city of canton land use analysis 2014

City of Canton - Land Use / Infrastructure / Parks / Finance Overview Analysis

City of Canton Comprehensive Plan Land Use / Infrastructure / Parks / Finance Overview Analysis The purpose of the Overview Analysis is to compile a set of “initial findings” that shed light on (and insight into) Canton’s current conditions. MIG reviewed the existing conditions for three major content areas: land use, infrastructure and parks. MIG also contributed to the work of other team members in: the city’s fiscal environment, the zoning/regulatory context, and regional competition. These findings will be presented to the community in the series of neighborhood meetings to be conducted in September/October 2014. City Background (source: 2012 Canton PAFR; city website)

The City of Canton is located in, and is the County Seat of, Stark County in northeastern Ohio, approximately 58 miles southeast of Cleveland, 23 miles south of Akron, and 94 miles west of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It was incorporated as village in 1828, and became a city in 1854. The City’s 2010 population of 73,007 placed it as the largest city in the County and the eighth largest in the State. The City provides its residents with police protection, fire protection, street maintenance and repairs, building inspection, and parks and recreation with revenue derived primarily from taxes and small amounts of revenue generated from user fees. The City owns and operates its own water, sewer, and sanitation departments, which are funded solely through user fees. The City has portions of four school districts within its corporation limits, the largest of which being Canton City Schools. The Canton City School District has two high schools, three middle schools, twelve elementary schools, an early college high school and an art academy. The City also has one four-year college, Malone University, located entirely within its corporate limits and has numerous colleges within commuting distance. The City is home to numerous businesses, which have a large impact on the local economy, including the Timken Company, Republic Engineered Products, and Republic Storage. The City is probably best known for being the home of the Professional Football Hall of Fame and the week-long celebration that goes on during the annual enshrinement ceremony. The City is served by two acute care hospitals, Aultman Hospital with 808 beds and Mercy Medical Center with 476 beds. City residents also have access to one Interstate highway, two U.S. highways, four state routes, a regional bus service, and a regional airport is located within the county.

History Founded: 1805 Incorporated: 1854


Population/Demographics City Population: 72,683 Metro Population: 404,422 Density: 2,867.5/square mile Racial makeup: (2000 Figures) Caucasian - 74% African American - 21% Native American - 0.5% Asian/Pacific Islander - 0.03% Other - 0.6% 2+ Races - 3% Hispanic/Latino - 1.2%

Geography State: Ohio Region: Northeast/Midwest County: Stark Elevation: 1,060 feet Lat/Long: 40º48'18"N, 81º22'33" Water Sources: Nimishillen Creek Area: 20.6 square miles Zip Codes: 44700-44799 Area Codes: 330-234 Time Zone: Eastern U.S. (GMT-5)

Census Information

Population

87,091

104,906 108,401

116,912 113,631 110,053

93,077 85,161

80,806

73,007 72,535

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2013

population change 1920 - 2013

popula2on


2010 Demographics Median age 35.6 years

Median household income - $30,000 • 30.8% individuals below poverty level

Households 29,705 • Average household size 2.35 • Housing Units 34,571 • Occupancy 29,705- 85.9% • Vacant – 4,866 – 14.1%

85.4% work within county

Race Mix

The County population has held pretty steady over time even though the population within Canton itself has decreased.

69.1%

24.2%

0.5%

0.3%

0%

1%

4.9% white

black

American Indian

Asian

Pacific Islander

other

2 or more


Land Use

Utilizing existing GIS data provided by the City and/or County, MIG compared: • Zoning with actual land uses per neighborhood/ward. However, lack of land use data

hindered this task. • Improvement values to land values in a high-level assessment of land utilization and spatial

trends in property values.

Land Use and Zoning Key Points

• The City appears to not have a land use map to guide future development. • Development dropped significantly in 2007 and again in 2010 to the present. • Vacancies are noticeably more around the downtown – particularly to the east and west. • The highest amounts of vacant residential acres are in wards 4 (southern portion of

downtown and east and west), 6 (northeast Canton), and 8 (northern Canton).

Zoning Background The City currently has 23 Zone Districts. These include: 2 flood districts, 1 agriculture district, 1 open space district, 10 residential districts (5 single-family, 1 duplex, and 2 multi-family, and two PUD), 6 commercial districts, 2 industrial districts, and 1 community service district.


Zoning Compared to Land Uses Overall, the City zoning totals and by Ward:

City Zoning

Acres

City Wide

Ward 1

Ward 2

Ward 3

Ward 4

Ward 5

Ward 6

Ward 7

Ward 8

Ward 9 Total

Zone

R1 761 8.8 48.0 11.6 126.7 513.5 52.3 760.9

R1A 4,649 445.0 253.9 625.4 669.6 707.0 804.9 392.8 192.1 557.6 4,648.3

R1B 611 30.5 12.0 568.0 610.5

R1C 604 161.4 98.8 86.9 224.4 32.1 603.6

R1D 53 53.1 53.1

R2 306 0.3 136.6 3.4 52.7 2.9 22.2 9.0 30.5 48.1 305.7

R3 165 12.5 13.9 15.7 13.6 35.0 35.1 11.7 27.8 165.3

R4 383 2.2 53.8 8.8 200.2 31.1 46.9 39.5 382.5

R5 80 80.2 80.2

Px-x (14 Cat) 591 18.9 12.3 28.3 56.8 19.2 309.5 20.9 118.0 6.7 590.6

Px-x (w/o PMA) 533 18.9 12.3 28.3 56.8 19.2 309.5 20.9 60.2 6.7 532.8

B1 111 15.7 19.1 4.2 10.2 2.4 53.9 1.1 4.8 111.4

B2 31 4.2 1.6 6.4 8.4 9.2 1.1 30.9

B3 1,032 42.6 145.9 59.6 235.7 247.8 147.9 99.6 30.5 22.5 1,032.1

B4 157 8.8 34.1 14.5 53.2 37.0 3.9 5.8 157.3

B5 299 140.1 159.4 299.5

B6 107 70.1 36.5 106.6

CS 451 0.5 17.2 26.0 2.5 17.2 43.1 220.8 52.2 71.8 451.3

I1 1,995 4.6 65.9 1,058.3 516.8 340.5 8.7 1,994.8

I2 2,276 18.0 1,401.8 617.2 154.7 83.6 2,275.3

OS 1,668 161.6 42.3 52.0 321.8 27.2 349.3 247.3 347.0 118.5 1,667.0

M-Ag (PMA) 58 57.8 57.8

Other 0 0

Total 16,921 736 967 917 4,498 2,360 2,580 1,385 2,393 1,082 16,918


Acres per Ward

Zoning per Ward City Wide

Ward 1 -‐ 736 Ward 2 -‐ 967

Ward 3 -‐ 917

Ward 4 -‐ 4,498

Ward 5 -‐ 2,360

Ward 6 -‐ 2,580

Ward 7 -‐ 1,385

Ward 8 -‐ 2,393

Ward 9 -‐ 1,082 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

R1

R1A

R1B

R1C

R1D

R2

R3 R4 R5 Px-‐x (14 Cat) Px-‐x (w/o PMA) B1

B2

B3 B4 B5

B6

CS

I1

I2

OS

M-‐Ag (PMA) R1

R1A

R1B

R1C

R1D

R2

R3

R4

R5

Px-‐x (14 Cat)

Px-‐x (w/o PMA)

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

CS

I1

I2

OS

M-‐Ag (PMA)


Zoning – Ward 1

R1

R1A

R1B R1C R1D R2

R3

R4 R5 Px-‐x (14

Cat)

Px-‐x (w/o PMA)

B1 B2

B3

B4 B5 B6 CS

I1 I2

OS

M-‐Ag (PMA) R1 R1A R1B R1C R1D R2 R3 R4 R5 Px-‐x (14 Cat) Px-‐x (w/o PMA) B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 CS I1 I2 OS M-‐Ag (PMA)


Zoning - Ward 2

R1

R1A

R1B R1C R1D

R2

R3 R4

R5 Px-‐x (14 Cat) Px-‐x (w/o PMA) B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6 CS I1

I2

OS



Zoning - Ward 3

R1

R1A R1B R1C R1D R2 R3

R4 R5

Px-‐x (14 Cat)

Px-‐x (w/o PMA) B1

B2

B3

B4 B5 B6

CS I1 I2

OS



Zoning - Ward 4

R1

R1A R1B R1C

R1D R2

R3

R4 R5

Px-‐x (14 Cat)

Px-‐x (w/o PMA)

B1

B2

B3

B4 B5

B6 CS I1

I2

OS



Zoning - Ward 5


R1

R1A

R1B R1C

R1D

R2 R3

R4 R5 Px-‐x (14 Cat)

Px-‐x (w/o PMA)

B1 B2

B3 B4

B5 B6 CS

I1

I2

OS M-‐Ag (PMA) R1 R1A R1B R1C R1D R2 R3 R4 R5 Px-‐x (14 Cat) Px-‐x (w/o PMA) B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 CS I1 I2 OS M-‐Ag (PMA)


Zoning - Ward 6

R1

R1A

R1B R1C R1D R2

R3 R4 R5

Px-‐x (14 Cat)

Px-‐x (w/o PMA)

B1 B2

B3 B4 B5 B6 CS

I1

I2

OS



Zoning - Ward 7

R1

R1A

R1B R1C

R1D R2 R3 R4 R5 Px-‐x (14 Cat)

Px-‐x (w/o PMA)

B1

B2

B3 B4 B5

B6

CS

I1 I2

OS



Zoning - Ward 8

R1

R1A

R1B R1C

R1D R2

R3 R4

R5

Px-‐x (14 Cat)

Px-‐x (w/o PMA)

B1 B2

B3

B4

B5 B6

CS

I1 I2

OS



Zoning - Ward 9

R1

R1A

R1B R1C R1D

R2 R3

R4 R5

Px-‐x (14 Cat)

Px-‐x (w/o PMA)

B1 B2

B3

B4 B5 B6

CS

I1 I2

OS



Vacant Lands by Ward

Vacant Lands by Ward (in acres)

Ward

Vacancy in areas… 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total Zoned residential

29.55 73.18 17.44 294.77 86.54

137.32 32.73

118.06 70.28 859.87

Zoned commercial 4.82 19.04 2.34 91.36 23.24 31.07 2.15 1.56 1.84 177.42

Zoned industrial 0.21 9.67 0 691.89 241.4

4 187.2

7 0 0 22.78 1153.2

6

Other (not OS) 0

Total 34.5

8 101.8

9 19.78 1078.0

2 351.2

2 355.6

6 34.88 119.6

2 94.9 2190.5

5


Land Util ization MIG developed a map highlighting concentrations of vacant and underutilized lands (areas of change) and their surrounding contexts. In future phases, the map may help determine the carrying capacity of vacant and underutilized land compared to projected demand.


