CITY OF EUCLID - WordPress.com of Euclid Kirsten Holzheimer Gail, Mayor 585 East 222nd St Euclid, OH 44123 216.289.2700 2016 City Council Members John W. Monroe, Council President

November 3, 2016

CITY OF EUCLIDMASTER PLANCOMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS

DRAFT

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6

Cuyahoga County Planning Commission2079 East 9th StreetSuite 5-300Cleveland, OH 44115

216.443.3700www.CountyPlanning.uswww.facebook.com/CountyPlanningwww.twitter.com/CountyPlanning

About County PlanningThe Cuyahoga County Planning Commission’s mission is to inform and provide services in support of the short and long term comprehensive planning, quality of life, environment, and economic develop-ment of Cuyahoga County and its cities, villages and townships.

Planning TeamAlison Ball, PlannerGlenn Coyne, FAICP, Executive DirectorPatrick Hewitt, AICP, Senior PlannerKevin Leeson, PlannerDan Meaney, GISP, Manager, Information and Research James Sonnhalter, Manager, Planning ServicesRobin Watkins, Geographic Information Systems SpecialistAmelia Visnauskas, Planning Intern

Date of Publication: November 3, 2016Front Source: Peg Osborne

City of EuclidKirsten Holzheimer Gail, Mayor585 East 222nd StEuclid, OH 44123

216.289.2700www.CityofEuclid.com

2016 City Council MembersJohn W. Monroe, Council PresidentStephana C. Caviness, Ward 1 CouncilpersonMadeline Scarniench, Ward 2 CouncilpersonTaneika Hill, Ward 3 CouncilpersonKristian D. Jarosz, Ward 4 Councilperson

Charlene Mancuso, Ward 5 CouncilpersonPatrick M. Delaney, Ward 6 CouncilpersonDaryl K. Langman, Ward 7 CouncilpersonLaura J. Gorshe, Ward 8 Councilperson

Project TeamKirsten Holzheimer Gail, MayorPaul Beno, Planning and Zoning CommissionerDaniel Knecht, Public Service Director

Jonathan Holody, Planning and Development DirectorAllison Lukacsy, Community Projects ManagerMac Stephens, Recreation Director

Master Plan Steering CommitteeKristian D. Jarosz, CouncilpersonTaneika Hill, CouncilpersonCheri AshcraftJeffrey EdlerMary GlihaNathan Johnson

Christine McIntoshJason MiskiewiczBrian MooreSheila O’DonnellRaquel SantiagoCharlie Smialek

Michelle StachnikRichard ToltonRosemarie Wright

CITY OF EUCLIDMASTER PLANCOMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6

This page intentionally left blank.

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 7

INTRODUCTION � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 13PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14SURVEY TOPICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

DETAILED FINDINGS � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 19CITY QUALITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20PARKS & RECREATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24QUALITY OF LIFE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32CITY IMAGE & COMMUNICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34HOUSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37TRANSPORTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44COMMUNITY AMENITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47CITY SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

DEMOGRAPHICS � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 59RESPONDENT INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6

7

The City of Euclid’s 2016 Survey was conducted to understand the community’s attitudes on a variety of important issues and topics. The survey results are intended to be used to inform and guide the City’s Master Plan process.

In coordination with City officials, County Planning designed, distributed, collected, and analyzed the survey.

WHAT’S IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY?

This Executive Summary provides a snap-shot of the most important and compelling survey results. The summary is organized

by topic area and mirrors the organization of the Results Report as a whole.

It includes an overview and analysis of the most important information from the survey, as well as associated graphics.

HOW DO I USE IT?

The Executive Summary is a snapshot of the results and can give an overview of residents’ most pressing issues. Use this summary as an overview and refer to the detailed findings section of the Results Report for additional analysis and context.

SECTION 1

CITY OF EUCLIDMASTER PLAN

DRAFT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYCOMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS

EUCLID SURVEY RESULTS

Overall, opinions of parks and recreation facilities are rated very highly by respondents, with 56.5% saying they are above average. Individual facilities rated differently with the Joseph Farrell Memorial Fishing Pier rated highest along with other large parks. The Skate Park, Dog Park, and various neighborhood facilities are rated lower.

Respondents also said access to Lake Erie is good, with 68.3% saying it is above average.

PARKS & RECREATION

Access to Highways

TOP REASONS FOR LIVING IN EUCLID TOP CONSIDERATIONS FOR MOVING OUT

Close to Lake Erie Housing Costs Fit My Budget

For a Safer Community For Lower TaxesClose to Family and Friends

Easy Access to Downtown Cleveland

CITY QUALITIESRespondents were first asked to select the reasons they reside in Euclid. The top reasons respondents choose to live in the City were its access to highways, closeness to family & friends, proximity to Lake Erie, affordability of housing, and access to Downtown Cleveland. More than 30% of respondents selected these reasons.

When asked why one might consider moving out of the City, more than a third of respondents said they would move for a safer City or for lower taxes. Additionally, 18.6% of people said they would not consider moving out.

68�3% SAY PUBLIC ACCESS TO LAKE ERIE IS ABOVE AVERAGE

56�5% SAY PARKS/FACILITIES ARE ABOVE AVERAGE

Above Average Average Below Average

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEUCLID SURVEY RESULTS

ENGAGEMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFEQuestions on engagement and quality of life showed room for improvement. Just under half of residents feel engaged in their community, and very few participate in events more than once or twice a month. Those that are involved tend to be engaged via their place of worship or their street, civic, beach, or block club.

Overall, quality of life in Euclid skews heavily positive. Of respondents, 41.6% said quality of life was positive, 39.3% said it was average, and 19.1% said it was poor. In general, those who are engaged in their community have a significantly improved quality of life.

41�6% SAY QUALITY

OF LIFE IS POSITIVE

15�5% PARTICIPATE

OFTEN IN EVENTS

46�4% ARE ENGAGED

IN THE COMMUNITY

Place of Worship

Street, Civic, Beach, or Block Clubs

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTOn economic development initiatives, respondents prioritized attracting varied retail and service stores to Euclid, with a special emphasis on local retailers. This was followed by a desire to attract manufacturing jobs, promote workforce training, and attracting office jobs. Residents were less focused on growing as a regional retail center or developing additional arts and cultural attractions.

Attract Retail Stores Attract Manufacturing Jobs

Promote Workforce Training

Attract Office Jobs

CITY COMMUNICATIONOverall, a majority of respondents feel the City does a good job of communicating and making information available. How respondents receive that information largely depended on age.

Social Media is the number one way residents age 18 to 44 receive information from the City

Direct Phone Calls are the number one way residents age 45 or older receive information from the City

Feel EngagedDo Not Feel Engaged

Participate OftenParticpate Somewhat or Not Often

Above AverageAverageBelow Average


HOUSINGStrong housing is the bedrock of strong neighborhoods, and respondents to the survey recognized this. More than three-quarters said maintenance of existing housing and neighborhoods was their highest priority for new housing. This was followed by more sustainable housing, more options for seniors, and more infill development on vacant land.

TRANSPORTATIONWhen asked about the priority for transportation improvements, survey respondents said they would like to see improvements to senior transportation, the walking environment, and then the driving environment. Among younger respondents, improvements to the biking environment were significantly more important. Among older respondents, the senior transportation network was more important.

DEVELOPMENTThe priority for development initiatives in Euclid was to focus on demolishing abandoned or foreclosed homes to eliminate blight in neighborhoods. This was closely followed by a desire among residents to see walkable, mixed-use development in the City as well as environmentally friendly development. A majority of respondents would also like to see any new homes match in scale and design to existing homes in the City.

Demolish Abandoned or Foreclosed Homes

Maintain Existing Neighborhoods

Walkable, Mixed-Use Development

More Sustainable Housing

Environmentally Friendly Development

More Options for Seniors

New Homes Should Match Scale & Design

More Infill Development

Highest priority Lowest priority

Biking (48.0%)

Walking (68.3%)

Senior Transportation

(72.5%)

Transit (49.8%)

Driving (52.5%)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEUCLID SURVEY RESULTS

COMMUNITY AMENITIESWhen viewing community amenities in terms of their quality and importance, Euclid Public Library was rated as the City’s highest quality and most important amenity. Euclid City Schools and Euclid YMCA were noted as being important amenities that could improve in terms of quality, while Shore Cultural Centre, Euclid Historical Society and Museum, and the Polka and Softball Hall of Fame are considered to be lower in importance and lower in quality than other amenities.

CITY SERVICESWhen reviewing City services in terms of quality and importance, emergency services were rated very highly. The survey shows room for improvement among infrastructure maintenance and code enforcement issues such as building and housing maintenance enforcement.

■ Euclid Public Library

■ Euclid Hospital

■ Senior Community Center

■ Private or Parochial Schools

■ Emergency Services

■ Trash, Recycling, and Leaf Collection

■ Healthcare Access

■ Senior Services

■ Traffic Enforcement

■ Park Maintenance

■ Euclid City Schools

■ Euclid YMCA

■ Infrastructure Maintenance

■ Snow Removal

■ Code Enforcement

■ Shore Cultural Centre

■ Euclid Historical Society and Museum

■ Polka and Softball Hall of Fame

■ City Website

■ Street Tree Planting Program

■ Community Television

Most Popular Amenities

Most Popular Services

Amenities to Improve

Services to Improve

Amenities to Consider Changes

Services to Consider Changes

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6

INTRODUCTIONSECTION 2

The 2016 Euclid Survey was an opportunity for public officials to gather the thoughts and opinions of residents. The outcomes of the survey can assist in the Master Plan process and policy formation.

WHAT’S IN THIS SECTION?

The Introduction Section includes an overview of the findings, a description of the topics surveyed, reference maps, the methodology used for the survey, and a description of the data tabulation and analysis process.

HOW DO I USE IT?

The Introduction describes what is in the document and how to read and interpret the data. This information should be used

to give context to the detailed results provided in later sections of the Results Report.

