HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-01-14; City Council; 21481; 2013 Public Opinion Survey and State of Effectiveness ReportCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL 13
AB# 21,481 2013 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY AND
STATE OF EFFECTIVENESS REPORT
DEPT. DIRECTOR ^^v,
MTG. 01/14/14
2013 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY AND
STATE OF EFFECTIVENESS REPORT CITY ATTORNEY y^T^
DEPT. CM
2013 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY AND
STATE OF EFFECTIVENESS REPORT
CITY MANAGER
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept the 2013 Resident Public Opinion Survey and State of Effectiveness reports.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The City of Carisbad prides itself on providing cost-effective, high-quality services to residents.
For 13 years, the city's Peri'ormance Measurement Team has coordinated the measurement of
city performance through an annual public opinion survey and State of Effectiveness Report. In
collaboration with BW Research Partnership, the team is proud to submit for City Council
review and acceptance the 2013 Resident Public Opinion Survey and State of Effectiveness
reports (on file with the City Clerk's Office).
To gauge the satisfaction with city services from residents, the city contracted with BW
Research Partnership to conduct a telephone survey of 1,007 residents. BW Research
Partnership conducted the survey from September 12 through September 28, 2013 and
surveys were an average of 15 minutes. The survey methodology ensures a statistically
representative sample of Carisbad residents.
The State of Effectiveness Report documents key survey findings as well as other measures to
track city performance.
Both reports refiect the city's commitment to high-quality services that support an excellent
quality of life for the community. The city will continue to measure performance throughout the
year to advance the practices of continuous improvement and accountability as key parts of the
organization's culture.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Greg Hermann 760-434-2958 greq.hermann(a)carlsbadca.qov
FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY.
COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED •
DENIED •
CONTINUED •
WITHDRAWN •
AMENDED •
CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC •
CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN •
RETURNED TO STAFF •
OTHER-SEE MINUTES •
Council received the presentation.
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The proposed acfion does not qualify as a "project" under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Secfion 15378, as it does not result in a direct or
reasonable foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
EXHIBITS:
1. 2013 Public Opinion Survey
2. 2013 State of Effectiveness Report
2725 JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 13, CARLSBAD CA 92008
50 MILL POND DRIVE, WRENTHAM, MA 02093
T (760) 730‐9325 F (888) 457‐9598
bwresearch.com
twitter.com/BW_Research
facebook.com/bwresearch
DRAFT
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... i
List of Figures.................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ii
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 1
Key Findings .................................................................................................................. 1
Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 2
Satisfaction with City Services .......................................................................................... 4
Satisfaction – Comparison to Other Cities ..................................................................... 6
Quality of Life .................................................................................................................... 7
Perceived Direction ....................................................................................................... 9
Number One Way to Improve Quality of Life ............................................................... 10
Quality of Life – Comparison to Other Cities ............................................................... 11
Safety .............................................................................................................................. 13
Safety – Comparison to Other Cities ........................................................................... 15
Sense of Community ....................................................................................................... 17
Confidence in City Government ...................................................................................... 19
Community Values .......................................................................................................... 20
Satisfaction with Specific City Services ........................................................................... 22
Satisfaction with City-Resident Communication .............................................................. 28
Information Sources ........................................................................................................ 30
Preventing Pollution of Creeks, Lagoons, and Ocean .................................................... 31
Action Based on Information ....................................................................................... 32
Experience Visiting the Carlsbad Village ........................................................................ 34
Awareness of Sage Creek High School .......................................................................... 36
Appendix A: Methodology ............................................................................................. A-1
Appendix B: Survey Toplines ........................................................................................ B-1
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Satisfaction with City Services ........................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Satisfaction with City Services – Comparison to Other Cities ............................ 6
Figure 3: Quality of Life Rating .......................................................................................... 7
Figure 4: Quality of Life Direction ...................................................................................... 9
Figure 5: Number One Way to Improve Quality of Life (n=498) ...................................... 10
Figure 6: Quality of Life Rating – Comparison to Other Cities ........................................ 11
Figure 7: Quality of Life Direction – Comparison to Other Cities .................................... 12
Figure 8: Safety in Carlsbad ............................................................................................ 13
Figure 9: Safety Walking Alone During the Day – Comparison to Other Cities .............. 15
Figure 10: Safety Walking Alone After Dark – Comparison to Other Cities .................... 16
Figure 9: Sense of Community Levels ............................................................................ 17
Figure 11: Confidence in City Government to Make Decisions ....................................... 19
Figure 12: Agreement with Statements about Characteristics of Carlsbad (high 2013) . 21
Figure 13: Agreement with Statements about Characteristics of Carlsbad (low 2013) ... 22
Figure 14: Satisfaction with Specific Services ................................................................. 23
Figure 15: Satisfaction with Specific Services by Year: Part 1 ........................................ 25
Figure 16: Satisfaction with Specific Services by Year: Part 2 ........................................ 26
Figure 17: Satisfaction with Specific Services by Year: Part 3 ........................................ 27
Figure 18: Satisfaction with City-Resident Communication ............................................ 28
Figure 19: Frequency of Using Information Sources ....................................................... 30
Figure 20: Informed about Preventing Water Pollution (n=509) ...................................... 31
Figure 21: Action Taken Based on Pollution Prevention Information (n=281) ................ 33
Figure 22: Experience Visiting Carlsbad Village ............................................................. 34
Figure 23: Knowledge about Sage Creek High School ................................................... 36
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2: Satisfaction with Specific Services .................................................................... 24
Table 3: Overview of Project Methodology ................................................................... A-1
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
1
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Dark = Very satisfied Light = Somewhat satisfied
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
For the seventh consecutive year, the City of Carlsbad and its performance
measurement team partnered with BW Research Partnership, Inc., (BW Research) to
conduct its public opinion survey of Carlsbad residents. The main research objectives of
the 2013 study were to assess residents’ perceptions regarding city services, quality of
life, sense of community, neighborhood safety, city government, community values, and
city-resident communication in Carlsbad. This report displays five years of previous
survey results. This year also included two focus groups with residents to go into greater
detail on issues that were identified in the resident survey.
The city-wide survey of residents was administered by telephone (both landline and
mobile) from September 11 through September 28, 2013 and calls averaged 20 minutes
in length. A statistically representative sample of 1,007 Carlsbad residents 18 years and
older completed the survey, resulting in a maximum margin of error +/- 3.07 percent (at
the 95% level of confidence) for questions answered by all 1,007 respondents.
KEY FINDINGS
Ninety-four percent of residents were
satisfied with the job the City of Carlsbad is
doing to provide city services and 63
percent were very satisfied – mirroring
satisfaction levels from 2012.
When asked about specific services,
residents who provided an opinion were
most satisfied with the city’s efforts to
maintain city parks (95%), provide trash
collection services (95%), provide library
services (95%), provide fire protection and
emergency medical services (93%), and
provide recycling collection services (93%).
Among those who provided an opinion, satisfaction with the city's efforts to maintain the
business climate in Carlsbad reached a new high in 2013, driven by increases in the
percentage of residents who answered “very satisfied.” Although overall satisfaction
remained unchanged, “very satisfied” increased for the city’s efforts to maintain city
parks. Overall satisfaction for the city’s efforts to manage traffic congestion on city
streets and manage residential growth and development was statistically higher than at
least one other survey year.
Satisfaction among those who offered an opinion for the city's efforts to provide library
services, provide sewer services, and provide recreation programs was statistically lower
in 2013 than at least one other survey year.
Quality of Life
Ninety-six percent of residents rated their quality of life in the City of Carlsbad as
excellent (68%) or good (29%) in 2013. Continuing on a trend from 2012, residents were
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
2
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Dark = Very confident Light = Somewhat confident
more positive than in previous years regarding the direction of the quality of life. Twenty-
nine percent rated the quality of life as getting better, 57 percent viewed it as staying
about the same, and only 10 percent felt it was getting worse.
Safety
The overall safety percentages reported by residents in 2013 matched the overall highs
from last year. An overwhelming 98 percent of residents reported feeling safe walking
alone in their neighborhoods during the day (88% very safe) and 90 percent of residents
reported feeling safe walking alone in their neighborhoods after dark (54% very safe).
Confidence in City Government
Consistent with the levels reported in
2012, 2011 and 2010 and statistically
higher than 2009, four-fifths of residents
indicated confidence in Carlsbad city
government to make decisions that
positively affect the lives of community
members.
Sense of Community
Just over seventy percent (71%) of residents indicated they had a strong sense of
community, relatively consistent with previous years. Residents 65 years and older as
well as those residents that have lived in Carlsbad for 15 or more years were more likely
than their counterparts to have a very strong sense of community.
City-Resident Communication and Information Sources
Ninety percent of residents were satisfied (49%
very satisfied) with the city’s efforts to provide
information to residents through its website,
newsletters, water bill inserts, and related
sources of information, when responses of don’t
know or no answers were factored out of the
analysis. The most utilized sources for
information about city issues, programs, and
services were the city's website (73%), and the
community services and recreation guide (71%).
CONCLUSIONS
The City of Carlsbad continues to get strong marks from its residents among its key
metrics including satisfaction with the overall provision of City services, confidence in city
government, perception of public safety, sense of community and quality of life. Some of
the key conclusions from the 2013 resident survey include;
1. Improving perception of the quality of life in Carlsbad: The 2013 survey
continues a trend that begin in 2010 of continually improving perceptions of the
73.7%77.6%83.5% 80.3% 80.5%
49.2%
40.6%
7.4%
2.8%
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
3
quality of life in Carlsbad. This is demonstrated both in perceptions regarding the
City’s overall quality of life as well as the current direction of the City’s quality of
life, getting better, getting worse or staying the same. From 2010 to 2013 the
percentage of respondents who have indicated that the overall quality of life in
Carlsbad is ‘excellent’, the most positive response of the five options given, has
increased over this four year period from 61 to 68 percent. From 2009 to 2013
we have seen an even more distinct increase in the percentage of respondents
who indicate the quality of life is getting better, from 15 to 29 percent along with a
corresponding drop in the percentage of respondents who indicate the quality of
life is getting worse, from 21 to 10 percent.
2. Consistently high ratings for the City’s key survey indicators: The 2013
resident survey results show consistently high levels of satisfaction among
residents perception of the City’s overall provision of services (63 percent very
satisfied), residents perception of safety (88 percent very safe in the day & 54
percent very safe at night), and residents strong sense of community (71
percent). These results indicate consistently positive results for Carlsbad’s
broadest survey indicators.
3. Changes in the priorities and perceptions for services and issues in
Carlsbad: While the results in the 2013 resident survey do not show large
changes in the residents’ generally positive perception of Carlsbad and the
services the City provides there are some changes in both the priorities and
perceptions of its residents as it relates to key services and opportunities for
change within the City. Over the last ten years the issue of limiting growth and
development within the City has gone from a number one priority to a plurality of
residents to one that is top of mind with less than ten percent of residents.
Residents today are more likely to focus on issues related to traffic and the
quality of roads as the number one issue to improve quality of life in Carlsbad
relative to issues related to housing and development within the City. In terms of
specific city services, residents gave at least 95 percent satisfaction1 to
maintaining city parks, providing trash collection services and providing
library services, the top three of the 18 city services evaluated separately. While
other services like maintaining the business climate in Carlsbad and
providing trails and walking paths saw new highs in the percentage of
residents who indicated they were very satisfied as well as the total percentage
that indicated satisfaction (very or somewhat).
4. Carlsbad Village becoming an “excellent” experience for Carlsbad
residents: From 2011 to 2013 residents have moved from a plurality rating their
experience in the village as good (2011: 47% good and 43% excellent) to a
plurality rating it as excellent (2013: 41% good and 50% excellent). Results from
the 2013 resident survey were the tipping point where more residents indicated
their experience in the village was excellent compared to good.
1 This percentage is based on all don’t know / No answer (DK/NA) responses factored out of the
assessment.
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
4
SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES
Ninety-four percent of residents are satisfied with the job the City of Carlsbad is doing to
provide city services, keeping pace with the satisfaction reported over the last two years
(2012: 94%, 2011: 94%) and higher than levels reported in 2010 (92%) and 2009 (89%).
Breaking down satisfaction ratings, more specifically, 62 percent said that they were
“Very satisfied,” 32 percent “Somewhat satisfied,” four percent were “Dissatisfied”, while
two percent of respondents did not offer an opinion.
Figure 1: Satisfaction with City Services
Throughout this report, analyses of responses by resident sub-groups (i.e., cross
tabulation data) will be presented in text boxes. The following is an examination of
satisfaction with the city's provision of services among sub-groups.
Very
satisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied DK/NA
2009 55.5% 33.4% 3.5% 4.1% 3.4%
2010 59.9% 31.7% 2.2% 1.6% 4.7%
2011 61.1% 33.3% 1.8% 1.0% 2.8%
2012 63.5% 30.0% 2.4% 1.3% 2.8%
2013 62.5% 31.7% 2.0% 1.5% 2.4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
€ Statistically significant change from 2012 (p<.05) # Statistically significant change from 2011
α Statistically significant change from 2010 ¥ Statistically significant change from 2009
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
α
α
α
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
5
Residents who were satisfied with the job the city is doing to provide services
were more likely to rate other aspects of life in Carlsbad favorably. Resident
satisfaction with the job the city is doing to provide services was positively
correlated with a number of metrics within the survey, including: confidence in
city government, quality of life ratings and perceptions regarding the direction
of the quality of life, satisfaction with the city’s efforts to provide information,
safety in their neighborhoods (both walking alone during the day and night),
opinions about the sense of community, and experience visiting the Village.
A regression analysis revealed the following as the top predictors of
satisfaction with the job the city is doing to provide services (in order of
influence):
o Confidence in city government;
o Satisfaction with the city’s efforts to repair and maintain local streets
and roads; and
o Quality of life rating.
Satisfaction with the City’s overall provision of services was at 90 percent or
higher for all of the demographic groups that were evaluated in this analysis,
including age, geography, ethnicity, length of residence in Carlsbad and
number of children living in the home.
Although no overall differences in satisfaction were found for the following
sub-groups, their intensity of satisfaction differed.
o Residents who have lived in Carlsbad for 4 years or less were more
likely to indicate they were very satisfied with the City’s overall
provision of services compared to those residents who have lived here
more than 4 years (69% vs. 61%).
o Residents 65 years and older were more likely to indicate they were
very satisfied with the City’s overall provision of services compared to
those residents who were 18 to 24 years old (69% vs. 59%).
o Residents who indicated they had a very weak or no sense of
community were considerably less likely to state they were very
satisfied with the City’s overall provision of services compared to those
residents who indicated they had a very strong sense of community
(44% vs 64%).
o Residents who stated they were Hispanic or Latino(a) or Asian were
less likely to state they were very satisfied with the City’s overall
provision of services compared to those residents who stated they
were White or Caucasian or another ethnicity (51% vs 65%).
o Women were more likely to indicate they were very satisfied with the
City’s overall provision of services compared to their male counterparts
(66% vs. 58%).
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
6
SATISFACTION – COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES
The City of Carlsbad remained in the top tier with regard to residents' satisfaction with
the job the city is doing to provide services. The figure below shows the range of
satisfaction scores reported by cities throughout California that have conducted
comparable studies within the past five years.
Figure 2: Satisfaction with City Services – Comparison to Other Cities2
2 Small cities were defined as those with a total population up to 50,000. Mid-sized cities were those with a
population between 50,001 and 150,000. Large cities were those with a population of 150,001 or more.
70%
73%
74%
77%
78%
80%
82%
84%
85%
85%
87%
89%
90%
93%
94%
95%
96%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Mid-Sized City, Alameda County
Large City, Fresno County
Mid-Sized City, Los Angeles County
Small City, Riverside County
Mid-Sized City, Contra Costa County
Large City, Santa Clara County
Mid-Sized City, Sacramento County
Mid-Sized City, Marin County
Mid-Sized City, San Mateo County
Mid-Sized City, San Bernardino County
Mid-Sized City, San Diego County
Small City, Contra Costa County
Mid-Sized City, San Diego County
Mid-Sized City, Ventura County
City of Carlsbad, San Diego County
Mid-Sized City, Orange County
Small City, Riverside County
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
7
QUALITY OF LIFE
Ninety-six percent of residents rated the quality of life in Carlsbad as “Excellent” (68% --
statistically higher than 2009-2010), or “Good” (29%). Three percent rated it as “Fair”
while less than one percent offered a negative rating.
Figure 3: Quality of Life Rating
0.1%
0.0%
0.4%
3.2%
28.7%
67.6%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
2.8%
31.8%
65.0%
0.3%
0.2%
0.5%
1.0%
34.2%
63.9%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
3.4%
35.5%
60.5%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
3.6%
33.9%
61.9%
0%20%40%60%80%
DK/NA
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Positive
2009 = 96%
2010 = 96%
2011 = 98%
2012 = 97%
2013 = 96%
€ Statistically significant change from 2012 (p<.05)
# Statistically significant change from 2011
α Statistically significant change from 2010
¥ Statistically significant change from 2009
#
#
α ¥
α ¥
α
# α ¥
#
#
α ¥
€ ¥
#
α
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
8
The following is an assessment of quality of life ratings by resident sub-groups.
Quality of life ratings were positively correlated with a number of other
variables throughout the survey, including: confidence in city government,
satisfaction with the job the city is doing to provide services, overall sense of
community, and satisfaction with city-resident communication.
A regression analysis revealed the following as the top predictors of residents’
quality of life ratings (in order of influence):
o Satisfaction with the job the city is doing to provide services;
o Agreement with the community values item “Carlsbad has a small
town, connected feel”; and
o Agreement with the community values statement “Carlsbad promotes
active lifestyles by providing access to trails, parks, beaches and other
recreational opportunities”.
Given the consistently high overall quality of life ratings among sub-groups,
the assessment below focuses on differences in "Excellent" ratings.
o Residents who were able to identify their neighborhood, an HOA or
“just Carlsbad” as the neighborhood they lived in were more likely to
rate the quality of life as “excellent” compared with those who did not
answer the question or stated “I don’t know” (69% vs. 50%).
o Residents with three or more children living in the house were more
likely to rate the quality of life as “excellent” compared with those who
with no children living in the home (76% vs. 67%)
o Residents 18 to 24 were less likely on average to rate the quality of life
as “Excellent” (54%), while residents 25 to 34 were more likely to give
and excellent rating (75%).
o Residents in zip code 92009, followed closely by 92008, were the most
likely to rate the quality of life in Carlsbad as "Excellent," (Excellent:
92008: 68%, 92009: 71%, 92010: 61%, 92011: 65%).
o Residents who indicated they owned the place in which they lived were
more likely to rate quality of life as “Excellent” compared to those who
indicated they rented (70% vs. 61%).
