Report of program and policy recommendations for the use of Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) funds for the Hilltop neighborhood of Columbus, Ohio. This program will serve to mitigate the impact of foreclosures in the neighborhood and contribute to its revitalization.

1. Hilltop NSP Report
Rachel Bacon, Ryan Cowden, Drew Hurst, Amanda King, Isolde Teba

2.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 2
Area Background ................................................................................................................................... 3
Location ................................................................................................................................................................ 3
A Hard­hit Community .................................................................................................................................... 3
Community Strengths ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Demographics .................................................................................................................................................... 5
Housing Market ..................................................................................................................................... 6
.
Housing Stock ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Private Ownership/Homeownership Rate .............................................................................................. 7
Rentals .................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................... 8
Strategy ................................................................................................................................................... 10
Rehabilitation Strategy ................................................................................................................................ 10
Demolition Strategy ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Land Banking Strategy ................................................................................................................................. 12
Acquisition and Budget ..................................................................................................................... 13
Acquisition Plan ............................................................................................................................................. 13
Future Considerations ....................................................................................................................... 16
Wheatland Avenue Site ................................................................................................................................ 16
Land Bank Redevelopment Strategy ....................................................................................................... 17
Other Areas for Investment ....................................................................................................................... 17
Lease­Purchase Program ............................................................................................................................ 17
Foreclosure Task Force ............................................................................................................................... 18
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 19
Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 20
Appendix A – Hilltop NSP Study Area ..................................................................................................... 20
Appendix B – Community Amenities Arts ............................................................................................ 21
Appendix C – NSP Targeted Properties .................................................................................................. 24
Appendix D – Demolition Budget ............................................................................................................. 26
Appendix E – Land Banking Budget......................................................................................................... 26
Appendix F – Rehabilitation Budget (Three Scenarios) .................................................................. 26
Appendix G – Total Budget for Hilltop Study Area ............................................................................. 27
1

3.
Executive Summary
The Hilltop Study Area Group spent five weeks studying, researching, identifying,
tracking and evaluating the impact of the foreclosure crisis on a small study area within the
Greater Hilltop Area of Columbus, Ohio. With a goal of presenting the most strategic use of
Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) funds and truly stabilizing the neighborhood, the
group analyzed the physical, social and demographic characteristics of the area, its housing
stock and market, and the compelling disadvantages and advantages that collectively make the
Hilltop suitable for NSP funds.
This report provides a summary of the action plan created by the group to direct more
than five percent of the City of Columbus’ NSP funds in this area. To formulate an effective
action plan, strategies were formulated based upon NSP’s requirements and a methodology
utilizing market research, quantitative and qualitative measures and the area’s existing
conditions. Overall, eighteen properties were targeted for NSP funds utilizing a multi‐
dimensional strategy emphasizing flexibility and site‐specific consideration. As described in the
chapters of this report, Hilltop is a viable area for stabilization and redevelopment and an
excellent target area for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program.
2

4.
Area Background
Location
The Hilltop Study Area is a part of Columbus’ Greater Hilltop neighborhood. Located
two‐and‐a‐half miles west of downtown Columbus, the Hilltop is accessible by I‐70, Broad
Street and the #10 COTA Bus. As defined by the City of Columbus, the quot;Greater Hilltop Areaquot; is
bounded by I‐70 on the North, Central Avenue on the West, and I‐270 on the East and West.1
The Hilltop Study Area is approximately ten blocks within the Greater Hilltop Area and is
bordered on the East by Wheatland Avenue, Broad Street on the South, North Eureka on the
West, and Holton Park on the North (see Appendix A).
A Hard‐hit Community
Like many urban neighborhoods, the Hilltop began its decline in the 1950’s.2 Residents
fled to the suburbs, lured by new houses and shopping malls; businesses followed soon after.
As a result, the area’s tax base shrank and local schools suffered. Many children were bused out
of their neighborhoods to other schools throughout the city. Today, the Hilltop’s landscape
bears the scars of its hardships. The boarded‐up Glenwood Recreation Center, vacant houses,
and empty storefronts greet visitors as they enter the Greater Hilltop area. The Holton
Recreation Center, which sits at the northern boundary of the Hilltop Study Area study site, and
the nearby Glenwood Recreation Center both closed in February of 2009 due to city‐wide
budget cuts.3
Hilltop experienced yet another economic loss with the closings of the Delphi,
Westinghouse, and National Harvester plants in Columbus which had employed many area
residents. In 2004, Hilltop lost one of its major grocery stores with the closing of the Big Bear
store at 2865 W Broad Street.4 Due to a downturn in business, its temporary replacement, the
Hilltop Market Place, closed at the end of 2007 resulting in the loss of the area’s primary, full‐
service grocery store. The glut of nine total carry‐outs and convenience stores surrounding the
focus area can not compensate for the loss of these grocery stores, as carry‐outs do not provide
the same caliber and variety of nutritious food.5 The nearest full service grocery stores
1
City of Columbus, OH, 2009. (March 10, 2009). http://www.cityofcolumbus.org/
2
Homes on the Hill (HOTH), Stephen Torsell, Executive Director (January 30, 2009).
3
City of Columbus, Department of Recreation and Parks. (March 7, 2009).
http://recparks.columbus.gov/RecCenters/RecCenters_21.asp
4
“ Buckeye Ranch might move into former Hilltop grocery”, The Columbus Dispatch
Sunday, December 16, 2007. (March 10, 2009).
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/12/16/HILLSTORE.ART_ART_12‐16‐
07_B1_JV8PQ6A.html?sid=101
5
The Food Desert Website, http://www.fooddesert.net/ (March 4, 2009).
3

