HomeMy WebLinkAbout; ; 2003 State of Effectiveness Report; 2003-01-01II
I of Carlsbad
ANNUAL
-EFFECTIVENESS
REPORT
Prepared January 2OO3
City Of Carlsbad
STATE-OF-EFFECTIVENESS REPORT
January 2003
Submitted by
The Performance Measurement Team
Lynn Diamond, Public Safely
Joe Garuba, City Manager's Office
Cheryl Gerhardt, Administrative Services
Pat Kelley, Community Development
Linda Kermott, Public Works
Tom Ritter, Public Safety
Sue Spickard, Community Services
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Background 1
Carlsbad's Philosophy On Performance Measurement 1
How Performance Measurement Fits Into The Big Picture 2
Benefits And Risks Of Performance Measurement 4
New Development 5
Report Layout 6
Format Of A Measure 7
Definitions 8
What Happens Next 9
2002-2003 Quality Of Life Strategic Goals 11
Transportation Strategic Goal 13
Roadway Safety 17
Roadway Circulation 21
Roadway Rideability 26
Growth Management - Circulation 32
Finance Strategic Goal 35
Risk Management - Non-Vehicular Liability Losses 37
Finance Report Distribution 38
City Operating Budget 40
General Fund Revenue 42
Communication Strategic Goal 45
Confidence In City Government 48
Citywide Communications Cost 50
Citywide Communications 52
Parks/Open Space/Trails Strategic Goal 55
Park Safety 58
Recreation Program Sportsmanship 60
Park Maintenance Cost 64
Recreation Customer Service & Satisfaction 67
Parks Customer Service And Satisfaction.... 70
Growth Management - Parks 71
Growth Management - Open Space 74
Environmental Management Strategic Goal 77
Sewer Line Integrity 83
Sewer Cost Efficiency 85
Solid Waste Summary.... 89
Solid Waste Diversion 91
Solid Waste Cost Efficiency 93
Solid Waste Customer Service 85 Satisfaction 95
Growth Management - Sewer Collection System 97
Growth Management - Wastewater Treatment Facilities 100
Growth Management - Drainage 102
Water Strategic Goal Summary 105
Potable Water Quality 107
Water Reliability 109
Water Delivery Efficiency Ill
Growth Management - Water Distribution System 115
Learning Strategic Goal 119
State Library Ranking 122
Satisfaction With Library Resources 124
Growth Management- Libraries 126
Balanced Community Development Strategic Goal 127
Section 8 Housing 130
Faraday Center Front Counter Service & Satisfaction 131
Code Enforcement Responsiveness 133
Top Quality Service Strategic Goal 135
Overall Citizen Satisfaction With City Services 137
Growth Management - City Administrative Facilities 138
Purchasing Service 85 Satisfaction 139
Information Technology Summary 141
Information Technology Network Operability 143
Information Technology Service 85 Satisfaction 145
Human Resources Summary 147
Human Resources - Injured Employee Time Off 149
Human Resources Recruitment Time 151
Human Resources- Employee Turnover 153
Human Resources Service 85 Satisfaction 155
Fleet Maintenance Summary 157
Fleet Availability 159
Fleet Customer Service And Satisfaction 160
Fleet Cost Efficiency 162
Facilities Maintenance Summary 163
Facilities Maintenance Response 165
Facilities Maintenance Cost 167
Facilities Customer Service And Satisfaction 170
Fire Department Summary 173
Fire Confinement 175
Fire Response Travel Time 178
Fire Operating Cost Efficiency 180
Fire Customer Service And Satisfaction 183
Growth Management - Fire Stations 185
Police Department Summary 189
Police Responsiveness 191
Crime Cases Cleared 194
Community Perception Of Crime 198
Police Operating Cost Efficiency 200
Police Customer Service 85 Satisfaction 202
Appendix 1: Public Opinion Survey Results 205
73
OO
O
INTRODUCTION
This report represents the third full year that the City of Carlsbad has been
involved in performance measurement and evaluation. This report is designed
to provide background information on the City's program, results and analysis
on the measures evaluated this year, and the results from the City's public
opinion survey. This report was compiled by the City's Performance
Measurement Team, which was created to coordinate and assist the
organization in the performance measurement process.
While performance measurement is a fairly common practice in the private
sector, there is not a standard model for the public sector. The City's goal has
been to create and improve a measurement system that identifies key outcomes
that the City is trying to achieve. The result of this effort is to develop an
organization that focuses on continuous improvement. In developing this
system, we have looked at other organizations, evaluated existing measurement
programs, and participated in training and education programs from both the
private and public sectors.
BACKGROUND
In January 2001, the first full State of Effectiveness Report was published. The
first year's effort to measure our organization's effectiveness was marked by
considerable effort and analysis, with generally positive results. The measures
in that report were organized by Major Service Area. The report was presented
to the City Council and citizens, the City's Leadership Team, management and
the general employees. The second report, which represented a significant
change in the program, was published in January 2002. As in the previous
year, the report was presented to the City Council and citizens, the City's
Leadership Team, management and the general employees. It was also made
available on the City's Internet site. The material in the report was organized by
City Council strategic goal, providing a clear view of the efforts being expended
in the direction of each goal.
For 2003, the same basic format remains and the City is attempting to
integrate a balanced approach to its service areas. This approach is outlined in
greater detail in the "New Development" section. This project represents the
efforts of the entire City.
CARLSBAD'S PHILOSOPHY ON PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
Throughout the development of this program, members of the team have had
the opportunity to learn from other cities, attend conferences and seminars,
and review a wide variety of performance measurement reports. After reviewing
other programs, the team determined it wanted to avoid "widget" counting.
Instead, it was decided to highlight a few, select measures that represent the
level of "outcomes" and identify the city's performance in key areas.
While Carlsbad is not alone in developing a public sector performance
measurement program, the term "performance measurement" has different
meanings for different cities. Some cities focus on outputs, some on outcomes,
some on both, and we recognize that no one system is right or wrong. After
several years of effort, the team believes that the effort involved needs to be
justified by the outcomes achieved, and that the process of performance
measurement cannot overwhelm the product of performance measurement.
Finally, we continue to learn that this is an ongoing process and that the
program will be subject to constant change, adjustment, and refinement.
HOW PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FITS INTO THE BIG PICTURE
The City of Carlsbad has spent several years developing, implementing, and
integrating various programs and processes that are designed to assist the
organization in it's mission of providing top quality services.
The performance measurement program is an integral component of this
systems approach. It represents the feedback loop between organizational effort
and the ability to achieve and sustain desired outcomes. In Carlsbad's system,
performance measurement also represents the beginning of the next goal
development cycle with the development of action plans.
The City of Carlsbad has developed a system of processes that help maximize
the benefits of each organization effort and integrate it into the City. The
following calendar demonstrates how the performance measurement program
is coordinated with both the goal and budget processes.
Starting out a calendar year, the results of the citywide public opinion survey
are finalized and presented to Council at their annual goal-setting workshop
usually held in January. The state-of-effectiveness report should also be
presented at this time. The information contained in these reports may
influence the priorities set for the
upcoming year.
The results are then communicated
to staff to aid in the development of
management goals and department
budgets. Departments can use 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. Once the budget is approved
in June, departments can prepare
for new programs or activities that
are tied to 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.
The citywide public opinion survey
questions are reviewed in July so
that the survey can be conducted in
the fall of each year. Results are
then available for the performance
measurement report that needs to be
prepared in November and December
of each year in preparation for the
presentation at the January Council
workshop.
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
TIMELINE
January Survey results to
Council and staff
State of Effectiveness
report distributed
City Council goal
workshop
Department CIPs due
February Management goal
preparation
Budget preparation
March Department budgets due
Management goals final
May CIP Council workshop
June Council and citizen's
budget workshops
Budget adoption
Management goal
evaluations due
July Begin survey rewrite
September Citywide survey begins
BENEFITS AND RISKS OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT m
A performance measurement system can be used in a variety of ways, both M
internally and externally.
m
Internal Use m
• 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 m
• Helps to create "the big picture" concept
• Helps drive the strategic planning process
• Helps define budget and planning priorities •»
• Acts as the mechanism to build a culture of continuous improvement m
External Use m
• 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 m
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 m
outcomes may not be either m
Although the benefits of performance measurement far outweigh the risks,
attention must be given to those who review the information and may report it m
as negative or "not measuring up." The purpose of the program is to point out >»»
successes and weaknesses so that an organization can identify and work
towards delivering a high level of service. For the ongoing success of the "*
program, performance measurements should not be looked at as failure to *•
"measure up", or used as an instrument of punishment. Instead, performance
measurement needs to be seen as another tool to evaluate services and
programs, making certain that they are in line with the organizations mission ""
and that they are delivered at acceptable levels set by the organization. „,
NEW DEVELOPMENT
This year's State-of-Effectiveness Report is similar to last year's with one
important difference. The results for each area are presented in context with
each other as an attempt to present the service area's balance between service
delivery, cost, and customer satisfaction. It should be noted that this is the
initial attempt to present a "balanced approach." Some service areas naturally
lend themselves to this approach while with others it is more difficult. In
future years, all measures will include the three categories of service delivery,
cost, and customer satisfaction.
A graphic that represents the overall level of achievement for each strategic
goal as it relates to providing evaluating our performance based on service
delivery, cost, and customer satisfaction is also presented. This balanced
approach is highlighted on the summary sheet, which also shows the
associated performance measures, growth management standards, related
goals, public opinion survey highlights, and any other relevant information.
The balanced approach the City uses for evaluating organizational effectiveness
looks at three key categories:
• Service Delivery: What are the performance standards for each service?
• Cost: What was the cost efficiency for delivering that service?
• Customer Satisfaction: What was the achievement or citizen satisfaction
level for the service provided?
The graph is meant to be a general representation of the level of achievement
and reflects an approximation of the balance within each area. Areas of
accomplishment are shaded. Areas in which the benchmark was not met, or
where there is no measure, are unshaded. A larger section of the "pie" is
shaded as the level of accomplishment increases. Below is a sample graphic
representing benchmark achievement in service delivery and cost efficiency
(shaded areas), and almost reaching the benchmark in customer satisfaction
(shaded) with a slight gap where the benchmark was missed (unshaded) but
was close:
Service Delivery
Customer
Satisfaction Gap
Customer
Satisfaction Level
Cost
</>&uiOcoo
REPORT LAYOUT
Below is a list of the components for each strategic goal, as well as a brief
explanation.
Goal Summary
• An overview and progress summary of each of Council's strategic goals.
Performance Measures
• Outcome-based measure
• Tied to core departmental functions
• 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 of continuous improvement
• Moves the organization from being reactive to proactive
• Provides organizational accountability
• Provides the foundation for goal development
Growth Management Standards
• The key measures by which the City's growth is managed and mitigated.
Goals
• Represent the priority efforts of the organization
• Allows for the opportunity to address any deficiencies identified in
performance measurement process
Citywide Survey Highlights
• Each year, the City surveys the citizens in many different service areas.
• This survey presents feedback about various constituent desires and
feelings as they relate to City service.
• The survey sets the stage for policy discussions, and helps drive the
strategic planning process
• Survey results provide timely feedback on new issues of citywide concern
Other Factors
• Any other internal or external activity aside from the items listed above
that impact a strategic goal may be included here. Examples include
CalTrans projects or new state mandates.
FORMAT OF 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 a 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.
7
DEFINITIONS
Below are the basic definitions of the terms and concepts used with this
program.
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 result of products or services 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.
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 compared to internal results over time, 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.
8
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
Evaluation of Benchmarking
This continues to be the most difficult and time intensive component of the
performance measurement program. This is due to many factors, including the
fact that performance measurement is still not widespread in government
organizations, and many jurisdictions do not measure what is measured in
Carlsbad or in the same manner. This makes it difficult for many departments
to establish benchmark comparisons. In the ongoing development of this
program, the team will reevaluate how benchmarking is applied, and how best
to find comparisons in a cost-effective manner.
Communications And Outreach
An effective communications and outreach program is a key component to the
success of the performance measurement system. The Performance
Measurement Team has used a number of communications vehicles to reach
all levels of city employees and other jurisdictions. Next to benchmarking,
communications and employee buy-in of the program continue to be the most
difficult to implement. Over the next cycle, the team will re-focus their efforts
on communication with internal customers as well as external ones.
Action Plans
Departments implement action plans to address performance issues. These
action plans need to be developed in conjunction with the budget process and
goal development to help assure that adequate resources are dedicated to the
improvement process.
Performance Measures
There continue to be areas that need measure development, as well as
additional measures to complete the "balanced approach."
Surveys
The Citywide survey needs to be reviewed annually to decide which questions
should be asked each year and which questions can be asked in alternating
years. 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.
Program Evaluation and Revision
A review of the performance measurement program and the composition of the
team should occur annually. Performance measurement needs to be fully
integrated into the goal, budget, and management processes. In addition, an
emphasis needs to be placed with managers on using performance measures
for improvement, not simply reporting the results.
m
10
City of Carlsbad
2O02-2003 Quality of Life Strategic Goals
* Top Quality Services
> Be a city that provides exceptional services on a daily basis.
* Transportation
> Provide and support a multi-modal regional and local transportation
system, which includes public transport, and which moves goods,
services and people through Carlsbad in a safe and efficient manner
that is coordinated with community development.
* Balanced Community Development
> Be a community that promotes community spirit, quality
neighborhoods, establishes compatible residential and commercial
uses, including entertainment venues, and manages growth by
providing an appropriate balance of facilities and services.
* Parks/Open Space/Trails
> Acquire, develop and maintain a broad range of fiscally responsible
recreation and open space facilities that actively address citizen needs
and are consistent with the General Plan and Growth Management
Standards.
»:» Water
> Ensure reliable, high quality, diversified potable and recycled water
system leading to a drought-resistant community, in the most cost
effective manner.
<» Environmental Management
Be an environmentally sensitive community by focusing on: Clean
storm water, sewage collection and treatment, solid waste, and
efficient use of energy including alternative energy.
<* Finance
> Implement proactive strategies that provide and manage fiscal
resources effectively to ensure a high quality of life.
»> Communication
> Ensure that citizens, Council and staff are well informed, leading to a
more responsive government and a high level of citizen confidence in
government.
* Learning
> Promote and support continuous learning opportunities within the
community and the City organization.
11
*at
12
I
(0"0Oi5z
Transportation Strategic Goal
^ Strategic Goal
Provide and support a multi-modal regional and local transportation system,
'AW which includes public transport, and which moves goods, services and people
— through Carlsbad in a safe and efficient manner that is coordinated with
^ community development.
"* • Service Delivery
*» o 100% of road segments meet Caltrans collision rates by type of
roadway segment.
*" Results: 98%«•
w o Travel times on El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road will not
exceed baseline rates.
Results: 10 of the 12 baseline travel rates were met.
*•«
— o Average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) at 70 or higher.
Results: 75
"am
— • Cost
o City of Carlsbad maintenance cost per mile of roadway will not exceed
$5,878.
"• Results: $5,598
• Customer Satisfaction
** o 90% of survey respondents rated the overall condition of the roadways
*» as good or excellent.
— Results: 83%
13
Service Delivery
Customer
Satisfaction Gap
Customer
Satisfaction
Service Delivery
Gap
Cost
Summary
The results of the 2002 performance measures and Growth Management
Standards indicate that the city is doing a good job supporting the
Transportation Strategic Goal. A total of 98% of roadway segments measured
met the roadway safety benchmark. This reflects a slight improvement over last
year, when 95% of the segments measured met the benchmark. This is a
stringent benchmark as the City still strives for further safety improvement.
Staff will continue to perform detailed research and analysis on collision rates
throughout the city and recommend potential roadway improvements as
necessary.
The results of the latest travel time studies show that 2 of 12 measured travel
patterns showed an increase in travel time from the initial baseline studies
taken in June 2000. The increases occurred on El Camino Real in both the AM
and PM peak travel periods. Generally, increases in travel time experienced over
the past few years seem to be consistent with a general increase in traffic as the
city continues to develop. Previous improvements to Cannon Road and Faraday
Avenue brought about a decrease in overall travel times on Palomar Airport
Road. The results of the most recent studies indicate that travel times on
Palomar Airport Road PAR continue to remain at or less than the baseline rates.
Both Palomar Airport Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) are required to be
completed to their full arterial width per the Growth Management Plan. These
improvements, additional traffic signals on PAR and ECR and coordination of
traffic signals is expected to enhance traffic circulation in the coming years.
wo i
14
Additionally, future construction at the Rancho Del Oro/78 freeway interchange
by the City of Oceanside and construction of College Boulevard and Cannon
Road and opening the connection to Oceanside will provide congestion relief to
El Camino Real.
The roadway cost efficiency measure results show that the Streets Division is
meeting its benchmark with roadway maintenance cost per mile at $5,598.
The Circulation Growth Management Standard shows that 52 of 54 measured
intersections met the required standard. All 28 measured road segments met
the required standard. Improvements to Rancho Santa Fe Road intersections
and realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road are expected to bring substandard
conditions on that road into compliance. The Faraday Avenue and Melrose
Drive extension project, which is scheduled to be under construction in 2004, is
expected to alleviate the problems at Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road.
Also, a substandard level of service exists at the Interstate-5/Cannon Road
northbound on-ramp in the evening hours. This intersection is in the Caltrans
right-of-way and is identified in the current Traffic Impact Fee Report as a
future hot spot. Hot spots are locations that primarily serve regional traffic and
are within limited control of the City. The location will continue to be
monitored. Any future improvements to mitigate congestion would need to be
coordinated with Caltrans.
Performance Measures and Growth Management Standards
TRANSPORTATION
Roadway Safety
Roadway Circulation
Roadway Rideability
Roadway Cost Efficiency
Circulation Growth
Management Standard
ACHIEVES
BENCHMARK
•/
S
s
BENCHMARK
NOT
ACHIEVED
S
^
ADEQUATE
DATA NOT
AVAILABLE
15
Management Goals
• Faraday Extension
• Rancho Santa Fe Road
• Pavement Management Program
• Traffic Signal Interconnect Design
• Transportation Management Association
• Traffic Signal Interconnect Design
Citywide Survey Highlights
Residents were asked about the condition of the city's streets. Overall, the
conditions were rated positively with 83% of those surveyed rating the condition
at good or excellent. A little less than half, 46%, rated traffic circulation as good
or excellent. Consistent with the results reported in 200 1 , there continue to be
regional differences in these ratings. Residents in the North region rated traffic
circulation lower than did South region residents.
Other Factors
Development of a Transportation Management Association (TMA) is a potential
factor for minimizing congestion. A TMA can help coordinate activities to
optimize results through the use of Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
techniques such as flex-hours, carpools, transit usage and telecommuting,
especially in the industrial corridor. Businesses continue to be encouraged to
implement aggressive TDM measures to reduce volumes and shift peak hours of
operation. Efforts such as formation of a TMA will help educate businesses and
provide TDM strategies for them to implement.
f
Hi
f
•h
E
f
16
i
Public Works
ROADWAY SAFETY
THE OUTCOME
Roadway safety.
THE MEASUREMENT
Collision rate per million vehicle miles.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Many 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. Both engineering and police currently measure data. Data is
gathered throughout the year and is summarized in the Engineering
Department, Transportation Division's Annual Traffic Report.
The 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 collision rates
on all State highways to be used to identify potential problem areas. These
rates are reported for roadways with two to three lanes to undivided roadway
with four or more lanes.
STREET CLASSIFICATIONS STUDIED
Prime Arterial: 40,000+ vehicles per day; six lanes; divided; access controlled;
provides regional and intra-city circulation; provides connections to the
freeways
Major Arterial: 20-40,000 vehicles per day; four lanes; divided; access
controlled; provides intra-city circulation; provides connections to the freeways
Secondary Arterial: 10-20,000 vehicles per day; four lanes, striped median;
moves traffic between collector and larger arterial streets
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations, Engineering, and Police
17
BENCHMARK
100% of road segments meet Caltrans collision rates by type of segment.
RESULTS
Roadway Segments within Caltrans Collision Rates
ROADWAY SEGMENT TYPE Benchmark 1999 2000 2001
Secondary Arterials (7 segments)*
Major Arterials (11 segments)
Prime Arterials (18 segments)
100%
100%
100%
88%
100%
95%
86%
100%
95%
100%
100%
95%
Total Road Segments within
Caltrans collision rates:100%95%95%98%
* In 1999 the City measured 8 secondary arterial segments; statistical change is insignificant
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.
18
P
*
f
ROADWAY SEGMENT COLLISION RATES
ALGA ROADJmaior arterial)
El Camino Real to Melrose Drive
AVIARA PARKWAY (secondary arterial)
Palomar Airport Road to El Camino Real
CANNON ROAD (maior arterial)
Carlsbad Boulevard to Faraday Avenue
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
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE (secondary arterial)
Carlsbad Boulevard to Interstate Highway 5
Interstate Highway 5 to El Camino Real
El Camino Real to College Boulevard
COLLEGE BOULEVARD (maior arterial)
Palomar Airport Road to El Camino Real
EL CAMINO REAL (prime arterial)
State Route 78 to Matron 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 Avenue
La Costa Avenue to South City Limits
LA COSTA AVENUE (maior arterial)
Interstate Highway 5 to El Camino Real
LA COSTA AVENUE (secondary arterial)
El Camino Real to Rancho Santa Fe Road
MELROSE DRIVE (prime arterial)
Palomar Airport 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 RobleCamino Vida Roble to El Camino Real
El Camino Real to Melrose Drive
Melrose Drive to East City Limits
PASEO DEL NORTE (secondary arterial)
Cannon Road to Palomar Airport Road
Palomar Airport Road to Poinsettia Lane
POINSETTIA LANE (maior arterial)
Carlsbad Boulevard to Aviara Parkway
RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD (prime arterial)
Melrose Drive to La Costa Avenue
La Costa Avenue to Olivenhain Road
Olivenhain Road to Calle Acervo
2000
NUMBER OF
COLLISIONS
6
1
2
7
11
2
5
5
6 (1)
16
5
4
3
7
10
16 (2)
13 (2)
11
9 (2)
7 (4)
10
8
3
0
14
31
5
9
17 (2)
8
9
5
9 (1)
18
7
2
COLLISION
RATE
0.45
0.06
0.36
1.25
1.61
0.15
.96
0.57
0.66
*3.47
0.70
0.70
0.41
1.52
0.52
0.75
0.91
0.57
0.55
0.57
0.50
.71
0.42
0
**2.65
1.630.34
0.75
0.81
0.45
1.60
0.91
0.99
0.88
0.65
0.55
20O1
NUMBER OFCOLLISIONS
7
16
4
3
8
3
7
4
3
15
8
6
7
10
25
22
33 (2)
20 (1)
11
7 (1)
16
5
5
1
16
24
5
11
13
11
18
4
5
27
9
4(1)
COLLISION
RATE
0.52
1.09
0.48
0.57
1.17
0.31
1.320.47
0.33
2.62
1.121.79
0.96
2.33
1.36
1.02
1.96
0.96
0.65
0.58
0.79
0.49
0.57
0.91
***3.16:;:
1.350.30
0.89
0.60
0.61
3.32
0.74
0.60
1.25
0.82
1.15
CALTRANS STATEWIDE COLLISION RATES FOR URBAN ROADWAYS
* Exceeds State rate of 3.35 ('99 data) ** Exceeds State rate of 2.40 ('99 data) *'
Numbers in parentheses () indicates number of collisions in construction zone.
Rate = Number of collisions X One million - collisions per million vehicle miles
Average daily traffic x section length (miles) x 365 days
19
Exceeds State rate of 2.40 ('00 data)
ANALYSIS
In 2001, 98 percent of the roadway segments measured were within the
statewide standard. This result shows a three percent improvement over 2000.
Only one road segment on one road exceeded the statewide collision rate
(Palomar Airport Road between Avenida Encinas and Paseo Del Norte). This
segment was also identified in 2000 as exceeding the statewide collision rate.
The Palomar Airport Road segment from Avenida Encinas to Paseo Del Norte is
a heavily traveled corridor used by commuters and tourists and includes a
portion of road in the Caltrans right of way at the Interstate Highway 5
interchange. Driver inattention in this corridor is a contributing factor in the
number of collisions.
While 98 percent of the roadway segments meet the statewide standard, the
number of collisions has increased along many of the roadway segments
compared to last year's numbers. City staff monitors collision reports on an
individual basis as well as performing trend analysis to determine possible
collision patterns. Much of the City's analysis and action to improve safety at
individual roadway segments is addressed in the Annual Traffic Report prepared
by the Public Works Transportation Division each year. Additionally, every two
years the City reports on traffic signal needs and identifies a priority list of
intersections for placement of those signals. Interim measures are implemented
when a collision pattern is identified unless and until a permanent solution is
attainable.
ACTION PLAN
The subject road segment on Palomar Airport Road has been fully improved to
city standards and has 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 collisions such as them being
related to weather conditions or driver inattention. However, it is expected that
the roadway segment could meet the benchmark of being below the Caltrans
collision rates, and staff will continue to strive for this result.
Staff currently monitors and consistently addresses safety needs along roadway
segments where the number of collisions increases significantly or a pattern of
collisions is identified. Solutions are identified and interim measures are
implemented when needed unless a permanent solution is immediately
attainable. Permanent solutions are typically developed as part of the capital
improvement program.
20
Public Works
ROADWAY CIRCULATION
THE OUTCOME
Roadway circulation efficiency.
THE MEASUREMENT
Average travel time on El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. The reported
benchmarks were established as a result of travel time studies conducted in
June 2000.
For purposes of this report, references to the period of time as a "year" equate to
the 12-month period covering December through November, due to the
publication timing of the State of Effectiveness report.
Travel time studies were conducted four times on these roadways this year, as
opposed to twice per year in 2000 and 2001. However, the two additional study
periods concluded essentially the same results as the two regular study periods
previously concluded.
The travel time study on El Camino Real was performed for the full length of the
roadway in the City of Carlsbad, from the south city limit to Haymar Drive at
the north city limit. Three study periods were evaluated. These were 7:00 a.m.
to 9:00 a.m. (the a.m. peak period), 9:15 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. (the off-peak
period), and 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. (the p.m. peak period).
The travel time study on Palomar Airport Road was performed for the full length
of the roadway in the City of Carlsbad, from Carlsbad Boulevard at the west to
the east city limit. Three study periods were evaluated. These were 6:45 a.m. to
8:15 a.m. (the a.m. peak period), 9:45 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. (the off-peak period),
and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. (the p.m. peak period).
Two test vehicles are used to conduct travel time studies. The "average-speed"
technique is used, which involves driving the test vehicles along the length of
the test section at a speed that represents the average speed of the traffic
stream. During each of the a.m. peak, off-peak and p.m. peak study periods,
each vehicle makes as many runs as can occur during the time frame
measured.
21
WHAT THE DATA MEANS **
Palomar Airport Road (East City Limit to Carlsbad Blvd) "*
Ideal Travel Time (Eastbound or Westbound) 7 min, 21 sec
El Camino Real (South City Limit to Havmar) "*
Ideal Travel Time (Northbound or Southbound) 10 min, 53 sec *»
•*Ideal Travel Time is the length of time that it takes to travel from one point to
the other based on the posted 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.
Average travel time is most meaningful if reviewed in relationship to peak and **
off-peak periods (morning commute/evening commute). Several factors **
contribute to an efficient roadway circulation system including design, m
maintenance, traffic operations, and police enforcement. These measures can
serve as an initial red flag to help determine the effectiveness of the City's ***
roadway system to ensure efficient and time-effective travel. m
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED ""
Public Works Maintenance and Operations, Public Works Engineering, Police «•*
M»
BENCHMARK
Travel times on El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road will not exceed P
baseline rates collected in June 2000. *
RESULTS P
El Camino Real Average Travel Times in Minutes* *»
| Benchmark
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
15.7
18.0
15.8
16.0
21.8
17.4
Dec. 2001
17.0
18.5
16.0
14.8
24.3
18.7
May 2002
14.1
17.2
16.3
15.4
21.5
18.9
| June 2002
15.6
15.8
15.0
16.0
25.9
17.6
Sept. 2002
15.6
19.4
15.6
15.1
24.0
18.4
Pn
P
22
Palomar Airport Road Average Travel Times in Minutes*
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
Benchmark |
11.4
11.3
10.6
10.0
13.9
12.0
Dec. 2001
10.5
11.0
10.7
10.6
12.7
12.5
May 2002
11.0
10.9
9.3
10.6
13.9
11.2
June 2002
10.4
10.6
10.3
9.5
13.5
11.2
Sept. 2002
10.4
11.0
10.0
9.5
12.4
11.1
*Benchmarks were established from June 2000 Travel Time Studies
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 ideal travel time is 10 minutes, 53 seconds on El Camino Real. Averages
were calculated using all four study counts. The results from the latest study
indicate that an a.m. peak period does not really exist in the northbound
direction. Off-peak travel times in the northbound direction are slightly faster
than recorded in June 2000 and June 2001. During the p.m. peak, the travel
time increased slightly over June 2001. During one measurement period for the
northbound direction, the travel time increased to over 25 minutes, with the
majority of the additional delay occurring between the Hosp-to-Haymar
segment.
The major traffic congestion in the northbound direction between Hosp Way and
Haymar Drive seemed to occur between about 4:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. The
delay during the p.m. peak in the northbound direction has resulted primarily
from the intersections between Marron Drive and the northerly city limits. This
delay is also influenced by the ramp meter operations for State Route 78 at El
Camino Real. The highest travel time measured 25.9 minutes conducted in
June 2002, as opposed to 24 minutes in both December 2001 and September
2002.
In the southbound direction, a.m. peak travel times have decreased significantly
from the June 2001 study and slightly from the June 2000 study. Off-peak
travel times have decreased slightly from the June 2001 study and are more
consistent with the June 2000 study. However, there has been a slight increase
23
in the p.m. peak travel time in the southbound direction compared to the June
2001 and June 2000 studies. The increase in travel time experienced during the
p.m. peak in the northbound and southbound directions seems to be consistent
with a general increase in traffic volumes as the city and surrounding areas
continue to develop.
Palomar Airport Road
The ideal travel time is 7 minutes, 21 seconds on Palomar Airport Road.
Averages were calculated using all four study counts. The results indicate that
a significant a.m.-peak period does not exist in either direction. During the
p.m. peak, the time remained at an average of 13.1 minutes for the eastbound
direction, and decreased slightly to an average of 11.5 minutes for the
westbound direction (down from an average of 11.75 minutes last year). The
results show travel times are generally very similar to, or slightly less than,
those from previous studies. There appears to be a slight trend in reduced
travel times, especially in the westbound direction. It is likely that the general
decrease in travel time is due to more vehicles using alternate parallel routes
such as Cannon Road/Faraday Avenue and Aviara Parkway/Poinsettia Lane.
ACTION PLAN
Both Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real are required to be completed to
their full arterial width per the Circulation Element of the General 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,
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 time-based traffic signal coordination and
optimization is being conducted through a consultant contract. This study will
focus on the locations to add signal coordination and ways to optimize traffic
signal operations. The city has plans to construct a Transportation
Management Center (TMC) in the future Public Works building to monitor and
coordinate timing of traffic signals. At this time it is unknown when funding for
the TMC will be appropriated.
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 has not yet entered design
phase, and therefore, is not expected to be complete for at least three to five
24
years. Future construction of College Boulevard and Cannon Road and opening
the College Boulevard connection to Oceanside will also provide congestion relief
to El Camino Real through volume reductions in the mall vicinity. Construction
has begun on the Cannon Road extension with completion expected in Spring
2004.
Businesses continue to be encouraged to implement aggressive Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) actions to reduce volumes and shift peak hours of
operation. Efforts such as formation of a Transportation Management
Association (TMA) are being actively pursued and 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 December 2002. 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.
It is recommended that only two travel time studies be conducted in 2003,
similar to the two studies conducted in 2000 and 2001.
25
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. The Pavement Management software,
based on the data collected during roadway condition surveys, generates PCI
data.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The data reflects the condition of the roadway surface, which is related to the
design and quality of the initial installation, the age, and maintenance of the
roadways. Exposure to the elements and vehicle loadings cause pavement to
deteriorate. Left untreated, the pavement could develop large cracks and
potholes that would impact the structure integrity of the road as well as degrade
the rideability or "smoothness" of the road. Pavement overlays can prevent
cracks from occurring and help avoid more extensive and expensive roadway
repairs. A proactive pavement management program is the most cost effective
way to improve roadway reliability and protect the City's investment in its
roadways.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Public Works, Engineering and Maintenance & Operations.
BENCHMARK
Average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) at 70 or higher.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK
70
CARLSBAD RATING
75*
*The reported PCI reflects the most recent survey data collected during fiscal
year 1997-1998, which resulted in a citywide average PCI of 75.
ANALYSIS
From 1998, when the last survey was conducted, to 2002 five projects have
been constructed. These projects resulted in 38.5 miles of roadway receiving
26
slurry seal, and 21 miles of roadway receiving overlay. In 2002 a new roadway
condition survey is being conducted. In early 2003 the survey data will be
loaded into the recently acquired software program that will be utilized to
calculate the current PCI. In 2003, six more projects are scheduled for
completion. These six projects will result in an additional 12.4 miles of roadway
receiving slurry seal, and an additional 14.5 miles of roadway receiving overlay.
The benefits from the completed overlay projects since our last survey have not
been factored into the PCI rating, and will definitely have a positive effect on the
average PCI rating.
The average pavement condition index of 75, which was calculated in 1998, falls
short of the established benchmark of 80.
From 1998 to 2002 the City spent $4,820,000 on slurry seal and overlay
pavement management projects. Two slurry projects were completed in years
1998 and 2001. Three overlay projects were completed in years 1998, 1999 and
2002. It is anticipated that another $6,400,000 will be spent on pavement
management projects during the spring and summer of 2003. Six projects are
planned including one slurry and five overlays. This anticipated large
expenditure is derived from some carry over from last year and a bigger focus on
preventive maintenance.
The analysis of the 2002 condition survey will help identify the impact of the
pavement management projects, as noted above, on the PCI. The analysis of
the data and the predictive tools available in the pavement management
software program will be used to establish the scope of future projects.
ACTION PLAN
The action plan for next year includes the completion of the 2002 roadway
condition survey, analyzing the data, preparing the scope of work for future
projects, designing and completing the construction of projects.
The schedule for these activities is as follows:
1. July - December, Prepare design of projects for construction during the
summer of 2003.
2. October - December, Complete condition survey and analyze roadway
survey data and calculate PCI results using pavement management
software.
3. January - June, Based on the results of the data analysis, the PCI
calculation and historical tracking of funding relative to the PCI; the
scope of work and funding request for the 2004 projects) will be
27
incorporated into the Capital Improvement Program budget request.
4. May-September, construct 2003 projects
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.
YEAR
1998
2002
2003
Average PCI
75
X
X
Percentage of roads
above PCI of 70
N/A
X
X
Expenditures on
Pavement Mgmt.
Project(s)
$4,826,000
X
X
pi
28
Public Works
ROADWAY COST EFFICIENCY
THE OUTCOME
Value of the roadway experience.
THE MEASUREMENT
Actual street maintenance expenditures (does not include traffic signal
maintenance) per 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
City of Carlsbad maintenance cost per mile of roadway will not exceed $5,878
per street-mile. This benchmark was established based on information reported
in the baseline year (2000) and has been adjusted annually by the San Diego
Consumer Price Index (2001 = 5.73%, 2002 = 2.95%).
RESULTS
Maintenance Costs
Total Street Miles
$/Street Mile
Benchmark
2000
$1,971,827
365 1
$5,400
$5,400
2001
$2,034,004
3741
$5,439
$5,709
20O2
$2,272,809
406-
$5,598
$5,878
1 Estimated inventory data.
ANALYSIS
The benchmark for this measure was achieved even though the results for
2001-02 increased from the previous year by $159 per mile. The increase was
due primarily to more accurate inventory data and inflationary increases. The
inventory data reflects a more realistic level of growth in our streets'
infrastructure during the previous year. As this level of accuracy is maintained,
a more appropriate and meaningful cost measure will be established.
29
While Carlsbad ranked mid-group in terms of cost per mile for street
maintenance compared to benchmark agencies, the significance of this data is
unknown until more information can be obtained from the benchmarking
agencies. Although El Cajon's results are very close to that of Carlsbad, the size
of their street infrastructure may not make this agency a meaningful
benchmark partner.
Of the outside agencies contacted, most use street-miles as their measure
because this data is most readily available. However, cost per lane-mile is more
meaningful information because this unit of measurement takes into
consideration the width of streets, which can vary greatly.
Agency
Mission Viejo
Chula Vista
El Cajon
Carlsbad
Sunnyvale
Escondido
San Diego Co City*
Street Miles
506
407
196
406
300
290
180
Maintenance
Costs
$1,794,071
$1,774,848
$980,308
$2,235,772
$3,492,644
$3,500,000
$2,738,320
Cost per
Mile
$3,544
$4,361
$5,002
$5,598
$11,642
$12,069
$15,213
* City did not wish to be identified.
ACTION PLAN
Over the past year the Public Works MSA has devoted a considerable amount of
time to developing partnerships with other cities to obtain comparable
benchmark data. This initiative has proven to be more difficult than initially
anticipated. Even within the reporting agencies, the data has been difficult to
collect in a format where comparisons can be made in a useful manner. Over
the next year, we will work with our partner cities to understand why there is
such a large range in the maintenance costs per mile. As part of this process,
staff will investigate changing the measure to cost per lane-mile. The results of
this work will be incorporated into next year's report.
The current benchmark is based on internal historical data. Public Works will
research and possibly develop a new benchmark based on accepted industry
standards.
The Public Works Department is in the process of preparing a five-year service
plan. During this process, the major activities performed by the Street
30
Maintenance department will be reviewed and analyzed to ensure work is
performed in a cost effective and efficient method.
Staff is also working on City of Carlsbad "standards of care" for roadway
maintenance and will be incorporating the results of this work into next year's
report.
31
Public Works
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - CIRCULATION
THE OUTCOME
An efficient and effective circulation system is maintained in the City.
THE MEASUREMENT
No road segment or intersection in the City, or any road segment or intersection
outside the City, which is impacted by development in the City, shall be
projected to exceed an unacceptable level of service (LOS).
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Comparison of traffic volumes to roadway and intersection capacities. A traffic
model of the City has been completed which projects traffic volumes through
the year 2020. This Carlsbad sub area-traffic model is maintained by SANDAG
and used by staff for analysis and to identify necessary roadway and
intersection improvements. The Annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring
Program monitors existing traffic volumes and conditions on critical roadways
and intersections throughout the City to help identify and determine the timing
of additional traffic mitigations and improvements.
LOS is a quantitative measure of traffic conditions that reflects how restrictive
vehicle movements are, or may become. For purposes of monitoring traffic
throughout the City, the capacity of an intersection or roadway segment is
compared to the actual volumes measured in the field. The six levels of traffic
service range from A to F. Level A represents the most ideal conditions; Level E
is at capacity; and Level F indicates forced flow, or stop and go traffic that is
often grid locked. The Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity
Manual further defines LOS based on specific measurements of traffic volumes
and roadway capacities.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Engineering
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
No road segment or intersection in the City, nor any road segment or
intersection outside the City which is impacted by development in the City,
shall be projected to exceed a service level as indicated for the following
conditions:
32
Condition
During off-peak hours
During peak hours
LOS
C
D
Impacted means where 20% or more of the traffic generated by an area will use
the road segment or intersection.
