Mission: Ideas for healthy and beautiful future.

Bio of the planners involved their vision, qualifications, and philosophy.

Caleb Collins North Bend, Oregon
I grew up in a rural coastal community in Southwestern Oregon. Growing up in a small rural
town, instilled in me the importance of input from the local communities concerning their values
within the public planning process. Appreciating the community's direct involvement with the
planning process, I recognize that cooperation from differing stake-holders is vital to find a
common cause that holds advantageous benefits to all assemblies involved. Additional values of
mine include; promoting connection of natural landscapes within residential and commercial
zones and encouraging large scale group dynamics that hold robust relationships with diverse
populations.
My philosophy: The existence of working landscapes combined with open spaces allows for
oral histories concerning historical and cultural aspects to have a tangible characteristic. This
tangible representation of the intrinsic landscape allows for the continued preservation of local
communities heritage. Additionally, these natural open landscapes hold an aesthetic value
presenting the community with a vibrant and healthy atmosphere. Natural landscapes permit
residents to enjoy a robust lifestyle by allowing recreational opportunities locally.
Within the planning process it is important to consider the intrinsic value of having local
open spaces for the residents to recreate within. Industrialization of urban sprawl not only is ugly
but causes a stressful environment. The presence of open spaces allows for residents to discover
relaxation though the intricate simplicities of nature.
List of Qualifications

Working for Government Agencies (US Forest Service, State Parks ) 6 years

Conservation planning 1 years

Riparian Restoration 3 years

Field Study in Forest Ecology 3 years

Forest Stewardship Technician 6 years

Research in Conservation Field 2 years

Chris Ohms: I Worked as a Silviculture Research Technician in Northern Idaho. I compiled

data on tree growth for a variety of areas in the region and have hiked all different kinds of
landscapes and terrain. The data I collected helped wildlife biologists and forest products for
calculations in their growth models. These were then used to provide proper habitat while still
supporting harvesting for the lumber industry. I have been overseas and have seen first-hand
different views and opinions as well as the management practices of different countries. I.e.
Scotland and New Zealand. I have had various related courses: Natural Resource Policy,
Society, and Natural Resources. I have spent time backpacking on various trips to the wilderness
and have a good view of what is wild vs. managed lands looks like.
Philosophy: I believe it is important, if not necessary to manage the amount of growth in a rate,
which is sustainable and healthy for both the community populations as well as the ecological
systems of the areas involved. I feel that a good compromise lays within efficient land
management practices of economic growth and preservation of working landscapes. The city of
Moscow takes pride in its sense home that lays nestled within our rural communities and open
spaces and to destroy that is to destroy what we live for. Communities need the sense of peace
and tranquility and to rejoice in a calm state of mind that only nature can bring us. In the project
I hope to develop a plan for systematic growth that is both controlled and sustainable and that
also maintains balance to ecological systems.
Timothy Barth: Tim is originally from Sacramento, Ca. He had the privilege to be in constant
contact with a local naturalist responsible for creating and partitioning part of the American
River beltway for conservation, which helped in his decision to pursue a bachelors degree in
CNR. Four years ago Tim moved to Moscow, Idaho with aspirations of finishing his bachelors
degree in Conservation Planning and Management. In between school, he had the opportunity to
work for a local surveying firm, log through the university and help reintroduce local plant
species to the area through Moscow Water and Soil Conservation. All of this aside, Tim has had
an opportunity to really establish himself in Moscow Idaho and really does care about what the
city will look like in 10-20 years. He has witnessed what uncontrolled urban sprawl looks like in
California and knows that an Urban Growth Boundary will be paramount to Moscows

controlled growth and success. Tim is invested in this decision making process and looks
forward in helping organizing multi-stakeholder committees in hopes of creating a reasonable
growth boundary after all desired future conditions have been wrestled with and a compromise
can be made.
List of Qualifications

