Slater, Iowa

Committee lead

Jim Sievers, developer, veterinarian, (515) 685-3838

Local government partner

Mike Feekes, (515) 685-2254

Trees Forever coordinator

Del Christensen, (515) 993-3422

Landscape architect

Paul Popelka, Engineering Plus,
Ames, IA (515) 232-8553

Initial committee members

Cliff Carlson, Wilma Carlson, Oge Forre, Jim Gubbels, Howard Hammond, Kathy Harkin, Chuck Hoeven, Ronna Hoppenworth, Carrol Johnson, Lynn Marr, Kathy Robinson, Marty Severson, Marigrace Sievers, Don Thornwall, Mary Tomlinson

Proposal Narrative

Visioning Process

Phase 1: Program Initiation (Meeting One)

Phase 2: Needs Assessment and Goal Setting

• Meeting Two

• Meeting Three

• Meetings Four and Five

Phase 3: Developing a Concept Plan

• Meeting Six

• Meeting Seven

• Meeting Eight

Phase 4: Developing an Implementation Plan

• Meeting Nine

• Meeting Ten

Progress Report

Additional Observations/Recommendations

Proposal Narrative

Founded in 1889, Slater is a town of 1,380 people located 10 miles south of Ames and about 16 miles from Des Moines in the central part of the state. With quick access to Iowa State University in Ames and to the Des Moines metropolitan area, Slater appeals to a variety of people.

Trees have played a vital role in the community landscape. Several historically significant events in Slater have been connected to trees. In 1937, lumber harvested from native hardwoods in nearby Polk City was brought in to construct the Slater log cabin in Nelson Park. The cabin still serves the community as a place for meetings and social gatherings. In 1950, the first street expansion project after World War II on Boone Street included the joint planting of sycamore trees by residents and developers. And during Slater’s centennial celebration in 1989, the red oak was chosen as the centennial tree, and many red oak seedlings were planted throughout the town. A map identifying the planting locations of the trees was buried in a time capsule to be opened 50 years later.

Slater seeks assistance with several community landscape issues, including:

• Completion of a comprehensive inventory of trees, including species, age, condition, plantable spaces and maintenance needs

• Improvement of entryway aesthetics through plantings and signs

• Proper planning and design for several trail projects

• Development of ordinances to address proper tree maintenance, planting and hazard tree removal, and a list of recommended tree species for planting

This type of proactive community landscape planning will benefit Slater in many ways. Potential liability concerns for the hazard trees on city property will receive attention, and, with proper maintenance and species selection, can be avoided. Trail corridors can be planned to provide aesthetic qualities, wildlife habitat, visual screening and improved air quality. Entryways into town can be improved to provide visitors and local residents with a visually pleasing landscape and town identification. Plant health can be improved by educating residents to prune during the dormant season. This practice can be encouraged by adjusting the times the city accepts limbs and trimmings from May to November or December.

Response from the Visioning Program Team

In selecting Slater as a visioning community, the program team recognized that a holistic approach to the current landscape needs of the entire community is timely. Furthermore, the large size of the community visioning committee, 18 members, illustrated that many Slater residents were eager to participate in this crucial first step to launching a successful and sustainable community landscape. The staff of the visioning program did indicate to the community that conducting a comprehensive community tree inventory and writing city ordinances are beyond the scope of the program, but that the need for these would be looked at and responded to in the visioning process.

Back to Top

Visioning Process

Phase One: Program Initiation

The goal of this planning process is to organize the community participants and to clearly explain the planning process. It is particularly important that community members know how much time is required to produce a quality community vision. The facilitator and the initiating community committee assemble a community participant group that represents key stakeholders and decision makers.

Meeting One

At this introductory meeting, the facilitator introduces the visioning program process and partners involved and holds a discussion to identify problem areas or issues. He or she also addresses why the program is being requested by the community and what outcomes would satisfy the issues or needs expressed.

Date/Time: October 28, 1997, 7 to 9 p.m.