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
9
PERCEIVED DIRECTION
In keeping with previous years, residents were also asked whether they felt that the
quality of life in Carlsbad was getting better, getting worse, or staying about the same.
Residents reported more favorable ratings in 2013 than previous years, with nearly three
out of ten (29%) rating the quality of life as “Getting better” (statistically higher than
2009-2012) and only 10 percent indicating that the quality of life was “Getting worse”
(statistically lower than 2009-2010). Fifty-seven percent of residents surveyed felt that
the quality of life in the City of Carlsbad was “Staying about the same.”
Figure 4: Quality of Life Direction
Getting better Staying about
the same Getting worse DK/NA
2009 15.1% 59.8% 20.9% 4.2%
2010 16.5% 64.7% 15.2% 3.6%
2011 17.1% 68.1% 11.0% 3.8%
2012 23.2% 61.9% 11.4% 3.4%
2013 29.3% 57.2% 9.9% 3.6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Higher than average positive perceptions regarding the direction of the quality
of life (29% "Getting better" across all 2013 respondents) were reported
among residents that have lived in Carlsbad for 4 or less years (35%), those
who identified as Hispanic or Latino(a) (35%), and those 25 to 34 years old
(40%).
€ Statistically significant change from 2012 (p<.05) # Statistically significant change from 2011
α Statistically significant change from 2010 ¥ Statistically significant change from 2009
€ # α ¥
# α ¥
€ # α
#
¥
α ¥
α ¥
α ¥
α
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
10
NUMBER ONE WAY TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE
Roughly half of residents surveyed3 were then asked to identify the number one thing
that the City of Carlsbad could do to improve the quality of life within the community.
Asked in an open-ended format, thirty-percent of residents that were asked did not
identify anything4 and no single response was cited by more than ten percent of
residents.
Figure 5: Number One Way to Improve Quality of Life (n=498)5
3 Residents were split into two groups at the beginning of the survey. This question was asked of only one of
those groups. 4 Response categories of “Nothing needs improvement” and “DK/NA.”
5 Categories with less than one percent were combined into “Other” (see Appendix B for full breakdown).
21.8%
8.3%
7.6%
1.3%
2.0%
2.0%
2.2%
2.3%
2.6%
3.0%
3.3%
3.6%
3.7%
4.9%
6.7%
7.9%
8.3%
8.5%
0%20%40%
DK/NA
Nothing needs improvement
Other
More affordable housing/ affordability in
general
More community events/ programs
More activities/ programs for children
and young adults
More public transportation
Improve beach access
Better economic plan/ lower taxes/fees
Increase recreation opportunities
Be more business friendly/ provide more
shops
Increase/ improve police services
Better city planning and/or management
Preserve more open space
Improve schools
Stop building/ stop growth
Improve the quality of the roads and
other infrastructure
Fix the traffic problems
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
11
QUALITY OF LIFE – COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES
This section displays examples of residents' quality of life ratings from cities that have
conducted comparable studies within the past five years. The 96 percent overall quality
of life rating provided by Carlsbad residents places the city in the top tier.
Figure 6: Quality of Life Rating – Comparison to Other Cities6
6 Small cities were defined as those with a total population up to 50,000. Mid-sized cities were those with a
population between 50,001 and 150,000. Large cities were those with a population of 150,001 or more.
56%
62%
70%
70%
72%
75%
77%
82%
84%
85%
85%
87%
88%
89%
91%
92%
94%
94%
95%
96%
96%
98%
99%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Small City, Sacramento County
Small City, Riverside County
Large City, Los Angeles County
Small City, El Dorado County
Mid-Sized City, Contra Costa County
Large City, Riverside County
Large City, Santa Clara County
Mid-Sized City, San Bernardino County
Large City, San Diego County
Mid-Sized City, Alameda County
Mid-Sized City, Santa Clara County
Small City, Los Angeles County
Mid-Sized City, Orange County
Mid-Sized City, San Diego County
Mid-Sized City, Riverside County
Mid-Sized City, San Mateo County
Mid-Sized City, Santa Clara County
Mid-Sized City, Marin County
Small City, San Mateo County
Mid-Sized City, Orange County
City of Carlsbad, San Diego County
Mid-Sized City, Orange County
Mid-Sized City, Orange County
% of Residents that Rate the Quality of Life in their City as “Excellent” or “Good”
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
12
The figure below displays the percentage of residents that viewed the quality of life in
their city as either “Getting better” or “Staying about the same.” Once again, among
comparable research studies from cities throughout California, the combined 86 percent
reported by Carlsbad residents places the city at the top of the chart.
Figure 7: Quality of Life Direction – Comparison to Other Cities7
7 Small cities were defined as those with a total population up to 50,000. Mid-sized cities were those with a
population between 50,001 and 150,000. Large cities were those with a population of 150,001 or more.
47%
51%
60%
64%
66%
69%
73%
74%
76%
80%
80%
81%
84%
86%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Mid-Sized City, Riverside County
Mid-Sized City, Contra Costa County
Large City, Kern County
Large City, Marin County
Large City, Riverside County
Small City, Riverside County
Small City, Los Angeles County
Large City, San Bernardino County
Large City, Sacramento County
Large City, Santa Clara County
Mid-Sized City, Sacramento County
Small City, San Luis Obispo County
Small City, Alameda County
City of Carlsbad, San Diego County
% of Residents that View the Quality of Life in their City as
“Getting better” or “Staying about the same”
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
13
SAFETY
Carlsbad residents indicated that they feel very safe in their neighborhoods. Ninety-eight
percent of residents that were surveyed felt safe walking alone in their neighborhoods
during the day (87% “Very safe”) and 90 percent felt safe walking alone at night (54%
“Very safe”). Less than one percent of residents (0.6%) reported feeling unsafe walking
alone in their neighborhood during the day, while six percent felt unsafe after dark.
The combined safety percentage reported by Carlsbad residents for walking alone in
their neighborhood during the day (98%) was statistically consistent with the previous
three survey years (2012: 98%, 2011: 99%, 2010: 98%) and statistically higher than
2009 (97%). The combined safety percentage for residents walking alone in their
neighborhood at night was statistically higher than the reported percentage in 2009 and
2010.
Figure 8: Safety in Carlsbad8
8 Due to space constraints, the following symbols were omitted from the chart for walking alone in
neighborhood during the day: “Somewhat unsafe” was statistically lower in both 2012 and 2011 than 2009,
“Very unsafe” was statistically lower in 2012 than 2011, and “DK/NA” was statistically lower in 2013 and
2012 than 2009. 85.5%86.8%86.2%89.4%87.5%0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Walking alone in neighborhood
during the day 52.3%51.1%54.2%56.3%54.3%33.0%35.6%35.8%33.7%35.9%0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Walking alone in neighborhood after
dark
54.2%51.1%52.3%51.4%35.8%35.6%33.0%34.1%4.9%6.7%8.3%9.2%0.7%1.8%1.2%2.0%0%20%40%60%80%100%Very safe Somewhat safe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe DK/NA
€ Statistically significant change from 2012 (p<.05)
# Statistically significant change from 2011
α Statistically significant change from 2010
¥ Statistically significant change from 2009
# ¥
#
α
¥ ¥ ¥ α ¥
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
14
Safety walking alone in their neighborhoods (during both the day and night)
was positively correlated with a number of other metrics within the survey,
including: satisfaction with the job the city is doing to provide services and
quality of life ratings.
Given the very high percentage of residents that felt safe walking alone in their
neighborhoods during the day (and thereby the limited amount of
differentiation among sub-groups), the focus of the sub-group analysis below
is on safety walking alone after dark.
o Residents who indicated they had no sense of community were more
than three times as likely to feel unsafe (either somewhat or very)
walking alone in their neighborhood after dark compared to those that
indicated they had a strong sense of community (5% vs. 18%).
o Renters were almost twice as likely to feel unsafe (either somewhat or
very) walking alone in their neighborhood after dark compared to
owners (9% vs. 5%).
o Residents from 92008 were approximately twice as likely to feel unsafe
(either somewhat or very) walking alone in their neighborhood after
dark compared to those from Carlsbad’s three other zip codes (10%
vs. 5%).
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
15
SAFETY – COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES
The figure below shows examples of residents’ feelings of safety walking alone in their
neighborhoods during the day in cities throughout the state that have conducted
comparable studies within the past five years.
Figure 9: Safety Walking Alone During the Day – Comparison to Other Cities
70%
81%
83%
85%
86%
90%
92%
93%
95%
95%
96%
97%
98%
98%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Mid-Sized City, Contra Costa County
Small City, Riverside County
Large City, San Francisco County
Mid-Sized City, Sacramento County
Mid-Sized City, Riverside County
Mid-Sized City, San Bernardino County
Mid-Sized City, San Diego County
Mid-Sized City, Los Angeles County
Small City, El Dorado County
Mid-Sized City, Marin County
Mid-Sized City, San Diego County
Small City, Monterey County
Small City, Riverside County
City of Carlsbad, San Diego County
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
16
Consistent with previous years, Carlsbad remained in the top tier with regard to
residents' safety ratings for walking alone in their neighborhoods after dark.
Figure 10: Safety Walking Alone After Dark – Comparison to Other Cities
42%
50%
52%
55%
66%
68%
69%
71%
72%
78%
79%
80%
83%
85%
88%
89%
90%
91%
92%
93%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Mid-Sized City, Contra Costa County
Large City, San Francisco County
Small City, Riverside County
Mid-Sized City, Sacramento County
Mid-Sized City, San Bernardino County
Large City, Santa Clara County
Mid-Sized City, Sacramento County
Mid-Sized City, San Diego County
Mid-Sized City, San Diego County
Mid-Sized City, Marin County
Mid-Sized City, Santa Clara County
Mid-Sized City, San Mateo County
Mid-Sized City, Santa Clara County
Small City, El Dorado County
Small City, Riverside County
Small City, Santa Clara County
City of Carlsbad, San Diego County
Small City, Orange County
Mid-Sized City, Orange County
Mid-Sized City, Orange County
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
17
SENSE OF COMMUNITY
Residents were asked whether they felt a strong, weak, or no sense of community at all.
As the results in the figure below illustrate, just over 70 percent of respondents indicated
they had a strong sense of community and a third indicated it was very strong. These
results were relatively consistent with the previous years, with no single category
experiencing a change of more than three percent.
Figure 11: Sense of Community Levels
2.5%
4.8%
2.9%
18.8%
38.0%
33.0%
1.4%
4.8%
2.4%
18.1%
40.5%
32.8%
2.4%
4.8%
2.3%
18.1%
43.9%
28.5%
3.0%
6.3%
1.5%
21.3%
39.4%
28.6%
3.6%
4.4%
4.1%
22.9%
38.6%
26.3%
0%20%40%60%80%
DK/NA
None at all
Very weak
Somewhat weak
Somewhat strong
Very strong
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
¥
# α ¥
€ Statistically significant change from 2012 (p<.05)
# Statistically significant change from 2011
α Statistically significant change from 2010
¥ Statistically significant change from 2009
# α ¥
α ¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
α
¥
α ¥
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
18
The following is an examination of sense of community levels by resident sub-groups.
Sense of community was positively correlated with a number of factors
throughout the survey, including: experience visiting the Carlsbad Village,
confidence in city government, perceptions regarding the direction of the
quality of life, satisfaction with the job the city is doing to provide services,
quality of life ratings, and satisfaction with the city’s efforts to provide
communication.
A regression analysis revealed the following as the top predictors of residents’
sense of community:
o Agreement with the community values statement “Carlsbad has a
small town, connected feel” ; and
o Satisfaction with the city’s efforts to provide recreation programs.
Residents 65 years and older were more likely to indicate a very strong sense
of community compared to their younger counterparts (43% vs. 31%).
Residents in 92010 (42%) and 92008 (39%) were more likely to have a very
strong sense of community than their counterparts in 92011(32%) and 92009
(26%).
Residents who have lived in Carlsbad for 4 years or less were less likely to
have a very strong sense of community compared to those who have lived in
the City for 15 or more years (29% vs. 39%).
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
19
CONFIDENCE IN CITY GOVERNMENT
Consistent with the levels reported for 2010 through 2012 and statistically higher than
2009, 80 percent of residents reported confidence in Carlsbad city government to make
decisions that positively affect the lives of community members. Thirteen percent of
residents reported a lack of confidence (statistically lower than 2009-2010) and seven
percent did not know or declined to state.
Although overall confidence remained consistent with last year, the percentage “Very
confident” increased (25% vs. 23%), with the 2013 level statistically higher than 2011.
Figure 12: Confidence in City Government to Make Decisions
21.6%22.4%17.4%22.5%24.9%
52.2%55.2%66.1%57.7%55.5%
15.7%12.0%10.3%10.8%9.5%
6.5%5.5%4.9%5.4%6.7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Very confident Somewhat confident Somewhat unconfident Very unconfident DK/NA
€ Statistically significant change from 2012 (p<.05)
# Statistically significant change from 2011
α Statistically significant change from 2010
¥ Statistically significant change from 2009
# # α ¥
# # ¥ α ¥
¥
¥ ¥ ¥
α ¥ α ¥ α ¥
# ¥
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
20
COMMUNITY VALUES
For the second straight year, Carlsbad residents were asked their level of agreement
with a list of statements that describe Carlsbad’s vision for the city and specific
characteristics or qualities of Carlsbad. The majority of residents said that they “Strongly
agreed” with the four statements about Carlsbad’s active lifestyles (70%), beach
community (65%), strong local economy (54%), and promotion of the arts (51%).
The following is an assessment of confidence in city government by sub-groups.
Confidence in city government was positively correlated with: residents’ views
regarding quality of life, direction of the quality of life, sense of community,
satisfaction with the job the city is doing to provide services, satisfaction with
city-resident communication, and residents’ experience visiting Carlsbad’s
Downtown Village.
Although there was no difference in overall confidence by age group,
residents 65 years and older were the most likely to report being “Very
confident” in Carlsbad city government to make decisions that positively affect
the lives of its community members.
Residents of zip codes 92008 (82%), 92010 (83%) and 92011 (82%) reported
higher confidence than those in 92009 (79%).
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
21
Figure 13: Agreement with Statements about Characteristics of Carlsbad (high 2013)9
The statement about Carlsbad improving access to public transportation garnered the
lowest level of agreement (44%), followed by the statement that the City celebrates its
cultural heritage (68%).
9 Due to higher than average percentages of “Don’t know/ no answer” responses for many items, those
responses were filtered out of the analysis for this series (see Appendix B for full breakdown of responses).
36.9%
35.9%
44.0%
41.7%
51.2%
48.9%
53.9%
52.2%
65.2%
59.4%
70.3%
68.7%
44.8%
47.3%
37.9%
37.7%
36.8%
36.7%
36.2%
35.3%
26.7%
30.8%
24.8%
26.3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Supports
environmental
sustainability
Is improving
access to walking
and biking trails
Promotes the arts
Supports a strong
local economy by
promoting
business diversity
and tourism
Maintains its beach
community
character
Promotes active
lifestyles; access
to trails, parks,
beaches, & other
rec. opps.
95.0%
95.1%
90.2%
91.9%
87.5%
90.2%
85.6%
88.0%
79.4%
81.9%
83.1%
81.8%
Dark=Strongly agree Light=Somewhat agree Total Agree
'12
'13
'12
'13
'12
'13
'12
'13
'12
'13
'12
'13
Carlsbad...
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
22
Figure 14: Agreement with Statements about Characteristics of Carlsbad (low 2013)10
SATISFACTION WITH SPECIFIC CITY SERVICES
Over 90 percent of residents who provided an opinion were satisfied with the city’s
efforts to "Maintain city parks" (95%), "Provide trash collection services" (95%), “Provide
10 Due to higher than average percentages of “Don’t know/ no answer” responses for many items, those
responses were filtered out of the analysis for this series (see Appendix B for full breakdown of responses).
16.6%
14.2%
30.2%
28.9%
42.5%
40.7%
38.0%
34.9%
44.1%
45.6%
43.4%
44.0%
27.8%
32.9%
37.5%
39.3%
34.1%
36.1%
41.1%
42.9%
35.3%
33.1%
38.0%
37.1%
0%20%40%60%80% 100%
Is improving
access to public
transportation
Celebrates the
city's cultural
heritage
Has a small
town, connected
feel
Supports
neighborhood
revitalization and
livable
communities
Supports quality
education
Protects and
enhances open
space and
natural environ.
81.1%
81.4%
78.7%
79.4%
77.7%
79.1%
76.7%
76.6%
68.2%
67.7%
47.2%
44.4%
Dark=Strongly agree Light=Somewhat agree Total Agree
'12
'13
'12
'13
'12
'13
'12
'13
'12
'13
'12
'13
Carlsbad...
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
23
library services” (95%), “Provide fire protection and emergency medical services" (93%),
"Provide recycling collection services" (93%), "Provide trails and walking paths" (92%),
“Provide law enforcement services” (91%) and "Provide water services" (90%).
Figure 15: Satisfaction with Specific Services11
The table below shows the overall percentage of residents satisfied, neither satisfied nor
dissatisfied, and dissatisfied with the city’s efforts in each area, ordered by satisfaction
ranking.
11 Due to higher than average percentages of “Don’t know/ no answer” responses for many items, those
responses were filtered out of the analysis for this series. The high percentages are likely due to residents’
lack of direct experience with those specific services (refer to Appendix B for full breakdown of responses).
