city of euclid master plan
play

CITY OF EUCLID MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS County - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jan 11, 2023 •375 likes •2.09k views

CITY OF EUCLID MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS County Planning Team James Sonnhalter , Manager, Planning Services Patrick Hewitt , Senior Planner The Euclid Master Plan: Six Steps Community Survey Community Survey Community

  1. CONSIDERATIONS FOR MOVING FROM EUCLID I would not consider moving out 18.6% For a safer community 38.0% For lower taxes 35.3% For a better school district 18.2% For a retirement friendly community 15.1% For a different climate 14.7% To be closer to family and/or friends 14.0% For a newer house 12.0% For better community facilities 11.2% For more home for my money 10.9% For a more rural environment 10.9% For a higher quality of municipal services 9.7% For better access to shopping 9.7% For more property 8.5% To be closer to work/job related 7.4% For a smaller house 6.6% For a larger house 6.6% To be able to walk more places 5.8% For a rental unit 4.7% For attached condos/clustered homes 4.7% For less traffic congestion 3.1% To be closer to Downtown Cleveland 1.6% To be closer to University Circle 1.6% To have better access to highways 0.4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

  2. CONSIDERATIONS FOR MOVING FROM EUCLID I would not consider moving out 18.6% For a safer community 38.0% For lower taxes 35.3% For a better school district 18.2% For a retirement friendly community 15.1% For a different climate 14.7% To be closer to family and/or friends 14.0% For a newer house 12.0% For better community facilities 11.2% For more home for my money 10.9% For a more rural environment 10.9% For a higher quality of municipal services 9.7% For better access to shopping 9.7% For more property 8.5% To be closer to work/job related 7.4% For a smaller house 6.6% For a larger house 6.6% To be able to walk more places 5.8% For a rental unit 4.7% For attached condos/clustered homes 4.7% For less traffic congestion 3.1% To be closer to Downtown Cleveland 1.6% To be closer to University Circle 1.6% To have better access to highways 0.4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

  3. CONSIDERATIONS FOR MOVING FROM EUCLID I would not consider moving out 18.6% For a safer community 38.0% For lower taxes 35.3% For a better school district 18.2% For a retirement friendly community 15.1% For a different climate 14.7% To be closer to family and/or friends 14.0% For a newer house 12.0% For better community facilities 11.2% For more home for my money 10.9% For a more rural environment 10.9% For a higher quality of municipal services 9.7% For better access to shopping 9.7% For more property 8.5% To be closer to work/job related 7.4% For a smaller house 6.6% For a larger house 6.6% To be able to walk more places 5.8% For a rental unit 4.7% For attached condos/clustered homes 4.7% For less traffic congestion 3.1% To be closer to Downtown Cleveland 1.6% To be closer to University Circle 1.6% To have better access to highways 0.4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

  4. CONSIDERATIONS FOR MOVING FROM EUCLID I would not consider moving out 18.6% For a safer community 38.0% For lower taxes 35.3% For a better school district 18.2% For a retirement friendly community 15.1% For a different climate 14.7% To be closer to family and/or friends 14.0% For a newer house 12.0% For better community facilities 11.2% For more home for my money 10.9% For a more rural environment 10.9% For a higher quality of municipal services 9.7% For better access to shopping 9.7% For more property 8.5% To be closer to work/job related 7.4% For a smaller house 6.6% For a larger house 6.6% To be able to walk more places 5.8% For a rental unit 4.7% For attached condos/clustered homes 4.7% For less traffic congestion 3.1% To be closer to Downtown Cleveland 1.6% To be closer to University Circle 1.6% To have better access to highways 0.4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

  5. PARKS AND RECREATION

  6. EASE OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO LAKE ERIE Very Poor Poor 2.4% 6.0% Excellent 24.9% Average 23.3% Good 43.4%

