University of Cincinnati

U UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

Date: March 9, 2009

I, Sarah Wilson , hereby submit this original work as part of the requirements for the degree of:

Master of Community Planning in School of Planning

It is entitled: "Joint Economic Development Districts: Evaluation of a Third Wave Strategy"

Sarah Wilson Student Signature:

This work and its defense approved by: Michael Romanos, Ph.D Committee Chair: Carla Chifos, Ph.D Gary Powell Albert Kanters

Approval of the electronic document:

I have reviewed the Thesis/Dissertation in its final electronic format and certify that it is an accurate copy of the document reviewed and approved by the committee.

Committee Chair signature: Michael Romanos, Ph.D Joint Economic Development Districts:

Evaluation of a Third Wave Strategy

A thesis submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Planning

in the School of Planning of the College of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning by

Sarah Wilson

B.A. Youngstown State University June 2009

Committee Chair: Michael Romanos, Ph.D ABSTRACT

As a relatively new economic development tool, Joint Economic Development Districts, or JEDDs, have been on the rise over the past decade. Little information exists detailing why

JEDDs are becoming more frequently utilized. The information that exists only documents the history of their creation. With little to no information, the question was raised: Are JEDDs effective in achieving their goals? Through the creation and use of a Goals-Achievement Matrix, an evaluation took place on three JEDDs, each of which was created at different times. Analysis shows that JEDDs are effective in achieving the identified goals but at varying degrees of success. Likewise, JEDDs enable participating communities to achieve their goals while maintaining jurisdictional independence. This analysis is the first of its kind and provides some insight as to why JEDDs are growing in use.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend a sincere thank you to my committee members, Dr. Carla Chifos, Gary Powell, Esq. and Albert Kanters, MBA, MCP for their guidance and assistance in every step of the process. I am truly grateful to have had Dr. Michael Romanos sit as my committee chair. His expertise, guidance and persistence helped mold this thesis topic from an idea into reality. I am indebted to my family and friends for their love and support throughout the entire process. But most importantly, I owe my deepest gratitude to my husband for his unconditional love, support, and encouragement; without him, I would not have been able to make this thesis possible.

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iv LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ...... vii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Purpose 2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLS AND THE ADVANTAGES OF JEDDs. . . . . 4 Economic Development Tools Ohio Economic Development Toolkit Comparable Techniques 3. METHODOLOGY ...... 17 Methodological Steps The Need for Evaluation 4. ANALYSIS OF PARTICIPATING JEDDs...... 27 Hamilton-Indian Springs JEDD Copley-Akron JEDD Harrison-Harrison Township JEDD 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 48 Reflections Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 52 APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS...... 56 APPENDIX B: MATRICES ...... 66

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

FIGURE 3.1 Hill‟s Goals-Achievement Matrix 1968 ...... 26 4.1 Map of Hamilton – Indian Springs JEDD 2009 ...... 37 4.2 Map of Copley – Akron JEDD 2009 ...... 44 4.3 Map of Harrison – Harrison Township JEDD 2009 ...... 51

TABLE 1. Waves and Types of Economic Development Strategies ...... 10 2. Existing and Proposed JEDDs in Ohio ...... 16

vii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Over the past decade the undulating United States economy has wreaked havoc not only on citizens but on the communities in which they live. The rising cost of goods and transportation has put a strain on the incomes and livelihoods of Americans. The housing crisis has resulted in an unprecedented rise of bankruptcies and foreclosures. The outsourcing of jobs has caused numerous manufacturing plants to close, leaving many unemployed. All of these factors and more have forced cities to rethink the way they do business. While some areas are better situated than others, countless US cities struggle to reestablish stability and generate new growth in the hopes of strengthening their local economy.

In the past, cities relied upon annexation to solve their economic problems, and many still do. Cities found that by annexing the surrounding suburbs and townships they could boost their economic base while acquiring land for future development (Facer 2006, 297; Edwards 2008,

121-122). While this measure worked for the cities, the suburbs and townships felt that the annexation threatened their independence. Neither party benefited in the decline of the other; therefore, it became necessary for the two to work together. This practice is now known as regionalization. Although regionalization is slowly becoming more mainstream, its common goal of improving the economic welfare remains in both cities and suburbs (Mohamed 2008, 2785,

Reynolds 2007). This is evident with the notable city-county mergers in Indianapolis, IN;

Louisville, KY; and Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN (Savitch and Vogel 2004; Segedy and Lyons

2001).

Unfortunately, there is no universal method of achieving the shared goal. Due to the wide array of options, each region, city or community must cater its approach to its needs. A common

method is the use of economic development tools, such as financial incentives, tax policies, and nonfinancial assistance (Kovens and Lyons 2003, 27). While many of these methods are adequate when used alone, the combination of multiple tools is more effective. Many of these tools have been used for decades, but some are more frequently used than others. One that is growing in popularity is Ohio's Joint Economic Development District, also known as JEDD.

JEDDs developed in the late 1980s in response to suburban fears of annexation. The city of Akron answered the question "is there a way that the city could stop annexation yet still expand its economic base and share the tax benefits of that growth?" (Plusquellic 2002, 191).

The city would stop annexation in return for collecting income taxes in the designated business district zones as well as provide water and sewer services at its expense in those zones. Coupled with many other attractive requirements, Akron created a number of successful JEDDs.

Temporary legislation in 1990 that allowed JEDDs only to be established in Summit County led to the authorization of JEDDs in the Ohio Revised Code a few years later.

Over a decade later, over thirty JEDDs have been formed in Ohio. As an alternative economic development tool, JEDDs continue to grow in popularity; many struggling cities and townships continue to look at JEDDs as a way to redevelop. Despite the fact that the number of

JEDDs is increasing, there is no formal evaluation tool to determine its success. Thus if a city inquiring into the use of a JEDD looks at existing agreements as an example, there is no set criteria identifying the key issues or indicators of success. Such a tool is necessary to help guide cities in deciding whether a JEDD is the most viable economic development tool for them.

Purpose

The purpose of this thesis is to create an evaluation tool that can be used to determine the success of a JEDD. Often times, when municipalities consider their options for a method or tool, they look at examples of areas that have utilized that same method or tool in question, yet there is no set criteria to conclude that the tool was successful. Although JEDDs are still a relatively new economic development tool, they are growing in popularity; the major question is why?

Unfortunately, no such evaluation tool exists to answer the question: How successful are JEDDS in achieving the stated goals while still preserving jurisdictional independence? The availability of such information could alleviate any confusion during the decision-making process. It is the goal of this thesis to determine the commonalities of the most referenced JEDDs and then develop a matrix from the characteristics. Once completed, potential JEDD partners can examine the matrix and decide whether this type of economic development tool is best suited for them.

In Chapter Two, I will discuss in-depth economic development tools and the known advantages of JEDDs. Chapter Three will explain the need for evaluating policies and programs and provide the methodology utilized throughout this project. Chapter Four discusses the three

JEDDs selected for evaluation and analysis of research conducted. The final chapter, Chapter

Five, reflects on the research project and offers suggestions for future research on JEDDs.

CHAPTER 2

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLS AND THE ADVANTAGES OF JEDDs

Every community needs assistance in some shape or form. The undulating economy and changes in dominate sectors have caused both hardships and prosperity in many cities across the

United States. As the manufacturing industry declined, the country saw the rise of the technology industry. Areas that embraced and capitalized on those sectors prospered, while those who relied on manufacturing suffered. There are numerous other factors, such as suburban sprawl and globalization, that have led to the decline of many cities and municipalities (Carruthers and

Ulfasson 2002, 314-315; Reynolds 2007, 483). As much of the population went farther out from the center city, many businesses tended to go out even farther and vice versa. The popularity of suburban life caused many thriving cities to suffer and forced them to compete with the successful communities (Blakely 2000, 283-285). In order for these cities to survive and potentially grow, economic development and its tools have been crucial. While the techniques have proved successful for many, Clarke and Gaile showed in their study that globalization has forced local governments and organizations to rethink their development efforts and techniques used in those attempts (1998).

The focus of economic development has shifted over the years. The once regulatory arm of a city has become the cornerstone of the planning process. Blakely describes economic development planning as a way to "increase the variety of job opportunities available to local residents" (2000, 286). While job retention and growth is an important facet in economic development, Blakely acknowledges the significance of improving the overall quality of life for the community‟s residents and businesses. The combination of these two factors makes up the framework of community economic development (Blakely 2000, 287; Temali 2002, 3). Each

component requires the other to succeed. This reality is one of the many challenges in economic development.

Economic Development Tools

To facilitate growth and redevelopment, a community is equipped with a wide variety of tools that planners and government officials employ, both on the state and local level. Many of the economic development techniques exist on the local level because of the state government and vice versa (Vey 2007, 28). It is a shared goal of both the state and local governments to generate economic growth. This is often accomplished by attracting new businesses to either the state or city. While site location is typically a major selling point for any business wishing to build or relocate, the availability and use of incentives plays to that particular government's advantage. Koven and Lyons break the incentives into three categories: financial incentives, tax policies, and nonfinancial assistance (2003, 27).

Financial Incentives

Like the other strategies, financial incentives are geared towards businesses in an attempt to attract or retain jobs (Clarke and Gaile 1998; Bartik 2005, 140; Koven and Lyons 2003, 27).

These techniques include grants, loans, tax-exempt bonds, and equity and near-equity financing.

Grants on the state and national level provide businesses the assistance they need without requiring repayment, which makes them extremely popular. Like grants, loans are also a sought- after incentive, especially if the recipient is able to obtain it at a low interest rate (Koven and

Lyons 2003, 28). While there are numerous avenues that provide loans and lines of credit, the practice of loan pools are becoming increasingly popular. The use of loan pooling enables a variety of for-profit organizations to become involved in their community's redevelopment

efforts by contributing funds to one location (Kovens and Lyons 2003, 32). These contributions increase the amount of money available for potential loans.

Tax Policies

The most notable form of incentives is tax policies. Two of the more commonly used incentives are tax abatements and tax increment financing (TIF). When attracting businesses to blighted or deteriorating neighborhoods, local governments often offer a tax abatement to the potential end users. By doing so, the government agrees to waive property taxes for a specified length of time (Dalehite, Mikesell, and Zorn 2005, 157; Bartik 2005, 140; Koven and Lyons

2003, 35; Clarke and Gaile 1998, 57). The time period varies; five and ten year abatements are typical. Like most economic development tools, tax abatements have received mixed reviews.

Some researchers argue that tax abatements positively influence business relocation decisions as they reduce the amount of taxes a firm would have to pay; finance local job creation, thus making them “cost effective” (Wassmer 2007, 7), and encourage economic diversification within an existing market (Loveridge and Nizalov 2007, 11). On the other hand, critics claim that tax abatements are cost ineffective and most notably create a zero-sum game as the business merely relocates from one area to another (Wassmer 2007, 6; Loveridge and Nizalov 2007, 10-11).

Despite the mixed feelings on tax abatements, they continue to be utilized (Sands, Reese and

Khan 2006, 45; Dalehite, Mikesell, and Zorn 2005, 159).