29.7%
39.2%
31.8%
41.9%
50.3%
48.1%
56.4%
59.3%
50.2%
60.6%
62.6%
66.6%
62.7%
71.2%
74.8%
77.9%
75.8%
73.5%
40.2%
32.3%
42.2%
39.4%
34.7%
37.1%
29.2%
26.9%
36.3%
28.8%
27.5%
24.2%
29.4%
22.0%
18.6%
17.0%
19.4%
21.9%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Manage residential growth and
development
Provide hazardous waste disposal
Manage traffic congestion on city streets
Protect water quality in the city's creeks,
lagoons, and the ocean
Maintain the business climate in
Carlsbad
Provide local arts and cultural
opportunities
Provide street sweeping services
Provide recreation programs
Repair and maintain local streets and
roads
Provide sewer services
Provide water services
Provide law enforcement services
Provide trails and walking paths
Provide recycling collection services
Provide fire protection and emergency
medical services
Provide library services
Provide trash collection services
Maintain city parks
Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
24
Table 1: Satisfaction with Specific Services
Satisfaction with the city's efforts
to… Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied Satisfaction
Rank
Maintain city parks 95.5% 2.3% 2.2% 1
Provide trash collection services 95.2% 2.2% 2.6% 2
Provide library services 94.9% 4.1% 1.0% 3
Provide fire protection and
emergency medical services 93.4% 5.7% 0.9% 4
Provide recycling collection
services 93.3% 2.7% 4.0% 5
Provide trails and walking paths 92.1% 4.3% 3.6% 6
Provide law enforcement
services 90.8% 3.8% 5.4% 7
Provide water services 90.1% 4.8% 5.1% 8
Provide sewer services 89.4% 8.8% 1.8% 9
Repair and maintain local streets
and roads 86.4% 4.0% 9.6% 10
Provide recreation programs 86.2% 9.9% 3.9% 11
Provide street sweeping services 85.5% 7.9% 6.6% 12
Provide local arts and cultural
opportunities 85.2% 9.0% 5.8% 13
Maintain the business climate in
Carlsbad 85.1% 10.2% 4.8% 14
Protect water quality in the city's
creeks, lagoons, and the ocean 81.3% 11.8% 7.0% 15
Manage traffic congestion on city
streets 74.0% 4.7% 21.3% 16
Provide hazardous waste
disposal 71.5% 17.9% 10.5% 17
Manage residential growth and
development 69.9% 11.9% 18.2% 18
Average across items 86.8% 6.9% 6.3%
The three charts on the following pages display satisfaction with the city's efforts to
provide each service over the past five years.12 They are presented in descending order
according to total satisfaction in 2013. Seven of the 18 services experienced a
statistically significant change in total satisfaction in 2013 compared with at least one
previous survey year (changes are marked and described in the text).
The total proportion of residents that said they were “Very satisfied” with the city’s efforts
to “Maintain city parks” reached its highest level in 2013 (74%) which is statistically
higher than the reported percentage from 2009 to 2011. Overall satisfaction for the city’s
efforts to “Provide recycling collection services” (statistically higher than 2011) and
“Provide trails and walking paths” (statistically higher than 2009-2011) was statistically
higher than at least one other survey year.
12 Due to rounding, the percentage “Total satisfied” displayed may not exactly equal the percentage “Very
satisfied” plus “Somewhat satisfied.”
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
25
Overall satisfaction for the city’s efforts to “Provide library services” was statistically
lower than the levels reported in 2012 and 2009, driven by increases in the percentage
of residents that answered “Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.”
Figure 16: Satisfaction with Specific Services by Year: Part 1
62.7%
62.2%59.4%56.5%53.0%
71.2%73.8%
55.7%
74.8%72.4%73.8%70.1%
74.2%
77.9%
80.7%76.6%76.5%77.4%
75.8%75.7%67.7%
73.5%71.8%66.5%66.5%
65.4%
29.4%
28.0%28.8%32.8%34.8%
22.0%20.6%
28.0%
18.6%20.2%20.0%24.6%
19.9%
17.0%
16.1%
18.9%19.6%19.3%
19.4%19.0%25.5%
21.9%
23.5%28.9%29.3%
29.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
'13
'12
'11
'10
'09
'13
'12
'11
'13
'12
'11
'10
'09
'13
'12
'11
'10
'09
'13
'12
'11
'13
'12
'11
'10
'09
Provide trailsand walkingpathsProviderecyclingcollectionservicesProvide fireprotection andemergencymedicalservicesProvide libraryservicesProvide trashcollectionservicesMaintain cityparks94.4%
95.9%
95.4%
95.3%
95.5%
93.2%
94.7%
95.2%
96.8%
96.2%
95.5%
96.8%
94.9%
94.1%
94.6%
93.8%
92.6%
93.4%
83.6%
94.4%
93.3%
87.8%
89.3%
88.2%
90.2%
92.1%
Dark=Very satisfied Light=Somewhat satisfied Total Satisfied
€ Statistically significant change from 2012 (p<.05)
# Statistically significant change from 2011
α Statistically significant change from 2010
¥ Statistically significant change from 2009
# α ¥ # α ¥
# α ¥ # α ¥
#
# #
#
# α α
€ ¥
α
¥
α
α
α
¥
#
# #
# #
#
α ¥ α ¥
α ¥ ¥
¥ ¥
# α ¥
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
26
Among those who provided an opinion, resident satisfaction with the city's efforts to
“Provide sewer services” and “Provide recreation programs” was statistically lower than
overall satisfaction in 2009. The proportion of residents that were “Very satisfied” with
the city’s efforts to “Repair and maintain local streets and roads” was statistically higher
than 2011, while the proportion of those that were “Very satisfied” with the city’s efforts
to “Provide water services” was statistically higher than 2009 and 2010.
Figure 17: Satisfaction with Specific Services by Year: Part 2
56.4%
53.5%
52.4%
59.3%
58.3%
55.8%
55.4%
59.0%
50.2%
48.1%
45.6%
47.2%
47.6%
60.6%
62.0%
61.0%
58.5%
60.8%
62.6%
63.1%
60.9%
55.5%
56.0%
66.6%
64.1%
65.1%
64.5%
64.1%
29.2%
31.0%
33.1%
26.9%
26.9%
31.3%
34.0%
29.1%
36.3%
38.7%
41.8%
38.7%
39.0%
28.8%
26.9%
30.1%
34.5%
30.0%
27.5%
27.9%
30.9%
34.7%
32.8%
24.2%
26.7%
26.4%
28.2%
25.9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
'13
'12
'11
'13
'12
'11
'10
'09
'13
'12
'11
'10
'09
'13
'12
'11
'10
'09
'13
'12
'11
'10
'09
'13
'12
'11
'10
'09
Provide streetsweepingservicesProviderecreationprogramsRepair andmaintain localstreets androadsProvide sewerservicesProvide waterservicesProvide lawenforcementservices90.0%
92.7%
91.5%
90.8%
90.8%
88.8%
90.1%
91.9%
91.0%
90.1%
90.9%
93.0%
91.1%
88.8%
89.4%
86.6%
85.9%
87.4%
86.9%
86.4%
88.0%
89.4%
87.1%
85.2%
86.2%
85.5%
84.5%
85.5%
Dark=Very satisfied Light=Somewhat satisfied Total Satisfied
€ Statistically significant change from 2012 (p<.05) # Statistically significant change from 2011
α Statistically significant change from 2010 ¥ Statistically significant change from 2009
α
¥
α ¥ α ¥
α ¥
α ¥
α ¥
¥
α
α
α
α
¥
α
# #
#α
#α
¥
α
α
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
27
Driven by the increase in residents that said they were “Very satisfied,” overall
satisfaction with the city’s efforts to “Maintain the business climate in Carlsbad” reached
a new high in 2013 (85%). Overall satisfaction for the city’s efforts to “Manage traffic
congestion on city streets” and “Manage residential growth and development” was
statistically higher than 2009.
Figure 18: Satisfaction with Specific Services by Year: Part 3
29.7%31.7%
28.5%26.9%
22.5%
39.2%
42.8%40.1%
31.8%34.1%
33.0%31.1%
32.8%
41.9%
46.4%43.4%
42.3%41.8%
50.3%46.2%
41.1%39.8%40.3%
48.1%
45.5%51.1%48.0%
50.0%
40.2%39.8%
43.2%39.9%
41.2%
32.3%
32.4%32.2%
42.2%40.6%
44.4%43.0%36.7%
39.4%
37.0%38.6%
40.8%
40.5%
34.7%36.7%
41.8%43.8%43.4%
37.1%
38.3%36.5%39.4%
36.7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
'13
'12
'11
'10
'09
'13
'12
'11
'13
'12
'11
'10
'09
'13
'12
'11
'10
'09
'13
'12
'11
'10
'09
'13
'12
'11
'10
'09
Manageresidentialgrowth anddevelopmentProvidehazardouswaste disposalManage trafficcongestion oncity streetsProtect waterquality in thecity's creeks,lagoons, andthe oceanMaintain thebusinessclimate inCarlsbadProvide localarts andculturalopportunities86.7%
87.4%
87.5%
83.8%
85.2%
83.6%
83.7%
82.9%
82.8%
85.1%
82.3%
83.1%
82.0%
83.4%
81.3%
69.5%
74.1%
77.4%
74.8%
74.0%
72.3%
75.2%
71.5%
63.8%
66.8%
71.7%
71.4%
69.9%
Dark=Very satisfied Light=Somewhat satisfied Total Satisfied
€ Statistically significant change from 2012 (p<.05) # Statistically significant change from 2011
α Statistically significant change from 2010 ¥ Statistically significant change from 2009
#¥ #α
# α ¥
# α ¥ # α ¥
# α ¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
α ¥
α ¥ α ¥
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
28
SATISFACTION WITH CITY-RESIDENT COMMUNICATION
Almost ninety percent of residents are satisfied with the city’s efforts to provide
information to residents through its website, newsletters, water bill inserts, and related
sources of information. Overall satisfaction was statistically lower than the level reported
in 2011, and those that indicated that they were “Very satisfied” was statistically lower
than last year.
Figure 19: Satisfaction with City-Resident Communication13
13 Wording of this question changed slightly in 2011. As such, previous years’ data are not displayed.
Very satisfied Somewhat
satisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied Very dissatisfied
2011 51.2% 41.4% 5.6% 1.8%
2012 54.5% 36.9% 6.4% 2.2%
2013 49.2% 40.6% 7.4% 2.8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
2011
2012
2013
€ Statistically significant change from 2012 (p<.05) # Statistically significant change from 2011
Satisfied
2011 = 92.6%
2012 = 91.4%
2013 = 89.8%#
€
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
29
Satisfaction with city-resident communication was positively correlated with a
number of other metrics throughout the survey, including: residents’ views on
quality of life, perceptions regarding the direction of the quality of life,
satisfaction with the job the city is doing to provide services, sense of
community, confidence in city government, and experience visiting the Village.
Residents who referred to the city website, community services and recreation
guide, Carlsbad Currents newsletter, water bill flyers, and flyers at city building
for information about city issues, programs, and services reported much
higher satisfaction levels than those who never utilized those sources.
Residents who indicated they had a very weak or no sense of community
were more than three times as likely to indicate dissatisfaction (either
somewhat or very) to the City’s efforts to provide information compared to
those who indicated a very strong sense of community (22% vs. 6%).
Residents between the age of 18 and 24 were less likely to be very satisfied
or just satisfied (either very or somewhat) with the City’s efforts to provide
information compared to residents 25 years and older (very satisfied 23% vs.
47% or satisfied 73% vs. 84%).
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
30
INFORMATION SOURCES
Examining overall use of each source for information on city issues, programs, and
services, the city's website (73%), and the community services and recreation guide
(71%) were each utilized by more than two out of three residents. The highest
percentage of regular use reported by Carlsbad residents was for flyers that came in the
water bill (27%), followed by the San Diego Union-Tribune or UT San Diego (25%).
Compared with previous years, statistically more residents reported referring to the city's
website (higher than 2009), the Coast News (higher than 2012), and social media
websites (higher than 2009-2011), whereas fewer referred to water bill flyers (lower than
2011 and 2012), the community services and recreation guide (lower than 2009 and
2010), the San Diego Union-Tribune (lower than 2009) and the city cable channel (lower
than 2011).
Figure 20: Frequency of Using Information Sources14
14 Figure sorted by overall use. UT mentioned in 2012 and the website was mentioned in previous years.
18.1%
17.5%
25.2%
16.6%
12.6%
26.6%
21.6%
19.9%
11%
16.3%
23.8%
18.5%
25.8%
26.4%
23.9%
30.8%
30.9%
8%
14.1%
13.1%
15.5%
15.4%
20.1%
24.4%
13.2%
18.9%
22.2%
71.1%
68.6%
51.1%
38.2%
39.2%
34.5%
34.9%
31.1%
27.2%
26.0%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Patch.com
City Cable Channel
Social media web sites such as Facebook,
Twitter, or YouTube
Carlsbad Currents newsletter
San Diego Union-Tribune or UT San Diego
Coast News
Flyers at city buildings like the Library,
Senior Center, or Community Centers
Flyers that come in your water bill
Community services and recreation guide
City of Carlsbad website
Regularly Sometimes Seldom Never DK/NA
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
31
PREVENTING POLLUTION OF CREEKS, LAGOONS, AND OCEAN
Just over half of residents surveyed15 were asked about information concerning the
prevention of pollution in Carlsbad’s waterways. Consistent with 2012 but lower than
percentages reported from 2009 to 2011, 55 percent of residents in 2013 had seen or
heard information in the past year about how residents can prevent the pollution of local
creeks, lagoons, and the ocean.
Figure 21: Informed about Preventing Water Pollution (n=509)
15 Residents were split into two groups at the beginning of the survey. This question was asked of only one
of those groups.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Yes No Don't know/ not sure
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
€ Statistically significant change from 2012 (p<.05)
# Statistically significant change from 2011
α Statistically significant change from 2010
¥ Statistically significant change from 2009
# α ¥ # α ¥
¥
# α ¥ # α ¥
¥
# α ¥ α
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
32
ACTION BASED ON INFORMATION
Residents who recalled seeing or hearing information about how to prevent water
pollution were next asked to indicate what they had done – if anything – to reduce the
amount of pollution in local creeks, lagoons, and the ocean. Consistent with the past
three years, more than one out of five respondents to this follow-up question indicated
that they had not done anything or declined to state.
Twenty-three percent of residents that were asked reported that they had cleaned up
trash at parks, beaches and on the street, taking over for the top action from last year,
properly disposing of hazardous waste. Those that indicated they had used a
commercial car wash as a way to reduce water pollution was higher in 2013 when
compared to last year (17% vs. 9%) and consistent with levels reported in previous
years (2011; 16%, 2010; 15%, 2009; 19%).
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
33
Figure 22: Action Taken Based on Pollution Prevention Information (n=281)16
16 Multiple responses permitted; the percentages in the figure total more than 100 percent.
Categories with less than one percent were combined into “Other” (see Appendix B for full breakdown).
3.8%
18.0%
2.1%
1.2%
2.1%
2.9%
3.2%
3.4%
3.7%
4.7%
7.2%
8.5%
12.0%
17.0%
22.3%
22.9%
0%20%40%
DK/NA
Have not done anything
Other
Reduce trash/ plastics
Reduced water usage/ used water more
efficiently
Don't wash cars as much/ don't wash in
driveway
Reduced run-off/ erosion control
I do everything I can/ I don't pollute
Don't litter
Careful of what goes down sewer/ no
longer dump down storm drain
Recycled
Cleaned up animal waste
Used environmentally friendly soaps,
pesticides, etc.
Used a commercial car wash
Properly disposed of hazardous waste
Cleaned up trash at parks and beaches/
on the street
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
34
EXPERIENCE VISITING THE CARLSBAD VILLAGE
Consistent with the past two years, 95 percent of residents reported visiting Carlsbad
Downtown Village at least once a month, with almost six in ten (59%) indicating that they
visited at least once a week or more.17 Ninety-one percent of residents surveyed rated
their experience visiting Carlsbad Village as positive, with 50 percent rating it an
“Excellent” experience (statistically higher than 2011) and 41 percent recalling a “Good”
experience (statistically lower than 2011).
Figure 23: Experience Visiting Carlsbad Village
17 Wording of this question changed slightly in 2011 to focus on a typical month. As such, previous years’
data are not displayed.
0.4%
0.5%
0.7%
7.3%
41.4%
49.6%
0.2%
0.2%
0.8%
8.7%
44.8%
45.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.7%
8.2%
47.0%
43.1%
0%20%40%60%80%
DK/NA
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
2011
2012
2013
Positive
2011 = 90%
2012 = 90%
2013 = 91%
€ Statistically significant change from 2012 (p<.05)
# Statistically significant change from 2011
#
#
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
35
The following section examines use and perceptions regarding Carlsbad's Downtown
Village by resident sub-groups.
In general, residents who had a positive experience visiting Carlsbad’s
Downtown Village were more likely to rate other aspects of life in Carlsbad
favorably. Ratings were positively correlated with: residents’ views regarding
quality of life, confidence in city government, sense of community, and
satisfaction with city-resident communication.
Residents who have lived in Carlsbad at least 15 years were the most likely to
regularly visit the Village (71%).
Seventy percent of residents living in apartments regularly visited the Village
as compared to 58 percent of residents in single family detached homes or
condominiums and townhomes. Renters were also more likely than owners to
rate their experience as "Excellent" (61% vs. 45%).
Residents of zip code 92009 were the least likely to report visiting the Village
in a typical month (92008: 99%, 92009: 89%, 92010: 98%, 92011: 98%).
While residents of 92008 were the most likely to rate their experience visiting
the village as “Excellent” (61% vs. 45% for other zip codes).
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
36
AWARENESS OF SAGE CREEK HIGH SCHOOL
New to the 2013 survey, Carlsbad residents were asked whether they have heard, read
or seen any information about a new public high school, Sage Creek, opening in
Carlsbad this fall. Just over two-thirds of surveyed residents indicated that they had,
while 31 percent had not, and one percent could not recall whether they had or not.
Figure 24: Knowledge about Sage Creek High School
67.2%
31.4%
1.5%
Yes, have heard about
Sage Creek High
School
No, have not heard
anything about Sage
Creek High School
Not Sure
The following is an assessment of awareness of Sage Creek High School opening by
sub-groups.
Residents who have lived in the City for less than 5 years were considerably
less likely to be aware of Sage Creek’s opening compared to those residents
that have lived in the City for 5 or more years (52% vs. 70%).
Residents with no children living in the home had somewhat lower awareness
of Sage Creek opening compared to those with children in the home (61% vs.
75%).
Residents who live in 92009, the zip code in which Sage Creek High School is
located, had the lowest awareness of the school compared to residents from
neighboring Carlsbad zip codes (51% vs. 77%).
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
A-1
APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY
The table below provides an overview of the methodology utilized for the project.
