Integrating neighborhood planning and city management

Material Information

Integrating neighborhood planning and city management a model methodology
Walsh, Robin D
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
104 leaves : chart, forms, maps ; 28 cm


Subjects / Keywords:
City planning -- Citizen participation ( lcsh )
Neighborhoods ( lcsh )
City planning -- Citizen participation ( fast )
Neighborhoods ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references (leaves 101-104).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Planning and Community Development, College of Design and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Robin D. Walsh.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
11930736 ( OCLC )
LD1190.A78 1984 .W3488 ( lcc )

Full Text

A report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Planning and Community Development University of Colorado at Denver December, 1984 ,

v i
v i i
Statement of Problem Approach............
Neighborhood... City Government
Preparing to Plan..............
Identify the Area........
Introducing the Concept..
Issue Identification..........
Preparing for the Meeting
The Meeting...............
Neighborhood Report............
Content of the Report....
Distribution and Use......
Goals and Objectives...........
Definitions and Format...
Goal Setting..............
Implementation Analysis.......
47 49 53 56
59 61 62 63

Review of Goals and Objectives...................63
Preparing the Alternatives.......................64
Presenting the Alternatives......................65
Action Plan...........................................67
Draft Neighborhood Plan...............................71
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.....................74
Review and Adoption...................................75
Review Process...................................75
Implementation Roles.............................82
Evaluat ion......................................86
CHAPTER IV: CONCLUSION....................................91
Related Concepts.....................................92
Works Cited...................
Municipal Documents Consulted

1. Neighborhood Planning: Traditional & New Approach......9
2. Roles in the AMS.......................................14
3. Neighborhood Plan Referral Checklist...................48
4. Meeting Notification...................................48
5. Issue Identification Process...........................50
6. Problem Identification Checklist.......................52
7. Neighborhood Issues List...............................54
8. Issue Prioritization System............................54
9. Neighborhood Issue Responses...........................58
10. Implementation Analysis Worksheet......................69
11. Action Plan Worksheet..................................69
12. Capital Project Outline................................70
13. Budget Program Detail..................................70
14. Program Objectives.....................................72
15. Employee Standards of Performance......................72
16. Comprehensive Plan Amendment...........................76
17. Neighborhood Map.......................................76
18. Staff Summary..........................................79
19. AMS Worksheet

Special thanks to Nicki Stoner, Chief of Long Range Planning for the City of Aurora, for supporting my pursuit of this project. Contributions by Kathy Sellman, also a planner in the Long Range Planning Division, must be acknowledged.
Kathy's ideas have been incorporated in the body of this report. In a work team, sometimes it is difficult to identify the source of an idea or concept. A number of the discussions in this report are nearly verbatim transcripts of the many staff meetings concerning neighborhood planning theory and methodology. Finally, I am very grateful for Sue Moreen's dedication in typing this report. Sue worked diligently during the last days before the birth of her child.


This report will present a variation in the practice of neighborhood planning. Neighborhood planning has evolved from a physical orientation in the 70*s to the social in the 60's and 70's, and will continue to evolve in the 80s. This shift is leading toward a more pragmatic approach to neighborhood problem solving. The content of this report is based on the experience of working with three Aurora neighborhoods in developing a process which is more responsive to their needs.
The basic problem with traditional neighborhood planning, and its current transition, is that planning processes are distinct and physically separated from implementation processes. To span the gap between the planners and the implementers, an "Area Management Strategy" (AMS) has been developed. The model methodology presented in this report will create several linkages between the more
or less traditional planning approach and the local government's organizational structure.
The model methodology for the AMS is presented as four component parts:
1. CONCEPTS. Providing the basic foundation for the

2. METHODOLOGY. Presenting a model for specific applications.
3. WORKSHEET. A "cookbook" presentation of the AMS.
reference materials for the application of the process. There are two basic concepts discussed: participation
and implementation. Together, these concepts comprise the body of the AMS. An emphasis is placed on participation by the neighborhood and, just as importantly, by the local government. Line departments will be playing a stronger role in the planning process and assuming exclusive
responsibility for implementation. Implementation is discussed in terms of programming and linkages. Programming is an effort to develop a detailed implementation program. The primary motivation in presenting the model methodology is the inclusion of linkages, which creates the physical connection, or the "missing link", between the two formerly disjointed processes.
The model methodology is presented in nine sections, beginning with preliminary communications with a neighborhood through responsibilities for implementation. The emphasis of the model is on the process facilitators role in guiding neighborhood and local government
participants in completing a neighborhood plan.
The model

also discusses the creation of linkages with the implementing authority. The primary linkages are adminstrative in nature, utilizing standard budget, program objective and employee standards of performance forms. Other linkages are discussed in terms of "ownership" in process and the facilitator as a resource person.
As a conclusion to the report, related concepts are presented. Community development theory is discussed as a base for developing the AMS. The management by objectives and results budgeting approaches are compared with the administrative concepts which comprise the foundation of the AMS. Finally, strategic community planning is related to the broader aspects of the AMS and a partial reliance on a traditional planning process. The AMS is discussed as a blend of the external focus of community development theory and the internal focus of management by objectives and results budgeting.
The AMS is a city management tool. It extends beyond traditional neighborhood planning in its attempt to integrate planning and implementation processes. The AMS provides more focus in the more or less traditional process of preparing a neighborhood plan while broadening its base of participation and formalizing its application. The model
methodology presented in this report emphasizes
the close

connection between the AMS and the city management function
The AMS serves as another local government budgeting an personnel management tool, integrating the accomplishment o neighborhood objectives with internal management systems As such, the AMS can only be applied with the strong suppor of city management.


Citizen participation efforts seem to absorb a great quantity of local governments resources. This emphasis is evidenced by extreme attempts by city planning departments to involve citizens in the decision making process, and increasingly by other line departments and city management. This report will present a variation in the practice of neighborhood planning, the most prominant local government citizen participation efforts, extending the traditional processes beyond the emphasis of the 60s and 70s to the pragmatism of the 80s. To illustrate this transition, the development of neighborhood planning as a local government program will be tracked.
A common feature of the early city planning movements was the emphasis on the qualities of the small town (Berry, 1973). This led to the application of the neighborhood unit concept to the urban setting (Rafter 1978). The orientation of neighborhood planning was largely physical in its beginning. After World War II, the debate began over the value of neighborhood planning, expressed as the neighborhood unit concept, as a component of city planning (Rafter 1978). The debate continued, with few public sector applications, until the 60s, when the focus of neighborhood
planning shifted.
Neighborhood planning became more social

in its orientation, emphasizing citizen participation and social as well as physical accomplishments.
In the 60s and 70s, neighborhood planning was viewed as an urban revitalization tool. There was an increasing demand that decisions be made by the neighborhood, not for the neighborhood (Urban Systems 1980). This emphasis was expressed through community development programs, where the neighborhood was viewed as the focal point and lead participant in urban revitalization. An additional impetus was provided by the Federal government with mandates for citizen participation in public funded programs. Over time, citizen participation became a local government mind set, no longer requiring external pressures to involve neighborhoods in planning processes.
The neighborhood based organization is now recognized as the appropriate level of organized interaction with local government (Urban Systems 1980). But, as the tide changes to a more pragmatic approach for the 80s, de-emphasizing the theoretical decentralization movements of past decades, neighborhood planning is becoming a local government management tool. The emphasis is shifting from social action to reliance on neighborhood planning as an inseparable component of city management. No longer is
neighborhood planning
practiced by a young
idealist ic

professional. The mainstream of local government operating personnel are increasingly becoming involved and reluctantly becoming committed to a management system emphasizing neighborhoods.
Neighborhood planning has evolved from a physical orientation in the 70's to the social in the 60s and 70s, and will continue to evolve in the 80s. The reliance on the neighborhood is becoming so ingraved in the beaurocracy that the term "neighborhood planning" no longer applies. The term is too limiting and does not accurately describe the dynamic shift in applications and the reliance on the neighborhood in local government operations.
In summary, there seems to be two major transitions occuring or about to occur in neighborhood planning:
1. A shift from a social to a physical emphasis, especially in newer and suburban communities. The momentum of neighborhood planning as "a thing to do" has crept out of the eastern inner cities to the newer communities and suburbs across the country.
2. A change in focus on neighborhood planning as a citizen participation program to an integral part of a management system. This transition is occuring without intention. The mind set that has been created through
the evolution of neighborhood planning has created a

totally new dimension in its application.
Neighborhood planning has concentrated on the preparation of the neighborhood plan document. Based on the results of a survey of all U.S. cities over 100,000 population in 1980, 40 percent of these cities prepare
neighborhood plans (Walsh 1984). Of the cities that participate in any form of neighborhood planning, 88 percent prepare neighborhood plans (Walsh 1984). Further results of this survey has led to the development of a summary description of the typical neighborhood planning program (Walsh 1984):
Most neighborhood planning programs in cities of 100,000 or more population are stable with respect to staffing and budget and feel that they have the support of their governing body. The typical neighborhood planning staff does prepare neighborhood plans but devote only 40 percent or less of their time to this function. Most neighborhood plans, nationally, are adopted by both the planning commission and governing body as an element of the comprehensive plan.
A standard methodology for preparing neighborhood plans is maintained by most of the cities. The typical
methodology indicates a high to medium level of public participation in the process of preparing a
neighborhood plan. The neighborhood planning staff usually assumes the role of an expert or, at the least, of a professional advisor to the neighborhood with the city staff implementing the plan once prepared. The process of preparing a neighborhood plan usually extends from six months to one year. Most neighborhood plans are successful but the level of success has not been gauged by any type of evaluation criteria.
Neighborhood planning in Aurora, Colorado, which is the
subject of this report, has been fairly typical. Initiated

in the early 70s, Auroras neighborhood planning program has evolved from a Federally funded community development program, emphasizing self-help and neighborhood
revitalization, to a general fund program emphasizing citizen participation and small area management. The program has shifted from a response to Federal mandates to a local political and city management emphasis.
The focus of neighborhood planning is shifting, as discussed above. This shift is leading toward a more pragmatic approach to neighborhood problem solving. In the past, neighborhood planning processes were so intellectually stimulating and the defined program objectives were so academic in their orientation that the basic goal was lost. The neighborhood planning process has served to raise levels of consciousness, organize neighborhoods and initiate self-help neighborhood improvement projects. Large scale projects were completed under the auspices of Federal programs or other public aid, and were not closely associated with local government neighborhood planning programs.
The neighborhood planner, in many cities, has become the social planner. This point is emphasized in the following statement (Werth and Bryant 1797):

Developing plans is only part of the neighborhood planners job. It also includes assignments such as answering complaints and giving advice to neighborhood organizations and individuals; informing citizens of the citys plans for the neighborhood...preparing applications for funding or project proposals for neighborhoods.
Generally, half to all of the neighborhood planners
time is spent on various aspects of social planning, ranging
from coordinating human services to informal user contacts.
Community development activities, in the theoretical sense,
have also monopolized in neighborhood planning programs.
There is a basic problem with local governments involvement
in these activities, reflected below (Bolan 1979):
Generally, the planning role of the local government will bear a close relationship to the kind of service delivery role that the local government assumes. In other words, the more the local government is involved in the provider role, the more demanding and
comprehensive will be the planning roles.
In Aurora and in many other cities, a role is not
assumed in the social services. Therefore, the traditional
emphasis on social planning within the planning department
is not warranted. The auspices for the orientation are not
The traditional neighborhood plan has most often served as an extension of the orientation just described. In other cases, the neighborhood plan has been limited to land use and development issues without a clear implementation

As a result of lack of auspices for social
planning and no definite implementation tools for a traditional physical orientation, the neighborhood plan has become a soft, dispensible local government program. The only thread maintaining the life of neighborhood planning is the political necessity of the citizen participation aspects.
There is a need for a new program, evolving from neighborhood planning, which integrates the planning and implementation processes. Figure 1 graphically represents the problem. Planning has focused on a distinct planning process, with an end and a conclusion. Beyond this process, implementation has been viewed as a separate and distinct process, involving different actors and network of communications. It is difficult to span the gap between the conclusion of the planning process and the elevated heights of implementation. Both planning and implementation processes usually drop off without adequate follow-up. This lack of continuity is also reflected in the lack of local government authority to address the problems described in the traditional neighborhood plan. There is also a need to focus local government planning processes on local government activities, providing the auspices for the neighborhood planners work. The solution to the problem

will be to develop the "missing link" between planning and
implementation, establishment of an evaluation system and an appropriate orientation to local government planning for neighborhoods.
This report presents a model methodology for preparing a neighborhood plan. It is published in a format to accomodate periodic updating and expansion. The "cookbook" fashion in which the report is prepared is based on the experience of workins with three Aurora neighborhoods. Most of the techniques described in the following chapters are tested. The report and methodology which is described follows a pragmatic approach. An attempt is made to simplify and streamline traditional processes. The target audience for this report is the professional city planner who may not have sufficient experience in neighborhood planning to proceed independently. Another purpose of the report is simply to provide a standard format for the city planner to follow for maintaining consistency between neighborhoods.
The model methodology describes the concepts, methodology and techniques needed to prepare a neighborhood plan. But, more than that, it introduces an expanded model of the traditional neighborhood planning process. The model

broadens the process to the point of integrating implementation tools with the process of preparing the planning document. The neighborhood plan itself is referred to throughout this report as the product of the process. The complete process discussed as the model methodology will be referred to as the "Area Management Strategy" (AMS). This term better reflects the continuous process of planning/implementation. This concept is also graphically represented in Figure 1. The emphasis on management verses planning strategy will be discussed in greater detail in the concluding chapter.

