BUILD UP GREATER CLEVELAND:
An Innovative Public/Private Infrastructure
Partnership
(1983—2004)
David Goss
December 2004
PRE-BUILD UP GREATER CLEVELAND
In 1979, at the request of newly-elected Cleveland Mayor George Voinovich, the
Greater Cleveland Growth Association (the region’s Chamber of Commerce)
began informal discussions with public officials to resolve historic and emerging
public works infrastructure problems facing Greater Cleveland. Given the City of
Cleveland’s fiscal default and the region’s recent serious decline in
manufacturing jobs and population, these leaders determined that the desired
economic recovery required significant infrastructure rehabilitation and
expansion.
A 1979 report prepared by the Washington-based The Urban Institute, The
Future of Cleveland’s Capital Plant, further stimulated the momentum to
rehabilitate Greater Cleveland’s infrastructure systems. The report warned that
the community’s capital facilities were deteriorating due to:
 Insufficient local tax and utility rate levels.
 Inadequate state and federal aid over an extended period.
 A shrinking tax base due to loss of population and jobs.
Examples of the extent of the serious public works infrastructure environment
during this time are:
 30% of Cuyahoga County’s bridges were in need of major repairs;
especially several large bridges crossing the Cuyahoga River that were
becoming safety hazards and required major rehabilitation.
 Many major arterial streets were disintegrating and were the responsibility
of various uncoordinated municipal, county and state agencies.
 Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) was having problems
completing the Interstate system in Cuyahoga County.
 The newly created Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA)
was attempting to reverse decades of deferred equipment and facility
maintenance.
 Greater Cleveland had become a national symbol of water pollution
problems due to numerous situations where the Cuyahoga River caught
fire and Lake Erie being declared “dead.” The focal point for this issue
had become the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD)—an
agency created in 1972 by a court order resulting from a legal battle
between the City of Cleveland and the Cuyahoga County Mayor and City
Managers Association. The mission of the NEORSD was to assume the
operation of wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities in
Greater Cleveland and to prepare a regional wastewater plan for sewage
and treatment. To make this situation even more complex at this time,
outside of the NEORSD’s responsibilities were 47 small treatment facilities
and pipeline networks operated by Cuyahoga County, municipalities and
private companies.
2

The City of Cleveland Water Department experienced problems in
providing reliable service to its customers throughout Cuyahoga County
because of aging facilities/equipment and lack of adequate financial
resources. For example, approximately one-third of the water pumped
from Lake Erie was seeping away before it reached customers.
Furthermore, another court order resulting from the Cuyahoga Mayors and
City Managers Association attempting to create a regional water district
separate from the City of Cleveland had recently resulted in the
designation of the Cleveland Water Department as the regional water
treatment and supply agency.
These initial informal discussions led to a more formal program in 1981 that
developed a countywide infrastructure rebuilding plan—the Community Capital
Investment Strategy (CCIS). The objective of the CCIS project was to develop a
workable financing plan for meeting capital rehabilitation and replacement needs
of the bridge, highway, water, sewer and transit systems in Greater Cleveland in
the 1980’s. Funding was secured from The Cleveland Foundation, The George
Gund Foundation and the five public infrastructure-related entities involved—City
of Cleveland, Cuyahoga County Commissioners, County Engineer, NEORSD
and RTA.
A Policy Committee was also organized to set investment priorities, evaluate
financing alternatives and recommend funding strategies. Members of the initial
Policy Committee included top elected and appointed officials from:
 City of Cleveland
 Cuyahoga County
 Cuyahoga County Mayors and City Managers Association
 Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA)
 NEORSD
 RTA
 Greater Cleveland Growth Association (GCGA)
The GCGA provided management and administrative services. A part-time
program director was named and The Urban Institute was selected to re-examine
the general state of the Cuyahoga County public works infrastructure system,
identify critical needs and analyze funding sources.
Meeting frequently over the next two years with a widening circle of elected and
appointed officials throughout Cuyahoga County, the Policy Committee fashioned
an innovative program cutting across traditional jurisdictions and responsibilities
to establish Greater Cleveland infrastructure investment priorities and a realistic
financial plan.
3
A listing of the reports prepared by The Urban Institute are shown in Appendix
A.
