The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About; ; 2001 State of Effectiveness Report; 2001-02-01State of Effectiveness February 2001 City Of Carlsbad STATE-OF-EFFECTIVENESS REPORT February 2001 Submitted by The Performance Measurement Resource Team John Cahill, Community Development Lynn Diamond, Police Department Joe Garuba, City Manager's Office Linda Kermott, Public Works Tom Ritter, Fire Department Julie Ross, Public Works Sue Spickard, Community Services Jim Elliott, Leadership Team Representative 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Background 1 Re search 2 How Performance Measurement Fits Into The Big Picture 4 Definitions 7 Format Of A Measure 8 City Surveys 9 Determining Carlsbad's Benchmarking 11 Benefits And Risks Of Performance Measurement 12 Communications And Outreach 13 Calendar 13 What Happens Next? 16 City Of Carlsbad Performance Measures 19 Summary Of The Measures 21 Public Safety 25 Fire Confinement 25 Fire Customer Service And Satisfaction 28 Fire Operating Cost Efficiency 31 Fire Response Time 33 Police Customer Service & Satisfaction 37 Police Responsiveness 40 Crime Cases Cleared 43 Community Perception Of Crime 48 Public Works 50 •Potable Water Quality 50 Water Reliability 52 Water Delivery Efficiency 54 • Sewer System Reliability 57 Sewer Cost Efficiency 59 Storm Drain System Reliability 61 * Drainage System Efficiency 62 Drainage System Water Quality ? 63 : Solid Waste Customer Service & Satisfaction 64 Solid Waste Cost Efficiency 65 Solid Waste Diversion 67 Roadway Cost Efficiency 69 Roadway Safety 70 Roadway Circulation 73 Roadway Rideability 77 111 Fleet Reliability 79 Fleet Customer Service And Satisfaction 82 Fleet Cost Efficiency 84 Facilities Customer Service And Satisfaction 85 Facilities Maintenance Response 89 Facilities Cost Efficiency 90 Park Safety 92 Park Customer Service And Satisfaction 93 Park Cost Efficiency... 94 Commnity Services 97 Library Service 85 Satisfaction 97 Adult Literacy Program 98 Library Collection 99 Senior Center Customer Service 85 Satisfaction 100 Recreation Customer Service & Satisfaction 101 Art Opportunities 102 Community Development 103 Section 8 Housing 103 Front Counter Service &, Satisfaction 104 Administrative Services 105 Risk Management - Total City Losses 105 Risk Management - Liability Coverage And Costs 107 Information Technology Service 8& Satisfaction 109 Information Technology Network Operability Ill Information Technology Cost Efficiency 113 Human Resources - Injured Employee Time Off 114 Human Resources Service 8& Satisfaction 116 Human Resources Recruitment Time 119 Purchasing Service & Satisfaction 120 Purchase Order Processing 121 Finance Collection Rates 122 City Operating Budget Cost Efficiency 124 Appendix 1: 2000-2001 Goal 125 Appendix 2: 1999-2000 Goal 126 Appendix 3: Citywide Survey Results 127 IV INTRODUCTION In the fall of 1999, the City embarked on an effort to measure our performance and success in achieving our desired outcomes. The seven-member Performance Measurement Resource Team was created to coordinate this effort. City staff members in each of the Major Service Areas (MSAs) were assigned to develop measures within their own areas. While performance measurement is a fairly common practice in the private sector, there were not many suitable models from the public sector. The Performance Measurement Resource Team knew from the beginning that developing a system that "counted widgets" was not the desired model; instead, a system that focused on the performance outcome was desired. Our goal was to create a system to identify the key elements of our service/product and develop a process to measure our success and compare it to others. The result would be an organization that focuses on continuous improvement with the help of measured outcomes, analysis, and action plan implementation. In developing this system, we have looked at other organizations, evaluated existing measurement programs such as International City Managers' Association (ICMA) Center for Performance Measurement, and participated in training and education programs from both the private and public sectors. BACKGROUND In Carlsbad, measures were drafted, benchmarking began, and comparable cities were identified. The first year's effort to measure our organization's effectiveness was marked by considerable effort and analysis, occasional stumbling, but nevertheless generally positive results. The program's first State of Effectiveness Report has been drafted and will be presented to the City's Leadership Team, management and general employees, City Council, and citizens in February of 2001. This project represents the efforts of the entire City. The MSAs are responsible for the development of the various measures, the tracking of those measures, the collection of the data, and the analysis. The Performance Measurement Resource Team is responsible for coordinating the citywide effort and providing a consistent approach to the measurement process and format. The members of the team represent each of the MSAs and act in a liaison/consultant capacity to the MSAs. In coordinating this project the Performance Measurement Resource Team has taken on the following roles: • Serve as performance measurement resource to the MSAs • Serve as liaisons with outside agencies as needed • Identify comparable outside agencies/organizations to benchmark against • Assist with city surveys (coordinate, consolidate, evaluate) • Collect and analyze external data • Coordinate a cohesive program • Prepare a citywide report During the course of this project, the City evaluated the possibility of taking a different route on the performance measurement path. The difference in the process would be that an evaluation of current practices and duties would occur first to help define the core business, and from that, performance measures would be developed. After lengthy discussions, it was decided to try this method in a limited scope with Community Services (Recreation, Senior Center, Arts, and Library). Community Services was selected because they were in the middle of strategic planning at the time and were asking themselves the types of questions that are integral to this process (ex: what do we do and why do we do it). Because of this, it was suggested that they try this different approach. Community Services has started developing their new measures as a result of their strategic planning but they are still in progress and are not yet complete at the time of this printing. RESEARCH Throughout the development of this program, members of the team had the opportunity to learn from others visiting other cities, attending conferences and seminars, and reviewing other cities' performance measurement reports. Because of the ICMA's leadership in performance measurement activities, the team became actively involved in working with the I CM A data and team members attended three ICMA performance measurement programs. By assisting with the review of the annual ICMA surveys, we were able to educate ourselves on the types of measures that were collected and create a heightened awareness of the outputs that were available. This was particularly helpful when we began to design our own performance and outcome measures. Several team members attended a workshop in Dallas, Texas where we learned about the challenges that other cities were having in implementing and maintaining performance measurement programs. We left the seminar reaffirming the fact that the program needed to be easy to implement and maintain, and that commitment from the entire organization was important to its success. The second ICMA conference took place in Savannah, Georgia. We heard numerous presentations by other city representatives addressing their experiences with performance measurement. The city of Coral Springs, Florida presented a case study on how they used their ICMA data to analyze the city's need for a paramedic program and how they were ultimately able to justify the city's reestablishment of the program. We attended a panel discussion where various cities discussed their use of performance measurement. The cities involved included Riverside and Santa Monica, California; Bellevue, Washington and Austin, Texas. Not only were we able to gain some valuable insight, but also were able to make contacts with resources in other cities. There was a clear message delivered at the conference in Savannah. If performance measurement is to be successful, it must be supported from the top down. The program should not be presented as an option, but as a program that must be designed by and implemented throughout the entire organization. Some members of the Performance Measurement Team attended another ICMA performance measurement training held in Riverside. This training focused excessively on the utilization of technology and was of little value in the development of our program. Three members of the Performance Measurement Team attended a two-day seminar, "Using the Balanced Scorecard," offered through Pepperdine University. This training provided knowledge of another management tool which can be helpful in determining if an organization is achieving its goals and if not, why. Additionally, we collected numerous reports prepared by other cities, reviewed them and picked out what we thought were the best portions of their reports to model ours. Along with the cities mentioned in the previous paragraph, we reviewed programs from Dakota County (MN) and San Mateo County (CA). Based on the review of other programs, the team identified what we did not want to be - widget counters. Instead, we decided that we wanted to highlight a few, select measures that would identify the city's performance in key areas. In summary, we discovered that Carlsbad is not alone in developing a performance measurement program. We learned that the term "performance measurement" has different meanings for different cities. Some cities focus on outputs, some on outcomes, some on both ~ no one format is right or wrong — it just needs to be well defined and fit the culture of the city. We learned that employees from other cities are also struggling with the concept and implementation. Finally, we learned that this is a work-in-progress. The program will be subject to change and refinement and will require ongoing training and maintenance. HOW PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FITS INTO THE BIG PICTURE The performance measurement program is an integral component of "the big picture" (see Systems Perspective chart on page 5). It represents the developing feedback loop between organizational effort and the ability to achieve and sustain desired outcomes. Below is a summary of some of the key points regarding the performance measurement program and its connections within the larger City structure. Strategic Planning • Used to construct the outline to execute policies • Allows the organization to clarify what its critical functions are • Helps provide the basis for performance measures as well as goals • Allows the organization to assess opportunities for success based on available resources (reflected through strategic priorities) Performance Measures • Outcome-based • Tied to core functions/desired outcomes • Develops feedback loop on City's performance • Allows for the review of the strategic priorities through the development of the measures and the data collection process • Help cultivate a culture for continuous improvement • Moves the organization from being reactive to proactive • Provides organizational accountability • Provides the foundation for goal development based on prior accomplishments and outcomes Goals • Represent the priority efforts of the organization • Serve as a catalyst for change • Incentives for achievement • Individual accountability injected into the organization • Allows for the opportunity to address deficiencies identified in performance measurement process Budget • A means to achieve the objectives or outcomes determined in the policy- setting phase of the process • A means to implement goals • Under a performance measurement system, budgets will be developed with a better understanding of program accomplishment • Under the new Expenditure Control Budget, program funding will be based on measurable outcomes/service levels Analysis of Outcomes • Analysis will focus on outcomes with regards to internal/external comparisons • This process of comparison, called benchmarking, allows the organization to evaluate performance within a specific context • Provides the City with the ability to "tell the story" • Allows for a more informed dialogue between citizens and staff • Sets the stage for policy discussions • Promotes greater public trust and confidence • Fosters organizational accountability • Helps drive the strategic planning process • Develops a "learning" organization A Systems Perspective Sustainable Community and Organizational Development Step 2: CityCouncit Policy Setting Step 6: OUTCOMES >Greater Public Trust and Confidence in Local Government > Service Quality > Financial Health > Customer/ Citizen Satisfaction City Manager City Attorney .OrojmizntL«nImplementation Domain ©1998: Raymond K. Patchett City of Carlsbad The chart below depicts the continuous nature of the performance measurement process. The outer triangle represents the community at-large. The customers' needs and desires drive the services and products that the City provides. Next, we gather customer feedback to help us assess customer satisfaction with our services and products. This serves as a "barometer" of our customers' needs and desires and helps us adjust our products and services accordingly. The inner triangle represents the City of Carlsbad employees and our role in providing services and products to the community. For each service and product, desired outcomes have been identified and methods to measure the degree of success in achieving the desired outcomes have also been identified. The information gathered through the measures, including customer service, is then used to revise the desired outcomes. Customer Needs/Desires Satisfaction Level Service / Product DEFINITIONS Below are the basic definitions of the terms and concepts used -with this program. We have found that it is important to clarify the definitions of the terms to ensure a consistent understanding of those terms throughout the organization. Output: An output is what is typically defined as a "widget count." An example of an output is "miles of street lines painted," or "number of permits processed." Outputs are often the easiest to track and have traditionally been the types of activities that are used as performance measures. While we have tried to stay away from developing a system that is reliant on only outputs, we have found that in the absence of a measurable outcome, sometimes several outputs together can serve as a proxy for an outcome measure. Outcome: An outcome describes the "product" or service we deliver to our customers. In order to avoid the development of thousands of measures, it is important to maintain a global perspective. It goes beyond, "I inspect the construction of roads in the City of Carlsbad for developers" but to "I inspect the construction of roads in Carlsbad to ensure a safe and efficient circulation system for all those who drive through Carlsbad." Measurement: A measurement is the tangible demonstration of level of achievement of the stated outcome. It should be quantifiable, and able to be compared, or "benchmarked" against other organizations. It is helpful if it is an industry standard or widely used in the field. Ideally, the technology to measure the measurement currently exists and is readily available. Benchmark (noun): A benchmark is the acceptable standard of a high performing organization to which we will strive to achieve/maintain. An example of a benchmark might be "Contain fire spread to room of origin in 90% of all structure fires." A benchmark may be internal over time, percentages, data from other cities or agencies, or national or industry standards. Benchmark (verb): Benchmarking is the act of selecting and evaluating outside agencies that we compare ourselves to. Benchmarking also includes the external data collection process 7 FORMAT OP A MEASURE Below is a summary of the format that is followed for each of our City measures and a description of each section. Carlsbad's measures generally fall into three categories - citizen satisfaction, cost effectiveness, and quality/productivity. Cost effectiveness measures are most meaningful when considered in conjunction with service levels or quality measures. In addition, Carlsbad's measurement areas can be categorized as either a measure of a department or division that provides a service or product directly to a citizen, or a department or division that supports a department or division that provides the service or product directly to the citizen. Outcome One of the primary reasons why we provide the service Measurement The demonstrated achievement of outcome What data means An explanation of why this measurement is important and how it is obtained Status of measure For measures that are not yet in place, this describes how the proposed measurement will be implemented and when Benchmark The benchmark is the target level of performance that the department is striving to reach Results The actual results and relevant data Analysis The analysis section includes discussion regarding the results and how Carlsbad performed in the specific measure compared to other agencies and/or to itself over time. Reasons for high or low performance are presented when possible. Action Plan Based on results and the analysis, an action plan for improvement may be warranted. If so, a summary of the action plan will be presented in this section. 8 CITY SURVEYS After reviewing all of the city's survey efforts, the team divided surveys into two broad categories: customer-specific surveys and citywide public opinion survey. Customer-Specific Surveys The Performance Measurement Resource Team established a sub-committee to look at the way the City of Carlsbad surveys its customers after it recognized a theme among departments' submitted measures most departments included customer service as a key indicator of performance level. A customer-specific survey is one that asks a person who has received service from a City department what they level of satisfaction was. We found that almost all departments /divisions within the city are conducting some kind of customer service survey. A review of these survey instruments found a wide variety of survey formats, rating scales and methodologies. This raised the question as how to best report this information on a citywide basis. We concluded that the best way to improve survey compatibility and validity was to develop a standard set of guidelines for departments to use. Not being experts in the field, and realizing we would also need to hire a consultant to conduct the planned citywide public opinion survey, we decided to include the development of customer-specific survey guidelines as part of the RFP on conducting a citywide public opinion survey. The selected consultant, the Social and Behavioral Research Institute at California State University San Marcos, assisted us in developing a citywide public opinion survey and will be helping us develop guidelines for surveys administered by individual city departments. As a starting point, the survey subcommittee developed a list of draft guidelines to be reviewed by our consultant for the development of customer specific surveys: 1. Surveys should be concise and drafted on official city letterhead. 2. Surveys should begin with a request to complete the survey and close with a salutation and the department head's signature. 3. Responses should be on a standardized rating scale. 4. Surveys should be mailed to customers by a "neutral" party rather than handed to the customer by the person who provided the service. This will provide more objective, statistically valid information. 5. Surveys should be coded in some manner so that the date or time of service can be tracked. 6. All surveys should contain some standard questions (courtesy, competence, timeliness, overall rating, etc.) as well as department specific questions. 7. Space should be included for open-ended comments, i.e. "How can we better serve you in the future?" 8. Name and address should be optional. 9. Return postage should be included. The above guidelines are primarily for external (citizens) customers. Other types of department-administered surveys include internal (City employees) customer surveys and countertop surveys. Although not as valid as direct mail or telephone surveys, countertop surveys are widely used throughout the City to gather information from "walk in" clientele. These types of surveys are generally postcard type instruments. To ensure anonymity, it is important that there be a collection box on site and that the customer has the option to return the postcard by mail. It is also important to design these types of comment cards using the appropriate weight, size and postage to avoid unnecessary charges. Several departments conduct surveys of internal city customers. These surveys are usually longer than external customer surveys and are typically conducted only on an annual basis. City wide Public Opinion Surveys The citywide public opinion survey will be used to gauge customer satisfaction and perception on services that do not typically have a specific sub-set of known customers. As an example, the police department alone cannot economically survey public opinion on how safe community members feel but they can directly survey customer satisfaction among persons who report a crime. However, both types of survey measurements are needed. While the customer-specific surveys are directed towards a customer who has received a specific service, i.e. reported a crime by filing a police report, the citywide public opinion survey asks questions which apply to most citizens in general, i.e. do they feel safe from crime, fire, etc. Citywide public opinion survey questions are directed towards a random selection of residents whereas customer specific surveys are directed to a select group of customers who may or may not be residents of the city and who have received a specific city service. It is our recommendation that all citywide public opinion surveys be consolidated into one survey instrument. This will ensure that our citizens are not inundated with surveys, that information will be gathered in a uniform fashion, and that survey results are statistically valid. As public opinion surveying is a specialized field, it was recommended that a consultant be hired to develop, administer and analyze such a survey. The Social and Behavior Research Institute at California Statue University, San Marcos, completed the citywide public opinion survey (attached as Appendix 3) in time for the 10 February 2001 City Council goal-setting workshop. Survey Timing Improvements In order to improve the integration of the citywide survey data results into the performance measurement process it is recommended that the citywide survey be completed by October of each year. This also avoids having to survey during the holiday season. By completing the survey by October departments will have time to review the results and integrate them into their performance measurement analysis as appropriate. DETERMINING CARLSBAD'S BENCHMARKING Benchmarking is the act of selecting and evaluating outside agencies that we compare ourselves to. Benchmarking also includes the external data collection process. Selecting comparable public agencies with which to benchmark against begins with creating relevant criteria or parameters, such as: • Population and demographics • Geography/climate • Size of agency • Public services provided • Location • Fiscal conditions • Perception of performance Below is a proposed list of cities to use for benchmarking based on city size/demographics, a department recommendation, or ICMA participation. • Austin (TX) • Irvine (CA) • Bellevue (WA) • La Mesa (CA) • Beverly Hills (CA) • Newport Beach (CA) • Boulder (CA) • Palo Alto (CA) • Chula Vista (CA) • Pasadena (CA) • Coral Springs (FL) • Redwood City (CA) • Corvallis (OR) • Riverside (CA) • Escondido (CA) • San Mateo (CA) • Eugene (OR) • Santa Barbara (CA) • Everett (WA) • Santa Monica (CA) • Fullerton (CA) • Sunnyvale (CA) • Glendale (CA) • Tempe (AZ) • Huntington Beach (CA) 11 Most of these agencies fall within certain measurable parameters such as population (example: population +/- 50% of Carlsbad). These initial parameters may need to be adjusted during the course of this program. Additionally, due to the varying degrees of municipal services provided, not all MSAs will use the same cities for comparison. In addition to these cities, there may be opportunities for benchmarking outside local government. Private sector comparisons exist for such fields as fleet maintenance, information systems, project engineering, inspection, purchasing, warehousing, etc. Non-profit agencies may also provide some basis for comparison as well. These alternatives will be explored in the coming year. Providing meaningful benchmark comparisons remains the goal. BENEFITS AND RISKS OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT A performance measurement system can be used a variety of ways both internally and externally. A performance measurement program: Internal Use • Helps evaluate the success of programs/services • Clarifies the key roles/responsibilities of an agency through the identification of the desired outcomes • Provides a mechanism for informed evaluation/decision making • Helps to create "the big picture" concept • Helps drive the strategic planning process • Acts as the mechanism to build a culture of continuous improvement External Use • Helps us "tell the story" to the public • Allows for more informed dialogue between the citizens and staff • Sets the stage for policy discussions • Promotes greater public trust and confidence • Shows accountability in a governmental system Potential risks to implementing a performance measurement system include: • Employee fear regarding job security • Potential that performance measurement may be used as a negative reinforcement tool. • Could negatively impact morale if scores are low • May provide information that could be used for negative purposes • Data is subject to interpretation • Might be seen as additional work • "You get what you measure" - if the measures aren't right, your outcomes may not be either 12 Although the benefits of performance measurement far outweigh the risks, attention must be given to those who review the information and may report it as negative or "not measuring up." The purpose of the program is to point out successes and weaknesses so that an organization can work towards constant improvement and strive to compare with other high performing organizations. Performance measurements should never be looked at as failure to "measure up." Performance measurement is another management tool to evaluate services and programs, making certain that they are in line with the organizations mission and that they are provided at an acceptable level (bench marking) set by the organization. COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH For the performance measurement system to be effective the data that is reported must be reliable, and the results must then be used to achieve improvement. An effective communications and outreach program is therefore a key component to the success of the performance measurement system. The Resource Team has begun an outreach program to reach all levels of city employees. To date, two workshops have been held for approximately 80 members of the City's management staff. In addition, Resource Team members have participated in several department staff meetings to discuss the program. The next phase of outreach will include distribution of information citywide, such as paycheck stuffers, more department and division meetings, workshops with the City Council, a review of the State-of-Effectiveness report with those who participate in the performance measurement program, and the release of the State-of-Effectiveness report to the public. Additional communication and outreach activities will develop as the program develops. CALENDAR To help maximize the benefits of a performance measurement system and to fully integrate it into the City, the timing of performance measurement activities must be well planned. The sample calendar on page 15 demonstrates how the performance measurement program meshes with both the goal and budget processes. Starting out a calendar year, the results of the citywide public opinion survey should be finalized and presented to Council at their annual goal-setting workshop usually held in January. In addition, the state-of-effectiveness report should also be presented at this time as one of the components of the performance measurement system. The information contained in these reports 13 might influence the priorities set for the upcoming year. This same information should then be distributed to staff to aid in the development of management goals and department budgets. Departments may need the performance measurement data so that they can request funding to strengthen or add programs, and to help establish their departmental goals for the upcoming year. Based on the direction from the Council goals, departments may develop goals, establish cost estimates for new programs, and submit these with their budgets and management goals, usually due in March/April of each year. Once the budget is approved in June, departments can prepare for any new programs or activities that are tied into the budget. The second half of the year gives time to the departments to implement new programs, measure results, contact other agencies for benchmarking, and analyze data. It is recommended that the citywide public opinion survey questions be reviewed by July and that the survey be conducted in the summer/fall of each year. Results are then available for the performance measurement report that needs to be worked on in November and December of each year in preparation for the presentation at the January/February Council workshop. 14 City of Carlsbad Performance Measurement Program Annual Calendar JAN Citywide Survey Results To Council/ Staff State Of Effectiveness Report Distributed To Council/ Staff Council Goal Workshop FEE MAR APR <— Management Goal Prep-> Budget Preparation Dept. Budgets Due Review measures Mgmt. Goals Final MAY JUNE Budget Approved Mgmt Goal Evals Due JULY Begin Survey Re-write AUG SEPT Citywide Survey Begins OCX NOV DEC <-State of Effectiveness Report Preparation-* Draft Community Survey Results to Leadership Team and Mgmt. 15 WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? Expand Communications Plan to "Create The Culture" It is expected that communication methods will expand as this program evolves. Contacts with Other Cities - Benchmarks Establishing contacts and building relationships with other high-performing cities will continue as an ongoing process. Through our initial efforts, we have found this to be a time-consuming element in the performance measurement program. A goal in the future is to develop an informal consortium with similar agencies to help find comparable data. Action Plan Development The team will work with departments to implement action plans to address performance issues. These action plans need to be developed in conjunction with the budget process and goal development. Department Performance Measures The revision of our measures is an ongoing process. Measures will need to be reviewed and revised to assure we are gathering valuable data and that the methods utilized are valid. Some measures may need to be replaced with more meaningful measures. Citywide Measures Citywide measures that, reflect broad, citywide performance will be developed and added to the performance measurement program. Survey Work needs to begin on the next public opinion survey that will be conducted in late summer/fall 2001. It will need to be decided which questions should be asked annually and which questions can rotate in and out. There may be special topics that come up during the year that would warrant a question or series of questions, or further questioning based on the past year's results. In addition, the guidelines for the customer-specific surveys need to be finalized and distributed to staff. Incorporation of Growth Management Plan Measures The team recommends the addition of the City's growth management plan measures to the state-of-effectiveness report to help provide a comprehensive performance report. ICMA Survey This past year, the responsibility of coordinating the completion of the ICMA 16 survey was transferred to members of the Performance Measurement Team. This was done to provide better coordination of the survey and create a central warehouse of performance measurement information. State-of-Effectiveness Report, Second Edition The first edition of the City's State-of-Effectiveness report represents the City's initial effort at clarifying our critical outcomes and developing measures to assess our ability in reaching them. The content, format, and presentation of the first edition will to be evaluated in preparation for the second edition. Program Evaluation and Revision A review of the performance measurement program and the composition of the team should occur annually. 17 18 (D fit(A 3V) CITY OF CARLSBAD PERFORMANCE MEASURES 19 20 City Of Carlsbad State-Of-Effectiveness Report SUMMARY OF THE MEASURES PUBLIC SAFETY Fire Confinement (p. 25) Fire Customer Service (p. 28) Fire Cost Efficiency (p.31) Fire Response Time (p. 33) Police Customer Service (p. 37) Police Responsiveness (p. 40) Crime Clearance Rates (p. 43) Community Perception of Crime (p. 48) PUBLIC WORKS Potable Water (p. 50) Water Reliability (p. 52) Water Delivery Efficiency (p. 54) Sewer System Reliability (p. 57) Sewer Cost Efficiency (p. 59) Storm Drain Reliability (p.61) Drainage System Efficiency (p. 62) Drainage Water Quality (p. 63) ACHIEVES BENCHMARK ^y / / / / / / ^ / V BELOW BENCHMARK y / / ADEQUATE DATA NOT AVAILABLE y / 21 Solid Waste Customer Service (p. 64) Solid Waste Cost Efficiency (p. 65) Solid Waste Diversion (p. 67) Roadway Cost Efficiency (p. 69) Roadway Safety (p. 70) Roadway Circulation (p. 73) Roadway Ridability (p. 77) Fleet Reliability (p. 79) Fleet Customer Service (p. 82) Fleet Cost Efficiency (p. 84) Facilities Customer Service (p. 85) Facilities Maintenance Response (p. 89) Facilities Cost Efficiency (p. 90) Park Safety (p. 92) Park Customer Service (p. 93) Park Cost Efficiency (p. 94) COMMUNITY SERVICES Library Customer Service (p. 97) Adult Literacy Program (p. 98) Library Collection (p. 99) Senior Center Customer Service (p. 100) Recreation Customer Service (p. 101) Art Opportunities (p. 102) ACHIEVES BENCHMARK / / / BELOW BENCHMARK / / / y s s ADEQUATE DATA NOT AVAILABLE / V / / / / / / / / / / / 22 COMMUNITY PEVJ&QPliENT Section 8 Housing (p. 103) Front Counter Customer Service (p. 104) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Risk Management Losses (p. 105) Risk Management Liability Coverage (p. 107) Info Technology Customer Service(p.l09) Info Technology Network Operability (p. 1 1 1) Info Technology Cost Efficiency (p. 113) Human Resources Injured Employees (p. 1 14) Human Resources Customer Service (p. 116) Human Resources Recruitment Time (p. 119) Purchasing Customer Service (p. 120) Purchasing Ordering Processing (p. 121) Finance Collection Rates (p. 122) City Operating Cost Efficiency (p. 124) ACHIEVES BENCHMARK / / / / / / / BELOW BENCHMARK / / ADEQUATE DATA NOT AVAILABLE • ' -," ,;; • • / / / / y / 23 24 Public Safety FIRE CONFINEMENT THE OUTCOME Minimization of property damage due to fire. THE MEASUREMENT Percentage of all structure fire incidents where flamespread is confined to room of origin. WHAT THE DATA MEANS Once fire flashover occurs from room of origin damage to the structure increases exponentially. This measure is an indication of response time, personnel readiness and training, equipment reliability and resource coordination. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Fire BENCHMARK 90% of all structure fires (not including those out on arrival or undetermined) will be confined to room of origin. RESULTS BENCHMARK 90% CARLSBAD 99-00 63% City of Carlsbad FY 98-99 78% (28 out of 36) of structure fires confined to room of origin. FY 99-00 63% (5 out of 8) of structure fires confined to room of origin. ICMA Data FY 98-99 (20 cities reporting) Median - 67% of structure fires confined to room of origin. ANALYSIS Although Carlsbad's figures are well below the 90% benchmark, the data does not significantly differ from the 67% median found in the ICMA reported data for 98-99. However, due to the relatively small number of fires that occur in our city, results may tend to vary widely from year to year. In addition, as with all our measures, we would like to be able to compare ourselves to other high 25 performing agencies, not just those participating in the ICMA survey. By examining each of the eight (8) structure fires reported in FY 99-00 in more detail we find that it is likely that the fires did not progress significantly beyond the state at which they were reported. Although this information is encouraging, it does not necessarily mean there is not room for improvement to the many processes that contribute to the containment of fires to the room of origin. FY 99-00 Structure Fire Incidents Confined to room of origin Incident 0963 - single family home, fire confined to kitchen dishwasher Incident 2169 - single family home, fire confined to a clothes dryer Incident 2605 - restaurant, fire confined to cooking grill Incident 4210 - single family home, small cooking oil fire confined to stovetop Incident 2933 - manufacturer, fire confined to rubber byproducts drying oven Confined to structure of origin Incident 5456 - single family home, garage fire that extended into attic Incident 1062 - single family home, fire from 5 gallon propane tank extended up outside wall, under eve and into attic Beyond structure of origin Incident 3033 - single family home, spa/gazebo fire which spread to adjoining fence with flame beginning to spread to sunroom that was attached to house ACTION PLAN The Fire Department has been working on several initiatives that will potentially have an impact on how well we confine fires to the room of origin. Performance Standards We have a management goal this year regarding the establishment and measurement of individual and company performance standards. These standards will help ensure that our employees are maintaining an established readiness standard and that teams of employees are also trained in a manner that ensures safe and responsive action at emergency incidents. Training Officer To learn from our experiences fighting fires that do occur in our City the department has initiated a policy of having the Training Officer dispatched to all working fires. He will observe the incident and lead a post incident analysis as a way to learn from our actions on the fire ground. In addition, with the addition of the new training officer, it is anticipated that training will be applied more consistently across shifts with a greater emphasis on maintaining skills that contribute to the performance of the company as a whole. 26 Communication The fire department continues to explore ways to improve communication across shifts to ensure consistency in our procedures at emergency incidents. Towards this effort, we recently completed a survey of our Captains regarding communication and will be exploring ways to implement their suggestions regarding maintaining the chain of command, building consensus on policy directives, and ensuring operational procedures are implemented consistently across shifts. Response Time Two factors that contribute greatly to fire containment are the reporting of fire in the insipient stages and an immediate response once the fire has been reported. The department is working on several initiatives that have to do with response time as discussed in our response time measurement. 