HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-10; City Council; 16151; State Of Effectiveness ReportCITY OF CARLSBAD -AGENDA BILL 7
AB# /hisI
MTG. 4-0 -01
DEPT. CM
TITLE.
Presentation on the City’s Performance Measurement
Program and the State of Effectiveness Report
DEPT. HD.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive presentation on the City’s Performance Measurement Program and the State of
Effectiveness Report.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
In the fall of 1999, the City embarked upon an effort to measure it’s performance and ability
to achieve specific, defined outcomes. City staff members in each of the Major Service
Areas (MSAs) were assigned to develop measures within their own areas.
While performance measurement is a fairly common practice in the private sector, there
have not been many suitable models from the public sector to draw upon. Staff knew from
the beginning that developing a system that “counted widgets” was not the desired model
and instead, tried to develop a system that focused on the desired performance outcome.
This concept of developing an outcome-based system was directly related to the city
council’s goal of providing Top Quality Service.
Staffs goal was to create a system that would be able to identify the key elements of our
service/product, develop measures to evaluate our success, compare the city’s
achievement to others, and to develop and implement action plans when needed. In
addition to these elements, we also wanted to create a system that was flexible and organic
so that it could accommodate any changes in the future. While developing this system, we
have looked at other organizations, evaluated current measurement programs such as the
International City Managers Association (ICMA), and engaged in lengthy internal
discussions about what the measures should look and be like, and how the data should be
used to help inspire a culture of continuous improvement.
In December of 2000, we completed our first iteration of the performance measurement
process and have released those measures and results in a State of Effectiveness report
(Exhibit 1). This report is fairly extensive and details our efforts to date.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
EXHIBITS:
1. FY 2000 City of Carlsbad State of Effectiveness report (On file in the City Clerk's
Office)
- City Of Carlsbad
STATE-OF-EFFECTIVENESS REPORT
February 200 1
Submitted by
The Performance Measurement Resource Tear-n
John Cahill, Community Development
Lynn Diamond, Police Department
Joe Garuba, City Manager’s Office
Linda Kermott, Public Works
Tom Ritter, Fire Department
Julie Ross, Public Works
Sue Spickard, Community Services
Jim Elliott, Leadership Team Representative
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ........................................................................................... ..- ...... 1
Background - ........... ......................................................................................... 1
Research ......................................................................................................... 2
How Performance Measurement Fits Into The Big Picture ................................ 4
Definitions ............................................................................... . ....................... 7
Format Of A Measure ...................................................................................... 8
City Surveys .................................................................................................... 9
Determining Carlsbad’s Benchmarking ......................................................... 11
Benefits And Risks Of Performance Measurement .......................................... 12
Communications And Outreach .................................................................... 13
Calendar ....................................................................................................... 13
What Happens Next?. .................................................................................... 16
City Of Carlsbad Performance Measures ........................................................ 19
Summary Of The Measures ........................................................................ 21
Public Safety ........................................................................................................ 25
Fire Confinement ....................................................................................... 25
Fire Customer Service And Satisfaction.. .................................................... 28
Fire Operating Cost Efficiency.. .................................................................. 31
Fire Response Time .................................................................................... 33
Police Customer Service .& Satisfaction.. ............................................... . ..... 37
Police Responsiveness ................................................................................ 40
Crime Cases Cleared .................................................................................. 43
Community Perception Of Crime ................................................................ 48
Public Works ........................................................................................................ 50
Potable Water Quality ................................................................................ 50
Water Reliability ......................................................................................... 52
Water Delivery Efficiency.. .......................................................................... 54
Sewer System Reliability ............................................................................ 57
Sewer Cost Efficiency ................................................................................. 59
Storm Drain System Reliability .................................................................. 61
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Drainage System Efficiency.. ..................
Drainage System Water Quality ..............
Solid Waste Customer Service & Satisfac t
Solid Waste Cost Efficiency ....................
Solid Waste Diversion ............................
7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
ion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
................................................... 65
................................................... 67
Roadway Cost Efficiency ............................................................................ 69
Roadway Safety .......................................................................................... 70
Roadway Circulation .................................................................................. 73
Roadway Rideability .................................. .._ .............................................. 77
. . . 111
Fleet Reliability .......................................................................................... 79
Fleet Customer Service And Satisfaction .................................................... 82
Fleet Cost Efficiency ................................................................................... 84
Facilities Customer Service And Satisfaction .............................................. 85
Facilities Maintenance Response ................................................................ 89
Facilities Cost Efficiency ............................................................................. 90
Park Safety - ......... ....................................................................................... 92
Park Customer Service And Satisfaction ..................................................... 93
Park Cost Efficiency ................................................................................... 94
Commnity Services ............................................................................................... 97
Library Service & Satisfaction .................................................................... 97
Adult Literacy Program .............................................................................. 98
Library Collection ....................................................................................... 99
Senior Center Customer Service & Satisfaction ........................................ 100
Recreation Customer Service & Satisfaction ............................................. 101
Art Opportunities ..................................................................................... 102
Community Development .................................................................................... 103
Section 8 Housing .................................................................................... 103
Front Counter Service & Satisfaction ........................................................ 104
Administrative Services ...................................................................................... 105
Risk Management - Total City Losses ....................................................... 105
Risk Management - Liability Coverage And Costs ..................................... 107
Information Technology Service & Satisfaction ......................................... 109
Information Technology Network Operability ............................................ 11 1
Information Technology Cost Efficiency ..................................................... 113
Human Resources - Injured Employee Time Off.. ...................................... 114
Human Resources Service & Satisfaction ............ ..-. .................................. 116
Human Resources Recruitment Time ....................................................... 119
Purchasing Service & Satisfaction ............................................................ 120
Purchase Order Processing ....................................................................... 121
Finance Collection Rates .......................................................................... 122
City Operating Budget Cost Efficiency ...................................................... 124
Appendix 1: 2000-2001 Goal ...................................................................... 125
Appendix 2: 1999-2000 Goal.. .................................................................... 126
Appendix 3: Citywide Survey Results ........................................................... 127
iv
INTRODUCTION
In the fall of 1999, the City embarked on an effort to measure our performance
and success in achieving our desired outcomes. The seven-member
Performance Measurement Resource Team was created to coordinate this
effort. City staff members in each of the Major Service Areas (MSAs) were
assigned to develop-measures within their own areas.
While performance measurement is a fairly common practice in the private
sector, there were not many suitable models from the public sector. The
Performance Measurement Resource Team knew from the beginning that
developing a system that “counted widgets” was not the desired model; instead,
a system that focused on the performance outcome was desired.
Our goal was to create a system to identify the key elements of our
service/product and develop a process to measure our success and compare it
to others. The result would be an organization that focuses on continuous
improvement with the help of measured outcomes, analysis, and action plan
implementation. In developing this system, we have looked at other
organizations, evaluated existing measurement programs such as International
City Managers’ Association (ICMA) Center for Performance Measurement, and
participated in training and education programs from both the private and
public sectors.
BACKGROUND
In Carlsbad, measures were drafted, benchmarking began, and comparable
cities were identified. The first year’s effort to measure our organization’s
effectiveness was marked by considerable effort and analysis, occasional
stumbling, but nevertheless generally positive results. The program’s first
” State of Effectiveness Report has been drafted and will be presented to the
City’s Leadership Team, management and general employees, City Council, and
citizens in February of 200 1.
This project represents the efforts of the entire City. The MSAs are responsible
for the development of the various measures, the tracking of those measures,
the collection of the data, and the analysis.
The Performance Measurement Resource Team is responsible for coordinating
the citywide effort and providing a consistent approach to the measurement
process and format. The members of the team represent each of the MSAs and
act in a liaison/consultant capacity to the MSAs. In coordinating this project
the Performance Measurement Resource Team has taken on the following roles:
1
l Serve as performance measurement resource to the MSAs
l Serve as liaisons with outside agencies as needed
l Identify comparable outside agencies/organizations to benchmark against
l Assist with city surveys (coordinate, consolidate, evaluate)
l Collect and analyze external data
l Coordinate a cohesive program
0 Prepare a citywide report
During the course of this project, the City evaluated the possibility of taking a
different route on the performance measurement path. The difference in the
process would be that an evaluation of current practices and duties would
occur first to help define the core business, and from that, performance
measures would be developed. After lengthy discussions, it was decided to try
this method in a limited scope with Community Services (Recreation, Senior
Center, Arts, and Library).
Community Services was selected because they were in the middle of strategic
planning at the time and were asking themselves the types of questions that
are integral to this process (ex: what do we do and why do we do it). Because
of this, it was suggested that they try this different approach. Community
Services has started developing their new measures as a result of their
strategic planning but they are still in progress and are not yet complete at the
time of this printing.
RESEARCH
Throughout the development of this program, members of the team had the
opportunity to learn from others visiting other cities, attending conferences and
seminars, and reviewing other cities’ performance measurement reports.
Because of the ICMA’s leadership in performance measurement activities, the
team became actively involved in working with the ICMA data and team
members attended three ICMA performance measurement programs. By
assisting with the review of the annual ICMA surveys, we were able to educate
ourselves on the types of measures that were collected and create a heightened
awareness of the outputs that were available. This was particularly helpful
when we began to design our own performance and outcome measures.
Several team members attended a workshop in Dallas, Texas where we learned
about the challenges that other cities were having in implementing and
maintaining performance measurement programs. We left the seminar
reaffirming the fact that the program needed to be easy to implement and
maintain, and that commitment from the entire organization was important to
its success.
2
The second ICMA conference took place in Savannah, Georgia. We heard
numerous presentations by other city representatives addressing their
experiences with performance measurement. The city of Coral Springs, Florida
presented a case study on how they used their ICMA data to analyze the &y’s
need for a paramedic program and how they were ultimately able to justify the
city’s reestablishment of the program. We attended a panel discussion where
various cities discussed their use of performance measurement. The cities
involved included Riverside and Santa Monica, California; Bellevue,
Washington and Austin, Texas. Not only were we able to gain some valuable
insight, but also were able to make contacts with resources in other cities.
There was a clear message delivered at the conference in Savannah. If
performance measurement is to be successful, it must be supported from the
top down. The program should not be presented as an option, but as a
program that must be designed by and implemented throughout the entire
organization.
Some members of the Performance Measurement Team attended another ICMA
performance measurement training held in Riverside. This training’ focused
excessively on the utilization of technology and was of little value in the
development of our program.
Three members of the Performance Measurement Team attended a two-day
seminar, “Using the Balanced Scorecard,” offered through Pepperdine
University. This training provided knowledge of another management tool
which can be helpful in determining if an organization is achieving its goals
and if not, why.
Additionally, we collected numerous reports prepared by other cities, reviewed
them and picked out what we thought were the best portions of their reports to
model ours. Along with the cities mentioned in the previous paragraph, we
reviewed programs from Dakota County (MN) and San Mateo County (CA).
Based on the review of other programs, the team identified what we did not
want to be - widget counters. Instead, we decided that we wanted to highlight
a few, select measures that would identify the city’s performance in key areas.
In summary, we discovered that Carlsbad is not alone in developing a
performance measurement program. We learned that the term “performance
measurement” has different meanings for different cities. Some cities focus on
outputs, some on outcomes, some on both -- no one format is right or wrong --
it just needs to be well defined and fit the culture of the city. We learned that
employees from other cities are also struggling with the concept and
implementation.
3
Finally, we learned that this is a work-in-progress. The program will be subject
to change and refinement and will require ongoing training and maintenance.
HOW PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FITS INTO THE BIG PICTURE
The performance measurement program is an integral component of “the big
picture” (see Systems Perspective chart on page 5). It represents the developing
feedback loop between organizational effort and the ability to achieve and
sustain desired outcomes. Below is a summary of some of the key points
regarding the performance measurement program and its connections within
the larger City structure.
Strategic Planning
l Used to construct the outline to execute policies
l Allows the organization to clarify what its critical functions are
l Helps provide the basis for performance measures as well as goals
l Allows the organization to assess opportunities for success based on
available resources (reflected through strategic priorities)
Performance Measures
l Outcome-based
l Tied to core functions/desired outcomes
l Develops feedback loop on City’s performance
l Allows for the review of the strategic priorities through the development
of the measures and the data collection process
l Help cultivate a culture for continuous improvement
l Moves the organization from being reactive to proactive
l Provides organizational accountability
l Provides the foundation for goal development based on prior
accomplishments and outcomes
Goals
l Represent the priority efforts of the organization
l Serve as a catalyst for change
l Incentives for achievement
l Individual accountability injected into the organization
l Allows for the opportunity to address deficiencies identified in
performance measurement process
4
Budget
l A means to achieve the objectives or outcomes determined in the policy-
setting phase of the process
l A means to implement goals
l Under a performance measurement system, budgets will be developed
with a better understanding of program accomplishment
l Under the neti Expenditure Control Budget, program funding will be
based on measurable outcomes/ service levels
Analysis of Outcomes
l Analysis will focus on outcomes with regards to internal/external
comparisons
l This process of comparison, called benchmarking, allows the
organization to evaluate performance within a specific context
l Provides the City with the ability to “tell the story”
l Allows for a more informed dialogue between citizens and staff
l Sets the stage for policy discussions
l Promotes greater public trust and confidence
l Fosters organizational accountability
l Helps drive the strategic planning process
l Develops a “learning” organization
A Svstems PersPective
Sustainable COmmUnihr and Omanizational DeveloDmeM
>Greater Public Trust
Confidence in Local
Government * Service Quality
* Financial Health
’ Customerl Citizen
\I plain;, J’ 1, Stray5 ,]-
and
81998: Raymd R Pat&&t City of Carkbad
5
The chart below depicts the continuous nature of the performance
measurement process. The outer triangle represents the community at-large.
The customers’ needs and desires drive the services and products that the City
provides. Next, we gather customer feedback to help us assess customer
satisfaction with our services and products. This serves as a “barometer” of
our customers’ needs and desires and helps us adjust our products and
services accordingly.
The inner triangle represents the City of Carlsbad employees and our role in
providing services and products to the community. For each service and
product, desired outcomes have been identified and methods to measure the
degree of success in achieving the desired outcomes have also been identified.
The information gathered through the measures, including customer service, is
then used to revise the desired outcomes.
/ [Measurement) -( ~. r.L”KG, 1 \
/, y-J Outcome
Satisfaction Service/ Product
6
DEFINITIONS
Below are the basic definitions of the terms and concepts used with this
program. We have found that it is important to clarify the definitions of the
terms to ensure -a consistent understanding of those terms throughout the
organization.
Output: An output is what is typically defmed 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
ttied to stay away from developing a system that is reliant on only outputs, we
have found that in the absence of a measurable outcome, sometimes several
outputs together can serve as a proxy for an outcome measure.
Outcome: An outcome describes the “product” or service we deliver to our
customers. In order to avoid the development of thousands of measures, it is
important to maintain a global perspective. It goes beyond, “I inspect the
construction of roads in the City of Carlsbad for developers” but to “I inspect
the construction of roads in Carlsbad to ensure a safe and efficient circulation
system for all those who drive through Carlsbad.”
Measurement: A measurement is the tangible demonstration of level of
achievement of the stated outcome. It should be quantifiable, and able to be
compared, or “benchmarked” against other organizations. It is helpful if it is
an industry standard or widely used in the field. Ideally, the technology to
measure the measurement currently exists and is readily available.
Benchmark (noun): A benchmark is the acceptable standard of a high
performing organization to which we will strive to achieve/maintain. An
example of a benchmark might be “Contain fire spread to room of origin in 90%
of all structure fires.” A benchmark may be internal over time, percentages,
, data from other cities or agencies, or national or industry standards.
Benchmark (uerb): Benchmarking is the act of selecting and evaluating
outside agencies that we compare ourselves to. Benchmarking also includes
the external data collection process
7
FORMAT 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 the citizen.
Outcome
One of the primary reasons why we provide the service
Measurement
The demonstrated achievement of outcome
What data means
An explanation of why this measurement is important and how it is obtained
Status of measure
For measures that are not yet in place, this describes how the proposed
measurement will be implemented and when
Benchmark
The benchmark is the target level of performance that the department is striving to
reach
Results
The actual results and relevant data
Analysis
The analysis section includes discussion regarding the results and how Carlsbad
performed in the specific measure compared to other agencies and/or to itself
over time. Reasons for high or low performance are presented when possible.
Action Plan
Based on results and the analysis, an action plan for improvement may be
warranted. If so, a summary of the action plan will be presented in this section.
8
CITY SURVEYS
After reviewing all of the city’s survey efforts, the team divided surveys into two
broad categories: customer-specific surveys and citywide public opinion
SUfTW&
Customer-Specijic Surveys
The Performance Measurement Resource Team established a sub-committee to
look at the way the City of Carlsbad surveys its customers after it recognized a
theme among departments’ submitted measures most departments included
customer service as a key indicator of performance level. A customer-specific
survey is one that asks a person who has received service from a City
department what they level of satisfaction was.
We found that almost all departments/divisions within the city are conducting
some kind of customer service survey. A review of these survey instruments
found a wide variety of survey formats, rating scales and methodologies. This
raised the question as how to best report this information on a citywide basis.
We concluded that the best way to improve survey compatibility and validity
was to develop a standard set of guidelines for departments to use.
Not being experts in the field, and realizing we would also need to hire a
consultant to conduct the planned citywide public opinion survey, we decided
to include the development of customer-specific survey guidelines as part of the
RFP on conducting a citywide public opinion survey. The selected consultant,
the Social and Behavioral Research Institute at California State University San
Marcos, assisted us in developing a citywide public opinion survey and will be
helping us develop guidelines for surveys administered by individual city
departments.
As a starting point, the survey subcommittee developed a list of draft guidelines
to be reviewed by our consultant for the development of customer specific
surveys:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Surveys should be concise and drafted on official city letterhead.
Surveys should begin with a request to complete the survey and close with a
salutation and the department head’s signature.
Responses should be on a standardized rating scale.
Surveys should be mailed to customers by a “neutral” party rather than
handed to the customer by the person who provided the service. This will
provide more objective, statistically valid information.
Surveys should be coded in some manner so that the date or time of service
can be tracked.
All surveys should contain some standard questions (courtesy, competence,
timeliness, overall rating, etc.) as well as department specific questions.
9
7. Space should be included for open-ended comments, i.e. “How can we better
serve you in the future?”
8. Name and address should be optional.
9. Return postage should be included.
The above guidelines are primarily for external (citizens) customers. e Other
types of department-administered surveys include internal (City employees)
customer surveys and countertop surveys. Although not as valid as direct mail
or telephone surveys, countertop surveys are widely used throughout the City
to gather information from “#walk in” clientele. These types of surveys are
generally postcard type instruments. To ensure anonymity, it is important that
there be a collection box on site and that the customer has the option to return
the postcard by mail. It is also important to design these types of comment
cards using the appropriate weight, size and postage to avoid unnecessary
charges.
Several departments conduct surveys of internal city customers. These surveys
are usually longer than external customer surveys and are typically conducted
only on an annual basis.
Citywide Public Opinion Surveys
The citywide public opinion survey will be used to gauge customer satisfaction
and perception on services that do not typically have a specific sub-set of
known customers. As an example, the police department alone cannot
economically survey public opinion on how safe community members feel but
they can directly survey customer satisfaction among persons who report a
crime. However, both types of survey measurements are needed. While the
customer-specific surveys are directed towards a customer who has received a
specific service, i.e. reported a crime by filing a police report, the citywide
public opinion survey asks questions which apply to most citizens in general,
i.e. do they feel safe from crime, fire, etc. Citywide public opinion survey
questions are directed towards a random selection of residents whereas
customer specific surveys are directed to a select group of customers who may
or may not be residents of the city and who have received a specific city service.
It is our recommendation that all citywide public opinion surveys be
consolidated into one survey instrument. This will ensure that our citizens are
not inundated with surveys, that information will be gathered in a uniform
fashion, and that survey results are statistically valid. As public opinion
surveying is a specialized field, it was recommended that a consultant be hired
to develop, administer and analyze such a survey. The Social and Behavior
Research Institute at California Statue University, San Marcos, completed the
citywide public opinion survey (attached as Appendix 3) in time for the
10
February 2001 City Council goal-setting workshop.
Survey Timing Improvements
In ‘order to improve the integration of the &wide survey data results into the
performance measurement process it is recommended .that the citywide survey
be completed by October of each year. This also avoids having to survey during
the holiday season- By completing the survey by October departments will
have time to review the results and integrate them into their performance
measurement analysis as appropriate.
DETERMINING CAFkLSBAD’S BENCHMARKING
Benchmarking is the act of selecting and evaluating outside agencies that we
compare ourselves to. Benchmarking also includes the external data collection
process.
Selecting comparable public agencies with which to benchmark against begins
with creating relevant criteria or parameters, such as:
l Population and demographics
l Geography/ climate
l Size of agency
l Public services provided
l Location
l Fiscal conditions
l Perception of performance
Below is a proposed list of cities to use for benchmarking based on city
size/demographics, a department recommendation, or ICMA participation.
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
Austin (TX)
Bellevue (WA)
Beverly Hills (CA)
Boulder (CA)
Chula Vista (CA)
Coral Springs (FL)
Corvallis (OR)
Escondido (CA)
Eugene (OR)
Everett (WA)
Fullerton (CA)
Glendale (CA)
Huntington Beach (CA)
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
h-vine (CA)
La Mesa (CA)
Newport Beach (CA)
Palo Alto (CA)
Pasadena (CA)
Redwood City (CA)
Riverside (CA)
San Mateo (CA)
Santa Barbara (CA)
Santa Monica (CA)
Sunnyvale (CA)
Tempe (AZ)
11
Most of these agencies fall within certain measurable parameters such as
population (example: population +/- 50% of Carlsbad). These initial
parameters may need to be adjusted during the course of this program.
Additionally, due to the varying degrees of municipal services provided, not all
MSAs will use the same cities for comparison.
In addition to these cities, there may be opportunities for benchmarking
outside local government. Private sector comparisons exist for such fields as
fleet maintenance, information systems, project engineering, inspection,
purchasing, warehousing, etc. Non-profit agencies may also provide some
basis for comparison as well. These alternatives will be explored in the coming
year. Providing meaningful benchmark comparisons remains the goal.
BENEFITS AND RISKS OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
A performance measurement system can be used a variety of ways both
internally and externally. A performance measurement program:
Internal Use
l Helps evaluate the success of programs/services
l Clarifies the key roles/responsibilities of an agency through the
identification of the desired outcomes
l Provides a mechanism for informed evaluation/decision making
l Helps to create “the big picture” concept
l Helps drive the strategic planning process
l Acts as the mechanism to build a culture of continuous improvement
External Use
l Helps us “tell the story-” to the public
l Allows for more informed dialogue between the citizens and staff
l Sets the stage for policy discussions
l Promotes greater public trust and confidence
l Shows accountability in a governmental system
Potential risks to implementing a performance measurement system include:
l Employee fear regarding job security
l Potential that performance measurement may be used as a negative
reinforcement tool.
l Could negatively impact morale if scores are low
l May provide information that could be used for negative purposes
l Data is subject to interpretation
l Might be seen as additional work
l “You get what you measure” - if the measures aren’t right, your
outcomes may not be either
12
Although the benefits of performance measurement far outweigh the risks,
attention must be given to those who review the information and may report it
as negative or “not measuring Up.” The purpose of the program is to point out
successes and weaknesses so that an organization can work towards constant
improvement and strive to compare with other high performing organizations.
Performance measurements should never be looked at as failure to “measure
up.” Performance- measurement is another management tool to evaluate
services and programs, making certain that they are in line with the
organizations mission and that they are provided at an acceptable level (bench
marking) set by the organization.
COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH
For the performance measurement system to be effective the data that is
reported must be reliable, and the results must then be used to achieve
improvement. An effective communications and outreach program is therefore
a key component to the success of the performance measurement system. The
Resource Tear-n has begun an outreach program to reach all levels of city
employees.
To date, two workshops have been held for approximately 80 members of the
City’s management staff. In addition, Resource Team members have
participated in several department staff meetings to discuss the program.
The next phase of outreach will include distribution of information citywide,
such as paycheck stuffers, more department and division meetings, workshops
with the City Council, a review of the State-of-Effectiveness report with those
who participate in the performance measurement program, and the release of
the State-of-Effectiveness report to the public. Additional communication and
outreach activities will develop as the program develops.
CALENDAR
To help maximize the benefits of a performance measurement system and to
fully integrate it into the City, the timing of performance measurement
activities must be well planned.
The sample calendar on page 15 demonstrates how the performance
measurement program meshes with both the goal and budget processes.
Starting out a calendar year, the results of the citywide public opinion survey
should be finalized and presented to Council at their annual goal-setting
workshop usually held in January. In addition, the state-of-effectiveness
report should also be presented at this time as one of the components of the
performance measurement system. The information contained in these reports
13
might influence the priorities set for the upcoming year.
This same information should then be distributed to staff to aid in the
development of management goals and department budgets. Departments may
need the performance measurement data so that they can request funding to
strengthen or add programs, and to help establish their departmental goals for
the upcoming year. Based on the direction from the Council goals,
departments may develop goals, establish cost estimates for new programs,
and submit these with their budgets and management goals, usually due in
March/April of each year.
Once the budget is approved in June, departments can prepare for any new
programs or activities that are tied into the budget.
The second half of the year gives time to the departments to implement new
programs, measure results, contact other agencies for benchmarking, and
analyze data.
It is recommended that the citywide public opinion survey questions be
reviewed by July and that the survey be conducted in the summer/fall of each
year. Results are then available for the performance measurement report that
needs to be worked on in November and December of each year in preparation
for the presentation at the January/February Council workshop.
14
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
Expand Communications Plan to “Create The Culture”
It is expected that communication methods will expand as this program
evolves.
Contacts with Other Cities - Benchmarks
Establishing contacts and building relationships with other high-performing
cities will continue as an ongoing process. Through our initial efforts, we have
found this to be a time-consuming element in the performance measurement
program. A goal in the future is to develop an informal consortium with similar
agencies to help find comparable data.
Action Plan Development
The team will work with departments to implement action plans to address
performance issues. These action plans need to be developed in conjunction
with the budget process and goal development.
Department Performance Measures
The revision of our measures is an ongoing process. Measures will need to be
reviewed and revised to assure we are gathering valuable data and that the
methods utilized are valid. Some measures may need to be replaced with more
meaningful measures.
Citywide Measures
Citywide measures that reflect broad, citywide performance will be developed
and added to the performance measurement program.
Survey
Work needs to begin on the next public opinion survey that will be conducted
in late summer/fall 2001. It will need to be decided which questions should be
asked annually and which questions can rotate in and out. There may be
special topics that come up during the year that would warrant a question or
series of questions, or further questioning based on the past year’s results. In
addition, the guidelines for the customer-specific surveys need to be finalized
and distributed to staff.
Incorporation of Growth Management Plan Measures
The team recommends the addition of the City’s growth management plan
measures to the state-of-effectiveness report to help provide a comprehensive
performance report.
ICMA Survey
This past year, the responsibility of coordinating the completion of the ICMA
16
survey was transferred to members of the Performance Measurement Team.
This was done to provide better coordination of the survey and create a central
warehouse of performance measurement information.
State-of-Effectiveness Report, Second Edition
The first edition of the City’s State-of-Effectiveness report represents the City’s
initial effort at clarifying our critical outcomes and developing measures to
assess our ability in reaching them. The content, format, and presentation of
the first edition will to be evaluated in preparation for the second edition.
Program Evaluation and Revision
A review of the performance measurement program and the composition of the
team should occur annually.
17
18
CITY OF CARLSBAD PERFORMANCE MEASURES
19
20
City Of Carlsbad
State-Of-Effectiveness Report
SulMlMARY OF THE MEASWZES
PUBLIC SAFETY
ACHIEVES BELOW DATA NOT
BENCHMARK BENCHMARK AVAILABLE ..i _-
J Fire Confinement (p.25)
J Fire Customer Service (p.28)
J Fire Cost Efficiency (p.31)
Fire Response Time (p. 33) J
J Police Customer Service (p. 37)
Police Responsiveness (p. 40)
Crime Clearance Rates (p. 43)
J
J
J Community Perception of Crime (p. 48)
PUBLIC WORKS
J Potable Water (p. 50)
Water Reliability (p. 52)
Water Delivery Efficiency (p. 54)
Sewer System Reliability (p. 57)
Sewer Cost Efficiency (p. 59)
Storm Drain Reliability (p .61)
4
J
J
J
J Drainage System Efficiency (p. 62)
Drainage Water Quality (p. 63) J i
21
ADEQUATE
ACHIEVES BELOW DATA NOT
BENC- BENCHMARX AVAILABLE
J Solid Waste Customer Service (p. 64)
J Solid Waste Cost Efficiency (p. 65)
J Solid Waste Diversion (p. 67)
J Roadway Cost Efficiency (p. 69)
Roadway Safety (p.70)
Roadway Circulation (p. 73)
Roadway Ridability (p. 77) J
J Fleet Reliability (p. 79)
J Fleet Customer Service (p. 82)
Fleet Cost Efficiency (p. 84)
Facilities Customer Service (p. 85)
J Facilities Maintenance Response (p. 89)
J Facilities Cost Efficiency (p. 90)
Park Safety (p. 92) J
J Park Customer Service (p. 93)
J Park Cost Efficiency (p. 94)
CO&IMUNITY SERVICES
J’ Library Customer Service (p. 97)
Adult Literacy Program (p. 98)
Library Collection (p. 99)
Senior Center Customer Service (p. 100)
Recreation Customer Service (p. 10 1)
J
J
J
J
J Art Opportunities (p. 102)
22
Operating Costs Per Capita
ICMA Data FY 98-99 Average Total operating costs per capita $102.35
Carlsbad FY 98-99 Total operating costs per capita $110.96
Carlsbad FY 99-00 Total operating costs per capita $104.20
As the city of Carlsbad continues to grow in population it is anticipated that
our cost per capita will decrease. This is because our overhead costs will most
likely not increase as rapidly as our population due to the fact that we are
currently serving the entire geographic area of the city before it is completely
built out.
The vast majority of our costs (80%+) are related to personnel costs, which
have a direct reflection on the service levels we are able to provide. As the city
continues to grow towards build out, we will be monitoring our performance
measures closely to ensure that we are meeting our stated service levels in the
most cost efficient way possible.
ACTION PLAN
During the next year the fire department will be seeking to establish contacts
with other “high performing” agencies to collect performance measurement
information, including data on expenditures and revenues. This will help us
compare our cost per capita data and develop communication channels with
other departments to share ideas and programs.
The finance department is also in the process of developing a more
decentralized budgeting process where departments will have more control and
responsibility over how their financial resources are utilized. This new program
will provide an incentive for the fire department to manage its resources and
place more emphasis on strategic planning rather than budgeting in one or two
year increments.
Finally, the department is working on a master plan that will identify processes
and projects that need to be implemented in the next five years. By
anticipating these changes, it is hoped that the financial considerations can be
clearly identified and carefully considered as part of the decision making
process.
32
Public Safety
FIRERESPONSE TZBE
THE OUTCOME -
Maximization of patient survivability from a life threatening medical emergency.
THE MEASUREMENT .
Average response time to calls requiring advanced life support from receipt of
call to arrival.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
In a life threatening medical emergency the most critical factor to long term
recovery is stabilizing a patient’s vital signs as quickly as possible. Depending
on the medical emergency (trauma, heart attack, diabetic coma, stroke)
chances for survival increase dramatically if advanced life support medical
intervention is provided as quickly as possible.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Fire
BENCHMARK
Travel time on priority 1 calls will be 5 minutes or less 90% of the time.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD 99-00
5 minutes or less 4.77* minutes
Carlsbad Fire Department
Average Travel Time to Priority 1 Calls
Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 99-00
Response Time 4.27 4.21 4.39 4.42 4.55 4.68 4.78 4.81 4.77
*Note: 4.77 is our average travel time obtained by deducting .75 (45 seconds)
from our average response times (dispatch to arrival on scene), to account for
turnout time.
33
ICMA Data
Percent of Total Fire Calls with a Response Time of Five Minutes and Under
From Dispatch to Arrival on the Scene
All Jurisdictions 1999 1998 1997
Average 69.9% 66.6% 72.9%
100,000< 66.2% 64.0% 69.6%
< 100,000 76.6% 72.4% 80.3%
Carlsbad* 48.4%
*Based on an analysis of 7 19 priority one calls in Jun., Jul., Aug. 2000.
EMS Response Time: Average Time From Dispatch to Arrival on Scene For Calls
Requiring an Advanced Life Support Response, FY 98-99
All Jurisdictions Minutes
Average 4.9
Carlsbad** 5.6
**Based on the average response time from dispatch to arrival on scene to all
priority one calls in FY 98-99.
ANALYSIS
Currently the fire department reports response time as an average. This
average is reported by the city’s Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system as the
time from dispatch to the time the fire engine arrives on scene. We currently
deduct .75 minutes (45 seconds) from the average response time to come up
with the “travel time” that is commonly reported.