5. accessible by car, bike or bus are the Kroger and Save‐a‐Lot stores located over two miles away
near the Great Western Shopping Center.6
Located within the Columbus City School District, there are two elementary schools, one
middle school, and one high school that serve the focus area.7 Of these schools, West High,
Westmoor Middle, and Valleyview Elementary Schools were designated as schools under
“Continuous Watch”, with a score of three out of six on the academic ranking system Columbus
employs. West Broad Elementary School received a lower designation as a school “Under
Academic Watch”, with a score of two out of six. By investing NSP funds into the focus area, it
is hoped that housing vacancies can be filled to increase the area’s occupancy rates and tax
base and to decrease student turnover rates; this would provide more funding to the schools to
eventually improve their ratings.
The focus area has 359 buildings, 76 of which are vacant.8 This 21.2% vacancy rate not
only negatively impacts the school system and local businesses, but it also attracts criminal
activity such as drug use and dealing.9 Many of the blighted houses that are not boarded‐up
according to code are used for these drug related activities. There are seven Columbus Police
Department (CPD) cruiser districts within the Hilltop area; the focus area lies in cruiser district
#192. Out of these seven districts, only five have neighborhood watch organizations, and the
study area is located in one of the two districts without a neighborhood watch.
Neighborhood watch organizations are correlated with high owner occupancy rates in a
neighborhood, and as residents’ involvement in the community increase, crime rates decrease.
The study area likely does not have a neighborhood watch organization because of its higher
unit vacancy rate of 21.2%.10 However, positively, the owner occupancy rate in the focus area is
53.4%, which is actually higher than the renter occupied housing rate of 46.6%. Investing NSP
funds into the focus area along with the sale of the NSP houses would help increase this owner
occupancy rate. Simultaneously, filling vacant homes with occupants will take away places for
criminal activity and, cyclically, an increase in ownership may prompt residents to mobilize a
neighborhood watch organization to help further decrease crime in the area.
Community Strengths
Hilltop residents are proud to be from the Hilltop, and they take pride in their
community. Organizations like Friends of the Hilltop help to instill this pride through
community building events and beautification projects such as the Hilltop Neighborhood
Park at 2105 West Broad Street, West Broad Street planters, Operation Hilltop Clean‐up and the
Together Against Graffiti (T.A.G.) Team.10 Other organizations, like the Hilltop Business
Association (HBA), strive to advance the economic development of the Hilltop Business
6
Google Maps. (March 13, 2009). http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=il
7
Ohio Department of Education, (March 1, 2009).
http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDefaultPage.aspx?page=1
8
Hilltop Study Group Research. (March 1, 2009).
9
Columbus Police Department Community Hilltop Community Liaison Officer Kenneth Ramos, (March 4, 2009).
10
Friends of the Hilltop, (March 5, 2009). http://www.friendsofthehilltop.com/
4

6. Community and to reunite current and former Hilltop residents through its Historic Bean
Dinners.11 A complete list of community organizations and amenities is located in Appendix B.
The strength of a community can also be measured by the health of its residents. A
community health center is currently under construction, and this facility will provide medical
care for uninsured residents. It will be located at 2300 West Broad Street, the site of the
historic fire house and the former location of the Greater Hilltop Community Development
Corporation (GHCDC). This will provide another important anchor for the community in
addition to the Nationwide Children's Hilltop Primary Care Center located at 2875 West Broad
Street and Twin Valley Behavioral Healthcare, located at 2200 West Broad Street.
The wealth and diversity of the Hilltop’s neighborhood churches also provide strength
and support to the community through its outreach programs. The many churches in the area
are a very important asset in community development. Another important organization is the
Greater Hilltop Area Commission. This commission consists of an elected, volunteer body,
which serves as a liaison between the Greater Hilltop Community and Columbus City Hall.12 In
addition, the focus area has access to over 16 parks and two United Way funded recreation
centers that are in operation: the YMCA and the J. Ashburn Jr. Youth Center. The closest park to
the focus area is Holton Park. This park has several above average homes surrounding it, and
even though the recreation center is closed, the park provides a good anchor for the focus area.
All of these organizations share the NSP’s vision of stabilizing the Hilltop community
through revitalization. In addition to the above mentioned assets, the focus area’s location is an
asset in itself. It lies adjacent to the stable streets of North Terrace Avenue and Eldon Avenue,
which have above average housing stock. The focus area is also located within two miles of the
historic and stable Wilshire and Westgate neighborhoods. Its close proximity to downtown
Columbus, location on the COTA bus line, and stock of fair to average housing make this area a
sound investment for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Using the funds to help stabilize
the neighborhood will not only prevent the study area houses from further deteriorating, but
will also prevent the surrounding neighborhood from doing the same. These funds will
positively impact the area and promote growth by reversing the Broken Window Theory
through the rehabilitation of not only houses, but entire communities. This area is primed for
NSP funds.
Demographics
Overall, the Hilltop Study Area has a population that is reflective of the entire city of
Columbus in several ways based on comparisons using census block data. First of all, the
median age of the study area’s 1118 residents13 is 30.7 years old, while the average resident’s
11
Hilltop Business Association (HBA), (March 9, 2009). http://www.hilltopbusinessassociation.org/
12
The Greater Hilltop Area Commission (GHAC), (March 13, 2009). http://www.theghac.com/
13
U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. (March 9, 2009). http://factfinder.census.gov/
5

