NACo National Association of Counties
Working With Local Governments:
A Practical Guide for Installations
Printed on recycled paper
30% post-consumer waste
This document was prepared as a service to the Department of Defense community. The opinions expressed herein are those of
the author(s), and are not necessarily representative of those of the Department of Defense.
May 2012
i
The National Association of Counties (NACo) is pleased to provide this updated
primer, “Working with Local Government: A Practical Guide for Installations.” In
partnership with NACo and the Department of Defense (DoD), the International
City/County Management Association published the original primer in 2006.
The purpose of this primer is to provide information on the tools and techniques
for local governments, military installations, and key stakeholders to work
collaboratively in addressing the critical challenges affecting the military’s ability to train and
local governments’ ability provide for growth and serve our communities.
The relationship between military installations and surrounding counties, cities, and towns
has become strongly intertwined over the past several decades. Though once located in rural
isolated areas, growth and development have crept closer and closer to the fence line of military
installations. It is no longer possible for either local governments or military posts to afford the
high cost associated with poor relations.
NACo is the only national organization that represents county governments in the United States.
Founded in 1935, NACo provides essential services to the nation’s 3,068 counties. NACo
advances issues with a unied voice before the Federal government, improves the public’s
understanding of county government, assists counties in nding and sharing innovative solutions
through education and research, and provides value-added services to save counties and taxpayers
money. Over the past several years, NACo has worked with DoD and other partners in putting
together trainings on collaborative land use and inviting key decision makers and planners from
military installations and surrounding counties and municipalities to participate.
All local planning documents are periodically updated to adequately address changes in the needs
of local populations and the evolving functions of local government. This revised primer provides
up-to-date information and access to critical resources.
NACo thanks DoD and other partners who provided assistance in the review and revision of this
publication.
Thank you,
Larry Naake, NACo
Executive Director
NACo would like to thank the following for their help in reviewing this primer: Jan Larkin, Ofce of the
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment); David Snodgrass and Michael Weaver,
U.S. Army Central Regional Environmental Ofce; Stephanie Millie, Stateside Associates; Paul Friday,
U.S. Marine Corps; and Jackie Byers, NACo.
ii
FRAMING THE ISSUE ......................................................................................................1
The Issue ................................................................................................................................1
The Implications .....................................................................................................................2
The Need for Communication ................................................................................................3
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................3
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ...................................................................................................5
What is Local Government? ...................................................................................................5
Responsibilities and Services .................................................................................................6
Forms of Local Government ..................................................................................................7
City Government ............................................................................................................8
County Government ........................................................................................................9
Mechanisms Inside Local Governments ..............................................................................10
Planning and Zoning ....................................................................................................10
Land Use Decision-Making Powers .................................................................................... 11
Home Rule ........................................................................................................................... 12
Economic and Community Development ............................................................................12
Environmental Advisory Boards and Citizen Interest Groups ............................................14
UNDERSTANDING THE COMMUNITY ......................................................................15
Constituents and Groups ...................................................................................................... 15
State-Sponsored Regional Military Organizations .............................................................16
Arizona .........................................................................................................................16
California ....................................................................................................................16
Connecticut ...................................................................................................................17
Florida .......................................................................................................................... 17
Georgia ......................................................................................................................... 17
Indiana .........................................................................................................................18
Kansas ..........................................................................................................................18
Louisiana ......................................................................................................................19
Mississippi ....................................................................................................................20
Missouri ........................................................................................................................ 20
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Working With Local Governments: A Practical Guide for Installations
iii
Nevada .......................................................................................................................... 20
New Mexico ..................................................................................................................20
North Carolina .............................................................................................................21
North Dakota ................................................................................................................ 21
Oklahoma .....................................................................................................................22
South Carolina .............................................................................................................22
Texas .............................................................................................................................23
Virginia .........................................................................................................................23
Wisconsin ...................................................................................................................... 23
Sustainability Partnerships ..................................................................................................24
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................26
PROFESSIONAL RESOURCES .....................................................................................26
APPENDIX A: WORKING WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CHECKLIST..........28
1
FRAMING THE ISSUE
The Issue
Encroachment on U.S. military installations and ranges is a serious and growing
problem for the Department of Defense (DoD). Encroachment, as dened by
DoD, refers to external factors that inhibit the ability of the Military Services to
use their ranges, airspace, and other operating areas to conduct effective training
and testing.
The rapid pace of urban growth into rural areas around military installations
and ranges presents two sets of encroachment problems. First, as residential and
commercial development increases in areas near military bases, residents may be
exposed to aircraft over-ights, dust, and noise from military activities. Second,
the military’s ability to conduct important military training exercises may be
compromised due to incompatible land use adjacent to or near installations and
ranges. For example:
• Night training can be compromised when light from nearby shopping centers
interferes with a soldier’s night vision
• Airborne training, such as parachute training, can be halted when housing
developments are built near drop zones
• Usable testing and training areas can be segmented and diminished if
development forces endangered species to migrate inside the military
installation fence lines
• Energy projects, such as wind turbine and transmission line development,
may interfere with military operations if project siting is not planned
collaboratively with the military
Other issues that can lead to degradation of testing or training
capabilities include:
• Competition for frequency spectrum
• Tall structures, such as cell phone towers or wind energy turbines in military
use airspace
• New highways cutting through or adjacent to training areas
In 2002,
the General
Accountability
Ofce reported that
nearly 80 percent
of the nation’s
military bases were
witnessing growth
around their fence
lines at a rate
higher than the
national average.
2
The Implications
Today, our men and women in uniform are deployed around the globe. When
our nation sends its military forces abroad, it does so under a solemn agreement
with the American people: to train and prepare our military personnel for the
challenges of war before placing them in harm’s way.
Training provides our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines with the skills
they need to successfully complete their mission and return home safely to
their families. Experience has taught us that realistic training saves lives:
military forces must train as they would ght, replicating the challenges, stress,
discomfort, and physical and psychological conditions of actual combat. But
such training also requires substantial resources, such as air, land, seaspace, and a
frequency spectrum.
To protect our military forces, we must preserve the viability of our installations
and ranges. This need is becoming increasingly important in light of the
growing challenges posed to training and testing by the rise of urban growth and
other encroachment activities that impact our previously isolated training and
testing lands.
