The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-02-08; City Council; 20453; 2010 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY AND STATE OF EFFECTIVENESS REPORTCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL 14 AB# 20.453 MTG. 2/8/11 DEPT. CM 201 0 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY AND STATE OF EFFECTIVENESS REPORT DEPT. DIRECTOR _£ CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER ?* /YOjJx'^ // RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept the 2010 Citizen Public Opinion Survey and State of Effectiveness Reports. ITEM EXPLANATION: The City of Carlsbad prides itself on providing top quality services to residents, and over the past decade has measured its performance to gauge the levels of success. Over time, the City has formalized and coordinated this effort through the delivery of the Public Opinion Survey and through the development of the Performance Measurement Resource Team (PRMT), which produces the annual State of Effectiveness (SOE) Report. In collaboration with BW Research Partnership, the Team is proud to submit for your review and acceptance the 2010 Public Opinion Survey and State of Effectiveness Reports (on file with the City Clerk's Office). In an effort to gauge the satisfaction of City services by residents, the City has contracted with BW Research Partnership to conduct an annual telephone survey of 1,000 residents. This year, BW Research Partnership conducted the survey from September 8 through September 16, with an average length of 20 minutes per survey. An equal number of residents were surveyed from each zip code, thus representing a broad community perspective. The Performance Measurement Program (program) and the SOE are organized and aligned by the ten Council Strategic Goals to reflect the broad array of services the City provides. At its core, the purpose of the program is to advance the practice of continuous improvement and help shape the culture of the organization. This document represents the collective effort of the organization. As such, you will find areas of strength as well as opportunities for improvement going forward. The intent of the program is to evaluate and showcase both and to help provide information so that we can make informed decisions and changes that result in a high performing organization. The program is based on a balanced approach which evaluates the City's ability to meet the desired service delivery standard, cost, and customer service of a particular service or function. The PRMT believes that this approach is outcome-oriented and provides a way to evaluate the effectiveness of our efforts and the overall value of the services the City provides. We continue to look for ways to embed this program deeper into the organization, and we have worked to strengthen the bond between performance measures and future goals. This year the Team has abbreviated the report to more efficiently deliver the outcomes and become a more useful tool to our citizenry. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Lolly Sangster 760-434-2860 Lolly.Sangster@carlsbadca.gov FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY. COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED CONTINUED WITHDRAWN AMENDED #n nn CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC D CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN D RETURNED TO STAFF D OTHER - SEE MINUTES D Council received, t^e presentation. Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT: None. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The proposed action does not qualify as a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, as it does not result in a direct or reasonable foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. EXHIBITS: 1. 2010 Public Opinion Survey 2. 