7. age in Columbus is 30.6 years old.14 Additionally, approximately 46% of residents in the study
area are renters, while 51% of City of Columbus residents are renters.15
However, there are also several differences between the Hilltop study area and the City
of Columbus as a whole, which help to describe and differentiate the average resident living in
the study area. For instance, the residents in this area are generally more financially
disadvantaged and have larger families than the average Columbus resident: for the study area,
the average household size was 2.8 people (versus 2.3 for Columbus), and the median
household income was $33,828 (versus $37,897 for Columbus) in 2000.16 While more up to
date figures are not available at the block level, and thus are not available for the Hilltop Study
Area, because 82% of residents in the Hilltop area were below the poverty level according to
the 2000 Census, it is likely that the majority of residents in the Study Area will fit NSP’s
mandate that 25% of all NSP funds must go to housing persons at less than 50% of the AMI.17
As of 2008, families making $32,650 or less (with some variation according to family size) will
qualify for this mandate: the area medium income for the City of Columbus was $65,300 in
2008.18 Additionally, the average age in the Hilltop Study Area, 33 years old, is indicator that
there probably is a home‐buying population in this neighborhood: the average homebuyer in
the United States is 31 years old.19
Housing Market
Housing Stock
The effects of economic hardship are widespread in the Hilltop area. This is especially
evident in the study area which consists of: Violet Street, Steele Avenue, Glenview Boulevard,
North Wheatland Avenue, Grace Street, North Oakley Avenue, North Wayne Avenue, and North
Eureka Avenue.
After several visits to the study area assessing properties, the group compiled an
inventory list of properties. It was determined that there are at total of 377 properties, with
359 properties having buildings on them.20 Out of those 359 buildings, 283 were occupied and
14
U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. (March 9, 2009). http://factfinder.census.gov/
15
Hilltop Study Group Research & U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. (March 9, 2009).
http://factfinder.census.gov/
16
Hilltop Study Group Research & U U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. (March 9, 2009).
http://factfinder.census.gov/
17
Hilltop Study Group Research & U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. (March 9, 2009).
http://factfinder.census.gov/ & “Neighborhood Stabilization Program Grants.” U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, 2009. (March 10, 2009).
http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/programs/neighborhoodspg/
18
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2009. (March 10, 2009).
http://www.huduser.org/datasets/il.html
19
The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), 2009. (March 1, 2009). http://www.nahb.org/
20
Hilltop Study Group Research. (March 1, 2009).
6

8. 76 appeared to be vacant.21 The group verified unit vacancy by looking into windows, assessing
the exterior condition, and noting the absence of electricity. After researching data from the
Franklin County Auditor, the Franklin County Sheriff, and the Franklin County Municipal Court ,
it was determined that 18 of the vacant properties were either in the foreclosure process or
bank owned. According to the county auditor’s tax billing information section there are
approximately 80 more houses that appear to be financed with subprime loans. These houses
could also face foreclosure in the near future.
Out of the 359 total buildings, 322 are single family, 33 are duplexes, 4 are multifamily
buildings, and 18 are lots either with a garage or that are empty.22 Alleys run behind the
housing units, providing access to garages. Vacant houses sit scattered throughout the study
area. Some houses are in compliance with the housing code by being bordered‐up, while others
have broken windows, kicked‐in front doors, and exposed exterior walls stripped of siding.
Most of the properties in the focus area were built in the first half of the 20th century, between
1900 and 1950.23 Most of the houses are two‐stories with a welcoming front porch and only
one bathroom.24 Since the mission of the NSP is to stabilize “particularly hard‐hit areas trying to
respond to the effects of high foreclosures”25, the study area meets the NSP’s requirements of
having foreclosed properties, many of which have become sources of abandonment and blight.
Private Ownership/Homeownership Rate
The private ownership rate in the Hilltop area is significantly lower than many of the
more desirable suburbs. For instance, the City of Dublin, according to U.S. Census Bureau
estimates, had an owner‐occupied rate of 81.5% in 2007, and the City of Westerville had a rate
of 79% (2007 estimates are the most recent available).26 Franklin County’s rate was 59.6%.27
While the Hilltop area as a whole had ownership rates as high as 70% prior to the 1970’s, there
has been a steady decline in ownership rates over the last 40 years.28 However, the current
estimated owner‐occupancy rate in the Hilltop study area, at 53.4%, is higher than the City of
Columbus’ overall rate of 51.7%.29 This is promising for two key reasons. The first is the fact
that the area, for a NSP qualifying neighborhood, does have some existing stability in home
owners and long‐term residents. Secondly, this shows there is evidence of investment in the
area which may contribute to a natural market. Overall, while the private ownership rate in the
study area is not desirable, the current rate suggests some stability that will be strengthened by
NSP.
21
Hilltop Study Group Research. (March 1, 2009).
22
Franklin County Auditor, 2009. (March 3, 2009). http://www.co.franklin.oh.us/auditor/
23
Franklin County Auditor, 2009. (January 30, 2009). http://www.co.franklin.oh.us/auditor/
24
Franklin County Auditor, 2009. (January 30, 2009). http://www.co.franklin.oh.us/auditor/
25
“Neighborhood Stabilization Program Grants.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2009.
(March 10, 2009). http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/programs/neighborhoodspg/
26
U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. (March 10, 2009). http://factfinder.census.gov/
27
U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. (March 10, 2009). http://factfinder.census.gov/
28
Homes on the Hill (HOTH), Stephen Torsell, Executive Director (January 30, 2009).
29
U.S. Census Bureau, 2005‐2007 Estimates. (March 10, 2009). http://factfinder.census.gov/ & Community
Research Partners 2006 & Hilltop Study Group Research.
7

