The Cleveland Memory Project: Cleveland History in Photos ...



[pic]

BUILD UP GREATER CLEVELAND:

An Innovative Public/Private Infrastructure Partnership

(1983—2004)

David Goss

December 2004

Pre-Build Up Greater Cleveland

In 1979, at the request of newly-elected Cleveland Mayor George Voinovich, the Greater Cleveland Growth Association (the region’s Chamber of Commerce) began informal discussions with public officials to resolve historic and emerging public works infrastructure problems facing Greater Cleveland. Given the City of Cleveland’s fiscal default and the region’s recent serious decline in manufacturing jobs and population, these leaders determined that the desired economic recovery required significant infrastructure rehabilitation and expansion.

A 1979 report prepared by the Washington-based The Urban Institute, The Future of Cleveland’s Capital Plant, further stimulated the momentum to rehabilitate Greater Cleveland’s infrastructure systems. The report warned that the community’s capital facilities were deteriorating due to:

■ Insufficient local tax and utility rate levels.

■ Inadequate state and federal aid over an extended period.

■ A shrinking tax base due to loss of population and jobs.

Examples of the extent of the serious public works infrastructure environment during this time are:

■ 30% of Cuyahoga County’s bridges were in need of major repairs; especially several large bridges crossing the Cuyahoga River that were becoming safety hazards and required major rehabilitation.

■ Many major arterial streets were disintegrating and were the responsibility of various uncoordinated municipal, county and state agencies.

■ Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) was having problems completing the Interstate system in Cuyahoga County.

■ The newly created Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) was attempting to reverse decades of deferred equipment and facility maintenance.

■ Greater Cleveland had become a national symbol of water pollution problems due to numerous situations where the Cuyahoga River caught fire and Lake Erie being declared “dead.” The focal point for this issue had become the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD)—an agency created in 1972 by a court order resulting from a legal battle between the City of Cleveland and the Cuyahoga County Mayor and City Managers Association. The mission of the NEORSD was to assume the operation of wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities in Greater Cleveland and to prepare a regional wastewater plan for sewage and treatment. To make this situation even more complex at this time, outside of the NEORSD’s responsibilities were 47 small treatment facilities and pipeline networks operated by Cuyahoga County, municipalities and private companies.

■ The City of Cleveland Water Department experienced problems in providing reliable service to its customers throughout Cuyahoga County because of aging facilities/equipment and lack of adequate financial resources. For example, approximately one-third of the water pumped from Lake Erie was seeping away before it reached customers. Furthermore, another court order resulting from the Cuyahoga Mayors and City Managers Association attempting to create a regional water district separate from the City of Cleveland had recently resulted in the designation of the Cleveland Water Department as the regional water treatment and supply agency.

These initial informal discussions led to a more formal program in 1981 that developed a countywide infrastructure rebuilding plan—the Community Capital Investment Strategy (CCIS). The objective of the CCIS project was to develop a workable financing plan for meeting capital rehabilitation and replacement needs of the bridge, highway, water, sewer and transit systems in Greater Cleveland in the 1980’s. Funding was secured from The Cleveland Foundation, The George Gund Foundation and the five public infrastructure-related entities involved—City of Cleveland, Cuyahoga County Commissioners, County Engineer, NEORSD and RTA.

A Policy Committee was also organized to set investment priorities, evaluate financing alternatives and recommend funding strategies. Members of the initial Policy Committee included top elected and appointed officials from:

■ City of Cleveland

■ Cuyahoga County

■ Cuyahoga County Mayors and City Managers Association

■ Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA)

■ NEORSD

■ RTA

■ Greater Cleveland Growth Association (GCGA)

The GCGA provided management and administrative services. A part-time program director was named and The Urban Institute was selected to re-examine the general state of the Cuyahoga County public works infrastructure system, identify critical needs and analyze funding sources.

Meeting frequently over the next two years with a widening circle of elected and appointed officials throughout Cuyahoga County, the Policy Committee fashioned an innovative program cutting across traditional jurisdictions and responsibilities to establish Greater Cleveland infrastructure investment priorities and a realistic financial plan.

A listing of the reports prepared by The Urban Institute are shown in Appendix A.