The first CCIS developed in 1982 identified more than $2 billion of under-funded
infrastructure renewal needs and recommended a financing strategy to support a
$1.6 billion program over the next 5-6 years.
In assessing priority investment needs, several criteria were employed including:
 Health and Safety: projects which removed hazards for residents
 Essentiality: projects which served as vital links in providing services to
residents
 Economic Development: projects critical to gaining or retaining industry
and jobs
 Cost Effectiveness: projects which reduced current maintenance
expenditures and avoided costly future rehabilitation
 Legal Mandates: projects clearly required as a result of court actions or
federal/state regulations.
In 1983, the Build Up Greater Cleveland (BUGC) program was formally
designated to be the entity responsible for implementing the CCIS. It was
established as an independent 501(c)3 organization that was located at the
GCGA.
4
BUILD UP GREATER CLEVELAND (1983-2004)
The organizational structure and funding support established for the CCIS
process became the operating framework for BUGC in 1983.
The BUGC Policy Committee was chaired by a representative of the GCGA—
Carlton Schnell, Partner, Arter & Hadden—and was comprised of representatives
of the following agencies:
 City of Cleveland (Mayor and City Council)
 Cuyahoga County (Commissioners and Engineer)
 Cuyahoga County Mayors & Managers Association (CCMA)
 GCGA
 NEORSD
 NOACA
 RTA
 State of Ohio (ODOT; Senate and House representatives)
 U.S. Congress (Congressman Stokes)
Walter Olson was designated by the GCGA to be the BUGC Director. An annual
budget of $200,00 was established of which 38 percent was provided by the City
of Cleveland, County Commissioners, County Engineer, RTA and NEORSD; 17
percent of in-kind contribution was provided by the GCGA; and the remaining 45
percent was provided by The Cleveland and Gund Foundations.
BUGC’s mission was to support Greater Cleveland’s physical and
economic development and quality of life through the maintenance and
enhancement of Cuyahoga County’s transportation, water and waste water
systems. This mission was to be accomplished by an exciting new approach to
solving problems that extend across governmental boundaries through:
 eliminating duplication fo construction costs,
 targeting limited financial resources toward the most serious needs, and
 avoiding competition for local tax dollars.
Over the next 22 years, the activities of BUGC can be categorized into three
phases:
 Crisis Resolution (1983-1989)
 Management Capacity Enhancement (1990-1994)
 Strategic Regional Infrastructure Support (1994-2004)
5
Crisis Resolution Phase (1983-1989)
During the initial BUGC years, the primary focus was on:
 advocacy at the federal level to obtain funding support for priority CCIS
projects,
 the education of residents about the need to increase water and sewer
rates and support local general obligation bonds,
 advocacy at the state level to ensure equitable state investments in priority
infrastructure projects, and
 the annual updating of the CCIS.
As a result of these efforts, over the next seven years:
 BUGC was instrumental in obtaining $694 million of non-programmed
funds.
 The economic resurgence of Greater Cleveland began.
 Successful advocacy for the authorization by the Ohio Legislature of a 10year, $1.2 billion infrastructure bond program (known as Issue 2) and the
creation of the Ohio Public Works Commission to administer the bond
program. In 1987, Ohio voters overwhelmingly passed the bond issue,
and subsequently renewed the program in 1995. Over the period 19872004, the average annual awards of Issue 2 funding to local governments
in Cuyahoga County has been $14.5 million. These funds can only be
used to preserve or rehabilitate existing infrastructure systems.
 Local Transportation Improvement Program (LTIP) was also created by
adding one cent per gallon to the state fuel tax rate. The LTIP funds are
distributed to counties on a per capital basis and can only be used for
highway-related improvements
 Successful advocacy for a permissive increase in state auto license fees
to be used by local governments for highway-related improvements.
 Coordinated advocacy with the regional Congressional delegation was
undertaken to pass legislation providing that states would receive at least
85 percent of the amount auto/truck users paid in federal fuel taxes
(previously Ohio was receiving 50-60 percent). In addition, $170 million in
federal discretionary funds and special grants were obtained for road and
bridge projects and $83 million for public transit projects.
 Cleveland City Council was approached to address the decay of the water
distribution system. This resulted in the issuance of $260 million in water
works revenue bonds and an increase in water rates to pay off the bonds.