With the implementation of a new computer aided dispatch system (CAD) in FY
00-01 the measurement will be enhanced to include a break down of the
individual components of response time (call taking, dispatch, turn-out, travel)
and refined to measure the percentage of calls responded to within an
established benchmark rather than an average response time for all calls.
Although there is no widely accepted industry standard for response time the
city’s growth management plan requires “no more than 1,500 dwelling units
outside of a five minute response time,” and the Fire Department’s Operational
Directive #5 states, ” the department’s response goal is to provide an engine
company response within five minutes and an ambulance response within ten
minutes to 90 percent of the priority one emergency calls in the city.”
34
In the absence of the ability to easily calculate the percentage of calls
responded to within 5 minutes or less, the department has relied on an average
response time of 5 minutes or less, which is less stringent than the 90 percent
standard.
The difference in these two types of measurements is demonstrated in the
following example: if one-half of all priority one calls were responded to’in four
minutes and the other one-half were responded to in six minutes our average
response time would be five minutes, meeting our stated performance
benchmark. But when using the percentage method, the response times are
stacked in ascending order. Then the total number of calls generating a
response within five minutes is calculated as a percentage of the total number
of calls. In this example, only 50% of the total number of calls would meet the
five minute performance benchmark.
As shown in the most recent ICMA data our response times are greater than
the average for EMS calls. In addition, our percentage of calls responded to
within five minutes is less than the average. Further analysis is needed to
determine what factors are contributing significantly to our response times,
beyond the basic analysis of geographical distribution of the stations.
ACTION PLAN
The Fire Department has established a Response Time Task Force that has
been chartered to:
l Create a policy for the accurate and consistent measurement of total
reflex time
l Establish benchmarks for call-taking, dispatch, turn-out, and travel time
l Develop action plans for performance improvement
l Create a department-wide understanding of the Task Force goals and its
significance to the development of department resources and
maintenance of exemplary service levels
l Determine the feasibility of upgrading our current CAD system to
capture turnout time and travel time in a manner that would allow
reporting the percentage on calls responded to within a given standard.
In addition, the Fire and Police Department are currently in the process of
replacing the existing lo-plus-year-old CAD system. The new CAD will
significantly improve the way we are able to analyze response time data. Other
initiatives that may have an impact on response time include the replacement
35
of two older fire engines, the future relocation of station 6 and station 3, and
the addition of Automatic Vehicle .Locator (AVL) capability to the new CAD
system.
The department will also be conducting further analysis of our response time
data to look for identifiable trends or causes of greater than benchmark
response times. We will also be looking at ways to keep fire companies in their
station’s district more by exploring ideas such as:
Providing gas cards to all apparatus to refuel in their own district
Better utilization of the city mail system to distribute supplies
Initiate daily Battalion Chief rounds to enhance communication and
facilitate deliveries of EMS, office, and cleaning supplies
Limit move-ups (not available due to training, etc.) during peak call
volume times
Explore new technologies for conducting training classes, such video
taped classes, web based, I-Net or satellite teleconferencing
36
F’ublic Safety
POLICE CUSTOMJZR SERVICE & SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction.
THE MEASUREMENT
This measure uses a multi-method approach combining:
0 Survey results
0 Personnel complaints
The survey potion takes the results from the section of the police
department’s customer survey that relates to satisfaction with various police
services. The survey questions ask respondents to rate dispatch, patrol,
detectives, records, and administration. This customer satisfaction measure
has been in place for approximately 10 years.
The compMnts portion of the measure is the number of sustained formal
complaints made by citizens about police employees per 10,000 calls for
service. After investigation complaints are classified as sustained, non-
sustained, exonerated, or unfounded. A sustained complaint is one that
involves a citizen complaint of an incorrect action on the part of a police
employee that is upheld as an incorrect action. Using a ratio takes into account
increasing contacts as the population and size of the workforce increase. The
number of complaints by category has been measured for many years.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The survey portion of the measure reflects customer satisfaction among those
who have had a direct interaction with us through the filing of a crime report.
Over time, this measure can help us identify areas of strength and weakness,
as well as identify areas where changes in service level are occurring.
The compkzfnts portion of the measure can be a reflection of the quality of the
police employees and the level of customer service. Both a department
directive (2.6) and a legal requirement (P.C. 832.5) define when a formal
complaint is taken.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Police
BENCHMARK
Since this measure is unique to Carlsbad, the benchmark for the customer
37
survey portion of the measure is set at 4.5 - the highest average rating on
record. The benchmark for the citizen comphzints portion of the measure is
zero - the lowest number on record.
RESULTS
CITIZEN SURVEY
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD 2000”
4.5 4.5
CITIZEN COMPLAINTS
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD 2000
0 0.31
AVERAGE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RATINGS
ministrative I , , I ,
* Based on January - September data
SUSTAINED PERSONNEL COMPLAINTS PER 10,000 CALLS
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
0.48 0.47 0 0.15 0.31
ANALYSIS
The trend for the customer satisfaction survey is positive with the past two
years reaching the highest overall satisfaction rating seen since the survey was
implemented in 199 1 (4.5). All of the areas showed an increase in the average
satisfaction rating since 1996, however, the greatest increase was seen with the
investigations division.
Traditionally, uniformed personnel rate the highest of all the service areas; in
1998, 1999, and the first three quarters of 2000, they reached an all-time-high
average rating of 4.7. Investigations rating increased in 1998 with the
implementation of the victim follow-up program conducted by volunteers.
While previously at an average rating of 4.1 or lower, after the implementation
of the follow-up program, investigations average rating has steadily increased
to 4.4, 4.5, and most recently 4.6.
The total number of complaints filed each year, as well as the number of those
that are sustained, is a relatively small number. The rates per 10,000 calls for
service presented represent just a few sustained complaints per year out of less
than 20 total annual complaints.
38
ACTION PLAN
It is recommended that the crime victim follow-up be maintained, as there was
a direct relationship between the establishment of this program and the
increase in the investigations ratings. Further information can be extracted
from the customer satisfaction survey data to direct additional activities to
increase satisfaction.
In addition, the department will examine how best to distribute not ‘only the
detailed results of the crime victims survey throughout the department but also
the results of the California State University, San Marcos citywide survey
results. We believe that service levels can increase if employees have a better
understanding of the needs and concerns of the citizens. The department can
also explore enhancing customer service training, either with existing citywide
training that is currently available or new training, and an enhanced
recognition system for outstanding service.
With regard to citizen complaints, it is recommended that data from similar
agencies be obtained for comparison purposes. In addition, a complete review
and revision of the internal investigations policy and procedure is in progress.
This will help assure consistency in the handling of these cases. Hiring and
training practices need to be continually monitored as they relate to citizen
complaints and system to track complaints by officer will be evaluated. The
effective handling of complaints results in a higher level of customer
satisfaction and confidence.
39
Public Safety
THE OUTCOME
Minimize damage to life and property and increase probability of criminal
apprehension with a fast patrol response.
THE MEASUREMENT
All calls are given a priority. The determination of a call’s priority depends on
the severity of the crime and the time frame in which it occurred. There is a
priority assigned to each crime code within the computer-aided dispatch
system but the dispatcher has the option to upgrade a call’s priority based on
what the caller is saying or what the dispatcher may be hearing. The response
time is the time it takes from the time the call is received to when the first
police unit arrives on scene.
Priority 1 calls are life and death emergencies such as all violent crimes in
progress, some non-violent crimes in progress, armed robbery alarms, no detail
traffic collisions, and burglaries in progress. 0 ther 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
than one percent of the total police call volume, the response times for
priorities two and three are key to customer satisfaction.
40
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Police
BENCHMARK
The FY 1999 ICMA mean average priority one response time for all jurisdictions
is 6.4 minutes. Carlsbad has used the benchmarks of 6, 15, and 30 minutes
for priorities 1, 2, and 3 respectively for the past several years. Since ICMA has
no benchmark for the other priorities, and Carlsbad believes that our
responsiveness to non-priority one calls is an important customer service
measure, the police department is presenting both our internal benchmarks
and the ICMA benchmark.
RESULTS
ICMA CARLSBAD CARLSBAD
BENCHMARK BENCHMARK 2000
Priority 1 6.4 mins. 6.0 mins. 5.1 mins.
Priority 2 N/A 15.0 mins. 11.2 mins.
Priority 3 N/A 30.0 mins. 21.6 mins.
The average response times for priorities 1 through 3 for 1993 through 2000
are as follows:
1993 19&I 1g95 1996 1997 1998 1999 zetig
Priority 1 4.9 5.6 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.2 5.1
Priority 2 9.8 11.1 11.2 11.4 11.0 10.7 10.4 11.2
Priority 3 20.1 23.0 23.8 22.7 21.8 22.1 20.5 21.6
2000 Calls for Service by Priority Cl Priority I I n Priority 2
q lPriority 3
ANALYSIS
Until 2000, there has been a downward trend in all three priority levels of
response time despite an increase in call volume.
While 2000 year-to-date shows no change in the average priority one response
41
time, there has been an increase in both the average priority two and average
priority three response times. This may be the start of a trend of increasing
response times. It is not surprising that the average priority one response time
has held constant while the average priority two and three response times have
increased. Priority one calls are the calls that officers will break away from
other calls to respond. It is very likely that we would first see an increase in
priority two and three response times and later see an increase in the average
priority one response time.
ACTION PLAN
In spite of the favorable results compared to the ICMA cities, an upturn in the
priority two and three response times has been identified and the department
must closely monitor all three levels of response time. Staffing levels need to
. be evaluated, traffic circulation and its impact on response item should
studied, and beat realignment should be reexamined. In addition, our patrol
officer deployment practices should be evaluated.
The department. will consider the reporting of response time in a call
distribution format (ex: 95 percent of all priority one calls were responded to in
six minutes or less) with the implementation of the new CAD system. In
addition, the automatic vehicle locator (AVL) function of a new CAD system
may help reduce response times by making it easier to dispatch the unit with
the fastest response time.
42
Public Safety
CRIME CASES CLEARED
THE OUTCOME
Maximize the number of crimes solved.
THE MEASUREMENT
A case is considered cleared when at least one person is arrested, charged, and
turned aver to’court for prosecution, or the case is cleared exceptionally. The
number of FBI index cases cleared as a percentage of total FBI index crime
cases is a fairly standard measure used throughout the law enforcement
community. Clearance rates have been measured and reported by the police
department for at least 20 years.
In additional to the percentage for all FBI index crime cases overall, we also
measure the percentage separately for violent crimes (homicide, rape, robbery,
and aggravated assault), and for property crimes (burglary, larceny-theft, and
motor vehicle theft) to help further identify strengths and weaknesses.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The clearance rate is one indicator of the achievement of law enforcement
personnel in solving crimes. Although generally thought of as a reflection of
the investigations function, it also reflects the performance of the patrol
function and to a lesser degree, the police records function.
Some of the factors that influence clearance rates include: policies and
procedures used by various agencies; workload and/or the volume of cases
reported; personnel staffing for preliminary and follow-up investigation;
differential emphasis placed on investigating specific types of crime; the quality
and nature of the crimes assigned for investigation; and the training and
experience of officers. Changes in clearance rates over time could reflect data
variability and/or changes in productivity.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Police
BENCHMARK
We have established a benchmark to be within the top one-third of the county
with regard to clearance rates for all crime, for violent crimes, and for property
crimes. The police department uses San Diego County data as clearance data
can vary greatly from state to state and even somewhat by county within
California. We are fairly confident in our local county data due to a shared
43
database that all agencies use and regular quality assurance audits that are
conducted.
RESULTS
I ( BENCHMARK ( CARLSBAD 1999 I
1 OVERALL CRIME ~1 Top one-third 1 Yes
VIOLENT CRIME
PROPERTY CRIME
Top one-third
Top one-third
No
Yes
Note: Individual city data is not yet available for 2000. 1999 data is presented
instead.
1999 OVERALL CRIME
RANK CITY CLEARANCE RATES
1 El Cajon 33%
2 Chula Vista 26%
3 Lemon Grove 26%
4 Powav 25%
8 Santee 22%
9 Unincornorated / Sheriffs 22%
I 10 / Imnerial Beach I 21% I
Ill 1 National Citv 21% I
13 Vista
14 La Mesa
15 San Diego,
16 Encinitas
17 San Marcos
18 Solana Beach
19 De1 Mar
21%
20%
20%
17%
16%
10%
9%
44
1999 VIOLENT CRIME
CLEARANCE JUTES
CITY RATE
Coronado 87%
Poway 80%
El Cajon
Lemon Grove
1 Chula Vista 1 72%(
1999 PROPERTY CRIME 1
CLEARANCE RATES
CITY
El Cajon
Carlsbad
Coronado
Poway
Chula Vista
RATE
26%
21%,
20%
19%
18% I La Mesa 1 72%1
San Marcos I 71%1
1 Unincornorated 1 67%1
Escondido
Vista
Oceanside
De1 Mar
Solana Beach
Carlsbad
National City
Unincorporated
San Diego
Encinitas
Imperial Beach
San Marcos
Solana Beach
De1 Mar
13%
12%
11%
10%
8%
5%
4%
CARLSBAD’S CLEARANCE RATES: 1990 - 2000
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000*
Overall Crime 25% 20% 15% 18% 11% 16% 21% 30% 24% 23% 21%
Violent Crime 49% 39% 39% 39% 22% 43% 48% 52% 48% 45% 51%
Property Crime 22% 18% 12% 15% 9% 13% 18% 27% 22% 21% 19%
* January - June 2000 data
ANALYSIS
Carlsbad’s clearance rates have seen significant variance over the past ten
years, not only year-to-year but also compared to the county averages.
Carlsbad’s overall clearance rate fell below the county average from 199 1
through 1996. It then climbed above the county average and has remained
above the county average since then. When looking at only violent crimes
(homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) Carlsbad’s clearance rate has
consistently been below the county average. When looking at ranked violent
crime clearance rates, Carlsbad is in the lower one-third. There are relatively
few violent crimes in Carlsbad so the overall clearance rate for the City is more
45
influenced by the property crime clearance rate. Property crimes include
burglary, larceny theft, and motor vehicle theft. Except for 1992 and 1994,
Carlsbad has been at or above the county average, and is often well above the
county average for property crime clearances. When looking at ranked
property crime clearance rates, Carlsbad is in the top one-third countywide.
In general, clearance rates will be higher for violent crimes since they are
crimes against persons and will usually have witnesses and suspect
information. The nature of property crimes leads toward lower clearance rates.
ACTION PLAN
An audit of violent crime cases and property crime cases between July 1, 1999
and December 3 1, 1999 was conducted in Spring 2000 to determine the
validity of the clearance data and if necessary, to help define recommendations
for change and process improvements. The results of the audit helped form an
action plan below. A report with specific recommendations in the following
general categories was completed in Spring 2000.
l Accuracy and timeliness of investigations paperwork processing for
crime, arrest, and clearance forms
l Accuracy of records processing and entry of clearance data
l The creation of redundant/back-up systems for assuring the submission
and entry of accurate clearances
l Additional training regarding dispositions and clearances should be
provided to investigations, patrol and records.
In an effort to improve functionality and effectiveness, and therefore clearance
rates, a review of the Investigations Division was conducted during the last
quarter of 1999. Recommendations have been made in the following areas.
l Individual Workload l Communications
l Accountability l Case Process
l Major case capability l Physical Layout
l Training Needs l Equipment
Many changes have already taken place to improve the division’s overall
investigative capability and level of service to the citizens. Additional
recommendations identified in the study will need to be implemented and there
will likely be additional areas identified for improvement.
It is expected that the 2000 clearance rates will show an improvement as a
result of these changes. It is recommended that the clearance rates continue
46
to be used as a measurement of the department’s overall performance. To
assure that clearances remain a valuable, accurate measure, the department
must remain committed to ongoing review and improvement.
47
Public Safety
COiWMVNVY PERCEPTION OF CRZBIE
THE OUTCOME
Citizens’ sense of community safety.
THE MEASUREMENT
A general citizen survey to measure how safe people feel in their community.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure may be less influenced by the police department than any of the
others. Many factors influence citizens’ sense of fear in a community. These
factors include the media (television, newspapers, movies), current events
including high profile crime cases, the age distribution in a community, etc.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Police
BENCHMARK
The benchmark for community sense of safety is the ICMA “Citizen rating of
Safety in Their Neighborhoods” for fiscal year 1999. Although ICMA uses a
five-category response, our survey consultants recommended using a lo-point
scale for increased accuracy. These two scales can be fairly easily compared.
RESULTS
How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood during the day?
PERCENT RESPONDING “VERY SAFE”
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD
62% 86%
How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood at night?
PERCENT RESPONDING “VERY SAFE”
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD
31% 41%
ANALYSIS
Carlsbad compares favorably to other cities in the ICMA survey. Citizens’ rating
of safety may be influenced by a variety of factors such as police visibility,
48
media, confidence in police service, lighting and other physical aspects,
personal experiences, and character of the neighborhood,
ACTION PLAN
In addition, we may want to consider identifying higher performing cities to
compare to next year and/or reconsider the benchmark since we are clearly
exceeding it.
49
Public Works
POTABLE WATER QUALITY
THE OUTCOME -
High quality water free of pathogenic organisms.
THE MEASUREMENT
Monthly bacteriological samples.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The City purchases treated water from Metropolitan Water District and the San
Diego County Water Authority. Weekly water samples are taken and tested for
the presence of coliform bacteria. Coliform bacteria are ever-present and
therefore used as an indicator for potential presence of pathogenic organisms
that cause waterborne disease. Positive samples are indicators of potential
problems that are investigated and followed up with additional samples.
Monthly bacteriological reports are sent to the State Department of Health
Services. The goal is to achieve zero positive samples with anything less than
five percent acceptable.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/Utility Operations
BENCHMARK
98% of bacteria samples free of coliform. The State requires that at least 95%
of all samples collected during any month are total coliform-free.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD 2000
>98% 99.9%
Number Total Total Percent
Fiscal Year Collected Positive Bacteria-Free Bacteria-Free
1995-96 1.316 4 1,312 99.0%
1996-97 1.349 6 1,343 98.1%
1997-98 1.354 1 1,353 99.2%
1998-99 1,428 3 -’ 1,425 99.0%
1999-00 1,615 1 1,614 99.9%
50
AJMLYSIS
Data was gathered for fiscal year 1999-00. Of the 1,615 samples taken, one
sample was positive. When the positive samples are identified, staff takes
repeat sample sets per Section 64424, Repeat Sampling of California Title 22
Regulations. 99.9% exceeds our standard for this measurement and meets all
State and Federal legal, health and safety requirements.
ACTION PLAN
Staff will continue weekly water sampling and testing to ensure a high level of
water quality.
51
Public Works
WATER REUABIUTY
THE OUTCOME
Water system reliability.
THE MEASUREMENT
Total hours per mile of distribution line without service. This measure will be
calculated by taking the number of hours that a water main is without service,
excluding service interruptions due to maintenance and development activity,
divided by the total miles of distribution line.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure reflects the integrity of the water distribution system.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/Construction
Planning and Programs
BENCHMARK
Annual number of hours per mile of distribution
of service will not exceed a total of 0.05 hours in
established at 1998-99 baseline level and will
necessary, annually.
RESULTS
Maintenance, Engineering/
line that a water main is out
a year. This benchmark was
be reviewed and revised, if
1 BENCHMARK 1 CARLSBAD 2000 1
co.05 0.04
Fiscal Year Total Estimated Miles Hours/ Mile
Hours Distribution Lines Distribution Line
1998-99 18 350 0.05
1999-00 17 400 0.04
52
ANALYSIS
Total Estimated Miles Hours/Distribution
Hours Distribution Lines Line
Carlsbad 17 400 0.04
Otay WD 18 400 0.05
Vallecitos MWD - 10 290 0.03
0.04 hours/mile of distribution line is a reduction from the previous year of
0.05. This reduced ratio resulted, primarily, from the total number of hours
remaining virtually the same, from 18 to 17, while the miles of distribution line
increased from 350 to 400.
Carlsbad’s ratio falls in the middle of the two agency survey benchmarks which
seems to indicate that the integrity of Carlsbad’s system is comparable to other
agencies.
In the last year, Construction & Maintenance also changed their operations
such that the majority of shut-offs were at single-family residences. In these
instances, water was turned off on the city’s-side of the properly’s water meter
instead of the main. Turning water off at the main can affect several homes at
once. As a result, fewer customers were affected by terminated water service
due to repairs.
ACTION PLAN
Identify other agencies with similar organizational structures and operations so
as to better obtain comparable data. Continue using methods such as
terminating service on the City’s side of the property’s water meter instead of
the main during repairs to minim&e interruption of service to customers.
53
public Works
WATER DELNERY EFFICIENCY
THE OUTCOME
Water operations delivery efficiency.
THE MEASUREMENT
This measure uses a multi-method approach combining:
1. The percentage of water loss in the distribution system. Water loss is
defined as the amount of water production, less water sold, and divided
by water production.
2. Staff hours to deliver an acre-foot of water. This is defined as the total
water operations and maintenance full-time equivalent staff hours per
year divided by the total acre-feet of water production per year, both
potable and recycled.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
1. The water loss measure, if kept within the benchmark, represents the
results of an efficient and fiscally responsible operation. If the
percentage of water loss is high, the result is a revenue loss to CMWD.
2. This measure also represents an efficient system when we are able to
achieve the benchmark. The aim is to satisfy customer demands with
safe, reliable water with the minimum amount of staffing.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/Utility Operations
BENCHMARK
1. Annual water loss not to exceed s six percent as set by CMWD (City)
Standard Bulletin 166-4, Urban Water Use in California, August 1994.
Distribution system losses commonly range between 6 and 15%. AWWA
recommends that the loss after treatment be maintained at 10% or less.
2. Total number of staff hours to deliver. an acre-foot of water will not
exceed 3.3 hours per acre-foot. This benchmark was established at 1998-
99 baseline level and will be reviewed and revised, if necessary, annually.
54
RESULTS
1. Annual Water LOSS
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD 2000
~6% 5.36%
7 FISCAL YEAR WATER LOSS
1996-97 2.08%
1997-98 2.66%
1998-99 4.87%
1999-00 5.36%
2. Staff Hours to Deliver an Acre-Foot of Water
1 BENCHMARK 1 CARLSBAD2000 1
c3.3 2.9
STAFF HOURS
FISCAL YEAR PER ACRE-FOOT I 1996-97 1 3.1
1997-98 313
1998-99 3.3
1999-00 2.9
ANALYSIS
1. The four-year trend indicates an increasing level of water loss each year.
There are several factors that may contribute to this trend including
water leaks, unauthorized use of water or inaccurate reads by existing
water meters. As meters age, they tend to slow down or stop completely.
As a result, the amount of water used may not be recorded accurately.
2. Staff-hours of 2.9 per year per ac-ft. is slightly lower than the previous
year (3.3 hrs./ac.ft.) The slight decrease in staff-hours per ac-ft. is due
to an increase in the number of ac-ft. that was delivered to an increasing
number of water customers this year as compared to the previous year,
without an increase in staffing levels, Carlsbad’s ratio falls in the middle
of the two agency survey benchmarks, which seems to indicate that the
integrity of Carlsbad’s system is comparable to other agencies.
AGENCY STAFF HOURS PER ACRE-FOOT
Carlsbad 2.9
Otav WD 4.8
1 Vallecitos MWD 1 1.9
55
ACTION PLAN
1. Continue to monitor the water loss and review on a monthly basis to
identify trends that may be developing. This will include tracking water
leaks in the system using both the maintenance management and work
order systems, and identifying areas where replacement programs may
need to be implemented. Additionally, a study will need to be conducted
to test the reliability of our existing meters so we can take corrective
actions if necessary.
2. Amend this measure to analyze data on a per capita basis instead of
staff-hours per acre-foot. Identify other agencies with similar
organizational structures and operations so as to better obtain
comparable data.
56
Public Works
SEWER SYSTEMRELZABILITY
THE OUTCOME
Sewer system reliability
THE MEASUREMENT
This measure uses a multi-method approach combining:
1. Number of stoppages per 10 miles of sewer mains.
2. Number of reportable spills per 10 miles of sewer mains.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measures the integrity of the sewer collection system.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/ Construction Maintenance, Engineering/
Planning and Programs
BENCHMARK
The following benchmarks were established at 1998-99 baseline level and will
be reviewed and revised, if necessary, annually:
1. Annual number of stoppages not to exceed 1.2 per 10 miles of sewer mains
per year.
2. Annual number of spills not to exceed 1.3 per 10 miles of sewer mains per
year.
RESULTS
1.
BENCHMARK . CARLSBAD 2000
cl.2 0.4
FISCAL TOTAL ESTIMATED
YEAR STOPPAGES TOTAL MILES
OF MAINS
1998-99 26 213
1999-00 8 213
2.
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD 2000
cl.3 0.5
1.2 I
0.4 I
57
FISCAL
YEAR
1998-99
1999-00
TOTAL ESTIMATED SPILLS PER
SPILLS TOTAL MILES 10 MILES
OF MAINS
28 213 1.3
11 213 0.5
ANALYSIS
1.. Our 0.4 stoppages per 10 miles of sewer mains as compared to 1.2 from the
previous year reflect the decrease in total stoppages of 26 to eight. This
decrease was due to an increased effort towards cleaning and maintenance
of “trouble” areas that are known to have a history of stoppages. At the time
of this report, accurate inventory data was not available to determine exact
total miles of mains. The number used is based on historical information,
and will be updated in FY 2000-01.
2. The number of spills per ten miles of sewer line was 0.5. This is down from
our previous measure of 1.3, but somewhat higher than the agency survey
measure of 0.4 reported from the City of Santa Barbara. Santa Barbara’s
0.4 represents the calculation of 10 spills per 234 miles of sewer main. The
difference is relatively negligible. Carlsbad’s total reportable spills decreased
from 28 the previous year to 11 this year and primarily attributable to
concentrated efforts in areas known to have a history of spill incidences. As
in the previous measure, at the time of this report, accurate inventory data
was not available to determine exact total miles of mains. The number used
is based on historical information, and will be updated in FY 2000-01.
AGENCY TOTAL ESTIMATED SPILLS PER
SPILLS TOTAL MILES 10 MILES
OF MAINS
Carlsbad 11 213 0.5
Santa Barbara 10 234 0.4
ACTION PLAN
Continue to concentrate on trouble areas to better ensure against potential
stoppages and spills. Revise Public Works Maintenance Management
standards to identify trouble area work activities and scheduled maintenance
work activities to better achieve a balance between the two. Identify agencies
with similar organizational structures and operations so as to better obtain
comparable data. Work with Engineering to obtain accurate inventory data.
58
Public Works
SEWER COST EFFICIENCY
THE OUTCOME
Sewer operations cost efficiency.
THE MEASUREMENT .
Cost of service per million gallons of sewage. Calculated by dividing the total
cost of service by the total sewer flow assessed to Carlsbad.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measures the fiscally responsible and appropriate use of ratepayer dollars. The
total cost of services includes payments to Encina in addition to maintenance
and operation costs. This can then be compared to other agencies, which are
also responsible for collection, treatment and discharge.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/Construction Maintenance
BENCHMARK
Annual cost of service per million gallons of sewage will not exceed $1,028.
This benchmark was established at 1998-99 baseline level and will be reviewed
and revised if necessary annually.
RESULTS * 5
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD 2000
~$1,028 $965
95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00
Fiscal Year Expenses$2,278,165$2,404,019 $2,364,962 $2,244,652$2,233,201
Annual Flow
(million gallons) 1,708.20 1,770.25 1,861.50 2J82.70 2,314.10
, $/w $1,334, $1,358, $1,270, $1,028, $965u
59
ANALYSIS
In fiscal year 1999-00 the cost of service was $965 per million gallons (mg) and
was within the benchmark $1,028. This year’s measure was slightly lower per
mg due to the increase in the amount of sewage that was discharged resulting
from the increase in the number of sewer customers, while at the same time
maintaining existing staffing levels, However, it is anticipated this figure will
increase substantially due to energy cost volatility impacts to Encina
Treatment Facility in 2000-01.
Staff attempted to obtain benchmark data from other agencies; however,
analysis indicated data received was not comparable.
ACTION PLAN
Identify other agencies with similar organizational structures and operations to
better obtain comparable data. Use the public Works Maintenance
Management Program to continue to identify ways to schedule and assign work
activities to maintain existing levels during ongoing growth in customer base.
60
Public Works
STORM DRAIN SYSTEMRELU.BLLITY
THE OUTCOME
Storm drain system-reliability.
THE MEASUREMENT
Under development.
WHAT-THE DATA MEANS
Measures the integrity of the storm drain system.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/ Street Maintenance
BENCHMARK
To be developed.
RESULTS
None available.
ANALYSIS
WA
ACTION PLAN
Develop a measure that accurately reflects staffs efforts at maintaining the
storm drain system. It is also anticipated that the corrugated metal pipe
installed prior to 1970 will be inspected via remote controlled video camera to
evaluate the integrity of the storm drain system and identify potential problem
areas.
61
public Works
DRA~UAGE SYSTEM EFFICIENCY
THE OUTCOME -
Drainage system efficiency.
THE MEASUREMENT
Staff hours to maintain a mile of pipe (total staff hours devoted to drainage
system maintenance divided by mile of storm drain).
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measures the fiscally responsible and appropriate use of funds.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/Street Maintenance, Engineering
BENCHMARK
Annual staff hours per mile of storm drain system will not exceed 5.4 hours per
mile of pipe. This benchmark was established at 1999-00 baseline level and
will be reviewed and revised if necessary annually.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD 2000
c5.4 5.4
FISCAL YEAR TOTAL MILES OF HOURS PER
HOURS DRAINS MILE
1999-00 923 171 5.4
ANALYSIS
Staff attempted to obtain benchmark data from other agencies, however,
analysis indicated data received was not comparable.
ACTION PLAN
Continue development of the storm drain maintenance program, including
ongoing updates of the inventory. Identify other agencies with similar
organizational structures and operations to better obtain comparable data.
62
Public Works
DRATIVAGE SYSTEM WATER QUALXTY
THE OUTCOME
Environmentally sound drainage system.
THE MEASUREMENT
Dry-weather testing to comply with Non-Point Discharge Elimination System
program.
.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Determines the quality of storm drain water in the City of Carlsbad.
STATUS OF THE MEASURE
This is an existing measure based on federal standards.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/Environmental Programs
BENCHMARK
On hold until Environmental Program Manager is hired.
RESULTS
N/A
ANALYSIS
WA
ACTION PLAN
WA
63
Public Works
SOLID WASTE CUSTOMER SERVICE & SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction.
THE MEASUREMENT
Results of citywide public opinion survey.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Indicates how well solid waste customers’ needs and expectations are being
met.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and .operations
BENCHMARK
90% of customers rate Solid Waste Services as “Good” (3 on a l-4 scale) or
higher in all customer service survey categories.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD 2000
>90% 83.3%
85.8% of customers rated trash collection as “Good” or “Excellent” in December
1999 citywide public opinion survey. 83.3% of customers rated trash and
,recycling collection as “Good” or “Excellent” in the December 2000 citywide
public opinion survey.
ANALYSIS
While solid waste services did not meet the benchmark standard, they ranked
amongst the highest of all services surveyed.
ACTION PLAN
Staff will continue to closely monitor customer satisfaction with solid waste
services. All results are communicated to the City’s solid waste handler, and
all complaints are logged. There is no other formal action plan.
64
Public Works
SOLID WASTE COST EFFICIENCY
THE OUTCOME
Solid waste servicescost efficiency.
THE MEASUREMENT
Solid waste services rates adjusted for franchise and other City fees, as
reported in a semi-annual SANDAG survey.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measures the cost of providing solid waste services.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and operations
BENCHMARK
Carlsbad solid waste service rates for commercial and residential customers in
the lowest one-third when compared to other cities in San Diego County.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD 2000
Lowest one-third Lowest one-third
Franchise / Residential Adjusted
& Other Citv Fees Rate Rate
Carlsbad 9%
De1 Mar 5%
El Cajon 7%
Encinitas 5%
Escondido 10% + 2 1 cents
La Mesa 4% + 57 cents
Lemon Grove 9% + 15 cents
Oceanside 2% f $3.42
Poway 5% + 83 cents
San Marcos 5%
Solana Beach 5%
Vista 5% + 7 cents
$14.52
$14.46
$15.04
$14.76
$14.18
$14.55
$14.99
$19.88
$15.78
$14.57
$15.49
$15.55
$13.21
$13.74
$13.99
$14.02
$12.55
$13.40
$13.49
$16.06
$14.16
$13.84
$14.72
$14.70
Franchise/ Commericial Adjusted
m Other Citv Rate && Rank
Fees
2 9% 74.92 68.18 3
5 5% 76.28 72.47 8
7 7% 75.25 69.98 4
8 5% 74.32 70.60 6
1 10% 71.23 64.11 1
3 4% +$2.02 75.55 70.51 5
4 9% f $1.33 79.95 71.42 7
12 2% 80.74 79.13 12
9 5% 71.16 67.60 2
6 5% 77.67 73.79 10
11 5% 77.57 73.69 9
10 5% + $0.63 80.61 75.95 11
NOTES: Chula Vista is not included as rates are reduced due to a litigation
settlement. Coronado is not included because the General Fund subsidizes
65
rates. Imperial Beach, National City and Santee are not included as
are lump sum rather than percentage. San Diego is not included
service is not provided by contract.