Table 2: Overview of Project Methodology
Method Telephone Survey (Mobile and Land Line)
Universe 82,082 Residents 18 Years and Older within the City of Carlsbad
Number of Respondents 1,007 Residents Completed a Survey
Average Length 20 minutes
Field Dates September 11 – September 28, 2013
Margin of Error The maximum margin of error for questions answered by all
1,007 respondents was +/-3.07% (95% level of confidence)
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Prior to beginning the project, BW Research met with the City of Carlsbad’s
Performance Measurement Resource Team to determine the research objectives for the
2013 study. The main research objectives of the study were to assess residents’
perceptions regarding city services, quality of life, sense of community, neighborhood
safety, city government, community values, and city-resident communication.
QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN
Through an iterative process, BW Research worked closely with the city to develop a
survey instrument that met all the research objectives of the study. In developing the
instrument, BW Research utilized techniques to overcome known biases in survey
research and minimize potential sources of measurement error within the survey.
SAMPLING METHOD
BW Research utilized a mixed-method sampling plan that incorporated a traditional
random digit dial (RDD) methodology (listed and unlisted traditional land line numbers),
an RDD cell phone sample, and a listed sample of residents (listed land line and cell
phone numbers) known to live within the City of Carlsbad or known to be a cell phone
number.
The RDD methodology is based on the concept that all residents with a traditional land
line telephone in their home have an equal probability of being called and invited to
participate in the survey. Both the cell phone RDD sample and the listed sample
supplemented the traditional RDD methodology and allowed for targeted calling to
demographic groups of residents typically under-represented in traditional telephone
survey research. Screener questions were utilized at the beginning of the survey to
ensure that the residents who participated in the survey lived within the City of Carlsbad.
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
A-2
DATA COLLECTION
Prior to beginning data collection, BW Research conducted interviewer training and also
pre-tested the survey instrument to ensure that all the words and questions were easily
understood by respondents.
Interviews were generally conducted from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm Monday through
Thursday and 11:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturday and Sunday to ensure that residents
who commuted or were not at home during the week had an opportunity to participate.
Throughout data collection, BW Research checked the data for accurateness and
completeness and monitored the percentage of residents with language barriers to
determine whether or not the survey should be translated into a language other than
English. Since less than one percent of all numbers attempted were identified as having
a language barrier, translating the survey into languages other than English was not
necessary for representative results.
DATA PROCESSING
Prior to analysis, BW Research examined the demographic characteristics of the 1,001
respondents who completed a survey to the known universe of residents 18 years and
older using the San Diego Association of Government’s (SANDAG’s) 2013 current
demographic estimates for the City of Carlsbad. It is estimated that among Carlsbad’s
107,674 residents, 82,082 are 18 years and older. After examining the dimensions of zip
code, gender, ethnicity, and age, the data were weighted to appropriately represent the
universe of adult residents and ensure generalizability of the results.
A NOTE ABOUT MARGIN OF ERROR AND ANALYSIS OF SUB-GROUPS
The overall margin of error for the study, at the 95% level of confidence, is between
+/-1.84 percent and +/- 3.07 percent (depending on the distribution of each question) for
questions answered by all 1,007 respondents. It is important to note that questions
asked of smaller groups of respondents (such as questions that were only asked of
residents who visited the Village) or analysis of sub-groups (such as examining
differences by length of residence or gender) will have a margin of error greater than
+/-3.07 percent, with the exact margin of error dependent on the number of respondents
in each sub-group. BW Research has utilized statistical testing to account for the margin
of error within sub-groups and highlight statistically significant sub-group differences
throughout this report.
COMPARISONS OVER TIME
Similar to the analysis of sub-groups, BW Research utilized statistical testing to assess
whether the changes evidenced from previous survey years were due to actual changes
in attitudes, perceptions, or behaviors or simply due to chance (i.e., margin of error).
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-1
APPENDIX B: SURVEY TOPLINES
Introduction
Hello, my name is ______ and I’m calling on behalf of the City of Carlsbad. The city has
hired BW Research, an independent research agency, to conduct a survey concerning
issues in your community and we would like to get your opinions. [IF RESPONDENT
INDICATES THEY ARE A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER OR CITY STAFF- THANK THEM
AND LET THEM KNOW THIS SURVEY IS MEANT FOR CARLSBAD RESIDENTS WHO
ARE NOT CURRENTLY WORKING FOR THE CITY]
(If needed): This should just take a few minutes of your time.
(If needed): I assure you that we are an independent research agency and that all of your
responses will remain strictly confidential.
For statistical reasons, I would like to speak to the youngest adult male currently at home
who is at least 18 years of age. (Or youngest female depending on statistics of previous
completed interviews)
(IF THERE IS NO MALE/FEMALE AT LEAST 18 AVAILABLE, THEN ASK:)
Ok, then I’d like to speak to the youngest adult female/male currently at home who is at
least 18 years of age.
(IF THERE IS NO MALE/FEMALE AT LEAST 18 AVAILABLE, ASK FOR CALLBACK TIME)
(If needed): This is a study about issues of importance in your community – it is a survey
only and we are not selling anything.
(If needed): This survey should only take a few minutes of your time.
(If the individual mentions the national do not call list, respond according to
American Marketing Association guidelines): “Most types of opinion and marketing
research studies are exempt under the law that congress recently passed. That law was
passed to regulate the activities of the telemarketing industry. This is a legitimate research
call. Your opinions count!”)
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-2
Screener Questions
SCREENER
A
Before we begin, I want to confirm that you live within our study area. Are you currently
a resident of the City of Carlsbad?
100.0% Yes [Continue]
0.0% No [Thank and terminate]
SCREENER
B
Are you a Carlsbad City Council member or do you currently work for the City of
Carlsbad?
0.0% Yes [Thank and terminate]
100.0% No [Continue]
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-3
SCREENER
C
And what is your home zip code?
(If respondent gives the PO Box zip codes 92013 or 92018, prompt them to give
their home zip code for survey purposes).
27.5% 92008 [Continue]
37.0% 92009 [Continue]
13.8% 92010 [Continue]
21.7% 92011 [Continue]
0.0% Other [Thank and terminate]
0.0% DK/NA [Thank and terminate]
PUT RESPONDENTS INTO TWO REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES
SAMPLE A = GETS ASKED QUESTION 5 SKIPS QUESTION 13 & 14
SAMPLE B = SKIPS QUESTION 5 GETS ASKED QUESTION 13 & POTENTIALLY 14
Q1
To begin with, how long have you lived in the City of Carlsbad?
0.1% Less than 1 year
23.7% 1 to 4 years
21.3% 5 to 9 years
22.0% 10 to 14 years
32.9% 15 years or more
0.1% (Don't Read) DK/NA
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-4
Q2
Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Carlsbad is
doing to provide city services? (GET ANSWER, THEN ASK:) Would that be very
(satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)?
62.5% Very satisfied
31.7% Somewhat satisfied
2.0% Somewhat dissatisfied
1.5% Very dissatisfied
2.4% (Don't Read) DK/NA
WITH DK/NA FACTORED OUT (n=983)
64.0% Very satisfied
32.4% Somewhat satisfied
2.0% Somewhat dissatisfied
1.6% Very dissatisfied
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-5
Q3
How would you rate your quality of life in Carlsbad?
67.6% Excellent
28.7% Good
3.2% Fair
0.4% Poor
0.0% Very poor
0.1% (Don't Read) DK/NA
WITH DK/NA FACTORED OUT (n=1,006)
67.7% Excellent
28.7% Good
3.2% Fair
0.4% Poor
0.0% Very poor
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-6
Q4
Overall, do you feel the quality of life in Carlsbad is getting better, getting worse, or
staying about the same?
29.3% Getting better
9.9% Getting worse
57.2% Staying about the same
3.6% (Don't Read) DK/NA
WITH DK/NA FACTORED OUT (n=970)
30.4% Getting better
10.3% Getting worse
59.4% Staying about the same
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-7
Q5
ASKED OF SAMPLE A RESPONDENTS ONLY (n=498)
In your opinion, what is the number one thing that the City of Carlsbad could do to
improve the quality of life within the community? (DO NOT READ - ONE RESPONSE
ONLY) (n=498)
8.5% Fix the traffic problems
8.3% Improve the quality of the roads and other infrastructure
7.9% Stop building/ stop growth
6.7% Improve schools
4.9% Preserve more open space
3.7% Better city planning and/or management
3.6% Increase/ improve police services
3.3% Be more business friendly/ provide more shops
3.0% Increase recreation opportunities
2.6% Better economic plan/ lower taxes/fees
2.3% Improve beach access
2.2% More public transportation
2.0% More activities/ programs for children and young adults
2.0% More community events/ programs
1.3% More affordable housing/ affordability in general
0.9% Listen to the residents/ care more about the people in the community
0.9% Improve waste management/ city cleanliness
0.5% Build Desalination Plant
0.4% Address the gang problem
0.4% Remove the illegal immigrants
0.2% More jobs
0.2% More programs for seniors
8.3% Nothing needs improvement
4.1% Other (Specify)
21.8% DK/NA
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-8
Q6
Now I’d like to ask a couple questions about safety in the city. When you are _____
would you say that you feel very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very
unsafe?
Very
safe
Somewhat
safe
Somewhat
unsafe
Very
unsafe
(Don't
Read)
DK/NA
A. Walking alone in your neighborhood
during the day 87.5% 10.9% 1.0% 0.2% 0.4%
B. Walking alone in your neighborhood after
dark 54.3% 35.9% 5.2% 1.3% 3.3%
QUESTION 6 WITH DK/NA FACTORED OUT
Very
safe
Somewhat
safe
Somewhat
unsafe
Very
unsafe
A. Walking alone in your neighborhood
during the day (n=1,003) 87.8% 11.0% 1.0% 0.2%
B. Walking alone in your neighborhood after
dark (n=973) 56.2% 37.1% 5.4% 1.3%
Q7
Next, please think about the sense of community that you feel living in Carlsbad.
Would you say that you feel a strong sense of community, a weak sense of
community, or no sense of community at all?
(IF STRONG OR WEAK, THEN ASK:) Would that be very (strong/weak) or somewhat
(strong/weak)?
33.0% Very strong
38.0% Somewhat strong
18.8% Somewhat weak
2.9% Very weak
4.8% None at all
2.5% (Don't Read) DK/NA
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-9
Q8
Overall, how confident are you in the Carlsbad city government to make decisions that
positively affect the lives of its community members?
24.9% Very confident
55.5% Somewhat confident
9.5% Somewhat unconfident
3.4% Very unconfident
6.7% (Don't Read) DK/NA
WITH DK/NA FACTORED OUT (n=940)
26.7% Very confident
59.5% Somewhat confident
10.2% Somewhat unconfident
3.6% Very unconfident
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-10
Q9
Now I’m going to read a list of statements that describe Carlsbad’s vision for the City.
Please indicate whether you generally agree, disagree, or neither agree nor disagree
with the following statements that describe characteristics or qualities of Carlsba.
Here is the (fist/next) one: _____________ Do you generally agree, disagree or neither
agree nor disagree with the statement? (GET ANSWER IF AGREE OR DISAGREE
ASK:) Would that be strongly (agree/disagree) or somewhat (agree/disagree)?
RANDOMIZE
Strongly
agree Agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree Disagree
Strongly
disagree
(Don't
Read)
DK/NA
A. Carlsbad has a small town,
connected feel 42.0% 33.7% 4.9% 12.2% 6.0% 1.1%
B. Carlsbad maintains its beach
community character 64.1% 26.3% 3.3% 2.9% 1.7% 1.6%
C. Carlsbad promotes active
lifestyles by providing access
to trails, parks, beaches and
other recreational
opportunities
69.7% 24.6% 1.9% 2.1% 0.9% 0.8%
D. Carlsbad supports a strong local
economy by promoting
business diversity and tourism
52.4% 35.2% 4.9% 3.3% 1.4% 2.8%
E. Carlsbad is improving access to
walking and biking trails 41.6% 35.9% 9.2% 5.5% 2.4% 5.4%
F. Carlsbad is improving access to
public transportation 13.7% 23.0% 21.6% 16.1% 8.4% 17.1%
G. Carlsbad supports
environmental sustainability 34.6% 42.0% 8.9% 5.2% 3.0% 6.3%
H. Carlsbad promotes the arts 48.9% 35.2% 5.4% 4.7% 1.4% 4.4%
I. Carlsbad celebrates the City's
cultural heritage 27.4% 34.1% 15.8% 9.7% 3.8% 9.2%
J. Carlsbad supports quality
education 40.1% 32.2% 9.3% 6.2% 3.3% 9.0%
K. Carlsbad supports
neighborhood revitalization
and livable communities
34.9% 37.8% 11.8% 5.4% 2.0% 8.1%
L. Carlsbad protects and enhances
open space and the natural
environment
42.4% 37.1% 5.7% 6.6% 5.8% 2.5%
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-11
Q9 WITH DK/NA FACTORED OUT
Strongly
agree Agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree Disagree
Strongly
disagree
A. Carlsbad has a small town,
connected feel (n=996) 42.5% 34.1% 5.0% 12.3% 6.1%
B. Carlsbad maintains its beach
community character (n=990) 65.2% 26.7% 3.3% 3.0% 1.7%
C. Carlsbad promotes active lifestyles by
providing access to trails, parks,
beaches and other recreational
opportunities (n=999)
70.3% 24.8% 1.9% 2.1% 0.9%
D. Carlsbad supports a strong local
economy by promoting business
diversity and tourism (n=979)
53.9% 36.2% 5.1% 3.4% 1.4%
E. Carlsbad is improving access to
walking and biking trails (n=953) 44.0% 37.9% 9.7% 5.8% 2.6%
F. Carlsbad is improving access to
public transportation (n=834) 16.6% 27.8% 26.0% 19.4% 10.2%
G. Carlsbad supports environmental
sustainability (n=943) 36.9% 44.8% 9.5% 5.5% 3.2%
H. Carlsbad promotes the arts (n=963) 51.2% 36.8% 5.7% 4.9% 1.5%
I. Carlsbad celebrates the City's cultural
heritage (n=915) 30.2% 37.5% 17.4% 10.7% 4.2%
J. Carlsbad supports quality education
(n=916) 44.1% 35.3% 10.2% 6.8% 3.7%
K. Carlsbad supports neighborhood
revitalization and livable
communities (n=926)
38.0% 41.1% 12.8% 5.9% 2.1%
L. Carlsbad protects and enhances open
space and the natural environment
(n=982)
43.4% 38.0% 5.8% 6.8% 6.0%
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-12
Q10
Now I’m going to read a list of services provided by the City of Carlsbad. For each one,
please tell me how satisfied you are with the job the City of Carlsbad is doing to provide
each service to residents.
Would you say you are satisfied, dissatisfied or neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the
city’s efforts to: _____________? (GET ANSWER AND THEN ASK:) Would that be
very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)?
RANDOMIZE Entire list, but keep K-M together and randomly insert
Very
satisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Neither
sat nor
dissat
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
(Don't
Read)
DK/NA
A. Repair and maintain
local streets and roads 49.9% 36.0% 4.0% 6.5% 3.0% 0.6%
B. Manage traffic
congestion on city
streets
31.5% 41.7% 4.6% 14.7% 6.4% 1.1%
C. Manage residential
growth and
development
28.2% 38.2% 11.3% 12.1% 5.2% 5.0%
D. Maintain the business
climate in Carlsbad 47.3% 32.6% 9.6% 3.1% 1.4% 6.1%
E. Provide fire protection
and emergency
medical services
71.1% 17.7% 5.5% 0.6% 0.3% 4.8%
F. Provide law enforcement
services 64.8% 23.6% 3.7% 3.9% 1.4% 2.6%
G. Provide local arts and
cultural opportunities 45.5% 35.1% 8.5% 4.1% 1.3% 5.4%
H. Provide library services 75.7% 16.5% 4.0% 0.9% 0.1% 2.8%
I. Provide water services 60.5% 26.5% 4.7% 2.9% 2.0% 3.4%
J. Provide sewer services 57.9% 27.5% 8.4% 1.1% 0.6% 4.4%
K. Maintain city parks 72.4% 21.6% 2.3% 1.3% 0.9% 1.5%
L. Provide recreation
programs 55.2% 25.0% 9.2% 3.0% 0.7% 6.9%
M. Provide trails and
walking paths 60.9% 28.6% 4.1% 2.9% 0.6% 2.8%
N. Protect water quality in
the city’s creeks,
lagoons, and ocean
39.3% 36.9% 11.0% 4.9% 1.6% 6.2%
O. Provide trash collection
services 74.9% 19.1% 2.2% 1.5% 1.1% 1.2%
P. Provide street sweeping
services 54.2% 28.1% 7.6% 3.5% 2.8% 3.8%
Q. Provide hazardous
waste disposal 34.5% 28.5% 15.8% 6.5% 2.7% 11.9%
R. Provide recycling
collection services 70.1% 21.7% 2.7% 2.6% 1.4% 1.6%
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-13
Q10 WITH DK/NA FACTORED OUT
Very
satisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Neither
sat nor
dissat
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
A. Repair and maintain local streets and
roads (n=1,001) 50.2% 36.3% 4.0% 6.5% 3.1%
B. Manage traffic congestion on city streets
(n=996) 31.8% 42.2% 4.7% 14.9% 6.5%
C. Manage residential growth and
development (n=957) 29.7% 40.2% 11.9% 12.7% 5.5%
D. Maintain the business climate in
Carlsbad (n=946) 50.3% 34.7% 10.2% 3.3% 1.4%
E. Provide fire protection and emergency
medical services (n=958) 74.8% 18.6% 5.7% 0.6% 0.3%
F. Provide law enforcement services
(n=981) 66.6% 24.2% 3.8% 4.1% 1.4%
G. Provide local arts and cultural
opportunities (n=952) 48.1% 37.1% 9.0% 4.3% 1.4%
H. Provide library services (n=978) 77.9% 17.0% 4.1% 0.9% 0.1%
I. Provide water services (n=973) 62.6% 27.5% 4.8% 3.0% 2.1%
J. Provide sewer services (n=962) 60.6% 28.8% 8.8% 1.2% 0.6%
K. Maintain city parks (n=992) 73.5% 21.9% 2.3% 1.3% 0.9%
L. Provide recreation programs (n=937) 59.3% 26.9% 9.9% 3.2% 0.7%
M. Provide trails and walking paths (n=979) 62.7% 29.4% 4.3% 3.0% 0.7%
N. Protect water quality in the city’s creeks,
lagoons, and ocean (n=944) 41.9% 39.4% 11.8% 5.2% 1.7%
O. Provide trash collection services
(n=995) 75.8% 19.4% 2.2% 1.5% 1.1%
P. Provide street sweeping services
(n=969) 56.4% 29.2% 7.9% 3.6% 2.9%
Q. Provide hazardous waste disposal
(n=887) 39.2% 32.3% 17.9% 7.4% 3.1%
R. Provide recycling collection services
(n=990) 71.2% 22.0% 2.7% 2.6% 1.4%
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-14
Q11
Switching gears a bit, now I would like to get your opinions about city-resident
communication.
Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the city’s efforts to provide information to residents
through its website, newsletters, water bill inserts and related sources of information?
(GET ANSWER, THEN ASK:) Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat
(satisfied/dissatisfied)?
45.5% Very satisfied
37.6% Somewhat satisfied
6.9% Somewhat dissatisfied
2.6% Very dissatisfied
7.4% (Don't Read) DK/NA
WITH DK/NA FACTORED OUT (n=932)
49.2% Very satisfied
40.6% Somewhat satisfied
7.4% Somewhat dissatisfied
2.8% Very dissatisfied
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-15
Q12
How often are you using the following sources of information when you want to find out
about city issues, programs, and services?
RANDOMIZE
Regularly Sometimes Seldom Never
(Don't
Read) DK/NA
A. The City of Carlsbad web site 19.9% 30.9% 22.2% 26.0% 1.1%
B. The San Diego Union-Tribune or UT
San Diego 25.2% 18.5% 15.4% 39.2% 1.6%
C. The community services and
recreation guide 21.6% 30.8% 18.9% 27.2% 1.5%
D. Social media web sites such as
Facebook, Twitter or YouTube 18.1% 16.3% 13.1% 51.1% 1.4%
E. Carlsbad Currents newsletter 17.5% 23.8% 15.5% 38.2% 5.0%
F. Flyers that come in your water bill 26.6% 23.9% 13.2% 31.1% 5.3%
G. Flyers at City buildings like the Library,
Senior Center, or community centers 12.6% 26.4% 24.4% 34.9% 1.6%
H. City Cable Channel 4.5% 11.1% 14.1% 68.6% 1.7%
I. Patch.com 5.6% 6.2% 7.8% 71.1% 9.3%
J. Coast news 16.6% 25.8% 20.1% 34.5% 2.9%
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-16
Q13
ASKED OF SAMPLE B RESPONDENTS ONLY (n=509)
Next I would like you to think about the water in Carlsbad’s creeks, lagoons, and the
ocean.
Have you seen or heard anything during the past year about how residents can
prevent the pollution of our creeks, lagoons, and ocean? (n=509)
55.2% Yes [GO TO Q14]
40.9% No [SKIP TO Q15]
3.9% (Don’t Read) DK/NA [SKIP TO Q15]
WITH DK/NA FACTORED OUT (n=976)
57.4% Yes
42.6% No
[IF Q13 = “NO” OR “DK/NA” SKIP TO Q15, OTHERWISE ASK Q14]
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-17
Q14
Given what you have seen or heard, what have you done, if anything, to reduce the
amount of pollution in our creeks, lagoons, and oceans?
[DO NOT READ – ALLOW MULTIPLE RESPONSES]
(n=281)
22.9% Cleaned up trash at parks and beaches/ on the street
22.3% Properly disposed of hazardous waste
17.0% Used a commercial car wash
12.0% Used environmentally friendly soaps, pesticides, etc.
8.5% Cleaned up animal waste
7.2% Recycled
4.7% Careful of what goes down sewer/ no longer dump down storm drain
3.7% Don't litter
3.4% I do everything I can/ I don't pollute
3.2% Reduced run-off/ erosion control
2.9% Don't wash cars as much/ don't wash in driveway
2.1% Reduced water usage/ used water more efficiently
1.2% Reduce trash/ plastics
0.5% Stopped washing driveway
0.5% Used different/ less pesticides
0.4% Walk/ ride bike more often
18.0% Have not done anything
0.7% Other (Specify)
3.8% DK/NA
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-18
Q14 WITH DK/NA FACTORED OUT (n=270)
23.8% Cleaned up trash at parks and beaches/ on the street
23.2% Properly disposed of hazardous waste
17.7% Used a commercial car wash
12.5% Used environmentally friendly soaps, pesticides, etc.
8.8% Cleaned up animal waste
7.5% Recycled
4.9% Careful of what goes down sewer/ no longer dump down storm drain
3.9% Don't litter
3.5% I do everything I can/ I don't pollute
3.3% Reduced run-off/ erosion control
3.0% Don't wash cars as much/ don't wash in driveway
2.2% Reduced water usage/ used water more efficiently
1.3% Reduce trash/ plastics
0.5% Stopped washing driveway
0.5% Used different/ less pesticides
0.4% Walk/ ride bike more often
0.7% Other
18.8% Have not done anything
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-19
Q15
Next I am going to ask you a few questions about Carlsbad Village, also referred to as
downtown Carlsbad in the northwestern part of the city.
How often do you visit Carlsbad’s downtown village, in a typical month? [WAIT FOR
RESPONSE, IF THEY SAY DO NOT KNOW, GIVE THREE CATEGORIES SHOWN
IN OPTION 1, 2, 3 AND 4]
58.9% Regularly, once a week or more
36.2% Sometimes, once a month or more
0.2% Seldom, less than once a month
4.5% Never [SKIP TO Q17]
0.1% (Don’t Read) DK/NA [SKIP TO Q17]
[IF Q15= “NEVER” OR “DK/NA” SKIP TO Q17, OTHERWISE ASK Q16]
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-20
Q16
How would you rate your experience while visiting Carlsbad’s downtown village?
(n=960)
49.6% Excellent
41.4% Good
7.3% Fair
0.7% Poor
0.5% Very poor
0.4% DK/NA
WITH DK/NA FACTORED OUT (n=957)
49.8% Excellent
41.6% Good
7.3% Fair
0.7% Poor
0.6% Very poor
Q17
Before we finish, I want to ask you a quick questions about Carlsbad’s public schools.
Have your heard, read or seen any information about a new public high school, Sage
Creek, opening in Carlsbad this fall?
67.2% Yes
31.4% No
1.5% Not Sure
To wrap things up, I just have a few background
questions for comparison purposes only.
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-21
QA
Do you own or rent the unit in which you live?
29.2% Rent
68.7% Own
2.1% (Don’t Read) Refused
QB
Which of the following best describes your current home?
66.9% Single family detached home
10.6% Apartment
20.1% Condominium or Town Home
1.7% Mobile home
0.8% (Don’t Read) Refused
QC
Please tell me how many children under 18 live in your house.
55.8% No children
17.1% 1 child
16.9% 2 children
8.8% 3 or more children
1.3% Refused
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-22
QD
In what year were you born? 19__
(Recoded into age)
7.6% 18 to 24 years
15.0% 25 to 34 years
18.4% 35 to 44 years
21.4% 45 to 54 years
15.9% 55 to 64 years
18.3% 65 years or older
3.6% Refused
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-23
QE
What neighborhood do you live in within Carlsbad?
[DO NOT READ, RECORD FIRST RESPONSE]
14.0% La Costa / La Costa Canyon
6.6% Aviara
6.0% Olde Carlsbad
5.9% Calavera Hills
5.8% Village or Downtown Carlsbad
5.0% None, I just live in Carlsbad
3.6% Rancho Carrillo
3.4% Poinsettia
2.8% La Costa Greens
2.5% Tamarack Point
2.2% La Costa Oaks
1.9% La Costa Ridge
1.7% Bressi Ranch
1.0% Rancho Carlsbad or Sunny Creek
0.7% Rancho La Costa
0.7% Barrio
0.7% Terramar
0.4% South Beach
0.4% Carlsbad Ranch
0.2% Kelly Ranch
0.2% Hedionda Point
0.2% North Beach
0.1% Robertson Ranch
0.1% Ponto
24.9% Other (Specify)
9.1% DK/NA Refused
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-24
QE
Breakdown of respondents’ neighborhood identification
72.3% Identified with a Carlsbad neighborhood
13.2% Identified with an HOA
14.5% Did not identify with a neighborhood
[IF QE= “NONE, I JUST LIVE IN CARLSBAD,” “OTHER,” OR “DK/NA” ASK QF THRU
QL, OTHERWISE SKIP TO QM]
QF
[ASK QF IF ZIPCODE IS 92008 OR 92010 AND ANSWERED “NONE, I JUST LIVE IN
CARLSBAD,” “OTHER,” OR “DK/NA” FOR QE]
Do you live North or South of Carlsbad Village Drive?
(n=183)
25.5% North
65.9% South
8.6% (Don’t Read) Refused
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-25
QG
[ASK QF IF ZIPCODE IS 92008 OR 92010 AND ANSWERED “NONE, I JUST LIVE IN
CARLSBAD,” “OTHER,” OR “DK/NA” FOR QE]
Do you live North or South of Tamarack Avenue?
(n=183)
56.7% North
34.7% South
8.6% (Don’t Read) Refused
QH
[ASK QF IF ZIPCODE IS 92010 AND ANSWERED “NONE, I JUST LIVE IN
CARLSBAD,” “OTHER,” OR “DK/NA” FOR QE]
Do you live East or West of College Boulevard?
(n=53)
18.4% East
66.4% West
15.2% (Don’t Read) Refused
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-26
QI
[ASK QF IF ZIPCODE IS 92008 or 92011 AND ANSWERED “NONE, I JUST LIVE IN
CARLSBAD,” “OTHER,” OR “DK/NA” FOR QE]
Do you live East or West of Interstate 5?
(n=231)
67.4% East
25.5% West
7.1% (Don’t Read) Refused
QJ
[ASK QF IF ZIPCODE IS 92009 or 92011 AND ANSWERED “NONE, I JUST LIVE IN
CARLSBAD,” “OTHER,” OR “DK/NA” FOR QE]
Do you live North or South of Poinsettia Lane?
(n=209)
39.3% North
56.6% South
4.2% (Don’t Read) Refused
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-27
QK
[ASK QF IF ZIPCODE IS 92009 AND ANSWERED “NONE, I JUST LIVE IN
CARLSBAD,” “OTHER,” OR “DK/NA” FOR QE]
Do you live North or South of La Costa Avenue?
(n= 108)
52.0% North
44.4% South
3.6% (Don’t Read) Refused
QL
[ASK QF IF ZIPCODE IS 92009 AND ANSWERED “NONE, I JUST LIVE IN
CARLSBAD,” “OTHER,” OR “DK/NA” FOR QE]
Do you live North or South of Olivenhain Road?
(n= 108)
61.5% North
19.0% South
19.5% (Don’t Read) Refused
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-28
QM
What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to?
(IF HESITATE, READ):
73.3% White or Caucasian
11.6% Hispanic or Latino
3.7% Asian
1.2% African American or Black
5.2% Other (Specify)
5.0% (Don’t Read) DK/NA
QN
Lastly, would you be interested in participating in future research sponsored by the
City of Carlsbad?
55.0% Yes
45.0% No
Those are all of the questions I have for you.
Thank you very much for participating!
QO
Gender (Recorded from voice, not asked):
47.2% Male
52.8% Female
Resident Survey Report
City of Carlsbad
B-29
O. First Name of Respondent ___________________
P. Phone ______
Q. Date of Interview ___________________
R. Name of Interviewer ___________________
S. Time of Interview ___________________
T.
1
City of Carlsbad State of Effectiveness Report
The City of Carlsbad prides itself on providing top quality services to residents and businesses. Over the
past decade the city has measured its performance to gauge levels of success. The State of Effectiveness
Report evaluates the city’s progress towards achieving City Council Strategic Goals, provides feedback and
information for continuous improvement, and helps to shape the culture of the organization. This is the
14th year the city has issued a report on its performance. Similar to previous years, most performance
measurement outcomes continue to remain strong. In addition, this year’s report is supplemented with
several new performance measures to better reflect the changing needs of the community.
The State of Effectiveness report is prepared using a variety of tools: the Carlsbad Resident Survey, internal
operation performance measures and targets, professional associations and industry standards. Data from
the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) Center for Performance Measurement and
from other professional associations, such as the American Water Works Association, are used to compare
the city’s performance to other local governments and organizations nationally. The measures help the city
assess its progress towards achieving established strategic goals with both qualitative and quantitative
data.
The evaluation is based on a balanced approach which looks at the city’s ability to meet the desired service
delivery standard, customer satisfaction levels of key services or functions and cost objectives.
Service delivery: The efficiency with which the service is being delivered
Customer satisfaction: The degree to which customers are satisfied with the service
provided
Cost: A measurement of costs related to providing the service
This type of approach is outcome-oriented and provides a way to evaluate the effectiveness and value of
the services the city provides.
The report also includes key findings related to standards from the Growth Management Plan. The annual
Growth Management Plan monitoring report provides a summary and analysis of the city’s progress in
meeting objectives to ensure that adequate public facilities are provided concurrent with growth and to
ensure compliance with dwelling unit limitations.
The Performance Measurement Team would like to thank the various departments and staff actively
engaged in continuous improvement and commitment to the pursuit of excellence though the performance
measurement process.
2
Table of Contents
Growth Management Plan ................................................................. 3
Performance Measures
Administration: Finance .................................................................... 4
Administration: Risk Management .................................................... 5
Communication .................................................................................. 6
Community & Economic Development: Building Inspections ........... 7
Community & Economic Development: Planning .............................. 8
Housing & Neighborhood Services: Code Compliance ...................... 9
Housing & Neighborhood Services .................................................. 10
Housing & Neighborhood Services: Volunteer Program ................. 11
Human Resources ............................................................................ 12
Information Technology ................................................................... 13
Library & Cultural Arts: Cultural Arts Office ..................................... 14
Library & Cultural Arts: Libraries ...................................................... 15
Parks & Recreation: Parks ................................................................ 16
Parks & Recreation: Recreation ....................................................... 17
Parks & Recreation: Trails ................................................................ 18
Property & Environmental Management: Facilities ........................ 19
Property & Environmental Management: Fleet .............................. 20
Property & Environmental Management: Storm Water ................. 21
Safety Services: Fire ......................................................................... 22
Safety Services: Police ...................................................................... 23
Transportation: Street Maintenance ............................................... 24
Transportation: Traffic Engineering ................................................. 25
Utilities: Potable & Recycled Water ................................................. 26
Utilities: Sewer ................................................................................. 27
Utilities: Solid Waste ........................................................................ 28
3
Growth Management Plan
The Carlsbad Municipal Code requires the preparation of an annual monitoring report on the Carlsbad
Growth Management Plan, which can be found in a separate report titled “City of Carlsbad FY 2012-13
Growth Management Plan Monitoring Report”. The FY 2012-13 report will be transmitted to the City
Council via memo in January 2014 and can be viewed at the Planning Division Webpage under Growth
Management:
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/planning/Pages/default.aspx
The purpose of the annual Growth Management Plan monitoring report is to provide information regarding
the status of the Growth Management Plan and to verify that the plan is continuing to accomplish its stated
objectives, which are to ensure that adequate public facilities are provided concurrent with growth and to
ensure compliance with the dwelling unit limitations established by Proposition E in 1986. To ensure the
provision of adequate public facilities, the City of Carlsbad adopted the Citywide Facilities and
Improvements Plan (Sept. 16, 1986) which established performance standards for the following eleven
public facilities:
City Administrative Facilities Fire
Library Open Space
Wastewater Treatment Capacity Schools
Parks Sewer Collection System
Drainage Water Distribution System
Circulation
The annual Growth Management Plan monitoring report provides a summary and analysis of the city’s
progress in meeting the performance standards for the public facilities listed above.
The major findings of the “City of Carlsbad FY 2012-13 Growth Management Plan Monitoring Report” are as
follows:
Building permits for 310 new dwellings and 335,816 square feet of non-residential space were
issued during FY 2012-13. The total number of dwelling units in each quadrant continues to comply
with the Growth Management Plan limitations.
With the recent adoption of the Local Facility Management Plan for Zone 25, all Local Facility
Management Zones have adopted Local Facility Management Plans.
All public facilities are currently meeting their adopted Growth Management performance standard.
4
Finance
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Balanced Long Term Fiscal Condition: 10-year
financial forecast / Revenues will be equal to
or exceed expenditures in each year
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Monthly Financial Status Report / Timely
Distribution ≤ 15 Average Working Days
10.2 average
working days
10.6 average
working days
11.5 average
working days
12.2 average
working days
Business License Processing / % of total FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Pending Licenses 1.42% 1.78% 1.43% 1.26%
Delinquent Renewals 2.39% 2.28% 2.41% 2.62%
On-line Processing 10.04% 11.85% 21.20% 21.43%
Outgoing Payment Processing / % of total FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Successful Payments 99.69% 99.41% 99.31% 99.79%
Electronic Payments 54.93% 58.06% 63.47% 64.09%
The ten-year forecast for the period beginning in FY 2011-12 projects General Fund surpluses for the
entirety of the forecast. Major revenue sources, including taxes from property, sales and transient
occupancy (hotel stays), are expected to improve over the coming years, putting the city back on sound
financial footing. The city is also benefiting from a leaner operating budget, as operating costs and staffing
were reduced to address the recent recession.
The ten-year financial forecast also considers the Capital Improvement Program and the timing for the
operation and maintenance of new facilities that will be opening over the next 10 years. The forecast
assumed continued slow growth in the economy, which will slowly improve revenue growth over the
forecast horizon.
As the city reaches build-out, the emphasis will shift from new infrastructure construction to infrastructure
maintenance and replacement. The ability to fund infrastructure maintenance and replacement is
important to the sustainability of the city. Through fiscal discipline, the city continues its contribution to
the Infrastructure Replacement Fund of 6.5 percent of the general fund revenues each year.
The percentage of pending licenses decreased slightly from the prior year. Staff made changes to the
approval process for business licenses, which shortened the amount of time needed for review. The
amount of delinquent renewals increased slightly, in part due to the slowly recovering economy. The city
upgraded its business license software in 2011, making it easier to renew licenses on-line. This resulted in
the continuing increase in on-line processing.
5
Risk Management
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Claims Administration / 90% of claim
determinations made within 45 days of receipt.99% 99% 98% 99%
One key measure of Risk Management is the timeliness of processing claims. This measure reflects the
efforts of all departments to coordinate on the collection of information, writing of reports, and on the
evaluation of claims. This provides for an efficient and timely response to claimants which serves to reduce
and mitigate liability exposure throughout the city.