Facilitator: Del Christensen

Committee members attending

Cliff Carlson, Jim Gubbels, Howard Hammond, Kathy Harkin, Jim Mallon, Lynn Moore, Kathy Robinson, Marty Severson, Jim Sievers, Marigrace Sievers, Don Thornwall, Mary Tomlinson

Meeting goals

1. Introduce the ISTEA Visioning Program

2. Establish committee's initial motivations for and expectations of the program

3. Explain and begin the visual assessment process

4. Schedule meeting dates through the design charrette

Meeting description

Facilitator Del Christensen began the meeting with basic introductions and then explained the visioning program, the partners involved and the potential benefits to the community. He also presented the sequence of meetings and a brief description of each meeting.

Christensen noted that this meeting seemed somewhat "stale" until he had the committee members participate in a childhood landscape memory exercise, in which each member of the group was asked to relate feelings associated with particular landscapes they remember from childhood. This served to "loosen up" a few individuals who hadn't contributed to the night's discussion up until that point, and it helped committee members find a common bond as they all remembered and shared vivid memories of a childhood landscape.

The committee then listed everyone's initial motivations and expectations:

Motivations

• Beautification of the community as a whole
• Attract new business and new residents
• Attract passersby to stop in town
• Make Slater attractive for people coming and going

Expectations

• Improved entrance signs
• Enhancement along the stream in town
• Species selection for long-term success
• Visual improvement of vacant lots
• New trees to replace old ones in Nelson Park
• Pruning of mature trees
• Comprehensive plan, including private and public areas
• Build on the community's strong traits
• Involve representatives from community groups early in process
• Involve city officials early on
• Outdoor educational opportunities
• Visual improvement of Main Street
• Tree-lined streets
• Flowers in parkways

Christensen then explained the visual assessment project, in which each committee member would take pictures of what each considered positive and negative images or views in Slater. There was some concern that the committee needed to include city representatives as soon as possible in the process. The group will invite council members to the next meeting. The meeting was finished by scheduling subsequent meeting dates through the design charrette. The committee chose to meet every other Tuesday evening starting at 7 p.m., with a charrette tentatively scheduled for Saturday, Jan. 6, 1998.

Phase Two: Needs Assessment and Goal Setting

The goal of phase two is to identify areas that should be addressed in the landscape concept plan and to describe performance standards for those areas to meet the community’s needs. This phase uses mapping and focused discussion to identify relevant resources and opportunities/constraints for design. At the conclusion of this phase, the community should have a strong sense of those physical issues facing it and have an idea about what physical changes would address those issues. Through this process, the concerns or motivations expressed in phase one are explored and translated into a statement about physical landscape change. This statement leads into the next phase: developing solutions through planning and design.

Back to Top

Meeting Two

At this second meeting, the facilitator introduces and initiates the needs assessment process. The needs assessments describe three dimensions of landscapes: ecological, cultural, and representational. Community members are introduced to the concepts, assigned to working teams, and given base materials to complete the assigned task(s).

Date/Time: November 11, 1997, 7 to 9 p.m.

Facilitator: Del Christensen

Committee members attending

Cliff Carlson, Jim Gubbels, Howard Hammond, Kathy Harkin, Jim Mallon, Kathy Robinson, Jim Sievers, Marigrace Sievers, Mary Tomlinson

Meeting goals

1. Compile results of the visual assessment onto map

2. Introduce historic/cultural and bioregional assessment processes

3. Create working teams for the three assessments

Meeting description

The committee began with an overview of the agenda for the evening, reviewed initial program motivations that were discussed during the first meeting, and then began compiling the results of the visual quality survey. Each committee member briefly discussed their photos, the reasons for each, and designated each location on the map overlay. A total of 85 photos were taken, 39 showing "good" aspects and 46 "bad" aspects of locations in the community. Through this process, it was also good for the group to see all that has been accomplished in the town since the 1990 aerial photo was taken. Since that time, the community has built a clinic, a school, a bike trail, a city library and an arboretum. Christensen noted excellent discussion by the group and an increasing enthusiasm as the program progressed. He touched on how the group would analyze the visual quality survey as well as the next two surveys and gathered the photos. He informed the group that he would take the photos to ISU Landscape Extension to be scanned into the computer and return them to the group by the next meeting.

