Voting Results and Analysis

Board of Directors

July 7, 2011

How People Voted

Three ways to vote:At the Open Houses – October and November, 2010

Online – Between November, 2010, and April, 2011

Via mail survey – April, 2011

Other inputPhone survey – February through March, 2011

Voting Results

Open House Voting – 84 Votes

Online Voting – 535 Votes

Mail Survey – 607 Votes

Total Votes – 1,226 Votes

Voting Analysis

Asset-Based Development – 273 Votes

People chose the Asset-Based Development scenario because… They liked the positive notion of building on the Region’s existing

assets They liked the results of the performance indicator analysis

Below-average score for traffic congestion Above-average score for open space accessibility

They saw the potential for increased accessibility to parks and jobs, resulting in decreased commute times

They saw the potential for increasing the number of jobs in the Region They like the concentration of new development in areas with existing

infrastructure They liked the potential for open space preservation

Infill/Conservation Development – 362 Votes

People chose the Infill/Conservation Development scenario because… They liked the emphasis on redevelopment They liked the emphasis on the preservation of open space –

particularly the preservation of agricultural land They liked that some of the highest concentrations of new population

and jobs would be centered on the City of Dayton They saw the concentration of development efforts in areas with

existing infrastructure as more cost-effective They saw the potential for increased public transit options They liked the increase in accessibility – especially to parks and

employment centers They liked the results of the performance indicator analysis

Mixed-Themes Development – 365 Votes

People chose the Mixed-Themes Development scenario because… They liked having an option that mixed aspects from several different

scenarios They wanted to see more preservation of open space – particularly

agricultural land They saw an increased potential for the redevelopment of already developed

and underused areas They liked the scenario’s future development pattern – which spreads

concentrations of people and jobs throughout the Region and mainly along major transportation corridors

They saw the potential for an increase in alternative transportation methods They saw the concentration of development efforts in areas with existing

infrastructure as more cost-effective