CMAP

⬚ figure

Cook County Department of Planning and Development within the Bureau of Economic Development

⬚ figure

Planning for Progress

Cook County’s Consolidated Plan and Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, 2015-19

January 2015

Acknowledgments

Cook County Bureau of Economic Development

Cook County Council of Economic Advisors

Cook County Department of Planning and Development

Cook County Economic Development Advisory Committee

Other Contributors:

Alliance to End Homelessness in Suburban Cook County and member agencies

Chicago Area Fair Housing Alliance

Chicago Cook Workforce Partnership

Chicago Jobs Council

City of Chicago Department of Planning and Development

Cook County Department of Environmental Control

Cook County Department of Geographic Information Systems

Cook County Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management

Other Contributors:

Cook County Department of Public Health

Cook County Department of Transportation and Highways

Cook County Land Bank Authority

Forest Preserve District of Cook County

Housing Authorities of Cook County, Oak Park, Park Forest, Maywood, and Cicero

Northwest Municipal Conference

South Suburban Land Bank and Development Authority

South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association

Southwest Conference of Mayors

West Central Municipal Conference

Countless others from the general public and stakeholder agencies who provided critical input on prospective goals, priorities and strategies

Funding Acknowledgment

This project was supported through CMAP's Local Technical Assistance (LTA) program, which is funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Economic Development Administration (EDA), Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), and the Chicago Community Trust. Cook County and CMAP would like to thank these funders for their support for this project.

Unless otherwise specified, all photos are by CMAP staff.

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

⬚ figure

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF COOK COUNTY 118 NORTH CLARK STREET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602 (312) 603-6400 TDD (312) 603-5255

TONI PRECKWINKLE PRESIDENT

January 27, 2015

To the Key Stakeholders and Residents of Cook County,

On behalf of the Cook County Board of Commissioners, I am pleased to present Planning for Progress, the County’s five year plan to marshal existing funds, gather resources, and facilitate partnerships to meet housing, community, and economic development needs.

For the first time in Cook County’s history, Planning for Progress unites two Federally-required strategic plans into a single action-oriented document, building upon the recommendations of our Council of Economic Advisors detailed in Partnering for Prosperity: An Economic Growth Action Agenda.

Led by the Cook County Bureau of Economic Development and supported by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), Planning for Progress will guide the County’s use of nearly $300 million in estimated resources. The plan serves as a framework for targeting the County’s resources for enhanced efficiency and impact. Over 2,000 individuals representing stakeholder groups and the public provided input throughout the planning process. Planning for Progress constitutes a paradigm shift in the Bureau’s approach to planning and outreach addressing the following focus areas: Infrastructure and Public Facilities; Business and Workforce Development; Housing Development and Services; Non-Housing Services; and Planning/Administration.

I want to thank all of those who contributed to Planning for Progress and encourage you to remain involved as we proceed with implementation. For more information, please contact Jennifer Miller, Program Manager at 312-603-1072 or jennifer.miller@cookcountyil.gov.

Sincerely,

⬚ figure

Toni Preckwinkle, President, Cook County Board of Commissioners

⬚ figure

As the largest county in the state and the second largest in the nation, Cook County is a hub for residents and businesses. This size and scope affords the County access to many resources that positively impact the quality of life for residents, workers, and visitors. Planning for Progress is the Cook County Department of Planning and Development’s strategic plan to marshal existing funds, gather additional resources, and facilitate partnerships to meet future housing, community, and economic development needs. Planning for Progress unites the federally required Consolidated Plan and Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy into one plan for the first time. A single plan will help the department efficiently and effectively coordinate over $280 million in anticipated resources between 2015-19, including over $70 million in estimated annual federal entitlement dollars.

Outreach over the past 15 months engaged more than 2,000 stakeholders in a dialogue about how to use those funds, including employers, developers, elected officials, non-profits, funders, and members of the public. The discussions allowed the department to coalesce a plan around the importance of economic development to all of its efforts, building off Partnering for Prosperity: An economic growth action agenda for Cook County.

The department’s future activities can be grouped into five broad categories, with all strategies addressing a common thematic policy goal. Priorities will differ by geography. More affluent locations will be targets for affordable housing in locations most beneficial to communities and new residents. Distressed areas will be focus areas for economic, workforce, and service development. Infrastructure funding will knit these priorities together regardless of geography, with a particular focus on transit access.

To implement the plan, the department will pursue deeper relationships with the philanthropic community, seeking out assistance for targeted efforts, such as the development of a comprehensive referral system (e.g. 211/311) in Cook County. The department will move quickly to implement the policies of this plan through its annual funding process and build on this early success by devoting resources to advance other key priorities.

Planning for Progress policies and strategies

INTRODUCTION

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

As the largest county in the state and the second largest in the nation, Cook County is a critical hub for people, businesses, and other institutions. This size and scope affords the County access to many resources that can positively impact the quality of life for residents, workers, and visitors. Planning for Progress is Cook County’s strategic plan to more effectively marshal existing funds and capacity, gather additional resources, and facilitate partnerships to meet future economic development, affordable housing, and community development needs. The plan brings together two federally-required submissions for the first time: a Consolidated Plan and a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS). Moreover, this planning process is closely aligned with President Toni Preckwinkle’s continued commitment to transparency and inter-jurisdictional partnership. Planning for Progress will link closely with Partnering for Prosperity and Connecting Cook County as well as other County strategic plans and initiatives.

⬚ figure

Consolidated Plan

Each year, Cook County receives Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These funds support a variety of community development, affordable housing, and economic development efforts throughout suburban Cook County, primarily for the benefit of low- and moderate-income households. As a recipient of these funds, the County is required to prepare and submit a Consolidated Plan to HUD every five years, with a plan due in August 2015. The next plan will cover 2015-19.

CEDS

The U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA) requires Cook County to produce a CEDS every five years in order to apply for assistance under EDA’s Public Works or Economic Adjustment programs. A CEDS aims to unify the public and private sectors in a targeted strategy to expand and strengthen the economy. The next CEDS must be developed and submitted to EDA by February 2015 to cover 2015-19.

Vision

Given the similarity in analysis, outreach, and timeframes, the development of a new CEDS and Consolidated Plan offers the Cook County Department of Planning and Development (CCDPD) a unique opportunity to combine these two federally-required plans for the first time. Planning for Progress provides a strategic plan for future housing, community, and economic development investments, creating a higher quality of life for residents and workers throughout the County. A single plan for related funding sources will help CCDPD efficiently and effectively coordinate a wide spectrum of federal funds to address local issues. This plan will be a living document, whose principles are designed to work alongside changing needs, market conditions, and resources. Planning for Progress offers a framework for administrative and programmatic operations as well as outlines goals, priorities, and strategies that will be valuable as the County and its stakeholders pursue additional resources through competitive funding applications and cultivation of partnerships.

Planning environment

A number of factors beyond coordination and efficiency spurred CCDPD to initiate Planning for Progress.

• Build off previous planning efforts. Many entities, including Cook County, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), and World Business Chicago (WBC), have done substantial work on the topics covered by this plan, particularly through GO TO 2040 and Partnering for Prosperity.

• Support regional initiatives. While Planning for Progress is not regional in scope, it has significant potential to produce positive regional impacts in alignment with other strategic initiatives such as the Chicago Metro Metal Consortium and Chicago Metro Exports. These regional efforts are currently implementing elements of Partnering for Prosperity.

• Allocating new resources. In February 2013, HUD approved a $30 million loan guarantee to Cook County through its Section 108 program, creating the Broadening Urban Investment to Leverage Transportation (BUILT) in Cook loan fund. Due to the flooding in 2013, the County will receive $83.6 million in Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds to advance flood recovery efforts in areas of unmet need. Planning for Progress will incorporate these resources.

• Declining annual federal entitlement funding. Cook County’s annual federal entitlement funds have declined by almost one-third over the last decade. While Section 108, CDBG-DR, and potential resources through future EDA applications can offset these declines, they are one-time allocations. By investing its funds in the issues and locations that matter the most to stakeholders, CCDPD can make best use of limited available resources.

• Revamping historic funding models. This plan represents a fresh look at funding priorities, target areas, and allocation processes. Planning for Progress embodies new and redefined strategies that will more effectively focus dollars on high priority programs, projects, and geographies through a coordinated, collaborative approach.

• Strong leadership. Cook County President Toni Preckwinkle established economic development as a major focus of her administration. President Preckwinkle created the Cook County Bureau of Economic Development (CCBED) and convened the Cook County Council of Economic Advisors (CEA), a group of accomplished business and civic leaders, to advise the County on long-term economic growth strategies.

• Seeking additional resources. Needs far outstrip resources in Cook County. This plan will help build and sustain relationships with other entities (non-profit, for-profit, and public) to increase the resources arrayed against identified issues.

• Changing demographics and market conditions. As outlined further in this plan, evolving market realities and demographic changes over the past several years justify a new approach to addressing local needs.

Lead Agencies

CCDPD, housed within CCBED is the primary administrator of economic development, affordable housing, and community development programming and funding for suburban Cook County, with particular emphasis upon benefit to low- and moderate-income households. CCDPD is committed to developing sustainable communities by: fostering economic opportunities and business development; preserving and expanding the supply of safe, decent, and affordable housing; facilitating infrastructure improvements; promoting fair housing; and supporting social services and programs that address the problems of homelessness. Its role within CCBED is to connect housing, community development, and economic development efforts in pursuit of stronger, more viable communities and to leverage the County's resources toward the retention and creation of businesses and jobs, thereby expanding the County's tax base. CCDPD's mandates are to:

• Support the expansion of economic opportunities.
• Support sustainable community investment.
• Implement affordable housing strategies.
• Support social service and homelessness programs.
• Improve performance and capacity of grants management personnel.

The Cook County Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) and the Cook County Board of Commissioners provide additional advisement and oversight for related programs and special initiatives. The Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) provides additional guidance.

Geography

Planning for Progress integrates the disparate array of geographies required by federal regulations. The CEDS applies to all of Cook County, including the City of Chicago. The Consolidated Plan generally covers the portions of Cook County outside of Chicago, known as "suburban Cook County." Some suburban municipalities receive their own entitlement funds directly from HUD and make their own funding decisions and the County coordinates with these communities. Despite the complicated geographic arrangements through which federal funds are distributed, Planning for Progress recognizes the value of establishing investment priorities and implementation strategies. The plan's strategic vision can aid all jurisdictions in determining what funding sources are appropriate to implement the programs and projects desired.

⬚ figure

Map 1. Plan boundaries Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

⬚ figure

Planning Process

A plan is only as good as the commitment to implementing it by the public, key stakeholders, and local elected officials. Public participation was critical in the development of this plan. Over 2,000 stakeholders participated across multiple activities over the past year, including an online survey, interactive workshops, presentations, and multiple focus groups. The issues, concerns, and priorities that emerged from these consultations ultimately shaped the goals, priorities, and strategies in this plan. CCBED and CCDPD management and staff worked closely with CMAP over the past year to guide the planning process and develop the final recommendations. The key steps in the planning process are illustrated in the timeline below.

Plan Structure

This document is organized into two parts: an existing conditions report and the plan to address those conditions. The assessment of existing conditions summarizes public input (“Community and Private Sector Participation”); describes previous planning efforts that inform County policy (“Underpinnings”); and presents an analysis of current statistics, demographics, and spatial patterns on topical areas (“People and Housing” and “Jobs, Transportation, and Workforce Development”).

The second half of the document contains the County’s strategic response (“Plan of Action”), building off the priorities established in Partnering for Prosperity, the County’s agenda for economic growth. This area lays out the County’s funding priorities across five topic areas (“Infrastructure and Public Facilities”, “Business and Workforce Development”, “Housing Development and Services”, “Non-Housing Services”, and “Planning and Administration”) and by geography (“Geography of Investment”), concluding with a plan for implementation (“Implementation, Resources, and Opportunities”).

Figure 1. Timeline

⬚ figure

(blank page)

EXISTING CONDITIONS

⬚ figure

Community and Private Sector Participation

In creating this plan, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) and the Cook County Department of Planning and Development (CCDPD) used multiple outreach methods to involve Chicago and suburban Cook stakeholders. The goal was to go far beyond the minimum requirements of the County's Citizen Participation Plan.¹

⬚ figure

Planning for Progress was developed under the guidance of the Cook County Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC).² The group advises the County regarding policies, strategies, and plans to improve the business environment and the management of its entitlement grants. Membership includes representatives from the governmental, non-profit, and private spheres. The Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) also provided key input on the development of this plan. A majority of the Council’s members are private sector representatives, but the Council also includes public officials, community leaders, workforce development stakeholders, minority and labor groups, and higher education representatives.³

Through a combination of public workshops, key stakeholder meetings, focus groups, and an online survey, the outreach process reached over 2,000 people. The outreach process included a public kickoff meeting in Chicago and three subregional workshops (in Blue Island, Berwyn, and Arlington Heights), which were attended by local government officials, business leaders, key stakeholders, and members of the public.

1 The Cook County Citizen Participation Plan can be found at http://tinyurl.com/op4ehke. 2 More information about the EDAC can be found at http://tinyurl.com/op4ehke. 3 More information about the CEA can be found at http://tinyurl.com/op4ehke.

January 2014 workshop in Berwyn.

From October 2013 to January 2014, CCDPD sought input on the area’s most pressing issues through an online survey. CCDPD convened over 30 topical focus groups to delve deeper into items identified through subregional workshops and the online survey, including fair housing advocates, workforce service providers, developers, manufacturers, elected officials, funders, and human services providers.

Additionally, CCDPD also coordinated with the numerous other County departments and affiliate agencies who were either considering, developing, or implementing their own strategic plans and initiatives including the Cook County Departments of Transportation and Highways (CCDOTH), Public Health (CCDPH), Environmental Control, Homeland Security and Emergency Management (CCDHSEM), Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Housing Authority of Cook County (HACC), Cook County Land Bank Authority (CCLBA), and the Chicago Cook Workforce Partnership (CCWP). All of these discussions built on the substantial private sector feedback in Partnering for Prosperity. From the beginning, participants identified four areas of action, all through a broader economic development lens.

• Infrastructure Infrastructure was the highest ranked priority. Respondents identified a need for infrastructure that promotes economic development and supports public and active transportation, including better maintained bus shelters, more bicycle lanes, and safer crosswalks. The overarching goal of such improvements should be to create a County that is less automobile dependent, shifting to transit-oriented development, and connects people with jobs. South Cook respondents, in particular, felt that infrastructure projects should help attract and retain businesses and jobs.

• Workforce Development Many participants expressed interest in skilled labor training and programs for all residents, with particular emphasis upon serving low-income people, non-college bound youth, people with disabilities, women, veterans, and ex-offenders. Programs should help people obtain and retain employment in key industrial clusters. South suburban Cook participants stressed the importance of strengthening workforce development near accessible transit and offering low-cost transportation options to areas of employment.

• Business Development For the most part, stakeholders would like to see the County support business development programs with additional targeting for small businesses (federally defined as 500 employees or less), including entrepreneurial initiatives in low- and moderate-income communities and areas with high rates of unemployment. Many felt that such efforts should be supplemented with tax incentives and loans targeting business owners and operators within economically depressed areas. Many people focused on Cook County’s current taxing structure, noting that it encourages businesses to relocate outside of Cook County.

• Affordable Housing While stakeholders discussed the importance of affordable housing, the best ways to make units available or affordable varied greatly. Numerous people brought up the mismatch between the location of affordable housing in the region and areas with access to employment. Some individuals noted that existing affordable housing is concentrated in south Cook and limited in north and west Cook. Respondents placed great importance on affordable housing development as a priority for the County, stressing that it should be targeted towards disadvantaged populations including ex-offenders, seniors, people with disabilities, and unaccompanied youth.

