A CityLinks partnership originates when a donor, or funding organization, identifies a need for assistance to address a municipal challenge in a developing or transitioning country. ICMA employs its CityLinks model to help cities create solutions to problems as varied as financial management and budgeting practices, traffic management, tourism development, and crime prevention. CityLinks partnerships address a wide range of urban issues, with a current emphasis on climate change adaptation and mitigation, food security, and access to water and sanitation services.
Working with the donor, ICMA analyzes the problem at hand, designs a program to address it, facilitates the selection of one or more cities in the host country, and identifies one or more U.S. partners with experience and expertise to share in the relevant technical area. U.S. and host country partners then undertake exchange visits and work together to develop realistic, practical approaches to the problem that will work in the local environment.
CityLinks partners can be cities, counties, consortia of local governments, nongovernmental organizations, professional associations, universities, private-sector organizations, and any other entity that has expertise to share with municipalities. Although most partnerships involve U.S. cities, as suggested above, ICMA has also facilitated partnerships between cities located in the same international region, through which the participants had the opportunity to learn about regionally tailored solutions and best practices.
ICMA facilitates the partnership activities, providing program management, consultation, and other support throughout the term of the project.
For information, contact Judit Deilinger at ICMA.
ICMA serves as the organizational "home" of the Smart Growth Network (SGN), a partnership of more than 35 organizations dedicated to the principles of smart growth and to fostering development policies that better serve the economy, community, and the environment. In this capacity, ICMA coordinates SGN membership, produces the SGN bimonthly newsletter Getting Smart!, and provides resource information and technical assistance to facilitate the implementation of smart growth in communities across the country.
Membership in the Smart Growth Network is now free! Now, anyone interested in smart growth can join SGN, and receive the bimonthly newsletter, participate in discussions on the SGN members listserv, get tips and useful information from the SGN Information Hotline, and get access to the members section of the SGN Web site at www.smartgrowth.org .
To sign up for your free membership, click on http://www.smartgrowth.org/sgn/join.asp or send an e-mail to smartgrowth@icma.org . Questions? Call the Smart Growth Network at 202/962-3623.
Contact Information
Phyllis Gail Shocket
Director, Strategic Partnership Program
202-962-3509
202-962-3500 (fax)
pshocket@icma.org
How many bases have been designated for closure or realignment?
How were these bases selected?
What are the military's initial tasks after the closure decisions are ratified?
What are the community's initial tasks after the closure decisions are ratified?
What kind of environmental impact documentation must the military and the LRA prepare?
What other environmental issues are important?
How and when does the military department make final property disposal decisions?
How does the military department transfer property for reuse?
How long does it take for the military to convey property after closure?
How many bases have been designated for closure or realignment?
Nationally, 97 of 495 major domestic military installations were slated for closure or realignment (downsizing) in four rounds of closures that took place in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995. Published numbers vary depending on how "major" is defined.
Return to list of questions
How were these bases selected?
In an attempt to depoliticize a very political issue, Congress passed legislation establishing the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, which was authorized to meet in 1991, 1993, and 1995. A similar 1988 commission had been appointed by the Secretary of Defense prior to enactment of the 1988 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Act. For each of the years in which the commission met, eight commissioners were appointed by the president in consultation with Congressional leaders from both parties. The commission reviewed base closure recommendations prepared by the Department of Defense (DoD) based upon criteria of military value, cost savings, and environmental and economic impacts. Testimony was taken from experts in military affairs and interested parties before presenting a final list of recommendations to the president. The president could either accept or reject the commission's recommendations, but could not modify them. If the president accepted the recommendations, then Congress also had an opportunity to accept or reject the entire package. Both Congress and the president accepted the recommendations of all four BRAC Commissions, thereby ratifying the base closure decisions.
Return to list of questions
What are the military's initial tasks after the closure decisions are ratified?
The relevant military department is responsible for managing the disposal of base property, which it must do in accordance with numerous federal laws and regulations. First, the military department must assess its needs for all real and personal property at the base. Then it must determine whether another DoD activity has interest in any of the property. Once this DoD screening process is completed, other federal agencies can express interest in base property. After completion of the federal screening process, the military department publishes a notice identifying the property available for disposal. The department then requests expressions of interest by eligible state and local governments and nonprofit organizations. Concurrently, the military commences its environmental impact review process and continues with evaluation and cleanup of contamination.
Return to list of questions
What are the community's initial tasks after the closure decisions are ratified?
The community first forms a local redevelopment authority (LRA) to prepare a reuse plan for the base. While affected communities are not required to form LRAs, only LRAs recognized by DoD are eligible for planning grants and for certain types of property conveyances. In some cases, the LRA is an existing governmental body, such as a city council or a county board of supervisors. In other cases, it is a new joint powers entity with representatives from different communities and levels of government. The DoD Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) typically provides funding to the LRA for the reuse planning effort.
The LRA's first order of business is to determine those state and local agencies, homeless service providers, nonprofit organizations, and other parties who have an interest in using facilities at the base. After hearing from interested parties, the LRA begins development of the reuse plan. This planning process generally provides for significant public input and must take into account the complete range of redevelopment considerations for the base, including environmental conditions, cultural and historic requirements, infrastructure needs, building standards, economic opportunities, and homeless assistance needs.
Return to list of questions
What is a homeless plan?
The final reuse plan must balance the needs of local economic development with those of the homeless. Identifying and accommodating homeless assistance needs is a mandatory element of the reuse plan. The homeless assistance component is subject to approval by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Return to list of questions
What kind of environmental impact documentation must the military and the LRA prepare?
