Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
RESPONSE - RFP - P1139 SURVEY CONSULTANT
NATIONAL RESEARCH C E N T E R INC. City of Fort Collins Kelly DiMartino 215 N. Mason St. 2"" Floor PO Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 August 8, 2008 Dear Ms. DiMartino and the Selection Committee, On behalf of National Research Center, Inc., (NRC) I am pleased to submit this proposal to the City of Fort Collins for the 2008 Citizen Service/Quality of Life Survey. Within the proposal you will find a synopsis of our approach to the survey project, cost estimate and detailed qualifications of NRC. We are a social science research Firm whose core business is community surveys. We are located in Boulder and are known nationally and locally for our expertise in survey research methods. NRC has worked on hundreds of citizen surveys over the last 20 years. Besides our methodological rigor, we are known by our clients for our flexibility, creativity and our collegial approach to partnership. We also have experience working in and with local governments, including many in the Front Range, so we have a unique understanding of the processes and pressures at play to bring a credible piece of survey research to board members, government staff and city council. In this response to your RFP, we have provided a cost estimate fora mailed survey to 2,000 households (including students living on campus) within the city. If you select NRC, we expect to work with you to modify our work plan, reducing or rearranging costs if needed to reflect the key priorities and resources of the City. NRC is excited to work with the City of Fort Collins on this important project and has the capabilities to complete the scope of work in the time frame specified in the RI^ P. Please call us with any questions you may have. We look forward to speaking with you about this exciting and important project. Kindest regards, Shannon I laydcn, M.A. Senior Research Associate 3005 30" St., Boulder, CO 80301 • t: 303.444.7863 • f: 303.444.1145 • www.n-r-c.com jurisdiction ratings but only to report results in group form. This way, no jurisdiction risks embarrassment at our hands and aggregate data remain available for comparison value. The data from Fort Collins would be treated similarly with your approval. To be considered a world -class local government, it is important for Fort Collins to see how their ratings compare to other jurisdictions that provide similar services. As a first time client, NRC proposes to offer two sets of benchmark comparisons to the City for the cost of one. Among all the citizen surveys NRC has in our benchmark database are the three most recent surveys conducted by the City of Fort Collins. Based on the 2006 survey, the City of Fort Collins had approximately 50 questions available for comparison to our benchmark database. For example, using the 2006 survey results, when we compared how Fort Collins residents rated City employees' helpfulness to ratings given in other communities in the Front Range, Fort Collins received ratings similar to those in other Front Range communities. Comparing Results Across Demographic Groups Deeper understanding of survey results is obtained when results from different demographic groups are compared. NRC will compare the opinions of residents of different genders, ages, ethnicitics, length of residency and area of residence; in the Fort Collins citizen survey. These data, too, speak to issues of equity and need. Key Drivers are More Revealing NRC has developed an approach to importance -performance analysis that results in more meaningful and actionable results. This research by NRC professionals offers more illuminating analyses about how to focus service improvement efforts on those services that most influence residents' perceptions about overall city service quality. In market research, identifying the most important characteristics of a transaction or product is called key -driver analysis. But these key drivers do not come from asking customers to self -report which service or product characteristic most influenced their decision to buy or return, but rather from statistical analyses of the actual predictors of their behavior. When customers are asked to name the most important characteristics of a good or service, responses often are expected or misleading — just as they can be in the context of a citizen survey. For example, air travelers often claim that safety is a primary consideration in their choice of an airline, yet key driver analysis will reveal that the quality of food or on flight entertainment predict their actual buying decisions. In local government, as mentioned above, core services — like fire protection —invariably land at the top of the list when residents are asked about the most important City services. But by using key driver analysis, our approach digs deeper to identify the less salient, but more influential services and conditions that are most related to residents' overall satisfaction wide government and their quality of life experiences. NRC researchers have been working with local government officials long enough to understand that one barrier to the utility of citizen survey findings is the integration of resident evaluations of many different services. Sometimes inaction results from uncertaintyabout where to start. A summary tool we use to help government best put to use survey results is the Action Chartr"t (see example on the following page). In this chart we combine three critical sets of information into a single place — importance data, performance data and trends. The importance data identifies, with Ivey symbols, services that are shown to have high derived importance; the performance data shows, with color codes, the relationship of each service rating to the ratings of residents in comparison jurisdictions and the trends, using arrows, show whether there has been a change in resident ratings since the last survey. (The absence of an arrow indicates that no statistically significant change occurred.) The City of Fort Collins 2008 Citizen Survey Proposal from National Research Center, Inc. of Louisville Citizen August 2008 2008 question 2008 scale 2004 question 2004 scale 1999 question 1999 scale 1994 question 1994 scale 1990 question 1990 scale How do you rate How do you rate Louisville as a Louisville as a place to retire? E, G, F, P place to retire? E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA How do you rate Louisville as a place to work? E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Taking all things into consideration, How do you rate How do you rate how would you rate your overall the overall quality the overall quality overall quality of quality of life in E, G, NG, of life in Louisville? E, G, F, P of life in Louisville? E, G, F, P NA NA life in Louisville 1 to 9 Louisville? P Sense of Sense of community E, G, F, P community E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA Openness and Openness and acceptance of the acceptance of the community community towards people of towards people of diverse diverse backgrounds E, G, F, P backgrounds E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA Overall Overall appearance of appearance of Louisville E, G, F, P Louisville E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA Opportunities to Opportunities to artistic and cultural attend cultural attend cultural facilities and activities E, G, F, P activities E, G, F, P NA NA programming 1 to 9 NA NA Shopping Shopping opportunities E, G, F, P opportunities E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA sponsoring community -wide events such as the Opportunities to "Louisville Festival participate in of Lights" and the social events and "Louisville Fall activities E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA Festival' 1 to 9 NA NA of Results 71 of Louisville Citizen August 2008 2008 question 2008 scale 2004 question 2004 scale 1999 question 1999 scale 1994 question 1994 scale 1990 question 1990 scale informing Louisville citizens Opportunities to about volunteer volunteer E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA opportunities 1 to 9 NA NA providing information and opportunity for public input on ordinance Opportunities to changes, zoning participate in issues, and other community matters E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA community efforts 1 to 9 NA NA Recreational Recreational opportunities E, G, F, P opportunities E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA Employment opportunities E, G, F, P Job opportunities E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA How do you rate air quality in the quality of E, G, NG, Air quality E, G, F, P Air quality E, G, F, P NA NA Louisville 1 to 9 Louisville's air? P Variety of housing options E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Availability of Access to availability of affordable quality affordable quality affordable housing housing E, G, F, P housing E, G, F, P NA NA in Louisville 1 to 9 NA NA Availability of Access to affordable quality affordable quality child care E, G, F, P child care E, G, F, P NA Availability of Access to affordable quality affordable quality food E, G, F, P health care E, G, F, P NA Availability of preventive health services E, G, F, P NA NA NA Ease of car travel Ease of car travel in Louisville E, G, F, P in Louisville E, G, F, P NA of Results NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 72 V of Louisville Citizen Su August 2008 2008 question 2008 scale 2004 question 2004 scale 1999 question 1999 scale 1994 question 1994 scale 1990 question 1990 scale Ease of bus travel Ease of bus travel in Louisville E. G, F, P in Louisville E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA Ease of bicycle Ease of bicycle travel in Louisville E, G, F, P travel in Louisville E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA Ease of walking in Ease of walking in Louisville E, G, F, P Louisville E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA Traffic flow on Traffic congestion NP, MiP, major streets E, G, F, P on City streets MoP, MaP NA NA NA NA NA NA Overall lighting in Overall lighting in adequacy of street the City E, G, F, P the City E, G, F, P NA NA lighting 1 to 9 NA NA Quality of overall natural environment in Louisville E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Overall image or reputation of Louisville E. G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, VS, SS, N, robbery) SU, VU NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Property crimes (e.g., burglary, VS, SS, N, theft) SU, VU NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Environmental hazards, including VS, SS, N, toxic waste SU, VU NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA In your In your neighborhood VS, SS, N, neighborhood VS, SS, N, during the day SU, VU during the day SU, VU NA NA NA NA NA NA In your In your neighborhood after VS, SS, N, neighborhood after VS, SS, N, dark SU, VU dark SU, VU NA NA NA NA NA NA In Louisville's In Louisville's downtown area VS, SS, N, downtown area VS, SS, N, during the day SU, VU during the day SU, VU NA NA NA NA NA NA of Resu 73 of Louisville Citizen August 2008 question 2008 scale 2004 question 2004 scale 1999 question 1999 scale 1994 question 1994 scale 1990 question 1990 scale In Louisville's In Louisville's downtown area VS, SS, N, downtown areas VS, SS, N, after dark SU, VU after dark SU, VU NA NA NA NA NA NA In Louisville's In Louisville's parks during the VS, SS, N, parks during the VS, SS, N, day SU, VU day SU, VU NA NA NA NA NA NA In Louisville's VS, SS, N, In Louisville's VS, SS, N, parks after dark SU, VU parks after dark SU, VU NA NA NA NA NA NA Fire services E, G, F, P Fire services E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA Ambulance/emerg Ambulance/emerg ency medical ency medical services E, G, F, P services E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA Amount of public Amount of public parking downtown E, G, F, P parking downtown E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA Bus/transit Bus/transit services E, G, F, P services E, G. F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA health care in Health services E, G, F, P Health services E, G. F, P NA NA Louisville 1 to 9 NA NA Louisville's attentiveness to senior citizen E, G, NG, Services to seniors E, G, F, P Services to seniors E, G, F, P NA NA issues 1 to 9 senior programs P E, G, NG, Services to youth E, G, F, P Services to youth E, G, F; P NA NA NA NA youth programs P Services to low- Services to low- income people E, G, F, P income people E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA The overall quality of schools in - Public schools E, G, F, P Public schools E, G, F. P NA NA Louisville 1 to 9 NA NA Economic development E, G, F. P NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Land use, planning and zoning E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Building inspection E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA of Results 74 U v of Louisville Citizen Su August 2008 2008 question 2008 scale 2004 question 2004 scale 1999 question 1999 scale 1994 question 1994 scale 1990 question 1990 scale Louisville public information providinginformationtiblic E, GPNG, sources E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA City response to City response to City response to city response to citizen complaints citizen complaints citizen complaints VG, G, F, citizen complaints or concerns E. G, F, P or concerns E, G, F, P or concerns P, VP and concerns 1 to 9 NA NA providing Information about Information about information about information about City Council City Council, City Council, City Council, Planning Planning Planning Planning Commission and Commission and Commission and Commission and other official City other official City other official City VG, G, F, other official City meetings E, G, F, P meetings E, G, F, P meetings P, VP meetings 1 to 9 NA NA Information about Information about information about City plans and City plans and City plans and VG, G, F, programs E, G, F, P programs E, G, F, P programs P, VP NA NA NA NA Availability of City Availability of City availability of City VG, G,F, Employees E, G, F, P Employees E, G, F, P employees P, VP Programming on Programming on programming on Louisville cable Louisville cable Louisville cable tv, TV, municipal TV, municipal municipal channel VG, G, F, channel 8 E, G, F, P channel 8 E, G, F, P 16 P, VP Louisville Web site (www.ci.louisville.c VG, G, F, o.us) E, G, F, P Louisville Web site E, G, F, P Louisville web site P, VP Overall Overall overall performance of performance of the performance of Louisville City Louisville City Louisville City VG, G, F, government E, G, F, P government E, G, F, P government P, VP of your Safety of your safety of your VG, G, F orhood E, G, F, P neighborhood E, G, F. P neighborhood P, VP of Results How satisfied are access to City you with your employees and ability to reach city services by employees by VS, SS, telephone 1 to 9 telephone? SD, VD NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA How satisfied are overall perception you with how the of how Louisville Louisville city City Government government VS, SS, operates 1 to 9 operates? SD, VD the general safety of your neighborhood 1 to 9 NA NA 0 of Louisville Citizen August 2008 2008 question 2008 scale 2004 question 2004 scale 1999 question 1999 scale 1994 question 1994 scale 1990 question 1990 scale how visible are Visibility of patrol Visibility of patrol visibility of patrol VG, G, F, patrol cars in your police patrol/police E, G, NG, cars E, G, F, P cars E, G, F. P cars P, VP neighborhood 1 to 9 visibility P satisfaction with 911 service if used in the past two VG, G, F, police response to promptness of E, G, NG, 911 service E, G, F, P 911 service E, G, F, P years P, VP calls for service 1 to 9 police response P Enforcement of Enforcement of enforcement of VG, G, F, enforcement of E, G, NG, traffic regulations E, G, F, P traffic regulations E, G, F, P traffic regulations P, VP NA NA traffic laws P Municipal code municipal code enforcement Municipal code enforcement enforcement of issues (dogs, enforcement issues (dogs, VG, G, F, weed and trash E, G, NG, noise, weeds, etc.) E, G, F, P issues E, G, F, P noise, weeds, etc) P, VP ordinances 1 to 9 weed control P Overall Overall overall performance of the performance of the performance of overall Louisville Louisville Police Louisville Police Louisville Police VG, G, F, Public Safety Department E, G, F, P Department E, G, F, P Department P, VP performance . 1 to 9 NA NA enforcement of VG, G,F, vehicular speeding Speed limits TT, AR, TL Speed limits TT, AR, TL speed limits P, VP enforcement 1 to 9 NA NA Parking Parking enforcement of VG, G, F, parking regulation regulations TT, AR, TL regulations TT, AR, TL parking regulations P, VP enforcement 1 to 9 NA NA Municipal code Municipal code issues TT, AR, TL issues TT, AR, TL NA NA NA NA NA NA The public input The public input the public input process on City process on process on VG, G, F, planning issues E, G, F, P planning issues E, G, F, P planning issues P, VP NA NA NA NA Planning review Planning review planning review process for new process for new process for new VG, G. F, development E, G, F, P development E, G, F, P development P, VP NA NA NA NA Permit process for Permit process for permit process for VG, G, F, remodeling work E, G, F, P remodeling work E, G, F, P remodeling work P, VP NA NA NA NA Code enforcement Code enforcement code enforcement VG, G, F. on building issues E, G, F, P on building issues E, G, F, P on building issues P, VP NA NA NA NA of Results of Louisville Citizen August 2008 2008 question 2008 scale 2004 question 2004 scale 1999 question 1999 scale 1994 question 1994 scale 1990 question 1990 scale Overall Overall overall performance of the performance of the performance of the Louisville Planning Louisville Planning Louisville Planning VG, G, F, Department E, G, F, P Department E, G, F, P Dept P, VP NA NA NA NA Overall Overall overall performance of the performance of the performance of the Louisville Building Louisville Building Louisville Building VG, G, F, Safety Division E, G, F, P Division E, G, F, P Dept P, VP NA NA NA NA Current recreation Current recreation current recreation VG, G, F, programs for youth E, G, F, P programs for youth E, G, F, P programs for youth P, VP NA NA NA NA Current recreation Current recreation current recreation programs for programs for programs for VG, G, F, adults E, G, F, P adults E, G, F, P adults P, VP NA NA NA NA Current programs Current programs current programs and and services for and services for programs/services VG, G, F, activities for seniors E, G, F, P seniors E, G, F, P for seniors P, VP seniors 1 to 9 NA NA current rate of fees for programs and Recreation fees in Recreation fees in recreation fees in VG, G, F, services at the Louisville E, G, F, P Louisville E, G, F, P Louisville P. VP Recreation Center 1 to 9 NA NA Overall Overall performance of the performance of the overall rank for the Louisville Louisville Louisville VG, G, F, Recreation Center E, G, F, P Recreation Center E, G, F, P Recreation Center P, VP NA NA NA NA Overall Overall performance of the performance of the overall rank for the Louisville Senior Louisville Senior Louisville Senior VG, G, F, Center E, G, F, P Center E, G. F, P Center P, VP NA NA NA NA Overall Overall performance of the performance of the overall rank for the Coal Creek Golf Coal Creek Golf Coal Creek Golf VG, G, F. the Coal Creek Course E, G, F, P Course E, G, F. P Course P, VP Golf Course 1 to 9 NA NA Programming at Programming at programming at the Louisville Arts the Louisville Arts the Louisville Arts VG, G, F, Center E, G, F, P Center E, G, F, P Center P, VP NA NA NA NA rt of Results 77 of Louisville Citizen Su August 2008 2008 question 2008 scale 2004 question 2004 scale 1999 question 1999 scale 1994 question 1994 scale 1990 question 1990 scale Maintenance and Maintenance and cleanliness of the cleanliness of the Louisville Louisville Recreation Center E, G, F. P Recreation Center E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA Adequacy of Adequacy of access to parks, parks, bike paths, parks, bike paths, adequacy of parks, playing fields, playing fields and playing fields and playing fields and VG, G, F, playgrounds, trails, playgrounds E, G, F,P playgrounds E, G, F, P playgrounds P, VP etc 1 to 9 NA NA Maintenance of Maintenance of open space E, G, F, P open spaces E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA Maintenance of Maintenance of VG, G, F, the trail system E, G, F, P the trail system E, G, F, P trail system P, VP NA NA NA NA Maintenance of Maintenance of the cemetery E G, F, P the cemetery E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA Overall Overall performance of the overall performance of the Louisville performance of the Louisville Parks Recreation and Louisville Parks and Recreation Senior Services and Recreation VG, G, F, Department E, G, F, P Department E, G, F, P Dept P, VP NA NA NA NA Louisville Public Louisville Public Library programs E, G, F, P Library programs E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA Louisville Public Louisville Public programs and VG, G, F, E, G, NG, Library services E, G, F, P Library services E, G, F, P services P, VP NA NA library services P Louisville Public Louisville Public Library Internet Library Internet and computer and computer Internet and VG, G, F, services E, G, F, P services E, G, F, P computer services P, VP NA NA NA NA quality of the Louisville Public Louisville Public collection (books, quality of collection Library materials Library materials periodicals, VG, G, F, (e.g. books, and collections E, G, F, P and collections E, G, F, P videos) P, VP periodicals, etc) 1 to 9 NA NA adequacy of the Louisville Public library facility VG, G, F, overall size of Library facility E, G, F, P NA NA (size) P, VP library 1 to 9 NA NA of Results m of Louisville Citizen August 2008 2008 question 2008 scale 2004 question 2004 scale 1999 question 1999 scale 1994 question 1994 scale 1990 question 1990 scale Overall Overall overall performance of the performance of the performance of the Louisville Public Louisville Public Louisville Public VG, G, F, Library E, G, F, P Library E, G, F, P Library P, VP NA NA NA NA Street Street street maintenance in maintenance in maintenance in VG, G, F, your neighborhood E, G, F, P your neighborhood E, G, F, P neighborhood P, VP NA NA NA NA Street Street street maintenance in maintenance in maintenance in VG, G, F, general street street repairs and E, G, NG, Louisville E, G, F, P Louisville E, G, F, P Louisville P, VP surface conditions 1 to 9 patching P sweeping and VG, G, F, cleaning of streets E, G, NG, Street sweeping E, G, F, P Street sweeping E, G, F, P street sweeping P, VP and gutters 1 to 9 street cleaning P Snow Snow snow sanding, plowing removal/street removallstreet removal/street VG, G, F, and snow removal E, G. NG. sanding E, G, F, P sanding E, G, F, P sanding P, VP operations 1 to 9 snow removal P average of reponses from 'general maintenance and visibility of traffic information, warning and Crosswalk and regulation signs' other street Street lighting, Street lighting, street lighting, and 'painting and markings (e.g., signage and street signage and street signage and street VG, G, F, marking of curbs, signs which show E, G, NG, markings E, G, F, P markings E, G, F, P markings P, VP crosswalks, etc' 1 to 9 location) P Bike lanes on Bike lanes on bike lanes on VG, G, F, Louisville streets E, G, F, P Louisville streets E, G, F, P Louisville streets P, VP NA NA NA NA Handicap access Handicap access handicap access on sidewalks/ on sidewalks/ on sidewalks/ VG, G, F, crosswalks E, G, F, P crosswalks E, G, F, P crosswalks P, VP NA NA NA NA Quality of Quality of quality of Louisville VG, G, F, quality of drinking Louisville water E, G, F, P Louisville water E, G, F, P water P, VP water in Louisville 1 to 9 NA NA of of Louisville Citizen August 2008 2008 question 2008 scale 2004 question 2004 scale 1999 question 1999 scale 1994 question 1994 scale 1990 question 1990 scale Overall Overall overall performance of performance of performance of overall Louisville Louisville Public Louisville Public Louisville Public VG, G, F, Public Works Works E, G, F, P Works E, G, F, P Works P, VP performance 1 to 9 NA NA Overall, how do you rate the quality of services by the City of Louisville? E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Have you had any in -person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Louisville Have you had in - within the last 12 person or phone months (including contact with an police, employee of the receptionists, City of Louisville planners or any within the last 12 others)? yes, no months? yes, no NA NA NA NA NA NA Knowledge E, G, F, P Knowledge E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA Responsiveness E, G, F, P Responsiveness E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA Courtesy E, G, F, P Courtesy E, G, F. P NA NA NA NA NA NA How satisfied are you with the the courtesy, courtesy, responsiveness responsiveness and friendliness of and friendliness of VS, SS, Overall impression E, G, F, P Overall impression E, G, F, P NA NA City employees 1 tog city employees? SD, VD Attend or watch a Attend or watch a City Council City Council meeting or other meeting or other program on cable program on cable TV, municipal TV, municipal channel 8 A, F, S, N channel 8 A, F, S, N NA NA NA NA NA NA CCTV Channel 54 (public access channel on cable) A, F, S, N NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Health and Human Services , Senior services youth Utilities ervices GraHIII Public removal schools Drinking Low-income water services Garbage Health collection services Sewer ______ ______ services ------""" Storm Parks and drainage Recreation Parks Recreation facilities Legend H6ovo lM10 Smllar to lll0 9elow the 1 w Key Dtiver Roth, Increase rs Rating Uoaoase Example Action ChartTM Public Safety EMS Fire Transportation services Land Use and Municipal Bus Planning courts Planning Police Street and zoning services repair Code Traffic no enforcement enforcement removal Economic Street development ___________ -"-"""--- lighting Amount of Knowledge and Bicycle parking Outreach lanes Animal Subway control Libraries ' ' Street •______________ Web cleaning , employee Public information ------------- Task 7: Presentation of Results We will make a presentation of the results of the survey to City Council as well as the Strategic Issues Team. We use a Microsoftsr PowerPoint presentation as visual aids for this presentation and are happy to provide this file to staff, so they can make presentations to other groups themselves after NRC has finished its presentation. The City of Fort Collins 2008 Citizen Survey Proposal from National Research Center, Inc. of Louisville Citizen Su August 2008 2008 question 2008 scale 2004 question 2004 scale 1999 question 1999 scale 1994 question 1994 scale 1990 question 1990 scale Community Update (quarterly Community City Newsletter) A, F, S, N Update A, F, S, N NA NA NA NA NA NA The Louisville The Louisville Times A, F, S. N Times A, F, S, N NA NA NA NA NA NA The Daily Camera A, F, S, N The Daily Camera A, F, S, N NA NA NA NA NA NA The City of Louisville Web site (www.ci.louisville.c The City of o.us) A, F, S, N Louisville Web site A, F, S, N NA NA NA NA NA NA Attend or watch a City Council meeting or other program on cable TV, municipal channel 8 E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA CCTV Channel 54 (public access channel on cable) E, G, F. P NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Community Update (quarterly City Newsletter) E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA The Louisville Times E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA The Daily Camera E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA The City of Louisville Web site (www.ci.louisville.c o.us) E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Expansion of the Expansion of the Louisville Louisville Recreation Center E, VI, SI, NI Recreation Center E, VI, SI, NI NA NA NA NA NA NA o Expansion of the Expansion of the Louisville Senior Louisville Senior zb Center E, VI, SI, NI Center E, VI, SI, NI NA NA NA NA NA NA o of Results 81 of Louisville Citizen August 2008 2008 question 2008 scale 2004 question 2004 scale 1999 question 1999 scale 1994 question 1994 scale 1990 question 1990 scale Expansion of the Coal Creek Golf Course Club House for special events E, VI, SI, NI NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Acquiring additional open space E, VI, SI, NI NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Addition of a new Addition of a new outdoor aquatics outdoor aquatics center E, VI, SI, NI center E, VI, SI, NI NA NA NA NA NA NA Building new trails and pedestrian underpasses E, VI, SI, NI Building new trails E; VI, SI, NI NA NA NA NA NA NA Building new Building new sports fields E, VI, SI, NI sports fields E, VL SI, NI NA NA NA NA NA NA Buildings Buildings cultural/ads facility E, VI, SI, NI cultural/arts facility E, VI, SI, NI NA NA NA NA NA NA Preservation of historic buildings in Louisville E, VI, SI, NI NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Amenities and pedestrian -friendly design around the future rail stop in Louisville E, VI, SI, NI NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Check the ONE Check the ONE box of the item you box of the item you think is the most think is the most important project important project for Louisville to for Louisville to consider. NA consider. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA of Results 82 City of Louisville Citizen August Appendix F: Jurisdictions Included in Benchmark Comparisons Jurisdictions Included in the National Benchmark Comparisons Listed below are the jurisdictions included in the national benchmark comparisons provided for the City of Louisville followed by its 2000 population according to the U.S. Census, Agoura Hills, CA........... 20,537 Alabaster, AL ................. 22,169 Alamogordo, NM.......... 35,582 Albemarle County, VA .. 79,236 Alpharetta, CA..............34,854 Ames, IA ........................50,731 Andover, MA ................. 31,247 Ankeny, IA .................... 27,117 Ann Arbor, MI ............. 114,024 Archuleta County, CO..... 9,898 Arkansas City, KS........... 11,963 Arlington County, VA.. 189,453 Arvada, CO ................. 102,153 Ashland County, WI...... 16,866 Ashland, OR .................. 19,522 Aspen, CO., .................... 5,914 Auhurn, AL .................... 42,987 Aurora, CO ................. 276,393 Austin, TX ................... 656,562 Avondale, AZ ................ 35,883 Barnstable, MA .............. 47,821 Batavia, IL.....................23,866 Battle Creek, MI ............ 53,364 Beekman, NY ................ 11,452 Belleair Beach, FL............ 1,751 Bellevue, WA .............. 109,569 Bellflower, CA ............... 72,878 Bellingham, WA............ 67,171 Benbrook, TX . ............... 20,208 Bend, OR ...................... 52,029 Benicia, CA ................... 26,865 Bettendorf, IA ................ 31,275 Blacksburg, VA .............. 39,357 Bloomfield, NM .............. 6,417 Blue Earth, MN ................ 3,621 Blue Springs, MO.......... 48,080 Boise, ID ..................... 185,787 Bonita Springs, FL.......... 32,797 Borough of Ebensburg, PA..3,091 Botetourt County, VA.... 30,496 Boulder County, CO.... 291,288 Boulder, CO..................94,673 Bowling Green, KY ........ 49,296 Bozeman, MT ................ 27,509 of Res Breckenridge, CO............ 2,408 Brevard County, FL...... 476,230 Brisbane, CA ................... 3,597 Broken Arrow, OK ........ 74,839 Broomfield, CO ............. 38,272 Bryan, TX ...................... 34,733 Burlingame, CA ............. 28,158 Burlington, MA ............. 22,876 Calgary, Canada.......... 878,866 Cambridge, MA........... 101,355 Canandaigua, NY.......... 11,264 Cape Coral, FL ............ 102,286 Capitola, CA .................. 10,033 Carlsbad, CA ................. 78,247 Carson City, NV............ 52,457 Cartersville, CA ............. 15,925 Carver County, MN....... 70,205 Cary, NC- ..................... 94,536 Castle Rock, CO............ 20,224 Cedar Creek, NE ................. 396 Cedar Falls, IA ............... 36,145 Chandler, AZ ............... 176,581 Chanhassen, MN........... 20,321 Charlotte County, FL.. 141,627 Charlotte, NC .............. 540t828 Chesapeake, VA.......... 199,184 Chesterfield County, VA.. 259,903 Cheyenne, WY .............. 53,011 Chittenden County, VT... 146,571 Chula Vista, CA........... 173,556 Claremont, CA .............. 33,998 Clark County, WA....... 345,238 Clearwater, FL............ 108,787 Cococino County, AZ.. 116,320 College Park, MD........ 242,657 Collier County, FL....... 251,377 Collinsville, IL ............... 