ANALYSIS
City fees
because
Carlsbad’s solid waste services rates have not been increased since June 1996
and are amongst the lowest in the County.
ACTION PLAN
Solid waste services rates are established via City Council resolution. Rate
adjustment requests are subject to audit by an outside firm to ensure rates are
fair and equitable. The City’s authorized solid waste handler has not requested
a rate adjustment, nor is one expected in fiscal year 2000-O 1.
66
Public Works
SOLID WASTE DIVERSION
THE OUTCOME
Environmentally sound solid waste services.
THE MEASUREMENT
Diversion of solid waste from disposal in compliance with AB 939, as reported
annually to the California Integrated Waste Management Board.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measures the level at which the City of Carlsbad is taking responsible action in
maintaining an environmentally safe community for its citizens.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and operations
BENCHMARK
Achieve 50% or more diversion by end of year 2000 to meet compliance with AB
939.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK CiRLSBAD 1999
>50% 42%
The City of Carlsbad diversion rate is 44% for 1998, and 42% in 1999. Results
are submitted every August for the previous calendar year.
1 1996 1 48% I
I 1995 I 5%% I
ANALYSIS
Carlsbad’s diversion rate has been dropping steadily since 1997. This
phenomenon has been attributable to the robust economy. As people have
increased discretionary income, they purchase more goods, and
correspondingly generate more disposables. The diversion decrease has
occurred throughout the state, but is pronounced in Carlsbad due to the
67
affluence of the community.
Currently, the community is informed of solid waste, recycling, and household
hazardous waste programs via the City’s website, notices on the utility bills,
and articles in the Water District’s newsletter and the Community Services
guide.
In another effort to increase diversion, corrugated cardboard has been added to
the curbside materials accepted for recycling. Staff is working with the City’s
authorized solid waste handler to promote this new program.
ACTION PLAN
Staff has begun working with the City’s authorized solid waste handler to
review our recycling and education programs to ensure we are maximiiing
diversion. If any new diversion and/or education opportunities are identified,
proposed programs will be presented to City Council for consideration.
68
Public Works
ROADWAY COST EF’FICIENCY
THE OUTCOME
Value of the roadwq experience.
THE MEASUREiIENT
Actual maintenance expenditures per lane mile of roadway.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measures the fiscally responsible and appropriate use of tax dollars allocated
for use on the City’s roadways. It also reflects age, design and maintenance
standards of the infrastructure.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/ Street Maintenance, Engineering
BENCHMARK
To be determined
RESULTS
Not available at this time
ANALYSIS
None required at this time
ACTION PLAN
Traditionally, Public Works has not tracked the mileage of roadway by lane
miles. Due to the introduction of the maintenance management program and
new requirements placed on cities by the Government Accounting Services
Board, the need for inventory at this level has now been identified. Engineering
is in the process of gathering accurate inventory data that will be used to refine
this measure over the next year. In addition, we will identify agencies with
similar organizational structures and operations so as to better obtain
comparable data.
69
public Works
ROADWAY SAFETY
THE OUTCOME
Roadway safety. -
. THE MEASUREMENT
Number of accidents per mile of roadway.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Several factors contribute to a safe roadway system including design,
maintenance, traffic operations, and traffic enforcement. This measurement
brings the effectiveness of all these factors together to measure the safety
outcome. Data currently measured by both engineering and police. Data is
gathered all year and is summarized in the Traffic Division’s Annual Traffic
Report.
Roadway segment collision rate is the number of collisions occurring on a
defined section of road, per one million vehicle miles. The California
Department of Transportation has calculated statewide average rates on all
State highways to be used to identify potential problem areas. These rates
range from 2.08 for a 2 or 3 lane roadway to 3.52 for an undivided roadway
with 4 or more lanes.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Public Works Maintenance and Operations, Public Works Engineering, Police,
BENCHMARK
100% of roadway segments meet Caltrans rates.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD 1999
100% 95%
The table shown on the next page provides roadway segment collision rates on
major streets throughout Carlsbad and a comparison of the State collision rate
for a comparable roadway.
70
ROADWAY SEGMENT COLLISION RATES
ALGA ROAD (maior arterial) El Camino Real to Melrose Drive
CANNON ROAD ( aior artana ) Carisbad Bouievardmto LEGOl&D Drive
1000 1000
NUMBER OF COLLISION UM tROF COLLISION COLLISIONS RATE !OL&ONS RATE
3 0.21 5- 0.52
2 0.54 1 0.26
CARI SBAD BOULEVARD fmaior arterial) North City Limits to Carl&ad Village Drive Carlsbad Village Drive to Tamarack Avenue Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road Cannon Road to Palomar Airport Road Palomar Airport Road to Poinsettia Lane Poinsettia Lane to South City Limits
COLLEGE BOULEVARD (maior arterial) Palomar Airport Road to El Camino Real
LA COSTA AVENUE (maior arterial) Interstate Highway 5 to El Camino Real
POINSETTIA LANE (maior arterial) Carlsbad Boulevard to Aviara Parkway
EL CAMINO REAL (mime arterial) Slate Route 76 to Marron Road Marron Road to Tamarack Avenue Tamarack Avenue to College Boulevard College Boulevard to Palomar Airport Road Palomar Airport Road to Aviara Parkway Aviara Parkway to La Costa Avenue La Costa Avenue to South City Limits
MELROSE DRIVE (prime arterial) Palomar Airport Road to Alga Road Alga Road to Ranch0 Santa Fe Road
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD forime arterial) Carlsbad Boulevard to Avenida Encinas Avanida Encinas to Paseo Del Norte Paseo Del None to College Boulevard College Boulevard to Camino Vida Roble Camino Vida Roble to El Camrno Real El Camino Real to Melrose Drive Melrose Drive to East City Limits
RANCH0 SANTA FE ROAD hime arterial) Melrose Drive to La Costa Avenue La Costa Avenue to Olivenhain Road Olivenhain Road to Cake Acervo
AVIARA PARKWAY @co darv arterial) Poinsettia Lane to El Camin: Real
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE fseco darv Carlsbad Boulevard to Interstate HigGay 5 arterial)
Interstate Hiohwav 5 to El Camino Real El Camino R%al id Tamarack Avenue Tamarack Avenue to College Boulevard
LA COSTAAVENUE fseco darva e a) El Camino Real to Ranch0 Santa Fz Rnbad
PASEO DEL NORTE (sew arv arterial) Cannon Road to Palomar Ai$ort Road Palomar Airport Road to Poinsettia Lane
8 0.06 1.50 11 9 1.65 1.02
6 0.64 : 1.46 0 1; 5 0.59 : l g 0.39
7 1.16 4 0.59
22 (9) 0.95 21 (14) 0.90
3 0.29 4 0.44
0.56 0.61 0 0
5 0.36 : 0.34 (1) 0.66 (1) 0.39 2 0.64 2 0.79
3 0.23 I 6 0.52
I I L 22 I “4.74 15 ““3.14 5 2 0.66 : 1.09 0 0.36 0 1.29 0 0
14 1 16 I 16 1 1.25
6 1.66 4 0.71 6 1.61 2 0.57
CALTRANS STATEWIDE COLLISION RATES FOR URBAN ROADWAYS
l ,. Exceeds State rate of 1.94 (4+ lanes undivided) Exceeds State rate of 2.23 (4+ lanes divided)
l ** Exceeds State rate of 2.21 (4+ lanes divided)
Numbers in parentheses ( ) indicate number of collisions in construction zone
Rate = Number of collisions x one million
Average daily traffic x section length (miles) x.365 days = collisions per million vehicle miles
71
ANALYSIS
In 1999, ninety-five percent of the roadway segments measured were within the
statewide standard. Only two road segments on two different roads exceeded
the statewide collision rate. (Carlsbad Village Drive between Carlsbad
Boulevard and Interstate Highway 5; and Palomar Airport, Road between
Avenida Encinas and Paseo De1 Norte). The segment on Carlsbad Village Drive
was also identified in 1998 as exceeding the statewide collision rate.
Each of these segments is in a heavily traveled corridor. The segment on
Carlsbad Village Drive is particularly problematic due to closely spaced
intersections, many driveways, heavy pedestrian volumes and tourist
destinations. The Palomar Airport Road segment is heavily used by commuters
and tourists. Both of the subject road segments have been fully improved to
city standards and have permanent signing, striping and traffic control devices
in place. Many of the collisions are outside the control of the city to initiate
preventive measures due to the nature of the accidents such as being related to
weather conditions or driver inattention.
ACTION PLAN
Staff currently performs detailed analysis of collision history on road segments
having collision rates higher than the statewide rates. This analysis will
continue to be performed on road segments exceeding the statewide collision
rates. If it is determined through analysis that the installation of traffic control
devices or changes to the roadway geometry may help reduce accidents then
those corrective actions will be considered.
Staff will explore with Caltrans whether they keep statistics or accident rates
for road segments at freeway interchange locations, such as Palomar Airport
Road and I-5. It could be expected that such road segments have a higher
accident rate than the arterial road segment information that is available.
72
Public Works
ROADWAY CIRCULATION
THE OUTCOME:
Roadway circulation efficiency.
THE MEASUREMENT
Average travel time and percent delay on El Camino Real and Palomar Airport
Road.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Ideal travel time is the length of time that it takes to travel from one point to
the other based on the speed limit assuming no delays for traffic signals,
construction, pedestrians, traffic congestion, etc. Average travel time is the
average of actual travel times from one point to the other, including delays.
Percent delay is the percent difference between the ideal time and the average
time. Average travel time and percent delay measures are most meaningful if
reviewed in relationship to peak (morning commute/evening commute) and off-
peak periods. Several factors contribute to an efficient roadway circulation
system including design, maintenance, traffic operations, and traffic
enforcement. These measures serve as an initial red flag to help determine the
effectiveness of the City’s roadway system to ensure efficient and time-effective
travel.
Palomar Airport Road (East City Limit to Carlsbad Blvd)
Ideal Travel Time (Eastbound or Westbound) 7.4 min
El Camino Real (South City Limit to Haymar)
Ideal Travel Time (Northbound or Southbound) 10.9 min
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Public Works Maintenance and Operations, Public Works Engineering, Police.
73
Westbound -East City Limit to Carlabad Blvd 10.0
. . . p-h; &jk w&d,jiob~6:ijij’ _- ,~
Eastbound - Carisbad Blvd to East City Llmlt 13.9
Westbound -East City Llmit to Carlsbad Blvd -12.0
36.2%
89.6%
.63.9%
I I
(min) % Delay
-. ..,A~.p~;k.7:~t~~O~. F-...‘;, _.I: .i..;- _:’ c,
Northbound -.5outhCltyLlmit to H~ayr&& :-.
Suuthbdunrt : &ar tn Suuth City I;ki#
lfjf :Y: .‘&.e;/.
1 “. l”8.9 -‘-1 .‘pSJ%
OffPeak-9:15toll:15
Northbound -South City Limit to Haymar
Southbound - Haymar to South City Limlt
p;&.+eak. 3if4jio d:O;b
Northbound.;South City Limit to Haymar.
Southbound i Havmar to South Cltv Limit
15.8
16.0
45.3%
46.7% . .:
21.8 ,99.9%
q-r.4 : 693%
The data from June 2000 will serve as the benchmark and will be reviewed
annually as new data is collected.
RESULTS
Eastbound - Cartsbad Blvd to East City Llmlt
Eastbound - Carlsbad Blvd to East City Limit
min X Dal;
10.4 41.1% r-7-l 11.5 56.4%
10.7 45.8%
Northbound - South City Limit to Haymar
Southbound - Haymar to South City Llmlt
Northbound -South City Limit to Haymar
min % Dela
17.1 56.5% l-7-7 17.9 !4.6%
16.1 48.4%
Westbound - East City Limit to Carlsbad Blvd
P.hl. Peak - 4:bb to 6:bO
Eastbound - Carlabad Blvd to East City Limit
Westbound -East City Llmlt to Cariabad Blvd
9.8 33.7%
12.5 70.0%
11.9 02.5%
Southbound - Haymar to South City Limit
P;#. Peak - j:3d.to 6:dO
Northbound -South Clty Limit to Haymar
Southbound - Haymar to South City Llmit
16.1 48.0%
24.3 122.9%
17.0 56.2%
ANALYSIS
Staff obtained the average travel time information on both roads based upon
roadway conditions on the day of the study. Both roads are future six-lane
arterials. However, some segments have only been constructed with two-lanes
in each direction. Travel times on both segments are influenced by traffic
volumes, roadway geometries, driveway locations, traffic signals and pedestrian
volumes. Afternoon peak hour delays are significantly higher due to the larger
volume of traffic on both the subject roads and side streets at that time of day.
El Camino Real
The results show that a fairly significant increase in travel time occurred in the
northbound direction during the a.m. and p.m. peaks as compared to the
benchmark (June 2000). Little change occurred during the off-peak period. In
the southbound direction, there was little change compared to the benchmark
during peak and off-peak periods.
Most of the increase in delay for the northbound direction appears to have
occurred at a few major intersections within the south City Limit-to-Hosp Way
segment. Generally, La Costa Avenue, Palomar Airport Road and Tamarack
Avenue saw an increase in delay during the a.m. peak, and Alga Road, Palomar
Airport Road, Faraday Avenue and Carlsbad Village Drive saw an increase in
74
delay during the p.m. peak.
There could be many reasons for these trends, from lower traffic volumes in
June due to school being out, to simply a general increase in traffic due to
growth, both within Carlsbad and neighboring communities. However, the
increase in delay was noted primarily in the northbound direction only, which
would indicate that higher traffic volumes might not be the only factor. It is
possible that the increase in delay is simply a result of the test vehicles
approaching more intersections, by chance, at a different part of the signal
cycle so that a larger percentage of time was spent waiting for a green
indication than was the case during the June studies. This is most likely the
case for the individual intersection delays noted above. Additionally, the
December 2000 study was conducted during the holiday shopping season
when typically more delay and increased traffic volumes are noted. It would be
premature at this stage to speculate further on the causes of the delays.
Future travel time studies will provide further information with which reliable
trends can be observed, and the causes of these trends will be addressed at
that time.
Palomar Airport Road
The results show that a fairly significant reduction in travel time occurred in
the eastbound direction during the a.m. and p.m. peaks as compared to the
benchmark (June 2000). Little change occurred during the off-peak period.
Most of the reduction in travel time for the eastbound direction occurred near
the eastern city limit, with some reduction also occurring in the vicinity of the
Interstate 5 ramps, Armada Drive and College Boulevard. This is most likely
due to the fact that an additional lane has been constructed for eastbound
traffic from El Camino Real to the eastern City Limit, and that two alternate
parallel routes have recently been opened, Cannon Road-Faraday Avenue
between Legoland Drive and College Boulevard, and Aviara Parkway between
Plum Tree Road and Cobblestone Road. Interestingly, the delay between
Yarrow Drive and El Camino Real in the eastbound direction has increased
significantly as compared to the benchmark, especially during the p.m. peak.
Despite this, net travel times in the eastbound direction have decreased.
ACTION PLAN
Both Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real need to be completed to their
full arterial width per the circulation element of the Growth Management Plan.
Completion of other missing circulation element roadways and widening
existing segments will help distribute traffic volumes to more lanes resulting in
shorter platoons of vehicles traveling between intersections. Portions of both
segments have traffic signals operating in coordination due to the closely
spaced intersections. Additional traffic signals will be constructed on both El
Camino Real and possibly on Palomar Airport Road in the future. At that time,
75
intersection spacing will be closer and will benefit from coordinated traffic
signals. Widely spaced intersections at this time would not be candidates for
signal coordination. A study of future traffic signal coordination and
optimization will be conducted through a consultant contract. This study will
focus on the locations to add signal coordination and ways to optimize traffic
signal operations. Coordination timing of the signals will be monitored from
the future Transportation Management Center (TMC) to be built in the Public
Works Center in 18=24 months.
One of the significant locations for delay is the El Camino Real corridor at the
Plaza Camino Real Mall. Future construction at the Ranch0 De1 Oro
interchange by the City of Oceanside will reduce traffic volumes using El
Camino Real at Highway 78. This interchange might be constructed in three to
five years. Future construction of College Boulevard and Cannon Road and
opening the connection to Oceanside will also provide congestion relief to El
Camino Real through volume reductions in the mall vicinity.
Businesses continue to be encouraged to implement aggressive Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce volumes and shift peak hours
of operation. Efforts such as formation of a Transportation Management
Association (TMA) will help educate businesses and provide options for them to
implement such as carpools, vanpocls, increased transit usage or other TDM
measures.
Additional travel time studies will be performed on El Camino Real and
Palomar Airport Road in June 2001. The results from these studies will enable
continued comparisons to be made with the results contained in this and
previous studies in order to evaluate trends resulting from traffic improvements
or delays on both roads.
76
Public Works
ROADWAY RIDEABIUTY
THE OUTCOME
High level of roadway rideability.
THE MEASUREMENT
Average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and the percentage of roadway
segments above the target PC1 minimum.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The data reflects age, design and maintenance standards of the infrastructure.
STATUS OF THE MEASURE
The PC1 data is generated by the MicroPaver program based on the data
collected during annual roadway condition surveys.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Public Works, Maintenance & Operations, and Public Works, Engineering.
BENCHMARK
Average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 80 with a minimum PC1 of 70. As
categorized by the MicroPaver program a PC1 in the range of 70-85 is in “very
good” condition, which means, “The pavement has very few minor defects.”
RESULTS
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD
80 75*
*The reported data reflects results gathered from the most recent survey (1997-
98). A number of contracts have been issued to contractors to perform work in
this area and it is anticipated that the current average PC1 meets the
established benchmark.
It is anticipated that the roadway condition surveys, which are used to
determine the Pavement Condition Index (PCI), will be conducted during the
Spring of 2001. The most recent survey data from fiscal year 1997-1998
resulted in a citywide average PC1 of 75.
77
ANALYSIS
The reported average pavement management condition index of 75 falls short of
the established benchmark of 80, however, it is within the acceptable range of
75-80. As previously stated, the reported data was collected approximately
three years ago. Since that time, numerous contracts have been issued to
perform slurry seals and pavement overlays on a variety of roadways. The
completion of these processes typically have a positive impact on the PCI, it is
anticipated that a new survey will reflect this.
ACTION PLAN
In regards to Performance Measurement the following items of work need to be
completed on an annual basis.
1. September - October: Complete roadway condition survey. .The
roadway surveys consist of an initial survey of 5% of the street sections
with the lowest PC1 to ensure that the previously gathered data is still
valid. After the validity of the data is confirmed, a random sample of
15% of City’s street sections is surveyed. The MicroPaver program
generates the listing of street sections to be surveyed.
2. October - November: Analyze roadway survey data and calculate PC1
results.
3. November - January: Identify funding expended on Pavement
Management Projects and Roadway Maintenance activities.
4. January - June: Based on the results of the PC1 calculation and
historical tracking of funding relative to the PCI; the scope of work and
funding request for the following year’s project(s) will be incorporated
into the Capital Improvement Program budget request.
The sample summary table shown below will be used in the future to present
the correlation between the funds expended on pavement management
activities and the PC1 of roadways throughout the City. By tracking the data
included on the table over time we can identify the relationship between the
scope and cost of the pavement management projects and their effect on the
PCI. Based on the results of this analysis we can adjust the budget request to
achieve the desired outcome.
Fiscal
Year
Avg. PC1 % of roads $ on Avg. PC1 % of roads
prior to above PC1 of Pavement after PC1 above PC1 of
Project(s) 70 Mgmt. Project(s) 70
Proiect(s)
78
Public Works
FLJZET RELUBILITY
THE OUTCOME
Fleet vehicle reliability and availability
THE MEASUREMENT
l Percent of preventive maintenance work orders completed when
scheduled.
l Percent of units on the road.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
These measures will indicate the maintenance and repair proficiency by
identifying the availability of City vehicles, and the quality of the City’s
preventive maintenance program by the reliability of City vehicles. Preventive
maintenance is routine maintenance (i.e. oil change, coolant flush, tire
rotation, etc.) that will reduce equipment failures and/or major repairs.
STATUS OF THE MEASURE
A computerized fleet maintenance management system has been selected and
an agreement with the vendor will be signed shortly. The system will be fully
implemented and data will be retrievable by the end of FYO 1. The system will
calculate the percent of .work orders completed and the percent of units on the
road. Currently, information for measure #l is calculated manually.
Information for measure #2 will be available by the end of FYO 1.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
Fleet and Information Technology
BENCHMARK
l 90% of scheduled preventive maintenance work orders are completed
within 48 hours from the time the vehicle is delivered to the shop.
l 90% of fleet units are available to meet City needs at any given time.
RESULTS
1.
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD 2000
90% 84%
2. Due to software limitations, data will not be reported in FY 2000-01
79
ANALYSIS
1. Fleet Maintenance staff nearly achieved its objective to complete 90% of
their work orders within 48 hours from the time vehicles are delivered to the
shop. The primary reason staff did not achieve its objective was due to the
discovery of unexpected repairs when vehicles were undergoing preventive
maintenance. These repairs required staff to send the vehicles to various
outside vendors. Repairs that were sent to outside vendors included, but
were not limited to, front end and suspension steering repairs, engine
overhauls, auto transmission overhauls, auto body and paint, etc. These
repairs are called “heavy line” repairs and typically they take longer than 48
hours to complete. It is suspected that if the outside heavy repairs were
excluded from calculations, Fleet would achieve the benchmark. In
addition, the opening of the new Public Works Center will create operational
efficiencies that will improve performance standards.
2. Staff is in the process of procuring computerized maintenance management
software for fleet maintenance. It is anticipated that this software will be
operating by the end of FYOl, in which data will be obtainable to analyze the
achievements of this measure.
ACTION PLAN
la.The current software (Sussex) used at Fleet does not accurately calculate
the downtime of vehicles. Sussex calculates downtime on a 24 hours/day,
7 days/week basis, instead of an 8 hour work day, Monday through Friday.
What does this mean? It means that when a non-emergency vehicle is
dropped off for a scheduled PM late Friday afternoon, Sussex will begin
calculating the downtime on Saturday, when in fact, the downtime should
begin on Monday. The new computerized maintenance management system
is specifically designed for fleet operations and can accurately calculate the
downtime of vehicles (Fleet operation hours, Monday through Friday). Staff
will continue to monitor the downtime of vehicles by using the new
computer system to see if a more accurate account will achieve the
benchmark.
lb.Another action staff will employ as an attempt to achieve the benchmark
is to develop a policy and/or revise Administrative Order No. 3 that requires
staff to bring in their vehicles on time when scheduled for preventative
maintenance. Currently, some employees bring in their vehicles
unannounced and after the scheduled date for maintenance. As a result,
the vehicles brought in unannounced are put to the back of the line with the
regularly scheduled vehicles. The downtime for the unannounced vehicles
increases because these vehicles have to wait until the vehicles ahead of
them are completed. Developing a policy and/or revising Administrative
Order No. 3 with some “teeth” may reduce unannounced visits and keep an
80
even flow of vehicles arriving at the shop for preventative maintenance.
Upon implementation of these actions, staff will review the benchmark to
determine if it can be revised.
2. Since there is no data to analyze, an action plan has not been identified for
this measure.
81
Public Works
FLEET CUSTolMER SERVICE AND SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME -
A high level of customer service.
THE MEASUREMENT
Customer survey.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Calculating surveys is one of the best methods to determine. how well we are
performing our duties. This measure is an indication of how well fleet
operations is maintaining the City’s fleet. This is an existing fleet operations
measure that was first used in FY99. Surveys will be distributed annually to
City employees to evaluate fleets performance.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Fleet operations
BENCHMARK
90% of internal surveys returned indicate the quality of service by fleet
services/operations at “Very Good” to “Excellent” in all service categories.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD 2000
90% 71%
In May 2000, an internal survey was distributed to 75 employees. Of the 75
surveys distributed, 26 were returned, a 35% response ratio. Numerous
questions were asked about the services from Fleet Maintenance staff. Listed
below are the results of 2 out of 28 survey questions. These questions were
selected for the analysis because the action plan for improvements can be
implemented in FYO 1.
Monthly Vehicle Cost Reports
% At “Very Good” to “Excellent”
92%
Timeliness of Service by Fleet Staff 62%
82
ANALYSIS
Monthly Vehicle Costs: 92% of the
of the monthly vehicle cost reports as
surveys indicated the level of satisfaction
being very good to excellent, compared to
a 69% level of satisfaction a year before. The Monthly Vehicle Cost Reports
summarizes the costs each department accrues during the month. For
instance, the reports will tell departments what they paid for the vehicle, the
mileage charge, -replacement recovery cost, gasoline and preventive
maintenance cost. These reports assist the departments in preparing their
budgets for fleet maintenance services. The improvement in the level of
satisfaction can be attributed to the specific clientele that were targeted. Last
year, a handful of general employees answered the question in which they did
not quite understand the budget process for fleet maintenance. This year, the
survey was distributed to managers and supervisors who use the reports for
budgeting purposes and understands the importance of these reports.
Timeliness of Service: 62% of the surveys returned .indicated that the
timeliness of service from Fleet staff was very good to excellent. Last year, 59%
indicated the timeliness of service as very good to excellent. While this area is
improving, many respondents had concerns with the inconvenience of not
having a vehicle for a couple of days while their vehicle is being serviced.
Others thought it was inconvenient to have someone pick them up after they
drop off their vehicle.
ACTION PLAN
Monthly Ve hide Costs: Continue distributing the Monthly Vehicle Costs
Reports to managers and supervisors for budgeting purposes.
Timeliness of Service: Research options for providing vehicles to staff when
their vehicle is being serviced. Research will include reviewing existing policy
to see if vehicles scheduled for replacement can be retained in the fleet and
made available as “loaners” at the fleet facility for staff to use when they bring
in their vehicles for preventative maintenance. Indications are that this service
would improve the level of customer service and satisfaction. Spare vehicles at
the Fleet Yard will enable staff to continue performing their duties
independently. Additionally, other options such as rental agreements, use of
personal vehicles, etc. will be considered.
83
Public Works
FLEET COST EFFICIENCY
THE OUTCOME
Fleet maintenance cost efficiency.
THE MEASUREMENT
Actual time vs. flat rate (industry standard)
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The Industry Flat Rate manual describes the length of time to complete a
maintenance and/or repair job on a vehicle (i.e. one hour to replace a water
hose). By documenting staffs actual time to do the same work, this measure
can indicate staffs efficiency to perform maintenance and/or repair work on
City vehicles.
STATUS OF THE MEASURE
The proposed measurement will be implemented by using fleet’s new
computerized management system. A computerized fleet maintenance
management system has been selected and an agreement with the vendor will
be signed shortly. The system will be fully implemented and data will be
retrievable by the end of FYO 1.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Fleet operations and Information Technology
BENCHMARK
90% of maintenance and/or repair work performed by fleet operations is
completed in less time than the flat rate for industry standards.
RESULTS
Due to software limitations, data will not be reported in fiscal year 1999-00
ANALYSIS
Staff is in the process of procuring a computerized maintenance management
software for fleet maintenance. It is anticipated that this software will be
operating by the end of FYOl, in which data will be obtainable to analyze the
achievements of this measure.
ACTION PLAN
Since there is no data to analyze, an action plan has not been identified for this
measure.
84
Public Works
FACILITIES CUSTOMER SERVICE AND SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction
THE MEASUREMENT
International Facilities Management Association internal customer survey.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Calculating surveys is one of the best methods to determine how well we are
performing our duties. This measure is an indication of how well facilities are
maintained. This is an existing facilities maintenance measure that was first
used in FY99. Surveys will be distributed annually to City employees and to
community groups that use City facilities for their activities.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Facilities Maintenance
BENCHMARK
90% of internal surveys returned indicate the overall quality of service by
Facilities Maintenance at “Very Good” to “Excellent” in all survey categories.
RESULTS .; -s BENCHMARK CARLSBAD 2000
90% 65%
In May 2000, an internal survey was distributed to 127 employees. Of the 127
surveys distributed, 75 were returned, a 59% return ratio. Numerous
questions were asked about the performance of Facilities Maintenance staff.
Listed below are the results of four out of 45 survey questions. These
questions were selected for the analysis because improvements in these areas
can be implemented immediately.
Availability of Staff Performance
% At “Very Good” to uExcellent”
51%
Office Temperature 14%
Building Cleaning Services 79%
Ease of obtaining services 47%
85
ANALYSIS
Availability: The availability of staff decreased from 64% in FY99 to 5 1% in
FYOO. The primary reason for the decrease in availability is due to the addition
of two new facilities (Dove and Faraday) and the remodeling of two other
facilities (Cole and City Hall). With only three full-time building maintenance
workers, it is very difficult to meet all of the requests in a timely manner. In
fact, with the City increasing its building space and remaining at the same
staffing levels, the average space maintained by staff is also increasing. The
average space maintained per building maintenance worker is 161,000 square
feet, which is considerably higher than other cities (see below).
Carlsbad
Poway
Chula Vista
Escondido
El Cajon
Avg. Sq. Pt. per Maint. Worker
161,000 sq. ft.
125,000 sq. ft.
89,375 sq. ft.
78,700 sq. ft.
62,800 sq. ft.
Temperature: The rating for office temperature decreased from 40% in FY99
to 14% in FYOO. The low approval rating in the temperature can be attributed
to the new HVAC system at Dove Library and the Faraday building. The offices
at these two buildings were experiencing a fluctuation in temperature. One
office might be too hot, while another might be too cold. In fact, one
respondent commented that the “temperature is variable throughout the
building.” Due to the difference of office temperature, many people would
adjust the thermostat. Often, the HVAC system would malfunction because of
the thermostat being misused, resulting in discomfort in many offices.
Cleaning: 79% of the surveys returned indicated that the cleanliness of
buildings were excellent to very good, compared to 58% in FY99. The
improvements in cleanliness can be attributed to custodians being assigned to
a specific building.
Ease of Doing Business: 47% of the surveys returned indicated that the ease
of doing business with Facilities Maintenance is excellent to very good
compared to 73% a year before. Currently, there are many different methods
for requesting services from Facilities Maintenance such as telephone, e-mail,
work order forms, fax, and in-person. Many people do not know which is the
preferred method for submitting a request for service and how work orders are
scheduled.
ACTION PLAN
Availability: The hiring of two additional building maintenance workers will
improve the availability of staff and reduce the average square footage
86
maintained per staff (see below). In addition, Facilities Division will be
implementing an intern program for custodians who want to build a new career
path in building maintenance. The new employees and the intern program
should greatly enhance the availability of Facilities staff.
Poway
Carlsbad
Chula Vista
Escondido
El Cajon
125,000 sq. ft.
96,600 sq. ft.
-89,375 sq. ft.
78,700 sq. ft.
50,000 sq. ft.
Temperature: Staff recently installed a computer energy management system
at Faraday. This system enables Facilities staff to control the thermostat at
Dove and Faraday. No one else has access to the thermostat. In addition, staff
will be implementing a new HVAC maintenance contract to provide routine
preventative maintenance on the City’s HVAC systems. Staff anticipates that
the combination of the computer system and the HVAC maintenance contract
will greatly improve the level of satisfaction of the office temperature.
Cleaning: The hiring of a roaming custodian for Faraday and Dove will
alleviate some of the workload of the custodians assigned to these facilities.
The roaming custodian will be responsible for setting up and tearing down
meeting rooms, delivering supplies and assisting other custodians with regular
duties. The roaming custodian will enable other custodians to concentrate on
their essential duties. In addition, part-time custodians will be hired to work
the weekends at Dove and Cole Libraries. Finally, a custodial contract was
implemented to provide custodial services to 18 public facilities. The previous
contractor did not have the resources to fully satisfy the needs of the contract.
Ease of Doing Business: Facilities Maintenance will soon implement a
computerized maintenance management system that will assist staff in
maintaining public faciliti.es. The system will have a method for requesting
facilities maintenance services. Requests will be accepted via e-mail or web
interface only. Staff will no longer accept phone requests, faxes, or in-person
requests. Requests being made via e-mail or web interface will automatically
be created into a work order and delivered electronically to Facilities
Supervisor. The Supervisor will assign a scheduled date for service and the
requester will receive an update on
believes the new computer system will
is doing business.
the completion of the request. Staff
improve the way Facilities Maintenance
Other Items: Other areas staff will concentrate on improving include the
HVAC equipment at City facilities and effective communications. 25% of the
surveys returned indicated the heating equipment as excellent or very good.
. .
