MVRPC Draft Mission: - Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission

Miami Valley Regional
Planning Commission
MVRPC Commission and Staff Retreat Summary
Reflecting on the Past and
Considering the Future
Prepared by:
Jim Kunde
Fred Bartenstein and Associates
Center for Urban and Public Affairs
Wright State University
March 1, 2003
1

MVRPC Commission and Staff Retreat Summary
March 1, 2003
It is the right time to renew the strategic direction for the Miami Valley Regional Planning
Commission (MVRPC). Private, public, and nonprofit leaders seek an organization to help build
a common vision and voice for the region; MVRPC has new executive leadership; regionalism is
coming of age—for example, it is how we are defined in the global economy. The intent of the
MVRPC Commission retreat on March 1, 2003 was to develop, through a deliberative,
consensus building process, the strategic direction of MVRPC to the year 2010.
PART ONE: ACKNOWLEDGING OUR PAST, LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
As background information for the day’s event, Commission members received an overview
from several sources.
Acknowledging our Past
• Powers and duties of Regional Planning Commissions, Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs), and Councils of Government (COGs) (see Appendix A)
Looking to the Future
• An overview of other COGs in Ohio (see Appendix B)
• Regional leaders’ consensus ideas for next steps (see Appendix C)
• Highlights from Commission and Staff members’ interviews (see Appendix D)
PART TWO: CREATING A VISION AND NEXT STEPS
Part two of this report presents the planning results from the retreat. Topics presented in this
section are the mission statement, the vision statement, and strategic priorities.
Our Mission
The planning activity of the retreat began with a review of a staff-drafted mission statement:
A forum and resource for regional interests to develop public policy,
collaborative strategies, plans, and programs that improve the quality of life
and economic vitality throughout the Miami Valley
Slogan: One Region…One Vision…One Future
Commission members were asked to react to the mission statement by describing what they liked
and didn’t like about it. The two lists (below) present some of the same elements, because the
same element was liked by some and disliked by others. We used this input to build toward a
refined mission statement by answering the questions, “Who do we serve, what is our purpose,
and what impact do we seek to make?”
1

What do you like about the draft mission?
• Miami Valley
• forum
• resource
• collaborative
• it is clear
• The slogan
• future
Who do we serve?
• Public – the citizens
(broadly defined) are
our ultimate
constituency
Governments
• “The region”
• Corporate citizens, small
businesses, nonprofits,
and other
structures are also
citizens
• “Who we represent” is
too narrow a focus.
We need to broaden it.
What do you dislike about the draft mission?
• Miami Valley
• forum
• resource
• placement of “collaborative” -- put it first
• it is unclear
• public policy
• improve
• lacks how to implement
What is our purpose?
• Facilitate
• Develop
• Implement
o Educate about
regional issues
o Provide expertise and
information resources
o Secure funding
• Lead
What impact (results) do we
hope to achieve?
• Cohesive region
• Improved quality of life,
that may be defined as
economic, social,
environmental, and
mobility
• Improved
intergovernmental
relationships
• Economic development
for the region
• Enhanced environment
Summary of why MVRPC does what it does…
To bring consensus to the region and to build and conserve social and environmental capital
Potential Revised Mission Statement
MVRPC facilitates, develops, and implements collaborative strategies to
enrich the quality of life for citizens of the Greater Dayton Region
Our Vision
While the mission statement asserts why the organization exists, the vision statement articulates
what the organization seeks to become. The statement should be inspirational. Commission and
staff members in attendance were organized into three groups to brainstorm a vision statement
for MVRPC. The participants were asked to envision that it is the year 2010 and they are talking
to a reporter about MVRPC and what it has accomplished. They were also asked to think about
what the organization might accomplish with hard work, reasonable luck, but no miracles.
Comments from the three groups were placed side by side, and common themes were identified.
2