9. Rentals
Approximately 46% of the residents in the Hilltop study area are renters. Of these, the
majority of renters live in the southern section of the area, south of Steele Avenue. Ownership
data suggests that multiple landlords own the rental properties in the area, primarily in “mom
n’ pop” management companies.30 The majority of homes, on North Oakley Ave. (south of
Violet Street) are rentals. Due to the different ownership nature of the northern and southern
portions of the Hilltop study area, the strategies in employed in these areas will ultimately
differ.
Methodology
To identify which properties in our study area should be remedied with NSP funds and
what strategy should be used (demolition, land bank, or rehabilitation), the group first
conducted several site walk‐throughs to identify any possible vacant properties and to assess
the observable condition of the housing stock. A rating system to assess the quality of the
buildings on each property was developed to help determine the strategy recommendation:
buildings were ranked one, two and three. A rating of one described a blighted property (in
accordance with the Columbus City Code definition of blight), that was in such poor condition
to be a candidate for demolition.31 A rating of two described buildings of moderate quality,
having some soundness of structure but observable structural flaws that would make
immediate rehabilitation cost prohibitive; this ranking indicated a candidate for land banking
using “Guts to Studs” standards. Finally, a rating of three was assessed for higher quality
structures in need of moderate to light cosmetic repairs to prepare the building for resale; a
score of three indicated a candidate for rehabilitation using NSP funds.
Next, the group identified properties in the study area that are available to the City of
Columbus land bank, e.g. bank‐owned/REO properties, properties going to Sheriff’s Sale,
properties in foreclosure, and properties in code violation/environmental court “foreclosure”,
using resources such as the Franklin County Auditor’s website, Sheriff’s website, and the
Franklin County Clerk of Courts website (Figure 1). This process narrowed the group’s list of
properties to those that are readily available to the City and qualify for acquisition using NSP
funds (see Appendix C for list of properties).
30
Franklin County Auditor, 2009. (January 30, 2009). http://www.co.franklin.oh.us/auditor/ & Homes on the Hill
(HOTH), Stephen Torsell, Executive Director (January 30, 2009).
31
4709.03 Designation as a hazardous building.
Any building or structure found to be vacant or which becomes vacant after having been declared unfit for human
habitation or use, and which because of its condition, constitutes a hazard to the public health, safety, or welfare is
hereby declared to be a nuisance and a hazardous building and shall be so designated and placarded by the code
enforcement officer. (Ord. 0946‐04 § 2 (part); Ord. 897‐05 § 5 (part).)
8

10. Figure 1: Map of Potential Acquisitions within the study area
To determine acquisition costs for the available properties, the group conformed to the
standard of two‐thirds of the appraised value minimum bid for Sheriff Sale properties, as this is
the maximum that the City may bid. For non‐Sheriff Sale (e.g. REO) properties, the group
estimated the acquisition cost of two‐thirds of the last appraised value, according to the
Auditor’s website. This estimate is reasonable as Sheriff Sale appraisals of foreclosed upon
properties tend to be significantly less than the last Auditor appraisal, providing the budget a
generous contingency.
Demolition costs were determined using the figure provided by the land bank of $0.27
per cubic foot, assuming a per‐story height of eleven feet and where a full basement is counted
as a story, crawl space is one quarter story, and a pitched roof is a half story (see Appendix D).
The land banking budget was determined by assuming “Guts to Studs” standards and dividing
the City’s NSP budget for this task by the number of properties (70) it wished to land bank
9

11. (approximately $94,000 per property), then subtracting the acquisition cost for each property
(see Appendix E). Budget estimates for rehabilitation using NSP funds was determined by
assuming an average cost of $30 per square foot for minimal rehabilitation needs; $50 per
square foot for moderate rehabilitation needs; and $70 per square foot for substantial
rehabilitation, including energy efficiency considerations, based on internet site estimates and
the group’s recommendation to rehab only higher quality structures (see Appendix F). 32 The
group also provided a 5% contingency for the overall budget to account for any error in budget
estimation and price fluctuations.
In determining an overall strategy for the use of NSP funds in the Hilltop study area, the
group prioritized properties of greatest need and those with greatest potential to stabilize the
area by assessing proximity to community amenities such as the Wheatland redevelopment site
and the Holton Park/ravine to the North of the study area, clustering with other available or
existing land bank properties, and ease of acquisition/acquisition costs. The group originally
developed a three‐tiered strategy where demolition and rehabilitation in the center of the
study area would constitute Phase I, land banking of properties near West Broad and along
Wheatland Avenue would constitute Phase II, and Phase III would involve spot rehabilitation
near well‐kept properties in northern part of the study area. However, after identifying the
properties that were actually available and eligible for acquisition under NSP guidelines, a total
of 18 properties in the study area qualified, therefore the group recommends that all of these
properties receive NSP funding.
Strategy
Rehabilitation Strategy
As previously described in the Methodology chapter, properties with a quality rating of
one are ideal candidates for rehabilitation. Twelve of the properties identified to be available
for NSP funds qualified for rehabilitation (with a rating of three) based upon several indicators
of quality. The group considered the appearance of roofs, foundations, exteriors and what
could be deduced about internal conditions. These twelve properties appear to have no major
structural defects and will require less time and financial resources to bring up to acceptable
building codes. As described further in the Acquisition and Budget section below, a flexible
strategy utilizing a variety of rehabilitation options (and a flexible price range) is proposed to
address variations in individual properties and to make properties more marketable and
desirable to potential buyers.
32
WikiAnswers, “What is the average home renovation cost per square foot?” (March 5, 2009).
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_home_renovation_cost_per_square_foot
Home Energy Checkup, “Case Studies: Cincinnati, Dayton, and Northern Kentucky”
http://www.homeenergycheckup.com/case‐studies.jsp#energy‐makeover
“Energy Star Homes an Affordable Alternative to Green Homes” http://www.prlog.org/10068888‐energy‐star‐
homes‐an‐affordable‐alternative‐to‐green‐homes.html
10