27 Public Safety FIRE CUSTOMER SERVICE AND SATISFACTION THE OUTCOME A high level of customer satisfaction. THE MEASUREMENT A direct mail survey to our customers after services has been rendered for EMS, fire/rescue, and fire plan check/inspection services. WHAT THE DATA MEANS Highly satisfied customers is an indication that we are providing services in a manner that is desired-and/or expected, contributing to greater confidence in the fire department and local government in general, resulting in increased peace of mind and a higher quality of life for community members. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Fire BENCHMARK 95% of customers rate all EMS services as "Very Good" (4 on a 1-5 scale) or higher in all customer service survey categories. RESULTS BENCHMARK 911 Dispatch Response Time Competence Courtesy Transportation 95.0%or better 97.9% 97.6% 97.1% 97.4% 95.6% Below are the cumulative results from the 398 surveys returned on paramedic services during FY 1999-00. Percent of respondents rating the service received as: 4 (Good) or 5 (Excellent) Survey Question FY 99-00 911 Dispatch 97.9% Response time to scene 97.6% Competence of Paramedics 97.1% Courtesy of Paramedics 97.4% Transport Of patient 95.6% 28 Average score of EMS patients based on: 1 = Unacceptable, 2 = Poor, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent Survey Question FY 99-00 911 Dispatch 4.8 Response time to scene 4.8 Competence of Paramedics 4.9 Courtesy of Paramedics 4.9 Transport of Patient 4.8 ANALYSIS The results of our EMS surveys continue to validate that our dispatchers and paramedics are providing excellent service overall. One of the greatest benefits of surveying our customers is that it reinforces our department's culture of "helping people by treating them as we want our family treated," as stated in our department's values statement. Each year our survey data is summarized (with comments taken verbatim) and distributed to all fire personnel. In addition, the survey results are referred to the department's EMS Committee for analysis and recommendations. In FY 99-00, as in previous surveys, the most commonly repeated recommendation was the need to improve the "bumpy ride" of our ambulances: Another comment received from several respondents had to do with the cost of the ambulance service itself. Both these issues along with the results of the entire survey were referred to our EMS Committee for action. In addition, we need look for ways to achieve statistically significant survey samples for our fire/rescue and fire plan check/inspection services. Due to infrequent fire/rescue incidents and the nature of our plan check/inspection services (a small number of companies provide fire system design and installation) we need to develop a more representative way to measure these services. However, the citywide public opinion survey does validate that the vast majority of Carlsbad citizens perceive fire protection services (96.0%) and Paramedic services (94.9%) as good or excellent. ACTION PLAN The Fire Department's EMS committee recommends the following: 1. Research the possibility of purchasing softer gurneys. vendors and request demonstrations. Contact known 2. Refer comments regarding the stiffness of the ambulance ride to the department's Ambulance Design Committee to take into consideration during the selection of our new ambulances. 3. Provide all personnel with information regarding the cost of ambulance service. Advise personnel that it is their legal responsibility to inform any patient of the cost of ambulance transportation if requested. 29 It was also recommended that the survey results be distributed department- wide on a quarterly (rather than annual) basis, in order to reinforce the findings in a more timely fashion. The department will also continue to use the department newsletter to recognize customer service successes and promote high customer service standards. In addition, we will be looking for new ways to gauge customer satisfaction for fire/rescue and fire plan check/inspection services, such as through focus groups, given our inability to gain statistically significant findings using direct mail methods. 30 Public Safety FIRE OPERATING COST EFFICIENCY THE OUTCOME Efficient use and recovery of general fund resources. THE MEASUREMENT Operating cost per capita for Fire and EMS. WHAT THE DATA MEANS The efficient use of our financial resources allows the City to provide a. higher level of service, more public services, or a reduced cost of services to the taxpayer. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Fire BENCHMARK The net cost per capita should not exceed $100 (using 2000 as the base year and adjusting for inflation). RESULTS BENCHMARK $100 CARLSBAD 99-00 $ 90 Net Expenditures 7,386,751 / Population 82,030 = $90.05 per capita spent in FY 99-00. Carlsbad population as of January 1, 2000 = 82,030 per the California Department of Finance. Actual Expenditures for FY 1999-00 = 8,547,830 Actual Revenues for FY 1999-00 = 1.161,079 Difference = 7,386,751 ANALYSIS This measure determines how financially efficient the department is as compared to other agencies. Unfortunately, the only data that is currently available is total operating expenditures (which does not include a deduction for total revenues) as provided by the ICMA. This data shows that the Carlsbad Fire Department is slightly higher than the average. 31 Operating Costs Per Capita ICMA Data FY 98-99 Average Total operating costs per capita $102.35 Carlsbad FY 98-99 Total operating costs per capita $110.96 Carlsbad FY 99-00 Total operating costs per capita $104.2O As the city of Carlsbad, continues to grow in population it is anticipated that our cost per capita will decrease. This is because our overhead costs will most likely not increase as rapidly as our population due to the fact that we are currently serving the entire geographic area of the city before it is completely built out. The vast majority of our costs (80%+) are related to personnel costs, which have a direct reflection on the service levels we are able to provide. As the city continues to grow towards build out, we will be monitoring our performance measures closely to ensure that we are meeting our stated service levels in the most cost efficient way possible. ACTION PLAN During the next year the fire department will be seeking to establish contacts with other "high performing" agencies to collect performance measurement information, including data on expenditures and revenues. This will help us compare our cost per capita data and develop communication channels with other departments to share ideas and programs. The finance department is also in the process of developing a more decentralized budgeting process where departments will have more control and responsibility over how their financial resources are utilized. This new program will provide an incentive for the fire department to manage its resources and place more emphasis on strategic planning rather than budgeting in one or two year increments. Finally, the department is working on a master plan that will identify processes and projects that need to be implemented in the next five years. By anticipating these changes, it is hoped that the financial considerations can be clearly identified and carefully considered as part of the decision making process. 32 Public Safety FIRE RESPONSE TIME THE OUTCOME Maximization of patient survivability from a life threatening medical emergency. THE MEASUREMENT Average response time to calls requiring advanced life support from receipt of call to arrival. WHAT THE DATA MEANS In a life threatening medical emergency the most critical factor to long term recovery is stabilizing a patient's vital signs as quickly as possible. Depending on the medical emergency (trauma, heart attack, diabetic coma, stroke) chances for survival increase dramatically if advanced life support medical intervention is provided as quickly as possible. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Fire BENCHMARK Travel time on priority 1 calls will be 5 minutes or less 90% of the time. RESULTS BENCHMARK 5 minutes or less CARLSBAD 99-00 4.77* minutes Carlsbad Fire Department Average Travel Time to Priority 1 Calls Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 99-00 Response Time 4.27 4.21 4.39 4.42 4.55 4.68 4.78 4.81 4.77 *Note: 4.77 is our average travel time obtained by deducting .75 (45 seconds) from our average response times (dispatch to arrival on scene), to account for turnout time. 33 ICMA Data Percent of Total Fire Calls with a Response Time of Five Minutes and Under From Dispatch to Arrival on the Scene All Jurisdictions 1999 1998 1997 Average 69.9% 66.6% 72.9% 100,000< 66.2% 64.0% 69.6% <100,OOO 76.6% 72.4% 80.3% Carlsbad* 48.4% *Based on an analysis of 719 priority one calls in Jun., Jul., Aug. 2000. EMS Response Time: Average Time From Dispatch to Arrival on Scene For Calls Requiring an Advanced Life Support Response, FY 98-99 All Jurisdictions Minutes Average 4.9 Carlsbad** 5.6 **Based on the average response time from dispatch to arrival on scene to all priority one calls in FY 98-99. ANALYSIS Currently the fire department reports response time as an average. This average is reported by the city's Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system as the time from dispatch to the time the fire engine arrives on scene. We currently deduct .75 minutes (45 seconds) from the average response time to come up with the "travel time" that is commonly reported. With the implementation of a new computer aided dispatch system (CAD) in FY 00-01 the measurement will be enhanced to include a break down of the individual components of response time (call taking, dispatch, turn-out, travel) and refined to measure the percentage of calls responded to within an established benchmark rather than an average response time for all calls. Although there is no widely accepted industry standard for response time the city's growth management plan requires "no more than 1,500 dwelling units outside of a five minute response time," and the Fire Department's Operational Directive #5 states, " the department's response goal is to provide an engine company response within five minutes and an ambulance response within ten minutes to 90 percent of the priority one emergency calls in the city." 34 In the absence of the ability to easily calculate the percentage of calls responded to within 5 minutes or less, the department has relied on an average response time of 5 minutes or less, which is less stringent than the 90 percent standard. The difference in these two types of measurements is demonstrated in the following example: if one-half of all priority one calls were responded to in four minutes and the other one-half were responded to in six minutes our average response time would be five minutes, meeting our stated performance benchmark. But when using the percentage method, the response times are stacked in ascending order. Then the total number of calls generating a response within five minutes is calculated as a percentage of the total number of calls. In this example, only 50% of the total number of calls would meet the five minute performance benchmark. As shown in the most recent ICMA data our response times are greater than the average for EMS calls. In addition, our percentage of calls responded to within five minutes is less than the average. Further analysis is needed to determine what factors are contributing significantly to our response times, beyond the basic analysis of geographical distribution of the stations. ACTION PLAN The Fire Department has established a Response Time Task Force that has been chartered to: • Create a policy for the accurate and consistent measurement of total reflex time • Establish benchmarks for call-taking, dispatch, turn-out, and travel time • Develop action plans for performance improvement • Create a department-wide understanding of the Task Force goals and its significance to the development of department resources and maintenance of exemplary service levels • Determine the feasibility of upgrading our current CAD system to capture turnout time and travel time in a manner that would allow reporting the percentage on calls responded to within a given standard. In addition, the Fire and Police Department are currently in the process of replacing the existing 10-plus-year-old CAD system. The new CAD will significantly improve the way we are able to analyze response time data. Other initiatives that may have an impact on response time include the replacement 35 of two older fire engines, the future relocation of station 6 and station 3, and the addition of Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) capability to the new CAD system. The department will also be conducting further analysis of our response time data to look for identifiable trends or causes of greater than benchmark response times. We will also be looking at ways to keep fire companies in their station's district more by exploring ideas such as: » Providing gas cards to all apparatus to refuel in their own district • Better utilization of the city mail system to distribute supplies • Initiate daily Battalion Chief rounds to enhance communication and facilitate deliveries of EMS, office, and cleaning supplies • Limit move-ups (not available due to training, etc.) during peak call volume times • Explore new technologies for conducting training classes, such video taped classes, web based, I-Net or satellite teleconferencing 36 Public Safety POLICE CUSTOMER SERVICE & SATISFACTION THE OUTCOME A high level of customer satisfaction. THE MEASUREMENT This measure uses a multi-method approach combining: • Survey results • Personnel complaints The survey portion takes the results from the section of the police department's customer survey that relates to satisfaction with various police services. The survey questions ask respondents to rate dispatch, patrol, detectives, records, and administration. This customer satisfaction measure has been in place for approximately 10 years. The complaints portion of the measure is the number of sustained formal complaints made by citizens about police employees per 10,000 calls for service. After investigation complaints are classified as sustained, non- sustained, exonerated, or unfounded. A sustained complaint is one that involves a citizen complaint of an incorrect action on the part of a police employee that is upheld as an incorrect action. Using a ratio takes into account increasing contacts as the population and size of the workforce increase. The number of complaints by category has been measured for many years. WHAT THE DATA MEANS The survey portion of the measure reflects customer satisfaction among those who have had a direct interaction with us through the filing of a crime report. Over time, this measure can help us identify areas of strength and weakness, as well as identify areas where changes in service level are occurring. The complaints portion of the measure can be a reflection of the quality of the police employees and the level of customer service. Both a department directive (2.6) and a legal requirement (P.C. 832.5) define when a formal complaint is taken. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Police BENCHMARK Since this measure is unique to Carlsbad, the benchmark for the customer 37 survey portion of the measure is set at 4.5 - the highest average rating on record. The benchmark for the citizen complaints portion of the measure is zero - the lowest number on record. RESULTS CITIZEN SURVEY CITIZEN COMPLAINTS BENCHMARK 4.5 CARLSBAD 2000* 4.5 BENCHMARK 0 CARLSBAD 2000 0.31 AVERAGE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RATINGS Total 911 Dispatcher Uniformed personnel Detectives Records Administrative 1996 4.2 4.3 4.4 3.7 4.1 4.4 1997 4.1 4.1 4.5 4.1 3.9 4.1 1998 4.4 4.3 4.7 4.4 4.4 4.3 1999 4.5 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.6 2000* 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.5 * Based on January - September data SUSTAINED PERSONNEL COMPLAINTS PER 10,OOO CALLS 1996 I1997|1998I1999I 2000 0.48 0.47 0 0.15 0.31 ANALYSIS The trend for the customer satisfaction survey is positive with the past two years reaching the highest overall satisfaction rating seen since the survey was implemented in 1991 (4.5). All of the areas showed an increase in the average satisfaction rating since 1996, however, the greatest increase was seen with the investigations division. Traditionally, uniformed personnel rate the highest of all the service areas; in 1998, 1999, and the first three quarters of 2000, they reached an all-time-high average rating of 4.7. Investigations rating increased in 1998 with the implementation of the victim follow-up program conducted by volunteers. While previously at an average rating of 4.1 or lower, after the implementation of the follow-up program, investigations average rating has steadily increased to 4.4, 4.5, and most recently 4.6. The total number of complaints filed each year, as well as the number of those that are sustained, is a relatively small number. The rates per 10,000 calls for service presented represent just a few sustained complaints per year out of less than 20 total annual complaints. 38 ACTION PLAN It is recommended that the crime victim follow-up be maintained, as there was a direct relationship between the establishment of this program and the increase in the investigations ratings. Further information can be extracted from the customer satisfaction survey data to direct additional activities to increase satisfaction. In addition, the department will examine how best to distribute not only the detailed results of the crime victims survey throughout the department but also the results of the California State University, San Marcos citywide survey results. We believe that service levels can increase if employees have a better understanding of the needs and concerns of the citizens. The department can also explore enhancing customer service training, either with existing citywide training that is currently available or new training, and an enhanced recognition system for outstanding service. With regard to citizen complaints, it is recommended that data from similar agencies be obtained for comparison purposes. In addition, a complete review and revision of the internal investigations policy and procedure is in progress. This will help assure consistency in the handling of these cases. Hiring and training practices need to be continually monitored as they relate to citizen complaints and system to track complaints by officer will be evaluated. The effective handling of complaints results in a higher level of customer satisfaction and confidence. 39 Public Safety POLICE RESPONSIVENESS THE OUTCOME Minimize damage to life and property and increase probability of criminal apprehension with a fast patrol response. THE MEASUREMENT All calls are given a priority. The determination of a call's priority depends on the severity of the crime and the time frame in which it occurred. There is a priority assigned to each crime code within the computer-aided dispatch system but the dispatcher has the option to upgrade a call's priority based on what the caller is saying or what the dispatcher may be hearing. The response time is the time it takes from the time the call is received to when the first police unit arrives on scene. Priority 1 calls are life and death emergencies such as all violent crimes in progress, some non-violent crimes in progress, armed robbery alarms, no detail traffic collisions, and burglaries in progress. Other examples include kidnapping, domestic violence, or assault in progress. Priority one calls are generally less than one percent of the total police call volume. Priority 2 calls include non-violent crimes in progress such as petty theft and burglary alarms. Priority 3 calls include "cold" reports - reports being taken after the crime has occurred. Examples include corning home and finding that your house was burglarized earlier in the day or waking in the morning and discovering that your car has been stolen. Response time data has been measured for many years and data is available going back to 1988 - the first full year on the PRC CAD system. WHAT THE DATA MEANS Most customers report that they believe response time reflects quality of service. As a result, response time is often a large factor in a customer's satisfaction rating. We have numerous data indicating that fast response times are very important to the customer. In actuality, response times are a reflection of not only quality of service but also other factors such as traffic circulation, staffing, and overall activity levels. Since priority one calls are less than one percent of the total police call volume, the response times for priorities two and three are key to customer satisfaction. 40 DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Police BENCHMARK The FY 1999 ICMA mean average priority one response time for all jurisdictions is 6.4 minutes. Carlsbad has used the benchmarks of 6, 15, and 30 minutes for priorities 1, 2, and 3 respectively for the past several years. Since ICMA has no benchmark for the other priorities, and Carlsbad believes that our responsiveness to non-priority one calls is an important customer service measure, the police department is presenting both our internal benchmarks and the ICMA benchmark. RESULTS Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 ICMA BENCHMARK 6.4 mins. N/A N/A CARLSBAD BENCHMARK 6.0 mins. 15.0 mins. 30.0 mins. CARLSBAD 2000 5.1 mins. 11.2 mins. 21.6 mins. The average response times for priorities 1 through 3 for 1993 through 2000 are as follows: Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 1993 4.9 9.8 20.1 1994 5.6 11.1 23.0 1995 5.6 11.2 23.8 1996 5.8 11.4 22.7 1997: 5.6 11.0 21.8 1998 5.6 10.7 22.1 1999 5.2 10.4 20.5 2000 5.1 11.2 21.6 2000 Calls for Service by Priority ANALYSIS Until 2000, there has been a downward trend in all three priority levels of response time despite an increase in call volume. While 2000 year-to-date shows no change in the average priority one response 41 time, there has been an increase in both the average priority two and average priority three response times. This may be the start of a trend of increasing response times. It is not surprising that the average priority one response time has held constant while the average priority two and three response times have increased. Priority one calls are the calls that officers will break away from other calls to respond. It is very likely that we would first see an increase in priority two and three response times and later see an increase in the average priority one response time. ACTION PLAN In spite of the favorable results compared to the ICMA cities, an upturn in the priority two and three response times has been identified and the department must closely monitor all three levels of response time. Staffing levels need to be evaluated, traffic circulation and its impact on response item should studied, and beat realignment should be reexamined. In addition, our patrol officer deployment practices should be evaluated. The department will consider the reporting of response time in a call distribution format (ex: 95 percent of all priority one calls were responded to in six minutes or less) with the implementation of the new CAD system. In addition, the automatic vehicle locator (AVL) function of a new CAD system may help reduce response times by making it easier to dispatch the unit with the fastest response time. 42 Public Safety CRIME CASES CLEARED THE OUTCOME Maximize the number of crimes solved. THE MEASUREMENT A case is considered cleared when at least one person is arrested, charged, and turned over to court for prosecution, or the case is cleared exceptionally. The number of FBI index cases cleared as a percentage of total FBI index crime cases is a fairly standard measure used throughout the law enforcement community. Clearance rates have been measured and reported by the police department for at least 20 years. In additional to the percentage for all FBI index crime cases overall, we also measure the percentage separately for violent crimes (homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault), and for property crimes (burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft) to help further identify strengths and weaknesses. WHAT THE DATA MEANS The clearance rate is one indicator of the achievement of law enforcement personnel in solving crimes. Although generally thought of as a reflection of the investigations function, it also reflects the performance of the patrol function and to a lesser degree, the police records function. Some of the factors that influence clearance rates include: policies and procedures used by various agencies; workload and/or the volume of cases reported; personnel staffing for preliminary and follow-up investigation; differential emphasis placed on investigating specific types of crime; the quality and nature of the crimes assigned for investigation; and the training and experience of officers. Changes in clearance rates over time could reflect data variability and/or changes in productivity. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Police BENCHMARK We have established a benchmark to be within the top one-third of the county with regard to clearance rates for all crime, for violent crimes, and for property crimes. The police department uses San Diego County data as clearance data can vary greatly from state to state and even somewhat by county within California. We are fairly confident in our local county data due to a shared 43 database that all agencies use and regular quality assurance audits that are conducted. RESULTS OVERALL CRIME VIOLENT CRIME PROPERTY CRIME BENCHMARK Top one-third Top one-third Top one-third CARLSBAD 1999 Yes No Yes Note: Individual city data is not yet available for 2000. 1999 data is presented instead. RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6 "*' *f , * l > 7 8 9 10 11 12i i •"• A-*Y 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 CITY El Cajon Chula Vista Lemon Grove Poway Coronado Carlsbad .'-' i ,,-h , i - - < a .X ' , «-<: , ,<; • ' , • ' .! , Escondido Santee Unincorporated/ Sheriffs Imperial Beach National City Oceanside >/>' fv,,; / ^'i^v^v^-if Vista La Mesa San Diego Encinitas San Marcos Solana Beach Del Mar 1999 OVERALL CRIME CLEARANCE RATES 33% 26% 26% 25% 24% 23% < , - ' ' , _J ; », 23% 22% 22% 21% 21% 21% , ' '. • , • ', '-''J • '', ' 21% 20% 20% 17% 16% 10% 9% 44 RANK 1999 VIOLENT CRIME CLEARANCE RATES CITY Coronado Poway El Cajon Lemon Grove Chula Vista La Mesa 11 Ig^JirlJl^''"'^ * * ^ • San Marcos Unincorporated Santee Imperial Beach San Diego Encinitas ' .,' i A |i« 1 1 '' ,-, , < Escondido Vista Oceanside Del Mar Solana Beach Carlsbad National City RATE 87% 80% 79% 75% 72% 72% 4 :;•<>*' 71% 67% 66% 65% 64% 57% , 57% 57% 53% 52% 47% 45% 41% 7_ 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 CARLSBAD'S CLEARANCE RATES: 1990 - 2000 1999 PROPERTY CRIME CLEARANCE RATES CITY El Cajon Carlsbad Coronado Poway Chula Vista Escondidoi'v^ ;*•' , Lemon Grove National City Santee La Mesa Vista Oceanside (', t, ** -M «r i! t* , tr,_i,,r > Unincorporated San Diego Encinitas Imperial Beach San Marcos Solana Beach Del Mar RATE 26% 21% 20% 19% 18% 18% 17% 16% 16% 15% 14% 14% Ui'i ' 1; 4 13% 12% 11% 10% 8% 5% 4% Overall Crime Violent Crime Property Crime 1990 25% 49% 22% 1991 20% 39% 18% 1992 15% 39% 12% 1993 18% 39% 15% 1994 11% 22% 9% 1995 16% 43% 13% 1996 21% 48% 18% 1997 30% 52% 27% 1998 24% 48% 22% 1999 23% 45% 21% 2000* 21% 51% 19% * January - June 2000 data ANALYSIS Carlsbad's clearance rates have seen significant variance over the past ten years, not only year-to-year but also compared to the county averages. Carlsbad's overall clearance rate fell below the county average from 1991 through 1996. It then climbed above the county average and has remained above the county average since then. When looking at only violent crimes (homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) Carlsbad's clearance rate has consistently been below the county average. When looking at ranked violent crime clearance rates, Carlsbad is in the lower one-third. There are relatively few violent crimes in Carlsbad so the overall clearance rate for the City is more 45 influenced by the property crime clearance rate. Property crimes include burglary, larceny theft, and motor vehicle theft. Except for 1992 and 1994, Carlsbad has been at or above the county average, and is often well above the county average for property crime clearances. When looking at ranked property crime clearance rates, Carlsbad is in the top one-third countywide. In general, clearance rates will be higher for violent crimes since they are crimes against persons and will usually have witnesses and suspect information. The nature of property crimes leads toward lower clearance rates. ACTION PLAN An audit of violent crime cases and property crime cases between July 1, 1999 and December 31, 1999 was conducted in Spring 2000 to determine the validity of the clearance data and if necessary, to help define recommendations for change and process improvements. The results of the audit helped form an action plan below. A report with specific recommendations in the following general categories was completed in Spring 2000. • Accuracy and timeliness of investigations paperwork processing for crime, arrest, and clearance forms • Accuracy of records processing and entry of clearance data • The creation of redundant/back-up systems for assuring the submission and entry of accurate clearances • Additional training regarding dispositions and clearances should be provided to investigations, patrol and records. In an effort to improve functionality and effectiveness, and therefore clearance rates, a review of the Investigations Division was conducted during the last quarter of 1999. Recommendations have been made in the following areas. • Individual Workload • Communications • Accountability • Case Process • Major case capability • Physical Layout • Training Needs • Equipment Many changes have already taken place to improve the division's overall investigative capability and level of service to the citizens. Additional recommendations identified in the study will need to be implemented and there will likely be additional areas identified for improvement. It is expected that the 2000 clearance rates will show an improvement as a result of these changes. It is recommended that the clearance rates continue 46 to be used as a measurement of the department's overall performance. To assure that clearances remain a valuable, accurate measure, the department must remain committed to ongoing review and improvement. 47 Public Safety COMMUNITY PERCEPTION OF CRIME THE OUTCOME Citizens' sense of community safety. THE MEASUREMENT A general citizen survey to measure how safe people feel in their community. WHAT THE DATA MEANS This measure may be less influenced by the police department than any of the others. Many factors influence citizens' sense of fear in a community. These factors include the media (television, newspapers, movies), current events including high profile crime cases, the age distribution in a community, etc. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Police BENCHMARK The benchmark for community sense of safety is the ICMA "Citizen rating of Safety in Their Neighborhoods" for fiscal year 1999. Although ICMA uses a five-category response, our survey consultants recommended using a 10-point scale for increased accuracy. These two scales can be fairly easily compared. RESULTS How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood during the day? PERCENT RESPONDING "VERY SAFE" BENCHMARK 62% CARLSBAD 86% How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood at night? PERCENT RESPONDING "VERY SAFE" BENCHMARK 31% CARLSBAD 41% ANALYSIS Carlsbad compares favorably to other cities in the ICMA survey. Citizens' rating of safety may be influenced by a variety of factors such as police visibility, 48 media, confidence in police service, lighting and other physical aspects, personal experiences, and character of the neighborhood, ACTION PLAN In addition, we may want to consider identifying higher performing cities to compare to next year and/or reconsider the benchmark since we are clearly exceeding it. 49 Public Works POTABLE WATER QUALITY THE OUTCOME High quality water free of pathogenic organisms. THE MEASUREMENT Monthly bacteriological samples. WHAT THE DATA MEANS The City purchases treated water from Metropolitan Water District and the San Diego County Water Authority. Weekly water samples are taken and tested for the presence of coliform bacteria. Coliform bacteria are ever-present and therefore used as an indicator for potential presence of pathogenic organisms that cause waterborne disease. Positive samples are indicators of potential problems that are investigated and followed up with additional samples. Monthly bacteriological reports are sent to the State Department of Health Services. The goal is to achieve zero positive samples with anything less than five percent acceptable. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Maintenance and Operations/Utility Operations BENCHMARK 98% of bacteria samples free of coliform. The State requires that at least 95% of all samples collected during any month are total coliform-free. RESULTS BENCHMARK >98% CARLSBAD 2OOO 99.9% Number Total Total Percent Fiscal Year Collected Positive Bacteria-Free Bacteria-Free 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 1.316 1.349 1.354 1,428 1,615 4 6 1 3 1 1,312 1,343 1,353 1,425 1,614 99.0% 98.1% 99.2% 99.0% 99.9% 50 ANALYSIS Data was gathered for fiscal year 1999-00. Of the 1,615 samples taken, one sample was positive. When the positive samples are identified, staff takes repeat sample sets per Section 64424, Repeat Sampling of California Title 22 Regulations. 99.9% exceeds our standard for this measurement and meets all State and Federal legal, health and safety requirements. ACTION PLAN Staff will continue weekly water sampling and testing to ensure a high level of water quality. 51 Public Works WATER RELIABILITY THE OUTCOME Water system reliability. THE MEASUREMENT Total hours per mile of distribution line without service. This measure will be calculated by taking the number of hours that a water main is without service, excluding service interruptions due to maintenance and development activity, divided by the total miles of distribution line. WHAT THE DATA MEANS This measure reflects the integrity of the water distribution system. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Maintenance and Operations/Construction Maintenance, Engineering/ Planning and Programs BENCHMARK Annual number of hours per mile of distribution line that a water main is out of service will not exceed a total of 0.05 hours in a year. This benchmark was established at 1998-99 baseline level and will be reviewed and revised, if necessary, annually. RESULTS BENCHMARK <0.05 CARLSBAD 2OOO 0.04 Fiscal Year Total Estimated Miles Hours/Mile Hours Distribution Lines Distribution Line 1998-99 18 350 0.05 1999-00 17 400 0.04 52 ANALYSIS Agency Carlsbad Otay WD Vallecitos MWD Total Estimated Miles Hours Distribution Lines 17 18 10 400 400 290 Hours/ Distribution Line 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.04 hours/mile of distribution line is a reduction from the previous year of 0.05. This reduced ratio resulted, primarily, from the total number of hours remaining virtually the same, from 18 to 17, while the miles of distribution line increased from 350 to 400. Carlsbad's ratio falls in the middle of the two agency survey benchmarks which seems to indicate that the integrity of Carlsbad's system is comparable to other agencies. In the last year, Construction & Maintenance also changed their operations such that the majority of shut-offs were at single-family residences. In these instances, water was turned off on the city's-side of the property's water meter instead of the main. Turning water off at the main can affect several homes at once. As a result, fewer customers were affected by terminated water service due to repairs. ACTION PLAN Identify other agencies with similar organizational structures and operations so as to better obtain comparable data. Continue using methods such as terminating service on the City's side of the property's water meter instead of the main during repairs to minimize interruption of service to customers. 53 Public Works WATER DELIVERY EFFICIENCY THE OUTCOME Water operations delivery efficiency. THE MEASUREMENT This measure uses a multi-method approach combining: 1. The percentage of water loss in the distribution system. Water loss is defined as the amount of water production, less water sold, and divided by water production. 2. Staff hours to deliver an acre-foot of water. This is defined as the total water operations and maintenance full-time equivalent staff hours per year divided by the total acre-feet of water production per year, both potable and recycled. WHAT THE DATA MEANS 1. The water loss measure, if kept within the benchmark, represents the results of an efficient and fiscally responsible operation. If the percentage of water loss is high, the result is a revenue loss to CMWD. 2. This measure also represents an efficient system when we are able to achieve the benchmark. The aim is to satisfy customer demands with safe, reliable water with the minimum amount of staffing. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Maintenance and Operations/Utility Operations BENCHMARK 1. Annual water loss not to exceed six percent as set by CMWD (City) Standard Bulletin 166-4, Urban Water Use in California, August 1994. Distribution system losses commonly range between 6 and 15%. AWWA recommends that the loss after treatment be maintained at 10% or less. 2. Total number of staff hours to deliver-an acre-foot of water will not exceed 3.3 hours per acre-foot. This benchmark was established at 1998- 99 baseline level and will be reviewed and revised, if necessary, annually. 54 RESULTS 1. Annual Water Loss BENCHMARK <6% CARLSBAD 2000 5.36% FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 WATER LOSS 2.08% 2.66% .4.87% 5.36% 2. Staff Hours to Deliver an Acre-Foot of Water BENCHMARK <3.3 CARLSBAD 2000 2.9 FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 STAFF HOURS PER ACRE-FOOT 3.1 3.3 3.3 2.9 ANALYSIS 1. The four-year trend indicates an increasing level of water loss each year. There are several factors that may contribute to this trend including water leaks, unauthorized use of water or inaccurate reads by existing water meters. As meters age, they tend to slow down or stop completely. As a result,, the amount of water used may not be recorded accurately. 2. Staff-hours of 2.9 per year per ac-ft. is slightly lower than the previous year (3.3 hrs./ac.ft.) The slight decrease in staff-hours per ac-ft. is due to an increase in the number of ac-ft. that was delivered to an increasing number of water customers this year as compared to the previous year, without an increase in staffing levels. Carlsbad's ratio falls in the middle of the two agency survey benchmarks, which seems to indicate that the integrity of Carlsbad's system is comparable to other agencies. AGENCY Carlsbad Otay WD Vallecitos MWD STAFF HOURS PER ACRE-FOOT 2.9 4.8 1.9 55 ACTION PLAN 1. Continue to monitor the water loss and review on a monthly basis to identify trends that may be developing. This will include tracking water leaks in the system using both the maintenance management and work order systems, and identifying areas where replacement programs may need to be implemented. Additionally, a study will need to be conducted to test the reliability of our existing meters so we can take corrective actions if necessary. 