87
20% of the surveys returned indicated the air conditioning equipment as
excellent or very good. The City is in the process of awarding an extensive
preventive maintenance contract for the City’s HVAC equipment system. It is
anticipated that routine preventive maintenance of this system will reduce
equipment malfunctions and will improve the fluctuation of the office climate.
50% of the surveys returned indicated that effective communications for
obtaining facilities ,ma.intenance services was excellent or very good. Staff
believes the new computerized maintenance management system will improve
effective communications.
88
Public Works
FACLLITLES MAINTENWCE RESPONSE
THE OUTCOME
Well maintained and safe City facilities.
THE MEASUREMENT
Average time to complete priority 1 and priority 2 work orders.
WHAT.THE DATA MEANS
Priority 1 work orders are emergency repairs to eliminate hazards, unsanitary
conditions, and reduce liabilities. Priority 2 work orders are repairs and
alterations so the City can conduct its business and provide services to the
community. This measure is an indication of response time and an evaluation
that current staff level is effective to achieve objectives.
STATUS OF THE MEASURE
A computerized maintenance management system has been procured and data
is currently being loaded into the system. When completed, the system will
compute the average time to complete work orders. Implementation is
expected by the end of FYO 1.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
Facilities Maintenance and Information Technology
BENCHMARK
90% of Priority
90% of Priority
RESULTS
1 work orders completed within 24 hours.
2 work orders completed within 72 hours.
Due to software limitations, data will not be reported in fiscal year 1999-00
ANALYSIS
A computerized maintenance management system for facilities maintenance
has been purchased. The vendor is currently collecting inventory data and
establishing work orders for the division. It is anticipated that data will be
available by the end of FYOl to analyze the achievements of this measure and
develop an action plan.
ACTION PLAN
Since there is no data to analyze, an action plan has not been identified for this
measure.
89
Notes: This information was gathered in telephone interviews with supervisors
from each of the represented cities. In order to confirm its accuracy, the
information was discussed a second time with each of the representatives in
January 2001. Please note that there are some rather large gaps in the data and
that may reflect problems with data comparability. Our action plan over the next
year includes working with each of these cities to $-&her refine the measure. The
Cities of Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, De1 Mar, San Diego, Lemon Grove, Santee
and National City did not respond to the survey.
ANALYSIS
The results mentioned above are for building maintenance expenditures only (it
does not include custodial expense). Building maintenance expenditures
include routine preventive maintenance, equipment maintenance, outside
services, building maintenance supplies, etc.
According to the results mentioned above, the City is achieving the outcome of
this measurement.
ACTION PLAN
Staff will continue to work with other cities to develop an accurate and
comparable measure to determine the cost efficiency for facilities maintenance.
91
Public Works
PARK SAFETY
THE OUTCOME
Minimization of risk of injury in City parks
THE MEASUREMENT
Time to resolve safety work orders
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Parks that are safe reduce personal injuries, and increase recreational and
leisure activities. This measure is an indication of response time and the
course of action taken to resolve an identified hazard condition. This is an
existing park maintenance measurement where staff uses an inspection
checklist report and a safety work order system.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Park Maintenance
BENCHMARK
100% of safety work orders are addressed within 24 hours of being
identified/ reported. “Addressed” means a safety work order will be inspected
and assign a course of action and any immediate safety hazard resolved.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD 2000
100% 100%
In FY 1999-00, Parks Division staff received 16 safety work orders. After the
initial request was received, 100% of the 16 work orders were inspected and
assigned a course of action, and any immediate safety hazard resolved, within
24 hours after being identified.
ANALYSIS
This measure is being achieved. Staff is minimizing the risk of injuries in City
parks.
ACTION PLAN
Continue collecting data and evaluate the time to resolve safety work orders.
92
Public Works
PARK CUSTOMER SERVICE AND SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME -
A high level of customer service
THE MEASURE
Customer survey
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Distributing surveys to park users is one of the best methods to find out how
well we are performing our duties. This measure is an indication of how well
the parks are maintained. Surveys will tell us about the field conditions,
availability of playground equipment, the outdoor lighting system, as well as
tree and shrub conditions.
STATUS OF THE MEASURE
With the assistance from the City’s recreation department, surveys will be
developed and distributed to a variety of community organizations such as
youth, and adult soccer leagues, Pop Warner football, little league baseball,
adult softball, etc. Customer satisfaction is also being measured in the
citywide survey.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
Park Maintenance & Recreation
BENCHMARK
90% of surveys returned indicate the quality of service by parks maintenance
at “Very Good” to “Excellent” in all survey categories.
RESULTS
The City is developing survey guidelines for new surveys that can be used city-
wide. Staff was recommended to use these guidelines as a tool to create a
survey for Parks. However, the results of December 2000 city wide Public
Opinion Survey indicated that 89.9% of respondents rated the condition of
parks as good/excellent.
ANALYSIS
No analysis can be conducted until the survey is complete and
ACTION PLAN
WA
93
Public Works
PARK COST EFFIClEmY
THE OUTCOME -
Park cost efficiency
THE MEASURE
Maintenance cost per acre
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
A goal for park maintenance is to provide aesthetically appealing, well
maintained, and preserved parks. This measure can demonstrate fiscally
responsible use of funds allocated to park maintenance, and show how
resources are being used to achieve the identified goal mentioned above.
Data was obtained by surveying San Diego County cities. It may be further
refined with the full implementation of the maintenance management system
for parks.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
Park Maintenance
BENCHMARK
Carlsbad annual park maintenance costs per acre are in the lowest one-third
when compare to other cities in San Diego County.
RESULTS
After calculating the results from the participating cities, it was determined
that Carlsbad’s maintenance cost per acre is not in the lowest one-third when
compared to other cities in San Diego County (see table on following page).
94
ACTION PLAN
Staff is in the process of developing a computerized maintenance management
system for parks. It is anticipated that this software will be operating by FY02,
in which data will be obtainable to further analyze the achievements of this
measure. Staff will also work with other cities to develop a more accurate and
comparable measure to determine the cost efficiency for park maintenance
96
Commnity Services
LLBRARY SERVICE & SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME:
A.high level of customer satisfaction.
THE MEASUREMENT
Customer satisfaction survey.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure will establish a baseline for measuring customer satisfaction with
various library services through the new library, the Cole library, and the
Centro de Information.
STATUS OF THE MEASURE
The Social and Behavioral Institute at California State University, San Marcos,
is reviewing and making recommendations regarding all customer service and
satisfaction surveys throughout the City. Upon the completion of the review,
the survey will be redesigned and distributed for the collection of baseline data
in 2001.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Library
BENCHMARK
90% of surveys returned rate Library service at “Very Good” or higher in all
survey categories.
RESULTS
WA
ANALYSIS
WA
ACTION PLAN
N/A
97
Community Services
ADULT LITERACY PROGRAM
THE OUTCOME: -
Improved literacy of adult learning program participants.
THE MEASUREMENT
This measure uses a multi-method approach combining:
l Surveys
l Standard&d tests
0 Skill tests
l Assessments
l Testimonials
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This data will indicate the degree of improvement in skills for individuals
participating in the program. It can give program administrators data
regarding what programs need to be enhanced to improve specific skills.
STATUS OF THE MEASURE
Postponed until 2001 when it anticipated that the national standards currently
under development will be published.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Library
BENCHMARK
A national benchmark for similar programs is being developed and is expected
to be implemented by end of fiscal year 2000/O 1.
RESULTS
N/A
ANALYSIS
N/A
ACTION PLAN
WA
98
Community Services
Lll3RARY COLLECTION
THE OUTCOME: -
A comprehensive and available library collection that meets the community’s
needs.
THE MEASUREMENT
This measure uses a multi-method approach combining:
l Fill rate
l Customer satisfaction survey
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This data will assist the library in evaluating and improving the structure and
content of its collection. The data will de.termine how best to utilize funds for
collection development and improvement.
STATUS OF THE MEASURE
The library is presently in the process of developing a strategic plan. Upon
analysis of current practices reviewed through the strategic planning process
and review of the customer survey instrument by the California State
University, San Marcos group, this measure will be updated for data collection
and analysis in 2001.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Library
BENCHMARK
The Library will use the Fill Rate in comparison to other ICMA organizations.
RESULTS
No data is currently available. It is expected that data will be available at the
end of 2000.
ANALYSIS
WA
ACTION PLAN
WA .
99
Community Services
SEMOR CENTER CUSTOMER SERVICE & SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME -
A high level of customer satisfaction.
THE MEASUREMENT
A Customer Service Survey will be developed and distributed throughout the
Senior Center. Somewhat different surveys will be developed for each category
of service (i.e. Classes, trips, lunch, reception desk) indicating the quality of
customer service, user satisfaction, facility etc.)
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Highly satisfied customers is an indication that we are providing services in a
manner that is desired, and offering programs of interest. The distribution of
surveys is one of the best methods to receive input from our customers on how
they perceive they are being served and what types of programs/services they
would like in the future.
STATUS OF THE MEASURE
The Social and Behavioral Institute at California State University, San Marcos,
is reviewing and making recommendations regarding all customer service and
satisfaction surveys throughout the City. Upon the completion of the review,
the survey will be redesigned and distributed for the collection of baseline data
in 2001.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Recreation
BENCHMARK
90% of customers rate all Recreation services as “Very Good” (4 on a 1-5 scale)
or higher in all customer service survey categories.
RESULTS
WA
ANALYSIS
WA
ACTION PLAN
WA
100
Community Services
RECREATION CUSTOMER SERVICE & SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME -
A high level of customer satisfaction.
THE MEASUREMENT
Customer surveys will be distributed through all recreation facilities,
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Highly satisfied customers is an indication that we are providing services in a
manner that is desired. The distribution of surveys is one of the best methods
to receive input from our customers on how they perceive they are being
served.
STATUS OF THE MEASURE
Although surveys have been distributed for years, the data has never been
compiled or collected in a manner so that it could be analyzed or compared.
Upon review and revision based on the analysis by California State University,
San Marcos, of all City surveys, this survey will be revised and distributed
throughout 200 1 to determine a baseline of satisfaction for future comparison.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Recreation
BENCHMARK
90% of customers rate all Recreation services as “Very Good” (4 on a l-5 scale)
or higher in all customer service survey categories.
RESULTS
N/A
ANALYSIS
WA
ACTION PLAN
WA
101
Community Services
ART OPPORTUNZTZES
THE OUTCOME: -
Provide opportunities for exposure to art that meets the community’s desires.
THE MEASUREMENT
This measure uses a multi-method approach combining:
0 Satisfaction surveys
l Number of participants at the Cannon Art Gallery and at various
programs.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Data gathered will reflect how well the exhibits and program address the
interests of the community.
the process of developing a strategic plan. Upon
programs, and priorities determined through the
strategic planning process, this measure will be reviewed and updated for data
collection and measurement in 2001.
STATUS OF THE MEASURE
The arts office is presently in
analysis of current practices,
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Arts office
BENCHMARK
RESULTS
No data is currently available. It is expected that data will be available at the
end of 2000.
ANALYSIS
WA
ACTION PLAN
N/A
102
Community Development
SECTIONSHOUSING
THEOUTCOME -
Maximize rental assistance opportunities for low-income residents of Carlsbad.
THE MEASUREMENT
The rating from the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development for the City’s Section 8 rental assistance housing program.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has
instituted a Section 8 Management Assessment Program. Using 15 adopted
indicators, HUD evaluates and certifies a local agency’s success of
administering individual federally funded housing programs. HUD’s ratings
include “High Performer,” “Standard Performer,” or “Troubled Performer.”
Repeated failure to secure a HUD rating of “Standard Performer” or higher can
jeopardize a local agency’s continued federal funding for its Section 8 rental
assistance housing program
STATUS OF THE MEASURE
This is a new program intended to begin in fiscal year 1999-2000. However,
the Federal certification program has been postponed by the US Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) until June 30, 2001 for fiscal year
2000-2001. Therefore, the first year of data will be collected by the City and
transmitted to HUD for this reporting period by August 14, 200 1. The City will
then receive a performance rating from HUD.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Housing and Redevelopment
BENCHMARK
Achieve a HUD rating of “Standard Performer” or higher 100% of time.
RESULTS
None at this time.
ANALYSIS
None required at this time.
ACTION PLAN
Collect and transmit data to HUD by August
103
14,200 1.
Community Development
FRONT COUNTER SERVICE St SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME -
High level of customer service.
THE MEASUREMENT
Customer survey.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Customer feedback is a valuable performance’ measure. Staff members
assigned to the front counter are expected to be efficient, prompt, courteous,
knowledgeable, and helpful to the customer. Staff members continuously
monitor this measurement tool and contact all customers rating their front
counter customer service experience as “poor” or “very poor.”
Community Development has utilized customer comment cards for several
years as a performance measurement tool. Low ratings (“poor” and “very poor”)
trigger a follow-up contact by City staff to secure additional customer service
input. This additional input is recorded and influences changes to front
counter operations.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Building, planning, and public works engineering.
BENCHMARK
90% of customers rate front counter services as “Very Good” (4 on a l-5 scale)
or higher in all customer service survey categories.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD 2000
90% 93%
ANALYSIS
The internal customer survey was compiled using data collected for calendar
year 2000.
ACTION PLAN
Continue with the “Customer Comment Card” program at City’s Faraday
Center, Front Counter operation. Modify and standardize the survey
instrument to coincide with other internal City survey programs and
recommendations from Cal State University, San Marcos’ report.
104
Administrative Services
RZSK MANAGEMENT - TOTAL CZTY LOSSES
THE OUTCOME
Minimization of liability losses.
THE MEASUREMENT
Total losses related to City liability and losses per capita.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The level of losses reflect departments’ efforts to reduce liability exposure
throughout the City.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Risk management, all other departments
BENCHMARK
Carlsbad losses per capita are within the lowest one-third of San Diego County
cities. ICMA measures will be examined for future benchmarking.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD
To be determined $5.74
The amount of $5.74 was derived by dividing the total City loss of $470,652 by
an approximate city population of 82,000. The city loss reflects data from
fiscal year 1999.
ANALYSIS
At this time, the data from other San Diego cities is not available for
comparison purposes. However, after reviewing the ICMA FY 1999 risk
management data, we find a favorable comparison between the city’s losses per
capita and the average loss per capita for cities under 100,000 population.
ICMA AVERAGE CARLSBAD
$5.9 1 $5.74
105
ACTION PLAN
Risk Management needs to continue to collect information regarding other local
agencies risk exposure and continue monitoring and evaluating the ICMA data.
Through further evaluation of the ICMA data, we hope to identify future
benchmarking partners to compare against. Also, once local data has been
collected, we need to compare that with the ICMA average to ensure that the
appropriate benchmark level has been set.
106
Administrative Services
RZSKMANAGEMENT-LUBZLZTYCOVERAGEANDCOSTS
THE OUTCOME -
High quality and competitively priced property, fidelity and liability coverage.
THE MEASUREMENT
This measure uses a multi-method approach combining:
1) Property premium rate per $100 of property value
2) Liability premium per capita
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The insurance market is checked with adequate frequency to ensure that
coverage is competitively priced and broad, and it is monitored so that a quality
threshold is maintained.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Risk management
BENCHMARK
1) Property premium rate per $100 of property value
2) Liability premium per capita
Benchmarks in each of these categories will be’ set based on the 1999 results.
RESULTS
Property Premium Rate
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD
To be determined $.039
Liability Premium Rate
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD
1 To be determined 1 $1.57 I
While the benchmark is being set using this year’s data, the following tables
show historical data for the past two years.
107
ANALYSIS
Based upon the data collected from the past two years, the trend is that the
property and liability premiums are declining.
ACTION PLAN
Continue monitoring the data as well as review insurance policies to maximize
City’s position. Identify other agencies for comparison.
108
Administrative Services
ZNFORlK4TZON TECHNOLOGY SERVZCE & SATZSFACTZON
THE OUTCOME -
A high level of customer satisfaction.
THE MEASUREMENT
Customer survey.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The measure is an indication of customer satisfaction with the Information
Technology service levels provided to City staff.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Information Technology
BENCIiMARK
90% of customers rate Information Technology as “Very Good” (4 on a l-5
scale) or higher in all customer service survey categories.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD
90% 96% 1
ANALYSIS
While we have survey information beginning February of 2000, the survey
questions have changed several times. Therefore the .data reflects only the
months of May and June 2000. For the upcoming year, we will have a full 12
months of data.
It is important to note that Information Technology is measuring not only our
customers’ level of satisfaction with the Information Technology Department,
but also our customers’ level of satisfaction with our outsource help desk
vendor (PAI). Even though we believe we are accountable for their ratings and
ours combined, it is an excellent way to determine if there is a problem with
the vendor. The two months survey results showed PA1 had a rating of 4.6.
The Information Technology Department had a rating of 4.7 for a combined
average rating of 4.6. ,
Another way the survey information is being used is that we review them on a
regular basis. If we see that there is a low rating by someone, then we contact
109
that individual to find out what went wrong and try to resolve concerns so we
can improve our service.
ACTION PLAN
Continue monitoring the results of the survey on a month end basis. Also,
continue follow up with customers who express some t3Tpe of concern or
problem regarding our service.
Review and improve survey methodology based upon guidelines as set in
conjunction with the Social Behavioral Research Institute of California State
University, San Marcos.
110
ZNFoRlMATZON TECHNOLOGY METWO= OPERABZLZTY
Administrative Services
THE OUTCOME -
A functional, operating information technology network.
THE MEASUREMENT
Amount of time required to return users to operations status. Problems are
divided into two categories:
Priority 1
Server Down - affects whole site
Core System Down: Permits Plus, IFAS, Harris, Voice Mail, Sussex, etc.
City Wide Internet Access Down
User Down/locked out/no access
Telephones: remote site loses access - no voice and / or data
Priority 2
Printer issues - can’t print and no alternate print source is available
Hardware failure - monitor / keyboard
Login Issues, i.e. forgotten passwords
Core System “How to” application question - important - deadline .
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The measure is an indication of staffing levels, staff knowledge, and staff
initiative to ensure that calls get completed and resolved in both a timely and
effective manner.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Information technology
BENCHMARK
1) 90% of all priority 1 service calls resolved in 45 minutes.
2) 90% of all priority 2 service calls resolved in 180 minutes.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK, PRIORITY 1
90%
BENCHMARK, PRIORITY 2
90%
CARLSBAD
81%
CARLSBAD
97%
111
ANALYSIS
The information was used to determine whether those items exceeding the
response times were a result of the Information Technology staff or of an
outside source such as Pacific Bell. For Information Technology staff items,
corrective measures are put in place to ensure the same problem does not
reoccur.
ACTION PLAN
Continue monitoring response times on a monthly basis to ensure response
service to Information Technology problems remains high. Identify solutions to
areas of reoccurring problems to improve the integrity of the system.
112
Administrative Services
Z~ORM4TZON TECHNOLOGY COST EFFZCLENCY
THE OUTCOME -
Effective use of City resources in providing technology services and support to
the Information Technology user community.
THE MEASUREMENT
Support cost per call. Total city support costs equal the PA1 contract plus
Information Technology support cost.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Support costs per call will be used to determine if City resources are used in an
effective and efficient manner.
STATUS OF THE MEASURE
Information Technology is in the process of defining the costs related to the
support of information technology users.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Information Technology
BENCHMARK
Total City support costs will be equal or better than industry averages. ICMA
data needs to be reviewed to determine additional benchmarks.
RESULTS
After collecting the data, it was determined the measure as it currently exists
did not provide adequate information to benchmark with other agencies.
ANALYSIS
ACTION PLAN
The Information Technology department will continue to search for and develop
an appropriate measure regarding financial efficiency and effectiveness for the
City’s Information Technology needs.
113
Administrative Services
HUMAN RESOURCES - ZlVYVRED EMPLOPEE TZIWE 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
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 6.3 days or less lost per claim. This benchmark is based on the
ICMA average for agencies with under 100,000 population, and will be reviewed
annually.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD
6.3 5.6
ANALYSIS
This measure is an indicator of the success of an agencies disability
management program. The data shows that Carlsbad’s average number of
days lost per claim is slightly lower that the average for cities under 100,000
114
reporting to ICMA. Based upon our analysis, public safety employees were
responsible for 63% of Carlsbad’s lost working days.
ACTION PLAN
The Human Resources Department will conduct an analysis of disability time
used by department to better identify any needs in this area in the City.
Additionally, There-is a goal in the Human Resources Department to develop
Integrated Benefit Management Systems to track occupational and non-
occupational leave and disability information. By establishing systems to
accurately capture and track occupational disability leave, we will be better
equipped to monitor lost days of work, identify trends, and make
recommendations to reduce the number of days an employee is out of the
workplace.
115
Administrative Services
HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICE & SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
A high level of satisfaction with human resources services by the department’s
internal customers.
THE MEASUREMENT
Customer service survey.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Numerical score on evaluation of 10 different Human Resources service: 1)
recruitment, selection & staffing; 2) compensation; 3) benefits & workers’ camp;
4) employee/employer relations; 5) employee assistance; 6) classification/job
design; 7) performance planning and assessment; 8) training and
development; 9) human resource planning; 10) human resource administration
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Human Resources
BENCHMARK
90% of customers rate their experience with the Human Resources Department
at least a 4 on a 5 scale in all customer service categories. This is an internal
benchmark.
RESULTS
1 BENCHMARK I1996 I2000 1
Recruitment, Selection & Staffing 90% 41% 58%
Comnensation /Benefits 90% 30% N/A
Compensation
Benefits & Workers’ Comp.
90% N/A 27%
90% N/A 68%
116
The 2000 survey looked at compensation separate from benefits and included
workers compensation, previously administered by Risk Management.
ANALYSIS
As a result of the 1996 customer service survey, Human Resources targeted
the areas of Recruitment, Selection & Staffing, and Benefits & Workers’
Compensation for improvement. The results of the 2000 survey indicate
increased satisfaction in these areas. However, based upon the results of the
2000 survey, there are still numerous areas for improvement.
ACTION PLAN
Human Resources staff has analyzed the data from the year 2000 survey,
including written comments. The areas of Communication, Training, Processes
& Procedures, and Employee Relations (Negotiations) were identified as areas of
concern for our customers. The following are action items identified for each
of the targeted areas.
Communication
l HR will develop an informational/marketing piece, in the form of a
newsletter, for citywide distribution that describes what services HR is
responsible for as well who to contact for specific services requested.
l HR will be responsible for cross training its own staff in order to be able
to answer basic questions in all areas of Human Resources, and to have
the ability to forward the questions to the most appropriate staff
member. This will be done informally in weekly staff meetings as well as
on a more formal basis as needed.
l Many of the individual questions received by staff in HR are benefit
related questions. For the purposes of role clarification, Human
Resources reclassified the Human Resources Assistant position to
Benefits Administrator, which indicates to city employees which staff
member is primarily responsible for benefit questions and/or assistance.
l A career development resources center is being developed in conjunction
with the Library.
l HR will begin to evaluate what we can do to communicate, if appropriate,
citywide salary survey information obtained and how job classifications
are assigned to particular salary ranges.
Training
l Human Resources has started to conduct mandatory “Respectful
Workplace” training that will be provide to all employees.
117
l Employees were surveyed about what specific trainings they would like to
see happen and Human Resources is designing “soft-skills” trainings as
a result of this survey.
Processes and Procedures
l Notification o? recruitment results for internal applicants/employees will
be improved by delivering this information in a more confidential,
sensitive format.
l HR staff will set up a process for streamlining and tracking performance
reviews.
l An HR management employee has a goal to provide part-time
recruitment and selection assistance to Community Services
departments.
l Human Resources is currently conducting salary surveys and updating
job descriptions for several departments.
l An HR Management employee has a goal to streamline recruitment
tracking systems.
Employee Relations (Negotiations)
Although the topic in this section was Employee/Employer Relations (which
includes employee disciplinary processes, grievances, and both formal and
informal dispute resolutions), the negative comments that were given almost
exclusively dealt with labor negotiations. We attribute the negative feedback
primarily to the timeliness of negotiations with the various bargaining groups
in the past and the ongoing negotiations currently with the Fire Association.
In past years the City introduced the concept of interest-based negotiations,
and it may be in the City’s best interest to explore this again as if it may be a
more productive and positive way to do business.
General
In attempting to find comparable data with other ICMA services, we discovered
that there are only three agencies in our size category reporting Human
Resources Customer Satisfaction data. Unfortunately, the data available varies
widely and is not sufficient for comparison or benchmarking purposes. Over
the coming year, the Human Resources department will try to develop
opportunities for benchmarking in this area.
118
Administrative Services
HVlWNRESOVRCES RECRLnTMENT TIME
THE OUTCOME -
A high level of customer satisfaction and recruitment staff productivity.
THE MEASUREMENT
Cycle time in the recruitment process. Cycle time is defined as the number if
days from receipt of a department’s personnel requisition to the date that an
eligibility list is certified.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
By streamlining our systems and partnering with our customers to accomplish
tasks, we are able to respond more rapidly to customers’ requests for
recruitments and reduce the turnaround time to hire staff in a highly
competitive labor market. Human Resources staff is also able to handle more
recruitments over the same time period, increasing staff productivity.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Human Resources
BENCHMARK
90% of all city recruitments are completed within 60 days of receiving a
department’s personnel requisition. This is an existing standard derived from a
business process review of the recruitment process. It is also part of the ICMA
performance measurement survey. ‘.
RESULTS
The applicant tracking system was brought online December 1, 2000. There is
not significant data to report at this time. Even though we do not have any
internal data to evaluate, our evaluation of the ICMA data for 1999 shows that
77% of agencies in our size category (population less than 100,000) list their
average recruitment time at 60 days or less.
ACTION PLAN
Human Resources has a goal involving changes to the applicant tracking
system, including a method to capture recruitment cycle time data. The new
system went into place December 1, 2000. With this system in place, we will
be better able to capture recruitment cycle time
monitor, analyze and make recommendations
processes based on an interpretation of the data.
data, and will be equipped to
for changes to recruitment
119
Administrative Services
PURCHASING SERVICE & SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME -
A high level of customer service.
THE MEASUREMENT
Customer satisfaction survey.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure is an indication of response time and quality of service.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Purchasing department
BENCHMARK
An average of 90% of customers rate Purchasing as “Very Good” (4 on a 1-5
scale) or higher in all customer service survey categories.
RESULTS
1 BENCHMAFtK 1 CARLSBAD 1 I 90% I 95% I
ANALYSIS
Based upon the data collected in the Purchasing Department survey, customer
satisfaction was relatively high regarding services provided. The survey had
approximately 70 respondents. The lowest response category was with the
office supply contract (85O/p rated 4 or higher). Based upon our evaluation of
the contract, and discussions with other local agencies regarding this issue, we
have found that this seems to be a consistent trend. No other service rating
was below 90%.
.
ACTION PLAN
Continue monitoring customer satisfaction. For the upcoming year,
Purchasing would like to find a way to expand the survey to a greater number
of respondents. Also, Purchasing will be working to find solutions to increase
our customer’s satisfaction with the office supply process.
120
Administrative Services
PURCHASE ORDER PROCESSING
THE OUTCOME -
Timely acquisition of goods and services.
THE MEASUREMENT
Number of working days to issue purchase order.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure is an indication of the responsiveness to the needs of the
department.
DEPARTMENTS’INVOLVED
Purchasing department
BENCHMARK
Complete 90% of all purchase orders within one working day after receiving
completed purchase requisition.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD
90% N/A
Currently, the Purchasing Department captures the data in the form of an
average, not a percentage of completion. The average time it took to process a
completed purchase order was under 1 working day.
ANALYSIS
The Purchasing Department is in the process of converting its data reports
from averages to percentages. This is important because averages can
represent skewed numbers, and the goal of the Purchasing department is to
provide timely service to its customers. Currently, the average processing time
for Category 1 purchase orders (those that are ready for the purchasing
department to process) fluctuates between .5 working days to .8 working days
depending on the workload.
ACTION PLAN
Continue tracking the Purchasing Department’s ability to process purchase
orders in a timely fashion. Shift the data collection system to reflect
percentage of purchase orders completed rather than the average. This will
ensure that the majority of our customers are served promptly.
121
Administrative Services
FIAWVCE COLLECTION RATES
THE OUTCOME -
Maximization of City revenues.
THE MEASUREMENT
This measure uses a multi-method approach combining:
l Utility billing collection rates
l Ambulance billing collection rates
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
City services depend on the flow of fee revenues for financial support. The rate
of collection shows the effectiveness and efficiency of the finance department in
collecting City bills for certain key services. This data is compiled based upon
the City’s Fiscal Year.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Finance, public works, fire
BENCHMARK
The collection rates for the two services will differ.
l Benchmark for utCZity sentices is to maintain at least 90% of receivables
in the under 90 day category.
l Benchmark for anddance biZZing is a collection rate of 70% or better.
RESULTS
Utility Bills As Of June 2000
1 BENCHMARK 1 CARLSBAD I 90% I 96.8% I
Ambulance Bills
BENCHMARK
70%
CARLSBAD 98 CARLSBAD 99
76.1% 77.5%
ANALYSIS
We have compared our ambulance billing over the past two years and
benchmarked against the cities of Ramona and El Cajon. We have also broken
down utility collections by 30, 60, 90, and greater than 90 days. As the
following chart reflects, the majority of our collection occurs within the first 30
days.
122
Aging Analysis: Carlsbad Tracy San Diego
Utility Billing us of June 2000
O-30 90.4% 85.6% 72.3%
30-60 5.3% 11.4% 12.3%
60-90 1.1% 2.2% 5.1%
>90 3.2% 9.0% 10.3%
Carlsbad Ramona El Caion
Collection Rates calendar year
Ambulance billing (1998):
Ambulance billing (1999):
77.5% 72.8% 62.1%
76.1% 67.5% 60.2%
Additionally, many cities do not collect this information. The cities shown here
for comparison were selected based on their ability to provide the information
rather than the comparability of the demographics in the city.
ACTION PLAN
Continue to monitor the collection and identify comparable benchmark
agencies for the coming year.
123
Administrative Services
CITY OPERATING BUDGET COST EFFICIENCY
THE OUTCOME
Maintain a cost effective operating budget.
THE MEASUREMENT
Ongoing general fund operating expenditures per capita.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure evaluates the cost efficiency of the organization as a whole. By
analyzing the operating expenditures per capita, we can begin to develop an
understanding of baseline costs for the services we provide.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Finance and all other City departments
BENCHMARK
General fund operating expenditures per capita. The benchmark will be set
once baseline data has been established.
RESULTS
The per capita cost for the FY 2001 General Fund Operating Budget is $872.
ANALYSIS
Per capita cost was derived from the general fund operating cost ($71,500,000)
divided by an approximate city population of 82,000. Looking at the FY 1999-
2000 data, the per capita cost was approximately $945. This was based on a
general fund operating budget of 73,300,OOO and an estimated population of
77,500. More analysis is needed to determine the cause of this decrease.
A more precise population number will be generated this year when the 2000
census data is complete.
ACTION PLAN
Continue to develop this measure. Identify suitable benchmarking partners to
compare fiscal effectiveness with. Review five-year historical data to develop a
base trend line.
124
APPENDIX 1: 2000-2001 GOAL
Goals 2000-2001
Name:
MSA:
Goal:
Individual Goal: q Team Goal: q
Reviewer’s Name: Patchett. Rav c City Council Strategic Goal: A
Ensure the effective and efficient delivery of top-quality
services to our community.
Team Goal: Please list member’s on Team
Joe Garuba (team leader), John Cahill, Lynn Diamond, Jim
Elliott, Linda Kermott, Tom Ritter, Julie Ross, Sue Spickard.
Operational Goal: Al
Provide timely responses that result in
high customer satisfaction
Denartmental Goal: (if anulicable)
Describe Your Goal Stating the Outcome First: 2 Year Goal
Establish and maintain Carlsbad as a high performing organization by continually identifying and
implementing opportunities for improvement through the performance measurement system.
Additional information if necessary or go to page #2 for more room
Is Your Goal Smart? Specific Measurable Achievable Results-Oriented Time-sensitive
Measures of Goal Achievementi
Optimum:
Target plus develop a process improvement plan to address areas identified for organizational
improvement. Submit Plan to Leadership Team.
Target:
Threshold plus issue a report to the Leadership Team on the state of effectiveness including external
comparisons and identify areas for organizational improvement.
Threshold:
Collect available performance measurement data for every identified outcome. Review and revise
outcome measures as needed. Implement citywide communications plan.
125
0000
e
.
a
$
?
rp
I I
I I
, I
, I
? , I
i I n
i I 5 I I I I I I I
APPENDIX 2: 2000-2001 GOAL
Goals 2000-2001
Name:
MSA:
Goal:
Individual Goal: 0 Team Goal: q
Reviewer’s Name: Pat&et& Ray
Ensure the effective and efficient delivery of top-quality Provide timely responses that result in
services to our community. high customer satisfaction
Team Goal: Please list member’s on Team ,,~~~:~~~~e~~~f~~~~i~. (if ~p~li~@&$ ;
Joe Garuba (team leader), John Cahill, Lynn Diamond, Jim
Elliott, Linda Kermott, Tom Ritter, Julie Ross, Sue Spickard.