2010 State of Effectiveness Report City of Carlsbad 2010 Public Opinion Survey Presentation February 8, 2011 Research Objectives •Assess residents’ perceptions regarding satisfaction with city services, quality of life, sense of community, safety in their neighborhood, city government, and city-resident communication; •Evaluate residents’ preferences for the City’s trash and recycling containers; •Assess residents’ experience visiting the Carlsbad Village. 2 Methodology •Telephone Survey of 1,000 Residents Calls Made: September 8 –16, 2010 Average length: 20 minutes Statistically representative sample by age, gender, ethnicity, and geographic distribution (zip code) based on SANDAG’s 2010 estimates for Carlsbad Margin of error +/-3.08% (95% confidence level) 3 Overall Indicators 1.Overall Provision of City Services •92% satisfied (60% Very / 32% Somewhat) 2.Perceived Quality of Life •96% positive (61% excellent / 36% good) 3.Confidence in Carlsbad City government •78% confidence (22% Very / 55% Somewhat) 4.Public Safety in Carlsbad •93% satisfaction with law enforcement services 4 Satisfaction with City Services 5 α Statistically significant change from 2009 ¥ Statistically significant from 2008 ł Statistically significant from 2007 Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied DK/NA 2010 59.9%31.7%2.2%1.6%4.7% 2009 55.5%33.4%3.5%4.1%3.4% 2008 58.4%32.5%3.5%2.4%3.2% 2007 58.0%33.5%2.9%3.1%2.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 2010 2009 2008 2007 ¥ 92% of residents are Very (60%) or Somewhat Satisfied (32%) with the job the City is doing to provide services α łα ł Quality of Life Ratings 6 96% of residents rate the quality of life in Carlsbad favorably 0.4% 0.4% 1.1% 3.6% 33.5% 61.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 3.6% 33.9% 61.9% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 3.4% 35.5% 60.5% 0%20%40%60%80% DK/NA Very poor Poor Fair Good Excellent 2010 2009 2008 Positive 2010 = 96% 2009 = 96% 2008 = 95% ¥ ¥ ¥ α Statistically significant change from 2009 ¥ Statistically significant from 2008 Quality of Life Perceptions 7 α Statistically significant change from 2009 ¥ Statistically significant from 2008 ł Statistically significant from 2007 65% of residents view the quality of life in Carlsbad as Staying about the Same Getting better Staying about the same Getting worse DK/NA 2010 16.5%64.7%15.2%3.6% 2009 15.1%59.8%20.9%4.2% 2008 21.1%56.5%20.0%2.4% 2007 21.5%47.9%26.5%4.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 2010 2009 2008 2007 ¥ ł ¥ ł α ¥ ł ł ł α ¥ ł ł ł ł ¥ 8 Asked of the 15% who rated the quality of life as poor or very poor or feel it is getting worse Follow-Up Question: Number One Way to Increase the Quality of Life in Carlsbad 7.3% 7.9% 2.1% 2.3% 2.4% 2.8% 3.2% 3.5% 3.6% 7.2% 11.2% 12.9% 33.5% 0%20%40%60% DK/NA Other Preserve more open space More jobs Remove the illegal immigrants Increase recreation opportunities More public transportation Improve schools Increase/ improve police services Better economic plan/ lower taxes Fix the traffic problems Improve roads/ other infrastructure Stop building/ stop growth Items with less than 2% combined into “Other” n=153 9MELROSE DR AVIARA PY EL CAMI NO R E A LCOLLEGE B LCANN O N R D A L GA R D TA M A R A C K AV OLIVENHAIN R D C A R L S B A D V IL LA G E DRRANCHO S ANTA F E RDCA RLSBAD BLPOINS E T TIA LN LA COSTA A VPALO M A R A IR P ORT RD BATIQUITOS LAGOON AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON BUENA VISTA LAGOON PACIFIC OCEAN TheForum Villages ofLa CostaRidge CarlsbadOaks NorthKellyRanch PoinsettiaShores West PoinsettiaArea Cantarini RobertsonRanch Raceway La CostaGlen Villages ofLa CostaOaks EastPoinsettiaArea Villages ofLa CostaGreens BressiRanch RanchoCarrillo HollySprings CalaveraHillsPhase II QuarryCreek 0 1Miles Major Development Areas in the Last 10 Years Legend Residential Development Commercial/Industrial Development Areas To Be Developed Sense of Community 10 Strongly agree Agree Total Agree Average Social Connections I can recognize most of the people who live in my neighborhood 