Consensus concepts for MVRPC’s Vision Statement
• A “servant leader” to the region
• Focal point for collaboratively addressing local issues; a forum
• Clearinghouse/collaborate/coordinate
• The lead and/or partner in regional lobbying efforts that frame issues as “Win/Win”
• The region’s voice on policies and priorities
• Building bridges to improve the quality of life/ acknowledges our interdependence
• The Commission is more diverse/inclusive/representative (e.g. minorities, schools,
townships). Membership contains a strong core of regional thinkers who are open and
accessible, not “Big Brother”.
• Skills/capacity: strong staff, data clearinghouse, technology transfer, information center
• Facilitator/builder of regional competitiveness (e.g. education, economic development,
natural resources)
• Effective in implementation: continued strong transportation, linked with water, land use,
air quality, jurisdictional cooperation.
• Role model for regional collaboration, all about alliances and connection: common goals
in uncommon ways.
Potential Vision Statement
The Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission is an influential force in Ohio (and beyond)
as the region’s voice on policies and priorities. Its strong core of regional thinkers has become a
model and forum for regional collaboration, and is supported by a strong staff and expert systems
to support decision making. A synthesis of leadership and information positions the organization
to continually align and realign its mission with the emerging needs of the region.
Priority Strategies
Commission and staff members in attendance were again organized into three groups. They
brainstormed the strategies needed to move MVRPC from where it is today to where it wants to
be in the future (i.e., toward its vision). Each of the three groups identified its own priority
strategies (see the addendum to this report), and then each group’s priorities were compared to
the others. This comparison resulted in five strategic priorities for MVRPC:
• Communicate and market the vision, mission, and strategies to stakeholders (e.g.,
citizens). Promote the benefits of MVRPC, develop an agency image, and educate
stakeholders.
• Develop an issues committee to identify regional priorities on a regular basis. The
committee should include private sector representation, and should hold regular, formal
meetings with editorial boards and state and federal officials.
• Create measurements (benchmarks) to report progress and evaluate and disclose
performance. Review progress toward strategies every six months.
• Examine and improve the structure and composition of the Commission. Use guiding
principles to communicate MVRPC expectations to Commission members. Ensure that
3

key players are at the table for important decisions. Develop a process for involving
county-level officials from Warren and Clark counties.
• Develop, in a consensus manner, a regional comprehensive plan and a regional growth
management strategy that balances protection of natural resources and development (a
high priority in two of the three groups).
4

Group A
ADDENDUM
Commission and Staff Strategies
Developed at the March 1, 2003 Retreat
Strategies (in order of greatest interest):
• Develop a regional comprehensive plan, addressing air quality, water, transportation, and
land use. This comprehensive plan should be accomplished in a consensus manner,
balancing protection of natural resources and development
• Develop an issues committee to identify regional priorities (the committee may be
comprised of two members from MVRPC, 2 from the Dayton Development Coalition,
and so on).
• Benchmark critical issues topics.
• Develop guiding principles for jurisdictions to agree to (an example of a guiding
principle might be, “We’ll be active participants to discuss regional issues”).
• Go out to MVRPC’s constituencies with the refined vision describing what MVRPC will
do and why and how it will strategically achieve the vision.
o Educate constituencies.
o Develop an agency image.
o Promote the benefits of being a member of MVRPC.
• Examine the structure of MVRPC’s commission as well as its composition. (Strategize
about how groups outside of the commission will be accessed and their input obtained.)
o Consider what structure makes sense for today.
• Consider the methods (such as survey or face-to-face meetings) that will be used to
contact constituencies to review the MVRPC vision and to formulate strategies. Check in
with constituencies (including voters) about vision and strategies. It gives the message,
“You’re important to us.”
• Train elected officials via a governance academy.
• Utilize the positive situation of congressional support to create the urgency of need to
collaborate--this is the time.
• Select a project, develop it successfully and then market it as a regional success.
o Build momentum.
• Develop and maintain state of the art technology.
o Use our data and numbers to convince people about issues and criticality.
Group B
Strategies (in order of greatest interest):
• Convene regional groups based on issues (e.g., GIS, basin council) periodically, not just
in crisis.
• Identify individual and specific tangible benefits of regionalism, and educate
stakeholders.
• Overcome issues in the region that threaten and compete with each other (e.g.,
competition for state dollars).
5