Claims are consistently responded to within the statutory timeframe of 45 days; responses with claim
determinations include acceptance, rejection and notice of the need for additional information.
As an extra measure of service and to provide the most thorough investigation of each claim, the Risk
Manager will often meet personally with many claimants to inspect their damages and to obtain in-person
statements.
Loss control is also part of the prudent management of fiscal resources. To this end, Risk Management
administers the city’s self-insured general liability and property damage insurance programs. Risk
coordinates with departments citywide, legal counsel, consultants, third party administrators, and
insurance companies to manage claims against the city and minimize losses. Safety auditors are hired to
assess the effectiveness of the city’s in-place safety programs, with adjustments made as necessary to
ensure a safe workplace where injuries and employee claims are prevented.
Risk Management works with all departments to implement measures that decrease and minimize losses
and evaluate and revise insurance requirements in contracts and permits as necessary.
6
Communication
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Carlsbad Resident Survey - Satisfaction /
80% or greater 74% (*)93% 91% 90%
Customer Satisfaction/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Carlsbad Resident Survey - Level of
Confidence / 90% or greater 78% 84% 80% 80%
* Question change
The goal of the city’s communication efforts is to ensure mutually beneficial, two-way communication with
the community about city issues and services, leading to a more responsive government and a high level of
public confidence.
Satisfaction with the city’s communication efforts has been consistently positive and steady over the years,
with the 2012-13 numbers being statistically equivalent to previous years (factoring in the margin of error).
(In FY 2009-10 the survey question was changed to remove the examples of how the city communicates
with residents. Subsequently, reported levels of satisfaction decreased.)
Confidence in city government has also remained consistently positive for the past several years, with
minor fluctuations. Given the record low levels of confidence in state and federal government officials, the
City of Carlsbad’s ability to retain its high approval rating is noteworthy.
The City of Carlsbad is continuing to refine its communication function, focusing on providing information
to the public in the most efficient and effective manner possible. In FY 2011-12, the department took
responsibility for the communication function in the Parks & Recreation Department, leaving the Parks &
Recreation communication position vacant. This consolidation resulted in greater efficiency without
changing resident satisfaction with city communication efforts. The city is exploring further communication
consolidation efforts to foster increased consistency and coordination among all city departments, resulting
in an even better level of service to our residents.
7
Building Inspections
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Next Day Inspection / 95% or greater 98% 97% 97% 98%
Average inspections per day per person /
18 to 22 or higher 15 21 23 24
Percent of inspections requiring
corrections / 10% to 20% 12% 12% 8% 8%
Customer Satisfaction/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Customer survey responses of "good" or
"excellent" / 90% or greater 99% 93% 97% 93%
Cost FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Cost per approval or partial approval
inspection $ 85.67 $ 73.99 $ 66.54 $ 57.57
Building Inspectors were able to meet 98 percent of all service requests the next working day. Our
commitment to scheduling next day inspections requires coordination of clerical, building inspectors and
supervisory staff. Coordination of inspections has been enhanced by the use of a GIS based inspection
routing system. Increased construction activity has required a streamlined and efficient inspection process
to respond to higher inspection activity.
During this period overall inspection activity increased approximately 8% to 23,485 site visits. The increase
was due to additional photo voltaic, electrical, plumbing, mechanical and building inspection demand. Each
Building Inspector performed an average of 24 of these combination type construction inspections per
working day. The building division also monitors permitted projects for storm water compliance. In
addition to traditional building construction inspections, staff concurrently performed inspections of all
required storm water preventative BMP’s (Best Management Practices) during site visits to insure a high
level of compliance and enforcement of the project’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
The number of inspections requiring corrections was consistent with the previous year benchmark
remaining at 8% of total inspections completed. Building inspector’s worked closely with contractors and
homeowners to proactively identify issues early on to ensure the project’s progress and to avoid costly
rework.
The city’s building inspectors’ commitment to customer service is evident when they proactively anticipate
potential construction problems. This commitment is reflected in responses to our customer satisfaction
survey program. The division has received a response of good or excellent from the public with over 31
surveys returned out of a total of 230 sent out. A database of all responses is maintained and the building
manager performs a follow-up call to allow the customer to expand on their experience with division
counter staff and inspection staff and comment on the plan review process.
The 8.6 percent decrease in the cost per approved inspection is a result of the ratio between the increased
number of inspections during the period and the overall reduction in building division personnel costs.
8
Planning
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Land use project reviews complete in 2 or
less cycles / 80% or greater (new)N/A 91% 91% 96%
Customer Satisfaction/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Customer survey responses of "good" or
"excellent" / 90% or greater 94% 98% 87% 96%
Review cycles entail analysis of the minimum application submittal requirements and identifying the
project design/standards for compliance issues. Once a project application is deemed complete it starts the
clock on state mandated time periods for reaching a decision on an application. This performance measure
was revised from being based on 3 or less review cycles to 2 or less review cycles in FY 2010-11. This
change to the performance measure was made as a result of the high rate of success achieved at the
previous level. The percentage of land use project reviews completed in 2 or less cycles improved from 91
percent last fiscal year to 96 percent exceeding the 80 percent benchmark. By condensing the cycles, staff
discovered more work efficiencies and provided a quicker turnaround time to the applicant.
This year marks the seventh year the planning division has conducted an annual Customer Satisfaction
Survey. This is a significant milestone as the survey has proven to be an important measure of the citizens,
professionals, developers and other agencies that have direct interaction with the planning division
through the discretionary review process. Through the survey, the planning division has been able to gauge
and report on the satisfaction level with the discretionary review process and identify some key areas for
improvement and efficiencies.
This year’s results shows an improvement in the overall level of customer satisfaction from 87 percent to
96 percent, meaning 96 percent of the survey respondents rated customer service as either excellent (66
percent) or good (30 percent). The current level of customer satisfaction exceeds the benchmark of 90
percent and reflects the extra attention provided to applicants that had not previously obtained permits
from the City of Carlsbad. The drop in satisfaction in FY 2011-12 can generally be attributed to the higher
number of respondents in the survey last year that indicated they were an individual property owner or
member of the owner’s staff, rather than the traditional developer. These were also respondents that
generally had only one interaction or only very limited interaction with the City of Carlsbad over the year
and also had limited interaction with other planning departments in the County of San Diego with which to
compare to Carlsbad.
9
Code Compliance
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Calls for the nine most common code
compliance issues / 90% or greater
within closure standard of compliance
92% 86% 92% 93%
Customer Satisfaction/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Customer survey responses of "good" or
"excellent" / 90% or greater 98% 100% 100% 100%
Cost FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Average cost per "case closed" $ 298 $ 268 $ 216 $ 131
The nine most common code compliance issues are: building, business license, campaign signs, engineering
right-of-way, garbage and junk, health and safety, signs, vehicle zoning, and zoning. Case closure rates
increased marginally in all nine categories. A continued proactive program of business license enforcement
has maintained an excellent closure rate for these types of cases. The positive increase of closure
compliance is attributed to fact that the code compliance officer continues to provide individual case
management; this has resulted in a more effective tracking and resolution of open cases.
Customer service surveys were sent out to 65 code compliance customers during this period and the city
received 23 returned responses. This is an increase of 5 percent in customer service survey responses.
Customer comments are tracked and a manager follow up occurred randomly in approximately 30 percent
of the cases. Customer satisfaction ratings of good/excellent were reported in 100 percent of the returned
surveys.
The code compliance division has been reduced by one FTE; therefore the division has been required to
become more resourceful when resolving community issues. Case load for this division has remained
consistent throughout the years, a total of 880 code compliance cases were closed and 918 new cases were
opened. The average cost per “case closed” has decreased by $85 and is a total of $131 per case closed.
This decrease can be directly attributed to the reduction in full time dedicated code compliance staff. In the
coming year, staff will explore the possibilities of modernizing code compliance through an upgrade of the
current basic case management system and take advantage of available technologies. These modernization
efforts could expand staff’s limited capabilities and increase effectiveness. Staff will also explore a possible
cross-partnership and utilize light duty officers from the Police Department, thus potentially closing cases
faster while continuing to delivering world class customer service.
10
Housing & Neighborhood Services
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Village area annual property tax
assessed valuation increase / > 5%1% 1% 1%-1%
Village area annual sales tax increase
/ > 5%-6% -3%9% 0%
Village area commercial vacancy rates
/ < 5%10% 10% 5% 5%
Number of Village review permits
processed 56 41 42 14
Customer Satisfaction/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Carlsbad Resident Survey - Satisfaction
with Village experience "good" or
"excellent" / 90% or greater
88% 90% 90% 91%
Section 8 Program Assessment Rental
Assistance / Standard Performer or
better
High
Performer
High
Performer
High
Performer
High
Performer
Cost/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Village area: Ratio public funding to
private investment / 1:10 or greater 1:10 1:9 1:19 1:36
With the sunset of redevelopment in February 2012, the City Council elected to hire Urban Place Consulting
to continue the revitalization efforts in the Village. Urban Place Consulting has established a vision to create
the premiere experience in northern San Diego County and is partnering with city staff on many projects to
carry out their goals. Nationally, the economy is showing incremental improvements and the local economy
is beginning to pick up steam once again but is not operating at high levels, as evidenced by property tax,
sales tax figures for the area and permits. Vacancy rates, reflecting both commercial and office space, for
the Village have fluctuated over the past years. Commercial and retail business occupancy has remained
consistent; much of the area’s vacancy is leasable office space. Public survey responses continue to come
back positive and convey excellent visitor experiences with regards to the Village. For the year ahead,
Urban Place has developed a robust work plan to further activate the Village in the coming years with a
larger Farmers Market, curb cafes and more events to attract more people to the area.
For each $1 of public expenditures, the goal is to demonstrate that there has been at least $10 of private
investments made. In FY 2012-13, the public-to-private investment ratio was 1:36. Through the Storefront
Improvement Grant Program, the Carlsbad Redevelopment Successor Agency issued five grants and
reinvested $55,988 back into the Village. Private investment has increased and new opportunities are
beginning to emerge like the Bluewater Brewery and the State Street Townhomes which will add 47
residential units to the Village.
For the fifth consecutive year, the Carlsbad Housing Agency has received the designation of “High
Performer” by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Department.
Performance data considered in the designation includes: expanding housing opportunities, quality control,
timely annual reexaminations, and lease-up figures.
11
Volunteer Program
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Initial contact to response time / < 3
days 95% of the time 100% 99% 99% 100%
Offered orientations / at least one per
month 23 17 18 19
Number of volunteers requested from
staff 910 894 1,085 1,139
Number of volunteers found 924 918 1,116 1,216
Customer Satisfaction/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Volunteer orientation evaluation / A
satisfaction rating of 4 or above 4.85 4.85 4.80 4.90
Cost FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Cost effectiveness / Ratio of value to
cost 6.4:1 6.0:1 6.5:1 6.0:1
Total volunteers 2,015 2,604 2,453 2,729
Total volunteer hours 105,185 109,035 112,854 123,240
Net Benefit $ 2,069,415 $ 2,426,867 $ 2,309,954 $ 2,598,130
In FY 2012-13, the city’s volunteer program continued to exceed expectations. The number of donated
hours rose significantly, reaching a total of 123,240 hours which equals a 9 percent increase.
The most significant change for this fiscal year came from the staff. This year the staff made 115 separate
requests for volunteers, an increase of 36 percent. A total of 1,139 volunteers were requested and 1,216
volunteers were found to meet those various needs. Thus, an average 23 volunteers were recruited every
week of last fiscal year to cover staff requests.
Volunteer orientations received unusually high satisfaction overall ratings as participants ranked them 4.9
out of 5 in terms of meeting their expectations.
Throughout the year, 428 potential volunteers reached out to the volunteer program. The majority of
referrals came from:
Internet sources – 49 percent
City departments – 16 percent
Walk-ins – 12 percent
The volunteers’ contribution in terms of civic engagement is invaluable and the overall benefit of the
volunteers to the city continues to increase with a return on investment of 675 percent.
12
Human Resources
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Employee Turnover / ≤ 5.6%3.0% 3.3% 2.7% 4.9%
Cost/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Average number of lost work days per
workers’ compensation claim / ≤ 5.4 days
11.5 days 21.9 days 17.6 days 20.3 days
The percentage of full-time employees who left the organization during the reporting period includes
resignations and non-probationary terminations. Although not included in the benchmark data, in FY 2012-
13 the number of retirements was 21, which is considerably higher than the 12 retirements we had last
year and the highest since the spike of 34 retirements in FY 2009-10. There was also a considerable
increase in voluntary resignations. In FY 2012-13 there were 28 resignations as opposed to 15 resignations
the two previous years. Overall, the turnover data is moving toward the rates we encountered before FY
2009-10, prior to the recession. Excluding the retirement data and comparing the City of Carlsbad’s
turnover rate to agencies of similar size, Carlsbad’s turnover rate is 0.7 percent less than the ICMA average.
A certain amount of turnover is healthy in an organization. It indicates accountability and rigor in
performance management. Over the next year, Human Resources will be focusing its attention on
managing employee performance and retention of high performing employees.
In order to better control and monitor workers’ compensation claims, city staff contracted with a new
third-party-administrator, Keenan & Associates. City staff continues to actively pursue workers'
compensation claim closure by delaying claims, utilizing surveillance and maintaining high visibility on every
claim. These efforts, in addition to return-to-work programs, help to minimize lost days of work. There
was a decrease in the number of lost work days in this reporting period. Five large claims in public safety
departments made up over nearly 40 percent of the lost work days.
Last year, the Fire Department had 25 claims that were responsible for 12 percent of the city’s lost work
days. This year there were 8 workers’ compensation claims in the Fire Department, responsible for 7
percent of the city’s lost work days. The Fire Department continues to promote an aggressive return-to-
work program to try to decrease their lost work days.
The Police Department accounted for 62 percent of the number of lost work days in the city. The
department had 28 new worker’s compensation claims in FY 2012-13 for a total of 575 lost work days. This
is a decrease in total lost days from last year, when they had 35 claims and 1,048 lost work days. Last year
the Police Department had four claims with over 100 lost work days, this year there were only two.
For both Police and Fire, the number of lost work days is partially attributed to the provisions of Labor Code
Section 4850, which entitles Safety personnel, who are totally or temporarily disabled and not at work, full
salary up to one year. This “benefit” often works as a disincentive for employees to return to work or
retire; however, an emphasis on encouraging employees to return to work in a light duty capacity has
helped counteract this disincentive.
13
Information Technology
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Confidence in service % reporting
satisfied or better / 80% or higher 83% 89% 95% 89%
Customer Satisfaction/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Customer survey % of employees
reporting "good" or "excellent" service /
80% or higher
85% 89% 92% 87%
Cost FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Mean IT expenditures as a percent of
expense
3.3% metric
2.0% city
3.2% metric
2.0% city
4.5% metric
3.0% city
4.7% metric
2.7% city
In FY 2012-13, 89 percent of customers reported they had confidence in the service provided by the
Information Technology Department. This exceeds the benchmark of 80 percent for the fourth consecutive
year. This measurement combines city staff survey results on four different service delivery/confidence
questions. The questions are centered in the areas of staff confidence in handling of technology requests,
IT’s response to problems and the perceived skill levels of IT staff.
The information technology customer satisfaction survey includes safety services, information technology
and the geographic information services division. The benchmark was again achieved in FY 2012-13 with 87
percent of the customers reporting high levels of satisfaction. The survey was expanded to measure
customer service topical areas including communication and customer expectations.
According to Plante Moran’s 2012 IT Spending and Staffing Report, local governments spend on average 4.7
percent of the total operating budget on IT. Carlsbad, as compared nationally to its government peer
group, spends approximately 2.7 percent of its total operating budget on IT services. This figure is about 57
percent less than other agencies. Typically, as organizations increase the level of IT investment, there is a
corresponding improvement in business performance and productivity levels.
In FY 2013-14 IT will continue to implement new and enhanced technologies with a direct eye towards
increasing electronic interactions with the public and streamlining internal business processes to speed
delivery. This effort will build a more logical and delightful experience for the city’s customers, both
internally and externally. Additionally, IT will work towards further streamlining of the IT organization to
promote standardization, enabling consistency, improving strategic outsourcing options, and providing a
platform for future technology, all while reducing costs.
14
Cultural Arts
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Projected attendance meets or exceeds
actual attendance / over 90% of the time Yes Yes Yes Yes
Customer Satisfaction/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Cannon Art Gallery visitor ratings of
"good" or "excellent" / 90% of the time 95% 96% 95% 97%
Three-Part-Art Education Program
participant ratings of "good" or "excellent"
/ 90% or higher
100% 100% 100% 100%
Carlsbad Resident Survey - provide local
arts and cultural opportunities / 90% or
higher
87.4% 87.6% 79.8% 85.0%
Cost FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Expenditures per capita $ 8.30 $ 8.44 $ 8.33 $ 8.45
The service delivery measure helps the Cultural Arts Office gauge whether it is successful in reaching
intended audiences for its specific programs. The figures are an important quantifiable element used during
the yearly budgeting and programming process to help determine program effectiveness.
Customer satisfaction with the Cannon Art Gallery is gathered through a variety of user surveys. Visitors
coming to the Gallery exhibitions continue to be highly satisfied, with service ratings at 95 percent.
Teachers participating in the Three-Part-Art education program love the program and are enthusiastic
repeat users – thus the 100 percent rating. For FY 13-14, Cultural Arts will identify and develop new surveys
for all programs to help guide future efforts.
The Resident Survey shows a 5 percent increase in overall satisfaction with the “city’s efforts to provide
local arts and cultural opportunities” – rebounding from a surprising drop the previous year. Cultural Arts
Office programs and activities (and attendance) have remained consistent over the past four years.
Moving forward, additional user surveying will be conducted on other programming areas not currently
being evaluated in depth. The results of this analysis should help to gauge community interests and allow
staff to make appropriate programming adjustments.
Per capita expenditures for Cultural Arts increased slightly by 1% but continue to be lower today than five
years ago. Cultural Arts will continue evaluating the programs and services offered to the community and
will seek opportunities to partner with community organizations and other city departments to increase
the overall public impact.
