DOCSLIB.ORG

First Triennial Assessment of Progress on Great Lakes Water Quality

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
First Triennial Assessment of Progress on Great Lakes Water Quality 1 Table of Contents I. Introduction Appendix Overview 3 Engagement Efforts 3 Outreach and Publicity for Consultations 5 March Public Meeting Survey Results 7 II. Great Lakes Public Meetings Issues Raised at IJC Public Consultations 10 Great Lakes Public Forum Comments 11 Summary Reports for IJC Public Consultation Meetings to Assess Progress under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement 29 Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations at the Public Meetings 29 Summary Report: What is a Healthy Lake Ontario to You? 43 Summary Report: What is a Health Lake Michigan to You? 49 Summary Report: Public Meeting on the Great Lakes, Your Voice: Sault Ste. Marie 55 Summary Report: Public Meeting on the Great Lakes, Your Voice: Detroit 62 Summary Report: Public Meeting on the Great Lakes, Your Voice: Sarnia 74 Summary Report: Public Meeting on the Great Lakes, Your Voice: Toledo 79 Summary Report: Public Meeting on the Great Lakes, Your Voice: Buffalo 86 Summary Report: Public Meeting on the Great Lakes, Your Voice: St. Catharines 98 III. Public Input Provided via Email or Letter List of Citizens, Organizations and Governments Who Provided Comments by Email or Letter 102 Meeting with the Métis Nation of Ontario 106 Comments provided by Individuals 108 Comments provided by Organizations 159 Comments provided by Municipalities and other Governments 239 2 I. Introduction The IJC believes strongly that public engagement is the foundation of good public policy and governance, and that achieving the Agreement’s purpose and goals will only happen if all sectors of the Great Lakes community are involved. Because of this belief and its Agreement responsibilities as laid out in Article VII to consult on a regular basis with the public, increase awareness of the lakes’ inherent value, and prepare a summary of comments on the Parties Report on Progress, the IJC conducted several public engagement activities as part of its review of Agreement progress. This included input on the Parties Report on Progress (PROP) after it was released in September 2016, and further input on the IJC’s draft Triennial Assessment of Progress (TAP) Report after it was released in January 2017. In total, thirteen public meetings, roundtables and listening sessions were held throughout the Great Lakes region. Public comment was also encouraged and received through our online democracy platform, Participate IJC, our newsletters, social media and website, and via email and mailed letters. Appendix Overview Every comment received during the IJC’s assessment process is included in this appendix, to reflect the immense value and appreciation the IJC places on each person’s shared thoughts, time and experiences. This appendix is organized more or less chronologically, according to when and how we received input. Section one, this introduction, provides an overview of the consultation process, including who participated and how they responded to the various public meeting formats. Section two includes a table of all issues raised by the public according to how often they were mentioned, followed by comments provided at the IJC’s first consultation session at the Great Lakes Public Forum in October 2016 in Toronto. A summary of conclusions and recommendations developed at the 12 subsequent public meetings around the region is next, as well as detailed summary reports from each public meeting. Comments provided at the public meetings are included in each summary report. Section three provides additional comments provided via email or letter or on Participate IJC, an online democracy website that includes information and input from all of the IJC’s public consultations throughout the Canada-US boundary region. Links to Participate IJC are provided throughout the report to view the letters and watch videos of commenters at each public meeting. Engagement Efforts After the two governments, or Parties, released the PROP, they held a three-day Great Lakes Public Forum in early October 2016 in Toronto, Ontario to present their findings. The IJC encouraged comments on these findings at four meetings held in fall 2016 – the public comment session at the Forum, two public meetings in Toronto and Milwaukee, and a scientific roundtable in Milwaukee – as well as through its newsletters, online democracy website and social media outlets. Almost 200 people attended the four fall 2016 meetings. After the Commission released its draft