On Friday, April 3rd I had a chance to meet with Ohio’s Stimulus Czar, Mr. Ronn Richard, along with team Kent (including Dr. Lefton, Dean Heisler, Dan Smith, Jim Bowling and Mayor Fender) to pitch the investment opportunities ready for the taking in downtown Kent. It was our chance to lay out the vision and plan for downtown Kent that we argued could be an economic engine for the region.  Here’s the pitch.

We told Mr. Richard that Kent is ready to deliver on the economic promise of a vibrant university city. As home to Ohio’s 3^rd largest university, Kent is rich in the raw material of the new economy and we have much to contribute to the economy and quality of life enjoyed in northeast Ohio.

We went on to explain that the University and the City share a sense of urgency to be a catalyst for an economic revival that leverages the assets and productive capabilities that are well within Kent’s reach to create jobs, build new technologies, spawn entrepreneurship, and be the kind of place people are proud to call home in northeast Ohio. Simply stated we want to put Kent’s assets to work for the region as we compete for Ohio’s future.

Our visit was prompted by our need for stimulus funds to capitalize this project beyond the tipping point and into construction. $10 million dollars is the critical investment threshold needed to make this project move forward immediately. With that level of investment we won’t have to wait for the financial markets to rebound; instead we will be a part of the rebuilding process for sustainable economic growth irrespective of the highs and lows of business cycles and financial markets.

That was the verbal pitch; here it is in writing:

We’re competing with some 23,000 other legitimate needs in Ohio so we’re realistic about our chances for funding.  But still, sitting shoulder to shoulder with the University’s leadership I know we made an impact on Mr. Richard.  Only time will tell if we can translate that impact into dollars and cents. 

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.    

Generally, I don’t like talking about detours because they usually mean that some bridge is out or there’s been a traffic accident or even a water main break but in this case I’ll make an exception and celebrate a detour.  It’s the detour on Main Street that has been in effect this week as the Phoenix Project construction has needed to tie in their utilities.  It looks like the detour will wrap up next week so if you don’t like being inconvenienced I’d recommend sticking to Haymaker Parkway but if you like a slow meandering ride with some great new scenery head to downtown Kent.

NEWS RELEASE

September 24, 2008 CITY OF KENT MAIN STREETBETWEEN WATER STREET & DEPEYSTER STREET

WILL BE REDUCED TO ONE LANE FOR EASTBOUND TRAFFIC MONDAY, September 29, 2008 to THURSDAY, October 2, 2008 FROM 8:00AM UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 5:30PM TO ALLOW FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORK, EASTBOUND TRAFFIC WILL BE REDUCED TO ONE LANE ON MAIN STREET (BETWEEN WATER STREET AND DEPEYSTER STREET) ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 TO THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2008 FROM 8:00AM UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 5:30PM.MOTORISTS ARE ASKED TO AVOID THE AREA AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TRAVEL TIME WHEN LEAVING FOR THEIR DESTINATION.

ALL LOCAL BUSINESSES WILL REMAIN OPEN AS USUAL.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, RESIDENTS MAY CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AT (330) 678-8106.

City of Kent , Ohio
James Bowling,
Deputy Director of Public Service

I have to admit knowing Franklin Square Deli Owner Carl Picelle’s love for serpentine road racing I wouldn’t be surprised to see his Porsche 944 doing laps around the Main Street block.  Of course, note that the Police will be right behind him so don’t get any ideas.

June 27

Look Who’s Living on Campus

College administrators and housing directors regularly tout the benefits of on-campus living, in an effort to lure more students away from privately owned houses and apartment buildings. Many officials believe housing students on campus improves student life, and they are quick to cite studies that find these students are more likely to succeed academically. Despite these arguments, it used to be a struggle for some institutions to interest students in on-campus housing.

Now, in what some administrators see as a possible response to the recent downturn in the U.S. economy, some of these same institutions cannot keep up with the rising demand of upperclassmen who want to live on campus for a more practical purpose: to save money. While it is too early to tell whether the economy is to blame for this newfound demand, some campus administrators find that it exacerbates an already strained housing system.

