HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-29; City Council; MinutesMINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF:
DATE OF MEETING:
TIME OF MEETING:
PLACE OF MEETING:
CITY COUNCIL STRATETIC GOALS
January 29,2002
8:13 a.m. - 4:56 p.m.
Grand Pacific Palisades Resort
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 8:13 a.m. All City Council members were present. Also in
attendance were the City Manager, City Attorney and Ann Marie Stuart, facilitator. Also present were
members of the Leadership Team: Community Development Director Sandra Holder, Public Works
Director Lloyd Hubbs, Administrative Services Director Jim Elliott, Community Services Director Frank
Mannen. Police Chief Jim Hawks and Fire Chief Mike Smith, and various members of staff.
Finance Director Hildabrand presented the Capital Improvement project budget and overall economic
condition of the City and explained the City's tax base with the aid of charts and graphs including
projections over the next ten year period, which included the General Fund forecast, the financial
forecast summary and the cummulative General Fund balance. (Copies attached).
The Council was in recess from 9:15 to 9:30 a.m. and then resumed to receive a presentation on the
"City of Carlsbad Annual State of Effectiveness Report" dated January 2002 (on file with the City Clerk).
Senior Management Analyst Lynn Diamond, Senior Management Analyst Linda Kermott, Senior
Members of the Performance Measurement Team consisting of Senior Services Manager Sue Spickard,
Garuba and Senior Accountant Cheryl Gerhardt presented selected portions of the report.
Management Analyst Tom Ritter, Principal Building Inspector Pat Kelley, Management Analyst Joe
The Council then divided itself into sub-committees for the purpose of considering revision to the goals
based, in part, on this report. The sub-committees variously considered throughout the afternoon all of
the Council's 2001-2002 strategic goals and then considered the "City Public Opinion Survey" results
included in the appendices to the "Annual State of Effectiveness Report".
The Council then discussed revisions to its existing goals commenting on each one and directed staff to
revise them based on the comments made during the presentations and discussions and to return with
revised drafl documents for adoption by the Council at a future meeting.
The Council favorably received the pictorial description of its ten strategic goals surrounded by the over-
arching quality of life (copy attached).
There was no public comment.
Council Member Finnila was excused from the meeting at 4:42 p.m.
The Mayor and all Council Members thanked everyone for their complete participation for a successful
two-day workshop.
The Mayor then adjourned the meeting at 456 p.m,
px+q!!ully submitted,
RONALD R. BALL
City Attorney as Clerk Pro Tem
k 0 F4
T
000000000 000000000 00000~0000 o'o'do'oo'ddd
N r
000000 000 000 00 00 w- *- N- mi *- I I
0 0 0
W' I
00 00 00
14
00" 0-
I
c
3
3 -
B"
City Of Carlsbad
STATE-OF-EFFECTIVENESS REPORT
February 2002
Submitted by
The Performance Measurement Team
Lynn Diamond, Public Safety
Joe Garuba, City Manager’s Ofice
Cheryl Gerhardt, Administrative Services
Pat Kelley, Community Development
Linda Kermott, Public Works
Tom Ritter, Public Safety
Sue Spickard, Community Services
Frank Mannen, Leadership Team Representative
.
TABLEOFCONTENTS
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
Executive Summary ......................................................................................... 1
Introduction .................................................................................................... 9
What’s Different This Year ............................................................................... 9
Background ................................................................................................... 10
Format Of A Goal Summary Page ................................................................... 10
Research ....................................................................................................... 11
Surveys ......................................................................................................... 14
Benchmarking ............................................................................................... 15
Benefits And Risks Of Performance Measurement .......................................... 15
Communications And Outreach ..................................................................... 16
Calendar ........................................................................................................ 17
What Happens Next ....................................................................................... 18
Format OfA Measure ..................................................................................... 19
Definitions ..................................................................................................... 20
Council Strategic Goals 2001-2002 ................................................................ 21
City Of Carlsbad Performance Measures ........................................................ 23
Transportation Strategic Goal .......................................................................... 25
Roadway Safety .......................................................................................... 28
Roadway Circulation ................................................................................... 32
Roadway Rideability ................................................................................... 36
Growth Management - Circulation .............................................................. 39
Finance Strategic Goal .................................................................................... 41
Risk Management - Total City Losses .......................................................... 43
Finance Report Distribution ........................................................................ 45
Finance Collection Rates ............................................................................. 47
City Operating Budget ................................................................................ 49
Purchase Order Processing ......................................................................... 51
Communication Strategic Goal ......................................................................... 53
Citywide Communications .......................................................................... 55
Confidence In City Government .................................................................. 56
Parks Strategic Goal ....................................................................................... 59
Park Safety ................................................................................................. 61
Park Maintenance Cost Efficiency ............................................................... 62
Growth Management - Parks ...................................................................... 65
Open Space And Trails Strategic Goal .............................................................. 69
Growth Management - Open Space ............................................................. 71
How Performance Measurement Fits Into The Big Picture ............................... 12
.
Environmental Management Strategic Goal ...................................................... 73
Sewer Cost Efficiency .................................................................................. 77
Sewer Line Integrity .................................................................................... 75
Drainage System Efficiency ......................................................................... 79
Drainage System Efficiency ......................................................................... 80
Drainage System Water Quality .................................................................. 81
Solid Waste Diversion ................................................................................. 82
Solid Waste Cost Efficiency ......................................................................... 84
Growth Management - Sewer Collection System .......................................... 87
Growth Management - Wastewater Treatment Facilities .............................. 90
Growth Management - Drainage ................................................................. 92
Water Strategic Goal ....................................................................................... 95
Potable Water Quality ................................................................................. 97
Water Reliability ......................................................................................... 99
Water Delivery Efficiency .......................................................................... 101
Learning Strategic Goal ................................................................................. 107
National Library Ranking .......................................................................... 109
Recreation Program Sportsmanship .......................................................... 111
Section 8 Housing .................................................................................... 115
Art Opportunities ..................................................................................... 116
Museums Facilities Ranking ..................................................................... 118
Growth Management - Libraries ................................................................ 121
Growth Management - Schools ................................................................. 122
Top Quality Service Strategic Goal ................................................................. 125
Purchasing Service & Satisfaction ............................................................. 129
Information Technology Service & Satisfaction .......................................... 130
Information Technology Network Operability ............................................. 132
Human Resources - Injured Employee Time Off ........................................ 134
Human Resources Service & Satisfaction .................................................. 136
Human Resources Recruitment Time ........................................................ 137
Solid Waste Customer Service 86 Satisfaction ............................................ 139
Fleet Reliability ......................................................................................... 140
Fleet Customer Service And Satisfaction ................................................... 142
Fleet Cost Effkiency ................................................................................. 144
Facilities Customer Service And Satisfaction ............................................. 145
Facilities Maintenance Response ............................................................... 148
Facilities Maintenance Cost ...................................................................... 150
Fire Confinement ...................................................................................... 152
Fire Customer Service And Satisfaction .................................................... 155
Fire Operating Cost Efficiency ................................................................... 158
Fire Response Time .................................................................................. 160
Growth Management - Water Distribution System .................................... 103
Quality Of Life/ Community Development Strategic Goal ................................. 113
.
.
...
"
"
"
"
.
"
.
.
...
..
.
"
-
Growth Management - Fire Stations ......................................................... 162
Police Customer Service & Satisfaction ..................................................... 165
Police Responsiveness ............................................................................... 168
Crime Cases Cleared.. .............................................................................. .17 1
Community Perception Of Crime ............................................................... 175
Satisfaction With Library Resources .......................................................... 177
Parks & Recreation Customer Service & Satisfaction ................................. 179
Satisfaction With Gallery Programs .......................................................... .18 1
Faraday Center Front Counter Service & Satisfaction ................................ 183
Code Enforcement Responsiveness ........................................................... 185
Overall Citizen Satisfaction With City Services .......................................... 186
Growth Management - City Administrative Facilities ................................. 189
Appendix 1: Growth Management Report Memo, November 200 1 ................ .19 1
Appendix 2: City Public Opinion Survey Results .......................................... 195
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This year’s State of the Effectiveness Report is formatted in line with the City
Council’s strategic goals. Each of those goals contains the benchmarks, the
management goals, the citywide survey highlights, and any other related efforts
towards goal accomplishment. The strategic goals summaries are:
Transportation - The Citywide survey indicated that traffic is still a major
concern for 31% of Carlsbad residents. Only 45% of residents rated traffic
circulation efficiency as either good or excellent. 45% also rated traffic
circulation efficiency as either fair or poor. The results of the 2001 Performance
Measures and Growth Management Standards indicate that the city is doing a
good job supporting the Transportation Strategic goal. 95% of roadways
measures met the Roadway Safety benchmark.
Finance - The city is in good financial condition. Through monthly monitoring
and reporting of the City’s financial status, and the long term monitoring
through the 10-year forecast, the city is able to be proactive in managing the
City’s resources.
Communication - Overall, residents rated the City’s information dispersal as 6
on a scale of 10. This is a good rating, but indicates there is room for
improvement. Residents garnered most City information from the Community
Services Recreation Guide. They also utilized the website and thought the
desktop calendar was useful.
Parks - The City is presently in a parks shortfall in 3 of the 4 quadrants of the
city (24 ac.). In order to comply with the Growth Management Ordinance, the
CIP budget for park development has been accelerated. As such, within 5 years
the City will no longer be in a deficit as allowed by the Growth Management
Ordinance. The citywide survey showed that 96% of the respondents said the
condition of the parks and community centers was either good or excellent.
91% of residents rated the condition of all city facilities as either good or
excellent.
Open Space and Trails - There were no questions on this year’s citywide
survey related to open space and trails. A “paired comparison” survey did
indicate residents prefer trails as opposed to a community park, a swim
complex, or a municipal golf course. The Council received an update on the
citywide trails plan this fall and will receive information regarding financing
plans in early 2002. The open space component of the Growth Management
Plan is in compliance.
1
Environmental Management - The Sewer and Drainage Growth Management
standards are in compliance. Three of the four performance measurement
benchmarks were achieved this year. The Citywide survey indicated 92% of the
residents rated sewer service as either good or excellent. Carlsbad residents
reported recycling 63% of recyclable materials. Interestingly, 58% of the
residents indicated a willingness to pay a $50 annual fee per household to
improve coastal water.
Water - This goal had two benchmarks achieved and one fell short because an
increase in wholesale water costs was not passed along to customers. The
Growth Management performance measure is in compliance. Residents in the
Southeast Quadrant rated water service 10% less than the other three
quadrants.
Learning - Residents report a high level of satisfaction with the library
collection. Recreation developed a program called TRUST (Teaching Respect,
Unity, and Sportsmanship through Teamwork). The City offered training in
specific aspects of an employee’s duties (i.e. safe lifting). In addition, City Wide
training was provided in more global topics such as Customer Service. Public
Works is involved in a program of cross training employees within a Major
Service Area.
Quality of Life - The quality of life in Carlsbad is still considered to be very
high by residents. The citizens’ confidence rating in the City’s ability to make
decisions that positively affect their life is 6.52 on a scale of 10. This is 0.5
points higher than last year. City services are also rated high with 96% of the
residents citing those as either good or excellent. Although some citizens cite
traffic and growth as their greatest concern, citizens still feel safe walking in
their neighborhoods (9.56 on a scale of 10).
Top Quality Service - The benchmarks for this goal have been achieved in 14
of the 24 measures where there is adequate data. However, the survey results
of service levels were very positive. The overall satisfaction level for city services
is that 96% of Carlsbad residents rated those services as either good or
excellent. The majority of all respondents rated city services as good or
excellent. Library and fire protection services rated the highest. Enforcement of
traffic regulations and water services were not often given an excellent rating
although they were given good ratings. Contracted Public Works services also
rated excellent or good by the majority of respondents and hazardous waste
disposal garnered the lowest rating. 14% rated this service as poor. The
community’s perception of general neighborhood safety was rated very high -
9.56 on a scale of 0 to 10. It was noted by citizens in the survey that they
perceived that graffiti was cleaned up by the city in 92% of the times they
reported it to the city.
All of the City’s Growth Management Standards are in compliance with the
Growth Management Ordinance although there are a few specific deficiencies.
The Ordinance allows for continued growth when there is a CIP in place to
mitigate the deficiency within a specified time frame.
This year the performance measurement benchmarks were achieved in 35 out
of 51 categories that have reportable results (69%). Last year’s State of
Effectiveness Report showed that the benchmark achievement rate was 21 of
33 performance measures (65%). A separate mid-year management goal report
to the City Council will be developed in early 2002.
3
4
S-Y OF THE MEASURES
1 1 ACHIEVES 1 BENCHMARK 1 ADEQUATE DATA 1
Roadway safety
Roadway circulation
J
J
Circulation Growth Management J ~~ ~
Risk management losses
Finance report distribution
Collection rates
City operating budget
J
J
J
J
I Standard
5
ACHIEVES
BENCHMARK NOT ACHIEVED NOT AVAILABLE
BENCHMARK ADEQUATE DATA
. . . , . . .
Sewer line integrity
J
Solid waste cost effic.
Potable water quality
J
Water reliability
Water delivery efficiency
Water distribution svstem Growth J
J
National library ranking
Recreation program sportsmanship J
6
Standard
School Growth Management J
7
INTRODUCTION
This is the second full year of the Performance Measurement effort for the City.
In the fall of 1999, the City began to measure its performance in achieving
desired outcomes. A seven-member Performance Measurement Team was
created to coordinate this effort. City staff members in each of the Major
Service Areas (MSAs) are assigned to develop measures within their own areas.
The Performance Measurement Team, with the cooperation of every MSA, has
compiled this report.
While performance measurement is a fairly common practice in the private
sector, there are no perfect models in the public sector. The City's goal is to
create and maintain a measurement system to identify the key outcomes of our
service/product and develop a process to accurately gauge progress and
compare it to others. The result will be an organization that focuses on
continuous improvement with the help of measured outcomes, process
analysis, and action plan implementation. In developing this system, we have
looked at other organizations, evaluated existing measurement programs such
as International City Managers' Association (ICMA) Center for Performance
Measurement, and participated in training and education programs from both
the private and public sectors.
WHAT'S DIFFERENT THIS YEAR
This year's State-of-Effectiveness Report is organized differently than last
year's. Instead of reporting performance by MSA, this year performance is
reported by City Council's strategic goals. In addition, the City's Growth
Management Plan Standards and citywide measures have been added to the
report, and there is a tie-in to the City budget.
Each strategic goal has a summary sheet. That summary sheet has the
associated performance measures, growth management standards, related
goals, public opinion survey highlights, and any other relevant information.
This format will make it easier to grasp the Citywide effort being made towards
each of the strategic goals set by Council.
In reviewing these summary sheets, it should be more evident how resources
are being directed towards each goal, how the different segments of the City's
measurement and goals structure fit together under a City Council Strategic
Goal, and how effective the City is at achieving the goals. The different sections
of the summary sheets are explained below:
Goal summary
9
0 Performance measures
Growth management standards, if applicable
0 Related management goals
0 Citywide survey highlights related to the goal
0 Other factors relevant to the goal
BACKGROUND
In 1999, performance measures were drafted, benchmarking began, and
comparable cities were identified. The first year’s effort to measure our
organization’s effectiveness was marked by considerable effort and analysis,
and generally positive results. The program’s first State of Effectiveness ReDort
was presented to the City Council and citizens, the City’s Leadership Team,
management and the general employees in February of 2001. It is also
available on the City’s Internet site.
”
This project represents the efforts of the entire City. The individual MSAs are
responsible for the development of the various measures, the tracking of those
measures, the collection of the data, and the analysis.
FORMAT OF A GOAL SUMMARY PAGE
Listed below are the key components of the goal summary pages:
Goal
0 City Council’s strategic goal
Summary
0 An overview of the City’s progress towards the strategic goals.
Performance Measure8
Outcome-based measure
Tied to core departmental functions
Develops feedback loop on City’s performance
0 Allows for the review of the strategic priorities through the development
of the measures and the data collection process
0 Help cultivate a culture of continuous improvement
Moves the organization from being reactive to proactive
Provides organizational accountability
0 Provides the foundation for goal development
Growth Management Standards
0 The key measures by which the City’s growth is managed and mitigated.
. ..
” .
~.
10
God8
e Represent the priority efforts of the organization
e Serve as a catalyst for change
e Incentives for achievement
e Individual accountability
e Allows for the opportunity to address any deficiencies identified in
e Mid-year status reports for each goal will continue to be presented to
performance measurement process
Council in a separate format.
Citywide Survey Highlights
e Each year, the City surveys the citizens in many different service areas.
e This survey presents accurate feedback about various constituent
e The survey sets the stage for policy discussions, and helps drive the
e Survey results provide timely feedback on new issues of citywide concern
desires and feelings as they relate to City service.
strategic planning process
Other Factors
e Any other internal or external activity aside from the items listed above
that impact a strategic goal may be included here. Examples include
CalTrans projects or new state mandates.
RESEARCH
Throughout the development of this program, members of the team have had
the opportunity to learn from visiting other cities, attending conferences and
seminars, and reviewing other cities’ performance measurement reports. After
reviewing other programs, the team wanted to avoid widget counting. Instead,
it was decided that we wanted to highlight a few, select measures that would
identify the city’s performance in key areas.
In summary, we discovered that Carlsbad is not alone in developing a
performance measurement program. We learned that the term ”performance
measurement” has different meanings for different cities. Some cities focus on
outputs, some on outcomes, some on both -- no one format is right or wrong --
it just needs to be well defined and fit the culture of the city. We learned that
employees from other cities are also struggling with the concept and
implementation. Finally, we learned that this is an ongoing process. The
program will be subject to change, adjustment, and refinement in each cycle.
11
HOW PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FITS INTO THE BIG PICTURE
The performance measurement program, as it has been defined and developed
in the City of Carlsbad, serves as part of the feedback mechanism by which the
organization can evaluate its performance in an objective manner. The
program was designed specifically to allow for integration with other city
programs (see Systems Perspective chart below).
A Systems Perspective
Sustainable Comrnunihr and Omanizational Develownent
>GreaterPubiicTrustand
Confidence In Local
* Sewlce Quality
Government
>Financial Health
.””
01998: R.pond R Rkhcii City of Carkbad
Performance measures, goals, and the budget are all connected as components
of the City’s state-of-effectiveness. The graphic on the following page provides
an overview of the new budget cycle, incorporating Expenditure Control
Budgeting (ECB), with an explanation of each step.
12
Outcomes/Goal
Accomplishments
10-Year Forecast: The overall control for the budget process will continue to
be the IO-year forecast. Each year the forecast will be done at the beginning
and end of the budget process. If the forecast shows that expenditures are in
danger of exceeding revenues in any of the future years, plans will be developed
to address the problem and to insure that the budget remains balanced.
Goals: Council will set goals at the beginning of the calendar year. If the goal
is approved, the operating budget will be approved along with it.
CIP Operating Budgets: Any CIP project scheduled with an operating impact
will be required to submit a full operating budget along with the construction
budget. The operating budget also must include all funds needed to operate
the project. The operating budget submitted in the final year of construction
will be added to the various program budgets for future years.
Block Budget: The block appropriation is at the heart of the ECB system.
This is the appropriation that will be used to fund all current programs. Once
a beginning point is established, it will be indexed each year to reflect
inflationary increases and growth in the City. It will also be increased by any
on-going costs from the Goal or CIP budgets discussed previously. Any
13
amounts unspent at the end of the year will be carried over to the next year.
Total Budget: A program group’s total budget for any year will consist of their
block budget + capital outlay + their CIP operating appropriation + goal
appropriations + unspent funds from previous years.
Outcomes/Goals AccomplishmentslPerformance Measures: With the ECB
budget process performance measures have become even more important in
order to show that we are continuing to provide the same or higher levels of
service as in the past. The ECB process should not result in less services or
lower levels of services. The performance measures will be the key to insure
that our services continue to meet the expectations of Council and the citizens.
SURVEYS
The results of numerous surveys are included in this year’s report, the
principal one being the citywide public opinion survey. Other department
specific surveys have contributed to individual performance measures. These
are more customer-specific instruments. A customer-specific survey is one that
asks a person who has received service from a City department about the level
of service delivered by that department. The Performance Measurement Team
will continue to assist in improving the survey instruments, seeking
consistency with the Survey Guidelines published in July 2001.
The citywide public opinion survey is used to gauge customer satisfaction and
perception on services that do not typically have a specific sub-set of known
customers. As an example, the police department alone cannot economically
survey public opinion on how safe community members feel but they can
directly survey customer satisfaction among persons who report a crime.
However, both types of survey measurements are needed. Citywide public
opinion survey questions are directed towards a random selection of residents,
whereas customer specific customer surveys are limited to those persons who
have directly received a service.
This year’s citywide survey (see appendix) was conducted and the results
presented by ‘the Social and Behavior Research Institute at California State
University, San Marcos.
14
”
BENCHMARKING
Benchmarking is a method of comparison to other organizations that provide
similar services. While the performance measurement program is going on its
third year, benchmarking has yet to be fully developed throughout the
organization. A compounding factor in this is that performance measurement is
still not widespread in the government community, and many organizations do
not measure what is measured in Carlsbad or in the same manner. This has
made it difficult for many departments to establish benchmark comparators.
Many of the performance measures are reflective of this fact.
Below is an example of various cities that Carlsbad uses to compare our service
delivery against. The cities that each department chooses are based on a wide
array of characteristics, such as city size/demographics, a department
recommendation, or ICMA participation. Due to the varying degrees of
municipal services provided, and expertise in individual areas, not all MSAs
use the same cities for comparison.
Austin (TX) Santa Barbara (CA) Irvine (CA)
0 Bellevue (WA) Tempe (AZ) La Mesa (CA)
Beverly Hills (CA) Glendale (CA) Newport Beach (CA)
Boulder (CO) Fullerton (CA) 0 Palo Alto (CA)
Chula Vista (CA) Sunnyvale (CA) Pasadena (CA) Coral Springs (FL) Everett (WA) Redwood City (CA)
Corvallis (OR) Santa Monica (CA) Riverside (CA)
BENEFITS AND RISKS OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
A performance measurement system has both internal and external benefits.
Internal Use
Helps evaluate the success of programs/services
Clarifies the key roles/responsibilities of an agency through the
identification of the desired outcomes
Provides a mechanism for informed evaluation/decision making
0 Helps to create “the big picture” concept
Helps drive the strategic planning process
0 Helps define budget and planning priorities
Acts as the mechanism to build a culture of continuous improvement
External Use
Helps us “tell the story“ to the public
Allows for more informed dialogue between the citizens and staff
15
Sets the stage for policy discussions
Promotes greater public trust and confidence
Shows accountability in a governmental system
Potential risks to implementing a performance measurement system include:
Employee fear regarding job security
Potential that performance measurement may be used as a negative
Could negatively impact morale if scores are low
May provide information that could be used for negative purposes
Data is subject to interpretation
Might be seen as additional work
"You get what you measure" - if the measures aren't right, your
reinforcement tool
outcomes may not be either
Although the benefits of performance measurement far outweigh the risks,
attention must be given to those who review the information and may report it
as negative or "not measuring up." The purpose of the program is to point out
successes and weaknesses so that an organization can work towards
continuous improvement and strive to compare with other high performing
organizations. Performance measurements should never be looked at as failure
to "measure up." Performance measurement is another management tool to
evaluate services and programs, making certain that they are in line with the
organizations mission and that they are provided at an acceptable level (bench
marking) set by the organization.
COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH
For the performance measurement program to be effective the data reported
must be reliable, and the results must then be used to achieve improvement.
An effective communications and outreach program is therefore a key
component to the success of the performance measurement system. The
Performance Measurement Team developed an outreach program to reach all
levels of city employees.
This year's outreach included an ICMA conference presentation, updates at
management, department and division meetings, workshops with the City
Council, an update to all employees via a paycheck mailing, a review of the
State-of-Effectiveness report with those who participated in the performance
measurement program, and the release of the State-of-Effectiveness report to
the public including the posting of the report on the Internet and the City
Intranet. Additional communication and outreach activities are ongoing as the
program develops.
16
CALENDAR To maximize the benefits of a
performance measurement system and
fully integrate it into the City, the timing
of performance measurement activities
must be well planned. The calendar
demonstrates how the performance
measurement program is coordinated
with both the goal and budget processes.
Starting out year, the results of the
citywide public opinion survey are
finalized and presented to Council at their
annual goal-setting workshop in January.
The State-of-Effectiveness report is
presented at this time.
This same information is then distributed
to staff to aid in the development of
management goals and department
budgets. Departments may need
performance measurement data to
support requests for funding to add
programs and to help establish
departmental goals for the upcoming
year. Based on the Council's goals,
departments develop goals, establish cost
estimates for new programs, and submit
these with their budgets and
management goals. Once the budget is
approved, departments can prepare for
new programs that are tied to the budget.
The second half of the year gives
departments time to implement new
programs, measure results, contact other
agencies for benchmarking, and analyze
data. The citywide public opinion survey
questions are reviewed in July so that the
survey can be conducted in the fall of
each year. Results are then available for
the performance measurement report that
needs to be prepared in November and
December of each year in preparation for
the presentation at the January Council
workshop. 17
Janua y
Februa y
March
May
June
July
September
Vovember
TIMELINE
Survey results to
Council and staff
State of Effectiveness
report distributed
City Council goal
workshop
Department CIPs due
Management goal
preparation
Budget preparation
Department budgets
due
Management goals
final
CIP Council workshop
Council and citizen's
budget workshops
Budget adoption
Management goal
evaluations due
Begin survey rewrite
Citywide survey begins
Start State of
Effectiveness report
PERMlRlldANCEMEASVREMENT
preparation
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
Communications Plan
Communication methods will continue to expand as the program evolves.