The first CCIS developed in 1982 identified more than $2 billion of under-funded infrastructure renewal needs and recommended a financing strategy to support a $1.6 billion program over the next 5-6 years.

In assessing priority investment needs, several criteria were employed including:

■ Health and Safety: projects which removed hazards for residents

■ Essentiality: projects which served as vital links in providing services to residents

■ Economic Development: projects critical to gaining or retaining industry and jobs

■ Cost Effectiveness: projects which reduced current maintenance expenditures and avoided costly future rehabilitation

■ Legal Mandates: projects clearly required as a result of court actions or federal/state regulations.

In 1983, the Build Up Greater Cleveland (BUGC) program was formally designated to be the entity responsible for implementing the CCIS. It was established as an independent 501(c)3 organization that was located at the GCGA.

BUILD UP GREATER CLEVELAND (1983-2004)

The organizational structure and funding support established for the CCIS process became the operating framework for BUGC in 1983.

The BUGC Policy Committee was chaired by a representative of the GCGA—Carlton Schnell, Partner, Arter & Hadden—and was comprised of representatives of the following agencies:

■ City of Cleveland (Mayor and City Council)

■ Cuyahoga County (Commissioners and Engineer)

■ Cuyahoga County Mayors & Managers Association (CCMA)

■ GCGA

■ NEORSD

■ NOACA

■ RTA

■ State of Ohio (ODOT; Senate and House representatives)

■ U.S. Congress (Congressman Stokes)

Walter Olson was designated by the GCGA to be the BUGC Director. An annual budget of $200,00 was established of which 38 percent was provided by the City of Cleveland, County Commissioners, County Engineer, RTA and NEORSD; 17 percent of in-kind contribution was provided by the GCGA; and the remaining 45 percent was provided by The Cleveland and Gund Foundations.

BUGC’s mission was to support Greater Cleveland’s physical and economic development and quality of life through the maintenance and enhancement of Cuyahoga County’s transportation, water and waste water systems. This mission was to be accomplished by an exciting new approach to solving problems that extend across governmental boundaries through:

■ eliminating duplication fo construction costs,

■ targeting limited financial resources toward the most serious needs, and

■ avoiding competition for local tax dollars.

Over the next 22 years, the activities of BUGC can be categorized into three phases:

■ Crisis Resolution (1983-1989)

■ Management Capacity Enhancement (1990-1994)

■ Strategic Regional Infrastructure Support (1994-2004)

Crisis Resolution Phase (1983-1989)

During the initial BUGC years, the primary focus was on:

■ advocacy at the federal level to obtain funding support for priority CCIS projects,

■ the education of residents about the need to increase water and sewer rates and support local general obligation bonds,

■ advocacy at the state level to ensure equitable state investments in priority infrastructure projects, and

■ the annual updating of the CCIS.

As a result of these efforts, over the next seven years:

■ BUGC was instrumental in obtaining $694 million of non-programmed funds.

■ The economic resurgence of Greater Cleveland began.

■ Successful advocacy for the authorization by the Ohio Legislature of a 10-year, $1.2 billion infrastructure bond program (known as Issue 2) and the creation of the Ohio Public Works Commission to administer the bond program. In 1987, Ohio voters overwhelmingly passed the bond issue, and subsequently renewed the program in 1995. Over the period 1987-2004, the average annual awards of Issue 2 funding to local governments in Cuyahoga County has been $14.5 million. These funds can only be used to preserve or rehabilitate existing infrastructure systems.

■ Local Transportation Improvement Program (LTIP) was also created by adding one cent per gallon to the state fuel tax rate. The LTIP funds are distributed to counties on a per capital basis and can only be used for highway-related improvements

■ Successful advocacy for a permissive increase in state auto license fees to be used by local governments for highway-related improvements.

■ Coordinated advocacy with the regional Congressional delegation was undertaken to pass legislation providing that states would receive at least 85 percent of the amount auto/truck users paid in federal fuel taxes (previously Ohio was receiving 50-60 percent). In addition, $170 million in federal discretionary funds and special grants were obtained for road and bridge projects and $83 million for public transit projects.

■ Cleveland City Council was approached to address the decay of the water distribution system. This resulted in the issuance of $260 million in water works revenue bonds and an increase in water rates to pay off the bonds.

