draft 2015 survey results about county planning to inform
play

Draft 2015 Survey Results About County Planning To inform and - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jan 21, 2024 •508 likes •2.01k views

February 8, 2016 Bay Village City Council Presentation City of Bay Village Draft 2015 Survey Results About County Planning To inform and provide services in support of the short and long term comprehensive planning, quality of life,

  1. Considerations for Moving from Bay Village I would not consider moving 27.2% For lower taxes 49.9% For a different climate 20.8% For a smaller house 15.1% For a retirement friendly community 13.1% For attached condos/clustered homes 12.6% For more home for my money 12.6% For a newer house 11.2% To be closer to family and/or friends 9.8% For a larger house 8.3% To be closer to work/job related 8.2% For better community facilities 8.2% For a more rural environment 7.1% To be able to walk places 6.7% To be closer to Downtown Cleveland 3.7% For a higher quality of municipal services 3.4% For a rental unit 2.3% For better access to shopping 1.8% For less traffic congestion 1.2% For a better school district 0.9% For a safer community 0.7% To have better access to highways 0.2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% City Qualities

  2. Considerations for Moving from Bay Village I would not consider moving 27.2% For lower taxes 49.9% For a different climate 20.8% For a smaller house 15.1% For a retirement friendly community 13.1% For attached condos/clustered homes 12.6% For more home for my money 12.6% For a newer house 11.2% To be closer to family and/or friends 9.8% For a larger house 8.3% To be closer to work/job related 8.2% For better community facilities 8.2% For a more rural environment 7.1% To be able to walk places 6.7% To be closer to Downtown Cleveland 3.7% For a higher quality of municipal services 3.4% For a rental unit 2.3% For better access to shopping 1.8% For less traffic congestion 1.2% For a better school district 0.9% For a safer community 0.7% To have better access to highways 0.2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% City Qualities

  3. Considerations for Moving from Bay Village 18 to 44 Year Olds 45 to 64 Year Olds 65+ Years Old For lower taxes (48.4%) For lower taxes (54.3%) For lower taxes (40.4%) • • • For a larger house For a different climate For a smaller house • • • (27.8%) (26.7%) (24.0%) For more home for my For a smaller house For retirement friendly • • • money (27.8%) (14.3%) community (19.1%) To be closer to For attached For attached • • • work/job related condos/clustered condos/clustered (18.3%) homes (13.6%) homes (16.9%) For a different climate For retirement friendly To be closer to • • • (18.3%) community (13.6%) family/friends (12.6%) City Qualities

  4. Considerations for Moving from Bay Village 18 to 44 Year Olds 45 to 64 Year Olds 65+ Years Old For lower taxes (48.4%) For lower taxes (54.3%) For lower taxes (40.4%) • • • For a larger house For a different climate For a smaller house • • • (27.8%) (26.7%) (24.0%) For more home for my For a smaller house For retirement friendly • • • money (27.8%) (14.3%) community (19.1%) To be closer to For attached For attached • • • work/job related condos/clustered condos/clustered (18.3%) homes (13.6%) homes (16.9%) For a different climate For retirement friendly To be closer to • • • (18.3%) community (13.6%) family/friends (12.6%) City Qualities

  5. Considerations for Moving from Bay Village 18 to 44 Year Olds 45 to 64 Year Olds 65+ Years Old For lower taxes (48.4%) For lower taxes (54.3%) For lower taxes (40.4%) • • • For a larger house For a different climate For a smaller house • • • (27.8%) (26.7%) (24.0%) For more home for my For a smaller house For retirement friendly • • • money (27.8%) (14.3%) community (19.1%) To be closer to For attached For attached • • • work/job related condos/clustered condos/clustered (18.3%) homes (13.6%) homes (16.9%) For a different climate For retirement friendly To be closer to • • • (18.3%) community (13.6%) family/friends (12.6%) City Qualities

  6. Land Use

  7. Opinions on Land Use Statements Environmentally friendly development is important 26.9% 49.9% 17.8% New homes should match existing design 25.3% 35.5% 22.8% 14.0% Maintain and attract retail/service stores 14.3% 37.2% 24.0% 18.8% Focus on mixed-use development 9.0% 35.1% 30.7% 17.4% 7.8% Allow more townhouses/condos 10.2% 33.2% 19.7% 23.2% 13.6% Major streets should have decorative elements 10.1% 32.1% 36.6% 17.7% Promote economic development 31.5% 22.7% 7.7% 7.4% 30.6% Allow more multi-family residential 11.1% 17.6% 39.9% 27.6% Grow its population 29.3% 48.6% 14.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Agree Neither Disagree Land Use

