Community Leaders Final Report

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
3640 Colonel Glenn Hwy. Phone: (937) 775-2941
Dayton OH 45435-0001 Fax: (937) 775-2422
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
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
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
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
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.
Survey
Political Philosophy
Respondents
Very Conservative 5.8%
Somewhat Conservative 37.9%
Middle of the Road 34.1%
Somewhat Liberal 17.1%
Very Liberal 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
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 Survey

Respondents
18 ~ 24 years 0%
25 ~ 34 years 3.3%
35 ~ 44 years 17.7%
45 ~54 years 28.7%
55 ~ 64 years 32.0%
65+ years 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 Local Local

Leaders Citizens
Less than $20,000 1.4% 14.5%
$20,000 to $35,000 3.6% 18.4%
$35,001 to $60,000 8.6% 28.3%
Over $60,000 86.4% 38.8%
Figure 3: Income
4
March 2005
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
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 one-
third 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.
Leader Survey: Citizen Survey:

Aspect Needs a lot of Needs a lot of
improvement improvement
Having enough high-paying job opportunities 76.6% 65.6%
Providing high quality schools 68.9% 55.0%
Having convenient public transportation 27.2% 39.4%
Providing enough homes that people can afford to buy 20.7% 38.8%
Having a safe environment in which to live, work, or
29.8% 38.4%
play
Providing enough rental housing that people can
17.6% 35.9%
afford
Providing roads necessary to handle current and
39.1% 35.4%
planned development
Having high quality drinking water 15.4% 35.3%
Having convenient access to parks, green spaces and
11.3% 15.2%
trails
Figure 4: Barriers to Quality of Life
6
March 2005
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
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.
Leader Survey: We Citizen Survey: We don’t

Topic
don’t need any more need any more
Higher priced homes 55.5% 74.5%
Townhouses and duplexes 40.1% 48.5%
Condominiums 33.6% 53.0%
Single family homes for
26.8% 16.6%
first time buyers
Moderately priced homes 23.6% 13.0%
Affordable housing 21.4% 8.7%
Assisted living for seniors 11.0% 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
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
Transportation Which would improve the Which would improve the

Investment Miami Valley the MOST Miami Valley the LEAST
Improved Streets and
39.7% 2.4%
Highways
Improved Public
17.6% 2.7%
Transportation
More Public Transportation 13.2% 21.4%
New Streets and Highways 12.2% 17.6%
New Hiking or Biking
8.8% 15.9%
Trails
Expanded Carpooling
6.1% 21.7%
Program
More Parking 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

Citizen Survey Local Community
Miami Valley experienced
Respondents Leaders
in the past five years?
A Great Deal 36.3% 14.7%
Some 54.4% 49.3%
None at All 9.2% 36.0%
Figure 7: Growth in the Miami Valley
10
March 2005
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 Has the Miami Valley Experienced

Increased wear and tear on our roads 89.9%
More housing options for people who are
86.4%
looking to buy a home
More competition for available jobs 89.5%
New retail stores opening in this area 79.9%
Improved walking and biking opportunities 78.8%
Increased traffic congestion 77.7%
Building new roads and widening existing
75.3%
ones
Improvements in many neighborhoods 61.5%
More parks and green spaces 60.4%
Less open space 59.5%
More job opportunities 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
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
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
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
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.
Percent who believe it is Percent who believe it is