■ NEORSD modernized its three treatment plants and started a $350 million interceptor sewer program and a $115 million intercommunity relief sewer program using a combination of federal grants and proceeds from regional sewer fees.

■ Secured unprecedented cooperation from elected and appointed officials throughout Cuyahoga County who subordinated their individual agendas to the common goal of improving the County’s infrastructure network.

■ BUGC became a national model for being an effective public-private infrastructure partnership.

More specific accomplishments for the 1983-1989 period are identified in Appendix B.

In 1983, BUGC started to prepare an annual report card that identified the dollar amounts of actual infrastructure contracts let as compared to the proposed projects for that year in the CCIS. For the period 1983-1989, approximately $1.2 billion of infrastructure contracts were let (the original CCIS goal was $1.6 billion).

Furthermore, in 1989, The Urban Center, College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State University (CSU) replaced The Urban Institute in preparing the annual updated CCIS and Contracts Let reports.

Management Capacity Enhancement Phase (1990-1994)

By the late 1980’s, it became clear to representatives of the public agency stakeholders in BUGC that the dramatic success in generating new funds for the preservation, rehabilitation and enhancement of priority infrastructure projects was creating capacity problems within their agencies to move projects from design to construction in a timely manner. These agencies shared many concerns, particularly the burden of meeting new and complex environmental requirements while processing more and larger projects with a limited number of professional staff.

To directly address this dilemma, BUGC created the Fast Track Task Force. The main focus of this Task Force was to engage the appropriate private sector expertise to assist the public agencies in developing, testing and implementing applicable new project performance improvement policies and procedures. For example, the Task Force recommendations included empowering project managers, vastly increasing intra- and inter-agency communications, conducting more design tasks concurrently, conducting project scoping meetings earlier in the project planning phase with all impacted parties and increasing the use of prior agreements on project implementation strategies. These recommendations minimized construction change orders, design modifications and additional plan reviews. The application of value engineering techniques also helped make certain that the right project was initiated for the right reason within a time frame that made sense for all involved.

These changes produced demonstrated results. Previously, it typically took 88 months to bring a federal-aid highway project from initiation to sale of contract for construction. The Task Force’s recommendations reduced this time to 49 months. Moreover, the number of road and bridge contracts let in Cuyahoga County surged. In 1988, the year before the Task Force began, 35 contracts were let. In 1993, with recommendations largely in force, 93 contracts were let. The value of road and bridge contracts let also increased from $35.3 million in 1988 to $138.8 million in 1993. Finally, the project fulfillment rate increased dramatically. In 1988, only 37 percent of planned projects were undertaken. By 1993, that rate had more than doubled to 81 percent.

The success of the Fast Track Task force led to the establishment of other task forces:

■ Utilities: focused on achieving better coordination of public and private utility work programs that often conflicted with each other.

■ Geographic Information Network: focused on developing a computerized database that would allow various public and private organizations within Greater Cleveland to share geographically-referenced data, thereby streamlining expenses and eliminating redundant activities.

■ Environment: focused on simplifying and expediting environmental permits and other related approvals necessary for infrastructure projects to proceed.

■ Infrastructure Finance: continued to focus on identifying public and private sources of funds to augment existing infrastructure funding targeted to Greater Cleveland.

■ Waste Water: focused on defining an “equitable” regional sewer system and developing implementation strategies that address common concerns among sewer agencies.

Hence, it was during this phase that BUGC matured in its roles as consensus builder, advocate and problem solver.

This is best illustrated by the fact that the CCIS for the period 1990-1994 estimated that the capital needs for Greater Cleveland approximated $1.9 billion, with a shortfall of $674-822 million due in part to the elimination (e.g., waste water) or drastic reduction of federal funding programs. Actual contracts let during this five-year period total $1.5 billion (an average annual amount of $300 million). This is a considerable increase in average annual construction activity compared to the previous seven-year period of $164 million and reflects the growing effectiveness of BUGC’s advocacy efforts.

Appendix B provides a listing of more specific accomplishments during the 1990-1994 period. Many of these accomplishments were a result of BUGC’s successful federal advocacy related to the passage of the ISTEA legislation that established more local control over transportation investment decisions and the minimum allocation policy (90 perecent return of federal fuel taxes collected within a state).