This boom comes at a time when many colleges and universities are welcoming larger-than-average freshman classes, most of whom typically require housing. The challenge for these institutions then becomes which group of students to serve, underclassmen or upperclassmen. Anecdotally, institutions such as John Carroll, Bryant and Emory Universities, among others, are reporting that demand for on-campus housing exceed supply, and that most of the unanticipated requests are coming from juniors and seniors.

The rising tide of upperclassmen seeking to live in on-campus housing has caught the interest of the Association of College & University Housing Officers–International. The organization discussed, as part of its annual 2008 conference held in Orlando this week, how to accommodate this growing demand. James Baumann, ACUHO-I’s director of communications and marketing, said he and the organization’s member institutions have taken note of the increase in upperclassmen living on campus. There is an attempt, he said, to balance occupancy among all students who desire space, regardless of their academic year, at insititutions currently not equipped to meet this new demand.

Some colleges have even gone as far as offering financial incentives to freshmen who choose, for example, to live three to a double-occupancy room. This may be represented in an overall discount on annual room and board expenses. Additionally, others have had to convert previously common or storage areas into livable space.

Both are the case at John Carroll University, in University Heights, Ohio, which has an undergraduate enrollment of about 3,000. For the first time in 10 years, John Carroll’s residence halls are over capacity, according to Tonya Strong-Charles, director of media relations there. In particular, John Carroll has seen a stronger interest in on-campus housing for upperclassmen than in recent years. Almost 65 percent of the university’s undergraduates live on campus, said Doreen Riley, vice president for university advancement, adding that she expects this number to grow as the university offers more housing. To explain the boom, Riley listed the everyday concerns of her students.

“Reasons we’ve heard from upperclassmen are cost and budgeting,” Riley said, noting that the rising cost of off-campus living has brought some students back to campus. “With utilities, gas prices and rising food costs, by the time you pay rent, that’s a lot of money.”

Other small, private institutions are feeling the housing squeeze as well. Bryant University in Smithfield, R.I., has had to find creative ways to house freshmen so that it can retain space for its upperclassmen. J. Thomas Eakin, vice president for student affairs there, said when housing reached capacity for the first time three years ago, the university negotiated with a local motel to provide space for about 30 students. In the past decade, the number of upperclassmen opting to live on campus has risen from 82 to 87 percent. This growth, Eakin said, is representative of the high retention rate of freshmen in the housing program. During the same period, the proportion of freshman choosing to live on campus grew from 90 to 97 percent.

The “bubble” of students choosing to stay on campus, as he refers to the recent spike in freshman retention, has made the housing of upperclassmen an issue. More of these students eventually want the experience of living on campus in what Eakin said are highly sought-after senior townhouses, imitating the off-campus experience on campus.

“Lots of students who could commute from home want the total experience,” said Eakin, who is not entirely persuaded that changes in the economy solely account for increased upperclass interest in on-campus housing. “There is no question that the cost of driving back and forth is going to be an issue. You can buy a lot of gas for what it costs for room and board. A lot of what you’re seeing was well under way before the squeeze we’re in now, but with energy costs and heating going up, that could certainly drive people back to campus.”

In urban areas, where there is often more off-campus competition for student housing, some colleges are still seeing a spike in upperclass interest in campus housing. Emory University, in Atlanta, with an undergraduate enrollment under 7,000, continues to maintain a long waiting list of upperclassmen and women hoping to live on campus, according to Andy Wilson, director of residence life there. Sixty-eight percent of undergraduates live on campus. A majority of upperclassmen chose university housing, contributing to this figure. Like many of its peer institutions, Emory has more demand for housing than it can supply. Wilson said his office receives regular correspondences from juniors and seniors hoping to making it off the waiting list, something he said did not use to be the case five or six years ago.

“We’re very candid that we don’t guarantee housing, but our students really want that [on-campus] community,” said Wilson of those on the wait list. “We’re hearing from students who don’t want to commute because of gas prices. Our pricing is pretty competitive with off-campus housing, so all things being equal, students want to come back to the community.”