Looking at percent of underutilized land by neighborhood, the neighborhoods with higher rates of underutilization occur on the east side of town. It should be noted that many of the large underutilized parcels shown in red are industrial in nature and on the edges of the city.


It does not appear that there is a correlation between areas of high rates of underutilization and areas where street improvements are planned or occurring at this time.


Building Permit MIG reviewed recent permit information to gain an understanding of historical and recent trends in construction from both a product perspective and geographic distribution perspective. Building Permit Totals

As the chart shows, the building permits have been considerably less in the past 4 years but relatively more (over 4 times as many) issued in the mid-2000s.

1469

5415 5506

4715

1364

2449

4097

819 1071

706 685

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

building permits used


Demolition Program

The City has a demolition program to remove structures that have been vacant for over one year. The listings come from the fire department (burned, collapsed or unsafe structure), the police department (unsafe, gutted due to theft), the Health Department (rot, smells, infestation), SMHA, HUD, Administration or Building Department (code violations), of the Council.

The Chief Building Official:

• Views all potential demos to determine condition of the property and to determine if the structure may be reasonably repaired.

• If it’s found that, even if repairs are made, the structure will be of less value than the repair, or if the structure is unsafe, it is eligible to be listed as a demolition possibility.

• The structure is reviewed by the DOD for historic significance. If it clears the DOD, the title is ordered and collected.

• The owner can appeal the demolition with the Board of Building Appeals and a second appeal to the Common Pleas Court. If the owner does not claim the property, the structure is surveyed for asbestos and a bid is sent to the Contract Office.

• Bids are received and approved and the contractors have 14 days to obtain permits and 30 days to complete the demo.

• Final inspection is done by the Building department and the contractor invoice sent to the DOD for payment. Invoice is also sent to owner for payment of demo and all associated costs. If no payment is received, a lien is sent to the County to be placed on taxes.

All structures on the demolition list are in the order which they are received. Emergency demolitions are handled in a different manner.


Infrastructure

Infrastructure Key Points

• Canton has a very high quality water system that may be leveraged. • The sewer and water systems have capacity. • Street maintenance and keeping up with demands are an issue that is being addressed by

the City. • Storm drainage is compromised by long term street maintenance; there may be an

opportunity to use vacant properties for storm water maintenance. • Staffing levels and non-competitive wages are seen as issues to keeping up with

infrastructure maintenance.

Overall Infrastructure

The infrastructure is aging. Many city facilities were built in the 1960s. The Civic Center is 65 years old and outdated but is the location for the Football Hall of Fame. The outdated building does not match the NFL brand and image.

The City owns and operates its own water, sewer, and sanitation departments, which are funded solely through user fees. MIG interviewed City departments in regard to roads and utilities to identify under-capacity or over-capacity issues; key improvements needed; and trends in levels of service, maintenance, and costs. The City has water and sewer capacity of a population of 150,000. Canton does have one of the lowest water rates in the state as well as one of the best water systems. Rates have increased slightly in recent years but the rate is still comparably low.

Sewer The City of Canton operates two separate sewer systems: sanitary and storm. The city established both systems dating back to the late 1890s. Having two separate systems ensures that there are no “combined sewers” within the limits of the city. Maintenance has been handled by the Department since 2003. Prior to this, the department was combined with the City Street Department. This departure from Street has allowed the Department to concentrate on the system from cleaning, televising and repairing for the last ten years. This effort has been a great investment to the sewer infrastructure for operability and serviceability. The system is generally in very good condition and has ample capacity in nearly all locations. Between CSD, Engineering, and WRF the City has been doing a great job of catching up on the preventative maintenance and Identifying and addressing individual problems.