Natural Resource Technician- 2 years

Land Planning with the City of Chelan Internship

GIS, Auto CAD, and Public Speaking

Philosophy: Moscow is very unique to the area in which it situates. The greater area has plenty
of small towns that have only continued to shrink due to the collapse of the logging industry 30
years ago. The University of Idaho at its heart allows for an annual cash flow for local service
businesses. Local firms such as EMSI have popped up allocating more up jobs for people who
would like to stay in the area and provide for a family. Growth is and will continue to happen.
And yet these are not the only things that draw me to the Palouse and more specifically Moscow.
The natural landscape that takes the form of Moscow Mt. and the surrounding agricultural lands
has provokes strong emotions. They also provide an escape when I feel that school or the city
itself is too congested. It is paramount to protect these aesthetic attributes if nothing more than
the shear beauty that these features seasonably offer. Many including myself love to recreate and
explore Moscow Mt. It gives Moscow a small town feel with a busy center. For these reasons do
I feel it important to try and make projections for urban growth for the city of Moscow.
Brittney Haupert- Andover, Minnesota
I grew up in a suburb of the Twin Cities and I am currently pursuing a Bachelor's degree in
Natural Resource Resources Recreation and Tourism from the University of Idaho. Growing up
in a suburb, and seeing a change in the land-use over the last twenty year from being farms and
sod fields to huge housing developments will help me understand the expanding issues that
Moscow is currently experiencing. Andover went from fifteen-thousand people in 1990 to
currently over thirty-thousand people, with a growth rate of 16 percent over the 10 years. There
is expanding boundaries, the boundary lines have been redrawn multiple times while current
neighborhoods inside the boundaries are severely degrading. It is important to limit the spread of

grow while improving other housing and building opportunities within the city, so that the city
will still be able to grow. My neighborhood was right next to 1,600-acre County Park which was
a nice escape from all of the residential houses and I think that it is important in cities to have
places where people can get away and experience the environment. That they currently cannot
experience whiling being in housing developments.
Philosophy: To limit the expansion of the community will help to better the space within the city
and will protect the environment from being expanded on. It is important to provide people with
an environmental space. Possible providing incentive programs for people who are willing to
buy foreclosed or abandoned homes and properties and willing to fix them up and potential sell
them to provide more housing opportunities. A wide range of housing options will help stop
large subdivisions from being built.
List of Qualifications
Job experience

Working for Government Agencies (Army Corps of Engineers ) 3 years

Working for the City of Ham Lake-1 year

Education

Conservation Management Planning

Communication Classes Intercultural Communication and Conflict Communicate

Survey

Auto Cad

Revit

GIS

Remote Sensing

Public speaking

Part II. Our Plan

A. Current Situation
The city of Moscow, rests within the Palouse prairie region within north-central Idaho. In 2000
Moscow held a population of 21,291 residents and increased to slightly over 24,000 residents in
2007 (City of Moscow 2009). Indicated an increase of 3.3038 persons or a 14 percent increase in
a seven year span (City of Moscow 2009). Extrapolation of the seven year span into an annual
count estimates Moscow to hold a growth rate slightly over 1%. Currently Moscow is
prominently surrounded by the farming community which holds strong ties to the conservation
of the prime agricultural land. Agricultural land in Moscow signifies both crop land parcels and
open grazing land. However, with the University Of Idaho being the main draw for development
and employment in Moscow; available land for is primary sought after for multi-unit structure
development. Currently Moscow holds around 10,000 housing units half of which are multi
housing structures (City of Moscow 2009). Outside of the need for continuous multi-structure
units; lays permanent housing availability within the rural landscape. With a growth rate of 1.2%
Moscow has a slight fringe growth on its citys limits.
Downtown Moscow is a community area that is highly valued by the citizens. It consists
of public seating, a playground, friendship square, and provides an area for community events.
What is known as the downtown area has been transformed from a commercial and industrial
business district over the years. Currently, downtown is a hub to the University, providing
offices, government agencies, local retails stores, and residential housing. There has been a
driving force behind the expansion of the downtown area for years. Past comprehensive plans
have called for expansion to protrude North, South, or West of its current location. Future issues
of expansion are the economy and the complications surrounding redistricting and zoning. Also,
maintaining the historic feel to the downtown area while redeveloping it is a concern.
Parks, recreational areas, and open space are a necessity in a viable community. The city
of Moscow prides itself on the wide variety of parks and open spaces it provides this community.

Moscow offers eight different parks totaling over 12 acres in the form of pocket parks (City of
Moscow 2009). These pocket parks are located throughout residential Moscow, to give the
residents in the area immediate access. In addition to the eight pocket parks the City of Moscow
holds two community parks totaling 23 acres (City of Moscow 2009). One of Moscows biggest
successes is the large number of maintained pathways which reaches just over 36 miles (City of
Moscow 2009). These pathways link several residential communities with the University of
Idaho and Moscows downtown region.
Resources used: City of Moscow The Official Website of Moscow, Idaho
(Comprehensive Plan) http://ci.moscow.id.us/planning/Pages/comp-plan.aspx
B.
Goals:

Limit housing developments to specific zoned areas

Identify sensitive landscapes and preserve them for ecological purposes.

