Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy

Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission 9329 St Rt 220 E, Suite A Waverly, OH 45690-9012 www.ovrdc.org

This document was prepared under an award from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, Grant Award #06-69-05334

Table of Contents

Chapter One Background “A Look into the Current Conductions and Economic Situation of Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission” ...... Pages 1-60 Who is OVRDC? ...... 1 Geography ...... 1 Transportation Access ...... 3 Linear Infrastructure ...... 4 Railroads ...... 7 River Transportation ...... 8 Airports...... 9 Natural Resources ...... 9 Forest Resource ...... 9 Water Resources ...... 11 Mineral Resources ...... 13 Fossil Fuels ...... 14 Renewable Resources ...... 18 Environmental Issues...... 21 Wetlands ...... 21 Floodplain Management and Flooding ...... 22 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal...... 24 Historically Significant Lands/Properties ...... 25 Population ...... 26 Patterns ...... 26 Migration ...... 27 Selected Characteristics ...... 27 Estimates and Selected Characteristics ...... 28 Projections...... 28 Economy ...... 29 Economic Situation ...... 29 Labor Force and Unemployment ...... 30 Major Economic Sectors ...... 35 All Economic Sectors ...... 35 Manufacturing ...... 35 Construction ...... 37 Wholesale Trade ...... 37 Retail Trade ...... 37 Educational, health, and social services ...... 38 Agriculture ...... 38 Other Sectors ...... 39 Unclassified Establishments ...... 39 Businesses ...... 39 Commuting ...... 40 Housing ...... 40 Income ...... 42 Poverty ...... 43 Financial Information ...... 45 Local Government Financing Situation ...... 45 Fiscal Emergency ...... 45 OVRDC County’s Financial Condition ...... 45 Taxes ...... 45 All Property Taxes ...... 45 State and Local Income Taxes ...... 46 Other Taxes ...... 47 Other Finance Information ...... 48 Transfer Payments ...... 48 Federal Expenditures ...... 48 State Priority Investment Areas ...... 49 Selected State Financial Assistance Information ...... 50 Infrastructure and Services ...... 50 Environmental Infrastructure ...... 51 Water Supply and Distribution ...... 51 Sewage Collection and Treatment ...... 52 Non-Linear Infrastructure ...... 52 Housing Conditions ...... 52 Police and Fire Protection ...... 53 Health Services and Facilities ...... 54 Public Facilities/Parks and Recreation ...... 55 Education ...... 56 Telecommunications ...... 57

Chapter Two Analysis of Economic Development Problems and Opportunities OVRDC SWOT Analysis ...... Pages 1-19 Regional SWOT Results (From CEDS and County Caucus Meetings) .. 1 Strengths and Opportunities ...... 1 Weaknesses and Threats ...... 2 Consistency With Other Plans ...... 2 Past EDA Investments ...... 2 Economic Analysis ...... 6 Economic Cluster Analysis ...... 6 Landuse ...... 10 Agriculture Related Businesses ...... 10 Healthcare Related Businesses ...... 12 Wood Industry and Related Businesses ...... 14 Total Manufacturing Sector ...... 17

Chapter Three CEDS Goals, Objectives and Plan of Action ...... Pages 1-6 Goal 1: Share the Southern Ohio Story ...... 1 Goal 2: Strengthen Our Strengths ...... 2 Goal 3: Cultivate Top Talent ...... 4 Goal 4: Invest in Our Local/Regional Assets ...... 4 Goal 5: Focus on Our Customers and Shareholders ...... 6

Chapter Four Community and Private Sector Participation in CEDS ...... Pages 1-4 OVRDC Full Commission ...... 1 OVRDC Executive Committee ...... 2 OVRDC CEDS Committee ...... 3 OVRDC Staff ...... 4

Chapter Five Strategic Projects, Programs and Activities ...... Pages 1-6 Strategic EDA and ARC County Projects ...... 1 Appalachian Regional Commission FY’2010 Priority Project Package ...... 2 Regional Projects of Significance ...... 3

Chapter Six Performance Measures ...... Pages 1-2 Total CEDS Outcomes ...... 1

Adopting Resolutions ...... Attachment 1

Full Commission Membership and Affirmative Action Plan ...... Attachment 2

OVRDC District and County Demographic Tables and Charts ...... Attachment 3

State of Ohio Strategic Plan Summary……………………………………… Attachment 4

Background: C A Look into the H Current A Conditions and Economic P Situation of T the Ohio E Valley R Regional Development Commission 1 Area OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Chapter 1: Background: “A Look into the Current Conditions and Economic Situation of the Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission Area”

Who is OVRDC? The Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission District consists of 12 counties within southern Ohio. These counties are Adams, Brown, Clermont, Fayette, Gallia, Highland, Jackson, Lawrence, Pike, Ross, Scioto, and Vinton. This region, which totals 6,022 square miles, represents 13.4 percent of the total area of Ohio; and the population of 635,970 represents 5.6 percent of the total State population. Within the OVRDC’s twelve counties, there are 171 Townships, 70 Villages, 9 Cities, and 14 Census Designated Places (CDP).

Geography The District is bordered on the south by the Ohio River, extends north to Fayette County; and extends westward from Gallia County through Clermont County near Cincinnati. The region lies in the northwestern portion of a multi-state area designated by federal legislation as Appalachia. The District shares much of its social history and early settlement patterns with the eastern Kentucky and western West Virginia communities across the Ohio River.

The District terrain is diverse in nature from flat farmland, plains, rolling highlands, rolling and steep hills, deciduous and evergreen forests, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and green valleys. Human settlements are primarily rural and small-town in nature. However, residents are also close to several major metropolitan areas and markets. The District is bordered on the north by the Columbus metropolitan area, on the west by the Cincinnati metropolitan area, on the southeast by the Huntington, W.Va./Ashland, Kentucky MSA, and to the southwest by Lexington, Kentucky. With access to the Ohio River, area roads, and rail lines, OVRDC products are within a day's delivery of all major eastern and midwestern markets in the United States.

The topography of the Ohio Valley Regional Development District is characterized in four categories: • The Till Plains occupy the northern portion of the District, including northern Ross County, the valleys of the East Fork of the Little Miami River in Clermont County, and the Scioto River in central Scioto, Pike, and Ross Counties. These plains are relatively flat due to glaciation; consequently, most industrial development in the District is located in this terrain. Soils in the Till Plains are moderate to high in natural fertility and contain varying amounts of organic matter.

• In the Glaciated Plateau, the topography is somewhat more sloping. The Glaciated Plateau underlies the northern and western parts of the District, including almost all of Clermont County, all but the southeastern corner of Brown County, and northwestern Adams County and central Ross County. This area also has some suitable areas for industry. However, even the moderate slopes hinder line production and trucking, particularly during winter. In the Glaciated Plateau section, soils are commonly deeply leached, strongly acidic and moderately low in fertility.

Chapter 1 Page 1 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

• The Unglaciated Plateau consists mostly of narrow ridges and broad, steep-sided valleys cut as deeply as 300 feet by major streams. Most of the District lies within this plateau, including eastern Adams County, Lawrence, Gallia, Jackson, and Vinton Counties and all of Scioto and Pike Counties except for the Scioto River Valley. Unglaciated Plateau soils are moderately deep, low An example of “Unglaciated Plateau” for the OVRDC Region in Pike Co. in natural fertility and organic matter, and acidic.

• The Interior Low Plateau, also called the Lexington Plain or Bluegrass Section, is located in the extreme southwestern portion of the District and includes south central Adams and southeastern Brown Counties. The Lexington Plain was not glaciated, and much of this region is hilly. Abundant limestone formations are exposed at the surface of the terrain. The fertility of soils in the Bluegrass Section varies from high to low; in this area, slope is an important factor in the local suitability of the An example of “Interior Low Plateau” for the OVRDC Region in Adams Co. land for agriculture.

Chapter 1 Page 2 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Transportation Access Map 1. – “Main Transportation Points for OVRDC Region” depicts the major transportation access points into and out of the OVRDC Region. The next section will discuss the major transportation segments listed on this map.

Map 1 - Main Transportation Points for OVRDC Region

Chapter 1 Page 3 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Linear Infrastructure The major north/south highway route in the District is U.S. 23, which connects Portsmouth and Chillicothe with Columbus. This four-lane highway is a straight, level road with occasional stoplights; a few bottleneck conditions occur in many of the villages and cities that lack a by- pass. During 2006-2009, there were improvements to U.S. 23 of resurfacing along portions of the highway within the District.

Since 2000, there has been express interest in developing a by-pass called U.S. 823 around the city of Portsmouth. This bypass would connect U.S. 23 to U.S. 52 on the east side of Portsmouth. In the fall of 2001, ODOT began the project development phase that was designed to examine the impacts and benefits of multiple alternative alignments to determine the best location for the new roadway. In 2004, it was determined that the preferred alternative was the “Hill Alignment” that called for the new roadway to be built primarily along the mountains. The proposed roadway will be a new four-lane, limited access freeway, approximately 16 miles in length, bypassing approximately 26 miles of US 52 and US 23 through Portsmouth, Ohio. The new roadway will include interchanges with US 52, SR 140, a relocated Shumway Hollow Road accessing the Scioto County Airport, Lucasville-Minford Road, and US 23. Map 2 – “Hill Alignment” US 823 Phases depicts the U.S. 23 Bypass project.

In June of 2006, the Federal Map 2 – “Hill Alignment” US 823 Phases Highway Administration formally approved the environmental impact statement and proposed mitigation by approving the Record of Decision. With the approval of the environmental document (ROD), ODOT began purchasing some of the right-of-way needed for parcels. Preliminary design for the preferred “Hill Alternative” was completed in the summer of 2008. Due to funding constraints, ODOT has decided to build the

Chapter 1 Page 4 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

freeway in three phases. Each phase is detailed below.

• Phase 1: This phase is approximately 3.0 miles long and extends from relocated Shumway Hollow Road to Lucasville-Minford Road. Once construction of this phase is complete, the freeway will be open between these two roadways. This phase is to begin estimated construction in fall 2011. • Phase 2: This phase is approximately 7.4 miles long and extends from the end of Phase 1 at Lucasville-Minford Road to US 23. Once construction of this phase is complete, the freeway will be open between relocated Shumway-Hollow Road and US 23. • Phase 3: This phase is approximately 5.6 miles long and extends from US 52 to the end of Phase 1 at relocated Shumway-Hollow Road. Once construction of this phase is complete, the freeway will be open between US 52 and US 23. Phase II and III schedules are currently being developed.

This would help solve safety and traffic problems and help in economic development by improving access to the region.

On October 16, 2006, U.S. 23 US Grant Bridge, a new cable-stayed bridge was constructed over the Ohio River connecting Portsmouth, Ohio to South Shore, Kentucky. This project help improve access, economic development, and safety to the City of Portsmouth to and from Kentucky along U.S. 23.

Another important project improving transportation access within the region was the construction of the “State Route 207 Connector” in Ross County. The $25,769,000.00 project was dedicated on December 12, 2007. The alignment connects to SR 104 near the north entrance to the VA Hospital and to U.S. 23 north of Delano Road. The Connector will facilitate east/west traffic as well for travelers to and from the north for the federal and state institutions on SR 104, hence lessening the traffic load on North Bridge Street in the City of Chillicothe. This project, improves the flow of freight and traffic by connecting U.S. 35 to U.S. 23 through SR 104 and SR 207. In the summer of 2009, another project located in the same area was started, “The Widening SR 104 Project”. This major 2.77-mile widening project involves adding thru-traffic lanes and a center-turn lane, between U.S. 35 and Pleasant Valley Road and S.R. 207 with an estimated cost of $10,963,114. This project will complete the overall access to the area and improve traffic flow.

The other two major north/south highways in the District are U.S. 62 and 68, which lie about 60 miles west of U.S. 23; and U.S. 35, which transverses the District diagonally from northwest to southeast and crosses U.S. 23 in Chillicothe. The major east/west highways include U.S. 35 4- lane corridor, U.S. 52, U.S. 50 and Appalachian Highway (SR 32).

The U.S. 35 4-lane highway transverses the region northwest in Fayette County to Southeast in Gallia County. Portions of U.S. 35 are either limited-access or controlled access 4-lane. This is a major transportation corridor for the region.

U.S. 52, which runs along the Ohio River between Chesapeake (Lawrence County) and Cincinnati, is mostly two-lane highway and is subject to flooding in places. A segment of U.S. 52 in eastern Scioto and Lawrence Counties has been developed into a limited access 4-lane

Chapter 1 Page 5 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

highway. U.S. 52 has been classified as a scenic byway called, “The Ohio River Scenic Byway Corridor”.

U.S. 50 connects Cincinnati with Chillicothe and McArthur. From McArthur, U.S. 50 connects into Athens and to Parkersburg, WV. The segment of U.S. 50 that is in the OVRDC region is only two-lane and has many curves. Over the last decade, portions of U.S. 50 have been straightened. U.S. 50 connects into the Appalachian Highway (SR 32) in Athens County.

The Appalachian Highway (SR 32), which was built with Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) assistance, provides a much-needed east/west expressway. The highway now serves as a major artery between Cincinnati and Baltimore, Maryland, and handles a large amount of traffic. In 2005, OVRDC helped form a SR 32/US 50 Corridor Committee that is made up of selected county officials; Ohio Department of Transportation; Governor’s Office of Appalachia, OVRDC; Buckeye Hills-Hocking Valley District and others. This committee was formed to help discuss and study economic and safety topics related to the corridor. In 2007, Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission received a $75,000 grant from the Ohio Department of Development, Governor’s Office of Appalachia to conduct an SR 32/US Route 50/US Route 35 Economic Development Corridor Study. The major purpose of this study and planning effort is to maximize the economic development potential of the SR32/US50 and US35 corridor to create new jobs in southern and southeastern Ohio. This goal will be addressed through doing a comprehensive study of the corridor that will ascertain current demand on the corridor by existing major employers and other major trip generators and potential future generators, such as existing industrial parks and commercial sites. The study will also inventory and map existing water and sewer infrastructure that is available along the corridor. In addition, the corridor plan will designate the best possible future industrial and commercial development sites in terms of access and available infrastructure, as well as designate environmentally sensitive areas.

This corridor study covers 12 counties in southern and southeastern Ohio. It covers 10 counties that are located on SR32/US50 from Clermont to Washington County (Appalachian Highway Corridor D). In addition, it also includes 2 counties on US35 (Ross and Gallia) Corridor C-1 which intersects SR32 in Jackson County. The specific study area includes analysis of key sites and businesses that are located within 5 miles of the corridor. This study will be completed in the latter part of 2009.

Roads are essential to the movement of goods and workers in and through the District. The lack of access to interstate highways has been partially offset by the completion of the Appalachian Highway, but still hampers development in the District. County and township highway departments are in great need of state and federal funds for equipment, road maintenance and for improvements to the existing road and bridge systems. Additionally, according to ODOD Office of Strategic Research 2002-2008 Ohio County Profiles there has been an increase in the percent change of the number of passenger vehicles for Ohio at .6% with OVRDC at .5%, the number of trucks have increased faster for OVRDC at 3.4% and Ohio at 1.1%. This shows an increase in trucking and freight movement through the region. According to an ODOD Ohio’s Logistics Industry 2007, trucking in Ohio, employs 67.3 thousand workers at 4,706 business establishments. Three-fourths of the value of shipments originating from Ohio and nearly three- fourths of all shipments on a tonnage basis travel by truck. Ohio’s trucking industry ranks 4th among the fifty states based on total economic output ($5.2 billion).

Chapter 1 Page 6 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Railroads There are three classes of railroads. Class I railroads are those having adjusted gross annual operating revenues of $256 million or more for three consecutive years. Class II railroads are those having adjusted annual operating revenues of $20.5 to $256 million for three consecutive years. Class III railroads are those having adjusted gross annual operating revenues of less than $20.5 million for three consecutive years.

When large Class I carriers abandon lines they cannot afford to operate, the abandonments can adversely affect Ohio grain, coal, and aggregate interests as well as other industries. However, small short line carriers generally have lower overhead costs than the Class I’s and can operate a profitable business on rail lines abandoned by Class I carriers. Their size and local management enable Class II and Class III railroads to respond to their customers, and also to expand their service and gather new clientele. Seventeen new short line rail- roads have been created in Ohio since 1978, making Ohio a leader in the development of small railroads.

The District is served by two major railroads: Norfolk & Southern Corporation (NS), and CSX Transportation Inc. (CSXT). According to ODOT’s Division of Rail Transportation, NS was created in 1982 and serves 20 states. This system is made up of the Norfolk and Western; Virginian; Wabash; Akron; Canton and Youngstown; Nickel Plate; Wheeling and Lake Erie; Southern; Central Georgia; New Orleans and Texas; Alabama Great Southern, and other railroads.

In April 2007, according to Ohio Department of Development, Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS) was awarded a 50 percent tax credit for an eight-year term to re-open its Portsmouth repair facility, located in Scioto County. The value of the tax credit is estimated at $332,781 over the term. NS provides comprehensive transportation and logistics services and is a major freight railroad operating 21,500 route miles in 22 states, the District of Columbia and Ontario, Canada. Norfolk Southern Corporation, a Norfolk, Va.-based company, is the parent of NS. NS proposes to invest in new machinery and equipment, facility improvements and on-site rail infrastructure improvements to reopen its car repair shop, which will be used to repair the company's railcar fleet. Portsmouth, Ohio was selected over sites in other states for this more than $2.8 million project, which is expected to create 77 jobs within the first three years of the project's initial operations.

Another project that will affect the rail in the OVRDC Region, started around October 2007 is called the “Heartland Corridor”. The Heartland Corridor is a three-year engineering effort to increase intermodal freight capacity by raising vertical clearances in 28 tunnels on a Norfolk Southern rail line between the port of Hampton Roads, Va., to Columbus Ohio, and Chicago. The first phase of the tunnel work began in October 2007 and is slated to be finished in 2010. In conjunction with this project, Norfolk Southern Corp is investing $25 million to construct a new intermodal facility adjacent to Rickenbacker International Airport, which is located just south of Columbus. The facility will be operational in 2007. This facility will help bring freight delivery faster into OVRDC Region.

CSXT was created in 1982 and serves 22 states. This system is made up of the Baltimore and Ohio; Chesapeake and Ohio; Pere Marquette; Western Maryland; Seaboard; Atlantic Coast Line;

Chapter 1 Page 7 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Louisville and Nashville; Nashville, Chattanooga and St. Louis; Chicago, Indianapolis and Louisville; Chicago Eastern Illinois; Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac; the Clinchfield, and other railroads.

The NS system running through Adams and Brown counties carries a gross traffic density of 5 million to 20 million tons (class B). The CSXT system that runs through Clermont County carries a gross traffic density of 1 to 5 million tons (branch line). In Gallia County, one CSXT system carries a gross traffic density of 1 to 5 million tons (branch line), and the other CSXT system has a gross traffic density of 5 to 20 million tons (class B). In Scioto County, the NS system and the CSXT system both carry a gross traffic density of 5 to 20 million tons or greater (class A). Pike County's NS system, and Ross County's CSXT system, both have a gross traffic density of 20 million tons or greater (class A). The only railroad interchange in the District is located in Chillicothe.

According to the Ohio Department of Transportation, rail freight makes up 28% of the mode of freight movement through the state. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation rail freight is projected to rise from 1,954 tons (millions) in 1998 to 2,894 tons (millions) in 2020. Additionally according to an ODOD Ohio’s Logistics Industry 2007 Ohio ranks 4th in rail miles (5,354) and its rail industry ranks 4th in economic output ($1.3 billion). By weight, the leading commodities originating in Ohio and traveling by rail are: metal products, coal, metallic ores, and farm products.

The Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC) was created by the Ohio General Assembly on October 20, 1994 and is governed by fourteen commissioners. Ten Commissioners make ORDC’S funding decisions and four members of the Ohio legislature serve as nonvoting commissioners. The Commission provides direct loans and grants and may issue bonds for qualified rail projects. Public and private entities may apply for funding of Ohio rail projects. ORDC administers the loans, grants and bonds using prudent financial guidelines related to the desirability, timing, and relative risk of the project. Only projects of public benefit are undertaken.

Railroading has been essential in building commerce and industry in America, and preserving rail infrastructure is critical to the continuing economic development of Ohio. Rail service will continue to play a vital part in the development of the District. Maintenance of existing lines and the rehabilitation and construction of railroad spurs will directly affect economic growth in the District. The OVRDC will continue to monitor any projected rail service abandonment by the two major railroads serving the area, and take action where appropriate.

River Transportation The District is ideally located to take advantage of low transportation rates afforded by river transportation. The Ohio River borders Lawrence, Gallia, Scioto, Brown, Adams, and Clermont counties and is navigable throughout. The State of Ohio ranks 5th in waterborne domestic tonnage (102 million short tons), according to the Army Corps of Engineers.

Barge transportation is available along the Ohio-Mississippi-Missouri River system, which connects the District with other industrial cities throughout the midwestern and southern United States. At present, several large plants are using river barge transportation, but the conveyance

Chapter 1 Page 8 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

potential of the Ohio River has not been fully developed within the District.

The principal products transported on the Ohio River are coal, petroleum, sand, gravel, chemicals, iron, steel, and grains. Currently, the City of Gallipolis is the busiest navigational lock along Ohio’s river shores. More coal and coke pass through the Gallipolis locks than any other lock system within the entire inland waterway. In order to accommodate increased traffic, a major expansion of facilities was recently completed at the Gallipolis Locks and Dam. Lock Barge on the Ohio River at South Point, chambers were expanded to Lawrence County, Ohio. facilitate 1,200-foot shipments, twice the previous 600-foot limitation.

Airports There are three major commercial airports within a maximum 1.5 to two hour's drive from the OVRDC Region. The Greater Cincinnati International Airport serves Adams, Brown, Clermont, and Highland counties. Jackson, Pike, Ross, Scioto, and Vinton counties are served by Port Columbus International Airport. Lawrence and Gallia Counties are served by Tri-State Airport near Huntington, West Virginia.

In 2004, OVRDC conducted an airport survey of local airports within the Region. Each county in the OVRDC Region has a county airport. Ross County Airport, the Greater Portsmouth Regional Airport, Fayette and Jackson County Airports can handle large aircraft. Local airport development potential correlates closely with economic development potential and a much further diversified industrial base. At this time, the majority of the District is served by both local and commercial facilities, although some safety, communications equipment, expansion and additional hanger facilities are necessary.

Natural Resources

Forest Resources One of the most valuable and abundant resources in the District is the forest resource. According to the Ohio EPA Land Cover Classification (1999 – 2003), OVRDC region contained about 2,161,566 acres of forested land and Ohio has 10,115,167 acres. The District’s forested lands are held in private ownership with only 20% or 451,851 acres of the total acreage held by federal, state, or local public agencies, (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 1 & 2, Publics Land for OVRDC Region). In Ohio, private woodland owners own 87% of Ohio’s forests. According to the Ohio EPA Land Cover Classification (1999 – 2003), three OVRDC counties are more than 70 percent

Chapter 1 Page 9 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

forested (Lawrence, Scioto and Vinton). Most of this land is located east of I-71 with the densest acreage in eastern and southern Ohio. Ohio’s forests are located in the western foothills of the Appalachian mountain range, which runs from Canada to northern Georgia and Alabama. Ohio’s forest is located in the northern portion of the Appalachians, which is known for its high-quality temperate hardwoods. There are over 100 different hardwood tree species and over 25 different softwood tree species growing in Ohio. There are 43 different forest types in Ohio (such as oak- hickory, beech-maple, oak-gum).Major forest types in the OVRDC District include oak-hickory and maple-beech-birch forests; with rarer Virginia-pitch pine and oak-pine forest types too.

In addition, OVRDC and Ohio forests provide wood for use in a diverse wood products industry, which includes both primary and secondary processing facilities. Many of the wood products represented for the Ohio market reflects the products produced in the OVRDC Region. According to “Ohio, The Many Sides of the Forest Economy” August 2006, from the highlights: • Ohio harvests 300-400 million board feet of timber annually and grows one billion board feet of wood each year. The ratio of net growth (total growth minus mortality) to removals is 2.4:1, which means that Ohio forests are growing more than twice the volume of timber than is removed. • Ohio’s forest products industry contributes $15.1 billion to Ohio’s economy and employs over 119,000 Shawnee State Forest, Scioto Co Ohio people with annual payrolls of $4 billion. • The primary wood products industry contributes $803.6 million to Ohio’s economy in the form of outputs. It employs over 5,500 people and generates annual payrolls of over $103 million. • The secondary wood products industry contributes $4 billion to Ohio’s economy in the form of industry outputs. It employs over 43,000 people and generates annual payrolls of $1.3 billion. • The paper industry contributes $7.5 billion to Ohio’s economy in the form of outputs. It employs over 29,000 people and generates annual payrolls of more than $1.4 billion. • More than 3.7 million hunting, fishing and wildlife watching enthusiasts spend over $2.3 billion in the State of Ohio.

A portion of the income and jobs generated from the forest industry listed above does provide a positive affect on the OVRDC Region. Very few secondary manufacturers are located in the District in comparison to primary establishments; consequently, little value is added to the District’s product before it is exported elsewhere in the State or nation. Herein lays a potential opportunity for economic development: to attract, retain, and expand more secondary

Chapter 1 Page 10 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

establishments and encourage primary manufacturers to incorporate value-adding processes into their operations, as a way to grow and stabilize the District’s economic base. Over the last few years, OVRDC has promoted the export of wood products to foreign markets such as Spain, Japan, Germany, Mexico, Canada, and other markets. The OVRDC region has benefited from these trips, by promotion of the wood industry in our region.

In 2008, OVRDC received a grant from USDA Rural Development, Rural Business Opportunity Grant (RBOG) to conduct a feasibility study on developing a regional kiln project. A wood kiln – is a kiln that dries or removes moisture from lumber. “Project Summary: The focus of this project is to undertake a marketing and feasibility study for the hardwood lumber industry in a 5- county target area in southern Ohio. The primary purpose of the study will be to determine the feasibility and the market demand for undertaking the construction of a hardwood lumber drying kiln for potential use by several lumber companies in the area. This study will also include recommendations for a site for such a facility, as well as preliminary designs and cost estimates for the facility. At the end of this study, OVRDC staff will utilize the study and design information to begin the process of identifying funding sources and resources for the construction of the kiln.” Currently the project is underway, and final report will be completed at the end of 2009.

It should also be noted that the District’s forestlands attract tourists living outside the District to its many recreational areas, while greatly improving the quality of life for area residents. The District boasts a national forest (Wayne) and the largest state forest in Ohio (Shawnee), in addition to other state forests including Zaleski and Tar Hollow. These resources, as well as the many water resources and parks adjacent to them, draw numerous tourists and sporting enthusiasts to the District each year. The region has 25 state parks and forests located here, which create great potential for recreational tourism.

Water Resources The District enjoys an abundance of water resources, both surface and groundwater. Major waterways in the District include the Scioto, Little Miami, and Ohio Rivers, which are fed by an abundant network of smaller tributary streams. In addition, there are major streams that flow through the region such as Ohio Brush Creek, Paint Creek, Raccoon Creek, and others. Numerous lakes in the District also provide water for consumption and recreational purposes. According to the Ohio EPA Land Cover Classification (1999 – 2003), the OVRDC region and Ohio contains about less than 1% of the landcover considered “Open Water”.

Since much of the land in the District is rural, land use impacts on water quality and quantity generally involve agricultural runoff and effluent from wastewater treatment. According to 2001 A Guide to Ohio Streams, other pollution concerns that effect water quality are point source pollution (sources are sewage treatment plants, combined sewer overflows, and industrial discharges) and nonpoint source pollution (sources are stream encroachment, soil erosion, mining activities, agricultural activities, and urban areas). Some of the concerns that deal with water quality are: lack of buffer strips along streams and rivers where fields are adjacent to these waterways; sediment runoff from plowed fields in the winter; the loss of wildlife habitat and woodlands; nonpoint pollution from pesticides and fertilizers; agriculture pollution from megafarms; loss and drainage of wetlands; fish kills and fish contamination from agriculture chemicals; and mono-culture planting. However, population centers such as Gallipolis, Ironton,

Chapter 1 Page 11 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

and Portsmouth located on the Ohio River and Chillicothe on the Scioto River, and the heavy industry associated with them, place greater demands on the water resources in their vicinity. In addition, the presence of coal in the eastern part of the District has had a significant impact on the area’s physical and biological character. Both underground and surface mining techniques have been employed for nearly 100 years, but only during the last 50 years have any efforts been made to mitigate environmental damage.

The principal aquifer systems in much of the District consist of unconsolidated deposits of glacial origin, which underlie the Ohio River Valley and floodplain segments of the major tributaries. The generally low aquifer yields of southeast Ohio have been partly responsible for the lack of development in the region. Major development, in fact, has been restricted to those areas adjacent to the Ohio River and major tributaries. The potential of the region for future urbanization or industrialization is highly dependent on the ability to secure adequate water supplies. In addition, for those entities dependent upon small aquifers, protection of both the quantity and quality of these sources is critical.

Over the last few years, there has been an increase in new water wells drilled for communities and water treatment plants. These new developments have occurred in the Scioto River Valley and along the Ohio River. The yields of groundwater make it feasible for these new wells. Such counties to benefit from these new wells are Adams, Jackson, Pike, Ross, Scioto, and Vinton.

Water is among the District’s most valuable resources, but reserves are neither inexhaustible nor immune from environmental degradation. Surface drainage projects, well drilling, deep and strip mining, and construction may deplete an aquifer. Industrial and human wastes as well as acid mine drainage can contaminate aquifers and surface water and render them unfit for many uses. Knowledge of the location, quantity, and quality of groundwater resources is extremely important in the development of industrial or municipal sites. In any construction activity, such knowledge also helps to determine strength of soil foundations and the probability of slumps and landslides.

Over the last decade, there has been an increased awareness of watershed protection, and the formation of watershed groups that focus on protecting the resources of surface water. Other agencies and groups have collaborated in protecting or managing watersheds. Water treatment companies have become more aware of protecting the water quality by protecting the watershed. For example, the Jackson County Water Company manages the lands in the watershed that feeds into their main surface water source. Other activities across the region have focus on watershed management such as the Scioto Watershed Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.

The water resources in the OVRDC region also provide recreation activities to the public like boating, swimming, fishing, and etc. This provides monetary funds to local businesses and governments, which in turn helps the local economy. Greater increase in access to some of these water resources would help the local economy, but there will need to be a balance in the development and the protection of these water resources through better management. Management of land activities and non-point sources of pollution is critical in the protection of groundwater and surface water quality in the District. Polluted water can be treated, but only at great expense; and most small communities in the District cannot afford such facilities, nor do they wish to pass on the expense to future consumers. This is one reason OVRDC is involved

Chapter 1 Page 12 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

with local communities in procurement of funds in the development of water treatment and wastewater treatment systems. By funding such projects, this helps guarantee the protection of the natural resources and promote economic well-being for local communities.

Mineral Resources The District contains deposits of such industrial minerals as sand, gravel, clay, shale, limestone, and dolomite, all of which are used primarily in the construction industry. Between 1993-2007, the employment at Ohio Industrial Mineral Operations for the OVRDC region increased by 13.7% compared to 3.2% for Ohio. However, even with the slow increase in employment, there is still a steady demand for minerals. This may indicate a slow down in development and construction across the region and the state. There is still construction and upkeep of new and current infrastructure that helps in the demand for such products.

According to the 2007 Report on Ohio Mineral Industries (produced by the Ohio Division of Geological Survey), within the District, limestone and dolomite are currently mined in Adams, Brown, Fayette, Highland, Jackson, Pike, Ross, and Vinton counties. Primary uses for crushed and broken limestone and dolomite include road construction/resurfacing and commercial building. Other major uses for various forms of limestone and dolomite include stone for asphaltic concrete, portland cement concrete, production of lime, and riprap. In 2007, limestone and dolomite sales (by ton) for the District were 4,696,162 tons of limestone and dolomite, or 7% of all statewide production. In addition, the tonnage, during 1993 to 2007, has decreased by - 9.7% for OVRDC while the tonnage has increase by 10% for Ohio. This decrease in production could be due in part, to limited resources, higher energy cost and the downturn in the economy. Through, the demand for this product will continue, due in part to new or replacement of infrastructure projects within the OVRDC Region. The demand for limestone is largely limited to the local construction industry, due to high transportation costs and the quality of the stone. Furthermore, high processing and installation costs tend to inhibit demand.

Sand and gravel are found mainly in deposits within outwash terraces of the Scioto and Ohio Rivers, primarily in Brown, Clermont, Gallia, Lawrence, Pike, Ross, and Scioto counties. Sand and gravel are obtained in great abundance from dredging, but this process yields a lower quality product in comparison to dry gravel operations on higher ground. These products are used in road construction/resurfacing, building, asphaltic concrete, and portland cement concrete. In 2007, sand and gravel sales in the District totaled 1,111,121 tons, but both the District at -63% and Ohio at -22.4%-experienced decreases in production through 1993-2007. This slow down in mining production is do in part is lower demand, limited resources and higher energy costs. With the slow down of the housing market and fewer people driving, this creates less demand for concrete and lower collections of gas tax money for road projects. Exports of these materials, out of the District are limited by high transportation costs and the availability of the resource in surrounding regions.

In 2007, other minerals that were mined in the OVRDC Region included sandstone and conglomerate, clay and shale, and multiple commodities. Crushed sandstone and conglomerate are used mainly for glass sand, foundry sand, silica flour, and construction. Dimension sandstone and conglomerate are used primarily in rough construction. Much of the clay and shale is processed locally into bricks and structural clay tile. The growth of the brick industry is largely dependent on its use in residential construction applications such as privacy barriers, passive

Chapter 1 Page 13 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

solar systems, and paving. Many brick producers in the District and in the nation closed during the recession between 1978 and 1982 and in the early 90s, and may never reopen.

The demand for sand, gravel, clay, shale and limestone is heavily dependent on the level of local construction activity, since high shipping costs usually prohibit long-distance shipping. The local construction industry has been chronically depressed due to low average household incomes and the closing of major industrial facilities, and the demand for construction materials has fallen accordingly.

Fossil Fuels According to Map 3: Ohio State Energy Profile, Energy Information Administration, Office Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government, the OVRDC Region has six coal power plants and 2 natural gas power plants. Additionally several natural gas pipelines run through the OVRDC Region. Therefore, fossil fuels are an important source of energy production for the district and Ohio. Some highlights for Ohio reflect the OVRDC Region too: Energy consumption in Ohio’s industrial sector ranks among the highest in the Nation. • Ohio has the second- highest refining capacity in the Midwest. • A proposed pipeline from the Rocky Mountains could increase Ohio’s total natural gas supply in the near future. • In August 2003, a transmission failure in Ohio led to the largest blackout in North American history, affecting over 50 million Map 3: Ohio State Energy Profile Source: Energy Information people. Administration http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state • Coal typically fuels about nine-tenths of net electricity generation in Ohio.

Chapter 1 Page 14 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Major coal deposits underlie Gallia, Jackson, Lawrence and Vinton counties, with Vinton and Jackson counties reportedly having over 1 million tons of coal reserves in 1993. While in 2007 the only counties to be mining coal are Jackson and Vinton, Vinton is still producing 515,827 tons of coal. Ross, Pike, and Scioto counties also have coal deposits, but they are not as large. In 1993, Jackson and Vinton counties each had 13 mines, comprised of 12 surfaces and 1 underground mine in each county. While in 2007, the number of mines has dropped to 4 surface mines. The closing of the underground mine in Jackson had a negative effect on the economy through the loss of well paying jobs. In 2007, the combine total for Jackson and Vinton Counties tonnage of coal sold was 870,628 tons representing 4% of statewide totals.

According to the 2007 Ohio Mineral Industries Report, the value of coal at these mines in 2007 was reported at over $29,379,667 in Jackson and Vinton Counties, at a per-ton average of $$34.38. Overall during 1993-2007, the coal industry in Ohio and the Region are declining in value and tonnage sold, but the per-ton average has increase due in part to inflation and higher energy costs. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 3 and 4 for the referenced tables.)

These figures show that the coal industry has a significant impact on the eastern counties of the District. Rail and barge transportation in the District is also partially dependent on business from the coal industry. However, the District's mining employment sector has declined over the years and is projected to continue downward. This trend is attributable partly to the U.S. EPA's more stringent air pollution guidelines and increasing national concern about the relationship of acid rain to the burning of high-sulfur coal, which tends to make Ohio's high-sulfur coal even less competitive. A majority of the power plants located in the region burn coal as a main source of power. One of the biggest issues is the stricter Clean Air Act and the National Air Quality Standards of the EPA, which have some effect on the region, including expensive retrofitting of existing power plants to reduce pollutants.

Additionally, with the current Climate Change legislation proposal of a Carbon Tax or a Cap- and-Trade tax, to limit carbon emissions, this could have a negative impact on the District. According to an article in “Country Living/May 2009” on page 26 by South Central Power, a rural electric co-op that serves OVRDC Region: “Cap-and-trade systems work by setting a specific limit on airborne pollutants from sources like power plants, factories and refineries, and require those sources to account for all emissions with issued allowances. Cap-and-trade has worked well during the last 15 years to reduce emissions of acid rain-causing sulfur dioxide nationwide and over the last decade to curb smog-creating nitrogen oxides in the eastern half of the country. However, some cap-and-trade tax proposals for carbon dioxide contain a new twist: pricey allowances.”

“Allowances would be auctioned off at undetermined prices, leading to huge cost burdens for any source of carbon dioxide emissions. In the case of power plants, those costs could ultimately be passed on to consumers using the power, in some cases, adding $50 or more to electric bills each month. ”

Chapter 1 Page 15 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

This Cap-and-Trade tax could have a negative impact on the coal industry as a whole, by levying new taxes onto coal generating faculties, the costs of these taxes would be passed on to the consumer through higher energy bills. The higher energy bills would affect businesses, manufacturers, local governments, public and private sectors, civilian populations, etc. Basically, higher energy bills would have a ripple affect through the whole economy by increasing the cost at all levels.

The hope for full recovery of the area's coalmines seems to lie in the search for a low-cost mass coal washing or treatment process that would remove sulfur and other contaminants and, therefore, make the coal “cleaner” and more competitive. The Ohio Coal Development Office (OCDO), within the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority (OAQDA), co-funds the development and implementation of technologies that can use Ohio's vast reserves of high sulfur coal in an economical, environmentally sound manner. This is important as numerous energy forecasts project coal to fuel at least half of the nation's electric power production through 2015 and probably beyond. It is critical for Ohio, which generates nearly 90% of its electricity from coal. Further, given the dynamism of Ohio's diverse economy, Ohio is the 3rd largest coal consumer of coal and the 4th largest consumer of electricity in the U.S. (Source: U.S. Dept. of Energy/Energy Information Administration). While alternative energy technologies are under development and transition, coal will remain the backbone of this state's and this nation's energy supply for some time to come. It should be used cleanly, and this can only be accomplished through the development and use of clean coal technologies (CCTs).

The outlook for oil and natural gas production over the last few years has been steady, due to increase in price and improved success in finding new reserves. Nevertheless, there seems to be an increased interest in natural gas as a source of fuel for new power plants that have been built in the region and the state. Deregulation of public electrical utilities in Ohio has affected the market with the spurt of building new powerplants. In the OVRDC Region, two natural gas fired generating plants have been completed. The first, Duke Energy North America spent $600 million and built two large natural gas-fired turbine engines to produce electricity at its plant near Hanging Rock in Lawrence County. Each of the two power blocks is capable of producing 620 megawatts of electricity per hour. The company is selling the electricity on the open market to electric companies like American Electric Power or electric cooperatives. The second plant was built near Wilkesville, Vinton County, Ohio. Dynegy Inc. spent $307 million on the Rolling Hills plant. The Rolling Hills plant produces electric with a 5-turbine 850-megawatt system.

Another factor that has an impact on OVRDC’s economy is the rise and fall in crude oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel prices. In addition, these prices have an effect on local, state, and national economies, too. Prices on average are similar for OVRDC and Ohio for crude oil, gasoline, and diesel prices. There are many factors that affect the prices of these commodities. The main control for the prices of gasoline, diesel, and other petroleum products is the value of crude oil. Crude oil prices are determined by worldwide supply and demand.

During 2004, robust commodity prices and changes to Ohio oil and gas laws led to 578 wells being drilled - an 11% increase. Wells were drilled throughout eastern Ohio. Oil and gas have been found in 71 of Ohio’s 88 counties with 47 counties now producing oil and gas. (See Map 4) Ohio production is about 72% weighted in favor of natural gas. Yet, Ohio is the largest

Chapter 1 Page 16 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Appalachian Basin producer of crude oil.

Map 4: Oil and Gas Fields and Well for Ohio

Through 2007, Ohio wells produced 1,121,180,208 barrels of crude oil. The dollar value of crude oil produced in Ohio in 2007 was $369,223,837, an increase of 9.1 percent. Average price per barrel in 2007 was $67.63, an 8.4 percent increase from the 2006 price. Ohio ranks 19th in crude production among 32 crude oil producing states.

Oil and natural gas fields are located east of the Scioto River in Vinton, Jackson, Lawrence, Pike, Scioto, and Gallia counties. However, in 2007 the only counties to show new wells drilled were Jackson, Lawrence, Pike, and Vinton. There has been renewed interest recently in expanding existing production levels; however, large-scale production is not yet economically feasible. According to the 2007 Ohio Mineral Industries Report, the total number of new wells drilled and producing in the OVRDC District is relatively small compared to the rest of the State. In 2007, seven wells were drilled in Jackson, Lawrence, Pike, and Vinton counties; six of those wells were productive. Statewide, the production, dollar value, and value of both oil increased in 2007, but have declined for natural gas. The dollar value of natural gas produced in Ohio in 2007 was $651,901,017, a decrease of 2.6 percent from 2006. The value of the estimated volume of gas used on the lease was not used in computing the total dollar value. The average price per MCF in 2007 was $7.40, a decrease of $0.35 per MCF from 2006. The combined total value of Ohio oil and gas production in 2007 was $1,021,124,854, an increase of 1.4 percent from 2006.

The cost to produce and deliver gasoline and diesel fuel to consumers includes the cost of crude oil to refiners; refinery processing costs; marketing and distribution costs; and retail station costs and taxes. The prices paid by consumers at the pump reflect these costs, as well as the profits (and some- times losses) of refiners, marketers, distributors, and retail station owners. The share

Chapter 1 Page 17 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

of the retail price of regular grade gasoline that crude oil costs represent varies somewhat over time and among regions. Federal, State, and local taxes are a significant component of the retail price of gasoline. Additional local county and city taxes can have a significant impact on the price of gasoline. In 2009, Ohio gas tax added to Federal gas tax is 46.4 cents per gallon. According to Nationwide and State-by-State Motor Fuel Taxes, July 2009 from American Petroleum Institute, Ohio rated 17th in the country in gasoline tax. Additionally, diesel tax was 52.4 cents per gallon, with Ohio ranking 18h in the country. A majority of the gas and diesel tax revenue is used for transportation needs and projects.

In the OVRDC Region, gas prices will vary 10 to 25 cents depending on the location and other factors. The same is true for diesel prices, too. With the prices of gasoline and diesel increasing like it is, this has a negative impact on the economy and on people’s budget. With higher costs, people will have to spend more on gasoline for their vehicles and spend less on other items like clothing and food. In addition, rising fees in diesel fuel affects freight costs, which inflates the price of products for the consumer. Rising costs in healthcare and energy prices; lower per capita income; inflation of products, and other local and global factors, will have a very negative impact on the economy of the OVRDC region, compared to Ohio and U.S in the coming years.

Renewable Energy Over the last few years with raising costs of fossil fuels energy, rise of alertness in greenhouse gases and environmental issues, development of sustainable energy sources, creating economic opportunities, developing a national energy source and other factors has brought the awareness of renewable energy to the forefront in the economic, political and social arenas. Renewable energy is an energy resource that is naturally regenerated over a short time scale and derived from the sun (directly or indirectly). Renewable energy can heat and power business, homes and communities. Renewable energy reduces greenhouse gases and pollutants when it replaces fossil fuel power generation.

According to Ohio Department of Development, Ohio Energy Office and Ohio Department of Agriculture key areas for renewable energy in Ohio are: • Hydroelectric power • Wind energy • Biomass • Solar energy • Biofuels

Hydroelectric power is obtained from the natural flow of water. Hydroelectric power plants convert that energy into electricity. Low impact hydroelectric plants producing less than 30 Megawatts are often considered renewable sources of electricity. For the OVRDC Region there has been an interest in upgrading the three US Army Corp of Engineer’s Dams and Locks on the Ohio River to produce electric. Currently, the US Army Corp of Engineer’s Greenup Locks & Dam is considered a hydroelectric plant. The potential for hydropower on all Ohio waterways was evaluated by the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, which identified a total of 149 potential hydropower sites in Ohio. In the OVRDC Region a total of 15 sites were identified as potential sites with a maximum output of a megawatt or more and 45 sites were identified as potential sites with a maximum power output of 100 kilowatts to a megawatt. Therefore, there is potential for the development of low power and small hydro feasible projects within the OVRDC Region.

Chapter 1 Page 18 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

Wind energy is the world's fastest growing energy resource. In use for centuries in Europe, wind is now finding increasing use in the United States and other nations. Wind turbines, both large and small, produce electricity for utilities, homeowners, and communities. According to a map called “Wind Resources of Ohio” produced for Ohio Department of Development, due to the topography of a majority of the OVRDC Region, wind power is not very efficient. Fayette County, northwest sections of Highland and Ross Counties depicts some promise for supporting wind power. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 5 for the referenced map.)

Biomass and Biofuels are substantial renewable resources that can be used as a fuel for producing electricity and other forms of energy. Biomass feedstock is any organic matter available for conversion to energy. Agricultural crops and residues, industrial wood and logging residues, farm animal wastes, and the organic portion of municipal waste can be biomass feedstock. Biomass fuels, or biofuels, as derived from biomass feedstock, may be solid, liquid, or gas. They can be efficiently transformed through technology into energy for transportation, heating, and electricity generation.

Biofuels are gas or liquid fuels made from plant material (biomass), and may include wood, wood waste, wood liquors, peat, railroad ties, wood sludge, spent sulfite liquors, agricultural waste, straw, tires, fish oils, tall oil, sludge waste, waste alcohol, municipal solid waste, landfill gases, other waste, and ethanol blended into motor gasoline. In Ohio, the most common liquid biofuels produced for transportation purposes are ethanol from corn and biodiesel from soybeans. The benefits of the biofuels industry to Ohio are clear: economic activity and jobs in rural Ohio, diversification of our energy portfolio that provides stability in our economy, decreased dependence on foreign sources of oil, and lower gasoline prices for Ohioans. Concerns exist about competing demands for these grains and oilseeds, whether for food or livestock feed, which suggests that future efforts should focus increasingly on the next generation of biofuels - biodiesel from algae and ethanol from energy crops, forest products, and cellulosic feedstocks. Ohio has the natural resources, transportation infrastructure and industrial base to participate in this new biofuels era - an era that will target production on Ohio's marginal soils and utilize systems with a smaller carbon footprint that utilize less water resources

For the OVRDC Region, biomass and biofuel production demonstrates the best option, due to the resources within the region. The region does have potential for development of the new alternative bio-fuels, such as ethanol and bio-diesel, because of our proximity to markets and to large quantities of corn and soybeans, etc. OVRDC does have an ethanol plant in Fayette County.

