MAP Annual Business Meeting
June 5, 2008
Camden, ME
Minutes

Meeting Convened at 8:30 AM

MAP President Maureen O’Meara welcomed people attending
Maureen introduced the officers, and thanked them each individually for their work.

Thanks to today’s sponsors

• CES
• Pierce Atwood
• Spatial Alternatives
• SYTDesign
• MaineDOT

President’s Report - Maureen

Budget Report - Fred Marshall

Action: Adopt budget for FY09

Maureen commented on the budget in Fred’s absence

• MAP has been conservative with our budgets
• Map seeks to cover operations
• If funds are raised in an event, we have put half into a reserve account
• Volunteer efforts have kept our overhead very low.

We have a surplus account equal to our annual budget

• Maureen feels that we should spend some of the reserves to benefit membership
• Board has voted to hire a professional to update the MAP websie
• Thanks to Jim for his years running the web site
• Now will need to have a new person to run the website once it is set-up

Questions

• How did MAP exceed the budget this year?
• Some funds paid for lunches for some members
• There will be some extraordinary expenses this year – such as the website design
• Some expenses have been reduced – going to an electronic format
• Haven’t we charged a nominal fee for workshops? There is no indication of income from workshops.
• Sometimes yes, sometimes no
• We are promoting more workshops this year – a committee is working on continuing education
• There will be opportunities for workshop incomes that are not in this budget.
  
• Fred Marshall joined the meeting at this point.
• Maureen expressed thanks to Fred for his work.
• ACTION: Jim Upham moved the proposed budget, Kat Fuller seconded the motion.  The budget passed without dissent

Legislative Policy Committee Report – Mac Stocco

• Thanks to Beth for organizing this committee. Beth provided the committee with an understanding of the legislative process. She could not be here today as she is attending her son’s graduation.
• MAPs profile is more visible now than it has been in part because of the legislative committee work
• The committee’s effectiveness depends on their ability to move quickly.
• The Legislative Committee will be studying policies through the summer and fall to prepare for the next legislative session.
• The committee would like to have a general membership meeting in the fall for planning purposes. In the future they hope to work quickly using email and phone calls so that they can move quickly on decisions. The committee will use the new website to post testimony after the fact.
• Current committee members are preparing a handbook to help new committee members to understand the process and get involved

Questions

• Collin: How do we represent MAP with this process?
• Any member of MAP can join this process.  If you do not participate, you are ceding your vote to the committee.
• MAP is also participating in stakeholder groups.
• Matt Nazar: The changes allow the committee to act quickly.  This will make us a more effective policy body. 
• Years ago … was on the committee. We couldn’t get anything accomplished.  This process should be more effective.

ACTION: Matt Nazar, Second Jim Upham – Motion passes without dissent

Continuing Education Committee – Kat Fuller

Kat named members of the continuing education committee – Mac Stocco, Anne Krieg and others
Wanted to have training opportunities, and wanted to include AICP CM opportunities
Examples included: Complete Streets, Sustainability Workshop, GIS Training, Traffic Calming
MAP funding will help us to apply for credits for today’s conference

Helen Edmonds – planning law in the fall
Anne Krieg – volunteered to create a library for AICP training

Speaking with the State Planning Office – in conjunction with their CEO training.
Joan Walton – created a list of APA publications that are already AICP accredited.

Working with GrowSmart and other organizations to create new workshops or piggy-back on others.

Please share your suggestions for future workshops.
Working now to get the word out on training – seeking new ways to publicize events.

Anne Krieg – is keeping a library of AICP training materials

• Design Guidelines for Small Communities
• Economic Development for Small Communities

Want to make these available to check out.

Strategic Plan Implementation Recommendations – Maureen O’Meara

MAP has funds in hand that we can put into use
These recommendations were choices we can make to support

1. $1,000 scholarship for Muskie School
2. $4,000 analysis and overhaul of state enabling legislation – following Stuart Meck’s analysis.  Need to seek partners for this analysis, such as Growsmart Maine.  The momentum at the time was the need to revise comprehensive plan rules.  Some of these revisions have been made and thus reduced the drive for this. 
3. Professional planner training
1. Being driven by AICP requirements
2. AICP requires $65 per hour for training
3. The training benefits all MAP members
4. There may be changes going forward in the AICP fee structure