While public colleges typically house fewer students on campus than their private counterparts, some have to respond to a similar demand for more housing, even when they are not heavily marketing additional housing. Georgia Southern University, in Statesboro, has created a market for on-campus housing in a community where students can find private housing very easily, according to Vickie Hawkins, director of university housing. This year, she said, the university purchased and renovated an aging off-campus building to house more upperclassmen. Even before changes were made to the building, students filled up the unit, in addition to the rest of university housing, in three days.

“Students have said that with gas prices at $4 a gallon, [they] are going to rethink how they’re using their vehicle,” Hawkins said, noting that this, in addition to convenience and safety, has further driven interest. “On-campus housing is marketing itself.”

The trend, for some, is seen as a natural progression for public institutions, trying to match the full-time living and learning environment offered by many privates. The Massachusetts State College Building Authority, which manages on-campus housing at nine colleges, has 105 percent occupancy at its facilities, according to its executive director, Ed Adelman. The extra 5 percent constitute re-appropriated space such as study lounges converted into large sleeping rooms. He said this growth does not represent an increase in enrollment as much as it does an increase in the interest of students who are already enrolled. Upperclassmen value community in on-campus housing, Adelman said, but financial considerations play a role as well.

“We’re seeing it across the nation,” Adelman said. “Students want to live on campus. The retention from the first year to the second and persistence toward graduation is greater than those who commute. We’re certainly seeing it at the nine campuses we support. There are a lot of avoided costs for students who live on campus.”

It’s been about a year of study and a couple dozen steering and community meetings later the Kent Multi-Modal feasibility study — aka the Kent Central Gateway — seems to be nearing the end of the first phase of study. I wish I could say that it’s the end of study altogether and is ready to be built but projects of this magnitude have many layers between being an interesting idea and catching the bus. Still, the study has covered a lot of ground and it seems to have been has been a good interactive process with a number of public meetings around town and up on campus to try to capture both residential and student body comments. Here’s the latest status report.

With the majority of the public process complete the consultant will now try to tie up loose ends and narrow down the concept options to a more singular focus that best fits the community’s expectations.  To me, the value of this project still remains in how well it synch’s up with and contributes to the overall downtown revitalization effort.  This is not a stand-alone project and it has to not only carry it’s weight in transit passengers but it has to deliver economic value.

That’s essentially what the next steps will be — refining those transit details and defining the economic pro forma for the project.  Since those are issues that are central to PARTA and the City’s missions, I think we’ll be the principle partners for this project as it moves forward — with the University as an interested stakeholder but not the lead agency.

As we wait for the next steps to unfold, here’s the public comments from the last round of meetings, with Scheme 1 (see below) identified as the preferred layout:

Public Comment Summary
Conceptual Layout Open Houses
May 19, 2008

The purpose of the open houses that occurred on Thursday, April 24, 2008 was to solicit public input regarding conceptual layouts for the Kent Central Gateway facility. Representatives from TranSystems, PARTA, Kent State University, and City of Kent held an open house at Kent State University’s Student Center building from 12:00 to 2:30 pm. A second open house was held at Kent Council Chambers from 4:00 to 7:00 pm. Thirty-one people signed in at the Student Center, while 35 people signed in at the Council Chambers, for a total of 66 people. At least five people, and likely others, did not sign in, so it is possible that a total of 75-80 people may have attended for the day.

In general, the majority of the attendees supported the project. Many people believed that the proposed location was the best place to locate the facility within the study area. A majority of people were in favor of the pedestrian/bicycle bridge over Haymaker Parkway. The pedestrian and bicycle amenities, economic development opportunities, and environmental friendliness of the project were key issues that supporters talked about. A few people did not think the project was appropriate for a small town like Kent.

Based on verbal and written public input, the public favored “Scheme 1” over the other three options. Many people did not favor the bus access on Haymaker in Schemes 3 and 4 because it decreased the amount of recreation or open space and affected through traffic on Haymaker. The Erie Street parking access in Scheme 2 was undesirable to many people because it would impinge on pedestrian activity.

The public could submit comments to the study team until May 19, 2008. TranSystems received written comments and questions from 11 people, which are listed below and categorized by topic.

