately 21,000 acres in 1997). As of 1997, 28 percent of the land in the total Planning Area was residential and 69 percent was agricultural or "farmstead." The values of the city as expressed through the planning process were strongly in favor of low-density single family housing, and the plan reflected these values: Of the total Planning Area (about 26,000 acres in all), most of it was allocated to low-density housing in the future land use plan. Agricultural and farmstead uses would be retained along the western border of the Planning Area; a strip near Interstate 65 would include light to medium industrial uses; and the town center would include multi-family residences, particularly for active retirees, as well as commercial activity. The plan also alluded to the need for new parks for the community and for neighborhoods as they develop, and it also referred to greenway improvements being considered under a separate city-led study.

Attendance at public meetings held during the course of the process varied from about 25 to over 100 people. Despite efforts to get people engaged in the process (for example, task force members went door-to-door surveying their neighbors’ opinions), few people showed much interest until the plan became tangible. When it did, some last-minute concerns were raised, and some members of the public had difficulty understanding that the plan was conceptual and amendable rather than determinative.

Nevertheless, the plan was largely accepted as responsive to a vision shared by those who voiced their opinions during the planning process. So far, at the time of this writing (August 1998), the spirit of the plan apparently is being followed, although it has not led to changes in zoning or to implementation of some of its concepts, such as multi-family housing units in the town center and some clustered developments elsewhere. The impact fee structure is to be revisited within about five years; when the comprehensive plan is revisited will depend on growth rates and patterns, as well as on major triggers for land use change.

Observations:

• The citizens’ task force approach built leadership in the community and made the process a grassroots effort, not something handed to the public by officials. Nevertheless, the task force make-up was criticized by some people (especially in retrospect) for having too many newcomers and too few people with long-standing roots in White House.

• The task force did not actively seek public input until well into its process, but when it did, it went to great lengths. The task force members found it difficult to get people to attend public meetings, however. When people finally did (especially when the proposed plan was being considered), the task force encountered "Why didn’t we know about this?" objections from a few people.

• One task force member indicated that extensive early public input — e.g., through a kick-off survey and through well-publicized public meetings early in the process — would have been preferable.

• While the city officials accepted the plan, it remains to be seen whether they will adhere to it and will actively seek to implement its more controversial elements. On the one hand, city officials such as members of the planning commission and board of zoning appeals perhaps should have been more actively involved in the plan development to help build their allegiance to it. On the other hand, if they had been closely involved, the plan might have become a political document that would last only as long as the officials remain in office.

LOUDON COUNTY

Loudon County in east Tennessee is changing. The land was once used mainly for farming; people clustered in a few small, self-contained towns and villages. In 1990, the population was 31,255 and had increased only slightly over the prior decades. (In 1940, it was 19,838.) But by 1998, the population had grown to an estimated 38,001 — a 23 percent increase in 8 years. Rapid growth is expected to continue for the foreseeable future.

Much of the land in Loudon County remains open, used for pasture or crops with wooded hillsides and ravines. But because of increased use of Interstates 75 and 40, as well as improvements of other roads, northern Loudon County is now dotted with subdivisions and has become home to people working in Knox County and Oak Ridge. (Knox County, immediately to the northeast of Loudon County, is one of Tennessee’s four most populous counties; the City of Oak Ridge is the site of a large U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) complex and related businesses.) Loudon County has attracted its own commercial and industrial development as well. In addition, with construction of the Tellico Dam by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and a subsequent upscale development (Tellico Village) on Tellico Lake, the county has begun to attract well-to-do retirees. According to 1997 figures, the median price of new housing in Loudon County was among the highest in the state.

In 1971, Loudon County enacted a zoning ordinance and established a plan for the county. This action, which was spearheaded by a local judge, was virtually unprecedented in rural east Tennessee, where people have championed private property rights over "government interference." It helped pave the way for a recent Loudon County initiative to prepare a growth management plan. In the early 1990s, Patrick Phillips, who had worked for the Knoxville Regional Office of the Tennessee Department of Economic and Community Development, was hired by Loudon County, becoming the first full-time director of the county's Office of Planning and Community Development. While a 1996 proposal to adopt a development impact fee requirement did not succeed, the county officials did agree to a growth management planning process.

There are five incorporated municipalities in Loudon County: Greenback, Lenoir City, Loudon Town, Philadelphia, and Farragut (which straddles the Loudon/Knox border but is mainly located in Knox County). The growth management planning process has included all of these places as well as the unincorporated areas of the county. In conducting the process, Pat Phillips has been assisted by several contractors: Barge, Waggoner, Sumner and Cannon, Inc. (BWSC) (planning consultation), Wilbur Smith Associates (transportation engineering), and McCarty Holsaple McCarty (architectural consultation). In its early days, the process also was aided by staff from TVA's Quality Communities Initiative and the "Futurescapes" program of the East Tennessee Community Design Center. (For a description of these two programs, see Chapter 7.) Costs are expected to total approximately $205,000, of which $20,000 was provided by TVA and $70,000 by the Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee (CROET, an organization which has received funds from DOE to promote regional reindustrialization in the wake of DOE down-sizing). The remainder has been covered by local utilities and by the county and municipal governments.