Benchmarking
Establishing contacts and building relationships with other high-performing
cities will continue as an ongoing process. Through our initial efforts, we have
found this to be a time-consuming element of the performance measurement
program. A goal in the future is to develop an informal consortium with similar
agencies to help find comparable data.
Action Plans
Departments will implement action plans to address performance issues.
These action plans need to be developed in conjunction with the budget
process and goal development.
Performance Measures
The revision of the measures is an ongoing process. Measures need to be
reviewed and revised to assure that valid, meaningful data is being collected.
Some measures may need to be replaced with more meaningful measures.
Surveys
The Citywide survey is reviewed annually to decide which questions should be
asked each year and which questions can rotate in and out. There may be
special topics that come up during the year that would warrant a question or
series of questions, or further questioning based on the past year's results.
State-of-Effectiveness Report
The first edition of the State-of-Effectiveness report was the City's initial efforts
at clarifying our critical outcomes and developing measures to assess them.
This second report expanded to include Council goals, growth management,
management goals, and a tie to the budget, as well as an overview of external
factors that impact the City's ability to achieve its outcomes. The third edition
will continue to develop the integration of the various City programs while
reporting on the City's effectiveness.
Program Muation and Revision
A review of the performance measurement program and the composition of the
team should occur annually. Performance measurement needs to be fully
integrated into the goal, budget, and management processes. In addition, an
emphasis needs to be placed on using performance measures for improvement,
not simply reporting the results.
18
FORMAT OF A MEASURE
Below is a summary of the format that is followed for each of our City
measures and a description of each section. Carlsbad's measures generally fall
into three categories - citizen satisfaction, cost effectiveness, and
quality/productivity. Cost effectiveness measures are most meaningful when
considered in conjunction with service levels or quality measures.
In addition, Carlsbad's measurement areas can be categorized as either a
measure of a department or division that provides a service or product directly
to a citizen, or a department or division that supports a department or division
that provides the service or product directly to a citizen.
".
"
"
THE OUTCOME
One of the primary reasons why we provide the service.
THE MEASUREMENT
The demonstrated achievement of outcome.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
An explanation of why this measurement is important and how it is obtained.
STATUS OF MEASURE
For measures that are not yet in place, this describes how the proposed
measurement will be implemented and when.
BENCHMARK
The benchmark is the target level of performance that the department is
striving to reach.
RESULTS
The actual results and relevant data.
ANALYSIS
The analysis section includes discussion regarding the results and how
Carlsbad performed in the specific measure compared to other agencies and/or
to itself over time. Reasons for high or low performance are presented when
possible.
ACTION PLAN
Based on results and the analysis, an action plan for improvement may be
warranted. If so, a summary of the action plan will be presented in this section.
19
DEFINITIONS
Below are the basic definitions of the terms and concepts used with this
program.
Output: An output is what is typically defined as a “widget count.” An example
of an output is “miles of street lines painted,” or “number of permits
processed.” Outputs are often the easiest to track and have traditionally been
the types of activities that are used as performance measures. While we have
tried to stay away from developing a system that is reliant on only outputs, we
have found that in the absence of a measurable outcome, sometimes several
outputs together can serve as a proxy for an outcome measure.
Outcome: An outcome describes the result of products or services we deliver to
our customers. In order to avoid the development of thousands of measures, it
is important to maintain a global perspective. It goes beyond, “I inspect the
construction of roads in the City of Carlsbad for developers” but to “I inspect
the construction of roads in Carlsbad to ensure a safe and efficient circulation
system for all those who drive through Carlsbad.”
Measurement: A measurement is the tangible demonstration of level of
achievement of the stated outcome. It should be quantifiable, and able to be
compared, or “benchmarked” against other organizations. It is helpful if it is
an industry standard or widely used in the field.
Benchmark (noun): A benchmark is the acceptable standard of a high
performing organization to which we will strive to achieve/maintain. An
example of a benchmark might be “Contain fire spread to room of origin in 90%
of all structure fires.” A benchmark may be compared to internal results over
time, data from other cities or agencies, or national or industry standards.
Benchmark (verb): Benchmarking is the act of selecting and evaluating
outside agencies that we compare ourselves to. Benchmarking also includes
the external data collection process.
Growth Management Standard Development in Carlsbad is tied to
compliance with a standard in each of 11 areas. These areas include
circulation, open space, sewer collection, wastewater treatment facilities,
drainage, water distribution, libraries, schools, park facilities, fire response,
and administrative facilities. The development cannot occur unless the
standard is being met or there is a near-term mitigation plan to secure
compliance with the standard.
..
20
COUNCIL STRATEGIC GOALS 2001-2002
Iltavrsportati on
Provide and maintain a multi-modal transportation system that moves goods,
services and people throughout Carlsbad in a safe and efficient manner that is
coordinated with community development.
Finance
Implement proactive strategies that provide and manage the necessary
resources to ensure a high quality of life.
Communication
Ensure that citizens, staff and Council are well informed, leading to a more
responsive government and a higher level of confidence.
PWkS
Provide parks and recreation facilities to meet growth management standards
and actively address the priorities of the citizens of Carlsbad within the CIP
budget.
Open Space/l'rails
Preserve, enhance, and manage an open space and citywide trail system that
incorporates a comprehensive HMP.
Environmental Management
Promote a clean, pollution-free, resource-conscious environment.
Water
Ensure a 90% reliable, high quality, diversified water system, in the most cost
effective manner.
Learning
Promote and support continuous learning opportunities within the community
and the City organization.
Quality of Life/Community Development
Develop a community that promotes quality neighborhoods, establishes
compatible entertainment and commercial venues, and manages growth by
providing an appropriate balance of facilities and services.
Top Quality Service
Become a city that provides exceptional services on a daily basis
21
22
-
CITY OF CARLSBAD PERFORMANCE MEASURES
-
-
-
-
23
24
Transportation Strateqic Goal
Strategic Goal
Provide and maintain a multi-modal transportation system that moves goods,
services and people throughout Carlsbad in a safe and efficient manner that is
coordinated with community development.
Summary
The results of the 2001 performance measures and Growth Management
Standards indicate that the city is doing a fair job supporting the
Transportation Strategic goal. Although 95% of roadways measures met the
Roadway Safety benchmark the City still strives for further safety improvement.
Staff will continue to perform detailed research and analysis on collision rates
throughout the city and recommend potential roadway improvements as
necessary.
The results of the latest travel time studies show that only one of 12 measured
travel patterns showed an increase in travel time. Increases in travel time
experienced over the past few years seem to be consistent with a general
increase in traffic as the city continues to develop. However, recent
improvements on Cannon Road and Faraday Avenue brought about a decrease
in overall travel times on Palomar Airport Road. Both Palomar Airport Road
(PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) are required to be completed to their full
arterial width per the Growth Management Plan. These improvements,
additional traffic signals on PAR and ECR and coordination of traffic signals is
expected to enhance traffic management in the coming years. Additionally,
future construction at the Rancho Del Oro/78 freeway interchange by the City
of Oceanside and construction of College Boulevard and Cannon Road and
opening the connection to Oceanside will provide congestion relief to El Camino
Real.
The Circulation Growth Management Standard shows that 47 of 49 measured
intersections met the required standard. And all 27 measured road segments
met the required standard. Improvements to Rancho Santa Fe Road
intersections and realignment of Rancho Santa Fe Road are expected to bring
substandard conditions on that road into compliance. Also, a substandard
level of service exists at the Interstate-5/Cannon Road northbound on-ramp in
the evening hours. This intersection is in the Caltrans right-of-way and is
identified in the current Traffic Impact Fee Report as a future .hot spot. Hot
spots are locations that primarily serve regional traffic and are within limited
control of the City. The location will continue to be monitored. Any future
25
improvements to mitigate congestion would need to be coordinated with caltrans.
Staff continues to take proactive measures to improve all aspects of
transportation management throughout the City. As our Performance
Measures and Action Plans suggest, we are moving in the right direction in
supporting Council's Transportation Strategic Goal.
Roadway safety
J
Roadway circulation J -~
Roadway rideability
Circulation Growth Management
Standard
J ~-
Management Goals
GOAL NAME
60 Faraday - Melrose
GOAL NUMBER
74 Cannon/College Financing
73 Rancho Santa Fe Road
Pavement Management
128 Secondary School Traffic Education
59 Traffic Signal Optimization Study
58
Model Area TDCI
Village Parking Enhancement Promam I 85
72
Citywide Survey Highlights
The Citywide survey indicated that traffic is still a major concern for 31% of
Carlsbad residents. Only 45% of residents rated traffic circulation eficiency as
either good or excellent. 45% also rated traffk circulation efficiency as either
fair or poor. The Northeast quadrant had the highest number of poor ratings as
might be expected with the key circulation linkages (College/Cannon) still going
through the permitting process. Overall road conditions were rated strong. 84%
of Carlsbad residents rated the road conditions as either good or excellent.
This year's survey queried residents on methods they currently use to reduce
commuting trips. 49% said they currently use flex hours as a means to reduce "
-
.~
-
26 -
commuting trips. 32% named either car-pooling or mass transit as a means
currently used to reduce traffic. The survey asked what methods of trip
reduction most interest residents. Flex hours again got the strongest response.
Mass transit and telecommuting were also noted although to a lesser degree.
Parking availability in the Village Redevelopment area was perceived by 45% of
residents to be either good or excellent. The remainder perceived downtown
parking as either fair or poor.
Other Factors
Development of a Transportation Management Association (TMA) is also a
potential factor for minimizing congestion. A TMA can help coordinate
activities to optimize results through the use of Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) techniques such as flex-hours, carpools, transit usage and
telecommuting, especially in the industrial corridor. Businesses continue to be
encouraged to implement aggressive TDM measures to reduce volumes and
shift peak hours of operation. Efforts such as formation of a TMA will help
educate businesses and provide TDM strategies for them to implement.
27
Public Works
ROADWAY SAFETY
THE OUTCOME
Roadway safety
THE MEASUREMENT
Collision rate per million vehicle miles
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Many factors contribute to a safe roadway system including design,
maintenance, traffic operations, and traffic enforcement. This measurement
brings the effectiveness of all these factors together to measure the safety
outcome. Data is currently measured by both engineering and police. Data is
gathered throughout the year and is summarized in the Engineering
Department, Transportation Division's Annual Traffic Report.
The roadway segment collision rate is the number of collisions occurring on a
defined section of road, per one million vehicle miles. The California
Department of Transportation has calculated statewide average collision rates
on all State highways to be used to identify potential problem areas. These
rates are reported for roadways with two to three lanes to undivided roadway
with four or more lanes.
.- .
Street Classifications Studied:
Prime Arterial: >40,000 vehicles per day; six lanes; divided; access controlled;
provides regional and intra-city circulation; provides connections to the
freeways
Major Arterial: 20-40,000 vehicles per day; four lanes; divided; access
controlled; provides intra-city circulation; provides connections to the freeways
Secondary Arterial: 10-20,000 vehicles per day; four lanes, striped median;
moves traffic between collector and larger arterial streets
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Public Works Maintenance and Operations, Public Works Engineering, Police.
BENCHMARK
100% of road segments meet Caltrans collision rates by type of segment.
28
Roadway Segments within Caltrans Collision Rates
- ROADWAY SEGMENT TYPE Benchmark 1999 2000
Secondary Arterials (7 segments)* 100% 88% 86%
Maior Arterials (1 1 segments) 100% 100% 100% - Prime Arterials (18 segments) 100% 95% 95%
Total road segments within Caltrans collision rates 100% 95% 95% - * In 1999 the City measured 8 secondary arterial segments; statistical change is insignificant
The table shown on the next page provides roadway segment collision rates on
major streets throughout Carlsbad and a comparison of the State collision rate
for a comparable roadway.
29
ROADWAY SEGMENT COLLISION RATES
ALGA ROAD tmaior arterial) El Camino Real to Melrose Drive
AVIARA PARKWAY tsecondarv arteria& Palomar Airport Road to El Camino Real
CANNON ROAD tmaior am Carlsbad Boulevard to Faraday Avenue
CARLSBAD BOULE North Ciy Limits to Carlsbad Village Drive VARD tmaior arterial)
Carlsbad Village Drive to Tamarack Avenue Tamarack Avenue to Cannon Road Cannon Road to Palomar Airport Road Palomar Airport Road to Poinseuia Lane Poinsettia Lane to South City Limits
CARLSB n erial
Interstate Highway 5 to El Camino Real tarlsbad-
El Camino Real to College Boulevard
COLLEGmARD tmaior arterial) palomar Airport Road to El Camino Real
CAMINO REAL (D State Route 78 to Manon Road rime arterial1
Marmn Road to Tamarack Avenue Tamarack Avenue to College Boulevard College Boulevard to Palomar Airport Road Palomar Airport Road to Aviara Parkway 9viara Parkway to La Costa Avenue La Costa Avenue to South City Limits
LA COSTA AVENUF Interstate Highway 5
p.=wyf (pnme ' arterial) alomar A~rport oad to Rancho Santa Fe Road
'ALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD torime arteria& 2arlsbad Boulevard to Avenida Encinas 4venida Encinas to Pa-o Del Norte =asw Del Norte to Collage Boulevard :allege Boulevard to Camino Vda Roble lamino Vda Roble to El Camino Real :I Camino Real to Mslroaa Drive Wlrose Drive to East City Limits
> NORTE arv arterial)
&%%kd to Palom%%$ort Road 'alomar Airport Road to Poinsettia Lane
'OlNSFTn :arkbad Boulevard to Aviara Pakay A LANE (maior arterial
I 6 0.21 3 0.45
1 0.23 3 0.06
2 0.54 2 0.36
0.15 0.64 0.96 1.46 0.57 0.66 5 0.59
10 0.50 22 (9) 0.95
8 0.71 14 1.16
3 0.42 3 0.56
I
9 1.60 8 5 0.91 6 1.61 1.66
9 (1) 0.99 3 0.29
IANCHO SANTA FE ROAD torime arterial) klme Drive to La Costa Avenue .a Costa Avenue to Olivenhain Road )livenhain Road to Calla Amw
18
2 0.55 7 (1) 0.65 0.38 7 0.88 0.68 0.64
7 2
CALTRANS STATEWIDE COLLISION RATES FOR URBAN ROADWAYS
* Exceeds State rate of 3.35 - IS99 data .. Excwds State rate of 3.60 - 1998 data ...
Numbers in parentheses ( ) indicates number of collisions in wnstruction zone
Exceeds State rate of 2.40 1998 (L 1539 data
Rate . Number of collisions x one million -collisions per million vehicle miles
Average daily trafic x section length (milas) x 365 days
30
ANALYSIS
In 2000, ninety-five percent of the roadway segments measured were within the
statewide standard. This is the same result as in 1999. Only two road
segments on two different roads exceeded the statewide collision rate (Carlsbad Village Drive between Carlsbad Boulevard and Interstate Highway 5; and
Palomar Airport Road between Avenida Encinas and Paseo Del Norte). Both segments were identified in 1999 as exceeding the statewide colli'sion rate.
Each of these segments is in a heavily traveled corridor. The segment on
Carlsbad Village Drive is particularly problematic due to closely spaced
intersections, many driveways, heavy pedestrian volumes and tourist destinations. The Palomar Airport Road segment is heavily used by commuters
and tourists. Driver inattention in both of these corridors is a major factor in
the number of collisions.
ACTION PLAN
The subject road segments on Carlsbad Village Drive and Palomar Airport Road
have been fully improved to city standards and have permanent signing, striping and traffic control devices in place. Many of the collisions are outside the control of the city to initiate preventive measures due to the nature of the
accidents such as being related to weather conditions or driver inattention.
However, it is expected that all roadway segments could meet the benchmark of falling within the Caltrans collision rates, and we will continue to strive for this
result.
Staff currently performs detailed analysis of collision history on road segments
having collision rates higher than the statewide rates. This analysis will
continue to be performed on road segments exceeding the statewide collision
rates. If it is determined through analysis that the installation of traffic control
devices or changes to the roadway geometry may help reduce accidents then
those corrective actions will be considered.
31
Public Works
ROADWAY CIRCULATION
THE OUTCOME
Roadway circulation efficiency
THE MEASUREMENT
Average travel time on El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. The reported
benchmarks were established as a result of travel time studies conducted in
June 2000.
Travel time studies are conducted twice each year on these roadways. The
travel time study on El Camino Real is performed for the full length of the
roadway in the City of Carlsbad, from the south city limit to Haymar Drive at
the north city limit. Three study periods are evaluated. These are 7:OO a.m. to
9:OO a.m. (the a.m. peak period), 9:15 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. (the off-peak period),
and 3:30 p.m. to 6:OO p.m. (the p.m. peak period).
The travel time study on Palomar Airport Road is performed for the full length
of the roadway in the City of Carlsbad, from Carlsbad Boulevard at the west to
the east city limit. Three study periods are evaluated. These are 6:45 a.m. to
8:15 a.m. (the a.m. peak period), 9:45 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. (the off-peak period),
and 4:OO p.m. to 6:OO p.m. (the p.m. peak period).
Two test vehicles are used to conduct travel time studies. The “average-speed”
technique is used, which involves driving the test vehicles along the length of
the test section at a speed that represents the average speed of the traffic
stream. During each of the a.m. peak, off-peak and p.m. peak study periods,
each vehicle makes as many runs as can occur during the time frame
measured.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Palomar Aimrt Road (East Citv Limit to Carlsbad Blvd)
Ideal Travel Time (Eastbound or Westbound) 7 min, 21 sec
El Camino Real (South City Limit to Havmar)
Ideal Travel Time (Northbound or Southbound) 10 min, 53 sec
Ideal Travel Time is the length of time that it takes to travel from one point to
the other based on the posted speed limit assuming no delays for traffic
32
signals, construction, pedestrians, traffic congestion, etc. Average Travel Time
is the average of actual travel times from one point to the other, including
delays. Average travel time is most meaningful if reviewed in relationship to
peak and off-peak periods (morning commute/evening commute). Several
factors contribute to an efficient roadway circulation system including design,
maintenance, traffic operations, and traffic enforcement. These measures can
serve as an initial red flag to help determine the effectiveness of the City's
roadway system to ensure efficient and time-effective travel.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Public Works Maintenance and Operations, Public Works Engineering, Police.
BENCHMARK
Travel times on El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road will not exceed
baseline rates collected in June 2000.
RESULTS
El Camino Real Average Travel Times in Minutes* I 8.nshmrrk I DU.ZW0 I June2001 A.M.Puk-7:Wtos:W
Notthhnd - SoUm City Llmn to H.ym8r 15.7 17.1
southbound - mymuto sourn cny umn 15.5 18.0 17.9 18.8 olrP~k-9:15ml1:15 NOMhnd - ~ioutiCny Umitto Haymar Sournbound - nayrmr m sourn cny urnit 15.8 18.0 16.1 15.6 18.1 18.5
Northbound-SovthCnyLLlmntoHlyrmr Southbound - Hmr to South Cny Llmn 21.8 24.3 25.2 17.4 17.0 17.2
~ ~~~~~
P.M. Peak - 330 to 600
Pa
ANALYSIS
,mar Airport Road Average Travel Times in Minu1
A.LY.Pe8k-646to11:IS I Benchmark I Du. 2wO I Jun2OOl
E..(boUnd - C8rlab.d Blvd m Ent CW Llmn 114 Weatbound - Ent Cny umn to Carlabad Blvd 11.3 1OA 11.6 10.2 10.7
Weatbound - E& Cny Umll to Carlabad Blvd
Eumound - t.rhbed Blvd to Eut cny umn 13.9 13.1 13.1 12.0 11.9 11.6 gsnchmulcl were established from June 1OOO R.vd Time Studies
es*
Staff obtained the average travel time information on both roads based upon
roadway conditions on the day of the study. Both roads are future six-lane
arterials. However, some segments have only been constructed with two-lanes
in each direction. Travel times on both segments are influenced by traffic
volumes, roadway geometrics, driveway locations, traffic signals and pedestrian
volumes. Afternoon peak hour delays are signficantly higher due to the larger
volume of traffic on both the subject roads and side streets at that time of day.
33
El Camino Real
The results from the latest study indicate that an a.m. peak period does not
really exist in the northbound direction. However, the a.m. peak and off-peak
travel times are slightly faster than in June 2000. During the p.m. peak, the
travel time increased to over 25 minutes for the northbound direction, with the
majority of the additional delay occurring between the Hosp-to-Haymar
segment.
The major traffic congestion in the northbound direction between Hosp Way
and Haymar Drive seemed to occur between about 4:30 p.m. and 6:OO p.m. It
should be noted that the time to travel between Hosp and Haymar did not
depend significantly on which lane the test vehicles were using for the study.
This differs from the result obtained during the December, 2000 study, when
the Number 3 northbound lane was generally faster. The delay at this location
is also influenced by the ramp meter operations for State Route 78 at El
Camino Real.
In the southbound direction, a.m. peak and off-peak travel times are up slightly
from both the June 2000 and December 2000 studies. There has been no
significant change in the p.m. peak travel time in the southbound direction.
The increase in travel time experienced during the p.m. peak in the northbound
direction, and during each of the study periods in the southbound direction,
seems to be consistent with a general increase in traffic as the city continues to
develop.
Palomar Airport Road
When comparing June 2001 to June 2000, the results show travel times are
generally very similar to or slightly less than those from previous studies.
While it is difficult to observe any trends due to the similarity of travel times to
prior studies (all times are within 48 seconds of the corresponding times from
the previous study), it is likely that the general decrease in travel time is due to
more vehicles using alternate parallel routes such as Cannon Road/Faraday
Avenue and Aviara Parkway/Poinsettia Lane. Traffic counts recently performed
on Palomar Airport Road and these parallel routes indicate that traffic has been
slowly shifting off of Palomar Airport Road. This change in the traffic pattern
would result in the general decrease in travel time observed during this study.
ACTION PLAN
Both Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real are required to be completed to
their full arterial width per the circulation element of the Growth Management
Plan. Completion of other missing circulation element roadways and widening
existing segments will help distribute traffic volumes to more lanes resulting in
shorter platoons of vehicles traveling between intersections. Portions of both
34
segments have traffic signals operating in coordination due to the closely
spaced intersections. Additional traffic signals will be constructed on both El
Camino Real and possibly on Palomar Airport Road in the future. At that time,
intersection spacing will be closer and will benefit from coordinated traffic
signals. Widely spaced intersections at this time would not be candidates for
signal coordination. A study of future traffic signal coordination and
optimization will be conducted through a consultant contract. This study will
focus on the locations to add signal coordination and ways to optimize traffic
signal operations. The city has plans to construct a Transportation
Management Center (TMC) in the future Public Works building to monitor and
coordinate timing of traffic signals. At this time it is unknown when funding
for the TMC will be appropriated.
One of the significant locations for delay is the El Camino Real corridor at the
Plaza Camino Real Mall. Future construction at the Rancho Del Oro
interchange by the City of Oceanside will reduce traffic volumes using El
Camino Real at Highway 78. This interchange is not expected to be complete
for at least three to five years. Future construction of College Boulevard and
Cannon Road and opening the connection to Oceanside will also provide
congestion relief to El Camino Real through volume reductions in the mall
vicinity. However, construction on these roadways is not expected to be
complete for at least two to five years.
Businesses continue to be encouraged to implement aggressive Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce volumes and shift peak hours
of operation. Efforts such as formation of a Transportation Management
Association (TMA) will help educate businesses and provide options for them to
implement such as carpools, vanpools, increased transit usage or other TDM
measures.
Additional travel time studies were performed on El Camino Real and Palomar
Airport Road in December 2001. The results from these studies will enable
continued comparisons to be made with the results contained in this and
previous studies in order to evaluate trends resulting from traffic improvements
or delays on both roads.
35
Public Works
ROADWAY RIDEABILITY
THE OUTCOME
High level of roadway rideability.
THE MEASUREMENT
Average Pavement Condition Index (PCI). PC1 data is generated by Pavement
Management software based on the data collected during annual roadway
condition surveys. A PC1 in the range of 70-85 indicates the roadway is in
"very good" condition, which means, "The pavement has very few minor defects.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The data reflects age, design and maintenance standards of the infrastructure.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Public Works, Maintenance & Operations, and Public Works, Engineering.
BENCHMARK
Average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) in the 70-85 range.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK I CARLSBAD RATING I
70-85 75* I
*The reported data reflects the most recent survey data from fiscal year 1997-
1998, which resulted in a citywide average PC1 of 75. A number of contracts
have been issued to contractors to perform work in this area since that time
and it is anticipated that the current average PC1 meets the established
benchmark.
ANALYSIS
The reported average pavement management condition index of 75 falls within
the established benchmark range of 70-85. As previously stated, the reported
data was collected approximately three years ago. Since that time, numerous
contracts have been issued to perform slurry seals and pavement overlays on a
variety of roadways. The completion of these processes typically have a positive
impact on the PCI, it is anticipated that the most recent survey will reflect this.
36
ACTION PLAN
The roadway condition survey is complete for FY200 1. The City is currently in
the process of selecting Pavement Management software to calculate and
interpret the data. The initial results will provide the first opportunity to review
and/or amend the current benchmark.