• Make sure key players are at the table for important decisions that affect them.
• Identify, recruit and involve “regional thinkers.”
• Bring our views and outside agencies’ (federal, state, chamber, RTA) input into
alignment.
• Work better with other agencies. Fill gaps, don’t duplicate efforts.
• Obtain funding for projects.
• Commission members must stop undermining decisions that have been made.
Commission members need to live with, rather than revisit, final decisions.
• Don’t take votes on the same night an issue is raised, unless it is on the agenda and there
has been time to get stakeholder input.
• Get the various entities to agree to agree.
• Develop a system for “listening” and gathering input on issues.
• Vitalize the membership base toward a “one for all” mentality through leadership and
follow-through.
• Establish better partnerships to develop resources.
• Seek win-win solutions (compensation may be needed).
• Review, revise and update membership requirements.
• Establish objectives and benchmarks. Evaluate and disclose performance.
• Keep getting out information on successes; improve public relations.
• Identify stakeholders. Build mutual respect and trust.
• Make participation easy.
Group C
Strategies (in order of greatest interest):
• Implement relationships with county level officials in Warren and Clark counties.
• Define and create specific indicators to measure progress toward achieving initiatives.
• Reach out to the education community to bring that community into the planning process.
• Communicate and market the vision, mission and strategies to stakeholders (e.g.,
citizens), implement, and measure, then check back in with stakeholders and regularly
communicate status to stakeholders.
• Score an early success:
o Regarding lobbying, the transportation Capital Acquisition Model can be used as
a model for other areas.
• Develop a regional growth management strategy.
• Hold regular, formal and informal, meetings with state and federal officials
• Attract active, committed members to be able to achieve goals.
o Make it the will of the organization to achieve our goals.
o Have active members approach and recruit inactive members.
o Reach out to other governmental leaders and citizens.
• Develop a legislative and regulatory agenda to empower comprehensive regional
planning.
• Provide staff the necessary funds to achieve our goals.
• Hold formal, informal and regular meetings with private sector organizations to share
economic development goals between board and staff.
6

• Hold regular and formal meetings with editorial boards on regional economic
development issues.
• Expand boundaries to reflect the current census defined urbanized areas.
• Create and empower regional organizations to represent all of us to achieve desired
results for the region at the state and federal level.
• Assign every member community a member service contact. Be a first line of contact for
member community.
• Focus on top regional infrastructure and economic development priorities.
• Carry out an educational program for high level staff and elected officials on the mission
of MVRPC.
• Continue programming (e.g., Regional Issues Forum—bring in national experts on issues
the region is facing to create visibility).
• Test a model of granting legislative authority on a regional level (specific, limited issues).
• Regular review of strategies every six months.
o Form an educational advisory committee
7

APPENDIX A
Powers and Duties of Planning Organizations
Regional Planning Commission
The commission makes maps, studies, plans, and develops recommendations and reports
concerning the physical, environmental, social, economic and governmental characteristics,
functions, services, and other aspects which affect the development and welfare of the region.
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
An MPO determines the best mix of transportation investments to meet metropolitan
transportation needs. Also it protects and enhances the environment, improves the transportation
system and plans for the future of the transportation system.
Regional Councils of Governments (COGs)
COGs coordinate actions among and between their members and other agencies. They also act
as an area-wide agency to perform comprehensive planning for the region, relative to financing,
scheduling of public policies, development, and public facility projects.
8

Columbus, OH
APPENDIX B
Benchmark Regional Planning Organizations
Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission (MORPC)
www.morpc.org
Mission:
To enhance the quality of life and competitive advantages of the region by working through local
governments and other constituents.
Slogan: “Working to Build a Better Region”
Programs & Services:
• Consulting Services: Accounting, Public Affairs, Human Resources, Information
Technology and Software Planning
• Data & Information Technology Services: Aerial Photography, Geographic Information
System, Land Use Demographics, Transportation & Census Data, Traffic Volumes
• Housing/Weatherization: Home Ownership Counseling, Housing Rehabilitation Program,
Leadsafe Franklin Co. Program, Residential Energy Conservation, Revenue Bonds
Program
• Infrastructure Funding and Planning: Clean Ohio Fund, SCIP/LTIP Infrastructure
Planning, Transportation Improvement Program
• Legislative Services
• Planning for a Livable Region: Central Ohio Ozone Action Program, Greenways,
Pedestrian & Bikeways Planning, 2002 Planning & Zoning Workshop, Rideshare,
Vanpool, Carpool, Seven County Growth Strategy
Cincinnati, OH
OKI (Ohio Kentucky Indiana Regional Council of Governments)
www.oki.org
Mission:
OKI is a council of local governments, business organizations and community groups committed
to developing collaborative strategies, plans and programs which will improve the quality of life
and the economic development potential of the Tri-state.
Together they work to solve interstate dilemmas, create far-reaching development plans, break
through political bureaucracy, and provide services to the public and advocate for federal
funding. By focusing the collective strengths of organizations from around the region, OKI has
accomplished more in the Tri-state in terms of growth, development and quality-of life
improvements than any other entity or group of entities. Their impact is seen and felt in nearly
every major project being undertaken in the region. These projects continue to support OKI's
mission of promoting regional growth now and in the new millennium.
9

