Community Leaders Final Report[1]

March 2005

Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission

Community Leader Perception Survey For more information regarding this report, contact: David Jones Center for Urban & Public Affairs Wright State University Phone: (937) 775-2941 3640 Colonel Glenn Hwy. Fax: (937) 775-2422 Dayton OH 45435-0001

March 2005 Community Leader Perception Survey

Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... i Table of Figures................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................... 1 Methodology .............................................................................................................1 Questionnaire Design........................................................................................1 Sampling Design................................................................................................1 Survey Implementation ....................................................................................1 Data Analysis.....................................................................................................2 Limitations.........................................................................................................2 Chapter 2: Demographics ................................................................................................ 3 Chapter 3: Quality of Life Issues..................................................................................... 6 Chapter 4: Planning for the Future ................................................................................ 8 Housing Development Options ........................................................................8 Transportation Options....................................................................................9 Growth .............................................................................................................10 Business Growth and Regional Cooperation................................................11 Chapter 5: The Environment......................................................................................... 14 Groundwater ...................................................................................................14 Farmland .........................................................................................................14 Issues for Improving the Environment .........................................................15 Chapter 6: Local Government Services........................................................................ 16 State Budget Concerns ...................................................................................16 Potential Tax Increases...................................................................................17 Merging Services.............................................................................................17 State Budget Issues .........................................................................................18 Chapter 6: Summary ...................................................................................................... 19 Appendix A: Frequencies ............................................................................................. A-1 Appendix B: Open-ended Responses ...........................................................................B-1 Appendix C: Survey Instrument ................................................................................. C-1

i

Wright State University

Center for Urban & Public Affairs

Table of Figures Figure 1: Political Philosophy................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2: Age Cohort ................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 3: Income ....................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 4: Barriers to Quality of Life ......................................................................................... 6 Figure 5: Housing Options........................................................................................................ 8 Figure 6: Transportation Investments ..................................................................................... 10 Figure 7: Growth in the Miami Valley ................................................................................... 10 Figure 8: Has the Miami Valley Experienced......................................................................... 11 Figure 9: Importance of Environmental Policies .................................................................... 15 Figure 10: Would you be willing to pay additional taxes....................................................... 17

ii

March 2005 Community Leader Perception Survey

Chapter 1: Introduction In 2004, the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission (MVRPC) conducted two surveys with Miami Valley residents to obtain opinions on transportation, housing, planning and development in the region. The objectives of these surveys were to identify planning issues and policies that citizens believe need special attention, improvement or enhancement and to identify patterns and themes in the responses. In February 2005, MVRPC decided to utilize a combination of these two previous survey instruments to assess the opinions of local elected and appointed officials, as well as local business leaders, in order to determine if the priorities and opinions of leaders mirror the priorities discussed by citizens. MVRPC partnered with the Center for Urban and Public Affairs (CUPA) to conduct this follow-up survey with community leaders. The following paragraphs will explain the methodology and limitations of the survey. Methodology Questionnaire Design As previously mentioned, this survey instrument was a combination of two instruments utilized by MVRPC in 2004 to assess citizen perceptions on community issues. The new combined survey instrument was designed by the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission, in conjunction with Wright State University's Center for Urban and Public Affairs. The survey was finalized with the approval of the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission. Sampling Design This study was a telephone survey of identified community and business leaders in the Miami Valley. CUPA obtained a list from MVRPC with approximately 700 identified community leaders to be interviewed. In instances when the identified individual was no longer employed with the identified organization, another individual in a similar position within the organization was interviewed. Survey Implementation Interviews were conducted from Friday, February 25, 2005 through Monday, April 4, 2005, usually between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Individuals with an identified home telephone number (such as city council members) were also called at home between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, as well as on selected weekends. Interviewers utilized a Computer Aided Telephone Interviewing (CATI) software program that displays the questionnaire on a computer screen and allows the interviewers to enter the response directly into the computer. Such a system helps to minimize errors in gathering data. A total of 302 respondents were interviewed, to obtain a response rate of 52 percent (excluding individuals who we were unable to contact due to the fact that they are no longer employed with the defined jurisdiction or business). 1

Wright State University

Center for Urban & Public Affairs

Data Analysis Primarily, we use descriptive statistics to analyze and interpret the survey findings. Because the first telephone survey of Miami Valley residents was conducted by CUPA, direct statistical comparisons can be made between leaders and the general population. To measure the statistical differences among responses, a chi-square test will be used to compare, for example, the differences between responses of business leaders, elected officials, and community leaders and the general population. Statistically significant differences among variables, where applicable, will be discussed throughout the report. Because CUPA did not conduct the second telephone survey of residents, direct comparisons on some questions are not possible. Limitations The survey has several limitations. First, almost 100 individuals in the initial database were no longer employed with their identified organization. While an attempt was made to contact an individual currently in the defined position, this was not always possible. In addition, on numerous occasions researchers were not able to directly contact many individuals in the database, as a secretary or receptionist prevented such direct contact. This may lead to some jurisdictions or organizations being underrepresented due to the inability to directly contact identified individuals on the list provided by MVRPC. A second limitation of the study is that it is based on self-reported information. Attempts were made to include more than one question on important topics to test for internal consistency.

2

March 2005 Community Leader Perception Survey

Chapter 2: Demographics Demographic characteristics are presented to help the reader understand and interpret the views of survey respondents. As mentioned previously, Miami Valley business leaders and elected officials were surveyed. As might be expected according to the population surveyed, more than half of the community leaders in the survey live in Montgomery County (59.9 percent), with the majority of these individuals living in the Cities of Dayton, Kettering, or Washington Township. The remaining respondents live in Greene County (20.5 percent), Miami County (8.9 percent), Warren County (5.3 percent) and other counties in the region (5.3 percent). Almost 45 percent of individuals surveyed (44.7 percent) are elected officials. More than half of all leaders (50.3 percent) work in the public sector, with 24.5 percent employed in the private sector and 13.9 percent employed in the non-profit sector. When asked to identify their political affiliation, 45.0 percent of respondents indicated that they are Republicans, 29.1 percent are Democrats, and 21.5 percent classify themselves as Independent. The remaining 4.5 percent stated that they are of some other political affiliation or were unable to define their political affiliation. Respondents were also asked their general political philosophy. One third of respondents (34.1 percent) classify themselves as middle of the road while 37.9 percent indicate that they are somewhat conservative. Of the remaining respondents, 17.1 percent describe themselves as somewhat liberal, 5.8 percent are very conservative and 5.1 percent are very liberal. Political Philosophy Very Conservative Somewhat Conservative Middle of the Road Somewhat Liberal Very Liberal

Survey Respondents 5.8% 37.9% 34.1% 17.1% 5.1%

Figure 1: Political Philosophy

When comparing the demographic characteristics of leaders to responses from the citizen survey, community leaders are more likely to be male, are significantly older than the general population, have higher degrees of education, and have higher incomes. Approximately three-quarters (72.5 percent) of the leader population is male, while the remaining 27.5 percent is female.

3

Wright State University

Center for Urban & Public Affairs

More than half of the leaders surveyed (50.3 percent) are over the age of 55, while 79.0 percent are over the age of 45. Just 3.3 percent of respondents are between the ages of 25 and 34, while no respondents are under the age of 25. Age Cohort 18 ~ 24 years 25 ~ 34 years 35 ~ 44 years 45 ~54 years 55 ~ 64 years 65+ years

Survey Respondents 0% 3.3% 17.7% 28.7% 32.0% 18.3%

Figure 2: Age Cohort

More than eighty percent (81.1 percent) of respondents to the survey have lived in the Miami Valley more than twenty years. Nineteen percent (18.9 percent) reported a shorter length of residency, with 5.0 percent saying less than five years, 4.0 percent saying five to ten years, and 10.0 percent saying 11-20 years. Almost ninety percent (88.1 percent) of individuals surveyed are white, with 7.5 percent being African-American, 1.4 percent Native American, 0.7 percent biracial, and 2.4 percent reporting another race. More than four in five individuals surveyed (83.1 percent) have at least a college degree, with 48.8 percent holding a graduate degree. Another 11.6 percent have some college education, while 5.0 percent are high school graduates and 0.3 percent have less than a high school degree. Almost three-quarters of respondents surveyed (70.4 percent) indicated that they earn more than $80,000 per year and 86.4 percent earn more than $60,000 a year. These income levels are significantly higher than the incomes among the general population, where only 38.8 percent of citizen respondents earned over $60,000 a year. Income before taxes Less than $20,000 $20,000 to $35,000 $35,001 to $60,000 Over $60,000 Figure 3: Income

4

Local Leaders 1.4% 3.6% 8.6% 86.4%

Local Citizens 14.5% 18.4% 28.3% 38.8%

March 2005 Community Leader Perception Survey

When asked to describe their current housing situation, 96.0 percent of leaders reported to be home owners1 and only 2.3 percent reportedly rent their housing. In addition, three percent (3.0 percent) of these respondents own farmland and 0.7% own at last one parcel of land on which they did not reside. Finally, respondents were asked to identify how often they watch a local news program on television. More than half of respondents watch a news program every day (50.3 percent), while 19.5 percent watch the news almost every day, 8.9 percent watch the news three to four times a week and 21.2 percent watch the news less often than that.

1

It is important to note that respondents could select more than one criterion for this question on the survey.

5

Wright State University

Center for Urban & Public Affairs

Chapter 3: Quality of Life Issues A series of questions were posed to respondents to obtain their opinions about the overall quality of life in the Miami Valley. For the purpose of this survey, quality of life was defined as the combination of social, health, economic, and environmental conditions in our community which affect our daily lives. Almost ninety percent of respondents (88.4 percent) indicated that they believe the quality of life in the Miami Valley is excellent or good. This view of the Miami Valley is more optimistic than the view presented by citizens, in which just three-quarters of all respondents (75.9 percent) stated that the quality of life in the Miami Valley was excellent or good. This difference between leaders and citizens is statistically significant. Just 10.6 percent of local leaders rate the Miami Valley as fair and 1.0 percent believe it is poor. Next, respondents were asked to state whether they expect the quality of life in the Miami Valley will get better, stay the same, or get worse over the next five years. More than onethird of respondents (34.1 percent) stated that they expect the quality of life to get better, while 45.5 percent expect it to stay the same and 20.4 percent expect the quality of life to get worse. These percentages are almost identical to the results reported by citizens when posed the same question. In order to assess which regional attributes need the most improvement, local leaders were given a series of topics and were asked to state whether each topic needs a lot of improvement, a little improvement, or no improvement. Aspect Having enough high-paying job opportunities Providing high quality schools Having convenient public transportation Providing enough homes that people can afford to buy Having a safe environment in which to live, work, or play Providing enough rental housing that people can afford Providing roads necessary to handle current and planned development Having high quality drinking water Having convenient access to parks, green spaces and trails Figure 4: Barriers to Quality of Life

6

Leader Survey: Needs a lot of improvement 76.6% 68.9% 27.2% 20.7%

Citizen Survey: Needs a lot of improvement 65.6% 55.0% 39.4% 38.8%

29.8%

38.4%

17.6%

35.9%

39.1%

35.4%

15.4%

35.3%

11.3%

15.2%

March 2005 Community Leader Perception Survey

The highest percentage of respondents believe that having enough high paying job opportunities (76.6 percent) and providing high quality schools (68.9 percent) need a lot of improvement. This is similar to the citizen survey, where 65.6 percent identified having enough high paying jobs as needing a lot of improvement and 55.0 percent identified providing high quality schools as needing a lot of improvement. In fact, just 1.3 percent of leaders believe that having enough high-paying job opportunities needs no improvement while 5.1 percent of leaders believe that providing high quality schools needs no improvement. In both the cases of leaders and residents, these were the top two issues identified by survey respondents.

7

Wright State University

Center for Urban & Public Affairs

Chapter 4: Planning for the Future Setting policy requires leaders to make investment decisions with limited resources. While selections are not mutually exclusive, investments in one area may not accomplish goals directly or fully in another area. With this in mind, respondents were next asked a series of questions about potential housing, business and transportation developments in the Miami Valley and were asked to state whether they strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose each one. Housing Development Options When examining housing issues, 97.1 percent of leaders stated that they strongly or somewhat support more housing for people with disabilities. Similarly, 96.6 percent of leaders strongly support or somewhat support improved housing for seniors. When examining other housing options, 93.6 percent support expanding or adding new developments that allow people to walk or bike to school, work, errands or recreation, 85.5 percent support more housing options for lower and moderate income families, 75.9 percent support new home development, excluding apartments and condominiums, and 70.4 percent support new home development, including apartments and condominiums. A cross-tab of these issues between leaders and citizens reveal no statistically significant differences. Next, leaders were given a series of housing options and were asked to state whether the Miami Valley needs a lot more, a few more, or doesn't need any more of each option. The highest percentages of local leaders believe that the Miami Valley needs a lot more assisted living for seniors (35.7 percent) and affordable housing (35.6 percent). On the other hand, 55.5 percent stated that the Miami Valley does not need any more higher priced homes, while 40.1 percent stated that we do not need any more townhouses or duplexes. A complete list of all responses, and a comparison to citizen survey results, is provided in the table below. Topic Higher priced homes Townhouses and duplexes Condominiums Single family homes for first time buyers Moderately priced homes Affordable housing Assisted living for seniors

Leader Survey: We don’t need any more 55.5% 40.1% 33.6%

Citizen Survey: We don’t need any more 74.5% 48.5% 53.0%

26.8%

16.6%

23.6% 21.4% 11.0%

13.0% 8.7% 8.2%

Figure 5: Housing Options

In order to determine public perception of the best way to plan for new housing developments, respondents were asked to select between two development options. The first 8

March 2005 Community Leader Perception Survey

option discussed building new neighborhoods with smaller lots, sidewalks and playgrounds even if it means homes are built closer together. The second option discussed building neighborhoods with larger lots, meaning more land will be used and there will be less opportunity to use transportation other than the automobile. While respondents in the citizen survey were split almost evenly between the two choices, with 53.8 percent preferring larger lots and 46.2 percent preferring smaller lots with common open space, almost three-quarters of leaders (71.2 percent) believe that we should plan neighborhoods with smaller lots, even if it means homes should be built closer together. Respondents were also read the statement “We need to plan to make sure that new housing developments in our area include parks and green spaces even if it means that houses will cost more to buy” and were asked to state whether they strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree. When examining citizen survey responses, more than three in five respondents (61.2 percent) strongly agree or agree with this statement, while 33.5 percent say they disagree and 5.3 percent stating that they strongly disagree. However, community leaders have a much higher level of agreement with this statement, with over eighty percent (81.8 percent) saying that they strongly agree or agree. This difference between community leaders and citizens is statistically significant. Transportation Options Respondents were given a list of transportation options and were asked to state whether they support each of the following in the Miami Valley. Around three-quarters of respondents stated that they support all transportation options discussed, including expanding existing roadways (85.7 percent), new roadways to meet future transportation needs (83.4 percent), expanding public transportation routes (73.9 percent), and creating new public transportation services (73.1 percent). These responses are similar to the results obtained from citizens. Respondents were also given a list of potential transportation investments and were asked to identify which one would benefit the Miami Valley the most and the least over the next five years. The list of choices included: improved public transportation, more public transportation, new streets and highways, improved streets and highways, new hiking or biking trails, more parking, or expanded carpooling programs. The highest percentage of respondents indicated that improved streets and highways (39.7 percent) would be the most important transportation investment over the next five years. Other responses, in order of preference, included improved public transportation (17.6 percent), more public transportation (13.2 percent), new streets and highways (12.2 percent), new hiking or biking trails (8.8 percent) expanded carpooling programs (6.1 percent), and more parking (1.7 percent).