Source: HennMansion.org

13

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

614


PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY

County Planning worked with the City of Euclid to conduct the 2016 Euclid Survey. The goal for the survey was to produce statistically valid responses that could be used to inform City actions, policies, and future planning activities.

SURVEY TIMELINE

The City of Euclid and County Planning began by reviewing possible questions, refining them, and adding additional questions. These were tested on volun-teers to ensure questions and response options were clear. Upon revisions, County Planning reviewed and received approval to mail final surveys to Euclid residents.

County Planning compiled a master list of all Euclid residential addresses and selected a random sample of 1,400 to receive the survey. Addresses were cross-checked with known vacant houses to ensure surveys were sent to occupied homes.

On August 2, 2016, County Planning mailed the 12-page survey to 1,400 households. Each packet included an introductory letter from Euclid Mayor Kirsten Holzheimer Gail as well as a postage-paid return envelope.

A reminder postcard was sent on August 12, 2016 to encourage residents to com-plete the survey by the August 29, 2016, deadline.

SURVEY DESIGN

The Euclid Survey was comprised of 30 multiple choice questions arranged by topic and four additional open-ended questions on the last page of the survey. A short summary of the write-in responses is included in the report, while a complete compilation is available in Appendix A.

DATA TABULATION

The returned surveys were scanned and tabulated by a software program. The results highlighted potential scanning errors, which were manually reviewed by County Planning staff and updated to ensure they accurately reflected the intention of the respondent. Random spot checks were completed to ensure the software program appropriately counted marked answers.

RESPONSE RATE

Of the surveys mailed, 265 were returned and included in the analysis for an 18.9% response rate. With 22,191 households according to 2014 American Community Survey data, this equates to a 95% confi-dence level and a +/- 5.98 margin of error.

When reading and interpreting the results of the survey, the statistical error rate should be taken into account. Additionally, because not every respondent answered every question, error rates for individual questions may vary. Similarly, error rates for cross-tabulations can be significantly higher due to the fewer responses within cross-tabulated groups.

Figure 1 Response Rate and Statistical Error Rate

2016 SurveyUniverse 22,191 Households

Mailed Surveys 1,400 Surveys

Returned Surveys 265 Surveys

Response Rate 18.9%

Confidence Level 95%

Margin of Error +/- 5.98

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6

INTRODUCTIONEUCLID SURVEY RESULTS

15

SURVEY TOPICS

The survey responses should be used to inform Euclid’s public policy, regulations, actions, and planning documents.

TOPIC AREAS

As in the survey form, the Survey Results document is organized by topic area. The document includes a detailed summary of each topic as well as a description of the individual questions. Some questions have also been cross-tabulated with demographic data to provide a fuller picture of community attitudes. Data is presented in graphic form with full numbers included in Appendix B.

The question numbers are provided for reference throughout the document.

SURVEY TOPICS

The topics covered in the Euclid Survey are as follows:

■ City Qualities: Overall likes and dislikes about living in Euclid, beginning on page 20.

■ Parks and Recreation: Ratings and ideas for parks, public spaces, and access to Lake Erie, beginning on page 24.

■ Quality of Life: Review questions about quality of life and engagement in the community, beginning on page 28.

■ Economic Development: Evaluation of potential economic development initiatives, beginning on page 32.

■ City Image and Communication: Review of potential communication and marketing strategies and overview of the ways in which residents receive communication, beginning on page 34.

■ Housing: Priorities for new types of housing developments and desired housing services, beginning on page 37.

■ Transportation: Evaluation of the ease and safety of getting around the City by different transportation methods, beginning on page 41.

■ Development: Review of preferred development scenarios as well as desired types of land uses such as new housing or parks in specific parts of the community, beginning on page 44.

■ Community Amenities: Evaluation of community amenities such as the library and Shore Cultural Centre, beginning on page 47.

■ City Services: Evaluation of City services such as police, fire, and trash removal, beginning on page 50.

■ Strengths & Weaknesses: Themes from open-ended questions asking about the items residents would like to change or keep the same, beginning on page 55.

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

616


MAP 1 REGIONAL CONTEXT

271

271

480

480

77

80

80

71

71

90

90

ClevelandCleveland

Cleveland

Lake Erie

City of EuclidCity of Euclid

Lorain CountyLorain County

Summit CountySummit County

Lake CountyLake County

The City of Euclid (in purple on Map 1) is located in the eastern part of Cuyahoga County and abuts Lake Erie and the Cuyahoga County line. Euclid borders the Cities of Richmond Heights, South Euclid, and Cleveland in Cuyahoga County as well as Willowick, Wickliffe, and Willoughby Hills in Lake County.

The map showcases the members of the First Suburbs Consortium, a group of

communities that were mostly built prior to 1960 and which are located in close proximity to Cleveland. These communities share common characteristics due to similar development patterns.

Map 2. Planning Context provides more detailed information and illustrates major streets and highways, parcels, and City Council Ward boundaries.

LEGEND

Euclid First Suburbs

(Bedford, Bedford Heights, Berea, Brook Park, Brooklyn, Brooklyn Heights, Cleveland Heights, Cuyahoga Heights, East Cleveland, Fairview Park, Garfield Heights, Lakewood, Maple Heights, Parma, Parma Heights, Shaker Heights, South Euclid, University Heights, Warrensville Heights)

City of Cleveland

Other Communities County Borders Highways

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6

INTRODUCTIONEUCLID SURVEY RESULTS

17

Lake Erie

Ward 4

Ward 5

Ward 8

Ward 6Ward 7

Ward 3

Ward 2

Ward 1

E 22

2 ST

E 22

2 ST

WHITE RD

E 20

0 ST

TREB

ISKY

RD

BRUSH RD

E 18

5 ST

ST CLAIR AVE

ST CLAIR AVE

NEFF RD

HIGHLAND RD

NOTTINGHAM RD

BABBITT RD

LLOYD RD

BABBITT RD

LAKESHORE BLVD

EUCLID AVE

EUCLID

AVE

EUCLID AVE

LAKESHORE BLVD

CHARDON

RD

CHARDON RD

CHARDON RD

E 25

0 ST

E 26

0 ST

E 26

0 ST

E 201 ST

S GREEN RD

CURTISS WRIG

HT PKWY

HA

RRIS

RD

DILLE RD

BELVOIR BLVD

LONDON RD

90

90

90

South Euclid

RichmondHeights

Cleveland

Euclid

LEGEND

Euclid City Wards Parcels Community Boundaries Highways Major Roads Minor Roads Railroads

MAP 2 PLANNING CONTEXT

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6

DETAILED FINDINGSSECTION 3

The results of the survey can be used to determine overall opinions on important issues and topics within the City.


Answers to individual questions are arranged by topic and are described, displayed graphically, and analyzed in this section.

In addition to analyzing each question individually, questions were also cross tabulated with certain demographic ques-tions to gain a better understanding of how characteristics such as age changed the results.

HOW DO I USE IT?

Questions in this section are arranged as they were within the survey sent to households. Each question is numbered and includes a description of the question, a chart or graph of the results, and some analysis of respondent answers.

The analysis should be understood within the context of the demographic profile of respondents and how it relates to the City as a whole. This information is available in the Demographics Section on page 59.

Source: Carole Pegoraro

19

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

620


CITY QUALITIES

COMMON THEMES ■ Main reasons people choose to live in Euclid are transportation-related and include

access to highways, proximity to Downtown Cleveland, and lack of traffic

■ The proximity to Lake Erie is a main reason for choosing Euclid

■ Affordable housing is a prime reason people choose Euclid; however, few respondents feel ownership is a good investment

■ Taxes and the perception of safety are the leading reasons people would choose to move from Euclid

■ School District quality is a consideration for moving, especially among younger respondents

■ Older respondents would like to see more retirement-friendly communities in Euclid

■ Different respondents identified different housing options that would cause them to leave Euclid, indicating a need for increasing the variety of housing types in the City

The first survey questions asked residents to select their top reasons for residing in Euclid and the reasons why they might consider moving. By understanding those qualities that residents enjoy most, public officials can work to enhance them. Similarly, by understanding those qualities enjoyed least, officials can seek to reduce their impact where possible.

REASONS FOR RESIDING IN EUCLID

Question 1 asked respondents why they choose to live in Euclid. The survey provided a list of 17 possible responses and instructed respondents to limit the number of responses to four. Out of the 265 surveys returned, 250 people checked at least one response. Respondents selected a total of 822 reasons or approximately three reasons per respondent.

As shown in Figure 2, the most common reason for living in Euclid was “I have access

to highways,” followed by “I am close to my family and/or friends.” These options were selected by more than 40% of respondents.

With more than 30% of respondents, “I am close to Lake Erie,” “My housing costs fit my budget,” and “I have easy access to Downtown” rounded out the top five reasons people choose to live in the City.

With fewer than 10% of respondents, “I have easy access to University Circle,” “I have easy access to the City’s parks,” “My property is a good investment,” and “The quality of the school system” were the least common selections.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR MOVING FROM EUCLID

Question 2 asked respondents why they might consider moving out of Euclid as a way to determine potential negative opinions. The survey provided a list of 23 potential reasons as well as the option “I

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6

DETAILED FINDINGSEUCLID SURVEY RESULTS

21

would not consider moving out of the City of Euclid.”

Out of the 265 surveys returned, 258 respondents answered Question 2, with 18.6% selecting “I would not consider moving out of the City of Euclid,” as shown in Figure 2. While instructions in the survey asked respondents to not select any

additional reasons if they selected that they would not consider moving out of the City, some respondents did select both options. All responses were included in the results.

In total, the 258 question respondents selected 646 reasons people might choose to move out of the City. This is compared to 822 reasons respondents selected for why

42�0%

40�0%

34�8%

33�6%

30�0%

18�8%

18�8%

18�4%

16�8%

15�6%

14�0%

11�2%

11�2%

8�4%

6�4%

5�2%

3�6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Access to highways

Close to family and/or friends

Close to Lake Erie

Housing costs fit my budget

Easy access to Downtown Cleveland

Close to shopping

Well-maintained neighborhood

Close to my work

Feel safe in the City/my neighborhood

For a diverse community

For the suburban environment

Offers the type of housing I want

High quality of municipal services

Easy access to University Circle

Easy access to the City's parks

Property is a good investment

Quality of the school system

Figure 2 Reasons for Choosing to Live in Euclid

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

622


they choose to live in the City in Question 1, indicating a significantly higher number of

reasons residents choose to live in Euclid as compared to reasons for moving.

