75 - Lima-Allen County Regional Planning Commission

COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
FOR ALLEN COUNTY, OHIO
2010
FEBRUARY 2010
Prepared by:
Lima-Allen County Regional Planning Commission
130 W. North Street
Lima, Ohio 45801
Phone: 419-228-1836
Fax: 419-228-3891
The preparation of this document was financed in part by the Federal Highway Administration,
the Federal Transit Administration, and the Ohio Department of Transportation in cooperation
with Allen County local units of government. The contents of this report reflect the views of the
Lima-Allen County Regional Planning Commission, which is responsible for the facts and
accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official view
and policies of the State and/or United States Department of Transportation. This report does
not constitute a standard specification or regulation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SECTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ i
LIST OF TABLES, MAPS & ILLUSTRATIONS ......................................................................... iii
I
INTRODUCTION
1.1
History of Economic Development Planning ..................................................... 1
1.2
Planning Philosophy .......................................................................................... 1
1.3
CEDS Process .................................................................................................. 2
II
ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT
2.1
CEDS Committee .............................................................................................. 4
2.2
Role of the Regional Planning Commission ...................................................... 4
2.3
LACRPC Membership Profile ............................................................................ 5
2.4
Chronology of Events ........................................................................................ 5
2.5
Local Economic Development Initiatives ........................................................... 5
2.6
Major Economic Development Issues .............................................................. 6
III
ALLEN COUNTY: SITE & SITUATION
3.1
Locational Attributes & Composition ................................................................. 8
3.2
Climate & Natural Features ............................................................................... 8
3.2.1
Climate................................................................................................ 11
3.2.2
Physiography, Relief & Drainage ........................................................ 11
3.2.3
Floodplains & Wetlands ...................................................................... 13
3.3
Mineral Resources ............................................................................................ 13
3.4
Soils, Hydric Soils & Prime Farmland ................................................................ 17
3.4.1
Soil Types & Limiting Factors ............................................................. 17
3.4.2
Hydric Soils ........................................................................................ 19
3.4.3
Prime Farmland .................................................................................. 19
3.5
Land Use: Patterns & Conversion ..................................................................... 21
3.6
Summary ........................................................................................................... 24
IV
POPULATION
4.1
Population Change ............................................................................................ 26
4.2
Households & Household Size .......................................................................... 28
4.3
Age & Age Cohorts ............................................................................................ 29
4.4
Race & Ethnic Diversity ..................................................................................... 31
4.5
Educational Attainment ..................................................................................... 32
4.6
Income: Household, Family & Per Capita......................................................... 33
4.7
Poverty Status: Persons & Families Below Poverty Level................................ 34
4.8
Labor Force Profile ............................................................................................ 36
4.9
Summary ........................................................................................................... 38
V
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
5.1
Solid Waste Issues ............................................................................................ 40
5.2
Air Quality Issues .............................................................................................. 41
5.3
Water Quality ..................................................................................................... 42
5.4
Planning for Future Growth & Development ...................................................... 42
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
SECTION
PAGE
VI
INFRASTRUCTURE FACTORS
6.1
Water & Wastewater Infrastructure ................................................................... 44
6.2
Telecommunications ......................................................................................... 45
6.3
Industrial Sites ................................................................................................... 45
6.4
Transportation ................................................................................................... 46
6.4.1
Highway System ................................................................................. 46
6.4.2
Public Transportation .......................................................................... 48
6.4.3
Rail System......................................................................................... 48
6.4.4
Electric, Oil & Gas Transmission Line Locations ................................ 50
6.4.5
Cartage, Freight & Warehousing Services ......................................... 50
6.4.6
Air Service .......................................................................................... 51
6.5
Summary ........................................................................................................... 51
VII
ECONOMIC OVERVIEW & ANALYSIS
7.1
Non-Agricultural Employment ............................................................................ 55
7.1.1
Manufacturing ..................................................................................... 56
7.1.2
Wholesale Trade................................................................................. 56
7.1.3
Retail Trade ........................................................................................ 56
7.1.4
Health Care......................................................................................... 57
7.1.5
Accommodations & Food Services ..................................................... 57
7.2
Agriculture ......................................................................................................... 57
7.3
Summary ........................................................................................................... 58
VIII
ACTION PLAN: VISION FOR THE FUTURE
8.1
Community Vision ............................................................................................. 59
8.2
Establishing Community Economic Goals ......................................................... 59
8.3
Strategies .......................................................................................................... 61
8.4
Milestones & Measures ..................................................................................... 61
8.5
Summary ........................................................................................................... 61
IX
RECOMMENDED PROJECT LISTING
9.1
Prioritization of Development Projects & Activities ............................................ 64
9.2
CEDS Performance ........................................................................................... 64
APPENDIX I COMMUNITY STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES,
OPPORTUNITIES & THREATS ........................................................................ 67
APPENDIX II COUNTY CONTACT INFORMATION ............................................................... 69
APPENDIX III RPC DELEGATES ............................................................................................ 70
APPENDIX IV PROJECT SUMMARY STATUS ....................................................................... 72
CEDS REFERENCE MATERIALS ........................................................................................... 73
RESOLUTION........................................................................................................................... 76
ii
LIST OF TABLES, MAPS & ILLUSTRATIONS
TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
Table 16
Table 17
Table 18
Table 19
Table 20
Table 21
Table 22
Table 23
Table 24
Table 25
PAGE
Land Use by Type, Acres & Parcel ......................................................................... 21
Allen County Land Use Change 2002-2009 ............................................................ 24
Population 1960-2000 ............................................................................................. 28
Total Households & Average Household Size
by Political Subdivision 1990-2000.......................................................................... 29
Allen County Population by Age Cohorts & Gender ................................................ 30
Population by Race ................................................................................................. 32
Educational Attainment for the Population 25 Years & Over ................................... 33
Comparative Income Measures by Decennial Census
& American Community Survey .............................................................................. 33
Income in 1999 by Allen County Household Type .................................................. 34
Poverty Status by Family Status ............................................................................. 35
Ratio of Income to Poverty Level Among Individuals .............................................. 35
Occupation by Type & Percentage of Labor Force ................................................. 36
2007 Allen County Employment by Sector .............................................................. 37
Cartage, Freight & Warehousing by Class .............................................................. 51
Non-Agricultural Employment by Primary Sector & Year ........................................ 56
Allen County Farm Production 2002-2007 .............................................................. 57
Allen County Farm Productivity by Commodity 2002-2007 ..................................... 58
Allen County Earnings by Sector: 2003-2007 ......................................................... 58
Goal Statements...................................................................................................... 60
Community Economic Development Strategy Strategic Goals ............................... 61
Community Economic Development Strategy Goals & Strategies .......................... 62
Allen County - Economic Development Goals by Measures of Success ................ 63
Project Priority Ranking System .............................................................................. 65
Recommended 2010 Project Listing Summary ....................................................... 66
Community Economic Development 2007 Project Update ..................................... 72
MAPS
Map 1
Map 2
Map 3
Map 4
Map 5
Map 6
Map 7
Map 8
Map 9
Map 10
Map 11
Map 12
Map 13
Map 14
Map 15
Allen County Base Map ........................................................................................... 3
Allen County Ten County Trading Area................................................................... 9
Proximity to Major Markets ...................................................................................... 10
Allen County Topography ........................................................................................ 12
Allen County: Floodplain by Watershed & Political Subdivision ............................. 14
Allen County: Floodplain & Wetlands ..................................................................... 15
Allen County: Mines & Quarries ............................................................................. 16
Allen County: Hydric Soils Classification ................................................................ 18
Allen County: Soil Classifications ........................................................................... 20
Allen County: Prime Farmland by LESA ................................................................ 22
Allen County: Generalized Land Use ..................................................................... 23
Allen County: Industrial Property by Availability and Readiness ............................ 47
Allen County: Existing Rail Service ........................................................................ 49
Allen County: Oil, Gas & Electric Lines .................................................................. 52
Allen County: Transportation and Warehousing ..................................................... 53
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
ILLUSTRATIONS
Illustration 1 Allen County Population Trends ........................................................................ 27
Illustration 2 Population Change by Component 1996-2007 ................................................. 27
Illustration 3 2000 Allen County/Ohio Population by Age Cohort........................................... 31
Illustration 4 Unemployment Rates 1997-2009 ...................................................................... 37
iii
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
The United States Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration, pursuant
to P.L. 105-393 The Economic Reform Act of 1998 that comprehensively amended the Public
Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, requires a strategy to qualify for assistance
under most programs administered by the United States Economic Development Administration.
This Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) has been prepared in the
continuing effort of the Lima-Allen County Regional Planning Commission (LACRPC) to comply
with these legislative and administrative requirements on behalf of its member political
subdivisions in Allen County, Ohio.
1.1
History of Economic Development Planning
The local units of government have come to rely upon the Allen Economic Development
Group (AEDG) to market and guide local economic development initiatives. The
LACRPC has historically had a supportive role with respect to demographic,
transportation and land use analyses. The City of Lima and the Board of Allen County
Commissioners have supported both institutions financially and politically.
The community submitted to the public planning process and prepared a 2005
Community Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) documents in 2005 and 2007. This
is the third CEDS document prepared by the Allen County community for its member
political units.
1.2
Planning Philosophy
The preparation of this document was predicated upon the long-standing relationships
that the LACRPC has forged with its member political subdivisions. The strength of the
LACRPC lies in the insights gained over 45 years of serving its membership in planning
and implementation of specific programs, projects and activities.
The LACRPC planning philosophy is both inclusive and cumulative. Inclusive, with
respect to the number of individuals and interests represented and considered during the
planning process; cumulative, in that it represents the past planning efforts of various
entities and agencies. That planning philosophy respects the diversity of its 20 member
political subdivisions. The LACRPC recognizes the region’s diversity in terms of
population characteristics, its economic base, and its infrastructure. The LACRPC
accepts this diversity and embraces it as strength of the region. The LACRPC also
recognizes that each political subdivision possesses its own strengths and weaknesses,
but shares similar problems and aspires to new opportunities. The community wants to
capitalize upon shared concerns and ambitions.
The task assigned to the LACRPC was to support and engage existing community
leaders in the preparation of a CEDS to further cooperative efforts that would address
local needs. The LACRPC was charged with the responsibility of providing technical
resources/assistance to assure local units of government within Allen County that their
respective concerns were identified and addressed. Thus, the ultimate objective of the
planning process, as stated in the Community Economic Development Strategy, is to
“assess the current conditions of the area as it relates to developing a plan that best
utilizes local resources for the positive development of the Allen County community.”
1
The delineation of the various political subdivisions within Allen County is depicted in
Map 1.
1.3
CEDS Process
According to the requirements set forth by the United States
Economic Development Administration, a CEDS must be the result
of a continuing participatory economic development planning effort
completed by participants representing the diverse interests of the
community. The CEDS must contain, at minimum, the following:
The CEDS process is a
continuing and participatory
process representing the
diverse interests of the
community.

Background and history of the economic situation of the area covered with a
discussion of the economy, including as appropriate: geography, population, labor
force, resources and the environment.

An analysis of economic and community development problems and opportunities;
including incorporation of any relevant materials and suggestions from other
government sponsored or supported plans.

A discussion setting forth goals and objectives for taking advantage of the
opportunities and solving the economic problems of the area.

A discussion of community participation in the planning efforts.

A plan of action, including suggested projects to implement objectives and goals set
forth in the strategy.

Performance measures that will be used to evaluate whether, and to what extent,
goals and objectives have been or will be met.
2
MAP 1
ALLEN COUNTY BASE MAP
n, Inc
.
Bluffton
696
Delphos
65
115
£
¤
30
Sugar Creek Twp
CSX T
ransp
ortatio
103
Richland Twp
n
Monroe Twp
Cairo
£
¤
30
Marion Twp
3
CS Elida
XT
ran
sp
o
American Twp
or
Beaverdam
75
rta
tio
n
Bath Twp
, In
Jackson Twp
81
c. Lima
CSX Tran
rman R
ailroad
Spencerville
rn
1.5
3
Co
rp
or
a
§
¦
¨
·
6
9
, Inc.
Lafayette
n
tio
e
th
Shawnee Twp
ou
S
75
lk
rfoFort Shawnee
o
N
501
198
66
sportation
309
117
12
Miles
65
Indiana & Ohio Railway
Amanda Twp
R.J. Co
February 2010
So
C
§
¦
¨
n 75
§
¦
¨
81
0
lk
er
io
at
309
66
Spencer Twp
N
fo
or
h
ut
r
po
117
Harrod
Perry Twp
Auglaize Twp
196
SECTION II
ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT
The Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy was prepared by staff of the LACRPC
based on input from the CEDS Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee approved the
draft CEDS document and presented it to the LACRPC for review and subsequent approval.
The draft document was circulated to local stakeholders prior to the final draft being approved.
This section of the document is being provided to furnish the reader with an overview of the
planning process and the stakeholders involved in developing the community’s economic
development strategy.
2.1
CEDS Committee
The CEDS Advisory Committee is comprised of members of the Regional Planning
Commission’s Community Development Committee as well as representatives of each
economic development organization supported and/or sponsored by local units of
government including chambers of commerce.
Members of the Committee represent all major economic development partner
organizations including the various political subdivisions, sectoral representatives from
the business community and academia. Therefore public, not for profit and private for
profit perspectives have been considered and incorporated.
2.2



















Amanda Township
American Township
Auglaize Township
Bath Township
Jackson Township
Marion Township


Governors Economic Development Office
Convention & Visitors Bureau


Allen County Port Authority
Regional Planning Commission





Allen Economic Development Group
Lima Area Chamber of Commerce
Delphos Chamber of Commerce
Bluffton Chamber of Commerce
Spencerville Chamber of Commerce





Transportation Advisory Committee
Transportation Coordinating Committee
Developmental Controls Committee
Community Development Committee
Citizens Advisory Committee


The Ohio State University
Rhodes State College


Bluffton University
University of Northwestern Ohio
Monroe Township
Perry Township
Richland Township
Shawnee Township
Spencer Township
Sugar Creek Township
Allen County
Village of Beaverdam
Village of Bluffton
Village of Elida
Village of Spencerville
City of Delphos
City of Lima
Role of the Regional Planning Commission
The CEDS Advisory Committee, prepared and submitted the draft CEDS – its report,
attachments and addendums with its recommendation to the LACRPC for consideration.
The LACRPC reviewed the final draft document and issued final approval of the
CEDS. The CEDS Advisory Committee works with LACRPC staff in monitoring the
implementation of specific projects and strategies. Upon adoption, the Regional Planning
Commission also submits the approved CEDS to all political subdivisions within Allen
County for monitoring purposes. Approval of the CEDS document established the
actions, deliverables/accomplishments and performance measures by annual element.
4
2.3
LACRPC Membership Profile
The LACRPC is comprised of delegates appointed by member political subdivisions.
The delegates are charged with representing their respective community.
Representation is weighted in terms of population, whereby, each member political
subdivision is authorized a delegate for each 5,000 in population. Those communities
whose population reaches 10,000 and 15,000 have 2 and 3 delegates respectively. Allen
County Commissioners appoint 6 representatives to the LACRPC but in no case would a
member political subdivision have less than 1 delegate to the Commission.
The strength of the LACRPC lies in its membership and the municipalities and other
constituencies they represent. Delegates are often elected officials. However, nonelected citizen members needed to meet various community interests are also included.
As demonstrated by the information presented in the LACRPC roster, members
represent a broad and diverse segment of the population. The members are engaged in
a large number of occupations and serve on a large number of government-sponsored
agencies and committees.
2.4
2.5
Chronology of Events
The following is a summary of events leading to the final approval of
this CEDS:
Preparation Process:
 Obtain input
 Identify issues
 Set Goals and Objectives
 Prepare Action Plan
 Obtain Approvals

Call for Projects. Both formal and informal requests for projects
were issued to member political subdivisions and economic
development organizations in November and April 2009.

Issues of Concern. Based on prior input and data analysis completed by the
LACRPC, a roster of key issues was prepared and reviewed by the Community
Development Committee. Such discussion sessions were ongoing and finalized in
December 2009.

Goals and Objectives. Using advisory committee discussions
recommendations, goals and actions were ratified in January 2010.

Action Plan. The recommendations of the advisory committees were formulated into
specific actions that were considered and incorporated into the final document by the
LACRPC.

Final LACRPC Adoption. The LACRPC will consider a formal adoption action at the
February 2010 meeting.
and
Local Economic Development Initiatives
A founding principle of the CEDS process is the recognition of the economic
development strategies developed by the various community stakeholders and individual
economic development organizations. Currently, the Allen County community is served
by: the Allen County Convention & Visitors Bureau, the Allen County Port Authority, the
Allen Economic Development Group, the Bluffton Chamber of Commerce, the Delphos
Chamber of Commerce, the Lima Area Chamber of Commerce, the Spencerville
Chamber of Commerce and the Allen County Port Authority as well as the Regional
Office of the Ohio Department of Development (ODOD).
Historically, the local community has relied upon improving infrastructure to support or
expand its economic base.
Such support was largely limited to infrastructure
5
improvements supporting public roads, water, sanitary and storm sewers. Funding for
such projects typically utilized multiple sources but included Community Development
Block Grants (CDBG), Ohio Public Works Commission (OPWC) Grants and Loans,
Issue I and Issue II Program monies, Economic Development Administration monies,
State Infrastructure Bank Loans, or General Fund monies. The State of Ohio has helped
local development initiatives with funding for other public infrastructure improvements
including rail siding, roadway improvements and utility extensions.
More recently, the community has utilized its limited financial resources to acquire and
develop industrial parks around the County. Working with public-private partnerships,
the community has been successful in establishing spec buildings at various sites to
assist local development initiatives. Publicly supported industrial/commercial parks have
been successfully sited and developed in Perry Township as well as the City of Lima,
City of Delphos and the Village of Ft. Shawnee. Bluffton and Spencerville are also
currently examining the feasibility of developing industrial/commercial parks.
A founding principle is
reliance and
recognition of
individual economic
development efforts
undertaken by
independent political
units of government.
2.6
In addition, area officials have successfully negotiated a Free Trade
Zone Status for the County and utilized tax abatements for local
industrial employers as an economic incentive and development tool.
As a result of the community’s economic situation, the State of Ohio has
recently declared Allen County an “Impacted Community” which affords
local development professionals an additional set of incentives to
support/attract industry.
Major Economic Development Issues
Members of the CEDS Advisory Committee raised specific issues over
the course of plan preparation. Some of these issues were identified
and forwarded from representatives of local unions, service clubs and
fraternal organizations and include:
Major Issues:
 An Aging Population
 Undereducated &
Under Skilled
Workforce
 Sustainable Growth
 Infrastructure Needs
 Urban Sprawl

The recovery of the Allen County community’s economy from the
current economic recession.