Create a sustainable urban/countryside barrier that dissolves city into countryside

Protect regional watersheds and riparian areas to serve their natural role and
deliver recreational assets to the area.

Our objectives
1. Focus on Infill development.
2. Provide incentives for developers to focus first on developing on abandoned and vacant
lots, or refurbishing existing buildings to meet new development needs.
3. Create zoning regulations to limit building in the rural working landscapes outside
Moscows city impact zone.
4. Protect agricultural land outside the city impact zones through agricultural zoning, right
to farm laws, and tax incentives.

C. Were planning on doing the feedback strategy so we will engage people right away in the
process to make sure everyone is on board with the potential growth boundary. We will involve
them in deciding what the major problems are with current zoning boundaries and we will come
up with some alternatives potential growth boundaries and let the stakeholder vote on the
different alternatives. We will use the four levels of support to reach a census on which
alternative to choose. We will make a preliminary choice and implement an experiment to see
how effective that alternative will be. The stakeholders will be involved throughout the whole
thing. We will provide multiple discussion sessions to make sure everyone who wants to be
included has the opportunity for their voice to be heard.

D. Stakeholders
Stakeholders involved include
City of Moscow:
City of Moscow Administration Department City Supervisor Gary Riedner, City of Moscow
Mayor, Bill Lambert, City of Moscow City Council, City of Moscow Building Division, City of
Moscow Planning Division, Community Development Director Bill Belknap, City of Moscow
Finance Director Don Palmer, City of Moscow Human Resources Director Debbie Robertson,
City of Moscow Information Director Jesse Flowers, City of Moscow Sanitation Department and
Sanitation Operation Manager Tim Davis, City Legal department and City Attorney Rod Hall,
City of Moscow Fire Department and Fire Chief Ed Button, City of Moscow Parks and
Recreation Commission and Parks and Recreation Director Dwight Curtis, City of Moscow
Police Department and Police chief David Duke, City of Moscow Public Works Department Les
Macdonald , City Engineer Kevin Lilly, Street and Fleet Manager Tyler Palmer, Water and
Waste/Water Manager Tom Scallorn.

Resources Used: CITY of MOSCOW The Official Website of Moscow, Idaho (City of Moscow,
Idaho) https://www.ci.moscow.id.us
Other Stakeholders Include: University of Idaho Department of Administration. Department of
University of Idaho Advancement, and all other University of Idaho stake-holders that might be
interested or involved within Moscow future growth plan.
Latah County and Idaho State Agencies that would be interested in our effected by the future
growth of the City of Moscow.

E.
Evaluations of Conservation Tools
When discussing how to protect Moscow from excessive sprawl, we decided that several
methods were viable. However, every method contains points of strength as well as
weaknesses. We decided that focusing on infill rather than outward growth would be the best
alternative. Infill development focuses on growth from with the city limits first. This is
accomplished through utilizing abandoned lots, vacant city lots and previously developed sites.
This allows the city growth to occur at an inward and upward direction as imposed to an
outward direction. Infill allows for public infrastructure and utilities to be used to their maximal
potential by limited continuous outside growth and the constant demand for new
infrastructure and public utilities.

In addition to using Infill we have decided to use several other conversation tools to

prohibit rapid and uncontrolled growth. Out list of conservation tools are as follows, right to
farm law, conservation zoning, historic district ordinances, purchase of development rights and
municipal county comprehensive plan.

The right-to farm law allows for areas that were originally zoned agricultural can keep their
right-to farm as areas around them can keep get rezoned into residential and commercial areas.
The right to farm law protects the property owner from nuisance laws involving actions related
to farming.

Conservation zoning is similar to agricultural zoning in that once the lands are

zoned as such it is difficult to remove this designation. Unlike agriculture zones, however;
conservation zoning is usually accepted as necessary. Zoning areas along watersheds and
critical habitat for conservation can protect these areas from further degradation from
uncontrolled growth. While the benefits provided by conservation zoning are undoubtedly
positive it is often challenging when implementing said zoning. This is because of the politics
involved and possible parties interested in these lands.

Historic district ordinances are simply a method for protecting the heritage of a town.

Through these ordinances historic buildings and neighborhoods can be protected from further
development. The downfall of such ordinances exists in their possible exclusion of beneficial
growth in these older neighborhoods.