Another source for energy is methane production from landfills. Municipal solid waste landfills are the second largest source of human-related methane emissions in the United States, accounting for approximately 23 percent of these emissions in 2007. At the same time, methane emissions from landfills represent a lost opportunity to capture and use a significant energy resource. Landfill gas (LFG) is created as solid waste decomposes in a landfill. This gas consists of about 50 percent methane (CH4), the primary component of natural gas, about 50 percent carbon dioxide (CO2), and a small amount of non-methane organic compounds. According to US EPA has indentified potential sites for landfill methane production, with 6 sites within the OVRDC Region list below.

Chapter 1 Page 19 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

County Name Owner Waste in Place in Tons Brown Brown County Rumpke Waste Inc. 2,784,000 Landfill Gallia Gallia County LF Gallia County Commissioners Jackson RWS Beech Hollow Rumpke Waste, Inc 1,600,000 LF Pike Pike Sanitation LF Pike Sanitation 1,438,000 Company Ross Triangle Landfill, Inc Triangle Landfill, Inc 1,332,511 Scioto Scioto Sanitation 347,907 Source: U.S. EPA

Converting Landfill Gas (LFG) to energy instead of allowing LFG to escape into the air, it can be captured, converted, and used as an energy source. Using LFG helps to reduce odors and other hazards associated with LFG emissions, and it helps prevent methane from migrating into the atmosphere and contributing to local smog and global climate change. Landfill gas is extracted from landfills using a series of wells and a blower/flare (or vacuum) system. This system directs the collected gas to a central point where it can be processed and treated depending upon the ultimate use for the gas. From this point, the gas can be simply flared or used to generate electricity, replace fossil fuels in industrial and manufacturing operations, fuel greenhouse operations, or be upgraded to pipeline quality gas. This process would be very beneficial to the energy needs in the OVRDC Region and the country.

Solar energy is provided by the sun and is constantly replenished. When used to create power, it will not produce harmful pollution. Solar energy may be used passively to heat and light buildings, or actively to transform it to generate electricity (solar photovoltaics) or heat (solar thermal). There are three types of solar energy:

1. Photovoltaics (PV) – Photovoltaic solar cells, which directly convert sunlight into electricity, are made of semiconducting materials. The simplest cells power watches and calculators and the like, while systems that are more complex can light houses and provide power to the electric grid.

2. Solar Hot Water and Space Heating and Cooling – Solar hot water heaters use the sun to heat either water or a heat-transfer fluid in collectors. A typical system will reduce the need for conventional water heating by about two-thirds. High-temperature solar water heaters can provide energy-efficient hot water and hot water heat for large commercial and industrial facilities.

3. Passive Solar Heating, Cooling and Day lighting – Buildings designed for passive solar and day lighting incorporate design features such as large south-facing windows and building materials that absorb and slowly release the sun's heat. No mechanical means are employed in passive solar heating. Incorporating passive solar designs can reduce heating bills as much as 50 percent. Passive solar designs can also include natural ventilation for cooling.

Chapter 1 Page 20 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

Solar energy is a viable option for Ohio and the OVRDC Region. Solar can be used on large manufacturing or warehouse buildings, homes, schools, businesses, or as independent units to generate power. Southern Ohio receives more annual average solar resources potential than northern Ohio according to National Renewable Energy Laboratory. In 2008, USDA Rural Development collaborated with Community Action Commission (CAC) of Fayette County, and awarded $601,230 in grant funding to help finance construction of 28 homes that had the addition of solar-power technology in the Arbor Village Subdivision of Washington Court House, Ohio. The project consisted of 10 solar powered systems and is the largest collection of solar homes in one neighborhood in Ohio. Homeowners are expected to realize up to 40 percent savings on their energy costs after installation of the solar powered units.

Renewable energy is here to stay, and the OVRDC region, has a potential to generate power and create jobs with it. The OVRDC Region would benefit best by a combination of multiple renewable energy resources to generate power and fuel than just relying on one source. The OVRDC Region has the potential to generate this power from multiple resources. The State of Ohio, the Federal Government, non-profit organizations and some private businesses provide incentives and encourage development of renewable resources. Nevertheless, there can be more done to encourage, educate, and fund renewable resources, by all levels of government and business. One example that could encourage development of renewable energy is that the government could purchase electric, a few cents over what the electric company charges for kilowatt from rural homes and communities that have installed renewable energy sources that produce power. Governments are providing grants, loans, tax incentives, etc; but more can be done. Future efforts by OVRDC that have been encouraged are the provision of renewable energy and energy efficient upgrades for infrastructure within some of our small communities throughout the region. This will be accomplished by pursuing federal and/or state grant resources to assist various small communities in the near future.

Environmental Issues

Wetlands The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency jointly define wetlands as areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

Wetlands fulfill several essential functions in a healthy ecosystem. Some wetlands help reduce flooding by naturally retaining excess runoff water and releasing it more gradually into adjacent streams. As the runoff is retained, sediments settle out into the wetland rather than choking the adjacent stream bottom. Other wetlands serve as groundwater recharge points, where surface water percolates down into the ground and replenishes the water table. As the water leaches down through the wetland, physical and biological processes filter and purify it. In addition, wetlands provide habitat for a rich diversity of plants and animals, including rare, threatened, or endangered species.

Swamps, marshes, and bogs are easily identifiable as wetlands, but other areas that can also be considered wetlands, such as many bottomland forests and wet meadows, are not as easily

Chapter 1 Page 21 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

recognizable. Developers should carefully assess their proposed project sites to determine whether wetlands are present, because section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that anyone interested in depositing dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, must receive prior authorization for such activities. Such determinations can be made, by evaluating the National Wetland Inventory by using a geographic information system (GIS) or by conducting a wetland delineation of the site. Between 2006-2009, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Ohio Office of Information Technology - GIS Support Center, Ducks Unlimited and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is in the process of updating National Wetland Inventory for all of Ohio. This new National Wetland Inventory will benefit the OVRDC region, by providing better information on the location of wetlands.

Floodplain Management and Flooding The District has access to two major rivers: the Ohio and the Scioto. Streamside development has historically presented numerous challenges, but many of these problems have now been addressed. Flooding is the leading natural disaster event in Ohio and the OVRDC Region. There have been several flood events over the past few years. There has also been an increase in the frequency of floods taking place in southern Ohio.

In February 2005, the OVRDC Region and Ohio were hit with a major flooding event, in which a Presidential Disaster Declaration was issued for 32 counties in Ohio, three of which are located in the OVRDC region. The cost of this natural disaster event to Ohio was $7.7 million.

On September 19, 2004, the OVRDC Region and Ohio were hit with flooding, severe storms, mudslides and landslides, in which a Presidential Disaster Declaration was issued for 14 counties in Ohio, one of which is located in the OVRDC region. The cost of this natural disaster to Ohio was $2.5 million.

On January 24, 2004, the OVRDC Region and Ohio were hit with a major flooding event and severe storms, in which a Presidential Disaster Declaration was issued for 21 counties in Ohio, three of which are located in the OVRDC region. The cost of this flood to Ohio was $33.3 million.

1997, Ohio River communities suffered a major flood that caused severe damage. Several communities along the Ohio River and within the OVRDC region were affected by this flood. The 1997 Flood had a negative impact on the economy in these communities with an estimated loss of $180 million according to the Flood of March 1997 in Southern Ohio.

Hazard mitigation has been the big push by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Ohio Department, Ohio Emergency Management Agency, Mitigation Branch is responsible for assisting local communities in developing mitigation plans, which hazard mitigation principles help local communities to be more sustainable and citizens more resilient in the face of future disaster events. The Mitigation Branch maintains the State's All Hazard Mitigation Plan, coordinates the State Hazard Mitigation Team (SHMT), is the state entity responsible for implementing FEMA's hazard mitigation programs, and assists Ohio communities in their mitigation planning efforts. The authority and laws that authorize and govern mitigation programs is not only the Ohio Revise Code section 5502.22; but also the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) and the United States Code of Federal Regulations, 44CFR:201. This legislation reinforces the importance of

Chapter 1 Page 22 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report pre-disaster infrastructure mitigation planning to reduce disaster losses nationwide, and is aimed primarily at the control and streamlining of the administration of federal disaster relief and programs to promote mitigation activities. Funding for the mitigation planning comes through FEMA and OEMA.

All applicants must participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) if they have been identified through the NFIP as having a Special Flood Hazard Area (a Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) or Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) has been issued). In addition, the community must not be suspended or on probation from the NFIP. Local and incorporated communities that are part of the NFIP program must have a mitigation plan in effect to receive funds for future projects or disasters. The Ohio Emergency Management Agency (OEMA) is the state agency responsible for getting communities to develop these plans. Some communities that have already developed a plan or are in the process, are the Village of Manchester, Lawrence County, Ross County, the Village of Vinton, Gallia County, and others. Highland County is one of the only counties in the state that is not part of the NFIP program. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 6 for the referenced tables.)

In addition, FEMA continues to update the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). This program has an effect on OVRDC region by developing new FIRM maps for communities to better plan development. Some counties that have already received new maps are Adams, Ross, Lawrence, Scioto and Brown Counties.

After a devastating flood in 1937, floodwalls were erected as barriers against future disasters. Several projects have taken place in support of flood mitigation across the region. A floodwall was completed in the early 1980's in Chillicothe to provide protection from Scioto River flooding. Piketon in Pike County is one community that still experiences some problems when the Scioto has passed flood stage. Ohio River water levels are controlled through a multi-lock and dam water level monitoring system operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the U.S. Weather Service. In Waverly, Mills Pride constructed a floodwall around their plant operations; therefore, this change will likely cause a revision in the National Flood Insurance Program Maps. Mitigation projects in Lawrence County include relocation of homes, elevating homes, buy-outs, and flood proofing. The Village of Manchester went through many different mitigation activities such as dry-proofing, elevating of building, relocation of structures, and buy-out. There are many other projects in the works across the region.

Over the last decade, there has been an increased awareness in the importance of streamside forests and floodplains. According to the 2001 A Guide to Ohio Streams, “Streamside forest and floodplains promote infiltration and aquifer recharge. They also serve important roles in reducing flood peaks and maintaining adequate base flows. As streams rise rapidly, water moves into stream banks where it is stored until flows return to normal. It is then released over a period of days and weeks. Floodplains provide flood storage and conveyance and reduce flood velocities, peak flows, and instream sedimentation.” So the importance of floodplain management can be seen with the protection of riparian zones along waterways.

Floodplain management has become a major focus in helping to control flooding in Ohio. Counties across Ohio and the OVRDC region have appointed floodplain managers who are responsible for managing the development on floodplains. The Designated Floodplain Administrator (DFPA) is the position within the community per ordinance or resolution

Chapter 1 Page 23 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

designated as the floodplain administrator. The Local Contact (LC) is generally the person that is actively administering the floodplain management program in his/her community. ODNR Division of Water, Floodplain Management Program is the agency responsible for assisting these communities in floodplain management.

Therefore, the protection and management of the floodplains and the riparian zones are an important part in the planning process of forming predisaster mitigation plans for communities. With these plans in effect, communities will be better prepared for disasters and be able to recover faster after an event takes place.

Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Wastewater treatment in the District is provided by both centralized collection/treatment facilities and septic systems. Of the centralized systems, which are typically owned and operated by municipalities, the most frequently used treatment types include contact stabilization, chlorination, filters, and settling. Many of the facilities suffer from infiltration and inflow problems in their collection lines, with grit, O&G, and inadequate facilities also being identified as common problems. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 7 for the referenced tables.)

Several District municipalities and their facilities have been targeted by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) to correct, improve, or upgrade their facilities due to non-compliance with existing regulations. Some of the plants are currently operating under consent orders from OEPA because of permit violations identified in their operations. These problems are to be expected given the age of many facilities and the frequent lack of funding to maintain them in optimum condition. However, low median incomes and declining customer bases in many areas of the District make it difficult to finance improvements from the system’s operating revenues either directly or through long-term debt. Funding from the Ohio Public Works Commission (OPWC) Program, USDA Rural Development, the CDBG Water and Sewer Program, and the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) have assisted subdivisions; however, even all these resources are inadequate given the scope of the problem here and elsewhere in the nation.

Over the last decade, OVRDC’s has assisted many communities in upgrading or building new sewage treatment plants. Such projects are important to the health and welfare of the public and environment. Some projects are in the Village of Higginsport and Sardinia in Brown County, the Village of Bloomingburg in Fayette County, and the Village of Highland and City of Greenfield in Highland County.

Where centralized wastewater treatment is unavailable, some individuals and small businesses opt for on-site treatment methods, the most common being the septic system. These systems involve a tank for settling out the solids from small wastewater flows and conveying the liquid effluent to a prepared soil bed through which it drains, or “percolates;” as the effluent travels down through the soil, microbiological processes remove contaminants. Solids remaining in the settling tank are pumped out on a regular basis, usually once every few years. Properly sited and maintained, a septic system can provide adequate wastewater treatment for up to 20 years. However, where the soils either inhibit or excessively allow percolation, a septic system can contaminate surface and groundwater with inadequately treated effluent. Such problems could be avoided with effective planning and enforcement.

Chapter 1 Page 24 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

Historically Significant Lands/Properties Some of the greatest assets of the District are the many historical properties and landmarks that have been preserved. These properties help preserve the rich history of the many peoples who settled Southern Ohio, as far back as pre-Columbian times. They also generate tourism revenues for the area, and they provide District schools with the opportunity to show students first-hand about the history of the area.

The National Register of Historic Places has placed 250 sites within the District on its list of sites of particular historic importance. Additional sites are currently being evaluated for inclusion on the register. District sites include many Indian mounds, covered bridges, and historic buildings, as well as a few former stops on the Underground Railroad. Some of the highlights include Serpent Mound in Adams County (one of the world’s largest effigy mounds), the Hopewell Mound Group near Chillicothe in Ross County, and Portsmouth’s Mound Park in Scioto County. The village of Georgetown in Brown County boasts the boyhood home of President Ulysses S. Grant, while visitors to Jackson County can take a historical look at southern Ohio’s once-strong iron industry at the Buckeye Furnace State Memorial. Most of the county courthouses in the District are classified as historic buildings, and several cities and villages have entire districts listed on the national register.

Public lands in Ohio and OVRDC play and important role in the tourism industry. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources is the biggest public landowner in Ohio and the OVRDC region. Recreational activities such as hiking, biking, camping, boating, hunting or fishing are an important use of leisure service that ODNR provides to Ohio. Within Ohio, ODNR owns and manages more than 590,000 acres of land including 74 state parks, 20 state forests, 133 state nature preserves, and 138 wildlife areas. The department also has jurisdiction over more than 120,000 acres of inland waters; 7,000 miles of streams; 481 miles of Ohio River; and 2-1/4 million acres of Lake Erie. The five divisions that provide the majority of recreational opportunities are the Divisions of Forestry, Natural Areas and Preserves, Ohio State Parks, Watercraft, and Wildlife. Within the OVRDC Region, ODNR has 16 parks, 10 state forests, 13 nature preserves, and 42 wildlife areas and 6 lease control lands totaling 308,737.24 acres. In addition, the OVRDC region has public lands owned by Wayne National Forest, The Nature Conservancy, Ohio Historical Society, U.S. Park Service, and other smaller organizations with a total of 143,114.27 acres. Therefore, the OVRDC region has plenty of recreational opportunities for people to experience, which brings benefit to the local economy. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 2 for the referenced tables.)

In 2001, OVRDC supported local tourism boards by developing tourism maps for 6 counties within the region, which were Adams, Gallia, Lawrence, Pike, Scioto, and Vinton. In addition, two corridor areas were identified for tourism studies by OVRDC staff. These corridors were the U.S. RT 23 and U.S. RT 52. The other counties in the corridor maps were Brown, Clermont, and Ross. These maps were posted to OVRDC’s website and given to local tourism boards. To date OVRDC has developed user-friendly tourism maps for Brown, Clermont, Fayette, Highland, Jackson, and Ross. In addition, OVRDC has updated county tourism maps that were first created in 2001. These counties were Adams, Gallia, Lawrence, Pike, Scioto, and Vinton; with the maps being post to OVRDC’s website. Tourism is important to the local economy because it means economic growth. This is one reason OVRDC supports tourism in its region and will continue to support local tourism activities. In 2006, OVRDC was awarded a $29,177 state grant for the

Chapter 1 Page 25 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

Southern Ohio Native American Theme Tour Initiative by the State of Ohio Governor's Office of Appalachia (GOA). Southern Ohio Native American Theme Tour Initiative allowed OVRDC in partnership Ohio Historical Society and local Convention & Visitors Bureaus to create a 5- county, self-guided interpretive tour of Native American historical and archaeological sites in Adams, Highland, Pike, Ross and Scioto counties. The project was completed in 2008 with tour brochures, map, CD's and DVD's provide extensive information on the major sites and events available to visitors across the region. The tour was expected to generate additional economic development for the region through tourism to the area.

In 2006, the Ohio Division of Travel & Tourism developed a fact sheet of travel and tourism for Ohio. In 2006, it is estimated that there were 33.6 million overnight trips to Ohio up from33.4 million in 2003. Ohio’s diversity and strategic location is seen in the day trip market where day trips accounted for 139.2 million trips in 2006 up from 122.6 million in 2003. Direct spending by people taking trips is estimated at $33.7 billion in 2006, up from $27 billion in 2003 while. In addition, families are taking more trips closer to home. For the OVRDC region, this shift is good for the district. The district has such a wide range of activities, natural beauty, and other things to give families more opportunities to have an enjoyable vacation.

Population

Population The Appalachian area as a whole, including southern Ohio, was generally bypassed by post- World War II growth and industrialization. The importance of coal as a fuel began slipping during the 1950s and 1960s as other fuels such as natural gas became more readily available and replaced coal as a fuel in many industries and commercial buildings. Appalachian Ohio steadily lost population through out-migration of the prime labor force-age population to cities such as Columbus, Cleveland, Toledo, and Detroit.

Over the last several years for the OVRDC Region and Ohio, the population has increased. During 1990-2000, population grew twice as fast for the OVRDC region at 9.32% compared to Ohio at 4.67%, with Appalachian Ohio growing at 6%. The OVRDC Region experienced a 29.3% increase in population from 1970-2000, which was greater than Ohio’s. The population of the OVRDC Region in 1970 was 471,751 and in 2000, the population was 635,970. Ohio experienced a 6.4% increase with the population being 10,652,017 in 1970 and growing to 11,353,140 in 2000. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 25 for “OVRDC Profile”)

Overall, the population will mostly likely continue to grow for the Region. Counties that may see the greater growth will be counties that are near major metropolitan areas such as Cincinnati, Columbus, and Huntington WV. In addition, growth will happen in counties that are able to attract and retain current and new industries. The population growth has been better in recent years for OVRDC compared to the state levels, but remains lower than national figures. Because of this trend, there was and still is a growing need in this District for urban-type services (water, sewage, police, fire, parks and recreation, sanitation, streets and general government). When growth occurs in proximity to existing urban areas, service extension may be technically feasible despite institutional impediments. However, in many areas of the District, topography dictates patterns of development that will inevitably result in higher service delivery costs. For Ohio, population has plateaued relative to decades past and is expected to remain well under the

Chapter 1 Page 26 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

growth patterns of other areas of the country over the next decade or more. The state of Ohio does not have the luxury of large new generations and the talent and promise they brought to the economy of the past. The OVRDC Region can step in by providing better education and workforce development for its current population and continue to promote economic development.

Migration Migration into the District has been greater than at the state level. During 1994-2007, the OVRDC region experienced a net flow increase of 25,309 persons, while Ohio saw a net flow decrease of -343,834 persons. Clermont County had the greatest increase of net flow of 15,058 persons during 1994-2007, while Fayette and Scioto counties experienced an outflow of population. The other OVRDC counties all saw a steady net flow increase during this time. Some reasons for Clermont County’s large increase are that the county is part of the Cincinnati MSA, which has experienced long-term economic growth. On the other side, Scioto County has experienced decrease due, in part, to the depressed economic growth and other local factors. Overall, OVRDC has had more people coming back to the region than leaving. This could be due in part to land prices being cheaper; renewed job opportunities and the rural quality of life offered. People are coming back more to a rural setting and commuting to work. With this in mind, the importance of transportation improvements, health care, education, costs of living, and infrastructure becomes more important to the region as a whole.

Selected Characteristics The greatest decline by Age Groups was the 21-24 age group for both Ohio (–9.4%) and the OVRDC Region (–0.2%). For Ohio, the median age rose from 33.3 in 1990 to 36.2 in 2000, with the OVRDC Region median age changing from 33.4 to 36.4. The largest growth rate by age groups for the OVRDC region is the 45-54 years at 34%, with the next age group being 55 to 59 years at 22.1%; while Ohio’s age group of 45-54 years at 33.8% and 55-59 years at 13.6%. The region’s senior population is growing faster than the State of Ohio.

During 1990-2000, the Hispanic race showed the largest increase for both the OVRDC Region at 67.3% and Ohio at 43.4%. Another significant increase for Ohio has been Asian or Pacific Islanders at 39%. For the OVRDC Region, Asian or Pacific Islanders, at 53.9%, is the second largest increase in minorities. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 8 for the referenced tables.)

Overall, in the future, OVRDC and Ohio will see an increase in Hispanic and Asian or Pacific Islanders with more immigrants coming from Southeast Asia and Latin America. The biggest increase may come from the Hispanic group. With the influx of new population diversity, this brings new advantages in increased economic value to the market by bringing in new consumers to the region. Finally, with the increased growth in Hispanics and Asian or Pacific Islander, this will help bring new ideas and help enrich the culture of the OVRDC region.

The District's geographic distribution continues to reflect a predominantly rural population, but there have been shifts to more urban populations. In 1990, 62.3% of the District's inhabitants lived in rural areas, with the remaining 37.7% residing in urban areas. Statewide, 25.9% live in rural areas while the remaining 74.1% lived in urban areas. This has changed since 2000 with 54.1% of the OVRDC population living in rural areas, while 45.9% live in urban areas. Nevertheless, the state has a greater difference with 22.7% rural and 77.3% urban.

Chapter 1 Page 27 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

Estimates and Selected Characteristics In 2008, the U.S. Census has released population estimates for the country. The percent change between 2000 and 2008 shows the United States growing fastest at 7.45% exceeding OVRDC at 3.31% and Ohio at 1.06%. Additionally, it is estimated that the annual average percent change between 2000-2008 populations of minorities will increase faster for the OVRDC Region at 3.3% compared to Ohio at 2.3%; the fastest growing group for minorities is Asians for OVRDC at 4.6% and Ohio at 3.6%. Our region would benefit from these more diverse groups of people. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 9 for the referenced tables.)

Furthermore, other selected characteristics include the ratio male and female population. According to the U.S. Census, it is estimated from 2000-2008 that the annual average percent change in male population for OVRDC will be 0.27% and Ohio at .20%, while the female rate for OVRDC is .26% and Ohio at .09%. Nevertheless, there are still more women estimated in 2008 for both OVRDC at 333,946 and Ohio at 5,882,142 compared to men in OVRDC at 324,943 and Ohio at 5,603,768. This difference in population of male to females is that women more often live longer than men do. The number of the male population that is under 18 years of age for both OVRDC Region at 81,841 and Ohio at 1,395,431 in 2008 is higher compared to female population for OVRDC at 77,923 Ohio at 1,395,431. The female estimated population in 2008 will be higher for OVRDC at 92,939 and Ohio at 1,513,359 compared to the males for OVRDC at 37,179 and Ohio at 649,885. This data shows that the overall age of the population will be getting older and there will be more demands on the health care and other needed senior services. Shortages of the labor force may take place in the future when a greater percentage of the population moves into retirement. Another factor is that this leaves the OVRDC region and Ohio workforce with a much older population compared to decades past and the trend will go on for the near future. This shifts the underlying foundation of workforce and economic development, as well as the nature of policy and intervention services required by the government.

Projections The U.S. Census Bureau and the Ohio Department of Development’s Office of Strategic Research developed projections in 2003 for Ohio and its 88 counties. The projected population growth for OVRDC is projected to grow to 762,680 in 2030 while Ohio will be 12,317,610. While comparing the percent change between 2000 to 2030, OVRDC increased by 19.92% with Ohio at 8.5%. This means that there is a great potential of possibilities for the OVRDC Region. Our Region lags behind economically, educationally, and in other areas. With such a great projected increase in population for the region, this will place more demands on existing infrastructure, medical resources, natural resources, the job market, etc. This is where OVRDC plays an important role in the beneficial development of the region by assisting local communities plan for their future. By funding projects like industrial parks, wastewater treatment systems, and other economic development projects this guarantees the overall survival and success of local communities and the region.

Chapter 1 Page 28 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

Economy

Economic Situation The economic situation for Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission Region differs from county to county depending several factors. According to the Appalachian Regional Commission designation in 2010, Pike, and Vinton Counties were listed as Distressed; Adams, Gallia, Jackson, Lawrence, and Scioto are considered At-Risk; Brown, Highland, and Ross were listed as Transitional; and Clermont listed as Competitive. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 10 for the referenced tables.)

The Appalachian Regional Commission has different economic status categories, which are: • Distressed Distressed counties are the most economically depressed counties. These counties have a three–year average unemployment rate that is at least 1.5 times the national average; a per capita market income that is two–thirds or less of the national average; and a poverty rate that is at least 1.5 times the national average; OR they have two times the national poverty rate and qualify on the unemployment or income indicator.

• At-Risk At-Risk counties are those at risk of becoming economically distressed. They rank between the worst 10% and 25% of the nation’s counties.

• Transitional Transitional counties are classified as those that are below the national average for one or more of the three economic indicators (three–year average unemployment, per capita market income, and poverty) but do not satisfy the criteria of the distressed category. Transitional counties rank between the worst 25% and the best 25% of the nation’s counties.

• Competitive Competitive counties have a three-year average unemployment rate and a poverty rate equal to or better than the national average, and a per capita market income that is equal to or greater than 80 percent, but less than 100 percent, of the national average. Counties ranking between the best 10% and 25% of the counties are classified competitive.

• Attainment Attainment counties have economic indicators (three–year average unemployment, per capita market income, and poverty) that are equal to or better than the national averages. Counties ranking in the best 10% of the nation’s counties are classified attainment.

The Economic Development Administration in 2009 lists all OVRDC counties, except Clermont, in some form of Area Distress, which helps to determine EDA funding. Finally, from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD), which produces the Low-Moderate Income (LMI) Percentages for the country, the highest LMI is Vinton County at 53% with Scioto at 52.8% and Adams at 52.4%, while Clermont at 37.8% and Brown at 39.9% were the lowest. Clermont and Brown Counties are located within or near the Cincinnati Metro Area. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 11 for the referenced tables.)

Chapter 1 Page 29 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

Labor Force and Unemployment In the 1990’s and early 2001 the region was, riding the wave of a growing state and national economy as shown in the table below. The unemployment rate in the Region continued to decrease until 2001. During 2001-2002 unemployment began to rise, this was due in part to companies downsizing and cutting costs, rising energy prices, global turmoil, service oriented jobs going overseas to countries like India and China, the continuation of manufacturing jobs leaving the country, a small recession and other issues. In 2003-2004 this trend was reversed with employment and the economy stabilizing, but this may have been do in part to the housing boom, inflated markets, increased jobs in the services, raise in commodities prices, education and health care sectors, and other factors. The unemployment dropped to the lowest level in 2006 with rates for OVRDC at 6.0, Ohio at 5.4 and USA at 4.6. In 2007, the economy began to come apart, with the higher cost of energy and food prices, people spending less on consumer products, increase foreclosures of home, bad loans being made by lenders to people who could not keep up with payments, increased bankruptcy of businesses and people, bank failures, the drop in the value of the US dollar, home sales and prices dropped, the housing bubble busted, job layoffs and the US car industry failing.

During 2007-2008, the unemployment rate grew for all geographic levels. Looking beyond the district averages, one sees that a few counties have been plagued by consistently high unemployment. In spite of the national prosperity during the last decade, many of our economically at-risk and distressed counties continue to maintain high unemployment rates. The Recession has had a negative impact on the economy of Ohio and the OVRDC Region. The UNEMPLOYMENT RATES FOR OVRDC COUNTIES 1991 TO 2008

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Av erage Adams 12.4 14.5 15.1 12.7 12.4 13.0 11.4 11.1 9.6 7.1 7.4 9.6 9.7 9.4 8.3 7.5 7.7 9.4 10.5 Brown 7.9 8.8 9.2 6.1 5.9 6.1 5.7 5.1 5.4 5.1 5.8 6.9 7.1 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.5 7.6 6.7 Clermont 5.7 6.5 6.3 4.8 4.3 4.5 4.2 3.6 3.7 3.6 4.0 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.0 5.0 5.9 4.9 Fayette 6.9 8.1 6.6 4.9 5.5 5.6 5.0 3.9 3.8 3.9 4.1 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.8 4.9 4.8 5.7 5.4 Gallia 8.9 10.1 9.1 8.1 8.8 9.1 8.4 8.2 8.2 6.9 6.3 7.2 8.4 8.1 7.3 6.0 6.2 6.6 7.9 Highland 9.6 9.2 8.1 6.2 6.1 6.8 6.1 5.1 4.9 4.3 5.0 5.9 6.3 6.2 5.9 5.5 5.9 7.4 6.4 Jackson 8.4 9.1 9.0 7.8 7.1 8.0 8.4 7.2 7.2 5.8 6.6 7.7 8.3 8.4 7.3 7.3 7.9 8.5 7.8 Lawrence 8.1 7.6 8.3 7.1 6.5 6.8 6.6 6.6 7.2 7.3 6.3 6.5 6.6 6.3 6.1 5.2 5.2 5.5 6.7 Pike 11.4 11.6 13.2 10.9 8.9 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.6 6.9 7.5 9.4 10.3 10.3 10.1 8.7 9.4 10.1 9.7 Ross 8.6 9.1 8.1 6.8 5.8 6.2 5.9 6.0 5.25.15.46.7 7.6 7.7 7.36.16.9 8.0 6.8 Scioto 10.1 11.5 10.9 9.8 9.8 10.2 10.0 9.8 8.6 7.2 6.8 8.1 8.8 9.0 8.8 7.5 7.4 8.3 9.0 Vinton 11.5 13.1 13.6 11.1 11.1 11.5 11.7 11.3 11.8 6.9 7.5 8.5 9.2 8.6 8.2 7.8 7.8 9.3 10.0 OVRDC 8.0 8. 8 8.5 6.9 6.6 6.9 6.5 6.1 5.8 5.2 5.4 6.7 7.0 7.0 6.6 6.0 6.1 7.0 6.7 Ohio 6.6 7.4 6.7 5.6 4.9 5.0 4.6 4.3 4.34.04.45.7 6.2 6.2 5.95.45.6 6.5 5.5 USA 6.8 7.5 6.9 6.1 5.6 5.4 4.9 4.5 4.2 4.0 4.7 5.8 6.0 5.5 5.1 4.6 4.6 5.8 5.4

Source data: Ohio Department of Job and Family Services -- Ohio Labor Market Information -- Historical Labor Force Estimates http://ohiolmi.com/asp/laus/vbLaus.htm biggest impact to Ohio and OVRDC has been the closing of automobile facilities, manufacturing, and service sectors jobs. According to WARN Notices (Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification (WARN) Act), from 2007 through August 2009, OVRDC lost 2,688 jobs from 11 companies downsizing or closing. In Clinton County neighboring the northwest corner OVRDC Region, the closing of DHL Airport Hub, has had a very negative impact on that county

Chapter 1 Page 30 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

and the OVRDC Region with 5,293 jobs lost during 2008 to August 2009. In 2008, OVRDC received a grant from EDA to hire an “Economic Recovery Coordinator”, for Clinton, Highland and Fayette Counties. For the average person in the OVRDC Region, making a living is hard, with incomes going down; the drop in the housing value of their home, raising cost of electricity and energy and the risk of losing your job. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 12 for the referenced tables.)

Source: Recovery.Gov * Tax Relief - includes $15 B for Infrastructure and Science, $61 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $25 B for Education and Training and $22 B for Energy, so total funds are $126 B for Infrastructure and Science, $142 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $78 B for Education and Training, and $65 B for Energy. State and Local Fiscal Relief - Prevents state and local cuts to health and education programs and state and local tax increases.

According to Recovery.Gov, in early part of 2009, the Federal Government created the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” which was to pump up to 787 billion into different sectors of the US economy. For Ohio, a total of $8.065 billion as been made available, with $2.211 billion paid out so far, while it is estimated that 133,000 jobs will be saved or created over the next 2 years.

According to State of Ohio - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (http://recovery.ohio.gov), the Estimated Funding by County (http://recovery.ohio.gov/ accountability /counties); the total amount estimated for the OVRDC Region on projects is $281,450,985. This money will help create and retain jobs within the Region for the next 2 years. See Attachment 3, Exhibit 13 for the referenced tables.)

Though the unemployment rate is a lagging economic indicator, it does show the need for action, where we have been, and shows a potential pattern for the future. Even in 2009, with the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” and other government intervention programs of monetary funds into corporate America, jobs are still being lost.

Chapter 1 Page 31 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

In 2009, monthly unemployment rates continued to rise, with double digits for Ohio and the OVRDC Region. In January 2009, the unemployment rate for OVRDC was 11.1 with Ohio at 8.8 and USA at 7.6, (See table entitled, “2009 Monthly Civilian Labor Force Information” on next page). This rise in rates was due in part to the loss of manufacturing jobs and other losses in employment opportunities in the region. During April-July 2009, the unemployment rate for Ohio was less than a 1% or equal to the OVRDC rate. The current recession has had the greatest impact on job losses for Ohio. The biggest impact has been the loss of goods producing, housing and construction, and financial jobs for the OVRDC Region and Ohio. 2009 Monthly Civilian Labor Force Information Unemployment Rate Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Percent 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 Change United States (Seasonally Adjusted) 7.6 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 20.52 Ohio (Seasonally Adjusted) 8.8 9.5 9.7 10.2 10.8 11.1 11.2 23.56 OVRDC 11.1 11.2 11 11 10.9 12 11.9 7.08 Source data: Ohio Department of Job and Family Services -- Ohio Labor Market Inf ormation -- Historical Labor Force Estimates ht tp:// ohiolmi.com/asp/laus/ vbLaus.htm

According to a report produced by Ohio Department of Job and Family Services “2009 Economic Analysis Responding to Recession – Preparing for Recovery” -- Ohio’s unemployment rate has been consistently among the highest in the nation. Manufacturing has seen especially heavy employment losses. Compounding this situation is the uncertainty of the future of the auto industry, which has a large presence in Ohio. Even the education and health services sector, the state’s strongest, has been underperforming. Much of Ohio’s current difficulties started long before the current recession. Employment growth began to fall below the national average in the mid 1990s. OVRDC’s employment growth has always been much higher than Ohio from similar factors.

Some highlights from this report are that: • Ohio is not keeping pace with other states, in either Gross Domestic Output or per capita income. • Employment growth has lagged the national trend since the mid-1990s. Ohio employment never fully recovered from the 2001 recession. • The current recession is hitting Ohio hard. Employment is declining farther in Ohio than in the nation as a whole. • The employment situation varies widely. From 2000 to 2008, employment grew in the Akron, Cincinnati-Middletown, and Columbus metropolitan areas, but declined in the Canton-Massillon, Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, Dayton, Toledo, and Youngstown-Warren- Boardman metro areas. • Since 2000, employment in goods-producing industries has declined farther and employment in service-providing industries has increased more slowly in Ohio than nationally. • Employment in all goods-producing sectors has declined since 2000. Among service- providing industries, education and health services, business and professional services, and leisure and hospitality grew, but other sectors declined. • Because Ohio has higher-than-average employment concentrations in manufacturing industries, job losses in this sector have had a disproportionately severe effect.

Chapter 1 Page 32 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

• Declines in Ohio manufacturing employment may be attributed to changing product demand, foreign competition, off-shoring, outsourcing, facility consolidation, non-competitive cost structures, and increased productivity. • In period 2006 to 2016, employment in goods-producing industries is expected to fall 11.2 % and service-providing industries to grow 9.4%. The fastest-growing occupations will be in healthcare support and community and social services. • Ohio is ranked 24th out of the 50 states and District of Columbia in the proportion of adults with a high school diploma. Low levels of educational attainment could act as a constraint on Ohio employment growth. • Suggested workforce development strategies include measures with an immediate effect (e.g. unemployment compensation), bridging the current economic crisis (e.g. short-term high prospect training options), and building infrastructure (e.g. broad-base educational reform).

The modern economy is built less on physical structures and manual labor and increasingly on knowledge, communication, shared professional communities and business linkages. It is not raw materials but interactions that stimulate the economy. Educational transformation, talent transmission and ubiquitous knowledge are the essential material of the 21st century economy.

The “Turnaround Ohio” initiatives, of the Strickland Administration, have provided for the alignment of education, workforce development and economic development to match the realities of a changing economy. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides resources to further fine tune workforce development, not only to bridge the current recession, but to cross the structural and business paradigm shifts in the OVRDC and Ohio economy.

According to the report produced by Ohio Department of Job and Family Services “2009 Economic Analysis Responding to Recession – Preparing for Recovery” the need for Workforce Development Strategies for Ohio is important for the recovery of the economy for Ohio and OVRDC. The report identified three broad approaches to addressing the Ohio economic context. First, there are immediate capacity enhancements to address the rising numbers of individuals suffering from the recession and needing assistance. Second, there are workforce strategies that are designed to offer a bridge across the recessionary downturn. Third, there are long-term workforce strategies designed to build workforce infrastructure. OVRDC’s 2009 CEDS will examine our own strategies for workforce development.

According to Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Ohio Labor Market Information 2002-2008, the labor force has grown at 6% for the USA and the OVRDC region at 4.6%, has grown much faster than Ohio, at only 2.2%. Additionally, the percent change in the unemployment rate during the same time for Ohio at 13.5% saw the biggest increase compared to USA at 0% and OVRDC at 4.5%. This shows that though our region may be economically depressed compared to Ohio and USA, but there is the opportunity for job growth for the OVRDC Region. Some of the factors that affect increase in the labor force numbers for the OVRDC region are population growth through migration, increase in an aging workforce, and increased populations of minority groups and immigrants.

From the 2000 Census Summary File 3 Employment Report, over half of the labor force are women, 16 and over, with total numbers for Ohio at 4,591,821 and OVRDC at 251,179. The male labor force, 16 and over, was 4,196,673 for Ohio and 237,743 for the OVRDC District. The labor force has increased over the last 11 years; 18.4% for the OVRDC Region; 13.5% for the

Chapter 1 Page 33 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

United States and 8.3% in the State of Ohio. The percentage of the civilian labor force employed was 55.7% for Ohio and 48.6% for OVRDC District. Total full and part time employment during 1994-2006 increased twice as fast for OVRDC Region at 27%, compared to Ohio at 11.3% and the U.S. at 14.6%. A few reasons for the growth in employment for OVRDC has been the development of businesses; the location of the counties near major metro areas; a cheaper labor force; and having the key necessary infrastructure such as four lane highways, along major highway corridors, and railroads.

With the higher unemployment rates for Ohio and the OVRDC Region, due to the recession and the economic downturn during 2007-2009, the U.S. Department of Labor has identified labor surplus areas for Ohio by county for the period October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009. Employers located in labor surplus areas may be given preference in bidding on federal procurement contracts under Executive Orders 12073 (Federal Procurement in Labor Surplus Areas) and 10582 (Implementing the Buy American Act). Designated areas in Ohio are listed in the “Map 5: Labor Surplus Areas”. All of the OVRDC Region except Lawrence County is considered having a labor surplus. (Source: Ohio Department of Job and Family Services -- Ohio Labor Market Information)

The classification, Labor Surplus Area, is assigned on a county level unless a county contains a city or cities with a population of 25,000 or more. In that case, the city or cities and the balance-of-county are classified separately. To qualify as a labor surplus area during this period, the average unemployment rate in the specified area for the two-year period January 2006 through December 2007 must be at least 6.0 percent.

In exceptional circumstances, the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services may petition the Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, to waive the regular criteria. This procedure allows the regular standards to be waived when an area experiences a significant increase in unemployment which is not temporary or seasonal and which is not adequately reflected in data for Map 5: Labor Surplus Areas

Chapter 1 Page 34 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

the reference period. The conditions for classification are: the unemployment rate for each of the most recent three months must be at least 6.0 percent; the projected unemployment rate for each of the next twelve months must be at least 6.0 percent; and documented information must be if the exceptional circumstance event has already occurred.

Major Economic Sectors Between 1990 and 2000, the economic sectors were reclassified by the U.S. Census Bureau and by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The breakdown of the following sectors is lagging because the latest data available is from 2006 from the U.S. Census - County Business Patterns and Bureau of Economic Analysis. This information does not reflect the current economic recession downturn, but does show the potential of the OVRDC Region compared to Ohio and the United States.

All Economic Sectors According to the 1990 and 2000 Census, OVRDC Region saw an increase in the number employed by 19.7%. This is twice the level of State of Ohio at 9.5%, and OVRDC is higher still than the national level at 12.1% during 1990 – 2000. This a good sign for OVRDC, it shows that the job creation rate is higher than the state and the national levels. In addition, this corresponds to the numbers at the region, state and national level, but differs at the county level in the Unemployment and Labor Force section. According to Bureau of Economic Analysis, this trend continues from 2001-2006, the percent change in the total number employed was the greatest for the OVRDC at 7.8% with USA at 6.8% and Ohio at 2%. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 14 for the referenced tables.)

According to the County Business Patterns, the percent of average annual salary during 1998- 2006 grown slower for OVRDC at 12.8%, compared to the U.S. at 26.1% and Ohio at 22.4%. OVRDC at 5.4% and the U.S at 10.4% have experienced a gain in the number of employees according to the County Business Patterns 1998-2006 compared to a slight gain for Ohio at .4%. This shows that employment for the region is up and having a positive job growth with the creation of new businesses. This is shown by an increase in the number of establishments for all for OVRDC at .2% and the U.S. at 9.1% compared to a loss for Ohio at -.16%. While OVRDC reflects the growth of the nation, Ohio has seen a slow down in its economic growth overall. This shows that OVRDC Region is an attractive area for businesses due to improvements in transportation; improved quality of life through new water and sewer projects; improved healthcare; and lower median income level as compared to the nation and Ohio.

Manufacturing Manufacturing has been on the decline throughout the state and the nation, but remains an important economic sector. According to County Business Patterns for 1998 to 2006, the average annual salary for manufacturing increased slower for the OVRDC region at 7.6% compared to an increase for Ohio at 19.4% and U.S. at 23.8%. According to the County Indicators 2006, manufacturing employment from 1994-2006 decreased faster for Ohio at - 23.7%, compared to USA at -22.1% and the OVRDC region at -14%. According to Bureau of Economic Analysis, this trend was the same for 2001-2006, the percent change in the number employed which was the greatest for Ohio at -15.8% and USA at -15.2% compared to a loss of - 13.1% for OVRDC. This shows that there has been a loss of manufacturing jobs in the region and the nation. A majority of these jobs have been relocated to countries like China. Another reason for the downturn in jobs is that companies are closing plants or cutting positions to save

Chapter 1 Page 35 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

on operating costs and to be competitive in the international marketplace. The fundamental structure and organization of manufacturing has changed forever. Manufacturing remains critical as a value-added component and driver for the economy. However, it can no longer be seen as the beacon for the masses nor can manufacturing alone be the bulwark of a middle class.

The major manufacturing firms that are located in the OVRDC Region, according to the Ohio Department of Development, Office of Strategic Research (OSR) 2008 Ohio County Profiles are listed as follows: • Austin Powder Co • McSweeneys Inc • Brown Corp of America • Michelina's Inc • Commercial Vehicle Group/Trim • Milacron Inc Systems • Mitchellace Inc • Crownover Lumber Co Inc • Ohio Precious Metals LLC • DMI Technology/ElectroCraft • OSCO Industries • Dow Chemical Co • Osco Industries Inc • Duke Energy Corp • PACCAR/Kenworth Truck Co • Emerson Electric/Liebert Corp • PH Glatfelter Co • Engines Inc of Ohio • Resco Products • G&J Pepsi-Cola Bottlers Inc • RR Donnelley & Sons/Banta Corp • General Mills Inc • Saint-Gobain/Calmar Inc • GKN Sinter Metals • Stanley Works • Honeywell International • Sugar Creek Packing Co • Huhtamaki Packaging Worldwide • Sunoco Inc/Sun Coke • Illinois Tool Works/Hobart Corp • Taylor Lumber Inc • Johnson Controls Inc • Toyo Denso Co/Weastec Inc • Lancaster Colony/Candle-Lite Inc • USEC/United States Enrichment Corp • M&J Industries • Yamashita Rubber/YUSA Corp • Maca Plastics Inc • Yanagawa Seiki/YSK Corp • Masco Corp/Mills Pride LP • McGinnis Inc

According to the ODOD Office of Strategic Research, some Ohio made products that are produced solely in the OVRDC region are Kenworth Trucks; Mill’s Pride Kitchen Cabinets, ICMI Organ, and others. Another important factor to manufacturing is foreign investment. In the OVRDC region, there are 17 companies that are owned by other countries, employing some 3,674 workers; Ohio had 962 businesses that employed 181,305 people in 2005. Most manufacturers in the District are producers of lumber and wood products, paper products, industrial machinery and equipment, fabricated metal products, and stone, clay and glass products. Less frequently found are producers of apparel and textile mill products, petroleum and coal products, and leather products.

Manufacturing jobs are vital to the District just as they are anywhere. Declines in manufacturing are particularly painful because it accounts for a larger-than-average portion of OVRDC’s employment. The decline in manufacturing employment varies by industry. Although manufacturing employment has been declining nationally, the decline has been faster in the Midwest states including Ohio and the OVRDC Region. High percentage declines among highly concentrated industries results in large job losses. Two industries stand out: transportation

Chapter 1 Page 36 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

equipment manufacturing, which includes motor vehicle manufacturing, and fabricated metal product manufacturing. Both short- and long-term forces are affecting manufacturing employment. Although the current recession is severe, some of its impact will be relatively short term. In particular, low consumer confidence is associated with decreased demand for big-ticket durable goods such as cars and appliances. When the recession eases, demand for these goods will increase and employment will rise.