Questions and Comments

• The student scholarship is a pilot this year. We might look into repeating this in future years.
• Matt – training has benefited the entire memberships
• Matt – support the state enabling legislation.  Would like for the money to be set aside.  This is an enormous undertaking costing a lot more than $4,000. 
• Need to see if there is enough interest to form a committee and find matching funds
• If there is not sufficient interest, then the funds will go to other MAP uses.
• Evan – Growth management is just a chapter in a larger agenda that also includes affordable housing, etc..  If the GMA is in good shape, then these funds might be used for another elements of the enabling legislation.
• Some states, like Michigan, needed a major overhaul. Maine might be in better shape.
• Stacy – council on Quality of Place – calls for aligning state land use laws. MaineDOT, SPO, DEP have been meeting to work on this agenda.  Stacy can keep MAP informed of this discussion.
• Kat – STPA – has adopted the same language as the GMA. The alignment is not looking at the coordination of traffic management and site design law.
• Scholarship – might be used to help USM students to attend the APA conference. 
• Jen – Scholarship might also be used for the MPA program for the Environmental Sustainability program at UMO. This might be a legitimate use of scholarship funds.

Action: Vote to prioritize for funding

• Kat moves, Matt seconds package of strategic projects
• Jim Lysen – moved that we amend the motion to open the scholarships to other higher learning institutions and to require that the recipient provide a presentation back to MAP at the conclusion of the scholarship.  Jim Fisher seconds.
• Concern expressed that a committee needs to manage this process.
• Seeking volunteers to be on the committee
• Jim Lysen and Jim Fisher volunteered to work on this
• Judy suggested that this is a one time project. It may not need a big design process. 
• Amendment – did not pass.
• Jane Lefleur asked about the fate of the enabling legislation funding if the process fails? Funds are recycled to the general fund.

Election of Officers and Board - Beth

Nominations are in the last newsletter.
Jane Lefleur nominated Mac Stocco as an additional for the board.

Rebecca nominated Amanda Lessard – who is willing to serve as the web guru.  Amanda volunteered to not serve on the board, but is still willing to act as web guru.

Maureen O’Meara, President
Beth Della Valle, VP
Helen Edmonds, Recording Secretary
Fred Marshall, Treasurer
Linda Johns, Membership Secretary
Rebecca Schaffner, Newsletter Editor

Directors: Stacy Benjamin, Judy Colby-George, Jane Lafleur, Hugh Coxe, Anne Krieg, Mac Stocco, Noel Musson, Stephen Condon, Carl Eppich

Action: Election – approved slate without dissent.

Adjourn

Awards and Lunch
Recognition of the awards committee
The awards committee was Jane Lafleur, Jim Upham, Eric Galant, Rodney Lynch and MaryKate Reny.

Citizen Planner of the Year  Roger Moody – Camden Area Futures Group

• Models cooperative, consensus building approach.
• Twenty-eight years of public service
• Six public forums on the future of the working water front

Project of the Year Bridgton Economic Development and Downtown Revitalization Plan

• Kent Associates, Planning Decisions and Wright-Pierce
• Combined a variety of public and private improvements including retail, arts and parks.
• Accepting the award is Brian Kent

Plan of the Year – Town of Bar Harbor for Comprehensive Plan

• Innovative use of GIS, consulting services, staff
• Public outreach techniques helped people to visualize the process
• 83% approval rating at a well attended Town Meeting
• Anne recognized her consultant team
• Jane Lefleur
• Judy Colby George
• Beth DellaValle
• Hugh Coxe

Professional Planner of the Year – Kat Fuller

• Recognition of her work with the Gateway 1 project
• Working with 21 communities
• Thanks were expressed by Kat Fuller

Presentation by Uri Avin

Introduction from Maureen
Thanks to MaineDOT and Gateway One for hosting our speaker today
Introducing Kat Fuller

Kat Fuller: Introducing the speaker Uri Avin
list of accomplishments, projects, teaching credits, publications, etc.  – See MAP Website

How to Create Scenarios for Useful and Usable Plans

Techniques, Concepts and Applications
Differentiate visioning, alternatives analysis, etc.

Definition of Scenario

• Audience built up a definition: Story about a series of possible outcomes/futures consistent with goals and objectives….
• Unfolding of future – business model Shell Oil
• Triggers for particular actions
• Plausible stories about how the future may unfold.  Not predetermined nor straw-men.
• A mix of real forces and goals, but mostly real forces.
• Discovered through analysis, synthesis and creativity
• Combine what is likely to happen and complimentary goals (positive and normative)
• Demanding process – not always appropriate
• Not visioning, not apriori, not just low-medium-high, scenarios are organically different – tradeoffs are understood
• Systematic testing is possible.