Tax increment financing, or TIF, is another tax policy growing in popularity. Initiated in

California during the 1950s, TIF legislation was developed as a way to match funds from the federal government‟s urban renewal program (Marks 2003, 1). Concentrating on the elimination of blight, TIF special legislation is required to enact a tax-increment funded district; only states

with TIF legislation are able to utilize this economic development tool. Since the 1950s, TIF legislation has spread throughout the country. Currently 48 out of the 50 states, along with the

District of Columbia, have legislation enabling TIF.

The process of TIF is rather straightforward. Koven and Lyons break down the mechanics of a TIF district: "establish the predevelopment value of the property; borrow money for improving the property; make improvements; calculate the post development value of the property; calculate the differences; and set aside additional tax revenues associated with increase in property values; use those revenues to repay the bond" (2003, 39). Many cities that initiate

TIFs use those funds to help finance other projects, such as economic development endeavors or infrastructure improvement projects (Davis 2006, 1; Swenson and Eathington 2002, 2; Dye and

Merriman 2000, 309). Clarke and Gaile (1998) note that respondents to their survey found TIFs to be a reliable economic development tool (103). The countless possibilities for TIFs make it appealing to local governments.

Non-Financial Assistance

Although job creation is a central tenet of the aforementioned incentives, the application of nonfinancial assistance can enhance the location's climate, making it more desirable for existing or potential businesses (Bondonio and Greenbaum 2006, 123; Warner 2001; Koven and

Lyons 2003, 44). One of the most notable forms of nonfinancial assistance is an enterprise zone.

Often coupled with tax abatements, designated enterprise zones typically remove the barriers that often deter businesses and corporations from developing in a declining neighborhood (Clarke and Gaile 1998, 47; Koven and Lyons 2003, 46). It is the belief that enterprise zones will generate more employment as a result. Enterprise zones, although common, have been criticized

for focusing more on the large corporations rather than their smaller counterparts; many researchers argue that economic development should also concentrate on the local, home grown businesses (Warner 2001; Bartik 2005, 141; Koven and Lyons 2003; 47). There are numerous initiatives that governments can utilize to support local businesses and corporations, such as job training programs and the creation of business incubators; however, these options will not be discussed further as they do not directly relate to the topic at hand.

Ohio’s Economic Development Toolkit

The State of Ohio is fortunate to have all of the above mentioned economic development tools at its disposal. Aside from the traditional economic development tools, Ohio has a few more recent techniques available for use which include the Community Reinvestment Area

Program, the Cooperative Economic Development Agreement and Joint Economic Development

Districts. Although variations exist across the country, Ohio was the only state identified having

JEDDs at its disposal.

Community Reinvestment Areas

As a way to spur revitalization in communities, community reinvestment areas (CRAs) were developed. CRAs are areas of land in which property owners are able to receive tax incentives if they invest in real property improvements (Ohio Department of Development 2006,

1). Property owners that renovate existing buildings or construct new structures are eligible for tax abatements on the value of the renovation or construction. Although investment in housing is encouraged, the State of Ohio and its municipalities support the use of CRAs for commercial and industrial purposes as well (Ohio Department of Development 2006, 1). Unlike other tax

abatement initiatives, CRAs do not abate the current land value or the current facility; only the amount of real property invested can be abated (Ohio Department of Development 2006, 1).

In Ohio, investors are not the ones who benefit from the CRA. As part of the program, any project that will generate more than $1 million in payroll must negotiate with the municipality and the board of education on a revenue sharing agreement (Ohio Department of

Development 2006, 1). This agreement can provide the local school district with a substantive amount of funds to help support its operating and improvement costs. Improvement of the local school district can enhance the community's competitive advantage and in turn, aid in its development. When examining CRAs, the outcome of the agreement provides the community with the funds to help itself, which is primary tenet of third wave strategies1.

1 Waves of Strategies This tool is one that Eisinger (1995), Clarke and Gaile (1998), and Bradshaw and Blakely (1999) refer to as a third wave strategy. Third wave tools alter notable techniques such as smokestake chasing, which is categorized as a traditional first wave technique.

First Wave Strategies Prior to the 1980s, city and state governments employed first wave policies, such as subsidized loans, annexation, and infrastructure development as a way to attract “footloose” firms to their region (Bradshaw and Blakely 1999, 230). Hackler notes that these first wave techniques reflect an incentive-based approach to economic development, an approach where officials hoped to package together enough incentives to successfully entice a company to relocate in their state or community (2007, 54). Although the smokestack chasing attitude was a prevalent approach, changes in mindset occurred causing the second wave of techniques.

Second Wave Strategies Second wave strategies reflect an opposite approach to economic development than its predecessors. Instead of solely pursuing out-of-state companies, officials shifted their focus towards improving existing businesses and the climate in which they operate. Economic development strategies took a more entrepreneurial approach by providing firm-level assistance. This support came in the form of business incubators, workforce development programs, revolving loan funds and capital venture programs (Olberding 2002, 253; Bradshaw and Blakely 1999, 230). Each strategy was intended to help existing businesses expand their goods and services into a larger market. Like its precursor, economic development strategies transitioned into a new wave as policies evolved.

Third Wave Strategies Although third wave strategies are relatively new to the economic development realm, they take the first and second wave strategies of entrepreneurial development and provide focus through “new institutional and organizational arrangements” all in an attempt to create a more solid foundation for economic development (Olberding 2002, 253). Clarke and Gaile identify many third wave strategies that are also classified as first and second wave strategies; however, the difference with third wave strategies is that they have a greater focus on “economic teamwork” rather than concentrating on the success of individual firms (1998, 83). As Blakely and 9

Table 2.1: Waves and Types of Economic Development Strategies

Waves of Economic Development Strategies First Wave Second Wave Third Wave Comprehensive Planning Streamlining Business Incubators Capital Improvement Budgeting Enterprise Zones More Metro and Regional Revenue Bonds Revolving Loan Funds Cooperation Land Acquisition and Building Business Incubators Tax Increment Financing Demolition Trade Missions Abroad Special Assessment Districts Infrastructure as in-kind Marketing and Promotion Foreign Trade Zones Development Contribution More Metro and Regional Strategic Planning Selling Land Cooperation Land Banks General Obligation Bonds Below-Market-Rate Loans Export and Promotion Industrial Parks Use Program Income for Equity Participation Annexation Economic Development Taxable Bonds Marketing and Promotion Tax Increment Financing Streamlining Strategic Planning Tax Abatements – Targeted at Industrial Development Authorities New Businesses Local Development Corporations Equity Pools: Private-Public Special Assessment Districts Consortia Land Leases Tax Abatements – Targeted at Land Banks Selected Sectors Below-Market-Rate Loans Enterprise Zones Enterprise Funds for Public Enterprise Funds for Public Services Services Historical Tax Credits Venture Capital Funds Local Development Corporations Linked Deposits Source: Clarke and Gaile 1998, 80-81.

Cooperative Economic Development Agreement

Another program that the State of Ohio offers is the Cooperative Economic Development

Agreement, also known as CEDA. Focused primarily on tax revenue sharing, CEDA enables one or more contiguous cities or villages and one or more contiguous townships to enter into a

Bradshaw explain, the key to third wave techniques is a "supportive economic development marketplace rather than payments to firms," which is what many first and second wave techniques, like one hundred percent tax abatements, do (1999, 230). Third wave strategies adapt first and second wave strategies to better address the current needs and desires of communities; this ensures that the community does not have to rely solely on a singular firm to impact economic development.

contractual agreement in an effort to preserve or create job opportunities and improve the economic welfare of those in the designated area (Ohio Department of Development 1999, 1;

Civittolo 2008, 1). A relatively new program, CEDA encourages local cooperation among adjacent communities. By entering the contract, the city may agree to provide utilities while the township will provide road maintenance in the area. The once disputed area can become a source of tax revenue for both parties once a business decides to locate there. For the city, it means increased income tax revenue as well as returns from utilities. For the township, the agreement means increased property tax revenue as well as delay of annexation, if that was an issue

(Civittolo 2008, 2). This contractual agreement is very similar to another economic development tool, the Joint Economic Development District.

Joint Economic Development Districts

Joint Economic Development Districts, commonly known as JEDDs, evolved out of a dispute between cities and townships regarding annexation. Cities such as Akron saw annexation as a way to increase their tax base as well as acquire land for future development (Edwards 2008,

121-128). Surrounding suburbs and townships saw this move as an attempt at infringing on their independence. Mayor Plusquellic of the City of Akron asked the question "is there a way that the city could stop annexation yet still expand its economic base and share the tax benefits of that growth?" (2002, 191; Goodman 2007, 2). He found that the answer to this question lied in a form of regionalization. From there, the concept of a JEDD was devised.

The city would stop annexation in return for the collection of income taxes in the zoned business districts; Akron would provide water and sewer services to the zone at the city‟s expense; residents could tap into the water and sewer lines at an attractive financial price; the

township would collect property taxes from the businesses in the new zone; the township would provide basic services to the zone, such as fire and police; and the agreement would be long-term so long as Akron could recoup its investments (Plusquellic 2002, 191-192). The problem was that there was no legal authority to establish a JEDD in the State of Ohio. After much lobbying and negotiation, Ohio passed legislation allowing JEDDs in 1990, but only for Summit County.

Years later, the State Legislature would authorize JEDDs through the Ohio Revised Code, providing all municipalities the opportunity to establish a JEDD. Plusquellic‟s vision of a realistic solution for economic development, but most importantly, annexation prevention, is defined in the Ohio Revised Code §715.72, which states that purpose for JEDDs is to “to facilitate economic development to create or preserve jobs and employment opportunities and to improve the economic welfare of the people in the State of Ohio and in the area of the

Contracting Parties” (Worrell 2006, 1).

Legalization Process

The Ohio Revised Code created a detailed process that potential parties must go through in order to legalize the contract agreement. Ohio Revised Code §715.72-81 are the primary sections that detail the steps of the JEDD process (Worrel 2006, 1). Lasting approximately 135 days from start to finish, the process enables all parties, which includes the primary city and township(s), property owners in the designated area, and municipalities within one-quarter mile of the area the opportunity to voice their opinion at public hearings. The Ohio Revised Code requires that the following language be incorporated in the contract agreement:

“the length of the agreement; the specific activities to be undertaken; the appointment and duties of the JEDD Board of Directors; the geographic boundary of the JEDD (which is not to exceed 2,000 acres); specific responsibility of all

services each entity will provide, such as utilities and emergency services; specific details relating to revenue sharing and distribution” (Civittolo 2008, 1).

The contract is legally recognized once all entities have signed the agreement and submitted the paperwork to the Ohio Department of Taxation. Although the process is lengthy and tedious, the benefits tend to make the process worthwhile.

Perceived Benefits

As an economic development tool, JEDDs enable built-out cities to capitalize on developed or undeveloped land in a neighboring township without having to annex it. The contract makes it possible for both parties to take advantage of the increased revenue in the designated area. Much like in a CEDA, the city can generate additional revenue from income taxes as well as utilities (Civittolo 2007, 2; Albers and Luckage n/d, 1-2; Goodman 2007, 2).

Typically townships are not able to impose an income tax on existing businesses within its jurisdiction; however, a JEDD allows them to collect income taxes as well as property taxes as part of the contract (Civittolo 2007, 2; Albers and Luckage n/d, 1-2; Goodman 2007, 2). As

Bradshaw and Blakely (1999), Oblerding (2002), Clarke and Gaile (1998), and Hackler (2005) all point out, third wave strategies concentrate on creating a solid and supportive economic market area so that development can occur successfully. The use of a JEDD as an economic development tool encourages the principles of third wave strategies.