In regards to Performance Measurement the following tasks are planned
annually and are typically scheduled as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
September - October, Complete roadway condition survey.
October - November, Analyze roadway survey data and calculate PC1
results.
November - January, Identify funding expended on Pavement
Management Projects and Roadway Maintenance activities.
January - June, Based on the results of the PC1 calculation and
historical tracking of funding relative to the PCI; the scope of work and
funding request for the following year's project(s) will be incorporated
into the Capital Improvement Program budget request.
The sample summary table shown below will be used in the future to present
the correlation between the funds expended on pavement management
activities and the PC1 of roadways throughout the City. By tracking the data
included on the table over time we can identify the relationship between the
scope and cost of the pavement management projects and their effect on the
PCI. Based on the results of this analysis we can adjust the budget request to
achieve the desired outcome.
I Fiscal I Avg. PC1 I Yo Of I $on I Avg. PC1 I Yo Of
Year
Of 70 Project(S) Of 70
Roads After PC1 Pavement Roads Prior To
Project(S) Above PC1 Project(S) Mgmt. Above PC1
37
38
Public Works
GROWTH ddANAGEddENT - ClRCULATION
THE OUTCOME
An efficient and effective circulation system is maintained in the City.
THE MEASUREMENT
Comparison of traffic volumes to roadway and intersection capacities. A traffic
model of the City has been completed which projects traffic volumes through
the year 2020. This Carlsbad sub area-traffic model is maintained by SANDAG
and used by staff for analysis and to identify necessary roadway and
intersection improvements. A report to update the Traffic Impact Fee is almost
complete and will determine the funds required to complete these
improvements. New developments in the City are required to provide traffic
analyses to identify traffic mitigations for their projects. The Annual Growth
Management Traffic Monitoring Program monitors existing traffic volumes and
conditions on critical roadways and intersections throughout the City to help
identify and determine the timing of additional traffic mitigations and
improvements.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
No road segment or intersection in the City, nor any road segment or
intersection outside the City, which is impacted by development in the City,
shall be projected to exceed an unacceptable level of service (LOS).
LOS is a quantitative measure of traffic conditions that reflects how restrictive
vehicle movements are, or may become. For purposes of monitoring traffic
throughout the City, the capacity of an intersection or roadway segment is
compared to the actual volumes measured in the field. The six levels of traffic
service range from A to F. Level A represents the most ideal conditions; Level E
is at capacity; and Level F indicates forced flow. The Transportation Research
Board Highway Capacity Manual further defines LOS based on specific
measurements of traffic volumes and roadway capacities.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Engineering
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
No road segment or intersection in the City, nor any road segment or
intersection outside the City which is impacted by development in the City,
shall be projected to exceed a service level as indicated for the following
39
conditions:
I CONDITION I LEVEL OF SERVICE I
During off-peak hours I C
During peak hours D
Impacted means an area where 20% or more of the traffic generated by that
area will use the road segment or intersection.
RESULTS
Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Program results for 2001 indicates that
all roadway segments meet the Growth Management Standards except the
following:
Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road (LOS E in the AM Peak Hour)
a I-S/Cannon Road northbound ramp (LOS E in the PM Peak Hour)
ANALYSIS
Recent fiscal analyses associated with the update to the Traffic Impact Fee
study is still under review. The results of the study will be presented to council
for approval upon completion.
The Rancho Santa Fe Road intersections are scheduled for improvements in
conjunction with the Rancho Santa Fe Road realignment expected to start
construction in the winter of 2002.
Substandard level of service conditions continue to exist at the Interstate-
5/Cannon Road northbound ramp in the PM peak hour. This occurs when
Caltrans’ ramp meters are in use and cars are queued waiting to access 1-5.
This intersection is identified in the current Traffic Impact Fee Report as a
future hot spot. Hot spots are locations that primarily serve regional traffic
and are within limited control of the City. The ramp will continue to be
monitored.
ACTION PLAN
a Complete Traffic Impact Fee Update in FY 2001-2002, which will ensure
a On-going analyses of new developments to ensure increases in traffic
Conduct annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Program
Construct Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment to improve the LOS at the
adequate funds are available for future roadway improvements.
meet the LOS defined by the Growth Management Standards.
Melrose Drive/Rancho Santa Fe Road (LOS E in the AM peak hour)
40
Finance Strateqic Goal
Strategic Goal
Implement proactive strategies that provide and manage the necessary
resources to ensure a high quality of life.
Summary
The city is in good financial condition. Through monthly monitoring and
reporting of the City's financial condition in the monthly financial status
report, and the long term monitoring through the 10 year forecast, the city is
able to be proactive in managing the City's resources. For example, as we
encounter outside factors, such as threats to our vehicle license fee revenue,
the city is better prepared to make decisions on how to best manage resources.
41
Citywide Survey Highlights
The Citywide survey did not include any specific resident queries about the
City’s financial strategy or policies. Interestingly however, 58% of the residents
indicated a willingness to pay a $50 annual fee per household to improve
coastal water. This is a potentially important gauge of residents’ feeling for
funding the NPDES program that will directly benefit the coastal water quality.
It should be noted that the overall satisfaction level for city services is that 96Y0
of Carlsbad residents rated those services as either good or excellent. Last
year’s overall rating was 92%.
Other Factors
Other factors that have an impact on the City’s financial health are State
budget impacts. The most recent threat is the take away of the Vehicle License
Fee revenue backfill. This could result in the city losing $2.8 million in
revenue. The city’s new Expenditure control budgeting system allows us to
better control spending by being able to better plan what our costs are going to
be and adjust them as there are changes in the economy. The City continues
to do good long term financial planning through the use of our 10-year forecast
which includes an infrastructure replacement plan.
42
Administrative Services
RISK MANAGEWENT - TOTAL CITY UlSSES
THE OUTCOME
Minimization of liability losses.
THE MEASUREMENT
Total losses related to City liability and losses per capita.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The level of losses reflect departments' efforts to reduce liability exposure
throughout the City.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Risk Management, all other departments
BENCHMARK
Carlsbad liability losses per capita are below the mean results for total non-
vehicular liability losses of 38 cities of a comparable size as shown in the FY
2000 ICMA data report. Liability losses are defined as miscellaneous claim
expenditures, settlements, investigation fees, attorney fees, court costs and
premiums.
RESULTS
I BENCHMARK I CARLSBAD 1999 I CARLSBAD 2000 ] $6.71 $2.94 $5.74
The amount of $2.94 was derived by dividing the total City loss of $228,009 by
an approximate city population of 77,545.
ANALYSIS
ICMA excludes vehicular liability losses. Carlsbad's data includes all liability
losses since our liability insurance premium includes vehicular liability, and
losses on claims or litigation, which often occurs over more than one year, are
compiled on a cumulative basis. As a result, Carlsbad losses per capita
compare very well against other cities fewer than 100,000 in population. Our
results not only rank below the mean, they are comparatively overstated. In
addition they have decreased from the prior year by 49%. The reason for this
is that we have had very favorable claims experience over the past year.
43
ACTION PLAN
Risk Management needs to continue to evaluate the ICMA data. Through
further evaluation of the ICMA data, we hope to identify benchmarking
partners to compare against.
44
Administrative Services
PI- REPORT DISTRIBUTION
THE OUTCOME
Timely dissemination of financial information for decision-making
THE MEASUREMENT
Measures how soon after the end of each month financial data is available to
the users of the data (in business days)
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Managers and the City Council depend on accurate, timely financial data in
order to evaluate the progress of City programs and the ability of the City to
continue to fund the programs. The older the financial information, the less
valuable it is. This data is compiled based upon the City's Fiscal Year.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Finance
BENCHMARK
The monthly financial status report is to be issued by the fifteenth business
day after the end of the month.
RESULTS
Financial Status Report
35
30 4
25 ~ /i
-,
g 20 4 /
m A h I ~
0 15
10
5
0
I
i I
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEE MAR APR MAY JUN
~
! Date
1 t Business Days to Issue i
45
- Benchmark
ANfiYSIS
The benchmark was not met in four of the months during the year. The June
report, which was issued on the 30" business day, was the furthest off. This is
due to year-end close procedures, which holds the accounts payable process
open for most of the month of July in order to insure an accurate balance for
fiscal year end reporting. -.
ACTION PLAN
Methods will be investigated which allow us to close the books earlier; thereby,
getting the report written and issued on target. This may not be achievable at
fiscal year end due to the amount of additional work needed to insure accurate
reporting for the year-end financial report. -
-
-
-
46
Administrative Services
FINANCE COUECTION RATES
THE OUTCOME
Maximization of City revenues.
THE MEASUREMENT
This measure uses a multi-method approach combining:
Utility billing collection rates
Ambulance billing collection rates
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
City services depend on the flow of fee revenues for financial support. The rate
of collection shows the effectiveness and efficiency of the finance department in
collecting City bills for certain key services. This data is compiled based upon
the City's Fiscal Year.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Finance, public works, fire
BENCHMARK
The collection rates for the two services will differ.
Benchmark for uti Uty services is to maintain at least 90% of receivables
0 Benchmark for umbulcrnce bizzing is a collection rate of 70% or better.
in the under 90-day category.
RESULTS
Utility Bills
BENCHMARK I CARLSBAD 1999 I CARLSBAD 2000
90% 97.9% 96.8%
Ambulance Bills
BENCHMARK I CARLSBAD 1998 I CARLSBAD 1999 I CARLSBAD 2000
70% 8 1.8% 76.1% 77.5%
ANAL.YSIS
We have compared our ambulance billing over the past two years and
benchmarked against the cities of Ramona and El Cajon. We have also broken
down utility collections by 30, 60, 90, and greater than 90 days and compared
them with the city of Oceanside. Many cities do not collect this information.
47
The cities shown here for comparison were selected based on their ability to
provide the information rather than the comparability of the demographics in
the city.
Aging Analysis: Carlsbad Oceanside
Utility Billing as ofJune 2001
0-30 93.0% 9 1.3%
30-60 4.6% 6.7%
60-90 .3% .2%
>90 2.1% 1.8%
Carlsbad Ramona El Cajon
Collection Rates calendar year
Ambulance billing (1998): 77.5% 72.8% 62.1%
Ambulance billing (1999): 76.1% 67.5% 60.2%
Ambulance billing (2000): 8 1.8% 72.2% 72.4%
The data shows that collections have improved over time which is the result of
better collection efforts in the past year as well as a very strong economy. For
Utility billing, we would expect to have higher collections than Oceanside as the
demographics in Carlsbad show a higher average income. The higher over 90-
day category is believed to be the result of different policies regarding writing
off accounts. Oceanside writes off their accounts sooner than Carlsbad which
would reduce their over 90 day category.
For ambulance billing, we would again expect Carlsbad to have higher
collection rates due to the demographics of the cities. Carlsbad's average
income level is higher than either of the benchmarked cities which would be
expected to result in less indigent customers and thus, higher collections.
ACTION PLAN
Continue to monitor the collection rates and identify comparable benchmark
agencies for the coming year. This year finance is looking at consolidating
collections. The City currently employs several collection services to assist in
the collection of delinquent amounts owed to the City. However, staff believes
that the collection efforts should be streamlined, and consolidated under one
agency to improve efficiencies and effectiveness.
48
Citywide
CZTY OPERATIhW BUDGET
THE OUTCOME
Provide top quality service at the best cost.
THE MEASUREMENT
General Fund operating expenditures per capita. This measure is the first step
in the development of a meaningful measure related to city expenditures.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure evaluates the overall cost efficiency of the organization. Due to
the complexities of fund accounting and the tremendous variety in local
government services, this measure only takes into account the costs accrued to
the General Fund. However, by analyzing the operating expenditures per
capita, staff can begin to develop an understanding of baseline costs for the
services we provide. When contrasted against the Overall Satisfaction Ratings
and Citizen Confidence, "value" can begin to be ascertained.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
All City departments funded by the General Fund.
BENCHMARK
General Fund operating expenditures per capita will be evaluated against other
similar cities as reflected in the ICMA data. The cities have been selected by a
variety of factors, such as the population size, density per square mile, and city
reputation. The benchmark will be determined once baseline data has been
established.
RESULTS
The per capita cost for the FY 2001 General Fund Operating Budget is $9 11.
ANALYSIS
Per capita cost was derived from the general fund operating cost ($70,600,000)
divided by an approximate city population of 77,500.
The data in the following table was collected from the ICMA, and represents
information that the individual agencies provided. In addition to the General
Fund cost per capita breakdown, adjustments were made to attempt to reflect a
uniform cost of living. This was accomplished by applying Carlsbad's cost of
living and relative salary factors against those other agencies. When adjusted,
49
there was some change in the expenditures per capita. For example, Santa
Barbara was in the top one-third for expenditures, but moved to the bottom
When the initial results were evaluated, Carlsbad had the third highest cost
per capita of those 14 cities evaluated. However, when the cost of living factor
was applied, Carlsbad moved down to the fifth highest cost per capita, with a
substantial difference between the fourth position ($976) and Carlsbad ($9 11).
As mentioned above, there are numerous factors to consider when evaluating
this measure, such as levels of service, financial resources, citizen
expectations, etc. The results of this measure should be considered along with
the overall citizen satisfaction with City services (96% rating of good or
excellent) and the confidence in Carlsbad City government (average rating of
6.52 out of 10). By analyzing these measures together, the concept of "value"
can begin to be determined.
ACTION PLAN
Continue to develop this measure by identifying those areas where costs are
not aligned to service levels provided. Refine benchmarking partners.
50
Administrative Services
PURCHASE ORDER PROCESSIhG
THE OUTCOME
Timely acquisition of goods and services.
THE MEASURElldENT
Number of working days to issue purchase order.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure is an indication of the responsiveness to the needs of the customers.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Purchasing Department
BENCHMARK
Complete 90% of all purchase orders within one working day after receiving
completed purchase requisition.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK I CARLSBAD
90% 99.6%
ANUYSIS
The Purchasing Department has converted the data on purchase requisitions
from averages to percentages. Purchase requisitions are assigned categories
when they are received. Category 1 is assigned to purchase requisitions that
arrive with all requirements met to process a purchase order. Category 2
requires some action by the staff in Purchasing and Category 3 requires minor
action by the requesting department. Purchasing is targeting Categories 2 and
3, with the goal of reducing the number of requisitions that are assigned these
numbers when they are received and thereby increasing the number of
requisitions that are assigned a Category 1.
In the future, our analysis will include the total number of purchase orders
issued in a fiscal year, with a percentage of Category 1, Category 2 and
Category 3. The goal is to decrease Categories 2 and 3 and increase Category 1.
ACTION PLAN
Continue tracking and assigning categories to all purchase requisitions and
develop new benchmarks for each category.
51
52
Communication Strateqic Goal
Strategic Goal
Ensure that citizens, staff and Council are well informed, leading to a more
responsive government and a higher level of confidence.
Summary
The City currently uses numerous communication means such as, television,
the Internet, direct mail, utility bill inserts, newspaper articles and
advertisements, and in-person workshops. The scope and depth of these efforts
makes it clear that the City is trying to communicate with as broad a base of
the population as is practical.
The Citywide survey indicates how well the respondents feel they are informed
about the City and how they would prefer to receive information. Overall,
citizens gave the City a 6 on a IO-point scale for general dispersal of
information. While this is a good rating, and leaves room for improvement.
Residents recognized the Community Services Recreation Guide and the
telephone as their principal source of City information. Frequency of the use of
the City website doubled (32% in 2001), and the desktop calendar was well
received. Thirty-seven percent of residents stated that they watch City Council
meetings at least once a quarter. Forty-five percent stated they never watch the
meetings. A performance measure for this goal specific to communication is
undergoing refinement and will become part of the 2002 State of the
Effectiveness Report.
Performance Measure8 and Growth Management Standards I ACHIEVES I BENCHMARK I ADEOUATE DATA I
COMMUNICATION I BENCHMARK I NOT ACHIEVED I NOTAVAILABLE 1
J
Citywide Communications
J I Confidence in City Government I
Management Goals
GOAL NAME
Telecommunication Ordinance
115 Communication Plan
113 City's 50" Anniversary
GOAL NUMBER
143 Communication Plan/F'ublic Information
133
53
Citywide Survey Highlights
There were a number of questions on this year's survey regarding
communication. Overall, residents rated the City's information dispersal as
5.95 on a scale of 10. This is a good rating, but indicates there is room for
improvement. Residents expressed an interest in receiving a City newsletter (7
on a 10 point scale) and perhaps the use of automated e-mail messages (5 on a
10 point scale). The City Web Page was accessed by 36% of the residents, and
51% of those residents said they were able to find what they were looking for
on the Web Page.
55% of Carlsbad residents named the Community Service Recreation Guide as
their principal source of City information. Calling on the telephone is used by
40% of residents. The City Web Page and Flyers in the water bills were each
named by 32% of residents as a valuable source of information. Surprisingly
62% of residents recalled the City Desktop Calendar received almost one year
ago and 67% of those residents found it useful.
Residents stated that 37% watch televised City Council meetings either once a
quarter or once a week. Fo*-five percent (45%) stated they never watch
televised City Council meetings. Eight percent (8%) stated they watch the
Council meetings every week. Quarterly Quadrant meetings are watched by
only 15% of residents.
Residents were queried on their preferences for which medium they also use for
receiving information about the City. Most named the newspaper as their
preferred method for gathering information about the City along with the City
Web Page to a lesser degree.
Other Factors
None cited.
54
"
Cityurlde
CITYWIDE C0M"CATZOIUS
THE OUTCOME
A well-informed citizenry with a high level of confidence in their local
government.
THE MEASUREMENT
Responses to the citywide survey question, Using a scale of 0 to 10 where 0
means poor and 10 means excellent, how would you rate the job the city does
in providing you with information about issues that are important to you?"
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The dissemination of information to the public is a key function of local
government. A more informed public should be more confident in their local
government.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Citywide
BENCHMARK
90% of respondents rate city information dissemination as 7 or greater.
RESULTS
I BENCHMARK I CARLSBAD2001 I
90% 46% I
ANALYSIS
This is the first year that this question has been asked in the public opinion
survey. A benchmark of 90% at seven or greater was set based on benchmarks
for other measures. The 90% benchmark of a rating of seven or higher may be
optimistic given the initial findings.
ACTION PLAN
Since this is the first year for this measure it would be helpful to work with the
ICMA and other cities to help determine the appropriate benchmark, or to have
more than one year of data to use for comparison purposes. Further analysis
regarding the relationship between confidence in government and satisfaction
with information dissemination would be helpful.
55
Citywide
CONFZDEACE IN CI!l'Y QOWERAWENl'
THE OUTCOME
High level of citizen confidence in the City's ability to positively affect the
community.
THE MEASUREMENT
Average citizen response to the question in the citywide survey that asks "How
confident are you in the Carlsbad City Government to make decisions which
positively affect the lives of its community members," where 0 is not confident
at all and 10 is very confident.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
By evaluating how the citizens rate their level of confidence in the local
government in conjunction with other service rating measures, the City may
begin to find those actions that have a positive impact on the perception of the
effectiveness of local government.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Citywide
BENCHMARK
90% of respondents report a confidence level of 7 or greater
RESULTS
I BENCHMARK I CARLSBAD 2001 1
ANALYSIS
This is the second year that the City has asked its residents how confident they
are in local government effectiveness. While the 2001 survey results show an
averaged increase in confidence by nearly half a point, the cause of this
increase is unknown. In addition, the 90% benchmark of a rating of seven or
higher may be optimistic given the initial findings.
An observation of the 2000 survey was that there was a perceptible difference
in citizen confidence in city government when stratified by income level. When
looking at the confidence ratings per income group, the socioeconomic groups
56
"
generally rated the city lower as their affluence increased. However, based
upon 200 1 data, the initial observation may not prove to be accurate.
ACTIOIU PLAN
Continue to identify factors that improve citizen confidence in local
government.
Also, work with the ICMA to incorporate similar questions into their survey so
that benchmarking may be available.
57
58
Parks Strateqic Goal
Strategic Goal
Provide parks and recreation facilities to meet growth management standards
and actively address the priorities of the citizens of Carlsbad within the CIP
budget.
Summary
The City is presently in a park acreage shortfall in the northeast (8.9 acres),
southwest (6.9 acres), and southeast quadrants of the city (24 acres). In order
to comply with the Growth Management Ordinance, the CIP budget for park
development was accelerated. Additionally, two park planners have been hired.
Due to these efforts, it is fully expected that the City will no longer be in a park
acreage deficit within the five years from the time a deficit is identified allowed
by the Growth Management Ordinance.
Performance Measures and Growth Management Standards
ACHIEVES NOT AVAILABLE NOT ACHIEVED BENCHMARK ADEQUATE DATA BENCHMARK
PARKS
Park Safety
Park Cost Efficiency
Parks Growth Management 4
Standard
J
J
Management Goals
GOAL NAME
Larwin Park (NE 22.2 acres)
GOAL. NUMBER
107 Pine School (NW)
112 Zone 19 Park (SW 24.25 acres)
111 Carrillo Ranch Phase I1 (SE 26.9 acres)
110
Alga Norte Park (SE)
126 NE Quadrant Park (NE 10-15 acres)
108
59
Citywide Survey Highlights
The Citywide survey rated the frequency of use and the condition of parks and
community centers in Carlsbad. Twenty-six percent (26%) said at least one
member of their household used a community center in the past year. Use of
the community centers by at least one household member is higher in the
north quadrants than the south quadrants (35% vs. 17%)
96% of the respondents said the condition of the parks and community centers
was either good or excellent. 91% of residents rated the condition of all city
facilities as either good or excellent.
Other Factors
Several activities and goals are focused on Park Development. In the N.E.
Quadrant the upper level (Dog Park) of Larwin Park (22.2 acres) has been
developed. Complete development of this parcel is anticipated by June 2003.
Purchase of additional acreage in the NE Quadrant for active recreation
purposes is being pursued. Zone 19 Park (24.25 acres) in the Southwest
Quadrant is actively in the Master Planning process with development of this
site estimated to be complete by March 2004. Phase I1 of the Carrillo Ranch
(26.9 acres) located in the Southeast Quadrant is anticipated to be open to the
public not later than December 2002.
In the Northwest Quadrant, the demolition of Pine School has met with some
challenges. Changes in the laws necessitate the City submitting a Public
Works contract for the demolition, which was not previously the case. Staff is
optimistic that mobile units will be located on the Pine School property for
utilization by Centro de Inforrnacion and the Recreation program "Stay-N-Play"
in the Spring of 2002. It is anticipated that hazardous material removal and
demolition of all structures on the site will begin in April 2002.
60
Public Works
PARKSAFETY
THE OUTCOME
Minimization of risk of injury in City parks
THE MEASUREMENT
Time to resolve safety work orders
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Parks that are safe reduce personal injuries, and increase recreational and
leisure activities. This measure is an indication of response time and the
course of action taken to resolve an identified hazard condition. This is an
existing park maintenance measurement where staff uses an inspection
checklist report and a safety work order system.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Park Maintenance
BENCHMARK
100% of safety work orders are addressed within 24 hours of being
identifiedlreported. “Addressed” means a safety work order will be inspected
and assign a course of action and any immediate safety hazard resolved.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK I CARLSBAD2OOO I CARLSBAD 2001
100% 100% 100%
In FY 2000-01, Parks Division staff received 12 safety work orders (compared
to 16 last year). After the initial request was received, 100% of the 12 work
orders were inspected and assigned a course of action, and any immediate
safety hazard resolved, within 24 hours after being identified.
ANALYSIS
This measure is being achieved. Staff is minimizing the risk of injuries in City
parks.
ACTION PLAN
This measure will be enhanced next year to report the length of time that the
safety item is actually resolved versus solely being “addressed”.
61
Public Works
PARK bUINTEIUhCE COST EFFICLENY
THE OUTCOME
Park cost efficiency
THE MEASURE
Maintenance cost per acre (annual actual expenditures/total acres of developed
parkland).
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
A goal for park maintenance is to provide aesthetically appealing, well
maintained, and preserved parks. This measure can demonstrate fiscally
responsible use of funds allocated to park maintenance, and show how
resources are being used to achieve the identified goal mentioned above. This
measure can demonstrate fiscally responsible use of funds allocated to park
maintenance, and show how resources are being used to achieve the identified
goal.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
Park Maintenance
BENCHMARK
The department is in the process of developing new benchmarking
partnerships with other high performing agencies. Once new measures are
established and data is collected, the benchmark will be reestablished.
RESULTS
CARLSBAD I FY 2000 1 FY 2001
Actual Expenditures (Total) I $2,331,335 I $2,526,875
Acres (Total) 1 286 1 286
Cost Per Acre I $8,152 I $8,835
ANALYSIS
Maintenance costs per acre increased by $683.00 or 8.3% from FY 2000 to FY
2001. However, once these figures are adjusted for inflation (5.6% for the
2001 fiscal year as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for San Diego
County) the actual increase is 2.6%. This increase in the cost per acre is due
in part to the Parks Division accepting responsibility for maintaining non-park
sites as part its maintenance schedule (i.e. Dove Library and Camllo Ranch
"
62
Slopes).
ACTION PLAN
The Public Works MSA has identified several high performing agencies that
have agreed to work with the Department to establish comparable measures.
The results will provide staff with the ability to analyze the benchmark data
and to possibly identify opportunities to change business practices, which may
improve the performance of the division.