Conceptual Diagram

Trends -> Possible futures ->                               Interventions ->
                                                        Scenarios ->                              )
Goals   -> Desired futures ->                                Effects          ->

Gateway 1

Goal – preserving transportation performance and quality of community

Corridor – 20 towns, five sub-regions

Context

• Cost of housing
• Land use pressures
• Traffic congestion
• Truck route
• Services Centers
• Etc.

Problems – Challenges

• Speeding, safety, truck traffic, etc.

Questions

• Pace of change
• Predictability
• Influences
• Etc.

Driving Forces

• Economic clusters
• Ecology
• Energy
• Tax
• Etc.

Stakeholder Process and Values – Evan Richert

• Constructed an attitude survey
• Property rights vs. duty to regulate
• Home rule
• Scenic quality and economic development
• Traffic issues
• Five point continuum

A                                                  B
<------------------------------------->
                  ^
Combining driving forces and stakeholder values

Group work – Generating Scenarios

Long term time frame – 15 to 20 years

Interesting discussions were held at about 20 tables using maps.

Report - out

Table 1 – took a long time to come to a conclusion

2030 – Tourism remains the dominant economic based

• Increases in second home purchases
• Looked at the Brunswick Topsham corridor
• Economic growth center – following base closure

Table 2 – Focused on transportation

• Passenger and excursion rail on the corridor
• Commuter bus services increase
• Shoulders and trails improved for bike/ped
• Increase in ferry transportation
• Rise of telecommuting
• Hydrogen vehicles
• State subsidies for boat building, fishing, etc.

Table 3

• Worst, best and status quo - High energy prices
• Best – balanced growth, economic clusters
• Status Quo- continued development, more like southern Maine
• Increase in retail strips
• Scarborough/ Route 1 intensity
• Economic drivers
• Aging
• Energy

Findings from Gateway 1 Team

• Major driving forces
• Tourism and arts
• Retirement and second homes
• Marine
• Defense
• Science, Tech and Education
• Scenarios
• Riding the current
• Full wind
• Perfect Storm
• Values
• Tax base
• Sense of Place
• Mobility

Criteria

• Economic growth
• Quality of community

Next break Out

1. Interventions
2. Criteria to measure success
3. Alternative institutional arrangements

• Regional – County

• Agency
• Consortium
• Planning Board

Report Out

Indicators (partial list)

Housing

Economic Indicators

• Bank loans
• Restaurant and Lodging

Health

Mobility

Land Use Patterns

• Density
• Farmland conserved

Alternative Institutional Arrangement

• Series of carrots and sticks
• Route 1 Overlay district – similar to shore land zoning
• Bonus points for funding for inter-local collaboration
• External agencies would provide technical support, but decision making power would reside in the towns.

Interventions

• Each objective/strategy is considered for their impact on specific areas of concern
• Urban forms – Rural, micro-politan, transit centered

Criteria

• See handout
• Economic Vitality
• Quality of Life
• Mobility

Institutionalization

• Corridor-wide agency
• County planning or consortium of towns
• Corridor Planning Board

Comparison of two scenarios
Micropolitan vs. Transit Oriented Corridor
The analysis appears to favor transit-oriented development

• Reductions in congestions, VMT, level of service

Report Out

• Several tables reported their findings with respect to setting priorities
• Decision between micro-politan and transit orientation rests on conflicting goals
• Look for the low-risk, high reward investments first

Testing and Selecting

• Considered incremental to comprehensive change
• Corridor scale planning – coded segments of the corridor – highly abstracted schematic showing centers, bypasses, intermodal stops, etc.
• Used schematics at several scales – corridor, subregional and local

Generalizing and Illustrating
Uri Avin presented a series of case studies including:
Fredricton, MD; Manassas, VA; Urbana, IL;

Key Points

• Get approval support from top leaders
• Keep them posted on what you are doing with frequent updates
• Retain leadership support through process design
• Seek diverse opinions
• Define mission
• Set basic limits on scope
• Use SWOT
• Highlight commonalities and differences
• More than one way to build scenarios
• Test plausibility
• Limit number of scenarios
• Don’t go public prematurely
• Include fiscal testing
• Allow time and resources