24,707 Colorado Springs, CO. 360t890 Columbia, MO .............. 84,531 Concord, CA ............... 121,780 Concord, NC ................. 55,977 Cookeville, TN .............. 23,923 Cooper City, FL ............. 27,939 Coral Springs, FL......... 117,549 Corpus Christi, TX....... 277,454 Corvallis, OR ................ 49,322 Coventry, CT ................. 11,504 Craig, CO ........................ 9,189 Cranberry Township, PA.. 23,625 Cumberland County, PA 213,674 Cupertino, CA ............... 50,546 Dakota County, MN.... 355,904 Dallas, TX ................ 1,188,580 Dania Beach, FL............ 20,061 Davenport, IA ............... 98,359 Davidson, NC ................. 7,139 Daviess County, KY....... 91,545 Daytona Beach, FL........ 64,112 Decatur, CA .................. 18,147 DeKalb, IL ..................... 39,018 Del Mar, CA .................... 4,389 Delaware, OH .............. 25,243 Delhi Township, MI ...... 22,569 Delray Beach, FL........... 60,020 Denver (City and County), CO......... 554,636 Denver Public Library, CO.. NA Des Moines, IA ........... 198,682 Destin, FL ...................... 11,119 Dillon, CO ......................... 802 District of Saanich, Victoria, Canada... 103,654 Douglas County, CO... 175,766 Dover, DE ..................... 32,135 Dover, NH.., ................. 26,884 Dublin, CA... ..... ........... 29,973 Dublin, OH ................... 31,392 Duncanville, TX............ 36,081 Durango, CO., .............. 13,922 Durham, NC ............... 187,038 Duval County, FL....... 778,879 Eagle County, CO ......... 41,659 East Providence, RI........ 48,688 Eau Claire, WI ............... 61,704 Edmond, OK ................. 68,315 El Cerrito, CA ................ 23,171 El Paso, TX .................. 563,662 Ellisville, MO .................. 9,104 City of Louisville Citizen Elmhurst, IL ................... 42,762 Englewood, CO ............. 31,727 Ephrata Borough, PA ..... 13,213 Escambia County, FL... 294,410 Eugene, OR ................. 137,893 Eustis, FL ....................... 15,106 Evanston, IL ................... 74,239 Fairway, KS.....................3,952 Farmington, NM............ 37,844 Farmington, UT ............. 12,081 Fayetteville, AR ............. 58,047 Fishers, IN ..................... 37,835 Flagstaff, AZ .................. 52,894 Florence, AZ ................. 17,054 Fort Collins, CO.......... 118,652 Fort Smith, AR...............80,268 Fort Worth, TX ............ 534,694 Fridley, MN ................... 27,449 Frisco, CO ........................... NA Fruita, CO ....................... 6,478 Gainesville, FL .............. 95,447 Gaithersburg, MD ......... 52,613 Galt, CA ........................ 19,472 Gig Harbor, WA., ............ 6,465 Gillette, WY .................. 19,646 Golden, CO .................. 17,159 Goodyear, AZ ..................... NA Grand County, CO........ 12,442 Grand Junction, CO....... 41,986 Grand Prairie, TX ........ 127,427 Grandview, MO............ 24,881 Greenville, SC ............... 10,468 Greenwood Village, CO... 11,035 Gresham, OR ................ 90,205 Gurnee, IL ..................... 28,834 Hanau, Germany ................. NA Hanover County, VA..... 86,320 Henderson, NV........... 175,381 High Point, NC..............85,839 Highland Park, IL........... 31,365 Highlands Ranch, CO.... 70,931 Hillsborough County, FL. 998,948 Homewood, IL .............. 19,543 Honolulu, HI ............... 876,156 Hopewell, VA ............... 22,354 Hoquiam, WA .......... ....... 9,097 Hot Springs, AR ............. 35,613 Hot Sulphur Springs, CO .... 521 Hudson, NC....................3,078 Hudson, OH .................22,439 Hurst, TX ....................... 36,273 Hutchinson, MN ........... 13,080 Independence, MO..... 113,288 Indianola, IA.................12,998 Iowa County, IA............ 15,671 Irving, TX .................... 191,615 of Results Jackson County, OR.... 181,269 James City County, VA.. 48,102 Jefferson County, CO .. 527,056 Jefferson Parish, LA...... 455,466 Joplin, MO .................... 45,504 Kannapolis, INC ............. 36,910 Kansas City, MO ......... 441,545 Kearney, NE .................. 27,431 Keizer, OR .................... 32,203 Kelowna, C:anada.......... 96,288 Kent, WA ...................... 79,524 King County, WA ..... 1,737,034 Kirkland, WA ................ 45,054 Kissimmee, FL ............... 47,814 Kilsap County, WA...... 231,969 Knightdale, NC ................ 5,958 Kutztown Borough, PA.... 5,067 La Mesa, CA .................. 54,749 La Plata, MD ................... 6,551 La Vista, NE ................... 11,699 Laguna Beach, CA......... 23,727 Lake Oswego, OR......... 35,278 Lakewood, CO............ 144,126 Larimer County, CO.... 251,494 Lawrence, KS ................ 80,098 Lebanon, OH ................ 16,962 Lee's Summit, MO ........ 70,700 Lenexa, KS....................40t238 Lincolnwood, IL............ 12,359 Livermore, CA ............... 73,345 Lodi, CA ........................ 56,999 Lone free, CO ................ 4,873 Long Beach, CA .......... 461,522 Longmont, CO .............. 71,093 Louisville, CO ............... 18,937 Loveland, CO ................ 50,608 Lyme, NH ....................... 1,679 Lynchburg, VA .............. 65,269 Lynnwood, WA ............. 33,847 Lynwood, CA ................ 69,845 Manchester, CT ............. 54,740 Mankato, MN ................ 32,427 Maple Grove, MN......... 50,365 Maplewood, MN........... 34,947 Marana, AZ ......................... NA Marion, IA ....................... 7,144 Marshfield, WI .............. 18,800 Maryland Heights, MO.. 25,756 Maryville, MO... ............ 10,581 Maui, HI ..................... 128,094 Mauldin, SC .................. 15,224 McAllen, TX ................ 106,414 Medina, MN .................... 4,005 Melbourne, FL ............... 71,382 Meridian Charter Township, MI......... 38,987 August Merriam, KS .................. 11,008 Mesa County, CO ....... 116,255 Miami Beach, FL........... 87,933 Milton, WI ...................... 5,132 Minneapolis, MN........ 382,618 Mission Viejo, CA......... 93,102 Missoula, MT ................ 57,053 Montgomery County, MD 873,341 Morgan Hill, CA............ 33,556 Morgantown, WV......... 26,809 Moscow, ID .................. 21,291 Mountain View, CA ...... 70,708 Mountlake Terrace, WA 20,362 Munster, IN ................... 21,511 Naperville, IL .............. 128,358 Needham, MA .............. 28,911 New Orleans, LA ........ 484,674 Newport Beach, CA ...... 70,032 Newport News, VA..... 180,150 Newport, RI .................. 26,475 Normal, IL ..................... 45,386 North Branch, MN .......... 8,023 North Jeffco Park and Recreation District, CO... NA North Las Vegas, NV... 115,488 North Port, FL ............... 22,797 North Vancouver, Canada 44,303 Northampton County, VA. 13,093 Northern Tier Coalition Community Survey, PA NA Northglenn, CO............ 31,575 Novi, MI ....................... 47,386 O'Fallon, IL ................... 21,910 O'Fallon, MO ............... 46,169 Oak Ridge, TN .............. 27,387 Oakland Park, FL........... 30,966 Oakland Township, MI.. 13,071 Oakville, Canada ........ 144,738 Ocean City, MD .............. 7,173 Ocean Shores, WA.......... 3,836 Oceanside, CA............ 161,029 Ocoee, FL ..................... 24,391 Oklahoma City, OK..... 506,132 Olathe, KS ..................... 92,962 Oldsmar, FL .................. 11,910 Olmsted County, MN.. 137,521 Olympia, WA ................ 42,514 Orange Village, OH........ 3,236 Orleans Parish, LA....... 484,674 Ottawa County, MI...... 238,314 Overland Park, KS....... 149,080 Oviedo, FL .................... 26,316 OZaukee County, WI .... 82,317 Palatine, IL .................... 65,479 Palm Bay, FL ................. 79,413 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 35,058 City of Louisville Citizen Survey Palm Beach, FL .............. 10,468 Palm Coast, FL .............. 32,732 Palm Springs, CA ........... 42,807 Palo Alto, CA ................ 58,598 Park Ridge, IL ................ 37,775 Parker, CO .................... 23,558 Pasadena, TX ............... 141,674 Pasco, WA .................... 32,066 Peoria County, IL......... 183,433 Peoria, AZ ................... 108,364 Philadelphia, PA....... 1,517,550 Phoenix, AZ ............. 1,321,045 Pickens County, SC..... 110,757 Pinellas County, FL...... 921,482 Pilkin County, CO......... 14,872 Plano, TX .................... 222,030 Platte City, MO ............... 3,866 Polk County, IA........... 374,601 Port Orange, FL.............45,823 Portland, OR ............... 529,121 Poway, CA .................... 48,044 Prescott Valley, AZ........ 25,535 Prince Albert, Canada.... 34,291 Prince William County, VA ........................ 280,813 Prior Lake, MN .............. 15,917 Queen Creek, AZ ............ 4,316 Rancho Cordova, CA..... 55,060 Raymore, MO ............... 11,146 Redding, CA ....... ........... 80,865 Reno, NV .................... 180,480 Renton, WA .................. 50,052 Richland, WA ................ 38,708 Richmond, CA ............... 99,216 Riverdale, UT .................. 7,656 Riverside, CA .............. 255,166 Roanoke, VA ................. 94,911 Rock Hill, SC ....... .......... 49,765 Rockville, MD ............... 47,388 Round Rock, TX............ 61,136 Saco, ME ....................... 16,822 Safford, AZ ...................... 9,232 Salina, KS ...................... 45,679 San Bernardino County, CA ..................... 1,709,434 San Francisco, CA ....... 776,733 San Jose, CA ................ 894,943 San Marcos, TX ............. 34,733 San Rafael, CA ............... 56,063 San Ramon, CA.............44,722 Sandusky, OH ............... 27,844 Sanford, FL .................... 38,291 Santa Barbara County, CA 399,347 Santa Monica, CA.......... 84,084 Sarasota, FL .................. 52,715 Sault Sainte Marie, MI ... 16,542 Scott County, MN.......... 89,498 Scottsdale, AZ ............. 202,705 Sedona, AZ., ................. 10,192 Seminole, FL ................. 10,890 Sheldahl, IA ........................ 336 Shenandoah, TX .............. 1,503 Shorewood, IL ................. 7,686 Shrewsbury, MA............ 31,640 Silverthorne, CO ............. 3,196 Sioux Falls, SD............ 123,975 Skokie, IL......................63,348 Slater, IA ......................... 1,306 Smyrna, GA ................... 40,999 Snoclualmie, WA ............. 1,631 South Daytona, FL......... 13,177 South Haven, MI ............. 5,021 Sparks, NV .................... 66,346 Spotsylvania County, VA90,395 Springfield, MO .......... 151,580 Springville, UT .............. 20,424 St. Cloud, MN ............... 59,107 St. Louis County, MN.. 200,528 Stafford County, VA....... 92,446 Starkville, MS................21,869 State College, PA........... 38,420 Staunton, VA ................. 23,853 Steamboat Springs, CO.... 9,815 Sterling, CO .................. 11,360 Stillwater, OK ................ 39,065 Stockton, CA ............... 243,771 Suamico, WI ................... 8,686 Sugar Grove, IL ............... 3,909 Sugar Land, TX .............. 63,328 Summit County, CO...... 23,548 Sunnyvale, CA ............. 131,760 Tacoma, WA ............... 193,556 Tacoma Park, MD ......... 17,299 Tallahassee, FL............ 150,624 Taos, NM ........................ 4,700 Tempe, AZ .................. 158,625 Teton County, WY ........ 18,251 The Colony, TX ............. 26,531 Thornton, CO- .............. 82,384 Thunder Bay, Canada.. 109,016 August Titusville, FL ................. 40,670 Tomball, TX .................... 9,089 Troy, MI ........................ 80,959 Tucson, AZ ................. 486,699 Tuskegee, AL ................. 11,846 Upper Merion Township, PA .......................... 28,863 Urbandale, IA ............... 29,072 Vail, CO .......................... 4,531 Valdez, AK ...................... 4,036 Vancouver, WA........... 143,560 Village of Brown Deer, WI. 12,170 Village of Howard City, MI. 1,585 Village of Oak Park, IL .. 52,524 Virginia Beach, VA...... 425,257 VOlusia County, PL...... 443,343 Wahpeton, ND ............... 8,586 Walnut Creek, CA......... 64,296 Walton County, FL........ 40,601 Washington City, UT....... 8,186 Washington County, MN 201,130 Washoe County, NV ... 339,486 Waukee, A... .................. 5,126 Wausau, WI .................. 38,426 Wauwatosa, WI ............. 47,271 West Des Moines, IA..... 46,403 Western Eagle County Metro Recreation District, CO .................. NA Westerville, OH............ 35,318 Westminster, CO......... 100,940 Wethersfield, CT........... 26,271 Wheat Ridge, CO.......... 32,913 Whitehorse, Canada...... 19,058 Whitewater, WI ............. 13,437 Wichita, KS ................. 344,284 Williamsburg, VA.......... 11,998 Willingboro Township, NJ. 33,008 Wilmington, NC............ 90,400 Windsor, CT. ................. 28,237 Winston-Salem, NC..... 185,776 Winter Park, FL ............. 24,090 Woodbury, MN ................... NA Woodridge, IL ............... 30,934 Worcester, MA............ 172,648 Yellowknife, Canada..... 16,541 Yuma County, AZ ....... 160,026 Yuma, AZ ...................... 77,515 rt of Results 85 City of Louisville Citizen August 2008 Jurisdictions Included in the Front Range Benchmark Comparisons listed below are the jurisdictions included in the Front Range benchmark comparisons provided for the City of Louisville followed by its 2000 population according to the U.S. Census. Arvada, CO ................. 102,153 Aspen, CO ...................... 5,914 Aurora, CO ................. 276,393 Boulder County, CO.... 291,288 Boulder, CO .................. 94,673 Broomfield, CO ............. 38,272 Castle Rock, CO............ 20,224 Colorado Springs, CO . 360,890 Denver (City and County), CO......... 554,636 Denver Public Library, CO.. NA 1611 Douglas County, CO... 175,766 Englewood, CO ............. 31,727 Fort Collins, CO.......... 118,652 Golden, CO .................. 17,159 Greenwood Village, CO 11,035 Highlands Ranch, CO ... 70,931 Jefferson County, CO .. 527,056 Lakewood, CO............ 144,126 Latimer County, CO.... 251,494 Lone Tree, CO ................ 4,873 Longmont, CO .............. 71,093 Louisville, CO ............... 18,937 Loveland, CO ................ 50,608 North Jeffco Park and Recreation District, CO... NA Northglenn, CO............ 31,575 Parker, CO .................... 23,558 Thornton, CO ................ 82,384 Westminster, CO......... 100,940 Wheat Ridge, CO.......... 32,913 City of Louisville Citizen Survey ix G: Survey Instrument The following is a copy of the sulwey instrument. of Results August 2008 87 2008 Louisville Citizen Survey Please complete this questionnaire if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday. The adult's year of birth does not matter. Please circle the response that most closely represents your opinion for each question. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only. 1. Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion about the quality of life in Louisville: How do you rate Louisville as a place to live? ......................... Excellent Good 1 2 Fair 3 Poor 4 Don't know 5 Flow do you rate your neighborhood as a place to live? ........................................... 1 2 3 4 5 How do you rate Louisville as a place to raise children? ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5 How do you rate Louisville as a place to retire? ...................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 How to you rate Louisville as a place to works ......... ......... ..........1 2 3 ' 4 5 I -low do you rate the overall quality of life in Louisville? ........................................ 1 2 3 4 5 2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Louisville as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Sense of commui ity... :.... ::. : .........1 2 3 4 5 Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall appearance of Louisville........................... ........... . ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to attend cultural activities................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Shopping opportunities...................... ......................... ........ ........ .......... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to volunteer.......... ........................................................................ .......1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in community matters ...... ........ ....... ............. I .... I.......... 1 2 3 4 5 Recreational opportunities........... ............... .............. .:...................... .........1 2 3 4 5 Employment opportunities....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Airquality.: ......... ............................. ............................ ..................... ...1 2 3 4 5 Variety of housing options....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality housing........ .......: ..................................... 1 2 :3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality child care............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality food............ ......... ..........................1 2 3 4 " 5 Availability of preventive health services................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of car travel in Louisville....... ...................................................... 1 2 3 " 4 5 Ease of bus travel in Louisville................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of bicycle travel in Louisville ..... ......... ......................... 1 2 3 4 5 Lase of walking in Louisville................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic flow on major sheets .......:......... ... ......................... ............... ... ......... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall lighting in the City....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Quality of overall natural environment in Louisville ......... ........: .:....... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall image or reputation of Louisville ................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 3. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in Louisville Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don't safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery)....`.... 1 2 3 4 5 6 Property crimes (e.g, burglary, theft) ............... 1 2 3 4 5 6 Environmental hazards, including toxic waste.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2008 Louisville Citizen SznveV Page ! of 5 4. Please rate how safe you feel: Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don't safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know In your neighborhood during the day ........... t 2 3 4 5 6 In your neighborhood after dark ........................ 1 2 3 4 5 6 In Louisville's downtown area during the day... 1 2 3 4 5 6 In Louisville's downtown area after dark .......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 In Louisville's parks during the day .......... 1 2 ' 3 4 5 6 hi Louisville's parks after dark .......................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. How do you rate the quality of each of the following services in Louisville? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Fire services.......... :.................................... ....................... :. I 2 3 4 5 Ambulance/emergency medical services.................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Amount of public parking downtown .................................... ......... .......... 1 2 3 4 _ 5 Bus/transit services................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Health. services ......... ........ ......... .......: .. .:..i:. 1 2 3 4 5 Servicesto seniors.................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Services. to youth ............................ ......... ......... ......... .......... t '. ,2 3 4 '; 5 Services to low-income people................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Publicschools. .... .............................................................................. ::.. I 2 3 q 5 Economicdevelopment............................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Land use, planning and zoning ...... ..:...... ......... ......... ......... 1 2 3 4 5 Buildinginspection.................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Louisville public information sources ................ ............ ......................................... I 2 3 4 5 6. Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion about the performance of the following areas of the City of Louisville Administration: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know City response to citizen complaints or concerns........... ......................... .........1 2 3 4 5 Information about City Council, Planning Commission and other official City meetings............................................................................... l 2 3 4 5 Information about City plans and programs..... ........ ......... ..........1 2 3 4 5 Availability of City Employees................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Programming on Louisville cable TV, municipal channel 8.................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Louisville Web site(www.ci.louisville.co.us).......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall performance of Louisville City government.......... ......... ......... t 2 3 4 .5 7. Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion about the following areas of Louisville Public Safety: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Safety of your neighborhood ............................................ ......... ........ 1 ? 3 4 5 Visibility of patrol cars............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4.. 5 911 service. ........, .... ' ......... ................................... ..::.::.: ...:..:.:1 `..2 3 4 5 Enforcement of traffic regulations............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Municipal code enforcement issues (dogs, noise, weeds, etc.) ............. .........1 2 3 4 5 Overall performance of the Louisville Police Department ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5 S. To what extent do you feel that enforcement of the following general traffic regulations is too tough or too lenient? Too tough About right Too lenient Don't know Speed limits ......... ......... ......... ......a... l 2 3 Z 4 Parking regulations................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Municipal code issues.. ......... ......... ......... .......:... 1 2.. 3 4 2008 Souisville Citizen Stavev Page 2 of5 9. Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion about the following areas of Louisville Planning and Building: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know The public input process on City planning issues ......... .....:... ...........1 "2 3 4 5 Planning review process for new development........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Permit process for remodeling work ............... ......... ............................1 2 3 4 5 Code enforcement on building issues....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall performance of Louisville Planning Department ......... ............ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall performance of the Louisville Building Safety Division ............................. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion about the following areas of the Louisville Panics and Recreation Department: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Current recreation programs for youth ......... ........: ......... ......... I 2 3 4 5 Current recreation programs for adults..................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Current programs and services for senior........ ......... ......... .......... 1 2 3 4 ` 5 Recreation fees in Louisville.................................................................................... t 2 3 4 5 Overall performance of the Louisville Recreation Centerr.. ......... .......... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall performance of the Louisville Senior Center...............................................1 2 3 4 5 Overall performance of the Coal Creek Golf Course......... ......... ..........1 2 3 4 5 Programming at the Louisville Arts Center.............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Maintenance and cleanliness of the Louisville Recreation Center....... .......... 1 2 3 4 5 Adequacy of parks, bike paths, playing fields and playgrounds .............................. I 2 3 4 5 Maintenance of open space ......... ......... ......... ......... ..........1 2 3 4 5 Maintenance of the trail system................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Maintenance of the cemetery......... ......... ......... ......... ..........1 2 3 4 5 Overall performance of the Louisville Parks and Recreation Department ............... 1 2 3 4 5 11. Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion about the Louisville Public Library and its services: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Louisville Public Library programs ......................................................1 2 3 4 5 Louisville Public Library services............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Louisville Public Library Internet and computer services.: ......... ..........1 2 3 4 5 Louisville Public Library materials and collections ................................................. I 2 3 4 5 Louisville Public Library facility.. ............................ ......... ......... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall performance of the Louisville Public Library .............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 12. Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion about the performance of the following areas of Louisville Public Works: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Street maintenance in your neighborhood:...:.:. ......... ......... ........1 2 3 4 5 Street maintenance in Louisville.............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Street sweeping ............................... ......... ......... ......... .......... 1 2 3 4 5 Snow removal/street sanding.................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Street lighting, signage and street markings..... ......... ' ......... ......... t :. 2 3 4 ' 5 Bike lanes on Louisville streets................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Handicap access on sidewalks/crosswalks......: ......... ........: ........ 1 2 3 4 5 _5 Quality of Louisville waterr....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Overall performance of Louisville Public Works ....................................... ........1 2 3 4 5 13. Overall, how do you rate the quality of services by the Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Cityof Louisville?.......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 2008 Louisville Citizen Surrey Page 3 of 5 Cost Estimates 'I'his section includes our proposed cost estimate for the 2008 City of Fort Collins Citizen Survey. NRC produces what it promises. We design a workplan and budget at the beginning of the project and we stick to what we design. When a change in scope or timeframe is required, we work with the client to select the best options and we come to agreement about the associated costs before we move ahead. When high quality research must be done at reasonable cost and on time, NRC excels. Project Budget On the following page we include a cost estimate to conduct a 6-page mail survey of 2,000 randomly selected households across the City of Port Collins, sampling 200 CSU students living on -campus. The budget includes three in -person meetings, costs for data entry and analysis of one open-ended question, Key Driver Analysis and two sets of benchmark comparisons, two presentations (one to City Council and one to the Strategic Issues 'Team) and all "hard costs" related to survey mailing preparation and data collection (black and white printing of materials, printing and stuffing of envelopes, data entry, etc.). The City may notice that hard costs are higher than what was spent for 2006 survey. Much of the increase is due to increases in postage rates and recent trends in paper weight (the same type of paper used for your previous survey today weighs slightly more than in the past). Please note that should NRC be able to format the current 6-page survey to a 5-page survey, this would be a savings of approximately $}1,200 in printing and mailing costs to the City. Should the proposed budget exceed your resources or not meet your needs, NRC will work with you to develop a budget and wotkplan that yield a better fit. On occasion, a client may decide during the project that the original scope of work is insufficient and request additional work. NRC will not exceed this budget unless the scope of the project is revised and an additional budget is created to cover the additional costs. This proposal and budget are valid for at least 90 days from the date on the front of the proposal. Hourly rates and estimates, as well as estimated hard costs, may change over time, and NRC would like to provide a revised estimate for any work that has not been initiated within 90 days. Primary Service: Fort Collins Citizen Survey Budget Cost Estimate for a 6-Page Survey, 2,000 out, 650-850 completes Tasks and Staff Staff Hours Cost Project Meetings 12 $1,650 Instrument Design 13 $1,900 Data Cleaning/Coding 20 $1,268 Data Analysis and Report of Result 82 $g 785 Presentations 23 $2 736 Subtotal, NRC Staff Costs $17,338 Hard Costs Cost Subtotal, Hard Costs $7,613 TOTAL for 650.850 Completed Surveys $24,951 The City of Fort Collins 2008 Citizen Survey Proposal from National Research Center, Inc. 9 14. Have you had any in -person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Louisville within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? ❑ No 4 Go to Question # 16 ❑ Yes 4 Go to Question 1115 15. What was your impression of employees of the City of Louisville in your most recent contact? (Rate each characteristic below.) Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Knowledge ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...........1 2 3 4 5 Responsiveness.........................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 Courtesy..............................................................3 4 5 Overallimpression...................................................................................................1 2 3 4 5 16. Following is a list of information sources. First, please select how often you use the following sources to gain information about the City of Louisville. Then, tell us what your opinion is of the quality and reliability of the information from that source? , Always Frequently Sometimes Never Attend or watch a City Council meeting or other program on cable TV, municipal " channel .......:. ......... ...........1 2 3 4 CCTV Channel 54 (public access channel on cable) 1 2 3 4 Community Update (quarterly City Newsletter) ....1 2 3 4 The Louisville Times.. ......... ...........1 2 3 4 The Daily Camera ......................... ...........1 2 3 4 The City of Louisville Web site (www.ci.louisville.co.us) ........................... 1 2 3 4 Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4, 5 2 3 4 5 17. Please rate how important, if at all, each of the following aspects of Louisville's character is to you: Very Somewhat Not at all Don't Essential im op rtan important important know Historic buildings downtown ......................... ................. 1 2 3 4 5 Openspace................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Additional recreation facilities...... ......... ............... 1 2 3 4 5 Community events.................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Passive/active recreation amenities (e.g., trails, recreation center, parks) ........................ ......... ................. 1 2 3 4 5 Safety/low crime......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Transportation system (streets, highways, bus system, trails).... 1 2 3 4 5 Support for businesses (a business friendly climate) .................. 1 2 3 4 5 Tree -lined streets/median landscaping ........: ................. 1 2 3 4 5 Personal contact with City staff .................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 18. All things being equal, you have the option to shop in Louisville, other cities or on the Internet. Please rate how important, if at all, it is to you to shop in Louisville. ❑ Essential U Very important ❑ Somewhat important ❑ Not at all important ❑ Don't know 19. How familiar, if at all, are you with the Shop Louisville program? ❑ Very familiar ❑ Somewhat familiar ❑ Not at all familiar 20. As the Highway 42 area redevelops east of the railroad tracks, to what extent do you support or oppose each of the following development guidelines or characteristics in Louisville. Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don't super sunuorS oppose 4k o�se know Increasing height limits on buildings from 3 story to 4 story..... 1 2 3 4 5 Increasing density of commercial areas ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Increasing density of residential areas ......... ................ 1 2 3 4 5 Building parking lots/structures...................................4.............. 1 2 3 4 5 Putting utility lines underground.... .........: ................ 1 2 3 4 5 Providing green spaces and parks ............................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Pedestrian connections (such as underpasses) to downtown Louisville.. l 2 3 4 5 2008 Louisville Ciliaen Sarvev Page 4 of5 21. Louisville is considering creating a fund to preserve historic buildings in the city. 'file fund could provide for the acquisition and rehabilitation of historic properties. To what extent do you support or oppose a sales brx increase of 0.125% (1.25 cents for every $10 spent) for this purpose? ❑ Strongly support ❑ Somewhat support ❑ Somewhat oppose ❑ Strongly oppose ❑ Don't know 22. To what extent do you, support or oppose using City -owned open space as a location to install alternative energy sources (such as wind turbines and solar panels)? O Strongly support ❑ Somewhat support ❑ Somewhat oppose ❑ Strongly oppose ❑ Don't know 23. Currently, most areas west of McCaslin Boulevard are zoned for non-residential use. To what extent do you support or oppose changing the zoning in that area to permit residential development as well as commercial development? ❑ Strongly support ❑ Somewhat support ❑ Somewhat oppose ❑ Strongly oppose ❑ Don't know 24. In an effort to increase recycling and reduce the number of heavy trucks on city streets, Louisville is considering contracting with a single harder to provide City-wide residential trash and recycling services. To what extent Flo you support or oppose the City contracting with a single hauler if residents' current costs were to stay the same at, decrease? ❑ Strongly support ❑ Somewhat support ❑ Somewhat oppose ❑ Strongly oppose ❑ Don't know 25. Flow important, if at all, is each of the following potential projects in Louisville? Please first circle the number which best fits your opinion for each item. Then, check the ONE box of the item you think is the most important project for Louisville to consider. Very Somewhat Not at all Don't Essential important important important know Expansion of the Louisville Recreation Center... ............. 1 2 3 4 5 Expansion of the Louisville Senior Center ................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Expansion of the Coal Creek Golf Course Club House for special events......... ......... ......... ............. I 2 3 4 5 Acquiring additional open space ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Addition of a new outdoor aquatics center ......... ............. 1 2 3 4 5 Building new trails and pedestrian underpasses .......................... 1 2 3 4 5 Building new sports fields ......... ........ .......:..... 1 2 3 4 5 Building a cultural/arts facility ............................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Preservation of historic buildings in Louisville... ............. 1 2 3 4 5 Amenities and pedestrian -friendly design around the future rail stop in Louisville................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Most important (Check one only) Ll Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are completely anonymous and will be reported in group form only. DI. How many years have you lived in Louisville? ❑ Less than i year ❑ 1 I-15 years ❑ 1-5 years ❑ More than 15 years ❑ 6-10 years D2. Which best describes the building you live in? ❑ One family house detached from any other houses ❑ House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a duplex or townhomc) ❑ Building with two of more aparhnents or condominiums ❑ Mobile home ❑ Other D3. Do you rent or own your home? ❑ Rent Cl Own D4. What is your gender? ❑ Female ❑ Male 2008 Louisville Citizen Srnvey D5. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? (Please select one box.) ❑ 12th Giade or less, no diploma ❑ High school diploma ❑ Some college, no degree ❑ Associate's degree (e.g. AA, AS) ❑ Bachelor's degree (e.g. BA, AB, BS) ❑ Graduate degree or professional degree D6. In which category is your age? ❑ I8-24 years ❑ 55-64 years ❑ 25-34 years ❑ 65-74 years ❑ 35-44 years 1175 years or older ❑ 45-54 years D7. Are you registered to vote in Louisville? ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ Don't know Thank you for completing this survey. Please return the completed survey in the postage paid envelope to: National Research Center, Inc., 3005 30th St., Boulder, CO 80301 Page 5 of 5 2008 Citizen Survey Proposal Prepared by e NATIONAL RESEARCH CER TE Rw 1 Project Purpose o Gathering and tracking citizen opinions and perceptions o Assess the performance outcomes established by the City Council and Strategic Issues Team National Research Center, Inc. NBC's Project Approach o Your Project Manager o Discussion of survey history and goals o Development of materials o Data collection o Analysis o Report production o Review and feedback of results o Final report o Discussion/presentations of results National Research Center, Inc. 4 C Sampling and Data Collection o Mailed survey to 2,000 residents * 1,800 randomly selected households within the city boundaries * 200 randomly selected CSU students living on -campus o Unbiased selection of one member within each targeted household o Multiple contacts reminding each targeted household to participate o Expected response rate between 35% and 50% o Margin of error ±3% to 4% (approximately 650- 850 completes) National Research Center, Inc. Data Analysis o Statistical weighting of sample to reflect the most recent Census o Basic descriptive statistics o Comparisons to previous surveys o Benchmark comparisons o Crosstabulations o Key Driver Analysis o Electronic dataset National Research Center, Inc. 6 3 Benchmark Comparisons o Our national database contains data on trends in resident opinion across the U.S. from: 'e 500 jurisdictions' survey results o Over 100,000 respondents representing more than 30,000,000 Americans e Cities, counties, townships and villages o Four-year accredited Universities - 150 jurisdictions o Front Range - 30 jurisdictions o CNNMoney.com list of 100 best small cities - 33 jurisdictions National Research Center, Inc. 7 9 Example: Action Chart TM Health and Public safetyI Walsh S.rek65 kMS omms fva Transportation .. Utilities Ulll ties yes Lantl Use antl sexxapu eus < Planning � G R4 PWkc dead Sueel O so 6dwd6 dram Np Pry2g5 /epee D onMlm rww e• ; Low Ncwno cWs ' Tlortc a wal w enWewn onlaNmMl °m `G Garb M ra E k Gb VI � cWoc n aaMws 9 bpmwe IbbeN D Nn lot Knowledge and BkyGs wrdw veaw Outreach 1v25 m b PaMs antl aielrepe Reeredflon AIM Lmeone: Swxay Z P M H9 Cbe^eN 1Kile Pu6k \ I^lormetbn 1�1=� National Research Center, Inc. 10 5 Example: Sociodemographic Crosstabulation of Results Quality of Service Ratings by Sociodemographic Characteristics t74 Percent "very good" or "good" Natlonal Research Center, Inc. li FemaleyearsyearsHispanicNot 5to5456+ae HispanicAir quality 77% 74% 66%65%84% 87% Drinking water quality 85% 89% 70% 75% 72% 74% Recycling ! 71% 74% 67% 76% 68% 88% 83% program Trails in Fort Collins 89%81%69% ( 71% 68% 88% 86% Parks in Fort Collins 68% 75% 69% 67% 66% 73% 74% Options: Online Survey While great care should always be taken when combining results across mail and phone modes (and survey Firms that tell you otherwise ace being dishonest), research has shown no significant difference in the results received by self-administered mail survey and self-administered Web surveys. This makes Web a great partner to the mad survey, giving your residents an additional way for participating in the survey. For this option, the mail survey prenotification postcard would contain the URL of the survey (which will be hosted on NRC's server) and brief instructions for completing the survey. (For an example of an NRC-hosted survey, please see hutpl-LwYmL c. —coinLs tL1-v—cKZbQWldercoumty.ht—in .) NRC; can limit survey access by requiring resp onden ts to enter a unique ID and ensuring only one survey is submitted by each respondent. Data are easily exported from the Web software into SPSS in which NRC conducts all of its data analyses. Respondents' data are sent directly to NRC where experienced staff manage the data collection. Responses are collected electronically and imported into a statistical package for analysis for merging with the mail survey data. The cost for adding a Web survey is $920. Timeline Staff assigned to this project will be able to perform the associated project tasks within the specified time frame. While there are specific NRC staff assigned to your project, all staff at NRC can be available to assist with project tasks should it be necessary. NRC can meet the schedule outlined in the RFP, but recommends that the City considers adding approximately two weeks to the project timeline to maximize the amount of time for data collection (therefore maximizing response rate). The City of Fort Collins 2008 Citizen Survey Proposal from National Research Center, Inc. 10 Corporate Resume The following pages include information about National Research Center, Inc. (NRC), similar projects, Ivey personnel assigned to the Dort Collins Citizen Survey and references. Organizational Chart An organizational chart is displayed below to give Dort Collins staff an understanding of the entire NRC personnel profile. Michelle Kobayashi, MSPH Michelle Prohov, BA Alana Aziz, BA Vice President Office Manager AUminislrative Assistant Tom Mllle� PhD President T Enn Caldwell,MSPH Rachel Cooper MMNationaf le Urban, BA Jeff Bognar, BA 'Senior Research Associate Research Associatearch Associate Research Assistant Shannon Hayden MA Wendy DuBow, Piloa Wytinck MS Noelle Vailiancourt, BA Senior Research Associate Research AssociateResearch Associate 'Research Assistam:. Paula Noble MAher Locke, MA .._ al Citizen Survey'". Nick Weaver Research AssoaatResearch AsSistan(. 'DirectorLee Tyson, BAema Zoss BAResearch Assoaateal Cit¢en Swvey*�"ocate Director- The City of Fort Collins 2008 Citizen Survey Proposal from National Research Center, Inc. Brief History of NRC Pioneering Citizen Surveys NRC, based in Boulder, Colorado, is the well-known and highly regarded citizen survey research firm that operates world wide. NRC principals have been leading the strategic use of surveys for local governments since 1991, when the principals of the company wrote the first edition of what became the classic text on citizen surveying. In Clli�en Srnvgf: flow to do lhem, how to nse diem, what they mean, published by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) we not only articulated the principles for quality survey methods, we pioneered both the idea of benchmark data for citizen opinion and the method for gathering benchmark data. We called it, "In Search of Standards," and argued for norms. "What has been missing from a local government's analysis of its survey results is the context that school administrators can supply when they tell parents how an 80 percent score on the social studies test compares to test results from other school systems..." Since 1991 many survey research Firms and scholars have followed our recommendations and some even have begun to create their own form of benchmarks. Training, Writing and Speaking to National Audiences About the Place of Citizen Surveys in Performance Measurement NRC has moved ahead rapidly since publication of our first book. We have maintained our position as leaders in citizen surveying with the second edition of the ICMA-published book, rewritten and published in 2000 and under third revision for publication in November 2008. We published the first study on conducting citizen surveys using the Internet, "Citizen Surveys on the Web: General population surveys." in Social Science Compiler Review (2002, SAGE publications) and numerous other articles and chapters on citizen surveying and performance measurement — in ICMA's Pablie Managenreul Maaatine, Planning Commiseioiieia journal, Governing, ]aen'nal of Policlr linaysis and tVlanagemenl, Management Sciences and Policy Analysis and Pub& ddminisfralion Review. We continue to be selected as faculty to train public administrators and elected officials at the American Association of Public Administration (ASPA), The City -County Communications & Marketing Association (3CMA) and the ICMA. Recent talks at ICNIA conferences include: "Citizen Surveys and Public Trust," "We Must Be Doing Something Right! The Best of The National Citizen SurveyrM" "Fundamentals of Performance Measurement and Management," and "Why Civic Engagement Matters," where results were discussed on this topic from analysis of our database of over 90,000 citizen survey records. We often participate on or moderate panels with topics including "The National Citizen Survey1m: Putting Data to Action," and "After the Survey: Now What?" Over the years, our trainees and audience members have been elected officials and staff from all levels of government in large and small jurisdictions across the 50 states. Partnering with ICMA In 2001, NRC created The National Citizen Survey""t (a questionnaire and service) and we were selected to partner with ICMA to offer this survey to ICMA's members. The National Citizen Surveys"' was built on the prototype we created for our 1991 book and our subsequent evaluations of citizen surveys across the US (See our article, "Assessing excellence poorly: The bottom line in local government" Miller, T.I & Miller, M.A. (1992). Jomrnal of Po14)rlLralysis and2vianagemeni, 11, 612-623). After extensive discussions with city managers, we created a semi-custonuzable survey that captures resident evaluations of most of the services delivered by most of the cities in America and it covers questions about quality of community life, civic engagement of residents, public trust, demographics and policies. The Five page survey typically takes residents about 15 minutes to complete and most of our survey administrations require no fewer than three contacts by mail of randomly selected households. Our average response rate is 39% for more than 230 surveys administered by mail since 2005, higher than our own phone surveys or the phone surveys of the rare survey firm that risks revealing its actual telephone response rates in its reports of results. The City of Fort Collins 2008 Citizen Survey Proposal from National Research Center, Inc. 12 Statement of Qualifications Our articles in scholarly and trade journals and books, our teaching and our awards are no academic exercises. 'I'hey grow from our real world experience conducting more citizen surveys for local government than any other organization. Ina recent email survey of a sample of 460 city managers selected at random from all 50 states, NRC was named as survey consultant by three times the number of respondents of the closest competitor. Providing the Largest and Most Flexible Database of Normative Comparisons for Benchmarking We maintain an up-to-date database of over 500 citizen surveys from across America. Using the framework of meta -analysis, we integrate the results of these surveys administered to over 300,000 residents controlling for differences in data collection mode and question characteristics such as anchor wording, numbers of response options, presence of "don't know," option symmetry and other characteristics that we have found correlate with resident responses. We have described our methods thoroughly in Pnbl cAdnainirtmtfon Renien� Journal of 11ob'91Anelyuis and Management and in our first book on conducting and using citizen surveys. Scholars who specialize in the analysis of citizen surveys regularly have relied on our work (i.e., Kelly, J. & Swindell, D. (2002). Service quality variation across urban space: First steps towards a model of citizen satisfaction,]omnalof Urban AV rdrr, 24, 271-288.; Van Ryzin, G., Muzzio, D., Immerwahr, S., Gulick, L. & Martinez, A. (2004). Drivers and consequences of citizen satisfaction: An application of the American Customer Satisfaction Index Model to New York (,ity, Pnblic'Arbnirn'ttrvtioa Review; 64, 331-341). The method described in those publications is refined regularly and statistically tested on a growing number of citizen surveys in our proprietary databases. Our database contains evaluations of over 250 services provided by local governments and is intended to represent the opinions of more than 30,000,000 adults living in the United States. Because the database contains results that are reliable for each jurisdiction (typically with no fewer than 400 responses from each), we can parse the data for an NRC client such that a cluster of jurisdictions similar in size, located in the same part of the US or with a four-year accredited university can be identified for comparison. Offering the Right Analysis for the Right Question We develop statistical models of what works, employ the framework and methods of meta -analysis to integrate research findings, analyze and improve the psychometric properties of data collection instruments. Our data analysis approaches include a wide array of analytic techniques designed to clarify findings and make them actionable: simple descriptive data analyses such as frequency distributions, measures of central tendency and crosstabulations, inferential tests such as analysis of variance and chi-square to determine when population subgroups differ in their perspectives about city services; more sophisticated analyses such as modeling with multiple linear regression or logistic regression to identify Ivey drivers of resident opinion about overall city service quality; time series analysis to test trends over time; factor analysis to create reliable groupings of responses so that results are not atomized and spread across a complex landscape of services; and analyses for market segmentation such as Chi -squared Automatic Interaction Detector (CI AID) or cluster analysis to determine the characteristics of residents that bind their opinions about quality of community life and city services. Providing Unbiased Consultation for Choosing the Right Data Collection Mode We understand the limitations of government budgets and we have vast experience working with organizations on research projects as small as a few thousand dollars and as large as more than a million dollars. NRC purposefully has avoided the weight of carrying a telephone call center as an in-house resource because, though we do conduct a large percentage of our surveys by phone, we do not want to be anchored by the financial The City of Fort Collins 2008 Citizen Survey Proposal from National Research Center, Inc. 13 pressure to recommend telephone surveying when other methods —mail, Web and in -person — can yield better data, higher response rates and at lower costs. By avoiding ownership of -afield service, we ate able to provide a dispassionate perspective about the best data collection method for our clients. When we do conduct telephone interviews we work closely with a few carefully selected telephone field services, train staff to our specific standards of excellence and monitor the field work regularly to assure that our standards are adhered to. As part of our adherence to telephone survey research standards, NRC reports the full telephone log disposition and response rates (using one or more of the American Association for Public Opinion Research —AAPOR's—response rate calculations). Because response rates have been declining rapidly in the last several years, many survey research Firms protecting their own call center capital investments, fail to report these important data. NRC has a reputation for transparency in methods. For every telephone survey project that we recommend, we seek competing bids from at least two highly qualified field services with whom we work closely to assure that our clients receive the best work at the lowest cost. Our telephone partners have no fewer than 150 CA'11 stations each to assure that your project never has to take a back seat to other work because of limited capacity and each has the capacity to conduct foreign language interviews with trained native speakers. NRC never adds fees to the work conducted by any of our sub -contractors, telephone field service or others. The City of Fort Collins 2008 Citizen Survey Proposal from National Research Center, Inc. 14 Similar Pro NRC has extensive experience in conducting surveys using a variety of approaches (by phone, by mail, in - person and via the Internet). We have done many omnibus citizen surveys for local governments, asking residents to evaluate the quality of life and services of their community. We also have conducted surveys on specialized topics such as parks and recreation, transportation, human service needs or utility services. Detailed below are five successfully completed projects similar in scope to that of Port Collins' followed by a list of previous and current clients for whom we have conducted surveys across the nation. City of Boulder, CO When the principals of National Research Center worked for the City of Boulder, they helped develop the City's Citizen Survey in 1987, which was then conducted every two years thereafter (except in 1991). In 200'1, the City of Boulder contracted with NRC to complete that year's Citizen Survey and NRC has conducted the City's surveys since that time.'I'he survey permits Boulder residents to make judgments about the quality of life here, and what they think would improve it. Residents describe their use of various community amenities and provide feedback on policy issues facing the city government. The city of Boulder divided the city and the area just outside the city into nine planning subcommunities. All households Located within the nine planning subcommunities were eligible to receive the survey; in 2007, 3,015 of these households were randomly selected to receive the survey. Each selected household was contacted three times: a prenotification announcement and two waves of the survey packet sent one week apart. All mailings were sent in both English and Spanish during September and October 2007. "The city felt it was also important to include University of Colorado -Boulder (CU) students residing in college dormitories. The Director of Housing at the CU-Boulder provided a random sample of 485 dormitory room addresses to which surveys were mailed. Of the 2,891 households presumed to have received a survey, 870 completed the survey, providing a response rate of 30%. Dorm students responded at a lower rate than slid those in households. A total of 16 surveys were received from those living in the college dormitories, providing a response rate of about 3%. '1'he overall response rate, combining households and dormitories, was 26%. Interertiitgfzirdiugr"lhe expansion or replacement of existing homes with larger homes ("pops and scrapes") is an issue aboutwhich Boulderites are ambiguous. A majority of respondents agreed with nearly every statement on the topic presented to them, thus affirming the positive aspects of home expansion while acknowledging the accompanying potential problems. In general, those who had expanded their home or were considering doing so were more likely to agree that home expansion had benefits and Less likely to agree that home expansion had problems. In addition, those who lived in single-family homes were more likely to view home expansion positively than those who lived in multi -family housing units. Of particular concern to those in multi -family dwellings was housing affordability; 68% of those who lived in attached units agreed that home expansions were "a problem because they reduce the amount of housing that is affordable to low and moderate income people," while only 47% of those who lived in detached units agreed with this statement. The City of Fort Collins 2008 Citizen Survey Proposal from National Research Center, Inc. 15 City of Longmont, CO NRC has been conducting citizen surveys of Longmont residents assessing satisfaction with and importance of government services, community amenities and resident opinions on salient policy issues since 1996. 'Telephone surveys were completed in 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2002. Beginning in 2003, the data collection methodology changed from phone to mail. In 2005, NRC conducted Longmont's first policy exploration survey that is now occurs every other year (alternating with the citizen survey). The Longmont Customer Satisfaction Survey focuses on the quality of service delivery and the importance of services to help council, staff and the public to set priorities for budget decisions and lay the groundwork for tracking community opinions about the core responsibilities of Longmont City government, helping to assure maximum service quality over time. 'The 2006 survey used stratified random sampling to select 1,000 residents in each of three Wards to receive survey mailings. Of the 3,000 surveys mailed in June 2006, 882 responded to the questionnaire giving a response rate of 31%. L�rtaresYii� n�/zng,r: When askcd to rate the planning department, the average rating was less than stellar —right in line with ratings of community planning that we see in most parts of the U.S.'Then residents were asked to tell us what they were considering when they gave this rating. Top of the list, mentioned by over half of respondents, were issues like the rate of population growth, traffic congestion, class sizes in public schools, and the quality, cost and diversity of new housing At the bottom of the list, offered by only 9% of respondents was, "Customer service delivered by Planning Department employees." It appears that ratings of the planning department had most to do with the outcomes of what residents expect from planners — livable cities that control growth, ease mobility, temper housing prices and offer attractive development. City of Louisville, CO 'I'hc City of Louisville has been conducting citizen surveys since 1990. NRC has conducted the Louisville Citizen Survey last two iterations of the survey and just completed an employee survey for the city as well. In addition to providing residents the opportunity to rate their satisfaction with the quality of life in the city, the community's amenities and satisfaction with local government, the citizen survey also permits residents an opportunity to provide feedback to government on what is working well and what is not, and to communicate their priorities for community planning and resource allocation. 'I'he Citizen Survey is administered by mail to 2,000 randomly selected households within the City of Louisville. Each household receives three mailings: a prenotification postcard and two survey tailings. Of those households receiving the survey, 976 residents responded to the mailed questionnaire, giving a response rate of 50%. In<ererliir,g fiardiggs: NRC analyzed the relationship between a specific tax question asked on the most recent citizen survey and a question related to potential projects and found that those who said that the preservation of historic buildings was "essential" were more likely to "strongly" support a tax, those who said "very important" were more likely to "somewhat" support a tax and those who said "somewhat important" were split between supporting or opposing a tax. This told city staff that there is a relationship between residents' importance ratings and support for or opposition to the tax. Also, while 64% supported the tax, only 20% of residents "strongly" supported, many of whom are among the 18% who said historic preservation was "essential." The City of Fort Collins 2008 Citizen Survey Proposal from National Research Center, Inc. 16 City of Fort Collins Citizen Survey Proposal Prepared by National Research Center, Inc August 8, 2008 LICNATIONAL RESEARCH C E N T[ R iec. 5 Oth sfreet •Boulder, CO 80301 • (303) 444-7863 • f: (303) 444-1145 • www.n-r-c cam City of Arvada, CO The Arvada city manager and executive staff have had a commitment to regular sounding oftesident opinion about a broad set of local policies, service quality and quality of life. Conducted by NRC, a mailed resident survey has been sponsored by the City of Arvada for almost a decade. The City hired NRC to redesign the survey and study design in 1998, and to do a follow-up in 1999, 2001 and 2003, 2005 and 2007. In addition to asking residents to rate the quality of life in Arvada and the quality of services provided in the city, the survey also permits residents to provide feedback to government on what is working well and what is not, and to communicate their priorities for community planning and resource allocation. In 2007, approximately 2,700 randomly selected households within the city limits of Arvada received three mailings in July 2007; a prenotification postcard and two copies of the 10-page survey. Approximately 124 of the surveys were returned as undeliverable due to vacancy or an invalid address. Of the 2,576 remaining households, 918 completed the survey, providing a response rate of 36%. Inlerestin,Vmd 1,gs. A strong positive trend, showing annual declines in the percent of residents who believed that traffic movement in the city was a problem, was explained by Arvada's aggressive street construction and improvement projects that alleviated east -west congestion during the years the survey was conducted. Town of Parker, CO The Town of Parker has contracted with NRC to conduct their citizen survey since 2001, with subsequent implementations every two years. The 2007 survey was designed to help town staff understand attitudes about "Town services and pending local policy. "This type of survey gets at the key services that local government controls to create a quality community and generates a reliable foundation of resident opinion that can be monitored periodically over the coming years, like taking the community pulse, as the Town changes and grows. In 2007, the five -page Town of Parker Citizen Survey was administered by mail to a representative sample of 3,000 residents during January of 2007. Of the 2,906 eligible households receiving the survey,1,170 completed the survey, providing a response rate of 40%. fitterertiirg fzn ltag : When asked what would be the single biggest issue facing the Town of Parker over the next several years, growth (50%) and traffic (30%) were most often cited as the biggest issues facing Parker. Growth and traffic were highlighted once more when residents rated several potential problems in Parker. More than 90% of residents said that growth (95%) and traffic (91%) were at least a "minor" problem. After being asked to think about the biggest issues facing Parker and the best things about Parker, residents were asked to write in what they thought was the single thing the Town could do to improve the quality of life in Parker. Where 50% thought growth was the biggest issue facing Parker, only 22% thought controlling and/or managing growth was the single thing the Town should do. As previously mentioned, 30% of respondents said traffic was the biggest issue facing Parker but only 9% thought it was the first step in improving their quality of life. The City of Fort Collins 2008 Citizen Survey Proposal from National Research Center, Inc. 17 Other Similar Projects Since June, 2004 NRC has conducted 159 surveys in 33 states and surveyed over 100,000 respondents to capture resident evaluations about local government. Our clients are in every state in the union, number in the hundreds and provide almost every service that local governments offer. Our clients since raid-2004 are listed below. There is not one we would hesitate for you to contact. Chandler, AZ Lakewood, CO Fishers, IN Delaware, 011 Flagstaff`, AZ Lone Tree, CO Munster, IN Hamilton County, OH Kingman, AZ Longmont, CO At City, KS Hudson, OH Scottsdale, AZ Loveland, CO Salina, KS Sandusky, 011 Sedona, AZ Northglenn, CO Wichita, KS Broken Arrow, OK Tucson, AZ Parker, CO Daviess Counry, KY Edmond, OK Benicia, CA San Luis Valley, CO Cliestedield County, Stillwater, OK Burlingame, CA Thornton, CO MD Bend, OR Chula Vista, CA Westminster, CO Montgomery County, Deschutes County, OR Dublin, CA Wheat Ridge, CO MD Cumberland County, EL Cerrito, CA Dover, DE Rockville, MD PA Fresno, CA Bonita Springs, FL Takoma Park, MD Ephrata Borough, PA Laguna Beach, CA Brevard County, FL Ann Arbor, MI Merion Township, PA Livermore, CA Charlotte County, FL Delhi Township, MI State