12. Figure 2: Strategy Map
Demolition Strategy
Two properties received a quality rating of one and thus qualify for demolition. As
described in the Methodology section, demolition is appropriate for blighted properties that
pose health and safety or environmental concerns. Additional indicators include the cost of
rehabilitation far exceeding market return, or evidence of need for mold, asbestos, lead or
radon mitigation. For example, one of the two properties proposed for demolition, 159‐163
North Oakley (the building is a triplex), shows evidence of a structural fire.
11

13. Figure 3. Example of a property slated for demolition.
Land Banking Strategy
As outlined in the Methodology above, properties with a quality rating of two are
candidates for the “Guts to Studs” land banking strategy. These properties appear on their face
to qualify for gutting and boarding up for redevelopment at a later date when additional
funding and/or market interest exists. The two proposed properties for land banking are also
located near the Wheatland Avenue redevelopment site, which has the potential to be a
community asset but is presently an eyesore. Homes for sale in this part of the study area have
been on the market for some time, indicating that it is likely a more appropriate use of NSP
funds to hold these properties until market conditions improve and warrant redevelopment.
The group estimates a total land bank cost of about $115,772 ($188,172 including acquisition
costs) for these two properties.
12

14. Figure 4. Example of a property slated for the land bank.
Acquisition and Budget
Acquisition Plan
Most of the properties addressed in the Hilltop study area are real estate owned (REO)
properties, which will require the city to negotiate with REO holders to acquire them. Two
properties, 155 North Wayne Avenue and 82 North Eureka Avenue, are HUD‐owned REOs and
thus will likely be the easiest sales to negotiate. Other banks owning property in the area
include Fannie Mae, Countrywide, Great American Equities, CitiMortgage, Stillwater Assets,
Guernsey Bank, and others. In addition to these bank‐owned properties, one property (115
North Oakley) is pending a Sheriff’s Sale on March 27, 2009, which will require the City to
attend the sale and make the minimum bid of two‐thirds of the appraised value, or $26,000. 58
North Wayne Ave. is currently in the foreclosure process, which will require the City to wait and
see if this property enters Sheriff’s Sale in order to acquire it. The land bank has requested 166
North Wayne Ave. to enter tax foreclosure. One other property (159‐163 North Oakley) has a
city environmental code violation; therefore the plaintiff has until April 17 to respond to the
lawsuit. After this date, the City may acquire the property through the county environmental
court. A complete list of properties and their ownership is available in Appendix A.
13

15. Overall Budget
Overall, it will cost between $1,241,229.80 and $1,812,345.80 (Figures 4‐6) to carry out
these activities within the Hilltop target area. This range is intended to provide flexibility in
rehabilitation standards depending upon the needs of individual properties and to allow more
options. All acquisition costs are based on two thirds of a property’s appraised value, since this
is the minimum bid if a property were sold in a sheriff’s sale auction. The group projects that
$228,964.95 would be spent to acquire and demolish four designated properties with code
violations; approximately $29,000 goes directly towards physically demolishing these
structures, with the remainder being used for acquisition costs.
Rehabilitation costs vary greatly depending on the extent of the rehabilitation. All
rehabilitations include fresh paint and a new roof (Figure 3). A basic rehabilitation, including a
new roof, costs approximately $30 per square foot of area. This does not include any
appliances, and is best suited for homes currently in acceptable condition. Mid‐range
rehabilitations include higher quality materials, as well as some new appliances, for $50 a
square foot. A substantial rehabilitation includes a full collection of energy efficient appliances,
as well as substantial interior and exterior modifications, plus an additional bathroom. This
costs about $70 per square foot.
Figure 5: Description of Rehabilitation Standards
The cost of land banking two properties is approximately $188,000, based on city
average land banking costs, which consider both acquisition and the cost to “Guts to Studs” the
property, including a new roof and securing the structure. For complete budget information,
please refer to Appendix G.
14

16. Figure 6: Minimum Rehabilitation Budget Breakdown
Figure 7: Mid‐Range Rehabilitation Budget Breakdown
15

17. Figure 8: Maximum Rehabilitation Budget Breakdown
Future Considerations
Wheatland Avenue Site
The City of Columbus currently owns the 22 acre site along the eastern border of
Wheatland Avenue. The eventual redevelopment of this site will play a major role in the overall
success of the NSP in this area.
According to Homes on the Hill, a renovated property near the site they have placed on
the market has not sold in the last year. A contributing factor to this may be that the Wheatland
Avenue site currently is an eyesore. The landscape consists of mounds of dirt, chain link fences,
some litter and overgrown weeds. However, consideration of the study area upon the
Wheatland site must also take place. If the Hilltop area is allowed to deteriorate further, the
viability of the 22 acre site will degenerate, leaving the City of Columbus to realize even greater
losses on their investment. Conversely, if strides are made to solidify the study area, the
Wheatland site could prove more attractive to development at an earlier date.
In the long term, careful consideration should be given to the site plan and its
incorporation into the existing neighborhood. While there is a large park to the north of the
area, according to Homes on the Hill, it is not particularly thought of as safe. It lies in a small
valley, with few homes facing the area and even during the daytime lends itself to a feeling of
desolation. This provides a perfect opportunity for criminal activity. A building a development
on the Wheatland Avenue site, centered around a small central park where homes face onto
the park from all four sides would be one desirable redevelopment option; this would providing
a built‐in marketing tool for sales of homes currently on Wheatland Avenue and for new homes
and would serve as a focal point for the neighborhood that currently does not exist. Whatever
the fate is for this site, the group believes its redevelopment will be a major crux of Hilltop’s
stabilization.
16