Scheme Options

· No specific scheme stands out. – Michel P. Dussel

· The four schemes are not that different. – Janice Kelly

· Bus Access on Depeyster Street is on a sloped grade. Better to use Erie Street grade for buses.  Depeyster Street would be a better location for automobiles. Any vehicular access on to Main Street should be mid block and limited. A study would need to be done to see what would work best, cars or buses. – Rick Hawksley

· Opinions on Schemes: – Jon Ridinger

o Scheme 1 – Likes:

_ Vehicle/bus entrances off E. Main & S. Depeyster and no entrances off E. Erie or Haymaker. Allows Erie to be more pedestrian and keeps through traffic moving on Haymaker.

_ Like the amphitheater design. It’s different and would provide a unique outdoor space that utilizes the natural slope of the land.

o Scheme 1 – Dislikes:

_ It’s my favorite of the four.

o Scheme 2 – Likes:

_ Most of what I like about Scheme 1.

o Scheme 2 – Dislikes:

_ The entrance for cars off E. Erie. I’d like to see E. Erie be more pedestrian, especially since it’s not connected to Haymaker.

o Scheme 3 – Likes:

_ The natural open space on the east end.

o Scheme 3 – Dislikes:

_ The entrance off Haymaker Parkway. It would be hard to get out (especially for a bus) without a new traffic light and I’d like to see Haymaker be more for through traffic.

o Scheme 4 – Likes and Dislikes:

_ Same as Scheme 3.

· Opinions on Schemes: – Ann Ward – Kent Environmental Council

o Scheme 1 – Likes:

_ Pedestrian-only access on Erie

_ Arena space for gathering

o Scheme 3 and Scheme 4 – Dislikes:

_ Less open space

_ Pedestrians close to bus drive

· Opinions on Schemes: – David Dix – Record-Courier

o Scheme 1 – Likes:

_ More greenspace. More inviting to pedestrians

o Scheme 1 – Dislikes:

_ I like it. I’m not sure about buses on E. Erie turning left but there is not a lot of bus traffic.

o Scheme 2 – Likes:

_ More greenspace. More inviting to pedestrians.

o Scheme 2 – Dislikes:

_ Not sure about buses on East Main.

o Scheme 3 – Likes:

_ I think this is inferior to Schemes 1 & 2.

o Scheme 3 – Dislikes:

_ Destroys greenspace. Less inviting to transit or bus

o Scheme 4 – Likes:

_ Favor bus on Main St

Environmental Friendliness

· Aim for a LEED certification and some way to showcase or demonstrate energy efficiency features. – Ann Ward – Kent Environmental Council

· Roof should be designed as a green roof, recreation area or be a solar energy caption area versus parking. – Rick Hawksley

Pedestrian and Bicycle Bridge

· Bridge is key to success of businesses in the building. – Michel P. Dussel

· I like the bridge option providing it fits in with the architecture. I’d like to see Haymaker be more for through traffic. – Jon Ridinger

· A bike/pedestrian bridge is not practical. While it would be interesting sculpturally, changes to make the bypass more pedestrian friendly and an on grade plaza would be more beautiful and practical. We can’t manage to maintain and plow our sidewalks already, another costly bridge would not make sense. There is discussion of connecting a hotel and conference center across the bypass in another location. – Rick

Hawksley

Bicycle Facilities

· Would like to see provision for bike lockers, changing facilities, and lockers in any plan adopted. Include bike rentals for short trip usage, now used in European cities. – Ann Ward – Kent Environmental Council

· Bike facilities should have caged/locked areas and bike lockers. Design should provide for large amount of bike storage, and a bike repair/rental shop. Design should accommodate future expansion of bike area and decrease in car parking. – Rick Hawksley

General

· Would be interested to see how this will look architecturally once it gets past these first rounds. This could be a great asset to downtown and the area. – Jon Ridinger

· Critical element to all plans would be ease of traffic flow, bicycle and pedestrian safety. – Ann Ward – Kent Environmental Council

