Ohio Urban Revitalization Policy Agenda _ Task Force Report

Document Sample
Ohio Urban Revitalization Policy Agenda _ Task Force Report Powered By Docstoc
					                                               BOB TAFT
                                              GOVERNOR
                                             STATE OF OHIO

                                                       June 19, 2000



Dear Members of the Urban Revitalization Task Force,

   I am pleased to submit to you my administration’s Policy Agenda for Urban Revitalization and the
report of the Urban Revitalization Task Force. I deeply appreciate your hard work and effort on this
important project to improve Ohio’s cities. The Policy Agenda is a beginning blueprint for long-term
cooperative efforts between cities and the state to encourage economic development and revitalization in
Ohio’s urban areas.

    As a first step in implementing this agenda, and in demonstrating the commitment my administration
has to urban revitalization, I have asked Director Lee Johnson to establish the Office of Urban
Development within the Ohio Department of Development (ODOD). This office will act as a liaison
among cities, urban areas and the state to further the exchange of ideas and best practices on a wide range
of issues of importance to the economic development of the state’s urban areas. One key purpose of the
office will be to advocate for, and mobilize resources for, revitalization and redevelopment projects.

    Our most imminent challenge will be to work together toward the successful passage and
implementation of the Conservation and Revitalization Bond Fund issue. As you know, the General
Assembly authorized this issue to be placed on the November ballot. Clearly, urban areas will be major
beneficiaries of the revitalization component of this proposal. It will provide a significant infusion of
resources toward the necessary redevelopment of brownfields in urban areas that must take place for
revitalization to be successful.

     I have asked Director Johnson to again convene the Task Force later this year to discuss strategies
that can be employed to support the passage of this important bond proposal. I will need your help if this
campaign is to be successful, and I encourage you to think about how you can assist this effort.

     I look forward to continuing to work with you on implementing this agenda. I recognize that budget
realities may temper the speed with which these proposals can become reality, but I am fully committed
to their complete implementation. You should also know that the needs of urban communities are getting
attention in other key policy areas. The work of the Governor’s Commission on Student Success, as well
as a variety of initiatives relating to workforce development and technology, will have positive impacts
for Ohio’s cities.

   Again, many thanks for your efforts with regard to this historic Task Force.

                                                     Sincerely,




                                                     Bob Taft
                                                     Governor

77 SOUTH HIGH STREET . 30TH FLOOR . COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215-6117 . 614.466.3555 . FAX: 614.466.9354
                 OHIO URBAN REVITALIZATION:
            POLICY AGENDA AND TASK FORCE REPORT

                            TABLE OF CONTENTS



A Policy Agenda for Urban Revitalization                                    i



Acknowledgements                                                            1



General Overview                                                            3



Introduction: Ohio’s Changing Cities                                        5



Ohio’s Best Practices                                                       8



Summary of Key Data                                                         13



Appendix A: Focus Group Summaries and Notes                                 26



Appendix B: Criteria for Selecting Urban Revitalization Task Force Cities   93



Appendix C: Supplementary Data                                              94
A Policy Agenda for
Urban Revitalization
A Policy Agenda for Urban Revitalization



                          Introduction and Summary
        This policy agenda has been developed by the Department of Development, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Transportation, in consultation with
the Office of Budget and Management and the Department of Taxation. The recommendations
arise from the information gathering and review that has been part of the Urban Revitalization
Task Force. They reflect the actions that can be taken by the state to begin to meet the
challenges and promote the opportunities that face the core inner cities of Ohio. It should be
clearly understood that addressing the problems faced by these areas is neither an easy task, nor
one that can be accomplished in short order. Even more importantly, success cannot be achieved
by the state acting alone, but will require the cooperation of and partnership among all
governmental entities, the business community, educational institutions, and the citizenry. The
strategy proposed here is motivated by the idea that economic development in Ohio’s inner cities
can be the driving force to resolving many of the challenges faced by these areas.

        This agenda is designed to guide the state’s actions over the next three to five years.
Some ideas can be implemented immediately. Others will require consideration in the context of
the next state budget. Still others may require even longer consideration as related issues are
addressed and resolved. In fact, this framework will likely need to be periodically revisited as
the state works on the revitalization of these areas in a more concerted and focused manner.
With experience, we will learn from our successes and our failures.

   From a review of focus group materials, it is clear that many exciting and successful
development activities are already happening in our inner cities. Key elements to these
successes include the following:

    •   Strong Leadership. In virtually all examples of outstanding, results-achieving
        programs, there have been strong individuals and organizations at the local level leading
        the charge.

    •   Locally Developed and Driven. The local community must drive the urban
        revitalization action agenda. It is only with the complete buy-in, dedication, and passion
        of local entities that successful revitalization efforts can be realized.

    •   Enhanced through Partnerships. Many entities working together create the necessary
        synergies to facilitate success. In most cases such partnerships include the public sector,
        the private sector, educational institutions, non-profit organizations and residents.

    •   Well Planned and Data Enriched. Successful urban revitalization programs show a
        dedication to understanding, through data collection and analysis, the fundamental
        strengths of the local community and the barriers to development. This analysis is then
        used to formulate logical and dynamic plans to build on the strengths and overcome the
        barriers.




                                                 i
A Policy Agenda for Urban Revitalization


    •   Focused. Spreading resources too thinly can severely limit the impact of revitalization
        efforts. By focusing resources on specific geographic areas, specific industries, or
        specific issues, much more progress can be achieved.

    •   Promoted and Marketed. Once the strengths and attractions of a particular urban
        location are unlocked, spreading the good news is key toward ultimate development.
        Successful programs almost always involve generating momentum through aggressive
        promotion.

       The recommendations presented in this document attempt to support the development of
these key elements.

        The work of the task force was focused around several key areas.

            •   Land
            •   Housing
            •   Transportation and Infrastructure
            •   Workforce Development/Education

       The recommendations provided here cover these four areas as well as two additional
areas (Prioritization, Planning, and Partnership; and Tax Policy and Capital Access). The
recommendations can be summarized as follows (more detail is provided in subsequent
sections):

Prioritization, Planning, and Partnership
   • Establish an Office of Urban Development in the Department of Development.
   • Focus revitalization efforts by allowing the designation of Community Asset Partnership
        (CAP) Zones.
   • Support planning efforts with matching Strategic Action Grants and require specific plans
        for designated CAP Zones.

Land
   • Work to adopt and implement the Conservation and Revitalization Bond Fund.
   • Expand existing efforts to speed up redevelopment of contaminated properties.

Housing
  • Create a Housing Revitalization Linked Deposits Program.
  • Expand Ohio Housing Finance Agency activity to support single and multi-family
      housing development in CAP Zones.

Transportation and Infrastructure
   • Allow for the creation of Urban Tax Increment Financing Districts.
   • Clarify urban core priorities with the Transportation Review Advisory Council.
   • Develop an Urban Aesthetic Policy for urban transportation projects.
   • Enhance state participation in state route paving within city limits.



                                               ii
A Policy Agenda for Urban Revitalization


Workforce Development/Education
  • Recognize and support the Urban School Improvement effort currently operating through
      the Department of Education
  • Work to ensure that state and local Workforce Policy Boards understand and address
      urban workforce development issues.

Tax Policy and Capital Access
   • Reinstate the Brownfields Tax Credit.
   • Expand for CAP Zones the Job Creation Tax Credit.
   • Promote the Capital Access Program to assist urban small businesses, particularly
      minority owned businesses, to obtain working capital and operating funds.
   • Explore options to refine the Job Training Tax Credit to support training in urban areas.




                                               iii
A Policy Agenda for Urban Revitalization




              Prioritization, Planning, and Partnership
Establish an Office of Urban Development in the Department of Development
        One issue raised during the Task Force meetings is the fact that there is no office in State
government that specifically focuses on urban areas and issues of importance to cities. There are
offices that represent and focus on other geographic areas, such as the Governor’s Office of
Appalachia in the Department of Development, and the Office of Farmland Preservation in the
Department of Agriculture. The mayors of the Task Force have embraced the process of dialogue
and communication that emerged from the Task Force’s work and want it to continue. An Office
of Urban Development is therefore proposed. Establishing by administrative order the Office of
Urban Development within the Ohio Department of Development will demonstrate in a
permanent and public manner the commitment to improving the State’s cities.

       It is envisioned that the Office of Urban Development’s primary responsibility would be
to act as a liaison between cities, urban areas and the State, and to advocate, expedite and
mobilize resources for revitalization projects. The Office of Urban Development would
undertake the following activities:

    •   Facilitate and expedite projects seeking Brownfield-Urban Funds
    •   Distribute data pertinent to urban communities and the surrounding metropolitan region;
        develop a relationship with the Urban Universities Program (UUP) to enhance city-
        university relationships and collect and analyze city-specific data.
    •   Publish a periodic guide to Best Practices in Ohio and the nation, as well as a
        bibliography of noteworthy publications.
    •   Act as State ombudsman and promoter for the urban economic development issues of the
        cities
    •   Assist urban communities with planning activities and help to foster the development of
        community partnerships.

Focus revitalization efforts by allowing the designation of Community Asset Partnership
(CAP) Zones
   While many of Ohio’s communities have prospered during the eight-year economic
expansion, there are parts of our communities that have continued to suffer long-term decline. It
is proposed to authorize the creation of Community Asset Partnership (CAP) Zones by
municipalities with populations in excess of 19,000 as reported in the most recent decennial
census. In addition, it is proposed that the districts be designed as follows:

    •   CAP Zones would be comprised of two or more contiguous census tracts, each of which
        has at least 20% of the population at or below the national poverty level. The zones may
        include other census tracts contiguous to the high poverty tracts and within the urban
        area.
    •   The median income within the CAP Zone would be below the state family median
        income as reported in the most current decennial census.




                                                 iv
A Policy Agenda for Urban Revitalization


    •   In order to focus revitalization activities at the outset, the size and number of CAP Zones
        should be limited for each urban area. In the future, the authorization of new CAP Zones
        should be predicated on successful activities in previously established zones.
    •   CAP Zones would be required to have an oversight group constituted to prepare a
        strategy for the development of the zone, and guide the implementation of the strategy.
        Such a group would require participation by local, engaged private and public sector
        representatives. The group may also include representation by educational institutions,
        non-profits organizations, residents and others.
    •   Municipalities would be required to submit annual reports regarding CAP Zone activities
        and document progress made toward achieving locally defined goals and objectives for
        the Zone.

Support planning efforts with matching Strategic Action Grants, and require specific plans
for designated CAP Zones.
       To succeed, urban revitalization must be locally driven with a strong sense of ownership
from local citizens and community leaders. In the spirit of partnership, the state should provide
matching funds so that cities and the surrounding metropolitan regions can begin to explore the
competitive advantages of urban areas and how they can be strengthened in relation to the
region. CAP Zone planning activities should include data collection and analysis in an attempt
to uncover the already existing advantages of the targeted urban areas, and to pinpoint the
strongest paths for viable economic development. Such plans may also include ways to
eliminate or reduce bureaucratic and administrative obstacles to business growth and
development.

                                             Land
Work to adopt and implement the Conservation and Revitalization Bond Fund
         Recognizing that environmental contamination diminishes the value of older sites and
creates added costs, Governor Taft has proposed a Conservation and Revitalization Bond
Initiative. This initiative was approved by the General Assembly as House Joint Resolution 15,
and will appear on the ballot in November of this year. The revitalization component of this
fund would be principally focused on efforts to clean up brownfield sites, which will result in
economic development activity and the return of property to productive use. Funds could also be
used to support land assembly activities and other infrastructure needs. In addition, funds should
be set aside to assist communities to address brownfield sites possessing a direct risk to the
health and safety of citizens.

Expand existing efforts to speed up redevelopment of contaminated properties
    In addition to investing additional revenue in the cleanup of brownfield sites, the state should
take the opportunity to make a number of additional program improvements that will speed
redevelopment of contaminated properties.

    •   Federal Liability Relief: Ohio EPA should continue to pursue an agreement with U.S.
        EPA such that sites which successfully complete Ohio’s voluntary action program will
        not be subject to federal enforcement. In order to secure this agreement, Ohio EPA plans
        to create a two-track system. One track will be as envisioned in the 1994 legislation:


                                                 v
A Policy Agenda for Urban Revitalization


        highly privatized with minimal agency oversight. The other track will require additional
        public participation in order to satisfy federal requirements.

    •   Unified Cleanup Standards: Today, contaminated sites are often subject to an array of
        different waste management and cleanup programs. Ohio EPA needs to complete its
        process to develop uniform cleanup standards wherever possible. This initiative, once
        complete, will result in more certainty for the regulated community and should reduce
        much of the time spent negotiating cleanup requirements on a site-by-site basis.

    •   Program Legislation: Ohio EPA requests clearer authority to require cleanups if
        voluntary actions are not implemented and there is a demonstrated threat to public health
        and safety.

                                           Housing
Create a Housing Revitalization Linked Deposits Program
        It is proposed that the Treasurer of State be approached to consider the establishment of a
linked deposits program that would provide below market interest rate loans from banks to
homeowners to rehabilitate and improve their property. This would be possible under the
authority of the constitutional amendment passed in 1990, which made housing a public purpose.
The goal would be to improve the housing stock to retain current owners and attract new
residents to the community. The State of Ohio, through the Treasurer’s Office, could place funds
on deposit with participating lenders at a below market interest rate. The difference between the
interest rate normally charged by the bank would be compensated for by the State’s deposit.

Expand Ohio Housing Finance Agency activity to support housing development in CAP
Zones
        With minor changes to existing legislation, ORC 175.05(D), the Ohio Housing Finance
Agency could finance single and multi-family housing in CAP Zones. The changes would
address the existing per capita per county allocation process. The changes would permit OHFA
to make allocations based on need and demand rather than area income thresholds and county
population. This would make available additional capital for housing, both single and multi-
family, in distressed areas.

                    Transportation and Infrastructure
Allow for the creation of Urban Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Districts
        Tax Increment Financing (TIF) techniques have been useful to cities in developing
important infrastructure. Many involved with the work of the Task Force viewed TIFs as
enabling local cities to work with private developers for needed improvements. Some called for
additional enabling legislation. Current law regarding TIFs is restricted to only specific property
improvements related to a particular land parcel. Authority should be provided to allow the
legislative authorities of cities to create a TIF district. This would allow tax increments to be
used for infrastructure improvements within the district and not just for the parcel receiving the
TIF.


                                                vi
A Policy Agenda for Urban Revitalization




       It is recognized that proposals that allow for alternative uses of property tax receipts can
be controversial. However, urban areas have asked to be provided with more tools in their
economic development toolboxes that they can choose to implement at the discretion of the
individual community. Such flexibility and local choice should be accommodated.

        Some aspects of the TIF District might include the following:

        •   An Urban TIF district would be created by an ordinance of the municipality. A copy
            of the ordinance would be submitted to the Department of Development within 15
            days after its enactment. The TIF district would be limited to a CAP Zone or to areas
            defined as “blighted areas” or “impacted cities” under ORC 1728.01.

        •   Local Real Property taxes on the increased value of the land and improvements could
            be exempted up to 100% for 30 years. Such exemptions would be granted on a
            project-by-project basis. The private developer would, in lieu of the exempted local
            property tax, make payments equal to the exempted taxes to the municipal
            corporation. Exemptions above a certain level (for instance in excess of 75%) or
            beyond a certain time period (for instance in excess of 10 years,) would require
            school district approval.

        •   Payments made in lieu of property taxes under the TIF arrangement would be
            deposited into a specified municipal fund to be used to pay for public improvements
            or to amortize the debt service on public improvements. The use of these funds
            would be limited to the designated district boundaries, but not limited to
            improvements to the specific parcels receiving exemptions. Annual reports of
            collection and disbursement of funds as well as employment and investment activities
            within the district would be submitted by the municipality to the Department of
            Development.

        •   Public improvements could include public streets and highways, water and sewer
            lines, environmental remediation costs, land acquisition, demolition, communications,
            infrastructure, etc. Clarification to the current definition of “public purpose” should
            be made to allow for investments in fiber optic and other technology-enabling
            infrastructure.

Clarify urban core priorities with the Transportation Review Advisory Council
         The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) in reviewing the Task Force findings
recognizes the limitations of the urban areas to affect changes to their most basic visible
infrastructure – roads. To assist the urban areas, ODOT will accelerate changes to the
Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC) priorities. Changes will incorporate regional
priorities into project evaluations and the development of specific urban corridor criterion. For
example, projects that support re-investment in an urban core, attracts economic development
into the city or which helps a city retain existing jobs would be given higher priority.




                                                vii
A Policy Agenda for Urban Revitalization


Develop an Urban Aesthetic Policy for urban transportation projects
        In addition, ODOT, in consultation with city leaders, is prepared to adopt an urban
aesthetic policy that will enhance visual appearance of State funded highways. To assist in that
effort funds will be directed to noise barrier retrofitting in urban centers.

Enhance state participation in state route paving within city limits
        Further, ODOT will formalize policy to participate in the paving of State Routes inside
the boundaries of municipalities. In support of that policy, ODOT will provide additional funds
for paving State Routes within cities. Included in this effort will be the repair of bridges on State
Routes in the city limits and the repair of non-Interstate freeways inside the city limits. In
addition, ODOT will continue to examine ways to increase its current fund for repair of high-cost
local bridges outside the State highway system.

               Workforce Development and Education
Recognize and support the Urban School Improvement effort currently operating through
the Department of Education
        In 1997, the report Through the Eyes of Children was published outlining “a new vision
for Ohio’s Urban School Communities”. This report recognized the unique challenges that face
Ohio’s urban school districts and the need for focused efforts to help meet these challenges. This
vision began to be implemented through the Urban Schools Initiative. This effort has shown
meaningful progress and continues as the Urban School Improvement effort within the Office of
Comprehensive School Improvement in the Department of Education. While it is beyond the
scope of this study to specifically assess aspects of this program, it is necessary to continue such
focused efforts to ensure that urban school districts are well positioned to succeed and provide
the well-trained workforce needed to ensure the revitalization sought for Ohio’s cities.

Work to ensure that the state and local Workforce Policy Boards understand and address
urban workforce development issues.
       The work of the state and local Workforce Policy Boards is just beginning. These
boards, formed as a result of the Federal Workforce Investment Act, are focused on a wide range
of planning and development processes required by the new federal law. As the work of these
boards stabilizes, they should be asked to investigate and address specific strategies that can
enhance the state’s workforce development efforts with a specific view toward meeting the needs
of urban areas. The inclusion of Local Workforce Policy Development Boards in CAP Zone
planning efforts should be encouraged.

                        Tax Policy and Capital Access
        Tax policy can be an important tool to influence business decisionmaking and economic
development. The state already has a variety of tax incentives that support economic
development efforts and that are used aggressively in urban areas. The Machinery and
Equipment Tax Credit already provides a credit of up to 13.5% of such investment if made in a
Priority Investment Area. The Job Creation Tax Credit is already available for up to 75% of
state income taxes withheld related to newly created jobs.


                                                 viii
A Policy Agenda for Urban Revitalization




        The tax policy recommendations listed below attempt to provide an additional boost to
development activities in CAP Zones. It is recognized that the costs of these initiatives must be
considered in the context of the development of the next state budget and balanced against
available resources and other competing demands for funds. In fact, it may be necessary for
these recommendations to be prioritized based on feedback from urban communities
acknowledging that some may need to be implemented in future budgets. Since the fiscal impact
of some of these proposals is difficult to measure, it may also be necessary to provide explicit
dollar caps on the aggregate amount of credits granted during a fiscal year.

Reinstate the Brownfield Tax Credit
       Private sector money is critical to the long-term development of our brownfield sites. It
is recommended that the Brownfield Tax Credit against the Corporate Franchise Tax and the
Personal Income Tax be reinstated. Such a reinstatement goes hand in hand with the goals of the
component of the Conservation and Revitalization Bond Fund that should be directed toward
brownfield re-development. The credit should be reinstated at the previously established rate of
10% throughout the state, but be provided at a level of 20% in a designated CAP Zone. The
value of the credit would be limited to $2 million in a CAP zone and $1 million in non-CAP
Zone areas. It is estimated that the potential annual cost of such credits would not exceed $7.5
million in any given year. This will depend on the level of utilization, and the way in which
CAP Zones are finally defined.

Expand for CAP Zones, under existing law, the Job Creation Tax Credit
        The current Job Creation Tax Credit is limited, by rule, to 75% of the amount of state
income tax withheld from net new employees at the project site. It is proposed that a credit of up
to 100% be allowed for job creation in designated CAP Zones. It is estimated that this proposal
will cost less than $2.0 million annually when fully implemented.

Promote the Capital Access Program to assist urban small businesses, particularly
minority owned businesses, to obtain working capital and operating funds.
        Recognition must be made of the fact that small business growth and minority-owned
business growth are very important elements of success in urban revitalization. One of the
greatest challenges to small and minority-owned businesses is the availability of capital, and
finding willing lenders. The Ohio Department of Development is proposing a Capital Access
Program in Ohio. This program is designed to increase the accessibility to working capital and
operating funds by businesses and non-profit corporations with recent annual sales of less than
$5 million. These entities would be either creating or preserving jobs. The program works
through local financial institutions

Explore options to refine the Job Training Tax Credit to support training in urban areas.
        The current Job Training Tax Credit is overly complex and underutilized. The
Department of Development will work with the Department of Taxation and interested
stakeholders in order to make the credit more accessible and to enhance its usefulness in urban
areas. This effort will be sensitive to the level of resources required to support changes to the
credit.




                                                ix
A Policy Agenda for Urban Revitalization



                                           Summary
        Ohio has every reason to be optimistic about the future of its urban centers. Current
economic conditions present unique opportunities for the revitalization of these areas. For too
long, they have been the subjects of negative perceptions and attitudes. These must be overcome
and all Ohioans must recognize that healthy and vibrant cities are important to the state as a
whole. The time is right for decisive and focused attention.




                                              x
Urban Revitalization Task
     Force Report
                  URBAN REVITALIZATION TASK FORCE MEMBERS

                              Director C. Lee Johnson, Chairman
                              Ohio Department of Development

Mayor Donald L. Plusquellic                             Mayor Richard D. Watkins
City of Akron                                           City of Canton

Mayor Roxanne Qualls                                    Mayor Michael R. White
City of Cincinnati                                      City of Cleveland

Mayor Greg Lashutka                                     Mayor Michael R. Turner
City of Columbus                                        City of Dayton

Mayor Thomas Nye                                        Mayor David J. Berger
City of Hamilton                                        City of Lima

Mayor Joseph F. Koziura                                 Mayor Lydia J. Reid
City of Lorain                                          City of Mansfield

Mayor Greg Bauer                                        Mayor Warren Copeland
City of Portsmouth                                      City of Springfield

Mayor Domenick Mucci                                    Mayor Carty Finkbeiner
City of Steubenville                                    City of Toledo

Mayor Henry J. Angelo                                   Mayor George M. McKelvey
City of Warren                                          City of Youngstown

Rev. Floyd Flake                                        Anne Habiby
Allen AME Church                                        Initiative for a Competitive Inner City

Dr. Edward Hill                                         Dr. Lawrence Johnson
Cleveland State University                              University of Cincinnati

Bruce Katz                                              Representative Jack Ford
The Brookings Institution

Representative Priscilla D. Mead                        Senator C.J. Prentiss

Senator Roy Ray                                         Scott Borgemenke
                                                        Office of the Governor

Director Christopher Jones                              Director Gordon Proctor
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency                    Ohio Department of Transportation
                            ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Task Force gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the focus group participants, as well as
the city staff members who assisted the Task Force staff.

Appreciation is also extended to individuals not listed below who helped the Task Force fulfill
its mission.

Ohio Council of Urban Leagues                                  Ziona Austrian
                                                               Cleveland State University

Michelle Park                                                  Jack Dustin
Ohio Parks and Recreation Association                          Wright State University

Marty Miller                                                   Gil Peterson
Center for Urban Progress                                      Youngstown State University

Connecticut Inner City Business Strategy Initiative            Peter Lindquist
                                                               University of Toledo

Robyn Roche                                                    Mary Ellen Edwards
Cleveland Neighborhood Development Corporation                 University of Toledo

India Pierce-Lee                                               David Kaplan
Local Initiatives Support Corporation                          Kent State University

First Suburbs Consortium                                       Jane Dockery
                                                               Wright State University

The Urban University Program                                   Kathy Hexter
                                                               Cleveland State University

Mark Perkins and Jim Hamilton                                  David Sweet
Neace Lukens                                                   Cleveland State University

Frank Kozak                                                    Jesse Marquette
Toltest, Inc.                                                  University of Akron

Greater Cleveland Growth Association                           Kevin O’Brien
                                                               Cleveland State University

Chambers of Commerce of Ohio                                   Midtown Cleveland


                                          -1-
Richard Shatten and Paul Gottlieb                          Franklin County Auditor’s Office
The Center for Regional Economic Issues

David Hetzler and Pratap Rajadhyaksha                      Charles Adams
Dodson-Stilson, Inc.                                       The Ohio State University

Chris Dawkins                                              Samuel Gresham
                                                           Columbus Urban League, Inc.