TAP report in January 2017, it asked for public input through the same online and media channels and held nine public meetings in March 2017 in six communities around the basin. An additional 743 people participated in these meetings. The report included draft findings and specific consultation questions for citizens to consider as they prepared their remarks. All comments on the wide range of issues impacting Great Lakes water quality also were welcomed. The IJC took these comments into account as it revised the draft TAP, and provides in this appendix a complete account of each meeting presentation and public comment, either in person or via email or letter, for use by the Parties, all levels of governments, interested citizens, nongovernment organizations, scientists and others. 3 Attendance at IJC Public Meetings. Credit: A. Voglesong and M. Mezzacapo Findings in draft TAP report. Credit: M. Myre Each public meeting for this Agreement consultation process was unique in its design to provide a variety of opportunities for participants to learn about and discuss local and regional innovative programs to address Great Lakes issues relevant to their community, followed by open time for citizens to provide their thoughts about the status of Great Lakes water quality. Their comments often reflect the specific perspectives of each community, which reinforces the adage that we may think globally, but we act locally about the issues that most affect our individual lives. At the same time, many comments reflect a broader perspective and desire for an ecosystem approach to Great Lakes management and civic engagement. Summary reports for each 4 meeting in section two of this appendix provide a thorough synthesis of the unique character of each community’s interests, as well as all comments provided at each session. 5 Outreach and Publicity for Consultations To encourage broad awareness and attendance at the meetings, the IJC completed a wide range of publicity efforts. Initial information was sent through the IJC’s monthly newsletter, Great Lakes Connection, and through social media on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram as well as the IJC online democracy platform, Participate IJC, and its website. This was followed by a series of personal invitations, news releases, pre- meeting radio and online interviews, and publicity in local radio, newspaper and partner organization outlets. Facebook advertising and posts garnered the most registrations for and attendance at IJC public meetings, followed by advertisements in traditional radio stations and newspapers, direct invitations, articles in the IJC’s monthly newsletter Great Lakes Connection, and posts to the Great Lakes Information Network. IJC Facebook Reach for January 2016 – March 2017 Total Reach 954 695 699 683 460 438 443 395 384 354 378 312 271 295 207 16-JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN-17 FEB MARCH Total reach or number of people who saw IJC Facebook posts, including those in October 2016 for the Great Lakes Protection Forum and March 2017 during the IJC’s Great Lakes public meetings. Credit: Jeff Kart IJC Twitter Impressions for January 2016 – March 2017 Twitter figures in the two charts below point to strong audience engagement, readership and sharing on Great Lakes issues and events during the Great Lakes Public Forum and IJC public meeting periods, particularly as compared to those months without public meetings. Social media engagement and sharing as a result of initial linkages during the meeting time periods have continued on all IJC social media accounts since March 2017, thus expanding public awareness of Great Lakes restoration and protection efforts. IJC Twitter Engagement for September 2016 – March 2017 Highlighted sections represent months in which IJC public meetings were held. Credit: Jeff Kart Month Engagement Link Clicks, av. Retweets, av. Favorites Replies Rate % earned per per day (Likes), av. per day day March 2017 1.5 531, 17 431, 14 657, 21 28 February 1.4 411, 15 265, 9 279, 10 0 January 2017 1.3 459, 15 274, 9 319, 10 8 December 2016 1.4 495, 16 316, 10 339, 11 11 November 1.6 424, 14 246, 8 247, 8 5 October 1.1 770, 25 683, 22 591, 19 15 6 September 2016 1.2 531, 18 278, 9 245, 8 7 TWITTER IMPRESSIONS 8500 262200 Sept 3900 118000 1500 47600 July 1800 54600 2300 68700 May 2400 73500 3300 99800 March 3000 94300 2200 62700 16-Jan 1800 56000 1800 56700 Nov 2200 66000 2100 64700 Sept 1700 50400 1200 38200 July 1500 48000 1700 50000 May 1600 51000 2000 59100 Mar 1900 60000 1400 38500 15-Jan 1400 43600 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 Total Per Day Credit: Jeff Kart