RESULTS
Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Program results for 2002 indicates that
all roadway segments and intersection meet the Growth Management Standards
except the following intersections:
• Melrose Drive/Palomar Airport Road (LOS E in the AM Peak Hour)
• Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road (LOS E in the AM Peak Hour)
The following intersections and roadway segments currently meet the Growth
Management Standards and will continue to be monitored:
• El Camino Real/Tamarack Avenue (LOS D in the AM Peak Hour)
• El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road(LOS D in the PM Peak Hour)
• Carlsbad Boulevard/Cannon Road (LOS D in the PM Peak Hour)
• Rancho Santa Fe Road/San Elijo Road (LOS D in the PM Peak Hour)
• I-5/Cannon Road Northbound Ramps (LOS D in the PM Peak Hour)
• Rancho Santa Fe Road between Melrose Drive 85 La Costa Meadows (LOS
D in the PM Peak Hour)
• Palomar Airport Road between Melrose Drive 8s Paseo Valindo (LOS D in
the AM Peak Hour)
ANALYSIS
The Faraday Avenue and Melrose Drive extension project, which is scheduled to
be under construction by early 2004, is expected to alleviate the following
intersections and road segments:
• Melrose Drive/Palomar Airport Road intersection
• Palomar Airport Road/El Camino Real intersection
• Palomar Airport Road between Melrose Drive 8s Paseo Valindo
In addition, widening westbound Palomar Airport Road by one lane through this
intersection may help to alleviate PM Peak Hour traffic prior to the completion of
the Faraday Avenue and Melrose Drive extensions.
The Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Widening project, which is already
under construction, is expected to alleviate the following intersections and road
segments:
• Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road intersection
• Rancho Santa Fe Road/San Elijo Road intersection
• Rancho Santa Fe Road between Melrose Drive 8s La Costa Meadows
33
The College Avenue and Cannon Road project, which is currently under
construction, is expected to alleviate traffic at the El Camino Real /Tamarack
intersection.
The intersections located on Carlsbad Boulevard are identified in the City's
Traffic Impact Fee Report as future hot spots due to its unique character. Hot
spots are locations that primarily serve regional traffic and are within limited
control of the City. Because it abuts the ocean, all major intersections on
Carlsbad Boulevard are "T" intersections that tend to have high turning
movement demands. Studies by both the City and SANDAG indicate that
Carlsbad Boulevard is used by regional traffic as an alternative to 1-5. The
Carlsbad Boulevard/Cannon Road intersection will continue to be monitored
with other major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard.
Although improved over last year, borderline level of service conditions exist at
the Interstate-5/Cannon Road northbound ramps in the PM peak hour when
Caltrans' ramp meters are in use and cars are queued waiting to access 1-5.
This intersection is identified in the current Traffic Impact Fee Report as a
future hot spot. The ramps will continue to be monitored.
ACTION PLAN
• On-going analyses of new developments
• Conduct annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Program
• Construct Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment & Widening
• Construct Melrose Drive/Faraday Avenue
• Staff will evaluate the feasibility of widening westbound Palomar Airport
Road at Melrose Drive
• Construct College Avenue/Cannon Road
34
11
z
dm
Finance Strategic Goal
Strategic Goal
Implement proactive strategies that provide and manage fiscal resources
effectively to ensure a high quality of life.
• Service Delivery
o Risk Management Losses will not exceed $9.17 per capita.
Results: $6.74
o Finance report will be distributed within 15 days after close of
month (30 days for June)
Results: 11 out of 12 months met
• Cost
o City Operating budget per capita
Results: $984
o Revenue per capita
Results: $992
• Customer Satisfaction
o There is no customer satisfaction measure associated with this
goal.
Service Delivery
Service Delivery Gap
Customer Satisfaction
Gap (No Measure)
35
Summary
The City is in relatively healthy financial condition. Revenue is strong when
compared to other North County jurisdictions, and through monthly and long
term monitoring of the City's financial condition, the city is able to be proactive
in managing the City's resources. Although the City expends a significant
amount of resources per capita, the correlating service areas demonstrate high
levels of service delivery and customer satisfaction.
Performance Measures and Growth Management Standards
FINANCE
Risk Management Losses
Finance Report Distribution
City Operating Cost Budget
General Fund Revenue
ACHIEVES
BENCHMARK
^
BENCHMARK
NOT
ACHIEVED
</
ADEQUATE
DATA NOT
AVAILABLE
^S
Management Goals
• Poinsettia Lane East Financing
• Storm Water Financing Program
• Water & Sewer Master Plan Update
• Internal Audit
• 10 Year Forecast
• Lighting/Landscaping District
• Fixed Assets And Infrastructure Maintenance Financing
• IOD Reduction
• Police Risk Reduction
• Water District/City Relationship
• Policy On Responsibilities For Sewer Laterals
Citywide Survey Highlights
There were no questions relative to the City's financial condition on this year's
survey.
Other Factors
Other factors that have an impact on the City's financial health are State budget
impacts. The most recent concern is the $30+ billion budget deficit at the state
level. This could result in the restructuring of the revenue formula for local
government and potentially poses a serious financial impact to the City.
m
m
P
tot
36
Administrative Services
RISK MANAGEMENT - NON-VEHICULAR LIABILITY LOSSES
THE OUTCOME
Minimization of liability losses.
THE MEASUREMENT
Non-vehicular liability 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 non-vehicular liability losses per capita are below the mean results for
10 cities of a comparable size as calculated from the FY 2001 ICMA data.
Liability losses are defined as miscellaneous claim expenditures, settlements,
investigation fees, attorney fees, court costs and insurance premiums.
RESULTS
CARLSBAD
BENCHMARK
1999
$5.74
-
2000
$2.94
$6.71
2001
$6.74
$9.17
ANALYSIS
Carlsbad's 2001 results are significantly higher than 2000, and unlike previous
years, do not reflect vehicular liability losses (these losses were taken out to
match the ICMA benchmark). While there was not a significant increase in the
number of claims received in 2001, the defense and settlement costs during this
period were considerably higher than in the previous year. These costs were
centered in a very small number of the total cases processed and do not
represent across-the-board increases due to any policy or operational changes
from the previous year. Carlsbad continues to compare well against other cities
of a comparable size.
ACTION PLAN
Risk Management will continue to use ICMA data for comparison purposes,
unless a better benchmark is identified.
37
Administrative Services
FINANCE REPORT DISTRIBUTION
THE OUTCOME
Timely dissemination of financial information for decision-making
THE MEASUREMENT
Measures how soon after the end of each month financial data is available to
the users of the data (in business days)
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Managers and the City Council depend on accurate, timely financial data in
order to evaluate the progress of City programs and the ability of the City to
continue to fund the programs. The older the financial information, the less
valuable it is. This data is compiled based upon the City's Fiscal Year.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Finance
BENCHMARK
The monthly financial status report is to be issued by the fifteenth business day
after the end of the month except for June, which is thirty business days. This
is due to the year-end close procedures, which hold the accounts payable
process open for most of the month of July in order to insure an accurate
balance for fiscal year end reporting.
RESULTS
1m
Financial Status Report
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
Date
-Business Days to Issue
Benchmark,
ANALYSIS
** The benchmark was met in every month except one during the year. The June
«r report, which was issued on the 31 st business day, was off by one day. This is
an improvement over last year when our benchmark was not met in four
months. This improvement is due to move visible tracking done by the
*» department in which we post, on a monthly basis, a chart showing how many
m, days it took to issue the report. This way everyone is aware of the deadline and
more likely to meet it.
mt
m ACTION PLAN
As we met our target 11 of the 12 months of the fiscal year, our action plan is to
continue to meet our target to ensure the timely issuance of the report.
39
Citywide
CITY OPERATING BUDGET
THE OUTCOME
Maintain a cost effective operating budget.
THE MEASUREMENT
General Fund operating expenditures per capita.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Due to the complexities of fund accounting and the tremendous variety in local
government services, this measure takes into account the costs accrued to the
General Fund. By analyzing the operating expenditures per capita, staff can
begin to develop an understanding of baseline costs for the services we provide.
When contrasted against the Overall Satisfaction Ratings and Citizen Confidence,
"value" can begin to be ascertained.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
All City departments expending General Fund monies.
BENCHMARK
The measure is the General Fund Operating Expenditures per capita and will be
evaluated against other San Diego County cities.
RESULTS
The per capita cost for the FY 2001/2002 General Fund Operating Budget is
$984.
ANALYSIS
In prior attempts to establish and evaluate this measure, Carlsbad looked at
other 'comparable" cities nationwide to compare against. Due to the significant
costs spent on labor, comparing different jurisdictions around the U.S. was not
very effective in providing useful information. This year, in an effort to get a
better comparison, staff benchmarked the cost of service to other San Diego
county jurisdictions. This comparison should provide more utility as the
regional costs are the same, and staff has some resident knowledge of the other
jurisdictions that are used in the comparison.
Per capita cost was derived from the general fund operating cost ($80,700,000)
divided by an approximate city population of 82,000.
40
•mi
m
m
ml
The following table reflects the estimated General Fund per capita expenditures
from other San Diego county cities for fiscal year 2001/2002.
JURISDICTION
Del Mar
Carlsbad
Coronado
San Marcos
Encinitas
Chula Vista
Solana Beach
San Diego
Poway
Oceanside
Escondido
National City
El Cajon
Lemon Grove
Vista
La Mesa
POPULATION
5,400
82,000
28,000
54,000
62,000
174,000
14,360
1,223,000
50,000
160,000
128,000
54,000
96,600
24,000
85,000
59,000
GENERAL FUND OPERATING
EXPENDITURES
$13,765,000
$80,700,000
$25,000,000
$35,790,000
40,675,000
$112,750,000
$9,240,000
$727,360,000
$26,438,000
$75,545,000
$56,704,000
$23,260,000
$41,127,000
$9,845,000
$32,424,000
$22,377,000
COST PER
CAPITA OF GF
$2,250
$984
$893
$663
$656
$648
$643
$595
$529
$472
$443
$431
$425
$410
$381
$379
When evaluated, Carlsbad has the highest cost per capita of the 14 cities
evaluated. As mentioned above, there are numerous factors to consider when
evaluating this measure, such as types and levels of services provided, financial
wherewithal, citizen expectations, etc. Based upon other information gathered,
the levels of General Fund expenditures are consistent with the level of General
Fund revenues generated per capita. The results of this measure are to be
taken into consideration with the Overall Citizen Satisfaction with City Services
and the Confidence in City Government. By analyzing these measures in
concert, the concept of "value" can begin to be determined.
ACTION PLAN
Continue to evaluate this measure by identifying areas where costs are not
equivalent to service levels provided.
41
Citywide
GENERAL FUND REVENUE
THE OUTCOME
Maintain a financially healthy General Fund revenue stream.
THE MEASUREMENT
General Fund revenue per capita
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Evaluating the level of General Fund revenue per capita and the sources of that
revenue provide vital information with regards to the stability and effectiveness
of the City's financial strategy.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Citywide
BENCHMARK
To be determined
RESULTS
Carlsbad's general fund revenue per capita is $992.
ANALYSIS
The revenue was broken down by category to provide a clearer understanding of
the primary revenue sources available to local government, and the effectiveness
of the City's financial strategy. This measure highlights two significant factors
of City revenue, generating capacity (the total amount of revenue derived from
the source) and balance between the different revenue sources. The chart
highlights four distinctive revenue sources (property tax, sales tax, transit
occupancy tax, and development revenue) and a general category identified as
"other" which includes revenues such as the Vehicle License Fee.
42
General Fund Revenue Per Capita
Property Tax
• Sales Tax
DTOT
• Development Rev.
D Other
The chart below compares the total General Fund revenue per capita generated by
North County cities. Carlsbad has a General Fund per capita revenue of $992.
This is significantly higher than the other North County Cities.
North County General Fund
Revenues Per Capita
Carlsbad
Encinitas
Escondido
Oceanside
Poway
San Marcos
Vista
$992
$635
$446
$474
$556
$572
$414
The City of Del Mar and Solana Beach were removed from the analysis due to
their relatively small population. As the chart shows, the order of magnitude of
general fund revenue generation per capita between Carlsbad and other North
County cities ranges from 156% (Encinitas) to 240% (Vista).
The other component of this measure is the evaluation of revenue generation by
specific sources. Local government has traditionally relied upon property tax,
sales tax, transit occupancy tax, and revenue from development to provide
revenues to the general fund. However, the volatility of several of the tax
43
sources, such as Transit Occupancy Tax and Development, has caused a
pendulum effect in local government finances. Through evaluation of the level
of revenue that is generated by source type, the City can better understand the
potential level of financial volatility in the General Fund revenues. By achieving
a balance in revenue streams, the local jurisdiction can stabilize the revenue
cycle.
Carlsbad has almost equal revenue generation from the Property Tax and Sales
Tax. Transit Occupancy Tax generates nearly 10% and Development Revenue
generates 5%. There is not a defined "formula" that the City has identified for
it's revenue streams, however, the identification of the sources of revenue and
their overall impact is critical for the effective development and implementation
of the City's economic strategy.
ACTION PLAN
Continue to evaluate the General Fund revenue sources, and identify
opportunities to increase revenue diversity and generation. Develop internal
benchmark level for revenue generation.
44
oo
sczIo
Communication Strategic Goal
Strategic Goal
Ensure that Citizens, Council, and Staff are well informed, leading to a more
responsive government and a higher level of confidence
• Service Delivery
o 90% of citywide survey respondents rate confidence in local
government 6 or greater.
Results: 62% responded 6 or greater
• Cost
o The cost to provide communications per capita.
Results: $10.80 per capita (based on a city population of 88,000). The
benchmark for this measure has not been set.
• Customer Satisfaction
o 90% of citywide survey respondents rate City's ability to communicate
6 or greater.
Results: 72% rated confidence in local government a 6 or greater.
Service Delivery
Customer
Satisfaction Gap
Customer
Satisfaction
Service Delivery
Gap
Cost
45 COPY
Summary
Although benchmarks were not achieved for 2 of the 3 Communication
measures this year, there was substantial improvement in both areas.
Confidence in local government increased 4 percentage points (72% from 68%)
and the citizens rated the City 7 percentage points higher on the ability to
inform them on issues that are important (62 % from 55%). These numbers
suggest that the city is moving in a positive direction with its communication
efforts.
When confidence in local government is looked at over the past 3 years, the
survey data shows an 11-point increase in the percentage of citizens that rate
their confidence in local government 6 or greater. Staff will continue to identify
the contributors to citizen confidence in local government.
Costs for city communications efforts over the past year were approximately
$10.80 per capita. This cost measure is a new addition this year, and staff does
not have an adequate comparison to determine the appropriate level of
expenditures for communication efforts and results. Staff will use this year's
results to assist in defining this benchmark over the coming year.
Performance Measures and Growth Management Standards
COMMUNICATION
Citywide Communications
Communication Cost
Confidence in City Government
ACHIEVES
BENCHMARK
BENCHMARK
NOT
ACHIEVED
^
S
ADEQUATE
DATA NOT
AVAILABLE
</
Management Goals
• Website Updates
• Police Communications
• Evaluation Feedback
• Police Directives Update
• Public Works Communication
• Volunteer Management
• Publish City Newsletter
• Performance Measurement - City Wide
• Enhance Program Briefings
• Joint Planning & Marketing For Comm. Services Programs & Classes
• Communicating "Smart Growth"
• Implement Communications Plan
46
Citywide Survey Highlights
There were a number of questions on this year's survey regarding
communication. Residents were asked to rate the job the city does in providing
residents with information about important issues. Respondents answered
using a zero-to-ten scale where zero means poor and ten means excellent. The
data shows that the average rating in 2002 (6.27) was significantly higher than
the average rating in 2001 (5.95).
Respondents were asked what resources they used to get information about the
City of Carlsbad.. The most common source of information about Carlsbad
reported was the Community Services and Recreation Guide. The use of the
Community Services and Recreation Guide increased from 2001 to 2002, as did
the number of people gaining information about the city from the city web page,
city desktop calendar, fliers, citizen forums and city council meetings.
Other Factors
None.
47
Citywide
CONFIDENCE IN CITY GOVERNMENT
THE OUTCOME
High level of citizen confidence in the City's ability to positively affect the
community.
THE MEASUREMENT
Survey results to the question in the citywide survey that asks "How confident
are you in the Carlsbad City Government to make decisions which positively
affect the lives of its community members?"
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Evaluating citizen's confidence in the local government in conjunction with
other service rating measures, the City can determine those actions, which have
a positive impact on the perception of the effectiveness of local government.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Citywide
BENCHMARK
90% of respondents rate confidence 6 or greater on a 0-10 scale.
RESULTS
Percent at 6+
Median Average
BENCHMARK
90%
-
2000
60%
6.04
2001
68%
6.52
2002
72%
6.61
ANALYSIS
This is the third year that the City has asked its residents how confident they
are in local government effectiveness. While the median confidence rate has
increased by more than one-half point, the percentage of the respondents who
have a positive confidence level in local government has increased over the past
two years by roughly 12.5 percentage points The increased confidence levels
represents a continued upward trend for this measure, and reflects multiple
survey improvements. While the 8 percentage point increase in confidence
between 2000 and 2001 showed the largest jump (this was thought to be
derived from a post 9/11 increase in the general support for government), the
48
2001 to 2002 cycle increase of nearly 4 percentage points, signifies that the
gains are due to more than patriotic sentiments.
However, knowing the level of confidence is different than understanding what
causes that level to increase or decrease. The city is still in the process of
determining what these factors are.
ACTION PLAN
Continue to evaluate what factors promote citizen confidence in local
government.
49
Citywide
CITYWIDE COMMUNICATIONS COST
THE OUTCOME
A well-informed citizenry with a high level of confidence in local government.
THE MEASUREMENT
Citywide communication costs per capita.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The dissemination of information to the public is a key function of local
government. A more informed public should result in greater understanding of
local issues and positively impact the public's confidence in local government.
This measure evaluates the cost per capita spent by the City for communication
purposes. The costs for this year represent rough approximations and will
continue to be defined and refined in the future. Costs include the appropriated
budget for the public information program as well as significant expenditures
from throughout the organization.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Citywide
BENCHMARK
To be determined
RESULTS
BENCHMARK
To be determined
2002
$10.80
ANALYSIS
This is the first year the City has evaluated the cost to provide information to
the citizens and customers of the City of Carlsbad. This measure will provide
the ability for staff to better evaluate the effectiveness of the City's
communications efforts. Over the past several years, the City of Carlsbad has
significantly expanded its communication methods, without the ability to clearly
analyze whether those efforts were successful in achieving the desired results.
This cost efficiency measure takes into account the money outlined in the
Public Information Budget as well as other city communication endeavors such
as Public Works brochures, the Community Services Guide, etc. (note: these
50
costs are approximate).
This past year saw a substantial increase in its communication costs due to the
development and implementation of several new or expanded communication
tools. These include the new Quarterly Update Video, the State of the City
video, the expanded Community Services brochure, hiring a new Video
Production Manager, expanded development of the City's website, the new City
Avenues informational packets, and the new "City Stuff packets developed for
third graders. Other costs include the ongoing production of the City Desktop
Calendar, informational pieces produced by Public Works, and flyers included
in City billing statements.
City costs for communication efforts this year were estimated to be $950,000,
and when divided against the City's current population of 88,000, the per capita
cost is $10.80. In order to best evaluate the effectiveness of the expenditure of
communication monies, responses to the communications question in the
Citywide survey needs to be taken into consideration.
It is anticipated that costs for communications will continue to rise as the City
completes the development of a comprehensive communications system, which
includes the ongoing development of the City's television programming.
ACTION PLAN
Staff will continue to evaluate cost effectiveness of various communication tools
and adjust accordingly. Suitable benchmarks for costs will be identified and
utilized to ensure that cost expenditures are appropriate for the level of
information return. Costs associated with communications efforts will continue
to be refined.
51
Citywide
CITYWIDE COMMUNICATIONS
THE OUTCOME
A well-informed citizenry with a high level of confidence in local government.
THE MEASUREMENT
Survey results to the question in the citywide survey that asks, "Using a scale of
0 to 10, where 0 means poor and 10 means excellent, how would you rate the
job the city does in providing you with information about issues that are
important to you?"
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The dissemination of information to the public is a key function of local
government. A more informed public should result in greater understanding of
local issues and positively impact the public's confidence in local government.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Citywide
BENCHMARK
90% of respondents rate 6 or greater on a scale of 0-10.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK
90%
2OO1
55%
2OO2
62%
ANALYSIS
This is the second year that the City has asked its residents how well a job the
City does in providing them with information on issues that are important to
them. The results from this year's survey reflect a 7-point increase in the
positive responses (6 or higher) over the prior year. While this increase is a
positive sign that the City may be improving its ability to effectively
communicate with the citizenry, the data represents only two surveys, and does
not provide definitive results on any trends that may be forming.
The City Council has identified communication as one of their Strategic Goals,
and staff is in the process of developing a comprehensive communications
strategy that includes print, television, news, direct mail, Internet, and other
electronic forms of media. This past year the City has expanded the Community
52
Services Guide to include general news about the City of Carlsbad, continued
the development of the website, transitioned the Community Quadrant Meetings
to a more informative video magazine format, sent newsletters on specific
capital projects to residents, and established a Communications Team to
further evaluate and implement City communication initiatives.
In the Citywide survey, citizens reported using several different city
communication tools for information. The chart below highlights the most
frequently reported communication methods selected in the 2002 survey, as
well as its ranking (if any) for the survey conducted in 2001. A factor of note is
that all methods surveyed increased this past year, which would suggest that
the city's communications program is achieving positive results.
Information Method
Community Services Guide
Billing Statement Flyers
Calling City
City Web Page
City Calendar
City Council Meetings
Citizen Forums
2001
55%
33%
41%
33%
22%
18%
7%
2002
64%
44%
43%
37%
32%
23%
11%
ACTION PLAN
Over the past year, the City has worked on developing a comprehensive
communications effort, which includes the approval to hire a Communications
Director, Video Production Manager, and the establishment of a City
Communications Team, to assist in this effort. Next year, the Communications
Team will continue to develop and implement various communication tools,
such as New Resident Information Packets, and expanding the electronic
newsletter format. The Team will also continue to identify, monitor, and
evaluate those communication methods that result in the improved ability to
inform citizens and customers.
53
I
pI
54
Parks/ Open Space/Trails Strategic Goal
Strategic Goal
Acquire, develop and maintain a broad range of fiscally responsible recreation
and open space facilities that actively address citizen needs and are consistent
with the General Plan and Growth Management Standards.
• Service Delivery
o 100% of safety work orders are addressed within 24 hours of being
identified/ reported.
Results: 100%
o 90% of safety work orders are resolved within 72 hours of being
identified/reported.
Results: 31%
o 90% of all survey respondents rate Carlsbad Sportsmanship, program
enrichment, and customer satisfaction as good or excellent.
Results: 74% (adult league) and 41% (youth league)
• Cost
o The annual park maintenance cost per acre will not exceed $9,096.
Results: $9,064
• Customer Satisfaction
o 90% of the survey respondents indicate the overall quality of service by
Recreation staff at good or excellent in all survey categories.
Results: 97%
o 90% of customers rate park maintenance as good or excellent.
Results: 91%
55
Service Delivery
Customer
Satisfaction
Service Delivery
Gap
Cost
(flflL
IUO
Summary
Parks and Recreation personnel are achieving their benchmarks for customer
service. Both departments continue to strive cooperatively to provide top
quality service to their customers. Care and maintenance of the parks,
restrooms, and facilities are rated high.
Carlsbad is a leader in addressing the nationwide growing concern of good
sportsmanship in recreation. The recreation staff is excited about this measure
as it addresses one of the target issues of the Recreation Department - "Safe
places to gather."
Annual park maintenance costs are within the benchmark. Carlsbad is ranked
fourth out of seven cities compared. A cost measure for recreation will be
developed in the upcoming year.
Although there are no measures at this time reflecting the efforts of the trails
program, the City dedicated over four miles of trails this year in Carrillo Ranch.
Measures for the trails program will be developed in the upcoming year.
The City is presently in a park acreage shortfall in the northeast (8.9 acres),
southwest (6.9 acres), and southeast quadrants of the city (24 acres). In order to
comply with the Growth Management Ordinance, the CIP budget for park
development was accelerated. Alga Norte, Carrillo, Pine School, Aviara, and
Larwin parks are all in the process of planning or development. Due to these
efforts, it is fully expected that the City will no longer be in a park acreage
deficit within the five years from the time a deficit is identified allowed by the
Growth Management Ordinance.
56
Performance Measures and Growth Management Standards
PARKS, OPEN SPACE, &
TRAILS
Park Safety
Teamwork/ sportsmanship
Park Maintenance Cost
Efficiency
Recreation Customer Service
Parks Customer Service
Parks Growth Management
Standard
Open Space Growth
Management Standard
ACHIEVES
BENCHMARK
/
-/
S
s
•/
BENCHMARK
NOT
ACHIEVED
^</
ADEQUATE
DATA NOT
AVAILABLE
Management Goals
• Coastal Rail Trail
• Aviara Community Park
• Alga Norte Community Park
• Prop 12 Park Funds
• Pine School Park
• Larwin Community Park
• Citywide Trails Program
• Comprehensive Open Space Management
• Carrillo Ranch Phase II
Citywide Survey Highlights
Overall, recreation programming was given good or excellent ratings by 89% of
respondents. This is consistent with prior years' results.
Other Factors
Several activities and management goals are focused on park development. In
the NE Quadrant, a portion of Larwin Park (22.2 ac) has been developed.
Complete development of this parcel is anticipated by June 2003. Purchase of
additional acreage in the NE Quadrant for active recreation purposes is being
pursued. Aviara Park (24.25 ac) in the SW Quadrant is scheduled to begin
construction in Spring 2003. Phase II of Carrillo Ranch (26.9 ac) will be
completed in the SE Quadrant in Spring 2003. In the SE Quadrant, Alga Norte
Park is in the Master Plan process. In the NW Quadrant, the demolition of Pine
School is complete and the Master Plan is scheduled for Council action. In
2002, the City annexed Carrillo Ranch trails into the City-wide Trail System
adding 4.5 miles to the public trails.
57
Public Works
PARK SAFETY mm
THE OUTCOME
Minimization of risk of injury in City parks
THE MEASUREMENT
Time to address and 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
General Services / 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 assigned a course of action and any immediate safety
hazard resolved.
• 90% of safety work orders are resolved within 72 hours after being
addressed
RESULTS
m
Addressed
Resolved
Benchmark
100%
90%
2000
100%
•
2001
100%
-
2002
100%
31%
ANALYSIS
In FY 2001-02, Parks Division staff received 32 safety work orders. After the
initial request was received, 100% of the 32 work orders were inspected and
assigned a course of action, and any immediate safety hazard was resolved
within 24 hours. Of the 32 safety work orders, only 31% were completed within
72 hours. There are two reasons for the low percentage of completed work
orders:
58
Many of the work orders require acquisition of materials and/or parts.
Currently, parts are either delivered from a manufacturer, or staff has to
acquire the products at a private warehouse. The delivery time for materials
(i.e. playground equipment, drinking fountain, etc.) from a manufacturer can
take longer than 72 hours.
The scope of the work may require more than 72 hours to complete. With the
current level of staff allocated for completing park maintenance work orders,
some projects take longer to finish. Specifically, projects that require removing
and replacing concrete to eliminate trip hazards take longer than 72 hours to
complete.
ACTION PLAN
A more thorough evaluation of service standards and workload needs to be
completed to evaluate resource allocation. This evaluation will include
reviewing current procedures for assigning work and analyzing ways to provide
service more efficiently. This evaluation will take place as part of the Public
Works five-year service plan project that is currently underway. During this
process, the major activities performed by Parks will be reviewed and analyzed
to ensure work is performed in a cost effective and efficient manner. Staff will
review the feasibility of executing an "on-call" maintenance contract that can
assist staff in completing safety work orders within 72 hours.
An evaluation of the stocking levels at the Parks yard needs to be addressed to
determine the most efficient method(s) to procure and store materials and
products. Public Works will evaluate the feasibility of implementing a
warehousing function that will serve the needs of the entire organization.
59
Community Services
RECREATION PROGRAM SPORTSMANSHIP
THE OUTCOME »
Achieve a high level of customer satisfaction, program enrichment and safety
through sportsmanship and our TRUST program. The TRUST Program focuses *
on Teaching Respect, Unity and Sportsmanship through Teamwork. *"
Sportsmanship is defined as respect, unity, safety, enrichment, encouragement
and teamwork.
THE MEASUREMENT m
This measure uses a multi-method approach combining:
• Survey results
• Participant complaints n*
• Incident reports m
The Recreation Department has surveyed participants and parents on their *
perception of sportsmanship in our programs. The survey results rate their •»
responses to their past perception of sportsmanship, their agreement with the
implementation of the Sportsmanship philosophy, and experiences they have
had involving sportsmanship in our current programs. **
We have collected data on the number of ejections, suspensions and F
"technicals" administered during our sports leagues.
PWHAT THE DATA MEANS m
The survey results measure the sense of sportsmanship our
participants/parents experience and observe in our programs. *
m
The number of ejections, suspensions and "technicals" measure the actual
number of customers who are directly affected by their own unsportsmanlike **
conduct. m
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED *
Recreation **
BENCHMARK ^
Since this measure is unique to the City of Carlsbad's Recreation Department,
the benchmark for sportsmanship will be developed through our own surveys »
and calculations of our current and future programs. We have set an initial „
benchmark of 90% of all surveys received will rate Carlsbad Sportsmanship,
60
program enrichment and customer satisfaction as "very good" or better (4 or 5
on a 1-5 scale).
RESULTS
2000 figures are statistics taken prior to the implementation of the TRUST
program. 2001 reflects statistics after introducing the program to league
officials, team managers, volunteer coaches, and/or City Staff. 2002 results are
after training, implementing and enforcing the program to league officials, team
managers volunteer coaches, and/or City Staff.
Results of the survey asking, "What are your observations regarding the level of
sportsmanship in our leagues?"
CARLSBAD ADULT SPORTS LEAGUES
Softball and Basketball
BENCHMARK
90% rating very good or better
# Technicals/ ejections/ suspensions
2000
(PRE)
55%
46/37/37
2001
(INTRO)
67%
25/27/15
2002
(POST)
74%
17/14/6
CARLSBAD YOUTH SPORTS LEAGUES
Basketball
BENCHMARK
90% rating very good or better
# Technicals/ ejections/ suspensions
2000
(PRE)
11%
43/7/0
2001
(INTRO)
22%
35/4/0
2002
(POST)
41%
26/3/0
ANALYSIS
Adult Sports Program: The implementation of our TRUST program into the adult
sports softball and basketball leagues had a positive influence. In the two years
since implementing the program, we have seen a significant decrease in the
number of technicals, ejections and suspensions within the programs and the
team manager's perception of sportsmanship has risen. We attribute this to the
efforts made by the adult sports office staff to educate, enforce and re-educate
our sportsmanship philosophy to all of our adult softball, basketball and soccer
league managers, officials and City staff. The overall response and feedback
from our league managers has been supportive of continuing this program.
Youth Sports Program: The youth sports office introduced our TRUST program
during the 2001 season of youth basketball. The initial introduction was done
at the volunteer coach's level in addition to City staff. The program was met
61
with resistance initially as the returning volunteer coaches were questioning our
new policy and the new supervisor in charge of the program. The youth sports
program also deals with three different populations that influence the level of
sportsmanship within the program (coaches, parents and youth participants).
During the 2002 season, staff only selected coach's who were interested in
supporting and teaching our philosophy. We also initiated a coach's clinic to
educate and train the volunteer coaches regarding the TRUST program.
ACTION PLAN
Adult Sports Program: The Adult Sports Staff will continue in its effort to further
educate and enforce the TRUST program to the league managers, officials and
City Staff. However, in 2003, we will introduce the program to the league
participants during the spring seasons and re-educate, train and enforce the
program to the participants in our fall basketball and Softball programs. This
endeavor involves over 4,000 program participants. Additionally, we will be
introducing the program to our newly formed Soccer leagues (managers, officials
and City Staff) and enhance this sport with our TRUST program.
We will also introduce, educate and enforce sportsmanship at our community
centers during the "open play" sessions and investigate the possibility of
introducing this program to our sport enrichment programs in order to teach
the entire adult sport community the TRUST philosophy.
Youth Sports Program: The Youth Sports staff will continue to educate, train
and enforce the TRUST program to City Staff and volunteer coaches through
clinics and training opportunities. In 2003, we will introduce the program to
the participant's parents as part of our ongoing effort to raise the level of
sportsmanship in this youth program. The parents are an important support
system of the program and gaining their confidence and support will be key in
reaching our sportsmanship level goal.
We will also introduce and educate sportsmanship at some of our youth camps
during our 2003 summer session in addition to investigating the possibility of
implementing the program into our contracted youth summer sports camps and
programs.
Current and future goals of this program include:
• Implementation of a "code of ethics" during other youth programs (i.e.
middle school dances).
62
• Investigating the possibility of introducing and encouraging this program
to outside user groups who reserve and hold programs on City fields or in
City facilities.
• Continuing to use the National Alliance for Youth Sports program to
further educate the youth participants in our youth sports programs.
63
Public Works
PARK MAINTENANCE COST
THE OUTCOME
Park cost efficiency
THE MEASUREMENT
Maintenance cost per acre (annual actual expenditures/total acres of developed
parkland). This measurement excludes costs for capital expenditures.
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.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
General Services / Park Maintenance
BENCHMARK
Carlsbad annual park maintenance cost per acre will not exceed $9,096. This
benchmark is calculated by taking the base year's benchmark and adjusting it
by the San Diego Consumer Price Index each year (5.73% in 2001 and 2.95% in
2002).
RESULTS
te
P
CARLSBAD
2000
2001
2002
BENCHMARK
$8,152
$8,835
$9,096
EXPENDITURES
$2,331,335
$2,526,875
$2,674,000
TOTAL ACRES
286
286
295*
COST/ACRE
$8,152
$8,835 **
$9,064
* Includes an additional 9 acres of landscape maintenance at the Farmers
Insurance Property
**Benchmark adjusted by 2.69% due to market salary adjustments in addition
to CPI adjustment
ANALYSIS
Maintenance costs per acre have increased 11% since 2000 due to a
combination of hiring additional staff, salary increases and a cost increase for
64
outside contracting services, however, we are still within our benchmark
standard set in fiscal year 2000 (adjusted for inflation).
As part of our benchmarking efforts, a template was developed and distributed
to a number of agencies to collect data. The agencies that responded are listed
in the table below.
The data includes personnel (salaries and benefits for managers, field crews and
clerical support), supplies (including contract services), and water. It also
includes 39 acres of school district owned athletic fields that are maintained by
the City. Excluded are expenses for capital outlay equipment purchases and
capital improvement projects, as well as open space and trails.
Agency
Mission Viejo
San Diego Co City*
Sunnyvale
Carlsbad
Chula Vista
El Cajon
Escondido
Expenses
$4,595,764
$1,319,800
$6,197,599
$2,674,000
$3,270,643
$1,626,580
$3,564,000
Total Acres
822
226
700
295
340
100
216
Cost/Acre
$5,591
$5,840
$8,854
$9,064
$9,625
$16,266
$16,500
*City did not wish to be identified
Although Carlsbad is in the median in terms of cost per acre, we are one of the
lowest when compared to agencies with less than 350 total acres. Because
Mission Viejo and Sunnyvale have more than twice the total acres of Carlsbad,
it is possible that they achieve economies of scale, resulting in lower costs per
acre.
ACTION PLAN
Over the past year the Public Works MSA has devoted a considerable amount of
time to developing partnerships with other cities to obtain comparable
benchmark data. This initiative has proven to be more difficult than initially
anticipated. Even within the reporting agencies, the data has been difficult to
collect in a format where comparisons can be made in a useful manner. Over
the next year, we will work with our partner cities to understand why there is
such a large range in the maintenance costs per acre. We anticipate that these
discussions will give us the opportunity to learn from each other and ultimately
provide us with some new tools to perform our work more efficiently.
The current benchmark is based on internal historical data. Public Works has
decided to research and possibly develop a new benchmark based on accepted
industry standards.
65
The MSA is currently in the process of preparing a five-year service plan. i*
During this process, the major activities performed by Parks will be reviewed
and analyzed to ensure work is performed in a cost effective and efficient _
manner.
m
The Department is also in the process of developing a standard of care program m
for parks maintenance that will define maintenance targets for park activity and
a measurement scale to evaluate the level being attained. The results of the if
program will also be incorporated into the next State of Effectiveness Report. **
m
m
66 m
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 are an indication that we are providing services in a
manner that is desired.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Recreation and Parks
BENCHMARK
90% of customers rate all Recreation programs as good or excellent (4 or 5 on a
1-5 scale).
RESULTS
The surveys collected (342) were tabulated to determine customer satisfaction.
The survey results are on the following page.
67
RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Staff Courtesy
Staff Knowledge
Quality of Telephone Contact
Classes/Activities Offered
Fees - Competitive
Registration Procedures
Overall Rating - Recreation Programs
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
PARKS/ FACILITIES
Facility Safety
Facility Appearance
Condition of Sports Fields
Condition of Tennis /Basketball Courts
Condition of Tot Lots/ Playgrounds
Condition of Picnic Areas
Condition of Landscaping/ Fields
Condition of Park Restrooms
Overall Rating - Public Works
% Respondents at
Good or Excellent
2001
98
94
91
93
92
89
97
93
90
91
91
89
86
82
77
93
2002
98
96
94
95
93
90
97
95
88
91
93
87
90
88
80
92
This year's survey was modified from the 2001 survey. The overall ratings for
Recreation programming and Park and Facilities Maintenance were delineated
in order to give a clearer definition between the programming and the facilities
maintenance components. The survey also separated inquiries about tennis and
basketball courts from the sports fields in an effort to provide a more accurate
reflection of needs in these areas.
ANALYSIS
The results reveal that the departments' customer satisfaction levels are
consistent with the City's established benchmarks.
As a result of the 2001 survey the Recreation Department targeted improving
registration procedures and the Parks Division addressed improving tot lots,
picnic areas, fields, restrooms, and general landscaping. While the overall
ratings for programs and facilities exceed the benchmark, the data indicate
specific areas within both the Recreation and the Public Works Departments
that can be targeted for improvement.
Some parks facilities indicators did not meet the benchmark. Tot lots customer
satisfaction declined (down from 89% to 87%), as did facility appearance (90%
68
to 88%), but other areas improved despite not meeting the 90% benchmark:
landscaping/fields (82% to 88%) and parks restrooms (77% to 80%). Some
areas met or exceeded the benchmark. The condition of picnic areas increased
(86% to 90%). The condition of tennis and basketball courts exceeded the
benchmark (93%).
ACTION PLAN
The Recreation Department began investigating the feasibility of on-line
registration for recreation programs and facility rentals. Staff is currently
conducting a survey to collect data on the number of current users who would
utilize on-line registration as part of a feasibility study. Recreation staff is
working with our IT Department to select an online registration service that will
integrate with our current activity-registration and facility-reservation software
programs.
The Parks Division will be installing new tot lots at selected parks this fiscal
year. Staff will develop and implement a Standard of Care program for parks
and facilities that will define the elements and provide an evaluation program,
which will monitor and ultimately measure the quality of the required care for
parks and facilities. Currently, staff has identified specific maintenance quality
criteria for the division. The Standard will define the characteristics of top
quality maintenance for parks and facilities and a measurement scale to
evaluate the level being attained. The results of the program will be incorporated
into 2004 State of Effectiveness Report.
The Recreation Department and Public Works are both concerned about the
appearance of our facilities. The two departments will explore ways to work
together and improve the appearance of our facilities, including creating facility-
based teams to explore operational issues.
69
Public Works
PARKS CUSTOMER SERVICE AND SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME m
A high level of customer satisfaction.
Ml
THE MEASUREMENT -
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS *
Highly satisfied customers are an indication that we are providing services in a
manner that is desired and/or expected, contributing greater confidence in the
parks division and local government in general, resulting in high quality of life **
for community members m
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED "*
General Services / Parks Maintenance «*»
BENCHMARK
90% of customers rate park maintenance as good or excellent. *
m
RESULTS
P
*^/\J /\J | ^/\J /U I ^ JL /U
ANALYSIS
The benchmark for this measure has been achieved for the past three years.