Downtown Ohio, Inc.                                        Lavea Brachman
                                                           Delta Institute

David Baker                                                David Rusk
Columbus Urban Growth Association

John Gillivan                                              Ohio Department of Transportation
City of Lima

Ohio Department of Health                                  Ohio Department of Education

Ohio Bureau of Employment Services                         Treasurer of the State

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency                       Office of Criminal Justice Services

Steve Adams
Initiative for a Competitive Inner City

The Ohio Commission on Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management

John Stinson and the faculty and students of the OU MBA Without Boundaries Program




                                          -2-
                                    GENERAL OVERVIEW

Ohio is a state of many cities large and small, each supporting a diverse region with its own
economic and social resources. New challenges confront cities as they endeavor to revitalize on
the threshold of the 21st century; decentralization of society and an emerging new economy pose
significant issues.     Solutions for every challenge will grow out of collaboration between
dedicated people throughout the state exchanging ideas resulting in a new paradigm for Ohio’s
cities. The constant call reaching the cities is of change in their place in the economic, social and
political landscapes. Ohio will be a stronger community with revitalized, financially self-
sufficient cities facing these changes and helping to energize their region.

Recognizing the issues facing Ohio’s cities and the importance of urban revitalization to the
state’s long-term economic and social health, Governor Bob Taft called for the creation of an
Urban Revitalization Task Force (URTF) in his first state of the state address on March 9, 1999.
Convened in August 1999, the URTF consists of 16 mayors representing a cross-section of
Ohio’s cities, four state legislators, directors of key state agencies, Governor’s representative and
urban policy and redevelopment experts from within and outside the state. The URTF’s stated
mission, goal and objective are:

       Mission: to promote and develop ways to improve state policies as they relate to
       the revitalization of urban areas, enabling private capital to develop markets and
       economic opportunity, and assist citizens to build personal wealth.

       Goal: to identify challenges and opportunities in Ohio’s urban areas for the next
       century.

       Objective: to prepare specific policies and programs that address issues raised
       through community dialogue and data collection.

The Governor requested the 16 mayoral members of the Task Force to conduct focus groups in
each of their cities to obtain a grassroots perspective on challenges faced in urban
redevelopment. Between August 31 and October 5, focus groups were held in the 16 cities.
Over 300 people, representing a wide diversity of community interests, participated in the focus
group process. All communities embraced the Governor’s invitation to discuss policy and
programs, and not to limit their focus to merely obtaining additional state funds.

The state should – must – manifest its spirit of partnership with Ohio’s cities by ensuring that
state policies and programs encourage and facilitate the renewal of its central cities. Now,
amidst a growing economy with shrinking welfare rolls and rising wages the state is moving to
help cities revitalize their communities.       By focusing on the basics (land, housing,
transportation/infrastructure, and workforce development/education) Ohio can create
competitive, economically strong urban centers across the state.

A few statistics demonstrates the tremendous challenges confronting the 16 Task Force cities:

•   A 20.3% loss in population during 1970-1998, compared to the state’s 5.2% increase.



                                            -3-
•   An 18.5% loss in median-family income (1970-1990), compared to a 1.4% state decrease.
•   A poverty rate of 18.5%, compared to the overall state rate of 9.7%.
•   An unemployment rate 25% higher than the state average.
•   A 10.6% drop in the median value of owner-occupied housing between 1970-1990.
•   A student population with 40% on public welfare, compared to 8.8% for the state.

Summary of Focus Group Discussion Themes

To combat these difficult demographics, the focus groups displayed solid consensus as to where
they want the state to play a meaningful partnership role:

Land
• Cities rank as their highest priority making their land economically viable for economic and
   community development.
• Brownfields need to be brought back into the marketplace, and require a more efficient
   administrative (OEPA) process and subsidies to make the recycled land cost competitive.

Housing and Neighborhoods
• Central cities want policies, programs and funding to retain and attract middle/upper income
   households, whether to new or renovated housing stock.
• Cities want help to revitalize their neighborhoods and to provide the amenities, education,
   culture and shopping choices residents expect.
• Cities understand and recognize that decent, safe and sanitary housing must be available for
   all income groups, and believe that this responsibility should be shared throughout the greater
   metropolitan area.

Transportation and Infrastructure
• ODOT’s TRAC needs revision.
• Cities constantly wrestle with the financial challenges involved in maintaining and
   rehabilitating existing infrastructure and enhancing it to accommodate new demands and
   opportunities. More state financial assistance is needed.
Workforce Development and Education
• Cities want the state, through the new Department of Job and Family Services, to concentrate on
   retaining existing jobs and workers as well as new job creation.
• ODE should encourage and fortify technical/vocational educational opportunities.
• Cities want ODE to consider the unique circumstances faced by both urban school districts
   and their populations when promulgating state standards.

The Urban Revitalization Task Force is a first step in building state partnership into public and
private-sector coalitions dedicated to revitalizing cities. And while state financial participation is
highly desired, cities want the state to undertake additional partnership roles, including regularly
dialoguing on general and specific revitalization issues, providing pertinent demographic data,
and being flexible enough to respond to unique challenges confronted in one or more of Ohio’s
cities.



                                            -4-
                     INTRODUCTION: OHIO’S CHANGING CITIES

The vibrancy and competitiveness of its cities will be the key factor in furthering Ohio’s
successful economic expansion – one with rising employment and higher wages. City vibrancy
can be gauged in a number of ways: business starts, issuance of building permits, employment,
low poverty, homeownership, and median household income. These measures occur amidst a
backdrop of America’s long economic expansion, witnessing a transformation from an economy
based on manufacturing and brawn to one of service and knowledge. An economic expansion
providing the necessary revenues and momentum to revitalize and bring Ohio’s cities forward in
the next millennium. The New Economy additionally measures cities on their workforce’s
education levels, telecommunications capacity and willingness to change.

Ohio’s cities began the state’s economic expansion and carried it from the 19th into the 20th
century by playing a lead role in the national economy as a manufacturing powerhouse. By the
1950s, Ohio was home to more than 18.2% of the nation’s manufacturing jobs. But the
importance of manufacturing as a source of high-paying jobs began to change with the advent of
the information and technology era. While Ohio still commands a significant 17.1% of national
manufacturing activity, only 20% of Ohio workers are employed in this sector, as compared to
47% in the early 1960s. This erosion continues: during the past ten years manufacturing
employment continued to decline in the eight major counties in which Ohio’s largest cities are
located. This drop mirrors the decline of Ohio’s cities as population and business centers.

By capturing some of the new advanced technologies and retaining value-added manufacturing,
Ohio cities are rebounding after experiencing a difficult period from the 1970s through the early
1990s. Ohio built on its competitive advantage in advanced manufacturing techniques to help its
economy grow during the past ten years, a positive legacy of building America for the past 100
years. Using new state and local incentive tools, and pioneering the public-private partnership
philosophy, Ohio cities began the long, slow comeback to vitality. With the exception of
Columbus (thanks to a diversified economy and the ability to expand its border and its tax base),
Ohio cities devoted their time and energy to improving their situation over the past decade. This
effort is paying off, as seen by two examples, Akron with its extensive use of Tax Increment
Financing (TIF) to foster development and Cleveland’s emerging small business community.

Ohio’s cities, though, enter the new century as the home to substantial concentrations of poverty,
unemployment, low levels of basic and higher education attainment and high level of residents
needing assistance. Task Force cities on average have close to 20% of their populations residing
in poverty, and every city participating in the Task Force process experienced a double-digit
percentage drop in median household income between 1969-89.

The emerging new economic model necessitates different tools for cities and citizens to use in
overcoming current conditions and completing the revitalization process begun with local drive
and energy. The knowledge economy requires higher levels of education and skills training,
better use of land, new telecommunications infrastructure capacity, carefully targeted incentive
tools, and an eagerness to embrace change. Cincinnati is seeing evidence of the New Economy
changes in its Over-the-Rhine area as it becomes a home for Internet start-ups.




                                          -5-
But business and employment are only half of the revitalization story. A goal in meeting the
challenges facing the cities of Ohio in the 21st century is sustaining and improving the quality of
life in cities by offering viable neighborhoods with competitive amenities. The goal is for cities
to be places of choice for individuals and businesses with financial resources. Here, too,
progress is being made. A holistic approach involving policies and programs collaboratively
developed with public, private and not-profit participation is addressing economic development,
housing, infrastructure, education and workforce development across Ohio’s cities. The end
result must be one in which central cities are able to compete.

Neighborhoods and business districts rely upon quality infrastructure to support economic and
cultural activity. Cities are not only looking to maintain their existing basic infrastructure, but
expand it to meet the information age. The costs for urban areas to make this transition are
higher than in suburban-rural areas where high quality telecommunications is the initial
installation rather than replacement. Factors exacerbating this disparity in cost of investment
include current state programs and policies. Programs direct state expenditures to new fixed
asset and supportive services, rather than helping with the maintenance of existing infrastructure,
leaving cities with inadequate funds to support new investments.

The difference in initial land costs also makes urban projects more expensive and time
consuming than developing other sites. Higher costs are the rule when undertaking urban
projects, whether they are incurred in housing, retail, commercial and industrial expenditures.
To maintain their proper role as economic catalysts, cities are looking for ways to turn the
financial equation into a more equitable one between themselves and outer suburbs and
greenfields.

A financially equitable situation for cities will permit Ohio as it enters the 21st century to
strengthen its cities, which in turn will buttress entire regions. Suburbs and cities are
inextricably linked together economically, politically and socially. Existing and prospective
businesses and residents view the city and its suburbs as one market. Workers and customers are
drawn from the region – cities and suburbs. A strong city is a competitive advantage for an
entire region helping retain and create private capital investment in goods and services.

Each step forward to revitalize older cities in Ohio underscores the importance of this holistic
approach in attracting private capital. Brownfield remediation for example, will not be
successful unless developers can make a profit on a project. Commercial and retail profits can
not be made unless citizens have wealth to purchase homes and products. Households with
choices, thanks to this growing economy, will not move into cities unless the school systems
demonstrate substantial improvement. Improvement in urban schools is a pillar of successful
long-term urban revitalization.

The Task Force’s 16 focus groups discussed many positive aspects of cities and then zeroed in
on four areas of concern in which the state must become a better partner: brownfield reuse;
housing (both preservation and new market rate); tax incentives; transportation/infrastructure.
Cities reminded the task force that wealth is created by good paying jobs, rising home values and
continual investment by business in new technology.




                                           -6-
Thus far, however, cities believe that the state is unaware of how its policies enable outer
suburban and greenfield areas to provide developers with the same economic development tools
as urban centers without being hindered by higher development costs and other demographic
factors potentially negatively effecting investment. State public policy decisions and consequent
programs on enterprise zones, taxes and incentive funds subsidize the construction of new
developments with grants and low-cost financing while not providing these same tools to cities.
Nor does state policy consider the long-range costs of new development: there is no evaluation
of the costs of urban sprawl in the form of congestion, pollution, or maintenance of additional
infrastructure.

Positive changes leading to revitalized cities will build upon new collaborations between cities
and the state drawing private capital into cities. The state can not assist without cities also
examining themselves, including how they administer the city and operate in the community. It
may be necessary to retain and attract new capital for cities to reorganize and reinvent certain
functions.




                                          -7-
                                  OHIO’S BEST PRACTICES

In addition to asking community focus groups to identify and comment upon the impact of state
policies and programs on local development efforts, communities were also asked to share their
programs and policies that have helped to advance strategic initiatives. Such “best practices” can
serve as models for other communities to emulate and adapt to their specific needs and
circumstances. The best practices that follow are not an exhaustive list of those shared, but do
provide a sense of how local governments across Ohio are being innovative and collaborative in
addressing priority needs.

Housing and Neighborhoods

Just as a region is only as strong as its central city, a city is only as strong as its neighborhoods.
Many variables factor into a community’s vitality and quality of life, from safety to affordable
and desirable housing to schools, shopping and recreation. The following is a sampling of a few
of the efforts underway in Ohio’s urban areas to develop and maintain the vitality and quality of
life in their community.

Since 1990, Cleveland has operated a locally-financed Housing Trust Fund, revised its Land
Bank and housing tax abatement policies, developed funding for second mortgages and worked
with nonprofit organizations and suburban builders to increase new home construction in the
city, increase home ownership in neighborhoods and attract wealth back into the community. In
1996, a record 335 permits were issued for new single and two-family homes, which exceeded
the total number of permits issued for the entire decade of the 1980s. During the same time
period, the median selling price of a Cleveland single-family home increased from $40,000 to
about $60,000.

The city of Hamilton is partnering with Neighborhood Housing Services (NHS) of Butler
County to provide financing for home ownership of market-rate housing as well as the
acquisition and rehabilitation of vacant units owned by the city. Lending opportunities include
home mortgages, mortgages combined with rehabilitation financing, down payment and closing
cost assistance all geared to producing home ownership and community stabilization. NHS also
offers counseling on budgeting, credit, employment and the home-purchase process. Since 1993,
approximately 550 homes have been purchased countywide, leveraging over $18 million.

To promote inner-city neighborhoods as an alternative to suburban living, Dayton created the
Rehabarama Program modeled after the 35-year-old Homerama Show found in communities
across the United States. Historic homes are rehabilitated to include modern conveniences and
amenities while retaining as much of the original interior and exterior structure as possible. Each
home showcased is offered for sale at its fair market value. The program is managed by the
Citywide Development Corporation, and co-sponsored by the Remodelers Council of the Dayton
Homebuilders Association and the Dayton Power and Light Company. More than 5,000 people
visited the Dayton Show in the McPherson Town neighborhood in 1993; some of the visitors
subsequently purchased and rehabilitated other neighborhood homes. Since that first show,
homeownership has increased from about 30% to almost 70% in that neighborhood (the Dayton
citywide average is 40%). In addition to the rehabilitation that has taken place, three new infill



                                            -8-
homes were constructed and are selling for $160,000, as compared to the average sale price of
$40,000 for existing homes. Another example of increased investment is the rehabilitation and
conversion of a vacant grade school into 20 market-rate and low-income housing units utilizing
the historic tax credit program. The second Rehabarama project, located in the Huffman
neighborhood, helped spur the homeownership rate to 50%. As in McPherson, an empty school
building is being rehabilitated into 78 units of moderate-income housing for the elderly. In
addition to historic tax credits, this $5.8 million rehabilitation will utilize the IRS housing tax
credit program.

Cleveland totally revised its Storefront Renovation Program in 1996. The objective of the
program is to rehabilitate and upgrade neighborhood commercial/retail buildings. Building and
business owners are offered low-interest loans or grants, personalized design and technical
assistance. On an annual basis, about 50 projects involving 100 storefronts are rehabilitated,
leveraging $3 of private money for every $1 of public money invested. Approximately 800
temporary construction jobs have resulted.

Lorain began a code enforcement effort in 1995 to address concerns over the condition of
housing in South Lorain. Citations were issued and homeowners who could not afford to repair
their homes were provided assistance through the community development program. Many
property owners who could afford improvements saw the “worst house on the block” renovated
and were inspired to reinvest in their own home and neighborhood. Since code enforcement
began, the average value of a home in South Lorain increased from $45,000 to $61,000.

The Citirama program in Dayton does for new construction what the Rehabarama program does
for existing housing. Citirama, modeled after the “Parade of Homes” programs throughout the
country, creates new housing subdivisions within the central city. A current effort involves the
transfer of the Hook estate house and property to a private developer who will rehabilitate the
Hook estate house, plat a subdivision and develop 12 single-family homes. These new homes
will have a minimum finished living space of 2400 square feet and cost $325,000 or more. Once
six lots are sold and five homes are constructed, the Hook estate will serve as the 2000 Citirama
site. The developer, Avalon Woods Development Company, Ltd., has formed a partnership with
Citywide Development Corp., the city of Dayton and the Homebuilders Association of Dayton
and the Miami Valley. This project represents new construction of middle-class, market-rate
housing within Dayton.

Since 1994, Toledo has experienced a boom and renaissance in creating affordable and market-
rate housing in its downtown, which in turn has assisted the historic preservation, conversion
and re-use of landmark department stores, hotels and office buildings into housing. The first
project involved the transformation of the former Macy’s Department Store into 130 units of
mixed-income housing. Next, came the rehabilitation of the historic Commodore Perry Hotel
into 156 units of market-rate and affordable housing. The historic Hillcrest Hotel is currently
under renovation and will provide 106 units of mixed-income units. Recently, it was announced
that the former Toledo Trust Bank building will be converted into 112 rental units. During this
five-year span over $60 million has been invested in Downtown Toledo via the creative use of
tax credits, bond financing and federal funds to create housing opportunities and revitalize its
downtown.



                                           -9-
Infrastructure and Transportation

Just as veins and arteries are heart centered in the human body, infrastructure and transportation
networks, water and sewer lines, utilities, bridges, roads, water and air ports are the veins and
arteries of a community and a region.

It is possible to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear and turn a problem into an opportunity. The
City of Warren was faced with a dilemma in 1994. It owned and operated a Wastewater
Pollution Control facility that produced hundreds of tons of sludge that was incinerated and land
filled. Proposed federal EPA regulations threatened to shut down this method of sludge disposal
or require massive and expensive upgrades to continue the operation. The city investigated the
various options for sludge disposal and chose the lime stabilization and pasteurization process
(LSP) method as the most cost-effective option. While the LSP equipment was being installed,
the city sought uses and customers for Class A EQS (Excellent Quality Sludge) biosolid, which
is marketed under the name “Nature’s Blend.” A targeted marketing and educational effort was
implemented with various groups including the Farmers Association, the Cattlemen’s
Association, 4H Clubs, soil and conservation groups, golf courses, landscapers and soil
remediation companies. Most of the plants and shrubs used to beautify and landscape city
buildings and parks are grown in Nature’s Blend. An agreement is in the works to begin a
national Nature’s Blend Cooperative Partnership program, and a major national retailer is
considering offering the product in its lawn and garden department. In 1998, the City of Warren
saved approximately $320,000 in cost for sludge disposal, while generating around $30,000 in
revenue. With the public awareness and acceptance of Nature’s Blend growing, so is the list of
customers, savings, and the net revenue that may be spent on other infrastructure investments.

The City of Dayton and Montgomery County sit atop of the Great Miami Valley Buried Aquifer,
which holds a trillion gallons of water and provides 95% of the Miami Valley’s fresh water
supply. It is the primary source of drinking water for over 600,000 Montgomery County
residents and no other feasible alternative drinking water source exists. The challenge before the
region was to develop “business friendly” strategies that would protect its water supply. Two
answers were developed via a collaborative effort: The Wellfield Protection Program (WPP)
for the region and the PROGRESS program for the City of Dayton. The WWP provides low-
interest and no-interest deferred loans and grants to groundwater friendly projects within the
designated WWP area. Funds are used for prevention, emergency response, inspection and
testing, and groundwater remediation. PROGRESS is a City of Dayton program which provides
financial assistance to WPP projects within the city. Low and no-interest loans are available for
up to 100% of eligible costs for real estate, equipment, new construction, renovation and
working capital. This program brings progressive, business friendly, economic development to
the Wellfield Protection Area, while insuring adequate clean water resources will be maintained
for the future.




                                          - 10 -
Partnerships

There is a lot of information about the effectiveness of public-private partnerships in addressing
priority community needs. Although some commentators say that the phrase “public-private
partnership” is tired and worn, communities across Ohio and the nation demonstrate that such
partnerships are dynamic and continue to leverage public and private resources to advance
strategic initiatives.

The Trumbull 100 is a nonprofit organization comprised of 70 local business leaders and private
citizens committed to the revitalization of the City of Warren and Trumbull County. Its first
success was the renewal of the Westlawn area, a fifty-acre site where an obsolete WWII public
housing complex stood, and which was home to 15% of the city’s crime and 11% of its fires.
The Trumbull 100 began acquiring the property and relocating the tenants. Individual members
of the 100 signed personal letters of credit with banks to finance the acquisition. Once the
property was cleared it was sold to the city for cost. There was no contract with the city, it was a
matter of mutual faith and trust. The fifty-acre area is now cleared and redevelopment planning
is underway.

In 1986, Montgomery County Officials became concerned about the county’s future fiscal
outlook. Montgomery County and Dayton were subject to the same economic pressures and
physical constraints that plagued other local governments in the 1980s: rising public service
cost, lower-than-forecast tax revenues, cutbacks in federal and state aid, and an increasing
mobile industrial base. Of particular concern was the fiscal and socio-economic stress affecting
Dayton, the central city and home to a significant portion of the county's population and
economic base. In response, the county commissioners created the Economic Development
Government Equity (EDGE) Program– Ohio’s first attempt at regional tax-base sharing. It
consists of two separate but related funds. The first – the Economic Development (ED) Fund –
distributes $5 million annually of county sales tax to finance economic development projects; the
second – the Government Equity (GE) Fund – shares a portion of increased property and
income tax revenues collected as a result of economic growth in participating cities, villages and
townships among program participants. The two funds promote local and regional economic
development objectives. Twenty-eight of Montgomery County’s thirty jurisdictions are
members of these two funds, representing 90% of the population.

The City of Springfield, Clark County and Springfield Township have devised a way to work
together to develop a large area for the mutual benefit of their citizens. They have executed a
Cooperative Economic Development Agreement (CEDA) which comprehensively addresses
development issues south and southeast of the City of Springfield. Key to this unified approach
was the agreement of all parties that the successful PrimeOhio Industrial Park, at Interstate 70
and State Route 41, should be greatly expanded. This expansion will result in major economic
benefit for the city, county and township and most particularly the Clark-Shawnee School
District, which serves most of the township and a small portion of the city. The expansion will
require construction of a new interceptor sewer routed through the township, which allows the
connection of numerous residential allotments currently suffering septic system failure. The
usual competition (conflicts) between cities, counties and townships were resolved as all parties
sought a “win-win” solution. Discussions resulted in three identified areas with different terms



                                           - 11 -
to suit the differing needs. The final agreement defines those areas, establishes revenue sharing,
annexation provisions, details which services are provided by each governmental entity and
specifies utility obligations. This CEDA agreement is the first of its kind in Ohio and covers
over 20 square miles in area. The enabling legislation for agreements of this type is ORC
701.07, which became effective March 22, 1999.

Workforce Development/Education

Workforce development and education are inextricably linked. Many focus group participants
stated their belief that neither the education system nor current job training programs were
producing skilled or qualified workers for existing and prospective businesses in their
community. Some business owner participants indicated their plans to expand and create more
jobs were halted due to the lack of qualified workers. The best practices highlighted below may
help other communities faced with similar situations and provide models for potential policies
and programs being developed by the Ohio Departments of Education and Jobs and Family
Services.

The University of Akron’s Polymer Training Center’s Sebert Program, working with the Akron
Enterprise Community, trains and places inner city low-income residents in entry-level jobs with
local plastics companies. Funds for training are provided by the federal government; equipment
and in-kind support are supplied by the growing plastics industry. Since the program began in
January 1998, 23 students have graduated and been placed in full-time positions with paid
benefits in the polymer industry.

It is estimated that the Akron area has more than 2,000 highly skilled workers in manufacturing,
machining and the metal fabrication sectors, who will retire by 2001. Almost one-fourth of
Akron’s total area employment is in this sector, representing one of the area’s largest and
highest-wage sectors of manufacturing. A steady flow of new skilled workers is critical in
maintaining this industry’s health.

Faced with this situation, the Akron Regional Development Board (ARDB) forged an agreement
between the University of Akron and the Akron Chapter of the National Tooling and Machining
Association (NTMA) to create the Akron Machining Institute, Inc. (AMI) in 1982. This
partnership provides students with instruction and on-the-job training at more than 100
participating machining and mold-making companies in the Akron area. The Institute currently
enrolls about 240 apprentice machinists and more than 100 pre-apprentice trainees in its four-
year program. An additional program goal is to encourage promising students to obtain college
credits toward two and four-year degrees while pursuing a technical education.




                                           - 12 -
                                 SUMMARY OF KEY DATA

The data presented on the Urban Revitalization Task Force cities is intended to both highlight the
relative strengths of the cities and to shed some light on those areas in which the cities face
significant challenges. The 16 Task Force cities are planning to move forward in partnership
with the State to create vibrant urban cores. From where then are the cities starting?