Construction Construction saw one of the biggest growths over the in 90’s and the early part of this decade. This job growth was fueled by many factors such as: the Federal Reserve lowering key interest rates which encouraged banks and other lending companies to make lower interest rates loans to risky people who could not afford them; lack of government regulation; the housing boom; the economic growth boom in the 1990’s; and the growth of the population. According to the 1990 and 2000 Census, the percentage change of the number employed has increased faster for the OVRDC region at 35.8% compared to Ohio at 27.7% and US at 22%. But there was a change in this sector in 2006, according to the County Business Patterns for 1998 to 2006, Mid-March Employment (1998-2006) increased faster for the USA at 23.8% compared to OVRDC at 1.7% while compared to a drop for Ohio at -1.8%. In addition, the percent change in the average annual salary for construction increased faster for the USA at 24.7% compared to the growth of Ohio at 20.9% and the OVRDC at 10.2%. According to Bureau of Economic Analysis, this trend is the reverse for OVRDC, with a loss at -1.2% and gain for Ohio at 8.5% and the USA at 17.6% during 2001-2006 in job numbers. However, it is clear the overall, construction jobs for Ohio and the Region are declining or witnessing slow growth. This sector has taken a hit in the recent bust in the housing market. During 2007-2009, there were fewer housing sales and housing starts, increased foreclosures and a decrease in housing values. All of which had a negative impact on this sector. Another factor affecting the construction sector is in the relation to highway construction jobs that are impacted by higher energy costs and decrease gas tax amounts being collected. The Federal Government through the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” has injected money into shovel ready transportation projects to create construction jobs for Ohio. According to Ohio Department of Transportation, 2009 Ohio Road Construction Guide, eight stimulus projects are underway for the OVRDC Region out of 65 projects for Ohio funded under American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 14 for the referenced tables.)

Wholesale Trade Wholesale trade had mixed results over the last decade. According to the County Business Patterns for 1998 to 2006, the percent change in the average annual salary increased slower for OVRDC at 6.8%, while Ohio jumped to 27.6% and US at 30.1%. Nevertheless, Mid-March Employment is down for Ohio at -6.8% compared to a slight increase for the nation at 2.5% and OVRDC at 0.8%. According to Bureau of Economic Analysis, this trend is the same for 2001- 2006, the percent change in the number employed, which decreased for Ohio at -1.1% compared to an increase for OVRDC at 4.6% and USA at 4.1%. Most wholesale establishments in the District distribute durable goods; however, several firms in the District deal in non-durable goods as well. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 14 for the referenced tables.)

Retail Trade Over the last few years there has been a steady increase or influx overall in retail trade for the OVRDC Region. One reason may be that the influx of major retail chain stores coming into rural

Chapter 1 Page 37 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

communities that force the smaller firms to go out of business. In some counties, its major retail chain store is one of the major employers. Another problem with retail trade is that the wages are lower compared to manufacturing or service wages. According to the County Business Patterns for 1998 to 2006, the percent change of the average annual salary increased for OVRDC at 5.9% compared to a huge gain for Ohio at 20.4%. In addition, there has been an increase in the Mid- March Employment 1998-2006 for OVRDC at 1.16% and for the USA at 10.2% compared to a decrease for Ohio at -3.8%. According to Bureau of Economic Analysis, this trend is the same for 2001-2006, the percent change in the number employed which was the greatest for OVRDC 6.1% and USA at 3.6% compared to a loss of -4.3% for Ohio.

Most of the retail establishments found within the District are eating and drinking establishments, food stores and other miscellaneous retail stores. Less frequently found businesses include general merchandise and drug and proprietary establishments. In the last few years, new shopping and retail centers have developed in the OVRDC region. In the late 1990’s and early part of the decade, the City of Chillicothe saw a large increase in the retail trade. Retail centers like the greater Cincinnati area and the cities of Portsmouth and Chillicothe attract most of the retail growth in these counties. However, in the last few years due to the recession and people spending less, retail stores have began to close, this has had a negative impact on any local community by sales tax revenue, loss of jobs, loss of business, etc. Nevertheless, retail trade will remain a significant part of the District economy.

Educational, health, and social services The educational, health, and social services sector has seen growth across all the regions. According to the 1990 and 2000 Census, the percentage change of the number employed in these sectors for OVRDC at 38.1% increased compared to Ohio at 22.1% growth level, and the USA at 33.8%. According to Bureau of Economic Analysis, the percent change in the number employed for the Education Service 2001-2006 relative equal growth for the OVRDC Region at 23.6%, Ohio at 22.2%, and USA at 21%. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 14 for the referenced tables.)

In addition, .according to the County Business Patterns for 1998 to 2006, for healthcare and social services average annual salary increases have lagged behind for OVRDC at 14.5% compared to Ohio at 25% and the USA at 27.9%. Furthermore, Mid-March Employment for the same time increased faster for OVRDC at 21.8% compared to Ohio at 15%. According to Bureau of Economic Analysis, this trend is the same for 2001-2006; the percent change in the number employed which for healthcare and social services was the greatest for OVRDC at 18% compared to an Ohio at 11.7%. Employment in these sectors is significant and continues to grow for the region.

These services will continue to grow with the baby boomers getting older and retiring. The demand on health services will continue to grow with the population getting older. This trend shows that the growth in employment for these sectors look promising but there is still a wage gap for the region compared to Ohio and the country as a whole. The wage gap needs to decrease between OVRDC and Ohio in order to keep highly skilled labor in the district.

Agriculture Statistics for the labor force employed in agriculture are of doubtful validity since most workers are employed in very small companies, self-employed farmers are not included, and some data are suppressed to avoid releasing information for individual companies. According to Bureau of

Chapter 1 Page 38 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

Economic Analysis, during 2001-2006 the percent change in number employed has decreased faster for the USA at -6.2% compared a smaller decrease for Ohio at 3.7% and OVRDC at 3.4%. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 14 for the referenced tables.)

According to the 1987-2007 Agricultural Census, the number of farms have increased in OVRDC at 6.5%, while in Ohio they have decreased by -4.6%. Additionally according to the 1987-2007 Agricultural Census, the average size of the farm has decreased for Ohio at -2.3% and OVRDC at -14.3%. In addition, the number of acres of farmland has decreased from 1,803,047 acres in 1987 to 1,714,770 acres in 2007 for the OVRDC Region. The percent decrease for OVRDC was -5% and Ohio at -7.2% from 1987 to 2007. According to Annual Agriculture Report, Ohio Department of Agriculture for 1999-2006, the percent change in cash receipts per farm increased for both Ohio at 26.8% and OVRDC at 24.5%. Also, according to 2002-2007 Agricultural Census, market value of agricultural products sold increased for OVRDC at 51% and Ohio at 65.8%. Although there has been a loss of farmland to development in Ohio and the OVRDC Region, the overall income and revenue for products has increased. The farmers are producing more on less land and the value has gone up, but the expenses to run a farm have increased too. According to 2002-2007 Agricultural Censuses, the percent change in total farm expenses per farm increased for both OVRDC Region at 19.2% and Ohio at 42.6%. The main crops for the region are corn, soybeans, and wheat with other crops being oats, hay, barley, rye, tobacco, sugar, beets, maple products, seed crops, mushrooms, popcorn, forest products and miscellaneous crops. Main livestock for the region include dairy and beef cattle, sheep, poultry, goats, hogs, fish, and other livestock. Agriculture will always be an important element in the region. Nevertheless, with the threat of land being developed, Ohio has taken some measure in protecting farmland. Under the Clean Ohio Fund, the Clean Ohio Agricultural Easement Purchase Program supports the permanent preservation of Ohio’s most valuable farmland through the purchase of development rights.

Other sectors According to 2001-2006 Bureau of Economic Analysis, the percent change in the number employed for mining sector had the declined for Ohio at -6.9% and the Region at -21.2% compared to an increase in the USA at 9.3%.

Another sector that saw changes was government. For state and local government, according to 2001-2006 Bureau of Economic Analysis, the percent change in the number employed increased for all geographic levels within USA at 4.5%, Ohio at 1.6% and OVRDC Region at 5.6%. However, during the last few years, this trend will most likely change when new data is available; due to cuts in funding at the state and local level. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 14 for the referenced tables.)

Unclassified Establishments Unclassified establishments are new businesses that cannot be classified in any major sector because of insufficient information provided about the business. Since most of the data for employment and payroll of these establishments is withheld, District calculations are not feasible.

Businesses According to Ohio County Indicators, the number of active businesses increased for Ohio at 6.5% compared to OVRDC at 2.5% from 1993-2007. According to Ohio County Indicators, the

Chapter 1 Page 39 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

rate for business starts during 1996-2009 was lower for OVRDC at 114.6 compared to Ohio at 116.8.

The Ohio Department of Development, Office of Strategic Research annually compiles a database on the announced business expansions and attractions, called the Ohio Private Investment List. The database is gathered in a yearlong process of surveys of state agencies, chambers of commerce, and local development agencies. To be listed, the project has to meet one of the following three criteria: 1. Investment minimum of $1,000,000, or 2. Square footage of 20,000 or more, or 3. Job creation of 50 or more.

The project, to be considered, needs to be classified as Manufacturing, Distribution, Office, or Research & Development. Hotels and Resorts are limited to significant size and retail projects are not normally considered for this database. While projects take several years to complete, the project is generally credited to the year that it was first announced.

During 2005-2008, there were 94 projects in the OVRDC region totaling 4,723 jobs with an investment of $1,862,137,000. From the 98 projects, 37 were new plants and 61 expansions to current buildings. During 2005-2008 for Ohio, there were 2,178 projects with 93,690 jobs created and an investment of $32,981,057,000. The largest investment in the OVRDC region in 2008 was MMK/New Steel International in Scioto County at $680,000,000. These investments play an important role in the economic development of the district by providing jobs and income for the region. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 15 A-E for the referenced tables.)

Commuting The majority of the workforce in the OVRDC District commutes to work at an average of 29.4 minutes in 2000, while Ohio is below this at 22.9 minutes. The method of commuting patterns varied greatly in 2000. For the OVRDC region, 81.7% of the population drove alone compared to Ohio at 82.8%. Public transport was 0.6% for OVRDC compared to Ohio at 2.1%. This shows the lack of public transportation in the OVRDC region, due to its rural demographic. Overall most of the counties had a workforce that commuted outside of their county with a majority of these people driving alone or carpooling.

Housing During 1990-2000, the percent change in the total number of households was greater for the OVRDC Region at 29.8% compared to Ohio at 14.8%. During 1980-2000, the OVRDC Region at 24.9% has seen a greater percentage increase in growth in the number of housing units compared to the State of Ohio figures at 21.9%. OVRDC had a greater percentage change 16.6% overall compared to Ohio at 10.8%. For the same period, the rental percentage change for OVRDC was 6.5% compared to Ohio’s percentage of 3.2%. Homeowner vacancy rate for Ohio increased by 20.7% in this same timeframe, which was higher than the OVRDC Region’s growth rate of only 9%, but the rental vacancy rate, was reversed with the Region’s increase at 27.2% when compared to Ohio’s increase of only 10.1%.

According to the U.S. Census 2000-2008 the increase in number of estimated housing units for OVRDC at 5.5% has grown slightly slower than Ohio at 5.6% but was under the increase for the USA at 9.9%. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 16 for the referenced tables.)

Chapter 1 Page 40 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

After the collapse of the housing market around 2006-2007 new homes are still being built, but there has been a downturn in number of new housing units authorized by building permits for both Ohio at -44.7% and OVRDC at -14.7% for 1998-2007, according to the U.S. Census Building Permits Survey. This shows that there has been a decrease in employment in the housing construction sector, and has a ripple affect to related employment sectors which is a factor in the economic downturn in the economy. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 17 for the referenced tables.)

There is additional housing information that supports the above statement. The Ohio Department of Taxation collect housing data called “Residential Sales Data by County and Jurisdiction”, (http://tax.ohio.gov/channels/research/residential_sales_data_by_county_and_jurisdiction.stm) Valid Sales from 2005 through 2008, the data contained residential property sales data for 2005 through 2007 in counties scheduled for a sexennial reappraisal or triennial update in 2009, 2010 and 2011. For other counties, 2008 data is also included. The information shows for each county and subdivision (city, village, or township), the number of residential sales, the median sales price for each period, and the median ratio of the county auditor’s market value to sale price.

The number of sales reported in the “Residential Sales Data by County and Jurisdiction” includes only those sales that are considered valid for use in sales ratio studies. Excluded are sales due to foreclosure, sales between family members, sales where only a portion of a parcel is part of the transaction, and other sales that are not deemed arm’s-length transactions by a willing seller. In addition, sales where the price of the transaction differs from the market value for tax purposes by more than 50 percent are also excluded. Therefore, between 2005-2008 the percent change for residential sales of homes has decreased for both Ohio at -29.5% and OVRDC at - 18.5% while the median sales price has slightly increased for both Ohio at 0.86% and OVRDC at 3.4%. This shows that the drop in home sales along with the value of the home decreases or a slight increase depending on the area. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 18 for the referenced tables.)

Another important factor in the recession is the foreclosure rate of homes for Ohio and the region. Foreclosure data was obtained from two sources for Ohio and the Region. The first source for foreclosure data was from Ohio Secretary of State -- Better Lives, Better Ohio -- by RealtyTrac. Foreclosure data is collected and compiled by RealtyTrac, the leading online marketplace for foreclosure properties and publishes the United State’s largest, most comprehensive foreclosure database, with more than 1.5 million default, auction, and bank- owned homes from across the country. The number of foreclosure filings represents the number of homes that received some type of foreclosure notice, including default notices, auction sale notices and bank repossessions. According to the data between 2006-2008 percent change in foreclosures increased faster for OVRDC at 102.9% compared to Ohio at 83.6%. For OVRDC in 2006 there was 1,332 foreclosures which increased to 4,088 in 2008, Ohio had 113,570 foreclosures in 2008. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 19 for the referenced tables.)

Another source for foreclosure data was The Supreme Court of Ohio, which had a list of new foreclosure filings for 2004-2008. According to an article and data released on February 11, 2009 from The Supreme Court of Ohio, Supreme Court & Judicial System News title, “Foreclosures Increase Again Statewide in 2008”; Ohio saw a record high number of foreclosures in 2008, according to data released today by the Supreme Court of Ohio. Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer urged Ohioans faced with losing their homes to take action by using the resources available

Chapter 1 Page 41 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

through the state’s coordinated Save the Dream foreclosure prevention effort.

Courts across Ohio last year reported 85,773 new foreclosure filings, marking the 13th consecutive annual increase, with OVRDC Region reporting 3,823 new foreclosure filings. The percent change in new foreclosure filings from 2004 to 2008 was higher fro Ohio at 45.3% compared to OVRDC at 37.4% One bright spot, however, shows that 2008 represented the smallest percentage increase for Ohio at 3.1% with OVRDC at 7.8% in the number of foreclosure filings over that same 13-year time period. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 20 for the referenced tables.)

“This report shows that an unprecedented number of Ohioans continue to face the prospect of losing their homes, and Ohio courts continue to struggle with record foreclosure filings,” Chief Justice Moyer said. “There is some positive news in this report, though, as some counties have seen significant declines, and the overall rate of growth in foreclosure filings declined in 2008.” During 2004-2008, all of OVRDC counties experienced increase in the number of new foreclosure filings.

State of Ohio does have a program called “Save the Dream” campaign, Ohio’s extraordinary multi-agency foreclosure assistance program consolidates numerous state resources and programs related to foreclosure into one program for citizens to access for assistance. The Save the Dream campaign includes a user-friendly Web site at www.savethedream.ohio.gov and a telephone hotline (888.404.4674) that provides callers with information and access to an approved housing counselor.

Programs like these are important in assisting people in saving their homes. Foreclosures will continue to be a problem for the region and the state. With more people losing their jobs, the rising prices in energy and food, rising cost of healthcare, multiple business closings, banks wary of issuing new loans, etc will affect the foreclosure rate. As the economy begins to stabilize, then we will see foreclosures stabilizing.

Income From the 2000 Census Summary File 3 income data, the median household income increased 9.9% for Ohio during 1990-2000, while for the United States it was 7.7% and for the OVRDC Region 18.7%. The overall median household income is growing faster in the OVRDC Region and its counties compared to the state and the nation. However, the median household income value in 2000 for the region is significantly lower than the nation and the state. The median household income for the OVRDC District was $31,155, while Ohio was $40,956 and the U.S. was $41,994. The percent change in the per capita income during 1990-2000 registered for the United States was 15.3%, Ohio was 20.2%, and OVRDC Region was 27.5%. The per capita income value for the region is still below the national and state levels in 2000 ($16,335 for OVRDC Region, $21,003 for Ohio, and $21,587 for the United States).

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System, personal per capita income growth from 1995-2006 for OVRDC at 56.3% was faster than Ohio at 46.2% but the rate was the highest for U.S. at 57.9%. However, in 2006 the personal per capita income was much lower for OVRDC at $24,914 compared to Ohio at $33,320 and U.S.A. at $36,714. This shows that OVRDC Region significantly lags behind in income level compared to

Chapter 1 Page 42 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

the state and nation.

According to U.S. Census, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) for 2001-2007 the percent change in median household income increased faster for OVRDC at 17.6% compared to Ohio at 11.1%, but the USA at 18.6% grew the fastest over this time frame. However, in 2007

Poverty and Medi an Income Est imates - OVRDC 2001-2007

2001 2007 Percent Change Between 2001-2007

Poverty Poverty Poverty Poverty Poverty Poverty Poverty Estimate Pe rce nt Poverty Poverty Estimate Poverty Poverty Poverty Estimate Percent Estimate All Pe rce nt Under Age Under Estimate All Percent Unde r Age Percent Estimate All Percent Under Age Unde r Name Ages All Ages 18 Age 18 Ages All Ages 18 Un der Age 18 Ages Al l Ages 18 Age 18 United States 32,906,511 11.7 11,732,684 16.3 38,052,247 13.0 13,097,100 18.0 14.29 10.43 10.81 9.79 Ohio 1,144,638 10.3 415,602 14.8 1,458,625 13.1 497,554 18.4 24.05 23.93 17.85 21.60 OVRDC 77,287 16.0 27,802 23.1 92,140 18.1 32,362 26.5 17.52 12.94 15.12 14.30

Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) est imates poverty and income f or states and counties, with poverty representing an estimate of the number of people below the level of poverty based on income, family size and composition as defined by the U Learn More: The data present here was estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Estimates Branch the median household income was much lower for OVRDC at $37,230 compared to Ohio at $46,645 and U.S.A. at $50,740. This still shows that OVRDC Region significantly lags behind in income level compared to the state and nation. See Chart 1 that depicts the change in income.

Income is a good measure of the economy and for the OVRDC District, the percent of income growth rate is growing faster than the state or national level. The quality of life in income status is getting better for the region, but the income values are still lower than the state and national level. The income levels for the region, still lag significantly behind the state and national levels even the gap has been reduced somewhat. This can be accomplished by the retention, expansion, and attraction of businesses in the region, offering additional employment with higher wage levels.

Poverty From the 2000 Census Summary File 3 of the poverty data, the percent of families below the poverty level improved for Ohio from 9.7% in 1990 to 7.8% in 2000, while OVRDC Region experienced a decrease from 17.6% to 11.7%. The individual percentage poverty levels have also improved for Ohio from 12.5 % in 1990 to 10.6% in 2000 and OVRDC from 20.7% to 15.1%. The poverty level for children 18 years and under has improved from 1990-2000, with State of Ohio decreasing from 17.8% to 14% and OVRDC falling from 27.5% to 19.7%.

According the table below U.S. Census, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) for 2001-2007 the percent change in poverty estimated for all ages increased for Ohio at 24%, OVRDC Region at 17.5% and national level at 14.3%. However, the estimated poverty rate for all ages in 2007 was the highest for OVRDC at 18% compared to Ohio at 13.1% and US at 13%. The poverty rate for ages 18 and under was higher for OVRDC at 26.5% compared to Ohio at 18.4% and USA at 18%. Still, shows that the rise in poverty has increased over the last decade

Chapter 1 Page 43 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

compared to 2000 Census. The causes of the increase in poverty have been the economic downturn, loss of jobs, high foreclosure rates, rising costs of food and energy, and other factors. There are two points to be made about employment status and the risk of poverty. First one is having a full-time, year-round job for minimizes the risk of poverty. The second point: being

Average Food Assistance Benefits Per Person Per M onth 2001-2007

$120.00

$100.00

$80.00

$60.00

$40.00

$20.00

$0.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

OVRDC Ohi o

Chart 2: Food Assistance Source Ohio Department Job and Family Services

married to someone with a full-time, year-round job also reduces the risk of poverty for a family far below average. The risk of poverty can vary by the type of household in which people live and if there are children present. While households with children present experience greater rates of poverty, the presence of kids does not cause poverty.

Poor families are much more likely to receive cash public assistance than are families above the poverty level and the level vary on family type. According to data from Ohio Secretary of State-- Better Lives, Better Ohio – by Ohio Department Job and Family Services, the average benefits per person per month in 2001 were $76.90 for Ohio and $70.28 for OVRDC increased to $101.79 for Ohio and $97.09 for OVRDC for 2007 (See Chart 2: Food Assistance). Food Assistance from 2001-2007 the percent change in the average monthly recipients has increased for Ohio at 46.5% and OVRDC at 40.5% with the percent change in total expenditures were about the same for Ohio at 70.8% and OVRDC at 69%. This is a good measure of poverty, showing that more people are in need of help in surviving this recession and life in general. Other risks for poverty include variations in age groups, variations in race and Hispanic status, and level of educational attainment.

Chapter 1 Page 44 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

Financial Information

Local Government Financing Situation The revenue of local governments in Ohio is generated through several different sources. Taxes, charges for services, licenses and permits, fines and forfeitures, and intergovernmental receipts generate the majority of the local revenue.

Fiscal Emergency According to the Ohio Auditor of State, OVRDC has five communities that are currently on the “Local Governments Currently in Fiscal Emergency”. These include Village of Manchester and Manchester Township in Adams County; Village of Piketon in Pike County; Bloom Township in Scioto County; and Scioto County. Village of Manchester has been on the list for 11.8 years since 9/29/1997 to 7/31/2009; Village of Piketon has been on the list for 5.0 years since 7/8/2004 to 7/31/2009 and Scioto County has just been added to the list in 8/19/2009. Scioto County is the first county in Ohio’s history to receive a fiscal emergency designation. According to the Auditor of State of Ohio, a fiscal analysis revealed a combined county fund deficit of $3,528,482 as of June 30, 2009. The deficit is anticipated to increase unless county officials develop and implement a successful financial recovery plan. These communities are in counties that are listed as At-Risk or Distressed according to Appalachian Regional Commission.

OVRDC County’s Financial Condition According to the Ohio Auditor of State -- Audit Search 2002-2007 based off the income statements for each of OVRDC’s counties there were six counties that experience a percent change increase their funds at the end of the year. These counties were Adams, Brown, Fayette, Jackson, Pike, and Ross. While the other six counties within the OVRDC Region experience a percent decrease in their funds at the end of the year for 2002-2007. These counties were Clermont, Gallia, Highland, Lawrence, Scioto and Vinton. These counties will have to continue to watch their expenses. Percent change in total revenue increased for all the counties during 2002-2007. Percent change in total expenditures increased for all the counties except Highland County during 2002-2007. The financial condition of OVRDC counties will always change from year to year depending on the current state of the economy. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 21 for the referenced tables.)

Taxes

All Property Taxes A significant amount of revenue is generated from taxes, predominantly property taxes. There are two types of tax on property: real property tax and tangible personal property tax.

The real property tax applies to both business as well as non-business property, and is based on the taxable value of the land and buildings. In Ohio, the taxable value is 35% of true or market value with exceptions for uses such as agricultural lands. The 35% value represents the assessed value. Real property is reappraised every six years with adjustments being made three years following the appraisal. Ohio has a 10-mill limit on unvoted taxes ("inside millage"). Voters (“outside millage”) must approve tax amounts above this millage. Real property taxes are levied on January 1 on the assessed values of the preceding year.

Chapter 1 Page 45 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

Tangible personal property tax applies to equipment, machinery, and inventory owned by businesses. The tax base is tangible personal property located and used in business in Ohio - including machinery, equipment, and inventories. The assessment percentage for tangible personal property tax has recently been reduced each year by one percentage point. The assessment percentage for tax year 2007 is 25 percent on everything except inventories. The inventory assessment percentage for tax year 2007 is 24 percent.

The statewide average gross real property tax rates for taxes collected in calendar year 2007 were 86.17 for residential and agricultural property (Class I), and 87.99 mills for public utility, commercial, industrial and mineral property (Class II). The statewide average net real property tax rates for taxes collected in calendar year 2007 were 53.07 mills for Class I, and 62.95 mills for Class II. Finally, the statewide average tax rate for tangible personal property, which includes public utility personal property, was 79.62 mills. While for OVRDC Region on average gross and net rates were lower than state averages. Between 2004-2007 there have been increases for both OVRDC at 4.9% and Ohio at 4.3% in average gross rates for residential and agricultural property (Class I); and increase for OVRDC at 6.3% and Ohio at 5.4% for public utility, commercial, industrial and mineral property (Class II). The tax rates on real property and tangible personal property help counties levy funds to help support all jurisdictions (school district, county, municipality, etc.).

According to Ohio Department of Taxation 2004-2007, the total value of property has increase slightly faster for Ohio at 12.4% than OVRDC at 12.1%. During this same time, the value of real property has increased for Ohio at 19.1% and OVRDC at 18.1%; while public utility personal property and tangible personal property taxes depicted a decrease in value. However, the value of real property far exceeds the value for public utility personal property and tangible personal property taxes. For example in 2007 for Ohio, total value of real property was $234.1 billion compared to $9.7 billion and $12.3 billion for public utility personal and tangible personal property. For OVRDC, total value of real property was $9.4 billion compared to $.99 billion and $.44 billion for public utility personal and tangible personal property. These values effects the taxes charged and levied on, real, public utility personal, and tangible personal property by all jurisdictions. During 2004-2007, the total amount of taxes levied increased for Ohio at 14.2% compared to OVRDC at 17.6%. Nevertheless, OVRDC Region at 25.9% saw an increase in taxes for real property collected compared to Ohio at 23.7%.

State and Local Income Taxes Another major source of tax revenue is income taxes; individual income tax is the largest revenue producer for the state with total collections in Fiscal Year 2007 exceeding $9.44 billion, or 28.1% of general revenues up from 2004. Income tax revenue is split between state government, local governments, and libraries in proportions mandated by state. According to Ohio Department of Taxation, during 2004-2007 Ohio by 3.8% saw a slight increase in the number of returns filed compared to the OVRDC at 40.2%. This shows a slight growth in population and can be trace back to migration for the District has been greater than the state level. In addition, this shows that job creation and growth in housing is important for the District. Though there has been slight increase in the number of filed returns for Ohio, there has been an increase in the total Ohio Income Tax Liability for Oho at 7.2% compared to OVRDC at 36.3% during the same timeframe. This can show that Ohio’s average personal income is higher than OVRDC’s average.

Chapter 1 Page 46 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

Municipal income taxes are generally imposed on wages, salaries, and other compensation earned by residents and nonresidents who work in the municipality. The income tax is also applied to business net profits that are attributable to activities in the municipality. Administration of the municipal income tax is strictly local, either by the cities and villages themselves or by central collection agencies representing several municipalities. State law requires that the rate must be uniform within a municipality and cannot exceed 1% without a vote of the people. According to Ohio Department of Taxation during 2001-2007, the amount collect from cities and villages has increased faster for Ohio at 20.5% compared to OVRDC at 17.7%. In 2007, total of 566 municipalities (236 cities and 330 villages) levied the tax for Ohio compare to OVRDC at 25 municipalities (10 cities and 15 villages). These taxes help the municipalities pay salaries; fund operating costs, etc. However, if these rates are too high, or a community sees a decrease in the funds this could have a negative impact on the community.

Other Taxes Other taxes that affect the Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission region are Sales Taxes, Estate Taxes, Motor Fuel Taxes, and Lodging Taxes. Sales taxes are an important revenue generator for local communities. As of December 31, 2008, the Ohio Department of Taxation administered permissive sales and use taxes for 88 counties and 7 transit authorities. The county tax and the transit authority tax are enacted at the local level but are collected by the state along with a 5.5% state sales tax. Currently the sale tax for Ohio is 5.5% with OVRDC counties range from 1.0% to 1.5%. OVRDC does not have any regional transit authorities. The local share is returned to the counties and regional transit authorities. The county permissive sales tax levies ranged from 0.50 up to 1.5%, while the transit authority levies ranged from 0.25% up to 1.0%. During 2004-2008, Ohio at 18.8% increased faster, for the amount of sales taxes collected compared to OVRDC at 16.3%. These increases are due in part to counties raising sale taxes, but the major factor to the increase is in the development of new retail and service businesses in the region. This can be reflected in from increase in retail trade and construction employment. Finally, another factor is the increase in housing development, with contractors purchasing materials and supplies would help increase the sales tax revenue.

Another, important tax for local governments is lodging tax. According to Ohio Department of Taxation 2004-2006, Ohio at 15.4% increased increased faster in the amounts collected compared to OVRDC at 13.3%. Part of the lodging tax revenue is deposited in a separate fund to be used for county convention and visitors' bureau expenses. This shows that tourism is up for the area with the increased revenue from the lodging tax. In return, this tax revenue helps promotes the tourism industry for OVRDC Region.

Motor fuel tax amounts distributed has increased steadily from 1995-2008. OVRDC at 9.5% compared to a decrease for Ohio at -30.96%. During this same time, county governments received about a steady percentage OVRDC at 5.3% and Ohio at 11.1%, while for OVRDC municipalities at 246.3% have grown more rapidly than Ohio at 160.3%. In addition, amounts distributed to township for Ohio at 150.6% was higher compared to a decrease for OVRDC townships at -18.9%. All motor fuel taxes are collected by the state and distributed among state and local governmental units according to statutory formula. The decrease in the total amount collected for fuel tax for Ohio shows that overall the drop in demand for gas, but it shows the importance of commuting patterns of people traveling outside of the OVRDC Region to go to work or other places. Motor fuel tax revenues are required by the Ohio Constitution to be used only for highway purposes. In July 1, 2004, the motor fuel tax rate increased to 26 cents per

Chapter 1 Page 47 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

gallon from 24 cents. Currently the fuel tax is 28 cents per gallon. In 2008, a total of $212.6 million was distributed to local governments with OVRDC receiving $28.9 million.

According to Ohio Department of Taxation, total amount of money distributed within each county from its County Undivided Local Government Fund (CULGF) during 2007 for OVRDC was $5,413,178 and for Ohio was $94,595,716. But during 2004-2007, OVRDC at -0.03% and Ohio at -0.15% saw a decrease in the amount distributed to local governments. Each of Ohio's 88 counties has a CULGF. The county receives money for this fund from two sources: (1) a portion of the state local government fund, which receives 4.2 percent of the revenue from state income, sales, use, public utility, kilowatt-hour and corporate franchise taxes; and (2) state-collected intangible taxes paid by dealers in intangibles. Beginning in July 2001, however, the "percentage of revenue" funding mechanism and the fund allocation formula to counties were suspended. In calendar year 2007, each CULGF received the same amount from the state local government fund that it received in calendar year 2006. All of the money received by a CULGF is distributed within the county to eligible subdivisions: municipalities, townships, park districts, and county government itself. Monthly distributions to all subdivisions of all CULGF monies are based on percentage shares determined by the County Budget Commission. Those percentage shares may be arrived at according to the "statutory" method, which is designed to yield a distribution reflecting the respective "needs" of the various governmental units. This method calls for a review of each subdivision's proposed expenditure requests and a review of its various revenue sources, according to specific statutory guidelines. In most counties, budget commissions apportion under "alternative" methods, which include factors other than, or in addition to, "needs." During January–July 2007, however, the “alternative” and “statutory” methods were temporarily superseded by the percentage shares used during the same period of the prior year (HB66, 126th General Assembly). These different tax sources provide critical funding sources to local governments.

Other Finance Information

Transfer Payments A transfer payment is a payment to a person, usually in monetary form, for which that person does not render a service. Examples include unemployment benefits, social security and other retirement benefits, and the value of food stamps, among other things. The Dependency Ratio is the total transfer payments as a percentage of total personal income for the same year. Source of information is from Regional Economic Information System Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).

For the OVRDC Region, the total transfer payments for 2006 were $4,016,250,000 with an average dependency ratio of 26.3%, with individual and retirement transfer payments being the highest category. Comparable Ohio rates were $66,20,106,000 in transfer payments with a dependency ratio of only 17.3%. Between 2005-2006 percent change for payments to individuals increased by 6.6% for Ohio and 5.8% for OVRDC. During this same time, percent change in medical payments increase by 9.1% for Ohio and 5.8% for OVRDC. During 1995-2006 total transfer payments for OVRDC at 56% has increased more compared to Ohio at 51%.

Federal Expenditures Federal Government expenditures or obligations are payments to state, county, and sub-county areas of the United States. The District of Columbia and U.S. outlying areas also are included.

Chapter 1 Page 48 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

Various Federal Government agencies provide the data for this report from their existing reporting systems. It is collected under the authority of Title 13 of the U.S. Code and contains statistics on the geographic distribution of federal program expenditures, using data submitted by federal departments and agencies. According to Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce; “Consolidated Federal Funds Report (CFFR)”; during 2004-2006 the percent change in direct expenditures or obligations to OVRDC at 16.9% grew faster than Ohio at 10.4%. During this time, the biggest increase in percent of change in highway planning and construction was OVRDC at 175.7% with Ohio only increasing by 34.7%. Furthermore, during this time there was a decrease in the percent change in direct loans assistance by -58.3% for Ohio and -7.7% for OVRDC Region. Another section of some interest the percent change in grant awards assistance has increased faster for OVRDC Region at 12% compared to a slight increase for Ohio at .03%. Federal assistance will always be important for the region.

State Priority Investment Areas Each year the State of Ohio develops a map depicting areas where the majority of state funds will be spent on local projects. For the OVRDC region, all 12 counties are listed as state priority investment areas. Clermont, Fayette and Highland Counties are listed as to have a “Labor Surplus”. The remaining OVRDC counties are listed as “Distressed Counties”. These counties include Adams, Brown, Gallia, Jackson, Lawrence, Pike, Scioto, and Vinton. Ohio Department of Development has different categories that include: (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 22 and Exhibit 23 for the referenced map and tables.)

Distressed The Ohio Department of Development has identified a) any county, or b) any city with a population of 50,000 or more, as distressed if two of the three following criteria are met: 1. Unemployment must be 125% or greater of the most recent U.S. 5-year average unemployment rate. (2002-2007) 2. Per Capita Income must be at or below 80% of U.S. per capita income. 3. Poverty is defined as 20% or greater of persons below the poverty level; in intercensal years for counties, a percentage of transfer payment income to total county income equal to or greater than 25%.

Labor Surplus Areas The classification “Labor Surplus Area” is assigned by the U.S. Department of Labor on a county base unless a county contains a city or cities with a population of 25,000 or more. In that case, the city or cities and the balance-of-county are classified separately. To qualify as a “Labor Surplus Area” during the current period, the average unemployment rate of the specified area for the two-year period January, 2006 through December, 2007 must be at least 6.0 percent.

Inner City Areas Cities having a population in excess of 100,000 people, which do not meet the “Distressed” or “Labor Surplus Area” definitions, may establish, by letter to the Ohio Department of Development, Targeted Investment Areas. Areas would be comprised of the most current census block tracts that individually have 20 percent or greater of the tract’s general population living at or below the published poverty level and other census block tracts contiguous to such census block tracts within the municipal boundary.

Chapter 1 Page 49 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

Situational Distress Cities or counties that experience a closing or downsizing of their major employers, that will adversely affect the local area’s economy, may petition the Director of the Department of Development to be declared a situational distress area. Designation is for twelve months with an option to renew. The petition should include written documentation of the adverse effects on the local economy. Petition should make a compelling case as to the unique and deteriorating conditions of the community compared to similar communities across the state.

Selected State Financial Assistance Information Each year the Ohio Department of Development prepares an annual report of contractual agreements for loans and grants managed by the ODOD for Ohio General Assembly. The reported job creation and retention numbers represent projections, which the respective companies have committed to generate in order to receive state assistance. Companies are typically afforded three years in which to fulfill their commitments. Economic conditions occasionally precipitate adjustments in the projected figures. For 2007, financial commitments listed totaled $921,254,620 through 83 programs with 1,476 projects to Ohio with $59,554,335 with 152 projects going to the OVRDC Region. During 2000-2007, there has been an increase of percent change in total funds award to Ohio at 115% and OVRDC at 70.4%. The percent change in the number of projects has increased faster for OVRDC at 81% compared to Ohio at 46%. This shows that the rate of projects being awarded to OVRDC Region is higher than Ohio, but the dollar amount per project is lower for OVRDC compared to Ohio. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 24 for the referenced tables.)

During the last decade, Ohio has added some significant financing programs to its arsenal to help bolster economic development and business expansion in the state. These programs give local and regional development agencies more development financing tools than were available a decade ago. During 2000-2005, Ohio Department of Development, Community Development Division has provided $192,190,406 in funds to the OVRDC region or 17.4% of the state total at $1,104,592,962.

The Ohio Department of Development's Economic Development Division works to create, retain and expand job opportunities for all Ohioans. The Division focuses on issues affecting Ohio's economy and provides a variety of business development resources to help Ohio remain at the forefront of economic development. The Division offers companies direct financial assistance in the form of low-interest loans, grants, bonds, and state and local tax incentives. The Division also offers assistance with employee training and infrastructure development.

Infrastructure and Services The OVRDC has established a comprehensive program of infrastructure planning and technical assistance to help local governments improve the District's infrastructure. Assistance is provided for both linear infrastructure (infrastructure that must be in place before human habitation or use of a structure may occur) and non-linear infrastructure (infrastructure facilities and services that are highly desirable for community safety and cohesiveness).

The District in general suffers a clear disadvantage in the competition for industrial growth, due largely to a widespread lack of adequate linear and non-linear infrastructure. Through the OVRDC Strategic Planning Process, the region continually analyzes the obstacles, which impede

Chapter 1 Page 50 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report infrastructure development, and works to develop strategies for overcoming them.

Transportation Access was discussed in the beginning part of the chapter. Following are brief assessments of the District’s linear and non-linear infrastructure assets and needs.

Environmental Infrastructure As has been discussed earlier in this Chapter, the lack of adequate environmental infrastructure has been identified as a significant problem in many small communities in the District. Many communities lack public water and/or sewer service systems, and the majority of those that do have them are under mandates from the Environmental Protection Agency and/or State/Local Health Departments to correct, improve or upgrade their systems.

As is evident, business or industrial growth and expansion is severely limited in the region due partly to the lack of environmental infrastructure or the inadequacy of the existing infrastructure. Through the OVRDC Strategic Planning process, the upgrading and expansion of public water/sewer systems is given high priority to assist with future growth in the region and alleviate existing or potential health concerns.

The following narrative and related tables summarize the conditions of existing water, wastewater, and solid waste systems in the District.

Water Supply and Distribution District water is supplied through ground water and surface water from the Ohio River Main Stem, the Scioto River Basin, and the Little Miami River Basin; as well as various rivers, streams, wells and lakes. Many of the communities report that they purchase water from other sources, with several reporting that their demand has exceeded their supply.

According to the 2005 OVRDC Survey of Waste Water Treatment Facilities and Water Facilities, water services in the OVRDC District are increasing due to the established importance in the area for appropriate potable water. County water companies all across the district are expanding into the rural areas of the twelve counties; and many municipalities are now serving the areas surrounding their corporation limits. A few villages in the district have discontinued their water systems and now rely on the county water companies to serve their municipality. The district contains 80 water facilities. A list of water distribution facilities from the 2005 OVRDC Survey of Waste Water Treatment Facilities and Water Facilities is included in this document. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 23 for the referenced tables.)

Underground water not only serves the household needs of the District’s residents, but also supplies water for the growth of crops in the District. The quality of underground water is more constant than that of the surface water in the Ohio Valley Regional Development District. Due to the complicated and limited financing available for environmental infrastructure, water line extensions are very limited. The OVRDC receives a steady flow of requests from residents in the District about the possibility of water lines being extended into their area. Tragically, many of these requests are received from residents unable to obtain safe water from private wells due to contamination.

Coupled with the difficulty of water line extension is the deterioration of existing facilities. Many facilities suffer leakage problems and pressure loss. As well, some report that their

Chapter 1 Page 51 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

capacity has reached the limit and (as a result) they are forced to upgrade their facilities. It is a priority for the OVRDC to rate water and sewer projects based on whether they address a public health or pollution problem. Over the last decade, OVRDC has continued to provide assistance to the improvement and development of water treatment and water line extensions.

Sewage Collection and Treatment According to the 2005 OVRDC Survey of Waste Water Treatment Facilities and Water Facilities, it has been determined through the completion of a telephone survey that the district contains seventy-one (69) public wastewater treatment facilities that include over 112,216 total service connections at the present time. A list of wastewater facilities from the 2005 OVRDC Survey of Waste Water Treatment Facilities and Water Facilities in the District is included in this document. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 7 for the referenced tables.)

Several District municipalities and their facilities have been targeted by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) to correct, improve, or upgrade their facilities to resolve non- compliance with existing regulations. Some of these plants are currently operating under consent orders from OEPA because of permit violations.

Selected Non-Linear Infrastructure

Housing Conditions Over the last decade, the District has seen changes in the average size of households and typical family structure, as well as increases in the elderly population. The District has an inadequate supply of moderate rental housing and high levels of substandard housing. This trend has resulted in a demand for decent, moderately priced housing in the District.

Fewer homes today lack plumbing, kitchen facilities, and a telephone. OVRDC has seen the biggest drop in homes lacking plumbing at 68.9%, kitchen facilities at 58.45, and a telephone at 53.3%. While selected housing characteristics were lacking for Ohio (plumbing at 41%, kitchen facilities at 33%, and a telephone 49%) was about equal with the United States level (plumbing at 39%, kitchen facilities at 35, and a telephone 46%). This shows that housing conductions are improving in the region but it is still a long way from being perfect.

House heating fuel has change over the last decade. Through 1990-2000, for utility gas was at 16.4% increase in use for the OVRDC region. OVRDC grew faster than Ohio at 9.7% and the USA at 15.3% in this area of heating fuel. Another big heating fuel is bottled, tank, or LP gas use; OVRDC at 81.6 saw the biggest increase with Ohio at 77.4, while the USA grew only at 31.2%. Electricity was a major heating source for OVRDC at 87,464 users in 2000. OVRDC grew at 43.2% over the last decade compare to Ohio only grew at 18.8% and the USA at 35.1%. The use of coal and coke as a heating fuel has decreased for the levels during 1900-2000. OVRDC saw the biggest decrease at -81.1% with Ohio close behind at -79% and the USA was at -60%. This is also true for the use of wood as a heating fuel. Through 1990-2000, there was a decrease for OVRDC at -59%, Ohio at -53%, and USA at -51%. More people are relying on more utilities and gas to heat there homes over more wood and coal. The use of utilities and gas is overall cleaner and easier to heat homes. With rising energy costs people may begin to look into alternative in heating their homes. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 68 for the referenced tables.)

Chapter 1 Page 52 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

Police and Fire Protection One of the highest community priorities is the protection of life and property. Fire protection in the District is provided through city and village fire departments, most of whose employees receive compensation, and township volunteer fire departments. State parks and forests in the District also employ rangers and part-time help to extinguish fires on forest and parkland.

In December 2005, Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission (OVRDC) was awarded a HUD Rural Housing and Economic Development Capacity Building Grant. A brief overview of the project consists of utilizing GPS to plot fire stations and response areas for fire departments serving the four counties. Mileage intervals will be determined from each fire station to determine the protected and unprotected class areas. Insurance companies consider housing units beyond five or six miles from a fire department as unprotected class and homeowners insurance premiums for these housing units can be expensive. The number of housing units in the protected and unprotected class areas will also be determined, and an analysis of the protected class areas will be completed to determine the best areas for housing development. (Please see Map 6: Project Area). The original project counties were Adams, Jackson, Pike and Vinton. On December 10, 2008, Map 6: Project Target Area Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission (OVRDC) requested and was approved for an extension to the project completion date for the HUD RHED grant to June 30, 2009. OVRDC will utilize the remaining funds to complete three of the scope of work items from this project in four additional OVRDC member counties, which are Fayette, Gallia, Ross, and Scioto. The scope of work items that would be completed in these additional four counties would be: • Utilizing GPS, map fire stations in target counties and fire stations in adjacent counties that service areas in the target counties. • Determine the service areas geographically for each of these fire stations and map their service area. • Determine mileage intervals from these fire stations to determine the number of housing units that are in a protected class and unprotected class.

Chapter 1 Page 53 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

The counties to be targeted for this additional work are Gallia County (ARC At-Risk County), Ross County (ARC Transitional County), Fayette County (non-Appalachia County), and Scioto County (ARC At-Risk County). Upon completion of the work, a report to each county providing them the results of our research will also be provided.

Detailed studies on the adequacy of fire protection services in the District are available for selected counties by OVRDC through our website. Funding for local fire prevention services are primarily provided through local property taxes and fund-raising activities. Limited monies are available through HUD's Small Cities Community Development Block Grant and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Forestry. These grant monies are available primarily for the construction or upgrade of facilities and acquisition of equipment in communities with predominantly low- to moderate-income residents.

Police protection for the region is provided by the State Highway Patrol, county sheriff departments, and city and village police departments. The state parks and forests in the District also employ rangers to patrol public lands. Support services are provided by federal agencies such as the FBI. There are no detailed studies available on the adequacy of police services in the District. Police departments are primarily funded through local tax sources. To assist communities in providing adequate protection, the Law Enforcement Assistance Agency (LEAA) provides grants to counties for a variety of services (including prosecutor's investigators, judicial administration, investigative equipment, drug enforcement, and community crime prevention). The lack of adequate law enforcement staff is the largest problem plaguing most localities. Villages, as well as many counties, are forced to rely on volunteers to augment their small and poorly paid staffs.

The rural character of the District, the poverty level, and the low tax base make it hard to support adequate fire protection and police services. The decentralized population and the typically deteriorated quality of the roads greatly increase the routine operating and maintenance costs of vehicles. The topography and road conditions limit the area that can be patrolled, increase the response time, and can make it difficult for large fire trucks to reach all residences. The depressed economic conditions increase the number of unemployed, which directly affects the crime rate. These conditions point to the need for greater state and federal funding and support the premise that new development occurs within existing municipalities where police and fire services can be provided more efficiently and economically.

Health Services and Facilities Basic primary-care health facilities are available in most counties; however, health care professionals and health services are still in short supply in many areas of the District. Short-term medical and surgical services are provided to area residents through the 12 hospital facilities located throughout the region in 2008. Vinton County has no hospital facilities; each remaining District county has one hospital in operation. Over the last decade, some of the region’s hospitals have added more services. Adena Hospital in Ross County can provide many services that most Columbus hospital could perform. It often becomes necessary for residents to seek more specialized treatment from medical facilities in the Cincinnati, Columbus, or Huntington areas.

Although notable progress has been made District-wide toward achieving better health services, a few problems still exist. According to ODOD Office of Strategic Research 2002-2008 County

Chapter 1 Page 54 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

Profiles there has been percent increase in the number of doctors for the OVRDC Region at 8.9% compared to a drop for Ohio at -22.7%. There is still a definite shortage of health professionals (nurses, doctors, dentists, and others) especially in the more rural counties and in the small towns in the District. Almost half of all physicians are located in just four counties, which give a good indication of how scarce they are in the rest of the District.