Those who could not attend the Parties’ Great Lakes Public Forum could livestream or view the sessions afterwards via the Participate IJC website. More than 6,200 people from 14 countries watched various Forum sessions in this format, while another 2,400 viewed the videos via Facebook links from the IJC or Detroit Public Television, which filmed the Forum. The videos have been watched thus far more than 14,350 times and another 1,443 times via Twitter, with at least 393,600 clicks on those tweets. The local presentations at each IJC public meeting were also uploaded to the Participate IJC website for viewing, and subsequently the public’s comments as well. More than 320 people watched videos or downloaded documents from the Great Lakes Public Forum meetings in October 2016, and another 1,300 people visited to view or download materials during the IJC’s public meetings in March 2017.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • District Name of Committee Benefiting Party 1Th Quarter Raised Amount Spent Cash on Hand House 5 Durhal for Michigan Rep
    District Name of Committee Benefiting Party 1th Quarter Raised Amount Spent Cash On Hand House 5 Durhal For Michigan Rep. Fred Durhal Democratic House 6 Stephanie's Changemaker Fund Rep. Stephanie Chang Democratic $264 $425 $435 House 8 Sherry Gay-Dagnogo Strong Women LeadRep. PAC Sherry Gay-Dagnogo Democratic $40,355 $15,589 $33,478 House 9 Santana For Michigan Rep. Sylvia Santana Democratic $0 $0 $1,340 House 12 Geiss Leadership Fund Rep. Erika Geiss Democratic $0 $0 $2,270 House 13 Liberati For Michigan Rep. Frank Liberati Democratic $500 $200 $959 House 15 Hammoud For Michigan Rep. Abdullah Hammound Democratic $1,819 $1,773 $1,499 House 16 Kosowski For Michigan's Future Rep. Bob Kosowski Democratic $0 $215 $133 House 18 Hertel For Michigan Rep. Kevin Hertel Democratic $800 $966 $780 House 19 Shamrock PAC Rep. Laura Cox Republican $11,000 $10,700 $23,555 House 21 Progressive Womens Caucus PAC Rep. Kristy Pagan Democratic $13,885 $1,856 $15,001 House 21 Kristy Pagan Leadership Fund Rep. Kristy Pagan Democratic $0 $1,455 $276 House 23 Camilleri for Michigan Rep. Darrin Camilleri Democratic $10,000 $482 $9,517 House 23 MI Futuro Fund Rep. Darrin Camilleri Democratic $1,000 $1,250 $85 House 24 Marino Victory Fund Rep. Steve Marino Republican $0 $0 $0 House 25 Henry Yanez For Michigan Rep. Henry Yanez Democratic $0 $36 $1,310 House 29 Greimel For Michigan Rep. Tim Greimel Democratic $0 $1,650 $6,044 House 30 Farrington Leadership Fund Rep. Diana Farrington Republican $8,300 $2,376 $7,082 House 32 Hornberger Majority Fund Rep.
    [Show full text]
  • SENATE DIRECTORY Name SENATE OFFICE Locationscommittee Assignments Party Affiliation (C) - Chair, (VC) - Vice Chair House State Capitol Building Connie B
    SENATE DIRECTORY Name SENATE OFFICE LOCATIONSCommittee Assignments Party Affiliation (C) - Chair, (VC) - Vice Chair House State Capitol Building Connie B. Binsfeld Building Boji Tower District HomeP.O. Address Box 30036 Lansing Office201 Townsend Street (MVC) -124 Minority West ViceAllegan Chair Street and Senate Leadership Position andLansing, Telephone MI 48909-7536 and Telephone Lansing, MI 48933 (M) - MemberLansing, MI 48933 Service Name Committee Assignments Party Affiliation (C) - Chair, (VC) - Vice Chair House District Home Address Lansing Office (MVC) - Minority Vice Chair and Senate Leadership Position and Telephone and Telephone (M) - Member Service Senator Jim Ananich 932 Maxine Street Capitol Bldg. Agriculture (MVC) House: Democrat Flint, MI 48503 P.O. Box 30036 Government Operations (MVC) 1/1/11 - 5/12/13 27th District Lansing, MI 48909-7536 Legislative Council (M) Senate: Minority Leader Room S-105 5/13/13 - Present 5 (517) 373-0142 Fax: (517) 373-3938 E-mail: [email protected] Website: senatedems.com/ananich Senator Steven M. Bieda 32721 Valley Drive Connie B. Binsfeld Bldg. Economic Development & International House: Democrat Warren, MI 48093 P.O. Box 30036 Investment (M) 1/1/03 - 12/31/08 9th District (586) 979-5387 Lansing, MI 48909-7536 Finance (MVC) Senate: Assistant Minority Room 6300 Insurance (MVC) 1/1/11 - Present Leader (517) 373-8360 Judiciary (MVC) Fax: (517) 373-9230 Legislative Council (Alt. M) Toll-free: (866) 262-7309 Michigan Capitol Committee (M) E-mail: [email protected] Michigan Commission on Uniform State Laws (M) Website: senate.michigan.gov/bieda SENATE DIRECTORY Name Committee Assignments Party Affiliation (C) - Chair, (VC) - Vice Chair House District Home Address Lansing Office (MVC) - Minority Vice Chair and Senate Leadership Position and Telephone and Telephone (M) - Member Service Senator Darwin L.