There are basically four component parts of the model methodology. Bach component may be used by the city planner or process facilitator in following the AMS. It is
recommended that at least two of the following components be used in applying the AMS:
1. CONCEPTS. Chapter II discusses the basic concepts of the AMS. The facilitator should refer to this conponent to reserve maximum flexibility and creativity in proceeding with the process.
2. METHODOLOGY. Chapter III describes, in a fair amount of detail, the specific steps of the AMS. This material should be referred to when the facilitator does not desire a high degree of independence.
3. WORKSHEET. The process worksheet may be found at the end of Chapter III. It outlines, in great detail, the specific tasks to be performed as a part of the AMS.
4. COMPLETED DOCUMENTS AND WORKING FILES. Over time, the products and administrative material for the AMS will be on file for reference use. They will be a tremendous resource for format and, to a certain extent, for process.
The basic limitation of this report, with regard to the model methodologys applicability to a wide range of situations, is its focus on Aurora. Aurora is a suburban,

high growth city with minimal urban problems. The crisis situations prevalent in large central cities just do note exist in Aurora. The AMS is based on a management approach. It has been developed in a broader context than the traditional neighborhood planning or urban revitalization planning process. The model methodologys applicability to other settings as a management tool will be discussed in the concluding chapter.
Another limitation of this report is that it reflects a pragmatic approach. The report does not concentrate on traditional academic guidelines. Even with the inclusion of the chapter on concepts, the report uses an outline or "cookbook" format to describe some of the finer points in the process of preparing a neighborhood plan and achieving its objectives. Literature on neighborhood plan methodology is limited, providing another obstacle to a more theoretical discussion. The concluding chapter will discuss the limitations of the methodology as presented on the following


Concepts, or theories, are needed as a foundation for application of methodologies and techniques. A sound
theoretical base will provide the practitioner with the "why" for the "how to" discussed in the next chapter. Understanding concpets, as we will see, will allow the
f ac
ilitator in the AMS to adapt the forthcoming model
methodology to the needs and unique circumstances of a neighborhood or other defined small area.
This chapter introduces the basic concepts to be
lied in the model methodology. The following sections cuss the significance of participation by the ghborhood and city government in the process of preparing neighborhood plan. Following the emphasis on
ticipatory planning is a discussion of the most important
characteristic of the model methodology, that is, implementation. To emphasize the integration of planning and implementation, two concepts are distinguished, programming and linkages, as critical to the success of a neighborhood planning program.
At the conclusion of this chapter, the reader should understand the basic premise of the model. In fact, the
practitioner should be able to apply the concepts presented

hout coaching. To avoid duplication of e jf fort, or
nventing the wheel, the model methodology fol 1 ows this
pter. It should be used as a base from which t to apply
the concepts discussed in this chapter.
Planning without participation by those being planned for is like building a house without a foundation. The structure may stand in the short term, but will collapse or at least waver in the long term. In other words, if planning takes place without the foundation of citizen participation, the plan may appear reasonable but will faulter as time passes. When the impetus is provided, citizens will surface their asperations. The resultant dichotomy between planners and citizens interests will not ly void any significance of the plan, but will leave a bad te for planning in general. Participation provides structural integrity to the AMS.
As in most situations, there is an opposite side of the coin. Hopefully the reader is convinced by the discussion above that it is crucial that the neighborhood be provided the opportunity for meaningful participation in the process of preparing a neighborhood plan. The opposite side of the coin is participation by the people who will make or break the actualization of the plan once prepared. From this

standpoint, involvement of the city staff and, to a lessor extent, elected officials and advisory boards is also
cial to the success of a neighborhood plan.
lowing discussion will address the roles played by the
various actors in the AMS. Figure 2 shows the roles played
the relationship of the actors.
A neighborhood contains many elements of political
influence, ranging from the individual citizen to major land
elopers. The focus of the model is the neighborhood
organization, if one exists in the area of interest. The neighborhood based organization is used, in most cases, as
other neighborhood interests. It is important to uncover
impetus to initiate the AMS and as a base to involve
segments of the community, providing the opportunity for
meaningful participation.
The neighborhoods role is to surface issues and develop goals and objectives to address the issues. Beyond
s hearty task, the neighborhood serves a review function le another actor assumes the lead role. The concept here for the neighborhood to define the problem, then identify
the general course of action or what can be accomplished to correct the problem. The lead role is then assumed by the
city staff.

The city staff, at this point, becomes the professional
staff for the neighborhood. The administrators go to the field, so to speak. City staffs involvement should be
ded by the directors of the various departments. Contact
with the neighborhood must be from a position of authority.
The city staff will be expected to negotiate an acceptable
balance between neighborhood and community-wide priorities.
From this standpoint, the city staff will be attempting to
satisfy their immediate client, the neighborhood, while constantly looking over their shoulders at the needs of the
many other neighborhood in the community and nonparochial
The only actor not involved in the process of preparing
the neighborhood plan becomes, upon completion of the plan, the most instrumental force in its implementation, at least in theoretical terms. It is out of character, considering a basic concept emphasized in other sections of this chapter, that a key actor is not included in plan preparation. Of course, the city council and advisory boards are the missing actors. As much as these groups should be involved in the nuts and bolts of preparing the plan, final review and acceptance of the outcome is the most that can be realistically achieved. The difficulty of implementing a plan for which the primary actors are excluded from the process must be accepted and mitigated.

The last role to be discussed is that
of the
facilitator, the individual responsible for coordinating all the elements of the AMS process. The facilitator is charged with the task of bringing all the actors together and creating the forum for interaction between the neighborhood
city staff. The facilitator is not an expert or advisor
on neighborhood issues or solutions, but is the expert in
It is for the facilitator that this is being
The model methodology emphasized participation by all of the actors discussed above. It is important to understand roles played by the various interests. Without an understanding of the distinctions, relationships and limitations of each force in the process, the facilitator will not be capable of managing interaction. The next sections will further emphasize the neighborhoods and city governments incentives for involvement in the AMS and their responsibilities.
Citizen participation, in one form or another, is the cornerstone of our democracy. From a logistical standpoint, the representative system is applied at most levels of government. Most people are satisfied with electing
representatives as their form of participation.

neighborhood organization is the lowest level of government and, due to its scale, provides the greatest opportunity for direct participation. Generally, the opportunity exists for any resident, business person or other interested party to participate in the affairs of a neighborhood organization on a personal basis. In most cases, participation is the primary objective of the organizers of a neighborhood organization, especially participation in local government issues. The neighborhood organization can be viewed as an extension of our democracy, necessitating a close relationship with formal levels of government.
The ne i ghbor hoo d has a vested
AMS Implem entati on of the nei ghborhood
impact the lives of n eighbor tiood peo
pari ticipation will al low the identificat
not only a b eauroc rat ic interpr etation o
by extraneous force s, as in the case of
iso Nation fr om the ne ighborhood The
this standpo int, has a strong incentive
the process.
Ownershi p is a k ey element for all
For a plan to ga in support of those b
pari ticipation must be a top pri ority.
sense of involvement or level of commitment in the plan. If

the neighborhood does not feel a personal commitment to the plan then it is less likely that the other actors in the process will see the mandate for its implementation. The plan would become another public document to be considered at the pleasure of an external force. Neighborhood participation in the process of preparing a plan will help
to ensure a public mandate for its implementation.
Setting the points made above aside for the moment, cultural norms dictate participatory approaches to planning and general government. Not only is participation required within a democracy, there is a cultural mind set which demands that people have influence and even control over their destiny. From a philosophical standpoint, the concept of "taxation without representation" may be transfigured to conclude that local government without direct participation is contrary to the moral fabric of our society.
The model methodology includes three areas of direct participation: issue identification, formulation of goals
and objectives and review of city staffs work. Issue identification is one of the most important aspects of participation in the AMS. The identification of neighborhood issues sets the stage for preparing the plan. It is crucial that this step be effectively carried out. The neighborhood should be allowed to identify issues free

from external influence. One of the basic concepts applied in the model methodology is a reliance on internally identified issues, not those identified by city staff or other "objective" force. Neighborhood issues are subjective and can only be appropriately related by those effected.
The issues, at this point, must be turned around to form goals and objectives. In other words, the issues identified by the neighborhood are the base for developing general and specific statements of desired accomplishments. Assuming that the facilitator has secured appropriate participation in the process, the issues should be viewed as the consensus of the neighborhood and therefore relied upon in the formulation of goals and objectives. The concept to be stressed here is that the neighborhood, after reviewing a staff report based on the issues, identifies desired ends, not the means for achievement. As we will see, the means for achievement will be the responsibility of another actor in the process.
The neighborhoods role in the neighborhood plan process is directed toward various levels of communication. Issues, desires, and feedback on city staffs work is the focus of the neighborhoods involvement in the process at these early stages of the neighborhood planning effort. The review function is a passive activity to ensure that city

governments response to the neighborhood accurately
reflects the neighborhoods position. Open and consistent communication between the neighborhood and city staff is the key element beyond the point of direct neighborhood participation. The facilitator plays a major role in
maintaining lines of communication during the review process.
Government in this society is expected to serve the
people. This is the sole purpose of the system. Government
is in place to pool individual resources to the point of satisfying public or communal needs. A basic concept, as elementary as it may sound, is that government is allocating and consuming public resources. Because of this, government is obligated to respond to the needs and desires of its 1 citizens, as collectively expressed. As a result, participatory processes are mandated in theory and practice.
At the local government level, the mandate for citizen participation becomes more pronounced. City government is involved with programs and activities which directly impact the day to day lives of its constituency. But, as clear as this may be, there seems to be an opposing attitude prevalent in city government and, in fact, at all levels of government. Territoriality, possessiveness, empire

personal motivations seem to guide the
in short
actions of some high
officials and staff,
exhibits a paternalisti
is counter productive
by the facilitator.
Both an awareness
neighborhoods intimat
are needed to create
participation. As uns
sometimes seems to be,
the public official
politician understands
or city staff member s
premise that the profe
objective recommend
representatives. Even
city staff must evolv
servant." With an un
respect to citizen
motivations for city s
As with the ne
ownership in the proces
er level appointed city government In some cases, the professional also c attitude toward the laymen. This and must be recognized and understood
of government responsibility and the e knowledge of neighborhood problems a conducive environment for citizen ophisticated as the guy on the street
these are the real people to which is ultimately responsible. The
this. The appoi nted o f f icial P
omet ime s do es n ot. Exce pted is t he
ssional s ta ff i s cha rged wi th maki ng
at ions to th e commun i ty s
with th is tol eranc e, att itudes of
e from th e pers pect i ve of i a "publ ic
derstan di ng of oppos ing forces wi th
part ic ip at ion, se veral pract ic al
taff involvement in the AMS will be
ighborhood, city staff must feel s of preparing the plan. If the plan

is prepared without meaningful participation by city staff, it is doubtful that the plan will be implemented. The more city staff feels that this program is being forced upon them, the more resistance there will be to adopting the product as a priority. This factor becomes extremely important considering that the model methodology relies, almost exclusively, on staff implementation of the plan. The output of the AMS, the activities that improve the neighborhood, must be considered by city staff as personal priorities.
Another motivation for city government to initiate the
ghborhood plan process is its usefulness as a hanism for the allocation of public resources, ossible for city administrators to identify
feedback It is all the
variables that should influence budgeting and other methods of distributing resources. The neighborhoods involvement in the neighborhood plan process, as will become clear later, actually benefits the conscientious manager by identifying the real needs and priorities of the citizenry. The guesswork is eliminated in the allocation of scarce resources. The neighborhood plan, in this context, becomes a survey tool.
A self serving impetus for city governments involvement is to have some influence, throughout the

process of preparing the plan, on neighborhood expectations. Without a countering force, the neighborhood is likely to develop a "wish list", never concluding with a thought process which would result in achievable objectives. A "wish list", if developed with the pretense of city sponsorship and endorsement, will only result in conflict and disappointment when its achievabi1ity is eventually refuted by city staff. Needless to say, conflict with the citizenry is to be avoided. A balance must be maintained by city staff in relating the real potential for implementation with a creatively responsive attitude.
The motivation for city managements endorsement of the model methodology is its emphasis on management. As implied in its name, Area Management Strategy, the model relates signifi cantly to newer city management thought. As a feedback mechanism and a tool for achieving results, the AMS works toward the same ends as general city management principles. This point will be further emphasized in the next section of this chapter and in the concluding chapter.
The model includes the following areas where participation by city staff is expected: neighborhood
report, review of objectives, implementation analysis, action plan and review of the draft neighborhood plan. The neighborhood report is prepared by the facilitator with

input from city staff. The purpose of the report is to present information on neighborhood issues. The basic concept here is to respond directly to issues identified by the neighborhood. This format avoids a comprehensive approach, conserving staff resources and P
focusing on the matter at hand. The report will be used by the neighborhood to develop goals and objectives and by city government as a primer for later steps in the process.
Once the goals and objectives are established, the city staff begins to play a major role in the process. The city staff will review the goals and objectives. The primary purpose of this task is to gain a thorough understanding of neighborhood issues and desired accomplishments. This step is needed for the city staff to effectively deal with the next steps in the process. With neighborhood report and goals and objectives in hand, city staff will meet with neighborhood representatives to discuss their expectations. From this point forward, the city staff will not only play a major role, but a lead role, while the neighborhood steps back to assume a review function.
The implementation analysis is a serious effort to relate neighborhood objectives to implementation activities. This is the turning point where there is a departure from traditional approaches. Alternative proposals for addressing

neighborhoods objectives are prepared by city staff.
Conceptual designs, rough cost estimates and policy implications are considered. This level of detail, although conceptual, lends a certain amount of reality to the process, which has been more or less academic to this point. The analysis forces the city staff to seriously consider the actual implementation of objectives. Too often, a satisfying response is provided which does not stand up to the test of "after-planning" analysis. The methodology emphasizes a complete analysis during plan preparation.
Following neighborhood selection of the most suitable alternative, the city staff prepares the action plan. This is actually a continuation of the implementation analysis, interrupted by neighborhood participation. The selected alternative is refined and scheduled for completion. The unique characteristic of this step is a linkage with budget processes and employee performance evaluation, more thoroughly discussed in the next section. The action plan is, just as the name implies, a plan of action setting out a program or a series of events to accomplish an objective. The implementation analysis and action plan allows the city staff to demonstrate their expertise in light of their role in city government: presentation of alternatives and implementing the course of action selected by the public.