Likewise, JEDDs embody the tenets of regionalization. As Mohamed points out, regionalism advocates for cooperation and partnership (2008, 2785). JEDDs accomplish this by encouraging two separate municipalities to work together towards a common goal, whether it be the prevention of annexation, increased revenue-sharing, or “improved economic

competitiveness” (Mohamed 2008, 2785). Similarly, JEDDs enable participating municipalities‟ existing business mixes to collaborate and generate a niche or cluster. By providing utilities such as water and sewer at a lower rate, businesses compatible with those in or near the JEDD have a greater incentive to locate in the designated district, thus increasing the potential for cluster development. When discussing the key components of cluster development, Aziz and

Norhashim indicate “[t]here should be a significant presence of enterprises, institutional bodies, etc., with a high level of interaction that leads to structures of domination or coalition that can achieve collective representation of interests plus a mutual awareness of common purpose”

(2008, 354). With a joint Board of Trustees at the helm, the shared goals or purpose are maintained throughout the JEDD‟s existence, thus facilitating an environment conducive to business creation and expansion.

Although time is necessary for any regionalization effort to take form, the ability to establish JEDDs is a step in the right direction. The sense for the need for regional cooperation is evidenced in Table 2. Since it was formally adopted almost fifteen years ago, over forty JEDDs have been set up throughout the state, with five more currently proposed. Table 2 below identifies those JEDDs already established as well as anticipated agreements. Despite the growing number, it is unknown exactly how successful this economic development tool has been.

Comparable Techniques

The State of Ohio is not the only state to implement an economic development tool similar to JEDDs. The State of Texas has a relatively similar program called limited-purpose annexation that has proven to be effective in its economic development initiatives. Established in

1999 in response to annexation, the State of Texas passed this legislation to allow cities to work cooperatively with its surrounding municipal utility districts (MUDs). Much like JEDDs, an agreement is made between the city and the neighboring MUD to halt annexation for thirty years; however, the city would extend its sales tax into the MUD, which is typically higher than the surrounding counties (Goodman 2007, 2-3). In return, the MUD would receive half of the revenue generated from the sales tax. Unlike JEDDs, MUDs are able to include residential areas within the districts. Although MUDs do not have to provide any service as part of the agreement, they are viewed as successful because it prevents annexation and provides them with revenue that they would not have had otherwise (Goodman 2007, 3).

Municipalities across the country utilize economic development tools to help facilitate economic growth in their regions. While a standard set of tools are often employed in their efforts, states like Ohio have tailored an array of their tools towards their own situation. JEDDs are an example of the local communities recognizing the necessity to develop a tool that directly addresses their needs. The increasing number of JEDDs across the state indicates that its popularity as an economic development tool has intensified. It is necessary to point out that the advantages of JEDDs have been outlined in a few publications (Civittolo 2007; Albers and

Luckage n/d; Goodman 2007); however, little to no research exists identifying specifically how effective JEDDs are in achieving their original objectives. This project serves as a first attempt in identifying the level of success of JEDDs. The next chapter will describe the need for evaluation as well as the steps taken in this project to develop an evaluation tool.

Table 1.2: Existing and Proposed JEDDs in Ohio2

Location Location JEDD Name JEDD Name County County Amherst Twp-Lorain Lorain Hamilton-Fairfield Butler Bainbridge-Aurora Geauga Harrison Twp-Harrison Hamilton Bainbridge-Solon Geauga Hubbard Twp-Hubbard Trumbull Barberton-Norton Summit Kent-Franklin Portage Bath-Akron-Fairlawn Summit Lebanon-Turtlecreek Warren Beachwood East Cuyahoga Liberty Twp-Middletown-Mason Butler Beachwood West Cuyahoga Macedonia-Northfield Summit Bedford Cuyahoga Madison Twp - Village of Madison Pickaway Boston Twp-Cuyahoga Falls Cuyahoga Miami Twp-Dayton Clermont Brimfield-Kent Summit Noble-Defiance Defiance Brimfield-Tallmadge Summit Northern Pickaway County-Columbus Pickaway Clayton-Clay Twp Montgomery Northwest Fairfield County 33 Corridor Fairfield Concord-Painesville Lake Olmsted Twp - City of Olmsted Falls Cuyahoga Copley-Akron Summit Orange-Chagrin-Highland Cuyahoga Cortland-Bazetta Trumbull Pataskala-Newark-Harrison Twp Licking Coventry-Akron Summit Perry Twp-Navarre Stark Dayton-Butler Twp Montgomery Perrysburg-Toledo Lucas Doylestown-Chippewa Wayne Reminderville-Twinsburg Twp Summit Eaton Twp Lorain Springfield-Akron Summit Elyria Twp Lorain Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport Clark Geneva-Harpersfield Twp Ashtabula Toledo-Monclova Township Lucas Geneva-Harpersfield Twp JEDD II Ashtabula Zanesville-Springfield Muskingum Hamilton-Indian Springs (Fairfield) Butler Zanesville-Newton Muskingum Source: Author

2 The italicized names reflect currently proposed agreements.

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Once an economic development tool has been selected and implemented, it is essential for it to be periodically reviewed or evaluated. Doing so enables policymakers to assess and determine if it should remain implemented or be replaced with an alternative tool or technique.

Before an evaluation can take place, policymakers must determine which evaluation technique is the most relevant. Therefore it is necessary to discuss the steps taken in this research process before discussing the method of evaluation.

Methodological Steps

As mentioned in the preceding sections, subjectivity has become increasingly difficult to eliminate from economic development, whether it is in the decision-making or evaluating process. Use of Hill‟s GAM when evaluating JEDDs allows its qualitative nature to be incorporated into the final analysis. It is my hope that by the end of this research, the final matrices can be used as stepping stones towards more in-depth analysis of JEDDs, but before this can be done, it is necessary to explain in detail the steps taken throughout the research process.

Identification of Existing Literature

Before determining my specific research question, it was essential to identify any omissions in the existing literature on JEDDs. As discussed in the previous chapter, little analysis had been produced regarding JEDDs. The inability to find concrete evidence as to why JEDDs are growing in popularity as an economic development tool then became the inspiration for my research question. With a research question in place, a proper methodology was necessary.

Development of a Research Strategy

Because a formal evaluation of JEDDs had not been conducted, it was prudent that an applicable methodology be developed. Upon research of policy and program evaluation, it was determined, as discussed above, that Morris Hill‟s Goals-Achievement Matrix would be most appropriate evaluation tool since it takes into account qualitative variables. But in order to perform an evaluation, the necessary data must be collected. Examination of the internet for detailed information regarding the goals of JEDDs proved fruitless. Since information was not readily available, I determined that conducting interviews was the only way I would be able to obtain the data necessary for completing the evaluation.

A number of different methodologies could have been utilized to collect the necessary data for this study. Techniques such as a survey would ensure that each answer was standardized; however, no two JEDDs are alike and the responses should reflect this variation. The use of an interview allows for the differences to be identified in the analysis.

During the interview portion of the research, the format followed a semi-standardized structure. Michael Bloor and Fiona Wood define interviewing as “the elicitation of research data through the questioning of respondents. . . [Q]ualitative (or „semi-structured‟, or „depth‟, or

„ethnographic‟) interviews have a more informal, conversational character, being shaped partly by the interviewer‟s pre-existing topic guide and party by concerns that are emergent in the interview” (2006, 104).

Instead of abiding by a strict set of questions, the semi-structured interview allows the interviewer to deviate from the questions in order to gain deeper responses. Holstein and

Gubrium note that a semi-structured interview allows the interviewer to be active and encourage

the respondent to discuss the topic further (1999, 115). By doing so, important information that may not have been brought up initially will be revealed.

Identification of JEDDs

Once it had been determined that a semi-structured interview would be the primary method of data collection, the next step was identifying existing JEDDs across the state. Through the use of the internet and the State of Ohio Auditor‟s website, forty (40) established JEDDs and their locations were identified; another six (6) JEDDs in the preliminary stages were also discovered through the research process. Table 2 on page 15 names all of the JEDDs, both existing and proposed, in the State of Ohio.

Although the evaluation of forty JEDDs would uncover the effectiveness of the program as a whole, the scope of this pilot study narrowed the focus to three JEDDs. To assist in the selection of the JEDDs, criteria were established to narrow down the list of potential JEDD participants. The primary criterion was year of formation.

Criterion: Year of Establishment

Prior to selecting the three JEDDs, I ascertained the year of establishment for each JEDD; this was necessary for the accurateness of the evaluation as a JEDD. Although programs can be assessed at any point in time, the researcher created the criterion that the JEDD must have been operating for five years. This provides a sufficient amount of time in order for identifiable results to have emerged. Out of the forty JEDDs, fourteen had been established prior to 2004, most of which are located in Summit County, Ohio, as Summit County was the first county in the state which was granted approval to establish JEDDs.

Recruitment Process

The list of fourteen was narrowed down based on the results of the recruitment process.

By searching local government websites, administrators were identified for each party involved in the fourteen JEDDs. An inquiry was made via the telephone and E-mail as to their willingness to participate in the research study. After contacting each JEDD, administrators from three

JEDDs agreed to take part in the study: the Harrison-Harrison Township JEDD in Hamilton

County, the Hamilton-Indian Springs JEDD in Butler County, and the Copley-Akron JEDD in

Summit County.

Interview Questions Development

Based on the research question and the structure of the GAM, a total of nine questions were developed for the interview. The questions included:

- Its location;

- The events leading up to its creation;

- The objectives, or purposes, of the JEDD and the level of importance of those objectives

on a scale of one (1) to five (5);

- The goals, or desired end results, of the JEDD and the level of importance of those goals

on a scale of one (1) to five (5);

- Which objectives and goals have been met and how they have been met.

The exact interview question sheet can be found in Appendix A on page 63. The answers to each question provide key elements to the composition of the matrix. Because of the somewhat flexible structure of the semi-standardized interview, I determined that any additional information that could not be incorporated into the matrix was to be used to further expand upon

the objectives and goals identified in the matrix. Before any research could be conducted, the research proposal and interview questions went through the rigorous Institutional Review Board for approval. Consequently, once the interview questions were approved, they were unable to be adjusted at any point during the data collection period. This proved to limit the research, which will be discussed in Chapter 5.

Conduct Interviews

Over the course of three weeks, the interviews were conducted at a location of the participant‟s choice. During the interview, the participants were asked a series of questions regarding the formation, goals and objectives of their respective districts. The responses from the interview were recorded on a questionnaire; the standard questionnaire can be found in Appendix

A on page 63. Any responses that deviated from the standard questions were noted at the conclusion of the questionnaire and were taken into consideration when evaluating each respective JEDD. Before discussing the next step, evaluation and analysis, it is necessary to discuss why evaluation is essential in the development of new policies.

The Need for Evaluation

Like other methodologies, evaluation research varies from situation to situation as no two policies or programs are alike. More often than not, evaluation methods are used to determine the effectiveness of specific activities, individuals, organizations, objectives and policies (Breakwell and Millward 1995, 3-4; Mark, Henry and Julnes 2000, 1, 49; Payne and Payne 2004, 80;

Singleton, Jr. and Straits 2005, 422). From there, areas in need of improvement can be identified.