In 1992, BUGC undertook a strategic planning process using an outside consultant (Orion Consulting Inc) to guide the organization’s activities for the next 5-10 years. The primary findings/recommendations of the strategic planning process are summarized below:

■ There was continued strong support for BUGC among its participants and beneficiaries.

■ The following strategic objectives should be adopted to assist BUGC in achieving its mission:

1. Economic Development Support: to develop infrastructure strategies that support local and regional economic development goals by providing a facilitative structure for public and private sector leadership.

2. Advocacy: to generate the maximum resources possible for infrastructure preservation, rehabilitation and enhancement by organizing and supporting a coordinated advocacy program at the federal, state and local levels of government.

3. Technical Support: to assist governments and public works agencies in delivering the best possible service to the community by providing access to technical and community resources.

4. Communications: to foster community understanding and support for infrastructure preservation, rehabilitation and enhancement by demonstrating the role of infrastructure in achieving a wide range of community goals.

■ The key role played by the private sector in the BUGC’s program leadership is an important asset. BUGC should continue to be managed under the auspices of the GCGA.

■ BUGC should continue to focus on Cuyahoga County infrastructure systems.

■ BUGC should consider issues related to the environment (i.e., brownfields), rail and intermodal transportation projects, Port of Cleveland, air service and major development projects to the degree to which they impact on the program’s mission.

■ A strategy to maximize financial resource development should be designed and implemented as soon as possible.

■ Need to encourage and maintain active participation of elected public officials and senior private sector representatives (as BUGC became more successful, and the perception grew that there was no longer an infrastructure crisis, it became more difficult to retain the direct involvement of elected officials).

■ Consider the need for additional staff support.

This strategic planning process provided the framework for proceeding into the next phase of BUGC’s evolution. BUGC’s success over its first decade of activities of preserving, rehabilitating and enhancing Cuyahoga County’s existing infrastructure systems allowed it to start focusing on longer-term needs. Instead of crisis management, BUGC was now able to employ infrastructure investments and management to promote and support broader community goals.

Strategic Regional Infrastructure Support Phase (1994-2004)

During the first few years of this third BUGC phase, much more emphasis was placed on identifying priority infrastructure initiatives that supported regional economic development growth.

For example, a special emphasis was placed on revitalizing the many acres of “brownfields” within Cuyahoga County as an infrastructure-related opportunity. BUGC was an active participant in a multi-agency countywide partnership that focused on creating new federal and state legislation that would provide a comprehensive approach to addressing brownfields issues through:

■ encouraging voluntary clean-ups,

■ establishing a revolving loan fund to help pay for the clean-ups,

■ removing legal barriers to land reuse, and

■ developing related job training initiatives.

This effort resulted in the development of the Ohio EPA’s Voluntary Action Program, the first USEPA brownfields demonstration project being awarded to Cuyahoga County and the creation of a County brownfields revolving loan fund supported by several local banks.

As BUGC entered the 21st century, it also focused its resources more on the planning, design and construction of larger-scale infrastructure projects that would enhance the region’s economic competitiveness and quality of life. Examples of these projects include:

■ Euclid Corridor Transportation Project that is the nation’s first bus rapid transit project operating in an exclusive right-of-way.

■ The reconfiguration of the Shoreway from a freeway to a boulevard to provide improved access to Lake Erie and create reclaimed land for neighborhood-related and regional development opportunities.

■ Renewal of the Innerbelt, a comprehensive project that addresses existing operation and safety problems, replaces deteriorating physical facilities and improves access to the Flats and University Circle.

■ Regional storm water management system to improve the water quality of Lake Erie and local rivers/streams by reducing combined sewer overflows and targeting non-point sources of pollution.

■ New Lake Erie ferry to cost-effectively improve auto/truck flows between Northeast Ohio and Canada.

In addition, during this phase BUGC created several new initiatives, or modified existing ones, that were focused primarily on infrastructure innovation. These initiatives were made possible by the BUGC funding partners—City of Cleveland, Cuyahoga County Commissioners, County Engineer, GCGA, NEORSD and RTA-- agreeing to double their annual funding commitments, starting in 1994, that allowed BUGC to establish a full-time BUGC Manager position.