Nearing the conclusion of the process, the city staff will review the draft neighborhood plan for completeness and discrepancies. The city staff has played both active and
passive roles up to this point. Following adoption of the neighborhood plan by the Planning Commission and City Council, the city staff will again assume an active role. After completion of the planning effort, as closely as it has been tied to programming and implementation, it should still be stressed that day to day departmental activities must reflect neighborhood objectives and the elements of the action plan. In other words, the city staff is responsible for implementing the neighborhood plan.
As stated in the introduction to this chapter, implementation is the most important element of the AMS approach. More specifically, it is the integration of planning process with implementation tools that provides the focus for the model methodology. The basic problem with traditional neighborhood planning is the lack of a connection between "what" and "how." What should be accomplished is fairly simple to define using accepted citizen participation techniques. How to accomplish defined objectives has always been a thorn in the side of the public planner.

The AMS would be meaningless without this connection.
In fact, without the focus on implementation the program would be detrimental to relations between government and the public. False hopes could cause more public relations problems than the real problems of the neighborhood. Conversely, implementing a series of short term solutions without the benefit of a longer term strategy also lacks significance. But, given the choice, this relationship is preferable to a plan without implementation. As much as the planning professional would like to emphasize the benefits of a well prepared plan, action, even in isolated instances, is preferable to no action. Implementation is crucial to the success of any planning effort. The relationship between planning and implementation must be identified prior to initiating a plan of any type.
Before moving to a description of implementation mechanisms, roles will be briefly discussed. The city staff is directly responsible for implementing the neighborhood plan. This is accomplished through normal departmental procedures. The neighborhood plan must be used as an operating manual for city activities. The neighborhood does not have a formal role in implementation. But, the neighborhood should serve as a watch dog. The neighborhood does not usually need to be persuaded of this. What is

needed though, is an understanding that this role is expected and that adversary relationships should be avoided.
The role assumed by city staff in implt ^mentation
evo ] Lves around two concepts, prog ramming and 1 inkai ?es. Each
com ;ept will be discussed in the following sections.
Together, these concepts form the main body of the model methodology. This is emphasized repeatedly. The potential for implementation is the unique characteristic of the AMS. It is crucial that the concepts and their application be understood by all the actors, especially the facilitator.
Programming is an effort to take the planning process one step further. Traditionally, planning has stopped short of identifying implementation programs. The programming action plan extends neighborhood objectives to the point of actual steps for achievement, outlining how, who is responsible and when the projects will be completed. This process is based on the implementation analysis, where alternatives have been prepared by city staff and the neighborhood has chosen the most acceptable. The concept is for city staff to outline very specifically, in a programming format, how the city intends to accomplish neighborhood objectives.

Programming includes the various steps needed to physically accomplish the objective, who in the organization is responsible for implementation, how much will it cost and when will it be completed. An extremely important activity at this step in the process is a refinement of cost estimates, if there is a cost associated with implementation, and to identify funding sources. Some of the objectives may not have a direct cost associated with it, such as matters related to land use, city-wide policy and internal service allocations. In this case, indirect costs and long term implications should be further defined. Regardless of format, this is the last chance to distinguish those projects to actually be implemented from those projects that are needed but can not be realistically accomplished.
The feasibility of implementing a particular project should be identified during the implementation analysis. An alternative should not be presented to the neighborhood for consideration unless its potential for implementation has been thoroughly reviewed. If an alternative is selected by the neighborhood which is identified at the programming step as unrealistic, the city staff will loose credibility. Shattered neighborhood expectations will undermine the process and will cause significant delays in completing the

neighborhood plan. If an unrealistic project does sneak through the implementation analysis, this must be identified prior to concluding the action plan.
As discussed in previous sections, allocation of public resources is a motivation for citizen and city staff participation in the AMS. Allocation is a key concept in the process, and a serious limitation of the process. It is extremely difficult to pledge resources for implementing a neighborhood plan without the benefit of a comparable worth analysis or a system of prioritization which considers the needs of other neighborhoods or the community as a whole. This limitation clouds the motivational factors for participation in the process. The action plan must be prepared with this understanding and a sixth sense concerning the overall equity for the proposal.
The action plan establishes the needed thought process and participation to plan for implementation. This is an extension of the planning process. Determining how the plan will be implemented is still not actual implementation. To crossover into the realm of departmental implementation activities, there must be linkages between the planners and the implementers. The city staff, as implementers, have been involved in plan preparation which develops, in addition to practical benefits, a perceptual linkage to

implementation. The next section will discuss a number of physical linkages between planning and implement at ion. The importance of this integration is the foundation of the AMS and the primary motivation for presenting the model methodology.
To develop a physical connection between the planning document and the systems for implementation, there must be linkages between the two elements. Implementation of plans, traditionally, has been left to haphazard communications among city staff and neighborhoods. Carrying out an objective or recommendation has been left purely to chance. Formal ties with and between the various components of the organization are needed to ensure that plans are not lost in the shuffle of the beaurocracy.
The integration of process and product is accomplished by tapping into local government outputs. The day to day operations of line departments, their budgets and performance evaluations are the means by which outputs are monitored. The neighborhood plan must be interlaced with outputs through standard monitoring procedures. When a department budget, or directors performance evaluation is directly impacted by the level of plan implementation, it is

likely that public services and projects will more closely reflect neighborhood objectives. Local government outputs, such as street sweeping and park development, must be geared toward levels of citizen satisfaction as expressed through the AMS. The following discussion will highlight several linkages between the neighborhood plan and the implementing organization.
The most significant determinant of local government output is budgeting. The operating budget and the capital facilities plan directly or indirectly impacts every aspect of local government activity. The operating budget determines expenditures for street maintenance, library programs, police operations and other services that are provided as a direct result of dollars. The output of other city departments and divisions, such as planning, relies on the operating budget as a secondary factor. The capital facilities plan guides expenditures for major public improvements. The two budgeting aspects, taken together, control or at least influence every function of local government. It is evident that a linkage between the neighborhood plan and budget processes would greatly enhance the likelihood that neighborhood objectives will be
reflected in city programs and activities
The actual linkage between the neighborhood
plan and

budgeting can be accomplished without sophisticated
ad j ustments to e i the r proces s. Departme nts are request ed,
as a part of th e st andard budge ting pr ocess, to submit
det ailed descri ptions of act iv ities and proj ects for
upc :oming years. The neighbo rhood plan, once completed and
adopted, should b ecome inter nal pri orit ies of the
dep artments invol ved. The r esult of this simple concept is
that the action plan will be used to comp lete the ; stand ard
ope irating and cap i tal budget forms . Conv ersely, the budget
for ms will be c ons i dered th e fin al step in prep ar ing the
act ion plan. The physi cal connect i on bet ween the
nei ghborhood p lan and the single most import ant
implementation mechanism is in place.
The linkage established through budget forms ties direct output of city departments to the neighborhood plan. There still is a need for a connection between neighborhood objectives and secondary outputs, the functions of government that are not necessarily determined by budgeting methods. Internal service allocation is an example of a secondary output or a function that is indirectly impacted by budgets. To reach those aspects of local government that can not be directly influenced by a linkage with the operating budget and capital facilities plan, neighborhood objectives must also be integrated with general municipal

management. This is accomplished by tieing neighborhood objectives to departmental annual objectives.
Most management systems emphasize goal setting to establish work programs. Annual operating objectives for departments determine what will be accomplished by city staff during the year. The departmental objectives are established each year to guide city staff actions and to provide a basis for performance evaluations. Another simple yet effective concept is to integrate neighborhood objectives with departmental objectives and employee standards of performance. This tie will make city departments directly responsible for achieving neighborhood objectives as a component of standard operating priorities. The neighborhood objectives will govern department activities and be used to evaluate the performance of department directors and staff. This approach picks up where the budget concepts discussed above fall short. In other words, the integration of neighborhood objectives with budget processes and general departmental performance evaluation provides positive control towards the implementation of the neighborhood plan.
There are a couple of areas where a less formal relationship remains: land use and development issues and general policy/decision making. Land use and development


matters are outside of direct budgeting control and minimally influenced by performance evaluation. Neighborhood objectives will influence the city planners recommendations to advisory committees and city council, but the influence is limited to the range of professional
discretion allowable. The situation is similar to an attorneys, where there is a certain range wherein a legal opinion is correct. Beyond this range, there is the
question of professional integrity, regardless of the clients position. Public planning issues are quasijudicial in nature, necessitating a different approach to implementing neighborhood objectives related to this area.
The neighborhood land use map is used as the basis for presenting land use recommendations. Once adopted by the city council, the map serves as an extension or further
definition of the generalized comprehensive plan map. The neighborhood land use map will be considered in the same light as the comprehensive plan. By its very nature, it is advisory. The land use portion of the neighborhood plan can
not be as tightly controlled for implementation as other matters more at the local governments discretion. Overall
land use and development policy, though, can be presented in the text of the neighborhood plan with implementation partially controlled by the management techniques outlined

in the preceding paragraphs. In addition, compliance with the neighborhood land use map may be influenced by more rigid requirements for comprehensive plan amendments when development activity is proposed in an area with an adopted
ghborhood plan. In any case, land use and development
issues are more difficult to resolve and require a broader base of internal and external voluntary compliance.
General policy/decision making is another area that is less likely to be exclusively controlled by the linkages described in this section. The city council is influenced by many factors. One of them is not managements evaluation of performance or budgeting directives. The governing body must support the AMS process and the individual plans that they adopt. Only then will the local governments policy positions reflect the goals and objectives of the neighborhood plan.
An overriding factor in developing linkages between the plan and its implementation is that the beaurocracy is composed of many individuals with personal agendas. The integration of the planning process with budgeting and performance evaluation will provide the impetus for implementation, but will not totally control the dynamics of city hall. City management must play an ongoing role as the overseer of the AMS process. Even with their limitations,

discussed more thoroughly in the concluding chapter, the
linkages between process and product may be considered the "missing link" in traditional neighborhood planning programs.

The concepts discussed in this chapter represents the framework of the AMS. A larger, more important point to be emphasized at the conclusion of this discussion is action. The AMS has been developed to integrate planning and implementation techniques. There should be a continuous free flow from one end of the planning/implementat ion continuum to the other. The emphasis throughout the process must be on action. The actors in the process should constantly remind themselves that every step in the process should be approached from the standpoint of what action is needed to achieve results.
The emphasis on action leads to the identification of a bottom line stance: the purpose of the AMS is to achieve physical results. Action to no end, needless to say, is
meaningless achieved in changing land or policies neighborhood product, but results.
The next to outline
The products of the AMS are the results completing neighborhood improvement projects, use designations and establishing new services which will enhance the neighborhood. The plan document should not be viewed as a only another action leading to achieving
chapter is titled "Methodology. It is meant in fairly specific terms an approach to the

application of the concepts in this chapter. There are many
correct methodologies for achieving results in a planning program emphasizing neighborhoods. The model developed for this report is based on trial and error in working with three Aurora neighborhoods. The model methodology should be used as a guide, but the facilitator should be prepared to adapt specific techniques to the situation at hand. The concepts discussed here should be useful in maintaining at least philosophical consistancy in the AMS.


The AMS concepts were described in Chapter II. Several basic principles were discussed and the AMS was summarized. Emphasis was placed on participation and implementation. Appropriate participation by all local government and neighborhood interests is a focus of the AMS. Implementation, in terms of programming and linkages, is also of primary concern. If the process is carried out effectively, then implementation will follow without a separate and distinct program. The basis of the methodology is the continuous flow from planning to implementation.
This chapter outlines a model for the AMS. It should used by the facilitator as a model. The facilitator, as basic premise of the model, is allowed considerable flexability in determining the manner in which the concepts described in Chapter II are applied. In fact, the facilitator should be prepared to accomodate variations in the process as the situation warrants. It should be possible for the facilitator, with little or no experience in participatory processes, to successfully lead interaction between city staff and a neighborhood in completing a neighborhood plan. The facilitator should strive to apply the basic concepts first and the specific methodology

Variations in the process should be expected. The most
signif icant of which is a tendancy for implementation to partially occur throughout the preparation of the neighborhood plan. The successful integration of planning and implementation is most evident when steps are taken by a city department towards accomplishing an objective prior to the point where this is expected. An objective dealing with traffic control, for example, may prompt additional signage
before the implementation analysis is completed.
department may not have been aware of the problem, but once surfaced by the neighborhood, the city staff is prepared to take immediate action. The example certainly could be more extreme. The process, in this case, has been circumvented, but results are being achieved. It is the responsibility of the facilitator to maintain consistancy and process integrity without creating beaurocratic obstacles to immediate action. The facilitator should be prepared to adjust the elements of the model to accomodate variations that may benefit the neighborhood. The models reliance on a document should be set aside when the process itself achieves results. Variations in process can be accounted for when drawing together the various elements of the draft
neighborhood plan.

The AMS methodology is outlined in nine sections. The st step emphasizes preliminary communications with the ghborhood. The last step addresses implementation as an egral part of the process. The body of this chapter is ted below:
Preparing to Plan Issue Identification Neighborhood Report Goals and Objectives Implementation Analysis Action Plan
Draft Neighborhood Plan Review and Adoption Implementation
Each section begins with a summary statement of the k applied through the outlined model and a note on who responsible for carrying it out. Examples and ksheets are provided when possible. A summary flow chart scheduling worksheet is included at the conclusion of s chapter.
j< A neighborhood must be identified which will benefit participating in the AMS and be willing to commit to its

Responsibility The facilitator is responsible for this step, including a determination of the level of neighborhood commitment and potential for a successful program. IDENTIFYING THE AREA There are several alternatives when choosing the geographic focus for the AMS. An organized single neighborhood unit is probably the simplest to identify, ranging from one-quarter section of land to several square miles. If an area is unorganized (no existing neighborhood organizations) or if several defined neighborhoods are drawn together for
purposes of the AMS, their communications with the
neighborhood will be more difficult. The geographic and
organizational alternatives are listed below:
1. A single organized neighborhood unit. This is the simplest to identify and the most efficient structure to work with. Communications can be funneled through the existing neighborhood organization. The base of neighborhood participation is in place and can be built
upon as necessary.
Several smaller organized neighborhood units. A neighborhood plan can be prepared for an area which
includes several smaller neighborhood assoc
homeowners associations and possibly unorgan
iations or
ized areas.