State and local governments have the responsibility for managing growth and
development through their land use management authorities. Additionally, groups
such as land trusts, the agriculture community, and conservation organizations
can leverage their respective interests in conservation areas and partner with
the military to establish compatible land use areas, or buffer zones, around
DoD lands. Working collaboratively, the military, state and local governments,
and other stakeholder groups can protect military training capabilities while
conserving important natural resources and maintaining community well-being.
To date, various groups have taken action in response to the growing issue of
encroachment. For example:
• State and local governments have formed military advisory boards to
facilitate discussion and develop compatible land use policy for areas around
military installations
• States have passed legislation to minimize incompatible development and
promote compatible resource use around military installations
• Specic installations have engaged conservation non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) such as land trusts, as well as state and local
governments, to establish conservation areas surrounding military lands
3
The Need for Communication
Two-way communication between the military and stakeholder groups is crucial
to successful compatible land use planning. State and local government ofcials
have the authority to pass land use legislation and boost urban grown planning
efforts; it is vital for military planners and commanders to participate in this
planning process. Without adequate input from the military, state and local
government ofcials will not have sufcient information to adequately assess
the impacts of their growth management and land use decisions on military
operations. By working together, the military, state, and local government
planners can strike the appropriate balance of growth, environmental protection,
and military operations.
This guide is designed to:
• Help DoD ofcials and military base commanders gain a better understanding
of how state and local governments make land use decisions that may impact
military operations
• Facilitate communications and potential collaboration among stakeholders on
encroachment issues
The chart on the following page provides a summary and clarication of common
misconceptions about what installation personnel can do to engage state and local
governments in dialogue on issues.
INTRODUCTION
The relationship between military installations and communities is a symbiotic
one because the success of one is invariably linked to that of the other. Gone are
the days when a military installation can retreat “back inside the fort and close
the gates” when faced with a deteriorating relationship with a local government.
Neither local governments nor installations can afford the costs associated with
poor relations.
The Army, Navy, Air
Force, and Marine
Corps manage nearly
30 million acres of
land on more than
425 major military
installations.
“Since becoming a civilian, and starting work with the city of Killeen, I’ve realized
how great a working relationship we really had between the two entities and how
much we both proted. After some reection and some exchange with my new
counterparts, I’m convinced that there is more that we could collectively be doing
to improve both our capabilities. The more local governments and installations
work together, the better, collectively, I think we’ll become.”
David Hall, former Army Garrison Commander, serving as Deputy City
Manager, Killeen, Texas, 2002
4
1
Reference Memo from Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment) dated August 23,
2004, Subject: Working with State and Local Governments to Combat Encroachment
Engaging State and Local Governments: The Facts
Common Concerns True/False What the Law Says What This Means
“DoD personnel
cannot provide
information to state
and local governments
about legislation that
would protect our
military bases and
ranges.”
FALSE
• “No part of the money
appropriation...shall be used
directly or indirectly to...
inuence...a Member of
Congress, a jurisdiction, or
ofcial of any government,
to favor ...or oppose any law,
policy or appropriation.”
[18 U.S.C. 1913]
• Applicable to lobbying at
the state and local level
AND with regard to
regulations and policy,
not just legislation and
appropriations
• “No part of any
appropriations contained in
this Act shall be used for
publicity or propaganda
purposes...”
[DoD FY05 Appropriations
Act]
IT IS OK TO:
• Share information about
Administration positions
• Share information necessary to the
administration of laws for which a
government agency is responsible
• Provide pre-existing materials
• Give speeches on Administration
positions (as long as not exhorting
the public to contact government
ofcials in support of position)
• Send letters from an agency to
members of Congress
• Make statements to the news media
on Administration positions
IT IS NOT OK TO:
• Use appropriated funds to generate
grassroots support, i.e., attempt
to mobilize citizens or networks
to call, write, email, or otherwise
contact lawmakers in support of
DoD initiatives
“Providing
information on the
impacts from local
development action
near our installation is
considered lobbying.”
FALSE
“Giving speeches
on legislation is
considered lobbying.”
DEPENDS
“If state and local
governments take the
military’s advice, the
military may become
liable for takings.”
FALSE
• “Nor shall private property
be taken for public use,
without just compensation.”
[U.S. Constitution,
Amendment 5]
• “The United States may use
its position as a landowner
to inuence local zoning
authorities without incurring
liability for a taking.”
[Persyn v. United States, 32
Fed. Cl. 579, 585 (1995)]
IT IS OK TO:
• Testify or provide information to
government agencies about impacts
of actions on military operations
• Make recommendations or otherwise
be persuasive about actions
• Prepare draft ordinance/legislation
IT IS NOT OK TO:
• Be part of a panel that votes on land
use matters
• Threaten, deceive or recommend
others do what DoD cannot do
“Testifying to a local
land use planning
authority makes the
government liable for
takings.”
FALSE
“Working with state
and local governments
to combat
encroachment is DoD
policy.”
TRUE
“I recommend you direct
more active involvement at
the installation and Regional
Environmental Coordinator
level in all aspects of state
and local planning that could
impact readiness.”
1
IT IS OK TO:
• Participate, communicate, build
relationships, and share information
IT IS NOT OK TO:
• Avoid all interactions with local
planners and organizations about
land use issues
5
Until recently, relationships between local governments and installations focused
on lawlessness, problems in the areas bordering the installation, and competition
for services and resources. Today, issues that affect the military’s ability to
conduct training also impact the relationship between installations and their
surrounding communities. These include:
• Encroachment
• Increased public scrutiny of installation operations
• Lack of a mutual regional vision to sustain installations
• Lost opportunities for sharing services and cost avoidance
• Perceived non-responsive or controversial management decisions
The majority of decisions made by installation management and local
government leadership have serious and real consequences for their respective
installations and local jurisdictions. Because local government and installation
relationships are interconnected, leadership is responsible for making
management decisions that minimize conict and promote mutual understanding.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
What is Local Government?
Municipalities and counties are the logical point of contact between government
and citizens. Local governments fund important services to residents, including
quality drinking water, pothole repair, snow removal, recreation, and emergency
medical care. Citizens depend on the effectiveness and quality of local
governments to provide a safer and healthier quality of life.
Today’s citizens demand that local governments provide quality resources
and services in a responsive, cost effective, and professional manner; and
local government processes are often inuenced by elections and constituents’
demands. Local government leaders must be aware of broad community issues,
provide strong leadership and effective management, and foster a vision for what
the community can become.
Local government
growth management
and development
decisions can have
a direct impact on a
military installation.
Understanding how
local governments
make these decisions
is crucial for
creating sustainable
installations.