The results are showing a slight drop in percentage points from 2001 to 2002,
however this does not appear to be significant. We will continue to review and
monitor the results for future trends.
ACTION PLAN
Continue to include park maintenance questions in the citywide public opinion
survey and coordinate with SBRI on developing a more focused user-based
survey that will enhance the department's ability to provide top quality parks.
BENCHMARK
90%
2000
90%
2O01
95%
2002
91%
70
Community Services
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - PARKS
THE OUTCOME
To provide adequate parkland that will support the recreational needs of those
that live, work and play in Carlsbad.
THE MEASURE
The Carlsbad Park Standard identified in the Parks and Recreation Element of
the City's General Plan is as follows:
• Special Use Areas: 0.5 acres/1,000 population
• Community Parks: 2.5 acres/1,000 population
3.0 acres/1,000 population. Collectible standard
Per Quimby Ordinance & Growth Management
Standard
• Special Resource Areas: 2.5 acres /I,000 population
• Overall Park Standard: 5.5 acres/1,000 population
*Provisions for recreation facilities in the industrial zone are based upon, and
provide by the collection of $ .40/square foot of industrial development. There
is no standard of acreage exclusively for the industrial based population.
WHAT THE MEASURE MEANS
According to the "Citywide Facilities and Improvement Management Plan", the
growth management standard for parks that must be provided concurrent with
growth is 3-acres/1,000 population.
Carlsbad's is standard for park adequacy is based upon the collective amount of
Special Use Areas and Community Parks within each of the four quadrants of
the City. The collective acreage within each quadrant is then compared to the
population of each quadrant to ensure adequacy.
A standard of 3 acres per 1,000 population is an accepted level of park space to
meet active or passive recreational needs. In addition, a standard of 3 acres per
1,000 population insures a fiscally responsible maintenance and operation
program that is allocated on an annual basis and required to sustain a safe and
aesthetically pleasing recreation facility.
71
The overall park standard of 5.5 acres/1,000 population has been in existence
since 1982. The standard includes Special Use Areas, Community Parks and
Special Resource Areas. For the most part, the majority of those collective acres
within Carlsbad belong to the Special Resource Area classification. They are
typically sites that are over 100 acres in size and are of a unique character such
as lagoons and beaches. These amenities are typically outside the operational
jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad and require little if no operating expense.
For the purposes of the Growth Management Monitoring Report, the cirywide
population figures are derived from information provided by the California
Department of Finance. The per quadrant population figures are determined by
the number of dwelling units in each quadrant, multiplied by a density figure of
2.3178 persons per dwelling unit.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Community Services Recreation Department, Park Planning Division
BENCHMARK
The park adequacy standard means 3 acres of Special Use Area and/or
Community Park, either active or passive per 1,000 population. The measured
park acreage needs to be existing and open to the public. If it is not existing, it
must be developed within a five year period or prior to construction of 1,562
dwelling units within the park district beginning at the time the need is first
identified in accordance with the Growth Management Ordinance.
RESULTS
The current population in each quadrant, compared to the existing and planned
park acreage in each quadrant determines park adequacy. That level of
adequacy is 3 acres of parkland for each 1,000 population. The required park
acres to population ratio is in a shortfall situation at this time in three of the
four city quadrants. In accordance with the Growth Management Ordinance,
acquisition, planning, and development efforts are taking place to ensure
compliance with the Ordinance. The Parks Performance Standard of the Growth
Management Plan is in compliance with the Growth Management Ordinance.
ANALYSIS
For park planning purposes, the population figures that the department
currently uses is based upon the Finance Department's "Growth Projection"
chart. This population figure includes units built through January 1, 2002.
The equation to determine population is based on the number of units built,
multiplied by 2.3178 people per unit.
72
The matrix presented below illustrates the status of the Park Performance
Standard in each of the City's four park districts. Park acreage amounts are
based upon Community Park (Com.) and Special Use Areas (SUA) collective
acreage totals.
QUADRANT
NW
NE
SW
SE
CURRENT
POPULATION
26,638
11,192
20,409
29,761
REQUIRED
ACRES
COM & SUA
79.9 AC.
33.5 AC
61.2 AC
89.2 AC
EXISTING
ACRES COM
fit SUA
79.9
20
47
46.3
CURRENT
SURPLUS/
DEFICIT
OAC
-13.5 AC
-14.2 AC
-42.9 AC
The City is currently in a shortfall situation in the Northeast (-13.Sac),
Southwest (-14.2ac) and Southeast quadrant (-42.9 ac.).
ACTION PLAN
Northeast Quadrant To meet the current park shortfall of 13.5 acres in the NE
Quadrant, the entire Larwin Park (22.2ac) will be developed shortly and the
quadrant will then be in compliance with the Growth Management Ordinance.
The Dog Park at the upper level of Larwin Park was completed in September of
2001. It is anticipated that the lower portion of the park site will be developed
by the 1st quarter of 2004. Another source of park acreage within the NE
Quadrant will be the acquisition of an additional 10-15 acres. Although
acquisition of that site is currently being pursued, at this time, its development
and subsequent acreage amount is not required to meet the Park Performance
Standard for the Quadrant.
Southwest Quadrant Although there is currently a shortfall situation of 14.2
ac. in the Southwest Quadrant, within the last year the Master Plan for Aviara
Community Park has been approved, construction documents prepared and the
project is currently out to bid. Development of the site should be complete by
the 1st quarter 2004. This will assure continued compliance with the Growth
Management Ordinance by the addition of 24.25 acres of developed parkland.
Southeast Quadrant The current park acreage shortfall in the quadrant is 42.9
ac., which will shortly be offset by the development of Phase II of the Carrillo
Ranch. With development currently well underway, the 26.9 ac. park is
anticipated to be open to the public in the 2nd quarter of 2003. In addition to
the completion of Carrillo Ranch Park, staff is currently processing the park
Master Plan for the 33-acre Alga Norte site. It is anticipated to be completed by
the second quarter of 2005. This will assure continued compliance with the
Growth Management Ordinance.
73
Community Development
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - OPEN SPACE
THE OUTCOME
A comprehensive, connected open space system that protects and conserves the
City's natural resources.
THE MEASUREMENT
The amount of land set aside for permanent open space. At build-out of the
City, there will be approximately 40% of the land area in the City set-aside for
permanent open space.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
At the time of preparation of the Growth Management Plan, it was determined
that an additional amount of open space (15%) needed to be set-aside in all
areas of the City. This open space dedication is in addition to the
environmentally constrained land that cannot be otherwise.
The measure has been implemented in many parts of the City. Local Facility
Management Plans have also been adopted to designate which additional land
needs to be set aside.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Planning
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
Fifteen Percent (15%) of the total land area in each of the 25 Local Facilities
Management Zones must be set-aside for permanent open space and must be
available concurrent with development. This does not include environmentally
constrained, non-developable land.
RESULTS
At build-out of the City, as a result of this Growth Management Standard, there
will be approximately 40% of the land area in the City set-aside for permanent
open space. This is a product combining the 25% environmentally sensitivity
open space and the 15% additional requirement of this Growth Management
Standard
ANALYSIS
The performance standard is working as anticipated.
74
ACTION PLAN
Continue to determine the acreage and location of the 15% performance
measurement open space land at the time of preparation or amendment of Local
Facility Zone Management Plans. Require land to be set-aside at time of
individual project development. Over the next five years, it is anticipated that
substantial amounts of open space will be set aside in compliance with the
performance standard as a result of several major projects including Kelly
Ranch, Calavera Hills, Bressi Ranch and the Villages of La Costa.
75
p
HI
Pi
Ptt
76
mz
36o
sm
Environmental Management Strategic Goal
Strategic Goal
Promote a clean, pollution-free, resource-conscious environment focusing on:
storm water protection, sewage collection and treatment, solid waste, and
alternative energy.
Summary
Currently, environmental programs are focused in a few key areas that are
outlined in the goal above. Overall the state of the city's environmental related
infrastructure, as reported in the Growth Management standards, is good, with
plans in place or in progress to address potential future growth related
deficiencies.
The sewage collection and treatment measures are not currently achieving the
benchmarks. The Department is taking steps to improve the level of
performance.
The city has committed significant resources to comply with the Municipal
Storm Water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) order,
including developing and implementing an extensive outreach and education
program and implementation of a number of compliance and monitoring
programs. Staff is currently researching funding alternatives, and is working
with other jurisdiction to develop regional performance measures. Staff will be
incorporating the results of this work into the performance measurement
program for the City in the future.
In the area of solid waste, the City continues to perform well. Although we are
not able to report the 2001 diversion rate, we anticipate that we will meet the
benchmark for the third consecutive year. Both our residential and commercial
service rates continue to be among the lowest in the County. Customer
satisfaction ratings for trash and recycling collection continue to be the highest
rated contract service.
77
Performance Measures and Growth Management Standards
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Sewer line integrity -
Sewer cost efficiency
Solid waste diversion
Solid waste cost efficiency
Solid waste customer service and
satisfaction
Sewer collection system growth
management standard
Waste water treatment facilities
growth management standard
Drainage growth management
standard
ACHIEVES
BENCHMARK
S
S
^
S
BENCHMARK
NOT
ACHIEVED
S
S
S
.
ADEQUATE
DATA NOT p
AVAILABLE *>
m
tat,
^
Mi
IMK
MI
**%•
9»
Management Goals
• Storm Water/Municipal Facilities
• Storm Drain Master Plan Update
• Solid Waste Administration
• South Agua Hedionda Pump Station
• North Agua Hedionda Sewer
• Storm Water Implementation Planning, Development, Construction
• Community Forest/Hosp Grove
• Storm Water Protection Program - Outreach, Education and Public
Participation
• Storm Water Protection Program - Performance Measurement
• Sewer Capital Projects
Citywide Survey Highlights
The Citywide survey included a number of questions in this subject area. Of
the residents surveyed, 91% rated sewer service as either good or excellent. This
rating is consistent with the results received in last year's survey. This year's
survey queried residents on their recycling behaviors, specifically they were
asked to estimate the percentage of waste items that their household disposes
of via recycling. Carlsbad residents reported recycling 66% of recyclable
materials. Environmental related contracted services (trash/recycling collection,
street sweeping, hazardous waste disposal) also received good or excellent
ratings by the majority of residents, although not as often as services provided
directly by the city.
f
kb
IP
Mi
pp
*
P
k
78
Other Factors
The city continues to address many environmental issues that are not directly
tied to a performance measure including eradication of the caulerpa taxifolia in
the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, establishing a sustainable sand replenishment
program, negotiating an agreement on the city's Habitat Management Plan,
completing, the Vista/Carlsbad sewer/storm drain replacement project,
continued replacement of incandescent lamps with energy efficient LED lamps
for traffic and pedestrian signals, and reducing electric usage in city facilities.
The City is also considering the feasibility of alternative fuel vehicles. Three
electric GEM vehicles were donated to the City by Daimler-Chrysler and will be
in operation in February. Staff is also working with the State to obtain electric
Toyota RAV4 vehicles.
M
m
m
m
79
p
tft
80
Sewer Summary
• Service Delivery
o Annual volume of reported sewage spills will not exceed 29.5
gallons per mile of sewer main
Results: 43.4
• Cost
o Annual cost of service per million gallons of sewage will not exceed
$2,112
Results: $2,208
• Customer Satisfaction
o 90% of survey respondents rate sewer services as good or excellent.
Results: 91%
Service Delivery Servce Delivery Gap
Customer Satisfaction Level
Cost Gap
IUO
Summary
The benchmark for sewage spills was not met, however, 6,000 gallons of the
total 9,200 gallons spilled was from one single incident. Staff has already
implemented mitigation efforts, such as monitoring and more frequent cleaning
to reduce impacts in the future. Since the outcome of this measure is the
impact to the environment, staff will review the benefit of also measuring the
amount of spills that are "recaptured" and returned to the sewer collection
system.
81
Cost of operating the system exceeded the benchmark. Operating and
maintenance costs, including costs of service charged to the City by the Encina
Waste Water Treatment Facility for treatment of Carlsbad sewage flows, have
increased slightly over the past several years. This is reflective of a system that
is continuing to increase in size as development continues. When benchmarked
against seven other agencies, only two had a lower cost per million-gallons
treated. This may indicate that the city is within acceptable industry standards.
91% of survey respondents rated sewer services in Carlsbad as good or
excellent. This is above the desired benchmark of 90%.
Collectively, the sewer collection system performance measures indicate that the
system is operating cost effectively, however the cost is higher than anticipated.
The integrity of the system is below the benchmark standard. Staff will
continue to research and evaluate operating and maintenance practices to
ensure the most cost-effective and efficient methods to collect and treat
Carlsbad sewage flows.
82
Public Works
SEWER LINE INTEGRITY
THE OUTCOME
Sewer system reliability.
THE MEASUREMENT
Volume of reportable sewage spills (i.e., spills >^ 100 gallons per incident as
mandated by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board) per mile of
sewer mains. This measure was changed from feet of mains to miles of mains
to obtain a calculation that is closer to a whole number versus a fraction that
results in a more effective measure benchmark when compared with other
agencies. For the purposes of this report, a "spill" is defined as any untreated
sewage flow that escapes from the sewer collection system and has the potential
for entering the city's surface water and/or storm drain system.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measures the integrity of the sewer system.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/Engineering
BENCHMARK
Annual volume of reported sewage spills not to exceed 29.5 gallons per mile of
sewer mains per year. This benchmark was established on information reported
in the 1999-00 baseline.
RESULTS
FISCAL
YEAR
Benchmark
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
TOTAL
GALLONS
SPILLED
4,280
16,992!
9,200
TOTAL MILES
OF MAINS
212
212
212
GALLONS PER
MILE
29.5
20.1
80.2
43.4
1 Includes approximately 10,000 gallons that was inadvertently spilled due
primarily to a contractor error during construction work at the Fox Pump
Station. Does not include 2,100,000 gallons of reclaimed water that was
spilled (and reported) from a water line break at Enema Creek.
83
ANALYSIS
The number of gallons spilled per mile of sewer main was 43.4. This was
significantly higher than the established benchmark of 29.5. Of the 9,200
gallons spilled, 6,000 gallons is from a single incident occurring on El Carnino
Real near the mall. This is a major sewer line leading to the Vista/Carlsbad
Interceptor Sewer. Staff responded promptly, but due to the high level of flow
through this line, most of the spill had already occurred. Although the exact
cause of the blockage is not known, mitigation efforts, such as monitoring and
more frequent cleaning have already been instituted. Compared -to the
benchmark agencies, Carlsbad rated the highest in gallons per mile.
Agency
Carlsbad
Ramona
San Diego Co City*
Chula Vista
Vallecitos
El Cajon
Total Gallons
Spilled
9,200
1,700
1,918
3,350
3,180
155
Total Miles of
Mains
212
90
172
400
200
189
Gallons Spilled
Per Mile
43.4
18.9
11.2
8.4
1.6
0.8
• City did not wish to be identified
ACTION PLAN
• Staff will continue to investigate and implement mitigation efforts and
enhancements to the Sewer Response Plan to reduce the gallons spilled.
• Work with other agencies to better define sewage spill reporting practices
and procedures in order to obtain more comparable data. Since the outcome
of this measure is impact to the environment, staff will review the benefit of
also measuring/comparing with other agencies the amount of spills that are
"recaptured" and returned to the sewer collection system.
• Staff will review and refine this benchmark with partner agencies.
84
m
m
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 by the Encina
Wastewater Authority (Encina WWA).
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measures the fiscally responsible and appropriate use of ratepayer dollars. The
total cost of services includes payments to Encina WWA in addition to
maintenance and operation costs in the city's sewer enterprise fund. This can
then be compared to other agencies, which are also responsible for collection,
treatment and discharge of sewage.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/Construction Maintenance
BENCHMARK
Annual cost of service per million gallons of sewage will not exceed $2,112. This
benchmark was established based on information reported in the 1998-99
baseline year and has been adjusted each year by the San Diego Consumer
Price Index (5.73% in 2001 and 2.95% in 2002).
RESULTS
FISCAL YEAR
1999
2000
2001
2002
BENCHMARK
$1,852
$1,940
$2,051
$2,112
EXPENSES
$4,042,365
$4,667,311
$4,930,388
$5,030,578
ANNUAL
FLOW (MG)
2,183
2,314
2,373
2,278
$/MG
$1,852
$2,017
$2,078
$2,208
Note: Actual expenditure data for the prior three fiscal years (98-99, 99-00
00-01) has been adjusted to add back negative expenditures related to debt
service charges.
85
ANALYSIS
Fiscal year 2001-02 cost of service of $2,208 per million gallons (mg) exceeds
the benchmark of $2,112/mg. The cost per mg in 2000-01 was $2,078. This
year's measure was slightly higher per mg due to a slight increase in the annual
cost of service charged by the Encina Wastewater Treatment Facility for
treatment of Carlsbad flows, along with a slight decrease in the amount of flow
that was assessed by Encina. The amount of flow assessed can vary based on
weather and other conditions - last year was a drier that normal year which
resulted in less rain seepage into the sewer system, thus, less sewer flow.
Encina's costs for FY 2002 increased due to increases in total operating
expenses over the previous year of $132,667; the majority of those increases are
$88,696 in the Source Control Program and $20,067 for operation of Agua
Hedionda Pump Station. Since the baseline year (1998-99), sewage flows have
remained relatively flat while expenditures have increased slightly. This has
resulted in an ongoing increase to the cost per mg. However, Carlsbad's FY
2001-02 cost per mg ranked as one of the lowest among agencies surveyed.
This may indicate that Carlsbad's current operational practices meet or exceed
the industry standard.
Agency
Sunnyvale
Chula Vista
Carlsbad
Vallecitos WD
El Cajon
San Diego Co City*
Valley Center
Ramona MWD
20O1-02
Expenses
$11,470,000
$12,763,419
$5,030,578
$7,194,021
$10,987,257
$5,245,150
$475,625
$2,306,673
Total Annual
Flow (MG)
6,200
6,083
2,278
2,130
3,250
1,379
97
456
Cost Per MG
$1,850
$2,098
$2,208
$3,377
$3,381
$3,805
$4,903
$5,058
* City did not wish to be identified
ACTION PLAN
This is the first year that staff has reported comparable data from outside
agencies. The results appear to indicate that Carlsbad is operating in an
effective manner as compared to other agencies.
Over the past year the Public Works MSA has devoted a considerable amount of
time to developing partnerships with other cities and agencies to obtain
comparable benchmark data. This initiative has proven to be more difficult
than initially anticipated. Even within the reporting agencies, the data has been
difficult to collect in a format where comparisons can be made in a useful
manner. Over the next year, we will work with our partner agencies to
86
understand why there is such a large range in the cost of service.
<m
M The current benchmark is based on internal historical data. Public Works will
research and possibly develop a new benchmark based on accepted industry
'" standards.
87
88
Solid Waste Summary
• Service Delivery
o Achieve 50% or more diversion annually to meet compliance with
AB939
Results: 50%
• Cost
o Carlsbad service rates for commercial and residential customers
will rank in the lowest one-third when compared to other cities in
San Diego County
Results: Solid waste consumer billing rates, for commercial and
residential customers, are the lowest in San Diego County
• Customer Satisfaction
o 90% of customers rate Solid Waste Services as good or excellent
Results: 79.5%
Customer
Satisfaction Gap
Customer
Satisfaction
Service Delivery
Cost
1110too
89
Summary
Diversion rates for 2001 continue to meet the benchmark.
Residential and commercial billing rates are currently the lowest in the County,
suggesting that services could be enhanced while still achieving the benchmark.
These service improvements could include enhanced household hazardous
waste collection programs, used oil recycling programs, and recyclable materials
collection programs.
Although customer satisfaction remained high when compared to other
contracted services surveyed, solid waste collection customer satisfaction levels
are below the benchmark for the third consecutive year. The slight decline in
satisfaction over the past three years has been determined to be statistically
significant. Staff will monitor ongoing solid waste efforts to allow for improved
customer satisfaction levels in the future.
Collectively, the solid waste performance measures indicate that the program is
operating effectively. However, staff believes there is room for improvement
within the program. Efforts will be taken to evaluate the efficacy of all programs
and identify opportunities for continued improvement.
90
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
Public Works Administration
BENCHMARK
Achieve 50% or more diversion annually to meet compliance with AB 939.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK
>50%
1996
48%
1997
50%
1998
44%
1999
50%*
2GOO
59%*
2OO1
50%
* Adjusted from previous reports
ANALYSIS
Last year it was reported that the sharp decline in the diversion rate after 1997
was because bio-solids or "sludge"* was deemed an excluded waste and
removed from Carlsbad's diversion and generation base year tonnages. In
1999, the City of San Diego successfully appealed to the California Integrated
Waste Management Board (CIWMB) to add previously disallowed bio-solids back
into base year generation numbers. As a result of these occurrences, Carlsbad
revisited the bio-solids issue and submitted a petition to the CIWMB to add bio-
solids back into the diversion calculation and base year generation tonnage. At
the same time the City appealed to the Board to substitute Carlsbad-specific
employment data for the traditionally used countywide data in calculating the
2000 diversion rates. Both petitions were recently approved by CIWMB and the
diversion rates have been modified accordingly for 1999 and 2000.
91
a
The sharp increase in the diversion rate in 2000 is due to the method in which
the CIWMB calculates the rate. The diversion calculation includes an estimate
for total solid waste generation each year (trash + recycling + green waste). This
estimate includes an Adjustment Method Formula, which allows for population
and economic growth to be considered, so jurisdictions will not automatically
fail to meet diversion requirements as they develop. The calculation for 2000,
which included Carlsbad-specific employment data, resulted in a. 25% higher
estimate for total solid waste generation than 1999. However, our actual
tonnage sent to the landfill only went up by about three percent (3%), resulting
in an eight percent (8%) increase in our overall diversion rate.
The City recently received information from the CIWMB that jurisdictions will
have until January 31, 2003 to submit their 2001 AB939 Annual Reports. The
CIWMB delayed the AB939 reporting for 2001 from their usual summer
schedule. Typically, the diversion rates are calculated using estimated sales tax
figures for the fourth quarter. However, due to the unique economic
circumstances experienced after September 11, 2001, the Board decided to use
actual sales figures for the year. The State Board of Equalization released its
complete taxable sales data for 2001 in late December. Complete review and
acceptance of the reports by the CIMWB is not expected until March 2003 at the
earliest.
* Bio-solid: (a.k.a. -"sludge") is the residual byproduct of wastewater treatment
plants, such as the Enicina plant located in the City of Carlsbad.
ACTION PLAN
It is anticipated that the Board will be more stringent with their inspections and
evaluations of local agency programs in future years. In 2003, staff will develop
a comprehensive plan to increase the City's AB939 diversion rate. This will
include identifying and recommending opportunities to increase diversion
through a variety of enhancements to programs such as recycling, household
hazardous waste collection, green waste collection and used oil recycling.
92
. 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
Public Works Administration
BENCHMARK
Carlsbad contracted solid waste service rates for commercial and residential
customers will rank in the lowest one-third when compared to other cities in
San Diego County.
RESULTS
SOLID WASTE RATES SURVEY FROM PRIOR YEARS
Year
2002
2001
2000
Residential
Rating
1
3
2
Commercial
Rating
1
1
3
ANALYSIS
Carlsbad's solid waste services rates have not been increased since June 1996
and are the lowest in the County. Residential rate increases in other
jurisdictions moved Carlsbad from third lowest to lowest in 2002. Commercial
rates in Carlsbad continue to be the lowest in the County. Jurisdictions with
higher rates may provide a different range of services, such as automated trash
and recycling collection and door-to-door household hazardous waste and
bulky-item collection.
93
SOLID WASTE RATES SURVEY OF SAN DIEGO REGION 20O2
City
Carlsbad
Coronado
Del Mar
El Cajon
Encinitas
Escondido
La Mesa
Lemon Grove
Oceanside
Poway
San Marcos
Solana Beach
Vista
Franchise/
Other City Fees
9.5%
7.0%
5.0%
7.0%
5.0%
10% + 2 l(t
4% + 59$
9% + I?*
5% + $3.43
5% + 83<t
8.0%
5.0%
5% + 7<t
Residential
Rate
$14.52
$14.68
$14.95
$15.04
$15.30
$15.11
$15.99
$15.95
$20.61
$15.78
$15.61
$15.49
$16.36
Adjusted
Rate
$13.14
$13.65
$14.20
$14.54
$14.54
$13.38
$14.76
$13.45
$16,14
$14.16
$14.36
$14.72
$15.47
Rank
1
4
6
8
9
2
11
3
13
5
7
10
12
Franchise/
Other City Fees
9.5%
7.0%
5.0%
7.0%
5.0%
10.0%
4% +$2.02
9% + 89$
5% + $3.43
5.0%
8.0%
5.0%
5% + $0.63
Commercial
Rate
$74.92
$84.04
$80.50
$75.25
$76.87
$76.08
$82.31
$83.93
$75.81
$76.83
$83.22
$73.72
$87.25
Adjusted
Rate
$67.80
$78.15
$76.47
$69.98
$73.03
$68.47
$76.99
$75.49
$79.13
$72.99
$76.56
$70.03
$82.26
Rank
1
11
8
3
6
2
10
7
12
5
9
4
13
P
M
P
fe
P
m
P
P
Hi
NOTES: Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, National City and Santee are not
included due to differences in their fee structure. San Diego is not included
because service is not provided by contract.
ACTION PLAN
Waste Management has approached the City with a proposal to conduct a pilot
automated solid waste and recycling collection program in the City of Carlsbad.
Staff is interested in automated collection as a potential means of increasing the
City's solid waste diversion rate. The automated container design allows it to be
picked up by trucks with hydraulic lifts, eliminating the need for the driver to
get out of the truck to manually pick up the can. Automated collection would
replace our current collection methods (33 gallon cans for trash and green
waste and two 12.5 gallon crates for recycling) with 64 or 96 gallon roll-out
containers for all three waste streams. Currently, residents can only put
newspaper, cans, glass and limited types of plastics in their recycling crates.
The automated program would allow for commingling recycling, adding mixed
paper and all major types of plastic. Automated collection would increase
residential recycling capacity from an average 25 gallons to 64 or 96 gallons. It
is expected that this increase in recycling capacity will have a great impact on
the volume of material diverted from landfills. It is unknown at this time if such
a change to Waste Management operations would affect residential rates. Staff
will conduct a cost-benefit analysis of converting to an automated collection
system and will develop a recommendation considering the best interest of the
residents. Staff will conduct a comprehensive survey to determine what
services are provided in each city at the published rates. This survey will give a
more accurate picture of the real costs to residents for each service provided.
The information will allow Council and staff to determine if the current level of
service is in line with community interests.
to
P
Pi
p
to
94
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.
a*t»
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Public Works Administration
•wt
BENCHMARK
90% of customers rate Solid Waste Services as good or excellent.*w
RESULTS
YEAR
Benchmark
2000
2001
2002
GOOD OR
EXCELLENT
>90%
83%
82%
80%
ANALYSIS
The results indicate a small but steady decrease in customer satisfaction over
the past three years. As for the decline in rating over time, the changes in
ratings between 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 were not statistically significant.
However, when we compare the 2000 proportion to 2002 (83.3% to 79.5%), the
difference is statistically significant (3.8%), at a 95% confidence level.
' '
While the difference in these rates is statistically significant, it is still very small.
Notably, solid waste services continued to rank the highest among all contract
services surveyed. The types of complaints received are usually for missed pick
up of regular refuse, recycling or yard waste. When this occurs, staff contacts
Waste Management and arranges for collection, usually the same day.
95
ACTION PLAN
The slight decrease in customer satisfaction suggests that staff should
investigate possibilities for improving solid waste services. The survey results
also show that 65.5% of Carlsbad residents rate hazardous waste disposal as
good to excellent. Although this represents a majority of residents, these
numbers also reflect a need for staff to look for improvement in household
hazardous waste (HHW) collection services.
Staff is currently working to develop standard operating procedures and
guidelines to manage all solid waste services including trash collection,
recycling, HHW, used oil recycling and education and outreach. These efforts
will help to streamline operations and reporting requirements for better
management of solid waste programs.
Staff is also working with Waste Management to investigate the potential of fully
automated trash, recycling and green waste collection. Should efforts move
forward, a pilot program including a representative sample of Carlsbad single-
family homes will be conducted to evaluate an automated program.
Additionally, staff is working with Waste Management to investigate using their
Oceanside recycling facility as a Household Hazardous Waste drop-off center for
Carlsbad residents. This would provide a closer location than the Vista and
Poway collection centers currently contracted through the Regional Solid Waste
Association (RSWA). However, we would continue to allow residents to access
all locations, as the costs are covered by a regional HHW grant and AB 939 fees
collected from residents. Lastly, staff is working with RSWA to evaluate
additional approaches to enhance household hazardous waste services.
96
Public Works
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
THE OUTCOME
Adequate sewer capacity for City residents and businesses.
THE MEASUREMENT
Trunk line capacity will have sufficient conveyance capacity to handle tributary
wastewater flows under peak flow conditions.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The actual sewage flow in each sewer basin is not greater than the sewer trunk
capacity.
The Sewer Master Plan updated in 1997 is used to identify the facilities
necessary for development occurring within the City's Sewer Service Area.
These new facilities are funded with development fees and sewer connection
fees. New developments in the City are conditioned to either start their
construction after required facilities are operational, or construct the facilities
concurrently with their projects.
The Leucadia County Water District (LCWD) serves the La Costa area in the
southeast part of the City. The City coordinates development with LCWD and
conditions projects to ensure facilities are in place prior to the completion of the
development.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Engineering, Maintenance & Operations
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
Sewer trunk main capacities are estimated by comparing wastewater flow
projections to the capacity of the sewer system. The maximum depth of flow in
a sewer trunk main should not exceed 75% of the pipe diameter. Flow
projections are based on 220 gallons per day per equivalent dwelling unit and
1,150 gallons per day per 10,000 square feet of non-residential buildings.
Using a sewer model, the existing and future sewer demands are estimated and
compared to the capacity. In addition, annual flow measurement information is
also used to determine actual flows in the sewer trunk mains.
97
RESULTS
Sewer Trunk/ Interceptor
Vista/ Carlsbad
North Agua Hedionda
South Agua Hedionda
Buena
Vallecitos
North Batiquitos
Ponto
Status of available capacity
Some reaches approaching 100% capacity
Some reaches at 50% capacity
Future pipeline - not in service
Some reaches approaching 100% capacity
Some reaches may be approaching
capacity.
50%
Adequate capacity
Adequate capacity
ANALYSIS
A draft Sewer Master Plan is complete and identified virtually no change in the
City's build out sewer flows. The sewer connection fee will be updated based on
the same flow with a lower number of equivalent dwelling units projected at
build out compared to the previous master plan.
Ongoing analysis of the Vista/Carlsbad, North Agua Hedionda, Buena and
Vallecitos Interceptors will continue. Analysis will help determine how much
capacity is available in each interceptor and will refine future demand
requirements. Currently, the North Agua Hedionda Interceptor has excess
capacity and is conveying a portion of the South Agua Hedionda basin flow.
This basin will be monitored to ensure adequate capacity is maintained and to
determine when and if capacity will be depleted. Some reaches of the Buena
Interceptor may be reaching capacities that exceed agreements with the City of
Vista. These agreements have been revised and are awaiting approval by both
Cities.
Sewer benefit fees for the South Agua Hedionda sewer basin have been revised
to accommodate the development in cost of the facilities and decrease in
development in that area. This is the only trunk main not currently in-service.
Only a small portion of the trunk main has been constructed.
ACTION PLAN
• Complete Sewer Master Plan update and sewer connection fees.
• Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor - Construction to replace pipelines at capacity
is almost complete. Other reaches of concern will be monitored.
98
• North Agua Hedionda Interceptor - Scheduled for continued field
monitoring to track existing flows.
• South Agua Hedionda Interceptor - Portions of the pipeline will continue
to be constructed concurrent with other road and development projects.
• Vallecitos Interceptor - Scheduled for continued field monitoring to track
existing flows.
99
Public Works
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
THE OUTCOME "
Adequate sewer treatment plant capacity for projected build-out of the City.
THE MEASUREMENT *
Total City sewage flow shall not exceed 9.24 MGD (Million Gallons per Day). B
Flows are currently measured by the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility
(EWPCF) and provided to Maintenance 85 Operations monthly.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The City is one of six member agencies that own and operate the EWPCF where
the City's wastewater is collected and treated. The EWPCF outfall pipeline *
limits the capacity of the treatment plant. The EWPCF capacity is 36 MGD and •*
the City owns rights to 9.24 MGD.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Engineering, Maintenance & Operations
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
When total average flows reach 75% of the City's capacity rights the need for „
additional capacity should be evaluated and the methods to obtain additional
capacity identified.
RESULTS
The City's average sewage flow to EWPCF is 6.28 MGD, or 68% of the City's 9.24
MGD capacity rights, which is slightly higher than last years average flow, but ""
almost identical to flows for 2000.
ANALYSIS *
A draft of the Sewer Master Plan is complete and indicates that City's projected »
build-out flow is approximately 9.87 MGD.
EWA is now working on the final phase expansion to complete the EWPCF to "*
build-out capacity. Construction of the expansion will occur in two phases. p
The City has requested capacity rights to 10.14 MGD during Phase II of the
expansion. This slightly higher request for capacity is approximately 3% higher
than the projected build-out flow. The request for capacity at the EWPCF is •»
based on previous sewer master plans that projected higher flows at build-out. »
The request was not adjusted since it is only considered slightly conservative
100
compared to the most current projection for build-out flow.
ACTION PLAN
• Monitor existing flows
• Complete the Sewer Master Plan
101
Public Works
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - DRAINAGE
THE OUTCOME
Adequate drainage facilities for protection against flooding and flood damage.
THE MEASUREMENT
Drainage facilities are adequate for the runoff as determined by the Master
Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan.
WHAT THE DATA MEAN
The Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan is used to
identify the facilities necessary for development in the City. These facilities
include both new and existing facilities that require improvements. The
facilities are funded with developer fees and planned local drainage area (PLDA)
fees. New development areas are conditioned to either start their construction
after required facilities are operational, or construct the facilities concurrently
with their projects.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Engineering, Maintenance 85 Operations
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
For areas one square mile in size and larger, all drainage facilities shall be sized
for the 100-year storm.
For areas less than one square mile in size the drainage facilities shall be sized
to accommodate the following:
YEAR FREQUENCY/'. •«*>,., - ^ tfa ,*, t-t& ,STORM - • *v***$c
100
50
10
*(Tv f+ft-f ff,ilr* ;t >**'- '7!tj& £',•*,? , "/» ,'«*6fc"*v r5>" ' *<„ rtH^' > ••$!<*,<% "REQUIREMENT;/*^-^'- **?/ -*-%£. &&•"•*:-• "«««^§t/,** -"f4$"^\'*?'t??V~ '.~% '•ttyfe >*',*& *• >•><<; ,**&}'.', % '"•
Runoff shall not damage adjacent existing or potential
building and structure sites.
Runoff shall not overflow outside of property lines on
private property or right-of-way in public streets
Minimum storm drain and inlet size
102
RESULTS
All areas of the City meet current Growth Management Standards with the
exception of the following:
New NPDES Permit requirements may require modifications to the City's
existing drainage systems and additional drainage facilities. An assessment of
these modifications and additions is on-going and includes such items as
dredging desiltation basins and the possible installation of new test stations.
The downtown area between the railroad tracks and Interstate-5 experiences
flooding during heavy rains.
The Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park is located where the Calavera Creek
flows into the Agua Hedionda Creek and has experienced flooding during heavy
rains.
ANALYSIS
The 1994 Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan
identifies facilities necessary for City build-out conditions. Fiscal analyses
indicate current Planned Local Drainage Area (PLDA) fees are adequate for the
facilities identified in the 1994 Master Plan. The Master Drainage Plan will be
updated due to several changes in the City's growth patterns due to the HMP
and the HCP that impact growth projections and densities in various areas of
the City. These changes not only impact expected run-off, but also expected
PLDA revenues.
In addition, the new NPDES Permit requirements need to be incorporated into
the Master Plan. Drainage facilities required to meet NPDES standards will also
require funding. A separate fee structure is being reviewed and considered for
NPDES requirements.
Analysis and design of facilities for the downtown area was completed and
storm drain system improvements are currently under construction with the
Vista/Carlsbad Sewer Interceptor project.
Analysis of the Calavera Creek Channel was completed by the Engineering
Department. Facilities to help control this flooding are identified in the
Drainage Master Plan and Storm Water Quality Management Plan as Detention
Basins BJ and BJB. Recommendations for additional facilities to reduce
flooding potential include: 1) dredging the creek to increase storm water runoff
capacity, 2) the construction of a channel in the College/Cannon Road area, 3)
the construction of two additional detention basins at the future Melrose Drive
extension at Palomar Airport Road, and at the future Faraday Avenue.
103
ACTION PLAN
• Construction of new storm drains in the downtown area is close to
completion as part of the Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor Sewer and Storm
Drain Project. Construction is scheduled to end in early 2003.
• Coordination with regulatory agencies is on-going to obtain permits
necessary to dredge the Calavera Creek Channel near the Rancho
Carlsbad Mobile Home Park.
• Construction of Basin BJB started with the College/Cannon road project.
• Construction of Basin BJ will begin with the construction of College
between El Camino Real and Cannon Road.
• Construction of the basin near Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road
will begin with the Melrose Drive Extension project. '
• Construction of the basin near Faraday Avenue will begin with the
Faraday Avenue Roadway project.
• An update the Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management
Plan is on-going and scheduled to be complete by the end of 2003. The
program EIR necessary for environmental approvals is expected to be
complete at the end of 2004.
104
Im;o
Water Strategic Goal Summary
Strategic Goal
Ensure reliable, high quality, diversified potable and recycled water system
leading to a drought-resistant community, in the most cost effective manner.
• Service Standard:
o 98% of bacteria samples free of coliform.
Results: 99.9%
o Annual number of hours per mile of distribution line a water main
is out of service will not exceed a total of 0.05 hours in a year.
Results: 0 hours out of service.
• Cost:
o Annual water loss not to exceed six percent.
Results: 4.24%
o The cost of service per acre-feet of water will not exceed $970
Results: $883
Customer Satisfaction: Although not a formal performance measure,
this information from the annual citywide survey is presented.
o 90% of survey respondents rate water service as either good or
excellent.
Results: 89%
Customer
Satisfaction Gap
Customer
Satisfaction Level
Service Delivery
Cost
1110coo
105
Summary
All the water performance measures met their benchmark. Water quality and
system reliability continued to achieve their benchmarks at approximately the
same level, with water loss percentage and the cost per acre-feet of water
showing slight improvements over last year's results. Of the three measures,
water delivery efficiency (water loss and cost per acre-feet) is the area where
improvements will most likely occur. In the coming year, staff will look at
refining how water loss should best be measured and improving the water cost
survey to focus on agencies that are 100% dependent on outside sources of
water and that have a similar customer base as Carlsbad.
Performance Measures and Growth Management Standards
WATER
Potable water quality
Water reliability
Water delivery efficiency
Water distribution system
Growth Management Standard
ACHIEVES
BENCHMARK
^S
S
-/
BELOW
BENCHMARK
ADEQUATE
DATA NOT
AVAILABLE
Management Goals
• Maerkle Reservoir
• Recycled Water Distribution System
• Recycled Water Capital Project
• Water Capital Project
• Desalination Project
Citywide Survey Highlights
Overall 89% of Carlsbad residents rated water service as either good or
excellent.