The following summary of key indicators will point to those areas upon which the cities are
currently focusing, and in many cases making great strides, but also areas where the availability
of new tools would be helpful. Much of the data will surprise neither the cities nor urban
experts, but will help to support the concerns expressed during the focus groups. The cities
recognize their relative strengths and weaknesses. The following indicators share that
information with a wider audience, and highlight the opportunities for these cities, and the
challenges faced. Of course, the following data does not reflect the attitudes, values, and
commitment of the cities’ residents. Nor does it reflect what will happen as the cities take
advantage of opportunities and meet challenges.

The key indicators will cover aspects of housing, poverty, employment, brownfields and the
environment, education, government finance, and crime and safety.           These data are not
concluding statements about Ohio’s urban areas; rather, the indicators are the starting points for
Ohio’s urban re-energizing city-State partnership.

Population Trends

A city’s population is critical to its viability by providing the employees and customers of
businesses, a source of funding for city services through taxes, and homeowners who are vested
in its future. As cities lose population (the first to go are most often middle and higher- income
households), the ability of a city to maintain its vibrancy, and its potential for growth, are
reduced. During 1970-1998:
• The 16 Task Force cities sustained a loss in population averaging 20.3% as compared to the
     State’s overall increase of about 5.2%.
• Only Columbus increased in population (24.1%).
• Cleveland’s 34% loss represented the highest drop; Hamilton’s decrease of 8.6% represented
     the smallest loss.

In the more recent 1990-98 time period, the 16 Task Force cities experienced the following:
• The average rate of population loss was 4.7%. Fourteen of the 16 cities lost population;
    Columbus and Hamilton increased in population by 5.9% and 0.6% respectively.
• Youngstown’s 11.6% drop represented the greatest loss of population.
• Cleveland’s loss slowed to a 1.9% decrease. In the case of Cleveland, City efforts to increase
    the amount of new housing stock through land banking and other housing programs has
    generated positive results.




                                          - 13 -
      Population Change 1990-1998




                                                                                 Youngstown




                                                                                                                                                                                  Steubenville
                                                                                                                Springfield
             10



                                          Cincinnati
              5
  % Change




              0
                   Columbus




                                                                                                                              Hamilton


                                                                                                                                                  Mansfield
                              Cleveland




                                                                                                                                                                     Portsmouth
                                                                Akron




                                                                                                       Lorain
              -5




                                                                                              Canton
                                                       Toledo




                                                                                                                                                              Lima
                                                                                                                                         Warren
                                                                        Dayton
             -10

             -15



While the overall population of a city is important, also of concern is the number of families
within it. Families demand key services such as well-run schools and an active schedule of
social and cultural activities. Among the cities, the loss of family households has been
substantial. From 1970-1990:
• Only Columbus witnessed an increase in the number of families, paralleling its total
    population growth.
• The percent change in families over this period ranged from a loss of 32.3% in Cleveland to a
    5.8% drop in Hamilton and Mansfield.
• Overall, Ohio experienced an 8.7% increase in the number of families.

Income is a critical measure of the strength of a city’s economy. From 1969 to 1989, the 16
Task Force cities recorded an 18.5% loss in median family income, as compared to the state’s
1.4% loss. Results are mixed when considering median household income, which includes
single individuals living alone. For the 16 Task Force cities, median household income showed
an average negative growth rate of 1.5% as compared to an average Statewide increase of 9.6%.

Poverty is a significant indicator of the quality of life and opportunities for a city’s residents.
The State’s overall rate of family poverty is approximately 9.7%, as compared to the 16 Task
Force cities’ 18.5% average. The percentage of a city’s children in poverty highlights all too
well the challenges the 16 cities face. From 1969 to 1989, Task Force cities saw the percentage
of their city’s children living in poverty increase by an average of 79%, as compared to a 33%
statewide increase in children in poverty.

The picture of poverty is not complete without addressing female-headed households. Ohio had
an increase in single-parent female households of 121%; among the 16 Task Force cities, the
increase was 123%.

A final population-related statistic to consider is unemployment. A higher unemployment rate in
a city is not simply a result of less employment opportunities, but also an indication of the skills
of the workforce, the availability of transportation, and the network and knowledge necessary to
acquire employment. Unemployment in the cities (excluding both Steubenville and Portsmouth



                                                                                                        - 14 -
because unemployment figures are only reported at the county level), averaged 5.65% in 1998,
as compared to a 4.3% state average. Among the 14 cities, 1998 unemployment ranged from a
low of 3% in Columbus, to a high of 10.9% in Youngstown.

Brownfields and Environment

The environmental conditions of the 16 Task force cities evolved from decades of varied land
use, yet it has been only recently that serious analysis of their environmental condition has been
undertaken.

Environmental data on the condition of Ohio’s cites is in a variety of formats and places. A
range of agencies and organizations, for example the OEPA, US EPA, ODNR, as well as
advocacy groups and academic researchers collect and maintain databases. For example, the
OEPA collects data on conditions of drinking water systems, and wastewater at the city level.
While other data on air quality and watersheds cover areas larger than cities. In addition,
environmental conditions vary throughout cities based on past and current land uses. A growing
challenge is to integrate all types of current data into a format that provides information and
knowledge about the environmental conditions of daily life in urban Ohio. One aspect of
environmental data that presents some challenges is brownfields.

An important aspect of a city’s environment is its number of brownfields. Because of Ohio’s
history as a manufacturing powerhouse, the number of potentially contaminated sites is likely to
be substantially higher than the figures reported by the OEPA, USEPA, other federal and State
agencies, and groups such as the U.S. Conference of Mayors and National Conference of State
Legislators. The following difficulties arise in determining the extent of brownfield
contamination:
• First, brownfield definitions must be considered. One useful definition of brownfields defines
    them as former commercial or industrial sites with perceived or actual environmental
    contamination. The most publicly used definition of brownfields, holds that brownfields are
    necessarily contaminated. Though, this is not always the case.
• The second issue is one of knowledge. Cities and relevant agencies often only know which
    parcels are contaminated when development of the parcel is proposed or occurs, even if it is
    identified as a brownfield.
Consequently, any reporting of brownfields reflects a rough approximation, pointing to the need
for further research into brownfields in Ohio.

Land use in the counties containing and surrounding the sixteen Task Force cities has changed in
recent decades. More land is now considered urbanized, and there has been a loss of farmland.
This points to an outward movement of residents and business activity that forever changes the
physical environment, and adversely impacts cities.

Pace of Urbanization: Ohio’s cities and metropolitan areas have witnessed the following:
• In 1992, 11 percent of Ohio’s land was considered urbanized as compared to 9% in 1982 and
   10% in 1987. The trend appears to be a 1% increase in urbanized land every five years.
• In nominal terms, 260,900 acres were converted to urban land use from 1987 to 1992.



                                          - 15 -
•   Some variation exists between metropolitan areas, with the Cleveland and Akron
    metropolitan areas carrying the highest overall percentage (28% of total land area was
    urbanized in 1992), while the Cincinnati metropolitan area follows closely behind with 27%
    of its land urbanized.
•   Between 1982 and 1992, each of the metropolitan areas registered an increase in urbanized
    land. The largest percent increases occurred in the Hamilton metro area, 51%; in the Lima
    metro area, 35%; and in the Columbus metro area, 27%.
•   Variation exists between the “core” counties that contain the central city, and the outer
    counties. The outer counties within each metropolitan area are far less urbanized –
    urbanization percentages are under 10% for some counties within existing metropolitan
    areas, and nearly all of the non-core counties are less than 25% urban. But these are also the
    counties that registered the highest percentage increase in urban lands between 1982 and
    1992. Outlying counties urbanized much more rapidly than core counties. This is partly
    because they began with a much smaller base of urban land and also because in some cases –
    notably Cuyahoga County – the core counties are almost fully urbanized.
•   Cuyahoga and Hamilton are nearly completely built out (72% and 70 %, respectively, of the
    counties’ land area is now urbanized).
•   Counties in the Columbus metropolitan area recorded the highest percentage increases in
    urbanized land. Franklin County’s urbanized land grew by 24 % from 1982 to 1992, and
    Delaware County’s urbanized land increased by almost 75%.
•   Two counties adjacent to Cincinnati’s Hamilton County—Clermont and Warren Counties—
    experienced a growth in urbanized land of 40 % and 39%, respectively, from 1982 to 1992.

Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Property

A city’s housing market not only reflects the ability of the city to provide shelter for its residents,
but also its ability to attract middle and upper-income home buyers. The ability of a city to
generate interest as a place to live is reflected by both the age and the value of the housing stock.
Both measures indicate the types of amenities available (for example, two or more bathrooms),
that are often demanded by middle and higher-income homebuyers.

The purchase of a home is often the largest investment made by an individual during his/her
lifetime, and therefore homeownership provides an indication of the commitment of residents to
the city, and the city to its residents. During 1970-1990, the 16 Task Force cities experienced the
following:
• Rates of homeownership generally decreased 3.4%, for an average rate of 55.9%.
• Cleveland’s homeownership rate increased by 1.8%; Steubenville’s rose by 0.4%.
• Dayton’s rate of ownership remained unchanged.
• Columbus, one of only two cities to increase in population, saw a decrease of 4.4% in
     homeownership.

The value of owner-occupied housing is another indicator of a city’s housing market. The
average median value of owner-occupied housing in the 16 Task force cities was $45,075 in
1990, reflecting a 10.6% drop between 1970-1990.




                                            - 16 -
The age of housing stock is a third indicator of the health of the housing market. In 1990, the
median age of the housing stock in the Task Force cities was 42 years.

With respect to new housing, recent data indicates that the overwhelming majority of it is being
constructed in suburban and exurban areas (only Columbus exceeded its suburbs in the
construction of new housing units between 1990-1997).

         NEW HOUSING UNITS, 1990 - 1997
35,000

                                           Central City
30,000
                                           Remainder of County


25,000


20,000


15,000


10,000


 5,000


    0
                                                                           n
                   s




                 on

                 nd

                 do




                  in

                  ld


                   n




                                                                           n




                                                                          th
                                                                           a




                                                                           e
                    i




                 on


                  ld




                                                                           n
                 at
              bu




                                                                        ill
                                                            m




                                                                         w
                to




                                                                        to




                                                                        re
               ie

              ra

               ie




                                                                      ou
            nn


             kr

             la

             le

             ilt




                                                                     to




                                                                     nv
                                                          Li

                                                                    an
            ay




                                                                     ar
            gf




            sf
   um




           Lo
          To
          ve




         am




                                                                  sm
           A




                                                                   gs
          ci




                                                                   W

                                                                  be
         an


          D
        rin




                                                                   C
        le
       in
 ol




                                                               un
       H




                                                                rt
                                                               eu
      M
     Sp
      C
      C
C




                                                             Po
                                                            Yo




                                                            St




When homeowners move from the central city, they are increasingly skipping the inner suburbs
and relocating to exurban areas, further exacerbating the problems resulting from urban sprawl.

The value and amount of commercial and industrial property in a city is an essential part of its
tax base. Traditionally, central cities were the home to major industrial and commercial
operations, while the suburbs were bedroom communities. In recent decades, this has changed
substantially. The value of the urban share of new industrial and commercial construction in
Ohio has decreased relative to that of suburbs and exurban areas. The following charts highlight
the position of the central-city share of new construction values relative to surrounding areas’
values.




                                          - 17 -
                                             OHIO NEW INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION VALUE 1980 - 1997*
                     60
                                                                                       28 Adjacent Counties
                                                                                       Central Suburbs

                     50                                                                7 Central Cities
                                                                                       52 Rural Counties


                     40
 PERCENT




                     30




                     20




                     10




                      0
                           1980   1981   1982   1983   1984   1985   1986   1987   1988     1989   1990     1991   1992   1993   1994   1995     1996   1997

           * 3 - Year Rolling Average
                                                                                       YEAR




                                             OHIO NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION VALUE 1980 - 1997*

                          50                                                                                              28 Adjacent Counties
                                                                                                                          Central Suburbs
                          45
                                                                                                                          7 Central Cities
                          40                                                                                              52 Rural Counties


                          35
           PERCENT




                          30

                          25

                          20

                          15

                          10

                           5

                           0
                               1980   1981   1982   1983   1984   1985   1986   1987    1988   1989   1990    1991   1992   1993   1994      1995   1996   1997

              * 3 - Year Rolling Average                                                 YEAR




Since 1983, property values across the three property types (residential, commercial, and
industrial), have dropped in the smaller Task force cities, and showed mixed results in the larger
ones. As the value of this property drops, the amount of tax generated for municipal services and
investment recedes. The following table highlights the change in assessed property values across
the sixteen cities.




                                                                                                          - 18 -
Percentage Change in Property Value * 1983/84 – 1997/98

City                    Residential            Commercial              Industrial
Akron                   27.3                   9.1                     -22.1
Canton                  .4                     -40.6                   -39.8
Cincinnati              28.7                   39.8                    -20.2
Cleveland               14.1                   31.6                    -26.5
Columbus                58.6                   44.5                    29.0
Dayton                  11.1                   -13.8                   -34.5
Hamilton                8.2                    7.6                     -11.2
Lima                    -12.9                  1.6                     -2.4
Lorain                  -5.1                   -18.9                   -43.5
Mansfield               -7.2                   -12.9                   -23.9
Portsmouth              -10.4                  -3.0                    -49.3
Springfield             11.5                   27.6                    35.0
Steubenville            -15.9                  -11.3                   -66.7
Toledo                  -8.0                   -6.4                    -18.1
Warren                  -26.6                  -12.1                   -36.1
Youngstown              -43.3                  -15.1                   -54.3
*Adjusted for inflation

Education

Education and economic growth are inextricably intertwined. Accordingly, to the extent that the
16 Task Force cities lag in educational attainment measures, so too will they likely fall behind in
economic growth. Thus, it is important to see how their educational profiles position them for the
future.

Over the past several decades, the 16 cities have witnessed a steady increase in the number of
residents possessing either a high school diploma or a General Equivalency Diploma (GED).
From 1970 to 1990, the Task Force cities saw an increase of 22% in the percentage of residents
over 25 years old possessing either a high school diploma or GED.

Debate often occurs regarding the impact of college-educated individuals on a city’s economy.
Because the New Economy requires the use of a variety of analytical, decision-making, and
innovation skills, the educational achievements of urban adults will be critical in the mix of skills
impacting a city’s success. Additionally, highly educated residents often demand amenities,
services, and cultural attractions that help to make the city attractive to new economy firms as
well as to other businesses and visitors.

Among the 16 cities, those residents over 25 with a Bachelor’s degree or higher comprised
13.1% of the population in 1990; the high was 24.6% (Columbus and Toledo), while the low was
7.7% (Lorain). This compares to a statewide average of 17% in 1990. During 1970-1990, the
average percentage increase in the cities’ population over age 25 with a BA or higher was 5.9%;




                                           - 19 -
Toledo registered an increase of over 16%. All cities showed an increase in the percent of
population possessing higher education degrees.

Cites are concerned about their future workforce; a review of the profiles of public schools in the
16 cities justifies their concerns.

An important measure reflecting the unique challenges faced by urban school districts is the
number of children from families receiving public welfare benefits. The average percentage of
students covered by welfare in the 16 Task Force cities in 1998 was 39.57%, compared to a
statewide average of 8.79%.

A further area of concern is the average income of residents of school districts. In 1998, the
average income for all state school districts was $34,620; for Task Force cities the average was
$28,056.

The question of funding levels is often debated as it pertains to issues of school performance.
For the 16 Task Force cities, the average expenditure per pupil in 1998 was $6552; larger cities
averaged $6905, smaller ones averaged $6199. Statewide, the average per pupil expenditure was
$5858. Since 1987, per pupil expenditures have essentially maintained the relationship cited
above. In general, urban school districts have spent more per pupil than other districts. This
may reflect the unique challenges facing urban school districts.

The 9th and 12th grade proficiency tests are now widely accepted as measures of the success of
school districts. The following maps indicate that poor rates of passage on both tests are not
isolated to urban areas but instead to districts of high rates of poverty. Analysis of the per pupil
spending as compared to passage rates on the 12th grade proficiency test, conducted by the
Institute for Policy Studies at the University of Akron, indicate little relationship between the
two. The difference in passage rates therefore is most likely explained by non-educational
factors such as poverty, and family situations. The following maps show passage rates on the
1997 9th and 12th grade proficiency tests. The scale used sums the proportion of students passing
each section of the test. For example, if all of the students in a district passed all four parts of the
9th grade test, the school district would receive a 400, and place in the highest category on the
map. On the other hand, if only 80% of the students passed each of the sections, the school
district would receive a 320.




                                             - 20 -
                          1997 Ninth Grade Summary Pass Rate




    Ohio School Districts

            No Data

            1 - 299

            300 - 326

            327 - 341

            342 - 360

            361 - 399




Source:   The Institute for Policy Studies

Urban and Policy Research

The University of Akron



Prepared by:   Ohio Department of Development,

Office of Strategic Research (December 1999)




                      1997 Twelfth Grade Summary Pass Rate




    Ohio School Districts

            No Data

            138.8 - 258.1

            258.2 - 294.7

            294.8 - 324.0

            324.1 - 352.5

            352.6 - 460.9




Source:   The Institute for Policy Studies

Urban and Policy Research

The University of Akron



Prepared by:   Ohio Department of Development,

Office of Strategic Research (December 1999)




                                                 - 21 -
Government Finance

Each city is faced with its own unique constraints when choosing how to fund its services and
capital investments. Cities are not private businesses with a myriad of capital options. To meet
new obligations, a city must reduce expenditures on other services, increase debt, or raise taxes.
By increasing debt though, a city must find funds to service that debt, which in turn is found by
reducing services or increasing taxes. Choosing between these two alternatives to service debt
may work against a city’s effort to develop a strong economy and fiscal base for the city by
reducing funds available for the services businesses and residents find attractive. Therefore, the
following discussion should be viewed as a broad picture of debt capacity and debt use, and does
not consider the particular circumstances of each city, but rather presents a broad analysis based
on industry standards. Secondly, this section can be viewed as a call to cities to explore their
debt and fiscal policies, and to formulate specific debt policies that consider current and future
municipal finances and economic development investments.

Several measures indicate the debt situation of cities: net general obligation debt, net debt per
capita, debt capacity, and debt effort. Debt capacity identifies the normal range of a city’s
participation in debt markets.

In general, the 16 Task Force cities are not fully using their debt capacity. This practice partially
reflects conservative state regulations, but also culture. More importantly, the debt posture of the
cities reflects the reality of a generally shrinking, or stagnating tax base that may not be able to
contribute to increased debt service, as well as the impacts of costs particular to cities.

The calculation of debt capacity identifies the ceiling for the “safe” range of debt use of cities,
according to industry standards. Capacity is generally considered to be 10% of the city’s
assessed valuation. While Ohio’s public finance laws are more restrictive than those
recommended by the credit rating industry, the following data is still a good indicator of the debt
possibilities available to the cities, though does not reflect the decisions cities should make.

The debt “effort” (debt use) of a city defines the current level of bonded debt relative to the
available capacity, as determined by funds currently received by the city, and not expenditures.
In calculating effort one takes the ratio of net general obligation debt to the debt capacity
(defined above). The following tables highlight the percent of debt capacity used, or the “effort”.

In 1998, large cities used an average of 41% of their available capacity, leaving 60% of bonded
debt capacity (which the credit industry deems relatively safe) unutilized. Three of the larger
Task Force cities had bonded debt above 50% of their debt capacity; Columbus, with a growing
tax/assessed valuation base and geography, was the highest with 66.2% and Dayton the lowest
with only 14.7%.




                                           - 22 -
Tax Capacity and “Effort” of the Large Task Force Cities

           1998                        1998                    1998                    1998
           Assessed                    Net G.O.                Debt                    Debt
City       Valuation                   Debt                   Capacity                 “Effort”
Akron      $2,664,647,685              $154,706,205          $266,464,768             58.1%
Canton      $838,471,858                $14,990,000           $83,847,185             17.9%
Cincinnati $4,819,310,580              $162,340,000          $481,931,058             33.7%
Cleveland  $5,375,242,416              $321,585,000          $537,524,241             59.8%
Columbus $10,482,483,666               $695,264,871        $1,048,248,366             66.2%
Dayton     $1,723,668,518               $ 25,365,054         $172,366,851             14.7%
Toledo     $3,450,882,253              $128,833,337          $345,088,253             37.3%
Youngstown   $569,343,250                $26,735,000          $56,934,325             47.0%

The debt effort of the eight smaller cities is lower than the larger cities, reflecting differing fiscal
constraints. In 1998, these cities, on average, used less than 20% of available capacity, leaving
80% of industry-termed “safe” debt unused.

Tax Capacity and “Effort” of Tier Two Cities

             1998                      1998                    1998                    1998
             Assessed                  Net G.O.                Debt                    Debt
City         Valuation                 Debt                    Capacity                “Effort”
Hamilton     $702,529,956              $26,695,617             $70,252,995             38.0%
Lima         $332,529,510               $2,503,000             $33,252,951              7.5%
Lorain       $823,678,974              $18,193,000             $82,367,897             22.1%
Mansfield    $563,918,383              $21,170,000             $56,391,838             37.5%
Portsmouth $174,174,400                 $1,445,000             $17,417,440              8.3%
Springfield  $641,240,775               $1,904,353             $64,124,077              3.0%
Steubenville $206,257,753               $1,377,400             $20,625,775              6.7%
Warren       $442,067,709               $8,760,000             $44,206,770             19.8%

As the above table indicates, the eight smaller cities exhibit differing levels of debt effort, an
indication of the uniqueness of each city’s fiscal situation.

The majority of the cities witnessed the assessed valuation of real and personal property outpace
inflation. While this is critical, of greater importance is each city’s share of the region’s assessed
valuation. Only one of the eight larger cities, Columbus, dominated its region. The remaining
six cities (Canton was excluded for lack of data), do not possess the majority of the regions
assessed valuation. Similar to the larger cities, the eight smaller cities generally outpaced
inflation in the growth of assessed valuation.




                                             - 23 -
Crime and Safety

A city is affected by crime both in real and perceived terms. The reality of crime increases both
the economic and human costs associated with living in, and doing business in, a given city.
Perceptions of crime affect a city by limiting the interactions visitors have with the city, and
views of the city as a desirable place to live.

Overall, the crime rate in Ohio has been falling, paralleling national trends. In fact, as shown in
a recent FBI report, the Midwest outpaced the national decline in crime, dropping 11% from
1998 to 1999, as compared to a national drop of 10%. An expanding economy can in part
explain this significant drop in crime, as can new law enforcement measures.

The following trends are drawn from the Uniform Crime Report (UCR), issued by the FBI. The
UCR is an excellent source of information regarding major crimes, but does little to further our
understanding of “quality of life crimes”, for example public intoxication. What is offered by
the UCR is a general understanding of the public safety environment in the cities.

How have the Task Force cities performed? For most of the eight largest cities, overall crime
has declined over the five period sample (1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 1997). Canton, however,
witnessed an increase in overall crime across all five sampling periods. The following trends are
shown in the rate of crime across the larger Task Force cities (complete data is not available for
the smaller cities):
  • Violent crime has increased in Akron, Canton, Columbus, and Youngstown
  • Dayton and Toledo have seen a decrease in violent crime
  • Cleveland, since the 1970’s, has witnessed a substantial decrease in violent crime

Advisory Note: Census 2000 – Qualifying for Critical Services

Once every ten years the federal government conducts a population census that determines
legislative representation and establishes social and demographic benchmarks for every minor
civil division in the country. All levels of government utilize these benchmarks to determine
funding and the location of critical services. Business uses this information to identify markets
and locations. It has been estimated that for every household in its jurisdiction, a community
receives $450 per year from the federal government.

Historically, many enclaves within our cities have had low response rates to the questionnaires
and personal contacts by enumerators. The State of Ohio, through its local agencies, will work
with the U.S. Census Bureau, its extensive network of local offices and the numerous local
“complete count committees”, to raise awareness and participation in this critical endeavor.
Schools and inner city neighborhoods will be focus areas where additional efforts of the
Governor and the Secretary of State will be concentrated.




                                          - 24 -
Data Sources

Census of the Population, 1970-1990
1998 Population Estimates, U.S. Census Bureau
USDA National Resources Inventory
Ohio Municipal Advisory Council
Uniform Crime Report, F.B.I.
Ohio Department of Education
Ohio Department of Taxation




                                       - 25 -
               APPENDIX A: FOCUS GROUP SUMMARIES AND NOTES


To help identify opportunities for urban revitalization in Ohio's cities, Governor Bob Taft asked
the mayors of 16 cities from across the state to each conduct a focus group in their city. The
focus group participants were selected and invited by the mayor to discuss issues of importance
to that city.

Focus group meetings were facilitated by independent public policy facilitators.