63
64
Community Services
GROWTH MANAGEd6ENT - PARKS
THE OUTCOME
To provide adequate parkland that will support the recreational needs of those
that live, work and play in Carlsbad.
THE MEASURE
Park acreage per 1,000 population.
WHAT THE MEASURE MEANS
According to the “Citywide Facilities and Improvement Management Plan”, the
growth management standard for parks that must be provided concurrent with
growth is 3-acres/ 1,000 population.
Carlsbad’s is standard for park adequacy is based upon the collective amount
of Special Use Areas and Community Parks within each of the four quadrants
of the City. The collective acreage within each quadrant is then compared to
the population of each quadrant to ensure adequacy.
A standard of 3 acres per 1,000 population is an accepted level of park space to
meet active or passive recreational needs. In addition, a standard of 3 acres
per 1,000 population insures a fiscally responsible maintenance and operation
program that is allocated on an annual basis and required to sustain a safe
and aesthetically pleasing recreation facility.
The overall park standard of 5.5 acres per 1,000 population has been in
existence since 1982. The standard includes Special Use Areas, Community
Parks and Special Resource Areas. For the most part, the majority of those
collective acres within Carlsbad belong to the Special Resource Area
classification. They are typically sites that are over 100 acres in size and are of
a unique character such as lagoons and beaches. These amenities are typically
outside the operational jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad and require little if
no operating expense.
For the purposes of the Growth Management Monitoring Report, the citywide
population figures are derived from information provided by the California
Department of Finance. The per quadrant population figures are determined by
the number of dwelling units in each quadrant, multiplied by a density figure
of 2.3178 persons per dwelling unit.
65
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Community Services Recreation Department and the Park Planning Division
provide data on the park area inventory and the Finance/ Planning
Departments provide data on the number of dwelling units and density.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
The park adequacy standard means 3 acres of Special Use Area and/or
Community Park, either active or passive per 1,000 population. The measured
park acreage needs to be existing and open to the public. If it is not existing, it
must be developed within a five year period or prior to construction of 1,562
dwelling units within the park district beginning at the time the need is first
identified in accordance with the Growth Management Ordinance.
The Carlsbad Park Standard identified in the Parks and Recreation Element of
the City’s General Plan is as follows:
Special Use Areas 0.5 acres/ 1,000 population
Community Parks - 2.5 acres/ 1,000 population
3.0 acres/ 1,000 population.
Collectible standard per Quimby Ordinance 86 Growth
Management Standard
Special Resource Areas 2.5 acres/ 1,000 population
Overall Park Standard 5.5 acres/ 1,000 population
*Provisions for recreation facilities in the industrial zone are based upon, and
provide by the collection of $ .4O/square foot of industrial development. There
is no standard of acreage exclusively for the industrial based population.
RESULTS
The current population in each quadrant, compared to the existing and
planned park acreage in each quadrant determines park adequacy. That level
of adequacy is three acres of parkland per 1,000 population. The required park
acre to population ratio is in a shortfall situation at this time in three of the
four city quadrants. In accordance with the Growth Management Ordinance,
acquisition, planning, and development efforts are taking place to ensure
compliance with the Ordinance. The parks performance standard of the Growth
Management Plan is in compliance with the Growth Management Ordinance.
ANALYSIS
For park planning purposes, the population figures that the department
currently uses is based upon the Finance Department’s “Growth Projection”
66
chart. This population figure includes units built through January 1, 2001.
The equation to determine population is based on the number of units built,
multiplied by 2.3178 people per unit.
The table below illustrates the status of the Park Performance Standard in each
of the City’s four park districts. Park acreage amounts are based upon
Community Park (COM) and Special Use Areas (SUA) collective acreage totals.
REQUIRED
DEFICIT CONI & SUA COM & SUA POPULATION SURPLUS/ ACRES ACRES CURRENT QUADRANT
CURRENT EXISTING
The City is currently in a shortfall situation in the northeast (-8.9 acres),
-24 AC 53.3 77.3 25,787 SE
-6.9 AC 47 53.9 17,979 sw -8.9 AC 20 28.9 9,651 NE
+9.7 AC 81.9 72.2 24,082 NW
southwest (-6.9 acres) and southeast quadrant (-24 acres).
ACTION PLAN
Northeast Quadrant: To meet the current park shortfall of 8.9 acres in the
northeast quadrant, the entire Larwin Park (22.2 acres) will be developed
shortly and the quadrant will then be in compliance with the Growth
Management Ordinance. The Dog Park at the upper level of Larwin Park was
completed in September of 2001. It is anticipated that the lower portion of the
park site will be developed by the second quarter of 2003. Another source of
park acreage within the northeast quadrant will be the acquisition of an
additional 10 to 15 acres. Although acquisition of that site is currently being
pursued, at this time, its development and subsequent acreage amount is not
required to meet the park performance standard for the quadrant.
Southwest Quadrant: Although there is currently a shortfall situation of 6.9
acres in the southwest quadrant, staff is currently processing the Master Plan
development of the 24.25 acres Zone 19 park site. Development of the site
should be complete by the first quarter of 2004. This will assure continued
compliance with the Growth Management Ordinance.
Southeast Quadrant: The current park acreage shortfall in the quadrant is 24
ac., which will shortly be offset by the development of Phase I1 of the Carrillo
Ranch. With development scheduled to begin in first quarter of 2002, the 26.9-
acre park is anticipated to be open to the public in the fourth quarter of 2002.
This will assure continued compliance with the Growth Management
Ordinance.
67
68
Open Space and Trails Strateqic Goal
,- Strategic God
Preserve, enhance, and manage an open space and citywide trail system that
incorporates a comprehensive Habitat Management Plan.
Summary
There were no questions on this year’s citywide survey related to open space
open space as opposed to a community park, a swim complex, or a municipal
golf course. The Council received an update on the citywide trails plan this fall
and will receive information regarding financing plans in early 2002. The open
space component of the Growth Management Plan is in compliance.
Performance Measures and Growth Management Standards
-
- and trails. A “paired comparison” survey did indicate residents prefer more
”
ACHIEVES
NOT AVAILABLE NOT ACHIEVED BENCHMARK
ADEQUATE DATA BENCHMARK
OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS
Open Space Growth
Management Standard
J ~~
c
”
”
Management Gods
GOAL NAME
29 Coastal Rail Trail (approx. 7 miles)
109 Citywide Trails ( 158 miles)
GOAL NUMBER
Citywide Survey Highlights
The City conducted a survey of residents that compared four types of
recreational amenities with one another in terms of resident preferences. The
results of the Paired Comoarison Survev indicated that of these four amenities
(Open Space and Trails, Community Park, Community Swim Complex, and a
Municipal Golf Course), residents stated they would prefer to have more open
space and trails.
Other Factors
None cited.
69
70
Community Development
GROWTH Mi¶IYAGEMENT - OPEN SPACE
THE OUTCOME
A comprehensive, connected open space system that protects and conserves
the City's natural resources.
THE MEASUREMENT
The amount of land set aside for permanent open space. At build-out of the
City, there will be approximately 40% of the land area in the City set-aside for
permanent open space.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
At the time of preparation of the Growth Management Plan, it was determined
that an additional amount of open space (15%) needed to be set-aside in all
areas of the City. This open space dedication is in addition to the
environmentally constrained land that cannot be otherwise.
The measure has been implemented in many parts of the City. Local Facility
Management Plans have also been adopted to designate which additional land
needs to be set aside.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Planning
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
Fifteen Percent (15%) of the total land area in each of the 25 Local Facilities
Management Zones must be set-aside for permanent open space and must be
available concurrent with development. This does not include environmentally
constrained, non-developable land.
RESULTS
At build-out of the City, as a result of this Growth Management Standard,
there will be approximately 40% of the land area in the City set-aside for
permanent open space. This is a product combining the 25% environmentally
sensitivity open space and the 15% additional requirement of this Growth
Management Standard
ANALYSIS
The performance standard is working as anticipated.
71
ACTION PLAN
Continue to determine the acreage and location of the 15% performance
measurement open space land at the time of preparation or amendment of
Local Facility Zone Management Plans. Require land to be set-aside at time of
individual project development. Over the next five years, it is anticipated that
substantial amounts of open space will be set aside in compliance with the
performance standard as a result of several major projects including Kelly
Ranch, Calavera Hills, Bressi Ranch and the Villages of La Costa.
72
Environmental Management Strategic Goal
Strategic Goal
Promote a clean, pollution-free, resource-conscious environment focusing on:
storm water protection, sewage collection and treatment, solid waste, and
alternative energy.
summary
Overall the state of tlie city's environmental related infrastructure is good with
plans in place or in progress to address potential future growth related
deficiencies. Additionally, all the environmental cost efficiency performance
measures have achieved their benchmark. The city is also committing
significant resources to comply with the Municipal Storm Water National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) order, including developing
education, compliance, and monitoring programs, in addition to reviewing
potential ordinance modifications, funding alternatives, and new performance
measures.
Performance Measures and Growth Management Standards
ACHIEVES ADEQUATE DATA BENCHMARK
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT NOT
J
Sewer line integrity
Sewer cost efficiency
Drainage system efficiency
J
J
J
Drainage system water quality J
Solid waste diversion
J
Solid waste cost efficiency
Sewer collection system growth
management standard
J
J Drainage growth management
growth management standard
J Waste water treatment facilities
standard
73
Citywide Survey Highlights
The Citywide survey included a number of questions in this subject area with
92% of residents rating sewer service as either good or excellent. This specific
category was not surveyed in 2000. This year's survey queried storm water
and recycling concerns and tested resident knowledge of these subjects.
Carlsbad residents reported recycling 63% of recyclable materials. Residents
believe that storm water runoff and car washing are the greatest contributors
to ocean pollution. Interestingly, 58% of the residents indicated a willingness
to pay a $50 annual fee per household to improve coastal water. This
correlates with the majority of residents' high value placed on proximity to
beaches, as the best liked feature of the region. Environmental related
contracted services (trash/recycling collection, street sweeping, hazardous
waste disposal) also received good to excellent ratings by the majority of
residents, although not as often as services provided directly by the city.
Other Factors
The city continues to address many environmental issues that are not directly
tied to a performance measure including eradication of the caulerpa taxifolia in
the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, establishing a sustainable sand replenishment
program, negotiating an agreement on the city's Habitat Management Plan,
completing the Vista/Carlsbad sewer/storm drain replacement project,
continued replacement of incandescent lamps with energy efficient LED lamps
for traffic and pedestrian signals, and reducing electric usage in city facilities
(approximately 19% since May 2001). In addition, city staff is working on a
new Council policy that would create an environmental ethic for the city and
revising the agenda bill preparation manual to include instructions for adding
language to agenda bills that addresses an environmental standard.
74
Public Works
SEWER LLNE ZNTEORITP
. ..
I
THE OUTCOME
Sewer system reliability
THE MEASUREMENT
Volume of reportable spills per foot of sewer mains. This represents a change
from data reported in the 2000 State of Effectiveness Report. Previously, the
measurement was multi-modal and included the number of stoppages per 10
miles of sewer main and the number of reportable spills per 10 miles of sewer
main. Staff implemented the new measurement to more accurately reflect the
environmental impact that may occur as a result of a spill.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measures the integrity of the sewer lines
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/Construction Maintenance,
Engineering/ Planning and Programs
BENCHMARK
Annual volume of reported sewage spills not to exceed 1.17 gallons per foot of
sewer mains per year. This benchmark was established on information
reported in the 1999-00 baseline year.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK
765,600 765,600 765,600 Total Feet of Mains
2,116,992 895,65 1 895,651 Gallons Spilled
2000-01 1999-00
I Gallons per Foot 1.17 1.17 2.77
ANALYSIS
The number of gallons spilled per foot of sewer line was 2.77. Total gallons
spilled increased due to a 2.1 million gallon recycled water spill and a
contractor error during construction work at the Fox Pump Station that
resulted in a spill of about 15,000 gallons. However, using the Sewer Response
Plan, staff was successful in preventing the remaining spills from entering the
City’s surface water and/or storm drains. When a spill occurs, staff reacts
immediately to contain the spill, recapture it, then place it into the City’s sewer
75
systems where it can be treated.
ACTION PLAN
Staff will investigate and implement mitigation efforts to reduce gallons spilled
to at least baseline level. The Public Works MSA has met with several high
performing agencies that have agreed to work with the Department and
establish comparable measures. The results will provide staff with the ability
to analyze the benchmark data and to identify opportunities to improve the
performance of the Division. Once the initial data collection and comparison is
complete, the benchmark will be defined.
-
76
"
Public Works
SEWER COST EFFICXENCY
THE OUTCOME
Sewer operations cost efficiency.
THE MEASUREMENT
Cost of service per million gallons of sewage. Calculated by dividing the total
cost of service by the total sewer flow assessed to Carlsbad.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measures the fiscally responsible and appropriate use of ratepayer dollars. The
total cost of services includes payments to Encina in addition to maintenance
and operation costs(exc1uding capital) in the sewer enterprise fund. This can
then be compared to other agencies, which are also responsible for collection,
treatment and discharge.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/Construction Maintenance
BENCHMARK
Annual cost of service per million gallons of sewage will not exceed $1,028.
This benchmark was established based on information reported in the 1998-99
baseline year.
RESULTS
I BENCHMARK 1 1999-00 [ 2000-01
iscal Year Expenses $2,244,6521 $2,233,2011 $2,308,593
Annual Flow (million gallons) 2,372.50 2,314.10 2,182.70
$/w $973 $965 $1,028
ANALYSIS
Fiscal year 2000-01 cost of seivice was $973.06 per million gallons (mg) was
within the benchmark $1,028. The cost per mg last year was $965. This
year's measure was slightly higher per mg due to a slight increase in the
annual cost of service charged by the Encina Wastewater Treatment for
treatment of Carlsbad flows. Since the baseline year (1998-99), Encina
adjusted their methods for charging member agencies for treatment of sewage
77
flows from estimated charges to billing for actual costs incurred. This resulted
in overall reduced costs for the years succeeding the baseline year.
ACTION PLAN
The Public Works MSA has met with several high performing agencies that
have agreed to work with the Department and establish comparable measures.
The results will provide staff with the ability to analyze the benchmark data
and to identify opportunities to improve the performance of the Division. Once
the initial data collection and comparison is complete, the benchmark will be
defined.
Also, continue to use the Public Works Maintenance Management Program to
identify ways to schedule and assign work activities to maintain existing
staffing levels during ongoing growth in the customer base.
78
Public Works
DRAXMGE SYSTEM EFFICIENCY
THE OUTCOME
Storm drain system reliability.
THE MEASUREMENT
Under development
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measures the integrity of the storm drain system.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/Street Maintenance
BENCHMARK
To be developed
RElsuLTS
None available
ANALYSIS
Not applicable
ACTION PLAN
A Storm Drainage System Outcome Team was formed in November 2001 to
develop outcome and performance measurement standards. The Team plans to
finalize outcomes and performance measurement standards by June 2002 and
collect data to assess benchmarks with other comparable cities and submit by
December 2003 as part of the State of Effectiveness Report.
79
Public Works
DRAINAGE SYSTEM EFFICIENCY
THE OUTCOME
Drainage system efficiency.
THE MEASUREMENT
Staff hours to maintain a mile of pipe (total staff hours devoted to drainage
system maintenance divided by mile of storm drain).
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measures the fiscally responsible and appropriate use of funds.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/Street Maintenance, Engineering
BENCHMARK
To be developed
RESULTS
None available
ANALYSIS
Not applicable
ACTION PLAN
A Storm Drainage System Outcome Team was formed in November 2001 to
develop outcome and performance measurement standards. The Team plans to
finalize outcomes and performance measurement standards by June 2002 and
collect data to assess benchmarks with other comparable cities and submit by
December 2003 as part of the State of Effectiveness Report.
80
Public Works
DRAINAGE SYSTEM WATER QUALITY
THE OUTCOME
Environmentally sound drainage system.
THE MEASUREMENT
Dry-weather testing to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit 200 1.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Determines the quality of storm drain water in the City of Carlsbad.
STATUS OF THE MEASURE
This is an existing measure based on federal standards.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/Environmental Programs
BENCHMARK
To be developed
RESULTS
None available
ANALYSIS
Not applicable
ACTION PLAN
A Storm Drainage System Outcome Team was formed in November 2001 to
develop outcome and performance measurement standards. The Team plans to
finalize outcomes and performance measurement standards by June 2002 and
collect data to assess benchmarks with other comparable cities and submit by
December 2003 as part of the State of Effectiveness Report.
81
Public Works
SOLID WASTE DIVERSION
THE OUTCOME
Environmentally sound solid waste services
THE MEASUREMENT
Diversion of solid waste from disposal in compliance with AB 939, as reported
annually to the California Integrated Waste Management Board.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measures the level at which the City of Carlsbad is taking responsible action in
maintaining an environmentally safe community for its citizens.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations
BENCH-
Achieve 50% or more diversion annually to meet compliance with AB 939.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK I 1996 I 1997 1998 1999 I 2000
>50% 58% 42% 44% 5 1% 48%
ANALYSIS
In the Spring of 1996, the City of Carlsbad was informed that bio-solids, or
“sludge,” which had been documented in the City’s Source Reduction and
Recycling Element (SRRE) as diverted, was deemed an excluded waste and
removed from Carlsbad’s diversion and generation base year tonnages. The
Board’s contention was that as sludge was diverted in 1990, it never entered
the waste stream.
Carlsbad documented its disagreement with this position, and Board staff
subsequently indicated that while no formal action was being taken on this
issue at that time, the letter had been placed on file, in effect putting
Carlsbad’s position “on record.”
Since that time, several sludge-recycling markets have evaporated, resulting in
periodic landfill disposal. Carlsbad’s diversion rate has also dropped
significantly, from 50% in 1997, to 44% in 1998, and 42% (unadjusted) in
82
1999. There are also new members on the Board. The City of San Diego
successfully appealed to the Board last year to add previously disallowed
sludge back into base year generation numbers. As a result of these
occurrences, the City revisited the sludge issue.
Concurrently, staff carefully reviewed the Board’s formula for calculating
diversion rates. Base year generation tonnages are annually adjusted using a
variety of default factors. The default factor for employment is based on
Countyurlde, rather than jurisdiction-specific information. As the City’s
employment has grown significantly faster than the County as a whole, the
base year has not been adjusted to adequately reflect Carlsbad’s employment
growth.
Staff is in the process of preparing a petition to add sludge into the base year
generation tonnage, as well as processing an application to substitute
Carlsbad-specific employment data for countywide data. These two actions will
be submitted to the Board for review when the Employment Development
Department releases year 2000 data, expected later this year. However,
preliminary review based on 1999 data indicates these two actions will increase
the City’s diversion rate to 58%, well above compliance rate.
ACTION PLAN
Staff will complete processing of these two actions, and continue to review the
City’s solid waste and recyclables collection operations for additional diversion
opportunities.
83
Public Works
SOLID WASTE COST EFFICIEhCY
THE OUTCOME
Solid waste services cost eficiency.
THE MEASUREMENT
Solid waste services rates adjusted for franchise and other City fees, as
reported in a semi-annual SANDAG survey.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measures the cost of providing solid waste services.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations
BENCHMARK
Carlsbad solid waste service rates for commercial and residential customers
will rank in the lowest one-third when compared to other cities in San Diego
county.
RE8ULTS -.
Franchise/ Residential Adjusted Franchise/ Commercial Adjusted
& Other Citv Fees Rate " Rate Rankother Citv Fees Rate Rank
Carlsbad 9.5% $14.52 $13.14 3 9.5% $74.92 $67.80 1
Coronado 7.0% $14.03 $13.05 2 7.0% $82.95 $77.14 10
Del Mar 6.5% $14.95 $13.98 5 6.5% $80.50 $75.27 7
El Cajon 7.0% $15.04 $13.99 6 7.0% $75.25 $69.98 3
Encinitas 5.0% $15.30 $14.54 9 5.0% $76.87 $73.03 5
Escondido lo%+ 21 cents $14.18 $12.55 1 10.0% $76.08 $68.47 2
La Mesa 4%+ 59 cents $15.99 $14.76 11 4% +$2.02 $83.63 $78.26 11
Lemon Grove 9% + 17 cents $14.99 $13.45 4 9% + 89 cents $83.93 $75.49 8
Oceanside 2%+ $3.31 $19.88 $16.17 13 2.0% $80.74 $79.13 12
Poway 5%+83cents $15.78 $14.16 7 5.0% $76.83 $72.99 4
San Marcos 8.0% $15.61 $14.36 8 8.0% $83.22 $76.56 9
Solana Beach 5.0% $15.49 $14.72 10 5.0% $77.57 $73.69 6
Vista 5%+ 7cents $16.36 $15.47 12 5%+$0.63 $87.25 $82.26 13
NOTES: Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, National City and Santee are not
included as based upon their fee structure. San Diego is not included because
service is not provided by contract.
"
-~
.-
.,
"
84
I
-
rnALYSIS
and are among the lowest in the County.
ACTION PLAN
Continue current operations.
-. Carlsbad's solid waste services rates have not been increased since June 1996
"
-
85
86
Public Works
GROWTH MANAGEMEAT - SEWER COUECTZON SYSTEM
THE OUTCOME
Adequate sewer capacity for City residents and businesses.
THE MEASUREMENT
The actual sewage flow in each sewer basin is not greater than the sewer trunk
capacity.
The Sewer Master Plan updated in 1997 is used to identify the facilities
necessary for development occurring within the City's Sewer Service Area.
These new facilities are funded with development fees and sewer connection
fees. New developments in the City are conditioned to either start their
construction after required facilities are operational, or construct the facilities
concurrently with their projects.
The Leucadia County Water District (LCWD) serves the La Costa area in the
southeast part of the City. The City coordinates development with LCWD and
conditions projects to ensure facilities are in place prior to the completion of
the development.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Trunk line capacity will have sufficient conveyance capacity to handle tributary
wastewater flows under peak flow conditions.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Engineering, Maintenance 86 Operations
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
Sewer trunk main capacities are estimated by comparing wastewater flow
projections to the capacity of the sewer system. The maximum depth of flow in
a sewer trunk main should not exceed 75% of the pipe diameter. Flow
projections are based on 220 gallon per day per equivalent dwelling unit.
Using a sewer model, the existing and future sewer demands are estimated and
compared to the capacity. In addition, annual flow measurement information
is also used to determine actual flows in the sewer trunk mains.
RESULTS
87
SEWER TRUNK/INTERCEPTOR STATUS OF AVAILABLE CAPACITY I
Vista/Carlsbad Some Reaches Approaching 0%
Capacity
North Agua Hedionda
Some Reaches Approaching O%Capacity Buena
Future Pipeline - Not in Service South Agua Hedionda
Some Reaches at 50% Capacity
Vallecitos
North Batiquitos Adequate Capacity
Some Reaches May be Approaching
50% Capacity.
I Ponto I Adequate Capacity I
ANALYSIS
The Master Plan identifies facilities necessary for City build-out conditions and
will be updated. There have been several changes in the City’s growth patterns
due to the HMP and the HCP that impact growth projections and densities in
various areas of the City. These changes could impact sewer demands and
sewer fee revenues.
Ongoing analysis of the Vista/Carlsbad, North Agua Hedionda, Buena and
Vallecitos Interceptors will continue. Analysis will help determine how much
capacity is available in each interceptor and will refine future demand
requirements. Currently, the North Agua Hedionda Interceptor has excess
capacity and is conveying a portion of the South Agua Hedionda basin flow.
This basin will be monitored to ensure adequate capacity is maintained and to
determine when and if capacity will be depleted. Some reaches of the Buena
Interceptor may be reaching capacities that exceed agreements with the City of
Vista. Staff is currently reviewing existing agreements with Vista and
alternatives to obtain more capacity in the Buena Interceptor, which includes
diverting flow from the Buena to the Vallecitos Interceptor.
.
Sewer benefit fees for the South Agua Hedionda sewer basin are currently
being revised to accommodate the development in cost of the facilities and
decrease in development in that area. This is the only trunk main not
currently in-service. Only a small portion of the trunk main has been
constructed.
88
ACTION PLAN
Update of Sewer Master Plan scheduled for completion in 2002-03 FY.
The Master Plan update includes a review of sewer benefit area fees
which will ensure adequate funds are available for future improvements.
Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor - Construction to replace pipelines at
capacity is underway.
North Agua Hedionda Interceptor - Scheduled for continued field
monitoring to track existing flows to ensure compliance with the growth
management standard.
South Agua Hedionda Interceptor - Portions of the pipeline will continue
to be constructed concurrent with other road and development projects.
Complete revisions to funding program to ensure additional facilities are
funded.
Buena Interceptor - Complete revision of agreements with Vista and
review of alternatives to obtain more capacity.
Vallecitos Interceptor - Scheduled for continued field monitoring to track
existing flows to ensure compliance with the growth management
standard.
89
Public Works
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
THE OUTCOME
Adequate sewer treatment plant capacity for projected build-out of the City.
THE MEASUREMENT
Total City sewage flow shall not exceed 9.24 MGD (Million Gallons per Day).
Flows are currently measured by the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility
(EWPCF) and provided to Maintenance & Operations monthly.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The City is one of six member agencies that own and operate the EWPCF where
the City’s wastewater is collected and treated. The EWPCF outfall pipeline
limits the capacity of the treatment plant. The EWPCF capacity is 36 MGD and
the City owns rights to 9.24 MGD.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Engineering, Maintenance & Operations
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
When total average flows reach 75% of the City’s capacity rights the need for
additional capacity should be evaluated and the methods to obtain additional
capacity identified.