According to ODOD Office of Strategic Research 2002-2008 County Profiles there has been percent increase in the number nursing homes for OVRDC at 104.6% and Ohio at 95.1% with an increase in the number of licensed residential care units for Ohio at 120.8% and OVRDC at 94.4%. In 2008, long-term care is provided for aging residents, and others who might require such care, through the 135 rest and nursing homes scattered throughout the region. In addition, some area hospitals now offer in-home nursing care to patients as an alternative to long-term confinement in a medical facility.

According to ODOD Office of Strategic Research 2005-2006 County Profiles there has been percent decrease in the death rate for Ohio at -2.4% and OVRDC at -4.3, while there has been increase in birth rate for Ohio at 1.5% and OVRDC at 1.4%. This shows that overall that health care system is helping to improve the quality of life and one reason for an increase in population.

In 2004, OVRDC at 14.2% had a higher percent of its population that did not have health insurance, while Ohio had only 12.7%. A majority of the OVRDC counties percent of the population that was uninsured were above the state level. Additionally, in 2004, children uninsured is higher for OVRDC at 6.5% compared to Ohio at 5.45%. Furthermore, in 2004, OVRDC at 54.35% of adults with employer-based insurance was lower than Ohio at 62.55%. Finally, in 2004, more people in OVRDC at 21% are on Medicaid compared to only 12% for Ohio. The rising cost of health insurance creates a heavy demand for the majority of OVRDC’s population because of the lower income and higher poverty levels for our region. People in the region have to make decisions on where their income goes to because of the limits. If costs for health insurance and costs for medical services increase across the nation and the region then the District will be in a severe situation.

Related to health services industry is the need for social and supportive services in the OVRDC District. Because of the chronically high rate of poverty in the region, an increase in the number of senior citizens, and the declining economy, the District has seen an increasing demand for critical social and supportive services. The District is working with local social service agencies to improve the levels, responsiveness, coordination, and effectiveness of the existing systems to meet this demand. Service gaps have been identified as a problem area in the District; one alternative to this problem would be to increase coordination and linkages among social service agencies to permit more cost effective and efficient delivery of said services in the District.

Public Facilities/Parks and Recreation Recently a significant increase has been shown in recreational, entertainment and cultural activities and the usage of state and local parks in the District. Recreation, like health, education and work, is recognized as an essential ingredient for a balanced lifestyle in today's society. Indeed, Americans spend an estimated $200 billion on recreational pursuits each year, and the number of jobs in the recreation services area is increasing more rapidly than in any other sector of the economy. These reasons make recreation and tourism a viable area for development.

Chapter 1 Page 55 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

The District's topography, climate, and other natural characteristics ideally suit it for a variety of outdoor recreational activities. In fact, Appalachian Ohio dominates the State in overall average of recreational land and water. One of the District's major recreational resources is the Ohio River, which borders Gallia, Lawrence, Scioto, Adams, Brown, and Clermont Counties. In addition, the Little Miami and Scioto River Basins, as well as several Ohio River tributaries traversing the region, provide an excellent resource for boating, fishing, swimming, and water skiing. A number of lakes located within the region provide other opportunities for water-related recreation. One State-operated marina is located in the region, on the Ohio River near Portsmouth, and several other privately owned and locally operated marinas are scattered along the river.

Perhaps the District's strongest attribute is its picturesque beauty, characterized as it is by extensive forestlands and rolling rural topography. The State maintains several state parks and forests in this region, and significant portions of the Wayne National Forest lie in the District. The OVRDC region is home to the largest state forest in Ohio; Shawnee State Forest. Several thousands of acres lie within the state public land systems in the OVRDC region. In 2008, there were 16 state parks in the OVRDC region with a total land area of 24,891.002 acres. There are many recreational activities available in the forested and park areas of the District, including hunting, hiking, camping, horseback riding, and scenic touring. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 2 for the referenced tables.)

Education Education in Ohio is mandatory to the age of 16. Educational service providers in the Ohio Valley Regional Development District include 56 public schools districts, 27 private and parochial schools, seven joint vocational schools, and five colleges and universities in 2008. Standard elementary and secondary school programs are provided throughout the District in state-certified public, private, and parochial schools. In addition to these are joint vocational schools, which provide vocational training and skills to high school juniors and seniors as well as the adult population in the counties. Pursuit of a two- or four-year college degree is possible at the District’s two universities, three university branch campuses, and two community colleges and branches in the District. (See Attachment 3, Exhibit 71 for the referenced tables.)

According to the Ohio County Profiles, percent change in the number of students in 2002 to 2008 decrease slower of OVRDC at -0.2% compared to Ohio at -3%. During this same time, the percent change in teacher ratio to students change by 14.2% for OVRDC and 25.7% for Ohio. Additionally, the percent in funding per student has increased by 30.5% for OVRDC Region and 25.7% for Ohio. In 2009, the state average was higher for the expenditures per pupil with Ohio at $ 9,587 compared to OVRDC at $ 8,677. Finally, the percent change in the graduation rate has increased faster for OVRDC Region at 11.8% compared to Ohio at 7%.

From the 2000 Census Summary File 3 of education attainment, the percent of people having a high school degree or higher has increased over the past 10 years for Ohio from 75.7% in 1990 to 83% in 2000 and for the OVRDC Region from 64.2% to 74.5%. The percent of people having a high school degree or higher has increased for all the counties in the region. The percent of people having a high school degree or higher for 2000 for the United States was 80.4%. In 2000, the percent change of people having a high school degree or higher for all the counties and OVRDC has fallen below the state level. This data documents that more people are graduating from high school in the OVRDC Region, but remains below the national and state level.

Chapter 1 Page 56 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

There has been an increase in the percent of people having a bachelor’s degree or higher in the last ten years (1990-2000) for Ohio (from 17.1% to 21.1%) as well as the OVRDC Region (from 8.4% to 10.6%). Even though all of the counties have experienced a rise in the percentage of people having a bachelor’s degree or higher in the last ten years, Ohio, the Region and its counties are still below the national average of 24.4%.

Telecommunications In the last decade, there has been an increase in the focus on technology for Ohio and the Appalachian Region of Ohio. In 2001, OVRDC received a grant to obtain teleconference equipment for the office. With this equipment, OVRDC can offer businesses a center to conference with different groups from across the country and the world. Many centers across the District now have two-way telecommunications. OVRDC has been busy assisting local educational institutions, public service agencies, businesses, and health care providers with the development of a regional consortium that will oversee the implementation, operation, and evaluation of a regional network in the District.

Over the last couple of years, there has been a focus on broadband connections. Broadband services refer to high-speed Internet connections. They are important because many new web- enabled tools require high-speed connections for the application to work. Strong levels of broadband access will allow more businesses and individuals in the region to participate in online technologies such as business-to-business (B2B) transactions and distance learning at a more robust and satisfying pace than using dial-up services. The use and sophistication of Internet technologies increases exponentially with access to broadband.

In Ohio, there is a program called “Connect Ohio” that is the driving force behind the development of broadband connections in the state. Connect Ohio has identified the served and unserved areas for Ohio and OVRDC Region, which is depicted on the following map on the next page (Map 7 Broadband Coverage for Ohio). According to this map, there are still large areas of OVRDC Region not being served.

Chapter 1 Page 57 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

Map 7: Broadband Coverage for Ohio

Connect Ohio main goals and tasks are: • Conducts extensive research and provides mapping and other tools to better understand and

Chapter 1 Page 58 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

bridge the digital divide • Builds public-private partnerships to ensure that every Ohio citizen and business has affordable access to broadband technology and its benefits • Forms local leadership teams and leads a formal assessment and project management process • Develops innovative programs to increase adoption of broadband technology

In June 2009, Connect Ohio developed an assessment of broadband service for Ohio, which reflects the OVRDC Region too. These findings are: • Across Ohio, 95% of households have available broadband service. This figure is up from 92% one year ago. • Residential computer ownership in Ohio grew to 79% in the past year since Connect Ohio’s inception, an increase of 4%. This growth compares to a 1% estimated national increase in computer use. • In Ohio, 75% of adults report that they subscribe to home Internet service. This figure compares to 72% nationally. • Ohio residential broadband subscribers report an average download speed of 4.1 Mbps, up from 2.1 Mbps in 2008. • The top barrier to broadband adoption continues to be the perception that broadband is not necessary, followed closely by the lack of a home computer. • 75% of Ohio businesses report regular computer use, compared to 82% in 2008. This disparity likely reflects the difficult economic times experienced statewide in the past year, with Ohio is quickly growing unemployment rates and declines in several leading economic indicators. • Broadband growth among all Ohio businesses remained unchanged at 59% over the past year. Among computer-using businesses, however, there was an 8% increase in broadband adoption. • Average download speeds among businesses that knew their approximate bandwidth increased over the past year from 2.8 Mbps to 4.7 Mbps. • The lack of a computer continues to be the top barrier to broadband adoption among Ohio businesses, followed by the perception that broadband is not necessary or valuable. • Despite the difficult economic times over the past year, the median revenue among broadband-connected businesses grew twice as fast as those that do not use broadband. • Statewide, 15% of employed Ohio adults use their Internet connection to work from home instead of commuting to an office, while an additional 30% say they do not currently telework, but would be willing to do so if their employers allowed it. • Nearly one-fifth of all Ohio businesses allow their employees to work from home. Teleworking is most prevalent in the High Tech industry sector, where nearly one-half (45%) of Ohio businesses allow employees to telework.

In 2008-2009, Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission supported an initiative called Connecting Appalachia. Under this program, there were four main projects, which are: 1. Southern Ohio Health Care Network Fiber Optic Backbone – The goal of this part of the project was to partner with carriers to: • Deliver metropolitan-class broadband to Appalachian cities and towns • Connect rural health care providers to the robust fiber-optic network • Expand the reach of business and residential broadband services

Chapter 1 Page 59 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Report

2. Broadband Coverage of the Rural Expanse – The goal of this part of the project was to partner with carriers to: • Create all-inclusive and sustainable broadband coverage across the un-served rural expanse in Appalachia Ohio • Provide high-speed service in the region to support new or existing businesses, regardless of physical location • Stimulate economic growth, support health care innovation, improve educational outcomes, increase tourism and enable telecommuting • Support mobile Internet access for first responders

3. World Class Connectivity for Industrial Parks – The goal of this part of the project was to partner with carriers to: • Provide state-of-the-art broadband infrastructure to industrial parks in Appalachia Ohio • Deploy architecture in which multiple carriers compete to serve the companies • Offer companies environmentally controlled machine room space for local servers

4. Telemedicine Initiative – The goal of this part of the project was to partner with carriers to: • Deliver world-class health care to Appalachia using broadband medical tools • Improve health outcomes for both acute and chronic conditions • Lower costs for treatment, benefiting government and private payers • Provide professional development for rural health care providers

Over the next few years, broadband and internet service will continue to grow, but other forms of communication are downsizing or trying to adjust to ever changing technology. For example, there has been a decline in the number of radio stations and circulation of newspapers. According to Ohio County Profiles from 2000-2007 the percent decline in number of radio stations was greater for OVRDC at -33.3% compared to Ohio at -6.9%. The number of newspapers in OVRDC Region has remain steady and has increase for Ohio at 4.4% during the same time, but the number of people getting the paper has declined faster for OVRDC at -12.7% compared to Ohio at -7.3%. Most newspapers today have developed online newspapers deliver over the internet to adapt to the drop in circulation. So improving the speed and access of the internet will have a positive impact on the region.

Note: Majority of the information discussed in this chapter has corresponding tables that will be posted to OVRDC’s 2009 CEDS website for further reference and use.

Chapter 1 Page 60 C Analysis: H A The Economic P Development Problems and T Opportunities E in the Region R

2 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Chapter 2: Analysis of Economic Development Problems and Opportunities

OVRDC SWOT Analysis

The Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission conducted a SWOT Analysis of the region in 2009 at our annual County Caucus meetings and during the first CEDS Committee meeting. The information garnered from these meetings was then used by the CEDS Committee to develop our CEDS Plan.

OVRDC’s region encompasses 12 counties that are reasonably similar demographically and in geography. This has helped to unite the counties as a cohesive region in many ways. This commonality becomes clear in the results of the SWOT Analysis. Repeatedly, the same strengths and weaknesses were identified in most of the counties. The strengths identified most often were: the available and affordable land, for both industrial and residential uses; low cost of living; available, productive, mobile workforce; available natural resources for industry and tourism; excellent educational resources (vocational, college); new K-12 school buildings and; available transportation systems, including highways, rail and river.

The most common weaknesses identified included, the lack of access to broadband, the continued loss of educated and skilled workers out of region/state, cost of developing land due to hills, floodplain etc. and the aging infrastructure of our communities. By far the number one weakness or threat identified was the lack of access to affordable broadband. Only one county (Ross) has adequate access to broadband. Unfortunately, our region is not alone in facing the “brain drain” issue and aging infrastructure, these problems are shared by not just the rest of Appalachian Ohio, but also the state in general. Southern Ohio is unique in Ohio in facing the issue of developable land, if the land is flat, it is probably in the flood plain or farmland, if not, it is hilly and rocky. All of which, adds to the cost and slows development of the land.

As much as our region has in common, a few acute differences stand out. Although overall the transportation system throughout the region is very good, with 10 of our 12 counties having four- lane highways, we have two counties (Vinton and Highland) that do not. On the plus side, we have two counties with interstate access (Clermont and Fayette) and Clermont has access to the Greater Cincinnati International Airport.

As the CEDS Committee reviewed the SWOT, they determined that the region had more strengths than weaknesses. In addition, based on those inherent strengths, our region has the power and capability to address the majority of our weaknesses. It is with this in mind that our economic action plan of goals, objectives and strategies was developed.

Listed below are the most common strengths and weaknesses identified as part of the CEDS process.

Regional SWOT Results (From CEDS and County Caucus Meetings)

Strengths and Opportunities Work Ethic and Mobile Workforce

Chapter 2 Page 1 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Access to Educational Resources (Vocational Education, College) Unique and Quality Products (Wood) Strong Commitment to Community Natural Resources Available Transportation Systems (Road, River, Rail) Location (Proximity to Major Population Centers) Low Cost of Living Regionalism/Willing to Work Together Potential for Tourism Growth New Schools (K-12) Throughout Region Available and Affordable Industrial Sites and Buildings Available and Affordable Residential Land and Homes Access to Hospitals and Medical Care

Weaknesses and Threats Lack of Broadband Access Lack of Comprehensive Media Coverage Lack of Vision and Marketing Added Cost of Construction Due to Geography Continued Loss of Highly Educated and Skilled Workers Lack of Land Use Planning and Zoning Aging Infrastructure Lack of Grant Writing Experience

Consistency With Other Plans

The CEDS Committee and OVRDC works closely with area One-Stop Agencies, educational institutions, the Ohio Department of Development and various other state and federal agencies to incorporate each of the entity’s plans of action into the other’s. OVRDC was asked by Lt. Governor Lee Fisher, who was also the Director of the Ohio Department of Development, to take the lead in incorporating ODOD’s Strategic Plan into regional strategic planning. Our CEDS Committee used the State’s plan as a blue print for our CEDS. OVRDC also has worked closely with the Ohio Department of Transportation as part of our US 23, SR 32/US 35 Corridor Study Projects. We also are incorporating various recommendations from their thoroughfare study plans in Brown and Clermont Counties into our local and regional project plans of action.

Past EDA Investments From 1966 to 2007, EDA invested in 131 projects totaling $78,501,873 in the OVRDC Region. Listed below is a list of these past EDA Projects.

Applicant Project Name Year Amount of Grant Village of Manchester Sewer System 1966 $415,000 Village of Winchester Sewage Treatment Plant 1966 $2,000 Village of Georgetown Water System Improvement 1966 $1,000 Village of Batavia Water System 1966 $246,000 Clermont County Commissioners Water System 1966 $976,000 Gallipolis Water Line Extension 1966 $114,000

Chapter 2 Page 2 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Applicant Project Name Year Amount of Grant Wellston Water System 1966 $1,207,000 Village of Peebles Sewer System Extension 1967 $44,000 Village of Winchester Sewage Treatment Plant 1967 $28,000 Clermont County Commissioners Water Distribution System 1967 $965,000 Waverly Water System 1967 $219,000 Portsmouth Sewage Treatment Plant 1967 $96,000 Scioto County Commissioners Rosemount Sewer Collection & Treatment 1967 $306,000 Regional Water Company Water Supply System 1968 $1,404,000 Huntington CIC Balcony Hills Resort Planning 1968 $29,000 Village of Ripley Sewer Collection System 1968 $486,000 Village of Batavia Sewer System Treatment Plant 1968 $2,527,000 Village of Batavia Goshen- Miami Township Waste Treatment 1968 $415,000 Plant & Collection Franklin Township Sewer System Treatment Plant 1968 $268,000 Village of Rio Grande Water & Sewer System 1968 $176,000 Jackson County Sewer System Improvement 1968 $740,000 Jackson County Water Co. Water Works Improvements 1968 $710,000 Village of Georgetown New Waste Treatment Plant 1969 $148,000 Village of Georgetown Sewer Improvements 1969 $754,000 Oak Hill Water Works Improvements 1969 $353,000 Village of Coal Grove Water System Improvements 1969 $358,000 Portsmouth Water Treatment Plant Expansion 1969 $1,539,000 Gallipolis Sanitary Sewer Extension 1970 $811,000 Chillicothe Industrial Park Water Main 1970 $1,142,000 Scioto County Commissioners Rosemount Sewer Collection & Treatment 1970 $194,000 Clermont County Commissioners Water System Improvements 1971 $632,000 Gallia County Commissioners Watershed- Flood Control 1971 $3,000 Waverly Water- Sewage Treatment Plant 1971 $152,000 Improvements Ross Co. CIC Industrial Site Study 1971 $10,000 Portsmouth Industrial Site Survey 1971 $7,000 Adams County Courthouse/ Add Jail 1972 $240,000 Village of Winchester Sewage Treatment Plant 1972 $4,000 Clermont County Commissioners Sewage Collection System 1972 $807,000 Loveland Community Bldg. Fire Station 1972 $469,000 Lawrence County Commissioners New County Jail 1972 $533,000 Chillicothe Storm, Sanitary Sewers & Water Line 1972 $292,000 The Scioto Society Amphitheater Construction 1972 $342,000 The Scioto Society Amphitheater Construction 1972 $44,000 Village of Mt. Orab Water System Additions 1973 $270,000

Chapter 2 Page 3 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Applicant Project Name Year Amount of Grant Loveland Community Bldg. Fire Station 1973 $78,000 Gallipolis Water Treatment Storage Supply 1974 $1,721,000 Scioto County Commissioners Portsmouth Industrial Park 1974 $1,225,000 Adams County Highway Bridge Repair 1975 $100,000 Clermont County Commissioners County Office Building 1975 $200,000 Loveland Water System Expansion 1975 $953,000 Portsmouth Riverfront Reclamation 1975 $236,000 Village of West Union Sewage Collection System Improvements 1976 $2,377,000 West Clermont Local School Dist. Addition to Glen Este High School 1976 $3,104,881 Lawrence County Commissioners Annex to County Courthouse 3 Floors 1976 $2,460,290 Lawrence County Commissioners Courthouse Addition 1976 $2,460,290 Scioto County Expand Mercy Hospital Emergency 1976 $1,292,461 Room/Out-Patient Scioto County Harrison Township Road Link 1976 $171,789 Scioto County Commissioners Economic Adjustment Strategy Employment 1976 $50,000 Cutback Shawnee State Comm. College Activity Board Institutional 1976 $250,000 Village of Aberdeen Water & Sewer Improvements 1977 $238,000

Village of Georgetown Fire Station 1977 $283,000 Highway Dept. Office Bldg. Improvements 1977 $138,000 Village of Ripley Fire Station Additions 1977 $92,000 Village of Rio Grande Water Storage Tank 1977 $158,520 Jackson County Wastewater Treatment Plans Expansion 1977 $89,000 Jackson County Commissioners Jail & Public Service Building 1977 $125,000 Jackson School District Multi-purpose Addition to Elementary 1977 $89,000 School Wellston Multi-purpose Community Building 1977 $240,000 Wellston School District Renovation of High School 1977 $240,000 Village of Beaver New Water Tank 1977 $149,000 Village of Piketon Sanitary Sewers & Well 1977 $1,098,380 Chillicothe Sewer Line to Flint Kote 1977 $103,100 Chillicothe Sewers, lift Stations 1977 $353,000 Chillicothe Streets & Storm Sewers 1977 $187,700 Chillicothe School District Girls' Gym- High School 1977 $200,000 County Board of Education Additions to Elda Elementary School 1977 $170,000 Ross County Courthouse Enlargement 1977 $212,000 Ross County Commissioners Courthouse Expansion 1977 $212,000 Minford School District Elementary School Construction 1977 $151,000 Village of New Boston Public Safety Building Construction 1977 $432,000

Chapter 2 Page 4 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Applicant Project Name Year Amount of Grant Porter Township Community Service Building 1977 $582,000 Portsmouth Improvement of Greenlawn Cemetery 1977 $163,000 Portsmouth Mildale- Dunlap Sewer 1977 $315,000 Portsmouth Receiving Hospital 1977 $1,009,225 Portsmouth Repair Sunrise Reservoir 1977 $1,209,000 Portsmouth City Schools Alteration & Energy Conservation 1977 $180,000 Scioto County Shawnee State Forest Bridge 1977 $115,500 Scioto County Commissioners Administration Strategy Program Title IX 1977 $46,000 Vinton County Commissioners County Road & Bridge 1977 $167,625 Scioto County Commissioners Energy Conservation Courthouse 1978 $169,600 Scioto County Commissioners Replace Jobs Lost by Closing of the 1978 $740,000 Steel/Shoe Plant SEDC Capacity Grant 1978 $85,000 SEDC Stimulate Industrial/ Commercial Growth 1979 $800,000 OVRDC/PWIP Grant 7 Localities/energy conservation 1980 $365,000 Scioto County Economic Adjustment RLF 1980 $3,250,000 Scioto County Franklin Furnace Wastewater Treatment 1981 $363,200 Plant Waverly (PWIP) Water Tower Construction 1983 $628,000 Greenfield Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements 1984 $1,140,000 OVRDC Title IX RLF 1986 $330,000 OVRDC Title IX SSED (GCEP) 1986 $150,000 OVRDC Market, Research & Dev. Study-Hardwood 1987 $27,000 Panel Industry in So. Ohio OVRDC Alternate Use Study for closing Basic 1987 $25,000 Industry Lawrence Co. Chamber of Comm. Procurement Outreach Center 1987 $64,000 OVRDC Community Alternative Use Planning & 1988 $75,000 Marketing Program & Process Fayette County YUSA Corporation Water & Sewer Line 1988 $350,000 Extension Waverly Expand Water Treatment Plant 1988 $1,432,480 Lawrence County Commissioners Ohio Valley Incubator 1989 $287,000

Chillicothe Chillicothe Water System 1989 $1,500,000

Vinton County Water Company Water Supply & Distribution System 1989 $310,000 Village of Williamsburg Williamsburg 200,000 Gallon Water Tower 1990 $180,000 Jackson Alu Chem Rail Expansion 1991 $633,922 Fayette County Water Improvements to Outlet Mall 1993 $868,000 Development

Chapter 2 Page 5 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Applicant Project Name Year Amount of Grant Ross County Ross County Colomet Industrial Park 1994 $700,000 Brown County Village of Ripley SSED Title IX 1995 $25,000 Jackson County Luigino's/Jackson WWTP Improvement 1995 $1,130,000 Gallia County Gallia County Industrial Park Sewer 1996 $1,090,000 OVRDC District Economic Recovery Coordinator 1997 $75,000 Scioto County New Boston Industrial Park Access Rd 1997 $582,000 Jackson State Route 93 Alternative Access Road 1998 $399,150 Pike Co. CAO Zahns Corner Industrial Park 1998 $1,370,760 Vinton County Commissioners Vinton County Industrial Park 1999 $840,000 Village of Mt. Orab Brooks-Mallott Rd. Improvements and 2000 $375,000 Sewer Extension Chillicothe WWTP Upgrade 2000 $1,392,000 Vinton County Commissioners Vinton County Industrial Park 2000 $192,000 Highland County Leesburg Industrial Park 2001 $562,000 The Ohio State University Endeavor Center Business Incubator 2001 $1,920,000 Adams County Measley Ridge Road Restructuring 2002 $500,000 Lawrence Econ. Dev. Corp. Lawrence Co. "The Point" Industrial Park 2002 $1,570,000 Dev.-Phase 1 Village of Jeffersonville Wastewater Treatment Upgrade 2003 $1,400,000 City of Jackson Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade 2005 $2,300,000 Fayette County Madison Mills Water Project 2007 $2,400,000 Clinton, Fayette and Highland Tri-County Economic Adjustment Planning 2008 $150,000 Counties Total $78,651,873 Source: Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission

Economic Analysis

An in depth economic analysis of the region was completed in Chapter 1.

Economic Cluster Analysis

The Economic Development Administration (EDA) requires that an “economic cluster analysis” be included in each Area Development District’s Community Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). According to the EDA, industry clusters are concentrations of competing, complementary, or interdependent firms and industries that do business with each other and/or have common needs for talent, technology, and infrastructure (EDA website). Many theorists believe that nurturing industry clusters is advantageous for regional economies because it leverages a region’s specialization in some industry input, such as labor skills.

Economic clusters are groups of businesses and institutions with some similarity in industry, operation, or technology. These businesses and institutions are generally located within a specific geographic area. Often these businesses may be part of the same supply chain or may even be

Chapter 2 Page 6 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

direct competitors. The clustering of these organizations can be mutually beneficial in a number of ways, such as the development of a labor force with a common skill set, the creation of research institutions developed to serve these businesses or the location of support services specific to that cluster. In addition, a more competitive environment may be created. Increased competition may lead to firms collaborating in ways they may not have considered before, or may pressure firms to increase their productivity, efficiency or creativity.

In Chapter 1 of OVRDC’s 2009 CEDS, an in-depth analysis was conducted on the entire region, which includes background information on the clusters mention below. For the economic cluster analysis, a business database that depicted the number of businesses that had 10 or employees, in which Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission purchased from InfoUSA in March 2008, was used to map and identify potential industry clusters. Further, analysis of additional information from U.S. Census County Business Patterns, US Department of Agriculture, Ohio Department of Development – Office of Strategic Research, Bureau of Economic Analysis and Ohio Department of Natural Resources helped narrow down the some potential industry clusters.

The following are traditional and emerging clusters of note in the OVRDC region. These clusters are not the only economic groupings in the region, but were selected due to their prominence, employment concentration factor, the economic prosperity factor, export-oriented, need of support, or opportunity for facilitation. It is very important to note that this is only a summary report of the economic cluster analysis for the region. The clusters identified were: • Agriculture Related Businesses • Healthcare Related Businesses • Wood Industry and Related Businesses • Total Manufacturing Sector OVRDC Economic Clusters Analysis Percent of Percent of Average Sales Business Employed Businesses that have 10 or Number of Total Vol ume per for for more employees Businesses Employment Total Sales Volume Bu sine ss OVRDC OVRDC

Agriculture Related Businesses 24 649 $268,018,000 $412,971 0.71 0.44

Healthcare Related Businesses 344 25,986 $3,109,697,000 $119,668 10.16 17.62 Wood Industry and Related Businesses 56 7,329 $2,109,892,000 $287,883 1.65 4.97 Total Manufacturing Sector 272 26,509 $9,836,005,000 $371,044 8.03 17.97 Freight and Transportation Related Businesses 72 3,178 $348,932,000 $109,796 2.13 2.15 All OVRDC Businesses 3,386 147,486 $27,207,779,000 $184,477 100.00 100.00 Note: Agriculture Related Businesses, Healthcare Related Businesses, and Wood Industry and Related Businesses includes businesses from the Total Manufacturing Sector because the nature of the products produced. Source: Business data list purchased by OVRDC from March 2008 from InfoUSA. All businesses that have 10 employees or more. Analysis by JG OVRDC Data and GIS/GPS Mapping Center Table 1: OVRDC Economic Cluster Analysis

Table 1: OVRDC Economic Cluster Analysis depicts the breakdown of each cluster from the database that identifies the number of establishments, total number employed, total sales volume

Chapter 2 Page 7 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

(information was available for majority of companies), average sales volume per company and percent of business and employed for OVRDC.

The OVRDC Region has a wealth of businesses that have 10 or more employees that employ over 147,000 people with over $27 billion dollars in sales volume. A breakdown and a short analysis of each cluster will follow. The two largest sectors were Healthcare Related Businesses and Total Manufacturing Sector by making up a large percentage of the region’s economy. In Chapter 1, OVRDC staff analyzed data from different sources in relation to businesses and labor force. According to County Business Patterns in 2006, the total number employed for manufacturing and healthcare for OVRDC at 61,691 was 37% of the total number employed for OVRDC at 168,395 that same year, while Ohio was 31% and USA at 25%. Therefore, these two clusters are very important for the job force for OVRDC Region.

According to “Map 1: Business Locations in OVRDC Region”, majority of companies that have 10 or more employees are located along major transportation routes or population centers that have key infrastructure to support their business. Larger companies are sometimes located in industrial parks.

Map 1: Business Locations in OVRDC Region.

Chapter 2 Page 8 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Over the years, OVRDC has helped counties in the development and identification of industrial sites in each county. These sites are located near major transportation corridors. The county determined different sites or buildings, which was the most marketable, for businesses looking to move into the area. These sites have a variety of infrastructures in place to service new and expanding business concerns. The some various locations of these sites are as follows:

1. Adams County has two industrial sites, one near State Route 32, (the Appalachian Highway) that traverses Ohio east/west and is known as the Seaman Industrial Park. The other site is located on S.R. 41 in West Union and the name is Adams County CIC Industrial Park.

2. Brown County’s industrial site located on Brooks-Malott Road Area near State Route 32 adjacent to Mt. Orab and the name is Mt. Orab Industrial Area D.

3. Clermont County’s primary industrial site is located off U.S. Route 50 and known as Park50 TechneCenter.

4. The Fayette County industrial site is located at S.R. 753 and U.S. 35. The name of the site is Washington Industrial Park.

5. Gallia County’s industrial site is located at SR 850 & Kerr Rd -half mile from US 35. The name of the site is Dan Evans Industrial Park.

6. Highland County industrial sites are located at Homestead Avenue just off US 62 in Hillsboro (Hillsboro Industrial Park) and at the SE corner of S.R. 771 and Lovers Lane in Leesburg, (Leesburg Industrial Park).

7. Jackson County has industrial sites located in Jackson at U.S. 35 and State Route 32; these include the Jackson Industrial Park and Sarah James Industrial Park. They also have the Gettles Industrial Park, located just of SR 32 just west of Wellston.

8. The primary Lawrence County industrial site is located in South Point and is known as the Point Industrial Park.

9. The Pike County industrial park is located just off State Route 220 and the Appalachian Highway, east of Piketon. The name of the site is called Zahn's Corner Industrial Park.

10. Ross County’s industrial site is located at S.R. 35 & S.R. 104 just north of Chillicothe and is known as the Gateway Interchange Park.

11. The Scioto County industrial site is located on U.S. Route 52, one mile south of Wheelersburg and is know as Site522.

12. Vinton County’s industrial site is located at SR 93 one mile north of McArthur and is named Vinton County Industrial Park.

Chapter 2 Page 9 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Landuse

Another factor to affect these economic clusters is landuse of the region. Landuse is important in regards to resources for companies to use. According to Table 1: OVRDC Economic Cluster Analysis, the “Agriculture Related Businesses” and “Wood Industry and Related Businesses” clusters are directly dependent on resources from the regional in regards to timber and agriculture land. Additionally, the other clusters are dependent on the resources in the OVRDC Region directly or indirectly. According to Table 2” Landuse Percentages and Map 2: Landuse Resources forests and cropland makes up majority of the land resources of the Region.

Ohio EPA Land Cover Classification (1999 – 2003) for OVRDC Region OVRDC Ohio Deciduous Forest 54.78 36.61 Evergreen Forest 1.31 0.49 Pasture 11.74 7.81 Crop 28.30 43.52 Open Water 0.77 0.92 Residential 1.86 6.66 Commercial Industrial & Transportation 0.67 1.89 Bare/Mines 0.35 0.16

Urban Recreational Grasses 0.18 0.61 Herbaceous Wetlands 0.00 0.11 Woody Wetlands 0.00 1.18 No Data 0.03 0.03 Total Percent 100.00 100.00 Sources: Ohio Department of Development, Office of Strategic Research - - "2007 Ohio County Profiles" and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Divi sion of Surface Wat er; “Ohi o Sta tewide La nd Cove r Classification (1999 – 2003)” Table 2: Landuse Percentages Map 2: Landuse Resources

Agriculture Related Businesses

According to Table 1: OVRDC Economic Cluster Analysis, there are a total of 24 agriculture related businesses within the region, which caters to the farm industry. This cluster employed over 649 people with over $261 million in total sales volume. This accounted for only a fraction of a percent compared to the overall amount for OVRDC. These companies directly or indirectly support agricultural businesses and services in the region. The reason that this industry cluster was identified was that its major land resource prominence, export-oriented, need of support, and opportunity for facilitation According to US Department of Agriculture, there were a total of 10,502 farms located in the region in 2007. Majority of farmland is located in the western to northwestern portion of the region.

According to Table 3: Selected Agriculture Statistics, which is on the follow page, total market value of agricultural products sold for the OVRDC Region at 51% has nearly double in 2002

Chapter 2 Page 10 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Agriculture Census OVRDC County Summary Highlights

Market value of agricultural Total income products sold from farm- Market value of Market value of Market value of (see text) - related sources, agricult ural agricultural agricultural Livestock, gross before Total farm Total cropland - products sold products sold (see products sold poultry, and taxes and production Total cropland Ha rve st ed (see text) text ) - Average (see text) - their products expenses (see expenses 1/ (acres) cropland (acres) ($1,000) per farm (dollars) Crops ($1,000) ($1,000) text) ($1,000) ($1,000) OVRDC 1,153,932 883,506 248,518 26,018 176,449 72,068 19,851 247,736 2002 State Total 11,424,499 10,041,416 4,263,549 54,804 2,304,895 1,958,654 151,788 3,925,358 OVRDC 1,093,071 913,878 375,864 35,746 285,341 90,522 24,302 332,648 2007 State Total 10,832,772 9,991,007 7,070,212 93,200 4,109,722 2,960,490 237,920 5,459,960 Percent OVRDC -5.27 3.44 51.24 37.39 61.71 25.61 22.42 34.28 Change State Total -5.18 -0.50 65.83 70.06 78.30 51.15 56.74 39.09 Source: US Depart ment of Agriculture Table 3: Selected Agriculture Statistics over 2007 compared with Ohio at 61.8%. The market value of agricultural products sold - Crops ($1,000) has increase for both OVRDC at 61.7% and Ohio at 78%. While overall income for farming has increase for the region at 22%, the costs of running the farms has increased faster at 34%. There has been a loss of farmland to development in Ohio and OVRDC Region the overall income and revenue of products has increased. Farmers are producing more on less land and the value produced has gone up, but the expanses to run a farm has increased too. Corn, soybeans, wheat, potatoes, tobacco, cattle, pigs, goats, sheep, and poultry are the main commodities produces in the region.

According to a report called “All Industry Profiles for Ohio from 2007” by Ohio Job and Family Services, Bureau of Labor Market Information, Ohio produces more than just the food we eat. Our location at the eastern edge of the corn belt allows for substantial grain production and a strong supply of animal feed products. Ohio is a leader in nursery stock production, particularly African violets and poinsettias. Ohio is also the largest sheep producing state east of the Mississippi River providing quality wool products. In Ohio, the two main crops are corn and soybeans. Most corn and soybeans are used for livestock feed. Corn is also used for ethanol, plastics and food. Soybeans are also used for soybean oil, medicines, soy ink, paints and cosmetics. Ohio is one of only four states with more than half of its land designated as prime farmland.13 The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines prime farmland as land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber and oilseed crops and being available for these uses.

Therefore, farmers do have an option to grow or raise different commodities within the region. OVRDC region is fortunate in being located within the US, with having different avenues to ship these commodities to different markets. A variety of agencies helps farmers in marketing and increase productivity of the lands. OVRDC can help assist Agriculture Related Businesses in a variety of ways. Agriculture Related Businesses and Farming will remain an important component to OVRDC’s economy.

Chapter 2 Page 11 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Healthcare Related Businesses

According to Table 1: OVRDC Economic Cluster Analysis, there are a total of 344 healthcare related businesses that have 10 or more employees within the OVRDC Region that employ 25,986 people. Healthcare Related Businesses make up around 10% of the overall businesses within the region, employing 17.6% of the labor force. The reason that this industry cluster was identified was that its prominence, employment concentration factor, and the economic prosperity factor.

According to Map 3: Location of Healthcare Related Businesses, majority of companies that have 10 or more employees are located along or near major transportation routes and near population centers that have key infrastructure to support the business, and the concentration of people. According to the InfoUSA business database for OVRDC Region under the North

Map 3: Location of Healthcare Related Businesses

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) companies were classified as follow: • All Other Health & Personal Care Stores • Continuing Care Retirement • Ambulance Services Communities • Diagnostic Imaging Centers

Chapter 2 Page 12 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

• Freestanding Emergency Medical • Offices of Physicians, Except Mental Centers Health • General Medical & Surgical Hospitals • Offices of Podiatrists • Home Health Care Services • Offices of Specialty Therapists • Homes for the Elderly • Other Hospitals • Medical Equip Merchant Wholesales • Psychiatric & Substance Abuse • Medical Laboratories Hospitals • Misc Ambulatory Health Care Services • Residential Mental Health & Substance • Nursing Care Facilities Abuse • Offices of Chiropractors • Surgical & Medical Instrument Mfg • Offices of Dentists • Offices of Misc Health Practitioners

According to a report called “Health Care Employment in Ohio: Components of a Growth Sector 2009 Report” by Ohio Job and Family Services, Bureau of Labor Market Information highlights some important information about this sector, which stresses this cluster too for the OVRDC Region. • Health care industries employed 662,780 workers in 2007, about 12.5 percent of total payroll employment or one employee for every 17 people. • Since 1976, health care employment has grown at a 2.8 percent annual compound rate, with almost no reaction to economic recessions. • Health care employment has historically been resilient to economic downturns due to inelastic demand, reduced opportunity cost of time for treatment, consumption pattern changes, and increased labor availability. • The current economic recession, however, has had an effect, due to lost health insurance and disrupted capital markets. Employment growth has been flat in the first four months of 2009. Hospitals in Ohio employ 259,563 workers. Average wages have climbed 32.8 percent since 2000 to $855 per week. The industry has been consolidating into a smaller number of high- employment establishments. Hospital employment is expected to grow 13.4 percent from 2006 to 2016. The most prevalent occupations are registered nurses; nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants; and licensed practical and licensed vocational nurses. Health care occupations accounted for 575,640 workers in Ohio in 2006. Employment in these occupations is expected to grow 20.4 percent by 2016. We project a combined 21,217 health care job openings during this period. • There will be health care job openings at every level of education and training. The greatest employment growth and the largest number of openings will be in occupations requiring associate degrees or short-term on-the-job training. Three-fourths of all the health care jobs in Ohio by 2016 will require some sort of postsecondary education. These requirements may be met through postsecondary education or apprenticeship. • There is a possible shortage of trained registered nurses in the U.S.—one that could potentially become worse due to rising wages and a lack of teachers.

In Chapter 1 there was background given on healthcare sector and health service and facilities. According to the County Business Patterns for 2006, the percent of the labor force for healthcare and social services was the greatest for the OVRDC Region at 18% compared to Ohio at 15% and USA at 14%. Therefore, this economic cluster is important to the economy of the Region and to Ohio. Clearly, Healthcare Related Businesses cluster presents plenty of employment

Chapter 2 Page 13 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

opportunities for the OVRDC and Ohio labor force. This industry cluster has experienced decades of steady employment growth and has largely resisted downturns in the business cycle. Employment forecasts predict continued growth, in part because an aging population will require more health care related services. A leading concern regarding health care is raising costs. One side of controlling costs would be ensuring an ample supply of skilled workers. Additionally to employment growth from the exception of this cluster, would be the demand for new health care occupations that would increase as baby boomers retire and begin to leave the workforce. Shortages of workers would further increase health care costs. Addressing the need for skilled workers will require identical education and training output to employment demand without over-producing qualified workers. This will require understanding national, state, and local labor markets and how they compete for workers.

Over the years, several hospitals have expanded their services and faculties to serve people better that are living within the Region. The need for improved healthcare services is important to the welfare of the population of the region and for the state. One example is the Adena Health System that has 10 facilities located in four counties in the OVRDC Region. In addition, Adena in partnership with Wright State University has created an on site facility to train new nurses to fill the growing need for skilled workers.

Wood Industry and Related Businesses

According to Table 1: OVRDC Economic Cluster Analysis, there are a total of 56 Wood Industry and Related Businesses that have 10 or more employees within the OVRDC Region that employ 7,329 people. Through the Wood Industry and Related Businesses cluster accounts for only 1.65% of businesses with 10 or more employees in the OVRDC region, its total sales volume at $2.109 billion accounts for 7.8% in the OVRDC Region. The reason that this industry cluster was identified was that its land resource prominence, export-oriented, need of support, or opportunity for facilitation.

According to “Ohio, The Many Sides of the Forest Economy” August 2006, Ohio’s forest products industry contributes $15.1 billion to Ohio’s economy and employs over 119,000 people with payrolls of $4 billion. The industry contributes over $405 million in sales and excise taxes annually and approximately $136 million in payroll taxes. Forest product companies are classified as primary, secondary or tertiary.

• Primary companies harvest timber and other forest products as well as process these products into intermediate goods such as lumber and veneer.

• Secondary companies further process these intermediate products into finished goods or components of finished goods like furniture, cabinets, flooring, and molding. These finished goods are then sold to the consumer directly or through wholesalers and retailers.

• Tertiary companies include suppliers and manufacturers of forest and wood products machinery as well as furniture and building material retailers.

Chapter 2 Page 14 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

In Chapter 1 there was background given on Natural Resources – Forests, where an in depth investigation of the forested region of OVRDC was written. On the next page, Map 4: Wood Industry and Related Businesses Locations depicts the locations of these companies. Majority of

Map 4: Wood Industry and Related Businesses Locations

these companies are located within the forested Glaciated Plateau or Unglaciated Plateau geography region of the District. The forested region of the District can be seen on Map 2: Landuse Resources. Additionally majority of these companies are located near main transportation corridors, so their products can be exported out of the region or to a secondary wood product facility.

According to “Ohio, The Many Sides of the Forest Economy” August 2006, the paper and pulp industry in Ohio is very large. It includes companies that process logs and wood chips into pulp for the production of paper, to manufacturers of paper and corrugated cardboard, to companies that produce special coated papers and packing material, to cardboard box, stationary and sanitary paper product manufacturers. The paper industry contributes $7.5 billion to Ohio’s economy, employs over 29,000 people, and has a direct payroll of more than $1.4 billion. OVRDC is fortunate in having this industry in the region.

According to “Ohio, The Many Sides of the Forest Economy” August 2006, Company Profile: Glatfelter [Formerly MeadWestvaco] Chillicothe, OH, Glatfelter’s primary product is carbonless

Chapter 2 Page 15 OVRDC 2009 CEDS paper, which is commonly used for business forms. Glatfelter is the second largest producer of carbonless paper in the United States, with over 30% of the market share. They also manufacture book publishing paper, uncoated paper and other specialty grades to service the needs of customers. The mill in Chillicothe has been an active, influential presence since 1890 and is equipped to perform virtually every step of the papermaking process. The Chillicothe operation includes a wood yard, pulp mill, four boilers, three paper machines, three coaters, and numerous finishing machines. They produce their own electricity and recycle materials to maximize efficiency. Other important support operations include a log merchandising yard in Piketon and wood supply yard in Washington, West Virginia.

According to “Ohio, The Many Sides of the Forest Economy” August 2006, Ohio wood product manufacturers shipped products across the nation and around the world. In 2004, Ohio companies exported more than $235 million worth of logs, lumber, veneer, panel products and other value added wood products. Ohio wood product exports have risen 158% in value since 1996, when we exported $91 million worth of goods. Canada is Ohio’s number one wood products trading partner receiving 30% of Ohio’s total exports in 2004. Germany, China, Italy, Hong Kong, Spain, United Kingdom, Japan, Taiwan, and South Africa are the remaining top ten foreign destinations for Ohio wood products. In years’ pasts, OVRDC has been promoting the export of wood products to foreign markets such as Spain, Japan, Germany, Mexico, Canada, and other markets. The OVRDC region has benefited from these trips by promoting the wood industry in our region.

In 2008, OVRDC received a grant from USDA Rural Development, Rural Business Opportunity Grant (RBOG) to conduct a feasibility study on developing a regional kiln project. A wood kiln – is a kiln that dries or removes moisture from lumber. “Project Summary: The focus of this project is to undertake a marketing and feasibility study for the hardwood lumber industry in a 5- county target area in southern Ohio. The primary purpose of the study will be to determine the feasibility and the market demand for undertaking the construction of a hardwood lumber drying kiln for potential use by several lumber companies in the area. This study will also include recommendations for a site for such a facility, as well as preliminary designs and cost estimates for the facility. At the end of this study, OVRDC staff will utilize the study and design information to begin the process of identifying funding sources and resources for the construction of the kiln.” Currently the project is underway, and final report will be completed at the end of 2009.

OVRDC forest products industry is vital to the economy of the region, and other parts of the country and world. In Ohio this economic cluster, contribution exceeds $15.1 billion and provides wages of $4 billion to over 119,000 employees. Businesses that rely on the forest of OVRDC and the state are found in every corner of the region producing products from lumber to furniture to mulch and paper. Every day Ohioans use wood products in their homes, schools, and places of business. Healthy, productive and well-managed forests are important to OVRDC’s economy, environment, and quality of life. Continued weakness in the national economy may lead to layoffs in the Wood Industry and Related Businesses cluster across the OVRDC. The recent rise in lumber prices may give a slight reprieve for area lumber mills, many of which have seen below normal prices for upwards of two years. Forest products will remain an important part of the local economy for years to come, but employment in this sector is likely to continue to decline gradually as operations seek ever-increasing efficiency and reduction in costs. OVRDC will remain commented in supporting this cluster in the future.