The comments highlight the interconnected nature of these topics. While traditional social services were not initially identified as a high need, subsequent consultations revealed a need for complementary social services that are more effectively integrated with economic development strategies as well as supportive services linked with housing. This feedback was aligned with overall stakeholder and public input for Planning for Progress, which emphasized how County policies and funding decisions can impact job access and economic growth. This plan was released for 30 days of public comment in November 2014. A summary of the comments received and how they were addressed is in Appendix C.

Underpinnings

Through existing local and regional plans, significant outreach, data compilation, and analysis has already occurred on the areas covered by Planning for Progress, including the importance of coordinated investment, the need for dense mixed-use, mixed-income communities with transit and affordable housing, workforce training for priority industries, and improved infrastructure. Rather than starting anew, this plan builds off these strategic efforts, particularly Partnering for Prosperity. The following subsections summarize these existing plans, noting the aspects most salient to Planning for Progress.

⬚ figure

Connecting Cook County

CCDOTH is currently developing a new long-range transportation plan, Connecting Cook County. The plan looks at transportation from a variety of perspectives—private automobiles, highways, bridges, public transportation, pedestrian access, bikeways, freight rail and trucking corridors, commerce—and is based on the premise that the County must use its transportation resources to support the growth and economic vitality of communities in Cook County. Connecting Cook County will serve as a road map for the design and implementation of a fully integrated multi-jurisdictional transportation system that serves individuals and businesses and improves the County's competitiveness.

By working closely, CCDOTH and CCDPD can leverage each other's resources in pursuit of business retention and job creation. In advance of developing its plan, CCDOTH is lending its professional engineering expertise to municipalities, addressing the very types of local capacity issues cited by stakeholders in Planning for Progress. CCDPD will work closely with CCDOTH to align the two strategic plans, including using CCDPD funding to support the implementation of Connecting Cook County as appropriate.

Partnering for Prosperity

Issued in April 2013, Partnering for Prosperity establishes County President Toni Preckwinkle’s strategies for economic growth.¹ The plan identifies areas where regional economic growth opportunities, County-specific assets, and County governmental capacities converge, offering opportunities for strategic intervention. The plan highlights assets within the County, such as its transportation infrastructure and large share of the region’s population, jobs, and income. It also notes inefficiencies that will require strategic investment: a mismatch between the location of jobs and the location of housing; congested transportation; and poor transit service to areas with high concentrations of poverty and racial segregation.

The plan sets out three strategic areas to influence economic growth — governance, production, and and support — specifically designed for the capacities of Cook County. Using the tools available (namely taxation, regulation, and the provision of public goods), the County can influence market activity. Through its offices and departments, the County administers funds or tools such as infrastructure investments, property tax abatements, and federal grant programs. Cook County can also use its position as a major employer, purchaser, and property owner. With those powers in mind, the plan builds on a number of recent economic development efforts by aligning the plan’s nine strategies with existing regional plans by CMAP, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and World Business Chicago (WBC).

Governance Strategies

1. Cook County Government 3.0 Increase Cook County government’s transparency, efficiency, and accountability.
2. Intergovernmental Efficiencies Increase suburban government efficiency through shared services and centralized capacities.
3. Strong Strategic Capacity Increase the region’s capacity for strategic, coordinated economic growth initiatives.

Production Strategies

4. Manufacturing Productivity Increase the productivity of Cook County’s manufacturing clusters.
5. Supplier Competitiveness Increase competitiveness of anchor institution suppliers.
6. Logistics Productivity Increase the productivity and efficiency of the Transportation and Logistics cluster.

Support Strategies

7. Strong Physical Infrastructure Improve the quality and efficiency of the region’s transportation infrastructure.
8. Communities that Connect Support the emergence of dense, mixed-use, well-connected communities.
9. Demand-Driven Workforce Improve the alignment of Cook County residents’ skills with employer demand.

⬚ figure

The “Support Strategies” of Partnering for Prosperity strongly inform Planning for Progress. These three strategies reflect the crucial interplay between access to transportation, connections between communities and job centers, and workforce development for a changing economy. The region’s history is a testament to the role of infrastructure as an economic engine; strong infrastructure helped Chicago develop into a global leader in freight and logistics. But efficient, high-quality transportation infrastructure for the County’s future will require investment that reduces the region’s severe congestion, which is the country’s third worst and annually costs $6.2 billion.¹ Partnering for Prosperity recommends addressing congestion through improved regional public transit and congestion management. Investing to better connect communities through mixed-use, mixed-income, high-density development near job centers and transit can help the County address the jobs-housing mismatch and the economic isolation common in high-poverty areas. The final strategy, a demand-driven workforce, seeks to address the gap between the demand for high-skilled workers and the low education level of many County residents. Targeted, employer-driven training and job matching that connects the residents with job opportunities can help the workforce meet the region’s evolving demand for labor.

Partnering for Prosperity sets out a cluster-based strategy for targeting economic development activities. Investment in clusters can maximize the impact of economic development programs, simultaneously strengthening a range of related existing firms and attracting new firms to the region. The EDA recognizes the importance of clusters through its CEDS requirements, asking communities to identify clusters and then build funding requests for projects and programs around them.

Figure 2. What is a cluster?

⬚ figure

Partnering for Prosperity analyzes industry clusters concentrated in Cook County, focusing on four of particular importance.

• Manufacturing Within the manufacturing sector, the plan identifies Fabricated Metals and Food Processing and Packaging as promising clusters for County investment. Fabricated Metals comprises small and medium-sized firms that transform metals into other products. Suppliers in the cluster include primary metals, components, metal services, and equipment technology; customers include other high-level suppliers, equipment manufacturers, and retailers. The County already has a large Fabricated Metals cluster, with a positive outlook for employment and output. Food Processing and Packaging includes a wide variety of firms, from agricultural, equipment, and packaging suppliers to food processors and packagers to wholesalers, restaurants, and retailers. The region maintains a distinct advantage in these areas because of its robust multi-modal transportation system. The frozen and perishable prepared foods subsectors are expected to grow in coming years. CMAP's The Freight-Manufacturing Nexus identifies the County's target industries as important clusters that support many of the region's other industries.¹ The region's strength in fabricated metals was a core part of its successful application to the Economic Development Administration (EDA) for an Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership (IMCP) designation.

• Transportation and Logistics A large cluster with major impacts on many industries, transportation and logistics stands out as a critical component of Cook County's economy. The cluster includes a wide variety of firms, including freight carriers, logistics management, suppliers (e.g., packing firms, warehouses, manufacturers of trucks and equipment), carriers of air, rail, truck, and water-borne freight, and end customers. Freight and logistics are one of the region's built-in advantages, with growth that outpaced the rest of the region's economy. Previous research by Metropolis Strategies indicates that freight demand could double between 2004-24.² Mitigating congestion, encouraging the adoption of innovative technologies and business practices, and improving the skills and supply of the workforce stand as key needs for the cluster.

• Health The health cluster includes a broad range of firms in areas such as health services (hospitals and medical providers), health manufacturing (pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and medical devices), and health supply and support services (basic supplies, business services, facilities services, information technology). Health services are locally strong and naturally growing due to an aging population, creating jobs for workers without college degrees. As the manager of a hospital and provider of health services, Cook County plays a direct role in the health cluster.

Many of the outreach, background, and economic analysis elements of the CEDS have already been addressed through Partnering for Prosperity, which was led by the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA). Partnering for Prosperity provides a detailed analysis of the economic development problems and opportunities of the entire County (including the identification and analysis of economic clusters) and supporting goals and objectives. Partnering for Prosperity is formally integrated in Planning for Progress.

Since adopting Partnering for Prosperity, the County quickly moved to implementation. President Preckwinkle convened the leaders of the region’s seven counties to execute coordinated strategies for regional growth. These convenings have precipitated additional regional collaborative efforts. For example, the Chicago Regional Truck Permitting Working Group is exploring how a regional truck permitting plan can better support the freight and logistics cluster. Additionally, Chicago Metro Exports represents an unprecedented collaboration between the seven counties in northeastern Illinois, the City of Chicago, and WBC with the goal of increasing exports from small and mid-sized firms and supporting regional job growth. The initiative will focus on increasing exports and exporters though targeted linkages and strategic marketing; enhancing the export ecosystem through coordination of services and firms; and providing export promotion grants for small and mid-sized enterprises. The County also led a group of over 45 different organizations in the region, including the City of Chicago and the six surrounding collar counties, to successfully apply for the IMCP designation from EDA. The region was just one of twelve nationwide to receive this designation. The Chicago Metro Metal Consortium (CMMC), a formal partnership of the applicants, will use this designation to receive priority funding consideration from numerous federal agencies to support the fabricated metals cluster and implement a cluster-based economic development strategy around metals.

GO TO 2040

CMAP is the comprehensive planning agency for the seven-county Chicago metropolitan region, including Cook County. CMAP developed and now guides the implementation of GO TO 2040, metropolitan Chicago’s comprehensive regional plan.¹ To address anticipated regional population growth of more than 2 million new residents, GO TO 2040 establishes coordinated strategies that will help the region’s 284 communities address transportation, housing, economic development, open space, the environment, and other quality-of-life issues. The GO TO 2040 plan provides principles that municipalities and counties can apply when they decide how and where development should happen or what infrastructure investments to make in their communities.

⬚ figure

GO TO 2040 is a plan for the entire region and its recommendations for long-term, strategic investments in existing communities are in line with the County’s vision. The plan contains recommendations under four themes: Livable Communities; Human Capital; Efficient Governance; and Regional Mobility. Several of GO TO 2040’s recommendations overlap with the strategies that Cook County has prioritized in Planning for Progress. Under the Livable Communities theme, GO TO 2040 recommends achieving greater livability through land use and housing. As part of its Human Capital theme, the plan recommends supporting economic innovation and improving education and workforce development. To help advance Regional Mobility, GO TO 2040 emphasizes investing strategically in transportation, prioritizing maintenance and modernization of the existing system, as well as discussing the importance of transit and freight.

By combining the Consolidated Plan and CEDS into a single strategic planning effort, Cook County advances Efficient Governance by pursuing coordinated investments. Aligning housing and social services with economic development recognizes the interplay between land use, housing, transportation, and the regional economy. Despite the overlap between these spheres, planning for different streams of federal funding typically occurs separately and disjointedly at all levels of government. A cohesive and coordinated planning effort will enable CCDPD to deploy federal funding more efficiently to meet countywide needs over the next five years and position the County for long-term sustainable economic growth — one that is equitable and reduces jobs-housing mismatch, reinforces local tax bases, and is more resilient to future market fluctuations.

To help advance the goals of GO TO 2040, CMAP has issued numerous policy reports, analyses, toolkits, and other planning and policy documents. CMAP’s cluster drill-down reports on manufacturing and freight in the Chicago region provide detailed information on the current conditions and trends in two of the clusters Cook County has identified as key elements of its economic growth strategy.¹ Its assessment of local economic development incentives in the region also provides useful background on policies within the County.² Through its Local Technical Assistance (LTA) program, CMAP has helped many communities create plans, including this plan, and implementation strategies that advance the type of inter-jurisdictional collaboration that both Cook County and CMAP have concluded are crucial parts of successful region-wide economic planning.³

Cook County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

To meet federal requirements and advance goals of diversity and equal opportunity in housing, in 2012 CCDPD completed an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) in suburban Cook County.⁴ Based on analysis of U.S. Census data, previous studies, and the input of municipalities and other key stakeholders, the report established a baseline understanding of the status of fair housing and the challenges of providing equal access to communities of opportunity within the County. The analysis identified fifteen main categories of impediment. Many of the impediments the County identified arise from current regulations and policies at various levels, such as land use laws that do not further fair housing and inactivity and divided responsibilities from County commissions and departments. The regulatory environment can enable citizens and local governments to create impediments to fair housing. Some communities have used home rule and entitlement status to exclude themselves from fair housing obligations. Some landlords have denied rental housing to low-income residents based on the source of their income. Other impediments reflect the need to educate communities and citizens about fair housing laws and better enforce the laws currently on the books. The AI identifies lack of awareness of fair housing laws among residents, officials, and the real estate industry as one of the primary impediments to fair housing.

Cook County's AI details several impediments especially relevant to Planning for Progress. These barriers show the need for a countywide approach to addressing fair housing needs based on County characteristics discussed throughout current planning efforts.

• There is a strong jobs-housing-transit mismatch. The location of major employment centers in north and west Cook County places the many majority-minority communities in south Cook far from jobs. The lack of public transportation service to these employment centers results in lengthy commutes and expensive dependence on personal motor vehicles for residents. The AI recommends providing incentives to develop affordable housing near public transit and employment centers, awarding funding to infrastructure projects that increase transit options to jobs with a range of educational and/or training requirements, and supporting employment growth in regions of the County with fewer jobs.

• There is an insufficient supply of affordable housing in the County. The conversion of many rental units to homeownership and redevelopment has decreased housing options. The remaining units are often located in communities with high concentrations of lower-income, minority residents. Job losses in recent years have also increased the demand for affordable housing. The AI recommends that the County work to implement the Affordable Housing Planning and Appeals Act (AHPAA), a 2003 Illinois law requiring municipalities with very low percentages of affordable units to adopt plans to expand the supply of affordable housing.¹ Planning and development for housing preservation can aid in addressing this impediment.

• There are highly segregated communities in the County. Cook County exhibits geographic concentrations of lower-income populations and minority populations. Residents of such communities often lack equal access to high-quality public services. The AI recommends conducting outreach to demonstrate the value of diversity, engaging community groups, and encouraging communities to market themselves to a diversity of potential residents.

• There is a lack of a regional or county-wide approach to fair housing planning. Given the regional nature of many of the impediments to fair housing, a countywide approach is necessary to achieve greater equity. The AI recommends encouraging interjurisdictional collaboration and agreements, collaborating with CMAP on regional housing planning, and assessing the subregional characteristics of northern, western, and southern Cook County. Such an approach would also need to be tailored to serve special needs populations (i.e. homeless persons, disabled persons, etc.) as appropriate.

The AI contains detailed recommendations for each category of impediment. In particular, the analysis recommends that the County continue developing partnerships with local fair housing organizations, real estate industry professionals, the public, and federal agencies. It also includes the following implementation strategies:

• Create a County fair housing website.
• Implement a tiered approach for fair housing compliance.
• Increase staff dedicated to fair housing.
• Investigate actions that would be required for the Cook County Commission on Human Rights to obtain substantial equivalency certification.
• Develop a timeline for additional recommended actions.

The AI recommends establishing four tiers for municipal funding recipients:

• Tier I. Excelling.
• Tier II. Emerging.
• Tier III. Challenged.
• Tier IV. Non-Compliant.

CCDPD will assess the level of each municipality receiving funding, based on criteria such as the existence and quality of a fair housing ordinance; enforcement of fair housing regulations through a fair housing compliance officer and enforcement body; existence of a fair housing action plan; outreach activities; staff training; and annual reviews of land use, zoning, and building ordinances.

The AI also recommends creating a two-tiered approach to compliance for private and non-profit housing funding recipients. Tier I (Compliant) recipients would possess an affirmative marketing plan to increase applications for housing opportunities among the protected classes they identify as least likely to apply, as well as annual fair housing training for employees and regular updates to the County. Tier II (Non-Compliant) recipients lack sufficient marketing plans.

Since its adoption, CCDPD has started to implement the AI. In 2014, the County funded the Chicago Area Fair Housing Alliance (CAFHA) to begin formal implementation of many of its recommendations, including funding recipient evaluations. Cook County also amended its Human Rights Ordinance in 2013 to include Housing Choice Vouchers holders based upon source of income as a protected class. CCDPD is also awaiting U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidance regarding a pending revision to related affirmatively furthering fair housing requirements and will modify its policies, procedures, and documents accordingly for continued compliance.