18. Land Bank Redevelopment Strategy
The group recommends that the properties proposed in this report for land banking
undergo rehabilitation at a later time for housing for those at or below 120% AMI. The two
proposed properties for land banking are located near the Wheatland Avenue redevelopment
site, which has the potential to be a community asset but is presently undesirable. The land
bank may either redevelop the properties with future NSP and/or community development
grants or sell the properties to non‐profits, such as the Homes on the Hill CDC, and/or for‐profit
developers, for future redevelopment.
Other Areas for Investment
If additional NSP funds become available, there are several additional properties in the
Hilltop area that are vacant and available for purchase due to foreclosure. Nearly 200
properties have gone to Sheriff’s Sale in the 43204 zip code since December 2008, according to
the Franklin County Sheriff website. The majority of these properties are south of West Broad
St. While these other areas may not be anchored by such potential amenities as the Wheatland
redevelopment site, acquiring and land banking or demolishing these properties is also vital to
stabilizing the greater Hilltop area. In addition, there are several properties in the Hilltop study
area that may be particularly vulnerable to foreclosure in the near future as the mortgages
associated with them belong to banks that have foreclosed on homes in this area and/or
engaged in subprime lending, including:
145 N Wayne Ave (Wells Fargo)
98 N Oakley Ave (ABN AMRO Mortgage Group)
33 N Eureka Ave (American General Financial Services)33
Lease‐Purchase Program
Due to the area’s particularly weak housing market, the group recommends the city
incorporate a lease‐purchase program to fill the twelve properties recommended for
rehabilitation for households at or below 50% AMI. This type of program would provide
affordable housing and fill vacancies in the short‐term, while preparing residents for
homeownership as housing and credit markets improve. Per NSP guidelines, qualified residents
would have a maximum leasing period of 36 months, at which time they could become
homeowners. The city may choose to provide qualified residents with lower‐cost loans to
increase the affordability.
33
Franklin County Auditor, 2009. (01/30/2009). http://www.co.franklin.oh.us/auditor/
17

19. Foreclosure Task Force
Due the difficult nature of identifying, tracking, and eventually acquiring vacant and
foreclosed properties for neighborhood stabilization, the group recommends the development
of an ongoing, inter‐departmental Foreclosure Task Force. Under such a program, the offices of
the Franklin County Auditor, Sheriff, Clerk of Courts, the land bank, and other interested parties
would converge to collect and track all pertinent information related to foreclosures in Franklin
County, which would be presented in a user‐friendly format, such as a website, to be a “one
stop shop” for foreclosure information. This program would help to streamline reclamation and
redevelopment efforts related to vacant properties and could provide a template and/or Best
Management Practices for community developers on how to acquire and redevelop vacant
properties in order to stabilize neighborhoods.
18

20. Conclusion
Like many neighborhoods in Central Ohio and across the nation, Hilltop has suffered
greatly from the impacts of vacancy, including those resulting from the latest wave of
foreclosures. While the Neighborhood Stabilization Program cannot alone address the immense
task of redeveloping an entire neighborhood, it can help a struggling but potentially thriving
neighborhood such as Hilltop persevere through the current housing and economic crises.
House by house, block by block, the strategic use of NSP funds as outlined in this report can
have a positive ripple effect throughout the Hilltop area and to adjacent neighborhoods such as
Franklinton. With assets such as higher quality housing stock, community leadership, and the
potential redevelopment of the Wheatland Avenue site, the group believes the Hilltop study
area to be the area of greatest need with the strongest potential for not only stabilization, but
true revitalization. Such revitalization is a long‐term vision, and the NSP is only the first of many
steps in this process, but this investment is vital to stabilizing a neighborhood that serves as an
anchor to the west side of Columbus. The recommendations presented here reflect the
reinforcement of the heart of this important area.
19

21. Appendices
Appendix A – Hilltop NSP Study Area
20

22.
Appendix B – Community Amenities
Arts
Greater Hilltop Area League for the Arts (GHALA)
Greater Hilltop Community Theater‐ info@hilltopcommunitytheater.com
Business Associations
Hilltop Business Association (HBA)
Churches
Hilltop Lutheran Church‐ 12 S Terrace Ave
St Aloysius Church‐ 2165 W Broad St
World Outreach For Christ‐ 2281 W Broad St
Hilltop United Methodist Church‐ 99 S Highland Ave
Friendship Baptist Church‐ 1775 W Broad St
Wayne Ave Church of God‐ 116 S Wayne Ave
Church‐God In Christ Tree‐ 2402 W Broad St.
Valley View Church of Christ‐ 455 Murray Ave
Kingdom Power Baptist Church‐ 196 S Highland Ave
Church of the Living God‐ 122 S. Terrace
Vida Nueva Wesleyan Church‐ 120 S Burgess Ave
St Thomas Baptist Church‐ 22 S Warren Ave
St John Lutheran Church‐ 2745 W Broad St
Hilltop Seventh Day Adventist Church‐ 42 N Harris Ave
Hillcrest Baptist Church‐ 2480 W Broad St
Imani Christain Church‐ 286 Belvidere Ave
Second Community Church‐ 311 S Highland Ave
Bible Way Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ‐ 453 S. Wheatland Ave.
Crime prevention
T.A.G. (Together Against Graffiti) Team‐ Friends of the Hilltop
Neighborhood Watch
Events
Historic Hilltop Bean Dinner ‐ June 28, 2008 ‐ Westgate Park
Greater Hilltop Open‐September 12, 2008‐ Split Rock Golf Course
Deck the Hilltop‐ December
Farmers’ markets
Hilltop Farmers' Market‐ 2300 W. Broad St. at Hilltop Community Development Corp.
Greener Grocer Farmer's Market– Hilltop YMCA, 2879 Valleyview Dr., 9:00‐11:00am Beginning
January 21st, Greener Grocer van at the Hilltop YMCA
21