Mark, Henry and Julnes cite this as one of the most important functions of evaluation. They

claim that many local, state and federal programs and policies were established to improve the quality of life for society; use of evaluation tools enables those particular organizations and institutions to obtain the necessary information to continue their efforts for social betterment

(2000, 49; Posavac and Carey 2007, 14).

Isserman explains that it is often extremely difficult for governments to evaluate their programs as many factors, such as the complexity in obtaining data and the type of data, thwart efforts; he claims that better methods are necessary if governments want to know whether their programs and strategies are working or not (1994, 90). Likewise, the use of evaluation tools on economic development strategies provides the data necessary for governments to make the best decision possible rather than just following fads (Markusen and Glasmeier 2008, 89). One of the more common evaluation tools utilized by policymakers is the cost-benefit analysis (CBA).

Steinemann et al. (2005) explain that CBA is a method that allows for the quantification of the costs and benefits of a plan, project or policy (321). To ensure easily identifiable results, the costs and benefits are translated into monetary terms and then summed together. The premise behind CBA is that if the benefits outweigh the costs then the program, policy or plan is economically justified (Steinemann et al 2005, 321; Posavac and Carey 2007, 235-237).

Unfortunately, not all variables, such as reasons for a policy or program, can be translated into a monetary term. Despite its popularity, CBA does not allow for unquantifiable, or qualitative, variables to be accounted for in the evaluation process.

Joint Economic Development Districts are a prime example of a policy or program that cannot be adequately assessed by CBA. The goals and objectives of the JEDD, whether it was the prevention of annexation or the need to regionalize, in most cases are quantitatively

immeasurable as they cannot be translated into monetary value. Because of its qualitative nature, a different technique is necessary to fully evaluate the success and value of a JEDD.

Objectivity vs. Subjectivity

As noted above, not all policies and programs can be evaluated through a cost-benefit analysis or another quantitative approach as no two policies are alike. The inability to measure qualitative variables with quantitative techniques prevents the standardization of evaluation tools. The problem is rooted in the debate between the uses of quantitative or qualitative methodologies. As Mark, Henry, and Julnes point out, the evaluation of programs and policies within the quantitative paradigm requires objectivity, or dealing with data in such a way that it is not distorted by personal feelings or interpretations (2000, 161). The CBA is a primary example of a quantitative evaluation technique in that it strictly uses hard numbers or monetary terms.

Quantitative evaluation relies solely on generalization; it does not go beyond what the numbers provided (Mark, Henry and Julnes 2000, 162; Payne and Payne 2004, 153).

On the other hand, the qualitative paradigm places an emphasis on subjectivity, where a response is impacted by one‟s personal views or experiences. Unlike quantitative evaluation techniques, qualitative evaluation focuses on particulars; it explores the variables in that specific context (Mark, Henry and Julnes 2000, 162). A variety of qualitative evaluation techniques have appeared over the years, especially in policy evaluation. Nagel notes that the use of multicriteria decision making, or the evaluation or multiple goals and non-monetary benefits, has been on the rise in public policy evaluation (2002, 193).

In many instances, as Dewar comments, it is difficult to eliminate subjectivity, as the environment in which a policy or program was established influences its overall outcomes. She

states that better evaluations can be found through an understanding of the political economy in which the decisions are being made (1998 73). Subjectivity, or in the case of most policymaker but not all, the need to get reelected, often influences the decision to implement a particular policy or not. Consequently, the subjective nature becomes inherent when conducting an evaluation of the policy or program.

Despite this, Morris Hill developed an evaluation tool that takes into consideration the qualitative nature. His goals-achieving matrix has become one of the more widely recognized methods of choice when evaluating a qualitative program or policy.

Goals-Achievement Matrix

Through the creation and application of a matrix, one of the primary questions of any program or policy, "Has it worked?" can be answered (Payne and Payne 2004, 83). An extension of cost-benefit analysis, the goals-achievement matrix examines each goal separately. Hill defines a goal as "an end to which a planned course of action is directed" (1968, 22; 1973, 23).

Goals, he says, are defined in terms of ideals, objectives, and policies. The first step in the process is to determine the objectives, or the purpose of the program. Once those are determined, they must be weighted in terms of importance to the community. From there incidence groups, or stakeholders, are indentified. Just as the objectives were weighted for the community, they must also be weighted to show the degree to which the goal will affect the incidence groups.

The next step, Hill says, is to identify the costs and benefits of the goals for each incidence group. He expresses three types in which costs and benefits can be classified, tangible that can be expressed in monetary terms; tangible that are not monetary but can still be expressed in quantitative terms; and intangible that is expressed in qualitative terms (1968, 22). While the

costs and benefits can be specified in unique values, he notes that it is better to define them in ranges, thus accounting for any uncertainty. Once the matrix has been developed, there are three different strategies that can be employed to compare the effectiveness of the plan: goals- achievement account; weighted index of goals-achievement; and goals-achievement transformation function (1968, 25).

With the goals-achievement account, the raw matrix is presented to the decision makers.

In the weighted index approach, the weights for each goal and each incidence group are multiplied together. When comparing two or more plans, the effect of the goal on the incidence group is assessed to be positive, negative or neutral. If it is neutral, the number changes to zero, otherwise the positive or negative sign is assigned accordingly. The next step is to sum all the numbers for each plan. The plan with the higher value, according to Hill, is the best choice

(1968, 25). The last option is the goals-achievement transformation function. Recommended by

Ackoff, this method transforms unlike units into comparable units (1968, 26). The example seen in Figure 3.1 below comes from a hypothetical situation Hill discusses in his book.

Figure 3.1: Hill's Goals-Achievement Matrix

Source: Hill 1968, 26.

To understand the manner in which the matrix works, the abovementioned scenario will be explained. A community decided that transportation improvements need to be made in certain sections of the area. The community leaders and other involved parties have developed two proposed solutions, Plan A and Plan B. The primary objectives for the plans, as identified by the community leaders are found along the header; these objectives are “Weighted accessibility” and

“Weighted community disruption.” The community leaders assigned weights to the objectives in terms of their importance3; “Weighted accessibility” received a weight of two (2) whereas

“Weighted community disruption” received a one (1).

Once the plans have been created, other stakeholders in the process, such as residents, business owners, or any other group that will be impacted by any improvements made to the transportation system, are identified; they are shown in Figure 3.1 as “Group a” and “Group b.”

As was done by the community leaders, the stakeholders provided their own weight to the already identified objectives. “Group a” assigned a weight of three (3) to both objectives whereas

“Group b” assigned a weight of one (1) to “Weighted accessibility” and a weight of two (2) to

“Weighted community disruption.”

The weight from the objective is then multiplied to the weight of the stakeholder. Once that is completed, a positive sign (+), a negative sign ( – ), or a zero (0) is assigned to the numerical value based on the plan‟s ability to achieve the desired objective4. Upon assignment of the appropriate sign to the number, the values are totaled. Examination of Figure 3.1 shows that the totals from each objective are summed, resulting in a weighted-index for each plan; Plan A

3 It is assumed that Hill uses a scale of one (1) to five (5) in this hypothetical situation. He does not specify in his book how large or small the scale should be.

4 A zero (0) is assigned when the plan is neutral in respects to the identified objective.

had a total of one (1) and Plan B had a total of negative six (-6). Once the calculations have been completed, the community leaders can examine the results and determine which plan will achieve the identified objectives best. The standard assumption is that the higher the index value, the more preferable the plan; therefore, in this example, Plan A is preferable to Plan B as one (1) is greater than negative six (-6).

It is important to comment that the GAM is not the final step in the decision-making process. Although the GAM can show which plan or alternative is more desirable and preferable for the community, it is only a comparison. Policymakers use the GAM to provide additional information that is necessary to make an informed decision. With a better understanding of how the GAM functions, the evaluation and analysis steps can be discussed.

Evaluation and Analysis

Once the interviews were conducted, the responses were plugged into a matrix, similar to the one in Figure 3.1 above. The matrices used in the final analysis can be found in Appendix B beginning on page 66; it is necessary to note that a separate matrix was used for each JEDD. For this thesis, it is necessary to clarify a few terms. As seen in Figure 3.1, the “Plans” represent the objectives and goals for each JEDD and then the “groups” reflect the participating communities.

By weighting each variable, the overall importance to the communities is reflected as each weight carried a different level of importance.

Once the weighted numbers were inputted into the matrix, they were then totaled, thus indicating which objectives and goals were of the greatest importance to the JEDD. Further explanation as to how these objectives and goals were achieved was derived from the participants‟ interviews. These responses were then used as further clarification for the use of a

JEDD. By compiling all of the results, future JEDD participants are then able to reference the matrices and additional details to determine if a JEDD is the appropriate solution for their situation.

With a better understanding of the steps taken throughout this research process, the discussion can move on to the individual JEDDs. The following chapter will discuss in-depth each JEDD, the events leading up to its formation and then explanation of its goals and objectives. Analysis of its corresponding matrix will ensue at the conclusion of the fourth chapter.

CHAPTER FOUR

ANALYSIS OF PARTICIPATING JEDDS

Although a relatively new economic development tool, JEDDs have been around long enough to allow assessment of their benefits and costs. In Chapter 4, I developed an instrument to assess JEDDs and described a procedure by which I would collect the necessary information.

In this chapter, I use this evaluation framework to test the efficiency of those select JEDDs in meeting their goals. Although Hill‟s original GAM evaluated the impact of two alternative plans on a community to help determine which plan was better, the theory was still applied in this research but was adapted to properly address the goals of JEDDs. This chapter will discuss each

JEDD separately, focusing on the events leading up to its formation, the goals of each JEDD and the findings from the GAM.

Hamilton-Indian Springs JEDD

As identified in Chapter 2, improving the opportunities for job creation as well as enhancing the overall quality of life are two of the primary facets of economic development. As one of the oldest JEDDs in the state of Ohio, the Hamilton-Indian Springs agreement encompasses many of the key components of economic development. Concentrating on the potential positive outcomes of creating a JEDD aided in its establishment.

Goals and Objectives

Talks began in 1996 about a JEDD between the City of Hamilton and Indian Spring as discussions of annexation areas were taking place. The site of the original JEDD was located around State Highway 129, also identified as the Michael A. Fox Highway, in Butler County,

Ohio. State Highway 129 is a highly trafficked highway that runs through Indian Springs into the

City of Hamilton as seen in Figure 4.1. It is necessary to note that at the time of the JEDD contract, Indian Springs was a large area in Fairfield Township that desired to become its own village; however, Indian Springs residents were unable to accomplish this goal and ended up remaining a part of the township instead. This is why the formal name of the JEDD still reflects

Indian Springs. There are three distinct areas within the JEDD; however, the largest portion, seen in the middle of Figure 4.1 was at the center of discussion during negotiations.

Annexation Prevention

As mentioned above, Indian Springs residents attempted to become their own municipality but were unsuccessful in maintaining its village status; the courts declared it unconstitutional as the population was above the limit for village status (Interview #6). Instead they remained a part of Fairfield Township. Around that same time, portions of Fairfield

Township were being annexed into the City of Hamilton; the threat of becoming a part of the city was great (Interview #6). Fairfield Township knew that an agreement must be made if they intended on preserving their government and boundaries.