RESULTS
Currently, the City’s average sewage flow to EWPCF is 6.15 MGD, or 67% of the
City’s 9.24 MGD capacity rights, which is slightly lower than last years average
flow.
ANALYSIS
The City’s projected build-out flow was estimated at 10.14 MGD, assuming no
HMP and HCP constraints. A preliminary evaluation of the expected City sewer
flows with the current developable area reveals that build-out flow is
approximately 9.24 MGD.
Encina Waste Water is now working on the final phase expansion to complete
the EWPCF to build-out capacity. Construction of the expansion will occur in
two phases. The City has requested additional capacity, increasing capacity
rights to 10.14 MGD during Phase I1 of the expansion. This will provide time to
track the flow rate increase and complete further analysis to determine if a
90
capacity increase for the Carlsbad at the EWPCF is necessary.
ACTION PLAN
Continue to monitor existing flows to ensure compliance with the growth
management standard.
Complete an updated analysis of build-out flows for the City as part of
the Sewer Master Plan Update scheduled to be complete in 2003-03 FY
to ensure adequate funding for future facilities.
91
Public Works
GROWTH lKAEtQGEMENT - DRAIMGE
THE OUTCOME
Adequate drainage facilities for protection against flooding and flood damage.
THE MEASUREMENT
Drainage facilities are adequate for the runoff as determined by the Master
Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan.
The Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan is used to
identify the facilities necessary for development in the City. These facilities
include both new and existing facilities that require improvements. The
facilities are funded with developer fees and planned local drainage area (PLDA)
fees. New development areas are conditioned to either start their construction
after required facilities are operational, or construct the facilities concurrently
with their projects.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Drainage facilities are provided as required by the City concurrent with
development.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Engineering, Maintenance 86 Operations
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
For areas one square mile in size and larger, all drainage facilities shall be
sized for the 100-year storm.
For areas less than one square mile in size the drainage facilities shall be sized
to accommodate the following:
yEkR FREQmmY, ", ~ '. ' ".''
. ..
' REQ-
,, . , , , . , . , , . ,. ,, ., . ,, ,. .,
STORM ,,,
, ,,.
100 Runoff shall not damage adjacent existing or potential
building and structure sites.
Runoff shall not overflow outside of property lines on
private property or right-of-way in public streets 50
10 Minimum storm drain and inlet size
92
RESULTS
All areas of the City meet current Growth Management Standards with the
exception of the following:
New National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
requirements may require modifications to the City’s existing drainage systems
and additional drainage facilities.
The downtown area between the railroad tracks and Interstate-5 experiences
flooding during heavy rains.
The Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park is located where the Calavera Creek
flows into the Agua Hedionda Creek and has experienced flooding during heavy
rains.
ANALYSIS
The 1994 Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan
identifies facilities necessary for City build-out conditions. Fiscal analyses
indicate current Planned Local Drainage Area (PLDA) fees are adequate for the
facilities identified in the 1994 Master Plan. The Master Drainage Plan will be
updated due to several changes in the City’s growth patterns due to the Habitat
Management Plan (HMP) and the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that impact
growth projections and densities in various areas of the City. These changes
not only impact expected run-off, but also expected PLDA revenues.
In addition, the new NPDES Permit requirements need to be incorporated into
the Master Plan. Drainage facilities required to meet NPDES standards will
also require funding. A separate fee structure is being reviewed and considered
for NPDES requirements.
.- Analysis and design of facilities for the downtown area was completed and
storm drain system improvements are currently under construction with the
Vista/Carlsbad Sewer Interceptor project.
Analysis of the Calavera Creek Channel is currently underway by the
Engineering Department.
ACTION PLAN
0 New storm drains are currently under construction in the downtown area
as part of the Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor Sewer and Storm Drain Project.
Construction is scheduled to end in early 2003.
0 Analysis of Calavera Creek Basin is on going and recommendations will
93
be identified by early 2002. Recommended improvements will be
implemented with the Faraday Roadway Project.
0 Update the Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan.
The update is scheduled to start during the 2002-03 FY to coincide with
the necessary updates required by the new NPDES Permit.
94
.
Water Strateqic Goal
Strategic Goal
Ensure a 90% reliable, high quality, diversified water system, in the most cost
effective manner.
Summary
According to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the
Carlsbad Municipal Water District will never receive less than 75% of its
present imported supply. Due to the planning and ultimate construction of the
Phase I and Phase I1 of its Recycled Water Project, the CMWD is informally
guaranteed up to 86% of its annual daily usage in times of drought. Although
the Metropolitan Water District has never formally accepted this allocation
plan, it is currently a priority agenda item for them. The City is currently
discussing the possibility of a desalination project. If plans for this were
ultimately implemented, the City would be in a position of exceeding the goal,
which is to have a 90% reliable system.
The results of the 2001 performance measures and growth management
standard indicate that the city is doing a good job of supporting the Water
Strategic goal. The water quality performance measure consistently meets the
benchmark, which is that 98% of the bacteria samples collected are coliform
free. The water reliability measure exceeded the benchmark this year when
customers in the Carlsbad Municipal Water District experienced no time
without service due to unscheduled maintenance work. The water delivery
efficiency measure also exceeded the benchmark reporting a water loss of
4.29% for the FYOO-01. The City is achieving the demand growth management
standard according to the master plan analysis, as well as having a minimum
10 average day potable storage capacity for the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District.
95
Management Goah
GOAL NAME
75 Recycled Water Phase 2
GOAL NUMBER
140 Automated Meter Reading
76 Maerkle Reservoir Water Quality
Citywide Survey Highlights
Overall, 78% of Carlsbad residents rated water service as either good or
excellent. Last year's survey results were 88% good or excellent. This is a 10%
decrease in the perceived service level. The majority of residents in all four
quadrants rated water services as positive. However, residents in the Southeast
Quadrant rated water service less positively than the other Quadrants (70% vs.
80%). This quadrant is not generally served by the City of Carlsbad, but by
another water agency.
Other Factors
There have been several changes in the City's growth patterns due to the
Habitat Management Plan and the Habitat Conservation Plan that impact
growth projections and densities in various areas of the City. These changes
could impact water demands and water fee revenues. Water connection fees
will be reviewed upon completion of the Water Master Plan update. The recycle
water model has recently been updated, and the use of desalination is
currently under consideration. Recycled water used for irrigation and the
potential for desalination will offset the demands for potable water. These
issues/considerations will be incorporated into the update to the Water Master
Plan.
96
Public Works
POTABLE WATER QUALITY
THE OUTCOME
High quality water free of pathogenic organisms.
THE MEASUREMENT
Monthly bacteriological samples.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The City purchases treated water from Metropolitan Water District and the San
Diego County Water Authority. Weekly water samples are taken and tested for
the presence of coliform bacteria. Coliform bacteria are ever-present and
therefore used as an indicator for potential presence of pathogenic organisms
that cause waterborne disease. Positive samples are indicators of potential
problems that are investigated and followed up with additional samples.
Monthly bacteriological reports are sent to the State Department of Health
Services. The goal is to achieve zero positive samples, with anything less than
five percent acceptable.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/Utility Operations
BENCHMARK
98% of bacteria samples free of coliform. The State requires that at least 95%
of all samples collected during any month are total coliform-free.
RESULTS
97
ANALYSIS
Data was gathered for fiscal year 2000-01. Of the 1,725 samples taken, three
were positive. When the positive samples are identified, staff takes repeat
sample sets per Section 64424, Repeat Sampling of California Title 22
Regulations. 99.8% is above our standard for this measurement and meets all
State and Federal legal, health and safety requirements.
ACTION PLAN
Staff will continue weekly water sampling and testing to ensure a high level of
water quality.
The Public Works MSA has met with several high performing agencies that
have agreed to work with the Department and establish comparable measures.
The results will provide staff with the ability to analyze the benchmark data
and to possibly identify opportunities to improve the performance of the
Division.
98
Public Works
WATER RELL9BILITY
THE OUTCOME
Water system reliability.
THE MEASUREMENT
Total hours per mile of distribution line without service. This measure will be
calculated by taking the number of hours that a water main is without service,
excluding service interruptions due to maintenance and development activity,
divided by the total miles of distribution line
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure reflects the integrity of the water distribution system.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/Construction Maintenance
Engineering/Planning 86 Programs
BENCHMARK
Annual number of hours per mile of distribution line a water main is out of
service will not exceed a total of 0.05 hours in a year. This benchmark was
established on information reported in the 1998-99 baseline year.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK 2000-01 1999-00
Total Hours
0.00 .04 .OS Hours/Mile Dist. Line
410 400 350 Miles Dist. Lines
0 17 18
ANALYSIS
0.00 hours/mile of distribution line is a reduction from the previous year of
.04. No hours of service were lost during FY 2000-01. As in the previous year,
Construction/Maintenance staff continued their operations such that the
majority of shut-offs were at single-family residences. In these instances, water
was turned off on the city's side of the property's water meter instead of the
main. As a result, fewer customers are affected by interrupted water service
due to repairs. Turning water off at the main can affect several homes at once.
99
ACTION PLAN
Continue using methods such as temporarily turning off service on ‘&e city’s
side of the property’s water meter instead of the main during repairs to
minimize service interruptions to customers.
The Public Works MSA has met with several high performing agencies that
have agreed to work with the Department and establish comparable measures.
The results will provide staff with the ability to analyze the benchmark data
and to possibly identify opportunities to change business practices which may
improve the performance of the Division.
100
Public Works
WATER DELIVERY EFFICIEKY
THE OUTCOME
Water operations delivery efficiency
THE MEASUREMENT
This measure uses a multi-method approach combining:
Water Loss: The percentage of water loss in the distribution system. Water
loss is defined as the amount of water produced (water purchased 5 amount
water held in storage) minus water sold, and divided by water produced.
Cost of Service: The total cost of service, including water purchases, divided
by the total acre-feet of both potable and recycled water delivered per year.
This measurement represents a change from data reported in the 2000 State of
Effectiveness Report. Previously, the measurement was staff hours to deliver
an acre-foot of water. The new measurement more accurately represents the
total costs of delivering water.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Water Loss: The water loss measure, if kept within the benchmark, represents
the results of an efficient and fiscally responsible operation. If the percentage
of water loss is high, the result is a revenue loss to the Water Operations
Enterprise Fund.
Cost of Service: The annual expenditures per acre-foot of water delivered
represents an efficient system when we are able to achieve the benchmark.
The aim is to satisfy customer demands with safe, reliable water with a prudent
level of expenditures.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations
BENCHMARK
Water Loss: Annual water loss not to exceed six percent as set by CMWD
(City) Standard Bulletin 166-4, Urban Water Use in California, August 1994.
Distribution system losses commonly range between 6 and 15%. AWWA
recommends that the loss after treatment be maintained at 10% or less.
Cost of Service: The benchmark for this measure will be established when we
101
complete the collection, review and analysis of data from comparable agencies.
RESULTS
Water Loss
FISCAL. YEAR
2.66% 1997-98
2.08% 1996-97
c 6.00% Benchmark
WATER LOSS
1998-99
4.29% 2000-01
5.36% 1999-00
4.87%
1999-00 20,069 1 $18,393,999 I $916.541 t- 2000-0 1 21,135 1 $19,375,900 I $916.77 I
rnAL.YSIS
Water Loss: Due to varying tolerance levels between the San Diego County
Water Authority metering device and the smaller capacity meters that deliver
water directly to our customers, the numbers reported are inexact. This is an
internal measure that is used to monitor our performance over time and
reflects that we are achieving our established benchmark.
Cost of Service: Previously this measure stated, "Total water operations staff
hours per year divided by Total acre-feet of water delivered per year equals man
hours to deliver an acre-foot of water." In 2000-0 1, staff revised this measure to
reflect the total annual cost of service per acre-foot of water delivered. "Cost of
service" is all annual expenditures for personnel, services and supplies, capital
outlay, and includes the cost for potable water purchased from the
Metropolitan Water District and recycled water purchased from the Leucadia
Municipal Water District and the Vallecitos County Water District. Using this
measure will allow the City to better obtain comparable data with other
agencies that have similar organizational structures and operations.
ACTION PLAN
Water Loss: Identify agencies with similar operational practices and who
receive 100% of treated water from an outside source. Investigate how these
agencies measure "unaccounted for" water.
Cost of Service: We will be refining this measure as relationships are
established with other comparable agencies.
102
Public Works
GROWTH -GEMEAT - WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
THE OUTCOME
Adequate fire flow and water supply for City residents and businesses.
THE MEASUREMENT
The Water and Reclaimed Water Master Plans updated in 1997 are used to
identify the facilities necessary for development within the Carlsbad Municipal
Water District. This computer model was calibrated using actual flow
measurements collected in the field to verify that it sufficiently represents the
actual water system. When new facilities are identified they are funded with
development fees and water connection fees. New developments in the City are
conditioned to either start their construction after required facilities are in
operation, or construct the facilities concurrently with their projects.
Water storage in the Carlsbad Municipal Water District is equal to or greater
than 10 average days. The Vallecitos Water District and the Olivenhain Water
District service the La Costa area. The City coordinates development with
these agencies and conditions projects to ensure facilities are in place prior to
the completion of the development.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Water capacity will meet demands as determined by the appropriate water
district and is provided concurrent with development.
A minimum 10 average day potable storage capacity is provided concurrent
with development in the Carlsbad Municipal Water District.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Engineering, Maintenance & Operations
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
Demand
Water service demand requirements are estimated using a computer model to
simulate the two water distribution scenarios: 1) maximum day demand plus a
fire event, 2) peak hour demand, as well as, other possible scenarios.
103
IO Average Day Storage
1.17 MG 2000 =18.77 MG/Day average consumption
365 Days
(18.77 MG/Day) * (10 Days) = 187.7 MG Storage = 190 MG Storage required
RESULTS
Based on model analysis future pipelines and other water system facilities have
been identified and are summarized in the Water Master Plan. As
developments are processed through the Development Services Division, the
model is periodically used to check pipeline sizes and facility capacities to
make sure they are adequate.
Adequate 10 average day storage capacity exists for the Carlsbad Municipal
Water District based in the capacity of existing reservoirs that provide
approximately 237 MG of storage.
ANALYSIS
The Water Master Plan identifies facilities necessary for City build-out
conditions and requires an update. There have been several changes in the
City’s growth patterns due to the HMP and the HCP that impact growth
projections and densities in various areas of the City. These changes could
impact water demands and water fee revenues. Water connection fees will be
reviewed upon completion of the Water Master Plan update.
In addition, the recycle water model has recently been updated and the use of
seawater desalination is currently under consideration. These
issues/considerations will be incorporated into the update to the Water Master
Plan. Recycled water used for irrigation and the potential for seawater
desalination will offset the demands for potable water.
A minimum 10 average day storage capacity is not provided for the areas of the
City that are served by a water district other than CMWD. However, the
Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD) is constructing a new water
treatment plan at the San Diego County Water Authority Emergency Storage
Reservoir . Therefore, areas of Carlsbad served by OMWD will meet this
minimum storage capacity in the future.
Future 10 average day storage capacity at build-out will be met with the
implementation of the Phase I1 Recycle Water program.
104
ACTION PLAN
Update of the Water Master Plan scheduled for 2001-02 FY.
Incorporate recycle water model updated data into Water Master plan.
105
106
Leaminq Strateqic Goal
Strategic Goal
Promote and support continuous learning opportunities within the community
and city organization.
Summary
The Library continues to be a leader in the State (ranking fourth compared to
29 others) and it is anticipated that they will be in the Top 10 of the Nation
when the Hennen American Public Library Ratings become available.
Satisfaction with the Library collection at all three facilities (Cole, Dove, and
Centro) is at 82% of customers being able to get what they came for.
Recreation programs are designed to do much more than keep a child busy for
a few hours. The Recreation staff wants people who participate in youth and
adult sports to also learn "sportsmanship" and they have developed a pilot
program that they believe will improve sportsmanship throughout Recreation
activities. The program is called TRUST (Teaching Respect, Unity, and
Sportsmanship through Teamwork). Data will be available for reporting next
year after the program has been in place one year and results can be
measured.
Performance Measures and Growth Management Standards I I ACHIEVES I BENCHMARK 1 ADEOUATEDATA I ~
LEARNING
Library ranking
Teamwork/ sportsmanship
BENCHMARK NOT-AVAILABLE NOT ACHIEVED
J
J
107
Citywide Survey Highlights
The Citywide survey did not include any specific resident queries about the
City's education policy or school district matters.
Other Factors
The City organization is constantly providing learning opportunities through
offering a wide variety of training programs. Departments offer trainings
relevant to specific aspects of an employees duties (i.e. safe lifting), in addition,
City Wide trainings are provided which offer general training in more global
topics such as Customer Service.
Public Works is involved in a program of cross training employees within a
Major Service Area. This program offers a department an increased number of
employees who know a variety of jobs within the department thus providing
greater flexibility, and providing the employee an opportunity for further
professional development.
Within the community the City supports many opportunities for "Life Long
Learning". Last year, interested citizens volunteered to participate in the
Carlsbad Citizens' Academy. There were two sessions offered, each consisting
of seven weeks of classes. Seventy-five Carlsbad residents graduated from the
program and many have already enrolled in the upcoming academy with many
others on the waiting list.
108
Community Services
NATIOlyAL LIBRARYRANRING
THE OUTCOME
The Carlsbad City Library provides high quality and cost effective library
service.
THE MEASUREMENT
The Hennen American Public Library Ratings (HAPLR) rates 9,000 public
libraries in the United States representing cities in 10 different population
categories used by the Federal-State Cooperative System (under the U.S.
Department of Education). Ratings are based on 6 input and 9 output
measures, which are weighted and scored.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measurements used in this rating system are basic to all public libraries and,
when related to per capita levels of activity provides an accurate way to
compare the Carlsbad City Library to other top quality libraries across the
country. High index ratings are an indicator of excellence and establish
benchmarks for both internal and external comparisons.
DEPARTMENTS IITVOLVED
Library
BENCHMARK
The Carlsbad City Library will continue to be ranked among the top 10 public
libraries in the nation in cities of 50,000 to 99,999 population. Measurements
include expenditures per capita, FTE staff per 1,000 population, volumes per
capita, collection turnover, visits per capita, circulation per capita, and
reference questions per capita.
Due to recent National events HAPLR ratings will not be available until January
2002. As an interim benchmarking system this year, the Carlsbad City Library
will use data ranking California public libraries. The 2001 edition of
CALIFORNIA LIBRARY STATISTICS, covering data for fiscal year 1999-2000
has just been published and has many of the same per capita ratings that are
included in the HAPLR index. In the California study, Carlsbad is included in
the 60,000 to 100,000 population category, one of 30 public libraries in the
state in this group.
109
RESULTS
In the 2001 edition of CALIFORNIA LIBRARY STATISTICS, Carlsbad's library
system averaged a ranking of 4th in the State compared to 29 other libraries in
14 key input and output measurement categories.
ANALYSIS
The State report does not provide an overall ranking. It only ranks libraries in
each measurement category. In these 14 key rating categories, Carlsbad was
ranked 1st in two of them, 2nd in one, 3rd in one, 4" in four, 5" in three, and
6th in three, for an average overall ranking of 4". The three libraries ahead of
Carlsbad in most of these comparisons were Newport Beach, Palo Alto, and
Santa Monica. Measurements included such per capita categories as materials
expenditures, FTE, materials held, circulation, reference questions, and
attendance.
ACTION PLAN
The Library will continue to use the national ranking system provided by
Mennen's HALPR index and will continue to be ranked among the top 10
libraries in the nation. Since the most recent national survey data has not
been collected, this measurement will have to be delayed and will be submitted
as soon as it becomes available.
As an interim benchmarking system using comparisons with California
libraries, the Carlsbad City Library will at least maintain its overall position as
number 4 among the 30 libraries in the 60,000 to 100,000 population category.
Although most of the measurements used are not ones that can be easily
controlled, staff will continue to analyze collection use, patron suggestions, and
phasing in of new technologies to see if they lead to any improvements in the
library's performance.
"
Community Services
RECXEATZON PROGRAM SPORTS~NSHIP
THE OUTCOME
High level of customer satisfaction, program enrichment and safety through
sportsmanship. Sportsmanship is defined as: Respect, Unity, Safety,
Enrichment and Teamwork.
THE MEASUREMENT
This measure uses a multi-modal approach combining:
Survey results
Participant complaints
Incident reports
A survey of participants and parents on their perception of sportsmanship in
our programs. The survey rates their response to their past perception of
sportsmanship, their agreement with the implementation of the Sportsmanship
Philosophy, and experiences they have had involving sportsmanship in our
current programs.
We will analyze the number of phone calls, citizen contacts and staff incidents
and chart the increase or decrease since the inception of the "TRUST"
(Teaching Respect, Unity, and Sportsmanship through Teamwork) program.
We will analyze the number of ejections, suspensions, incident reports and
injuries related to poor sportsmanship and chart the increase or decrease since
the inception of the "TRUST" program.
Activities measured in Adult Sports will include Basketball, Softball and Soccer
Leagues, and Open Play Basketball. Youth Sports will focus on Basketball.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The survey measures the sense of sportsmanship our participants experience
in our programs.
The complaint portion reflects low-level customer satisfaction in our. programs
to which unsportsman-like conduct contributes.
The incident calculations measure the actual number of customers who are
directly affected by unsportsman-like conduct.
111
STATUS OF MEASURE
This is the first year of tracking sportsmanship as it relates to our programs.
We will be setting a baseline with the initial data collected.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Recreation
BENCHMARK
Since this measure is unique to the City of Carlsbad's Recreation Department
and we are the first to initiate a sportsmanship philosophy, the benchmark for
sportsmanship will be developed through our own surveys and calculations of
our current and future programs. We have set a mark of 90%, of all surveys
received, will rate Carlsbad Sportsmanship, program enrichment and customer
satisfaction as good or better (4 on a 1-5 scale). The data gathered will then be
combined with the information regarding a decrease/increase in incident
reports and participant complaints to provide an overall rating and analysis of
the success of the program.
RESULTS
The program results will be available in the Spring of 2002.
ANALYSIS
Available in Spring 2002, we will be analyzing "sportsmanship" behavior and
our efforts to positively affect it.
ACTION PLAN
Implementation of our "TRUST" program philosophy is to provide quality
activities that are safe, fair and enriching for all of our participants, spectators
and administrators. The process includes mandatory meetings and clinics for
all participants, parents, coaches, managers, officials and staff. Curriculum for
the meetings and clinics include information on the benefits of sportsmanship
and requires all to sign a "code of conduct" prior to participating in our
programs. The "Code of Conduct" outlines what is expected, what the
ramifications are, and what will, and will not be tolerated.
112
Qualim of Life/ Communi@ Development
Strateqic Goal
Strategic Goal
Develop a community that promotes quality neighborhoods, establishes
compatible entertainment and commercial venues, and manages growth by
providing an appropriate balance of facilities and services.
Summary
The quality of life in Carlsbad is still considered to be very high by residents.
The citizens’ confidence rating in the City’s ability to make decisions that
positively affect their life is 6.52 on a scale of 10. This is 0.5 points higher than
last year. City services are also rated high with 96% of the residents citing
those as either good or excellent. The City’s fine arts and recreation
programming which benefit large numbers of residents coupled with rigorous
attention to the Growth Management Plan as development occurs contribute
significantly to this rating. Although some citizens cite traffic and growth as
their greatest concern, citizens still feel safe walking in their neighborhoods
(9.56 on a scale of 10) and property values continue to increase indicating the
general public has a strong desire to live in Carlsbad.
Performance Measures and Growth Management Standards I ACHIEVES I BENCHMARK I ADEQUATE DATA I
QUALITY OF LIFE I BENCHMARK I NOT ACHIEVED I NOTAVAILABLE 1
J
Section 8 Housing
Art Opportunities
J
Museum Facilities Ranking
Library Growth Management J
J
Standard
School Growth Management
Standard
J
Management Goals
GOAL NAME
86 Growth Management Plan
82 Zoning - General Plan Consistency
GOAL NUMBER
113
Implement Commercial Study
Automatic External Defibrillator Program
71
118, 119 Cannon Art Gallery
83 Affordable Housing
78 Section 8 Homeownership Program
80 SCCRA Master Plan
79 North State Street Improvement Plan
1
Citywide Survey Highlights
The Citywide survey asked residents what they like most about living in
Carlsbad. Thirty-two percent (32%) named the proximity to the beach. The
weather, climate, location in general, and the community and people were most
frequently cited as things residents like best about living in Carlsbad. Their
chief concerns are growth (36%), traffic (31%) and over-development (18%).
Libraries, and their fine arts programming contribute substantially to the
quality of life in Carlsbad. 80% of the respondents reported using one of the
libraries at least once in the past year. On average, residents visited one of the
libraries 17 times last year. The facility ratings for the libraries were excellent,
9% and 92% respectively. the condition of parks and community centers in
Carlsbad. Residents reported that 73% of their households had at least one
member use a park in the last year. 26% said one member of their household
used a community center in the past year. Use of the community centers by at
least one household member is higher in the north quadrants than the south
quadrants (35% vs. 17%)
96% of the respondents said the condition of the parks and community centers
was either good or excellent. 91% of residents rated the condition of all city
facilities as either good or excellent.