18�6%

38�0%

35�3%

18�2%

15�1%

14�7%

14�0%

12�0%

11�2%

10�9%

10�9%

9�7%

9�7%

8�5%

7�4%

6�6%

6�6%

5�8%

4�7%

4�7%

3�1%

1�6%

1�6%

0�4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

I would not consider moving out

For a safer community

For lower taxes

For a better school district

For a retirement friendly community

For a different climate

To be closer to family and/or friends

For a newer house

For better community facilities

For more home for my money

For a more rural environment

For a higher quality of municipal services

For better access to shopping

For more property

To be closer to work/job related

For a smaller house

For a larger house

To be able to walk more places

For a rental unit

For attached condos/clustered homes

For less traffic congestion

To be closer to Downtown Cleveland

To be closer to University Circle

To have better access to highways

Figure 3 Considerations for Moving from Euclid

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6


23

The two most commonly selected options were “For a safer community” and “For lower taxes.” These options were selected by more than a third of all respondents, and represented almost double the next most common response.

Among options selected by more than 10% of respondents were a number of issues that are beyond the purview of local government, including “For a different climate,” “To be closer to family and/or friends,” “For more home for my money,” and “For a more rural environment.”

Other secondary issues, however, included improvements to community amenities, such as “For a better school district” and “For better community facilities.” Options with more than 10% of responses also included preferences for different housing options, including “For a retirement-friendly community,” “For a newer house,” and “For more home for my money.”

Among the least selected answers were a variety of transportation options, indicating that getting around the community and the region is not an issue for residents.

Likewise, there was no clear agreement on a desired housing type, with respondents indicating they would move for more property, a smaller house, a larger house, a rental unit, or attached homes. The numer-ous responses show a need for a variety of housing types to fulfill local needs.

Overall, the considerations for moving out show that safety and taxes are of primary concern, followed by improvements to community amenities, and a desire for a variety of easily accessible housing options.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR MOVING FROM EUCLID BY AGE OF RESPONDENT

When cross tabulated with the age of respondent, the leading considerations for moving varied slightly, as shown in Figure 4. All three groups identified lower taxes and safety as main considerations for moving.

Among younger respondents aged 18 to 44 years old, School District quality was the main consideration for moving from Euclid. This group also identified the need for larger houses and better access to shopping among their leading reasons.

Among 45 to 64 year olds, the School District, new homes, and retire-ment-friendly communities were among main reasons to move.

Among seniors aged 65 or over, retire-ment-friendly communities were important considerations for moving, as were proxim-ity to family/friends and a different climate.

In examining reasons by age, schools tend to be important among younger groups while retirement-friendly communities tend to be important among older groups.

Figure 4 Top Considerations for Moving from Euclid by Age of Respondent

18 to 44 Year Olds

1. For a better school district (56.1%)

2. For lower taxes (48.8%)3. For a safer community (29.3%)4. For better community

facilities (19.5%)4. For better access to shopping

(19.5%)4. For a larger house (19.5%)

45 to 64 Year Olds

1. For a safer community (44.7%)2. For lower taxes (43.1%)3. For a different climate (17.1%)4. For a better school district

(15.4%)4. For a newer house (15.4%)4. For a retirement-friendly

community (15.4%)

65+ Years Old

1. For a safer community (30.6%)2. For a retirement-friendly

community (28.6%)3. For lower taxes (19.4%)4. To be closer to family and/or

friends (18.4%)4. For a different climate (18.4%)

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

624


PARKS & RECREATION

COMMON THEMES ■ More than two-thirds of respondents said access to Lake Erie was “Good” or “Excellent”

■ The Joseph Farrell Memorial Fishing Pier and Cleveland Metroparks Euclid Creek Reservation were rated the highest quality facilities

■ Neighborhood facilities, the Skate Park, and the Dog Park were rated the lowest quality facilities and among the least used

■ Cleveland Metroparks Euclid Creek Reservation and Sims Park were the most used facilities

■ A majority of residents rated the overall quality of parks and recreation facilities positively

Parks and recreation facilities are important components of a complete community. They provide space for active living, community interaction, and physical activity. The survey asked respondents about accessibility to Lake Erie, the quality of existing Euclid facilities, agreement with parks and recreation policy statements, and overall opinions on quality.

ACCESS TO LAKE ERIE

Question 3 asked respondents to rate the ease of public access to Lake Erie. Of the 248 question respondents, 25.0% rated public access as “Excellent” and 43.1% rated it as “Good.” Only 8.4% rated public access as “Poor” or “Very Poor,” indicating fairly good access to the Lake. The results are displayed in Figure 5.

FACILITY QUALITY AND USE

Question 4 asked respondents to rate the quality of the City’s parks and recreation facilities. Respondents were also given the option to select “Have Not Used.”

The results, shown in Figure 6, display responses excluding “Have Not Used.”

In general, a majority of respondents rated most facilities very highly. Despite being relatively new, the Joseph Farrell Memorial Fishing Pier was rated highest, with 79.2% of respondents rating it “Good” or “Excellent.” This was followed by larger community parks like the Euclid Creek Reservation, Sims Park Disc Golf Course, and Sims Park overall, with more than

24�9%

43�4%

23�3%

6�0% 2�4%

Figure 5 Ease of Public Access to Lake Erie

ExcellentGoodAveragePoorVery Poor

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6


25

two-thirds of all respondents rating each of these amenities highly.

Toward the bottom of the ratings were neighborhood parks, playgrounds, and pools, with just over half of respondents rating these facilities positively. This indi-cates that neighborhood amenities are not as highly rated as some of the City’s larger parks.

Two facilities were rated positively by less than half of respondents. The Skate Park was rated “Good” or “Excellent” by 46.5% of question respondents while 40.0% of respondents rated the Dog Park similarly.

The Dog Park also had the highest negative ratings with 13.3% of respondents saying the quality of the Dog Park was “Very Poor.”

While the ratings show the quality of parks and recreation facilities among those that used them, a high percentage of respon-dents marked that they “Have Not Used” various facilities.

More than half of respondents said that they have not used nine of the provided park and recreation facilities. Significantly, more than three-quarters of respondents said they had not used the Sims Park Disc

Figure 6 Quality of Parks & Recreation Facilities


44�2%

28�2%

28�6%

19�3%

12�7%

9�7%

12�4%

16�7%

8�6%

6�4%

10�7%

11�6%

11�1%

35�1%

48�3%

40�8%

48�8%

48�1%

48�5%

43�8%

38�1%

44�3%

44�7%

39�3%

34�9%

28�9%

15�6%

21�3%

28�6%

27�1%

29�1%

33�6%

38�2%

28�6%

42�9%

38�3%

33�3%

39�5%

35�6%

7�6%

6�7%

11�9%

7�8%

10�7%

7�0%

11�1%

7�0%

13�3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Joseph Farrell Memorial Fishing Pier

Cleveland Metroparks Euclid CreekReservation

Sims Park Disc Golf Course

Sims Park (overall)

Briardale Golf Course

Memorial Park (overall)

Memorial Park Pool

Indian Hills Splash Park

C.E. Orr Ice Arena

Neighborhood Parks and Playgrounds

Neighborhood Pools (Willow, Roosevelt,Glenbrook)

Skate Park

Dog Park

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

626


18�1%

13�5%

18�8%

34�8%

39�7%

33�2%

36�6%

36�3%

39�7%

7�9%

7�2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Acquire greenspace for passiverecreation

Offer more outdoor cultural venues suchas a new theater or performance space

Focus on developing trails that connectrecreation areas

Golf Course, the Dog Park, the Skate Park, or the Indian Hills Splash Park.

Among the most used facilities were Cleveland Metroparks Euclid Creek Reservation, Sims Park, various Neighborhood Parks and Playgrounds, and Memorial Park. This information is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Percent of Respondents that “Have Not Used” a Park or FacilityEvent % “Have Not Used”Indian Hills Splash Park 80.6%

Skate Park 80.5%

Dog Park 79.6%

Sims Park Disc Golf Course 77.1%

C.E. Orr Ice Arena 68.8%

Joseph Farrell Memorial Fishing Pier 65.3%

Briardale Golf Course 64.7%

Neighborhood Pools (Willow, Roosevelt, Glenbrook)

61.5%

Memorial Park Pool 60.3%

Memorial Park (overall) 42.0%

Neighborhood Parks and Playgrounds 35.6%

Sims Park (overall) 28.1%

Euclid Creek Reservation 24.7%

OPINIONS ON PARKS & RECREATION POLICY STATEMENTS

Question 5 asked respondents their opinions on a variety of parks and recreation policy statements, including acquiring greenspace for passive recre-ation, adding outdoor cultural venues, and developing trails to connect recreation areas. The results showed that a majority of respondents agreed with all of the policy statements; however, all three had roughly equal percentages of those in agreement.

In general, respondents were not opposed to any of these policy statements, but rather, were ambivalent to them, with more than a third of people neither agreeing or disagreeing to all of the statements. This information is shown in Figure 7.

OVERALL QUALITY

Question 6 asked respondents to rate the overall quality of the City’s parks and recreation facilities. Of the 239 question respondents, 10.9% rated the City’s parks and recreation facilities as “Excellent” and 45.6% rated parks and recreation facilities as “Good,” totaling 56.5% of ratings above average. An additional 38.9% rated parks and recreation facilities as average.

Importantly, only 4.6% of respondents rated facilities as below average (“Poor” or “Very Poor”), indicating positive views of the parks and recreation system overall.

Figure 7 Opinions on Parks & Recreation Policy Statements

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeither Agree nor DisagreeDisagreeStrongly Disagree

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6


27

When cross tabulated with the age of respondent, the results showed that the quality of facility increased with age. Among those under 44 years old, 50.0% rated the City’s parks and recreation facilities “Excellent” or “Good.” That number jumped to 54.9% among those 45 to 64, and further jumped to 61.6% among those age 65 or older. This indicates that the current parks and recreation facilities may not be as well suited to younger respondents.