 NEORSD modernized its three treatment plants and started a $350 million
interceptor sewer program and a $115 million intercommunity relief sewer
program using a combination of federal grants and proceeds from regional
sewer fees.
6


Secured unprecedented cooperation from elected and appointed officials
throughout Cuyahoga County who subordinated their individual agendas
to the common goal of improving the County’s infrastructure network.
BUGC became a national model for being an effective public-private
infrastructure partnership.
More specific accomplishments for the 1983-1989 period are identified in
Appendix B.
In 1983, BUGC started to prepare an annual report card that identified the dollar
amounts of actual infrastructure contracts let as compared to the proposed
projects for that year in the CCIS. For the period 1983-1989, approximately $1.2
billion of infrastructure contracts were let (the original CCIS goal was $1.6 billion).
Furthermore, in 1989, The Urban Center, College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland
State University (CSU) replaced The Urban Institute in preparing the annual
updated CCIS and Contracts Let reports.
7
Management Capacity Enhancement Phase (1990-1994)
By the late 1980’s, it became clear to representatives of the public agency
stakeholders in BUGC that the dramatic success in generating new funds for the
preservation, rehabilitation and enhancement of priority infrastructure projects
was creating capacity problems within their agencies to move projects from
design to construction in a timely manner. These agencies shared many
concerns, particularly the burden of meeting new and complex environmental
requirements while processing more and larger projects with a limited number of
professional staff.
To directly address this dilemma, BUGC created the Fast Track Task Force. The
main focus of this Task Force was to engage the appropriate private sector
expertise to assist the public agencies in developing, testing and implementing
applicable new project performance improvement policies and procedures. For
example, the Task Force recommendations included empowering project
managers, vastly increasing intra- and inter-agency communications, conducting
more design tasks concurrently, conducting project scoping meetings earlier in
the project planning phase with all impacted parties and increasing the use of
prior agreements on project implementation strategies. These recommendations
minimized construction change orders, design modifications and additional plan
reviews. The application of value engineering techniques also helped make
certain that the right project was initiated for the right reason within a time frame
that made sense for all involved.
These changes produced demonstrated results. Previously, it typically took 88
months to bring a federal-aid highway project from initiation to sale of contract for
construction. The Task Force’s recommendations reduced this time to 49
months. Moreover, the number of road and bridge contracts let in Cuyahoga
County surged. In 1988, the year before the Task Force began, 35 contracts
were let. In 1993, with recommendations largely in force, 93 contracts were let.
The value of road and bridge contracts let also increased from $35.3 million in
1988 to $138.8 million in 1993. Finally, the project fulfillment rate increased
dramatically. In 1988, only 37 percent of planned projects were undertaken. By
1993, that rate had more than doubled to 81 percent.
The success of the Fast Track Task force led to the establishment of other task
forces:
 Utilities: focused on achieving better coordination of public and private
utility work programs that often conflicted with each other.
 Geographic Information Network: focused on developing a
computerized database that would allow various public and private
organizations within Greater Cleveland to share geographically-referenced
data, thereby streamlining expenses and eliminating redundant activities.
8



Environment: focused on simplifying and expediting environmental
permits and other related approvals necessary for infrastructure projects
to proceed.
Infrastructure Finance: continued to focus on identifying public and
private sources of funds to augment existing infrastructure funding
targeted to Greater Cleveland.
Waste Water: focused on defining an “equitable” regional sewer system
and developing implementation strategies that address common concerns
among sewer agencies.
Hence, it was during this phase that BUGC matured in its roles as consensus
builder, advocate and problem solver.
This is best illustrated by the fact that the CCIS for the period 1990-1994
estimated that the capital needs for Greater Cleveland approximated $1.9 billion,
with a shortfall of $674-822 million due in part to the elimination (e.g., waste
water) or drastic reduction of federal funding programs. Actual contracts let
during this five-year period total $1.5 billion (an average annual amount of $300
million). This is a considerable increase in average annual construction activity
compared to the previous seven-year period of $164 million and reflects the
growing effectiveness of BUGC’s advocacy efforts.
Appendix B provides a listing of more specific accomplishments during the
1990-1994 period. Many of these accomplishments were a result of BUGC’s
successful federal advocacy related to the passage of the ISTEA legislation that
established more local control over transportation investment decisions and the
minimum allocation policy (90 perecent return of federal fuel taxes collected
within a state).
