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