Chapter 2 Page 16 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Total Manufacturing Sector

According to Table 1: OVRDC Economic Cluster Analysis, there are a total of 272 Total Manufacturing Sector that have 10 or more employees within the OVRDC Region that employ 26,509 people. The Total Manufacturing Sector cluster accounts for nearly 8% of businesses with 10 or more employees in the OVRDC region, its total sales volume at $9.836 billion accounts for 36.2% in the OVRDC Region. The reason that this industry cluster was identified was its prominence, employment concentration factor, the economic prosperity factor, export- oriented, need of support, and opportunity for facilitation. Through there are several sub-clusters within the Total Manufacturing Sector, they all rely on resources and infrastructure needs within

Map 5: Total Manufacturing Sector Locations the region. In Map 5: Total Manufacturing Sector Locations, depicts the locations of all the manufacturing companies with 10 or more employees classified under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). As depicted these companies are located along or near major transportation corridors or other major transportation mode, so that to insure the inflow of resources and the outflow of products to and from the facility. Another factor that is depicted by the map is the location of majority of the companies and their locality to population centers that have key infrastructure and a stable work force to support their business. Additionally, some of these manufacturing companies are located in developed industrial sites. In Chapter 1 there was

Chapter 2 Page 17 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

background given on the Manufacturing Sector, where an in depth investigation of the forested region of OVRDC was written. According to the County Business Patterns for 2006, the percent of the labor force for manufacturing sector was the greatest for the OVRDC Region at 18.2% compared to Ohio at 16.3% and USA at 11.3%. Therefore, this economic cluster is important to the economy of the Region and to Ohio. According to a report called “Economic Overview -- Policy Research & Strategic Planning” from Ohio Department of Development July 2009 the state's factories lead the nation in the production of plastics and rubber, fabricated metals, and electrical equipment and appliances. Ohio also is a leading producer of steel, autos, and trucks. For the OVRDC, these products are produced in this cluster. According to a report called “All Industry Profiles for Ohio from 2007” by Ohio Job and Family Services, Bureau of Labor Market Information, Ohio leads the nation in the production of general-purpose machinery, ranks second in metalworking machinery and motor vehicle production, and is a leading producer of all types of steel. Almost 15.8% of Ohio’s 5.3 million workers, covered under Ohio or Federal Unemployment Compensation Laws, are employed in manufacturing. Therefore, employment and production of goods in Total Manufacturing Sector cluster are important to the economy of the Region. Through employment for this cluster still makes up a large percentage of the workforce, there has been a decline in employment for goods-producing manufacturing over the past years. The decrease in manufacturing jobs has slowed income growth in areas and has contributed to slow population growth in some parts of the region.

The current recession has affected Total Manufacturing Sector cluster by short- and long-term long forces that are affecting manufacturing employment. According to another report called “2009 Economic Analysis – Responding to Recession – Preparing for Recovery” by Ohio Job and Family Services, Bureau of Labor Market Information, highlights some information in regards to declines in this cluster, which effects OVRDC. However, much of the decline in manufacturing employment is because of long-term forces affecting multiple industries and regions. The long-term changes affecting manufacturing take several forms: • Changing product demand For example, LCD and plasma televisions are replacing cathode- ray tube televisions and energy-efficient fluorescent lights are replacing incandescent lights. The Midwest is heavily concentrated in basic equipment manufacturing, but investment in high-tech goods has been increasing faster. • Foreign competition Foreign – competitors have gained market share against American companies. American auto manufacturers have been losing market share since 1993. • Off shoring – Some American firms are moving facilities or processes to other countries. For example, American auto manufacturers have decreased auto production in the Unites States and increased production in Mexico. Off shoring tends to be most harmful to workers without a college degree. • Outsourcing – Many manufacturers have cut their payrolls by outsourcing service activities such as cleaning, accounting, and research to other companies. • Facility consolidation – Firms with multiple facilities or merging firms may consolidate into fewer facilities. Ohio has been on the gaining and losing sides of consolidations, however, in general, manufacturing activity is shifting to the west and south. • Non-competitive cost structures – Rising costs, including wages, health care benefits, and retirement contributions, have led many businesses to look for cost-saving ways of remaining competitive. High costs in the Midwest have led to many high-tech manufacturers to locate in Texas, Arizona, and California.

Chapter 2 Page 18 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

• Productivity has increased – Higher worker “quality” and new technologies allow manufacturers to produce goods with fewer workers. From 1990 through 2000, manufacturing employment was relatively flat while real output steadily increased.

According to another report called “2009 Economic Analysis – Responding to Recession – Preparing for Recovery” by Ohio Job and Family Services, Bureau of Labor Market Information there are three broad approaches to addressing the Ohio and OVRDC economic context. • First, there are immediate capacity enhancements to address the rising numbers of individuals suffering from the recession and needing assistance. • Second, there are workforce strategies that are designed to offer a bridge across the recessionary downturn. • Third, there are long-term workforce strategies designed to build workforce infrastructure.

OVRDC will continue to support several measures to improve this cluster throughout the region. The supporting roles are important for the success of the larger clusters, and help maintain the competitiveness of the industry and the region. Broadening the skills base in the region, opportunities for apprenticeships and on-the-job training will help expand the abilities of the workforce within the region making it more marketable to potential investors and companies. As local knowledge and expertise grows, opportunities for starting new companies may also arise. Also important for the long-term growth of manufacturing companies in the area will be improved facilities for training that could offer a wide range of manufacturing fields and technology courses. Also, improvement in the regions transportation access would improve the flow of goods and resources in and out of the region would attract companies to cost effective modes of transportation. Additional improvement and identification of key infrastructure and technologies would help make the region more marketable to the potential companies. Finally, provide financial incentives such as lower taxes, low interest loans, grants and other financial programs would encourage future development of this cluster within the region.

Chapter 2 Page 19 C Defining H Regional Expectations: A P CEDS Goals, T Objectives and E Plan of Action R

3 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Chapter 3: CEDS Goals, Objectives and Plan of Action

The CEDS Committee, meeting several times over that past six months, worked with information gathered through the county and regional SWOT analysis, as well as various sources of local, regional, state and national economic data developed the following Goals, Objectives and Strategies. Throughout the process, the committee used as a guide and incorporated the State of Ohio’s Department of Development Strategic Plan (see attached executive summary). We adapted their goals of Share the Ohio Story, Strengthen our Strengths, Cultivate Top Talent, Invest in our Regional Assets and Focus on our Customers to the OVRDC region and the CEDS.

Goal 1: Share the Southern Ohio Story.

Objective 1: Improve the perception of Southern Ohio by business executives and site selection consultants both in and outside of Southern Ohio to increase the economic growth of the region.

Strategy 1: Encourage development of marketing plan for the region.

Strategy 2: Develop and maintain a website to market the region’s industrial sites and strengths, such as labor force, education and incentives.

Strategy 3: Contact and gain attention of five site selection consultants.

Strategy 4: Encourage area residents to join the Ohio Ambassador Program in order to promote Southern Ohio and Ohio. Also, form a “Southern Ohio Ambassadors”, to further promote region.

Strategy 5: Increase the number of Appalachian companies competing for and winning Export Awards.

Responsibility: OVRDC, County E.D. Officials

Outcomes: 1. Regional marketing plan developed 2. Regional Website developed and maintained 3. At least five site selection consultants contacted 4. At least one site visit by a site selection consultant 5. At least one Ambassador from each county 6. At least two Appalachian companies entering Export Awards Contest.

Objective 2: Improve the perception of Southern Ohio as a tourist and residential destination to tourism industry officials and residents, both inside and outside of Southern Ohio.

Chapter 3 Page 1 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Strategy 1: Coordinate the development and/or compiling of “Theme” Tours throughout region with mapping and routing available online and encourage marketing by counties to potential visitors, including international visitors.

Strategy 3: Develop and make available to counties educational training for local officials, key businesses (hotels, convenience stores, etc.) and volunteers.

Strategy 4: Continue to support AppalachianOhio.com to market region.

Strategy 5: Encourage participation in the Ohio Ambassador Program.

Strategy 6: Facilitate meetings with Tourism Directors to survey needs and encourage cooperation.

Responsibility: OVRDC, County Tourism Directors

Outcomes: 1. List of “Theme” tours compiled 2. Tourism training materials developed and made available 3. One Ambassador identified for each county 4. Number of visitors to Southern Ohio increased by 5%.

Goal 2: Strengthen Our Strengths.

Objective 1: Retain and strengthen our existing businesses and industries to retain our current job base.

Strategy 1: Conduct baseline Retention and Expansion Study in each OVRDC county.

Strategy 2: Link industries with available and appropriate resources, such as training, funding sources, etc. (Identified by R&E Study)

Strategy 3: Develop resource guide/website for companies with information on available programs, funding sources, etc.

Responsibility: OVRDC, County E.D. Officials, Chambers

Outcomes: 1. R&E survey completed and analyzed in each county 2. Information meeting/seminar held for companies 3. Resource/Information guide developed and maintained 4. At least 200 jobs retained and 100 jobs created.

Objective 2: Use existing industries to determine possible target industries for attraction, such as similar or compatible industries and supply chain companies to create new jobs.

Chapter 3 Page 2 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Strategy 1: Use R&E study to gather information, analyze and provide information back to economic development officials.

Strategy 2: Determine if existing companies’ products can be utilized or adapted to “green” industry sector.

Strategy 3: Assist companies with the conversion to green energy.

Responsibility: OVRDC, County E.D. Officials, Companies

Outcomes: 1. Analysis completed to determine industries to target 2. Workshop for Southern Ohio companies held to explore manufacturing and supply needs of “green” industries 3. Five companies assisted with converting to greener technology.

Objective 3: Continue to support small businesses and entrepreneurs.

Strategy 1: Provide “clearinghouse” of information needed for entrepreneurs and small businesses.

Strategy 2: Facilitate connections between businesses, government and education to bridge current disconnect among them.

Strategy 3: Continue operation of OVRDC RLF fund and coordination of Regional Business Assistance Network

Responsibility: OVRDC, County E.D. Officials, Chamber Officials

Outcomes: 1. Resource Clearinghouse/Data Base developed and maintained 2. Meeting facilitated between business and government leaders 3. RLF continued with at least 1 new loan. 4. At least 25 jobs retained and 10 jobs created.

Objective 4: Determine and build upon OVRDC’s core strengths to grow the agency.

Strategy 1: Determine OVRDC’s strengths.

Strategy 2: Maintain core programs and explore additional funding to expand upon them.

Strategy 3: Explore internships with area colleges to provide students to compile needed information and develop data bases, etc. as identified above.

Responsibility: OVRDC

Outcomes: 1. OVRDC Strengths identified

Chapter 3 Page 3 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

2. Core programs maintained and/or expanded; 3. Intern obtained to help with data compilation

Goal 3: Cultivate Top Talent

Objective 1: Retain, train and advance our existing workforce—white, blue and green collar workers and recruit the best new workforce available for the future.

Strategy 1: Identify needs of business (R&E Study)

Strategy 2: Facilitate dialogue between business and education and government.

Strategy 3: Build upon existing educational strengths and resources.

Strategy 4: Conduct Wage and Benefit Survey to help in promotion of our workforce to potential companies.

Strategy 5: Work with state and local Job and Family Service offices and One- Stop Centers to facilitate needed training programs linking workers and companies with educational institutions.

Responsibility: OVRDC, Business Leaders, Education Leaders, One-Stop Centers, County CIC, E.D. and Chamber officials.

Outcomes: 1. R & E Study completed in each county. 2. Regional meeting held with business and education leaders and government officials to discuss needs identified in R&E Study 3. Wage and Benefit Survey conducted, results provided to area E.D. officials 4. At least 50 workers per county receive training 5. At least 15 companies assisted with training needs

Goal 4: Invest in Our Local/Regional Assets

Objective 1: Improve our communities’ existing physical assets.

Strategy 1: Work to make broadband available and affordable to all residents and businesses in region.

Strategy 2: Provide technical assistance to communities to identify both new and existing (maintenance/replacement) water and sewer infrastructure needs and link them to funding sources.

Responsibility: OVRDC, Communities, Elected Officials, Connecting Appalachia

Chapter 3 Page 4 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Outcomes: 1. Affordable broadband available to all of Southern Ohio 2. Technical assistance provided to 25 communities/counties 3. At least 20 infrastructure projects funded and completed.

Objective 2: Aid communities in the development of dedicated plans to handle future infrastructure maintenance and growth needs.

Strategy 1: Assist communities in conducting an inventory of existing infrastructure and developing 5 year capital improvement planning.

Responsibility: OVRDC, RCAP, Communities

Outcomes: At least 5 communities assisted in completing a capital improvement plan.

Objective 3: Improve existing and develop new transportation systems.

Strategy 1: Promote designation of Rural Planning Organizations (RPO) to give rural governments a larger voice in infrastructure planning and provide a means of prioritizing projects on a regional basis.

Strategy 2: Promote completion of Appalachian Development Highway System in OVRDC region.

Strategy 3: Work to secure additional funding for our region’s highways.

Strategy 4: Promote funding and development of intermodal facilities at strategic locations in region to encourage better utilization of rail and barge facilities throughout region.

Responsibility: OVRDC, Local Transportation Organizations (SEORC), Local Elected Officials.

Outcomes: 1. Official designation of RPO’s 2. Regional transportation projects identified and prioritized 3. At least one OVRDC Appalachian Development Highway system project started and/or completed 4. At least one intermodal site identified and funding pursued.

Goal 5: Focus on Our Customers and Shareholders

Objective 1: OVRDC will become a more customer friendly and shareholder based organization and will improve its perception as a local development district to local, state and federal elected officials, economic development officials, business leaders, the media and the general public.

Chapter 3 Page 5 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Strategy 1: Expand reach of E-newsletter and publish at least 4 times a year.

Strategy 2: Conduct more shareholder and legislative meetings.

Strategy 3: Improve follow-up response time to inquiries.

Strategy 4: Improve media relations by increasing the number of press releases provided to the media and scheduling visits to media outlets, when in counties.

Strategy 5: Improve relations with area business leaders by attending more Chamber of Commerce, CIC and Economic Development meetings/functions.

Strategy 6: Schedule and conduct regular meetings of economic development and business officials for a better understanding of their needs and to disseminate needed information to them from state and federal officials.

Responsibility: OVRDC

Outcomes: 1. E-newsletter distribution increased by 10% and published minimum of four times per year 2. Conduct an additional five shareholder meetings and two additional legislative meetings yearly 3. Institute inquiry response time procedures 4. Provide an additional four press releases per year and schedule at least two media visits per year 5. OVRDC staff will attend at least one business function in each county per year. 6. Conduct at least four meetings yearly of/for economic development officials.

Note: All outcomes are to be completed by December 31, 2012.

Chapter 3 Page 6 C H Community A and Private P Sector T Participation in CEDS E R

4 OVRDC 2009 CEDS Chapter 4: Community and Private Sector Participation in CEDS

OVRDC Full Commission Community and private sector participation in the Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission’s (OVRDC’s) Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) process comes through many channels but really starts with the OVRDC membership, commonly referred to as the “Full Commission”. OVRDC is a 12-county membership organization that includes elected officials from various levels of government, private sector representatives, chambers of commerce representatives, human service organization representatives, local planning commission representatives, post-secondary education/labor organization/workforce development board representatives, and minority representatives from each of the twelve member counties. The Full Commission includes a total of 175 members from the twelve member counties. In addition to these members; there are also committees such as the Project Review Committee and Revolving Loan Fund Committee that include economic development and financial institution professionals, both of which provide significant input into OVRDC investments in the region.

Each county’s membership in the OVRDC Full Commission is called the County Caucus. The twelve County Caucuses function as the basic local participation mechanism for the OVRDC, including initial formulation of all OVRDC plans, projects, goals, and priorities. Therefore, each county caucus provides input into the development of the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). The County Caucuses serve as the local committee which annually compiles, revises, and prioritizes a package of county development projects, which are meant to meet the development needs of the county and its local subdivisions. As part of this role, the county caucus also annually prioritizes potential Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) and Economic Development Administration (EDA) eligible projects. These top priority projects identified are those which OVRDC staff will focus its technical assistance in planning and financial packaging during the next year.

Caucus meetings are open to the public, and participation by citizens and various economic and community development organizations, which may or may not be a member, is strongly encouraged. The broader the representation in each county, the more we can be assured that we are addressing the major development needs of the county.

The twelve member counties actively support and currently participate in the Economic Development District (EDD) activities of the OVRDC. The 12 member counties during 2009 invested $111,516 of local funds based on the 2007 population estimates (655,977) at seventeen cents per capita. The investment from the counties for 2010 will be $112,011 based on the 2008 population estimates (658,889) at seventeen cents per capita. Copies of the 2010 adopted resolutions from the members are included as Attachment 1. In addition, a listing of the OVRDC Full Commission membership and various committee memberships, as well as OVRDC’s Affirmative Action Plan is included as Attachment 2.

Chapter 4 Page 1 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

OVRDC Executive Committee On behalf of the 175-member OVRDC Full Commission, the OVRDC Executive Committee is responsible, among other duties, to review and give final approval of the CEDS. The OVRDC staff develops the document with input from the County Caucuses and the CEDS Committee before having it approved by the Executive Committee. OVRDC's Executive Committee includes local elected officials from each county, private sector representatives, a minority representative, and several members-at large that represent one of the following areas: chambers of commerce, workforce development, labor, or post-secondary education. The main function of the Executive Committee is to coordinate the day-to-day operations of OVRDC.

During the last several years, OVRDC has strengthened its coordination and working relationship with other major development agencies by expanding the ex-officio membership of our Executive Committee. We have included representatives of the following agencies: Economic Development Administration, Governor's Office of Appalachia, Ohio Department of Development, Ohio Department of Transportation, USDA/Rural Development, regional resource conservation agencies, congressional offices, and state representatives. Our monthly Executive Committee meetings regularly include representatives from USDA/Rural Development, Congressional offices, and the Governor's Regional Economic Development Office.

OVRDC Executive Committee Member County OVRDC Office/Seat Roger Rhonemus Adams OVRDC Vice Chairman/Caucus Chair Russ Brewer Adams Member-At-Large Margery Paeltz Brown Caucus Chair Ben Houser Brown Private Sector Rep Bob Proud Clermont OVRDC Chairman/Caucus Chair Ken Morrison Clermont Member-At-Large Jack DeWeese Fayette Caucus Chair Doug Marine Fayette Private Sector Rep Justin Fallon Gallia Caucus Chair Paul Harrison Gallia Member-At-Large Gary Heaton Highland Caucus Chair Charles Stevens Highland Private Sector Rep Ed Armstrong Jackson Caucus Chair Rick McNelly Jackson Private Sector Rep Les Boggs Lawrence Caucus Chair Carl Darling Lawrence Private Sector Rep Harry Rider Pike Caucus Chair

Chapter 4 Page 2 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Larry Meredith Pike Member-At-Large Doug Corcoran Ross OVRDC Treasurer/Caucus Chair Joseph P. Sulzer Ross Mayor of Chillicothe Tom White Ross Private Sector Rep Mike Crabtree Scioto Caucus Chair Jim Kalb Scioto Mayor of Portsmouth Gary Coleman Scioto Member-At-Large Eugene Collins, Sr. Scioto Minority Representative Tom Morgan Vinton Caucus Chair Rick Reynolds Vinton Member-At-Large

OVRDC CEDS Committee Recent revisions to OVRDC’s by-laws, which were necessary to comply with EDA’s new regulations, have created a separate CEDS Committee for OVRDC. The new OVRDC by-laws went into effect on October 1, 2006 and the CEDS Committee was appointed by the Chairman of OVRDC at the March 2007 meeting of the Full Commission. The CEDS Committee consists of 23 members as follows: the OVRDC Vice-Chairman, 12 private sector members, 5 public officials, 1 minority member, and 4 members-at-large. The 2009 CEDS has been developed by OVRDC staff in conjunction with the CEDS Committee and the County Caucuses. The CEDS Committee presented the document for approval by the Executive Committee in October 2009. The completed 2009 CEDS was sent to the EDA Chicago Regional Office in October 2009. Since the initial appointment of the CEDS Committee in 2007, its membership has changed slightly each year since. Below is the 2009 OVRDC CEDS Committee (Strategy Committee) membership.

OVRDC CEDS Committee (Strategy Committee) Name Organization Representing Roger Rhonemus, CEDS Committee Chairman Adams County Commissioners County government Harty Wallingford G.H. Wallingford Company Private Sector Ben Houser H & G Nursing Homes Private Sector Tim Ross Innerwood & Company, LLC Private Sector Doug Marine Doug Marine Motors Private Sector Tracy Stewart-Call Farmers Bank Private Sector Charles Stevens Stevens Trustworthy Hardware Private Sector Rick McNelly McNelly & Gahm Insurance Private Sector Carl Darling Dow Chemical Company Private Sector Robert Mattey Ohio Valley Electric Corporation Private Sector Tom White Accurate Heating and Cooling Private Sector Don Hadsell J & H Erectors Private Sector

Chapter 4 Page 3 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Dana Eberts Waldron Lumber Company Private Sector Mal Payne Chillicothe Correctional Institution Minority community Brett Boothe Gallia County Engineer’s Office County government Joe Denen City of Washington Court House City government Dave Kennedy Village of New Richmond Village government Jack Webb President, Jackson Co. Trustees Township government Mike Bledsoe Vinton County Commissioners County government Sherry Stout Southern State Community College Post-secondary Education Jewell Hackworth WIA Director, Lawrence Co. Workforce Development Sharon Manson Pike County Visitor’s Bureau Community Leaders Gary Coleman Laborer’s Local #83 Organized Labor

OVRDC Staff OVRDC has a professional staff of 9 with expertise in general economic and community development planning and enhancement; as well as staff that have specialized planning skills to support the culmination of the CEDS document. The staff also offers planning and technical assistance support for developing and implementing priority regional and local development projects. Project development coordination meetings with the Governors Office of Appalachia and the other three Appalachia development districts have continued over the past year. In addition, OVRDC staff has continued meeting and coordinating efforts with the Governors Regional Economic Development Office (Region 7-Southern Ohio) and Robert Hickey, Ohio Economic Development Representative for EDA. OVRDC staff is responsible for developing annual work programs for our Economic Development Administration (EDA) Economic Development District (EDD) grant, our Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) Local Development District (LDD) grant, and our State of Ohio LDD support grant. When these applications are submitted annually, the work program elements are drawn from the priority objectives and strategies of our most recent CEDS document.

OVRDC Staff – October 22, 2009 Name Position Years Working at OVRDC John Hemmings Executive Director 18 Years Sherrie Lanier Development Director 1 Year Rebecca Banchy-McIlwain Finance Director 36 Years Michele Throckmorton Economic Development Coordinator 16 Years Kim Reynolds Community Development Coordinator 12 Years Jason Gillow Research/Planning Specialist II 8 Years Sharon Clark Administrative Assistant 5 Years Juanita Bragg Bookkeeper/Network Administrator 22 Years Shannon Nichols Program Secretary II 8 Years

Chapter 4 Page 4 C H A Strategic Projects, P Programs and T Activities E R

5

OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Chapter 5: Strategic Projects, Programs and Activities

Strategic EDA and ARC County Projects

As part of the CEDS and county caucus process, both short-term and long-term projects were identified, as well as projects with local and/or regional impact. The short-term, mostly local impact projects are listed directly below and are in the funding process. The more long-term, regional projects of significance are then discussed and listed. These tend to be more expensive, multi-phase projects.

EDA FY'2010 Public Works, Economic Adjustment, and Technical Assistance Project Package

PUBLIC WORKS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS TOTAL EDA OTHER # Project Title COST FUNDS FUNDS City of Hillsboro WWTP Expansion and By-Pass Elimination $ $ $ c/o (Highland) 18,809,152 2,500,000 16,309,152 $ $ $ c/o Pike County Manufacturing Center Sewer Line Extension (Pike) 1,994,600 1,196,760 797,840 $ $ $ c/o Washington CH WWTP Improvements (Fayette) 28,730,000 4,000,000 24,730,000 $ $ $ 1 Hobart/Carl Smith Drive (Highland) 5,000,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 $ $ $ 2 The Point Industrial Park Intermodal Improvements (Lawrence) 9,639,000 3,200,000 6,439,000 $ $ $ 3 Ohio Energy Research, Comm., and Technology Center (Lawrence) 3,200,000 1,250,000 1,950,000

ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT PROJECTS - SSED TOTAL EDA OTHER # Project Title COST FUNDS FUNDS 1 Tri-County Economic Recovery (Fayette, Highland, Clinton) planning

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECTS TOTAL EDA OTHER # Project Title COST FUNDS FUNDS None

Chapter 5 Page 1 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Appalachian Regional Commission FY’2010 Priority Project Package

Regional Projects # Project Title ARC Funds Total Project Cost 1 OVRDC LDD Administration and $213,000 $483,494 Regional Work Program (Multi-County) Total $213,000 $483,494

Area Development Projects # Project Title ARC Funds Total Project Cost 1 Hillsboro WWTP Expansion and By- $250,000 $18,809,152 Pass Elimination (Highland) 2 Pike Manufacturing Center Sewer Line $250,000 $1,994,600 Extension (Pike) 3 Portsmouth Water System Upgrades $150,000 $300,000 (Scioto) 4 Jenkins Road Storage Tank/Honeysuckle $250,000 $632,000 Lane Waterline (Jackson) 5 Coalton Village and Coal Township $250,000 $3,464,000 Wastewater Improvements (Jackson) 6 Frankfort Water System Improvements $250,000 $3,775,650 (Ross) 7 Holzer Regional Medical Imaging $250,000 $1,934,708 System (Gallia) 8 Southern Ohio Health Care Network $250,000 $2,432,945 Fiber-Optic Backbone (Jackson) 9 Riverwalk Corporate Office Building $200,000 $6,759,995 (Lawrence) 10 GE Peebles Test Operations Road $250,000 $772,000 Restructuring (Adams) 11 Family Health Care Center Expansion $60,685 $86,950 (Scioto) 12 Perry Township Waterline Extension $140,850 $931,850 Project (Brown) 13 Scioto County CAO Center for Dental $110,000 $170,000 Wellness (Scioto) 14 Lake Drive Subdivision Sanitary Sewer $38,025 $152,100 Improvements (Gallia) Total $2,699,560 $42,215,950

Chapter 5 Page 2 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Access Road Projects # Project Title ARC Funds Total Project Cost 1 Hobart/Carl Smith Drive (Highland) $500,000 $5,000,000

2 C.R. 9 & McCarty Lane/U.S. 35 Grade $300,000 $5,019,000 Separation Project (Jackson) 3 GE Peebles Test Operations Road $250,000 $772,000 Restructuring (Adams) Total $1,050,000 $10,791,000

Distressed County Projects # Project Title ARC Funds Total Project Cost 1 Richland/Jackson Townships Waterline $250,000 $313,000 Extension (Vinton) 2 Diagnostic/Medical Equipment $244,400 $305,500 Replacement Project (Pike) 3 Hamden Sludge Handling Project $250,000 $350,000 (Vinton) 4 Bridge Street Sanitary Sewer $250,000 $782,000 Rehabilitation Project (Pike) 5 Pike Water System Improvements (Pike) $250,000 $1,115,000

Total $1,244,400 $2,865,500

Outcomes: 50 jobs retained and 25 jobs created.

Regional Projects of Significance

As part of our county caucus meetings, OVRDC staff worked with county officials and community leaders to identify projects that they viewed as vital to their the region’s economy. Again access to broadband was at the top of the list for most counties. As discussed earlier, this should be addressed if the Connecting Appalachia Broadband Project is successful in securing funding from the USDA. The other kind of projects listed most, involved improving various components of our highway system and these projects fall mostly into two categories.

The first deals mainly with primary two-lane routes, which need to be upgraded with widening, third lanes, turn lanes or other safety measures. These primary routes act as ‘feeder’ routes to the region’s four-lane highways and play a vital role in our economy. Many of these are in multiple counties, therefore making them a priority for the region. Examples of these would be: upgrading US 52 in Scioto, Adams, Brown and Clermont Counties; upgrading SR 7 in Lawrence and Gallia Counties; upgrading SR 93 in Vinton, Jackson and Lawrence Counties; and upgrading US 62 in Brown, Highland and Fayette Counties.

Chapter 5 Page 3 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

The second type of transportation related projects involve extending the route and/or bypassing congested areas or upgrading existing partial interchanges to full interchanges. These include the Chesapeake SR 7 Bypass in Lawrence County, which would actually complete an outer belt around the Huntington, WV metro area; a SR 7 Bypass around Gallipolis in Gallia County; the US 52 Portsmouth Bypass in Scioto County; the US 68 Mt. Orab Bypass in Brown County; an extension of SR 753 in Fayette County; up grade of the SR 32 Eastgate Corridor in Clermont County and full interchanges at US 35/SR 32 in Jackson County and US 23/US 35 in Ross County. The Chesapeake and Portsmouth projects have been on the books for over 30 years, with various stages of planning and right-of-way acquisition complete and awaiting construction funding by ODOT. Most of the other projects have come about relatively recently due to increased congestion and safety factors.

Finally, there are some projects that although unique to only one county, they could play a role in development of the region. These include the Renewable Energy Research Center in Pike County, development of a 2000 acre ‘mega’ industrial sites in Brown and Fayette Counties and the development of a freezer warehouse facility in Jackson County to serve the region’s frozen food manufacturers. Jobs created at any of these locations could and would be filled by workers from throughout the region.

Most of these projects are long term projects, in various stages of planning. Even if funding could be identified within the next year, most completion dates would be beyond the three to five year scope of this CEDS. At this point in time, no projected job numbers are available for these projects and the cost estimates are fluid. OVRDC and the CEDS Committee did not feel they had the authority to rank these types of projects at this time. However, OVRDC feels it is important to keep these projects active by supporting them through the various project stages of planning, engineering, right-of-way, environmental and construction. We will continue to work with local, state and federal officials for the development and funding of these projects. We feel that by approaching these on a regional basis, as opposed to a county by county basis, the projects stand a much higher probability of getting funded. OVRDC will work with the various communities to rank the projects in a manner that is most advantageous to the region. This approach was proven successful in the past by the US 35 Committee, which was comprised of officials from each of the Ohio counties that US 35 runs through. Each county put aside their personal preference and supported the projects that were ready to go at each stage of project the process. US 35 is now a four-lane from the Ohio River to Dayton.

It is worth noting however, that access to Broadband came up consistently in our county and regional SWOT analysis, therefore in essence ranking the “Connecting Appalachia” project as the top priority for the region.

See below for a complete county by county breakdown on the location of the projects, as well as possible future funding sources.

Adams County: Connecting Appalachia Broadband Access (USDA, ARC, EDA) Upgrade US 52 (ODOT, FWHA)

Brown County: Mt. Orab Bypass (ODOT, FWHA, ARC)

Chapter 5 Page 4 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Mega Site Development (ODOD, EDA, ARC) Us 68/US 62 Corridor Upgrades (ODOT, FWHA) Broadband Access

Clermont County: Eastgate Corridor Project (ODOT) US 52 Upgrade (ODOT, FHWA) Broadband Access (USDA, EDA, ARC)

Fayette County: SR 753 Extension (ODOT) Mega Site Infrastructure Development Broadband Access

Gallia County: SR 7 Bypass/Upgrade of SR 7 Holzer Telemedicine Project Broadband Access Housing for Veterans

Highland County: North/South 4 Lane Highway North/South Rail Line Broadband Access Gas Line (from Clinton County) US 62 Upgrade

Jackson County: Full US 35/SR 32 Interchange Veteran’s Drive Extension Broadband Access Freezer Warehouse SR 93 Upgrade

Lawrence County: Chesapeake Bypass Multi-County Rail Project Maritime Zone Hospital Broadband Access SR 7 Upgrade

Pike County: Pike County Welcome Center Renewable Energy Research Center Broadband Access

Ross County: Multi-County Economic Development Alliance USEC Training Pathway Full US 35/US 23 Interchange

Scioto County: Portsmouth Bypass Transmission Water Line

Chapter 5 Page 5 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Broadband Access US 52 Upgrade

Vinton County: Broadband Access SR 93 Upgrade

Chapter 5 Page 6 C H A Performance P Measures T E R

6

OVRDC 2009 CEDS

Chapter 6: Performance Measures

OVRDC and the CEDS Committee will use several performance measures to evaluate the implementation of the CEDS. These were listed previously as individual outcomes under Chapter 3 and Chapter 5. Listed below are the performance measures for the entire CEDS.

Highlights

275 Jobs Retained 135 Jobs Created 600 Workers Trained

Total CEDS Outcomes

1 Regional Marketing Plan Developed 1 Regional Website Developed and Maintained 5 Site Selection Consultants Contacted 1 Site Visit by a Site Selection Consultant 12 Ohio Ambassadors Program Participants from Region 2 Southern Ohio Companies Participate in Ohio Export Awards 1 List of Tourism Theme Tours Developed 1 Tourism Worker Training Program Developed 5 Tourism Worker Trainings Conducted -Number of Visitors to Southern Ohio Increased by 5 % 12 Retention and Expansion Studies Completed (one per county) 1 Analysis Completed of R&E Data 1 Meeting/Seminar Conducted for Companies (topic TBA by R&E) 1 Resource Guide/Website Developed and Maintained for Companies 1 Green Industry Supplier Workshop Conducted 5 Companies Assisted in Converting to Greener Technology 1 Meeting Facilitated with Business, Government and Education Leaders -RLF Program Continued, 1 new loan 1 Regional Wage and Benefit Survey Completed 15 Companies Assisted with Training Needs 275 Jobs Retained 135 Jobs Created 600 Workers Receive Training 25 Communities/Counties Provided Technical Assistance 20 Infrastructure Projects Funded and Completed 5 Communities Assisted in Capital Improvement Planning -Rural Planning Organizations (RPO) Officially Designated -Regional Infrastructure Projects Prioritized 1 Appalachian Development Highway Projects Started and/or Completed 1 Intermodal Site Identified, Funding pursued

Chapter 6 Page 1 OVRDC 2009 CEDS

-OVRDC Core Strengths Identified/Maintained 1 Intern Obtained for Data Compilation -OVRDC E-Newsletter Published 4 Times Yearly 4 Meetings Yearly of Economic Development/Business Officials 7 Additional OVRDC Shareholder/Legislative Meetings Held Yearly 12 Business Functions Attended Yearly by OVRDC Staff

At the completion of the CEDS it is expected that the economic climate will have improved in Southern Ohio, with companies feeling more secure in staying here and retaining jobs. This will be attributed in part, to the needs identified in the R&E Study and the communities’ positive response to them. Also, with the creation of a Regional Marketing Plan and Website, the region will be positioned to attract new industries to the area.

Also, at the completion of the CEDS, OVRDC should be a much stronger, highly visible and responsive organization. Stronger ties will have been forged with business leaders, government and economic development officials, the media and the general public.

This CEDS is a three year long working document, with all outcomes to be completed by December 31, 2012.

Chapter 6 Page 2 A T OVRDC T Resolutions A C H M E N T

A T Full T A Commission C Membership H and Affirmative M Action Plan E N T

A T T OVRDC District A and County C

Demographic H Tables and Charts M E N T

Exhibit 1 Ohio EPA Land Cover Classification (1999 – 2003) for OVRDC Region Percentage Commercial Urban Deciduous Evergreen Open Industrial & Recreational Herbaceous Woody County Forest Forest Pasture Crop Water Residential Transportation Bare/Mines Grasses Wetlands Wetlands No Data Total Percent Adams 60.97 2.18 7.38 27.79 0.55 0.60 0.17 0.26 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.05 100.00 Brown 35.69 0.26 14.70 45.40 0.77 2.14 0.63 0.12 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.04 100.00 Clermont 47.76 1.04 9.46 29.45 1.42 7.32 2.16 0.23 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.02 100.00 Fayette 6.87 0.01 6.29 84.98 0.33 1.26 0.22 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 100.00 Gallia 69.77 2.66 18.73 4.82 0.77 1.43 0.56 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 100.00 Highland 29.05 0.59 14.49 52.81 1.22 1.20 0.45 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Jackson 66.64 2.34 17.18 11.51 0.43 0.63 0.44 0.79 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Lawrence 80.75 1.10 8.75 4.16 0.60 2.70 0.86 0.90 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.09 100.00 Pike 65.03 1.25 8.36 23.06 0.59 0.62 0.90 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Ross 43.14 0.92 13.86 38.20 0.94 1.79 0.74 0.03 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Scioto 74.46 1.00 11.13 9.26 0.84 2.26 0.80 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.06 100.00 Vinton 79.72 2.74 9.29 6.50 0.58 0.44 0.04 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 OVRDC 54.78 1.31 11.74 28.30 0.77 1.86 0.67 0.35 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.03 100.00 Ohio 36.61 0.49 7.81 43.52 0.92 6.66 1.89 0.16 0.61 0.11 1.18 0.03 100.00 Ohio EPA Land Cover Classification (1999 – 2003) for OVRDC Region Acres Commercial Urban Deciduous Evergreen Open Industrial & Recreational Herbaceous Woody County Forest Forest Pasture Crop Water Residential Transportation Bare/Mines Grasses Wetlands Wetlands No Data Total Adams 228,582 8,163 27,683 104,186 2,070 2,249 624 991 151 0 0 189 374,888 Brown 113,097 839 46,586 143,867 2,426 6,792 2,010 368 812 0 0 122 316,918 Clermont 139,882 3,052 27,721 86,262 4,149 21,439 6,326 666 3,335 0 0 51 292,882 Fayette 17,904 29 16,384 221,372 848 3,274 580 66 20 0 21 0 260,498 Gallia 210,354 8,021 56,467 14,538 2,336 4,316 1,698 3,515 0 0 0 271 301,517 Highland 103,711 2,100 51,720 188,524 4,344 4,280 1,614 339 343 0 0 0 356,975 Jackson 179,763 6,301 46,343 31,054 1,157 1,694 1,176 2,130 117 0 0 0 269,735 Lawrence 236,346 3,218 25,609 12,185 1,749 7,898 2,522 2,633 261 0 0 253 292,674 Pike 184,757 3,559 23,754 65,515 1,670 1,748 2,567 346 176 0 0 0 284,094 Ross 191,278 4,097 61,456 169,390 4,148 7,952 3,299 153 1,664 0 0 0 443,437 Scioto 293,592 3,930 43,881 36,529 3,312 8,928 3,137 538 203 0 0 226 394,276 Vinton 211,697 7,274 24,665 17,267 1,528 1,159 105 1,845 0 0 0 0 265,541 OVRDC 2,110,964 50,581 452,269 1,090,690 29,738 71,729 25,657 13,590 7,083 0 21 1,113 3,853,435 Ohio 9,671,985 130,314 2,062,514 11,496,707 243,615 1,759,212 499,334 41,340 162,143 30,095 312,868 7,051 26,417,179

Sources: Ohio Department of Development, Office of Strategic Research -- "2007 Ohio County Profiles" and Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water; “Ohio Statewide Land Cover Classification (1999 – 2003)” Exhibit 2 Publics Land for OVRDC Region Division of Parks Name Counties Total Acres ADAMS LAKE SP Adams 99.32 DEER CREEK SP Fayette 212.93 EAST FORK SP Clermont 7,385.92 GREAT SEAL SP Ross 1,897.36 JACKSON LAKE SP Jackson 378.41 LAKE ALMA SP Jackson, Vinton 366.64 LAKE HOPE SP Vinton 2,673.14 LAKE WHITE SP Pike 112.88 LITTLE MIAMI SCENIC PARK SP Clermont 68.35 PAINT CREEK SP Ross, Highland 4,592.12 PIKE LAKE SP Pike 433.18 ROCKY FORK SP Highland 3,541.09 SCIOTO TRAIL SP Ross 218.49 SHAWNEE SP Scioto 1,191.59 STONELICK SP Clermont 1,297.84 TAR HOLLOW SP Ross 421.76 Total 16 State Parks for OVRDC 24,891.00

Division of Forestry Counties Total Acres BRUSH CREEK SF Adams, Pike, Scioto 13,515.00 CHILLICOTHE FORESTRY HQ Ross 0.36 DEAN SF Lawrence 2,827.58 PIKE SF Pike, Highland 10,556.37 REMA / VINTON FURNACE easement Vinton 15,850.95 RICHLAND FURNACE SF Jackson, Vinton 2,554.40 SCIOTO TRAIL SF Ross, Pike 9,395.20 SHAWNEE SF Scioto, Adams 64,069.02 TAR HOLLOW SF Ross, Vinton 15,101.41 ZALESKI SF Vinton 24,808.55 Total 10 State Forest for OVRDC 158,678.85

Division of Natural Areas & Preserves Counties Total Acres DAVIS MEMORIAL SNP Adams 121.97 DAVIS SHOEMAKER NA Adams 25.90 JOHNSON RIDGE NP Adams 225.97 CHAPPARAL PRAIRIE NP Adams 66.92 ADAMS LAKE PRAIRIE NP Adams 292.89 WHIPPLE NP Adams 301.33 LITTLE MIAMI MIAMIVILLE ACCESS Clermont 8.99 CROOKED RUN NP Clermont 75.10 MILLER NATURE SANCTUARY NP Highland 84.09 LAKE KATHERINE SNP Jackson 1,942.71 ANDERSON COMPASS PLANT PRAIRIE NP Lawrence 14.59 RAVEN ROCK ARCH SNP Scioto 93.50 SCIOTO BRUSH CREEK NA Scioto 36.30 Total 13 State Nature Preserve for OVRDC 3,290.23

Division of Wildlife Counties Total Acres BOTT WA Brown, Clermont 166.55 BUTLER WA Gallia 10.15 BROKEN ARO WA Jackson 3,051.94 COOPER HOLLOW WA Jackson 5,898.22 Exhibit 2 Publics Land for OVRDC Region CROWN CITY WA Gallia, Lawrence 11,414.26 DEER CREEK WA Fayette 2,375.41 EAST FORK WA Clermont 3,748.56 FALLSVILLE WA Highland 1,403.31 FLINT RUN WA Jackson 615.73 GRANT LAKE WA Brown 2,019.03 INDIAN CREEK WA Brown 1,703.44 JACKSON COUNTY LINE WA Jackson 41.17 JACKSON LAKE WA Jackson 2.63 KINNIKINNICK Ross 172.39 KINCAID SPRINGS STATE FISH HATCHERY Pike 43.80 LAKE WHITE TAILWATERS Pike 20.43 LIBERTY WA Jackson 142.40 OLDAKER WA Highland 140.47 PAINT CREEK FISHING ACCESS Fayette 23.96 PAINT CREEK WA Ross, Highland 5,467.36 PLEASANT VALLEY WA Ross 1,479.65 ROSS LAKE WA Ross 1,094.01 SCIOTO RIVER WILDLIFE ACCESS Ross 2,573.66 SYMMES TOWNSHIP WA Lawrence 118.97 TRANQUILITY WA Adams 4,110.74 TURKEY RIDGE WA Vinton 362.25 TYCOON LAKE WA Gallia 779.92 WELLSTON WA Vinton 1,357.01 WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION PROGRAMS (14 Sites) Fayette, Ross 849.16 Total 42 State Wildlife Sites for OVRDC 51,186.56

Division of Wildlife - Lease Control Land Counties Total Acres BUCKEYE FURNACE MINING AREA Jackson 2,038.20 IRONTON FOREST WILDLIFE AREA Lawrence 4,214.30 SCIOTO LAND COMPANY AREA 1 Adams, Pike 10,623.60 SCIOTO LAND COMPANY AREA 2 Pike, Jackson, Ross 45,311.00 SCIOTO LAND COMPANY AREA 3 Vinton, Hocking 1,720.80 SCIOTO LAND COMPANY AREA 4 Jackson, Vinton 6,782.70 Total 6 State Wildlife Lease Control Lands Sites for OVRDC 70,690.60 Grand Total of ODNR State Public Lands for OVRDC 308,737.24

Other Selected Public Owned Lands for OVRDC Name Counties Total Acres

Scioto, Lawrence, Gallia, Wayne National Forest - U.S. Forest Service Jackson, Vinton 110,521.44 Hopewell Culture, U.S. National Park Service Ross 1,348.80 The Nature Conservancy (Owns & Manages) OVRDC 14,801.45 Ohio Historical Society (Average) OVRDC 1,350.00 Other Lands (Local, County and Private Owned) OVRDC 15,092.59 Grand Total of Other Lands for OVRDC 143,114.27

Total Acres 451,851.52

Source: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Ducks Unlimited - Conservation And Recreation Lands (http://www.ducks.org/Conservation/GLARO/3750/GISCARL.html) Exhibit 3

Dollar value of Coal at mine by county Tonnage sold % Value at mine% Per ton average County 1993 2001 2007Change 1993 2001 2007Change 1993 2001 2007 % Change Adams Brown Clermont Fayette Gallia 221,057 - 0.0 4,690,830 - 0.0 $21.22 0.0 Highland Jackson 1,273,659 1,305,575 320,767 -98.6 29,816,791 27,984,183 10,005,204 -87.7 $23.41 $21.43 $31.19 30.7 Lawrence 14,014 -100.0 238,279 -100.0 $17.00 Pike Ross Scioto Vinton 2,921,215 1,628,726 515,827 -142.4 71,125,561 34,883,679 19,374,463 -123.8 $24.35 $21.42 $37.56 47.6 OVRDC 4,208,888 3,155,358 836,594 -123.4 101,180,631 67,558,692 29,379,667 -108.7 $21.59 $21.36 $34.38 49.6 Ohio 27,668,811 25,245,833 23,083,739 -18.1 759,130,295 616,869,859 655,605,082 -15.3 $27.44 $24.43 $28.40 3.6 Source: 1993, 2001, & 2004 Report on Ohio Mineral Industries (produced by the Ohio Division of Geological Survey) Note: Shown only Industrial Mineral Operations for OVRDC Region Exhibit 4

2007 Dollar value of coal at mine by county and mining method Total Underground Surface Per ton Per ton Tonnage Per ton County Tonnage sold Value at mine No. of Tonnage sold Value at mine No. of Value at mine No. of mines average average sold (short average (short tones) (dollars) mines (short tones) (dollars) mines (dollars) (dollars) (dollars) tones) (dollars) Jackon 2 320,767 $10,005,204 $31.19 2 320,767 $10,005,204 $31.19 Vinton 2 515,827 $19,374,463 $37.56 2 515,827 $19,374,463 $37.56 OVRDC TOTAL 4 836,594 $29,379,667 $34.38 0 0 $0 $0.00 4 836,594 $29,379,667 $34.38 Ohio Total 87 23,083,739 $655,605,082 $28.40 12 16,403,212 $465,635,980 $28.39 75 6,680,527 $189,969,102 $28.44

2007 Ohio Coal production and sales by county, in descending order of production. Production Sales County (short tones) (short tons) Vinton 515,827 515,827 Jackson 354,801 320,767 TOTAL 870,628 836,594 Ohio 22,283,072 23,083,739

Source: 2007 Report on Ohio Mineral Industries, ODNR, Division of Geological Survey 210000 360000 510000

84°0'0"W 82°0'0"W

ONTARIO

M ii c h ii g a n Lake Erie

0 42°0'0"N 0 0 0 0 0

0 42°0'0"N 0 5 5 6 6 4 4 P P e e n Toledo n

Lake Ashtabula n Lucas n s Fulton s

Williams y y l Bryan Ottawa l v Lakewood v a

Geauga a Cleveland n Vickery Cuyahoga n i Wood i a Defiance Henry Sandusky a

a Erie a n n Lorain Trumbull a a i i d d Paulding Portage n n Seneca Huron

I Medina Youngstown I Summit Putnam Akron Hancock Mahoning

Van Wert Wyandot Crawford Ashland Allen Wayne Stark Richland McGuffey Canton Columbiana 0 Lexington 0 0 Hardin 0 0 0 0 0