9

Wright State University

Center for Urban & Public Affairs

Transportation Investment Improved Streets and Highways Improved Public Transportation More Public Transportation New Streets and Highways New Hiking or Biking Trails Expanded Carpooling Program More Parking

Which would improve the Miami Valley the MOST

Which would improve the Miami Valley the LEAST

39.7%

2.4%

17.6%

2.7%

13.2% 12.2%

21.4% 17.6%

8.8%

15.9%

6.1%

21.7%

1.7%

17.3%

Figure 6: Transportation Investments

Respondents were given a series of statements and were asked to state whether they strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with each one. Almost three-quarters of respondents (73.8 percent) strongly agree or agree that “We need to widen some of our streets and roads to ease traffic congestion.” However, less than forty percent of all respondents strongly agree or agree that “We should invest in public transportation rather than new or improved streets” (37.6 percent) and that “We need a lot more parking” (29.2 percent). Growth While almost all respondents to the citizen survey believe that the Miami Valley has grown over the past five years, local community leaders do not agree. When asked to state how much growth they believe the Miami Valley has experienced over the past five years, more than one-third (36.0 percent) believe the Miami Valley has experienced no growth at all, while just 14.7 percent believe the Miami Valley has experienced a great deal of growth. When examining the responses of citizens, one-third of citizens (36.3 percent) believe that the Miami Valley has experienced a great deal of growth, while 54.4 percent believe there has been some growth, and 9.2 percent believe there has been no growth. This difference is statistically significant. How much growth has the Miami Valley experienced in the past five years? A Great Deal Some None at All Figure 7: Growth in the Miami Valley

10

Citizen Survey Respondents

Local Community Leaders

36.3% 54.4% 9.2%

14.7% 49.3% 36.0%

March 2005 Community Leader Perception Survey

There has been a great deal of discussion about the desired level of growth in the Miami Valley. In order to address this issue, respondents were asked to state which one of two statements more adequately expressed their opinion about growth in the Miami Valley. The first statement read “We must preserve the qualities that make our communities unique by severely limiting growth;” while the second statement read “Growth is necessary for our economy and current regulations are satisfactory.” More than three-quarters of leaders (75.3 percent) agreed with the second statement-- growth is necessary for our economy and current regulations are satisfactory. These results are almost identical to the survey of citizens, where 75.4 percent indicated that growth is necessary for our economy and that current regulations are satisfactory. Next, leaders were given a series of topics and were asked to state whether they believe that any of the issues discussed has occurred in the Miami Valley. A complete list of responses is provided in the table below, and it demonstrates that many topics are of equal concern. Topic Increased wear and tear on our roads More housing options for people who are looking to buy a home More competition for available jobs New retail stores opening in this area Improved walking and biking opportunities Increased traffic congestion Building new roads and widening existing ones Improvements in many neighborhoods More parks and green spaces Less open space More job opportunities

Has the Miami Valley Experienced 89.9% 86.4% 89.5% 79.9% 78.8% 77.7% 75.3% 61.5% 60.4% 59.5% 22.2%

Figure 8: Has the Miami Valley Experienced

Business Growth and Regional Cooperation When examining business issues, almost all (99.7 percent) respondents strongly support or somewhat support encouraging new businesses to locate in the Miami Valley. It appears that the type of development matters, since support drops almost 40 percent when new retail shopping (63.1 percent) is probed as the development type. Leaders were also asked to describe the job opportunities that are available in the Miami Valley. Almost ninety percent of respondents believe that we face a job shortage in the Miami Valley, either a serious shortage (52.0 percent) or minor shortage (37.1 percent). Just 9.3 percent believe that we have a good supply of job opportunities. 11

Wright State University

Center for Urban & Public Affairs

Businesses looking to expand operations examine many aspects of an area before deciding where to locate. With this in mind, respondents were given a series of location factors and were asked to state whether the Miami Valley is strong or weak in each factor. The highest percentages of respondents believe the Miami Valley is strong in having a good transportation system for goods that are produced (78.6 percent) and having enough workers to fill new jobs (75.2 percent). These were also the top two strengths identified by citizens. Additionally, more than two-thirds of leaders believe the Miami Valley is strong in offering an adequate supply of housing that workers can afford (71.4 percent) and having safe neighborhoods for families (71.1 percent), while more than half of leaders believe the region is strong in providing tax incentives (62.5 percent) and having workers with the skills to fill jobs (55.2 percent). Less than one-third of respondents (32.6 percent) believe we have a good public school system. Leaders were also read a series of statements and were asked to state whether they strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with each statement. The first statement read “It is very important to attract new businesses and new jobs to this area to make our economy stronger”. Almost all (99.0 percent) respondents stated that they strongly agree or agree with this statement. Similarly, almost all respondents strongly agree or agree that “We should provide more incentives to rehabilitate buildings and neighborhoods” (97.7 percent) and “We should encourage redevelopment and beautification of existing retail centers instead of building new ones” (92.4 percent). These percentages are very much in line with those provided by the general population. Fewer leaders strongly agree or agree that “We should encourage new businesses to locate in the Miami Valley by offering tax incentives” (80.9 percent) and “We need to limit new home construction and business development in fringe areas in order to preserve farmland surrounding our community” (62.9 percent). Finally, one-quarter of respondents strongly agree or agree that “We need to protect the unique qualities of the Miami Valley more than we need more jobs” (25.3 percent). While the percentages vary slightly from those obtained from the general population (in that the general population was slightly more likely to have agreed with each of these statements), the rank order of percentages remains the same. Leaders were asked two final questions about business development and regional cooperation. First, respondents were asked if they believe housing and business development should be located in existing areas rather than rural or farming areas outside the City of Dayton or if new development was best located along the outskirts of town. Almost ninety percent of respondents (89.8 percent) stated that new development should be located in existing areas, with the remaining 10.2 percent believing these developments should be located on the outskirts of town. Respondents in Montgomery County (91.5 percent) were more likely to believe new development should occur in the center of town when compared to respondents from Greene (89.4 percent) and Miami (81.8 percent) Counties, however, the differences are not significant. 12

March 2005 Community Leader Perception Survey

Respondents were also asked if they support regional cooperation, that is city and county governments working together to not compete with each other for jobs and businesses. Ninety-six percent of respondents (95.9 percent) stated that they do support regional cooperation. When asked why they support regional cooperation, a large variety of responses were offered, but common themes included cooperation is the only way to resolve our current budget woes or that all communities benefit from working together.

13

Wright State University

Center for Urban & Public Affairs

Chapter 5: The Environment Overall, two-thirds of all respondents (66.2 percent) stated that the quality of the environment in the Miami Valley is excellent or good, with 7.0 percent saying excellent and 59.3 percent saying good. Of the remaining respondents, 30.8 percent rated the environment as fair while 3.0 percent said poor. These responses are very similar to responses of citizens when asked the same question. Groundwater Groundwater provides about a third of all water supplies. Many rural communities are dependent upon groundwater and many rivers are fed by groundwater during dry periods. Groundwater is very susceptible to pollutants. With this in mind, respondents were asked to state whether the Miami Valley has problems with groundwater quality, or if we have no real problems. While almost two-thirds of all citizens (61.1 percent) believe that the Miami Valley does have problems with groundwater quality, just one-third of leaders (33.7percent) believe that the Miami Valley has problems with groundwater quality. This difference is statistically significant. Leaders who indicated that the Miami Valley has problems with groundwater quality were asked to identify the most effective thing that can be done to protect area groundwater. Sixty percent of the respondents (60.0 percent) stated that better enforcement of existing regulations could protect area groundwater. Another 25.3 percent felt that providing education materials to property and business owners would help, while 14.7 percent believe stricter regulations should be imposed. Farmland In order to assess opinions about growth into undeveloped areas, respondents were asked if they believe existing farmland should be kept as farmland, or if farmers should be able to use it for another purpose. Slightly less than half (48.9 percent) of all leaders believe that farmland should be kept as farmland, while the remaining 51.1 percent believe it should be used for other purposes. This is significantly different from citizen feedback, in which three in five respondents (59.0 percent) stated that farmland should be kept as farmland and not developed. All leaders who indicated that farmland should be used for another purpose were asked what they believe is the most appropriate alternative use for the farmland. Respondents were split fairly evenly between industrial uses (30.3 percent), housing (24.2 percent) and parks and trails (23.2 percent). Less common answers included wildlife areas (13.1 percent) and commercial uses (9.1 percent). When citizens were asked this question, more than two in five respondents (41.0 percent) indicated that farmland should be converted into wildlife areas.

14

March 2005 Community Leader Perception Survey

Issues for Improving the Environment Respondents were next presented a series of actions that could be taken to improve the natural environment (see the table below) and were asked to assign a level of importance to each action item. The three action items that respondents believe are most important include preserving river corridors (94.4 percent), preserving existing woodlands (92.4 percent) and investing more in maintaining our existing parks and open spaces (90.4 percent). While 90.4 percent believe maintaining parks and open spaces is important, less than three in five (57.3 percent) respondents believe it is important to create new parks and open space. Action Item

Percent who believe it is important (Citizens)

Percent who believe it is important (Leaders)

92.3%

92.4%

92.2%

94.4%

91.4%

89.1%

87.3%

73.8%

87.2%

90.4%

85.4%

85.8%

81.2%

76.2%

79.4%

59.3%

73.4%

88.1%

56.7%

57.3%

Preserving existing woodlands Preserving river corridors Better enforcement of existing laws and regulations Support programs that protect agricultural land Investing more in maintaining our existing parks and open spaces Preserving wetlands Enhancing air quality awareness and outreach programs Stricter water quality regulations More neighborhood beautification projects Investing more in creating new parks and open spaces Figure 9: Importance of Environmental Policies

15

Wright State University

Center for Urban & Public Affairs

Chapter 6: Local Government Services Local leaders were also asked a series of questions about local government services. Given the proposed cuts to the local government fund, MVRPC was interested in determining what local services are valued the most by leaders, and which they would be willing to pay additional taxes to maintain in the event of a cut to the local government. Several questions were also asked about ways to balance the state budget. Leaders were read a list of local services (either provided by their jurisdiction or county of residence) and were asked to state whether they are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with each service. When examining services provided by local jurisdictions, more than 90 percent of local leaders are satisfied (either very or somewhat) with each service discussed, with the exception of street and road repair. In fact: • • • •

97.3 percent are satisfied with fire protection 94.3 percent are satisfied with police protection 93.3 percent are satisfied with public parks, and 81.4 percent are satisfied with street and road repair

When exploring satisfaction with county services, leaders were slightly less favorable overall, with 95.6 percent reporting satisfaction with the public libraries, 89.6 percent reporting satisfaction with the county jail, and just 69.1 percent reporting satisfaction with services for abused and neglected children. State Budget Concerns Leaders were next asked a series of questions about dealing with the effects of the state budget situation, beginning with “if it were up to you, would you raise the state taxes we pay to balance the budget or would you cut the amount of money the state spends to balance the budget.” Local leaders were split on this issue, with 55.9 percent indicating that we should cut spending, while 44.1 percent believe that we should raise state taxes. An analysis by political party affiliation shows that Democrats (58.4 percent) and Independents (55.9 percent) are statistically more likely than Republicans (30.3 percent) to indicate that the State should raise taxes. Respondents were then asked to identify where state budget cuts should be made, in the event that the state decides to reduce spending. Specifically, respondents were asked if the state should take away all of the money, some of the money, or none of the money it spends for local government services. As would be expected when studying local leaders, 83.9 percent indicated that the state should not take any money away from local government services. Another 15.7 percent believe that some money should be cut from local government services, while the remaining 0.3 percent, or 1 respondent, believe that all money should be taken 16

March 2005 Community Leader Perception Survey

away from local government services. In essence, while 55.9 percent of respondents believe cuts should be made at the state level, most do not want to be personally affected by these cuts. Potential Tax Increases Next, respondents were asked if they would be willing to pay higher taxes to a series of jurisdictions if the State took money away from each of these groups to balance the budget. In all cases, more than half of local leaders indicated that they would be willing to pay additional taxes. Almost three-quarters of respondents (72.0 percent) indicated that they would be willing to pay additional taxes to their city, village, or township of residence. Two-thirds of respondents (68.0 percent) would be willing to pay more to their school district, while 64.6 percent would be willing to pay additional taxes to their public library. Topic City, Village, or Township School District Public Library Public Parks County

Percentage 72.0% 68.0% 64.6% 58.4% 53.2%

Figure 10: Would you be willing to pay additional taxes

Merging Services Leaders were also asked a series of questions about merging certain local services with other jurisdictions in order to save money. The highest percentages of leaders strongly favor or somewhat favor merging their library system with a neighboring library system (88.1 percent) or combining all parks in the county into one park district (83.4 percent) if doing so would save money. Leaders also seem to have some degree of support for merging emergency services. More than three-quarters (79.1 percent) of leaders support combining all fire departments and 9-11 dispatch services in the local area, while 66.7 percent support merging their local police department with a neighboring police department. Slightly less than two-thirds of leaders (63.8 percent) would support combining their local jurisdiction with another jurisdiction if doing so would save money, while less than half (49.7 percent) support combining their school district with a neighboring school district.

17

Wright State University

Center for Urban & Public Affairs

State Budget Issues Finally, respondents were asked two questions about potential changes to the state’s budget process. When asked if they would support a state constitutional amendment that would prevent money from being taken from the local government fund, 73.4 percent stated that they would vote for such an amendment. Many of those not in support of such an amendment indicated that the state would find other ways to take money away from local governments even if such an amendment were passed. When examining other means of raising revenues, 89.4 percent of respondents indicated their support for continuing the temporary one percent sales tax for two more years.

18

March 2005 Community Leader Perception Survey

Chapter 6: Summary An analysis of differences between citizens and local leaders shows that leaders are more optimistic about the quality of life in the Miami Valley, with 88.4 percent rating the quality of life as excellent or good versus just 75.9 percent of residents. When asked which specific aspects of the Miami Valley need a lot of improvement, leaders were more likely than citizens to identify additional high paying job opportunities and high quality schools, but were less likely to identify other characteristics such as transportation and new home development. Other differences among leaders and citizens exist. A theme among leaders is that green space should be included in any new housing developments. Local leaders are significantly more likely than the general public to indicate that we should build smaller lots with common open space and that we should include parks and green space in new developments even if it means that homes will cost more to buy. While this is the case, when asked about alternative uses for farmland, many leaders indicated it should be used for development while more citizens indicated that it should be used for wildlife areas. Large percentages of local leaders believe we need to address the transportation infrastructure of the Miami Valley. When asked to identify the most important transportation need of the Miami Valley, 39.7 percent indicated that improved streets and highways are most important. Similarly, almost three-quarters of leaders indicated that we should widen existing roads to ease traffic congestion. While over 90 percent of citizens believe that the Miami Valley has experienced a great deal or some growth over the past five years, less than two-thirds of local leaders agree, with 36.0 percent stating that the Miami Valley has experienced no growth at all. Local leaders are split on how the state should handle the pending budget shortfall, with roughly half indicating that the state should cut spending and half believing the state should increase taxes. However, all local leaders seem to agree that if cuts are made, these cuts should not come from the local government fund. When examining additional funding sources, more than half of leaders indicated that they would be willing to pay additional taxes to their jurisdictions, schools, parks, libraries and counties in order to raise revenues. Continuing with their overwhelming support of regional cooperation (95.9 percent support regional cooperation), a majority of respondents support merging certain local services with surrounding jurisdictions in order to save money. Merging libraries, parks and certain emergency services appear to be the most favorable consolidations.