In last year's survey, residents indicated a desire for more entertainment
venues in Carlsbad. This year's surveys queried as to what type on
entertainment venues were preferred. Concert, performing arts,
amphitheaters, and museum venues garnered strong responses (6 on a scale of
10). Movie theaters were noted as a less preferred entertainment venue (4 on a
scale of 10).
Other Factors
None cited.
114
Community Development
SECTION 8 HOUSIIW
THE OUTCOME
Maximize rental assistance opportunities for low-income residents of Carlsbad.
THE MEASUREMENT
The rating from the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development for the City’s Section 8 rental assistance housing program.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has
instituted a Section 8 Management Assessment Program. Using 15 adopted
indicators, HUD evaluates and certifies a local agency’s success of
administering individual federally funded housing programs. HUD’s ratings
include “High Performer,” “Standard Performer,” or “Troubled Performer.”
Repeated failure to secure a HUD rating of “Standard Performer“ or higher can
jeopardize a local agency’s continued federal funding for its Section 8 rental
assistance housing program.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Housing and Redevelopment
BENCHMARK
Achieve a HUD rating of Standard Performer or higher 100% of time.
RESULTS
The program results have been submitted to HUD and the City received a
preliminary ranking of High Performer. The grading result is still listed as
being in the Field Office for review and we have not been formally notified of the
City’s official ranking as of January 2002.
ANALYSIS
The ranking of High Performer is achieved by receiving a SEMAP score of at
least 90 percent and is the highest rating given by HUD. High performing
Housing Agencies may receive national recognition by HUD and may be given
competitive advantage for funding that becomes available.
ACTION PLAN
The City is waiting for final grading from HUD as of January 2002.
115
Community Services
ART OPPORTUlwTIEs
THE OUTCOME
Provide opportunities for exposure to art that meets the community's desires.
THE MEASUREMENT
This measure uses a multi-method approach combining:
Satisfaction surwys: A customer service survey was developed and
distributed to gallery visitors at various times during each exhibition and
concurrent events. Somewhat different surveys were developed for each
category of program or event concurrent to exhibitions (i.e. exhibitions,
classroom tours, docent training classes, lectures, readings and performances)
indicating the quality of programming, user enjoyment, educational
opportunities.
Number of attendees The number at various Arts Office programs including
the number of participants at the Cannon Art Gallery and the number of
attendees at the Jazz at the Park Series.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Data gathered is designed to reflect how well the exhibits and program address
the interests and desires of the community. The number of highly satisfied
customers is an indication that we are providing quality and educational
programming in a manner that is desired, and offering programs of diversity
and interest.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Arts Office
BENCHMARK
Achieve satisfaction levels equal to or exceeding five benchmark galleries run
by California cities of comparable size. They are Bedford Gallery in Walnut
Creek, CA, Fullerton Museum Center, Fullerton, CA; City of Brea Gallery; Brea,
CA; Riverside City Museum, Riverside, CA; and Oceanside Museum of Art,
Oceanside; CA. (Oceanside Museum is not run by the city of Oceanside but
programming and gallery size is very similar.)
116
RESULTS
Percent Responding with High Level of Satisfaction:
CARLSBAD 2001
The number of participants at various Arts Office sponsored programs were not
counted.
ANALYSIS
Comment cards indicate a high level of satisfaction from gallery visitors in
gallery programming, exhibitions, and events such as lectures, family days and
workshops that accompany exhibitions. 95% of respondents indicated a high
level of satisfaction.
Data has not yet been collected from benchmark cities for comparison
purposes.
ACTION PLAN
Continue to distribute and collect comment cards according to the City’s
Survey Guidelines Handbook. The number of participants at the various
programs still needs to be quantified. Benchmark data needs to be collected
from other cities and similar art venues.
117
Community Services
-
MUSEUMS FACILITIES RANKING
-
THE OUTCOME
The William D. Cannon Art Gallery provides high quality exhibitions.
THE MEASUREMENT
The American Association of Museum (AAM) Facilities Report is developed and
updated annually by Registrars across the United States. 4,000 museums
across the U.S. participate in the American Association of Museum facilities
rankings. Ratings are based on different categories such as variation in relative
humidity and temperature; light levels; and storage facilities, which measure
the level of safety for artwork in a facility.
~-
-
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measurements used in this system are basic to all galleries and museums and
provides an accurate means for organizations to loan works of art. High ratings
are an indicator of excellence and facilities that meet the AAM standards can
borrow artwork with high security levels.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Arts Office - William D. Cannon Art Gallery
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
90% of all loaning organizations will loan high security artworks to the William
D. Cannon Art Gallery.
RESULTS
In the 2001 year, 90% of organizations that were asked to loan artworks, using
the AAM facilities standards loaned high security artworks to the Cannon Art
Gallery. These organizations are: the Smithsonian Institution, Washington
D.C.; the Colorado Springs Fine Arts Center, Colorado, and Exhibits USA,
Kansas City, MO, the New Mexico Exhibition Traveling Organization Service,
the Timken Museum. The UCLA Fowler Museum would not loan a requested
collection because we could not provide adequate storage for artwork between
exhibitions.
ANALYSIS
The AAM Facilities Report does not measure comparisons with other museums
or institutions. Using the AAM's facilities standards, borrowing high security
artworks from a respected organization is the measure for excellence.
118
ACTION PLAN
The Gallery will continue to maintain its current level of security for artwork,
which includes monitoring light levels, maintaining stabilized temperature and
humidity levels in the gallery, overseeing packing of artwork, and the training
of staff. Staff will continue to work with Registrars at loaning institutions to
maintain the highest safety of borrowed artworks and artifacts. Staff will
explore alternative storage possibilities and new technology to see if they lead
to any improvements in the facility.
119
120
Community Services
GROWTH MAIIIAGEMENT - LJBRARIES
THE OUTCOME
Adequate facility space to house library services and resources that meet the
needs of the community.
THE MEASUREMENT
Square footage per capita.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Space (leased/owned, public/non-public) is a standard library measurement of
customer use and satisfaction and includes collection space, seating, meeting
rooms, staff areas, technology, and other public facility needs. A performance
standard for library facilities was adopted by the City Council in 1986 as part
of the Growth Management Program’s Citywide Facilities and Improvements
Plan. This standard was originally developed at that time based on surveys of
other libraries of comparable size and based on related standards (such as
volumes per capita) set by the American Library Association.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Library
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
The current standard is 0.8 square feet of library space per capita.
RESULTS
Based on the benchmark standard and assuming a September 30, 2001
estimated population of 79,840, the library, with 92,859 square feet of leased
and owned space, is currently 28,987 square feet in excess of the standard.
ANALYSIS
The city’s population would need to reach about 116,000 before it would trigger
the need for expanded library space. Growth to this population level is
projected to be at least 10 years away. Any additional space needed will likely
be included in a new or expanded Cole Library.
ACTION PLAN
Staff will continue to monitor population growth projections, trends in library
use, customer service issues, impacts of new technology, and how all of these
relate to space needed for resources and services.
121
Community Development
GROWTH lUANAGEI#ENT - SClYOOLS
THE OUTCOME
Assist in providing quality education for children living in the City.
THE MEASUREMENT
Ability of school districts to provide adequate facilities to house actual and
projected enrollments.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The Performance Measurement was developed with input from school districts
during preparation of the Growth Management Plan.
STATUS OF THE MEASURE
State law regulates much of what the City can do to make sure that the
performance measure is met. The City relies on data prepared and
disseminated by the school districts to identify status of the measure.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Planning and Building Departments.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
School capacity to meet projected enrollment with the local facilities
management zone as determined by the appropriate school district must be
provided prior to projected occupancy.
RESULTS
In order to comply with the performance measurement, the City requires
certification from school districts at the time of building permit issuance that
the developer has paid statutory school fees. In order to further comply with
standard, developers negotiate additional mitigation for impacts to school
capacity at the time of preparation of Local Facilities Management Zone Plans.
ANALYSIS
Most of what a city can do to mitigate impacts to local school capacity is pre-
empted by state law, there has been concerns expressed about the City’s ability
to comprehensively implement this performance measure. At this time,
however, the City has determined to retain the performance standard.
122
ACTION PLAN
Continue to require certification that state-regulated school fees are paid.
Continue to require private developers to negotiate mitigation for impacts to
school capacity as part of the preparation or amendment of Local Facilities
Management Zone Plans. Over the next five years, Carlsbad Unified School
District will be constructing a new elementary school and obtaining land for
two new elementary schools.
123
124
Top Qualitv Service Strateqic Goal
Strategic God
Become a city that provides exceptional services on a daily basis.
Summary
The benchmarks for this goal were achieved in 12 out of 22 measures where
there is adequate data. The quality service performance measurement category
includes measures from every MSA in the City. This year, new quality service
measures were added for library, arts, code enforcement, and parks and
recreation. Surveys were expanded for many measures and benchmarking
data was increased for several measures.
Highlights include an increase in the satisfaction with the service at the
Faraday Building front counter, an increase in citizens’ sense of safety, an
improvement in the confinement of fires, an average human resources
recruitment time less than the ICMA average, and an increase in fleet customer
satisfaction.
The results of the performance measures, combined with the positive results
from the public opinion survey where 96 percent of the respondents rated
Carlsbad services as either good or excellent, show a strong position for
Carlsbad with regard to quality service. The following measures also show
areas where the City can enhance the service it provides.
Performance Measures and Growth Management Standards
ACHIEVE8
NOT AVAILABLE NOT ACHIEVED BE3ICFiMARK
ADEQUATE DATA BENCFiMARK
TOP QUALITY SERVICE
Administrative Services
Purchasing customer service J
IT customer service
J IT network operability
J
Injured employees
J HR recruitment time
J HR customer service
J
125
Public Works
Solid waste customer service
Fleet reliability
J
J Facilities maintenance response
J Facilities customer service
J Fleet cost efficiency
J Fleet customer service
J
Facilities maintenance cost
Public Safety
J
J Fire cost efficiency
J Fire response time
J Fire customer service
J Fire confinement
~
1 Fire growth mgmt standard I 4 I
Police customer service
J Crime clearance rates
J
I Community perception of crime I J I I I
Police response time
Community Services
J
J Library customer service
Recreation customer service
Community Development
J Gallery program satisfaction
J
Com Dev customer service rating
Citywide
J Code Enforcement responsiveness
J
Citywide services rating
growth management standard
J City administrative facilities
J
Management Goal8
GOAL NAME
CEMAT EOP
GOAL NUMBER
3 EMS & Fire Quality Assurance Program
2
126
127
Library Automated System
124 Document Mgt System for CM and CC
122 Goal Development Process
114
Futuring Conference Follow-up
Maintenance Management System Quality
131
137
Citywide Survey Highlights
Most noteworthy is that the overall satisfaction level for city services is that
96% of Carlsbad residents rated those services as either good or excellent. Last
year’s overall rating was 92%. All city provided the majority of survey
respondents rated services as good or excellent. Library and fire protection
services rated the highest. Enforcement of traffk regulations and water services
were not often given an excellent rating although they were given good ratings.
Contracted Public Works services also rated excellent or good by the majority of
respondents and hazardous waste disposal garnered the lowest rating. 14%
rated this service as poor.
The community’s perception of general neighborhood safety was rated very
high- 9.56 on a scale of 10. It was noted by citizens in the survey that they
perceived that graffiti was cleaned up by the city in 92% of the times they
reported it to the city.
The library services were of interest this year. 80% of the respondents reported
using one of the libraries in the past year. The Dove Library is used more than
the Cole Library, and both are used substantially more than the Centro de
Information. Twenty-two percent (82%) of the respondents reported calling
Code Enforcement. Of those, 87% said their call was promptly returned.
Seventy-one percent (7 1%) stated their concern was addressed satisfactorily.
Other Factors
Other customer service efforts in the City include “Experience Carlsbad and
the City’s customer service steering committee that recently produced an
annual report.
”
128
Administrative Services
PURCHASIW SERVICE & SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer service
THE MEASUREMENT
Customer satisfaction survey
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure is an indication of response time, helpfulness and quality of
service.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Purchasing
BENCHMARK
90% of customers rate Purchasing as “Very Good” (4 on a 1-5 scale) or higher
in all customer service survey categories.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK I CARLSBAD
90% I 90%
ANALYSIS
The survey had approximately 50 respondents. The lowest response category
was with the office supply contract. While Corporate Express received a high
score (97%) in promptness in processing orders, they received the lowest (71%
and 63%) in accuracy in filling orders and prompt, accurate invoicing and
credit invoicing. Most of the other agencies using this vendor for office supplies
express the same concerns as we have. No other service rating was below 90%.
ACTION PLAN
Continue to monitor customer satisfaction. This year we expanded the number
of surveys sent out, however, the number of respondents decreased by 20. Next
time we will target the survey to all customers we work with on a regular basis
and make the survey more user-friendly. The office supply contract is out to
bid; once the contract is awarded the purchasing staff will work with the new
vendor to improve our customers satisfaction with the office supply process.
129
Administrative Services
INFORMATION TECHNOLQGY SERVICE & SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction and a high level of customer confidence in
Information Technology (IT) staffs skills, knowledge and abilities.
THE MEASUREMENT
Customer survey and data in the Help Desk software database.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The measure is an indication of customer satisfaction with the Information
Technology service levels provided to City staff. The measure is also an
indication of staff knowledge, efficiency and effectiveness.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Information Technology
BENCHMARK
Customer Satisfaction: 90% of customers rate Information Technology as "Very
Good" (4 on a 1-5 scale) or higher in all customer service survey categories.
Customer Confidence: 80% of all service requests will be resolved in one on-
site effort by IT staff.
RESULTS
Customer Satisfaction:
PERIOD RATING RATING RATING WBAD BENCHMARK
TIME COMBINED I.T. STAFF HELP DESK
5/1/00- 4.6 4.7 4.6 96% 90%
6/30/00
6/30/01 7/1/00- 4.8 4.9 4.8 97% 90%
Customer Confidence:
No data has yet been collected. This will be reported on next year.
ANALYSIS
The data reflects the period of July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001. It is
important to note that Information Technology is measuring not only our
customers' level of satisfaction with the Information Technology Department,
130
but also our customers' level of satisfaction with our outsourced help desk
vendor (PAI). The survey results showed PA1 had a rating of 4.8. The
Information Technology Department had a rating of 4.9 for a combined average
rating of 4.8.
Another way the survey information is being used is that we review them on a
weekly basis. If there is a low rating by someone, then we contact that
individual to find out what went wrong and try to resolve concerns so we can
improve our service.
ACTION PLAN
Continue monitoring the results of the survey on a weekly basis. Also,
continue follow up with customers who express some type of concern or
problem regarding our service.
An additional benchmark has been added to help measure our customer's
confidence in IT'S skills, knowledge and abilities. Data will be collected for this
benchmark beginning January 1,2002.
131
Administrative Services
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY NETWORK OPERABlUTY
THE OUTCOME
A functional, operating information technology network.
THE MEASUREMENT
Amount of time required to return users to operational status. Problems are
divided into two categories:
Priority 1
Server Down - affects whole site
Core System Down: Permits Plus, IFAS, Harris, Voice Mail, Sussex, etc.
City Wide Internet Access Down
User Down/locked out/no access
Telephones: remote site loses access - no voice and / or data
Priority 2
Printer issues - can't print and no alternate print source is available
Hardware failure - monitor / keyboard
Login Issues, i.e. forgotten passwords
Core System "How to" application question - important - deadline
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The measure is an indication of staffing levels, staff knowledge, and staff
initiative to ensure that calls get completed and resolved in both a timely and
effective manner.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Information Technology
BENCHMARK
1) 90% of all priority 1 service calls resolved in 45 minutes.
2) 90% of all priority 2 service calls resolved in 180 minutes.
RESULTS
TIME BENCHMARK
PERIOD CARLSBAD PRIORITY1
5/1/00- 8 1% 90% 6/3o/oo
7/1/00 - 9 5% 90% 85% 90%
6/30/01
r
132
ANALYSIS
Call volume for fiscal year 2000-01 by priority is as follows:
Priority 1 I 107
Priority2 I 676
A thorough analysis revealed that the information collected is not truly
reflective of the time it took to return users to operational status. Instead of
tracking the time elapsed from when the service call was opened until when the
service call was resolved, the data collected either showed the time it took for
the technician to fLu the problem, or the actual time to return users to
operational status was inflated because the technician did not close out the
service call until the end of the day.
ACTION PLAN
This measure is being modified for next year and IT’S internal processes for
capturing the information are being modified to provide accurate data. These
new processes will track the time from when the service call was initiated to
when the user was returned to operational status for Priority 1 calls. In
addition, the benchmark for Priority 1 calls is being increased from 45 minutes
to 60 minutes since this is more realistic based on an average travel time of 15
minutes to other city facilities. The Priority 1 definitions have also been
expanded to include critical failure of technology services regularly provided to
the public at city facilities (such as the library card catalog).
133
Administrative Services
EiVMA.NRESOURCES - IlwuRED EBPLQYEE OFF
THE OUTCOME
Minimization of the amount of time that industrially injured employees are off
work.
THE MEASUREMENT
Number of days between the date an employee is injured on the job and the
date that the employee returns to full or modified duty with the City.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Research shows that the greater the amount of time that an injured employee
remains off work, the less likely he/she will return as a productive member of
the workforce. By reducing the number of days that an employee is out of the
workplace, we can reduce workers’ compensation expenditures; better ensure
adequate staffing levels for City departments and enhance the connection
between the injured employee and the City.
This measure is used to analyze trends, identify high-risk work groups and as
a comparison of our efficiency to other agencies. This data is tracked and
posted at sites throughout the City per Cal OSHA requirements. This measure
is part of Human Resources Total Disability Management Program.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Human Resources, all City departments
BENCHMARK
An average of 4.5 days or less lost per claim. This benchmark is based on the
ICMA average for agencies with under 100,000 population, and will be reviewed
annually.
RESULTS
1 BENCHMARK 1 CARLSBAD 2000 1 CARLSBAD 2001
4.5 5.4 5.6
ANALYSIS
This measure is an indicator of the success of an agency’s disability
management program. The data shows that Carlsbad’s average number of
134
days lost per claim is 0.9 days more than the average for cities under 100,000
reporting to ICMA. Our average has improved by 0.2 days over last year
although the number of claims increased as follows:
Number of claims
CARLSBAD 2000 CARLSBAD 2001
Public Safety
Other
45 40
77 - 67 TOTAL
32 27
Based upon our analysis, public safety employees were responsible for 83% of
Carlsbad's lost working days and 58% of the total claims in this reporting
period. Last year public safety employees were responsible for 63% of the lost
working days and 60% of the claims.
ACTION PLAN
The Human Resources Department conducts an analysis of disability time
used by department to better identify any needs in this area in the City. The
Human Resources Department has developed an Integrated Disability
Management System to track occupational and non-occupational leave and
disability information. By establishing systems to accurately capture and track
occupational disability leave, we are better equipped to monitor lost days of
work, identify trends, and make recommendations to reduce the number of
days an employee is out of the workplace. We will continue to monitor this
data and implement programs to reduce the number of days an employee is out
of the workplace by promoting early return to work options.
135
Administrative Services
ENMAN RESOURCES SERVICE & SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
A high level of satisfaction with Human Resources services by the department's
internal customers.
THE MEASUREMENT
Customer service survey.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
An evaluation of Human Resources services and employee satisfaction.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Human Resources, All City employees
BENCHMARK
90% of customers rate their experience with the Human Resources Department
at least a 4 on a 5-point scale in all customer service categories. This is an
internal benchmark.
RESULTS
None.
ANALYSIS
NIA
ACTION PLAN
The Human Resources Department is working with the Social & Behavioral
Research Institute at California State University San Marcos to develop a new
customer satisfaction survey. The survey will be administered in January
2002.
.
136
Administrative Services
Hud6ANRESO~CESRECRUZT~~TII#E
THE OUTCOME
A timely recruitment process
THE MEASUREMENT
Cycle time in the recruitment process. Cycle time is defined as the number of
days from receipt of a department’s personnel requisition to the date that an
eligibility list is certified.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
By streamlining our systems and partnering with our customers to accomplish
tasks, we are able to respond more rapidly to customers’ requests for
recruitments and reduce the turnaround time to hire staff in a highly
competitive labor market. This is important because good candidates may find
other employment during a long process. In addition, departments are usually
using contingent help to backfill a vacancy, such as overtime, contractors or
temporary employees which is often more costly. Human Resources staff is also
able to handle more recruitments over the same time period, increasing staff
productivity.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Human Resources, hiring departments citywide
BENCHMARK
The average number of working days to complete a recruitment cycle time is 60
working days or less. This is an existing standard derived from the ICMA
performance measurement survey.
RESULTS
I BENCHMARK I ICMA AVERAGE 1 CARLSBAD I 60 days I 43.4 days 1 40.2 days 1 ~~~ ~ ~
ANALYSIS
These results were during a difficult recruitment market where the
unemployment rate was as low as 2.4% (Dec. 2000). The benchmark has been
modifed. Last year the benchmark was reported as “90% of all city
recruitments are completed within 60 days of receiving a department’s
personnel requisition.” We changed this to measure the average recruitment
137
time for ICMA benchmarking purposes.
ACTION PLAN
Human Resources implemented an applicant tracking system with a method to
capture recruitment cycle time data in December 2000. As we collect more
data we will be better equipped to analyze the data and make recommendations
for changes to recruitment processes based on an interpretation of the data.
138
Public Works
SOLID WASTE CUSTOMER SERVICE & SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction
THE MEASUREMENT
Results of citywide public opinion survey
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Indicates how well solid waste customers' needs and expectations are being
met.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations
BENCHMARK
90% of customers rate Solid Waste Services as "Good" (3 on a 1-4 scale) or
higher in all customer service survey categories.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK I 1999 200 1 2000
290% 85.8% 83.3% 8 1.5% 1
ANALYSIS
While solid waste services did not meet the benchmark standard review, they
ranked amongst the highest of all contracted services surveyed. The types of
complaints received are usually for missed pick up, both regular refuse and
yard waste. When this occurs, staff contacts Coast Waste and arranges for
collection, usually the following day.
ACTION PLAN
Staff will continue to closely monitor customer satisfaction with solid waste
services. All results are communicated to the City's solid waste handler, and
all complaints are logged.
139
Public Works
FLEET RELlABLLITY
THE OUTCOME
Fleet vehicle reliability and availability
THE MEASUREMENT
scheduled.
Percent of preventive maintenance work orders completed when
Percent of units on the road.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
These measures will indicate the maintenance and repair proficiency by
identifying the availability of City vehicles, and the quality of the City's
preventive maintenance program by the reliability of City vehicles. Preventive
maintenance is routine maintenance (i.e. oil change, coolant flush, tire
rotation, etc.) that will reduce equipment failures and/or major repairs.
A computerized fleet maintenance management system has been procured and
installed into the City's network. Most of the data has been loaded into the
system; however, difficulties with the system compatibility with the City's
Gasboy System (fuel station) caused the delay of the new system's
implementation. Training is scheduled for December 2001 with the system
expected to be implemented January 2002.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
Fleet Maintenance and Information Technology
BENCHMARK
90% of scheduled preventive maintenance work orders are completed
within 48 hours from the time the vehicle is delivered to the shop.
90% of fleet units are available to meet City needs at any given time.
RESULTS
Work Orders Completion
BENCHMARK I 2000 I 2001
90% I 84% I 75.6%
Units on the Road
Due to software limitations, data will not be reported in FYO 1.
140
ANALYSIS
Percent of Preventive Maintenance Work Orders Completed When Scheduled:
During the months of March, April and May, work orders were not closed
correctly into the system. When these three months are not included in the
calculation of completed work orders, Fleet is achieving a 90% completion rate.
Last year, the reason staff did not achieve its objective was due to the discovery
of unexpected repairs when vehicles were undergoing preventive maintenance.
These repairs required staff to send the vehicles to various outside vendors.
Repairs that are typically sent to outside vendors include, but not limited to
front end and suspension steering repairs, engine overhauls, auto transmission
overhauls, auto body and paint, etc. These repairs are called “heavy line”
repairs and typically they take longer than 48 hours to complete.
Another Action Plan of last year was to revise Administrative Order No. 3 that
requires staff to bring in their vehicles on time when scheduled for preventive
maintenance. Revising Administrative Order No. 3 may reduce unannounced
visits and decrease the downtime of vehicles being serviced.
Percent of Units on the Road: A computerized maintenance management system
has been installed. Staff is currently collecting inventory data and establishing
work orders for the division. It is anticipated that data will be available by the
end of FY02 to analyze the achievements of this measure and develop an action
plan.
ACTION PLAN
Percent of Preventive Maintenance Work Orders Completed When Scheduled:
Train everyone at Fleet on how to properly close completed work orders so that
staff can have an accurate account of the number of work orders completed
within 48 hours.
Percent of Units on the Road: Implement and refine use of the new software.