Likewise, the City of Hamilton acknowledged that they had the capability of supporting potential developments at that time whereas the surrounding townships did not, and that annexation could have been an issue to solve this problem; however, they took a different approach to the situation as Fairfield Township did not consider annexation a solution (Interview

#2; Interview #6). For the city, a fundamental objective was working together with its neighboring townships. They saw the JEDD as an opportunity to develop regional cooperation; in this situation, regional is limited to Hamilton and its surrounding neighbors.

By establishing a JEDD, any fears of annexation would be eliminated. The contract would prohibit the City of Hamilton from annexing any part of Fairfield Township for ninety- nine (99) years. This allows the township to maintain its boundaries yet capitalize on future endeavors within the designated JEDD area. The same can be said for the City of Hamilton; although their physical boundaries would remain intact, the JEDD would provide them an opportunity to expand its economic base.

Capitalizing on Future Development

The primary site was a collection of undeveloped parcels totaling roughly 200 acres that had become a target area for future development. Its high level of visibility from the highway made it a desirable location for developers. Located about one mile west of the proposed site, the

City of Hamilton understood the importance that having a stake in the development could have on the city. Because businesses were beginning to relocate towards the township, the city saw the

JEDD as a way to retain a substantial portion of the income tax from those businesses (Interview

#2; Interview #6). Similarly, the township realized that implementation of a JEDD would enable

Indian Springs to generate revenue that it would not have otherwise been permitted. The ability to extend and collect an income tax is not permissible for townships through the Ohio Revised

Code (Interview #2; Interview #6).

The contract would institute the 2 percent income tax from the City of Hamilton into the designated JEDD areas. The revenue generated from the income tax would be split between the

City of Hamilton and Indians Spring, with the city receiving 75 percent and Indian Springs receiving 25 percent (Interview #2 and Interview #6). Although the City of Hamilton would have preferred to have received 100 percent of the revenues, they saw 75 percent as a significant

addition to their funds. Likewise, Indian Springs viewed their share as revenue they would not have received otherwise (Interview #6).

Extension of Infrastructure

In addition to income tax revenue, the City of Hamilton saw the JEDD contract as a chance to expand their utilities into neighboring areas. As indicated in the research process, the

City of Hamilton owns and provides four utilities to its residents and business: water, sewer, gas and electric (Interview #2). Implementation of the JEDD would enable the City of Hamilton to expand their service into the JEDD area. Part of the contract states that businesses within the

JEDD could access those utilities at a lower rate. Since utilities were not available within the primary location, the agreement enabled those services to be provided. Not only did this provide the City of Hamilton with an additional revenue stream but it also gave those in the JEDD areas the ability to receive quality utilities at a lower rate (Interview #2).

In August 1996, the Hamilton-Indian Springs JEDD was formally adopted5. The issues stated above were taken from the interviews and placed into the Goals-Achievement Matrix. The following section evaluates those goals and objectives.

Application and Evaluation of Goals-Achievement Matrix

During the interviews, the participants were asked to give the objectives for the JEDD and the appropriate weight, on a scale of one (1) to five (5) for each objective, as detailed in the

5 Recognizing the positive impacts of JEDDs, lawmakers decided to create a second JEDD about ten years later; however, that JEDD is not being evaluated in this research study

previous chapter; the participant was not prohibited to ranking the objectives but rather rate their importance. From the interviews, the following objectives and weights were identified by the

City of Hamilton and Indian Springs (Fairfield Township):

1) Revenue Generation – 5;

2) Infrastructure and Utility Expansion – 5; and

3) Annexation Prevention – 5.

Likewise the following goals and weights were identified:

1) Infrastructure Expansion – 5;

2) Revenue Generation – 5;

3) Annexation Prevention – 5;

4) Job Creation – 5; and

5) Business Development – 5.

The abovementioned objectives, goals and appropriate weights were then placed into separate

GAMs, which can be found in Appendix B on pages 66 through 68. It is necessary to note that the original GAM completed by Morris Hill evaluated alternative plans and their impacts on the objectives and participants; application of the original GAM proved difficult in this situation as the main objective was to establish a JEDD for the reasons identified as objectives. Therefore, all of the objectives identified by the participants were placed into separate GAMs and then applied independently to the individual parties. The totals of the individual objectives were then combined into another matrix and tallied, thus identifying the success of each particular objective when applied to both parties. To determine the success of the JEDD as a whole, the totals from the separate objectives were compiled into a final matrix.

Based on the Hamilton – Indian Springs Overall JEDD Totals matrix, it can be said that the JEDD has been relatively successful in achieving its identified goals. When multiplying the weight of the objective by five times the weight of the goal, an impact assessment is created.

Then based on the interviews, a positive (+) sign, negative (-) sign, or zero (0) is assigned to the product to show how the well or poorly the impact was received; zero (0) reflects neutral impact because the participant did not identify a particular objective as their own.

After following the steps identified above, it can be said that the most successful achievement was in revenue generation; it scored a total of 90 out of a possible 100. This accomplishment was evidenced when both the City of Hamilton and Indian Springs stated that development within the JEDD area has generated a substantial amount of revenue for their respective governments. Indian Springs reported that it took a few years for the township to see additional revenue because the property was initially undeveloped. As retail developed within the JEDD though, the revenue stream increased (Interview #6). Likewise, the City of Hamilton has been able to capitalize on this revenue as they receive seventy-five percent of it.

The four remaining goals (infrastructure expansion, annexation prevention, job creation, and business development), each with a weight of 5 and total of 50 out of 100, were found to have been somewhat successful for each of the respective participants, based on the matrix as well as interviews. Infrastructure expansion and its resultant additional revenue have been achieved for the City of Hamilton, annexation prevention was fully achieved for Indian Springs, and job creation and business development were achieved for the City of Hamilton. Examination of the individual objective matrices shows that there was room for improvement with the JEDD.

Arguably, Indians Springs gained very little from entering into the JEDD contract; however, their primary objective and goal was annexation prevention, which was achieved. Although the

matrices show that the JEDD favored the City of Hamilton over Indian Springs, the two parties were able to work together despite their differences6.

6 Although there are three goals that do no indicate an impact on Indian Springs, it is likely that further examination of the Hamilton-Fairfield JEDD, or JEDD II as both municipalities refer to it as, will show that business development and job creation were achieved.

Figure 4.1: Map of Hamilton – Indian Springs JEDD

Source: Interview #2 36

Copley-Akron JEDD

A shrinking tax base and a fear of annexation are just two of the reasons that the City of

Akron and Copley Township formed a JEDD in 1994. Realizing the need to work together towards self-preservation of their respective communities, the City of Akron and Copley

Township formed one of the very first JEDDs in the State of Ohio. At the forefront of innovative economic development tools, the Copley-Akron JEDD would serve as a model for future JEDDs.

Goals and Objectives

The City of Akron is located in the heart of Summit County, surrounded by a multitude of smaller cities and townships; Copley Township is one of those municipalities, which is found on the southwestern edge of the city‟s limits. Through the research process, I learned that both the City of Akron and Copley Township recognized the need to collaborate in the early 1990s as both municipalities were facing difficult times.

Annexation Prevention

In the 1980s, the City of Akron struggled with a declining tax base as many Akron-based businesses were relocating to the suburbs. This caused a reduction in revenue for the city as returns from income taxes declined. One solution to the problem was annexation. In the mid to late 1980s, the City of Akron began annexing portions of its neighbors as a way to generate revenue (Interview #5). An area of consideration was Copley Township; however, their annexation concerns were not just limited to the City of Akron.

During the 1970s, a large section in northern Copley Township broke off and created the

City of Fairlawn. As the City of Akron was participating in annexation, Copley Township experienced growing concerns regarding possible annexation into the City of Fairlawn

(Interview #3). The cities of Norton and Barberton, located south and southeast of Copley

Township respectively, were growing in size as well, creating potential annexation issues for

Copley Township along its southern borders. The increasing fear of annexation from multiple sides prompted Copley Township to strongly consider the JEDD with the City of Akron; entering this agreement would prevent the City of Akron from annexing Copley Township for ninety-nine years with the option to extend it for two successive fifty (50) year periods7 (Interview #3;

Interview #5).

Revenue Generation

A fear that is often married with annexation is the loss of property taxes. As a township,

Copley Township relies heavily upon its property taxes and levies to keep the government operating (Interview #3; Interview 5). Unlike cities, townships are unable to institute an income tax on those that work within the township. As concerns regarding annexation grew, so did the thought of losing its main source of revenue. The idea of establishing a JEDD reassured Copley

Township that their property taxes would remain intact.

In addition to maintaining its property tax, Copley Township would generate additional revenue from the income tax that would be levied within the JEDD boundaries. The rate would be same as it was within the city boundaries, two (2) percent. As the contract stands, all revenues

7 Copley Township‟s annexation fears would later be subdued as the City of Akron entered a three-party JEDD with Bath Township and the City of Fairlawn. Part of this agreement prohibits the City of Fairlawn from annexing any property that petitions it for annexation; this includes Copley Township (Interview #3).

generated from the levied tax go towards the JEDD; however, the contract states if the income tax were increased above the two percent rate prior to January 1, 2005, that the township would receive one-third (1/3) of amount above the original rate. In the event that the income tax was raised, Copley Township viewed this as a positive effect for the township (Interview #3). As

Akron-based businesses were moving into the suburbs, such as Copley Township, the City of

Akron saw the JEDD as an opportunity to maintain a revenue stream, even if they did not receive

100 percent of the income tax as they would if the businesses had remained in the city (Interview

#5). The monies generated from the income tax were to be used by both the City of Akron and

Copley Township for the upkeep and maintenance of the JEDD. By using the revenue generated from the income tax to maintain the JEDD environment, funds that would have otherwise been used by either party had annexation occurred were now available for other uses.

Water and Sewer Expansion

Another driver of the JEDD was the improvement of water and sewer in Copley

Township. At that time, most of the suburban townships had either well water or were getting water from Summit County (Interview #5). A few pockets of residential areas had a need for a better water supply as a result of years of contamination or overall poor quality. Through the negotiation process, three specific areas, or “proposed service areas”, had been identified to have greatest need (Interview #3). Although residential areas are not typically included in JEDDs,

Akron was willing to include these areas in the agreement because it had that capability of extending service to the township and was able to generate additional revenue through water and sewer (Interview #5). Service was not automatically provided once the agreement was made, however. A petition had to be signed by 75 percent of the residents in the proposed service area

in order for the city to provide access to water and sewer services. After this petition was approved by the city, the services were extended; however, a provision was written into the contract stating that those who did not sign the petition were not required to take or pay for the city‟s service (Interview #3). These individuals could enter into a separate agreement with the city at a later time if they decided to receive city water and sewer. If and when residents decide to access city water and sewer, they are guaranteed the same rates that city residents pay; however, they would incur an additional surcharge to cover tap-in fees, which could be paid upfront or over the course of 10 years (Interview #3). The flexibility of the agreement and the lower rates was a positive reinforcement for township residents and provided a reason to pass the

JEDD agreement (Interview #3).

Outside of the three proposed service areas, any property owner that desired to develop his property for commercial or industrial use was able to access city water and sewer as well.

Property owners utilizing city water and sewer would pay the same rates as Akron city residents plus a surcharge to account for tap-in fees. By having water and sewer available at a lower rate, it was the belief that businesses would be more attracted to the area and thus support economic development.