The process was kicked off in the fall of 1996 with a visioning retreat conducted by TVA's Quality Communities Initiative at the request of the county's Chamber of Commerce. At the retreat, more than 50 county leaders discussed their images for the county's future. As a result, it became clear that planning and land use were an important priority. The process began in earnest in the summer of 1997 with a survey using the paid services of the University of Tennessee's Social Science Research Institute. This survey was sent to 800 randomly selected registered voters in the county; 400 people responded. The survey asked people to rate the overall quality of life in their community, specific aspects of their quality of life, services they received, possible problems in their community, possible goals for the county, and preferences regarding economic growth, job recruitment, and types of housing. The survey laid the groundwork for community visioning meetings conducted in fall 1997.

For the visioning phase, the county was divided into eight sections based on community clusters, with one community meeting held in each section. The meetings were widely advertised in newspapers and through flyers, posters, and radio and television announcements. The meetings each attracted from 25 to 75 people, including, in several cases, one or more members of the county's planning commission. The meetings were held in the early evening with snacks; they were arranged and facilitated by BWSC staff and subcontractors, with Pat Phillips on hand to answer questions. At each meeting, a visual preference survey was conducted. The session then turned to seeking participants' responses to five questions, each focused on the particular community rather than on the county as a whole:

(1) current or prospective land use and development issues,
(2) extent of industrial and retail development that should be sought,
(3) key scenic and natural features of the landscape that should be preserved,
(4) the character of the community and whether it should change, and
(5) ideas about how to preserve scenic beauty and the natural environment while also having sustainable development.

Participant comments were recorded onto flipcharts and the pages were posted on the wall. At the end of each meeting, each participant received five adhesive dots and was asked to "vote" by placing the dots next to the issue(s) they found to be most important. In March 1998, the Loudon County Growth Management Plan: Visioning Report was released after having been reviewed and approved by the county planning commission.

By intention, the visioning stage was conducted without providing background information to participants. During the fall and into 1998, information was assembled by BWSC based upon data and other sources obtained through Pat Phillips. Altogether, six maps were created covering the following topics: existing land uses, utilities and cultural features, surface hydrology (mainly wetlands), soils and forest types, terrain gradients, and traffic counts. In most cases, standard information sources were used for these maps. The traffic count maps included counts conducted by the Tennessee Department of Transportation and the Transportation Center at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. According to Pat Phillips, a geographic information system (GIS) instituted by Loudon County in 1995 was among the first county-based systems in the state and was critical to the process.

These maps, together with the vision report for the county as a whole and its eight sections, were used as the basis for a charette in which the planning staff, including the consultants, brainstormed on options. For each section, they developed three sets of options displayed as future land use maps, accompanied with narratives: (1) a "vision plan" that translated into land uses the community’s aspirations voiced in the summer 1997 survey and the fall 1997 community meetings, (2) an "economic plan" that translated into land uses what would happen with uncontrolled development, and (3) a "balance plan" that sought to take both economic and other physical factors into account but retain the spirit of the visions expressed. These maps and narratives and the supporting informational maps were displayed at open houses held in three locations around the county in July 1998. Each open house was held on a weekday from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. At each one, nearby sections of the county were covered, but none displayed all eight sections or the county as a whole. The planning team, however, considered the "fit" of the sections in developing the options. At the open houses, planning staff and consultants were on hand to guide people through the maps, and people were asked to provide written comments on which future land use plan they preferred.

At the time of this writing in August 1998, the reactions to the options displayed at the open houses have not been distilled, nor is there a count of the number of people who attended. The intent is to have a third phase addressing the final plan and implementation measures (such as transferable development rights, public acquisition of conservation easements, design criteria, and capital improvement priorities) in fall 1998. Pat Phillips has said that, like other Tennessee counties, Loudon County will have to establish a coordinating committee pursuant to the May 1998 growth policy law. (For a summary of this legislation, see Chapter 1.) However, he hopes that the work to date will expedite the work of the coordinating committee.

Observations:

• Loudon County’s process has not been cheap, and special resources have been at its disposal: the CROET funds as well as TVA, the East Tennessee Community Design Center, and the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. But the stakes are high: The county is in a period of rapid change and is laying the groundwork for guiding development and its infrastructure improvements for the next 20 years.

• Despite a great deal of effort to attract participants, especially to the fall 1997 visioning workshops, the turnout has been somewhat sparse. As one member of the planning team commented, "Getting public input is the most difficult part of this."

• Those who did come out displayed a lot of unanimity: Most wanted Loudon County to stay the way it is. It remains to be seen whether this common vision can be translated into land use implementation measures that will be acceptable to the planning commission and the county commissioners. The early and continued involvement of planning commission members should help.

• The absence of background information during the visioning phase was intentional: Participants were to say what they wanted Loudon County to become. But it may have contributed to some participants’ difficulty in making their visions specific by giving tangible examples of what they did and didn’t want.

• After the visioning phase, only professional planners were involved in gathering information and developing options. In deciding to go with this more traditional approach, the process was probably expedited, but perhaps at the expense of building community leadership and buy-in to the options developed.

• A formal participant evaluation explicitly inviting comment on the process has not been conducted at each stage. Both Loudon County and others following in its footsteps could learn from its mistakes and successes.

1	Form a core group.
2	Distill basic information.
3	Consult with community members on their visions for the community.
4	Hold visioning retreat.
5	Gather further information; lay plans for later monitoring.
6	Do forecasting.
7	Boil down information.
8	Develop options.
9	Assess and refine options.
10	Consult with community members on the options.
11	Finalize the options and monitoring plan.
12	Officially approve the plan.