Regional Economic Revenue Study
Regional Economic Revenue Study
 
Regional Economic Revenue Study

http://www.ameregis.com/
maps/region_maps/Miami
valley%20final%20screen.pdf

http://www.ameregis.com/
maps/region_maps/1.30_
Ohio%20Metropatterns.pdf

Advisory Committee Presentation

What Markets Are Being Studied?

WHAT CASE STUDIES WERE SELECTED FOR NORTHEAST OHIO & WHY?

While many forms of revenue sharing exist across the U.S., the research team selected three programs for deeper investigation.  These programs are: 

  • The Twin Cities Fiscal Disparity Program (Minneapolis/St. Paul)
  • Allegheny Regional Asset District (Pittsburgh)
  • Montgomery County ED/GE program.  (Dayton, OH)

Why Were These Markets Selected?

The selection criteria took into account the following:

  • Original impetus of revenue sharing programs and alignment with strategic priorities of the Advance Northeast Ohio Economic Action Plan
  • Regional  or geographic scope of programs
  • Varied sources of tax revenues and distribution formulas to provide Northeast Ohio with different revenue sharing options
  • Uniqueness of Ohio in relation to other states in which revenue sharing is occurring

The impetus for revenue sharing in Northeast Ohio should align with strategic priorities established in the Advance Northeast Ohio Economic Action Plan. While most revenue sharing systems by their very nature encourage government collaboration, the Twin Cities program is credited with creating equity, reducing competition for tax bases, and supporting regional land use planning.(1)

The ED/GE program and the Allegheny Regional Asset District also promote economic development and improvement in equity across political jurisdictions with specific attention on core cities. For example, “the reasons for local government revenue sharing in Allegheny County included growing fiscal disparities between the County’s wealthier and poorer communities and ‘many public and private-sector leaders believed that, to be economically competitive, the region needed to address the issue of over-reliance on certain taxes which resulted from the loss of steel mills and also caused local tax rate increases so municipalities could continue providing services to residents”.(2)  The high taxes, in turn, discouraged commercial and industrial redevelopment. In Montgomery County, Ohio, a declining regional economy was also the impetus for revenue sharing, particularly the fiscal constraints placed on the core city of Dayton. “Areas that are successful in attracting new businesses and increasing their tax base are net contributors to the Government Equity fund which helps the areas that are lagging behind”. (3)
The existing programs in Pennsylvania and Ohio address extremely similar issues facing Northeast Ohio.

The scope of work for the Regional Economic Revenue Sharing study also calls for an “eye towards implementation of revenue sharing across a 16-county footprint” of the Northeast Ohio region. For this reason, the regional scope of revenue sharing systems was also taken into consideration. The Twin Cities Fiscal Disparity Program and the Meadowlands New Jersey program are the most comprehensive revenue sharing systems in existence today. The Twin Cities program embraces 7 counties and many taxing jurisdictions across those counties. The Hackensack Meadows District encompasses 2 counties and 14 municipalities within those counties.  While both of these programs involve multiple counties, the research team sought further investigation of one program versus both given the similarities between these two programs. The Twin Cities program was selected since it is the most comprehensive and has been in operation for the longest period of time. All other programs reviewed involve only one county with participation from multiple political jurisdictions in that county.


Grand Rapids Area Metropolitics:  Tax Base Sharing in West Michigan, A report to the Grand Valley Metropolitan Council, by Myron Orfield, May 1999.

“Local Revenue Sharing Methodologies”,, BBC Research & Consulting, 2001.

Ibid.