    [Show full text]
  • CAPITOL NEWS UPDATE January 27, 2017
    MCALVEY MERCHANT & ASSOCIATES CAPITOL NEWS UPDATE January 27, 2017 CAPITOL NEWS UPDATE WEEK OF JANUARY 23, 2017 Integrity, Individual Attention. Precision Strategy. Proven Results SCHOOL REFORM OFFICE RELEASES LIST OF POOR-PERFORMING PUBLIC SCHOOLS SET TO CLOSE On Jan. 20. the state School Reform Office released a list of 38 schools facing closure by the end of the school year due to poor academic performance. The list includes 24 schools in the Detroit Public Schools Community District and the state-created Education Achievement Authority in the city of Detroit. The SRO had discussed the potential closures months ago, warning schools that they could be shut down if they showed no academic improvement and continued poor performance from 2014 to 2016. The action could impact more than 18,000 students. The SRO is in the process of sending out closure notices, and has already sent letters to parents of children who attend classes in the 38 schools. It is also in the process of examining which other public schools the children would attend if their school closes. If a school closing creates an unreasonable hardship on the students, or all the other surrounding public schools also on the list, the SRO will pursue other options. Senate Education Committee Chair Phil Pavlov (R-St. Clair) is looking into repealing the state’s “failing schools” law and creating one system to explain how schools are placed on the list. The SRO also announced 79 schools were being released from the state’s Priority School list. HOUSE ANNOUNCES COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS FOR 2017-18 House Republicans announced their 2017-2018 committee assignments, including 11 freshman with chairmanship.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report for the Fiscal Year 2002-2003
    A nnual Report 2002 - 2003 The Ontario Trillium Foundation Investing in communities 45 Charles Street East, Fifth Floor Toronto, Ontario M4Y 1S2 Telephone: 416.963.4927 Toll free: 1.800.263.2887 Fax: 416.963.8781 TTY: 416.963.7905 The Ontario Trillium Foundation, an agency of the Ministry of Culture, receives annually $100 million of government funding generated through Ontario's charity casino initiative June 30, 2003 The Honourable David H. Tsubouchi Minister of Culture 12th floor, Ferguson Block 77 Wellesley Street West Toronto, Ontario, M7A 1N3 Dear Minister: On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Ontario Trillium Foundation, I am pleased to submit a copy of our Annual Report for the fiscal year 2002-2003. In it you will find a brief narrative that details goals achieved and the challenges met by our volunteers and staff. Also included is a list of grants made under our various programs as well as audited financial statements. Through the allocation of $100 million from the government’s charity casino initiative, we have been able to improve the quality of life of Ontarians, build strong communities, and contribute to the province’s economic strength. The Foundation’s volunteer Grant Review Teams and the members of the Board of Directors, supported by an able professional staff, continue to provide outstanding leadership. All of us share a collective pride in the Foundation’s continuing accomplishments, as described in this report. We value the effective working relationship the Ontario Trillium Foundation has with your ministry, and we look forward to continuing to work together to build healthy, caring and economically strong communities in Ontario.
    [Show full text]
  • Charitable Impact (“CHIMP”) Foundation: Analysis of 11650 Gifts
    Charitable Impact (“CHIMP”) Foundation: Analysis of 11,650 Gifts (2011-2018) Vivian Krause April 28, 2020 NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER This document offers a summary of the analysis, questions and opinions of the author, Vivian Krause. While the information herein is believed to be accurate and reliable, it is not guaranteed to be so as the information available to me is limited to publicly available data. The author makes this document available without warranty of any kind. Users of this material should exercise due diligence to ensure the accuracy and currency of all information. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice, and may become out-dated as additional information is identified, disclosed, or otherwise becomes available. This document may or may not be updated. Vivian Krause reserves the right to amend this document on the basis of information received after it was initially written. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored, distributed or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of Vivian Krause. Gifts Made By Charitable Impact Foundation (2011) # of % of Total Value of % of Total Amount of Gift By # of Gifts By $ of Gifts Gifts Gifts Gifts Value of Gifts <$10 68 12.1% $450 0.1% $10-$24 115 20.5% $2,484 0.6% $25-$49 95 16.9% $4,026 0.9% 491 87% $43,442 10% $50-$99 93 16.5% $8,195 1.9% $100-$249 78 13.9% $12,849 3.0% $250-$499 42 7.5% $15,438 3.6% $500-$999 35 6.2% $23,549 5.4% $1K-$2,499 18 3.2% $30,384 7.0% $2,500-$5K 8 1.4% $27,731 6.4% 65 12% $120,547 28% $5K-$10K 3 0.5% $24,060 5.5% $10K-$25K 1 0.2% $14,823 3.4% $25K-$50K 5 0.9% $158,858 36.6% $50K-$100K 0 0.0% $0 0.0% 6 1% $270,459 62% $100K- $1M 1 0.2% $111,601 25.7% $1M-$2M $2M-$20M 0 0% $0 0% >$20M Total: 562 100% $434,448 100% 562 100% $434,448 100% Summary: In 2011, almost 90 percent of CHIMP’s gifts were for less than $500 meanwhile one of CHIMP’s 562 gifts accounted for more than 60 percent of the total value of all gifts.