The purpose of selecting this alternative is to create a reasonable sized area and base of interest. Logistics can be more difficult with this arrangement. Notifications and participation must be coordinated between neighborhoods and any unorganized areas.
An unorganized area. This is the most difficult situation to work with. Notifications and participation is the exclusive responsibility of the
facilitator. This could mean a lot of "leg work" in distributing flyers and organizing meetings. Levels of participation may be less than in the two alternatives listed above. The one advantage or benefit to this option is the potential for a neighborhood organization to spring from the facilitators effort. In any case, this option will be more successful if at least a core group of volunteers is identified in the area. Regardless of the alternative chosen, the level of
neighborhood interest must be determined by the facilitator. For the process to be successful, the neighborhood must be willing to commit time and resources to completion of the neighborhood plan. If one or more neighborhood organizations exist in the area, their leadership, at a minimum, must show an adequate level of interest to warrant their selection.

The selection of an area should also be based on need,
especially if the area is unorganized. The neighborhood should show signs of benefiting from the AMS. This determination can be subjectively made by the facilitator based on available data and a drive through the neighborhood. In an unorganized area, the determination of need becomes the decisive factor.
The last step in this task is to decide whether to proceed. If there is not enough interest or need, or some combination of each, then the process should not be applied to the area. The effort would be meaningless and simply a waste of public resources. If it is determined, at the staff level, that the area is a candidate for a neighborhood plan, then the concept should be introduced to the neighborhood.
If there are existing neighborhood organizations in the area, a meeting should be scheduled with their boards of directors. The concept should be explained with emphasis placed on the level of commitment required to complete the process. A schedule of meetings and required notifications should be discussed with the neighborhood representatives. They should be fully aware of what they're getting into.
In an unorganized area, an introduction of this sort is

obviously not possible. An attempt should be made to identify several contact people in the area. In some cases, names of people involved with some other aspect of local government or community volunteerism may be acquired from other city staff or community organizations. If this is possible, a core group should be assembled to discuss the concept and establish a base for neighborhood participation. Without a cOre group assembled in this manner, the facilitator is forced to proceed, independently, to the next step in the process. It will be a difficult task going it
Once again, it must be decided whether to proceed. An adequate level of interest and commitment must be shown by the neighborhood. In an unorganized area, the facilitator must proceed with this question left unanswered if the need for the neighborhood plan is great enough. Where there are existing neighborhood organizations though, interest along with need should be considered equally in the determination. If a commitment is made to proceed, the issue identification meeting, discussed in the next section, should be the extent
the commitment. A further determination will be made at
the conclusion of that task.
Task Neighborhood issues must be identified at

neighborhood-wide meeting, providing the opportunity for all neighborhood interests to be involved in a process which is free from external influence.
Responsibility The facilitator is responsible for this step, including coordination of meeting notifications and leading the group process to identify issues.
All neighborhood interests must have the opportunity to participate in the issue identification process. The list of prioritized neighborhood issues will serve as the basis for preparing the neighborhood plan. Figure 3 may be used
as a checklist to identify the various groups that will be effected by the AMS.
The facilitator and existing neighborhood organizations or adhoc group of volunteers should share responsibility for notifying neighborhood interests. The neighborhood should be viewed as a resource for completing this task. The facilitator, for example, may agree to pay the cost of postage for distributing flyers and notify external
interests (i.e., land developers, other public agencies)
In return, the neighborhood would be responsible for preparing the flyer, printing and sorting for bulk mailing. Requesting the neighborhood to hand deliver some or all of the flyers is not out of the question. In this case, the

facilitator could pay for printing the flyers.
The neighborhood, if used properly, can conserve public resources while gaining experience in neighborhood communications. This exposure could lead to the production of a neighborhood newsletter or more efficient notification process for future neighborhood meetings. The willingness of the neighborhood to assist with notifications is a test of commitment to the process. If the neighborhood does not contribute, then the facilitator must be prepared to take full responsibility. This should be the only neighborhoodwide notification that the AMS is underway. Feedback from the flyer will be the only means for involving people in the effort. Figure 4 is an example of a flyer notifying neighborhood residents of the issue identification meeting.
The meeting should be held, if possible, in the neighborhood. Meeting facilities at neighborhood schools, churches and community centers can generally be reserved. The neighborhood organization, if applicable, may have a standard meeting place that may be used. The facility should be capable of seating 30 to 100 people depending on

Aurora Neighborhood Planning Program Neighborhood Plan Referral Checklist
Cay Attorneys Oft tee Bob Rogers
Cay Manager s Office Forrest Cason
Community Oe.etopment Dianne True*
Fmenee (Budget A Aeeeerch) Jock Boose
Porta Rae a Puowc Properttee
Ptanmng (Current)
Puone works
OWer City Departments
Scfiooi Owtncl 7SJ CC
bucktey ANG Beee
RsaM Htgffvay Dept
Urban Drainage
TrvCownty Hoalffi
Outer Outside Agencies
Religious tnatnutions
Non-Protit Orgonustiono
Social Sennco Agencies
Nwawwaa UanWm
Major Nuai
Special Districts

Adtaconr sasignnorheoO Groups
AOaamaa Ptooarty Owners (List Separately)
Otner Hs'gnbortiood Interests
If you live within these boundaries, wo dm4 your help and suggestions to
A formal Neighborhood Man It going to bo developed
1n cooperation with tho City of Aurora but flrtt your Input and participation It essential. Final resolution will rotult In budget allocation! and comeltment by tho City.
No furthor notification of Beatings will bo toot unlest you attend this Initial Input sooting or contact one of tho Individual! at tho maters Indicated below. Renters are port of thli process too.
Haase cowe and Join us. Th1t It your only chance to lot tho City know what you want In toroa of future development for this area, twmter, your word, or lack of It. It your final statwent for your neighborhood.
ho 1st
Street lse>ror wants Property Upkeep Pedestrian Safety Traffic
Park Development Crime Prevention
7:30 R.N. WEDNESDAY TALE EIDCWTARY Cafeteria 16001 Cast Tala Avenue AURORA. CO NOVDVER 78. 198*
For more Information about tho mooting or about tho Rolgf ploose call Rob Walsh, Neighborhood Planner, at itS-7750 at 337-gjgg.
I Rian. or Joy Janko

the size of the neighborhood.
There should be wall space
available for taping up lists of issues. The meeting should obviously be scheduled for a weekday evening, avoiding holidays and major events (i.e., Superbowl, other community meetings).
This may seem like a lot of words spent on a fairly simplistic matter, but the importance of this first, and maybe only, neighborhood-wide meeting can not be overemphasized. Not only are the issues identified which will be used for successive steps, participants in the process will be drawn from the meetings* attendance.
The neighborhood meeting should be scheduled for a single purpose: issue identification. Discussion of other
topics should be avoided. The facilitator is responsible for keeping the meeting on track through the use of a formal group dynamics process. Figure 5 outlines the recommended process for identifying issues (Schler 1982). The formal process serves several purposes:
1. It uses time efficiently, allowing a lot of work to be accomplished in a short time period.
2. It encourages participation by all who attend, avoiding a monopoly on discussion by a few more vocal participants with views which may not reflect

neighborhood-wide interests.
It includes prioritization of issues based o of people rather than a vocal special interes
n numbers t group.

5 min.
10 min.
10 min.
10 min.
5 min.
10 min.
5 min.
1. Facilitator asks the group to divide into small groups of roughly equal size and select a leader (group leaders may be selected and trained in advance).
2. Facilitator asks each person to write down issues, problems, questions, ideas and concerns (all to be referred to as issues").
3. Facilitator instructs group leaders to ask each person, in turn, to read one of their issues. The group leader writes them on large sheets of paper taped on the wall, complete with no changes. There is no discussion at this time. Continue until all issues are listed.
4. Facilitator instructs group leaders to read list of issues, one by one, asking the group if the meaning is clear. If necessary, let the person who identified the issue explain it. This is the time for limited discussion. An issue can be changed or re-worded only if the source agrees to the change. Similar issues can be combined only if both sources agree.
5. When the final list is complete, the facilitator instructs the group leader to letter the Issues A-Z.
6. Five note cards are passed out to each person. Facilitator asks each person to write down their five most important issues from their group's list, one per note card. The letter and complete statement of the issue should be on each note card.
7. Facilitator asks everyone to rank their choices as follows:
a. Among the five, which matters the least? Write the number one on 1t, then turn It over.
b. Among the four remaining, select the most important. Write the number five on 1t, then turn it over.
c. Of the remaining three, which is least important?
Write the number two on it, then turn it over.
d. Of the remaining two, which 1s more important? Write the number four on it, then turn 1t over.
e. Write the number three on the remaining card, then turn it over.
5 min.
10 min.
10 min.
8. Facilitator instructs group leaders to tally the results by writing each ranking number by the corresponding issue on the master list. Add all the numbers for each Issue and circle the top five "vote-getters".
9. Facilitator asks for a volunteer from each group to read their top five issues to the larger group. Facilitator, with volunteer assistance, writes a consolidated list of issues on large sheets of paper taped on the wall.
10. Facilitator assists in combining similar issues, with
group consensus. Care must be taken not to void an issue which may be perceived by others as different. If there is any question about this, leave the issue on the list.
(alternative) 10. Facilitator asks for a volunteer from each group to form a new group to combine similar issues and refine the wording, being careful not to void an issue or change an issue's meaning.
1 hr. 20 min.
Facilitator Group of People Writing Paper Pencils
Large Sheets of Paper
Note Cards

If the participants have not been active
in local
government affairs or lacking a basic awareness of their neighborhood, then consciousness raising techniques can be applied. A couple of tools are recommended. First, the
facilitator could prepare a slide presentation on the
neighborhood, highlighting its distinguishing
characteristics, eye sores and other factors which may generate thought. Second, a checklist could be distributed which would generate thought concerning specific problems. Figure 6 shows an example of a problems checklist (Hanson and McNamera 1981). If the neighborhood is well known for vocalizing its concerns, then these techniques may not be needed. If the group has been focused on one or two
neighborhood issues, then these techniques could be applied to create an awareness of other potential problems that deserve their attention.
The facilitator should not identify issues for the
neighborhood. One of the basic concepts at this point is for the neighborhood to generate their own list of issues which will form the basis for city response. To the extent possible, the facilitator should strive to be a neutral third-party observer.
Nearing the conclusion of the issue identification meeting, the facilitator should make a pitch for

ion on a neighborhood should be open to all ttee structure will s
planning committee. This who wish to be involved, erve as the voice of the

Problem Identification Checklist
This checklist contains a series of questions to help you identify neighborhood problem areas. A significant number of yes" answers in any category indicates an area in w hich your neighborhood organization may want to get involved. Bear in mind that many of the questions will call for judgments or. in some cases, impressions. This is merely a preliminary exercise to help you identify issues for further research.
1. Housing
Are structures in the neighborhood physical!) deficient? Do they need minor repairs and maintenance'' Major repairs or rehabilitation?
Are there abandoned buildings in the neighborhood0
Is the neighborhood in flux? Are property values rising or declining rapidly?
Is the neighborhood experiencing a high population turnover rate? Are people frequently moving into or out of the neighborhood?
Are insurance rates rising?
Arc mortgages and home improvement loans unavailable?
Are large numbers of properties being purchased by absentee landlords or real estate speculators'*
Are structures being divided into smaller units?
Are houses or apartments overcrowded0 Do two or three families or a large group of people share a single house or apartment?
Do properly taxes fail to reflect real values?
2. Crime
D Is there w idespread fear of crime in the neighborhood?
Are you aware of high levels of crime (street crime, house crime, commercial crime) in the neighborhood?
Do you believe police protection is inadequate? Are police insensitive to neighborhood problems? Do police respond slowly to distress calls?
Have buildings or cars been vandalized0
Are theft insurance rates higher in your neighborhood than they are in other parts of the city?
3. Fire Prut ret km
Is incidence of fire in the neighborhood high?
Are there frequently fires which appear to be the result of arson?
Is the fire department poorly equipped or understaffed?
Are there obvious fire hazards in the neighborhood such as abandoned buildings, rundown buildings, deteriorated garages, trash heaps?
4. Schools
Are there schools within walking distance?
Do you think that the quality of education at local schools is poor?
Do parents have little say in school matters? Are teachers or principals inaccessible or unhelpful?
Are classrooms or playgrounds in poor condition?
Are educational aids (books, maps, projectors) in short supply?
Does your school lack special programs or fail to meet specific neighborhood needs?
Do many students fail to complete high school?
5. Social Services
Do banks fail to provide adequate services such as selling food stamps or depositing welfare directly?
Do grocery stores refuse to accept food stamps?
Are day care services inconvenient or expensive?
Does your neighborhood have youth problems? Vandalism? Drugs? Loitering? Rowdiness0
Are the elderly residents in your neighborhood in need of special services or programs?
Does your neighborhood need a meeting place or neighborhood center?
4. Health Care
Are dociors difficult to locate or appointments hard to get?
Are doctors' offices or other health services inaccessible by public transportation0
Are fees loo high for neighborhood residents0
Is there a need for a free clinic or other alternative center?
Are you aware of any special health problems in the neighborhood? Health hazards?
Is it hard to get information about health care in your community?
7. Neighborhood Commerce
Do neighbors choose to shop in other parts of the city?
Are businesses and retail shops leaving your neighborhood0
Is the business district run down? Have merchants failed to renovate stores?
Can you identify needed improvements0 Different types of shops? Longer hours? Better parking arrangements? More competitive prices?
X. Environmental Quality
Are streets and properties in your neighborhood littered0
Woqld you describe your neighborhood as dirty? Unattractive?
Docs trj'h or garbage pile up on the curb and sidewalks'*
Have you spotted rats or other rodents in the area'*
Do you have problems with roaches or other insects?
Do your streets flood during heavy rain?
Do you think the air quality in your neighborhood is poor? Peculiar odors? Soot?
Is tap water discolored Does it have an unusual taste?
Have you been annoyed by noise in the neighborhood? From traffic? Factories? Other sources?
f. Energy Conservation
Do rising fuel bills constitute a hardship for neighborhood residents?
Are homes and buildings well insulated? Poorly insulated? Not insulated at alt?
Do residents need financial assistance or services for weatherization?
Do residents understand the need for energy conservation?
Are there opportunities for installing alternative energy systems?
10. Streets
Are streets in poor condition? Potholes? Cracked curbs'* Broken sidewalks?
Are there dangerous intersections where signs or signals are needed? Have there been a large number of accidents?
Is there high speed traffic through the neighborhood?
Are on- and off-street parking spaces scarce?
Is parking difficult on street sweep days or during snow emergencies?
Are streets poorly lit?
11. Transportation
Are there long waits for buses or streetcars?
Are bus slops poorly located or uncovered?
Do bus routes fail to reflect neighborhood needs?
Does your neighborhood need bike paths? Special programs such as dial-a-ride. carpooling, elderly shuttle?
12. Open Spaces and Recreation
Are parks or sports facilities overcrowded*
Are parks and playgrounds poorly maintained0 Overgrown? Littered? Unlighted? Broken equipment0
Are there too few recreational programs for specific age groups?
Are there vacant lots or other spaces which could be converted?
13. Historic Preservation
Are there buildings in the neighborhood which have historic significance or unique architecture?
Arc there buildings deteriorating? Slated for demolition?
Are there other historic sites near your neighborhood?
Do you think buildings in your neighborhood might qualify for the National Register or other preservation programs?
14. Land Use and Zoning
Is your neighborhood threatened by major construction projects (expressways, airports, high-rise buildings, etc.)0
Are there plans to build facilities that might be a nuisance to the neighborhood? Prisons? Sports arenas? College dormitories?
Is present zoning inconsistent with your neighborhood goals? Is it poorly enforced?
D Could zoning be used to prevent unwanted changes in land use?
Neighborhood Assets
Now that you have begun to think about various neighborhood issues and problems, y ou should carefully appraise your neighborhood assets. Ask yourself how specific neighborhood assets and resources can be used as building blocks in dealing with neighborhood problems.
What are some of the unique physical characteristics, such as parks, buildings, and squares, that give your neighborhood its own identity0
Docs your neighborhood have a name? A newspaper or newsletter? Has it sponsored street fairs or other activities0
Has your neighborhood ever been written about, in the local newspaper, for example?
Docs your neighborhood have a particular or diverse ethnic identity? Is this a source of pride or togetherness?
What are the things you like best about your neighborhood?
What do residents moving in see in your neighborhood? Good location? Good schools? Attractive buildings Pleasant streets? Charm
Do you have an active neighborhood organization? Is there potential for forming one?
How involved are neighborhood residents? Registered to vote? Have they joined together in various neighborhood causes?
What institutional resources are located in your neighborhood? Universities'* Hospitals? Libraries*
Can you identify neighbors with important skills? Organizing ability? Enthusiasm?
Do any community leaders or elected officials live in your neighborhood0
Can you identify neighborhood opportunities'* Buildings available for reuse'* Open spaces suitable for development Areas of neighborhood life where a strong neighborhood organization could make a real and lasting contribution'*