The ability of local communities to provide infrastructure at specific locations
necessary for the expansion of existing businesses, and to attract new business
investment in the future.

The ability of local communities to attract new employers to the region as well as
retain and expand existing employers to provide jobs for current and future residents.

The ability of local industry to attract and maintain a qualified workforce with job skills
necessary to meet employers’ current and future needs.

The ability to attract and retain younger, well-educated, skilled and civic-minded
residents within the community.

Recognition that the historic pattern of agricultural land use and the natural
resources that contribute to the quality of life sought by residents are threatened, in
some cases, by expansion of urban development away from the more populated
cities and villages.

The need for increased governmental cooperation and attention to relationships that
will nurture and improve economic environment, one that will foster the formation of
6
new businesses as evidenced with an expansion of existing employment
opportunities for residents.
7
SECTION III
ALLEN COUNTY: SITE & SITUATION
3.1
Locational Attributes & Composition
Allen County is 407 square miles in total area, with 12.6 square miles
Lima is the largest
situated within the municipal corporate limits of Lima. Lima, the Allen
inland city in West
County seat, is located at 40.77 N latitude and 84.13 W longitude. The
Central Ohio serving
relative location of the City of Lima, is adjacent to I-75, 10 miles south of
475,000 people.
the junction of US 30. Map 2 suggests that Lima is the largest inland
city in West Central Ohio and, therefore, acts as the center for a 10-county trading area
serving approximately 475,000 people, including the adjacent counties of Hancock, Van
Wert, Hardin, Putnam, and Auglaize. Map 3 suggests Lima is located within 500 miles of
the 10 largest cities of the central states. Located midway between Detroit/Cincinnati,
Toledo/Dayton, Cleveland/Indianapolis, and Columbus/Fort Wayne, Lima is strategically
placed in relation to raw materials, transportation facilities, labor supply and trade
markets.
Allen County, Ohio is composed of 12 townships: Amanda; American; Auglaize; Bath;
Jackson; Marion; Monroe; Perry; Richland; Shawnee; Spencer; and, Sugar Creek and
two cities Lima and Delphos. Within the townships are the 8 incorporated villages of
Beaverdam, Bluffton, Cairo, Elida, Ft. Shawnee, Harrod, Lafayette, and Spencerville; as
well as, 9 unincorporated villages including Gomer, Hume, Rockport, Westminster,
Kemp, Conant, Rockport, Allentown and Landeck. Their forms of government are
representative of the following types: Allen County - County Commissioners and
Administrator; Cities and Villages - Mayor and Council; and, Townships - Trustees.
3.2
Climate & Natural Features
Allen County’s global location results in a moist mid latitude climate with relatively cold
winters, the characteristics of Dfa climates in North America. Allen County experiences
this climate of warm summers and cold winters largely because of its general location on
the North American land mass. The climate is somewhat moderated because of its
proximity to the Great Lakes. The community generally experiences distinct warm
summers that contribute to a growing season that ranges from 5 to 6 months long.
Summers are complete with humid evenings and thunderstorms. Winters are relatively
cold with blustery winds and snowfall, sometimes with severe blizzards.
Allen County is an area of 260,366 acres located in West Central Ohio. The County is
mostly level or gently sloping and is excellent for agriculture. Historically, the most
significant geographical feature of Allen County is its rich soils due in part to its location
within the Great Black Swamp. The Great Black Swamp encompassed almost 7,000
square miles of prime timber and flooded prairies. Once a glacial lake that covered
much of northwest Ohio, this land harbored immense tracts of maple, hickory, birch, oak,
and ash trees. But until the swamp was drained, little could be done to timber the stands
of trees or utilize the incredibly rich soils.
There are 22 separate watersheds in Allen County. The primary waterways include the
Auglaize and Ottawa rivers but there are a number of major and minor tributaries that
today require bridges, drainage ditches, and special maintenance. Currently, the Allen
County Engineer is responsible for maintaining 420 bridges, 154 miles of open-ditches,
20 miles of conduit, and 11 miles of waterways on permanent maintenance. Bridges are
further discussed in section 6.4.
8
S108
S15
£
¤
24
S18
127
£
¤
£
¤
65
§
¦
¨
75
30
£
¤
30
9
Van Wert
£
¤
127
£
¤
£
¤
30
Allen
81
§
¦
¨
75
£
¤
33
49
68
53
Hardin
65
309
Auglaize
£
¤
£
¤
£
¤
£
¤
33
33
31
68
§
¦
¨
66
127
75
Mercer
29
Logan
Shelby
66
47
£
¤
68
47
·
81
66
29
49
§
¦
¨
75
£
¤
£
¤
£
¤
30
309
117
117
235
81
81
15
68
30
309
224
Hancock
224
224
£
¤
224
15
Putnam
12
75
15
£
¤
£
¤
£
¤
§
¦
¨
108
Paulding
U23
MAP 2
ALLEN COUNTY TEN COUNTY TRADING AREA
§
¦
¨
£
¤
33
LHo
n
da
75
0
10
20
30
Miles
February 2010
MAP 3
PROXIMITY TO MAJOR MARKETS
500 Miles
Minnesota
Michigan
Minneapolis
300 Miles
Wisconsin
!
( St. Paul
§
¨
¦
§
¨
¦
Montpelier
§
¨
¦
§
¨
¦
§
¨
¦
39
90
75
43
Madison Milwaukee
96
Iowa
Des Moines
§
¨
¦
80
10
¨
¦
§
¨
¦ §
§
¨
¦
§
¨
¦
57
Kansas
Lima
Indiana
§
¨
¦
§
¨
¦ §
¨
¦
72
Missouri
Jefferson City
!
(
Indianapolis
I l l i n o i s Springfield
Kansas City
§
¨
¦
86
!
(
94
§
¨
¦
88
35
Nebraska
!
(
Chicago
280
70
St. Louis
!
(
§
¨
¦
St. Louis
Kentucky
§
¨
¦
44
76
680
Columbus
Frankfort
§
¨
¦
New York
!
(Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
Baltimore
Memphis
Little Rock
Arkansas
§
¨
¦
30
Mississippi
§
¨
¦
55
Texas
Louisiana
150
40
¨
¦
§
¨
¦§
65
Atlanta
Alabama
!
(§
285
¨
¦
Charleston
West Virginia
77
§
¨
¦
§
¨
¦
95
!
(
Newark
New Jersey
LIMA-ALLEN COUNTY
REGIONAL PLANNING
COMMISSION
February 2010
Washington
240
Atlanta
§
¨
¦
20
Miles
600
Hartford
Virginia
Georgia
300
190
!
(Baltimore
!
Annapolis
( Maryland
§
¨
¦ N o r t h Charlotte
Carolina
24
§
¨
¦
Washington
Raleigh
§
¨
¦
Albany
Massachusetts
Pittsburgh
Nashville
Tennessee
0
§
¨
¦
Richmond Virginia
540
·
New York
390
Ohio
Louisville Lexington
64
§
¨
¦ §
¨
¦
Cincinnati
74
87
81
¨
¦ 100 Miles
§
¨
¦ §
196
§
¨
¦
§
¨
¦
Buffalo
475
Vermont
Concord
§
¨
¦ S Columbia
outh Carolina
26
Beach
Distance to Other Major Cities From Lima
City, State
Minneapolis, Minn.
Akron, Ohio
Buffalo, New York
Canton, Ohio
Chicago, Illinois
Chillicothe, Ohio
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cleveland, Ohio
Coulombs, Ohio
Detroit, Michigan
Fort Wayne, Indiana
New York, New York
St.Louis, Missouri
Toledo, Ohio
Washington, D.C
Wheeling, West Virginia
Youngstown, Ohio
Mileage
560
151
336
151
218
135
128
149
94
139
65
611
380
80
464
211
199
Kilometers
896
243
541
243
351
217
206
240
151
224
105
983
612
129
747
340
320
3.2.1
Climate
Allen County is relatively cold in winter and hot in summer. In winter, the average
temperature is 27.9 degrees F and the average daily minimum temperature is
19.9 degrees. The lowest temperature on record, which occurred at Lima on
January 19, 1994, is -21 degrees. In summer, the average temperature is 72.0
degrees and the average daily maximum temperature is 83.0 degrees. The
highest recorded temperature, which occurred on July 15, 1936, is 109 degrees.
The average total annual precipitation is about 35.98 inches. Of this, 19.94
inches, or 55.4 percent, usually falls in May through October. The growing
season for most crops falls within this period. The heaviest 1-day rainfall during
the period of record was 4.38 inches on June 14, 1981. Thunderstorms occur on
about 39 days each year, and most occur between April and September.
The average seasonal snowfall is 19.2 inches. The greatest snow depth at any
one time during the period of record was 19 inches. On average, 40 days of the
year have at least 1 inch of snow on the ground. The number of such days varies
greatly from year to year. The heaviest 1-day snowfall on record was more than
18.0 inches on January 13, 1964.
The average relative humidity in mid afternoon is about 60 percent. Humidity is
higher at night, and the average at dawn is about 82 percent. The sun shines 74
percent of the time possible in summer and 45 percent in winter. The prevailing
wind is from the west/southwest. Average wind speed is highest, 12 miles per
hour, from January through April.
3.2.2
Physiography, Relief & Drainage
Allen County was once beneath a large ice sheet. As the glacier melted and
retreated, a large lake formed and covered much of northwest Ohio. Over time
the geological processes resulted in a gently sloping terrain and productive soils
but with relatively poor drainage. Map 4 illustrates local relief patterns.
Allen County lies in 2 parts of the Central Lowland Physiographic Province. The
extreme northwest part of the County is in the Erie-Huron Lake Plain; the rest of
the County is on the Indiana and Ohio Till Plain. The relief in the County is quite
variable. In the northwest, near Delphos, the landscape is subdued. This area
was once part of a large glacial lake that covered part of Allen County. Hoytville
and Nappanee soils are on the flat lake plains of the County.
The largest part of the County is part of the Indiana and Ohio Till Plain. The more
sloping relief is along the major rivers and on dissected portions of the 3 end
moraines. These are the Fort Wayne, Wabash, and St. Johns moraines. These
end moraines formed during the last ice age when the ice front remained
stationary for a period of time. Blount and Pewamo soils are found on the flatter
ground moraines. Glynwood and Lybrand soils are on the more rolling terrain of
the County. Other soils are on the ground moraines, deltas and floodplains.
The highest elevation in Allen County is 1,061 feet above sea level, in Auglaize
Township. The lowest elevation is 760 feet, which is in Marion Township, where
the Auglaize River exits the County. The Auglaize and Ottawa rivers and their
tributaries drain most of Allen County. These 2 rivers flow northward and are part
of the Maumee River basin. A small part of southeastern Allen County drains into
the Scioto River watershed located in Auglaize County.
11
MAP 4:
ALLEN COUNTY TOPOGRAPHY
·
Legend
1026-1066
987-1026
951-987
911-951
872-911
LIMA-ALLEN COUNTY
REGIONAL PLANNING
COMMISSION
836-872
797-836
757-797
0
1.25
2.5
5
Miles
721-757
12
February 2010
3.2.3
Floodplains & Wetlands
The relatively flat topography and riverine system of Allen County, coupled with
the local climate and moderate precipitation, result in localized flooding and
seasonal ponding. Given the community’s relative position with respect to other
West Central Ohio counties in the Maumee River watershed, the community
occasionally experiences severe flooding.
Floodplains are those high hazard areas identified by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) as areas with a 1 percent chance per annum of
flooding. FEMA has identified 14,379.9 acres of high hazard flood areas in Allen
County. The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (1989) are predicated on
detailed reports compiled by the United States Army Corps of Engineer (1967)
and the United States Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service
(1979). A detailed analysis of the Auglaize River is currently underway by the
United States National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Map 5 details
the parameters of the floodplains by their respective sub watershed area;
however, the map fails to identify high hazard floodplain areas
Allen County hosts
within the City of Lima or Bluffton due to density issues.
13,184 acres of high
Flooding has been confined largely to areas outside of the City
hazard flood areas and
of Lima since the flood of 1913 when thereafter channels of
occasionally experiences
the Ottawa River were realigned and new bridges built,
severe flooding.
minimizing flooding.
Wetlands are lands that are flooded or saturated at or near the ground surface
for varying periods of time during the year. Wetland delineations are predicated
upon the United States Department of the Interior (USDI) and the National
Wetlands Inventory. The mapped results of the USDI Wetlands Inventory (1994)
are based upon survey work conducted by the United States Fish & Wildlife
Service (FWS) using remote sensing and information obtained from United
States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps. The FWS consider
wetlands as lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where
either (a) hydophytes exist, (b) hydric soils are located, and/or (c) non-soil
substrate is saturated or covered with water at some time during the growing
season. Map 6 identifies wetlands documented by the USDI with FEMA identified
floodplains. Because of the nature and size of the respective floodplain
delineations, many of the wetlands areas are indistinguishable from the larger
floodplain.
3.3
Mineral Resources
The mineral resources of Allen County include bedrock, sand, and gravel. Most of these
resources are of minor importance because of the relatively thin deposits of any highquality materials for wide commercial use. Dolostone is the major component of bedrock
in Allen County, although limestone is also present. Dolomite and limestone have been
mined from several formations across the County. Quarries near the villages of Bluffton
and Delphos, and on the east side of Lima are currently active. Dolostone has been
quarried from the floor of the Auglaize River during dry years for local use. Since
bedrock is at or near the surface in Allen County, many inactive quarries are scattered
throughout the County. Most of the dolostone is used for agricultural or industrial uses or
for use in the transportation industry. In all, 267 inactive small sand and/or gravel pits
are scattered throughout the County, usually along rivers and small creeks. In 2006
there were 17 parcels totaling 475.2 acres being quarried/mined in Allen County. Map 7
identifies the location of the various parcels engaged in quarrying/mining.
13
MAP 5
ALLEN COUNTY: FLOODPLAIN BY WATERSHED
& POLITICAL SUBDIVISION
Plum Creek
Richland
Monroe
Rushmore Creek
Sugar Creek
Leatherwood DitchMain Stem
Marion
Pike Run
Sugar Creek
14
Hog Creek
Jackson
Bath
American
Eastern Allen
Dug Run
Little Hog Creek
Honey Run
Lima
Allentown
Spencer
Amanda
Lima-Shawnee
Lost Creek
Shawnee
·
Perry
Little Ottawa River
0
2.5
5
7.5
10
Miles
Auglaize
MAP 6
ALLEN COUNTY: FLOODPLAIN & WETLANDS
Richland
Monroe
Sugar Creek
Marion
15
Bath
Jackson
Perry
Auglaize
American
Lima
Spencer
Amanda
0
February 2010
2.5
·
Shawnee
5
7.5
10
Miles
MAP 7
ALLEN COUNTY: MINES & QUARRIES
Richland
Monroe
Sugar Creek
Marion
16
American
Bath
Jackson
Perry
Auglaize
Lima
Spencer
Amanda
Shawnee
·
Mines & Quarries
Active
Inactive
0
3
6
9
12
Miles
3.4
Soils, Hydric Soils & Prime Farmland
The vast majority of land in Allen County is considered agricultural; and, agriculture
remains a major economic activity in the community. Most local agriculture focuses on
grain production, primarily soybeans, corn and wheat. Crop productivity, depends in
part, on soil characteristics including soil type by parent material, slope and drainage.
An analysis of Allen County reveals broad areas that have distinctive patterns of soils,
relief, and drainage. Although specific soil types may vary within, as will slope and depth
of the soils, general soil patterns are useful in comparing the suitability of large tracts for
general land uses including agriculture.
3.4.1
Soil Types & Limiting Factors
A detailed soil analysis, completed in 1996 and published in 2002 by the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS), found 69 different soil types in Allen County. The soil analysis
is useful in assessing the characteristics of the various soils for: (1) characteristic
properties, including permeability, depth, parent material, organic matter, and
slope; (2) agricultural uses, including soil management concerns; and, (3) urban
uses, including load bearing capacities, septic system suitability, and
permeability. Allen County soils are presented by type on Map 8. Soil surveys
classify soils by limiting factors that restrict their ability to
Ponding, compaction and
support specific applications or uses. Three principal
erosion are 3 principal limiting
limiting factors occur in the soils of Allen County according
factors occurring in Allen
to the USDA-Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and include
County Soils.
ponding, compaction, and erosion.
Collapsing the various soil types into more general soil classifications furthers the
ability for comparison between tracts of land. There are 7 general soil types
found to be representative of Allen County, including the following:

Blount-Pewamo:
Very deep, level to gently sloping, somewhat poorly drained, and very poorly
drained soils that formed in till. Such soils are suitable for cropland, pasture,
and woodlands. Concerns include seasonal wetness, erosion, ponding, and
compaction.