2. Amend this measure to analyze data on a per capita basis instead of staff-hours per acre-foot. Identify other agencies with similar organizational structures and operations so as to better obtain comparable data. 56 Public Works SEWER SYSTEM RELIABILITY THE OUTCOME Sewer system reliability THE MEASUREMENT This measure uses a multi-method approach combining: 1. Number of stoppages per 10 miles of sewer mains. 2. Number of reportable spills per 10 miles of sewer mains. WHAT THE DATA MEANS Measures the integrity of the sewer collection system. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Maintenance and Operations/Construction Maintenance, Engineering/ Planning and Programs BENCHMARK The following benchmarks were established at 1998-99 baseline level and will be reviewed and revised, if necessary, annually: 1. Annual number of stoppages not to exceed 1.2 per 10 miles of sewer mains per year. 2. Annual number of spills not to exceed 1.3 per 10 miles of sewer mains per year. RESULTS 1. BENCHMARK <1.2 CARLSBAD 2OOO 0.4 FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 1999-00 TOTAL STOPPAGES 26 8 ESTIMATED TOTAL MILES OF MAINS 213 213 STOPPAGES PER 10 MILES 1.2 0.4 2. BENCHMARK <1.3 CARLSBAD 2000 0.5 57 FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 1999-00 TOTAL SPILLS 28 11 ESTIMATED TOTAL MILES OF MAINS 213 213 SPILLS PER 10 MILES , 1.3 0.5 ANALYSIS 1.. Our 0.4 stoppages per 10 miles of sewer mains as compared to 1.2 from the previous year reflect the decrease in total stoppages of 26 to eight. This decrease was due to an increased effort towards cleaning and maintenance of "trouble" areas that are known to have a history of stoppages. At the time of this report, accurate inventory data was not available to determine exact total miles of mains. The number used is based on historical information, and will be updated in FY 2000-01. 2. The number of spills per ten miles of sewer line was 0.5. This is down from our previous measure of 1.3, but somewhat higher than the agency survey measure of 0.4 reported from the City of Santa Barbara. Santa Barbara's 0.4 represents the calculation of 10 spills per 234 miles of sewer main. The difference is relatively negligible. Carlsbad's total reportable spills decreased from 28 the previous year to 11 this year and primarily attributable to concentrated efforts in areas known to have a history of spill incidences. As in the previous measure, at the time of this report, accurate inventory data was not available to determine exact total miles of mains. The number used is based on historical information, and will be updated in FY 2000-01. AGENCY Carlsbad Santa Barbara TOTAL SPILLS 11 10 ESTIMATED TOTAL MILES OF MAINS 213 234 SPILLS PER 10 MILES 0.5 0.4 ACTION PLAN Continue to concentrate on trouble areas to better ensure against potential stoppages and spills. Revise Public Works Maintenance Management standards to identify trouble area work activities and scheduled maintenance work activities to better achieve a balance between the two. Identify agencies with similar organizational structures and operations so as to better obtain comparable data. Work with Engineering to obtain accurate inventory data. 58 Public Works SEWER COST EFFICIENCY THE OUTCOME Sewer operations cost efficiency. THE MEASUREMENT Cost of service per million gallons of sewage. Calculated by dividing the total cost of service by the total sewer flow assessed to Carlsbad. WHAT THE DATA MEANS Measures the fiscally responsible and appropriate use of ratepayer dollars. The total cost of services includes payments to Encina in addition to maintenance and operation costs. This can then be compared to other agencies, which are also responsible for collection, treatment and discharge. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Maintenance and Operations/Construction Maintenance BENCHMARK Annual cost of service per million gallons of sewage will not exceed $1,028. This benchmark was established at 1998-99 baseline level and will be reviewed and revised if necessary annually. RESULTS BENCHMARK <$1,028 CARLSBAD 2OOO $965 Fiscal Year Expenses Annual Flow (million gallons) $/mg 95-96 $2,278,165 1,708.20 $1,334 96-97 $2,404,019 1,770.25 $1,358 97-98 $2,364,962 1,861.50 $1,270 98-99 $2,244,652 2,182.70 $1,O28 99-OO $2,233,201 2,314.10 $965 59 ANALYSIS In fiscal year 1999-00 the cost of service was $965 per million gallons (mg) and was within the benchmark $1,028. This year's measure was slightly lower per mg due to the increase in the amount of sewage that was discharged resulting from the increase in the number of sewer customers, while at the same time maintaining existing staffing levels. However, it is anticipated this figure will increase substantially due to energy cost volatility impacts to Encina Treatment Facility in 2000-01. Staff attempted to obtain benchmark data from other agencies; however, analysis indicated data received was not comparable. ACTION PLAN Identify other agencies with similar organizational structures and operations to better obtain comparable data. Use the Public Works Maintenance Management Program to continue to identify ways to schedule and assign work activities to maintain existing levels during ongoing growth in customer base. 60 Public Works STORM DRAIN SYSTEM RELIABILITY THE OUTCOME Storm drain system reliability. THE MEASUREMENT Under development. WHAT THE DATA MEANS Measures the integrity of the storm drain system. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Maintenance and Operations/Street Maintenance BENCHMARK To be developed. RESULTS None available. ANALYSIS N/A ACTION PLAN Develop a measure that accurately reflects staffs efforts at maintaining the storm drain system. It is also anticipated that the corrugated metal pipe installed prior to 1970 will be inspected via remote controlled video camera to evaluate the integrity of the storm drain system and identify potential problem areas. 61 Public Works DRAINAGE SYSTEM EFFICIENCY THE OUTCOME Drainage system efficiency. THE MEASUREMENT Staff hours to maintain a mile of pipe (total staff hours devoted to drainage system maintenance divided by mile of storm drain). WHAT THE DATA MEANS Measures the fiscally responsible and appropriate use of funds. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Maintenance and Operations/Street Maintenance, Engineering BENCHMARK Annual staff hours per mile of storm drain system will not exceed 5.4 hours per mile of pipe. This benchmark was established at 1999-00 baseline level and will be reviewed and revised if necessary annually. RESULTS BENCHMARK <5.4 CARLSBAD 2000 5.4 FISCAL YEAR 1999-00 TOTAL HOURS 923 MILES OF DRAINS 171 HOURS PER MILE 5.4 ANALYSIS Staff attempted to obtain benchmark data from other agencies, however, analysis indicated data received was not comparable. ACTION PLAN Continue development of the storm drain maintenance program, including ongoing updates of the inventory. Identify other agencies with similar organizational structures and operations to better obtain comparable data. 62 Public Works DRAINAGE SYSTEM WATER QUALITY THE OUTCOME Environmentally sound drainage system. THE MEASUREMENT Dry-weather testing to comply with Non-Point Discharge Elimination System program. WHAT THE DATA MEANS Determines the quality of storm drain water in the City of Carlsbad. STATUS OF THE MEASURE This is an existing measure based on federal standards. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Maintenance and Operations/Environmental Programs BENCHMARK On hold until Environmental Program Manager is hired. RESULTS N/A ANALYSIS N/A ACTION PLAN N/A 63 Public Works SOLID WASTE CUSTOMER SERVICE & SATISFACTION THE OUTCOME A high level of customer satisfaction. THE MEASUREMENT Results of citywide public opinion survey. WHAT THE DATA MEANS Indicates how well solid waste customers' needs and expectations are being met. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Maintenance and operations BENCHMARK 90% of customers rate Solid Waste Services as "Good" (3 on a 1-4 scale) or higher in all customer service survey categories. RESULTS BENCHMARK >90% CARLSBAD 2OOO 83.3% 85.8% of customers rated trash collection as "Good" or "Excellent" in December 1999 citywide public opinion survey. 83.3% of customers rated trash and recycling collection as "Good" or "Excellent" in the December 2000 citywide public opinion survey. ANALYSIS While solid waste services did not meet the benchmark standard, they ranked amongst the highest of all services surveyed. ACTION PLAN Staff will continue to closely monitor customer satisfaction with solid waste services. All results are communicated to the City's solid waste handler, and all complaints are logged. There is no other formal action plan. 64 Public Works SOLID WASTE COST EFFICIENCY THE OUTCOME Solid waste services cost efficiency. THE MEASUREMENT Solid waste services rates adjusted for franchise and other City fees, as reported in a semi-annual SANDAG survey. WHAT THE DATA MEANS Measures the cost of providing solid waste services. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Maintenance and operations BENCHMARK Carlsbad solid waste service rates for commercial and residential customers in the lowest one-third when compared to other cities in San Diego County. RESULTS BENCHMARK Lowest one-third CARLSBAD 2000 Lowest one-third Franchise/ Residential Adjusted City Carlsbad Del Mar El Cajon Encinitas Escondido La Mesa Lemon Grove Oceanside Poway San Marcos Solana Beach Vista Other 10% + 4% + 9% + City Fees 21 57 15 2% + 5% + 5% 83 + 7 9% 5% 7% 5% cents cents cents $3.42 cents 5% 5% cents Rate $14. $14. $15. $14. $14. $14. $14. ,52 ,46 .04 .76 .18 ,55 ,99 $19.88 $15. $14. $15, $15. ,78 ,57 ,49 .55 Rate $13.21 $13.74 $13.99 $14.02 $12.55 $13.40 $13.49 $16.06 $14.16 $13.84 $14.72 $14.70 Rank 2 5 7 8 1 3 4 12 9 6 11 10 Franchise/ Commericial Adjusted Other City Fees 9% 5% 7% 5% 10% 4% +$2.02 9% + $1.33 2% 5% 5% 5% 5% + $0.63 Rate 74.92 76.28 75.25 74.32 71.23 75.55 79.95 80.74 71.16 77.67 77.57 80.61 Rate 68.18 72.47 69.98 70.60 64.11 70.51 71.42 79.13 67.60 73.79 73.69 75.95 Rank 3 8 4 6 1 5 7 12 2 10 9 11 NOTES: Chula Vista is not included as rates are reduced due to a litigation settlement. Coronado is not included because the General Fund subsidizes 65 rates. Imperial Beach, National City and Santee are not included as City fees are lump sum rather than percentage. San Diego is not included because service is not provided by contract. ANALYSIS Carlsbad's solid waste services rates have not been increased since June 1996 and are amongst the lowest in the County. ACTION PLAN Solid waste services rates are established via City Council resolution. Rate adjustment requests are subject to audit by an outside firm to ensure rates are fair and equitable. The City's authorized solid waste handler has not requested a rate adjustment, nor is one expected in fiscal year 2000-01. 66 Public Works SOLID WASTE DIVERSION THE OUTCOME Environmentally sound solid waste services. THE MEASUREMENT Diversion of solid waste from disposal in compliance with AB 939, as reported annually to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. WHAT THE DATA MEANS Measures the level at which the City of Carlsbad is taking responsible action in maintaining an environmentally safe community for its citizens. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Maintenance and operations BENCHMARK Achieve 50% or more diversion by end of year 2000 to meet compliance with AB 939. RESULTS BENCHMARK >50% CARLSBAD 1999 42% The City of Carlsbad diversion rate is 44% for 1998, and 42% in 1999. Results are submitted every August for the previous calendar year. YEAR 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 DIVERSION RATE 42% 44% 51% 48% 57% ANALYSIS Carlsbad's diversion rate has been dropping steadily since 1997. This phenomenon has been attributable to the robust economy. As people have increased discretionary income, they purchase more goods, and correspondingly generate more disposables. The diversion decrease has occurred throughout the state, but is pronounced in Carlsbad due to the 67 affluence of the community. Currently, the community is informed of solid waste, recycling, and household hazardous waste programs via the City's website, notices on the utility bills, and articles in the Water District's newsletter and the Community Services guide. In another effort to increase diversion, corrugated cardboard has been added to the curbside materials accepted for recycling. Staff is working with the City's authorized solid waste handler to promote this new program. ACTION PLAN Staff has begun working with the City's authorized solid waste handler to review our recycling and education programs to ensure we are maximizing diversion. If any new diversion and/or education opportunities are identified, proposed programs will be presented to City Council for consideration. 68 Public Works ROADWAY COST EFFICIENCY THE OUTCOME Value of the roadway experience. THE MEASUREMENT Actual maintenance expenditures per lane mile of roadway. WHAT THE DATA MEANS Measures the fiscally responsible and appropriate use of tax dollars allocated for use on the City's roadways. It also reflects age, design and maintenance standards of the infrastructure. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Maintenance and Operations/Street Maintenance, Engineering BENCHMARK To be determined RESULTS Not available at this time ANALYSIS None required at this time ACTION PLAN Traditionally, Public Works has not tracked the mileage of roadway by lane miles. Due to the introduction of the maintenance management program and new requirements placed on cities by the Government Accounting Services Board, the need for inventory at this level has now been identified. Engineering is in the process of gathering accurate inventory data that will be used to refine this measure over the next year. In addition, we will identify agencies with similar organizational structures and operations so as to better obtain comparable data. 69 Public Works ROADWAY SAFETY THE OUTCOME Roadway safety. THE MEASUREMENT Number of accidents per mile of roadway. WHAT THE DATA MEANS Several factors contribute to a safe roadway system including design, maintenance, traffic operations, and traffic enforcement. This measurement brings the effectiveness of all these factors together to measure the safety outcome. Data currently measured by both engineering and police. Data is gathered all year and is summarized in the Traffic Division's Annual Traffic Report. Roadway segment collision rate is the number of collisions occurring on a defined section of road, per one million vehicle miles. The California Department of Transportation has calculated statewide average rates on all State highways to be used to identify potential problem areas. These rates range from 2.08 for a 2 or 3 lane roadway to 3.52 for an undivided roadway with 4 or more lanes. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Public Works Maintenance and Operations, Public Works Engineering, Police. BENCHMARK 100% of roadway segments meet Caltrans rates. RESULTS BENCHMARK 100% CARLSBAD 1999 95% The table shown on the next page provides roadway segment collision rates on major streets throughout Carlsbad and a comparison of the State collision rate for a comparable roadway. 70 ROADWAY SEGMENT COLLISION RATES ALGA ROAD (major arterial) El Camino Real to Melrose Drive CANNON ROAD (major arterial) Carlsbad Boulevard to LEGOLAND Drive CARLSBAD BOULEVARD (major arterial) North City Limits to Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad Village Drive to Tamarack Avenue Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road Cannon Road to Palomar Airport Road Palomar Airport Road to Poinsettia Lane Poinsettia Lane to South City Limits COLLEGE BOULEVARD (major arterial) Palomar Airport Road to El Camino Real LA COSTA AVENUE (major arterial) Interstate Highway 5 to El Camino Real POINSETTIA LANE (major arterial) Carlsbad Boulevard to Aviara Parkway EL CAMINO REAL (prime arterial) State Route 78 to Marron Road Marron Road to Tamarack Avenue Tamarack Avenue to College Boulevard College Boulevard to Palomar Airport Road Palomar Airport Road to Aviara Parkway Aviara Parkway to La Costa AvenueLa Costa Avenue to South City Limits MELROSE DRIVE (prime arterial) Paiomar Airport Road to Alga Road Alga Road to Rancho Santa Fe Road PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD (prime arterial) Carlsbad Boulevard to Avenida Encinas Avenida Encinas to Paseo Del Norte Paseo Del Norte to College Boulevard College Boulevard to Camino Vida Roble Camino Vida Roble to El Camino Real El Camino Real to Melrose Drive Melrose Drive to East City Limits RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD (prime arterial) Melrose Drive to La Costa Avenue La Costa Avenue to Olivenhain Road Olivenhain Road to Calle Acervo AVIARA PARKWAY (secondary arterial) Poinsettia Lane to El Camino Real CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE (secondary arterial) Carlsbad Boulevard to Interstate Highway 5 Interstate Highway 5 to El Camino Real El Camino Real to Tamarack Avenue Tamarack Avenue to College Boulevard LA COSTA AVENUE (secondary arterial) El Camino Real to Rancho Santa Fe Road PASEO DEL NORTE (secondary arterial) Cannon Road to Palomar Airport Road Palomar Airport Road to Poinsettia Lane 1999 NUMBER OF COLLISIONS 3 2 8 6 6 8 0 5 7 22 (9) 3 10 10 10 14 (1) 8 9 (2) 15 (2) 3 0 1 14 26 5 10 (2) 13 15 7 7 (1)2 3 22 52 0 14 8 6 COLLISION RATE 0.21 0.54 1.50 0.96 0.64 1.46 0 0.59 1.16 0.95 0.29 2.13 0.54 0.49 1.00 0.40 0.58 1.09 0.56 0 0.99 **3.23 1.43 0.32 0.86 0.64 0.82 0.38 0.66 0.64 0.23 "4.74 0.66 0.36 0 1.16 1.66 1.61 1998 NUMBER OF COLLISIONS 5 ' 1 9 11 0 12 9 3 4 21 (14) 4 8 19 17 15 (1) 12 15 7 1 0 1 9 198 6 9 4 6 4 (1) 2 6 15 86 0 16 4 2 COLLISIONRATE 0.52 0.28 1.02 1.85 0 *2.45 1.12 0.39 0.59 0.90 0.44 2.01 1.17 0.88 0.95 0.60 1.00 0.51 0.61 0 0.91 2.16 1.05 0.50 0.51 0.45 0.24 0.34 0.39 0.79 0.52 "*3.14 1.09 1.29 0 1.25 0.71 0.57 CALTRANS STATEWIDE COLLISION RATES FOR URBAN ROADWAYS Exceeds State rate of 1.94 (4+ lanes undivided) Exceeds State rate of 2.23 (4+ lanes divided) * Exceeds State rate of 2.21 (4+ lanes divided) Numbers in parentheses ( ) indicate number of collisions in construction zone Rate Number of collisions x one million Average daily traffic x section length (miles) x 365 days = collisions per million vehicle miles 71 ANALYSIS In 1999, ninety-five percent of the roadway segments measured were within the statewide standard. Only two road segments on two different roads exceeded the statewide collision rate. (Carlsbad Village Drive between Carlsbad Boulevard and Interstate Highway 5; and Palomar Airport Road between Avenida Encinas and Paseo Del Norte). The segment on Carlsbad Village Drive was also identified in 1998 as exceeding the statewide collision rate. Each of these segments is in a heavily traveled corridor. The segment on Carlsbad Village Drive is particularly problematic due to closely spaced intersections, many driveways, heavy pedestrian volumes and tourist destinations. The Palomar Airport Road segment is heavily used by commuters and tourists. Both of the subject road segments have been fully improved to city standards and have permanent signing, striping and traffic control devices in place. Many of the collisions are outside the control of the city to initiate preventive measures due to the nature of the accidents such as being related to weather conditions or driver inattention. ACTION PLAN Staff currently performs detailed analysis of collision history on road segments having collision rates higher than the statewide rates. This analysis will continue to be performed on road segments exceeding the statewide collision rates. If it is determined through analysis that the installation of traffic control devices or changes to the roadway geometry may help reduce accidents then those corrective actions will be considered. Staff will explore with Caltrans whether they keep statistics or accident rates for road segments at freeway interchange locations, such as Palomar Airport Road and 1-5. It could be expected that such road segments have a higher accident rate than the arterial road segment information that is available. 72 Public Works ROADWAY CIRCULATION THE OUTCOME: Roadway circulation efficiency. THE MEASUREMENT Average travel time and percent delay on El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. WHAT THE DATA MEANS Ideal travel time is the length of time that it takes to travel from one point to the other based on the speed limit assuming no delays for traffic signals, construction, pedestrians, traffic congestion, etc. Average travel time is the average of actual travel times from one point to the other, including delays. Percent delay is the percent difference between the ideal time and the average time. Average travel time and percent delay measures are most meaningful if reviewed in relationship to peak (morning commute/evening commute) and off- peak periods. Several factors contribute to an efficient roadway circulation system including design, maintenance, traffic operations, and traffic enforcement. These measures serve as an initial red flag to help determine the effectiveness of the City's roadway system to ensure efficient and time-effective travel. Palomar Airport Road (East City Limit to Carlsbad Blvd.) Ideal Travel Time (Eastbound or Westbound) 7.4 min El Camino Real (South City Limit to Haymar) Ideal Travel Time (Northbound or Southbound) 10.9 min DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Public Works Maintenance and Operations, Public Works Engineering, Police. 73 BENCHMARK - vPatem^ifport RoadWr^Ktme Study^ytirt* 8f2000: - A.M. Peak- 6:45 to 8:1 5 Eastbound - Carlsbad Blvd to East City Limit Westbound - East City Limit to Carlsbad Blvd Off Peak -9:45 to 11:15 Eastbound - Carlsbad Blvd to East City Limit Westbound - East City Limit to Carlsbad Blvd P.M. Peak -4:00 to 6:00 Eastbound - Carlsbad Blvd to East City Limit Westbound - East City Limit to Carlsbad Blvd Average Travel Time (min) 11.4 11.3 10.6 10.0 13.9 12.0 Average % Delay 54.5% 53.3% 43.6V. 36.2% 89.6% 63.9% :;t^?. El Carrtirio Real Travel TlrReSStudy;- June 7, 200^ " A.M. Peak -7:00 to 9:00 Northbound - South City Limit to Haymar Southbound - Haymar to South City Limit Off Peak -9:15 to 11:15 Northbound - South City Limit to Haymar Southbound • Haymar to South City Limit P.M. Peak -3:30 to 6:00 Northbound > South City Limit to Haymar Southbound- Haymar to South City Limit Average Travel Time (min) 1,5.7 la.q . ' 15.8 16.0 21.8 17.4 Average % Delay 43.9% 65.7% 45.3% 46.7% 99.9% 69.6% The data from June 2000 will serve as the benchmark and will be reviewed annually as new data is collected. RESULTS . Palomar Airport Road Travel time Study - Dec, 13, 2000. A.M. Peak -6:45 to 8:15 Eastbound - Carlsbad Blvd to East City Limit Westbound - East City Limit to Carlsbad Blvd Off Peak -9:45 to 11 :15 Eastbound - Carlsbad Blvd to East City Limit Westbound - East City Limit to Carlsbad Blvd P.M. Peak -4:00 to 6:00 Eastbound - Carlsbad Blvd to East City Limit Westbound • East City Limit to Carlsbad Blvd Average Travel Time (min) 10.4 11.5 10.7 9.8 12.5 11.9 Average % Delay 41.1% 56.4% 45.8% 33.7% 70.0% 62.5% , . f I Cam Ino Real Travel Ttnve$tw^y,c-D^c.i?,,i2000; A.M. Peak - 7:00 to 9:00 Northbound - South City Limit to Haymar Southbound - Haymar to South City Limit Off Peak -9:1 5 to 11:1 5 Northbound - South City Limit to Haymar Southbound - Haymar to South City Limit P.M. Peak - 3:30 to 6:00 Northbound - South City Limit to Haymar Southbound - Haymar to South City Limit Average Travel Time (min) 17.1 17.9 16.1 16.1 24.3 17.0 Average % Delay 56.5% 64.6% 48.4% 48.0% 122.9% 56.2% ANALYSIS Staff obtained the average travel time information on both roads based upon roadway conditions on the day of the study. Both roads are future six-lane arterials. However, some segments have only been constructed with two-lanes in each direction. Travel times on both segments are influenced by traffic volumes, roadway geometries, driveway locations, traffic signals and pedestrian volumes. Afternoon peak hour delays are significantly higher due to the larger volume of traffic on both the subject roads and side streets at that time of day. El Camino Real The results show that a fairly significant increase in travel time occurred in the northbound direction during the a.m. and p.m. peaks as compared to the benchmark (June 2000). Little change occurred during the off-peak period. In the southbound direction, there was little change compared to the benchmark during peak and off-peak periods. Most of the increase in delay for the northbound direction appears to have occurred at a few major intersections within the south City Limit-to-Hosp Way segment. Generally, La Costa Avenue, Palomar Airport Road and Tamarack Avenue saw an increase in delay during the a.m. peak, and Alga Road, Palomar Airport Road, Faraday Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive saw an increase in 74 delay during the p.m. peak. There could be many reasons for these trends, from lower traffic volumes in June due to school being out, to simply a general increase in traffic due to growth, both within Carlsbad and neighboring communities. However, the increase in delay was noted primarily in the northbound direction only, which would indicate that higher traffic volumes might not be the only factor. It is possible that the increase in delay is simply a result of the test vehicles approaching more intersections, by chance, at a different part of the signal cycle so that a larger percentage of time was spent waiting for a green indication than was the case during the June studies. This is most likely the case for the individual intersection delays noted above. Additionally, the December 2000 study was conducted during the holiday shopping season when typically more delay and increased traffic volumes are noted. It would be premature at this stage to speculate further on the causes of the delays. Future travel time studies will provide further information with which reliable trends can be observed, and the causes of these trends will be addressed at that time. Palomar Airport Road The results show that a fairly significant reduction in travel time occurred in the eastbound direction during the a.m. and p.m. peaks as compared to the benchmark (June 2000). Little change occurred during the off-peak period. Most of the reduction in travel time for the eastbound direction occurred near the eastern city limit, with some reduction also occurring in the vicinity of the Interstate 5 ramps, Armada Drive and College Boulevard. This is most likely due to the fact that an additional lane has been constructed for eastbound traffic from El Camino Real to the eastern City Limit, and that two alternate parallel routes have recently been opened, Cannon Road-Faraday Avenue between Legoland Drive and College Boulevard, and Aviara Parkway between Plum Tree Road and Cobblestone Road. Interestingly, the delay between Yarrow Drive and El Camino Real in the eastbound direction has increased significantly as compared to the benchmark, especially during the p.m. peak. Despite this, net travel times in the eastbound direction have decreased. ACTION PLAN Both Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real need to be completed to their full arterial width per the circulation element of the Growth Management Plan. Completion of other missing circulation element roadways and widening existing segments will help distribute traffic volumes to more lanes resulting in shorter platoons of vehicles traveling between intersections. Portions of both segments have traffic signals operating in coordination due to the closely spaced intersections. Additional traffic signals will be constructed on both El Camino Real and possibly on Palomar Airport Road in the future. At that time, 75 intersection spacing will be closer and will benefit from coordinated traffic signals. Widely spaced intersections at this time would not be candidates for signal coordination. A study of future traffic signal coordination and optimization will be conducted through a consultant contract. This study will focus on the locations to add signal coordination and ways to optimize traffic signal operations. Coordination timing of the signals will be monitored from the future Transportation Management Center (TMC) to be built in the Public Works Center in 18-24 months. One of the significant locations for delay is the El Camino Real corridor at the Plaza Camino Real Mall. Future construction at the Rancho Del Oro interchange by the City of Oceanside will reduce traffic volumes using El Camino Real at Highway 78. This interchange might be constructed in three to five years. Future construction of College Boulevard and Cannon Road and opening the connection to Oceanside will also provide congestion relief to El Camino Real through volume reductions in the mall vicinity. Businesses continue to be encouraged to implement aggressive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce volumes and shift peak hours of operation. Efforts such as formation of a Transportation Management Association (TMA) will help educate businesses and provide options for them to implement such as carpools, vanpools, increased transit usage or other TDM measures. Additional travel time studies will be performed on El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road in June 2001. The results from these studies will enable continued comparisons to be made with the results contained in this and previous studies in order to evaluate trends resulting from traffic improvements or delays on both roads. 76 Public Works ROADWAY RIDEABILITY THE OUTCOME High level of roadway rideability. THE MEASUREMENT Average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and the percentage of roadway segments above the target PCI minimum. WHAT THE DATA MEANS The data reflects age, design and maintenance standards of the infrastructure. STATUS OF THE MEASURE The PCI data is generated by the MicroPaver program based on the data collected during annual roadway condition surveys. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Public Works, Maintenance 85 Operations, and Public Works, Engineering. BENCHMARK Average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 80 with a minimum PCI of 70. As categorized by the MicroPaver program a PCI in the range of 70-85 is in "very good" condition, which means, "The pavement has very few minor defects." RESULTS BENCHMARK 80 CARLSBAD 75* *The reported data reflects results gathered from the most recent survey (1997- 98). A number of contracts have been issued to contractors to perform work in this area and it is anticipated that the current average PCI meets the established benchmark. It is anticipated that the roadway condition surveys, which are used to determine the Pavement Condition Index (PCI), will be conducted during the Spring of 2001. The most recent survey data from fiscal year 1997-1998 resulted in a citywide average PCI of 75. 77 ANALYSIS The reported average pavement management condition index of 75 falls short of the established benchmark of 80, however, it is within the acceptable range of 75-80. As previously stated, the reported data was collected approximately three years ago. Since that time, numerous contracts have been issued to perform slurry seals and pavement overlays on a variety of roadways. The completion of these processes typically have a positive impact on the PCI, it is anticipated that a new survey will reflect this. ACTION PLAN In regards to Performance Measurement the following items of work need to be completed on an annual basis. 1. September - October: Complete roadway condition survey. The roadway surveys consist of an initial survey of 5% of the street sections with the lowest PCI to ensure that the previously gathered data is still valid. After the validity of the data is confirmed, a random sample of 15% of City's street sections is surveyed. The Micro Paver program generates the listing of street sections to be surveyed. 2. October - November: Analyze roadway survey data and calculate PCI results. 3. November - January: Identify funding expended on Pavement Management Projects and Roadway Maintenance activities. 4. January - June: Based on the results of the PCI calculation and historical tracking of funding relative to the PCI; the scope of work and funding request for the following year's project(s) will be incorporated into the Capital Improvement Program budget request. The sample summary table shown below will be used in the future to present the correlation between the funds expended on pavement management activities and the PCI of roadways throughout the City. By tracking the data included on the table over time we can identify the relationship between the scope and cost of the pavement management projects and their effect on the PCI. Based on the results of this analysis we can adjust the budget request to achieve the desired outcome. Fiscal Year Avg. PCI prior to Project(s) % of roads above PCI of 70 $ on Pavement Mgmt. Project(s) Avg. PCI after PCI Project(s) % of roads above PCI of 70 78 Public Works FLEET RELIABILITY THE OUTCOME Fleet vehicle reliability and availability THE MEASUREMENT • Percent of preventive maintenance work orders completed when scheduled. • Percent of units on the road. WHAT THE DATA MEANS These measures will indicate the maintenance and repair proficiency by identifying the availability of City vehicles, and the quality of the City's preventive maintenance program by the reliability of City vehicles. Preventive maintenance is routine maintenance (i.e. oil change, coolant flush, tire rotation, etc.) that will reduce equipment failures and/or major repairs. STATUS OF THE MEASURE A computerized fleet maintenance management system has been selected and an agreement with the vendor will be signed shortly. The system will be fully implemented and data will be retrievable by the end of FYO1. The system will calculate the percent of work orders completed and the percent of units on the road. Currently, information for measure #1 is calculated manually. Information for measure #2 will be available by the end of FYO 1. DEPARTMENT INVOLVED Fleet and Information Technology BENCHMARK • 90% of scheduled preventive maintenance work orders are completed within 48 hours from the time the vehicle is delivered to the shop. • 90% of fleet units are available to meet City needs at any given time. RESULTS 1. BENCHMARK 90% CARLSBAD 2000 84% 2. Due to software limitations, data will not be reported in FY 2000-01 79 ANALYSIS 1. Fleet Maintenance staff nearly achieved its objective to complete 90% of their work orders within 48 hours from the time vehicles are delivered to the shop. The primary reason staff did not achieve its objective was due to the discovery of unexpected repairs when vehicles were undergoing preventive maintenance. These repairs required staff to send the vehicles to various outside vendors. Repairs that were sent to outside vendors included, but were not limited to, front end and suspension steering repairs, engine overhauls, auto transmission overhauls, auto body and paint, etc. These repairs are called "heavy line" repairs and typically they take longer than 48 hours to complete. It is suspected that if the outside heavy repairs were excluded from calculations, Fleet would achieve the benchmark. In addition, the opening of the new Public Works Center will create operational efficiencies that will improve performance standards. 2. Staff is in the process of procuring computerized maintenance management software for fleet maintenance. It is anticipated that this software will be operating by the end of FYO1, in which data will be obtainable to analyze the achievements of this measure. ACTION PLAN la.The current software (Sussex) used at Fleet does not accurately calculate the downtime of vehicles. Sussex calculates downtime on a 24 hours/day, 7 days/week basis, instead of an 8 hour work day, Monday through Friday. What does this mean? It means that when a non-emergency vehicle is dropped off for a scheduled PM late Friday afternoon, Sussex will begin calculating the downtime on Saturday, when in fact, the downtime should begin on Monday. The new computerized maintenance management system is specifically designed for fleet operations and can accurately calculate the downtime of vehicles (Fleet operation hours, Monday through Friday). Staff will continue to monitor the downtime of vehicles by using the new computer system to see if a more accurate account will achieve the benchmark. Ib.Another action staff will employ as an attempt to achieve the benchmark is to develop a policy and/or revise Administrative Order No. 3 that requires staff to bring in their vehicles on time when scheduled for preventative maintenance. Currently, some employees bring in their vehicles unannounced and after the scheduled date for maintenance. As a result, the vehicles brought in unannounced are put to the back of the line with the regularly scheduled vehicles. The downtime for the unannounced vehicles increases because these vehicles have to wait until the vehicles ahead of them are completed. Developing a policy and/or revising Administrative Order No. 3 with some "teeth" may reduce unannounced visits and keep an 80 even flow of vehicles arriving at the shop for preventative maintenance. Upon implementation of these actions, staff will review the benchmark to determine if it can be revised. 2. Since there is no data to analyze, an action plan has not been identified for this measure. 81 Public Works FLEET CUSTOMER SERVICE AND SATISFACTION THE OUTCOME A high level of customer service. THE MEASUREMENT Customer survey. WHAT THE DATA MEANS Calculating surveys is one of the best methods to determine how well we are performing our duties. This measure is an indication of how well fleet operations is maintaining the City's fleet. This is an existing fleet operations measure that was first used in FY99. Surveys will be distributed annually to City employees to evaluate fleets performance. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Fleet operations BENCHMARK 90% of internal surveys returned indicate the quality of service by fleet services/operations at "Very Good" to "Excellent" in all service categories. RESULTS BENCHMARK 90% CARLSBAD 2000 71% In May 2000, an internal survey was distributed to 75 employees. Of the 75 surveys distributed, 26 were returned, a 35% response ratio. Numerous questions were asked about the services from Fleet Maintenance staff. Listed below are the results of 2 out of 28 survey questions. These questions were selected for the analysis because the action plan for improvements can be implemented in FYO1. % At "Very Good" to "Excellent" Monthly Vehicle Cost Reports 92% Timeliness of Service by Fleet Staff 62% 82 ANALYSIS Monthly Vehicle Costs: 92% of the surveys indicated the level of satisfaction of the monthly vehicle cost reports as being very good to excellent, compared to a 69% level of satisfaction a year before. The Monthly Vehicle Cost Reports summarizes the costs each department accrues during the month. For instance, the reports will tell departments what they paid for the vehicle, the mileage charge, replacement recovery cost, gasoline and preventive maintenance cost. These reports assist the departments in preparing their budgets for fleet maintenance services. The improvement in the level of satisfaction can be attributed to the specific clientele that were targeted. Last year, a handful of general employees answered the question in which they did not quite understand the budget process for fleet maintenance. This year, the survey was distributed to managers and supervisors who use the reports for budgeting purposes and understands the importance of these reports. Timeliness of Service: 62% of the surveys returned indicated that the timeliness of service from Fleet staff was very good to excellent. Last year, 59% indicated the timeliness of service as very good to excellent. While this area is improving, many respondents had concerns with the inconvenience of not having a vehicle for a couple of days while their vehicle is being serviced. Others thought it was inconvenient to have someone pick them up after they drop off their vehicle. ACTION PLAN Monthly Vehicle Costs: Continue distributing the Monthly Vehicle Costs Reports to managers and supervisors for budgeting purposes. Timeliness of Service: Research options for providing vehicles to staff when their vehicle is being serviced. Research will include reviewing existing policy to see if vehicles scheduled for replacement can be retained in the fleet and made available as "loaners" at the fleet facility for staff to use when they bring in their vehicles for preventative maintenance. Indications are that this service would improve the level of customer service and satisfaction. Spare vehicles at the Fleet Yard will enable staff to continue performing their duties independently. Additionally, other options such as rental agreements, use of personal vehicles, etc. will be considered. 