In July of 1994, the Copley-Akron JEDD was formalized. About 1,600 acres of business- zoned property along Copley‟s main corridors were included in the JEDD. Most of the property was developed, but some vacant land still exists for future commercial, business, or even industrial development as seen in Figure 4.2 (Interview #3). The issues stated above were taken from the interviews and placed into the Goals-Achievement Matrix. The following section evaluates those goals and objectives.

Application and Evaluation of Goals-Achievement Matrix

During the interviews, the participants were asked to give the objectives for the JEDD and the appropriate weight for each objective, as detailed in previous chapter. From the interviews, the following objectives and weights were identified by the City of Akron and

Copley Township:

1) Annexation Prevention– 5; and

2) Water and Sewer Expansion – 5.

Likewise the following goals and weights were identified:

1) Annexation Prevention– 5;

2) Water and Sewer Expansion – 5; and

3) Prevention of Lost Taxes – 5.

The abovementioned objectives, goals and appropriate weights were then placed into separate

GAMs, which can be found in Appendix B on pages 69 and 70. As was the case in the previous

JEDD analysis, all of the objectives were applied independently to the individual parties. From there, the totals of the individual objectives were combined into another matrix and then totaled, thus identifying the success of the particular objective when applied to both parties. To determine the success of the JEDD as a whole, the totals from the separate objectives were assembled into a final matrix.

When examining the Copley Township – City of Akron Overall JEDD Totals matrix, it can be said that the JEDD fully achieved sixty-six percent, or two out of three, of its identified goals. Through the interviews, it was reported that the JEDD‟s objectives have been met over the course of the past 15 years. Although the matrix scored it as a fifty out of 100, annexation prevention was immediately achieved for Copley Township when the agreement was approved

and instituted. Annexation prevention was not of primary concern for the City of Akron, which explains why the total equals fifty and not 100; the individual objective matrices further support this conclusion8. Likewise, the agreement enabled the City of Akron to expand its utilities.

From the three identified goals, water and sewer expansion and prevention of lost taxes for both the City of Akron and Copley Township were highly successful. The proposed service areas all received water and sewer services from the city as outlined in the agreement. Even areas not originally proposed, such as Copley High School, were extended water service through the willingness of the city to work with the township (Interview #3). These extensions generated additional revenue for the City of Akron.

Similarly, Copley Township was not only able to prevent their property taxes from being diminished by annexation, but also to generate additional revenue. As discussed in a previous section, part of the agreement states that any increase over the original two percent income tax rate prior to January 1, 2005 would be split between the township and the city. In 2003, the city of Akron approved an income tax increase of 0.25 percent, thus making the new rate 2.25 percent. As a result, Copley Township has begun receiving their share [.33 percent] of the amount generated from the increase. This has generated additional revenue that the township will put into a fund to help residents with a need for other services (Interview #3). As a result of this

JEDD agreement, both the City of Akron and Copley Township were able to achieve their objectives and individual goals by working together instead of against each other.

8 Arguably Copley Township‟s annexation fears were further suppressed when the City of Akron entered into a JEDD agreement with Bath Township and the City of Fairlawn in 1998; the JEDD prohibited the City of Fairlawn from continuation annexation without the township‟s approval.

Figure 4.2: Map of Copley-Akron JEDD

Source: Interview #3

Harrison – Harrison Township JEDD

Discussions about establishing a JEDD between the City of Harrison and Harrison

Township began in early 2000s. As talks began of potential business development on a large undeveloped piece of property located in the township, concerns grew regarding the municipality‟s ability to provide utilities to the site. Located near the City of Harrison‟s border, annexation became an issue for Harrison Township especially regarding utilities.

Goals and Objectives

Located on the western edge of Hamilton County, the City of Harrison is a growing community surrounded by a rural landscape. One of its immediate neighbors is Harrison

Township to north and east. Through the research process, I learned that both the City of

Harrison and Harrison Township came to an understanding about collaborating with each other instead of against each other.

Annexation Prevention and Water and Sewer Expansion

The potential for annexation into the City of Harrison was not beyond possibility for

Harrison Township. Attempts at annexation had occurred in years immediately preceding the

JEDD; some of those attempts were successful while others were not. When the property seen in

Figure 4.3, which was largely agricultural at the time, was pinpointed for a potential industrial park, questions regarding the utilities were raised (Interview #1). For much of Harrison

Township, water and sewer is provided through Hamilton County; however, since the JEDD area was mostly agricultural, those utilities were needed for any development to occur (Interview #1;

Interview #4). The City of Harrison recognized that the area had great potential for development; however, the lack of sewers in the vicinity posed a problem. The City of Harrison had the capability of providing those services to the proposed JEDD area; consequently, the only way to do so was through annexation.

It was made clear from past efforts that approving annexation of portions of Harrison

Township would be difficult for the City of Harrison to achieve. With a population just under

5,000, Harrison Township wants to preserve its boundaries; this was particularly important for the general welfare of the township. Should the property be annexed into the City of Harrison, the township would lose out on any potential increase in property value (Interview #4).

Revenue Generation

As with all townships in Ohio, Harrison Township is all too familiar with the difficulties of running a government just on property taxes and levies. Unlike the City of Harrison, which had a one percent income tax as a steady revenue stream, Harrison Township relied heavily on property taxes for operation. Since the proposed JEDD area was the site for a potential development project, the township realized that it could generate additional revenues by agreeing to the JEDD. Part of the JEDD agreement would be levying a one percent income tax on businesses within the JEDD area. The City of Harrison and Harrison Township would then split those monies generated fifty-fifty (50-50). Although annexation of the property would have potentially generated a greater revenue stream for the City of Harrison, they still had the ability to create revenue through the expansion of water and sewer services.

In August of 2003, the Harrison-Harrison Township JEDD became official. Over 200 acres of undeveloped land were included in the JEDD area, all of which became zoned commercial and industrial. The issues stated above were taken from the interviews and placed into the Goals-Achievement Matrix. The following section evaluates those goals and objectives.

Application and Evaluation of Goals-Achievement Matrix

During the interviews, the participants were asked to give the objectives for the JEDD and the appropriate weight for each objective, as detailed in the previous chapter. From the interviews, the following objectives and weights were identified by the City of Harrison and

Harrison Township:

1) Annexation Prevention– 5;

2) Water and Sewer Expansion – 5; and

3) Revenue Generation - 5.

Likewise the following goals and weights were identified:

1) Annexation Prevention– 5;

2) Water and Sewer Expansion – 5;

3) Revenue Generation – 5; and

4) Job Creation – 4.

The abovementioned objectives, goals and appropriate weights were then placed into separate

GAMs, which can be found in Appendix B on pages 71 through 73. As was the case in the previous JEDD analysis, all of the objectives were applied independently to the individual parties. From there, the totals of the individual objectives were combined into another matrix and then totaled, thus identifying the success of the particular objective when applied to both parties.

To determine the success of the JEDD as a whole, the totals from the separate objectives were assembled into a final matrix.

When examining the Harrison-Harrison Township Overall JEDD Totals matrix, it can be said that the JEDD fully achieved one of its four identified goals, water and sewer expansion totaled 150 out of 150. Through the interviews, it was reported that the JEDD‟s objectives have been met over the past five years. Annexation no longer became an issue when the agreement was approved thus fulfilling Harrison Township‟s annexation prevention objective. Although the matrix scored annexation prevention as seventy-five out of 150, it is important to note that annexation prevention was not a primary goal for the City of Harrison; this explains why the total for annexation prevention was not 150.

Another objective for Harrison Township was the generation of additional revenue. Both this objective and goal has been reached for the Township although the amount generated has been minimal; it achieved a total of seventy-five out of 150. While jobs were created within the

JEDD when the industrial park was built, and businesses from outside of Harrison and Harrison

Township located in it, a significant portion of the JEDD area remains undeveloped. As a result, the income tax has generated little revenue for both the city and the township (Interview #4).

This explains why the matrix totaled this goal as well as job creation at or below seventy-five.

However, the substantial amount of commercial and industrial zoned property within the JEDD has great potential for generating revenue in the future (Interview #1).

Within a five year period, the Harrison-Harrison Township JEDD has fully reached only one of its identified objectives and goals; the others have room for improvement. When examining all of the matrices, it is glaring that Harrison Township has gotten more out of the

JEDD than the City of Harrison at this time. It is necessary to point out that this JEDD is still

relatively young in comparison to the other two JEDDs examined in this research. Because there is still undeveloped property with the JEDD there is room for further achievement of the identified goals and objectives.

The three JEDDs examined each provide a different set of circumstances in which they were established. One was a trailblazer, one was a collaborative effort, and one was a foundation for future development. Although each setting was different, the goals and objectives were nearly the same for each JEDD. Of greatest importance in each situation was the preservation of the township‟s jurisdiction. Through interviews and the application of the Goals-Achievement matrix, it is clear that each JEDD has been successful in ensuring that the township‟s independence remains in tact. This has been achieved through the anti-annexation policy that is required in any JEDD legislation. As indicated in the Hamilton-Indians Springs and Harrison-

Harrison Township JEDDs, ninety-nine years is a standard timeline for which most JEDDs set their anti-annexation clause. An exception to this rule is the Copley-Akron JEDD as they have a provision for two consecutive renewals of fifty years, which could in the end prohibit annexation for nearly 200 years.

Also of importance was the generation of revenue, whether it was through the extension of water and sewer services or the levying of an income tax. When examining this objective and or goal, each JEDD was successful at varying levels. The same can be said about the other objectives and goals identified by the participants as well as its success overall. For example, the

Hamilton-Indian Springs JEDD led to the establishment of the Hamilton-Fairfield JEDD in the early 2000s. The Copley-Akron JEDD invariably achieved all of its goals to the fullest extent.

The Harrison-Harrison Township JEDD has begun to achieve its goals, but its infancy has shown

that it may not be possible to achieve all of the identified goals and objectives within just a few years.

One must take a step back to examine the influence of JEDDs as a whole on the participating communities. The discussion in chapter two shows how there has been a shift in economic development tools and initiatives over time. As many authors have pointed out, the new wave of strategies, or “third wave strategies,” concentrate on building a solid foundation upon which economic development can thrive; this is done through “economic teamwork”

(Clarke and Gaille 1998, 83). When looking at JEDDs on a macro level, the analysis shows that they foster a sense of teamwork amongst the participating groups. The teamwork may have been cultivated out of fear, but the ability of two competing communities to cooperate, where one has the clear upper hand over the other, indicates that municipalities are beginning to realize the importance of working together towards a common goal rather than working opposite of each other. The number of “JEDD IIs,” which are the additional agreements created following the establishment of the original JEDD, or municipalities that have JEDDs with different parties supports the willingness to work cooperatively that is found in regionalization.

Despite this positive analysis of JEDDs, there is still a lot unknown about JEDDs that is outside the scope of my research. In the final chapter, I reflect upon the research and its findings as well as provide suggestions for future research on JEDDs.

Figure 4.3: Map of Harrison-Harrison Township JEDD

Source: Interview #1; Interview #4 50

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Joint Economic Development Districts are still relatively new in the economic development scene. About a dozen were established prior to 2000; there are now upwards of 40

JEDDs with many in the development process. There are numerous factors to explain this increase, none of which were in the scope of my research. Exploration of the available literature on JEDDs provided little insight into why JEDDs have been becoming more popular among local governments; the history of JEDDs is documented but nothing has been written to provide more information on the communities post implementation. Despite limited information, communities continue to utilize JEDDs.