The matrix below identifies the topics discussed during each focus group meeting.

 Focus Group Topics

                                                                                              ion
                                                                                           cat
                                                    nt                                   du
                                                 me                                n t/E
                                              lop                               me ing
                                          eve                               lop      ild
                                        ed                     ion      eve       Bu
                                      /R                     t        D
                                  lds              cy     rta orce            ity
                              nfie ing          oli nspo         f        un
                           ow       us       xP       a     ork      mm afety ther
                        Br      Ho        Ta       Tr     W        Co        S         O
Akron              X                           X        X
Canton             X                  X        X
Cincinnati         X        X         X        X        X       X      X
Cleveland          X        X                  X
Columbus           X                  X        X
Dayton             X        X         X
Hamilton           X        X         X                 X
Lima               X
Lorain             X        X                 X        X
Mansfield          X        X                                   X
Portsmouth         X        X        X        X        X
Springfield        X        X                                                      X
Steubenville       X        X        X        X        X
Toledo             X        X        X
Warren             X        X        X        X        X
Youngstown         X                 X                 X


A summary and detailed notes reporting the discussion at each city’s focus group was prepared.
Those summaries and notes follow.


                                            - 26 -
Akron Focus Group Summary
August 31, 1999

Mayor Plusquellic opened the meeting and set the agenda, a wide ranging discussion on
workforce development followed brief comments on brownfields, transportation and tax
incentives.

Workforce Development
• Lack of skilled labor in certain industries: machining and trades
• Greater investment in Research and Development
• Ohio lags behind other states in workforce development programming
• Shortage of engineers in the area
• Lack of state support for vocational training in schools
• The welfare population remaining on assistance is the hardest to mainstream due to lifestyle
  and education issues
• Ohio is missing the emerging economy
• True growth and thus assistance should look at businesses under 100 employees
• Do not only expand the workforce, but work to improve existing employees’ skills

Brownfields
• Voluntary Action Program is not flexible
• Difficult to receive a Finding of No Further Action (NFA) or Covenant Not to Sue (CNS)
• All projects are difficult and take time
• Cities are taking the risks not the private sector
• Cut time for review by the State of Ohio

Transportation
• The current funding formulas hurt cities – based on farm to market model
• Caters to interstates not arterial roads in or serving cities
• No assistance to retain jobs
• Mismatch with existing populations and settlement patterns

Tax Incentives
• For small technology businesses – poor definitions
• Not targeted properly – not in line with policies
• Cities and suburbs do not need the same packages of incentives




                                         - 27 -
Akron Focus Group Notes
August 31, 1999

Topics Discussed:
• Workforce Development
• Tax Incentives
• Transportation
• Brownfields

(The group spent the first hour and 1/2 on workforce development and the last 1/2 hour on the
other three topics – see attached agenda)

Key Issues Discussed Discussed by Topic:

Workforce Development
• Base-skill worker shortage; lack of skilled workers with quality technological skills for
  today’s workforce
• Inadequate state funds for R & D (i.e. EPIC)
• Must retain skilled workforce once educated and skill level achieved
• Emphasize monies be allocated to incumbent worker training
• Coordinate welfare-to-work program training skills with state program incentives (which
  emphasize manufacturing)
• Industry needs more highly skilled labor – software and electrical engineers
• State needs to create job opportunities for those moving from Welfare-to-Work
• More Capital Investment needed for Research and Development
• State OBES data skewed –only collect data on companies with more than 100 employees –
  data doesn’t give accurate picture of job market
• State should increase funding for mixed-use incubators
• Ohio is lagging in developing good models re: workforce development – NC and TX have
  the best programs – Dept. of Labor Demonstration Program has dollars available to support
  these types of programs
• State program criteria are based on new job creation not existing jobs/retention
• City needs incentives to retain upwardly mobile citizens
• Need to match skills with job requirements and locations
• Entry level employees often ill suited for job - past histories of drug use
• Welfare to work issues difficult population: 90% in the city and 70% lack a high school
  degree, difficult to place to mainstream
• Lack of research and development capacity
• OBES/research are not measuring the real and emerging economy

Education Issues as Discussed under Workforce Development
• Perception of Vo-Ed causes negative reaction and emphasis. Must market as technology
  training and its strength to education and parental community


                                         - 28 -
•   State monies should be allocated for creation of new technology/business training in support
    of the new economy instead of simply maintaining funding levels for “conventional”
    University education programs
•   State Education Strategy for the economy
•   State funding needed for new pilot programs in higher education
•   State needs to support technical education beginning in Middle School – “success” is not just
    a 4-year degree
•   Poor school attendance in primary and secondary grades leads to many drop-outs – need to
    work with parents to help them realize the value of education
•   Vocational. Education. programs have trouble keeping students when the state keeps
    increasing the core curriculum req. for graduation
•   Trades are not taught in Akron Public Schools
•   No incentives exist for higher education to support part-time students interested in
    manufacturing and industrial jobs
•   Need to establish career centers for young people
•   Public schools – education is the cornerstone
•   Work Keys evaluate skill sets used in Akron Schools and by local PIC

Brownfields/land Development
• Must streamline “Covenant-not-to-Sue” process
                      - Voluntary Action Plan is not flexible
                      - Inability to get covenant not to sue
                      - Urban setting designation is difficult to obtain
• Approval process takes too long – industry gets frustrated and moves to Greenfields
• Incentives needed to promote - pre-approval of sites
• Stigma attached to Brownfields
• State polices need to reflect farmland preservation
• Cities are taking the risks not the private sector
• Ability to get pre-approval of sites
• Cutbacks on Urban Revitalization Grants hurt cities

Tax Incentives
• Need more planning re: how tax abatements are to be used
• State incentives needed for businesses to move where the labor is located
• State offers tax incentives for small technology businesses, but the definition of “technology”
   is too narrow
• Summit County loans CDBG dollars for training of existing employees
• Match incentives with state policies
• No economic strategy, no implementation on plans by the state
• Promote clusters of innovation – polymers are an existing cluster
• Added subsequent to the discussion
                      - Take State incentive information off the Internet. It allows other states
                          to gain knowledge of what the State of Ohio is offering and “beat” the
                          offering without our knowledge to counter-offer.



                                          - 29 -
                      -   Encourage change in state law, that would allow the negotiations and
                          agreements for economic development projects to remain confidential
                          for 30 days from the point of closing and therefore, not subject to
                          public disclosure law for the same reason as above.

Transportation
• Transportation and childcare are the new subsidies for welfare to work
• Transit system acts as broker for jobs and people
• TRAC system penalizes urban areas – examples: Route 8 and Interstate 277
• Need infrastructure to support jobs – need to maintain infrastructure so labor can move to the
   jobs

Best Practices
• Pre-apprenticeship programs with industry for high school students
• Sebert Progam at the Akron Polymer Training Center
• Akron Machining Institute
• Akron’s Polymer Science/Engineering Program
• Incubator companies
• RTA and human services joint transportation program – may lose state ODOT funding
   6/2000
• Summit County has done good job of aligning incentives with policy – targets enterprise
   zones




                                         - 30 -
Canton Focus Group Summary
October 5, 1999

The following priorities were selected through the use of a nominal group technique:


Priorities

Brownfields:
• OEPA must become more time sensitive to the needs of cities and developers.
• Need to increase the incentives available to attract investment.
• Very expensive requires additional dollars
• Need to be able to provide closure and liability protection on sites.

Tax Policy:
• The same tax incentives should not be available to all communities.
• Phase out the inventory tax.
• Decrease the competitive battle between neighboring communities using same incentive
   policies.
• Greenfields have an unfair advantage

Transportation:
• Completions of U.S. Route 30 limited access highway to Pittsburgh.
• Improvement to Akron/Canton Regional Airport making it Cleveland Hopkins’ Midway.




                                         - 31 -
Canton Focus Group Notes
October 5, 1999

•   Mayor – Plan for the future

       •   Transportation – very important spatial mismatch of people/jobs as well as City
           redevelopment

       •   Governor – Open door – Open ear

Key Issues Discussed by Topic:

Brownfields/Land Development

•   EPA Commerce - our calls, are time sensitive – lost a deal because of fire marshal’s office.
    EPA – Hercules site.
•   EPA - kills deals – not sure perception? Reality? Developers walk away from sites 17 acres
    – five years – let it sit
•   MOU with Federal EPA needed or projects will stall. Without MOU a cloud exists.
•   EPA – DOD Reps assisted developers getting through Ohio EP
•   Need Federal law change if re-use of city land is going to happen
•   Too long a time for report to be reviewed by EPA
•   Time requirements should be equal 30-90 for applicant 30-90 for review agency
•   EPA never seems to want to close out – NFA
•   30 day turnaround – cannot leave people hanging
•   NFA required – who signed, are they authorized to sign? Situations of recession
•   Same EPA staff must do review and field work – not enough people to do both
•   State law to protect owner – similar to BUSTA hold owner harmless
•   FL and CA offer bonds to protect owners, Indiana?
•   Incentive to redevelop in urban areas – greenfields little or no risk
•   “Guilty” until proven clean
•   We are in dark ages compared to other – cities which started sooner - City focus is new in
    Canton
•   Must have incentives – land cost is too high to clean and reuse inner city prior industrial land
•   Attracting is more time sensitive than expanding – local company will wait a little longer, out
    of towner will not
•   Brownfields Task Force needed to delve into legal and administrative issues involved in
    brownfield remediation
•   Liability is issue
•   Practical approach – look at re-use parking lot vs. a school
•   Common sense needs to prevail
•   Bond landowners




                                           - 32 -
Tax Incentives

•   Ohio Enterprise Program
•   Used to lure companies between communities
•   State provides incentives and tax breaks for companies to move from City Brownfields to
    Greenfields (Sum Zero Game)
•   Comprehensive review of programs
        TIF
        Slum & Blight
        CRA
•   Tax Delinquency – land reutilization law needs to be redone – slow and cumbersome
•   Abatement does not favor central cities – anyone can give it/use it
•   Do away with inventory tax
•   M&E tax credit a good thing – community limit on base expenditure forces relocation of
    facilities

Community Building
• Comprehensive Plan being developed (updated)
• Utilizing Community Groups, Non-Profits to join together to assist in redeveloping of city –
  city cannot to do everything
• Permanent Funding for Ohio Housing Trust Fund – be there and ongoing
• Anti-poverty Partnership Program (Stark County) needs administrative dollars, not program
  dollars
• Public-private partnerships beginning to bear fruit
• All housing incentives are for low income – rental housing
• HTF – Need dollars, program, incentives for middle income, upper income home ownership
• 70% of housing stock 70 years old or older

Transportation – Infrastructure
• SARTA – not much ridership - wonder if levy will pass
• Big picture – Transit dependent people are getting to work
• ODOT – Streamline approval process
• Route 30 – rebuild – Widen/divide – can’t get to Pittsburgh
• Stark – No sales tax
• High speed rail needed – North to South and East to West – vs. building and widening
   highways
• Airports – study – develop a regional system of passenger/freight for Northeast
   Ohio/Akron/Canton/Cleveland -- Similar to LAX & Ontario




                                         - 33 -
Cincinnati Focus Group Summary
September 23, 1999

Mayor Qualls and this focus group elected to address all areas. These included Land
Development, Housing, Transportation & Infrastructure, Tax Incentives, Education, Community
Building, Workforce Development, Safety, and Health. The group wished to and did discuss the
first four topics first. However, all nine areas were discussed. The approximately eighteen
participants in this group each contributed to a lively discussion. However, they did not wish to
prioritize their issues or observations. Following are some recurring themes.

Holistic Approach
A holistic approach is essential. The participants viewed each area as affecting the others. Thus,
addressing one area without considering the others will not provide desired results. Also, the
social and economic health of the core of the city affects, and is affected by, the social and
economic health of other areas both within and outside of the core of the city.

Competition is Fierce
Ohio government needs to become more city friendly and do a better job addressing the
problems of the city and promoting cities. Cincinnati must give business a reason to be in
Cincinnati as businesses can easily go to the suburbs or Kentucky. Kentucky is easier to deal
with. Kentucky does not play negotiating games. Kentucky packages are programmatic and
superior. Kentucky provides a single point of contact. Kentucky is more appreciative.
Kentucky is more streamlined. Kentucky is more aggressive.

State Support
Ohio has fallen behind other states in redevelopment programs. The state is weak in early
planning and needs to develop incentives for planned growth. Ohio needs to develop an urban
policy and a business retention policy. The VAP process takes too long and is not well
understood. The state needs to consider cities’ needs first in such areas as sewers, water, and
highways. Measurement statistics are needed for state programs. The bill on Special
Improvement Districts should be passed. Ohio needs to recognize housing as a public purpose
and act accordingly.

Best Practices
In the area of safety, Cincinnati is ranked as having the fifth lowest crime rate of twenty-one
cities of similar size. In the areas of education, twelve Cincinnati schools are participating in the
“High Schools That Work” program. In the area of Health, Cincinnati is the primary health care
provider for needy persons; both primary care and dental care are being provided to an
increasing number of persons.




                                           - 34 -
Cincinnati Focus Group Notes
September 23, 1999

Mayor Qualls’ Introduction:
Mayor Qualls began this focus group by reviewing Governor Taft’s initiative in urban
revitalization. After each participant introduced him/herself discussion began.

Key Issues Discussed by Topic:

Land Redevelopment
- There is no money to clean brownfields and assemble them.
- Brownfield moneys should apply to private housing, not just commercial and industrial.
- Ohio has fallen behind other states in this area.
- Cincinnati has many little sites needing assembly; modern development is horizontal.
- Time frame is a problem as business clients are on a 9-12 month time frame.
- Need to support brownfield redevelopment and consider financial risk and
  environmental liability.
- The deck is stacked against brownfields; ODOD favors greenfields over brownfields.
- The city of Cincinnati needs an inventory.
- Cincinnati must give businesses a reason to be in Cincinnati as business can easily go to
  suburbs or Kentucky.
- Look for transition of use in other direction (i. e., private housing to industrial or
  commercial.
- The state is very weak in early planning; many sub-state jurisdictions do not make up a
  plan. One suggestion is to give priority treatment to areas with comprehensive plans.
- What are the disincentives for sprawl? Oregon has smart growth. The state should
  develop incentives for planned growth.
- Both the Feds and the state need to look at how incentives are done. Road development
  in outlying areas gets grants; cities get loans.
- Very little transportation dollars come back to urban areas.
- Ohio does not have an urban policy. Ohio’s urban policy should be holistic and
  comprehensive.
- The VAP is not funded and staffed the way it should have been. The process takes too
  long. Some regulatory folks have not bought into this.
Housing
- Very few people recognize this, but need to know that housing is a public purpose. As
  such Ohio needs tax incentives to encourage renovation, for energy conservation, and
  for infill housing. The state should grant cities the authority and the option to reverse
  tax: put tax on the land but not the structure.
- Building codes are very tough. This is OK for greenfields, but not appropriate for
  redevelopment.
- The state needs to recognize that cities are different. For example, Cincinnati is
  different from Columbus, etc.
- One building can affect surrounding areas.
- There is even a difference by neighborhood. We need to get the first piece of the puzzle
  started so that the rest can happen. Codes should be different also.



                                          - 35 -
- Ohio does not have its own housing policy. New York supports non-profits by putting
  money in front-end activities.
- Tax credits should be used to support housing.
- Through private sector, there should be an incentive to live in the city.
- There should be a range of housing in an area (i. e., mixed income areas).
- Places need to show certain kinds of housing before they can proceed.
- Montgomery County, MD stated as an example.
- Eligibility for housing tax incentives should be based on 80% of median income rather
  than 60% as Ohio currently does.
- There are no incentives for housing in downtown Cincinnati.
- Determine the cost for infrastructure in greenfields, recognizing that infrastructure in
  cities is already available.
- Cincinnati different from other cities in that Cincinnati has lots of little parcels.
Transportation
- Transportation policies encourage development outside the city.
- Rail development encourages greater concentration.
- Look at things that encourage development in cities. Transportation is a good example.
  Need a holistic approach. Need a plan and an objective.
- There is not enough money at the state level. Need state to prioritize cities’ needs first
  in such areas as sewers, water, access to highways, highways.
- The older should be retrofitted before building new. Need state help to do this.
- Ohio is not particularly adept at leveraging federal dollars.
- We need better coordination of efforts to get maximum bang for bucks.
Tax Incentives
- Cincinnati is unique in being near Kentucky; Kentucky packages are superior.
  Kentucky packages are programmatic rather than case by case. Kentucky provides a
  single point of contact. Kentucky is aggressive.
- Ohio is not perceived as business friendly. Ohio is arrogant towards business.
- Kentucky has a better feel for their jobs.
- There is no understanding between Kentucky and Ohio on business incentives. Maybe
  there should be an identification and distinction between businesses that will be in the
  region anyway and those that may not.
- There is a study that shows Ohio shuffles jobs around state. Need to rethink wisdom of
  using tax abatements.
- Ohio needs to be careful with Kentucky across the river.
- Kentucky is easier to deal with; Kentucky does not play negotiating games; Kentucky is
  more appreciative; Kentucky is more streamlined; Kentucky is more aggressive.
- TIF’s should be done on a district-wide basis.
- ODOD has no business retention policy.
- Michigan uses a broad program to help brownfield acquisition, cleaning, and
  preparation; Michigan has a $600 million bond fund to address environmental and
  redevelopment issues.
- Most economic activity is expansion (rather than attraction).
- Need measurement statistics to show how we are doing, since these aren’t done now.
- There is no program for keeping business or for job retention (whether jobs will grow
  or decline). A business RIF may actually show greater efficiencies.



                                           - 36 -
Education
- The single most important issue that works against cities is education.
- Problems of education cause business loss and population loss. Only the state can
  solve. Education should be funded through a statewide sales tax. The situation of
  cities must be taken into account.
- Schools (buildings) are a form of “disposable development”.
- The problem with schools is not money; it is management practices. Many inner city
  schools need to be rebuilt. “High Schools That Work” has issued proper management
  practices. Twelve schools around Cincinnati have recently joined this program.
- The issue is caring. It is not about money; it is not about buildings; it is about caring.
- Suburban and urban districts are two different animals. Urban districts feed two
  meals a day. A family environment is most conducive to education. Urban schools
  have more social problems than suburban schools. Kids need services within schools.
- School funding should be 10 mills inside for each district increased to 20 mills and use
  this as a base. Add to this 1% sales tax and distribute according to guidelines.
- Idea economic development is in competition with schools should not be.
- First question of business is about workforce.
General
- One area is not more important than another; to say so is to defeat the idea and purpose
  of being holistic. There are no silver bullets.
- Each city should develop a plan and turn it in; the state develops the master plan.
- The state needs to take more of a leadership role.
- This is so complex. In every experience with the state, the state is arrogant.
- The state is behind in using IT to serve its customers.
- Cincinnati continues to provide primary health care to the indigent.
Safety
- Cincinnati is fifth best out of 21 similar cities.
- We need a holistic approach.
- There is a huge perception issue on safety. The state needs to be more urban friendly
  and market cities.
- The first two items needed (perception) for development are safety and cleanliness.
- Pass the bill on Special Improvement Districts.
Community Building
- This involves all the above. Need more state support; need greater accessibility; need
  points of service.
- Emphasize education and state leadership; address “not in my back yard” syndrome.
- State not taking a leadership role in the development of cultural resources.




                                           - 37 -
Cleveland Focus Group Summary
September 24, 1999

Topics Discussed:
• Brownfields
• Housing
• Transportation/Infrastructure

Priorities
• State historic tax credit
• Historic tax credit for residential housing
• Quick take eminent domain
• Use of vacant school buildings
• Energize entrepreneurial spirit
• Remedy shortage of construction trade workers
• Use pension funds
• Define infrastructure
• Develop “smart” streets master plan
• Easier land acquisition for high technology firms
• Reduce high cost of erasing history
• Streamline acquisition of abandoned property
• Level the playing field
• Urban Redevelopment Loan Program - change guarantees on loans to 50%
• Neighborhood assistance program similar to that of Pennsylvania (i.e., tax credits for
   assistance to qualifying non-profits)
• Rate differential offered on loans - 2% for urban areas, 6% for suburbs
• Directive on the use of tax abatements

Best Practices
• Land bank – allow citizens to purchase a residential lot for $100
• Strategic planning to produce spin-offs that do not require government assistance
• Store front Program – 40% rebate for store front renovations
• Cleveland Empowerment Zone – leveraging
• Cleveland Neighborhood Progress, Inc.
• Port Authority
• Civic Vision 2000 plan
• City’s customer oriented focus – no one size fits all policy, City is willing to work out
   solutions
• Use of RLFs




                                          - 38 -
Cleveland Focus Group Notes
September 24, 1999

Key Issues Discussed by Topic:

Housing
• Establish a State historic tax credit
• Raise the Volume Cap
• State has not encouraged enough downtown housing. Support for parking structures would
  be helpful in this area.
• Authority for neighborhood development of parking facilities; use of bonds
• Funding sources often do not address the complexity of a problem e.g. housing and parking
• Need a tool that allows for both historic preservation and the provision of parking
• Eminent domain – other states have easier methods, e.g. Illinois
• In Ohio quick take is allowed only for transportation and public emergencies.
• How do courts administer the laws – Standardization
• Two eminent domain issues – how do Ohio’s laws compare with other states’, and how are
  the courts administering them?
• All urban areas are not the same. Ohio is cursed and blessed by 3 major metros.
  Acknowledge “tiers” of metros/cities.
• Recognize the above with regard to sprawl, and the age of housing stock in various cities.
• 3% mortgages for inner city housing. Must produce some advantage to living in the city
• Availability of a State historic tax credit for single family homes.
• A shortage exists in the number of skilled construction workers, as well as related industries
  e.g. architects
• Inventory of vacant school buildings. Too expensive to redevelop, so neighborhood is left
  with site for crime and vandalism. No one takes responsibility for the building left behind.
• Re-think “ma and pa” stores in neighborhoods. Help establish buying co-ops to lower prices
• Focus on available capital that currently isn’t used, e.g. pension funds. Provide incentives to
  invest in the central city
• Caveat: If pension funds are investmented in the inner city the investment must yield what
  the fund could earn with another investment product
• Competitive plan for housing tax credits is beneficial
• An emphasis needs to be placed on producing a concern for others
• Eminent domain laws do not view housing as economic development
• Slum/blight rules are strict, which is good. How do you speed up the process for getting
  abandoned property?
• Building code does not serve urban areas
• Every deal downtown is ten times harder than one in the suburbs
• Method to keep businesses in neighborhoods – the safety issue
• State support for abatement for retail and residential
• TIF supported 30 year bonds are useful. The process needs to be streamlined to avoid
  property transfer to and from the City.
• Programs do not offer credit for doing comprehensive developments.
• Write down money for neighborhood plans


                                          - 39 -
Brownfields
• State has to guarantee the life of loans (redevelopment loans). City should only have to put
   up 50%.
• Neighborhood assistance program, where companies can donate money, and get a tax credit.
   City often works with non-profits when doing brownfields
• CNS program and urban setting designation are beginning to see returns. The process is still
   too cumbersome. Expedite the process at OEPA. How clean is clean?
• While the OEPA effort is good, it still falls short in urban areas
• 422 loans – how to pay off? Non-profits must pay tax on property. Interest differential – 2%
   for urban areas, 6% for non-urban areas
• Vertical brownfields
• State does not allow for receivership of industrial and commercial buildings
• Comprehensive review of fire code
• Incentives for business incubators in abandoned buildings. Minority firms are willing to
   make these investments

Transportation/Infrastructure
• Need funds to connect projects when they are on opposite ends of the same street
• More funding for curbing and other improvements
• Most funding goes to Major New projects, and not older infrastructure
• Cities are expensive. No policies reflect that
• Technology infrastructure – City is seeing more requests for businesses that want to be
   downtown, but with decent fiber/wire
• State action on rights of way and easements
• Wireless technology
• Help with developing a wireless technology plan
• Funding for the creation of “smart” streets
• Basic real estate for high growth companies – often have high debt levels

The following priorities were selected through the use of a nominal group technique:

Priorities
• State historic tax credit
• Historic tax credit for residential housing
• Quick take eminent domain
• Use of vacant school buildings
• Energize entrepreneurial spirit
• Remedy shortage of construction trade workers
• Use pension funds
• Define infrastructure
• Develop “smart” streets master plan
• Easier land acquisition for high technology firms
• Reduce high cost of erasing history
• Streamline acquisition of abandoned property


                                         - 40 -
•   Level the playing field
•   Urban Redevelopment Loan Program - change guarantees on loans to 50%
•   Neighborhood assistance program similar to that of Pennsylvania (i.e., tax credits for
    assistance to qualifying non-profits)
•   Rate differential offered on loans - 2% for urban areas, 6% for suburbs
•   Directive on the use of tax abatements

Best Practices
• Land bank – allow citizens to purchase a residential lot for $100
• Strategic planning to produce spin-offs that do not require government assistance
• Store front Program – 40% rebate for store front renovations
• Cleveland Empowerment Zone – leveraging
• Cleveland Neighborhood Progress, Inc.
• Port Authority
• Civic Vision 2000 plan
• City’s perspective and orientation to development
• City’s customer oriented focus – no one size fits all policy, City is willing to work out
   solutions
• Use of RLFs
• Orientation and culture of partnership




                                           - 41 -
Columbus Focus Group Summary
October 1, 1999


The city of Columbus chose to discuss two topics in-depth Transportation/Infrastructure and Tax
Incentives.