  8. Opinions on Land Use Statements Environmentally friendly development is important 26.9% 49.9% 17.8% New homes should match existing design 25.3% 35.5% 22.8% 14.0% Maintain and attract retail/service stores 14.3% 37.2% 24.0% 18.8% Focus on mixed-use development 9.0% 35.1% 30.7% 17.4% 7.8% Allow more townhouses/condos 10.2% 33.2% 19.7% 23.2% 13.6% Major streets should have decorative elements 10.1% 32.1% 36.6% 17.7% Promote economic development 31.5% 22.7% 7.7% 7.4% 30.6% Allow more multi-family residential 11.1% 17.6% 39.9% 27.6% Grow its population 29.3% 48.6% 14.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Agree Neither Disagree Land Use

  9. Opinions on Land Use Statements Environmentally friendly development is important 26.9% 49.9% 17.8% New homes should match existing design 25.3% 35.5% 22.8% 14.0% Maintain and attract retail/service stores 14.3% 37.2% 24.0% 18.8% Focus on mixed-use development 9.0% 35.1% 30.7% 17.4% 7.8% Allow more townhouses/condos 10.2% 33.2% 19.7% 23.2% 13.6% Major streets should have decorative elements 10.1% 32.1% 36.6% 17.7% Promote economic development 31.5% 22.7% 7.7% 7.4% 30.6% Allow more multi-family residential 11.1% 17.6% 39.9% 27.6% Grow its population 29.3% 48.6% 14.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Agree Neither Disagree Land Use

  10. Opinions on Land Use Statements Environmentally friendly development is important 26.9% 49.9% 17.8% New homes should match existing design 25.3% 35.5% 22.8% 14.0% Maintain and attract retail/service stores 14.3% 37.2% 24.0% 18.8% Focus on mixed-use development 9.0% 35.1% 30.7% 17.4% 7.8% Allow more townhouses/condos 10.2% 33.2% 19.7% 23.2% 13.6% Major streets should have decorative elements 10.1% 32.1% 36.6% 17.7% Promote economic development 31.5% 22.7% 7.7% 7.4% 30.6% Allow more multi-family residential 11.1% 17.6% 39.9% 27.6% Grow its population 29.3% 48.6% 14.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Agree Neither Disagree Land Use

  11. Opinions on Land Use Statements by Age 69.3% 62.1% 55.3% 50.6% 46.7% 46.6% 47.5% 27.1% 26.2% New homes should Major streets should The City should allow match the scale and have decorative elements more townhouses or design of existing homes (e.g., gateway signs, lamp posts) condos in appropriate locations 18 to 44 Years Old 45 to 64 Years Old Land Use

  12. Opinions on Land Use Statements by Age 69.3% 62.1% 55.3% 50.6% 46.7% 46.6% 47.5% 27.1% 26.2% New homes should Major streets should The City should allow match the scale and have decorative elements more townhouses or design of existing homes (e.g., gateway signs, lamp posts) condos in appropriate locations 18 to 44 Years Old 45 to 64 Years Old Land Use

  13. Community Events

  14. Opinions on Community Events Lake Erie Nature & Science Center Night 46.2% 49.4% BAYarts Art Festival 34.8% 53.4% 11.1% BAYarts Farm + Art Market 33.0% 49.5% 13.8% BAYarts Moondance 38.7% 43.7% 14.7% Bay Library Programs 34.9% 46.6% 15.8% Annual May in Bay 5K 30.4% 49.8% 18.1% Touch-a-Truck 35.0% 45.1% 16.4% Summer Fun Night 25.6% 53.5% 17.7% Bay Days 29.2% 48.8% 18.5% Bay Village Community Christmas 27.0% 46.5% 23.7% Cahoon in June 29.6% 42.7% 23.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Good Average Poor Community Events

  15. Opinions on Community Events Event Percent with “No Opinion” Touch-a-Truck 58.7% Annual May in Bay 5K 58.4% BAYarts Moondance 56.5% Bay Village Community Christmas 55.9% Summer Fun Night 53.4% Cahoon in June 53.3% BAYarts Farm + Art Market 32.0% Lake Erie Nature & Science Center Night 27.2% BAYarts Art Festival 25.5% Bay Library Programs 18.8% Bay Days 10.3% Community Events

  16. Opinions on Community Events Event Percent with “No Opinion” Touch-a-Truck 58.7% Greater than 50% Annual May in Bay 5K 58.4% BAYarts Moondance 56.5% Bay Village Community Christmas 55.9% Summer Fun Night 53.4% Cahoon in June 53.3% BAYarts Farm + Art Market 32.0% Less than 35% Lake Erie Nature & Science Center Night 27.2% BAYarts Art Festival 25.5% Bay Library Programs 18.8% Bay Days 10.3% Community Events

  17. Would you like to see additional events? Not Sure Yes 45.0% 43.2% No 11.8% Community Events

  18. Would you like to see additional events? 64.1% 57.6% 52.5% 38.6% 36.8% 16.7% 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75+ Community Events

  19. Would you like to see additional events? 64.1% 57.6% 52.5% 38.6% 36.8% 16.7% 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75+ Greater than 50% Less than 40% Community Events