Other Factors
There have been several changes in the City's growth patterns due to the
Habitat Management Plan and the Habitat Conservation Plan that impact
growth projections and densities in various areas of the City. These changes
could impact water demands and water fee revenues. Water connection fees
will be amended upon completion of the Water Master Plan update. The recycle
water model has recently been updated, and the use of desalination is currently
under consideration. Recycled water used for irrigation and the potential for
desalination will offset the demands for potable water. These
issues/considerations will be incorporated into the update to the Water Master
Plan.
106
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 through 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 being 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
Fiscal Year
Benchmark
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
Number
Collected
-
1,428
1,615
1,725
1,719
Total
Positive
-
3
1
3
1
Total
Bacteria-Free
-
1,425
1,614
1,722
1,718
Percent
Bacteria-Free
98.0%
99.8%
99.9%
99.8%
99.9%
107
ANALYSIS
Data was gathered for fiscal year 2001-02. Of the 1,719 samples taken, one
sample tested positive for bacteria. When positive samples are identified, staff
takes repeat sample sets per Section 64424, Repeat Sampling of California Title
22 Regulations. 99.8% is above our standard for this measurement and meets
all State and Federal legal, health and safety requirements. Data collected from
outside agencies indicated that all maintain compliance with State and Federal
regulations. However, the more samples that are taken, the more likely that a
positive sample may be found. Of the agencies benchmarked, Carlsbad
collected the most samples. The number of samples to be collected is based on
the number of customers and/or connections being served. This level of testing
further assures a safe supply of potable water to our customers.
Agency
San Diego Co City*
Ramona MWD
Rincon MWD
Carlsbad MWD
Vallecitos CWD *
Sunnyvale
Valley Center MWD
Total
Collected
658
520
349
1,719
1,046
2404
318
Total Bacteria
Free
658
520
349
1,718
1,044
2399
316
% Bacteria
Free
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.9%
99.8%
99.8%
99.4%
* City did not wish to be identified
Hat
ACTION PLAN
Staff will continue weekly water sampling and testing to ensure a high level of ^
water quality.
108
Public Works
WATER RELIABILITY
THE OUTCOME
Water system reliability.
THE MEASUREMENT
Total hours per mile, of distribution line without service. This measure is
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 & Programs
BENCHMARK
Annual number of hours per mile of distribution line a water main is out of
service will not exceed a total of 0.05 hours in a year. This benchmark was
established on information reported in the 1998-99 baseline year.
RESULTS
Total Hours
Miles Dist. Lines
Hours /Mile Dist. Line
Benchmark
0.05
1999
18
350
0.05
2OOO
17
400
0.04
2OO1
0
410
0.00
2OO2
0
431
0.00
ANALYSIS
For the second reporting period in a row, there were zero hours where
customers were without water service. This was accomplished by maintenance
staff continuing their operations of turning water off on the city's side of the
property's water meter instead of the main and using water line "jumpers" to re-
route the flow of water around a main break or blockage. As a result, no
customers are affected by interrupted water service due to repairs.
Outside agencies that were contacted use similar practices in minimizing the
impact to customers when water transmitted in the mains is interrupted. The
109
one exception was Valley Center at 14.11 hours per distribution line. Valley
Center has a high percentage of agricultural water users. Because of the
physical nature of these customers' water connections, it is not always possible
to use "jumpers" or provide an alternative source of water during outages. This
results in some service interruption to the customer.
AGENCY
Carlsbad MWD
Ramona MWD
Rincon MWD
Vallecitos CWD
San Diego Co City*
Sunnyvale
Valley Center MWD
HOURS PER MILE
DIST. LINE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.68
0.51
14.11
* City did not wish to be identified
ACTION PLAN
As an ongoing goal to minimize and/or eliminate impacts to customers during
those times when the flow of water in a main was interrupted, staff will continue
to use current service mitigation procedures as described above.
Exchange methodologies and ideas with partner agencies for feedback and
evaluation to include standard of care review.
110
Public Works
WATER DELIVERY EFFICIENCY
THE OUTCOME
Water operations delivery efficiency.
THE MEASUREMENT
This measure uses a multi-method approach combining:
Water Loss: The percentage of water loss in the distribution system. Water loss
is defined as the amount of water produced (water purchased ± amount water
held in storage) minus water sold, and divided by water produced.
Cost of Service: The total cost of service using actual expenditures, including
water purchases from the Metropolitan Water District via the San Diego County
Authority, divided by the total acre-feet of potable water delivered (i.e., billed to
all customers) per year. Previously, recycled water costs were included in this
measure. However, to establish meaningful and comparable inter-agency
benchmarks, costs for recycled water service are now excluded because there is
no industry standard or consistent method by which recycled water is obtained,
delivered, and billed, to customers.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Water Loss: 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 the Water Operations
Enterprise Fund.
Cost of Service: The annual expenditures per acre-foot of water delivered
represents an efficient system when we are able to achieve the benchmark. The
aim is to satisfy customer demands with safe, reliable water with a prudent level
of expenditures.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations
111
BENCHMARK
Water Loss: Annual water loss not to exceed six percent as set by the 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.
Cost of Service: The cost of service per acre-feet of water delivered (i.e., billed to
CMWD customers) will not exceed $852. This benchmark was established at
1998-99 baseline level and has been adjusted by the San Diego Consumer Price
Index each year (5.73% in 2001 and 2.95% in 2002).
RESULTS
Water Loss
Fiscal Year
Benchmark
1999
2000
2001
2002
Water Loss
< 6.0O%
4.87%
5.36%
4.29%
4.24%
Cost of Sendee
Fiscal
Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
Delivered
(AC.-FT.)
16,615
18,850
18,137
19,812
Cost of
Service
$14,162,422
$16,523,449
$16,357,868
$17,484,947
Cost Per
AC-FT.
Delivered
$852
$877
$902
$883
Benchmark
$852
$892
$943
$970
ANALYSIS
Water Loss: This is an internal measure that is used to monitor our
performance over time and reflects that we are achieving our established
benchmark. The table on the next page summarizes data we collected from a
number of agencies regarding their water loss. Each agency contacted
measures their "unaccounted for" water by taking the amount of water they
produced minus their water sold, and divide by their water produced. All were
in the 6 to 15% tolerance range described above. Carlsbad's ranking indicates
that its water system is within, and consistent with, industry standards.
ffe
I
i
112
Agency
San Diego Co City*
Rincon MWD
Carlsbad MWD
Valley Center MWD
Sunnyvale
Ramona
Vallecitos MWD
Water Loss
2.10%
4.20%
4.24%
4.30%
5.00%
7.00%
7.00%
* City did not wish to be identified
Cost of Service: Cost of service is all annual expenditures for personnel,
services and supplies, and includes the cost for potable water purchased from
the Metropolitan Water District. Carlsbad's measure decreased from the
previous year by $19 per acre-foot. Of the comparable agencies from which
data was obtained, Carlsbad placed in the middle for cost per acre-foot
delivered. Valley Center ranked lower due to lower operating costs which is a
reflection of a higher number of large water users resulting in fewer
connections; e.g., agricultural accounts, etc. Valley Center has a smaller
infrastructure to maintain (water meters and appurtenances) with a comparable
amount of water delivered to its customers. Vallecitos, on the other hand, has a
customer base that is closer to that of Carlsbad's. Their results are $89 per ac-
ft. higher than Carlsbad's. This could be reflective of higher operating costs due
to staffing, services and supplies.
Agency
Sunnyvale
Valley Center MWD
San Diego Co City*
Rincon MWD
Carlsbad MWD
Vallecitos CWD
Ramona
Cost Per AC-FT.
Delivered
$414
$487
$638
$765
$883
$972
$1,259
* City did not wish to be identified
ACTION PLAN
• Water Loss: Staff will research alternative methods by which "unaccounted
for" water may be calculated/measured. To date, there is not an accepted
industry standard for collecting data for this measure.
• Cost of Service: Continue to identify and establish operational relationships
with other comparable agencies, focusing on those agencies who are 100%
113
dependent on outside sources of water and who have a similar customer
base as that of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. Also, continue
operational practices within the Utility Operations and
Construction/Maintenance divisions to maintain the cost effectiveness of
water delivery.
Over the past year the Public Works MSA has devoted a considerable amount
of time to developing partnerships with other cities and agencies to obtain
comparable benchmark data. This initiative has proven to be more difficult
than initially anticipated. Even within the reporting agencies, the data has
been difficult to collect in a format where comparisons can be made in a
useful manner. In an effort to ensure more effective use of staff time and to
strive for more meaningful analysis, the department has decided to develop a
new benchmark that is based on accepted industry standards. The results
of this work will be incorporated into next years report.
114
Public Works
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
THE OUTCOME
Adequate fire flow and water supply for City residents and businesses.
THE MEASUREMENT
The Water and Reclaimed Water Master Plans updated in 1997 are used to
identify the facilities necessary for development within the Carlsbad Municipal
Water District. This computer model was calibrated using actual flow
measurements collected in the field to verify that it sufficiently represents the
actual water system. When new facilities are identified they are funded with
development fees and water connection fees. New developments in the City are
conditioned to either start their construction after required facilities are in
operation, or construct the facilities concurrently with their projects.
Water storage in the Carlsbad Municipal Water District is equal to or greater
than 10 average days. The Vallecitos Water District and the Olivenhain Water
District service the La Costa area. The City coordinates development with these
agencies and conditions projects to ensure facilities are in place prior to the
completion of the development.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Water capacity will meet demands as determined by the appropriate water
district and is provided concurrent with development.
A minimum 10 average day potable storage capacity is provided concurrent with
development in the Carlsbad Municipal Water District.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Engineering, Maintenance 85 Operations
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
Demand
Water service demand requirements are estimated using a computer model to
simulate the two water distribution.scenarios: 1) maximum day demand plus a
fire event, 2) peak hour demand, as well as, other possible scenarios.
115
10 Average Day Storage
6851.17 MG of water consumed in 2QQQ =18.77 MG/day average consumption
365 days
(18.77 MG/Day) * (10 Days) = 187.7 MG storage « 190 MG storage required
RESULTS
Based on model analysis future pipelines and other water system facilities have
been identified and are summarized in the Water Master Plan. As developments
are processed through the Development Services Division, the model is
periodically used to check pipeline sizes and facility capacities to make sure
they are adequate.
Adequate 10 average day storage capacity exists for the Carlsbad Municipal
Water District based in the capacity of existing reservoirs that provide
approximately 237 MG of storage.
ANALYSIS
The Water Master Plan identifies facilities necessary for City build-out
conditions and requires an update. There have been several changes in the
City's growth patterns due to the HMP and the HCP that impact growth
projections and densities in various areas of the City. These changes could
impact water demands and water fee revenues. Water connection fees will be
amended upon completion of the Water Master Plan update.
o
In addition, the recycle water model has recently been updated and the use of
seawater desalination is currently under consideration. These
issues/considerations will be incorporated into the update to the Water Master
Plan. Recycled water used for irrigation and the potential for seawater
desalination will offset the demands for potable water.
A minimum 10 average day storage capacity is not provided for the areas of the
City that are served by a water district other than CMWD. However, the
Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD) is constructing a new water
treatment plan at the San Diego County Water Authority Emergency Storage
Reservoir . Therefore, areas of Carlsbad served by OMWD will meet this
minimum storage capacity in the future.
Future 10 average day storage capacity at build-out will be met with the
implementation of the Phase II Recycle Water program.
116
ACTION PLAN
• Update of the Water Master Plan scheduled for 2001-02 FY.
• Incorporate recycle water model updated data into Water Master Plan.
117
p
ftk
118
m>JOz
0
Learning Strategic Goal
I
I
Strategic Goal
Promote and support continuous learning opportunities within the community
and the City organization.
• Service Delivery
o 90th percentile ranking among 29 city libraries in California in a
state survey.
Results: Second out of the 29 cities included in the 60,000 to
100,000 population category. This is in the 90th percentile ranking.
• Cost
o There is no cost efficiency measure associated with this strategic
goal. The library has tracked their cost per capita ranking. The
benchmark for this measure has not been set.
• Customer Satisfaction
o 90% of the survey respondents rate library customer service as
good or excellent.
Results: 95%
o Customer rate that needs are met at least 90% of the time.
Results: 85%
Service Delivery
Customer
Satisfaction Gap
Customer
Satisfaction
Cost
Cost Gap
IUQ
119
Summary
In determining the value of the Carlsbad City Library, this assessment process
is being used to measure or balance the library's cost in conjunction with the
service delivery standards and customer satisfaction of library services. The
Carlsbad City Library is unique in a number of ways among libraries in other
cities of similar size, which have resulted in greater costs per capita, such as
having two major, full service libraries. While this is one unique feature that is
a rarity in other cities, it works for Carlsbad's geography, access corridors, and
population distribution. An additional cost of service is that both facilities are
open 68 hours, seven days a week. Even though there is an added cost for
providing these extended hours of service, the library receives high customer
satisfaction ratings (over 95% good or excellent) that is a reflection of these
increased service standards. The library also provides a number of highly
specialized programs, resources, and services usually not found in other cities
this size.
The library's total budget is just over $8 million. Library services are labor-
intensive and the largest portion of this budget ($4.4 million or 57%) is for
personnel. The library has 115.75 total FTE staff, 46.25 fulltime and 69.5 part-
time. In benchmarking and measuring the library's budget, statewide
comparisons in this category show that Carlsbad is ranked 1st in the State in
expenditures per capita. The question is how to determine if the library is
making effective use of this level of funding. To balance the high level of
financial support, the library is also rated 1st in population served per capita,
3rd in circulation per capita and in reference questions answered per capita.
Performance Measures and Growth Standards
LEARNING
Library ranking
Library Satisfaction
Library QMS
ACHIEVES
BENCHMARK
S
•/
BENCHMARK
NOT
ACHIEVED
^
ADEQUATE
DATA NOT
AVAILABLE
Management Goals
• Employee Development - Planning
• Enhance Participant Education Program
• Leadership Forum
• 2003 Sculpture Garden
• Fundraising For Gallery
120
m
Citywide Survey Highlights
In the most recent citywide survey, 96% rated library services as good or
excellent, with 60% rating excellent. This is consistent with previous years.
The citywide survey did not include any specific queries about the City's
education policy, school district matters, or topics related to "learning."
Approximately 79% of survey respondents rated the cultural arts programs as
good or excellent. This is also consistent with previous results.
Other Factors
The City organization is constantly providing learning opportunities through
offering a wide variety of on-line and in-house training programs. Departments
offer trainings relevant to specific aspects of an employees duties (i.e. safe
lifting), in addition, City Wide trainings are provided which offer general training
in more global topics such as Customer Service.
Public Works is involved in a program of cross training employees within a
Major Service Area. This program offers a department an increased number of
employees who know a variety of jobs within the department thus providing
greater flexibility, and providing the employee an opportunity for further
professional development.
Within the community the City supports many opportunities for "Life Long
Learning". Last year, interested citizens volunteered to participate in the
Carlsbad Citizens' Academy. There were two sessions offered. Seventy-five
Carlsbad residents graduated from the program.
Recognizing that the only measures currently under the "learning" strategic goal
are library-related, next year's focus will include adding measures that reflect
the expansive learning activates occurring within the city and community.
121
Community Services
STATE LIBRARY RANKING
THE OUTCOME
The Carlsbad City Library provides high quality and cost effective library
service.
THE MEASUREMENT
The Library Development Services Bureau of the California State Library collects
statistical data annually from all California libraries. There are now 13 basic
per capita ratings based on this data that appear annually in CALIFORNIA
LIBRARY STATISTICS covering data from the previous fiscal year. The State
uses seven population categories for public library rankings.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measurements used in this rating system are basic to all public libraries and,
when related to per capita levels of activity, is a way to compare the Carlsbad
City Library to other top quality libraries in California. High index ratings are
an indicator of excellence and establish benchmarks for both internal and
external comparisons.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Library
BENCHMARK
The Carlsbad City Library will be ranked above the 90th percentile among
public libraries in the state in cities of 60,000 to 100,000 population. For 2002,
the 90th percentile equates to a ranking of fifth or better. This rating will be
determined by comparative per capita rankings based on public library
statistics published annually by the California State Library. In this study,
Carlsbad is one of 29 libraries in the 60,000 to 100,000 population category.
RESULTS
The benchmark was achieved by reaching an averaged ranking of third. This
was an improvement over Carlsbad's fourth place ranking last year.
ANALYSIS
Carlsbad was ranked against 29 other libraries in 13 measurement categories.
Compared to the previous year, Carlsbad improved its ranking in 8 of these
categories and maintained the same ranking in the other 5. The most
122
significant improvements were in various collection holdings, in circulation and
reference questions per capita, and in program attendance. One conclusion
from this is that expanded resources have resulted in higher levels of use.
The table below shows how Carlsbad ranks with the top five public libraries in
California in the key measurement categories:
Top Library Rankings
Librarian FTE
Total FTE
$ per Cap
Volumes
Microforms
AV materials
Videos
Periodicals
Circulation per Cap
Ref. Questions per Cap
Library Attendance
Program Attendance
Registered Borrowers
TOTAL
RANK
Santa
Monica
1
2
2
1
7
3
6
1
4
1
1
2
2
33
1
Carlsbad
4
1
1
4
1
2
1
3
3
3
5
3
4
35
2
Newport
Beach
3
5
5
2
2
4
2
4
1
2
3
8
5
46
3
Palo Alto
2
4
4
6
5
1
5
2
2
6
4
5
11
57
4
Mountain
View
6
6
6
5
N/A
6
11
6
6
7
8
7
3
77
5
Redwood
City
5
3
3
11
6
5
3
5
8
21
7
1
12
90
6
ACTION PLAN
Staff will continue to analyze collection use, patron suggestions, and phasing in
of new technologies to see if they lead to any improvements in the library's
performance. Staff will also analyze the value of tracking and measuring any
categories that are more connected to the population of the local jurisdiction,
which may not be a valid indicator of quality or performance. An example
would be total registered borrowers.
123
Community Services
SATISFACTION WITH LIBRARY RESOURCES
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction with library resources.
THE MEASUREMENT
Satisfaction with library resources is measured by fill rate, which is a measure
of whether patrons obtained the materials they came in for. Patrons are given
cards at the service desks and at public computer stations in each library.
These cards ask patrons to note before they leave if they got the information or
resources they needed. If the answer is "no," they are also asked to note what
they were looking for.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measuring the success rate of providing patrons what they need will help the
library make improvements in resources available for the public. Resources
may be print and non-print collections or computer databases and will help
determine the most effective ways to use available funds. Similar data was
collected as part of the library's 2001 Strategic Plan survey of over 1,300 library
users. The success rate for patrons getting what they came in for was 91%.
This rate will be used as a preliminary benchmark against the fill rate survey
card results. It should be noted, however, that the question asked in the
Strategic Plan survey, while worded the same as on the card, was one of a total
of 35 questions asked. It is likely that the responses of patrons filling out the
larger survey, where they were asked about their general perceptions of library
service, were somewhat more positive than those who responded to the card
and the single question focusing on their needs on that particular visit.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Library
BENCHMARK
90% of all library patrons indicate they got what they came in for and are
satisfied with the availability of needed library resources.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK
90%
2001
80%
2002
85%
124
The first fill rate cards were administered at Dove, Cole, and Centre October 15-
28, 2001. A total of 629 cards were returned, 500 indicating patrons got what
they came in for and 129 stating they did not. This resulted in an 80%
satisfaction rate, lower than the target benchmark of 90%. The most recent fill
rate survey was completed for the period October 28 - November 10, 2002 and
showed a significant improvement, with the overall satisfaction rate at 85%. On
the other hand, only 311 cards were returned, less than half the number
returned during the first survey.
ANALYSIS
Satisfaction rates at the three facilities showed that Cole and Dove libraries
were fairly similar, with 83% and 81% satisfaction rates respectively. The
Centre again recorded the highest satisfaction rating at 93% and had total
responses greater than Cole and nearly the same as Dove.
ACTION PLAN
After completing this survey in a consistent format for the past two years, the
library needs to evaluate the process, the content of the card, and the value of
continuing with this form of internal benchmarking. Only in the most recent
survey was there a marked increase in satisfaction rates. Determining the
reasons for this increase will be part of the post-survey analysis. If this
particular survey is continued, a decision will need to be made about whether
the original satisfaction benchmark of 90% is reasonable. Other ideas for
modifying the survey include some changes in format and possibly surveying
customers who phone in with questions. There have been some positive results,
most notably feedback from the public about specific titles and media formats
they would like and have not found. These requests have been passed on to
Collection Development staff for analysis.
125
Community Services
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - LIBRARIES
THE OUTCOME
Adequate facility space to house library services and resources that meet the
needs of the community.
THE MEASUREMENT
Square footage per capita.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Space (leased/owned, public/non-public) is a standard library measurement of
customer use and satisfaction and includes collection space, seating, meeting
rooms, staff areas, technology, and other public facility needs. A performance
standard for library facilities was adopted by the City Council in 1986 as part of
the Growth Management Program's Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan.
This standard was originally developed at that time based on surveys of other
libraries of comparable size and based on related standards (such as volumes
per capita) set by the American Library Association.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Library
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
The current standard is 0.8 square feet of library space per capita.
RESULTS
Based on the benchmark standard and assuming a 2002 estimated population
of 88,000, the library, with 92,859 square feet of leased and owned space, is
currently 22,459 square feet in excess of the standard.
ANALYSIS
The city's population would need to reach about 116,000 before it would trigger
the need for expanded library space. Growth to this population level is
projected to be at least 10 years away. Any additional space needed will likely
be included in a new or expanded Cole Library.
ACTION PLAN
Staff will continue to monitor population growth projections, trends in library
use, customer service issues, impacts of new technology, and how all of these
relate to space needed for resources and services.
126
58PI0 cii
53
Balanced Community Development Strategic Goal
Strategic Goal
Be a community that promotes community spirit, quality neighborhoods,
establishes compatible residential and commercial uses, including
entertainment venues, and manages growth by providing an appropriate
balance of facilities and services.
• Service Delivery
o Achieve a HUD rating of Standard Performer or higher 100% of
time.
Results: The City has not been notified of the City's ranking as of
December 17, 2002. The ranking from 2001 (exceeds) is not
expected to change.
o 90% of the Code Enforcement cases are resolved within expected
timeframes.
Results: Average of 77% of the cases were resolved within expected
timeframes.
• Cost
o There is no cost efficiency measure for this strategic goal.
• Customer Satisfaction
o 90% of customers rate Faraday Center front counter services as
very good (the highest rating) in all customer service survey
categories.
Results: 97% rate front counter service at the Faraday Center as
very good.
Customer
Satisfaction Gap
Cost Gap
127
Summary
This strategic goal has few measures with which to gauge its achievement.
There are limited service delivery and customer satisfaction measurements and
no cost efficiency measure. It is very difficult therefore to determine the
organization's true effectiveness in this regard. The citizen's survey asked how
well citizens felt that the City is doing at providing a balanced mix of land uses.
The average response was a 6.2 on a scale of 0-10. This is a generally positive
response, although the greatest concern respondents gave for their low
assessment was "setting limits on growth".
Performance Measures and Growth Management Standards
BALANCED COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Section 8 Housing
Code Enforcement
Effectiveness
Faraday Front Counter
Customer Satisfaction
ACHIEVES
BENCHMARK
•/
S
BENCHMARK
NOT
ACHIEVED
S
ADEQUATE
DATA NOT
AVAILABLE
Management Goals
• Carlsbad Police Training Range
• Affordable Housing Site
• SCCRA Land Use Strategy
• Facility Needs
• Resolution Of HMP/Golf Course Planning
• 50th Anniversary Celebration
• Village Redevelopment Area Strategy
• Retention Of For-Sale Affordable Housing
• Tourist Use Attraction Program
• North State Street Improvements
Citywide Survey Highlights
Residents' attitudes were assessed regarding land use and development in the
City of Carlsbad. They were asked to rate how well they thought the City of
Carlsbad was doing balancing various land uses in the city such as residential,
commercial, industrial, and recreational. Respondents answered on a scale of
zero to ten, where zero indicated very poor and ten indicated excellent. The
average rating was 6.2. Familiarity of residents with Carlsbad's growth
management plan was assessed. That is, on a zero-to-ten scale with higher
numbers indicating greater familiarity, respondents were asked how familiar
128
they were with Carlsbad's growth management plan. The average familiarity
score was 4.06, suggesting residents are not very familiar with the plan. General
Plan familiarity was given a rating of 3.6 on a 0-10 scale. When residents were
asked, "What is the best indicator that the City is doing a good job," one of the
most frequent answers given (10%) was "controlled growth/growth
management."
Other Factors
The Facility Needs goal team is embarking on a community building effort and
will bring a work plan forward as a part of that management goal.
129
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.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Housing and Redevelopment
BENCHMARK
Achieve a HUD rating of Standard Performer or higher 100% of time.
RESULTS
The program results have been submitted to the HUD Office for review and the
City has not been notified of the City's ranking as of December 17, 2002.
ANALYSIS
ACTION PLAN
The City is waiting for ranking from HUD as of December 17, 2002.
130
Community Development
FARADAY CENTER FRONT COUNTER SERVICE & SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
High level of customer service.
THE MEASUREMENT
Customer Comment Cards available at the Front Counter and Housing and
Redevelopment 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, Public Works Engineering, Finance, Housing and
Redevelopment, and Field Building Inspection.
BENCHMARK
90% of customers rate Faraday Center front counter services as "Very Good"
(the highest rating) in all customer service survey categories.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK
90%
20OO
93%
2001
96%
2002
97%
ANALYSIS
119 Comment Cards were filled out by customers rating staff 579 times in five
areas of service (efficiency, promptness, courteousness, knowledge, and
helpfulness). Every category rated in excess of 90%, and the overall rating was
97% very good service. The results are on the following page.
131
Purpose of Visit
1999 Las Palmas
2000 Faraday
2001 Faraday
2002 Faraday
Efficient
90%
90%
96%
97%
Courteous
95%
92%
98%
97%
Knowledgeable
87%
95%
94%
96%
Helpful
92%
94%
97%
98%
Satisfactory
Solution
88%
93%
94%
96%
Avg.
90%
93%
96%
97%
ACTION PLAN
Continue with the Customer Comment Card program at City's Faraday Front
Counter.
132
Community Development
CODE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIVENESS
THE OUTCOME
A high level of responsiveness by Code Enforcement
THE MEASUREMENT
This is a multi-modal approach combining:
• Time for case resolution
• Recidivism rate
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Time for case resolution: Responding to Code Enforcement is a fundamental
service provided by the City. Complainants want their call to Code Enforcement
to result in positive resolution of the case as soon as is reasonably possible.
Resolving cases in a timely manner preserves neighborhood integrity and builds
confidence in the value of local government. Code Enforcement has developed a
complaint resolution measurement system that will track the time increments
needed to resolve those complaints that have been found to be violations of the
municipal Code.
Recidivism rate: When open cases do not recur within a reasonable length of
time, this could be an indication that the Code Enforcement department has
created a level of understanding with the property owner about codes and
ordinances, their importance to the community well-being, and the quality of
life for everyone in the community. A re-check of all open cases against the
history for the prior three years will determine the recidivism rate for all code
enforcement matters.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Code Enforcement, Building
BENCHMARK
The varying case types handled by Code Enforcement have differing degrees of
importance relative to the amount of time to needed to resolve those cases.
There are twenty (20) different categories into which complaints are filed and
tracked. Each type of case has a varying time increment at which 90% of the
cases are resolved.
133
The 10 most common complaint categories' standard for compliance and case
closure are:
Type of Call
Engineering/ ROW
Signs
Expired Bldg Permit
Zoning
Vehicle Abatement
Vehicle Zoning
Building
Garbage 85 Junk
Business License
Number
of Calls
111
114
178
179
60
117
461
89
95
Cases
Opened
71
132
53
97
38
84
208
104
161
Standard for 90%
Compliance
30 Days
30 Days
60 Days
60 Days
60 Days
60 Days
90 Days
30 Days
60 Days
% Resolved
within Standard
87%
79%
79%
78%
76%
75%
73%
73%
72%
The expected recidivism rate (same violation at same address within 3 years) is
unknown and this will become the baseline rate for future comparisons.
Recidivism rate for FY-2002 (dating back three years) at same address is:
Total Number
of Cases
1,828
Number of Repeat Cases
on Same Property
162
% of Reopened
Cases
8.86%
ANALYSIS
There are no case-types where 90 % of the cases were cleared within the
standard for compliance. The closure rates ranged from 87% to 72%.
Engineering ROW complaints may be resolved by summary removal of the item
in the right of way leading to quicker and more efficient compliance. Conversely,
when voluntary compliance is the preferred method (i.e. private property owners
cleaning up garbage and junk), the time increment for case closure is below the
standard.
ACTION PLAN
Code enforcement staff will meet routinely this coming year to begin to diagnose
the means by which certain groups of case-types are handled. Thos meetings
and diagnosis will lead probably to adjustments in code enforcement techniques
including but not limited to: Better public information about codes and
neighborhood standards, clear communications with property owners, more
efficient follow up inspections and letters, and other enforcement strategies
leading to removal of the violation.
134
oCA TJ
_ 'mg
Top Quality Service Strategic Goal
Strategic Goal
Become a city that provides exceptional services on a daily basis.
Summary
The Top Quality Service strategic goal is comprised of a great variety of services
provided by multiple departments. With such different types of services and
service providers, it is difficult to create an overall assessment of the sum
achievement in this area.
Instead, a summary for each service delivery area is provided prior to each
area's grouping of measures. These summaries provide a more thorough
evaluation of each service area, and through the analysis of each, provide
conclusions about the state of the city's top quality services.
Performance Measures and Growth Management Standards
TOP QUALITY SERVICE
Citywide
Overall Citizen Satisfaction With
City Services
City administrative facilities
growth management standard
Other Administrative Services
Purchasing Customer Service
ACHIEVES
BENCHMARK
^
^
^
BENCHMARK
NOT
ACHIEVED
ADEQUATE
DATA NOT
AVAILABLE
Management Goals
• Long Range Plan
• Performance Measurement - Fleet
• Centralized Cashier
• Efficiency Analysis
• Public Works Project Tracking
• Performance Measurement - Benchmarking
• Human Resources Plan
• Public Works Center Move, Telemetry
• Public Works Service Plan
• Investigations Customer Service
• Meter Exchange
135
• Maintenance Management System w
• DMS Phase 4 Public Internet Access
• Standards Of Care H
• Electronic Records Retention **
• Public Works Classification
• Records Management Program Phase 4
• Construction Inspection Consistency m
• Customer Service _
• Ambulance Analysis
• Learning Management System
• Fire Probationary Standards m
• Strategic Business Plan m
• Fire Performance Standards
• Village Parking Enhancement Program *
• Training Facility •*
• RFA/CRM Service
• Second Shift ^
• Leadership Team Achievement Of MSA Goals m
• Bond And Secured Agreement Business Process Review -.
• Succession Planning For Fire Department
• Contract Administration
• CEMAT p
• Employee Development Program - Core Competencies *
• Communications Center Goal
• On-Line Registration H
• Beat Realignment *
• HR Resource Center BPR
• Special Events Process '
• Strategic Technology Plan *"*
• Recorded Documents Review ^
• Capital Outlay Projects
• Tracking Reports
• Performance Measurement - Eng Dev Services IP
• DMS Phase 4 - PW Use Of DMS ^
• Rental Property Owner Satisfaction
• Standard Agreements Revision m
m
Other Factors
Other customer service efforts in the City include "Experience Carlsbad" and the *
City's customer service steering committee. *
f
HI
136
m
m
Citywide
OVERALL CITIZEN SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES
THE OUTCOME
High level of citizen satisfaction in the overall City services.
THE MEASUREMENT
Survey results to the question in the citywide survey, "How do you rate the
overall city services?"
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Part of the City of Carlsbad's explicit mission is to provide top-quality services to
all those who live, work, and play in the City. This bellwether measure of how
the citizens rate their overall level of satisfaction with city services provides staff
with a better understanding of the effectiveness of city programs.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Citywide
BENCHMARK
90% of respondents rate their satisfaction at good or excellent.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK
90%
2000
92%
2001
96%
2002
95%
ANALYSIS
This is the third year that the City has asked its residents how they rate their
overall satisfaction with City services. The results from all three surveys show
significant positive ratings from the public at large. Staff will continue to track
this measure in the coming years.
ACTION PLAN
Continue to monitor and evaluate the overall satisfaction of city services.
137
Administrative Services „»
*
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - CITY ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES m
m
THE OUTCOME m
Provide Top Quality Services.
•
THE MEASUREMENT m
Administrative Facility Square Footage per 1000 population
WHAT THE DATA MEANS -
The standard of 1500 square feet per 1000 population is mandated per the
Citywide Facilities and Improvement Management Plan *
JH
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Citywide m
BENCHMARK
1,500 square feet of administrative facilities per 1000 city population.
RESULTS p
Based upon a current population of 88,013, the City is required to have at least m
132,019 square feet of administrative office space.
• m
At the current time, the city has approximately 300,000 square feet of m
administrative facilities. This includes:
• Farmers Building- 134,000 sq. ft *
• Faraday Center - 68,000 sq. ft •
• Public Safety Center - 64,000 sq. ft
• City Hall - 13,000 sq. ft P
• Facility and Maintenance (Water Department) - 13,000 sq. ft li
• Oak Ave. - 5500 sq. ft p,
• Redevelopment - 2000 sq. ft
ANALYSIS m
The city currently meets this growth management requirement. With the m
acquisition of the Farmers insurance Building as the potential City of Carlsbad
Civic Complex, the City is not required per the growth management standard, to m
acquire any additional administrative space. •*
ACTION PLAN *
None required ""
138
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, helpfulness and quality of
service.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Purchasing
BENCHMARK
90% of customers rate Purchasing as good or excellent in all customer service
survey categories.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK
90%
2001
90%
2O02
90%
ANALYSIS
Due to staffing changes, an analysis has not yet been conducted.
ACTION PLAN
To be determined.
139
140
Information Technology Summary
Strategic Goal
Become a City that provides exceptional service on a daily basis.
Service Delivery
• Network Operability: 90% of all priority 1 service calls resolved in 60
minutes; 90% of all priority 2 service calls resolved in 180 minutes.
o Results: Priority 1: 80%; Priority 2: 98%
Cost
There is currently no cost measure for Information Technology
Customer Satisfaction
• 90% rate satisfaction good or excellent
o Results: 96%
Service Delivery
Service Delivery
Gap
Cost
Cost Gap (No
measure)
Summary
The Information Technology department continues to provide a high level of
customer service to the organization. Surveys show a 96% satisfaction with the
IT department, which is consistent with past surveys.
Although the percentage of problem resolution dropped from 85% (2001) to 80%
(2002), part of the decrease can be attributed to increased call volume. Actual
141
Priority 1 problems dealt with increased from 90 in 2001 to 196 in 2002. Other
causes for the delay in problem resolution can be attributed to problem types
such as server crashes, which take longer than 90 minutes to fix.
IT continues to search for a useful cost efficiency measure, and continues to
work with the City's Performance Measurement team in this effort.
Overall, the City's IT department is providing for and managing a growing
network in a reliable, customer service oriented manner.
TOP QUALITY SERVICE
IT Network Operability
IT Customer Service
ACHIEVES
BENCHMARK
^
BENCHMARK
NOT
ACHIEVED
^
ADEQUATE
DATA NOT
AVAILABLE
p
142
Administrative Services
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY NETWORK OPERABILITY
THE OUTCOME
A functional, operating information technology network.
THE MEASUREMENT
Amount of time required to return users to operational status. Problems are
divided into two categories:
Priority 1
• Server Down - affects whole site
• Core System Down i.e.: Permits Plus, IFAS, Harris, OPAC for Public
Access, Inlex, RFA, etc.
• City Wide Internet Access Down
• Telephones - remote site loses access - no voice and/or data
• Critical failure of technology services regularly provided to the public at
• City facilities
Priority 2
• User down/locked out/no access
• Printer Issues - can't print and no alternate print source is available
• Hardware Failure - monitor/keyboard
• Login Issues, i.e. forgotten passwords
• Public terminal with Internet access
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 60 minutes.
2) 90% of all priority 2 service calls resolved in 180 minutes.
143
RESULTS
Priority 1
Priority 2
BENCHMARK
90%
90%
2001
85%
95%
2002
80%
98%
ANALYSIS
Analysis of the call volume by priority showed the following results:
CALLS
Priority 1
Priority 2
2001
107
676
2002
245
1,249
The above data shows that though our percentage of problem resolution
dropped from 85% to 80%, it also shows that our number of tickets increased.
Therefore, last year we resolved 90 Priority 1 problems within the desired time
frame and this year we resolved 196 Priority 1 problems within the desired time
frame.
Additional analysis of the issues identified in the Priority 1 tickets confirmed
that there were some hardware problems such as server crashes that were
beyond our control. There were some other issues that were a result of some
upgrade and/or change the IT Department was making to the network that
should not have occurred.
The reason for the overall increase in call volume is due to the following:
• There are more systems in place, thus more calls/volume
• City staff are better trained to call PAI for all issue reporting
• Priority one and two levels have been adjusted to incorporate the public
access computers at the libraries.
ACTION PLAN
On the Priority 1 problems, our analysis and corrective action takes place when
the problem arises. We first deal with the problem and resolve the issue as
quickly as possible, and immediately thereafter we perform a post-mortem on
the issue to determine if there are steps we need to put in place to prevent such
problems in the future. We will continue to do that and to use the information
to help us plan better and provide better service.
144
Administrative Services
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICE & SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction and a high level of customer confidence in
Information Technology (IT) staffs skills, knowledge and abilities.
THE MEASUREMENT
Customer survey and data in the Help Desk software database. The customer
service survey uses a 1-5 point scale. This is a multi modal measure that
measurers customer satisfaction and customer confidence.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The measure is an indication of customer satisfaction with the Information
Technology service levels provided to City staff. The measure is also an
indication of staff knowledge, efficiency and effectiveness.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Information Technology
BENCHMARK
Customer Satisfaction: 90% of customers rate Information Technology as "Very
Good" or higher in all customer service survey categories.
Customer Confidence: 80% of all service requests will be resolved in one on-site
effort by I.T. staff.
RESULTS
Customer Satisfaction
(The current year results were based on the return of 1,657 surveys out of the
7,415 that were distributed, resulting in a return rate of 22.3%.)
FISCAL
YEAR
2002
2001
BENCHMARK
90%
90%
CARLSBAD
96%
97%
HELP DESK
RATING
4.7
4.8
I.T. STAFF
RATING
4.9
4.9
COMBINED
RATING
4.8
4.8
145
Customer Confidence
FISCAL
YEAR
2002
BENCHMARK
80%
CARLSBAD
No Data
Available
NO. OF HELP
DESK CALLS
No Data
Available
RESOLVED IN ONE ON-
SITE VISIT
No Data Available
ANALYSIS
Customer Satisfaction: The data reflects one full fiscal year for the Customer
Service portion of the measure. 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 outsourced help desk vendor (PAI). The survey results
showed PAI had a rating of 4.7. The Information Technology Department had a
rating of 4.9 for a combined average rating of 4.8.
The survey information is reviewed on a weekly basis. If there is a low rating by
City staff, indicating possible cause for concern, then IT management contacts'
the individual to determine what went wrong and then works to satisfactorily
resolve the issue. This extra effort goes a long way toward improvement of
service.
Customer Confidence: When this measure was added last year, it was
anticipated that we could get the systems and procedures in place to allow us to
track the data for that six-month period. We successfully put the system in
place, but when analyzing the data, found that our procedures were not fully in
place, resulting in invalid data. During that six-month time period, though, we
did finalize everything and next year will have a full year's data on this measure.