Similarly, when comparing the quality of parks and recreation facilities with the presence of children, young adults, or seniors in a household, the numbers show differences. Households with children are less likely than households with young adults and households with seniors to rate the parks and recreation facilities positively. This indicates that the park system may be serving households with seniors better than households with children.

Figure 9 Overall Quality of Parks and Recreation Facilities by Age of Respondent

Figure 10 Overall Quality of Parks and Recreation Facilities by Presence of Family Members

Figure 8 Overall Quality of Parks and Recreation Facilities

10�9%

45�6%

38�9%

2�9% 1�7%




5�0%

10�6%

14�0%

45�0%

44�2%

47�7%

42�5%

39�8%

36�0%

5�0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

18 to 44 Years Old

45 to 64 Years Old

65 Years or Older

9�3%

10�4%

13�6%

38�9%

41�7%

44�7%

46�3%

37�5%

39�8%

5�6%

8�3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Households withChildren

Households withYoung Adults

Households withSeniors

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

628


QUALITY OF LIFE

COMMON THEMES ■ Far more respondents feel quality of life is positive rather than negative

■ Overall quality of life is rated much higher by renters than homeowners

■ Less than half of respondents feel engaged in their community

■ Most people are engaged via their place of worship or faith community, or in their street, civic, beach, or block club

■ There is an overwhelming correlation between a high quality of life and being engaged in the community

The next series of questions covered com-munity engagement and event attendance as part of an overall look at quality of life.

Quality of life can be described as the general well-being of an individual or community. Many of the surveyed topics contribute to the community’s quality of life.

COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD ENGAGEMENT AND INVOLVEMENT

Question 7 asked respondents whether or not they feel engaged in their community. Of the 250 question respondents, 46.4% said they do feel engaged in their commu-nity or neighborhood while 53.6% said they do not feel engaged. This information is shown in Figure 11.

Question 8 asked respondents how they are involved in their community and allowed respondents to select more than one option. Of the 153 people who selected a response, almost half (47.1%) said they were engaged via their place of worship or faith community, as shown in Figure 12. This was followed by 39.2% who said they were engaged via their street, civic, beach,

or block club. Far fewer respondents said their were engaged via involvement with their school (20.3%), recreational organiza-tions (15.7%), or community service groups (8.5%).

Question 9 asked respondents the fre-quency with which they take part in com-munity events and activities. The majority (58.4%) of the 233 question respondents said they do “Not Often” take part in events, which was defined in the survey as once or twice a year. Almost a quarter said they “Somewhat Often” take part in

46�4%

53�6%

Figure 11 Opinion on Community Engagement

Yes, I feel engagedNo, I do not feel engaged

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6


29

events, which was defined as once every few months. Just 15.5% of respondents said they “Often” or “Very Often” take part in community events, meaning more than once or twice a month. This information is shown in Figure 13.

Overall, these questions show a low level of community engagement that is largely contained within places of worship or local neighborhood groups.

QUALITY OF LIFE RATING

Question 10 asked respondents to rate the overall quality of life in Euclid. Of the 257 question respondents, 4.3% rated overall quality of life as “Excellent,” and an additional 37.4% rated it as “Good.” This equates to 41.6% of respondents ranking quality of life as above average.

The most common answer was that quality of life is “Average,” which was selected by 39.3% of respondents. The remaining 19.1% of respondents said quality of life

Figure 12 Methods Residents Are Engaged

Figure 14 Overall Quality of Life

4�3%

11�2%

26�2%58�4%

Figure 13 Frequency of Attendance at Community Events or Activities

Very OftenOftenSomewhat OftenNot Often

4�3%

37�4%

39�3%

14�4%

4�7%


47�1%

39�2%

20�3%

15�7%

8�5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Place of worship or faith community

Street, civic, beach, or block clubs

School

Recreation/athletic organizations

Community service groups (e.g.,Kiwanis Club)

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

630


was “Poor” or “Very Poor.” This information is displayed in Figure 14.

When cross tabulated with age of respon-dent, working age adults had the highest quality of life, with 44.6% of those aged 45 to 64 reporting quality of life as “Excellent” or “Good.” This was followed by 39.8% of seniors reporting a high quality of life, and 36.6% of young adults. This information is displayed in Figure 15.

Consistent with the low marks among young adults aged 18 to 44, Figure 16 shows that households with young adults

reported the lowest quality of life, with 36.0% saying quality of life was “Good” or “Excellent.” Households with children reported the highest quality of life, with 45.5% selecting these options.

When cross tabulated with tenure in Figure 17, respondents who own their home in Euclid reported a significantly lower quality of life than renters. Only 38.0% of owners reported quality of life as “Good” or “Excellent,” while 52.3% of renters did.

Finally, when quality of life was cross tabulated with whether or not respondents

34�1%

40�5%

34�4%

41�5%

31�4%

49�5%

17�1%

17�4%

9�7%

6�6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

18 to 44 Years Old

45 to 64 Years Old

65 Years or Older

43�6%

34�0%

35�1%

34�5%

36�0%

45�9%

12�7%

20�0%

13�5%

7�3%

8�0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Households withChildren

Households withYoung Adults

Households withSeniors

9�2%

35�3%

43�1%

41�7%

32�3%

16�0%

10�8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Own

Rent

Figure 15 Overall Quality of Life by Age of Respondent

Figure 16 Overall Quality of Life by Presence of Family Members

Figure 17 Overall Quality of Life by Tenure




DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6


31

felt engaged in their community, the results showed that increased engagement correlated with increased quality of life. Among those reporting an above average quality of life, 69.9% are engaged in their community or neighborhood, as shown in

Figure 18. Among those reporting a below average quality of life, only 10.6% reported that they are engaged in their community. This indicates that efforts to engage citizens could have an outsized role in improving the perceptions of quality of life in Euclid.

Figure 18 Opinion on Community Engagement by Overall Quality of Life

Yes, I feel engagedNo, I do not feel engaged

69�9%

38�1%

10�6%

30�1%

61�9%

89�4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Above Average

Average

Below Average

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

632


ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

COMMON THEMES ■ Respondents want to add retail and service stores because they do not believe existing

retailers can meet their shopping needs; however, fewer respondents want Euclid to grow as a regional retail destination, indicating the focus should be on local retailers

■ Attracting manufacturing and industrial jobs is more important to respondents than attracting office jobs

■ Less than half of respondents believe that the City should focus on developing more arts and cultural attractions

The next survey topic covered economic development and asked for agreement with a series of policy statements that could guide City initiatives.

OPINIONS ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY STATEMENTS

Question 11 asked respondents how strongly they agreed with a variety of economic development policy statements.

38�3%

36�1%

27�8%

25�2%

25�0%

19�4%

11�1%

11�2%

45�6%

42�6%

42�7%

44�6%

34�4%

32�4%

36�9%

32�3%

13�7%

16�0%

24�9%

27�3%

30�3%

36�8%

42�6%

17�5%

7�8%

8�9%

7�8%

29�9% 9�2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Maintain and attract different types ofretail/service stores

Attract manufacturing and industrialjobs

Promote workforce training programsin Euclid

Attracts office jobs

Grow as a regional retail and shoppingdestination

Support development near freeways(gas stations, hotels, fast food)

Develop more arts and culturalattractions

Most of my shopping needs can be metby local retailers

Figure 19 Opinions on Economic Development Policy Statements


DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6


33

More than 83% of question respondents said that maintaining and attracting differ-ent types of retail or service stores should be a City focus, as shown in Figure 19.

Consistent with Euclid’s heavy reliance on manufacturing employment, attracting and maintaining industrial and manufacturing jobs was the second most popular state-ment, selected by 78.7% of respondents. This was closely followed by promoting workforce training programs, selected by 70.5% of respondents. Attracting office jobs, selected by 69.8% of respondents, was the fourth most popular policy statement.

With less than half of respondents in agreement, developing more arts and cultural attractions was not a directive from the survey.

OPINIONS ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY STATEMENTS BY AGE OF RESPONDENT

When cross tabulated by age of respon-dent, most responses were consistent with

general trends regardless of age; however, in three cases, at least one age group differed from the average by at least ten percentage points, as shown in Figure 20.

Among all question respondents, 43.4% selected “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” with the statement “Most of my shopping needs can be met by local retailers.” This agree-ment was dependent on age, however, as young adults agreed only 31.7% of the time and seniors agreed 50.6% of the time.

When asked about agreement with the statement “Develop more arts and cultural attractions,” younger respondents agreed with this option 58.5% of the time, while the City average was 48.0%.

Finally, younger respondents were also more likely to support attraction efforts related to office jobs while older adults were more likely to support attraction efforts for manufacturing jobs. Among young adults, 80.5% supported the state-ment “The City should promote economic development that attracts office jobs,” while the Citywide average was 69.8%.

Figure 20 Strongly Agree or Agree on Economic Development Policy Statements by Age of Respondent

18 to 44 Years Old 45 to 64 Years Old 65 Years or Older

Maintain and attract different types of retail/service stores

Develop more arts and cultural attractions

Promote workforce training programs in Euclid

Attract manufacturing and industrial jobs

Support development near freeways (gas stations, hotels,

fast food)

Most of my shopping needs can be met by local retailers

Attract office jobs

Grow as a regional retail and shopping destination

82.9% 86.9% 79.8%

31.7% 42.5% 50.6% 58.5%46.7% 44.6%

80.5% 73.3%60.0%

70.7% 80.5% 80.0%61.0%

72.4% 72.6%56.1% 62.2% 56.6% 56.1% 52.1% 48.8%

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

634


CITY IMAGE & COMMUNICATION

COMMON THEMES ■ Respondents would like to preserve the City’s cultural heritage and history and like the

idea of a unique City identity and brand, indicating the two can be incorporated

■ A majority of respondents agree that the City does a good job of making information accessible and that they feel informed about community programs and events

■ Phone calls from the City are the most popular way residents currently receive infor-mation from the City; however, among younger respondents social media and the City website are equally important information venues

■ Respondents agree that City streets should have decorative elements to make them more attractive

The next survey topic covered policy statements regarding the City’s image and its communication efforts as well as the methods by which residents receive their information.