Blount-Glynwood-Pewamo:
Very deep, level to strongly sloping, somewhat poorly drained, moderately
well drained, and very poorly drained soils that formed in till. Such soils are
suitable for cropland, pasture, woodland, and urban uses. Concerns include
erosion, seasonal wetness, ponding, and compaction.

Pewamo-Blount:
Very deep, level to gently sloping, poor, and very poor drained soils that
formed in till. Such soils are suitable for cropland, pasture, and woodland.
Concerns stem from seasonal wetness, erosion, compaction, and ponding.

Cygnet-Renssler-Alvada:
Very deep, level or nearly level, moderately well drained, and very poorly
drained soils that formed in loamy deposits and underlying till. Such soils are
suitable for cropland and woodland. Concerns stem from seasonal wetness,
compaction, and ponding.
17
MAP 8
ALLEN COUNTY: HYDRIC SOILS CLASSIFICATION
18
·
Legend
Hydric Soil
Non Hydric Soil
Not Classified
0
2.5
5
7.5
10
Miles
3.4.2

Renssler-Cygnet-Gallman:
Very deep, level to strongly sloping, very poorly to moderately drained and
well-drained soils that formed in loamy deposits largely and/or underlying till.
Suitable uses include cropland, pasture, and woodland. Concerns include
seasonal wetness, erosion, and ponding.

Hoytville-Shawtown:
Very deep, level to gently sloping, very poorly drained and moderately
drained soils that formed in till or in stratified water-sorted deposits overlying
till. Such soils are suitable for cropland. Concerns include seasonal wetness,
ponding, high clay content, erosion, and compaction.

Westland-Gallman-Thackery:
Very deep, level to strongly sloping, very poorly drained, and moderately
drained soils that formed in loamy deposits and the underlying outwash.
Such soils are suitable for cropland and woodland. Concerns include
seasonal wetness, erosion, compaction, and ponding.
Hydric Soils
Based on a soils analysis completed by the USDA-NRCS, 17 soil types were
classified as hydric soils. Hydric soils are soils that formed under conditions of
saturation, flooding or ponding. Such soils tend to support the growth and
regeneration of vegetation that depends on continued high water saturation.
Some hydric soil types encounter periods when they are not saturated and
depend on the existing water table, flooding, and ponding for survival. The
presence of hydric soils is an indicator of wetlands and floodplain areas.
However, hydric soil criteria must also meet EPA criteria in order for it to be
classified as a wetland.
Hydric soils have a number of agricultural and
Limitations of hydric soils
nonagricultural limitations. Such limitations can be minimized
can be minimized with
sound policy decisions.
with sound policy decisions predicated upon local land-use
planning, conservation planning, and assessment of
potential wildlife habitats. Hydric Soils are presented in Map 9. Notice the
correlation between the location of hydric soils in Map 9 and the location of
wetlands and floodplains identified earlier in Map 6.
3.4.3
Prime Farmland
The USDA has defined prime agricultural land as the land best suited for the
production of food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. Prime farmland is
defined as areas of land that possess the ideal combination of physical and
chemical properties necessary for crop production. Prime farmland is predicated
upon soils that have permeability of both air and water but retain adequate
moisture-holding capacity. Prime soils are those which are not prone to flooding
or are protected from flooding. Such soils have natural fertility and an acceptable
level of alkalinity or acidity. Prime soils have limited relief, typically slopes of 0 to
6 percent. Prime farmland produces the highest yields with the minimal inputs of
energy and economic resources; and, farming prime farmland results in the least
damage to the environment.
Approximately 234,400 acres or 90.02 percent of the total acreage in Allen
County meets the general soil requirements for prime farmland as defined by the
USDA-NRCS. Examining specific limitations however, we find that most of that
prime farmland is prone to occasional flooding and standing water and requires
19
MAP 9
ALLEN COUNTY: SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
20
Legend
Prime Unconditionally
Prime With Conditions
Non-Prime
0
·
2
4
6
8
Miles
appropriate drainage improvements. Classifying soil by crop productivity
capabilities and site limitations, Allen County has 23,773 acres of prime farmland
and 210,621.4 acres of prime farmland with conditions. Map 10 depicts the
ranked location of prime farmland by condition as identified using USDA Land
Evaluation and Site Analysis (LESA) variables. Of note is the fact that less than
198,000 acres are still in agricultural production.
3.5
Land Use: Patterns & Conversion
The use of land is dependent upon or the result of, particular attributes including its size,
shape and its relative location. The use of land is affected by a parcel’s access or
proximity to utilities, roadways, waterways, services, and markets. Environmental
attributes and constraints, such as the presence of minerals, topography, scenic
attributes, flooding, poor soils, etc., can also influence the use of land.
An analysis of the manner and extent to which land is used or employed over a period of
time results in distinct patterns of use. General classifications of economic uses typically
reflect agricultural, commercial, industrial, residential, recreational, utility/transportation,
and public/quasi public land use patterns. Table 1 identifies the extent of specific land
use activities by type and acreage. Map 11 identifies general patterns of land use in
Allen County.
TABLE 1
LAND USE BY TYPE, ACRES & PARCEL
Percent
Mean
Total
Parcel
Parcels
Size
Agricultural Uses
191,244.68
74.6
4,041
7.8
47.32
Commercial Uses
6,722.88
2.6
3,916
7.6
1.71
Industrial Uses
4,969.22
1.9
541
1.0
9.18
Residential Uses
39,101.03
15.3
41,437
80.0
.95
Public/Quasi Public Uses
7,173.62
2.8
1,639
3.2
4.37
Recreational Uses
2,227.05
0.9
33
0.1
67.50
Railroad/Utilities
1,248.12
0.5
175
0.3
7.10
Total
252,686.60
1.4
51,782
100.0
4.95
Subdivision Roadway
3,551.32
100.0
0
0.0
0.00
Note: Land use, acreage, and parcel data is reflective of December 2009 Allen County Auditor
data. Such data incorporates acreage consumed by land supporting transportation activities,
some overlap also exists between industrial and utility acreage and between agricultural and
residential due to residential and farming uses occurring on the same parcels. Statistical
accuracy assumed at 98th percentile.
Land Use Type
Total
Acres
Percent of
Total Area
Total
Parcels
Over the last 40 years, land use conversion in Allen County has largely been confined to
the Lima Urbanized Area. However, low-density residential strip developments are
evident throughout the County. Major residential subdivision developments have
occurred exclusively within the urbanized areas, nearly all within 3 miles of the City of
Lima. The FIRE industries, Finance, Insurance and Real Estate, coupled with
Government have remained anchors within Central Business Districts of Lima, Delphos,
Bluffton Spencerville and Elida. Commercial and service activities, although once
exclusively limited to urban confines, have spread to suburban areas. Clustered retail
activities have migrated almost exclusively to 2 of the region's shopping centers located
on the fringe of municipal utility service areas. Aging shopping centers more centrally
located are currently in a state of decline. And, although manufacturing activities have
21
MAP 10
ALLEN COUNTY: PRIME FARMLAND BY LESA
·
Legend
LESA SCORES
11.00 - 25.45
25.46 - 29.27
29.28 - 32.11
32.12 - 34.99
0
35.00 - 41.28
3
6
9
12
Miles
22
£
¤
30
30
Ro
ad
N West St
N St Marys Road
Eli
da
Reservoirs
§
¦
¨
75
Ada Road
Allentown Road
Recreation
Railroad
Harding Hwy
Quasi-Public
Residential
Spencerville Road
Agriculture
·
0
2.5
5
7.5
St Johns Road
Industrial
Be
lle
fo
S Wapak Road
Commercial
10
Miles
February 2010
23
75
E Lincoln Hwy
£
¤
Legend
§
¦
¨
Otta
wa
R
oad
N Napoleon Road
MAP 11
ALLEN COUNTY: GENERALIZED LAND USE
nta
ine
R
oa
d
largely been limited to older more developed tracts within or adjacent to the City of Lima,
newer more modern industrial sites have been developed with ready access to I-75 and
the area's state routes.
Furthered by easy access, availability of utilities and developable land, urban sprawl has
slowly etched its presence across most of Allen County. Residential land use has been
responsible for the bulk of rural to urban conversion. Between 1970 and 2000, platted
residential subdivision developments consumed 2,252.7 acres outside of municipal
boundaries. Such developments provided land for 4,324 residential units, using an
average .52 acres per lot. Data for the same period reflected that 4,080.5 acres of
undeveloped property was consumed for residential using the minor subdivision
process. This process, that facilitates uncontrolled “shot gun” type development,
provided 2,532 units, resulted in an average lot size of 1.61 acres.
A more recent analysis of land use change across all of Allen County was conducted
over the 2002 through 2009 period. The 7-year analysis found residential uses
consumed more than 1,500 acres while commercial consumed 733 acres. The total
acreage dedicated to industrial uses increased 13.3 percent and now comprises nearly
5,000 acres. The loss of farmland attributed to the various land use conversions reveal
that 5,000 acres of agricultural land was lost to more urban uses. Table 2 identifies the
components of change over the study period.
TABLE 2
ALLEN COUNTY LAND USE CHANGE 2002-2009
Year
2002
2009
Net Gain/Loss
Residential
37,937.1
39,101.0
+1,534.3
Land Use by Type and Acreage
Commercial
Industrial
5989.2
4,382.5
6,722.9
4,969.2
+733.7
+586.7
Agricultural
195,888.6
191,244.7
-4,643.9
The relationship between the process of suburbanization, urban decentralization and
land use conversion is complicated at best. Although regulatory controls, such as
zoning and subdivision codes, and policies developed to control access management
and infrastructure investments have the means to control such sprawl, sprawl continues
largely unabated due to fragmented legislative control and disjointed or nonexistent
policies.
3.6
Summary
The unique natural features of the community contribute to a wide variety of available
services and manufacturing pursuits. While, traditional manufacturing and other
industrial business operations are scattered throughout the community, the retail and
service sectors are strategically locating themselves often in suburban locations.
Services are now the leading sector of employment within Allen County. The mixture of
manufacturing, technology, and retail businesses serving residents, businesses, and
visitors alike, contributes to a rich quality of life, a struggling but relatively stable
economy, and an aging labor force in need of increased educational attainment and
technical training.
Growth in population and employment opportunities are not uniform across the
community however. The percentage of population growth in several of the townships is
experiencing double digit increases while some urban centers are experiencing double
digit declines. And, while employment in the community is experiencing growth, the
24
central city area suffers from historically high unemployment, the loss of manufacturing
jobs, and a declining tax base.
In recent years, prime farmland has been used indiscriminately
for development, especially single-family home sites. Such
unplanned development has resulted in uncoordinated and
haphazard development along once rural roadways and now
ultimately requires the extension of expensive municipal
infrastructure to address health, safety, and environmental
hazards.
A rural to urban conversion is
underway. Fueled by hundreds
of acres of available farmland,
the lack of coherent land use
policies is resulting in a
haphazard pattern of urban
sprawl.
With utilities extended and available, green field developments (both residential and
commercial) are increasingly locating in more rural locations rather than in the older
brownfield sites located in the urban centers. The cumulative impact reveals urban
centers struggling to provide safe affordable housing while maintaining adequate public
services for an increasingly poorer and typically minority-based population. In the
townships, the demands of a more urban/suburban population are depleting the
townships’ fiscal resources and ability to provide needed services including basic street
maintenance and snow removal as well as police, fire and emergency medical services.
25
SECTION IV
POPULATION
Historically populations changed rather slowly over time when left to their own accord. Today,
however, based on various competing and intervening factors, populations can now change with
relative speed and catch a community off guard and unprepared. In today’s economic climate
and social conditions, populations are much more fluid. In order to address this community’s
economic well being, a better understanding of the local population is warranted. In the context
of this report, the term population refers to the number of inhabitants in a given place at the time
of the 2000 Census tabulation. Herein, population data reflects the total number of residents in
a specific political subdivision at that given time. A thorough analysis of the Allen County
population requires the use of demographic constructs as well. Demographic characteristics
include migration, household size, age, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, income and
employment.
Assessing a community’s population and its respective demographic measures is important to
understanding the demand for, and consumption of products and services. Such an
understanding is also necessary to broaden the community’s economic base and support the
local labor force. Moreover, population data and demographic characteristics provide good
indicators of future population growth/decline and allow community’s to better assess policy
decisions/development and the wise expenditures of public funds.
The population of Allen County in 2000 according to the Census was 108,473 persons. This
population however, is not uniform in its demographics, distribution or density. This section
attempts to highlight specific characteristics of the community’s population and provide broad
generalizations that will further the strategic planning process.
4.1
Population Change
As demonstrated in Illustration 1, the population of Allen County has continued to
experience a general decline since 1980 when it reached a population plateau of
112,241 persons. Comparison to the 1980 population reveals the current population has
decreased by 3,768, or 3.35 percent. The Ohio population growth rate over the same
period was 5.41 percent.
Population change however, is the net result of the relationship
Since 1990, a 1.16%
between the number of births and the number of deaths in a
population loss is due to
population and the gross migration rate within the community.
out-migration.
Examining 2000 Census data, comparison to the 1990 Census
reveals Allen County has lost 1,282 residents, a loss in population of 1.16 percent.
Illustration 2 suggests that the out-migration of residents is responsible for the majority of
the population loss. For comparison purposes, the State of Ohio grew by 4.65 percent
during this same period.
From a historical
perspective, Allen
County has
experienced a
4.61% increase in
population over
the 1960 to 2000
period.
Population change, whether growth or decline, is not static nor is it uniform.
For example, with the decline since 1980 noted, the County has actually
experienced an overall population increase of 4.61 percent when extending
the period from 1960 to 2000. In fact, many political subdivisions within
Allen County have experienced an extended period of continued growth
while others have experienced overall growth in cyclical spurts since 1960.
Table 3 identifies each of the various political subdivisions by population
and decennial census period.
26
Illustration 1: Allen County Population Trends
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Illustration 2: Population Change by Component 1996-2007
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
-1,000
-2,000
In-Migration
Out-Migration
Net-Migration
Births
Deaths
Natural Change
27
2006
2007
TABLE 3
POPULATION 1960-2000
Political
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Subdivision
Allen County
103,691
111,144
112,241
109,755
108,473
City of Lima
51,037
53,734
47,381
45,549
41,578
City of Delphos
6,960
7,608
7,314
7,093
6,944
American Twp.
10,399
9,977
12,825
12,407
14,019
Bath Twp.
8,307
9,323
10,433
10,105
9,819
Perry Twp.
4,206
3,751
3,586
3,577
3,620
Shawnee Twp.
9,658
9,734
12,344
12,133
12,220
Amanda Twp.
1,217
1,498
1,769
1,773
1,913
Auglaize Twp.
2,303
2,473
2,548
2,778
2,850
Jackson Twp.
1,999
2,247
2,702
2,737
2,936
Marion Twp.
5,938
6,945
6,718
6,676
6,773
Monroe Twp.
1,952
2,077
2,217
2,095
2,219
Richland Twp.
4,635
4,975
5,357
5,494
6,090
Spencer Twp.
2,944
3,201
3,109
3,120
3,160
Sugar Creek Twp.
1,166
1,209
1,242
1,311
1,330
Note: State population growth between 1960 and 2000 was 16.91 percent.
Percent
Change
4.6
-18.5
-0.3
34.8
18.2
-14.0
26.53
57.2
23.8
46.9
14.0
13.7
31.4
7.3
14.0
Given the State’s rate of population growth since 1990 (4.65%), it is interesting to point
out that several local units of government have experienced population growth equal to
or greater than the rate of growth for the State. Other urban areas within the region
experienced increases/decreases based on the growth/decline of their industrial sector’s
employment base. Cities such as Bellefontaine (7.49%), Ottawa (9.42), and Findlay
(10.00%) saw solid population gain while others (Kenton, .04%; Wapakoneta, 2.71%)
realized only marginal increases, and, others in the region including Van Wert (-1.65%),
and Leipsic (-1.76%) lost population.
4.2
Households & Household Size
Another population related factor to recognize is change in the total number and size of
households. This measure is important since each household requires a dwelling unit,
and in most cases the size of the household will determine specific housing components
such as number of bedrooms, bathrooms, square footage, play area, etc. Therefore, as
the number of households change in number or character, housing consumption
changes. If the number of units increase then the housing supply must reflect the
growth. As the characteristics of the household change, new residency patterns are
established. From a public policy perspective, it is important to balance the available
housing supply with the housing demand, otherwise voids develop whereby housing
remains unoccupied/vacant and household needs go unmet.
Census data reveals the total number of households and the rate of
change in the total households reported between 1990 and 2000 is
changing. Table 4 indicates the total number of Allen County
households in 2000 was 40,625, an increase of 3.36 percent over the
1990 figure of 39,303 households. Of note, while population growth
has declined since 1990, the number of households has increased. This increase
compares to a similar but significantly larger statewide increase of 8.73 percent.
Between 1990 and 2000
the number of
households in Allen
County increased 3 36%
28
Household size is also a factor. Table 4 also presents information relative to the
changing status of household size. In 1990, the average household size in Allen County
was 2.79 persons per household. In 2000, the average household size in the County
was 2.67 persons, a decline of 4.3 percent in size but still larger than the State mean
size of 2.55 persons per household. Notice also that household size varies by political
subdivision across Allen County. This data may very well indicate that a historical trend
of families with children is changing to more 2-person households, single-parent
households with children under the age of 18 years, and households comprised of
retirees. The implications of smaller size households should be monitored by local
policy experts and reflected in local housing policies, building codes and zoning
regulations.
TABLE 4
TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS & AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE
BY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION 1990-2000
Year 1990 Year 2000 Total
Year 1990 Year 2000 Average
Average
HouseholdsTotal
Political Subdivision
Total
Household
Household
% Change
Households
Households
Size
Size
Amanda Township
684
2.76
605
2.93
13.06%
American Township
5,631
2.43
4,692
2.64
20.01%
* Village of Elida
698
2.75
527
2.82
32.45%
Auglaize Township
1,016
2.81
952
2.92
6.72%
* Village of Harrod
173
2.84
182
2.95
-4.95%
Bath Township
3,815
2.54
3,718
2.72
2.61%
City of Lima
15,410
2.42
16,311
2.79
-5.52%
Jackson Township
1,074
2.73
931
2.94
15.36%
* Village of Lafayette
118
2.58
160
2.81
-26.25%
Marion Township
2,529
2.64
2,352
2.84
7.53%
* City of Delphos
2,717
2.52
2,650
2.68
2.53%
Monroe Township
788
2.82
728
2.88
8.24%
* Village of Cairo
181
2.76
169
2.80
7.10%
Perry Township
1,417
2.50
1,300
2.75
9.00%
Richland Township
2,036
2.56
1,861
2.95
9.40%
* Village of Beaverdam
140
2.54
164
2.85
-14.63%
* Village of Bluffton
1,329
2.32
1,173
2.87
13.30%
Shawnee Township
4,621
2.60
4,373
2.77
5.67%
* Village of Fort Shawnee
1,524
2.53
1,555
2.65
-1.99%
Spencer Township
1,149
2.62
1,132
2.76
1.50%
* Village of Spencerville
845
2.54
841
2.72
0.48%
Sugar Creek Township
476
2.79
453
2.89
5.08%
Note: Township data also reflect the corresponding incorporated areas in the Township.
4.3
Age & Age Cohorts
Age is a critical characteristic of a community’s population. Age reflects certain attitudes
and beliefs. Age also reflects demands for education, employment, housing, and
services. Age cohorts attempt to identify a specific population within a certain particular
age grouping and are important in attempt to identify specific needs or the degree to
29
which specific services will be required by that particular population segment. The
construction of a population pyramid furthers an analysis of age and age cohorts by
gender differences. Such a construct not only provides valuable insights as to fertility
and morbidity issues but also provides data on workforce availability by age and gender.
Consistent with national trends, the County’s population is aging. The
More than a third of the
median age of the population is 36.3 years. That compares with a
population is not able to
median of 36.2 and 35.3 years with the State of Ohio and the United
fully contribute to the
States respectively. Table 5 provides a breakdown of age cohorts by
economic growth and
gender. Age data reveals that nearly a quarter of the County’s
earning power of the
community.
population is below the age of 16 and another seventh past the age of
retirement. Data suggests that simply due to age of the population,
more than a third of the population is not able to fully contribute to the economic growth
and earning power of the community. Data shows that an additional 8.72 percent of the
population is categorized in the pre-retirement age group and may be readying for
retirement.
TABLE 5
ALLEN COUNTY POPULATION BY AGE COHORTS & GENDER
Cohort
<5
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
Totals
Male
3,640
3,915
4,305
4,565
3,711
3,507
3,587
3,997
4,616
4,069
3,414
2,546
2,037
1,909
1,749
1,155
771
612
54,105
Percent
6.73%
7.24%
7.96%
8.44%
6.86%
6.48%
6.63%
7.39%
8.53%
7.52%
6.31%
4.71%
3.76%
3.53%
3.23%
2.13%
1.43%
1.13%
100.00%
Female
3,564
3,854
3,900
4,155
3,195
3,117
3,239
4,019
4,008
3,906
3,389
2,531
2,350
2,148
2,145
2,016
1,344
1,488
54,368
Percent
6.56%
7.09%
7.17%
7.64%
5.88%
5.73%
5.96%
7.39%
7.37%
7.18%
6.23%
4.66%
4.32%
3.95%
3.95%
3.71%
2.47%
2.74%
100.00%
Total
7,204
7,769
8,205
8,720
6,906
6,624
6,826
8,016
8,624
7,975
6,803
5,077
4,387
4,057
3,894
3,171
2,115
2,100
108,474
% Total
6.64%
7.16%
7.56%
8.04%
6.37%
6.11%
6.29%
7.39%
7.95%
7.35%
6.27%
4.68%
4.04%
3.74%
3.59%
2.92%
1.95%
1.94%
100.00%
An examination of the community’s population reveals an increasing senior population.
Concerns center on the availability of a younger work force and the need for appropriate
senior housing and services to accommodate pre-retirement and post-retirement
households. The following construct, Illustration 3, depicts an age/gender profile of Allen
County’s population as documented in the 2000 Census against the State of Ohio for the
same period.
30
Illustration 3: 2000 Allen County/Ohio Population by Age Cohort
85>
80-84
17
75-79
15
70-74
65-69
60-64
13
55-59
50-54
11
45-49
40-44
9
35-39
30-34
7
25-29
20-24
5
15-19
10-14
3
5-9
>5
1
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
Female
0.01
Allen County
4.4
0.00
0.01
0.02
Male
0.03
0.04
0.05
Ohio
Race & Ethnic Diversity
Recognizing changing domestic and global economies, businesses have been forced to
search for ways to make themselves more competitive and to maintain any economic
advantage that they currently enjoy. Strategies to address the needs of multi-national
companies, foreign markets and cultural pluralism require diverse thinking, new
marketing schemes, and different ways of dealing with diverse peoples.
Demographic changes are also taking place across our domestic markets. Within the
United States minority populations are making up a larger proportion of local consumer
markets. In 2000, the country’s white non-Hispanic population totaled 195 million or
roughly 69 percent of the nation’s population. Hispanics are now the largest minority
with a population of 35 million and a growth rate that is expected to reach 43 million by
2010. The minority population of the United States represents 31 percent of the
country’s 2000 population. Given such, businesses must realize that racial and ethnic
diversity is a necessary strategy for good business in an increasingly culturally and
racially pluralistic market place.
The community
has followed
national trends
and grown more
racially diverse.
The County’s population has grown more racially and ethnically diverse
during the past decade. Racially, whites comprise the largest percentage of
the population at 84.74 percent. The largest minority group within Allen
County is African American, which comprises 12.11 percent of the total
population. All other minority groups comprise approximately 3.13 percent of
31
the total County population. Although dispersed across the County, the County’s largest
minority, the African American population is primarily concentrated in the City of Lima
where it constitutes 26.75 percent of the City’s population. Table 6 reveals the extent of
racial diversity across Allen County.
TABLE 6
POPULATION BY RACE
Race
Total:
White alone
Black or African American alone
American Indian or
Alaskan Native alone
Asian alone
Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander alone
Some other race alone
Two or more races
4.5
Allen County
108,473
91,922
13,145
Percent
100.00
84.74
12.12
Ohio
11,353,140
9,640,523
1,288,359
Percent
100.00
84.92
11.35
225
0.21
26,999
0.24
534
0.49
132,131
1.16
9
0.01
2,641
0.02
567
2,071
0.52
1.91
89,149
173,338
0.79
1.53
Educational Attainment
Many factors affect employment rates among adults.
None,
Although higher
however, may be as important as educational attainment levels.
educational attainment
Higher levels of educational attainment have repeatedly
levels have demonstrated
demonstrated higher income earnings regardless of gender. In
higher income earnings,
addition, positions that require higher educational attainment levels
only 8.45% of residents
have completed a 4-year
tend to offer more job satisfaction. Moreover, individuals with lower
college degree program.
educational attainment levels, those with no high school diploma or
GED, experience higher rates of unemployment (nearly 3 times the
rate for those that have completed a bachelor degree) and less income (-60.42%) when
they are employed. Therefore, it is extremely important to support local school
initiatives, post secondary advancement and continuing educational programs to
strengthen the skill sets of the local population and labor force.
Table 7 presents data summarizing the educational attainment levels of the Allen County
population aged 25 years or more. This data shows that there are over 12,190
individuals or 17.49 percent of all individuals 25 years of age or older that have not
completed a high school education. This statistic compares favorably against State and
national attainment levels where high school
Locally accessible post secondary schools include:
diplomas fail to be earned by 17.02 and 19.60
percent of the respective populations.