Action Item
important (Citizens) important (Leaders)
Preserving existing
92.3% 92.4%
woodlands
Preserving river corridors 92.2% 94.4%
Better enforcement of
existing laws and 91.4% 89.1%
regulations
Support programs that
87.3% 73.8%
protect agricultural land
Investing more in
maintaining our existing 87.2% 90.4%
parks and open spaces
Preserving wetlands 85.4% 85.8%
Enhancing air quality
awareness and outreach 81.2% 76.2%
programs
Stricter water quality
79.4% 59.3%
regulations
More neighborhood
73.4% 88.1%
beautification projects
Investing more in creating
56.7% 57.3%
new parks and open spaces
Figure 9: Importance of Environmental Policies
15
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
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 Percentage
City, Village, or Township 72.0%
School District 68.0%
Public Library 64.6%
Public Parks 58.4%
County 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 9-1-
1 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
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
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
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?
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Montgomery 181 59.9 59.9 59.9
Miami 27 8.9 8.9 68.9
Greene 62 20.5 20.5 89.4
Warren 16 5.3 5.3 94.7
Other 16 5.3 5.3 100.0
Total 302 100.0 100.0
Is your full time employment in the private, public or non profit sector?
Cumulative
Valid Private 74 24.5 24.5 24.5
Public 152 50.3 50.3 74.8
Non-profit 42 13.9 13.9 88.7
Other 34 11.3 11.3 100.0
Total 302 100.0 100.0
Are you an elected official?
Cumulative
Valid Yes 135 44.7 44.7 44.7
No 167 55.3 55.3 100.0
Total 302 100.0 100.0
Overall, How would you rate the quality of life here in the Miami Valley?
Cumulative
Valid Excellent 52 17.2 17.3 17.3
Good 214 70.9 71.1 88.4
Fair 32 10.6 10.6 99.0
Poor 3 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 301 99.7 100.0
Missing Don't know 1 .3
Total 302 100.0
A-1
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?
Cumulative
Valid Get better 102 33.8 34.1 34.1
Stay the same 136 45.0 45.5 79.6
Get worse 61 20.2 20.4 100.0
Total 299 99.0 100.0
Missing Don't know 3 1.0
Total 302 100.0
Providing enough homes that people can afford to buy. Does this aspect:
Cumulative
Valid Need a lot of
62 20.5 20.7 20.7
improvement
Need a little improvement 158 52.3 52.7 73.3
Need no improvement at
80 26.5 26.7 100.0
all
Total 300 99.3 100.0
Total 302 100.0
Providing enough rental housing that people can afford. Does that aspect:
Cumulative
Valid Need a lot of
51 16.9 17.6 17.6
improvement
112 37.1 38.6 100.0
all
Total 290 96.0 100.0
Total 302 100.0
A-2
Having convenient public transportation. Does that aspect:
Cumulative
Valid Need a lot of
81 26.8 27.2 27.2
improvement
98 32.5 32.9 100.0
all
Total 298 98.7 100.0
Refused 1 .3
Total 4 1.3
Total 302 100.0
Having convenient access to parks, green spaces and trails. Does that aspect:
Cumulative
Valid Need a lot of
34 11.3 11.3 11.3
improvement
123 40.7 41.0 100.0
all
Total 300 99.3 100.0
Total 302 100.0
Providing roads necessary to handle current and planned development. Does that aspect:
Cumulative
Valid Need a lot of
118 39.1 39.1 39.1
improvement
40 13.2 13.2 100.0
all
Total 302 100.0 100.0
A-3
Having high quality drinking water. Does that aspect:
Cumulative
Valid Need a lot of
46 15.2 15.4 15.4
improvement
151 50.0 50.7 100.0
all
Total 298 98.7 100.0
Total 302 100.0
Having enough high-paying job opportunities. Does that aspect:
Cumulative
Valid Need a lot of
229 75.8 76.6 76.6
improvement
4 1.3 1.3 100.0
all
Total 299 99.0 100.0
Total 302 100.0
Providing high quality schools. Does that aspect:
Cumulative
Valid Need a lot of
204 67.5 68.9 68.9
improvement
15 5.0 5.1 100.0
all
Total 296 98.0 100.0
Refused 4 1.3
Total 6 2.0
Total 302 100.0
A-4
Having a safe environment in which to live, work, or play. Does that aspect:
Cumulative
Valid Need a lot of
89 29.5 29.8 29.8
improvement