0 Auglaize 0 5 Marion 5 4 Mercer 4 Holmes Carroll Morrow

Tuscarawas Logan Knox Shelby Mount Liberty Jefferson Union Delaware Coshocton Harrison Conesville Darke Champaign Licking 40°0'0"N Miami Guernsey Belmont Franklin 40°0'0"N Clark Muskingum Madison

Preble Montgomery Noble Fairfield Greene Perry Monroe Pickaway Morgan Fayette Logan Butler Hocking Warren Hamilton Clinton Washington 0 0

0 Ross 0

0 Athens 0 0 0

5 Vinton 5 3 Hamilton 3 4 Highland 4 Cincinnati Meigs Chester Clermont Pike Jackson Brown Lucasville Adams Scioto Gallia

Lawrence W e s tt V ii rr g ii n ii a

K e n tt u c k y

38°0'0"N 0 5 10 20 30 40 0 0

0 Kilometers 38°0'0"N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2

4 Miles 4 0 5 10 20 30 40 84°0'0"W 82°0'0"W

210000 360000 510000 WWiinndd RReessoouurrccee ooff OOhhiioo Mean Annual Wind Speed at 30 Meters

Generalized Transmission Line Features Mean Speed at 30 m 13.4 - 14.5 6.0 - 6.5 Category 500 kV Projection: Tranverse Mercator, City mph m/s 14.5 - 15.7 6.5 - 7.0 UTM Zone 17 WGS84 Under 100 kV Spatial Resolution of Wind Resource Data: 200m 735 kV + < 10.1 < 4.5 15.7 - 16.8 7.0 - 7.5 This map was created by AWS Truewind using Interstate Highway 100 kV-161 kV 10.1 - 11.2 4.5 - 5.0 the MesoMap system and historical weather data. Step-Up 16.8 - 17.9 7.5 - 8.0 Although it is believed to represent an accurate County Boundary 11.2 - 12.3 5.0 - 5.5 overall picture of the wind energy resource, 230 kV-287 kV 17.9 - 19.0 8.0 - 8.5 estimates at any location should be confirmed by DC Line 12.3 - 13.4 5.5 - 6.0 measurement. Water Body > 19.0 > 8.5 The transmission line information was obtained by 345 kV AWS Truewind from the Global Energy Decisions Velocity Suite. AWS does not warrant the accuracy of the transmission line information. AWS Truewind, LCC Exhibit 6 LIST OF OHIO COUNTIES AND MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS THAT HAVE ONE-HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAINS IDENTIFIED WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES PURSUANT TO OHIO'S FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS (ORC 1521.18) Compliance Status: C Political Subdivision County None OVRDC Region

Compliance Status: C, P Compliance Status: C, P Political Subdivision County Political Subdivision County Adams Adams Frankfort Ross Manchester Adams Ross County Ross Rome Adams New Boston Scioto Aberdeen Brown Portsmouth Scioto Brown County Brown Rarden Scioto Higginsport Brown Scioto County Scioto Mount Orab Brown Hamden Vinton Ripley Brown Vinton County Vinton Batavia Clermont Chilo Clermont Clermont County Clermont Milford Clermont Moscow Clermont Neville Clermont New Richmond Clermont Williamsburg Clermont Compliance Status: N Fayette County Fayette Political Subdivision County Washington C.H. Fayette Cherry Fork Adams Cheshire Gallia Fayetteville Brown Crown City Gallia Sardinia Brown Gallia County Gallia Bloomingburg Fayette Gallipolis Gallia Octa Fayette Rio Grande Gallia Greenfield Highland Vinton Gallia Highland County Highland Hillsboro Highland Otway Scioto Leesburg Highland Mcarthur Vinton Coalton Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson County Jackson Wellston Jackson Athalia Lawrence Chesapeake Lawrence Coal Grove Lawrence Hanging Rock Lawrence Ironton Lawrence Lawrence County Lawrence Proctorville Lawrence South Point Lawrence Pike County Pike Piketon Pike Waverly Pike Bainbridge Ross Chillicothe Ross

Note: A compliance status of "C" indicates community is in compliance with state floodplain management standards, "C,P" indicates community is in compliance with state standards and participates in the National Flood Insurance Program, and "N" indicates community is not in compliance with state floodplain management standards and does not participate in the NFIP. Thursday, February 26, 2009 Source: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Floodplain Management Program Exhibit 7

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES RESIDEN EPA TIAL Average Daily Peak Daily FINDIN COUNTY FACILITY USERS Flow Flow (GPD): GS Adams Village of Seaman 485 180,000 250,000 FALSE Adams Village of West Union 1,200 325,000 1 Million GPD FALSE Adams Village of Winchester 450 70,000 500,000 FALSE Adams Manchester 880 100,000 160,000 FALSE Adams Peebles 745 276,000 1.1 MGD FALSE Brown Village of Aberdeen 1,100 220,000 900,000 FALSE Brown Village of Georgetown 1,500 350,000 600,000 FALSE Brown Village of Mt. Orab 971 360,000 450,000 FALSE Brown Village of Ripley 950 2.1 MGD N/A FALSE Brown Village of Sardinia 399 45,000 90,000 TRUE Brown Village of St. Martin 34 Unknown Unknown FALSE Clermont Village of Moscow 87 18,000 N/A FALSE Clermont Village of Batavia WWTP 680 147,000 333,000 FALSE Clermont City of Milford WWTP 6,800 1.0 MGD 1.5 MGD FALSE Clermont Village of Williamsburg 1,000 250,000 N/A TRUE Clermont Clermont County Bramblewood WWTP 132 23,000 137,000 FALSE Clermont Clermont County Indian Lookout WWTP 160 61,000 800,000 FALSE Clermont Clermont County Felicity WWTP 471 170,000 880,000 FALSE Clermont Clermont County Arrowhead WWTP 25 51,000 480,000 FALSE Clermont Clermont County Lower East Fork Regional WWTP 14,492 6.68 MGD 13.3 MGD TRUE Clermont Clermont County Miami Trails WWTP 833 224,000 591,000 FALSE Clermont Clermont County Middle East Fork Regional WWTP 6,673 3.19 MGD 18.4 MGD FALSE Clermont Clermont County Wards Corner WWTP 19 51,000 127,000 FALSE Clermont Clermont County O'Bannon Creek WWTP 4,093 1.7 MGD 3.8 MGD FALSE Clermont Clermont County Nine Mile Creek Regional WWTP 3,023 1.4 MGD 4.74 MGD FALSE Clermont Village of New Richmond WWTP 2,500 275,000 N/A FALSE Fayette Bloomingburg STP 375 160,000 1,000,000 TRUE Fayette Flakes Ford Estates 24 6,000 30,000 TRUE Fayette Jeffersonville WWTP 498 180,000-200,000 795,000 FALSE Fayette Rattlesnake SD #1 WWTP 35 100,000 300,000 TRUE Fayette Washington C.H. WWTP 6,700 3,000,000 24,000,000 TRUE Fayette New Holland WWTP 400 60,000-70,000 400,000 TRUE Gallia Clearview 31 9,000 9,000 FALSE Gallia City of Gallipolis 2,290 1MGD 1.6MGD FALSE Gallia Meadowlook Subdivision 52 24,800 24,800 FALSE Gallia Village of Rio Grande 237 100,000 250,000 GPD FALSE Gallia Rodney Village II 56 24,000 24,000 FALSE Gallia Tara Subdivision S.T.P. 49 50,000 50,000 FALSE Gallia Village of Vinton N/A N/A N/A FALSE Gallia Bidwell Porter 416 80,000 240,000 FALSE Highland City of Greenfield 2,264 600,000 1.6 MGD TRUE Highland City of Hillsboro 2,928 1.2 MGD 5.2 MGD FALSE Highland Village of Leesburg 581 120,000 150,000 TRUE Highland Village of Lynchburg 592 110,000 400,000 TRUE Highland Rolling Acres S.T.P. 34 5,000 30,000 FALSE Highland Rocky Fork Lake 1,452 150,000 280,000 FALSE Jackson Village of Coalton 200 N/A N/A FALSE Exhibit 7

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES RESIDEN EPA TIAL Average Daily Peak Daily FINDIN COUNTY FACILITY USERS Flow Flow (GPD): GS Jackson Green Acres Subdivision 47 N/A N/A FALSE Jackson City of Jackson 3,029 2.3 MGD 2.8 MGD TRUE Jackson Village of Oak Hill 772 N/A N/A FALSE Jackson City of Wellston 2,120 N/A N/A TRUE Lawrence Coal Grove 1,000 260,000 GPD N/A FALSE Lawrence Ironton 5,000 1.4 Million GPD 4 Million GPD FALSE Lawrence South Point 4,500 1 Million GPD 1.2 Million GPD FALSE Lawrence Union Rome 5,000 950,000 GPD 2.8 Million GPD FALSE Lawrence FarmView 45 N/A N/A FALSE Pike Waverly 2,200 .8 MGD 1.5 MGD FALSE Pike Piketon 700 205,000 GPD 398,000 GPD TRUE Ross Chillicothe Correctional 132 2,000,000 3,500,000 FALSE Ross Chillicothe STP Easterly 9,000 2,000,000 3,500,000 FALSE Ross Clarksburg WWTP 200 40,000 200,000 FALSE Ross Frankfort WWTP 492 122,000 487,000 FALSE Ross Kingston WWTP 488 112,000 120,000 TRUE Ross Pleasant Valley Regional Sewer District 1,800 550,000 3,200,000 FALSE Ross South Salem WWTP 100 20,000 50,000 FALSE Ross Union Heights Subdivision WWTP 150 50,000 200,000 TRUE Scioto City of Portsmouth N/A 4 Million N/A FALSE Scioto Scioto County Sanitary Dept. 5,600 1.2 Million 4.5 Thousand TRUE Vinton Village of McArthur 925 260,000 615,000 FALSE Source: 2005 OVRDC Surey of Waste Water Treatment Facilities and Water Facilities Exhibit 8

POPULATION HOUSING INCOME 1999 OVRDC Sex Race Age Number of Number of Number of 1999 Per Median District 2000 Total Male Female White Black Hispanic Other Under 18 18-64 65 & Over Families Households Housing Units Capita Household OVRDC 635,970 312,993 322,977 611,333 12,591 4,339 1,227 166,240 391,004 78,726 175,010 241,464 263,094 $15,751 $31,155 County: Adams 27,330 13,396 13,934 26,721 48 175 31 7,202 16,485 3,643 7,616 10,501 11,822 $14,515 $29,315 Brown 42,285 20,796 21,489 41,474 389 185 35 11,668 25,703 4,914 11,785 15,555 17,193 $17,100 $38,303 Clermont 177,977 87,337 90,640 172,866 1,621 1,547 467 49,696 111,534 16,747 49,077 66,013 69,226 $22,370 $49,386 Fayette 28,433 14,021 14,412 27,182 589 352 157 7,208 17,129 4,096 7,841 11,054 11,904 $18,063 $36,735 Gallia 31,069 15,167 15,902 29,596 839 191 46 7,771 19,087 4,211 8,592 12,060 13,498 $15,183 $30,191 Highland 40,875 19,935 20,940 39,599 612 216 62 11,030 24,196 5,649 11,395 15,587 17,583 $16,521 $35,313 Jackson 32,641 15,750 16,891 31,953 193 197 53 8,481 19,721 4,439 9,130 12,619 13,909 $14,789 $30,661 Lawrence 62,319 29,899 32,420 60,169 1,302 355 66 15,270 38,083 8,966 17,809 24,732 27,189 $14,678 $29,127 Pike 27,695 13,525 14,170 26,786 246 155 20 7,522 16,417 3,756 7,667 10,444 11,602 $16,093 $31,649 Ross 73,345 38,141 35,204 67,288 4,544 429 136 17,598 46,819 8,928 19,174 27,136 29,461 $17,569 $37,117 Scioto 79,195 38,653 40,542 75,139 2,163 477 144 19,348 48,021 11,826 21,372 30,871 34,054 $15,408 $28,008 Vinton 12,806 6,373 6,433 12,560 45 60 10 3,446 7,809 1,551 3,552 4,892 5,653 $13,731 $29,465

Ohio 11,353,140 5,512,262 5,840,878 9,645,453 1,301,307 217,123 128,671 2,888,339 6,957,044 1,507,757 2,993,023 4,445,773 4,783,051 $21,003 $40,956

USA 281,421,906 138,053,563 143,368,343 211,460,626 34,658,190 35,305,818 18,521,486 72,293,812 174,136,341 34,991,753 71,787,347 105,480,101 115,904,641 $21,587 $41,994

SOURCE: Population & Housing Characteristics, Summary File 1A & 3A, 2000 Census, Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce; Office of Strategic Research, Ohio Department of Development Exhibit 9

Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Counties of OVRDC: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 Percent Population Estimates April 1, 2000 Geographic Change: Estimates Area 2000- July 1, 2008 July 1, 2007 July 1, 2006 July 1, 2005 July 1, 2004 July 1, 2003 July 1, 2002 July 1, 2001 July 1, 2000 Census 2008 Base USA 7.45 304,059,724 301,290,332 298,362,973 295,560,549 292,892,127 290,210,914 287,726,647 285,039,803 281,421,906 281,421,906 Ohio 1.06 11,485,910 11,477,641 11,458,390 11,450,954 11,445,095 11,430,306 11,410,582 11,391,298 11,363,719 11,353,160 11,353,140 OVRDC 3.31 658,889 656,712 653,713 650,187 647,456 644,659 641,722 638,348 637,095 635,973 635,970 .Adams 3.10 28,213 28,103 28,195 28,191 28,072 27,920 27,709 27,482 27,338 27,330 27,330 .Brown 3.13 43,960 43,851 43,715 43,681 43,623 43,511 43,208 42,772 42,583 42,285 42,285 .Clermont 8.58 195,385 193,729 191,703 189,313 187,297 184,590 182,550 180,392 178,630 177,978 177,977 .Fayette -0.41 28,319 28,296 28,213 28,217 28,082 28,135 28,153 28,170 28,435 28,433 28,433 .Gallia -0.59 30,912 30,816 30,843 30,922 30,967 31,040 31,077 31,036 31,094 31,071 31,069 .Highland 3.14 42,349 42,586 42,506 42,124 42,266 41,765 41,540 41,143 41,019 40,875 40,875 .Jackson 1.91 33,270 33,211 33,170 33,284 33,069 32,912 32,883 32,695 32,636 32,637 32,641 .Lawrence 0.51 62,573 62,598 62,645 62,443 62,153 62,177 61,866 61,988 62,252 62,323 62,319 .Pike 0.82 27,967 27,895 27,938 27,782 28,025 27,963 27,903 27,752 27,739 27,695 27,695 .Ross 3.45 76,073 75,799 75,240 74,808 74,328 74,305 73,895 73,592 73,450 73,345 73,345 .Scioto -3.28 76,587 76,449 76,177 76,194 76,378 77,170 77,919 78,391 79,098 79,195 79,195 .Vinton 3.46 13,281 13,379 13,368 13,228 13,196 13,171 13,019 12,935 12,821 12,806 12,806 Note: The April 1, 2000 estimates base reflects changes to the Census 2000 population resulting from legal boundary updates, other geographic program changes, and Count Question Resolution actions. All geographic boundaries for the 2008 population estimates series are defined as of January 1, 2008. Suggested Citation: Table 1: Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Counties of Ohio: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 (CO-EST2008-01-39) Source: Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau Release Date: March 19, 2009 Exhibit 10

County Economic Status in Appalachia, Fiscal Year 2010 Absolute Data Values Indicator Index Values

Three-Year Per PCMI, Poverty Index Value Three-Year Avg. Unemp. PCMI, Capita Poverty Percent of Rate, Composite Rank (of 3,110 Quartile (1 County Economic Average Rate, Percent FIPS State County Market Rate, U.S., Percent Index Value, counties in is the best), Status, FY 2010 Unemployment Percent of of U.S., Income, 2000 Inversed, of U.S., FY 2010 U.S., 1 is the FY 2010 Rate, 2005-2007 U.S., 2005- 2006 2006 2006 2000 best), FY 2010 2007 United States 4.8 31,315 12.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 Appalachian Region 5.0 23,384 13.6 104.5 74.7 109.9 STATE TOTALS Ohio 5.6 27,545 10.6 118.0 88.0 85.6 STATE APPALACHIAN TOTALS Appalachian Ohio 6.4 20,577 13.0 134.9 65.7 105.1

39001 Ohio Adams At-Risk 7.8 16,192 17.4 163.6 51.7 193.4 140.2 165.7 2,717 4 39015 Ohio Brown Transitional 6.6 20,688 11.6 139.1 66.1 151.4 94.1 128.2 1,901 3 39025 Ohio Clermont Competitive 5.1 29,669 7.1 107.5 94.7 105.5 57.2 90.1 478 1 39053 Ohio Gallia At-Risk 6.5 19,776 18.1 135.1 63.2 158.3 146.5 146.7 2,415 4 39071 Ohio Highland Transitional 5.8 20,491 11.8 120.9 65.4 152.8 95.5 123.1 1,730 3 39079 Ohio Jackson At-Risk 7.5 16,754 16.5 157.6 53.5 186.9 133.0 159.2 2,627 4 39087 Ohio Lawrence At-Risk 5.5 16,564 18.9 114.9 52.9 189.1 152.6 152.2 2,518 4 39131 Ohio Pike Distressed 9.4 15,835 18.6 197.4 50.6 197.8 150.2 181.8 2,876 4 39141 Ohio Ross Transitional 6.8 19,764 12.0 141.4 63.1 158.4 96.7 132.2 2,017 3 39145 Ohio Scioto At-Risk 7.8 16,270 19.3 164.0 52.0 192.5 155.9 170.8 2,781 4 39163 Ohio Vinton Distressed 8.0 13,563 20.0 166.9 43.3 230.9 161.6 186.5 2,918 4 Source: Appalachian Regional Commission, June 2009. Note: The U.S., State totals, and Appalachian totals do not have an economic status. These data are provided for comparison only. Exhibit 11

EDA Distress Criteria Statistical Report Economic Distress Criteria—Primary Elements Threshold Matches Region U.S. Calculations Criterion 24-month Average Unemployment Rate (BLS) 7.52 6.08 1.44 Yes period ending May 2009 2007 Per Capita N/A $26,178 N/A N/A Money Income (ACS) 2007 Per Capita $28,648 $38,615 74.19% Yes Personal Income (BEA) 2000 Per Capita $17,752 $21,587 82.23% No Money Income (Decennial Census)

Economic Distress Criteria—Geographic Components Threshold Threshold Threshold Census PCMI - Threshold Combined 24 Month Unemp Calculation ACS PCMI Calculation BEA PCPI Calculation 2000 Calculation Criterion Adams County, OH 9.82 3.74 $16,803 64.2 $23,977 62.1 $14,515 67.2 Yes Brown County, OH 8.23 2.15 $19,050 72.8 $27,309 70.7 $17,100 79.2 Yes Clermont County, OH 6.31 0.23 $26,175 100.0 $34,956 90.5 $22,370 103.6 No Fayette County, OH 6.37 0.29 $20,698 79.1 $30,167 78.1 $18,063 83.7 Yes Gallia County, OH 6.99 0.91 $17,272 66.0 $28,475 73.7 $15,183 70.3 Yes Highland County, OH 8.27 2.19 $18,285 69.8 $26,924 69.7 $16,521 76.5 Yes Jackson County, OH 8.78 2.70 $18,235 69.7 $24,176 62.6 $14,789 68.5 Yes Lawrence County, OH 5.88 -0.20 $17,345 66.3 $25,279 65.5 $14,678 68.0 Yes Pike County, OH 11.00 4.92 $16,188 61.8 $24,284 62.9 $16,093 74.5 Yes Ross County, OH 8.51 2.43 $19,277 73.6 $26,397 68.4 $17,569 81.4 Yes Scioto County, OH 8.70 2.62 $16,823 64.3 $25,562 66.2 $15,408 71.4 Yes Vinton County, OH 9.73 3.65 N/A N/A $20,544 53.2 $13,731 63.6 Yes Average for OVRDC 8.22 2.14 $18,741 71.6 $26,504 68.6 $16,335 75.7 Average for Ohio 7.66 1.58 $22,145 84.6 $29,806 77.2 $18,742 86.8 Sources: U.S. Bureaus of Census, Labor Statistics, and Economic Analysis; generated by STATS America. This site is made possible by a grant from the U.S. Economic Development Administration and was developed and is maintained by the IBRC at Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business. (http://statsamerica.org/pre/distress/distress.html) Reference Date: 05 / 2009 (All data elements refer to this date or earlier.) Region Consists of: Adams Co. OH, Brown Co. OH, Clermont Co. OH, Fayette Co. OH, Gallia Co. OH, Highland Co. OH, Jackson Co. OH, Lawrence Co. OH, Pike Co. OH, Ross Co. OH, Scioto Co. OH, Vinton Co. OH Report Date: 7/27/2009 10:27:19 AM Exhibit 12

WARN Notices (Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification (WARN) Act) # Date Rcd Company City Affected Layoff Date Phone Number Union WARN ID 12/1/1999 INTERMET Corp. (Ironton Iron) Ironton 619 2/7/2000 (740) 532-0009 None 24-9-047 7/15/1999 Shelton Industries Amelia 92 9/15/1999 (513) 734-2900 USA 12-9-004 3/24/1999 Southern Ohio Medical Center Portsmouth 74 5/11/1999 (740) 356-7679 None 18-8-l00 3/23/1999 Cabletron Systems Ironton 309 6/6/1999 (603) 332-9400 None 24-8-098 2/18/1999 Thatcher Washington C.H. 138 2/19/1999 (815) 334-1200 ICWU 17-8-081 2/16/1999 Lockheed Martin Utility Svcs. Portsmouth 250 6/30/1999 (740) 897-2615 UPGWA 18-8-080 2/3/1999 Allied Signal Specialty Chemicals Ironton 62 4/23/1999 (740) 533-6518 None 24-8-070 1999 OVRDC 1,544 10/4/2000 Money's Mushroom Ltd. Jackson 250 12/31/2000 (604) 681-7557 None 7/48-0-027 6/27/2000 Trinity Industries, Inc. Mt. Orab 310 7/7/2000 (937) 444-2571 UAW 18-9-111 3/2/2000 Trinity Industries, Inc. Mt. Orab 239 3/3/2000 (937) 444-2571 UAW 18-9-073 2/2/2000 Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant Piketon 425 7/1/2000 (740) 897-2457 OCAW 18-9-063 2000 OVRDC 1,224 12/5/2001 Etura Premier, LLC Seaman 90 12/3/2001 (561) 472-0201 None 1-01-064 4/12/2001 The Stanley Works Georgetown 94 6/11/2001 (937) 378-4004 None 50-0-085 4/2/2001 USEC Portsmouth 526 6/1/2001 (740) 289-2405 PACE 50-0-082 2001 OVRDC 710 10/2/2002 GKN Sinter Metals Gallipolis 155 12/2/2002 (740) 441-3203 UAW 752-02-038 3/12/2002 Steelox Systems Inc. Washington CH 252 5/1/2002 (740) 636-2320 Indep 46-01-099 3/5/2002 Chilpaco Mills Chillicothe 343 3/4/2002 (740) 772-0088 PACE 47-01-095 2002 OVRDC 750 11/18/2003 Big Bear Chillicothe 100 1/10/2004 (315) 461-2643 None 747-03-054 11/18/2003 Big Bear Portsmouth 90 1/10/2004 (315) 461-2643 None 001-03-049 1/21/2003 K-Mart Washington C.H. 100 1/21/2003 (248) 463-1665 None 746-02-074 2003 OVRDC 290 9/20/2004 North America Packaging Corporation Loveland 77 2/28/2004 (919)791-2400 none 013-04-024 6/4/2004 TI Group Automotice Systems L.L.C. Washington C.H. 120 6/30/2004 (740) 335-3033 None 746-03-128 2/24/2004 Adelphia Communications Chillicothe 121 4/24/2004 (216) 575-8016 None 747-03-089 2/2/2004 Southern Ohio Fabricators, Inc. Batavia 152 3/31/2004 (513) 732-6033 None 765-03-080 2004 OVRDC 470 3/15/2005 Cincinnati Fiberglas Batavia 247 5/13/2005 513-724-6111 none 004-04-064 2005 OVRDC 247 8/7/2006 M & J Industries L.L.C. Lucasville 253 8/18/2006 (740) 259-6444 UNITE HERE 001-06-009 6/28/1905 Advance Stores Company Jeffersonville 77 4/15/2006 (540) 561-3558 None 007-05-062 (937) 587-2656, 6/30/2006 Cedar Works Peebles 84 9/1/2006 Ext. 103 None 001-05-108 2006 OVRDC 414 8/8/2007 Meridian Automotive Systems, Inc. Jackson 141 8/19/2007 (616) 527-8686 USW 007-07-015 3/19/2007 Meridian Automotive Systems, Inc. Jackson 131 5/17/2007 (616) 527-8686 USWA 007-06-074 3/7/2007 Greenfield Research, Inc. Greenfield 100 4/23/2007 (937) 981-7763 None 007-06-071 2007 OVRDC 372 10/20/2008 3M Precision Optics Cincinnati (Clermont) 106 10/17/2008 (513) 753-2092 None 012-08-046 Ford Motor Company Batavia 3/26/2008 Transmissions, LLC Batavia (Clermont) 782 5/30/2008 (513) 732-4131 UAW 012-07-089 5/30/08 until end of 2008 USW Local 2/13/2008 NewPage Chillicothe (Ross) 169 closure (715) 422-3736 #9588 020-07-076 2/7/2008 Georgia-Pacific Corrugated LLC Batavia (Clermont) 110 4/7/2008 (513) 536-3040 USWA 012-07-075 2/7/2008 3M Precision Optics Cincinnati (Clermont) 78 3/31/2008 (513) 943-5487 None 012-007-074 10/20/2008 3M Precision Optics Cincinnati (Clermont) 106 10/17/2008 (513) 753-2092 None 012-08-046 2008 OVRDC 1,351

8/11/2009 Kmart South Point (Lawrence) 60 11/8/2009 (847) 286-2500 None 007-09-024

Begins 7/17/09 until 9/15/09 (or (937) 981-2176 UAW Local 5/12/2009 Johnson Controls, Inc. Greenfield (Highland) 205 2 wks. after) ext. 6539 #1842 007-08-198 Began 1/09 Greensboro/Hillsboro until December 4/27/2009 Weastec, Inc. (Highland) 326 '09 (937) 840-1197 None 007-08-182 Begins 6/19/09 4/20/2009 Mark Andy, Inc. Milford (Clermont) 58 until 10/9/09 (513) 965-5615 None 012-08-180 Exhibit 12

WARN Notices (Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification (WARN) Act) # Date Rcd Company City Affected Layoff Date Phone Number Union WARN ID Washington C.H. GCC/IBT 2/5/2009 MeadWestVaco, Inc. (Fayette) 316 4/6/2009 (740) 636-4030 Local #508-M 007-08-119 2009 OVRDC 965 Clinton County 2008 Begins Kautex Textron (A Division of Textron, 12/31/08 until UBC Local 10/29/2008 Inc.) Wilmington (Clinton) 153 6/30/09 (937) 283-1543 #2540 007-08-053 9/17/2008 ABX Air, Inc. Wilmington (Clinton) 41 11/29/2008 (937) 366-2096 None 007-08-033 9/15/2008 ACS Business Process Solutions Wilmington (Clinton) 209 11/14/2008 (214) 584-5762 None 007-08-031 8/26/2008 ABX Air, Inc. Wilmington (Clinton) 235 10/24/2008 (937) 366-2096 IBT 007-08-023 Begins 1/2/09 12/30/2008 ABX Air, Inc. Wilmington (Clinton) 30 until 01/16/09 (937) 366-2096 None 007-08-095 Begins 12/18/09 IBT Local 12/18/2008 ABX Air, Inc. Wilmington (Clinton) 838 until2/16/2009 (937) 366-2096 #1224 007-08-092 Begins Week of 2/09 until (937) 382-8986, 12/15/2008 DealerTrack Digital Services, Inc. Wilmington (Clinton) 32 7/31/2009 Ext. 5222 None 007-08-088 Begins 12/11/08 until 12/11/2008 ABX Air, Inc. Wilmington (Clinton) 182 1/2/2009 (937) 366-2096 None 007-08-087 12/4/2008 ABX Air, Inc. Wilmington (Clinton) 228 12/4/2008 (937) 366-2096 None 007-08-077 Began 10/15/08 until Date 11/25/2008 DHL Express (USA), Inc. Wilmington (Clinton) 130 Unknown (954) 626-1946 None 007-08-072 Begins 11/20/08 until 11/20/2008 ABX Air, Inc. Wilmington (Clinton) 283 12/5/2008 (937) 366-2096 None 007-08-070 Begins 11/14/08 until IBT Local 11/14/2008 ABX Air, Inc. Wilmington (Clinton) 158 1/14/2009 (937) 366-2096 #1224 007-08-067 First Week of 1/09 until 11/13/2008 DHL Solutions Wilmington (Clinton) 229 7/31/2009 (614) 662-9208 None 007-08-066 2008 Clinton County 2,748 Clinton County 2009 5/1/2009 ABX Air, Inc. Wilmington (Clinton) 78 4/28/2009 (937) 366-2096 IBT 007-08-186 Begins 7/13 7/15/2009 ABX Air, Inc. Wilmington (Clinton) 1,034 until 8/28/09 (937) 366-2096 None 007-09-007 Begins 7/5/09 7/6/2009 ABX Air, Inc. Wilmington (Clinton) 54 until 7/17/09 (937) 366-2096 None 007-09-004 6/25/2009 ABX Air, Inc. Wilmington (Clinton) 62 6/12/2009 (937) 366-2096 None 007-08-223 5/26/2009 ABX Air, Inc. Wilmington (Clinton) 50 5/21/2009 (937) 366-2096 None 007-08-206 4/16/2009 ABX Air, Inc Wilmington (Clinton) 518 4/16/2009 (937) 366-2096 None 007-08-178 4/14/2009 ABX Air, Inc Wilmington (Clinton) 39 4/7/2009 (937) 366-2096 None 007-08-177 4/7/2009 ABX Air, Inc Wilmington (Clinton) 57 1/29/2009 (937) 366-2096 IBT 007-08-172 Begins 3/16/20 09 3/26/209 ABX Air, Inc. Wilmington (Clinton) 55 until 5/30/2009 (937) 366-2096 None 007-08-164 3/12/2009 ABX Air, Inc. Wilmington (Clinton) 66 3/12/2009 (937) 366-2096 None 007-08-151 Began 2/26/09 IBT Local 2/27/2009 ABX Air, Inc. Wilmington (Clinton) 71 until 4/30/09 (937) 366-2096 #1224 007-08-133 2/12/2009 ABX Air, Inc. Wilmington (Clinton) 347 2/12/2009 (937) 366-2096 None 007-08-123 1/20/2009 ABX Air, Inc. Wilmington (Clinton) 30 1/15/2009 (937) 366-2096 None 007-08-109 Begins 1/8/09 1/9/2009 ABX Air, Inc Wilmington (Clinton) 84 until 1/23/09 (937) 366-2096 None 007-08-103 2009 Clinton County 2,545 OVRDC Total 8,337 Clinton Total 5,293 Source: Ohio Department of Job & Family Services -- Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification (WARN) Act -- http://jfs.ohio.gov/warn/ Exhibit 13

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Project List County Catregory Project Cost Adams Infrastructure Transportation - Roads, Bridges & Rails $4,425,000 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program (Direct allocation from Department Adams Crime and Public Safety of Justice) $11,000 Adams Crime and Public Safety COPS Hiring Recovery Program (CHRP) $115,000 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program (Competitive Adams Crime and Public Safety grants through State of Ohio) $136,863 Adams Education Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, Part B) $1,181,000 Adams Education Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, Part B Preschool) $5,000 Adams Education Title I, Part A Grants to LEAs $1,150,000 Adams Energy and Environment Clean Water State Revolving Fund (WPCLF) $5,000,000 Adams Energy and Environment Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWAF) $150,000 Adams Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Public Housing Capital Fund (PHCF) $290,000 Adams Work, Opportunity, and Poverty SNAP (formerly Food Stamps) $27,000 Adams Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Workforce Investment Act (WIA) $630,000 Adams Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) $30,000 Adams/Brown Energy and Environment Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) $350,000 Adams/Brown Energy and Environment Home Weatherization $2,667,000 Adams/Brown Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Homelessness Prevention $424,000 County Project Total $16,591,863 Brown Infrastructure Rural Community Facilities $256,000 Brown Infrastructure Transportation – Roads, Bridges & Rails $1,294,000 Brown Crime and Public Safety COPS Hiring Recovery Program (CHRP) $113,000 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program (Competitive Brown Crime and Public Safety grants through State of Ohio) $157,810 Brown Education Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, Part B) $1,763,000 Brown Education Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, Part B Preschool) $58,000 Brown Education Title I, Part A Grants to LEAs $1,017,000 Brown Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Workforce Investment Act (WIA) $532,000 Brown Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Public Housing Capital Fund (PHCF) $48,000 Brown Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps) $26,000 Brown Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) $20,000 County Project Total $5,284,810 Clermont Infrastructure Rural Community Facilities $790,000 Clermont Infrastructure Transportation – Roads, Bridges & Rails $2,636,000 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program (Direct allocation from Department Clermont Crime and Public Safety of Justice) $63,000 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program (Competitive Clermont Crime and Public Safety grants through State of Ohio) $303,570 Clermont Crime and Public Safety Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) $22,136 Clermont Education National School Lunch Program $21,000 Clermont Education Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, Part B) $6,409,000 Clermont Education Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, Part B Preschool) $94,000 Clermont Education Title I, Part A Grants to LEAs $3,027,000 Clermont Energy and Environment Clean Water State Revolving Fund (WPCLF) $278,000 Clermont Energy and Environment Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWAF) $94,000 Clermont Energy and Environment Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grants (EECBG) $784,000 Clermont Energy and Environment Home Weatherization $2,070,000 Clermont Energy and Environment Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects – Operations & Maintenance $375,000 Clermont Healthcare Community Health Centers – Capital Improvement Program (CIP) $2,162,000 Community Health Centers – Increased Demand for Community Health Center Clermont Healthcare Services (IDS) $552,000 Clermont Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Homelessness Prevention $467,000 Clermont Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) $434,000 Clermont Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Workforce Investment Act (WIA) $1,112,000 Clermont Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Public Housing Capital Fund (PHCF) $420,000 Clermont Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps) $62,000 Clermont Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) $49,000 County Project Total $22,224,706 Fayette Infrastructure Transportation – Rural Transit $294,000 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program (Competitive Fayette Crime and Public Safety grants through State of Ohio) $75,498 Exhibit 13

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Project List County Catregory Project Cost Fayette Education Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, Part B) $1,048,000 Fayette Education Title I, Part A Grants to LEAs $566,000 Fayette Energy and Environment Home Weatherization $1,118,000 Fayette Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) $167,000 Fayette Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Workforce Investment Act (WIA) $185,000 Fayette Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps) $17,000 Fayette Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) $20,000 Fayette/Champaign/ Greene/Logan Infrastructure Transportation – Roads, Bridges & Rails $1,000,000 Fayette/Pike/Vinton/ Jackson/Scioto/Galli a Crime and Public Safety Crime Victims Assistance Grant Program $26,000 Fayette/Highland/R oss Crime and Public Safety COPS Hiring Recovery Program (CHRP) $163,000 Fayette/Clinton/Hig hland/Pickaway/Ros s Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Homelessness Prevention $995,000 Fayette/Pickaway Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Homelessness Prevention $200,000 County Project Total $5,874,498 Gallia Infrastructure Transportation – Roads, Bridges & Rails $400,000 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program (Competitive Gallia Crime and Public Safety grants through State of Ohio) $92,781 Gallia Education National School Lunch Program $20,000 Gallia Education Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, Part B) $1,330,000 Gallia Education Title I, Part A Grants to LEAs $1,511,000 Gallia Energy and Environment Clean Water State Revolving Fund (WPCLF) $810,000 Gallia Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Workforce Investment Act (WIA) $316,000 Gallia Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Public Housing Capital Fund (PHCF) $266,000 Gallia Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps) $29,000 Gallia Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) $30,000 Gallia/Jackson/Meig s/Vinton Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Homelessness Prevention $688,000 Gallia/Meigs Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) $320,000 County Project Total $5,812,781 Highland Infrastructure Transportation – Roads, Bridges & Rails $1,675,000 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program (Competitive Highland Crime and Public Safety grants through State of Ohio) $39,948 Highland Crime and Public Safety Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) $24,415 Highland Education Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, Part B) $1,678,000 Highland Education Title I, Part A Grants to LEAs: $1,116,000 Highland Energy and Environment Clean Water State Revolving Fund (WPCLF) $6,802,000 Highland Energy and Environment Home Weatherization $1,384,000 Highland Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) $221,000 Highland Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Workforce Investment Act (WIA) $417,000 Highland Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps) $26,000 Highland Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) $39,000 County Project Total $13,422,363 Jackson Infrastructure Transportation – Roads, Bridges & Rails $13,561,000 Jackson Crime and Public Safety COPS Hiring Recovery Program (CHRP $136,000 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program (Competitive Jackson Crime and Public Safety grants through State of Ohio) $110,576 Jackson Education National School Lunch Program $14,000 Jackson Education Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, Part B) $1,403,000 Jackson Education Title I, Part A Grants to LEAs $1,223,000 Jackson Energy and Environment Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWAF) $972,000 Jackson Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Workforce Investment Act (WIA) $483,000 Jackson Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Public Housing Capital Fund (PHCF) $299,000 Jackson Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps) $29,000 Jackson Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) $20,000 Jackson/Vinton Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) $278,000 County Project Total $18,528,576 Exhibit 13

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Project List County Catregory Project Cost Lawrence Infrastructure Transportation – Roads, Bridges & Rails $3,989,000 Lawrence Crime and Public Safety Crime Victims Assistance Grant Program $37,000 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program (Competitive Lawrence Crime and Public Safety grants through State of Ohio) $59,058 Lawrence Crime and Public Safety Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) $35,032 Lawrence Education National School Lunch Program $21,000 Lawrence Education Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, Part B) $2,804,000 Lawrence Education Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, Part B Preschool) $85,000 Lawrence Education Title I, Part A Grants to LEAs $3,307,000 Lawrence Energy and Environment Clean Water State Revolving Fund (WPCLF) $5,000,000 Lawrence Energy and Environment Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWAF) $399,000 Lawrence Energy and Environment Home Weatherization $2,373,000 Lawrence Healthcare Community Health Centers – Capital Improvement Program (CIP) $666,000 Community Health Centers – Increased Demand for Community Health Center Lawrence Healthcare Services (IDS) $219,000 Lawrence Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) $372,000 Lawrence Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Workforce Investment Act (WIA) $520,000 Lawrence Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Public Housing Capital Fund (PHCF) $585,000 Lawrence Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps) $54,000 Lawrence Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) $49,000 Lawrence/Pike/Scio to Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Homelessness Prevention $1,131,000 County Project Total $21,705,090 Pike Infrastructure Transportation – Roads, Bridges & Rails $2,750,000 Pike Infrastructure Transportation – Rural Transit $1,278,000 Pike Crime and Public Safety Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) $23,372 Pike Education National School Lunch Program $20,000 Pike Education Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, Part B) $1,344,000 Pike Education Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, Part B Preschool) $43,000 Pike Education Title I, Part A Grants to LEAs $1,888,000 Pike Energy and Environment Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWAF) $375,000 Pike Energy and Environment Home Weatherization $1,380,000 Pike Energy and Environment Rural Development – Water and Environmental Program $850,000 Pike Healthcare Community Health Centers – Capital Improvement Program (CIP) $826,000 Community Health Centers – Increased Demand for Community Health Center Pike Healthcare Services (IDS) $263,000 Pike Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) $202,000 Pike Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Workforce Investment Act (WIA) $638,000 Pike Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Public Housing Capital Fund (PHCF) $201,000 Pike Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps) $27,000 Pike Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) $20,000 County Project Total $12,128,372 Ross Infrastructure Transportation – Roads, Bridges & Rails $6,500,000 Ross Infrastructure Transportation – Rural Transit $1,510,000 $1,510,000 Ross Infrastructure Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Projects – Operations & Maintenance $622,000 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program (Direct allocation from Department Ross Crime and Public Safety of Justice) $33,000 Ross Crime and Public Safety Crime Victims Assistance Grant Program $26,000 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program (Competitive Ross Crime and Public Safety grants through State of Ohio) $153,668 Ross Crime and Public Safety Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) $36,265 Ross Education National School Lunch Program $22,000 Ross Education Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, Part B) $2,817,000 Ross Education Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, Part B Preschool) $91,000 Ross Education Title I, Part A Grants to LEAs $1,511,000 Ross Energy and Environment Home Weatherization $1,740,000 Ross Healthcare Community Health Centers – Capital Improvement Program (CIP): $1,019,000 Community Health Centers – Increased Demand for Community Health Center Ross Healthcare Services (IDS) $316,000 Ross Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) $308,000 Ross Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Workforce Investment Act (WIA) $842,000 Exhibit 13

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Project List County Catregory Project Cost Ross Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Public Housing Capital Fund (PHCF) $736,000 Ross Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps) $43,000 Ross Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) $39,000 County Project Total $18,364,933 Scioto Infrastructure Transportation – Roads, Bridges & Rails $2,000,000 Scioto Infrastructure Transportation – Rural Transit $175,000 Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program (Direct allocation from Department Scioto Crime and Public Safety of Justice) $117,000 Scioto Crime and Public Safety COPS Hiring Recovery Program (CHRP) $522,000 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program (Competitive Scioto Crime and Public Safety grants through State of Ohio) $383,993 Scioto Education National School Lunch Program $88,000 Scioto Education Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, Part B) $3,145,000 Scioto Education Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, Part B Preschool) $74,000 Scioto Education Title I, Part A Grants to LEAs $2,598,000 Scioto Energy and Environment Clean Water State Revolving Fund (WPCLF) $3,000,000 Scioto Energy and Environment Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWAF) $50,000 Scioto Energy and Environment Home Weatherization $2,659,000 Scioto Energy and Environment Nuclear Cleanup Projects $118,000,000 Scioto Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) $538,000 Scioto Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Workforce Investment Act (WIA) $1,132,000 Scioto Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Public Housing Capital Fund (PHCF) $1,751,000 Scioto Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps) $65,000 Scioto Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) $69,000 County Project Total $136,366,993 Vinton Infrastructure Transportation – Roads, Bridges & Rails $500,000 Vinton Education Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, Part B) $616,000 Vinton Education Title I, Part A Grants to LEAs $686,000 Vinton Energy and Environment Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWAF) $3,123,000 Vinton Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Workforce Investment Act (WIA) $194,000 Vinton Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps) $17,000 Vinton Work, Opportunity, and Poverty Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) $10,000 County Project Total $5,146,000 OVRDC Total $281,450,985 Ohio to receive a estimated total $8,028,589,000 in funds. Source: Recovery -- http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/available-amount-program&state=OH Source: August 2009 -- State of Ohio American Recovery and Reinvestment Act; Estimated Funding by County -- http://recovery.ohio.gov/accountability/counties/ Exhibit 14

PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN BEA EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR FROM 2001 TO 2006 Industry Area Title Code U.S. Ohio OVRDC Adams Brown Clermont Fayette Gallia Highland Jackson Lawrence Pike Ross Scioto Vinton All Total 10 6.8% 2.0% 7.8% 9.9% 13.3% 18.1% 6.4% 5.6% 6.9% 12.0% 9.2% -9.4% 3.8% -1.3% 1.8% Employment Farm 70 -6.2% -3.7% -3.4% -3.2% -3.2% -3.2% -3.8% -3.2% -3.2% -4.5% -3.0% -3.2% -3.3% -3.2% -3.4% Non-farm 80 7.0% 2.1% 8.3% 12.1% 15.4% 18.3% 7.0% 6.1% 8.0% 12.8% 9.6% -9.7% 4.0% -1.2% 2.2% Proprietors* Subtotal 40 24.5% 24.7% 17.1% 19.1% 15.8% 25.5% 18.2% 15.6% 20.3% 23.8% 15.9% 17.0% 18.2% 23.6% 10.3% Farm 50 -3.2% -2.8% -2.9% -2.8% -2.9% -2.8% -2.8% -2.8% -2.8% -2.7% -2.6% -2.9% -2.7% -3.0% -3.0% Non-farm 60 26.8% 27.1% 20.0% 29.3% 21.0% 26.7% 22.4% 21.6% 33.0% 29.1% 18.3% 21.4% 22.9% 28.3% 15.5% Subtotal Wage and Salary 20 3.2% -2.0% 4.2% 3.5% 10.8% 15.0% 2.6% 2.7% 2.2% 9.1% 6.7% -15.7% 0.9% -5.8% -0.9% Private Subtotal 90 7.6% 2.2% 8.9% 13.6% 15.7% 18.8% 7.7% 6.8% 8.2% 12.9% 12.5% -11.0% 4.9% -1.9% 5.6% Sector Forestry, Fisheries, & Related 100 -0.9% 6.0% 19.1% (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) -9.5% (D) (D) (D) 23.9%-25.0% Industries Mining 200 9.3% -6.9% -21.2% (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) -48.1% (D) (D) (D) -16.7% (D) Utilities 300 -7.4% -13.4% -6.8% (D) (D) -11.2% (D) -7.1% -1.2% (D) 15.0% (D) -15.2%26.7% (D) Construction 400 17.6% 8.5% -1.2% 28.7% (D) 17.3% 29.2% 84.4% 13.7% 27.2% (D) 26.5% 0.8% -3.4% 2.4% Manufacturing 500 -13.1% -15.8% -15.2% 2.4% 6.7% -11.1% -21.5% -31.1% -8.6% 17.3% 13.5% -40.3% -3.7% -11.4% (D) Wholesale 600 4.3% -1.1% 4.6% 23.5% -1.4% -3.0% (D) 11.2% -6.0% (D) 24.2% (D) 23.4% 1.2% (D) Retail 700 3.6% -4.3% 6.1% 5.5% -5.4% 22.5% 14.7% -16.7% 1.1% 3.6% 8.1% 4.2% -2.4% -7.5% 8.1% Transportation 800 5.3% 12.5% 19.3% (D) (D) 61.7% 28.7% -13.5% 16.4% (D) 30.6% (D) 22.1% 1.8% 7.1% Information 900 -11.0% -11.0% -11.6% 4.3% -7.5% -3.4% 2.1% -33.5% 3.0% -12.8% -4.3% -24.8% -32.5% -5.2% (D) Finance & Insurance 1000 8.0% 4.7% 16.7% 20.1% 14.2% 31.6% 10.1% 6.1% 26.5% 25.8% 4.1% -1.0% 26.2% -10.6% -3.3% Real Estate, Rental, & Leasing 1100 38.8% 22.3% 22.0% 32.3% 29.6% 29.1% 18.1% 24.6% 35.4% 49.5% 19.2% 30.6% 25.7% 24.1% 3.4% Professional & Technical Services 1200 10.6% 5.0% 20.7% 9.4% (D) 17.5% 18.6% 20.3% (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) -11.3% Management 1300 6.3% 18.1% 57.6% (D) (D) 145.6% n.a. -3.2% (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) (D) Administrative & Waste Services 1400 11.2% 7.5% 7.1% (D) 25.8% 31.3% 25.8% 49.3% 75.4% 117.1% 24.2% 105.8% 12.1% (D) (D) Education Services 1500 21.0% 22.2% 23.6% (D) 30.2% 22.1% (D) (D) 128.6% (D) 28.9% (D) 15.5% 49.4% 30.0% Health Care & Social Assistance 1600 12.9% 11.7% 18.0% (D) 11.4% 21.1% (D) (D) 7.7% (D) 28.9% (D) 12.6% 13.7% -1.3% Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 1700 11.5% 4.4% 17.1% 6.7% 12.1% 27.7% -5.9% 17.0% 144.8% -8.7% -5.8% 43.5% 10.7% 15.0% (D) Accommodation & Food Services 1800 10.5% 5.8% 10.8% -2.4% 21.7% 36.0% -0.5% -8.1% 6.8% 25.6% -4.0% -3.1% 4.9% -4.3% (D) Services 1900 12.2% 7.2% 15.9% 27.6% 24.2% 27.4% 19.1% 20.1% 24.4% 9.4% 17.9% 18.4% 0.3% 12.3% (D) Jobs not disclosed by industry n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Government Subtotal: All 2000 3.6% 0.8% 4.7% 4.3% 14.0% 14.2% 1.5% 2.0% 7.1% 12.4% -1.5% -0.7% 0.4% 1.5% -6.5% Federal: Civilian 2001 2.0% -4.6% -3.0% -2.6% -6.0% -2.8% -6.3% 4.6% -0.9% 4.1% -1.4% -1.4% -3.8% -3.2% -3.6% Federal: Military 2002 -2.8% -3.4% -2.9% -2.7% -1.8% 0.4% -4.1% -4.9% -1.8% -2.3% -4.3% -4.1% -4.1% -7.7% 0.0% State & Local 2010 4.5% 1.6% 5.6% 4.9% 15.8% 16.0% 2.0% 2.2% 8.0% 13.7% -1.4% -0.5% 1.8% 1.9% -6.9% Notes: * - Excludes limited partnerships; D - Data suppressed to maintain confidentiality. Those originally marked "L" have been given the mid-range value of 5. The following mathematical relationships exist between rows: 2000=2001+2002+2010; 40=50+60; 90=100+200+300+400+500+600+700+800+900+1000+1100+1200+1300+1400+1500+1600+1700+1800+1900; 20=70+90+2000-40; 80=90+2000; 10=70+80; also 10=40+20. Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System: www.bea.gov. Table CA25N. Prepared by: Policy Research & Strategic Planning, Ohio Dept. of Development (DL, 4/08). Exhibit 15 A