    [Show full text]
  • Descendants of Susanna Johnson
    Descendants of Susanna Johnson Generation 1 1. SUSANNA1 JOHNSON was born on 01 May 1812 in Weaverthorpe, East Yorkshire, England1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. She died on 27 Feb 1901 in Clinton, Huron Co., ON, CA7, 8, 9. She married (1) ALPHONSO S. ALLAN on 02 Apr 1832 in St James Anglican, Toronto, ON, CA10, 11, 12. He was born about 1812 in Vermont, USA13, 14, 15. He died before 186116. She married (2) WILLIAM WILSON on 28 May 1862 in York Co. (Toronto), ON, CA17. He was born about 1804 in England18, 19, 20, 21. He died on 29 Jul 18939. Notes for Alphonso S. Allan: He was in or near Toronto (York at the time) in 1830 and 1831 as evidenced by the letters waiting for him at the York post office. The Colonial Advocate published lists including his name for April 5, 1830 - A. S. Allen; June 5, 1830 - A. S. Allen; Sept 5, 1830 - Alphonso Allen; and, Dec 5, 1830 - A. S. Allen. In "Brown’s Toronto City and Home District Directory, 1846-1847", Alphonso Allen resided at Lot 6, Con 4, Toronto (township). {Leo & Walter Baldock, Henry Hetherington, possibly others were on same lot} In the 1880 census for New York, Co Niagara, Village of Lewiston, pg 11, ln 40, the following family: Alphonso Allen, aged 75, bo: Vermont Mary A, aged 43, Wife, bo: Canada Andrew, aged 19, son, bo: Canada Alphonso A, aged 17, bo: New York Frederick f, aged 14, bo: New York Michael C, aged 12, bo: New York Martha, aged 6, bo: New York Alexander, aged 4, bo: New York Could it be that our Alphonso simply left his first wife? Of course, he always gave Alphonso S, or A S.
    [Show full text]
  • Docket 119 Synthesis Iof Comments on the Review.Pdf
    i ii Synthesis of Public Comment on the Forthcoming Review by the Federal Governments of Canada and the United States of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement A Report to the Governments of the United States and Canada January 2006 The views expressed in this synthesis are those of the individuals and organizations who participated in the public comment process. They are not the views of the International Joint Commission. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION JOINT MIXTE COMMISSION INTERNATIONALE Canada and United States Canada et États-Unis INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION JOINT MIXTE COMMISSION INTERNATIONALE Canada and United States Canada et États-Unis Herb Gray Dennis Schornack Chair, Canadian Section Chair, United States Section Robert Gourd Irene Brooks Commissioner Commissioner Jack Blaney Allen Olson Commissioner Commissioner International Joint Commission Offices Canadian Section United States Section 234 Laurier Ave. West, 22nd Floor 1250 23rd Street, NW, Suite 100 Ottawa, ON K1P 6K6 Washington, D.C. 20440 Phone: (613) 995-2984 Phone: (202) 736-9000 Fax: (613) 993-5583 Fax: (202) 467-0746 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Great Lakes Regional Office 100 Ouellette Avenue, 8th Floor Windsor, ON N9A 6T3 or P.O. Box 32869, Detroit, MI 48232 Phone: (519) 257-6700 or (313) 226-2170 Fax: (519) 257-6740 Email: [email protected] Acknowledgements The International Joint Commission thanks the people from the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River and beyond who took part in the public comment process and whose voices are echoed in this report. ISBN 1-894280-60-1 This report is available online at www.ijc.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Contributions by the Auto Dealers of Michigan