15
Libraries
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Mystery shopper responses will indicate
that the desired level of service was
received related to facility conditions, core
services, staff interactions, and computer
and internet services / 95% or higher
96% 96% 96% 97%
Customer Satisfaction/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Carlsbad Resident Survey - percent of
customers who report being very satisfied
or somewhat satisfied with library services
/ 90% or higher
96% 96% 95% 95%
Cost FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Operating cost per capita $ 87.12 $ 90.61 $ 88.94 $ 86.93
23,712 hours 23,749 hours 25,561 hours 24,586 hours
$ 552,252 $ 556,202 $ 618,065 $ 608,503 Value of volunteer hours
The Library desires to meet anticipated increases in demand for library services with the same or greater
levels of efficiency and library user satisfaction.
In FY 2009-10, the Library changed its service delivery measure to focus on its mystery shopper program.
Mystery shopper surveys evaluate 50 specific service delivery indicators related to facility condition, core
library services and computer/Internet services. The surveys capture whether or not library services were
delivered to the mystery shopper as expected or desired. This is the fourth year mystery shopper service
delivery questions were evaluated separately from questions that measure satisfaction with the service
received.
The Library’s cost per capita dropped slightly from $88.94 to $86.93 due to reduction in full-time personnel
expenditures and vacancies along with a slight increase in population. The cost per capita is in line with city
expenditure controls as the Library’s core operating expenditures remained flat in FY 2012-13.
The value of volunteer hours decreased slightly, while the Library continued to receive very robust
volunteer support for all programs in FY 2012-13. The public’s contribution of time allows the Library to
deliver enhanced services that otherwise would not be provided.
Carlsbad residents continue to rate satisfaction with library services above all benchmarks. The level of the
rating has been consistently over 95 percent for the past twelve years.
16
Parks
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) /
90% or greater 97% 95%N/A N/A
Customer Satisfaction/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Carlsbad Resident Survey - "somewhat
satisfied" to "very satisfied" / 90% or
greater
96% 96% 95% 95%
Cost FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Operating cost per acre $ 13,667 $ 14,095 $ 12,859 $ 12,886
The Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) reflects the ratings of community representatives, outside
professionals and city employees as to the overall quality of care a park is receiving. Areas of focus include
irrigation, natural and synthetic turf, tot lots, parking lots, park furnishings and sports courts. The ratings
have consistently exceeded the 90 percent benchmark over the last few assessments. To improve
operational efficiencies, MAP will now be performed every two to three years. As a result, no data is
available for FY 2012-13.
The parks system continued to exceed the 90 percent benchmark in customer satisfaction responses of
very satisfied or somewhat satisfied for the eleventh straight year in the Carlsbad Resident Survey. Carlsbad
is continuing to deliver a high level of service, while keeping pace with the increasing population and the
demand of citizens for access to open space.
The parks division maintains, refurbishes and enhances 355 acres of land: approximately 290 acres of parks
and special use areas - including 32 acres of school athletic fields, 45 acres of civic facilities landscapes, and
18 acres of other amenities including downtown village landscapes, community improvements, and beach
accesses.
The operating costs per acre remained essentially stagnant from $12,859 in FY 2011-12 to $12,886 in FY
2012-13. Even though the cost of water and certain maintenance materials, including fertilizer and
petroleum-derived items (gasoline, steel, plastic, etc.), has continued to increase, the overall maintenance
costs per acre did not show a significant increase. This holding of the line is attributed to operational
efficiencies and controlled expenditures.
17
Recreation
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Adult Sports: T.R.U.S.T. Sportsmanship very
good or excellent / 90% or higher 91% 92% 90% 91%
Number of Technicals, Ejections,
Suspensions / at or below previous year 18 14 17 17
Youth Sports: T.R.U.S.T. Sportsmanship very
good or excellent / 90% or higher 96% 96% 95% 95%
Number of Technicals, Ejections,
Suspensions / at or below previous year 4 4 5 5
Customer Satisfaction/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Carlsbad Resident Survey - "somewhat
satisfied" to "very satisfied" / 90% or higher 89% 87% 85% 86%
Cost FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Operating cost per capita $ 54.46 $ 53.08 $ 52.51 $ 51.05
Net operating cost per capita $ 28.36 $ 27.22 $ 29.21 $ 27.99
Parks & Recreation offers a wide range of programs including youth and adult sports, leagues, special
events, preschool, instructional classes, camps, aquatics, teen programs and senior programs (home meal,
congregate services and transportation). The division also operates three community centers, a senior
center, an aquatic center, two historic sites, six large community parks, and 15 medium to small parks
which include a dog park and a skate park.
The T.R.U.S.T Sportsmanship measure stands for Teaching Respect Unity and Sportsmanship through
Teamwork. The results have exceeded the benchmark since FY 2008-09. The results are reflective of a
typical year of sports and will continue to remain low due to proactive training and support from our
participants and coaches.
The customer satisfaction rating measures how satisfied residents are with the city’s efforts to provide
recreation programs trends near 86%. The department continues to identify efficiencies through a best
value approach for services. Both the expenditures per capita and the net operating cost per capita are in
line with staff expectations.
18
Trails
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
New mileage per year / 4 miles or greater 7.85 miles 0.25 miles 0 miles 1.5 miles
Customer Satisfaction/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Carlsbad Resident Survey - percent of
customer report being "somewhat" or "very
satisfied" with provision of trails and
walking paths / 90% or higher
89% 88% 88% 92%
Cost FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Trail maintenance cost per mile $ 4,453 $ 4,801 $ 4,679 $ 4,511
Carlsbad residents continue to view open space and trails as an important quality of life issue. Based on the
survey results, additional trails and walking paths are desired. The department will continue to require
public trail easements and the construction of trails as part of ongoing private development for trails
identified in the Citywide Trails Master Plan that fall within private development areas. This includes the
process of increasing the number of Acceptance Agreements for Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for
citywide public trail easements that were previously rejected as part of private development, and entering
into a joint use agreement with SDG&E to allow trail use on their utility easements that coincide with trails
identified within the city’s trails plan. The planning, development and construction of trails are identified
within the Open Space & Conservation Element of the City’s General Plan. Parks and Recreation is
embarking on an update of the Trails Master Plan to bring the trail planning documents current and for use
in future trail development. The Coastal Rail Trail is not included in the benchmark results due to the
unique nature of this trail and its funding sources as provided through SANDAG.
The number of new trail construction projects remained low due to the economic conditions, as there was
only one new trail built as part of private development (i.e., Roberson Ranch - 1.5 miles). A low total of
privately-built trails can be expected to continue until residential and commercial development picks up,
making it difficult to reach the established benchmark. We believe we will see a minor increase in
development in 2014, which may result in new trail development. Total citywide trail mileage is currently at
46.70. A goal of 60 total miles of trails, at the city’s build-out, is identified in the Citywide Trails Master
Plan.
The city’s trail volunteer program continues to grow in both the number of volunteers as well as the
number of projects completed by volunteers. Staff actively recruits volunteers to help reduce the trail
maintenance cost per mile. The calculation for the trail maintenance cost per mile includes administrative
costs.
19
Facilities Maintenance
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Maintenance Assesement Program (MAP) /
greater than 90%90% 90%N/A N/A
Number of Corrective Maintenance work
orders per 1000 square feet/ decrease year N/A 2.58 2.10 1.95
Cost/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Maintenance cost per square foot / less
than $8.68 $ 6.38 $ 6.17 $ 5.48 $ 5.02
The Facilities Maintenance division is responsible for maintenance and custodial activities at all city-owned
buildings. The Maintenance Assessment Program (MAP) for city facilities is performed every two years, and
collects quality ratings from community representatives, outside professionals and city employees. Results
have remained consistent for the past several years. Due to staff vacancies, the MAP was not conducted in
FY 2012-13 or FY 2013-14, but is planned to be conducted in FY 2014-15.
A new measure addresses the effectiveness of the preventative maintenance program by calculating the
number of corrective maintenance work orders per 1,000 square feet. The department goal is to reduce
the need for corrective maintenance as a result of improved preventative and predictive maintenance
programs. Facilities Maintenance has shifted its focus from corrective maintenance toward a plan to
address major preventative maintenance activities using the Infrastructure Replacement Fund, which was
implemented this fiscal year. In addition staff focused on completion of several major moves and
renovations, such as the City Hall lobby remodel and moving Housing and Neighborhood Services from
leased property to the City Hall complex. As the preventative maintenance program matures, staff
continues to calibrate the appropriate level of corrective maintenance necessary to maintain high quality
facilities.
The calculation of the maintenance cost per square foot includes square footage for all city-maintained
facilities. Costs decreased by eight percent this fiscal year as a result of improved management of the
preventative maintenance program, efficiencies implemented following a lean management process review
conducted this year, reduced personnel costs resulting from unplanned vacancies, and continuous
evaluation of vendor and parts costs.
Property and Environmental Management will continue to responsibly manage resources through regular
business process review, and ongoing efforts to accurately relate time, resources and costs with
performance measures to monitor efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery.
20
Fleet Maintenance
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Percent of units available for use / 95% of
the time or greater 98% 93% 94% 94%
Customer Satisfaction/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Customer survey - rated as "good" or
"excellent" / 90% or greater 97% 94% 94%N/A
Cost/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Cost per unit / decrease from previous
year $ 4,081 $ 4,113 $ 3,979 $ 3,197
The Fleet Maintenance division provides automotive services for the city’s workforce, including
preventative and breakdown maintenance. The “percent of units available for use” service delivery
performance measure reflects the effectiveness of the preventive maintenance program as indicated by
the availability of city vehicles. The measure of vehicle availability is considered an industry standard for
both public and private sector fleet management. In FY 2011-12 and FY 2012-13 Fleet Maintenance has
continued to work with department staff to ensure scheduled preventative maintenance intervals are met
on a more consistent basis. In the coming fiscal year, Fleet Maintenance will improve access to the
preventative maintenance schedule, and connect access to fueling systems with preventative maintenance
schedules, to further incentivize staff to perform maintenance in a timely matter
The customer service metric is based on surveys provided to and returned by city staff that uses city Fleet
vehicles. For FY 2011-12, overall customer satisfaction ratings remained above the benchmark. Due to
staff vacancies in FY 2013-13, the customer survey was not completed; however it is planned to be
conducted in FY 2013-14.
Average Fleet Maintenance expenditures per unit were $3,197, a 20 percent decrease from the previous
fiscal year. This value is derived by taking the total fleet maintenance expenditure divided by the total
number of in-service vehicles (454 total vehicles for FY 2012-13). The cost per unit does not include fuel or
miscellaneous interdepartmental charges. During this fiscal year vehicles were purchased to right-size the
city fleet by replacing units long overdue for replacement, and reassessing the needs of specific
departments. In addition Fleet staff engages in regular cost control measures, such as renegotiation of
pricing on parts and contract services, as well as identifying service efficiencies that work to stabilize
maintenance costs despite external market conditions.
21
Storm Water Protection
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Number of Notices of Violation received
from Regional Water Quality Control Board
/ none
0 0 0 0
Number of temporary beach postings due to
urban runoff / none 0 0 0 0
High priority inlets cleaned / 100%100% 100% 100% 100%
Complaint Response Tracking - percent of
high priority reports of dumping to storm
drain with inspector on scene within 45
100% 100% 100% 100%
Customer Satisfaction/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Carlsbad Resident Survey - percent of
residents reporting they have taken actions
to reduce water pollution based on
messages received / 75% or greater
74% 82% 76% 81%
Cost FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Cost per capita for Storm Water Protection
Program $ 9.07 $ 8.83 $ 10.02 $ 10.29
These measures address the city’s efforts to maintain the water quality of Carlsbad’s streams, lagoons and
beaches. The measures also reflect the effectiveness of programs to reduce pollution in urban runoff.
Service delivery measures are centered on compliance with the Municipal Storm Water Permit issued by
the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. All benchmarks have been met consistently over the
past 4 years. Temporary beach postings, as used in this measure, notify the public of excess bacteria in
ocean water resulting from urban runoff along Carlsbad beaches. High priority reports of dumping to the
storm drain are defined as activities which provide an immediate threat to storm drain pollution.
The customer satisfaction goal is to ensure that 75 percent or more of the Carlsbad residents who reported
in the city’s annual Resident Survey have seen or heard about ways to prevent water pollution each year
and have taken actions to reduce water pollution, such as using a commercial car wash, or cleaning up
trash in city parks and trails. These positive behavioral changes over time result in improved water quality.
A minor increase in cost per capita resulted from slight increases in State Water Resources Control Board
fees and personnel costs.
22
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Service
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
All Emergency Responses first unit on
scene in 6 minutes or less 74%72%71%63%
All Emergency Responses second unit on
scene in 9 minutes or less 80%79%75%75%
Average number of minutes for first unit to
arrive on scene 5:01 minutes 5:04 minutes 5:13 minutes 5:35 minutes
Customer Satisfaction/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Carlsbad Resident Survey - Fire 95%94%96%93%
Overall Emergency Medical Service
approval 98%99%99%99%
Cost FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Net operating cost per capita $ 136 $ 126 $ 132 $ 138
Per capita cost percent above / (below)
ICMA data -7%-16%-10%-29%
The Carlsbad Fire Department continues its participation in a regional service delivery model, known as
Boundary Drop, which assigns the closest available resources to the emergency scene. The utilization of
the Boundary Drop is routinely reviewed for additional efficiencies in training opportunities and overhead
support that maximize the availability of resources. In FY 2012-13, the Carlsbad Fire Department
responded to a total of 9,925 emergency incident responses, compared to 9,918 in FY 2011-12.
Although in FY 2012-13 there was an increase in the average response time for the first unit to arrive on
scene, the average time of 5:35 minutes remains below the established benchmark of six minutes or less.
The increased response time can be attributed to several factors; increased populations within the City of
Carlsbad and neighboring jurisdictions, along with an increased call volume, drive time, off-load delays at
hospitals, and traffic delays. In addition, the increased response time can be attributed to the six month
suspension of the Boundary Drop with the City of Oceanside, while they conducted an evaluation of their
service delivery model. The Fire Department will continue to monitor response times to emergency
incidents to determine any additional significant, contributing factors to an increased response time. With
the recent reinstitution of the Boundary Drop with the City of Oceanside, the Carlsbad Fire Department
expects to see an improvement in response times.
The department continues to maintain an exceptional level of customer satisfaction, as evidenced by the
results of two separate customer surveys. The first survey focuses on the public’s opinion of the Fire
Department as a whole, where as the second survey focuses on those individuals who have experienced
our EMS System first hand.
Using ICMA for comparison, the Fire Department has consistently reported a lower per capita cost.
Current data provided by ICMA shows the median cost per capita for all jurisdictions to be $178. As can be
seen from the data in the table, the Fire Department’s cost per capita for FY 2012-13 is approximately 29
percent lower than ICMA.
23
Police Services
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Carlsbad Resident Survey - Citizen sense of
safety (day time) / 60% or greater 87% 87% 89% 88%
Carlsbad Resident Survey - Citizen sense of
safety (night time) / 31% or greater 53% 56% 58% 56%
Crime Rate:
Violent Crime / lowest third Yes Yes Yes Yes
Property Crime / lowest third Yes Yes No Yes
Clearances:
Violent Crime / top third No No No No
Property Crime / top third No Yes Yes No
Response Time Average:
Priority 1 - 6 minutes or less 5.5 minutes 5.9 minutes 5.8 minutes N/A
Priority 2 - 15 minutes or less 11.2 minutes 11.9 minutes 12.2 minutes N/A
Priority 3 - 30 minutes or less 21.3 minutes 22.8 minutes 24 minutes N/A
Response Time Distribution:
Priority 1 - 90% less than 6 minutes 60% 62% 57%N/A
Priority 2 - 90% less than 15 minutes 80% 78% 77%N/A
Priority 3 - 90% less than 30 minutes 81% 78% 76%N/A
Customer Satisfaction/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Carlsbad Resident Survey - "very satisfied"
or "somewhat satisfied" / 90% or greater 92% 92% 92% 91%
Sustained complaint / none 0 1 2 0
Cost/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Cost per capita / $268 (FY11), $265 (FY10) $ 262 $ 265 $ 259 $ 256
Violent and property crime rates are a calculation of crimes relative to the population. They are expressed
as crimes per 1,000 population. The violent crime rate includes homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated
assault, and the property crime rate includes burglary, larceny-theft and motor vehicle theft.
Generally, a case is considered “cleared” when at least one person is arrested, charged and turned over to
court for prosecution. Carlsbad’s clearance rates of 50% of violent crimes and 16% of property crimes did
not meet the benchmark of top one-third in the county. However, they compare favorably to the county
average of 52% and 15% respectively.
The department was in the midst of a major Computer Aided Dispatch system upgrade at the time of this
publication, and response time data was not available.
The department’s cost per capita continues to be lower than the county average of $268.
24
Street Maintenance
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Street light repairs completed within ten days
/ 90% or greater 86% 79% 30% 74%
Recall percent of city traffic signals / 1% or
less 0% 0% 0% 0%
Percent of Prime and Major roadways
refreshed / 100%66% 88% 100% 81%
Percent of time desired response times for
sidewalk repairs are met within 48 hours /
100%
100% 85% 86% 93%
Customer Satisfaction/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Carlsbad Resident Survey - Repair and
maintenance of local street and roads / 90%
or higher
86% 87% 89% 87%
Customer survey - City's management of
traffic congestion / 90% or greater 74% 77% 81% 74%
Cost/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Annual maintenance cost per lane-mile /
$6,178 $ 5,662 $ 5,343 $ 5,583 $ 5,161
In FY 2012-13, 74 percent of city street light repairs were completed within 10 days. The benchmark was
not met because delivery of warranty replacement products from the manufacturer was delayed. It is
expected that street light repair performance will be realigned with the benchmark next fiscal year.
In FY 2012-13, 81 percent of all prime and arterial roadways were inspected or refreshed to meet the city’s
Roadway Striping Plan standards. The benchmark was not met because the striping vehicle required
multiple service repairs and was not available for use 10 weeks during this reporting period.
In FY 2012-13, 93 percent of the sidewalk repair calls received that were determined to be high priority
were mitigated within 48 hours; two business days. In FY 2011-12, 86 percent of all permanent sidewalk
repairs were completed within 100 days.
A total of 87 percent of the residents surveyed rated overall repair and maintenance of streets and roads
and road conditions positively; consistent with prior years. A total of 74 percent of the residents surveyed
rated overall management of traffic congestion on City streets positively. In FY 2012-13, the annual
roadway costs are below benchmark.