Describe Your Goal Stating the Outcome First: 2 Year Goal
Establish and maintain Carlsbad as a high performing organization by continually identifying and
implementing opportunities for improvement through the performance measurement system.
Additional information if necesqy or go to page #2 for more room
Target plus develop a process improvement plan to address areas identified for organizational
improvement. Submit Plan to Leadership Team.
Target:
Threshold pIus issue a report to the Leadership Team on the state of effectiveness including external
comparisons and identify areas for organizational improvement.
Threshold:
Collect available performance measurement data for every identified outcome. Review and revise
outcome measures as needed. Implement citywide communications plan.
. 128
City of Carlsbad Pubiic Opinion Survey Report
Conducted for:
City of Carlsbad
:
Conducted by:
The Social and Behavioral Research Institute
January, 2001
Study Team:
Richard T. Serpe, Ph.D., Director
Alien J. Risley, M.A.; Assistant Director
Michael D. Large, Ph.D.; Study Director
Lori Brown Large, M.A.; Survey Study Director
Matt Atherton, M.A; Field Research Coordinator
Richard V. Mason, M.A.; Field Research Coordinator
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .......................
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................
. I...............................,.... 1
3 ,,............*......................- , .
7 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-
KeyFindings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...3
Respondent Demographics
City Services and Facilities
Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Libraries . . . . . . , . . . . . . ,
.......................................... 3
.......................................... 3
.......................................... 4
.......................................... 4
City Conditions and Development .................................... .4
City Features ..................................................... .
Internet Access ................................................... .6
DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...8
Respondent Demographics ............................................... .8
Demographics by Region ................................................. 10
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI
City Services and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 j
City-Provided Services ............................................ 13
Agency-Provided Services .......................................... 11
Service Ratings by Regions ................................... : ..... 15
Programs and Facilities ........................ , ................... 17
Programs and Facilities by Region .................................. ,20
Activities ........................................................... ..2 1
ParkUse ................................................
Recreation Facilities ......................................
PublicPool .......................................
Multi-use Recreation Facility ........................
Recreation Activities at 55 .................................
Cultural .4ns Activities ...................................
Libraries ..................................................... -j
City Conditions and Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
RoadConditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...35
‘1 . . . . . . . . M
37 . . . . . . . . --
33 . . . . . . . . mm
33 . . . . . . . . em
33 . . . . . . ..-
. . . . . . . . 25
‘9 . . . . . . . . -
PublicSafety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...38
Feelings of Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Exposure to Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
Confidence in Emergency Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . .42 I
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI
Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..A5
Development by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A7
CityFeatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..j~
CityInfo_rmation..................................................jS
Confidence in City Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . .59
Confidence in City Government and Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
Concerns about Carlsbad and Confidence in City Government . . , . . . .62
What Residents Like Most about Carlsbad and Confidence in City
Government ....................................... ..6 5
Internet Access ........................................................ .G7
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI
City of C&bad Public Opinion Survey Report
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of the City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey. This was a
telephone survey conducted with residents of the City of Carlsbad administered in the Fall of 2000.
The survey was conducted for the City of Carlsbad by the Social and Behavioral Research Institute at
California State University, San Marcos.
The survey addressed the attitudes of city residents concerning issues such as city-provided
services, libraries, cultural arts activities, city conditions and development, and city facilities. The survey
also touches on resident attitudes regarding crime and safety, Internet access, as well as a number of
demographic questions, The report contains a description of the data, an executive summary, and an
elaboration of the results of the survey.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey report details the results of a telephone sun’ey of
Carlsbad residents, administered in the Fall of 2000. The survey was conducted for the-City of
Carlsbad by the Social and Behavioral Research Institute at California State University, San Marcos.
The survey addressed the attitudes of city residents concerning issues such as city-provided
services, cultural arts activities, city conditions and development, and city facilities. This executive
summary highlights some of the key results of the survey.
Data
The data come from 1,001 telephone interviews with Carlsbad residents, 18 years of age or
older. Respondents were randomly selected within four regions in the City of Carlsbad-(Northwest,
Northeast, Southeast, and Southwest) using a computer-assisted-telephone-interviewing (CATI)
system. There were approximately 250 respondents from each of the regions.
January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRJ 2
Kev Findirws
In general, respondents are rather positive about the City of Carlsbad. There was also
generally a good deal of consistency in attitudes across regions. Some of the key findings are noted
below.
Respondent Demographics
The sample responding to the survey was 40.8% male and 59.2% female. These respondents
had lived in Carlsbad an average of 11.03 years, and averaged SO.48 years of age. More than two
thirds (69.7%) of the respondents had total household incomes over $50,000, and only 7.0% had total
household incomes below S25,OOO. Incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 were most typical.
Of the respondents, 79.7%‘indicated that they owned their home, and 20.3% said they were
.renting. There was an average of 2.57 people in the households. Of those households with children,
there was an average of 1.80 children in the household.
.
City Services and Facilities
All city-provided services addressed in the survey were rated as good or excellent by most
people, and the library services as well as the fire protection services were rated as good or excellent
by 96.0% of the respondents. All the services that were evaluated in this study provided by the city
through outside agencies were also rated as good or excellent by most people. In general, city-
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRl 3
provided services were rated as good or excellent by 91.5% of the respondents. The city facilities ,
regarded as most important were (1) preserved open-space land, (2) trails and paths, (3) picnic areas,
and (4) children’s play equipment.
Activities
Most of the residents supported facilities for activities in the city. Over three quarters (79.0%)
of the respondents indicated that someone in their household had used a city park. Additionally, 67.S%
of the respondents said they believe there is a need for another public pool, and 77.5% of the
respondents would like the City of Carl&ad to consider a large multi-purpose recreation facility that
would house things such as a gymnasium, aquatic center, and meeting rooms. For respondents age 36
to 54, recreation activities was by far the most frequently mentioned city-sponsored activity
respondents said they would like to participate in when they are 55 or older.
Libraries
On average, Carlsbad residents visited a Carlsbad library 15.86 times in the past year. Three
quarters of the respondents visited the library to check out or read books or magazines for enjoyment,
and three quarters visited the library to get answers to questions or do general research. The most
common reason residents offered for not visiting the library was that they had no interest or need to use
the library.
City Conditions and Development
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRJ 4
Road conditions were rated positively. The overall road condition, medians and landscaping
conditions, city street tree conditions, and curb and sidewalk conditions were rated good or excellent
by most (78.1% to 80.4%) of the respondents.
City residents feel safe walking in their neighborhood. Respondents said they felt very safe
walking alone in their neighborhood both during the day and at night, but they did feel more safe during
the day than they did at night. Only 8.0% of the respondents said that they or someone in their
household had been a victim of a crime in Carlsbad in the past year. Further, residents expressed
confidence in the police department’s ability to respond to police emergencies.
For the most part, residents were not in .favor of more development. Most of the respondents
said they would like to see more entertainment venues and fewer big box retail stores, single-family
housing units, and multi-store shopping centers.
City Features
Respondents u’ere asked what they liked most about living in Carlsbad, and what there biggest
concern was. Proximity to the beach was most commonly mentioned as what residents like most about
living in Carlsbad. Residents’ biggest concern regarding the City of Carlsbad was traffic.
Respondents utilized a variety of information sources, but the most common source of
information about Carlsbad was local TV news, used by two thirds (67.5%) of the residents. Residents
offered some degree of confidence in the Carlsbad City government to make decisions that positively
affect the lives of its community members. Residents valued keeping view corridors clear. More than
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 5
half (64.1%) of those responding said they would accept a tax increase to assure that facilities are kept
from appearing on the landscape or view corridors.
Internet Access _
Three quarters (76.5%) of the respondents stated that they had Internet access, and of these,
27.1% have a high speed Internet connection.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 6
DATA
The data come fkom 1,001 telephone interviews conducted in the Fall of 2000. The
respondents were Carlsbad residents, 18 years of age or older. Respondents were randomly selected
from four regions in the City of Carlsbad (Northwest, Northeast, Southeast, and Southwest) using a
computer-assisted-telephone-interviewing (CATI) system. There were 250 or 25 1 respondents from
each of the regions. The regions were specified as follows; Northwest included residents in.the 9200s
zip code West of El Camino Real, Northeast included residents in the 92008 zip code East of El
Camino Real, Southeast included residents in the 92009 zip code East of El Camino Real. and
Southwest included residents in the 92009 zip code West of El Camino Real. This sample size ( 1,001)
provides a margin of error of 3.2%. The margin of error within regions is 6.3%. The interview -
questions, along with frequency distributions or descriptive statistics, are found in Appendix A.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carisbad, 2000 - SBRl 7 *
RESULTS
Rewondeot DemoPraDhics
The sample responding to the survey was 40.8% male and 59.2% female. This is typical of
gender distributions for telephone surveys. These respondents had lived in Carlsbad an average of
11.03 years, and averaged 50.48 years of age, ranging from 18 to 89 years old. Table 1 shows the
distribution of the respondents’ total household income last year. More than two thirds (69.7%) of the
respondents had total household incomes over $50,000, and only 7.0%’ had total household incomes
below $25,000. Incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 were most typical.
‘The “Valid Percent” in the table represents the percent of the valid responses, as opposed to
the “Percent” which refers to the percent of the total sample.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 8
Table I : Annual Total Household income
Valtd Cumulative
Frqumcy Percent Percent Percent
Valid Unda S25,0@3 60 6.0 7.0 7.u
S2!&0 to under 535.ooO 73 7.3 S.5 .l5.5
535,000 to under 550,000 127 12.7 14s 30.3
S50.000 to under 575,ooO 165 16.5 19.2 49.5
575,000 to under 5 100,000 188 16.8 21.9 71.4
S 100,000 to S 125,000 96 9.6 11.2 82.6
S 125,000 and Above 149 14.9 17.4 100.0
Total 858 85.7 100.0
Missing Don’t Know 27 2.7
Refused 116 11.6
Total 143 14.3
Total 1001 100.0
QINCOME Which category best describes your household’s total mcome last year before taxes?
Of the respondents, 79.7% indicated that they owned their home, and 20.3% said they were
renting. There was an average of 2.57 people in the households, and 33.4% of the respondents
reported having children in their household. Of those households with children, there was an average of
1.80 children in the household. This is seen in Table 2a.’ Further, 25.3% of the respondents said they
had children under 12 years of age, and 13.8% said they had children under 6 in the home. ‘For those
with children under 12, there were an average of 1.62 children under 12 in the household, and there
were 1.42 children under six in households with at least one child under six. Considering all
households, the average number of children in each of these categories is displayed in Table 2b.
2The table also displays the “Std. Deviation” (standard deviation) for each of these variables.
The standard deviation is a measure of how variable the responses were for that item.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 9
Households averaged .60 children in the household, and -41 children under 12. On average, there \vas
.20 children under six years old in the household.
Table 2a:. Household Structure
Number of People rn
Household (Including
Respondent)
Number of Children Under
the Age of 18
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
992 I 8 2.5726 1.2469
334 1 7 I .7964 .8974
Number of Childrm Under
the Age of 12
Number of Children Under
the Age of 6 137 I 3 1.4161 .5770
Valid N (listwise) 137
1 5 I .6245 .7489
QDEM03-QDEM06 How many people currently reside in your household including yourself
and any children’
Table 2b: Average Number of Children Across All Households.
Std.
N Mmtmum Maximum Mean Deviation
Number or inliarcn Lnaer the Age of I6 1000 1. 0 7 .6000 .9935
Number of Chrldren Under
the Age of 12 1000
Number of Children Under
the Age of 6
Valid N (Itsrwse)
995
995
0 3 .I950 .5326
5 .41 IO .6004
QDEMM - QDEMOG How many people currently reside In your household Including yourself
and any chrldren?
Demow-aDhics bv Region
January-16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 10
Analyses were perfoxmed to determine if there were diffkrences in the demographic
characteristics of the respondents by geographic region. The respondents did not differ by region with
respect to gender or household structure. However, there were differences by region with respect 10
income, home ownership, and length of residence in Carlsbad. As illustrated in Table 3, the regions in
the South had higher incomes than those in the North. Almost a quarter of the respondents in the
Southeast (23.4%) and the Southwest (23.3%) had total household incomes of $125,000 or greater.
Additionally, over half the respondents in the Southeast (56.4%) and the Southwest (57.3%) had total
incomes of $75,000 or more, while this was not the case for the Northeast (48.3%) or Northwest
(39.7%) regions.
Table 3: Annual Household Income by Region.
North West NotthEast SouthEast
Household Income
Last Year
Household income Household income Household Income
Last Year Last Year Last Year
Count 96 Count % Count %
tinder S25.UUU 26 12.1% 13 6.2% 13 6.0%
525,000 to under 535.000 20 93% 19 9.0% IO 4.6%
535.000 to under 550,000 45 21.0% 33 15.6% 28 12.8%
550.000 to under 575.000 38 17.8% 44 20.9% 44 20.2%
575,000 to under 5 100.000 36 16.8% 65 30.8% 51 23.4%
s I00.000 to s 125,000 19 8.9% 19 9.0% 21 9.6%
5 125,000 and Above 30 14.0% 18 8.5% 51 23.4%
Total 214 100.0% 211 100.0% 218 100.0%
QINCOME Which category best describes your household’s total mcomelast year before taxes?
Count 5;
6 3.7%
24 11.2%
21 9.8%
39 18.1 “%I
36 16.7%
37 17.2%
50 23.3%
215 100.0%
Carlsbad residents also differed by region with respect to home ownership. This is seen in
Table 4. About a third (33.9%) of the residents in the Northwest region were renting their home
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 11
compared to 15.8% in the other regions. That is, twice as many residents are renting in the ru’onh~st :s
than in the rest of the city.
Tabk 4: Home Ownership by Region.
> Northwest - NorthEast SoUthEast
OwdRmt Home @vdRmt Home Own/Rent Home
Count % Count % Count %
Own 164 66.1% 213 84.9% 203 81.9%
Rent 84 33.9% 38 15.1% 45 18.1%
TOtd 248 100.0% 251 100.0% 248 100.0%
QDEMOZ Do you own or rent your home?
SouthWest
Own/Rent Home
Count ?b
214 85.9%
35 14.1%
249 100.0%
Region was very strongly tied to length of residence in Carlsbad. Those in the Northern regions
had lived in Carlsbad considerably longer than residents in the Southern Regions. In the Northwest
Region, residents had lived in Carlsbad for an average of 15.64 years -‘longer than any other region
This is seen in Table 5. Those in the Northeast (12.25) had also lived in Carlsbad longer than those
the Southeast (8.2 1) and Southwest Regions (8.03).
in
Table 5: Length or Residence in Carlsbrd by Region.
QDEMOI Number of Years Lived In Carlsbad
Mean Std.
N (Average) Devtatron ..Mintmum Maximum
Northwest ‘50 15.64 14.11 0 70
NorthEast 251 12.25 9.53 0 50
SouthEast ‘50 8.21 8.25 0 46
Southwest ‘50 8.03 7.61 0 40
Total 1001 1 I .03 10.88 0 70 P
QDEMOI How many years have you hved In Carlsbad?
January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 12
Citv Services and Facilities
City-Provided Services
. .
Respondents were asked about services provided by or through the City of Carlsbad. Each
respondent was asked how they would rate (from poor to excellent) a number of city-provided
services. Their answers are summarized in Table 6. All the city-provided services addressed in the
survey were rated as good or excellent by most people. The library services were rated as excellent
more often than not, that is, 59.9% of the respondents said the library services were excellent. In fact,
the library services as well as the fire protection services were rated as good or excellent by 96.0% of
the respondents. Traffic enforcement and environmental protection were not often given a rating of
excellent, but both were typically rated as good.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 13
Table 6: Rdings Of City-Provided Serviccc
s Poor Fair Good/Excellent
count % Count % count % Count % Count %
Library serv1ccs
Rating
Fire Protection
Services Rating
Pal?ImCCtiC
Serwccs Rating
Police Services
Rattng
Condition of
Parks Rating
RecreatIonal
Programs Rating
Water Services
Rating
Environmental
Protection
Rating
Traffic
Enforcement
Rating
Overall CiQ
Services
Rating
6 .6%
7 A%
- 4 .6%
24 2.6%
18 1.9%
15 1.8%
19 1.9%
72 10.9%
123 12.9%
9 .9%
31 33% 335
26 3.1% 395
31 4.5% 336
64 7.0% 445
78 8.2% 489
81 9.6% 468
98 10.1% 613
144
205
74
21.7% 340
21.5%
7.5%
492
614
36.1% 556
61.4% : 405
48.6% 320
48.7% 380
51.7% 361
553% 282
62.9% 245
513% 107
51.5% 135
62.5% 285
59.9% 891 96.0%
48.6% 800 96.0%
463% 656 94.9%
41.6% 525 90.3%
38.2% 850 89.9%
33.3%
25.1%
750
858
88.6%
88.0%
16.1% 447 67.4%
14.1%
29.0%
G27
699
65.6%
91.5%
QSERVI - QSERVE Please rate each SCNICC prouded by the Cuy of Carlsbad as excellent, good, fair, or poor
Respondents also provided a general, overall rating of the city services. Most often, residents’
overall rating of the city services was good. The overall city services were rated as good or excellent
by 91.5% of the respondents.
Agency-Provided Services
In addition to the city-provided services, respondents were also asked about services from
outside agencies. Table 7 provides a summary of their responses. Trash and recycling collection was
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBlU 14
rated as excellent by almost a third (32.5%) of the residents responding. Again, all the services
evaluated were rated as good or excellent by most people. The lowest ratings were for hazardous
waste disposal, but only 13.5% indicated that they thought this service was poor.
Table 7: Ratings of Agency-Provided Services.
Poor Fair Good Excellent Goad/Excellent
Coum % Count % count % Count % Count 9;
Trash and
Recycling 35 3.5% 131 13.2% 502 50.8% 321 32.5% S’3 83.2%
Collection Rating
Street Sweeping Rating 67 7.1% 202 21.5% 484 51.5% 187 19.9% 671 7l.zG
Hazardous
Waste Disposal
Rating
81 13.5% 139 23.2% 294 49.1% 85 14.2% 379 63.3%
QOUTSRV I - QOUTSRV4 Please rate each of services provided by outside agencies as excellent. good. fair, or poor
Service Ratings by Regions
The ratings of the services provided by or through the City of Carlsbad were generally
consistent across regions. However, there were regional differences for two of the services provided
by the city: library senices and fire protection services. Table 8 shows the ratings of the library
services across the four regions. The ratings of the library services were positive in all four regions.
However, the respondents in the Southeast and Southwest Regions rated library services more
positively than those in the Northeast and Northwest Regions, In both the Southeast and the Southwest
Regions, about two-thirds of the respondents rated the library services as excellent compared to just
over half in the Northeast and Northwest Regions.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carisbad, 2000 - SBRI 15
Table 8: Ratings of Libnry Services by Region.
Northwest NorthEast SOlhESS southwest
Library Services Rating Library Services Rating Library Services Rating Library Scrv~ccs Rating
Count % count % Count % Count %
Poor 3 13% 2 . 8% 0 0 . 0% 1 A%
- Fair 14 6.0% 5 2.1% 8 3.5% 4 1.7%
Good PI 39.1% 104 43.7% 67 295% 73 3 I .7%
Excellent 125 53.6% 127 53.4% 152 67.0% I52 66.1%
Total 233 -100.0% 238 100.0% 227 100.0% 230 100.0%
QLIBSERV Overall, how would you rate the Carlsbad libraries as to the availabibty of materials you want?
There were also regional differences in the ratings of fire protection services. Fire protection
services were rated very positively in all four regions. The Southeast Region, though, had slightly more
individuals offering only fair or poor evaluations of the fire protection service, as indicated in Table 9.
Only 7.6% of the respondents in the Southeast Region said the fire protection service was fair or poor,
but this was higher than in the other regions. This regional effect may be related to the Harmony Grove
fire in October of 1996 which affected the Southeast Region.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 16
Table 9: Ratings of Fire Protedion Services by Region. .
Northwest NorthEast SouthEast i South West
Fire Protection SC~VICCS Fire Protection Services Fire Protection Services Fire Protection Sconces
Rating Rating Rating Rattng
Count % Count % Count o/6 Count %
Poor 1 -5% I S% 4 2.0% I S%
Fair 8 - 3.7% 5 23% II 5.6% ‘I 1 .O%
Good 96 44.2% 115 52.5% 97 49.2% 67 43S%
Excellent 112 51.6% 98 44.7% 85 .. 43.1% 110 55.0%
Total 217 100.0% 219 100.0% 197 100.0% 200 100.0%
QSERV3 Please rate each scrwcc provided by the City of Carlsbad as excclient, good, fair, or poor
Programs and Facilities
The programs and facilities provided by the City of Carlsbad was also of interest. Respondents
were asked to rate the importance of various programs and facilities using a scale of zero to ten, where
zero means not at all important and ten means ve? important. Table 10 contains the average
imponance ratings for city progams and facilities, with numbers closer to ten indicatmg.greater
importance. As can be seen in the table, preserved open-space land has the highest importance rating
(8.41). Trails and paths (7.86), as well as picnic areas (7.33) and children’s play equipment (7.25)
were also regarded as quite important. Of least importance was tennis courts - the average
importance rating was 5.09 on the zero-to-ten scale. Inddor meeting rooms (5.44), public golf courses
(5.62), and basketball courts (5.65) were also rated relatively low in importance.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRl 17
Table 10: Average Importance Ratings of City Programs and
Facilities.
Imoonancc of PresCrVcd
Open space Land (Accessible
to tic Public)
lmpmtance of Nature Trails.
Jogging and Walkmg Paths
Lmportance of Picnic Areas
Importance of Children’s
Play Equipment
Importance of Arts and
culnlra1 Programs
importance of Playing Fields
Imponance of Bike Paths
lmportancc of Swimming
Pools
lmponancc of Community
Gardms
Importance of Basketball
Couns
Importance of Public Golf
Courses
Importance of Indoor
Meeung Rooms.
Importance of Tcnnls Courts
Vahd K (I~srw~se)
N
Srd.
Deviation
989 8.41 2.3 1
989 7.86 2.35
990 7.33 2.29
986 7.25 2.79
999 7.16 2.44
989 7.12 2.71
992 6.58 2.92
990 6.47 2.84
984 6.06 2.68
981 5.65 2.92
993 5.62 3.44
978
980
928
5.44
5.09
2.66
2.91
QPROGS I - QPROGSl3 How lmponanr to you are each of the followmg
on a scale of 0 to IO, where zero means nor ar all Important. and ten means
very Important?
In general, residents believed swimming pools to be important. It is interesting, though, to
examine more closely the ratings of the importance of swimming pools. The distribution of responses
rating the importance of swimming pools is displayed in Figure 1. Most (57.2%) of the respondents
offered an importance rating between 5 and 8, and there were also many (19.2%) that said swimming
pools are very important.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 18
i.
Not At All Important 2 4 6 6 Very Important
1 3 5 7 9
Importance of Swimming Pools
Figure 1: importance of Swimming Pools.
The importance ratings of public golf courses also merit closer examination. Overall, public golf
courses were rated as important (5.62 on the zero-to-ten scale), though less so than most of the other
programs or facilities examined. However, as illustrated in Figure 2, the distribution of responses to this
question shows the residents are somewhat polarized with respect to public golf courses. While 20.0%
of the respondents indicated that the believe public golf courses are very important, 14.5% of the
. respondents said they are not at all important.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 19
NotAtAll’Impobtt i Very lfiportant
Importance of Public Golf Courses
Figure 2: importance of Public Golf Courses.
Programs and Facilities by Region
The importance ratings were very consistent across regions. The only statistically significant
difference across the regions was found in the ratings of the importance of public golf courses. The
average ratings by region are shown in Table 11. Residents in the Southeast region rated the
importance of public golf courses higher (6.08) than did the Northwest Region residents (5.15).
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 20
Table 11: Impomnn of Public Golf Courses by Region.
Imwrtance af Public Golf Courses
Northwest
NorthEast
SouthEast
Southwest
Total
Meall Std.
N (Average) Deviation Std. Error
246 a.15 3.34 .- ‘I
249 5.41 3.51 22
248 6.08 3.38 .21
250 5.82 3.46 .22
993 5.62 3.44 .I1
QPROGS13 How important to you are each of the following on a scale
of 0 to 10, where zero means not at all impattant, and ten means very
important?
.Activities
Park Use
Respondents were asked about the use of public parks. Specifically, they were asked if
anyone in their household had used a Carisbad public park in the past year. The responses are
summarized in Table 12. Over three quarters (79.0%) of the respbndents indicated that someone in
their household had used a city park. Park use did not differ by region.
January l&2001 Version: City of G&bad, 2000 - SBRI 21
Table 12: Household Member Has Used 9 Carlsbad Park in the Past Year. :
I Cumuiatwc
Frequmcy Percent pcrccnt Percent
Vahd No 210 21.0 21.0 21.0
Yes 789 78.8 79.0 100.0
TOtal 999 99.8 100.0
Missing Don’t Know 2 2
QPARKUSE Has anyone in your household used a Carlsbad public park or park facihty
durrng the past rwclve months?
Recreation Facilities
Public Pool. The perceived need for an additional public pool was also assessed. Table 13
indicates how many residents think there is a need for another public pool in the city. About two thirds
(67.8%) of the respondents said they believe there is a need for another public pool in Carlsbad.
Table 13: Recreation Facilities.
Expressed Interest tn a Carlsbad
tieed for Another Pool in the City Multi-Use Recreatton Facility
Count % Count %
NO 294 32.2% 221 22.5%
Yes 618 47.8% 761 77.5%
QPOOL The Cny of Carlsbad currently operates one pool adjacent to Carlsbad
High School. Do you feel there IS a need for another public pool In the city?
Multi-use Recreation Facility*. Table 13 also shows how many residents are in favor of the
City of Carlsbad building a large, multi-use recreation facility. City residents were asked if they would
like to see the City of Carlsbad construct a recreation facility that would house things such as a
gymnasium, aquatic center, meeting rooms, etc. Three quarters (77.5%) of the respondents said they
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 22
would like the City ofC&sbad to consider such a facility. Those who indicated that they \vouid like IO
see Carl&ad consider such a facility were asked how far they would be willing to drive to the facilip.
On average, people indicated that they were willing to drive 14.73 minutes to get to such a facilit!,.
Most respondents (91.9%) said they would be willing to drive at least 10 minutes to get to a large
multi-use recreation facility. The time people were willing to drive did not vary by region.
Recreation Activities at 55
Those respondents 36 to 54 years of age were asked about the sorts of activities they would
like to participate in when they reach the age of 55. The responses to this open-ended question of the
452 respondents that fall into this age range were categorized into different types of activities. The
responses falling into these categories are summarized in Table 14. Recreation activities was by far the
most frequently mentioned city-sponsored activity respondents said they would like to participate in
when they are 55 or older. This. was mentioned by 42.0% of the respondents in the 36 to 54 year-old
age group. Arts activities was mentioned by 21.5% of these respondents, and use of an aquatics center
(12.4%) and fitness center (12.8%) were also commonly mentioned. A small minority (2.2%) of the
respondents said they would not participate in any city-sponsored activities when they reached 55.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 23
Table 14: Activities Anticipated at 55.
Chosen
Count %
Recreanon Acttvtncs 190 42.0%
97
Fitness C&r 58
Aquatic Center 56
Areas for Senior Programs 43
Classrooms 33
TraveVDaytrips 24
Gymnasium 23
Weight Room I8
Indoor Track 17
Education/Library 17
Banquet Facility I6
Mccttng Rooms 15
Health & Fitness 13
Rock Chmbing Wall 8
Childcare 6
Other 13
Nothmg 10
21.5%
12.8%
12.4%
9.5%
73%
5.3%
5.1%
4.0%
3.8%
3.8%
3.5%
3.3%
2.9%
1.8%
1.3%
2.9%
2.2%
QRETIREI When you reach the age of 55 or older what type of
Cq sponsored rccrcatlon actwttes would you like to partmpate in?
Only participation in classroom activities differed by region. As illustrated in Table 15,
residents in the Northwest and Southeast Regions were more likely to state that they would participate
in classes after they turn 55.
January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBR.I 24
Table 15: Participation in Classrooms by Region.
Chosen
NonhWeR NorthEast SouthEast Southwest
Classrooms Classrooms classrooms Classrooms
Participation Participation Panicipation Panicipation
count % Count % Count % Count ?U
12 11.5% 4 3.3% 12 10.2% 5 4.6%
QRETIRE I When you reach the age of 55 or older what type of City sponsored recreation activities
would you like to pmicipate in?
Cultural Arts Activities
A number of cultural arts activities were given attention in the survey. Respondents rated the
importance of various cultural arts activities on a zero-to-ten importance scale, with higher numbers
indicating greater importance. These ratings are summarized in Table 16. All the cultural arts activities
were regarded as important. Average ratings of the seven activities assessed ranged between 5.06 (the
middle of the scale) and Y.7S. Outdoor concerts were considered to be the most important (average
rating of 7.78) cultural arts activity of those assessed. As,Figure 3 illustrates, few respondents regarded
outdoor concerts as ION in importance. In fact, only 7.3% of the respondents gave an importance
rating to outdoor concerts of 4 or lower. On the other hand, 43.4% of the respondents gave outdoor
concerts an importance rating 9 or IO.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRJ 25
Not At All Important 2 4 6 8 Very Lmponant
1 3 5 7 9
Importance of Outdoor Concerts
Figure 3: Importance of Outdoor Concerts.
Tabie 16: Average Importance Ratings of Cultural Arts Activities.
Outdoor Concerts
Perfonmng Arts
Museum and An Exhibits
Festtvals and Fatrs
MultKultural Events
AR Apprcctation Classes
Social Dancmg
Valtd N IlrstwtseJ
Mean
N (Average) Std. Deviation
994 7.78 2.38
994 7.31 2.58
- 996 7.31 2.43
996 6.82 2.54
985 6.46 2.76
985 5.98 2.18
981 5.06 2.87
965
QACTJV I- QACTJV7 where zero means not at all tmportant and ten means very
Important. how would you rate the lmponance of the followmg cultural arts
acrrvrtles In your community?
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 26
. .
Pedoming arts (7.31) as well a,~ museti anti art exhibits (7.3 1) were,considered more
important t,han the other activities (aside fkom outdoor concerts), and festivals and fairs (682) were
regarded as the next most important cultural arts activity. The activity rated relatively least important
(5.06) was social dancing. Figure 4 shows that about a third (34.5%) of the respondents rated social
dancing at 4 or lower, and 10.6% gave a 9 or 10 importance rating to social dancing.
Not At All lmponant 2 4 6 6 Very important
1 3 5 7 9
Importance of Social Dancing
Figure 4: Importance of Social Dancing.
The importance ratings of the cultural arts activities were rather consistent across regions. Only
the ratings of outdoor concerts varied by region. Again, the difference amounted to a North-South
split. Those respondents from the Northwest and Northeast rated the importance of outdoor concerts
more highly (7.99) than did those from the Southeast and Southwest (7.56).
January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 27
. . b...
The amount of cultural arts activities in which residents participate was also of interest.
Respondents were asked how many times per year they attended cultural events such as plays,
concerts, museums, etc. The responses are displayed in Table 17. Almost all (94.0%) of the
respondents indicated that they participate in at least one cultural arts event per year. Under half
(44.5%) of the respondents said they participate in a cultural arts event at least five times per year, and
19.2% said they participate more than 10 times per year. The amount of cultural arts activities in which
residents participated did not vary by region.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRJ 28
Table 17: Number OfTimes Per Year a Cukural Arts Event is Attended.
Valid Zero Trmes per Year
I-2 Times Pa Year
Frequency Percent
60 6.0
166 16.6
Vahd Cumuratwe
Percent Percent
6.0 6.0
16.6 22.6
3-5 Times Per Year 328 32.8 32.9 jj.j
j-10 Times Per Year 252 25.2 25.3 SOS
More Than 10 Times
Per Year 192 19.2 19.2 100.0
Total 998 99.7 100.0
Missing Don’t Know 2 .2
Refused 1 .l
Total 3 .3
Total 1001 100.0
QEVENT How often do you attend a cultural event such as a play, concert, museum, etc...?
Libraries
The amount and nature of library use was a key concern in this study. Most (78.8%) of the
respondents reported using one of the Carlsbad library facilities in the past year. On average, Carlsbad
residents visited a Carlsbad library 15.86 times in the past year. The amount of overall library use did
not vary by region. The amount of use of the libraries individually is displayed in Table 18. As can be
seen in this table, the Dove Library is used more than the Cole Library or the Centro de informacion.3
Both the Dove Library and the Cole Library are used substantially more often than the Centro de
‘Of the telephone numbers called, 1.6% were excluded because of language difficulty. Most of
these were Spanish speaking people, resulting in a probable slight underestimate of the use of the
Centro de Information.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRJ 29
Information. This is evident when considering the numbers of residents using the library once a \\reek
or more - 13.1% of the residents use the Dove Library at least once a week compared to 9.9% for the
Cole Library and .2% for the Centre de Information. Less than one out of four (23.2%) said they
never used the Dove Li_brary compared to 39.5% for the Cole Library and 96.4% for the Centre de
Information.