“Local governments and military installations can better utilize limited resources,
in many cases, when they participate in jointly sponsored projects and programs to
serve their citizens’ common needs.”
Developing Exemplary Civilian-Military Relations, ICMA MIS Report, Vol.20
No. 12, December 1988
6
Responsibilities and Services
Military installations share many similarities with local governments, especially
in terms of management and operation. The installation provides basic
necessities for the average soldier, sailor, airman, marine, and their families,
while maintaining services and space for civilians and uniformed employees to
work, live, and play. Similar to local government’s interaction with its citizenry,
military installations have very close ties to their residents.
Military installations and municipalities often mirror one another in services they
provide such as:
• Public safety
• Fire protection
• Waste collection
• Housing
• Hospitals and other health care amenities
“Most cities want to have a good relationship with adjacent military installations.
Cities are departmentalized in a manner not too dissimilar to base operations. City
departments, like their base counterparts, deal primarily with technical issues.
Unlike military bases, policy issues are handled by an elected body of the city
council or county board. Often decisions at this level require public input and
public discourse, and require time to resolve.”
Steven R. Jepsen, City Manager, Oceanside, California
7
Because the services offered by both military installations and local governments
are similar, the heads of the installation’s various departments should establish
good working relationships and have open communication with their counterparts
in local government. A two-way exchange of information will uncover important
opportunities for sharing resources, saving costs, and improving the quality of
life for all residents.
Forms of Local Government
Understanding the political background, as well as the cultural, social, and
economic situation of a neighboring jurisdiction, is crucial to creating good
working relationships. By learning about the form of local government in a
given community, installation leaders can better understand key leaders of
local government.
The form of government adopted by a jurisdiction usually depends upon the
role of the state government and the degree of home-rule powers it grants to
cities in running their own affairs. Typical types of local governments at the city
level include:
• Strong Mayor
• Weak Mayor
• Mayor-Council
• Council-Manager
• Commission
Typical types of local governments at the county level include:
• Board of Commission
• Commission-Administrator
• Commission-County Executive
Each of these has its own unique strengths and weaknesses. No matter what form
it takes, the local government holds important land use decision-making powers
that inuence development near military installations.
“Military installations and the surrounding communities need to work together
to implement recommendations from their Joint Land Use Study that proposes
approaches in which compatible land use goals can be achieved.”
Kevin A. Wolff
Bexar County, TX Commissioner/Precinct 3
In order to
understand the
decision making
process in a
community, the
installation
commander must
understand the type
of local government
that exists outside
the fence line.
8
City Government
Strong Mayor. In many large cities, the mayor is elected to lead the city.
The strong mayor has the authority to prepare and control administration of
the budget, appoint and remove department heads, and direct the activities
of city departments. The mayor may also have the power to appoint a chief
administrative ofcer to assist in managing the local government.
Weak Mayor. This form of government is characterized by fragmented authority.
The mayor has limited powers of appointment and a number of principal ofces
are lled by direct election or by the council. The mayor lacks authority to
develop the budget and has little or no administrative control over operations.
Mayor-Council. The legislative body is elected either at-large, by ward or
district, or by some combination of the two. For example, some members are at-
large and others represent specic districts (see Figure 1).
The distinguishing characteristics of this form of city government are two-
fold. First, the mayor is elected separately, and second, the Ofce of Mayor is
designated as the formal head of the city government. Depending upon local
laws, the powers of the mayor may vary greatly, from limited ceremonial duties
to full-scale authority to appoint and remove department managers. The mayor
may also have veto power over the city council.
Council-Manager. Council-Manager government vests the policy-making
authority in the elected council (see Figure 1). The administration of the
community resides with a professional manager who is appointed and removed
by the council. The council, which is usually small, not only serves as the
legislative body, but also provides political leadership. In most council-manager
communities, the mayor is directly elected. The mayor’s formal powers are
usually restricted to presiding over council meetings and making appointments
to boards and commissions. As part of the council, the mayor usually votes
as a regular member and has either limited veto power or none at all. In many
council-manager communities, the mayor’s role as a political leader is expanding.
“Ceremonial
relationships are just
that, ceremonial.
The mayor playing
golf with the base
commander doesn’t
mean you have a good
working relationship.
It may mean nothing.”
– Former County
Commissioner and
Military Ofcer
“Without adequate input from the military, local government ofcials will not
have sufcient information to assess the impacts of their growth management
and land use decisions on military operations. A best practice is to institutionalize
communication and collaboration among stakeholders that goes beyond the limited
terms of military leaders and local decision makers.”
Pete Liakakis, Chairman
Chatham County Commission, Georgia
9
Commission. Municipalities with a commission form of government elect
commissioners to serve collectively as the policy-making body, and to serve
individually as heads of various administrative departments such as public
works or public safety. The municipal reform movement has led to the near
demise of this type of local government. Its weaknesses are obvious, since few
elected leaders possess the necessary requirements to operate large portions of a
municipal organization.
County Government
Board or Commission. Most counties function with the traditional board or
commission form of government, which has a central governing body often
referred to as a “board of commissioners” or “supervisors.” As a rule, the board
or commission selects one of its members to serve as the presiding ofcer,
whose authority is limited to presiding over commission meetings. Frequently,
board members or committees oversee or head county departments responsible
to the commission. No single administrator supervises county operations. The
commission shares administrative and policy-making responsibilities with a
number of independently elected ofcials such as the sheriff, county clerk,
treasurer, tax collector, recorder, assessor, and others, according to the state. In
addition, state or county law may establish numerous independent boards and
authorities to administer various county-level programs, such as health, hospitals,
housing, parks, and libraries.
Figure 1. Differences between Mayor-Council and
Council-Manager Forms of Government
The Mayor-Council Form
VOTERS
| |
MAYOR— COUNCIL
| | | |
DEPARTMENT HEADS
The Council-Manager Form
VOTERS
|
COUNCIL
|
MANAGER
| | | |
DEPARTMENT HEADS
Both sides should
look for opportunities
to incorporate the
military goals into
the city goals and for
the military to be
aware of the civilian
environment in which
it is working.
10
Board or Commission with an Elected Chair. In a variation of the board or
commission form of government, some county commissions have a chair who
is elected at large by the people. In this form, the chair may have additional
authority, including voting on each matter before the board, preparing the county
budget and signing all contracts, bonds, and other instruments requiring county
consent in addition to presiding over all meetings.