It was also during this phase that the BUGC Policy Committee was replaced by the BUGC Stakeholders that initially consisted of the funding partners, NOACA, ODOT and the volunteer private sector chairs of task forces. Subsequently, the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority became a funding partner, and the Cuyahoga County Commissioners decided that the County Engineer was representing their infrastructure-related interests and they ceased to be active in BUGC matters. In 2004, the Cuyahoga County Mayors and City Mangers Association once again became part of the BUGC Stakeholders as a non-funding partner.

The new BUGC initiatives are described below:

■ Innovative Infrastructure Finance: The former Infrastructure Finance Task Force’s mission was modified to incorporate the identification and analysis of creative approaches to financing local infrastructure needs. A report was prepared by The Urban Center at CSU that led to several financing reform advocacy efforts, primarily at the state level for transportation initiatives and at the federal level for water and waste water (creation of a water resources trust fund) and transportation (increasing to 95 percent the return rate of federal fuel taxes collected in Ohio) reauthorization legislation.

Furthermore, the subsequent BUGC report, Bottleneck on the Way to Prosperity: The Need for Transportation Reform in Ohio, was used to advocate successfully for the recent six cents/gallon increase in the state fuel tax and for increases in state vehicle registration and driver license fees that:

1. approximately doubled the state fuel tax proceeds going to municipalities and

2. provided the funding framework for Governor Taft’s $5 billion, 10-year Jobs and Progress Plan that will provide the funding for future major highway projects in the Greater Cleveland region.

Another major output of this report was BUGC being the co-convener of the first Ohio Transportation Policy Conference.

These creative financing concepts were updated in 2004 in a report prepared by The Center for Public Management at the CSU Levin College of Urban Affairs, Funding Options for Emerging Public Works Infrastructure Investments in Cuyahoga County.

■ Investment Performance Measurement: BUGC, working with The Urban Center at CSU, developed a series of “user-friendly” metrics to provide the framework for a communications strategy to the general public/taxpayers of the positive impacts resulting from the billions of dollars being invested in public works infrastructure systems in Cuyahoga County. A reports was prepared in 1997 to use these metrics to quantify the impacts of the $3.4 billion invested during the first 14 years of BUGC’s involvement.

■ Technology Transfer: A group of technology-oriented professionals were convened for about two years to identify and remove barriers to the implementation of public works infrastructure innovations in the areas of advanced/composite materials, underground technology, non-destructive evaluation and intelligent transportation systems (ITS).

■ Sustainable Infrastructure: Developed a set of sustainable infrastructure principles to guide future Greater Cleveland infrastructure investments; identified best sustainable infrastructure practices locally, statewide, nationally and internationally; and designated priority sustainable infrastructure initiatives. It is interesting to note that from 1984-1998, 87 percent of the infrastructure investments (in dollars) made in Cuyahoga County satisfied the sustainable infrastructure principles.

Subsequent spin-off activities resulting from this Task Force were (1) proactive advocacy for the Clean Ohio bond issue, (2) the development of two pilot sustainable neighborhood projects within the City of Cleveland and a Neighborhood Infrastructure to Standards policy and procedures manual, (3) a new NOACA program to achieve improved coordination and integration of regional transportation and water quality planning activities, (4) a variety of smart growth/sustainable development initiatives at local, region and state levels, and (5) new actions to implement ITS and Geographic Information System (GIS) programs.

■ Regional Water Resources Management: A special task force was created to promote strategic water resource infrastructure investments to enhance the region’s economic development and quality of life. It combined the missions of three former task forces/committees—Waste Water, Municipal Sewer Issues and Storm Water Management. The primary action initiatives of this Task Force were:

1. promotion of watershed-based planning,

2. support of “water as a regional economic development driver” projects,

3. facilitation of specific water resources infrastructure projects (e.g., sustainable Cuyahoga River bulkheads, regional storm water management system, NEORSD’s Combined Sewer Overflow program, Cleveland Water Department projects),

4. state and federal advocacy for water and waste water grants, and

5. public education/information (value of clean and safe water white paper).