This made me wonder why it was possible for a relatively new economic development tool to become more prominent over a short period of time. Through the research process, I determined that the reasons behind its original inception have made it a popular choice for municipalities. Based on this preliminary research, JEDDs have a high success rate for annexation prevention; all three cases scored high in this area. The Copley-Akron JEDD created a solution for future annexation disputes. For communities faced with possible annexation,

JEDDs are an answer to their concerns, which could partially explain the growing number of

JEDDs across the state.

Likewise, the ability to extend water and sewer service, and generate additional revenue for parties involved are major factors for entering a JEDD agreement. The Harrison-Harrison

Township JEDD shows how the creation of a JEDD can extend water and sewer lines to where there are needs; the Copley-Akron does as well. A few years went by before revenue was

generated, but the Hamilton-Indian Springs JEDDs proved that the establishment of a JEDD can bring additional revenue into the community. Its ability to provide reasonable water and sewer rates, as well as additional sources of revenue can be appealing to financially strapped communities.

With little available information about JEDDs, my research developed around the ability of the participating communities to reach their goals. I wanted to know just how effective the

JEDD has been while maintaining jurisdictional independence. The final outcome of this research indicates that there are varying levels of effectiveness of JEDDs; however, annexation prevention, water and sewer extension, and revenue generation are the three goals that have been achieved at the highest levels. Through the interview process, I found that time is a factor in a

JEDD‟s success. JEDDs are not a panacea to all of a municipality‟s problems; however, JEDDs do provide relief from annexation and generate revenue from the extension of water and sewer services as well as the levying of an income tax with in the JEDD area. Years went by before financial gains were made in the Hamilton-Indian Springs JEDD. A few years after the JEDD was put in place, retail development occurred, thus enabling the income tax to generate additional revenue. It is instances such as this where time and many other unidentified factors influence the tool‟s effectiveness. Further exploration of JEDDs can identify those other factors, thus making it more clear what pieces are needed to create a successful JEDD.

REFLECTIONS

Now that the research and analysis is complete, I offer the following reflections of my journey to further explore the effectiveness of JEDDs in achieving their goals:

- Older JEDDs provide the most identifiable results to analyze. Because a substantial

amount of time has passed since they were first put into place, the communities may have

faced many roadblocks that prevented the JEDD from working immediately. I learned

that the older JEDDs have essentially achieved all of their goals, but at varying degrees of

success;

- No two JEDDs are the same, even though their goals and objectives may be similar on

paper. Even if all of the goals were not reached in the original JEDD, many communities

have agreed to a second JEDD, often called a JEDD II if it is with the same party from

the original, or with another municipality that may help them fulfill those unmet goals;

- JEDDs are an excellent source of additional revenue for both parties. With many

communities struggling for funding, JEDDs may be an option to generate additional

revenue in an attempt to keep them afloat (example: Harrison Township was operating on

just property taxes and levies). By receiving additional funds that go directly to the

upkeep and maintenance of the JEDD, monies can be reallocated elsewhere to help keep

the government operating. This was the case in the Copley-Akron JEDD, where the

increase in income tax has provided them with additional funds to help provide additional

services to residents in need; and

- Annexation fears trumped the other objectives and goals when it came time for voters to

pass the JEDD legislation. For all three of the analyzed JEDDs, especially the two older

ones, annexation was a real possibility. Fear tended to show the residents everything that

they could get out of the JEDD (e.g. better water and sewer services, additional revenue).

As with any research project, limitations may be experienced. My research was not an exception. The major limitation that I faced during the research process was that the number of case JEDDs was limited, as I was the only person conducting the interviews. Because of this, the research is narrow. As the numbers of JEDDs increase, it would be prudent to analyze a large number to find out just how effective JEDDs are statewide. Based on this limitation, the final section of my thesis provides recommendations for future research on JEDDs.

RECOMMENDATIONS

As previously discussed, a major limitation with the research was the inability to examine more than three JEDDs. Because JEDDs are forming more frequently, it would be beneficial to delve further into the unknowns of JEDDs. I believe that with time and manpower, many of the remaining questions and answered. That being said, I offer the following recommendations for future research:

- A different weighting scale should be used in future research. Because of the way the

questionnaire was written, participants had the ability to provide a rank of one (1) to five

(1) to any and all of the identified objectives and goals. By doing so, the analysis limited;

little variation between the goals and objectives was able to be discerned. This made

thorough analysis of the research difficult. Either rewriting the questionnaire to rank the

objectives and goals or providing a different scale, such as from one (1) to 100, would

provide a wider range for the variable to fall, thus making it easier to analyze the

effectiveness of the JEDD and improving the quality of the tool;

- More interviews need to be conducted, especially with Board of Directors to find out the

current status of the JEDD. The Board of Directors can provide further insight into the

situation leading up to its establishment as well as the progress that has or has not been

made. Interviews with the Board of Directors can further confirm or reject if that sense of

regional cooperation has been fostered as a result of the JEDD;

- Quantitative analysis could be done to show specifically how effective JEDDs have been.

When used in conjunction with qualitative research, hard numbers, such as the total

revenue generated from the income tax and the extension of water and sewer services,

could provide additional evidence to support or reject the use of JEDDs as an economic

development tool; and

- Additional scenarios, or alternatives, need to be incorporated with the GAM. The

research conducted did not examine the “do nothing” nor the annexation alternatives to

the JEDD; the final outcome of this research is somewhat limited as a result. By

exploring the alternatives, potential JEDD parties could see what the costs and benefits

would be should they opt to not become involved, or allow annexation to occur. When

compared side by side with the option to create the JEDD, further research might show

that neither the “do nothing” nor the annexation alternative are realistic options for any of

the parties involved.

Conducting research is a difficult task to undertake. There are numerous guidelines and steps that must be followed, especially if human subjects are involved. Conducting research on a topic that has not been researched before proves even more challenging. There is no previous research to guide your work. As a growing economic development tool, little analysis has been conducted on JEDDs to determine why it is being used more frequently. Not having any previous research after which to model my efforts made my study difficult to complete. Limitations such

as wording in the interview questionnaire contributed to the restricted analysis. Despite these difficulties, I believe that through my pilot study of three JEDDs, I was able to uncover the underlying issues that formalized each JEDD: annexation prevention, water and sewer extension, and revenue generation. Likewise, my use of the Goals-Achievement Matrix provided a first look at just how effective these JEDDs have been in achieving their identified goals. As the first documented evaluation of JEDDs in the State of Ohio, it is my hope that this is just the beginning of research on this third wave strategy.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Albers, John B. and Eric J. Luckage. Joint Economic Development Districts. Office of State

Auditor.

http://www.auditor.state.oh.us/ConferenceInformation/LGOC/2005PostConference/Day

One/JointEconomicDevelopmentDistricts.pdf. Accessed 6 August 2008.

Aziz, Kamarulzaman Ab. and Mariati Norhashim. 2008. Cluster-Based Policy Making:

Assessing Performance and Sustaining Competitiveness. Review of Policy Research. 25:

349-375.

Bartik, Timothy. 2005. Solving the Problems of Economic Development Incentives. Growth and

Change. 36: 139-166.

Berg, Bruce. 2007. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston: Pearson.

Blakely, Edward J. 2000. “Economic Development.” In The Practice of Local Government

Planning. Ed. Charles Hoch, Linda C. Dalton and Frank S. So. Washington, D.C.: ICMA.

Bloor, Michael, and Fiona Wood. Keywords in Qualitative Methods: A Vocabulary of Research

Concepts. London: SAGE Publications, 2006.

Bondonio, Daniele and Robert T. Greenbaum. 2007. Do Local Tax Incentives Affect Economic

Growth? What Impacts Miss in the Analysis of Enterprise Zone Policies? Regional

Science and Urban Economics. 37: 121-136.

Bradshaw, Ted K. and Edward J. Blakely. 1999. What are „Third-Wave‟ State Economic

Development Efforts? From Incentives to Industrial Policy. Economic Development

Quarterly. 13: 229-244.

Breakwell, Glynis and Lynne Millward. 1995. Basic Evalution Methods: Analysing performance,

practice and procedure. Leicester: BPS Books.

Carruthers, John I. and Gudmundur F. Ulfarsson. 2002. Fragmentation and Sprawl: Evidence

from Interregional Analysis. Growth and Change. 33: 312-340.

Civittolo, David. 2007. "Joint Economic Development Districts." Columbus, OH: The Ohio

State University Extension. http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/pdf/1560.pdf. Accessed 6

August 2008.

---. 2008. "Cooperative Economic Development Agreements." Columbus, OH: The Ohio State

University Extension. http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/pdf/1561.pdf. Accessed 6 August

2008.

Clarke, Susan E. and Gary L. Gaile. 1998. The Work of Cities. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press.

Dalehite, Esteban G., John L. Mikesell and Kurt C. Zorn. 2005. Variation in Property Tax

Abatement Programs Among States. Economic Development Quarterly. 19: 157

Davis, Gregory A. 2006. “Ohio‟s Tax Increment Financing Program.” Columbus, OH: The Ohio

State University Extension. http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/pdf/1559.pdf. Accessed 6

August 2008.

Dewar, Margaret. 1998. Why State and Local Economic Development Programs Cause So Little

Economic Development. Economic Development Quarterly. 12: 68-87.

Dye, Richard F. and David F. Merriman. 2000. The Effects of Tax Increment Financing on

Economic Development. Journal of Urban Economics. 47: 306-328.

Eisinger, Peter. 1995. State Economic Development in the 1990s: Politics and Policy Learning.

Economic Development Quarterly. 9: 146-158.

Edwards, Mary M. 2008. Understanding the Complexities of Annexation. Journal of Planning

Literature. 23: 119-135.

Facer II, Rex L. 2006. Annexation Activity and State Law in the United States. Urban Affairs

Review. May. 41: 297-709.

George, Alexander L. and Andrew Bennet. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the

Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Goodman, Josh. 2007. The Tax Grab Game. Governing Magazine. 46.

Gubrium, James A. Holstein & Jaber F. "Active Interviewing." In Qualitative Research: Volume

II, by Alan Bryman and Robert G. Burgess, 105-121. London: Sage Publications, 1999.

Hackler, Darrene. 2005. Local Economic Development and Information-Economy Growth in

Metropolitan Los Angeles. Journal of Urban Technology. 14: 51-76.

Hill, Morris. 1968. A Goals-Achievement Matrix for Evaluating Alternative Plans. Journal of

the American Planning Association. 34: 19-29.

---. 1973. Planning for Multiple Objectives: An Approach to the Evaluation of Transportation

Plans. Philadelphia: Regional Science Research Institute.

Interview #1. “Code J1,” interview by author. 9 February 2009.

Interview #2. “Code J2,” interview by author. 13 February 2009.

Interview #3. “Code J3,” interview by author. 16 February 2009.

Interview #4. “Code J4,” interview by author. 20 February 2009.

Interview #5. “Code J5,” interview by author. 20 February 2009.

Interview #6. “Code J6,” interview by author. 26 February 2009.

Isserman, Andrew M. 1994. State Economic Development Policy and Practice in the United

States: A Survey Article. International Regional Science Review. 16: 49-100.