141
Public Works
FLEET CUSTOMER SERVICE AND SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction
THE MEASUREMENT
City of Carlsbad Internal Customer Service Survey
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure is an indication of how well fleet operations are maintained. In
an effort to standardize all customer service surveys in the City, the
methodologies and formatting rules of the City’s Guidebook for measuring
customer services was incorporated into this years’ instrument. Surveys are
distributed annually to City employees to evaluate fleet’s performance.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
Fleet Maintenance
BENCHMARK
90% of internal surveys returned indicate the overall quality of service by Fleet
Maintenance at “Good” to “Excellent” in all survey categories.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK I CARLSBAD 2000 I CARLSBAD 2001*
90% 100% 7 1%
*Revised survey instrument
Distributed Surveys
Returned Surveys
Return Ratio
- 2000 2001
75 102
26 24
35% 1 24%
YO “Good” to “Excellent” 2ooo 200 1
Timeliness of service 62 100 Courtesy of staff 85 96
Competence of staff 73 100
Monthly Vehicle Cost Reports 92 87
Completeness of service N/A 91
Helpfulness of staff N/A 100
-
142
Listed below are the results of additional survey questions.
Are you satisfied with the quality of replacement units?
Yes 67%
No 4%
N/A 29%
Are you satisfied with the procedures you must follow to obtain services from
Fleet Maintenance?
Yes 100%
ANALYSIS
The Fleet Maintenance Division is achieving its benchmark in every category
except for Monthly Vehicle Cost Reports. The Monthly Vehicle Cost Reports
summarizes the costs each department accrues during the month.
The primary reason for the improvement in customer satisfaction is due to the
technology available to staff. It appears that staff is responding better when
they receive an e-mail from Fleet regarding scheduled Preventive Maintenance
(PM) services for their vehicles. In addition, the PM schedule is available on the
Intranet. Another reason for the improvement is the availability of loaner
vehicles at the fleet facility. Two vehicles scheduled for auctioning were
retained in the fleet for staff to use as uloanersn when their vehicles were in for
preventive maintenance services.
ACTION PLAN
Staff will research alternatives for conducting surveys to ensure consistent
feedback from Fleet customers.
143
Public Works
FLEET COST EFFICIENCY
THE OUTCOME
Fleet maintenance cost efficiency.
THE MEASUREMENT
Actual time vs. flat rate (industry standard)
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The Industry Flat Rate manual describes the length of time to complete a
maintenance/repair job on a vehicle (i.e. one hour to replace a water hose). By
documenting staffs actual time to do the same work, this measure can indicate
staffs efficiency to perform maintenance/repair work on City vehicles.
A computerized maintenance management system has been procured and data
is being loaded into the system. When complete, the system will compute
staffs actual time versus the flat rate. Implementation is expected in January
2002.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
Fleet Maintenance and Information Technology
BENCHMARK
90% of maintenance and/or repair work performed by fleet operations is
completed in less time than the flat rate for industry standards.
RESULTS
Due to software limitations, data will not be reported in fiscal year 2000-0 I
ANALYSIS
A new computerized maintenance management system has been purchased
and data collection is complete. Most of the data has been loaded into the
system; however, difficulties with the system being compatible to the City's
Gasboy System (fuel station) caused the delay of the new system going live.
Training 'on the new system is scheduled to begin in December 2001. It is
anticipated that this software will be operating by January 2002.
ACTION PLAN
Since there is no data to analyze, an action plan has not been identified.
144
Public Works
FACILITIES CUSTOMER SERVICE AND SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction
THE MEASUREMENT
City of Carlsbad Internal Customer Service Survey
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure is an indication of how well facilities are maintained. In an effort
to standardize all customer service surveys in the City, the methodologies and
formatting rules of the City’s Guidebook for measuring customer services was
incorporated into this years’ instrument. Surveys are distributed annually to
City employees to evaluate facilities performance.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
Facilities Maintenance
BENCHMARK
90% of internal surveys returned indicate the overall quality of service by
Facilities Maintenance at “Good” to “Excellent” in all survey categories.
*Revised survey instrument
- 2000 2001 Distributed Surveys 127 450
Returned Surveys 75 72
Return Ratio 59% 16%
YO at “Good” to %xcellent” - 2000 2001 Timeliness of service 56 67
Courtesy of staff 78 100
Competence of staff 65 93
Completeness of service N/A 81
Helpfulness of staff NIA 88
Listed below are the results of additional survey questions:
-
145
Is your building/office a safe and comfortable place to conduct City business
and provide services to the Community?
Yes 82%
NO 17%
N/A 1%
Does the new procedure to submit work orders improve the way we do
business?
Yes 38%
No 10%
N/A 53%
ANALYSIS
Availability: The department hired two additional building maintenance
workers to improve the availability of staff and reduce the average square
footage maintained per staff (see below). In addition, the Facilities Division
implemented an intern program for custodians who want to build a new career
path in building maintenance.
Average Sq. Ft. per Maintenance Worker 2ooo 2001
Carlsbad 161,000 Poway 125,000
Poway 125,000 Chula Vista 89,375
Chula Vista 89,375 Carlsbad 84,100
Escondido 78,700 Escondido 78,700
El Cajon 50,000 El Cajon 50,000
Temperature: The computer energy management system at Faraday is
controlling the thermostat at these two buildings. However, the offices at these
facilities are still experiencing a fluctuation in temperature. In addition, the
maintenance contract to provide routine preventive maintenance on the City’s
HVAC systems was not executed because of higher than expected cost
estimates and unresponsive bids.
Cleaning: The City hired a roaming custodian for Faraday and Dove. The new
custodian is responsible for setting up and tearing down meeting rooms,
delivering supplies and assisting other custodians with regular duties. In
addition, part-time custodians were hired to work the weekends at Dove and
Cole Libraries. 82% of survey respondents indicated their building/office is a
safe and comfortable place to conduct City business and provide services to the
Community.
-
146
Ease of Doing Business: Facilities Maintenance implemented a Computerized
Maintenance Management System (CMMS). The new system expedites the
request process by creating a web interface link to the CMMS, which clients
can use to submit requests. This procedure expedites the request entry
process and eliminates clerical time to enter the requests manually. 38% of
respondents indicated the new system improves the way Facilities Maintenance
is doing business (compared to 10% who said no).
ACTION PLAN
Availability: A more thorough evaluation of service standards and workload
needs to be completed to evaluate staffing levels.
Temperature: Facilities Maintenance has been sending its staff to vocational
school for training on HVAC maintenance procedures. The City will begin
maintaining the systems in-house. Hiring additional building maintenance
workers will also improve response times to address uncomfortable climate
control settings at City offices.
Cleaning: No further action is required. Current plan is achieving its goal.
Ease of Doing Business: During the past few months, Facilities Maintenance
has been conducting slide presentations to staff about the new CMMS. The
presentation includes information about operations, work order submittal
procedures, the software used in the CMMS, reports, etc. Already, Facilities
Maintenance has given presentations to the Dove Library staff, the Leadership
Team and at the quarterly management meeting. Staff will continue to conduct
these presentations to all City departments to ensure staff city-wide is made
aware of the new system and procedures that go along with the CMMS.
Survey Methodology: Staff .will research alternatives for conducting surveys
and implement new methodology to ensure ongoing feedback from Facilities
customers. This will provide the Division with the ability to monitor their
service levels and to address issues as they arise instead of solely on an annual
basis.
147
Public Works
THE OUTCOME
Well maintained and safe City facilities.
THE MEASUREMENT
Average time to complete priority 1 and priority 2 work orders.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Priority 1 work orders are emergency repairs to eliminate hazards, unsanitary
conditions and reduce liabilities. Priority 2 work orders are repairs and
alterations so the City can conduct its business and provide services to the
community. This measure is an indication of response time and an evaluation
that current staff level is effective to achieve objectives.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
Facilities Maintenance and Information Technology
BENCHMARK
90% of Priority 1 work orders completed within 24 hours.
90% of Priority 2 work orders completed within 72 hours
RESULTS
1 BENCHMARK I PRIORITY 1 I PRIORITY2 1
With the assistance from the Information Technology Department, Facilities
Maintenance implemented a Computerized Maintenance Management System
(CMMS) that can compute the average time to complete work orders.
ANALYSIS
Priority 1 (Emergency) 43 100%
Priority 2 (High) 38 97%
70% of the work orders received are considered either emergencies or high
priority. The remaining 30% of work orders are labeled Priority 3 (medium) and
Priority 4 (low) work orders. A sample Priority 3 work order would be hanging
pictures on the wall, moving surplus that does not impede travel, replacing the
Total YO Completed
".
148
doorstop in the kitchen, etc. Typically, the response time for a priority 3 work
order is one to two weeks. A Priority 4 work order is a request for scheduled
activities that does not impede staff‘s ability to effectively perform his/her
duties. A sample Priority 4 work order would be painting an office a different
color, changing furniture styles, etc. Typically, the response time for a Priority
4 work order is two to three weeks.
ACTION PLAN
Evaluate benchmarks for priorities 3 and 4 work orders to assist in service
level evaluation and incorporate the information into the performance measure.
149
Public Works
FACLLITIES BUIIPTEhL4NC.E COST
THE OUTCOME
Facility cost efficiency
THE MEASUREMENT
Maintenance cost per square foot. In the 2001 State of Effectiveness Report
the budget appropriation was used to calculate this measurement. It has been
revised to use the actual expenditures, which more accurately represents the
total cost of maintaining facilities.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure can demonstrate fiscally responsible use of funds allocated to
facilities maintenance, and show how resources are being used to achieve its
objectives.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
Facilities Maintenance
BENCHMARK
The department is in the process of developing new benchmarking
partnerships with other high performing agencies. Once new measures are
established and data is collected, the benchmark will be established.
RESULTS
CARLSBAD
$2.73 $2.5 1 Cost per Square Foot
504,638 483,000 Square Feet (Total)
$1,375,899 $1,2 13,385 Actual Expenditures (Total)
FY 2001 FY 2000
ANALYSIS
The results mentioned above are for building maintenance expenditures only (it
does not include custodial expenses). Building maintenance expenditures
include routine preventative maintenance, equipment maintenance, outside
services, building maintenance supplies, etc. The total cost, excluding
custodial, to maintain 504,638 square feet of building space is $1,212,330.
The type of space used to calculate the total square footage includes but not
limited to office, storage, special rooms (i.e. jail cell, crime lab, etc.), kitchens,
-.
150
"
lounges, and recreation rooms.
Maintenance costs per square foot increase by 22 cents or 8.7% from FY 2000
to FY 2001. However, once these figures are adjusted for inflation (5.6% as
reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for San Diego County) the increase
is 3.0%.
The increase is a result of two factors:
1. The hiring of two additional building maintenance workers. The
additional full time staff has increased Facilities budget by 15% from
the prior year. In addition, part-time, temporary and overtime costs
increased to accommodate the weekend hours at the libraries and the
building maintenance intern program.
2. The demand for maintaining city facilities along with additional
building space has caused building maintenance expenditures to
increase. Specifically, miscellaneous outside services (+25%), building
maintenance (+31%) and routine building maintenance (+13%) has
increased from the previous year. The additional building space
includes the Madison House and various block houses (restrooms,
storage facilities) that were not included in the original building space
inventory.
ACTION PLAN
The Public Works MSA has identified several high performing agencies that
have agreed to work with the Department to establish comparable measures.
The results will provide staff with the ability to analyze the benchmark data
and to possibly identify opportunities to change business practices, which may
improve the performance of the division.
151
Public Safety
FIRE CONFIhVWEm
THE OUTCOME
Minimization of property damage due to fire.
THE MEASUREMENT
Percentage of all structure fire incidents where flame propagation is confined to
room of origin.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Once fire flashover occurs damage to the structure increases exponentially.
This measure is an indication of response time, personnel readiness and
training, equipment reliability and resource coordination.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Fire
BENCHMARK
90% of all structure fires (not including those out on arrival) will be confined to
room of origin.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK I CARLSBAD 99-00 I CARLSBAD 00-01
9 0% 63% (5 out of 8) I 77% (10 out of 13)
ANALYSIS
Although Carlsbad's figures continue to be below the 90% benchmark, the
results are slightly better than the 67% median found in the ICMA reported
data for 98-99 and 99-00. In the future, the benchmark may need to be
revised given the relatively small number of fires that occur in our city and
considering none of the participating ICMA fire agencies have achieved the 90%
benchmark.
By examining each of the three structure fires that progressed beyond the room
of origin we find that these fires were most likely not reported in their incipient
stages thus decreasing our ability to contain them to the room of origin. It is
likely that these fires were beyond the room of origin prior to the arrival of fire
department resources.
152
FY 00-01 Structure Fire Incidents
Confined to room of origin
Incident 01-2959 single family home, fire contained to garage
Incident 01-2378 converted garage, fire contained to garage and an
unconscious male was rescued
Incident 0 1-1671 single family home, fire contained to dining room
Incident 01-1283 single family home, fire contained to outdoor BBQ island
Incident 0 1-968 industrial building, fire contained to duct system
Incident 01-724 resort hotel, fire contained to cleaning machine in service
Incident 00-5567 multi-family home, fire contained to chimney box
Incident 00-5426 single family home, fire contained to oven broiler
Incident 00-5358 single family home, fire contained to roof
Incident 00-4264 single family home, fire contained to garage
Confined to structure of origin
Incident 0 1-9 1 multi-family home, fire in kitchen and living room area
Incident 00-4340 single family home, room fire extended to exterior and roof of
corridor
home
Beyond structure of origin
Incident 01-2921 single family home, wood frame home under construction,
fully involved upon arrival
ACTION PLAN
The Fire Department continues to work on several initiatives that will
potentially have an impact on how effective we are at confining fires to the
room of origin.
Performance Standards
The fire department is working with the other North County fire agencies in
implementing performance standards and training evolutions for routine fire-
ground operations. These North County standards will help ensure that our
employees and engine companies are maintaining an established readiness
standard that ensures safe and responsive action at emergency incidents.
Training Officer
Due to the recent filling of the vacant training officer position we will be able to
coordinate training more consistently across shifts with a greater emphasis on
maintaining skills that contribute to the performance of the company as a
whole. In addition, a dedicated training officer will increase our ability to
observe emergency operations from a training perspective and develop new
training programs or emphasis based on post incident analysis of incidents.
153
Communication
The fire department continues to explore ways to improve communications
from both technological and procedural perspectives. As part of this process,
we are examining ways to optimize our current dispatching function and
evaluating the benefits of joining a regional dispatching JPA.
Response Time
Two factors that contribute greatly to fire containment are the reporting of fire
in the insipient stages and an immediate response once the fire has been
reported. The department is continuing to work on several initiatives that
have to do with response time as discussed in our performance measurement
for response time.
154
Public Safety
FIRE CUSTolldER SERVZCE AND SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction.
THE MEASUREMENT
A survey is mailed to a representative random sample of customers each month
after EMS services have been rendered. In fiscal year 00-01, 752 surveys were
mailed with 410 being returned, for a return rate of 54.5%.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Highly satisfied customers are an indication that we are providing services in a
manner that is desired and/or expected, contributing to greater confidence in
the fire department and local government in general, resulting in high quality
of life for community members.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Fire
BENCHMARK
95% Of customers rate all EMS services as 'Good" (4 on a 1-5 scale) or higher
in all customer service survey categories, utilizing a rating scale of
l=Unacceptable, 2=Poor, 3=Satisfactory, 4=GOOd, and 5=Excellent.
RESULTS
Competence
97.2% Transportation
98.9% Courtesy
98.5%
155
The results for FY 00-01 show a slight improvement over the previous year's
survey results, as depicted in the chart below.
Percent of respondents rating services as: 4 (Good) or 5 (Excellent)
Survey 91 1 Response
95.6% 97.4% 97.1% 97.6% 97.9% FY 99-00
97.2% 98.9% 98.5% 97.9% 98.8% FY OO-O 1
Of patient Paramedics of Paramedics time to scene Dispatch Question
Transport Courtesy of Competence
ANALYSIS
The survey results continue to validate that our dispatchers and paramedics
are providing excellent customer service. In FY OO-O 1, as in previous years, the
vast majority of comments reflected a sincere appreciation for our assistance.
Areas for possible improvement that were mentioned by more than one
respondent included the "bumpy ride" of our ambulances, the cost of the
ambulance service, and keeping patients warm during transport. The fire
department's chief officers reviewed these issues with the resulting
recommendations being forwarded to our EMS committee for further review
and implementation.
ACTION PLAN
1. Bumpy Ride of Ambulance - This issue was also raised in last year's
survey. Although not the determining factor in the selection process, the
department's medic unit selection committee was made aware of this
issue and took it into consideration when reviewing the specifications for
the three new medic units that have been ordered and will soon be
placed into service. These new units may provide some relief to patients
regarding the "bumpy ride" of our current ambulances. In addition, the
EMS committee will look at other ways to reduce the impact of "bumps"
in the road by reviewing gurney options that would help cushion the ride.
2. Keeping patients warm - All emergency services personnel have been
reminded of the need to keep patients warm, especially the elderly.
Personnel were reminded that older patients get cold easily and just
because we are comfortable with the temperature does not necessarily
mean that our patients are comfortable.
3. Cost of Transportation Services - The transportation and related fees
charged by the city of Carlsbad, which were last adjusted to the county
average in April of 2000, do not fully reimburse the city for the actual
cost of providing the service. However, the EMS committee will review
the merits of developing a form to hand to patients that explains the cost
of transportation services and other pertinent information. Patients have
"
156
a right to know this information, but it is currently only provided verbally
when a patient makes a specific request.
Other action items include continuing to use the department's newsletter to
recognize customer service successes and promote high customer service
standards. In addition, the department will continue to distribute survey data
results and verbatim comments to all fire and dispatch personnel. The review
of these results and comments serves to strengthen our personnel's
commitment to providing exceptional customer service on a daily basis.
157
Public Safety
FIRE OPERATING COST EFFICIEhCY
THE OUTCOME
Efficient use and recovery of general fund resources.
THE MEASUREMENT
Net operating cost per capita for Fire and EMS.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The efficient use of our financial resources allows the City to provide a higher
level of service, more public services, or a reduced cost of services to the
taxpayer.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Fire
BENCHMARK
The net cost per capita should not exceed $100 (using 99-00 as the base year
and adjusting for inflation). The consumer price index, as reported by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics for San Diego County for the 00-01 fiscal year was
5.6%. Applying this to the base year figure of $100 results in a benchmark of
$105.60 for fiscal year 00-0 1.
RESULTS
Carlsbad population as of January 1, 2001 =’ 77,545 per the California
Department of Finance (as adjusted per the year 2000 census figures).
Actual Expenditures for FY 2000-01 = 9,557,038
Actual Revenues for FY 2000-01 = 1.705.287
Net cost = 7,851,751
Net cost 7,851,751 / Population 77,545 = $101.25 per capita spent in FY 00-
01 to provide Fire and EMS related services.
158
ANALYSIS
Although the cost per capita is less than the benchmark standard, it is still
12.5% greater than the previous year. Some of this increase is attributable to a
7.2% reduction in the city's population (83,468 to 77,545) due to the results of
the year 2000 census data. This combined with an inflation factor of 5.6%
results in a potential increase of approximately 12.8%. Although these are not
the only factors influencing our cost per capita, they are significant when
comparing figures from year to year.
In general, it is anticipated that as the population of the city of Carlsbad
increases our cost per capita will decrease. This is because our fire
department's overhead costs, of which more than 80% are personnel costs, will
most likely not increase as rapidly as our population, if our current
complement of stations and personnel are able to continue to provide a high
level of service. By continuing to track our performance levels in regards to
response time, customer satisfaction, and confining fires to the room of origin
we should be able to determine when and if additional resources will need to be
implemented to maintain our standard of service.
ACTION PLAN
During the next year the fire department will continue to develop contacts with
San Diego County fire agencies and other "high performing" agencies
throughout the state to collect performance measurement information,
including data on expenditures and revenues. This will help us compare
results and improve communication channels with other departments to share
ideas and programs that will hopefully lead to greater operating effectiveness
and efficiencies. In addition, we will examine the benefits of measuring
expenditures and revenue separately, as not all agencies provide EMS services
which account for the majority of the revenue to fire departments.
The fire department is also in the process of developing a 10-year financial plan
in order to plan for and manage resources in a more proactive manner. This
financial plan will help us to better manage our budget and meet the financial
planning requirements placed on departments by the city's new Block
Budgeting program.
Finally, the department has drafted a master plan that identifies processes and
projects that need to be reviewed, revised, or implemented over the next five
years. By anticipating these changes, financial considerations can be clearly
identified and carefully considered as part of the decision making process.
159
"
Public Safety
FIREREspoNsE~
THE OUTCOME
Maximization of positive outcomes in a medical, fire, or rescue emergency.
THE MEASUREMENT
Percentage of priority one calls responded to with a travel time of five minutes
or less.
WHAT THE DATA MMS
In an emergency threatening life, property, or the environment, one of the most
critical factors in achieving a positive outcome is providing emergency services
as quickly as possible.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Fire
BENCHMARK
Travel time on priority 1 calls will be 5 minutes or less 90% of the time.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD 2001
*Note: This figure represents data from July through November of 2001.
Beginning in July 2001 the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system was
modified to separate the reporting of turnout time from travel time, permitting
a more accurate reporting of travel time.
ANALYSIS
Although there is no widely accepted industry standard for travel time the city's
growth management plan requires "no more than 1,500 dwelling units outside
of a five minute response time," and the Fire Department's Operational
Directive #5 states, "The department's response goal is to provide an engine
company response within five minutes and an ambulance response within ten
minutes to 90 percent of the priority one emergency calls in the city." As
explained in the attached Growth Management section of this report, the term
"response time" can more accurately be described as "travel time" in the
context of these two measurements.
160 "
With a recent modification of the city's CAD system, the department is now
able to accurately report travel time. In the past, the department has relied on
reporting an average travel time of 5 minutes or less, which is less stringent
than the 90 percent standard. By way of example, our average travel time to
priority one calls in calendar year 2000 was 4.72 minutes (meeting the 5
minute standard) while the percentage of priority one calls with a travel time of
5 minutes or less was 79% (not meeting the 90% standard).
ACTION PLAN
The Fire Department's Response Time Task Force continues to work on the
following initiatives:
Establish benchmarks for call-taking, dispatch, and turn-out.
Develop action plans for performance improvement.
Implement a consistent and informative reporting process of response
times to assist chief officers and captains in the management of
resources and performance.
Continue to develop reporting relationships with other San Diego County
fire agencies in addition to other high performing agencies with
characteristics similar to Carlsbad.
In addition, the Fire and Police Departments continue to work on replacing the
existing 10-plus-year-old CAD system. As part of this process, the fire
department is also looking at the potential costs and benefits of joining the
North County Dispatch JPA.
The department will also be conducting further analysis of our response time
data to look for identifiable trends or causes of greater than benchmark
response times. Finally, contingent upon projected growth in the city, Fire
Stations 6 and 3 will have to be relocated and the department will need to
consider the addition of a third ambulance.
161
Public Safety
GROWTH d6AntQGEMENT - FIRE STATIONS
THE OUTCOME
Emergency response resources are distributed throughout the City in a manner
that ensures effective and efficient delivery of top quality services to the
community.
THE MEASUREMENT
The number of dwelling units outside a five minute response time from the
nearest fire station.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
It was the intent of the City’s GMP to ensure adequate fire department services
were maintained as residential development progressed toward “build-out” of
the city. The GMP standard recognized a five minute “travel time” from a fire
station to the emergency scene as a reasonable means of locating fire station
facilities throughout the community.
Scientific fire behavior information and recognized best practices supported the
position that a response time of five minutes would result in effective fire
incident intervention. To determine the most desirable geographic sites for
future fire stations, it was necessary to convert the five minute response time
to a measurable distance that could be applied to a future road network
scheme. This distance, or “reach” attainable by emergency responders in a five
minute travel time was calculated to be 2.5 miles at an estimated average
speed of 30 mile per hour. The reach of each existing and potential future fire
station locations was then plotted on the planned road network maps of that
time. This process enabled the Fire Department to predict the need for six fire
stations at build out, each providing service to several Local Facility
Management Zones (LFMZ).
Once the number of fire station sites was determined, the timing of future fire
station installation became the question. The threshold of 1500 units was
adopted as the maximum number of dwellings that could exist outside a five-
minute response time or 2.5 road mile distance of the nearest fire station.
Hence, development within a fire station response area that would cause the
1500 unit threshold to be exceeded cannot not occur until fire station facilities
are relocated or added to relieve the shortfall.
162
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
The Fire Department monitors this performance measure using data provided
by the Geographic Information System and Planning Departments regarding
growth in each LFMZ.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
No more than 1,500 dwelling units outside of a five minute response time.
RESULTS
As of this year, none of the six fire station response areas have experienced
growth to the extent that the 1500 unit threshold has been exceeded. All
future fire station sites have been located or acquired, with four of the six
stations constructed at their permanent location. Fire Station 3 (3701 Catalina
Drive) and Station 6 (a temporary facility at 3131 Levante Street) will be
relocated as development occurs in their response area. Fire Station 3 will be
relocated farther east on Glasgow Road to coincide with development in the NE
section of the city. Fire Station 6 will be relocated farther north onto Rancho
Santa Fe Road to coincide with its realignment and subsequent housing
development.
ANALYSIS
Because the GMP provides no other "trigger" mechanism for the installation of
additional fire stations, it follows that up to 1500 dwelling units could exist
outside the five minute reach of the closest fire station for an indeterminate
length of time without violating the GMP performance measure. Multiplying
the threshold amount by six (the number of fire response areas), 9,000
dwellings could theoretically lie outside the five minute limit. While this would
most certainly be unacceptable, it demonstrates the fact that the five minute
response time measure was selected exclusively as a means of logically
positioning resources throughout the City. Therefore, the standard should be
applied as a means of measuring compliance with locating fire facilities in
accordance with the GMP, not the performance of the Fire Department in
meeting service responsibilities.