Programs & Services
• Transportation Planning
• Land use Planning
• Regional Greenspace Planning
• Regional Ozone Coalition
Asheville, NC
Land-of-Sky Regional Council
www.landofsky.org
Mission:
Work with local governments, the Region’s leadership and state and federal agencies to foster
desirable social, economic, cultural and ecological conditions in Buncombe, Henderson,
Madison and Transylvania Counties.
Programs & Services:
• Land Use and Transportation Planning
• Economic Development
Louisville, KY
Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency (KIPDA)
www.kipda.org
Programs & Services:
• Planning, review and technical services in the areas of public administration, social
services and transportation
• Community Ridesharing programs
• KIPDA also coordinates services for persons 60 years of age and over
Minneapolis/St. Paul
Metropolitan Council
www.metrocouncil.org
Mission:
The Metropolitan Council is the regional planning agency serving the Twin Cities seven-county
metropolitan area and providing essential services to the region. The Council works with local
communities to provide many critical services.
10

Programs & Services:
• Operates the region's largest bus system
• Collects and treats wastewater
• Engages communities and the public in planning for future growth
• Provides forecasts of the region's population and household growth
• Provides affordable housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income individuals and
families
• Provides planning, acquisitions and funding for a regional system of parks and trails
Winston-Salem, NC
Northwest Piedmont Council of Governments
www.nwpcog.dst.nc.us
Mission:
The mission of the Northwest Piedmont Council of Governments is to assist its members in
meeting the needs of their citizens by nurturing regional cohesiveness; providing leadership in
identifying issues and in reaching solutions; being proactive in building on our strengths and
opportunities; and bridging the responsibilities of the federal, state and local governments as the
Lead Regional Organization (LRO).
Programs & Services:
• Workforce training
• Emergency medical services
• Housing assistance
• Criminal justice
• Economic Development
• Technical assistance
Greensboro, NC
Piedmont Triad Council of Governments
www.ptcog.org
Mission:
The Piedmont Triad Council of Governments (PTCOG) is a voluntary association of local
governments - urban and rural - authorized by state law to: make and implement joint regional
decisions; provide management, planning and technical services to local governments; identify
and solve short and long-term problems best addressed at the regional level; and to bring
together local elected officials on a regular basis, giving them an opportunity to form working
relationships.
11

Programs & Services:
• Prepare land use plans, zoning ordinances, and annexation studies
• Provide personnel classification, pay studies and personnel policies
• Regional Data Center for member governments and a variety of private sector clients
• Manage regional telecommunications program which helps member governments
regulate cable TV rates, negotiate franchise agreements and keep abreast of emerging
telecommunications issues
• Emergency medical services planning and training
• Play role in regional organizations such as the Piedmont Triad Partnership, Piedmont
Triad Farmers' Market, and Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation
• Administer the Area Agency on Aging - adult day care, care management, transportation,
congregate and home-delivered meals, and ombudsman services for residents of rest and
nursing homes
12