OPINIONS ON CITY IMAGE & COMMUNICATION POLICY STATEMENTS

Question 12 asked respondents how strongly they agreed with a variety of policy statements regarding City image and communication. More than half of respon-dents agreed with every policy statement, as shown in Figure 21.

29�4%

19�2%

13�1%

10�0%

18�0%

44�1%

47�5%

45�9%

42�8%

33�9%

20�8%

28�8%

19�2%

22�8%

41�8%

15�7%

18�0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Streets should have decorativeelements

Focus on preserving its cultural heritageand history

The City does a good job of makinginformation accessible

I feel well informed about communityprograms and events

Focus on creating a unique City identityand brand

Figure 21 Opinions on City Image and Communication Policy Statements


DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6


35

Consistent with later data from the transportation section of the survey, respondents heavily agreed that the City should invest in decorative street elements such as signs, lamp posts, and flowers, with 73.5% of respondents saying they “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” with the statement.

This was followed by 66.7% of respondents agreeing that “The City should focus on preserving its cultural heritage and history,” indicating a deep and abiding commitment to Euclid’s past. This came despite only a slim majority (51.9%) agreeing that “The City should focus on creating a unique identity and brand.” Together, these state-ments indicate that should the City move forward on a branding initiative, it should incorporate elements on Euclid’s heritage.

In terms of communication, respondents were in agreement with the statement “The City does a good job of making information accessible to all residents,” and a similar though slightly lower number (52.8%) agreed with the statement “I feel well informed about community programs and events.”

OPINIONS ON CITY IMAGE & COMMUNICATION POLICY STATEMENTS BY AGE OF RESPONDENT

When cross tabulated with age of respon-dent, there were three issues in which age groups differed from the Citywide average by at least ten percentage points, as shown in Figure 22.

When asked whether they agreed that “Major streets should have decorative elements,” 81.6% of young adults aged 18 to 44 agreed, while that number fell to 62.4% among the City’s seniors.

The City’s seniors were also far more likely to agree with the statements “The City does a good job of making information accessible to all residents” and “I feel well informed about community programs and events.” Less than half of younger respon-dents agreed with these statements while the Citywide average was greater than half.

Figure 22 Strongly Agree or Agree on City Image and Communication Policy Statements by Age of Respondent

Focus on creating a unique City identity and brand

Streets should have decorative elements

I feel well informed about community programs and

events

Focus on preserving its cultural heritage and history

The City does a good job of making information

accessible

53.7% 56.3%44.3%

65.0% 66.1% 68.4%81.6% 79.2%

62.4%44.7% 54.1%

72.5%

45.0% 45.8%65.6%

18 to 44 Years Old 45 to 64 Years Old 65 Years or Older

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

636


METHODS OF RECEIVING CITY COMMUNICATION

Question 13 asked respondents which form of media they used to receive infor-mation. By far, the most popular method of receiving information from the City was via a direct phone call, with 48.4% of respon-dents selecting this option.

The remaining four options—the City website, ECTV, Other, and Social Media—were selected by between 20% and 28% of respondents, indicating lower use to get information. This information is shown in Figure 24.

METHODS OF RECEIVING CITY COMMUNICATION BY AGE OF RESPONDENT

When cross tabulated with age of respon-dent, significant changes occur. Younger respondents are far more likely to receive their information via social media (48.8%) and the City website (36.6%) than older respondents. Older respondents—espe-cially seniors—were far more likely to get information from phone calls or ECTV, while almost no seniors receive information from social media or the City website. This information is displayed in Figure 24.

Figure 23 Methods of Receiving City Communication

48�4%

27�8%

24�6%

22�2%

20�6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Phone Calls

City Website

Community Television (ECTV)

Other

Social Media

Figure 24 Strongly Agree or Agree on City Image and Communication Policy Statements by Age of Respondent

36.6%48.8%

4.9%

36.6%24.4%

33.3%19.5%

26.0%39.0%

22.0%13.3%

7.1%

26.5%

58.2%

17.3%

City Website Social Media Community Television

Phone Calls Other

18 to 44 Years Old 65 Years or Older45 to 64 Years Old

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6


37

HOUSING

COMMON THEMES ■ Maintaining existing housing and neighborhoods is the most important housing need;

however, when homes are abandoned or neglected residents would like to use demoli-tion to remove blight

■ Residents are not interested in seeing additional apartments in Euclid

■ Environmentally sustainable and energy efficient single-family homes constructed in existing walkable neighborhoods are a prime desire for new housing among existing residents

■ Assistance for existing homeowners to make home improvements is preferable to current residents than providing incentives for attracting new homeowners

Housing is a critical component to a community because strong neighbor-hoods that fit modern market demand are important to developing communities that cater to all ages and preferences. The next survey topic covered opinions on needed housing types in Euclid as well as opinions on needed housing services.

PRIORITY HOUSING NEEDS

Question 14 asked respondents to what extent they agreed that certain housing types were needed in Euclid. The results, displayed in Figure 25, show that residents overwhelmingly would like to see existing housing and neighborhoods maintained, with 81.2% of question respondents saying they rate this statement “Very High” or “High.”

A majority of respondents only rated three additional options as “Very High” or “High.” First, 63.0% rated “More sustainable and energy-efficient housing” highly, 62.6% rated “More housing options for seniors” highly, and 55.5% rated “More infill devel-opment on vacant land” highly.

Just under 50% of respondents said “More single-family, detached homes,” “More walkable housing options,” and “More new affordable housing” were high priorities.

Roughly the same percentage of people rated “More townhouses/condos in appro-priate locations” highly, while a majority of respondents rated “More apartments in appropriate locations” as a “Low” or “Very Low” priority.

Overall, maintaining existing housing and neighborhoods is the main priority for residents. In terms of new housing types, single-family homes are rated most highly, followed by townhouses/condos, and a majority of people would not like to see new apartments.

In terms of building descriptors, more sustainable and energy-efficient homes are desired, followed by infill housing, walkable housing options, and finally affordable housing.

More senior housing options were much more popular in the survey than more housing options for young people; however, the demographics of survey

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

638


respondents were also highly skewed toward older respondents.

PRIORITY HOUSING NEEDS BY AGE OF RESPONDENT

When cross tabulated by age of respon-dent, most responses were consistent with the general trend regardless of age; however, in three cases, at least one age group differed from the average by at least ten percentage points. These results are shown in Figure 27.

Among all question respondents, 62.6% rated “More housing options for seniors” as a “High” or “Very High” priority; however, most support was concentrated among older residents. Among seniors, 71.8% rated this highly, and among working age adults, 68.3% rated this highly. This

indicates an understanding among current seniors and those approaching retirement that there is a need for housing to accom-modate them in the future. Among younger respondents, only 25.0% rated this as a “High” or “Very High” priority.

When asked to rate “More housing options within walking distance to amenities,” younger respondents were less likely than working age adults to see more walkable housing options as a high priority. Among all respondents, 47.4% rated walkable housing options as a high priority, while that number dropped to 35.9% among young adults and rose to 51.7% among working age adults.

Finally, when asked to rate the priority for new infill development on vacant land, younger respondents rated this far more highly than older respondents.

51�5%

32�8%

25�6%

24�7%

19�6%

15�1%

25�0%

14�4%

8�2%

29�7%

30�2%

37�0%

30�8%

29�3%

32�3%

22�4%

28�4%

23�8%

11�5%

13�8%

25�5%

29�3%

30�0%

30�2%

37�9%

29�7%

33�8%

40�3%

26�1%

7�7%

8�4%

13�8%

11�2%

11�6%

14�4%

16�5%

22�6%

7�1%

11�2%

9�0%

11�3%

36�8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Maintaining existing housing andneighborhoods

More sustainable and energy-efficienthousing

More housing options for seniors

More infill development on vacant land

More single-family, detached homes

More walkable housing options

More new affordable housing

More housing types for young people

More townhouses/condos inappropriate locations

More apartments in appropriatelocations

Figure 25 Opinions on Priority Housing Needs


DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6


39

Figure 27 Very High or High Priority on Housing Needs by Age of Respondent

Maintaining existing housing and neighborhoods

More apartments in appropriate locations

More housing options for seniors

More new affordable housing

More housing types for young people

More townhouses/condos in appropriate locations

More infill development on vacant land

More single-family, detached homes

More walkable housing options

More sustainable and energy-efficient housing

25.0%

68.3% 71.8%

35.9%51.7% 46.1%

22.5%36.2% 30.7% 10.3% 12.8%

19.2%

44.7% 53.5% 43.8% 43.6% 45.2% 37.3%

86.8% 82.5% 76.5% 70.0%51.8% 54.2%

43.6% 49.1% 47.4% 57.5% 67.2% 59.2%18 to 44 Years Old

45 to 64 Years Old

65 Years or Older

Figure 26 Opinions on Priority Housing Services

Very HighHighAverageLowVery Low

55�9%

37�0%

36�9%

39�9%

37�4%

28�3%

25�3%

39�1%

32�4%

27�8%

28�9%

30�3%

15�1%

19�3%

23�7%

22�6%

28�5%

24�2% 7�8% 9�4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Demolition of vacant/blighted housing

Assistance for home improvements

First-time homeowner education

Rental property managementeducation

Stronger or more consistent codeenforcement

First-time homebuyer down paymentassistance

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

640


Among young adults, 70.0% rated this highly compared to 55.5% for the Citywide average, and 51.8% among working age adults.

PRIORITY HOUSING SERVICES

Question 15 asked respondents their priority for certain housing services needed in Euclid. The results, displayed in Figure 26, show that a majority of residents saw all services as a high priority. The highest priority, with 81.2% of all respondents rating it as “High” or “Very High,” was that the City should focus on “Demolition of vacant/blighted housing.” Given the desire of residents to focus on maintaining existing housing and neighborhoods in question 14, it is apparent that respondents felt current neighborhoods are not being fully taken care of and demolition of blight may assist in clearing neighborhoods of unsightly issues.