Need no improvment at
38 12.6 12.7 100.0
all
Total 299 99.0 100.0
Refused 1 .3
Total 3 1.0
Total 302 100.0
New home development, excluding apartment and condominiums
Cumulative
Valid Strongly support 78 25.8 26.4 26.4
Somewhat support 146 48.3 49.5 75.9
Somewhat oppose 52 17.2 17.6 93.6
Strongly oppose 19 6.3 6.4 100.0
Total 295 97.7 100.0
Refused 2 .7
Total 7 2.3
Total 302 100.0
New home development, including apartments and condominiums
Cumulative
Total 297 98.3 100.0
Refused 1 .3
Total 5 1.7
Total 302 100.0
A-5
Improving housing options for seniors
Cumulative
Total 295 97.7 100.0
Total 302 100.0
More housing for people with disabilities
Cumulative
Strongly oppose 1 .3 .4 100.0
Total 279 92.4 100.0
Refused 2 .7
Total 23 7.6
Total 302 100.0
Encouraging new businesses to locate in the Miami Valley
Cumulative
Somewhat oppose 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 301 99.7 100.0
Total 302 100.0
A-6
Locating new retail shopping in the Miami Valley
Cumulative
Total 298 98.7 100.0
Total 302 100.0
Expanding public transportation routes
Cumulative
Total 295 97.7 100.0
Total 302 100.0
New roadways to meet future transportation needs
Cumulative
Total 301 99.7 100.0
Missing Refused 1 .3
Total 302 100.0
A-7
Expanding existing roadways
Cumulative
Total 300 99.3 100.0
Refused 1 .3
Total 2 .7
Total 302 100.0
Creating new public transportation services
Cumulative
Total 297 98.3 100.0
Total 302 100.0
More housing options for lower and moderate income families
Cumulative
Total 297 98.3 100.0
Total 302 100.0
A-8
Expand or add new developments that allow people to walk or bike to school or work,
to run errands or for recreation.
Cumulative
Total 295 97.7 100.0
Refused 1 .3
Total 7 2.3
Total 302 100.0
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
Cumulative
Valid We must preserve the
qualities that make our 66 21.9 24.6 24.6
communities uni
Growth is necessary
for our economy and 202 66.9 75.4 100.0
current regulations
Total 268 88.7 100.0
Refused 11 3.6
Total 34 11.3
Total 302 100.0
Over the past five years, how much growth do you think the Miami Valley has
experienced. Would you say:
Cumulative
Valid A great deal 43 14.2 14.7 14.7
Some 144 47.7 49.3 64.0
None at all 105 34.8 36.0 100.0
Total 292 96.7 100.0
Refused 2 .7
Total 10 3.3
Total 302 100.0
A-9
More job opportunities
Cumulative
Valid Has experienced 66 21.9 22.2 22.2
Has not experienced 231 76.5 77.8 100.0
Total 297 98.3 100.0
Refused 1 .3
Total 5 1.7
Total 302 100.0
New retail stores opening in this area
Cumulative
Total 299 99.0 100.0
Total 302 100.0
Building new roads and widening existing ones
Cumulative
Total 299 99.0 100.0
Total 302 100.0
More parks and green spaces
Cumulative
Total 293 97.0 100.0
Total 302 100.0
A-10
More housing options for people who are looking to buy a home
Cumulative
Total 294 97.4 100.0
Total 302 100.0
Improvement in many neighborhoods
Cumulative
Total 286 94.7 100.0
Refused 1 .3
Total 16 5.3
Total 302 100.0
Increased traffic congestion
Cumulative
Total 300 99.3 100.0
Total 302 100.0
Increased wear and tear on our roads
Cumulative
Total 298 98.7 100.0
Total 302 100.0
A-11
Less open space
Cumulative
Total 294 97.4 100.0
Total 302 100.0
More competition for available jobs
Cumulative
Total 292 96.7 100.0
Refused 2 .7
Total 10 3.3
Total 302 100.0
Improved walking and biking opportunities
Cumulative
Total 293 97.0 100.0
Total 302 100.0
Single family homes for first time buyers. Would you say:
Cumulative
Valid We need a lot more 68 22.5 23.1 23.1
We need a little more 148 49.0 50.2 73.2
We don't need any more 79 26.2 26.8 100.0
Total 295 97.7 100.0
Total 302 100.0
A-12
Assisted living for seniors. Would you say:
Cumulative
Total 291 96.4 100.0
Refused 2 .7
Total 11 3.6
Total 302 100.0
Affordable housing. Would you say:
Cumulative
Total 295 97.7 100.0
Total 302 100.0
Moderately priced homes. Would you say:
Cumulative
Total 297 98.3 100.0
Total 302 100.0
Higher priced homes. Would you say:
Cumulative