· My personal feeling about the schemes is that the size of Kent is too small for a need of this type of facility. If we were a 100 sq mile city I could see a need. The main client would be KSU students that wouldn’t mind the 3 block walk. I think that with proper parking and bike trails the need for this facility is unwarranted. While walking my ward and knocking on doors I interviewed approximately 200 people. My ward is the KSU area. This facility had zero importance to all but one person who I believe works for PARTA. My biggest fear is that we will pursue this at the expense of those that can’t afford to pay for it or use it. – John Kuhar – Kent City Council

· I saw the flyer for the Public Meeting that was held on April 24 th . Since the meeting has already occurred I will send comments as requested on the back page of the flyer. I graduated from KSU in 1973 and many times have walked from the S.E. end of campus to downtown Kent and back (day and night). So I am very familiar with the distance, scenery and concerns along the way. I have worked in Kent for the past 25 years and remain very familiar with the area and its needs. Although it has been discussed for years, it is imperative for the survival of the downtown business area that a marriage be arranged between KSU students and the downtown. I am in full agreement with the location of the proposed project (N.W. Gateway). I am sure you have recycled the benefits of the location several times, so I will not subject you to them again.

I do have a vision of how it might look. I am not familiar with any proposed details, so I will just throw a few of my thoughts out there. I envision a dedicated pathway gently winding from the N.W. corner of campus into the central downtown area. This pathway could be a paved road (preferably porous pavement) wide enough to accommodate multiple uses without feeling squeezed. Intersections (if necessary) would be minimal and strictly forbid the entrance of vehicles onto the pathway. It would be very pedestrian and bicycle friendly by incorporating dedicated lanes for these purposes. For the less active users, specifically dedicated transportation vehicles (something unique) would used for the round trip from campus to downtown. This transportation would be available at the hours well outside established business hours.

The pathway would be lined with people friendly sights (i.e. adequate decorative lighting, well marked boundaries with lots of flower beds and trees, decorative bricked areas). The sides of the pathway would be littered with small interesting shops to encourage the users to venture a little further. This could create additional business ventures for area retailers. A very important aspect to this project would be the installation of an adequate number of (circular) electronic kiosks strategically placed along the pathway, promoting the many activities occurring in both downtown Kent and the university. This would eliminate a major obstacle of communication between the two entities. It may also be beneficial to locate a few of these communication kiosks on campus (i.e. Student Center, Wellness Center, etc.) and a few downtown (i.e. gazebo area across from Ray’s). It seems that the newspapers (Record Courier and Kent Stater) do not adequately fulfill this need. I think the electronically active kiosk is a much bolder and “in your face” a communication method that will substantially fill this void. I look forward to this project’s completion……it would be a huge asset to the area. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. – Bob Brown

· Liquor licenses for bars/restaurants are essential. – Michel P. Dussel

· Buses are archaic. A monorail could be more agreeable. The key concerns are: use attractive architecture, and don’t tear up College Street. – Janice Kelly

· The project footprint is located in an area with historic Main Street houses, a steep grade and an odd corner that resulted from putting in the bypass in the 1970s. If this site is chosen, the very pedestrian-unfriendly intersection of main/willow and SR 59 should be redesigned as part of the project. Instead of removing historic houses and the corner retail properties, why not move the project to the south and use the historic right of way of Erie Street as part of the project. Since the Record Courier is moving, this site would be more prominent and protect the character of Main Street. It would be worthwhile to convert the houses into office buildings and small shops and move the fraternities somewhere else.

If a parking deck is built, it should be built with: Substantial floor to floor heights (14’ minimum) and Flat Slabs (not sloped), So it can converted to useful space at a later date. It should also have meters at each spot and be paid for by the users.

This project would be an ideal one to include a skateboard park. The locations of parks/amphitheatres/ etc are up against a busy, dirty highway. Unless traffic is slowed considerably, it would not be desirable space for parkland. Creating an attractive series of sculptures, including water features, could enhance a boulevard converted from the current highway. There is room for a planted median in current roadway.