APPENDIX C
Regional Leaders’ Consensus Ideas for Next Steps
On January 29, 2003, the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission (MVRPC) convened a
group of regional leaders (47 were in attendance) to discuss a vision for and strategies to improve
the Greater Dayton region. Regional leaders came together to rethink what MVRPC could be
doing and perhaps should be doing given this regional context.
CREATING A VISION AND NEXT STEPS
Having interviewed 97 leaders individually, we convened them for a group discussion about our
region’s future. Regional leaders were organized into three breakout groups. Leaders were asked
to provide comments on how they define the “Miami Valley region,” to discuss a vision for our
region, and to identify strategic priorities. The intent of the breakout session was not necessarily
to come to agreement on a vision and strategies for the region, but rather to discuss the vision
and identify topics of consensus and topics of disagreement. This appendix presents identified
consensus issues, and a discussion of the regional vision and strategic priorities.
Toward a Regional Agenda
• We need to develop a shared vision and voice, and lobby purposefully to obtain funding
for strategic priorities.
• The day’s event, itself, pointed to the need for a forum or venue to discuss regional
priorities and issues in an ongoing manner. (However, convening the forum and
implementing activities on behalf of the region are clearly two separate roles.)
• We need to identify the benefits for drawing in desired partners and design partnerships
to be win/win.
• We need to look toward forming strategic alliances with Cincinnati where each side has
relatively equal strengths thus forming an equal partnership.
Geography of Influence
• The name and geography of the region impact our ability to present a shared vision and
voice.
• The geographic definition of the Greater Dayton area should be fluid, drawing in natural
partners who are compelled to participate by the apparent benefits.
• The label, “Miami Valley,” is a confusing marketing handle; “Dayton” is a more
recognizable name and is more easily geographically referenced.
13

The Role of MVRPC
• There is a need to reaffirm and perhaps redesign the mandate for MVRPC and to
reconsider its role in relation to other entities and efforts.
• MVRPC’s direct influence is considered to be in transportation and environmental
planning. (MVRPC had a broader mission in the past. Today, regional leaders support a
reconsideration of MVRPC’s currently narrower mission.)
• The public, private, and nonprofit sectors need to be represented in the process of
realigning MVRPC to today’s regional planning needs.
• Given the need for collaborative lobbying, MVRPC could function as the region’s
clearinghouse for leveraging funds, legislation, and other regional issues, beyond
transportation and the environment.
Our Vision
The vision for the region is not clear—it’s being recast on a dry-erase board. Yet, the central
common theme, in personal interviews and in the event held with regional leaders, is successful
economic development. Private sector leaders tend to focus on the effects of radically changing
market conditions and the consequences thereof, while public sector leaders focus on the role of
local government in the economic development process, noting the importance of balancing
collaboration (such as shared revenue and shared service delivery) and autonomy.
More specifically, regional leaders would like the region to become less dependent on WPAFB
and the automotive industry in the future and more proactive in attracting and creating its own
diverse array of employment sectors, such as the Information Technology (IT) industry. In fact,
developing a world class entrepreneurial infrastructure for IT and other industries was a strong
theme in two of the break-out groups. Education is an important component of this vision,
especially in relationship to education’s role in supporting economic development by providing
top-notch education to the region’s youth and instilling the workforce needs of employers.
Another common belief was that Dayton ought to be the economic and cultural center of the
region, able to provide entertainment activities, shopping, living-wage employment, and
adequate housing. Leaders also desire that the region become recognized as a model region,
with inter-governmental cooperative relationships amongst all townships, cities, and villages.
One important outcome of cooperative relationships should be the preservation of valuable
farmland, primarily in the region’s western portion.
Identifying Strategic Priorities
While the three groups of leaders on January 29 th did not identify a list of strategic issues for
which there was overall consensus, there were some more popular strategies identified. Support
was articulated for a region-wide revenue sharing program similar to Montgomery County’s
ED/GE program; a regional industry/sector targeting and marketing plan; developing a
consensus organization (perhaps MVRPC) to create a regional land-use plan to work in concert
with the regional transportation plan; lobbying the State to provide incentives for regions that
exhibit regionalism; and pooling regional resources to assist schools that are under-performing.
14

A consensus does exist for the context in which strategic issues should be addressed. Clearly,
leaders agree that the region needs to identify manageable priorities where a common voice is
essential. Leaders also concurred that, while regional planning efforts have been well done,
implementation has often floundered. They attribute this to a lack of definition of measurable
outcomes, a lack of reporting progress to the community, and the absence of an integrating
regional organization that assesses the impact of one strategic area upon another and that aligns
and realigns resources as contexts change.
15