83 Public Works FLEET COST EFFICIENCY THE OUTCOME Fleet maintenance cost efficiency. THE MEASUREMENT Actual time vs. flat rate (industry standard) WHAT THE DATA MEANS The Industry Flat Rate manual describes the length of time to complete a maintenance and/or repair job on a vehicle (i.e. one hour to replace a water hose). By documenting staffs actual time to do the same work, this measure can indicate staffs efficiency to perform maintenance and/or repair work on City vehicles. STATUS OF THE MEASURE The proposed measurement will be implemented by using fleet's new computerized management system. A computerized fleet maintenance management system has been selected and an agreement with the vendor will be signed shortly. The system will be fully implemented and data will be retrievable by the end of FYO1. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Fleet operations and Information Technology BENCHMARK 90% of maintenance and/or repair work performed by fleet operations is completed in less time than the flat rate for industry standards. RESULTS Due to software limitations, data will not be reported in fiscal year 1999-00 ANALYSIS Staff is in the process of procuring a computerized maintenance management software for fleet maintenance. It is anticipated that this software will be operating by the end of FY01, in which data will be obtainable to analyze the achievements of this measure. ACTION PLAN Since there is no data to analyze, an action plan has not been identified for this measure. 84 Public Works FACILITIES CUSTOMER SERVICE AND SATISFACTION THE OUTCOME A high level of customer satisfaction THE MEASUREMENT International Facilities Management Association internal customer survey. WHAT THE DATA MEANS Calculating surveys is one of the best methods to determine how well we are performing our duties. This measure is an indication of how well facilities are maintained. This is an existing facilities maintenance measure that was first used in FY99. Surveys will be distributed annually to City employees and to community groups that use City facilities for their activities. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Facilities Maintenance BENCHMARK 90% of internal surveys returned indicate the overall quality of service by Facilities Maintenance at "Very Good" to "Excellent" in all survey categories. RESULTS BENCHMARK 90% CARLSBAD 2000 65% In May 2000, an internal survey was distributed to 127 employees. Of the 127 surveys distributed, 75 were returned, a 59% return ratio. Numerous questions were asked about the performance of Facilities Maintenance staff. Listed below are the results of four out of 45 survey questions. These questions were selected for the analysis because improvements in these areas can be implemented immediately. % At "Very Good" to "Excellent" Availability of Staff Performance 51% Office Temperature 14% Building Cleaning Services 79% Ease of obtaining services 47% 85 ANALYSIS Availability: The availability of staff decreased from 64% in FY99 to 51% in FYOO. The primary reason for the decrease in availability is due to the addition of two new facilities (Dove and Faraday) and the remodeling of two other facilities (Cole and City Hall). With only three full-time building maintenance workers, it is very difficult to meet all of the requests in a timely manner. In fact, with the City increasing its building space and remaining at the same staffing levels, the average space maintained by staff is also increasing. The average space maintained per building maintenance worker is 161,000 square feet, which is considerably higher than other cities (see below). Avg. Sq. Ft. per Maint. Worker Carlsbad 161,000 sq. ft. Poway 125,000 sq. ft. Chula Vista 89,375 sq. ft. Escondido 78,700 sq. ft. El Cajon 62,800 sq. ft. Temperature: The rating for office temperature decreased from 40% in FY99 to 14% in FYOO. The low approval rating in the temperature can be attributed to the new HVAC system at Dove Library and the Faraday building. The offices at these two buildings were experiencing a fluctuation in temperature. One office might be too hot, while another might be too cold. In fact, one respondent commented that the "temperature is variable throughout the building." Due to the difference of office temperature, many people would adjust the thermostat. Often, the HVAC system would malfunction because of the thermostat being misused, resulting in discomfort in many offices. Cleaning: 79% of the surveys returned indicated that the cleanliness of buildings were excellent to very good, compared to 58% in FY99. The improvements in cleanliness can be attributed to custodians being assigned to a specific building. Ease of Doing Business: 47% of the surveys returned indicated that the ease of doing business with Facilities Maintenance is excellent to very good compared to 73% a year before. Currently, there are many different methods for requesting services from Facilities Maintenance such as telephone, e-mail, work order forms, fax, and in-person. Many people do not know which is the preferred method for submitting a request for service and how work orders are scheduled. ACTION PLAN Availability: The hiring of two additional building maintenance workers will improve the availability of staff and reduce the average square footage 86 maintained per staff (see below). In addition, Facilities Division will be implementing an intern program for custodians who want to build a new career path in building maintenance. The new employees and the intern program should greatly enhance the availability of Facilities staff. Poway 125,000 sq. ft. Carlsbad 96,600 sq. ft. Chula Vista 89,375 sq. ft. Escondido 78,700 sq. ft. El Cajon 50,000 sq. ft. Temperature: Staff recently installed a computer energy management system at Faraday. This system enables Facilities staff to control the thermostat at Dove and Faraday. No one else has access to the thermostat. In addition, staff will be implementing a new HVAC maintenance contract to provide routine preventative maintenance on the City's HVAC systems. Staff anticipates that the combination of the computer system and the HVAC maintenance contract will greatly improve the level of satisfaction of the office temperature. Cleaning: The hiring of a roaming custodian for Faraday and Dove will alleviate some of the workload of the custodians assigned to these facilities. The roaming custodian will be responsible for setting up and tearing down meeting rooms, delivering supplies and assisting other custodians with regular duties. The roaming custodian will enable other custodians to concentrate on their essential duties. In addition, part-time custodians will be hired to work the weekends at Dove and Cole Libraries. Finally, a custodial contract was implemented to provide custodial services to 18 public facilities. The previous contractor did not have the resources to fully satisfy the needs of the contract. Ease of Doing Business: Facilities Maintenance will soon implement a computerized maintenance management system that will assist staff in maintaining public facilities. The system will have a method for requesting facilities maintenance services. Requests will be accepted via e-mail or web interface only. Staff will no longer accept phone requests, faxes, or in-person requests. Requests being made via e-mail or web interface will automatically be created into a work order and delivered electronically to Facilities Supervisor. The Supervisor will assign a scheduled date for service and the requester will receive an update on the completion of the request. Staff believes the new computer system will improve the way Facilities Maintenance is doing business. Other Items: Other areas staff will concentrate on improving include the HVAC equipment at City facilities and effective communications. 25% of the surveys returned indicated the heating equipment as excellent or very good. 87 20% of the surveys returned indicated the air conditioning equipment as excellent or very good. The City is in the process of awarding an extensive preventive maintenance contract for the City's HVAC equipment system. It is anticipated that routine preventive maintenance of this system will reduce equipment malfunctions and will improve the fluctuation of the office climate. 50% of the surveys returned indicated that effective communications for obtaining facilities maintenance services was excellent or very good. Staff believes the new computerized maintenance management system will improve effective communications. 88 Public Works FACILITIES MAINTENANCE RESPONSE THE OUTCOME Well maintained and safe City facilities. THE MEASUREMENT Average time to complete priority 1 and priority 2 work orders. WHAT THE DATA MEANS Priority 1 work orders are emergency repairs to eliminate hazards, unsanitary conditions, and reduce liabilities. Priority 2 work orders are repairs and alterations so the City can conduct its business and provide services to the community. This measure is an indication of response time and an evaluation that current staff level is effective to achieve objectives. STATUS OF THE MEASURE A computerized maintenance management system has been procured and data is currently being loaded into the system. When completed, the system will compute the average time to complete work orders. Implementation is expected by the end of FYO1. DEPARTMENT INVOLVED Facilities Maintenance and Information Technology BENCHMARK 90% of Priority 1 work orders completed within 24 hours. 90% of Priority 2 work orders completed within 72 hours. RESULTS Due to software limitations, data will not be reported in fiscal year 1999-00 ANALYSIS A computerized maintenance management system for facilities maintenance has been purchased. The vendor is currently collecting inventory data and establishing work orders for the division. It is anticipated that data will be available by the end of FYO 1 to analyze the achievements of this measure and develop an action plan. ACTION PLAN Since there is no data to analyze, an action plan has not been identified for this measure. 89 Public Works FACILITIES COST EFFICIENCY THE OUTCOME Facility cost efficiency THE MEASUREMENT Maintenance cost per square foot WHAT THE DATA MEANS This measure can demonstrate fiscally responsible use of funds allocated to facilities maintenance, and show how resources are being used to achieve its objectives. Data was obtained by surveying San Diego County cities. It may be further refined with the full implementation of the maintenance management system for facilities. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Facilities maintenance BENCHMARK Carlsbad maintenance costs per square foot are in the lowest one-third when compared to other cities in San Diego County. RESULTS After calculating the results from the participating cities, it was determined that Carlsbad's maintenance cost per square foot is in the lowest one-third when compared to other cities in San Diego County. City Imperial Beachw^. Poway'^if -v 'v >;%; 'Jl Ciug&SKd../ '".' >: Escondido El Cajon La Mesa Coronado Encinitas Chula Vista Solana Beach Maint. Cost Per Sq. Ft. r,y>4>,» f,$3$*9* •iAV'', U<&k "*' , -2*01$ 2.41 2.55 2.78 2.80 2.81 3.11 3.19 Sq. Ft. of Public Buildings Maintained *,$/;:• ~y<"*-' f^i&siftQob' '*. .', ' * ,/v" 225^00, 1 483,000 787,000 314,000 143,000 150,000 160,000 715,000 49,000 Lowest one- third cost per sq. ft. 90 Notes: This information was gathered in telephone interviews with supervisors from each of the represented cities. In order to confirm its accuracy, the information was discussed a second time with each of the representatives in January 2001. Please note that there are some rather large gaps in the data and that may reflect problems with data comparability. Our action plan over the next year includes working with each of these cities to further refine the measure. The Cities of Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, Del Mar, San Diego, Lemon Grove, Santee and National City did not respond to the survey. ANALYSIS The results mentioned above are for building maintenance expenditures only (it does not include custodial expense). Building maintenance expenditures include routine preventive maintenance, equipment maintenance, outside services, building maintenance supplies, etc. According to the results mentioned above, the City is achieving the outcome of this measurement. ACTION PLAN Staff will continue to work with other cities to develop an accurate and comparable measure to determine the cost efficiency for facilities maintenance. 91 Public Works PARK SAFETY THE OUTCOME Minimization of risk of injury in City parks THE MEASUREMENT Time to resolve safety work orders WHAT THE DATA MEANS Parks that are safe reduce personal injuries, and increase recreational and leisure activities. This measure is an indication of response time and the course of action taken to resolve an identified hazard condition. This is an existing park maintenance measurement where staff uses an inspection checklist report and a safety work order system. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Park Maintenance BENCHMARK 100% of safety work orders are addressed within 24 hours of being identified/reported. "Addressed" means a safety work order will be inspected and assign a course of action and any immediate safety hazard resolved. RESULTS BENCHMARK 100% CARLSBAD 2000 100% In FY 1999-00, Parks Division staff received 16 safety work orders. After the initial request was received, 100% of the 16 work orders were inspected and assigned a course of action, and any immediate safety hazard resolved, within 24 hours after being identified. ANALYSIS This measure is being achieved. Staff is minimizing the risk of injuries in City parks. ACTION PLAN Continue collecting data and evaluate the time to resolve safety work orders. 92 Public Works PARK CUSTOMER SERVICE AND SATISFACTION THE OUTCOME A high level of customer service THE MEASURE Customer survey WHAT THE DATA MEANS Distributing surveys to park users is one of the best methods to find out how well we are performing our duties. This measure is an indication of how well the parks are maintained. Surveys will tell us about the field conditions, availability of playground equipment, the outdoor lighting system, as well as tree and shrub conditions. STATUS OF THE MEASURE With the assistance from the City's recreation department, surveys will be developed and distributed to a variety of community organizations such as youth, and adult soccer leagues, Pop Warner football, little league baseball, adult softball, etc. Customer satisfaction is also being measured in the citywide survey. DEPARTMENT INVOLVED Park Maintenance & Recreation BENCHMARK 90% of surveys returned indicate the quality of service by parks maintenance at "Very Good" to "Excellent" in all survey categories. RESULTS The City is developing survey guidelines for new surveys that can be used city- wide. Staff was recommended to use these guidelines as a tool to create a survey for Parks. However, the results of December 2000 city wide Public Opinion Survey indicated that 89.9% of respondents rated the condition of parks as good/excellent. ANALYSIS No analysis can be conducted until the survey is complete and ACTION PLAN N/A 93 Public Works PARK COST EFFICIENCY THE OUTCOME Park cost efficiency THE MEASURE Maintenance cost per acre WHAT THE DATA MEANS A goal for park maintenance is to provide aesthetically appealing, well maintained, and preserved parks. This measure can demonstrate fiscally responsible use of funds allocated to park maintenance, and show how resources are being used to achieve the identified goal mentioned above. Data was obtained by surveying San Diego County cities. It may be further refined with the full implementation of the maintenance management system for parks. DEPARTMENT INVOLVED Park Maintenance BENCHMARK Carlsbad annual park maintenance costs per acre are in the lowest one-third when compare to other cities in San Diego County. RESULTS After calculating the results from the participating cities, it was determined that Carlsbad's maintenance cost per acre is not in the lowest one-third when compared to other cities in San Diego County (see table on following page). 94 City Del Mar • , , Santee'<>. '••••''>•). Lai Mesa! <''"-- Oceanside'i v jv, Crmia Vista -:'- National City Carlsbad San Marcos Encinitas Solana Beach Imperial Beach El Cajon Lemon Grove Coronado Escondido Maintenance Cost Per Acre/Year ., : i ..•'•• $2346' , •< •"•-•• ••-•• •: :;'-J':svl87 ••••• -.:. : '-'-'.' -"'-•'. 5,211 •;:','' "•• ; .' 5,450. 6,390 6,632 8,090 8,109 13,275 13,583 14,288 15,519 19,432 21,429 25,686 Acres of developed Parkland Maintained ; ,. '"": <29 .-"- -:: " "'• .--.'• 134 ' '-, '" - •<• • • •:•:' 1'51 • " ' v ,,"",236 : ; 390 87 286 120 61 10 16.4 100 22 42 70 Lowest one-third cost per acre Note: This information was gathered in telephone interviews with supervisors from each of the represented cities. In order to confirm its accuracy, the information was discussed a second time with each of the representatives in January 2001. Please note that there are some rather large gaps in the data and that may reflect problems with data comparability. Our action plan over the next year includes working with each of these cities to further refine the measure. The Cities of Vista, Poway and San Diego did not respond to the survey. ANALYSIS All of the figures for the cities surveyed above include turf, landscaping and playground maintenance expenditures. The typical activities include but are not limited to mowing, fertilization, planting, trimming, pesticide application, and edging. The lowest one-third of the cities maintains an average of 105 acres of developed parkland. The City of Carlsbad maintains 286 acres of developed parkland, 172% more than the lowest one-third cities. In fact, of the 14 cities surveyed, Carlsbad is second only to Chula Vista in maintaining the most acreage of developed parkland in the County. Due to the amount of acreage maintained and the high usage from youth and adult community organizations, the Parks Division needs to budget appropriately to provide aesthetic appealing, well maintained and preserved parks. 95 ACTION PLAN Staff is in the process of developing a computerized maintenance management system for parks. It is anticipated that this software will be operating by FY02, in which data will be obtainable to further analyze the achievements of this measure. Staff will also work with other cities to develop a more accurate and comparable measure to determine the cost efficiency for park maintenance 96 Commnity Services LIBRARY SERVICE & SATISFACTION THE OUTCOME: A high level of customer satisfaction. THE MEASUREMENT Customer satisfaction survey. WHAT THE DATA MEANS This measure will establish a baseline for measuring customer satisfaction with various library services through the new library, the Cole library, and the Centre de Informacion. STATUS OF THE MEASURE The Social and Behavioral Institute at California State University, San Marcos, is reviewing and making recommendations regarding all customer service and satisfaction surveys throughout the City. Upon the completion of the review, the survey will be redesigned and distributed for the collection of baseline data in 2001. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Library BENCHMARK 90% of surveys returned rate Library service at "Very Good" or higher in all survey categories. RESULTS N/A ANALYSIS N/A ACTION PLAN N/A 97 Community Services ADULT LITERACY PROGRAM THE OUTCOME: Improved literacy of adult learning program participants. THE MEASUREMENT This measure uses a multi-method approach combining: • Surveys • Standardized tests • Skill tests • Assessments • Testimonials WHAT THE DATA MEANS This data will indicate the degree of improvement in skills for individuals participating in the program. It can give program administrators data regarding what programs need to be enhanced to improve specific skills. STATUS OF THE MEASURE Postponed until 2001 when it anticipated that the national standards currently under development will be published. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Library BENCHMARK A national benchmark for similar programs is being developed and is expected to be implemented by end of fiscal year 2000/01. RESULTS N/A ANALYSIS N/A ACTION PLAN N/A 98 Community Services LIBRARY COLLECTION THE OUTCOME: A comprehensive and available library collection that meets the community's needs. THE MEASUREMENT This measure uses a multi-method approach combining: • Fill rate • Customer satisfaction survey WHAT THE DATA MEANS This data will assist the library in evaluating and improving the structure and content of its collection. The data will determine how best to utilize funds for collection development and improvement. STATUS OF THE MEASURE The library is presently in the process of developing a strategic plan. Upon analysis of current practices reviewed through the strategic planning process and review of the customer survey instrument by the California State University, San Marcos group, this measure will be updated for data collection and analysis in 2001. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Library BENCHMARK The Library will use the Fill Rate in comparison to other ICMA organizations. RESULTS No data is currently available. It is expected that data will be available at the end of 2000. ANALYSIS N/A ACTION PLAN N/A 99 Community Services SENIOR CENTER CUSTOMER SERVICE & SATISFACTION THE OUTCOME A high level of customer satisfaction. THE MEASUREMENT A Customer Service Survey will be developed and distributed throughout the Senior Center. Somewhat different surveys will be developed for each category of service (i.e. Classes, trips, lunch, reception desk) indicating the quality of customer service, user satisfaction, facility etc.) WHAT THE DATA MEANS Highly satisfied customers is an indication that we are providing services in a manner that is desired, and offering programs of interest. The distribution of surveys is one of the best methods to receive input from our customers on how they perceive they are being served and what types of programs/services they would like in the future. STATUS OF THE MEASURE The Social and Behavioral Institute at California State University, San Marcos, is reviewing and making recommendations regarding all customer service and satisfaction surveys throughout the City. Upon the completion of the review, the survey will be redesigned and distributed for the collection of baseline data in 2001. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Recreation BENCHMARK 90% of customers rate all Recreation services as "Very Good" (4 on a 1-5 scale) or higher in all customer service survey categories. RESULTS N/A ANALYSIS N/A ACTION PLAN N/A 100 Community Services RECREATION CUSTOMER SERVICE & SATISFACTION THE OUTCOME A high level of customer satisfaction. THE MEASUREMENT Customer surveys will be distributed through all recreation facilities. WHAT THE DATA MEANS Highly satisfied customers is an indication that we are providing services in a manner that is desired. The distribution of surveys is one of the best methods to receive input from our customers on how they perceive they are being served. STATUS OF THE MEASURE Although surveys have been distributed for years, the data has never been compiled or collected in a manner so that it could be analyzed or compared. Upon review and revision based on the analysis by California State University, San Marcos, of all City surveys, this survey will be revised and distributed throughout 2001 to determine a baseline of satisfaction for future comparison. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Recreation BENCHMARK 90% of customers rate all Recreation services as "Very Good" (4 on a 1-5 scale) or higher in all customer service survey categories. RESULTS N/A ANALYSIS N/A ACTION PLAN N/A 101 Community Services ART OPPORTUNITIES THE OUTCOME: Provide opportunities for exposure to art that meets the community's desires. THE MEASUREMENT This measure uses a multi-method approach combining: • Satisfaction surveys • Number of participants at the Cannon Art Gallery and at various programs. WHAT THE DATA MEANS Data gathered will reflect how well the exhibits and program address the interests of the community. STATUS OF THE MEASURE The arts office is presently in the process of developing a strategic plan. Upon analysis of current practices, programs, and priorities determined through the strategic planning process, this measure will be reviewed and updated for data collection and measurement in 2001. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Arts office BENCHMARK RESULTS No data is currently available. It is expected that data will be available at the end of 2000. ANALYSIS N/A ACTION PLAN N/A 102 Community Development SECTION 8 HOUSING THE OUTCOME Maximize rental assistance opportunities for low-income residents of Carlsbad. THE MEASUREMENT The rating from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the City's Section 8 rental assistance housing program. WHAT THE DATA MEANS The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has instituted a Section 8 Management Assessment Program. Using 15 adopted indicators, HUD evaluates and certifies a local agency's success of administering individual federally funded housing programs. HUD's ratings include "High Performer," "Standard Performer," or "Troubled Performer." Repeated failure to secure a HUD rating of "Standard Performer" or higher can jeopardize a local agency's continued federal funding for its Section 8 rental assistance housing program. STATUS OF THE MEASURE This is a new program intended to begin in fiscal year 1999-2000. However, the Federal certification program has been postponed by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) until June 30, 2001 for fiscal year 2000-2001. Therefore, the first year of data will be collected by the City and transmitted to HUD for this reporting period by August 14, 2001. The City will then receive a performance rating from HUD. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Housing and Redevelopment BENCHMARK Achieve a HUD rating of "Standard Performer" or higher 100% of time. RESULTS None at this time. ANALYSIS None required at this time. ACTION PLAN Collect and transmit data to HUD by August 14, 2001. 103 Community Development FRONT COUNTER SERVICE & SATISFACTION THE OUTCOME High level of customer service. THE MEASUREMENT Customer survey. WHAT THE DATA MEANS Customer feedback is a valuable performance measure. Staff members assigned to the front counter are expected to be efficient, prompt, courteous, knowledgeable, and helpful to the customer. Staff members continuously monitor this measurement tool and contact all customers rating their front counter customer service experience as "poor" or "very poor." Community Development has utilized customer comment cards for several years as a performance measurement tool. Low ratings ("poor" and "very poor") trigger a follow-up contact by City staff to secure additional customer service input. This additional input is recorded and influences changes to front counter operations. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Building, planning, and public works engineering. BENCHMARK 90% of customers rate front counter services as "Very Good" (4 on a 1-5 scale) or higher in all customer service survey categories. RESULTS BENCHMARK 90% CARLSBAD 2000 93% ANALYSIS The internal customer survey was compiled using data collected for calendar year 2000. ACTION PLAN Continue with the "Customer Comment Card" program at City's Faraday Center, Front Counter operation. Modify and standardize the survey instrument to coincide with other internal City survey programs and recommendations from Cal State University, San Marcos' report. 104 Administrative Services RISK MANAGEMENT - TOTAL CITY LOSSES THE OUTCOME Minimization of liability losses. THE MEASUREMENT Total losses related to City liability and losses per capita. WHAT THE DATA MEANS The level of losses reflect departments' efforts to reduce liability exposure throughout the City. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Risk management, all other departments BENCHMARK Carlsbad losses per capita are within the lowest one-third of San Diego County cities. ICMA measures will be examined for future benchmarking. RESULTS BENCHMARK To be determined CARLSBAD $5.74 The amount of $5.74 was derived by dividing the total City loss of $470,652 by an approximate city population of 82,000. The city loss reflects data from fiscal year 1999. ANALYSIS At this time, the data from other San Diego cities is not available for comparison purposes. However, after reviewing the ICMA FY 1999 risk management data, we find a favorable comparison between the city's losses per capita and the average loss per capita for cities under 100,000 population. ICMA AVERAGE $5.91 CARLSBAD $5.74 105 ACTION PLAN Risk Management needs to continue to collect information regarding other local agencies risk exposure and continue monitoring and evaluating the ICMA data. Through further evaluation of the ICMA data, we hope to identify future benchmarking partners to compare against. Also, once local data has been collected, we need to compare that with the ICMA average to ensure that the appropriate benchmark level has been set. m m 9- * 106 Administrative Services RISK MANAGEMENT • LIABILITY COVERAGE AND COSTS THE OUTCOME High quality and competitively priced property, fidelity and liability coverage. THE MEASUREMENT This measure uses a multi-method approach combining: 1) Property premium rate per $100 of property value 2) Liability premium per capita WHAT THE DATA MEANS The insurance market is checked with adequate frequency to ensure that coverage is competitively priced and broad, and it is monitored so that a quality threshold is maintained. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Risk management BENCHMARK 1) Property premium rate per $100 of property value 2) Liability premium per capita Benchmarks in each of these categories will be set based on the 1999 results. RESULTS Property Premium Rate BENCHMARK To be determined CARLSBAD $.039 Liability Premium Rate BENCHMARK To be determined CARLSBAD $1.57 While the benchmark is being set using this year's data, the following tables show historical data for the past two years. Property Premium Rate Carlsbad FY 1999 Carlsbad FY 1998 $.039 $.052 107 Liability Premium Rate Carlsbad FY 1999 | $1.57 Carlsbad FY 1998 $1.75 ANALYSIS Based upon the data collected from the past two years, the trend is that the property and liability premiums are declining. ACTION PLAN Continue monitoring the data as well as review insurance policies to maximize City's position. Identify other agencies for comparison. 1*1 108 Administrative Services INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICE & SATISFACTION THE OUTCOME A high level of customer satisfaction. THE MEASUREMENT Customer survey. WHAT THE DATA MEANS The measure is an indication of customer satisfaction with the Information Technology service levels provided to City staff. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Information Technology BENCHMARK 90% of customers rate Information Technology as "Very Good" (4 on a 1-5 scale) or higher in all customer service survey categories. RESULTS BENCHMARK 90% CARLSBAD 96% ANALYSIS While we have survey information beginning February of 2000, the survey questions have changed several times. Therefore the data reflects only the months of May and June 2000. For the upcoming year, we will have a full 12 months of data. It is important to note that Information Technology is measuring not only our customers' level of satisfaction with the Information Technology Department, but also our customers' level of satisfaction with our outsource help desk vendor (PAI). Even though we believe we are accountable for their ratings and ours combined, it is an excellent way to determine if there is a problem with the vendor. The two months survey results showed PAI had a rating of 4.6. The Information Technology Department had a rating of 4.7 for a combined average rating of 4.6. Another way the survey information is being used is that we review them on a regular basis. If we see that there is a low rating by someone, then we contact 109 that individual to find out what went wrong and try to resolve concerns so we can improve our service. ACTION PLAN Continue monitoring the results of the survey on a month end basis. Also, continue follow up with customers who express some type of concern or problem regarding our service. Review and improve survey methodology based upon guidelines as set in conjunction with the Social Behavioral Research Institute of California State University, San Marcos. 110 Administrative Services INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY NETWORK OPERABILITY THE OUTCOME A functional, operating information technology network. THE MEASUREMENT Amount of time required to return users to operations status. Problems are divided into two categories: Priority 1 Server Down - affects whole site Core System Down: Permits Plus, IFAS, Harris, Voice Mail, Sussex, etc. City Wide Internet Access Down User Down/locked out/no access Telephones: remote site loses access - no voice and / or data Priority 2 Printer issues - can't print and no alternate print source is available Hardware failure - monitor / keyboard Login Issues, i.e. forgotten passwords Core System "How to" application question - important - deadline WHAT THE DATA MEANS The measure is an indication of staffing levels, staff knowledge, and staff initiative to ensure that calls get completed and resolved in both a timely and effective manner. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Information technology BENCHMARK 1) 90% of all priority 1 service calls resolved in 45 minutes. 2) 90% of all priority 2 service calls resolved in 180 minutes. RESULTS BENCHMARK, PRIORITY 1 90% CARLSBAD 81% BENCHMARK, PRIORITY 2 90% CARLSBAD 97% 111 ANALYSIS The information was used to determine whether those items exceeding the response times were a result of the Information Technology staff or of an outside source such as Pacific Bell. For Information Technology staff items, corrective measures are put in place to ensure the same problem does not reoccur. ACTION PLAN Continue monitoring response times on a monthly basis to ensure response service to Information Technology problems remains high. Identify solutions to areas of reoccurring problems to improve the integrity of the system. 112 Administrative Services INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COST EFFICIENCY THE OUTCOME Effective use of City resources in providing technology services and support to the Information Technology user community. THE MEASUREMENT Support cost per call. Total city support costs equal the PAI contract plus Information Technology support cost. WHAT THE DATA MEANS Support costs per call will be used to determine if City resources are used in an effective and efficient manner. STATUS OF THE MEASURE Information Technology is in the process of defining the costs related to the support of information technology users. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Information Technology BENCHMARK Total City support costs will be equal or better than industry averages. ICMA data needs to be reviewed to determine additional benchmarks. RESULTS After collecting the data, it was determined the measure as it currently exists did not provide adequate information to benchmark with other agencies. ANALYSIS ACTION PLAN The Information Technology department will continue to search for and develop an appropriate measure regarding financial efficiency and effectiveness for the City's Information Technology needs. 113 Administrative Services HUMAN RESOURCES - INJURED EMPLOYEE TIME OFF THE OUTCOME Minimization of the amount of time that industrially injured employees are off •*• work. **** THE MEASUREMENT •» Number of days between the date an employee is injured on the job and the „, date that the employee returns to full or modified duty with the City.mf WHAT THE DATA MEANS Research shows that the greater the amount of time that an injured employee remains off work, the less likely he/she will return as a productive member of the workforce. By reducing the number of days that an employee is out of the "*' workplace, we can reduce workers' compensation expenditures; better ensure m adequate staffing levels for City departments and enhance the connection between the injured employee and the City. HP This measure is used to analyze trends, identify high-risk work groups and as « a comparison of our efficiency to other agencies. This data is tracked and posted at sites throughout the City per Cal OSHA requirements. This measure * is part of Human Resources Total Disability Management Program. <*> DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Human Resources, all City departments BENCHMARK ijgj,An average of 6.3 days or less lost per claim. This benchmark is based on the ICMA average for agencies with under 100,000 population, and will be reviewed **•• annually. m RESULTS *• BENCHMARK 6.3 CARLSBAD 5.6 ANALYSIS This measure is an indicator of the success of an agencies disability management program. The data shows that Carlsbad's average number of days lost per claim is slightly lower that the average for cities under 100,000 114 reporting to ICMA. Based upon our analysis, public safety employees were responsible for 63% of Carlsbad's lost working days. ACTION PLAN The Human Resources Department will conduct an analysis of disability time used by department to better identify any needs in this area in the City. Additionally, There is a goal in the Human Resources Department to develop Integrated Benefit Management Systems to track occupational and non- occupational leave and disability information. By establishing systems to accurately capture and track occupational disability leave, we will be better equipped to monitor lost days of work, identify trends, and make recommendations to reduce the number of days an employee is out of the workplace. 