ACTION PLAN
Continue monitoring the results of the survey on a weekly basis and continue
follow up with customers who express some type of concern or problem
regarding the IT service provided. Also will continue monitoring the procedures
for the Customer Confidence measure to ensure valid data is being captured
and validity of procedures in place.
146
Human Resources Summani
Strategic Goal
Become a City that provides exceptional service on a daily basis.
Service Delivery
• Employee returns to work within 5.5 days following an industrial injury.
o Results: 3.5 days
• 90% of recruitments completed within 60 days
o Results: 85% completed
Cost
• There is no cost measure currently for Human Resources
Customer Satisfaction
• Employee turnover rate less than 7.6%
o Results: 3.17%
• Customer service survey
o Results: Pending
Service Delivery
Service Delivery
Gap
Cost Gap (No
measure)
Summary
Human Resources continues to make positive strides towards improving their
performance. The number of days employees missed this past year due to
injury were down almost 25% from the prior year.
147
This year staff increased the usage of the Internet for job announcements and
applications, and while this added time to the recruitment process due to the
increased applicant pool, Human Resources was still able to conduct 85% of all
recruitments within 60 days.
Finally, staff has started to look at the turnover rate to help judge employee
satisfaction. This year the turnover rate for the organization was 3.2%, which is
more than 50% less than the benchmark of 7.6%. Clearly the organization has
a low turnover rate, and staff will continue to develop this measure over the
coming years to better identify those issues which cause employee's to leave the
City organization.
Staff also conducted an internal survey with the assistance of Cal State San
Marcos, the results of which show satisfaction with various Human Resource
functions ranging from 62% (satisfaction with overall job classification design)
to 88% (overall training and development satisfaction). Staff will continue to
analyze these results and will make improvements where appropriate.
TOP QUALITY SERVICE
HR Injured Employees
HR Turnover
HR Recruitment Time
HR Customer Service
ACHIEVES
BENCHMARK
^
^
BENCHMARK
NOT
ACHIEVED
^
ADEQUATE
DATA NOT
AVAILABLE
S
148
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.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure is an indicator of the success of an agency's disability
management program. 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 adequate staffing levels for City departments and
enhance the connection between the injured employee and the City.
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
An average of 5.5 days or less lost per claim. This benchmark is based on the
ICMA average for agencies with less than 100,000 population.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK
5.5 days
2000
5.4 days
2001
5.6 days
2002
3.6 days
ANALYSIS
The data shows that Carlsbad's average number of days lost per claim is 1.9
days less than the average for cities under 100,000 reporting to ICMA. Our
average has improved by 1.9 days over last year.
149
Based upon our analysis, last year, public safety employees were responsible for
83% of the total lost working days. This past year staff implemented options to
reduce lost days of work. This had a significant impact, namely on public safety,
which reduced their lost days of work from 309 days to 143 days.
In fiscal year 2000/2001 we had a total of 373 lost days of work. This past
fiscal year 2001 /2002 the number went down to 281.
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. The
Human Resources Department has developed an Integrated Disability
Management System to track occupational and non-occupational leave and
disability information. By establishing systems to accurately capture and track
occupational disability leave, we are 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.
150
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 of
days from receipt of a department's personnel requisition to the date that an
eligibility list is certified.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Human Resources, All City departments hiring personnel
BENCHMARK
90% of all recruitments completed within the 60 days or less.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK
90%
,2002
85%
ANALYSIS
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.
The cycle time for recruitments at the City of Carlsbad is close to achieving the
benchmark and continues to be better than the ICMA average for agencies
under 100,000. Results of the recent Human Resources Customer Satisfaction
Survey indicate that hiring managers are very satisfied with the timeliness of
the hiring process. Out of 126 managers who responded to the question the
average score for satisfaction with the timeliness of the hiring process was 9.25
on a 0 - 10 scale with 10 being completely satisfied.
The recruitment cycle time increased slightly, 2.6 days, over the prior year. A
factor in this increase is the City began accepting applications over the City's
web site, which, while providing greater accessibility for applicants and a larger
151
job pool for the City, results in additional application screening time due to the
increased number of applications.
ACTION PLAN
The Human Resources Department has a goal team exploring new methods of
employee selection as possible alternatives or additions to the traditional oral
board interview process. Using alternatives to the oral board process may
further expedite the recruitment and selection process. One of these
alternatives they are considering is having more continuous recruitments to
have ready lists. We will continue to monitor the recruitment cycle time and
work with hiring departments to find the optimal balance between an effective
advertising period and desirable recruitment cycle time.
152
Administrative Services
HUMAN RESOURCES - EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
THE OUTCOME
Minimization of costs to the organization that result from employee turnover.
THE MEASUREMENT
The number of full-time, permanent employees who left the organization during
the reporting period, divided by the total number of employees.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure is an indicator of the effectiveness of employee recruiting and
selection, quality of the organizational environment, and effectiveness of the
employer's wage and benefit structure.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Human Resources, all City departments
BENCHMARK
A turnover rate of less than 7.6%. This benchmark is based on the average
turnover rate for agencies reporting to ICMA for fiscal year 2000/2001.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK
7.6%
2001
3.8%
2002
3.2%
ANALYSIS
For fiscal year 2000/01 the turnover rate for the City was almost 4 percentage
points less than the ICMA average. The majority were due to resignations.
Resignation
Retirement
Retirement Industrial
Termination
Termination during probation
Total
Total for ICMA benchmarking
Total employees
Turnover Rate
2000-01
20
2
2
2
3
29
22
587
3.8%
2001-02
16
8
1
3
4
32
19
599
3.2%
153
Comparing fiscal year 2000/2001 to fiscal year 2001/2002 we see an increase
in retirements. This can be attributed to the aging of the workforce and
enhanced retirement benefits offered to the Police and Fire bargaining units.
We anticipate the number of retirements to continue to increase over the next 2
or 3 fiscal years.
ACTION PLAN
The Human Resources Department will institute an "Exit Interview" program to
refine the turnover data we are collecting. We will expand the "resignation"
reason into several different categories such as resignation for promotion,
resignation for more money or resignation to move out of the area. This data
will help narrow the focus to allow us to address the reasons employees leave
and continue to keep the turnover rate low.
154
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
An evaluation of Human Resources services and employee satisfaction.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Human Resources, All City employees
BENCHMARK
90% of customers rate their experience with the Human Resources Department
at least a 4 on a 5-point scale in all customer service categories. This is an
internal benchmark.
RESULTS
None.
ANALYSIS
Survey complete; analysis in progress.
ACTION PLAN
155
156
Fleet Maintenance Summary
Service Delivery
o 90% of scheduled preventive maintenance work orders are complete
within 48 hours from the time the vehicle is delivered to the shop.
Results: 97% of scheduled preventive maintenance work orders
were completed within the benchmark.
Cost
o The cost efficiency measure for Fleet Maintenance is under
development.
Customer Satisfaction
o 90% of internal surveys returned indicate the overall quality of
service by Fleet Maintenance at good or excellent in all survey
categories
Results: 81% of internal surveys returned indicate the overall
quality of service by Fleet Maintenance at Good or Excellent in all
survey categories.
Service Delivery
Customer
Satisfaction Gap
Customer
Satisfaction Level
Cost Gap
(No Measure)
157
Summary
The results of the 2002 performance measures for Fleet reflect that staff is doing
a fair job at providing service to City departments. The service standard
measure reflects that City staff is experiencing less downtime of vehicles
because Fleet Maintenance is completing 97% of the scheduled preventive
maintenance work orders within the benchmark. This reflects a significant
improvement from last year when the rating was 76%.
The level of customer satisfaction decreased from the previous year. Individuals
responding to the survey indicated that insufficient communication between
Fleet and the departments is one of the reasons for the drop in the rating.
The Division is working in a number of areas to improve its service ratings and
to develop a cost efficiency measure. A group of MSA representatives is
currently reviewing the vehicle acquisition and maintenance policies for Fleet
Services. It is anticipated that any recommendations for changes to existing
policy, once implemented, will have a positive effect on the customer satisfaction
results. The Public Works MSA is developing a five-year service plan that is
aimed at ensuring the department is conducting business in a cost effective
manner. Fleet personnel are involved in this process and will be incorporating
results into next years report.
TOP QUALITY SERVICE
Fleet Availability
Fleet Cost Efficiency
Fleet Customer Service
ACHIEVES
BENCHMARK
^
BENCHMARK
NOT
ACHIEVED
^
ADEQUATE
DATA NOT
AVAILABLE
S
158
Public Works
FLEET AVAILABILITY
THE OUTCOME
Fleet vehicle availability
THE MEASUREMENT
Percent of preventive maintenance work orders completed when scheduled.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure indicates the quality of the preventive maintenance program by
the availability 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.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
General Services / Fleet Maintenance
BENCHMARK
90% of scheduled preventive maintenance work orders are completed within 48
hours from the time the vehicle is delivered to the shop.
RESULTS
Percent of Preventive Maintenance Work Orders Completed When Scheduled
BENCHMARK
90%
2000
84%
2001
76%
2002
97%
ANALYSIS
In 2001 work orders were not properly closed in the automated system during
the months of March, April and May. The resulting data reflected that only 76%
of the preventive maintenance work orders were recorded as complete within 48
hours. The action plan was to train everyone at Fleet on how to properly close
completed work orders. The training is now complete and staff is achieving its
benchmark by completing 97% of the work orders within 48 hours. Due to
unexpected drop-offs of high priority vehicles (police and fire), staff has decided
to maintain the 48 hour turn around time as an optimum level of service to
complete scheduled preventive maintenance work orders.
ACTION PLAN
Redefine this measure to include planning for high priority vehicles and
incorporate into next year's report.
159
Public Works
FLEET CUSTOMER SERVICE AND SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction
THE MEASUREMENT
City of Carlsbad Internal Customer Service Survey
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure is an indication of how well fleet operations are maintained.
Surveys are distributed annually to City employees to evaluate fleet's
performance. Customers are asked to rate their satisfaction with Fleet
Maintenance on a five point scale: l=Very Poor, 2=Poor, 3=Fair, 4=Good,
5=Excellent.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
General Services / Fleet Maintenance
BENCHMARK
90% of internal surveys returned indicate the overall quality of service by Fleet
Maintenance at good or excellent.
RESULTS
P
•ft
P
m
BENCHMARK
90%
2000
71%
2001*
100%
2002
81%
Survey instrument revised from baseline year
Distributed Surveys
Returned Surveys
Return Ratio
% Good or Excellent
Timeliness of service
Courtesy of staff
Competence of staff
Monthly Vehicle Cost Reports
Completeness of service
Helpfulness of staff
2000
75
26
35%
2001
102
24
24%
2000
62%
85%
73%
92%
N/A
N/A
2001
100%
96%
100%
87%
91%
100%
2002
120
56
47%
2002
79%
87%
91%
88%
79%
95%
9m
160
P
Listed below are the results of additional survey questions.
Are you satisfied with the quality of replacement units?
2001 2002
Yes 67% 52%
No 4% 21%
N/A 29% 27%
Are you satisfied with the procedures you must follow to obtain services from
Fleet Maintenance?
2001 2002
Yes
No
N/A
100%
0%
0%
86%
11%
3%
ANALYSIS
In an effort to ensure the department receives consistent feedback from Fleet
customers, staff distributed surveys directly to randomly selected customers.
A follow up reminder was sent a few weeks later resulting in a more than
double response rate from last year.
There was an increase in satisfaction in most categories from 2000 to 2001,
followed by a drop in satisfaction in 2002. It is apparent from comments
received that insufficient communications between Fleet and departments is
one of the reasons for the drop in customer satisfaction. Many customers want
to be notified when their vehicles are sent out for specialized service and the
length of time their vehicles will be out of service. Other contributing factors to
the decrease in satisfaction are vehicle replacements and the lack of leaner
vehicles. Some customers indicated that because some replacements do not
meet the exact qualities of the previous vehicle, the different vehicle(s) could
impact staff operations. Also, it was suggested that Fleet should have more
than the two leaner vehicles the division currently has, especially utility
vehicles so that operations will not be hampered.
ACTION PLAN
Staff will develop and implement a plan to improve communications between
Fleet and the departments, as well as new procedures to reduce downtime of
vehicles. The plan will also evaluate the feasibility of renting vehicles as part of
the division's loaner program. A group of MSA representatives are currently
reviewing the vehicle acquisition and maintenance policy for Fleet Services. It
is anticipated that any recommendations for changes to existing policy, once
implemented, will have a positive effect on the results of this measure.
161
Public Works
FLEET COST EFFICIENCY
THE OUTCOME
Fleet maintenance cost efficiency.
THE MEASUREMENT
Under development
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
A measure will be developed that can demonstrate fiscally responsible use of
funds allocated to fleet maintenance, and show how resources are being used
to achieve its objectives.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
General Services / Fleet Maintenance
BENCHMARK
To be developed
RESULTS
None available
ANALYSIS
Not applicable
ACTION PLAN
The Public Works MSA is currently in the process of developing a five-year
service plan that is aimed at ensuring the department is conducting business
in a cost effective manner. The Fleet Division is beginning to review their work
processes and will be developing a new cost efficiency measure as part of this
program. The new measure and initial results will be included in the next
State of Effectiveness report.
162
Facilities Maintenance Summary
• Service Delivery
""" o 90% of Priority 1 work orders are complete within 24 hours
-. Results: 97%
o 90% of Priority 2 work orders are complete within 72 hours
*• Results: 97%
o 90% of Priority 3 work orders completed within 20 calendar days
*" Results: 84%
••>fm
m o 90% of Priority 4 work orders completed within 30 calendar days
Results: 82%
*m
M* • Cost
o Maintenance cost per square foot will not exceed $4.92
"" Results: $5.32
«H
«. • Customer Satisfaction
o 90% of internal surveys returned indicate the overall quality of
service by Facilities Maintenance as good or excellent
- Results: 81%
Service Delivery
Service Delivery Gap
^^^^^^Customer Satisfaction Gap
Cost^^^m^^^r
Customer Satisfaction ,^^^^^^^^^^^
Cost Gap
163
Summary
The Division met the benchmark for priority one and priority two work orders.
Priority one work orders focus on eliminating hazards and unsanitary
conditions where priority two focuses on repairs and alterations which allow
the City to conduct business and provide service to the community. Priority
three and four work orders met the benchmark approximately 80% of the time.
The maintenance cost per square foot of building space represents a 31%
increase from FY 2000. This is above the CPI adjusted benchmark. The reason
for the increase in actual expenditures is due to the hiring of additional staff,
salary adjustments and an increase in costs from outside service contractors.
The City is ranked 5th out of seven cities that exchanged benchmarking data
with Carlsbad.
The additional staff helped improve the overall quality of service provided by
Facilities Maintenance. Respondents to the recent internal survey rated
Facilities customer satisfaction at 81%. The current rating is below the
benchmark, however, it represents a significant increase from FY2000, when
the rating was 65%.
The Facilities Maintenance Division is not meeting the overall benchmarks for
any of the three measures. During the past year the service standard measure
was enhanced and provides us further information to make improvements in
the future. We anticipate that any changes made as a result of the information
gathered will have positive impacts on both the service standard and customer
satisfaction ratings. This year the Division engaged in a benchmarking process
with other agencies, as a result we have gained new information relating to our
cost of service in the Facilities Division. We will use this data, in conjunction
with our service plan process, to ensure we are delivering service in the most
efficient and cost effective manner possible.
TOP QUALITY SERVICE
Facilities Maintenance Response
Facilities Maintenance Cost
Facilities Customer Service
ACHIEVES
BENCHMARK
BENCHMARK
NOT
ACHIEVED
^
^/
ADEQUATE
DATA NOT
AVAILABLE
164
Public Works
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE RESPONSE
THE OUTCOME
Well-maintained and safe City facilities
THE MEASUREMENT
Time to complete work orders.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Priority 1 work orders are emergency repairs to eliminate hazards, unsanitary
conditions and reduce liabilities (i.e. broken plumbing or electrical, trip
hazards, etc.).
Priority 2 work orders are repairs and alterations so the City can conduct its
business and provide services to the community (i.e. audio visual equipment,
furniture and HVAC repairs).
Priority 3 work orders are requests and/or repairs for scheduled activities that
does not impede staffs ability to effectively perform his/her duties (i.e. hanging
pictures on the wall, moving surplus, replacing doorstops, etc.).
Priority 4 work orders are requests and/or repairs to improve the working
environment of City staff (i.e. painting an office, changing furniture styles, etc).
This measure is an indication of response time and an evaluation that current
staff level is effective to achieve objectives.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
General Services / 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.
90% of Priority 3 work orders completed within 20 calendar days.
90% of Priority 4 work orders completed within 30 calendar days
RESULTS
YEAR
2000-01
2001-02
BENCHMARK
90%
90%
PRIORITY 1
100%
97%
PRIORITY 2
97%
97%
PRIORITY 3
N/A
84%
PRIORITY 4
N/A
82%
With the assistance from the Information Technology Department, Facilities
Maintenance implemented a Computerized Maintenance Management System
165
(CMMS) that can compute the completed work orders.
ANALYSIS
Total % Completed
Priority 1 (Emergency) 93 97%
Priority 2 (High) 279 97%
Priority 3 (Medium) 482 84%
Priority 4 (Low) 330 82%
This year, staff incorporated priorities 3 and 4 work orders into the
performance measure. The division achieved its benchmark for priorities 1 and
2 type work orders by completing 97% of the work orders within the timeframe.
However, the division did not achieve the benchmarks for priorities 3 and 4
work orders.
Of the 1,184 works orders the division received last year, 31% of the work
orders were priority 1 and 2. These work orders needed immediate attention to
eliminate hazards, unsanitary conditions, and to ensure facilities are in
excellent condition for the City to conduct its business and provide services to
the community. The remaining work orders (priority 3 and 4) did not achieve
the benchmarks because of the necessity to complete emergency and high
priority work orders. Another contributing factor is that staff had to wait for
parts to be delivered and/or the job required additional staff to complete the
work, which resulted in delays.
ACTION PLAN
The division will evaluate the allocation of resources to handle the steady
increase of work orders. Staff will evaluate methods to improve the benchmark
target for priority 3 and 4 work orders, and the feasibility of contracting
services, hiring additional staff or reallocating existing resources to help
achieve the outcome of this measure. Staff is working on City of Carlsbad
"standards of care" for facilities maintenance response and will be reporting on
the results of this work in next year's report.
166
Public Works
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE COST
THE OUTCOME
Facility cost efficiency
THE MEASUREMENT
Maintenance cost per square foot of building space.
In past years, the data collected for facilities maintenance cost excluded
custodial expenditures. This year staff included custodial expenditures in an
effort to evaluate the department's true total cost. Another reason to include
the expenditures is so staff can analyze use of funds allocated to custodial
services and show how resources are being used to achieve the identified goal.
This measurement excludes capital expenditures. Building space is considered
city-owned facilities, in which the City is obligated to maintain, that are utilized
by city staffer leased to private and/or non-profit organizations.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure demonstrates the fiscally responsible use of funds allocated to
facilities maintenance, and shows how resources are being used to achieve its
objectives.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
General Services / Facilities Maintenance
BENCHMARK
Carlsbad maintenance cost per square foot does not exceed $4.92. This
benchmark was established based on information reported in the baseline year
(2000) and has been adjusted annually by the San Diego Consumer Price Index
(2001 = 5.73%, 2002 = 2.95%).
RESULTS
Fiscal Year
2000
2001
2002
Benchmark
$4.45
$4.78 **
$4.92
Expenditures
$1,833,587*
$2,037,475
$2,144,771
Total Square
Feet
411,607
403,527
403,527
Cost per
Square Ft.
$4.45
$5.05
$5.32
Figures revised to include custodial expenditures
* Benchmark adjusted by an additional 1.47% due to market salary
167
adjustments in addition to CIP adjustment
ANALYSIS
The total square footage results have been revised. For FY 2000, several city-
owned facilities were deleted from the inventory because the City is not
responsible for the interior maintenance of these facilities.
In FY 2001, the total square footage decreased because of the removal of
buildings. For FY 2002, the Farmers Insurance buildings are not included in
the calculations; staff is currently not responsible for maintaining the interior
space of Farmers.
The reason for the 20% increase in actual expenditures from FY 2000 to FY
2002 is due to the hiring of additional staff, salary adjustments and an
increase in costs from outside service contractors. The additional staff
included one full-time building maintenance worker and one full-time
custodian. More staff was needed to improve customer satisfaction and to
ensure work orders are completed in a timely manner.
As part of our benchmarking efforts, a template was developed and distributed
to a number of agencies to collect data. The agencies that responded are listed
in the table below.
The data includes personnel (salaries and benefits for managers, field crews
and clerical support), and supplies (including contract services). It excludes
expenses for capital outlay equipment and capital improvement projects.
Square footage includes city-owned and leased facilities that the city is
required to maintain.
Agency
SD County City*
Chula Vista
Escondido
El Cajort
Carlsbad
Sunnyvale
Mission Viejo
Expenses
$514,900
$2,153,830
$2,945,000
$1,208,055
$2,144,771
$3,070,327
$1,142,990
Total Sq. Ft.
245,000
618,153
789,000
314,000
403,527
434,861
140,000
Cost /Sq. Ft.
$2.10
$3.48
$3.73
$3.85
$5.32
$7.06
$8.16
* City did not want to be identified in the measure
ACTION PLAN
Over the past year the Public Works MSA has devoted a considerable amount
of time to developing partnerships with other cities to obtain comparable
benchmark data. This initiative has proven to be more difficult than initially
168
anticipated. Even within the reporting agencies, the data has been difficult to
collect in a format where comparisons can be made in a useful manner. Over
the next year, we will work with our partner cities to understand why there is
such a large range in the maintenance costs per square foot. We anticipate
that these discussions will give us the opportunity to learn from each other and
ultimately provide us with some new tools to perform our work more efficiently.
The current benchmark is based on internal historical data. Public Works has
decided to research and possibly develop a new benchmark based on accepted
industry standards.
The Public Works department is currently in the process of preparing a five-
year service plan. During this process, the major activities performed by
Facilities will be reviewed and analyzed to ensure work is performed in a cost
effective and efficient method.
The Department is also in the process of developing a standard of care program
for facility maintenance. The program will define the characteristics of top
quality maintenance for each facility activity and a measurement scale to
evaluate the level being attained. The results of the program will also be
incorporated in the next State of Effectiveness Report.
169
Public Works
FACILITIES CUSTOMER SERVICE AND SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction
THE MEASUREMENT
City of Carlsbad Internal Customer Service Survey
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure is an indication of how well facilities are maintained. Surveys
are distributed annually to City employees to evaluate facilities performance.
Customers were asked to rate their satisfaction with Facilities Maintenance on
a five point scale: l=Very Poor, 2=Poor, 3=Fair, 4=Good, 5=Excellent.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
General Services / Facilities Maintenance
BENCHMARK
90% of internal surveys returned indicate the overall quality of service by
Facilities Maintenance as good or excellent.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK
90%
2000
65%*
2001
85%
2002
81%
Survey instrument revised from baseline year
Distributed Surveys
Returned Surveys
Return Ratio
2000
127
75
59%
2001
450
72
16%
2002
270
156
58%
% Good or Excellent 2000 2001
Timeliness of service 56% 67%
Courtesy of staff 78% 100%
Competence of staff 65% 93%
Completeness of service N/A 81%
Helpfulness of staff N/A 88%
2002
67%
96%
93%
80%
92%
170
Listed below are the results of additional survey questions.
Is your building/office a safe place to conduct City business and provide
services to the Community?
Yes 93%
No 5%
N/A 2%
Is your building/office a comfortable place to conduct City business and
provide services to the Community?
Yes 90%
No 8%
N/A 3%
Are you satisfied with the procedures you must follow to obtain services from
Facilities Maintenance?
Yes 66%
No 15%
N/A 19%
ANALYSIS
In an effort to ensure the department receives consistent feedback from
Facilities customers, staff distributed the surveys directly to randomly selected
customers. A follow up reminder was sent a few weeks later resulting in a
more than double response rate from last year.
According to the survey results, the department did not achieve the
benchmark; however, the 2002 survey results are a significant improvement
from 2000. The improved level of customer satisfaction can be attributed to
the increase in staffing levels. Since 2000, the division hired an additional full-
time building maintenance worker and a custodian to help improve customer
satisfaction among facility users. Other categories the division received high
marks in includes courtesy, competence and helpfulness of staff.
The category that received a low approval rating is timeliness of service. 67% of
surveys returned rated the timeliness of service as good or excellent. The low
rating was still an improvement from 2000 in which the division received a
56% approval rating (last year the approval rating was the same as this year at
67%). Due to the complexity of certain work orders, the timeliness for
completion may take longer than anticipated.
171
Another category customers are dissatisfied with is the procedures to obtain
services from the division. Many customers were dissatisfied because they did *
not know the status of their work orders or when their work order would be **
completed. m
ACTION PLAN ""
The Public Works MSA is currently developing a five-year service plan. One m
focus of this plan is to review current procedures to ensure that the work is B-
being accomplished in the most efficient manner possible. Through this
process, Facilities personnel will focus on addressing the timeliness of service **
issues. They will establish guidelines which will be used to determine which M
work will be performed by in-house personnel versus being assigned to outside
contractors ensuring that both quality and timeliness standards are m
maintained. *»
Staff will develop and implement a plan to improve communications between r
Facilities and the departments, with a special emphasis on developing a system
to ensure that customers know the status of their work orders. The completed p
report will be distributed to all city employees. ta
i
172
P
Fire Department Summary
I
• Service Delivery
o 90% of all structure fires will be confined to the room of origin.
Results: 80%
o Travel time on priority 1 calls will be 5 minutes or less 90% of the
time.
Results: 79%
• Cost
o Net cost per capita will not exceed $109.
Results: $101
• Customer Satisfaction
o 95% of customers will rate EMS services as good or excellent.
Results: 97% or higher in all categories
Service Delivery
Customer Satisfaction
Service Delivery Gap
Cost
uiOno
173
Summary
The fire department achieved two out of four performance measures with fire
confinement and travel times falling below the desired benchmark and
customer service and operating cost efficiency achieving their benchmarks. Of
importance to the fire department is the affect continued growth will have on
response times and the likely impact this will have on confining fires to the
room of origin and customer satisfaction. In addition, any significant
improvement in response times will not come without a corresponding increase
in operating costs. Through strategic planning the department hopes to
address these issues and develop a plan that meets the emergency response
expectations of the citizens and the financial ability of the city.
TOP QUALITY SERVICE
Fire Confinement
Fire Response Time
Fire Cost Efficiency
Fire Customer Service
Fire Growth Mgmt Standard
ACHIEVES
BENCHMARK
^
^
^
BENCHMARK
NOT
ACHIEVED
^/
ADEQUATE
DATA NOT
AVAILABLE
174
Public Safety
FIRE CONFINEMENT
THE OUTCOME
Minimization of property damage due to fire.
THE MEASUREMENT
Percentage of all structure fire incidents where flame propagation is confined to
room of origin.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Once fire flashover occurs 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) will be confined to
room of origin.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK
90%
Actual Number
1999-00
63%
5 of 8
2000-01
77%
10 of 13
2001-02
80%
12 of 15
ANALYSIS
Although Carlsbad's percentages have improved each year, due to the small
number of structure fires as compared to the total number of all incidents
(5,860 in 2001) in the city, the utility of this measurement is limited. It is also
unlikely that the 90% benchmark will be met on a consistent basis, given that
most fires that exceed the benchmark were caused by fires that had already
extended beyond the room of origin when they were reported. The data also
shows that the number of working structure fires has been increasing over the
last three years.
By examining the structure fires that progressed beyond the room of origin we
find that these fires were most likely not reported in their incipient stages thus
decreasing our ability to contain them to the room of origin.
175
FY O1-02 Structure Fire Incidents ta
Confined to room of origin *
Incident 01-4660 single family home, fire contained to ceiling area *
Incident 01-5129 single family home, fire contained to an exterior wall
Incident 01-6553 single family home, fire contained to heating system
Incident 01-6638 apartment, fire contained to balcony m
Incident 02-256 single family home, fire contained to living room sofa _
Incident 02-1737 motel, fire contained to bedroom UHIncident 02-1981 service business, fire contained to room with hot wax
machine by sprinkler system and CFD personnel p
Incident 02-2243 apartment complex, fire contained to a wastebasket ^
Incident 02-2263 industrial, fire contained to room of origin by sprinkler
system and CFD personnel **
Incident 02-2528 restaurant, fire contained to wall next to patio •
Incident 02-2659 power plant, fire contained to continuous emissions
monitoring room *
Incident 02-2936 manufacturing, fire contained to room of origin by fixed dry m
chemical system and CFD personnel _
ftmConfined to structure of origin
Incident 01-5249 single family home, car on fire in garage extended to attic, ••
roof and second story bedroom ^
Incident 02-670 single family home, fire on deck extended up west side of the
structure m
Incident 02-1549 apartment, fire in common wall between laundry room and *•»
an apartment
ACTION PLAN -
Performance Standards BB
The fire department continues to work with other North County fire agencies in
implementing performance standards and training evolutions for routine fire- """
ground operations. These North County standards will help ensure that our m
personnel and engine companies are maintaining an established readiness —
standard that ensures safe and responsive action at emergency incidents.
Training Officer «
The addition of a dedicated training officer has increased our ability to plan
and/or develop training based on specific needs as determined by post incident **
analysis of incidents and individual and company performance standards ™*
accomplishment.
176
Communication
The fire department is proceeding with membership in the North County
Dispatch Joint Powers Authority (NCDJPA). This will improve our ability to
share regional resources across incorporated boundaries and potentially result
to faster response times under certain conditions and areas of the city.
Response Time
Two factors that contribute greatly to fire containment are the reporting of fire
in the incipient stages and an immediate response once the fire has been
reported. The department is continuing to work on several initiatives that
have to do with response time as discussed in our performance measurement
for response time.
177
Public Safety
FIRE RESPONSE TRAVEL TIME
THE OUTCOME
Maximization of positive outcomes in a medical, fire, or rescue emergency.
THE MEASUREMENT
Percentage of priority one calls responded to with a travel time of five minutes
or less.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
In an emergency threatening life, property, or the environment, one of the most
critical factors in achieving a positive outcome is providing emergency services
as quickly as possible. 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 ninety
percent of the priority one emergency calls in the city."
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Fire
BENCHMARK
Travel time on priority 1 calls will be 5 minutes or less 90% of the time.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK
90% 5 minutes or less
2001-O2
79%
ANALYSIS
Fiscal year 01-02 was the first full year that data was available to report travel
time as a percentage rather than an average. In the past, the department has
relied on reporting an average travel time of 5 minutes or less, which is less
stringent than the 90 percent standard. Reporting travel time as a percentage
is preferable, as it is affected less by anomalies and it provides a more accurate
picture of response time capabilities.
Given that the greatest impact on travel time is the number and location of fire
stations it is assumed that response time will not improve significantly under
our current configuration. To a much lesser extent, apparatus performance,
traffic, road conditions, road network, and accurate location descriptions can
also affect travel time.
178
ACTION PLAN
™* The Fire Department continues to work on the following initiatives:
^ • Become a member of the North County Dispatch Joint Powers Authority
(NCDJPA). This will create an opportunity for improving response times
m when resources are dispatched across jurisdictional boundaries.
•M
— • Develop a strategic plan to exam various staffing and station location
options in consideration of planned growth in the city, completion of the
*» city's road network, and the possibility of greater regional cooperation.
m.
• Continue to develop reporting relationships with other San Diego County
*"* fire agencies in addition to other high performing agencies with
«"• characteristics similar to Carlsbad. Note that this initiative has proved
more difficult than anticipated, with only five out of twenty San Diego
County fire agencies and two out of ten "high performing" California
** agencies reporting results. Even within the reporting agencies, the data
m has been difficult to collect in a format where comparisons can be made
in a useful manner. It is hoped that as a member of the NCDJPA a.
cooperative reporting effort among North County agencies can be
** accomplished in the future.
m
• Develop an ambulance performance standard and determine when an
*"* additional ambulance would be necessary to meet desired service levels.
179
Public Safety
FIRE OPERATING COST EFFICIENCY
THE OUTCOME
Efficient use and recovery of general fund resources.
THE MEASUREMENT
Net 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 99-00 as the base year
and adjusting for inflation). The consumer price index, as reported by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics for San Diego County for the 01-02 fiscal year was
2.9%. Applying this to the 00-01 base year figure of $105.60 results in a
benchmark of $108.66 for fiscal year 01-02.
RESULTS
FISCAL YEAR
01-02
00-01
99-00
BENCHMARK
$109
$106
$100
CARLSBAD
$101
$101
$90
Carlsbad population as of January 1, 2002 = 88,000 per the California
Department of Finance.
Actual Expenditures for FY 01-02: 10,293,824
Actual Revenues for FY 01 -02: 1.397,824
Net cost: 8,896,000
Net cost $8,896,000 / Population 88,000 = $101.09 per capita spent in FY 01-
02 to provide Fire, EMS, Prevention and Disaster Preparedness related
services.
180
ANALYSIS
Given the nature of emergency services, fire department expenditures do not
directly follow incremental increases in population or development. Rather,
emergency services are provided across a wide geographic area to meet certain
service level standards. As increases in population and development occur,
service levels begin to diminish as a result of the cumulative impact of growth.
When staffing increases to emergency services are eventually necessary, they
usually occur in multiples necessary to cover a 24 shift. For example, an
additional ambulance in the city would require six additional employees in
order to staff the ambulance with two personnel (x three shifts) for 24 hours
coverage.
It is unlikely that our existing complement of personnel will be able to maintain
our current level of service as the population of the city of Carlsbad increases
over time. Exactly when staffing increases will be needed will be determined in
part by our performance levels in regards to response time, customer
satisfaction, and confining fires to the room of origin.
A survey of San Diego County fire agencies shows Carlsbad's $101 per capita
expenditures to be above the mean of $81.85, as shown in the below chart:
November 2002 Fire Agency Net Expenditure Survey
Fire
Agency
imperial Beach
Escondido
San Marcos
Chula Vista
National City
Vista
Oceanside
Lemon Grove
Poway
La Mesa
Carlsbad
Santee
Encinitas
Coronado
Solana Beach
Del Mar
Agency
Expenditures
1,329,585
10,788,182
4,310,721
10,140,026
4,299,057
8,541,196
14,838,732
2,036,145
5,098,903
4,977,150
10,293,824
5,783,623
6,954,017
3,732,569
1,949,911
1,376,024
Agency
Revenues
0
4,038,333
1,190,849
574,105
2,050,682
2,658,302
0
958,667
54,446
1,397,824
227,014
53,281
39,148
33,265
0
Net
Cost
1,329,585
6,749,849
3,119,872
10,140,026
3,724,952
6,490,514
12,180,430
2,036,145
4,140,236
4,922,704
8,896,000
5,556,609
6,900,736
3,693,421
1,916,646
1,376,024
Agency
Population
27,500
137,000
60,800
190,900
58,100
92,100
167,200
25,350
49,650
55,600
88,000
53,700
60,000
25,950
13,300
4,500
Cost Per
Capita
$48.35
$49.27
$51.31
$53.12
$64. 1 1
$70.47
$72.85
$80.32
$83.39
$88.54
$101.09
$103.48
$115.01
$142.33
$144.11
$305.78
Mean $81.85
181
ACTION PLAN
Carlsbad will use this survey data to examine the related level of services
provided by each agency and if any best practices information can be
determined from the differing revenue and expenditure sources reported by the
agencies. Some of the issues to be examined include the level of paramedic
services provided, if ALS transport services are directly provided, is disaster
preparedness included in their budget, and what services are contracted.
The fire department also has developed a ten-year financial plan to assist the
department in planning and managing resources in a more proactive manner.
This financial plan will be useful in managing our department's contingency
and reserve accounts over the longer term, given the significant financial
impact that can occur when positions need to be staffed on a 24-hour/365 day
basis.
Finally, the fire department anticipates developing a comprehensive strategic
plan in the coming year that will establish clear priorities and direction for the
department as the city grows toward build out. By anticipating future growth,
regional cooperation opportunities, and service level expectations, associated
financial requirements can be identified and carefully considered as part of the
decision making process.
182
ml
Public Safety
FIRE CUSTOMER SERVICE AND SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction.
THE MEASUREMENT
A survey is mailed to a representative random sample of customers each month
after Emergency Medical Services (EMS) have been rendered. In fiscal year 01-
02, 605 surveys were mailed with 313 being returned, for a return rate of 52%.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Highly satisfied customers are 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 high quality
of life for community members.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Fire
BENCHMARK
95% of customers rate all EMS services as good (4 on a 1-5 scale) or excellent
in all customer service survey categories, utilizing a rating scale of l=Very Poor,
2=Poor, 3=Fair, 4=Good, and 5=Excellent.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK
911 Dispatch
Response Time
Competence
Courtesy
Transportation
> 95%
99.2%
98.7%
99.0%
99.4%
97.1%
The majority of results show a slight improvement over the previous year's
survey with the transportation of the patient category remaining nearly
identical to last year.
183
Percent of respondents rating services as: 4 (Good) or 5 (Excellent)
Survey
Question
FY 01-O2
FY 00-01
FY 99-00
911
Dispatch
99.2%
98.8%
97.9%
Response
time to scene
98.7%
97.9%
97.6%
Competence
of Paramedics
99.O%
98.5%
97. 1%
Courtesy of
Paramedics
99.4%
98.9%
97.4%
Transport
Of patient
97.1%
97.2%
95.6%
ANALYSIS
The survey results continue to validate that the city's dispatchers and
paramedics are providing excellent customer service. In FY 01-02, as in
previous years, the vast majority of comments reflected a sincere appreciation
for our assistance. However, a continued source of concern among patients is
the "bumpy ride" of our ambulances. Although we probably will not be able to
eliminate all the complaints in this area, it is hoped that the addition of our
three new ambulances will contribute to an improvement in this area in next
year's survey results.
This year only one complaint was received about keeping the patient warm
versus three complaints last year. An effort to make our paramedics aware of
this issue may have contributed to a reduction in complaints.
1. Bumpy Ride of Ambulance - The new ambulance units may provide
some relief to patients regarding the "bumpy ride" of our previous
ambulances. We will continue to monitor this issue to see if complaints
subside in the coming year.
2. Administrative - The department has begun distributing survey data
results and verbatim comments on a quarterly (rather than annual basis)
to all fire and dispatch personnel. This will allow us to identify and
address trends sooner and provide feedback to personnel in a timelier
manner
184
Public Safety
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - FIRE STATIONS
THE OUTCOME
Emergency response resources are distributed throughout the City in a manner
that ensures effective and efficient delivery of top quality services to the
community.
THE MEASUREMENT
The number of dwelling units outside a five minute travel time from the nearest
fire station.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
It was the intent of the City's GMP to ensure adequate fire department services
were maintained as residential development progressed toward "build-out" of
the city. The GMP standard recognized a five minute "travel time" from a fire
station to the emergency scene as a reasonable means of locating fire station
facilities throughout the community.
At the time the GMS was developed, scientific fire behavior information and
recognized best practices supported the position that a response time of five
minutes would result in effective fire incident intervention. To determine the
most desirable geographic sites for future fire stations, it was necessary to
convert the five minute response time to a measurable distance that could be
applied to a future road network scheme. This distance, or "reach" attainable
by emergency re spenders in a five minute travel time was calculated to be 2.5
miles at an estimated average speed of 30 mile per hour. The reach of each
existing and potential future fire station locations was then plotted on the
planned road network maps of that time. This process enabled the Fire
Department to predict the need for six fire stations at build out, each providing
service to several Local Facility Management Zones (LFMZ).
Once the number of fire station sites was determined, the timing of future fire
station installations became the question. The threshold of 1500 units was
adopted as the maximum number of dwellings that could exist outside a five-
minute response time or 2.5 road mile distance of the nearest fire station.