neighborhood in contacts with the city throughout the AMS
With the list of issues in hand, committee members will be communicators for neighborhood concerns, not necessarily independent spokespersons. Needless to say, an attendance list should be acquired for use in future correspondance. FOLLOW-UP
A formal list of issues should be prepared, drawing exclusively from the results of the issue identification meeting. Priority ratings should be determined based on
number of votes the issue received Any method of
determ ining weight ed ranking that makes sense is t acceptable.
Figure 7 shows an example of an issues list and a ranking
system based on a reference point of 1.00 and the total
score for each of the sub-iss ues under the major headings.
The example provided in Figure 8 will only work if the issue identification process is followed.
The completed issues list should be distributed to the city managers office and department heads. At the facilitators discretion, it could also be sent to the participants at the issue identification meeting. This could serve to maintain a certain level of interest in the process while city staff is preparing the neighborhood report. The issues list will be used by city staff from
various departments to furnish pertinent information for the

neighborhood report
It is time to re-evaluate the need preparing a neighborhood plan. If it was
and interest difficult for

HAVANA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES General Meeting February 14, 1984
*1gbttd Ranting Priority Issues
1.00 Zoning
Maintain single family
Development of area apartments/slngle family Ho more multi-family; keep zoning as 1s Hill there be change In zoning effects on area Construction other than residential notification No more high density
2.25 Streets
Can Improvement district be forcedT Need cost breakdown per frontage When mill streets be paved?
Pavement without curb and gutter
Utilities before paving
Maintenance of all streets
Jewell Street Improvements and maintenance
Who pays for Improvements will City pay V
Cost of o111ng/pav1na
Forced Improvement district will force out residents Contractors responsiveness for maintenance
4.00 Traffic control
Street sign Evans/Mavana "No Parting to Comer"
Traffic signal on Havana/Asbury
Enforce local traffic only short cuts
5.25 Utilities
Nhen and where City utilities available
Sewer lines Warren east of Joliet
5.25 Neighborhood Match
5.50 Street lighting
5.50 Drainage
No plan no outfall Street drainage Storm drainage
6.00 Overall planning Is lacking
Aircraft Noise 28/1 33/1 31/1 29/1
Park Development 24/2 20/2 12/3 27/2
Flood Control 18/3 16/4 21/2 14/3
Street Lighting 11/4 19/3 8/5 13/4
Zoning 8/5 10/5 12/4 7/5
Barking Dogs 2/8 4/6 0/6 0/6
Pedestrian Safety 2/6 1/6 4/6 0/6
35/1 5 5/5 1.00
31/2 11 11/5 2.20
18/3 15 15/5 3.00
12/4 20 20/5 4.00
5/5 24 24/5 4.80
4/6 30 30/5 6.00
1/6 30 30/5 6.00
* The type of Information provided here, for example could be retrieved from the worksheets used at the Issue Identification meeting.
* In this example, these Issues were not Identified as a priority 1n any group. For purposes of weighting, they were each given a ratio of six, only to make the system work.

neighborhood to identify significant issues that warrant further attention, the AMS may not be the answer. Likewise, if very little interest was shown in the project, then it should not be pursued. Without at least a minimum level of participation in the planning committee, the effort may not produce results.
The facilitator, in consultation with other city staff

members and representatives of the neighborhood, may choose
prepare a position paper in lieu of a neighborhood plan, this option is selected, the position paper should
address the most significant issues raised at the meeting. The issues, for this to be a viable option, must be unmanageable or conceptual to the point of local government not being able to respond in any meaningful way. The position paper, if completed, should be distributed to elected and appointed officials, but not formally adopted. This option can be viewed as a way out of the extended AMS
it would not be productive.
In summary, the following options are available at this
Not proceed. This option is selected if there is no need or interest in going further.
2. Prepare position paper. This option is selected if the
nature of the issues do not warrant a neighborhood

plan, but there is enough interest in concluding the
3. Prepare a neighborhood plan. This option is selected if there is a need, based on the issues identified, and a level of commitment that demonstrates potential for a successful project.
Task A report is prepared in direct response to neighborhood issues, providing general information which can be used by the neighborhood in developing goals and objectives.
Responsibility The facilitator is responsible for coordinating the preparation of the report, including involvement by other city staff.
The neighborhood report may be prepared in any format which is comfortable for the facilitator. The report should be fairly brief and informal. The purpose is not to produce a polished document. The content of the report should be in summary form without a lot of unnecessary verbage.
Information which addresses neighborhood issues should be the focus of the report. A comprehensive approach to data collection should be avoided. The major headings are discussed below, providing a general framework for the

facilitator to work from.
The introduction to the report should summarize the AMS discuss expected results and outline the process schedule. A chapter entitled The Neighborhood could be used to briefly discuss general characteristics of the neighborhood, its history and organization. The report could then focus on major catagories of issues (i.e., land use,
transportation). Any number of chapters may be developed by consolidating neighborhood issues to form "issue areas" for the purpose of presenting related materials. As a response to a particular issue, data, graphs, policies and other pertinent material may be included. Figure 9 shows examples of responses to neighborhood issues. At the end of the report, worksheets should be included to encourage involvement by neighborhood participants (i.e., base map, meeting schedule).
The completed neighborhood report should be distributed to city staff, the neighborhoods planning committee and, at the facilitators discretion, to participants of the issue identification process. The report should be reviewed by the neighborhood as background for developing goals and objectives. The city staff should refer to the report as a primer for things to come. It is important to maintain a

ance in the report between creativity and realism.
report should encourage a vision of the real potential for neighborhood enhancement, without unduly restricting creative thinking in developing goals and objectives.
Task Goals and objectives are developed based on
neighborhood issues and the neighborhood report, with emphasis on "what" should be accomplished, not "how."

ISSUE: Streets
C0W1ENT: It has been a long-standing City policy that new annexations pay their own way and not be a financial burden on existing residents. As applied to streets, the policy means that the streets are first improved to City standards at the expense of the adjacent property owner. This policy can be traced back to the 1950's and 1s probably much older, there being evidence of assessment districts in the 30's. This policy is presently wbodied in Sections 41-757 thru 41-762 of the Aurora city code. City street standards include curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving and drainage.
Once the street has been constructed to City standards and accepted by the Director of Public Works, 1t is thereafter maintained by the City.
Maintenance includes periodic chip-sealing, overlays and patching as required.
It also Includes replacing curb, gutter, sidewalk or complete rebuilding when necessary.
Assessment districts are a method of financing street improvements that do not require cash 1n advance. Construction is financed by the sale of special assessment bonds that are usually paid back in ten equal annual payments plus interest. Payments do not start until after construction is complete.
Assessment districts are formed by City Council following a public hearing.
The public hearing affords the affected property owners and the general public an opportunity to make their views known to Council. Estimated costs for each property are usually computed on a front footage basis, allowing credit for any usable Improvements already in place. Property owners are notified of the date, time, place and the estimated cost approximately three weeks before the public hearing. Estimated costs include cost of construction, engineering, bond registration and attorney fees, collection, incidentals and contingency.
Interest costs are not included at this time but are added to final costs. Prepayment is allowed at the time of the initial public hearing to avoid Interest and other fees related to bond sales.
Following completion of construction, actual costs are computed. Interest from the date of bond sales to the due date of the first installment payment Is added. This amount 1s known as the final assessment. By law, final costs cannot be more than the previously estimated costs except for interest.
Following another public hearing before City Council, final assessment amounts are certified for collection from the property osiers.
There are two options available to property owners for payment of final assessments: The first 1s ten equal annual payments of the final assessment amount plus interest on the unpaid balance. The second method allows full cash payment of the final assessment amount within thirty days after final assessments are approved. If this option Is selected, there is a 51 discount allowed on the final assessment.
Assessment districts are usually not formed unless a petition is received from the property owners who together own a majority (greater than 50**) of the property abutting the proposed Improvements measured on a front footage basis. However, the City Council has authority under both State law and the City Charter to create an assessment district without receiving a petition.
NOTE: The above is reprinted from a Public Works Department handout.
Since there is no annexation agreement specifying otherwise, Havana Heights property owners are responsible for street improvements as explained above.
The City will pay the first Si3.00 per foot of the cost of Improvements. The City will also pay for up to 120 feet of improvements on a corner lot's second frontage, provided there Is no vehicular access to the street being improved. Estimated cost and an example are provided below:
Street Paving - one half 48.00/Ft.
Curb A Gutter - one side 10.00/Ft.
Sidewalk - one side 12.00/Ft.
Total Estimated Cost 70.00/Ft.
Improvement H t Frontaqe 2nd Frontaqe Total
Street Paving 14 .352 8,686 23,040
Curb and Gutter 2 ,990 1,810 4,800
Sidewalk 3 1,588 2,172 5,760
Total Cost 753B u;wb 33TS55
Minus SI3.00/Ft. 3 1,887 2,353 6,240
Net Cost i? ,043 TOTT 577360
Figure 7 shows street classifications for Havana Heights. The major arterial street serving the area is South Havana Street; Iliff Avenue is designated as a minor arterial. The neighborhood 1s bordered on the remaining two sides by collector streets. All streets In the interior of the neighborhood boundaries are local streets.
Major Arterial Street:
Minor Arterial Street:
Collector Street:
Local Street:
A street with access control, channelized Intersections, restricted parking, and which collects and distributes traffic to and from minor arterials.
A street with signals at Important intersections and stop signs on the side streets and which collects and distributes traffic to and from collector streets.
A street which collects traffic from local streets and connects with minor and major arterials.
A street designed to provide vehicular access to abutting property and to discourage through traffic.
RESOURCES: Aurora Transportation Plan
Ted Rousses (Assessment District) 695-7300 Homer Young (Street Maintenance) 695-7300
ISSUE: Traffic Control
COWENT: Local streets are designed to provide access to adjacent property. Several techniques may be used to impede the flow of through traffic. Current practice In subdivision design restricts traffic movement by using curved streets and a series of short non-connecting local streets. The design of a street influences Its use. Figure 8 shows typical cross-sections for five types of streets constructed in Aurora. The classifications are explained elsewhere In this report.
An established area of the community which was designed according to the principles of the traditional grid may be altered to acheive some of the benefits of a more recent subdivision design. As with any retrofit", problems may occur when Integrating new concepts In an area with well established activity patterns. If neighborhood residents are accustomed to traveling from one end of the neighborhood to the other without restrictions, devices to Impede through traffic may also inconvenience local traffic. Examples of techniques for altering residential streets are shown In Figures 9 and 10.
RESOURCES: Nathan F1Ckl1n, Traffic Engineer 695-7334
ISSUE: Utilities
COMMENT: Utilities are 1n place to serve most of the land area in the neighborhood. New sewer and water lines will be Installed as new development occurs. The cost of Installing new lines or extending existing lines is paid by the developer who Is responsible for creating the additional need. Every effort 1s made to Install needed lines prior to street improvements. But if streets are Improved prior to new development occurring, some utility line Installation may be needed at the expense of the new streets.
The City 1s taking over responsibilities for sewer and water service in this area. Parts of Havana Heights were served by Cherry Creek Valley Hater and Sanitation District. It 1s anticipated that some improvements will be made as a result of this change.
RESOURCES: Allen Sorrell. Utilities Dept. 695-7368
ISSUE: Neighborhood Hatch
COMMENT: Placement of neighborhood watch signs requires 70 percent neighborhood participation at the basic crime prevention meetings and 50 percent of neighborhood households enrolled in operation identification, a program where people engrave an identification nianber on their valuables. Organization for neighborhood watch involves the assignment of area coordinators and block captains, all neighborhood volunteers, to comunicate with residents.
RESOURCES: Dennis Gries, Aurora Police Dept. 340-2207