23.
Green space
Hilltop Community Park‐ 2105 West Broad St.
Big Run Park‐247.7 Acres 4201 Clime Rd. (Disc golf course)
Rhodes Park‐ 51.1 Acres, 4201 Clime Rd.
Westgate Park‐46.3 Acres 455 S Westgate Av.
Westmoor Park‐ 17 Acres, 3015 Valleyview Dr.
Glenwood Park‐15.7 Acres 4201 Clime Rd.
Westmoor Park‐17 Acres, 3015 Valleyview Dr.
Holton Park‐11.8 Acres 614‐645‐3208, 303 N Eureka Av.
Hiltonia Park‐11.5 Acres, 2345 W Mound St.
Riverbend Park II‐ 11.1 Acres, Winding Creek Dr.
Georgian Heights Park‐ 10.7 Acres, 925 Holly Hill Dr.
Lindberg Park‐ 8.8 Acres, 2634 Briggs Rd.
Hauntz Park‐ 5.7 Acres, 480 Columbian Av.
Riverbend Park‐1 4.6 Acres, 1609 Bluhm Rd.
Stephens Park‐.9 Acres, 915 Stephens Dr.
Wrexham Park‐ .5 Acres, 160 Wrexham Av.
Grocery store
Kroger‐2161 Eakin Rd.
Save‐A‐Lot Foods‐ 154 N Wilson Rd
Historical‐
National Road Route 40
Hilltop Historical Society
Library
Columbus Metropolitan Library Hilltop Branch‐ 511 S. Hague Ave. 1.9 miles away
Neighborhood associations
Greater Hilltop Community Development Corporation (GHCDC)‐2300 W. Broad St.
Greater Hilltop Resource Center
Friends of the Hilltop
The Greater Hilltop Area Commission
Organizations
Hilltop Kiwanis‐ meet at Crossroads United Methodist Church‐1100 S. Hague Ave.
22

24. Recreation
Glenwood Recreational Center (City operated) 1925 W. Broad St. Closed February, 2009
J. Ashburn Jr. Youth Center, (United Way funded) 85 Clarendon Ave.
Dodge Recreation Center (City operated, multigenerational center), 667 Sullivant Ave.
Westgate Recreation Center (City operated) 445 S. Westgate Ave.
Holton Recreational Center (City operated) 303 N Eureka Ave. Closed February, 2009
Hilltop YMCA 2879 Valleyview Dr.
Schools
West Broad Street Elementary (Academic Watch)‐ 2744 W Broad St.
Valleyview Elementary (Continuous Improvement)‐ 2989 Valleyview Dr.
Westmoor Middle School (Continuous Improvement)‐ 3001 Valleyview Dr.
West High School (Continuous Improvement)‐ 179 S Powell Ave.
Senior Community Center Nutrition & Programming
Dorrian Hilltop Senior Center‐ 375 Alberty Trail Way
Social and Health care services
Gladden Community House, 183 Hawkes Ave. located in Franklinton, services some Hilltop
areas.
Directions for Youth 3850 Sullivant Ave. (counseling services)
Homes on the Hill (HOTH)‐12 S Terrace Ave.
Buckeye Ranch‐ 2865 W. Broad St. (mental health treatment for children)
Community Refugee and Immigration Services (CRIS)‐ 3000 W Broad St.
Mount Carmel West Hospital‐ 793 West State St.
St. Aloysious Family Center‐
Hilltop Community Health Center
Transportation
Cota bus line runs up and down Broad St. into the heart of downtown.
23

25.
Appendix C – NSP Targeted Properties
ALL NSP TARGETED PROPERTIES
Environmental Bank Sheriff's HUD NSP
Address: Injunction Owned/REO Sale Owned Condition Recommendations
x x 1 demolition
145 N Eureka
x 1 demolition
112 N Oakley
159-163 N
x demolition
Oakley 1
x 1 demolition
167 N Oakley
x 2 land bank
20 N Oakley
x 2 land bank
63 N Oakley
x 3 rehab
82 N Eureka
120-122 N
x 3 rehab
Eureka
x 3 rehab
160 N Eureka
x 3 rehab
101 N Oakley
x 3 rehab
115 N Oakley
x 3 rehab
129 N Oakley
x 3 rehab
228 N Oakley
x 3 rehab
257 N Oakley
x 3 rehab
58 N Wayne
x 3 rehab
132 N Wayne
x 3 rehab
155 N Wayne
x 3 rehab
166 N Wayne
24

26.
ALL VACANT PROPERTIES IN STUDY AREA
Address:
145 N Eureka 192 N Eureka 275 N Oakley
112 N Oakley 215 N Eureka 39 N Wayne
159-163 N Oakley 216 N Eureka 89 N Wayne
167 N Oakley 2395 Glenview 93 N Wayne
20 N Oakley 14 N Oakley 127 N Wayne
63 N Oakley 22-24 N. Oakley 128 N Wayne
82 N Eureka 31 N Oakley 145 N Wayne
120-122 N Eureka 32 N Oakley 147 N Wayne
160 N Eureka 40-42 N Oakley 165 N Wayne
101 N Oakley 46-48 N Oakley 176 N Wayne
115 N Oakley 60 N Oakley 184 N Wayne
129 N Oakley 73 N Oakley 187 N Wayne
228 N Oakley 76 N Oakley 191 N Wayne
257 N Oakley 78 N Oakley 211 N Wayne
58 N Wayne 98 N Oakley 216 N Wayne
132 N Wayne 108 N Oakley 230 N Wayne
155 N Wayne 111 N Oakley 235 N Wayne
166 N Wayne 158-160 N Oakley 236 N Wayne
191 N Oakley 175 N Oakley 243 N Wayne
217 N Wheatland 181 N Oakley 254 N Wayne
129 N Wayne 194 N Oakley 260 N Wayne
40 N Eureka 202 N Oakley 267 N Wayne
33 N Eureka 227 N Oakley 268 N Wayne
104 N Eureka 233 N Oakley 273 N Wayne
157 N Eureka 251 N Oakley 195 N Wheatland
188 N Eureka 266-268 N Oakley
25