Hence, development within a fire station response area that would cause the
1500 unit threshold to be exceeded cannot not occur until fire station facilities
are relocated or added to relieve the shortfall.
185
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
The Fire Department monitors this performance measure using data provided
by the Geographic Information System and Planning Departments regarding
growth in each LFMZ.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
No more than 1,500 dwelling units outside of a five-minute response time.
At the time of the development of the GMP, response time was intended to be
the time required to drive from the fire station to the scene of the emergency.
So for the purposes of measuring adherence to the fire performance standard,
the term "response time" should be understood to mean "travel time." In the
fire department's opinion, this interpretation accurately reflects the intent of
the GMP.
RESULTS
None of the six fire station response areas have experienced growth to the
extent that the 1500 unit threshold has been exceeded. Four fire stations have
been constructed at their permanent location. Fire Station 3 (3701 Catalina
Drive) and Station 6 (a temporary facility at 3131 Levante Street) will be
relocated as development occurs in their response area. Fire Station 3 will
most likely need to be relocated farther east to coincide with development in
the NE section of the city. Fire Station 6 will need to be relocated farther north
to coincide with the housing development occurring in the SE section of the
city.
ANALYSIS
Because the GMP provides no other "trigger" mechanism for the installation of
additional fire stations, it follows that up to 1500 dwelling units could exist
outside the five minute reach of the closest fire station for an indeterminate
length of time without violating the GMP performance measure. Multiplying
the threshold amount by six (the current number of fire response areas), 9,000
dwellings could theoretically lie outside the five minute limit. While this would
most certainly be unacceptable, it demonstrates the fact that the five minute
response time measure was selected exclusively as a means of logically
positioning resources throughout the City. Therefore, the standard should be
applied as a means of measuring compliance with locating fire facilities in
accordance with the GMP, not the performance of the Fire Department in
meeting service responsibilities.
This analysis is upheld by the fact that we currently comply with the GMS but
do not achieve the fire department's performance goal of arriving on scene to
ninety percent of priority one calls in five minutes or less. This is possible, due
to the fact that although the travel time to a location (under ideal conditions) is
186
five minutes or less, other factors such as out of district responses, vague
location descriptions, traffic and road conditions may extend response times
beyond five minutes. These circumstances, combined with the locations
known (in excess of 2,000 dwelling units spread among six of the twenty-five
LFMZs) to be outside the five minute travel time result in the fire department
only arriving on scene five minutes or less 79% of the time as described in the
fire department's response time performance measurement.
ACTION PLAN
The Fire Department will continue to monitor for compliance with this
standard as housing development projects are proposed in the city. This issue
will also be examined as a component of the fire department's strategic plan
anticipated to be completed in the coming year. In the interim, the
development of a permanent Fire Station 6 is proceeding to coincide with the
completion of the Rancho Santa Fe realignment.
187
188
Police Department Summary
• Service Delivery
o Response time will not exceed 6 minutes for priority 1,15 minutes
for priority 2, and 30 minutes for priority 3.
Results: Meets the benchmark for all three priorities.
o Overall, violent and property clearance rates will be within the top
one-third of the county.
Results: All three clearance rates are within the top one-third.
o Citizens perception of crime shall not exceed the ICMA average.
Results: Within the benchmark.
• Cost
o Cost per capita will not exceed the county average of $207.
Results: $188
• Customer Satisfaction
o 90% of customers rate police services as good or excellent in all
categories.
Results: 2 out of 5 categories met or exceeded the benchmark.
o Sustained citizen complaints equal zero
Results: 0.29 sustained complaints per 10,000 calls.
Service Delivery
Customer Satisfaction
Gap
Customer Satisfactioi
IUO
(DO
189
Summary
The police department met the benchmark in four out of its five measures - in
response time, clearance rates, community perception of crime, and cost
efficiency. The area in which the department did not meet the benchmark was
customer service. The benchmark was to achieve a 90% rating in each of the
five customer service areas and to have zero sustained complaints. While 90%
of the respondents to our department customer survey rated patrol and
dispatch as good or excellent, the remaining three categories (investigations,
records, administration) rated between 85 and 89 percent. Consistent with
these results, 90% of the respondents to the 2002 citywide survey rated police
services as good or excellent. The department received two sustained
complaints in 2002.
Collectively, the performance measures indicate that the department is
providing a cost-efficient service in a manner that is satisfying the majority of
our citizens, and that our citizens feel extremely safe living on our community.
TOP QUALITY SERVICE
Police Response Time
Crime Clearance Rates
Community Perception Of Crime
Police Cost Efficiency
Police Customer Service
ACHIEVES
BENCHMARK
^
^
^
^
BENCHMARK
NOT
ACHIEVED
^
ADEQUATE
DATA NOT
AVAILABLE
190
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 assigned 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 coming 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
191
than one percent of the total police call volume, the response times for
priorities two and three are key to customer satisfaction.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Police
BENCHMARK
The FY 2001 ICMA mean average priority one response time for all jurisdictions
is 6.2 minutes. Carlsbad has used the benchmarks of 6, 15, and 30 minutes
for priorities 1, 2, and 3 respectively for many 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
All Jurstictions
6.2 mins.
N/A
N/A
ICMA
BENCHMARK
Jurstictions
Under 100,000
5.5 mins.
N/A
N/A
CARLSBAD
BENCHMARK
6.0 mins.
15.0 mins.
30.0 mins.
CARLSBAD
2002
6.0 mins.
11.5 mins.
23.7 mins.
The average response times for priorities 1 through 3 for 1993 through 2002
are as follows:
Priority 1
Priority 2
Priority 3
<93
4.9
9.8
20.1
-.:*94;
5.6
11.1
23.0
?.,'9S,
5.6
11.2
23.8
%.>*96'-
5.8
11.4
22.7
>••-• *97
5.6
11.0
21.8
%;^98,
5.6
10.7
22.1
•; - *99i
5.2
10.4
20.5
*.< 'OO
5.1
11.2
21.6
*OI
5.7
11.7
22.6
«02
6.0
11.5
23.7
2002 Calls for Service by Priority
192
ANALYSIS
Between 1997 and 2000, there had been a downward trend in all three priority
levels of response time despite an increase in call volume.
While 2000 showed no change in the average priority one response time, there
was an increase in both the average priority two and average priority three
response times. At the time, it was believed that this could be the start of a
trend of increasing response times. It was projected that we would first see an
increase in average response times for priority two and three calls, followed
eventually by an increase in the average response time to priority one calls.
Year 2001 and again 2002 response times have supported this. Not only have
the priorities two and three response times shown a general increase, but the
average priority one response time has also increased compared to the previous
year. In addition, the priority one response time is only slightly lower than the
ICMA average for jurisdictions of all sizes but less favorable when comparing to
jurisdictions with populations fewer than 100,000.
The total response time includes the time from the call being received to the
call being dispatched, and the time from the call being dispatched to an officer
arriving on scene. Part of the increase in response time during the last several
years has been an increase in the dispatch time. For example, less priority one
calls were dispatched in 2002 in less than 30 seconds (36%) than in 2001
46%). More were dispatched in 30-90 seconds in 2002 (52%) than in 2001
(46%) and more were dispatched in over 90 seconds in 2002 (13%) than in
2001 (8%).
ACTION PLAN
An upturn in the average response times has been identified and the
department must continue to closely monitor all three levels of response time.
It is likely that response times will continue to increase as the community
continues to develop. The best response time efforts may result in simply
maintaining response times at current levels. Staffing levels, traffic circulation,
beat realignment and patrol officer deployment practices need to be evaluated.
Although beat realignment is awaiting the new CAD system, there may be
temporary improvements that can be made with beat alignment. In addition,
the new communications manager will evaluate any communications-related
delays in an effort to reduce overall response time.
The department will report 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 closest available unit.
193
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
194
California. We are fairly confident in our local county data due to a shared
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 2001
Yes
Yes
Yes
Note: Individual city data is not yet available for 2002. 2001 data is presented
instead.
RANK
8
10
11
15
16
17
18
19
CITY
Santee
El Cajon
Carlsbad
Escondido
La Mesa
Lemon Grove
20O1 OVERALL CRIME
CLEARANCE RATES
Poway
Chula Vista
Unincorporated/ Sheriffs
San Diego
Vista
San Marcos
National City
Imperial Beach
Encinitas
Coronado
Solana Beach
Del Mar
27%
26%
23%
21%
21%
19%
19%
18%
18%
18%
18%
17%
16%
12%
9%
9%
6%
195
RANK
8
10
11
14
15
16
17
18
19
2001 VIOLENT CRIME
CLEARANCE RATES
CITY
Santee
La Mesa
El Cajon
Escondido
Carlsbad
Powa
RATE
77%
73%
70%
64%
60%
San Diego
Unincorporated
Coronado
San Marcos
Imperial Beach
Chula Vista
59%
56%
55%
53%
51%
50%
Oceanside
National City
Solana Beach
Vista
Lemon Grove
Encinitas
Del Mar
48%
44%
44%
43%
42%
41%
28%
CARLSBAD'S CLEARANCE RATES: 1992 - 2OO1
2001 PROPERTY CRIME
CLEARANCE RATES
CITY
Carlsbad
El Cajon
Santee
La Mesa
Lemon Grove
Escondido
RATE
Poway
Chula Vista
Vista
San Marcos
National City
San Dies
Overall Crime
Violent Crime
Property Crime
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%
20%
18%
18%
16%
15%
14%
14%
13%
12%
11%
11%
Oceanside
Unincorporated
Encinitas
Imperial Beach
Solana Beach
Coronado
Del Mar
11%
10%
9%
9%
5%
6%
3%
2000 2001
23% 23%
56% 60%
19% 20%
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 until recently. When looking at
ranked violent crime clearance rates, Carlsbad entered the top one-third in
196
2001 for the first time. Carlsbad's 2001 violent crime clearance rate was
Carlsbad's highest in over 10 years and while Carlsbad's has increased, the
county average has decreased. There are relatively few violent crimes in
Carlsbad so the overall clearance rate for the City is more 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 remains in
the top one-third countywide and was the top in the county in 2001 for the
first time. While Carlsbad's property crime clearance rate has held steady, the
rate for the county overall has decreased.
In general, clearance rates are 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 and property crime cases resulted in changes and process
improvements implemented in the Investigations Division. This resulted in
improved clearance rates. To assure that clearances remain a valuable,
accurate measure, the department must remain committed to ongoing review
and improvement. In addition, the department will request that a countywide
data quality assurance audit be conducted by SANDAG as was done in 1994.
In addition, the communication between first responding patrol officers,
detectives, and evidence specialists needs to continue. This communication
has helped close many cases because of information gathered at the initial
crime scene. In addition, the department will continue to encourage patrol
officers to initiate investigations at the initial call. This is often the most
effective time as leads and information are fresh.
197
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 2001 for cities with a population
under 100,000. Although ICMA uses a four-category response (very unsafe,
somewhat safe, reasonably safe, and very safe), our survey consultants
recommended using a 11-point scale for increased accuracy. Carlsbad used
responses of 9 or 10 on a 0 through 10-point scale (0 - not safe at all; 10 - very
safe) for the "very safe" category.
RESULTS
How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood during the day?
PERCENT RESPONDING "VERY SAFE"
*»
m
CARLSBAD
BENCHMARK
AVERAGE
2000
86%
62%
9.5
2001
87%
64%
9.6
2002
87%
67%
9.6
II
198
How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood at night?
PERCENT RESPONDING "VERY SAFE"
CARLSBAD
BENCHMARK
2000
41%
31%
7.5
2001
43%
33%
7.6
2002
39%
37%
7.6
ANALYSIS
The benchmarks increased slightly over the previous year based on ICMA
results for cities under 100,000 population. This may be due to the trend in
decreasing crime nationwide, relatively low unemployment, and other trends
prior to 2002. Carlsbad's ratings have held fairly steady over the past three
years.
Citizens' rating of safety may be influenced by a variety of factors such as
police visibility, media, current events, confidence in police service, lighting and
other physical aspects, personal experiences, and character of the
neighborhood.
ACTION PLAN
The department will continue programs that give citizens a strong feeling of
police presence such as bicycle patrol, and senior volunteer neighborhood
patrols, especially following residential burglaries. The department will
research factors that contribute to citizens' sense of safety and consider
questions in next year's citywide survey to ascertain what the most important
factors are. This will help in the development of specific actions to increase
citizens' sense of safety.
199
Public Safety
POLICE OPERATING COST EFFICIENCY
THE OUTCOME
The efficient use of general fund resources.
THE MEASUREMENT
Operating cost per capita for police services.
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
Police
BENCHMARK
The operating cost per capital shall not exceed the San Diego County average.
RESULTS
FISCAL YEAR
00-01
BENCHMARK
$207
CARLSBAD
$188
ANALYSIS
Carlsbad falls within the benchmark for this measure and is comparable to
other cities of similar size.
1
Hi
200
La Mesa
Chula Vista
Escondido
Oceanside
National City
Carlsbad
El Cajon
San Diego
Coronado
Sheriff-total
Average
20OO-01
Expenditures
$8,650,050
$28,803,906
$22,295,945
$27,390,620
$9,968,386
$15,582,719
$18,181,572
$265,839,188
$5,339,221
$179,926,067
$581,977;674
2001
Population
54,966
180,058
134,936
163,099
55,561
82,729
95,494
1,233,774
23,851
784,488
2,808,956
Per Capita
Cost
$157
$160
$165
$168
$179
$188
$190
$215
$224
$229
$207
Cftfe
1110mo
Expenditures include salary and benefits, plus department services
supplies. Capital expenditures are excluded.
and
For comparison purposes, the ICMA average per capital operating cost for
2000-01 was $183 for all jurisdictions and $150 for jurisdictions under
100,000 population. It is believed that San Diego County cities are a better
comparison due to the high cost of living and salaries found in Southern
California compared to other cities in the ICMA average.
ACTION PLAN
The police department must continue to carefully monitor its budget, seek out
alternative, non-general fund sources for funding such as grants, and
continually look for less costly options while maintaining service levels.
201
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 12 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
Highly satisfied customers are an indication that we are providing services in a
manner that is desired and/or expected, contributing to greater confidence in
the police department and local government in general, resulting in high
quality of life for community members.
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.
202
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Police
BENCHMARK
For the customer survey portion of the measure, 90% of customers rate police
services as good (4 on a 1-5 scale) or excellent in all customer service survey
categories, utilizing a rating scale of 1 Unacceptable, 2=Poor, 3=Satisfactory,
4=Good, and 5=Excellent. The benchmark in prior years was an average. The
data was recalculated to provide a percentage, a generally more accurate
presentation of the activity.
The benchmark for the citizen complaints portion of the measure is zero
sustained complaints per 10,000 calls for service - the lowest number on
record.
RESULTS
CITIZEN SURVEY CITIZEN COMPLAINTS
BENCHMARK
90%
CARLSBAD 2002*
88%
BENCHMARK
0
CARLSBAD 2002
0.29
% RATING POLICE SERVICE AS GOOD OR EXCELLENT
, ' - '" '"/••"' "-'.-
911 Dispatcher
Uniformed personnel
Detectives
Records
Administrative
Total
-: i999:r
86%
94%
84%
85%
88%
87%
?: 2lQ60>
89%
94%
85%
89%
87%
89%
2001
85%
93%
81%
83%
87%
86%
2002
90%
90%
86%
89%
85%
88%
* Based on January - September data
SUSTAINED PERSONNEL COMPLAINTS PER 10,OOO CALLS
1996
0.48
1997
0.47
1998
0
1999
0.15
2OOO
0.31
20O1
0.15
2002
0.29
ANALYSIS
Traditionally, uniformed personnel have the highest customer service rating of
all the police service areas; they have consistently rated at 90% or higher. They
continue to meet the benchmark, however, their rating has decreased from
previous years. There does not appear to be a trend in the other areas
measured. The detectives' rating increased in 1998 with the implementation of
203
the victim follow-up program conducted by volunteers. In 2001, the detective
rating dropped, most likely due to a difficult transition period between
volunteers for the victim follow up program. In 2002, these duties were
transferred to a part-time employee and the ratings have again increased. It is
expected that this number may again decrease slightly for the last quarter of
2002 as the part-time employee filled in for en employee on leave and the
follow-up program was .temporarily suspended.
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 usually represent just a few sustained complaints per year
out of less than 20 total annual complaints. The rate for 2002 represents 2
sustained complaints out of a total of 11; the 2001 rate was based on 1
sustained out of 9 total.
ACTION PLAN
It is recommended that the crime victim follow-up be carefully maintained, as
there was a direct relationship between the establishment of this program and
the increase in the investigations ratings. Decreases in detectives' service
ratings have occurred when the program has faltered. Ideally, the program will
continue with a part-time employee making calls every day as this provides for
improved continuity. Patrol ratings will be closely monitored; although meeting
the benchmark, there was a decrease in this year's rating. Every returned
survey indicating any level of dissatisfaction, and where there is identifying
information, will be followed up with a personal phone call asking the citizen
how we can improve. The department will analyze problems and make
corrections when appropriate.
With regard to citizen complaints, a review of the internal investigations policy
and procedure is complete. An internal investigations training was held for all
supervisors in January 2002. It is believed that the effective handling of
complaints can result in a higher level of customer satisfaction and confidence
and that an increased knowledge base yields better results. As a result, the
handling of the most time-consuming, complex citizen complaints will be
centralized with one lieutenant. Specialized training will be provided to this
lieutenant and he will .be able to serve as a resource to others in the
department. In addition, the department is working on risk identification and
mitigation. Related to a goal, a plan will be developed to address risk
proactively and through training.
204
APPENDIX 1: PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY RESULTS
205
t)•umzD
X
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report
Conducted for:
City of Carlsbad
Conducted by:
The Social and Behavioral Research Institute
January, 2003
Study Team:
Richard T. Serpe, Ph.D., Director
Allen J. Risley, M.A.; Associate Director
Michael D. Large, Ph.D.; Quantitative Study Director
Lori Brown Large, M.A.; Survey Study Director
Kimberly D. Brown, B.A.; Field Research Coordinator
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 1
DATA 2
RESULTS 4
Respondent Demographics 4
Demographics by Region 7
City Services and Facilities 10
City-Provided Services 10
City Service Ratings by Region 19
City Streets 26
Maintenance Services 29
Contracted Services 34
Land Use 38
Contact with the City of Carlsbad 43
Telephone Contact 43
Connectivity and Exchanges with the City by Internet 46
Access 46
Payment by Internet 47
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03
Resident Behaviors and Attitudes 51
Cable TV 51
Visiting the Carlsbad Village Area 56
Recycling 59
Feelings of Safety 61
City Information 64
Information Resources 64
Rating of Information Dispersal 66
Programs and Activities 67
Participation in a City Activity 70
Evaluation of City Government 72
City Features 77
Best Liked Features of Carlsbad 78
Biggest Concerns Regarding Carlsbad 82
Improving the Quality of Life in Carlsbad 84
Reasons for Moving to Carlsbad 86
SUMMARY 89
APPENDIX A 92
APPENDIXB 100
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion 2002 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 2002. 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 city-provided services,
facilities, and issues, and included a number of demographic questions. The report contains a
description of the data, and an elaboration of the results of the survey.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03
DATA
The information in this report is based on 1,019 telephone interviews conducted with
Carlsbad residents, 18 years of age or older. Respondent household telephone numbers were
selected for contact using Random-Digit-Dial methodology. Using this methodology, all listed
and unlisted residential telephone numbers within a geographic boundary have an equal chance
for inclusion in the sample. Approximately 500 interviews were conducted with respondent
households from two regions in the City of Carlsbad (North and South). The regions were
specified as follows; North included residents in the 92008 zip code, and the South included
residents in the 92009 zip code.
This questionnaire used for this study is similar to a surveys conducted by the SBRI for
the City of Carlsbad in 2000 and 2001. The questionnaire was designed by SBRI in consultation
with City of Carlsbad staff. Within the body of the report, comparisons are made between results
for these years. The interview questions can be found in Appendix A.
Responses to open-ended questions were transcribed by interviewers during the course of
the survey call. All open-ended responses were examined by SBRI analytical staff, who then
edited and coded the responses for use in this report. Appendix B contains these open-ended
responses.
All interviews were conducted by paid SBRI staff members using the SBRI's state-of-the-
art Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system, under the supervision of SBRI's
professional staff. Interviewers participate in a general, three-day training program when hired.
Additionally, a three to four hour training session was conducted at the outset of this project.
During the training session, the interviewers read through the questionnaire, conducted practice
interviews, and participated in a debriefing to resolve questions that arose during the training
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 2
session. SBRI's supervisory staff employs a silent monitoring system to listen to interviews
real-time for quality control purposes. This monitoring system was made available for use by
City of Carlsbad staff.
Interviewing for this study was conducted between July 29th and September 5th, 2002,
on-site at the SBRI office in San Marcos City Hall. Interviews were conducted Monday though
Friday 12:00pm to 9:00pm, Saturday 10:00am to 6:00pm, and Sunday l:00pm to 8:00pm, with
the greatest number of interviews being conducted weekday evenings and weekends. Scheduling
of the interviewing sessions was arranged to insure that a representative sample of Carlsbad
households were contacted. Up to 15 call attempts were made to telephone numbers before
retiring the numbers. The large number of call attempts were made in order to allow Carlsbad
residents with busy schedules and lifestyles to have enough opportunities to participate in the
survey.
SBRI interviewers made 47,457 telephone calls during the course of the study, with an
average completed interview length of 20.1 minutes. The response rate for the survey was
59.2%. This response rate was calculated using methodology supported by the Council of
American Survey Research Organizations (CASRO) and the American Association of Public
Opinion Researchers (AAPOR). The formula used was CASRO response rate formula RR4.
The results presented in this report are based on a sample of Carlsbad residents, and as
such should be viewed as an estimate of the opinions of Carlsbad residents. The margin of error
for this sample survey is +/- 3%. SBRI conducted statistical analysis for this report using
standard appropriate statistical procedures and measures, reporting statistically significant results
at the 95% confidence level. Documentation of the statistical tests employed by SBRI are
archived and available for client review.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03
RESULTS
Respondent Demographics
This section provides a description of the Carlsbad residents surveyed this year (2002).
These findings are very consistent with the demographics in the previous years of the study.
Consistent with most telephone surveys and the surveys conducted in 2000 and 2001,40.2
percent of those responding were male and 59.8 percent were female. These respondents had
lived in Carlsbad an average of 10.55 years, and averaged 49.40 years of age, ranging from 18 to
93 years old. Table 1 shows the distribution of the race/ethnicity of the respondents.1
lrThe "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.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 A
Table 1: Race/Ethnicity of Respondent
Valid
Missing
Total
1 White/Caucasion
2 African American or Black
3 Asian
4 American Indian, Aleut,
Eskimo
5 Hispanic or Latino
6 Other
Total
8 Don't Know
9 Refused
Total
Frequency
842
6
45
12
55
20
980
3
36
39
1019
Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent Percent
82.6
.6
4.4
1.2
5.4
2.0
96.2
.3
3.5
3.8
100.0
85.9
.6
4.6
1.2
5.6
2.0
100.0
85.9
86.5
91.1
92.3
98.0
100.0
Table 2 displays the annual household income of the respondents. Over half (54.9%) of
the respondents had total household incomes of more than $75,000. Incomes from $50,000 to
under $75,000 were most typical.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03
Table 2: Total Income Previous Year Before Taxes.
Valid 1 Under $25,000
2 $25,000 to under $35,000
3 $35,000 to under $50,000
4 $50,000 to under $75,000
5 $75,000 to under $100,000
Frequency
50
50
115
181
166
Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent Percent
4.9
4.9
11.3
17.8
16.3
5.7
5.7
13.1
20.6
18.9
5.7
11.4
24.5
45.1
64.0
6 $100,000 to under
$125,000
7 $125,000 to under
$150,000
8 $150,000 to under
$200,000
131
72
54
12.9
7.1
5.3
14.9
8.2
6.2
78.9
87.1
93.3
Missing
Total
9 $200,000 and above
Total
98 Don't Know
99 Refused
System
Total
59
878
12
128
1
141
1019
5.8 6.7 100.0
86.2 100.0
1.2
12.6
.1
13.8
100.0
Of the respondents, 77.3 percent indicated that they owned their home, and 22.7 percent
said they were renting. There was an average of 2.57 people in the households,and 34.8 percent
of the households had at least on child. Of those households with children, there was an average
of 1.71 children in the household.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03
Demographics by Region
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. The North and South Regions did differ slightly by ethnicity. This is
seen in Table 3. Most notably, the North Region had a higher percentage of Hispanic residents
than did the South Region.
Table 3: Race/Ethnicity by Region.
QRACE 1 White/Caucasion
Race of
2 African American or Black
3 Asian
4 American Indian, Aleut,
Eskimo
5 Hispanic or Latino
6 Other
Total
Count
% within REGION2 Region!
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
REGION2
1 North
420
84.8%
2
.4%
17
3.4%
5
1.0%
36
7.3%
15
3.0%
495
100.0%
Region2
2 South
422
87.0%
4
.8%
28
5.8%
7
1.4%
19
3.9%
. 5
1.0%
485
100.0%
Total
842
85.9%
6
.6%
45
4.6%
12
1.2%
55
5.6%
20
2.0%
980
100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03
The North and South Regions also differed with respect to income. Residents in the
South Region had a higher total household income than did residents in the North. This is
illustrated in Table 4.
Table 4: Total Household Pre-Tax Income by Region.
QINCOME
Income
Last Year
Before
Taxes
Total
1 Under $25,000
2 $25,000 to under
$35,000
3 $35,000 to under
$50,000
4 $50,000 to under
$75,000
5 $75,000 to under
$100,000
6 $100,000 to under
$125,000
7 $125,000 to under
$150,000
8 $150,000 to under
$200,000
9 $200,000 and above
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region!
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
REGION2
1 North
34
7.5%
26
5.7%
72
15.9%
102
22.5%
93
20.5%
62
13.7%
26
5.7%
18
4.0%
21
4.6%
454
100.0%
Region2
2 South
16
3.8%
24
5.7%
43
10.1%
79
18.6%
73
17.2%
69
16.3%
46
10.8%
36
8.5%
38
9.0%
424
100.0%
Total
50
5.7%
50
5.7%
115
13.1%
181
20.6%
166
18.9%
131
14.9%
72
8.2%
54
6.2%
59
6.7%
878
100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03
There was a considerable difference by region in home ownership. As Table 5 shows,
those in the North Region were much more likely to rent their home than were residents in the
South Region.
Table 5: Home Ownership by Region.
QDEMO2 Own
or Rent Home
Total
0 Own Count
% within REGION2 Region2
1 Rent Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
REGION2
1 North
365
72.0%
142
28.0%
507
100.0%
Region2
2 South
418
82.6%
88
17.4%
506
100.0%
Total
783
77.3%
230
22.7%
1013
100.0%
Additionally, as Table 6 shows, respondents in the North Region had lived in Carlsbad
longer than did respondents in the South Region. In fact, those in the north reported living in
Carlsbad nearly twice as long as those in the south.
Table 6: Years Lived in Carlsbad by Region.
REGION2 Region2 N Mean
QDEMO1 Years Lived in City 1 North
2 South
510
509
13.41
7.68
Std.
Deviation
13.10
7.92
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03
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. As Table 7 shows, all the city-provided services addressed in the survey were
rated as good or excellent by most people.
Table 7: Ratings of City Services in 2002.
1 Poor
Recreational
Programs
Library Services
Fire Protection
Services
Police Services
Traffic
Enforcement
Water Services
Cultural Arts
Programs
Sewer Services
Count
11
2
4
15
69
21
29
15
%
1.3%
.2%
.5%
1.6%
7.5%
2.1%
3.3%
1.6%
2 Fair
Count
86
38
12
66
192
92
155
74
%
9.8%
4.0%
1.5%
7.0%
20.9%
9.3%
17.6%
7.8%
3 Good
Count
463
341
395
470
504
615
427
642
%
52.7%
35.9%
48.2%
50.1%
54.8%
62.1%
48.4%
67.9%
4 Excellent
Count
318
568
409
388
155
262
272
214
%
36.2%
59.9%
49.9%
41.3%
16.8%
26.5%
30.8%
22.6%
Good/Excellent
Count
781
909
804
858
659
877
699
856
%
89.0%
95.8%
98.0%
91.4%
71.6%
88.6%
79.2%
90.6%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 10
Table 8 shows the ratings of the recreation programs by year of administration. This table
shows that the ratings are favorable, and that there has been no significant change during the
three years of this study.
Table 8: Recreational Programs Ratings by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
1 2000 2 2001 3 2002 Total
QSERV1
Recreational
Programs
Rating
1 Poor Count 15 11 11 37
% within YEAR Year of Study 1.8% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4%
2 Fair Count 81 73 86 240
% within YEAR Year of Study 9.6% 8.5% 9.8% 9.3%
3 Good Count 468 495 463 1426
% within YEAR Year of Study 55.3% 57.8% 52.7% 55.2%
4 Excellent Count 282 278 318 878
% within YEAR Year of Study 33.3% 32.4% 36.2% 34.0%
Count 846 857 878 2581
% within YEAR Year of Study 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Total
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 11
Table 9 shows the library services ratings. The table shows that about 60 percent of the
respondents rate the library services as excellent. These ratings have not changed significantly
from 2000.
Table 9: Library Services Ratings by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
1 2000 2 2001 3 2002 Total
QSERV2
Library
Services
Rating
1 Poor Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
Total
2
.2%
15
.5%
2 Fair Count 31 31 38 100
% within YEAR Year of Study 3.3% 3.3% 4.0% 3.6%
3 Good Count 335 317 341 993
% within YEAR Year of Study 36.1% 34.1% 35.9% 35.4%
4 Excellent Count 556 575 568 1699
% within YEAR Year of Study 59.9% 61.8% 59.9% 60.5%
Count 928 930 949 2807
% within YEAR Year of Study 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 12
The fire protection services received particularly good ratings. About half of the
respondents rated the fire protection services as excellent. This is seen in Table 10, which shows
that in general the distribution of ratings of fire protection services were higher in 2001 than they
were in 2000 or 2002.
Table 10: Fire Protection Services Ratings by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
1 2000 2 2001 3 2002 Total
QSERV3 Fire
Protection
Services Rating
1 Poor Count 7 5 4 16
% within YEAR Year of Study .8% .6% .5% .6%
2 Fair Count 26 17 12 55~
% within YEAR Year of Study 3.1% 2.1% 1.5% 2.2%
3 Good Count 395 337 395 1127
% within YEAR Year of Study 47.4% 41.3% 48.2% 45.7%
4 Excellent Count 405 456 409 1270
% within YEAR Year of Study 48.6% 56.0% 49.9% 51.5%
Count 833 815 820 2468
% within YEAR Year of Study 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Total
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 13
Police service ratings followed a pattern similar to that of fire protection services. That
is, the ratings were higher in 2001 than they were in 2000 or 2002. This is seen in Table 11. As
with the fire protection services, over 90 percent of the respondents rated these services as good
or excellent.
Table 11: Police Services Ratings by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
1 2000 2 2001 3 2002 Total
QSERV4 1 Poor
Rating 2 Fair
3 Good
4 Excellent
Total
Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
24
2.6%
64
7.0%
445
48.7%
380
41.6%
913
100.0%
16
1.7%
45
4.8%
408
43.7%
465
49.8%
934
100.0%
15
1.6%
66
7.0%
470
50.1%
388
41.3%
939
100.0%
55
2.0%
175
6.3%
1323
47.5%
1233
44.3%
2786
100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 14
The enforcement of traffic regulations was also rated by Carlsbad residents. The ratings
of traffic regulations enforcement were typically rated as good or excellent. This is shown in
Table 12. These ratings were highest in 2001.
Table 12: Traffic Enforcement Ratings by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
1 2000 2 2001 3 2002 Total
QSERV5
Traffic
Enforcement
Rating
1 Poor Count 123 74 69 266
% within YEAR Year of Study 12.9% 8.2% 7.5% 9.6%
2 Fair Count 205 160 192 557
% within YEAR Year of Study 21.5% 17.6% 20.9% 20.0%
3 Good Count 492 494 504 1490
% within YEAR Year of Study 51.5% 54.5% 54.8% 53.6%
4 Excellent Count 135 179 155 469
% within YEAR Year of Study 14.1% 19.7% 16.8% 16.9%
Count9559079202782
% within YEAR Year of Study 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Total
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 15
Residents were asked about water services in 2001 and 2002. These ratings are
summarized in Table 13, which shows that over 60 percent of the respondents rated the water
services as good, and about 90 percent of the respondents rated these services as good or
excellent. The ratings did not differ between 2001 and 2002.
Table 13: Water Services Ratings by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
2 2001 3 2002 Total
QSERV6 1 Poor
Water
SfTvtcrs
Rating 2 Fair
3 Good
4 Excellent
Total
Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
22
2.3%
63
6.5%
612
63.0%
275
28.3%
972
100.0%
21
2.1%
92
9.3%
615
62.1%
262
26.5%
990
100.0%
43
2.2%
155
7.9%
1227
62.5%
537
27.4%
1962
100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 16
Residents were asked about cultural arts programs in 2001 and 2002 as well. Their
responses are displayed in Table 14. Three quarters of the respondents indicated that they
thought the cultural arts programs in Carlsbad were good or excellent. The ratings did not differ
by year.
Table 14: Cultural Arts Programs Ratings by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
2 2001 3 2002 Total
QSERV7
Cultural Arts
Programs
Rating
Total
1 Poor Count 42 29 71
% within YEAR Year of Study 4.8% 3.3% 4.1%
2 Fair Count 152 155 307
% within YEAR Year of Study 17.6% 17.6% 17.6%
3 Good Count 414 427 841
% within YEAR Year of Study 47.8% 48.4% 48.1%
4 Excellent Count 258 272 530
% within YEAR Year of Study 29.8% 30.8% 30.3%
Count 866 883 1749
% within YEAR Year of Study 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 17
Table 15 shows the ratings of the city's sewer services. Over 90 percent of Carlsbad
residents said they thought the sewer services were good or excellent. These ratings did not vary
by year of administration.
Table 15: Sewer Services Ratings by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
2 2001 3 2002 Total
QSERV8 1 Poor
Sewer Services
Pafinp
2 Fair
3 Good
4 Excellent
Total
Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
15
1.8%
50
6.1%
554
67.2%
206
25.0%
825
100.0%
15
1.6%
74
7.8%
642
67.9%
214
22.6%
945
100.0%
30
1.7%
124
7.0%
1196
67.6%
420
23.7%
1770
100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 18
City Service Ratings by Region
Generally, city-provided service ratings were similar in the North and South regions.
They did, however, differ with respect to recreational and cultural arts programs. Table 16 shows
the ratings of recreational programs by region. While most people in both regions were likely to
rate the recreational programs as good or excellent, those in the North were more likely than
residents in the south to rate the city's recreational programs as excellent.
Table 16: Recreational Programs Ratings by Region.
QSERVl
Recreational
Programs
Rating
Total
1 Poor Count
% within REGION2 Region2
2 Fair Count
% within REGION2 Region2
3 Good Count
% within REGION2 Region2
4 Excellent Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
REGION2
1 North
3
.7%
41
9.0%
227
49.8%
185
40.6%
456
100.0%
Region2
2 South
8
1.9%
45
10.7%
236
55.9%
133
31.5%
422
100.0%
Total
11
1.3%
86
9.8%
463
52.7%
318
36.2%
878
100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 19
Table 17 also reveals a regional difference. It shows that residents in the North region
were more likely than those in the South region to rate Carlsbad's cultural arts programs as
excellent.
Table 17: Cultural Arts Programs Ratings by Region.
REGION2 Region2
1 North 2 South Total
QSERV7
Cultural Arts
Programs
Rating
Total
1 Poor Count
% within REGIONS Region2
2 Fair Count
% within REGION2 Region2
3 Good Count
% within REGION2 Region2
4 Excellent Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
8
1.8%
70
15.7%
213
47.8%
155
34.8%
446
100.0%
21
4.8%
85
19.5%
214
49.0%
117
26.8%
437
100.0%
29
3.3%
155
17.6%
427
48.4%
272
30.8%
883
100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 20
As mentioned above, for each of the city services the majority of the respondents rated
the service favorably. When a respondent rated a service as poor, however, they were asked why
they rated the service as poor. Their reasons for the poor ratings were coded, and are found in
Tables 18a-h. The most frequent complaint, shown in Table 18e, was the under-enforcement of
traffic regulations. This lead to a poor rating of traffic enforcement by 42 of the respondents.
The original statements from the respondents are found in Appendix B.
Table 18a: Reason for Poor Recreational Programs Rating.
Valid
Missing
Total
1 Lack of Facilities/Programs
2 Slow in Developing
Programs
3 Need More Evening/Family
Programs
Total
8 Don't Know
System
Total
Frequency
6
3
1
10
1
1008
1009
1019
Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent Percent
.6 60.0
.3 30.0
.1 10.0
1.0 100.0
.1
98.9
99.0
100.0
60.0
90.0
100.0
Table 18b: Reason for Poor Library Services Rating.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Lack of Selection 2 .2
Missing System 1017 99.8
Total 1019 100.0
100.0 100.0
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 21
Table 18c: Reason for Poor Fire Protection Services Rating.
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
1 Inaction During Fire
2 Overuse of Siren
Total
System
3
1
4
1015
1019
Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent Percent
.3 75.0
.1 25.0
.4 100.0
99.6
100.0
75.0
100.0
Table 18d: Reason for Poor Police Services Rating.
Valid 1 No Positive Dealings with Police/
Frequency
7
Percent Valid Percent
.7 50.0
Cumulative
Percent
50.0
2 No Police Presence in
Neighborhoods
m
m
21.4 71.4
Missing
Total
3 Slow to Arrive at Scene of Crime
4 Focus Is on Minor Violations
5 Other
Total
9 Refused
System
Total
1
2
1
14
1
1004
1005
1019
.1
.2
.1
1.4
.1
98.5
98.6
100.0
7.1
14.3
7.1
100.0
78.6
92.9
100.0
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 22
Table 18e: Reason for Poor Traffic Enforcement Rating.
Valid
Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
1 Under Enforcement
of Traffic Regulations
2 Over Enforcement 7 .7 10.3
3 Poor Traffic Flow 13 1.3 19.1
4 Other 6 .6 8.8
Total 68 6.7 100.0
8 Don't Know 1 .1
System 950 93.2
Total 951 93.3
1019 100.0
Cumulative
Percent
61.8
72.1
91.2
100.0
Table 18f : Reason for Poor Water Services Rating.
Valid
Missing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
1 Poor Water Quality 8 .8 38.1
2 Low Water Pressure 2 .2 9.5
3 Too Expensive 2 .2 9.5
4 Poor Customer Q Q OO 1
Service/Problems with Billing
5 Other 1 .1 4.8
Total 21 2.1 100.0
System 998 97.9
1019 100.0
Cumulative
Percent
38.1
47.6
57.1
95.2
100.0
- City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 23
Table 18g: Reason for Poor Cultural Arts Programs Rating.
Valid
Missing
Total
Valid
Missing
Total
Frequency
1 Few Activities
Offered/Need More Variety
2 Activities Not Well
Publicized
3 Need Better Quality
Activities
Total 29
System 990
1019
Table 18h: Reason for Poor
Frequency
1 Frequent Sewage
Blockage/Backup
2 Too Expensive 2
3 Can Smell Sewer 2
4 Environment Effects
of Sewage Spills
5 Poor Service 3
Total 15
System 1004
1019
Percent Valid Percent
1.1 37.9
1.0 34.5
.8 27.6
2.8 100.0
97.2
100.0
Sewer Services Rating.