Commission-Administrator. The Commission-Administrator form of
government has become increasingly popular. The administrator may be called
a county manager, chief administrative ofcer, administrative assistant, or
some other title. The difference among these positions is the amount of power
granted to the administrator. A county manager holds most of the same type
of authority as a city manager and is appointed and removed by the board of
commissioners. A chief administrative ofcer has some, but not all, of the
powers of a city manager and is usually appointed and removed in the same way.
The administrative assistant is similar to the chief administrative ofcer, but
ordinarily does not appoint or supervise heads of departments. The number of
independently elected county ofcials and appointed boards varies.
Commission-County Executive. This form of government has legislative
and executive branches with the chief executive being elected by the voters.
The commission operates as the legislative body in much the same way as the
council in a Strong Mayor form of government. The executive prepares the
budget, appoints department heads, and administers county operations, frequently
with the assistance of an appointed professional administrator. Often, there
are fewer independently elected ofcers under this form than under the two
mentioned above.
Please see Appendix A: Working with Local Governments Checklist at the end of
this guide for more information on how to collaborate with local governments.
Mechanisms Inside Local Governments
The typical community in the U.S. is served by many different ofcial entities
that do not necessarily have common boundaries. For example, school boundaries
rarely coincide with city or county boundaries. A city may be located in two
or more counties. A park district may serve several villages. The city police
department may take the lead on law enforcement, but the 911 calls may be
handled by the county sheriff’s department. And a planning authority may serve
several counties and all of the local governments within those counties.
Planning and Zoning
In addition to establishing a relationship with the leaders of a local government,
it is important for military installation managers to know the city planner and the
planning and zoning laws of nearby communities. Planning is an ofcial function
“An effective
working relationship
must be tiered and
institutionalized at
multiple levels.”
– ICMA Board
Member/City
Manager
“The city’s plans are
out there for the next
20 years. Everything
is public. But I
don’t know what the
[base] is going to do
to mor ro w.”
– City Manager,
adjacent to
military base
11
of local government and it plays an important role in overall future development
within a locale. A planner will most likely be the point person regarding the
layout of the city or county and its effects on the military installation. When
planners from overlapping or adjacent jurisdictions share information and jointly
develop creative alternatives to current policies, potential conict can be avoided
and everyone can benet. Likewise, a military installation manager and a city
planner can establish a similar type of professional relationship.
Land Use Decision-Making Powers
The U.S. Constitution makes no reference to cities, counties, villages, or towns.
Local governments are entities of the state in which they are located, and their
authority is derived entirely from state law. Their powers may be enlarged,
abridged, or completely withdrawn by the state legislature, except where home-
rule provisions in state constitutions vest them with local sovereignty independent
of the legislature. While states determine local government authorities, they often
work cooperatively with local agencies in administering policy areas, including
economic development, human services, land use, transportation, natural
resources, and the environment.
The degree of power a local government possesses is further dened by state
courts. Most states adhere to the so-called Dillon’s Rule (see page 12) when
construing the powers of local governments. A local government cannot perform
any act, make any contract, or incur any obligation not authorized by law.
When dealing with the local government, especially in zoning and planning
processes, it is important that military installation managers know a state’s
established laws governing the functions and activities of city and county
governments. If an installation manager is dealing with two different
municipalities, it is wise for him or her to understand the structure and functions
of each individual municipality in relation to the state.
It is important for
installation managers
to know how state
laws govern planning
and zoning functions
of local governments.
Ofce of Economic Adjustment (OEA) Guidebook
Encroachment from incompatible civilian development is a problem that can affect
the operation and mission of military installations across the nation. In an effort to
encourage compatible civilian development near military installations, the OEA
has released a Practical Guide describing the roles of local, state, and Federal
governments in conducting collaborative local land use planning and the various
tools and methods that can be utilized by state and local governments to prevent
encroachment. Working together, military installations and local decision-making
bodies can enact policies and guidance that are benecial to both parties.
To view the guidebook, please visit: www.oea.gov.
OEA is DoD’s
primary source
for assisting
communities
adversely impacted
by Defense program
changes, including
base closures or
realignments, base
expansions, and
contract or program
cancellations. OEA
offers technical
and nancial
assistance to
adversely impacted
communities
and coordinates
involvement of
other federal
agencies through the
Defense Economic
Adjustment Program
and the President’s
Economic Adjustment
Committee.
12
Home Rule
Many states provide home rule as an optional method for organizing and
empowering municipal governments. An increasing number of states have
extended the home rule option to counties. Under the provisions of home rule,
communities are usually given the authority to draft, adopt, and amend their own
charters or governmental structures and to exercise local government powers
within the limits imposed by the constitution and general laws of the state. These
limits are usually much broader for home-rule governments.
The essence of home rule is recognition of the local authority to act without prior
specic legislative authorization. That authority is reinforced by the limitation
of state power to enact laws regarding matters falling within the home-rule
grant. Although home-rule cities and counties ordinarily possess more authority
over local affairs than do non-home-rule governments, they are still subject to
considerable state control.
Economic and Community Development
Major participants in development are market players, government ofcials,
and advocates of community and private interests. Market players include
landowners, developers, builders, nanciers, businesspeople, and others seeking
to prot from development by (1) selling and buying land or (2) nancing,
building, and marketing houses and business facilities.
Dillon’s Rule
Dillon’s Rule (named for Judge John F. Dillon) states that local governments have
only three types of powers:
• Those granted in express words
• Those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers
expressly granted
• Those essential to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation, not
simply convenient, but indispensable
The second part of the rule states that if there is a question as to whether or not a
power has been conferred on a local government, then the power is deemed to not
have been conferred.
Source: Clay Wirt. “Dillon’s Rule.” Virginia Town & City. August 1989, vol. 24
no. 8, pp 12-15.
“Home Rule”
authority gives
local governments
greater latitude in
land use decisions.
However, home rule
cities and counties
are still subject to
considerable state
control.
13
Government ofcials include elected and appointed ofcials at the federal, state,
regional, and local levels. These individuals frame laws, invest public funds,
administer regulations, and make decisions on plans and projects while seeking to
maintain their power bases and appointments.
Advocates for community and private interests include:
• Neighborhood representatives
• Environmental groups
• Economic development organizations
• Farmers’ groups
• Taxpayers’ coalitions
• Other associations promoting various social and political goals
All of these groups view development in light of their group’s particular values
and advocate for government development decisions that will support their aims.
Some of the participants in land use and development can be more powerful than
others and can dominate the direction of growth.