  20. Parks and Recreation

  21. Opinions on Parks and Recreation Facilities Huntington Reservation (Cleveland Metroparks) 52.4% 40.0% Bay Village Family Aquatic Center 39.6% 47.0% 9.4% Cahoon Memorial Park 27.8% 53.4% 16.9% Bradley Park 21.8% 57.5% 19.0% Skate and Bike Park 17.0% 52.6% 21.4% Biking and Hiking Trails 20.3% 48.6% 22.6% 6.9% Dwyer Memorial Senior Center 15.4% 51.8% 28.6% Reese Park (Clague Road) 13.7% 49.3% 34.1% Columbia Park 11.3% 41.1% 36.8% 9.3% Community House 8.2% 37.0% 42.0% 12.5% Community Gym/Fitness Room 24.4% 28.9% 25.8% 15.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Good Average Poor Parks and Recreation

  22. Opinions on Parks and Recreation Facilities Huntington Reservation (Cleveland Metroparks) 52.4% 40.0% Bay Village Family Aquatic Center 39.6% 47.0% 9.4% Cahoon Memorial Park 27.8% 53.4% 16.9% Bradley Park 21.8% 57.5% 19.0% Skate and Bike Park 17.0% 52.6% 21.4% Biking and Hiking Trails 20.3% 48.6% 22.6% 6.9% Dwyer Memorial Senior Center 15.4% 51.8% 28.6% Reese Park (Clague Road) 13.7% 49.3% 34.1% Columbia Park 11.3% 41.1% 36.8% 9.3% Community House 8.2% 37.0% 42.0% 12.5% Community Gym/Fitness Room 24.4% 28.9% 25.8% 15.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Good Average Poor Parks and Recreation

  23. Opinions on Parks and Recreation Facilities Huntington Reservation (Cleveland Metroparks) 52.4% 40.0% Bay Village Family Aquatic Center 39.6% 47.0% 9.4% Cahoon Memorial Park 27.8% 53.4% 16.9% Bradley Park 21.8% 57.5% 19.0% Skate and Bike Park 17.0% 52.6% 21.4% Biking and Hiking Trails 20.3% 48.6% 22.6% 6.9% Dwyer Memorial Senior Center 15.4% 51.8% 28.6% Reese Park (Clague Road) 13.7% 49.3% 34.1% Columbia Park 11.3% 41.1% 36.8% 9.3% Community House 8.2% 37.0% 42.0% 12.5% Community Gym/Fitness Room 24.4% 28.9% 25.8% 15.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Good Average Poor Parks and Recreation

  24. Opinions on Parks and Recreation Facilities Event Percent with “No Opinion” Dwyer Memorial Senior Center 49.4% Community Gym/Fitness Room 47.8% Skate and Bike Park 41.8% Community House 38.2% Columbia Park 30.0% Reese Park (Clague Road) 27.0% Bay Village Family Aquatic Center 25.7% Bradley Park 17.9% Biking and Hiking Trails 15.1% Cahoon Memorial Park 7.5% Huntington Reservation (Cleveland Metroparks) 2.8% Parks and Recreation

  25. Opinions on Parks and Recreation Facilities Event Percent with “No Opinion” Dwyer Memorial Senior Center 49.4% Community Gym/Fitness Room 47.8% Skate and Bike Park 41.8% Community House 38.2% Columbia Park 30.0% Reese Park (Clague Road) 27.0% Bay Village Family Aquatic Center 25.7% Bradley Park 17.9% Biking and Hiking Trails 15.1% Cahoon Memorial Park 7.5% Huntington Reservation (Cleveland Metroparks) 2.8% Parks and Recreation

  26. Ease of Access to Lake Erie Very Poor Poor 0.7% 5.4% Average 10.5% Excellent 41.8% Good 41.6% Parks and Recreation

  27. Would you like to see a new green space constructed next to City Hall? Yes 29.1% Not Sure 45.8% No 25.1% Parks and Recreation

  28. Overall Quality of Parks and Recreation Facilities Very Poor Poor 0.2% 0.5% Average Excellent 14.3% 27.3% Good 57.7% Parks and Recreation

  29. Transportation

  30. Opinions on Ease of Getting Around Car 72.3% 26.5% Walking 46.2% 43.3% 7.6% Bike 42.3% 44.5% 6.7% Senior Transportation 12.9% 24.2% 56.1% Public Transit 16.5% 32.9% 28.8% 17.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Agree Neither Disagree Transportation

  31. Opinions on Ease of Getting Around Car 72.3% 26.5% Walking 46.2% 43.3% 7.6% Bike 42.3% 44.5% 6.7% Senior Transportation 12.9% 24.2% 56.1% Public Transit 16.5% 32.9% 28.8% 17.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Agree Neither Disagree Transportation

  32. Priority for Improvements to Getting Around Bike 20.7% 30.3% 23.7% 10.6% 14.7% Walking 14.4% 26.1% 30.3% 11.6% 17.6% Senior Transportation 13.5% 24.5% 32.5% 10.0% 19.5% Public Transit 9.1% 18.2% 33.8% 17.2% 21.7% Car 9.1% 11.4% 26.6% 20.5% 32.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% High Average Low Transportation