19

Wright State University

Center for Urban & Public Affairs

In general, local leaders appear to have a clear picture of the issues facing the Miami Valley and appear willing to work together to address these issues. Greater cooperation and creative approaches to budget issues are considered to be viable resolutions to budget shortfalls.

20

Appendix A: Survey Frequencies First, What county do you live in?

Valid

Montgomery Miami Greene Warren Other Total

Frequency 181 27 62 16 16 302

Percent 59.9 8.9 20.5 5.3 5.3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 59.9 68.9 89.4 94.7 100.0

Valid Percent 59.9 8.9 20.5 5.3 5.3 100.0

Is your full time employment in the private, public or non profit sector?

Valid

Frequency 74 152 42 34 302

Private Public Non-profit Other Total

Percent 24.5 50.3 13.9 11.3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 24.5 74.8 88.7 100.0

Valid Percent 24.5 50.3 13.9 11.3 100.0

Are you an elected official?

Valid

Yes No Total

Frequency 135 167 302

Percent 44.7 55.3 100.0

Valid Percent 44.7 55.3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 44.7 100.0

Overall, How would you rate the quality of life here in the Miami Valley?

Valid

Missing Total

Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Don't know

Frequency 52 214 32 3 301 1 302

Percent 17.2 70.9 10.6 1.0 99.7 .3 100.0

A-1

Valid Percent 17.3 71.1 10.6 1.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 17.3 88.4 99.0 100.0

During the next five years, do you expect the overall quality of life in the Miami Valley will get better, stay the same, or get worse?

Valid

Missing Total

Get better Stay the same Get worse Total Don't know

Frequency 102 136 61 299 3 302

Percent 33.8 45.0 20.2 99.0 1.0 100.0

Valid Percent 34.1 45.5 20.4 100.0

Cumulative Percent 34.1 79.6 100.0

Providing enough homes that people can afford to buy. Does this aspect: Frequency Valid

Missing Total

Need a lot of improvement Need a little improvement Need no improvement at all Total Don't know

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

62

20.5

20.7

20.7

158

52.3

52.7

73.3

80

26.5

26.7

100.0

300 2 302

99.3 .7 100.0

100.0

Providing enough rental housing that people can afford. Does that aspect: Frequency Valid

Missing Total

Need a lot of improvement Need a little improvement Need no improvement at all Total Don't know

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

51

16.9

17.6

17.6

127

42.1

43.8

61.4

112

37.1

38.6

100.0

290 12 302

96.0 4.0 100.0

100.0

A-2

Having convenient public transportation. Does that aspect: Frequency Valid

Missing

Need a lot of improvement Need a little improvement Need no improvement at all Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

81

26.8

27.2

27.2

119

39.4

39.9

67.1

98

32.5

32.9

100.0

298 3 1 4 302

98.7 1.0 .3 1.3 100.0

100.0

Having convenient access to parks, green spaces and trails. Does that aspect: Frequency Valid

Missing Total

Need a lot of improvement Need a little improvement Need no improvement at all Total Don't know

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

34

11.3

11.3

11.3

143

47.4

47.7

59.0

123

40.7

41.0

100.0

300 2 302

99.3 .7 100.0

100.0

Providing roads necessary to handle current and planned development. Does that aspect: Frequency Valid

Need a lot of improvement Need a little improvement Need no improvement at all Total

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

118

39.1

39.1

39.1

144

47.7

47.7

86.8

40

13.2

13.2

100.0

302

100.0

100.0

A-3

Having high quality drinking water. Does that aspect: Frequency Valid

Missing Total

Need a lot of improvement Need a little improvement Need no improvement at all Total Don't know

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

46

15.2

15.4

15.4

101

33.4

33.9

49.3

151

50.0

50.7

100.0

298 4 302

98.7 1.3 100.0

100.0

Having enough high-paying job opportunities. Does that aspect: Frequency Valid

Missing Total

Need a lot of improvement Need a little improvement Need no improvement at all Total Don't know

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

229

75.8

76.6

76.6

66

21.9

22.1

98.7

4

1.3

1.3

100.0

299 3 302

99.0 1.0 100.0

100.0

Providing high quality schools. Does that aspect: Frequency Valid

Missing

Total

Need a lot of improvement Need a little improvement Need no improvement at all Total Don't know Refused Total

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

204

67.5

68.9

68.9

77

25.5

26.0

94.9

15

5.0

5.1

100.0

296 2 4 6 302

98.0 .7 1.3 2.0 100.0

100.0

A-4

Having a safe environment in which to live, work, or play. Does that aspect: Frequency Valid

Missing

Need a lot of improvement Need a little improvement Need no improvment at all Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid Percent

89

29.5

29.8

29.8

172

57.0

57.5

87.3

38

12.6

12.7

100.0

299 2 1 3 302

99.0 .7 .3 1.0 100.0

100.0

New home development, excluding apartment and condominiums

Valid

Missing

Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 78 146 52 19 295 5 2 7 302

Percent 25.8 48.3 17.2 6.3 97.7 1.7 .7 2.3 100.0

Valid Percent 26.4 49.5 17.6 6.4 100.0

Cumulative Percent 26.4 75.9 93.6 100.0

New home development, including apartments and condominiums

Valid

Missing

Total

Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total Don't know Refused Total

Frequency 55 154 63 25 297 4 1 5 302

A-5

Percent 18.2 51.0 20.9 8.3 98.3 1.3 .3 1.7 100.0

Valid Percent 18.5 51.9 21.2 8.4 100.0

Cumulative Percent 18.5 70.4 91.6 100.0

Improving housing options for seniors

Valid

Missing Total

Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total Don't know

Frequency 146 139 6 4 295 7 302

Percent 48.3 46.0 2.0 1.3 97.7 2.3 100.0

Valid Percent 49.5 47.1 2.0 1.4 100.0

Cumulative Percent 49.5 96.6 98.6 100.0

More housing for people with disabilities

Valid

Missing

Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 122 149 7 1 279 21 2 23 302

Percent 40.4 49.3 2.3 .3 92.4 7.0 .7 7.6 100.0

Valid Percent 43.7 53.4 2.5 .4 100.0

Cumulative Percent 43.7 97.1 99.6 100.0

Encouraging new businesses to locate in the Miami Valley

Valid

Missing Total

Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Total Don't know

Frequency 283 17 1 301 1 302

A-6

Percent 93.7 5.6 .3 99.7 .3 100.0

Valid Percent 94.0 5.6 .3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 94.0 99.7 100.0

Locating new retail shopping in the Miami Valley

Valid

Missing Total

Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total Don't know

Frequency 67 121 63 47 298 4 302

Percent 22.2 40.1 20.9 15.6 98.7 1.3 100.0

Valid Percent 22.5 40.6 21.1 15.8 100.0

Cumulative Percent 22.5 63.1 84.2 100.0

Expanding public transportation routes

Valid

Missing Total

Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total Don't know

Frequency 84 134 55 22 295 7 302

Percent 27.8 44.4 18.2 7.3 97.7 2.3 100.0

Valid Percent 28.5 45.4 18.6 7.5 100.0

Cumulative Percent 28.5 73.9 92.5 100.0

New roadways to meet future transportation needs

Valid

Missing Total

Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total Refused

Frequency 138 113 32 18 301 1 302

A-7

Percent 45.7 37.4 10.6 6.0 99.7 .3 100.0

Valid Percent 45.8 37.5 10.6 6.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 45.8 83.4 94.0 100.0

Expanding existing roadways

Valid

Missing

Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 137 120 28 15 300 1 1 2 302

Percent 45.4 39.7 9.3 5.0 99.3 .3 .3 .7 100.0

Valid Percent 45.7 40.0 9.3 5.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 45.7 85.7 95.0 100.0

Creating new public transportation services

Valid

Missing Total

Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total Don't know

Frequency 85 132 55 25 297 5 302

Percent 28.1 43.7 18.2 8.3 98.3 1.7 100.0

Valid Percent 28.6 44.4 18.5 8.4 100.0

Cumulative Percent 28.6 73.1 91.6 100.0

More housing options for lower and moderate income families

Valid

Missing Total

Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total Don't know

Frequency 97 157 28 15 297 5 302

A-8

Percent 32.1 52.0 9.3 5.0 98.3 1.7 100.0

Valid Percent 32.7 52.9 9.4 5.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent 32.7 85.5 94.9 100.0

Expand or add new developments that allow people to walk or bike to school or work, to run errands or for recreation.

Valid

Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total Don't know Refused Total

Missing

Total

Frequency 160 116 16 3 295 6 1 7 302

Percent 53.0 38.4 5.3 1.0 97.7 2.0 .3 2.3 100.0

Valid Percent 54.2 39.3 5.4 1.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 54.2 93.6 99.0 100.0

Some people say that we must perserve the qualities that make our communities special by severely limiting growth. Others say that growth is necessary for our economy and that our current regulations are satisfactory. Which of these statements best descri Frequency Valid

Missing

We must preserve the qualities that make our communities uni Growth is necessary for our economy and current regulations Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Percent

Valid Percent

66

21.9

24.6

24.6

202

66.9

75.4

100.0

268 23 11 34 302

88.7 7.6 3.6 11.3 100.0

100.0

Over the past five years, how much growth do you think the Miami Valley has experienced. Would you say:

Valid

Missing

Total

A great deal Some None at all Total Don't know Refused Total

Frequency 43 144 105 292 8 2 10 302

Cumulative Percent

Percent 14.2 47.7 34.8 96.7 2.6 .7 3.3 100.0

A-9

Valid Percent 14.7 49.3 36.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 14.7 64.0 100.0

More job opportunities

Valid

Missing

Has experienced Has not experienced Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 66 231 297 4 1 5 302

Percent 21.9 76.5 98.3 1.3 .3 1.7 100.0

Valid Percent 22.2 77.8 100.0

Cumulative Percent 22.2 100.0

New retail stores opening in this area

Valid

Missing Total

Has experienced Has not experienced Total Don't know

Frequency 239 60 299 3 302

Percent 79.1 19.9 99.0 1.0 100.0

Valid Percent 79.9 20.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent 79.9 100.0

Building new roads and widening existing ones

Valid

Missing Total

Has experienced Has not experienced Total Don't know

Frequency 225 74 299 3 302

Percent 74.5 24.5 99.0 1.0 100.0

Valid Percent 75.3 24.7 100.0

Cumulative Percent 75.3 100.0

More parks and green spaces

Valid

Missing Total

Has experienced Has not experienced Total Don't know

Frequency 177 116 293 9 302

A-10

Percent 58.6 38.4 97.0 3.0 100.0

Valid Percent 60.4 39.6 100.0

Cumulative Percent 60.4 100.0

More housing options for people who are looking to buy a home

Valid

Missing Total

Has experienced Has not experienced Total Don't know

Frequency 254 40 294 8 302

Percent 84.1 13.2 97.4 2.6 100.0

Valid Percent 86.4 13.6 100.0

Cumulative Percent 86.4 100.0

Improvement in many neighborhoods

Valid

Missing

Has experienced Has not experienced Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 176 110 286 15 1 16 302

Percent 58.3 36.4 94.7 5.0 .3 5.3 100.0

Valid Percent 61.5 38.5 100.0

Cumulative Percent 61.5 100.0

Increased traffic congestion

Valid

Missing Total

Has experienced Has not experienced Total Don't know

Frequency 233 67 300 2 302

Percent 77.2 22.2 99.3 .7 100.0

Valid Percent 77.7 22.3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 77.7 100.0

Increased wear and tear on our roads

Valid

Missing Total

Has experienced Has not experienced Total Don't know

Frequency 268 30 298 4 302

A-11

Percent 88.7 9.9 98.7 1.3 100.0

Valid Percent 89.9 10.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent 89.9 100.0

Less open space

Valid

Missing Total

Has experienced Has not experienced Total Don't know

Frequency 175 119 294 8 302

Percent 57.9 39.4 97.4 2.6 100.0

Valid Percent 59.5 40.5 100.0

Cumulative Percent 59.5 100.0

More competition for available jobs

Valid

Missing

Has experienced Has not experienced Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 232 60 292 8 2 10 302

Percent 76.8 19.9 96.7 2.6 .7 3.3 100.0

Valid Percent 79.5 20.5 100.0

Cumulative Percent 79.5 100.0

Improved walking and biking opportunities

Valid

Missing Total

Has experienced Has not experienced Total Don't know

Frequency 231 62 293 9 302

Percent 76.5 20.5 97.0 3.0 100.0

Valid Percent 78.8 21.2 100.0

Cumulative Percent 78.8 100.0

Single family homes for first time buyers. Would you say:

Valid

Missing Total

We need a lot more We need a little more We don't need any more Total Don't know

Frequency 68 148 79 295 7 302

A-12

Percent 22.5 49.0 26.2 97.7 2.3 100.0

Valid Percent 23.1 50.2 26.8 100.0

Cumulative Percent 23.1 73.2 100.0

Assisted living for seniors. Would you say:

Valid

Missing

We need a lot more We need a little more We don't need any more Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 104 155 32 291 9 2 11 302

Percent 34.4 51.3 10.6 96.4 3.0 .7 3.6 100.0

Valid Percent 35.7 53.3 11.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 35.7 89.0 100.0

Affordable housing. Would you say:

Valid

Missing Total

We need a lot more We need a little more We don't need any more Total Don't know

Frequency 105 127 63 295 7 302

Percent 34.8 42.1 20.9 97.7 2.3 100.0

Valid Percent 35.6 43.1 21.4 100.0

Cumulative Percent 35.6 78.6 100.0

Moderately priced homes. Would you say:

Valid

Missing Total

We need a lot more We need a little more We don't need any more Total Don't know

Frequency 92 135 70 297 5 302

Percent 30.5 44.7 23.2 98.3 1.7 100.0

Valid Percent 31.0 45.5 23.6 100.0

Cumulative Percent 31.0 76.4 100.0

Higher priced homes. Would you say:

Valid

Missing Total

We need a lot more We need a little more We don't need any more Total Don't know

Frequency 22 111 166 299 3 302

A-13

Percent 7.3 36.8 55.0 99.0 1.0 100.0

Valid Percent 7.4 37.1 55.5 100.0

Cumulative Percent 7.4 44.5 100.0

Condominiums. Would you say:

Valid

Missing Total

We need a lot more We need a little more We don't need any more Total Don't know

Frequency 35 157 97 289 13 302

Percent 11.6 52.0 32.1 95.7 4.3 100.0

Valid Percent 12.1 54.3 33.6 100.0

Cumulative Percent 12.1 66.4 100.0

Townhouses and Duplexes. Would you say:

Valid

Missing

We need a lot more We need a little more We don't need any more Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 23 153 118 294 7 1 8 302

Percent 7.6 50.7 39.1 97.4 2.3 .3 2.6 100.0

Valid Percent 7.8 52.0 40.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent 7.8 59.9 100.0

Some communities are planning subdivisions as a means to allow some development whole protecting rural settings. These subdivisions typically have smaller lots and common open space, where the natural features of the land are maintained to the greatest ex Frequency Valid

Missing

Total

We should plan new neighborhoods with smaller lots, sidewalk We should plan new neighborhoods with larger lots even if it Total Don't know Refused Total

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

193

63.9

71.2

71.2

78

25.8

28.8

100.0

271 18 13 31 302

89.7 6.0 4.3 10.3 100.0

100.0

A-14

During the next five years, which of the following transportation investments do you think would benefit the Miami Valley the most? Frequency Valid

Missing

Improved public transportation More public transportation New streets and highways Improved strrets and highways New hiking or biking trails More parking Expanded carpooling program None Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

52

17.2

17.6

17.6

39

12.9

13.2

30.8

36

11.9

12.2

43.1

117

38.7

39.7

82.7

26 5

8.6 1.7

8.8 1.7

91.5 93.2

18

6.0

6.1

99.3

2 295 3 4 7 302

.7 97.7 1.0 1.3 2.3 100.0

.7 100.0

100.0

Which of these investments do you think would benefit the Miami Valley the least? Frequency Valid

Missing

Total

Improved public transportation More public transportation New streets and highways Improved strrets and highways New hiking or biking trails More parking Expanded carpooling program None Total Don't know Refused Total

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

8

2.6

2.7

2.7

63

20.9

21.4

24.1

52

17.2

17.6

41.7

7

2.3

2.4

44.1

47 51

15.6 16.9

15.9 17.3

60.0 77.3

64

21.2

21.7

99.0

3 295 6 1 7 302

1.0 97.7 2.0 .3 2.3 100.0

1.0 100.0

100.0

A-15

Overall, How would you rate the quality of the environment in the Miami Valley?