  7. QUALITY OF FACILITIES Joseph Farrell Memorial Fishing Pier 44.2% 35.1% 15.6% Cleveland Metroparks Euclid Creek… 28.2% 48.3% 21.3% Sims Park Disc Golf Course 28.6% 28.6% 40.8% Sims Park (overall) 19.3% 48.8% 27.1% Briardale Golf Course 12.7% 48.1% 29.1% 7.6% Memorial Park (overall) 9.7% 48.5% 33.6% 6.7% Memorial Park Pool 12.4% 43.8% 38.2% Indian Hills Splash Park 16.7% 38.1% 28.6% 11.9% C.E. Orr Ice Arena 8.6% 44.3% 42.9% Neighborhood Parks and Playgrounds 6.4% 44.7% 38.3% 7.8% Neighborhood Pools (Willow,… 10.7% 39.3% 33.3% 10.7% Skate Park 11.6% 34.9% 39.5% 7.0% 7.0% Dog Park 11.1% 28.9% 35.6% 11.1% 13.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  8. QUALITY OF FACILITIES Joseph Farrell Memorial Fishing Pier 44.2% 35.1% 15.6% Cleveland Metroparks Euclid Creek… 28.2% 48.3% 21.3% Sims Park Disc Golf Course 28.6% 28.6% 40.8% More than 50% Sims Park (overall) 19.3% 48.8% 27.1% Briardale Golf Course 12.7% 48.1% 29.1% 7.6% Memorial Park (overall) 9.7% 48.5% 33.6% 6.7% Memorial Park Pool 12.4% 43.8% 38.2% Indian Hills Splash Park 16.7% 38.1% 28.6% 11.9% C.E. Orr Ice Arena 8.6% 44.3% 42.9% Neighborhood Parks and Playgrounds 6.4% 44.7% 38.3% 7.8% Neighborhood Pools (Willow,… 10.7% 39.3% 33.3% 10.7% Less than 50% Skate Park 11.6% 34.9% 39.5% 7.0% 7.0% Dog Park 11.1% 28.9% 35.6% 11.1% 13.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  9. QUALITY OF FACILITIES Joseph Farrell Memorial Fishing Pier 44.2% 35.1% 15.6% Cleveland Metroparks Euclid Creek… 28.2% 48.3% 21.3% Sims Park Disc Golf Course 28.6% 28.6% 40.8% Sims Park (overall) 19.3% 48.8% 27.1% Briardale Golf Course 12.7% 48.1% 29.1% 7.6% Memorial Park (overall) 9.7% 48.5% 33.6% 6.7% Memorial Park Pool 12.4% 43.8% 38.2% Indian Hills Splash Park 16.7% 38.1% 28.6% 11.9% C.E. Orr Ice Arena 8.6% 44.3% 42.9% Neighborhood Parks and Playgrounds 6.4% 44.7% 38.3% 7.8% Neighborhood Pools (Willow,… 10.7% 39.3% 33.3% 10.7% Skate Park 11.6% 34.9% 39.5% 7.0% 7.0% Dog Park 11.1% 28.9% 35.6% 11.1% 13.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  10. QUALITY OF FACILITIES Joseph Farrell Memorial Fishing Pier 44.2% 35.1% 15.6% Cleveland Metroparks Euclid Creek… 28.2% 48.3% 21.3% Sims Park Disc Golf Course 28.6% 28.6% 40.8% Sims Park (overall) 19.3% 48.8% 27.1% Briardale Golf Course 12.7% 48.1% 29.1% 7.6% Memorial Park (overall) 9.7% 48.5% 33.6% 6.7% Memorial Park Pool 12.4% 43.8% 38.2% Indian Hills Splash Park 16.7% 38.1% 28.6% 11.9% C.E. Orr Ice Arena 8.6% 44.3% 42.9% Neighborhood Parks and Playgrounds 6.4% 44.7% 38.3% 7.8% Neighborhood Pools (Willow,… 10.7% 39.3% 33.3% 10.7% Skate Park 11.6% 34.9% 39.5% 7.0% 7.0% Dog Park 11.1% 28.9% 35.6% 11.1% 13.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  11. QUALITY OF FACILITIES Joseph Farrell Memorial Fishing Pier 44.2% 35.1% 15.6% Cleveland Metroparks Euclid Creek… 28.2% 48.3% 21.3% Sims Park Disc Golf Course 28.6% 28.6% 40.8% Sims Park (overall) 19.3% 48.8% 27.1% Briardale Golf Course 12.7% 48.1% 29.1% 7.6% Memorial Park (overall) 9.7% 48.5% 33.6% 6.7% Memorial Park Pool 12.4% 43.8% 38.2% Indian Hills Splash Park 16.7% 38.1% 28.6% 11.9% C.E. Orr Ice Arena 8.6% 44.3% 42.9% Neighborhood Parks and Playgrounds 6.4% 44.7% 38.3% 7.8% Neighborhood Pools (Willow,… 10.7% 39.3% 33.3% 10.7% Skate Park 11.6% 34.9% 39.5% 7.0% 7.0% Dog Park 11.1% 28.9% 35.6% 11.1% 13.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  12. OVERALL QUALITY OF FACILITIES Very Poor Poor 1.7% 2.9% Excellent 10.9% Average 38.9% Good 45.6%

  13. QUALITY OF LIFE

  14. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Yes, I feel engaged, 46.4% No, I do not feel engaged, 53.6%

  15. METHODS OF INVOLVEMENT Place of worship or faith community 47.1% Street, civic, beach, or block clubs 39.2% School 20.3% Recreation/athletic organizations 15.7% Community service groups (e.g., 8.5% Kiwanis Club) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

  16. METHODS OF INVOLVEMENT Place of worship or faith community 47.1% Street, civic, beach, or block clubs 39.2% School 20.3% Recreation/athletic organizations 15.7% Community service groups (e.g., 8.5% Kiwanis Club) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

  17. FREQUENCY OF INVOLVEMENT Very Often 4.3% Often 11.2% Not Somewhat Often Often 58.4% 26.2%

  18. OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE Excellent Very Poor 4.7% 4.3% Poor 14.4% Good 37.4% Average 39.3%

  19. ENGAGEMENT BY QUALITY OF LIFE Above Average 69.9% 30.1% Average 38.1% 61.9% Below Average 10.6% 89.4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes, I feel engaged No, I do not feel engaged