The Ohio State University

Ohio Northern University
However, given that there are a number of very

Rhodes State College
reputable post secondary schools locally

Bluffton University
accessible, it is somewhat disappointing that

University of Northwestern Ohio
less than 9,400 adult residents have completed

University of Findlay
a 4-year and/or masters college degree

Tiffin University

Mt. Vernon Nazarene University
program (8.45 percent and 4.97 percent
respectively when compared to State and
national data).
32
TABLE 7
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR THE POPULATION 25 YEARS & OVER
White Population Minority Population Total Population
Persons Percent Persons Percent Persons Percent
Less than 9th grade
2,295
3.78%
785
8.83%
3,080
4.42%
9th to 12th grade, no diploma
7,076
11.64%
2,034
22.88%
9,110 13.08%
High school graduate, GED
26,433
43.49%
3,233
36.36% 29,666 42.58%
Some college, no degree
11,554
19.01%
1,462
16.44% 13,016 18.68%
Associate degree
4,889
8.04%
548
6.16%
5,437
7.80%
Bachelor's degree
5,385
8.86%
506
5.69%
5,891
8.46%
Graduate/professional degree
3,146
5.18%
323
3.63%
3,469
4.98%
Totals
60,778 100.00%
8,891 100.00% 69,669 100.00%
Educational Attainment
4.6
Income: Household, Family & Per Capita
Data for the 3 most widely used indices of personal income,
including per capita income, household income and family income
are displayed in Table 8. The data suggests Allen County income
has continued to lag behind that of State and national income
trend lines.
Allen County is lagging
behind the state and national
income levels with respect to
household, family, and per
capita income.
The median household income within Allen County has lagged behind that of Ohio and
the United States since the 1990 decennial census period. The income gap has
increased from -3.3 percent in 1989 to almost 10 percent (-9.6%) in 1999 when
comparing median household incomes across the State. The results are not as drastic
when compared to the United States; the deficit increased from -9.7 percent in 1989 to
-11.8 percent in 1999. The current American Community Survey (ACS) estimates that
the gap has widen both between Allen County and the state as well as U.S.
TABLE 8
COMPARATIVE INCOME MEASURES BY DECENNIAL CENSUS
& AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY
Income: By Type &
Year
2008
Median Household
Median Family
Median Non-Family
Per Capita
1999
Median Household
Median Family
Median Non-Family
Per capita
1989
Median Household
Median Family
Median Non-Family
Per capita
Allen
County
Allen County Allen County
as % of US
as % of Ohio
United
States
Ohio
$52,175
$82,719
$31,547
$27,466
$48,023
$75,050
$27,711
$25,393
$45,431
$56,766
$23,995
$22,275
87.0
68.6
76.0
81.1
94.6
75.6
86.5
87.7
$41,994
$50,046
$25,705
$21,587
$40,956
$50,037
$24,005
$21,003
$37,048
$44,723
$20,426
$17,511
88.46
89.36
79.46
81.11
90.70
89.37
85.09
83.37
$30,056
$35,225
$17,240
$14,420
$28,076
$34,351
$15,645
$13,461
$27,166
$32,513
$14,467
$11,830
90.38
92.30
83.90
82.03
96.75
94.64
92.47
87.88
33
Examining family median income, a similar pattern exists. Median family incomes
across the County slipped over the last decennial period when comparing them to State
and national trend lines. Median family income in Allen County was only 89.37 percent
of Ohio’s median family income in 1999 and only 89.36 percent of the national median
income. While in 1989, the proportion of the County’s median family income to the state
and country was 94.64 and 92.30 percent respectively.
The median non-family income for the County also followed a downward trend during the
decennial period. In 1999, the median non-family income was 85.0 percent of the
State’s median value and about 79.5 percent of the entire nation. While in 1989, the
County’s proportion of median non-family income levels was higher at 92.47 percent and
83.9 percent of the State and national levels respectively.
Per capita income for Allen County in 1999 was $17,511, a jump of 48.02 percent from
1989 figures. This compares with the State per capita figure of $21,003 and national per
capita income levels of $21,587 or an increase from 1989 of 56.02 and 49.70 percent
respectively. Therefore, per capita income level growth also fell in comparison to State
and national figures over the decennial period. In 1999, Allen County per capita income
was only 83.37 percent of that of the State and 81.11 percent of the national figure.
Table 9 provides a detailed breakdown of household income by type and income levels
for 1999. Households with incomes less than $15,000 in 1999 totaled 18.28 percent of
all households in Allen County. An examination of family and non-family households
provides greater detail; data suggests that 10.82 percent of all families and 37.79
percent of all non-family households earned less than $15,000 in 1999. Examination of
income by household type reveals that the largest concentration of households and
family incomes were found in the $50,000 to $74,999 income bracket with 19.82 and
24.09 percent respectively; the incomes of nearly 6 in 10 (58.98%) non-family
households were concentrated below $25,000.
TABLE 9
INCOME IN 1999 BY ALLEN COUNTY HOUSEHOLD TYPE
Income Range
Less than $10,000
$10,000 - $14,999
$15,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $149,999
$150,000 - $199,999
$200,000 or more
Totals
4.7
Household
Number
4,432
2,996
5,860
5,888
7,284
8,055
3,396
1,996
259
459
40,625
Families
Percent
10.91%
7.37%
14.42%
14.49%
17.93%
19.83%
8.36%
4.91%
0.64%
1.13%
100.00%
Number
1,902
1,179
3.377
4.065
5,555
6,862
3,055
1,856
228
395
28,474
Percent
6.68%
4.14%
11.86%
14.28%
19.51%
24.10%
10.73%
6.52%
0.80%
1.39%
100.00%
Non Family
Household
Number
Percent
2,705
22.26%
1,888
15.54%
2,573
21.18%
1,920
15.80%
1,597
13.14%
1,028
8.46%
231
1.90%
117
0.96%
31
0.26%
61
0.50%
12,151 100.00%
Poverty Status: Persons & Families Below Poverty Level
The 2000 Census provides information for the number of individuals and families whose
incomes fall below the established poverty level. Data collected in 1999 revealed that
12,374 individuals or 12.10 percent of all individuals, 5,095 households or 12.54 percent
34
of all households, and 2,742 families or 9.63 percent of all families were below the
established poverty level based on income and household size.
In 1999, 12.1% of all
individuals, 12.5% of
all households and
9.6% of all families
in Allen County were
below poverty level.
Families with children were more likely to encounter poverty status than
those families without children. In fact, of all families suffering poverty
conditions, three quarters (78.33%) had children and 42.08 percent had
children under 5-years of age. For purposes of comparison, data
indicates that 10.67 percent of all households and 5.28 percent of all
families within the State of Ohio were below the established poverty level.
An examination of income data from the previous decennial census
Poverty status has
report reveals a slight improvement in the proportion of individuals and
slightly improved over
families in poverty. In fact, 868 individuals and 280 families left poverty
the 1989-1999 period.
status between census tabulations; this represents improvements of
6.55 percent and 7.94 percent respectively. Households with public assistance dropped
from 7.78 percent in 1989 to 3.08 percent over the same period, a decline of 1,806
households. For comparison purposes, the percentage of households receiving public
assistance in the State of Ohio is 3.20 percent.
Relevant information on family households and poverty status is presented in Table 10.
Table 11 provides an overview of poverty as a percentage of income for all individuals
18 years of age or older.
TABLE 10
POVERTY STATUS BY FAMILY STATUS
Family Type by Presence of Related Children
Total Families
Married - Related Children
Male Alone - Related Children
Female Alone - Related children
Family - No Children
Poverty Status of Families with Related Children
Total Families
Married - Related Children
Male Alone - Related Children
Female Alone - Related children
Family - No Children
28,474
9,225
991
3,364
14,894
32.4%
3.5%
11.8%
52.3%
2,742
396
221
1,531
594
14.4%
8.1%
55.8%
21.7%
TABLE 11
RATIO OF INCOME TO POVERTY LEVEL AMONG INDIVIDUALS
Below 50% of Poverty Level
50% to 99% of Poverty Level
100% to 149% of Poverty Level
150% to 199%of Poverty Level
200% of Poverty Level or more
5,716
6,658
8,745
9,984
71,197
35
5.6%
6.5%
8.5%
9.8%
69.6%
4.8
Labor Force Profile
The total labor force in Allen County, reflecting those 16 years of age and over,
numbered 82,671 persons according to the 2008 ACS tabulations; those not in the labor
force reflected 29,380 or 35.5 percent of the total available labor force. The civilian labor
force in Allen County, as documented by the 2000 Census, was 53,237 of which 49,027
or 92.0 percent were employed.
A perspective on the labor force can be
gained by examining the number of employed
persons by type of occupation. Table 12 uses
2008 ACS data to identify the dominant
occupations in the region; management,
professional, and related occupations closely
followed by sales and office occupation and
production, and finally, transportation and
material moving occupations.
In 2000 the United States Department of Commerce
(USDOC) identified 73,863 full and part time jobs in
Allen County. According to the USDOC, employment
was largely restricted to 4 key sectors that represent
nearly 8 in 10 jobs (79.35%) within Allen County.