Percent Valid Percent
.5 33.3
.2 13.3
.2 13.3
.3 20.0
.3 20.0
1.5 100.0
98.5
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
37.9
72.4
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
33.3
46.7
60.0
80.0
100.0
P
m
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 24 m
m
1
i
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 over 90 percent of the respondents, as illustrated in Table 19. The ratings
Table 19: Overall City Services Ratings by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
QGENSRV
Overall City
Services
Rating
Total
1 Poor Count
% within YEAR
2 Fair Count
% within YEAR
3 Good Count
% within YEAR
4 Excellent Count
% within YEAR
Count
% within YEAR
Year of Study
Year of Study
Year of Study
Year of Study
Year of Study
1 2000 .
9
.9%
74
7.5%
614
62.5%
285
29.0%
982
100.0%
2 2001
3
.3%
41
4.1%
612
61.4%
341
34.2%
997
100.0%
3 2002
7
.7%
45
4.5%
618
61.1%
341
33.7%
1011
100.0%
Total
19
.6%
160
5.4%
1844
61.7%
967
32.3%
2990
100.0%
were higher in 2001 and 2002 than they were in 2000. These ratings did not vary by region.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 25
City Streets
Carlsbad residents were asked about the city street conditions in the city. Overall road
conditions were rated quite positively. Most of the respondents rated the overall road conditions
as good or excellent, as indicated in Table 20.
Table 20: Overall Road Condition Ratings by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
1 2000 2 2001 3 2002 Total
QSTREET1
Overall Road
Condition
Rating
Total
1 Poor Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
2 Fair Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
3 Good Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
4 Excellent Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
26
2.6%
170
17.0%
585
58.5%
219
21.9%
1000
100.0%
21
2.1%
138
13.7%
595
59.0%
255
25.3%
1009
100.0%
32
3.1%
141
13.9%
628
61.8%
216
21.2%
1017
100.0%
79
2.6%
449
14.8%
1808
59.7%
690
22.8%
3026
100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 26
Table 21 shows the ratings of the traffic circulation in the city. A little less than half of
the respondents offered a good or excellent rating of the traffic circulation in the city. These
ratings varied by year of administration. Specifically, the ratings were a little higher in 2001 and
2002 than they were in 2000.
Table 21: Traffic Circulation Efficiency Ratings by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
1 2000 2 2001 3 2002 Total
QSTREET5 1 Poor
Traffic Circulation
Efficiency Rating
Count 252 171 186 609
% within YEAR Year of Study 25.3% 17.0% 18.4% 20.2%
2 Fair Count 338 377 363 1078
% within YEAR Year of Study 33.9% 37.5% 35.8% 35.8%
3 Good Count 361 384 393 1138
% within YEAR Year of Study 36.2% 38.2% 38.8% 37.8%
4 Excellent Count 46 72 71 189
% within YEAR Year of Study 4.6% 7.2% 7.0% 6.3%
Count 997 1004 1013 3014
% within YEAR Year of Study 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Total
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 27
There was a regional difference in the ratings of traffic circulation efficiency. This is
seen in Table 22, which shows that residents in the North region rated traffic circulation lower
than did South region residents.
Table 22: Traffic Circulation Efficiency Ratings by Region.
REGION2 Region2
1 North 2 South Total
QSTREET5
Traffic Circulation
Efficiency Rating
Total
1 Poor Count
% within REGION2 Region2
2 Fair Count
% within REGION2 Region2
3 Good Count
% within REGION2 Region2
4 Excellent Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
119
23.4%
180
35.4%
179
35.2%
30
5.9%
508
100.0%
67
13.3%
183
36.2%
214
42.4%
41
8.1%
505
100.0%
186
18.4%
363
35.8%
393
38.8%
71
7.0%
1013
100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 28
Maintenance Services
City residents gave their opinions about the maintenance services provided by the city.
Their responses are summarized in Table 23. The table shows that all services were rated as
good or excellent by at least 80 percent of the respondents. The most favorable ratings were for
the maintenance of the seawall walkway along Carlsbad Boulevard; 44.4 percent rated it as
excellent and 45.3 percent rated it as good.
Table 23: Ratings of City Maintenance Services.
Poor Fair Good Excellent
Maintenance of Streets Count
and Landscaping „
Tree Maintenance Count
%
Park Maintenance Count
%
Litter Clean Up Count
%
Maintenance of Count
Sidewalks „
Maintenance of Seawall Count
Walkway „/o
39 138 561 276
3.8% 13.6% 55.3% 27.2%
46 137 582 225
4.6% 13.8% 58.8% 22.7%
10 74 525 353
1.0% 7.7% 54.6% 36.7%
30 128 582 269
3.0% 12.7% 57.7% 26.7%
34 150 601 207
3.4% 15.1% 60.6% 20.9%
22 76 430 421
2.3% 8.0% 45.3% 44.4%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 29
The maintenance of the seawall walkway along Carlsbad Boulevard was the only
maintenance service which was rated differentially by region. That is, those in the north were
much more likely to rate the maintenance of the seawall walkway as excellent than were
residents of the South Region. This is seen in Table 24.
Table 24: Rating of the Seawall Walkway Maintenance by Region.
Region2
North South Total
Maintenance
of Seawall
Walkway
Total
Poor Count
% within Region2
Fair Count
% within Region2
Good Count
% within Region2
Excellent Count
% within Region2
Count
% within Region2
14
2.8%
37
7.5%
191
38.8%
250
50.8%
492
100.0%
8
1.8%
39
8.5%
239
52.3%
171
37.4%
457
100.0%
22
2.3%
76
8.0%
430
45.3%
421
44.4%
949
100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 30
After residents rated the maintenance services, they were asked how confident they were
in the city to resolve any public maintenance issues that they might have. On a scale of zero to
ten, with higher numbers indicating greater confidence, the average rating was 7.08, indicating a
fairly high level of confidence. The distribution of responses is displayed in Figure 1. These
ratings did not differ by region.
400
Confidence
Figure 1: Confidence in the City to Resolve Maintenance Issues (2002).
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 31
Those offering a rating of less than 4 were asked what the city could do to raise the
respondent's confidence level regarding public maintenance issues. Their responses are found in
Table 25. Of the 43 people giving a response, the most common was for the city to be more
proactive about maintenance.
Table 25: How to Raise Confidence Level Regarding Public Maintenance Issues.
Frequency
Valid
Missing
Total
More Responsive
Listen to and Obtain
Community Input
Open Roads
More Proactive
New City Officials
Other
Total
Don't Know
System
Total
7
6
4
19
5
2
43
6
970
976
1019
Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent Percent
.7
.6
.4
1.9
.5
.2
4.2
.6
95.2
95.8
100.0
16.3 16.3
14.0 30.2
9.3 39.5
44.2 83.7
11.6 95.3
4.7 100.0
100.0
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 32
Residents were also asked if they would be willing to pay an additional tax to maintain
street medians. Specifically, they were asked if they would be willing to pay an additional $2 to
$5 per year to maintain the current quality of street medians in Carlsbad. As Table 26 shows,
over two-thirds (68.9%) of the respondents indicated that they were willing to pay that much to
maintain the street medians.
Table 26: Willingness to Pay Additional Tax to Maintain Street Medians.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid No 311305 3L1 31.1
Yes 689 67.6 68.9 100.0
Total 1000 98.1 100.0
Missing Don't Know 18 1.8
Refused 1 .1
Total 19 1.9
Total 1019 100.0
— City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 33
Contracted Services
In addition to the city-provided services, respondents were also asked about services
contracted from outside agencies. All of these services were rated as good or excellent by most
people, and the ratings of these services did not differ by region. Table 27 shows the ratings of
the trash and recycling services contracted by the city. This table reveals a slight difference in
the distribution of ratings by year, with a drop-off in the rating of the trash and recycling
collection service in 2002.
Table 27: Trash and Recycling Collection Rating by Year.
Year of Study
Trash and
Recycling
Collection
Rating
Total
Poor Count
% within Year of Study
Fair Count
% within Year of Study
Good Count
% within Year of Study
Excellent Count
% within Year of Study
Count
% within Year of Study
2000
35
3.5%
131
13.2%
502
50.8%
321
32.5%
989
100.0%
2001
43
4.3%
142
14.2%
474
47.3%
343
34.2%
1002
100.0%
2002
63
6.3%
142
14.2%
508
50.7%
289
28.8%
1002
100.0%
Total
141
4.7%
415
13.9%
1484
49.6%
953
31.8%
2993
100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 34
The street-sweeping service was generally rated favorable, as can be seen in Table 28.
There was a difference in ratings by year of the survey. That is, ratings of the street-sweeping
service were a little lower in 2000 than they were in 2001 and 2002. In 2000, 71.4 percent of the
respondents rated this service as good or excellent, while in 2001 and 2002,75.0 percent and
74.0 percent of respondents (respectively) rated street sweeping as good or excellent.
Additionally, the percentage of excellent ratings dropped from 22.5 percent in 2001 to 17.0
percent in 2002.
Table 28: Street Sweeping Rating by Year.
Year of Study
Street Poor
Sweeping
Rating
Fair
Good
Excellent
Total
Count
% within Year of Study
Count
% within Year of Study
Count
% within Year of Study
Count
% within Year of Study
Count
% within Year of Study
2000
67
7.1%
202
21.5%
484
51.5%
187
19.9%
940
100.0%
2001
58
6.1%
179
18.9%
498
52.5%
213
22.5%
948
100.0%
2002
66
6.9%
184
19.1%
549
57.0%
164
17.0%
963
100.0%
Total
191
6.7%
565
19.8%
1531
53.7%
564
19.8%
2851
100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 35
Hazardous waste disposal was also rated positively. In 2002, about half (52.0%) of the
respondents offered a good rating, and another 13.5 percent gave excellent ratings to the
hazardous waste disposal service contracted by the city. This is seen in Table 29. These ratings
did not differ by year or region.
Table 29: Hazardous Waste Disposal Rating by Year.
Year of Study
2000 2001 2002 Total
Hazardous Poor
Waste
pJ5p^<5Rl
Rating Fair
Good
Excellent
Total
Count
% within Year of Study
Count
% within Year of Study
Count
% within Year of Study
Count
% within Year of Study
Count
% within Year of Study
81
13.5%
139
23.2%
294
49.1%
85
14.2%
599
100.0%
83
14.4%
117
20.3%
287
49.7%
90
15.6%
577
100.0%
79
12.7%
135
21.7%
323
52.0%
84
13.5%
621
100.0%
243
13.5%
391
21.8%
904
50.3%
259
14.4%
1797
100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 36
^ In 2002 respondents were asked about another contracted service, animal control. The
— ratings of this service are found in Table 30. Most (80.4%) of the respondents rated this service
as good or excellent. The animal control ratings did not differ by region.
.-'.Hem
&OL
*, Table 30: Animal Control Rating in 2002.
Animal
Control
Rating
Total
Poor Count
% within Year of Study
Fair Count
% within Year of Study
Good Count
% within Year of Study
Excellent Count
% within Year of Study
Count
% within Year of Study
Year of
Study
2002
44
• 5.1%
126
14.5%
549
63.3%
148
17.1%
867
100.0%
Total
44
5.1%
126
14.5%
549
63.3%
148
17.1%
867
100.0%
""» City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 37
Land Use
Residents' attitudes were assessed regarding land use and development in the City of
Carlsbad. They were asked to rate how well they thought the City of Carlsbad was doing
balancing various land uses in the city such as residential, commercial, industrial, and
recreational. Respondents answered on a scale of zero to ten, where zero indicated very poor and
ten indicated excellent. The average rating was 6.17, and did not vary by region. Figure 2
displays the distribution of responses.
Pto
tt
p
•it
H
30
20- Bl
.-•••mi
Poor Excellent
Land Use Balance
Figure 2: Rating of City Balancing Land Uses - 2002.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 38
ft
m
Those offering ratings below four on the zero-to-ten scale were asked what the city could
do to improve their rating on the issue. The suggestions residents gave are found in Table 31, the
most common of which was to set limits on growth.
Table 31: How to Improve Land Use Rating.
Valid
Missing
Total
1 Improve Traffic Flow/Roads
2 Set Limits on Growth
3 Create More Recreation
Facilities/Golf Courses
4 Preserve Open Spaces/Large
Areas for Habitat
5 More Parks/Skateboard
Parks
6 More Thoughtful Planning
7 Other
Total
8 Don't Know
System
Total
Frequency
8
54
6
16
9
26
9
128
2
889
891
1019
Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent Percent
.8
5.3
.6
1.6
.9
2.6
.9
12.6
.2
87.2
87.4
100.0
6.3 6.3
42.2 48.4
4.7 53.1
12.5 65.6
7.0 72.7
20.3 93.0
7.0 100.0
100.0
Familiarity of residents with Carlsbad's growth management plan and general plan was
assessed. On a zero-to-ten scale with higher numbers indicating greater familiarity, respondents
were asked how familiar they were with Carlsbad's growth management plan. The average
familiarity score, as shown in Table 32, was 4.06, suggesting residents are not very familiar with
the plan. Figure 3 shows the distribution of responses.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 39
Table 32: Familiarity with Carlsbad's Growth Management Program and General Plan.
te
m
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
QCGMP Familiarity
with Carlsbad Growth
Management Program
QCGP Familiarity with
Carlsbad's General Plan
Valid N (listwise)
1009
1012
1006
10
10
4.06
3.58
2.991
2.902 fIk
m
m
30
20- ^1
i JJiuih-
Poor Excellent
Familiarity
Figure 3: Familiarity with Carlsbad's Growth Management Plan.
IP
m
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 40
The degree to which residents were familiar with Carlsbad's growth management plan
varied by region. This is illustrated in Table 33. Those in the North region indicated a higher
degree of familiarity than did residents in the South region.
Table 33: Familiarity with Carlsbad's Growth Management Program.
REGION2 Region2 N Mean Std. Deviation
QCGMP Familiarity 1 North 503 4.28 3.016
with Carlsbad Growth
Management Program 2 South 506 3.84 2.952
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 41
Residents were also asked about their familiarity with the city's general plan. The ratings
of residents' familiarity with the city's general plan averaged 3.58 on the zero-to-ten familiarity
scale. Figure 4 shows the distribution of responses. This rating did not vary by region.
*
I
<u
I
Poor 8 Excellent
m
m
Familiarity
Figure 4: Familiarity with Carlsbad's General Plan - 2002.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 42
Contact with the Citv of Carlsbad
Telephone Contact
Resident contact with the city was given attention in the survey in 2001 and 2002.
Respondents were asked if they had any telephone contact with the City of Carlsbad by telephone
in the last year. Almost half (47.6%) of the respondents in 2002 reported having phone contact
with the City of Carlsbad in the past year. This represents an increase over the percentage having
contact with the city by phone last year (37.2%), as illustrated in Table 34.
Table 34: Contact with City Via Telephone in Past Year by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
2 2001 3 2002 Total
QCALL5 Contact with 0 No Count
City Via Telephone in
Past Year % within YEAR Year of Study
632
62.8%
Total
532
52.4%
1164
57.6%
1 Yes Count 374 484 858
% within YEAR Year of Study 37.2% 47.6% 42.4%
Count 1006 1016 2022
% within YEAR Year of Study 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 43
There was a difference in the likelihood that someone had contact with the city depending
on region. As Table 35 indicates, those in the north were considerable more likely to call the city
than were residents in the south.
Table 35: Contact with City Via Telephone hi Past Year by Region.
REGION2 Region2
1 North 2 South Total
QCALL5 Contact with
City Via Telephone in
Past Year
Total
0 No Count 236 296 532
% within REGION2 Region2 46.5% 58.2% 52.4%
1 Yes Count 271 213 484
% within REGION2 Region2 53.5% 41.8% 47.6%
Count 507 509 1016
% within REGION2 Region2 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 44
The respondents who had telephone contact with the city were asked how they would rate
that contact. Their responses in 2001 and 2002 are summarized in Table 36. Only about five
percent rated their contact with the city as poor, while four out of five rated their contact as good
or excellent. There was a small difference in ratings by year. That is, the ratings were a little
higher in 2001 than they were in 2002. They did not differ by region.
Table 36: Overall Rating of Telephone Contact with City by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
QCALL6 Overall 1 Poor
Rating of
Telephone ._
Contact with City 2 Fair
3 Good
4 Excellent
Total
Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
Count
% within YEAR Year of Study
2 2001
21
5.6%
41
11.0%
133
35.7%
178
47.7%
373
100.0%
3 2002
25
5.2%
78
16.3%
193
40.2%
184
38.3%
480
100.0%
Total
46
5.4%
119
14.0%
326
38.2%
362
42.4%
853
100.0%
Those that did rate their telephone contact with the city as poor were asked why they did
so. The responses of the 25 people giving a poor rating in 2002 are summarized in Table 37.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 45
Table 37: Reason Respondent Rated Contact with City as Poor.
Valid
Missing
Total
1 City Was Non-Responsive
to Phone Calls
2 Problem Was Not Resolved
3 Other
Total
System
Frequency
10
11
4
25
994
1019
Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent Percent
1.0
1.1
.4
2.5
97.5
100.0
40.0 40.0
44.0 84.0
16.0 100.0
100.0
Connectivity and Exchanges with the City by Internet
Access
In 2002, residents were asked about Internet access. Most (80.2%) of the respondents
said they go online to access the Internet, World Wide Web, or to send and receive e-mail. This
is seen in Table 38. Of those that reported going online, 94.7 percent said they had Internet
access at home. Those with Internet access at home were asked if they had a high-speed
connection. Half (50.1%) of the residents indicated that they did have a high-speed connection
such as a cable modem, ISDN, DSL, or a Tl line.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 46
Table 38: Internet Access.
Accesses Internet, WWW,
or Send/Receive E-mail
Has Home Internet Access
Uses High Speed Internet
Connection
0 No
Count %
202 19.8%
43 5.3%
383 49.9%
1 Yes
Count
817
774
384
%
80.2%
94.7%
50.1%
Payment by Internet
Those reporting that they go online were asked if they would use the Internet to (1)
register and pay for recreation programs and classes, and (2) pay their water or trash bill. Table
39 shows that three quarters of the respondents who go online would pay for recreation programs
and classes over the Internet, and over half (56.5%) would pay their water or trash bill over the
Internet.
Table 39: Interest in Internet Transactions with the City.
0 No 1 Yes
Count Count
Would Use Internet to
Register/ Pay for
Recreational Programs
Would Use Internet to
Pay Water or Trash Bill
200
345
24.9%
43.5%
603
449
75.1%
56.5%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 47
There was a regional difference in the willingness to register for and pay for recreation
programs and classes, but no effect of region on the willingness to pay their water or trash bill.
Table 40 shows that those in the South were a little more likely to say they would register for and
pay for recreation programs and classes on the Internet.
Table 40: Would Use Internet for City Transactions.
REGION2 Region2
1 North 2 South Total
QWEBREC Would Use 0 No Count
Internet to Register/
Pay for Recreational
Programs J Yes Count
Region2
110
2g.1%
% within REGION2 Region2
281
71.9%
90
21.8%
322
78.2%
200
24.9%
603
75.1%
Total Count 391 412 803
% within REGION2 Region2 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 48
Residents who indicated that they would not register for and pay for recreation programs
and classes on the Internet were asked what the main reason was that would keep them from
using the Internet to register for and pay for recreation programs and classes. The reasons they
offered are listed in Table 41. Concerns about security and privacy were the most common.
Table 41: Main Reason for Not Using Internet to Register and Pay for Classes.
Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Concerns about
Security/Privacy on Internet
2 Not Interested in Recreation
Programs and Classes
3 Like Paying the Old Way
4 Prefer Face to Face
Interaction/See Facilities and
Area
60
23
18
18
. 5.9
2.3
1.8
1.8
30.3
11.6
9.1
9.1
30.3
41.9
51.0
60.1
5 Not Computer and Internet
Literate/Do Not Have
Computer
6 Does Not Like Using
Computer/Internet for That
Purpose
23
24
2.3
2.4
11.6
12.1
71.7
83.8
Missing
Total
7 Other
Total
8 Don't Know
System
Total
32
198
3
818
821
1019
3.1
19.4
.3
80.3
80.6
100.0
16.2 100.0
100.0
The reasons residents gave for saying they would not pay for water or trash over the
Internet are displayed in Table 42. The most common reason given was the same as for the
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 49
registration and payment of recreation programs and classes, that is, concerns about security and
privacy.
Table 42: Main Reason for Not Using Internet to Pay Water or Trash Bill.
Valid 1 Concerns about
Security/Privacy on Internet
2 Concerns about Reliability
with Billing over Internet
3 Not Computer or Internet
Literate/Do Not Have
Computer
4 Like Paying the Old Way
5 Wants Hard Copy of Bill
and Check for Records
6 Does Not Pay Water and
Trash
7 Prefers Electronic
Services/Convenience of
Current System
8 Does Not Like Using
Computer/Internet for That
Purpose
9 Other
Total
Missing 98 Don't Know
99 Refused
System
Total
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
111 10.9 33.4
13 1.3 3.9
17 1.7 5.1
52 5.1 15.7
17 1.7 5.1
21 2.1 6.3
38 3.7 11.4
46 4.5 13.9
17 1.7 5.1
332 32.6 100.0
12 1.2
1 .1
674 66.1
687 67.4
1019 100.0
Cumulative
Percent
33.4
37.3
42.5
58.1
63.3
69.6
81.0
94.9
100.0
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 50
m Resident Behaviors and Attitudes
•»«»
3iM
Cable TV
•affm '
mm
Cable television subscription and satisfaction was investigated. Most (85.7%) residents
•$**
_ report subscribing to cable television. The likelihood of subscribing to cable TV is slightly
""" higher in the South than it is in the North, as illustrated in Table 43.
":-ieat
Table 43: Cable TV Subscription by Region.
REGION2 Region2
1 North 2 South
QCBLTV
Currently
Subscribes to
Cable TV
Total
Total
0 No Count 84 62 146
% within REGION2 Region2 16.5% 12.2% 14.3%
1 Yes Count 425 447 872
% within REGION2 Region2 83.5% 87.8% 85.7%
Count 509 509 1018
% within REGION2 Region2 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
^ City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 51
The reasons people gave for not subscribing to cable TV are enumerated in Table 44.
Many of those not subscribing to cable TV were satellite TV subscribers, but the expense of
cable and not watching much TV were also common reasons given by Carlsbad residents for not
subscribing to cable TV.
Table 44: Main Reason for Not Subscribing to Cable TV.
Valid 1 Rates Are Too High
2 Don't Like Programming
Options Offered
3 Subscribe to Satellite or
Other Programming Service
4 Don't Watch TV Much
5 Satisfied with Local
Broadcast TV
6 Cable Customer Service Is
Poor
7 Other
Total
Missing 8 Don't Know
9 Refused
System
Total
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
30 2.9 21.0
10 1.0 7.0
44 4.3 30.8
32 3.1 22.4
4 .4 2.8
11 1.1 7.7
12 1.2 8.4
143 14.0 100.0
1 .1
1 .1
874 85.8
876 86.0
1019 100.0
Cumulative
Percent
21.0
28.0
58.7
81.1
83.9
91.6
100.0
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 52
Those subscribing to cable TV were asked about their satisfaction with their cable
television service. On a zero-to-ten scale with higher numbers indicating greater satisfaction, the
average rating was 6.17, suggesting that satisfaction moderate. The distribution of responses to
this question is displayed in Figure 5. People offering a low rating (less than four) were asked
why they rated the cable TV service so low. Their responses are in Table 45.
cIoOi
Poor Excellent
1
Satisfaction
Figure 5: Satisfaction with Cable TV Service - 2002.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 53
Table 45: Reason for Low Cable Service Rating.
Valid
Missing
Total
1 Dislikes the Programming
2 High Cost
3 Poor Customer Service
4 Poor Quality of
Service/Problems with
Connection/Equipment
5 Poor Reception/Noise
6 No Other Cable TV
Service Options
7 Other
Total
8 Don't Know
9 Refused
System
Total
Frequency
50
58
27
21
14
13
33
216
2
1
800
803
1019
Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent Percent
4.9
5.7
2.6
2.1
1.4
1.3
3.2
21.2
.2
.1
78.5
78.8
100.0
23.1 23.1
26.9 50.0
12.5 62.5
9.7 72.2
6.5 78.7
6.0 84.7
15.3 100.0
100.0
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 54 m
m
^ Cable TV subscribers also rated their satisfaction with their cable company's ability to
™~ inform them about changes in services, channel line-ups, and rates. As Table 46 shows, 59.9
percent of the respondents said their cable company's service was good or excellent in this
«•» regard. These ratings did not differ by region.
Table 46: Ability of Cable Company to Inform about Changes in Services,
Channels, and Rates.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Missing
Total
1 Poor
2 Fair
3 Good
4 Excellent
Total
8 Don't Know
9 Refused
System
Total
119
224
387
126
856
16
1
146
163
1019
11.7
22.0
38.0
12.4
84.0
1.6
.1
14.3
16.0
100.0
13.9 13.9
26.2 40.1
45.2 85.3
14.7 100.0
100.0
"* City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 55
Visiting the Carlsbad Village Area
Not surprisingly, the frequency of visiting the downtown Carlsbad Village area depended
on where the residents lived. That is, residents in north Carlsbad were more than twice as likely
as south Carlsbad residents to report going to the downtown Carlsbad Village area at least once a
week. This is illustrated in Table 47.
Table 47: Frequency of Visits to Downtown Village Area by Region.
QVISV1L
Frequency
of Visits to
Downtown
Village
Area
Total
1 At Least Once a Week
2 At Least Once a
Month
3 Three or More Times
a Year
4 At Least Once a Year
5 Less Than Once a
Ypar
6 Never
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
REGION2
1 North
442
86.7%
52
10.2%
9
1.8%
1
.2%
1
.2%
5
1.0%
510
100.0%
Region2
2 South
204
40.1%
181
35.6%
92
18.1%
21
4.1%
6
1.2%
5
1.0%
509
100.0%
Total
646
63.4%
233
22.9%
101
9.9%
22
2.2% .
7
.7%
10
1.0%
1019
100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 56
There were 10 respondents that indicated that they never visit the downtown Carlsbad
Village area. These people were asked why they haven't visited the Village. Their responses are
in Table 48.
Table 48: Reason Respondent Does Not Visit Downtown Village Area.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Other Stores Closer 2 .2 22.2 22.2
2 No Need to Shop in Village 5 .5 55.6 77.8
3 Do Not Go out Much 2 .2 22.2 100.0
Total 9 .9 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 1 .1
System 1009 99.0
Total 1010 99.1
Total 1019 100.0
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 57
Respondents were also asked about what they thought would improve the quality of their
experience when visiting the Village area. Table 49 shows their suggestions. More public
parking was the most common response.
Table 49: Suggestions to Improve the Carlsbad Village Area.
1 Yes
More Public Parking 27.6%
Nothing/Fine the Way It Is 17.3%
Improve Traffic Flow/Reduced Traffic 14.9%
Better Mix of Stores 6.0%
More and Different Restaurants 5.4%
Pedestrian Friendly Area 3.2%
Less People/Less Tourists 3.1%
Remodel Area/Aesthetic and Maintenance Improvements 2.9%
Greater Variety of Entertainment and Recreation
Opportunities
Improved Standard of Cleanliness 1.9%
Evening Shopping 1.4%
Better Marketing and Advertisement of Downtown Events 1.3%and Stores
More Nightlife and Music 1.2%
Keep Old-Fashioned Charm 1.1%
Other 6.1%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 58
Recycling
Respondents in 2001 and 2002 were asked about the amount of recycling they do. They
were asked to estimate the percentage of the waste items that their household disposes of via
recycling. The percentage that Carlsbad residents reported recycling in 2002 was 65.95 percent,
which does not differ significantly from the 63.34 percent recycled in 2001. Figure 6 shows the
300
200-
100-
100
Percentage Recycled
Figure 6: Percentage of Recyclable Materials Respondent Recycles (200
distribution of responses to this question. This distribution reveals that there are many (38.6%)
respondents recycling over 80 percent of their recyclable waste. The percentage of recyclable
materials recycled did not differ between the north and south of the city.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 59
Those that reported recycling less than 50 percent of their recyclable waste were asked
what kept them from recycling more. As Table 50 shows, the most common reason residents
gave for not recycling more was that they did not have curbside recycling service for all items.
Table 50: Reason Respondent Does Not Recycle More.
Valid 1 Other Material Not
Accepted at Curbside Pickup
2 Lack of Storage Space
3 Containers Too Small
4 Lack of Knowledge of
What to Recycle
5 Recycling Not Offered at
Residence
6 Laziness
7 Hassle/Inconvenience
8 Lack of Knowledge of
Recycling Centers
9 No Deli very of Requested
Bins/Pick-up Service but No
Bin
10 Disillusioned
11 Other
Total
Missing 97 Nothing
98 Don't Know
System
Total
Total
Frequency
45 .
10
21
25
30
28
31
4
9
5
18
226
23
7
763
793
1019
Percent Valid Percent
4.4 19.9
1.0 4.4
2.1 9.3
2.5 11.1
2.9 13.3
2.7 12.4
3.0 13.7
.4 1.8
.9 4.0
.5 2.2
1.8 8.0
22.2 100.0
2.3
.7
74.9
77.8
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
19.9
24.3
33.6
44.7
58.0
70.4
84.1
85.8
89.8
92.0
100.0
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 60
„ Feelings of Safety
*»*»
m*
Residents were asked about how safe they felt walking alone in their neighborhood. The
;j«i»
•** 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 51. When asked how safe they felt walking alone in their
„ neighborhood during the day, respondents gave an average rating of 9.55 in 2002, suggesting that
*"" they felt very safe. Figure 6 shows the distribution of ratings for 2002. These ratings did not
differ by year or region.
B*H»
«*. Table 51: Feelings of Safety Walking Alone During the Day.
— QS AFE1 Safety of Walking Alone in Neighborhood During Day
-mm
*3**l
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
1 2000
2 2001
3 2002
Total
1001
1010
1009
3020
9.46
9.56
9.55
9.53
1.196
1.038
.943
1.064
0
0
3
0
10
10
10
10
"* City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 61
Very safe
Feelings of Safety
Figure 7: Feelings of Safety Walking During the Day - 2002.
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 7.63 in 2002,
suggesting that they felt safe at night as well. This is shown in Table 52. The distribution of
these ratings for 2002 is shown in Figure 7. These ratings did not differ by year or region.
However, residents did feel significantly more safe during the day than they did at night.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 62
Table 52: Feelings of Safety Walking Alone at Night
QS AFE2 Safety of Walking Alone in Neighborhood After Dark
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
1 2000
2 2001
3 2002
Total
1000
1007
999
3006
7.54
7.63
7.63
7.60
2.548
2.600
2.358
2.504
0
0
0
0
10
10
10
10
Not at all safe 2
1
8 Very safe
Feelings of Safety
Figure 7: Feelings of Safety Walking at Night - 2002.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 63
m
m
Citv Information
Information Resources
PR"
tt
Respondents were asked what resources they used to get information about the City of j|
Carlsbad. Table 53 shows their responses. The most common source of information about m
i
Carlsbad reported was the Community Services and Recreation Guide. The use of the
m
Community Services and Recreation Guide increase from 2001 to 2002, as did the number of m
people gaining information about the city from the city web page, city desktop calendar, fliers, P
m
citizen forums and city council meetings.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 64
*
*
Table 53: Source of Information about Carlsbad.
Year of Study 3 2002
2001 2002
Community Services
Recreation Guide
City Web page
The New City Desktop
Calendar
Flyers in City Billing Statement
Citizen Forums
Calling City on Telephone
City Council Meetings
Carlsbad Community Update
Video
Chamber of Commerce
City Offices
Library
Senior Center
Newspaper
Word of Mouth
Pamphlet/Magazine/Newslerter
Visitors Bureau
Other
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
555 655
55.0% 64.3%
329 381
32.6% 37.4%
225 333
22.3% 32.7%
330 456
32.7% 44.7%
71 110
7.0% 10.8%
412 440
40.8% 43.2%
178 230
17.6% 22.6%
75
7.4%
7
.7%
13
1.3%
34
3.3%
7
.7%
17
1.7%
8
OOJL.&jV
10
1.0%
5
.5%
5 18
.5% 1.8%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 65
There were also regional differences in the likelihood of gaining city information from a
few sources. That is, those in the North were more likely than those in the South to obtain
information about Carlsbad from the Community Services and Recreation Guide, citizen forums
and city council meetings.
Rating of Information Dispersal
Residents were asked to rate the job the city does in providing residents with information
about important issues. Respondents answered using a zero-to-ten scale where zero means poor
and ten means excellent. Table 54 shows their average ratings by year. The table shows that the
average rating in 2002 (6.27) was higher than the average rating in 2001 (5.95). The distribution
of ratings is shown in Figure 8.
Table 54: Rating of City's Provision of Information to Residents.
YEAR Year of Study N Mean Std. Deviation
CITYINF2 Rating of City's 2 2001
Ability to Provide Information
about Important Issues 3 2002
967
976
5.95
6.27
2.490
2.405
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 66
Ability to Provide Information
Figure 8: Rating of City's Provision of Information to Residents - 2i
Programs and Activities
<*•
Residents were asked what types of programs or activities they would like to see the
Carlsbad Recreation Department offer for teens. Their open-ended responses are summarized in
Table 55. Sports programs and cultural activities were commonly mentioned.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 67
Table 55: Programs and Activities Residents Would
Like to See for Teens.
1 Yes
Count %
More Sports
Programs/Facilities
Teen Center
Dances
Outdoor Field Sports
After School Programs
Mentoring/Academic Programs
Life Skills Classes
Music Activities
Art Activities
Cultural Activities
Surfing Classes/Other
Water-Related Sports
Skate Park
Court Sports
Weekend Trips/Social
Activities
Swimming Activities
Swimming Pool
Other
114
71
64
54
51
48
46
46
44
40
36
34
31
31
26
24
78
11.2%
7.0%
6.3%
5.3%
5.0%
4.7%
4.5%
4.5%
4.3%
3.9%
3.5%
3.3%
3.0%
3.0%
2.6%
2.4%
7.7%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 68
The interest in these Recreation Department activities was consistent across regions, with
one exception. Residents in the South were more likely to suggest more art activities for teens
than were residents in the North. This is seen in Table 56.
Table 56: Residents Would Like to See Art Activities for Teens by Region.
REGION2 Region2
1 North 2 South Total
Art Activities 0 No Count
for Teens % within REGION2 Region2
495
97.1%
Total
480
94.3%
975
95.7%
1 Yes Count 15 29 44
% within REGION2 Region2 2.9% 5.7% 4.3%
Count 510 509 1019
% within REGION2 Region2 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 69
Participation in a City Activity
The extent to which residents were interested in increasing their participation in the City
of Carlsbad activities and issues is indicated in Table 57. Overall, just under half (47.9%) of the
respondents indicated they would like to increase their participation. The likelihood that a
respondent expressed interest in increasing their participation in city activities and issues was
qualified by region. That is, those in the South were more likely to say they wanted to increase
their level of participation.
Table 57: Interest in Increasing Participation in City Activities and Issues by Region.
REGION2 Region2
1 North 2 South Total
QPARTIC Interest in 0 No Count
Increasing Participation in
City Activities and Issues
276 243 519
Region2 55.3% 48.8% 52.1%
1 Yes Count 223 255 478
% within REGION2 Region2 44.7% 51.2% 47.9%
Count 499 498 997
% within REGION2 Region2 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Total
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 70
Residents were asked what would they most likely become involved if they were to
involve themselves in a city activity or issue. The responses are found in Table 58. Growth,
planning, and development was the issue most commonly cited.
Table 58: Activity or Issue Residents Would Most
Likely be involved with.
Growth/Planning/Development
Parks/Recreation
Youth Issues
Environmental Issues
Education
City Government
Arts/Entertainment
Traffic Issues
Social Issues/Services
Elderly Issues
Library Issues
Public Safety
Aesthetic Improvements
Other
1 Yes
Count
194
131
106
93
84
76
58
47
32
30
29
28
9
61
%
19.0%
12.9%
10.4%
9.1%
8.2%
7.5%
5.7%
4.6%
3.1%
2.9%
2.8%
2.7%
.9%
6.0%
""• City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 71
Evaluation of 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 very confident. On average, residents offered a confidence rating of 6.61 in 2002,
suggesting confidence in city government. The extent to which residents expressed confidence in
the city government to make decisions that positively impacted Carlsbad residents was higher in
2001 and 2002 than it was in 2000. This is illustrated in Table 59. Figure 8 contains the
distribution of confidence ratings for 2002. Residents' confidence in the city government did not
differ by region in the 2002.
Table 59: Confidence in City Government to Make Decisions That Positively
Affect Residents.
QCONFID3 Confidence in Carlsbad City Government to Make Decisions That
Positively Affect Lives of Community Members
1 2000
2 2001
3 2002
Total
N
958
952
971
2881
Mean
6.04
6.52
6.61
6.39
Std. Deviation
2.535
2.402
2.186
2.390
Minimum
0
0
0
0
Maximum
10
10
10
10
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 . 72
30 T i
i •-•••Illlll
Not at all confident 2
1
8 Very confident
Confidence in City Government
Figure 9: Confidence in Carlsbad City Government to Make
Decisions that Positively Affect Residents - 2002.
The relationship between ratings of confidence in the Carlsbad city government to make
decisions that positively affect the lives of its community members and familiarity with
Carlsbad's growth management plan and general plan was assessed. Table 60a shows the
correlations2 between these variables. These correlations reveal no relationship between
confidence in the Carlsbad city government and familiarity with Carlsbad's growth management
plan and general plan.
«* 2A correlation coefficient indicates the strength and direction of the relationship between
variables. It can range from -1 to 1, with 0 indicating no relationship between the variables.
—, City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 73
Table 60a: Relationship between Confidence in City Government and Other Factors.
QCONFID3 Confidence in Pearson Correlation
Carlsbad City Government
to Make Decisions That Sig. (2-tailed)
Positively Affect Lives of
Community Members N
QCGMP
Familiarity with
Carlsbad Growth
Management
Program
.020
.528
964
QCGP
Familiarity with
Carlsbad's
General Plan
.032
.319
967
CITYINF2
Rating of City's
Ability to
Provide
Information
about Important
Issues
.490**
.000
942
• Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 60a also shows the correlation between confidence in the Carlsbad city government
to make decisions that positively affect the lives of its community members and the respondents'
rating of the job the city does providing information about issues important to them. There was a
significant positive correlation between these ratings, indicating that the more positively
respondents rated the job the city does providing information about issues important to them, the
greater the confidence they have in the city government to make decisions that positively affect
residents.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 74
The relationship between confidence they have in the city government to make decisions
that positively affect residents and total household income was also examined. Table 60b reveals
that there was a limited relationship between income and confidence in the city to make positive
decisions. Specifically, those residents with total household incomes from $125,000 to under
$150,000 expressed less confidence in the city than did residents with incomes less than $35,000.
Table 60b: Confidence in City Government by Total Household Income.
QCONFID3 Confidence in Carlsbad City Government to Make Decisions That Positively Affect Lives of
Community Members
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
1 Under $25,000
2 $25,000 to under $35,000
3 $35,000 to under $50,000
4 $50,000 to under $75,000
5 $75,000 to under $100,000
6 $100,000 to under
44
48
112
172
161
1 f*f\
7.18
7.31
6.88
6.69
6.70
X" Ort
2.490
2.054
2.324
2. 1 39
2.109
^ r\f\f
0
2
0
0
0
10
10
10
10
10
1 f\
$125,000 - '
7 $125,000 to under
$150,000 69 5'84 2'266 ° 10
8 $150,000 to under
$200,000 52 5'98 2'183 ° 10
9 $200,000 and above
Total
57
844
6.28
6.66
2.111
2.188
0
0
10
10
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 75
In the 2002 survey, those residents whose confidence in the city government was low
were asked why that was the case. Their responses are summarized in Table 61. A third of these
121 respondents indicated that their low confidence rating arose from concerns about growth.