Development is controlled by rules that include constitutional provisions, laws,
and regulations that govern planning, spending, taxing powers, and governmental
decision-making procedures. While elected ofcials and the courts are the nal
arbiters of these rules, planners are the ones who must understand the legal,
scal, and procedural checks and balances that shape rule-making and strategies.
Because the process and its outcomes are ultimately governed by the local
democratic governmental system, angry speakers at a public hearing and
telephone calls from constituents may carry more weight with elected ofcials
than statistical analyses, impact assessments, and other supporting documentation
for a proposed course of action. This is why it is important for military
installation managers to educate the public and elected ofcials about the direct
Community
groups can assist
installation
management leaders
in understanding
community concerns
and allow the
installation direct
access to key
stakeholders.
14
benets military installations afford municipalities, as well as issues concerning
installations. Various groups, including community and business, are important
allies in the battle to ward off encroachment.
Environmental Advisory Boards and Citizen Interest Groups
Many local governments have environmental advisory boards consisting of local
citizens whose appointments usually last a few years. The boards advise the
local government and can delve into subjects such as public health and safety,
environmental protection and quality, waste management and recycling, and
pollution control. If there is an environmental advisory board in the locality
bordering the military installation, the military installation manager, his or
her staff, and the board members should communicate with one another on a
regular basis, especially when confronting encroachment issues. Military staff
should request or be invited to present supporting materials to the board. The
environmental advisory board needs to be aware of encroachment problems if
they exist and could be an important ally in creating a buffer zone between the
military installation and the community.
Environmental
advisory boards can
be important allies in
creating buffer zones.
15
UNDERSTANDING THE COMMUNITY
Constituents and Groups
Community building is the art and science of proactively involving citizens
in important issues surrounding the military installation. Community building
requires a spirit of inclusiveness. Community members should feel they are part
of the decision-making process, especially when they are impacted by an issue.
The objective of community outreach is to give all stakeholders timely, accurate,
and appropriate information about the issue, as well as an opportunity to have
a voice in the process. Building a relationship with the community (including
neighborhoods, businesses, schools, and other affected groups) helps secure the
public’s condence and trust in the military, and can help avert confrontation
should problems or issues arise. Through effective outreach efforts, military
installation managers may nd and create allies in the community.
A manager should not wait too long to speak with the community. He or she
may discover that someone with a conicting agenda has framed the issue rst,
thereby making it difcult for the manager to convey their message.
Military installation managers should encourage staff to seek out and make
presentations to community groups such as the Chamber of Commerce,
neighborhood boards and associations, civic groups such as Rotary Club and
Kiwanis, and planning and zoning boards. Since important and active community
groups vary from region to region, it is necessary to be proactive in searching out
the active groups in a specic community. Military installation managers have an
obligation to educate citizens on projects that may impact their lives before the
project begins.
It is important to remember that local government managers are signicant
gures not only in their governments, but also in their cities or counties as a
whole. People who ll the top manager or administrator positions in cities and
counties are community leaders in three respects:
1. They help shape the agenda of the local government and propose policies for
adoption by elected ofcials
2. As both individuals and representatives of their governments, they inter-
act with people outside of government and contribute to the overall life of
the community
3. They shape the orientation of their governmental organization to the needs
of the citizens. They consider how the organization treats citizens and how it
facilitates citizen participation in governmental affairs
“Although it is
important to socialize
and exchange
pleasantries, the
ability to discuss
difcult problems and
commit to solutions
that require… time
or money is an
important part of…
a good relationship.
Establishing a network
for communication,
as opposed to a
single channel, seems
to facilitate good
relations… Each area
of similar functional
responsibility presents
an opportunity
for increased
communication.”
– Former Naval Ofcer
and ICMA Fellow
16
Military installation leaders need to have a rm understanding of how decisions
made by local governments directly affect the installation’s mission. The long-
term sustainability of the military installation will depend largely on installation
leaders’ ability to effectively communicate and resolve conict with local and
regional entities.
State-Sponsored Regional Military Organizations
Certain states have developed organizations to strengthen relationships with
military installations and handle specic issues such as encroachment. Most of
these organizations exist as a result of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
and the economic impact that can result from the loss of a military installation.
If a state does not have such an organization, local ofcials, and the installation
commander can work together to encourage the state governor’s ofce to
create one.
Some states that have created such groups include:
Arizona
Arizona established the Military Affairs Commission in March 2004 to monitor
development surrounding military installations. The commission is charged
with making recommendations to the governor on executive, legislative, and
federal actions necessary to sustain and expand Arizona’s network of military
installations, training and testing ranges, and associated airspace.
The Arizona Military Regional Compatibility Project planning effort began as
a result of legislation enacted in 2001 (S.B. 1120) that appropriated funds to
develop comprehensive land use plans in the noise and accident potential zones
surrounding active military airports. The project has grown now to include
support and funding from the United States Department of Defense, Ofce of
Economic Adjustment. Planning efforts are complete for the area around Luke
Air Force Base, Luke Auxiliary Field #1, Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Barry
M. Goldwater Gunnery Range/Gila Bend Auxiliary Field, Marine Corp Air
Station, Yuma, and Fort Huachuca.
Arizona Military Regional Compatibility Project website:
http://old.azcommerce.com/Military/Compat/
California
The goal of the Governor’s Advisory Council on Military Affairs is to
“coordinate and communicate state and federal policy impacting California’s
relationship with the U.S. military, including personnel and their families.” The
Council consists of the Governor, the Adjutant General of the California National
Guard and representatives from the U.S. Marines, Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Coast Guard.
For more
information,
please refer to the
“Commander’s
Guide to Community
Involvement,”
prepared by the
Range Commander’s
Council
Sustainability Group,
available at: http://
www.denix.osd.mil/
sri/Tools/Primers.cfm
17
Press Release:
http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=2470
Connecticut
The General Assembly created the Ofce of Military Affairs (OMA) and its
Executive Director position in 2007. The decision to establish OMA came
less than two years after “Team Connecticut” presented a fact-based case that
convinced the BRAC Commission to remove Sub Base from the Pentagon’s
closure list, which it did. With that decision, “Team Connecticut” and the citizens
of the state preserved a strategic asset of the Navy and an integral piece of
Connecticut’s economy and culture.