Valid

Excellent Good Fair Poor Total

Frequency 21 179 93 9 302

Percent 7.0 59.3 30.8 3.0 100.0

Valid Percent 7.0 59.3 30.8 3.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 7.0 66.2 97.0 100.0

Would you say that the Miami Valley has problems with groundwater quality, or do you think that we have no real problems with groundwater quality? Frequency Valid

Missing Total

We have problems with groundwater quality We don't have problems with groundwater quality Total Don't know

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

97

32.1

33.7

33.7

191

63.2

66.3

100.0

288 14 302

95.4 4.6 100.0

100.0

What do you think is the most effective thing we can do to protect the groundwater in our area? Frequency Valid

Missing

Total

Impose stricter regulations Better enforcement of existing regulations Provide educational materials to property owners and busines Total Don't know System Total

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

14

4.6

14.7

14.7

57

18.9

60.0

74.7

24

7.9

25.3

100.0

95 2 205 207 302

31.5 .7 67.9 68.5 100.0

100.0

A-16

Do you think that existing farmland in the Miami Valley should be kept as farmland or do you think farmers should be able to use it for other purposes?

Valid

Missing

Kept as farmland Use for other purposes Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 137 143 280 14 8 22 302

Percent 45.4 47.4 92.7 4.6 2.6 7.3 100.0

Valid Percent 48.9 51.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent 48.9 100.0

What do you think is the most appropriate alternate use for farmland in the Miami Valley?

Valid

Missing

Housing Commercial uses such as retail shopping Industrual uses Parks and trails Wildlife area Total Don't know Refused System Total

Total

Frequency 24

Percent 7.9

Valid Percent 24.2

Cumulative Percent 24.2

9

3.0

9.1

33.3

30 23 13 99 30 14 159 203 302

9.9 7.6 4.3 32.8 9.9 4.6 52.6 67.2 100.0

30.3 23.2 13.1 100.0

63.6 86.9 100.0

In planning for the future, which of the following initiatives do you think would be an important step to protect or improve our natural environment here in the Miami Valley?: Investing more in maintaining our existing parks and open spaces

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 29 273 302

Percent 9.6 90.4 100.0

A-17

Valid Percent 9.6 90.4 100.0

Cumulative Percent 9.6 100.0

In planning for the future, which of the following initiatives do you think would be an important step to protect or improve our natural environment here in the Miami Valley?: Stricter water quality regulations

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 123 179 302

Percent 40.7 59.3 100.0

Valid Percent 40.7 59.3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 40.7 100.0

In planning for the future, which of the following initiatives do you think would be an important step to protect or improve our natural environment here in the Miami Valley?: Enhancing air quality awareness and outreach programs

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 72 230 302

Percent 23.8 76.2 100.0

Valid Percent 23.8 76.2 100.0

Cumulative Percent 23.8 100.0

In planning for the future, which of the following initiatives do you think would be an important step to protect or improve our natural environment here in the Miami Valley?: Investing more in creating new parks and open spaces

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 129 173 302

Percent 42.7 57.3 100.0

Valid Percent 42.7 57.3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 42.7 100.0

In planning for the future, which of the following initiatives do you think would be an important step to protect or improve our natural environment here in the Miami Valley?:Support programs that protect agricultural land

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 79 223 302

Percent 26.2 73.8 100.0

A-18

Valid Percent 26.2 73.8 100.0

Cumulative Percent 26.2 100.0

In planning for the future, which of the following initiatives do you think would be an important step to protect or improve our natural environment here in the Miami Valley?: More neighborhood beautification projects

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 36 266 302

Percent 11.9 88.1 100.0

Valid Percent 11.9 88.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent 11.9 100.0

In planning for the future, which of the following initiatives do you think would be an important step to protect or improve our natural environment here in the Miami Valley?: Preserving existing woodlands

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 23 279 302

Percent 7.6 92.4 100.0

Valid Percent 7.6 92.4 100.0

Cumulative Percent 7.6 100.0

In planning for the future, which of the following initiatives do you think would be an important step to protect or improve our natural environment here in the Miami Valley?:Preserving wetlands

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 43 259 302

Percent 14.2 85.8 100.0

Valid Percent 14.2 85.8 100.0

Cumulative Percent 14.2 100.0

In planning for the future, which of the following initiatives do you think would be an important step to protect or improve our natural environment here in the Miami Valley?:Preserving river corridors

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 17 285 302

Percent 5.6 94.4 100.0

A-19

Valid Percent 5.6 94.4 100.0

Cumulative Percent 5.6 100.0

In planning for the future, which of the following initiatives do you think would be an important step to protect or improve our natural environment here in the Miami Valley?:Better enforcement of existing laws and regulations

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 33 269 302

Percent 10.9 89.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent 10.9 100.0

Valid Percent 10.9 89.1 100.0

In planning for the future, which of the following initiatives do you think would be an important step to protect or improve our natural environment here in the Miami Valley?:None- Our environment is fine that way it is

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 301 1 302

Percent 99.7 .3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 99.7 100.0

Valid Percent 99.7 .3 100.0

Based on what you have heard or read, how would you descrive the job opportunities we have here in the Miami Valley? Would you say: Frequency Valid

We face a serious shortage We face a minor shortage We have a good supply of job opportunities Don't know Total

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

157

52.0

52.0

52.0

112

37.1

37.1

89.1

28

9.3

9.3

98.3

5 302

1.7 100.0

1.7 100.0

100.0

Having workers with the skills to fill the jobs

Valid

Missing

Total

We are strong We are weak Total Don't know Refused Total

Frequency 159 129 288 9 5 14 302

Percent 52.6 42.7 95.4 3.0 1.7 4.6 100.0

A-20

Valid Percent 55.2 44.8 100.0

Cumulative Percent 55.2 100.0

Having enough workers to fill the jobs

Valid

Missing

We are strong We are weak Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 221 73 294 6 2 8 302

Percent 73.2 24.2 97.4 2.0 .7 2.6 100.0

Valid Percent 75.2 24.8 100.0

Cumulative Percent 75.2 100.0

Provide tax incentives to businesses to locate and grow here

Valid

Missing Total

We are strong We are weak Total Don't know

Frequency 182 109 291 11 302

Percent 60.3 36.1 96.4 3.6 100.0

Valid Percent 62.5 37.5 100.0

Cumulative Percent 62.5 100.0

Having a good public school system

Valid

Missing

We are strong We are weak Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 93 192 285 13 4 17 302

Percent 30.8 63.6 94.4 4.3 1.3 5.6 100.0

Valid Percent 32.6 67.4 100.0

Cumulative Percent 32.6 100.0

Having safe neighborhood for families

Valid

Missing

Total

We are strong We are weak Total Don't know Refused Total

Frequency 207 84 291 9 2 11 302

Percent 68.5 27.8 96.4 3.0 .7 3.6 100.0

A-21

Valid Percent 71.1 28.9 100.0

Cumulative Percent 71.1 100.0

Having a good transportation system for goods that are produced

Valid

Missing

We are strong We are weak Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 231 63 294 7 1 8 302

Percent 76.5 20.9 97.4 2.3 .3 2.6 100.0

Valid Percent 78.6 21.4 100.0

Cumulative Percent 78.6 100.0

Offering an adequate supply of housing that workers can afford

Valid

Missing

We are strong We are weak Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 212 85 297 3 2 5 302

Percent 70.2 28.1 98.3 1.0 .7 1.7 100.0

Valid Percent 71.4 28.6 100.0

Cumulative Percent 71.4 100.0

Please state whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with each of the following statements: It is very important to attract new businesses and new jobs to this area to make our economy stronger.

Valid

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Total

Frequency 244 55 3 302

Percent 80.8 18.2 1.0 100.0

A-22

Valid Percent 80.8 18.2 1.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 80.8 99.0 100.0

We need to plan to make sure that new housing developments in our area include parks are green space even if it means that housing will cost more to buy.

Valid

Missing

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 128 114 43 11 296 4 2 6 302

Percent 42.4 37.7 14.2 3.6 98.0 1.3 .7 2.0 100.0

Valid Percent 43.2 38.5 14.5 3.7 100.0

Cumulative Percent 43.2 81.8 96.3 100.0

We need to widen some of our streets and roads to ease traffic congestion.

Valid

Missing

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 93 127 63 15 298 3 1 4 302

Percent 30.8 42.1 20.9 5.0 98.7 1.0 .3 1.3 100.0

Valid Percent 31.2 42.6 21.1 5.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 31.2 73.8 95.0 100.0

We need to limit new home construction and business development in fringe areas in order to preserve farmland surrounding our community

Valid

Missing

Total

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Don't know Refused Total

Frequency 74 111 82 27 294 4 4 8 302

Percent 24.5 36.8 27.2 8.9 97.4 1.3 1.3 2.6 100.0

A-23

Valid Percent 25.2 37.8 27.9 9.2 100.0

Cumulative Percent 25.2 62.9 90.8 100.0

We should encourage new businesses to locate in the Miami Valley be offering tax incentives

Valid

Missing Total

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Don't know

Frequency 87 155 44 13 299 3 302

Percent 28.8 51.3 14.6 4.3 99.0 1.0 100.0

Valid Percent 29.1 51.8 14.7 4.3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 29.1 80.9 95.7 100.0

We need to protect the unique qualities of the Miami Valley more than we need more jobs

Valid

Missing

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 14 59 163 52 288 8 6 14 302

Percent 4.6 19.5 54.0 17.2 95.4 2.6 2.0 4.6 100.0

Valid Percent 4.9 20.5 56.6 18.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent 4.9 25.3 81.9 100.0

We should invest in public transportation rather that new or improved streets.

Valid

Missing

Total

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Don't know Refused Total

Frequency 31 80 145 39 295 6 1 7 302

Percent 10.3 26.5 48.0 12.9 97.7 2.0 .3 2.3 100.0

A-24

Valid Percent 10.5 27.1 49.2 13.2 100.0

Cumulative Percent 10.5 37.6 86.8 100.0

We need a lot more parking

Valid

Missing

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 13 73 170 39 295 6 1 7 302

Percent 4.3 24.2 56.3 12.9 97.7 2.0 .3 2.3 100.0

Valid Percent 4.4 24.7 57.6 13.2 100.0

Cumulative Percent 4.4 29.2 86.8 100.0

We should encourage redevelopment and beautification of existing retail centers instead of building new ones

Valid

Missing Total

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Don't know

Frequency 146 132 21 2 301 1 302

Percent 48.3 43.7 7.0 .7 99.7 .3 100.0

Valid Percent 48.5 43.9 7.0 .7 100.0

Cumulative Percent 48.5 92.4 99.3 100.0

We should provide more incentives to rehabilitate buildings and neighborhoods.

Valid

Missing

Total

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Don't know Refused Total

Frequency 148 144 5 2 299 2 1 3 302

Percent 49.0 47.7 1.7 .7 99.0 .7 .3 1.0 100.0

A-25

Valid Percent 49.5 48.2 1.7 .7 100.0

Cumulative Percent 49.5 97.7 99.3 100.0

Which of these two statements comes closest to your opinion: Frequency Valid

Missing

Local governments should encourage more housing and business New businesses and housing are best located on the ourskirts Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

254

84.1

89.8

89.8

29

9.6

10.2

100.0

283 12 7 19 302

93.7 4.0 2.3 6.3 100.0

100.0

In the past several years, there has been a great deal of discussion about regional cooperation, that is city and county governments working together to improve the region by not competing with each other for jobs, businesses, and other resources that wou

Valid

Missing

Total

Support Oppose Total Don't know Refused Total

Frequency 279 12 291 8 3 11 302

Percent 92.4 4.0 96.4 2.6 1.0 3.6 100.0

Valid Percent 95.9 4.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent 95.9 100.0

Police protection

Valid

Missing

Total

Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total Don't know Refused Total

Frequency 183 99 12 5 299 2 1 3 302

A-26

Percent 60.6 32.8 4.0 1.7 99.0 .7 .3 1.0 100.0

Valid Percent 61.2 33.1 4.0 1.7 100.0

Cumulative Percent 61.2 94.3 98.3 100.0

Fire protection

Valid

Missing

Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 223 68 7 1 299 2 1 3 302

Percent 73.8 22.5 2.3 .3 99.0 .7 .3 1.0 100.0

Valid Percent 74.6 22.7 2.3 .3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 74.6 97.3 99.7 100.0

The public libraries

Valid

Missing Total

Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total Don't know

Frequency 185 97 11 2 295 7 302

Percent 61.3 32.1 3.6 .7 97.7 2.3 100.0

Valid Percent 62.7 32.9 3.7 .7 100.0

Cumulative Percent 62.7 95.6 99.3 100.0

Street and road repair

Valid

Missing Total

Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total Don't know

Frequency 99 146 39 17 301 1 302

A-27

Percent 32.8 48.3 12.9 5.6 99.7 .3 100.0

Valid Percent 32.9 48.5 13.0 5.6 100.0

Cumulative Percent 32.9 81.4 94.4 100.0

The public parks

Valid

Missing Total

Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total Don't know

Frequency 168 111 16 4 299 3 302

Percent 55.6 36.8 5.3 1.3 99.0 1.0 100.0

Valid Percent 56.2 37.1 5.4 1.3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 56.2 93.3 98.7 100.0

The county jail

Valid

Missing

Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 70 120 19 3 212 89 1 90 302

Percent 23.2 39.7 6.3 1.0 70.2 29.5 .3 29.8 100.0

Valid Percent 33.0 56.6 9.0 1.4 100.0

Cumulative Percent 33.0 89.6 98.6 100.0

Services for abused or neglected children

Valid

Missing

Total

Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Total Don't know Refused Total

Frequency 38 130 62 13 243 58 1 59 302

A-28

Percent 12.6 43.0 20.5 4.3 80.5 19.2 .3 19.5 100.0

Valid Percent 15.6 53.5 25.5 5.3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 15.6 69.1 94.7 100.0

If it were up to you, would you raise the state taxes we pay to balance the state budget or would you cut the amount of money the state spends to balance the state budget?