CMAP Fair Housing and Equity Assessment

In 2013, CMAP, in partnership with CAFHA, completed an assessment of fair housing in the Chicago region, the Fair Housing and Equity Assessment (FHEA).¹ Similar to Cook County's AI, this report examines the causes and impacts of housing inequities for the region, including Cook County. The overall purpose of the report is to make the case that affirmatively furthering fair housing is an important goal that will improve economic prosperity and quality of life in our region, and that achieving this goal will require collaboration between local governments, fair housing advocacy organizations, and regional agencies like CMAP.

⬚ figure

The assessment found region-wide spatial trends in housing affordability, poverty, and race that create negative economic consequences. CMAP details the mismatch between the location of jobs and the location of affordable housing, which other planning documents have found as well. While Cook County has experienced a declining job market in recent years, the collar counties have enjoyed relative job growth. Emerging suburban job centers lack public transit access, creating a barrier to job access and increasing the cost of living for the predominantly low-income residents who often lack cars. CMAP also identified several racially concentrated areas of poverty.² By a number of measures, the Chicago region is one of the most racially segregated regions in the nation.³ Segregation in the Chicago region has created numerous negative impacts, including the isolation of regional assets within areas of concentrated poverty, lack of investment in areas of concentrated poverty, and an overall diminished capacity for economic growth. Within the report, opportunity areas are generally defined as places in the region with stable housing, low crime, good schools, easy access to jobs, and many amenities — in other words, features that contribute to a high quality of life. The report finds that these opportunity areas very rarely include communities that are primarily African American or Latino.⁴

15 Racially concentrated poverty is spatially concentrated areas with extremely high poverty and a majority non-white population. For this measure, HUD defines extremely high poverty as a census tract with a family poverty rate greater than or equal to 40 percent, or greater than or equal to 300 percent of the metro tract average (whichever is lower).

16 The term "segregation" is used to simply mean separation by race. It carries a historical connotation of meaning deliberate separation by race - but this is not how it is used in the FHEA.

17 CMAP's analysis of areas of opportunity was based on HUD's Housing Stability Index, School Proficiency Index, Job Access Index, and Transit Access Index, as well as median home values, post-high school degree attainment, unemployment rate, poverty rate, mean travel time to work, and property values.

Map 2. FHEA identified opportunity areas and racially concentrated areas of poverty in Cook County. Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

⬚ figure

The FHEA includes recommendations for addressing the negative impacts of segregation on the Chicago region. They include policy, training, and investment strategies in two broad categories: increasing diversity in areas of opportunity and investing in racially concentrated areas of poverty and other disinvested communities. It also includes recommendations for which actors – CMAP, counties, subregional agencies, municipalities, non-profit fair housing organizations, and the private sector – can best advance each implementation strategy. Counties are best suited to implement, coordinate, or provide technical assistance for the following strategies.

Goal: Diversity in Opportunity Areas

• Maintain, monitor, and strengthen fair housing laws.
• Encourage accessible housing.
• Encourage supportive housing.
• Train and license housing providers and professionals.
• Assess zoning and code enforcement.
• Implement affirmative rental regulation.

Goal: Invest in Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Other Disinvested Communities

• Work with existing communities to plan for redevelopment.
• Create, join, and/or invest in land banks.
• Increase transit-oriented development.
• Improve infrastructure and transit service.
• Increase cargo-oriented development.
• Identify funding sources/seek investment.

People and Housing

Key Findings

• While Cook County is substantially built-out and its population is stable, infill development and redevelopment offers the opportunity for growth.
• Approximately 75 percent of the County's housing stock is over 30 years old. Maintaining and strategically renewing the County's housing stock is critical to attracting future residents and remaining economically competitive.
• While the County is a diverse place in terms of ages, races, and incomes in aggregate, geographic variation highlights important differences. Long-standing racial, ethnic, and economic divides persist, with high concentrations of minorities living in predominantly low-income areas in western and southern Cook County.
• Many housing market indicators mirror the County's persistent racial, ethnic, and economic divides, including home values, rents, foreclosures, the number of cost-burdened households, and purchase trends. The strongest housing markets are in northern and southwestern Cook County while the weakest markets are in the west and south.

Demographic Overview

Over the last decade, Cook County's population declined, driven by a decrease in the City of Chicago. The population of suburban Cook County increased slightly. Comparatively, the number of households declined only slightly as household size decreased. CMAP produced population and household projections to inform GO TO 2040. These figures indicate that if GO TO 2040 is implemented and if the County takes advantage of its numerous assets, its population could rise by almost 15 percent over the next 30 years. Such growth could particularly occur by focusing on infill development and redevelopment of underutilized properties, particularly those with good access to transit and jobs.

Table 1. Cook County population

Source: 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census and Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning GO TO 2040 projections.

Cook County is diverse in many ways. Much like the region and the nation, suburban Cook has become more diverse since 2000, as the number of Latinos, African Americans, and Asians increased.¹ Trends predict even greater racial and ethnic diversity in the region’s future, “in particular, the rapid growth of the region’s Hispanic population is expected to continue, and by 2040, it is projected that more than 30 percent of the region’s residents will be Hispanic. Moreover, growth among all racial and ethnic groups is projected to shift toward suburban areas.”² This racial and ethnic diversity is reflected in the almost 14 percent of the population whose primary language is not English. Though residents of many ages live in Cook County, the national pull toward an aging population is borne out in U.S. Census figures. The median age in Cook County increased over the last decade from 33.6 years in 2000 to 35.3 years in 2010. Suburban residents are typically older than city residents, with a median age of 38 years in 2010. Cook County’s median income in 2010 was $53,942, similar to the national median household income of $51,914, reflecting the presence of households at all income levels. Higher percentages of residents in suburban Cook County have at least received a high school diploma than either Chicago or the region.

Table 2. Race and ethnicity, 2010

* Includes Hispanic or Latino residents of any race. ** Includes American Indian and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, some other race, and two or more race. Source: 2010 U.S. Census.

Table 3. Education levels

Source: 2006-10 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau.

While the County is diverse, changing in a fashion similar to the region and the nation in aggregate, such high level analysis hides important geographic variations. Residents who will become seniors over the life of this plan are not evenly distributed. Many suburban census tracts contain more households with a member over 60 years old than is typical in the region, with notable concentrations in northern and southwestern suburban Cook County. Even with these aging trends, some areas contain concentrations of people under 18, with the largest concentrations in western and southern suburban Cook County.

Some of these variations reflect long-standing differences, particularly for race and income. While the region undoubtedly witnessed an overall increase in racial and ethnic diversity between 1980 and 2010, geographic patterns of racial and ethnic segregation remained virtually unchanged, except for high growth in the Latino and Asian populations throughout the region.¹ The concentrations of Latinos who live in western suburban Cook County and African Americans living in southern and western suburban Cook reflect this fact.

⬚ figure

Percentage of households containing a person over 60 years old compared to the regional percentage, 2010

Map 3. Percentage of households containing a person over 60 compared to the regional percentage, 2010. Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

⬚ figure

Map 4. Percentage of households containing a person under 18 compared to the regional percentage, 2010. Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

⬚ figure

Map 5. Suburban Cook County race and ethnicity, 2010. Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

Similarly, suburban Cook County contains wide disparities in income. While there is variation in income within sub-regions, much of northern and portions of southwestern suburban Cook are far more affluent than the region while households in southern and western suburban Cook are less affluent. These income patterns mimic those of racial and ethnic segregation. While a lower percentage of suburban Cook County households earned less than the federal poverty level in 2010 ($22,050 for a family of four) than in the region (8.5 percent vs. 11.1 percent), the County contains areas with high concentrations of households in poverty in southern Cook. As detailed in Confronting Suburban Poverty in America by Elizabeth Kneebone and Alan Berube, these concentrations reflect the new reality of poverty in the U.S.¹ Low income families increasingly live in the suburbs rather than central cities. From 2000-12, the share of the population in poverty in the City remained the same (around 20 percent) and increased in the suburbs (from six percent to 10 percent). The changing geography of poverty must be met with new funding patterns in the private, non-profit, and governmental spheres, where many resources are still structured to fight only urban poverty.

21 Elizabeth Kneebone and Alan Berube. Confronting Suburban Poverty in America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2013. confrontingsuburbanpoverty.org/.

CONFRONTING SUBURBAN POVERTY IN AMERICA

Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI Metro Area Profile

⬚ figure

DRIVING FORCES

A number of factors help shape poverty trends over time:

Population Change Percentage change, 2000 to 2010

⬚ figure

The Economy Suburban unemployed population, Dec. 2007 and Dec. 2010

⬚ figure

Immigration Share of suburban poor who are foreign-born, 2000 and 2010

⬚ figure

Housing Share of housing choice voucher recipients in suburbs, 2000 and 2008

⬚ figure

IMPLICATIONS

Shifting poverty affects existing services and infrastructure like:

Schools Percentage change in students receiving Free and Reduced Price Lunch, 2005-06 to 2009-10

⬚ figure

Transportation Share of residents in low-income suburbs with transit access, and share of jobs accessible via transit within 90 minutes

⬚ figure

SOURCES

U.S. Census Bureau; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; U.S. Department of Education; Covington, Freeman, and Stoll, “The Suburbanization of Housing Choice Voucher Recipients;” Tomer, Kneebone, Puentes, and Berube, “Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan America”

⬚ figure

Map 6. Median household income compared to the regional median, 2010. Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

⬚ figure

Percentage of households in poverty compared to the regional percentage, 2010

⬚ figure

Map 7. Percentage of households in poverty compared to the regional percentage, 2010. Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

Housing Markets

Similar to its demographic diversity, Suburban Cook’s almost one million housing units and the housing markets they comprise vary significantly. Cook County grew rapidly in the early and middle of the 20th Century, with population growth slowing significantly since 1980. As a result, three quarters of the housing units in suburban Cook County were built before 1980. The oldest units, those built before 1940, are predominantly located in west Cook and along the north shore. Homes built before 1978 may contain lead paint, a potential public health hazard.

Almost three quarters of suburban Cook County households own their home. In northern Cook County, renters tend to be clustered in a smaller number of census tracts, often in larger complexes. A higher share of residents in west Cook rent compared to the County at large. Two- to four-family units comprise 16 percent of the County’s suburban housing stock, far higher than in the region. This unit type adds additional housing options, particularly for renters. The greatest concentration of two- to four-family units is in west Cook. While the region gained rental units in buildings with 50 or more units from 2000-11, it lost rental units in all other multi-family building types, particularly in Chicago and suburban Cook County.¹

Figure 3. Housing type by owner/renter

⬚ figure

Map 8. Housing units by year built, 2010. Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

Housing unit type, 2010 1 Dot = 200

• Single-family detached
• Two- to four- family
• Multi-family
• Other
• County Subdivisions
• Railroads
• CTA Rail Lines
• Interstate Highway
• Airport

In 2010, almost 16 percent of renters in suburban Cook occupied single-family homes, an increase from the 12 percent reported in the 2000 Census. Many communities in the Chicago area are experiencing a similar trend toward more single-family rentals.¹ As highlighted in the Metropolitan Planning Council’s (MPC) Managing Single-Family Rental Homes white paper, fundamental changes in the housing market over the past five years present new challenges for municipalities as the number of single-family rentals increases.²

Some units in suburban Cook have restrictions in place that ensure availability for low- or moderate-income households. Of the approximately 8,500 such units, a quarter are public housing units, most owned by HACC. The remainder has been created through either low income housing tax credits (LIHTC) or various HUD multi-family programs. These units represent less than one percent of suburban Cook’s total housing stock. HUD data indicates approximately 12,500 residents hold Housing Choice Vouchers, about 1.5 percent of all households in suburban Cook. The low percentages for both subsidized units and households highlight the limits to relying solely on public housing subsidies to address housing affordability.

One of the most essential elements in understanding local housing dynamics is affordability. What constitutes “affordable housing” varies from household to household, as the measure is relative. An affordable housing unit is one that a family can own or rent for no more than 30 percent of its income. This spending includes both housing (rent or mortgage) and housing-related costs, such as property taxes, insurance, and utilities. This time-tested standard is reflected in everything from the underwriting standards of private lenders to data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Over the last decade, property values rose far faster than incomes in the U.S., increasing the number of cost-burdened households. Since the recession, affordability issues have persisted despite declines in home values and mortgage rates due in part to declining incomes, slow employment growth, and stringent credit requirements.³ As households became renters, supply did not initially keep pace with the sudden spike in demand. Harvard University indicates that currently more than 10 percent of owners and 25 percent of renters in the U.S. pay more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs.⁴

⬚ figure

Map 9. Housing type, 2010. Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

Much like the region and the nation, the number of cost-burdened owners and renters in suburban Cook County increased between 2000 and 2010. Currently, half of local renters pay at least 30 percent of their income on gross monthly rent. Similarly, the proportion of homeowners paying more than 30 percent of their income on monthly housing costs increased from 24 percent in 2000 to 37 percent in 2010. Though cost-burdened households can be found throughout the County, significant concentrations can be found in west and south Cook. Some housing units are inherently more or less costly by virtue of their location. If a housing unit is located farther away from jobs or retail, the typical occupant will need to spend more time and money on transportation, leaving less money for housing and other expenses. Transportation is typically the second largest part of a household budget. Building off of initial work by the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT), GO TO 2040 includes combined housing and transportation affordability as an indicator.¹ Research indicates that while parts of suburban Cook are affordable for a typical regional household, including parts of south Cook, almost no locations in suburban Cook are affordable for a typical low-income household when transportation costs are included.²

Figure 4. Percent of renter occupied households paying more than 30 percent of income on gross rent

⬚ figure

Figure 5. Percent of owner occupied households paying more than 30 percent of income on monthly owner costs

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

Map 10. Percentage of households paying more than 30 percent of income on housing costs compared to the regional percentage, 2010. Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

⬚ figure

What is included in monthly owner costs?

Average monthly costs for owners in Chicago Metropolitan area, 2009

⬚ figure

What is included in gross rent?

Average monthly costs for renters in Chicago Metropolitan area, 2009

⬚ figure

Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning analysis of the 2009 American Housing Survey (AHS). The 2009 AHS data includes Cook, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties in the metropolitan area.

Housing cost burden can have many impacts, with households making sacrifices in many other areas, including saving for retirement, accumulating debt, and reducing health care costs.¹ To cope with housing costs families may move into smaller units or "double up" with others, leading to overcrowding. The U.S. Census standard for overcrowding is greater than 1.5 persons per room. In suburban Cook County, only half a percent of households live in overcrowded conditions, less than the .8 percent in the region. Yet, areas of western and northern Cook contain far higher concentrations of overcrowded units. Flooding in 2013 along the Des Plaines River is believed to have exacerbated this issue.

Home values and rent levels vary greatly around the County, mirroring the variation in incomes. The highest valued homes and highest rents are located in the north and southwest; the lowest are located in the south. The variation in home values and rents also reflect broader housing market health. The DePaul Institute of Housing Studies (IHS) found that while home prices fell throughout suburban Cook County due to the recession, recovery remains uneven. Prices in south suburban Cook County remain below 1997 levels, while areas in the north and the southwest have recovered to 2002 and 2003 levels.² This disparity, where higher valued units have recovered while low-value units lag, is unique to the region when compared to other metropolitan areas.³ Research by CNT indicates that housing prices have also been more resilient around rail transit within the region.⁴

⬚ figure

Map 11. Percentage of households containing more than 1.5 persons per room, compared to the regional percentage, 2010 Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

Not surprisingly, areas recovering most slowly also bear the hallmarks of distressed housing markets. South suburban Cook County has by far the highest percentage of sales with extremely low values (below $20,000) and cash sales, even when excluding bulk sales data. These struggling housing markets also experience the highest foreclosure filing and auction rates. IHS reports that more than a quarter of the housing units in south Cook and 18 percent of units in west Cook have been the subject of a foreclosure filing.

Table 4. Property purchase activity by Cook County subregion, 2013

*The extremely low value category is the share of residential property sales, excluding bulk sales data, in that subregion that were purchased for less than $20,000.

**The cash sales category is the share of residential property sales, excluding bulk sales data, in that subregion that were purchased for cash.