The service area of Canton is nearly 99% complete. However, with onset of a few newer annexations, the percentage of service area might be a tick lower. In essence, the city, as a whole, has sewer and water available. The challenge of newer subdivisions is two prong. If a development were to occur on a tract of open-space (recent Quarry annexation as for an example), the developer would design a system to connect to our public sewer. However, if a tract land is found within most all areas, the city would have sewer available and capacity for most all developments. Plans and Projects The City has a number of repair projects under construction, in final design and in planning. The City is in the process of developing a city wide model of the system to nail down the actual limiting areas of the system. The City currently has the money to perform the work. Short term plans continue with “best management practices” ensuring sewer capacity and service life is maintained. Long term plans to ensure large diameter sewers are maintained and/or replaced based on service life expectancy. This concept of large diameter sewers is conjoined with Stark County Metropolitan Sewer District and the city of North Canton. In short, a significant portion of the sewer interceptors are conveying flows that are contributed to both of these entities. This element of “sharing capacity”' requires full time interaction with these partners. Challenges The City needs people to manage the work, specifically seasoned professional engineers with 10-15 years experience to manage the projects. The City can hire design consulting firms to do the design but there is still a need for people employed by the City to manage the consultants and the processes. With the top end of the salary range at $78K for assistant city engineers, facility engineers, and assistant superintendents (WRF and Water) the City has struggled to find qualified candidates and to retain the outstanding people already on the payroll. There is a shortage of engineers in this area at the moment and the City is under the market value for those that are out there. The City has an opportunity and the financial resources to reverse the brain drain of Canton and retain or bring in some great minds but need to make a decision as a city to do it. Even now the City has been without a sanitary engineer for nearly 9 months. The rest of staff has pitched in to keep the critical items moving forward but are treading water. This has obvious implications on attracting new development and providing first class response that the City wants to provide, but just cannot do it all. Perhaps this is an area where the comp plan can identify both a challenge and a solution of dealing with the rate structure for professional technical positions. Another challenge is annexation. The City cannot use sanitary sewer funds to extend new lines by the Ohio Revised Code. This has been partially overcome but will continue to be a problem in the future.


Storm Sewer System The City has a great staff at the moment, but lack the financial resources to fund the work and expand the staff to handle the work if the funds become available. Many people including the administration and council are in favor of a storm water utility and the City is moving in that direction, but that process needs time money and people to get it done. The recognition/support of this effort in the comp plan would go a long way. The City has made amazing strides in the storm water side but are draining our capital money to do it (which reduces the $ available to pave roads) but have over a $100M of storm sewer project on the books that need addressed. In July of 2014, the City discussed implementing a Storm Water Utility. Engineering had obtained a proposal from a consultant (Woolpert) to start the process of utility implementation (which typically takes around 6 months or so, per the consultant). It was decided that 6 months was too long to wait and that in light of the recent flooding in Canton, the City should do what it takes to try to implement one sooner than later. The concept of "piggy-backing" on top of the existing Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District's (MWCD's) assessment structure was proposed. Mayor Healy asked that 2 main pieces of information be obtained within 30-60 days: 1) rough costs of needs and 2) determination of the feasibility and legality of utilizing MWCD's assessment structure and applying a "multiplier" to their rates that would be the revenue for Canton's utility. Staff used information from a 2004 update (by Camp, Dresser, and McKee) of a City-wide drainage study originally prepared by Floyd Browne Associates to estimate the rough costs of needs. Based on the identified needs from the 2004 data that to date have not been implemented, the costs are over $100M in today's dollars. This does not include maintenance, replacement needs, NPDES compliance, or any other needs that weren't originally identified in Floyd Browne's Study. Staff also provided some approximate costs of storm drainage maintenance over the past 10 years. With all new infrastructure needs, maintenance needs, NPDES compliance, etc, it is safe to say that the City currently has well over $100M in storm water needs that need a dedicated funding source. The feasibility was estimated by obtaining MWCD's 2014 parcel data for Canton. MWCD ultimately utilizes County Auditor parcel classifications to determine assessment types. There are 39,844 identified parcels in the City, of which 30,604 are assessed as "Residential" (fixed $12/yr), 2,525 are assessed as "Non-residential" (variable $24 - $7,152 /yr), and the remaining 6,715 are not assessed for one reason or another. MWCD assesses a total of $742,116/yr from Canton City parcels. Staff set up a spreadsheet that utilizes this data and allows a "multiplier" of choice to be assigned to project necessary revenues for a utility based on the MWCD data. A major question that needs answered is whether or not it is legally possible for the City to "piggy-back" on MWCD's model, thus utilizing the County Auditor's Office and tax duplicate to collect the fees. In speaking with various people, there are questions as to whether the City would need to be set up as a drainage district, etc. to be able to do it this way. In addition, in July of 2014, staff emailed a Storm Water Utility ordinance from the City of Lancaster, OH to Director Bartos. This ordinance is reportedly an excellent one that has been tried and tested and has successfully stood up legally. Although it utilizes a different rate structure than our proposed MWCD piggy-back, the framework of the ordinance should hopefully be beneficial


to potentially model the City's off of (if needed). In August of 2014, staff emailed contact information for MWCD's legal counsel on the subject.


Canton Sewer System


Water The City’s water system was established in 1869. The City is able to keep up with the maintenance of the water system. About 5 years ago, the City completely renovated all 3 water treatment plants. This renovation should last about 25 years. The City is now focusing heavily on the equipment and personnel necessary to maintain and improve the distribution system, and on maintaining and improving the distribution system itself. It will likely take another 10 years to get fully up to industry benchmarks, but the City is aggressively working towards this end. It takes a considerable amount of time and resources to move from "status quo" to industry leader. There are no areas of the City that are difficult to serve due to terrain and/or capacity issues (either with water supply or the system itself). The City pumps about 19 million gallons of water per day, and has a capacity of nearly twice that amount. The City plans to improve internal efficiencies and reinvest any savings back into the system; continue to strive towards meeting industry benchmarks; continually look for growth opportunities; continually maintain and improve the system, its functionality, reliability and its redundancy; protect the water supply; maintain below market rates; improve customer service and reliability; and position the department for long term success and viability.