Christensen then introduced the historical/cultural and bioregional assessment projects. The committee members determined that rather than break into teams to do these assessments, they would like to gather information independently and then compile and map the information at the next meeting. The agenda for meeting three will reflect that it is a "working" meeting.

The committee also requested that Christensen contact the participating landscape architecture firm to determine whether Paul Popelka would be interested in attending an earlier meeting than scheduled so the group could touch base with him before the charrette planning session.

Back to Top

Meeting Three

The purpose of the third meeting is to present the results of the community inventory and discuss the results from each team. The discussion should focus on how the discoveries made by each team present opportunities or constraints for landscape change. All documentation should be recorded and made readily available for the visiting landscape architect.

Date/Time: November 25, 1997, 7 to 9 p.m.

Location: Ballard Elementary School

Committee members attending

Cliff Carlson, Jim Gubbels, Howard Hammond, Kathy Harkin, Jim Mallon, Kathy Robinson, Jim Sievers, Marigrace Sievers, Don Thornwall, Mary Tomlinson

Meeting goals

1. Compile results of the bioregional assessment onto map overlay

2. Compile results of the historical/cultural assessment onto map overlay

3. Note conclusions of and linkages between all three assessments

Meeting description

Following an overview of the agenda for the evening, the committee dove into the working portion of the meeting, starting with the bioregional survey.

Jim Gubbels had done extensive work mapping the soil types and developing a list of native tree species for the area. Other members contributed information on topography and drainage.

Findings

1. Prairie potholes are prevalent in the area.

2. Recommended tree species are those which prefer moist soils.

3. Four Mile Creek is the main water feature in the Slater watershed.

During the historical/cultural assessment, Mary Tomlinson and Marigrace Sievers listed items that were brought up by the group and noted these features on an overlay. The committee mapped the schools (new and old), churches, arboretum, library, senior center, Fourth of July parade route, bike trail, parks and Main Street. The main cultural event in town is the Fourth of July celebration, which Slater shares with Sheldahl. A past event which no longer takes place is Creamery Days, and a number of residents have fond memories of it. This event ended in the late 1960s.

While some historical buildings have been torn down, a number still remain, including:

1. Log cabin in Nelson Park

2. Old school building

3. Birdsall Building, ca. 1898

4. Old creamery building

5. Old City Hall and jail

6. First pump house and well

7. Bestamor House

8. Ryg Chevrolet building

One other historical item that came to light was the recent discovery of brick sidewalks in certain areas of town. The bricks are buried under a few inches of soil.

The committee used the remaining time to quickly look at the three assessment overlays and pick out any obvious linkages between them. The group noted the following links:

1. Outdoor classroom along Four Mile Creek (wetlands, prairie, riparian)

2. Railroad abandonment (opportunity for additional trails)

3. Main Street enhancement

4. Enhancements of community entryways

5. Park enhancements

6. Four Mile Creek greenbelt

Christensen concluded by explaining that during the next meeting, they would be identifying opportunities for and constraints to landscape change in the community and then setting goals and visions for the concept plan.

Back to Top

Meetings Four and Five

The purpose of this fourth meeting is to set goals for the concept plan. Discussion should emphasize areas to be addressed and defining performance standards for those areas. Look for synergy between inventory results presented in meeting three, set priorities for action and issues to be addressed. Proceedings of this meeting, as with meeting three, should be recorded and made available for the visiting landscape architect.

The fifth meeting normally falls into phase three, but the Slater group chose to combine this with meeting four. Meeting five is used to plan the charrette. The Trees Forever community coordinator and the initiating committee meet with the landscape architect to review the process thus far as well as their results. The charrette day is planned, including the actions and events that should surround it, such as media coverage, space reservations, participation of decision makers and a broader audience.