Valid

Raise state taxes Cut spending Total Don't know Refused Total

Missing

Total

Frequency 123 156 279 18 5 23 302

Percent 40.7 51.7 92.4 6.0 1.7 7.6 100.0

Cumulative Percent 44.1 100.0

Valid Percent 44.1 55.9 100.0

What if the state decided to cut the amount it spends. Thinking about the money the state sends back for local government services, should the state take away all of that money, or should that state find somewhere else to cut the amount it spends? Frequency Valid

Missing

Take all away from local government services Take some money away from local government services Take no money away from local government services Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

1

.3

.3

.3

47

15.6

15.7

16.1

251

83.1

83.9

100.0

299 2 1 3 302

99.0 .7 .3 1.0 100.0

100.0

City, Village, or township?

Valid

Missing

Total

Yes No Total Don't know Refused Total

Frequency 211 82 293 6 3 9 302

Percent 69.9 27.2 97.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 100.0

A-29

Valid Percent 72.0 28.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 72.0 100.0

Your public library?

Valid

Missing

Yes No Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 192 105 297 3 2 5 302

Percent 63.6 34.8 98.3 1.0 .7 1.7 100.0

Valid Percent 64.6 35.4 100.0

Cumulative Percent 64.6 100.0

Your county?

Valid

Missing

Yes No Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 156 137 293 6 3 9 302

Percent 51.7 45.4 97.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 100.0

Valid Percent 53.2 46.8 100.0

Cumulative Percent 53.2 100.0

Your public parks?

Valid

Missing

Yes No Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 173 123 296 3 3 6 302

Percent 57.3 40.7 98.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 100.0

Valid Percent 58.4 41.6 100.0

Cumulative Percent 58.4 100.0

Your school district?

Valid

Missing

Total

Yes No Total Don't know Refused Total

Frequency 200 94 294 5 3 8 302

Percent 66.2 31.1 97.4 1.7 1.0 2.6 100.0

A-30

Valid Percent 68.0 32.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 68.0 100.0

Combining your local school district with a neighboring school district?

Valid

Missing Total

Strongly favor Somewhat favor Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total Don't know

Frequency 76 70 59 89 294 8 302

Percent 25.2 23.2 19.5 29.5 97.4 2.6 100.0

Valid Percent 25.9 23.8 20.1 30.3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 25.9 49.7 69.7 100.0

Merging your public department with police departments in your area?

Valid

Missing Total

Strongly favor Somewhat favor Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total Don't know

Frequency 91 107 39 60 297 5 302

Percent 30.1 35.4 12.9 19.9 98.3 1.7 100.0

Valid Percent 30.6 36.0 13.1 20.2 100.0

Cumulative Percent 30.6 66.7 79.8 100.0

Combining all of the parks in your county into one park district?

Valid

Missing

Total

Strongly favor Somewhat favor Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total Don't know Refused Total

Frequency 135 112 23 26 296 5 1 6 302

A-31

Percent 44.7 37.1 7.6 8.6 98.0 1.7 .3 2.0 100.0

Valid Percent 45.6 37.8 7.8 8.8 100.0

Cumulative Percent 45.6 83.4 91.2 100.0

Merging your library system with a neighboring library system?

Valid

Missing

Strongly favor Somewhat favor Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 142 117 9 26 294 7 1 8 302

Percent 47.0 38.7 3.0 8.6 97.4 2.3 .3 2.6 100.0

Valid Percent 48.3 39.8 3.1 8.8 100.0

Cumulative Percent 48.3 88.1 91.2 100.0

Combining all of the fire departments and 9-1-1 emergency dispatch services in your area?

Valid

Missing

Strongly favor Somewhat favor Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 151 83 29 33 296 3 3 6 302

Percent 50.0 27.5 9.6 10.9 98.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 100.0

Valid Percent 51.0 28.0 9.8 11.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent 51.0 79.1 88.9 100.0

Given the state budget crisis, some people say that the time has come to begin merging cities, villages and townships. Would you strongly favor, somerwhate favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose merging the community you live in with a neighboring

Valid

Missing

Total

Strongly favor Somewhat favor Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total Don't know Refused Total

Frequency 92 95 39 67 293 6 3 9 302

A-32

Percent 30.5 31.5 12.9 22.2 97.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 100.0

Valid Percent 31.4 32.4 13.3 22.9 100.0

Cumulative Percent 31.4 63.8 77.1 100.0

If there were a state constitutional amendment on the ballot next year that would prevent the state from taking any money away that now goes to help pay for local government services, would you vote yes or no on such a constitutional amendment?

Valid

Missing

Total

yes No Total Don't know Refused Total

Frequency 210 76 286 14 2 16 302

Percent 69.5 25.2 94.7 4.6 .7 5.3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 73.4 100.0

Valid Percent 73.4 26.6 100.0

In order to address that state's budget shortfall, would you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose continuing the temporary one percent sales tax for two more years?

Valid

Missing Total

Strongly favor Somewhat favor Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Total Don't know

Frequency 182 87 16 16 301 1 302

Percent 60.3 28.8 5.3 5.3 99.7 .3 100.0

Valid Percent 60.5 28.9 5.3 5.3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 60.5 89.4 94.7 100.0

How often do you watch a local news program on television? Would you say:

Valid

Every day Almost every day Three or four times a week Less often that three to four times a week Total

Frequency 152 59

Percent 50.3 19.5

Valid Percent 50.3 19.5

Cumulative Percent 50.3 69.9

27

8.9

8.9

78.8

64

21.2

21.2

100.0

302

100.0

100.0

A-33

Do you consider yourself to be a:

Valid

Missing Total

Democrat Republican Independent Something else Total Refused

Frequency 84 130 62 13 289 13 302

Percent 27.8 43.0 20.5 4.3 95.7 4.3 100.0

Valid Percent 29.1 45.0 21.5 4.5 100.0

Cumulative Percent 29.1 74.0 95.5 100.0

Do you usually think of yourself as:

Valid

Missing

Very conservative Somewhat conservative Middle of the road Somewhat liberal Very liberal Total Don't know Refused Total

Total

Frequency 17 111 100 50 15 293 6 3 9 302

Percent 5.6 36.8 33.1 16.6 5.0 97.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 100.0

Valid Percent 5.8 37.9 34.1 17.1 5.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent 5.8 43.7 77.8 94.9 100.0

What is your age?

Valid

Missing Total

25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 or older Total Refused

Frequency 10 53 86 96 55 300 2 302

Percent 3.3 17.5 28.5 31.8 18.2 99.3 .7 100.0

A-34

Valid Percent 3.3 17.7 28.7 32.0 18.3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 3.3 21.0 49.7 81.7 100.0

How many people live in your household?

Valid

Missing Total

1 2 3 4 5 7 9 Total Refused

Frequency 26 148 48 48 27 3 1 301 1 302

Percent 8.6 49.0 15.9 15.9 8.9 1.0 .3 99.7 .3 100.0

Valid Percent 8.6 49.2 15.9 15.9 9.0 1.0 .3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 8.6 57.8 73.8 89.7 98.7 99.7 100.0

How many people under the age of 18 live in your household?

Valid

Missing Total

0 1 2 3 4 7 Total Refused

Frequency 203 39 36 21 1 1 301 1 302

Percent 67.2 12.9 11.9 7.0 .3 .3 99.7 .3 100.0

Valid Percent 67.4 13.0 12.0 7.0 .3 .3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 67.4 80.4 92.4 99.3 99.7 100.0

Which of the following categories best describes your current housing situation? Homeowner

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 12 290 302

Percent 4.0 96.0 100.0

Valid Percent 4.0 96.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 4.0 100.0

Which of the following categories best describes your current housing situation? Renter

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 295 7 302

Percent 97.7 2.3 100.0

A-35

Valid Percent 97.7 2.3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 97.7 100.0

Which of the following categories best describes your current housing situation? Farmland owner

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 293 9 302

Percent 97.0 3.0 100.0

Valid Percent 97.0 3.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 97.0 100.0

Which of the following categories best describes your current housing situation? Non-Resident Landowners

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 300 2 302

Percent 99.3 .7 100.0

Valid Percent 99.3 .7 100.0

Cumulative Percent 99.3 100.0

Which of the following categories best describes your current housing situation? Other

Valid

No Yes Total

Frequency 300 2 302

Percent 99.3 .7 100.0

Valid Percent 99.3 .7 100.0

Cumulative Percent 99.3 100.0

How long have you lived in the Miami Valley?

Valid

Missing Total

Less than five years 5-10 years 11-20 years More than 20 years Total Don't know

Frequency 15 12 30 244 301 1 302

A-36

Percent 5.0 4.0 9.9 80.8 99.7 .3 100.0

Valid Percent 5.0 4.0 10.0 81.1 100.0

Cumulative Percent 5.0 9.0 18.9 100.0

What is the last grade or year of school you attended?

Valid

Missing Total

some high school High school grad/ GED Some college or technical school College graduate Graduate school or higher Total Refused

Frequency 1 15

Percent .3 5.0

Valid Percent .3 5.0

Cumulative Percent .3 5.3

35

11.6

11.6

16.9

103

34.1

34.2

51.2

147

48.7

48.8

100.0

301 1 302

99.7 .3 100.0

100.0

What of the following categories best describes your racial or ethinic background?

Valid

Missing Total

White or Caucasian Black or African-American Native American Biracial Other Total Refused

Frequency 259 22 4 2 7 294 8 302

Percent 85.8 7.3 1.3 .7 2.3 97.4 2.6 100.0

Valid Percent 88.1 7.5 1.4 .7 2.4 100.0

Cumulative Percent 88.1 95.6 96.9 97.6 100.0

Which of the following general categories best describes your total household income from all sources, before taxes, for 2003?

Valid

Missing Total

Less than $20,000 $20,001 to 35,000 $35,001 to 60,000 $60,001 to $80,000 More than $80,000 Total Refused

Frequency 4 10 24 45 197 280 22 302

A-37

Percent 1.3 3.3 7.9 14.9 65.2 92.7 7.3 100.0

Valid Percent 1.4 3.6 8.6 16.1 70.4 100.0

Cumulative Percent 1.4 5.0 13.6 29.6 100.0

Was the respondent male or female

Valid

Male Female Total

Frequency 219 83 302

Percent 72.5 27.5 100.0

A-38

Valid Percent 72.5 27.5 100.0

Cumulative Percent 72.5 100.0

Appendix B: Open-ended Responses What is the primary location of your place of employment? • Adams Township • Beavercreek (10) • Bellbrook • Bethel Township (2) • Brookville • Butler Township • Carlisle • Centerville (10) • Cincinnati • Clay Township (2) • Clayton (4) • Columbus • Concord Township • Dayton (88) • Eaton (2) • Englewood • Fairborn (14) • Fairborn, Wright Patterson Air Force Base • Franklin (3) • Franklin Township • Germantown (2) • Greenville (2) • Harrison Township (3) • Huber Heights (2) • I'm retired but I'm a full-time volunteer • Jefferson Township (2) • Kettering (18) • Lebanon • Miami Township (2) • Miamisburg (6) • Middletown • Montgomery and Greene County • Moraine (6) • New Carlisle (2) • New Lebanon • Norwood • Not employed • Oakwood (5) • Piqua (3) • Refused • Retired (11) B-1

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Retired but it a city counsel member Retired five rivers Riverside Self-employed (2) Sidney (2) Spring Valley Village Springboro (3) Springfield (2) Tipp City (4) Township Trustee Trotwood Troy (10) Union Vandalia Village of Jamestown Washington Township (6) West Carrollton (4) Works in both Centerville and Washington township WPAFB Wyoming Xenia (13) Xenia Township Yellow Springs (4)

What is your primary city, village, or township of residence? • Beavercreek (24) • Bellbrook (5) • Bethel Township (2) • Brookville (2) • Brown Township • Butler Township (4) • Carlisle • Centerville (14) • Clay Township (2) • Clayton (9) • Clearcreek Township (3) • Concord Township (4) • Dayton (30) • Dayton, Oakwood • Deerfield Township • Eaton (3) • Englewood (3) • Fairborn (8) • Farmersville B-2

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Forest Park Franklin (3) Franklin Township Germantown (4) Greenville (3) Harrison Township (4) Huber Heights (4) Jackson Township Jefferson Township (3) Kettering (19) Lebanon Marian Miami Township (3) Miamisburg (8) Monroe Township Moraine (3) New Lebanon Oakwood (15) Pike Township Piqua (4) Riverside (4) Sidney Spring Valley Village Springboro (6) Springfield (2) Springfield Township Sugarcreek Township Tipp City (3) Trotwood (3) Troy (13) Union (2) Vandalia (3) Vernon Township Village of Jamestown Washington Township (21) West Carrollton (7) Wyoming Xenia (9) Xenia Township (2) Yellow Springs (7)

First, what county do you live in? • Clark (5) • Clinton B-3

• • • •

Darke (4) Hamilton (2) Preble (3) Shelby

Do you have any additional questions or comments? • Beavercreek is a very unique community compared to the rest of the Miami Valley, so many of these questions are difficult for me to answer. Because Beavercreek does not have an income tax, we have a different outlook on the need for development. In Beavercreek, there needs to be a lot of road improvements because there is so much growth here. Also, in Beavercreek, we require that builders provide parks and open space when they are developing. Otherwise, they are fine, so the questions about the need for parks and open space are difficult for me to answer. • Could not answer the question about the police protection services because she is satisfied with the police officers they have but is dissatisfied with that fact that they do not have enough of them. Thinks that the questions were too vague and that they went between to areas that made them hard to answer • Farmland right outside of the city should be used for other purposes but other than that it should be preserved, state government is out of touch with reality because they have no clue what goes on in city government. With regard to my area, the manufacturing was hit hard in the past 5-6 years. Either areas are going to have to look at others options for jobs or be more aggressive • Few opinions because he lives on base and doesn’t know about the outside area. No opinions about Ohio budget because he's not an Ohio resident • Growth is a very hot issue in my area, too much housing is a problem in some areas, and population loss in Dayton is a problem, so it is hard to cover it all in a survey like this one (especially when you group everyone together in the Miami Valley and don't look at specific areas) • He said that improved public transportation would be the most beneficial for the Miami Valley. He was wanting there to be trains and a regular public transportation service • I am a believer in growth boundary but I think there needs to be a fine line between urban and rural communities. I would support a lot of the growth such as shopping and bike paths but I want to know where they would be going. I would support growth in the urban areas because I think it would help get rid of the crime rate if we could try to make it into rural communities • I am for condo development as long as they are ranch style condos • I am not a farmer but we need to preserve our farmland and give real farmers tax breaks. I think some of the administrators should retire so we can use that money for people who actually need it • I believe that it is okay to consolidate the 9-1-1 dispatch system but not the EMS/fire system • I believe there could be a way to fund schools differently by cutting back the property taxes and putting sales tax (like the southern states) on all food in