The transfer of property by the military requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), often resulting in the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The EIS is a comprehensive, multidisciplinary analysis of environmental impacts of the proposed federal action and other feasible alternatives. It must consider the potential effects of property disposal decisions on air and water quality, natural habitats, noise, traffic patterns, historic and cultural resources, and other environmental impacts. (Other environmental assessment might be necessary depending on the state. For example, in California the adoption of the reuse plan by the LRA requires preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) pursuant to the California environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Return to list of questions
What other environmental issues are important?
Although recent modifications to the base closure laws have made it easier to reuse contaminated property, the pace of investigation and cleanup still is a potential obstacle to rapid reuse of the base.
The military department is responsible for conducting an environmental baseline survey (EBS) at closing bases. This process identifies parcels that are clean and therefore eligible for immediate deed transfer under federal law. It also identifies parcels which may be contaminated. Where contamination exists, the military must perform a series of investigative steps and feasibility studies before it can select and implement a cleanup remedy. When a remedial system is in place and operating as planned, the military department can transfer deed title to the property. Recently enacted legislation now allows DoD to request that the governor of the state and/or the administrator of EPA approve deed transfer of contaminated property before the remedial action is in place and operating successfully. After property has been transferred, DoD remains liable for the cost of cleaning up newly discovered contamination caused by DoD activities. (There are significant limitations to the indemnification DoD gives an LRA. Refer to "The Myth of the CERCLA Covenant" in September's edition of ICMA Base Reuse Bulletin.) In order to allow reuse to proceed where contamination is present and property cannot be transferred by deed, LRAs and the military often use interim leases as a mechanism to allow temporary use of the property.
Return to list of questions
How and when does the military department make final property disposal decisions?
After the LRA completes its reuse plan, it submits the plan to the military department and to HUD, which reviews the plan for the adequacy of its provisions for assisting the homeless and either approves the plan as submitted or recommends revisions.
When the reuse plan has been approved by both HUD and the military department, it is usually incorporated into the EIS as the "preferred alternative." Based upon the EIS analysis, the military department issues a record of decision detailing its decisions on the various applications for public benefit conveyances it has received and describing how it will dispose of the remaining property.
Return to list of questions
How does the military department transfer property for reuse?
Prior to final property disposal, the military department must issue its property disposal record of decision and implement any cleanup measures required under federal hazardous waste laws. If the property is to transfer to another federal agency, the type and extent of cleanup is negotiable between the agencies. The military department may employ a number of conveyance mechanisms. The most common are:
- Federal Agency Transfer: Assignment to other agencies of the federal government.
- Public Benefit Conveyance: Conveyance for such public uses as airports, education, health, historic monuments, ports, parks and recreation, and wildlife conservation. A specific federal agency must act as an approval authority or as a sponsor (i.e., the Department of Education for educational conveyances.) The military department may convey property for public purposes at a discount up to 100 percent of fair market value.
- Homeless Assistance: Conveyance at no cost to the LRA or a nonprofit provider for homeless needs.
- Negotiated Sale: Conveyance of property to public entities at not less than fair market value subject to Congressional review. Payment terms and valuation assumptions are negotiable.
- Advertised Public Sale: Public sale of property to the highest bidder, provided the winning bid equals or exceeds fair market value.
- Economic Development Conveyance: Conveyance of property to the LRA for purposes of job creation and economic revitalization. May be sold at less than fair market value with flexible payment terms and conditions.
How long does it take for the military to convey property after closure?
Conveyance of property title cannot occur until the EBS, reuse plan, EIS, and the property disposal record of decision have been completed. To convey property by title, environmental cleanup remedies must be in place and operating. The military department must complete and submit to state and federal regulators a finding of suitability to transfer. Negotiations over conveyance price and terms can take a considerable amount of time. Because of these factors, conveyance may take anywhere from a few months to several years after closure.
DoD policy encourages the military departments to enter into interim leases and leases in furtherance of conveyance to facilitate rapid reuse. While an EBS is nevertheless required, the military department can enter into leases relatively quickly. Prior to leasing, a military department must submit to state and federal regulators a finding of suitability to lease.
Return to list of questions
ICMA’s Strategic Plan includes the following strategy:
Establish a voluntary credentialing program to define and recognize professional local government managers and to promote lifelong learning.
A voluntary credentialing program can benefit members as well as strengthen the profession. In addition to providing recognition for life-long learning, it can help explain the difference between a professional local government manager and anyone else who applies for a manager’s job from outside the profession. It offers an opportunity for interested members to promote the unique expertise that they bring to the profession of local government management. Such a program can help demonstrate what professionalism means—that education and experience, commitment to high standards of integrity, and the pursuit of ongoing professional development have meaning and bring added value to the communities we serve.
The board sought member input since it developed a concept paper in January 2001 on how to design the program to ensure that it will meet its intended purpose. Members were encouraged to participate in discussions at state or affiliate meetings or communicate their views to any member of the ICMA Executive Board. In addition, a mailed survey in May provided an opportunity for members to comment on all aspects of the proposed program. Results of the survey are highlighted in the attached article (see below). The survey document with a complete report of results is also attached.
The ICMA Executive Board adopted the policy outline of a voluntary credentialing program at its July 19-21, 2001, board meeting. Member support for the basic outline of the program as proposed in the concept paper led the board to design the program very similarly to that proposal. The board, in response to member feedback, did make two key changes to the proposed program: adding a Credentialed Manager Candidate level and providing alternatives to the Performance-Based Assessment requirement.
ICMA President Dave Mora appointed a nine-member Credentialing Advisory Board to advise on implementation and on granting credentials. The first credentials were granted by the ICMA Executive Board at its May 2002 meeting.
Downloads
Concept Paper on the Development of a Voluntary Credentialing Program, January 2001 (doc, 71 KB)
Article highlighting the results of the member survey (doc, 23 KB)
Member Survey on Developing a Voluntary Credentialing Program (Shows aggregate responses) (doc, 62 KB)