2005 Ohio Private Investment List Region County Company City SIC Product Type Jobs Investment Square Feet New Exp 1 Fayette Wal-Mart Washington CH 5311 Department stores Dist $1,000,000 Exp 1 Fayette YUSA Corp Union Twp 3714 Rubber auto parts R&D 35 $4,700,000 20,000 Exp 5 Clermont American Micro Products Batavia 3559 Machine shop Mfg 70 $2,800,000 Exp 5 Clermont Auto-Temp Inc Batavia 3231 Auto glass Dist 15 $5,200,000 75,000 Exp 5 Clermont Burd Brothers Batavia 4212 Warehousing Dist 25 $5,460,000 13,900 Exp 5 Clermont Concepts Inc Batavia Twp 5039 Cabinets & countertops Dist 16 $1,200,000 Exp 5 Clermont Falcon Fabricators Union Twp 2599 Furniture Mfg 8 $1,700,000 Exp 5 Clermont Grace Plastics Batavia 3089 Plastic products Mfg 7 $1,000,000 30,000 Exp 5 Clermont International Paper Co Miami Twp 8731 Paper products R&D $2,500,000 20,000 Exp 5 Clermont Midland Company Batavia Twp 6399 Specialty insurance OF/HQ 150 $29,000,000 Exp 5 Clermont Milacron Inc Batavia 3559 Plastic making machines Mfg $11,169,000 Exp 5 Clermont Pure Romance Loveland 5961 Catalog sales Dist 20 $2,000,000 37,800 New 5 Clermont Total Quality Logistics Miami Twp 4213 Motor freight Dist 225 $3,000,000 25,000 Exp 7 Adams Columbus Industries ph 2 West Union 2679 Paint filters Mfg 30 $1,000,000 Exp 7 Adams Maca Plastics Inc Winchester 3089 Plastic products Mfg 15 $1,500,000 Exp 7 Brown Maysville Ready Mix Aberdeen 3273 Concrete Mfg 26 $1,500,000 Exp 7 Gallia GKN Sinter Metals Gallipolis 3568 Metal auto parts Mfg 15 $1,500,000 Exp 7 Highland Huhtamaki ph 2 Penn Twp 3089 Plastic packaging Mfg 75 $18,000,000 Exp 7 Jackson Coleman Group Jackson 2671 Corrugated boxes Mfg 15 $1,600,000 101,000 Exp 7 Jackson Merillat Corp Jackson 2434 Wood cabinets Mfg 66 $1,000,000 Exp 7 Jackson Ohio Precious Metals Jackson 3339 Precious metal refining Mfg 14 $1,000,000 Exp 7 Lawrence Lawrence EDC South Point 6552 Spec building SW $1,500,000 New 7 Lawrence Rumpke of Ohio Hanging Rock 5093 Material recycling Dist 41 $4,200,000 Exp 7 Ross 3SG Corp Chillicothe 7379 Document conversion OF 190 $66,000 3,000 New 7 Ross Kenworth/PACCAR Chillicothe 3713 Semi-truck trailers Mfg 100 $18,000,000 Exp 7 Scioto Tri-America Inc Porter Twp 3498 Pipe Mfg 7 $1,500,000 New OVRDC Totals 26 1,165 $123,095,000 325,700 4 22 Ohio Totals 573 20,450 $3,820,153,000 25,396,270 Source: Office of Stratergic Research Exhibit 15 B

2006 Ohio Private Investment List Region County Company City SIC Product Type Jobs Investment Square Feet New Exp 1 Fayette Saint-Gobain Calmar Washington CH 3561 Pumps Mfg $16,000,000 Exp 1 Fayette ASAlliances Biofuels/Cargill Bloomingburg 2869 Ethanol Mfg 58 $142,852,000 New 5 Clermont AW Industries Union Twp 3499 Safes, vaults Mfg $1,300,000 45,000 Exp 5 Clermont Glenny Glass Co Milford 5039 Glass products Dist $2,600,000 48,400 Exp 5 Clermont Innerwood & Co Milford 2434 Kitchen cabinets Mfg 35,000 Exp 5 Clermont Record Express Batavia Twp 7374 Scanning service HQ/OF 6 $2,800,000 10,000 Exp 5 Clermont Spindles Plus Batavia Twp 5084 Tool & die supplies Mfg $1,250,000 12,500 Exp 5 Clermont Total Quality Logistics Union Twp 4731 Logistics op ctr OF 586 $14,600,000 100,000 New 5 Clermont Victory Industrial Products Batavia Twp 3669 Generator equipment Mfg 25 $3,200,000 New 7 Adams Pennington Seed Peebles 2499 Bird feeders Mfg 14 $5,500,000 Exp 7 Brown Hawkline Nevada LLC Mt Orab 3523 Farm equipment Mfg 72 $7,300,000 Exp 7 Gallia Hampton Inn Gallipolis 7011 Hotel Hotel $3,500,000 New 7 Gallia Repurpose LLC Patriot 3069 Fiberglass molding Mfg 16 $1,000,000 New 7 Highland Weastec Inc Hillsboro 3714 Auto parts Mfg 42 $10,000,000 Exp 7 Jackson Michelina's Inc Jackson 2083 Frozen foods Mfg $25,000,000 Exp 7 Jackson Ohio Precious Metals Jackson 3341 Metals refining Mfg $1,200,000 Exp 7 Jackson OSCO Industries Jackson 3321 Foundry Mfg 1 $3,000,000 Exp 7 Lawrence Comfort Inn South Point 7011 Hotel Hotel $3,500,000 New 7 Lawrence Engines Inc South Point 3743 Railroad car parts Mfg 50 $4,400,000 42,000 Exp 7 Lawrence LEDC South Point 6552 Spec building SW $1,450,000 33,000 New 7 Lawrence LJ Navy Distribution South Point 4213 Trucking Dist $1,500,000 56,000 Exp 7 Pike Honeywell International Scioto Twp 3569 Centrifuge machines Mfg 100 $80,000,000 900,000 New 7 Ross FedEx Ground Chillicothe 4213 Package distribution Dist 25 $3,100,000 27,000 New 7 Ross Glatfelter Chillicothe 2621 Paper products Mfg $2,700,000 Exp 7 Ross Kenworth Chillicothe 3711 Heavy trucks Mfg $50,000,000 100,000 Exp 7 Ross Ross County CIC Chillicothe 6552 Spec building SW $1,500,000 30,000 New 7 Ross YSK Corp Chillicothe 3714 Auto parts Mfg 25 $24,000,000 40,000 Exp 7 Scioto A&M Refractories New Boston 3297 Refractories Mfg 25 $1,500,000 Exp 7 Scioto Coca Cola Enterprises Portsmouth 5140 Soft drinks Dist 20 $3,700,000 New 7 Scioto OSCO Industries Portsmouth 3321 Foundry Mfg $3,000,000 Exp 7 Scioto Sun Coke Green Twp 2999 Coke Mfg 50 $225,000,000 Exp 7 Scioto TriAmerica Porter Twp 3498 Steel fabrication Mfg 7 $2,000,000 30,000 Exp 7 Vinton Alternative Bio-Fuels McArthur 2869 Bio fuels Mfg $1,200,000 10,000 New 7 Vinton Austin Powder McArthur 2892 Dynamite boosters Mfg $1,500,000 Exp OVRDC Totals 34 1,122 $651,152,000 1,518,900 12 22 Ohio Totals 518 21,082 $5,902,626,000 26,518,209 Source: Office of Stratergic Research, OHIO PRIVATE INVESTMENT SURVEY Exhibit 15 C

Ohio Infrastructure Projects Year Region County Company City SIC Product Type Jobs Investment Square Feet New Exp 2006 7 Adams Adams County Hospital Seaman 8062 Hospital Health 28 $22,500,000 Exp 7 Brown Mercy Medical Mt Orab 8062 Hospital Health $8,000,000 New 7 Lawrence IVS Hydro Inc South Point 7389 Environmental remediation Serv 30 $4,700,000 New 7 Scioto Southern Ohio Medical Center Portsmouth 8062 Hospital Health $67,000,000 142,000 Exp 2006 OVRDC Totals 458 $102,200,000 142,000 22 2006 Ohio Totals 96 3,219 $3,731,900,000 4,075,400 39 57 Source: Office of Stratergic Research, OHIO PRIVATE INVESTMENT SURVEY Exhibit 15 D

2007 Ohio Private Investment List Region County Company City SIC Product Type Jobs Investment Square Feet New Exp 1 Fayette Stage Stores/Specialty Retailers Jeffersonville 44812 Clothes DW 160 $12,000,000 200000 New 5 Clermont Freeman Schwabe Machinery Union Twp 333291 Industrial machinery MF 25 $1,620,000 25000 New 5 Clermont Smyth Automotive Union Twp 42312 Auto parts DW $2,000,000 45,000 Exp 5 Clermont Tata America / TCS Miami Twp 541512 Computer software OF/F 1000 $20,000,000 194,000 NewNew 5 Clermont Key Resin Co Union Twp 325998 Floor coatings MF 6 $2,010,000 New 5 Clermont Multi-Color Corp Union Twp 323111 Labels MF 83 $25,600,000 247,000 New 5 Clermont Sun Chemical Union Twp 325131 Ink MF/F 10 $5,000,000 Exp 5 Clermont Plastikos Corp Batavia 326199 Thermoformed plastics MF 11 $1,250,000 Exp 7 Adams GE Aviation Peebles 54138 Aircraft engine R&D R&D/MF $90,000,000 Exp 7 Adams Elixir LLC Seaman 62311 Nursing facility Health $9,600,000 New 7 Gallia InfoCision Management Gallipolis 561422 Call center CC 47 $1,100,000 30000 New 7 Jackson James H Gettles LLC Wellston 23311 Spec bldg SW $962,000 25000 New 7 Lawrence Buckeye Ethanol/McGinnis South Point 325193 Ethanol MF $50,000,000 New 7 Lawrence River's Bend HealthCare Proctorville 62311 Nursing home Health $3,000,000 New 7 Ross Riffle Machine Works Green Twp 33271 Machine shop MF 25 $1,500,000 50000 Exp 7 Scioto Norfolk Southern Portsmouth 48821 Rail yard shop Trans 77 $2,800,000 New 7 Scioto Infra-Metals Co New Boston 42511 Steel DW/F 65 $13,000,000 Exp OVRDC Totals 17 1,509 $241,442,000 622,000 11 6 Ohio Totals 514 21,453 $8,022,576,000 42,379,520 Source: Office of Stratergic Research, OHIO PRIVATE INVESTMENT SURVEY Exhibit 15 E

2008 Ohio Private Investment List Region County Company City SIC Product Type Jobs Investment Square Feet New Exp Custom Molded Products 4 Clinton LLC Wilmington 326199 Plastic products Mfg $2,300,000 146,000 New

Re-manufacture plasma 5 Clermont CKS Solutions Batavia Twp 334412 displays Mfg 60 $3,000,000 New International 5 Clermont Technologies CC Ltd Bethel 333111 Farm equipment Mfg 24 $1,300,000 150,000 Exp 5 Clermont Midland Company Amelia 524126 Insurance HQ $1,000,000 35,000 Exp 5 Clermont Milacron Inc Williamsburg Twp 33322 Machine tools HQ/Mfg $500,000 20,000 Exp 5 Clermont Penn Station Miami Twp 722211 Restaurant chain HQ 6 $1,200,000 10,000 New 5 Clermont SENCORP Union Twp 332722 Fastening systems HQ 15 $19,000,000 100,000 New 5 Clermont Slice of Stainless Union Twp 42661 Metals Dist 9 $777,000 20,200 Exp 5 Clermont Superior Steel Service Batavia Twp 332312 Steel bars Mfg 7 $1,271,000 Exp 7 Jackson Ohio Basic Minerals LLC Liberty Twp 212321 Sand and gravel Mining 30 $6,000,000 Exp 7 Lawrence Aluminastic Corp South Point 33422 Wave guides Mfg $1,500,000 New 7 Lawrence Chatham Steel Hamilton Twp 42151 Steel Dist 50 $7,900,000 65,000 New 7 Lawrence DJ Manufacturing Fayette Twp 333131 Coal mining equipment Mfg 20 $2,600,000 56,250 New 7 Lawrence J&M Steel Ironton 331221 Steel fabricator Mfg 20 $1,000,000 91,000 Exp

7 Lawrence Liebert North America Inc Ironton 333415 A/C products Mfg 50 $1,500,000 12,000 Exp Barge manufacturing 7 Lawrence McGinnis Inc Fayette Twp 33661 and repair Mfg 50 $5,700,000 127,500 New MMK/New Steel 7 Scioto International Green Twp 331111 Steel Mfg 528 $680,000,000 New 7 Scioto Sun Coke Green Twp 324199 Coke Mfg $10,000,000 Exp OVVRDC Totals 17 869 $744,248,000 686950 8 9 State Totals 487 27,486 $11,503,802,000 21,280,100 Source: Office of Stratergic Research, OHIO PRIVATE INVESTMENT SURVEY Exhibit 16

Annual Estimates of Housing Units for Counties in OVRDC April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 Percente Housing Unit Estimates April 1, 2000 Geographic Area Change: Estimates July 1, 2008 July 1, 2007 July 1, 2006 July 1, 2005 July 1, 2004 July 1, 2003 July 1, 2002 July 1, 2001 July 1, 2000 Census 2000-2008 Base United States 9.89 129,065,264 127,923,866 126,316,298 124,538,598 122,685,794 120,977,467 119,386,709 117,867,745 116,295,266 115,904,473 115,904,641 Ohio 5.61 5,079,873 5,065,759 5,043,921 5,008,015 4,967,693 4,924,455 4,880,644 4,838,383 4,794,706 4,783,074 4,783,051 OVRDC 5.53 278,991 278,356 277,378 275,597 273,555 271,301 268,577 266,327 263,557 263,095 263,094 .Adams County 1.11 11,990 12,022 12,066 12,094 12,090 12,082 12,017 11,948 11,857 11,822 11,822 .Brown County 13.14 19,764 19,226 18,676 17,972 17,724 17,639 17,519 17,367 17,167 17,193 17,193 .Clermont County 11.10 78,138 77,802 77,352 76,522 75,285 73,654 72,267 70,877 69,468 69,227 69,226 .Fayette County 6.34 12,735 12,689 12,553 12,403 12,272 12,200 12,093 12,019 11,927 11,904 11,904 .Gallia County -1.26 13,284 13,339 13,386 13,416 13,442 13,454 13,525 13,510 13,451 13,499 13,498 .Highland County 3.93 18,328 18,295 18,221 18,131 18,030 17,844 17,756 17,708 17,608 17,583 17,583 .Jackson County 4.81 14,665 14,638 14,599 14,548 14,455 14,363 14,292 14,168 13,960 13,908 13,909 .Lawrence County 0.14 27,265 27,348 27,419 27,451 27,475 27,499 27,492 27,382 27,228 27,190 27,189 .Pike County 5.91 12,368 12,363 12,336 12,214 12,015 11,836 11,808 11,779 11,637 11,602 11,602 .Ross County 1.97 30,127 30,206 30,266 30,302 30,182 30,175 29,986 29,784 29,533 29,461 29,461 .Scioto County 1.72 34,654 34,728 34,780 34,810 34,848 34,823 34,102 34,083 34,058 34,053 34,054 .Vinton County 0.18 5,673 5,700 5,724 5,734 5,737 5,732 5,720 5,702 5,663 5,653 5,653 Note: The April 1, 2000 Housing Unit Estimates Base reflects changes to the Census 2000 housing units from the Count Question Resolution program and geographic program revisions. Suggested Citation: Table 4: Annual Estimates of Housing Units for Counties in Ohio: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 (HU-EST2008-04-39) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division Release Date: August 6, 2009 Exhibit 17

NUMBER OF PRIVATE HOUSING UNITS AUTHORIZED BY BUILDING PERMIT, OHIO AND COUNTIES: 1998-2007

Area 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2007 Rank % Change Ohio 48,039 55,888 49,756 49,957 51,253 53,385 51,695 47,727 34,422 27,095 -44.6 OVRDC 1,893 2,445 2,399 2,280 2,041 2,228 2,236 2,437 1,828 1,579 -14.7 Adams 9712214001878 204.5 Brown 57 101 111 94 79 115 225 202 270 324 23 169.2 Clermont 1,366 1,869 1,657 1,651 1,472 1,436 1,311 1,528 972 820 11 -38.8 Fayette 119 158 105 95 132 100 162 181 171 81 54 -29.1 Gallia 377514610086 -88.2 Highland 48 52 59 44 98 114 62 144 135 107 47 68.4 Jackson 144 128 186 134 93 124 114 89 90 84 53 -50.6 Lawrence 52 30 103 113 26 16 29 35 19 13 79 -89.4 Pike 23 11 96 22 35 204 233 155 76 59 65 39.4 Ross 67 77 68 64 46 48 47 39 41 31 72 -68.2 Scioto 5 5 6 56 57 66 43 59 54 42 68 94.1 Vinton 000000040086 0.0 Note: 0 may also mean no data collected. Source: Building Permits Survey [machine-readable data files] / prepared by the Bureau of the Census. Washington, D.C.: the Bureau [producer and distributor], 1998-2007. Prepared by: Office of Strategic Research, Ohio Dept. of Development . Exhibit 18

RESIDENTIAL SALES DATA FOR COUNTIES GOING THROUGH REAPPRAISAL (DATA FOR 2008 ARE NOT AVAILABLE YET FOR SELECTED COUNTIES) Number of Sales Median Sales Price Median Market to Price Ratio Percent Percent Percent 2005 2006 2007 2008 Change 2005 2006 2007 2008 Change 2005 2006 2007 2008 Change Adams 251 270 231 164 -37.99 $52,600 $49,650 $62,500 $59,950 13.08 81.41% 77.44% 84.38% 86.27% 5.90 Brown 512 503 416 247 -63.17 $89,209 $92,200 $92,250 $85,000 -4.69 80.74% 87.65% 87.75% 89.58% 10.23 Clermont 2,265 2,315 1,828 N/A -20.46 $146,000 $142,000 $143,000 N/A -2.09 85.59% 83.99% 85.34% N/A -0.30 Fayette 298 304 206 138 -67.65 $90,863 $97,500 $91,250 $94,750 4.15 80.33% 87.94% 91.21% 93.62% 15.06 Gallia 214 192 159 N/A -29.20 $71,000 $65,000 $68,000 N/A -4.41 91.62% 86.58% 83.34% N/A -9.50 Highland 567 591 436 279 -61.51 $79,000 $80,000 $85,250 $81,000 2.46 81.92% 88.52% 88.53% 92.28% 11.79 Jackson 304 268 243 N/A -22.45 $67,250 $65,224 $67,500 N/A 0.38 89.24% 83.27% 84.36% N/A -5.69 Lawrence 495 502 559 425 -14.13 $81,500 $86,000 $90,000 $93,000 13.12 78.86% 75.81% 90.28% 83.73% 5.93 Pike 187 166 140 N/A -28.60 $82,000 $82,000 $80,000 N/A -2.46 80.10% 80.06% 79.02% N/A -1.35 Ross 730 586 591 448 -47.90 $95,000 $96,655 $100,000 $97,250 2.31 82.90% 81.47% 95.00% 93.40% 11.90 Scioto 684 605 565 484 -34.22 $64,000 $68,000 $69,000 $71,000 10.29 81.35% 80.69% 85.86% 84.52% 3.82 Vinton 78 75 71 48 -44.12 $57,500 $63,000 $55,000 $58,750 2.13 78.79% 85.99% 85.98% 96.29% 20.17 OVRDC 6,585 6,377 5,445 2,233 -18.58 $80,250 $81,000 $82,625 $83,000 3.37 81.38% 83.63% 85.92% 90.93% 11.17 Statewide Totals 140,345 127,079 103,898 33,150 -29.45 $94,175 $95,875 $96,950 $95,000 0.86 85.46% 85.74% 89.33% 93.40% 8.97 N/A: Data not available yet when information was released. Source: Ohio Department of Taxation -- Tax Data Series RESIDENTIAL SALES DATA BY COUNTY AND JURISDICTION Valid Sales from 2005 through 2008 Website 8/1/2009: http://tax.ohio.gov/channels/research/residential_sales_data_by_county_and_jurisdiction.stm Note: For OVRDC and Statewide Totals for "Number of Sales" Percent Change 2005-2007 numbers were used because 2008 values for selected counties were not available yet. The number of sales reported in the spreadsheet includes only those sales that are considered valid for use in sales ratio studies. Excluded are sales due to foreclosure, sales between family members, sales where only a portion of a parcel is part of the transaction, and other sales that are not deemed to be arm’s-length transactions by a willing seller. In addition, sales where the price of the transaction differs from the market value for tax purposes by more than 50 percent are also excluded. The final column in the table is the median ratio of the market value for tax purposes as a percentage of sales price within each jurisdiction. Under guidelines established by the International Association of Assessment Officers (IAAO), the median ratio should be between 90 percent and 110 percent for taxable values to best reflect actual market conditions. In practice, the Department of Taxation aims to have the ratios in the year of reappraisal or triennial update to be at least 90 percent and, preferably, in the 92 – 94 percent range. Exhibit 19

Foreclosures Percent 2008 Change 2006 2007 2008 Percent 2008 Rank 2006-2008 Adams 23 20 30 0.250% 80 28.77 Brown 113 163 433 2.310% 14 135.40 Clermont 619 1,135 1,742 2.250% 15 96.37 Fayette 75 141 261 2.080% 19 116.98 Gallia 3 5 9 0.070% 86 105.88 Highland 183 257 292 1.600% 34 44.67 Jackson 11 71 133 0.910% 63 170.23 Lawrence 61 165 225 0.820% 66 109.09 Pike 42 41 86 0.700% 73 78.11 Ross 155 388 467 1.540% 36 92.67 Scioto 47 223 403 1.160% 54 158.69 Vinton 0 3 7 0.120% 84 210.00 OVRDC 1,332 2,612 4,088 1.151% 102.94 Ohio 44,468 89,979 113,570 2.250% 7 83.59

Source: Ohio Secretary of State-- Better Lives, Better Ohio: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Text.aspx?page=7864&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 Foreclosure data is collected and compiled by RealtyTrac, the leading online marketplace for foreclosure properties and publishes the United State’s largest, most comprehensive foreclosure database, with more than 1.5 million default, auction, and bank-owned homes from across the country. RealtyTrac collects and aggregates foreclosure data from more than 2,200 counties, covering more than 90 percent of U.S. households, appends the data with estimated property values, comparable sales, loan history, tax liens and bankruptcy records, trustee and lender information, and property details. The number of foreclosure filings represents the number of homes that received some type of foreclosure notice, including default notices, auction sale notices and bank repossessions. Percent refers to the percent of all homes in foreclosure and rank represents the county rank in the state. Data is unavailable for 2006 and 2007. Learn More: The data present here is collected and compiled by RealtyTrac. Exhibit 20

New Foreclosure Filings 2004 through 2008 Change in Change in 2008 over 2008 over County 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2007 2004 Adams 130 118 107 116 155 33.60% 19.20% Brown 277 300 308 336 371 10.40% 33.90% Clermont 796 812 988 1,123 1,285 14.40% 61.40% Fayette 128 167 195 195 216 10.80% 68.80% Gallia 61 84 82 94 95 1.10% 55.70% Highland 279 286 317 334 351 5.10% 25.80% Jackson 148 149 184 205 198 -3.40% 33.80% Lawrence 174 223 206 241 260 7.90% 49.40% Pike 107 101 108 106 129 21.70% 20.60% Ross 366 293 399 413 416 0.70% 13.70% Scioto 277 312 326 330 304 -7.90% 9.70% Vinton 40 40 43 52 43 -17.30% 7.50% OVRDC 2,783 2,885 3,263 3,545 3,823 7.84% 37.37% Statewide 59,041 63,996 79,059 83,230 85,773 3.10% 45.30% Source: Supreme Court of Ohio, Case Management Section, 2/11/2009 website: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/PIO/news/2009/foreclosureincrease_021109.asp Exhibit 21 Summary on OVRDC County Income Statements

Excess of Total Revenues Total Other Revenues and Fund Balances Fund Balances Ending Over/(Under) Financing Other Financing (Deficit) at (Deficits) at End 12/31/2002 Total Revenues Total Expenditures Expenditures Sources (Uses) Sources Beginning of Year of Year Adams$ 17,759,822 $ 18,999,128 $ (1,239,306) $ 41,562 $ (1,197,744) $ 8,973,371 $ 7,775,627 Brown$ 23,478,707 $ 24,803,048 $ (1,324,341) $ 31,182 $ (1,293,159) $ 17,189,183 $ 15,873,273 Clermont$ 104,891,334 $ 103,969,560 $ 921,774 $ 730,520 $ 1,652,294 $ 62,539,617 $ 64,191,911 Fayette$ 24,924,451 $ 24,292,590 $ 631,861 $ 57,468 $ 689,329 $ 6,233,252 $ 6,898,781 Gallia$ 24,759,255 $ 24,552,044 $ 207,211 $ 22,686 $ 229,897 $ 5,881,809 $ 6,061,021 Highland$ 23,887,389 $ 38,716,157 $ (14,828,768) $ 14,425,942 $ (402,826) $ 9,765,598 $ 9,362,772 Jackson$ 21,824,161 $ 25,214,503 $ (3,390,342) $ 2,603,595 $ (786,747) $ 5,962,524 $ 5,175,777 Lawrence$ 36,276,255 $ 37,936,692 $ (1,660,437) $ 2,179,470 $ 519,033 $ 10,131,473 $ 10,650,506 Pike$ 23,956,591 $ 23,633,813 $ 322,778 $ 320,531 $ 643,309 $ 7,710,673 $ 8,324,449 Ross$ 46,455,464 $ 46,821,963 $ (366,499) $ 4,334 $ (366,499) $ 5,746,916 $ 5,384,751 Scioto$ 50,847,186 $ 54,144,221 $ (3,297,035) $ 582,449 $ (2,714,586) $ 17,660,895 $ 14,946,309 Vinton$ 13,755,507 $ 14,541,430 $ (785,923) $ 2,000,000 $ 1,214,077 $ 4,318,541 $ 5,511,424

Excess of Total Revenues Total Other Revenues and Fund Balances Fund Balances Ending Over/(Under) Financing Other Financing (Deficit) at (Deficits) at End 12/31/2007 Total Revenues Total Expenditures Expenditures Sources (Uses) Sources Beginning of Year of Year Adams$ 24,671,283 $ 24,426,159 $ 245,124 $ 210,392 $ 455,516 $ 9,000,126 $ 9,455,642 Brown$ 28,695,012 $ 27,179,044 $ 1,515,968 $ 100,045 $ 1,616,013 $ 15,281,418 $ 16,897,431 Clermont$ 121,350,868 $ 120,251,477 $ 1,099,391 $ 2,550,248 $ 2,374,335 $ 55,382,588 $ 57,756,923 Fayette$ 29,462,146 $ 33,321,830 $ (3,859,684) $ 5,002,122 $ 1,142,438 $ 7,626,136 $ 8,768,574 Gallia$ 29,779,558 $ 33,230,080 $ (3,450,522) $ 553,417 $ (2,897,105) $ 8,372,253 $ 5,475,148 Highland$ 31,299,605 $ 32,537,862 $ (1,238,257) $ 1,469,261 $ 231,004 $ 6,474,956 $ 6,705,960 Jackson$ 28,552,334 $ 31,346,781 $ (2,794,447) $ 2,561,780 $ (221,867) $ 6,362,745 $ 6,140,878 Lawrence$ 43,945,868 $ 43,758,191 $ 187,677 $ 315,725 $ 503,402 $ 9,535,444 $ 10,038,846 Pike$ 26,829,661 $ 28,441,252 $ (1,611,591) $ 3,537,414 $ 1,925,823 $ 12,149,991 $ 14,075,814 Ross$ 57,013,580 $ 58,296,221 $ (1,282,641) $ 1,474,741 $ 192,100 $ 7,526,210 $ 7,718,310 Scioto$ 58,402,684 $ 60,554,009 $ (2,151,325) $ 1,388,574 $ (862,751) $ 14,503,752 $ 13,641,001 Vinton$ 21,564,909 $ 20,831,028 $ 733,881 $ 75,000 $ 808,881 $ 2,675,637 $ 3,484,518

Excess of Percent Total Revenues Total Other Revenues and Fund Balances Fund Balances Change 2002- Over/(Under) Financing Other Financing (Deficit) at (Deficits) at End 2007 Total Revenues Total Expenditures Expenditures Sources (Uses) Sources Beginning of Year of Year Adams 38.92 28.56 -119.78 406.21 -138.03 0.30 21.61 Brown 22.22 9.58 -214.47 220.84 -224.97 -11.10 6.45 Clermont 15.69 15.66 19.27 249.10 43.70 -11.44 -10.02 Fayette 18.21 37.17 -710.84 8604.19 65.73 22.35 27.10 Gallia 20.28 35.35 -1765.22 2339.46 -1360.18 42.34 -9.67 Highland 31.03 -15.96 -91.65 -89.82 -157.35 -33.70 -28.38 Jackson 30.83 24.32 -17.58 -1.61 -71.80 6.71 18.65 Lawrence 21.14 15.35 -111.30 -85.51 -3.01 -5.88 -5.74 Pike 11.99 20.34 -599.29 1003.61 199.36 57.57 69.09 Ross 22.73 24.51 249.97 33927.25 -152.41 30.96 43.34 Scioto 14.86 11.84 -34.75 138.40 -68.22 -17.88 -8.73 Vinton 56.77 43.25 -193.38 -96.25 -33.37 -38.04 -36.78 Source: Ohio Auditor of State -- Audit Search -- http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/AuditSearch/Search.aspx Exhibit 22

ANNUAL LOAN/GRANT REPORTS TO THE LEGISLATURE FOR 2000, 2004 & 2007

2000 2004 2007 Percent Change Projected Jobs Projected Jobs Projected Jobs Total Funds Total Total Funds Total Funds Total Funds Total County Approved Projects Created Retained TrainedApproved Total Projects Created Retained TrainedApproved Total Projects Created Retained Trained Approved Projects ADAMS $3,378,870 7 6 8 $492,686 4 55 40 2,367,841 8 50 350 - -48.61 15.79 BROWN $210,700 2 $2,447,000 6 173 20 249,500 5 - - - 4.00 69.23 CLERMONT $4,395,609 7 $5,917,083 8 85 25 129 22,230,662 26 1,378 708 1,080 164.41 139.02 FAYETTE $3,544,101 7 16 3 100 $3,307,400 6 7,172,208 17 160 - - 77.61 100.00 GALLIA $1,046,000 7 50 438 $959,100 5 30 2,603,978 14 51 167 - 101.41 80.77 HIGHLAND $3,901,840 6 94 650 161 $1,740,000 4 144 6,447,689 15 42 257 21 63.17 108.00 JACKSON $6,874,000 7 68 32 $1,831,000 5 45 1,958,500 7 - - - -138.29 0.00 LAWRENCE $2,306,500 7 700 200 $1,448,000 4 50 6,816,839 18 106 163 92 128.00 113.79 PIKE $1,780,000 8 220 200 $12,595,756 9 325 2,818,974 14 - - - 18.13 58.06 ROSS $1,429,200 8 $1,258,000 5 210 212 1,884,021 10 50 61 - 29.85 26.09 SCIOTO $688,000 4 $1,843,400 5 164 468 3,287,123 9 142 247 - 134.01 83.33 VINTON $740,000 4 10 $1,049,000 2 1,717,000 9 20 67 - 83.60 100.00 OVRDC Total $30,294,820 74 1154 1133 669 $34,888,425 63 897 235 1,043 $59,554,335 152 1999 2020 1193 70.37 80.97 Ohio Totals $307,456,753 916 28,167 37,063 29,695 $372,151,480 1,261 18,222 56,402 57,543 921,254,620 1,476 21,843 26,661 29,615 115.03 45.99 Source: Office of Strategic Research Priority Investment Areas for 2009 (Distressed - Labor Surplus - Inner City - Situational Distress)

Lake Ashtabula Lucas Fulton Williams Ottawa

Cuyahoga Wood Defiance Henry Sandusky Erie Lorain Trumbull

Portage Paulding Seneca Huron Medina Summit

Putnam Mahoning Hancock

Van Wert Wyandot Crawford Ashland Wayne Stark Allen Richland Columbiana

Hardin Auglaize Marion Carroll Morrow Jefferson Tuscarawas Logan Knox Shelby Coshocton Harrison

Darke Champaign Licking Miami Guernsey Belmont Franklin Muskingum Clark Madison

Noble Preble Montgomery Fairfield Perry Monroe Greene Pickaway Morgan Fayette Hocking Butler Warren Clinton

Ross Athens Vinton Hamilton Highland Meigs Clermont Pike Jackson Brown Adams Scioto Distressed Cities Gallia !( !( Labor Surplus Cities Lawrence !( Situational Distress Cities !( Inner City Distress Distressed Counties Programs: Labor Surplus Counties Clean Ohio Revitalization Fund Rural Industrial Park Loan Program Situational Distress Urban - Rural Grants Pioneer Rural Loan Program Counties with populations exceeding 125,000 excluded Ohio Investment in Training Program from Rural Industrial Park Loan Program.

Prepared for Urban Development Division, Strategic Business Investment Division, and Workforce & Talent Division by PR&SP, ODOD. (4/2009) Exhibit 24

WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES

AVERAGE EPA COUNTY FACILITY PRODUCTION DESIGN CAP. FINDINGS RESIDENTIAL USERS Surface Water: Surface Groundwater: Surface Purchased Water: Adams Village of Peebles 800 175,000 GPD N/A FALSE Adams Village of Seaman 450 98,000 N/A FALSE Adams Village of West Union 1,400 300,000 GPD N/A FALSE Adams Village of Winchester 450 N/A N/A FALSE Adams Village of Manchester 950 X 200,000 936,000 FALSE Adams Adams County Regional Water District 5,800 X 1.9 Million 800 Million GPD FALSE Athens Le-Ax Water District 383 X 1,430,000 2.9 MGD FALSE Brown Village of Mt. Orab 1,979 X 480,000 700,000 FALSE Brown Village of Ripley 896 X N/A 525,000 FALSE Brown Village of Saint Martin 50 X N/A N/A FALSE Brown Village of Sardinia 443 X Unknown N/A FALSE Brown Village of Aberdeen 1,100 X 200,000 295,000 FALSE Brown Village of Georgetown 1,702 380,000 N/A FALSE Brown Village of Hamersville 510 N/A N/A FALSE Brown Lake Waynoka Reg. Water/Sewer Dist. 640 X 100,000 432,000 FALSE Brown Brown County Rural Water N/A N/A N/A FALSE Brown Brown County Rural Water Association N/A X N/A N/A FALSE Brown Village of Fayetteville N/A N/A N/A FALSE Clermont Tate-Monroe Water Association 8,700 X 1.8 MGD 4.0 MGD FALSE Clermont City of Milford Water Treatment Plant 2,015 X 650,000 1.44 MGD TRUE Clermont Village of Williamsburg Water System 900 X Unknown N/A FALSE Clermont Clermont County Water Works BMW 12,000 X 4.8 MGD 10 MGD FALSE Clermont Clermont County Water Works PUB 23,000 X 7.5 MGD 15 MGD FALSE Clermont Clermont County Water Works MGS 4,000 X 0.5 MGD 2.2 MGD FALSE Clermont Village of New Richmond Water Treatment Plant 700 X 180,000 1.0 MGD FALSE Clermont Village of Batavia Water System 680 X 184,000 N/A FALSE Clermont City of Loveland Water System N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FALSE Clermont Village of Felicity Water Treatment Plant 608 X 150,000 575,000 FALSE Clermont Village of Bethel Water Treatment Plant 1137 X 245,000 750,000 FALSE Fayette Fayette Co.-Culpepper Subdivision 90 X 17,000 230,400 FALSE Fayette I-71 & SR-35 WTP (Fayette Co Utilities) 35 X 90,000 300,000 FALSE Fayette Jeffersonville Village PWS 500 X 150,000 295,000 FALSE Fayette Washington Court House PWS 6,700 X 1,450,000 3,000,000 FALSE Fayette New Holland, Village Of 400 X 70,000 120,000 TRUE Fayette Bloomingburg Village PWS 375-385 X 105,000 216,000 TRUE Gallia Gallia County Rural Water Association 8,377 X 1,800,000 4.2MGD FALSE Gallia City of Gallipolis 3,062 X 1,000,000 4 MGD FALSE Gallia Ohio MR/Gallipolis Development Center 28 X 88,000 1.5 MGD FALSE Gallia Village of Rio Grande 237 100,000 N/A TRUE Highland City of Greenfield 2,245 X 600,000 1.2 MGD FALSE Highland Village of Lynchburg 592 X 110,000 .25 MGD FALSE Highland Village of Leesburg 581 X 130,000 2 MGD FALSE Highland City of Hillsboro 2,928 X 900,000 2.4 MGD FALSE Highland Highland County Water Company 10,360 X 2,210,000 3.9 MGD FALSE Jackson Village of Coalton 258 X N/A N/A FALSE Exhibit 24

WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES

AVERAGE EPA COUNTY FACILITY PRODUCTION DESIGN CAP. FINDINGS RESIDENTIAL USERS Surface Water: Surface Groundwater: Surface Purchased Water: Jackson Jackson County Water Company M Line-4001603 18 X 1,820 N/A FALSE Jackson Jackson County Water Company O Line-4001803 17 1,540 N/A FALSE Jackson City of Wellston North Water Plant 2,450 X 1 MGD 2 MGD FALSE Jackson Village of Oak Hill 1,220 X N/A N/A FALSE Jackson City of Wellston South Water Plant 10 X 750,000 2.2 MGD FALSE Jackson Village of Coalton 262 X N/A N/A FALSE Jackson City of Jackson 2,932 X N/A 4 MGD FALSE Jackson Jackson Co Water Company Consolidated System 4,880 X .78 MGD 2.8 MGD FALSE Jackson Jackson Co Water Company P Line-4001903 28 2,382 N/A FALSE Lawrence Hecla Water Association Inc. 9,500 X N/A 2.5 MGD FALSE Lawrence South Point 1,900 X N/A 1 Million GPD FALSE Lawrence City of Ironton WP 4,800 X N/A N/A FALSE Lawrence Lawrence Water Corporation 1,900 N/A N/A FALSE Lawrence Village of Proctorville 300 X 55,000 GPD N/A FALSE Lawrence Ohio Hiurican Water 3,400 X X .7 8 MGD FALSE Lawrence Village of Coal Grove WTP 1,421 X 5.55 GPD 5.50 Million GPD FALSE Meigs Leading Creek Conservancy District WTP 2,186 X 500,000 1.0 MGD FALSE Pike Waverly Water 2200 X .6 -.7 MGD 2 MGD FALSE Pike Pike Water 5,986 X 1.4 Million 1.9 MGD FALSE Pike Piketon 665 X 338,000 1,000,000 FALSE Ross Bainbridge Village PWS 460 X 160,000 210,000 FALSE Ross Chillicothe City PWS 9350 X 3,500,000 7,000,000 FALSE Ross Clarksburg Village PWS 215 X 45,000 75,000 FALSE Ross Frankfort Village PWS 512 X 112,000 410,000 FALSE Ross Kingston Village PWS 476 X 115,000 230,000 FALSE Ross Ross Correctional Institute 130 X 1,750,000 3,500,000 FALSE Ross Ross County Water Co Inc PWS (Plant 1) 12,700 X 2,800,000 3,000,000 FALSE Ross Ross County Water Co Inc PWS (Plant 2) 12,700 X 500,000 4,000,000 FALSE Scioto City of Portsmouth WTP 44,000 X 6-7 MGD 15.5 MGD FALSE Scioto Scioto County Regional Water District No.1 6,275 X 3.25 MGD 4.5 MGD FALSE Scioto Northwest Regional Water District 4,559 X 1.5 Million 36 Million GPD FALSE Vinton Village of McArthur Water System 925 X 170,000 N/A FALSE Vinton Village of Hamden Water System 413 X 45,000 N/A FALSE Vinton Vinton County Water Company 562 X 24,000 N/A TRUE Vinton Village of Zaleski Water Treatment Plant 205 X 24,000 150,000 FALSE Source: 2005 OVRDC Survey of Waste Water Treatment Facilities and Water Facilities OHIO VALLEY REGIONAL Ohio County Profiles DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Recreated by OVRDC -- Source Reports prepared by the Office of Strategic Research Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission

2006 Population: 658,603 Land Area: 5,988.7 square miles Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission 9329 St Rt 220 E, Suite A Waverly, OH 45690 Phone: (740) 947-2853 Fax: (740) 947-3468 Taxes Taxable value of real property $9,088,482,750 Residential $6,421,072,170 Agriculture $907,342,920 Industrial $323,543,940 Commercial $1,431,912,080 Mineral $4,611,640 Ohio income tax liability $347,476,029 Average per return $1,272.73

Land Use/Land Cover Percent Urban (Residential/Commercial/Industrial/ Transportation and Urban Grasses) 2.71% Cropland 28.31% Pasture 11.74% Forest 56.11% Open Water 0.77% Wetlands (Wooded/Herbaceous) 0.00% Bare/Mines 0.18%

Largest Areas Census 2000 Est. 2006 Union twp, Clermont Co. 42,332 43,635 Miami twp, Clermont Co. 36,632 39,619 Chillicothe, Ross Co. 21,796 22,216 Portsmouth, Scioto Co. 20,909 20,132 Batavia twp UB, Clermont Co 15,039 17,362 Goshen twp, Clermont Co 13,663 16,052 Washington C. H. city, Fayette 13,631 13,612 Union twp, Ross Co. 11,750 11,880 Ironton, Lawrence Co. 11,211 11,416 Pierce twp UB, Clermont Co 10,321 10,910

UB: Unincorporated Balance

Total Population 800,000 Census Estimated 700,000 1800 11,972 1900 356,005 2001 639,357 600,000 1810 50,113 1910 342,968 2002 643,453 500,000 1820 103,171 1920 343,268 2003 647,321 1830 135,014 1930 359,682 2004 651,023 400,000

1840 171,461 1940 390,973 2005 654,605 population 300,000 1850 231,013 1950 400,136 2006 658,603 1860 276,884 1960 466,196 200,000 1870 307,680 1970 471,751 Projected 100,000 1880 344,120 1980 554,149 2010 683,550 1890 344,229 1990 581,740 2020 727,210 0 2000 635,970 2030 762,710 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Ohio County Profiles Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission

Population by Race Number PercentPopulation by Age Number Percent Total Population 635,970 100.0% Total Population 635,970 100.0% White 610,737 96.0% Under 6 years 51,582 8.1% African-American 12,135 1.9% 6 to 17 years 114,338 18.0% Native American 2,269 0.4% 18 to 24 years 55,417 8.7% Asian 2,637 0.4% 25 to 44 years 189,116 29.7% Pacific Islander 124 0.0% 45 to 64 years 146,864 23.1% Other 1,112 0.2% 65 years and more 78,653 12.4% Two or More Races 6,956 1.1% Median Age 36.3 Hispanic (may be of any race) 4,191 0.7% Total Minority 27,898 4.4% Family Type by Presence of Own Children Under 18 Number Percent Educational Attainment Number Percent Total Families 175,597 100.0% Persons 25 years and over 414,633 100.0% Married-couple families No high school diploma 97,209 23.4% with own children 63,725 36.3% High school graduate 169,912 41.0% Male householder, no wife Some college, no degree 71,083 17.1% present, with own children 5,599 3.2% Associate degree 22,535 5.4% Female householder, no husband Bachelor's degree 35,153 8.5% present, with own children 15,582 8.9% Master's degree or higher 18,741 4.5% Families with no own children 90,691 51.6%