■ GIS Stakeholders: A 4-year effort, that replaced the former Geographic Information Network Task Force, to develop a countywide GIS base map. The work of this Task Force resulted in the following actions:

1. An agreement among the BUGC public sector agencies to provide $400,000 to develop an updated countywide digital aerial orthophotography map and to implement a pilot GIS base map project to determine the cost of producing a seamless countywide GIS base map containing County tax map parcels.

2. Convened over 20 potential users to develop consensus standards to be used in the development of the countywide GIS base map.

3. A Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Cleveland, Cuyahoga County and NEORSD to provide over $5 million to supplement an existing City of Cleveland GIS contract to perform the County tax map parcel conversion process and any other tasks necessary to produce a countywide GIS base map.

4. The Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners approved creating a GIS Department to manage all County GIS initiatives to include the maintenance of the GIS base map and development of user-friendly web access to the base map and subsequent applicable overlay applications.

■ Economic Development: In cooperation with the Economic Development Departments of the City of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County, BUGC identified and defined 12 (5 City; 7 County) priority public works infrastructure improvement programs that would support strategic economic development initiatives within the region. These programs were subsequently endorsed by the GCGA’s Surface Transportation Task Force.

■ Human Resources: This Task Force was formed in recognition of the need to develop the region’s “human capital” to provide the expertise needed to plan, design and construct the region’s future infrastructure projects and programs. The purpose statement of the Task Force was-- In collaboration with public works agencies, academic institutions, public/private school systems and private sector consulting/construction organizations in Northeast Ohio:

1. Develop and implement creative strategies for marketing engineering and related public works careers.

2. Develop effective partnerships between academic institutions and infrastructure-related public and private sector employees.

3. Stimulate environment for instituting meaningful internships and co-op programs for engineering students with public work agencies and applicable private sector organizations.

4. Develop partnerships with regional public and private school systems to inform and/or expose students (from grades 5-12), with special emphasis on women and minorities, to the variety of engineering and related public works career opportunities.

To achieve these goals, four work groups were created: Incumbent Worker, Co-op and Intern, Marketing and Teacher Education & Networking.

In addition to these new initiatives, BUGC decided in 2000 to give more priority attention to the preservation and rehabilitation of the 56 suburban municipal infrastructure systems in Cuyahoga County. The following reports were prepared based on surveys conducted with each municipality:

■ Municipal Infrastructure Expenditure Survey Report

■ Municipal Water Resources Infrastructure Survey Report

The insights gained from these reports helped BUGC to better understand the funding gaps between what was being planned and what was actually being committed in these suburban communities.

This information was also used to initiate an “asset management” activity to assist local governments in meeting the new capital infrastructure requirements of the Government Accounting Standards Board’s (GASB) Statement Number 34. As part of this effort, BUGC evaluated various pavement management systems that might be used by the City of Cleveland and other local governments. This work led to NOACA undertaking a regional pavement management system program.

During 2000, the GCGA undertook an analysis of how to make its various infrastructure-related programs more effective and better utilize high-level business leadership and other GCGA resources to achieving priority regional economic development goals. One of the results of this analysis was to make BUGC a program of the GCGA instead of being a separate non-profit organization housed at the GCGA. A major impact of this decision was to designate the GCGA’s government relations department to be responsible for BUGC’s advocacy activities. Prior to this time, BUGC was using a Washington lobbyist for most of its federal advocacy initiatives and BUGC leadership for advocacy at the state level.

By the end of 2003, the actual contracts let for the period 1983-2003 totaled approximately $5.8 billion. For the period 1995-2003, the average annual level of contracts let was $348 million, and for the period 2001-2003 (under the GCGA advocacy leadership) the average annual level grew to $398 million.

In 2004, BUGC developed a 10-year forecast (2004-2013) of projected infrastructure investments in Cuyahoga County of $8.5 billion. Approximately $5 billion of this total reflects conservative projections of what will be spent to preserve, rehabilitate and enhance existing infrastructure systems using growing funding sources derived from BUGC advocacy efforts. The remaining $3.5 billion is for major new transportation and water/waste water investments that are already programmed.

Hence, it is projected that the average annual infrastructure investment in Cuyahoga County over the next 10 years will be $850 million compared to the $398 million average annual investment over the past three years and the $276 million average annual investment since 1983. Obviously, BUGC has had a major positive impact on improving the infrastructure investment environment in Cuyahoga County over its 22 years of existence.