College, PA Lodi, CA Dania Beach, FL Meridian Township, Rock Hill, Sc Long Beach, CA Daytona Beach, FL MI Sioux Falls, SD Palo Alto, CA Delray Beach, FL Novi, MI Johnson City, TN Redding, CA Martin County, FL Troy, MI Benbrook, TX Richmond, CA Melbourne, FL Carver County, MN Dallas, "FX Sacramento, CA Miami Beach, FL Chanhassen, MN Duncanville, TX San Francisco, CA Oakland Park, FL Dakota County, MN Grand Prairie, TX San Luis Obispo County, Oldsmar, FL I-Iutchinson, MN Irving, TX CA Oviedo, FL Maple Grove, MN McAllen, TX Santa Barbara County, Palm Bay, FL Medina, MN Pasadena, TX CA Pahu Coast, FL Minneapolis, MN Farmington, UT Stockton, CA Sarasota, FL Olmsted County, MN Washington City, UT Sunnyvale, CA South Daytona, FL Scott County, MN Blacksburg, VA Walnut Creek, CA Titusville, FL St. Cloud, MN Chiueidon, VA Archuleta County, CO Walton County, FL St. Louis County, MN Ilanover County, VA Arvada, CO Albany, GA Washington County, Hopewell, VA Boulder, CO Cartersville, GA MN James City County, VA Boulder County, CO Decatur, GA Maryville, MO Lynchburg, VA Bn onil'ield, CO Galt, GA St. Charles, MO Lynnwood, WA Castle Rock, CO Roswell, GA Wildwood, MO Ocean Shores, WA Colorado Springs, CO 1-lonolulu, I -II Bozeman, MT Pasco, WA Crowley County, CO Ankeny, IA La Vista, NE Tacoma, WA Denver (City and Bettendorf, IA Charlotte, NC Eau Claire, WI County), CO DeKalb, IL Alamogordo, NM Whitewater, W1 Douglas Counry, CO Highland Park, IL Bloomfield, NM Morgantown, WV Englewood, CO Lincolnwood, IL Henderson, NV Cheyenne, WY Grand County, CO O'Fallon, IL North Las Vegas, NV Lariuter County, WY I ighlands Ranch, CO Palatine, IL Sparks, NV Teton County, WY Jefferson County, CO Shorewood, IL Washoe County, NV Johnstown -Milliken, CO Skokie, IL New York, NY Lafayette, CO Sugar Grove, IL Rye Brook, NY The City of Fort Collins 2008 Citizen Survey Proposal from National Research Center, Inc. 18 Sample of Finished Survey Report In AppendixA: Sample Repod, we provide the completed survey report for the City of Louisville, CO 2008 Citizen Survey for your review as an example of our work. Key Personnel Our staff are not the kind you'll find in a market research firm. We have 10 project managers who have both real world survey research experience and masters or Ph.D. degrees in Fields with emphasis on research methods and statistics. NRC principals have conducted and evaluated hundreds of surveys of residents for local government over the past 15 years. Because of this experience, we have an in-depth understanding of the time and logistical requirements for all steps involved in the survey process and we also are knowledgeable about the obstacles that can throw a project off course. We have encountered and solved many problems over the years. When we commit to a study timeline and costs we meet the established goals. We help keep our projects on budget and on time by detailing the survey methods and assumptions in the proposal, working closely with the client throughout Fine process, and discussing with the client up -front the potential financial or time impact of a methodological change. The following section identifies the key personnel assigned to this project, if awarded, and describes their responsibilities for the duration of the project. The calculation of the percent of time spent on the project for each team member is the estimated proportion of each staff member's time to be spent on the Fort Collins Citizen Survey out of the approximate projected time to be spent on all other projects concurrent with the Fort Collins survey project. Project Manager: Shannon Hayden, M.A., senior research associate, has a bachelor's degree in Sociology and a master's degree in Educational Psychology (emphasis on research and evaluation methodology). Her background includes a number of years in marketing. Shannon is a co-author of the forthcoming third edition of NRC's book, Ctatien Smvgrs: Hon) to do them, how to use them, n)hal lhey mean, now called now called Citizen Surveys for Local Government: A Comprehensive Guide to Making Them Mutter. Shannon has been involved in more than 100 citizen surveys and other projects at NRC, working as a project manager and on all aspects of the projects, including survey development, overseeing data collection and analyzing and reporting the data, as well as making presentations on results. Some of the most recent projects Shannon has overseen are: the 2008 Westminster, CO Citizen Survey; the 2008 Wheat Ridge, CO Citizen Survey; the 2008 Louisville, CO Citizen Survey; the 2008 Minnesota Counties Citizen Surveys; the 2007 Atvada, CO Citizen Survey; the 2007 Aspen, CO Citizen Survey. She helped develop The National Citizen Survey"'I and oversaw the Beta Site testing of this project. She selves as a mentor for many of the research associates at NRC, and has designed the "NRC University" series of in- house trainings designed to help our associates learn new research and statistical techniques from articles and textbooks, and from each other. Time spent on project: 13% Project Advisor: Thomas IMiller, Ph.D. is the president of National Research Center, Inc. He received a Ph.D. in research and evaluation methods from the Laboratory of I?ducational Research at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He has worked in state and local government and as a consultant to human service agencies- since 1977. With Michelle Kobayashi, he wrote, Citizen SniveJw. Flow to do lbem, lion) to Ilse diem, wbat they weern, soon to be published in its 31" edition by the ICMA, Washington, D.C. Tom founded National Research Center, Inc. in 1994. He has designed, overseen and written results of hundreds of research and evaluation projects and presented his Findings to a wide variety of audiences, both acadeuuc and lay. Not only has lie written about survey research in journals and books devoted to public management, including Pabkc Admine0aleac Revcwv onrnal o the AmeucaPlawlhn 9ssorialion omnal o POhe Analysis and [Vlanagenzenl, Plcn nine —_ f� l 4 f f � The Cityof Fort Collins 2008 Citizen Survey Proposal from National Research Center, Inc. 19 Conanzissiozcerr fovrrral, Marwgernenl Science cntd PokcyAnalph-, Handbook ofllreoical Program Evalzmlion, Handbook of Sociallnleivenlion, and Governing. Tom also has been a journalist and acting director of communication for local government.'Fime spent on project: 1% Project Advisor: Erin Caldwell, MSPH, is a senior research associate at NRC. Erin has earned a master's degree in public health with an emphasis in research methods and statistics. Erin has designed and conducted scores of needs assessments, policy studies and program evaluations. She has published in TbeAmericem Jornml oJ'PzrblicIleallb on the health and quality of life of ethnic minorities living in Colorado's San Luis Valley. Other analytic work has included formulation of measures of acculturation for use in a rural bi ethnic population. Erin has overseen and performed a variety of research in local government and human services. Much of her emphasis has been on outcome monitoring and program evaluation. Erin has over 10 years experience as a senior researcher and research manager. As Senior Research Associate for the NYC Citywide Feedback Survey (the largest citizen survey ever conducted), Erin focused on developing and implementing a stratified sampling plan, a multi -component survey administration including mail and Web, survey development and a comprehensive analysis and reporting plan. Time spent on project: 3% Project Team Leader: Laurie Urban, B.A., earned a bachelor's degree in Speech Communications with a focus in Public Relations from Miami University. Since 2002, Laurie has gained experience in both survey and evaluation research at NRC. She specializes in data collection, survey design, data analysis using SPSS, report writing, editing and formatting. As project manager, Laurie fosters good client relations through her enthusiasm and natural aptitude for communication. Laurie has managed several custom Citizen Surveys during her five years at NRC, including, but not limited to, the following projects for Front Range communities: 2008 Westminster Citizen Survey, 2008 Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey, 2008 Louisville Citizen Survey and Fmployce Survey, 2007 Arvada Citizen Survey; 2007 Parker Citizen Survey; 2006 Lone Tree Citizen Survey. Time spent on project: 12% Project Assistant: TBD, project assistant duties will include document formatting, assistance with survey data collection, survey and mailing material design and background research. Time spent on project: 15% Total Proiect Budget and Billina Rates The total cost for the 2008 City of Fort Collins, CO Citizen Survey project is: $$24,951. Fully burdened hourly billing rates for key personnel appear below. Tom Miller, President: $215 Shannon Hayden, Senior Research Associate: $$160 Erin Caldwell, Senior Research Associate: $160 Laurie Urban, Research Associate: }115 'FpD, Research Assistant: $$65 The City of Fort Collins 2008 Citizen Survey Proposal from National Research Center, Inc. References Below we list five clients for whom we have performed similar projects. "they can attest to out reliability as well as our flexibility to adapt to adjustments to the study parameters. Randall Rutsch "Pransportation Planner City of Boulder 303-441-4270 RutschL(C(Db, oLiidercoloraclo,goN, Rigo Leal Public Information Officer City of Longmont 303-651-8590 R o.l,caI&Dci,tongrLlo11t.co_us Heather Balser Assistant City Manager City of Louisville 303-335-4530 Bal erI_I t)ci_l( uisvillc.co.us Maria Vanderkolk Assistant to the City Manager City of Arvada 720-898-7507 Mario _v({� ttvada.orc;. Hise Penington Community Affairs Manager Town of Packer 303-805-3113 epcnington@'c ITarlker.co,'Is The City of Fort Collins 2008 Citizen Survey Proposal from National Research Center, Inc. 21 Appendix A: Sample Report The following pages include a sample of a finished survey report produced by NRC for the City of Louisville, 2008 Citizen Survey. The City of Fort Collins 2008 Citizen Survey Proposal from National Research Center, Inc. 22 LLM City of Louisville, CO 2008 Citizen Survey Report of Results August 2008 ICNATIONAL RESEARCH C E N T E R INC. 3005 30"' Street • Boulder, Colorado 80301 • t: 303-444-7863 • f: 303-444-1145 • www.n-r-c.com of Louisville Citizen Su August2008 Contents ExecutiveSummary............................................................................................................1 SurveyBackground............................................................................................................5 SurveyResults....................................................................................................................8 Quality of Life and Community..................................................................................................8 Qualityof Life........................................................................................................................................8 CommunityCharacteristics.................................................................................................................. 10 Safetyin Louisville...............................................................................................................................13 City Services and Departments. ................................................................................................ 16 GeneralCity Services...........................................................................................................................16 CityAdministration........................................................... ......... .... ...................................................... 18 PublicSafety........................................................................................................................................20 Planningand Building.........................................................................................................................23 Parksand Recreation........................................................................................................................... 25 PublicLibrary... .......................................... .......................................... ............... ............................. 28 PublicWorks.......................................................................................................................................30 OverallQuality of City Services...........................................................................................................32 CityEmployees........................................................................................................................ 33 City's Character.......................................................................................................................35 Shoppingin Louisville.........................................................................................................................37 PolicyTopics........................................................................................................................... 39 Importance of Potential Projects...........................................................................................................43 InformationSources.................................................................................................................46 Appendix A: Respondent Characteristics.........................................................................49 Appendix B: Complete Set of Frequencies.......................................................................51 Appendix C: Comparison of Responses by Respondent Demographics ...........................64 Appendix D: Survey Methodology...................................................................................67 Appendix E: Comparison of Question Characteristics by Year........................................70 Appendix F: Jurisdictions Included in Benchmark Comparisons......................................83 Appendix G: Survey Instrument.......................................................................................87 v v u s u v d c 0 Z m 0 0 ry Report of Results City of Louisville Citizen Tables August 2 Table 1: Aspects of Quality of Life..................................................................................................8 Table 2: Community Characteristics............................................................................................. 11 Table 3: Community Characteristics Compared by Year................................................................12 Table 4: Safety From Crime and Environmental Hazards............................................................... 13 Table 5: Safety in Various Public Areas.........................................................................................14 Table 6: Quality of City Services ........................................... ............................... :....................... 16 Table 7: Quality of City Services Compared by Year.....................................................................17 Table 8: Quality of City Administration........................................................................................ 18 Table 9: Quality of City Administration Compared by Year........................................................... 19 Table 10: Quality of Louisville Public Safety.................................................................................20 Table11: Traffic Regulations........................................................................................................22 Table 12: Quality of Louisville Planning and Building..................................................................23 Table 13: Quality of Louisville Parks and Recreation Department.................................................26 Table 14: Quality of Louisville Parks and Recreation Department Compared by Year...................27 Table 15: Quality of the Louisville Public Library.........................................................................28 Table 16: Quality of Louisville Public Works................................................................................30 Table 17: Quality of Louisville Public Works Compared by Year..................................................31 Table 18: Quality of City Employees............................................................................................ 33 Table 19: Importance of Aspects of Louisville's Character.............................................................35 Table 20: Familiarity with Shop Louisville Program by Importance of Shopping in Louisville ........ 38 Table 21: Support for or Opposition to Development Guidelines.................................................39 Table 22: Importance of Potential Projects in Louisville................................................................43 Table 23: Importance of Potential Projects in Louisville Compared by Year..................................44 Table 24: Most Important Potential Project Compared by Year.....................................................45 Table 25: Quality of Information Sources.....................................................................................48 71 of Louisville Citizen Su August Fizures Figure 1: Aspects of Quality of Life Compared by Year...................................................................9 Figure 2: Ratings of Safety From Crime and Environmental Hazards..............................................13 Figure 3: Safety in Various Public Areas Compared by Year..........................................................15 Figure 4: Quality of Louisville Public Safety Compared by Year....................................................21 Figure 5: Traffic Regulations Compared by Year...........................................................................22 Figure 6: Quality of Louisville Planning and Building Compared by Year......................................24 Figure 7: Quality of the Louisville Public Library Compared by Year.............................................29 Figure 8: Overall Quality of City Services.....................................................................................32 Figure 9: Contact with City Employee Compared by Year.............................................................33 Figure 10: Quality of City Employees Compared by Year..............................................................34 Figure 11: Importance Ratings of Aspects of Louisville's Character.............................................:..36 Figure 12: Importance of Shopping in Louisville...........................................................................37 Figure 13: Familiarity with Shop Louisville Program.....................................................................37 Figure 14: Support for or Opposition to Development Guidelines................................................40 Figure 15: Support for or Opposition to Historic Preservation Tax.................................................41 Figure 16: Support for or Opposition to Installing Alternative Energy Sources on Open Space ....... 41 Figure 17: Support for or Opposition to Rezoning West of McCaslin Boulevard ............................42 Figure 18: Support for or Opposition to the City Contracting with a Single Trash Hauler...............42 Figure 19: Frequency of Use of Information Sources.....................................................................46 Figure 20: Frequency of Use of Information Sources Compared by Year.......................................47 Figure 21: Ratings of Quality of Information Sources....................................................................48 of Results Table of Contents Task Description........................................................................................... 1 ProjectOverview.................................................................................................................................1 Scopeof Work....................................................................................................................................2 Cost Estimates.............................................................................................. 9 ProjectBudget....................................................................................................................................9 Corporate Resume...................................................................................... 11 OrganizationalChart .........................................................................................................................11 BriefHistory of NRC.........................................................................................................................12 Statementof Qualifications...............................................................................................................13 SimilarProjects.................................................................................................................................15 Sampleof Finished Survey Report ...................................................................................................19 KeyPersonnel..................................................................................................................................19 Total Project Budget and Billing Rates.............................................................................................20 References.......................................................................................................................................21 Appendix A: Sample Report........................................................................ 22 of Louisville Citizen August 2008 Executive Summa Survey Background and Methods The Louisville Citizen Survey serves as a consumer report card for Louisville by providing residents the opportunity to rate their satisfaction with the quality of life in the city, the community's amenities and satisfaction with local government. The survey also permits residents an opportunity to provide feedback to government on what is working well and what is not, and to communicate their priorities for community planning and resource allocation. This is the second time National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) conducted the Louisville Citizen Survey and the fifth iteration in a series of citizen survey projects completed by the City of Louisville since 1990. The Louisville Citizen Survey was administered by mail to 2,000 randomly selected households within the city. Of those households receiving the survey, 976 residents responded to the mailed questionnaire, giving a high response rate of 50%. The margin of error was plus or minus three percentage points around any given percentage for the entire sample. Survey results were weighted so that the characteristics of gender, age and tenure (rent versus own) were represented in proportions reflective of the entire city. Because Louisville has administered a resident survey before, comparisons could be made between 2008 responses and those from prior years. Louisville's results also were compared to those of other jurisdictions around the nation as well as to those of other Front Range jurisdictions. These comparisons were made possible through NBC's national benchmark database. This database contains resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions. Survey Findings Since the 2004 survey, Louisville has been recognized in three publications as one of the best places to live and raise a family in the United States.' The 2008 survey results corroborate these rankings, as the vast majority of residents rated most aspects of Louisville highly. Findings from 2008 were not only positive but stable or better than those in 2004, with very few exceptions. Survey results indicated that a majority of residents value a wide variety of aspects of life in Louisville and the services being provided to them by the City. Of the 89 ratings that could be compared to the nation, 85 were above the national benchmark, two were similar and only one was below. Most ratings also were above ratings given by residents in other Front Range jurisdictions. Quality of Life and community As in previous years, the majority of Louisville residents who were surveyed perceived their quality of life to be "good" or "excellent." Other ratings of quality of life, such as neighborhood as a place to live, place to retire and place to raise children, were stable or had improved since 2004. Some of the quality of life ratings differed by age, gender and voting status. For instance, older residents 'In July of 2005, CNN/Money and Money magazine ranked Louisville fifth on their list of the 100 best places to live in the United States. Criteria included financial, housing, education, quality of life, leisure and culture, and weather data. In May of 2006, in Best Places to Raise Your family: The Top 100 Affordable Communities in the U.S., ranked Louisville first on their list of best places in the U.S. to raise a family. In August of 2007, CNN/Money and Money magazine again ranked Louisville third on their list of the 100 best places to live in the United States. (httpl/en.wik ipedia;org/wiki/Louisville, Colorado, accessed July 29, 2008). of Results of Louisville Citizen August (55+) tended to give more favorable ratings to Louisville as a place to work than did younger respondents. In response to the 24 city characteristics listed on the survey, most respondents were pleased with the city, rating each characteristic as either "excellent" or "good." "There were three exceptions. f half or fewer respondents thought that the following qualities were "good" or "excellent": shopping opportunities, availability of affordable quality housing and employment opportunities. Still, 23 of the 24 characteristics received higher ratings than were given around the nation in other jurisdictions. Sixteen of the characteristics on the survey were compared to the front Range's ratings, and 12 were ranked above the benchmarks, with only shopping opportunities ranking below. [Many characteristics' ratings had improved since 2004, although there were wording differences in some of the survey questions, which could account, in part, to differences between results. Again, there were differences by age and gender on some of the ratings. For this set of questions, there was also a difference by length of residency, with longer -term residents (10+ years) rating the availability of affordable housing lower than did shorter -term residents. Louisville residents reported feeling very safe in the community, giving higher ratings for all aspects of safety than their counterparts across the nation and in the Front Range. These ratings were consistent with those given in 2004, although an even higher percentage of respondents reported feeling safe in parks after dark in 2008 than they had in 2004. City Services and Departments In 2008, for the first time, residents were asked to rate the overall quality of City services. The vast majority of respondents gave Louisville City services a rating of "good" or better, and no one rated it as "poor." This rating ranked Louisville above the national and the Front Range benchmarks. Residents were given the opportunity to rate 13 City services. The majority of those who had an opinion on each service rated all but one as "excellent" or "good," with fire services, emergency services and public schools being rated by about half or more as "excellent." Services to low-income people were rated lower, with less than half of respondents rating these services as "good" or better, and one -quarter rating them as "poor." All 13 services compared favorably against the national and the Front Range benchmarks. The survey also contained questions about City employees, the Web site, cable television and the overall performance of Louisville City government, along with other Cityadministration-related questions. Two-thirds or more of respondents rated these aspects of Louisville as "good" or better. The Web site, City response to citizen concerns, television programming and overall City government performance could be compared to the national benchmark, and Louisville ranked above other jurisdictions in all categories. Two Front Range comparisons could be made — City Web site and overall City government performance —and Louisville rose to the top in these comparisons as well. About half of the respondents in 2008 had made contact with a City employee in the preceding 12 v" months. As in 2004, the majority were impressed with City employees' customer service. "These impressions ranked Louisville above both the national benchmarks and the Front Range benchmarks. ti 0 0 z 0 0 N of Louisville Citizen August 2008 Public Safety A majority of survey respondents reported that the various aspects of public Safety included on the survey were "excellent" or "good." All of the aspects of Public Safety that could be compared with national and Front Range normative data showed Louisville once again exceeding its peers. Louisville Public Safety ratings were similar to 2004, with traffic regulation enforcement being seen even more positively in 2008 than it had in 2004. Most respondents felt that the level of most aspects of traffic enforcement was "about right." Planning and Building More than half of respondents thought that Louisville's building and planning processes and the overall performance of the Building Safety Division and the Planning Department were at least "good." About one -quarter of respondents rated the Planning and Building services and departments as "fair." The only comparison that was available in this topic area was for the overall performance of the Planning Department, which showed Louisville as ranking above the national benchmark. Parks and Recreation When asked to rate various aspects of Parks and Recreation in Louisville, two-thirds or more of respondents who had an opinion gave a "good" or better rating to each of the 14 services listed on the survey.Two out of five respondents who had an opinion rated trail system maintenance and packs, paths, fields and playgrounds as "excellent." Ten of the Parks and Recreation questions could be compared to the national benchmark. Louisville was above the benchmark for all of these, except the golf course, which received a rating similar to the national benchmark. T hree comparisons were available for the Front Range: Trail maintenance, recreation center maintenance and performance. In all, Louisville compared favorably. Public Library Since the 2004 survey, a new library was built in Louisville. Nine out of 10 respondents thought highly of the facilityand services the library provides, rating each as "good" or better. Louisville rated higher, in fact, than its counterparts across the nation and Front Range, where comparisons were available. Not surprisingly, all library ratings were higher than those given for the library in 2004. Public Works Two-thirds or more of respondents felt that Louisville's water, sidewalks and streets as well as the overall performance of Public Works was "good" or better. Snow removal was rated the lowest among this category of services and characteristics, but still received a "good" or better rating from 6 in 10 respondents. Of those questions that could be compared to national and Front Range benchmark data, snow removal was the only one below the national norm. It ranked above the Front Range benchmark, however, where lower ratings for snow removal were received in surveys administered in other jurisdictions during the last year, probably attributable to the winter blizzard that paralyzed much of the Front Range in 2007. The only Public Works ratings that had decreased since 2004 were street sweeping and snow removal. w 0 V z 0 0 N J of Louisville Citizen August2008 Information Sources People who responded to the survey reported using the City newsletter, Comnnnuiy Updata, as a source of information about Louisville, followed by the Boulder Dai6l Cameun and The Louisville Times, The Louisville Web site has increased in viewing since 2004 but was not reported to be used as frequently as these other information sources. The quality of Community Update and the City Web site were rated higher than other information sources listed on the survey. Resident Priorities Residents were given the chance to rate the importance of various aspects of the city. Of the 10 qualities listed, three were rated as "essential' by at least 6 in 10 respondents: Safety, open space and recreation amenities. Four in 10 thought that the transportation system was "essential" to maintaining Louisville's character. When asked about shopping in Louisville, nearly half said it was "very important" to do so, while 