The department is always looking for funding and grant opportunities. The department is also looking for growth opportunities (i.e. new customers such as neighboring communities or bringing large water users into the City’s existing system). Marketing the water system would or leveraging it for the good of the community would also be positive. Water mains are not available for GIS mapping.


Streets The department has been going through a re-formatting over the past year. In the past, the department was not focused on maintenance and that’s caught up with the City. The main goal is to get up to par with maintenance then build from there. This includes determining costs per mile for maintenance, establishing a schedule for overall maintenance, and establishing a prioritization for projects. Street plans are also on the list for upcoming tasks. The department needs staff, equipment upgrades, and additional equipment. The department is adding 6 new hires this year. The street system capacity is good and congestion is not a big issue. There is a need to educate the community on drainage and how that ties to streets. Many streets need improved to better move storm water especially due to a number of overlays compromising the original street design. There may be an opportunity to use vacant properties across the city as drainage capture. Funding for street maintenance comes from the City’s budget but also State allocations for state roads.


Street Map


Parks and Recreation Review

Using data provided by EDG’s detailed inventory of each existing park property, MIG performed a broad needs analysis of the entire park system. Key Points

• The City has some difficulty in keeping up with park maintenance and is looking to dispose of some existing park land.

• Some neighborhoods are better served by parks than others including some neighborhoods near the downtown but also seemly higher income neighborhoods north of the downtown.

• The park types may be re-classified with the parks planning effort to determine overall access.

• Canton’s biggest short-term recreation problem is communication / coordination between recreation entities. Lack of funding, followed by communication / coordination between recreation entities, is seen as the biggest long-term issue. Identified problems include lack of funding, quality / continued maintenance of facilities, coordination and communication, and public awareness and participation.

• Recreation for seniors and feeder programs also are seen as needs.

Park System Background The existing parks plan was prepared in 1980. EDG has a hard copy of the plan. Although there have been shifts in population over time, a good portion of the information in the plan is still applicable today. There are 3 groups involved in the providing park services to the community: the City of Canton, Stark County, and the Canton Joint Recreation District. The Canton Joint Recreation District, who provides recreation programming for the community, is not yet an entity of the City and is not an entity of the School District. The City’s Parks Commission and the Joint Recreation District are in the process of consolidating into one entity. The City has:

• 64 park locations both inside and outside of the city limits with approximately 800 acres of recreation land available for public use:

o 5 play areas o 2 skate parks o 22 picnic shelters o 2 rental halls o 52 softball/baseball fields o 21 tennis courts o A 24-hole Disc Golf course o Bocce courts o Shuffleboard courts o A children’s garden o The JFK Memorial Fountain


o The Stark County Veterans Memorial o A 1-mile rubberized walk/run/exercise track, in addition to the incredible scenery

and wildlife present throughout the city. The County maintains:

• 80+ miles of walking / bicycle trails • 31 miles of equestrian trails • 13 parks (including 25 miles of the Ohio and Erie Canal Towpath Trail) • 778 educational programs and events to 36,301 participants • 30 distant learning programs for 1,079 students across the U.S. • 7,000 acres of land including 2,800 open to hunting and 1,200 acres of lakes, ponds, and

reservoirs Comprehensive Plan Questions This overview analysis focused on answering four questions:

1. How does Canton compare with other comparable communities regarding parks and recreation facilities?

2. How well does Canton do in providing for the spectrum of recreation “needs” articulated by Canton residents and stakeholders (e.g. active, passive, turf, hard court, etc.)?

3. Comparatively, how much use are various parks getting today? 4. What areas of the city are within walking/biking/short drive distance from a park?

How Does Canton Compare with Other Comparable Communities Regarding Parks and Recreation Facil ities? The City does not collect data to determine its Levels of Service or with comparable cities. Information may be available through the Ohio Parks and Recreation Association (Woody Woodward). They also have Best Practices that can be applied and included in the comprehensive plan. Many of the amenities are aging. The major investments were made in the 1960s. The top priority is in maintenance right now. How Well Does Canton Do in Providing for the Spectrum of Recreation Needs According to the Recreation Services Internal Assessment, Canton’s biggest short-term recreation problem is communication / coordination between recreation entities. Lack of funding, followed by communication / coordination between recreation entities, is seen as the biggest long-term issue. Identified problems include lack of funding, quality / continued maintenance of facilities, coordination and communication, and public awareness and participation. Staff levels limit the number of programs offered.