POST-BUILD UP GREATER CLEVELAND

In 2003, the business leadership in the Greater Cleveland region decided to consolidate three existing business organizations—GCGA, Cleveland Tomorrow and Greater Cleveland Roundtable—into a single organization: the Greater Cleveland Partnership (GCP). During 2003, GCP developed a strategic plan to achieve higher efficiency, sharper focus and greater impact from its committed dollars and leadership.

One result of this strategic plan was the decision by GCP to transition BUGC into a modified public/private partnership model that would not be a program of GCP. This new infrastructure partnership will be further defined in 2005, but at this time it has been proposed that the business community’s involvement in this partnership be focused exclusively on an infrastructure advocacy agenda and a priority emphasis on projects of scale and policy issues of major significance that might require supportive research and analysis.

Therefore, a fourth phase of this innovative public/private infrastructure partnership in the Greater Cleveland region is about to commence. One of the strengths of this partnership model is that it has never been static, but that it has continuously evolved to reflect current conditions and changes in broader local/regional agendas and priorities.

However, the key success elements of this public/private infrastructure partnership have not changed since its inception:

■ Coordinated/cooperative advocacy.

■ Continuous funding support of the partnership by the public sector infrastructure agencies.

■ Proactive involvement of the business community in the leadership of the partnership and to provide the creative forums for developing innovative approaches to resolving complex urban infrastructure problems.

BUGC LEADERSHIP

Over its 22 years of operation, BUGC has had only four private sector chairpersons:

■ Carlton Schnell, Partner, Arter & Hadden: 1983-1989

■ James Delaney, Office Managing Partner, Deloitte & Touche: 1990-1997

■ Thomas Stevens, Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Key Corporation: 1997-2002

■ Eugene Baxendale, President, The Osborn Engineering Company: 2002-2004

The following private sector representatives also provided leadership to the various BUGC task forces:

■ Fast Track: Richard Donaldson, BP Ohio

■ Geographic Information Network: Carlton Schnell, Arter & Hadden

■ Utilities: Jack Licate, GCGA

■ Environment: Gene Kramer; Squire Sanders & Dempsey

■ Innovative Infrastructure Finance: Danirl Austin, McDonald & Company Securities, Inc.

■ Waste Water: Robert Fleck, Reminger & Reminger

■ Technology Transfer: Paul Creighton, Turner Construction

■ Sustainable Infrastructure and GIS Stakeholders: Chris Swift, Baker & Hostetler

■ Regional Water Resources Management: Ronald Janke, Jones Day

■ Human Resources: David Sminchak, R.E. Warner & Associates

BUGC had three Directors who were on the staff of the GCGA:

■ Walter “Ted” Olson: 1983-1991

■ Jack Licate: 1992-1994

■ David Goss: 1995-2004

The following people served as BUGC Managers during the period 1994-2002:

■ Katie Ong

■ Karen Lippman

■ Vince Adamus

■ Anne Garvey-Zaworski

Soren Hansen served during 2000-2004 as a part-time consultant to BUGC.

BUGC ARCHIVES

Arrangements have been made with the Special Collections Section of the Cleveland State University Library to archive and provide access to:

■ Pre-BUGC reports prepared by The Urban Institute

■ Various BUGC CCIS reports prepared over the years

■ Annual Contract Let reports

■ Various BUGC technical reports

■ Periodic BUGC annual progress reports

■ Copies of newsletters and quarterly progress reports

■ Various task forces files

Anyone desiring access to this information should contact William Barrow, Special Collections Librarian, at (216) 687-6998 or w.barrow@csuohio.edu.

APPENDIX A

THE URBAN INSTITUTE REPORTS (1982/1983)

■ The Cleveland Area’s Capital Plans and Financing Requirements; April 1982

■ Reassessing Cleveland’s Capital Investment Requirements; July 1982

■ Financing Greater Cleveland’s Capital Requirements; October 1982

■ The Greater Cleveland Community Capital Investment Strategy; December 1982

■ Financing Infrastructure Renewal for Greater Cleveland; February 1983

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download