Key Issues Discussed by Topic:

Transportation/Infrastructure
• Improvements of the telecommunications infrastructure and network in the cities.
• The state needs to define what transportation and its policy is.
• Increased focus and resources for public transportation.
• Land use policy used in making public investment decisions
• Any new programming or changes should not increase regulations or bureaucracy.

Tax Policy
• State needs to create a growth policy with a regional focus.
• Identify and address state disincentives to development
• Work to address the higher costs of downtown and urban development versus suburban –
   rural development.

The city also highlighted the numerous ways Columbus is unique among Ohio’s major cities.
Columbus has continued to grow over the past decades and should not be penalized for its fore
thought and vision. In addition, policies should recognize Columbus’ unique nature and assist it
leverage resources to maintain its vibrancy.




                                          - 42 -
Columbus Focus Group Notes
October 1, 1999

Key Issues Discussed by Topic:

Infrastructure – Transportation

•   Strong Regional and Metropolitan organization needed
•   Growth Boundaries, but must help rural areas develop
•   Need State Land Use Policy
•   Enabling Legislation for Regional Development Governments
•   Incentives for Smart Growth
•   Maryland Model
•   State Policies – OWDA provides funding for water and sewer systems in outlying areas –
    encourages sprawl
•   Public Transportation Funding – not enough
•   Gas Tax Fund – limited amount for transit – need to be opened up and creative
•   Do rules allow and encourage collaboration/cooperation?!
•   Port Authority Legislation a good thing – flexibility/collaboration
•   Revise Laws/Polices to allow flexibility – decrease stovepipes
•   EPA does not protect environment
•   Columbus is unique – it is a growing urban area – airport in Columbus – do not penalize us
    because we are growing
•   ODOT – Freeway improvement to increase flow and safety of traffic – new technology to
    avoid building roads
•   ODOT – needs to become more involved in airports – links with FAA
•   400,000 more people in 20 years in Columbus – seamless to customers – whether inside or
    outside the city limits
•   COTA and Port Director (airport) are working together – they meet and talk – a major step
    forward
•   Integrate – Transportation – Telecommunications
•   130 Trucking Companies in Columbus
•   Telecommunications – fiber and wire using highway right of way; incentive and low cost for
    business to conduct e-commerce
•   Revenue Source – not be made whole (utility easements)
•   ODOT – Train from Columbus to Cleveland—sent to Rail Commission?
    - ODOT is highways – not ports, airports, transit, bikeways, rail; freight or passenger
•   Bike Trails – Develop a statewide system with people, cities and private sector tapping in
•   Maintenance – Special Improvement. Districts- Incentives to business to maintain
    improvements once rights of ways are brought up to par
•   Gas tax split
•   Governor leads the State, sets the vision – must work it through the legislature and courts if
    necessary
•   Townships are useless
•   Vision changes when a Governor changes


                                          - 43 -
•   How do we keep the plan going – the vision
•   Issue 2 is a good model to maintain a vision – vs Access Ohio which is not updated
•   Infrastructure and Transportation
    - We do it for citizens
    - We do it for business
•   Tobacco money is potential for e-commerce – revitalization
•   Private Sector responds to vision – we need to listen
•   Easton – within the City Sprawl – 220 million – could have been spent better
•   Vision – Plan – Incentives
•   Development by market demand – create demand in Central Cities/Urban Areas
•   Look at Regional Studies – why Columbus is prospering
•   School Busing, Schools Land Availability - what is happening below the surface
•   Employers buying transit passes – positive for workers and transit system
•   Reuse of Rickenbacker/Lockborne for civilian/industrial use – multi-modal
•   Sometimes City is happy not to have ODOT involved – too many regulations – do not tie
    local government’s hands
    1. Telecommunication Incentives by State
    2. Develop State Land Use Policy
    3. Money for Transit
    4. Governor Leads
    5. Decrease/Avoid Regulation Bureaucracy in Funding and Programs




                                      - 44 -
Dayton Focus Group Summary
September 2, 1999


The following priorities were selected through the use of a nominal group technique:

Priorities
• Expansion of quick take provisions beyond transportation.
• Smart growth legislation
• Greater funding for brownfields projects
• One-stop shops for brownfield funding and assistance
• Clarify definition of liability
• State funding for low-income housing dispersal; more action on the dispersal of mental
   health and special needs housing
• Encourage retail/mixed use in urban residential areas
• State funding for market rate housing
• Eliminate prevailing wage for State funded projects
• Maintain ability of charter cities to require that employees live in the city
• Secondary financing
• Allow cities to designate retail tax abatement zones (N.Y.C. precedent)
• State historic tax credit
• Increase focus/targeting of incentives
• Offer incentives for locating LMI and mental health/special needs population housing in non-
   urban areas
• Abolish inventory tax

Best Practices
• Rehabarama/Cityarama
• Ban on implosion into basements during home demolition; site must be clear and filled
• EDGE program
• Wellfield protection program




                                         - 45 -
Dayton Focus Group Notes
September 2, 1999

Key Issues Discussed by Topic:

Brownfields/Land Redevelopment
• Photocopy of Maryland HB 118: Baltimore City-Condemnation-Immediate Possession and
   Title
• If a project is done with local money, no OEPA or US EPA rules should apply
• CERCLA rules
• Which HB requires remedial action before a parcel/building is vacated?
• Port authority legislation is helpful
• Unique urban programs are needed. Existing programs are too broad
• Recognition that brownfields are mainly an urban problem
• The broad application of abatements is a problem
• Urban sprawl
• Quick take eminent domain should be expanded beyond transportation projects
• Lack of available land
• Changes in eminent domain are not a question of public purpose
• No advantage to urban areas within existing programs
• Legislative problems with developing urban-specific programs
• There is not enough money to acquire land in any form – brownfields, etc.
• Underwriting criteria are too tough; collateral requirements are higher than some
   commercial banks
• Method to deal with the exit of businesses and the associated costs is needed
• Risk-based rules are working; urban setting designation should be the responsibility of the
   city
• Lack of an MOA with US EPA is a roadblock; “two sets of rules system”
• Reuse of buildings is not supported in current programs
• Expand quick take to four areas: economic development, brownfields, preservation, and
   nuisance abatement
• Expand police power
• Establish more comprehensive legislation
• Smart growth (e.g. TN, MD, NJ)
• One-stop shop for brownfields. Information about funding, regulations, and Federal policies
   should be available from one source.
• Definitive answer to liability and chain of title
• Successful brownfields have stayed out of VAP
• Determine better the costs and effects of materials; alternatives within given constraints
• Determine who is accountable for what
• Increase business friendliness of OEPA
• Task Force initiatives should apply only to certain set of cities
• Certification program for local capacity; deference to cities




                                        - 46 -
• State often deals with regional agencies rather than central cities in policies as well as
  funding
Housing
• Changes needed in OEPA policies covering housing – many are not applicable to housing in
  urban settings
• Too many housing programs; Housing Trust Fund income requirements are too low
• Disperse low income housing
• State requirement regarding dispersal of mental health housing; increase code enforcement
  and regulations on operating group homes
• Zoning laws in suburbs. Abolish prohibitions on service/special needs populations
• Group home operators must sue individual municipalities when there are problems with
  locating a group home
• Poor education system negatively impacts housing
• State law allowing municipalities to have housing/environmental courts
• Ability to ban glass containers in certain zones of the city
• Power to limit/ban sales of screw top liquor
• More Medicaid supported housing
• Residency requirements for cities are a good policy; communities should have power to set
  policy
• Money for regional planning and cooperation
• Laws requiring teachers to live in the city where they teach
• Unit cost problems with current laws – tax credits (use 221-D-4 in lieu of 221-D-3)
• State based historic tax credit
• Programs for people who can’t qualify for a home – credit building
• Debt problem with 15 year compliance requirement
• Credits for businesses who donate services to non-profits
• Support for public safety workers to live in public housing
• Too much affordable housing in Dayton; increase value of housing
• Urban Schools
• Adult entertainment legislation
• Involvement with faith-based organizations
• Appeal problems
• Guarantees for banks
• Increase surety bond funding in urban settings; minority bonding
• Minority ODOD programs are too cumbersome
• CDFF programs
• Eliminate prevailing wage for State funded projects
• Cooperative funding /advertising to dispel notions about urban areas
• State should encourage mixed-use development. Banks are catching on, why not the State?
• 106 preservation process
• Why no certified local governments? Fed allows for State of Ohio
• Rehabarama/Cityarama have been successful; HBA leadership
• In Dayton, when building is demolished, must leave buildable site
• Dayton’s well field protection requirements are a model


                                        - 47 -
• Encourage retail in urban residential
• Increase 431 funding
• Forfeiture sales – quick take ability; right of first refusal for cities
• Greater State support regarding liens on abandoned housing; “Go-to person at the State”
• EDGE program as model
• Better brochures about State housing programs
• Need SHPO to certify local governments to approve 106 reviews
Tax Incentives
• Limit local tax abatement to urban areas
• Expand preservation credit
• State support for LMI housing in suburban areas
• Cities should be allowed to determine sales tax abatement zones
• Abatement/incentives for living in/remaining in areas targeted by the city
• Abolish inventory tax
• Incentives are targeted to manufacturing, but nothing else. Where is the economy going?
• Support for composite materials development
• Marketing of capital gains rollback for home sales
Final Comments
• Transportation funding – reduce activities of MPOs, make policies more urban friendly
• A top to bottom review of workforce development, including the public schools, is needed.
• Change method for funding education
• Increase penalties for multiple offenses e.g. prostitution – both prostitute and the “john”
   should receive stiffer penalties
• Establish longer post-arrest stays for juvenile offenders
• Dayton should be included in any high speed rail line established
• Recognition of the fact that the I-75 Cincinnati/Dayton corridor is the busiest commuting
   corridor
• Performing arts center
Priorities
• Expansion of quick take provisions beyond transportation.
• Smart growth legislation
• Greater funding for brownfields projects
• One-stop shops for brownfield funding and assistance
• Clarify definition of liability
• State funding for low-income housing dispersal; more action on the dispersal of mental
   health and special needs housing
• Encourage retail/mixed use in urban residential areas
• State funding for market rate housing
• Eliminate prevailing wage for State funded projects
• Maintain ability of charter cities to require that employees live in the city
• Secondary financing
• Allow cities to designate retail tax abatement zones (N.Y.C. precedent)
• State historic tax credit
• Increase focus/targeting of incentives


                                         - 48 -
•   Offer incentives for locating LMI and mental health/special needs population housing in non-
    urban areas
•   Abolish inventory tax

Best Practices
• Rehabarama/Cityarama
• Ban on implosion into basements during home demolition; site must be clear and filled
• EDGE program
• Wellfield protection program




                                         - 49 -
Hamilton Focus Group Summary
September 15, 1999


Housing
- Owner occupied housing is the first thing needed to stabilize urban revitalization and to spur
economic development. Develop and promote programs to increase percentage of owner
occupied housing as well as conversion from rent to own. Look at offering some sort of tax
credit for home purchase or renovation, maybe by deferring credit over many years.
- A criteria for attracting people is the school system. Look for ways to improve the public
school system to strengthen the housing market.
- Market rate housing is needed to spur economic development and attract young professionals,
especially in downtowns. There should be an incentive to convert other structures to market rate
housing.

Land & Land Redevelopment
- Current economics puts jobs outside of the urban area, thus making it difficult for urban
workers to commute to these jobs. Don’t grant incentives to give rural, affluent areas an
advantage.
- Reuse of abandoned property is a challenge. The old facility should be addressed, possibly by
an impact fee for abandonment.
- Land acquisition is difficult and lengthy. Grant some kind of quick-take authority.
- For adaptive reuse, all code requirements must be met when change in building use occurs.
Require fewer restrictions depending on use change.

Tax Structure & Incentives
- It is getting increasingly difficult for cities to annex. Don’t pass legislation that further impedes
annexation.
- Current economics favors areas outside of cities. Incentives offered in urban areas should be
different from those offered in non-urban areas.
- Businesses often do not hire local urban workers. Provide incentives for hiring local workers
rather than bringing them from out of town.
-Infrastructure dollars often used for outside-of-urban areas. Focus infrastructure dollars on
urban areas.
-Prevailing wage requirement increases costs. Eliminate prevailing wage requirement law, at
least for small projects.
- Employee training/retraining is a big issue; provide incentives for this.
- Internet commerce accounts for 6% of total and will increase. State should look at how tax
policies affect internet transactions and shopping centers/malls/local commerce.
- Encourage continued use of existing school buildings in urban centers.




                                            - 50 -
Hamilton Focus Group Notes
September 15, 1999

Mayor Nye’s Introduction:
Looking for new ideas for Hamilton to steal and share. Lives on the east side and works on
Dayton Street in Hamilton. Does not want the doughnut area parts of city in decay to expand.
Asked for an open-ended meeting for all.

Housing
Need to develop market rate housing in downtown area to support small business economic
development; this in turn will support low-income housing. West side of Hamilton is doing
financially better than east side. At this time the east side and downtown housing can not
support business.

Low income tax credit is supporting affordable housing and should be expanded. Change the
state’s allocation program. Raise the volume cap and expand the amount of money available for
housing in Ohio.

Need housing attractive to professionals. Schools are hurting recruitment. Regardless of type of
housing, emphasize owner-occupied housing. Renter housing in Hamilton is 40% of base. Need
to increase the amount of owner-occupied housing in city. Level of home ownership heavily
impacted by the perceived and real quality of the schools.

Need more affordable housing in city.

Older buildings and housing around downtowns often in decay; cities need money for
demolition.

No incentives currently exist for market rate housing in Ohio. Could create additional programs
at the State of Ohio level; this is done elsewhere in the country. Suggestion to look at tax credits
for homeowner improvements. Reward homeowners and landlords; prevent slumlords. Move
renters to owners.

Examine building codes for home-based businesses; simplify.

CRA’s have been made more complicated. Community Reinvestment Areas (CRA) started with
residential in urban areas and then expanded to commercial and industrial in other parts of the
state. The new fees across the board hurt cities in working in residential areas and is a state
disincentive. Simplify the process and rules.


Link incentives to urban enterprise zones. Zoning amendments with little red tape.

Locals sometimes do not know state and federal rules and regulations affecting their project and
community. Owner housing is the driver. Tax credits and projects must be tied to long-term
investment; encourage a minimum ownership period.



                                           - 51 -
Best practices:
Neighborhood Housing Services:
Loans to low-moderate income households for purchase and rehabilitation. Partner with
Hamilton, Middletown, Hamilton Foundation, lenders, insurance. Home ownership increases
stake in community. Neighborhood Investment Corporation (NIC), schools to success,
maintenance prevention program, individual available to help homeowners. There is a home
ownership development center in downtown Hamilton. NIC plans to be the receiver for vacant
property and to form its own construction company and has started a micro-lending program for
small business.

Anthony Wayne Apartment Building: public–private partnership, 50 unit senior housing project.
Market rate in adaptive use: Dayton – YMCA and Cincinnati, School of Applied Science. Don’t
be in a hurry in a real estate project; look at long term with realistic expectations.

CDBG dollars at risk, State of Ohio needs to assist city to protect and increase this valuable
resource. Transitional housing is done well in the county, but need more. Why not upscale
housing in downtown Hamilton? Need multiple layers of housing.

Land Redevelopment
Target incentives. It is a mistake to provide tax incentives and abatements for affluent and
suburban areas. Too much red tape on brownfields. Streamline process at OEPA.
Variety of parties are currently only inventorying sites because of the risk. Incentives for
development do not exist at this time.

Do away with prevailing wage. OEPA needs to believe in the VAP and complete a project.

Change in use is difficult. Building code does not permit incremental change to meet the
requirements. Seal Law (architect’s stamp required by state building code) difficult to follow for
small projects because of cost. Article 34 can save time and money; any code can be waived
except fire and safety. City employees must know historic and environmental regulations.

Incentives for continuing to use or converting older buildings need to be offered.
Enterprise zone rules need to be geared toward older areas.
Cost of land is prohibitive. Reinvest in the land and surrounding infrastructure with targeted
dollars but not for all places. State should help with land acquisition & development for schools.
Prevent business from walking away from older facilities with an impact fee.

Small lots difficult to aggregate. Need quick-take eminent domain authority.
More authority to compel absentee landlords to move forward or sell.
Discourage 5 acre lots in rural areas as this encourages sprawl and is a waste of land.
Create an active RLF for brownfields with repayment on sale; term needs to extend beyond the
cities title to the land.




                                           - 52 -
Best Practices
City received a $200,000 USEPA grant for investigation and Phase I & II work on an abandoned
industrial site. County helping to develop sites for alternative schools. Need to go where private
sector will not go. New jail facility.
City of Middletown provides technical assistance in the area of article 32 to assist private
developers.
Collaboration of various community stakeholders to build two new government buildings has
worked well.
Need to fast-track highway system with help of private dollars.

Tax Structure & Incentives
According to the Buckeye Institute, the Ohio tax structure is becoming more non-competitive.

State incentives draw companies to the suburbs where transportation is not available to inner-city
workers.
Need incentive to hire local people; business is coming in but not hiring local workers.
Need to have accountability in programs.
Incentive for urban enterprise zone should be greater than rural enterprise zone.
Need training incentives for current workers.
Internet accounts for 6% of commerce; what role will state play on internet tax situation?
Townships are not required to share taxes but cities are.
How can dollars be leveraged in the cities?
What is electricity dereg doing on redistribution of taxes?
Lost a major employer to Fairfield because of tax breaks.
Dollars for infrastructure should be focused on repairing current, not building new.
It is becoming increasingly difficult for cities to annex; thus, they cannot grow.
If business does not like it here, they can easily go to another state (IN or KY)
Inventory tax is an albatross.

Best Practices
Five Chambers and economic development groups are working together.
Companies sometimes offer cash payment to schools for school taxes lost.
The city of Hamilton’s data show that firms in the enterprise zones are hiring 60% of new
employees from the city and 30% are from the enterprise zone




                                          - 53 -
Lima Focus Group Summary
October 4, 1999

The city chose to discuss three topics during its focus group: Transportation/Infrastructure,
Brownfields and Environmental Regulations.

The following priorities were selected through the use of a nominal group technique:

Transportation/Infrastructure
• Additional state assistance with improving and changing railroad crossings at numerous
   streets within the city.
• Building a true partnership with ODOT that create a level-playing field on investment. In
   particular continued and expanded work by ODOT on maintaining state highways with city
   boundaries.
• The ability for the city to determine truck routes in order to divert traffic from residential
   neighborhoods

Brownfields
• The OEPA and other state agencies need to get out into the field to discover the needs and
   concerns of cities and private developers
• State needs to keep its focus on urban programs: enterprise zones and impacted cities.
• Provide assistance with the cost and time to redevelop property.

Environmental Regulation
• Combined Sewer Overflow and Anti-degradation rules make cities non-competitive
• The Voluntary Action Program in ineffective.
• ODNR and the Army Corp of Engineers need to review wetland rules and regulations.

Other
• Income tax credit for investment in inner cities.




                                           - 54 -
Lima Focus Group Notes
October 4, 1999

Mayor Berger opened with an introduction of the process and role of the Task Force. The issues
to be addressed during the afternoon were Transportation/Infrastructure, Brownfields and Land
Development, and Environmental Regulation.

Transportation
• ODOT and the Municipal League continue to work to ensure ODOT participates in
   resurfacing state highways in cities. There are major disincentives to cities with a 20%
   match required on drainage work in the right away while townships and counties have the
   cost covered at 100%. Cities need to be on equal footing.
• More flexibility on the types of traffic, trucks, and where they go in the city. The city wishes
   to control traffic in residential neighborhoods
• Mismatch between streets and rail crossings. Grade separation is expensive and important to
   the city, additional state help is warranted.
• Downtown Lima has a 25% vacancy rate on office space
• Positive improvement is the parking garage in downtown Lima at the cost of more than $3.5
   million. State grants of $1 million from DAS and $2.5 million from the capital bill assisted
   the process. Largest grant ever received by the city
• New schools project is expensive $105 million. State appears to require suburban designs in
   urban settings. The school facilities rules are unclear and inconsistent
• Technology infrastructure is lacking: T-1 and ISDN lines in community
• State through PUCO should look at pricing to help make Lima competitive, so it can attract
   high-tech firms like Columbus, Cleveland and Cincinnati
• Rail transportation through the city is a problem, two north-south lines
• Distribution of funds takes too long, review of plans 5-6 years.
• State funds flowing into the county fallen over the past three years
• Needs compared to state dollars unbalanced
• Roads, bridges entry ways into the cities need reconstruction
• Overall development plan for Lima, state dollars or resources, expertise, long range planning
• Revisit economic development infrastructure policy, end up government debt loan
• Central city lacks resources: no small city CDBG program, disadvantage to build
   infrastructure, lack money
• Federal change, lobby congressional delegation. CDBG increase

Brownfields
• City benefited from state with the Liberty Commons project; lucky with costs being less than
   expected on land acquisition and clean-up
• City did not have resources to cover clean up costs
• City worked five years on this project, expensive project with no council support
• Environmental assessment funds from the federal government, purchase and infrastructure
   money from the state; without side resources the project would not have occurred




                                          - 55 -
•   Covenant Not to Sue will follow the NFA to be filed at the end of the month on the Liberty
    Commons project; cost $400,000 to investigate and remediate: $300,000 of which was the
    assessment
•   OEPA process time consuming and frustrating
•   Carrying cost of property needs to be considered
•   Recovery of costs uncertain
•   Corn fields do not have any of these costs
•   40-50 brownfields in the city, if gas stations included more than 200
•   USEPA provided grants, while OEPA is cutting back on staff
•   Blaming the Certified Professionals will not fix problems with the VAP: process and money
•   Economic Development Administration (EDA) money the last dollars into a project
•   City site: 67 acres with all utilities ( gas, electric, water, sewer), two rail lines
•   Competition with greenfields city loses every time: reasons time, money and frustration with
    process
•   Michigan no taxes on brownfield sites
•   Need continual funding of projects rather than each step a separate application and grant
•   Cash flow on state money – reimbursement
•   Legislative vs. policy decisions at the state level
•   Incubators are funded out west by EDA, here EDA is adversarial
•   Interactions with Federal EPA
    • No relationship between OEPA and USEAP – no Memorandum of Understanding
    • HR Bill 1300 – to de-link brownfields from Superfund sites
•   Representatives of state agencies need to spend more time in the field
•   Public – private partnerships – Liberty Commons
    • Control of property – option agreement
    • Control and investigate allows options to stay open
•   Environmental audit laws need review
•   Reasonable protection for the city and the land owner
•   Private sector builds spec buildings but works against state incentives because the building is
    already in place
•   Annexation – no withdrawal policy
•   A positive change – make contiguous parcels part of the city, and the ability to receive taxes
•   Enterprise zones: residential and industrial should permit the partial abatement of income
    taxes
•   Incentives to go somewhere, businesses with little property often need incentives, income tax
    relief helpful
•   Hope the state has the discipline to stick a true urban policy: instead of what happened with
    Impacted Cities and Enterprise Zones
•   Urban sprawl assisted with development policies pushing infrastructure, take this into
    consideration
•   New dollars not available for cities
•   Best Practice: combination of state funds on the Market Street project: ODOT, ODOD,
    ODBR and license tax




                                           - 56 -
Environmental Regulations
• States anti-degradation policy and how it is applied to combined sewer overflows (CSO) and
   wet-weather offsets can shut down development in older cities
• Old and new regulations create tremendously high cost
• Again the playing field is not level: brownfields vs. greenfields
• Application of OEPA policy different for each state and region
• If need a Permit to Install (PTI) for new business need an immediate offset
• Ban on new taps, would like the ability to escrow within a community pollution credits
• Great Lakes Initiative and the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL)
   • Creates rations for point source and non-point discharges in a watershed
   • Based on receiving streams ability to handle the loads
   • Likely to look to point sources rather than non-point for offsets because of the ease of
       identifying the pipe
   • Older communities at risk cost of having business in place, in Lima metal coating
       industry, could impact ability to grow
   • TMDL for will not be assigned to all communities
   • OEPA trying to make Ottawa River a warm water habitat
   • Classic battle of city vs. farm
   • Equity of application concern
   • CSO overflows 50% of Lima’s problems
   • Pollution rights depend on how state applies
• BUSTER – clean to pristine level, Commerce Department working with city on a spill at the
   garage which was built on a landfill. Very frustrating
• No urban designation because the aquifer is clean
• Wetlands in the way of development,, consistency in remediation rules
• Bowling Green, OEPA office, flexible and helpful on asbestos ruling

Other
• Location of offices in city important, Workers Compensation moved out of downtown had a
   negative impact
• Absentee owners and corporate buying programs, including state, prevent local buying and
   daily investment in the community
• Low interest loans that are not manufacturing based: retail, residential, commercial, office
• Tax credit for brownfields and location of housing
• Quick take eminent domain legislation




                                         - 57 -
Lorain Focus Group Summary
September 29, 1999


Welcome by Mayor Koziura:
Mayor Koziura began the process by reviewing the Governor’s Initiative and Objectives as they
were outlined in early August. Koziura identified the major themes of the focus group to be
Education & Workforce Training, Brownfield & land redevelopment, and Housing. Each of the
15 participants introduced themselves and the discussion began.