  33. Priority for Improvements to Getting Around Bike 20.7% 30.3% 23.7% 10.6% 14.7% Walking 14.4% 26.1% 30.3% 11.6% 17.6% Senior Transportation 13.5% 24.5% 32.5% 10.0% 19.5% Public Transit 9.1% 18.2% 33.8% 17.2% 21.7% Car 9.1% 11.4% 26.6% 20.5% 32.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% High Average Low Transportation

  34. Priority for Improvements to Getting Around Bike 20.7% 30.3% 23.7% 10.6% 14.7% Walking 14.4% 26.1% 30.3% 11.6% 17.6% Senior Transportation 13.5% 24.5% 32.5% 10.0% 19.5% Public Transit 9.1% 18.2% 33.8% 17.2% 21.7% Car 9.1% 11.4% 26.6% 20.5% 32.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% High Average Low Transportation

  35. Condition of the City’s Sidewalks Very Poor 0.5% Poor Excellent 9.8% 9.1% Average 35.6% Good 45.0% Transportation

  36. City Services

  37. Opinions on Quality of City Services Fire protection/EMS 59.0% 37.8% Police protection 53.2% 40.7% Park maintenance 32.7% 56.6% 9.7% Trash removal & curbside recycling 36.9% 49.3% 11.5% Compost and brush recycling 33.3% 49.5% 13.2% Leaf collection 35.1% 46.1% 14.2% Traffic enforcement 28.6% 48.1% 18.7% Recreational programs 20.8% 54.5% 21.7% Snow removal 24.4% 47.8% 22.6% Senior transportation services 16.7% 46.5% 25.4% 9.6% Street maintenance/repair 11.3% 42.7% 34.9% 7.9% Building department 11.9% 40.4% 37.9% 6.3% City of Bay Village website 10.6% 40.0% 41.8% Tree lawn planting 12.6% 35.0% 33.2% 13.8% Property maintenance enforcement 7.1% 37.9% 35.7% 14.0% Sidewalk correction program 8.3% 31.6% 38.6% 15.5% Water back up/sewer inspection 8.1% 24.0% 31.7% 20.1% 16.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Good Average Poor City Services

  38. Opinions on Quality of City Services Fire protection/EMS 59.0% 37.8% Police protection 53.2% 40.7% Park maintenance 32.7% 56.6% 9.7% Trash removal & curbside recycling 36.9% 49.3% 11.5% Compost and brush recycling 33.3% 49.5% 13.2% Leaf collection 35.1% 46.1% 14.2% Traffic enforcement 28.6% 48.1% 18.7% Recreational programs 20.8% 54.5% 21.7% Snow removal 24.4% 47.8% 22.6% Senior transportation services 16.7% 46.5% 25.4% 9.6% Street maintenance/repair 11.3% 42.7% 34.9% 7.9% Building department 11.9% 40.4% 37.9% 6.3% City of Bay Village website 10.6% 40.0% 41.8% Tree lawn planting 12.6% 35.0% 33.2% 13.8% Property maintenance enforcement 7.1% 37.9% 35.7% 14.0% Sidewalk correction program 8.3% 31.6% 38.6% 15.5% Water back up/sewer inspection 8.1% 24.0% 31.7% 20.1% 16.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Good Average Poor City Services

  39. Opinions on Quality of City Services Fire protection/EMS 59.0% 37.8% Police protection 53.2% 40.7% Park maintenance 32.7% 56.6% 9.7% Trash removal & curbside recycling 36.9% 49.3% 11.5% Compost and brush recycling 33.3% 49.5% 13.2% Leaf collection 35.1% 46.1% 14.2% Traffic enforcement 28.6% 48.1% 18.7% Recreational programs 20.8% 54.5% 21.7% Snow removal 24.4% 47.8% 22.6% Senior transportation services 16.7% 46.5% 25.4% 9.6% Street maintenance/repair 11.3% 42.7% 34.9% 7.9% Building department 11.9% 40.4% 37.9% 6.3% City of Bay Village website 10.6% 40.0% 41.8% Tree lawn planting 12.6% 35.0% 33.2% 13.8% Property maintenance enforcement 7.1% 37.9% 35.7% 14.0% Sidewalk correction program 8.3% 31.6% 38.6% 15.5% Water back up/sewer inspection 8.1% 24.0% 31.7% 20.1% 16.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Good Average Poor City Services