Chuck Abramovitz *
Woolpert
Steve Austria *
State of Ohio Representative
Jewel Bartels *
Preble County Family & Children First
Council
Fred Bartenstein ***
Fred Bartenstein Associates
David Bohardt **
HBA of Dayton
Tom Breitenbach *
Premier Health Partners
Steve Bruns *
Tipp City Chamber of Commerce
Ron Budzik
Mead Westvaco Corp.
Kevin Burch **
Jet Express
Charles Cochran *
Troy Chamber of Commerce
Randy Cole **
Preble County Chamber of Commerce
Dave Collinsworth **
Tipp City
Blair Conrad *
Dayton International Airport
Warren Copeland *
City of Springfield
Regional Leader Participants
Bruce Cornett *
Green Environmental Coalition
Charles Curran
Montgomery County
Dave Daily *
City of Eaton
Mandy Daniels *
Darke County Farm Bureau
Dale Dempsey
Dayton Daily News
Kevin Dewine *
State of Ohio Representative
Jim Dillion **
Montgomery County Soil and Water
Conservation District
Jim Dinneen *
City of Dayton
Jane Dockery ***
Center for Urban and Public Affairs
Jack Dustin ***
Center for Urban and Public Affairs
Jim Eiting *
Midmark Corp
John F. Evans *
Monroe Township
Kelly Fackel
MVRPC
Deborah Feldman **
Montgomery County
* Interviewed Only ** Interviewed & Attended *** Facilitator Blank: Attended Only
16

Dr. Raymond Fitz **
University of Dayton
James Foster
GDRTA
Dan French *
French Oil and Machinery
John Garland *
Central State University
Maxine Gilman *
City of West Carrollton
Kim Goldenberg *
Wright State University
John Gower
City of Dayton
Don Graber *
Huffy Corp
Carol Graff **
Beavercreek Township
Joanne Granzow **
Garden Club of Dayton
Mary Graves *
City of Bellbrook
Rob Gunter *
Miami Valley Emergency Management
Authority
Louanna Gwinn *
Darke County Chamber of Commerce
Bill Harrison *
Ohio Department of Transportation
Portia Hill
OEMA
Larry Hines **
Transportation Coordinating Committee
Kathy Hollingsworth *
National City Bank
Pete Horn **
2nd & Main LTD
Gary Huff **
Washington Township
Steve Huseman **
City of Kettering
John Husted *
State of Ohio Representative
Dick Hutchinson **
Time Warner Cable
Jack Jensen
City of West Carrollton
Steve Jonas
Sinclair Community College
Eric Joo
Miller Valentine
Mary Karr **
NCR Corp
Karl Keith *
Montgomery County
Jamie King *
Crowe Manufacturing Svc
Rick Kitchen **
Greater Dayton IT Alliance
Matthew Kridler *
City of Springfield
* Interviewed Only ** Interviewed & Attended *** Facilitator Blank: Attended Only
17

Jim Kunde ***
University of Texas at Arlington
John T. Landess **
The Turner Foundation
Bonnie Langdon *
The Maria Joseph Center
Raymond E Laughlin *
Wayne Hospital
Mark Light *
Victoria Theater
William Lukens **
Stillwater Technologies Inc
Jerry Mahan *
Ohio State Extension Service
Jane Marshall *
Preble County Farm Bureau
Dave Mason
Dayton Aviation
Clay Mathile *
CYMI Ltd.
Donald McLaurin **
City of Trotwood
David Meckstroth *
Upper Valley Medical Center
Randy Mott *
Miami County Farm Bureau
Ken Nutter *
JBK Manufacturing
George Oberer, Jr. *
Oberer Inc
Phil Parker **
Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce
Mike Parks **
Dayton Foundation
John Paul **
Regional Air Pollution Control Agency
Mike Peebles **
Iron Gate Realty South Metro Chamber
Vicki D. Pegg **
Montgomery County
Ed Phillips *
Phillips Sand & Gravel
David Ponitz *
Retired, Sinclair Community College
Arthur Porter *
Dayton Business Journal
Scott Puckett *
Brethren's Home
Karen Rafinski *
Clark State Community College
Mike Ratcliff *
Montgomery and Greene County Mayors
and Managers Association
Mike Robinette
MVRPC
Roger Roeth *
Whiteford's Foods
Bob Rose *
Midwest Micro
Vince Russo *
Aeronautical Systems Center
* Interviewed Only ** Interviewed & Attended *** Facilitator Blank: Attended Only
18