  20. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

  21. OPINION ON POLICY STATEMENTS Maintain and attract different types 38.3% 45.6% 13.7% of retail/service stores Attract manufacturing and industrial 36.1% 42.6% 16.0% jobs Promote workforce training 27.8% 42.7% 24.9% programs in Euclid Attract office jobs 25.2% 44.6% 27.3% Grow as a regional retail and 25.0% 34.4% 30.3% 7.8% shopping destination Support development near freeways 19.4% 32.4% 36.8% 8.9% (gas stations, hotels, fast food) Develop more arts and cultural 11.1% 36.9% 42.6% 7.8% attractions Most of my shopping needs can be 11.2% 32.3% 17.5% 29.9% 9.2% met by local retailers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  22. OPINION ON POLICY STATEMENTS Maintain and attract different types 38.3% 45.6% 13.7% of retail/service stores Attract manufacturing and industrial 36.1% 42.6% 16.0% jobs More than 50% Promote workforce training 27.8% 42.7% 24.9% programs in Euclid Attract office jobs 25.2% 44.6% 27.3% Grow as a regional retail and 25.0% 34.4% 30.3% 7.8% shopping destination Support development near freeways 19.4% 32.4% 36.8% 8.9% (gas stations, hotels, fast food) Develop more arts and cultural Less than 50% 11.1% 36.9% 42.6% 7.8% attractions Most of my shopping needs can be 11.2% 32.3% 17.5% 29.9% 9.2% met by local retailers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  23. OPINION ON POLICY STATEMENTS Maintain and attract different types 38.3% 45.6% 13.7% of retail/service stores Attract manufacturing and industrial 36.1% 42.6% 16.0% jobs Promote workforce training 27.8% 42.7% 24.9% programs in Euclid Attract office jobs 25.2% 44.6% 27.3% Grow as a regional retail and 25.0% 34.4% 30.3% 7.8% shopping destination Support development near freeways 19.4% 32.4% 36.8% 8.9% (gas stations, hotels, fast food) Develop more arts and cultural 11.1% 36.9% 42.6% 7.8% attractions Most of my shopping needs can be 11.2% 32.3% 17.5% 29.9% 9.2% met by local retailers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  24. OPINION ON POLICY STATEMENTS Maintain and attract different types 38.3% 45.6% 13.7% of retail/service stores Attract manufacturing and industrial 36.1% 42.6% 16.0% jobs Promote workforce training 27.8% 42.7% 24.9% programs in Euclid Attract office jobs 25.2% 44.6% 27.3% Grow as a regional retail and 25.0% 34.4% 30.3% 7.8% shopping destination Support development near freeways 19.4% 32.4% 36.8% 8.9% (gas stations, hotels, fast food) Develop more arts and cultural 11.1% 36.9% 42.6% 7.8% attractions Most of my shopping needs can be 11.2% 32.3% 17.5% 29.9% 9.2% met by local retailers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  25. OPINION ON POLICY STATEMENTS Maintain and attract different types 38.3% 45.6% 13.7% of retail/service stores Attract manufacturing and industrial 36.1% 42.6% 16.0% jobs Promote workforce training 27.8% 42.7% 24.9% programs in Euclid Attract office jobs 25.2% 44.6% 27.3% Grow as a regional retail and 25.0% 34.4% 30.3% 7.8% shopping destination Support development near freeways 19.4% 32.4% 36.8% 8.9% (gas stations, hotels, fast food) Develop more arts and cultural 11.1% 36.9% 42.6% 7.8% attractions Most of my shopping needs can be 11.2% 32.3% 17.5% 29.9% 9.2% met by local retailers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  26. OPINION ON POLICY STATEMENTS Maintain and attract different types 38.3% 45.6% 13.7% of retail/service stores Attract manufacturing and industrial 36.1% 42.6% 16.0% jobs Promote workforce training 27.8% 42.7% 24.9% programs in Euclid Attract office jobs 25.2% 44.6% 27.3% Grow as a regional retail and 25.0% 34.4% 30.3% 7.8% shopping destination Support development near freeways 19.4% 32.4% 36.8% 8.9% (gas stations, hotels, fast food) Develop more arts and cultural 11.1% 36.9% 42.6% 7.8% attractions Most of my shopping needs can be 11.2% 32.3% 17.5% 29.9% 9.2% met by local retailers 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  27. OPINION ON POLICY STATEMENTS 58.5% 50.6% 46.7% 44.6% 42.5% 31.7% Most of my shopping The City should needs can be met by develop more arts local retailers and cultural attractions Young adults Working age adults Seniors 80.5% 80.5% 80.0% 73.3% 70.7% 60.0% The City should focus The City should focus on attracting office on attracting jobs manufacturing and industrial jobs

  28. CITY IMAGE AND COMMUNICATION

  29. OPINION ON POLICY STATEMENTS Streets should have decorative 29.4% 44.1% 20.8% elements Focus on preserving its cultural 19.2% 47.5% 28.8% heritage and history The City does a good job of making 13.1% 45.9% 19.2% 15.7% information accessible I feel well informed about 10.0% 42.8% 22.8% 18.0% community programs and events Focus on creating a unique City 18.0% 33.9% 41.8% identity and brand 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  30. OPINION ON POLICY STATEMENTS Streets should have decorative 29.4% 44.1% 20.8% elements Focus on preserving its cultural 19.2% 47.5% 28.8% More than 50% heritage and history The City does a good job of making 13.1% 45.9% 19.2% 15.7% information accessible I feel well informed about 10.0% 42.8% 22.8% 18.0% community programs and events Focus on creating a unique City 18.0% 33.9% 41.8% identity and brand 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  31. OPINION ON POLICY STATEMENTS Streets should have decorative 29.4% 44.1% 20.8% elements Focus on preserving its cultural 19.2% 47.5% 28.8% heritage and history The City does a good job of making 13.1% 45.9% 19.2% 15.7% information accessible I feel well informed about 10.0% 42.8% 22.8% 18.0% community programs and events Focus on creating a unique City 18.0% 33.9% 41.8% identity and brand 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  32. OPINION ON POLICY STATEMENTS Streets should have decorative 29.4% 44.1% 20.8% elements Focus on preserving its cultural 19.2% 47.5% 28.8% heritage and history The City does a good job of making 13.1% 45.9% 19.2% 15.7% information accessible I feel well informed about 10.0% 42.8% 22.8% 18.0% community programs and events Focus on creating a unique City 18.0% 33.9% 41.8% identity and brand 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  33. OPINION ON POLICY STATEMENTS Streets should have decorative 29.4% 44.1% 20.8% elements Focus on preserving its cultural 19.2% 47.5% 28.8% heritage and history The City does a good job of making 13.1% 45.9% 19.2% 15.7% information accessible I feel well informed about 10.0% 42.8% 22.8% 18.0% community programs and events Focus on creating a unique City 18.0% 33.9% 41.8% identity and brand 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  34. OPINION ON POLICY STATEMENTS 81.6% 79.2% 72.5% 65.6% 62.4% 54.1% 44.7% 45.8% 45.0% Streets should have The City does a good I feel well informed decorative elements job of making about community information programs and events accessible Young adults Working age adults Seniors

  35. METHODS FOR RECEIVING INFORMATION Phone Calls 48.4% City Website 27.8% Community Television (ECTV) 24.6% Other 22.2% Social Media 20.6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

  36. METHODS FOR RECEIVING INFORMATION Phone Calls 48.4% City Website 27.8% Community Television (ECTV) 24.6% Other 22.2% Social Media 20.6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

  37. METHODS FOR RECEIVING INFORMATION Phone Calls 48.4% City Website 27.8% Community Television (ECTV) 24.6% Other 22.2% Social Media 20.6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