Date/Time: December 2, 1997, 7 to 9 p.m.

Facilitator: Del Christensen

Committee members attending

Cliff Carlson, Jim Gubbels, Kathy Harkin, Kathy Robinson, Jim Sievers, Marigrace Sievers, Don Thornwall, Mary Tomlinson

Landscape architect: Paul Popelka (Engineering Plus, Ames, IA)

Also attending: Jeff Benson (ISU Landscape Architecture Extension)

Meeting goals

1. Establish an understanding of communitywide landscape issues

2. Focus discussion on opportunities and constraints

3. Develop a consensus of shared goals and visions

4. Introduce the charrette process

5. Plan the charrette day

Meeting description

Del Christensen began the meeting with introductions and an overview of the agenda for the evening. This meeting combined meetings four and five.

The committee began by reviewing the linkages between the three overlays and the survey results from the last meeting to be certain that all linkages had been identified. The group then reviewed its initial motivations and expectations from meeting one. This was followed by a focused discussion to identify opportunities and constraints to landscape change. The results of that discussion follow.

Opportunities

1. Outdoor classroom along Four Mile Creek

2. Enhancement along east end of Main Street (trees, school sign)

3. Convert wet area on school playground into outdoor classroom (wetland) and link area to arboretum and trail

4. Attract people to Main Street

5. Make the south side of the old school more attractive

6. Entry signs (repaint, redo or remove old signs)

7. Improve toilet facilities in parks

8. Create community identity through a uniform landscape feature (plantings in rights-of-way)

9. Enhancement of Main Street (brick sidewalk, brick Main Street, lamps and benches along Main Street; i.e., something other than concrete sidewalks and streets)

10. Building enthusiasm for community tree planting and care (Tree City USA)

11. Expand on Centennial Tree Planting Program (Red Oaks)

12. Community center (old school)

13. Community's own sense of identity

14. Encourage new residents to get involved

15. Make new residents welcome

16. Create opportunities to involve others

17. Create safe school crossing over or under Highway 210

18. Create and improve walking areas around town

Constraints

1. Conflicts with student traffic on playground (wet area enhancement)

2. Vehicle visibility (traffic corridor plantings)

3. Funding

4. Possible difficulty in getting support of city government

The committee was then asked to choose its top six choices from the list of opportunities. A number of the overlapping opportunities were combined. From this revised selection, the following six opportunities were identified as goals for the overall landscape plan:

Top Six Opportunities

1. Outdoor classroom along Four Mile Creek

2. Enhancement along east end of Main Street (trees, school sign)

3. Convert wet area on school playground into outdoor classroom (wetland) and link area to arboretum and trail

4. Entry signs (repaint, redo or remove old signs)

5. Enhancement of Main Street (brick sidewalk, brick Main Street, lamps and benches along street; i.e., something other than concrete sidewalks and streets)

6. Building enthusiasm for community tree planting and care (Tree City USA);expand on Centennial Tree Planting Program (red oaks)

Paul Popelka, Jeff Benson and Del Christensen then discussed the charrette process, and the group planned the charrette day schedule. (See meeting six.)

Back to Top

Phase Three: Developing a Concept Plan

The purpose of this phase is to develop a conceptual landscape plan and define strategies for realizing the concept plan. With the assistance of a registered landscape architect, communities develop an approach to changing the physical landscape. The landscape architect coordinates with the community coordinator in the planning and design of a one-day intensive workshop, called the "charrette." The concept plan is approved by the community in a follow-up meeting with the landscape architect. The community needs, which were articulated and defined in the previous phases, become the foundation for the design process. Facilitating the partnership with private-sector landscape architects is crucial to creating the conceptual plan and defining steps for implementation.

Back to Top

Meeting Six – Charrette

This meeting/workshop is held to create a community concept plan with participation of local community participants. The landscape architect is a guest in the community and is introduced at this meeting to the community and its needs. The landscape architect directs the production of the concept plan with the assistance of the community coordinator. At the conclusion of the charrette, the landscape architect leaves with materials generated during the workshop in addition to any support materials that are needed.