The Ofce of Military Affairs’ mission is to:
• Coordinate efforts to prevent the closure or downsizing of the Naval
Submarine Base in Groton
• Support Connecticut’s military families and enhance their quality of life
• Advocate for Connecticut’s defense industry, a major component of the
state’s economy and an engine of innovation and quality production for our
Armed Forces
• Encourage the retention of established defense missions and the relocation of
new ones to the state
• Serve as liaison to the Connecticut congressional delegation on defense and
military issues
OMA website:
http://www.ct.gov/oma/site/default.asp
Florida
Enterprise Florida, a statewide public-private partnership, created the Florida
Defense Alliance in 1998 to position Florida, along with its military installations
and their host communities, to successfully support and enhance DoD
transformation initiatives. The alliance is comprised of designated representatives
from each local base retention and re-use committee, local military installation
commanders, state agency liaisons, and a number of individuals and groups with
statewide perspectives and national experience.
Georgia
The state of Georgia’s Military Affairs Coordinating Committee is charged
with improving installation residents’ quality of life and the mission value
of the state’s thirteen military installations. The committee works to reduce
encroachment, improve business practices, and help secure resources to
improve infrastructure.
18
Indiana
Indiana Code §4-3-21 et seq. (H.B. 1022 of 2005) provides for the Military Base
Council to study and report to the Governor and the Legislative Services Agency
annually on various issues relating to military bases in Indiana. Specically, the
Council is tasked with:
• Identifying the public infrastructure and other community support necessary
to improve mission efciencies and for the development and expansion of
military bases in Indiana
• Identifying existing and potential impacts of encroachment on military bases
in Indiana
• Identifying potential state and local government actions that can minimize
the impacts of encroachment on and enhance the long term potential of
military bases
• Identifying opportunities for collaboration among the state, including the
military department of the state, political subdivisions, military contractors,
and academic institutions to enhance the economic potential of military bases
and the economic benets of military bases to the state
• Studying how governmental entities outside Indiana have addressed issues
regarding encroachment and partnership formation
The Council is chaired by the Lieutenant Governor and its membership includes
legislators whose districts contain all or part of a military base, representatives of
several state agencies, and local government ofcials.
Indiana Code §4-3-21 et seq.:
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title4/ar3/ch21.html
Military Base Planning Council:
http://www.in.gov/oed/2435.htm
Kansas
Executive Order established the Kansas Governor’s Military Council. The goals
of the Council are to:
• “Optimize the military presence in Kansas through removal of operational
impediments, increasing operating efciencies, and recruitment/acquisition of
new missions and force structure
• Actively foster close, effective cooperation among the installations and public
and private sectors throughout the state
• Aggressively pursue initiatives to enhance the quality of life for all military
personnel, active and retired
19
• Promote Kansas as a desired location for all DoD retirees
• Assist in the transfer of technology between the military and the private
sector to enhance the competitive posture of both in the national and
global market
• Explore and develop outreach opportunities for individuals retiring
from military service to use their talents and skills as members of the
Kansas workforce
• Assist in the development, coordination and execution of strategy required by
any future change in missions proposed by the DoD”
The Executive Order provides for the existence of the Council until May 1, 2009.
Governor Mark Parkinson issued Executive Order 09-06 in July 2009 to continue
the Council through February 28, 2011.
Executive Order 07-05:
http://www.kslib.info/Documents/executive/EO%2009-06.pdf
Louisiana
The Governor issued Executive Order 04-41, which re-established the
Governor’s Military Advisory Board that was previously created under past
administrations. The duties and objectives of the Board include:
• Providing a public forum for issues concerning the installations and/or units
of the armed forces of the United States located within the state
• Formulating goals and objectives to enhance cooperation, coordination,
communication, and understanding between the military, the Louisiana
Congressional Delegation, the communities in the state interfacing with the
military, and/or state and local government agencies
• Reviewing and/or disseminating information about proposed legislation
related to and/or directly impacting the military communities within the state
• Proposing and/or sponsoring activities, legislation, initiatives, programs,
or projects which increase, support, or enhance the military’s presence
within the state or which enhance or improve the quality of life for
military communities
The Louisiana Department of the Military provides support staff for the Board.
Executive Order 2009-4:
http://www.gov.state.la.us/assets/docs/2009EOMilitaryAdvisoryBoard.pdf
20
Mississippi
Governor Haley Barbour established the Mississippi Military Communities
Council to “advise executive and legislative ofcials regarding the ongoing
efforts by the U.S. Department of Defense to close, realign, restructure,
streamline, or otherwise take actions that would impact military installations
located within the State.” The Council is also tasked with advising executive and
legislative ofcials regarding opportunities to “enhance, expand, add or otherwise
improve missions, programs, facilities, operations on or affecting the military
installations in the State.”
Missouri
State statute established the Missouri Military Preparedness and Enhancement
Commission (MMPEC) in 2005. Its responsibilities and duties include making
annual recommendations to the Governor and General Assembly for legislative
and administrative actions intended to increase support for the military in
Missouri and improve the lives of military families in Missouri. The Commission
is bi-partisan and consists of nine members, ve of whom are appointed by the
Governor, two of whom are appointed by the House, two of whom are appointed
by the Senate and two ex-ofcio members.
Missouri Military Preparedness and Enhancement Commission:
http://www.mmpec.ded.mo.gov/index.html
Annual Reports:
http://www.mmpec.ded.mo.gov/reports.html
Nevada
The Joint Military Affairs Committee meets on a semi-annual basis to address
issues related to military bases. The Committee includes military installation
commanders, the Nevada National Guard, the Ofce of the Governor and several
relevant state agencies, including the Division of State Lands, the State Energy
Ofce and the Division of Environmental Protection.
Joint Military Affairs Committee:
http://clearinghouse.nv.gov/jmac.htm
New Mexico
New Mexico Statutes Annotated §9-15-48 and §9-15-51(S.B. 333 of 2004; S.B.
287; and H.B. 323 of 2003) provides for the Ofce of Military Base Planning
and Support. The director of the Ofce is appointed by the Governor’s Homeland
Security Adviser and has the following duties:
• Support the Military Base Planning Commission, including identifying
issues, preparation of information and providing for presentations
21
• Inform the Governor and the Governor’s Homeland Security Advisor about
issues impacting the military bases in the state, including infrastructure
requirements, environmental needs, military force structure possibilities, tax
implications, property considerations, and issues requiring coordination and
support from other state agencies
• Liaison with community organizations
• Communicate with New Mexico’s congressional staff
The Ofce was originally set to terminate July 1, 2009; however, legislation
extended the Ofce and it will now continue to operate until July 1, 2016.