Responsibility The facilitator is responsible for leading the neighborhoods planning committee through a group process and formatting the goals and objectives at the appropriate level of detail.
It is important that goals and objectives are clearly stated and developed in an appropriate context. There is a tendency when discussing neighborhood problems with citizens
to become preoccupied with specific steps toward solving
those problems. Solutions or actions that are identified in
this manner often prove to be unrealistic or impractical. Goals and objectives should express neighborhood positions and attitudes, leaving the opportunity for city staff to identify specific projects or activities. The following definitions may be helpful in staying on track:
A general perspective on a future condition.
A goal reflects an underlying value that is
sought after and is not an object to be
achieved (Smith and Hester 1982).
A measurable aim, a product,
accomplishment. An objective is the physical representation of goal concepts (Smith and
Hester 1982).
An ongoing series of activities to accomplish

a goal or an objective
A series of terminal actions within a
Specific event to be accomplished within a
specified time frame.
Policy: Statement effecting or guiding future
activity which may happen at an undetermined time, effects an undefined set of circumstances. A policy may relate to any of the terms defined above and their accomplishment.
These are operational definitions and are not meant to satisfy all theoretical situations. The terms goal and objective will be applied to a greater extent than the other terms defined. The other terms are defined to show distinctions and set the stage for more casual usage. Goals and objectives, on the other hand, are the basis for the next several steps in the AMS. They must be carefully developed. Several examples of goals and objectives are
sted below:
To upgrade neighborhood infrastructure to
higher level standards.
Objective: To improve neighborhood streets to city-wide

Objective: To improve street lighting in the
The examples listed below are not appropriate objectives. They are more focused and their degree of specificity is more appropriate for the city staff's implementation analysis.
-To partially construct all neighborhood streets with completion of the streets occuring at the time of further development in resident initiated improvement districts.
-To install streetlights at 100 foot intervals in individual areas of the neighborhood in consonance with the desires of residents.
The neighborhood should be responsible for the content of goals and objectives. The planning committee should meet one or more times to develop the goals and objectives. The facilitators role is to lead the group process which is chosen to accomplish the task. Group dynamics techniques share characteristics such as small group involvement, skilled leadership and structured processes (Smith and Hester 1928). There are numerous processes available to the facilitator to help elicit neighborhood positions; two of the simpler group dynamics techniques are explained below (Smith and Hester 1982):

Participants share in the process of generating community goals. The group atmosphere is supportive and free flowing. Only after the generative processes have run their course do participants begin to evaluate the goals. Success depends on the ability of participants to break out of negative and evaluative patterns of thought and consider new goal options.
All participants work silently and independently but in the company of one another to develop goal statements for the community. Later they share the product of their work for discussion and then work silently again. The technique was developed by Delbecq based on the importance of the ambiance of the group and the creative anatomy of the individual.
With the neighborhoods rough goals and objectives in hand, the facilitator should produce a refined listing. If the goal setting meeting ran smoothly, this task should not
be too difficult. The statements should be reworded, simplified or expanded as necessary to fit the definitions
outlined in the previous section.
The refined list of goals and objectives should be distributed to city staff and the neighborhoods planning committee. As discussed earlier, the neighborhoods goals and objectives will serve as the foundation for the implementation analysis and the action plan. If the goals and objectives are composed properly, the city staffs participation will be simpler for the facilitator to manage.

Task Alternative proposals are prepared for accomplishing neighborhood objectives, emphasizing interaction between city and neighborhood representatives.
Responsibility Department directors are responsible for coordinating staff research, analysis and presentation to neighborhoods; the facilitator is responsible for scheduling meetings and assuring that the process stays intact.
The first step in preparation for the implementation analysis is a department directors meeting, scheduled by the city managers office. The purpose of the meeting is to review the neighborhoods goals and objectives and to sort out which departments are responsible for each objective. In many cases, more than one department could assume responsibility for the subject matter of an objective; responsibility could overlap between departments. It is important at this point to create accountability to avoid passing the buck" between departments. A representative from the city managers office should attend, maintaining some control over the allocation and willingness to accept responsibility for objectives. A summary of each departments responsibilities should be prepared by the facilitator and distributed to its director.

The facilitator should then schedule a
series of
meetings between department directors and the nei ghborhoods
planning committee. The purpose of the meeti ngs is to
discuss the neighborhood s goals and objecti ves. The
meetings should result in the city staffs unders tanding of
exactly what the neighborhood wants to accomplish. Solutions to problems or specific projects should not be discussed at this point. If more than one neighborhood plan is in progress and if their schedules are compatible, meetings may be scheduled concurrently. A facilitator should be present at each individual session and should try to keep things on track.
Department directors should coordinate research by their staff in developing several alternatives for accomplishing each assigned objective. The research process will vary from department to department and the level of detail will vary depending upon the nature of the objective. Figure 10 shows a worksheet which may be used by city staff
in following sequential steps in formulating responses to
the neighborhood. The worksheet will help in following a thought process which will be responsive to neighborhood expectations. The facilitator is responsible for
distributing the worksheet and "coaching" the departments in

its use.
The results of staff research, the alternatives and the departments position should be submitted to the city managers office at least one week prior to the next series of meetings with the neighborhood (discussed in the next section). This will serve as a check point in which the city managers office may influence the content of the departments presentations. The purpose of this is to have some control on the general nature and level of
responsiveness evident in the proposals. The scheduling allows adjustments in the alternatives, if necessary, prior
to presentations to the neighborhood.
A series of meetings can be scheduled in a similar format to the review of goals and objectives, as described previously. The purpose of the meetings is to present the departments alternatives to the neighborhoods planning committee. The presentations should be fairly formal using graphic materials and written handouts. The written material should detail the alternatives and provide information in support of the staff research, following a
similar format to the implementation analysis worksheet presented in Figure 10.
Department directors are expected to present a

conceptual design, rough cost estimates, policy implications
and feasibility of accomplishing each objective. If an objective is not practical, for one reason or another, this should be presented as the result of staff research. In this case, the objective may be deleted from further consideration or revised as the neighborhoods planning committee determines appropriate. It is acceptable for the department to present alternative objectives to be considered in replacement of the neighborhoods original statement. If the city staff feels that there is no realistic alternative for accomplishing an objective, the director should be prepared to support this conclusion to the neighborhoods satisfaction. In the case of a "no action" alternative, the matter may slip through to the city council public hearing.
The neighborhood and department director should jointly select the most appropriate alternative. The selection is based on the alternatives overall feasibility and potential for implementation. Neither party should leave the meeting until an acceptable course of action is determined. Once this is accomplished, discussion should begin concerning elements of the action plan. General budgeting and scheduling concepts can be discussed and agreed upon. The concept here is to lay the foundation for city staffs

preparation of the action plan.
A summary of the meetings
and remaining process may be prepared by the facilitator and distributed to department directors and the neighborhoods planning committee.
Task The action plan is prepared, including detailed descriptions of "what, how, when, where and by who" for each neighborhood objective, and required linkages are established.
Responsibility Department directors are responsible for coordinating the preparation of the action plan for their respective department; the facilitator is responsible for logistics, keeping the process on track and reviewing the completed action plans with the neighborhood.
Programming comprises the body of the action plan. For each alternative jointly selected by the neighborhoods planning committee and department director, eight areas should be addressed in the action plan:

What is to be accomplished
2. How will it be accomplished
3. Policy and budget recommendations
4. Cost of implementation
5. Funding source
6. Time schedule
7. Responsible staff
8. Measures of performance
Figure 11 shows a worksheet which will assist department directors and their staff complete the required action plans. The exercise will result in an outline of
exactly how to proceed in an implementation program. The information provided on the worksheet should be very specific. It should lead the city staff through the thought processes required to project realistic parameters to
accomplish the objective.
As discussed in Chapter II, programming is an extension of the planning process. To secure the physical connection between planning and implementation, there must be linkages between the two processes. To accomplish this mechanical linkage, two tasks are requested of the department
directors. The first is the completion of the standard city budget forms, both capital and operating. Figures 12 and 13

present the forms. The completed forms will be forwarded to
city's budget office for insertion

To accomplish this objective, setting all limitations aside, what departmental activities would be required?
What policy changes would be needed?
How much would 1t cost?
Assuming that resources are available, can you recommend the course of action listed above?
If not, are there realistic alternatives which would partially achieve the objective?
What policy changes would be needed?
How much would 1t cost?
Which alternative would you reconmend?
What departmental activities are required to Implement this alternative?
Note: The presentation to the neighborhood's planning committee should follow this outline. Handouts and graphic materials should be used as much as possible.
Neighborhood: Date:
Objective: Contact:
Describe the alternative course of action selected by the neighborhood/ department director to accomplish the objective:
What departmental activities are required to Implement this alternative? Short Range:
Long Range:
What policy changes are needed to accomplish the objective?
What sequential steps are required for implementation?
Task Completion Date
What 1s the cost of Implemntaton?
1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year 5th Year
Are there any special sources of funding?
Source Amount
Who 1n youe department 1s directly responsible for the day to day progress toward accomplishing the objective?
What are the measures of acceptable performance for this employee?
Note: Program objective and employee standards/performance forms should be completed as a supplement to approved annual forms. Capital and operating budget forms should be completed for those projects requiring public fundings.

Capital Protect Outline
Project Costa Capital Operating Positions
1967 ______________ ______________ ____________
Justification for Ptnjecii
Funding Detail!
Archi tect^fengr Land
Construction landscaping PVimishlng* Equipment Ount ingency Utilities Contract Akin. Engr. Attain. Other
fersonal Services Page 1 of
Existing Psrsonnsl (Temporary k Permanent) Total FTE by Claes St^vr./Ngrl. Prof/Atta/Tschgl. Clerical/Tech.
labor Trades
Police Sworn

New Personnel (Tenporary k Permanent) Total FTE by Class Suprv./Mgrl. Prof/Atta/Techgl. Clerical/Pech.
Labor Trades
Polios Sworn

Total Salaries Total Terporary Overt las Retirement $ (If budgeted In this program)
Special Other
Total foraonal Services $

processes at the appropriate point.
The second linkage is the completion of program objective and employee standards of performance forms. Neighborhood objectives assigned to the various departments
11 simply be transferred to the forms This task will
accomplish accountability for implementation. The forms
should be completed as a part of the action plan and reinforced annually during managements objective setting process. Figures 14 and 15 show the forms currently in use.
This is probably a good point to re-emphasize the facilitators role in the AMS. In short, the facilitator is responsible for logistics and coordinating the process of completing the neighborhood plan. At this step in the
process, it is recommended that the facilitator provide a "package to the department directors, including a synopsis of procedural requirements and required forms. It is the responsibility of the facilitator to keep things moving and make sure that all the actors in the process fully understand their individual responsibility. Do not assume that the other party understands the process as well as you do. The facilitator is probably the most important linkage
in the AMS, tieing all the concepts and distinct activities

Task All the products of the AMS process are consolidated
into a single comprehensive document.


DEPARTMENT ACCT. NO.__________________ DEPARTMENT NAME________________________________
(frograM Manager) (Bate)
(Director) HUte) (Deputy t(ty Manager) (Bate)
Estlirated Actual Person


l&enMur*) (ImtiaH)

Responsibility The facilitator is responsible for preparing
the draft neighborhood plan, drawing exclusively on the elements completed to this point.
The draft neighborhood plan should be prepared to show the progression of events through the AMS. An introduction
sh tould be written which focuses on tieing the various
el ements together. The neighborhood report, goals and
objectives, department alternatives and action plans should be integrated to produce a unified section in each major issue area. This task should basically require "cut and paste" without a great quantity of original composition. The document should be prepared in the context of future use by city staff, elected officials and the neighborhood. The linkages discussed in the previous section provides the real impetus for implementation. The neighborhood plan document is more reference in its orientation than a physical implementation tool.
In preparation for planning commission and city council public hearings, the facilitator will prepare the text of the comprehensive plan amendment. The amendment is written as a synopsis of the draft neighborhood plan, using the format of the comprehensive plan. This format includes a

brief introduction and description of the neighborhood, list
of goals and objectives, and a brief summary of the action plan for each objective. Figure 16 shows an example of text for a completed comprehensive plan amendment. The
neighborhood map is included as a neighborhood location map and a presentation of planned land use. Figure 17 shows an example of a neighborhood map. The comprehensive plan
amendment should be bound with the draft neighborhood plan as the conclusion to the document.
Task The draft neighborhood plan is distributed for review and presented to the city council to be considered for adoption.
Responsibility The facilitator is responsible for coordinating the review process and making revisions as necessary before the city council public hearing.
The facilitator should distribute the draft neighborhood plan to the city managers office, department directors and the neighborhoods planning committee. The city managers office should be reviewing the document for consistency with city policy and completeness or appropriateness of the citys response to neighborhood concerns. It is the city managers office that is

ultimately responsible for satisfying neighborhood interests
weighted against city-wide priorities and allocations.
The department directors and
representatives should review the document
internal resource
neighborhood for consistency