1 in 10 thought it was "essential." One in 10 respondents had heard of the Shop Louisville program, and analyses showed that familiarity with the program was linked to respondents valuing local shopping. The survey asked residents to comment on potential guidelines for Highway 42 redevelopmene. The strongest support was voiced for providing green spaces (8 in 10) and pedestrian connections to downtown Louisville (7 in 10). Also a priority, underground utility lines were "strongly" supported by 6 in 10 respondents. Age, gender and voting status made a difference in how people responded to the different guidelines. The survey contained a series of policies about which residents could express support or opposition. Six out of 10 supported a tax increase for historic preservation, while 2 in 10 "strongly" opposed such an increase. Fight in 10 supported using City -owned open space as a location to install alternative energy sources. Respondents were split about rezoning the area west of McCaslin Boulevard to permit residential as well as commercial development, with more strong opposition than strong support reported. Half of respondents expressed strong support for the City contracting with a single trash hauler as long as rates stayed the same or decreased, and another one-third "somewhat" supported this proposal. One in five expressed opposition. "There were differences in response patterns depending upon length of residency and gender. Given the opportunity to rate the importance of 10 potential City projects, at least 3 in 10 respondents rated future city rail -stop amenities and additional open space as "essential," with the same proportion rating future rail stop amenities as the "tnost important" project. Compared to 2004, new trails and underpasses and a new aquatic center increased in importance for residents , responding to the survey. v Overall, the City of Louisville's survey results showed strongly positive ratings of most aspects of life in Louisville. v v o: ro 0 ro Z ro 0 0 N J Its of Louisville Citizen August 2008 Survey Background Survey Purpose The Louisville Citizen Survey serves as a consumer report card for Louisville by providing residents the opportunity to rate their satisfaction with the quality of life in the city, the community's amenities and satisfaction with local government. The survey also permits residents an opportunity to provide feedback to government on what is working well and what is not, and to communicate their priorities for community planning and resource allocation. This kind of survey gets at the key services that local government controls to create a quality community. It is akin to private sector customer surveys that are used regularly by many corporations to monitor where there are weaknesses in product or service delivery before customers defect to competition or before other problems from dissatisfied customers arise. This is the second time National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) conducted the Louisville Citizen Survey and the fifth iteration in a series of citizen survey projects completed by the City of I.ouisville since 1990. Survey Methods The Louisville Citizen Survey was administered by mail in May 2008 to 2,000 randomly selected households within the City of Louisville. Each household received three mailings. Completed surveys were collected over the following six weeks. The first mailing was it prenotification postcard announcing the upcoming survey. Over the following two weeks, two survey mailings were sent to residents; each contained a letter from the Mayor inviting the household to participate in the 2008 Louisville Citizen Survey, a five -page questionnaire and self -mailing envelope. The survey instrument itself appears in Appends,%� C: Survey Lrs1rsm2enl. Of those households receiving the survey, 976 residents responded to the mailed questionnaire, giving a response rate of 50%. Survey results were weighted so that the characteristics of gender, age and tenure (rent versus own) were represented in the proportions reflective of the entire city. (For more information see Appendix Dr Smrmy Zvfelhodology.) Understanding the Results Precision of Estimates It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a "level of confidence" (or margin of error). The 95`%u confidence level for this survey is generally no greater than plus or minus three percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (976 completed surveys). "Don't Know" Responses and Rounding On many of the questions in the survey, respondents gave an answer of "don't know." The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Append& I3 Complele Set of I �reguendes and is discussed in the body of this report if it is 20% or greater. I-Iowcver, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report, unless otherwise indicated. In other words, the majority of the tables and graphs in the body of the report display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item, Results of Louisville Citizen August 2008 When a table for a question that permitted only a single response does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to the customary practice of rounding percentages to the nearest whole number. Comparing Survey Results Because this survey was the fifth in a series of citizen surveys, the 2008 results are presented along with past ratings when available. Differences between years can be considered "statistically significant" if they are greater than five percentage points. 'Trend data for Louisville represent important comparisons and should be examined for improvements or declines. Deviations from stable trends over time especially represent opportunities for understanding how local policies, programs or public information may have affected residents' opinions. It should be kept in mind that survey methodologies changed over time and that such changes might contribute to any differences in results across survey years. National and Front Range normative comparisons also have been included in the report when available (jurisdictions to which Louisville was compared nationally and in the Front Range can be found in Appendix F' Juiiseliaio s Inhaled in Benebmeik; Comparisons). Selected survey results were compared to certain demographic characteristics of survey respondents and are presented as Appendix C: Comparison of Responses fig Re,poadenl Demograpbirs. Comparing to Other Survey Results Certain kinds of services tend to be thought better of by residents in many communities across the country. Where possible, the better comparison is not from one service to another in Louisville, but from Louisville services to like services provided by other jurisdictions. National Benchmark Database NRC has been leading the strategic use of surveys for local governments since 1991, when the principals of the company wrote the first edition of what became the classic text on citizen surveying. In Cili�en Smvegs: How to do lbom, how to use them, ivbnl they mean, published by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA), we not only articulated the principles for quality survey methods, we pioneered both the idea of benchmark data for citizen opinion and the method for gathering benchmark data. We called it, "In Search of Standards," and argued for norms. "What has been missing from a local government's analysis of its survey results is the context that school administrators can supply when they tell parents how an 80 percent score on the social studies test compares to test results from other school systems..." NBC's database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions whose residents evaluated local government services. Conducted with typically no fewer than 400 residents in each jurisdiction, opinions are intended to represent over 30 million Americans. NRC has innovated a method for quantitatively integrating the results of surveys that we have conducted with those that others have conducted. We have described our integration methods thoroughly in Public Adnriuirtretiat Review, Journal ofPolig lualysis and Manegemenl and in our first book on conducting and using citizen surveys. Scholars who specialize in the analysis of citizen surveys regularly have relied on our work (e.g., Kelly, J. & Swindell, D. (2002)). Service quality variation across urban space: First steps towards a model of citizen satisfaction, Jomriel of Urban 1ffeirr, 24, 271-288.; Van Ryzin, G., Muzzio, D., Immerwahr, S., Gulick, L. & Martinez, ES. (2004); Drivers and consequences of citizen satisfaction: An application of the American Customer Satisfaction Index Model to New York City, Public /Icbninhireilion Review, 64, z 0 0 N J of Louisville Citizen Su August 2008 331-341). The method described in those publications is refined regularly and statistically tested on a grooving number of citizen surveys in our proprietary database. NBC's work on calculating national norms for resident opinions about service delivery and quality of life won the Samuel C. May award for research excellence from the Western Governmental Research Association. The Role of Comparisons Normative comparisons are used for benclimarking. Jurisdictions use the comparative information to help interpret their own citizen survey results, to create or revise community plans, to evaluate the success of policy or budget decisions and to measure local government performance. We do not know what is small or large without comparing. Taking the pulse of the community has little meaning without knowing what pulse rate is too high and what is too low. When surveys of service satisfaction turn up "good" citizen evaluations, we need to know how others rate their services to understand if "good" is good enough. Furthermore, in the absence of national or peer community comparisons, a jurisdiction is left comparing its fire protection rating to its street maintenance rating. That comparison is unfair. Streets always lose to fire. We need to ask more important and harder questions. We need to know how residents' ratings of Fire service compare to opinions about fire service in other communities. A police department that provides the fastest and most efficient service — one that closes most of its cases, solves most of its crimes and keeps the crime rate low — still has a problem to fix if the residents in the city it intends to protect believe services are not very good compared to ratings given by residents in other cities to their own objectively "worse" departments. The normative data can help that police department — or any city department — to understand how well citizens think it is doing. Without the comparative data, it would be like bowling in a tournament without knowing what the other teams are scoring. We recommend that citizen opinion be used in conjunction with other sources of data about budget, personnel and politics to help managers know how to respond to comparative results. jurisdictions in the normative database are distributed geographically across the country and range from small to large in population size. Comparisons may be made to subsets of jurisdictions (within a given region or population category such as Front Range jurisdictions). Most commonly (including in this report), comparisons are made to all jurisdictions. Despite the differences in jurisdiction characteristics, all are in the business of providing local government services to residents. Though individual jurisdiction circumstances, resources and practices vary, the objective in every community is to provide services that are so timely, tailored and effective that residents conclude the services are of the highest quality. High ratings in any jurisdiction, like SAT scores in any teen household, bring pride and a sense of accomplishment. Comparison of Louisville to the Benchmark Database Normative comparisons have been provided when similar questions on the Louisville survey are included in NBC's database and there are at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked, though most questions are compared to more than five other cities across the country or in the Front Range. Where comparisons are available, Louisville results are noted as being "above" the norm, "below" the norm or "similar to" the norm. This evaluation of "above," "below" or "similar to" comes from a statistical comparison of Louisville's rating to the benchmark. of Results of Louisville Citizen August Survey Results Quality of Life and Community Several questions on the 2008 survey assessed resident's opinions about the quality of life in Louisville, the quality of a variety of community characteristics and safety in the city. 'Ibis information can be used for local governments to determine the overall climate of the community. Quality of Life The fuse set of questions asked respondents to rate different aspects of quality of life as well as the overall quality of life in Louisville. Nearly all respondents felt that Louisville was an "excellent' or "good" place to live (98%) and raise children (97%), and that the overall quality of life in Louisville was at least "good" (97%). Nine in 10 residents said that their neighborhood was an "excellent" or "good" place to live (92%). Slightly fewer respondents rated Louisville as a place to retire and Louisville as a place to work as "good" or better (79% and 66%, respectively). Please note that a high proportion of respondents selected "don't know" when rating the quality of Louisville as a place to work (33%) and as a place to retire (23%). Percentages reported in the body of the report are for those who had an opinion. For a full set of responses including "don't know," please see Appendivl3: Complete Sa of Fiequeinies. Comparisons of Louisville's quality of life ratings were made to jurisdictions across the nation as well as to those in the Front Range. Louisville received high marks for all aspects of quality of life, with ratings above those given nationally and in the Front Range. Table 1: Aspects of Quality of Life Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion about the quality of National Front Range life in Louisville: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total comparison comparison How do you rate Louisville as a place to live? 66% 32% 2% 0% 100% Above Above How do you rate Louisville as a place to raise children? 66% 31 % 2% 1 % 100% Above Above How do you rate your neighborhood as a place to live? 53% 39% 7% 1% 100% Above Above How do you rate Louisville as a place to retire? 37% 43% 18% 3% 100% Above Above How do you rate Louisville as a place to work? 26% 40% 24% 10% 100% Above Above How do you rate the overall quality of life in Louisville? 58% 39% 3°% 0% 100% Above Above of Results of Louisville Citizen Su August When compared to 2004 results, most aspects of quality of life remained stable in 2008. A higher proportion of respondents in 2008 than in 2004 rated I.,ouisville as a place to retire as "excellent" or "good" (79% in 2008 versus 69% in 2004). Ratings for the other aspects of quality of life were similar in 2004. Louisville as a place to raise children and overall quality of life in the city has trended upward since 1994. Flow do you rate Louisville as a place to I ive? How do you rate Louisville as a place to raise children? How do you rate your neighborhood as a place to I ive? How do you rate Louisville as a place to retire? How do you rate Louisville as a place to work? How do you rate the overall quality of life in Louisville? Figure 1: Aspects of Quality of Life Compared by Year 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent "excellent" or "good" 008 004 994 990 *Some question characteristics (i.e., question wording and scale) changed between survey years. To see the comparison of question wording across all survey years, see Appendix E: Comparison of Question Characteristics by Year. These questions were not asked in 7999. Responses to aspects of quality of life were compared by respondent characteristics. Older residents (55+) were more likely to give favorable ratings to the city as a place to work than were their younger counterparts. hemale respondents gave more positive ratings to Louisville as a place to retire than did male respondents. Residents who were registered to vote were more likely to rate ]-tiuisville as a place to raise children as "excellent" or "good" than were those not registered to vote. See llppendix C: Comf Aron of Respoijises by Reipoindow Demogrnpbzcs for more information about cross tabulations of survey results, IN u of Louisville Citizen August 2008 Community Characteristics Survey respondents were provided with a list of 24 characteristics of Louisville and asked to evaluate the quality of each characteristic. In general, residents were happy with the quality of characteristics in the community. Nine in 10 or more residents said that the overall image or reputation of Louisville (95%), ease of walking (90%), Louisville's overall appearance (89%), ease of bicycle travel (89%), ease of car travel (88%), air quality (87%) and quality of overall natural environment (87%) was "excellent" or "good." Less than half of respondents felt that the shopping opportunities, availability of affordable quality housing and employment opportunities were "good" or better (46%, 39% and 33% "excellent" or "good," respectively). Between half and 85% of respondents rated all other characteristics as at least "good" One -quarter or fewer rated each characteristic as "poor." (See the table on the following page.) Please note that 20% or more of respondents said "don't know" when raring the quality of the following characteristics: opportunities to volunteer, opportunities to participate in community matters, employment opportunities, availability of affordable quality child care, availability of preventive health services and ease of bus travel in Louisville. For a full set of responses including "don't know," see /lppen&x 13: C,'omplele Set of Frequentie .. All community characteristics were compared to the national benchmark. Twenty-three of the 24 characteristics were rated higher than the national average. Louisville residents gave a similar rating to that of residents in other jurisdictions across the country for shopping opportunities. Sixteen of the 24 community characteristics could be compared to the Front Range benchmark. Twelve characteristics were rated above the Front Range average. Opportunities to attend cultural activities, availability of affordable quality housing and employment opportunities were given ratings similar to that of other Front Range jurisdictions, while shopping opportunities was rated below the benchmark. 10 Task Description Project Overview The City of Fort Collins is a unique place that is home to Colorado State University (CSU) students as well as to more than 100,000 year-round residents. In recent years, hort Collins has been named by numerous publications as a top achiever in its offerings to its residents. Among those achievements, in 2008 the City was ranked second out of 100 of America's best small cities by CNNMoney.co rr.t As part of its continued dedication to becoming a world -class city, Fort Collins frequently gathers resident opinion and seeks to conduct its fourth city-wide Citizen Service/Quality of Life Survey. The city previously conducted surveys in 2001, 2003 and 2006. Using residents as a resource is integral to gauging perceptions of the overall quality of life in Fort Collins, the quality of services provided by the City and satisfaction with the local government. NRC proposes to mail a survey to 1,800 randomly selected households within the City of Fort Collins, plus 200 CSU students Living on -campus in dormitories or student housing. This split of the sample is our initial recommendation for sub -sample sizes, and is based on the previous representation of CSU students in the sample as well as the relative proportion of students in the community. We would seek to collaborate with the City to determinc any desirable adjustments to these proportions to ensure that the sampling proportions best meet the project's needs. We also anticipate collaboration to finalize the methodology that will be used for the 2008 Citizen Survey. NRC understands the importance of high response rates and quality methodology so the data can stand up to the scrutiny of the public and media, and remain reliable and valid for comparison over time. We have included a primary cost estimate fora community -wide mailed survey as well as estimates for optional services (i.e., adding a Web component) from which the City can choose. Following is an outline of the proposed chronological activities for this project. NRC will: • Meet with City of Fort Collins staff at project start to discuss the history of the survey and transfer any necessity materials and data to begin the survey process • Work with City staff to Line -tune, if necessary, the proposed survey methodology • Work with City staff to finalize a timeline estimating the completion date of each required task • Using the 2006 survey, work with City staff to develop and finalize the 2008 survey that will assess the objectives outlined in the City's budgeting process such as perceptions and information regarding quality of life, City services and programs and the local government • Meet with City staff prior to survey administration to solidify all materials and malting dates and address any questions staff may have • Coordinate all aspects of the data collection (such as printing, mailings, collection of surveys, etc.) • Clean and convert all data into electronic format • Weight the data according to population norms for the City of Fort Collins and then analyze the data • Produce a report of results including basic frequencies, comparisons to previous survey administrations when available, comparisons to jurisdiction's from NRC's unique benchmark database, cross tabulations of selected results by sociodemographic characteristics, Key Driver Analysis (KDA) and detailed survey research methodology • Afleet with City staff to review the Findings of the 2008 Citizen Survey • Prepare presentation materials for the City of Fort Collins and make presentations of results to the Strategic Issues'1'eam and to City Council t In August of 2008, CNNMoney. and Moneymagazine ranked Fort Collins second on theirlist ofthe 100 best places to live in the United States. Criteria included financial, housing, education, quality of life, leisure and culture, weather, health and neighbors data. --___--_-- _-.._------- . _._..._..___ _.._..... _..---- .._--------- ._. _... __.-. _._... The City of Fort Collins 2008 Citizen Survey Proposal from National Research Center, Inc. 1 of Louisville Citizen Table 2: Community Characteristics 2008 Please rate each of the following characteristics as u $ 'A °o 0 the relate to Louisville as a Y x „ W National Front Range whole: comparison comparison Overall image or reputation of Louisville 51 % 44% 4% 0% 100% Above Above Ease of walking in Louisville 49% 42% 9% 1 % 100% Above Above Overall appearance of Louisville 27% 62% 10% 1 % 100% Above Above Ease of bicycle travel in Louisville 44% 44% 11 % I % 100% Above Above Ease of car travel in Louisville 36% 52% 10% 2% 100% Above Above Air quality 24% 63% 12% 1 % 100% Above Above Quality of overall natural environment in Louisville 31 % 56% 12% 1% 100% Above NA Recreational opportunities 35% 51% 13% 2% 100% Above Above Overall lighting in the City 19% 64% 15% 2% 100% Above Above Sense of community 34% 48 % 16% 2% 100% Above Above Availability of preventive health services 27% 53% 15% 4% 100% Above NA Traffic flow on major streets 20% 58% 18% 4% 100% Above NA Opportunities to volunteer 23% 54 % 19% 4% 100% Above NA Opportunities to participate in community matters 22% 53% 21 % 3% 100% Above NA Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 21 % 51 % 24% 4% 100% Above NA Availability of affordable quality food 18% 53% 25% 4% 100% Above NA Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds - 18% 48% 27% 6% 1()0°% Above Above Ease of bus travel in Louisville 24% 44% 24% 9% 100% Above Above Variety of housing options 12% 49% 30% 10% 100% Above NA Opportunities to attend cultural activities 16% 44% 34% 6% 100% Above Similar Availability of affordable U quality child care 13% 37% 36% 14% 100% Above Above Shopping opportunities 10% 36% 40% 14% 100% Similar Below v = Availability of affordable quality housing 7% 32% 38% 23 % 100% Above Similar t Employment opportunities 6% 26% 46% 21% 100% Above Similar °^ of Results 11 of Louisville Citizen August 2008 Community characteristics that were rated more favorably in 2008 than in 2004 included ease of bicycle travel in Louisvillc (89% said "excellent" or "good" in 2008 versus 79% in 2004), ease of car travel in Louisville (88% versus 76%), air quality (87/ versus 79%), sense of community (82% versus 76%), traffic flow on major streets (78% "excellent" or "good" versus 61% "minor problem" or "not a problem") and opportunities to attend cultural activities (60% versus 49%). Shopping opportunities received lower ratings in 2008 than in 2004 (46% rated as "good" or better in 2008 versus 60% in 2004). Please note that differences in ratings between 2008 and 2004 may be at least partially attributable to changes in question characteristics. See llppendiv l • Gonrparzron of'Ohrertion C'baraaeu..s ics by Year for detailed notes on question differences across years. Table 3: Community Characteristics Compared by Year Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Percent "excellent" or "good"* Louisville as a whole: 2008 2004 1994 1990 Overall image or reputation of Louisville 95% NA NA NA Ease of walking in Louisville 90% 88% . NA NA Overall appearance of Louisville 89% 85% NA NA Ease of bicycle travel in Louisville 89% 79% NA NA Ease of car travel in Louisville 88% 76% NA NA Air quality..... 87% 79% 84% 84% Quality of overall natural environment in Louisville 87% NA NA NA Recreational opportunities 85% 80% NA NA Overall lighting in the City 83% 82% 75% NA Sense of community 82% 76% NA NA Availability of preventive health services 80% NA NA NA Traffic flow on major streets 78% 61 % NA NA Opportunities to volunteer 77% NA 27% NA Opportunities to participate in community matters 75% NA 40% NA Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 73% NA 79% NA Availability of affordable quality food 71 % 69% NA NA Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 67% 68% NA NA Ease of bus travel in Louisville 67% 62% NA NA Variety of housing options 61 % NA NA NA Opportunities to attend cultural activities 60% 49% 41 % NA Availability of affordable quality child care 50% 50% NA NA Shopping opportunities 46% 60% NA NA Availability of affordable quality housing 39% 30% 32% NA Employment opportunities 33% 25% NA NA *Some question characteristics (i.e., question wording and scale) changed between survey years. to see the comparison v of question wording across all survey years, see Appendix E: Comparison of Question Characteristics by Year. These U questions were notasked in 1999. s V Residents age 18 to 34 were more likely to give positive ratings to the availability of affordable v quality housing than were those ages 35 and older. Those living m Louisville for more than 10 years 9 Y b' g;.'. g } were less likely to give favorable ratings to the availability of affordable quality housing than were o residents who had lived in the city for a shorter period of time. Female residents felt a greater sense z of community than did male residents. See llppendiv Ci Gornpemison of Rerponse.by Rc. ponelet6 0 Dem greiphicr for more information about crosstabulations of survey results. 0 of Resu of Louisville Citizen August2008 Safety in Louisville New to the 2008 survey was a question about how safe Louisville residents felt from different types of crime and from environmental hazards. Ninety percent or more of respondents said that they felt "very" or "somewhat" safe from violent crime, environmental hazards and property crimes; 2% or less reported feeling unsafe from each item. Louisville ratings were higher than those given by other jurisdictions across the country and Front Range. Front Range comparisons for safety from environmental hazards were not available. Table 4: Safety From Crime and Environmental Hazards w v Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in > o v o o ' w ~ National Front Range Louisville: > comparison comparison Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 74% 23% 3% 0% 0% 100% Above Above Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 61 % 31 % 7% 1 % 0% 100% Above NA Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 44% 47% 7% 2% 0% 100% Above Above Figure 2: Ratings of Safety From Crime and Environmental Hazards Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) Environmental hazards, including toxic waste Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent "very" or "somewhat" safe of Results 13 of Louisville Citizen August2008 As in 2004, respondents were asked to rate how safe they felt in various areas throughout the city. Generally, Louisville residents reported feeling safe in the city. Almost all respondents (94% or more) felt "very" or "somewhat" safe in each of the various areas around Louisville, except in Louisville parks after dark where 85% said they felt at least "somewhat" safe. All safety ratings were above those given by residents in other communities across the nation and in the P'ront Range. Table 5: Safety in Various Public Areas w b Please rate how safe v > o •v o` E o v National Front Range you feel: Z `^ > comparison comparison In Louisville's downtown area during the day 88% 11 % 1 % 0% 0% 100% Above Above In Louisville's parks during the day 87% 12% 1 % 1 °% 0% 100% Above Above In your neighborhood during the day 88% 10% 1 % 1 % 0% 100% Above Above In your neighborhood after dark 58% 37% 3% 1% 0% 100% Above Above In Louisville's downtown area after dark 57% 37% 5% 1% 0% 100% Above Above In Louisville's parks after dark 34% 50% 10% 5% 1 % 100% Above Above 14 of Louisville Citizen August 2008 Overall, safety ratings given in 2008 were similar to those in 2004, though a higher proportion of respondents noted feeling safer in Louisville's parks after dark in 2008 than in 2004 (85% versus 74%). Figure 3: Safety in Various Public Areas Compared by Year I n Louisville's downtown area during the day In Louisville's parks during the day In your neighborhood during the day In your neighborhood after dark In Louisville's downtown area after dark In Louisville's parks after dark 11 99% 98 98 % 98 % 98 % 98 % 5% t% r° A 200 8 12004 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent "very safe" or "safe" 15 of Louisville Citizen August 2008 City Services and Departments Two pages of the Five -page survey were devoted to gathering information about the quality of City services and departments. Gauging residents' perceptions about the quality of City services and the job City departments are doing can be invaluable for local governments to set budget priorities and determine which, if any, specific services and departments offer opportunities for improvement. General City Services Overall, residents rated the quality of 13 different City services positively. Fire services (97% "excellent" or "good"), ambulance/emergency medical services (95%), public schools (89%) and services to seniors (88%) topped the list of services, with large majority of respondents saying these services were "good" or better. "T"hough rated as "excellent" or "good" by half of residents (48%), services to low-income people received the lowest quality ratings. Please note that between 22% and 70% of respondents answered "don't know" when rating most of the City services. Fora full set of responses including "don't know," see Appenskv B: Comp/ele yel of r'requeusies.. When compared to other communities across the country and in the Front Range, Louisville's ratings for all City services compared favorably. Table 6: Quality of City Services How do you rate the quality of each of the following services in Louisville? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total National comparison Front Range comparison Fire services 60% 37% 3% 0% 100% Above Above Ambulance/emergency medical services 53% 42% 4% 1 % 100% Above Above Public schools 45% 45°% 9% 1°% 100% Above Above Services to seniors 35% 52% 11 % 2% 100% Above Above Health services 33% 52% 11% 4% 100% Above Above Services to youth 29% 54% 14% 3% 100% Above Above Louisville public information sources 16% 62% 19% 2% 100% Above Above Bus/transit services 22% 53% 18% 6% 100% Above Above Building inspection 18% 54% 22% 5% 100% Above Above Amount of public Parking downtown 18% 49% 26% 6% 100% Above Above Land use, planning and zoning 16% 47% 29% 9°% 100% Above Above v Economic development 11% 48% 33% 8% 1.00% Above Above Services to low-income people 15% 33% 28% 24°% 100% Above Above v v ti 0 z 0 0 ry J 16 of Louisville Citizen st 2008 Services to youth (83% "excellent" or "good" in 2008 versus 76% in 2004), bus/transit services (76% versus 68%), the amount of public parking downtown (67% versus 61%) and services to low- income people (48% versus 37%) each received higher ratings in 2008 than in 2004. Other city services received similar evaluations in 2008 as in 2004. Table 7: Quality of City Services Compared by Year How do you rate the quality of each of the following services in Louisville? Percent 2008 "excellent" or "good"* 2004 1994 1990 Fire services 97% '.. 