  38. HOUSING

  39. PRIORITY HOUSING NEEDS Maintaining existing housing and 51.5% 29.7% 13.8% neighborhoods More sustainable and energy- 32.8% 30.2% 25.5% 7.7% efficient housing More housing options for seniors 25.6% 37.0% 29.3% More infill development on vacant 24.7% 30.8% 30.0% 8.4% land More single-family, detached 19.6% 29.3% 30.2% 13.8% 7.1% homes More walkable housing options 15.1% 32.3% 37.9% 11.2% More new affordable housing 25.0% 22.4% 29.7% 11.6% 11.2% More housing types for young 14.4% 28.4% 33.8% 14.4% 9.0% people More townhouses/condos in 8.2% 23.8% 40.3% 16.5% 11.3% appropriate locations More apartments in appropriate 11.5% 26.1% 22.6% 36.8% locations 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  40. PRIORITY HOUSING NEEDS Answer Top Maintaining existing housing and 51.5% 29.7% 13.8% neighborhoods More sustainable and energy- 32.8% 30.2% 25.5% 7.7% More than efficient housing 50% More housing options for seniors 25.6% 37.0% 29.3% More infill development on vacant 24.7% 30.8% 30.0% 8.4% land More single-family, detached 19.6% 29.3% 30.2% 13.8% 7.1% homes More walkable housing options 15.1% 32.3% 37.9% 11.2% Less than 50% More new affordable housing 25.0% 22.4% 29.7% 11.6% 11.2% More housing types for young 14.4% 28.4% 33.8% 14.4% 9.0% people More townhouses/condos in 8.2% 23.8% 40.3% 16.5% 11.3% appropriate locations More apartments in appropriate 11.5% 26.1% 22.6% 36.8% locations 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  41. PRIORITY HOUSING NEEDS Maintaining existing housing and 51.5% 29.7% 13.8% neighborhoods More sustainable and energy- 32.8% 30.2% 25.5% 7.7% efficient housing More housing options for seniors 25.6% 37.0% 29.3% More infill development on vacant 24.7% 30.8% 30.0% 8.4% land More single-family, detached 19.6% 29.3% 30.2% 13.8% 7.1% homes More walkable housing options 15.1% 32.3% 37.9% 11.2% More new affordable housing 25.0% 22.4% 29.7% 11.6% 11.2% More housing types for young 14.4% 28.4% 33.8% 14.4% 9.0% people More townhouses/condos in 8.2% 23.8% 40.3% 16.5% 11.3% appropriate locations More apartments in appropriate 11.5% 26.1% 22.6% 36.8% locations 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  42. PRIORITY HOUSING NEEDS Maintaining existing housing and 51.5% 29.7% 13.8% neighborhoods More sustainable and energy- 32.8% 30.2% 25.5% 7.7% efficient housing More housing options for seniors 25.6% 37.0% 29.3% More infill development on vacant 24.7% 30.8% 30.0% 8.4% land More single-family, detached 19.6% 29.3% 30.2% 13.8% 7.1% homes More walkable housing options 15.1% 32.3% 37.9% 11.2% More new affordable housing 25.0% 22.4% 29.7% 11.6% 11.2% More housing types for young 14.4% 28.4% 33.8% 14.4% 9.0% people More townhouses/condos in 8.2% 23.8% 40.3% 16.5% 11.3% appropriate locations More apartments in appropriate 11.5% 26.1% 22.6% 36.8% locations 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  43. PRIORITY HOUSING NEEDS Maintaining existing housing and 51.5% 29.7% 13.8% neighborhoods More sustainable and energy- 32.8% 30.2% 25.5% 7.7% efficient housing More housing options for seniors 25.6% 37.0% 29.3% More infill development on vacant 24.7% 30.8% 30.0% 8.4% land More single-family, detached 19.6% 29.3% 30.2% 13.8% 7.1% homes More walkable housing options 15.1% 32.3% 37.9% 11.2% More new affordable housing 25.0% 22.4% 29.7% 11.6% 11.2% More housing types for young 14.4% 28.4% 33.8% 14.4% 9.0% people More townhouses/condos in 8.2% 23.8% 40.3% 16.5% 11.3% appropriate locations More apartments in appropriate 11.5% 26.1% 22.6% 36.8% locations 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  44. PRIORITY HOUSING NEEDS Maintaining existing housing and 51.5% 29.7% 13.8% neighborhoods More sustainable and energy- 32.8% 30.2% 25.5% 7.7% efficient housing More housing options for seniors 25.6% 37.0% 29.3% More infill development on vacant 24.7% 30.8% 30.0% 8.4% land More single-family, detached 19.6% 29.3% 30.2% 13.8% 7.1% homes More walkable housing options 15.1% 32.3% 37.9% 11.2% More new affordable housing 25.0% 22.4% 29.7% 11.6% 11.2% More housing types for young 14.4% 28.4% 33.8% 14.4% 9.0% people More townhouses/condos in 8.2% 23.8% 40.3% 16.5% 11.3% appropriate locations More apartments in appropriate 11.5% 26.1% 22.6% 36.8% locations 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  45. PRIORITY HOUSING NEEDS Maintaining existing housing and 51.5% 29.7% 13.8% neighborhoods More sustainable and energy- 32.8% 30.2% 25.5% 7.7% efficient housing More housing options for seniors 25.6% 37.0% 29.3% More infill development on vacant 24.7% 30.8% 30.0% 8.4% land More single-family, detached 19.6% 29.3% 30.2% 13.8% 7.1% homes More walkable housing options 15.1% 32.3% 37.9% 11.2% More new affordable housing 25.0% 22.4% 29.7% 11.6% 11.2% More housing types for young 14.4% 28.4% 33.8% 14.4% 9.0% people More townhouses/condos in 8.2% 23.8% 40.3% 16.5% 11.3% appropriate locations More apartments in appropriate 11.5% 26.1% 22.6% 36.8% locations 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  46. PRIORITY HOUSING SERVICES Demolition of vacant/blighted 55.9% 25.3% 15.1% housing Assistance for home improvements 37.0% 39.1% 19.3% First-time homeowner education 36.9% 32.4% 23.7% Rental property management 39.9% 27.8% 22.6% education Stronger or more consistent code 37.4% 28.9% 28.5% enforcement First-time homebuyer down 28.3% 30.3% 24.2% 7.8% 9.4% payment assistance 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  47. PRIORITY HOUSING SERVICES Demolition of vacant/blighted 55.9% 25.3% 15.1% housing Assistance for home improvements 37.0% 39.1% 19.3% More than 50% First-time homeowner education 36.9% 32.4% 23.7% Rental property management 39.9% 27.8% 22.6% education Stronger or more consistent code 37.4% 28.9% 28.5% enforcement First-time homebuyer down 28.3% 30.3% 24.2% 7.8% 9.4% payment assistance 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  48. PRIORITY HOUSING SERVICES Demolition of vacant/blighted 55.9% 25.3% 15.1% housing Assistance for home improvements 37.0% 39.1% 19.3% First-time homeowner education 36.9% 32.4% 23.7% Rental property management 39.9% 27.8% 22.6% education Stronger or more consistent code 37.4% 28.9% 28.5% enforcement First-time homebuyer down 28.3% 30.3% 24.2% 7.8% 9.4% payment assistance 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  49. PRIORITY HOUSING SERVICES Demolition of vacant/blighted 55.9% 25.3% 15.1% housing Assistance for home improvements 37.0% 39.1% 19.3% First-time homeowner education 36.9% 32.4% 23.7% Rental property management 39.9% 27.8% 22.6% education Stronger or more consistent code 37.4% 28.9% 28.5% enforcement First-time homebuyer down 28.3% 30.3% 24.2% 7.8% 9.4% payment assistance 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  50. TRANSPORTATION