NMSA §9-15-48 and §9-15-51:
http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&2.0
New Mexico Statutes Annotated §9-15-49 through §9-15-51 provides for
the 17-member Military Base Planning Commission. The duties of the
Commission include:
• Evaluating information relating to base realignment and closure and the
impacts on the state and local economy
• Collaborating with community organizations and New Mexico’s
congressional delegation and efforts to support New Mexico’s military bases
• Advising the Governor on best methods to ensure the longevity of New
Mexico’s military bases
The Commission was originally set to terminate July 1, 2009; however, it will
now continue to operate until July 1, 2016.
NMSA §9-15-49 and NMSA §9-15-50, NMSA §9-15-51:
http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&2.0
North Carolina
The North Carolina Advisory Commission on Military Affairs was created in
2002. It advises the governor on strengthening the state’s relationship with the
military and protecting the state’s existing military infrastructure, particularly
with respect to urban and rural encroachment issues. The commission is made up
of 30 members who serve two-year terms.
North Dakota
Governor John Hoeven created the Governor’s Military Task Force to examine
the possibilities for future military-force structure expansion and missions in the
state. The goals of the Task Force include:
22
• Enhancing economic development with federal military defense dollars to
provide jobs
• Developing military contracting opportunities in North Dakota
• Establishing long range plans to include private, corporate and civilian sectors
• Identifying initiatives that will increase economic growth
• Coordinating missioning ties with active duty and reserve/guard components
• Identifying opportunities to attract seed money for new industries that have a
tie to the military
Governor’s Military Task Force:
http://governor.nd.gov/boards/boards-query.asp?Board_ID=139
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Statutes §74-5401 and §74-5402 (Oklahoma H.B. 1396 of 2003)
created the Oklahoma Strategic Military Planning Commission to “analyze
state policies affecting military facilities currently in use by the United
States Department of Defense located within the state and by their related
communities.” Specically, the Commission is tasked with advising and
recommending to the Governor and the Legislature state policies that would:
• Prevent the state’s military facilities from being targeted for closing
or downsizing
• Maximize the state’s input into the federal base closing and
realignment process
• Protect, to the greatest extent possible, the interests of the communities and
residents of areas located within and adjacent to such military facilities in
connection with such process
• Mitigate the effect of a reduction in military personnel housed or assigned to
such facilities, reduction in military activity associated with such facilities, or
other changes in either civilian or military activity which have the potential
to reduce employment, business activity, personal income or other economic
growth in the affected areas
• Encourage and facilitate the relocation of mission responsibilities and
resources to state military facilities from military bases located outside of
the state
South Carolina
Governor Mark Sanford issued Executive Order 2006-05, which reconstituted
the South Carolina Military Base Task Force to “enhance the value of military
installations, facilities, and personnel located in the state.” The Task Force
23
coordinates efforts among the public and the private sectors “to maintain the
signicant United States Department of Defense presence in the state” and
advises the Governor on any issues and strategies related to military base
closures, realignments, and mission changes.
Texas
The state of Texas created the ofce of the Texas Military Preparedness
Commission to develop a proactive statewide strategy to assist defense-
dependent communities in the prevention of future base closures and
realignments, and to assist defense-dependent communities in preparing for
the next generation of military in Texas. The commission is also charged with
offering assistance to defense-related businesses.
Virginia
Virginia Code §2.2-2666.1 and §2.2-2666.2 reestablished the Virginia Military
Advisory Council. The 25 member Council serves in an advisory role to the
Governor, “on issues of mutual concern to the Commonwealth and the Armed
Forces of the United States, including exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction over
military installations, educational quality and the future of federal impact aid,
preparedness, public safety and security concerns, transportation needs, alcoholic
beverage law enforcement, substance abuse, social service needs, possible
expansion and growth of military facilities in the Commonwealth and such other
issues as the Governor or the Council may determine to be appropriate subjects
of joint consideration.” The Council is required to submit an annual report to the
Governor and the General Assembly.
Virginia Code §2.2-2666.1:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+2.2-2666.1
Virginia Code §2.2-2666.2:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+2.2-2666.2
2008 Virginia Military Advisory Council Annual Report:
http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/46748ca520ac5b8685256ebe006b09ea/4d
76e202f63ec1fa8525744900691112?OpenDocument
Wisconsin
Wisconsin Act 26 of 2005 (A.B. 399 of 2005) created the Council on Military
and State Relations to assist the Governor by working with the state’s military
installations, commands and communities, state agencies, and economic
development professionals to develop and implement strategies designed to
enhance those military installations. The Council is tasked with:
• Advising and assisting the Governor on issues related to the location of
military installations in the state
24
• Assisting and cooperating with state agencies to determine how those
agencies can better serve military communities and military families
• Assisting the efforts of military families and their support groups regarding
quality-of-life issues for service men and women, their spouses, and
their dependents
The Council is attached to the Ofce of the Governor for administrative purposes.
Act 26 of 2005:
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2005/data/acts/05Act26.pdf
Sustainability Partnerships
Because the urbanized world has encroached on military installations and wildlife
habitats, environmental and military communities are forging new partnerships
to create buffer zones that give the military a safe distance from residences
and businesses during testing and training exercises, while also safeguarding
important wildlife habitats. For an extensive look at partnerships being formed
between the military and conservation groups such as The Nature Conservancy,
Trust for Public Land, Land Trust Alliance, and American Farmland Trust, please
refer to the Primer on “Working With Land Trusts” at http://www.denix.osd.mil/
sri/Tools/Primers.cfm
Legislation
Certain states across the United States have passed legislation to ward off
encroachment around their military bases. The National Conference of State
Legislatures (NCSL) produced the State Policy Options report that delves into
which states have taken such action and provides specics on the legislation. In
addition, the National Governors Association’s report, State Strategies to Address
Encroachment at Military Installations, can be downloaded from their website
(www.nga.org/cda/les/032403MILITARY.pdf), or refer to the NCSL Primer,
Working with State Legislators. Finally, to view a map indicating which states are
actively pursuing range sustainment legislation, visit www.legislativestatemap.org.
“Communities and
bases that don’t
maintain good
[working] relations…
consume resources
dealing with the
resulting problems.”
– Former Naval Ofcer
and ICMA Fellow
25
FEDERAL FARMLAND PRESERVATION PROGRAMS
DoD and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) offer several programs to
help mitigate the challenges posed by incompatible development and loss of habitat
in areas adjacent to military installations.