Greg Sample
City of Franklin
John Saraga *
City of Xenia
William Schneider **
Miller Valentine
Ron Scott **
Peoples Saving Bank
Matt Selhorst
Ohio Department of Transportation
Beverly F. Shillito
Sebaly, Shillito, & Dryer
Jack Shirley
City of Vandalia
Marv Stamman *
Second National Bank
Steve Stapleton *
Greene County
Tom Studevant *
National City Bank
Chris Thompson **
City of Springboro
Brad Tidwell *
Bank One
Brad Tillson *
Dayton Daily News
Roland Turpin **
Dayton Metropolitan Housing Authority
Don Vermillion **
Sinclair Community College
J.C. Wallace *
Springfield-Clark County Chamber of
Commerce
Gary Warden *
Next Generation Systems
Lloyd Waterhouse *
Reynolds & Reynolds Co
Ron Widener
Miami County
Karl Wilson *
Upper Valley Joint Vocational School
Ron Wine *
Dayton Development Coalition
Jean Woodhull **
Garden Club of Dayton
Ken Yowell *
Edison State Community College
* Interviewed Only ** Interviewed & Attended *** Facilitator Blank: Attended Only
19

APPENDIX D:
Highlights from Commission and Staff Members’ Interviews
Commission members and Staff identified the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and barriers
of the MVRPC. Themes and representative comments are presented below.
The Current Strengths of MVRPC
Strengths are most typically organization (e.g., expert staff and diverse and collaborative
commissioners) and service-related (e.g., technical expertise). Of the 119 strengths listed by
commissioners and staff, 81 referenced organizational and service-related assets.
The Current Weaknesses of MVRPC
An organization’s greatest strengths are oftentimes also its greatest weaknesses. Thus we note
that organizational aspects were cited as a weakness, too. Over one-third of the comments about
weaknesses addressed such issues as a cumbersome planning process within the Commission and
poorly integrated staff divisions. Another third of the comments addressed the impact that
uneven power bases have on Commission meeting functionality and decision making. And onefifth
of the comments concerned the poor or absent public image of MVRPC.
The Most Promising Future Opportunities for MVRPC
Looking to the future, the most prominent opportunities (44 of 121 comments) for MVRPC are
organizational improvements that include such ideas as using the MVRPC leadership transition
as an opportunity to take a fresh look at priorities, widening the mission, and considering
Commission composition. One-fourth of the ideas cited political opportunities such as building
upon momentum toward regionalism and using that power to influence Columbus and
Washington. Twenty ideas articulated outcomes to be impacted such as revitalizing downtowns
and creating a coordinated plan for solid waste removal. Thirteen opportunities focused on
service improvements such as becoming the regional data clearinghouse; and five comments
addressed the educational and regional advocacy role that MVRPC could play.
Barriers to Taking Advantage of Cited Opportunities
While many of the comments reiterated weaknesses, others cited barriers in two primary
categories. Political barriers consist of such comments as the fear of and lack of vision for
regionalism. Common organization-related barriers included the lack of awareness of the
MVRPC mission and the impact of that oblivion, and the pockets of low energy ;-) and pockets
of power on the Commission.
One Thing that MVRPC could do beyond its mandate to do Transportation Planning
The most common idea (one-third of responses) was comprehensive regional and land use
planning. One-fourth of the ideas addressed regional cooperation; a little over one-tenth of the
ideas concerned coordinating economic development; and three ideas were marketing-related.
(For a copy of the full Commission members and staff interview report, please contact Kelly
Fackel of MVRPC.)]
20