Source: DePaul Institute of Housing Studies calculations of data from Cook County Recorder of Deeds via Property Insight, Cook County Assessor, Record Information Services, Midwest Real Estate Data (MRED).

While Planning for Progress covers only 2015-19, proactive housing planning needs to take into account those who might live in the community in the future. Blending together U.S. Census data and CMAP’s local household and population projections for the year 2040 some realistic estimates can be made of who will want to live in suburban Cook County over the next 30 years.

Currently the number of units affordable to households earning less than $35,000 is far less than estimated current demand, not surprising given the increasing number of cost-burdened households. Contributing to this situation, over 16 percent of Cook County municipalities are considered non-exempt under AHPAA requirements.¹ These communities are mostly found in northeastern and southwestern parts of the County.

Map 12. Median contract rent compared to the regional median, 2010. Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

Median contract rent compared to the regional median, 2010

[--] County Subdivisions -+- Railroads —+- CTA Rail Lines (Shield) Interstate Highway (Purple) Airport

⬚ figure

Median home value compared to the regional median, 2010

⬚ figure

As noted previously, the County’s population could increase by approximately 15 percent by 2040. While the numbers of households are expected to increase across the income spectrum, additional units may be needed for households earning less than $50,000 or these people may add to the number of cost-burdened owners and renters. Seniors and households ages 25-44 may comprise the vast majority of this increase. Both cohorts may exhibit greater demand for housing near transit or in compact, accessible areas.

The Urban Land Institute (ULI) conducted a study in 2013 on current housing preferences. This survey found that while many Americans desire single-family homes, they also desire proximity to jobs, schools, and medical facilities, particularly via walkability.¹ Demand for walkability cuts across age groups. Generation Y (ages 18-34) shows the strongest preference for mixed development in walkable communities (i.e. containing a range of housing types that encourage walking to retail stores, neighborhood amenities, other homes, and transit lines). Baby Boomers (ages 48-66), while less likely to move, desire smaller homes with shorter commutes when moving.

Figure 6. Suburban Cook County 2040 housing demand compared to current occupied housing stock, in thousands

⬚ figure

Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using U.S. Census and GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

Figure 7. Suburban Cook County 2010-40 change in demand by age and income, in thousands

⬚ figure

Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using U.S. Census and GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

Map 13. Median home value compared to the regional median, 2010.

Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

Population Specific Needs

While much of the analysis thus far focuses on the general population and on the current and future housing needs of households by age and income, a deeper analysis is needed to consider the issues for those with disabilities and those who are homeless.

According to the National Council on Disability’s The State of Housing in America, a Disability Perspective, on average, the income level of people with disabilities is significantly lower than that of people without disabilities.¹ This trend is exhibited among households in suburban Cook County. Approximately 20 percent of suburban Cook County households contain at least one member with a disability. Analysis of the U.S. Census’s 2008-10 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) dataset indicates that households with a disabled member are far more likely to be low- or moderate-income than households where no member has a disability. The most common form of disability is an ambulatory limitation. While disabled individuals live throughout Cook County, the townships with the highest share of households with a member with a disability are Bloom and Bremen townships in south Cook and Niles Township in north Cook. As the population grows over the next 30 years, the number of households with a disabled member will likely also grow given the projected increase in the senior population. This trend will increase demand for housing options that meet the needs of disabled individuals with particular emphasis upon proximity to transit options given mobility limitations.

Over the past decade, a trio of class action lawsuits (Williams v. Quinn, Ligas v. Hamos and Colbert v. Quinn) were brought against Illinois on behalf of people living in institutions, including the disabled and those with serious mental illness. According to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 1999 U.S. Supreme Court Olmstead decision, people with disabilities have the right to receive long-term care services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their need. As a result of these decrees, large numbers of formally institutionalized individuals will be seeking alternative housing options.

Homelessness is another area of focus for the County. The Alliance to End Homelessness in Suburban Cook County (the Alliance) is the nonprofit organization responsible for planning and coordinating homeless services and housing options in suburban Cook County and leads the local Continuum of Care (CoC). The Alliance as the CoC coordinates annual funding applications for and distribution of HUD Shelter Plus Care and Supportive Housing Program dollars to address the needs of homeless persons and those at risk of homelessness throughout suburban Cook County.

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

The Alliance recently completed a strategic plan, providing a comprehensive look at homeless trends in suburban Cook County.¹ The Alliance reported that the suburban homeless system served approximately 3,300 people in 2013. Shelters serve more than three quarters of homeless individuals and transitional housing serve two-thirds of homeless families. The Alliance found that while homelessness is predominantly an issue afflicting single-individuals, a growing share of the homeless population is in families. Overall, the number of homeless people increased 16 percent between 2011 and 2013. More than one-fifth of those who are homeless suffer from serious mental illness and more than 15 percent struggle with substance abuse. The Alliance’s plan emphasizes the role that structural factors, such as housing costs and employment opportunities, play a role in homelessness trends.

Since the Alliance was founded, the supply of permanent supportive housing has quadrupled, while chronic homelessness has decreased by almost two-thirds. These trends can be attributed to a number of factors, including the success of the national 100,000 Homes Campaign and stimulus funding for homeless prevention and rapid re-housing. As a result, one of the Alliance’s main goals between 2014 and 2016 is ending chronic homelessness in suburban Cook.

Jobs, Workforce Development, and Transportation

Key Findings

• While the Chicago region gained a small number of jobs between 2004 and 2013, Cook County lost jobs. The seven-county region gained more than 9,000 jobs between 2004 and 2013, while Cook County lost 60,000 jobs, overwhelmingly in suburban Cook and in higher income sectors.
• Cook County suffers from a jobs-housing mismatch. The lack of public transportation service to many regional employment centers in the suburbs; the decision to locate employment and housing clusters away from existing transit services; inadequate service frequencies on existing lines; and slow bus and train routes result in lengthy commutes throughout the region.
• The current system of property taxation may discourage businesses from locating in Cook County. Commercial and industrial taxpayers in Cook County, particularly in south and west Cook County, often face a higher tax burden in Cook County than they would in the surrounding counties.
• All of Cook County is served by a workforce system that provides training for the four industries targeted in Partnering for Prosperity. The biggest service gaps include sustainable funding, real-time information about employer demand, additional resources for short-term training, and social services that remove the barriers that prevent people from using the existing network.

As discussed in the Underpinnings section, the County issued Partnering for Prosperity in 2013, which:

• Conducted an in-depth analysis of the major economic development problems and opportunities in Cook County.
• Incorporated the numerous local and regional economic development planning efforts.
• Identified past, present, and projected economic development investment, including the economic development tools at the County's disposal.
• Selected a series of industry clusters in which the County maintains a distinct advantage and should focus in the future.

The information in this section is a supplement to that report, providing baseline employment information and complementary analysis in important areas such as tax structure and workforce.

Employment

More than two million private sector jobs are located within Cook County, with more than one million in suburban Cook. Even as the number of jobs in the metropolitan region slightly grew between 2004 and 2013, the number in Cook County dropped by more than 60,000. Job losses were concentrated in suburban Cook County; while jobs in suburban Cook make up about 47 percent of all jobs in the County, the 52,604 decrease in jobs in suburban Cook represents 86 percent of the total jobs decrease in the County.

Table 5. Total employment, 2004-13

Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages Employees - Economic Modeling Specialists International 2014 1st Quarter data

The distribution of private sector jobs reflects both the prominence of retail and human services and the continuing importance, despite recent job losses, of the manufacturing and freight sectors. Health Care and Social Assistance has surpassed Government as the largest employment sector in Cook County, although Government remains a large employer. As of 2013, Retail Trade and Accommodation and Food Services comprise the next two biggest employment sectors. Together, the three sectors account for almost one third of all jobs in Cook County (see Table 6).

Comparing data from 2004 and 2013 reveals significant changes in the distribution of jobs across industry sectors. While Manufacturing remains a major employer in Cook County, between 2004 and 2013, the County lost over 66,000 manufacturing jobs. Transportation and Warehousing, a related sector, also declined slightly over this period. Despite these losses, the two closely related sectors employ 12.5 percent of County workers, maintaining a strong presence Cook County economy. Although employment declined overall between 2004 and 2013, some sectors did experience job growth. Health Care and Social Assistance grew by over 40,000.

Over this time period, Cook County has seen declines in most types of employment that offer high annual earnings. Among those five sectors, Cook County experienced job losses in Government, Manufacturing, Finance and Insurance, and Wholesale Trade; only Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services added higher-wage jobs from 2004 to 2013. The County also gained jobs in Accommodation and Food Services and Administrative and Support Services, both of which provide incomes below the County’s median household income.

Change in employment in Cook County, by top ten industries, 2004-13

⬚ figure

Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages Employees, Economic Modeling Specialists International 2014 1st Quarter data by Class of Worker.

Table 6. Earnings by top employment industries in Cook County

Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages Employees - Economic Modeling Specialists International 2014 1st Quarter data by Class of Worker.

Jobs in Cook County are concentrated in certain key geographies, reflecting land use patterns and transportation infrastructure. Map 14 shows the concentration of jobs in each ZIP code throughout the County. While downtown Chicago is the site of many jobs, several other concentrations are present as well, especially near significant infrastructure. The areas around Midway and O’Hare International Airports support a large number of jobs, as do the many container yards and intermodal facilities throughout the region. The two major airports are linked to the location of region’s highest concentrations of combined freight and manufacturing employment. In west Cook, multimodal infrastructure aligns with moderately high job concentrations in a line stretching from the city through the towns of McCook, LaGrange, Bedford Park, and Western Springs. The Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal, the Stevenson Expressway (I-55), and multiple rail lines connect several container yards and intermodal facilities in the area. South Cook contains a greater number of areas with job totals that are low compared to the rest of the region. Some of these areas are relatively prosperous bedroom communities, while others house lower-income populations.

Employment in the four clusters that the County identified as keys in Partnering for Prosperity reflects similar geographic trends. The four clusters (Fabricated Metals, Food Processing and Packaging, Transportation and Logistics, and Health Services) show strong concentrations in the vicinity of O’Hare, Midway, and other transportation infrastructure. They also show a relative lack of job concentrations in south and southwest Cook County. Map 15 shows the clustering effect Partnering for Prosperity describes. Driven by high employment in the Health Services cluster, the key clusters show especially strong concentrations in the Illinois Medical District, Hines Veterans Administration Hospital, and the LaGrange areas, each of which contains multiple hospitals and related services.

⬚ figure

Map 14. Employment in Cook County by ZIP code, 2013. Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

⬚ figure

Map 15. Employment in Cook County in key clusters (fabricated metals, food processing and packaging, transportation and logistics, and health services) by ZIP code, 2013. Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

Numerous studies, including Partnering for Prosperity, emphasize the importance of the O’Hare and Midway regional manufacturing-freight clusters to the County and region. CMAP just completed the O’Hare Subregional Freight-Manufacturing Drill-Down.¹ The report identifies a few key areas of action needed to maintain its viability. Improvements are needed to the movement of people and goods through the subregion, particularly better coordination on truck routing across jurisdictions. Recurring flooding is problematic for some of the subregion’s densest freight and manufacturing areas, and multijurisdictional cooperation is required to continue to improve stormwater and drainage issues. Access to a trained workforce is one of the subregion’s greatest assets, but an aging workforce and changing manufacturing processes emphasize the need for continued improvement of connections between employees, training programs, and employers.

Freight, manufacturing, and associated industries present Cook County with economic development opportunities that capitalize on existing assets. While health care, social assistance, and retail trade have grown as major employment sectors in the County, freight and manufacturing take advantage of Cook County’s infrastructure and provide higher wages, ladders of career advancement, and support to related sectors.² Co-location of freight and manufacturing offers mutual benefits, including increased speed of transport, enhanced accessibility to suppliers and markets, improved logistics and reliability, reduced costs, and multiple modes of shipping.³ The Chicago region currently possesses strong intermodal freight infrastructure, but has gaps in supportive businesses such as specialized freight, third-party logistics, and courier delivery services. Many times container facilities are located in communities with lower incomes and employment, highlighting an opportunity for growth that could also address persistent economic divides. While manufacturing employment has fallen, employment in the freight cluster has grown. Moreover, manufacturing still provides higher-than-average wages and remains a major sector. Manufacturing can have a large multiplier effect, resulting in a strong positive impact on growth in the regional economy in general.⁴

Several barriers exist to growing the freight and manufacturing clusters in Cook County. While the County enjoys extensive freight infrastructure, it suffers from age and congestion. The Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency (CREATE) Program, a joint undertaking of the U.S. Department of Transportation, State of Illinois, City of Chicago, and multiple freight and passenger railroads, is a major step to addressing inefficiencies in the rail system.⁴¹ CREATE funds improvements to the large number of railroad crossings in the region, including overpasses, underpasses, and safety uprades to tracks, signals, and switches. The CMAP Board convened the Regional Freight Leadership Task Force in June 2013 to explore issues affecting the freight system in northeastern Illinois. In its final report, the task force recommended incorporating comprehensive, multimodal freight planning into the regional comprehensive plan to secure new funding from user fees to invest in the regional freight system. The task force also promoted harnessing the new revenues to build freight projects and fund operational programs identified in the regional plan.

⬚ figure

41 http://www.createprogram.org/.

Transportation

Cook County is blessed with a robust transportation system that serves residents, workers, and businesses. A network of interstates and freight rail lines crisscross the County. Lake Michigan and the rivers and canals that connect to it offer vital port facilities. Two major airports serve the region. As an older metropolitan area, the County is served by a legacy transit system operated by the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra, and Pace. Despite all of these networks, not all employment centers are easy to access. Residents living far from jobs often spend large portions of their days commuting. For County residents living in areas underserved by public transit, driving is sometimes the only option. For residents without access to a car, lack of transit service can severely limit employment opportunities.

Analysis of job locations and the transportation network reveals a disparity in the share of jobs in the region that can be reached from different parts of Cook County. Maps 16 and 17 show the percentage of total jobs in the region accessible within the median commuting time for Cook County residents using a given mode of transportation (29 minutes for cars and 46 minutes by transit). While residents of Chicago neighborhoods near downtown can reach more than 20 percent of the region’s jobs by either mode with less than a median commute time, residents in much of the County have lower job access. The maps also show a stark difference in job access for residents of north and west Cook versus south Cook depending on mode. Both downtown Chicago and the area around O’Hare Airport are major job centers. Many jobs in the O’Hare cluster are difficult to reach with less than a 46 minute transit trip. As noted before, many households in suburban Cook are housing cost-burdened, even in areas with lower housing costs. The lack of job accessibility only compounds housing affordability issues. With the bulk of Cook County’s low-cost housing located in the south, the lack of job accessibility by transit in those areas places a sizable financial burden on households that can least afford it.

⬚ figure

Map 16. Jobs reachable by auto commute in Cook County. Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

Percent of regional jobs reachable by a median transit trip

• Less than 5%
• 5 to 10%
• 10 to 15%
• 15 to 20%
• Greater than 20%
• --- County Subdivisions
• +++ Railroads
• —— CTA Rail Lines
• === Interstate Highway
• Airport

Infill development centered on existing transit and freight infrastructure provides significant regional benefits beyond the important connection between workers and employment centers. Efficiently located, compact mixed-use development, particularly in areas with transit access, known as transit-oriented development (TOD) can increase the share of trips taken by transit, walking, and bicycling, and can shorten driving trips as well. This type of development reduces Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and traffic congestion, benefiting all users of the regional transportation system, including those who continue to drive. TODs typically have lower average car ownership levels than areas without public transportation creating the opportunity for improved affordability given that car ownership represents the biggest share of household transportation costs. Cargo-Oriented Development (COD), which involves locating industrial and warehousing businesses close to existing freight infrastructure, reduces the distance that heavy trucks need to travel on local roads. COD brings environmental benefits, improves public safety, boosts property values, and creates jobs in areas with high unemployment. The BUILT in Cook loan fund prioritizes COD and TOD applications.