Table 61: Reason for Low Confidence in City Government.
Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Not Limiting
Growth/Alignment with
Developers
2 Need New City Officials
3 Lack of Communication
Regarding Decisions
4 Lack of Interest in
Public Input
5 Lack of Trust of City
Officials/Government
6 Empty Promises/Poor
Project Completion
40
6
8
18
28
3.9
.6
.8
1.8
2.7
.8
33.1
5.0
6.6
14.9
23.1
6.6
33.1
38.0
44.6
59.5
82.6
89.3
Missing
Total
7 Other
Total
8 Don't Know
9 Refused
System
Total
13
121
1
4
893
898
1019
1.3 10.7 100.0
11.9 100.0
.1
.4
87.6
88.1
100.0
Residents were also asked in 2002 what they thought was the best indicator that the city is
doing a good job. Table 62 contains the responses to this question. Though growth was
commonly cited among those lacking confidence in the city, many (12.1%) residents reported
that growth management was the best indicator that the city was doing a good job.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 76
Table 62: Best Indicator City Is Doing a Good Job.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Positive Community
Feedback/No
Complaints/Happy Residents
2 Low Crime Rate/Safety
3 Increased Property Value
4 Increased Population/Desire
to Live in Carlsbad
5 Cleanliness
6 Lower Taxes
7 Controlled Growth/Growth
Management
8 Better Traffic Control/Flow
9 More Proactive about
Community Concerns
10 Public Maintenance
Projects
11 Other
Total
Missing 98 Don't Know
99 Refused
System
Total
Total
City Features
155 15.2 18.1
89 8.7 10.4
11 1.1 1.3
54 5.3 6.3
46 4.5 5.4
25 2.5 2.9
103 10.1 12.1
52 5.1 6.1
41 4.0 4.8
64 6.3 7.5
214 21.0 25.1
854 83.8 100.0
155 15.2
8 .8
2 .2
165 16.2
1019 100.0
Respondents were asked a number of questions about features of the City of
such as what they liked most about Carlsbad,
were. This section describes the responses to
and what their biggest concerns about
these questions.
18.1
28.6
29.9
36.2
41.6
44.5
56.6
62.6
67.4
74.9
100.0
Carlsbad
Carlsbad
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 77
Best Liked Features of Carlsbad
Residents were given an open-ended opportunity to say what they liked best about living
in the City of Carlsbad. The respondents in 2002 offered a variety of different answers, which
are summarized in Table 63. The most commonly cited feature in response to this question was
proximity to the beach. Over a third (34.2%) of the respondents mentioned this as what they like
most about living in Carlsbad. The weather or climate (24.7%) was also frequently cited as the
thing people liked best about living in Carlsbad. The number of people indicating the weather as
the best liked feature of living in Carlsbad was higher in 2002 compared to previous years. Many
(14.3%) of the respondents suggested the city's beauty and cleanliness were the thing they liked
best. The community and people of Carlsbad was the thing liked best by 14.2 percent of the
respondents, which is a return to the level from the 2000 survey after 18.7 percent of respondents
listed the community and people as the best liked thing about living in Carlsbad in 2001.
Additionally, 11.8 percent of the respondents said the small town feel of Carlsbad is what they
liked best. As with the community and people, the small town feel of Carlsbad was reported as
the thing liked best more often in 2001 than in 2000 or 2002. Location was offered as the thing
residents liked best about living in Carlsbad by 10.4 percent of the respondents. This is a
statistically significant drop from 2000 and 2001.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 78
Table 63: Best Liked Features of Carlsbad.
The Beach/Close to Ocean
Weather/Climate
Beautiful/Clean
Like the Community/The People
Like That It's a Small Town
Location
Atmosphere/ Ambiance
Safe
Convenience of
Stores/Entertainment
City Govemment/Planning/Services
Trails/Parks/Recreation
The Village
The Schools
Not Crowded or Overdeveloped/No
Traffic Problems
Quiet/Peaceful
The Housing
Everything/Nothing I Don't Like
Nothing/Don't Like Carlsbad
Other
2000
Count
308
201
121
153
122
189
11
74
88
99
50
86
%
30.8%
20.1%
12.1%
15.3%
12.2%
18.9%
1.1%
7.4%
8.8%
9.9%
5.0%
8.6%
2001
Count
322
202
133
189
156
201
34
84
116
53
31
42
37
65
16
46
3
97
%
31.9%
20.0%
13.2%
18.7%
15.4%
19.9%
3.4%
8.3%
11.5%
5.2%
3.1%
4.2%
3.7%
6.4%
1.6%
4.6%
.3%
9.6%
2002
Count
349
252
146
145
120
106
94
83
80
68
60
59
49
48
47
11
24
5
70
%
34.2%
24.7%
14.3%
14.2%
11.8%
10.4%
9.2%
8.1%
7.9%
6.7%
5.9%
5.8%
4.8%
4.7%
4.6%
1.1%
2.4%
.5%
6.9%
There were some differences in what residents said was the thing they liked most about
living in Carlsbad by region. Table 64a shows that those in the South (16.7%) were more likely
than those in the North (12.0%) to list the beauty and cleanliness of Carlsbad as the thing they
liked most about living in Carlsbad.
— City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 79
Table 64a: Beauty and Cleanliness is the Best Liked Feature of Carlsbad by Region.
QBAD1_6 Like Most
about Living in Carlsbad:
Beautiful/Clean
Total
0 Not Chosen Count
% within Region!
1 Chosen Count
% within Region2
Count
% within Region2
REGION2
1 North
449
88.0%
61
12.0%
510
100.0%
Region2
2 South
424
83.3%
85
16.7%
509
100.0%
Total
873
85.7%
146
14.3%
1019
100.0%
Residents also differed by region in the likelihood that they indicated that what they liked
most about living in Carlsbad is its small town feel. Not surprisingly, residents in the North
(15.7%) were almost twice as likely as those in the South (7.9%) to say that what they liked most
about living in Carlsbad is its small town feel. This is seen in Table 64b.
Table 64b: Small Town Feel is the Best Liked Feature of Carlsbad by Region.
QBAD1_4 Like Most about
Living in Carlsbad: Like
That It's a Small Town
Total
0 Not Chosen Count
% within Region2
1 Chosen Count
% within Region2
Count
% within Region2
REGION2
1 North
430
84.3%
80
15.7%
510
100.0%
Region2
2 South
469
92.1%
40
7.9%
509
100.0%
Total
899
88.2%
120
11.8%
1019
100.0%
The likelihood that a resident said trails and parks were the thing they liked best about
living in Carlsbad differed by region. Table 64c shows that 7.7 percent of residents in the South,
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 80
compared to 4.1 percent of those in the North said that trails and parks were the thing they liked
best about living in Carlsbad.
Table 64c: Trails and Parks is the Best Liked Feature of Carlsbad by Region.
QBAD1_13 Like Most
about Living in Carlsbad:
Trails/Parks/Recreation
Total
0 Not Chosen Count
% within Region2
1 Chosen Count
% within Region2
Count
% within Region2
REGION2
1 North
489
95.9%
21
4.1%
510
100.0%
Region2
2 South
470
92.3%
39
7.7%
509
100.0%
Total
959
94.1%
60
5.9%
1019
100.0%
Table 64d shows the expected effect of region on reporting the Carlsbad village area as
the thing most liked about living in Carlsbad. In the North, 9.4 percent said that the village was
the thing they liked best about living in Carlsbad compared to 2.2 percent in the South.
Table 64d: The Village is the Best Liked Feature of Carlsbad by Region.
QBAD1_14 Like Most 0 Not Chosen
about Living in Carlsbad:
The Village
1 Chosen
Total
Count
% within Region2
Count
% within Region2
Count
% within Region2
REGION2
1 North
462
90.6%
48
9.4%
510
100.0%
Region2
2 South
498
97.8%
11
2.2%
509
100.0%
Total
960
94.2%
59
5.8%
1019
100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 81
m
<M
Biggest Concerns Regarding Carlsbad *
P
ft
Respondents indicated what concerns they had about Carlsbad. Specifically, they were
WF
asked an open-ended question about what their biggest concern is regarding the City of Carlsbad. *
These concerns are displayed in Table 65. Similar to previous years, traffic was the most "
common complaint; 30.0 percent of the respondents said traffic was their biggest concern B
wP
itregarding the City of Carlsbad. Related are the concerns with growth, expressed by 23.3 percent;
P
and over-development, expressed by 16.7 percent. t*
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 82
m
m
Table 65: Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad.
Traffic
Growth/Growing Too Fast
Overdeveloping/Overbuilding
Overcrowding/Overpopulation
City Streets/Freeway Access
The City
Government/Planning/
Responsiveness
Cost of Living/Housing
Overcrowded Schools/Bussing
to San Marcos
Losing Open
Spaces/Conservation of Land
Quality of Schools
Crime
Increasing Cost of Living
(property taxes, gas, electric,
etc.)
Lack of/Poor City Services
Pollution/Air Quality
No Concerns
Other
2000 2001
Count % Count
364 36.4% 310
316 31.6% 266
193 19.3% 184
116 11.6% 84
22 2.2% 35
51 5.1% 50
10 1.0% 26
27 2.7% 25
30 3.0% 16
34 3.4% 36
42 4.2% 30
66
96
%
30.7%
26.3%
18.2%
8.3%
3.5%
5.0%
2.6%
2.5%
1.6%
3.6%
3.0%
6.5%
9.5%
2002
Count
306
237
170
146
58
51
38
33
29
27
19
10
10
4
43
152
%
30.0%
23.3%
16.7%
14.3%
5.7%
5.0%
3.7%
3.2%
2.8%
2.6%
1.9%
1.0%
1.0%
.4%
4.2%
14.9%
Some differences by year of survey administration should be noted. Concern about traffic
was lower in 2001 and 2002 than it was in 2000. Concern about growth has diminished over the
years of the study. On the other hand, overcrowding has become more of a concern in 2002 that
it had been in previous years.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 83
There was variation in residents biggest concern with the City of Carlsbad by region.
Most notably, residents in the South were the more likely (21.2%) to mention over-development
as their biggest concern than were those in the North (12.2%). This is revealed in Table 66.
Table 66: Over-development is Resident's Biggest Concern for Carlsbad by Region.
QBAD2_3 Biggest
Concern Regarding
Carlsbad-
Overdeveloping/
Overbuilding
Total
0 Not Chosen Count
% within REGION2 Region2
1 Chosen Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
REGION2
1 North
448
87.8%
62
12.2%
510
100.0%
Region2
2 South
401
78.8%
108
21.2%
509
100.0%
Total
849
83.3%
170
16.7%
1019
100.0%
Improving the Quality of Life in Carlsbad
Residents were asked about improving the quality of life in the community. They were
given the opportunity to offer suggestions regarding what the City of Carlsbad could do to
improve the quality of life. Their responses are summarized in Table 67. Similar to 2001, there
were two issues that were more commonly mentioned by respondents: setting limits on growth
and development, and improving traffic circulation. Setting growth and development limits was
suggested by 23.7 percent of the respondents, and improving traffic circulation was offered by
12.3 percent. Both of these suggestions were made less frequently in 2002 than they were in
2001. There were no regional differences in the likelihood that the respondent suggested
improving traffic circulation or set limits on growth as a means to improve the quality of life in
Carlsbad.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 84
Table 67: Improving the Quality of Life in Carlsbad.
2001 2002
Count % Count %
Set Limits on Growth &
Development
Improve Traffic
Circulation/Efficiency
Sports Center/Golf
Course/Recreation Facilities
More Conscientious of
Community Concerns
Save Open Space
More/Better Parks
Finish/Open Roads Under
Construction
Better Inform Carlsbad City
Residents (general)
More Police
Road Maintenance
More Affordable/Low Income
Housing
More Community Events/Special
Events (concerts, fairs, festivals)
Programs, Activities, Facilities
for Children/Teens
More Schools
Improve/Expand Parking
Better Safety (rid of gangs, drugs
& criminal activity)
More Entertainment Venues
More Policy & Relief for
Unemployed/Poor/Homeless
Keep City & City Streets Clean
More/Better Public
Transportation
Content with How It Is
283 28.0% 242
170 16.8% 125
53
60 5.9% 52
52
69 6.8% 49
69 6.8% 46
30 3.0% 39
26 2.6% 31
29
20 2.0% 28
23 2.3% 28
15 1.5% 28
16 1.6% 21
16 1.6% 18
13 1.3% 17
23 2.3% 15
11 1.1% 12
43 4.3% 11
18 1.8% 9
48
23.7%
12.3%
5.2%
5.1%
5.1%
4.8%
4.5%
3.8%
3.0%
2.8%
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%
2.1%
1.8%
1.7%
1.5%
1.2%
1.1%
.9%
4.7%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 85
Reasons for Moving to Carlsbad
Respondents were asked for the main reason they moved to Carlsbad. Table 68 shows
that the most common reason offered related to employment. That is, many people (19.4%)
moved to Carlsbad for a job opportunity or to be closer to work. Additionally, 14.9 percent of
the respondents said they moved to Carlsbad for the availability of good value in housing.
Table 68: Reason for Moving to Carlsbad.
Valid 1 Job
2 Retirement
3 Ocean
4 Location/Area
5 Weather/Climate
6 Schools/Education
7 Close to Family
8 Good Value in Housing
9 Change in Marital Status
10 Quality of Life/Lifestyle
11 Born/Raised in Carlsbad
12 Other
Total
Missing 98 Don't Know
99 Refused
System
Total
Total
Frequency
196
29
75
90
90
49
100
150
20
34
38
139
1010
3
3
3
9
1019
Percent
19.2
2.8
7.4
8.8
8.8
4.8
9.8
14.7
2.0
3.3
3.7
13.6
99.1
.3
.3
.3
.9
100.0
Valid Percent
19.4
2.9
7.4
8.9
8.9
4.9
9.9
14.9
2.0
3.4
3.8
13.8
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
19.4
22.3
29.7
38.6
47.5
52.4
62.3
77.1
79.1
82.5
86.2
100.0
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 86
The main reason offered by the residents for moving to Carlsbad depended on where they
lived. This is illustrated in Table 69, which shows that residents in the South were more likely
than those in the North to report moving to Carlsbad for the location or for quality or affordable
housing. Residents in the North were more likely to indicate that they had been born or raised in
Carlsbad.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 87
Table 69: Reason for Moving to Carlsbad by Region.
QDEMO1A 1 Job
Reason for
Qty 2 Retirement
3 Ocean
4 Location/Area
5 Weather/Climate
6 Schools/Education
7 Close to Family
8 Good Value in Housing
9 Change in Marital Status
10 Quality of Ufe/Ufestyle
11 Born/Raised in Carlsbad
12 Other
Total
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
Count
% within REGION2 Region2
REGION2
1 North
101
20.0%
11
2.2%
44
8.7%
31
6.1%
44
8.7%
35
6.9%
56
11.1%
57
11.3%
11
2.2%
19
3.8%
30
5.9%
67
13.2%
506
100.0%
Region!
2 South
95
18.8%
18
3.6%
31
6.2%
59
11.7%
46
9.1%
14
2.8%
44
8.7%
93
18.5%
9
1.8%
15
3.0%
8
1.6%
72
14.3%
504
100.0%
Total
196
19.4%
29
2.9%
75
7.4%
90
8.9%
90
8.9%
49
4.9%
100
9.9%
150
14.9%
20
2.0%
34
3.4%
38
3.8%
139
13.8%
1010
100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 88
SUMMARY
The data reported here present a very favorable view of the City of Carlsbad. The
consistency in the demographic characteristics of those surveyed is worth noting. There was also
generally a good deal of consistency in attitudes across regions. Some key findings are noted
below.
• All the city-provided services addressed in the survey were rated as good or excellent by
most people.
• Ratings of fire protection and police services, as well as enforcement of traffic regulations
was rated higher in 2001 than in 2000 or 2002.
• The overall city services were rated as good or excellent by over 90 percent of the
respondents.
• Most (83.0%) of the respondents rated the overall road conditions as good or excellent.
• A little less than half of the respondents offered a good or excellent rating of the traffic
circulation in the city.
• All maintenance services were rated as good or excellent by at least 80 percent of the
respondents.
• All of the services contracted from outside agencies were rated as good or excellent by
most (at least 65%) of the respondents.
• Residents indicated that they thought the City of Carlsbad was doing fairly well balancing
various land uses in the city such as residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 89
Four out of five respondents who had telephone contact with the city rated their contact as
good or excellent.
Most (80.2%) respondents said they go online, and of those, 94.7 percent said they had
Internet access at home. Half of these residents have a high-speed connection.
Three quarters of the respondents with Internet access said they would pay for recreation
programs and classes over the Internet, and over half (56.5%) would pay their water or
trash bill over the Internet.
Most (85.7%) residents report subscribing to cable television, and these people indicated
that they were moderately satisfied with their cable TV service.
More public parking was the most common response when respondents were asked what
they thought would improve the quality of their experience when visiting the Village area.
Respondents indicated that they recycle 65.95 percent of the waste items in their
household that are recyclable.
Residents said that they felt very safe walking alone in their neighborhood during the day,
and also felt quite safe walking in their neighborhood at night.
The most common source of information about Carlsbad that residents reported was the
Community Services and Recreation Guide.
Residents rated the job the city does in providing residents with information about
important issues higher in 2002 (6.27) than in 2001 (5.95).
Sports programs and cultural activities were common types of programs or activities
residents said they would like to see the Carlsbad Recreation Department offer for teens.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 90
Residents expressed moderate confidence in the city government to make decisions that
positively impacted residents, and this rating was higher in 2001 and 2002 than it was in
2000.
The feature of Carlsbad residents most commonly cited as what they liked best about
living in Carlsbad was proximity to the beach, mentioned by over a third (34.2%) of the
respondents.
Residents' biggest concerns about the city of Carlsbad revolved around growth and over-
development.
The most common (19.4%) reason residents offered as the main reason they moved to
Carlsbad was for a job opportunity or to be closer to work.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRJ -1/15/03 91
APPENDIX A
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey 2002
QAREA1. Are you currently a resident of Carlsbad?
O.No
l.Yes
QAREA2. First, to be sure that you live in our study area, what is your zip code?
1. 92008
2. 92009
3. Other
Q ARE A3. 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
QCBAD1. What do you like most about living in the City of Carlsbad? (Open-end)
QCBAD2. What is your biggest concern regarding the City of Carlsbad? (Open-end)
QSERV1-8. 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.
1. Recreational programs
2. Library services
3. Fire protection
4. Police services
5. Enforcement of traffic regulations
6. Water services
7. Cultural arts programs (gallery, jazz concerts, art camps, etc)
8. Sewer services
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 92
QSERV1-8P. [If "poor"] is there a specific reason why you rated this service as poor? (Open-
end)
QGENSERV. In general how would you rate the overall services provided by the City?
Excellent, good, fair or poor?
QSTREET1. Overall road condition
QSTREET5. Traffic circulation efficiency, excluding freeways
QMAIN1-6. How would you rate the following maintenance services provided by the City?
Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor.
1. Maintenance of street landscaping and medians
2. Tree maintenance
3. Park maintenance
4. Litter clean up
5. Maintenance of sidewalks
6. Seawall walkway along Carlsbad Blvd (aka Pacific Coast Hwy)
QPUBMAI Using a scale of 0 to 10 where zero means not at all confident and ten means very
confident, how confident are you in the City to resolve any public maintenance issues that
you may have?
QPUBMA2 (If QPUBMAI < 4) What could the city do to raise your confidence level
regarding public maintenance issues? (Open-end)
QTAX Would you be willing to pay an additional $2 to $5 per year to maintain the
current quality of the street medians in Carlsbad?
0. No
1. Yes
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 93
QOUTSRV1-3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
The City of Carlsbad contracts with outside companies for a variety of
services. Please rate each of the following services as excellent, good, fair,
or poor.
Trash and recycling collection
Street sweeping
Hazardous waste disposal
Animal Control
QLAND One of the tasks of city government is to balance various land uses in the city -
uses such as residential, commercial, industrial and recreational. On a scale from
zero to 10, where zero means very poor and ten means excellent, how would you
rate the job the City of Carlsbad is doing in balancing the various land uses in the
city?
QLAND2 (If QLAND < 4) What could the city do to improve your rating on this issue?
(Open-end)
QCGMP On a scale from zero to 10, where zero means not at all familiar and ten means
very familiar, how familiar are you with Carlsbad's Growth Management Plan?
QCGP On a scale from zero to 10, where zero means not at all familiar and ten means
very familiar, how familiar are you with Carlsbad's General Plan?
QINFO In the past year, have you used any of the following to gain information about the
City?
[READ OPTIONS, CHECK ALL THAT APPLY]
1. Community services recreation guide
2. City web page (www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us)
3. The City desktop calendar
4. Flyer in City billing statement (combination water/trash bill for some
homes)
5. Citizen forums
6. Calling the City on the telephone
7. City council meetings
8. Carlsbad Community Update Video
9. Other:
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 94
CITYINF2 Using a scale of 0 to 10 where zero means poor and ten means excellent, how
would you rate the job the city does in providing you with information about
issues that are important to you?
QCALL5 Have you had any contact with the City of Carlsbad via telephone in the past year?
0. No _ skip to QINTACC
1. Yes _ ask QCALL6
QCALL6 Overall, how would you rate that telephone contact with the city? Excellent,
Good, Fair, or Poor?
QCALL6B (If or ATT. = Poor) Why would you rate your telephone contact with the city as
"poor"?
QINTACC Do you ever go online to access the Internet or World Wide Web or to send and
receive email?
0. No _ skip to QCBLTV
1. Yes
QINTHOM Do you have Internet access at home?
0. No _ skip to QWEBREC
1. Yes
QINTCON (If QINTHOM = 1) Is your home access a high speed Internet connection? (Such
as Cable Modem, ISDN, DSL, or a Tl line)
O.No
1. Yes
QWEBREC Would you use the Internet to register and pay for recreation programs and
classes?
O.No
l.Yes.skiptoQWEBWTR
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 95
QWEBRNO (If No to QWEBREC) What is the main reason why you would not use the
Internet to register and pay for recreation programs and classes? (Open-end)
QWEBWTR (IF WEBPAY=1, ask) Would you use the Internet to pay your water or trash bill?
O.No
1. Yes _ skip to QCBLTV
QWEBWNO (If No to QWEBWTR) What is the main reason why you would not use the
Internet to pay your water or trash bill? (Open-end)
QCBLTV Do you currently subscribe to Cable TV?
O.No
1. Yes (SKIPTO QCBLSAT)
QNOSUB What is the main reason that you do not subscribe to cable TV? (Open-end)
(SKIPTO TVILL)
QCBLSAT On a zero to 10 scale how would you rate your satisfaction with your cable
television service? (Adelphia Cable Television)
QSATLOW (If rating is less than a 4) Is there a specific reason why you rated the cable TV
service so low? (Open-end)
QCBLRAT How would you rate your cable company on their ability to let you know about
changes in services, channel line-ups and rates?
Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor, Don't Know, Refused
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 96
QVISVIL How often do you visit the downtown Village area? Would you say...
1. At least once a week
2. At least once a month
3. Three or more times a year
4. At least once a year
5. Less than once a year
6. Never
(IF < 6 SKP QIMPQAL)
QNOVIL Why have you not visited the downtown Village area? (Open-end) (SKP TSAFE)
QIMPQAL What would help to improve the quality of your experience when visiting the
Village area? (Open-end)
TSAFE The next few questions have to do with neighborhood safety. For each question,
please use a scale of 0 to 10 where zero means not at all safe and ten means very
safe.
QSAFE1 How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood during the day?
QS AFE2 How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood after dark?
QPROGR What types of programs/activities would you like to see offered by the
Recreation Department for Carlsbad teens? (Open-end)
ALLRECYC If you had to estimate the percentage of waste items that your household disposes
of via recycling, where 0% would be recycling nothing and 100% would be
recycling everything you can recycle, what would you say your percentage would
be?
RECYC2 (If ALLRECYC < 50%) What keeps you from recycling a greater percentage of
these items? (Open-end)
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 97
QCTYOP In your opinion, what do you think would be the best indicator that the city is
doing a good job? (Open-end)
QCONF1D3 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 Carlsbad City government to make
decisions which positively affect the lives of its community members?
QCONLOW (If rating is less than a 4) Is there a specific reason why your rating for confidence
in city government was so low? (Open-end)
LIFEQUAL What could the City of Carlsbad do to improve the quality of life in the
community? (open end)
QPARTIC Would you like to increase your participation in City activities and issues?
O.No
l.Yes
QPARISS If you were to involve yourself in a city activity or issue, what would you
most likely be involved with? (Open-end)
QDOB In order to make sure that we speak with people of all age groups, could you
please tell me in what year were you born?
QDEMO1 How many years have you lived in Carlsbad?.
QDEMO1A What was the main reason why you moved to Carlsbad? (Open-end)
QDEMO2 Do you own or rent your home?
l.Rent
2. Own
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 98
QDEMO3 How many people currently reside in your household including yourself and any
children? (IF = 1, SKIPTO QRACE)
QDEMO4 How many children are there in your household are under the age of 18?.
QRACE What race do you consider yourself to be?
1. White/Caucasian
2. African American or Black
3. Asian
4. American Indian, Aleut, Eskimo
5. Hispanic or Latino
6. OTHER [SPECIFY]
QINCOME Please stop me when I reach the category that best describes your household's
total income last year (2001) 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 $75,000
5. $75,000 to under $100,000
6. $100,000 to under $125,000
7. $125,000 to under $150,000
8. $150,000 to under $200,000
9. $200,000 and above
GENDER 1. Male
2. Female
- City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 99
APPENDIX B
Open-Ended Responses to Low-Rating Follow-up Questions
QSERV1P Reason for Poor Recreational Programs Rating
There seems to be few evening class activities.
Don't see many.
No facilities.
9 The only recreation program that exists is the boys and girls club, and I had an incident
with the boys and girls club where they had no security. That and the only other
recreational thing is the skate park.
a There are none in her area.
They are badly organized.
Most of the stuff seems club driven, I haven't seen a lot with the city of Carlsbad, and we
don't have our own Y. It just seems like we don't have a lot of recreation, and it seems
weak. It just seems like a lot of the services near La Costa Canyon High seem to go to
Encinitas. They enjoy that facility more than Carlsbad does.
I work for the city of Carlsbad and it takes a long time to get recreational programs active.
t They broke their promise in giving us 12 tennis courts in Poinsettia Park, and that was
part of the plan. Instead they use the money for other projects, and now we only have 3
courts.
They live on Aviara and there are no playgrounds to take kids to.
QSERV2P Reason for Poor Library Services Rating
I come from a city from where the libraries are 9 stories so these are small.
Lack of selection. But it is a nice facility.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 100
QSERV3P Reason for Poor Fire Protection Services Rating
, My best friend's house burned down.
t When we had a major fire they didn't do anything, but watched it.
9 Because they turn on the siren by my house, even though there isn't a use for the siren,
there aren't any emergencies.
Because my house burned down. It was during the harmony grove fire.
QSERV4P Reason for Poor Police Services Rating
They don't look at us as individuals; they look at us as a group.
u Because I have a problem on my street with speeders and I have to call the police for
speeders and I have had no positive results.
They lag and they take time when they get to the scene of the crime. They are the highest
paid cops in the state, but yet they sit on their ass. They are also really rude, attitude wise.
Because he has never seen a police car in his area.
It's because they're all crooked. All they're interested in doing is giving tickets to kids.
They're bullies. They like to pick on my kids. My son has 14 friends who have
suspended licenses for little traffic violations. One police man even told me kids
shouldn't drive by the school because the police are instructed to give tickets there. I can't
stand them. And there are about 120 people getting together to file a law suit against the
police department. And they're big people too, like lawyers and doctors.
9 Their primary service is increasing revenue by minor citations.
u No specific reason, just don't feel like they are doing a great job.
They just need to lighten up.
It seems to me that the law used to be innocent before proven guilty. Now you are guilty
and have to prove yourself innocent. You shouldn't have to be afraid of the police. Last
time I was pulled over by Carlsbad police they weren't nice at all. Basically you should
feel like cops are older brothers looking out for you, not like yard duties.
Rarely see them. Don't know where they are.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 101
In 2000, (I've had a woman harass me for 3 years), I filed a police report with a detective
and he did not file it. There's no record. It has taken me well over a year to get to the
point where I'm at now, which is nowhere. He could care less, he didn't follow through
on anything, he got his facts mixed up several times, and I believe he retired last week
and I feel that is why he did not wish to pursue this case at all. I feel that I have been
victimized by a department that was supposed to be protecting me. I don't feel that I am
protected. There were other detectives that were extremely helpful, but not my detective.
I have never had any positive dealings with the Carlsbad police department. All my
dealings with them have been unsatisfying and unfulfilling. I don't think the people in the
department are very adept at dealing with the public.
I've never seen them out in my area. They don't go up and down my street and I think
that's a deterrent if they do.
Lack of funding in the police department.
QSERV5P Reason for Poor Traffic Enforcement Rating
m It's ridiculous.
I think they take advantage of giving more parking tickets than they should be giving and
they should be concentrating on speeding tickets. They give a lot of people tickets that
don't concentrate on speed. They should be giving more tickets for speed than for parking
tickets.
The traffic; nobody goes by the rules.
They're like speed traps, they don't serve a purpose. It's selective harassment. They need
to redirect efforts to other areas.
There are so many people who speed. Individual people in their cars tend to use the
carpool lanes which are for more than 2 people and they also don't respect red lights and
tend to run yellow lights.
We have a lot of fast and radical drivers and I walk a lot.
Police don't do their jobs and drivers always run red lights.
Skateboarders in the village.
Because the traffic is terrible. Somebody should take a look at El Camino Real between
Chestnut and Highway 78.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 102
0 Yes, because I see the speed limit constantly being exceeded, and I never see anyone
doing anything about it. I try to drive the speed limit, but when I do I get run over.
t Because the police have not given positive results when speeders on my street are here.
t They do not enforce traffic speed on residential streets.
I see a great deal of parking in red areas and handicapped spaces, even though cops pass
by there all the time. And even though the cops often get their drinks comp. they seem to
look the other way and I have never seen one ticketing. And traffic lights don't sense
motorcycles.
9 They don't give people tickets for speeding or not stopping on stop signs, except on the
freeway.
m Drives a lot and sees a lot of people doing bad things. There is never a policeman to
correct.
u There's not enough police enforcement. They don't watch the traffic or the stop lights or
signs. Poor drivers are never caught.
Yes, because I live in a neighborhood that has a speed limit of 25 and people are breaking
the speed limit there all the time.
We see many red lights being run and no one to enforce the law.
They're one sided, racial, and done by incredibly incompetent people. The 1-5 is totally
poorly planned to begin with, and the police dept. has turned corrupt in giving people
tickets.
They aren't concerned about individual's safety; they spend time on petty manners, but
wouldn't be involved in an accident. In major accidents they stay away since they're
concerned about their own safety in dangerous areas. They don't get involved in
dangerous situations.
There is too much speeding and not enough police.
They don't have the lights timed. The lights will change, one light, stop, another light, stop. They are open
during the day, but not rush hour- staggered lights. We need a few stop signs in Calavera hills.
The officer a while back failed to look at the no U-turn sign. They need to be more
knowledgeable of their locations and what they do before they pull people over.
The street we live on, we have traffic that goes about 50 mph and it's a 25 mile an hour
zone.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 103
We have so many people running red lights, and that's a real concern. I wish there were
more police officers out there.
Traffic is a mess; it's always a bottleneck on El Camino Real and the 78.
I don't see anyone getting tickets for illegal things.
Timers are bad and too much traffic.
Too many cars and it is sometimes out of control.
Yes. Because I know of an officer filing false reports. I know of an officer who has filed
at least one false report.
I ride a bike and am very sensitive to people who don't obey traffic laws. They don't stop
at the stop signs, red lights and they are very busy. They have many things to do rather
than paying attention when driving.
Yes, because I live by the high school and its not just students. Please put a police officer
at the corner of Magnolia and Monroe.
Yes, because people keep going through red lights and the police don't do anything about
it.
By the business and homes on Palomar Airport Road people run reds all the time in high
speeds.
Over crowding and too much traffic.
There's so much building that they can't accommodate the traffic. Can't move, can't go
anywhere.
My office is close to accidents and traffic enforcement is poor.
I often drive along the coast highway and observe many people breaking all kinds of
speed limits including city vehicles.
My wife received an unfair ticket about 8 months ago.
Because I've never been stopped. Overall, in the areas I drive, they don't seem to be
stopping.
I observe a general disregard for all signs and limits on the road and no one seems to take
notice.
I've called in about speeding drivers and I haven't seen any enforcement action.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI - 1/15/03 104
They've got the facilities to open up the traffic and they won't do it.
Well there are no regulations. I never see police, well I see them, but going different
places and ways.
I frequently witness people running red lights and there is no police to enforce it. They
put up all the traffic lights to regulate the traffic and then they don't enforce them, so this
is a waste of money and it impedes the flow of traffic.
There's too much speeding on my street. They don't stop on red lights, especially when
the light is yellow. I've never seen the police patrol the street that I live on, Paseo Del
Norte.
Because it seems like there are a lot of cops around and it seems like they try and nab a
lot of people - they are out at high-volume times - a lot of speed traps or other speed-belt
traps. They are only visible at high-volume times.
The over population and the traffic. They do not enforce the speed limit.
I live off of Alga and they are doing road construction. We are down to one lane, and in a
construction area you are supposed drive 25, and nobody does.
Too many traffic tickets.
They are never on the streets as much as they should be and are not much on the freeway
to control speeding and reckless driving. They monitor the residential streets more than
the busy areas.
Because I am afraid of getting hit by a car when I cross the street, on Carlsbad Village
Drive and Harding.
Because people are speeding excessively and running stop lights.
Because I have been pulled over 3 times in Carlsbad.
A lot of people running red lights and not enough police.
There are no regulations where I live up by El Camino, right by the mall.
Because I know that many people get tickets that ignore them. And somehow the
enforcement has to do with warrants which the police are involved with.
Because the traffic is terrible; over crowded freeways and subdivisions.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 105
u The cross walks on Carlsbad Blvd should be monitored by the police: people speed too
much.
B It is over-enforced.
u People run red lights all the time.
B It is not enforced. Traffic lights are not enforced. Not sure where the cops are.
9 I've had problems where they'll just give tickets for silly things just to collect money.
I just see the traffic and they don't manage the streets very well, they're crowded.
i
0 There aren't enough cops on the streets.
9 I've seen a police officer and have seen something illegal happen right in front of them.
I've seen this happen like 10 to 15 times now.
There are many incidents of infractions on my daily commute.
B Just some things aren't enforced like they should be. Such as stop signs, people not
stopping making right turns, red lights from El Camino to going west on La Costa
Avenue and the police don't do anything about it.
QSERV6P Reason for Poor Water Services Rating
Because it smells and stains clothing and bathrooms and we can't drink it. Very bad
lately.
I get grit in my water.
It taste terrible and smells also.
, They're too expensive.
They're redoing the billing and I haven't received a bill in six weeks.
They hire all the cheapest contractors they can find. It just sucks, their whole utilities is
crap.
The city council is stopping their billing, and for people like me who are retired, I had one
bill July 1 and another one in July- that's hard on people's finances. But the quality of the
water is good.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 106
Poor planning.
Because the water received in San Diego is bad, they get most Colorado River water
through the Metropolitan Water District.
Construction said that water would be off at certain times and didn't stick to the
schedules at all....like 4 or five hours with no water, and there wasn't a number to call and
it wasn't regulated at all by the city. Sometimes they wouldn't even give a notice and
they would turn off the water.
Yeah, I was late on a bill and they wouldn't work with me like the other services did. I
am a single mom with two children. I had a hardship and they wouldn't even work with
me, they just shut the water off.
The water is getting less and pure.
Water quality is poor and we don't drink it.
Too much housing development.
We just had some bad customer service with the water department on the phone.
Because overdevelopment has decreased my water pressure and the price has become
high.
The water services are provided adequately but the water tastes terrible, and I can't drink
it.
Yes, she thinks that their billing issues are poor. They require a deposit and keep the
money there if you are late with your payment. They did not respect her by turning off
the water and she has been a regular paying customer the whole time she had lived there.
Because my water pressure is very low, there should be a building requirement for water
pressure that has to be met. I shouldn't knock the city so much for the problem because
the builder has some of the responsibility too.
I think they charge too much.
The water taste terrible-1 can't drink it. The reports that they send out on water quality, in
my opinion they are not informative enough on the important things.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 107
QSERV7P Reason for Poor Cultural Arts Programs Rating
. People don't move here for cultural arts. We are from New York and we came from the
best cultural arts but the weather here is great.
a There doesn't seem to be any.
9 Because I don't hear much about them, I know there's a library museum in the library, but
I don't really hear much about any concerts by the sea or park.
0 Knows that the Carlsbad cultural arts program is under-funded. In the last 8 years, the
equipment has worn down but it there is no budget to replace it. Could spend more
money on theatre stuff.
0 That's not what they're after. Their cultural thing is good enough to get by, but the
interest is in permits for building homes and running people out of town. That's what it's
all about.
, It's not the type of things and music we care for and we would like to have something like
Oceanside or Vista Moonlight Theater.
Not being marketed to me, I don't know about them. I have a daughter going to college
who is interested in art, but we don't know about them, maybe it's just the marketing. I
have been aware of an art show.
Think they could do more. Compared to other cities, they don't do as well in art
programs and events.
I'm not trying to be racist or anything, but this city is mainly about white people. It's
cool, it's their city and I understand.
I don't think that the programs are the best use of tax dollars. Not too many people like
anything else besides the jazz stuff.
There is really no where to go in Carlsbad, it's lacking in the arts.
I see very few and the ones that are out are embarrassing.
Because they don't have much.
I don't see very much of it, and I don't think they are that culturally enriched, they only
have a jazz program.
Don't see a lot of these activities. Better Downtown. Not many of them in Carlsbad.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 108
, I don't think they have enough programs for a community this size.
, Lack of galleries. Where are they?
I do not know of any cultural arts programs. Other than the annual street fair.
9 Well there is not any. There is no theater.
I think there's a lot more museums in downtown than in Carlsbad. They're better
marketed.
I don't know about it, or that it even exists, so it must be poor.
9 There are not a lot of cultural programs. There are not a lot of art performances.
9 There are not enough of them and not promoted very well.
Because I guess there isn't much awareness in the city.
t Not aware of any cultural art programs.
I never really see anything else other than for the Hispanic culture.
There aren't any that I know of.
I don't think there are enough and the ones that are done aren't publicized enough. I think
it's a lack of funding, not a lack of the public wanting to go.
9 They don't have any playhouse or art center like the one in Escondido. A city like this
should have one.
QSERV8P Reason for Poor Sewer Services Rating
Yes, the water pressure for flushing the toilet is low.
u We had drainage coming down our street for the past 2 years and now I have algae
growing.
You can smell the sewer all around where I live.
It goes along with all of the rest of the utilities. They hire the cheapest contractor they
can get.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 109
20
m
Because not too long ago there was a huge sewage clog, and we didn't know, and we ml
couldn't flush our toilets for quite some time. M
Because they never see anybody clean them. m
The sewage spills, I know that all of them haven't occurred in Carlsbad but some have "
and they don't notify people. I am a surfer and it worries me. **
The whole city of San Diego has old sewers and we have to close beaches. *
Hi
A lot of blockage in our block.
«
Some places smell, like Vons parking lot on La Costa. ^,
Because we have problems with sewer stops. m
Expensive.
•
Because it backs up all the time and modification to the city line did not require home
owners to modify connections and our landlord did not do this. So it backs all the time.
When I first moved into my house, there was a problem with the sewer line, and it
cracked my driveway.
I think they charge too much.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2002 - SBRI -1/15/03 110