  51. PRIORITY FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS Senior Transportation 42.6% 29.9% 19.1% Walking 36.2% 32.1% 25.0% Car 25.3% 27.1% 34.4% 7.7% Public Transit 20.8% 29.0% 32.9% 9.2% 8.2% Bike 21.3% 26.7% 31.2% 11.9% 8.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  52. PRIORITY FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS Senior Transportation More than 50% 42.6% 29.9% 19.1% Walking 36.2% 32.1% 25.0% Car 25.3% 27.1% 34.4% 7.7% Less than 50% Public Transit 20.8% 29.0% 32.9% 9.2% 8.2% Bike 21.3% 26.7% 31.2% 11.9% 8.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  53. PRIORITY FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS Senior Transportation 42.6% 29.9% 19.1% Walking 36.2% 32.1% 25.0% Car 25.3% 27.1% 34.4% 7.7% Public Transit 20.8% 29.0% 32.9% 9.2% 8.2% Bike 21.3% 26.7% 31.2% 11.9% 8.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  54. PRIORITY FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS Senior Transportation 42.6% 29.9% 19.1% Walking 36.2% 32.1% 25.0% Car 25.3% 27.1% 34.4% 7.7% Public Transit 20.8% 29.0% 32.9% 9.2% 8.2% Bike 21.3% 26.7% 31.2% 11.9% 8.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  55. PRIORITY FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS BY AGE Senior Transportation Senior Transportation Walking Walking Walking Biking 80.8% 69.6% 74.3% 68.1% 65.0% 55.6% 53.0% 55.0% 51.0% 52.9% 47.5% 44.8% 41.0% 38.9% 39.7% Young Adults Working Age Adults Seniors Car Walking Public Transit Senior Transportation Bike

  56. PRIORITY FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ON MAJOR ROADS 100.0% 80.0% 58.5% 60.0% 51.9% 47.5% 45.2% 44.5% 43.6% 39.2% 38.1% 38.6% 40.0% 34.0% 31.5% 30.4% 21.4% 18.2% 17.5% 16.3% 20.0% 15.0% 14.4% 14.4% 11.3% 0.0% East 260th Street East 250th Street Euclid Avenue Lakeshore Boulevard 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 55.0% 52.5% 52.9% 46.7% 45.2% 42.0% 41.0% 38.4% 40.0% 30.3% 30.3% 28.8% 28.5% 23.1% 21.6% 21.0% 20.7% 20.2% 17.9% 16.0% 20.0% 13.9% 0.0% East 200th Street Babbitt Road East 222nd Street East 185th Street Moving cars More attractive Easier access to Safer for Safer for bikes more quickly streets transit walking

  57. PRIORITY FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ON MAJOR ROADS 100.0% 80.0% 58.5% 60.0% 51.9% 47.5% 45.2% 44.5% 43.6% 39.2% 38.1% 38.6% 40.0% 34.0% 31.5% 30.4% 21.4% 18.2% 17.5% 16.3% 20.0% 15.0% 14.4% 14.4% 11.3% 0.0% East 260th Street East 250th Street Euclid Avenue Lakeshore Boulevard 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 55.0% 52.5% 52.9% 46.7% 45.2% 42.0% 41.0% 38.4% 40.0% 30.3% 30.3% 28.8% 28.5% 23.1% 21.6% 21.0% 20.7% 20.2% 17.9% 16.0% 20.0% 13.9% 0.0% East 200th Street Babbitt Road East 222nd Street East 185th Street Moving cars More attractive Easier access to Safer for Safer for bikes more quickly streets transit walking

  58. DEVELOPMENT

  59. DESIRED USES FOR CERTAIN AREAS 100.0% 79.9% 77.3% 80.0% 65.8% 60.0% 35.5% 40.0% 31.2% 30.4% 28.9% 28.4% 20.8% 17.7% 16.0% 20.0% 14.7% 14.2% 6.6% 5.9% 0.0% Euclid Square Mall East 185th Street Downtown Euclid (Lakeshore Blvd and East 222nd St) 100.0% 76.6% 80.0% 60.0% 51.2% 49.7% 46.3% 44.4% 40.0% 32.2% 28.7% 26.9% 20.7% 18.9% 16.4% 20.0% 15.1% 14.6% 6.8% 2.9% 0.0% Lakefront Euclid Avenue Corridor East 260th and Euclid Avenue Parks Industrial Housing Office Retail