Focusing development in locations already served by infrastructure carries sizable fiscal benefits and reduces public costs. Many studies have shown that the cost of providing public infrastructure decreases with more compact development. The length and costs of roads, water mains, and sewers all decrease with compact infill development; new miles of local streets needed can be reduced by as much as one-third, with savings on both construction and maintenance.¹ Compact development on infill sites can also save on the provision of services such as schools and fire protection.² CMAP found that negative and low fiscal impacts from residential development occur due to a number of factors, including a combination of lower density, values, and property tax rates in some developments.³

The market outlook for freight investment favors taking advantage of existing infrastructure. Real estate analysts see industrial and warehousing as the strongest real estate prospect as the rising cost of energy draws shippers to the efficiencies of rail.⁴ Compact land use minimizes the need for “last mile” truck connections, reducing shipping costs, shipping times, and emissions. South and west Cook County contain thousands of underutilized acres near industrial and freight infrastructure that could be used to reduce shipping costs and put to productive use.⁵

Map 17. Jobs reachable by transit in Cook County. Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

42 GO TO 2040. October 2010. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. p. 80.

43 “Building Better Budgets: A National Examination of the Fiscal Benefits of Smart Growth Development.” 2013. Smart Growth America.

44 Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis of Local Development Decisions. January 2014. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, http://tinyurl.com/mnckp48.

45 “Emerging Trends in Real Estate 2013,” 2013. Urban Land Institute and PricewaterhouseCoopers, p. 52.

46 “Chicago Southland’s Green TIME Zone. ”2010. Center for Neighborhood Technology. p. 14; “West Cook County COD+TOD Report.” 2012. Center for Neighborhood Technology. p. 27.

Workforce Development

Workforce development refers to the services, programs, and activities that provide people with education, skill development, and improved access for employment and career advancement in the labor market. Workforce development programs assist a wide range of job seekers, current workers, and employers, by directly increasing the skill-level of workers and in turn, improving business performance. As part of Planning for Progress, the Chicago Jobs Council (CJC) analyzed the existing workforce development infrastructure and its capacity to meet the needs of the four target sectors identified in Partnering for Prosperity: fabricated metals, food processing and packaging, transportation and logistics, and health care. The following is a summary of CJC’s findings. The full report can be found in Appendix B.

Cook County Workforce Structure

Across Cook County, workforce development services are delivered by a variety of public and private entities, funded through a number of public funding streams. There is a core “workforce development” system—funded primarily through the federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA) — but it is not the only source of publicly-funded education, training, and workforce services. CJC groups workforce service providers in three broad categories: general public workforce services, public post-secondary institutions, and private post-secondary entities (including not-for-profit). In addition, there are several industry-specific workforce intermediaries, such as the Golden Corridor Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (GCAMP) and the Calumet Green Manufacturing Partnership (CGMP), that supplement the work of providers, especially in the manufacturing sector.

General Public Workforce Services

Core public workforce development services are administered in Cook County by CCWP, using funds from the WIA via the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO). Through contracted intermediaries, CCWP provides WIA-funded services that include: core services (self-help services and services that require minimal staff assistance available to the general public); intensive services (individual career planning, resume preparation, job clubs, career counseling, internships, and comprehensive assessments); and training services. CCWP provides these services through the federally-required one-stop system, contracting with private entities to serve over 100,000 individuals through ten workforce centers located throughout the County. Additional WIA-funded affiliates support the Workforce Centers in particular industries. CCWP funds training activities at its approved providers using Individual Training Accounts (ITAs) for eligible job seekers. It limits use of its ITAs to 40 occupations, including thirteen occupations in health care; seven in transportation, distribution, and logistics (TDL); and six in manufacturing.

⬚ figure

Public Post-Secondary Institutions

Fourteen public community colleges are the backbone of the infrastructure that trains individuals for industry and occupation credentials and degrees. Eleven of the County’s public community colleges, including five in the city, offer manufacturing training programs. Seven colleges offer programs in fabricated metals, although most jobs in this sub-industry would require additional on-the-job training. In addition to the community colleges, Northern Illinois University and University of Illinois at Chicago offer programs that prepare people to work in manufacturing. Thirteen of the region’s community colleges offer health care programming. Only two community colleges offer programs related to transportation and logistics, likely because the most common training relates to truck driving and licensing, and requires a significant amount of on-the-job training customized to each employer’s processes. An important development in TDL is Olive-Harvey College’s development of a TDL training center and its expansion of career pathways programs in the sector.

Private Post-Secondary Institutions and Organizations

Private training providers offer industry-specific programs outside of the traditional college model. These entities are both for-profit and non-profit organizations and are funded in a variety of ways, including government grants, training fees, and charges for customized training with businesses. A variety of providers, including private four-year and graduate institutions, proprietary schools, and non-profit training organizations, offer manufacturing training programs. In the transportation and logistics sector, thirteen private truck driving training entities in fifteen locations across Cook County offer programs. All thirteen are WIA-certified training providers. Many private institutions, including 46 WIA-approved providers, offer training in the health care field, including four-year colleges, institutions that award credentials or associates degrees, and other entities.

Workforce Development Service Gaps in Cook County

The core workforce training infrastructure provided by the public systems—CCWP’s one-stops and affiliates and community colleges—is distributed across the County. Every subregion has community-college based workforce training in all the targeted sub-industries. Transportation and logistics is less-well served by community colleges, but this gap is due to the employer-based nature of workforce training and preparation for this industry. In addition, there are both for-profit and non-profit education and training entities that augment the community college system across all targeted sectors. Again, the transportation sector is uniquely served—the majority of training entities are for the provision of truck driving training, representing the greatest demand for skills.

Data to assess the capacity of private training organizations is very limited. Little data exists to show either what their current capacity is (i.e., current enrollment and completion) or what their potential capacity could be (i.e., maximum enrollment). The majority of non-credit training (for industry-recognized credentials) is related heavily to demand by jobseekers when there are jobs and/or funding targeted to that kind of training.

Discussions with workforce providers highlighted that supportive services are an important part of helping individuals obtain employment. Transportation issues frequently prevent people from participating in workforce programs.

Manufacturing and health care have the most program offerings. As noted above, the workforce needs of the manufacturing sector receive a high level of attention by multiple public and private systems. The biggest service gap for those efforts is likely to be sustainable funding, real-time information about employer demand, and additional resources for short-term training when financial aid is not available.

Incentives and Tax structure

Examining the tax structure in Cook County is an important part of assessing the County’s business climate. Commercial and industrial taxpayers in Cook County often face a higher tax burden in Cook County than they would in communities neighboring the County. For example, composite sales tax rates in Cook County communities are often higher than in collar counties, typically by more than a half a percentage point.

However, the difference in tax burden is often even more pronounced for property taxes, as businesses in Cook County shoulder a greater share of the property tax burden than do residents. In many communities, particularly in southern and western Cook County, this property tax classification system contributes to significantly higher tax rates for commercial and industrial properties than would be experienced in other areas of the region. Commercial real estate in the south suburbs has a lower value due to a number of factors: lower rents, higher vacancy, higher capitalization rates, and high costs of capital, which leads to lower property values. The lower property values creates lower assessed values which then causes the municipalities and schools to raise their respective levies or tax rates. These factors create a higher property tax burden. Effective rates for commercial and industrial properties in Cook County can reach as high as 15 percent, while rates in neighboring counties tend to be less than five percent. High tax rates can prompt a cycle in which new businesses do not locate in the community, resulting in a tax base that grows more slowly than does the cost of public services, which can lead to even higher tax rates for businesses and residents alike. The current system likely contributes to lower property tax base growth Cook County, putting a greater tax burden on both residents and businesses.

The County currently offers almost ten different incentive property classes.¹ The widespread use of property tax incentive classes by the County and its communities suggests that the existing classification system impedes economic development in many areas. At the same time, there is widespread recognition that reforming this system may be politically challenging. Phasing out property tax classification over a period of years would improve economic development potential for Cook County and allow the tax base to grow while allowing residential taxpayers to adjust.

⬚ figure

Map 18. CMAP region effective property tax rates for industrial and commercial property, 2012. Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

⬚ figure

2012 Effective Composite Property Tax Rates Commercial and Industrial Property

• Less than 2.5%
• 2.5% - 4.9%
• 5% - 7.49%
• 7.5% - 9.9%
• 10% or greater
• County Subdivisions
• Railroads
• CTA Rail Lines
• Interstate Highway
• Airport

⬚ figure

Estimated market value of commercial or industrial incentive class property as a percent of total commercial and industrial market value, by municipality, 2012

Municipalities in the region use local incentives, including tax increment financing and sales tax rebates. CMAP conducted a review and analysis on the prevalence and impacts on the use of the incentives throughout the region in 2013¹ The report provides a summary of how these incentives have been used, finding that:

• State tax policy drives the prevalence of local economic development incentives.
• Incentives often influence site selection for businesses making an intraregional move or for a national firm expanding its market.
• Communities often provide incentives to maximize tax revenue, but these investments may generate few spillover benefits to the larger regional economy.
• The use of local economic development incentives varies in terms of aligning with the land use goals of GO TO 2040.
• Proactive and collaborative planning does not always play a role in the use of local incentives.

⬚ figure

Map 19. Prevalence of commercial and industrial property tax incentive classes in Cook County municipalities. Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

Measuring Distress

Planning for Progress’ analysis revealed important geographic patterns in many key indicators in Cook County, including by income, race and ethnicity, unemployment, and access to jobs. EDA also considers the needs between different types of communities, thereby identifying areas of “distress.” The EDA considers an area to be distressed if the most recently available per capita income is 80 percent or less of the national average; the average unemployment rate over the most recent 24-month period for which data is available is at least one percentage point greater than the national average; or the area has a “special need” as determined by EDA. This measure often plays a key role in eligibility for funding under EDA programs. Based on unemployment rate, Cook County as a whole can be classified as distressed; its 9.03 percent unemployment rate as of July 2014 is more than one percent greater than the national rate of 7.18 percent for the same 24-month period.¹ Some groups in Cook County have much higher unemployment rates, including African Americans (20 percent), Hispanics (14 percent), veterans (12 percent), the disabled (20 percent) and those below the poverty level (35 percent). Given the variation by subgroup along with numerous other factors previously discussed, the significantly higher unemployment rates found in southern Cook are unsurprising.

Table 7. EDA distress measures in Cook County

Source: American Community Survey 2008-12 and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

49 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 2014.

⬚ figure

Map 20. Unemployment rate in Cook County by census tract, 2012 Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

⬚ figure

PLAN OF ACTION

All of the policies and strategies in this plan build off of Partnering for Prosperity. That document defines the broad goals and objectives for economic development in Cook County. Planning for Progress takes those strategies and marshals the resources of the Department of Planning and Development (CCDPD) to spur implementation. Therefore, Planning for Progress adopts the nine strategies of Partnering for Prosperity.

Such wholesale integration is understandable. Planning for Progress identified many of the same issues as Partnering for Prosperity. Chief among them, that the concentration of job centers in areas of the County far from residents with the highest economic need creates lengthy commutes and depresses household earnings. This situation ties into the topics on which stakeholders felt the department should focus, listed in order of priority.

• Infrastructure Projects and programs need to either better connect residents to jobs or encourage developments that add jobs in areas of high unemployment.

• Workforce development Increasing the skill level of the Cook County workforce would ensure that residents are ready to access available job opportunities.

• Business development Projects and programs need to include technical assistance and economic incentives for development in distressed areas.

• Affordable housing development Affordable housing in higher income areas plays a key role helping low-income households access jobs in suburban employment centers.

• Social services and capacity building While initial feedback cited neither social services nor planning and capacity building as high priorities, focus group discussions highlighted the important role of both topics in supporting the strategies identified in other areas.

This plan’s policies and strategies come directly from these findings, framed in five topic areas.

1. Infrastructure and public facilities
2. Business and workforce development
3. Housing development and services
4. Non-housing services
5. Planning and administration

Each topic area contains a policy statement that outlines the vision for that topic followed by specific strategies to achieve that vision and ways to measure performance on those strategies. These five areas are supplemented by a discussion of how investment priorities differ by geography (e.g. Areas of Need and Areas of Opportunity) and how the County will operationalize these strategies by 2019.

1. Infrastructure and Public Facilities

Policy Statement

Foster public infrastructure improvements that primarily serve as a support for other major priorities, including linking residents with jobs, encouraging economic development, and creating a County that is less auto-dependent.

Potential Resources

Strategies in this section will be funded directly through Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), CDBG Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR), Section 108, Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) Economic Development Program, and Economic Development Administration (EDA) funds. Additional monies will be leveraged through direct solicitation of additional public resources and coordination with other funders.

Strategies

1.1 Prioritize multi-jurisdictional funding requests.

Stakeholders noted throughout this process that some of the most complicated infrastructure projects to complete are those that span multiple jurisdictions. To encourage collaboration and move these often critical projects forward, future funding decisions will prioritize multi-jurisdictional collaboration. Building partnerships to submit multi-jurisdictional funding applications can help not only boost capacity to work jointly over the life of a complex project, but also to expand the size and scope of eligible funding sources. Additionally, multi-jurisdictional cooperation will foster greater collaboration between Cook County and the many governmental jurisdictions within it, including townships, municipalities, and sub-regional councils. The County specifically envisions potential infrastructure projects within unincorporated areas to advance their incorporation under this priority.

1.2 Coordinate multiple infrastructure improvements into single projects.

Units of local government and other infrastructure funders can gain efficiency and reduce overall costs by incorporating multiple improvements into one project. For example, expansion of broadband communications infrastructure can be realized at much lower costs when combined with roadway projects, or improving public safety by redoing street lighting when sidewalks and bicycle facilities are added. Similarly, installation of green stormwater infrastructure can be efficiently combined with roadway improvements. Future funding decisions will prioritize projects that coordinate multiple improvements into a single project. CCDPD will coordinate with other infrastructure funders as appropriate.

1.3 Prioritize projects and programs that help to address the jobs-housing disconnect, particularly within the south suburbs.

Affordable, convenient housing with access to job centers is a fundamental need for County residents. The planning process found that fostering a transportation network that helps residents access job opportunities is as important as training workers to succeed in those jobs. Future funding decisions will prioritize infrastructure projects that specifically target the disconnect between the location of job opportunities and the location of housing for the County workforce, particularly in Areas of Need. Specifically, CCDPD will support efforts to make better connections to suburban job centers in the west and north as appropriate. Examples of specific projects and programs that directly address the issue could include:

• Funding roadway improvements needed to attract employers to Areas of Need.
• Creating sidewalks and bicycle facilities in a neighborhood that connect it with nearby employment areas or transit stops.
• Improving the accessibility of a transit stop for persons with disabilities.
• Developing off-site infrastructure, such as nearby roadways and pedestrian facilities, to support a new affordable housing development.
• Supporting “last mile” commuting efforts to help people get from their transit stop to their destination.

1.4 Target infrastructure projects and programs to economic development efforts.

Some economic development initiatives, particularly those targeted at specific geographic areas, require critical infrastructure improvements to proceed. Development opportunities in these areas may require upraded infrastructure, assembly of multiple parcels, or remediation of environmental contamination. Strategic public and private infrastructure investments can stimulate economic development by addressing the barriers to successful projects. Examples might include roadway enhancements to accommodate industrial traffic, expansion of broadband infrastructure to office development, or connections from freight and logistics businesses to multimodal shipping facilities. The CCDPD will prioritize the funding of infrastructure projects to support economic development efforts. Ideal projects for County investment are catalytic, where the provision of additional infrastructure would lead to the development of a larger employment node or advance the clusters highlighted in Partnering for Prosperity. Projects could help prepare development sites acquired by the Suburban Land Bank and Development Authority (SSLBDA) and the Cook County Land Bank Authority (CCLBA).