In 1992, BUGC undertook a strategic planning process using an outside
consultant (Orion Consulting Inc) to guide the organization’s activities for the next
5-10 years. The primary findings/recommendations of the strategic planning
process are summarized below:
 There was continued strong support for BUGC among its participants and
beneficiaries.
 The following strategic objectives should be adopted to assist BUGC in
achieving its mission:
1. Economic Development Support: to develop infrastructure
strategies that support local and regional economic development
goals by providing a facilitative structure for public and private
sector leadership.
2. Advocacy: to generate the maximum resources possible for
infrastructure preservation, rehabilitation and enhancement by
9






organizing and supporting a coordinated advocacy program at the
federal, state and local levels of government.
3. Technical Support: to assist governments and public works
agencies in delivering the best possible service to the community
by providing access to technical and community resources.
4. Communications: to foster community understanding and support
for infrastructure preservation, rehabilitation and enhancement by
demonstrating the role of infrastructure in achieving a wide range of
community goals.
The key role played by the private sector in the BUGC’s program
leadership is an important asset. BUGC should continue to be managed
under the auspices of the GCGA.
BUGC should continue to focus on Cuyahoga County infrastructure
systems.
BUGC should consider issues related to the environment (i.e.,
brownfields), rail and intermodal transportation projects, Port of Cleveland,
air service and major development projects to the degree to which they
impact on the program’s mission.
A strategy to maximize financial resource development should be
designed and implemented as soon as possible.
Need to encourage and maintain active participation of elected public
officials and senior private sector representatives (as BUGC became more
successful, and the perception grew that there was no longer an
infrastructure crisis, it became more difficult to retain the direct
involvement of elected officials).
Consider the need for additional staff support.
This strategic planning process provided the framework for proceeding into the
next phase of BUGC’s evolution. BUGC’s success over its first decade of
activities of preserving, rehabilitating and enhancing Cuyahoga County’s existing
infrastructure systems allowed it to start focusing on longer-term needs. Instead
of crisis management, BUGC was now able to employ infrastructure investments
and management to promote and support broader community goals.
10
Strategic Regional Infrastructure Support Phase (1994-2004)
During the first few years of this third BUGC phase, much more emphasis was
placed on identifying priority infrastructure initiatives that supported regional
economic development growth.
For example, a special emphasis was placed on revitalizing the many acres of
“brownfields” within Cuyahoga County as an infrastructure-related opportunity.
BUGC was an active participant in a multi-agency countywide partnership that
focused on creating new federal and state legislation that would provide a
comprehensive approach to addressing brownfields issues through:
 encouraging voluntary clean-ups,
 establishing a revolving loan fund to help pay for the clean-ups,
 removing legal barriers to land reuse, and
 developing related job training initiatives.
This effort resulted in the development of the Ohio EPA’s Voluntary Action
Program, the first USEPA brownfields demonstration project being awarded to
Cuyahoga County and the creation of a County brownfields revolving loan fund
supported by several local banks.
As BUGC entered the 21st century, it also focused its resources more on the
planning, design and construction of larger-scale infrastructure projects that
would enhance the region’s economic competitiveness and quality of life.
Examples of these projects include:
 Euclid Corridor Transportation Project that is the nation’s first bus rapid
transit project operating in an exclusive right-of-way.
 The reconfiguration of the Shoreway from a freeway to a boulevard to
provide improved access to Lake Erie and create reclaimed land for
neighborhood-related and regional development opportunities.
 Renewal of the Innerbelt, a comprehensive project that addresses existing
operation and safety problems, replaces deteriorating physical facilities
and improves access to the Flats and University Circle.
 Regional storm water management system to improve the water quality of
Lake Erie and local rivers/streams by reducing combined sewer overflows
and targeting non-point sources of pollution.
 New Lake Erie ferry to cost-effectively improve auto/truck flows between
Northeast Ohio and Canada.
In addition, during this phase BUGC created several new initiatives, or modified
existing ones, that were focused primarily on infrastructure innovation. These
initiatives were made possible by the BUGC funding partners—City of Cleveland,
11
Cuyahoga County Commissioners, County Engineer, GCGA, NEORSD and
RTA-- agreeing to double their annual funding commitments, starting in 1994,
that allowed BUGC to establish a full-time BUGC Manager position.