  40. Opinions on Quality of City Services Fire protection/EMS 59.0% 37.8% Police protection 53.2% 40.7% Park maintenance 32.7% 56.6% 9.7% Trash removal & curbside recycling 36.9% 49.3% 11.5% Compost and brush recycling 33.3% 49.5% 13.2% Leaf collection 35.1% 46.1% 14.2% Traffic enforcement 28.6% 48.1% 18.7% Recreational programs 20.8% 54.5% 21.7% Snow removal 24.4% 47.8% 22.6% Senior transportation services 16.7% 46.5% 25.4% 9.6% Street maintenance/repair 11.3% 42.7% 34.9% 7.9% Building department 11.9% 40.4% 37.9% 6.3% City of Bay Village website 10.6% 40.0% 41.8% Tree lawn planting 12.6% 35.0% 33.2% 13.8% Property maintenance enforcement 7.1% 37.9% 35.7% 14.0% Sidewalk correction program 8.3% 31.6% 38.6% 15.5% Water back up/sewer inspection 8.1% 24.0% 31.7% 20.1% 16.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Good Average Poor City Services

  41. Opinions on Quality of City Services Fire protection/EMS 59.0% 37.8% Police protection 53.2% 40.7% Park maintenance 32.7% 56.6% 9.7% Trash removal & curbside recycling 36.9% 49.3% 11.5% Compost and brush recycling 33.3% 49.5% 13.2% Leaf collection 35.1% 46.1% 14.2% Traffic enforcement 28.6% 48.1% 18.7% Recreational programs 20.8% 54.5% 21.7% Snow removal 24.4% 47.8% 22.6% Senior transportation services 16.7% 46.5% 25.4% 9.6% Street maintenance/repair 11.3% 42.7% 34.9% 7.9% Building department 11.9% 40.4% 37.9% 6.3% City of Bay Village website 10.6% 40.0% 41.8% Tree lawn planting 12.6% 35.0% 33.2% 13.8% Property maintenance enforcement 7.1% 37.9% 35.7% 14.0% Sidewalk correction program 8.3% 31.6% 38.6% 15.5% Water back up/sewer inspection 8.1% 24.0% 31.7% 20.1% 16.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Good Average Poor City Services

  42. Opinions on Importance of City Services Fire protection/EMS 92.0% 7.5% Police protection 89.6% 9.4% Trash removal & curbside recycling 64.8% 33.4% Snow removal 75.5% 22.6% Street maintenance/repair 60.6% 37.5% Leaf collection 65.7% 31.3% Park maintenance 52.3% 44.5% Water back up/sewer inspection 66.8% 29.9% Compost and brush recycling 47.5% 43.6% 8.4% Recreational programs 37.8% 50.1% 10.0% Building department 27.4% 54.6% 15.7% Sidewalk correction program 28.5% 51.9% 17.9% Property maintenance enforcement 35.2% 44.9% 17.5% Traffic enforcement 34.0% 44.4% 19.0% Senior transportation services 26.5% 45.7% 19.5% 8.3% Tree lawn planting 19.2% 33.3% 34.7% 12.8% City of Bay Village website 11.6% 38.1% 36.0% 14.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very Important Important Somewhat Important Not Important City Services

  43. Opinions on Importance of City Services Fire protection/EMS 92.0% 7.5% Police protection 89.6% 9.4% Trash removal & curbside recycling 64.8% 33.4% Snow removal 75.5% 22.6% Street maintenance/repair 60.6% 37.5% Leaf collection 65.7% 31.3% Park maintenance 52.3% 44.5% Water back up/sewer inspection 66.8% 29.9% Compost and brush recycling 47.5% 43.6% 8.4% Recreational programs 37.8% 50.1% 10.0% Building department 27.4% 54.6% 15.7% Sidewalk correction program 28.5% 51.9% 17.9% Property maintenance enforcement 35.2% 44.9% 17.5% Traffic enforcement 34.0% 44.4% 19.0% Senior transportation services 26.5% 45.7% 19.5% 8.3% Tree lawn planting 19.2% 33.3% 34.7% 12.8% City of Bay Village website 11.6% 38.1% 36.0% 14.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very Important Important Somewhat Important Not Important City Services

  44. Opinions on Importance of City Services Fire protection/EMS 92.0% 7.5% Police protection 89.6% 9.4% Trash removal & curbside recycling 64.8% 33.4% Snow removal 75.5% 22.6% Street maintenance/repair 60.6% 37.5% Leaf collection 65.7% 31.3% Park maintenance 52.3% 44.5% Water back up/sewer inspection 66.8% 29.9% Compost and brush recycling 47.5% 43.6% 8.4% Recreational programs 37.8% 50.1% 10.0% Building department 27.4% 54.6% 15.7% Sidewalk correction program 28.5% 51.9% 17.9% Property maintenance enforcement 35.2% 44.9% 17.5% Traffic enforcement 34.0% 44.4% 19.0% Senior transportation services 26.5% 45.7% 19.5% 8.3% Tree lawn planting 19.2% 33.3% 34.7% 12.8% City of Bay Village website 11.6% 38.1% 36.0% 14.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very Important Important Somewhat Important Not Important City Services