115 Administrative Services HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICE & SATISFACTION THE OUTCOME A high level of satisfaction with human resources services by the department's internal customers. THE MEASUREMENT Customer service survey. WHAT THE DATA MEANS Numerical score on evaluation of 10 different Human Resources service: 1) recruitment, selection 85 staffing; 2) compensation; 3) benefits 85 workers' comp; 4) employee /employer relations; 5) employee assistance; 6) classification/job design; 7) performance planning and assessment; 8) training and development; 9) human resource planning; 10) human resource administration DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Human Resources BENCHMARK 90% of customers rate their experience with the Human Resources Department at least a 4 on a 5 scale in all customer service categories. This is an internal benchmark. RESULTS Recruitment, Selection & Staffing Compensation/ Benefits Compensation Benefits 8s Workers' Comp. Employee /Employer Relations Employee Assistance Classification/ Job Design Performance Planning and Assessment Training and Development Human Resource Planning Human Resource Administration BENCHMARK 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 1996 41% 30% N/A N/A 39% 64% 32% 15% 35% 19% 87% 2000 58% N/A 27% 68% 43% 60% 29% 31% 37% 21% 55% 116 The 2000 survey looked at compensation separate from benefits and included workers compensation, previously administered by Risk Management. ANALYSIS As a result of the 1996 customer service survey, Human Resources targeted the areas of Recruitment, Selection & Staffing, and Benefits 85 Workers' Compensation for improvement. The results of the 2000 survey indicate increased satisfaction in these areas. However, based upon the results of the 2000 survey, there are still numerous areas for improvement. ACTION PLAN Human Resources staff has analyzed the data from the year 2000 survey, including written comments. The areas of Communication, Training, Processes & Procedures, and Employee Relations (Negotiations) were identified as areas of concern for our customers. The following are action items identified for each of the targeted areas. Commu nicotian • HR will develop an informational/marketing piece, in the form of a newsletter, for citywide distribution that describes what services HR is responsible for as well who to contact for specific services requested. • HR will be responsible for cross training its own staff in order to be able to answer basic questions in all areas of Human Resources, and to have the ability to forward the questions to the most appropriate staff member. This will be done informally in weekly staff meetings as well as on a more formal basis as needed. • Many of the individual questions received by staff in HR are benefit related questions. For the purposes of role clarification, Human Resources reclassified the Human Resources Assistant position to Benefits Administrator, which indicates to city employees which staff member is primarily responsible for benefit questions and/or assistance. • A career development resources center is being developed in conjunction with the Library. • HR will begin to evaluate what we can do to communicate, if appropriate, citywide salary survey information obtained and how job classifications are assigned to particular salary ranges. Training • Human Resources has started to conduct mandatory "Respectful Workplace" training that will be provide to all employees. 117 • Employees were surveyed about what specific trainings they would like to see happen and Human Resources is designing "soft-skills" trainings as * a result of this survey. * i* Processes and Procedures • Notification of recruitment results for internal applicants/employees will be improved by delivering this information in a more confidential, sensitive format. • HR staff will set up a process for streamlining and tracking performance reviews. • An HR management employee has a goal to provide part-time recruitment and selection assistance to Community Services departments. ,„ • Human Resources is currently conducting salary surveys and updating job descriptions for several departments. «• • An HR Management employee has a goal to streamline recruitment tracking systems. m *H Employee Relations (Negotiations) Although the topic in this section was Employee/Employer Relations (which includes employee disciplinary processes, grievances, and both formal and ** informal dispute resolutions), the negative comments that were given almost „„, exclusively dealt with labor negotiations. We attribute the negative feedback primarily to the timeliness of negotiations with the various bargaining groups in the past and the ongoing negotiations currently with the Fire Association. » f» In past years the City introduced the concept of interest-based negotiations, and it may be in the City's best interest to explore this again as if it may be a *" more productive and positive way to do business. » General m In attempting to find comparable data with other ICMA services, we discovered *** that there are only three agencies in our size category reporting Human ^ Resources Customer Satisfaction data. Unfortunately, the data available varies widely and is not sufficient for comparison or benchmarking purposes. Over "** the coming year, the Human Resources department will try to develop » opportunities for benchmarking in this area. 118 Administrative Services HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT TIME THE OUTCOME A high level of customer satisfaction and recruitment staff productivity. THE MEASUREMENT Cycle time in the recruitment process. Cycle time is defined as the number if days from receipt of a department's personnel requisition to the date that an eligibility list is certified. WHAT THE DATA MEANS By streamlining our systems and partnering with our customers to accomplish tasks, we are able to respond more rapidly to customers' requests for recruitments and reduce the turnaround time to hire staff in a highly competitive labor market. Human Resources staff is also able to handle more recruitments over the same time period, increasing staff productivity. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Human Resources BENCHMARK 90% of all city recruitments are completed within 60 days of receiving a department's personnel requisition. This is an existing standard derived from a business process review of the recruitment process. It is also part of the ICMA performance measurement survey. RESULTS The applicant tracking system was brought online December 1, 2000. There is not significant data to report at this time. Even though we do not have any internal data to evaluate, our evaluation of the ICMA data for 1999 shows that 77% of agencies in our size category (population less than 100,000) list their average recruitment time at 60 days or less. ACTION PLAN Human Resources has a goal involving changes to the applicant tracking system, including a method to capture recruitment cycle time data. The new system went into place December 1, 2000. With this system in place, we will be better able to capture recruitment cycle time data, and will be equipped to monitor, analyze and make recommendations for changes to recruitment processes based on an interpretation of the data. 119 Administrative Services PURCHASING SERVICE & SATISFACTION THE OUTCOME A high level of customer service. THE MEASUREMENT Customer satisfaction survey. WHAT THE DATA MEANS This measure is an indication of response time and quality of service. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Purchasing department BENCHMARK An average of 90% of customers rate Purchasing as "Very Good" (4 on a 1-5 scale) or higher in all customer service survey categories. RESULTS BENCHMARK 90% CARLSBAD 95% ANALYSIS Based upon the data collected in the Purchasing Department survey, customer satisfaction was relatively high regarding services provided. The survey had approximately 70 respondents. The lowest response category was with the office supply contract (85% rated 4 or higher). Based upon our evaluation of the contract, and discussions with other local agencies regarding this issue, we have found that this seems to be a consistent trend. No other service rating was below 90%. ACTION PLAN Continue monitoring customer satisfaction. For the upcoming year, Purchasing would like to find a way to expand the survey to a greater number of respondents. Also, Purchasing will be working to find solutions to increase our customer's satisfaction with the office supply process. 120 Administrative Services PURCHASE ORDER PROCESSING THE OUTCOME Timely acquisition of goods and services. THE MEASUREMENT Number of working days to issue purchase order. WHAT THE DATA MEANS This measure is an indication of the responsiveness to the needs of the department. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Purchasing department BENCHMARK Complete 90% of all purchase orders within one working day after receiving completed purchase requisition. RESULTS BENCHMARK 90% CARLSBAD N/A Currently, the Purchasing Department captures the data in the form of an average, not a percentage of completion. The average time it took to process a completed purchase order was under 1 working day. ANALYSIS The Purchasing Department is in the process of converting its data reports from averages to percentages. This is important because averages can represent skewed numbers, and the goal of the Purchasing department is to provide timely service to its customers. Currently, the average processing time for Category 1 purchase orders (those that are ready for the purchasing department to process) fluctuates between .5 working days to .8 working days depending on the workload. ACTION PLAN Continue tracking the Purchasing Department's ability to process purchase orders in a timely fashion. Shift the data collection system to reflect percentage of purchase orders completed rather than the average. This will ensure that the majority of our customers are served promptly. 121 Administrative Services FINANCE COLLECTION RATES THE OUTCOME Maximization of City revenues. THE MEASUREMENT This measure uses a multi-method approach combining: • Utility billing collection rates • Ambulance billing collection rates WHAT THE DATA MEANS City services depend on the flow of fee revenues for financial support. The rate of collection shows the effectiveness and efficiency of the finance department in collecting City bills for certain key services. This data is compiled based upon the City's Fiscal Year. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Finance, public works, fire BENCHMARK The collection rates for the two services will differ. • Benchmark for utility services is to maintain at least 90% of receivables in the under 90 day category. • Benchmark for ambulance billing is a collection rate of 70% or better. RESULTS Utility Bills As Of June 2000 BENCHMARK 90% CARLSBAD 96.8% Ambulance Bills BENCHMARK 70% CARLSBAD 98 76. 1% CARLSBAD 99 77.5% ANALYSIS We have compared our ambulance billing over the past two years and benchmarked against the cities of Ramona and El Cajon. We have also broken down utility collections by 30, 60, 90, and greater than 90 days. As the following chart reflects, the majority of our collection occurs within the first 30 days. 122 90.4% 5.3% 1.1% 3.2% 85.6% 11.4% 2.2% 9.0% 72.3% 12.3% 5.1% 10.3% Aging Analysis: Carlsbad Tracy San Diego Utility Billing as of June 2000 0-30 30-60 60-90 >90 Carlsbad Ramona El Cajon Collection Rates calendar year Ambulance billing (1998): 77.5% 72.8% 62.1% Ambulance billing (1999): 76.1% 67.5% 60.2% Additionally, many cities do not collect this information. The cities shown here for comparison were selected based on their ability to provide the information rather than the comparability of the demographics in the city. ACTION PLAN Continue to monitor the collection and identify comparable benchmark agencies for the coming year. 123 Administrative Services CITY OPERATING BUDGET COST EFFICIENCY THE OUTCOME Maintain a cost effective operating budget. THE MEASUREMENT Ongoing general fund operating expenditures per capita. WHAT THE DATA MEANS This measure evaluates the cost efficiency of the organization as a whole. By analyzing the operating expenditures per capita, we can begin to develop an understanding of baseline costs for the services we provide. DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Finance and all other City departments BENCHMARK General fund operating expenditures per capita. The benchmark will be set once baseline data has been established. RESULTS The per capita cost for the FY 2001 General Fund Operating Budget is $872. ANALYSIS Per capita cost was derived from the general fund operating cost ($71,500,000) divided by an approximate city population of 82,000. Looking at the FY 1999- 2000 data, the per capita cost was approximately $945. This was based on a general fund operating budget of 73,300,000 and an estimated population of 77,500. More analysis is needed to determine the cause of this decrease. A more precise population number will be generated this year when the 2000 census data is complete. ACTION PLAN Continue to develop this measure. Identify suitable benchmarking partners to compare fiscal effectiveness with. Review five-year historical data to develop a base trend line. 124 APPENDIX 1: 200O-2001 GOAL Goals 2000-2001 Name: MSA: Goal: Individual Goal: I I Team Goal: Reviewer's Name: Patchett, Ray City Council Strategic Goal: A Ensure the effective and efficient delivery of top-quality services to our community. Team Goal: Please list member's on Team Joe Garuba (team leader), John Cahill, Lynn Diamond, Jim Elliott, Linda Kermott, Tom Ritter, Julie Ross, Sue Spickard. Operational Goal: Al Provide timely responses that result in high customer satisfaction Departmental Goal: (if applicable) Describe Your Goal Stating the Outcome First: 2 Year Goal Establish and maintain Carlsbad as a high performing organization by continually identifying and implementing opportunities for improvement through the performance measurement system. Additional information if necessary or go to page #2 for more room Is Your Goal Smart? Specific Measurable Achievable Results-Oriented Time-sensitive Measures of Goal Achievement: Optimum: Target plus develop a process improvement plan to address areas identified for organizational improvement. Submit Plan to Leadership Team. Target: Threshold plus issue a report to the Leadership Team on the state of effectiveness including external comparisons and identify areas for organizational improvement. Threshold: Collect available performance measurement data for every identified outcome. Review and revise outcome measures as needed. Implement citywide communications plan. 125 APPENDIX 2: 1999-2OOO GOAL City Council Strategic Goal: A Ensure the effective and efficient delivery of top-quality services to our community. Describe your goal: Facilitate and provide resources for the development of a Performance Measurement structure for the MS As. The goal would be to develop a team to act as a catalyst and resource fore the MSAs to help reach their objective. The Team would focus on: Process Improvement, Citizen/ Customer Satisfaction, Cost Effectiveness and Quality /Productivity Improvement. The Team would also: Issue State of Efficiency Report and outline possible process solutions. Identify outside agencies who are considered the benchmark, and the standards/ goals to be set. Team members: Joe Garuba, Linda Lamb, Julie Ross, Lynn Diamond, Sue Spickard, Tom Ritter, and John Cahill. Performance Update Comments: Operational Goal A2: Continuously improve work processes through the use of best technology, information-sharing, effective cross-departmental teams, and all City resources. Departmental/ Program Goal: Delivering top quality Public Safety, Community Services, Community Development, Public Works, and Administrative Services. Measures of Goal Achievement • Optimum: Develop criteria or standards for excellence and compare against outside agencies. Identify potential areas of improvement, and issue a State of Effectiveness report (in conjunction with Team findings). • Target: Implement measurement systems and provide analysis on internal results. • Threshold: Identify appropriate Outcome or Results measures and gain City Manager Approval by Dec 30th. Identify type of measurement systems needed. Performance Rating Optimum (3) n Target (2) O Threshold (1) O Did not meet goal (0) O Performance Review Comments: 126 I 1 ! I APPENDIX 3: CITYWIDE SURVEY RESULTS 127 128 •o Ia S" APPENDIX 1: 1999-2OOO GOAL City Council Strategic Goal: A Ensure the effective and efficient delivery of top-quality services to our community. Describe your goal: Facilitate and provide resources for the development of a Performance Measurement structure for the MSAs. The goal would be to develop a team to act as a catalyst and resource fore the MSAs to help reach their objective. The Team would focus on: Process Improvement, Citizen /Customer Satisfaction, Cost Effectiveness and Quality/ Productivity Improvement. The Team would also: Issue State of Efficiency Report and outline possible process solutions. Identify outside agencies who are considered the benchmark, and the standards/ goals to be set. Team members: Joe Garuba, Linda Lamb, Julie Ross, Lynn Diamond, Sue Spickard, Tom Ritter, and John Cahill. Performance Update Comments: Operational Goal A2: Continuously improve work processes through the use of best technology, information- sharing, effective cross-departmental teams, and all City resources. Departmental/Program Goal: Delivering top quality Public Safety, Community Services, Community Development, Public Works, and Administrative Services. ; Measures of Goal Achievement • Optimum: Develop criteria or standards for excellence and compare against outside agencies. Identify potential areas of improvement, and issue a State of Effectiveness report (in conjunction with Team findings) . • Target: Implement measurement systems and provide analysis on internal results. • Threshold: Identify appropriate Outcome or Results measures and gain City Manager Approval by Dec 30th. Identify type of measurement systems needed. Performance Rating Optimum (3) O Target (2) O Threshold (1) O Did not meet goal (0) O Performance Review Comments: 127 APPENDIX 2: 2000-2001 GOAL Goals 2000-2001 Name: MSA: Goal: Individual Goal: | | Team Goal: [X] Reviewer's Name: Patchett, Ray City Counc|l Strategic Goal: A Ensure the effective and efficient delivery of top-quality services to our community. Team Goal: Please list member's on Team Joe Garuba (team leader), John Cahill, Lynn Diamond, Jim Elliott, Linda Kermott, Tom Ritter, Julie Ross, Sue Spickard. Operational Goal: Al Provide timely responses that result in high customer satisfaction Departmental Goal: (if applicable) Describe Your Goal Stating the Outcome First: 2 Year Goal Establish and maintain Carlsbad as a high performing organization by continually identifying and implementing opportunities for improvement through the performance measurement system. Additional information if necessary or go to page #2 for more room Is Your Goal Smart? Specific Measurable Achievable Results-Oriented Time-sensitive Measures of Goal Achievement: Optimum: Target plus develop a process improvement plan to address areas identified for organizational improvement. Submit Plan to Leadership Team. Target: Threshold plus issue a report to the Leadership Team on the state of effectiveness including external comparisons and identify areas for organizational improvement. Threshold: Collect available performance measurement data for every identified outcome. Review and revise outcome measures as needed. Implement citywide communications plan. 128 129 APPENDIX 3: CITYWIDE SURVEY RESULTS 130 City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report Conducted for: City of Carlsbad Conducted by: The Social and Behavioral Research Institute January, 2001 Study Team: Richard T. Serpe, Ph.D., Director Allen J. Risley, M.A.; Assistant Director Michael D. Large, Ph.D.; Study Director Lori Brown Large, M.A.; Survey Study Director Matt Atherton, M.A; Field Research Coordinator Richard V. Mason, M.A.; Field Research Coordinator January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 Data 2 Key Findings 3 Respondent Demographics 3 City Services and Facilities 3 Activities 4 Libraries 4 City Conditions and Development 4 City Features 5 Internet Access 6 DATA 7 RESULTS 8 Respondent Demographics 8 Demographics by Region 10 January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRJ City Services and Facilities 13 City-Provided Services 13 Agency-Provided Services 14 Service Ratings by Regions 15 Programs and Facilities 17 Programs and Facilities by Region 20 Activities 21 Park Use 21 Recreation Facilities 22 Public Pool 22 Multi-use Recreation Facility 22 Recreation Activities at 55 23 Cultural Arts Activities 25 Libraries 29 City Conditions and Development 35 Road Conditions 35 Public Safety 38 Feelings of Safety 38 Exposure to Crime 42 Confidence in Emergency Services 42 January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI Development 45 Development by Region 47 City Features 52 City Information 58 Confidence in City Government 59 Confidence in City Government and Demographics 60 Concerns about Carlsbad and Confidence in City Government 62 What Residents Like Most about Carlsbad and Confidence in City Government 65 Internet Access 67 January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of the City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey. This was a telephone survey conducted with residents of the City of Carlsbad administered in the Fall of 2000. The survey was conducted for the City of Carlsbad by the Social and Behavioral Research Institute at California State University, San Marcos. The survey addressed the attitudes of city residents concerning issues such as city-provided services, libraries, cultural arts activities, city conditions and development, and city facilities. The survey also touches on resident attitudes regarding crime and safety, Internet access, as well as a number of demographic questions. The report contains a description of the data, an executive summary, and an elaboration of the results of the survey. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey report details the results of a telephone survey of » Carlsbad residents, administered in the Fall of 2000. The survey was conducted for the City of ^ Carlsbad by the Social and Behavioral Research Institute at California State University, San Marcos. ** *. The survey addressed the attitudes of city residents concerning issues such as city-provided services, cultural arts activities, city conditions and development, and city facilities. This executive "" int* summary highlights some of the key results of the survey. Data The data come from 1,001 telephone interviews with Carlsbad residents, 18 years of age or older. Respondents were randomly selected within four regions in the City of Carlsbad (Northwest, Northeast, Southeast, and Southwest) using a computer-assisted-telephone-interviewing (CATI) system. There were approximately 250 respondents from each of the regions. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI Kev Findings In general, respondents are rather positive about the City of Carlsbad. There was also generally a good deal of consistency in attitudes across regions. Some of the key findings are noted below. Respondent Demographics The sample responding to the survey was 40.8% male and 59.2% female. These respondents had lived in Carlsbad an average of 11.03 years, and averaged 50.48 years of age. More than two thirds (69.7%) of the respondents had total household incomes over $50,000, and only 7.0% had total household incomes below 525,000. Incomes between 550,000 and $100,000 were most typical. Of the respondents, 79.7% indicated that they owned their home, and 20.3% said they were renting. There was an average of 2.57 people in the households. Of those households with children, there was an average of 1.80 children in the household. City Services and Facilities All city-provided services addressed in the survey were rated as good or excellent by most people, and the library services as well as the fire protection services were rated as good or excellent by 96.0% of the respondents. All the services that were evaluated in this study provided by the city through outside agencies were also rated as good or excellent by most people. In general, city- January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 3 provided services were rated as good or excellent by 91.5% of the respondents. The city facilities ** •to- regarded as most important were (1) preserved open-space land, (2) trails and paths, (3) picnic areas, ^ Wfr-'and (4) children's play equipment. •• «*^ Activities ** ***- Most of the residents supported facilities for activities in the city. Over three quarters (79.0%) of the respondents indicated that someone in their household had used a city park. Additionally, 67.8% **" m of the respondents said they believe there is a need for another public pool, and 77.5% of the respondents would like the City of Carlsbad to consider a large multi-purpose recreation facility that •" it- would house things such as a gymnasium, aquatic center, and meeting rooms. For respondents age 36 to 54, recreation activities was by far the most frequently mentioned city-sponsored activity " «* respondents said they would like to participate in when they are 55 or older. 9* m,, Libraries On average, Carlsbad residents visited a Carlsbad library 15.86 times in the past year. Three ** * quarters of the respondents visited the library to check out or read books or magazines for enjoyment, and three quarters visited the library to get answers to questions or do general research. The most •* •*, common reason residents offered for not visiting the library was that they had no interest or need to use «r the library. » *»» Wfe City Conditions and Development w M> January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI " "4 Road conditions were rated positively. The overall road condition, medians and landscaping conditions, city street tree conditions, and curb and sidewalk conditions were rated good or excellent by most (78.1% to 80.4%) of the respondents. City residents feel safe walking in their neighborhood. Respondents said they felt very safe walking alone in their neighborhood both during the day and at night, but they did feel more safe during the day than they did at night. Only 8.0% of the respondents said that they or someone in their household had been a victim of a crime in Carlsbad in the past year. Further, residents expressed confidence in the police department's ability to respond to police emergencies. For the most part, residents were not in favor of more development. Most of the respondents ; said they would like to see more entertainment venues and fewer big box retail stores, single-family housing units, and multi-store shopping centers. City Features Respondents were asked what they liked most about living in Carlsbad, and what there biggest concern was. Proximity to the beach was most commonly mentioned as what residents like most about living in Carlsbad. Residents' biggest concern regarding the City of Carlsbad was traffic. Respondents utilized a variety of information sources, but the most common source of information about Carlsbad was local TV news, used by two thirds (67.5%) of the residents. Residents offered some degree of confidence in the Carlsbad City government to make decisions that positively affect the lives of its community members. Residents valued keeping view corridors clear. More than January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRJ half (64.1%) of those responding said they would accept a tax increase to assure that facilities are kept from appearing on the landscape or view corridors. Internet Access Three quarters (76.5%) of the respondents stated that they had Internet access, and of these, 27.1% have a high speed Internet connection. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI DATA The data come from 1,001 telephone interviews conducted in the Fall of 2000. The respondents were Carlsbad residents, 18 years of age or older. Respondents were randomly selected from four regions in the City of Carlsbad (Northwest, Northeast, Southeast, and Southwest) using a computer-assisted-telephone-interviewing (CATI) system. There were 250 or 251 respondents from each of the regions. The regions were specified as follows; Northwest included residents in the 9200S zip code West of El Camino Real, Northeast included residents in the 92008 zip code East of El Camino Real, Southeast included residents in the 92009 zip code East of El Camino Real, and Southwest included residents in the 92009 zip code West of El Camino Real. This sample size (1,001) provides a margin of error of 3.2%. The margin of error within regions is 6.3%. The interview questions, along with frequency distributions or descriptive statistics, are found in Appendix A. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI RESULTS Respondent Demographics The sample responding to the survey was 40.8% male and 59.2% female. This is typical of gender distributions for telephone surveys. These respondents had lived in Carlsbad an average of 11.03 years, and averaged 50.48 years of age, ranging from 18 to 89 years old. Table 1 shows the distribution of the respondents' total household income last year. More than two thirds (69.7%) of the respondents had total household incomes over $50,000, and only 7.0%' had total household incomes below $25,000. Incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 were most typical. 'The "Valid Percent" in the table represents the percent of the valid responses, as opposed to the "Percent" which refers to the percent of the total sample. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 8 Table 1: Annual Total Household Income. Frequency Valid Missing Total Under 525,000 525,000 to under 535,000 535,000 to under 550,000 550,000 to under 575,000 575,000 to under 5 100,000 5 100,000 to 5 125,000 5 125 ,000 and Above Total Don't Know Refused Total 60 73 127 165 188 96 149 858 27 116 143 1001 Percent 6.0 7.3 12.7 16.5 18.8 9.6 14.9 85.7 2.7 11.6 14.3 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 7.0 8.5 14.8 19.2 21.9 11.2 17.4 100.0 i.O 15.5 30.3 49.5 71.4 82.6 100.0 Q1NCOME Which category best describes your household's total income last year before taxes'.' Of the respondents, 79.7% indicated that they owned their home, and 20.3% said they were renting. There was an average of 2.57 people in the households, and 33.4% of the respondents reported having children in their household. Of those households with children, there was an average of 1.80 children in the household. This is seen in Table 2a.2 Further, 25.3% of the respondents said they had children under 12 years of age, and 13.8% said they had children under 6 in the home. For those with children under 12, there were an average of 1.62 children under 12 in the household, and there were 1.42 children under six in households with at least one child under six. Considering all households, the average number of children in each of these categories is displayed in Table 2b. 2The table also displays the "Std. Deviation" (standard deviation) for each of these variables. The standard deviation is a measure of how variable the responses were for that item. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 9 Households averaged .60 children in the household, and .41 children under 12. On average, there was .20 children under six years old in the household. Table 2a: Household Structure. Number of People in Household (Including Respondent) Number of Children Under the Age of 18 Number of Children Under the Age of 12 Number of Children Under the Age of 6 Valid N (listwise) N Minimum 992 1 334 1 253 1 137 1 137 Maximum 8 7 5 3 Mean 2.5726 1.7964 1.6245 1.4161 Std. Deviation 1.2469 .8974 .7489 .5770 QDEMO3-QDEMO6 How many people currently reside in your household including yourself and anv children? Table 2b: Average Number of Children Across All Households. Std. N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation Number ot Children Lnder the Age of IS Number of Children Under the Age of 12 Number of Children Under the Age of 6 Valid N(lisrwise) 1000 0 1000 0 995 0 995 7 .6000 .9935 5 .4110 .8004 3 .1950 .5328 QDEMO4 - QDEMO6 How many people currently reside in your household including yourself and any children? Demographics bv Region January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 10 Analyses were performed to determine if there were differences in the demographic characteristics of the respondents by geographic region. The respondents did not differ by region with respect to gender or household structure. However, there were differences by region with respect to income, home ownership, and length of residence in Carlsbad. As illustrated in Table 3, the regions in the South had higher incomes than those in the North. Almost a quarter of the respondents in the Southeast (23.4%) and the Southwest (23.3%) had total household incomes of $125,000 or greater. Additionally, over half the respondents in the Southeast (56.4%) and the Southwest (57.2%) had total incomes of 575,000 or more, while this was not the case for the Northeast (48.3%) or Northwest (39.7%) regions. Table 3: Annual Household Income by Region. NorthWest Household Income Last Year Under S25.0UO 525,000 to under 535,000 S3 5. 000 to 550.000 to 575,000 to under 550,000 under under 5 100,000 to SI 25 575,000 5100,000 ,000 SI 25, 000 and Above Total Count 26 20 45 38 36 19 30 214 % 12.1% 9.3% 21.0% 17.8% 16.8% 8.9% 14.0% 100.0% NorthEast Household Income Last Year Count 13 19 33 44 65 19 18 211. % 6.2% 9.0% 15.6% 20.9% 30.8% 9.0% 8.5% 1 00.0% SouthEast Household Income Last Year Count 13 10 28 44 51 21 51 218 % 6.0% 4.6% 12.8% 20.2% 23.4% 9.6% 23.4% 100.0% South West Household Income Last Count 8 24 21 39 36 37 50 215 Year "A 3 11 9 18 16 17 23 100 LI .7% .2% .8% .1% .7% .2% .3% .0% QINCOME Which category best describes your household's total income last year before taxes? Carlsbad residents also differed by region with respect to home ownership. This is seen in Table 4. About a third (33.9%) of the residents in the Northwest region were renting their home January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 11 compared to 15.8% in the other regions. That is, twice as many residents are renting in the Northwest than in the rest of the city. Table 4: Home Ownership by Region. NorthWest Own/Rent Home Own Rent Total Count 164 84 248 % 66.1% 33.9% 100.0% NorthEast Own/Rent Home Count 213 38 251 % 84.9% 15.1% 100.0% SouthEast Own/Rent Home Count 203 45 248 • % 81.9% 18.1% 100.0% SouthWest Own/Rent Home Count 214 35 249 % 85.9% 14.1% 100.0% QDEMO2 Do you own or rent your home? Region was very strongly tied to length of residence in Carlsbad. Those in the Northern regions ** m> had lived in Carlsbad considerably longer than residents in the Southern Regions. In the Northwest Region, residents had lived in Carlsbad for an average of 15.64 years - longer than any other region. "** •P This is seen in Table 5. Those in the Northeast (12.25) had also lived in Carlsbad longer than those in ^ the Southeast (8.21) and Southwest Regions (8.03). *"* <tt» Table 5: Length of Residence in Carlsbad by Region. I* QDEMO1 Number of Years Lived In Carlsbad ** Mean Std. N (Average) Deviation .Minimum Maximum NorthWest NorthEast SouthEast SouthWest Total QDEMO1 How 250 15.64 14.77 0 251 12.25 9.53 0 250 8.21 8.25 0 250 8.03 7.61 0 1001 11.03 10.88 0 many years have you lived in Carlsbad? 70 50 46 40 70 January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 12 Citv Services and Facilities City-Provided Services Respondents were asked about services provided by or through the City of Carlsbad. Each respondent was asked how they would rate (from poor to excellent) a number of city-provided services. Their answers are summarized in Table 6. All the city-provided services addressed in the survey were rated as good or excellent by most people. The library services were rated as excellent more often than not, that is, 59.9% of the respondents said the library services were excellent. In fact, the library services as well as the fire protection services were rated as good or excellent by 96.0% of ••the respondents. Traffic enforcement and environmental protection were not often given a rating of excellent, but both were typically rated as good. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRJ 13 Table 6: Ratings of City-Provided Services. Library Services Rating Fire Protection Services Rating Paramedic Services Rating Police Services Rating Condition of Parks Rating Recreational Programs Rating Water Services Rating Environmental Protection Rating Traffic Enforcement Rating Overall City Services Rating Poor Count % 6 .6% 7 .8% 4 .6% 24 2.6% 18 1.9% 15 1.8% 19 1.9% 72 10.9% 123 12.9% . 9 .9% Fair Count 31 26 31 64 78 81 98 144 205 74 % 3.3% 3.1% 4.5% 7.0% 8.2% 9.6% 10.1% 21.7% 21.5% 7.5% Good Count 335 395 336 445 489 468 613 340 492 614 % 36.1% 47.4% 48.6% 48.7% 51.7% 55.3% 62.9% 51.3% 51.5% 62.5% Excellent Count 556 405 320 380 361 282 245 107 135 285 % 59.9% 48.6% 46.3% 41.6% 38.2% 33.3% 25.1% 16.1% 14.1% 29.0% Good/Excellent Count 891 800 656 S25 850 750 858 447 627 899 % 96.0% 96.0% 94.9% 90.3% 89.9% 88.6% 88.0% 67.4% 65.6% 91.5% QSERV1 - QSERV8 Please rate each service provided by the City of Carlsbad as excellent, good, fair, or poor. Respondents also provided a general, overall rating of the city services. Most often, residents' overall rating of the city services was good. The overall city services were rated as good or excellent by 91.5% of the respondents. Agency-Provided Services In addition to the city-provided services, respondents were also asked about services from outside agencies. Table 7 provides a summary of their responses. Trash and recycling collection was January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 14 rated as excellent by almost a third (32.5%) of the residents responding. Again, all the services evaluated were rated as good or excellent by most people. The lowest ratings were for hazardous waste disposal, but only 13.5% indicated that they thought this service was poor. Table 7: Ratings of Agency-Provided Services. Poor Fair Good Excellent Good/Excellent Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Trash and Recycling 35 3.5% 131 13.2% 502 50.8% 321 32.5% 823 83.2% Collection Rating Street Sweeping &7 ? ]% 2Q2 2J g% 4g4 5] 5% lg? J9 9% <.-, ?M% Rating Hazardous Waste Disposal 81 13.5% 139 23.2% 294 49.1% 85 14.2% 379 63.3% Rating QOUTSRV1 - QOUTSRV4 Please rate each of services provided by outside agencies as excellent, good, fair, or poor. Service Ratings by Regions The ratings of the services provided by or through the City of Carlsbad were generally consistent across regions. However, there were regional differences for two of the services provided by the city: library services and fire protection services. Table 8 shows the ratings of the library services across the four regions. The ratings of the library services were positive in all four regions. However, the respondents in the Southeast and Southwest Regions rated library services more positively than those in the Northeast and Northwest Regions. In both the Southeast and the Southwest Regions, about two-thirds of the respondents rated the library services as excellent compared to just over half in the Northeast and Northwest Regions. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRJ 15 Table 8: Ratings of Library Services by Region. NorthWest NorthEast SouthEast SouthWesi Library Services Rating Library Services Rating Library Services Rating Library Services Rating Count % Count % Count % Count % Toor 3 O% ! 3 !5%5 5!5% i .4% Fair 14 6.0% 5 2.1% 8 3.5% 4 1.7% Good 91 39.1% 104 43.7% 67 29.5% 73 31.7% Excellent 125 53.6% 127 53.4% 152 . 67.0% 152 66.1% Total 233 100.0% 238 100.0% 227 100.0% 230 100.0% QLFBSERV Overall, how would you rate the Carlsbad libraries as to the availability of materials you want? There were also regional differences in the ratings of fire protection services. Fire protection services were rated very positively in all four regions. The Southeast Region, though, had slightly more individuals offering only fair or poor evaluations of the fire protection service, as indicated in Table 9. Only 7.6% of the respondents in the Southeast Region said the fire protection service was fair or poor, but this was higher than in the other regions. This regional effect may be related to the Harmony Grove fire in October of 1996 which affected the Southeast Region. m. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 16 Table 9: Ratings of Fire Protection Services by Region. NorthWest NorthEast SouthEast , South West Fire Protection Services Fire Protection Services Fire Protection Services Fire Protection Services Rating Rating Rating Rating Count % Count % Count % Count % Poor 1 .5% 1 .5% 4 2.0% 1 .5% Fair 8 3.7% 5 2.3% 11 5.6% 2 1.0% Good 96 44.2% 115 52.5% 97 49.2% 87 43.5% Excellent 112 51.6% 98 44.7% 85 43.1% 110 55.0% Total 217 100.0% 219 100.0% 197 100.0% 200 100.0% QSERV3 Please rate each service provided by the City of Carlsbad as excellent, good, fair, or poor Programs and Facilities The programs and facilities provided by the City of Carlsbad was also of interest. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of various programs and facilities using a scale of zero to ten, where zero means not at all important and ten means very important. Table 10 contains the average importance ratings for city programs and facilities, with numbers closer to ten indicating greater importance. As can be seen in the table, preserved open-space land has the highest importance rating (8.41). Trails and paths (7.86), as well as picnic areas (7.33) and children's play equipment (7.25) were also regarded as quite important. Of least importance was tennis courts - the average importance rating was 5.09 on the zero-to-ten scale. Indoor meeting rooms (5.44), public golf courses (5.62), and basketball courts (5.65) were also rated relatively low in importance. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRJ 17 Table 10: Average Importance Ratings of City Programs and Facilities. Mean Std. N (Average) Deviation importance of Preserved Open Space Land (Accessible to the Public) Importance of Nature Trails, Jogging and Walking Paths Importance of Picnic Areas Importance of Children's Play Equipment Importance of Arts and Cultural Programs Importance of Playing Fields Importance of Bike Paths Importance of Swimming Pools Importance of Community Gardens Importance of Basketball Courts Importance of Public Golf Courses Importance of Indoor Meeting Rooms. Importance of Tennis Courts Valid N (lisrwise) 989 989 990 986 999 989 992 990 984 981 993 978 980 928 8.41 7.86 7.33 7.25 7.16 .7.12 6.58 6.47 6.06 5.65 5.62 5.44 5.09 2.31 2.35 2.29 2.79 2.44 2.71 2.92 2.84 2.68 2.92 3.44 2.66 2.91 QPROGSI - QPROGS13 How important to you are each of the following on a scale of 0 to 10, where zero means not at all important, and ten means very important? In general, residents believed swimming pools to be important. It is interesting, though, to examine more closely the ratings of the importance of swimming pools. The distribution of responses rating the importance of swimming pools is displayed in Figure 1. Most (57.2%) of the respondents offered an importance rating between 5 and 8, and there were also many (19.2%) that said swimming pools are very important. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 18 Not At All Important 2 1 4 6 3 5 8 Very Important 9 Importance of Swimming Pools Figure 1: Importance of Swimming Pools. The importance ratings of public golf courses also merit closer examination. Overall, public golf courses were rated as important (5.62 on the zero-to-ten scale), though less so than most of the other ,,programs or facilities examined. However, as illustrated in Figure 2, the distribution of responses to this question shows the residents are somewhat polarized with respect to public golf courses. While 20.0% of the respondents indicated that the believe public golf courses are very important, 14.5% of the • respondents said they are not at all important. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000- SBRI 19 30- 20- ^H LJ_ J_^^^^^^^H^^^^^^M^^^^^^M^^^^^^M>^^^^^^Mi^^^^^^M^^^^^^B'i^^^^^^B^^^^^^M>^^^^^^K^^^^^^^*_^Not At All Important 2468 Very Important Importance of Public Golf Courses Figure 2: Importance of Public Golf Courses. Programs and Facilities by Region The importance ratings were very consistent across regions. The only statistically significant difference across the regions was found in the ratings of the importance of public golf courses. The average ratings by region are shown in Table 11. Residents in the Southeast region rated the importance of public golf courses higher (6.08) than did the Northwest Region residents (5.15). January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 20 Table 11: Importance of Public Golf Courses by Region. Importance of Public Golf Courses NorthWest NorthEast SouthEast SouthWest Total N 246 249 248 250 993 Mean (Average) 5.15 5.41 6.08 5.82 5.62 Std. Deviation 3.34 3.51 3.38 3.46 3.44 Std. Error .21 .22 .21 .22 .11 QPROGS13 How important to you are each of the following on a scale of 0 to 10, where zero means not at all important, and ten means very important? Activities Park Use Respondents were asked about the use of public parks. Specifically, they were asked if anyone in their household had used a Carlsbad public park in the past year. The responses are summarized in Table 12. Over three quarters (79.0%) of the respondents indicated that someone in their household had used a city park. Park use did not differ by region. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 21 Table 12: Household Member Has Used a Carlsbad Park in the Past Year. Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Ro ITS2713 TO TT Yes 789 78.S 79.0 100.0 Total 999 99.8 100.0 Missing Don't Know 2 .2 Total 1001 100.0 QPARKUSE Has anyone in your household used a Carlsbad public park or park facility during the past twelve months? Recreation Facilities Public Pool. The perceived need for an additional public pool was also assessed. Table 13 indicates how many residents think there is a need for another public pool in the city. About two thirds (67.8%) of the respondents said they believe there is a need for another public pool in Carlsbad. Table 13: Recreation Facilities. Expressed Interest in a Carlsbad Need for Another Pool in the City Multi-Use Recreation Facility Count % Count % *~N^ 294 3272%22l 22.5% Yes 618 67.8% 761 77.5% QPOOL The City of Carlsbad currently operates one pool adjacent to Carlsbad High School. Do you feel there is a need for another public pool in the city? ^,. *»s Multi-use Recreation Facility. Table 13 also shows how many residents are in favor of the M*' City of Carlsbad building a large, multi-use recreation facility. City residents were asked if they would *" •>• like to see the City of Carlsbad construct a recreation facility that would house things such as a m>.: gymnasium, aquatic center, meeting rooms, etc. Three quarters (77.5%) of the respondents said they — January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 22 would like the City of Carlsbad to consider such a facility. Those who indicated that they would like to see Carlsbad consider such a facility were asked how far they would be willing to drive to the facility. On average, people indicated that they were willing to drive 14.73 minutes to get to such a facility. Most respondents (91.9%) said they would be willing to drive at least 10 minutes to get to a large multi-use recreation facility. The time people were willing to drive did not vary by region. Recreation Activities at 55 Those respondents 36 to 54 years of age were asked about the sorts of activities they would like to participate in when they reach the age of 55. The responses to this open-ended question of the 452 respondents that fall into this age range were categorized into different types of activities. The responses falling into these categories are summarized in Table 14. Recreation activities was by far the most frequently mentioned city-sponsored activity respondents said they would like to participate in when they are 55 or older. This, was mentioned by 42.0% of the respondents in the 36 to 54 year-old age group. Arts activities was mentioned by 21.5% of these respondents, and use of an aquatics center (12.4%) and fitness center (12.8%) were also commonly mentioned. A small minority (2.2%) of the respondents said they would not participate in any city-sponsored activities when they reached 55. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 23 Table 14: Activities Anticipated at 55. Recreation Activities Arts Fitness Center Aquatic Center Areas for Senior Programs Classrooms Travel/Daytrips Gymnasium Weight Room Indoor Track Education/Library Banquet Facility Meeting Rooms Health & Fitness Rock Climbing Wall Childcare Other Nothing Chosen Count 190 97 58 56 43 33 24 23 18 17 17 16 15 13 8 6 13 10 % 42.0% 21.5% 12.8% 12.4% 9.5% 7.3% 5.3% 5.1% 4.0% 3.8% 3.8% 3.5% 3.3% 2.9% 1.8% 1.3% 2.9% 2.2% QRETIRE! When you reach the age of 55 or older what type of City sponsored recreation activities would you like to participate in? Only participation in classroom activities differed by region. As illustrated in Table 15, residents in the Northwest and Southeast Regions were more likely to state that they would participate in classes after they turn 55. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 24 Table 15: Participation in Classrooms by Region. NorthWest NorthEast SouthEast SouthWest Classrooms Classrooms Classrooms Classrooms Participation Participation Participation Participation Count % Count % Count % Count % Chosen 12 11.5% 4 3.3% 12 10.2% 5 4.6% QRETIRE1 When you reach the age of 55 or older what type of City sponsored recreation activities would you like to participate in? Cultural Arts Activities A number of cultural arts activities were given attention in the survey. Respondents rated the importance of various cultural arts activities on a zero-to-ten importance scale, with higher numbers indicating greater importance. These ratings are summarized in Table 16. All the cultural arts activities were regarded as important. Average ratings of the seven activities assessed ranged between 5.06 (the middle of the scale) and 7.78. Outdoor concerts were considered to be the most important (average rating of 7.78) cultural arts activity of those assessed. As Figure 3 illustrates, few respondents regarded outdoor concerts as low in importance. In fact, only 7.3% of the respondents gave an importance rating to outdoor concerts of 4 or lower. On the other hand, 43.4% of the respondents gave outdoor concerts an importance rating 9 or 10. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 25 Not At All Important 2 1 8 Very Important 9 Importance of Outdoor Concerts Figure 3: Importance of Outdoor Concerts. Table 16: Average Importance Ratings of Cultural Arts Activities. N Mean (Average)Std. Deviation Outdoor Concerts Performing Arts Museum and Art Exhibits Festivals and Fairs Multi-Cultural Events An Appreciation Classes Social Dancing Valid N (lisrwise) 994 994 996 996 985 985 981 965 7.78 7.31 7.31 6.82 6.46 5.98 5.06 2.38 2.58 2.43 2.54 2.76 2.78 2.87 QACTIV1- QACTIV7 where zero means not at all important and ten means very important, how would you rate the importance of the following cultural arts activities in your community? January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 26 Performing arts (7.31) as well as museum'and art exhibits (7.31) were considered more important than the other activities (aside from outdoor concerts), and festivals and fairs (6.82) were regarded as the next most important cultural arts activity. The activity rated relatively least important (5.06) was social dancing. Figure 4 shows that about a third (34.5%) of the respondents rated social dancing at 4 or lower, and 10.6% gave a 9 or 10 importance rating to social dancing. 40 30- 20- ^B LiiiMLi Not At All Important 2468 Very Important 13579 Importance of Social Dancing Figure 4: Importance of Social Dancing. The importance ratings of the cultural arts activities were rather consistent across regions. Only the ratings of outdoor concerts varied by region. Again, the difference amounted to a North-South split. Those respondents from the Northwest and Northeast rated the importance of outdoor concerts more highly (7.99) than did those from the Southeast and Southwest (7.56). January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 27 The amount of cultural arts activities in which residents participate was also of interest. Respondents were asked how many times per year they attended cultural events such as plays, concerts, museums, etc. The responses are displayed in Table 17. Almost all (94.0%) of the respondents indicated that they participate in at least one cultural arts event per year. Under half (44.5%) of the respondents said they participate in a cultural arts event at least five times per year, and 19.2% said they participate more than 10 times per year. The amount of cultural arts activities in which residents participated did not vary by region. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 28 Table 17: Number of Times Per Year a Cultural Arts Event is Attended. Frequency Valid Missing Total Zero Times per Year 1-2 Times Per Year 3-5 Times Per Year 5- 10 Times Per Year More Than 1 0 Times Per Year Total Don't Know Refused Total 60 166 328 252 192 998 2 1 3 1001 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Percent 6.0 6.0 16.6 . 16.6 32.8 32.9 25.2 25.3 19.2 19.2 99.7 100.0 .2 .1 .3 100.0 6.0 22.6 55.5 80.S 100.0 QEVENT How often do you attend a cultural event such as a play, concert, museum, etc...: Libraries The amount and nature of library use was a key concern in this study. Most (78.8%) of the respondents reported using one of the Carlsbad library facilities in the past year. On average, Carlsbad residents visited a Carlsbad library 15.86 times in the past year. The amount of overall library use did not vary by region. The amount of use of the libraries individually is displayed in Table 18. As can be seen in this table, the Dove Library is used more than the Cole Library or the Centre de Informacion.3 Both the Dove Library and the Cole Library are used substantially more often than the Centre de 30f the telephone numbers called, 1.6% were excluded because of language difficulty. Most of these were Spanish speaking people, resulting in a probable slight underestimate of the use of the Centre de Informacion. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 29 Informacion. This is evident when considering the numbers of residents using the library once a week or more - 13.1% of the residents use the Dove Library at least once a week compared to 9.9% for the W* Cole Library and .2% for the Centra de Informacion. Less than one out of four (23.2%) said they **" w never used the Dove Library compared to 39.5% for the Cole Library and 96.4% for the Centre de Informacion. "" taa, Table 18: Frequency of Library Use. How Often Respondent How Often Respondent How Often Respondent Used Dove Library in Used Cole Library in Past Used Centre de Past Year Year Informacion in Past Year Never Once or Twice in the Past Year Once or Twice a Month Once a Week More Than Once a Week Count % 183 23.2% 246 31.2% 256 32.5% 55 7.0% 48 6.1% Count % Count % 3 1 1 39.5% 235 29.9% 163 20.7% 45 5.7% 33 4.2% 757 96.4% 21 2.7% 5 .6% 1 .1% 1 .1% QLIB How often have you used any of the Carlsbad City Library facilities in the past year? ^ w Mk- Looking at these libraries individually, there is a difference in use by region. As one would * expect, the Dove Library is used more frequently by residents in the Southeast Region than by residents *" m in the other regions. The Cole Library, on the other hand, is used more frequently by those in the UK Northwest and Northeast Regions. The use of Centra de Informacion was too infrequent to determine w it if there were any differences in use by region at a statistically significant level. w The reasons Carlsbad City residents visit the library was investigated. As shown in Table 19, ** TUT three quarters (76.8%) of the respondents said they visited the library to check out or read books or magazines for enjoyment. Additionally, three quarters (75.8%) of the respondents said they visited the —• January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 30 library to get answers to questions or do general research. The other reasons that were asked about were offered by less than half of the respondents. The least frequently cited reason for visiting the library was to use technology resources (Internet, word processing computers, or typewriters). Only 18.6% of the respondents reported visiting the library to use these technology resources. Table 19: Reasons for Visiting Carlsbad City Libraries. Check Out or Read Books or Magazines For Enjoyment Get Answers to Questions or to do General Research Help Meet Educational or No Count 183 191 454 Yes % 23.2% 24.2% 57.5% Count 606 598 335 % 76.8% 75.8% 42.5% Help Yourself or Your Children Improve Reading Skills Take Advantage of Programs the Library Offers For a Quiet Place to Read and/or Study Use the Internet, Word Processing Computers or Typewriters 485 496 537 642 61.5% 63.0% 68.1% 81.4% 304 291 252 147 38.5% 37.0% 31.9% 18.6% QLIBVIS - QL1BV1S7 I am going to read a list of reasons people use the Carlsbad City libraries, please indicate whether or not you visit the library for each of the following reasons. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 31 There were some regional differences with respect to reasons for visiting a Carlsbad city library. As illustrated in Table 20a, those residing in the Southwest Region were less likely than those int the other regions to visit the library in order to help meet educational or job-related goals. Only 31.2% i of the Southwest residents offered this reason compared to 42.5% of all Carlsbad residents. 1 Table 20a: Visited Library for Education/Job-Related Goals by Region. No Yes NorthWest Visited Library to Help Meet Educational or Job-Related Goals Count % 108 54.0% 92 46.0% North East Visited Library to Help Meet Educational or Job-Related Goals Count % 99 52.1% 91 47.9% SouthEast Visited Library to Help Meet Educational or Job-Related Goals Count % 108 54.8% 89 45.2% SouthWest Visited Library to Help Meet Educational or Job-Related Goals Count % 139 68.8% 63 31.2% QLIBVIS2 1 am going to read a list of reasons people use the Carlsbad City libraries, please indicate whether or not you visit the library for each of the following reasons. Table 20b shows that those respondents living in the Southwest Region also differed from the other residents with respect to taking advantage of library-offered programs. Of the respondents in the Southwest, 45.0% said they visited the library in order to take advantage of programs offered by the library. Thus, residents in the Southwest Region were more likely to take advantage of such programs compared to residents across the entire city (37.0%). January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 32 Table 20b: Visited Lib ran for Library Programs. NorthWest NorthEast SouthEast South West Visited Library to Take Visited Library to Take Visited Library to Take Visited Library to Take Advantage of Programs Advantage of Programs Advantage of Programs Advantage of Programs the Library Offers the Library Offers the Library Offers the Library Offers Count % Count % Count % Count % ~No 128 64.0% 129 68.3% IIS 65.3% Til 55.0% Yes 72 36.0% 60 31.7% 68 34.7% 91 45.0% QLIBVIS4 I am going to read a list of reasons people use the Carlsbad City libraries, please indicate whether or not you visit the library for each of the following reasons. In addition to the reasons people offered for visiting the city libraries, the reasons why people didn 't visit the libraries were of interest. There were 212 respondents that said that they had not used any of the Carlsbad City Library facilities in the past year. These people were asked what had kept them from using the Carlsbad City Library. Their responses are summarized in Table 21. The most common reason for not visiting the library, offered by 40.1% of the respondents, was that they had no interest or need to use the library. Additionally, 19.3% of the respondents said they were too busy or they didn't have time to visit the library. Many people also indicated that they hadn't visited the library because they have other resources that meet their informational needs (13.2%), they buy books for themselves or their children (12.7%), or they just moved to Carlsbad (11.8%). January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 33 Table 21: Reported Reasons for Not Visiting City Libraries. Have No Interest or Need for Using the Library Don't Have Time Have Internet or Other Resources That Meet My Needs for Information Buy Books for Myself or My Children Just Moved Here The Library is Too Far Away or Otherwise Inconvenient Health Related Use Another Library Other Chosen Count 85 41 28 27 25 8 8 7 6 % 40.1% 19.3% 13.2% 12.7% 11.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.3% 2.8% QNOLIB What has prevented you from using the Carlsbad City Library? Respondents also provided an overall rating of the availability of materials at the city libraries. Their responses are summarized in Table 22. Most (89.0%) respondents were pleased with the availability of materials, offering a rating of good or excellent. Only 1.7% of the respondents rated the libraries as poor in this respect. These ratings did not vary by region. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 34 Table 22: Overall Rating of Carlsbad Libraries as to Availability of Materials. Valid Missing Total Poor Fair Good Excellent Total Don't Know System Total Frequency 13 73 327 371 784 5 212 217 1001 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Percent 1.3 1.7 7.3 9.3 32.7 41.7 37.1 47.3 78.3 100.0 .5 21.2 21.7 100.0 1 .7 11.0 52.7 100.0 QLIBSERV Overall, how would you rate the Carlsbad libraries as to the availability of materials you want? Citv Conditions and Development Road Conditions t Respondents were asked their impressions of various aspects of the city roads and traffic in the City of Carlsbad. The responses are summarized in Table 23. Generally, road conditions were rated positively. The overall road condition, medians and landscaping conditions, city street tree conditions, and curb and sidewalk conditions were rated good or excellent by most (78.1% to 80.4%) of the respondents. Traffic circulation and parking were rated less favorably. Less than half (40.8%) of the respondents rated traffic circulation efficiency (excluding freeways) as good or excellent, and a quarter (25.3%) rated traffic circulation as poor. Additionally, 38.4% of the respondents rated parking January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRJ 35 availability in the downtown village area as good or excellent, and 21.4% rated parking in the village as poor. Table 23: Ratings of City of Carlsbad Road Conditions. Medians and/or Landscaping Condition Overall Road Condition Curb/Sidewalk Condition City Street Trees Condition Traffic Circulation Efficiency Parking Availability in Downtown Village Area Poor Count % 41 4.1% 26 2.6% 35 3.5% 47 4.8% 252 25.3% 207 21.4% Fair Count % 161 16.1% 170 17.0% 182 18.4% 156 15.9% 338 33.9% 389 40.2% Good Excellent Count % Count % 560 56.1% 236 23.6% 585 58.5% 219 21.9% 576 58.2% 197 19.9% 598 60.8% 182 18.5% 361 36.2% 46 4.6% 328 33.9% 44 4.5% Good/Excellent Count % 796 79.7% 804 80.4% 773 78.1% 780 79.3% 407 40.8% 372 38.4% QSTREET1 - QSTREET6 Please rate the condition of each of the following items as excellent, good, fair, or poor Some of these conditions were evaluated differently by residents in different regions. Though ratings of the overall road condition, medians and landscaping conditions, and city street tree conditions were consistent across regions, the ratings of the other features of the road conditions were not. Table 24a shows that those in the Northwest Region were the least satisfied with the curb and sidewalk condition, and yet 71.3% of the residents surveyed in this area rated the curb and sidewalk conditions to be good or excellent. On the other hand, 7.7% of the Northwest Region residents said the conditions of the curbs and sidewalks were poor. This is twice the percentage (3.5%) of people in the entire sample that offered a poor rating of the curbs and sidewalks. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 36 Table 24a: Ratings of the Curb/Sidewalk Conditions by Region. NorthWest NorthEast SouthEast SouthWest Curb/Sidewalk Condition Curb/Sidewalk Condition Curb/Sidewalk Condition Curb/Sidewalk Condition Rating Rating Rating Rating Count Poor Fair Good Excellent Total 19 52 131 46 248 % 7.7% 21.0% 52.8% 18.5% 100.0% Count 6 42 150 52 250 % 2.4% 16.8% 60.0% 20.8% 100.0% Count 9 38 156 43 246 % 3.7% 15.4% 63.4% 17.5% 100.0% Count ] 50 139 56 246 % .4% 20.3% 56.5% 22.8% 100.0% QSTREET4 Please rate the condition of each of the following items as excellent, good, fair, or poor. Residents also differed by region in their evaluation of traffic circulation efficiency in the city. The respondents rated the traffic circulation efficiency, excluding freeways, and a quarter (25.3%) of the respondents across regions rated the traffic circulation as poor. However, in the Northeast Region, a third (33.1%) of the respondents rated the traffic circulation as poor. This is seen in Table 24b. Table 24b: Traffic Circulation Efficiency Ratings by Region. Poor Fair Good Excellent Total NorthWest Traffic Circulation Efficiency Rating. Excluding Freeways Condition Rating Count % 56 22.4% 75 30.0% 103 41.2% 16 6.4% 250 100.0% NorthEast Traffic Circulation Efficiency Rating. Excluding Freeways Condition Rating Count % 83 33.1% 87 34.7% 75 29.9% 6 2.4% 251 100.0% SouthEast Traffic Circulation Efficiency Rating. Excluding Freeways Condition Rating Count % 5b 22.7% 96 38.9% • 87 35.2% 8 3.2% 247 100.0% SouthWest Traffic Circulauon Efficiency Rating. Excluding Freeways Condition Rating Count % 57 22.9% SO 32.1% 96 38.6% 16 6.4% 249 100.0% QSTREET5 Please rate the condition of each of the following items as excellent, good, fair, or poor. There were also regional differences in resident attitudes regarding parking. Respondents were asked to evaluate the parking availability in the downtown village area. Residents in the Northwest January ,16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRJ 37 Region were more positive about the parking availability than were those in the Southeast or Southwest Regions. This is illustrated in Table 24c. In the Northwest Region, 9.3% of the respondents said the parking availability in the downtown village area was excellent, and 45.7% said it was good or excellent. By comparison, only 2.6% of the respondents in the Southeast and 1.7 % in the Southwest said the parking availability was excellent, and 31.5% of the respondents in the Southeast and 33.8% in the Southwest said the parking in the village was good or excellent. Table 24c: Ratings of Parking Availability in the Village Area by Region. NorthWest NorthEast SouthEast South West Parking Availability in Parking Availability in Parking Availability in Parking Availability in Downtown Village Area Downtown Village Area Downtown Village Area Downtown Village Area Condition Rating Condition Rating Condition Rating Condition Rating Poor Fair Good Excellent Total Count 50 84 90 23 247 % 20.2% 34.0% 36.4% 9.3% 100.0% • Count 44 98 93 11 246 % 17.9% 39.8% 37.8% 4.5% 100.0% Count 51 110 68 6 235 % 21.7% 46.8% 28.9% 2.6% 100.0% Count 62 97 77 4 240 % 25.8% 40.4% 32.1% 1.7% 100.0% QSTREET6 Please rate the condition of each of the following items as excellent, good, fair, or poor. Public Safety Feelings of Safety. Residents were asked about how safe they felt walking alone in their neighborhood. The residents answered using a zero-to-ten scale where zero means not at all safe and ten means very safe. The results are shown in Table 25. When asked how safe they felt walking alone in their neighborhood during the day, respondents gave an average rating of 9.46, suggesting that they . January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 38 felt very safe. Most (85.5%) of those interviewed offered a response of 9 or 10. Figure 5 shows the distribution of responses to this question. These ratings did not differ by region or by gender. Table 25: Feelings of Safety Walking Alone. N Mean Std. (Average) Deviation How Safe Respondent Feels Walking Alone in their Neighborhood During the Day How Safe Respondent Feels Walking Alone in their Neighborhood After Dark Valid N (listwise) 1001 1000 1000 9.46 7.54 1.20 2.55 QSAFE1 - QSAFE2 How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood ? 80 60- 40- 20- Not At All Safe 4 Very Safe Feelings of Safety Figure 5: Feelings of Safety Walking Alone in the Day. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 39 Residents were also asked about how safe they felt walking in their neighborhood at night. On the zero-to-ten scale, residents provided an average response of 7.54, suggesting that they still felt safe at night. This is shown in Table 25. Residents did feel significantly more safe during the day than they did at night. While 85.5% offered a response of 9 or 10 (very safe) when asked about walking alone during the day, only 41.4% offered a response of 9 or 10 when asked about walking alone at night. Figure 6 shows the distribution of responses to this question. Comparing Figures 5 and 6 illustrates the difference in how safe respondents feel walking alone in their neighborhood in the day versus night. 80 70- 60- 50- 40- iff- Not At All Safe 1 Very Safe Feelings of Safety Figure 6: Feelings of Safety Walking Alone at Night. Feelings of safety walking alone in their neighborhood after dark did differ by region. Table 26a shows average feelings of safety ratings by region. Those in the Northwest did feel less safe (6.99) walking alone at night in their neighborhood than did residents in the Northeast (8.02) and the January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRJ 40 Southeast (7.62) Regions. The difference between the Northwest and Southwest Regions was not statistically significant. Table 26a: Feelings of Safety Walking Alone After Dark by Region. QSAFE2 How Safe Respondent Feels Walking Alone in their Neighborhood After Dark NorthWest NorthEast SouthEast SouthWest Total N 250 251 250 249 1000 Mean (Average) 6.99 8.02 7.62 7.53 7.54 Std. Deviation 2.82 2.34 2.29 2.61 2.55 QSAFE2 How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood after dark? There was also a difference in feelings of safety by gender. That is, females felt less safe than males walking in their neighborhood alone at night. This is illustrated in Table 26b. While males offered an average feeling of safety rating of 8.54, females offered an average rating of 6.86. Table 26b: Feelings of Safety Walking Alone After Dark by Gender. Mean Std. R's Gender N (Average) Deviation How Safe Respondent Feels Male 497 8.54 i.go Walking Alone in their Neighborhood After Dark Female 593 6.86 2.75 QSAFE2 How safe do you fee! walking alone in your neighborhood after dark? January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 41 Exposure to Crime. The survey also addressed City of Carlsbad residents' exposure to crime. Respondents were asked if they or anyone in their household had been the victim of a crime in Carlsbad in the past 12 months. The responses to this question are summarized in Table 27. Only 8.0% of the respondents said that they or someone in their household had been a victim of a crime in Carlsbad in the past year. Of those 80 respondents indicating they or a household member had been victimized, most (80.0%) said the crime had been reported to the police. Exposure to crime did not vary by region. Table 27: Incidents of Crime. No Yes Count % Count Member of Family Victim of Crime in Carlsbad During the 921 92.0% 80 8.0% Past 12 Months Member of Farniiy Reported ]fi 2Q Q% ^ g() 0% Crime to the Police QCRIME1 - QCRIME2 During the past 12 months have you or has anyone in your household been a victim of any crime in Carlsbad? If yes, did any member of your household, report the cnme(s) to the police? Confidence in Emergency Services. Respondents were asked about their confidence in police and fire departments to respond to emergencies. Residents were asked to respond on a scale of zero-to-ten where zero means not at all confident and ten means very confident, how confident they were in the fire department's ability to respond to a medical or fire emergency. Table 28 shows that, on average, respondents gave a confidence rating of 8.87, indicating they were quite confident in the fire department's ability to respond. This is consistent with the overall rating of the fire protection January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 42 services noted on page 13. Though most respondents communicated confidence, 13.0% offered a confidence rating of 7 or lower. Figure 7 shows the distribution of respondents' ratings of their confidence in fire protection services. 60 50- 40- 30- 20- •£ 10-1 Q)O S. 0 Not At All Confident 2 1 '8 Very Confident Confidence in Fire Department Figure 7: Confidence in Fire Department's Ability to Respond. As with the fire department, respondents rated their confidence in the police department's ability to respond to a police emergency. Again, the ratings are on a 0 to 10 scale with higher numbers indicating greater confidence. Residents expressed confidence in the police department's ability to respond to police emergencies, as indicated by an average confidence rating of 8.42, as seen in Table 28. However, this rating is not as high as that for the fire department. As with the fire department, there was some variability in responses, and 22.7% of the respondents offered a confidence rating of 7 January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 43 or below, the distribution of respondents' ratings of their confidence in police response to emergencies is shown in Figure 8. Table 28: Average Ratings of Confidence in Emergency Services. N Mean Std. Deviation Confidence in Fire Department's Ability to Respond to a Medical or Fire Emergency Confidence in Police Department's Ability to Respond to a Police Emergency Valid N (lisrwise) 926 949 917 8.87 8.42 1.48 1.87 QCONFID1 - QCONFID2 On a scale of 0 to 10, where ten means very confident and zero means not at all confident how confident are you in the following services? 60 50 40-4U • ^H| 30- ^B '" •||| — ~ __ , __ -••••••Not At All Confident 2468 Very Confident 13579 Confidence in Police Department Figure 8: Confidence in the Police Department's Ability to Respon January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 44 There was a difference by region in the ratings of the fire department, but not the police department. Specifically, the residents in the Southeast Region expressed less confidence (8.57) in the fire department's ability to respond to a medical or fire emergency than did residents in the Northwest (9.08) or Northeast (8.96) Regions. This is seen in Table 29. Again, this is consistent with the general ratings of fire protection services. It should be noted that though the average confidence rating in the fire department's ability to respond to an emergency is relatively lower in the Southeast Region, it is still indicative of a high level of confidence. Table 29: Confidence in Fire Department's Ability to Respond by Region. Level of Confidence in Fire Department's Ability to Respond to a Medical or Fire Emergency NorthWest North East SouthEast SouthWest Total N 236 240 218 232 926 Mean (Average) 9.08 8.96 8.57 8.84 8.87 Std. Deviation 1.30 1.47 1.66 1.45 1.48 QCONFID1 How confident are you in the fire department's ability to respond to a medical or fire emergency? Development Development in the city was also given attention. This was an important issue to the respondents as well. Respondents were asked about a number of types of development. Specifically, they were asked if they would like to see more or fewer of various types of development or structures. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRJ 45 Table 30 summarizes their responses. Two thirds (66.3%) of the respondents said they would like to see more entertainment venues, such as movie theaters, live stage theaters, or art museums, while 18.5% said they would like to see fewer entertainment venues. More than half the respondents (58.7%) said there should be more specialty grocery stores. Table 30: Preference for Development in the City of Carlsbad. Fewer Of Just the Right Amount Entertainment Venues Specialty Grocery Stores Upscale, Fine Dining Restaurants Family Style Restaurants Small Neighborhood Retailers Gas Stations Drug Stores Grocery Stores Single Family Housing Department Stores Multi-Family Housing Multi-Store Shopping Centers Quick Stop Stores Fast Food Restaurants Big Box Retail Stores Count 184 182 213 255 333 427 393 397 589 468 666 569 670 670 600 % 18.5% 23.4% 21.4% 25.7% 33.5% 43.1% 39.5% 40.1% 59.9% 47.1% 67.3% 57.8% 68.1% 67.3% 60.1% Count 151 139 190 236 274 228 282 323 137 278 124 220 199 236 317 % 15.2% 17.9% 19.1% 23.8% 27.6% 23.0% 28.4% 32.6% 13.9% 28.0% 12.5% 22.3% 20.2% 23.7% 31.8% More Of Count 658 457 593 500 386 336 319 271 258 247 199 196 115 90 81 % 66.3% 58.7% 59.5% 50.5% 38.9% 33.9% 32.1% 27.3% 26.2% 24.9% 20.1% 19.9% 11.7% 9.0% 8.1% QDEVEL1 - QDEVEL18 Please tell me if you would like to see more of or fewer of each of the following items. The responses regarding restaurants were interesting. More than half the respondents (59.5%) suggested that there should be more upscale, fine dining restaurants, and about half (50.5%) of the respondents said there should be more family-style restaurants. On the other hand, only 9.0% said there should be more fast food restaurants while 67.3% said there should be fewer. More people January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 46 (38.9%) said they would like more small neighborhood retailers than said they would like fewer small neighborhood retailers (33.5%). Other types of development were less popular. That is, for other types of development, more people said they would like fewer of these rather than more. Particularly unpopular were convenience stores, multi-family housing units, and as noted above, fast food restaurants. For each of these types of development, about two thirds of the respondents said they would like to see fewer of these in Carlsbad. Most people also wanted to see fewer big box retail stores, single-family housing units, and multi-store shopping centers. Development by Region. Preference for development in the City of Carlsbad differed by region. This was the case for a number of different types of development. Table 3 la shows that preference for gas stations differed by region. Most people in the Southeast Region would like to see more gas stations, while most people in the other regions would like to see the same or fewer gas stations. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 47 Table 31a: Preference for Gas Stations by Region. REGION NorthWest More or Fewer Gas Stations Total Fewer Of Count % within REGION Just the Right Count Amount % wjthjn REQJQN More Of Count % within REGION Count % within REGION 140 57.1% 72 29.4% 33 13.5% 245 100.0% NorthEast SouthEast SouthWest 121 48.4% 71 28.4% 58 23.2% 250 100.0% 71 28.6% 31 12.5% 146 58.9% 248 100.0% 93 38.3% 54 21.8% 99 39.9% 248 100.0% Total 427 43.1% 228 23.0% 330 33.9% 991 1 00.0% QDEVEL1 Please tell me if you would like to see more of or fewer of each of the following items. There was also a regional difference with respect to grocery stores. This is seen in Table 31 b. The residents in the Northeast were more likely than those in the Southeast to indicate that they would like to see more grocery stores. Table 31 b: Preference for Grocery Stores by Region. REGION NorthWest More or Fewer Grocery Stores Total Fewer Of Count % within REGION Just the Right Count Amount % W](h!n REGION More Of Count % within REGION Count % within REGION 103 41.2% 85 34.0% 62 24.8% 250 100.0% NorthEast 88 35.5% 70 28.2% 90 36.3% 248 100.0% SouthEast 112 45.7% 81 33.1% 52 21.2% 245 100.0% SouthWest 94 37.9% 87 35.1% 67 27.0% 248 100.0% Total 397 40.1% 323 32.6% 271 27.3% 991 1 00.0% QDEVEL2 Please tell me if you would like to see more of or fewer of each of the following items. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRJ 48 There was a regional effect for convenience stores. Those residents in the Northwest Region were least likely to say they wanted to see more convenience stores. This is seen in Table 31 c. Table 31c: Preference for Convenience Stores by Region. REGION NorthWest More or Fewer Quick Stop Stores Total Fewer Ol Count % within REGION Just the Right Count Amount % wjthjn REQJQN More Of Count % within REGION Count % within REGION 172 70.2% 58 23.7% 15 6.1% 245 100.0% NorthEast 157 63.6% 56 22.7% 34 13.8% 247 100.0% SouthEast 167 67.9% 35 14.2% 44 17.9% 246 100.0% South West 174 70.7% 50 20.3% 22 8.9% 246 100.0% Total 670 68.1% 199 20.2% 115 1 1 .7% 984 1 00.0% QDEVEL3 Please tell me if you would like to see more of or fewer of each of the following items. The preference for drug stores also varied by region. This is illustrated in Table 3Id, which shows that in the Northern Regions, only about a quarter of the residents said they wanted more drug stores, while in the Southern Regions 35%-40% of the residents would like to see more drug stores. Overall, though, residents were more likely to say they would like to see fewer than were likely to say they would like to see more drug stores. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 49 Table 3Id: Preference for Drug Stores by Region. REGION NorthWest More or Fewer Drug Stores Total Fewer Of Count % within REGION Just the Right Count Amount % withjn REQJQN More Of Count % within REGION Count % within REGION 111 44.6% 77 30.9% 61 24.5% 249 100.0% NorthEast 99 39.8% 79 31.7% 71 28.5% 249 100.0% SouthEast Southwest 94 38.2% 53 21.5% 99 40.2% 246 100.0% 89 35.6% 73 29.2% 88 35.2% 250 100.0% Total 393 39.5% 282 28.4% 319 32.1% 994 100.0% QDEVEL4 Please tell me if you would like to see more of or fewer of each of the following items. There was a North - South division with respect to the preference for department stores. Table 3le shows that in the Southwest Region, almost as many residents would like to see more department stores as would like to see fewer. This contrasts with the rest of the city, in which residents have a clear preference for fewer department stores. Table 31e: Preference for Department Stores by Region. REGION NorthWest More or Fewer Department Stores Total Fewer Ol Count f °,» within REGION Just the Rjght Count Amount 0/, w|(hin RECKON More Of Count % within REGION Count % within REGION 123 49.8% 83 33.6% 41 16.6% 247 100.0% NorthEast 131 52.4% 82 32.8% 37 14.8% 250 100.0% SouthEast 119 47.8% 49 19.7% 81 32.5% 249 100.0% Southwest 95 38.5% 64 25.9% 88 35.6% 247 100.0% Total 468 47.1% 278 28.0% 247 24.9% 993 100.0% QDEVEL5 Please tell me if you would like to see more of or fewer of each of the following items January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 50 Preferences varied across regions for multi-store shopping centers. This can be seen in Table 3 If. About a quarter of those in the Southern Regions said they would like to see more multi-store shopping centers, compared to about half as many in the Northern Regions. Table 31 f: Preference for Multi-Store Shopping Centers by Region. REGION Northwest More or Fewer Fewer Ot Multi-Store Shopping Centers" Just the Right Amount More Of Total Count % within REGION Count % within REGION Count % within REGION Count % within REGION 156 63.2% 62 25.1% 29 11.7% 247 100.0% NorthEast 136 56.4% 62 25.7% 43 17.8% 241 100.0% SouthEast 142 57.3% 46 18.5% 60 24.2% 248 100.0% SouthWest 135 54.2% 50 20.1% 64 25.7% 249 100.0% Total 5oy 57.8% 220 22.3% I9o 19.9% 985 100.0% QDEVEL9 Please tell me if you would like to see more of or fewer of each of the following items. Big box retailers (such as Costco, Target, or Home Depot) were rather unpopular throughout the city, but particularly so in the Northwest Region. This regional effect is illustrated in Table 31 g. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 51 Table 31 g: Preference for Big Box Retail Stores by Region. REGION NorthWest More or Fewer Of Fewer Big Stores Just the Ri«ht Amount More Of Total Count % within REGION Count % within REGION Count % within REGION Count % within REGION 164 66.1% 76 30.6% 8 3.2% 248 100.0% NorthEast 152 60.8% 78 31.2% 20 8.0% 250 100.0% SouthEast SouthWest 151 60.4% 77 30.8% 22 8.8% 250 100.0% 133 53.2% 86 34.4% 31 12.4% 250 100.0% Total 6UO 60.1% 317 31.8% SI 8.1% 998 100.0% QDEVEL12 Please tell me if you would like to see more of or fewer of each of the following items. Citv Features Respondents were asked a number of questions about features of the City of Carlsbad such as what they liked most about Carlsbad, and what their biggest concerns about Carlsbad were. This section describes the responses to these questions. When asked what they like most about living in the City of Carlsbad, respondents offered a variety of different answers. These answers are summarized in Table 32. The most commonly cited feature in response to this question was proximity to the' beach. Nearly a third (30.8%) of the respondents mentioned this as what they like most about living in Carlsbad. The weather was the second most commonly cited feature; 20.1% of the respondents mentioned the weather or climate as what they liked most. Additionally, 18.9% of the respondents identified location, and 15.3% identified the community and people as what they like most about living in Carlsbad. At least 10% of the January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 52 respondents mentioned the small-town feel of Carlsbad, the beauty of the city, and the cleanliness of the city. Table 32: What Residents Like Most about Living in Carlsbad. The Beach/Close to the Ocean Weather/Climate Location Like the Community /People Small Town Feel Beautiful Clean City Government/Services Quiet/Peaceful Safe Schools Other Choosen Count 308 201 189 153 122 121 110 99 86 74 50 88 % 30.8% 20.1% 18.9% 15.3% 12.2% 12.1% 11.0% 9.9% 8.6% 7.4% 5.0% 8.8% QB ADI What do you like most about living in the City of Carlsbad? The features people liked most about living in Carlsbad differed by region. As one would expect, the residents in the Northwest and Southwest Regions were more likely to mention proximity to the beach as what they liked best about living in Carlsbad. As shown in Table 33a, 37.2% of residents in the Southwest Region and 32.0% of the residents Northwest Region cited the ocean or the beach as the thing they liked most about living in Carlsbad compared to 28.3% for the Northeast Region and 25.6% for the Southeast Region. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 53 Table 33a: Beach is the Best Aspect of Living in Carlsbad by Region. North West NorthEast SouthEast Southwest Likes Most About Living Likes Most About Living Likes Most About Living Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad:The In Carlsbad:The In Carlsbad:The In Carlsbad:The Beach/Close to the Ocean Beach/Close to the Ocean Beach/Close to the Ocean Beach/Close 10 the Ocean Count % Count % Count % Count % Chosen 80 32.0% 71 28.3% 64 25.6% 93 37.2% QBAD1 What do you like most about living in the City of Carlsbad? There was also variability across regions with respect to the likelihood of stating that the small- town feel of Carlsbad is what they like most about living in the city. As one would expect, residents in the Northwest Region were most likely to say the small-town feel is what they like most about living in •* «,*>• Carlsbad. This is illustrated in Table 33b. Residents in the Northeast Region were also more likely * than those the Southern regions to mention the small-town feel of Carlsbad. '"' •* *. Table 33b: Small-Town Feel is the Best Aspect of Living in Carlsbad by Region. «*• NorthWest NorthEast SouthEast SouthWest *"*" Likes Most About Likes Most About Likes Most About Likes Most About •*• iving In Carlsbad:Small iving In Carlsbad:Small iving In Carlsbad:Small iving In Carlsbad:Smal] Town Feel Town Feel Town Feel Town Feel * Count % Count % Count % Count % U*. Chosen 48 19.2% 41 16.3% 14 5.6% 19 7.6% •* QBAD1 What do you like most about living in the City of Carlsbad? _ m> Respondents were also queried regarding what concerns they had about Carlsbad. m Specifically, they were asked what their biggest concern is regarding the City of Carlsbad. These •"» m concerns are displayed in Table 34. The most common complaint was traffic - 36.4% of the Mi respondents said traffic was their biggest concern regarding Carlsbad. Related are the concerns with «• January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 54 growth, expressed by 31.6%; over-development, expressed by 19.3%, and over-population, expressed by 11.6%. Some (4.2%) residents said they had no concerns regarding Carlsbad. Table 34: Residents' Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad. Choosen Count % Traffic Growth (General) /Growing Too Fast Overdeveloping / Overbuilding Overcrowding / Overpopulation Cost of Living/Housing Beach/Enviornment City Council Priorities Police/Crime Schools Other No Concerns 364 316 193 116 51 34 30 27 22 10 42 36.4% 31.6% 19.3% 11.6% 5.1% 3.4% 3.0% 2.7% 2.2% 1.0% 4.2% QBAD2 What is your biggest concern regarding the City of Carlsbad? Concern with traffic differed by region. As Table 35 shows, residents in-the Northwest were the least likely (27.6%) to mention traffic as their biggest concern, while those in the Northeast were most likely (45.0%) to list traffic as their biggest concern. January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 55 Table 35: Traffic is Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad by Region. NorthWest NorthEast SouthEast SouthWest Biggest Concern: Traffic Biggest Concern: Traffic Biggest Concern: Traffic Biggest Concern: Traffic Count % Count % Count % Count % Chosen 69 27.6% 113 45.0% 93 37.2% 89 35.6% QBAD2 What is your biggest concern regarding the City of Carlsbad? Respondents were asked what they would like to see in their neighborhood. Their responses are found in Table 36. More than anything else (14.3%), residents said they would like to see less traffic, development, and housing. Many people (16.5%) said they like their neighborhood the way it is, and there is nothing they would like to see change. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 56 Table 36: What Residents Would Like to See in Their Neighborhood. Less Traffic/Development/Housing Other More Parks Street Improvements Shopping/Retail/Grocery Stores Landscaping Additional Police/Enforcement Gas Stations Pool Power Lines Underground Likes Neighborhood the Way It Is/Nothing Choosen Count 143 113 73 63 34 31 25 22 11 14 165 % 14.3% 11.3% 7.3% 6.3% 3.4% 3.1% 2.5% 2.2% 1.1% 1.4% 16.5% QBAD3 What would you like to see in your neighborhood? There was one regional difference worth noting. That is, those residents in the Northwest were less interested in seeing more parks in their neighborhood than those in the other regions. This is seen in Table 37. Table 37: Desire to see More Parks in the Neighborhood by Region. NorthWest NorthEast SouthEast South West Things Respondent Would Things Respondent Would Things Respondent Would Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Like to See in Their Like to See in Their Like to See in Their Neighborhood:More Parks Neighborhood:More Parks Neighborhood:More Parks Neighborhood:More Parks Count Count Count Count Chosen 2.4%18 7.2%21 8.4%28 11.2% QBAD3 What would you like to see in your neighborhood? January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 57 City Information „, Respondents were asked what sources they used to get information about the City of Carlsbad. *» Table 38 shows their responses. The most common source of information about Carlsbad was local TV news, utilized by two thirds (67.5%) of the residents. The second most commonly cited source of * information about Carlsbad was the Community Services and Recreation Guide, used by 60.7%. The ** North County Times, the San Diego Union Tribune, and the local cable channel were also used by " about half the respondents. The city web page, and word of mouth also served as sources of information about Carlsbad for some people. " «A Table 38: Sources of Information about Carlsbad. * TV Local News Community Services Recreation Guide North County Times Local Cable Channel San Diego Union Tribune City Web Page Word of Mouth The Coast Paper Flyers/Postings Carlsbad City Council Other Chosen Count 676 608 540 539 489 146 141 43 40 29 110 % 67.5% 60.7% 53.9% 53.8% 48.9% 14.6% 14.1% 4.3% 4.0% 2.9% 11.0% QCITYINF From what sources do you get information abou the City of Carlsbad0 January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 58 Confidence in City Government Respondents were asked the extent to which they were confident in the Carlsbad city government to make decisions that positively affect the lives of its community members. Respondents answered on a scale of zero-to-ten, where zero means not at all confident and ten means veiy confident. On average, residents offered a confidence rating of 6.04, suggesting confidence in city government. The distribution of confidence ratings by region is displayed in Figure 9. QJO (53 Not At All Confident 2 1 8 Very Confident Confidence in City Government Figure 9: Confidence in City Government. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 59 Confidence in City Government and Demographics. The ratings of confidence in city government to make decisions that positively impact the lives of residents were assessed with respect to their relation to demographic characteristics of Carlsbad residents. The confidence ratings did not vary by region. They did, however, differ between men and women. While males offered an average confidence rating of 5.83, women on average, rated their confidence in the city government at 6.18 on the zero-to-ten scale. This is seen in Table 39a Table 39a: Confidence in City Government by Gender. Level of Confidence in Carlsbad City Government to Make Positive Decisions Std. N Mean Deviation Male 395 5781238^ Female 563 6.18 2.49 Total 958 6.04 2.53 QCONFID3 How confident are you in the Carlsbad City government to make decisions which positively affect the live of its community members? Additionally, as seen in Table 39b, there was a slight effect associated with income level. That is, those with an annual household income under 525,000 had greater confidence in city government than those with annual household incomes of 5125,000 and above. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRJ 60 Table 39b: Confidence in City Government by Income Level. Level of Confidence in Carlsbad City Government to Make Positive Decisions Under 525,000 525,000 to under 535,000 535, 000 to under 550,000 550,000 to under 575,000 575,000 to under 5 100,000 5 100,000 to 51 25,000 5 125,000 and Above Total N 55 73 122 160 177 93 140 820 Mean 6.82 6.10 6.24 6.26 6.11 5.75 5.47 6.06 Std. Deviation 2.49 2.49 2.53 2.38 2.32 2.63 2.78 2.52 QCONF1D3 How confident are you in the Carlsbad City government to make decisions which positively affect the lives of its community members? There was a difference in confidence in city government between those who own their homes and those who rent. Those who rent their homes expressed greater confidence in the city government than did those who own their homes. This is seen in Table 39c. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 61 Table 39c: Confidence in City Government by Home Ownership. Level of Confidence in Carlsbad City Government to Make Positive Decisions Std. N Mean Deviation "Own 764 5~942.61 Rent 189 6.49 2.18 Total 953 6.05 2.54 QCONFID3 How confident are you in the Carlsbad City government to make decisions which positively affect the lives of its community members? There was also a slight negative relationship between the number of years the respondent lived m- in Carlsbad and their confidence in the city government to make decisions that positively affect the lives ** of Carlsbad residents. That is, the longer a person lived in Carlsbad, the less confidence they had in the **-•;. city government. w Concerns about Carlsbad and Confidence in City Government. The relationship between the m concerns of Carlsbad residents and confidence in city government was examined. There were a few * •> concerns that were expressed by residents that were related to the respondents' confidence in the city government. One such concern was general growth in the city. This is seen in Table 40a. Those * •> respondents indicating that their biggest concern regarding Carlsbad was general growth expressed a • lower degree of confidence in the city government than did those who did not mention general growth *" as their biggest concern. HP January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRJ 62 Table 40a: Concern about General Growth and Confidence in City Government. Level of Confidence in Carlsbad City Government to Make Positive Decisions 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Std. Lower Upper N Mean Deviation Std. Error Bound Bound Not Choosen654 6J6 2~59JO 5~96 b36~ Genera] Growth 304 5.78 2.40 .14 5.51 6.05 Total 958 6.04 2.53 £8 5.88 6.20 QCONFID3 How confident are you in the Carlsbad City government to make decisions which positively affect the lives of its community members? Similarly, there was a relationship between concern about over-development and confidence in the city government to make decisions that positively affect members of their community. Those who mentioned over-development as their biggest concern regarding Carlsbad expressed lower confidence in the city government than did those who did not mention over-development as their biggest concern. This is shown in Table 40b. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 63 Table 40b: Concern about Over-development and Confidence in City Government. Level of Confidence in Carlsbad City Government to Make Positive Decisions 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Not Choosen Overdevelopment Total N Mean 771 6.20 187 5.36 958 6.04 Std. Deviation 2.47 2.69 2.53 Std. Error .09 .20 .08 Lower Bound,,, 6.03 4.98 5.88 Upper Bound 6.38 5.75 6.20 QCONFID3 How confident are you in the Carlsbad City government to make decisions which positively affect the lives of its community members? Concern about city council priorities was associated with confidence in city government. Not surprisingly, respondents who said their were concerned about city council priorities were less confident that the city government would make decisions that had a positive impact on them. This is shown in Table 40c. Table 40c: Concern about City Council Priorities and Confidence in City Government. Level of Confidence in Carlsbad City Government to Make Positive Decisions 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Not Choosen City Council Priorities Total N Mean 928 6. OS 30 4.80 958 604 Std. Deviation 2.51 2.91 2.53 Std. Error .08 .53 .08 Lower Bound 5.92 3.72 5.88 Upper Bound 6.24 5.88 6.20 QCONFID3 How confident are you in the Carlsbad City government to make decisions which positively affect the lives of its community members? There was a small number of individuals that said they had no concerns when they were asked about their biggest concern regarding Carlsbad. Those who said they had no concerns differed from January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 64 the rest of the respondents. As Table 40d shows, those reporting no concerns rated their confidence in city government considerably higher than the other respondents. Table 40d: No Concerns and Confidence in City Government. Level of Confidence in Carlsbad City Government to Make Positive Decisions 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Std. Lower Mean Deviation Std. Error Bound Upper Bound NotChoosen 919 5.98 2.52 .08 5.82 0.15 No Concerns 39 7.38 2.45 .39 6.59 S.IS Total 958 6.04 2.53 .08 5.88 6.20 QCONFID3 How confident are you in the Carlsbad City government to make decisions which positively affect the lives of its community members? r What Residents Like Most about Carlsbad and Confidence in City Government. The relationship between what Carlsbad residents like most about living in the City of Carlsbad and confidence in city government was also examined. Only the endorsement of one feature of Carlsbad was associated with respondents' confidence in the Carlsbad city government to make decisions that positively affect residents. That is, those who mentioned city government and services as what they liked most about living in Carlsbad had a higher level of confidence in the city government than the other respondents. This is seen in Table 41. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 65 Table 41: Selection of City Government as Most-Liked Carlsbad Feature and Confidence in City Government. Level of Confidence in Carlsbad City Government to Make Positive Decisions 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Std. Lower N Mean Deviation Std. Error Bound Upper Bound Not Choosen 866 5~92232 !09 5~766~oy~~ City Government & Services 92 7.12 2.44 .25 6.61 7.63 Total 958 6.04 2.53 .08 5.88 6.20 QCONFID3 How confident are you in the Carlsbad City government to make decisions which positively affect the lives of its community members? The respondents gave an indication of the importance of having clear (free of facilities such as poles, towers, and wires) landscaping and view corridors. Specifically, they were asked if they would be willing to pay higher taxes in order to keep landscaping and view corridors free of such facilities. As indicated in Table 42, more than half (64.1%) of those responding said they would accept a tax increase to assure that facilities are kept from appearing on the landscape or view corridors. Willingness to increase tax to keep view corridors clear did not differ by region. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 66 Table 42: Willingness to Pay More Taxes to Assure That Facilities Are Kept From Appearing on the Landscpe or in View Corridors. Valid Missing Total No Yes Total Don't Know Refused Total Frequency 544 613 957 42 2 44 1001 Percent 34.4 61.2 95.6 4.2 .2 4.4 100.0 Valid Percent 35.9 64.1 100.0 Cumulative Percent 35.9 100.0 QFACILT Would you be willing to increase your taxes to assure that facilities are kept from appearing on the landscape or in view corridors (like poles, towers and wires)? Internet Access Respondents were asked if they used the Internet at home. Three quarters (76.5%) of the respondents stated that they had Internet access. As seen in Table 43, there were regional differences in the likelihood of having Internet access at home. Those in the Southeast Region were more likely (84.8%) to use the Internet at home, while those in the Northwest Region were relatively less likely (68.8%) to use the Internet at home. January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 67 Table 43: Use of the Internet at Home by Region. NorthWest NorthEast SouthEast SouthWest Respondent Uses the Respondent Uses the Respondent Uses the Respondent Uses the Internet at Home Internet at Home Internet at Home Internet at Home Count % Count % Count % Count % No 78 31.2% 62 24.7% 38 15.2% 57 22.8% yes 172 68.8% 189 75.3% 212 84.8% 193 77.2% QINET1 Do you use the Internet at home? Those 766 people who said that they did have Internet access were asked if they had a high speed Internet connection. Of those responding, 27.1% said they did have a high speed Internet connection. Again we see an interesting regional effect, illustrated in Table 44. Residents in the Southeast that have an Internet connection were least likely (21.7%) to have a high speed connection, while those from the Northwest were most likely (38.0%) to have a high speed connection. While residents in the Northwest were least likely to have an Internet connection, considering those that do, Northwest Region residents were most likely to have a high speed connection. Table 44: Respondent Has a High Speed Internet Connection by Region. NorthWest NorthEasl SouthEast SouthWest Respondent Has a High Respondent Has a High Respondent Has a High Respondent Has a High Speed Internet Connection peed Internet Connection Speed Internet Connection Speed Internet Connection Count % Count % Count % Count % "No T03 62.0% 137 75.3% F59 78.3% 139 74.3% Yes 63 38.0% 45 24.7% 44 21.7% 48 25.7% Total 166 100.0% 182 100.0% 203 100.0% 187 100.0% QINET2 Do you have a high speed internet connection (such as a DSL, ISDN or Tl line)? January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 68 Appendix A Questionnaire Items - City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey <QAREA1> Are you currently a resident of Carlsbad? 0. No l.Yes 8. Don't Know 9. Refused <QAREA2> First, to be sure that you live in our study area, what is your zip code? 1.92008 2.92009 3. Other 8. Don't Know 9. Refused QAREA2 Zip Code Valid 1 92008 2 92009 Total Frequency 501 500 1001 Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0 Valid Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 50.0 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI <QAREA3> To be sure we talk to people from all areas of Carlsbad, do you live East or West of El Camino Real? 1. East 2. West 8. Don't Know 9. Refused QAREA3 East/West of El Camino Real Valid 1 East 2 West Total Frequency 501 500 1001 Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0 Valid Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 50.0 100.0 <QCBAD1> What do you like most about living in the City of Carlsbad? QBAD1_1 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: Weather/Climate Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 Not Choosen 799 79~879~879~F 1 Choosen 202 20.2 20.2 100.0 Total 1001 100.0 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI QBAD1_2 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In CarIsbad:The Beach/Close to the Ocean Valid 0 Not Choosen 1 Choosen Total Frequency 695 306 1001 Percent 69.4 30.6 100.0 Valid Percent 69.4 30.6 100.0 Cumulative Percent 69.4 100.0 QBAD1_3 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad:Location Valid 0 Not Choosen 1 Choosen Total Frequency 906 95 1001 Percent 90.5 9.5 100.0 Valid Percent 90.5 9.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 90.5 100.0 QBAD1_4 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad:Small Town Feel Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent ~VaITd 0 Not Choosen 893 89~289~2 89T 1 Choosen 108 10.8 10.8 100.0 Total 1001 100.0 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI QBAD1_5 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad:Quiet/Peaceful Valid 0 Not Choosen 1 Choosen Total Frequency 918 83 1001 Percent. 91.7 8.3 100.0 Valid Percent 91.7 8.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 91.7 100.0 QBAD1_6 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In CarIsbad:Beautiful/Clean Valid 0 Not Choosen 1 Choosen Total Frequency 864 137 1001 Percent 86.3 13.7 100.0 Valid Percent 86.3 13.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 86.3 100.0 QBAD1_7 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad:Like the Community/People Valid 0 Not Choosen 1 Choosen Total Frequency 852 149 1001 Percent 85.1 14.9 100.0 Valid Percent 85.1 14.9 100.0 Cumulative Percent 85.1 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI QBAD1_8 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad:Convience of Location Valid 0 NotChoosen 1 Choosen Total Frequency 897 104 1001 Percent 89.6 10.4 100.0 Valid Percent 89.6 10.4 100.0 Cumulative Percent 89.6 100.0 QBAD1_9 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In CarlsbadrCity Government Valid 0 NotChoosen 1 Choosen Total Frequency 909 92 1001 Percent 90.8 9.2 100.0 Valid Percent 90.8 9.2 100.0 Cumulative Percent 90.8 100.0 QBAD1_10 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad:Sale Valid 0 Not Choosen 1 Choosen Total Frequency 934 67 1001 Percent 93.3 6.7 100.0 Valid Percent 93.3 6.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 93.3 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI QBAD1_11 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: Schools Valid 0 Not Choosen 1 Choosen Total Frequency 964 37 1001 Percent 96.3 3.7 100.0 Valid Percent 96.3 3.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 96.3 100.0 QBAD1_12 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad:Other Valid 0 Not Choosen 1 Choosen Total Frequency 904 97 1001 Percent 90.3 9.7 100.0 Valid Percent 90.3 9.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 90.3 100.0 QBAD1_13 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad:Dont Know Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent "Valid 0 Not Choosen FOOl10OO FOO~0 QBAD1_14 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In CarIsbad:Refused Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 Not Choosen 1001 TOOO 10OO 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI <QCBAD2> What is your biggest concern regarding the City of Carlsbad? QBAD2_1 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad:Growth (general) /Growing too fast Valid 0 Not Choosen 1 Choosen Total Frequency 685 316 1001 Percent 68.4 31.6 100.0 Valid Percent 68.4 31.6 100.0 Cumulative Percent 68.4 100.0 QBAD2_2 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad:Overcrowding / Overpopulation Valid 0 Not Choosen 1 Choosen Total Frequency 885 116 1001 Percent 88.4 11.6 100.0 Valid Percent 88.4 11.6 100.0 Cumulative Percent 88.4 100.0 QBAD2_3 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding CarlsbadrOverdeveloping / Overbuilding Valid 0 Not Choosen 1 Choosen Total Frequency 808 193 1001 Percent 80.7 19.3 100.0 Valid Percent 80.7 19.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 80.7 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI QBAD2_4 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad :Traffic Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent "Valid 0 NotChoosen637 616 63~6oT6~ 1 Choosen 364 36.4 36.4 100.0 Total 1001 100.0 100.0 QBAD2_5 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad:Cost of Living/Housing Valid 0 Not Choosen 1 Choosen Total Frequency 950 51 1001 Percent 94.9 5.1 100.0 Valid Percent 94.9 5.1 100.0 Cumulative Percent 94.9 100.0 QBAD2_6 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad:No Concerns Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 NotChoosen 959 9T895H 95~8~ 1 Choosen 42 4.2 4.2 100.0 Total 1001 100.0 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI QBAD2_7 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad:Beach/Enviornment Valid 0 Not Choosen 1 Choosen Total Frequency 967 34 1001 Percent 96.6 3.4 100.0 Valid Percent 96.6 3.4 100.0 Cumulative Percent 96.6 100.0 QBAD2_8 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding CarlsbadrPolice/Crime Valid 0 Not Choosen 1 Choosen Total Frequency 974 27 1001 Percent 97.3 2.7 100.0 Valid Percent 97.3 2.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 97.3 100.0 QBAD2_9 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad:Schools Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 Not Choosen 979 971 97! 97~8~ 1 Choosen 22 2.2 2.2 100.0 Total 1001 100.0 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI QBAD2_10 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad:City Council Priorities 1^mmm^^a^^^^^B^m^-^^ii^^^^m^—^^—^——*—^ Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 NotChoosen 9*719To9TO97.0 1 Choosen 30 3.0 3.0 100.0 Total 1001 100.0 100.0 QBAD2_11 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad:Other Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent 0 NotChoosen W\ 99~099~099~0~ 1 Choosen 10 1.0 1.0 100.0 Total 1001 100.0 100.0 QBAD2_12 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad:Dont Know Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 NotChoosen UK)! lOOO TOOO 100.0 QBAD2_13 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad:Refused Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent "Valid 0 NotChoosen 10(51lOOl)10OO T00~0~ Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 10 <QCBAD3> What would you like to see in your neighborhood?, QBAD3_1 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Neighborhood:Likes Neighborhood the Way It Is/Nothing Valid 0 Not Choosen 1 Choosen Total Frequency 836 165 1001 Percent 83.5 16.5 100.0 Valid Percent 83.5 16.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 83.5 100.0 QBAD3_2 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Neighborhood:Less Traffic/Development/Housing Valid 0 Not Choosen 1 Choosen Total Frequency 858 143 1001 Percent 85.7 14.3 100.0 Valid Percent 85.7 14.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 85.7 100.0 QBAD3_3 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Neighborhood:More Parks Valid 0 Not Choosen 1 Choosen Total Frequency 928 73 1001 Percent 92.7 7.3 100.0 Valid Percent 92.7 7.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 92.7 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 11 QBAD3_4 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Neighborhood:Gas Stations Valid 0 NotChoosen 1 Cboosen Total Frequency 979 22 1001 Percent 97.8 2.2 100.0 Valid Percent 97.S 2.2 100.0 Cumulative Percent 97.8 100.0 QBAD3_5 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Neighborhood:Shopping/Retail/Grocery Stores Valid 0 Not Choosen 1 Choosen Total Frequency 967 34 1001 Percent 96.6 3.4 100.0 Valid Percent 96.6 3.4 100.0 Cumulative Percent 96.6 100.0 QBAD3_6 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Neighborhood:Pool Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 NotChoosen 990 9SL9 98^9 98.9 1 Choosen 11 1.1 1.1 100.0 Total 1001 100.0 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 12 QBAD3_7 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Neighborhood:Street Improvements Valid 0 NotChoosen 1 Choosen Total Frequency Percent 938 93.7 63 63 1001 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent • 93.7 93.7 6.3 100.0 100.0 QBAD3_8 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Neighborhood:Additional Police/Enforcement Frequency Percent Valid 0 NotChoosen 976 97.5 1 Choosen 25 2.5 Total 1001 100.0 QBAD3_9 Things Respondent Would Like Neighborhood:Landscaping Valid 0 Not Choosen 1 Choosen Total Frequency Percent 970 96.9 31 3.1 1001 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 97.5 97.5 2.5 100.0 100.0 to See in Their Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 96.9 96.9 3.1 100.0 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 13 QBAD3_10 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Neighborhood:Power Lines Underground Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 NotChoosen 987 98~698~698.6 . 1 Choosen 14 1.4 1.4 100.0 Total 1001 100.0 100.0 QBAD3_11 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Neighborhood:Other Valid 0 Not Choosen 1 Choosen Total Frequency 888 113 1001 Percent 88.7 11.3 100.0 Valid Percent 88.7 11.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 88.7 100.0 QBAD3_12 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Neighborhood:Dont Know Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 NotChoosen Tool FOO~0100~0100.0 QBAD3_13 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Neighborhood:Refused Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 NotChoosen fOOl KJO~0R)b~6100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 14 <TSERV> I am going to read a list of services provided by the City of Carlsbad. Please rate each one as excellent, good, fair, or poor. <QSERV1> Recreational programs QSERV1 Recreational Programs Rating Frequency Valid Missing Total 1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Total 8 Don't Know 9 Refused Total 15 81 468 282 846 154 1 155 1001 Percent 1.5 8.1 46.8 28.2 84.5 15.4 .1 15.5 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 1.8 9.6 55.3 33.3 100.0 1.8 11.3 66.7 100.0 <QSERV2> Library services QSERV2 Library Services Rating Frequency Valid Missing Total 1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Total 8 Don't Know 9 Refused Total 6 31 335 556 928 72 1 73 1001 Percent .6 3.1 33.5 55.5 92.7 7.2 .1 7.3 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent .6 3.3 36.1 59.9 100.0 .6 4.0 40.1 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 15 <QSERV3> Fire protection QSERV3 Fire Protection Services Rating Frequency Valid Missing Total 1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Total 8 Don't Know 7 26 395 405 833 168 1001 Percent .7 2.6 39.5 40.5 83.2 16.8 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent .8 3.1 47.4 48.6 100.0 .8 4.0 51.4 100.0 <QSERV4> Condition of parks QSERV4 Condition of Parks Rating Frequency Valid Missing Total 1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Total 8 Don't Know 18 78 489 361 946 55 1001 Percent 1.8 7.8 48.9 36.1 . 94.5 5.5 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 1.9 8.2 51.7 38.2 100.0 1.9 10.1 61.8 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 16 <QSERV5> Police services QSERV5 Police Services Rating Frequency Valid Missing Total 1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Total 8 Don't Know 24 64 445 380 913 88 1001 Percent 2.4 6.4 44.5 38.0 91.2 8.8 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 2.6 7.0 48.7 41.6 100.0 2.6 9.6 58.4 100.0 <QSERV6> Traffic enforcement QSERV6 Traffic Enforcement Rating Frequency Valid Missing Total 1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Total 8 Don't Know 123 205 492 135 955 46 1001 Percent 12.3 20.5 49.2 13.5 95.4 4.6 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 12.9 21.5 51.5 14.1 100.0 12.9 34.3 85.9 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 17 <QSERV7> Paramedic services QSERV7 Paramedic Services Rating Valid 1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Total Missing 8 Don't Know 9 Refused Total Total Frequency 4 31 336 320 691 309 1 310 1001 Percent .4 3.1 33.6 32.0 69.0 30.9 .1 31.0 100.0 Valid Percent .6 4.5 48.6 46.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent .6 5.1 53.7 100.0 <QSERV8> Environmental protection QSERV8 Valid 1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Total Missing 8 Don't Know 9 Refused System Total Total Environmental Protection Frequency 72 144 340 107 663 118 3 217 338 1001 Percent 7.2 14.4 34.0 10.7 66.2 11.8 .3 21.7 33.8 100.0 Rating Valid Percent 10.9 21.7 51.3 16.1 100.0 Cumulative Percent 10.9 32.6 83.9 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 18 <QGENSRV> In general how would you rate the overall services provided by the City? Excellent, good, fair or poor? QGENSRV Overall City Services Rating Frequency Valid Missing Total 1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Total 8 Don't Know 9 Refused Total 9 74 614 285 982 16 3 19 1001 Percent .9 7.4 61.3 28.5 98.1 1.6 .3 1.9 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent .9 7.5 62.5 29.0 100.0 .9 8.5 71.0 100.0 <TSERVICE> The City of Carlsbad receives a number of services from outside agencies. Please rate each of the following services as excellent, good, fair, or poor. <QOUTSRV1> How would you rate trash and recycling collection? QOUTSRVl Trash and Recycling Collection Rating Frequency Valid Missing Total 1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Total 8 Don't Know 35 131 502 321 989 12 1001 Percent 3.5 13.1 50.1 32.1 98.8 1.2 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 3.5 13.2 50.8 32.5 100.0 3.5 16.8 67.5 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 19 <QOUTSRV2> Street sweeping QOUTSRV2 Street Sweeping Rating Frequency Valid Missing Total 1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Total 8 Don't Know 9 Refused Total 67 202 484 187 940 60 1 61 1001 Percent 6.7 20.2 48.4 18.7 93.9 6.0 .1 6.1 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 7.1 21.5 51.5 19.9 100.0 7.1 28.6 80.1 100.0 <QOUTSRV3> Water services QOUTSRV3 Water Services Rating Frequency Valid Missing Total 1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Total 8 Don't Know 9 Refused Total 19 98 613 245 975 25 1 26 1001 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Percent 1.9 1.9 9.8 10.1 61.2 62.9 24.5 25.1 97.4 100.0 2.5 .1 2.6 100.0 1.9 12.0 74.9 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 20 <QOUTSRV4> Hazardous waste disposal QOUTSRV4 Hazardous Waste Disposal Rating Frequency Valid Missing Total 1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Total 8 Don't Know 9 Refused Total 81 139 294 85 599 400 2 402 1001 Percent 8.1 13.9 29.4 8.5 59.8 40.0 .2 40.2 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 13.5 23.2 49.1 14.2 100.0 13.5 36.7 85.8 100.0 <TPROGS> My next questions pertain to Carlsbad programs and facilities. How important to you are each of the following on a scale of 0 to 10, where zero means not at all important, and ten means very important. Let's begin with <QPROGS1> Arts and cultural programs Descriptive Statistics Std. N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation Impo^nceof ~jj " ~~ Arts and Cultural Programs Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 21 <QPROGS2> Bike paths Descriptive Statistics Std. N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation QPROGS2 Importance of 2 Q, Bike Paths <QPROGS3> Tennis courts Descriptive Statistics Std. N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation QPROGS3 Importance of Tennis Courts <QPROGS4> Trails — including nature trails, jogging and walking paths Descriptive Statistics Std N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation QPROGS4 Importance of Nature Trails, Jogging and 989 0 10 7.86 2.35 Walking Paths <QPROGS5> Playing fields Descriptive Statistics __ N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation QPROGS5 importance of~J ~ ~ ~ Playing Fields Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 22 <QPROGS6> Undeveloped or preserved open space land (accessible to the public). Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum QPROGS6 Importance of Underdeveloped or Preserve 9gg . 0 Open Space Land Accessibl to the Public Std. Mean Deviation 8.41 2.31 <QPROGS7> Picnic areas Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum QPROGS7 Importance of m Q ]Q Picnic Areas Std. Mean Deviation 7.33 2.29 <QPROGS8> Children's play equipment Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum QPROGS8 Importance of 9g6 Q IQ Children's Play Equipment Std. Mean Deviation 7.25 2.79 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRJ 23 <QPROGS9> Indoor meeting rooms Descriptive Statistics Std. N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation QPROGS9 Importance of 9?g Q ,0 Indoor Meeting Rooms <QPROGS10> Community gardens Descriptive Statistics Std. N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation QPROGS10 Importance of 9g4 Q Community Gardens <QPROGS1 1> Basketball courts Descriptive Statistics Std. N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation I I importance of Q Basketball Courts <QPROGS 1 2> Swimming pools Descriptive Statistics Std. N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation QPROGS12 Importance of ~ ' ~ ^ ~ Swimmma Pools Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 24 <QPROGS13> Public Golf Course Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation QPROGS13 Importance of Public Golf Courses 993 10 5.62 3.44 <TACTIV> On a scale of 0 to 10 where zero means not at all important and ten means very important, how would you rate the importance of the following cultural arts activities in your community? <QACTIV1> Festivals and fairs Descriptive Statistics QACTIV1 Importance of Festivals and Fairs N Minimum 996 0 Maximum 10 Mean 6.82 Std. Deviation 2.54 <QACTIV2> Art appreciation classes Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation QACTIV2 Importance of Art Appreciation Classes 985 10 5.98 2.78 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 25 <QACTTV3> Performing arts Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation QACTIV3 Importance of Performine Arts 994 7.31 2.58 <QACTIV4> Outdoor concerts Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation QACT1V4 Importance of Outdoor Concerts 994 10 7.78 2.38 <QACTIV5> Museum and art exhibits Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation QACTIV5 Importance of Museum and Art Exhibits 996 10 7.31 2.43 <QACTIV6> Social dancing Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation QACTIV6 Importance of Social Dancine 981 10 5.06 2.87 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRJ 26 <QACTIV7> Multicultural events Descriptive Statistics QACTIV7 Importance of Multi-Cultural Events N Minimum 985 0 Maximum 10 Mean 6.46 Std. Deviation 2.76 <QEVENT> How often do you attend a cultural event such as a play, concert, museum, etc. 0. Zero times per year 1.1-2 times per year 2.3-5 times per year 3. 5-10 times per year 4. More than 10 times per year 8. Don't know 9. Refused QEVENT Number of Times Per Year a Cultural Arts Event is Attended Frequency Valid Missing Total 0 Zero Times per Year 1 1-2 Times Per Year 2 3-5 Times Per Year 3 5-10 Times Per Year 4 More Than 1 0 Times Per Year Total 8 Don't Know 9 Refused Total 60 166 328 252 192 998 2 1 3 1001 Percent 6.0 16.6 32.8 25.2 19.2 99.7 .2 .1 .3 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 6.0 16.6 32.9 25.3 19.2 100.0 6.0 22.6 55.5 80.8 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 27 <QPARKUSE> Has anyone in your household used a Carlsbad public park or park facility during the past twelve months? O.No 1. Yes 8. Don't Know 9. Refused QPARKUSE Household Member Has Used a Carlsbad Park or Park Facility in Past 12 Months Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 No 210 2LO 2LO 21.0 1 Yes 789 78.8 79.0 100.0 Total 999 99.8 100.0 Missing 8 Don't Know 2 .2 Total 1001 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRJ 28 <QPOOL> The City of Carlsbad currently operates one pool adjacent to Carlsbad High School. Do you feel there is a need for another public pool in the city? O.No l.Yes 8. Don't Know 9. Refused QPOOL Need for Another Pool in the City Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 0 No 294 29.4 1 Yes 618 61.7 Total 912 91.1 Missing 8 Don't Know 88 8.8 9 Refused 1 .1 Total 89 8.9 Total 1001 100.0 32.2 67.8 100.0 32.2 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 29 <QRECFAC> Many communities are constructing large multi use recreation facilities which include amenities such as a gymnasium, indoor track, fitness center, aquatic center, child care facilities, rock climbing wall, banquet facilities, meeting rooms and more. Is this a concept you would like to see the City of Carlsbad consider in the future? O.No l.Yes 8. Don't Know 9. Refused QRECFAC Expressed Interest in a Carlsbad Multi-Use Recreation Facility Frequency Valid Missing Total 0 No 1 Yes Total 8 Don't Know 9 Refused Total 221 761 982 17 2 19 1001 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Percent 22.1 22.5 76.0 77.5 98.1 100.0 1.7 .2 1.9 100.0 22.5 100.0 <QRCDR> How many minutes would you be willing to drive to such a facility? Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation QRECFDR Number of Minutes Respondent Would be Willing to Drive to Rec Facility 750 .0 60.0 14.729 6.856 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 30 <QDOB> In order to make sure we speak with people of all age groups, could you please tell me in what year you were born? Descriptive Statistics Std. N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation AGE Age of Respondent 980 18.00 89.00 50.4796 15.6514 <QRETIRE1> When you reach the age of 55 or older what type of City sponsored recreation activities would you like to participate in? i 1. Gymnasium 2. Weight Room 3. Aquatic center 4. Rock climbing wall 5. Fitness center 6. Childcare 7. Classrooms 8. Meeting rooms 9. Areas for senior programs 10. Indoor track 11. Banquet facilities 12. Other, Specify: 13. DON'T KNOW 14. REFUSED 15. NO MORE ANSWERS QRETIREl Gymnasium Participation Frequency Valid • Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System 429 23 452 549 1001 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Percent 42.9 94.9 2.3 5.1 45.2 100.0 54.8 100.0 94.9 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 31 QRETIRE2 Weight Room Participation Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System Frequency 434 18 452 549 1001 QRETIRE3 Aquatic Valid Missing Total Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System QRETIRE4 0 Not Chosen 1 'Chosen Total System Frequency 396 56 452 549 1001 Percent 43.4 1.8 45.2 54.8 100.0 Valid Percent 96.0 4.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 96.0 100.0 Center Participation Percent 39.6 5.6 45.2 54.8 100.0 Valid Percent 87.6 12.4 100.0 Cumulative Percent 87.6 100.0 Rock Climbing Wall Participation Frequency 444 8 452 549 1001 Percent 44.4 .8 45.2 54.8 100.0 Valid Percent 98.2 1.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 98.2 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 32 QRETIRE5 Fitness Center Participation Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System Frequency 394 58 452 549 1001 QRETIRE6 Child Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System Frequency 446 6 452 549 1001 Percent 39.4 5.8 45.2 54.8 100.0 Valid Percent 87.2 12.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 87.2 100.0 Care Participation Percent 44.6 .6 45.2 54.8 100.0 Valid Percent 98.7 1.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 98.7 100.0 QRETIRE7 Classrooms Participation Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System Frequency 419 33 452 549 1001 Percent 41.9 3.3 45.2 54.8 100.0 Valid Percent 92.7 7.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 92.7 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 33 QRETIRE8 Meeting Rooms Participation Valid Missing Total Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System QRETIRE9 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System Frequency 437 15 452 549 1001 Percent 43.7 1.5 45.2 54.8 100.0 Valid Percent 96.7 3.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 96.7 100.0 Areas for Senior Programs Participation Frequency 409 43 452 549 1001 Percent 40.9 4.3 45.2 54.8 100.0 Valid Percent 90.5 9.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 90.5 100.0 QRETIR10 Indoor Track Participation Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System Frequency 435 17 452 549 1001 Percent 43.5 1.7 45.2 54.8 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 96.2 3.8 100.0 96.2 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 34 QRETIR11 Banquet Facility Participation Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System Frequency 436 16 452 549 1001 QRETIR13 Don't Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System Frequency 360 92 452 549 1001 Valid Percent Percent 43.6 96.5 1.6 3.5 45.2 100.0 54.8 100.0 Know (Retired) Valid Percent Percent 36.0 79.6 9.2 20.4 45.2 100.0 54.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 96.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 79.6 100.0 QRETIR14 Refused (Retired) Valid Missing Total Frequency 0 Not Chosen 451 ! Chosen Total System 1 452 549 1001 Valid Percent Percent 45.1 99.8 .1 .2 45.2 100.0 54.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 99.8 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 35 QRETIR16 Arts Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System Frequency 355 97 452 549 1001 Percent 35.5 9.7 45.2 54.8 100.0 Valid Percent 78.5 21.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 78.5 100.0 QRETIR17 Recreation Activities Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System Frequency 262 190 452 549 1001 Percent 26.2 19.0 45.2 54.8 100.0 Valid Percent 58.0 42.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 58.0 100.0 QRETIR18 Travel/Day trips Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System Frequency 428 24 452 549 1001 Percent 42.8 2.4 45.2 54.8 100.0 Valid Percent 94.7 5.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 94.7 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRJ 36 QRETIR19 Health & Fitness Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System Frequency 439 13 452 549 1001 Valid Percent Percent 43.9 97.1 1.3 2.9 45.2 100.0 54.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 97.1 100.0 QRETIR20 Education/Library Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System Frequency 435 17 452 549 1001 Valid Percent Percent 43.5 96.2 1.7 3.8 45.2 100.0 54.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 96.2 100.0 QRETIR22 Other Participation Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System Frequency 439 13 452 549 1001 Valid Percent Percent 43.9 97.1 1.3 2.9 45.2 100.0 54.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 97.1 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 37 QRETIR23 Nothing Frequency Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System 442 10 452 549 1001 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Percent 44.2 97.8 1.0 2.2 45.2 100.0 54.8 100.0 97.8 100.0 <TSTREET> The next few questions pertain to Carlsbad Streets. Please rate the condition of each of the following items as excellent, good, fair, or poor. <QSTREET1> Overall road condition QSTREETl Overall Road Condition Rating Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Poor 26 2~62~62.6 2 Fair 170 17.0 17.0 19.6 3 Good 585 58.4 58.5 78.1 4 Excellent 219 21.9 21.9 100.0 Total 1000 99.9 100.0 Missing 8 Don't Know 1 .1 Total 1001 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 38 <QSTREET2> Medians and/or Landscaping QSTREET2 Medians and/or Landscaping Condition Rating Frequency Percent Valid Missing Total <QSTREET3> City 1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Total 8 Don't Know Street trees QSTREET3 41 161 560 236 998 3 1001 City Street Trees 4.1 16.1 55.9 23.6 99.7 .3 100.0 Valid Percent 4.1 16.1 56.1 23.6 100.0 Cumulative Percent 4.1 20.2 76.4 100.0 Condition Rating Frequency Percent Valid Missing Total 1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Total 8 Don't Know 9 Refused Total 47 156 598 182 983 17 1 18 1001 4.7 15.6 59.7 18.2 98.2 1.7 .1 1.8 100.0 Valid Percent 4.8 15.9 60.8 18.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 4.8 20.7 81.5 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 39 <QSTREET4> Curb/sidewalk condition QSTREET4 Curb/Sidewalk Condition Rating Frequency Valid Missing Total 1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Total 8 Don't Know 9 Refused Total 35 182 576 197 990 10 1 11 1001 Percent 3.5 18.2 57.5 19.7 98.9 1.0 .1 1.1 . 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 3.5 18.4 58.2 19.9 100.0 3.5 21.9 80.1 100.0 <QSTREET5> Traffic circulation efficiency, excluding freeways ^STREETS Traffic Circulation Efficiency Rating, Excluding Freeways Condition Rating Frequency Valid Missing Total 1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Total 8 Don't Know 252 338 361 46 997 4 1001 Percent 25.2 33.8 36.1 4.6 99.6 .4 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 25.3 33.9 36.2 4.6 100.0 25.3 59.2 95.4 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 40 <QSTREET6> Parking availability in the Downtown Village area. QSTREET6 Parking Availability in Downtown Village Area Condition Rating Frequency Valid Missing Total 1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Total 8 Don't Know 207 389 328 44 968 33 1001 Percent 20.7 38.9 32.8 4.4 96.7 3.3 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 21.4 40.2 33.9 4.5 100.0 21.4 61.6 95.5 100.0 <QCITYINF> From what sources do you get information about the City of Carlsbad? a. San Diego Union-Tribune b. North County Times c. TV-Local News d. Local Cable Channel e. Community Services and Recreation Guide f. City Web Page (\v\v\v.ci.carlsbad.ca.us) g. Other, Specify: Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 41 QCITYIN4 Source of Carlsbad Information: Local Cable Channel Valid 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total Frequency 462 539 1001 Percent 46.2 53.8 100.0 Valid Percent 46.2 53.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 46.2 100.0 2CITYIN5 Source of Carlsbad Information: Community Services Recreation Guide Valid 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total Frequency 393 608 1001 Percent 39.3 60.7 100.0 Valid Percent 39.3 60.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 39.3 100.0 QCITYIN6 Source of Carlsbad Information: City Web Page Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 Not Chosen 855 814 814 85.4 1 Chosen 146 14.6 14.6 100.0 Total 1001 100.0 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 43 <QSTR_EET> One of the ways that we will present the results of this study is to compare the responses given by people in different neighborhoods. So that we can do this, could you tell me the name of the street that you live on? <QXSTREET> And what is the nearest Cross Street? <QINCOME> Which category best describes your household's total income last year before taxes? 1. Under 525,000 2. $25,000 to under 535,000 3.535,000 to under 550,000 4. 550,000 to under 580,000 5. 575,000 to under 5100,000 6. 5100,000 to under 5125,000 7. 5125,000 and above QINCOME Household Income Last Year Frequency Valid Missing Total 1 Under 525,000 2 525,000 to under 535,000 3 535,000 to under 550,000 4 $50,000 to under 575,000 5 575, 000 to under 5 100,000 6 5 100,000 to SI 25,000 7 5 125,000 and Above Total 8 Don't Know 9 Refused Total 60 73 127 165 188 96 149 858 27 116 143 1001 Percent 6.0 7.3 12.7 16.5 18.8 9.6 14.9 85.7 2.7 11.6 14.3 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 7.0 8.5 14.8 19.2 21.9 11.2 17.4 100.0 7.0 15.5 30.3 49.5 71.4 82.6 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 75 QCTYIN15 Source of Carlsbad Information: Radio Valid 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total Frequency 989 12 1001 Percent 98.8 1.2 100.0 Valid Percent 98.8 1.2 100.0 Cumulative Percent 98.8 100.0 QCTYIN16 Source of Carlsbad Information: Library Valid 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total Frequency 986 15 1001 Percent 98.5 1.5 100.0 Valid Percent 98.5 1.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 98.5 100.0 QCTYIN17 Source of Carlsbad Information: Carlsbad City Council Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 Not Chosen 972 97~1 97~I97.1 1 Chosen 29 2.9 2.9 100.0 Total 1001 100.0 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 45 QCTYIN18 Source of Carlsbad Information: Visitors Center Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 Not Chosen 995 99~499~499.4 1 Chosen 6 .6 .6 100.0 Total 1001 100.0 100.0 QCTYIN19 Source of Carlsbad Information: Other Valid Cumulative Frequency . Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 Not Chosen 942 94~1 94~1 94.1 1 Chosen 59 5.9 5.9 100.0 Total 1001 100.0 100.0 QCTYIN20 Source of Carlsbad Information: Don't Know Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 Not Chosen Tool 100.0 100.0 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 46 QCTYIN21 Source of Carlsbad Information: Refused Valid 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total Frequency 998 3 1001 Percent 99.7 .3 100.0 Valid Percent 99.7 .3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 99.7 100.0 QCTYIN11 Source of Carlsbad Information: Word of Mouth Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 Not Chosen 860 85~985~985.9 1 Chosen 141 14.1 14.1 100.0 Total 1001 100.0 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 47 <QLIB> How often have you used any of the Carlsbad City Library facilities in the past year? Descriptive Statistics N Std. Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation QTLIB How Often Respondent Used Any Carlsbad City Library in the Past Year 1001 365 15.86 34.52 <QLIB1> The Dove Library (in south Carlsbad near El Camino and Alga). a. Never b. Once or twice in the past year c. Once or twice a month d. Once a week e. More than once a week QLIBl How Often Respondent Used Dove Library in Past Year Frequency Valid Missing Total 1 Never 2 Once or Twice in the Past Year 3 Once or Twice a Month 4 Once a Week 5 More Than Once a Week Total 8 Don't Know System Total 183 246 256 55 48 788 1 212 213 1001 Percent 18.3 24.6 25.6 5.5 4.8 78.7 .1 21.2 21.3 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 23.2 31.2 32.5 7.0 6.1 100.0 23.2 54.4 86.9 93.9 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 48 <QLIB2> The Cole Library on (Carlsbad Village Drive next to City Hall). a. Never b. Once or twice in the past year c. Once or twice a month d. Once a week e. More than once a week QLIB2 How Often Respondent Used Cole Library in Past Year Valid 1 Never 2 Once or Twice in the Past Year Frequency 311 235 Percent 31.1 23.5 Valid Percent 39.5 29.9 Cumulative Percent 39.5 69.4 Missing Total 3 Once or Twice a Month 4 Once a Week 5 More Than Once a Week Total 8 Don't Know System Total 163 45 33 787 2 212 214 1001 16.3 4.5 3.3 78.6 .2 21.2 21.4 100.0 20.7 5.7 4.2 100.0 90.1 95.8 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 49 :QLIB3> Centre de Information (near downtown on the Pine School campus). a. Never b. Once or twice in the past year c. Once or twice a month d. Once a week e. More than once a week QLIB3 How Often Respondent Used Centra de Information in Past Year Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Never 757 75^6 96A 96.4 2 Once or Twice in the ^ 2J 2? ^ ^ Past Year 3 Once or Twice a Month 5 .5 .6 99.7 4 Once a Week 1 .1 .1 99.9 5 More Than Once a Week 1 .1 .1 100.0 Total 785 78.4 100.0 Missing 8 Don't Know 4 .4 System 212 21.2 Total 216 21.6 Total 1001 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 50 <TLIBVIS> I am going to read a list of reasons people use the Carlsbad City libraries. Please indicate whether or not you visit the library for each of the following reasons. <QLIBVIS1> To get answers to questions or to do general research QLIBVISl Visited Library to Get Answers to Questions or to do General Research Frequency Valid Missing Total 0 No 1 Yes Total System 191 598 789 212 1001 Valid . Cumulative Percent Percent Percent 19.1 24.2 59.7 75.8 78.8 100.0 21.2 100.0 24.2 100.0 :QLIBVIS2> To help you meet your educational or job-related goals (either formal schooling or personal growth). •LIBVIS2 Visited Library to Help Meet Educational or Job-Related Goal Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 No 454 45~4 51~5 57.5 1 Yes 335 33.5 42.5 100.0 Total 789 78.8 100.0 Missing System 212 21.2 Total 1001 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 51 <QLIB VIS3> To check out or to read books or magazines for enjoyment QLIBVIS3 Visited Library to Check Out or Read Books or Magazines For Enjoyment Valid Missing Total 0 No 1 Yes Total System <QLIBVIS4> To take advantage QLIBVIS4 Valid Missing Total Frequency 183 606 789 212 1001 of programs Valid . Percent Percent 18.3 23.2 60.5 76.8 78.8 100.0 21.2 100.0 the library offers Visited Library to Take Advantage of Programs the 0 No 1 Yes Total Frequency 496 291 787 8 Don't Know 2 System 212 Total 214 1001 Valid Percent Percent 49.6 63.0 29.1 37.0 78.6 100.0 .2 21.2 21.4 100.0 Cumulative Percent 23.2 100.0 Library Offers Cumulative Percent 63.0 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 52 <QLIBVIS5> To use Internet, word processing computers or typewriters QLIBVIS5 Visited Library to Use the Internet, Word Processing Computers or Typewriters Frequency Valid Missing Total 0 No 1 Yes Total System 642 147 789 212 1001 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Percent 64.1 81.4 14.7 18.6 78.8 100.0 21.2 100.0 81.4 100.0 <QLIBVIS6> For a quiet place to read and study QLIBV1S6 Visited Library For a Quiet Place to Read and/or Study Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 No 537 516 6JU 68.1 1 Yes 252 25.2 31.9 100.0 Total 789 78.8 100.0 Missing System 212 21.2 Total 1001 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 53 <QLIBVIS7> To help your children or yourself improve reading skills QLIBVIS7 Visited Library to Help Yourself or Your Children Improve Reading Skills Frequency Valid Missing Total 0 No 1 Yes Total System 485 304 789 212 1001 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Percent 48.5 61.5 30.4 38.5 78.8 100.0 21.2 100.0 61.5 100.0 <QLIBSERV> Overall, how would you rate the Carlsbad libraries as to the availability of materials you want? QLIBSCRV Overall Rating of Carlsbad Libraries as to Availability of Materials Frequency Valid Missing Total 1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Total 8 Don't Know System Total 13 73 327 371 784 5 212 217 1001 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Percent 1.3 1.7 7.3 9.3 32.7 41.7 37.1 47.3 78.3 100.0 .5 21.2 21.7 100.0 1.7 11.0 52.7 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 54 <QLIBMAT> What materials were unavailable to you? <QNOLIB> What has prevented you from using the Carlsbad City Library? a. Just moved here b. Have no interest or need for using the library c. Don't have time d. The Library is too far away or otherwise inconvenient e. Buy books for myself or my children f. Have Internet or other resources that meet my needs for information g. Use another library h. No transportation i. Other, Specify: Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 55 QNOLIB_1 Reason Preventing Library Use: Just Moved here Frequency Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System 187 25 212 789 1001 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Percent 18.7 88.2 2.5 11.8 21.2 100.0 78.8 100.0 88.2 100.0 >NOLIB_2 Reason Preventing Library Use: Have No Interest or Need for Usin; the Library Frequency Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System 149 63 212 789 1001 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Percent 14.9 70.3 6.3 29.7 21.2 100.0 78.8 100.0 70.3 100.0 QNOLIB_3 Reason Preventing Library Use: Don't Have Time Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 Not Chosen 181 FTi 85~485.4 1 Chosen 31 3.1 14.6 100.0 Total 212 21.2 100.0 Missing System 789 78.8 Total 1001 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 56 QNOLIB_4 Reason Preventing Library Use: The Library is Too Far Away or Otherwise Inconvenient Frequency Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System 204 8 212 789 1001 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Percent 20.4 96.2 .8 3.8 21.2 100.0 78.8 100.0 96.2 100.0 QNOLIB_5 Reason Preventing Library Use: Buy Books for Myself or My Children Frequency Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System 185 27 212 789 1001 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Percent 18.5 87.3 2.7 12.7 21.2 100.0 78.8 100.0 87.3 100.0 QNOLIB_6 Reason Preventing Library Use: Have Internet or Other Resources That Meet My Needs for Information Frequency Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System 184 28 212 789 1001 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Percent 18.4 86.8 2.8 13.2 21.2 100.0 78.8 100.0 86.8 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 57 QNOLIB_7 Reason Preventing Library Use: Use Another Library Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Totaf System QNOLIB_8 Reason Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen System Frequency 205 7 212 789 1001 Percent 20.5 .7 21.2 78.8 100.0 Preventing Library Use: Frequency 212 789 1001 Percent 21.2 78.8 100.0 QNOLIB13 Reason Preventing Library Use Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System Frequency 204 8 212 789 1001 Percent 20.4 .8 21.2 78.8 100.0 Valid Percent 96.7 3.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 96.7 100.0 No Transportation Valid Percent 100.0 Cumulative Percent 100.0 : Health Related Valid Percent 96.2 3.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 96.2 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 58 QNOLIB14 Reason Preventing Library Use: Too Busy Valid Missing Total Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System QNOLIB16 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System Frequency 201 11 212 789 1001 Percent 20.1 1.1 21.2 78.8 100.0 Reason Preventing Library Frequency 206 6 212 789 1001 Percent 20.6 .6 21.2 78.8 100.0 Valid Percent 94.8 5.2 100.0 Use: Other Valid Percent 97.2 2.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 94.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 97.2 100.0 QNOLIB17 Reason Preventing Library Use: Don't Know Valid Missing Total 0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen Total System Frequency 210 2 212 789 1001 Percent 21.0 .2 21.2 78.8 100.0 Valid Percent 99.1 .9 100.0 Cumulative Percent 99.1 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 59 QNOLIB18 Reason Preventing Library Use: Refused Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 Not Chosen 210 2LO 9971 99.1 1 Chosen 2 .2 .9 100.0 Total 212 21.2 100.0 Missing System 789 78.8 Total 1001 100.0 <TSAFE> The next few questions have to do with neighborhood safety and police services. For each question, please use a scale of 0 to 10 where zero means not at all safe and ten means very safe. Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation QSAFE1 How Safe Respondent Feels Walking Alone in their Neighborhood During the Day 1001 10 9.46 1.20 <QSAFE1> How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood during the day? Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation QSAFE2 How Safe Respondent Feels Walking Alone in their Neighborhood After Dark 1000 10 7.54 2.55 <QSAFE2> How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood after dark? Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 60 <QCRIME1> During the past 12 months have you or has anyone in your household been a victim of any crime in Carlsbad? ' QCRIME Member of Family Victim of Crime in Carlsbad During the Past 12 Months Valid 0 No 1 Yes Total Frequency 921 80 1001 Percent 92.0 8.0 100.0 Valid Percent 92.0. 8.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 92.0 100.0 <QCRIME2> If yes, did any member of your household, report the crime(s) to the police? .... 0. No 1. Yes 8. Don't Know 9. Refused QCRIME2 Member of Family Reported Crime to the Police Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0~No 16 L6 20~020~0~ 1 Yes 64 6.4 80.0 100.0 Total 80 8.0 100.0 Missing System 921 92.0 Total 1001 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 61 <TDEVELOP> I am going to read a list of different types of development. Please tell me if you would like to see more of or fewer of each of the following items. <QDEVEL1> Gas stations QDEVEL1 More or Fewer Gas Stations Valid Missing Total 0 Fewer Of 1 Just the Right Amount 2 More Of Total 8 Don't Know 9 Refused Total Frequency 427 228 336 991 9 1 10 1001 Percent 42.7 22.8 33.6 99.0 .9 .1 1.0 100.0 Valid Percent 43.1 23.0 33.9 100.0 Cumulative Percent 43.1 66.1 100.0 <QDEVEL2> Grocery stores Valid Missing Total QDEVEL2 0 Fewer Of 1 Just the Right Amount 2 More Of Total 8 Don't Know 9 Refused Total More or Fewer Grocery Stores Frequency 397 323 271 991 8 2 10 1001 Valid Percent Percent 39.7 32.3 27.1 99.0 .8 .2 1.0 100.0 40.1 32.6 27.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40.1 72.7 100.0 m Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 62 <QDEVEL3> Quick Stop Stores (such as Circle K or 7-11) QDEVEL3 More or Fewer Quick Stop Stores Frequency Valid Missing Total 0 Fewer Of 1 Just the Right Amount 2 More Of Total 8 Don't Know 670 199 115 984 17 1001 Percent 66.9 19.9 11.5 98.3 1.7 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 68.1 20.2 11.7 100.0 68.1 88.3 100.0 <QDEVEL4> Drug Stores QDEVEL4 More or Fewer Drug Stores Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Missing Total 0 Fewer Of 1 Just the Right Amount 2 More Of Total 8 Don't Know 393 282 319 994 7 1001 39.3 28.2 31.9 99.3 .7 100.0 28.4 32.1 100.0 67.9 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 63 <QDEVEL5> Department Stores QDEVEL5 More or Fewer Department Stores Valid Missing Total <QDEVEL6> Fast Valid 0 1 2 0 Fewer Of 1 Just the Right Amount 2 More Of Total 8 Don't KJIOW Food Restaurants QDEVEL6 More Fewer Of Just the Right Amount More Of Total Missing 8 Total Don't Know Frequency 468 278 247 993 8 1001 or Fewer Fast Frequency 670 236 90 996 5 1001 Percent 46.8 27.8 24.7 99.2 .8 100.0 Valid Percent 47.1 28.0 24.9 100.0 Cumulative Percent 47.1 75.1 100.0 Food Restaurants Percent 66.9 23.6 9.0 99.5 .5 100.0 Valid Percent 67.3 23.7 9.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 67.3 91.0 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 64 <QDEVEL7> Family Style Restaurants QDEVEL7 More or Fewer Family Style Restaurants Valid 0 Fewer Of 1 Just the Right Amount 2 More Of Total Missing 8 Don't Know 9 Refused Total - Total Frequency 255 236 500 991 9 1 10 1001 Percent 25.5 23.6 50.0 99.0 .9 .1 1.0 100.0 Valid Percent 25.7 23.8 50.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 25.7 49.5 100.0 <QDEVEL8> Upscale, Fine Dining Restaurants QDEVEL8 More or Valid 0 Fewer Of Fewer Upscale, Frequency 213 1 Just the Right Amount 190 2 More Of Total Missing 8 Don't Know Total 593 996 5 1001 Fine Dining Percent 21.3 19.0 59.2 99.5 , .5 100.0 Restaurants Valid Percent 21.4 19.1 59.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 21.4 40.5 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 65 <QDEVEL9> Multi-store shopping centers (Encinitas Towne Center or Pacific Coast Plaza) QDEVEL9 More or Fewer Multi-Store Shopping Centers Valid Missing Total 0 Fewer Of 1 Just the Right 2 More Of Total 8 Don't Know Frequency 569 Amount 220 196 985 16 1001 Percent 56.8 22.0 19.6 98.4 1.6 100.0 <QDEVEL10> Entertainment Venues (such as movie theaters museums). QDEVEL10 More or Fewer Valid Missing Total 0 Fewer Of 1 Just the Right 2 More Of Total 8 Don't Know 9 Refused Total Frequency 184 Amount 1 5 1 658 993 7 1 8 1001 Entertainment Percent 18.4 15.1 65.7 99.2 .7 .1 .8 100.0 Valid Percent 57.8 22.3 19.9 100.0 , live stage Venues Valid Percent , 18.5 15.2 66.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 57.8 80.1 100.0 theaters or art Cumulative Percent 18.5 33.7 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 66 <QDEVEL11> Small neighborhood retailers (dry cleaners, coffee houses or delis). QDEVEL11 More or Fewer Small Neighborhood Retailers Valid Missing Total <QDEVEL12> 0 Fewer Of 1 Just the Right Amount 2 More Of Total 8 Don't Know 9 Refused Total "Big Box" retail stores Frequency 333 274 386 993 7 1 8 1001 Percent 33.3 27.4 38.6 99.2 .7 .1 .8 100.0 (such as Costco, Target QDEVEL12 More or Fewer Valid Missing Total 0 Fewer Of 1 Just the Right Amount 2 More Of Total 8 Don't Know Frequency 600 317 81 998 3 1001 Big Box Retail Percent 59.9 31.7 8.1 99.7 .3 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 33.5 33.5 27.6 61.1 38.9 100.0 100.0 or Home Depot) Stores Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 60.1 60.1 31.8 91.9 8.1 100.0 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 67 <QDEVEL13> Single Family Housing QDEVEL13 More or Fewer Single Family Housing Frequency Valid Missing Total. 0 Fewer Of 1 Just the Right Amount 2 More Of Total 8 Don't Know 9 Refused Total 589 137 258 984 13 4 17 1001 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Percent 58.8 59.9 13.7 13.9 25.8 26.2 98.3 100.0 1.3 .4 1.7 100.0 59.9 73.8 100.0 <QDEVEL14> Multi-Family Housing (such as townhomes, condos or apartments) QDEVEL14 More or Fewer Multi-Family Housing Frequency Valid Missing Total 0 Fewer Of 1 Just the Right Amount 2 More Of Total 8 Don't Know 9 Refused Total 666 124 199 989 11 1 12 1001 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Percent 66.5 67.3 12.4 12.5 19.9 20.1 98.8 100.0 1.1 .1 1.2 100.0 67.3 79.9 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 68 <QDEVEL18> Specialty Grocery Stores (such as Trader Joe's, Henry's or Honey's) QDEVEL18 More or Fewer Specialty Grocery Stores Frequency Valid . Missing Total 0 Fewer Of 1 Just the Right Amount 2 More Of Total 8 Don't Know System Total 182 139 457 778 6 217 223 1001 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Percent 18.2 23.4 13.9 17.9 45.7 58.7 77.7 100.0 .6 21.7 22.3 100.0 23.4 41.3 100.0 <QCONHD1> On a scale of 0 to 10, where ten means very confident and zero means not at all confident how confident are you in the fire department's ability to respond to a medical or fire emergency? Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation QCONFID.l Level of Confidence in Fire Department's Ability to Respond to a Medical or Fire Emergency 926 10 8.87 1.48 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 69 <QCONFID2> Using the same scale, how confident are you in the police department's ability to respond to a police emergency? Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation QCONFID2 Level of Confidence in Police Department's Ability to Respond to a Police Emergency 949 10 8.42 1.87 <QCONPID3> How confident are you in the Carlsbad City government to make decisions which positively affect the lives of its community members? Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Std. Mean Deviation QCONFID3 Level of Confidence in Carlsbad City Government to Make Positive Decisions 958 10 6.04 2.53 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 70 <QINET1> Do you use the Internet at home? 0. No 1. Yes 8. Don't Know 9. Refused QINET1 Respondent Uses the Internet at Home Valid 0 No 1 Yes Total Frequency 235 766 1001 Percent 23.5 76.5 100.0 Valid Percent 23.5 76.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 23.5 100.0 <QINET2> Do you have a high speed internet connection (such as a DSL, ISDN or Tl line)? 0. No l.Yes 8. Don't Know 9. Refused QINET2 Respondent Has a High Speed Internet Connection Frequency Valid Missing Total 0 No 1 Yes Total 8 Don't Know 9 Refused System Total 538 200 738 27 1 235 263 1001 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Percent 53.7 72.9 20.0 27.1 73:7 100.0 2.7 .1 23.5 26.3 100.0 72.9 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 71 <QFACILT> Would you be willing to increase your taxes to assure that facilities are kept from appearing on the landscape or in view corridors (like poles, towers and wires)? O.No l.Yes 8. Don't Know QFACILT Respondent Willing to Pay More Taxes to Assure That Facilities Are Kept From Appearing on the Landscpe or in View Corridors Frequency Valid Missing Total 0 No 1 Yes Total 8 Don't Know 9 Refused Total 344 613 957 42 2 44 1001 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Percent 34.4 35.9 61.2 64.1 95.6 100.0 4.2 .2 4.4 100.0 35.9 100.0 9. Refused Descriptive Statistics Std. N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation QDEMOl Number of Years ,„ Lived In Carlsbad <QDEM01> How many years have you lived in Carlsbad? Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 72 <QDEMO2> Do you own or rent your home? 0. Rent 1. Own 9. Refused QDEMO2 Own/Rent Home Valid Missing Total Frequency 0 Own 794 1 Rent 202 Total 996 8 Don't Know 1 9 Refused 4 Total 5 1001 Percent 79.3 20.2 99.5 .1 .4 .5 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 79.7 79.7 20.3 100.0 100.0 <QDEMO3> How many people currently reside in your household including yourself and any children? Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation QDEMO3 Number of People in Household (Including Respondent) 992 2.57 1.25 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 73 <QDEMO4> How many children in your household are under the age of 18? Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation QDEMO4 Number of Children Under Age of 18 857 .70 1.04 <QDEMO5> How many children are under the age of 12? Descriptive Statistics QDEMO5 Number of Children Under Age of 12 N Minimum 334 0 Maximum 5 Mean 1.23 Std. Deviation .95 <QDEMO6> How many children are under the age of 6? QDEMO6 Number of Children under Age of 6 Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation 238 .82 .83 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 74 <QSTREET> One of the ways that we will present the results of this study is to compare the responses given by people in different neighborhoods. So that we can do this, could you tell me the name of the street that you live on? <QXSTREET> And what is the nearest Cross Street? <QINCOME> Which category best describes your household's total income last year before taxes? 1. Under $25,000 2. $25,000 to under $35,000 3. $35,000 to under $50,000 4. $50,000 to under $80,000 5. $75,000 to under $100,000 6. $ 100,000 to under $ 125,000 7. $125,000 and above QINCOME Household Income Last Year Frequency Valid Missing Total 1 Under 525,000 2 525,000 to under 535,000 3 535,000 to under 550,000 4 550,000 to under 575,000 5 575,000 to under 5 100,000 6 SI 00,000 to SI 25,000 7 SI 25,000 and Above Total 8 Don't Know 9 Refused Total 60 73 127 165 188 96 149 858 '27 116 143 1001 Percent 6.0 7.3 12.7 16.5 18.8 9.6 14.9 85.7 2.7 11.6 14.3 100.0 Valid Cumulative Percent Percent 7.0 8.5 14.8 19.2 21.9 11.2 17.4 100.0 7.0 15.5 30.3 49.5 71.4 82.6 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 75 <GENDER> I.Male 2. Female GENDER R's Gender Valid 1 Male 2 Female Total Frequency 408 593 1001 Percent 40.8 59.2 100.0 Valid Percent 40.8 59.2 100.0 Cumulative Percent 40.8 100.0 Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 76