It was also during this phase that the BUGC Policy Committee was replaced by
the BUGC Stakeholders that initially consisted of the funding partners, NOACA,
ODOT and the volunteer private sector chairs of task forces. Subsequently, the
Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority became a funding partner, and the
Cuyahoga County Commissioners decided that the County Engineer was
representing their infrastructure-related interests and they ceased to be active in
BUGC matters. In 2004, the Cuyahoga County Mayors and City Mangers
Association once again became part of the BUGC Stakeholders as a non-funding
partner.
The new BUGC initiatives are described below:
 Innovative Infrastructure Finance: The former Infrastructure Finance
Task Force’s mission was modified to incorporate the identification and
analysis of creative approaches to financing local infrastructure needs. A
report was prepared by The Urban Center at CSU that led to several
financing reform advocacy efforts, primarily at the state level for
transportation initiatives and at the federal level for water and waste water
(creation of a water resources trust fund) and transportation (increasing to
95 percent the return rate of federal fuel taxes collected in Ohio)
reauthorization legislation.
Furthermore, the subsequent BUGC report, Bottleneck on the Way to
Prosperity: The Need for Transportation Reform in Ohio, was used to
advocate successfully for the recent six cents/gallon increase in the state
fuel tax and for increases in state vehicle registration and driver license
fees that:
1. approximately doubled the state fuel tax proceeds going to
municipalities and
2. provided the funding framework for Governor Taft’s $5 billion, 10year Jobs and Progress Plan that will provide the funding for future
major highway projects in the Greater Cleveland region.
Another major output of this report was BUGC being the co-convener of
the first Ohio Transportation Policy Conference.

These creative financing concepts were updated in 2004 in a report
prepared by The Center for Public Management at the CSU Levin College
of Urban Affairs, Funding Options for Emerging Public Works
Infrastructure Investments in Cuyahoga County.
Investment Performance Measurement: BUGC, working with The
Urban Center at CSU, developed a series of “user-friendly” metrics to
12



provide the framework for a communications strategy to the general
public/taxpayers of the positive impacts resulting from the billions of
dollars being invested in public works infrastructure systems in Cuyahoga
County. A reports was prepared in 1997 to use these metrics to quantify
the impacts of the $3.4 billion invested during the first 14 years of BUGC’s
involvement.
Technology Transfer: A group of technology-oriented professionals
were convened for about two years to identify and remove barriers to the
implementation of public works infrastructure innovations in the areas of
advanced/composite materials, underground technology, non-destructive
evaluation and intelligent transportation systems (ITS).
Sustainable Infrastructure: Developed a set of sustainable
infrastructure principles to guide future Greater Cleveland infrastructure
investments; identified best sustainable infrastructure practices locally,
statewide, nationally and internationally; and designated priority
sustainable infrastructure initiatives. It is interesting to note that from
1984-1998, 87 percent of the infrastructure investments (in dollars) made
in Cuyahoga County satisfied the sustainable infrastructure principles.
Subsequent spin-off activities resulting from this Task Force were (1)
proactive advocacy for the Clean Ohio bond issue, (2) the development of
two pilot sustainable neighborhood projects within the City of Cleveland
and a Neighborhood Infrastructure to Standards policy and procedures
manual, (3) a new NOACA program to achieve improved coordination and
integration of regional transportation and water quality planning activities,
(4) a variety of smart growth/sustainable development initiatives at local,
region and state levels, and (5) new actions to implement ITS and
Geographic Information System (GIS) programs.
Regional Water Resources Management: A special task force was
created to promote strategic water resource infrastructure investments to
enhance the region’s economic development and quality of life. It
combined the missions of three former task forces/committees—Waste
Water, Municipal Sewer Issues and Storm Water Management. The
primary action initiatives of this Task Force were:
1. promotion of watershed-based planning,
2. support of “water as a regional economic development driver”
projects,
3. facilitation of specific water resources infrastructure projects (e.g.,
sustainable Cuyahoga River bulkheads, regional storm water
management system, NEORSD’s Combined Sewer Overflow
program, Cleveland Water Department projects),
4. state and federal advocacy for water and waste water grants, and
5. public education/information (value of clean and safe water white
paper).
13

GIS Stakeholders: A 4-year effort, that replaced the former Geographic
Information Network Task Force, to develop a countywide GIS base map.