Date/Time: January 3, 1998, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Facilitator: Del Christensen

Committee members attending

Cliff Carlson, Jim Gubbets, Howard Hanunond, Kathy Harkin, Kathy Robinson, Jim Sievers, Marigrace Sievers, Don Thornwall, Mary Tomlinson

Other Slater residents attending evening presentation

Boyd Antill, Becky Bartscher, Wilma Carlson, Deb Dryzcimski, Susan Erickson, Gary Halverson, Pat Harkin, Lowell Jensen, Segrin Nervig, Jackie O'Donnell, Dick Shook, Gene Staples, five youth

Also attending

• Paul Popelka (Engineering Plus, Ames, IA)

• Troy Siefert (Iowa State University, Ames, IA)

• Jeff Benson (ISU Landscape Architecture Extension, Ames, IA)

• Mike Lanning (ISU Landscape Architecture Extension)

• Kyle Fidelke (ISU Landscape Architecture Extension)

Meeting goals

1. Allow committee to communicate goals to the landscape architect

2. Develop design approaches and solutions to address issues and further the community vision

3. Allow broader community participation in the planning process

4. Improve community awareness and appreciation for the visioning process

Meeting description

After brief introductions, the visioning committee presented the results of its community assessments to landscape architect Paul Popelka and the ISU design team. The group also noted some of the areas of the community which present opportunities for landscape design enhancement.

The committee then took Popelka and the design team on a vehicle tour of the community, during which they viewed all four entrances to the community, the Main Street area and the three city parks. The group then returned to the school, where Popelka led a group design session. This allowed the committee to further express its desires for the project. A number of opportunities, some of which have been highlighted in previous meetings, were again emphasized during the discussion. Those included:

1. Enhance Main Street (brick sidewalk, plants, lamps, benches)

2. Enhance the intersection of R-38 and Highway 210, especially improving the view of the south side of the old school

3. Enhancement along east end of Main Street (trees, school sign)

4. Enhance all four entryways into the community

5. Improve entry signs (repaint, redo or remove old signs)

6. Convert wet area on school playground into outdoor classroom (wetland) and link area to arboretum and trail

7. Improve walking paths throughout town

8. Create community identity through a uniform landscape feature

Popelka and the ISU team then spent the afternoon putting together design ideas. At 5 p.m., they presented an initial overall plan, as well as design concepts for the R-38/Highway 210 intersection and the Main Street corridor. Visual enhancement ideas for the intersection included the removal of old asphalt and chain-link fences on the south side of the school and the planting of native wildflowers, shrubs and trees. Initial design ideas for the Main Street area included historical lampposts, a narrow band of brick along the outside of the concrete sidewalk, occasional benches and small trees at the intersections.

The audience seemed pleased with the results, and everyone was looking forward to viewing the finished display boards. In particular, two city officials expressed support for the program. Prior to this day, the city had not been overly supportive and had not actively participated in the project, so that was a positive development. Meeting seven will be scheduled as soon as the display boards are prepared.

Back to Top

Meeting Seven

The purpose of this meeting is to review the community landscape concept plan prepared by the landscape architect and to learn about the expected costs associated with proposed phased development. This presentation includes a review of community needs and goals, the concept plan, illustrated image edits or detailed plans as needed, and implementation phases with costs. The information is packaged as a series of presentation boards, which are left with the community at the meeting’s conclusion.

Date/Time: Monday, April 13, 1998, 7 to 8:15 p.m.