97% NA NA Ambulance/emergency medical services 95% 96% NA NA Public schools 89% 86% 69% NA Services to set)iors 88% 83% 72% 90% Health services 85% 84% 78% NA Services to youth 83% 76% NA 74% Louisville public information sources 78% NA NA 76% Bus/transit services 76% 68% NA NA Building inspection 73% NA NA NA Amount of public parking downtown 67% 61 % NA NA Land use, planning and zoning 63% NA NA NA Economic development 59% NA NA NA Services to low-income people 48% 37% NA NA *Sorne question characteristics (i.e., question wording and scale) changed between survey years, to see the comparison of question wording across all survey years, see Appendix E: Comparison of Question Characteristics by Year. These questions were not asked in 1999, 17 of Louisville Citizen August City Administration A set of seven questions was included on the survey about City Administration. Of those who had an opinion, between two-thirds and three-quarters of respondents rated each area of the City Administration as "excellent" or "good." The overall performance of the City government received the most positive evaluation, with 76% saying it was "good" or better. 'The City's response to citizen complaints or concerns and programming on Louisville cable'PV were given slightly lower ratings (66% felt each of these items was "excellent" or "good"), Please note that 20% or more of respondents said "don't know" to some of the questions regarding City Administration. For a full set of responses including "don't know," see Ilppeneliv B: Complete Sel of Mequendes. I'ach of the four items that could be compared to the national benchmark was rated higher than the average. The City's Web site and the overall performance of the City government were above the Front Range benchmark. Table 8: Quality of City Administration Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion about the performance of the following areas of the City of Louisville National Front Range Administration: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total comparison comparison Availability of City Employees 19% 55% 21 % 5°% 100% NA NA Information about City Council, Planning Commission and other official City meetings Louisville Web site (www.ci.louisvi I le.co. us) Information about City plans and programs City response to citizen complaints or concerns Programming on Louisville cable TV, municipal channel 8 Overall performance of Louisville City 20% 54% 24% 3% 100% NA NA 15% 56% 24% 4% 100% Above Above 14% 53% 28% 6% 100% -. NA NA 1.3% 52% 25% 10% 100% Above NA 11% 56% 25% 9% - 100% Above NA government 11% 65% 22% 3% 100% Above Above of Results City of Louisville Citizen August 2008 The availability of City employees (74% "excellent" or "good" in 2008 versus 66% in 2004) and programming on Louisville cable'I V, municipal channel 8 (66% versus 60%) were rated more favorably in 2008 than in 2004. Similar ratings to 2004 were given to the other City Administration areas in 2008. Table 9: Quality of City Administration Compared by Year Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion about Percent "excellent" or "good"* the performance of the following areas of the City of Louisville Administration: 2008 2004 1999 1994 1990 Availability of City Employees 74% 66% 68% 51 % 91 % Information about City Council, Planning Commission and other official City meetings 73% 74% 64% 46% NA Louisville Web site (www.ci.louisville.co.us) 71 % 75% 57% NA NA Information about City plans and programs 67% 69% 67% NA NA City response to citizen complaints or concerns 66% 65% 61 % 47% NA Programming on Louisville cable TV, municipal channel 8 66%" 60% 63% NA NA Overall performance of Louisville City government 76% 75% 75% 56% 65% *Some question characteristics (i.e., question wording and scale) changed between survey years. to see the comparison of question wording across all survey years, see Appendix E: Comparison of Question Characteristics by Year. 19 of Louisville Citizen 2008 Public Safety Nine in 10 or more survey respondents stated that the 911 services (95%), safety of their neighborhood (94%) and the overall performance of the Louisville Police Department (89%) were "excellent" or "good." About four out of five respondents felt that the visibility of patrol cars and the enforcement of traffic regulations was "good" or better (84% and 83%, respectively). "I'wo-thirds said that municipal code enforcement issues, such as dogs, noise and weeds, was at least "good." Please note that 56% of respondents selected the "don't know" response option when rating the quality of 911 services. For a full set of responses including "don't know," seeAppe&#,N: 3: Complete Sel of I'tvquenaes. All but one public safety area could be compared to the nation. Safety of your neighborhood, visibility of patrol cars, enforcement of traffic regulations, municipal code enforcement issues and the overall performance of the Louisville Police Department were each rated higher than the national benchmark. The three areas that were compared to the front Range benchmark wereall rated above the average. Table 10: Quality of Louisville Public Safety Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion about the following areas of Louisville Public National Front Range Safety: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total comparison comparison 911 service 53% 42% 5% 0% 100% NA NA Safety of your neighborhood 61 % 33% 5% 1 % 100% Above NA Visibility of patrol cars Enforcement of traffic regulations Municipal code enforcement issues (dogs, noise, weeds, etc.) 40% 44% 11% 5% 100% 29% 54% 12% 4% 100% 24% 43% 22% 10% 100% Above NA Above Above Above Above Overall performance of the Louisville Police Department 35% 55% 9% 2% 100% Above Above of Results 20 Scope of Work Staff at NRC includes some of this country's most experienced survey practitioners. Our data collection methods are meticulous and transparent so that those working on future administrations of the City of Fort Collins survey will have a roadmap to continue the trendlines on citizen ratings. We do not trade off accuracy to offer lowest prices, though we remain sensitive to budget constraints. This means that we take care to develop the sampling frame (all those eligible to participate in the survey), to make multiple contacts to each eligible household, to select without bias the household member to participate, to oversee carefully the mailing to provide accurate and daily activity counts, and to ensure accurate representation of the entire Fort Collins population by weighting the data —as well as to offer easy access to our client of any NRC project team staff. Task 1: Developing the Questionnaire NRC will use the 2006 survey as the basis for the 2008 questionnaire. NRC plans to meet with City staff at the start of the project to transfer any necessary background or project information as well as discuss proposed survey questions. In developing the survey, NRC will work closely with the City to maximize the quantity and quality of information provided by respondents while not overburdening them, and will collaborate with the City to ensure any new questions added to the survey effectively evaluate the objectives laid out by the City Council and City management team. We also will ensure that questions are crafted so that they will lead to quantified, statistically valid outcomes. NRC is skilled in malting this process as effortless as possible for our clients, and has significant experience designing survey and data collection scripts and protocols for all study designs including phone, mail, Web and in -person surveys and focus groups, including both quantitative and qualitative approaches and designs intended to capture data over time. We have developed more than 1,000 citizen surveys in the past 10 years. We are experts at turning citizen satisfaction data into actionable results that matter to policy makers, public managers and the public at large and this begins with survey development. From the start of the project, we are sure to understand how results will be used and what the City wants to know, so that questions are crafted to most closely match the project goals and needs. Task 2: Sampling Sample Size Survey research always requires a reasoned balance between resources and data collection design, including sample size.'lhe relationship between sample size and precision at the .95 confidence interval or margin of error is shown in the accompanying table. For many projects, a smaller sample size may, be appropriate and a relatively larger margin of error acceptable. Larger sample sizes are advisable when a priority is to compare responses over time or by subgroups of the population (e.g., geography). 'I'he table at the right can be interpreted as follows: If 60% of Sample Size Margin of Error 1,000 respondents reported that "public libraries" provide 100 10% "excellent" service, we can be confident that, had we gotten 400 5% ratings from all residents in the City, somewhere between 800 4% 57% and 63% would have responded that public libraries 1.000 3% provide excellent service. 2,000 2% Based on the 2006 survey methods and response rate, NRC recommends mailing 2,000 surveys in order to receive approximately 650 to 850 completed surveys, which would provide a margin of error between 3% and 4%. Of the 2,000 surveys, 1,800 would be mailed to randomly selected households within the City and 200 would be sent to a random sample of CSU students living on -campus. __. The City of Fort Collins 2008 Citizen Survey Proposal from National Research Center, Inc. 2 of Louisville Citizen August 2008 Most 2008 Public Safety ratings were similar to those given in 2004 by Louisville residents. I Iowevcr, more residents rated the enforcement of traffic regulations as "excellent" or "good" in 2008 than in 2004 (83% versus 75%, respectively). Figure 4: Quality of Louisville Public Safety Compared by Year 911 service Safety of your neighborhood Visibility of patrol cars Enforcement of traffic regulations Municipal code enforcement issues (dogs, noise, weeds, etc.) Overall performance of the Louisville Police Department f 2008 �9 2004 01999 st 1994 1990 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent "excellent" or 'good" *Some question characteristics (i.e., question wording and scale) changed between survey years. To see the comparison of question wording across all survey years, see Appendix E: Comparison of Question Characteristics by Year. of Results 21 c1 of Louisville Citizen August2008 Traffic Regulations Within the realm of public Safety were a few questions regarding the enforcement of traffic regulations. When asked if the enforcement of parking regulations was too tough, about right or too lenient, nearly all respondents felt it was "about right" (91%). About three-quarters of residents said that the enforcement of speed limits and municipal code issues was "about right." No more than 15% of respondents reported the enforcement of each of these regulations to be "too tough." Please note that 25% of respondents- answered "don't know" when assessing the enforcement of parking regulations and 32% said "don't know" to municipal code issues. For a full set of responses including "don't know," see,Appendn: B: Co vplete,Set of Prequender. Table 11: Traffic Regulations To what extent do you feel that enforcement of the following general traffic regulations is too About tough or too lenient? Too tough right Too lenient Total Parking regulations 7% 91 % 2% 100% Speed limits 15% 77% 8% 100% Municipal code issues 15% 74% 12% 100% The 2008 responses for these questions- were similar to those given in 2004. Ratings have increased since these questions were first asked in 1994. Figure 5: Traffic Regulations Compared by Year Parking regulations Speed limits Municipal code issues 08 04 99 94 0% 20% 40% 60% 80°% 100% Percent "about right'" *Some question characteristics (i.e., question wording and scale) changed between survey years. To see the comparison of question wording across all survey years, see Appendix E: Comparison of Question Characteristics by Year. These questions were not asked in 1990. of Results 22 of Louisville Citizen 2008 Planning and Building The overall performance of the Building Safety Division was rated highly, with 7 in 10 respondents saying it was "excellent" or "good." Code enforcement on building issues, the public input process on City planning issues and the permit process for remodeling work were rated as "good" or better by two-thirds of residents. Three in five respondents noted that the overall performance of the Planning Department (61%) and the planning review process for new development (59%) were at least "good." About '1 in 10 residents rated each of these areas of Louisville Planning and Building as "excellent" Please note that half or more of respondents selected "don't know" when rating each area of Planning and Building. Fora full set of responses including "don't know," see llppen(#, B: Complete Sel of I- iegrteucies. Only the overall performance of the Louisville Planning Department was able to be compared to the benchmark database. Louisville residents rated the overall Planning Department's performance higher than ratings given in other jurisdictions across the nation. Front Range comparisons were not available for these questions. Table 12: Quality of Louisville Planning and Building Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion about the following areas of Louisville Planning and National Front Range Building: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total comparison comparison Code enforcement on building issues 12% 57% 23% 8% 100% NA NA The public input process on City planning issues 12% 53% 25% 10% 100% NA NA Permit process for remodeling work 13% 51% 24% 11% 100% NA NA Planning review process for new development 8% 51% 29% 12% 100% NA NA Overall performance of the Louisville Building Safety Division 12% 60% 25% 2% 100% NA NA Overall performance of the Louisville Planning Department 10% 51% 11% 6% 100% Above NA 23 of Louisville Citizen Su August Higher ratings were given to the following areas of Louisville Building and Planning in 2008 than in 2004: code enforcement on building issues (69`%n "excellent" or "good" in 2008 versus 60% in 2004), permit process for remodeling work (64% versus 56%) and the overall performance of the Louisville Building Safety Division (72% versus 60%). All other areas had similar ratings when comparing the 2008 and 2004 survey administrations. Figure 6: Quality of Louisville Planning and Building Compared by Year Code enforcement on building issues The public input process on City planning issues Permit process for remodeling work Planning review process fornew development Overall performanceof the Louisville Building Safety Division Overall performance of the Louisville Planning Department 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent "excellent" or "good"* *Some question characteristics (i.e., question wording and scale) changed between survey years. To see the comparison of question wording across all survey years, see Appendix E: Comparison of Question Characteristics by Year. These questions were not asked in 1994 or 7990. — v c w V s u `r v w rr w c O Z co 0 0 N of 24 of Louisville Citizen August2008 Parks and Recreation Survey respondents were given a list of 14 services provided by the Parks and Recreation Department and asked to rate the quality of each. Louisville residents rated each area favorably, with two-thirds or more reporting "excellent" or "good." (See the table on the following page.) Maintenance of the trail system (92%) and the adequacy of parks, bike paths, playing fields and playgrounds (91%) received the highest ratings. Eighty-eight percent of respondents said the overall performance of the Louisville Parks and Recreation Department was "good" or better. Recreation fees in the city had the lowest rating, though 64% still rated fees as "excellent" or "good." Fewer than 10% of respondents gave "poor" ratings to any area in the Parks and Recreation Department. Please note that between 20% and 70% of respondents said "don't know" when rating the quality of the following: current recreation programs for youth, current recreation programs for adults, current programs and services for seniors, overall performance of the Louisville Senior Center, overall performance of the Coal Creek Golf Course, programming at the Louisville Arts Center and maintenance of the cemetery. Fora full set of responses including "don't know," see Appendix 13: C,'onsplae Set of Frequencies. When compared to other jurisdictions across the nation, nine of the 14 Parks and Recreation Department services were rated higher than the benchmark. Overall performance of the Coal Creek Golf Course was similar to the national average for municipal golf courses. Three of the 14 services could be compared to the Front Range benchmark. Maintenance of the trail system, maintenance and cleanliness of the Louisville Recreation Center and the overall performance of the Louisville Recreation Center were rated higher than other Front Range communities. of Results 25 of Louisville Citizen Su August 2008 Table 13: Quality of Louisville Parks and Recreation Department Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion v about the following areas of v o L °o c the Louisville Parks and W V LL a National Front Range Recreation Department: comparison comparison Maintenance of the trail system 42% 50% 8% 1 % 100% Above Above Adequacy of parks, bike paths, playing fields and playgrounds 48% 42% 8% 2% 100°% -. NA NA Current programs and services for seniors 35% 54% 8°% 3% 100% NA NA Overall performance of the Louisville Senior Center 36% 54% 8% 3% 100% Above NA Maintenance of the cemetery 31 °% 58% 9°% 2% 100% Above NA Current recreation programs for youth 33% 55% 10°% 1% 100% Above NA Maintenance and cleanliness of the Louisville Recreation Center 30% 57°% 10°% 2% 100% Above Above Maintenance of open space 39% 49°% 11 % 2% 100°% Above NA Overall performance of the Louisville Recreation Center 27% 54% 15°% 3% 100% Above Above Current recreation programs for adults 23% 57% 18% 3% 100°% NA NA Overall performance of the Coal Creek Golf Course 21 % 54°% 19% 6% 100% Similar NA Programming at the Louisville Arts Center 18% 54% 24% 3°% 100% Above NA Recreation fees in Louisville 17% 47% 29°% 7°% 100% NA NA Overall performance of the Louisville Parks and Recreation Department 28% 60% 11 % 1 °% 100% Above NA A0 26 of Louisville Citizen August 2008 Two services were rated higher in 2008 than in 2004: maintenance of the trail system (92% said "excellent" or "good" in 2008 versus 85% in 2004) and recreation fees in Louisville (64% versus 55%). All other Parks and Recreation services had similar ratings in 2008 when compared to 2004. Table 14: Quality of Louisville Parks and Recreation Department Compared by Year Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion about the Percent "excellent" or "good"* following areas of the Louisville Parks and Recreation Department: 2008 2004 1999 1994 Maintenance of the trail system Adequacy of parks, bike paths, playing fields and playgrounds Current programs and services for seniors Overall performance of the Louisville Senior Center Maintenance of the cemetery Current recreation programs for youth Maintenance and cleanliness of the Louisville Recreation Center Maintenance of open space Overall performance of the Louisville Recreation Center Current recreation programs for adults Overall performance of the Coal Creek Golf Course Programming at the Louisville Arts Center Recreation fees in Louisville Overall performance of the Louisville Parks and Recreation 92% 85% 79% NA 91 % 86% 81 % 84% 89% 86% 87% 78% 89% 86% 86% NA 89% 88% NA NA 88% 86% 80% NA 88% 85% NA NA 87% 85% NA NA 82% 82% 84% NA 79% 77% 75% NA 75% 71 % 87% 80% 73% 69% 79% NA 64% 55% 60% 67% Uepartment 88% 84% 86% NA *Some question characteristics (i.e., question wording and scale) changed between survey years. To see the comparison of question wording across all survey years, see Appendix E: Comparison of Question Characteristics by Year. These questions were not asked in 1990. is 27 City of Louisville Citizen August 2008 Public Library Six questions on the survey assessed the quality of the Louisville Public Library services. Louisville residents gave positive ratings to the library services. Nine in 10 or more respondents felt that the quality of the library facility (96%), programs (93%), services (92%), Internet and computer services (90%) and the overall performance of the Louisville Public Library (94%) were "excellent" or "good." Three out of four residents rated the library materials and collections as "good" or better. The quality of each library service was viewed as "excellent" by about one-third or more of survey respondents. Please note that a high proportion of respondents selected "don't know" when rating the quality of most library services. Fora full sec of responses including "don't know," see Appendix B: Complao Set of 1"mquendes. National benchmark comparisons were available for five of the six library services. Fach I.,ouisville service was rated higher than the national average. The overall performance of the Louisville Public Library was compared to the Front Range benchmark and was given higher ratings than those given in other communities in the region. Table 15: Quality of the Louisville Public Library Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion about the Louisville Public Library National Front Range and its services: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total comparison comparison Louisville Public Library facility 65% 31% 3% 1% 100% Above NA Louisville Public Library programs 47% 46% 6% 1 % 100% NA NA Louisville Public Library services 52% 40% 6% 2% 100% Above NA Louisville Public Library Internet and computer services 48% 42% 9% 1 % 100% Above NA Louisville Public Library materials and collections 38% 39% 20% 4% 100% Above NA Overall performance of the Louisville Public Library 47% 47% 5% 1 % 100% Above Above of Results 28 of Louisville Citizen August When comparisons were available, all 2008 library ratings were higher than those given in 2004, which is not unexpected since a new library facility was constructed after the 2004 survey. Over time, the quality of aspects of the library has increased. Figure 7: Quality of the Louisville Public Library Compared by Year Louisville Public Li brary faci lity Louisville Public Library programs Louisville Public Library services Louisville Public Library Internet and computer services Louisville Public Library materials and col Iect ions Overall performance of the Louisville Public Library 6% /e 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent "excellent" or "good"* A2008 R12004 1999 1994 1990 *Some question characteristics (i.e., question wording and scale) changed between survey years. I o see the comparison of question wording across all survey years, see Appendix E: Comparison of Question Characteristics by Year. Results 29 of Louisville Citizen August 2008 Public Works A series of questions on the survey asked about the quality of a variety of areas of Louisville Public Works. The quality of Louisville water was rated highly, with 89% of respondents saying it was "excellent" or "good." The overall performance of Louisville Public Works (84% "excellent' or "good"), handicap access on sidewalks/crosswalks (84%) and street lighting, signage and street markings (82%) also were among the top -rated Public Works areas. Just over half of residents (55%) felt that snow removal/street sanding was "good" or better, with 2 in 10 reporting it as "poor." Six of the time services could be compared to the national benchmark. Each service received ratings above those given by residents in other jurisdictions across the country, except for snow removal/sanding, which was given a rating below the national average. The quality of Louisville water, street maintenance in Louisville, street sweeping and snow removal/street sanding all were given higher ratings than in other Front Range communities. Table 16: Quality of Louisville Public Works Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion about the performance of the following areas of Louisville Public Works: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total National comparison Front Range comparison Quality of Louisville water 39% 50% 10% 2% 100% Above Above Handicap access on sidewalks/crosswalks 26% 59% 14% 2% 100% NA NA Street lighting, signage and street markings 23% 59% 15% 3% 100% Above NA Street maintenance in Louisville 15% 63% 18% 3% 100% Above Above Street sweeping 20% 54% 21 % 5% 100% Above Above Bike lanes on Louisville streets 19% 51% 24% 6% 100% NA NA Street maintenance in your neighborhood 17% 52% 23% 8% 100% NA NA Snow removal/street sanding 14% 41 % 27% 17% 100% Below Above Overall performance of Louisville Public Works 19% 65% 15% 1 % 100% Above NA 30 CSU students make up about 19% of the total population of Port Collins. Of the approximately 24,000 students enrolled at CSU, about 18% live in group quarters such as dorntitories, which equates to about 4% of the entire City of Fort Collins population. Young adults 18 to 24 years of age tend to respond at lower rates than older residents. During the data weighting stage, we will compare the representation of students among all survey respondents and evaluate whether an adjustment is necessary so that students are represented in the final dataset in their correct proportion. NRC expects that sampling approximately 200 students will allow for a fair response from this group. Sample Selection Selecting Sample Households In our experience, sampling strategies also require ingenuity. Because the data collection method we recommend is mail and the aim is to ensure generalization to the entire population (not just homeowners, or voters, for example), the basis of the random sample will be a household list from the United States Postal Service (which provides the best representation of all households, including accurate apartment labels in multi- family dwellings in a specific geographic location). All housing units (including could-farnily and single-family, both owned and rented) within the boundaries of the City of Port Collins would be eligible for the survey. For the sampling, we will select potential survey respondents via stratified systematic sampling (a method whose statistical properties are equivalent to random sampling). We further advise that the household member who completes the survey be selected without bias. When there is more than one adult 18 or older, we use the "birthday method" for respondent selection. "I'he birthday method requests that the respondent be the adult (18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday (irrespective of the year of birth). Our work across the country has demonstrated that response rates vary by geographic location and respondent characteristics, such as age, income and more, and range from 20% to 60%. Based on the 47% response rate to the 2006 survey, we anticipate a response rate between 35% and 50% for the 2008 survey. Selecting,.. Colorado State University_Students LivinnOn-campus NRC realizes the difficulty in including university students in survey research and what an integral part their opinions play in the decisions the City of Fort Collins makes. Whether it is the time commitment or a lack of interest, it is a challenge to capture the voice of a younger population such as students. Having conducted general population surveys in university towns before, staff at NRC have experience sampling college students living on -campus. University students who live in community housing will be sampled through the regular selection of sampled households mentioned above. NRC will review the previous sampling methods for the selection of University students with City staff. In addition, we plan to contact and work with staff at the University (i.e., Housing and Dining Services or the department of Institutional Research) to try to reach these students. If possible, it will help to have a City staff member facilitate this relationship. We will work with City staff and staff at the Colorado State University to develop an appropriate method for sampling University students in group quarters. Task 3: Contact NRC will meet with the City of Fort Collins project manager and other City staff prior to the survey mailings to review and finalize all mailing materials as well as answer any questions and address any concerns about the tasks ahead. I Iouseholds selected for the survey would first be mailed an invitation postcard announcing their selection for the survey. Approximately one week later, each residence would be mailed a survey, a cover letter from Mayor The City of Fort Collins 2008 Citizen Survey Proposal from National Research Center, Inc. of Louisville Citizen Su August 2008 Ratings for about half of the Public Works services have remained stable since 2004. The quality of Louisville water (89% "excellent" or "good" in 2008 versus 80% in 2004) and bike lanes on Louisville streets (70% versus 64%) were given higher ratings in 2008 than in 2004. Services that received lower ratings in 2008 compared to 2004 were street sweeping (74% versus 82%, respectively) and snow removal/street sanding (55% versus 68%). Differences in snow removal ratings may be due, in part, to the blizzards in the winter of 2006-2007, and this may be the first opportunity residents have had to express frustration about the extreme snowfall. Other Front Range jurisdictions also experienced significant decreases in snow removal ratings after that severe winter. Table 17: Quality of Louisville Public Works Compared by Year Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion about the performance of the following areas of Louisville Public percent "excellent" or "good"* Works: 2008 2004 1999 1994 1990 Quality of Louisville water 89% 80% 82% 79% NA Handicap access on sidewalks/crosswalks 84% 79% 80% NA NA Street lighting, signage and street markings 82% 82% 79% 78% 86% Street maintenance in Louisville 78% 81 % 82% 75% 76% Street sweeping 74% 82% 77% 76% 77% Bike lanes on Louisville streets 70% 64% 66% NA NA Street maintenance in your neighborhood 69% 74% 80% NA NA Snow removal/street sanding 55% 68% 70% 79% 67% Overall performance of Louisville Public Works 84% 83% 86% 85% NA g *Some question characteristics (i.e., question wording and scale) changed between survey years, to see the comparison of question wording across all survey years, see Appendix E: Comparison Of Question Characteristics by Year. It 31 of Louisville Citizen August 2008 Overall Quality of City Services For the first time in 2008, Louisville residents were asked to rate the overall quality of City services. A majority of respondents gave favorable ratings, with 3 in 10 saying the overall quality was "excellent" and 62% selecting "good." Nine percent reported the overall quality of City services was "fair" and no one said it was "poor." Residents rated the overall quality of City services higher than did residents in other jurisdictions across the nation and than did residents in the Front Range. Figure 8: Overall Quality of City Services Poor Good 62% Excellent 29% 32 of Louisville August City Employees \ hen asked if they had any in -person or phone contact with a Louisville employee in the last 12 months, about half (56%) said "yes." "I'his was similar to the level of contact reported in 2004. Figure 9: Contact with City Employee Compared by Year Have you had any in -person or phone contact s' a:x��K h "'.