The work of this Task Force resulted in the following actions:
1. An agreement among the BUGC public sector agencies to provide
$400,000 to develop an updated countywide digital aerial
orthophotography map and to implement a pilot GIS base map
project to determine the cost of producing a seamless countywide
GIS base map containing County tax map parcels.
2. Convened over 20 potential users to develop consensus standards
to be used in the development of the countywide GIS base map.
3. A Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Cleveland,
Cuyahoga County and NEORSD to provide over $5 million to
supplement an existing City of Cleveland GIS contract to perform
the County tax map parcel conversion process and any other tasks
necessary to produce a countywide GIS base map.
4. The Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners approved creating
a GIS Department to manage all County GIS initiatives to include
the maintenance of the GIS base map and development of userfriendly web access to the base map and subsequent applicable
overlay applications.
 Economic Development: In cooperation with the Economic
Development Departments of the City of Cleveland and Cuyahoga
County, BUGC identified and defined 12 (5 City; 7 County) priority
public works infrastructure improvement programs that would support
strategic economic development initiatives within the region. These
programs were subsequently endorsed by the GCGA’s Surface
Transportation Task Force.
 Human Resources: This Task Force was formed in recognition of the
need to develop the region’s “human capital” to provide the expertise
needed to plan, design and construct the region’s future infrastructure
projects and programs. The purpose statement of the Task Force
was-- In collaboration with public works agencies, academic
institutions, public/private school systems and private sector
consulting/construction organizations in Northeast Ohio:
1. Develop and implement creative strategies for marketing
engineering and related public works careers.
2. Develop effective partnerships between academic institutions
and infrastructure-related public and private sector employees.
3. Stimulate environment for instituting meaningful internships and
co-op programs for engineering students with public work
agencies and applicable private sector organizations.
4. Develop partnerships with regional public and private school
systems to inform and/or expose students (from grades 5-12),
14
with special emphasis on women and minorities, to the variety
of engineering and related public works career opportunities.
To achieve these goals, four work groups were created: Incumbent
Worker, Co-op and Intern, Marketing and Teacher Education &
Networking.
In addition to these new initiatives, BUGC decided in 2000 to give more priority
attention to the preservation and rehabilitation of the 56 suburban municipal
infrastructure systems in Cuyahoga County. The following reports were prepared
based on surveys conducted with each municipality:
 Municipal Infrastructure Expenditure Survey Report
 Municipal Water Resources Infrastructure Survey Report
The insights gained from these reports helped BUGC to better understand the
funding gaps between what was being planned and what was actually being
committed in these suburban communities.
This information was also used to initiate an “asset management” activity to
assist local governments in meeting the new capital infrastructure requirements
of the Government Accounting Standards Board’s (GASB) Statement Number
34. As part of this effort, BUGC evaluated various pavement management
systems that might be used by the City of Cleveland and other local
governments. This work led to NOACA undertaking a regional pavement
management system program.
During 2000, the GCGA undertook an analysis of how to make its various
infrastructure-related programs more effective and better utilize high-level
business leadership and other GCGA resources to achieving priority regional
economic development goals. One of the results of this analysis was to make
BUGC a program of the GCGA instead of being a separate non-profit
organization housed at the GCGA. A major impact of this decision was to
designate the GCGA’s government relations department to be responsible for
BUGC’s advocacy activities. Prior to this time, BUGC was using a Washington
lobbyist for most of its federal advocacy initiatives and BUGC leadership for
advocacy at the state level.
By the end of 2003, the actual contracts let for the period 1983-2003 totaled
approximately $5.8 billion. For the period 1995-2003, the average annual level of
contracts let was $348 million, and for the period 2001-2003 (under the GCGA
advocacy leadership) the average annual level grew to $398 million.
In 2004, BUGC developed a 10-year forecast (2004-2013) of projected
infrastructure investments in Cuyahoga County of $8.5 billion. Approximately $5
billion of this total reflects conservative projections of what will be spent to
preserve, rehabilitate and enhance existing infrastructure systems using growing
15
funding sources derived from BUGC advocacy efforts. The remaining $3.5 billion
is for major new transportation and water/waste water investments that are
already programmed.