Following demolition, “Assistance for home improvements” was the second-highest priority, with 76.1% of respondents selecting this. This came above education initiatives, code enforcement, and downpayment assistance, indicating that current homeowners especially were interested in monetary assistance in fixing up their properties before enforcement mechanisms or monetary assistance to grow the homeownership rate.

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6


41

TRANSPORTATION

COMMON THEMES ■ Senior transportation is a high priority for residents, especially among working age

adults and seniors

■ Respondents would like to see improvements to Euclid’s walking environment far more than improvements to getting around by car, public transit, or bike

■ Younger residents would like to see improvements to getting around by foot and bike, while older residents would like to see improvements to senior transportation and walking

■ When commenting on improvements to specific streets, respondents said that making streets more attractive was the highest priority in all cases

Transportation is a critical component of City governance. The construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, and all-pur-pose trails are essential parts of economic development initiatives and quality of life for residents.

By understanding the priority level for improvements to transportation as well as priorities for improvements to particular

streets, the City administration can priori-tize funding to those initiatives.

PRIORITIES FOR IMPROVING THE EASE AND SAFETY OF TRANSPORTATION

Question 16 asked respondents their prior-ity level for improving the ease and safety of getting around their community by car, public transit, bike, walking, and senior

42�6%

36�2%

25�3%

20�8%

21�3%

29�9%

32�1%

27�1%

29�0%

26�7%

19�1%

25�0%

34�4%

32�9%

31�2%

7�7%

9�2%

11�9%

5�4%

8�2%

8�9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Senior Transportation

Walking

Car

Public Transit

Bike

Figure 28 Priority Level for Improvements by Transportation Modes

Very HighHighAverageLowVery Low

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

642


transportation. Consistent with the high senior demographic who responded to the survey, Senior Transportation was the highest priority, with 72.5% of respondents selecting this as a “High” or “Very High” priority. This is shown in Figure 28.

This was followed by improvements to the walking environment in Euclid, with 68.3% of respondents selecting this as a priority. Just over half of respondents (52.5%) said improvements to getting around by car were important, indicating that residents would like to see more attractive and safe streets for walking before streets that move cars quickly.

Just under half of respondents said that improving the ease and safety of getting around by bike or public transit was a priority.

PRIORITIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS BY AGE OF RESPONDENT

Priorities for improvements were cross tabulated with the age of respondent to see how varying age groups viewed trans-portation priorities differently. The charts in Figure 29 display the percent of each age group that marked improvement priorities by mode as “Very High” or “High.”

Among young adults age 18 to 44, the highest priority was for improving the walking environment in Euclid followed by improvements to getting around by bike and then senior transportation.

Among working age adults between 45 and 64 years old, senior transportation improvements were the top priority followed by improvements to getting around on foot and by car. This pattern was repeated among those age 65 and older.

PRIORITIES FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ON MAJOR STREETS

Question 17 asked respondents to indicate which types of improvements they would like to see on a series of major streets in Euclid. The results, displayed in Figure 30, show consistency among all the major streets in Euclid. Across the board, most respondents said they would like to see “More attractive streets” for major corridors in the City. This was followed by streets that are “Safer for walking” and “Safer for bikes.”

In all cases, “Easier access to transit” and “Moving cars more quickly” were the lowest priorities for improvements.

In comparison to the overall priority level for improvements asked in the previous question, improvements to bicycling was a

Figure 29 Very High or High Priority Level for Transportation Improvements by Age of Respondent

Car Public Transit Bike Walking Senior Transportation

18 to 44 Years Old 65 Years or Older45 to 64 Years Old

41.0% 38.9%47.5%

65.0%

44.8%55.0% 51.0% 52.9%

69.6% 74.3%

55.6% 53.0%39.7%

68.1%80.8%

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6


43

higher priority than improvements for drivers on all streets. This indicates that while overall improvements may be focused on improvements to the repair of

streets, respondents would like to see safer streets for bicyclists over moving cars more quickly through the City.

Figure 30 Desired Transportation Improvements by Major Street

34.0%44.5%

17.5%

58.5%

15.0%

Safer for BikesSafer for WalkingEasier Access to TransitMore Attractive StreetsMoving Cars More Quickly

Euclid Avenue

East 222nd Street

East 260th Street

East 200th Street

East 250th Street

East 185th Street

Babbitt Road

Lakeshore Boulevard

30.3%

45.2%

13.9%

52.9%

21.6%28.5%

42.0%

16.0%

55.0%

21.0%

30.3%41.0%

17.9%

46.7%

23.1% 28.8%38.4%

20.2%

52.5%

20.7%31.5%

38.1%

21.4%

45.2%

11.3%

30.4%39.2%

18.2%

51.9%

14.4%

38.6% 43.6%

16.3%

47.5%

14.4%

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

644


DEVELOPMENT

COMMON THEMES ■ Respondents would like to see walkable, mixed-use, and environmentally sustainable

development in Euclid

■ Respondents would like to see retail in many of the City’s historic commercial areas

■ Residents overwhelmingly desire parks along the City’s Lakefront

■ Residents favor demolition as a way to eliminate blight in neighborhoods

■ When demolition in neighborhoods occur, residents would like to see side yard expan-sions before new housing or green space

The next survey topic covered future development by asking respondents about desired types of development in certain areas within Euclid. The topic also asked for

opinions on policy statements regarding future development.

Figure 31 Desired Land Use Types by Area

Retail Office Housing Industrial Parks

East 260th and Euclid Avenue

Downtown Euclid

Lakefront

Euclid Square Mall

Euclid Avenue Corridor

East 185th Street

79.9%

28.4%

14.2%5.9%

28.9%

77.3%

30.4%17.7%

6.6%16.0%

65.8%

31.2%

14.7%

35.5%

20.8%

49.7% 44.4%

26.9%16.4% 14.6%

51.2% 46.3%

20.7%28.7%

18.9% 15.1%6.8%

32.2%

2.9%

76.6%

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6


45

DESIRED LAND USE TYPES BY AREA

Question 18 asked respondents what types of land uses they would like to see in certain areas in the City. The results, displayed in Figure 31, show slight varia-tions by area.

Downtown Euclid and East 185th Street showed similar patterns in desired uses with question respondents overwhelmingly desiring retail in these areas. In Downtown Euclid, respondents would also like to see parks, office, and potentially housing while on East 185th, residents would also like office and potentially housing and parks.

Respondents also saw Euclid Square Mall as being a place for retail in the future; however more than a third of respondents also saw industrial uses as a potential for this site. This was followed by office uses and potentially parks.

East 260th and Euclid Avenue as well as the greater Euclid Avenue corridor had similar desired land use types. In those two areas,

retail and office were the primary desired uses. At East 260th and Euclid, respondents said housing may also be appropriate while respondents indicated industrial uses may be appropriate along the rest of the Euclid Avenue corridor.

Finally, respondents overwhelmingly said that they desired park space along the Lakefront, with more than three-quarters of people selecting this option. This was followed by housing and potentially retail.

OPINIONS ON DEVELOPMENT POLICY STATEMENTS

Question 19 asked respondents how strongly they agreed with a series of policy statements on development. The results, displayed in Figure 32, show that the policy most respondents agree with is that “The City should focus on demolishing abandoned or foreclosed homes.” With more than 88% of respondents rating this as “Strongly Agree” or “Agree,” home demolition is a clear focus for

57�1%

33�6%

32�2%

34�6%

27�3%

24�2%

24�8%

15�0%

31�0%

49�3%

43�0%

39�7%

42�9%

37�7%

33�8%

25�2%

9�8%

14�4%

20�4%

19�8%

17�2%

26�4%

27�4%

30�1%

8�4%

8�7%

11�1%

21�7% 8�0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Focus on demolishing abandoned orforeclosed homes

Focus on walkable, mixed-usedevelopment

Encourage more environmentallysustainable development

Vacant lots should be offered for yardexpansion

Vacant properties should be used fornew housing

Vacant properties should be used asgreen space

New homes should match the scale anddesign of existing homes

Vacant properties should be developedfor commerical use

Figure 32 Opinions on Development Policy Statements


DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

646


respondents who are dealing with issues of deferred maintenance and blight in their neighborhoods.

Following demolition, 83.0% of respondents said “The City should focus on mixed-use development (retail, office, residential) within walking distance to amenities.” This desire for walkable places is consistent with previous transportation statements in which respondents sought attractive, walkable streets.

The third highest priority was that the “The City should encourage more environmen-tally friendly development,” which 75.2% of respondents agreed with.

Four of the options in Question 19 related to how vacant parcels should be reused. According to respondents, using vacant properties to expand side yards had the highest agreement, with 74.3% saying they agreed with this policy. This was followed by using vacant properties for new housing (70.2%) and as green space (61.9%). Less than half of respondents said that vacant properties should be used for commercial development.

Also toward the bottom of the priority list was the desire for new homes to match the scale and design of existing homes. Just over half (58.5%) of respondents agreed with this statement, indicating that any type of design guidelines for new housing are a lower priority than other areas.

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6


47

COMMUNITY AMENITIES

COMMON THEMES ■ Euclid Public Library was rated highest in both quality and importance as a City amenity

■ Three amenities were rated by less than half of residents as being above average quality

■ Euclid Schools and Euclid YMCA were noted as being important areas to seek improvements

■ Shore Cultural Centre, Euclid Historical Society and Museum, and the Polka and Softball Hall of Fame were all noted as being below average in quality and in importance

The City of Euclid provides numerous stan-dard and unique amenities for residents,

including the Public Library, Schools, and cultural venues. To understand how well

58�6%

40�2%

33�8%

35�0%

23�9%

19�0%

17�6%

15�2%

13�8%

11�4%

8�2%

30�4%

34�6%

40�5%

34�2%

45�3%

44�4%

38�5%

39�2%

35�5%

32�9%

24�7%

7�6%

19�6%

21�6%

22�6%

24�8%

30�2%

31�9%

43�0%

31�6%

34�7%

27�6%

8�8%

16�4%

13�8%

21�2%

7�2%

18�2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Euclid Public Library


Henn Mansion

Euclid Hospital

Senior Community Center

Private or Parochial Schools

Euclid Historical Society and Museum

Polka and Softball Hall of Fame

Euclid YMCA

Shore Cultural Centre

Euclid City Schools

Figure 33 Opinions on Quality of City Amenities


DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

648


these amenities are used, the survey asked residents to rate the quality and impor-tance of individual amenities.