Activity interests are in skate parks, kayaking, disc golf, and mountain biking; however, newer sports/interests, like Lacrosse, yoga, and Tai Chi, are difficult to offer. Many programs are citizen-started and citizen-run. There is a grass-roots interest in creating a terrain area for mountain biking in a City park. Canton does produce a number of NFL and NBA athletes even though there are few feeder programs. There is a large seniors population but few offerings. The YMCA and a few other entities offer programs and facilities for seniors. There is a garden club that uses the parks. Comparatively, How Much Use Are Various Parks Getting Today? The City does not collect data about park usage but can provide anecdotal / qualitative information on the park usage. Derek will provide a summary on his evaluation on park usage. The parks with high usage in 1980 are still highly used today. Parks with amenities and where programs are offered are much more used than parks without amenities. Parks near I-77 get well used. The City is considering disposal of some park land. Maintenance, particularly mowing costs, are a drain on resources. Many are lots without amenities. The staff land ratio is stretched. Trails are one of the few good amenities. The system is still being completed. The estimated completion date for the trail systems is 5 – 10 years (2019 – 2024). There is also a Complete Streets policy and Canton has the first contra-flow bike lane in Ohio. Usage Table Large Parks and Fields Location Usage Arboretum Park 3220 38th St NW 44718 High Brian C. Roshong Police Memorial Park (Playground E)

3400 Harvard Ave NW 44709 High

Crenshaw Park 1500 Sherrick Rd SE 44707 High Garaux Park 3801 13th St SW 44710 High Harmont Park 2701 Harmont Ave NE 44705 High Herbruck Park Annex 2500 Royal Ave NE 44705 High (leased to First Tee) Martindale Park 4001 Martindale Rd NE 44710 High Monument Park 700-1150 Park Rd NW 44703 High Nimisilla Park 1075 O’Jays Parkway NE 44705 High Large Parks and Fields Location Usage Robert E. Schreiber Park 2500 Maple Ave NE 44714 High Spiker Park 3300 Westmoreland Blvd NW 44718 High Stadium Park 1200-2500 Stadium Park Dr. NW 44718 High Thurman Munson Stadium High 2501 Allen Av. SE High Vassar Hill Field Vassar Ave NW and 17th St NW High Weis Park 2600 Harvard NW 44709 High Westbrook Veterans’ Memorial Park

1235 Harrison Ave NW 44708 High

Willig Field 2300 30th St NE 44705 High

Albert Reiter Park 435 Cherry Av SE 44707 Moderate


Bors Field 2665 Harrisburg Rd NE 44705 Moderate Brian’s Park (formally Playground C)

1500 Rowland Ave NE 44705 Moderate

Bup Rearick Park 3500 Ellis Ave NE 44705 Moderate Cook Park 1836 Mahoning Rd NE 44705 Moderate Fairhope Nature Preserve 30th St NE 44705 Moderate (new development) Lawrence Park 126 Whipple Ave NW 44708 Moderate Lee Park 1615 Fourth St SE 44707 Moderate Maryland Park 1401 Maryland Ave SW 44710 Moderate Meyer’s Park 201 Park Ave SW 44706 Moderate (pursuing partnership with

neighboring school for capital improvements)

Mother Gooseland Moderate Reifsnyder Park 1855 Spangler Rd NE 44714 Moderate (trail connector / passive

only) Richard A. Mallonn Memorial Park 527 Raff Rd NW 44708 Moderate Waterworks Park 100-614 Washington Blvd. NW 44708 Moderate West Park (includes Charlie Babcock Field, City Field, Presley Field

525-839 Schroyer Ave SW / 1124 9th St SW 44707

Moderate

Canton Lincoln Highway Station 1315 Tuscawaras St W 44700 Low (no current train service) Covered Bridge Park 4500 Guilford Ave NW 44709 Low (abandoned baseball fields) Don Correll Park 2200 Roberts Ave NW 44709 Low (open field / no amenities) Herbruck Park 1900 Royal Ave NE 44705 Low (exploring urban farm) Ink Park 2523-3753 Park Dr NW 44718 Low Jackson Park 1450 Cherry Ave SE 44707 Low King Park 600 High Ave NW 44703 Low McKinley Park 501 McKinley Ave SW 44706 Low (abandoned cemetery) Northview Park 647 46th St NW 44709 Low (attempting to auction) Oak Park 3600 St. Elmo Ave NE 44714 Low (nearly unused baseball field) Riverside Park 551 Warner Rd NE 44704

Low (NFL grant pending for football fields / concession stand)

Stark/ Wayne Schrader Low

Freeway Park 2247 Kimball Rd SE 44707 None Grovemiller Park 4500 Tioga Ave NW 44708 None (attempting to auction) Park Connector Strip 1651 Allen Ave SE 44707 None Waynesburg Park None Mini Parks Location Usage #25 1460 Allen Ave SE 44707 High

#3 1401 Warner Rd SE 44707 Moderate #8 Boylan SE 44707 Moderate #11613 Rowland Ave NE 44707 Moderate (new community garden) #19453 Cornelia Ave NE 44704 Moderate

#32 252 Lawn Ave SE 44707 Low (attempting to auction)

#1 740 Marion Ave SW 44707 None (attempting to auction) #5 1030 Lawn Ave SW 44706 None (attempting to auction) #9 200 Economy Ct NE 44704 None (attempting to auction) Playgrounds Location Usage Bernard Ave Playground 4102 Bernard Ave NW 44709 High Jay Welch Playground 2514 Cleveland Ave. NW 44709 High

Maple Playground 2227 Maple Ave NE 44714 Moderate


What Areas of the City Are within Walking/Biking/Short Drive Distance from a Park? One of the biggest voids for parks is in the Downtown where there are 2 small parks. A community park that can accommodate larger community events is desired. There are a few newer parks that were dedicated with new development. There is not much funding for land acquisition by the City plus the cost to maintain new parks is an issue.