  45. Matrix on Importance and Quality City Services

  46. Matrix on Importance and Quality Increasing quality Increasing importance City Services

  47. Matrix on Importance and Quality Average quality City Services

  48. Matrix on Importance and Quality Average importance City Services

  49. Matrix on Importance and Quality Above average quality, above average importance City Services

  50. Matrix on Importance and Quality Below average quality, above average importance City Services

  51. Matrix on Importance and Quality Below average quality, below average importance City Services

  52. Matrix on Importance and Quality Above average quality, below average importance City Services

  53. Overall Quality of City Services Very Poor Poor 0.2% 0.7% Average 7.9% Excellent 33.3% Good 57.9% City Services

  54. Change in Overall Quality of City Services Greatly Greatly Declined Somewhat Improved 0.9% Declined 3.5% 10.7% Somewhat Improved 33.0% Stayed the Same 51.8% City Services

  55. Housing

  56. Priority for Types of Housing Maintain existing housing 55.4% 32.6% 10.3% More options for seniors 19.9% 28.2% 35.7% 8.7% 7.6% More single-family detached 14.5% 31.4% 35.2% 12.3% 6.6% More walkable options 9.1% 24.4% 40.5% 18.0% 8.0% More townhouses/condos 10.9% 20.9% 27.4% 20.1% 20.7% More options for young 21.1% 41.7% 20.2% 11.2% people More infill development 8.7% 17.5% 37.1% 20.3% 16.3% More apartments/mixed-use 8.8% 24.5% 25.6% 36.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% High Average Low Housing

  57. Priority for Types of Housing Maintain existing housing 55.4% 32.6% 10.3% More options for seniors 19.9% 28.2% 35.7% 8.7% 7.6% More single-family detached 14.5% 31.4% 35.2% 12.3% 6.6% More walkable options 9.1% 24.4% 40.5% 18.0% 8.0% More townhouses/condos 10.9% 20.9% 27.4% 20.1% 20.7% More options for young 21.1% 41.7% 20.2% 11.2% people More infill development 8.7% 17.5% 37.1% 20.3% 16.3% More apartments/mixed-use 8.8% 24.5% 25.6% 36.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% High Average Low Housing

  58. Priority for Types of Housing Maintain existing housing 55.4% 32.6% 10.3% More options for seniors 19.9% 28.2% 35.7% 8.7% 7.6% More single-family detached 14.5% 31.4% 35.2% 12.3% 6.6% More walkable options 9.1% 24.4% 40.5% 18.0% 8.0% More townhouses/condos 10.9% 20.9% 27.4% 20.1% 20.7% More options for young 21.1% 41.7% 20.2% 11.2% people More infill development 8.7% 17.5% 37.1% 20.3% 16.3% More apartments/mixed-use 8.8% 24.5% 25.6% 36.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% High Average Low Housing

  59. Priority for Types of Housing Maintain existing housing 55.4% 32.6% 10.3% More options for seniors 19.9% 28.2% 35.7% 8.7% 7.6% More single-family detached 14.5% 31.4% 35.2% 12.3% 6.6% More walkable options 9.1% 24.4% 40.5% 18.0% 8.0% More townhouses/condos 10.9% 20.9% 27.4% 20.1% 20.7% More options for young 21.1% 41.7% 20.2% 11.2% people More infill development 8.7% 17.5% 37.1% 20.3% 16.3% More apartments/mixed-use 8.8% 24.5% 25.6% 36.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% High Average Low Housing

  60. Priority for Types of Housing Maintain existing housing 55.4% 32.6% 10.3% More options for seniors 19.9% 28.2% 35.7% 8.7% 7.6% More single-family detached 14.5% 31.4% 35.2% 12.3% 6.6% More walkable options 9.1% 24.4% 40.5% 18.0% 8.0% More townhouses/condos 10.9% 20.9% 27.4% 20.1% 20.7% More options for young 21.1% 41.7% 20.2% 11.2% people More infill development 8.7% 17.5% 37.1% 20.3% 16.3% More apartments/mixed-use 8.8% 24.5% 25.6% 36.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% High Average Low Housing

  61. Priority for Types of Housing 70.6% 58.5% 46.2% 45.2% 38.0% 19.5% More housing options for More well-designed seniors looking to remain single-family, detached in the City homes 18 to 44 Years Old 45 to 64 Years Old Housing

  62. Priority for Types of Housing 70.6% 58.5% 46.2% 45.2% 38.0% 19.5% More housing options for More well-designed seniors looking to remain single-family, detached in the City homes 18 to 44 Years Old 45 to 64 Years Old Housing

  63. Priority for Types of Housing 17.3% 15.3% 38.4% 37.4% 35.3% 34.4% 25.6% 6.5% 16.3% More housing options More well-designed More well-designed within walking distance to townhouses/condos apartments/mixed-use amenities development 18 to 44 Years Old 45 to 64 Years Old Housing

  64. Priority for Types of Housing 17.3% 15.3% 38.4% 37.4% 35.3% 34.4% 25.6% 6.5% 16.3% More housing options More well-designed More well-designed within walking distance to townhouses/condos apartments/mixed-use amenities development 18 to 44 Years Old 45 to 64 Years Old Housing