Table 18: Frequency of Library Lke.
Never
How Often Respondent How Often Respondent How Often Reqpondent
Used Dove Library in Used Cole Library in Past Used Cenao de
Past Year Year lnforrnacion in Past I’ear
Count % Count % Count O/b
183 23 2% . 311 39.5% 757 96.4%
Once or Twice in the Past
Year 246 31.2% 235 29.9% 21 2.7%
Once or Twice a Month ‘56 32.5% 163 20.7% 5 .6%
Once a Week 55 7.0% 45 S.f% 1 .I %
More Than Once a Wtel, 48 6.1% 33 4.2% 1 .I %
QLIB How often have you used any of the Carlsbad Cny Library facillt;es m the past year?
Looking at these libraries individually. there is a,difference in use by region. As one would
expect, the Dove Library is used more frequently by residents in the Southeast Region than by residents
in the other regions. The Cole Library, on the other hand, is used more frequently by those in the
Northwest and Northeast Regions. The use of Centro dr: Information was too infrequent to determine
if there were any differences in use by region at a statistically significant level.
The reasons Carisbad City residents visit the library was investigated. As shown in Table 19,
three quarters (76.8%) of the respondents said they visited the library to check out or read books or
magazines for enjoyment. Additionally, three quarters (75.8%) of the respondents said they visited the
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 30
library to get answers to questions or do general research. The other reasons that were asked about
were offered by less than half of the respondents, The least frequently cited reason for visiting the
library was to use technology resources (Internet, word processing computers, or typewriters). Only
18.6% of the respondents reported visiting the library to use these technology resources.
Table 19: Reasons for Visiting Carlsbnd City Libraries.
No Yes
Check Out or Read Books
or Magazines For
Enjoyment
Count % Count %
183 23.2% 606 76.8%
Get Answers to Questions
or to do General Research
Help Meet Educational or
Job-Related Goals
191 24.2% 598 75.8%
454 57.5% 335 42.5%
Help Yourself or Your
Children Improve Reading Skills 485 61.5% 304 38.5%
Take Advantage of
Programs the Library
Offers 496 63.0% 291 37.0%
For a Quiet Place to Read
and/or Study 537 68.1% 252 31.9%
Use the Intemer. Word
Processmg Computers or
Tvnewrllers
642 81.4% 147 18.6%
QLIBVIS - QLIBVIS7 1 am going to read a hst of reasons people use the Carlsbad City
libraries. please mdxate whether or not you vtslt the library for each of the followmg
reasons.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBR.I 31
There were some regional differences with respect to reasons for visiting a Carlsbad city
library. As illustrated m Table 20a, those residing in the Southwest Region were less likely than those in
the other regions to visit the library in order to help meet educational or job-related goals. Only 3 1.2%
of the Southwest residents offered this reason compared to 42.5% of all Carlsbad residents.
Table 2Oa: Visited Library for Education/Job-Related Goals by Region.
Northwest NorthEast SouthEast SouthWest
Visited Library to Help Visited Library to Help Visited Library to Help Visited Library to Help
Meet Educational or Meet Educational or Meet Educational or Meet Educattonal or
Job-Related Goals Job-Related Goals Job-Related Goals Job-Related Goals
Count % Count % Count % Count U/b
NO 108 54.0% 99 52.1% 108 54.8% 13Y 68.8%
Yes 92 46.0% 91 47.9% 89 45.2% 63 3 I .2%
QLIBVIS2 I am going to read a hst of reasons people use the Carlsbad Ctty librartes, please indicate whether or not you
vistt the library for each of the followmg reasons.
Table 20b shows that those respondents living in the Southwest Region also differed from the
other residents with respect to taking advantage of library-offered programs. Of the respondents in the
Southwest, 45.0% said they visited the library in order to take advantage of programs offered by the
library. Thus, residents in the Southwest Region were more likely to take advantage of such programs
compared to residents across the entire city (37.0%).
January 16,200 1 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 32
Table fob: Visited Library for Library Progmm.
SouthR’esl Northwest NonhEast SouthEast
Visited Library to Take Visited Library to Take Visited Library to Take Visited Library to fake
Advantage of Programs Advantage of Programs Advantage of Progtams Advantage of Programs
the Library Offers the Library Offers the Library Offers the Library Offers
Count % count % Count % Count %l
I\cO 126 _ 64.0% 129 68.3% 128 65.3% III 55.0%
Yes 72 36.0% 60 31.7% 68 34.7% 91 45.0%
QLIBVIS4 1 am gomg to read a Irst of reasons people use the Carlsbad City libraries, please indtcate whether or not
you visit the library for each of the following reasons.
In addition to the reasons people offered for visiting the city libraries, the reasons why people
didn ‘t visit the libraries were of interest. There were 212 respondents that said that they had not used
any of the Carlsbad City Library facilities in the past year. These people were asked what had kept
them from using the Carlsbad City Library. Their responses are sumrnarized in Table 2 1. The most
common reason for not visiting the library, offered by 40.1% of the respondents, was that they had no
interest or need to use the library. Additionally, 19.3% of the respondents said they were too busy or
they didn’t have time to visit the ‘library. Many people also indicated that they hadn’t visited the library
because they have other resources that meet their informational needs (13.2%), they buy books for
themselves or their children (12.7%), or they just moved to Carlsbad (11.8%).
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 33
Table 21: Reported Reasons for Not Visiting City Libraries.
Have No Interest or Need
fo_r Using the Library
Don’t Have Time
Have Internet or Other
Resources That Meet My
Needs for Information
Chosen
Count %
85 40.1%
41 19.3%
28 13.2%
Buy Books for Myself or
My Children
Just Moved Here
The Library is Too Far
Away or Otherwise
inconvcnmt
Health Related
Use Another Library
Other
27 12.7%
25 11.8%
8 3.8%
8 3.8%
7 3.3%
6 2.8%
QNOLIB What has prevented you from using the Carlsbad City Library?
Respondents also provided an overall rating of the availability of materials at thi city libraries.
Their responses are summarized in Table 22. Most (89.0%) respondents were pleased with the
availability of materials. offering a rating of good or excellent. Only 1.7% of the respondents rated the
libraries as poor in this respect. These ratings did not vary by region.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 34
Table 22: Overall Rating of Carlsbrd Libraries as to AvailabiliQ’ of Materials.
Vahd Lumutartve
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Vahd Poor 13 1.3 1.7 1.7
Fair 73 7.3 9.3 1 I .o
Good 327 32.7 41.7 52.7
Excellent 371 37.1 47.3 100.0
Total 784 78.3 100.0
Missing’ Don’t Know 5 .5
System 212 2 1.2
Total 217 21.7
Total 1001 100.0
QLIBSERV Overall, how would you rate the Carlsbad libraries as to the availabihty of
marenals you want?
Citv Conditions and DeveloDment
Road Conditions
.i Respondents were asked their impressions of various aspects of the city roads and traffic in the
City of Carlsbad. The responses are summarized in Table 23. Generally, road conditions were rated
positively. The overall road condition, medians and landscaping conditions, city street tree conditions,
and curb and sidewalk conditions were rated good or excellent by most (78.1% to 80.4%) of the
respondents. Traffic circulation and parking were rated less favorably. Less than half (40.8%) of the
respondents rated traffic circulation efficiency (excluding freeways) as good or excellent, and a quarter
(25.3%) rated traffic circulation as poor. Additionally, 38.4% of the respondents rated parking
January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRJ 35
availability in the downtown village area as good or excellent, and 21.4% rated parking in the village 3s
poor.
Table 23: Ratings of City of Corlsbrd Road Conditions.
Good Pcmr Fair Good?Excellenr
Meotaus andor Landscaping
Condition
- --.
count % Count % Count % count % count 9b
41 4.1% 161 16.1% 560 56.1% 236 23.4% 790 79.7%
Ovenll Road
Condition 26 2.6% 170 17.0% 585 585% 219 21.9% 804 80.4%
Curb/Sidewalk
Condition 35 35% 182 18.4% 576 58.2% 197 19.9% 773 78.1%
City Street Trees
Condition 47 4.8% 156 15.9% 598 60.8% 182 18.5% 780 79.3%
Traffic Circulation Efficiency
Parking Availability
in Downtown
Village Area
252 2S3% 338 33.9% 361 36.2% 46 4.6% 407 40.8%
207 21.4% 389 40.2% 328 33.9% 44 45% 372 38.4%
QSTREETI - QSTREET6 Please rate the condiuon of each of the following items as excellent, good, fair, or poor
Some of these conditions were evaluated differently by residents in different regions. Though
ratings of the overall road condition, medians and landscaping conditions, and city street tree conditions
were consistent across regions, the ratings of the other features of the road conditions were not. Table
24a shows that those in the Northwest Region were the least satisfied with the curb and sidewalk
condition, and yet 71.3% of the residents surveyed in this area rated the curb and sidewalk conditions
to be good or excellent. On the other hand, 7.7% of the Northwest Region residents said the
conditions of the curbs and sidewalks were poor. This is twice the percentage (3.5%) of people in the
entire sample that offered a poor rating of the curbs and sidewalks.
January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRJ 36
‘fable 24n: Fkatiqp of&e Curb/Sidewalk Condkions b!: RcgiOn.
Northwest NorthEm SoulhEas Southwest
Curb/Sidewalk Condition Curb/Sidewalk Condltlon Curb/Sidewalk Condition Curb/Sidewalk Condition
Rating Rating Rattng Rating
Count % Count % Count % Count 50
Poor 19 7.7% 6 2.4% 9 3.7% 1 .4x
Fair 52 - 21.e% 42 16.8% 38 15.4% 50 20.3%
Good 131 52.8% 150 60.0% 156 63.4% 139 56.5%
Excellent 46 18.5% 52 20.8% 43 ll.S% 56 22.8%
Total 248 100.0% 250 100.0% 246 100.0% 246 100.0%
QSTREET4 Please rate the condition of each of the followmg Items as cxcelien~, good, fair, or poor.
Residents also differed by region in their evaluation of traffic circulation efficiency in the city.
The respondents rated the traffic circulation efficiency, excluding freeways, and a quarter (25.3%) of
the respondents across regions rated the traffic circulation as poor. However, in the Northeast Region,
a third (33.1”/) of the respondents rated the traffic circulation as poor. This is seen in Table 24b.
Table 24b: Traffic Circulation ENicicncy Ratings by Region.
Northwest NorthEast SouthEast SouthWesl
Traffic Crrcuiatron
Effrcrcncy Raring.
Excludmg Freeways
Condmon Ratmg
Traffic Ctrculatron
Effcrency Ratmg.
Excludq Freeways
Condrtron Ratmg
Traffic Crrculatron
Efticrency Raung.
Excludmg Freeways
Condttron Raung
Traffic Crrcul;llron
Efftcrency Raring.
Excludrng Freeways
Condttron Rating
Poor
Count
jb
%
11.4%
Count
E3
90
33.1 %
Count
jb
% Count “it
22.1% 38 11.9%
Fan 75 30.0% 87 34.77: 96 38.9% so 32. I ‘/iI
Good IO3 41.2% 75 29.9% 87 35.2% 96 38.6%
Excellent 16 6.4 % 6 2.4% 8 3.2% 16 6.4%
Total 250 100.0% 251 100.0% 247 100.0% 249 100.0%
QSTREET5 Please rate !he condmon of each of the followmg ncms as excellent. good. farr. or poor
There were also regional differences in resident attitudes regarding parking. Respondents were
asked to evaluate the parking availability in the downtown village area. Residents in the Northwest
January .16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 37
Region were more positive about the parking availability than were those in the Southeast or Southwest
Regions. This is illustrated in Table 24~. In the Northwest Region, 9.3% of the respondents said the
parking availability in the downtown village area was excellent, and 45.7% said it was good or
excellent. By comparison, only 2.6% of the respondents in the Southeast and 1.7 % in the Southwest
said the parking availability was excellent, and 31.5% of the respondents in the Southeast and 33.8Dio in
the Southwest said the parking in the village was good or excellent.
Table 24~: Ratings of Parking Availability in the Village Area by Region.
Nottj~Wcst NorthEast SouthEast South West
Parking Availability m Parking Availability in Parking Availability In Parking Availabilrty in
Downtown Village Area Downtown Village Area Downtown Village Area Downtown Village Area
Condition Ratmg Condition Rating Condition Rating Condition Ratmg
Count % Count % Count % Count O/b
Poor 50 20.2% 44 17.9% 51 21.7% 62 25.8%
Fair 84 34.0% 98 39.8% 1 IO 46.8% 97 40.4%
Good 90 36.4% 93 37.8% 68 28.9% 77 32.1%
Excellent ‘3 9.3% II 4.5% 6 2.6% 4 1.7%
Total 24? 100.0% 246 100.0% 235 100.0% 240 100.0%
QSTREET6 Please rate the condmon of each of the followmg nems as excellent, good, fair, or poor
Public Safety
Feelings of Safety. Residents were asked about .how safe they felt walking alone in their
neighborhood. The residents answered using a zero-to-ten scale where zero means nol ar all safe and
ten means very safe. The results are shown in Table 25. When asked how safe they felt walking alone
in their neighborhood during the day, respondents gave an average rating of 9.46, suggesting that they
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 38
felt very safe. Most (85.5%) of those interviewed offered a response of 9 or 10. Figure 5 shows the
distribution of responses to this question. These ratings did not differ by region or by gender.
Table 25: F&ings of Safety Walking Alone.
-
How Safe Respondent Feels
Walking Alone in their
Neighborhood During the
Day
Mean Std.
N (Average) Deviation
1001 9.46 1.20
How Safe Respondent Feels
Walking Alone in their
Neighborhood After Dark
Valid N Clistwise~
1000 7.54
I 000
2.55
QSAFEI - QSAFEZ How safe do you feel walktng alone in your
nelghborhood ?
80
60
i
40 -
20 -
OJ
Not At All Safe 4 a
3 5
6 m 8 Very Safe
9
Feelings of Safety
Figure 5: Feelings of Safety Walking Alone in the Day.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 39
Residents were also asked about how safe they felt walking in their neighborhood at night. On ‘t
the zero-to-ten scale, residents provided an average response of 7.54, suggesting that they still felt safe
at night. This is shown in Table 25. Residents did feel significantly more safe during the day than they
did at night. While 85.5% offered a response of 9 or 10 (very safe) when asked about walking alone
during the day, only 41.4% offered a response of 9 or 10 when asked about walking alone ar ~~iglrl. J
Figure 6 shows the distribution of responses to this question. Comparing Figures 5 and 6 illustrates the
difference in how safe respondents feel walking alone in their neighborhood in the day versus night.
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
Not Al All Safe 2 4 6 8 Very Safe
1 3 5 7 9
Feelings of Safety
Figure 6: Feelings of Safety Walking Alone at Night.
Feelings of safety walking alone in their neighborhood after dark did differ by region. Table
26a shows average feelings of safety ratings by region. Those in the Northwest did feel less safe (6.99)
walking alone at night in their neighborhood than did residents in the Northeast (8.02) and the
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 40
Southeast (7.62) Regions. The difference between the Northwest and Southwest Regions was not
statistically significant.
Table 260: Feelings of Safety Walking ALoae After
Dark by Region.
QSAFEZ How Safe Respondent Feels Walking Alone in
their Neighborhood After Dark
Northwest
Not&East
SouthEast
South West
Total
Mean Std.
N (Average) Deviation
250 6.99 2.82
251 8.02 2.34
250 7.62 2.29
249 7.53 2.61
1000 7.54 2.55
QSAFEZ How safe do you feel walking alone in your
nclghborhood a!ier dark?
There was also a difference in feelings of safety by gender. That is, females felt less safe than
males walking in their neighborhood alone at night. This is illustrated in Table 26b. While males offered
an average feeling of safety rating of 8.54, females offered an average rating of 6.86.
Table 26b: Feelings of Safety Walking Alone After Dark by Gender.
Mean Std.
R’s Gender N (Average) Deuation
Hon. Safe Respondent Feels Male 407 8.54 I .80 Walkmg Alone IntheIr
Neighborhood After Dark Female 593 6.86 2.75
QSAFEZ How safe do you feel walkmg alone In your nelghborhood after dark?
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 41
Exposure 10 Crime. The survey also addressed City of Carlsbad residents’ exposure to
crime. Respondents were asked if they or anyone in their household had been the victim of a crime in
Carlsbad in the past 12 months. The responses to this question are summarized in Table 27. Only
8.0% of the respondents said that they or someone in their household had been a victim of a crime in
Carlsbad in the past year. Of those 80 respondents indicating they or a household member had been
victimized, most (SO.OO/,) said the crime had been reported to the police. Exposure to crime did not
vary by region.
Table 27: Incidents of Crime.
Count % Count %
Member of Family Vwm of
Cnme in Carlsbad During the 921 92.0% SO 8.0%
Past 12 Months
Member of Family Reponed
Cnme to the Poke 16 20.0% 64 80.0%
QCRIME 1 - QCRIME2 Dunnp the past 12 months have you or has anyone In your
household been a vIctlm of any cnme tn Carlsbad? If yes. did any member of your
household, repon the cnme(s) to the police?
Confidewe in Emergenq- Services. Respondents were asked about their confidence in
police and fire departments to respond to emergencies. Residents were asked to respond on a scale of
zero-to-ten where zero means nor ut all confident and ten means ver), confident, how confident they
were in the fire department’s ability to respond to a medical or tire emergency. Table 28 shows that,
on average, respondents gave a confidence rating of 8.87, indicating they were quite confident in the
fire department’s ability to respond. This is consistent with the overall rating of the fire protection
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 42
services noted on page 13. Though most respondents communicated confidence, 12.0% offered a
confidence rating of 7 or lower. Figure 7 shows the distribution of respondents’ ratings of their
confidence in fire protection services.
60
50 -
40.
20 -
= 10.
8
Not At All Confident 2 5 7
1’ 3 6 8 Very Confident
Confidence in Fire Department
Figure 7: Confidence in Fire Department’s Ability to Respond.
As with the fire department, respondents rated their confidence in the police department’s
ability to respond to a police emergency. Again, the ratings are on a 0 to 10 scale with higher numbers
indicating greater confidence. Residents expressed confidence in the police department’s ability to
respond to police emergencies, as indicated by an average confidence rating of 8.42, as seen in Table
28. However, this rating is not as high as that for the fire department. As with the fire department,
there was some variability in responses, and 22.7% of the respondents offered a confidence rating of 7
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI -43
or below. the distribution of respondents’ ratings of their confidence in police response to emergencies
is shown in Figure 8.
Table 28: Average Rntiogs of Cooftdeocc in Emergeocy’ Services.
Confidence tn Ftre
Depamnent’s Ability to
Respond to a Medical or
Fire Emergency
Confidence in Police
Depamnent’s Ability to
Respond to a Police
Emergency
Valid N (listwise)
N MCZUI Std. Devlatlon
926 8.87 1.48
949 8.42 1.87
QCONFID 1 - QCONFIDZ On a scale of 0 to IO, where ten means very
confident and zero means not at all confident . . . ..how confident are you in the
following services?
50
1
Not At All Confident 2 4 6 8 Very Confident
1 3 5 7 9
Confidence in Police Department
Figure 8: Confidence in the Police Department’s Ability to Respon
January l&2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI
There was a difference by region in the ratings of the fire department, but nor the police
department. Specifically, the residents in the Southeast Region expressed less confidence (8.57) in the
fire department’s ability to respond to a medical or fire emergency than did residents in the Northwest
(9.08) or .Northeast (8.96) Regions. This is seen in Table 29. Again, this is consistent with the general
ratings of fire protection services. It should be noted that though the average confidence rating in the
fire department’s ability to respond to an emergency is relatively lower in the Southeast Region, it is sti
indicative of a high level of confidence.
Table 29: Confidence in Fire Department’s Abiiitj
to Respond by Region.
Level of Confidence in Fire Depamnent’s Ability to
Respond lo a Medical or Fire Emergency +
Mean Std,
XonhWest
N (Average) Devlat~on
236 9.08 1.30
XonhEasr 240 8.96 I .47
SouthEasr 218 8.i7 1.66
SouthWest 232 8.84 I .45
Total 926 8.87 1.48
QCONFIDI How confident are you In the fire department’s
ablllty to respond to a medical or fire emergmcy?
Development
Development in the city was also given attention. This was an important issue to the
respondents as well. Respondents were asked about a number of types of development. Specifically,
they were asked if they would like to see more or’ fewer of various types of development or structures.
January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRl 45
Table 30 summarizes their responses. Two thirds (66.3%) of the respondents said they would like to
see more entertainment venues, such as movie theaters, live stage theaters, or art museums, while
18.5% said they would like to see fewer entertainment venues. More than half the respondents
(58.7%) said there shou_ld be more specialty grocery stores.
Table 30: Preference for Development In the City of Carlsbad.
Fewer Of Just the Right Amount More Of
Entcrtamment Venues
Specialty Grocery Stores
Upscale. Fine Dining
Restaurants
Family Style Restaurants
Small Neighborhood
Retailers
Gas Stations
Drug Stores
Grocery Stores
Single Family Housing
Depamnent Stores
Multt-Family Housing
Multi-Store Shoppmg
Centers
Quick Stop Stores
Fast Food Restaurants
Big Box Retail Stores
Count % Count % Count O/b
184 18.5% 151 15.2% 658 66.3 "vu
182
213
255
333
23A% 139
21.4% 190
25.7% 236
33.5% 274
58.7%
59.5%
50.5%
38.9%
421 43.1% 228
393 39.5% 282
397 40.1% 323
589 59.9% 137
468 47.1% 278
666 67.3% 124
33.9%
32.1%
27.3%
26.2%
24.9%
20.1% .
569 57.8% 220 19.9%
670 68.1% 199
670 67.3% 236
600 60.1% 317
17.9% 457
19.1% 593
23.8% 500
27.6% 386
23.0% 336
28.4% 319
32.6% 271
13.9% 258
28.0% 247
12.5% 199
223% 196
20.2% 115
23.7% 90
31.8% 81
11.7%
9.0%
8.1%
QDEVELI - QDEVELI 8 Please tell me if you would like to see more of or fewer of each of the followq Items
The responses regarding restaurants were interesting. More than half the respondents (59.5%)
suggested that there should be more upscale, fine dining restaurants, and about half (50.5%) of the
respondents said there should be more family-style restaurants. On the other hand, only 9.0% said
there should be more fast food restaurants while 67.3% said there should be fewer. More people
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 46
(38.9%) said they would like more small neighborhood retailers than said th?y would iike fewer small
neighborhood retailers (33.5%).
Other types of development were less popular. That is, for other types of development, more
people said they would like fewer of these rather than more. Particularly unpopular were convenience
stores, multi-family housing units, and as noted above, fast food restaurants. For each of these types of
development, about two thirds of the respondents said they would like to see.fewer of these in
Carlsbad. Most people also wanted to see. fewer big box retail stores, single-family housing units, and
multi-store shopping centers.
Development @Region. Preference for development in the City of Carlsbad differed by
region. This was the case for a number of different types of development. Table 3 la shoots that
preference for gas stations differed by region. Most people in the Southeast Region would like to see
more gas stations, while most people in the other regions would like to see the same or fewer gas
stations.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 47
Table 318: Preferwee for GM Sations by Region.
-
NotiLhW- NorthEast SouthEast SouthWat TOtal
More or Fewer Of count 140 121 71 93 427
Fewer Gas vi within REGION .57.1% 48.4% 2&6% 38.3% 43.1% Stations Just the bght Count 72 71 31 5-l 22s
Amount _ % within REGION 29.4% 28.4% 12.5% 21.8% 23.0%
More Of count 33 58 146 99 5%
% within REGION 13.5% 23.2% 58.9% 39.9% 33.9%
Total Count 245 250 248 248 YYI
% within REGION 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
QDEV’lXl Please tell me if you would like to see more of or fewer of each of the following items.
There was also a regional difference with respect to grocery stores. This is seen in Table 3 1 b.
The residents in the Northeast were more likely than those in the Southeast to indicate that they would
like to see more grocery stores.
Table 31 b: Preference for Grocery Stores by Region.
REGION
North West NorthEast SouthEast SouthWcsr Total
More or Fewer 01 Counr 103 88 112 94 3Y7
Fewer % wtlnn REGION 41.2% 35.5% 45.7% 37.9% Grocery
Stores Just the Rtght Count 85 70 81 s7
Amount P/b wtthm REGION 34.0% 28.2% 33.1% 35.1%
More Of Count 62 90 52 67
% wtthm REGION 24.8% 36.3% 21.2% 27.0%
Total Count 250 248 245 248
% wtthm REGION 100.0% 100.0% IOO.O% 100.0%
QDEVELZ Please tell me if you would like to see more of or fewer of each of the followmg Items.
40.1%
323
32.6%
271
27.3%
Y91
100.0%
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 48
There was a regional effect for convenience stores. Those residents in the Northwest Region
were least likely to say they wanted to see more convenience stores. This is seen in Table 3 lc.
Table 31 c: Preference for Convenience Stores by Region.
REGION
More or
Few=
Quick St00 r Stores
NorthWest NorthEast SouthEast SouthWest Total
Fewer 01 Count 172 157 161 174 670
% within REGION 70.2% 63.6% 67.9% 70.7% 68.1%
Just the Right Count 58 56 35 50 199
Amount % within REGION 23.7% 22.7% 14.2% 203% 20.2%
Total
More Of Count 15 34 44 22 115
% within REGION 6.1% 13.8% 17.9% 8.9% 1 I .7x
Count 245 247 246 246 YS1
% within REGION 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.03b
-.QDEVEL3 Please tell me if you would like to see more of or fewer of each of the followmg Items.
The preference for drug stores also varied by region. This is iIlustrated in Table 3 Id, which
shows that in the Northern Regions, only about a quarter of the residents said they wanted more drug
stores, while in the Southern Regions 35%-40% of the residents would like to see more drug stores.
Overall, though, residents were more likely to say they would like to see fewer than were likely to say
they would like to see more drug stores.
January l&2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 49
Table 3 1 d: Prclerence for Drug Stores by Region.
REGION
Nonh West NorthEast SouthEast Southwest Total
More or Fewer Of Count 111 99 94 89 3Y.,
Fewer % within REGION 44.6% 39.8% 38.2% 35.6% 39.5%
Dw stores Just the Right Count 77 79 53 73 282
Amount - % within REGION 30.9% 31.7% 2 1.5% 29.2% 28.4%
More Of Count 61 71 99 88 319
Total
% within REGION 24.5%
Count 249
% within REGION 100.0%
28.5%
249
100.0%
40.2%
246
100.0%
35.2%
250
100.0%
32.1%
994
100.0%
QDEVEL4 Please tell me if you would like to see more ofor fewer of each of the following items.
There was a North - South division with respect to the preference for department stores.
Table 3 1 e shows that in the Southwest Region, almost as many residents would like to see more
department stores as would like to see fewer. This contrasts with the rest of the city, in which residents
have a clear preference for fewer department stores.
Table 31~: Prckrcncc for Department Stores by Region.
REGION
NonhWest NorthEast SouthEasl Southwest TOLlI
More or Fewer 01 C ounl 123 131 119 95 468
Fewer
Depsnmenl 40 wthln R&ION 49.8% 52.4% 41.8% 38.5% 47.1%
stores JUSI the FZlghr Count 83 82 49 64 278
AmOlIn 40 wIthin REGION 33.6% 32.8% 19.7% 25.9% 211.0%
‘3% ulrhln REGION 16.6% 14.8% 32.5% 35.6% 24.9%
Total Count 247 250 249 247 993
% wthtn REGION 100.0% 100 0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
QDEVEL5 Please tell mc of you would like to see more of or fewer of each of the followmg wns
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBEU 50
Preferences varied across regions for multi-store shopping centers. This can be seen in Table
3 1 f. About a quarter of those in the Southern Regions said they would like to see more multi-store
shopping centers, compared to about half as many in the Northern Regions.
fable 31 f: Preference for Multi-Store Shopping Caters by Region.
REGION
NwthWest NonhEast SouthEast Southwest Tots1
More or Fewer Fewer Ot Count 156 136 142 135 5b’l
Mulri-Srorc % within REGION 63.2% 56.4% 57.30/b 54.2% 27.8?1 Shopptnp Ccnters Just the bght Count 62 62 46 50 220
Amount % within REGION 25.1% 25.7% 18.5% 20.1% 22.3%
More Of Count 29 43 60 64 19b
% within REGION 1 I .7% 17.8% 24.2% 25.7% 19.9%
Total Count 247 241 248 249 985
% within REGION 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0’:;
QDEVEL9 Please tell me if you would like to see more of or fewer of each of the followmg Items.
Big box retailers (such. as Costco, Target, or Home Depot) were rather unpopul.ar throughout
%he city, but particularly so in the Northwest Region. This regional effect is illustrated in Table 3 1 g.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 51
Table 31g: Prefenncc for Big Box Retail Stores by Region.
I REGION
Northwest NorthEast SouthEast SouthWcst TOtal
More or Fewer Of Count 164 152 151 133 600
Fewer Big
Box Retail % within REGION 66.1% 60.8% 60.4% 53.2% 60.1%
Stores Just the Right Count 76 78 77 66 317
Amount _ % within REGION 30.6% 31.2% 30.8% 34.4%. 31.8%
More Of count 8 20 22 31
% within REGION 3.2% 8.0% 8.8% 12.4%
Total Count 248 250 250 250
% within REGION 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
QDEVEL I2 Please tell me if you would like to see more of or fewer of each of the following items.
Citv Features
Respondents were asked a number of questions about features of the City of Carlsbad such as
what they liked most about Carlsbad, and what their biggest concerns about Carlsbad were. This
section describes the responses to these questions.
When asked what they like most about living in the City of Carlsbad, respondents offered a
irariety of different answers. These answers are summarized in Table 32. The most commonly cited
feature in response to this question was proximity to the beach. Nearly a third (30.8%) of the
respondents mentioned this as what they like most about living in Carlsbad. The weather was the
second most commonly cited feature; 20.1% of the respondents mentioned the weather or climate as
what they liked most. Additionally, 18.9% of the respondents identified location, and 15.3% identified
the community and people as what they like most about living in Carlsbad. At least 10% of the
January 16,200l Version: City of Carisbad, 2000 - SBRI 52
respondents mentioned the small-town feel of C&bad, the beauty of the city, and the cleanliness of the
city.
Table 32: What Resideok Like Most about Living in Carlsbad.
Count %
The BeacNCLose IO the
ocean 308 30.8%
Weather/Climate 201 20.1%
Location 189 18.9%
Like the
CommunitylPcopIe
Small Town Feel
Beautiful
Clean
City Covemmcnt/Sctvtces
QuleUPcaceful
Safe
Schools
Other
153 15.3%
122 12.2%
121 12.1%
110 11.0%
99 9.9%
86 8.6%
74 1.4%
50 5.0%
88 8.8%
QBAD I What do you like most about Itvlng In the City of Carlsbad?
The features people liked most about living in Carlsbad differed by region. As one would
expect, the residents in the Northwest and Southwest Regions were more likely to mention proximity to
the beach as what they liked best about living in Carlsbad. As shown in Table 33a, 37.2% of residents
in the Southwest Region and 32.0% of the residents Northwest Region cited the ocean or the beach as
the thing they liked most about living in Carlsbad compared to 28.3% for the Northeast Region and
‘25.6% for the Southeast Region.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 53
Table 33~ Beach is tbe Best Aspect of Living in Carlsbrd by Region.
SourhWesr NonhWcn NorthEas Sot&East
Likes Most About Living Likes Most About Liwng Likes Mea About Living Likes Most About Living
In Carlsbad:The In CarlsbadTbc In Carlsbad:The In Carlsbad:Thc
BcacbXlosc to the Ocean BeachKlose to the Ocean Beach/Close to the Ocean Beach/Close 10 the Ocean
Count % Count % Count % Count 96 .
Chosen 80 - 32.0% 71 283% *
QBAD I what do you like most about living in the City of Carisbad?
64 25.6% 93 37.2%
There was also variability across regions with respect to the likelihood of stating that the small-
town feel of Carlsbad is what they like most about living in the city. As one would expect, residents in
the Northwest Region were most likely to say the small-town feel is what they like most about living in
Carlsbad. This is illustrated in Table 33b. Residents in the Northeast Region were also more likely
than those the Southern regions to mention the small-town feel of Carlsbad.
Table 33b: Small-Town Feel is the Best Aspect of Living in Carlsbad by Region.