�r '6"f° with an employee of the City of Louisville within 00 the last 12 months (including police, a2008 receptionists, planners or any others)? -��� I 55% 9S12004 0% 20% 40% 60% 80 % 100% Percent "yes" 'The 56% of respondents who reported having contact with a City employee in the last 12 months were asked to rate several characteristics of the employee with whom they had contact. Most residents were satisfied with their interaction with the City employee. More than 8 in 10 respondents felt the employee was knowledgeable (89% said "excellent" or "good"), courteous (86%) and responsive (84%). Eighty-four percent of respondents said their overall impression of the employee was "good" or better. All employee characteristics and residents' overall impression of the employee were given ratings above the national and Front Range benchmarks. Table 18: Quality of City Employees What was your impression of employees of the City of Louisville in your most recent contact? (Rate each National Front Range characteristic below.) Excellent Good Fair Poor Total comparison comparison Knowledge 46% 43% 9% 2% 100% Above Above Courtesy 58% 28% 9% 5% 100% Above Above Responsiveness 51 % 34% 9% 7% 100% Above Above Overall impression 51 % 33% 11 % 5% 100% Above Above Asked only of those who had contact with a City employee in the last 12 months. `w c v U L U N N N K ti C O Z of O O N J of Louisville Citizen August Ratings similar to 2004 were (riven in 2008 for all employee characteristics as well as for the overall impression of the employee. Ratings for the overall impression of City employees was noticeably lower since the first survey administration in 1990, with a dip in 1994 ratings. Differences over time may be at least partially attributable to changes in question characteristics between survey years. Knowledge Con itesy Responsiveness Overall impression Figure 10: Quality of City Employees Compared by Year 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent "excellent" or "good" >C112008 �9 2004 Rs 1994 1990 *Some question characteristics (i.e., question wording and scale) changed between survey years. To see the comparison of question wording across all survey years, see Appendix E: Comparison of Question Characteristics by Year. These questions were not asked in 1999. iii 34 of Louisville Citizen August City's Character To help the City prioritize potential projects, survey respondents were asked to rate the importance of several aspects of Louisville's character. Safety/low crime (96%), open space (91%), passive/active recreation amenities (89%) and the transportation system (87%) were most important to residents, with 9 in 10 or more saying these were "essential" or "very important." Seventy-nine percent said that support for business was "essential" or "very important." "1'wo-thirds of residents seated that community events, historic buildings downtown and tree -lined streets/median landscaping were at least "very important" (68%, 68% and 66%, respectively). Six in 10 said that an additional recreation facility was "essential" or "very important," and just under half (45%) noted personal contact with City staff was at least "very important." No more than 1 in 'f O said that each of these aspects was "not at all important." Table 19: Importance of Aspects of Louisville's Character Please rate how important, if at all, each of the following aspects of Louisville's character is to you: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Total Safety/low crime 73% 23% 4% 0% 100% Open space 66% 24% 8% 1 % 100% Passive/active recreation amenities (e.g., trails, recreation center, parks) 59% 31 % 10% 1 % 100% Transportation system (streets, highways, bus system, trails) 42% 46% 11 % 1 % 100% Support for businesses (a business friendly climate) 34% 46% 18% 2% 100% Community events 26% 42% 28% 3% 100% Historic buildings downtown 32% 36% 26% 6% 100% Tree -lined streets/median landscaping 28% 38% 29% 5% 100% Additional recreation facilities 27% 34% 28% 11 % 100% Personal contact with City staff 12% 33% 44% 11 % 100% 35 of Louisville Citizen Su Figure 11: Importance Ratings of Aspects of Louisville's Character Safety/low crime Open space Passive/active recreation amenities (e.g., trails, recreation center, parks) Transportation system (streets, highways, bus system, trails) Support for businesses (a business friendly climate) Community events Historic buildings downtown Tree -lined streets/median landscaping Additional recreation facilities Personal contact with City staff August 2008 16% /o 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent "essential" or "very important" 36 of Louisville Citizen August 2008 Shopping in Louisville Residents were asked if all things were equal, how important was it to them to shop in Louisville instead of other cities or on the Internet. 'Thirteen percent of respondents said it was "essential' to them and 46% felt it was "very important." One-third reported it was "somewhat important" and 9`%, said it was "not at all important." Figure 12: Importance of Shopping in Louisville Not at all an Somewhat important 32% Essential 13% Very mportant 46% Twelve percent of survey respondents stated that they were "very familiar" with the Shop Louisville program, 39% said they were "somewhat familiar" and half (49%) reported they were "not at all familiar" with the program. Figure 13: Familiarity with Shop Louisville Program Not at all familiar 49 % Very niliar 2% Somewhat familiar 39 % is 37 City of Louisville Citizen August 2008 When looking at the importance of shopping in Louisville by the familiarity of the Shop Louisville program, the more familiar residents were with the program the more likely they were to think it was "essential" or "very important" to shop in Louisville. Table 20: Familiarity with Shop Louisville Program by Importance of Shopping in Louisville Please rate how important, if How familiar, if at all, are you with the Shop Louisville program? at all, it is to you to shop in Somewhat Not at all Louisville. Very familiar familiar familiar Total Essential 5% 4% 5% 13 % Very important 5% 22% 19% 45% Somewhat important 2% 12% 18% 32% Not at all important 1 % 2% 6% 9% Total 12% 39% 49% 100% u `v of Results 38 City of Louisville Citizen Su August2008 Policy Topics The City wanted to know to what extent residents supported or opposed different hinds of development guidelines and characteristics related to the redevelopment of the Highway 42 area. Strong support was voiced for providing green spaces and parks, with 79% strongly supporting this development guideline and 18% somewhat supporting it. Nearly all respondents also supported putting utility lines underground (57% "strongly" supported and 39% "somewhat" supported) and having pedestrian connections to downtown Louisville (67% "strongly" supported and 27/o "somewhat" supported). A majority supported building parking lots/structures (66% supported) and increasing the density of commercial areas (58% supported). Six in 10 respondents "strongly" or "somewhat" opposed increasing height limits on buildings from three to four stories (59% opposed) and increasing the density of residential areas (63% opposed), with one-third strongly opposing each of these two development guidelines. When these questions were compared by respondent characteristics, residents age 55 and older were more likely to support building parking lots/structures than residents under 55 years of age. Male respondents were more likely to support increasing building height limits, the density of commercial areas and the density of residential areas than were females, Registered voters were more supportive of increasing the density of commercial areas than were those not registered to vote. See llppenr/ix C- C'onpoiuorl of Responses Uy Responelertl De1ilgn1phits for more information about cross tabulations of survey results. Table 21: Support for or Opposition to Development Guidelines As the Highway 42 area redevelops east of the railroad tracks, to what extent do you support or oppose each of the following development guidelines or characteristics Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly in Louisville. support support oppose oppose Total Providing green spaces and parks 79% 18% 2% 1 % 100% Putting utility lines underground 57% 39% 2% 1% 100% Pedestrian connections (such as underpasses) to downtown Louisville 67% 27% 4% 3% 100% Building parking lots/structures 16% 50% 21% 13% 100% Increasing density of commercial areas 17% 41 % 26% 16% 100% Increasing height limits on buildings from 3 story to 4 story 13% 28% 27% 32% 100% Increasing density of residential areas 9% 28% 34% 29% 100% Of 39 City of Louisville Citizen Figure 14: Support for or Opposition to Development Guidelines Oppose Support Providing green spaces and parks Putting utility lines underground Pedestrian connections (such as underpasses) to downtown Louisville Building parking lots/structures Increasing density of commercial areas Increasing height limits on buildings from 3 story to 4 story Increasing density of residential areas August 100% -50% 0% 50% 100% Percent of respondents 40 ci Hutchinson enlisting participation and a postage -paid return envelope. Each household would be mailed this packet twice (the second packet will go out one week later).'I'he second cover letter would ask those who have not completed the survey to do so and those who have already done so, to refrain from turning in another survey. NRC would like for the contacts with the random sample of students living on -campus to be via snail, if the University permits. As an alternative, we also could explore collecting survey data from CSU students using Web surveying if the University database identifies whether a student lives in group quarters. If the City is interested in this option, we would be happy to discuss it with you in more detail. NRC staff have collected data for hundreds of projects using varying techniques and have designed hundreds of contact strategies. The most common multi -contact mail survey approach involves three contacts mentioned above, with the proportion of total response typically attributable to each contact as follows: 10% to invitation postcard, 60% to the first survey mailing and 30% to the second survey mailing. For most jurisdictions, this common approach works effectively. For the sample of households, we over sample attached units to compensate for the fact that residents of attached dwellings (typically younger, more active) respond at lower rates than residents of detached units to all types of surveys. We mail the survey, twice because anonymity is promised in the cover letter to enhance the likelihood of honest responses. All responses are held in the strictest confidence and respondent names are never associated with the answers provided on the survey. We take this implicit contract with respondents as a serious principle of the survey trade, which, if violated, harms the survey research industry no less than the client or respondent. Task 4: Data Processing As completed mail surveys are received by NRC, each form is examined for inconsistencies in responses and the data are hand cleaned to maximize accuracy. For example, a question may have asked a respondent to pith two items out of a list of five, but the respondent checked three; NRC staff would choose randomly two of the three selected items to be coded in the dataset. We have found that very little cleaning is needed on most surveys due to our expertise in question construction and survey formatting. Ilowever, more cleaning tends to be needed in surveys containing complicated question structure or skip patterns. We employ a data entry protocol of"key and verify," in which survey data are entered twice into an electronic dataset, and then compared. Discrepancies are evaluated against the original survey form and corrected. "Range checks" are performed on the dataset ensuring that any invalid values are identified and corrected. 'Po create numeric datasets, we create a codebook, identifying the appropriate columns and widths for each variable. We then define each variable in SPSS, receding and computing to create additional variables, as necessary. We will provide the defining syntax file and data file in SPSS format. Qualitative verbatim datasets can be provided in a lvlicrosoftc" Access database or other preferred format. We can also prepare a codebook and methodology statement suitable for publication and use by other researchers, should the City decide to make the data available for public use at some point. Task 5: Data Analysis For quantitative analysis, we rely on the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). We believe that analysis must be replicable and leave a clear path. To this end, we keep every label and command run in SPSS in a syntax file available for audit and re -cunning, as necessary. We also have trained clients on SPSS analysis and, for small recurring analyses, how to use Microsoft© Excel. The City of Fort Collins 2008 Citizen Survey Proposal from National Research Center, Inc. 4 of Louisville Citizen Su 2008 Four survey questions asked residents if they supported or opposed a variety of issues in the city. A majority of residents supported a tax increase for historic preservation purposes, with 20'% showing "strong" support and 44% "somewhat" supporting the tax increase. Sixteen percent of respondents "somewhat" opposed the tax and one in five "strongly" opposed. Figure 15: Support for or Opposition to Historic Preservation Tax Strongly Somewhat oppose 16% Strongly " pport 20% Somewhat support 44 % A large majority of respondents (79%) supported using City -owned open space as a location to install alternative energy sources such as wind turbines and solar panels. Ten percent "somewhat" opposed this initiative and 11% offered "strong" opposition. Figure 16: Support for or Opposition to Installing Alternative Energy Sources on Open Space Strongly oppose 11% Somewh; oppose 10% Strongly )ort Somewhat support i 40 °% v c v V L V N N K 41 @ C O @ z ro 0 0 ry of Louisville Citizen August 2008 Louisville respondents were split about rezoning the area west of McCaslin Boulevard to permit residential as well as commercial development. I-3alf of residents supported rezoning this area and half opposed it. A larger proportion of respondents "strongly" opposed (31%) than "strongly" supported (14%) rezoning. Figure 17: Support for or Opposition to Rezoning West of McCaslin Boulevard Strongly opp< 31' Somewhat oppose 19% Strongly upport 14% Somewhat support 36% Survey respondents voiced strong support for the City contracting with a single trash hauler as long as rates stayed the same or decreased, with 51% "strongly" supporting and 31'% "somewhat" supporting this proposal. One in five "strongly" or "somewhat" opposed the City contracting with a single hauler. Figure 18: Support for or Opposition to the City Contracting with a Single Trash Hauler Somewhat ______ Strongly Somewhat support 31% Strongly support 51% Generally, residents who had lived in Louisville for more than 15 years were less likely to support each of these issues than those who had lived in the city for 15 years or less. Females were more supportive of using City -owned open spaces for alternative energy sources and of the City contracting with a single trash hauler than were males. See Appendix C: C'OmPenz.mir of Re ponces by Reepondew Deilquipbzes for more information about crosstabulations of survey results. of Louisville Citizen August 2008 Importance of Potential Projects Tlie 2008 survey asked residents to rate the importance of 10 potential projects in the city. Future projects most important to residents were amenities and pedestrian -friendly design around the future rail stop in Louisville (75% said "essential" or "very important"), building new trails and pedestrian underpasses (64%) and acquiring additional open space (60%). Half of respondents felt that the preservation of historic buildings in Louisville was at least "very important" and 45% said that the addition of a new outdoor aquatics center was "essential" or "very important." Four in 10 or fewer respondents felt that each of the other potential projects was "essential" or "very important"'I'wo-thirds of respondents did not feel the expansion of the Coal Creels Golf Course Club I Iouse for special events was important. Please note that 35% of respondents said "don't know" when rating the importance of the expansion of the Louisville Senior Center. For a full set of responses including "don't know," see Appendix B Complete Sel of Fireprene'ies. thong with rating the importance of each item, respondents also were asked which of the 10 Potential projects was the "most important." "Three in 10 respondents said that amenities and pedestrian -friendly design around the future rail stop in Louisville was the most important potential project. 'I'wenty-one percent of residents felt that acquiring additional open space was the most important and 11% reported that the expansion of the Louisville Recreation Center was most important. Ten percent or fewer rated the other potential projects as the most important. Table 22: Importance of Potential Projects in Louisville How important, if at all, is each of the following potential projects in Louisville? Please first circle the number which best fits your opinion for each item. v r ro v o '- s A v o 0. o n•_ m A tl o o Z ._ o Percent of respondents rating as "most important" Amenities and pedestrian -friendly design around the future rail stop in Louisville 35% 40% 21 % 4% 100% 29% Acquiring additional open space 28% 31 % 31 % 10°% 100% 21 % Expansion of the Louisville Recreation Center 18% 28% 38% 17% 100% 11% Building new trails and pedestrian underpasses 22% 42% 27% 9% 100% 10% Addition of a new outdoor aquatics center 15% 25% 37% 23% 100% 9% Preservation of historic buildings in Louisville 18°% 30% 41% 11% 100% 8% Building a cultural/arts facility 11 % 27°% 40% 22% 100% 7% Building new sports fields 7% 16% 42% 35% 100% 3°% Expansion of the Louisville Senior Center 8°% 23% 43% 26% 100% 2% Expansion of the Coal Creek Golf Course Club House for special events 2% 6°% 24% 68% 100% 1 % Results 43 Louisville Citizen Su August The relative order of importance of each item remained the same in 2008 compared to the 2004 survey results. (Note that some potential projects were added and some were removed from 2004 to 2008.) Respondents felt that building new trails and pedestrian underpasses (64% "essential' or "very important" in 2008 versus 5 t% in 2004) and the addition of a new outdoor aquatics center (40% versus 32%) was more important in 2008 than in 2004. Table 23: Importance of Potential Projects in Louisville Compared by Year How important, if at all, is each of the following potential projects in Percent "essential' or "very Louisville? Please first circle the number which best fits your opinion important"* for each item. 2008 2004 Amenities and pedestrian -friendly design around the future rail stop in Louisville 75% NA Building new trails and pedestrian underpasses 64% 51 % Acquiring additional open space 60% NA Preservation of historic buildings in Louisville 47% NA Expansion of the Louisville Recreation Center 45% 42% Addition of a new outdoor aquatics center 40% 32% Building a cultural/arts facility 37% 37% Expansion of the Louisville Senior Center 31 % 34% Building new sports fields 23% 21 % Expansion of the Coal Creek Golf Course Club House for special events 8% NA Addition of a teen center NA NA Total NA NA *Some question characteristics (i.e., question wording and scale) changed between survey years. ro see the comparison of question wording across all survey years, see Appendix E: Comparison of Question Characteristics by Year. of Results 44 City of Louisville Citizen August 2008 When looking at which potential projects were the "most important" in 2008 versus 2004, residents' priorities shifted slightly with the addition of new potential projects to the 2008 survey. While the most important potential project in 2004 was building new trails, in 2008, residents rated this as the fourth "[Host important" potential project.'The importance of the expansion of the Louisville Recreation Center (11% in 2008 versus 17% in 2004), building new trails and pedestrian underpasses (10% versus 25%), addition of a new outdoor aquatics center (9% versus 15%) and building a cultural/arts facility (7% versus 19%) decreased in 2008 from 2004. Table 24: Most Important Potential Project Compared by Year How important, if at all, is each of the following potential projects in Louisville? Check the ONE box of the item you think is the most important project for Louisville to consider. Amenities and pedestrian -friendly design around the future rail stop in Louisville Acquiring additional open space Expansion of the Louisville Recreation Center Building new trails and pedestrian underpasses Addition of a new outdoor aquatics center Preservation of historic buildings in Louisville Building a cultural/arts facility Building new sports fields Expansion of the Louisville Senior Center Expansion of the Coal Creek Golf Course Club House for special events Addition of a teen center Percent of respondents rating as "most important"* 2008 2004 29% NA 21 % NA 11% 17% 10% 25% 9% 15% 8% NA 7% 19% 3% 4% 2% 4% 1% NA NA 16% Total 100% 100% *Some question characteristics (i.e., question wording and scale) changed between survey years. To see the comparison of question wording across all survey years, see Appendix E: Comparison of Question Characteristics by Year. u 45 of Louisville Citizen August2008 Information Sources As in 2004, the City wanted to know where residents obtained their information about Louisville and how frequently the used different sources of information. Eight in 10 respondents reported using the City newsletter, Comlwt my Update, for information about the city m least "sometimes." Tfie Daily Camera and Tfie Lorrtsville Tialo were used by about three-quarters of respondents. "Two-thirds said they used the City's Web site to get information and 369/o at least "sometimes" attended or watched a City Council meeting or other program on cable channel 8. One in five residents reportec using CCTV Channel 54 to gather information about the city.'1'wo in 10 or More respondents said that they "never" used any of these sources to get information about the city. Figure 19: Frequency of Use of Information Sources Following is a list of information sources. First, please select how often you use the following sources to gain information about the City of Louisville. Always Frequently Sometimes Never Total Community Update (quarterly City Newsletter) 25% 33% 24% 18% 100% The Daily Camera 20% 20% 34% 26% 100% The Louisville Times 14% 20% 37% 29% 100% The City of Louisville Web site (www.ci.louisville.co.us) 5% 18% 45% 33% 100°% Attend or watch a City Council meeting or other program on cable TV, municipal channel 0% 5% 30% 64% 100% CCTV Channel 54 (public access channel on cable) 0% 2% 18% 80% 100% of Results 46 of Louisville Citizen August As would be expected, a higher percentage of respondents reported using the City's Web site to get information about Louisville in 2008 than in 2004 (67% used the site at least "sometimes" in 2008 versus 52% in 2004). The frequency of use of all other information sources in 2008 was similar to 2004. Figure 20: Frequency of Use of Information Sources Compared by Year Community Update (quarterly City Newsletter) The Daily Camera The Louisville Times The City of Louisville Web site (www. ci.lo ui 9vi I le.co. us) Attend m watch a City Council meetingor other program on cable TV, municipal channel 8 CCTV Channel 54 (public access dhannel on cable) of 12008 12004 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent responding at least "sometimes" 47 of Louisville Citizen Su August New to the 2008 survey, residents also were asked to rated the quality of each of the six sources of information. Most residents felt the quality of Comnuarily Update (87%) and the City's Web site (76%) were "excellent" or "good." Two-thirds or slightly fewer respondents said the quality of Council meetings attended in -person or on cable channel 8 (69%), and The Louisville Times (63%) was at least "good." The Daily Camera was seen as an "excellent" or "good" sources of information by 58% of respondents and half (51%) said that CCTV Channcl 54 was "good" or better. Please note that 20% or more of surrey respondents answered "don't know" when rating the quality of the following information sources: attended or watched a City Council meeting or other program on cable channel 8, CCTV Channel 54, The Louisville Times; the City of Louisville Web site. Fora full set of responses including "don't know," see Appendiv B: Complete Sel of'Fto jneucies. The national benchmark comparison was available for the quality of the City's newsletter. It received ratings above those given by residents in other communities across the country. Front Range comparisons were not available. Table 25: Quality of Information Sources Following is a list of information sources. Tell us what your opinion is of the quality and reliability of the information from that source? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Community Update (quarterly City Newsletter) 21 % 66% 12% 1 % 100% The City of Louisville Web site (www.ci.louisville.co.us) 13% 63% 20% 4% 100% Attend or watch a City Council meeting or other program on cable TV, municipal channel 8 9% 61 % 26% 4% 100% The Louisville Times 9% 54% 31 % 6% 100% The Daily Camera 7% 51 % 32% 10% 100% CCTV Channel 54 (public access channel on cable) 7% 44% 30% 19% 100% Figure 21: Ratings of Quality of Information Sources Community Update (quarterly City Newsletter) The City of Louisville Web site (www.ci.lou isvi I le.co. us) Attend or watch a City Council meeting or other program on cable TV, municipal channel 8 The Louisville Times The Daily Camera CCTV Channel 54 (public access channel on cable) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent "excellent" or "good" Please note that some respondents did not select a response for how frequently they used each source but did rate the quality of the source. of Results 48 of Louisville Citizen Su August Appendix A: Respondent Characteristics Characteristics of the survey respondents ace displayed in the tables on the following pages. Length of Residency How many years have you lived in Louisville? Percent of respondents Less than 1 year 8% 1-5 years 32% 6-10 years 19% 11-15 years 14% More than 15 years 27% Total 100% Respondent Housing Unit Type Which best describes the building you live in? Percent of respondents One family house detached from any other houses 77% House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a duplex or townhome) 7% Building with two or more apartments or condominiums 14% Mobile home 0% Other 2% Total 100% Respondent Tenure Do you rent or own your home? Percent of respondents Rent 24%0 Own 76% Total 100% Respondent Gender What is your gender? Percent of respondents Female 52% Male 48% Total 100% c v c v U u r� v d R c 0 ro Z w 0 0 N Report of Results 49 of Louisville Citizen Su August Respondent Level of Education What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? (Please select one box.) Percent of respondents 12th Grade or less, no diploma 1 % High school diploma 6 Some college, no degree 13% Associate's degree (e.g. AA, AS) 6% Bachelor's degree (e.g. BA, AB, BS) 39% Graduate degree or professional degree 35% Total 100% Respondent Age In which category is your age? Percent of respondents 18-24 years 4% 25-34 years _.... 24% 35-44 years _ 23% 45-54 years . 33% 55-64 years 8% 65-74 years 3% 75 years or older 5% Total 100% Respondent Voter Status Are you registered to vote in Louisville? Percent of respondents No 11% Yes 85 % Don't know 4% Total 100% of Results 50 One of our early steps in data analysis will be to weight the data to reflect the greater Port Collins population. Weighting is one of two important measures to adjust for non -response bias. In general, residents with certain characteristics (for example: those who are younger or rent their homes) are less likely to participate in surveying, whatever the data collection mode. Weighting allows its to look at the demographic profile of residents who returned the survey compared with the US Census profile of the entire city. We consider these disparities along with others and accordingly increase or decrease the weight of each respondent to mimic as closely as possible the citywide profile. Weighting is essential and should be insisted upon for citizen surveying. NRC is capable of creating and implementing the most complex weighting schemes due to a proprietary software program that we utilize. Since the previous survey results have been weighted by age and gender, NRC would start by looking at the proportions of these two demographic characteristics of the sample compared to the entire City population norm from the US Census. Other characteristics of the survey sample such as housing tenure (rent versus own) and housing unit type (detached versus attached) may have been over or under represented. Questions would have to be added to the 2008 survey to gather data on those particular questions from the survey sample and NRC would be able to make the appropriate adjustments to more closely match the population norm. We also would plan to look at the proportion of CSU students who responded to the survey and make adjustments, if necessary, to reflect the correct proportion of students in the entire population. Beyond the computation of basic descriptive statistics, appendices to the report will include results by Ivey sociodemographic questions asked on the survey (gender, age, ethnicity and income level) and geographic subareas (neighborhood clusters identified by the City). Chi-square or ANOVA tests of significance will be applied to the breakdowns of selected survey questions (indicating statistical significance at the desired level). Other statistics can include, but are not Hm ted to, multiple linear regression or logistic regression; exploratory factor analysis, cluster analysis, structural equation modeling; and psychometric tests for survey reliability and validity. As part of our derived importance analysis (described in Key Driver' are Mom Remal/rg on page 7) we will use Key Driver Analysis (KDA), based on multiple linear regression. To see an example of a report containing KDA, please sec. littp [[ yww I il_ we od q_ig/?QQC_ttizenSurvey/2008( ntienSuty y.pdt. We will code open-ended responses using both an emergent approach, where thernes are revealed through the analysis, combined with a deductive approach, where a scheme or codes are predetermined and applied to the data. Techniques include word counts, content analysis, comparative analysis, componential analysis and taxonomic analysis, among others and codes ace applied based on the unit of analysis. Our qualitative analysis of verbatim responses will be done using Microsoft'' Access, Microsoft° Excel or QSR qualitative software, depending on the types and complexity of the open-ended questions. Task 6: Reporting The draft report will include an executive summary that synthesizes the findings and a report body that is colorful, professional and well -organized. Appendices will include to detailed description of the survey methodology so that survey methods can be repeated and trends continued, key crosstabulations of results and a complete set of frequencies for each question. We will prepare the report in Microsoft° Word (as well as convert documents into a PDP format). Verbatim responses to open-ended questions can be provided in document or database form, as desired. 'I'he data and report will undergo a thorough quality assurance review. We will audit the original data Files, our syntax/analysis files, compare automatically generated output to the formatted output in the report and data check all numbers and text prior to submitting the report. The City of Fort Collins 2008 Citizen Survey Proposal from National Research Center, Inc. 5 of Louisville Citizen August2008 ix B: Complete Set of Frequencies T'he following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey including the "don't know" responses. Question 1 Please circle the number that comes closest to Don't your opinion about the quality of life in Louisville: Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total How do you rate Louisville as a place to live? 66% 32% 2% 0% 0% 100% How do you rate your neighborhood as a place to live? 53% 39% 7% 1% 0% 100% How do you rate Louisville as a place to raise children? 57% 26% 2% 0% 14% 100% How do you rate Louisville as a place to retire? 28% 33% 14% 2% 23% 100% How do you rate Louisville as a place to work? 18% 27% 16% 7% 33% 100% How do you rate the overall quality of life in Louisville? 