Manufacturing
Service
Retail Trade
Government
9,465
9,478
5,806
1,972
19.3%
19.3%
11.8%
4.0%
TABLE 12
OCCUPATION BY TYPE & PERCENTAGE OF LABOR FORCE
Occupation
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Mining, Hunting
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities
Information
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Renting, Leasing
Professional, scientific, Mgmt, Admin., Waste Mgmt.
Educational, Health Care, Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment, Accommodation, Food Services
Other Services
Public Admdinistration
Total
Number
483
3,142
9,465
1,619
5,806
2,193
866
2,007
2,898
12,135
4,183
2,258
1,972
49,027
Percent
1.0
6.4
19.3
3.3
11.8
4.5
1.8
4.1
5.9
24.8
8.5
4.6
4.0
100
The 2007 ES 202 data base provided employment information using the North American
Industrial Classification System (NAICS). The NAICS breakdown allows Allen County
residents employed in specific economic activities within Allen County to be better
analyzed. Data contained in Table 13 reflects Allen County overall employment by
sector of employment.
In Allen County, the employment-population ratio—the proportion of the population 16
years of age and over in the workforce—has remained virtually unchanged over the past
10 years at 60 percent (1990/61.4%, 2000/60.9%, 2008/64.5%). This proportion has
stayed slightly beneath the rate for Ohio (63.5% and 64.8%) and that of the United
States overall (65.3% and 64.0% respectively). The unemployment rates over the past
10 years reflect the impact of major employers relocating or instituting major cutbacks in
response to market events or economic trends. Traditionally higher than the state at
large, Allen County has experienced unemployment rates ranging from 4.7 to 10.8
percent. After experiencing severe stress from 2001 through 2003, 2004 through the
present has shown no relief; with Allen County suffering a current rate above 10 percent.
The unknown quantity is that group identified as the marginally attached.
36
TABLE 13
2007 ALLEN COUNTY EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR
Sector
Agricultural, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting – Services
Mining
Utilities
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation & Warehousing
Information
Finance & Insurance
Real Estate and Rental & Leasing
Professional, Scientific & Technical Services
Management of Companies/Enterprises
Administrative Support & Waste Management Services
Education Services
Health Care/Social Assistance
Arts/Entertainment/Recreation
Accommodation & Food
Non-Public Other Services
NAICS
11
21
22
23
31-33
42
44-45
48-49
51
52
53
54
55
56
61
62
71
72
81
Public Administration
Employees
292
62
292
1,976
9,016
2,549
7,289
1,753
923
1,406
423
1,131
384
3,140
4,652
11,332
482
4,738
2,016
2,771
92
Total
Percent
.5
.1
.5
3.5
15.9
4.5
12.9
3.1
1.6
2.5
.7
2.0
.7
5.5
8.2
20.0
.9
8.4
3.6
4.9
56,627
100.0
Illustration 4: Unemployment Rates 1997-2009
12.0%
10.8%
10.6%
10.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
7.1%
7.1%
5.7%
4.9%
4.6%
5.0%
4.5%
4.3%
4.8%
4.2%
4.2%
4.4%
4.0%
3.9%
5.0%
5.0%
4.7%
6.4%
5.8%
5.8%
6.7%
6.0%
6.0%
6.6%
6.2%
5.5%
6.0%
5.6%
5.1%
6.0%
5.5%
6.3%
5.7%
4.6%
4.6%
5.8%
2.0%
0.0%
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Allen
2003
Ohio
37
2004
2005
U.S.
2006
2007
2008
2009
4.9
Summary
The population of Allen County has experienced a general decline since 1980 when it
reached a population plateau of 112,241 persons. Comparison to the 1980 population
reveals the current population has decreased by 3,768, or 3.35 percent. Examining
more recent data, Allen County has lost only 1,282 residents, a loss in population of 1.16
percent primarily from out-migration. However, population change is not static nor is it
uniform. Many of the political subdivisions within Allen County have experienced an
extended period of continued growth while others have experienced overall growth in
cyclical spurts since 1960.
Another demographic factor to consider is change in the total number and size of area
households. Census data reveals the composition, size and number of households is
changing. The total number of Allen County households in 2000 was 40,625, an
increase of 3.36 percent over the 1990 figure. Of note, while population growth has
declined since 1990, the number of households has increased. In 2000, the average
household size in the County was only 2.67 persons, a decline of 4.3 percent in size.
The implications of smaller size households are important and should be monitored by
local policy experts and reflected in the local housing policies, building codes and zoning
regulations.
Consistent with national trends the County’s population is aging. The median age of the
population is 36.3 years. That compares with a median of 36.2 and 35.3 years with the
State of Ohio and the United States respectively. Data suggests that simply due to age
of the population more than a third of the population is not able to fully contribute to the
economic growth and earning power of the community.
The County’s population has grown more racially and ethnically diverse during the past
decade. Racially, whites comprise the largest percentage of the population at 84.74
percent. The largest minority group within Allen County is African American, which
comprises 12.11 percent of the total population. All other minority groups comprise
approximately 3.13 percent of the total County population. Although dispersed across
the County, the County’s largest minority, the African American population, is primarily
concentrated in the City of Lima where it constitutes 26.75 percent of the City’s
population.
Many factors affect employment rates among adults. None, however, may be as
important as educational attainment levels. Data shows that there are over 12,190
individuals or 17.49 percent of all individuals 25 years of age or older that have not
completed a high school education. However, given that there are a number of very
reputable post secondary schools readily accessible, it is disappointing that less than
9,400 adult residents have completed a 4-year and/or masters college degree program.
Allen County income has continued to lag behind that of State and national income trend
lines. The median household income gap as identified in 1990 was 5.6 percent and 9.7
percent respectively. The gap nearly doubled when comparing median household
income to the State in the 2000 Census (8.7%). The gap nationally was 11.8 percent.
Median family income in Allen County was only 89.37 percent of Ohio’s median family
income in 1999 and only 89.36 percent of the national median income. The median
non-family income was 85.0 percent of the State’s median value and about 79.5 percent
of the entire nation. In 1999 Allen County per capita income was only 83.37 percent of
that of the State and 81.11 percent of the national figure.
The 2000 Census revealed that 12,374 individuals or 12.10 percent of all individuals,
5,095 households or 12.54 percent of all households, and 2,742 families or 9.63 percent
38
of all families were below the established poverty level based on income and household
size. For purposes of comparison, data indicates that 10.67 percent of all households
and 5.28 percent of all families within the State of Ohio were below the established
poverty level. Locally, families with children were more likely to encounter poverty status
than those families without children. In fact, of all families suffering poverty conditions,
three quarters (78.33%) had children and 42.08 percent had children under 5-years of
age.
39
SECTION V
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
Much of Allen County remains relatively rural with large tracts of land still engaged in agricultural
pursuits outside of municipal corporate limits. But the community is changing, as stated earlier,
there are several smaller cities and villages that are experiencing population decline and
deteriorating economic conditions while certain townships are dealing with rapid growth and
development.
There have been a number of statewide studies that have concluded the greatest threat to the
State of Ohio and its population centers is the loss of farmland and an absence of land use
planning that considers the resources and the integrity of the ecosystems. Recognizing that a
sizable portion of Allen County’s economy relies upon the agricultural base of the region, the
community may be subject to a higher level of risk than other geographic areas of Ohio.
Managing future growth in a comprehensive and cooperative
manner among cities, villages, and townships is highly
desirable. Land areas designated for future development
should be identified and reserved for the protection of the
natural landscape and the community’s resources. Achieving
a future pattern of development that protects natural
resources, while allowing a sustainable economy supported
by infrastructure investments sufficient for a 25-year planning period should be the goal of every
local and County future land use planning process.
Allen County’s natural resources may be at
greater risk than other geographic areas of
Ohio. The future pattern of development
must protect natural resources and sustain
the economy for a 25-year period.
5.1
Solid Waste Issues
Allen County generated 132,041.87 tons of solid waste in 2005 and does not have a
local solid waste disposal facility located within. The Lima Transfer Facility, operated by
Waste Management, received slightly more than 75,000 tons in 2005 or approximately
56.9 percent of the waste stream before it was transferred to another final destination.
Landfill disposal records filed in 2005 with the North Central Ohio Solid Waste District
(NCOSWD) indicated solid waste being disposed of across 10 landfill facilities. The
closest sanitary landfill to Allen County is the Cherokee Run Landfill located in Logan
County. The facility, which is rapidly approaching capacity, accepted only 630.7 tons in
2005 or less than 1 percent (.47%) of the County’s solid waste stream. The Hancock and
Defiance County landfills collectively accepted a total 16,646 tons, slightly less than 60
percent of that accepted by the Wyandot Landfill facility (28,862.86 tons) in 2005.
There are 2 sanitary landfills in Allen County of which both are now closed. The first,
located in Bath Township, was improperly closed in 1975. The Bath site encompasses
44 acres, 37 of which were used as part of the landfill. Bath Township is currently under
EPA findings and orders to eliminate elicit discharges to state waters by developing and
implementing an on-site surface water management system. The second landfill,
located in Shawnee Township, has also been closed for a number of years. The
Shawnee site is under the management and control of Waste Management. The EOLM
landfill is a private facility designed and approved to dispose of construction and
demolition waste.
The State of Ohio requires each county to maintain a current County Solid Waste Plan.
Allen County belongs to a 6-county consortium known as the NCOSWD that was formed
to develop a comprehensive, cooperative, regional approach to solid waste disposal
problems.
40
Locally, the cities of Delphos and Lima contract for curbside recycling as part of their
municipal waste contract. The villages of Bluffton, Elida, and Spencerville also currently
contract for curbside recycling as part of their solid waste municipal contract. There are
no municipal waste service contracts bid/let in the villages of Beaverdam, Cairo, Harrod
or Lafayette, nor are there any solid waste contracts authorized in any of Allen County’s
12 townships.
The NCOSWD sponsors a successful Annual Household Hazardous Waste Drop-Off
event that helps eliminate the extent of dumping illegal toxic wastes. Allen County has
also recently established a local Keep America Beautiful affiliate to better assist local
communities in developing a cleaner, safer community environment.
Of specific concern are the proper closing of the landfill in
Bath Township; the continued provision of adequate
disposal capacity for the long-term future, especially for
commercial/industrial development; the lack of recycling
service and facilities; and, the inability to promote
renewable resource use and reduction of disposal
volumes.
5.2
Solid Waste Concerns:

Long Term Disposal Capacity

Collection Capacity

Yard Waste

Recycling

Resource Reuse

Reduction in Disposal Volume
Air Quality Issues
Air Quality is one of the most pressing issues facing the region today. Allen County
resides in a unique geographic location. The community is located midway between
Cincinnati and Toledo and west of such large manufacturing centers as Chicago,
Indianapolis, and Ft. Wayne. The United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) has identified each of these communities as in a non-attainment status for air
quality. Allen County’s heavy industrial base, coupled with its juxtaposition and
propinquity to such cities, exacerbates local air quality conditions.
Allen County successfully
demonstrated that it had
not exceeded the NAAQS
standard for the 2003
through 2005 period.
As a result of actions taken on behalf of the Clean Air Act and revisions to
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), Allen County was
determined to be in non-attainment by the USEPA in April 2004. More
specifically the community was found to be in non compliance for groundlevel ozone, comprised of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and
Nitrogen Oxide (NOX); Allen County was, however, found to be in
conformity for particulate matter (PM2.5).
For the 2003 through 2005 period, the community was able to demonstrate that the 3year average of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration did not
exceed 0.08 parts per million; Allen County successfully demonstrated that it had not
exceeded the NAAQS standard for the 2003 through 2005 period. The community
regularly meets with representatives of the Ohio EPA and the Ohio Department of
Transportation (ODOT), to review the latest air quality monitoring results in a public
venue. Allen County received formal acknowledgement of redesignation to attainment
for the 8-hour ozone standard from the USEPA on September 10, 2007.
Allen County officials remain committed to working with representatives of ODOT in
interagency consultation to define parameters for maintaining air quality conformity
pursuant to federal requirements as established under Section 40 of the Congressional
Federal Register 93.119.
41
5.3
Water Quality
Pollution prevention is one of the top concerns of local officials. The most important
issues are the elimination of combined sewer overflows and managing storm water
runoff. Currently, the Ottawa River and several of its tributaries have been found to be in
noncompliance with the Clean Water Act. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA) is currently in the process of completing its assessment of the Auglaize River. It
is assumed that the Auglaize River suffers from many of the same conditions including
nutrient enrichment, sedimentation, and habitat alteration from the same sources–
combined sewer overflows and both urban and agricultural runoff.
In an attempt to achieve compliance with federal
legislation and both USEPA and OEPA mandates,
local officials have developed Storm Water
Management Plans for Allen County, the City of Lima
and the townships of American, Bath, Perry, and
Shawnee. Both the City of Lima and Allen County
have taken deliberate measures to address specific
point and non-point sources of pollution, but
successful
implementation
will
require
the
coordination of a number of efforts that must cross jurisdictional boundaries. The local
community must address the following points to meet the limits of the Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDL) established by the USEPA/OEPA:
Water quality concerns:

Managing storm water runoff in
compliance with Phase II requirements

Prevention of erosion

Elimination of illicit discharges at point
source facilities

Management of hazardous materials

Hazardous Materials Response team
availability
5.4

Managing storm water runoff to reduce sediment, nutrients, and downstream
flooding.

Prevention of erosion from agricultural operations and removal of vegetation from
areas in proximity to water surfaces.

Identification and elimination of pollutant discharges from wastewater treatment
plants, combined sewer overflows, package plant discharges and industrial
discharges.

Identification of the location of hazardous materials and management of these
materials so that they do not enter the environment.

Establishment of hazard response teams to quickly provide adequate protection
measures in the event of a hazardous chemical spill, especially along the Interstate
and State Highways where hazardous materials are routinely transported.
Planning for Future Growth & Development
Local governments within Allen County do not have a
long history of local land use planning. Some political
subdivisions have recently published Long Range Plan’s
including Bath Township, American Township, Shawnee
Township, Auglaize Township, the City of Lima and the
Village of Bluffton, but few have prepared a future land
use plan.
Locals are gradually becoming more
comfortable with the process. Currently the Villages of
Spencerville and Lafayette are working with Spencer and
Jackson Townships respectively.
42
Local governments have neglected to
develop Future Land Use Plans.
Citizens and developer’s alike
suggest cluster developments will
preserve natural resources and lead
to better strategies encouraging
sustainable development supported
by appropriate infrastructure.
At the regional level, the LACRPC has prepared a 2030 Transportation Plan. The Allen
County Sanitary Engineer is in the process of preparing a 2025 Sanitary Sewer Plan.
The County Commissioners studied the feasibility of establishing a regional water
distribution system while the City of Lima and the villages West Minister, Harrod and
Beaverdam are currently in the process of updating their water and/or sewer plans. The
City of Lima and the urban township’s have had to develop storm water management
plans in order to comply with Phase II Requirements of the Clean Water Act. The Allen
County Commissioners, local municipalities and the Ottawa River Coalition are
supporting the development of county-wide Illicit Discharge Regulations to support
improved water quality.
Local developers, area townships, the Allen County Engineer, and the LACRPC have
identified the need to develop and implement alternative development patterns to
conserve natural resources. Of specific interest is open space preservation,
developments or cluster developments sponsored by recent amendments to local zoning
codes for the villages and townships.
This alternative type of development is intended to provide for more sustainable
development patterns that encourage the protection and responsible use of the region’s
natural resources. Such a strategy will also provide an opportunity to address other
smart growth strategies especially those that encourage sustainable development based
on future year horizons and predicated upon the necessary infrastructure investments in:
roads, bridges, water, wastewater, storm water, and communication systems.
Redevelopment of older urban centers within the County is also a concern.
Redevelopment maximizes the current infrastructure, as opposed to the installation of
new water, sewer and road infrastructure, to accommodate new growth and
development.
43
SECTION VI
INFRASTRUCTURE FACTORS
Infrastructure, the unrecognized overhead wires and underground
The key issues of concern to future
pipes and cables, are the lifeblood of the region’s ability to support
economic development include:
existing and future residential, commercial, and industrial

Water and Wastewater Services
development. The community’s transportation network, its water

Telecommunications
distribution system, wastewater capabilities and drainage system

Transportation
are typical infrastructure concerns for the public. Privately supplied

Industrial Facilities
utilities such as natural gas, electricity, voice, and data
communications are also a part of infrastructure. In economic development, infrastructure is
concerned with the ability to move goods, services and products between community’s suppliers
and markets and the sustenance of labor force.
6.1
Water & Wastewater Infrastructure
Water and sanitary sewer services are necessary to support new development,
especially industrial development. Urban centers within the County provide municipal
water and wastewater services to residents as well as commercial and industrial
interests alike. The extent and quality of each system varies by geographic location and
responsible entity.
Within the Lima Urbanized Area, the water supply relies primarily on the vast reservoir
system developed by the City of Lima. In other smaller municipal settings, water wells
act as the “raw” source for municipal water. In Allen County, the villages of Allentown,
Cairo, Gomer, Harrod, Kemp, Lafayette and Westminster provide no single source of
water and instead rely on individual wells developed and
maintained by property owners. In addition, other communities
Bluffton, Delphos and
Spencerville have all recently
have not been able to develop or sustain the public’s demand
taken deliberate actions to
for water quality and the quantities needed to support future
improve water quality and
developments. Bluffton, Delphos and Spencerville have all
expand the quantity of water
recently taken deliberate actions to improve water quality and
available to local development.
expand the quantity of water available to local development.
Some of the region’s water distribution systems currently have excess capacity and
generally operate between 70 and 75 percent of their respective capacity, a result of the
lack of the necessary residential/commercial density from inadequate planning and a
lack of regulatory controls. Duplication of services and system inefficiencies are
expensive in terms of capital improvements, staffing and unnecessary maintenance.
That being said, the siting of a large water dependent manufacturing facility would all but
outstrip the capacities of the City of Lima’s system. And, as a result, the City has
acquired land and begun construction of a new 5.1 billion gallon reservoir in Amanda
Township. The project is expected to be completed in April 2011 with an estimated cost
of $30 million.
The age of the water distribution systems in many of the older urban centers remains a
significant problem. Many portions of the water distribution system in the cities of
Delphos and Lima for example were first installed in the early 1900’s and are reaching
ages of 80 to 100 years old, well beyond the projected useful life of a water supply
system. As a result, these communities are faced with expensive annual maintenance
and emergency repairs. The lack of a suitable ground water source has forced Delphos
into the construction of a reservoir and the Village of Bluffton to contract for municipal
services outside of Allen County. The Village of Spencerville has recently undertaken the
44
construction of a new water tower; its potable water is protected under the Well Head
Protection Act.
Wastewater infrastructure and services are largely restricted to
Water and wastewater concerns:
the local municipalities and in selected areas of American,