?conhWesl NonhEasl SouthEast SouthWesr
Likes b1oz.1 About Likes Most About Likes Most About Likes Most Abour
lvmg In Carlsbad:Small ~vmg In Carlsbad:Small lvmg In Carlsbad:Small ivmg In Carlsbad:Small
Town Feel Town Feel Town Feel Town Feel
Count % Counr O/b Count % Count %
Chosen 48 19.2% 41 16.3% 14 5.6% 19 7.6%
QBADl What do you hke most about llvmg In the City of Carlsbad?
Respondents were also queried regarding what concerns they had about Carlsbad.
Specifically, they were asked what their biggest concern is regarding the City of Carlsbad. These
concerns are displayed in Table 34. The most common complaint was traffic - 36.4% of the
respondents said traffic was their biggest concern regarding Carlsbad. Related are the concerns with
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBR.I 54
r ”
growth, expressed by 3 1.6%; over-development, expressed by 19.3%, and over-population,
expressed by 11.6%. Some (4.2%) residents said they had no concerns regarding Carlsbad.
Table 34: Residents’ Biggest Con~~m_jX~ardinp,Carkbad.
Choosen
count %
Traffic 364 36.4%
Growth (General) /Growing
Too Fast 316 31.6%
Overdeveloping / Overbuilding 193 193%
Overcrowding /
Overpopulation 116 11.6%
Cost of Living/Housing 51 5.1%
BeachIEnviommmt 34 3.4%
City Council Priorities 30 3.0%
PohcelCrlme 27 2.7%
Schools 22 2.2%
Other 10 1 .O%
No Concerns 42 4.2%
QBADZ What IS your blggesr concern regarding the City of Carlsbad?
c ,
Concern with traffic differed by region. As Table 35 shows, residents in,the Northwest were
the least likely (27.690) to mention traffic as their biggest concern, while those in the Northeast were
most likely (45.0%) to list traffic as their biggest concern.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI
Table 35: Tr8fiC is Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad by Region.
Northwest NonhEast SouthEast South West
Biggest Concern: T&c Biggest Concern: TrafIic Biggest Conccm: Traffk Biggest Concern: Traffic
Count % Count % Count % Count %
Chosen
~-~ ~-
69 27.6% 113 45.0% 93 37.2% 89 35.6%
QBAD2 What IS your biggest concern regarding the City of G&bad?
Respondents were asked what they would like to see in their neighborhood. Their responses
are found in Table 36. More than anything else (14.3%), residents said they would like to see less
traffic, development, and housing. Many people (16.5%) said they like their neighborhood the way it
is, and there is nothing they would like to see change.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 56
Table 36: What Residents Would Like to See in Their
Ncigbborhoud.
Count %
Less ~
TraBiJDcvelopmcnvHousing 143 14.3%
other 113 113%
More Parks 73 7.3%
Strccr lmprovemcnts 63 63%
ShoppmglRetaiVGrocery 34 3.4% Stores
Landscapmg 31 3.1%
Additional Police/Enforcement 25 2.5%
Gas Stations 22 2.2%
Pool 11 1.1%
Power Lines Underground 14 1.4%
Likes Netghborhood the Way
II Is/Nothing 165 16.5%
QBAD3 What would you like to see in your neighborhood?
There was one regional difference worth noting. That is, those residents in the Northwest were
less interested in seeing more parks in their neighborhood than those in the other regions. This is seen in
Table 37.
Table 37: Desire to see More Parks in the Nrighborhood by Region.
honh West NorthEast SouthEast South West
Thmgs Respondent Would Things Respondent Would Thmgs Respondent Would Thmgs Rcspondcnr Would
Like 10 See m Their Like to See m Then Like to See m Their Like to See m Their
Nelghborhood:More Parks Ncighborhood:Morc Parks Ne@hborhood:Morc Parks Nelghborhood’More Parks
Count % Count % Count % Counr 9”
Chosen 6 2.4% 18 7.2% 21 8.4% 28 I I .2%
QBAD3 What would you IIke to see m your nclghborhood?
January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 57
City Information
Respondents were asked what sources they used to get information about the City of Carlsbad.
Table 38 shows their responses. The most common source of information about Carlsbad was local
TV news, utilized by two thirds (67.5%) of the residents. The second most commonly cited source of
information about Carlsbad was the Community Services and Recreation Guide, used by 60.7%. The
North County Times, the San Diego Union Tribune, and the local cable channel were also used by
about half the respondents. The city web page, and word of mouth also served as sources of
information about Carlsbad for some people.
Table 38: Sources of information about Cartsbad.
Chosen
TV Local News
Community Services
Recreation Guide
I\iorth County Ttmes
Local Cable Channel
San Dtego Umon Trldune
City Web Page
Word of Mouth
Tine Coast Paper
Flyers/Postmgs
Carlsbad City Council
Other
Count %
676 67 5% .
608 60.7%
540 53.9%
539 53.8%
489 48.9%
146 14.6%
141 14.1%
43 4.3%
40 4.0%
29 2.9%
110 I 1 .O%
QCITYINF From what sources do you get mformatlon abou
the City of Carlsbad?
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRJ 58
Confidence in City Government
Respondents were asked the extent to which they were confident in the Carlsbad city
government to make decisions that positively affect the lives of its community members. Respondents
answered on a scale of zero-to-ten, where zero means not ut all conjident and ten means \‘eq’
conjident. On average, residents offered a confidence rating of 6.04, suggesting confidence in tit!
government. The distribution of confidence ratings by region is displayed in Figure 9.
20
Not A! All Confident 2 4 6 6 Very Confident
1 3 5 7 9
Confidence in City Government
Figure 9: Confidence in City Government.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 59
Confidence in Cip Government and Demographics. The ratings of confidence in city
government to make decisions that positively impact the lives of residents were assessed with respect to
their relation to demographic characteristics of Carlsbad residents. The confidence ratings did not vaq
by region. They did, hpwever, differ between men and women. While males offered an average
confidence rating of 5.83, women on average, rated their confidence in the city government at 6.18 on
the zero-to-ten scale. This is seen in Table 39a
Table 39a: Confidence in City Government by Gendir.
Level of Confidence in Carlsbad City Government to Make
Pasitive Decisions
Std.
Deviation
Female 563 6.18 2.49
Toral 958 6.04 2.53
QCONFID3 How confident arc you in the Carlsbad City
government lo make decisions which positively affect the live
of 11s community members?
Additionally, as seen in Table 39b, there was a slight effect associated with income level. That
is, those with an annual household income under $25,000 had greater confidence in city government
than those with annual household incomes of S125,OOO and above.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 60
Table 39b: Confidcoce in City Government by income Level.
Level of Confidence in Carlsbad City Government to Make Positive
Decisions
Std.
Under S25.000
N Mean Deviation
55 6.82 2.49
S25.000 to under S35,OOO 73 6.10 2.49
S35.000 to under $50,000 122 6.24 2.53
550.000 to under $75,000 160 6.26 2.38
$75,000 to under S 100,000 177 6.11 2.32
s 100,000 to s 125,000 93 5.75 2.63
S 125,000 and Above 140 5.47 2.78
Total 820 6.06 2.52
QCONFlD3 How confident are you in the Carlsbad Ctty government to
make dectsions which positively affect the lives of its community
members?
There was a difference in confidence in city government between those who own their homes
and those who rent. Those who rent their homes expressed greater confidence in the city government
than did those who own their homes. This is seen in Table 39~.
January 16, 2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 61
Table 3gc: Confidence in city Government by Home Ownership.
Level of Confidence in Carlsbad City Government to
Make Positive Decisions
OWll
Rent
Total
Std.
N MeaTI Deviation
764 >.94 2.61
189 6.49 2.18
953 6.05 2.54
QCONFID3 How confident are you in the Carisbad
City government to make decisions which positively
affect the lives of its community members?
There was also a slight negative relationship between the number of years the respondent lived
in Carlsbad and their confidence in the city government to make decisions that positively affect the lives
of Carisbad residents. That is, the longer a person lived in Carlsbad, the less confidence they had in the
city government.
Cot~cetws ubour Curlsbad and Cmfiderxe in Cicv Government. The relationship between the
concerns of Carlsbad residents and confidence in city government was examined. There were a few
concerns that were expressed by residents that were related to the respondents’ confidence in the city
government. One such concern was general growth in the city. This is seen in Table 40a. Those
respondents indicating that their biggest concern regarding Carlsbad was general growth expressed a
lower degree of confidence in the city government than did those who did not mention general growth
as their biggest concern.
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 62
Table 4oa: Concern about General Growtb and Confidence in City Government.
Level of Confidence in Carlsbad City Govctnmcnt to Make Positive Decisions
for Mean
Std. Lower Upper
N Meall Deviation Std. Error Bound Bound
Not Choosm - 654 6.16 2.59 .lO 5.96 6.36
Gmcral Growth 304 5.78 2.40 .14 5.51 6.05
Total 958 6.04 2.53 .08 5.88 6.10
QCONFID3 How confident are you in the Carlsbad City governmmt to make decwons which poslw+
affect the lives of its community members?
Similarly, there was a relationship between concern about over-development and confidence in
the city government to make decisions that positively affect members of their community. Those who
mentioned over-development as their biggest concern regarding Carlsbad expressed lower confidence
in the city government than did those who did not mention over-development as their biggest concern.
This is shown in Table 40b.
January 16,2001 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 63
Table 40b: Concern about Over-development and Confidence in City Government.
Level of Confidence in Carlsbad City Government to Make Positive Decisions
for Mean
Std. Lower Upper
N Meall Deviation Std. Error Bound Bound.
hot C’hoosen 771 6.20 2.41 09 . 1 6.38
Overdcvclopmmt 187 5.36 2.69 .20 4.98 5.75
Total 958 6.04 2.53 .08 5.88 6.20
QCONFID3 How confidmt are you in the Carlsbad City government to make decisions which positively
affect the lives of its community members?
Concern about city council priorities was associated with confidence in city government. Not
surprisingly, respondents who said their were concerned about city council priorities were less confident
that the city government would make decisions that had a positive impact on them. This is shown in
Table 40~.
Table 40~: Concern about Civ Council Priorities and Confidence in City Government.
Level of Confidence in Carlsbad Cxty Government to Make Poativc Decisions
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
Std. Lower Upper
N Mean Devlanon Std. Error Bound Bound
Not Chooscn 92s 6.08 2.5 I .06 5.91 6.24
City Council Priormes 30 4.80 2.91 s3 3.72 5.88
Total 958 G 04 2.53 .OS 5.88 6.20
QCONFID3 How confident are you In the Carlsbad Gty govemmenr to make declslons whtch posmveiy affect the
lives of its communtty members?
There was a small number of individuals that said they had no concerns when they were asked
about their biggest concern regarding Carisbad. Those who said they had no concerns differed from
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 64
the rest of the respondents. As Table 4Od shows, those reporting no concerns rated their confidence in
city government considerably higher than the other respondents.
Table 40d: No Concerns and Confidence in City Government.
Level of Confidence in Carlsbad City Ciovemmettt IO Make Positive Decisions
95% Confidence Interval for hlcan
Not Choosen
No Concerns
Total
N
919
39
95s
Std. Lower
Mean Deviation Std. Error Bound Upper Bound
3.96 a. 3 3, ‘7 OS >.s2 6.15
7.38 2.45 .39 6.59 S.IS
6.04 2.53 .08 5.88 6.20
QCONFID3 How confident are you In the Carlsbad City government to make decisions whrch posittvely affect
the lives of Its cornmumty members?
What Residents Like Most abour Car-Mad and Confidence in Ciry Government. The -.
relationship between what Carisbad residents like most about living in the City of Carlsbad and
confidence in city government was also examined. Only the endorsement of one feature of Carlsbad
was associated with respondents’ confidence in the Carlsbad city government to make decisions that
positively affect residents That is, those who mentioned city government and services as what they
liked most about living in Carlsbad had a higher level of confidence in the city government than the other
respondents. This is seen in Table 4 1.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 65
Table 41: Selection of City Government as Most-Liked Carisbad Feature aod Confidence in City Government.
Level of Confidence in Carlsbad City Govemment to Make positive Decisions
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
Std. Lower
N MCZUI Deviation Std. Error Bound Upper Bound
Not Choosen 866 5.92 2.52 .09 5.76 6.U9
City Government & Services 92 7.12 2.44 .25 6.61 7.63
Total 958 6.04 2.53 .08 5.88 6.20
QCONFID3 How confident are you In the C&bad City government to make decisions which positively affececr the lives of Its
community members?
The respondents gave an indication of the importance of having clear (free of facilities such as
poles, towers, and wires) landscaping and view corridors. Specifically, they were asked if they would
be willing to pay higher taxes in order to keep landscaping and view corridors free of such facilities. As
indicated in Table 42, more than half (64.1%) of those responding said they would accept a tax
increase to assure that facilities are kept from appearing on the landscape or view corridors.
Willingness to increase tax to keep view corridors clear did not differ by region.
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRJ 66
Table 42: Wi[liagoess to Pay More Taxes to Assure That Facilities Are Kept From
Appearing 00 the Laodscpc or in View Corridors.
Vahd
Frequency
344
613
Percent Percent Percent
34.4 3>.9 33.Y
61.2 64..1 100.0
Total 957 95.6 100.0
Missing Don’tKnow 42 4.2
Refused 2 .2
Total 44 4.4
Total 1001 100.0
QFACILT Would you be willing to increase your taxes to assure that facilities are kept from
appearing on the landscape or in view corridors (like poles, towers and wires)?
Internet Access
Respondents were asked if they used the Internet at home. Three quarters (76.5%) of the
respondents stated that they had Internet access. As seen in Table 43, there were regional differences
in the likelihood of having Internet access at home. Those in the Southeast Region were more likely
(84.8%) to use the Internet at home, while those in the Northwest Region were relatively less likely
(68.8%) to use the Internet at home.
January 16,200 1 Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRl 67
Table 43: Use of tbe Internet at Home by Region.
Nonh West NortbEaa SouthEast SouthM’est
Respondent Uses the Respondent Uses the Respondent Uses the Respondent Uses the
Internet at Home lntemet at Home Internet at Home Internet at Home
Count % Count % Count % Count %
NO 78 - 31.2% 62 24.7% 38 15.2% 3i 22.8%
Yes 172 68.8% 189 75.3% 212 84.8% 193 77.2%
QINET i Do you use the kttemet at home?
Those 766 people who said that they did have Internet access were asked if they had a high
speed Internet connection. Of those responding, 27.1% said they did have a high speed Internet
connection. Again we see an interesting regional effect, illustrated in Table 44. Residents in the
Southeast that have an Internet connection were least likely (21.7%) to have a high speed connection,
while those from the Northwest were most likely (38.0%) to have a high speed connection. While
residents in the Northwest were least likely to have an Internet connection, considering those that do,
Northwest Region residents were most likely to have a high speed connection.
Table 44: Respondent Has a High,Speed Internet Connection by Region.
North L+ est hionhEast SouthEast South West
Respondent Has a High Respondent Has a High Respondent Has a Hugh Respondent Has a High
Speed Internet ConnectIon peed intemct ConnectlonSpetd Internet Connection Speed Internet Connectton
Count O/b Count 016 count % count %
IV0 103 62.0% 137 75.3% ISY 78.3% 13Y 14.3%
Yes 63 38.0% 45 24.1% 44 21.7% 48 25.7%
Total 166 100.0% 182 100.0% 203 100.0% 187 100.0%
QlNET2 Do you have a high speed tntemct connectlon (such as a DSL, ISDN or Tl hne)?
January 16,200l Version: City of Carlsbad, 2000 - SBRI 68
Appendix A
Questionnaire Items - City of Carlsbad Pubiic Opinion Survey
<QAREA 1~ Are you currently a resident of Carlsbad?
0. No
1. Yes
8. Don’t Know
9. Refused
<QAREAD First, to be sure that you live in our study area, what is your zip code?
1.92008
2.92009
3. Other
8. Don’t Know
9. Refused
QAREA2 Zip Code
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1 92008 501 50.0 50.0 50.0
2 92009 500 50.0 50.0 100.0
Toral 1001 100.0 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 1
<QmA3> To be sure we talk’to people from all areas%f Carlsbad, do you live East or West of
El Camino Real?
1. East
2. West
8. Don’t Know
9, Re.fbsed
QAFtEA3 East/West of El Camino Real
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1 East 501 50.0 50.0 50.0
2 West 500 50.0 50.0 100.0
Total 1001 1 ooio 100.0
<QCBADl> What do you like most about living in the City of Carlsbad?
QBAD 1-l Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In
Carlsbad:Weather/Climate
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 799 79.8 79.8 79.8
I Choosen 202 20.2 20.2 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 2
QBADl-2 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad:The
Beach/Close to the Ocean
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 695 69.4 69.4 69.4
. 1 Chooser-r 306 30.6 30.6 100.0
TOtd 1001 100.0 100.0
QBADl-3 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad:Location
Valid Cumulatwe
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 906 90.5 90.5 90.5
1 Choosen 95 9.5 9.5 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QBADl-4 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad:Small Town
Feel
Valid Cumulative .
Valid
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
0 Not Choosen 893 89.2 89.2 89.2
1 Choosen 108 10.8 10.8 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 3
QBADl-5 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In
Carlsbad:Quiet/Peaceful
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent. Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 918 91.7 91.7 91.7
1 Choosen 83 8.3 8.3 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QBADl-6 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In
Carisbad:BeautifuYClean
Freauencv Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid d Not Choosen 864 86.3 86.3 86.3
1 Choosen 137 13.7 13.7 100.0
QBADI-7 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad:Like the
Community/People
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 852 85.1 85.1 85.1
1 Choosen 149 14.9 14.9 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 4
QBADl-8 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living III Carlsbad:Convience
of Location
Valid Cumulative
Freauencv Percent Percent Percent .
Valid 0 Not Choosen 89; 89.6 89.6 89.6
1 Choosen 104 10.4 10.4 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QBADl-9 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad:City
Government
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 909 90.8 90.8 90.8
1 Choosen 92 9.2 9.2 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QBADl-10 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In CarisbadSafe
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 934 93.3 93.3 93.3
1 Choosen 67 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 5
QBADl-11 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad:Scbools
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 964 96.3 96.3 96.3
1 Choosen 37 3.7 3.7 100.0
Total- 1001 1’00.0 100.0
QBADI-12 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad:Other
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 904 90.3 90.3 90.3
1 Choosen 97 9.7 9.7 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QBADl-13 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad:Dont Know
Valid 0 Not Choosen
Frequency
1001
Percent
100.0
Valid
Percent
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
100.0
QBADl-14 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad:Refused
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 1001 100.0 100.0 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 6
<QCBAD2> What is your biggest concern regarding the City of Carlsbad?
QBAD2-1 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carisbad:Growth (general)
/Growing too fast
Valid 0 Not Choosen
1 Choosen
Total
Frequency Percent
685 68.4
316 31.6
1001 100.0
Valid
Percent
68.4
31.6
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
68.4
100.0
QBAD2-2 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad:Overcrowding /
Overpopulation
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 885 88.4 88.4 88.4
1 Choosen 116 11.6 11.6 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QBAJI2-3 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carisbad:Overdeveloping /
Overbuilding
Valid 0 Not Choosen
1 Choosen
Total
Frequency Percent
808 80.7
193 19.3
1001 100.0
Valid
Percent
80.7
19.3
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
80.7
100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 7
QBAD2-4 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad:Trafic
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 637 63.6 63.6 63.6
1 Choosen 364 36.4 36.4 100.0
Totzil 1001 100.0 100.0
QBAD2-5 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad:Cost of
iiving/Hotising
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 950 94.9 94.9 94.9
1 Choosen 51 5.1 5.1 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QBAD2-6 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad:No Concerns
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
. Valid 0 Not Choosen 959 95.8 95.8 95.8
1 Choosen 42 4.2 4.2 100.0
’ Total 1001 100.0 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 8
QBAD2-7 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding
Carisbad:BeachlEnviornment
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 967 96.6 96.6 96.4
1 Choosen 34 3.4 3.4 100.0
T&l 1001 100.0 100.0
QBAD28 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad:Police/Crime
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 974 97.3 97.3 97.3
1 Choosen 27 2.7 2.7 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QBAD2-9 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad:Schools
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Vahd 0 Not Choosen 979 97.8 97.8 97.8
1 Choosen 22 2.2 2.2 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 9
QBAD2-10 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad:City Council
Priorities
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 971 97.0 97.0 97.0
1 Choosen 30 3.0 3.0 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QBAD2-11 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carisbad:Other
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 991 99.0 99.0 99.0
1 Choosen 10 1.0 1.0 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QBAD2-12 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad:Dont Know
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 1001 100.0 100.0 100.0
QBADZ-13 Respondents Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad:Refused
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 1001 100.0 100.0 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 10
<QCBAD3> What would you like to see in your neighborhood?
QBAD3-1 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Neighborhood:Likes
Neighborhood the Way It Is/TVothing
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 836 83.5 83.5 83.5
1 Choosen 165 16.5 16.5 100.0
QBAD3-2 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Neighborhood:Less
TrnffUDeveIopment/Housing
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 858 85.7 85.7 85.7
1 Choosen 143 14.3 14.3 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QBAD3-3 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Neighborhood:More
Parks
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 928 92.7 92.7 92.7
1 Choosen 73 7.3 7.3 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI
QBAD3-4 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Neighborhood:Gas
Stations
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 979 97.8 97.8 97.8
1 Choosen 22 2.2 2.2 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QBAD3-5 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their
Neighborhood:Shopping/RetaiYCrocery Stores
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 967 96.6 96.6 96.6
1 Choosen
QBAD3-6 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Neighborhood:Pool
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 990 98.9 98.9 98.9
1 Choosen 11 1.1 1.1 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 12
L
QBAD3-7 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Neighborhood:Street
Improvements
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
c Valid 0 Not hoosen 93.7 93.7
1 Choosen 63 6.3 6.3 100.0.’
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QBAD3-8 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their
Neighborhood:Additional Police/Enforcement
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 976 97.5 97.5 97.5
1 Choosen 25 2.5 2.5 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QBAD3-9 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their
Neighborhood:Landscaping
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 970 96.9 96.9 96.9
I Choosen 31 3.1 3.1 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 13
QBAD3-10 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their .
Neighborhood:Power Lines Underground
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 987 98.6 98.6 98.6
1 Choosen 14 1.4 1.4 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QBAD3-11 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their
Neighborhood:Other
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 888 88.7 88.7 88.7
1 Choosen 113 11.3 11.3 100.0
Total 1001
QBAD3-12 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their Neighborhood:Dont
Know
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 tiot Choosen 1001 100.0 100.0 100.0
QBAD3-13 Things Respondent Would Like to See in Their
Neighborhood:Refused
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Choosen 1001 100.0 100.0 ‘100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 14
<TSERV> 1 m going to read a list of services provided by the City of Carlsbad. Please
rate each one as excellent, good, fair, or poor.
<QSERV I> Recreational programs
QSERVl Recreational Pro&ams Rating
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 1 Poor 15 1.5 1.8 1.8
2 Fair 81 8.1 9.6 11.3
3Good 468 46.8 55.3 66.7
4 Excellent 282 28.2 33.3 100.0
Total 846 84.5 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 154 15.4
9 Refused 1 .l
Total 155 15.5
<QSERVB Library services
QSERV2 Library Services Rating
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid I Poor 6 .6 .6 .6
2 Fair 31 3.1 3.3 4.0
3 Good 335 33.5 36.1 40.1
4 Excellent 556 55.5 59.9 100.0
Total 928 92.7 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 72 7.i
9 Refused I .I
Total 73 7.3
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 15
cQSERV3> Fire protection
QSERV3 Fire Protection Services Rating
i VaIid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 1 -Poor 7 .7 .8 .8
2 Fair 26 2.6 3.1 4.0
3 Good 395 39.5 47.4 51.4
4 Excellent 405 40.5 48.6 100.0
Total 833 83.2 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 168 16.8
<QSERV4> Condition of parks
QSERV4 Condition of Parks Rating
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 1 Poor 18 1.8 1.9 1.9
2 Fair 78 7.8 8.2 10.1
3 Good 489 48.9 51.7 61.8
4 Excellent 361 36.1 38.2 100.0
Total 946 94.5 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 55 5.5
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 16
<QSERVS> Police services
QSERVS Police Services Rating
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 1 Poor 24 2.4 2.6 2.6
1 Fair 64 6.4 7.0 9.6
3Good 445 44.5 48.7 58.4
4 Excellent 380 38.0 41.6 100.0
Total 913 91.2 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 88 8.8
Total 1001 100.0
<QSERV6> Traffic enforcement
QSERV6 Traffic Enforcement Rating
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 1 Poor 123 12.3 12.9 12.9
2 Fair 205 20.5 21.5 34.3
3 Good 492 49.2 51.5 85.9
4 Excellent 135 13.5 14.1’ 100.0
Total 955 95.4 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 46 4.6
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 17
<QSERV7> Paramedic services
QSERV7 Paramedic Services Rating
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid I Poor 4 .4 .6 .6 .
Z Fair 31 3.1 4.5 5.1
3 Good 336 33.6 48.6 53.7
4 Excellent 320 32.0 46.3 100.0
Total 691 69.0 100.0
Missing 8 Don’! Know 309 30.9
9 Refused 1 .I
Total 310 31.0
<QSERV8> Environmental protection
QSERV8 Environmental Protection Rating
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 1 Poor 72 7.2 10.9 10.9
. * 2 Fair 144 14.4 21.7 32.6
3 Good 340 34.0 51.3 83.9
3 Excellent 107 10.7 16.1 100.0
Total 663 66.2 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 118 1 I.8
9 Refused 3 .3
System 217 21.7
Total 338 33.8
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 18
<QGENSRV> In genera) how would you rate the overall services provided by the City?
Excellent, good, fair or poor?
QGENSRV Overall City Services Rating
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 1 -poor 9 .9 .9 .9
2 Fair 74 7.4 7.5 8.5
3 Good 614 61.3 62.5 71.0
4 Excellent 285 28.5 29.0 100.0
Total 982 98.1 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 16 1.6
9 Refused 3 .3
Total 19 1.9
<TSERVICE> The City of Carlsbad receives a number of services from outside agencies.
Please rate each of the following services as excellent, good, fair, or poor.
<QOUTSRV l> How would you rate trash and recycling collection?
QOUTSRVI Trash and Recycling Collection Rating
Valid
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
1 Poor 35 3.5 3.5 3.5
3 Fair 131 13.1 13.2 16.8
3 Good 502 50.1 50.8 67.5
4 Excellent 321 32.1 32.5 100.0
Total 989 98.8 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 12 1.2
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBN 19
<QOUTSRV2> Street sweeping
QOUTSRV2 Street Sweeping Rating
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 1 Poor 67 6.7 7.1 7.1
2 Fair 202 20.2 21.5 28.6
3 Good 484 48.4 51.5 80.1
4 Excellent 187 18.7 19.9 100.0
Total 940 93.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 60 6.0
9 Refused 1 .l
Total 61 6.1
<QOUTSRV3> Water services
QOUTSRV3 Water Services Rating
Freouencv Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid I Poor 19 1.9 1.9 1.9
2 Fair 98 9.8 10.1 12.0
3 Good 613 61.2 62.9 74.9
4 Excellent 245 24.5 25.1 100.0
Total 975 97.4 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 25 2.5
9 Refused 1 .l
Total 26 2.6
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 20
<QOUTSRV& Hazardous waste disposal
QOUTSRV4 Hazardous Waste Disposal Rating
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 1 Poor 81 8.1 13.5 13.5
2 Fair 139 13.9 23.2 36.7
3 Good 294 29.4 49.1 85.8
4 Excellent 85 8.5 14.2 100.0
Total 599 59.8 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 400 40.0
9 Refused 2 .2
Total 402 40.2
<TPROGS> My next questions pertain to Carlsbad programs and facilities. How important to
you are each of the following on a scale of 0 to 10, where zero means not at all
important. and ten means very important.
Let’s beginwith......
<QPROGS 1> Arts and cultural programs
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QPROGS 1 Importance of Arts and Cultural Programs 999 0 10 7.16 2.44
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 21
<QPROGSZ> Bike paths
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
QPROtiS2 importance of
Bike Paths
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
992 0 10 6.58 2.92
cQPROGS3> Tennis courts
Descriptive Statistics
QPROGS3 Importance of
Tennis Courts
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
980 0 IO 5.09 2.91
<QPROGS4> Trails -- including nature trails, jogging and walking paths
Descriptive Statistics
QPROGS4 Importance of
Nature Trails, Joggmg and
Walkmg Paths
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
989 0 IO 7.86 2.35
<QPROGSS> Playing fields
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QPROGS5 Importance of
Playing Fields 989 0 10 7.12 2.71
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 22
.
<QPROGS6> Undeveloped or preserved open space land (accessible to the public).
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QPROGS6 lmpqtance of
Underdeveloped or Preserve
Open Space Land Accessibl 989 0 10 8.41 2.31 .
<QPROGS7> Picnic areas
Descriptive Statistics
QPROGS7 Importance of
Picnic Areas
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
990 0 10 7.33 2.29
<QPROGSD Children’s play equipment
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QPROGSS Importance of
Children’s Pia! Equipment 986 0 10 7.25 2.79
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of C&bad - SBRI 23
<QPROGS9> Indoor meeting rooms
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
QPROGS9 Imp6itance of
Indoor Meetine Rooms
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
978 0 IO 5.44 2.66
<QPROGS 1 O> Community gardens
Descriptive Statistics
QPROGS 10 Importance of Community Gardens
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
984 0 10 6.06 2.68
<QPROGS 1 l> Basketball courts
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QPROGS I I importance of
Basketball Courts 981 0 IO 5.65 2.92
<QPROGS 12> Swimming pools
Descriptive Statistics
QPROGS 12 Importance of Swimming Pools
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
990 0 10 6.47 2.84
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 24
<QPROGS 13> Public Golf Course
Descriptive Statistics
QPROGS 13 Importance of
Public Golf Courses
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
993 0 10 5.62 3.44
<TACTIV> On a scale of 0 to 10 where zero means not at all important and ten means
very important, how would you rate the importance of the following
cultural arts activities in your community?
<QACTIVl> Festivals and fairs
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QACTIVI importance of
Festivals and Fairs 996 0 10 6.82 2.54
<QACTIV2> Art appreciation classes
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QACTIV2 Importance of
Art ADureciation Classes 985 0 10 5.98 2.78
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 25
<QACTlV3> Perfoming arts
Descriptive Statistics
QACTIV3 ImporJance of
Performing Arts
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
IO 7.31 2.58 994 0
<QACTIV4> Outdoor concerts
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QACTlV4 lmponance of
Outdoor Concerts 994 0 10 7.78 2.38
<QACTIVS> Museum and art exhibits
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QACTIVS Importance of
Museum and Art Exhibits 996 0 10 7.3 I 2.43
<QACTIVG> Social dancing
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QACTIV6 Importance of
Social Dancing 981 0 IO 5.06 2.87
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBN 26
cQACTIV7> Multicultural events
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QACTIV7 Importance of
Multi-Cultural Events 985 0 10 6.46 2.76
<QEVENT> How often do you attend a cultural event such as a play, concert, museum, etc.. . .
0. Zero times per year
1. 1-2 times per year
2. 3-5 times year per
3. 5- 10 times per year
4. More thti 10 times per year
8. Don’t know
9. Refused
QEVENT Number of Times Per Year a Cultural Arts Event is Attended
Valid
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
0 Zero Times Year per 60 6.0 6.0 6.0
I 1-2 Times Per Year 166 16.6 16.6 22.6
2 3-5 Times Per Year 328 32.8 32.9 55.5
3 5-10 Times Per Year 252 25.2 25.3 80.8
4 More Than 10
Times Per Year 192 19.2 19.2
Total 998 99.7 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 2 .2
9 Refused 1 .I
Total 3 .3
100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 27
cQPAR.KUSE> Has anyone in your household used a Carlsbad public park or park facility
during the past twelve months?
O.No
1. Yes
8. Don’t Know
g-Refused -
QPARKUSE Household Member Has Used a Carlsbad Park or Park Facility in
Past 12 Months
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 No 210 21.0 21.0 21.0
1 Yes 789 78.8 79.0 100.0
Total 999 99.8 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 2 .2
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRl 28
<QPOOL> The City of Carlsbad currently operates one pool adjacent to Carlsbad High School.
Do you feel there is a need for another public pool in the city?
0. No
1. Yes
8. Don’t Know
9. Refused _
QPOOL Need for An&her Pool in the City
Valid Cumuiative Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 No 294 29.4 32.2 32.2
1 Yes 618 61.7 67.8 100.0
Total 912 91.1 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 88 8.8
9 Refused 1 .I
Total 89 8.9
‘. .
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 29
<QRECFAC> Many communities are constructing large multi use recreation facilities which
include amenities such as a gymnasium, indoor track, fitness center, aquatic center, child
care facilities. rock climbing wall, banquet facilities, meeting rooms and more. Is this a
concept you would like to see the City of Carlsbad consider in the future?