58% 39% 3% 0% 0% 100% 51 of Louisville Citizen Su Question 2 August 2008 Please rate each of the following characteristics Don't as they relate to Louisville as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total Sense of community 33% 47% 15% 2% 3% 100% Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 15% 41 % 23% 5% 15% 100% Overall appearance of Louisville 27% 62% 10% 1 % 0% 100% Opportunities to attend cultural activities 15% 40% 32% 6% 8% 100% Shopping opportunities 10% 36% 40% 14% 1 % 100% Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 20% 48% 22% 3% 6% 100% Opportunities to volunteer 16% 37% 13% 3% 30% 100% Opportunities to participate in community matters 18% 42% 17% 3% 21 % 100% Recreational opportunities 34% 50% 13% 2% 2% 100% Employment opportunities 4% 18% 31% 14% 32% 100% Air quality 23% 60% 11% 1% 5% 100% Variety of housing options 12% 46% 28% 9% 6% 100% Availability of affordable quality housing 5% 26% 31 % 19% 19% 100% Availability of affordable quality child care 5% 16% 15% 6% 58% 100% Availability of affordable quality food 18% 52% 25% 4% 2% 100% Availability of preventive health services 22% 42% 12% 3% 20% 100% Ease of car travel in Louisville 35% 52% 10% 2% 1% 100% Ease of bus travel in Louisville 16% 31 % 17% 6% 30% 100% Ease of bicycle travel in Louisville 40% 40% 10% 0% 10% 100% Ease of walking in Louisville 48% 41% 9% 1% 2% 100% Traffic flow on major streets 20% 58°% 18% 4% 1 % 100% Overall lighting in the City 19% 62% 14% 2% 3% 100% Quality of overall natural environment in Louisville 30% 55% 12% 1 % I % 100% Overall image or reputation of Louisville 50% 43% 4% 0% 2% 100% Question 3 Please rate how safe or Neither unsafe you feel from the Very Somewhat safe nor Somewhat Very Don't following in Louisville: safe safe unsafe unsafe unsafe know Total Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 73% 22% 3% 0% 0% 2% 100% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 43% 46% 7% 2% 0% 2% 100% Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 56% 29% 6% 1 % 0% 8% 100% Its 52 of Louisville Citizen August2008 Question 4 Neither Please rate how safe you Very Somewhat safe nor Somewhat Very Don't feel: safe safe unsafe unsafe unsafe know Total In your neighborhood during the day 88% 10% 1 % 1 % 0% 0% 100% In your neighborhood after dark 58% 36% 3% 1 % 0°% 1 % 100% In Louisville's downtown area during the day 87% - 11 % 1 % 0% 0% 2% 100% In Louisville's downtown area after dark 53% 35% 5% 1 % 0% 6% 100% In Louisville's parks during the day 85°% 11 % I % 1 % 0% 2% 100% In Louisville's parks after dark 30% : 43°% 8% 5°% 1°% 14°% 100% Question 5 How do you rate the quality of each of the Don't following services in Louisville? Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total Fire services 39°% 24% 2°% 0% 34% 100% Ambulance/emergency medical services 32% 25% 3% 1 °% 39% 100°% Amount of public parking downtown 18% 47% 25°% 6% 3% 100% Bus/transit services 16% 39% 13% 5% 27% 100% Health services 25°% 39% 8% 3% 26% 100°% Services to seniors 16% 23°% 5% 1 % 55% 100% Services to youth 19°% 36°% 9% 2% 34% 100°% Services to low-income people 4% 10% 8% 7% 70% 100°% Public schools 34°% 34°% 7°% 1 % 24% 100% Economic development 8°% 35% 24°% 6% 27% 100% Land use, planning and zoning 13% 38% 23°% 7°% 19% 100% Building inspection 8% 25% 10°% 2% 55% 100°% Louisville public information sources 13% 48% 15% 2% 22% 100°% of Results 53 City of Louisville Citizen Survey Question 6 August2008 Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion about the performance of the following areas of the City of Louisville Don't Administration: Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total City response to citizen complaints or concerns 8% 30% 14% 5% 43% 100% Information about City Council, Planning Commission and other official City meetings 16% 43% 19% 2% 20% 100% Information about City plans and programs 11 % 44% 23% 5% 18% 100% Availability of City Employees 11 % 32% 12% 3% 41 % 100% Programming on Louisville cable TV, municipal channel 8 5% 26% 12% 4% 52% 100% Louisville Web site (www.ci.louisville.co.us) 11 % 40% 1 7% 3% 29% 100% Overall performance of LOUisville City government 10% 56% 19% 2% 14% 100% Question 7 Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion about the following areas Don't of Louisville Public Safety: Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total Safety of your neighborhood 61 % 33% 5% 1 % 0% 100% Visibility of patrol cars 39% : 43% 11 % 5% 2% 100% 911 service 24% 18% 2% 0% 56% 100% Enforcement of traffic regulations 26% 47% 11 % 4% 13% 100% Municipal code enforcement issues (dogs, noise, weeds, etc.) 20% 35% 18% 8% 19% 100% Overall performance of the Louisville Police Department 31% 49% 8% 2% 10% 100% Question 8 To what extent do you feel that enforcement of the following general traffic Too About Too Don't regulations is too tough or too lenient? tough right lenient know Total Speed limits 13% 72% 8% 7% 100% Parking regulations 5% 69% 1% 25% 100% u G Municipal code issues 10% 50% 8% 32% 100% v U L V ti N N K N C O Z m 0 0 N Report of Results 54 City of Louisville Citizen 9 August 2008 Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion about the following areas of Don't Louisville Planning and Building: Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total The public input process on City planning issues 6°% 28°% 13% 5% 47% 100% Planning review process for new development 4% 24% 14% 6% 52°% 100% Permit process for remodeling work 6% 22% 10% 5% 58°% 100% Code enforcement on building issues 5% . 21 °% 9°% 3°% 62% 100% Overall performance of the Louisville Planning Department 5% 24°% 16°% 3°% 52% 100% Overall performance of the Louisville Building Safety Division 5°% 23% 10°% 1 % Fit % 100% Question 10 Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion about the following areas of the Louisville Don't Parks and Recreation Department: Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total Current recreation programs for youth 23°% 38 % 7% 1 % 31 % 100% Current recreation programs for adults 18°% 45% 14°% 3% 20% 100°% Current programs and services for seniors 15% 24% 4°% 1 % 56% 100% Recreation fees in Louisville 14% 41 % 25% 6% 14°% 100°% Overall performance of the Louisville Recreation Center 24% 47% 13°% 2% 14°% 100% Overall performance of the Louisville Senior Center 12% 17% 3°% 1 % 67% 100°% Overall performance of the Coal Creek Golf Course 7% 19% 7% 2°% 66°% 100% Programming at the Louisville Arts Center 8°% 24% 10°% 1 % 57% 100% Maintenance and cleanliness of the Louisville Recreation Center 26% 49% 9% 2% 15°% 100% Adequacy of parks, bike paths, playing fields and playgrounds 46°% 40% 8% 2% 4°% 100% Maintenance of open space 37% 46°% 10% 2% 5% 100% Maintenance of the trail system 38% 46% 7% 1 °% 8°% 100°% Maintenance of the cemetery 9% 17% 3% 1 % 70% 100% Overall performance of the Louisville Parks and Recreation Department 26°% 56% 10% 1 °% 6% 100°% v C v L U ti N N K C O m L 0 0 N L of Resu 55 of Louisville Citizen August 2008 Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion about the Louisville Public Library Don't and its services: Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total Louisville Public Library programs 30% 29% 4% 1 % 36% 100% Louisville Public Library services 39% 30% 5% : 1 °% 25% 100% Louisville Public Library Internet and computer services 31 % 26% 5% 1 % 37% 100% Louisville Public Library materials and collections 28% 29% 15% 3°% 25% 100% Louisville Public Library facility 52% 25% 3% 1 % 19% 100% Overall performance of the Louisville Public Library 38% 37% 4% 1 % 20% 100% 12 Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion about the performance of the following Don't areas of Louisville Public Works: Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total Street maintenance in your neighborhood 17% 51 % 23% : 8% 1 % 100% Street maintenance in Louisville 15% 62% 18% 3°% 1 % 100% Street sweeping 19% 51 °% 20°% 5°% 5% 100% Snow removal/street sanding 14% 40% 26°% 17°% 2% 100% Street lighting, signage and street markings 23% 59% 15% 3°% 1 % 100% Bike lanes on Louisville streets 18°% 47°% 22% 6°% 8% 100% Handicap access on sidewalks/crosswalks 16% 35% 8% 1 °% 39% 100% Quality of Louisville water 38% 49% 9% 2°% 2% 100% Overall performance of Louisville Public Works 18% 63°% 15°% 1 % 3% 100°% Question 13 Overall, how do you rate the quality of services by the City of Louisville? Percent of respondents Excellent 28% Good 61 % Fair. 9% Poor .... 0% Don't know 2% Total 100 `v c Question 14 u Have you had any in -person or phone contact with an employee of the u City of Louisville within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? Percent of respondents v 'Y No 44°% o Yes 56"% Z Total 100% o N O Report of Results 56 of Louisville Citizen August2008 Question 15 What was your impression of employees of the City of Louisville in your most recent contact? Don't (Rate each characteristic below.) Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total Knowledge 45% 43% 9% 2% 1% 100% Responsiveness 50% 33% 9% 7% 1% 100% Courtesy 58% 28% 9% 5% 0% 100% Overall impression 50% 33% 11 % 5°% 0% 100% Asked only of those who had contact with a City ernployce in the last 12 months. Question 16 - Frequency of Use of Information Sources Following is a list of information sources. First, please select how often you use the following sources to gain information about the City of Louisville. Always Frequently Sometimes Never Total Attend or watch a City Council meeting or other program on cable TV, municipal channel 8 0% 5% 30% 64% 100% CCTV Channel 54 (public access channel on cable) 0% 2% 18% 80% 100% Community Update (quarterly City Newsletter) 25% 33% 24% 18% 100% The Louisville Times 14% 20% 37% 29% 100% The Daily Camera 20% 20% 34% 26% 100°% The City of Louisville Web site (www.ci.louisville.co.us) 5% 18% 45% 33% 100% Question 16 - Quality of Information Sources Following is a list of information sources. Tell us what your opinion is of the quality and reliability of Don't the information from that source? Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total Attend or watch a City Counci I meeting or other program on cable TV, municipal channel 8 4% 26% 11 °% 2% 57% 100°% CCTV Channel 54 (public access channel on cable) 2% 11 % 7% 5% 75% 100% Community Update (quarterly City Newsletter) 18°% 56°% 10% 1°% 15% 100% The Louisville Times 7% 42% 24% 5°% 22% 100% The Daily Camera The City of Louisville Web site (www.ci.lou isvil le.co.us) of Results 6% 42% 26% 8% 10°% 46% 15°% 3% 18% 100% 26% 100% 57 City of Louisville Citizen Sur Question 17 August Please rate how important, if at all, each of the following aspects of Louisville's character Very Somewhat Not at all Don't is to you: Essential important important important know Total Historic buildings downtown 32% 35% 26% 6% 2% 100% Open space 65% 24% 8% 1 % I % 100% Additional recreation facilities 27% 33% 28% 11 % 2% 100% Community events 26% 41 % 28% 3% 2% 100% Passive/active recreation amenities (e.g., trails, recreation center, parks) 58% 31 % 10% 1 % 1 % 100% Safety/low crime 73% 23% 4% 0% 0% 100% Transportation system (streets, highways, bus system, trails) 41 % 45% 11 % I % I 100% Support for businesses (a business friendly climate) 33% 45% 18% 2% 2% 100% Tree -lined streets/median landscaping 28% 38% 29% 5% 0% 100% Personal contact with City staff 11 % 31 % 41 % 10% 6% 100% Question 18 All things being equal, you have the option to shop in Louisville, other cities or on the Internet. Please rate how important, if at all, it is to you to shop in Louisville. Percent of respondents Essential 7 3 % Very important 45% Somewhat important 32% Not atall important 9% Don't know 0% Total 100% Question 19 How familiar, if at all, are you with the Shop Louisville program? Percent of respondents Very familiar 12% Somewhat familiar 39% v Not at all familiar 49% u Total 00%0 v v ti 0 z m 0 0 N Report of Results 58 City of Louisville Citizen Question 20 August As the Highway 42 area redevelops east of the railroad tracks, to what extent do you support or oppose each of the following development guidelines Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don't or characteristics in Louisville. support support oppose oppose know Total Increasing height limits on buildings from 3 story to 4 story 12% 25% 24% 29% 11 % 100% Increasing density of commercial areas 15% 37% 24% 14% 10% 100% Increasing density of residential areas 9% 26% 31 % 26% 8% 100% Building parking lots/structures 15% 46% 19% 12% 8% 100% Putting utility lines underground 52% 36% 2% 1 % 8% 100% Providing green spaces and parks 77% 17% 2% 1 % 3% 100% Pedestrian connections (such as underpasses) to downtown Louisville 64% 25% 4% '.. 3% 4% 100% 21 Louisville is considering creating a fund to preserve historic buildings in the city. The fund could provide for the acquisition and rehabilitation of historic properties. To what extent do you support or oppose a sales tax increase of 0.125% (1.25 cents for every $10 spent) for this purpose? Percent of respondents Strongly support 20% Somewhat support 42% Somewhat oppose 16% Strongly oppose 19% Don't know 3% Total 100% Question 22 To what extent do you support or oppose using City -owned open space as a location to install alternative energy sources (such as wind turbines and solar panels)? Percent of respondents Strongly support 37% v Somewhat support 38% Somewhat oppose 10% Strongly oppose 10% v Don't Know 5% v Total 100% A ry z 0 0 N J Report of Results 59 of Louisville Citizen August 2008 Question 23 Currently, most areas west of McCaslin Boulevard are zoned for non- residential use. To what extent do you support or oppose changing the zoning in that area to permit residential development as well as commercial development? Percent of respondents Strongly support 13% Somewhat support 32% Somewhat oppose 17% Strongly oppose 28% Don't know 11 Tota l 100 % Question 24 In an effort to increase recycling and reduce the number of heavy trucks on city streets, Louisville is considering contracting with a single hauler to provide City-wide residential trash and recycling services. To what extent do you support or oppose the City contracting with a single hauler if residents' current costs were to stay the same or decrease? Percent of respondents Strongly support 48% Somewhat support 30% Somewhat oppose 7% Strongly oppose 11 Don't know 5% Total 100% of Results 60 Making Fort Collins Resident Survey Data Actionable Our own experience demonstrates that resident surveys too often retrain incidental to performance management systems. Much of the marginalization endures because decision makers prefer to focus on traditional performance treasures like response times, book circulation, vehicles miles traveled per dollar spent. NRC:'s wort: to maximize the utility of survey research findings extends beyond our teaching, writing and awards to creative ways of analyzing and reporting data. Our report for Fort Collins will apply innovative analyses that reveal actionable results in a clear, understandable way that goes much beyond the standard reporting of percentages, pie charts and bar graphs. NRC also will provide recommendations on how the City can use the survey data to make any necessary changes to increase the quality of services and improve communications to residents. Below are examples of reporting options that we will discuss with fort Collins during the planning phase to ensure your results are actionable for you, the City of Fort Collins. Comparing Cpstomer, Survey..Results In our book (now considered the classic text on citizen surveying), Czti�en Sirrzays: How to do them, hoxv to use tfiew and rrihal1by mean we wrote "you can't tell what is tall or small without comparing." Although there is no city in the world just like Fort Collins, many college communities face some of the same challenges that Fort Collins faces —access to public transportation, trash pick up, police response times, social services, public education, school safety, drugs and more and some of them already have asked their residents what they think of the services that are provided. Not only have some other college communities conducted citizen surveys, but hundreds of other jurisdictions across the country also have conducted surveys in which residents evaluated the quality of their service delivery — for streets, schools, police, fire, etc. It may be instructive to understand how the perspectives of Fort Collins's residents compare to those of residents in the Front Range, to residents in jurisdictions with a four-year accredited university or to those in jurisdictions with similar a population size. In addition to comparing to other locations, comparing to your own data over time adds a level of understanding that maximizes the use of findings. NRC proposes to offer these comparisons, as described below. Benchmarkino to Other Jurisdictions: NRC's Database of Citizen Surveys NRC principals introduced the idea of norms and produced the first national norms for citizen opinion in our book (first published in 1991). Because we continue to conduct and collect the most current citizen surveys from jurisdictions across the country, NRC has the largest database of comparative resident opinion of any firm. The database is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from over 500 unique jurisdictions whose residents evaluated local government services. Conducted with typically no fewer than 400 residents in each jurisdiction, opinions are intended to represent over 30 million Americans. With so many data points per jurisdiction, the results from each jurisdiction have small sampling error, and with so many jurisdictions and so many services it is possible to provide norms for many services in cities that are large or small, cthuically diverse or homogeneous, rich or poor, Last, West, North or South or by other jurisdiction characteristics that clients believe to be important. Because NRC innovated a method for quantitatively integrating the results of surveys that we have conducted with those that others have conducted, we can create comparisons for more services, more jurisdictions and with less sampling error than anyone. In our database we have the most current citizen surveys (i.e., surveys from the past five years) from 30 Front Range communities that do citizen surveys. In addition we have 150 citizen surveys from jurisdictions with a four-year accredited university and 33 surveys from jurisdictions in the CNNMorzey.com list of 100 best small cities in America. NRC has normative comparison for 260 services that include police services, fire and EMS, garbage collection and recycling, utilities and utilities billing, library services, street maintenance and repair, water quality, code enforcement, senior services, public transportation, city employee ratings, job opportunities, public safety, historic preservation, economic development, public trust, safety in the community and many others. For all the jurisdictions in our database, we promise not to reveal individual -_ --.__.._ The City of Fort Collins 2008 Citizen Survey Proposal from National Research Center, Inc. g City of Louisville Citizen Su August2008 Question 25 - Importance How important, if at all, is each of the following potential projects in Louisville? Please first circle the number which best fits Very Somewhat Not at all Don't your opinion for each item. Essential important important important know Total Expansion of the Louisville Recreation Center 16% 25% 35% 16% 7% 100% Expansion of the Louisville Senior Center 5% 15% 28% 17% 35% 100% Expansion of the Coal Creek Golf Course Club House for special events 2% 5% 19% 56% 18% 100% Acquiring additional open space 28% 30% 30% 9% 3% 100% Addition of a new outdoor aquatics center 15% 23% 34% 22% 6% 100°% Building new trails and pedestrian underpasses 22% 41% 26% 9% 2% 100% Building new sports fields 6% 15% 38% 31 % 10% 100°% Building a cultural/arts facility 10% 25% 38% 22% 4% 100% Preservation of historic buildings in Louisville 18% 29% 41% 11% 1% 100% Amenities and pedestrian -friendly design around the future rail stop in Louisville 34% 39% 21% 4% 2% 100% Question 25 - Most Important How important, if at all, is each of the following potential projects in Louisville? Check the ONE box of the item you think is the most important project for Louisville to consider. Percent of respondents Expansion of the Louisville Recreation Center 11 % Expansion of the Louisville Senior Center 2% Expansion of the Coal Creek Golf Course Club House for special events 1 Acquiring additional open space 21 % Addition of a new outdoor aquatics center 9% Building new trails and pedestrian underpasses 10% Building new sports fields 3% Building a cultural/arts facility 7% Preservation of historic buildings in Louisville 8% Amenities and pedestrian -friendly design around the future rail stop in Louisville 29%0 Total 100% 61 City of Louisville Citizen S August2008 Question Di How many years have you lived in Louisville? Percent of respondents Less than 1 year 1-5 years _.... 6-10 years 11-15 years More than 15 years Total 8% 32% _ 19% 14% 27% 100% Question D2 Which best describes the building you live in? Percent of respondents One family house detached from any other houses House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a duplex or townhome) Building with two or more apartments or condominiums Mobile home Other Total 77% 7% 14% 0% 2 % 100% Question D3 Do you rent or own your home? Percent of respondents Rent Own Total 24%0 76% 100% Question D4 What is your gender? Percent of respondents Female Male Total 52% 48% 100% Question D5 What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? (Please select one box.) Percent of respondents 12th Grade or less, no diploma 1 % High school diploma 6% Some college, no degree 13% Associate's degree (e.g. AA, AS) 6% Bachelor's degree (e.g. BA, AB, BS) 39% Graduate degree or professional degree 35% Total 100% 62 j of Louisville Citizen Su D6 August 2008 In which category is your age? Percent of respondents 18-24 years 4% 25-34 years 24% 35-44 years 23 % 45-54 years 33% 55-64 years 8% 65-74 years 3% 75 years or older 5% Total 100% Question D7 Are you registered to vote in Louisville? Percent of respondents No 11 % Yes 85% Don't know 4% Total 100% Fell 63 u `v of Louisville Citizen Appendix C: Comparison of nses by Respondent Demographics August 2008 responses to selected survey questions b5r respondent demographics are compared in this appendix. Responses that are significantly different (p < .05) are marked with gray shading. For comparisons among subgroups, the margin of error rises to plus or minus five percentage points for a sample size of 400 and plus or minus 10 percentage points for a sample size of 100. Aspects of Quality of Life by Respondent Characteristics Age Gender Length of residency Registered to vote M y + WE y T d R O R T Gl �p Y CJ N N > OJ y LL How do you rate Louisville as a place to live? 99% 98% 98% 98% 99% 97% 98% 99% 98% 100% 95% 98% 100% 98% 98% How do you rate your neighborhood as a place to live? 91 % 94% 89% 92% 91 % 93% 92% 92% 93% 94% 90% 92% 96% 92% 92% How do you rate Louisville as a place to raise children? 95% 98% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 98% 98% How do you rate Louisville as a place to retire? 86% 74% 83% 79% 82% 76% 79% 84% 75% How do you rate Louisville as a place to work? 61 % 67% 76% 66% 65% 66% 66% 59% 72% How do you rate the overall quality of life in Louisville? 98% 97% 94% 97% 97% 96% 97% 96% 99% Percent "excellent" or "good" of Results 99% 94% 97% 90% 98% 97% 80% 75% 79% 87% 78% 79% 72% 67% 66% 64% 68% 67% 99% 95% 97% 97% 97% 97% 64 li c i Lo O v SaA v ON I IleAaAO � saeaA Sl c a ueyl aaow v w SmA o Slolll V L b0 sAeaA a C Ot 019 U 6 ro ssal.w -c V saeaA aAlA c 'aa I ICAaAO a O a v v aleW .Q U u alewad U d Ileaanp L V T 0 'auJ •aa7uaD yaaeasa2l IeuOpeN VOU,, v 110anp O a saA 4J h ON \ e e e e e IIPA2AO saeaA ,cl e � Ue yl aaoW o°.n L U i saeaA O Sl of it L u V m SMA ^ o a O J O L 019 c o ssal Ao a sAeaAanlj Cd .Q o 0 IIeAaAO o P o M C � u1 M t0 Ol Ol Ol .0 8P s o o ° v aleW �o o in N co 0 o 0 °o 0 v alewaA o °v O. O a IleaaAO ro o M V Ln O +JJ 0 Q ° � � 60 80 °° a i :o v v .o m �o rn rn rn i N CL C h O h9 o =' o •c > O v J J O O •�•C u 41 ... -O p U GO C O w 0 o o ro- 3 c c c n• x v o N i 2 6 A O 9 0 0>1 ° 00 .m N Q o0 vE w� 0 0 N 0 IIeAaAp > Q > O v saA `v s ON IIeAaAp saeaA S1 oeyl aaow SAeaA S1 01 11 sAeaA 01019 ssal AO sAeaA OAlj IIeAaAp 0 alew T u ae V 0 alma] 0 T W ._ IIeAaAp A +SS c o y Q Q bs-S£ b£-o t DUI'ADILIa7 ipaeasaN eu011LN 90OZ, o � n � � � o v a, o � v �o M � n � N M 6 10 � 7 a � o N � M � n � 81 o �W o �o ro v o 81 M M � W VIt 1 c 0 oo Y 0 o Y c ao a Qoc-° a Q E °o.�� v va.5 0 o-c v-p N-- O U W ry 0 T Z' O@ V T -O N C -6 p Y> ._ O y C v rv' O bq '^ 3 p 0 v v m -a N O N N bq O o. x ro E w v x v Q v c o- v u a Q E L v 0 p 0 L N O O O s N O F0- 0�t F o o oci�.to- 0 �o-voa i° X of Louisville Citizen August 2008 Appendix D: Survey Methodology Survey Instrument Development The Louisville Citizen Survey was first administered in 1990. General citizen surveys, such as this one, ask recipients their perspectives about the quality of life in the city, their use of city amenities, their opinion on policy issues facing the city and their assessment of city service delivery. The 2008 citizen survey instrument for Louisville was developed by starting with the version from the previous implementation in 2004. A list of topics was generated for new questions; topics and questions were modified to End those that were the best fit for the 2008 questionnaire. In an iterative process between City staff and NRC staff, a final five -page questionnaire was created. Sample Selection Approximately 2,000 Louisville households were selected to participate in the survey using a stratified, systematic sampling method. (Systematic sampling is a method that closely approximates random sampling by selecting every Nth address until the desired number of households are chosen.) To ensure households selected to participate in the survey were within the City of Louisville boundaries, the latitude and longitude of each address was plotted to determine its location within the city. Addtesscs that fell outside of the city boundaries were removed from the sample. Attached units within the city were oversampled to compensate for detached unit residents' tendency to return surveys at a higher rate. An individual within each household was selected using the birthday method. (The birthday method selects a person within the household by asking the "person whose birthday has most recently passed" to complete the questionnaire regardless of year of birth. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way people respond to surveys.) Survey Administration Households received three mailings each, beginning in late May 2008. Completed surveys were collected over the following six weeks. The first mailing was a prenotification postcard announcing the upcoming survey. A week after the prenotification postcard was sent, the first wave of the survey was sent. The second wave was sent one week after the first The survey mailings contained a letter from the mayor inviting the household to participate in the 2008 Citizen Survey, a questionnaire and self -mailing envelope. About 2'% of the surveys were returned because the housing unit was vacant or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the 1,954 households that received a survey, 976 completed the survey, providing a response rate of 50%. Weighting the Data The demographic characteristics of the survey sample were compared to those found in the 2000 U.S. Census estimates for adults in the city. Sample results were weighted using the population norms to reflect the appropriate percent of those residents in the city. Other discrepancies between the whole population and the sample were also aided by the weighting due to the intercorrelation of many socioeconomic characteristics. The variables used for weighting were respondent gender, age and housing unit type. This decision was based on: 67 of Louisville Citizen S August 2008 ® The disparity between the survey respondent characteristics and the population noires for these variables ® The saliency of these variables in differences of opinion among subgroups e The historical profile created and the desirability of consistently representing different groups over the years The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey sample reflective of the larger population of the community. "Phis is done by: 1) reviewing the sample demographics and comparing them to the population norms from the most recent Census or other sources and 2) comparing the responses to different questions for demographic subgroups. The demographic characteristics that are least similar to the Census and yield the most different results are the best candidates for data weighting. A third criterion sometimes used is the importance that the community places on a specific variable. For example, if a jurisdiction feels that: accurate race representation is key to staff and public acceptance of the study results, additional consideration will be given in the weighting process to adjusting the race variable. A special software program using mathematical algorithms is used to calculate the appropriate weights. A limitation of data weighting is that only 2-3 demographic variables can be adjusted in a single study. Several different weighting "schemes" are tested to ensure the best fit for the data. The process actually begins at the point of sampling. Knowing that residents in single-family dwellings are more likely to respond to a mail survey, NRC oversamples residents of multi -family dwellings to ensure they are accurately represented in the sample data. Rather than giving all residents an equal chance of receiving the survey, this is systematic, stratified sampling, which gives - each resident of the jurisdiction a known chance of receiving the survey (and apartment dwellers, for example, a greater chance than single family home dwellers). As a consequence, results must be weighted to recapture the proper representation of apartment dwellers. phe results of the weighting scheme are presented in the figure on the following page of Results of Louisville Citizen Su August 2008 2008 Louisville, Colorado Citizen Survey Weighting Table Characteristic Population Norm' Unweighted Data Weighted Data Housing Own home 76% 89% 76% Rent home 24% 11 % 24% Detached unit 77% 87% 79% Attached unit 23% 13% 21% Sex and Age 18-34 years of age 28% 11 % 28% 35-54 years of age 56% 52% 56% 55+ years of age 16% 37% 16% Female 51 % 61 % 52% Male 49% 39% 48% Females 18-34 14% 7% 14% Females 35-54 29% 33 % 29% Females 55+ 9% 21 % 9%° Males 18-34 14% 4% 14% Males 35-54 27% 19% 27% Males 55+ 7% 16% 7% Education' High school or less 15% 8% 7% More than high school 85% 92% 93% ' Source: 2000 U.S. Census ' Population 25 years and over Data Analysis The surveys were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Frequency distributions are presented in the body of the report. Chi-square and ANOVA tests of significance were applied to breakdowns of selected survey questions by respondent characteristics. A "p-value" of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between groups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed in the selected categories of our sample represent "real' differences among those populations. Where differences between subgroups are statistically significant, they are marked with grey shading in the appendices. 69 City of Louisville Citizen Appendix E: Comparison of uestion Characteristics by Year August 2008 The following table compares differences in question wording and scale between all survey years. Differences in ratings compared over time may be at least partially attributable to changes in question characteristics. Abbreviations for each scale used are shown below: • E, G, F, P: excellent, good, fair, poor a VS, SS, N, SU, VU: very safe, somewhat safe, neither safe nor unsafe, somewhat unsafe, very unsafe o NP, MiP, Mop, MO: not a problem, minor problem, moderate problem, major problem • I to 9: 1=very low/very poor, 2, 3, 4, S, 6,7, 8, 9=very high/excellent • S_1, A, D, SD: strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree ® E, G, NG, P: excellent, good, not so good, poor ® VG, G, F, P, VP: very good, good, fair, poor, very poor VS, SS, SD, VD: very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, very- dissatisfied a TT, AR, TL: too tough, about right, too lenient A, F, S, N: always, frequently, sometimes, never E, VI, SI, NI: essential, very important, somewhat important, not at all important 2008 question 2008 scale 2004 question 2004 scale 1999 question 1999 scale 1994 question 1994 scale 1990 question 1990 scale How do you rate How do you rate Louisville as a Louisville as a place to live? E, G, F, P place to live? E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA How do you rate How do you rate your neighborhood your neighborhood as a place to live? E, G, F, P as a place to live? E, G, F, P NA NA NA NA NA NA "Louisville as a community to raise pre -teens" and "Louisville as a U community to raise teenagers" (an How do you rate How do you rate average of Louisville is a good Louisville as a Louisville as a responses was community in p ace to raise place to raise used for which to raise SA, A, D, 2 children? E, G, F, P children? E, G, F, P NA NA comparison) 1 to 9 children SD Z b O O N )on of Results 70