The following priorities were selected through the use of a nominal group technique:

Priorities:

•   A State Approved Education Curriculum that tracks with the state mandated proficiency
    tests.
•   State needs to focus on improving existing infrastructure.
•   State needs to reform its regulations on redevelopment or institute tax offsets. Costs are too
    high for brownfields to compete with greenfields.
•   The Ohio Housing Trust Fund Down Payment Program needs to be expanded.

Best Practices:

•   City has purchased 400 acres of land for an industrial park. The city controls the design and
    the tenant mix.
•   Closed hospital of 400,000 square feet is being redeveloped through a community non-profit
    board. The Veterans Administration and the community college will become major tenants
    for the building.
•   The city has seen Housing Code Enforcement dramatically improve Housing Values in
    neighborhoods where citations have been issued. South Lorain four years ago had average
    value of $45,000 today it has risen to $61,000.
•   City using JTPA summer funds hires high school kids to paint housing where owners can no
    longer handle it themselves. Sherwin-Williams donates the paint. Last summer 25 houses
    were completed.




                                           - 58 -
Lorain Focus Group Notes
September 29, 1999

Welcome by Mayor Koziura:
Mayor Koziura began the process by reviewing the Governor’s Initiative and Objectives as they
were outlined in early August. Koziura identified the major themes of the focus group to be
Education & Workforce Training, Brownfield & land redevelopment, and Housing. Each of the
15 participants introduced themselves and the discussion began.

Key Issues Discussed by Topic:

Education & Workforce Training:
• General Praise for the Ohio Industrial Training Program. The state program provides an
  edge for the local community in attracting new investment.
• New program beginning for the Community Colleges called “Jobs Challenge” which will
  provide funding to help the colleges train local people to specific skills so companies have a
  pool to draw from. The program is modeled after North Carolina and just getting started.
• “Skilled” labor is difficult to find. Even raising entry wage rate has not attracted people. See
  some downsizing in related industries but have not been able to attract them to work in the
  area. There seems to be a trend of evidence that shows people get trained then jump to jobs
  in Cuyahoga County where pay, benefits, and environment are seen as superior.
• USS /Kobe has spent $1.8 million to upgrade employee training over the last two years.
• State needs to guarantee Basic Skills and Work Values. State education should focus on core
  skills then the companies can train to own specifications.
• State funding not helpful for vocational training in the general high school.
• Lorain has five school districts that serve some part of the city. Feels that the middle class is
  leaving the Lorain City Schools. The general student population is from lower social-
  economic strata and has a number of personal issues that mask academic performance.
• Grade Cards for schools should not promote comparisons between the haves and the have not
  schools. Need to move away from absolute test scores to rates of improvement. If the State
  requires proficiency tests then is should also provide the curriculum that directs the student to
  success on the tests.
• Should consider measures of outcome such as percentage of students that go to college
  without remediation, or go into the military, or get jobs paying a given wage.
• State should focus training efforts on incumbent workforce since the need is now.

Brownfield & Land Redevelopment:
• It’s to easy to build new compared to upgrading existing structures.
• Focus dollars on existing infrastructure, if there is demand for new then let demand pay for it
   through tolls and user fees.
• Tax distribution should be on “Need” not clout.
• More incentives to redevelop existing buildings. Restrictions on greenfields
• Wetland remediation has become excessive. Manmade sites are held to original greenfield
   standards.




                                           - 59 -
•   Environmental standards are delaying public projects. A road project promised to be
    complete in 1998 has been delayed for further study. Best guess is now 2003. The result
    will be the same but the cost and time have increased.
•   Need tax offsets to cover the increased costs of re-development.
•   Small Business can not afford the large cost redevelopment projects. Can government take a
    more active role in reducing the costs so smaller growing businesses can afford to move back
    into the downtown buildings?
•   City has purchased 400 acres of land for an industrial park. The city controls the design and
    the tenant mix.
•   Closed hospital of 400,000 square feet is being redeveloped through a community non-profit
    board. The Veterans Administration and the community college will become major tenants
    for the building.
•   Major Employers, steel and auto looks strong now, need to work with them on long range
    plans.

Housing:
• Promote Home Ownership, have seen vast differences in neighborhoods where renting is
  high compared to those where on-site ownership is high.
• Expand down payment program in the Housing Trust Fund. The $3000 help is great but too
  little. Not enough money in program, limited number of people can be helped. The 65% of
  median may not be sufficient in the neighborhoods where rehab and new in-fill housing costs
  place the homes out of reach.
• The city has seen Housing Code Enforcement dramatically improve Housing Values in
  neighborhoods where citations have been issued. South Lorain four years ago had average
  value of $45,000 today it has risen to $61,000.
• City using JTPA summer funds hires high school kids to paint housing where owners can no
  longer handle it themselves. Sherwin-Williams donates the paint. Last summer 25 houses
  were completed.
• City has 65-70% of Section 8 Housing in the County. While willing to have its percentage of
  the County population (25%) feels other communities must take their share of the in-need
  populations. Can Section 8 be modified to support home ownership?
• Education and Support programs may be required for the first-time homebuyer.

Priorities
• A State Approved Education Curriculum that tracks with the state mandated proficiency
    tests.
• State needs to focus on improving existing infrastructure.
• State needs to reform its regulations on redevelopment or institute tax offsets. Costs are too
    high for brownfields to compete with greenfields.
• The Ohio Housing Trust Fund Down Payment Program needs to be expanded.
Final Comments
A final question was raised asking when was Lorain’s heyday? After several comments about
the current time being pretty good, the Mayor identified the late 50’s early 60’s when there were
lines waiting to get into the downtown restaurants. When being seen on the downtown street was
the social highlight. The 70’s still had the jobs in town, but the social order; the sense of
community was strongest in the 50’s and 60’s. The advents of interstates, television, air


                                          - 60 -
conditioning, and malls have changed the definition of community and have contributed to the
movement of the population away from a centralized urban core.




                                         - 61 -
Mansfield Focus Group Summary
September 8, 1999

The following are the priorities selected by the Mansfield focus group through the use of a
nominal group technique.

Housing
Goals
• Housing rehab
• Ownership
• Education programs
• Supportive housing options
Hinderances
• Not enough HOME money
• Formulas
Where the State is Helping
• HOME funds
• Local lending
• Tax credits
Where the State Could Help
• Tie funding to past results
• Recognize small communities
• Larger infusions of funds rather than smaller but more frequent fundings
Community Building
Goals
• Use schools as community centers
• Educate/communicate with neighborhood associations
Where the State is Helping
• Funding for CHAP
Where the State Could Help
• More on-the-job training for local/small employers
• Support POP program
• More funds for schools
Brownfields
Goals
• CNSs
• Return land to productive use
Hinderance
• Historic preservation
• Conflict between US EPA and OEPA
• Urban setting designation
Where the State Could Help
• More funding
• Coordinate and clarify rules



                                        - 62 -
Mansfield Focus Group Notes
September 8, 1999

Key Issues Discussed by Topic:

Housing

Goals
• Housing for men – low income and homeless; housing for all individuals in the community,
  especially the very poor
• Obtain more Section 8 vouchers
• Housing education – programs covering home ownership and renting responsibilities
• Funding for supportive services
• Programs for earlier intervention, reducing the need for more extensive programs
• Expand the opportunities for those of very low incomes to own a home; community
  supported rehab; rehab one neighborhood at a time rather than one house
• Expansion of supportive housing options
• Education about special needs populations for those who live in neighborhoods where special
  needs populations live
• Expand MRDD program
• Deconcentration of LMI housing
• Increase to $1.0 million the annual HOME distribution

Where the State Helps
• Bonds
• Rating system is useful when leveraging HOME funds
• State and Federal non-discretionary funding
• Consolidated Plan offers an opportunity for review and collaboration

Hindrances
• Not enough HOME funds – need at least $1 million per year
• Various HUD requirements for funding
• Demographics and how they are calculated are working against the City
• Historic preservation – reexamine the guidelines

Where the State Could Help
• HOME/CDBG examination
• Provide more funds to smaller communities
• Award larger one time grants rather than providing smaller amounts each year
• Don’t penalize communities for managing the funds well – smaller communities are often
  too good at problem solving, thus showing a supposed need for less money
• Tie funding to past results
• Examine how even competition is between larger and smaller communities
• Offer greater incentives for corporate and bank involvement in community development



                                        - 63 -
Community Building

Goals
• Create businesses in neighborhoods – convenience stores, grocery stores; must charge
  affordable prices
• Encourage larger businesses (e.g. Meijer) to open satellite locations
• Community centered schools – use schools as community centers
• Promote the location of banks in the inner city
• Establish more neighborhood association
• Education
• Use community associations for listening sessions

Where the State Could Help
• Incentivize/provide programs to increase commercial investment through partnerships with
  small businesses
• Promote more/better community organizing efforts
• Provide funding for studies concerning attitudes about work and working
• Provide for more on-the-job training
• More incentives/funding for small businesses, including transportation initiatives
• Support POP (Positive Opportunities Programs), a teen on teen program linking a teen
  “doing well” with a teen not “doing well”.
• Help extend POP to the adult population
• Encourage satellite social service offices
• Greater funding for CHAP ( Community Health Access Program), a locally based program
  promoting prenatal health
• Use jobs to promote other life improvements
• Farmland preservation – stop big box development where it can’t be easily served by city
  services
• Promote urban living
• Increase funding for schools

Brownfields
• Process makes it almost not worth doing the remediation
Goals
 • Convert more land to productive use
 • Gain more CNSs
 • Identify all brownfield sites

Hindrances
• Historic preservation
• Conflict between US EPA and OEPA
• Lack of CNS
• Urban settings designation should be enhanced
• Limited EPA staff State and Federal
• Not enough funding


                                        - 64 -
•   Lack of coordination

Where the State Could Help
• Relax current rules, or help the cities work through them
• Coordinate and clarify rules for clean-up
• What do other states do to prevent the problems Ohio has?
• VAP- too confusing
• Establish more liaisons
• Better communication between State agencies
• Expedited process
• Expand training for OEPA employees

The following priorities were selected through the use of a nominal group technique:

Priorities

Housing

Goals
• Housing rehab
• Ownership
• Education programs
• Supportive housing options

Hindrances
• Not enough HOME money
• Formulas

Where the State is Helping
• HOME funds
• Local lending
• Tax credits

Where the State Could Help
• Tie funding to past results
• Recognize small communities
• Larger infusions of funds rather than smaller but more frequent funding

Community Building

Goals
• Use schools as community centers
• Educate/communicate with neighborhood associations




                                         - 65 -
Where the State is Helping
• Funding for CHAP

Where the State Could Help
• More on-the-job training for local/small employers
• Support POP program
• More funds for schools

Brownfields
Goals
• CNSs
• Return land to productive use

Hindrances
• Historic preservation
• Conflict between US EPA and OEPA
• Urban setting designation

Where the State Could Help
• More funding
• Coordinate and clarify rules

Best Practices
• POP (Positive Opportunities Program): POP links a teen doing well with one who is having
   difficulties. POP is essentially a teen-on-teen mentoring program. Mansfield would like to
   extend the program to adults.
• CHAP (Community Health Access Program): CHAP’s goal is to reduce the number of low
   birth weight babies. This is accomplished through door-to-door efforts in two (?) census
   tracts. While the goal of CHAP is to reduce low birth weight babies, the effects are
   extending well beyond that objective.




                                         - 66 -
Portsmouth Focus Group Summary
September 28, 1999

The city identified five topics to discuss: Workforce Development/Education, Brownfields,
Transportation/Infrastructure, Taxes, and Housing.

Workforce Development/Education
• The state’s funding strategy places the city at a competitive disadvantage to suburban areas in
  Scioto County and throughout the state. The state should do more to recognize the
  importance of vocational training and provide assistance, technical and financial, for small
  business development. The transition off of public assistance provides many challenges in
  the areas of insurance and education.

Transportation/Infrastructure
• The current funding system fails to adequately recognize the role of economic development
   when allocating funds. The State of Ohio did help with the creation of a rural transportation
   network that reaches many citizens in the county.

Brownfields
• The VAP program is not working for Ohio. The program is too complex and burdensome.
   The city does not have many properties. The county does have opportunities. The success in
   New Boston, Osco Industries, was a result of cooperation between many funders.

Taxes
• Ohio is not competitive with Kentucky and West Virginia for large projects. The standard
   abatement programs are now expected by all businesses.

Housing
• It is important to work to increase the level of homeownership in the city through state
  programs administered locally. Scattered site development for rentals is better public policy
  and creates safer communities. Housing problems should be addressed on a neighborhood
  basis with a priority the area around Shawnee State. The use of specific tax credits to
  encourage home ownership maybe an effective means to promote quality residential housing.




                                          - 67 -
Portsmouth Focus Group Notes
September 28, 1999

The Mayor asked the selected the topics to be discussed by voting prior to beginning the focus
group process. The group chose five topics: Workforce/Education, Brownfields,
Transportation/Infrastructure, Taxes and Housing.

Key Issues Discussed by Topic:

Workforce/Education
• Prepare people for what kind of business/industry will exist using different types of training
• Plastics, electronics industry are big in Scioto County
• Light manufacturing is producing good paying jobs, with warehousing thanks to the river and
  rail with some service work
• No land in city for growth all in the county, need county help
• Financing of schools Southern Ohio discriminated against, lack dollars for the kids. Need to
  improve reading and math skills before adding computers. Replacing 1960s buildings in the
  county while the city is not eligible for funds to replace a 1910 building, repair starts here
• Formula system should be adopted, the new pot of money requires a 50% match. Still
  reliance on local property tax. Portsmouth is on the border for value valuation. Per pupil
  valuation still evaluated. No bond levy likely to pass in Portsmouth
• Met with Ohio Department of Education (ODE) would have to raise property tax by 300
  mils. Schools are not crowded.
• ODE is coming in March to evaluate the city’s buildings. Portsmouth is #122 on the equity
  list at this time
• Through open enrollment 300 city students choose to educated at a high school besides
  Portsmouth. Wide range of reasons, city is also losing an additional 100 students through
  natural movement. Ohio will have overall declining school population
• 126 kids enrolled in New Boston
• The city is losing $1.2 million annually through open enrollment. A student equals
  approximately $4,000 a year.
• Mandate consolidation of two high schools
• Residential property tax should stay local with all other taxes remitted to Columbus to be
  distributed on per-pupil basis
• New job creation for entrepreneurs. Education for entrepreneurship in the schools.
  Portsmouth city schools do this at this time. Shawnee State valuable resource help grow
  businesses, new start-ups, through teaching personal finance and life skills.
• Teach how to be a worker, importance of being on-time, basic elemental concepts focus on
  work ethic
• Job training through the vocational schools
• Many unemployed are not responsible
• Six industries and vocational school have a pre-employment program involves collaboration
  between schools
• Learn fair program – two counties: Scioto and Allen.




                                          - 68 -
    •   Monitor kids on AFDC if two unexcused absences in a month at school, benefits reduced.
        Helps to bring education into the home, break the cycle of poverty. Evaluation showed a
        decreased truancy by 40%
    • Decrease in public assistance, however going to work at $5-6 an hour jobs, creating the
        working poor
    • No health care for adults, a program CHIP provides coverage for kids under 200% of
        median
    • 49% of the county earns less than 200% county median income
•   Portsmouth revitalization creating interest for outside business to come town. Any industry
    comes all its taxes go into the educational system. Get away from turf issues. Aging
    business owners, who will fill the void. Keeping young people, they are migrating away.
    Empty buildings downtown, trying to fill. Through cooperation of city, county, schools,
    chambers possible to make things better.
•   Small business experts need to come to Portsmouth, loan faculty to Shawnee State to assist
    local business. University can provide the glue, computers. Incorporate resources and help
    business

Best Practices
• Job Prep – pre-employment training program 9 years in existence, a cooperation between
   Board of Regents and Human Services. Provides planning for and help with training and
   development programs.
• East Portsmouth High School – student operated print shop doing commercial printing job:
   Tartan Print Shop

Brownfields
• Lack of available land in the city
• Southern Ohio Port Authority (SOPA) and county received USEPA grant to do assessment of
   potential brownfields: 3 each in county and city. Smaller sites in the city, still significant.
   Redeveloping New Boston site
• Voluntary Action Program (VAP) is a real disappointment
• VAP wants to be helpful, 8 years old, provision for 200 CNS, entire period issued between
   24-36. Biggest OEPA initiative does not work.
• Viaduct property in the city may have value.
• City has no industrial sites listed with ODOD, city has to be pro-active. New Boston spent
   $3 million on land, time and resources to get the site moving
• Rural Industrial Park program was good. City and county lack general revenues to expend
   for projects.
• VAP rules to complicated and burdensome. Private developers find the process
   uncomfortable
• Big projects cost big money. $1 million for rural industrial programs is not a program.
   Infrastructure cost should be shared
• Annexation is a hot topic, Portsmouth population and number of households dropped over
   time
• Consolidation of land area. Example - difficulty combining two parishes in city
• 13 school districts in county, too many


                                          - 69 -
•   Portsmouth gave away water and sewer service without a return
•   Water and sewer made Columbus grow, infrastructure helps city grow
•   Stop the House Bill on annexation gives to much power to Township Trustees, citizens lose
    choice
•   Unfunded state mandates, water and sewer adversary of OEPA. Solid waste districts pushed
    by OEPA, Portsmouth did not participate, required tipping fees by citizens. Columbus does
    not include communities in the process.
•   Community needs a master plan, perhaps a forum similar to this for the community, Capital
    Improvement Plan (CIP) plan
•   Scioto County plan exists, state view on planning unclear

Transportation/Infrastructure
• County bus service managed by county board of transportation, ODOT helpful, Federal rules
   encourage rural transportation, county commissioners making up the difference from
   shortfall
• Free transportation for individuals earning less than 200% of income
• ODOT needs to continue to assist in resurfacing roads in the city. City has only $200,000 for
   street budget
• TRAC skewed toward urban areas, difficult to work with since high volume count is a
   criterion
• ARC though is based on economic development, this is a federal priority system.
• ODOT is an adversary on the RT. 52 bypass, process is difficult, ODOT does not wan what
   the locals want, conflict

Tax Policy
• Fannie Mae investment areas around the university, Howard University, quality housing gets
   tax credits, renovations can improve a neighborhood, work to improve student housing
• OUS is providing cash to faculty to live in certain areas
• Community reinvestment are is city wide, every company wants abatement, needs
   administrative review
• Tax credits on a 25 unit site, income range is to narrow
• Competition with Kentucky, Ohio always lose, standard package is fine, air quality bond
   program good. West Virginia made special appropriations at Buffalo Creek for the engine
   plant. Kentucky did the same thing for Toyota. Ohio has to be willing to be more flexible
   and competitive.

Housing
• Homebuyers down payment, rehab-repurchase program, off-set decrease in homeownership
• Federal assistance, Shawnee Apartments, Booker T. Washington, schools rehabbed very
  effective. Findlay Manor – senior and veterans, remove blight
• Some areas still blighted
• Single parent households often lack budget skills, multi-family units attract trouble, haven for
  drug trade
• Scattered sites, 2-3 units
• Recommend Housing Authorities give scholarships to local colleges


                                          - 70 -
•   High rent burden in area, deplorable conditions in many units, average age of area increasing,
    affordable housing lacking
•   Dollars needed for land acquisition for housing, could draw developers, watch displacement
•   Shotgun lots a problem, hard to do in-fill housing, hunting for title, use eminent domain take
    property including vacant lots. In one case 36 people involved in 12 states
•   Project on city land, take the property through delinquent taxes
•   Norfolk & Southern train station, asset to the city, need state help could be used for
    office/commercial project.
•   City may use this property for a municipal building.




                                          - 71 -
Springfield Focus Group Summary
September 21, 1999

Mayor Warren Copeland invited eleven representatives from the community to attend and a
representative from Mayor Turner’s office in Dayton.

The group dealt with three topics during the morning session: brownfields, city-suburban
cooperation and housing.

Key Issues Discussed by Topic:

Brownfields
• Voluntary Action Program (VAP) administered by OEPA is not working or meeting the
   needs of business or communities.
• Liability protection remains a key concern for all parties involved in the remediation process.
• Projects to be successful need to be profitable for a developer and market driven.
• Best practice is to avoid the state and OEPA when working on brownfield projects.
City – Suburban Cooperation
• Springfield and Springfield Township close to signing historic agreement to share revenues
   and services.
• Cost to accomplish this partnership is high to provide necessary infrastructure
• Government structure in Ohio encourages adversarial relationships
• Enabling legislation needs to be written to encourage cooperative arrangements between
   different governmental units.
• Tax base sharing among school districts or consolidation of districts to eliminate duplication
   of services, reduce cost and increase efficiency.
Housing
• Spread affordable housing throughout the region.
• Expand housing tax credit program to higher levels of income.
• Increase incentives for market rate housing in the city
• Tax credits for home ownership in certain locations: historic or income based.