Koven, Steven G. and Thomas S. Lyons. 2003. Economic Development: Strategies for State and

Local Practice. Washington, D.C.: ICMA.

Loveridge, Scott and Denys Nizalov. 2007. Increasing the Equity and Efficiency of Tax

Abatement Programs. The Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy. 37: 10-14.

Mark, Melvin M, Gary T. Henry and George Julnes. 2000. Evaluation: An Integrated

Framework for Understanding, Guiding, and Improving Public and Nonprofit Policies

and Programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Marks, Larry. 2005. “The Evolving Use of TIF.” Review. 18:1.

http://www.cdfa.net/cdfa/cdfaweb.nsf/fbaad5956b2928b086256efa005c5f78/529cccf9cd

806eae8625714c00783dfd/$FILE/evolving_tif.pdf. Accessed 6 August 2008.

Markusen, Ann and Amy Glasmeier. 2008. Overhauling and Revitalizing Federal Economic

Development Programs. Economic Development Quarterly. 22: 83-91.

Mohamed, Rayman. 2008. Who Would Pay for Rural Open Space Preservation and Inner-city

Redevelopment? Identifying Support for Policies that Can Contribute to Regional Land

Use Governance. Urban Studies. 45: 2783-2803.

Nagel, Stuart. 2002. Handbook of Public Policy Evaluation. London: Sage.

Olberding, Julie Cencula. 2002. Diving into the “Third Waves” of Regional Governance and

Economic Development Strategies: A Study for Regional Partnerships for Economic

Development in U.S. Metropolitan Areas. Economic Development Quarterly. 16: 251-

272.

Ohio Department of Development. 1999. "Cooperative Economic Development Agreements."

Office of Tax Incentives. Columbus, Ohio.

http://www.odod.state.oh.us/cms/uploadedfiles/CEDASummary.pdf. Accessed 6 August

2008.

---. 2006. "Ohio Community Reinvestment Area Program - Summary." Office of Tax Incentives.

Columbus, Ohio.

http://www.development.ohio.gov/cms/uploadedfiles/EDD/CRA/CRASUM2.pdf.

Accessed 6 August 2008

Payne, Geoff and Judy Payne. 2004. Key Concepts in Social Research. London: SAGE.

Plusquellic, Donald. 2002. Joint Economic Development Districts. The New Public Management

Lessons from Innovating Governors and Mayors. Ed. Paul Andrisani, Simon Hakim and

E.S. Savas. Boston: Kluwer. 189-196.

---. 2007. Joint Economic Development Districts. Alphabet Soup.

http://www.municipalleader.com/site.cfm/Northeast-Ohio/Current-Issue/Summer-

2007/Alphabet-Soup.cfm. Accesses 6 August 2008.

Posavac, Emil J. and Raymond G. Carey. 2007. Program Evaluation: Methods and Case Studies.

Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

Reynolds, Laurie. 2007. Local Government and Regional Governance. Urban Lawyer. 39: 483-

528.

Sands, Gary, Laura A. Reese and Heather L. Khan. 2006. Implementing Tax Abatements in

Michigan: A Study of Best Practices. Economic Development Quarterly. 20: 44-58.

Savitch, H.V. and Ronald K. Vogel. 2004. Suburbs without a City: Power and City-County

Consolidation. Urban Affairs Review. 39: 758-790.

Segedy, James A. and Thomas S. Lyons. 2001. Planning the Indianapolis Region: Urban

Resurgence, de facto Regionalism and UniGov. Planning Practice & Research. 16: 293-

305.

Silverman, David. 2005. Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. London: SAGE.

Singleton, Jr., Royce A. and Bruce C. Straits. 2005. Approaches to Social Research. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Swenson, David and Liesl Eathington. 2002. “Do Tax Increment Finance Districts in Iowa Spur

Regional Economic and Demographic Growth?” Iowa Sate University Press.

Temali, Mihailo. 2002. The Community Economic Development Handbook: Strategies and Tools

to Revitalize Your Neighborhood. St. Paul: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

Warner, Mildred. 2001. Building Social Capital Through Economic Development. CaRDI –

USDA Rural Development Training.

Wassmer, Robert A. 2007. “The Increasing Use of Property Tax Abatements as a Means of

Promoting Sub-Sub National Economic Activity in the United States.” California State

University Sacramento.

Worrell III, A. Christopher. 2006. “The ABCs of TIFs and JEDDs: JEDDs.” National

Association of Industrial and Office Properties: The Forum for Commercial Real Estate.

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

The purpose of this study is to create an evaluation tool that can be used to determine the success of a Joint Economic Development District (JEDD). The information gathered from this interview will be put into a Goals- Achievement Matrix that will then calculate the level of success of each JEDD analyzed.

Code #: ______

1. Where is the JEDD located? ______

2. Please explain in detail the events that initiated the formation of a JEDD. ______

______

3. What was your involvement in the JEDD process? ______

4. What were the objectives, or the purposes, of the JEDD?

a) ______

b) ______

c) ______

d) ______

e) ______

f) ______

5. Please weigh the objectives according to importance. 1 being of lowest importance and 5 being of greatest importance. (The same weight may be used more than once.)

a) ______

b) ______

c) ______

d) ______

e) ______

f) ______

6. What were the goals, or desired end results, of the JEDD?

a) ______

b) ______

c) ______

d) ______

e) ______

f) ______

7. Please weigh the goals according to importance. 1 being of lowest importance and 5 being of greatest importance. (The same weight may be used more than once.)

a) ______

b) ______

c) ______

d) ______

e) ______

f) ______

8a. Have the objectives been met? ______

8b.If yes, which one.

a) ______

b) ______

c) ______

d) ______

e) ______

f) ______

8c. Please explain in detail how the objectives have been achieved. ______

______

9a. Have any of the goals been achieved? ______

9b. If so, which ones.

a) ______

b) ______

c) ______

d) ______64

e) ______

f) ______

9c. Please explain in detail how the goals have been achieved. ______

______

APPENDIX B: MATRICES Hamilton – Indian Springs JEDD Matrices

Objective: Extension of Water and Sewer Weight 5 Infrastructure Revenue Annexation Job Business Expansion Generation Prevention Creation Development City of Hamilton 5 +25 5 +25 0 5 +25 5 +25 Total out of Possible 25 25 25 0 25 25

Objective: Extension of Water and Sewer Weight 5 Infrastructure Revenue Annexation Job Business Expansion Generation Prevention Creation Development Indian Spring (Fairfield Township) 0 4 +20 5 +25 0 0 Total out of Possible 25 0 20 25 0 0

Objective: Annexation Prevention Weight 5 Infrastructure Revenue Annexation Job Business Expansion Generation Prevention Creation Development City of Hamilton 5 +25 5 +25 0 5 +25 5 +25 Total out of Possible 25 25 25 0 25 25

Objective: Annexation Prevention Weight 5 Infrastructure Revenue Annexation Job Business Expansion Generation Prevention Creation Development Indian Spring (Fairfield Township) 0 4 +20 5 +25 0 0 Total out of Possible 25 0 20 25 0 0

Objective: Extension of Water and Sewer

Infrastructure Revenue Annexation Job Business Expansion Generation Prevention Creation Development City of Hamilton 25 25 0 25 25 Indian Spring (Fairfield Township) 0 20 25 0 0 Total out of Possible 50 25 45 25 25 25

Objective: Annexation Prevention

Overall JEDD Totals

Infrastructure Revenue Annexation Job Business Expansion Generation Prevention Creation Development Extension of Water and Sewer 25 45 25 25 25 Annexation Prevention 25 45 25 25 25 Total out of Possible 100 50 90 50 50 50

Copley – Akron JEDD Matrices

Objective: Extension of Water and Sewer Weight 5 Water & Sewer Annexation Prevention of Expansion Prevention Lost Taxes City of Akron 5 +25 0 5 +25 Total out of Possible 25 25 0 25

Objective: Extension of Water and Sewer Weight 5 Water & Sewer Annexation Prevention of Expansion Prevention Lost Taxes Copley Township 5 +25 5 +25 5 +25 Total out of Possible 25 25 25 25

Objective: Annexation Prevention Weight 5 Water & Sewer Annexation Prevention of Expansion Prevention Lost Taxes City of Akron 5 +25 0 5 +25 Total out of Possible 25 25 0 25

Objective: Annexation Prevention Weight 5 Water & Sewer Annexation Prevention of Expansion Prevention Lost Taxes Copley Township 5 +25 5 +25 5 +25 Total out of Possible 25 25 25 25

Objective: Extension of Water and Sewer Water & Prevention Sewer Annexation of Lost Expansion Prevention Taxes City of Akron 25 0 25 Copley Township 25 25 25 Total out of Possible 50 50 25 50

Objective: Annexation Prevention Water & Prevention Sewer Annexation of Lost Expansion Prevention Taxes City of Akron 25 0 25 Copley Township 25 25 25 Total out of Possible 50 50 25 50

Overall JEDD Totals Water and Sewer Annexation Revenue Expansion Prevention Generation Extension of Water and Sewer 50 25 50 Annexation Prevention 50 25 50 Total out of Possible 100 100 50 100

Harrison – Harrison Township JEDD Matrices

Objective: Annexation Prevention Weight 5 Water and Sewer Annexation Revenue Job Extension Prevention Generation Creation City of Harrison 5 +25 0 0 0 Total 25 0 0 0

Objective: Annexation Prevention Weight 5 Water and Sewer Annexation Revenue Job Extension Prevention Generation Creation Harrison Township 5 +25 5 +25 5 +25 4 +20 Total 25 25 25 20

Objective: Water and Sewer Expansion Weight 5 Water and Sewer Annexation Revenue Job Extension Prevention Generation Creation City of Harrison 5 +25 0 0 0 Total 25 0 0 0

Objective: Water and Sewer Expansion Weight 5 Water and Sewer Annexation Revenue Job Extension Prevention Generation Creation Harrison Township 5 +25 5 +25 5 +25 4 +20 Total 25 25 25 20

Objective: Revenue Generation Weight 5 Water and Sewer Annexation Revenue Job Extension Prevention Generation Creation City of Harrison 5 +25 0 0 0 Total 25 0 0 0

Objective: Revenue Generation Weight 5 Water and Sewer Annexation Revenue Job Extension Prevention Generation Creation Harrison Township 5 +25 5 +25 5 +25 4 +20 Total 25 25 25 20

Objective: Annexation Prevention Water and Sewer Annexation Revenue Job Extension Prevention Generation Creation City of Harrison 25 0 0 0 Harrison Township 25 25 25 20 Total out of Possible 50 50 25 25 20

Objective: Water and Sewer Extension Water and Sewer Annexation Revenue Job Extension Prevention Generation Creation City of Harrison 25 0 0 0 Harrison Township 25 25 25 20 Total out of Possible 50 50 25 25 20

Objective: Revenue Generation Water and Sewer Annexation Revenue Job Extension Prevention Generation Creation City of Harrison 25 0 0 0 Harrison Township 25 25 25 20 Total out of Possible 50 50 25 25 20

Overall JEDD Totals Water and Sewer Annexation Revenue Job Expansion Prevention Generation Creation Annexation Prevention 50 25 25 20 Water and Sewer Expansion 50 25 25 20 Revenue Generation 50 25 25 20 Total out of Possible 150 150 75 75 60