Facilitator: Del Christensen

Landscape architect: Paul Popelka (Engineering Plus, Ames, IA)

Committee members attending

Cliff Carlson, Jim Gubbels, Howard Hammond, Kathy Harkin, Jim Mallon, Kathy Robinson, Jim Sievers, Marigrace Sievers, Don Thornwall, Mary Tomlinson

Other Slater residents attending

Bob Davis, Joe Ellis, Jackie O'Donnell, Dick Shook, Ryan Tomlinson, Craig Weeks, Julie Weeks, Stephen Wesselmann

Meeting goals

1. Review the community landscape concept plan

2. Opportunity for public feedback to the landscape architect about the plan

3. Review implementation techniques and the next phase of the program

4. Celebrate the accomplishments of the local committee

Meeting description

Del Christensen began with a brief review of the visioning program. The local committee was recognized and given an opportunity to describe the process it had gone through up to this point.

Paul Popelka then explained in detail the designs that were created from the charrette day. The main areas highlighted on the finished display boards were:

1. Enhancement of Main Street (brick sidewalk, plants, lamps, benches)
2. Enhancement of the intersection of R-38 and Highway 210, especially improving the view of the south side of the old school
3. Enhancement along the east end of Main Street (trees, school sign)
4. Suggested designs for entry signs
5. Improvement of walking paths throughout town and tying them into the existing trail system

Paul then opened up the floor for discussion and comment. The public seemed genuinely pleased with the results of the finished display boards. Among the concerns were keeping traffic visibility in mind when planting, and snow removal on Main Street with the suggested changes.

Popelka and Christensen wrapped up by discussing the next meeting, which would involve specific cost estimates and some ideas for implementation.

Back to Top

Meeting Eight

The purpose of the eighth meeting is to debrief the project with the landscape architect, particularly with regard to implementation issues. It is particularly important to note and discuss types of additional design services required to implement the plan, the cost of design, and the fee structure for those services.

The community and the landscape architect agreed to combine meeting eight with meeting nine, which falls into the fourth phase of the visioning program. (See meeting nine.)

Back to Top

Phase Four: Developing an Implementation Plan

The purpose of this phase is to develop strategies for achieving the vision developed with the landscape architect in the community concept plan. One significant threat to the success of the program is believing the work is done as soon as presentation boards are in hand. Careful analysis of actions required to achieve each phase of the plan is essential, as is determining methods for measuring progress and gaining continued support for local authorities and agency stakeholders. The community must now become the leader in involving a broader community volunteer group and in building support for a long-range plan.

Meeting Nine

The purpose of this meeting is to reorient community participants to the task ahead. An overview of the process of community landscape building is provided. Each phase of the plan is discussed, with emphasis on the first phase and the need for implementation planning.

Date/Time: Monday, April 27, 1998, 7:15 to 9:15 p.m.

Facilitator: Del Christensen

Landscape architect: Paul Popelka (Engineering Plus, Ames, IA)

Committee members attending

Howard Hammond, Kathy Harkin, Kathy Robinson, Jim Sievers, Marigrace Sievers, Don Thornwall, Mary Tomlinson, Stephen Wesselmann

Meeting goals

1. Community evaluation of the charrette process

2. Review costs associated with implementing the plan

3. Consider methods to secure needed design services

4. Discuss viable method of phasing in projects

5. Identify resource and service needs for the plan

Meeting description

Del Christensen began the meeting with an overview of the agenda for the evening. He then asked the committee members for their evaluation of the charrette day. Everyone was happy with the public turnout for the evening presentation and the way the presentation allowed an opportunity to bring other groups together. They noted that the setting in the school cafeteria was very conducive to encouraging public involvement, and reiterated that the image editing by the design team was a very impressive visual tool.

Paul Popelka then presented costs estimates for 12 different projects within the overall plan. He noted that these are rough estimates for having the work done using contract labor. A detailed design will provide the necessary information for a more precise cost figure. Popelka suggested the community use Sue Erickson (a landscape architect who resides in Slater) as an excellent local resource for developing those detailed designs.

Christensen then discussed how to phase in the overall plan by breaking it down into achievable projects. To better evaluate which project or projects are the best to begin with, the group identified the service needs for the projects as well as the local and external resources available to implement them.