B-4

• • • • •

• • • • • •

• •

• •

grocery stores and then everyone would be paying for the schools and not just property owners I can see townships and counties merging services in the future, but I am not sure about townships and cities merging services together. I do not think that any of your options to improve transportation would be the best because I think we need better modes of transportation and will only get them by creating a trolley system I don't know what they're going to learn from this survey because I don't think some of the questions will provide very useful information. I'm not sure they go to the issues that they're trying to address I don't like the farmland preservation question- farmers should do what they want with their land. I found it difficult to answer questions about the entire Miami Valley. I feel that growth is necessary for our economy but the current regulations are unsatisfactory. We also should not plan new neighborhoods (large or small), we should work on the areas that we have because 25% of homes are not occupied. Also, we should impose stricter regulations and better enforce existing regulations for groundwater quality I only support the home development including apartment and condominiums because I think that we need more condos available to senior citizens I support new home development only in existing areas to protect agricultural land I think that the state should cut the amount the government spends and raise taxes to balance the budget. I found it difficult to choose only one response; I think they should do both I think that there were some answers that should not have been put together because both could be the right thing it would have been false to answer it either way I think that we need to preserve the land and develop to some extent I think the schools throughout the Miami Valley are pretty good, with the exception of Dayton Public Schools. I feel that the state has the best organization to manage increased taxation, so they should take care of cutting spending rather than kicking it back on the local government I think we need to do more for the air quality because we are one of the worse in country. We also need to better address the needs of the homeless in our community I think we should pay taxes locally rather than paying to the state then being reallocated. When local government money is cut, the schools are negatively affected most. I'd have no problem paying higher taxes to those mentioned in my area (schools, county, parks, etc.) so long as state taxes were reduced I think you should have a question regarding what happens to the representatives if they vote to take away the government funds I want to make a distinction that new job opportunities have come available but we have also lost many jobs. I also want to personally say I'm opposed to sprawling outwards; people need to remain in the older neighborhoods and

B-5

• • •

• • • • •

• • • • •

•

•

rehabilitate buildings, houses, schools, etc. I do feel the nature of these questions are general and its difficult to give an informative, elaborate response I wish they would balance things out so that Dayton doesn't continuously get the short end of stick I would cut government spending but I would also raise state taxes If they continue the 1 cent sales tax, they should appoint a statewide committee to help the state learn to live within its means. This would be a temporary fix to a long term problem. I would not necessarily support merging cities, but they should eliminate townships through mergers and consolidations. Should have been done a long time ago to save money. Transportation system is good, but congested. I'm glad CUPA is conducting this survey. I have worked with CUPA before and they validate, through survey representation, community perceptions. I would hope that CUPA stays the valuable service that it has been for the community It is difficult to answer questions because they are not yes or no questions It would have been useful to have neutral responses to some of the questions and on many of service questions, it is hard to generalize for the entire Miami Valley, for example, there are big differences between Centerville and Dayton It's hard to answer some of these questions and have them pertain to the entire Miami Valley. You need to be less general and get answers about individual communities to get good answers Light rail, education, and the environment need to be looked at, get rid of charter schools totally and put as much resources into the public school district. We need locally owned businesses to make us stronger and if businesses operated as well as non-profit sectors, then we'd be in better shape Local community tax questions are not good because it depends on whether the communities can impose the taxes or whether they must approve levies Most of the schools in the Miami Valley are strong, but Dayton Public is weak My only concern about the survey is that many of the questions pertained to the Miami Valley, but many people may not be familiar with the entire Miami Valley Need to address education, kids causing problems in downtown Dayton, need more bikeways, need to stop developers from buying all of our farmland, should not combine 911 because they don't know all of the localities enough Need to raise taxes and cut state spending in order to address the budget shortfall. We are also drastically missing the boat by not allowing casino gambling. Major opportunity to raise revenues that we are missing out on. Survey was very comprehensive, but some topics are no-brainers, who wouldn't support services for the elderly, disabled, children, etc. One of my concerns is that if you have given this survey to the general public, they really do not have any idea of what the survey is questioning. The state needs to balance the budget by raising taxes and cutting spending. School districts should share different aspects, such as curriculum and special programs, but keep the schools in the same areas One of the difficulties in our communities is that there are different pockets of things going on, e.g., Dayton has financial problems, but Oakwood and Washington Twp. don’t. It's hard to look at the Miami Valley as a whole, B-6

• • • • • • • • •

• •

• • •

• •

especially regarding quality of schools (Dayton and Trotwood are terrible but Oakwood Centerville are outstanding). The extremes are just too wide and diverse Pat South wanted a copy of the finished survey results She thinks that we need to find a balance somewhere in between allowing for development and limiting it Smart growth Some growth is necessary in the Miami Valley, but there do have to be some limitations Some of the questions are loaded Some of the questions didn't give good enough options from which to choose The choose your opinion question about growth necessary/regulated, she said some is necessary but more regulations should be imposed, the library in her community has already been merged The development questions should pertain more to expanding or retaining what we already have, rather than always attracting new The Miami Valley needs a lot more planned growth. Most of the growth is south of Montgomery County, and we need more in the northwest corner. Based on the segregation patterns in the Miami Valley, merging cities and villages is almost impossible The most important issue is to attract businesses to the Miami Valley to employ our citizens to make a better standard of living for them The new neighborhoods he believes should have larger lots with green spaces and park lands built as part of development. Us being strong or weak when it comes to school districts really depends on where the school district is. Being strong or weak regarding neighborhoods depends on the location. Believes we should not take money away from local services because they are important to the quality of life. Does not think that we need to raise the state taxes or cut the amount the state spends. He believes that we need to reprioritize and allocate state money to the areas where it is most needed i.e. education Believes that maintaining local identity is important in developing a sense of local pride and community spirit. The questions for this survey were very leading, there was not much opportunity to express different views The RTA is not used very much and we need to utilize public transportation. We need to better plan land resources, green space, and housing for people with disabilities. I also think that we need both public transportation and roads The RTA system in the Miami Valley sucks it does not provide any transportation for people that live in Germantown although we are helping to pay for it. We have people that have disabilities and if they do not live within a certain amount of miles of a RTA stop they do not qualify for the services. There are only like 12 people in my community that use the RTA because they cannot use it The state legislature has really ducked its responsibility. We have really depleted our school system- charter schools may kill the public school system- why are they getting tax money? The survey concerns him because there are differences about the Miami Valley, there are areas and times that we need to do these things and others that we don't.

B-7

•

• •

•

• • • • • •

• • • •

I did it but I don't feel like it had the details it needed. Also I believe we need to improve streets not provide new ones. The survey drives the answers into a certain direction. It is a bias survey. The only reason the state is in a budget crisis is because the state is not managing their money. We should not have to pay higher taxes because they are not managing their money well The survey is too parsimonious, it needs more depth and detail, yes and no is not always adequate The survey was biased because it was leading people to one side. Many of the questions should have more in depth questions attached to them. It was difficult to answer questions in respect to the entire Miami Valley. It was also difficult to answer questions with extreme responses, such as strong or weak and has experienced or has not. There should be a scale of responses for those types of questions. There is a major shortage in technology jobs, I have no problem cutting spending as long as they remove the state's unfunded mandates(For example, the public defender is supposed to get 50% funding but is only getting 27%). I think some of the questions are too restrictive in choices especially the planning and zoning ones. There are other options. I feel it had a tendency to slant results They need to talk about the sound quality because we have the airports They should not try to govern by passing constitutional amendments Thinks that it would be feasible to go both with the larger and smaller lots on the community planning approach. Believes that farmland should be kept as farmland and used for other purposes This is an old area based on industrial era and it’s in transition, so any policies we make should be focused on the technological era. There needs to be a balance between inward revitalization and outward growth Urban sprawl should be slowed down and I think that economic growth is necessary, but physical growth is not necessary Was not willing to do the survey in reference to the Miami Valley only for Greene County. Believed that farmland should be kept as farmland and used for other purposes. Thought Greene County had a good school system but Dayton did not. Did not like either option for the location of housing and businesses. Would not favor merging with anything outside of Greene county We have to do a much better job at coordinating new development on a regional basis and sharing new revenue as appropriate. There is too much competition in neighboring jurisdictions We need to fund our schools differently. Property taxes are not the answer because our schools are getting worse and worse We need to kick politics out and do right by the people. We need to be aware of how we spend money and what our priorities are. We should raise taxes but also cut certain things out but usually we end up cutting important things We should consider combining sewer and water services to prevent future annexations

B-8

Is your full time employment in the private, public, or non-profit sector? • Three part-time jobs • Both public and non-profit • Formerly non-profit, now retired • Is currently retired used to work for public • No full-time employment • Part time in a church • Part time in the private sector, and part time retired • Part-time in public sector • Private - retired • Public and private both (2) • Retired (15) • Retired city councilman- only works part time • Retired public official • Retired- was in the private sector • Retired, but I am in the non-profit sector • Self-employed Which of the following categories best describes your current housing situation? • Government housing • Rents the land for her mobile home that she owns Do you consider yourself to be a: Other • Catholic • I am republican but I consider my self to be more independent • I tend to vote for the person who answers all of my questions and who I think will do the best job in the position • Libertarian • Moderate • Non-defined • Not specified (2) Which of the following categories best describes your racial or ethnic background? • Appalachian Decent • European American • Native American and Caucasian • Native American, English, French and German • Passing white • Refused Why do you feel this way? (Support/oppose regional cooperation) Support Regional Cooperation • All we do is rob from each other

B-9

•

• • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

Almost every situation that occurs in area has an effect on another area. For example, if we here in Miami County pollute the water then the people in Dayton should not drink the water. If Dayton populates the air then our air will be populated as well An improvement or an opportunity in one community should help the entire region Because if everyone is doing their own thing we have overlapped efforts and competition Because of the cost of governments doing business, they need to do more together to minimize cost, while maximizing impact to the community in terms of services and business development. Better to do things together than it is to do things separately. Because that’s the only way that it will work Being a local government, I know it is important because they (the county)are the ones that control most of the laws Budgets are tight so we need to share resources. We can't afford to steal jobs and investments from each other By cooperating we can do more for a reduced cost By partnering you can do a lot more by working together in a cooperative, EQUAL partnership Cities have a common goal, so they should cooperate Collectively it is a win-win situation for all and we should all work toward the same goal Cooperation is a good way of having everyone on the same page to better utilize resources Economic considerations make this imperative to do so. This provides better services Economic growth- we need to work together, there is an imbalance of resources regionally. Will be hard to get a developer to come and tear down buildings downtown when they can start fresh in undeveloped Efficiency Every part of the Miami Valley has to thrive in order for all areas to go on. We feed off each others opportunities and assets. We all have seen a decline in industrial areas but the technology portions are picking up Everybody gets a better chance to receive services Financial resources are becoming limited and we need to be wiser stewards of funds I am a government official and we look for these opportunities everyday I am in the middle because they never work together. They just talk about it but never actually do it. I would like to see regional cooperation happen but I doubt it ever truly will. I would like to see a different approach, a real sense that we are doing it and not just talking about it I am simply in agreement with regional cooperation

B-10

• • • • • •

• • • • • • •

• • • • • • • •

I believe in the cooperation as long as one government entity doesn't take away from other government entities. There does need to be cooperation but also individuality I believe it is important that we work together regionally to achieve this goal I believe that for us the succeed as a region, we've got to grow the region, and to grow we need to work together instead of trying to move things from one place to another I believe that one problem as a region is that we are fractured. Hurts everyone when it comes to attract new businesses. Without a strong central city, it hurts the regional effort. I believe that subject of regionalism is a more efficient, cost effective, and reasonable way to conduct our business, but I also feel that until legislature changes are made at the state level regionalism is difficult I believe we're at a point where we are all losing money and we need to come together and share services. For example, in smaller communities we could work on sharing simple things. We should lease vacuums and street sweeping machines that aren't used often rather than buying them individually I don't think you want to risk losing the jobs, so you want to keep the jobs within the region I experienced it in Indiana and it worked wonderfully I feel that if we work together government funds will stop drying up because if the city and county governments compete we both lose in the long run. It's a winwin situation when you work together I feel that we are stronger in attracting jobs and we have a better chance in getting federal money if we are working as a region rather than separately I like cooperation I support it as long as the cities and counties share the taxes evenly I support regional cooperation because we can no longer afford the cost of thirty different political jurisdictions each doing things their own way. Therefore, we either lower the standard of living throughout the region, or we cooperate and find ways to do the same things we are doing now but at less cost. The tax payers have reached the end of the line on what they are willing to pay I think cooperation is the key to effectiveness and efficiency I think cooperative effort between the city and county governments is necessary to succeed I think everybody should work together I think fragmented government is the biggest problem in this region. I am a strong believer that regional cooperation with help get this city back on the right track I think if cities can help each other out then it helps the whole Miami Valley, but if they use information for just themselves it doesn't help anyone I think if we combine resources we would have a stronger footing I think it benefits all of us to be cooperative, especially in disbursing the income coming in from taxes I think it could lead to a lot of cost savings and efficiency

B-11

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

I think it is better to work together because you will get more accomplished I think it is important that everyone looks at what the region has to offer. I do have a concern that all businesses are geared toward one area of our region and not see what other areas have to offer I think it is necessary, we're not just one little community, we're all together I think it is obvious that when local governments work together they can achieve more than if done individually I think it is probably the most cost effective way to do business affairs I think it is the only way we can meet budgets for all cities and local jurisdictions. Cooperation is always a positive as long as they really do cooperate I think it is very costly in the long run to work separately, and we need to come together and better use the resources that each of us offer I think it makes a sense and is efficient because we have a lot of repetitive services that are expensive I think it will become necessary by the nature of the financial funds we have to offer it in I think it works best if everybody is working together I think it would make us a more competitive region I think it would save money and make for a high quality of living in the community I think it's easier for a region to attract businesses if they cooperate with each other and the success rate would be higher overall for the region as a whole I think its more efficient and effect and more pleasant I think regional planning development is better than individual communities I think that cooperatively they will accomplish more I think that if the Miami Valley is going to survive we need to act as one regional area and attract jobs from outside the Miami Valley I think that if we look at everything as a whole we will be able to see that if the inner city is down it will cause an urban spread and if we work together we will be able to save farm land I think that is the only way to the problems we have and to save money because too many services are be replicated. One city spends money on something then the community right next to them spends money on the same thing, they could save money if they quit doing that I think that is the only way we can keep from duplicating services and reduce the cost of life I think that it is inevitable I think that it make sense for the government to work together instead of against them so that they can save money and attract more employment opportunities I think that it will benefit us in the long run I think that it would be cost effective I think that we need to work together for the good of the region I think that we need to work together to draw people into the community instead of competing to with each other to get the resources