Total 299 99.0 100.0
Total 302 100.0
A-13
Condominiums. Would you say:
Cumulative
Total 289 95.7 100.0
Total 302 100.0
Townhouses and Duplexes. Would you say:
Cumulative
Total 294 97.4 100.0
Refused 1 .3
Total 8 2.6
Total 302 100.0
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
Cumulative
Valid We should plan new
neighborhoods with 193 63.9 71.2 71.2
smaller lots, sidewalk
We should plan new
neighborhoods with 78 25.8 28.8 100.0
larger lots even if it
Total 271 89.7 100.0
Refused 13 4.3
Total 31 10.3
Total 302 100.0
A-14
During the next five years, which of the following transportation investments do you think
would benefit the Miami Valley the most?
Cumulative
Valid Improved public
52 17.2 17.6 17.6
transportation
More public transportation 39 12.9 13.2 30.8
New streets and
36 11.9 12.2 43.1
highways
Improved strrets and
117 38.7 39.7 82.7
highways
New hiking or biking trails 26 8.6 8.8 91.5
More parking 5 1.7 1.7 93.2
Expanded carpooling
18 6.0 6.1 99.3
program
None 2 .7 .7 100.0
Total 295 97.7 100.0
Refused 4 1.3
Total 7 2.3
Total 302 100.0
Which of these investments do you think would benefit the Miami Valley the least?
Cumulative
Valid Improved public
8 2.6 2.7 2.7
transportation
More public transportation 63 20.9 21.4 24.1
New streets and
52 17.2 17.6 41.7
highways
Improved strrets and
7 2.3 2.4 44.1
highways
New hiking or biking trails 47 15.6 15.9 60.0
More parking 51 16.9 17.3 77.3
Expanded carpooling
64 21.2 21.7 99.0
program
None 3 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 295 97.7 100.0
Refused 1 .3
Total 7 2.3
Total 302 100.0
A-15
Overall, How would you rate the quality of the environment in the Miami
Valley?
Cumulative
Valid Excellent 21 7.0 7.0 7.0
Good 179 59.3 59.3 66.2
Fair 93 30.8 30.8 97.0
Poor 9 3.0 3.0 100.0
Total 302 100.0 100.0
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?
Cumulative
Valid We have problems with
97 32.1 33.7 33.7
groundwater quality
We don't have problems
191 63.2 66.3 100.0
with groundwater quality
Total 288 95.4 100.0
Total 302 100.0
What do you think is the most effective thing we can do to protect the groundwater in our
area?
Cumulative
Valid Impose stricter
14 4.6 14.7 14.7
regulations
Better enforcement of
57 18.9 60.0 74.7
existing regulations
Provide educational
materials to property 24 7.9 25.3 100.0
owners and busines
Total 95 31.5 100.0
System 205 67.9
Total 207 68.5
Total 302 100.0
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?
Cumulative
Valid Kept as farmland 137 45.4 48.9 48.9
Use for other purposes 143 47.4 51.1 100.0
Total 280 92.7 100.0
Refused 8 2.6
Total 22 7.3
Total 302 100.0
What do you think is the most appropriate alternate use for farmland in the Miami Valley?
Cumulative
Valid Housing 24 7.9 24.2 24.2
Commercial uses such
9 3.0 9.1 33.3
as retail shopping
Industrual uses 30 9.9 30.3 63.6
Parks and trails 23 7.6 23.2 86.9
Wildlife area 13 4.3 13.1 100.0
Total 99 32.8 100.0
Refused 14 4.6
System 159 52.6
Total 203 67.2
Total 302 100.0
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
Cumulative
Valid No 29 9.6 9.6 9.6
Yes 273 90.4 90.4 100.0
Total 302 100.0 100.0
A-17
environment here in the Miami Valley?: Stricter water quality
regulations
Cumulative
Valid No 123 40.7 40.7 40.7
Yes 179 59.3 59.3 100.0
Total 302 100.0 100.0
environment here in the Miami Valley?: Enhancing air quality awareness
and outreach programs
Cumulative
Valid No 72 23.8 23.8 23.8
Yes 230 76.2 76.2 100.0
Total 302 100.0 100.0
environment here in the Miami Valley?: Investing more in creating new
parks and open spaces
Cumulative
Valid No 129 42.7 42.7 42.7
Yes 173 57.3 57.3 100.0
Total 302 100.0 100.0
environment here in the Miami Valley?:Support programs that protect
agricultural land
Cumulative
Valid No 79 26.2 26.2 26.2
Yes 223 73.8 73.8 100.0
Total 302 100.0 100.0
A-18
environment here in the Miami Valley?: More neighborhood
beautification projects
Cumulative
Valid No 36 11.9 11.9 11.9
Yes 266 88.1 88.1 100.0