Fiscal Environment Baseline Information

MIG will support CZB in working closely with City staff to do an overview of up to 20 years of budget and finance information (provided by the City) to assess trends in funding allocations, including the presence of cycles and the relative implied budget priorities. MIG spoke with staff in regard to city finances and reviewed the City’s Popular Annual Financial Report (PAFR) for baseline information.

Key Points

• Canton has seen a decrease in revenues associated with the decrease in population. • The City has a skeleton staff due partially to cut backs in spending but also to the inability

to compete with salaries from nearby municipalities / townships. • Safety services – fire protection and police – are given high priority for funding. • An increase in income tax may help cover the increasing gap between revenues and

expenditures.

Revenue Source Canton runs primarily on income tax. The current rate is 2%. This applies to both residents and employees of the city. If an employee resides outside the city, then they may claim a 1.7 (or 85%) credit toward his/her local income tax.

Canton has lower property tax than surrounding areas but the trend is people moving out of the city into the surround communities where the income tax is typically lower.

Primary property taxpayers for 2013:

• Ohio Power Company (over 50%) • 2010 Canton LLC • East Ohio Gas • Republic Engineered Products • Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust • Wal-Mart Stores East LP • Canton Business Park • West Tuscarawas Property Management

LLC • Timken Company • Sno Frost Inc.

Services There is the perception that there are not enough funds or manpower to provide serves to the community.

The former base industry of steel processing and production has been on the decline since the mid 20th Century. Population followed this trend and few industries have replaced the steel industry. The decline in population contributed to a reduction of revenue over time. The agriculture industry has also decreased significantly over the past 50 years leaving large parcels in the county vacant. Regardless, compared to the surrounding communities, Canton has the bulk of the jobs in the area.


This drop in revenue was compounded with the 2008 Recession when additional residents left town for jobs elsewhere. Many houses were abandoned and removal of structures and maintenance of lots (mainly mowing) added to the cost of services in addition to the continued loss of revenue.

The general fund has dwindled over time. Over the past decade it has been reduced by approximately $7 million. The revenue from income tax has been rebounding in recent years.

City Revenue vs. Expenses (in millions)

2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003

Revenues

Programs

charges 13.2 16 13.8 14.2 12.8 14.9 15.3 12.4 11 12 11.4 operating grants and contributions 9.4 7 11.3 11.3 15.2 7 8 8.8 7.1 7.6 7.3 capital grants and contributions 4 0.8 5.2 6.7 4.3 3.7 5.1 0.8 1.4 2.5 0.9 total program 26.6 23.8 30.3 32.2 32.3 25.6 28.4 22 19.5 22.1 19.6

general revenue

city income taxes 45.7 44.3 42.6 38.6 40.9 43.1 47.1 43.1 41.8 39 38.2

property taxes 2.5 3.8 2.7 3.7 3.6 4.5 4.1 3.6 3.7 3.2 3.8

intergovernmental 5.4 8.2 9 8.8 8.9 8.9 10.6 10 10 9.2 8.4 grants and contributions 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.4 0.4 0 0 interest, investment earnings 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.6 3.2 2 1.3 0.7 0.5

other 2 1.5 6.4 2.4 4 3 3.9 4.8 3.8 1.6 1.5 total general 55.7 57.9 60.8 53.7 58.1 61.1 69 63.9 61 53.7 52.4

total revenues 82.3 81.7 91.1 85.9 90.4 86.7 97.4 85.9 80.5 75.8 72 Expenses

Program

General government 16.7 18.3 18.5 17.9 21.4 20.1 20.4 19 18.6 16.7 15.4 Security of persons, property 37.2 37.4 39.8 38 39.7 40 37.7 33.6 33.7 32 32

Public health 5.9 5.9 6.4 6.8 6.5 6.2 6.1 5.4 5.4 4.7 4.8

Transportation 13.3 12.7 12.2 12.7 14.6 11 11.9 10.2 14.3 17.3 18.8 Community Development 6 5.1 8.5 9.2 5.4 6 6.6 6.5 7.9 6.5 5 Leisure Time Activities 3.3 2.1 2.3 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.1 2.8 2.9 2.5 2.3 Interest on Long-term debt 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.3 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.3 total program expenses 82.9 82.1 88.5 88.3 91.4 87.4 87.1 78.4 83.7 80.8 79.6 Change in Net Position -0.6 -0.4 2.6 -2.4 -1 -0.7 10.3 7.5 -3.2 -5 -7.6


2013 Revenue Breakdown

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Revenues

Expenses

2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003


2013 Expense Breakdown

The State has been cutting back on local funds due to current policies on taxes and government spending.

The City has reduced human resources due to the decrease in general funds. Many jobs where openings occurred with due to retirement, dismissal, or resignation, were left unfilled and removed to reduce spending. There was a recent hire of 35 employees (18 for the police force, 17 for fire protection) for safety.