Flooding, Stormwater, and CDBG-DR

Stormwater management will be an ongoing focus for CCDPD given persistent flooding issues in suburban Cook County. Because of flooding in 2013, the County will receive $83.6 million in CDBG-DR funds to advance flood recovery efforts in areas of unmet need. All funds must be expended by 2019. Funds will be used on infrastructure, acquisitions, planning, and replacement housing. The strategies for those funds align closely with Planning for Progress, including an emphasis on multi-jurisdictional projects and funding coordination. CDBG-DR greatly expands CCDPD's capacity to fund stormwater projects over the next five years.

Planning for Progress and Sustainability

Planning for Progress will take other regional and County sustainability policies and practices into account during implementation. For example, the Sustainability Advisory Council appointed by President Preckwinkle has developed a set of recommendations related to environmental sustainability which are currently under consideration. Related recommendations may be found here: http://blog.cookcountyil.gov/sustainability/cook-county-sustainability-advisory-council-recommendations/. It is anticipated that these recommendations will be considered as the Department develops and implements its CDBG-DR programming.

1.5 Continue to support capital improvements for public facilities.

Cook County has long funded improvements at public facilities run by non-profit organizations and units of local government. Supported facilities include community centers, recreational facilities, and facilities for persons with special needs, and other social service agencies. The County will prioritize funding for accessibility and energy efficiency improvements at existing facilities, especially in Areas of Need, with an emphasis on projects that connect to other strategies in this plan. Funding will also be contingent upon the service area of the facility, proximity of other similar facilities, and additional non-County available operating and programming funding for support of the project.

1.6 Coordinate closely with other major infrastructure funders.

When considering future funding decisions, the CCDPD will work closely with the other entities responsible for funding infrastructure, including the Cook County Department of Transportation and Highways (CCDOTH), IDOT, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, the Forest Preserves of Cook County, the councils of government (COGs), municipalities, and the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP). Closer coordination will help funding agencies direct applicants to sources most appropriate for their proposed projects. Doing so will also help direct proposals away from oversubscribed programs and toward programs that have historically had difficulty spending the entirety of their funds. For example, the Surface Transportation Program (STP), which is distributed by COGs, features federal funding match requirements that can deter lower-capacity communities from applying for assistance. Therefore, coordination between the CCDPD and the councils is particularly important. One key area for COG and County collaboration is around possibly using the County’s resources to help communities access match funding that makes their projects eligible for STP. In alignment with the policy priorities of this plan, the match could be made available to communities using STP for key economic development efforts. This will help incentivize local communities to utilize STP more strategically. CCDPD may also provide funding for preliminary engineering for special projects that encourage transit- and cargo-oriented development, increasing project competitiveness when applying for other funding sources.

Performance Measures

• Annual amount of funds, public and private, leveraged by County infrastructure investments.
• Share of CCDPD funded infrastructure monies that are invested in multi-jurisdictional projects.
• Share of CCDPD funded infrastructure monies that retain or increase permanent employment in the County.
• Share of CCDPD funded infrastructure monies that support projects that increase non-auto access to jobs.
• Number of parcels returned to productive use after CCDPD-supported demolition and site clearance.

2. Business and Workforce Development

Policy Statement

Pursue policies and programs that create an environment for economic growth, particularly in Areas of Need.

Potential Resources

Strategies in this section will be funded directly through CDBG, Section 108, EDA, Corporate funds, and Cook County economic development incentives. Additional monies will be leveraged through direct solicitation of additional public resources and coordination with other funders, including Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO), IDOT Economic Development Program, and Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) funds. County also expects to tap into the expertise of local stakeholders to advance economic development in the County and within the broader region such as World Business Chicago (WBC), the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA), the Economic Development Advisory Council (EDAC), Chicago Jobs Council (CJC), the Chicago Cook Workforce Partnership (CCWP), etc. Additionally, the County’s role as lead agency for the Chicago Metro Metal Consortium (CMMC) under the recently awarded Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership (IMCP) initiative offers additional resources for regional economic development through preferential funding for CMMC endorsed funding applications and linkages with a federal funding liaison.

Strategies

2.1 Continue to implement Partnering for Prosperity.

As noted before, the County has already done substantial work through Partnering for Prosperity exploring the industries on which it will focus in the coming years, defining the issues that need additional attention to create a dynamic economy, and identifying the tools at its disposal to support its goals. The department will continue to use the nine strategies in Partnering for Prosperity to guide its actions and funding decisions. Work will continue on implementation of the report, particularly the following early successes.

• Continuing to lead CMMC The department played a key role in organizing the regional effort to create CMMC and will work closely with all of its partners to realize the promise held by the potential to access significant federal assistance to support the metals cluster.

• Continue to support President Preckwinkle’s efforts to coordinate strategies for regional economic development with the leaders of the region’s seven counties. Such actions will include using its role as the lead economic development entity of the County to pursue implementation of the initiatives that come from this coordination. The department’s recent Local Technical Assistance (LTA) program application for the Chicago Regional Truck Permitting Working Group, and the pursuit of funding to support the creation of a Chicago Regional Truck Permitting Plan, are examples of the types of actions that will continue.

• Support Chicago Metro Exports Chicago Metro Exports is another important outgrowth of the President’s focus on regional strategies. As the initiative evolves over the next five years, the department will use its role to speed that expansion, including seeking funding to support operations for the partnership or expansion of the pilot grant program.

2.2 Support the current strengths of the workforce development system.

The need for workforce development ranked as a top concern of many stakeholders, from the perspectives of both employers and the workforce. CCDPD’s continued coordination with the CCWP is critical. CJC’s analysis of Cook County’s current workforce development infrastructure shows the need for additional, sustainable funding that enhances successful programs. Across multiple types of providers, sub-industries, and subregions, many promising programs merit further investment. The success of targeted programs, such as CCWP’s selection of 40 ITA-eligible occupations, provides a solid basis for understanding what sectors have unmet demand for workforce in the County. Funding from the department, when properly targeted, can provide flexible funding that leverages the finite public workforce funding from the federal and state governments. The County will use evidence from existing programs to inform how it directs its investments; private entities may be best positioned to focus on particular industries, target specific subregions, or pilot innovative strategies, while community colleges or the CCWP may provide the broadest reach. New investments will build on existing industry partnerships, rather than start new programs, to reach target sectors and areas.

⬚ figure

WBC

In 2012, WBC published its Plan for Economic Growth and Jobs. The plan has 10 strategies, listed below, and teams convened around each strategy developing initiatives for implementation.

1. Become a leading Hub for Advanced Manufacturing.

2. Increase Attractiveness as a Center for Business Services & Headquarters.

3. Become More Competitive as a Leading Transportation & Logistics Hub.

4. Make Chicago a Premier Destination for Tourism & Entertainment.

5. Make Chicago a National Leader in Exports.

6. Create demand-driven and targeted Workforce Development.

7. Support Innovation & Entrepreneurship in Emerging and Mature Sectors.

8. Invest to Create Next-Generation Infrastructure.

9. Develop and Deploy Assets in Neighborhoods to Align with Regional Economic Growth.

10. Create a Business Environment in which Companies can flourish.

Many of these strategies, such as capital access centers, align closely with Partnering for Prosperity and Planning for Progress. CCDPD anticipates working closely with WBC to implement its plans and has already partnered on key efforts such as CMMC and Chicago Metro Exports.

2.3 Fund the sustainability and expansion of sub-regional manufacturing intermediary approaches to workforce development.

Cook County currently benefits from several successful models for manufacturing workforce development intermediaries. The Golden Corridor Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (GCAMP) and the Calumet Green Manufacturing Partnership (CGMP) are diverse groups of employers, educational institutions, training providers, local government, and other stakeholders who collaborate to address the labor/skills mismatch and promote careers in manufacturing to ensure a competitive workforce. Along with the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) funded manufacturing sector centers, this type of collaborative intermediary holds promise as a multi-stakeholder approach to workforce development. They represent an opportunity for investment to meet employer demand.

2.4 Invest in increased on-the-job training and paid work experience programs.

Many of the industry clusters targeted in Planning for Progress require that workers receive training that workforce organizations cannot directly provide. Seventy percent of fabricated metals jobs, along with many transportation and logistics jobs that include truck driving, require on-the-job training. CCWP funds internship and on-the-job training, such as the Manufacturing Careers Internship Program (MCIP), that can be expanded through County investment. To operate the MCIP, CCWP funds providers in two subregions--Business & Career Services in north Cook and CGMP in south Cook. The County will explore leveraging its funding of these programs by combining them with other sources of funds. DCEO's strategic plan recommends expansion and strengthening of the Job Training Economic Development grant program (JTED) and Employer Training Investment Program (ETIP), both of which are designed to fund training strategies directly related to employer need; in addition, the U.S. Department of Labor is investing in expansion of employer-based apprenticeship programs. Strategies that expand apprenticeships and leverage JTED or ETIP investments in transportation and logistics employers could be especially helpful, as there is a need for on-the-job training but not a clear direction for new training strategies in this industry. CCDPD has also recently discussed potential suburban expansion of programming with Clean Slate and Green Corps. Towards this end, CCDPD will continue to explore partnership opportunities and examine the expansion of proven models.

2.5 Support workforce development activities with targeted supportive services.

The analysis completed by CJC combined with outreach to and feedback from workforce professionals highlighted the need for supportive service programs addressing the barriers that prevent people from participating in workforce programs, particularly transportation to training sites and employers. See Appendix B for details.

2.6 Coordinate the use of key state and federal incentive programs in Cook County.

The Illinois Enterprise Zone and federal New Market Tax Credits (NMTC) programs can provide important resources to further local and county economic development goals, when used strategically. The Enterprise Zones program, run by DCEO, seeks to attract business location and expansion in designated areas in need of economic stimulus, using state and local tax incentives, regulatory relief, and improved governmental services. The NMTC program is run by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and provides a federal tax credit to individual and corporate investors who make equity investments in Community Development Enterprises. Both programs focus on working in disadvantaged communities.

Accessing either of these programs requires organizational capacity to develop and implement a successful application. Many municipalities do not have this capacity, particularly those in distressed areas. Poorly conceived or operated programs undermine the potential for positive impact. Cook County will strive to fill this gap by bringing together groups of municipalities to develop applications for both programs that make sense from a municipal and County level. CCDPD will work to link County and municipal efforts more intentionally to other applicants, to demonstrate collaboration, not competition. In particular, the County will pursue these collaborations within Areas of Need. For NMTC, that collaboration would ideally take the form of a county-wide application and program. The County should work with CMAP to explore both efforts on developing a framework for collaboration and review national best practices. Cook County, Will County, and the South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association (SSMMA) are currently coordinating the application for Enterprise Zone designations across 32 municipalities in the south suburbs.

DCEO Coordination

⬚ figure

DCEO recently completed its five year plan, The Illinois Economic Development Plan, and it offers numerous opportunities for coordination with Cook County, including the following:

Strengthen state’s business attraction, retention, and support initiatives These incentives include Small Business Development Centers, Enterprise Zones, Economic Development for a Growing Economy (EDGE) tax credits, and DCEO programs including Regional Economic Development (RED) teams, which provide region-specific support. The plan recommends targeting anchor institutions in high-growth clusters and pursuing a comprehensive certification program for Illinois’ industrial sites to create a database of attractive sites.

Promote economic development on a regional level The County should pursue coordinated efforts to transfer properties, potentially easing attempts to assemble multiple parcels. DCEO also seeks to incentivize regions to secure federal funds, including by providing matching funds to apply for EDA assistance. The County will pursue any opportunities that increase its ability to leverage its resources to secure federal funding.

Develop an increasingly competitive workforce Some of the DCEO’s recommendations (partner with businesses, expand successful existing programs, and support skilled trades apprenticeships) align well with currently successful programs in the County.

Modernize and revitalize our infrastructure The plan recommends several actions related to infrastructure that align with County goals, including to secure full funding for CREATE, perform regular maintenance on key transportation infrastructure, and increase access to broadband. The County will coordinate with DCEO to ensure that these state investments align with County investments and development plans.

Land Banking as an Economic Development Tool

Cook County Land Bank Authority (CCLBA)

In response to the financial crisis and the rise of vacant land and buildings, the CCLBA was formed by the President and Board of Commissioners of Cook County to address the over 55,000 vacant parcels throughout the County. The CCLBA mission is to acquire, rehabilitate and transform vacant and blighted land and structures, commercial, industrial, and residential and return them to productive use. CCLBA is the largest land bank by geography in the country and joins over 80 other land banks across the country transforming communities. CCLBA is funded through grants and development revenue and is governed by an appointed Board of Directors.

South Suburban Land Bank and Development Authority (SSLBDA)

The SSLBDA was formed in 2012 with an intergovernmental agreement passed by the Village of Park Forest, City of Oak Forest and City of Blue Island. Currently, membership totals 15 communities across the Southland. The land bank was made possible by HUD Sustainable Communities and National Mortgage Foreclosure Settlement grants. The South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association (SSMMA) was instrumental in establishing the land bank and provides technical assistance for the SSLBDA.

Scope and Purpose

Both land banks will facilitate the redevelopment of acquired properties through strategic partnerships with developers, community organizations, lenders, and local governments. These developments will improve the quality of life, stabilize the tax base, and enhance economic activities that promote sustainable communities in cooperation with local government plans and priorities.

Along with planning, incentives and grant making, land banks are another tool to incentivize regional economic development. Both land banks will leverage their capacity to hold, manage, and/or develop tax or bank foreclosed properties and put them back into productive use in support of related local efforts.

Opportunities for Coordination

There is significant potential for DPD coordination with both land banks within the Planning for Progress framework including but not limited to:

• Funding for land acquisition, site preparation, demolition
• Clearing liens and title on tax delinquent property to facilitate private redevelopment and assist municipalities and other taxing bodies productive re-use of blighted land
• Funding for infrastructure improvements and/or housing adjacent to land bank acquisitions as part of a broader redevelopment strategy

DPD has consulted with both land banks throughout the development of Planning for Progress and will continue to jointly explore meaningful opportunities for collaboration.

2.7 Strategically make use of the County's economic development tools.

The County has a variety of financial tools that it uses to impact development decisions. The BUILT in Cook loan fund, described previously, will finance four types of urban development projects: transit-oriented development near passenger rail stations, cargo-oriented development near freight rail, mixed-use hospitality and service sector developments accessible by transit, and business development loans for start-ups and expansions. Monies from the County's Section 108 loan will also be used for the Emerging Business Development loan fund (financing for projects specifically to certified minority- and woman-owned business) and the Built 50-40 program (financing up to 40 percent of costs for job creation or retention projects typically associated with small businesses to industrial or commercial companies located or planning to locate in Cook County). The County can also issue tax-exempt Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (IRB) on behalf of manufacturing companies. The bonds can be used to finance qualified capital expenditures to support job creation and retention. Another tool, the No Cash Bid Program, assists municipalities and other taxing bodies in acquiring tax delinquent property, facilitating private redevelopment, particularly important with the development of SSLBDA and CCLBA.

The County will strategically use these tools, following national best practices to ensure that they are effective. Such practices include continual evaluation and monitoring, specific requirements for use that link to effectiveness, and conditions for recapture. Additionally, the County will align these tools with overarching economic development strategies, targeting their use to support the clusters in Partnering for Prosperity. Efforts will be geographically targeted to places that increase transit accessibility and reduce the jobs-housing imbalance. The County will potentially fund demolition and site preparation for the SSLBDA and CCLBA in support of the clusters in Partnering for Prosperity.

Finally, property tax incentive classes are widely used across Cook County. The Class 6b program, for example, offers a real estate tax incentive for developing new industrial facilities, rehabilitating existing industrial facilities, and reusing abandoned properties for industrial uses. Incentive classes are made necessary by the current property tax classification structure. Some parts of the County have a lower tax base due to the lack of development and lower property values, creating a higher tax burden for the owner. These incentives are used to attract and maintain development.