Total 302 100.0 100.0
environment here in the Miami Valley?: Preserving existing woodlands
Cumulative
Valid No 23 7.6 7.6 7.6
Yes 279 92.4 92.4 100.0
Total 302 100.0 100.0
environment here in the Miami Valley?:Preserving wetlands
Cumulative
Valid No 43 14.2 14.2 14.2
Yes 259 85.8 85.8 100.0
Total 302 100.0 100.0
environment here in the Miami Valley?:Preserving river corridors
Cumulative
Valid No 17 5.6 5.6 5.6
Yes 285 94.4 94.4 100.0
Total 302 100.0 100.0
A-19
environment here in the Miami Valley?:Better enforcement of existing
laws and regulations
Cumulative
Valid No 33 10.9 10.9 10.9
Yes 269 89.1 89.1 100.0
Total 302 100.0 100.0
environment here in the Miami Valley?:None- Our environment is fine
that way it is
Cumulative
Valid No 301 99.7 99.7 99.7
Yes 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 302 100.0 100.0
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:
Cumulative
Valid We face a serious
157 52.0 52.0 52.0
shortage
We face a minor shortage 112 37.1 37.1 89.1
We have a good supply of
28 9.3 9.3 98.3
job opportunities
Don't know 5 1.7 1.7 100.0
Total 302 100.0 100.0
Having workers with the skills to fill the jobs
Cumulative
Valid We are strong 159 52.6 55.2 55.2
We are weak 129 42.7 44.8 100.0
Total 288 95.4 100.0
Refused 5 1.7
Total 14 4.6
Total 302 100.0
A-20
Having enough workers to fill the jobs
Cumulative
We are weak 73 24.2 24.8 100.0
Total 294 97.4 100.0
Refused 2 .7
Total 8 2.6
Total 302 100.0
Provide tax incentives to businesses to locate and grow here
Cumulative
We are weak 109 36.1 37.5 100.0
Total 291 96.4 100.0
Total 302 100.0
Having a good public school system
Cumulative
We are weak 192 63.6 67.4 100.0
Total 285 94.4 100.0
Refused 4 1.3
Total 17 5.6
Total 302 100.0
Having safe neighborhood for families
Cumulative
We are weak 84 27.8 28.9 100.0
Total 291 96.4 100.0
Refused 2 .7
Total 11 3.6
Total 302 100.0
A-21
Having a good transportation system for goods that are produced
Cumulative
We are weak 63 20.9 21.4 100.0
Total 294 97.4 100.0
Refused 1 .3
Total 8 2.6
Total 302 100.0
Offering an adequate supply of housing that workers can afford
Cumulative
We are weak 85 28.1 28.6 100.0
Total 297 98.3 100.0
Refused 2 .7
Total 5 1.7
Total 302 100.0
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.
Cumulative
Valid Strongly Agree 244 80.8 80.8 80.8
Agree 55 18.2 18.2 99.0
Disagree 3 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 302 100.0 100.0
A-22
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.
Cumulative
Agree 114 37.7 38.5 81.8
Disagree 43 14.2 14.5 96.3
Strongly Disagree 11 3.6 3.7 100.0
Total 296 98.0 100.0
Refused 2 .7
Total 6 2.0
Total 302 100.0
We need to widen some of our streets and roads to ease traffic congestion.
Cumulative
Agree 127 42.1 42.6 73.8
Disagree 63 20.9 21.1 95.0
Total 298 98.7 100.0
Refused 1 .3
Total 4 1.3
Total 302 100.0
We need to limit new home construction and business development in fringe areas in
order to preserve farmland surrounding our community
Cumulative
Agree 111 36.8 37.8 62.9
Disagree 82 27.2 27.9 90.8
Total 294 97.4 100.0
Refused 4 1.3
Total 8 2.6
Total 302 100.0
A-23
We should encourage new businesses to locate in the Miami Valley be offering tax
incentives
Cumulative
Agree 155 51.3 51.8 80.9
Disagree 44 14.6 14.7 95.7
Total 299 99.0 100.0
Total 302 100.0
We need to protect the unique qualities of the Miami Valley more than we need more
jobs
Cumulative
Agree 59 19.5 20.5 25.3
Disagree 163 54.0 56.6 81.9
Total 288 95.4 100.0
Refused 6 2.0
Total 14 4.6
Total 302 100.0
We should invest in public transportation rather that new or improved streets.
Cumulative
Agree 80 26.5 27.1 37.6
Disagree 145 48.0 49.2 86.8
Total 295 97.7 100.0
Refused 1 .3
Total 7 2.3
Total 302 100.0
A-24
We need a lot more parking
Cumulative
Agree 73 24.2 24.7 29.2
Disagree 170 56.3 57.6 86.8
Total 295 97.7 100.0
Refused 1 .3
Total 7 2.3
Total 302 100.0
We should encourage redevelopment and beautification of existing retail centers