Age of distribution and
Bath, Perry and Shawnee townships. In 2006, Allen County
collection systems

Service area expansions
completed an extensive assessment of its wastewater system

Lack of current future plans
detailing necessary infrastructure upgrades to eliminate
existing capacity and infiltration concerns. The 10-Year Needs
Assessment Report detailed expenditures of some $40 million. The cities of Lima and
Delphos, and the villages of Bluffton, Harrod, Spencerville, and Westminster, are all
similarly undergoing the same type of assessments.
The existing service areas of local water and wastewater services are not coordinated
and are being planned largely independently of each other and the residents of
communities they may need to serve. Planning efforts to collectively serve existing
urban development with water and wastewater services is critical to alleviate leap frog
development, urban sprawl and escalating system maintenance costs. Constraints to
future industrial and commercial developments will be readily apparent if timely planning
efforts are not initiated.
6.2
Telecommunications
Contrary to most perceptions, many areas in the region suffer from a lack of an up-todate telecommunications infrastructure, especially high-speed Internet access. Most
communities, especially the less populated communities and rural areas of the County,
have access to only slow dial-up connections.
Lack of this telecommunication infrastructure has been
identified by major business and industries in the region
as a disincentive for recruitment of top-level
management, engineers, computer programmers, and
other technicians that require 24-hour access to the business management computer
systems. It has been identified as a problem for the recruitment of computer-based
businesses that require high-speed Internet access for on-site and off-site personnel.
Telecommunication infrastructure is
dated and Internet access in the rural
areas is limited to slow dial-up services.
While high-speed Internet access has been provided to many of the major businesses in
the Lima Urbanized and Delphos Urban Area (e.g., Ford Motor Company, Proctor &
Gamble, St. Rita’s Medical Center, Lima Memorial Hospital) these Internet service
access-ways do not service all existing business and industrial areas and to areas
designated for future development.
Many communities throughout West Central Ohio are facing the same problem as to
how to provide an efficient telecommunication infrastructure required by existing
businesses, and a plan to install the infrastructure necessary for business expansion and
new business location.
6.3
Industrial Sites
Industrial sites, although present across Allen County, tend to be primarily located within
and around the cities of Lima and Delphos because of the demand for water and
wastewater infrastructure. Historically, there has not been an adequate supply of sites
for immediate purchase or expansion of existing businesses or for the location of new
businesses.
45
During the CEDS planning process the identification of all industrial sites within Allen
County was completed. Industrial sites were identified and mapped. Concerns over site
adaptability, especially expansion, as well as access to municipal services, utilities, and
roadway/railway infrastructure was the primary focus.
Currently there are more than 4,700 acres of industrial land
Currently 4,700 acres of land in
Allen County has been classified
dispersed over 540 parcels in Allen County. Of these, 115
as in “Industrial” use.
parcels are currently listed as vacant, with 13 of those falling
within the confines of public industrial parks.
The inventory process required by the CEDS disclosed the redevelopment of one city
center industrial park and development of 3 new industrial parks in the past 10 years; in
addition, at least 3 are currently on the drawing board. And, while the amount of land
appears to be adequate for near term and for future development, not all industrial parks
are ready for occupancy. Several industrial parks are still in the planning phase and
others lack certain “on-site” amenities, including necessary infrastructure. Map 12
identifies the industrial parcels by available infrastructure.
On the positive end, the primary clusters of available land with existing or access to
existing infrastructure are concentrated just south of Lima and east of Delphos near the
I-75 or US 30 corridors. Both offer tremendous advantages in terms of transportation
and visibility. Further, the existence of a Foreign Trade Zone within Allen County offers
unique advantages to future industrial activities not found within adjacent counties. The
villages of Bluffton and Spencerville are also actively working toward development of the
infrastructure necessary to support new industrial facilities.
6.4
Transportation
Transportation infrastructure is an important tool in community building and economic
development activities. Transportation infrastructure includes roads, bridges, rail, and
airports. It also includes area cartage and freight carriers as well as inter and intra city
public transportation services.
6.4.1
Highway System
The highway system that services Allen County is characteristic of small
metropolitan areas in the United States. The highway system is comprised of
interstate, arterials, collectors, and local roads. The administration of these
roads is a governmental function, responsibility for which is delegated, in whole
or in part, to appropriate agencies of the federal government, state government
or local governmental units. I-75, a major north-south interstate, passes through
Allen County. To the north, I-75 links the community to cities such as Toledo and
Detroit while to the south Dayton, Lexington, Atlanta, and Miami can be directly
reached via I-75. Another major roadway located just north of the City of Lima is
US 30. This east-west route links the Lima Urbanized Area with Chicago, to the
west and Pittsburgh and Philadelphia to the east. In addition to I-75 and US 30,
Allen County is serviced by 5 major state routes: SR 309, SR 117, SR 81, SR 65
and SR 66. The aforementioned highway system supplies a solid network for the
movement of goods and people within the region.
According to figures obtained from the ODOT in 2009, total roadway system
mileage within Allen County entailed 1,324.41 miles, of which 23.15 miles are
classified as interstate mileage. Arterial roadways total 131.01 miles and
account for 9.89 percent of total system mileage. And, while approximately twothirds of the roadway system (901.90 miles) is classified as local in nature, nearly
two-thirds (62.3 percent) of total system mileage is classified as rural (825.31
46
MAP 12
ALLEN COUNTY: INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY BY AVAILABILITY AND READINESS
Enterprise Park
47
·
Liberty Commons
Park
Foreign
Trade Zone
Legend
Central Point
Business Park
Industrial Park Available
Allen County Industrial Park
Vacant Industrial
Industrial Park
Foreign Trade Zone
Sewers
Waterline
EnterprisePark
Brownfield
0
1
2
3
4
Miles
miles). According to 2008 estimates of daily vehicular miles of travel (VMT), total
VMT approaches 3.10 million miles per day in Allen County.
As part of the CEDS planning process, in 2009 roadway corridors with an
existing or projected deficient level of service (LOS) were identified. In addition,
of the 454 bridges in Allen County, 63 were identified as deficient. The
transportation systems’ performance and prioritized needs have most recently
been documented by the LACRPC in its 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan,
June 2009; the Plan was subsequently approved by ODOT/FHWA.
Transportation projects in the 2030 Long Range Plan approached $424.91
million in estimated project costs of which $25.28 million was identified for
necessary bridge projects.
6.4.2
Public Transportation
Allen County is serviced by both intra city and inter city bus service. A full range
of charter and taxi services, as well as paratransit service providers, are also
available within the community. The Allen County Regional Transit Authority
(ACRTA) and Greyhound Bus Lines provide bus services. Buckeye Charter
Services, Lakefront Trailways, and Lima Limo offer various charter services for
local and regional travel needs.
Fixed route public transit within the Urbanized Area is provided by the ACRTA.
The fixed route and Uplift system encompasses 83.64 square miles and provides
686.4 miles of service daily. The ACRTA also provides demand response
complementary paratransit service, referred to as Uplift, to facilitate the travel
needs of the transportationally disadvantaged as required by the ADA. The
transit systems performance and prioritized needs, estimated at $4.1 million in
project costs, have most recently been published by the ACRTA and the
LACRPC in the Transit Authority’s draft FY 2009-2013 Transit Development
Plan.
Inter city bus service is operated by Greyhound Bus Lines. Greyhound operates
from the ACRTA’s bus terminal located in downtown Lima. Six scheduled buses
arrive and depart on a daily basis. The bus line at the Lima terminal also
provides parcel service. Most major cities in the United States can be reached
by the available Greyhound services. Trailways also utilize the Lima terminal
several times a day providing residents with easy access to its regional services.
Buckeye Charter Service is a private locally owned and operated bus company
providing area and regional charter services. Buckeye Charter also provides
daily passenger service to several large manufacturing facilities in the region.
6.4.3
Rail System
In 2003, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) documented some
99.12 miles of rail in Allen County. Allen County is currently serviced by 2 major
Class I rail carriers, CSXT (48.89 miles) and NS (23.86 miles). The area is also
serviced by Indiana and Ohio RR (10.85 miles) and the SPEG RR (15.52 miles).
Collectively, these railroads are able to provide access to regional, national, and
international markets. Map 13 depicts the rail system traversing the County.
Noting the presence of Class I, II and III rail service providers, the availability of
rail sidings at existing sites is somewhat limited and additional investment is
necessary to increase capacity, especially for break-of-bulk and intermodal
functions. Also, insufficient sidings and limited through rails are
Rail sidings are
increasingly becoming a safety issue as crossings are continually
limited at existing
being blocked for extensive periods of time isolating hospitals
industrial sites.
emergency services and businesses.
48
CSX
MAP 13
ALLEN COUNTY: EXISTING RAIL SERVICE
CS
X
Norfolk
Southe
rn
49
CS
X
RJ Corman
0
3
6
9
an
s
12
Miles
Rail America (I&O)
J
(R
m
ht
CS
X
·
NS
r
Co
g
Ri
Rail America (I&O)
CSX
r
No
r
No
l
fo
k
ut
So
he
l
fo
k
ut
So
rn
k
CSX (Trac
age Rights
)
he
rn
Based in part on the resurgence of rail as a competitive mode of transportation
for both freight and people, railroads are being reexamined as to their potential to
strengthen the industrial and commercial vitality of the region. In conjunction with
the City of Lima, the Ohio Rail Development Commission (ORDC), and the Allen
County Commissioners, an industrial development strategy was developed that
focuses on strengthening and increasing the community's already considerable
rail infrastructure. The resumption of Amtrak Services, and the presence of
passenger rail service within the community is also a major goal of area officials.
Another issue concerning the rail system is the preservation of abandoned
sections of rail lines as future transportation corridors. The ORDC published the
most recent discussion regarding rail infrastructure needs in the Allen County
Community.
6.4.4
Electric, Oil & Gas Transmission Line Locations
Allen County is serviced by a full complement of utility providers. Residential and
commercial services are readily available for electricity and gas. Service
providers include American Electric Power and Midwest
The availability and costs of
Electric, as well as Columbia Gas of Ohio and Dominion
utility services are
considered very reasonable
Gas. Specialized industrial cylinder and bulk gas is also
when compared to state
available through BOC Gases and AGA Gas. Municipal
and national costs.
water and sewer were addressed earlier.
When examining larger industrial applications it is important to recognize that
Allen County hosts a number of major and regional gas companies (West Ohio
Gas, East Ohio Gas, and Columbia Gas) as well as petrochemical companies
that have established terminals and/or pipelines for transmission purposes
including Marathon, Shell, Sohio, Buckeye, Ashland, Inland, and Mid Valley. It is
also important to recognize that the Ohio Power Company has large voltage
transmission lines traversing the region. Map 14 identifies the approximate
location of the various utility lines.
6.4.5
Cartage, Freight & Warehousing Services
One of the primary assets of the Allen County community is its access to both the
State and national systems of railroads and highways. These assets are being
built and expanded upon by local freight and warehousing concerns. There are
currently 85 transportation operations and 9 general warehousing and storage
facilities located within Allen County. When examining total freight handled by
these carriers, over 75 percent of all freight is exported out of Allen County. It
comes as no surprise therefore, that 61 of the firms are classified as general
freight, with 33 of these being long-distance, and 14 local. Among the 24
specialized freight handlers (machinery, industrial, etc.), 7 are classified as long
distance while 15 are considered local and 2 regional in orientation.
Transportation and warehousing in Allen County currently employs 1,864
individuals and generates an annual payroll of $34.5 million or almost $37,000
per person.
Another aspect of the sector available to the community is the existence of
owner-operators. Though generally assigned to one primary carrier through
lease, this group aids the industry serving as additional capacity for short-term
trip leases to area carriers. Within Allen County there are 3 freight forwarders
that specialize in the utilization of owner operators and currently show 6
employees. Table 14 identifies transportation and warehousing concerns by
type. Map 15 reveals their location with respect to rail and air facilities.
50
TABLE 14
CARTAGE, FREIGHT & WAREHOUSING BY CLASS
Class
General Freight
Local
Long Distance
Specialized Freight
Local
Long Distance
Household & Office
Freight Forward
Warehousing
Total
6.4.6
Firms
61
14
33
19
14
2
3
2
8
95
Employment
561
147
434
115
78
10
27
6
320
1,521
Air Service
Allen County has only 1 airport, which has a fixed operator instrument landing
system and a 5,495-foot lighted runway. The airport supports strong corporate
and instrument activity. The largest aircraft using Lima-Allen County Airport on a
regular basis are a mix of corporate aircraft including Lear Jets, Cessna
Citations, King Airs, Sabreliners, Hawker Siddeleys, Gulfstreams, Falcons, and
Canadair challengers. The prioritized needs of the Allen County Airport Authority
have been recently documented in the Agency’s Airport Development Plan,
which has ambitious plans to extend the existing runway to 6,500 feet, acquire
land, install/upgrade the Airport Lighting System, and rehabilitate the taxiway as
part of its expansion program to make the airport attractive for commercial
services.
Another airport in the area is at Bluffton, which is privately owned and operated.
This has a 4,130-foot lighted runway and an instrument approved system.
Commercial air service is also available at Dayton International and Toledo
Express airports, each less than 80 miles from Allen County.
6.5
Summary
The key issues of concern to future development lie with the availability, adequacy, and
costs associated with the community’s infrastructure. The community’s transportation
network, its water distribution system, wastewater capabilities, and drainage system are
typical infrastructure concerns for the public. Privately supplied utilities such as natural
gas, electricity, voice, and data communications are also a part of infrastructure. In
economic development, infrastructure is concerned with the ability to move goods,
services and products between community’s suppliers and markets and the sustenance
of labor force.
Currently there are more than 4,900 acres of industrial land dispersed over 541 parcels
in Allen County. And, while the amount of land appears to be adequate for near term and
for future development, not all is ready for occupancy. Several industrial parks are still in
the planning phase and many sites lack certain “on-site” amenities including necessary
infrastructure. On the positive end, the primary clusters of available land with existing or
access to existing infrastructure are concentrated just south of Lima and east of Delphos
near the I-75 or US 30 corridors.
51
MAP 14
ALLEN COUNTY: OIL, GAS & ELECTRIC LINES
BLUFFTON
12
Monroe
696
65
Richland
§
¦
¨
75
DELPHOS
£
¤
30
Sugar Creek
CAIRO
£
¤
30
BEAVERDAM
66
Marion
309
Bath
Jackson
52
ELIDA
81
Amanda
·
Spencer
LIMA
81
LAFAYETTE
American
309
117
SPENCERVILLE
Shawnee
§
¦
¨
501
Perry
Ashland Pipe Line Company
Buckeye Pipe Line Company
East Ohio Gas
Inland Pipe Line
Columbia Gas of Ohio
Marathon Pipe Line Company
HARROD
75
Auglaize
FORT SHAWNEE
117
65
West Ohio Gas Company
Mid-Valley Pipeline
SOHIO Main Line
Shell Pipe Line
138 VOLTS Ohio Power
345 VOLTS Ohio Power
0
3
6
9
12
Miles
MAP 15
ALLEN COUNTY: TRANSPORTATION AND WAREHOUSING
d
!
(
Richland
d
!
(
d
!
(
!
(
d
Monroe
!
(
!
(
d
!
(
Sugar Creek
!
(
Marion
53
d
8
9
v!(d
:
!
(
d
8
9
v!(
:
·
American
Spencer
Amanda
8
9
v!(
:
d
!
(
Legend
m
d
8
9
v
:
®
q
!
(
d
8
9
v!(
:
Warehousing
8
9
v!(
:
8
9
v
:
Shawnee
!
(
Local Trans
Bath
d
!
(
8
9
v!(
:
m!(!( 8
!
(
!
(
9
v!( 8
:
m
8
9
v!(
:
!
!
(
(
!
(
d
!
9
v
:
(
d
8
9
v
:
!
(
!
(
!
(
9
v
:
8
9
v!(8
:
d
!
(
!
(
Lima
m!(d
(8
d
!
9
v
:
(!
d
!
(
!
(
9
v
:
d
!
(8
!
(
9
v!(8
:
d
!
(
8
9
v!(
:
d
!
(
8
9
v
:
m!(!( d
!
d
(
!
!
(
(d
d
!
(
®
q
9
v
:
8
9
v!(8
:
!
(
d
!
(8
(!
!
(!
(
m
9
v
:
8
9
v
:
!
(
d
!
(
d
!
(
8
9
v
:
Perry
8
9
v!(
:
Long Haul
Air
Trucking & Warehouse
Railroads
0
3
6
9
12
Miles
Jackson
d
!
(
8
9
v!(
:
!
(
!
(
!
(
Auglaize
The link between industrial development and transportation cannot be minimized. The
community’s access to the federal and State roadway system is very good and pending
improvements will only increase the community’s attractiveness. The ability to capitalize
upon the region’s rail infrastructure is more challenging. Currently, the limited number of
through tracks on critical corridors hamper vehicular traffic on area roadways near atgrade crossings. Moreover, the availability of rail sidings at existing industrial sites is
somewhat limited and additional investment is necessary to increase capacity, especially
for break-of-bulk and intermodal functions. Concerns relative to other forms of
transportation include expansion of public transportation, especially for journey-to-work
trips for persons without other means of travel; and, continuation of Amtrak services,
especially high-speed. Also of concern, inter city service transportation, including the
economic viability of corporate air service facilities, and the continued economic viability
of local-based trucking companies.
The community must begin to recognize the capital assets already invested in, and
devoted to, its various water and wastewater systems. The ability to financially establish
and support expansion must meet basic cost-benefit analyses. Concerns regarding
water and wastewater systems include: the capacity and age of distribution and
collection systems; service area expansions; the current regulatory environment; and,
lack of current future plans.
54
SECTION VII
ECONOMIC OVERVIEW & ANALYSIS
The economic base of Allen County has been undergoing transition since the 1980’s. The
community’s historical reliance on large multi-national corporations manufacturing durable
goods, including heavy equipment, military items, aerospace equipment, and locomotives, has
shifted. The community’s economic base is now one that is more dependent upon global
economic pressures for consumer goods, smaller, more productive and less labor-intensive
industries producing lower cost items. The contraction of the manufacturing sector has
challenged the historical and social underpinnings of the community. The expansion and further
development of the service sector, as well as the retail and wholesale sub-sectors, increasingly
forces the community to examine future economic and social policies to improve and expand
local employment opportunities for its residents.
This section attempts to provide baseline information on the
Allen County is transitioning
from a manufacturing sector
community’s economic underpinnings and begins with a summation of
to a service sector based
current County business patterns. A review of non-agricultural
economy.
employment is provided by sector and uses federal ES 202 as its
source. Data from the 2002 United States Agricultural Census and the
2007 Agricultural Census are then used to analyze farm operations, production, the market
value of agriculture commodities sold, and the number of acres in production. The section
concludes with a summary based on economic earnings.
7.1
Non-Agricultural Employment
The ES 202 data, processed by the ODOD, contains employment data for all Allen
County companies that have employees. This annual dataset allows the study of
economic trends across 21 employment categories. While data is reported for a large
number of subcategories of employment, a summary of the local data was limited to 5
major employment categories that represent the majority of total Allen County
employment. This data is useful in conducting trend line analyses and to compare
changes in the number of employers and/or the total number of employees reported for
each sector. The employment sectors included in the summary are:





Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Health Care
Accommodations and Food Services
ES 202 2007 data suggests these five (5) employment sectors
Local job growth and
business start-ups
comprised the majority (59.3%) of the total employees and nearly half
have lingered behind
of total employers (45.7%) in Allen County. Table 15 displays a
state averages.
comparative data analysis for the years 2000 and 2007. The data
shows the number of employees reported by employers for both the
first quarter of 2000 and 2007 by sector. Calculated is the percentage change over the
7-year period and a summation of 2007 sectoral representation as a percent of total
2007 employment.
The total number of full and part-time employees reported in the ES 202 data grew from
52,495 in 2000 to 56,363 in 2007, an increase of 7.4 percent.
55
Growth in the selected sectors was outpaced by total sectors when combined. The
number of businesses reporting employment across the Allen County community
increased by 165 employers between 2000 and 2007, a nominal 6.6 percent increase.
TABLE 15
NON-AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT BY PRIMARY SECTOR & YEAR
Sector
2000
2007
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Health Care & Social Assistance
Accommodations & Food Services
Total of Selected Sector Employment
Total Jobs
Source: ES 202
12,047
2,509
7,083
7,541
3,675
32,855
52,495
9,006
2,601
7,320
11,505
4,777
37,216
56,363
Percent
Change
2000 to
2007
-25.3
3.6
3.3
52.6
29.9
6.7
7.4
2007 Sectoral
Representation as
Percent of Total
2007 Employment
15.9
4.6
12.9
20.4
8.4
66.0
7.1.1
Manufacturing
Employment in Allen County’s manufacturing sector decreased
Local manufacturing
by 3041 jobs, a loss of 25.3 percent over the study period
employment continues
to decline.
(2000-2007). The proportion of manufacturing jobs to all jobs
fell from 22.9 percent in 2000 to 15.9 percent in 2007.
Statewide, manufacturing jobs represented 19.2 percent of all non-agricultural
employment in 2000; in 2008 this fell to18.4 percent. The number of
manufacturing firms in the community reporting employment over the study
period increased by 5, a 3.3 percent increase during the period.
7.1.2
Wholesale Trade
In the wholesale trade sector employment increased by 92 during the 7-year
period between 2000 and 2007, resulting in a net increase of 3.6 percent.
Representation of total jobs fell from 4.7 percent to 4.6 percent over the period.
Wholesale trade made up 4.5 percent of all non-agricultural employment in Ohio
in 2000; in 2007 Wholesale Trade made up 4.4 percent of all work in Ohio. The
community experienced a loss of 2 firms reporting employment during the 2000
through 2007 period, a loss of 6.8 percent.
7.1.3
Retail Trade
Employment in the retail trade sector continued its 40-year trend of growth,
increasing employment by 206 jobs between 2000 and 2007, an increase of 2.9
percent. Employment in the retail trade sector, as a percentage of total
employment, declined slightly from 13.4 percent to 12.9 percent. Retail trade as a
percentage of employment in the State of Ohio represented 12.4 percent of all
non-agricultural employment in 2007. According to ES 202 data, firms in Allen
County engaged in retail operations declined by 0.1 percent from 467 in 2000 to
461 in 2007. Within Allen County 12 general categories of retail trade have
been identified. The 7 largest are: general merchandise, the largest at 2,073
employees; food and beverage, 703 employees; building material, 750
employees; motor vehicle and parts, 1,045 employees; personal care, 441
employees; clothing, 523 employees; and, gas stations, 469 employees.
56
7.2
7.1.4
Health Care
Employment in this sector increased by 3,964 jobs in
Health care employment
the period between 2000 and 2007, an increase of 52.6
continues to grow at a fast pace,
percent. Employment in the health care and social
expanding by 28.9 percent
between 2000 and 2007.
service sector, as a proportion of total Allen County
employment increased from 14.3 percent to 20.4
percent. Over the study period firms in this sector increased by 62; a 28.9
percent increase with the number of such firms totaling 276 in 2007.
7.1.5
Accommodations & Food Services
Employment in the accommodations and food services sector increased by 1,102
jobs, over the 2000 through 2007 period, a 29.9 percent increase. As a
percentage of all jobs, employment within the accommodations and food services
sector grew from 7.0 to 8.4 percent over the study period. As a percentage of
jobs in Ohio, accommodations and food services represented 7.6 percent of
employment in 2000; 2007 data at the State level suggests an 8.0 percentage of
all jobs. The number of Allen County firms engaged in this sector decreased by 3
over the study period, a 1.6 percent decrease.
Agriculture
Allen County was ranked 26th in soy and corn production and 20th in wheat out of the 88
counties in the state by the 2007 Agricultural Census. The presence of agriculture is
diminishing. Agricultural data compiled by the National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS) from 2007 indicates that the number of operating farms decreased from 1,030 in
2000 to 946 in 2007, a loss of 8.2 percent from 7 years earlier. According to the 2007
Census of Agriculture, the total number of acres of cropland in production decreased by
0.5 percent between 2002 and 2007, reflecting a loss of 1.4 square miles of farmland.
Data in Table 16 identifies the acreage consumed in agriculture pursuits by commodity
over the 2002 through 2007 period. Table 17 indicates that productivity increased in
2007 in two of the three commodities, and the increases were dramatic. However, the
continued loss of agricultural land to residential and commercial uses is alarming, and
the continued loss of productive farms and rich farmland needs to be monitored with
concern.
TABLE 16
ALLEN COUNTY FARM PRODUCTION 2002-2007
Crop
Acres in
Production:
2002
Corn
Soy
Bean
Wheat
Source: 2007
Acres
Harvested
Acres in
Production:
2007
Acres
Harvested
% Change
in
Production
% Change in
Acres
Harvested
59,600
58,400
66,692
65,692
+11.9
+12.5
81,100
80,900
72,887
72,687
-10.1
-10.1
15,800
15,000
Agricultural Census
16,918
16,718
+7.0
+11.4
Due to agricultural land being consumed by urban uses (primarily residential) at a
relatively rapid rate, existing agricultural pursuits are experiencing additional stress.
The 2007 Census of Agriculture suggests that the market value of products sold
increased from $41,264,000 in 2002 to $87,627,000 in 2007, a 112 percent increase.
Census data indicates that between 2002 and 2007 sales of agriculture goods and
services in Allen County increased $46,363,000 million.
57
TABLE 17
ALLEN COUNTY FARM PRODUCTIVITY BY COMMODITY 2002-2007
Crop
Productivity: 2002
Corn
76.2 BPA
Soy Bean
33.2 BPA
Wheat
66.8 BPA
Source: 2007 Agricultural Census
7.3
Productivity: 2007
131.9 BPA
48.2 BPA
57.5 BPA
% Change
+73.0
+45.1
-14.0
Summary
Data for the period between 2000 and 2007 shows that the total
The economic base is
maturing as evidenced by the
number of jobs in Allen County grew by 7.4 percent; the number of
increasing presence and
jobs rapidly approaching 60,000. In terms of employment, of those
contributions of those
non agricultural sectors that experienced job growth including
engaged in professional
retail, health care, and accommodations/food service, only health
services and FIRE industries.
care witnessed an increase in the number of employers; marginal
losses were experienced by both retail and accommodations sectors (-5.2% and -2.5%
respectively).
This analysis demonstrates that the economy of the region has and is continuing to
experience significant changes to its historical pattern of employment. In simplest terms,
the traditional dependence upon manufacturing and related employment is transitioning
to reliance upon health care and service related businesses, as can be seen in the table
below. Data also indicates that the economic base is maturing as a relative decline in the
proportion of retail jobs in the community has been offset by professional services and
FIRE industries who are beginning to take on increased importance within the local
economy.
TABLE 18
ALLEN COUNTY EMPLOYEE EARNINGS BY SECTOR: 2003-2007
Sector
2003
2007
Agriculture
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Health Care/Social Assistance
Finance/Insurance/Real Estate
(FIRE)
Professional/Technical
Accommodations/Food
Real Estate/Rental
Education
* 2002 and 2007 Agricultural Census
$1,503,000*
$863,278,000
$108,493,000
$200,211,000
$392,043,000
$91,698,000
$2,835.000*
$834,416,000
$126,339,000
$195,482,000
$465,990,000
$67,057,000
%
Change
Amount
-30.5
+50.9
-0.7
+7.6
+47.9
+63.3
$58,302,000
$53,210,000
$29,607,000
$28,065,000
$67,814,000
$66,271,000
$22,536,000
34,373,000
+58.5
+10.4
+144.8
+134.5
58
%
Change
Share
-2.1
+4.4
-2.2
-2.9
+1.6
+0.8
+0.4
-0.6
+0.7
0.0
SECTION VIII
ACTION PLAN: VISION FOR THE FUTURE
As required by the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development
Administration, the CEDS process is required to frame a long-term vision of the community and
to develop goals and strategies to address the deficiencies and identified limitations within the
local economy. The development of the CEDS was a collaborative effort that utilized the
community’s various political subdivisions and various stakeholders to define and address the
economic concerns within the County. The process required the community to accept its
strengths and identify its economic weaknesses.
8.1
Community Vision
A memorandum of understanding established the role of the
“Allen County is a community that
LACRPC as a facilitator of regional goals and strategies and a
supports the aspirations of its
willing participant in the planning process.
The LACRPC
residents by providing an
environment where a high quality
facilitated the CEDS planning process and the economic
of life is supported by locallydevelopment actions of member political subdivisions as well
based and globally-competitive
as other local organizations interested in economic
businesses that offer ever
development. The vision created for Allen County respects
increasing job opportunities and
growing personal incomes for
the role of each entity involved in the process and is
area residents.”
articulated as follows: “Allen County is a community that
supports the aspirations of its residents by providing an
environment where a high quality of life is supported by locally-based and globallycompetitive businesses that offer ever increasing job opportunities and growing
personal incomes for area residents.”
8.2
Establishing Community Economic Goals
The process to develop the economic goals for the CEDS originally begun in June 2004
were revisited. Collectively the planning process forced local officials to develop a listing
of projects and priorities across the community. Variables including population,
education, employment, existing land use and future development were fundamental
components of these planning processes and facilitated the formulation of the CEDS
strategy. The CEDS Advisory Committee used the 2030 Transportation Plan and
various capital improvement schedules prepared by local governments as well as
current efforts of the local Common Threads Community Development Action Team to
jump start preparation of the 2010 CEDS document.
The planning process required consensus on shared or common
improvements that would address deficiencies across the County–
improvements that would collectively benefit the community in its
entirety. With that experience, the LACRPC and CEDS Advisory
Committee reviewed and ultimately agreed on the economic
development issues facing the region and local units of government.
The CEDS planning process started with specific, sometimes individual goal statements
unique to the needs of a single government entity (Table 19).
Shared or common
improvements would
collectively benefit the
community in its entirety.
Working through a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis, 40
individual concerns were identified by area stakeholders, the LACRPC and the CEDS
Advisory Committee built upon the community’s collective strengths and weaknesses to
craft widely held values and beliefs into common-sense supportable goal statements.
Statements that captured core community values that could garner the public support
59
and political will to achieve economic success. The initial goals were subsequently
evaluated, clarified, simplified and summarized into 10 goals designed to guide strategic
actions that ultimately benefit the region as a whole.
TABLE 19
GOAL STATEMENTS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Continue to build our manufacturing presence within the region.
Preserve agriculture as a competitive industry.
Improve the local tax base.
Reduce the tax burden on local businesses.
Improve local competitiveness with other industrialized communities in our multi-state
region.
Provide a mechanism that will foster entrepreneurialism among the populous that has the
propensity to consider formation of a new business enterprise.
Develop a strategic plan.
Increase cooperation between the local government agencies.
Provide support to maintain common databases and to provide direct technical assistance to
local communities who do not have development agencies.
Look at the "big picture" focusing on the entire County for development.
Promote cooperative programs such as Revolving Loan Programs and Grant Writing.
Focus on business retention, business expansion, and business attraction in that order.
Rehabilitate unsafe and unsightly housing
Attract, expand and retain manufacturing jobs that share wage rates equal to or greater than
comparative statewide averages.
Reduce long-term unemployment and poverty.
Improve racial relations and remove prejudicial barriers to the hiring process.
Develop more brownfield sites and programs to minimize urban sprawl.
Provide better technologically based employers with government financial support.
Market and promote redevelopment of our downtowns and business districts.
Market and promote our industrial sites.
Support infrastructure improvements by leveraging the full faith and credit of the County.
Provide direct technical assistance to communities and direct business contacts.
Continue efforts to build incubators to promote entrepreneurial ventures.
Increase business awareness of non-traditional, quasi-public financing vehicles such as
revenue bonds and SBA loans.
Develop import/export assistance utilizing the foreign free trade zone.
Entice large-scale non-manufacturing businesses that would improve the quality of life and
encourage residents to shop locally.
Encourage the use of the Ohio State University, Bluffton College, University of Northwestern
Ohio, and Rhodes State College as tools for development.
Stop urban sprawl.
Retain and expand jobs.
Assist start-ups by operating a not-for-profit incubator.
Develop and promote best employment practices.
Develop local schools as centers for technical and vocational training.
Maintain and improve Countywide economic development activities.
Decrease unemployment.
Expand range of potential industrial sites available.
Encourage proper utilization and preservation of prime agricultural land.
Maintain locally unique country environments.
Expand educational, technical, vocational and skill levels of the labor force.
Develop a plan for Countywide expansion of the overall infrastructure.
Attract new economic base jobs to zoned properties.
60
TABLE 20
COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
STRATEGIC GOALS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Attract, expand, and retain jobs that share wage rates equal to, or greater than,
comparative statewide averages.
Preserve and enhance agriculture as a competitive industry and way of life.
Reduce long-term unemployment and poverty, especially among minority groups.
Rehabilitate unsafe, aging, and insufficient infrastructure to include roads, utilities, schools,
parks, and housing.
Increase residents’ educational attainment and skill levels through improved access to
educational/vocational facilities/programs.
Alleviate local government fiscal strain.
Monitor and improve Allen County’s national, State, and regional competitiveness in
attracting new business.
Promote and increase entrepreneurial spirit within the community.
Balance the protection of our natural resources such as ground water, wetlands, and
animal habitats with growth and prosperity employing sustainable development measures.
Guide controlled residential developments into planned places and encourage urban
redevelopment.
8.3
Strategies
Such goals will not be realized overnight; they will require deliberate actions–certain
strategies and/or policies to be achieved. Specific strategies were developed and
policies articulated that will hopefully enable the community to better adapt to changing
economic conditions, especially conditions stemming from factors outside the
community’s control. Table 21 identifies potential strategies and/or policies that should
prove effective in realizing the aforementioned goals. The CEDS Advisory Committee
developed the goals and specific strategies and/or policies for each and will assess the
effectiveness of both on a regular basis.
8.4
Milestones & Measures
For the goals and strategies to be useful they must necessarily be able to be quantified
and measured. Measures are helpful to assess incremental progress and improvements
over time. They are also useful to support specific actions and policies or to establish
benchmarks from which new goals and strategies develop. As stated earlier, to achieve
the goals outlined in this document specific actions need to be undertaken by local units
of government. Table 22 attempts to provide various measures that are available to
assess progress on the CEDS goals and re-evaluate those strategies implemented. The
success of the 2007 CEDS process, as evidenced in projects realized, is outlined in the
Appendix of this report.
8.5
Summary
The CEDS Advisory Committee is responsible, pursuant to this CEDS document, to
assist the County and local units of government to define, develop, and implement
specific actions/programs adopted and incorporated herein. The CEDS Advisory
Committee will measure success pursuant to the annual accomplishments of local units
of governments using the measures outlined above. The CEDS argues that using rates
of growth at various geographic levels will provide local communities the necessary
benchmarks to assess improvements/declines in employment, income, education, and
local environment.
61
TABLE 22
ALLEN COUNTY - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS BY MEASURES OF SUCCESS
Goals:
Attract, expand, and retain jobs that share wage rates equal to, or greater than, comparative statewide averages.
Measures:
Source(s):
A Establish total number employed by NAICS by year.
ES202/USDOC
1
B Employment change by NAICS by year.
ES202/USDOC
C Total employment and payroll by economic sector by year.
ES202/USDOC
D Payroll change by economic sector by year
ES202/USDOC
Preserve and enhance agriculture as a competitive industry.
A Quantify farm employment and number of farms.
FSA/ACAO/ODA
2
B Establish agricultural pursuits by acre, crop type, and valuation.
FSA/ACAO/ODA
C Assess change in acreage/farm/valuation by year and by crop.
FSA/ACAO/ODA
Reduce long-term unemployment and poverty, especially among minority groups.
A Establish poverty status by ethnic and racial groups.
Census SF3
3
B Employment change by race by year.
ACJFS/USDOL
C Poverty status by race by year.
ACJFS/USDOL
Rehabilitate unsafe, aging, and insufficient infrastructure to include roads, utilities, schools, parks, and housing.
Census/Local
A Quantify extent of unsafe, aging, and insufficient infrastructure by type.
Governments
4
B Total number of projects per year by type.
Local Governments
C Total value of projects by year by funding source.
Local Governments
Increase residents’ educational attainment and skill levels through improved access to educational/vocational
facilities/programs.
A Document current educational attainment levels.
Census
State/Local Board of
B Document educational/vocational programs available by type and location.
Education
5
State/Local Board of
C Document enrollment by year, by location, and by type of program.
Education
State/Local Board of
D Document college entrance exam scores.
Education
State/Local Board of
E Total number of high school and GED certificates issued by year.
Education
Alleviate local government fiscal strain.
A Document government income by type, source, and percent of total budget.
Local Governments
6
B Document government expenditures by type, source, and percent of total budget.
Local Governments
C Assess change in income/expenses by source and year.
Local Governments
Monitor and improve Allen County’s national, State and regional competitiveness in attracting new business.
A Establish employment by NAICS by year by geography.
ODOD
7
B Monitor employment by firms by NAICS by year by geography.
ODOD
C Monitor Cost of Living rankings by geography.
ACCRA
D Monitor QOL rankings by geography.
Local Governments
Promote and increase entrepreneurial spirit within the community.
8
A Document and monitor sole proprietorships by number and by sector.
ODOD/ACAO
Balance the protection of our natural resources such as ground water, wetlands, and animal habitats with growth
and prosperity.
9
Document special environments by acreage, by categorical exclusion, and location
A
ODNR/ACAO
by year.
B Assess change in COLI/QOL Ranking by year.
ACCRA/Census
Guide controlled residential buildup into planned places and encourage urban redevelopment.
A Document population and density by political subdivision.
Census
10
B Document acreage and density by type of land use.
ACAO
C Assess change in acreage and density by land use by year.
ACAO
63
SECTION IX
RECOMMENDED PROJECT LISTING
Pursuant to the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development
Administration, the CEDS is required to identify and select specific projects identified through
the CEDS planning process that support the community vision and goals. The recommended
project listing contained in this section is the result of the community’s efforts to identify and
prioritize specific projects that specifically address the following points:





9.1
What are the specific project activities and what are the expected benefits;
Which projects address the area’s greatest needs;
Which projects enhance the region’s competitive advantage;
What projects represent the best use of limited resources; and,
What projects will have positive economic, environmental, and social impacts.
Prioritization of Development Projects & Activities
The CEDS Advisory Committee established a Project Priority Ranking System designed
to numerically score individual projects based on twelve criteria. The scoring system
seeks to target projects that will have the greatest impact upon the region’s economic
base. The two part scoring system considers the nature and urgency of the project by
type, size and timeline as well as the need for the project by the community as it
considers various socio-economic factors. Table 23 identifies the criteria of the ranking
system used to identify the Recommended Project Listing.
Projects submitted to the LACRPC for formal consideration were subsequently reviewed
and ranked prior to being submitted to the CEDS Advisory Committee. The CEDS
Advisory Committee reviewed the rankings prior to approval of the LACRPC pursuant to
the chronology of events established in Section 2.4. Table 24 identifies the individual
projects by rank, by project sponsor and project specifics.
9.2
CEDS Performance
The responsibility to monitor and measure the community’s performance toward
accomplishing its vision through the use of specific strategies is required under CEDS
Guidelines as published by USEDA. Therefore, monitoring of programmatic performance
becomes the duty of local units of government, the respective Chambers of Commerce,
the AEDG and the Regional Planning Commission.
The community’s established goals were predicated on access to quantitative measures
that were readily understood. Community leaders wanted respected data sets to ensure
reliability of measure and public confidence. The measures were necessary to support
and justify the use of public monies in development related activities and to provide
benchmarks that would allow for assessment of incremental progress.
Many of the performance measures, however, are government derived socio-economic
data sets that are not updated annually. As evidenced earlier in this document, certain
datum is note available on an annual basis such as that made available in the Census
Department’s Agricultural Survey, or its Economic Census, or the County Business
Patterns Report. Such reports tend to be released on an incremental basis, or on 5 to 10
year publication schedules. They offer the basis for valid trend line assessments but not
annual assessments. Herein, sections 3 through 7, incorporated information from
various data sets to provide a window into the ever changing socio-economic conditions
of the community providing tabular comparisons of data across 3-year and 5-year time
64
periods. And, this document readily supports and integrates various surrogate measures
to assist the community in assessing progress on the goals and projects previously
identified.
However, as the community vision is driven and energized by actual physical projects
that materialize rather than simple statistics, it is important to document, at least for the
larger community, the progress of each of the publicly financed projects that do
materialize and recognize the reasons why others stalled or are being eliminated. Table
25, attached as Appendix IV, details the progress of projects previously identified and
prioritized in the 2007 CEDS process. Because individual projects are undertaken by
specific political subdivisions and/or private developers and projects proceed at differing
speeds, it is sometimes difficult to accurately present all information. Table 25 is offered
as a summary of those projects based on existing data.
TABLE 23
PROJECT PRIORITY RANKING SYSTEM
Part 1 Criteria: Project
Score
Part 2 Criteria: Socioeconomic Data
Project Type
Community Unemployment Rate
 Public
5
 At National Average
 Commercial
5
 1% Above National Average
 Mixed Use
7
 3% Above National Average
 Industrial
10
 5% Above National Average
Permanent Jobs Created
Community Per Capita Income
 1 to 9 New Permanent Jobs
1
 At National Average
 10 to 24 New Permanent Jobs
3
 Less than 90% of National Average
 25 to 50 New Permanent Jobs
5
 Less than 70% of National Average
 50+ New Permanent Jobs
10
 Less than 60% of National Average
Permanent Jobs retained
Community Percentage @ Poverty Level
 1-9 Permanent Jobs Retained
1
 At National Average
 10 to 49 Permanent Jobs Retained
3
 1% Above National Average
 50 to 99 Permanent Jobs Retained
5
 3% Above National Average
 100+ Permanent Jobs Retained
10
 5% Above National Average
Project Engineering
Community Population Growth (+/-)
 No Engineering Completed
0
 At or above State Average
 Services Under Contract
1
 1% Below State Average
 Preliminary Engineering Completed
3
 3% Below State Average
 Engineering Completed
5
 5% Below State Average
Private Investment
Community Minority Population Ratio
 No Commitment
0
 At National Average
 Potential Commitment
1
 1% Above National Average
 Committed Private Investment
3
 5% Above National Average
 Commitment Greater than 20%
5
 10% Above National Average
Extent of Local Matching Funds
 Not Committed
0
 Available & Secured
5
Land Domain
 Land Not Yet Optioned
0
 Land Under Option
3
 Land is Owned
5
Project Start Date
 Future
1
 Within 6 Months
3
 Immediate
5
Part 1: Total Points
55
Part 2: Total Points
Total Project Score: 100 Points
65
Score
0
3
5
10
0
3
5
10
0
3
5
10
0
3
5
10
0
1
3
5
45
APPENDIX I
COMMUNITY STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES & THREATS
Analysis:
This report uses a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis to
better understand the community’s economy. This SWOT is a first step in developing a
community’s economic strategy. A SWOT analysis builds upon the County’s economic data
and demographic information to identify an area’s strengths and weaknesses. The SWOT uses
this information to recognize external opportunities and threats. The economic strategy is
designed to build upon these strengths and take full advantage of opportunities, while
addressing weaknesses and mitigating threats.
The SWOT analysis was developed in partnership with the region’s economic development
stakeholders. This is important because it defines how the region’s strengths and weaknesses
affect different stakeholders.
The SWOT analysis in this CEDS is designed to lay the groundwork for continuing efforts. It
draws upon the demographic and economic data presented earlier in this document to further
the strategic planning process. It is an attempt to better allocate the limited financial resources,
time, and energy available. It is also important to recognize that certain factors are outside of a
region’s control given the global marketplace and changes in the economic climate which
present opportunities as well as threats.
Strengths:

Quality of Life: Cost of living and commute time are very positive.

Relative Location: Allen County is situated along I-75 and US 30. It lies within the heart of
the manufacturing region and is within 500 miles of the nation’s population center.

Infrastructure: Allen County enjoys a good road system and a full complement of municipal
utilities.

Diverse Population: Increasing racial diversity throughout region, including suburbs.

Educational Facilities: There are a number of diverse public school districts in Allen
County providing students both rural and urban as well as large and small educational
settings. School districts currently involved in new building programs include: Bluffton
Schools, Lima City Schools, Spencerville Schools, and Allen East Schools. The community
is also serviced by the Ohio State University, Rhodes State College, Bluffton University and
the University of Northwestern Ohio. Tiffin University and Mount Vernon Nazarene
University also have regional facilities within the community.

Health Care: St. Rita’s Medical Center and Lima Memorial Hospital provide regional health
care coverage. The recently sited Cancer Center and the pending expansions at both
hospitals suggest increased services.

Growing Coordination: Partnerships between local governments and other economic
development stakeholders, including continuance of AEDG and its regional partnership, are
improving coordination of public infrastructure and land use planning.
67
Weaknesses:

Rail Transportation: The community is bisected by a number of Class I and II railroads
increasingly causing long traffic delays on key state routes isolating hospitals and
emergency services. The community’s rail access to industrial sites is rather limited.

Crime: The community’s poor self-image along with its perception of crime hamper local
development.

Infrastructure: Missing pockets of utilities (sewer, water, etc.), lack of funding sources, and
long-term airport system capacity need to be addressed.

Declining Opportunities for Blue-Collar Industrial Employment:
manufacturing sector.

Lack of Quality Affordable Housing: Housing is old; when neglected it becomes vacant
and vandalized becoming a blighting influence on the community.

Declining and Aging Population: The continuous decline in population, when tied with the
aging of the baby-boomer generation, will create a workforce shortfall in 20 years.

Lower Mean Household Income: Though increasing, this demographic still falls far behind
the state, and can be seen as indicative of lack of opportunity and market within Allen
County. Continued high percentage of families in poverty reflective of low educational
outcomes.
Fewer jobs in
Opportunities

Growth of Technology: Chance for community to grow its clustered industries (including
chemical, petrochemical, metal working, and automotive) and increase competitiveness of
local businesses in other industries that use technology.

Improving Perception of Education: Increased access to, and use of, post secondary
institutions to bolster employment and the diversification of employment opportunities.

Increasing Awareness of Importance of Economic Development within State: More
State attention to global competition from other regions.

Revitalization of Urban Core Areas and Smart Growth Initiatives: More cost-effective
development patterns, increased living choices for residents, and potential to provide
safe/affordable/appropriate housing, potential to reduce infrastructure costs.
Threats

Limited State Participation in Urban Economic Development: No focused statewide
urban economic development or re-development strategy. Insufficient state funding.

Competition: Outsourcing of skilled work, along with offices and plants to other
communities (threatens those jobs and jobs in supplier industries).

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC): Fall-out can still be expected to continue over
2005 military base closures–need to protect the Joint System Manufacturing Center.

Brain Drain: Loss of higher educated population threatens innovative economic growth.
68
APPENDIX II
COUNTY CONTACT INFORMATION
CITY OF LIMA
David Berger, Mayor
50 Town Square
Lima, Ohio 45801
(419) 228-5462
ALLEN COUNTY ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT GROUP
Marcel Wagner, President & CEO
147 North Main Street
Lima, Ohio 45801
(419) 222-7706
ALLEN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Sam Bassitt, Allen County Commissioner
Dan Reiff, Allen County Commissioner
Greg Sneary, Allen County Commissioner
Allen County Courthouse
301 North Main Street
Lima, Ohio 45801
(419) 228-3700 Ext 8725
LIMA/ALLEN COUNTY
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Jed Metzger, President & CEO
147 North Main Street
Lima, Ohio 45801
(419) 222-6045
DELPHOS AREA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE
Jennifer Moenter, Executive Director
310 N. Main Street
Delphos, Ohio 45833
419-695-1771
CITY OF DELPHOS
Michael Gallmeier, Mayor
608 N. Canal Street
Delphos, Ohio 45833
419-695-5102
ALLEN COUNTY ENGINEER
Timothy Piper, Allen County Engineer
1501 N. Sugar Street
Lima, Ohio 45801
419-228-3196
VILLAGE OF SPENCERVILLE
Lynn Cummins, Mayor
116 S. Broadway Street
Spencerville, Ohio 45887
419-647-6263
69
APPENDIX III
RPC DELEGATES
Mr. Dick Accountius
2280 E. Breese Road
Cridersville, Ohio 45806
Mr. Howard Elstro
Director Public Works, City of Lima
50 Town Square
Lima, Ohio 45801
Mr. Paul Basinger
Trustee, American Township
5284 Sharlene Drive
Elida, Ohio 45807
Mr. Jerry Gilden
Trustee, Marion Township
8386 Ridge Road
Delphos, Ohio 45833
Mr. Steven Beam
Trustee, Monroe Township
11985 SR 12
Columbus Grove, Ohio 45830
Ms. Carole Grapner
2811 Wren Avenue
Elida, Ohio 45807
Mr. Lloyd Grimm
Zoning Commission, American Township
2656 Hummingbird Drive
Elida, Ohio 45807
Mr. Gregory Berquist
Delphos Safety/Service Director
608 N. Canal Street
Delphos, Ohio 45833
Mr. Roy Hollenbacher
Trustee, Bath Township
150 St. Andrews Boulevard
Lima, Ohio 45804
Mr. Gerald Brooks
Resident, Richland Township
9777 Tom Fett Road
Bluffton, Ohio 45817
Mr. Ben Kehres
Village of Ft. Shawnee
2050 W. Breese Road
Lima, Ohio 45806
Mr. Sean Chapman
Village of Spencerville
116 S. Broadway Street
Spencerville, Ohio 45887
Mr. Gerald Keller
Trustee, Spencer Township
11610 Spencerville Road
Spencerville, Ohio 45887
Mr. Brad Core
Trustee, Amanda Township
1660 S. Defiance Trail
Spencerville, Ohio 45887
Mr. Mitchell Kingsley
Councilman, Village of Bluffton
P.O. Box 46
Bluffton, Ohio 45817
Mr. Kevin Cox
Trustee, Perry Township
5740 Ditzler Road
Harrod, Ohio 45850
Mr. Kyle Lewis
Councilman, City of Lima
138 S. Collins Avenue
Lima, Ohio 45804
Mr. Michael Criblez
Trustee, Jackson Township
4420 Pevee Road
Bluffton, Ohio 45817
Mr. John MacDonell
City of Lima Planning Commission
P. O. Box 1086
Lima, Ohio 45802
Ms. Rhonda Eddy
Allen County Auditor
301 N. Main Street
Lima, Ohio 45801
70
Mr. Kent McCleary
Zoning Inspector, Sugar Creek Township
3835 W. Lincoln Hwy.
Elida, Ohio 45807
Ms. Christie Seddelmeyer
Trustee, Shawnee Township
334 Ponderosa Trail
Lima, Ohio 45805
Ms. Amy Sackman Odum
Planning Director, City of Lima
50 Town Square
Lima, Ohio 45801
Mr. Troy Strayer
Zoning Inspector, Village of Elida
4600 Sherrick Road
Elida, Ohio 45807
Mr. Timothy Piper
Allen County Engineer
1501 N. Sugar Street
Lima, Ohio 45801
Mr. Thomas Tebben
Councilman, City of Lima
2331 W. Market Street
Lima, Ohio 45804
Mr. Tommy Pitts
Councilman, City of Lima
1201 E. Second Street
Lima, Ohio 45804
Mr. Robert Tomlinson
213 S. Elizabeth Street
Lima, Ohio 45801
Mr. Bruce Plumb
1709 Wendell Avenue
Lima, Ohio 45805
Ms. Dorothy Van Meter
Village of Beaverdam
110 E. Pearl Street
Beaverdam, Ohio 45808
Mr. Dan Reiff
Allen County Commissioner
301 N. Main Street
Lima, Ohio 45801
Mr. M. Kurt Winegardner
Trustee, Auglaize Township
10440 Faulkner Road
Harrod, Ohio 45850
Mr. Jesse Sadiua
Community Development Specialist
City of Lima
50 Town Square
Lima, Ohio 45801
71