Connecting and replanting an urban forest across the bypass/ highway was proposed 15 years ago. It is still a good idea. We need to get islands, and remove the fences, eliminate the limited access features of this stretch-reconnecting our community to extent feasible. Not sure what a Kiss and Ride has to do with this type of a facility. Better to focus on Bike and Ride. Facility should contain pedestrian arcades on all sides to encourage covered pedestrian activity and embrace the street. – Rick Hawksley

· I am a property owner in the area that is being considered for the Kent Central Gateway (area bounded by Main St. , Lincoln St., Summit St., and Water St.). I would like some detail as to the timing of the project and the means by which the group plans on acquiring the properties in the area. I was at the meeting last November and am still a bit confused as to the benefit of adding another public transportation system without taking one of the current ones away. The addition will only congest the traffic more than it currently is today. Any answers or feedback will be greatly appreciated. - Giovanni Bernardo

o Response : Our meetings last November helped the study team narrow down the proposed site, so it might be possible that your property will not be affected by the project. We propose that the facility be placed in the area bounded by Main St, Haymaker Parkway (S.R. 59), Erie St, and Depeyster St. This lies in the area called “Northwest Gateway” in the attached map. There could be a pedestrian and bicycle bridge across Haymaker in order to allow easier passage across Haymaker for those not driving automobiles, so the bridge could affect properties along Erie St on the east side of Haymaker as well. Note that at this point this is all just proposed during our planning study. There is no timeline right now beyond the fact that our planning study will be concluded this summer. Once our study is concluded, it is expected that a lead agency will be chosen (likely to be either City of Kent, Kent State University, or PARTA). Then it is expected that the lead agency will work with property owners to purchase the affected property. The Kent Central Gateway project will not be a part of a new public transportation system. The public transportation system in Kent and Portage County is and will continue to be run by PARTA, the Portage Area Regional Transportation Authority. The Kent Central Gateway facility will provide a hub for PARTA’s bus routes, in which people could transfer buses or park their cars and board the bus. It will create an activity center which will include retail shops and other possibilities. The Kent Central Gateway facility will be a catalyst for further economic development along Main St and in Kent’s downtown, which will make the city of Kent a stronger community. The construction of the facility will increase the friendliness of the current infrastructure to allow pedestrians and bicyclists to easily and comfortably move throughout downtown and between the university and the riverfront. In the case of traffic, it is expected that the Kent Central Gateway project will have the opposite effect of what you propose – by emphasizing bus, bicycles, and pedestrians, less people will be reliant on their cars. In a time where gas prices are rapidly approaching $4/gallon and beyond, the Kent Central Gateway project is a vital improvement to Kent’s transportation infrastructure that will improve connections between Kent’s neighborhoods and businesses. If you have any further questions or comments this week, feel free to call 614-336-8480 and I am happy to answer your questions. Or if you provide a phone number, I can call you so that you are not charged for long distance. Thank you.

Online Materials Interestingly, I happened across a report from 2001 that seems to be the seed of the multi-modal concept and after reading it I had a much better appreciation for how it is we got to where we’re at today.

· I own a rental house on E. College and am interested in the concepts and project. I am working and would like to get information as to the ideas and proposals. I would suggest that you provide some written materials or graphic representations online for interested persons to view. – Dennis Dyer

o Response : Please see the attached invitation to come to an open house on Thursday April 24. The times span the day and evening so hopefully you’ll be able to make it. If not, feel free to call me at 614-336-8480 if you have any questions. At this time, I am not sure we are able to put anything online. But there is the possibility that I can email you materials after the April 24 open house. Thank you.

· I have a question about the information you are going to present tomorrow? Will the information that you are presenting be on line or can it be emailed so that some people that are out of town can have a look and ask questions? – Doug Fuller

o Response: The material will not be online. It is available for viewing at the Kent Council Chambers during normal business hours. Thank you.

I recently came across a report from 2001 that seems to be the origin of the multi-modal concept.  After reading it I felt like I had a much better appreciation for how we got to where we’re at today. Here’s that report if your interested as well: Download Concept Report

When it comes to university/city collaborations there’s lots of great examples out there to learn from and this year we’ve made an effort to get some hands-on schooling.  A few months ago City and University staff (along with a couple of Council members) traveled to Purdue University in West Lafayette Indiana to get an insider’s view of how a very successful city/university partnership works.  And in a couple of weeks we’re sending a contingent to the Spicer Village project in Akron which is a result of the University Park Alliance.  We’ve also had folks from Normal Illinois, Boulder Colorado, and Columbus Ohio come visit us here in Kent so that they can share their insights based on what they see on their walk around town.  The types of problems from one university town to another is remarkably similar and we hope the solutions prove to be as well.  Here’s an example of how the Columbus Campus Partners group transformed an old hotel into new student housing and retail.