Purchase and transfer of development rights are similar methods for procuring lands in

and around a city in order to control and restrict growth. Both of these methods are viable for
the Moscow area though the transfer of development rights is more agreeable for lands nearer
the city. This is because development can be funneled to where it is needed as opposed to
where it is convenient. The purchase of these rights works best for the surrounding lands
because it allows for large tracts of lands to remain open and undeveloped while still allowing
the owner to sell their land. The main concerns when dealing with development rights is the
large distrust of government. Landowners dislike trusting the government with control of their
lands. Funding for such projects is also somewhat in question.
F. Description Growth Boundary Plan
F. Our proposed growth boundary plan is to limit outside growth. We want to focus more on
protecting the land outside of Moscow by preserving and protecting the view-shed, then

putting in large developments. We plan on keeping the current boundary and focus on
remodeling and restoring property within the city limits. We understand that infill eventually
leads to a higher cost of living and is a short-term fix to growth. Our contingency plan is to
annex neighboring communities into the current boundary. These communities are comprised
of mostly mobile home lots and although some receive water from the city, other benefits such
as sewer and road access are primitive. Annexing these communities requires cooperation
between the city and county with guidelines outlined within a municipal county comprehensive
plan. The annexed communities would include areas just north of the current Moscow
boundary and southeast of Highway Eight detailed in figure 1.a.
By keeping the current boundary it forces people to rebuild within the City of Moscow and
prevent growth and major developments outside of Moscow. This will also help with being able
to restore the current infrastructure and make the people that are already receiving the
benefits pay for those benefits. By restoring abandoned lots and foreclosed homes we are
making Moscow more aesthetically pleasing, while creating affordable home for incoming
people and families in multi-land use areas so they are close to major stores and will not have
to travel by vehicle to get to these places.

Figure 1.A (Outlined in Red is the annexed communities)

III. Data Need
A. The data that we need that is currently available to us is the current

The populations of Moscow, Pullman, and Latah County - Source United States Census
Bureau

The amount of time it takes a person to travel to their work -Source United States
Census Bureau

How many housing units are currently in Moscow - Source United States Census Bureau

How many people own homes - Source United States Census Bureau

How people live in a home - Source United States Census Bureau

The average household income - Source United States Census Bureau

How many jobs the University Employed- Source Moscows Comp plan chapter 1 page
11

How many student attended Moscow- Source Moscows Comp plan chapter 1 page 11

Moscows population trend- Source Moscows Comp plan chapter 1 page 14

Housing types-- Source Moscows Comp plan chapter 2 page 6

The number of housing units Moscow needs with the current population growth-Source
Moscows Comp plan chapter 2 page 8

How many new housing units Moscow will need yearly-- Source Moscows Comp plan
chapter 2 page 8

How many house are vacant during the year-- Source Moscows Comp plan chapter 2
page 8

Where is parking available - Source Moscows Comp plan chapter 2 page 22

Minimal lot sizes for the different districts- Source Moscows Comp plan chapter 2 page
30

Major employers - Source Moscows Comp plan chapter 6 page 2

Projected Jobs- Source Moscows Comp plan chapter 6 page 12-14

We are going to use this data when drawing out our boundary, because it will give up an
estimate on many people are coming to Moscow in the near future. These numbers will also
help us is figuring out how many more resources we are going need for the future.
B. That data that we need that I currently could not find was the number of abandoned,
foreclosed, or for sales lots in the city of Moscow. How much land these lot sit on, how
much it will cost to clear these lot and to replace them with housing.

IV Implications
A. It is hard to account for growth, since there may be some unforeseen circumstances
that we are not aware of and potential could cause for large amounts of growth or
community members leaving. You cannot force farms to put their land in Conservation

Easements and not sell it to developers. It is hard to coordinate between city, count,
and state governments to come up with a cohesive comp plan. We never know if there
is going to be enough funding to provide these incentive programs. If the government
decides that they dont want to fund these programs any more than we are out a source
of money.

Continue updating urban growth boundaries according to the current growth rates and
make sure that Moscow can support these growth rate by having enough housing
options available to all income levels. Trying to work with other governments and
working with the county and state to come up with growth plans and new zoning
regulations that will help protect Moscows viewshed and farmland.
V Implementation
A. Stakeholders willing to buy and develop foreclosed and abandoned property and lots.
Funding from the government to provide farmers with subsidies and tax incentives to
continue farmer and not to sell their land to developers.
B. Offering deferred or federal loans that are willing to buy and restore vacant lots.
Getting homes from the Federal Housing Administration and getting help from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.