The priorities were selected through the use of a nominal group technique:

Priorities
• Knowing end user before funding is a problem
• No MOA between Ohio and USEPA leaves lender or end user at risk
• Avoid VAP law – does not offset cost of brownfields vs. greenfield – it is not targeted
• Encourage Cooperation – Consolidation of Services
• Encourage Cooperation - Consolidation of School Districts
• Tax Sharing – Schools and Services
• Funding from State for Infrastructure
• Change State Administration of Tax Credit Program to allow more income mixing – earlier
   home ownership
• Middle class back into city, disperse poor throughout an area


                                          - 72 -
•   Historic Home Ownership Assistance Act - Senate – 664, House – 1172
•   Educate and Improve Communication between lenders and community
•   Theme – Education is in all three of these areas – consistent




                                       - 73 -
Springfield Focus Group Notes
September 21, 1999

Key Issues Discussed by Topic:

Brownfields
• Legislation 2 years old – VAP
• Process Expensive – impractical unless on large sites
• Greenfield is cheaper
• More sense to reuse brownfields
• Streamline the process and make it cheaper
• High fees to be certified as environmental clean up contractor – passed on to owner
• Timing – too slow
• Liability – not clear – OEPA and USEPA do not use MOU
• “Suspected” environmental issues on land, no money to find out
• Requires end user prior to funding chicken-egg situation
• Price is the issue, not location – you can be anywhere in Springfield or its environ
• Banks do not want to loan because they do not want to own!
• Sites need to be ready to go!!
• Incentives are not there to wait for or offset cost of clean up - Tax Abatement can be had
   anywhere
• DOD
   • Greenfield – 1 hour for package
   • Brownfield – identify end user – if site is cleaned in one year later we may still not have a
      user ready to take the site!
• End user – use zoning to determine clean up to that level
• Largest brownfield – 10 acres
• Pay money
• State blesses ground
• Pollution still stays in ground
• VAP is confidential – this is good
• Simplify – VAP make it as quick as non-VAP Certified ER process
• EPA is a red flag
• Brownfields are often “transferred” via “land contract”
• Best Practice is to avoid Ohio and USFPA!!
• Successes are because State wasn’t involved
• Projects must be profitable to the developer

City Suburban Cooperation
• Agreement in next three weeks
   - End 200 years of fighting
   - Has a cost – need help
   - Water and Sewer cost is tremendous
     (ED) Lines to Industrial Park via township that is on septic system (CD) Roads and
     Utilities


                                          - 74 -
      Need money so residents/businesses do not bear total cost – rates need to be competitive
•   State needs to offer carrots for Urban Area Cooperation
•   Clark County – 5 acres – Septic Systems
    • Best way to preserve farmland centralized services
•   Encourage State to stay out of it if City-Townships agreements if both party agree
•   Revamp State Laws – Fire Districts, Tax Base Sharing etc. to encourage cooperation
•   Consolidate and unify districts
•   Enabling Legislation
•   Small City Consolidation and surrounding area
•   World is changing – need to see big picture
•   City ran utilities and roads without any return
•   City – Townships – Counties are set up to fight – the structure sets it up that way
•   Minnesota an example
•   Joint Power Agreement
    - Dispatchers
    - No Government Building
•   Ohio hasn’t changed, the world has
•   Tax Abatement can be used anywhere
•   Schools need to be funded adequately
•   South Carolina – Charleston – Trident area
•   If everyone makes money it will happen
•   Incentives need to be revamped, they do not foster cooperation
•   Community Leadership – City/County is needed
•   Tax Base Sharing among school districts when annexation – industrial/commercial
•   Education is a based upon real estate value a town of $50,000 houses gets half the education
    of a town with $100,000 homes
•   Consolidate School Districts – too many - eliminate duplication – reduce cost
•   Consolidate funding, 25 counties educate people for Honda, only one township in one county
    gets taxes from them
•   If you are interested, in Farmland preservation you should try to solve city school problems –
    from paper

Housing
• Housing –spread affordable housing throughout the Region
• Housing Trust Fund
  - Dedicated Funding Sources
  - Line Item 431 – needs to be increased
• Need to attract young – middle-aged, and middle class into city
• Adequate units currently
• Units built outside city wall increase abandonment – vacancy – within city
• Too many folks are paying so much for rent they could own
• Home buying Clinic – needed/educate
• Middle income incentives, not just low/moderate assistance
• 80% - low and moderate


                                          - 75 -
•   60% - Tax Credit – how low can you go vs. redevelopment
•   Mixed housing units
•   Dispersal of Housing Units
    - Qualified Census Tract (QCT) – provision hopefully out
•   Market study – do not collocate projects
•   Colts Run – no good – Tax Credit
•   Dispersal
•   Home Ownership Tax Credit Program
    • Assists?
•   Residential Community needs to be considered when redoing brownfields
•   School system needs to be improved
•   Home buying Education Programs do not get reimbursed if applicant is over 65% of income
•   Education on Spend and Save – credit cards vs. saving/investing
•   Greater Incentives for middle income home ownership
•   65% limit on home buyer education (HTF)
•   CRC – Community Redevelopment Cooperation
•   Home buyer Education – 3 month waiting list
•   Dilapidated Housing – vacant houses, vacant lots
•   Rehab or Tear down Limit Boarded Structures 150 to 20 left (historic) via SHPO MOA with
    SHPO
•   State did and does a good job with housing and tax credit program for rental
•   Hope State does the same with New Federal Home Ownership
    • Tax Credit Program – concerned about historic preservation aspect
•   Deconcentration of all subsidized and assisted housing
•   Chapter – 3767.41Receivership for Housing
•   Need Receivership for non-Residential Property
•   ODOT – Difficult to deal with
•   District 17
•   Paving of sidewalks
•   Timing of projects
•   Do not listen
•   Paratransit working well

The priorities were selected through the use of a nominal group technique:

Priorities
• Knowing end user before funding is a problem
• No MOA between Ohio and USEPA leaves lender or end user at risk
• Avoid VAP law – does not offset cost of brownfields vs. greenfield – it is not targeted
• Encourage Cooperation – Consolidation of Services
• Encourage Cooperation - Consolidation of School Districts
• Tax Sharing – Schools and Services
• Funding from State for Infrastructure



                                          - 76 -
•   Change State Administration of Tax Credit Program to allow more income mixing – earlier
    home ownership
•   Middle class back into city, disperse poor throughout an area
•   Historic Home Ownership Assistance Act - Senate – 664, House – 1172
•   Educate and Improve Communication between lenders and community
•   Theme – Education is in all three of these areas – consistent

Best Practices
• CEDA – Cooperative Economic Development Agreement
• City – County – Township Cooperation – Prime Ohio
• Consolidation - Parks, Health




                                        - 77 -
Steubenville Focus Group Summary
October 5, 1999

Mayor Mucci talked about Governor Bob Taft’s kickoff meeting August and the goals and
process of the Urban Revitalization Task Force. The Mayor gave his vision for Steubenville,
identified positive efforts Steubenville has made to revitalize itself, and then opened up
discussion by the focus group. There were about 14 focus group participants.

Although Steubenville talked about all areas, the major discussion centered around tax incentives
and inducements, transportation and infrastructure, land redevelopment, workforce
development/education, and housing. This focus group felt that most challenges for urban
revitalization could be driven by implementation of their South End project, a proposed multi-
use project that has been in existence for several years. The Mayor’s focus group, representative
of the City’s leadership, jointly requested $8 million in seed funds through the Governor’s
capital budget allocation. By having the State provide needed assistance through tax incentives,
improved infrastructure, and land acquisition, and by Steubenville providing the needed skilled
workforce, this 12 block area just south of downtown can be an engine, leveraged by private
sector funding, for improved employment opportunities, economic development, and population
growth.

As Steubenville is part of the tri-state area including West Virginia and Pennsylvania, its
situation is affected by these other states. State programs should take into account this
environment. Steubenville is a player in the Pittsburgh area as it is only 30 minutes to the
Pittsburgh airport. There is currently a van-sharing program taking workers to Pittsburgh.
Steubenville’s plans call for development of Steubenville as both a bedroom community to
Pittsburgh and a place for businesses who supply the Pittsburgh regional market to locate.

Steubenville needs assistance targeted to a distressed small city. U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis data for the 1990’s illustrate that distressed conditions in Steubenville have increased
significantly when compared to other Ohio metro areas. The State should develop policies and
programs that are more flexible (i.e., less cookie cutter) and targeted to areas of need. The South
End project can show a return on investment and, with State partnership and assistance, can be a
real success story.

There are several best practices. Included among these are: North End streetscape; completion
of 27 murals through the mural program; downtown façade program; Fort Steuben Mall; first
time homebuyers program; 2000 Vision plan.

The focus group concluded with each participant summarizing his/her viewpoint.




                                          - 78 -
Steubenville Focus Group Notes
October 5, 1999


Opening Comments
Mayor Mucci thanked Governor Taft for giving Steubenville an opportunity to participate in the
Task Force. He also outlined his vision for the process, and the South End Project.

Key Issues Discussed By Topic:

Tax Incentives/Inducements/Structure

•   Border community, border Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Grocery stores in Steubenville
    benefit from WV business, because WV taxes food. Steubenville loses clothing sales to PA
    – PA has no sales tax on clothing
•   State programs are not tailored to border states
•   Too much interstate competition. Steubenville can and does attract business from outside the
    State of Ohio
•   North End Enhancement Program
•   Need tax incentives for homeowners to behave as businesses do, and renovate their houses
•   Inflexible programs. The State is advanced enough to develop policies that apply to only
    certain areas of the state. More incentives are needed for impacted areas. Focus on south
    eastern Ohio. Development here will benefit the whole State.
•   Reduce State wide programming, and begin targeting
•   Follow N.Y. example and establish sales tax free time periods during holidays and back-to-
    school
•   Ohio riverfront – never had an opportunity that was available on Lake Erie, e.g. bonding
    authority. On the rivrfront there has been a mixed effort. WV exceeds Ohio in the
    development of the river. The State seems to focus on those areas that are easiest to develop.
•   The development of Lake Erie is evidence of the results of the use of State resources and
    assistance
•   Previous capital budgets included a $5 million appropriation for the 29 appalachian counties.
    Need flexibility in the use of funds
•   The State is better positioned to determine what cities need, changes in prrogramming should
    come at the State level, not the Federal level
•   Port Modernization Bill
•   Distressed areas need special consideration. Need “cold, hard, cash”
•   1992 Steubenville Riverfront plan. The plan won an award, but was not funded.
•   We have good ideas, but they are never funded.
•   Big 8 seem to get direct line items. Other areas have to get their money their commissions
    and coalitions. Facilities are going to areas where infrastructure already exists. To develop
    in someplace like Steubenville, the infrastructure has to be put into place. DOD has enough
    funds to pay for much of this infrastructure
•   Steubenville has no “big hitters” – there are no large private developers to build a partnership
    with.


                                           - 79 -
•   Steubenville has the Pittsburgh area to draw businesses from. Money is needed for the
    industrial areas of the city
•   Focus incentives on areas with an available workforce. Do for Steubenville what was done
    for Cleveland and Columbus
•   When Wheeling-Pitt advertised for 100 available positions, over 3,000 people applied
•   The area is losing workers due to the lack of quality jobs
•   If something is done quickly, there can be a quick rebound

Transportation/Infrastructure

•   US 22 – The improvements to this highway have been beneficial. The City must now find a
    way to develop the sites opened-up
•   The Ohio Department of Transportation’s willingness to pick-up 20% of the local share to
    maintain State routes within incorporated limits is appreciated. Given the distressed need of
    cities similar to Steubenville, this willingness fills a broad financial gap at the local level. It
    is hoped this policy will continue.
•   ODOT – participation in State highway maintenance in municipalities. Steubenville had to
    find money for the Route 43 project. That doesn’t happen in Cleveland or Columbus.
    ODOT and ODOD know these conditions exist. Instead of crumbs, cities need help with
    integrated projects. There is often no private partner.
•   Not much money available for wastewater projects
•   Establish linkages to develop broad bases of project support
•   Importance of the road network. Need to preserve what exists. Fort Steuben bridge is
    critical, as is the Market Street bridge. Assistance was found for Toledo, Cincinnati, and
    Columbus for roads, it’s now Steubenville’s turn
•   Look at what projects have received State support – Jeep, Longaberger, New Albany
•   Need funds for maintenance, and for new roads and sewers
•   Good public transit will require extra funds
•   Projects seem to move faster the closer you get to Columbus

Brownfields/Land Redevelopment

•   South End Project
•   Pittsburgh project recently announced by Mayor Tom Murphy – mix of commercial and
    housing
•   Steubenville needs assistance in the marketing and promotion of the South End Project, both
    inside and outside of ODOD. The City is marketing the site with the assistance of Alliance
    2000, with billboards near the Pittsburgh airport, and full page ads. The City Steubenville
    requests a greater marketing emphasis of the Ohio Department of Development throughout
    eastern Ohio to promote job development.
•   The project has been in development for several years
•   Lost 60 points toward housing tax credits because all of land was not in the control of the city
    developer
•   Project covers a 12 block area. In Cuyahoga County, approximately $40 per capita has been
    used in the development of stadiums


                                             - 80 -
•   Steubenville will need about $8 million for South End Project over a 3 year period
•   $800 million has gone to Cleveland for Stadiums, Steubenville wants just 1% of that
•   Need a line item in the budget to fund the project. The project should yield an investment of
    approximately $25 million
•   Steubenville does not need static, glossy documents. We know what we need, we have
    prepared a plan.
•   The educational infrastructure for development is here and available. Pittsburgh is a partner
    in that they have the airport. The South End Plan will take advantage of this asset.
•   Road improvements in PA are leading to high-tech industrial parks

Workforce Development

•   Workforce is a perceived strength in Steubenville and Jefferson County. Area high schools
    have a high graduation rate, as well as high rates of graduates seeking post-secondary
    degrees
•   Highway improvements have allowed Steubenville to keep commuters. Steubenville could
    move aggressively to get back population that has moved away.
•   Jefferson Community College is pulling in students from out of State
•   If there were good jobs in the area, people would move from WV and PA
•   IDL (Integrated Distance Learning) – Expands potential for education and training
•   WIA – Combination of OBES and ODHS will lead to greater fragmentation
•   Obligated to help those without the basic levels of education needed to be employed
•   More partnerships between colleges/universities and local government
•   Increase in child poverty should cause concern. Early childhood development. What is
    happening to young children, age 3-5?
•   Welfare reform – will we regret the reforms? The appalachian region will be the first to feel
    the effects. We will take the jobs Columbus does not want

Housing

•   Policies are fragmented. There are too many divisions in ODOD responsible for housing,
    and no one person to talk to when there are questions. Need a single point of contact
•   Re-explore Steubenville tax credit project. It will compliment the South End Project
•   Communities are unique. A city often cannot control all of the land at once, and thus
    shouldn’t be penalized when the housing project is part of a larger project
•   Incentivize private sector developers. It is often easier to develop in a fast growing market
•   Affordable family housing. Many families in the area have larger than usual families
•   First time home buyers program is successful. In the past four years, 118 houses have been
    purchased
•   Support for market rate housing and market rate apartments
•   Metro Housing Authorities – changes in requirements beg the question “where does the
    population to serve come from?”
•   State should view Steubenville as part of the Pittsburgh metro area, and leverage dollars
    accordingly
•   Tax structure makes Steubenville attractive as a bedroom community


                                           - 81 -
•   Tristate mayors coalition – regional economic development opportunities. The river is an
    asset, not a barrier

Final Comments

•   South End Project is the future for Steubenville
•   Steubenville is a success in the making. The City has annexed 2 square miles. The Council
    has approved a new housing subdivision. We a have a plan for both the older and newer
    parts of the City.
•   City is asking for no more than we deserve. The plan is in line with what ODOD.
•   The area needs diversification. The South End Project will help with that. DOD needs to
    develop an economic picture of the area
•   Region needs to depend on something other than steel. The South End Project will bring
    quality jobs
•   Suburb of Pittsburgh, South End, $8 million in the capital budget, return on investment
•   Proximity to Pittsburgh, development of the waterfront
•   Road to self-sufficiency is economic development
•   Can Steubenville be a line item in the budget? What money will be available?
•   Look to Cleveland, and what the Gateway did for Cleveland?
•   Thanks to Governor Taft for giving Steubenville this opportunity

The priorities were selected through the use of a nominal group technique:

Priorities

•   South End Project
•   Tailor tax incentives – Steubenville is a suburb of Pittsburgh
•   Retain the Ohio Department of Transportation’s 205 local share for State route maintenance
    within incorporated city limits
•   Housing programs are too fragmented
•   State investment in US 22 – need to create access to sites made available by improvements

Best Practices

•   North End streetscape
•   Mural program – 27 murals painted to date
•   Facade program
•   Fort Steuben Mall
•   First time home buyers program
•   Rideshare program – van pool to Pittsburgh
•   Annexation policy
•   Alliance 2000 – partnership between Steubenville, Jefferson County, and Chamber of
    Commerce




                                          - 82 -
Toledo Focus Group Summary
September 27, 1999

Topics Discussed:

•   Housing
•   Brownfields/land redevelopment
•   Tax incentives

The priorities were selected through the use of a nominal group technique:

Priorities

•   Embrace Article 34; building code provisions regarding renovation of older structures
•   Increase speed of VAP. Impose a deadline on the agency to complete reviews, e.g. 60 days
    or automatic approval
•   Develop Brownfield inventory
•   Tax credit for information technology, particularly for personal computers not linked to a
    manufacturing process
•   Completion of Phase I reviews by the State, using State funds
•   Focus by the State and cities on smaller brownfield sites
•   Incentive allowing the city to abate all taxes on companies that move from the suburbs into a
    vacant building in the city.


Best Practices

•   Adaptive reuse in downtown
•   Jeep, Owens Corning, prison sites
•   Historic hotel conversions




                                          - 83 -
Toledo Focus Group Notes
September 27, 1999

Key Issues Discussed by Topic:

Housing
• Create State historic tax credit similar to other states’ credits. Many states offer a 25%
  credit; combined with the Federal credit of 20%, a developer would receive a 45% credit on
  an historic project. Many developers are concentrating on states that offer the credit.
• LIHTC – changes to the plan every year are confusing. It takes approximately two years to
  prepare for a project. Any time lost to changes in regulations is critical.
• Qualified Census tracts may be removed. This is not a change for the better.
• Per unit cost limits often make it difficult to develop affordable housing in urban areas
• Look to Charleston, SC and Portland, OR for methods for increasing mixed income housing
• The Housing Trust Fund needs a higher level of funding, as well as a consistent source of
  funds
• Market rate housing should be supported with no limits on income

Brownfields/Land Redevelopment
• Jeep site was one no one thought could be used
• Owens-Corning headquarters is on a former brownfield
• Compare Ohio’s VAP to programs in other states, e.g. MI and PA
• Offer a tax credit for brownfields to promote competition with greenfields
• Develop a program of doing Phase I reviews on all properties identified by cities as
   brownfields. This will help the cities develop an inventory of brownfields, and provide an
   idea about remediation costs should a parcel be chosen for development.
• The State should carry the liability for brownfields
• There is a perception of complexity in Ohio’s brownfield programs
• Expand the definition of brownfields to include old buildings
• Adaptive reuse is often more than the market will bear. There is not enough capital for such
   projects
• More assistance is needed with smaller “neighborhood” sites, e.g. one to two acre sites
• Why are suburban/rural greenfield sites allowed to take advantage of benefits such EZs and
   CRA funds, which were originally intended for older urban areas?
• Because of the time required, and the complexity and costs of the VAP, the City will clean to
   the VAP standards, but will not enter the program
• Initiate an innocent land owner policy
• Funds are needed up-front to clean land. Then, businesses can be pursued. Currently
   businesses must be pursued first, with the land then cleaned.

Tax Incentives
• Fix the education system. Better schools will bring people back to the city
• State has streamlined the paperwork required to use programs
• Why are incentives the same no matter the location of the site (urban, rural, suburban)?



                                         - 84 -
•   Incentives for non-manufacturing businesses. Different benchmarks should be used for
    different investments. Reward increases in sales as well as employment
•   Include computers in M and E credit

The priorities were selected through the use of a nominal group technique:

Priorities
• Embrace Article 34
• Increase speed of VAP. Impose a deadline on the agency to complete reviews, e.g. 60 days
   or automatic approval
• Develop Brownfield inventory
• Tax credit for information technology
• Completion of Phase I reviews by the State, using State funds
• Focus on smaller brownfield sites
• Incentive allowing the city to abate all taxes on companies that move from the suburbs into a
   vacant building in the city.

Best Practices
• Adaptive reuse in downtown
• Jeep, Owens Corning, prison sites
• Historic hotel conversions




                                          - 85 -
Warren Focus Group Summary
September 22, 1999

The following priorities were selected through the use of a nominal group technique:

Priorities

•   Policy to assist with property owners who will not sell abandoned or under used properties

•   Low interest loans to rehab properties
•   Incentives to attract middle class back to city
•   A focus on quality of life issues
•   Stop loss guarantee for brownfields projects
•   Policy of forgiving loans for successful brownfield remediations
•   Quick-take eminent domain
•   Expand use of ODOT and Federal funding to allow for integrated transit uses between
    systems
•   Eliminate ODOT and shift funding to OPWC


Best Practices

•   Trumbull 100
•   Westlawn project – public-private partnership. The Trumbull 100 purchased the property
    and shifted people from unit to unit as they demolished structures. The property was then
    sold to the city at cost. A church, retail, and single family homes are planned for the site.
•   Use of school buses for transportation of drug/alcohol rehab patients during non-peak hours
•   Sale of Class II ESQ




                                           - 86 -
Warren Focus Group Notes
September 22, 1999

Key Issues Discussed By Topic:

Brownfields/Land Redevelopment
• Urban Redevelopment Loan funds and water pollution funds are beneficial
• Why not allow for the forgiveness of loan funds when a city gets a CNS?
• EPA needs to be more proactive with banks, explaining issues involved in brownfields
• More funding in early phases of projects – costs increase as projects mature
• Stop-loss guarantee; cities would only have to pay a set percentage
• Need to be able to do testing on private property. Currently testing cannot be done without
   the permission of the property owner as long as they are current on taxes, etc.

Schools
• Stagnating population, with no new in-migration, is hurting the schools
• Schools lack land for construction of new facilities based on current requirements
• Incongruity between city border and school district boundary. The city has annexed, but
   much of that land is not in the Warren City school district.
• Inconsistency between annexation laws, and the laws governing school district boundaries
• Quick –take eminent domain

Land Redevelopment
• Westlawn project – public-private partnership. The Trumbull 100 purchased the property
   and shifted people from unit to unit as they demolished structures. The property was then
   sold to the city at cost. A church, retail, and single family homes are planned for the site.
• Broader definition of public use/benefit needed.
• Land for business expansion is in short supply
• Pennsylvannia allows for special assesments on undeveloped or underdeveloped properties.
   Similar tax is used in MD.

Tax Incentives/Tax Structure
• Abolish inventory tax. Schools would accept this if the tax is phased-out over a 15-20
   period.
• Requirements governing abatements do not provide enough provisions for informing school
   districts
• The method for verifying jobs created through abatements and other programs are not
   satisfactory
• Schools are not satisfied with the estimated inventory tax
• City has income tax, while the suburbs do not; more effective means to communicate about
   the income tax




                                          - 87 -
Transportation/Infrastructure
• Warren/Trumbull County is developing a flexible transit system, with downtown Warren as
   the node. Focus will be upon the elderly and high school students. The intention of the plan
   is to integrate agencies currently providing transit services.
• State/Federal funding sources do not allow for the integration of transit
• US DOT dollars cannot be used for students, while State funding cannot be used for non-
   students
• Transit plan will allow for the expanded use of the schools after normal hours
• How do people get to jobs?
• School buses are being used to transport drug/alcohol rehab patients during non-peak hours
• Attitude of public and elected officials is important – transit is not a “stepchild”
• Class II ESQ (sludge) is being sold by the City
• ODOT should be abolished and replaced by the OPWC. Federal funds should go to OPWC
   rather than ODOT. OPWC is easier to work with.
• Abolish prevailing wage on State funded projects
• Provide ability to create separate gas taxing districts

Workforce Development
• Warren is pushing for a link between K-12, workforce development, and economic
  development
• Not enough support for advanced technologies
• Often have trouble finding matching funds for workforce development projects
• Workforce development operations are not funded by Regents or universities, the operations
  must fund themselves
• OBR emphasizes links with businesses and other agencies without providing funds to support
  linkages
• The jobs being created are low skill and low wage
• Need quarterly wage report at the firm level to check job creation and wage figures
• Provide incentives for workforce development issues
• Almost always have to have a 50% match for funding
• Money is available, though requirements often make it difficult to receive funds
• Establish sliding scale for matching based on average area wage, poverty, etc.

Housing
• Need to attract middle income residents back to city. This could be accomplished through
  more downtown housing, or the use of a down payment assistance program for the non-poor.
• Focus on quality of life issues
• Emphasis on LMI housing pushes schools down to a degree
• Is there a market for the metro housing authority to operate in? Metros are being told they
  have to operate in the free market, what happens when there is too much housing for the
  poor?
• Code problems with converting the upper floors of downtown/commercial buildings to
  residential
• Urban homesteading program to encourage people to move back into the city – anywhere,
  not just downtown.


                                         - 88 -
•   Need more control over the funding provided
•   If money were available from the State for 3%, the city could loan it for 6% and keep the
    difference for other programs.

Safety
• COPS – matching requirement is a problem, as is the restriction on the funds
• BCI labs are helpful, but need to upgrade and reduce time to completion
• State needs to focus on producing certified police chiefs through programs such as CLEE
• Regional police training facilities
• Need money for equipment/technology, not just putting officers on the street
• State needs program similar to Nixon’s law enforcement program.

The following priorities were selected through the use of a nominal group technique:

Priorities
• Need assistance with property owners who will not sell abandoned or underused properties
• Low interest loans to rehab properties are needed
• Incentives to attract middle class back to city
• Focus on quality of life issues
• Stop-loss guarantee for brownfields
• Forgive loans for successful brownfield remediation
• Quick-take eminent domain
• Expand use of ODOT and Federal funding to allow for integrated transit uses between
   systems
• Eliminate ODOT and shift funding to OPWC

Best Practices
• Trumbull 100
• Westlawn project
• Use of school buses for transportation of drug/alcohol rehab patients during non-peak hours
• Sale of Class II ESQ




                                          - 89 -
Youngstown Focus Group Summary
September 8, 1999

Workforce Development
• Industry representatives are willing to train workforce
• No education, no training, equals no jobs
• Education at all levels is the most important issue, requiring public private partnership in
  order to be successful
• Some companies use OITP with no problems, others complain about the lack of flexibility
  and burdensome paperwork
• There are problems in getting employee candidates to take/pass drug test (now more
  accurate)

Brownfield Redevelopment
• The city has made great progress with brownfield cleanup, however they need help because
   the clean up costs can be too much for the city to absorb. Any additional help from the state
   would be beneficial to Youngstown, including additional loan/grant programs for brownfield
   redevelopment.