Jeff Hinckley | Dispatch photos

The three-year redevelopment of the former Seneca Hotel at E. Broad Street and Grant Avenue included spending $100,000 to make the lobby impressive.

Chalk one up for history.

Dan Smith, Kent’s Economic Development Director, asked if he could share insights that he (and 8 other Kent dignitaries) picked up on a recent site visit to Purdue University about how technology transfer has been transformative for the West Lafayette economy.  We’ve got our own version of a business incubator in the pipeline so here’s Dan’s guest blog post.  Enjoy!

Tech Transfer in Action
Team Kent Visits West Lafayette, Purdue University

Dan Smith, Economic Development Director- Guest Blogger

At the spring Bowman Breakfast, Record Courier Publisher David Dix gave an impassioned call for town & gown relationships to be strengthened. City and University officials have accepted the challenge and began to explore options and projects that would strengthen our community, especially with regards to economic development, technology transfer and the creation of new jobs and tax revenues.

One such project that has been on the table for several years is the Business Technology Entrepreneur Center and Park (B-TEC). Kent has helped numerous small businesses get their start through the efforts of the Small Business Develop Center (SBDC) operated by the Kent Regional Business Alliance as well as several City incentive programs (revolving loan funds, tax abatements and our faÇade program) and support from Kent State University. A few of the businesses that have been started or assisted with consulting provided by the SBDC include: Alpha Micron, the Backeri, Leander’s Barbershop, Poly Display, Liquid Learning, Antifreeze, RocketCalc, Christian Edwards Beauty Salon, Avrow, Ailes Millwork, Link Connection, Brand Logo, Portage Medical, Box Card Gifts, and Mugzee’s Wings.

To build upon our previous successes, the concept of creating a discovery park anchored with a business technology entrepreneur development incubator on a 23 acre site is under development. In researching various incubator/tech transfer models, we learned of a similar, extremely successful, facility in West Layfette, Indiana at Purdue University. One of five in the nation, it is now considered to be the largest university-affiliated incubation program in the US at 259,000 SF.

The Purdue Research Park boasts the following statistics:

• 725 Acres, 52 separate buildings, 1.5 million SF under roof
• 151 companies, 57 incubator companies
• Over 3,000 employees at an average wage of $54,000
• Nearly 100 High Tech Firms and Entities
• $121 M of Invested Venture Capital
• Their third incubator is coming on-line and there is now a waiting list for space in the incubator.

Hearing of the Purdue Technology Park’s impressive achievements, we assembled “Team Kent” for a visit to research their facilities and best practices. The City/University team included: Mayor John Fender, Dr. Pat Book, KSU VP Regional Development; Kent City Councilman Robin Turner; College of Business Dean George Stevens; Jack Crews, CEO Kent Regional Business Alliance; Janet Newcomer- KSU Director of Institutional Advancement College of Business and Dan Smith, Kent Economic Development Director. A two day exploratory visit was completed on May 1.

We noted several contributing factors to the success of the Purdue Research/Discovery Park including : bold vision and dynamic leadership; strong public University and City engagement; partnerships based on trust, inclusion and transparency; integration of effort; external fund-raising- federal and private; city support through innovative economic development policy. Their efforts started modestly with one smaller incubation building… but quickly blossomed into an incredible center (725 acre park) for innovation. The center supports firms commercializing Purdue-patented technologies joined by entrepreneurial ventures interested in forming strong ties to Purdue- one of the requirements for tenancy within the incubator.