DoD’s Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative (REPI) has been
highly effective in protecting DoD bases and other testing and training areas
through conservation agreements with local and state governments, as well as
private sector stakeholders. REPI enables DoD to work with willing partners
to protect valuable habitat and avoid land use conicts near installations. It is
overseen by the Ofce of the Secretary of Defense and implemented through the
Military Services’ programs.
The Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP) provides matching
funds to local, tribal and state governments, and non-governmental organizations
to help purchase development rights to keep productive farm and ranch land in
agricultural uses. This is accomplished through easements.
The Grasslands Reserve Program is a voluntary conservation program that
emphasizes support for working grazing operations, enhancement of plant and
animal biodiversity, and protection of grasslands under threat of conversion to
other uses. Participants voluntarily limit future development and cropping uses
of the land, while retaining the right to conduct common grazing practices and
operations.
The U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Legacy Program supports state efforts to protect
environmentally sensitive forest lands. The program focuses on the acquisition
of partial interests in privately owned forest lands and helps states develop and
implement their forest conservation plans. It encourages and supports acquisition
of conservation easements.
The purpose of the Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP) is to assist
private landowners to restore, enhance, and protect forestland resources through
easements, 30-year contracts, and 10-year cost-share agreements. The objectives of
HRFP are to promote the recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species
Act, improve plant and animal biodiversity, and enhance carbon sequestration.
The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) offers landowners the opportunity to
restore, protect, and enhance wetlands on their property. USDA provides technical
and nancial support to help landowners with their wetland restoration efforts. The
goal is to achieve the greatest wetland functions and values, along with optimum
wildlife habitat, on every acre enrolled in the program.
More information on these programs, please go to the Field Guide to the 2008
Farm Bill for Fish and Wildlife Conservation: http://www.nabci-us.org/fbprograms.
html,or contact Bob Barnes, Senior Policy Advisor at The Nature Conservancy at
[email protected].
26
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this Primer is to offer suggestions and solutions for installation
management and local governments to work together. It is the responsibility of
both parties to ensure that decisions being made are advantageous for both the
installation and the community. By engaging with local government ofcials,
both formally and informally, the result will be cohesive, mutually benecial
strategies and/or regulations that adequately represent what is best for the
entire locality.
PROFESSIONAL RESOURCES
AFT—American Farmland Trust
1200 18th Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202-331-7300
Fax: 202-659-8339
www.farmland.org
APA—American Planning Association
1776 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202-872-0611
Fax: 202-872-0643
www.planning.org
CSG—Council of State Governments
Hall of States
444 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite 401
Washington, DC 20001
Tel: 202-624-5460
Fax: 202-624-5452
www.csg.org
ECOS—Environmental Council of
the States
444 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite 443
Washington, DC 20002
Tel: 202-624-3660
Fax: 202-624-3666
www.ecos.org
27
ICMA—International City/County
Management Association
777 North Capitol Street, NE, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20002
Tel: 202-289-4262
Fax: 202-962-3500
www.icma.org
LTA—Land Trust Alliance
1660 L Street, NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202-638-4725
Fax: 202-638-4730
www.lta.org
NACo—National Association of Counties
25 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20001
Tel: 202-393-6226
Fax: 202-661-8871
www.naco.org
NCSL—National Conference of
State Legislatures
444 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite 515
Washington, DC 20001
Tel: 202-624-5400
Fax: 202-737-1069
www.ncsl.org
NGA—National Governors Association
Hall of States
444 N. Capitol Street, Suite 267
Washington, DC 20001
Tel: 202-624-5300
Fax: 202-624-5313
www.nga.org
NLC—National League of Cities
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20004
Tel: 202-626-3000
Fax: 202-626-3043
www.nlc.org
TCF—The Conservation Fund
1655 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 1300
Arlington, VA 22209
Tel: 703-525-6300
Fax: 703-525-4610
www.conservationfund.org
TNC—The Nature Conservancy
4245 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 100
Arlington, VA 22203
Tel: 703-841-5300 or 800-628-6860
www.nature.org
TPL—The Trust for Public Land
116 New Montgomery Street, 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: 415-495-4014 or 800-714-5263
Fax: 415-495-4103
www.tpl.org
U.S. Conference of Mayors
1620 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: 202-293-7330
Fax: 202-293-2352
www.usmayors.org
28
APPENDIX A: WORKING WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
CHECKLIST*
What is the local
government structure?
Strong Mayor
Weak Mayor
Mayor-Council
Council-Manager
Commission
Other:
Who are the key
members of the local
government and
what is their contact
information?
Mayor:
Council Members:
Commissioner:
Other:
Who are the local
planners?
Set up a meeting with them to discuss the overall city/county plans.
Who actually makes
land use decisions?
Who are the active
community and
neighborhood groups?
Who are the key
members of the local
media outlets?
Television station contacts:
Radio contacts:
Newspaper contacts:
Local Chamber of Commerce:
Is there a local
environmental advisory
board? If so, who is the
contact?
Who should receive
updated installation
news?
Community groups
Key members of the local government
Local media contacts
Other:
*For more detail on process, refer to the “Commander’s Guide to Community Involvement” at
http://www.denix.osd.mil/sri/Tools/Primers.cfm
This primer is one of a series designed in cooperation with DoD’s Sustainable Ranges Initiative.
The primer series includes:
✤ Collaborative Land Use Planning: A Guide for Military Installations and
Local Governments
✤ Commander’s Guide to Community Involvement
✤ Outreach for Mission Sustainability: Working to Balance Military and Civilian
Community Needs
✤ Partner’s Guide to the Department of Defense’s Readiness and Environmental Protection
Initiative (REPI)
✤ Working to Preserve Farm, Forest and Ranch Lands: A Guide for Military Installations
✤ Working with Conservation Districts: A Guide for Military Installations
✤ Working with Land Trusts: A Guide for Military Installations and Land Trusts
✤ Working with Local Governments: A Practical Guide for Installations
✤ Working with Regional Councils: A Guide for Installations
✤ Working with State Legislators: A Guide for Military Installations and State Legislators
These primers are available online at http://www.denix.osd.mil/sri/Tools/Primers.cfm
To obtain hard copies or for more information, contact:
Sustainable Ranges Outreach Coordinator
Ofce of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Installations and Environment)
www.denix.osd.mil/SustainableRanges
(571) 969-6774
30
www.denix.osd.mil/SustainableRanges