2.8 Explore governance reforms that would encourage economic efficiency.

Cooperation between different levels of government can ensure that jurisdictions pursue economic development strategies that complement, rather than work against, one another. Tax policy is one example of an area where improved coordination presents potential economic gains, breaking the cycle of low tax base growth and high tax rates. As previously noted, businesses often shoulder more of the property tax burden in Cook County than they would in neighboring counties. Many stakeholders noted the negative effect this has on competitiveness, particularly in communities on the border of Cook County. To combat this, municipalities often seek to attract businesses by offering tax incentive classes. The current system likely contributes to lower property tax base growth in many south and west Cook County communities, putting a greater tax burden on existing residents and businesses. The County should consider whether the popularity of tax incentive classes suggests that changes to general tax policies, rather than case-by-case incentives, might provide a more consistent and equitable way to attract businesses.

Small Business Assistance programs

Entrepreneurs seeking to start or expand small businesses in Cook County can draw on numerous programs sponsored by multiple government agencies, non-profit organizations, and community development financial institutions. Any County programs aimed at aiding small businesses should leverage the existing programs and resources already available. A few examples of relevant programs include:

County Assistance:

The BUILT In Cook Loan Fund, financed by the Section 108 loan program, is a $30 million loan program to encourage job creation and retention in suburban Cook County. One element of the fund is a program for business development loans for start-ups and expansions. BUILT in Cook will issue loans in collaboration with private lenders to credit-worthy developers, businesses, and individuals located in or planning to locate in projects that benefit low- and moderate-income residents.

Other Government Assistance:

The City of Chicago’s Office of the City Treasurer runs the Small Business Development Loan Fund, providing loans in amounts from $2,000 to $50,000 to help new and existing small businesses in the City expand. The Fund draws on partnerships with several local lenders and Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs). For small businesses seeking technical assistance, the Illinois Small Business Development Centers (SBDC) network has twelve locations in Cook County. Hosted by universities and economic development organizations and funded in partnership with the U.S. Small Business Administration, SBDCs provide business advice and assistance with business plan development, marketing, financial planning, and access to financing.

Non-Governmental Assistance:

Many CDFIs in Cook County offer loan programs aimed at assisting small businesses. Accion Chicago issues small businesses loans ranging from $500 to $50,000 in terms ranging from two to 72 months. The Chicago Community Loan Fund provides financing for projects that produce positive social benefits to underserved communities or low- to medium-income households. While many borrowers are non-profit organizations, worker-owned enterprises, and business cooperatives, mission-driven for-profit firms are also eligible. Other programs seek to assist small businesses in specific sectors. IFF, while mostly lending to non-profit organizations, has created the Illinois Fresh Food Fund, which provides loans and grants to help grocers succeed in underserved markets, such as food deserts and limited supermarket areas.

⬚ figure

2.9 Support small business creation in Areas of Need.

Throughout the planning process, stakeholders reiterated the importance of fostering small business growth in Cook County, particularly in low- and moderate-income communities, areas with high unemployment, and in locations accessible by transit.

Currently, there are multiple entities that constitute the small business system in Cook County as outlined in the snapshot below. As such, many of the educational and training services requested by stakeholders are already provided in Cook County. That said the system is complex. It is unclear whether these services are located and structured in a way that efficiently and effectively supports the overall strategies for economic development set out in Partnering for Prosperity and Planning for Progress. Cook County will explore assistance to study the local small business assistance system. Much like the analysis of workforce development contained in Planning for Progress, a study of the current business development ecosystem will help identify gaps where County investments and programs such as BUILT in Cook could fill a needed role. The study should consider the need for a small business revolving loan fund to support business creation in Areas of Need.

2.10 Develop a Section 3, minority-owned business enterprise (MBE), and women-owned business enterprise (WBE) compliance system for all of Cook County.

Many entities in Cook County receive federal funding and must meet federal guidelines on providing opportunities for low-income and disadvantaged residents. Cook County will work with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), other federal funders, and additional federally-funded entities in Cook County to develop an integrated Section 3, MBE, and WBE compliance system. A common business registration and certification system would allow all entities to accept the same firm as MBE, WBE, or Section 3 certified. An integrated Section 3 system could allow eligible residents improved job access. Linking contracting opportunities generated by other entitlement communities or housing authorities into this system could boost its effectiveness and allow for efficient compliance. The CCWP and its member agencies also operate in a similar space and should partner on this effort. The Regional Housing Initiative may provide a forum for some of these discussions. Initial discussions with the Housing Authority of Cook County, Chicago Housing Authority, CCWP, and City of Chicago around potential coordination have already begun.

2.11 Implement key regional projects and programs, including seeking EDA funding where appropriate.

Throughout the planning process, the County learned more about key regional economic development projects and programs through extensive consultation with public, private, and non-profit groups. The County will offer itself as a partner to support implementation of key regional projects and programs consistent with Planning for Progress. In particular, the County notes that any aspects of the following six programs are consistent with the goals of this plan.

• CREATE
• Connecting Cook County
• CMMC
• O’Hare-area Subregion Truck Routing and Infrastructure Plan
• The Chicago Regional Truck Permitting Plan
• Chicago Metro Exports

The County also recognizes that CMAP, through its role as the region’s metropolitan planning organization, is closely involved in regional transportation planning. Projects identified through GO TO 2040, including the major capital projects, are critical to Planning for Progress.

Performance Measures

• Annual change in employment in Cook County, both generally and within the four sectors from Partnering for Prosperity, including the number of jobs added, lost, and retained.

• Percentage of County economic development monies expended on businesses within the four sectors from Partnering for Prosperity.

• Amount of private funds leveraged by the County’s economic development expenditures, both generally and within the four sectors from Partnering for Prosperity.

• Number of identified Section 3 residents finding employment through the County.

• Number of MBE, WBE, and Section 3 registered businesses receiving contracts through the County.

• Number of individuals finding full-time employment due to County workforce development funding.

• Share of population and jobs with at least moderate access to transit.

• The County will also monitor the following regional economic indicators tracked by CMAP. o Real median household income o Real gross regional product o Total jobs o Unemployment o Educational attainment o Workforce participation o Skills gap o Science Engineering Technology and Math (STEM) occupations o Cluster employment and location quotients o Intermodal lifts o Manufacturing exports o Venture capital o Private sector research and development employment o Patents o Technology transfer

3. Housing Development and Services

Policy Statement

Efforts to address the jobs-housing mismatch must include actions that increase the number of affordable housing opportunities in locations with good job access while maintaining the existing housing stock and providing related services in areas of the County where efforts will focus on increasing job opportunities.

Potential Resources

Affordable housing development and service activities will be funded through a combination CDBG, CDBG-DR, HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), and Section 108 funds. It is anticipated that the County will solicit additional public funds to leverage these resources through HUD, the Illinois Housing Development Authority (IHDA), and the Regional Housing Initiative. It is possible that CCDPD may jointly fund housing projects with clear respective benefits in coordination with other CDBG entitlement municipalities. CCDPD will also continue to participate in the Preservation Compact convened interagency groups (also inclusive of IHDA and the City of Chicago) related to troubled properties and monitoring coordination. In addition, the County will remain an active participant in the HOME regional administrators coordinating group.

Strategies

3.1 Preserve and create affordable housing in more affluent job- and transit-rich areas of Cook County.

The County will only pursue or support new affordable housing developments in areas of the County with higher incomes, good job access, and transit infrastructure. Housing within these areas will be created through new developments and the preservation of existing affordable units. This principle will define the County’s housing strategy over the next five years. The focus on these areas will not only guide what projects the County will choose to fund, but also whether it will give developers or public housing authorities letters of support and/or statements of consistency for federal and state funds, including for Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). The goal of this strategy is to move away from the traditional practice of developing affordable housing in disadvantaged areas with concentrated poverty.

Organizations seeking County assistance should be prepared to detail how their proposal fits within this strategy by providing affordable housing residents good access to transit and jobs in higher income areas. Many areas with these attributes overlap with the non-exempt communities identified by IHDA per the Affordable Housing Planning and Appeals Act (AHPAA). Ideal projects would be those that also move forward planning and implementation of transit-oriented development. Project formats could include new construction, rehabilitation, homebuyer assistance, or tenant-based rental assistance. The research and community engagement process for Planning for Progress emphasized a particular need for the following unit types.

HOME Consortium Members

Several suburban municipalities are currently members of the Cook County HOME Consortium. As the lead entity for the Consortium, CCDPD administers HOME funding on behalf of member communities. Some member municipalities receive their own CDBG and ESG funding directly from HUD and prepare their own Consolidated Plan. The housing strategies and performance measures outlined in this section apply broadly to efforts funded through the Consortium. Municipalities who utilize their CDBG funds for housing development and/or services will outline local strategies and measures. CCDPD will continue to coordinate with HOME consortium members regarding the housing goals, priorities, and strategies outlined in this section.

Public Housing Authorities

CCDPD will continue to coordinate with local public housing authorities regarding the housing goals, priorities, and strategies outlined in this section.

• Family Housing U.S. Census figures corroborate the concerns of stakeholders that the County lacks affordable housing units for households needing more than three bedrooms. A number of census tracts in comparatively affluent areas display overcrowded housing, partly due to the lack of affordable housing units designed for families. Less than one quarter of the rental units in suburban Cook have three or more bedrooms, compared to three quarters of the owner units.

• Supportive Housing Affordable housing that provides additional services can have positive effects on residents’ housing stability, mental health, employment outcomes, and quality of life. It can also reduce overall costs for housing providers. Numerous stakeholders cited a need for additional permanent supportive housing options in suburban Cook County, particularly units with housing services, employment services, and resources for seniors.

• Emergency and Transitional Housing The Alliance to End Homelessness in Suburban Cook County’s strategic plan calls for maintaining current levels of emergency and transitional housing, and/or transforming some of the transitional housing opportunities to rapid re-housing, and/or improving the resources for people in short-term housing crisis (and access to those resources). Such units play an important role in housing the homeless and those potentially homeless.

• Accessible Housing Discussions with developers, service providers, disability advocates, and public housing authorities noted the ongoing need to create units that are accessible for seniors and the disabled.

3.2 Preserve the housing stock in disinvested areas of Cook County.

While the County will focus on creating and preserving affordable housing in job-rich areas, it recognizes that the housing stock in other areas of the County must be maintained. Therefore, Cook County will fund housing rehabilitation programs. The non-profit organizations selected for such programs will need to work primarily in Areas of Need, ideally in locations that advance overall goals of creating compact, transit-oriented communities of choice. While such programs would focus mostly on housing rehabilitation, replacement of existing units with new structures would be permitted when rehabilitation is not financially feasible. CCDPD will also use existing and leveraged funds for demolition and deconstruction of blighted homes, which are beyond repair and/or located in areas that are unlikely to support future redevelopment.

Ideal program operators are those with knowledge of and demonstrated capacity to work with other rehabilitation resources, including the County’s lead based paint and radon testing programs and energy efficiency programs operated by private and non-profit firms. Operators should explain how they will incorporate the best practices associated with HUD’s Healthy Homes program, thereby reducing environmental hazards in rehabilitated units. Consistent with other County policies, the most effective housing rehabilitation programs would be those that link with other social services, including housing counseling.

Rehabilitation resources

As the County considers creating housing rehabilitation programs, it will look for operators to leverage outside resources, such as the following.

Radon: Cook County provides residents and non-profit organizations with low-cost radon test kits. The kits are available to a resident for a cost of $7.00 per kit. Renters may also purchase test kits, as can non-profit organizations conducting rehabilitation work on behalf of renters.

Lead: The Department of Public Health provides services related to lead paint in Cook County, including inspections, testing, and remediation. Through partnerships with the Community and Economic Development Association of Cook County (CEDA) and several municipal health departments, the Department provides funding to qualified landlords to remediate lead-based paint hazards in homes. The Department also makes funds available to local governments and non-profit organizations to address lead-based paint exposure and remediate housing.

Energy efficiency: DCEO operates several residential weatherization and energy efficiency programs. The Illinois Home Weatherization Assistance Program provides funds for actions including air sealing, insulation, furnace repair and replacement, and energy load reduction to income-qualified households. Through its Office of Urban Assistance, DCEO also administers the Urban Weatherization Initiative to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy costs in disadvantaged communities in several Illinois counties, including Cook. The program provides grants to organizations that train and develop employment opportunities for energy auditors and weatherization specialists. Elevate Energy, a Chicago-based non-profit, coordinates a number of efficiency incentive programs with utilities and contractors that could provide resources in partnership with County rehabilitation programs.

IHDA Resources

IHDA operates several assistance programs that could provide valuable contributions to meeting the goals of Planning for Progress.

Blight Reduction Program: The program funds units of local government to partner with non-profits to obtain funding to target blighted and vacant residential properties for acquisition, demolition, greening, and eventual reuse or redevelopment.

Employer-Assisted Housing (IHDA/MPC Partnership): Provides up to $7,500 in down payment assistance from IHDA to help residents purchase homes near where they work, if employers offer an Employer-Assisted Housing Benefit. The Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC) is working with employers in Chicago and south and west Cook County, as well as with the Northside Community Development Corporation. Homebuyers are eligible if earning no more than 80 percent of the area median income and receive down payment assistance from their employer.

Illinois Building Blocks: Turns vacant homes into homeownership opportunities in certain eligible communities, including nine in Cook County. Provides $10,000 in cash assistance for down payment and a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with affordable rates.

Smart Move: Aimed at first-time homebuyers with little cash for a down payment but an ability to meet monthly mortgage payments, Smart Move offers up to $6,000 towards a down payment and an affordable 30-year fixed-rate mortgage.

Smart Move Plus: Provides assistance to residents who currently own a home and are looking to refinance.

Smart Move Trio: Provides cash assistance for a down payment, links homebuyers to a federal tax credit that reduces income tax liability, and provides an affordable 30-year fixed-rate mortgage.

Welcome Home Heroes: Offers financial support for veterans and active military personnel seeking to buy a home, including up to $10,000 towards a down payment and a 30-year mortgage.

Welcome Home Illinois: Provides assistance for first-time homebuyers or anyone who has not owned a home within the previous three years. Welcome Home Illinois provides cash assistance for a down payment and a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at a below-market interest rate.

3.3 Prioritize projects and programs that link housing with employment.

Given the focus on addressing the jobs-housing mismatch, the County will prioritize housing projects and programs that specifically link housing with employment or employers. Potential projects could include downpayment assistance, tenant-based rental assistance, and housing rehabilitation, ideally partnering with one or more nearby employers. The County will use its existing relationships with employers to help spur such partnerships. The department also recognizes that housing programs can lead to employment opportunities and will also consider housing programs that include a direct tie to employment or apprenticeship programs under this strategy.

3.4 Offer housing counseling as part of an integrated support system for residents.

Counseling services for residents are a crucial component of an effective overall housing strategy. A variety of housing counseling services can help residents find housing opportunities, qualify for units or financial assistance, educate about fair housing requirements, and remain in appropriate housing. The County understands that housing counseling must be part of a menu of services available to residents, particularly those accessing other projects and programs envisioned by this plan. Housing counseling can more efficiently fit into the overarching strategies of Planning for Progress by combining with other services for residents in need. Cook County will prioritize funding for housing counseling that links with these other efforts, including counseling for both homeowners and renters. While the County will prioritize housing counseling that is provided by HUD-certified agencies, it may also support non-HUD certified counseling activities where eligible on a case by case basis when deemed necessary to further the plan’s objectives. Technical assistance will be needed to implement the fair housing recommendations of the County Analysis of Impediments and the Fair Housing and Equity Assessment (FHEA), inclusive of a model ordinance, best practices, and effective training for users.

One particular area of need is counseling that addresses municipal regulation of rental units. As the number of single-family rental units has increased across the County in recent years, so has municipal interest in regulating these units. Landlord and tenant education is an important part of such regulation and County-funded services may include landlord and tenant education programs that could be operated in collaboration with municipalities.