Tony Arnett
Yellow Springs
Sally Beals *
City Of Centerville
Michael Belzil **
Wright Patterson AFB
List of Commission and Staff Participants
Kelly Fackel **
MVRPC STAFF
Robert Faulkner *
City Of Miamisburg
Bill Fohrman **
Perry Township
Donald Kolesar *
Village Of Jamestown
Ken LaBlanc **
MVRPC STAFF
Eleanor Lewis *
Butler Township
Janet Bly **
Judy Gerhard *
Sara Lommatzsch *
Miami Conservancy
District
City Of Englewood
City Of Riverside
John Gower
W. Reed Madden *
Gretchen Brafford **
MVRPC
City of Dayton
Greene County
Donald Hamann, Sr. * Larry Marker *
Bryan Bucklew
Dayton Area Chamber
Village Of West Milton Village Of Eldorado
Scott Hammond **
Julia Maxton *
John Burkett
City Of Greenville
MVRPC
South Metro Regional
Anne Hassoun **
Carlos McGinnis **
Pat Campbell **
City Of Bellbrook
MVRPC STAFF
City Of Oakwood
Terry Haworth *
Carol McKeever *
Sue Campbell **
Concord Township
Darke County
City Of Tipp City
Jerome Hirt, Sr. *
Art Meyer *
Doug Cline
City of Centerville
Bethel Township
Dayton Power & Light
Robert Horrocks **
Richard Montgomery **
Charles Curran **
Montgomery County
City Of New Carlisle Xenia Township
Jack Jensen **
George Mote *
Dennis D'Angelo
88 Air Base Wing
City Of West Carrollton Union Township
WPAFB Steve Jonas
Timothy D. Nusbaum *
Sinclair Community MeadWestvaco
Robert DeBrosse *
College
City Of Piqua
Shirley Omietanski **
Robert Jordan **
Miami Township
Paul Dorsten *
Delphi Automotive
Delphi Chassis - GM Systems
* Interviewed Only ** Interviewed & Attended *** Facilitator Blank: Attended Only
21

Donald Patterson, Jr. **
City Of Kettering
Richard Perales *
City Of Beavercreek
Doug Petitt *
Vectren Energy
Delivery of Ohio
Mike Robinette *
MVRPC STAFF
Mary Ann Rondeau **
Village Of Farmersville
Robert Rosencrans *
City Of Moraine
Scott Hammond *
MVRPC STAFF
Jack Shirley **
City Of Vandalia
Don Spang **
MVRPC STAFF
Sarajane Steinecker **
Montgomery County
Farm Bureau
Denise Swinger *
Village Of Yellow
Springs
Jan Vargo **
City Of Huber Heights
B. Ronald Widener
Miami County
Eric Winston
City Of Xenia
John Wright for David
Seagraves *
City Of Brookville
Richard Wright *
Issue Nine Group
W. Henry Young **
Village Of Germantown
Richard Zimmer *
City Of Dayton
* Interviewed Only ** Interviewed & Attended *** Facilitator Blank: Attended Only
22

Consultant and Staff Bios
Fred Bartenstein: Fred Bartenstein is president of Fred Bartenstein & Associates, an
organizational development consulting firm based in Yellow Springs. His clients include
nonprofit, business, and government organizations addressing change in their external and
internal environments. His work involves facilitation and mediation in a wide variety of settings.
Previously, Fred Bartenstein was CEO of the Dayton Foundation, the Victoria Theatre
Association, Books & Co., and two magazines.
James Kunde: James E. Kunde, a former City Manager of Dayton and former County
Administrator of Jackson County, Missouri (Kansas City), is currently teaching Public
Administration and Planning at the University of Texas at Arlington. He has facilitated numerous
retreats of elected officials and regional leaders throughout the country, and serves on the
Advisory Board of the National Civic League.
Mike Robinette: Mike Robinette was named Executive Director of the Miami Valley Regional
Planning Commission in November 2002. Prior to joining MVRPC, Robinette served as General
Manager of the Miami Conservancy District for six years. He also served as Vice-President of
Banc One Capital dealing with Public Finance from 1990-94 and was Finance Director for the
City of Kettering from 1982-1990. Robinette has a bachelor's degree from Capital University and
a master's degree from the University of Dayton, both in public administration.
The Center for Urban and Public Affairs: The Center for Urban and Public Affairs (CUPA) at
Wright State University was established in 1986. CUPA builds knowledge and capacity in
students, individuals, and organizations for creative problem solving to benefit communities,
governments, and nonprofit agencies in the region and beyond. CUPA’s expertise lies primarily
in the fields of community and economic development, housing, health, planning, program
evaluation, and survey research. CUPA staff involved with this project include Dr. Jack Dustin
(Director of CUPA), Jane Dockery (Associate Director), Carol Hooker, Patricia Jones, David
Jones, Abby Baum, and Charles Morrison.
23