instead of building new ones
Cumulative
Agree 132 43.7 43.9 92.4
Disagree 21 7.0 7.0 99.3
Strongly Disagree 2 .7 .7 100.0
Total 301 99.7 100.0
Total 302 100.0
We should provide more incentives to rehabilitate buildings and neighborhoods.
Cumulative
Agree 144 47.7 48.2 97.7
Disagree 5 1.7 1.7 99.3
Strongly Disagree 2 .7 .7 100.0
Total 299 99.0 100.0
Refused 1 .3
Total 3 1.0
Total 302 100.0
A-25
Which of these two statements comes closest to your opinion:
Cumulative
Valid Local governments
should encourage more 254 84.1 89.8 89.8
housing and business
New businesses and
housing are best 29 9.6 10.2 100.0
located on the ourskirts
Total 283 93.7 100.0
Refused 7 2.3
Total 19 6.3
Total 302 100.0
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
Cumulative
Valid Support 279 92.4 95.9 95.9
Oppose 12 4.0 4.1 100.0
Total 291 96.4 100.0
Refused 3 1.0
Total 11 3.6
Total 302 100.0
Police protection
Cumulative
Valid Very Satisfied 183 60.6 61.2 61.2
Somewhat Satisfied 99 32.8 33.1 94.3
Somewhat Dissatisfied 12 4.0 4.0 98.3
Very Dissatisfied 5 1.7 1.7 100.0
Total 299 99.0 100.0
Refused 1 .3
Total 3 1.0
Total 302 100.0
A-26
Fire protection
Cumulative
Very Dissatisfied 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 299 99.0 100.0
Refused 1 .3
Total 3 1.0
Total 302 100.0
The public libraries
Cumulative
Very Dissatisfied 2 .7 .7 100.0
Total 295 97.7 100.0
Total 302 100.0
Street and road repair
Cumulative
Total 301 99.7 100.0
Total 302 100.0
A-27
The public parks
Cumulative
Total 299 99.0 100.0
Total 302 100.0
The county jail
Cumulative
Total 212 70.2 100.0
Refused 1 .3
Total 90 29.8
Total 302 100.0
Services for abused or neglected children
Cumulative
Total 243 80.5 100.0
Refused 1 .3
Total 59 19.5
Total 302 100.0
A-28
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?
Cumulative
Valid Raise state taxes 123 40.7 44.1 44.1
Cut spending 156 51.7 55.9 100.0
Total 279 92.4 100.0
Refused 5 1.7
Total 23 7.6
Total 302 100.0
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?
Cumulative
Valid Take all away from local
1 .3 .3 .3
government services
Take some money away
from local government 47 15.6 15.7 16.1
services
Take no money away
from local government 251 83.1 83.9 100.0
services
Total 299 99.0 100.0
Refused 1 .3
Total 3 1.0
Total 302 100.0
City, Village, or township?
Cumulative
Valid Yes 211 69.9 72.0 72.0
No 82 27.2 28.0 100.0
Total 293 97.0 100.0
Refused 3 1.0
Total 9 3.0
Total 302 100.0
A-29
Your public library?
Cumulative
Valid Yes 192 63.6 64.6 64.6
No 105 34.8 35.4 100.0
Total 297 98.3 100.0
Refused 2 .7
Total 5 1.7
Total 302 100.0
Your county?
Cumulative
Valid Yes 156 51.7 53.2 53.2
No 137 45.4 46.8 100.0
Total 293 97.0 100.0
Refused 3 1.0
Total 9 3.0
Total 302 100.0
Your public parks?
Cumulative
Valid Yes 173 57.3 58.4 58.4
No 123 40.7 41.6 100.0
Total 296 98.0 100.0
Refused 3 1.0
Total 6 2.0
Total 302 100.0
Your school district?
Cumulative
Valid Yes 200 66.2 68.0 68.0
No 94 31.1 32.0 100.0
Total 294 97.4 100.0
Refused 3 1.0
Total 8 2.6
Total 302 100.0
A-30
Combining your local school district with a neighboring school district?
Cumulative
Valid Strongly favor 76 25.2 25.9 25.9
Somewhat favor 70 23.2 23.8 49.7
Total 294 97.4 100.0
Total 302 100.0
Merging your public department with police departments in your area?
Cumulative
Somewhat favor 107 35.4 36.0 66.7
Total 297 98.3 100.0
Total 302 100.0
Combining all of the parks in your county into one park district?
Cumulative
Somewhat favor 112 37.1 37.8 83.4
Total 296 98.0 100.0
Refused 1 .3
Total 6 2.0
Total 302 100.0
A-31
Merging your library system with a neighboring library system?
Cumulative
Somewhat favor 117 38.7 39.8 88.1
Total 294 97.4 100.0
Refused 1 .3
Total 8 2.6
Total 302 100.0
Combining all of the fire departments and 9-1-1 emergency dispatch services in your
area?
Cumulative
Total 296 98.0 100.0
Refused 3 1.0
Total 6 2.0
Total 302 100.0
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
Cumulative
Total 293 97.0 100.0
Refused 3 1.0
Total 9 3.0
Total 302 100.0
A-32
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?
Cumulative
Valid yes 210 69.5 73.4 73.4
No 76 25.2 26.6 100.0
Total 286 94.7 100.0
Refused 2 .7
Total 16 5.3
Total 302 100.0
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?
Cumulative
Total 301 99.7 100.0
Total 302 100.0
How often do you watch a local news program on television? Would you say:
Cumulative
Valid Every day 152 50.3 50.3 50.3
Almost every day 59 19.5 19.5 69.9
Three or four times a
27 8.9 8.9 78.8
week
Less often that three
64 21.2 21.2 100.0
to four times a week
Total 302 100.0 100.0
A-33
Do you consider yourself to be a:
Cumulative
Valid Democrat 84 27.8 29.1 29.1
Republican 130 43.0 45.0 74.0
Independent 62 20.5 21.5 95.5
Something else 13 4.3 4.5 100.0
Total 289 95.7 100.0
Missing Refused 13 4.3
Total 302 100.0
Do you usually think of yourself as:
Cumulative
Valid Very conservative 17 5.6 5.8 5.8
Somewhat conservative 111 36.8 37.9 43.7
Middle of the road 100 33.1 34.1 77.8
Somewhat liberal 50 16.6 17.1 94.9
Very liberal 15 5.0 5.1 100.0
Total 293 97.0 100.0
Refused 3 1.0
Total 9 3.0
Total 302 100.0
What is your age?
Cumulative
Valid 25-34 10 3.3 3.3 3.3
35-44 53 17.5 17.7 21.0
45-54 86 28.5 28.7 49.7
55-64 96 31.8 32.0 81.7
65 or older 55 18.2 18.3 100.0
Total 300 99.3 100.0
Total 302 100.0
A-34
How many people live in your household?
Cumulative
Valid 1 26 8.6 8.6 8.6
2 148 49.0 49.2 57.8
3 48 15.9 15.9 73.8
4 48 15.9 15.9 89.7
5 27 8.9 9.0 98.7
7 3 1.0 1.0 99.7
9 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 301 99.7 100.0
Total 302 100.0
How many people under the age of 18 live in your household?
Cumulative
Valid 0 203 67.2 67.4 67.4
1 39 12.9 13.0 80.4
2 36 11.9 12.0 92.4
3 21 7.0 7.0 99.3
4 1 .3 .3 99.7
7 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 301 99.7 100.0
Total 302 100.0
Which of the following categories best describes your current housing