Current budget priorities are safety (fire and police services), street maintenance, and abandoned property maintenance. Approximately seventy cents of every dollar in the general fund goes to fire and police services.

Different wards of the City are more difficult to serve than others. This is primarily due to the income distribution and levels of crime.

The City has begun to contract out services for lot mowing and maintenance.

The presence of large open parcels in the County has attracted business development due to the low or non-existent income tax and the relatively low property value.

A 0.25 % income tax hike would set Canton in a better financial situation.

Areas of Interest Revitalization of the downtown is an area of high interest. There is a need for a catalyst project.


Notes from Meeting with Fonda Will iams and Joe DiRuzza re: City Finances September 29, 2014

The City was asked a series of questions in regard to City revenues and expenses. The questions: what is the degree to which the City... a) collects taxes sufficient to pay for expenses b) is using its bonding capacities wisely c) is protecting its credit rating d) has a handle on known and a sense of looming and possibly unknown legacy and other troublesome costs (such as pensions) e) what the state of the above might be telling us, when we project future population growth/reduction and future demographic changes (richer/poorer), about future capacity to pay bills.

Based on these framework questions:

Revenues

• The general fund collects around $55 million. • Enterprise funds (covering sewer and water) collect around $151 million. • Total revenues from these sources (general fund and enterprise funds) are around

$206 million. • Some years there is carry-over funding, others there is a deficit: the City is expecting

not to carry-over funds into 2015. • Income tax is biggest revenue source for the general fund (about 60%)

o The income tax portion of the general fund is about $33.7 million. • Other revenues come from fees, state allocations, grants (about $2 million).

Income tax allocation

• 2% of income tax is collected • Of that, a portion goes to cover department operations – approx. $2.6 million • The remaining amount is then split into 2 funds:

o 75% to general fund o 25% to capital fund

• Income tax is collected in the jurisdiction that one works. o The income tax rates vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. o If you work in Canton and live in Akron, tax is collected in Canton o If the income tax where one works is higher than the income tax where one

lives, then no additional income tax is collected. o If the income tax is less than 2% where a Canton resident works, then

Canton can collect the difference. o It’s better for Canton to have employees in Canton.

• Canton did have a program where only 85% of the tax credit applied so that it could still collect some tax from residents but the program was rescinded.


o The City will still collect the tax for the year 2014 but not for the year 2015.

o The City will lose about $0.5 million due to the change. • Canton is working on how to track income tax that is imported versus exported. A

new system is coming on board to replace old system. Right now there is not a way to track it.

• Canton is also looking to track how many people come into Canton for work in the region.

• The average income tax bill for an employee making $50k is $1,000. o $250 goes to department operations. o $750 goes to general and capital funds.

• A change in state-wide income tax regulations may have a negative impact on local governments.

Revenue changes over time

• Canton has been losing revenue over the past decade but with unemployment decreasing, the revenue is rebounding. Unemployment was as high as 15%; now it is down to 6.1 %.

• Real estate and personal property tax are being phased out state-wide. • Some funds come from the state to via local government allocations.

Cost of road maintenance

• The street maintenance is paid with city capital fund and street maintenance fund • Some funds come from the state to cover certain road maintenance (hwy fund) • City is looking into what it costs to maintain a typical length of roadway.

Bonding Capacity

• The City is using its bonding capacity wisely and has bonding capacity. o There may be $17 - $18 million available if needed.

• Bonding is done with Auditor’s Department • Bonding amount relates to credit rating. The City has stable credit currently and may

be able to get an increased rating.

Obligated debt

• Pensions are paid through the state. o City pays portion match to state; when someone retires, that person goes

to state for pension. • Unfunded obligations

o Sick and vacation are obligated debt for City


o If City shut down (for good) and all employees had to be reimbursed at once, the obligated funds would create an issue.

• The City puts excess funds into unfunded obligations as it can.

Vacant lands

• The City has a land bank program. Ideally it will be able to assemble land for larger redevelopment projects.

• The City does not have a good estimate on what the maintenance of vacant lots is costing the City.

o City contracts out mowing – first year doing so. • Vacant properties exceed 5,000.

o City owns less than 7% of these properties. o 90% not owned by the City but maintained by the City to help preserve

property values. o Maintenance is charged to property owner or added as a lien on the title.

• Bank-owned properties are identified. These properties have a bond against them. o $10K per property plus registration fee is required. o There is approximately 42 million in the fund but it’s a onetime collection

that needs to cover potentially years of maintenance. o Some banks maintain their properties themselves.

Demolition program

• Over 1,000 houses have been demo-ed. • Demo costs and maintenance costs are put on a lien on properties; over time, the lien

gets more than the value of the property itself. • There is a purchasing program if neighboring property owners are interesting in

buying them. • The program can sometimes appear that it is trading financial loss for neighborhood

stability. This loss can range from $0 to $10,000 per site.

Topics for the comprehensive plan

• How can the City catch up with differed maintenance costs o Differed maintenance costs are about $9-10 million.

• With what the City has for revenues, where should it be spent? How to balance needs?

o Needs are scattered city-wide.

city of canton land use analysis 2014

Documents