29.2%46.0%75.2% 48.1%I have almost no influence over what my neighborhood is like 12.6%38.5%36.9%* Very few of my neighbors know me 22.2%40.0%32.1%* Mutual Concerns My neighbors and I want the same things from this community 24.6%51.4%76.0% 75.8%If there is a problem in my neighborhood, people who live here can get it solved 20.8%54.8%75.6% Community Values It is very important for me to feel a sense of community with other residents 28.9%51.2%80.1% 74.1%Very strong Somewhat strong Total Strong How strongly feel sense of community 28.6%39.4%68.0% * Items reverse coded. Percentage shown is total disagreement. Disagreeing with these statements indicates a higher sense of community. Sense of Community Index: Levels 11 ^ ł α Statistically significant change from 2009 ¥ Statistically significant from 2008 ł Statistically significant from 2007 47.9% 40.9% 38.4% 44.0% 40.0% 46.4% 48.3% 43.9% 12.0% 12.7% 13.3% 12.2% 0%20%40%60%80%100% 2007 2008 2009 2010 High Medium Low α α ł ł ł ł 44% of residents are classified as having a High sense of community, 44% Medium, and 12% Low Safety 12 Walking alone in neighborhood during the day Walking alone in neighborhood after dark Residents feel very safe walking alone in their neighborhoods 86.8%85.5%85.9% 10.9%11.4%12.4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2010 2009 2007 51.1%52.3%51.4% 35.6%33.0%34.1% 6.7%8.3%9.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2010 2009 2007 α Statistically significant change from 2009 ł Statistically significant from 2007 Very safe Somewhat safe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe DK/NA ł ł Satisfaction: City-Resident Communication 13 ^ ł α Statistically significant change from 2009 ł ł 74% of residents are Very (31%) or Somewhat Satisfied (42%) with the City’s efforts to communicate with residents 31.3%29.3% 42.3%49.5% 12.2%11.1%5.1%5.0%9.2%5.1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2010 2009 Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied DK/NA Satisfaction with DK/NA Filtered Out 2010 = 81% 2009 = 83% (Not Statistically Different) α α Satisfaction 2010 = 74% 2009 = 79% (Statistically Different) 14 Confidence in City Government 78% of residents are confident in Carlsbad city government to make decisions that positively affect their lives α Statistically significant change from 2009 ¥ Statistically significant from 2008 ł Statistically significant from 2007 Discrepancy in the total for 2009 is due to rounding.22.4%55.2%77.6% α12.0% α5.5%4.9%21.6%52.2%73.7% ł15.7%6.5%4.0%23.6%52.1%75.7%12.9%7.5%3.9%23.1%55.4%78.5%12.7%5.4%3.4%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very confident Somewhat confident Total confident Somewhat unconfident Very unconfident DK/NA 2010 2009 2008 2007 15 Satisfaction with City’s Efforts to …. (Top 9) Analysis Excludes Responses of Don’t Know/ No Answer 96% 96% 95% 93% 93% 90% 89% 89% 87%48.0% 56.5% 55.4% 55.5% 64.5% 58.5% 70.1% 66.5% 76.5% 39.4% 32.8% 34.0% 34.7% 28.2% 34.5% 24.6% 29.3% 19.6% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Provide local arts and cultural opportunities Provide trails and walking paths Provide recreation programs Provide water services Provide law enforcement services Provide sewer services Provide fire protection and emergency medical services Maintain city parks Provide library services Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied α Statistically significant increase from 2009 ¥ Significant increase from 2008 ł Significant increase from 2007 α 16 Satisfaction with City’s Efforts to …. (Last 6) Analysis Excludes Responses of Don’t Know/ No Answer 86% 84% 83% 74% 67% All but one of the services tested had over 70% satisfaction 26.9% 37.7% 31.1% 42.3% 39.8% 47.2% 39.9% 34.7% 43.0% 40.8% 43.8% 38.7% 0%20%40%60%80%100% Manage residential growth and development Provide enough undeveloped areas in the City for habitat protection Manage traffic congestion on city streets Protect water quality in the City's