25
Traffic Engineering
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Percent of road segments that meet Caltrans
collision rates per million vehicles miles /
100%
90% 94% 100% 100%
Pavement Condition Index (PCI):
Average PCI above 80 80.3 80.1 80.5 80.6
Percent of roads with a PCI above 70 90% 89% 88% 88%
Customer Satisfaction/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Percent of routes with a Performance Index
(PI) above 70 / 60%:
AM Peak (6:30 AM - 8:30 AM):
Off-Peak (10:00 AM - 2:00 PM):
PM Peak (4:00 PM - 6:00 PM):
N/A
N/A
N/A
40%
75%
50%
55%
75%
73%
100%
72%
77%
In FY 2012-13, 100 percent of the roadway segments are within the statewide collision rate, same as in
2011-12.
The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is a value rating pavement condition: a PCI value greater than 70
indicates roads which are in good to excellent condition. The average city-wide pavement condition has
remained constant; from 80.1 in 2010-11 to 80.5 in 2011-12, 80.6 in 2012-13 and the percentage of
roadways with a PCI value greater than 70 has also remained relatively constant; from 89 percent to 88
percent.
Phase III of the Traffic Signal Program is scheduled to be completed early next year. Most of the city’s 174
traffic signals are expected to be linked to the new Traffic Management Center. Over $1M was invested in
traffic signal upgrades on the city’s major corridors over the past 3 years. Last year the traffic signal timing
plans were revised to improve traffic flow between the city’s primary origins and destinations. The
equipment upgrades and new signal timing plans improved the reliability of traffic signal operations so that
drivers can expect more consistent travel times each day.
Last year staff implemented a new performance measure for traffic signal operations based on floating car
studies using the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) system that measures average speed,
stops per mile and a “green/red” ratio. OCTA established a standard score above 70 as acceptable signal
coordination while a score below 50 to indicate that congestion needs mitigation. The Carlsbad
Performance Index (PI) benchmark is: 60% of our routes will have a score above 70. In 2013, a total of 110
floating car runs were taken this past year: 22 in the AM Peak, 57 in the Off-Peak, and 31 in the PM Peak.
Each of the three time periods met their benchmarks. Staff will continue to evaluate the signal operations
to improve the PI to better serve the driving community.
26
Water Services (Potable and Recycled)
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Total leaks and breaks per 100 miles of
water pipe in the potable system / less
than 32.7
28.4 26.4 28.3 13.2
Total leaks and breaks per 100 miles of
water pipe in the recycled system / less
than 32.7
1.3 7.8 8.9 5
Percent of all water samples testing
bacteria-free / 98% or greater 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 99.7%
Customer Satisfaction/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Carlsbad Resident Survey - "very satisfied"
or "somewhat satisfied" / 90% or greater 90% 92% 91% 90%
Cost FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Cost per acre-foot of water sold $1,797 $1,987 $1,988 $2,074
Percent of unaccounted for potable water
/ less than 6%6.1% 5.3% 5.1% 6.1%
Water service citywide is provided by three water agencies: the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD),
the Olivenhain Municipal Water District, and the Vallecitos Water District. The CMWD service area
incorporates approximately 85 percent of the city, generally north of La Costa Avenue.
The Carlsbad Municipal Water District’s (CMWD) Phase II Recycled Water Plant produces recycled water
that is used within the CMWD service area. The District also purchases recycled water from the Leucadia
Wastewater District and Vallecitos Water District via two inter-agency recycled water agreements.
The ratios of water line leaks and breaks per 100 miles of pipelines in the system were below the Amercian
Water Works Association benchmark of 32.7 breaks and leaks per 100 miles of pipelines in the system. This
benchmark is the average rating for water systems in the western United States with service populations of
50,001 to 100,000. The ratio is an indication of the integrity of the water distribution system. The lower
ratios for the recycled portion of the water system are in part a result of the relative newness of a portion
of the recycled system.
The cost of water per acre foot is calculated by dividing the total operating cost by the number of acre-feet
sold. As in FY 2011-12, in FY 2012-13 the small increase in the cost per acre-foot of water sold is the result
of the expenditures increasing by 5 percent and the total number of acre-feet sold also increasing by 5
percent. The percentage of unaccounted-for, or “lost” water is below the benchmark of less than 6
percent. Water can be “lost” as a result of leaks and breaks, inaccurate meter reads, flushing activities
designed to maintain water quality, water used to clean water storage facilities and water used during new
pipeline construction.
27
Sewer Services
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Number of overflows per 100 miles of
sewer main / none 2.08 1.05 0.35 2.08
Customer Satisfaction/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Carlsbad Resident Survey - "very
satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" / 90%
or greater
93% 91% 89% 89%
Cost FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Cost per million gallons of sewage $3,862 $3,440 $4,097 $ 4,694
Sewer service citywide is provided by three agencies: the City of Carlsbad, the Leucadia Wastewater District
and the Vallecitos Water District.
The Sewer Overflow Rate per 100 miles of collection system piping will not exceed 2.79. This benchmark
was established based on the results of a comprehensive nation-wide survey conducted by the American
Water Works Association in 2007. 2.79 is the average rating for wastewater systems located in the
Western portion of the U.S., with a service population of 50,001 to 100,000.
The FY 2012-13 overflow rate and number of overflows were equal to FY 2009-10 since being tracked in
2004. The Wastewater Collections Division continues its new cleaning and maintenance methods and team
attitude. Our current program is using frequency/inspection based strategy which consists of data
collection, CCTV inspection, and manhole inspection analysis.
Customer satisfaction remains one percentage point below the benchmark of 90 percent, but continues to
consistently be near the benchmark figure.
For FY 2012-13, Carlsbad’s cost of service of $4,694 per MG is above the cost of service for FY 2011-12. This
data seems to indicate that Carlsbad’s sewer system is operating efficiently within existing resources. This
rating may also be indicative of a system that is being managed within normal industry standards relative to
planned maintenance, as well as as-needed corrective work and emergency repairs. The increase in
Carlsbad’s cost per MG over the previous fiscal year is attributable primarily to increased operating
expenses, capital outlay purchases and depreciation.
28
Solid Waste Services
Performance Measures
Service Delivery/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Annual Disposal Rate / less than 8.4
pounds 5.8 lbs. 5.6 lbs. 5.7 lbs. 5.7 lbs.
Customer Satisfaction/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Carlsbad Resident Survey:
Trash / 90%N/A 93% 95% 95%
Recycling / 90%N/A 84% 94% 93%
Household Hazardous Waste / 90%N/A 72% 75% 72%
Cost/Benchmark FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13
Residential Rates / Lowest third Yes Yes Yes Yes
Commercial Rates / Lowest third Yes Yes Yes Yes
The Annual Disposal Rate is based on Senate Bill 1016, the Disposal Measurement System Act of 2008,
effective January 1, 2007. This act requires Carlsbad to not exceed a maximum amount of 8.4 pounds of
solid waste per person per day. The Annual Disposal Rate benchmark is based on solid waste generation
from 2003 through 2006. The city has remained consistently below benchmark for the past four years.
Although the new solid waste services hauling contract featuring new single stream recycling services went
into effect during the current fiscal year, there was no change from prior to current fiscal year. It is
anticipated that the rate will decline as customers become more accustomed to the new services.
The annual Carlsbad Resident Survey for FY 2012-13 indicates that customer satisfaction has remained
fairly consistent with prior year results. Staff will continue to promote services and events that encourage
proper household hazardous waste disposal.
Carlsbad’s residential and commercial solid waste rates continue to be the lowest in San Diego County.
Research Objectives
Assess residents’ perceptions of:
The job the city is doing to provide services
Quality of life
Sense of community
Safety in their neighborhood
Confidence in city government
City-resident communication
How city is meeting the community’s core values
Methodology
Telephone survey of 1,007 residents
Calls made: September 11 – 28, 2013
Average length: 20 minutes
Landline and mobile
Statistically representative sample by age, gender,
ethnicity and geographic distribution (zip code) based
on SANDAG’s 2013 current demographic estimates for
Carlsbad
Margin of error +/- 3.07% (95% confidence level)
3
Overall Indicators
4
1.Overall provision of city services
•94% satisfaction (63% very satisfied)
2.Perceived quality of life
•96% excellent or good (68% excellent)
3.Confidence in Carlsbad city government
•80% confident (25% very confident)
Overall Indicators
5
4.Public safety in Carlsbad
•90% of residents feel safe walking alone in their
neighborhoods at night (54% very safe)
•88% satisfaction with law enforcement services (65%
very satisfied)
5.Sense of community
•71% of residents indicated a strong sense of community
(33% very strong) and 5% no sense of community.
6.City-Resident communications
•90% satisfaction (49% very satisfied)
City Services
94% of residents are very (63%) or somewhat (32%) satisfied
with the job the city is doing to provide services.
€ Statistically significant change from 2012 # Statistically significant change from 2011 α Statistically significant from 2010 ¥ Statistically significant from 2009
Very satisfied Somewhat
satisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied DK/NA
2009 55.5%33.4%3.5%4.1%3.4%
2010 59.9%31.7%2.2%1.6%4.7%
2011 61.1%33.3%1.8%1.0%2.8%
2012 63.5%30.0%2.4%1.3%2.8%
2013 62.5%31.7%2.0%1.5%2.4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥ ¥
α
α
α
Satisfaction with City’s Efforts to…
Analysis Excludes Responses of Don’t Know/ No Answer
Overall Satisfaction
95.5%
95.2%
94.9%
93.4%
93.3%
92.1%
90.8%
90.1%
89.4%
60.6%
62.6%
66.6%
62.7%
71.2%
74.8%
77.9%
75.8%
73.5%
28.8%
27.5%
24.2%
29.4%
22.0%
18.6%
17.0%
19.4%
21.9%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Provide sewer services
Provide water services
Provide law enforcement services
Provide trails and walking paths
Provide recycling collection services
Provide fire protection and emergency medicalservices
Provide library services
Provide trash collection services
Maintain city parks
Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied
Satisfaction with City’s Efforts to ….
Analysis Excludes Responses of Don’t Know/ No Answer
All of the services tested have 70% satisfaction or higher.
Overall Satisfaction
86.4%
86.2%
85.5%
85.2%
85.1%
81.3%
74.0%
71.5%
69.9%
29.7%
39.2%
31.8%
41.9%
50.3%
48.1%
56.4%
59.3%
50.2%
40.2%
32.3%
42.2%
39.4%
34.7%
37.1%
29.2%
26.9%
36.3%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Manage residential growth and development
Provide hazardous waste disposal
Manage traffic congestion on city streets
Protect water quality in the city's creeks,lagoons, and the ocean
Maintain the business climate in Carlsbad
Provide local arts and cultural opportunities
Provide street sweeping services
Provide recreation programs
Repair and maintain local streets and roads
Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied
Quality of Life
97% of residents rate the quality of life in Carlsbad favorably.
€ Statistically significant change from 2012 # Statistically significant change from 2011 α Statistically significant from 2010 ¥ Statistically significant from 2009
#
0.1%
0.0%
0.4%
3.2%
28.7%
67.6%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
2.8%
31.8%
65.0%
0.3%
0.2%
0.5%
1.0%
34.2%
63.9%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
3.4%
35.5%
60.5%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
3.6%
33.9%
61.9%
0%20%40%60%80%
DK/NA
Very poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Positive
2009 = 96%
2010 = 96%
2011 = 98%
2012 = 97%
2013 = 96%
α ¥
#
α ¥
α
# α ¥
α ¥
#
#
α
€ ¥
#
Quality of Life
€ Statistically significant change from 2012 # Statistically significant change from 2011 α Statistically significant from 2010 ¥ Statistically significant from 2009
Proportion of residents who perceive the quality of life as
getting better in Carlsbad has consistently grown since 2009.
Getting better Staying about the
same Getting worse DK/NA
2009 15.1%59.8%20.9%4.2%
2010 16.5%64.7%15.2%3.6%
2011 17.1%68.1%11.0%3.8%
2012 23.2%61.9%11.4%3.4%
2013 29.3%57.2%9.9%3.6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
€ # α ¥
# α ¥
€ # α
#
¥ α ¥
α ¥
α ¥
α
Sense of Community
ł
α
ł
ł
71% of residents indicated they had a very strong sense
(33%) or somewhat strong (38%) sense of community
α
α
α
α
2.5%
4.8%
2.9%
18.8%
38.0%
33.0%
1.4%
4.8%
2.4%
18.1%
40.5%
32.8%
2.4%
4.8%
2.3%
18.1%
43.9%
28.5%
3.0%
6.3%
1.5%
21.3%
39.4%
28.6%
3.6%
4.4%
4.1%
22.9%
38.6%
26.3%
0%20%40%60%80%
DK/NA
None at all
Very weak
Somewhat weak
Somewhat strong
Very strong
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
# α ¥
# α ¥
α ¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
α ¥
¥
¥
¥
α
€ Statistically significant change from 2012 # Statistically significant change from 2011 α Statistically significant from 2010 ¥ Statistically significant from 2009
Safety
88% of residents feel very safe walking alone in their
neighborhoods during the day.
€ Statistically significant change from 2012 # Statistically significant change from 2011 α Statistically significant from 2010 ¥ Statistically significant from 2009
€ α
#
€ α
#
85.5% 86.8% 86.2% 89.4% 87.5%
11.4% 10.9% 12.4% 9.3% 10.9%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Walking alone in neighborhood during the day
# ¥
#
52.3% 51.1% 54.2% 56.3% 33.0% 35.6% 35.8% 33.7% 8.3% 6.7% 4.9% 5.1% 1.2% 1.8% 0.7% 1.4% 0%20%40%60%80%100%Very safe Somewhat safe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe DK/NA
52.3% 51.1% 54.2% 56.3% 54.3%
33.0% 35.6% 35.8% 33.7% 35.9%
8.3% 6.7% 4.9% 5.1% 5.2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Walking alone in neighborhood after
dark
α
¥
¥ ¥ ¥
City-Resident Communication
^
ł
ł
ł
90% of residents are very (49%) or somewhat satisfied with
the city’s efforts to communicate with residents.
Very satisfied
49.2%
Somewhat
satisfied
40.6%
Somewhat
dissatisfied
7.4% Very
dissatisfied
2.8%
City Government
80% of residents are confident in Carlsbad city government
to make decisions that positively affect their lives.
€ Statistically significant change from 2011 # Statistically significant change from 2010 α Statistically significant from 2009 ¥ Statistically significant from 2008
€ # α ¥ € # α ¥ 21.6% 22.4% 17.4% 22.5% 24.9%
52.2% 55.2% 66.1% 57.7% 55.5%
15.7% 12.0% 10.3% 10.8% 9.5%
6.5% 5.5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Very confident Somewhat confident Somewhat unconfident Very unconfident DK/NA
¥
α ¥
α ¥
α ¥
¥
# #
# ¥ #
α ¥ α ¥
# ¥
Community Values
Analysis Excludes Responses of Don’t Know/ No Answer The City of Carlsbad…
36.9%
35.9%
44.0%
41.7%
51.2%
48.9%
53.9%
52.2%
65.2%
59.4%
70.3%
68.7%
44.8%
47.3%
37.9%
37.7%
36.8%
36.7%
36.2%
35.3%
26.7%
30.8%
24.8%
26.3%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Supports environmental
sustainability
Is improving access to
walking and biking trails
Promotes the arts
Supports a strong local
economy by promoting
business diversity and
tourism
Maintains its beach
community character
Promotes active lifestyles;
access to trails, parks,
beaches, & other rec.
opps.
95.0%
95.1%
90.2%
91.9%
87.5%
90.2%
85.6%
88.0%
79.4%
81.9%
83.1%
81.8%
Dark=Strongly agree Light=Somewhat agree Total Agree
'12
'13
'12
'13
'12
'13
'12
'13
'12
'13
'12
'13
Community Values
Analysis Excludes Responses of Don’t Know/ No Answer The City of Carlsbad…
16.6%
14.2%
30.2%
28.9%
42.5%
40.7%
38.0%
34.9%
44.1%
45.6%
43.4%
44.0%
27.8%
32.9%
37.5%
39.3%
34.1%
36.1%
41.1%
42.9%
35.3%
33.1%
38.0%
37.1%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Is improving access to public
transportation
Celebrates the city's cultural
heritage
Has a small town, connected
feel
Supports neighborhood
revitalization and livable
communities
Supports quality education
Protects and enhances open
space and natural environ.
Dark=Strongly Light=Somewhat agree Total Agree
'12
'13
'12
'13
'12
'13
'12
'13
'12
'13
'12
'13
81.1%
81.4%
78.7%
79.4%
77.7%
79.1%
76.7%
76.6%
68.2%
67.7%
47.2%
44.4%
Focus Groups
Two focus groups were completed with residents to
follow up on issues related to quality of life in Carlsbad,
local transportation, cultural heritage and feeling
connected in your community.
Focus Group Findings
18
•Sense of community differs between
generations
•Quality of life drivers
•Feedback on transportation is mixed
Conclusions
of residents rate the quality of life
in Carlsbad as excellent or good
(68% as excellent). 96%
Conclusions
of residents are satisfied with the
job the City is doing to provide
services.
(63% very satisfied). 94%
Conclusions
of residents have confidence in
Carlsbad city government to make
decisions that positively affect the lives of
community members. 80%
2013 State of Effectiveness
Report
City Council Meeting
Jan. 14, 2014
Performance Measurement
•14th year of the report
•Measure our results
•Report to the public
•Increase government accountability
Performance Measurement
•127 points of data
•Categories:
–Service delivery
–Customer satisfaction
–Cost
Building Inspections
- Met 98% of all
inspection
requests the next
working day while
reducing the cost
per approval from
$67 to $58
Planning
- Increased the
number of land
use projects
completed in 2
cycles or less while
improving
customer
satisfaction by 9%
Housing & Neighborhood Services
- The Village area
annual sales tax was
consistent with the
previous year and the
ratio of public to
private investment
improved from 1:10 to
1:36
Fleet Maintenance
- Kept 94% of city
vehicles available
for use while
reducing
maintenance costs
per vehicle by 20%
Police
- Maintained high
level of service
and reduced
property crime
rate to lowest
third of cities in
the county
Street Maintenance
- Increased street
light repairs
completed within
10 days from 30%
to 74% and
reduced annual
maintenance cost
per lane mile by
8%
Questions