QUALITY OF INDIVIDUAL AMENITIES

Question 20 asked respondents to rate the quality of 11 City amenities. More than half of respondents rated all but three ameni-ties positively. Euclid Public Library was the most highly rated amenity, with almost 60% of respondents rating it “Excellent” and a total of 89.0% rating it “Good” or “Excellent.”

The services with less than 50% of respon-dents ranking them positively were the Euclid YMCA, Shore Cultural Centre, and the Euclid City Schools. This information is shown in Figure 33.

IMPORTANCE OF INDIVIDUAL SERVICES

In addition to understanding the quality of existing services, Question 21 asked respondents to rate the importance of the same 11 amenities in the City, and the results are illustrated in Figure 34.

Respondents again placed the Euclid Public Library at the top of the list as the most important community amenity. More than half of respondents also rated all but one amenity as being “Important” or “Very Important.” Only the Polk and Softball Hall of Fame was rated by less than half of respondents as being in this category.

80�7%

77�4%

69�0%

55�2%

50�0%

41�4%

32�8%

27�4%

27�8%

19�6%

15�1%

16�9%

17�5%

20�8%

31�3%

33�8%

35�7%

39�1%

35�8%

34�8%

35�2%

24�9%

8�3%

9�2%

16�5%

21�8%

27�9%

26�9%

37�0%

41�3%

8�8%

10�6%

8�3%

18�7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Euclid Public Library

Euclid Hospital

Euclid City Schools



Euclid YMCA


Henn Mansion




Figure 34 Opinions on Importance of City Amenities

Very ImportantImportantSomewhat ImportantNot Important

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6


49

QUALITY-IMPORTANCE MATRIX OF AMENITIES

To better understand the relationship between quality and importance, the 11 amenities were plotted on a matrix with one axis showing the range of quality and the other showing the range of importance. The matrix, displayed in Figure 35, shows four quadrants divided by lines displaying the average rating of importance and quality. The quadrants are described here:

■ The bottom right quadrant (orange) displays amenities of lower than average importance but higher than average quality.

■ The bottom left quadrant (red) displays amenities of lower than average quality and importance. These are amenities that could be improved if the resources and time are available.

■ The top right quadrant (green) dis-plays amenities of higher than average

quality and importance. These are amenities that should be maintained.

■ The top left quadrant (purple) dis-plays amenities of higher than average importance but lower than average quality. These are amenities that should be improved.

For Euclid, important and high-quality ame-nities include Euclid Hospital, the Library, the Senior Community Center, and Private or Parochial Schools. Lower importance but nonetheless high quality amenities include Henn Mansion and the Joseph Farrell Memorial Fishing Pier.

Lower importance and quality amenities include Shore Cultural Centre, Euclid Historical Society and Museum, and the Polka and Softball Hall of Fame. These amenities could be considered for changes.

Finally, amenities of high importance but presently low quality include the Euclid YMCA and Euclid City Schools. These should be areas of concern and focus.

Euclid Public LibraryEuclid Hospital

Euclid YMCA


Henn Mansion





Euclid City Schools


30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Impo

rtan

ce o

f Am

enit

ies

Quality of AmenitiesHigher quality

Hig

her

impo

rtan

ce

Lower quality

Low

er

impo

rtan

ce

Importance average

Qua

lity

aver

age

Figure 35 Quality-Importance Matrix of City Amenities

Above-Average Quality, Below-Average Importance

Below-Average Quality, Below-Average Importance

Above-Average Quality, Above-Average Importance

Below-Average Quality, Above-Average Importance

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

650


CITY SERVICES

COMMON THEMES ■ Overall quality of services is ranked highly by 64.1% of respondents

■ Emergency services were rated as the highest quality services in the City

■ Infrastructure maintenance and code enforcement issues should be areas of focus for improvements

The City of Euclid provides vital services to residents such as Police and Fire protection. Additionally, the City provides other services such as leaf collection, trash removal, curbside recycling, and snow removal that are necessary to the function-ing of the community.

The provision of basic services to residents is an essential component of City gover-nance, and the quality provision of these services is important to economic devel-opment and quality of life. To understand how well the City is providing services, the survey asked residents to rate the quality of individual services, the importance of individual services, and the overall quality.

QUALITY OF INDIVIDUAL SERVICES

Question 22 asked respondents to rate the quality of 19 services in the City. More than half of respondents rated all but six services positively, with more than 50% of respondents marking these services as “Excellent” or “Good.” Emergency services such as Fire protection/EMS and Police protection were the highest rated, as shown in Figure 36.

The services with less than 50% of respon-dents ranking them positively were related to infrastructure maintenance and code enforcement. In terms of infrastructure

maintenance, less than half of respondents said snow removal, water back up/sewer infrastructure, and street maintenance/repair were lower quality, indicating a need to improve these services. Similarly, commercial and housing maintenance enforcement and the City’s building department were ranked lowest, indicating a desire to improve services that are aimed at the upkeep of buildings in the City.

IMPORTANCE OF INDIVIDUAL SERVICES

In addition to understanding the quality of existing services, Question 23 asked respondents to rate the importance of the same 19 services in the City, and the results are illustrated in Figure 37.

Respondents indicated that emergency services such as fire protection/EMS and police protection are the most important provided by the City; however, more than half of respondents ranked all of the listed services as being “Very Important” or “Important.” At the bottom of the list were communication services such as the Blackboard Connect, the website, and Euclid Community Television.

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6


51

51�4%

43�8%

38�9%

28�1%

25�7%

29�1%

20�9%

22�7%

21�8%

16�8%

14�5%

14�2%

12�3%

13�8%

10�5%

7�8%

11�5%

8�1%

7�7%

38�5%

38�2%

42�3%

46�8%

46�1%

39�8%

42�3%

40�3%

40�2%

40�5%

41�2%

39�8%

38�6%

32�0%

29�7%

30�1%

24�7%

24�9%

25�1%

9�3%

12�9%

14�2%

16�4%

20�4%

24�3%

28�4%

22�7%

26�6%

30�5%

29�8%

36�4%

30�4%

30�4%

40�1%

37�3%

37�4%

25�8%

36�6%

13�0%

8�9%

9�9%

12�3%

13�0%

12�2%

19�0%

14�9%

25�8%

21�7%

6�4%

10�9%

7�6%

11�5%

15�3%

8�9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fire protection/EMS

Police protection

Trash collection & curbside recycling

Blackboard Connect (TelephoneNotification System)

Senior services

Healthcare access

Park maintenance

Leaf collection

Traffic enforcement

Recreational programs

Euclid Community Television

City of Euclid website

Street tree planting program

Snow removal

Water back up/sewer infrastructure

Commercial maintenance enforcement

Building department

Housing maintenance enforcement

Street maintenance/repair

Figure 36 Opinions on Quality of City Services


DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

652


92�7%

73�4%

91�9%

72�8%

67�3%

61�4%

62�5%

62�1%

53�5%

49�0%

46�6%

42�6%

48�1%

37�4%

40�2%

33�9%

29�1%

24�7%

21�4%

6�5%

25�0%

6�2%

24�1%

29�2%

32�3%

30�8%

31�2%

37�6%

41�9%

41�8%

45�0%

38�5%

47�9%

42�7%

33�1%

34�0%

35�4%

30�9%

6�5%

8�3%

10�0%

11�2%

10�9%

11�8%

15�9%

20�0%

25�5%

31�3%

31�7%

13�1%

11�3%

8�6%

16�0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fire protection/EMS


Police protection

Snow removal



Traffic enforcement

Healthcare access


Senior services

Leaf collection

Park maintenance


Building department

Recreational programs

Blackboard Connect (TelephoneNotification System)

City of Euclid website


Euclid Community Television

Figure 37 Opinions on Importance of City Services

Very ImportantImportantSomewhat ImportantNot Important

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6


53

QUALITY-IMPORTANCE MATRIX OF SERVICES

In order to better understand the rela-tionship between quality of services and importance of services, the 19 services were plotted on a matrix with one axis displaying the range of quality and the other displaying the range of importance to respondents. The matrix, displayed in Figure 38, shows four quadrants divided by lines displaying the average rating of importance and quality. The quadrants are described below:

■ The bottom right quadrant (orange) displays services of lower than average importance but higher than average quality.

■ The bottom left quadrant (red) displays services of lower than average

quality and importance. These are services that could be improved if the resources and time are available.

■ The top right quadrant (green) displays services of higher than aver-age quality and importance. These are services that should be maintained.

■ The top left quadrant (purple) dis-plays services of higher than average importance but lower than average quality. These are services that should be improved.

For Euclid, issues of infrastructure main-tenance and code enforcement remain critical areas for residents because their importance is high and overall quality is lower than average. These areas include street maintenance/repair, snow removal, water back up/sewer infrastructure,

Police protectionFire protection/EMS

Traffic enforcement

Senior servicesHealthcare access

Recreational programsBuilding department




Leaf collectionPark maintenance


Snow removal



City website

Community Television

Blackboard Connect

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Impo

rtan

ce o

f Ser

vice

s

Quality of ServicesHigher quality

Hig

her

impo

rtan

ce

Lower quality

Low

er

impo

rtan

ce

Importance average

Qua

lity

aver

age

Figure 38 Quality-Importance Matrix of City Services

Above-Average Quality, Below-Average Importance

Below-Average Quality, Below-Average Importance

Above-Average Quality, Above-Average Importance

Below-Average Quality, Above-Average Importance

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

654


and housing and commercial code enforcement.