The service needs that were identified for elements within the plan were as follows:

1. City approval: Need to get the city council to the table as soon as possible

2. School approval: Need to bring school representatives in to the communication process

3. Need to consider engineering costs that may be associated with street projects on Main Street

4. Need to address DOT restrictions in any detailed roadway designs

5. Need to get landowner approval for projects involving private properties

6. Need to pick a simple project to snowball support for the other projects

The internal and external resources identified included:

1. Sue Erickson – design work, landscape architect

2. Jim Gubbels – grant writing

3. Story County Conservation Department – assistance with roadside planting (design, equipment, etc.)

4. DMACC – technical assistance from Horticulture Department

5. Scout troops – volunteer labor

6. Master Gardeners – volunteer labor

7. High school service projects – volunteer labor

8. Community Club – $$

9. Jaycees – $$

10. Businessmen's Group – $$

11. Living Roadway Trust Fund (LRTF) Design Dollars – $2,000 for design work

12. LRTF Project Grant – $$ for roadside plantings

13. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) Project Grant - 70/30 match, grant up to $15,000

14. Resource Enhancement and Protection (REAP) grant – $$ for Heart of Slater Trail project

15. Story County Pheasants Forever Chapter – $$ for roadside plantings of native grasses

16. Television station KCCI Project Main Street – $$

17. Iowa Department of Economic Development – possible $$

18. Central Iowa Tourism Region – possible $$ for signage

19. School grants – possible $$ for school projects or projects involving students

20. Small Business Association (SBA) grants – possible $$

21. State Forest Nursery – possible $$

It was decided that the group should post the new display boards in public areas over the next three weeks to generate more local support. Popelka will look into having ISU Extension make 8.5-by-11 color copies of the boards for each of the committee members to use in promoting the program. Christensen concluded by discussing the next meeting, which will involve picking a first project and developing the detailed implementation plan for that project.

Back to Top

Meeting 10

The purpose of this meeting is to develop methods for initiating action and sustaining action through time. Maintaining action over time is challenging, when compelling new issues and challenges face community leaders and demand attention. Planning now for long-term implementation is essential to avoid this conflict. Participants use implementation information generated in the previous meeting to form a project timeline, assigning roles and responsibilities within the group. Methods for measuring progress and maintaining interest and commitment in the project are discussed and documented. At the conclusion of this meeting, the group should be prepared to successfully implement the community concept plan.

Date/Time: Monday, May 18. 1998, 7 to 9 p.m.

Facilitator: Del Christensen

Landscape architect: Paul Popelka (Engineering Plus, Ames, IA)

Committee members attending

Cliff Carlson, Kathy Robinson, Jim Sievers, Marigrace Sievers, Don Thornwall, Mary Tomlinson

Meeting goals

1. Review projects and implementation costs

2. Pick an achievable first project

3. Prioritize the other projects and set timelines

4. Discuss short- and long-term methods of phasing in projects

5. Develop an implementation plan

Meeting description

After the group reviewed the agenda for the evening, Paul Popelka presented several 8.5-by-11 color copies of the boards for each of the committee members to use in promoting the visioning program. A set of these copies also will be placed in the community visioning binder.

The group then discussed the individual projects and costs. They focused on phasing in the overall plan by breaking it down into doable projects. Four projects were identified as areas to begin work:

1. Roadside seeding

2. Entryway signs

3. Intersection of Main Street and R-38

4. Intersection of R-38 and Highway 210

With a preliminary goal of at least starting each of these projects by July 4, 1999, the following initial timeline was established:

Summer 1998

1. Remove or refurbish all three entryway signs.

2. Meet with school officials and sixth-grade class regarding the proposed new school sign. Need to make sure the sign and landscaping design are carried throughout the rest of that intersection. This is a potential area to utilize the LRTF design dollars.

3. Meet with Joe Kooiker (Story County Conservation) to establish plans for the roadside seeding of native grasses and wildflowers at each of the entryways.

4. Meet with city on design of a sign at the intersection of Main Street and R-38, directing traffic to the downtown area. Need to make sure the sign and landscaping design are carried throughout the rest of that intersection.