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

CITY OF EUCLID MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS County Planning Team James Sonnhalter ,

CITY OF EUCLID MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS County Planning Team James Sonnhalter ,

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

2.09k views • 170 slides
Long Range Plan Issues Survey Survey Conducted: March 17-29, 2015 220-4101 DRAFT WORK PRODUCT

Long Range Plan Issues Survey Survey Conducted: March 17-29, 2015 220-4101 DRAFT WORK PRODUCT

Los Angeles County Transportation Long Range Plan Issues Survey Survey Conducted: March 17-29, 2015 220-4101 DRAFT WORK PRODUCT Key Findings Support for both measures is initially strong and the intensity of support those saying

682 views • 29 slides
2017 Community Survey Presented to Board of County Commissioners by Strategic Planning &

2017 Community Survey Presented to Board of County Commissioners by Strategic Planning &

2017 Community Survey Presented to Board of County Commissioners by Strategic Planning & Evaluation November 8, 2017 1 Purpose Methodology 2017 Survey Results National Benchmarking Overview Communication and Digital

716 views • 32 slides
Presentation Roadmap I. Introduction II. Survey Design III. Results Demographics

Presentation Roadmap I. Introduction II. Survey Design III. Results Demographics

Middlesex County Resident Life Survey TM May 10, 2017 Cara A. Finn Director of Economic Development Great survey, should be done more often, and hoping to see results and what others in my community have to say! -- Middlesex County

604 views • 24 slides
Detailed Survey Results 2Q 2015 Survey Background Conducted between May 12-27, 2015

Detailed Survey Results 2Q 2015 Survey Background Conducted between May 12-27, 2015

Detailed Survey Results 2Q 2015 Survey Background Conducted between May 12-27, 2015 Quarterly Survey CPA decision makers (primarily CFOs, CEOs and Controllers) AICPA members in Business & Industry only 570 qualified responses American

1.19k views • 45 slides
Howard County Public School System Distance Learning & Fall Planning Stakeholder Survey

Howard County Public School System Distance Learning & Fall Planning Stakeholder Survey

Howard County Public School System Distance Learning & Fall Planning Stakeholder Survey Survey Results July 9, 2020 Guiding Questions 1. What considerations are critical for our fall planning? 2. What fall distance learning options

1.36k views • 94 slides
Detailed Survey Results 4Q 2015 Survey Background Conducted between November 3-23, 2015

Detailed Survey Results 4Q 2015 Survey Background Conducted between November 3-23, 2015

Detailed Survey Results 4Q 2015 Survey Background Conducted between November 3-23, 2015 Quarterly Survey CPA decision makers (primarily CFOs, CEOs and Controllers) AICPA members in Business & Industry only 852 qualified responses

592 views • 46 slides
Public Involvement Survey Results CTP Survey Results: Overview Survey released in Fall 2007

Public Involvement Survey Results CTP Survey Results: Overview Survey released in Fall 2007

Franklin County Comprehensive Transportation Plan Public Involvement Survey Results CTP Survey Results: Overview Survey released in Fall 2007 Local businesses / government offices Newspaper Direct mail Online Responses

727 views • 33 slides
Summary of Results Survey Conducted: April 9-18, 2016 CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR

Summary of Results Survey Conducted: April 9-18, 2016 CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR

Summary of Results Survey Conducted: April 9-18, 2016 CONSULTANT WORKING DRAFT. NOT FOR PUBLICATION. CA GOVT CODE 6254 220-4333 Results of interviews with 600 voters in Fresno Unified School District who are likely to cast ballots

395 views • 24 slides
2018 Community Survey Presented to the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners by the County

2018 Community Survey Presented to the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners by the County

2018 Community Survey Presented to the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners by the County Managers Strategic Planning & Evaluation Team October 23, 2018 Awareness Attitudes Perceptions Community Survey: Annual Public Opinion

663 views • 34 slides
Community Values Survey 2019 Why Survey? Why Now? 1 Collect information to inform pollution

Community Values Survey 2019 Why Survey? Why Now? 1 Collect information to inform pollution

Community Values Survey 2019 Why Survey? Why Now? 1 Collect information to inform pollution prevention initiatives How can we be effective with communication? 2 3 Inform knowledge of community information needs and outreach strategies

323 views • 16 slides
DRAFT PLAN & DRAFT EIR April 25, 2017 San Francisco County Transportation Authority

DRAFT PLAN & DRAFT EIR April 25, 2017 San Francisco County Transportation Authority

DRAFT PLAN & DRAFT EIR April 25, 2017 San Francisco County Transportation Authority Meeting Ken Kirkey, MTC Planning Director Plan Bay Area 2040 establishes a 24-year regional vision for growth and investment. Image Source:

329 views • 18 slides
n Senior Survey Results o i t u b i r Office of Planning and Institutional Research t s

n Senior Survey Results o i t u b i r Office of Planning and Institutional Research t s

n Senior Survey Results o i t u b i r Office of Planning and Institutional Research t s i D Judith Jaffe r Mitchell Albury o f Xuchen Zhou t o N July 26, 2017 Senior Survey Presentation Introduction Overview n

901 views • 69 slides
Adams County Quality of Life Survey Survey Presentation of Results 1 Adams County Quality of

Adams County Quality of Life Survey Survey Presentation of Results 1 Adams County Quality of

Adams County Quality of Life Survey Survey Presentation of Results 1 Adams County Quality of Life Survey A Agenda d Overview of survey methodology Overview of survey methodology Questions from you about methodology Highlights of

695 views • 56 slides
Employee Climate Survey Presented to the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners by the County

Employee Climate Survey Presented to the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners by the County

Employee Climate Survey Presented to the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners by the County Managers Strategic Planning & Evaluation Team October 23, 2018 Theme: Employee Insights: Moving the County from Vision to Action Background

237 views • 20 slides
2015 Resident Survey Durham County, North Carolina Presented by February 2016 ETC Institute A

2015 Resident Survey Durham County, North Carolina Presented by February 2016 ETC Institute A

2015 Resident Survey Durham County, North Carolina Presented by February 2016 ETC Institute A National Leader in Market Research for Local Governmental Organizations helping Town and county governments gather and use survey data to enhance

687 views • 37 slides
PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT June 11, 2014 St. Thomas More Catholic Church 2900 Kimball

PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT June 11, 2014 St. Thomas More Catholic Church 2900 Kimball

1 RILEY COUNTY: LOCAL PUBLIC HEALTH SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT June 11, 2014 St. Thomas More Catholic Church 2900 Kimball Manhattan, KS 66502 Healthy people in a healthy community 2 The Riley County Board of Health Welcomes You! Ron Wells

822 views • 40 slides
Community Survey of Older Adults in Fairfax County Update Chris Leonard, Director Department of

Community Survey of Older Adults in Fairfax County Update Chris Leonard, Director Department of

Community Survey of Older Adults in Fairfax County Update Chris Leonard, Director Department of Neighborhood and Community Services October 9, 2018 Update: Survey of Older Adults Work done to date: May 1, 2018: Board matter requesting

226 views • 4 slides
Usi sing th the PSE Readiness ss A Assess ssment & & Decision Instrumen ent ( (PS

Usi sing th the PSE Readiness ss A Assess ssment & & Decision Instrumen ent ( (PS

Usi sing th the PSE Readiness ss A Assess ssment & & Decision Instrumen ent ( (PS PSE E RE READI) to Optimize Co e Community N y Nutrition Strategi egies for Y Your Co Context October 24, 24, 2018 2018 Acron onym yms

1.03k views • 69 slides
Discussion and presentation of Straw Proposal EIM Governance Review Committee General Session

Discussion and presentation of Straw Proposal EIM Governance Review Committee General Session

Discussion and presentation of Straw Proposal EIM Governance Review Committee General Session August 7, 2020 Agenda Public comment Decision on May 5, 2020 General Session Minutes Introduction Review GRCs principles

253 views • 24 slides
ZONING AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN PROGRESS Presentation No. 1 April 23, 2018 It is not

ZONING AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN PROGRESS Presentation No. 1 April 23, 2018 It is not

ROUGH DRAFT ZONING AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN PROGRESS Presentation No. 1 April 23, 2018 It is not nor will it ever be this boards intention of taking a current zone and changing it without bringing several meetings to the residents of

152 views • 13 slides
Verrado Community Association, Inc. 1 st Quarter Board of Directors Meeting The Center on

Verrado Community Association, Inc. 1 st Quarter Board of Directors Meeting The Center on

Verrado Community Association, Inc. 1 st Quarter Board of Directors Meeting The Center on Main Presentation Title | Presentation Title 2 Date March 27, 2018 Immediately following 1 st Quarter VA Meeting Agenda I. Welcome and

414 views • 29 slides
Petrobras 2020 Petrobras 2020 KM Challenge: Support Business Sustainable Growth KM Challenge:

Petrobras 2020 Petrobras 2020 KM Challenge: Support Business Sustainable Growth KM Challenge:

APQC 15 th Annual Knowledge Management Conference Driving Business Performance: The New Face of Collaboration Houston, Texas, USA - April 30, 2010 Petrobras 2020 Petrobras 2020 KM Challenge: Support Business Sustainable Growth KM Challenge:

320 views • 30 slides
FONE FARMER AGE Slow retirement process Lack of successors? Retirement housing? Lack

FONE FARMER AGE Slow retirement process Lack of successors? Retirement housing? Lack

FARMING OPPORTUNITIES for NEW ENTRANTS for NEW ENTRANTS FONE FARMER AGE Slow retirement process Lack of successors? Retirement housing? Lack of pension? Way of life? Useful Mentors? THE STARTER FARMERS STARTER FARMS

412 views • 15 slides

More recommend