Only blackboard connect was listed as being above average in quality and below average in importance.

OVERALL SERVICES

Question 24 asked respondents to rate the overall quality of services offered in the City of Euclid. The results are shown in Figure 39.

Generally, respondents rated the overall quality of services highly. Of the 259 question respondents, 13.1% rated the overall quality of services as “Excellent” and 51.0% rated the overall quality as “Good.” This combines to 64.1% of respondents saying the overall quality of services were “Excellent” or “Good.” Only 22 respondents rated the overall quality of services as “Poor” or “Very Poor.” The results indicate a high level of satisfaction with room, however, for improvement.

Figure 39 Overall Quality of City Services

13�1%

51�0%

27�4%

5�8% 2�7%


DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6


55

STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES

COMMON THEMES ■ Residents believe access to Lake Erie, the City’s emergency services, its location in the

region, and its people are the top strengths in Euclid

■ The leading items residents would like to change are the City’s housing maintenance and vacancy problems, its services, its schools, and business vacancies and maintenance

■ Residents’ vision for the City’s future is one in which Euclid is a thriving, vibrant City about which residents can be proud

The final questions provided space to write in the City’s greatest strength, an area to improve, and a vision for the future. The results were roughly tabulated into themes, with a complete list in the Appendix.

ONE GREATEST STRENGTH

Question 31 asked respondents to list the City’s greatest strength. The results, generally tabulated in Figure 40, show

Figure 40 Greatest Strengths of Euclid

20�9%

19�6%

12�3%

11�5%

7�2%

5�5%

3�8%

3�4%

2�1%

7�7%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Access to Lake Erie

Emergency Services

Location

People, Diversity, and Community

Services

Housing, Neighborhoods, and Affordability

Parks

Retail and Restaurants

Walkability and Downtown Euclid

All Others

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

656


respondents think access to the Lake and the City’s emergency services are its great-est strengths, with more than 19% writing answers relating to each.

The third most popular comments related to the City’s location. More than 12% said location—close to Downtown Cleveland, close to Lake Erie, a near-in suburb, with access to the region’s highways—is the City’s greatest strength.

An additional 11.5% of respondents noted Euclid’s people, diversity, and the close-knit community as being its greatest strength. Other topics included services, quality and affordable housing, parks, retail and restau-rants, and Euclid’s walkable Downtown.

ONE ITEM TO CHANGE

Question 32 asked respondents to list one thing they would most like to change, enhance, or improve about Euclid. The results, generally tabulated in Figure 41, show that the top item residents would like to change is the maintenance of homes and residential vacancies. Respondents would like to see homes and yards maintained, home maintenance codes enforced, and vacant homes demolished.

The second item residents would most like to change was City services—especially in terms of cleanliness and street main-tenance. Respondents would like to see streets repaired and repaved and would

Figure 41 Leading Items to Change about Euclid

16�0%

13�4%

9�1%

8�7%

6�5%

6�5%

4�3%

4�3%

3�9%

3�5%

2�6%

2�6%

2�6%

16�0%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Home Maintenance and Vacancy

Improve Services including Cleanliness and StreetMaintenance

Improve Schools

Add Business or Renovate Vacant Businesses

Improve Safety and Police Relations

Lower Taxes

Develop the Lakefront

Increase Homeownership

Improve Neighbor-to-Neighbor Relations

Add Jobs/Industry

Improve Euclid Square Mall Area

Improve Section 8 Housing

Improve Community Image

All Others

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6


57

like to see Downtown Euclid as well as neighborhood streets kept clean of trash. Other changes to services included better customer service and better snow plowing.

Other answers included improving City schools, adding new retailers or renovating vacant storefronts, improving safety and police relations, and lowering taxes.

Overall, there were a far greater variety of items respondents would like to change than greatest strengths.

VISION FOR THE FUTURE

Question 33 asked respondents to finish the following statement: “In the next 10 years, Euclid should become a City that...”

In response to this, 21.5% of respondents said they would like to build a positive self-image, in which people feel pride about living in the City.

Similarly, 16.6% of respondents said they would like Euclid to become a place that is thriving, prosperous, vibrant, and rejuvenated.

Together, these two items comprised 38.1% of question responses. These answers describe a Euclid that is a quality and vibrant place where people would like to live.

Other popular topics included a community that is safer and that has well-maintained commercial buildings and homes.

21�5%

16�6%

8�3%

7�2%

3�9%

3�9%

3�9%

3�9%

3�9%

3�9%

3�3%

3�3%

16�6%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Has positive community image and pride

Thrives

Is safer

Has well-maintained properties

Reduces taxes

Grows

Has new retail and restaurants

Develops its lakefront

Attracts children, young people, and youngfamilies

Attracts industry and jobs

Has better parks and recreation events

Improves schools

Other

Figure 42 Vision for the Future

In t

he fu

ture

, Euc

lid��

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6

DEMOGRAPHICSSECTION 4

The Euclid survey was sent to 1,400 random households in order to solicit opinions that encompass the range of opinion within the City’s diverse population. The Demographics Section summarizes the population that responded to the survey.


This section includes the results of the six demographic questions asked in the Euclid Survey. The results can be helpful in com-paring the survey respondent population to the population as a whole.

HOW DO I USE IT?

Questions in this section of the Survey Results are arranged as they were within the survey sent to households. Each

question is numbered and includes a description of the question, a chart or graph of the results, and some analysis of respondent answers.

These responses should be used to give context to the detailed findings of the residential report. Over representation or underrepresentation of specific groups can alter overall opinions and should be considered.

Source: Aaron Parker

59

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

660


RESPONDENT INFORMATION

AGE OF RESPONDENT

The Euclid Survey asked the heads of households to complete the survey collab-oratively. Question 25 asked respondents their age, and for those households that completed the survey collaboratively, the question stated that the respondent who most recently had a birthday should list his or her age. The age of the respondent was compared to 2014 Census data from the American Community Survey for age of householder to determine the extent to which survey respondents aligned with Citywide data.

For this question, 262 respondents selected one of the six age groups provided. In all age groups 55 years old and above, respon-dents were overrepresented as compared to their Citywide population while all age groups under 55 were underrepresented among survey respondents.

This information is illustrated in Figure 43 and should be taken into account when reviewing the results of the survey.

LENGTH OF RESIDENCY

Question 26 asked respondents how many years they had lived in Euclid. In general, survey respondents were more likely to have lived in the City for longer periods of time. Of the 263 question respondents, only 12.2% had lived in Euclid for five years or fewer, while 51.0% had lived there for more than 20 years, as shown in Figure 44.

Question 27 asked respondents how much longer they planned to live in Euclid. Of 245 respondents, the largest group marked that they did not intend to move out of Euclid, with 43.3% of respondents selecting this option. In addition, however, just over a third of respondents said they planned to move out of Euclid is five years or fewer. This information is illustrated in Figure 45.

Figure 43 Age of Respondent, 2016 Survey and 2014 ACS Data

4�2%

11�5%

16�8%

30�2%

22�9%

14�5%

17�0%

16�8%

22�8%

20�8%

10�3%

12�3%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

18 to 34 Years Old

35 to 44 Years Old

45 to 54 Years Old

55 to 64 Years Old

65 to 74 Years Old

75 Years or Older

2016 Euclid Survey2014 ACS Data

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6

DEMOGRAPHICSEUCLID SURVEY RESULTS

61

TENURE

Question 28 asked respondents whether they were a homeowner or a renter. Of the 259 question respondents, 74.5% owned their home while 25.5% rented their home, as shown in Figure 46.

Question 29 asked respondents whether they planned to own or rent their home in five years. Of the 250 question respon-dents, 77.6% said they would own their home in five years while the remaining 22.4% said they would rent their home. This is a slight increase in the total number of respondents who believe they will own

Figure 44 Length of Residency in Euclid

Figure 45 Planned Length of Residency in Euclid

4�2%

8�0%

13�3%

23�6%

15�6%

35�4%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Under 2 years

2-5 years

6-10 years

11-20 years

21-30 years

More than 30 years

12�7%

20�8%

13�5%

6�1%

2�0%

1�6%

43�3%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Under 2 years

2-5 years

6-10 years

11-20 years

21-30 years

More than 30 years

I do not intend to move out

Owning77�6%

Renting, 22�4%

Figure 46 Respondent Tenure

Figure 47 Respondent Planned Tenure in Five Years

Homeowner74�5%

Renter25�5%

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

662


their home in five years compared to the present day. This increase indicates an opportunity to convert current renters into homeowners in Euclid.

AGE OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

Question 30 asked respondents to indicate the number of people in their household within specific age groups. To determine to what extent the population characteristics of respondent households compared to the City as a whole, this information was also compared to the 2014 Census data from the American Community Survey.

Euclid is predominantly a community of families with children. The percent of residents under age 18 is nearly a quarter of the City’s total population at 23.4%. The City has lower percentages of young adults and seniors. Young adults—those aged 18 to 34—make up just 19.4% of the population while seniors—those aged 65 and above—make up 14.6%.

Survey respondents were generally consistent with the population of the City. Households with members over 55 were overrepresented in the survey while households with children were underrep-resented. This information is displayed in Figure 48.

16�5%

6�2%

6�6%

11�3%

14�4%

16�5%

17�7%

10�7%

23�4%

7�7%

11�6%

12�4%

16�6%

13�8%

6�9%

7�7%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

0 to 17 Years Old

18 to 24 Years Old

25 to 34 Years Old

35 to 44 Years Old

45 to 54 Years Old

55 to 64 Years Old

65 to 74 Years Old

75 Years or Older

Figure 48 Age of Household Members, 2016 Survey and 2014 ACS Data

2016 Euclid Survey2014 ACS Data

DRA

FT N

ovem

ber 3

, 201

6

DEMOGRAPHICSEUCLID SURVEY RESULTS

63

Documents

CITY OF EUCLID - WordPress.com of Euclid Kirsten Holzheimer Gail, Mayor 585 East 222nd St Euclid, OH 44123 216.289.2700 2016 City Council Members John W. Monroe, Council President