Downtown Revitalization
• Downtown is key to city; it must grow. They have government offices from every level
  (city, county, state and federal), along with entertainment. There have been improvements
  over the last couple of years, however more is needed.
• Questioned whether Youngstown (as a smaller urban core) can take advantage of the “inner
  city advantages” that Porter outlines.
• Considering the severe financial difficulties of the city, the city needs to focus on what will
  bring the greatest “bang for the buck”
• Downtown is a professional base, proposed fiber optic ring will support this further.
• The three C’s (Cleveland, Columbus & Cincinnati) have mass market benefits that
  Youngstown doesn’t have.
• To impact the citizens image of the city, the mayor is focusing on “visual impact” changes
  downtown – he doesn’t have enough money to rehab or replace old dilapidated buildings, but
  he has torn down one and will tear down two more buildings that cannot be redeveloped.
  After the buildings are torn down, they will serve as city owned surface parking lots until the
  city or a private developer can develop a new building.

Mayor’s Conclusion/Recommendation:
• The federal government should give superfund money to the states – he needs more help to
  finish brownfield clean up.
• The state should create specific criteria for helping distressed urban communities. If there
  were specific criteria for urban distress, he’s confident that they would come out on top.
  They know where their problems are, they need (flexible) financial help to address them --
  more fiscal help than other communities because of their financial situation.




                                          - 90 -
Youngstown Focus Group Notes
September 8, 1999

Key Issues Discussed by Topic:

Workforce Development
• Industry representatives are willing to train workforce
• Businesses with affiliates in other states commented that those states are having same
  problems with finding workers (including our surrounding states)
• Business leader having a problem finding minority candidates in Youngstown, however they
  are using OBES (OH Bureau of Employment Services)
• The Tech Prep program is successful & working
• Comment: “no education, no training = no jobs”
• Education aspect at all levels is the most important issue, requiring public private partnership
  in order to be successful
• Some companies have their own training programs or their own training department
• Some companies use OITP with no problems, other complain about lack of flexibility and
  burdensome paperwork
• One company doesn’t grant employee raises unless the employees get a minimum of 12
  hours of training in the first year, the company selects classes that are eligible
• There are problems in getting employee candidates to take/pass drug test (now more
  accurate)
• One company expressed benefits in moving toward self directed work teams
• Turnover at one company less than 1%; people don’t want to leave the area. This is their
  home and they want to stay, but if forced to leave to find work, they will.
• City/companies work closely with Youngstown State University, one of their greatest assets.
• One company representative feels that the state is competitive with other states (this
  company made the decision to stay and work with the union atmosphere instead of expand
  outside of the state)

Brownfield Redevelopment
• The city has made great progress with brownfield cleanup, however they need help because
   the clean up costs can be too much for the city to absorb.
• Additional help from the state would be beneficial to Youngstown, including additional
   loan/grant programs for brownfield redevelopment.

Downtown Revitalization
• Downtown is key to city; it must grow. They have government offices from every level
  (city, county, state and federal), along with entertainment. There have been improvements
  over the last couple of years, however more is needed.
• Questioned whether Youngstown (as a smaller urban core) can take advantage of the “inner
  city advantages” that Porter outlines.




                                          - 91 -
•   Rusk was a guest in Youngstown a couple of years ago. Discussion of how Youngstown
    could be an example of a city near or beyond the threshold of recovery. They need outside
    help in order to bring the city up to where it should be.
•   Considering the severe financial difficulties of the city, the city needs to focus on what will
    bring the greatest “bang for the buck”
•   Issue of building a YMCA in the suburbs is a hot issue, not well received by those who want
    to continue support of downtown and their downtown YMCA
•   Nearby cities like Pittsburgh can support their three new department stores; Youngstown
    can’t support that type of major retail development, however they have had success and
    should continue to support the smaller specialty shops in downtown.
•   Downtown is a professional base, proposed fiber optic ring will support this further.
•   Vision for downtown Youngstown: continuation of professional jobs, specialty shops, arts
    groups, cultural events, entertainment, restaurants.
•   The three C’s (Cleveland, Columbus & Cincinnati) have mass market benefits that
    Youngstown doesn’t have. Youngstown needs more money injected to help the recover
    process…they are behind and have fewer resources.
•   The Chamber of Commerce has put together an image committee for the city.
•   To impact the citizens image of the city, the mayor is focusing on “visual impact” changes
    downtown – he doesn’t have enough money to rehab or replace old dilapidated buildings, but
    he has torn down one and will tear down two more buildings that cannot be redeveloped.
    After the buildings are torn down, they will serve as city owned surface parking lots until the
    city or a private developer can develop a new building.

Mayor’s Conclusion/Recommendation:
• The federal government should give superfund money to the states – he needs more help to
  finish brownfield clean up.
• The state should create specific criteria for helping distressed urban communities. If there
  were specific criteria for urban distress, he’s confident that they would come out on top.
  They know where their problems are, they need (flexible) financial help to address them --
  more fiscal help than other communities because of their financial situation.




                                           - 92 -
       APPENDIX B: CRITERIA FOR SELECTING URBAN REVITALIZATION
                   TASK FORCE CITIES



Sixteen cities were selected for membership on the Urban Revitalization Task Force (URTF).
Eight of these cities were chosen because of their status as the largest central cities in the State.
The remaining eight cities selected for the Task Force were selected based on three critical
variables: rate of family poverty, population change, and geography. In selecting the eight
smaller cities, a comparison was also made to the relevant statistics of the eight larger central
cities, as well as the State average for that statistic.

Poverty

The average rate of family poverty in Ohio is 9.7%. The sixteen cities on the URTF have
poverty rates substantially higher than this average. The eight largest central cities have an
average poverty rate of 19.5%, slightly over two times the State average of 9.7%. The eight
small central cities have an average family poverty rate of 17.6%, 7.9% higher than the State
average, and only slightly lower than the average for the eight largest central cities.

Population

Cities selected represent diverse sizes of Ohio cities. The group of sixteen includes large,
medium, and smaller sized central cities, with populations ranging from 20,000 to 670,000.

The eight smaller central cities were chosen based on population loss, with the exception of
Hamilton, a city with a population growth rate over the period 1990-1998 of 0.6%. As a group,
the eight smaller central cities experienced a population loss of 4.6% from 1990-1998. This is
comparable to the average population loss of 4.81% shown by the larger central. Overall, Ohio
experienced a population growth rate of 3.3%.

Geographic Distribution

An effort was made to ensure that the geographic diversity of the State of Ohio was represented.
In doing so, cities were chosen from Appalachia (Portsmouth and Steubenville), as well as the
northeastern/western, southwestern/eastern, and central regions. Attention was also paid to the
historic role of the various cities in Ohio’s past economic successes.




                                            - 93 -
                              APPENDIX C: SUPPLEMENTARY DATA




TABLE 1: CENSUS COUNTS AND POPULATION ESTIMATES

                                                Census Counts                                 Percent
                                                                                  Estimate    Change
Area/City                               1970              1980          1990          1998   1970-98

U.S. Urbanized Areas              120,724,546       139,170,683   158,258,878         n.a.       n.a.

Ohio                               10,652,017        10,797,630    10,847,115   11,209,493      5.2%

Targeted Ohio Cities:

   Akron                             275,425           237,177       223,019      215,712    -21.7%
   Canton                            110,053            93,077        84,161       79,259    -28.0%
   Cincinnati                        453,514           385,409       364,040      336,400    -25.8%
   Cleveland                         750,879           573,822       505,616      495,817    -34.0%
   Columbus                          540,025           565,021       632,910      670,234     24.1%
   Dayton                            243,023           193,536       182,044      167,475    -31.1%
   Hamilton                           67,617            63,189        61,368       61,808     -8.6%
   Lima                               53,482            47,827        45,549       42,382    -20.8%
   Lorain                             78,185            75,416        71,245       68,857    -11.9%
   Mansfield                          55,001            53,927        50,627       49,802     -9.5%
   Portsmouth                         27,633            25,943        22,676       22,213    -19.6%
   Springfield                        81,850            72,563        70,487       65,568    -19.9%
   Steubenville                       30,790            26,400        22,125       20,224    -34.3%
   Toledo                            383,062           354,635       332,943      312,174    -18.5%
   Warren                             63,472            56,629        50,793       46,866    -26.2%
   Youngstown                        140,909           115,511        95,732       84,650    -39.9%

Note: n.a. - not available.




                                           - 94 -
TABLE 2: NUMBER OF FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS*

                                                 Census Counts                        Percent
                                                                                      Change
Area/City                                1970              1980             1990     1970-90

U.S. Urbanized Areas               29,753,608         35,785,119     40,338,661       35.6%

Ohio                                 2,682,953         2,863,947       2,915,439        8.7%

Targeted Ohio Cities:

   Akron                               70,506            61,431          57,304       -18.7%
   Canton                              28,157            24,657          21,789       -22.6%
   Cincinnati                         109,287            91,315          83,399       -23.7%
   Cleveland                          183,356           143,588         124,176       -32.3%
   Columbus                           129,053           136,635         151,877        17.7%
   Dayton                              59,108            50,462          44,048       -25.5%
   Hamilton                            17,758            17,283          16,736        -5.8%
   Lima                                13,369            12,114          11,008       -17.7%
   Lorain                              19,274            19,592          19,008        -1.4%
   Mansfield                           13,857            13,927          13,060        -5.8%
   Portsmouth                           7,424             6,934           5,983       -19.4%
   Springfield                         20,477            18,920          18,170       -11.3%
   Steubenville                         7,964             7,039           5,816       -27.0%
   Toledo                              96,511            91,273          85,010       -11.9%
   Warren                              16,311            15,151          13,845       -15.1%
   Youngstown                          34,988            30,242          24,915       -28.8%

Note: * - family households are dwellings in which two or more related individuals reside.




                                             - 95 -
TABLE 3: MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME

                                  Census Estimates           Percent
                                                             Change
Area/City                     1969*       1979*        1989 1969-89

U.S. Urbanized Areas         $35,876     $36,283     $38,233       6.6%

Ohio                         $34,845     $35,712     $34,351       -1.4%

Targeted Ohio Cities:

   Akron                     $33,956     $30,797     $27,543   -18.9%
   Canton                    $31,564     $29,649     $25,177   -20.2%
   Cincinnati                $30,051     $28,694     $26,774   -10.9%
   Cleveland                 $30,740     $27,312     $22,448   -27.0%
   Columbus                  $32,872     $31,789     $24,819   -24.5%
   Dayton                    $32,436     $26,119     $24,819   -23.5%
   Hamilton                  $32,213     $31,601     $28,117   -12.7%
   Lima                      $31,530     $29,784     $25,775   -18.3%
   Lorain                    $33,997     $35,617     $29,304   -13.8%
   Mansfield                 $32,297     $29,200     $28,504   -11.7%
   Portsmouth                $26,006     $24,684     $21,022   -19.2%
   Springfield               $30,767     $28,657     $26,838   -12.8%
   Steubenville              $31,564     $35,094     $23,897   -24.3%
   Toledo                    $35,315     $34,536     $30,980   -12.3%
   Warren                    $35,149     $34,577     $27,530   -21.7%
   Youngstown                $30,669     $28,966     $21,622   -29.5%

Note: * - 1969 and 1979 values have been stated in 1989 dollars.




                                         - 96 -
TABLE 4: MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

                                          Census Estimates                 Percent
                                                                           Change
Area/City                            1969*             1979*         1989 1969-89

U.S. Urbanized Areas               $28,564            $30,296      $32,002   12.0%

Ohio                               $31,351            $30,324      $34,351    9.6%

Targeted Ohio Cities:

   Akron                           $27,699            $25,113      $22,279   -19.6%
   Canton                          $25,695            $23,741      $19,807   -22.9%
   Cincinnati                      $21,661            $21,649      $21,006    -3.0%
   Cleveland                       $24,087            $20,969      $17,822   -26.0%
   Columbus                        $23,036            $25,336      $26,651    15.7%
   Dayton                          $24,449            $20,745      $24,819     1.5%
   Hamilton                        $27,885            $26,165      $28,117     0.8%
   Lima                            $25,827            $24,187      $25,775    -0.2%
   Lorain                          $30,662            $30,734      $29,304    -4.4%
   Mansfield                       $26,290            $23,584      $28,504     8.4%
   Portsmouth                      $19,168            $18,861      $21,022     9.7%
   Springfield                     $24,050            $23,128      $26,838    11.6%
   Steubenville                    $23,438            $26,727      $23,897     2.0%
   Toledo                          $28,787            $27,669      $30,980     7.6%
   Warren                          $30,135            $28,095      $27,530    -8.6%
   Youngstown                      $25,368            $22,955      $21,622   -14.8%

Note: * - 1969 and 1979 values have been stated in 1989 dollars.




                                             - 97 -
TABLE 5: CHILDREN IN POVERTY

                               Census Estimates             Percent
                                                            Change
Area/City                   1969             1979     1989 1969-89

U.S. Urbanized Areas    1,722,171    5,907,393 6,852,215      298%

Ohio                     369,602       401,198      493,206   33%

Targeted Ohio Cities:

   Akron                  12,082        13,381       16,994    41%
   Canton                  4,829         5,474        7,323    52%
   Cincinnati             30,334        27,128       33,638    11%
   Cleveland              54,597        48,961      100,293    84%
   Columbus               26,401        30,213       35,696    35%
   Dayton                 12,516        16,222       18,833    50%
   Hamilton                2,766         3,286        4,201    52%
   Lima                    2,598         3,236        3,908    50%
   Lorain                  3,397         4,504        6,487    91%
   Mansfield               2,298         2,864        3,260    42%
   Portsmouth                638         1,830        2,392   275%
   Springfield             3,522         4,821        5,727    63%
   Steubenville              593         1,140        1,853   212%
   Toledo                 14,902        18,389       23,663    59%
   Warren                  2,389         3,141        4,306    80%
   Youngstown              6,961         8,538       11,208    61%




                                    - 98 -
TABLE 6: FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN

                             Census Estimates              Percent
                                                           Change
Area/City                 1970        1980        1990    1970-90

U.S. Urbanized Areas    947,687   1,576,372   1,951,721     106%

Ohio                     64,150    101,096      141,748     121%

Targeted Ohio Cities:

   Akron                  2,826      4,395        6,020     113%
   Canton                   997      1,637        2,423     143%
   Cincinnati             6,103      8,649       12,096      98%
   Cleveland             12,436     16,074       19,751      59%
   Columbus               5,123      8,609       11,339     121%
   Dayton                 2,901      5,331        6,628     128%
   Hamilton                 589        864        1,141      94%
   Lima                     476        852        1,307     175%
   Lorain                   582      1,131        1,868     221%
   Mansfield                504        827        1,021     103%
   Portsmouth               355        453          716     102%
   Springfield              692      1,310        1,598     131%
   Steubenville             382        390          652      71%
   Toledo                 3,224      5,509        7,783     141%
   Warren                   571        961        1,357     138%
   Youngstown             1,622      2,522        3,742     131%




                                   - 99 -
TABLE 7: CIVILIAN UNEMPLOYMENT RATES

                                                                    O.B.E.S
                                        Census Estimates             Annual
                                                                    Average    Change
Area/City                        1970          1980          1990      1998   1970-90

U.S. Urbanized Areas            4.3%           6.3%          6.3%    4.5%*      2.0%

Ohio                            4.0%           8.0%          6.6%     4.3%      2.6%

Targeted Ohio Cities:

   Akron                        4.9%          10.1%         9.0%      5.6%      4.1%
   Canton                       4.9%          10.6%        11.3%      6.6%      6.4%
   Cincinnati                   4.8%           8.7%         7.9%      4.9%      3.1%
   Cleveland                    5.2%          11.0%        14.0%      8.5%      8.8%
   Columbus                     3.8%           6.4%         5.9%      3.0%      2.1%
   Dayton                       5.2%          13.7%        10.5%      7.1%      5.3%
   Hamilton                     3.9%           9.2%         8.0%      5.0%      4.1%
   Lima                         5.3%          12.8%        12.8%      7.8%      7.5%
   Lorain                       4.0%          11.4%         9.3%      7.4%      5.3%
   Mansfield                    4.5%           9.4%         8.8%      7.5%      4.3%
   Portsmouth                   6.0%          10.5%        11.5%     9.5%+      5.5%
   Springfield                  4.6%          10.8%         8.8%      5.3%      4.2%
   Steubenville                 4.5%           7.9%        11.6%     6.4%#      7.1%
   Toledo                       4.3%          12.5%         9.9%      6.4%      5.6%
   Warren                       5.4%          12.3%        11.6%      9.0%      6.2%
   Youngstown                   6.7%          15.8%        15.6%     10.9%      8.9%

Note: * - Entire U.S.; + - Scioto County; # - Jefferson County.




                                          - 100 -
TABLE 8: PERCENTAGE OF PERSONS 25 YEARS AND OLDER WITH AT
         LEAST A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA OR G.E.D.
                                Census Estimates             Percent
                                                             Change
Area/City                  1970         1980       1990     1970-90

U.S. Urbanized Areas      55.9%        60.6%      77.4%      21.5%

Ohio                      53.2%        67.0%      75.7%      22.5%

Targeted Ohio Cities:

   Akron                  49.7%        62.4%      72.9%      23.2%
   Canton                 45.4%        57.8%      67.0%      21.6%
   Cincinnati             43.8%        57.9%      69.6%      25.8%
   Cleveland              37.4%        50.9%      58.8%      21.4%
   Columbus               55.6%        68.9%      78.7%      23.1%
   Dayton                 44.8%        59.5%      68.3%      23.5%
   Hamilton               44.7%        56.2%      66.6%      21.9%
   Lima                   50.4%        60.2%      69.3%      18.9%
   Lorain                 45.6%        58.8%      67.5%      21.9%
   Mansfield              49.4%        63.2%      69.7%      20.3%
   Portsmouth             44.2%        56.7%      64.3%      20.1%
   Springfield            45.8%        59.7%      68.3%      22.5%
   Steubenville           47.0%        61.3%      69.2%      22.2%
   Toledo                 49.8%        63.9%      73.2%      23.4%
   Warren                 52.1%        64.6%      71.3%      19.2%
   Youngstown             42.5%        56.0%      65.6%      23.1%




                           - 101 -
TABLE 9: PERCENTAGE OF PERSONS 25 YEARS AND
         OLDER WITH A BACHELOR'S DEGREE OR BETTER
                        Census Estimates                      Percent
                                                            Change
Area/City                    1970              1980    1990 1970-90


U.S. Urbanized Areas        12.5%             18.8%   23.7%       11.2%


Ohio                         9.3%             13.7%   17.0%        7.7%


Targeted Ohio Cities:


   Akron                     8.9%             12.5%   14.9%        6.0%
   Canton                    5.6%             8.5%    9.7%         4.1%
   Cincinnati               11.4%             17.6%   22.2%       10.8%
   Cleveland                 4.4%             6.4%    8.1%         3.7%
   Columbus                 11.4%             18.6%   24.6%       13.2%
   Dayton                    6.8%             10.4%   12.3%        5.5%
   Hamilton                  6.6%             9.1%    9.9%         3.3%
   Lima                      6.3%             8.3%    8.4%         2.1%
   Lorain                    5.3%             7.5%    7.7%         2.4%
   Mansfield                 7.8%             11.3%   13.0%        5.2%
   Portsmouth                6.7%             12.2%   11.5%        4.8%
   Springfield               6.6%             10.3%   10.9%        4.3%
   Steubenville              7.1%             11.3%   13.3%        6.2%
   Toledo                    8.4%             12.2%   24.6%       16.2%
   Warren                    6.9%              9.3%   10.0%        3.1%
   Youngstown                5.4%             7.3%    8.3%         2.9%




                                    - 102 -
TABLE 10: HOME OWNERSHIP RATES

                                        Census Counts            Percent
                                                                 Change
Area/City                       1970            1980     1990   1970-90

U.S. Urbanized Areas              n.a.         58.3%    64.2%       n.a.

Ohio                           67.7%           68.4%    67.5%     -0.2%

Targeted Ohio Cities:

   Akron                       64.0%           61.2%    58.7%     -5.3%
   Canton                      61.5%           59.6%    57.3%     -4.2%
   Cincinnati                  38.5%           38.5%    38.3%     -0.1%
   Cleveland                   46.1%           48.2%    47.9%      1.8%
   Columbus                    51.0%           48.8%    46.6%     -4.4%
   Dayton                      51.0%           50.6%    51.0%      0.0%
   Hamilton                    66.3%           62.7%    60.5%     -5.8%
   Lima                        63.8%           62.1%    59.1%     -4.8%
   Lorain                      66.9%           65.5%    61.1%     -5.8%
   Mansfield                   63.0%           60.8%    58.0%     -4.9%
   Portsmouth                  62.5%           60.2%    56.7%     -5.8%
   Springfield                 57.3%           57.9%    55.8%     -1.5%
   Steubenville                58.7%           59.9%    59.1%      0.4%
   Toledo                      65.6%           63.3%    60.7%     -4.9%
   Warren                      64.7%           61.7%    58.6%     -6.1%
   Youngstown                  67.5%           66.9%    64.6%     -2.9%

Note: n.a. - not available.




                              - 103 -
TABLE 11: MEDIAN AGE OF HOUSING UNITS (YEARS)

Area/City                                       1990


U.S. Urbanized Areas                              26

Ohio                                             32

Targeted Ohio Cities:

   Akron                                         41
   Canton                                        47
   Cincinnati                                    45
   Cleveland                                    50+
   Columbus                                      25
   Dayton                                        44
   Hamilton                                      40
   Lima                                          40
   Lorain                                        34
   Mansfield                                     38
   Portsmouth                                   50+
   Springfield                                   44
   Steubenville                                  42
   Toledo                                        39
   Warren                                        39
   Youngstown                                    47




                            - 104 -
TABLE 12: MEDIAN VALUE OF OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS

                                       Census Estimates                         Percent
                                                                                Change
Area/City                        1970*          1980*         1990             1970-90

U.S. Urbanized Areas                n.a.      $83,872      $91,700                 n.a.

Ohio                           $59,296        $72,143      $63,200                6.6%

Targeted Ohio Cities:

   Akron                       $50,874        $52,540      $43,800             -13.9%
   Canton                      $41,777        $49,327      $37,700              -9.8%
   Cincinnati                  $55,253        $65,555      $61,700              11.7%
   Cleveland                   $56,264        $48,845      $40,900             -27.3%
   Columbus                    $57,612        $66,358      $65,500              13.7%
   Dayton                      $51,884        $44,989      $43,200             -16.7%
   Hamilton                    $51,547        $64,109      $53,500               3.8%
   Lima                        $43,798        $48,202      $38,900             -11.2%
   Lorain                      $55,927        $69,251      $52,000              -7.0%
   Mansfield                   $49,189        $51,255      $42,300             -14.0%
   Portsmouth                  $34,365        $42,739      $32,800              -4.6%
   Springfield                 $47,841        $51,737      $42,000             -12.2%
   Steubenville                $56,601        $60,574      $44,100             -22.1%
   Toledo                      $54,580        $60,735      $48,900             -10.4%
   Warren                      $54,580        $56,879      $42,900             -21.4%
   Youngstown                  $42,788        $42,900      $31,000             -27.5%

Note: n.a. - not available; * - 1970 and 1980 values stated in 1990 dollars.




                                           - 105 -
TABLE 13: SQUARE MILES OF LAND

                                         Census Estimates                 Percent
                                                                          Change
Area/City                             1970           1980       1990     1970-90

U.S. Urbanized Areas               36,290.4       52,017.0       n.a.         n.a.

Ohio                               40,952.6       40,952.6   40,952.6       0.0%

Targeted Ohio Cities:

   Akron                               54.2          57.0       62.2       14.8%
   Canton                              19.0          19.0       20.2        6.3%
   Cincinnati                          78.1          78.0       77.2       -1.2%
   Cleveland                           75.9          79.0       77.0        1.4%
   Columbus                           134.6         181.0      190.9       41.8%
   Dayton                              38.3          48.0       55.0       43.6%
   Hamilton                            16.0          19.0       20.0       25.0%
   Lima                                11.7          12.0       12.7        8.5%
   Lorain                              22.3          24.0       24.1        8.1%
   Mansfield                           24.1          25.0       27.9       15.8%
   Portsmouth                           n.a.          n.a.      10.8          n.a.
   Springfield                         16.7          18.0       19.5       16.8%
   Steubenville                         8.6           9.0        8.1       -5.8%
   Toledo                              81.2          84.0       80.6       -0.7%
   Warren                              12.0          15.0       16.0       33.3%
   Youngstown                          33.6          34.0       33.8        0.6%

Notes: n.a. - not available; it is assumed that the land area of the state is
unchanged; it is possible that city land area measurements for 1970 and 1980 are
not as accurate as in 1990 regardless of intervening boundary changes.




                                        - 106 -

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:29
posted:6/4/2011
language:English
pages:123