B-12

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

I think that we should have one form of government so all the housing and jobs are in Montgomery county I think that we should maximize at the local so it is sufficient and so we can provide as many resources as possible to our citizens I think that we would be able to save the tax payers money this way and that it would be a way for us to share resources I think that when the outside world looks at us as a place to locate they look at us as a region of one rather than separately, it is the best way of communication also I think that would be the best thing for us to do I think the joint effort will have a more positive outcome for the entire region and may even draw more jobs in I think the region is what matters, not the particular cities I think there is a duplication of efforts that could be reduced or eliminated. I also think that overhead costs could be reduced I think there would be efficiencies gained in the use and maintenance of resources I think they can be more successful as a group than individually I think we are stronger as a cooperative element when governments work together. You are also less likely to duplicate things when you work as group rather than a separate entity I think we can leverage strengths together rather than working in opposition I think we have a lot of duplication and waste of our resources (with over 30 separate jurisdictions) and we could be more efficient with our monetary and economic resources if we had regional cooperation I think we need a regional government because I think that all these minor governments protect their own turf. They don't cooperate and there is a way to save money in cooperation. In a regional government we would have more clout in making points to the state government I think we need to eliminate competition for individual growth between cities. We should eliminate small govt. units that are opposing each other. We will have better use of resources to do it cooperatively rather than duplicating service I think we need to look at the benefits as a whole instead of just a part. People live and work in different counties, so we need to do the good for both counties instead of just one or another I think we should combine city and county governments to gain efficiency and not duplicate services I think we're all in this together and we all benefit if one subdivision of government benefits we all do I think with the money available to cities and counties we will have to cooperate to continue to operate and both counties and cities are striving for the same thing if they work together I would like to see every community able to have a tax base that provides its citizens with adequate utilities and housing. When cities compete it is a waste, As a region we should be tied together and if we are strong then all will benefit I would support cooperation but I do not like the structure of the question

B-13

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

If cities are competing for the same jobs, we are stealing from each other. Unless we begin to cooperate, the Miami Valley will not grow If done right, everyone wins with regional cooperation. As set up now, incentives pit one city against another. Needs to be kept away from the state. If it isn't a win-win situation for the county, then it is a win-lose and everybody in the county loses if we aren't working together If one area has a strong business it might attract other businesses to the same areas, so everyone benefits If there wasn't any tax incentives over the United States, businesses would have an equal opportunity in the Miami Valley If they compete with one another, then tax dollars compete with tax dollars which makes no sense If they work together it would be mutually beneficial for both parties If we do not cooperate with the region, we will see an economic downturn If we do not work together, we are just moving available resources around If we don't all work together we will not move forward in a positive way If we don't work together no one will benefit If we don't work together we are not going to get anywhere If we work together instead of competing we will be able to work together when there is a spot for a business to locate. The more we work together the more businesses we will be able to bring in If we work together we will get better opportunities to gain out-of-state businesses. If you compete it's very destructive to the community as a whole If we work together, there will be a better outcome In reality politics will overrun economics but it makes sense to collaborate and combine services in a region but politics will probably stop it from actually happening. We don't have strong central leadership to build consensus In the future there will be less tax money and we'll have the need to provide the same services without the financial base we have now. Consolidation is the way It benefits everyone, the wealth will spread to all the community and to the region, and we all will share the good and the bad It creates more efficiencies It doesn't make sense for each unit to be isolated. We need to work together and be more cohesive to see what needs to be done and where we need to make improvements It doesn't work to benefit any area to rob each others counties. We need to build up the entire region and we can't do that unless we cooperate It eliminates competition and jurisdictions losing against each other It is a definite need because it saves money It is a flawed question; they are trying to get you to agree with cooperation. Who wouldn't agree with cooperation? It is a form that will benefit the whole region instead of just individual areas It is a good cost savings It is a partnership and we all live here It is a scale of economies B-14

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

It is beneficial to all involved communities because it saves money It is better than fighting It is better to share development so everyone can have the resources It is critical to our long-term regional well-being. People need to realize that we are competing with the world's economy, not the region's economy It is economically better for the community to work together and this will attract more jobs It is efficient and it makes economic sense It is equitable It is for the better of the entire region It is important It is more efficient It is necessary for all the things and it is needed for improvement It is necessary to have cooperation in order to attract businesses and jobs to this area It is really the only effective way to address the budgetary and fiscal crisis at every level and meet expectations of high quality services for citizens in there are overlapping services. The politics are terrible and don't want to give up their political turf and nobody wants to take their fair share of low and moderate income housing It is silly to compete It is the most cost-effective It is the only chance we have instead of competing because if we are constantly competing we all lose It is the only way for there to be any coherent planning It is the only way to survive It is the right thing to do It is too expensive to have overlapping services. Township government is a waste It is very important because we need to work together to make things happen and we won't be successful if we don't work together It makes economical sense because it saves money and provides the region with better services It makes more job opportunities for the counties It makes sense It makes sense simply to make us better regionally rather than between each individual city It saves money and is good to attract developers, and it helps for the region to talk about the economic plan It will bring more jobs to the area without causing us to harm each other for the jobs It will help everyone if we work together It will save money, reduces unnecessary competition, it would provide us with more clout in the public and private sector. It is good for regional planning and it will help us regionally and internationally It would avoid duplication of services and give efficiency to sale of cost B-15

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • •

It would be better for everybody It would be more effective and more state support and funding is more likely when all are on board together and it is more efficient It would be the most cost effective thing to do It would help build scarce resources like taxes It would improve the overall quality of life, because cities that work together would save money It would increase the efficiency of services. Also, we have too many government jurisdictions in a small area It would lead to stronger job and skill opportunities for citizens of the inner community It's a regional economy and we have to have our act together in order to work together It's more sensible. It will save money and people could accomplish the goals of the organizations more effectively without wasting so much money It's the way to get things done. We make a better impression on the governments that fund us if we cooperate. If they see cooperation, then the federal and state governments are more likely to fund us I've been doing it for my entire career and when you have people who are will to cooperate it works successfully I've seen evidence of regional cooperation not working. For example, Vandalia and the city of Dayton not cooperating with the airport. It has been harmful to the community so I think that regional cooperation is very important I've seen improvements in this area and hope it to continue Montgomery County has 26 governments all competing for the same resources. The counties surrounding Dayton are all competing, so the resources are scare More efficient, they will cooperate to achieve goals, and gives the smaller counties an advantage if they participate More will get done by cooperation and everyone will benefit Often what is labeled as regional cooperation ends up being downtown Dayton focused and leaves the outlying communities skeptical about their level of cooperation, so I support the theory of regional cooperation but it rarely is carried out the way it should Ohio has over 600 school districts and MD has 24. There are too many layers of bureaucracies and townships here One community taking business from another community doesn't help either community Regional cooperation eliminates wasteful duplications Regional cooperation is the only hope. The Miami Valley is really going down the tubes because there are too many "chiefs" Regionalism is the answer for the success of the whole Miami Valley. That's what I do for a living so of course I would support it The area won't grow and develop unless the communities realize the importance of the center city

B-16

• •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

The cities are on the ball enough to have good services, if other cities can't keep up that’s their problem The community has an edge program that has fostered this sort of cooperation, so communities don't have to fight each other and offer higher and higher incentives for businesses to come in. I would like to see that they locate to the Miami Valley so we all can benefit The costs savings make it worthwhile The entire region's economic health is more sound when we cooperate The Miami Valley will not succeed without cooperation because there are only so many jobs and opportunities The synergies between the governments cooperating and helps push projects along The times that we have worked together in projects (that I have been included on), I have seen tremendous results There are just too many services that are being overlapped if we don't work together. By using regional cooperation we will spend a lot less money and not use as many resources by having services overlapped There are limited resources There is duplication of public services and which could be done cheaper by one combined region There is little growth in this region and we need to stop fighting over the little bit that there is. We need to cooperate to grow the region as a whole There is something good about local things, but police, fire and water should be regional There is strength in numbers, there is too much duplication of services and the most successful cities in the country have regional philosophies and management There is too much factualism and we are chasing away businesses They should work together because not working together is stupid beyond belief and that's all there is to say They would not be competing with us Things get done with cooperation This is the only way the region will grow and improve. Everybody needs to get out of their box of thinking, and think about how it affects everybody else This is what we do now and it is working To avoid duplication and unnecessary expense Two heads working together are better than one Unless we combine our resources we cannot compete domestically or internationally We are a closely connected region, and I think it is wrong for one political jurisdiction to only think of itself We are all affected by the different government programs, so if we don't work together we will lose things that we hold dear to us. Also, with the economy the way it is, we need to work together to cut expenses We are all in it together and should work together and share resources

B-17

• • • • •

• • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

We are competing and then we hurt the neighboring community and it will eventually come back and hurt us. If we share services it will be better for all those involved We are just wasting resources if we are competing We are more effective if we pull all of our resources together We are too small of a metropolitan area to allow individual cities to do something for the detriment of someone else We can do better if we work together to bring in businesses than with these bidding wars, we have a revolving setup where businesses go around to whoever gives them the best tax abatement and when it is up they move to the next place that will give them one We can use it more efficiently to support all the governments if we do this We cannot continue to compete with each other so strongly that we drive businesses out of certain areas. We should begin revenue share on some of the businesses that come into the region We don't have a choice because markets don't respect jurisdictional boundaries We have a government structure that is getting in the way of having a regional approach, and we need to limit the barriers (and bureaucracies) if we want progress. If we can get to be a broad government then it would help the economy and help save money We have to rebuild the City of Dayton, and the only way we can do that is to control the growth in the suburbs We have to work together because whatever we do affects the entire region We have too many levels of government competing with one another. One government would be better so that we are not competing with each other We must cooperate to benefit We need more commercial and industrial development to keep citizens in their homes because they tend to move to where the jobs are which tend to be only in certain areas such as Dayton or Huber Heights We need regional government and are losing to other communities that have it already We need to cooperate; otherwise we are just wasting resources We need to work as a team because cities are weak and the county needs to help it We need to work together to accomplish anything We prostitute ourselves to the company's if we don't work together, so the larger companies are playing us off against each other We spend too much time in our little communities even though we are all connected and if one area goes down then the surrounding areas will too, it is also less costly We'd make more progress this way We're duplicating resources and each community is spending the same on reconstruction. We don't have the public money to afford that. We should just combine services What is good for one city can be helpful for the entire region What we all do impacts the other (because no one is an island) B-18

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

When the region dies, individual cities and counties ultimately will not survive, so working as one is the only solution When there are more people involved, better things will happen When they work together, the services are not redundant and money is saved When we are competing people are going to lose out. I think that if we are going to promote and advertise as a community we really need to be on the same page When we are looking at things more regionally than locally getting jobs in a region would help the overall region and eliminate services and eliminate some of the cost of maintaining the service When we work with the county, it brings quality development With more cooperation, regions can better plan industrial and housing needs With the economy the way it is, we need to share resources in order to keep costs down for each individual city. Also to improve overall services for our community. Working against each other in the past has led us to the mess that we are in right now. Working together is the only hope for the future Working together is a good thing. It utilizes expertise, talent, area, and cooperative spirit. We live in a mobile and global economy. We need to bring quality jobs, businesses, and industry to the Miami Valley. We as a "region" benefit in the areas of jobs, housing, income, and dollar investments You can accomplish more at less cost working cooperatively You can get economies of scale and there is less duplication of services You get more effectiveness and more effective cost control by having cities working together You have to look from a regional perspective. We have to realize that if Dayton goes we all go. If we get a company in Dayton we will all benefit You will get a lot further and a lot more progress through cooperation

Oppose Regional Cooperation • I don't think we have enough intergovernmental cooperation • I saw what bussing did to the city of Dayton schools and I don't trust the political arena of the city of Dayton even though I’m a lifelong Daytonian. In theory, we should practice regional cooperation, but in practicality nobody wants the city of Dayton's problems • I think all communities should compete because it attracts better industries • I think every industry needs competition to have high quality employees • I think that we all lose when we are all given tax incentives and fighting over the same business • It would not allow for competition between the cities • Regional cooperation is a joke because everyone has their own parochial interests. Communities are going to agree on some things but not on all • We've been trying to do it for the past 50 years and have not yet achieved it • Why should we pay to support Dayton's financial failures?

B-19

Miscellaneous • Don't know. It depends on the purpose. If the goal of the cooperation is simply to prop up the center city, then no. But if the purpose is to support the region as a whole, then yes. • I don't know • I don't think that people should not be stopped from coming to Miami Township if the people that will make things better for them. Just because the city of Dayton is terrible does not mean that they should be able to hold others bad. Everyone should have the change to come up and that means that the other cities will need to improve • I think it is somewhat naive but everyone wins if it attract more jobs and residences, the difficulty with it is the non-competition issue because it will have to match the workforce in each area to the type of jobs brought to each area • I think that very often the incentives placed tend to move from one local community to another instead of being in all communities. It's a plus and minus instead of a plus and a plus • I think that we need to attract people into the Miami Valley instead of moving people around in the Miami Valley • It depends on the issue itself • It will never happen so I do not have an opinion about it • Just due to what I've read in the paper • Miami valley has a lot of needs • No opinion • Our community is made up of more than just small counties • Refused (3) • Said that she would support and oppose regional cooperation because it has to work both ways. I has to work in Montgomery and Greene county • The smaller communities are then left out • There are advantages but people should not be naive about results • We constantly stab each other in the back and are known for that • When you have city-county squabbles it doesn't do anything other than to keep them separate

B-20

Appendix C: Survey Instrument Hello, my name is _______________ and I’m calling from Wright State University. We are conducting a survey commissioned by the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission to examine various issues facing the Miami Valley. This survey will take about 15 minutes. You have been identified as a key community leader in the region and your participation in this important survey would be invaluable. Before we begin I want to assure you that your participation is anonymous and that no information that identifies you will ever be used. Also, if you do not feel comfortable answering any questions, please ask me to go on and I will. I really appreciate your time. Screener Questions First, which county do you live in? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Montgomery Miami Greene Warren Other (Please specify)

What is your primary city, village or township of residence? What is the primary location (city, village, township) of your place of employment? Is your primary full-time employment in the private, public or non-profit sector? 1. 2. 3. 4.

Private Public Non-Profit Other (Please Specify)

Are you an elected official? 1. Yes 2. No For the purpose of this survey, overall quality of life is defined as combination of social, health, economic and environmental conditions in our community which affect our daily lives.

C-1

Section I: Issues and Opportunities 1. Overall, how would you rate the quality of life here in the Miami Valley? 1. 2. 3. 4.