  60. DESIRED USES FOR CERTAIN AREAS 100.0% 79.9% 77.3% 80.0% 65.8% 60.0% 35.5% 40.0% 31.2% 30.4% 28.9% 28.4% 20.8% 17.7% 16.0% 20.0% 14.7% 14.2% 6.6% 5.9% 0.0% Euclid Square Mall East 185th Street Downtown Euclid (Lakeshore Blvd and East 222nd St) 100.0% 76.6% 80.0% 60.0% 51.2% 49.7% 46.3% 44.4% 40.0% 32.2% 28.7% 26.9% 20.7% 18.9% 16.4% 20.0% 15.1% 14.6% 6.8% 2.9% 0.0% Lakefront Euclid Avenue Corridor East 260th and Euclid Avenue Parks Industrial Housing Office Retail

  61. DESIRED USES FOR CERTAIN AREAS 100.0% 79.9% 77.3% 80.0% 65.8% 60.0% 35.5% 40.0% 31.2% 30.4% 28.9% 28.4% 20.8% 17.7% 16.0% 20.0% 14.7% 14.2% 6.6% 5.9% 0.0% Euclid Square Mall East 185th Street Downtown Euclid (Lakeshore Blvd and East 222nd St) 100.0% 76.6% 80.0% 60.0% 51.2% 49.7% 46.3% 44.4% 40.0% 32.2% 28.7% 26.9% 20.7% 18.9% 16.4% 20.0% 15.1% 14.6% 6.8% 2.9% 0.0% Lakefront Euclid Avenue Corridor East 260th and Euclid Avenue Parks Industrial Housing Office Retail

  62. DESIRED USES FOR CERTAIN AREAS 100.0% 79.9% 77.3% 80.0% 65.8% 60.0% 35.5% 40.0% 31.2% 30.4% 28.9% 28.4% 20.8% 17.7% 16.0% 20.0% 14.7% 14.2% 6.6% 5.9% 0.0% Euclid Square Mall East 185th Street Downtown Euclid (Lakeshore Blvd and East 222nd St) 100.0% 76.6% 80.0% 60.0% 51.2% 49.7% 46.3% 44.4% 40.0% 32.2% 28.7% 26.9% 20.7% 18.9% 16.4% 20.0% 15.1% 14.6% 6.8% 2.9% 0.0% Lakefront Euclid Avenue Corridor East 260th and Euclid Avenue Parks Industrial Housing Office Retail

  63. DESIRED USES FOR CERTAIN AREAS 100.0% 79.9% 77.3% 80.0% 65.8% 60.0% 35.5% 40.0% 31.2% 30.4% 28.9% 28.4% 20.8% 17.7% 16.0% 20.0% 14.7% 14.2% 6.6% 5.9% 0.0% Euclid Square Mall East 185th Street Downtown Euclid (Lakeshore Blvd and East 222nd St) 100.0% 76.6% 80.0% 60.0% 51.2% 49.7% 46.3% 44.4% 40.0% 32.2% 28.7% 26.9% 20.7% 18.9% 16.4% 20.0% 15.1% 14.6% 6.8% 2.9% 0.0% Lakefront Euclid Avenue Corridor East 260th and Euclid Avenue Parks Industrial Housing Office Retail

  64. OPINION ON POLICY STATEMENTS Focus on demolishing abandoned 57.1% 31.0% 9.8% or foreclosed homes Focus on walkable, mixed-use 33.6% 49.3% 14.4% development Encourage more environmentally 32.2% 43.0% 20.4% sustainable development Vacant lots should be offered for 34.6% 39.7% 19.8% yard expansion Vacant properties should be used 27.3% 42.9% 17.2% 8.4% for new housing Vacant properties should be used 24.2% 37.7% 26.4% 8.7% as green space New homes should match the 24.8% 33.8% 27.4% 11.1% scale and design of existing homes Vacant properties should be 15.0% 25.2% 30.1% 21.7% 8.0% developed for commerical use 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  65. OPINION ON POLICY STATEMENTS Focus on demolishing abandoned 57.1% 31.0% 9.8% or foreclosed homes Focus on walkable, mixed-use 33.6% 49.3% 14.4% development Encourage more environmentally 32.2% 43.0% 20.4% More than 50% sustainable development Vacant lots should be offered for 34.6% 39.7% 19.8% yard expansion Vacant properties should be used 27.3% 42.9% 17.2% 8.4% for new housing Vacant properties should be used 24.2% 37.7% 26.4% 8.7% as green space New homes should match the 24.8% 33.8% 27.4% 11.1% scale and design of existing homes Less than Vacant properties should be 15.0% 25.2% 30.1% 21.7% 8.0% developed for commerical use 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  66. OPINION ON POLICY STATEMENTS Focus on demolishing abandoned 57.1% 31.0% 9.8% or foreclosed homes Focus on walkable, mixed-use 33.6% 49.3% 14.4% development Encourage more environmentally 32.2% 43.0% 20.4% sustainable development Vacant lots should be offered for 34.6% 39.7% 19.8% yard expansion Vacant properties should be used 27.3% 42.9% 17.2% 8.4% for new housing Vacant properties should be used 24.2% 37.7% 26.4% 8.7% as green space New homes should match the 24.8% 33.8% 27.4% 11.1% scale and design of existing homes Vacant properties should be 15.0% 25.2% 30.1% 21.7% 8.0% developed for commerical use 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  67. OPINION ON POLICY STATEMENTS Focus on demolishing abandoned 57.1% 31.0% 9.8% or foreclosed homes Focus on walkable, mixed-use 33.6% 49.3% 14.4% development Encourage more environmentally 32.2% 43.0% 20.4% sustainable development Vacant lots should be offered for 34.6% 39.7% 19.8% yard expansion Vacant properties should be used 27.3% 42.9% 17.2% 8.4% for new housing Vacant properties should be used 24.2% 37.7% 26.4% 8.7% as green space New homes should match the 24.8% 33.8% 27.4% 11.1% scale and design of existing homes Vacant properties should be 15.0% 25.2% 30.1% 21.7% 8.0% developed for commerical use 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  68. OPINION ON POLICY STATEMENTS Focus on demolishing abandoned 57.1% 31.0% 9.8% or foreclosed homes Focus on walkable, mixed-use 33.6% 49.3% 14.4% development Encourage more environmentally 32.2% 43.0% 20.4% sustainable development Vacant lots should be offered for 34.6% 39.7% 19.8% yard expansion Vacant properties should be used 27.3% 42.9% 17.2% 8.4% for new housing Vacant properties should be used 24.2% 37.7% 26.4% 8.7% as green space New homes should match the 24.8% 33.8% 27.4% 11.1% scale and design of existing homes Vacant properties should be 15.0% 25.2% 30.1% 21.7% 8.0% developed for commerical use 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