5. Meet with the school board to discuss possible improvements to the area around the old school. Initial hope is to at least remove the chain link fence and large areas of asphalt.

Fall 1998

1. Apply for roadside planting grants through ISTEA Projects Program or LRTF.

2. Approach Story County Pheasants Forever chapter for possible donation of native grass seed.

The group decided it needed to approach these identified entities and then schedule a meeting to do more detailed strategic planning, which could include appropriate stakeholders as needed. That meeting is scheduled for June 15, 1998. Del Christensen concluded the meeting by reminding the group about the Iowa’s Living Roadways celebration event on May 27, 1998. He also mentioned that he would be putting the final touches on the community visioning binder and returning that to the committee in June.

Back to Top

Progress Report

In July 1998, Trees Forever coordinator Del Christensen, provided a progress report on the four goals and other issues identified in the city’s original proposal narrative.

Goal 1: Completion of a comprehensive inventory of trees, including species, age, condition, plantable spaces and maintenance needs.

The importance of this inventory was brought up throughout the meeting process. It was not addressed through the landscape design; however, the community plans to apply for Tree City USA status, and will be able to accomplish the tree inventory through that program.

Goal 2: Improvement of entryway aesthetics through plantings and signs.

This was addressed and is being phased in beginning as early as fall 1998. Grant dollars are being applied for, and highway right-of-way enhancements with native grasses and forbs will be planted next spring (1999). A local architect has volunteered his services to assist with an entrance sign design.

Goal 3: Proper planning and design for several trail projects.

These projects were addressed in the concept plan. Group members realize that they cannot finance these improvements immediately. Their strategy is to continue to monitor the county's progress on its trail development and to look for and take advantage of funding opportunities that may arise in the near future.

Goal 4: Development of ordinances to address proper tree maintenance, planting and hazard tree removal, and a list of recommended tree species for planting.

These ordinances will be addressed through the Tree City USA application, in a similar fashion as the tree inventory.

Issue A: Address concerns for the hazardous trees on city property: proper maintenance and species selection.

These issues will be addressed through inventories, ordinances and public education.

Issue B: Plan trail corridors to provide aesthetic qualities, wildlife habitat, visual screening, and improved air quality.

The group plans to encourage enhancement of the existing county trail systems and look for funding opportunities to connect this to its own system. It was agreed that this city trail system would not need to be elaborate and could utilize existing streets in a number of locations.

Issue C: Improve entryways into town to provide visitors and local residents with a visually pleasing landscape and town identification.

The phasing in of these projects has already begun. Phase one is the planting of native grasses and forbs to enhance the highway rights-of-way as you enter the community. Grant dollars are being applied for, and planting will occur next spring (1999). Phase two includes removing and replacing the old entryway signs. A local architect is donating his time to assist with the new sign design. Phase three will include the design and establishment of landscaping around the signs. The group plans to apply for LRTF funds for this detailed design.

Issue D: Improve plant health by encouraging residents to perform pruning during the dormant season. This can be done by adjusting the times the city accepts limbs and trimmings from May to November or December.

This issue will be addressed through locally led public education.

Back to Top

Additional observations/recommendations

Christensen noted that the biggest stumbling block in Slater’s community visioning process was the lack of a council representative on the visioning committee at the very beginning of the process. For the process to be successful, the committee needs buy-in at the administrative level.

On the positive side, there was a solid turnout at meetings throughout the process. Slater residents are eager to enhance their community’s appearance and take pride in it. The committee and residents remained a team throughout, working on all projects together. The group followed logical steps, amassing information on potential grants, identifying four main projects, setting goals for when to start each project, and applying for various grants.

The committee is looking far enough ahead in the implementation process to build the relationships and support it will need for successful completion of its goals. The group is likely to enlist local resources (equipment, labor) as opposed to bidding out projects. Christensen notes that it needs "to get something on the ground" to gain total community support, but it is well on its way toward successful completion of its goals.

Back