creeks, lagoons, and the ocean Maintain the business climate in Carlsbad Repair and maintain local streets and roads Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied 72% α Statistically significant increase from 2009 ¥ Significant increase from 2008 ł Significant increase from 2007 α ¥ ł ¥ ł ¥ ¥ 17 Satisfaction with City’s Efforts to …. (Top 5) Analysis Excludes Responses of Don’t Know/ No Answer 63.4%65.0%64.1%64.5% 59.8%58.5%60.8%58.5% 74.2%70.1% 65.4%65.0%65.4%66.5% 76.6%81.2%77.4%76.5% 28.9%27.3%25.9%28.2% 31.8%33.5%30.0%34.5% 19.9%24.6% 29.6%30.5%29.0%29.3% 19.7%15.4% 19.3%19.6% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% '07 '08 '09 '10 '07 '08 '09 '10 '07 '08 '09 '10 '07 '08 '09 '10 '07 '08 '09 '10 Provide law enforcement services Provide sewer services Provide fire protection and emergency medical service Maintain city parks Provide library services 96.1% 96.7% 96.6% 96.3% 95.8% 94.4% 95.5% 95.0% 94.7% 94.1% 93.0% 90.8% 92.0% 91.6% 92.7% 90.0% 92.3% 92.3% Dark=Very satisfied Light=Somewhat satisfied Total Satisfied 18 Satisfaction with City’s Efforts to …. (Mid 5) Analysis Excludes Responses of Don’t Know/ No Answer 42.7%44.7%47.6%47.2% 46.8%49.6%50.0%48.0% 51.6%53.7%53.0%56.5% 54.7%55.6%59.0%55.4% 60.8%57.1%56.0%55.5% 42.8%39.6%39.0%38.7% 41.4%38.7%36.7%39.4% 35.2%33.8%34.8%32.8% 34.3%34.3%29.1%34.0% 31.7%33.8%32.8%34.7% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% '07 '08 '09 '10 '07 '08 '09 '10 '07 '08 '09 '10 '07 '08 '09 '10 '07 '08 '09 '10 Repar and maintain local streets Provide local arts and cultural opportunities Provide trails and walking paths Provide recreational programs Provide water services 90.2% 88.8% 90.9% 92.5% 89.4% 88.1% 89.9% 89.0% 89.3% 87.8% 87.5% 86.8% 87.4% 86.7% 88.3% 88.2% 85.9% 86.6% 84.3% 85.5% Dark=Very satisfied Light=Somewhat satisfied Total Satisfied 19 Satisfaction with City’s Efforts to …. (Last 5) Analysis Excludes Responses of Don’t Know/ No Answer 18.6%25.0%22.5%26.9% 33.1%35.9%37.7% 22.8%25.6%32.8%31.1% 36.6%41.8%42.3% 42.2%38.1%40.3%39.8% 38.4%36.6%41.2%39.9% 33.4%35.0%34.7% 41.4%42.5%36.7%43.0% 39.5%40.5%40.8% 43.1%45.1%43.4%43.8% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% '07 '08 '09 '10 '07 '08 '09 '10 '07 '08 '09 '10 '07 '08 '09 '10 '07 '08 '09 '10 Manage residential growth and development Provide enough undeveloped areas for habitat protection Manage traffic congestion on City streets Protect water quality in the City's creeks, lagoons, and the ocean Maintain the business climate 83.6% 83.7% 83.2% 85.3% 83.1% 82.3% 76.1% 74.1% 69.5% 68.1% 64.2% 72.4% 70.9% 66.5% 66.8% 63.7% 61.6% 57.0% Dark=Very satisfied Light=Somewhat satisfied Total Satisfied 20 Recycling and Trash Service Preferences Replace with three city- provided containers 36.3% Keep the current system 57.1% Neither 2.2% Combination 1.1%DK/NA 3.4% Over half of residents wanted to keep the current trash system with small recycling bins and no additional cost per month Just over one-third of residents were willing to pay an additional two dollars a month to have three larger recycling containers Please note limited information was provided in this initial baseline question. New Question in 2010 Village Use and Experience 21 Consistent with previous years…. 97% of residents have visited Carlsbad Village 90% of visitors rate their Village experience favorably 0.4% 0.1% 1.0% 8.9% 48.8% 40.8% 0%20%40%60%80% DK/NA Very poor Poor Fair Good Excellent n= 966 22 Follow-Up: What would you like to see to improved in Carlsbad’s Downtown Village? 