  69. OPINION ON POLICY STATEMENTS Focus on demolishing abandoned 57.1% 31.0% 9.8% or foreclosed homes Focus on walkable, mixed-use 33.6% 49.3% 14.4% development Encourage more environmentally 32.2% 43.0% 20.4% sustainable development Vacant lots should be offered for 34.6% 39.7% 19.8% yard expansion Vacant properties should be used 27.3% 42.9% 17.2% 8.4% for new housing Vacant properties should be used 24.2% 37.7% 26.4% 8.7% as green space New homes should match the 24.8% 33.8% 27.4% 11.1% scale and design of existing homes Vacant properties should be 15.0% 25.2% 30.1% 21.7% 8.0% developed for commerical use 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend

www.euclid-ec.org Meeting Euclid France APC, 07-08 Jan 2016 Euclid

www.euclid-ec.org Meeting Euclid France APC, 07-08 Jan 2016 Euclid

Etat davancement de la mission Euclid Y. Mellier IAP & CEA/IRFU/SAp www.euclid-ec.org Meeting Euclid France APC, 07-08 Jan 2016 Euclid Level-0 Science Requirements Sector Euclid Targets Measure the cosmic

670 views • 40 slides
Baltimore City Bike Master Plan: Implementation Update Baltimore City Bike Master Plan o

Baltimore City Bike Master Plan: Implementation Update Baltimore City Bike Master Plan o

Baltimore City Bike Master Plan: Implementation Update Baltimore City Bike Master Plan o Updated/Reissued by Planning Commission in 2015 o Established goals and objectives to develop a comprehensive network of facilities for bicyclists and to

673 views • 24 slides
petite histoire de lunivers processus faisant intervenir: - forces fondamentales - composantes

petite histoire de lunivers processus faisant intervenir: - forces fondamentales - composantes

ESA 2010 / Thales Alenia Space and EADS Astrium concepts for Euclid Planck/ESA Euclid introduction 1. Euclid in brief 2. Euclid science case 3. Euclid payload, instrument, survey, hardware 4. Euclid @ IAS 5. conclusion 6. Herv Dole Institut

404 views • 22 slides
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE PENSACOLA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT City Advisory Committee Meeting #1

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE PENSACOLA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT City Advisory Committee Meeting #1

AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE PENSACOLA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT City Advisory Committee Meeting #1 November 30, 2016 Agenda Master Plan Purpose Master Plan Process CAC Role Master Plan Issues Inventory Landside Observations

849 views • 54 slides
City Council February 11, 2019 Background Master Plan Findings Master Plan Findings Usage

City Council February 11, 2019 Background Master Plan Findings Master Plan Findings Usage

City Council February 11, 2019 Background Master Plan Findings Master Plan Findings Usage of City of Shawnee Parks and Recreation facilities is high Over half (54%) of all respondents indicated their household has participated in at

944 views • 66 slides
Euclid Euclid OU-SIR / OU-SPE Simulation needs P. Franzetti & B. Garilli Euclid Euclid

Euclid Euclid OU-SIR / OU-SPE Simulation needs P. Franzetti & B. Garilli Euclid Euclid

Euclid Euclid OU-SIR / OU-SPE Simulation needs P. Franzetti & B. Garilli Euclid Euclid Why simulated data Each OU-SIR/OU-SPE WPs requires testing of existing tools to Euclid data and/or adaptation of existing tools to Euclid

690 views • 15 slides
Background Master Plan Findings Master Plan Findings Usage of City of Shawnee Parks and

Background Master Plan Findings Master Plan Findings Usage of City of Shawnee Parks and

Background Master Plan Findings Master Plan Findings Usage of City of Shawnee Parks and Recreation facilities is high Over half (54%) of all respondents indicated their household has participated in at least one program The Highest

579 views • 45 slides
Master Plans CITY OF SPRUCE GROVE Cultural Master Plan Highlights of Plan o Delivered by

Master Plans CITY OF SPRUCE GROVE Cultural Master Plan Highlights of Plan o Delivered by

Social Sustainability & Cultural Master Plans CITY OF SPRUCE GROVE Cultural Master Plan Highlights of Plan o Delivered by Cultural Services & MDB Insight Consulting o June 2016 Presentation to Council o The Five Pillars o Planning

558 views • 18 slides
SLC AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE 07/17/19 Master Plan Public Information Meeting Starting Soon

SLC AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE 07/17/19 Master Plan Public Information Meeting Starting Soon

SLC AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE 07/17/19 Master Plan Public Information Meeting Starting Soon Agenda The New SLC Update Master Plan Overview Project Tasks Visioning Existing Conditions Aviation Activity Forecast Next Steps Salt Lake City

777 views • 49 slides
The process to develop the master plan includes the following steps: Comprehensive building

The process to develop the master plan includes the following steps: Comprehensive building

What is a Master Facility Plan? For Hudson City Schools, the master facility plan is a holistic and strategic plan to address the long range needs and vision of the district . The process to develop the master plan includes the following steps:

314 views • 30 slides
City of Winnipegs Combined Sewer Overflow Master Plan SAC Mtg. #4 Progress Update 1 2

City of Winnipegs Combined Sewer Overflow Master Plan SAC Mtg. #4 Progress Update 1 2

City of Winnipegs Combined Sewer Overflow Master Plan SAC Mtg. #4 Progress Update 1 2 Purpose Update on Master Plan progress Review the decision making process, values and evaluation criteria 3 CSO Master Plan Timeline We are