Family Type by Poverty Status in 1999 of Families Employment Status Number Percent By Family Type by Presence Total Families 175,597 100.0% Of Related Children Number Percent Married couple, husband and Total Families 175,597 100.0% wife in labor force 68,907 16.6% Family income above poverty level 157,483 25.4% Married couple, husband in Family income below poverty level 18,114 2.9% labor force, wife not 33,330 8.0% Married couple, Married couple, wife in labor with related children 5,256 0.8% force, husband not 10,944 2.6% Male householder, no wife Married couple, husband and present, with related children 1,385 0.2% wife not in labor force 26,971 6.5% Female householder, no husband Male householder, present, with related children 7,100 1.1% in labor force 6,749 1.6% Families with no related children 4,373 0.7% Male householder, not in labor force 2,718 0.7% Female householder, in labor force 16,253 3.9% Ratio of Income in 1999 Female householder, To Poverty Level Number Percent not in labor force 9,725 2.3% Population for whom poverty status is determined 620,054 100.0% Below 50% of poverty level 32,726 5.3% Household Income in 1999 Number Percent 50% to 99% of poverty level 49,544 8.0% Total Households 241,520 100.0% 100% to 149% of poverty level 59,346 9.6% Less than $10,000 27,987 11.6% 150% to 199% of poverty level 59,939 9.7% $10,000 to $19,999 36,236 15.0% 200% of poverty level or more 418,499 67.5% $20,000 to $29,999 35,409 14.7% $30,000 to $39,999 32,651 13.5% $40,000 to $49,999 27,084 11.2% Residence in 1995 Number Percent $50,000 to $59,999 22,342 9.3% Population 5 years and over 592,674 100.0% $60,000 to $74,999 22,698 9.4% $75,000 to $99,999 20,671 8.6% Same house in 1995 347,192 58.6% $100,000 to $149,999 11,262 4.7% Different house, same county 142,639 24.1% $150,000 to $199,999 2,535 1.0% Different county, same state 66,730 11.3% $200,000 or more 2,645 1.1% Different state 33,231 5.6% Puerto Rico or U.S. islands 68 0.0% Median household income $36,735 Foreign country 2,814 0.5% Ohio County Profiles Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission

Travel Time To Work Number Percent Gross Rent Number Percent Workers 16 years and over 271,034100.0% Specified renter-occupied housing units 60,611 100.0% Less than 15 minutes 70,954 26.2% Less than $100 905 1.5% 15 to 29 minutes 87,995 32.5% $100 to $199 4,524 7.5% 30 to 44 minutes 55,139 20.3% $200 to $299 5,145 8.5% 45 to 59 minutes 24,089 8.9% $300 to $399 10,270 16.9% 60 minutes or more 25,484 9.4% $400 to $499 12,593 20.8% Worked at home 7,373 2.7% $500 to $599 10,019 16.5% Mean travel time 28.3 minutes $600 to $699 5,079 8.4% $700 to $799 2,988 4.9% $800 to $899 1,444 2.4% $900 to $999 644 1.1% Housing Units Number Percent Total housing units 263,094 100.0% $1,000 to $1,499 804 1.3% $1,500 or more 174 0.3% Occupied housing units 241,464 91.8% No cash rent 6,022 9.9% Owner occupied 178,154 67.7% Renter occupied 63,310 24.1% Median gross rent $489 Vacant housing units 21,630 8.2% Median gross rent as a percentage of household income in 1999 24.9

Year Structure Built Number Percent Selected Monthly Owner Total housing units 263,094 100.0% Built 1995 to March 2000 30,340 11.5% Costs for Specified Owner- Built 1990 to 1994 23,396 8.9% Occupied Housing Units Number Percent Built 1980 to 1989 36,504 13.9% Specified owner-occupied housing units Built 1970 to 1979 48,989 18.6% with a mortgage 82,066 100.0% Built 1960 to 1969 29,280 11.1% Less than $400 3,273 4.0% Built 1950 to 1959 30,923 11.8% $400 to $599 13,189 16.1% Built 1940 to 1949 17,579 6.7% $600 to $799 18,898 23.0% Built 1939 or earlier 46,083 17.5% $800 to $999 15,914 19.4% Median year built 1960 $1,000 to $1,249 12,986 15.8% $1,250 to $1,499 8,423 10.3% $1,500 to $1,999 6,314 7.7% Value for Specified Owner- $2,000 to $2,999 2,638 3.2% $3,000 or more 431 0.5% Occupied Housing Units Number Percent Specified owner-occupied housing units 124,714 100.0% Median monthly owners cost $825 Less than $20,000 2,204 1.8% Median monthly owners cost as a $20,000 to $39,999 8,977 7.2% percentage of household income 20.1 $40,000 to $59,999 16,247 13.0% $60,000 to $79,999 23,193 18.6% Vital Statistics $80,000 to $99,999 24,713 19.8% Number Rate $100,000 to $124,999 16,270 13.0% Births / rate per 1,000 women aged 15-44 8,813 65.9 $125,000 to $149,999 12,075 9.7% Teen births / rate per 1,000 females 15-17 308 24.5 $150,000 to $199,999 12,131 9.7% Deaths / rate per 100,000 population 6,582 1,079.1 $200,000 to $249,999 4,371 3.5% Marriages / rate per 1,000 population 4,156 6.9 $250,000 to $499,999 4,195 3.4% Divorces / rate per 1,000 population 2,749 4.8 $500,000 to $999,999 259 0.2% $1,000,000 or more 79 0.1% Migration Median value $85,800

House Heating Fuel Number Percent Occupied housing units 241,464 100.0% Utility gas 79,161 32.8% Bottled, tank or LP gas 37,732 15.6% Electricity 87,464 36.2% Fuel oil, kerosene, etc 26,887 11.1% Coal, coke or wood 8,611 3.6% Solar energy or other fuel 1,179 0.5% No fuel used 430 0.2% Ohio County Profiles Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission Agriculture Communications Land in farms (acres) 1,709,000 Television stations 0 Number of farms 9,810 Radio stations 24 Average size (acres) 174 Daily newspapers 6 Total cash receipts $293,075,000 Circulation 55,514 Per farm $29,875

Crime Education Total crimes reported in Uniform Crime Report 21,005 Public schools 248 Students (Average Daily Membership) 111,553 Expenditures per student $8,209 Finance Student-teacher ratio 18.3 Graduation rate 90.6 FDIC insured financial institutions (HQs) 28 Teachers (Full Time Equivalent) 6,474.5 Assets $5,796,768,000 Branch offices 218 Non-public schools 25 Institutions represented 86 Students 3,921 4-year public universites 1 Branches 3 Transfer Payments 2-year public colleges 2 Total transfer payments $3,806,286,000 Private universities and colleges 2 Payments to individuals $3,629,451,000 Public libraries (Main / Branches) 15/ 42 Retirement and disability $1,369,635,000 Medical payments $1,646,920,000 Income maintenance (Supplemental SSI, Transportation family assistance, food stamps, etc) $423,642,000 Registered motor vehicles 781,021 Unemployment benefits $74,122,000 Passenger cars 477,199 Veterans benefits $92,045,000 Noncommercial trucks 160,205 Federal education and training assistance $21,163,000 Total license revenue $19,972,238.78 Other payments to individuals $1,924,000 Interstate highway miles 28.53 Total personal income $17,241,181,000 Turnpike miles 0.00 Depedency ratio 28.1% U.S. highway miles 556.28 State highway miles 1,814.32 Commercial airports 12 Federal Expenditures Direct expenditures or obligations $3,478,707,868 Retirement and disability $1,474,296,026 Voting Other direct payments $719,153,880 Number of precincts 702 Grant awards $1,014,433,330 Number of registered voters 416,422 Highway planning and construction $35,821,757 Voted in 2006 election 222,521 Temporary assistance to needy families $42,353,571 Percent turnout 53.4% Medical assistance program $737,256,504 Procurement contract awards $117,855,257 Dept. of Defense $4,637,436 Health Care Salary and wages $152,969,375 Physicians (MDs & DOs) 761 Dept. of Defense $8,806,000 Registered hospitals 10 Other federal assistance $726,903,356 Number of beds 1,474 Direct loans $29,137,391 Guaranteed loans $281,528,128 Licensed nursing homes 66 Insurance $416,237,837 Number of beds 5,905 Licensed residential care 19 Number of beds 1,218 Per Capita Personal Income Adults with employer-based insurance 56.4% $30,000 Children with employer-based insurance 56.5%

$25,000 $26,338 State Parks, Forests, Nature Preserves, $20,000

And Wildlife Areas $15,000 $18,097 Facilities 83 Acreage 198,744.11 $10,000

6 0 1 2 97 98 03 04 99 9 9 00 0 0 1 1 1 1999 200 200 2 2 2 2005 Ohio County Profiles Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission

Civilian Labor Force 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Civilian labor force307,700 311,600 315,500 317,800 321,100 Employed287,200 289,900 293,400 296,900 301,700 Unemployed 20,700 22,000 22,100 21,100 19,600 Unemployment rate6.7 7.1 7.0 6.6 6.1

Employment and Wages by Sector Total Wages Average Annual Employment (in thousands of dollars) NAICS Industrial Sector 2004 2005 2004 2005 Total covered under Ohio UC Law 187,161 187,575 $5,619,024 $5,764,817 Private Sector 151,060 152,612 $4,477,498 $4,623,907 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 335 275 $6,942 $5,355 Mining 387 396 $15,138 $15,168 Utilities 1,900 1,903 $115,853 $120,323 Construction 8,816 8,455 $297,677 $293,656 Manufacturing 29,483 29,953 $1,281,119 $1,304,543 Wholesale trade 4,185 4,419 $183,630 $203,425 Retail trade 28,528 28,129 $562,219 $565,381 Transportation and warehousing 3,804 3,078 $124,081 $107,236 Information 2,842 2,820 $138,163 $141,121 Finance and insurance 6,693 6,857 $281,812 $303,451 Real estate and rental and leasing 1,813 1,807 $41,680 $43,031 Professional and technical services 3,701 3,626 $138,321 $142,069 Management of companies and enterprises 597 550 $28,254 $23,130 Administrative and waste services 6,079 6,306 $129,773 $137,673 Educational services 968 943 $18,364 $17,053 Health care and social assistance 19,474 20,557 $564,685 $609,333 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 1,292 1,332 $17,447 $18,463 Accommodation and food services 16,175 17,108 $163,928 $176,346 Other services, except public administration 4,918 4,895 $95,389 $95,317 State and Local Government 33,907 34,963 $1,082,101 $1,140,909 State government 5,074 5,109 $191,102 $199,521 Local government 26,936 27,113 $828,560 $853,542 Federal Government 2,617 2,348 $137,949 $124,020 -1 or $0 indicates suppresion for confidentiality

Business Numbers 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Major Employers Business starts 1,352 1,540 1,235 1,100 1,326 Mill's Pride Cabinetry Mfg Active businesses 11,118 11,175 11,283 11,298 11,210 Adena Health System Serv Scioto Memorial Campus Serv Glatfelter Co Mfg Residential Ford Mfg Zf Batavia Llc Mfg Construction 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Batavia Transmission LLC Mfg Total units 2,041 2,228 2,236 2,437 1,828 Kenworth Truck Co Mfg Total valuation (000) $240,297 $290,814 $305,218 $323,931 $237,788 United States Enrichment Corp R&D General Mills Inc Mfg Total single-unit bldgs 1,691 1,929 2,010 1,859 1,438 Average cost per unit $132,272 $140,554 $145,284 $155,714 $148,431 US Veterans Medical Ctr Serv Michelina's Inc Mfg Total multi-unit bldg units 350 299 226 578 390 Tsp Inc Mfg Average cost per unit $47,502 $65,839 $58,391 $59,619 $62,419 Yusa Corp Mfg Holzer Hospital Foundation Inc Serv Senco Products Inc Trade yrsy2†evvi‰2‚iqsyxev hi†ivy€wix„2gywwsƒƒsyx gome2his™over2y†‚hg2‚egion wsgrsqex „oledoD2yr DFEWH 5 veui eƒr„ef ve v geƒ ÚÊ DFEVH FWH p v„yx í glevel—ndD2yr ‡svvsewƒ DE y„„e‡e qie qe DEFUS ÚÊ5 g ‰eryqe i‚si VH hipsexgi ‡yyh ƒexh ƒu‰ FVH WH DFE rix‚‰ DE F €ixxƒ‰v†exse DE vy‚esx „‚ wf vv DFEVH DEFUU €y‚„eqi DFEVH €e vhsxq FUS ƒ wws„ DE ƒixige yrsy wihsxe € „xew r ‚yx FUT DE weryxsxq UT ‚sgrvexh eƒrvexh DFE rexgygu †ex2‡i‚„ PQ G@ g‚e‡py‚h ƒ„e‚u ‡e‰xi evvix ‡‰exhy„ gyv wfsexe DEFUI

re‚hsx í wi‚gi‚ ge‚‚yvv we‚syx ryvwiƒ e qvesi FUS wy‚‚y‡ DE tippi‚ƒyx xsyx „ ƒge‚e‡eƒ vyqex uxyˆ ƒrivf‰ hive‡e‚i ‡heelingD2‡† gyƒryg„yx re‚‚sƒyx FUI he‚ui grew€esqx DE í sxhsexse PUH wsews DFE vsgusxq q i‚xƒi‰ ‰5 w ƒusxq w FUH e golum˜usD2yr DE fivwyx„ gve‚u p‚exuvsxÚÊ5 UU e wehsƒyx DEF DEFUH G@PP wyx„qywi‚‰ e €‚ifvi QS q‚iixi G@ pes‚psivh €i‚‚‰ xyfvi wyx‚yi í ÚÊ5 pe‰i„„i €sgue‡e‰ h—ytonD2yr wy‚qex UI e DEF ‘75 ‡eƒrsxq„yx FUS rygusxq f „vi‚ DE‡e‚‚ix ‡—shington2gr í gin™inn—tiD2yr e e ghilli™othe €—rkers˜urgD2‡† e„rixƒ PP gvsx„yx G@ ‚yƒƒ ‘75 †sx„yx TP w™erthur 5 DFEUR rewsv„yx G@ ÚÊe ‘75 G@SH f—t—vi— G@SH ‘75 rills˜oro í x í 5 e QP e ÚÊ 5 34 FPUS TV €sui ‘7 DE í ‘75 G@ rsqrvexh ‡—verly t—™kson wisqƒ ‘75 e gvi‚wyx„ teguƒyx ‡iƒ„2†s‚qsxse f‚y‡x QP P 34 G@Q e 5 QS ‡ i ‘75 ehewƒ G@ ƒgsy„y 5 í 5 e ‘7 ‘75 qevvse q—llipolis ‘75 yhio2‚iver qeorgetown í G@SP DEFUU yhio2‚iver €ortsmouthve‡‚ixgi ƒ ‡est2 nion sronton í‘75 uix„ gu‰ 5‰ eshl—ndD2u‰ ÚÊ FTR í DE e snterst—te2righw—ys ÚÊ5 ÚÊ5 REEv—ne2righw—y US e DEF runtingtonD2‡† gh—rlestonD2‡† vexingtonD2u‰ PEEv—ne2righw—y DEFTR ÚÊ5 IH H IH PH QH RH SH TH wiles e sntern—tion—l2eirport yhio2†—lley2‚egion—l2hevelopment2gommission WQPW2ƒt2‚t2PPH2iD2ƒuite2e e yther2v—rge2eirport ‡—verlyD2yr2RSTWH €honeX2URHEWRUEPVSQ222p—xX2URHEWRUEQRTV gre—ted2˜yX2t—son2qillow222h—teX2tune2PHHS í €orts ƒour™esX2x„ehD2yhy„D2iƒ‚sD2 ƒqƒD282y†‚hg IXIWWVVHV A T State of Ohio T Strategic Plan A Summary C H M E N T

Ohio, Home of Innovation & Opportunity hi

A Strategic Plan Share the Ohio Story

for the Strengthen our Strengths Ohio Department of Development Cultivate Top Talent Invest in our Regional Assets Executive Summary Focus on our Customers

“We can give our economy a boost by seeing what we have and remembering what we’re capable of. It’s time to look up again.”

Ted Strickland Governor of Ohio

United States Air Force Museum – Dayton, Ohio Letter from the Governor and Lt. Governor hi

It is with great enthusiasm and a shared sense of optimism for our future that we present to the people of Ohio our economic development strategic plan. Ohio, Home of Innovation and Opportunity is a bold, practical, and forward-thinking plan to change the trajectory of Ohio’s economy by purposefully redesigning our business climate to increase the global competitiveness of Ohio’s employers.

To accomplish this we must:

1. Grow the income of Ohioans 2. Create and retain jobs for Ohioans 3. Expand productivity through innovation

Our goals are nothing less than opportunity and prosperity for all Ohioans.

Extraordinary opportunities lie just on the other side of our current economic challenges. Getting there requires real collaboration, strategic investment, and a state government characterized by innovation, speed, and agility.

Literally thousands of Ohioans were involved in developing our plan through our seven regional outreach meetings, our small forums and focus groups, and multiple presentations and discussions with state, regional, and local economic development partners. Throughout the planning process, we worked closely with our expert Strategic Plan Advisory Team to explore and evaluate the ideas that ultimately became our plan. To all who participated in the planning process, we express our deepest appreciation and thanks.

We are moving boldly to lay the foundation for Ohio’s future economic prosperity both with the release of this plan and through our exciting achievements of the past year. On June 12, 2008 Ohio enacted a $1.57 billion economic stimulus plan to create thousands of new, good-paying jobs for Ohioans in growing industries of the future. Our jobs stimulus plan also invests in Ohio’s communities giving them the tools they need to compete for economic development. Our economic stimulus plan will work in concert with other important recent achievements, including the realignment of our workforce delivery system and Ohio’s new advanced energy plan, to pave the way toward a dynamic, more prosperous future.

Ohio has a remarkable legacy of opportunity, innovation, and excellence. Today, we have the responsibility and opportunity to build upon this legacy to bring about a bright economic future for everyone fortunate enough to call Ohio home. We invite everyone to join us in putting our plan to work for the benefit of all Ohio. To view the complete strategic plan for the Ohio Department of Development please visit www.development.ohio.gov. We look forward to your continued partnership in making this vision a reality.

Sincerely,

Governor Ted Strickland Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher Director, Ohio Department of Development

1 Attitude will Determine our Altitude

The Strategic Plan for the Ohio Department of We know that even after the launch of our plan, our Development is a relentlessly optimistic and confident strategic planning process will never end. Products plan for Ohio’s transformational economic development change, technologies change, and currencies change in and growth. value. Competition constantly changes, and Ohio must either lead that change or be a victim of that change. We We must believe in ourselves. Extraordinary opportunities are prepared to adapt, and we are prepared to lead. lie just on the other side of our current economic challenges. Our plan invests in our ability and capacity to The realities imposed by a smaller, faster, global economy create a future that sets Ohio apart and moves us to the mean that what Ohio’s Department of Development does is head of the global class. To accomplish this we must: more important than ever. Our Department must be even more deliberate and thoughtful in the actions we take. 1. Grow the income of Ohioans 2. Create and retain jobs for Ohioans Our Department’s activities are a blend of: 3. Expand productivity through innovation • Marketing – telling the world the benefits of living, visiting, and investing in Ohio; None of us is as effective as all of us working together; no state department can do this alone. That is why our • Deal-making – getting the daily business retention, plan requires an unprecedented public, private, and expansion, and attraction work done at the speed of nonprofit sector partnership at all levels. We will take the business; responsibility of helping to accelerate, foster, and support • Innovating – helping to transform ideas and the teamwork and collaborations that are absolutely technologies into products and services; necessary to achieve success. • Investing – making investments in our human and physical capital assets; and The all-important day-to-day work of the Department of Development never pauses. Even in the midst of a • Collaborating – building and supporting functioning challenging national economic downturn, the volume regional partnerships that provide global economic and pace of our economic development projects and advantage. transactions are unprecedented; so is the rate and volume of our successes. But we also understand that our daily There is hard work to be done, difficult choices to be made, work must be done in the context of a larger strategic a future to be built. Resources are scarce, the economy is framework that ensures we are focusing and targeting our faster, the world is smaller, and expectations are higher. scarce resources in a way that changes the trajectory of That is why our Department must do what is being asked Ohio’s economy. of all Ohioans: be optimistic while being realistic; retain and build upon what has worked in the past and still works today; invest in ourselves; reinvigorate what is authentic about Ohio; work smarter and faster. In short, be globally competitive locally.

That is why we have written this comprehensive strategic plan for Ohio’s Department of Development with unprecedented outreach and collaboration among our stakeholders and partners.

That is why we already are at work implementing and executing our plan and earning our future.

In a sense, our plan is The Ohio Story that will be told years from now to our children and grandchildren. A story of how Ohio moved from rubber to polymers, from gliders to turbine engines and lunar rockets, from bicycles to biomaterials, from glass to solar panels, from petroleum-based products and power to bioproducts, fuel cells, hybrid vehicles, and wind turbines. A story of how we changed the trajectory of Ohio’s economy by purposely redesigning our business climate and retooling our economic engine. A story of how Ohio built a global home of innovation and opportunity by Velocys – Plain City, Ohio focusing on the best of who we are and what we can be.

2 hi

Doing the right things is only half the battle. We must also do those things right. To ensure we carry out our plan in the right way, we will follow these Five Guiding Principles:

1. Be the change maker, instead of simply reacting to change. 2. Work in seamless collaboration with public, non-profit, and private sector parties, locally, regionally, and statewide. Mansfield, Ohio 3. Invest in what matters most. 4. Innovate with new, more effective solutions and create a positive customer experience. 5. Execute, organize, and align to achieve our goals.

We identified Five Strategic Outcomes during the planning Our Vision is that Ohio is The State of process. Each outcome is associated with a unique set Perfect Balance – a place where every of goals, strategies, initiatives, and metrics, yet they are individual can achieve a balance between interrelated and mutually supporting. Considered together, growing economic prosperity and a these five outcomes will lead to a more stable and prosperous future for Ohio. Our outcomes are: fulfilling quality of life. 1. Agility – striving to operate at the speed of business. Our Mission is to change the trajectory of 2. Sustainability – designing and building an Ohio’s economy by purposefully redesigning economy that lasts. the business climate to increase the global 3. Innovation – fostering new connections, competitiveness of Ohio’s businesses, collaborations, and commercialization. resulting in prosperity for all Ohioans. 4. Opportunity – leaving no community, region, business, or Ohioan behind. Our Economic Development Promise is to 5. Prosperity – improving the quality of life of every Ohioan. transform the culture of the Department of Development by focusing on speed, Our Five Strategic Goals and Fifteen Strategies agility, transparency, collaboration, and lead to a number of Major New Initiatives and tested accountability. Ideas That Are Working. Our Five Goals are: Share the Ohio Story We will use three lead measures of economic outcomes as Excite the world about Ohio. a way of establishing overall progress in the growth rate Strengthen our Strengths of Ohio’s economy as compared to the surrounding states Link and leverage our inventive past with of Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and our innovative future. West Virginia. These three measures are accompanied by 15 Performance Targets, three for each goal, that are Cultivate Top Talent designed to track progress in changing specific attributes Retain, advance, and attract the best workforce of Ohio’s economy – attributes that are expected outcomes and talent in the world. from the activities undertaken to meet each of our five Invest in our Regional Assets goals. All 18 measures will be tracked on our Ohio Invigorate our cities and regions as centers of Economic Growth Scorecard. Our progress will be tracked commerce and community. annually and an updated scorecard will be published. Our Three Lead Measures are: Focus on our Customers Operate government at the speed of business. 1. Grow the income of Ohioans by increasing the per capita income growth rate. 2. Create and retain jobs for Ohioans by increasing the job growth rate. 3. Expand productivity through innovation by increasing the Gross State Product per job growth rate.

3 Excellence in Execution hi

This plan is a living document which establishes our to play in building a more prosperous Ohio. Pooling our priorities and guides our decisions. Ohio deserves intellectual, administrative, and industrial knowledge base nothing less. We have promised Ohioans an economic is the first order of business in creating Ohio’s economic development plan that will transform our economy, future and the next chapter in the Ohio Story. revitalize our regions, and provide greater opportunities for all. Implementation has already started with several Connecting to Ohioans. Guided by the fulfillment of key organizational changes to ensure there is adequate our strategic plan’s vision, mission, promise, guiding leadership and operating capacity to launch key initiatives. principles, goals, strategies, and lead measures, Governor Strickland and Lieutenant Governor Fisher will convene: Our success is premised on the notion that meaningful partnerships will lead to better results. Everyone has a role • Statewide and Regional Governor’s Business Advisory Councils to advise, guide, and support the implementation of our economic development strategic plan and our economic development decision making process.

• We will also hold an Annual Economic Growth Summit, beginning in 2009, designed to bring together Ohio business, industry, community, academic, and economic development leaders throughout Ohio to share ideas, strategies, tactics, and best practices for Ohio’s continued economic growth and development. Toledo, Ohio

Our implementation and We will implement three execution will be guided execution strategies: • Create a Strategic Implementation by three principles: Leadership Team and establish five Goal Teams to guide implementation on all levels across the short, intermediate, and long term. The 1. Doing our work at the speed of Lieutenant Governor/Director of Development, the business; speed, agility, transparency, Chief Economic Development Officer/Assistant accountability, and collaboration serve as the Director of Development, and the Chief Strategic compass for our culture and guide our customer Officer will lead our Implementation Team focus. Performance targets and measurable with support from other key department team milestones will light our path and ensure that we members. The Strategic Implementation Team keep our economic development promise. will lead, manage, and be accountable for the implementation process. The Implementation Team 2. Every department of state government is also responsible for communicating our plan to is our partner. We will actively pursue further our internal and external stakeholders. organizational alignments and partnerships among and between state agencies to advance our goals. • Develop an Engagement/Partnership Strategy to ensure implementation is guided by 3. Every region, industry, and business effective outreach and collaboration and a process is our customer. We will actively reach out to for continued consultation, support, and advice by our regional and industry stakeholders to develop stakeholders and partners. stronger, higher impact programs and partnerships. • Utilize the Plan to Help Leverage Resources where the state budget is not sufficient or appropriate to carry out major initiatives, seeking outside support from federal, private, and philanthropic sources.

4 Economic Growth Ohio, Scorecard Home of Innovation & Opportunity

Goal Measure Baseline Target 2020

Lead Grow the income of Ohioans. 91% 125% Per Capita Income Growth Rate Measures Create and retain jobs for Ohioans. 80% 125% 3-year average growth Job Growth Rate rate compared to six state region Expand productivity through innovation. 88% 125% Gross State Product Per Job Growth Rate Share the Improve the perception of Ohio. Ohio Story 1. Announced major private investment projects 1 rank 1 rank 2. Perception of Ohio among Ohio executives 6.5 / 10 8.0 / 10 3. Perception of Ohio among non-Ohio executives 6.1 / 10 7.0 / 10 and site selection consultants Strengthen Build a more globally competitive economy. our Strengths 1. Export growth 7.4% 10.0% 2. Targeted industries, percent of Gross State Product TBD TBD 3. Venture capital investment, percent of Midwest 14% 20% Cultivate Grow and attract a highly educated workforce with an entrepreneurial mindset. Top Talent 1. New Business Formation Index 9.6% 14.0% 2. Population growth rate of 25-64 age group 0.50% 1.00% 3. Educational attainment, Associates Degree or greater, 33.41% USO percent of 25-64 population

Invest in Build sustainable, connected, vibrant communities. our Regional 1. Ohio Connectivity Survey TBD TBD Assets 2. Electricity by advanced energy 10% 25% 3. Development Ready Sites supported by public investment 3,774 acres 15,000 acres

Focus on our Develop a more agile and transparent development culture. Customers 1. Customer Experience Survey of Ohio Department of TBD TBD Development clients 2. Speed of customer responses Identify Continuous Industry Standard Improvement

3. Professional Certifications by ODOD University TBD TBD

TBD – To be developed as measures are calibrated USO – Monitored in partnership with the University System of Ohio ODOD – Ohio Department of Development

5 A Strategic Plan for the Ohio Ohio, Department of Development Home of Innovation & Opportunity

5 Goals 15 Strategies Performance Targets

Share the 1. Promote Ohio for new capital Improve the perception of Ohio. investment. Ohio Story 1. Announced major private 2. Promote Ohio’s regions. investment projects Excite the world 2. Perception of Ohio among 3. Promote Ohio as a tourism and Ohio executives about Ohio. residential destination. 3. Perception of Ohio among non-Ohio executives and site selection consultants

Strengthen 1. Establish a targeted industry approach Build a more globally to economic development. competitive economy. our Strengths 2. Invest in technological innovation and 1. Export growth Link and leverage our commercialization. 2. Targeted industries, percent of Gross State Product inventive past with our 3. Grow and support minority- and innovative future. women-owned enterprises and 3. Venture capital investment, percent small businesses. of Midwest

Cultivate 1. Retain and attract top talent. Grow and attract a highly educated workforce with an 2. Provide customized training solutions Top Talent entrepreneurial mindset. to Ohio’s companies. 1. New Business Formation Index Retain, advance, and 3. Create a demand-driven workforce and 2. Population growth rate of attract the best workforce talent system. and talent in the world. 25-64 age group 3. Educational attainment, Associates Degree or greater, percent of 25-64 population

Invest in our 1. Create Ohio Hubs of Innovation Build sustainable, connected, and Opportunity. vibrant communities. Regional Assets 2. Revitalize our physical assets. 1. Ohio Connectivity Survey 2. Electricity by advanced energy Invigorate our cities and 3. Support and catalyze regional regions as centers for collaboration. 3. Development Ready Sites supported commerce and community. by public investment

Focus on 1. Create a more customer Develop a more agile and transparent focused organization. development culture. our Customers 2. Strengthen collaboration with 1. Customer Experience Survey of Ohio Department of Development clients Operate government at our partners. 2. Speed of customer responses the speed of business. 3. Improve the transparency and accountability of economic 3. Professional Certifications by development investments. ODOD University

Five Desired Outcomes: Agility • Sustainability • Innovation • Opportunity • Prosperity A Strategic Plan for the Ohio Ohio, Department of Development Home of Innovation & Opportunity

5 Goals Major New Initiatives Ideas That Are Working

Share the • Ohio Sales Strategy • Ohio Business Development Coalition • Targeted Global Markets Strategy Branding and Marketing Campaign Ohio Story • Ohio Ambassador Initiative • Ohio Brand Extension Throughout • Enterprise Appalachia State Government Excite the world • Ohio Means Home • Regional Marketing Program about Ohio. • Ohio Tourism Campaign • Ohio Film Office • Multi-cultural Tourism Initiative

Strengthen • Economic Development Incentives • $1.57B Job Stimulus Plan Modernization • Advanced Energy Portfolio Standard our Strengths • Targeted Industry Development Teams • Ohio Third Frontier • Integration of Technology-Based Economic • Ohio Research Scholars Initiative Link and leverage our Development Programs • Technology Investment Tax Credit Program inventive past with our • Next Generation of the Ohio Third Frontier • The Ohio Capital Fund innovative future. • Check Ohio First • New Entrepreneurship and • Ohio Lender Participation Program Small Business Division • Annual Global Summit • Minority Business Initiative • Business Investment Trade Missions • Ohio Urban Entrepreneurship Program • Edison Centers • Global Offices

Cultivate • Ohio Means Home • New Workforce and Talent Division • Ohio Young Talent Network • Regional Workforce Top Talent • Ohio Workforce Guarantee Development Offices • Ohio ASAP • Realignment of Service Delivery Retain, advance, and • Ohio Center for Workforce Excellence • Governor’s Workforce Policy attract the best workforce • Expanded Cooperative Education and Advisory Board and talent in the world. Internships • Ohio Skills Bank • Workforce Development Partnerships • Task Force on Population, Growth, Diversity, and Talent Attraction

• Ohio Hubs of Innovation • Development Ready Site Programs: Clean Invest in our and Opportunity Ohio Revitalization Fund, Job Ready Sites Regional Assets • Ohio Neighborhood Recovery Program, Industrial Site Improvement Fund, • Regional Economic Development Teams and the Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit Program Invigorate our cities and • Green Places • Local Government Services and Regional regions as centers for Collaboration Grants commerce and community. • New Partnerships with Living Cities and the Brookings Institution

Focus on • Customer Experience Initiative • Common Sense Business • Ohio Economic Growth Cabinet Regulation Initiative our Customers • Executive and Entrepreneur in Residence (EIR) • Interagency Work Teams Programs • Rapid Outreach and Response Operate government at • ODOD University (ROR) Initiative the speed of business. • Customer Response Line • Economic Growth Scorecard • Unified Budget for Economic Development • BUILD-IT

Five Desired Outcomes: Agility • Sustainability • Innovation • Opportunity • Prosperity Goal 1: Share the Ohio Story Excite the world about Ohio. hi

Our development strategy must begin by sharing Ohio’s • We will continue to invest in the Ohio Business story with the world. Perception shapes risk, risk drives Development Coalition Branding and Marketing investment, and investment determines our economic Campaign to continue to build a more positive future. The people who make investment decisions, including impression of Ohio among executives and site Ohioans, must understand what our state has to offer – a selection consultants. diverse state with different regional economies and assets, a broad portfolio of technologies and globally competitive • Ohio Brand Extension Throughout State Government products and services, and a redesigned business climate will extend the use of our visual identity to other state that enables companies to win globally. If we allow agencies and departments and as a result reinforce the misperceptions to prevail, investors will view Ohio as a risk, Ohio brand. driving down investment and diminishing our future. Promote Ohio’s Regions. Strengthen Ohio’s overall image Key Strategies and Major Initiatives to by supporting regional branding and marketing initiatives Share the Ohio Story: that are aligned with the state’s brand promise. • Enterprise Appalachia will help stimulate economic Promote Ohio for New Capital Investment. Position Ohio activity in our Appalachian region by initiating a small as an ideal location for capital investment in the minds of business attraction and creation campaign built on the company executives and site selection consultants. success of entrepreneurship in the region. • The Ohio Sales Strategy is a comprehensive, coordinated, and targeted state-level sales plan designed to refine the statewide lead management process and improve the quality and delivery of information to site selection consultants and corporate location executives. • Our Targeted Global Markets Strategy will develop country specific strategies focusing on key opportunities in our targeted industries.

• The Ohio Ambassador Initiative will encourage all Ohioans to more fully understand the benefits of living and working in Ohio and to share the Ohio Story with others. Holmes County, Ohio

• Our Regional Marketing Program will continue to leverage matching dollars around the state to support regional marketing initiatives in support of the Ohio brand.

Promote Ohio as a Tourism and Residential Destination. Leverage the Ohio brand and promote Ohio as an ideal destination where people of all ages want to build their lives and raise their families, and somewhere people from around the globe want to visit. • Ohio Means Home is an integrated marketing and communications campaign targeting former Ohioans to reintroduce the professional and personal opportunities in our state. • Ohio’s Tourism Campaign will continue to leverage the State of Perfect Balance brand to help improve the perception of Ohio. • Ohio’s Film Office has been reestablished to grow and strengthen the film, video, and media production industry throughout the state. 2007 Governor’s Cup, Site Selection

8 Goal 2: Strengthen our Strengths Link and leverage our inventive past with our innovative future.

Ohio has a rich history of innovation, new product Invest in Technological Innovation and Commercialization. development and research, invention, and reinvention. Leverage our state’s ongoing investment in research, The greatest opportunities for economic growth in Ohio lie product development, and technology to accelerate the where the strongholds of our inventive and industrial past pace of innovation and new product development in the intersect with the innovative promises of our economic areas of our state where industry and innovation intersect. future. It’s where our business and industry strengths intersect with human talent, innovation, and discovery. • We will Integrate our Technology-Based Economic Development Programs to align, enhance, and We will invest and focus to build upon our state’s and our restructure our existing technology-based programs, regions’ historic strengths: the products, companies, and as well as develop new programs to ensure we provide technologies that have withstood the test of global markets, the right resources at every stage of the technology many of which have demonstrated the ability commercialization process. to export outside of our state’s borders. • We are firmly committed to the renewal and improvement of the Next Generation of the Ohio Key Strategies and Major Initiatives to Third Frontier, which has become a national example Strengthen our Strengths: of a rigorous, disciplined approach to encouraging technology-based development and innovation. Establish a Targeted Industry Approach to Economic Development. Target resources to industries identified as Grow and Support Minority- and Women-owned best suited to Ohio’s core strengths, building from our Enterprises and Small Businesses. Strengthen and increase manufacturing, agricultural, technology, research, and financial and technical assistance at every stage of the entrepreneurship strengths. business development continuum to support the growth and expansion of minority- and women-owned enterprises • We will Modernize our Economic Development and small businesses in Ohio. Incentives. We will make our programs more responsive to business needs, more transparent to Ohio citizens, more cost effective to administer, and more competitive with other states and nations.

• Our new Targeted Industry Development Teams will • The Check Ohio First initiative will be a business-to- develop specific retention, expansion, and attraction business service designed to promote and encourage strategies for each target industry. companies operating in Ohio and those attracted to our state to maximize the use of Ohio businesses Ohio’s Statewide Targeted Industries when making purchases, taking the ‘buy-local’ effort statewide. • Advanced Energy and Environmental Technologies • Ohio’s Urban Entrepreneur Partnership initiative • Aerospace and Aviation will provide a comprehensive business assistance model designed to enhance the growth, scale, and • Agriculture and Food Processing infrastructure of minority-owned and operated • Bioscience and Bioproducts businesses. • Corporate and Professional Services • Distribution and Logistics • The voluntary Ohio Lender Participation Program will work with Ohio’s banks, credit unions, and insurance • Instruments, Controls, and Electronics companies to achieve greater usage of our state’s • Motor Vehicle and Parts Manufacturing financial assistance programs, increase participation • Polymers and Advanced Materials in these programs by minority enterprises and small businesses, and track the efforts and success in increasing access to capital and other resources critical to the long- In addition, each region has its own targeted industries, term growth and survival of our small businesses. some of which are unique to the region. Embedded within each target industry and identified as particular strengths • The Minority Business Initiative will renew our in Ohio are three cross cutting core functions necessary for commitment to minority-owned and women-owned success in the new economy: research and development, businesses in Ohio by working to increase participation advanced manufacturing, and information technology. in the state’s EDGE (Encouraging Diversity, Growth and Equity) program and by breathing new life into our minority programs that have experienced unacceptably low levels of activity for many years.

9 Goal 3: Cultivate Top Talent Retain, advance, and attract the best workforce and talent in the world.

Our ability to retain, advance, and attract top talent in • We are launching the Ohio ASAP (Available Skills Ohio is a key driver in our ability to grow Ohio’s economy. Alert Postings program) to connect businesses Our Department will work with business and industry to seeking skilled workers with available talented people develop the nation’s best demand-driven workforce and across Ohio who have been displaced or are at risk of talent development system. We will work to ensure that displacement. Ohio businesses and industries have reliable access to a highly skilled, highly competitive 21st century workforce. • We are opening Regional Workforce Development We will continue to work closely with the University Offices with Workforce Directors in each of Ohio’s System of Ohio to develop, attract, and retain talent, 12 Economic Development Regions to reach out and and we will strengthen our partnership with the Ohio respond locally to businesses’ short- and long-term Department of Job and Family Services to provide workforce needs. opportunities for all Ohioans. Create a Demand-driven Workforce and Talent System. Key Strategies and Major Initiatives to Create a world-class, demand-driven workforce and talent development system that is agile and responsive, Attract and Cultivate Top Talent: increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of our state’s business development, attraction, and recruiting services. Retain and Attract Top Talent. Increase Ohio’s competitiveness with innovative programs and policies • Expanded Cooperative Education and Internships will be designed to attract and retain top talent in industries where created by the University System of Ohio in partnership the likelihood of job growth and job creation is highest. with our Department to build connections between businesses and students of all ages to gain work • Ohio Means Home will reintroduce the benefits of experience and begin to build their careers in Ohio. living and working in Ohio to former residents and students, encouraging them to return to Ohio to • We will strengthen our Workforce Development advance their careers or start a new business while Partnerships and Realign our Service Delivery to ensure also enjoying the balance of personal fulfillment found we are moving rapidly toward a system that meets in Ohio’s diverse and dynamic regions. the current and future demands of Ohio’s employers. We will continue to build successful partnerships with • Ohio Young Talent Network will bring together Ohio’s the Ohio Board of Regents and the Ohio Department brightest young talent to create and implement of Job and Family Services on projects like the Ohio programs to attract and keep young professionals Skills Bank, and we will establish stronger partnerships in our state. between local workforce investment boards and the Governor’s Workforce Policy Advisory Board. • The Ohio Center for Workforce Excellence will serve as both a laboratory and a knowledge repository for identifying, promoting, and teaching best practices in workforce training and development.

• We will form a Task Force on Population, Growth, Diversity, and Talent Attraction to develop strategies and tactics for increasing Ohio’s population, with a special focus on attracting new talent to Ohio from around the world.

Provide Customized Training Solutions to Ohio Companies. Develop processes to deliver customized training solutions to Ohio’s employers to align Ohio’s workforce skills and knowledge with employer needs in targeted industries.

• We are delivering the Ohio Workforce Guarantee by consolidating various new and existing workforce development programs into a seamless, demand- driven, customized training system that meets the demands of Ohio’s businesses and industries. We will guarantee Ohio employers a flexible, responsive source of employee training, ensuring a partner in workforce investment. Cincinnati, Ohio

10 Goal 4: Invest in our Regional Assets Invigorate our cities and regions as centers for commerce and community.

Ohio enjoys a portfolio of diverse regional economies Cleveland, Ohio each with its own unique strengths and assets. We will reinvigorate our cities and regions as centers of commerce and community.

There are no better or wiser strategic investments than those made at the places where our strongest physical and human capital assets intersect. Both place and knowledge matter, and focusing our resources on where they converge will generate the best returns on our investments.

Economic development blends products, talent, knowledge, and management within the context of a regional economy. A regional economy is the geography where people live and work, encompassing both labor and housing markets. Our regions also encompass pools of knowledge that become the seeds for new products and services.

We will lift up our historic communities by drawing upon best practices to increase economic opportunity and • Ohio Green Places will promote and develop programs improve the quality of life in each of our regions. and policies that will advance the goal of making Ohio the leading state for sustainable green development. This will include building an advanced energy business Key Strategies and Major Initiatives for sector with a robust supply chain and a green building our Regional Assets: industry.

Create Ohio Hubs of Innovation and Opportunity (OHIO Hubs). Leverage our regional strengths to create targeted geographical intersections of our physical and human capital assets.

• Our Ohio Hubs of Innovation and Opportunity program will leverage our regional strengths to • We will continue to strengthen and improve our facilitate and catalyze the creation of at least 12 Development Ready Sites programs by continuing to regionally designated places where knowledge and prepare property for redevelopment and reuse with place-based assets intersect; places where innovation the Clean Ohio Revitalization Fund, the Job Ready will flourish and places where opportunity will be Sites Program, the Industrial Site Improvement Fund, generated. We will offer targeted resources to renew and the Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit Program. physical space and foster new business investment in each OHIO Hub. Support and Catalyze Regional Collaboration. Support regional collaboration to further statewide and regional Revitalize our Physical Assets. Renew our statewide and economic development goals. regional physical assets to improve the quality of life for all Ohioans and to attract and retain a diverse base of • We will work with each economic development business and industry. region to establish Regional Economic Development Teams that will enhance the competitiveness • The Ohio Neighborhood Recovery program is a new of existing businesses in Ohio. We will create a initiative to be developed in collaboration with local seamless retention and expansion network, enabling and regional partner governments and organizations information to be shared between the state and our to tackle the negative aftereffects of foreclosure regions to better deploy resources, moving over time or long-term tax delinquency. At its heart, Ohio to a more shared decision-making model for state and Neighborhood Recovery will be a flexible land bank local assistance to businesses. program, positioned to take a long-term view of recovery. • Our Local Government Services and Regional Collaboration Grants provide funding so that collaborating groups of local governments can plan and invest in strengthening regional economies, lowering operating costs, and providing high quality services.

11 Goal 5: Focus on our Customers Operate government at the speed of business.

The nuts and bolts of governing and managing lies in the • The Ohio Economic Growth Cabinet will serve as way our Department executes our mission and delivers a sounding board to define and frame challenges, on our promise. It lies in the way we identify and treat establish strategies, and implement solutions and our customers, and how we invest in our own culture ensure that all state government partners work together and operations. If Ohio is to effectively compete for new to advance and promote Ohio’s economic growth. business investment in today’s highly competitive economic development market, our Department’s ability to rapidly respond to the needs of our customers is paramount. Speed, Members of the Ohio Economic agility, transparency, collaboration, and accountability must Growth Cabinet: be ingrained in our Department’s culture and operations. • Administrative Services • Agriculture Key Customer Service Strategies and • Air Quality Development Authority • Commerce Major Initiatives: • Development • Education Create a More Customer-focused Organization. Improve • Environmental Protection the customer experience by making our Department a • Governor’s Office more customer-responsive organization that operates at • Health the speed of business. • Insurance • Job & Family Services • We will launch a Customer Experience Initiative to • Natural Resources identify opportunities for improving the experience of • Public Utilities Commission of Ohio our customers. An annual survey will be developed • Public Works Commission and used to determine how close the realized • Taxation customer experience is to the desired customer • Transportation • University System of Ohio experience, and to document what aspects of the • Water Development Authority experience are most important. • Workers’ Compensation

• We will invite current and retired senior level – Chaired by Lt. Governor Lee Fisher executives and entrepreneurs to participate in our Executive-in-Residence and Entrepreneur-in-Residence • Interagency Work Teams were created at the start of programs and work side-by-side with the Lt. Governor our administration to solve time-sensitive problems and his leadership team to observe, evaluate, and and will remain a key tactic for addressing the needs advise on improving key areas of our Department. of our customers. • We will create ODOD University, a virtual learning organization in our Department, that emphasizes Improve the Transparency and Accountability of Economic individualized and team training programs Development Investments. Lay the groundwork for a encompassing both leadership and professional Unified Economic Development Budget to provide a development. comprehensive picture of where, how, and with what level of success Ohio is making economic development • Working with other state agencies, we will lead the investments. creation of a Customer Response Line for businesses seeking information or assistance, with a goal of • We have developed an Ohio Economic Growth providing a response within one business day. Scorecard with measures and performance targets to assess our ongoing progress against our strategic • We remain committed to executing Governor goals. We will continue to measure our progress and Strickland’s Common Sense Business Regulation work to meet our targets. Executive Order to ease regulatory burdens faced by our customers and improve our internal processes to • A Unified Economic Development Budget will provide fast, consistent services to businesses. be created to improve the transparency of state investments across state agencies and departments, Strengthen Collaboration with our Partners. Increased starting first with the Ohio Department of Development. collaboration among our partners and other state agencies • We will invest in rebuilding our Department’s and departments will help us achieve the goals and information technology system through our strategies set forth in our plan. Working collaboratively BUILD-IT initiative. Rebuilding our information will inform and support decision-making, improve our system is critical to our ability to effectively manage efficiencies, decrease redundancies or impediments, and our data, measure our progress, and improve our increase accountability at all levels of state government speed, agility, transparency, and accountability. and with our local partners.

12 “We must believe in ourselves and share the Ohio Story – the story that will be told years from now about how Ohio linked its inventive past with its innovative future, and moved to the head of the global class.”

Lee Fisher Lt. Governor of Ohio Director, Ohio Department of Development

Red, White, Boom – Columbus, Ohio To view the complete strategic plan for the Ohio Department of Development please visit www.development.ohio.gov hi

www.ohio.gov 800 | 848 1300 www.development.ohio.gov