22.3% 13.5% 1.5% 1.7% 1.9% 2.0% 2.2% 2.3% 2.9% 5.8% 7.0% 13.0% 15.7% 17.9% 0%10%20%30%40% No suggestions Other Improve nightlife/ evening vibrancy Fill vacant lots and stores/ help businesses More parks/ recreational facilities Street and landscaping improvements More pedestrian friendly More events, activities, and attractions Cleanliness/ upkeep Much of the area is very old/ needs to be updated Traffic Happy with the Village as is Need more unique businesses/ better restaurants Parking Conclusions I •Residents continue to have a high level of confidence in city government and give the City high marks in everything from quality of life to safety, parks, libraries, and other important services •96% rate the quality of life in Carlsbad favorably •92% are satisfied with the job the City is doing to provide services (60% very satisfied) •78% have confidence in Carlsbad city government to make decisions that positively affect the lives of community members 23 Conclusions II •Many metrics came back up from the small dip evidenced in 2009 and are now back in line with 2007 and 2008. Most notably: •Increased satisfaction with the job the City is doing to provide services (2010: 92%; 2009: 89%; 2008: 91%; 2007: 92%) •Increased confidence in city government to make decisions that positively affect residents (2010: 78% 2009: 74%; 2008: 76%; 2007: 79%) •Increase in the percentage of residents in the high sense of community group (2010: 44%; 2009: 38%; 2008: 41%; 2007: 48%) 24 City of Carlsbad 2010 Public Opinion Survey Presentation February 8, 2011 State of Effectiveness 2010 Finance Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 Balanced Long Term Fiscal Condition: 10- year financial forecast Revenues will be equal to or exceed expenditures for each year for 10 years Yes Yes Yes Yes Communication Customer Satisfaction/Benchmark FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 Level of confidence/ 90% or higher 79%76%74%78% Community & Economic Development Planning Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 80%of land use project reviews complete in 3 or less cycles /90%77%97%100%98% Customer Satisfaction/Benchmark FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 Customer survey responses of “good”or “excellent”/90%87%88%93%94% Housing & Neighborhood Services Volunteer Program Cost/Benchmark FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 Cost Effectiveness /Ratio of value to cost 4:1 5:1 6:1 6:1 Total Volunteers 1,155 1,811 2,360 2,015 Total Volunteer Hours 53,626 69,935 91,532 105,185 Net Benefit $881,113 $1,284,460 $1,849,187 $2,069,415 Parks & Recreation Trails Service Delivery /Benchmark FY 2006 -07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 New Mileage per year 4 miles 4.5 miles 3.8 miles 3.3 miles 7.1 miles Property & Environmental Management Facilities Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 Responses to Visual Assessments / 90%90%93%90%90% Police Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 Citizens Sense of Safety-Day /67%or higher Citizens Sense of Safety-Night /36%or higher 86% 51%N/A 86% 52% 87% 53% Crime Rate /Violent Crime Lowest third Crime Rate /Property Crime Lowest third Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Fire Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 All Emergency Responses 1st Unit on Scene In 6 min /90%of the time.75%75%74%71% All Emergency Responses 2nd Unit on Scene In 9 min /90%of the time.83%84%84%80% Average time for 1st unit to arrive on scene 4:53 4:54 4:55 5:11 Transportation Traffic Engineering Customer Satisfaction /Benchmark FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 Average travel time on El Camino Real: June 2000 travel times (External Measure) 0 of 6 measures met the benchmark 3 of 6 measures met the benchmark 2 of 6 measures met the benchmark 1 of 6 measures met the benchmark Average travel time on Palomar Airport Road:June 2000 travel times (External Measure) 1 of 6 measures met the benchmark 2 of 6 measures met the benchmark 2 of 6 measures met the benchmark 3 of 6 measures met the benchmark Utilities Solid Waste Cost/Benchmark FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 Residential Rates/ Lowest Third Commercial Rates/ Lowest Third Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 No.of overflows per 100 miles of sewer main /zero (0)4.91 2.46 1.39 2.08 Sewer Questions