391 views • 18 slides
Draft Master Plan and City of Grand Junction Ordinance Presentation City of Grand Junction &

Draft Master Plan and City of Grand Junction Ordinance Presentation City of Grand Junction &

Draft Master Plan and City of Grand Junction Ordinance Presentation City of Grand Junction & Mesa County April 5, 2016 Susan Rabold, Project Manager CityScape Consultants, Inc. What is a Wireless Master Plan The Goal of the Wireless

752 views • 44 slides
CITY CITY OF OF BER BERKELEY KELEY PEDESTRIA PEDESTRIAN N MASTER MASTER PLAN PLAN

CITY CITY OF OF BER BERKELEY KELEY PEDESTRIA PEDESTRIAN N MASTER MASTER PLAN PLAN

CITY CITY OF OF BER BERKELEY KELEY PEDESTRIA PEDESTRIAN N MASTER MASTER PLAN PLAN FEBRUARY 5, 2019 F a r i d J a v a n d e l , M a n a g e r Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n D i v i s i o n B e t h T h o m a s , P r i n c i p a l P l a

465 views • 21 slides
Master Plan Open House #3 Preferred Alternative Master Plan Master Plan Process What is a

Master Plan Open House #3 Preferred Alternative Master Plan Master Plan Process What is a

Eagles View Park Master Plan Open House #3 Preferred Alternative Master Plan Master Plan Process What is a Master Plan? Associated Planning Documents Comprehensive Park System Master Plan West Salem Neighborhood Plan - 2004

602 views • 16 slides
CITY OF SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA Fiber-Optic Master Plan Agenda Introduction Smart City

CITY OF SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA Fiber-Optic Master Plan Agenda Introduction Smart City

CITY OF SAN LEANDRO, CALIFORNIA Fiber-Optic Master Plan Agenda Introduction Smart City Strategy Tony Batalla Broadband Strategy Jory Wolf Financials Randy Trost Q&A San Leandro Fiber Optics Master Plan Draft 2

745 views • 46 slides
Euclid OULE3 Jean-Luc Starck on behalf of the OULE3 team Euclid

Euclid OULE3 Jean-Luc Starck on behalf of the OULE3 team Euclid

Euclid !!!!! !! OU-LE3 Consortium Euclid OULE3 Jean-Luc Starck on behalf of the OULE3 team Euclid http://wiki.cosmos.esa.int/euclid/index.php/EC_SGS_OU_LE3 CEA - Irfu vendredi 8 janvier 16 OU-LE3 Internal Structure External data WP is at

291 views • 13 slides
By IMP.A.A.C.T. Photography The American Public Works Association exists to develop and support the

By IMP.A.A.C.T. Photography The American Public Works Association exists to develop and support the

By IMP.A.A.C.T. Photography The American Public Works Association exists to develop and support the people, agencies, and organizations that plan, build, maintain, and improve our communities. Working together, APWA and its membership contribute to

757 views • 37 slides
th the e Fut uture ure University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Campus Pit itt Ins nstitu

th the e Fut uture ure University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Campus Pit itt Ins nstitu

En Envisi isioning oning th the e Fut uture ure University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Campus Pit itt Ins nstitu itution tional al Master r Pla lan n (IMP) Public lic Meetin ting g #5 Urban ban Design sign Gu Guid idelin

680 views • 23 slides
Quality aspects in IMP developments Tone Agasster Norwegian Medicines Agency Presented by:

Quality aspects in IMP developments Tone Agasster Norwegian Medicines Agency Presented by:

Your Logo Quality aspects in IMP developments Tone Agasster Norwegian Medicines Agency Presented by: Tone Agasster Assessor at Norwegian Medicines Agency and member of Quality WP An agency of the European Union Structure

673 views • 12 slides
EU GMP Requirements - Investigational Medicinal Products - Bernd Boedecker GMP Inspectorate of

EU GMP Requirements - Investigational Medicinal Products - Bernd Boedecker GMP Inspectorate of

Trade & Industry Inspection Agency of Lower Saxony / Germany, Hannover office EU GMP Requirements - Investigational Medicinal Products - Bernd Boedecker GMP Inspectorate of Hannover / Germany at Turkish Ministry of Health Ankara, 20-21

584 views • 32 slides
Middle Grade Design and Improvement Initiative District Committee Meeting: Placement/Gain

Middle Grade Design and Improvement Initiative District Committee Meeting: Placement/Gain

Middle Grade Design and Improvement Initiative District Committee Meeting: Placement/Gain Analysis Dr. Michael T . Conner Chief Academic Officer Norwalk Public Schools Strategic Operating Plan Goal I Strategy C: Increase time allotted

467 views • 18 slides
Using the Superpopulation Model for Imputations and Variance Computation in Survey Sampling Petr

Using the Superpopulation Model for Imputations and Variance Computation in Survey Sampling Petr

Using the Superpopulation Model for Imputations and Variance Computation in Survey Sampling Petr Novk, Vclav Kosina Czech Statistical Office Petr Novk, Vclav Kosina Using the Superpopulation Model for Imputations and Variance

355 views • 19 slides
IRS INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS: How THEY W ILL IMP ACT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES MILTON CERNY

IRS INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS: How THEY W ILL IMP ACT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES MILTON CERNY

IRS INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS: How THEY W ILL IMP ACT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES MILTON CERNY CATH~RINE E. LIVINOSTON* On July 30, 1998, the Department of Treasury issued for public comment its eagerly awaited proposed regulations

380 views • 36 slides
2016 Community Improvement Awards Huntingdon County Chamber of Commerce Huntingdon County

2016 Community Improvement Awards Huntingdon County Chamber of Commerce Huntingdon County

2016 Community Improvement Awards Huntingdon County Chamber of Commerce Huntingdon County Planning Commission March 2017 Award Promotes Excellence in Development The Huntingdon County Chamber of Commerce Providing transportation choices;

319 views • 6 slides

More recommend