Side Creek has developed, almost entirely, since 1980. The area Is predominately single family housing with several vacant sites zoned for multi-family, commercial and Industrial land uses. As a result of the planned mix of land uses and the development potential 1n the neighborhood, the residents have Identified Issues related to four subject areas:
- Land use and development;
- Transportation and traffic;
- Parks and recreation; and,
- Ordinance and covenant enforcement.
Host of the Issues Identified 1n these subject areas relate to the overriding Issues of compatibility of new development with the existing residential character of the neighborhood and Infrastructure improvements. Developers are required to complete certain public Improvements as new development occurs; there are other public Improvements and facilities for which the developer 1s not directly responsible (1.e. park development). In a relatively new area of Aurora, the residents of Side Creek have established long term goals and objectives which address the need to complete the development of their neighborhood 1n a compatible and timely manner.
A. To ensure quality new development which 1s compatible, 1n terms of use, value and design, with existing development In Side Creek.
B. To maintain a safe, efficient flow of all modes of transportation within and through Side Creek.
C. To construct public facilities to serve Side Creek at a similar pace with growth of the neighborhood and surrounding area.
D. To protect the Integrity of Side Creek and prevent nuisances through more effective City Code enforcement.
1. To encourage residential use of the property at the southwest corner of Louisiana and Dunkirk.
Accomplishing this objective depends on application for a PCZD general development plan amendment by the property owner. The application would be considered at public hearing before the Planning Comnlssion and City Council.
2. To study the designation of bikeways and pedestrian walkways as a means to provide more convenient, safe access to nearby schools.
Revision of the Park and Recreation Master Plan, scheduled for the Fall of 1984, will address detached recreational paths. Construction will depend on availability of public lands and funding.
JM i

with commitments made throughout the process. The draft neighborhood plan should reflect the spirit and intent of the neighborhood/city negotiations which have occurred. All the actors are responsible for ensuring that the document presented to the planning commisssion and city council is as complete and conflict free as possible. From this point on, the neighborhood plan will be judged in the political arena.
If necessary as a result of the extended review, an additional meeting should be scheduled between the neighborhoods planning committee and city staff to resolve any remaining conflicts.
The facilitator and a neighborhood representative should prepare presentations for the planning commission and city council public hearings. The facilitator will present the draft neighborhood plan with pertinent background material. The neighborhood representative should present information concerning the neighborhoods involvement in the AMS, the neighborhoods position on the document and whatever else may be appropriate. It is important that the neighborhood participate in the presentation to the planning commission and city council and that at least the
neighborhoods planning committee be solidly represented in the audience at both meetings.

The facilitator's preparation for the meetings will include a staff report. The report should be brief and formatted to the standard method of preparing staff reports to the planning commission and city council. In addition, a more detailed summary may be provided. Figure 18 provides an example. The planning commission and city council information packets should include the following:
1. Comprehensive plan amendment
2. Standard staff report
3. Expanded summary
4. Draft neighborhood plan
comprehensive plan amendment is pre sented for
ons iderat ion for adoption as an element of the
sive plan. This process is auth orized by
s in the Neighborhood and Small Area element of the
sive plan. The city code requires that the
commission recommendation and city counc il
adoption concerning a comprehensive plan amendment be passed by a three-quarter majority vote of its members. The complete neighborhood plan document is presented for review but is not formally adopted by the planning commission or city council.
The planning commission should review the comprehensive plan amendment in the context of land use,

transportation and public facilities. ^~As a result of the
planning commissions limited scope of review authority, some of the matters presented in the documents should not be of serious concern to the planning commission. Neighborhood objectives related to other elements of the comprehensive

PREPARED BY Rob Walsh DATE August 9. 1984
1. To restrict all residential rezoning 1n Havana Heights to single family detached at a density not to exceed
7.3 dwelling units per acre. NO NO NO YES
No public action required, supports neighborhood map.
2. To partially construct all neighborhood streets with completion of the streets occurring at the time of further development or resident
initiated improvement districts. YES NO YES NO
City policy is that property owners pay for street construction through improvement districts.
3. To establish grade for neighborhood streets by using existing curb
and gutter as the reference. NO NO NO YES
Public Works Dept, will accomplish this.
4. To take the appropriate action to enable the Police Dept, to enforce
the traffic code in Havana Heights. NO NO NO YES
Public Works Dept, will install additional signage.
5. To install utility lines underground which are required to serve all
future development. NO NO NO YES
No public action required, presents neighborhood's perspective.
6. To ensure that upstream development assumes responsibility for Its storm drainage throughout the basin.
New development, generally, 1s not responsible for downstream inprovements.
7. To implement a capital improvement project to mitigate drainage problems in Havana Heights.
A temporary solution is being studied, funding for improvements downstream is included in the Capital Facilities Budget.
8. To Install streetlights 1n individual areas of Havana Heights 1n consonance with the desires of residents.
Public Works Dept, will conduct investigation, budgeting will be used if determined feasible (tentative).
9. To establish a neighborhood watch program in Havana Heights.
Police Dept, will assist 1n organization.
10. To be Involved in the initial planning and design of the proposed park at Warren and Joliet.
Council policy establishes this procedure.

plan in subject matter and the neighborhood maps land use recommendations should be the primary focus of the planning commissions review. In fact, the relationship to the comprehensive plan should be the overriding consideration in the planning commissions recommendation. The facilitator should attempt to explain the context of review in the staff report and as a part of the presentation.
The city council, on the other hand, will be reviewing the material in a somewhat different light. The city council will be asked to adopt the comprehensive plan amendment by ordinance, with a second reading following at an appropriate interval. The city council's review will undoubtedly be more extensive. By nature of the city council's breadth of responsibility, the neighborhood plan should be reviewed in terms of its compatability with citywide policy and budgeting priorities. If major policy changes have been recommended in the action plans, then the review becomes more than parochial. In this case, accomodating the neighborhood may not only impact other neighborhoods by commitment of finite resources, but may effect city-wide programs and activities.
The city council must also resolve disputes between the neighborhood and city staff. This will be a particularly
sensitive area. In some cases, the neighbo
rhood will

propose, what the city staff feels to be an unreasonable
objective. The city staff may feel obligated to oppose its adoption. Likewise, the neighborhoods planning committee may hold their ground in anticipation that the city council will resolve the conflict in their favor. The city staff should avoid this through diplomatic efforts, but it is likely to occur from time to time. The city council, should this occur, must accept its role as the final decision making body. This is one of the political risks of the AMS. This and other drawbacks will be more fully discussed in the concluding chapter.
Upon adoption of the comprehensive plan amendment, the planning commission and city council should be prepared to support or even initiate implementation activities. By not formally adopting the neighborhood plan document, there is no legal obligation to carry it out. But politically, both bodies will be exposed to pressures over time to follow through with their commitments, real or perceived. From a technical standpoint, the comprehensive plan amendment is adopted as public policy, not the implementation steps outlined in the action plan component of the neighborhood plan. The neighborhood plans content is considered administrative in nature. As such, though, it is still under the scrutiny of the governing body.

Task The action plans are implemented with results measured through annual evaluations and plan updates.
Responsibility Department directors are responsible for implementing the action plans, although each actor in the AMS has a distinct role.
Department directors, as a result of the linkages described in previous sections, are responsible for implementing the action plans. The linkages have provided a physical connection between neighborhood objectives and their performance evaluation. The action plans, although
identified as administrative policy, have also been tied to

the management structure through budgeting processes.
Between these two factors, positive control is maintained over the implementation activities of city departments. Nevertheless, each actor in the process has a distinct implementation role, as discussed below:
1. Facilitator. Ultimately, the success or failure in
implementing the action plans will reflect on the AMS and, as a result, the facilitator. The facilitators job does not necessarily end when all the systems described in previous sections are in place. Remember that the AMS is a continuing, uninterrupted process

from initial contact with the neighborhood through
results or actual program accomplishments. The i facilitator should be encouraging, through appropriate
chain of commands, needed follow-up activities.
2. Community Service Officer (CSO). The CSO (a new program in the Department of Community Development) will be responsible for liaison with the neighborhood and for managing implementation activities which are less clearly defined. Communication between the CSO and the facilitator is crucial. The CSO, although somewhat involved in the logistics of plan preparation, will need to draw on the facilitator for more specific interpretation of process.
3. City Departments. The department director, as previously noted, is most responsible for implementing the action plans. The AMS was developed with specific emphasis on this point.
4. City Managers Office. The controlling factor in the success of the AMS is the degree of support from the city managers office. In fact, this support was absolutely necessary before instituting the process and establishing the close ties with the management structure. The city managers office must continue to provide the top-down emphasis on the importance of

cooperation in this effort.
Planning Commission. The planning commissions role is more restricted than with other actors. Considering the orientation of the planning commission and their mandate, their involvement in the AMS should be more or less limited to land use and development matters. Their involvement in general management and budgeting will be somewhat restricted. The neighborhood map will be of prime importance to the planning commission. Recommendations and decisions by the planning commission should support the content of the neighborhood plan and, more specifically, the comprehensive plan element.
City Council . The city council must provide the
empetus for achieving results. The c ity s taff,
granted, has substantial authority in implementin g the
action p Ians. But, the city counc il is the poli t ical
body ult imate ly responsibl e to the c itizenry . The city
council, as a result, must man date a succe ssful
program. Not only do th eir action s need to re fleet
neighborhood objectives, but the directiv e to city
staff must be consistent in it s perspective and
reflect i ng an unders tandin g of the AMS.
Neighborhood. The neighb orhood has the least de f ined

role in the implementation component of the AMS. The
neighborhood* s planning committee conferred with the
city staff in developing the framework for
implementation. But, the neighborhood does not have a
direct respons ibility in achieving results. The AMS
establishes a local government plan for action in
response to citizen desires and needs, contrasted with the traditional neighborhood plan that emphasized self-help in achieving results. The neighborhood, although, does have a responsibility in monitoring city activities for compliance with adopted goals and objectives and negotiated action plans.

There are two methods applied here to evaluate the success of the AMS:
1. Department progress reports. Department directors will be asked annually to prepare a progress report,
including the status of each action plan in which the
department is involved. The progress repo rt will be
reviewed by the city managers office and the
neighborhoods planning committee or board of
directors. The facilitator is responsible for coordinating this event.
2. Neighborhood survey. In conjunction with the department
progress reports, the neighborhood should be surveyed
for level of satisfaction with the AMS and the results being acheived. It is at the facilitators discretion to what extent the survey is conducted. The likely parameters would be to mail a survey form to the participants of the issue identification meeting. Again, the facilitator is responsible for this
Both the department progress reports and results of the neighborhood surveys should be submitted to the city
managers office for review. The city managers office is responsible for evaluating the material for satisfactory

performance toward implementation of the action plans.
concept of linkages is extended at this point through internal and external annual evaluations.
The neighborhood plan should be revised at two year intervals. The biannual revision process should parallel the process outlined in this report. In fact, it should be considered a cyclical extension of the AMS. The AMS,
theoretically, does not conclude until the point is reached where the neighborhood can not be improved by any reasonable local government effort. From a practical standpoint, the process will continue to evolve for the neighborhood until public resources will no longer allow the effort or the
neighborhood is not motivated to participate, as evidenced through the first steps in the process outline.
Revisions in any aspect of the neighborhood plan or comprehensive plan element can be accomplished at any time. The city staff, neighborhood, planning commission or city council may initiate an amendment by notifying the
facilitator. The amendment process should follow a
condensed version of the original process, at the
facilitators discretion. The initiation of an amendment should be based on changing circumstances in the
neighborhood or on the availability of public resources. It

is likely that as implementation activities proceed, adjustments will have to be made. This may be considered an acceptable part of the AMS implementation component. In fact, amendments to the documents can be viewed as evidence of a dynamic process, which is one of the motivations for its creation.
The model methodology presented in this chapter emphasizes flexibility in its application. In fact, it demands interpretation by the facilitator. The
facilitators role in the AMS is to coordinate interactions and manage the fulfillment of procedural requirements. But, most importantly, the facilitator must make the process
work. The model methodology should be interpreted as a base from which to proceed. Undoubtedly, there will be situations for which variances will be required. The underlying principal for the facilitator to understand is that procedural responsibility is not shared. The facilitator is directly responsible for all notifications, logistics and process education.
The third level of detail presented in this report is a process worksheet, presented in Figure 19, which may be used to plan for upcoming events. It is also intended for quick reference during the process. As discussed in the

introductory chapter, the first level of detail, the
concepts chapter, allows the process to be applied in theoretical terms. The second level of detail, the bulk of
this chapter, identifies fairly specific steps to be followed. The fourth level of detail may be found by jfering to completed documents and working files. It is jcommended that at least two of the four be used by the facilitator depending upon professional background and
desire for personal expression.
The next chapter will conclude this report with a
discussion of the relationship of the AMS, to some of the more popular theories and public management methodologies. Potential problems in the AMS will also be presented. For
with its unique points of emphasis, there are also problems that are unique to a neighborhood planning program that stresses results. Finally, the concluding chapter will
cover the applicability of the model methodology to other local government settings.