Our team’s take-aways from this visit were that we have all the basic elements of this success story. We have a large research university with areas of basic and applied research strength in high-tech areas including liquid crystal physics, biosciences, health sciences (multiple sclerosis, trauma), manufacturing and applied technology; we have a well developed technology transfer and research commercialization capability at the university and a track record of successful licensing of university spin-off technology. We also have an AACSB accredited College of Business with a Center for Entrepreneurship and Business Innovation. In addition, entrepreneurs can utilize the Small Business Development Center/Kent Regional Business Alliance and university-based technical assistance. We have many community and City assets that are attractive to the knowledge worker.

We strongly believe strengthening our relationships and resolve will pay tremendous dividends in the very near future. While our Kent Atlantic and Great Western Technology Park is a proposal on a much more modest level than the Purdue venture, it is a great first-step with tremendous potential to capture technology and new industries are we transform Kent and take advantage of the emerging knowledge economy. We have submitted an application to participate in the Stat of Ohio Job Ready Site (JRS) program as well as several local foundations. If similar results to the Purdue facility can be achieved, the Atlantic and Great Western Discovery Park will serve as a great catalyst for innovation, new businesses, jobs, and tax base that will enhance the quality of life of Kent residents and the greater N.E. Ohio region.

For a great video clip on the Purdue Research Park…. click here.

Or Click Here to view a Powerpoint with lots more information on the Purdue Project.

Best Regards,
Daniel D. Smith, Economic Development Director
City of Kent 215 East Summit Street Kent, OH 44240
(330) 676-7582
smithd@kent-ohio.org

Last night the City’s whitewater park consultant (Mike Harvey of REP in Boulder Colorado) provided City Council with an overview of his firm’s conceptual recommendations for what could be done in the Cuyahoga River corridor in downtown Kent to enhance river recreational opportunities.  At the meeting I promised to upload Mike’s draft report and conceptual renderings but he hasn’t provided the draft report in electronic format yet so I can only post the graphic illustrations.  Of course, it’s easier to make sense of the graphic if you have the report available but I figured I’d go ahead and put the images up online anyways for those people who were at the meeting and they should have an idea of what they’re looking at.  As soon as I get the report from Mike I’ll post that as well.

Based on the data collected and the input received from the stakeholders, the consultant performed analytical and conceptual work to further develop some river concept design options that we could use to go after State grant funds that are available for these sorts of river improvements. Main Street and Parks and Recreation have already been coordinating with State agencies to give them a sense of how we hope to use this project to continue all the work we started with the Dam project and the initial feedback has been favorable from these agencies.

With the Dam project we made a significant impact on improving the water quality, and the idea of this project is to open up access to the new and improved river so that residents, students and visitors can enjoy it all year long. From the City’s perspective I continue to see this eco-friendly outdoor-activity as a unique business opportunity for us to capitalize on in our region that is both a quality of life enhancement and is also a part of the economic revival of the downtown. I can’t think of a better way to celebrate our river heritage than by having a plan for expanding river use in a way that connects the public investment we made to revitalize the West River Neighborhood to the redevelopment work we are now pursuing in downtown.

The concept design work will give us a list of improvements that we can consider, including ranges of costs, regulatory issues, etc. One of the tasks included in the scope of work was to begin to outline the possible economic impacts of a white water park with a range of examples of new business activity and local spending spawned by these types of parks. The purpose of this data is to give us a better sense of the costs/benefits and the rate of return of the improvements should we eventually choose to pursue any or all of them.

CLICK HERE FOR CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM

This central Ohio community preserves and enhances its unique ambiance.

In a place as unique as Delaware, try gauging it in decibels.

A town of traditions welcomes the new.

For Independence, that catchphrase couldn’t be more correct, since this northeast Ohio city is literally the geographic center of Cuyahoga County. Located 8 miles south of downtown Cleveland, it’s also a destination for more than 30,000 daily commuters who head to and from 1,400 companies headquartered in the city’s business district.

Residents of Ohio’s Star City shine with spirit and pride.

Mayor Dick Church, Jr., knows the resilience of Miamisburg residents. At first glance, this community, located just south of Dayton on the banks of the Miami River, has the tranquil appearance of most river towns. And while its residents possess many small-town-America qualities — like waving to strangers and slowing down for pedestrians — their spirit, goals and development rival those of any big city.

A neighborly, historic city is primed for growth.