27.
Appendix D – Demolition Budget
Total cubic ft. Cost tax value estimated acquisition cost
23760 $ 6,415.20
18562.5 $ 5,011.88 $ 115,000.00 $ 76,666.67
8951.25 $ 2,416.84 $ -
3443 $ 929.61 $ 57,000.00 $ 38,000.00
9295 $ 2,509.65 $ 54,700.00 $ 36,466.67
7392 $ 1,995.84 $ -
35574 $ 9,604.98 $ 58,100.00 $ 38,733.33
$ 15,300.00 $ 10,200.00
$ 28,883.99 $ 300,100.00 $ 200,066.67
Acquisition if necessary= $ 200,066.67
Total= $ 228,950.66
Appendix E – Land Banking Budget
Property Address Square Footage Tax value Acquistion Cost quot;Guts to Studsquot; CProperty Total
$ 60,086.00 $ 94,086.00
010-030775-00 63 N OAKLEY AV 1223 $ 51,000.00 $ 34,000.00
$ 55,686.00 $ 94,086.00
010-050404-00 20 N OAKLEY AV 1512 $ 57,600.00 $ 38,400.00
Totals $ 108,600.00 $ 72,400.00 $ 115,772.00 $ 188,172.00
38% 62%
Appendix F – Rehabilitation Budget (Three Scenarios)
Square Acquistion Min Rehab Mid Rehab Max Rehab Property Property Total Property Total
Footage Tax value Cost Cost Cost Cost Total (min) (mid) (max)
1422 $ 50,200.00 $ 33,466.67 $ 42,660.00 $ 71,100.00 $ 99,540.00 $ 76,126.67 $ 104,566.67 $ 133,006.67
1274 $ 23,070.00 $ 15,380.00 $ 38,220.00 $ 63,700.00 $ 89,180.00 $ 53,600.00 $ 79,080.00 $ 104,560.00
1358 $ 33,000.00 $ 22,000.00 $ 40,740.00 $ 67,900.00 $ 95,060.00 $ 62,740.00 $ 89,900.00 $ 117,060.00
962 $ 39,000.00 $ 26,000.00 $ 28,860.00 $ 48,100.00 $ 67,340.00 $ 54,860.00 $ 74,100.00 $ 93,340.00
1210 $ 49,300.00 $ 32,866.67 $ 36,300.00 $ 60,500.00 $ 84,700.00 $ 69,166.67 $ 93,366.67 $ 117,566.67
1116 $ 49,900.00 $ 33,266.67 $ 33,480.00 $ 55,800.00 $ 78,120.00 $ 66,746.67 $ 89,066.67 $ 111,386.67
1208 $ 55,100.00 $ 36,733.33 $ 36,240.00 $ 60,400.00 $ 84,560.00 $ 72,973.33 $ 97,133.33 $ 121,293.33
1253 $ 53,800.00 $ 35,866.67 $ 37,590.00 $ 62,650.00 $ 87,710.00 $ 73,456.67 $ 98,516.67 $ 123,576.67
0 $ 10,000.00 $ 6,666.67 $ - $ - $ - $ 6,666.67 $ 6,666.67 $ 6,666.67
1390 $ 59,800.00 $ 39,866.67 $ 41,700.00 $ 69,500.00 $ 97,300.00 $ 81,566.67 $ 109,366.67 $ 137,166.67
834 $ 46,700.00 $ 31,133.33 $ 25,020.00 $ 41,700.00 $ 58,380.00 $ 56,153.33 $ 72,833.33 $ 89,513.33
1571 $ 65,700.00 $ 43,800.00 $ 47,130.00 $ 78,550.00 $ 109,970.00 $ 90,930.00 $ 122,350.00 $ 153,770.00
$ 535,570.00 $ 357,046.67 $ 407,940.00 $ 679,900.00 $ 951,860.00 $ 764,986.67 $ 1,036,946.67 $ 1,308,906.67
Percentage of total 47% 53% 66% 73%
26

28. Appendix G – Total Budget for Hilltop Study Area
Scenario 1: Minimal Rehabilitation
Overall Budget (Minimal Rehabiliation)
Demolition $ 228,950.66 18%
Rehabilitation ($30/sf) $ 764,986.67 62%
Land Bank $ 188,172.00 15%
Contingency $ 59,105.47 5%
Overall Budget $ 1,241,214.79
Given Funds $5,140,236.38
Surplus/Deficit $ 3,899,021.58
Overall Acquisition Costs $ 629,513.33 51%
Scenario 2: Moderate Rehabilitation
Overall Budget (Moderate Rehabilitation)
Demolition $ 228,950.66 15%
Rehabilitation ($50/sf) $ 1,036,946.67 68%
Land Bank $ 188,172.00 12%
Contingency $ 72,703.47 5%
Overall Budget $ 1,526,772.79
Given Funds $5,140,236.38
Surplus/Deficit $ 3,613,463.58
Overall Acquisition Costs $ 629,513.33 41%
27

29. Scenario 3: Substantial Rehabilitation
Overall Budget (Substantial Rehabilitation)
Demolition $ 228,950.66 13%
Rehabilitation ($70/sf) $ 1,308,906.67 72%
Land Bank $ 188,172.00 10%
Contingency $ 86,301.47 5%
Overall Budget $ 1,812,330.79
Given Funds $5,140,236.38
Surplus/Deficit $ 3,327,905.58
Overall Acquisition Costs $ 629,513.33 35%
28