Identify the neighborhood plan area Introduce the concept
Identify neighborhood issues NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING Form planning cormittee Distribute issues list
Solicit materials from departments Prepare the report COMPLETION
Distribute the report
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Neighborhood goal setting
PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETINGS Distribute goals and objectives
Submit to City Manager's office Present alternatives
Prepare implementation program COMPLETION
Neighborhood endorces action plan FOLLOW-UP MEETING IF NEEDED Establish implementation linkages
DRAFT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN Consolidate all elements of process Prepare comprehensive plan amendment COMPLETION
REVIEW AND ADOPTION City staff review Planning coimittee review COMPLETION Public Review
Assume appropriate roles


The AMS is a city management tool. It extends beyond traditional neighborhood planning in its attempt to integrate planning and implementation processes. The AMS provides more focus in the more or less traditional process of preparing a neighborhood plan while broadening its base of participation and formalizing its application. The neighborhood plan is no longer limited to urban revitalization issues. The model methodology presented in this report emphasizes the close connection between the AMS and the city management function. The AMS serves as another local government budgeting and personnel management tool, integrating the accomplishment of neighborhood objectives with internal management systems.
The most unique principles discussed in this report are the linkages between the neighborhood plan document and city management processes. The linkages provide accountability and a real motivation for implementing neighborhood objectives. The voids in the traditional neighborhood planning process are filled by physically connecting the process of preparing the neighborhood plan with local government implementation activities. The process of preparing the neighborhood plan is an objective setting process. Neighborhood objectives are then inserted into

established management systems.
The importance of the AMS rests on what happens after the neighborhood plan is prepared. The preparation of the plan itself is simply a tool in reaching the integration with budgeting and other aspects of organizational
management. The model methodology presents a participatory process which sets the stage for the application of the total AMS for the purpose of achieving results. The neighborhood plan, redefined, is no longer an idealized "wish list", but another tool to be relied upon by city management. The next section will discuss several related concepts which reinforce the value of the AMS.
The AMS is akin to community development (CD) theory. Littrell (1976) has identified nine values and beliefs guiding the CD profession:
1. People have the right to participate in decisions which have an effect upon their well-being.
2. Participating democracy is the superior method of conducting community affairs.
3. People have the right to strive to create that environment which they desire.
4. People have the right to reject an externally imposed environment.
5. Maximizing human interaction in a community will increase the potential for human development.

an ever-
6. Implicit within a process of interaction is widening concept of "community."
7. Every discipline and/or profession is potentially a contributor to a community development process.
8. Motivation is created in man by association with his environment.
9. Community development is "interested" in developing the ability of human beings to meet and deal with their environment.
Many of the basic principles outlined in the AMS are
related to the aspects of CD listed above. The AMS was not developed intentionally to correspond to any particular base
of knowledge. But, in retrospect, the practical approach of the model methodology is an offspring of accepted CD theory if not its practice.
Another concept which can be related to the AMS process
management by objectives (MBO). MBO was developed as a
refinement of the planning-programming-budgeting system of management (PPBS). PPBS emphasizes budgeting through performance goals or in terms of outputs rather than inputs (Bolan 1979). Goal oriented budgeting mandates an emphasis on accomplishments rather than administrative detail. MBO added the principle that goals and objectives are developed by the people responsible for implementation, providing a broader base for decision making (Bolan 1979). The MBO concept also serves to create "ownership" in the process by involving the key actors in the development of their work

programs. Zero-based budgeting, which is in the same family as the two concepts discussed above, is also related to the AMS by its emphasis on accountability and evaluation. Other
inciples on which the newer budgeting methodologies are
based are listed below (Drucker 1976)
1. Operational objectives with clearly defined performance measures.
2. Explicit priorities, including the justification for abandoning or deferring activities.
3. Specific targets and timetables, not only for ultimate program outcomes but also for each step along the way.
A more relevant concept to discuss at this point is
results budgeting. Since the AMS was developed in response to a need in Aurora and tailored to the management system that is about to be enacted in the local government, the relationship of the AMS to this concept will be highlighted. Results budgeting is a system of organizational management, developed by Auroras city manager James R. Griesemer, that seems to rely on the basic principles of MBO previously
scussed. The concept is further operationalized and
tends the principles of MBO. Where MBO stresses outputs, results budgeting more clearly defines outputs as being the inputs in determining the organizational structure and allocation of resources. Results budgeting emphasizes
the broader aspects of the local government budget as a

management tool. Budgeting is not viewed as a task within itself, but a response to pre-established organizational goals and objectives.
The AMS as presented in this report is a complementing program to the establishment of the results budgeting process in Aurora. Results budgeting is a reflection of the total management process and includes all of the following (Griesemer 1980):
1. Establishing or reviewing program structure
2. Establishing or reviewing program goals
3. Establishing or reviewing ongoing program performance measures
4. Setting objectives and objective measures
5. Developing the financial budget
6. Establishing employee standards of performance
7. Evaluating performance
8. Utilizing evaluations to restructure programs, goals, objectives and standards as necessary.
The process of setting neighborhood goals and objectives which is described in this report can be viewed as a public extension of item four in the above list. The neighborhoods objectives can be "plugged in" at this point. This is accomplished through the linkage with program objectives as discussed in Chapters II and III. The action plan component of the AMS corresponds to items five and six in the results budgeting process. The various aspects of neighborhood plan implementation will complement items seven and eight. The AMS serves as a mechanism to involve

tizens in the results budgeting process in structural and edback roles. Not only do citizens participate in the nagement of their community, but also interact with nagement in evaluation processes. The AMS will serve a tal function within Auroras long range financial nagement structure.
The last mmunity plan rategic plann arr 1984): inciples:
concept that will ning. Based on ing, the following
be discussed is principles of characteristics
strategic business are listed
1. Focussed on issues
2. Assessment of strengths and weaknesses
3. Identification and focus on external factors
4. Emphasis on practical results /
1. Scanning environment
2. Select key issues
3. Goal for each issue
4. External and internal
5. Strategies/objectives
6. Implementation plan
for issues
1. Resolves important issues
2. Community education and consensus building
3. Shared vision
4. Position to sieze opportunities
5. Shed light on critical issues
6. Allocation of resources
7. Mechanism for initiating partnerships
The various topics discussed in this section all have

at least one thing in common: reliance on a basic planning process. Regardless of label, variations in the processes are a factor of the application. In the case of MBO and results budgeting, the procedure is directly related to an administrative setting. The community development process is a function of the self-help, human potential movement which prompted its establishment. The strategic community planning process, at least in the context reviewed for this report, blends the two aspects of planning/management focus. In any case, the traditional planning process of research, analysis, preparing alternatives and selecting the most appropriate course of action will prevail.
The AMS is a blend of the external focus of the community development process and the internal focus of MBO and results budgeting. The model methodology presented in this report is not a pure community development process. It is lacking the basic theoretical strengths. Nor is it a total management system. The AMS is too parochial in its focus on neighborhoods. But the AMS does provide an arm extending from the local government structure to the external community, allowing interaction and mutual support.

There are problems with the AMS Politically,
the AMS
be considered a tight rop
and neighborhoods will b
trying to gain balance.
neighborhoods will ob
ramifications than an
something goes wrong, seat, but elected officia reason, the facilitator must be careful not to neighborhood expectations A more definite 1 attempts to allocate amo resources. In times o difficult to distribut numerous neighborhoods Without a special fund
e. The city council, city staff e constantly tugging at one another A management system that involves viously have stronger political exclusively internal system. If not only is city staff on the hot Is will feel the impacts. For this of the process and city management upset a fragile balance between and local government realities.
imitation of the AMS i s that it
ng various interest gro ups finite
f cutback : management, i t will be
e limited resources b etween the
participating in the process, for neighborhood allotments, the
city-wide neighborhood the process basis. Ob consequences only to find pie is gone.
budgets must be stretched to accomodate objectives. The pot will run dry. Presently is thought to be on a "first-come, first-serve" viously, there could be severe political when a neighborhood has been promised results upon completing a neighborhood plan, that the To a certain extent, the local government will

be playing Russian roulette, knowing for certain that the loaded chamber is nearing detonation.
Another limitation of the AMS is its dependency on city staff's commitment to achieving results. The implementation of the neighborhood plan is exclusively the responsibility of the various departments that were involved in the process. Even with city managements support of the program, department directors and their staff must be committed to the process. There must be a sincere effort to cooperate and an appropriate mind set to generate the creativity and imagination needed for a successful program. This environment is not created overnight. It will take time for the city staff to develop the sensitivity for neighborhood concerns in their administrative and budgeting functions.
The AMS produces a neighborhood plan which is implemented almost exclusively by local government. The final limitation to be discussed is the lack of a self-help orientation. There are many lost opportunities from not involving neighborhoods directly in implemention activities. Volunteer help can be an extremely valuable resource in meeting community needs. More extensive participation has been sacrificed for the sake of streamlining the traditional neighborhood plan process and developing the management

But there are still spinoffs from
neighborhoods in the AMS The participation process does stimulate organizational development and may lead to a greater awareness of self-help activities which could be undertaken independently outside the parameters of the process.
The AMS was developed as a response to the special needs of Aurora. The model methodology may be applied to a more urban setting when a city management emphasis in neighborhood planning is desired. In other words, the AMS process is transferable to any setting if the internal local government orientation is appropriate. In fact, the model methodology could be applied as a complementory tool to self-help revitalization programs or a formalized system of management based on goal setting and performance evaluation.
Regardless of the setting for the application of the AMS concepts, city management must be supportive of the effort. This is probably the single most important determinant of success. City management, whether it is the city managers office or the mayors office, must be willing to assume a lead role in the process and provide the impetus for departmental involvement. The planning department, as a line department, is usually not in a position to initiate


the integration of the planning and management concepts that
are outlined in this report. The directive for participation in the AMS must come from a higher authority; the appropriate mind set will come with time.
Berry, Brian Urbanization.
J.L. 1973. The Human Consequences New York: St. Martins Press.
Bolan, Richard S. 1979. Social Planning and Policy
Development. In the Practice of Local Government
Planning, ed. Frank S. So, et al. Washington DC: ICMA.
Griesemer, James R. 1980. Budgeting for Results. Unpublished, copyrighted.
Hanson, Ranae and John McNamera 1981. Partners.
Minneapolis, Minnesota: Dayton Hudson Foundation.
Littrell, Donald W. 1976. The Theory and Practice of
Community Development. Columbia, Missouri: Extension Division, University of Missouri.
Parr, John 1984. Principles of Strategic Community
Planning. Presentation at DRCOG workshop.
Rafter, David 0. 1978. Urban Neighborhoods and the Planning Process. Unpublished paper to the 61st annual conference of the American Institute of Planners.
Schler, Dan 1982. Community Participation Process. Unpublished class materials at the University of Colorado at Denver.
Smith, Frank J. and Randolph T. Hester, Jr. 1982. Community Goal Setting. Strondsburg, Pennsylvania: Hutchinson Ross.
Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc. 1980.
Neighborhood Planning Primer. Prepared for U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Walsh, Robin D. 1984. Preliminary Results of National Neighborhood Planning Survey. Unpublished report prepared for the City of Aurora, Colorado.
Werth, Joel T. and David Bryant 1979. A guide to
Neighborhood Planning, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 342. Chicago: American Planning Association.
MUNICIPAL DOCUMENTS CONSULTED Anaheim, CA 1982. Guide For Neighborhood Area II.
Atlanta, GA 1978. Neighborhood Plan NPU-M.
Charlotte, NC 1981. Albemarle Road Small Area Plan. Charlotte, NC 1983. First Ward Plan.
Columbias, GA 1983. Neighborhood Report North Highlands. Dallas, TX 1983. Belmont-MatiIda Zoning Recommendations. Dallas, TX 1981. The Sunset Reinvestment Area.
Denver, CO 1980. Neighborhood Planning Guide.
El Paso, TX 1981. Magoffin Neighborhood Study.
El Paso, TX 1982. Val Verde Neighborhood Study.
Eugene, OR 1975. Goodpasture Island Study.

Eugene, Eugene, Eugene, Eugene,
OR 1982. Jefferson/Far West Refinement Pli an.
OR 1982. Jefferson/Far West Refinement PI j an Appendix.
OR 1982. Laurel Hill Plan.
OR 1982. West University Refinement Plan.
Eugene, OR 1982. West University Refinement Plan Appendix. Eugene, OR 1978. Whiteaker Refinement Plan.
Eugene, OR 1982. Willow Creek Special Area Study.

Greensboro, NC Neighborhood Planning Program.
Kansas City, MO 1980. Country Club Area Plan.
Kansas City, MO 1977. Garifeld-Independence Plaza Plan.
Kansas City, MO 1976. Outline of The Comprehensive Plan.
Kansas City, MO 1980. South Central Area Plan.
Knoxville, TN 1980. Small Area Plan Manual.
Lansing, MI 1981. Southeast Area Comprehensive Plan.
Lexington-Fayette County, KY 1983. East End Plan.
Lexington-Fayette County, KY 1971. Plan Implementation an Citizen Participation.
Lexington-Fayette County, KY 1977. Plan for Georgetown Area Lincoln, NE 1981. Hartley Neighborhood Plan 1981.
Lincoln, NE 1981. North Bottoms Neighborhood Plan.
Los Angeles, CA 1980. Community Planning.
Minneapolis, MN 1981. University Community Plan.
Norfolk, VA 1982. A General Development Plan for Berkley. Norfolk, VA 1981. A General Development Plan for Titustown. Oklahoma City, OK 1983. C.E.C. Triangle Neighborhood Plan. Oklahoma City, OK 1981. Far Northwest Five-B Area Plan. Oklahoma City, OK 1983. Southeast Two Area Plan.
Omaha, NE 1983. Columbus Park Neighborhood Plan.
Omaha, NE 1983. Columbus Park Neighborhood Planning Process
Omaha, NE 1983. Prospect Hill Neighborhood Planning Process
Phoenix, AZ 1979. Target Area B Redevelopment Plan.
Phoenix, AZ 1979. Target Area F Redevelopment Plan.

Phoenix, AZ 1982. The Special Conservation District.
Portland, OR 1980. 82nd Avenue Corridor Study.
Portland, OR 1981. North of Burnside Land Use Policy. Portland, OR 1877. Northwest District Policy Plan. Portland, OR 1983. Terwilliger Parkway Corridor Plan. Portland, OR 1983. Terwilliger Parkway Design Guidelines.
Richmond, VA 1982. Oak Grove Neighborhood Action Plan. Richmond, VA 1981. Profile of Oak Grove.
Roanoke, VA 1983. An Idea Put To Work.
San Antonio, TX 1983. The Neighborhood Planning Process Springfield, MA 1979. McKnight Plan.
Stamford, CT Neighborhood Planning Strategy.
Tampa, FL 1983. West Tampa Neighborhood Strategy Area. Tampa, FL 1980. Sulphur Springs Neighborhood Plan. Toledo-Lucas County, OH 1981. Auburn/Delaware Plan. Toldeo-Lucas County, OH 1982. Old Fairground Plan, cson,
AZ 1979. Neighborhood Workbook.
NOTE: Document titles are paraphrased