Hence, it is projected that the average annual infrastructure investment in
Cuyahoga County over the next 10 years will be $850 million compared to the
$398 million average annual investment over the past three years and the $276
million average annual investment since 1983. Obviously, BUGC has had a
major positive impact on improving the infrastructure investment environment in
Cuyahoga County over its 22 years of existence.
16
POST-BUILD UP GREATER CLEVELAND
In 2003, the business leadership in the Greater Cleveland region decided to
consolidate three existing business organizations—GCGA, Cleveland Tomorrow
and Greater Cleveland Roundtable—into a single organization: the Greater
Cleveland Partnership (GCP). During 2003, GCP developed a strategic plan to
achieve higher efficiency, sharper focus and greater impact from its committed
dollars and leadership.
One result of this strategic plan was the decision by GCP to transition BUGC into
a modified public/private partnership model that would not be a program of GCP.
This new infrastructure partnership will be further defined in 2005, but at this time
it has been proposed that the business community’s involvement in this
partnership be focused exclusively on an infrastructure advocacy agenda and a
priority emphasis on projects of scale and policy issues of major significance that
might require supportive research and analysis.
Therefore, a fourth phase of this innovative public/private infrastructure
partnership in the Greater Cleveland region is about to commence. One of the
strengths of this partnership model is that it has never been static, but that it has
continuously evolved to reflect current conditions and changes in broader
local/regional agendas and priorities.
However, the key success elements of this public/private infrastructure
partnership have not changed since its inception:
 Coordinated/cooperative advocacy.
 Continuous funding support of the partnership by the public sector
infrastructure agencies.
 Proactive involvement of the business community in the leadership of the
partnership and to provide the creative forums for developing innovative
approaches to resolving complex urban infrastructure problems.
17
BUGC LEADERSHIP
Over its 22 years of operation, BUGC has had only four private sector
chairpersons:
 Carlton Schnell, Partner, Arter & Hadden: 1983-1989
 James Delaney, Office Managing Partner, Deloitte & Touche: 1990-1997
 Thomas Stevens, Vice Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Key
Corporation: 1997-2002
 Eugene Baxendale, President, The Osborn Engineering Company: 20022004
The following private sector representatives also provided leadership to the
various BUGC task forces:
 Fast Track: Richard Donaldson, BP Ohio
 Geographic Information Network: Carlton Schnell, Arter & Hadden
 Utilities: Jack Licate, GCGA
 Environment: Gene Kramer; Squire Sanders & Dempsey
 Innovative Infrastructure Finance: Danirl Austin, McDonald & Company
Securities, Inc.
 Waste Water: Robert Fleck, Reminger & Reminger
 Technology Transfer: Paul Creighton, Turner Construction
 Sustainable Infrastructure and GIS Stakeholders: Chris Swift, Baker &
Hostetler
 Regional Water Resources Management: Ronald Janke, Jones Day
 Human Resources: David Sminchak, R.E. Warner & Associates
BUGC had three Directors who were on the staff of the GCGA:
 Walter “Ted” Olson: 1983-1991
 Jack Licate: 1992-1994
 David Goss: 1995-2004
The following people served as BUGC Managers during the period 1994-2002:
 Katie Ong
 Karen Lippman
 Vince Adamus
 Anne Garvey-Zaworski
Soren Hansen served during 2000-2004 as a part-time consultant to BUGC.
18
BUGC ARCHIVES
Arrangements have been made with the Special Collections Section of the
Cleveland State University Library to archive and provide access to:
 Pre-BUGC reports prepared by The Urban Institute
 Various BUGC CCIS reports prepared over the years
 Annual Contract Let reports
 Various BUGC technical reports
 Periodic BUGC annual progress reports
 Copies of newsletters and quarterly progress reports
 Various task forces files
Anyone desiring access to this information should contact William Barrow,
Special Collections Librarian, at (216) 687-6998 or w.barrow@csuohio.edu.
19
APPENDIX A
THE URBAN INSTITUTE REPORTS (1982/1983)

The Cleveland Area’s Capital Plans and Financing Requirements; April
1982

Reassessing Cleveland’s Capital Investment Requirements; July 1982

Financing Greater Cleveland’s Capital Requirements; October 1982

The Greater Cleveland Community Capital Investment Strategy;
December 1982

Financing Infrastructure Renewal for Greater Cleveland; February 1983
20