3.5 Prioritize projects and programs that link with services.

The County has identified human services as an important component to Planning for Progress. Specific services described elsewhere in the plan include employment services, workforce training, and housing counseling. While these services are important on their own, they can be made more effective when paired with the County’s housing investments. The County will seek projects and programs that link housing with services as appropriate in future funding decisions.

3.6 Expand access to the County’s supply of housing through tenant-based rental assistance.

The Alliance to End Homelessness in Suburban Cook County’s recent strategic plan identifies a major need for rapid rehousing efforts. Consistent with the strategic plan’s goal to meet this need, the County will consider operating an ongoing tenant-based rental assistance program with a non-profit in suburban Cook County. A pilot program for TBRA will be deployed under CDBG-DR and could be expanded if successful. This program must be targeted to low-income households.

3.7 Decrease housing barriers for ex-offenders in Cook County.

Many housing authorities include regulations requiring criminal background checks as a condition to demonstrate eligibility to live in public housing or access housing vouchers. As currently designed, many of these regulations severely restrict housing opportunities for ex-offenders, creating a major barrier to reintegration into the economy and society. County staff will work with public housing agencies and other key service provider partners to understand the operational concerns that drove the creation of these regulations and provide assistance so that such requirements can be adjusted, allowing more housing options for ex-offenders.

3.8 Adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance that would apply in unincorporated Cook County.

The County’s local land use authority only covers a relatively small area, with municipalities regulating the vast majority of land in the County. However, the County does enjoy regulatory authority over unincorporated land, and will create and adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance for these areas. The ordinance can help the County directly advance affordable and fair housing goals for a small but significant amount of land and could serve as a model for communities considering whether to adopt similar ordinances in the future.

Performance Measures

• Amount of match generated by the HOME program annually.
• Annual share of new affordable housing units in suburban Cook County that are in Areas of Opportunity.
• Annual share of new and preserved affordable housing units in suburban Cook County that fall into one of the four desired housing types (family housing, supportive housing, emergency or transitional housing, or senior housing).
• Average amount of department funding needed to rehabilitate one unit.
• Average amount of department funding needed to build one new unit.
• Proportion of TBRA recipients maintaining housing stability six months after conclusion of assistance

4. Non-Housing Services

Policy Statement

Public services will support the County's goals in other areas, particularly increased coordination among funders and providers, the provision of much needed safety net programs, and improved employment opportunities for all people.

Potential Resources

Non-housing supportive service activities will be funded through CDBG and ESG funds. It is anticipated that the County will solicit additional public funds to leverage these resources through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Illinois Department of Human Services. CCDPD also expects to coordinate related funding with the United Way and private philanthropy and expand upon existing networks such as the Southland Human Services Leadership Council and The Hub.

Strategies

4.1 Advance social service funding collaboration in suburban Cook.

Social services are funded by a mixture of federal, state, local, and philanthropic entities. Only by better coordinating investment decisions among this patchwork can funders ensure that their efforts are maximally effective and help orient providers around critical issues. Moreover, the Brookings Institution’s Confronting Suburban Poverty in America highlights the growth of suburban poverty in the U.S. and the need for a reorientation of resources to recognize the new geography of poverty. The County specifically envisions a social services funding collaborative that would coordinate expenditures, advocate for additional suburban social services funding, and explore national best practices that could be applied to improve current responses to poverty in suburban Cook.

4.2 Prioritize service offerings that link across programs and support subregional efforts.

The County will fund those service programs that are integrated with other service efforts, such as health care, youth programs, early childhood education, and financial literacy, ensuring that County funding helps create an integrated system of mutually supportive services. As discussed before, integrating supportive services with housing provision can be an effective way of increasing both organizational efficiency and program outcomes. Another way to increase efficiency through mutually supportive programs is to focus funding on larger entities that can achieve the benefits of scale to make the best use of funds and leverage those resources. While large-scale organizations are often well equipped to provide linked services across the County, this strategy does not necessarily predicate funding decisions on the size of the applicant; successful and innovative service offerings from smaller providers will remain targets for investment.

4.3 Continue to participate in the regional dialogue around the need for a comprehensive referral system.

Comprehensive referral systems, often called “211” or “311,” provide a single point of telephone or online contact that links residents to the menu of services available to their needs, including social services. Stakeholders consistently cited the need for a 211/311-like system in suburban Cook County. Such as system would move beyond the County-funded virtual call center, which provides referral assistance for homelessness services to suburban Cook County residents for limited hours during the work week. The County has been and will continue to be a part of discussions around how to best meet this need and would consider providing funding for such a system depending on design, operation, and scope. Initial discussions are underway with the United Way about The Hub in south Cook, which has established a call center and referral network for a broad range of services, as an effort to build on.

4.4 Continue to support collaboration around social service provision to improve efficiency.

The County will fund efforts that drive cooperation among service providers within subregions. Joint efforts between multiple service providers in a single subregion can improve efficiency and increase the viability of funding and grant applications. The Southland Human Services Leadership Council (SHSLC) offers one example of a promising collaboration. Convened by the South-Southwest Region United Way, the SHSLC is an assembly of providers, funders, intergovernmental agencies, and civic groups with a mission to create a sustained network of excellent health and human services in the Southland. SHSLC enhances service provision by creating connections between multiple providers, efficiently sharing resources, increasing funding to services, and advancing policy.

In addition to collaboration based on geography, joint efforts aimed at specific tasks and strategies can improve efficiency. Tools such as the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS), the Alliance’s coordinated intake process, and standardized assessment tool are important examples of collaboration around data collection and analysis that improve the efficiency of social service provision. Cook County will continue supporting such efforts.

Performance Measures

• Proportion of required organizations utilizing HMIS.
• Number of people recorded as receiving housing-related services in HMIS.
• Percentage of missing data in HMIS.
• Number of organizations utilizing broader information and assistance systems.
• Number of Cook County residents directly employed due to services or funding, per dollar spent.

5. Planning and Administration

Policy Statement

Develop the institutional framework both within and around Cook County that allows the department to support multi-jurisdictional collaboration and improved local capacity and transparency.

Potential Resources

CCDPD will utilize eligible planning and administrative funds from all available sources including CDBG, ESG, HOME, Section 108, and CDBG-DR. Limited corporate funds will supplement these dollars to facilitate related operations and staffing. It is anticipated that the County will distribute a portion of funds externally to qualified agencies for sub-contracted program administration and special planning initiatives. Furthermore, the County is exploring a set-aside of CDBG funding to supplement CMAP's LTA program.

Strategies

5.1 Build relationships over the next five years with townships in Cook County, particularly with regard to public service provision.

Many stakeholders noted the important role townships play in providing social services and emergency assistance to County residents. Yet, few townships are connected to the work of other social service providers in Cook County. To improve future coordination, the County will act as a convener, bringing social service agencies and townships together to discuss how these programs can create an integrated social service continuum in the most efficient way possible. This effort will also involve municipalities that provide social services.

5.2 Deepen connections with all of the communities in Cook County as the basis for ensuring the efficient and effective use of federal resources.

The department has been active over the last two years in expanding membership of the Cook County HOME Consortium to include several additional municipalities. The County will continue these efforts until all suburban entitlement communities have become members. Together, Cook County communities and the department can go even further to ensure that federally available resources are effectively controlled locally and used efficiently. Some municipalities in Cook County are not currently members of the CDBG urban county; the County will work closely with these municipalities going forward to build strong partnerships. Some smaller entitlement communities are struggling with the increasing cost of compliance with the requirements of federal funding. The County will offer itself as a partner to help smaller entitlements meet these requirements and ensure the most efficient use of these monies.

⬚ figure

Map 21. CDBG entitlements. Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

⬚ figure

CDBG Recipients

• Municipal entitlement
• Cook County
• Other
• County Subdivisions
• Railroads
• CTA Rail Lines
• Interstate Highway
• Airport

⬚ figure

5.3 Integrate the subregional councils in suburban Cook County into future County funding decisions.

The COGs are already heavily involved in the allocation of federal transportation dollars, providing an effective way for subregions to identify the projects that are of most importance and then fund those efforts. The County should take advantage of this local knowledge by developing a way for the COGs to participate in the funding decision process. A good first step would be the previously discussed coordination of infrastructure investments.

5.4 Participate in regional discussions around coordinated investment.

CMAP continues its work on the potential to coordinate and target investment from the many entities that fund infrastructure, affordable housing, and social services dollars in the region. CCDPD will continue to participate in these regional discussions and explore how they could help fulfill the goals of this plan.

5.5 Encourage communities in Areas of Need to plan.

Local planning is a necessary aspect of readying municipalities to submit applications that fit the goals of this plan, as each community is best suited to identify its highest priority investment needs and locations. The County will emphasize the importance of local planning to communities. Many resources are available to help communities undertake planning efforts, including CMAP's LTA program. The County should assist communities in accessing these resources to ensure effective and regionally consistent planning efforts.

5.6 Support efforts to increase municipal capacity and consistency through collaboration and technical assistance.

Numerous stakeholders raised concerns about how the lack of municipal capacity and expertise across many topics act as barriers to development for disinvested communities. This concern was specifically raised regarding construction permitting, building code enforcement, economic development planning, and infrastructure planning. The County will work in collaboration with other units of government, non-profits, and for-profit entities to help increase municipal capacity through technical assistance and inter-jurisdictional collaboration.

5.7 Create partnerships with potential funders, whether public, non-profit, or private.

As discussed in greater detail elsewhere, monies from HUD alone cannot meet all of the needs in Cook County. Therefore, CCDPD will build partnerships with public, private, and non-profit funders around the priorities of this plan, leveraging additional funding streams to address these issues.

Performance Measures

• Number of County led and supported applications to CMAP's LTA program from Areas of Need.
• Number of County led and supported interjurisdictional applications for public/private funding.
• Share of Cook County municipalities that are members of the HOME consortium.
• Share of Cook County municipalities that are members of the Urban County.
• Share of suburban Cook County entitlements that are members of the HOME Consortium.

Map 22. HOME Consortium membership. Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

Geography of Investment

An important component of Planning for Progress is strategically targeting County investments to specific geographies. While the plan’s goals are designed to stimulate economic growth and equity throughout Cook County, particular types of investment are preferred for certain geographies given the underlying market conditions.

Throughout the development of Planning for Progress, stakeholders identified roughly two different types of areas: those that have good access to jobs or residents with higher incomes (predominantly in north and southwest Cook County) and those with lower incomes, higher levels of unemployment, and higher levels of poverty (mostly in south and west Cook County). Stakeholders called for different approaches to these areas. More affluent locations should be places where additional affordable housing would most benefit the communities and the new residents. Distressed areas should be focuses for economic, workforce, and service development. Infrastructure was viewed as the supporting framework for this targeting regardless of market type.

Defining areas in this way is very similar to those used in the FHEA. As such, the County will build its targeting off of the FHEA’s “opportunity index.” The FHEA’s designation of “opportunity” comprised HUD’s Housing Stability Index, School Proficiency Index, Job Access Index, and Transit Access Index, as well as median home values, post-high school degree attainment, unemployment rate, poverty rate, mean travel time to work, and property values. Each data set in the index was divided into quintiles, with the scores for each U.S. Census tract averaged to determine an opportunity score. This score ranges from one to five. Disadvantaged areas have lower scores, while affluent areas have higher scores.

While the County will consider the individual merits of each application in making funding decisions, it will generally prioritize economic development, workforce development, housing rehabilitation, and public service activities in lower ranked areas (Areas of Need) and affordable housing development and preservation efforts in higher ranked areas (Areas of Opportunity). Infrastructure funding will knit these priorities together regardless of geography, with a particular focus on transit access. County efforts will reference in incorporate other ongoing targeting efforts, such as the Chicago Community Trust’s Opportunity Hubs and WBC’s Capital Access Centers, and the implementation of other key Cook County Plans such as Connecting Cook County and the Centennial Campaign Plan. Finally, the types of funding provided by the County will differ by geography, with financing, such as Section 108 likely used in the strongest market areas (Areas of Opportunity) and grants and low-cost financing used in weaker markets (Areas of Need).

⬚ figure

Map 23. Geography for Investment. Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

⬚ figure

Implementation, Resources, and Opportunities

In its role as both a Consolidated Plan and a CEDS, Planning for Progress reflects the diversity of funding sources that the County will tap to support implementation. Beyond its annual entitlements (i.e. CDBG, HOME, and ESG), the County has four other major sources of funds that it anticipates will support this plan.

• Cook County will utilize its corporate funds on an as needed basis to support department operations, particularly associated with staffing for business and workforce development and planning and administration.
• As noted earlier, the County received $30 million through HUD's Section 108 program in 2013 to establish the BUILT in Cook loan fund. The proposed uses of these funds align closely with Planning for Progress and will implement this plan.
• Due to flooding in Cook County in 2013, the department will receive more than $83 million in disaster relief funds (i.e. CDBG-DR) to advance flood recovery efforts in areas of unmet need. The County developed its plan for the flood funds concurrently with Planning for Progress. The use of these monies will be consistent with this plan.
• CCDPD administers a number of economic development programs and those programs will support this plan.

The table below details how the County anticipates using these core resources to support the plan's five strategy areas. The over $280 million in core resources will leverage almost $300 million in additional dollars based on the County's historic funding patterns, particularly matched dollars from HOME, CDBG, and ESG projects.

Beyond these core resources and associated leveraging, the County will seek additional funds to support the implementation of this plan. The funds include applications to the EDA for items on the CEDS project list; seeking Choice Neighborhoods grants, Promise Zone grants, and the NMTC; the potential establishment of Enterprise Zones; and pursuit of other grants. These sources could result in several million dollars in additional funds for the County.

Table 8. 2015-19 anticipated core resources

Source: Cook County.

Finally, Cook County will make a particular effort to engage the philanthropic community. This relationship will not only include soliciting comments on the County’s funding decisions, but also seeking philanthropic support for the following specific implementation activities.

• Support efforts to increase municipal capacity and consistency through collaboration and technical assistance.
• Encourage the formal collaboration of service providers in other areas of the County through organizations similar to SHSLC.
• Support for the development of a comprehensive referral system (e.g. 211/311) in Cook County.
• Support the study of the small business assistance system in Cook County.
• Develop a Section 3, MBE, and WBE compliance system for all of Cook County.

Year 1 implementation focuses

While the use and pursuit of resources to support this plan are vital to its implementation, there are two key items that the County needs to accomplish in 2015 to prepare itself for implementation of this plan over the next five years.

• Revise its application solicitation, review, and approval process. This plan’s policies and strategies must be integrated into the County’s CDBG, HOME, and ESG application and evaluation processes. Contemplated activities include revising application guides and forms, determining what targeted outreach will be needed annually to solicit applications, standardizing the outreach process and timeframes, developing new review systems, and refining the approvals process. This item should be accomplished as part of the development of the 2015 Annual Action Plan.
• Establish a process for identifying specific projects for submission to EDA. The County will establish a process to coordinate with prospective applicants for EDA funding who will be relying on the CEDS to ensure consistency with Planning for Progress.

Upon completion of these tasks, the County will be well positioned to coordinate with various stakeholders and partners to foster the goals of this plan, consider new funding submissions to the EDA and others for priority projects, and engage in the long-term relationship building that forms the bedrock of so many of this plan’s recommendations.

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND GEOGRAPHIC DEFINITIONS

Acronyms

⬚ figure

Geographic Definitions

This plan references a number of different federal, state, and local entities with different geographies. This section explains the boundaries for those areas as of the date of adoption of this plan.

CMAP is the region’s official comprehensive planning organization. Its GO TO 2040 planning campaign is helping the region’s seven counties and 284 communities to implement strategies that address transportation, housing, economic development, open space, the environment, and other quality of life issues. See www.cmap.illinois.gov for more information.

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60606

312-454-0400 info@cmap.illinois.gov

www.cmap.illinois.gov

FY15-0058