0. No
l.Yes -
8. Don’t Know
9. Refused
QRECFAC Expressed Interest in a Carlsbad Multi-Use Recreation Facility
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 No 221 22.1 22.5 22.5
1 Yes 761 76.0 77.5 100.0
Total 982 98.1 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 17 1.7
9 Refused 2 .2
Total 19 1.9
Total 1001 100.0
<QRCDR> How many minutes would you be willing to drive to such a facility?
Descriptive Statistics
QRECFDR Number of
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
Minutes Respondent Would
be Willing to Drive to Ret 750 .O 60.0 14.729 6.856
Facilitv
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carisbad - SBRJ 30
<QDOB> In order to make sure we speak with people of all age groups, could you please tell me
in what year you were born?
Descriptive Statistics
AGE Ape of Respondent
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
980 18.00 89.00 50.4796 15.6514
<QRETIREl > When you reach the age of 55 or older what type of City sponsored
recreation activities would you like to participate in?
1. Gymnasium
2. Weight Room
3. Aquatic center
4. Rock climbing wall
5. Fitness center
6. Childcare
7. Classrooms
8. Meeting rooms
9. Areas for senior programs
10. Indoor track
11. Banquet facilities
12. Other, Specify:
13. DON’T KNOW
14. REFUSED
15. NO MORE ANSWERS
QRETIREl Gymnasium Participation
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 429 42.9 94.9 94.9
1 Chosen 23 2.3 5.1 100.0
. Total 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 31
QRETIREZ Weight Room Participation
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 434 43.4 96.0 96.0
1 Chosen 18 1.8 4.6 100.0
Total 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
QRETIRE3 Aquatic Center Participation
Valid Cumulative
Valid
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
0 Not Chosen 396 39.6 87.6 87.6
I Chosen 56 5.6 12.4 100.0
Total 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
QRETIRE4 Rock Climbing Wall Participation
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 444 44.4 98.2 98.2
1 Chosen 8 .8 1.8 100.0
Total 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 32
QRETIRES Fitness Center Participation
Valid
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
0 Not Chosen 394 39.4 87.2 87.2
1 Chosen 58 5.8 12.8 100.0
Total 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
QRETIRE6 Child Care Participation
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 446 44.6 98.7 98.7
1 Chosen 6 .6 1.3 100.0
Total 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
QRETIRE7 Classrooms Participation
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 419 41.9 92.1 92.7
1 Chosen 33 3.3 7.3 100.0
Total 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 33
QRETIRE8 Meeting Rooms Participation
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen
- -
437 43.7 96.7 96.7
1 Chosen 15 1.5 3.3 100.0 .
Total 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
QRETIRE9 Areas for Senior Programs Participation
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 409 40.9 90.5 90.5
1 Chosen 43 4.3 9.5 100.0
Total 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
QRETlRlO Indoor Track Participation
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 435 43.5 96.2 96.2
1 Chosen 17 1.7 3.8 100.0
Total 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 34
QRETIR~ 1 Banquet Facility Participation
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 436 43.6 96.5 96.5
1 Chosen 16 1.6 3.5 100.0
T&II 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
QRETIRI3 Don’t Know (Retired)
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 360 36.0 79.6 79.6
1 Chosen 92 9.2 20.4 100.0
Total 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
Total 1001 100.0
QRETlR14 Refused (Retired)
Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 451 45.1 99.8 99.8
I Chosen I .I .2 100.0
Total 452 45.2 100.0
Missmg System 549 54.8
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 35
QRETIR16 Arts
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen
. _
355 35.5 78.5 78.5
1 Chosen 97 9.7 21.5 100.0
Tota 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
Total 1001 100.0
QRETIRl7 Recreation Activities
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 262 26.2 58.0 58.0
1 Chosen 190 19.0 42.0 100.0
Total 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
QRETIR18 TraveVDaytrips
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 428 42.8 94.7 94.7
1 Chosen 24 2.4 5.3 100.0
Total 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 36
QRETIR19 Haltb & Fitness
Valid Cumulative
Valid
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
0 Not Chosen 439 43.9 97.1 97.1
1 Chosen 13 1.3 2.9 100.0
Tbtal 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
Total 1001 100.0
QFtETIR20 Education/Library
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 435 43.5 96.2 96.2
I Chosen 17 1.7 3.8 100.0
Total 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
Total 1001 100.0
QRETIR22 Other Participation
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 439 43.9 97.1 97.1
1 Chosen 13 1.3 2.9 100.0
Total 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 37
QRETIR23 Nothing
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 442 44.2 97.8 97.8
1 Chosen 10 1.0 i.2 100.0
T&l 452 45.2 100.0
Missing System 549 54.8
<TSTREET> The next few questions pertain to Carlsbad Streets. Please rate the condition of
each of the following items as excellent, good, fair, or poor.
<QSTREETl> Overall road condition
QSTREETl Overall Road Condition Rating
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid I Poor 26 2.6 2.6 2.6
2 Fair 170 17.0 17.0 19.6
3 Good 585 58.4 58.5 78.1
4 Excellent 219 21.9 21.9 100.0
Total 1000 99.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know I .l
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 38
<QSTREET2> Medians and/or Landscaping
QSTREET2 Medians antior Landscaping Condition Rating
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid l Poor 41 4.1 4.1 4.1
2 Fair 161 16.1 16.1 20.2
3 Good 560 55.9 56.1 76.4
4 Excellent 236 23.6 23.6 100.0
Total 998 99.7 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 3 .3
<QSTREET3> City Street trees
QSTREET3 City Street Trees Condition Rating
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 1 Poor 47 4.7 4.8 4.8
2 Fair 156 15.6 15.9 20.7
3 Good 598 59.7 60.8 81.5
4 Excellent 182 18.2 18.5 100.0
Total 983 98.2 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 17 1.7
9 Refused 1 .I
Total 18 1.8
.
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 39
<QSTREET4> Curb/sidewalk condition
QSTREET4 Curb/Sidewalk Condition Rating
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 1 Poor 35 3.5 3.5 3.5
i Fair 182 18.2 18.4 21.9
3 Good 576 57.5 58.2 80.1
4 Excellent 197 19.7 19.9 100.0
Total 990 98.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 10 1.0
9 Refused 1 .I
Total 11 1.1
<QSTREETD Traffic circulation efficiency, excluding freeways
jSTREET5 Traffic Circulation Efkieocy Rating, Excluding Freeways Condition
Rating
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid I Poor 252 25.2 25.3 25.3
2 Fair 338 33.8 33.9 59.2
3 Good 361 36.1 36.2 95.4
4 Excellent 46 4.6 4.6 100.0
Total 997 99.6 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 4 .4
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 40
<QSTREET6> Parking availability in the Downtown Village area.
QSTREET6 Parking Availability in Downtown Village Area Condition Rating
Freauencv PercenI
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1 -Poor 207 20.7 21.4 21.4
2 Fair 389 38.9 40.2 61.6
3 Good 328 32.8 33.9 95.5
4 Excellent 44 4.4 4.5 100.0
Total 968 96.7 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 33 3.3
Total 1001 100.0
<QCITYINF> From what sources do you get information about the City of Carisbad?
a. San Diego Union-Tribune
b. North County Times
c. TV-Local News
d. Local Cable Channel
e. Community Services and Recreation Guide
f. City Web Page (\s,~s:~\,.ci.carlshad.ca.us)
g. Other, Specify:
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 41
QCITYIN4 Source of Carlsbad Information: Local Cable Channel
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 462 46.2 46.2 46.2
1 Chosen 539 53.8 53.8 100.0 _
LCITYINS Source of Carisbad Information: Community Services Recreation
Guide
Freouencv Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 393 39.3 39.3 39.3
1 Chosen 608 60.7 60.7 100.0
QClTYIN6 Source of Carlsbad Information: City Web Page
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 855 85.4 85.4 85.4
1 Chosen 146 14.6 14.6 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 43
<QSTREET> One of the ways that we will present the results of this study is to compare the
responses given by people in different neighborhoods. So that we can do this, could you tell me
the name of the street that you live on?
<QXSTREET> And what is the nearest Cross Street?
<QINCOME> Which category best describes your household’s total income last year before
taxes?
1. Under $25,000
2. $25,000 to under $35,000
3. $35,000 to under $50,000
4. $50,000 to under $80,000
5. $75,000 to under $100,000
6. $100,000 to under S 125,000
7. $125,000 and above
QINCOME Household Income Last Year
Valid
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
1 Under S25,OOO 60 6.0 7.0 7.0
2 $25,000 to under %35,000 73 7.3 8.5 15.5 .
3 535,000 to under S50,OOO 127 12.7 14.8 30.3
4 S50.000 to under $75,000 165 16.5 19.2 49.5
5 575,000 to under $100,000 188 18.8 21.9 71.4
6 S100,OOO to 5125,000 96 9.6 11.2 82.6
7 % 125,000 and Above 149 14.9 17.4 100.0
Total 858 85.7 too.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 27 2.7
9 Refused 116 11.6
Total 143 14.3
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI
_- I L t ,
75
QCTYINIS Source of Carlsbad Information: Radio
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 989 98.8 98.8 98.8
1 Chosen 12 1.2 1.2 100.0
QCTYIN16 Source of Carlsbad Information: Library
Freauencv Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 986 98.5 98.5 98.5
1 Chosen 15 1.5 1.5 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QCTYIN17 Source of Carlsbad Information: Carlsbad City Council
Freauency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 972 97.1 97. I 97.1
1 Chosen 29 2.9 2.9 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 45
QCTYINl8 Source of Carlsbad Information: Visitors Center
Freauencv Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
~Valid 0 Not Chosen 995 99.4 99.4 99.4
1 Chosen 6 .6 .6 100.0
QCTYIN19 Source of Carlsbad Information: Other
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 942 94.1 94.1 94.1
1 Chosen 59 5.9 5.9 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
QCTYINZO Source of Carlsbad Information: Don’t Know
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 1001 100.0 100.0 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 46
i.
QCTYIN21 Source of Carlsbad Information: Refused
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 998 99.7 99.7 99.7
1 Chosen 3 ..3 .3 100.0
TUtiil 1001 IOU.0 100.0
QCTYINll Source of Carlsbad Information: Word of Mouth
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 860 85.9 85.9 85.9
1 Chosen 141 14.1 14.1 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 47
<QLTB> How often have you used any of the Carlsbad City Library facilities in the past year?
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QTLIB How Often -
Respondent Used Any
Carlsbad City Library in the 1001 0 365 15.86 34.52
<QLIBl> The Dove Library (in south Carisbad near El Camino and Alga).
a. Never
b. Once or twice in the past year
c. Once or twice a month
d. Once a week
e. More than once a week
QLIBI How Often Respondent Used Dove Library in Past Year
Valid 1 Never
Frequency
183
Percent
18.3
Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
23.2 23.2
2 Once or Twice in the
Past 1’car 246 24.6 31.2 54.4
3 Once or Twice a Month 256 25.6 32.5 86.9
4 Once a Week 55 5.5 7.0 93.9
5 More Than Once a Week 48 4.8 6.1 100.0
Total 788 78.7 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 1 ‘.l
System 212 21.2
Total 213 21.3
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 48
<QLIB2> The Cole Library on (Carlsbad Village Drive next to City Hall).
a. Never
b. Once or twice in the past year
c. Once or twice a month
d. Once a week ’
e. More than oncp a week
QLIB2 How Often Respondent Used Cole Library in Past Year
Valid 1 Never
Frequency
311
Percent
31.1
Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
39.5 39.5
2 Once or Twice in the
Past Year 235 23.5 29.9
3 Once or Twice a Month 163 16.3 20.7 90.1
4 Once a Week 45 4.5 5.7 95.8
5 More Than Once a Week 33 3.3 4.2 100.0
Total 787 78.6 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 2 .2
System 212 21.2
Total 214 21.4
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 49
<QLIB3> Centro de Information (near downtown on the Pine School campus).
a. Never
b. Once or twice in the past year
c. Once or twice a month
d. Once a week
e. More than once a week
QLIB3 How Often Respondent Used Centre de Information in Past Year
Valid 1 Never
Frequency
757
Percent
75.6
Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
96.4 96.4
2 Once or Twice in the
Past Year 2.1 2.7 99.1
3 Once or Twice a Month 5 .5 .6 99.7
4 Once a Week 1 .l .l 99.9
5 More Than Once a Week 1 .I .1 100.0
Total 785 78.4 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 4 .4
System 212 21.2
Total 216 21.6
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 50
G’LIBVIS> I am going to read a list of reasons people use the Carlsbad City iibraries.
Please indicate whether or not you visit the library for each of the following reasons.
<QLIBVIS I> To get answers to questions or to do general research
QLIBVISI Visited Library to Get Answers to Questions or to do General
Research
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent . -
Valid 0 No 191 19.1 24.2 24.2
1 Yes 598 59.7 75.8 100.0
Total 789 78.8 100.0
Missing System 212 21.2
<QLIBVIS2> To help you meet your educational or job-related goals (either formal
schooling or personal growth).
!LIBVIS2 Visited Library to Help Meet Educational or Job-Related Goal
Valid
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
0 No 454 45.4 57.5 57.5
1 Yes 335 33.5 42.5 100.0
Total 789 78.8 100.0
Missing System 212 2 1.2
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBN 51
cQLIBVIS3> To check out or to read books or magazines for enjoyment
QLIBVIS3 Visited Library to Check Out or Read Books or Magazines For
Enjoyment
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 No 183 18.3 23.2 23.2
1 Yes 606 60.5 76.8 100.0
Total 789 78.8 100.0
Missing System 212 21.2
Total 1001 100.0
<QLIBVIS4> To take advantage of programs the library offers
QLIBVIS4 Visited Library to Take Advantage of Programs the Library Offers
Vahd 0 No
Frequency
496
Percent
49.6
Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
63.0 63.0
Missing
Total
1 Yes 291 29.1 37.0 100.0
Total 787 78.6 100.0
8 Don’t Know 2 .2
System 212 21.2
Total 214 21.4
1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 52
<QLIBVISS> _I
<QLIBVIS6> For a quiet place to read and study
To use Internet, word processing computers or typewriters
QLIBVIS5 Visited Library to Use the Internet, Word Processing
Computers or Typewriters
Freaucncv Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 No 642 64.1 81.4 81.4
1 Yes 147 14.7 18.6 100.0
Total 789 78.8 100.0
Missing System 212 21.2
Total 1001 100.0
QLIBVIS6 Visited Library For a Quiet Place to Read and/or Study
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 No 537 53.6 68.1 68.1
1 Yes 252 25.2 31.9 100.0
Total 789 78.8 100.0
Missing System 212 21.2
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 53
<QLIBVIS7> To help your children or yourself improve reading skills
QLIBVIS7 Visited Library to Help Yourself or Your Children Improve
Rending Skills
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 N+ 485 48.5 61.5 61.5
1 Yq 304 30.4 38.5 100.0
Total 789 78.8 100.0
Missing System 212 21.2
<QLIBSERV> Overall, how would you rate the Carlsbad libraries as to the availability of
materials you want?
QLIBSERV Overall Rating of Carlsbad Libraries as to Availability of Materials
Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent
\‘nlid 1 Poor 13 1.3 1.7 1.7
. 2 Fair ’ 73 7.3 9.3 11.0
3 Good 327 32.7 41.7 52.7
4 Excellent 371 37.1 47.3 100.0
Total 784 78.3 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 5 .5
System 212 21.2
Total 217 21.7
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 54
cQLIBMAT> What materials were unavailable to you?
<.QNOLIB> What has prevented you from using the Carlsbad City Library?
a. Just moved here
b. Have no interest or need for using the library
c. Don’t have time
d. The Library is too far away or otherwise inconvenient
e. Buy books for myself or my children
f. Have Internet or other resources that meet my needs for information
g. Use another library
h. No transportation
i. Other, Specify:
.
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 55
.
QNOLIB-1 Reason Preventing Library Use: Just Moved here
Vaiid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 187' 18.7 88.2 88.2
1 Chosen 25 2.5 11.8 100.0
fotal 212 21.2 100.0
Missing System 789 78.8
!NOLIB-2 Reason Preventing Library Use: Have No Interest or Need for Urinl
the Library
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 149 14.9 70.3 70.3
I Chosen 63 6.3 29.7 100.0
Total 212 21.2 100.0
Missing System 789 78.8
Total 1001 100.0
QNOLIB-3 Reason Preventing Library Use: Don’t Have Time
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 181 18.1 85.4 85.4
1 Chosen 31 3.1 14.6 100.0
Total 212 21.2 100.0
Missing System 789 78.8
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 56
QNOLIB-4 Reason Preventing Library Use: The Library is Too Far Away Or Otherwise Inconvenient
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 204 20.4 96.2 96.2
1 Chosen 8 .8 3.8 100.0
Tital 212 21.2 100.0
Missing System 789 78.8
Total 1001 100.0
QNOLIB-5 Reason Preventing Library Use: Buy Books for Myself or My
Children
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 hot Chosen 183 18.5 87.3 87.3
1 Chosen 27 2.7 12.7 100.0
Total 212 21.2 100.0
Missing System 789 78.8
Total 1001 100.0
QNOLIB-6 Reason Preventing Library Use: Have Internet or Other Resources
That Meet My Needs for Information
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 184 18.4 86.8 86.8
1 Chosen 28 2.8 13.2 100.0
Total 212 21.2 100.0
Missing System 789 78.8
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 57
QNOLIB-7 Reasoa Preventing Library Use: Use Another Library
Valid
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
0 Not Chosen 205 20.5 96.7 96.7
1 Chosen 7 .7 3.3 100.0
Total 212 2T.2 100.0
Missing System 789 78.8
QNOLIB-8 Reason Preventing Library Use: No Transportation
Valid Cumulative
Valid
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
0 Not Chosen 212 21.2 100.0 100.0
Missing System 789 78.8
QNOLIB13 Reason Preventing Library Use: Health Related
,
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 204 20.4 96.2 96.2
I Chosen 8 .8 3.8 100.0
Total 212 21.2 100.0
Missing System 789 78.8
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 58
QNOLIB14 Reason Preventing Library Use: Too Busy
Valid
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
0 Not Chosen 201 20.1 94.8 94.8
1 Chosen 11 1.1 5.2 100.0
rota1 212 21.2 100.0
Missing System 789 78.8
QNOLIB16 Reason Preventing Library Use: Other
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 206 20.6 97.2 97.2
I Chosen 6 .6 2.8 100.0
Total 212 21.2 100.0
Missing System 789 78.8
QNOLIBI 7 Reason Preventing Library Use: Don’t Know
Valid Cumulative
Valid
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
0 Not Chosen 210 21.0 99. I 99.1
1 Chosen 2 .2 .9 100.0
Total 212 21.2 100.0
Missing System 789 78.8
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 59
QNOLIBM Reason Preventing Library Use: Refused .
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 210 21.0 99.1 99.1
1 Chosen 2 ‘.2 .9 100.0
Tptal 212 21.2 100.0
Missing System 789 78.8
Total 1001 100.0
<TSAFD The next few questions have to do with neighborhood safety and police services. For
each question, please use a scale of 0 to 10 where zero means not at all safe and ten
means very safe.
Descriptive Statistics
QSAFEI How Safe
Respondent Feels Walking
Alone in their Neighborhood
During the Day
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
1001 0 10 9.46 1.20
<QSAFEl> How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood during the day?
Descriptive Statistics
QSAFE2 How Safe
Respondent Feels Walking
Alone in their Neighborhood
After Dark
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
1000 0 10 7.54 2.55
<QSAFE2> How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood after dark?
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 60
<QCRIMEl> During the past 12 months have you or has anyone in your household been a
victim of any crime in Carlsbad?
’ QCRIME Member of Family Victim of Crime in Carlsbad During the
Past 12 Months
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 No 921 92.0 92.0. 92.0
1 Yes 80 8.0 8.0 1OO.Q
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
<QCRIME2> If yes, did any member of your household, report the crime(s) to the police?
0. No
1. Yes
8. Don’t Know
9. Refused
QCRXME2 Member of Family Reported Crime to the Police
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 No 16 1.6 20.0 20.0
1 Yes 64 6.4 80.0 100.0
Total 80 8.0 100.0
Missing System 921 92.0
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 61
<TDEVELOP> 1 am going to read a list of differmt types of development. Please tell me
if you would like to see more of or fewer of each of the following items.
<QDEVEL 1> Gas stations
QDEVELl More or Fewer Gas Stations
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Fewer Of 427 42.7 43.1 43.1
1 Just the Right Amount 228 22.8 23.0 66.1
2 More Of 336 33.6 33.9 100.0
Total 991 99.0 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 9 .9
9 Retked 1 .I
Total 10 1.0
Total 1001 100.0
<QDEVEL2> Grocery stores
QDEVELt More or Fewer Grocery Stores
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Vahd 0 Fewer Of 397 3!3.7 40.1 40. I
I Just the Right Amount 323 32.3 32.6 72.7
2 More Of 271 27.1 27.3 100.0
Total 991 99.0 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 8 .8
9 Refused 2 .2
Total 10 1.0
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 62
<QDEVEL3> Quick Stop Stores (such as Circle K or 7-l 1)
QDEVEW More or Fewer Quick Stop Stores
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Fewer Of 670 66.9 68.1 68.1
1 Just the Right Amount 199 19.9 20.2 88.3 .
2 M&e Of 115 11.5 11.7 100.0
Total 984 98.3 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 17 1.7
Total 1001 100.0
<QDEVEL4> Drug Stores
QDEVEL4 More or Fewer Drug Stores
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Vahd 0 Fewer Of 393 39.3 39.5 39.3
1 Just the Right Amount 282 28.2 28.4 67.9
2 More Of 319 31.9 32.1 100.0
Total 994 99.3 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 7 .7
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 63
<QDEVELS> Department Stores
QDEVEL5 More or Fewer Department Stores
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent PerceTH Percent
F Valid 0 ewer 47.1 47.1
I Jusrthe Right Amount 278 27.8 28.0 75. I
2 More Of 247 24.7 24.9 100.0
Total 993 99.2 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 8 .8
Total 1001 100.0
cQDEVEL6> Fast Food Restaurants
QDEVELL More or Fewer Fast Food Restaurants
Valid
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
0 Fewer Of 6/Q 66.9 67.3 67.3
1 Just the Right Amount 236 23.6 23.7 91.0
2 More Of 90 9.0 9.0 100.0
Tot31 996 99.5 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 5 .5
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 64
<QDEVEL7> Family Style Restaurants
QDEVEL7 More or Fewer Family Style Restaurants
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 I-ewer Of 255 23.5 25.7 25.7
1 Just tie Right Amount 236 23.6 23.8 49.5
2 MoreOf 500 50.0 50.5 100.0
Total 991 99.0 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 9 .9
9 Refused 1 .I
Total 10 1 .o
Total 1001 100.0
cQDEVEL8:, Upscale, Fine Dining Restaurants
QDEVELI More or Fewer Upscale, Fine Dining Restaurants
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Vahd 0 Fewer Of 213 21.3 21.4 21.4
I Just the Right Amount 190 19.0 19.1 40.5
2 More Of 593 .59.2 59.5 100.0
Total 996 99.5 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 5 .5
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 65
<QDEVEL9> Multi-store shopping centers (l&inks Towne Center or Pacific Coast Plaza)
QDEVEL9 Mdre or Fewer Multi-Store Shopping Centers
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Fewmr Of 569 56.8 57.8 57.8
1 Just the Right Amount 220 22.0 22.3 80. I
2 MoreOf 196 19.6 19.9 100.0
Total 985 98.4 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 16 1.6
Total 1001 100.0
cQDEVELlO> Entertainment Venues (such as movie theaters, live stage theaters or art
museums).
QDEVELIO More or Fewer Entertainment Venues
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent , Percent
Valid 0 Fewer Of 184 18.4 18.5 18.5
1 Just the Right Amount 151 15.1 15.2 33.7
2 More Of 658 65.7 66.3 100.0
Tot31 993 99.2 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 7 .7
9 Refused I .I
Total 8 .8
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBFU 66
cQDEVEL1 I> Small neighborhood retailers (dry cleaners, coffee houses or delis).
QDEVELll More or Fewer Small Neighborhood Retailers
Vahd
Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent
0 Fewer Of 333 33.3 33.5 33.5
1 Just the Right Amount 274 21.4 27.6 61.1
2 More Of 386 38.6 38.9 100.0
Total 993 99.2 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 7 .7
9 Refused 1 .I
Total 8 .8
Total 1001 100.0
<QDEVEL12> “Big Box” retail stores (such as Costco, Target or Home Depot)
QDEVELIZ More or Fewer Big Box Retail Stores
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Fewer Of 600 59.9 60.1 60.1
1 Just the Right Amount 317 31.7 31.8 91.9
2 More Of 81 8.1 8.1 100.0
Total 998 99.7 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 3 .3
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 67
<QDEVEL 13~ Single Family Housing
QDEVEL13 More or Fewer Single Family Housing
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 FewnOf 589 58.8 59.9 59.9
1 Just the Right Amount 137 13.7 13.9 73.8
2 More Of 258 25.8 26.2 100.0
Total 984 98.3 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 13 1.3
9 Refused 4 .4
Total 17 1.7
Total 1001 100.0
<QDEVEL14> Multi-Family Housing (such as townhomes, condos or apartments)
QDEVEL14 More or Fewer Multi-Family Housing
Valid Cumulative
‘Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Fewer Of 666 66.5 67.3 67.3
1 Just the Right Amount 124 12.4 12.5 79.9
2 More Of 199 19.9 20.1 100.0
Total 989 98.8 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 11 1.1
9 Refused 1 .I
Total 12 1.2
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 68
<QDEVEL18> Specialty Grocery Stores (such as Trader Joe’s, Henry’s or Boney’s)
QDEVEL18 More or Fewer Specialty Grocery Stores
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 Fewer Of 182 18.2 23.4 23.4
1 Just the Right Amount 139 13.9 17.9 41.3
2 MoreOf 457 45.7 58.7 100.0
Total 778 77.7 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 6 .6
System 217 21.7
Total 223 22.3
Total 1001 100.0
<QCONFIDl> On a scale of 0 to 10, where ten means very confident and zero means not at all
confident . . . ..how confident are you in the fire department’s ability to respond to a
medical or fire emergency?
Descriptive Statistics
QCONFID 1 Level ot
Confidence in Fire
Department’s Ability to
Respond to a Medlcnl or Fire
Emergency
Std.
N Millimllrll Maximum Mean Deviation
926 0 10 8.87 1.48
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 69
<QCONFID2> Using the same scale, how confident are you in the police department’s ability to
respond to a police emergency?
Descriptive Statistics
QCONFID2 Level if
Confidence in Police
Department’s Ability to
Respond to a Police
Emergency
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
949 0 10 8.42 1.87
<QCONRD3> How confident are you in the Carlsbad City government to make decisions which
positively affect the lives of its community members?
Descriptive Statistics
QCONFID3 Level of
Confidence in Carlsbad City
Government to Make
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
958 0 10 6.04 2.53
Positive Decisions
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 70
cQINETl> Do you use the Internet at home?
0. No
1. Yes
8. Don’t Know
9. Refixed
QINETl Respondent Uses the Internet at Home
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 No 235 23.5 23.5 23.5
1 Yes 766 76.5 76.5 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
<QINET2> Do you have a high speed intemet connection (such as a DSL, ISDN or Tl line)?
0. No
1. Yes
8. Don’t Know
9. Refused
QINETZ Respondent Has a High Speed Internet Connection
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 0 No 538 53.7 72.9 72.9
1 Yes 200 20.0 27.1 100.0
Total 738 7317 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 27 2.7
9 Refused 1 .I
System 235 23.5
Total 263 26.3
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 71
<QFACILT> Would you be willing to increase your taxes to assure that facilities are kept from
appearing on the landscape or in view corridors (like poles, towers and wires)?
0. No
1. Yes -
8. Don’t Know
QFACILT Respondent Willing to Pay More Taxes to Assure That Facilities Are
Kept From Appearing on the Landscpe or in View Corridors
Valid 0 No
Frequency
344
Percent
34.4
Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
35.9 35.9
1 Yes 613 61.2 64.1 100.0
Total 957 95.6 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 42 4.2
9 Refused 2 .2
Total 44 4.4
Total 1001 100.0
9. Refused
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QDEMO 1 Number of Years Lived In Carlsbad 1001 0 70 11.03 10.88
<QDEMOl> How many years have you lived in Carlsbad?
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 72
<QDEM02> Do you own or rent your home?
0. Rent
1. own
9. Refused
QDEM02 Own/Rent Home
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent . Percent Percent
Valid 0 Own 794 79.3 79.7 79.7
1 Rent 202 20.2 20.3 100.0
Total 996 99.5 fOO.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 1 .l
9 Refused 4 .4
Total 5 .5
Total 1001 100.0
<QDEM03> How many people currently reside in your household including yourself
and any children?
Descriptive Statistics
QDEM03 kumber ol
People in Household
(Including Respondent)
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Dewntion
992 1 8 2.57 1.25
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 73
cQDEMO4> How many children in your household are under the age of 18?
Descriptive Statistics
QDEM04 Number_of
Children Under Arre of 18
St&
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
857 0 7 .70 1.04
<QDEMOS> How many children are under the age of 12?
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QDEMO5 Number of Children Under Aae of 12 334 0 5 1.23 .95
<QDEM06> How many children are under the age of 6?
Descriptive Statistics
QDEM06 Number of Children under Aee of 6
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
238 0 3 .82 .83
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 74
<QSTREET> Qne of the ways that we will present the results of this study is to compare the
responses given by people in different neighborhoods. So that we can do this, could you tell me
the name of the street that you live on?
<QXSTREET> And what is the nearest Cross Street?
<QINCOME> Which category best describes your household’s total income last year before
taxes?
1. Under $25,000
2. $25,000 to under $35,000
3. $35,000 to under $50,000
4. $50,000 to under $80,000
5. $75,000 to under $100,000
6. $100,000 to under $125,000
7. $125,000 and above
QINCOME Household Income Last Year
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Vahd 1 tinder S25,OOO 60 6.0 7.0 7.0
2 S25.000 to under $35,000 73 7.3 8.5 15.5
3 S35,OOO to under $50,000 127 12.7 14.8 30.3
4 S50.000 to under %75,000 165 .I 6.5 19.2 49.5
5 575,000 to under S 100,000 - I88 18.8 21.9 71.4
6 SlOO,OOO to 5125,000 96 9.6 11.2 82.6
7 % 125,000 and Above 149 14.9 17.4 100.0
Total 858 85.7 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know 27 2.7
9 Refused 116 11.6
Total 143 14.3
Total 1001 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRJ 75
<GENDER> 1. Male 2. Female
GENDER R’s Gender
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid 1 Male 408 40.8 40.8 40.8
2 Female 593 59.2 59.2 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
Appendix A: Public Opinion Survey, City of Carlsbad - SBRI 76
Purpose of
rformance Measurement
* Continuous improvement
N Create a culture of best
practices
k Measure our success
k Greater public trust and
confidence
Desired Results
k High level of citizen/
customer satisfaction
k Cost effectiveness
k Improved
quality/productivity
Everyday Examples
of
‘erformance Measurement
I MAT scores ::
kcarlsbad 5000 race times
*Profit margins
k Fuel efficiency (mpg)
Benchmark
Standard of performance that
we strive to achieve or
maintain
The act of selecting and
evaluating other agencies or
standards to compare against
Benchmark Partners
) ICMA - Center for
Performance Measurement
> San Diego County cities
F High performing agencies
k Industry standards
5
Outcome
Citizens with a high sense
of community safety
Measure
Community perception of
crime from citywide public
opinion survey with ICMA
as benchmark
6
Analysis
N Police visibility
) Media
+ Confidence in police
service
N Lighting and physical
surroundings
N Personal experiences
> Character of neighborhood
Action Plan
> Consider identifying high
performance cities for
comparison
) Reconsider benchmark
N Look for opportunities to
enhance results
Outcome
Roadway circulation efficiency
Measurement
Average driver travel time
on El Camino Real and
Palomar Airport Road
Comprehensive measure of
travel time
9
Analysis
Paiomar Airport Road I
No significant change in off
peak or westbound direction
DECREASE in eastbound
direction
AM decrease 1 minute
PM decrease 1.4 minutes
Analysis (cont.)
Palomar Airport Road
Reduction occurred near
eastern city limit
Additional lane east of ECR
2 alternate parallel routes:
n Cannon Road
n Aviara Parkway
11
Action Plan
Ongoing evaluation
Transportation Demand
Management programs
Complete construction to full
arterial widths
Add signals & coordinate timing
. Traffic signal optimization
w Monitor from future
Transportation Management
Center at Public Works Center
What% Next
Incorporate growth
management standards
Develop citywide and quality of
life measures
Ongoing review and revision of
program
Expand Benchmark cities
Enhance Communication Plan
Implement Action Plans
12
Questions?
.carlsbad.ca.us
13