    Contributions From The Auto Dealers Of Michigan State Officeholder Or Caucus Committee Contributions From Auto Dealers Of Michigan Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder $2,000.00 Attorney General Bill Schuette $40,000.00 Secretary Of State Ruth Johnson $41,000.00 House Republican Campaign Committee $110,000.00 Michigan House Democratic Fund $60,000.00 Senate Republican Campaign Committee $115,000.00 Michigan Senate Democratic Fund $57,500.00 1st House District, Rep. Brian Banks $3,000.00 2nd House District, Rep. Alberta Tinsley-Talabi $3,100.00 3rd House District: Rep. Wendell Byrd $1,900.00 4th House District, Rep. Rose Mary Robinson $0.00 5th House District, Rep. Fred Durhal $3,900.00 6th House District, Rep. Stephanie Chang $1,750.00 7th House District, Rep. LaTanya Garrett $800.00 8th House District, Rep. Sherry Gay-Dagnogo $850.00 9th House District, Rep. Harvey Santana $1,600.00 10th House District, Rep. Leslie Love $900.00 12th House District, Rep. Erika Geiss $2,200.00 13th House District, Rep. Frank Liberati $1,250.00 14th House District, Rep. Paul Clemente $2,800.00 15th House District, Rep. George Darany $2,300.00 16th House District, Rep. Robert Kosowski $1,725.00 17th House District, Rep. Bill LaVoy $2,200.00 18th House District, Rep. Sarah Roberts $3,200.00 19th House District, Rep. Laura Cox $2,500.00 20th House District, Rep. Kurt Heise $3,350.00 21st House District, Rep. Kristy Pagan $1,750.00 22nd House District, Rep. John Chirkun $1,500.00 23rd House District, Rep.
    [Show full text]
  • Huron County Food Hub Research – Growing the Network
    FARM AND FOOD CONSULTING Huron County Food Hub Feasibility Research Project : Growing the Network Joan Brady 12/31/2015 Huron County Food Hub Research – Growing the Network The purpose of the Huron County Food Hub Feasibility Project was borrowed from a similar project in Perth County. Authors: Ryan Turnbull, Mary Ferguson, Cathy Lang stated that the purpose of the Perth County Regional Food Hub Feasibility Study was “to test the hypothesis that there is unmet market demand for local fresh food products in the County and that the demand could be met by linking markets with the underutilized production capacity of local producers and value-added agri-businesses. The broader assumption has been that creating local infrastructure to manage distribution and broker relationships between food producers and large scale customers is an effective strategy to bolster the County’s local economy.” Operating under the same hypothesis in Huron, this research project seeks additional information to suggest some practical aspects that should be considered assuming the hypothesis is proven true. Research was conducted by Consultant Joan Brady, of Sustainable Futures – Farm and Food Consulting with support from the Huron Food Action Network Steering Committee which acted as the project oversight committee. Additional project administration and oversight was provided by Huron Business Development Corporation as project lead. Preliminary Business Case A full business case describes, in detail, the objectives, outcomes and financial requirements to initiate a project. It is used to justify the expenditure of time, money and resources into a project by outlining the benefits that the project will bring. In the case of the Huron County Food Hub Feasibility Project, a preliminary business case has been developed to both indicate the feasibility of establishing a food hub for Huron County and to suggest the most plausible project design at this time.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Michigan State Senate Race September 2017
    2018 Michigan State Senate Race September 2017 This is a preliminary report on the 2018 Michigan State Senate races. It includes filed and prospective candidates from each of the 38 Senate districts along with district maps and current Senators. The information in this document is taken from multiple sources. Updates will be made as Senate races progress. If you have any questions or comments please contact us at Public Affairs Associates. 1 1st District Current Senator: Coleman A. Young, Jr. (D-Detroit), (term-limited) Filed: Rep. Stephanie Chang (D-Detroit) Nicholas Rivera (D), Admissions Counselor at Wayne State University Prospective: Rep. Bettie Cook Scott (D-Detroit) Former Rep. Alberta Tinsley-Talabi (D-Detroit) Former Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Detroit). Rep. Tlaib’s run is a possibility, but with Chang in the race it’s questionable. Rico Razo, Mayor Mike Duggan’s re-election campaign manager Denis Boismier, Gibraltar City Council President. Although Boismier is running for Gibraltar mayor this year, he may possibly join the race if the field becomes heavily saturated with Detroit candidates. 