Excellent Good Fair Poor

2. During the next five years or so, do you expect that the overall quality of life in The Miami Valley will: 1. Get Better 2. Stay the Same 3. Get Worse Next, we will discuss several aspects of life in a community. For each one, please tell me whether you believe that aspect of life here in the Miami Valley needs a lot of improvement, a little improvement or no improvement at all. 3. Providing enough homes that people can afford to buy. Do we: 1. Need a lot of Improvement 2. Need a little Improvement 3. Need no improvement at all 4. Providing enough rental housing that people can afford. Do we: 1. Need a lot of Improvement 2. Need a little Improvement 3. Need no improvement at all 5. Having convenient public transportation. Do we: 1. Need a lot of Improvement 2. Need a little Improvement 3. Need no improvement at all 6. Having convenient access to parks, green space and trails. Do we: 1. Need a lot of Improvement 2. Need a little Improvement 3. Need no improvement at all 7. Providing roads necessary to handle current and planned development. Do we: 1. Need a lot of Improvement 2. Need a little Improvement 3. Need no improvement at all

C-2

8. Having high-quality drinking water. Do we: 1. Need a lot of Improvement 2. Need a little Improvement 3. Need no improvement at all 9. Having enough high-paying job opportunities. Do we: 1. Need a lot of Improvement 2. Need a little Improvement 3. Need no improvement at all 10. Providing high-quality schools. Do we: 1. Need a lot of Improvement 2. Need a little Improvement 3. Need no improvement at all 11. Having a safe environment in which to live, work and play. Do we: 1. Need a lot of Improvement 2. Need a little Improvement 3. Need no improvement at all Section II: Community Growth Next, we will discuss several types of growth that might occur in an area. Please tell me if you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose each type of growth in the Miami Valley. 12. New home development, excluding apartments and condominiums 1. Strongly Support 2. Somewhat Support 3. Somewhat Oppose 4. Strongly Oppose 13. New home development, including apartments and condominiums 1. Strongly Support 2. Somewhat Support 3. Somewhat Oppose 4. Strongly Oppose 14. Improving housing options for seniors 1. Strongly Support 2. Somewhat Support 3. Somewhat Oppose 4. Strongly Oppose

C-3

15. More housing for people with disabilities 1. Strongly Support 2. Somewhat Support 3. Somewhat Oppose 4. Strongly Oppose 16. Encouraging new businesses to locate in the Miami Valley 1. Strongly Support 2. Somewhat Support 3. Somewhat Oppose 4. Strongly Oppose 17. Locating new retail shopping in the Miami Valley 1. Strongly Support 2. Somewhat Support 3. Somewhat Oppose 4. Strongly Oppose 18. Expanding public transportation routes 1. Strongly Support 2. Somewhat Support 3. Somewhat Oppose 4. Strongly Oppose 19. New roadways to meet future transportation needs 1. Strongly Support 2. Somewhat Support 3. Somewhat Oppose 4. Strongly Oppose 20. Expanding existing roadways 1. Strongly Support 2. Somewhat Support 3. Somewhat Oppose 4. Strongly Oppose 21. Creating new public transportation services 1. Strongly Support 2. Somewhat Support 3. Somewhat Oppose 4. Strongly Oppose

C-4

22. More housing options for lower- and moderate-income families 1. Strongly Support 2. Somewhat Support 3. Somewhat Oppose 4. Strongly Oppose 23. Expand or add new developments that allow people to walk or bike to school, work, errands or recreation 1. Strongly Support 2. Somewhat Support 3. Somewhat Oppose 4. Strongly Oppose 24. Some people say that we must preserve the qualities that make our community special by severely limiting growth. Others say that growth is necessary for our economy and that our current regulations are satisfactory. Which of these statements best describes your point of view? 1. We must preserve the qualities that make our community special by severely limiting growth. 2. Growth is necessary for our economy and current regulations are satisfactory 25. Over the past five years, how much growth do you think The Miami Valley has experienced? Would you say: 1. A great deal 2. Some 3. No growth at all Next, we will discuss several ways that growth might affect a community. For each one, please tell us if, in your opinion, the Miami Valley has experienced that effect or not. 26. More job opportunities 1. Has experienced 2. Has not experienced 27. New retail stores opening in this area 1. Has experienced 2. Has not experienced 28. Building new roads or widening existing ones 1. Has experienced 2. Has not experienced

C-5

29. More parks and green spaces 1. Has experienced 2. Has not experienced 30. More housing options for people who are looking for homes to buy 1. Has experienced 2. Has not experienced 31. Improvements in many neighborhoods 1. Has experienced 2. Has not experienced 32. Increased traffic congestion 1. Has experienced 2. Has not experienced 33. Increased wear and tear on our roads 1. Has experienced 2. Has not experienced 34. Less open space 1. Has experienced 2. Has not experienced 35. More competition for available jobs 1. Has experienced 2. Has not experienced 36. Improved walking and biking opportunities 1. Has experienced 2. Has not experienced Section III: Housing Based on what you have seen and heard, how would you rate the supply of housing in this area in each of the following categories? 37. Single-family homes for first-time buyers 1. We need a lot more 2. We need a few more 3. We don’t need any more 38. Assisted living for seniors 1. We need a lot more 2. We need a few more 3. We don’t need any more

C-6

39. Affordable housing 1. We need a lot more 2. We need a few more 3. We don’t need any more 40. Moderately-priced homes 1. We need a lot more 2. We need a few more 3. We don’t need any more 41. Higher-priced homes 1. We need a lot more 2. We need a few more 3. We don’t need any more 42. Condominiums 1. We need a lot more 2. We need a few more 3. We don’t need any more 43. Townhouses and duplexes 1. We need a lot more 2. We need a few more 3. We don’t need any more 44. Some communities are planning subdivisions as a means to allow some development while protecting rural settings. These subdivisions typically have smaller lots and common open space, where the natural features of the land are maintained to the greatest extent possible. Which of these two statements best describes your opinion of this community planning approach? Would you say that: 1. We should plan new neighborhoods with smaller lots, sidewalks and playgrounds even if it means that homes have to be built closer together. Or would you say that: 2. We should plan new neighborhoods with larger lots even if it means that more land will be used to build these neighborhoods and we will use automobiles for almost all activities requiring transportation.

C-7

45. During the next five years, which of the following transportation investments do you think would benefit The Miami Valley the most? (PLEASE SELECT ONLY ONE) 1. Improved public transportation 2. More public transportation 3. New streets and highways 4. Improved streets and highways 5. New hiking or biking trails 6. More parking 7. Expanded carpooling program 8. None / Not sure 46. Which of these investments do you think would benefit The Miami Valley the least? (PLEASE SELECT ONLY ONE) 1. Improved public transportation 2. More public transportation 3. New streets and highways 4. Improved streets and highways 5. New hiking or biking trails 6. More parking 7. Expanded carpooling program 8. None / Not sure Section V: Agriculture, Natural and Cultural Resources 47. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the environment in the Miami Valley? (That is, the air quality and the water quality) 1. Excellent 2. Good 3. Fair 4. Poor 48. Would you say that the Miami Valley has problems with groundwater quality, or do you think that we have no real problems with groundwater quality? 1. We have problems with groundwater quality 2. We don’t have groundwater quality problems (Skip to Q. 50) 3. Not sure (Skip to Q. 50) 49. What do you think is the most effective thing we can do to protect the groundwater in our area? 1. Impose stricter regulations 2. Better enforcement of existing regulations 3. Provide educational materials to property owners and businesses 4. Not sure

C-8

50. Do you think that existing farmland in the Miami Valley should be kept as farmland or do you think farmers should be able to use it for other purposes? 1 Kept as farmland (Skip to Q. 52) 2 Use for other purposes 3 Not sure 51. What do you think is/are the most appropriate alternate use(s) for farmland in the Miami Valley? 1 Housing 2 Commercial uses such as retail shopping 3 Industrial uses 4 Parks and trails 5 Wildlife area 6 Not sure 52. In planning for the future, which of the following initiatives do you think would be important steps to protect or improve the quality of our natural environment here in the Miami Valley? (Please select all that apply) 1. Investing more in maintaining our existing parks and open spaces 2. Stricter water-quality regulations 3. Enhancing air quality awareness and outreach programs 4. Investing more in creating new parks and open spaces 5. Support programs that protect agricultural land 6. More neighborhood beautification projects 7. Preserving existing woodlands 8. Preserving wetlands 9. Preserving river corridors 10. Better enforcement of existing laws and regulations 11. None, our environment is fine the way it is 12. Not sure Section VI: Economic Development 53. Based on what you have heard and read, how would you describe the job opportunities we have here in the Miami Valley? 1. We face a serious job shortage 2. We face a minor job shortage 3. We have a good supply of job opportunities Businesses that are planning to expand or build new operations look at many areas where they might locate. They also look at a number of services or qualities that a region has to offer. For each of the following services or qualities, tell me whether you think the Miami Valley is strong or weak in that area in terms of attracting new business and jobs.

C-9

54. Having workers with the skills to fill the jobs 1. We are Strong 2. We are Weak 55. Having enough workers to fill the jobs 1. We are Strong 2. We are Weak 56. Providing tax incentives to businesses to locate and grow here 1. We are Strong 2. We are Weak 57. Having a good public school system 1. We are Strong 2. We are Weak 58. Having safe neighborhoods for families 1. We are Strong 2. We are Weak 59. Having a good transportation system for goods that are produced 1. We are Strong 2. We are Weak 60. Offering an adequate supply of housing that workers can afford 1. We are Strong 2. We are Weak Section VIII: Land Use and Implementation Please state your level of agreement with each of the following statements. 61. It is very important to attract new businesses and new jobs to this area to make our economy stronger 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 62. We need to plan to make sure that new housing developments in our area include parks and green space even if it means that houses will cost more to buy 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree

C-10

63. We need to widen some of our streets and roads to ease traffic congestion 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 64. We need to limit new home construction and business development in fringe areas in order to preserve farmland surrounding our community 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 65. We should encourage new businesses to locate in the Miami Valley by offering tax incentives 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 66. We need to protect the unique qualities of the Miami Valley more than we need more jobs 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 67. We should invest in public transportation rather than new or improved streets 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 68. We need a lot more parking 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree

C-11

69. We should encourage redevelopment and beautification of existing retail centers instead of building new ones 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 70. We should provide more incentives to rehabilitate buildings and neighborhoods 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 71. Which of these two statements comes closest to your opinion? Would you say that: 1. I would like to see our local governments encourage more housing and business development in the existing areas rather than in rural and farming areas outside the city. 2. New businesses and housing are best located on the outskirts of the Miami Valley rather than in the center of town. 72. In the past several years, there has been a great deal of discussion about regional cooperation, that is, city and county governments working together to improve the region by not competing with each other for jobs, businesses, and other resources that would benefit an individual city or county at the expense of another in the region. Do you support or oppose this kind of cooperation in the Miami Valley region? 73. Why do you feel this way? (Open-ended Question) Section IX:

Local Services and State Taxes

74. Now let’s talk a little about the quality of some government services in your community. I’d like to start by reading you a list of services. Please tell me if you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the quality of each of these services. a. Police Protection 1. Very Satisfied 2. Somewhat Satisfied 3. Somewhat Dissatisfied 4. Very Dissatisfied

C-12

b. Fire Protection 1. Very Satisfied 2. Somewhat Satisfied 3. Somewhat Dissatisfied 4. Very Dissatisfied c. The public libraries 1. Very Satisfied 2. Somewhat Satisfied 3. Somewhat Dissatisfied 4. Very Dissatisfied d. Street and road repair 1. Very Satisfied 2. Somewhat Satisfied 3. Somewhat Dissatisfied 4. Very Dissatisfied e. The public parks 1. Very Satisfied 2. Somewhat Satisfied 3. Somewhat Dissatisfied 4. Very Dissatisfied f. The County Jail 1. Very Satisfied 2. Somewhat Satisfied 3. Somewhat Dissatisfied 4. Very Dissatisfied g. Services for abused or neglected children 1. Very Satisfied 2. Somewhat Satisfied 3. Somewhat Dissatisfied 4. Very Dissatisfied 75. If it were up to you, would you raise the state taxes we pay to balance the state budget or would you cut the amount of money the state spends to balance the state budget? 1. Raise State Taxes 2. Cut the money the state spends

C-13

76. What if the State decides to cut the amount it spends. Thinking about the money the State now sends back for local government services, should the State take away all of that money from local government services, take away some of the money, or should the State find somewhere else to cut the amount it spends? 1. Take all away from local government services 2. Take some money away from local government services 3. Take no money away from local government services 77. What if the State did take more money away from all local governments so there would be less money to pay for services in your area. Would you be willing to pay higher taxes to your: a. City, Village or Township 1. Yes 2. No b. Public Library 1. Yes 2. No c. County 1. Yes 2. No d. Public Parks 1. Yes 2. No e. School District 1. Yes 2. No 78. What if the State did take money away from local governments so there would be less money to pay for services in your area. Some people say local governments in your area could cut spending and save money by doing each of the following. Would you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose that as a way to save money? a. Combining your local school district with a neighboring school district. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Strongly Favor Somewhat Favor Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose

C-14

b. Merging your police department with other police departments in your area. 1. Strongly Favor 2. Somewhat Favor 3. Somewhat Oppose 4. Strongly Oppose c. Combining all of the parks in your county into one park district. 1. Strongly Favor 2. Somewhat Favor 3. Somewhat Oppose 4. Strongly Oppose d. Merging your library system with a neighboring library system. 1. Strongly Favor 2. Somewhat Favor 3. Somewhat Oppose 4. Strongly Oppose e. Combining all of the fire departments and “9-1-1” emergency dispatch services in your area. 1. Strongly Favor 2. Somewhat Favor 3. Somewhat Oppose 4. Strongly Oppose 79. Given the state budget crisis, some people say that the time has come to begin merging cities, villages and townships. Would you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose merging the community you live in with a neighboring city, village or township if that would save money? 1. Strongly Favor 2. Somewhat Favor 3. Somewhat Oppose 4. Strongly Oppose 80. If there were a State Constitutional Amendment on the ballot next year that would prevent the State from taking away any money that now goes to help pay for local government services? Would you vote Yes or No on such a Constitutional Amendment? 1. Yes 2. No

C-15

81. In order to address the state’s budgetary shortfall, would you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose continuing the temporary one percent sales tax for two more years? 1. Strongly Favor 2. Somewhat Favor 3. Somewhat Oppose 4. Strongly Oppose In order to make sure that we represent all people fairly, we need to ask several demographic questions. If you do not feel comfortable answering any of the questions, please ask me to go on. Again the following questions are for classification purposes only. 82. And how often do you watch a local news program on TV, almost every day, three or four times a week or less often than that? 1. 2. 3. 4.

Every Day Almost Every Day Three to Four times a week Less often than three to four times a week

83. Do you consider yourself to be a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent, or something else? 1. 2. 3. 4.

Democrat Republican Independent Something else (Please Specify)

84. And, do you usually think of yourself as very conservative, somewhat conservative, middle of the road, somewhat liberal, or very liberal? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Very Conservative Somewhat Conservative Middle of the Road Somewhat Liberal Very Liberal

85. What is your age? 1. 18 - 24 2. 25 - 34 3. 35 - 44 4. 45 - 54 5. 55 - 64 6. 65 or older

C-16

86. How many people live in your household? _____________ under 18 years _____________ 18 years or older 87. What is your zip code? _____________________ 88. Which of the following categories best describes your current housing situation? (Please select all that apply) 1. Homeowner 2. Renter 3. Farmland owner 4. Non-resident landowner 5. Something else (Please specify) 89. How long have you lived in the Miami Valley? 1. Less than 5 years 2. 5 to 10 years 3. 11 to 20 years 4. More than 20 years 90. What is the last grade of school you attended? 1. Grade school 2. Some high school 3. Graduated high school 4. Some college or technical school 5. Graduated college 6. Graduate school 91. Which of the following best describes your racial or ethnic background? 1. White or Caucasian 2. Black or African American 3. Hispanic 4. Native American 5. Asian 6. Mixed Race 7. Other _______________________________________ 92. Which of the following general categories best describes your household income, before taxes, from all sources for 2004? 1. Less than $20,000 2. At least $20,000 but less than $35,000 3. At least $35,000 but less than $60,000 4. At least $60,000 but less than $80,000 5. $80,000 or more

C-17

93. What is your gender? 1. Male 2. Female Those are all the questions that I have for you today. Do you have any additional comments? Thank you again for your participation. Your comments will help make decisions that will enhance the quality of the Miami Valley over the next several years.

C-18