situation? Homeowner
Cumulative
Valid No 12 4.0 4.0 4.0
Yes 290 96.0 96.0 100.0
Total 302 100.0 100.0

situation? Renter
Cumulative
Valid No 295 97.7 97.7 97.7
Yes 7 2.3 2.3 100.0
Total 302 100.0 100.0
A-35
situation? Farmland owner
Cumulative
Valid No 293 97.0 97.0 97.0
Yes 9 3.0 3.0 100.0
Total 302 100.0 100.0

situation? Non-Resident Landowners
Cumulative
Valid No 300 99.3 99.3 99.3
Yes 2 .7 .7 100.0
Total 302 100.0 100.0

situation? Other
Cumulative
Valid No 300 99.3 99.3 99.3
Yes 2 .7 .7 100.0
Total 302 100.0 100.0
How long have you lived in the Miami Valley?
Cumulative
Valid Less than five years 15 5.0 5.0 5.0
5-10 years 12 4.0 4.0 9.0
11-20 years 30 9.9 10.0 18.9
More than 20 years 244 80.8 81.1 100.0
Total 301 99.7 100.0
Total 302 100.0
A-36
What is the last grade or year of school you attended?
Cumulative
Valid some high school 1 .3 .3 .3
High school grad/ GED 15 5.0 5.0 5.3
Some college or
35 11.6 11.6 16.9
technical school
College graduate 103 34.1 34.2 51.2
Graduate school or
147 48.7 48.8 100.0
higher
Total 301 99.7 100.0
Total 302 100.0
What of the following categories best describes your racial or ethinic background?
Cumulative
Valid White or Caucasian 259 85.8 88.1 88.1
Black or African-American 22 7.3 7.5 95.6
Native American 4 1.3 1.4 96.9
Biracial 2 .7 .7 97.6
Other 7 2.3 2.4 100.0
Total 294 97.4 100.0
Total 302 100.0
Which of the following general categories best describes your total household income
from all sources, before taxes, for 2003?
Cumulative
Valid Less than $20,000 4 1.3 1.4 1.4
$20,001 to 35,000 10 3.3 3.6 5.0
$35,001 to 60,000 24 7.9 8.6 13.6
$60,001 to $80,000 45 14.9 16.1 29.6
More than $80,000 197 65.2 70.4 100.0
Total 280 92.7 100.0
Total 302 100.0
A-37
Was the respondent male or female
Cumulative
Valid Male 219 72.5 72.5 72.5
Female 83 27.5 27.5 100.0
Total 302 100.0 100.0
A-38
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 win-
win 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. Montgomery
2. Miami
3. Greene
4. Warren
5. 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. Private
2. Public
3. Non-Profit
4. 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. Excellent
2. Good
3. Fair
4. 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:

5. Having convenient public transportation. Do we:

6. Having convenient access to parks, green space and trails. Do we:

7. Providing roads necessary to handle current and planned development. Do we:

C-2
8. Having high-quality drinking water. Do we:
9. Having enough high-paying job opportunities. Do we:

10. Providing high-quality schools. Do we:

11. Having a safe environment in which to live, work and play. Do we:
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
28. Building new roads or widening existing ones

1. Has experienced
C-5
29. More parks and green spaces
1. Has experienced
30. More housing options for people who are looking for homes to buy
1. Has experienced
31. Improvements in many neighborhoods

1. Has experienced
32. Increased traffic congestion

1. Has experienced
33. Increased wear and tear on our roads

1. Has experienced
34. Less open space

1. Has experienced
35. More competition for available jobs

1. Has experienced
36. Improved walking and biking opportunities

1. Has 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

C-6
39. Affordable housing
40. Moderately-priced homes

41. Higher-priced homes

42. Condominiums
43. Townhouses and duplexes

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
C-10
63. We need to widen some of our streets and roads to ease traffic congestion
1. Strongly Agree
2. Agree
3. 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
65. We should encourage new businesses to locate in the Miami Valley by offering tax
incentives
1. Strongly Agree
2. Agree
3. 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
67. We should invest in public transportation rather than new or improved streets
1. Strongly Agree
2. Agree
3. Disagree
68. We need a lot more parking
1. Strongly Agree
2. Agree
3. 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
70. We should provide more incentives to rehabilitate buildings and neighborhoods
1. Strongly Agree
2. Agree
3. 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
c. The public libraries

1. Very Satisfied
d. Street and road repair

1. Very Satisfied
e. The public parks

1. Very Satisfied
f. The County Jail

1. Very Satisfied
g. Services for abused or neglected children

1. Very Satisfied
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. Strongly Favor
2. Somewhat Favor
3. Somewhat Oppose
4. 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. Every Day
2. Almost Every Day
3. Three to Four times a week
4. 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. Democrat
2. Republican
3. Independent
4. 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. Very Conservative
2. Somewhat Conservative
3. Middle of the Road
4. Somewhat Liberal
5. 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
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

Community Leaders Final Report

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Community Leaders Final Report

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

March 2005

Miami Valley Regional Planning

Appendix A: Frequencies ............................................................................................. A-1

A second limitation of the study is that it is based on self-reported information. Attempts

Age Cohort Survey

Income before taxes Local Local

Chapter 3: Quality of Life Issues

Leader Survey: Citizen Survey:

Chapter 4: Planning for the Future

Housing Development Options

Leader Survey: We Citizen Survey: We don’t

Transportation Which would improve the Which would improve the

How much growth has the

Topic Has the Miami Valley Experienced

Business Growth and Regional Cooperation

Chapter 5: The Environment

Issues for Improving the Environment

Percent who believe it is Percent who believe it is

Chapter 6: Local Government Services

• 97.3 percent are satisfied with fire protection

State Budget Concerns

Potential Tax Increases

State Budget Issues

Large percentages of local leaders believe we need to address the transportation

First, What county do you live in?

Are you an elected official?

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

Providing high quality schools. Does that aspect:

New home development, excluding apartment and condominiums

New home development, including apartments and condominiums

More housing for people with disabilities

Encouraging new businesses to locate in the Miami Valley

Expanding public transportation routes

New roadways to meet future transportation needs

Creating new public transportation services

More housing options for lower and moderate income families

New retail stores opening in this area

Building new roads and widening existing ones

More parks and green spaces

Improvement in many neighborhoods

Increased traffic congestion

Increased wear and tear on our roads

More competition for available jobs

Improved walking and biking opportunities

Affordable housing. Would you say:

Moderately priced homes. Would you say:

Higher priced homes. Would you say:

Townhouses and Duplexes. Would you say:

Some communities are planning subdivisions as a means to allow some development

Having workers with the skills to fill the jobs

Provide tax incentives to businesses to locate and grow here

Having a good public school system

Having safe neighborhood for families

Offering an adequate supply of housing that workers can afford

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

We should encourage redevelopment and beautification of existing retail centers

We should provide more incentives to rehabilitate buildings and neighborhoods.

The public libraries

Street and road repair

The county jail

Services for abused or neglected children

City, Village, or township?

Your public parks?