2 2nd District Current Senator: Bert Johnson (D-Highland Park), (term-limited) Filed: Tommy Campbell (D-Grosse Pointe) Rep. Brian Banks (D-Harper Woods) Adam Hollier, former aide to Sen. Johnson Prospective: Former Rep. Lamar Lemmons (D-Detroit) Former Rep. John Olumba (D-Detroit) 3 3rd District Current Senator: Morris Hood III (D-Detroit), (term-limited) Filed: N/A Prospective: Rep. Sylvia Santana (D-Detroit) Former Rep. Harvey Santana (D-Detroit) Former Rep. David Nathan (D-Detroit) Former Rep. Gary Woronchak (R-Dearborn), current Wayne County Commission Chair 4 4th District Current Senator: Ian Conyers (D-Detroit), (Incumbent) Filed: N/A Prospective: N/A 5 5th District Current Senator: David Knezek (D-Dearborn Heights), (Incumbent) Filed: DeShawn Wilkins (R-Detroit) Prospective: N/A 6 6th District Current Senator: Hoon-Yung Hopgood (D-Taylor), (term-limited) Filed: Rep.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Report of Political Financial Support
    2014 2014 Lilly Political Contributions As a biopharmaceutical company that treats serious diseases, Lilly plays an important role in public health and its related policy debates. It is important that our company shapes global public policy debates on issues specific to the people we serve and to our other key stakeholders including shareholders and employees. Our engagement in the political arena helps address the most pressing issues related to ensuring that patients have access to needed medications—leading to improved patient outcomes. Through public policy engagement, we provide a way for all of our locations globally to shape the public policy environment in a manner that supports access to innovative medicines. We engage on issues specific to local business environments (corporate tax, for example). Based on our company’s strategy and the most recent trends in the policy environment, our company has decided to focus on three key areas: innovation, health care delivery, and pricing and reimbursement. More detailed information on key issues can be found in our 2014 Corporate Responsibility Update. Through our policy research, development, and stakeholder dialogue activities, Lilly develops positions and advocates on these issues. Government actions such as price controls, pharmaceutical manufacturer rebates, and access to Lilly medicines affect our ability to invest in innovation. Lilly has a comprehen- sive government relations operation to have a voice in the public policymaking process at the federal, state, and local levels. Lilly is committed to participating in the political process as a responsible corporate citizen to help inform the U.S. debate over health care and pharmaceutical innovation.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Accounts of the Province of Ontario for the Year Ended March
    PUBLIC ACCOUNTS, 1985-86 MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD Hon. Jack Riddell, Minister Hon. Ross Stevenson, Minister Hon. Philip Andrewes, Minister DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE Voted Salaries and Wages ($58,336,050) Listed below are the salary rates of those employees on staff at March 31, where the annual rate is in excess of $50,000. C. M. Switzer Deputy Minister 92,582 Allen, W. R., 54,499; D. K. Alles, 51,674; J. S. Ashman, 55,894; N. J. Bardecki, 57,100; B. D. Binnington, 53,233 W. C. Boyd, 51,904; R. M. Burak, 69,940; S. D. Carlson, 50,875; M. M. Cassidy, 53,233; C. Chong, 52,846 R. V. Chudyk, 51,640; R. A. Cline, 52,846; G. H. Collin, 79,200; J. D. Curtis, 58,478; G. A. Driver, 53,233 R. E. Duckworth, 80,563; D. R. Dunn, 61,910; F. C. Eady, 63,000; H. Ediger, 69,800; D. C. Elfving, 52,846 G. C. Fleming, 58,478; G. E. Framst, 53,233; R. Frank, 63,000; T. Fuleki, 52,846; C. Gans, 52,910; D. B George, 69,785; J. J. Hagarty, 52,200; L. A. Hendershott, 53,233; J. N. Henry, 58,478; N. W. Hoag, 57,365; B Hoff, 53,233; M. A. Huff, 61,910; F. J. Ingratta, 51,640; G. W. Jackson, 53,233; M. J. Jaeger, 53,233; J. D Jamieson, 58,478; J. R. Johnston, 53,233; R. G. Johnston, 57,100; M. S. Keith, 57,840; D. W. Key, 52,257 K. W. Knox, 57,365; J.
    [Show full text]