ACTION PLAN
The Fire Department will continue to monitor for compliance with this
standard as housing development projects we proposed in the city. The
development of a permanent Fire Station 6 is proceeding to coincide with the
completion of the Rancho Santa Fe realignment.
For the purposes of measuring adherence to the fire performance standard, the
term "travel time" should replace "response time". At the time of the
development of the GMP, response time was intended to be the time required to
drive from the fire station to the scene of the emergency. The term "response
time" is generally viewed as including a measurement of several related actions
163
and activities, namely emergency reporting (91 I), notification of fire units by
emergency dispatchers, donning of protective equipment by personnel (turn-
out time), and travel time. This change will more accurately reflect the intent
of the GMP. Therefore, it is recommended that the Fire Performance Measure
of the GMP be clarified as follows:
Current measure:
“No more than 1500 units outside of a five minute response time.”
Revised measure recommended:
“No more than 1500 dwelling units may exist beyond a five minute travel
time from the nearest fire station facility.”
164
Public Safety
POLICE CUSTOMER SERVICE & SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction.
THE MEASUREMENT
This measure uses a multi-method approach combining:
Survey results
Personnel complaints
The surwy portion takes the results from the section of the police
department's customer survey that relates to satisfaction with various police
services. The survey questions ask respondents to rate dispatch, patrol,
detectives, records, and administration. This customer satisfaction measure
has been in place for approximately 12 years.
The complaints portion of the measure is the number of sustained formal
complaints made by citizens about police employees per 10,000 calls for
service. After investigation complaints are classified as sustained, non-
sustained, exonerated, or unfounded. A sustained complaint is one that
involves a citizen complaint of an incorrect action on the part of a police
employee that is upheld as an incorrect action. Using a ratio takes into account
increasing contacts as the population and size of the workforce increase. The
number of complaints by category has been measured for many years.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The surwy portion of the measure reflects customer satisfaction among those
who have had a direct interaction with us through the filing of a crime report.
Over time, this measure can help us ident& areas of strength and weakness,
as well as identify areas where changes in service level are occurring.
The complaints portion of the measure can be a reflection of the quality of the
police employees and the level of customer service. Both a department
directive (2.6) and a legal requirement (P.C. 832.5) define when a formal
complaint is taken.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Police
165
-
BENCHMARK
Since this measure is unique to Carlsbad, the benchmark for the customer -
surwy portion of the measure is set at 4.5 - the highest average rating on
record. The benchmark for the citizen complaints portion of the measure is
zero - the lowest number on record. -
RESULTS -
CITIZEN SURVEY CITIZEN COMPLAINTS
BENCHMARK I CARLSBAD 2001*
4.5 4.5
BENCHMARK I CARLSBAD 2001
0.15 0
AVERAGE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RATINGS
Administrative I 4.4 I 4.1 I 4.3 I 4.6 I 4.5 1 4.5 I
* Based on January - September data
SUSTAINED PERSONNEL COMPLAINTS PER 10,000 CALLS
1996
0.15 0.31 0.15 0 0.47 0.48
2001 2000 1998 I 1999 1997
ANALYSIS
The trend for the customer satisfaction survey is positive with the past three
years reaching the highest overall satisfaction rating seen since the survey was
implemented in 1991 (4.5). Traditionally, uniformed personnel rate the highest
of all the service areas; in 1998, 1999, and 2000, they reached an all-time-high
average rating of 4.7. Investigations rating increased in 1998 with the
implementation of the victim follow-up program conducted by volunteers.
While previously at an average rating of 4.1 or lower, after the implementation
of the follow-up program, investigations average rating has steadily increased
to 4.4, and 4.5. The first three quarters of 2001, the average rating dropped to
4.4. This is most likely due to a difficult transition period between volunteers
for the victim follow up program.
The total number of complaints filed each year, as well as the number of those
that are sustained, is a relatively small number. The rates per 10,000 calls for
service presented usually represent just a few sustained complaints per year
"
166
-
out of less than 20 total annual complaints. The rate for 2001 represents one
- sustained complaint out of a total of nine.
ACTION PLAN
- It is recommended that the crime victim follow-up be carefully maintained, as
there was a direct relationship between the establishment of this program and
the increase in the investigations ratings. It must be noted that if one of the - follow-up program volunteer leaves, that duty must be immediately reassigned.
The department continues to enhance customer service training by
participating in various citywide customer service training. -
- With regard to citizen complaints, a review and of the internal investigations
policy and procedure is complete. An internal investigations training is
scheduled for all supervisors for late January 2002. The effective handling of
complaints results in a higher level of customer satisfaction and confidence.
167
Public Safety
Po~CE~~h!EsS
THE OUTCOME
Minimize damage to life and property and increase probability of criminal
apprehension with a fast patrol response.
THE MEASUREMENT
All calls are assigned a priority. The determination of a call’s priority depends
on the severity of the crime and the time frame in which it occurred. There is a
priority assigned to each crime code within the computer-aided dispatch
system but the dispatcher has the option to upgrade a call’s priority based on
what the caller is saying or what the dispatcher may be hearing. The response
time is the time it takes from the time the call is received to when the first
police unit arrives on scene.
Priority 1 calls are life and death emergencies such as all violent crimes in
progress, some non-violent crimes in progress, armed robbery alarms, no detail
traffic collisions, and burglaries in progress. Other examples include
kidnapping, domestic violence, or assault in progress. Priority one calls are
generally less than one percent of the total police call volume.
Priority 2 calls include non-violent crimes in progress such as petty theft and
burglary alarms.
Priority 3 calls include “cold” reports - reports being taken after the crime has
occurred. Examples include coming home and finding that your house was
burglarized earlier in the day or waking in the morning and discovering that
your car has been stolen.
Response time data has been measured for many years and data is available
going back to 1988 - the first full year on the PRC CAD system.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Most customers report that they believe response time reflects quality of
service. As a result, response time is often a large factor in a customer’s
satisfaction rating. We have numerous data indicating that fast response times
are very important to the customer. In actuality, response times are a
reflection of not only quality of service but also other factors such as traffic
circulation, staffing, and overall activity levels. Since priority one calls are less
168
than one percent of the total police call volume, the response times for
priorities two and three are key to customer satisfaction.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Police
BENCHMARK
The FY 2000 ICMA mean average priority one response time for all jurisdictions
is 9.7 minutes. Carlsbad has used the benchmarks of 6, 15, and 30 minutes
for priorities 1, 2, and 3 respectively for many years. Since ICMA has no
benchmark for the other priorities, and Carlsbad believes that our
responsiveness to non-priority one calls is an important customer service
measure, the police department is presenting both our internal benchmarks
and the ICMA benchmark.
RESULTS
ICMA I CARLSBAD I CARLSBAD I I BENCHMARK I BENCHMARK I 2001 I
Priority 1
30.0 mins. N /A Priority 3
11.7 mins. 15.0 mins. N/A Priority 2
5.7 mins. 6.0 mins. 9.7 mins.
22.6 mins.
The average response times for priorities 1 through 3 for 1993 through 2001
are as follows:
2001 Calls for Service by Priority
Pllorlty 2
169
ANALYSIS
Between 1997 and 2000, there had been a downward trend in all three priority
levels of response time despite an increase in call volume.
While 2000 showed no change in the average priority one response time, there
was an increase in both the average priority two and average priority three
response times. At the time, it was believed that this could be the start of a
trend of increasing response times. It was projected that we would first see an
increase in average response times for priority two and three calls, followed
eventually by an increase in the average response time to priority one calls.
Year 2001 response times have supported this. Not only have the priorities two
and three response times increased, but the average priority one response time
has also increased compared to the previous year.
ACTION PLlw
In spite of the favorable results compared to the ICMA cities, an upturn in the
average response times has been identified and the department must closely
monitor all three levels of response time. Staffing levels need to be evaluated,
traffic circulation and its impact on response time should studied, and beat
realignment should be reexamined. In addition, our patrol officer deployment
practices should be evaluated.
The department will consider the reporting of response time in a call
distribution format (ex: 95 percent of all priority one calls were responded to in
six minutes or less) with the implementation of the new CAD system. In
addition, the automatic vehicle locator (AVL) function of a new CAD system
may help reduce response times by making it easier to dispatch the unit with
the fastest response time.
170
Public Safety
CRIME CASES CLFARED
THE OUTCOME
Maximize the number of crimes solved.
THE MEASUREMENT
A case is considered cleared when at least one person is arrested, charged, and
turned over to court for prosecution, or the case is cleared exceptionally. The
number of FBI index cases cleared as a percentage of total FBI index crime
cases is a fairly standard measure used throughout the law enforcement
community. Clearance rates have been measured and reported by the police
department for at least 20 years.
In additional to the percentage for all FBI index crime cases overall, we also
measure the percentage separately for violent crimes (homicide, rape, robbery,
and aggravated assault), and for property crimes (burglary, larceny-theft, and
motor vehicle theft) to help further identify strengths and weaknesses.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The clearance rate is one indicator of the achievement of law enforcement
personnel in solving crimes. Although generally thought of as a reflection of
the investigations function, it also reflects the performance of the patrol
function and to a lesser degree, the police records function.
Some of the factors that influence clearance rates include: policies and
procedures used by various agencies; workload and/or the volume of cases
reported; personnel staffing for preliminary and follow-up investigation;
differential emphasis placed on investigating specific types of crime; the quality
and nature of the crimes assigned for investigation; and the training and
experience of officers. Changes in clearance rates over time could reflect data
variability and/or changes in productivity.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Police
BENCHMARK
We have established a benchmark to be within the top one-third of the county
with regard to clearance rates for all crime, for violent crimes, and for property
crimes. The police department uses San Diego County data as clearance data
can vary greatly from state to state and even somewhat by county within
171
California. We are fairly confident in our local county data due to a shared
database that all agencies use and regular quality assurance audits that are
conducted.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD 2000
OVERALL CRIME
Top one-third PROPERTY CRIME
No Top one-third VIOLENT CRIME
Yes Top one-third
Yes
Note: Individual city data is not yet available for 2001. 2000 data is presented
instead.
2000 OVERALL CRIME
RANK
2 5% Poway 4
26% Lemon Grove 3
29% Santee 2
2 9% El Cajon 1
CLEARANCE RATES CITY
7 23% Escondido
8
2 1% Coronado 9
2 1% Chula Vista
1 Unincorporated/Sheriff's 1 2 1% I Imperial Beach 2 1% I
14
8% Del Mar 19
10% Solana Beach 18
18% Oceanside 17
19% San Marcos 16
20% Encinitas 15
20% La Mesa
172
Lemon Grove 6 1% Vista 14%
Chula Vista
Oceanside
Solana Beach 50%
Del Mar 47%
National City 46%
Solana Beach 5%
Del Mar 4%
CARLSBAD'S CLEARANCE RATES: 1990 - 2000
Overall Crime Violent Crime
Property Crime
"- 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2ooo 25% 20% 15% 18% 11% 16% 21% 30% 24% 23% 23%
49% 39% 39% 39% 22% 43% 48% 52% 48% 45% 56%
22% 18% 12% 15% 9% 13% 18% 27% 22% 21% 19%
ANALYSIS
Carlsbad's clearance rates have seen significant variance over the past ten
years, not only year-to-year but also compared to the county averages.
Carlsbad's overall clearance rate fell below the county average from 1991
through 1996. It then climbed above the county average and has remained
above the county average since then. When looking at only violent crimes
(homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) Carlsbad's clearance rate has
consistently been below the county average. When looking at ranked violent
crime clearance rates, Carlsbad is still in the lower one-third compared to last
year but has improved from 45% to 56%. There are relatively few violent
173 -
crimes in Carlsbad so the overall clearance rate for the City is more influenced
by the property crime clearance rate.
Property crimes include burglary, larceny theft, and motor vehicle theft.
Except for 1992 and 1994, Carlsbad has been at or above the county average,
and is often well above the county average for property crime clearances.
When looking at ranked property crime clearance rates, Carlsbad remains in
the top one-third countywide.
In general, clearance rates are higher for violent crimes since they are crimes
against persons and will usually have witnesses and suspect information. The
nature of property crimes leads toward lower clearance rates.
ACTION PLAN
After an audit of violent and property crime cases, a report with specific
recommendations was prepared and a variety of process improvements were
implemented. In addition, a review of the Investigations Division was
conducted with numerous recommendations implemented.
Many changes were made to improve the division's overall investigative
capability and level of service to the citizens. It is expected that the 2001
clearance rates will continue to show an improvement as a result of these
changes. It is recommended that the clearance rates continue to be used as a
measurement of the department's overall performance. To assure that
clearances remain a valuable, accurate measure, the department must remain
committed to ongoing review and improvement.
174
Public Safety
CO"7JMTY PERCEPTION OF CRlME
THE OUTCOME
Citizens' sense of community safety
THE MEASUREMENT
A general citizen survey to measure how safe people feel in their community.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure may be less influenced by the police department than any of the
others. Many factors influence citizens' sense of fear in a community. These
factors include the media (television, newspapers, movies), current events
including high profile crime cases, the age distribution in a community, etc.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Police
BENCHMARK
The benchmark for community sense of safety is the ICMA "Citizen Rating of
Safety in Their Neighborhoods" for fiscal year 2000 for cities with a population
under 100,000. Although ICMA uses a four-category response (very unsafe,
somewhat safe, reasonably safe, and very safe), our survey consultants
recommended using a 10-point scale for increased accuracy. Carlsbad used
responses of 9 or 10 on a 0 through 10 point scale (0 - not safe at all; 10 - very
safe) for the "very safe" category.
RESULTS
How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood during the day?
PERCENT RESPONDING "VERY SAFE"
BENCHMARK I CARLSBAD2000 I CARLSBAD2001
64% 87% 86%
How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood at night?
PERCENT RESPONDING "VERY SAFE"
BENCHMARK I CARLSBAD2000 I CARLsBAD2001
33% 43% 4 1%
175
ANALYSIS
For this year's comparison, the benchmark was changed from all ICMA
reporting cities to only those cities with a population under 100,000. Although
the average percentages for the smaller cities are higher, Carlsbad still
compares favorably. Although the percentage of citizens responding that they
felt safe in their city increased for Carlsbad compared to the previous year, the
increase is not considered significant since it was only one to two percentage
points.
Citizens' rating of safety may be influenced by a variety of factors such as
police visibility, media, current events, confidence in police service, lighting and
other physical aspects, personal experiences, and character of the
neighborhood.
ACTION PLAN
The department may want to consider identifying higher performing cities
outside of the ICMA survey group to compare to next year.
176
Community Services
SATISFACTION WITn LJBRARY RESOURCES
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction with library resources
THE MEASUREMENT
Satisfaction with access to library resources is measured by fill rate or a
measure of whether patrons got the materials they came in for. This
measurement will be recorded every four months during two-week survey
periods. Patrons will be given cards at the service desks and at public
computer stations in each library. These cards ask patrons to note before they
leave if they got the information or resources they needed. If the answer is
“no,” they are also asked to note what they were looking for.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measuring the success rate of providing patrons with what they need will help
the library make improvements in resources available for the public.
Resources may be print and non-print collections or computer databases and
will help determine the most effective ways to use available resources.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Library
BENCHMARK
90% of all library patrons indicate they got what they were looking for and are
satisfied with the availability of needed library resources.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK I CARISBAD
90% 80%
ANALYSIS
The first fill rate cards were administered at Dove, Cole, and Centro during the
period from October 15 to October 28, 2001. A total of 629 cards were
returned, 500 indicating patrons got what they wanted and 129 stating they
did not. This resulted in an 80% satisfaction rate, lower than the benchmark
of 90%.
Satisfaction rates at the three facilities were fairly similar, with the Centro
recording the highest rating of 85% (though with a very small return). Cole had
177
an 83% satisfaction rate and Dove, with the largest return, had a 78% rate.
Similar data was collected as part of the library's 2001 Strategic Plan survey of
over 1,300 library users. The same question was asked, but it was one of 35
questions on the Strategic Plan Survey. The success rate for patrons getting
what they came in for was 91%. If deemed to be a valid comparison, this rate
will be used as a preliminary benchmark against the semi-annual fill rate cards
that will be administered in the future.
It is likely that the responses of patrons filling out the larger survey, where they
were asked lots of questions about their general perceptions of library service,
were somewhat more positive than those who responded to the card and the
single question focusing on their needs on that particular visit.
ACTION PLAN
Since there may have been some differences in the way the public responded to
the two survey formats, it is recommended that the benchmarking be tied to
the new single card, single question format. In subsequent surveys using a
consistent format, it will become apparent whether there really is a significant
difference. It is also believed that the more focused format, using a card with a
single question, is a more accurate way to benchmark this performance
measure.
178
Community Services
PARKS & RECREATION CUSTolldER SERVICE & SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction.
THE MEASUREMENT
Customer service surveys.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Highly satisfied customers are an indication that we are providing services in a
manner that is desired.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Recreation and Parks
BENCHMARK
90% of customers rate all Recreation services as “Good or Excellent” (4 on a 1-
5 scale) in all customer service survey categories.
RESULTS
The surveys collected (486) were tabulated to determine a baseline of customer
satisfaction.
Although surveys have been distributed for years, the data have never been
compiled or collected in a manner so that it could be analyzed or compared.
Upon review and revision of all City surveys based on the analysis by California
State University, San Marcos, this survey was standardized and distributed by
staff in City parks, recreation facilities, and the recreation administration
office. In addition, surveys were randomly mailed to park and facility users
after their rental date to collect data from off site picnic areas and facility
rentals. The data were collected August to October 2001 to determine a
baseline of satisfaction for future comparison
I Average I % Responses at I
Staff Knowledge
90 4.5 Facility Appearance
93 4.5 Facility Safety
91 4.5 Quality of Telephone Contact
94 4.6
179
Average YO Responses at
RECREATION DEPARTMENT
92 4.5 Fees - Competitive
93 4.5 Classes Activities Offered
Good or Excellent Rating
ANALYSIS
This first survey will provide us the opportunity to examine customer
comments in order to address specific community concerns. The results reveal
that the department's customer satisfaction levels are consistent with the City's
established benchmark. While the overall ratings for programs and facilities
exceed the benchmark, the data indicates specific areas within both the
Recreation and the Parks Departments that can be targeted for improvement.
Upon examination of specific Recreation Department customer satisfaction
indicators, only registration procedures did not meet the benchmark (89%).
Some park facilities did not meet the benchmark including tot
lots/playgrounds (89%), picnic areas (86%), landscaping/fields (82%) and
restrooms (77%).
ACTION PLAN
In an effort to improve registration procedures, Recreation staff will examine
ways to increase customer convenience through alternate registration methods
and technologies. In Spring 2002, the Parks Division will be installing new
playground equipment at various park sites to comply with safety and
Americans with Disabilities Act standards. In the picnic areas, staff is
replacing rusted benches, picnic tables and metal barbeques with concrete
fxtures. Parks staff will review its maintenance management program to
develop enhanced procedures/methods to improve customer satisfaction for
landscaping/fields and restrooms.
180
Community Services
SATISFACTION WITH GAUERP PROGRAMS
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction with gallery exhibitions and programs.
THE MEASUREMENT
This measure uses a multi-method approach combining:
Satisfaction Surveys: A Customer Service Survey will be distributed to gallery
visitors at various times during each exhibition and concurrent events. Two
different surveys will be distributed: one for exhibition and classroom tours
and one for exhibitions and concurrent exhibition events such as lectures and
artist workshops. Patrons will be given questionnaires at the gallery desk and
at concurrent exhibition events such as lectures, workshops and docent tours.
These surveys will rate customer satisfaction on a scale of 1-5.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Highly satisfied customers are an indication that we are providing programs in
a manner that is desired.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Arts Office - William D. Cannon Art Gallery
BENCHMARK
90% of all gallery patrons indicate they are satisfied with gallery programs and
exhibitions.
RESULTS
This is a new measurement. Questionnaires will be distributed for each
exhibition beginning January 2002.
ANALYSIS
This first survey will provide us the opportunity to examine customer
comments in order to address specific community concerns.
ACTION PLAN
Look at additional measures: amount of money raised, attendance, number of
exhibition programs, audience satisfaction, number of “hits” newspaper
articles, exhibiting artists’ satisfaction. Further analyze benchmark galleries in
other cities: Identified five benchmarking galleries in cities of comparable size.
181
-
They are Bedford Gallery in Walnut Creek, CA; Fullerton Museum Center,
Fullerton, CA; City of Brea Gallery; Brea, CA; Riverside City Museum,
Riverside, CA; and Irvine Fine Arts Center, Irvine, California.
-
182
”
Community Development
FARADAY CENTER FRONT COUNTER SERVICE & SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
High level of customer service
THE MEASUREMENT
Customer Comment Cards available at the Front Counter and Housing and
Redevelopment survey.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Customer feedback is a valuable performance measure. Staff members
assigned to the front counter are expected to be efficient, prompt, courteous,
knowledgeable, and helpful to the customer. Staff members continuously
monitor this measurement tool and contact all customers rating their front
counter customer service experience as “poor“ or “very poor.”
Community Development has utilized customer comment cards for several
years as a performance measurement tool. Low ratings (“poor“ and “very poor“)
trigger a follow-up contact by City staff to secure additional customer service
input. This additional input is recorded and influences changes to front
counter operations.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Building, Planning, Public Works Engineering, Finance, Housing and
Redevelopment, and Field Building Inspection.
BENCHMARK
90% of customers rate Faraday Center front counter services as “Very Good”
(the highest rating) in all customer service survey categories.
RESULTS
BENCHMARK I CARLSBAD 2000 I CARLSBAD 2001
90% 96% 93%
ANALYSIS
17 1 comment cards were filled out by customers rating staff in 841 areas of
service (efficiency, promptness, courteousness, knowledge, and helpfulness).
Every category rated in excess of 90%, and the overall rating was 96% very
good service. The results are:
183
ACTION PLAN
Continue with the “Customer Comment Card” program at City’s Faraday
Center, Front Counter operation.
184
Community Development
CODE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIVENESS
THE OUTCOME
A high level of responsiveness by Code Enforcement
THE MEASUREMENT
Response time increments for complaints filed with Code Enforcement
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Response time increments to citizen complaints to Code Enforcement are not
currently measured. Frequently citizens complain that their call to Code
Enforcement or the case has not been resolved in a timely manner. Without
data to support overall department performance, there is currently no way to
evaluate efficiency or whether there are adequate resources to respond in a
timely manner.
Code Enforcement will develop a complaint measurement system that will track
incoming requests for service, and the time increments needed to respond to
those complaints. This baseline information will be developed over time to be a
measurement tool for Code Enforcement efficiency and responsiveness.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Code Enforcement, Building
BENCHMARK
Unknown at this time until data collection begins.
ANALYSIS
A monthly report for Code Enforcement activities has been developed. This
report shows the number of contacts made with Code Enforcement and the
amount of time it takes to close cases which are opened.
ACTION PLAN
The monthly report will assist in determining what type of complaints are
reported to Code Enforcement and how long it takes to resolve those open
cases.
185
Cityurlde
OVERALL CITIZEN SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES
THE OUTCOME
High level of citizen satisfaction in the overall City services.
THE MEASUREMENT
Survey results to the question in the citywide survey, “How do you rate the
overall city services?”
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The City of Carlsbad has an explicit goal to provide top-quality services. By
evaluating how the citizens rate their level of satisfaction with the overall city
services, staff can better evaluate the effectiveness of those programs.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Citywide
BENCHMARK
90% of respondents rate their satisfaction at “Good or Excellent”.
RESULTS
I BENCHMARK I 2000 SURVEY I 2001 SURVEY I
9 0% 95.6% 91.5 Yo
ANALYSIS
This is the second year that the City has asked its residents how they rate their
overall satisfaction with City services. The results from the 2001 survey show
slight movement upward, from 91.5% to 95.6%. While this movement may be
due to increased citizen satisfaction, the change is within the surveys margins
of error. Staff will continue to track this to determine any trends in the coming
years. However, when the results are taken into consideration with the other
service rating responses, both this year and last, it is clear that a vast majority
of the City’s residents give high marks to the overall service levels provided by
the City.
This measure is part of several that attempts to provide both quantitative and
qualitative data on how the City as a whole is performing.
186
ACTION PLAN
Work with other local agencies and the ICMA to incorporate similar questions
into their surveys so that benchmarking may be available.
187
188
Administrative Services
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - CITY ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES
THE OUTCOME
Provide top quality services.
THE MEASUREMENT
Administrative facility square footage per 1,000 population
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The standard of 1,500 square feet per 1,000 population is mandated per the
Citywide Facilities and Improvement Management Plan
STATUS OF THE MEASURE
Measure has been ongoing since 1986
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Citywide
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
1,500 square feet of administrative facilities per 1,000 city population.
RESULTS
Based upon a current population of 77,500, the City is required to have at least
127,000 square feet of administrative office space.
At the current time, the city has more than 165,000 square feet of
administrative facilities. This includes:
I LOCATION I SQUARE FOOTAGE 1
Faraday Center
5,500 Public Works 405 Oak
13,000 Maintenance &, Operations
2,000 Redevelopment
13,000 City Hall
64,000 Public Safety Center
68,000
ANALYSIS
The city currently meets this growth management requirement. Based upon
the standard, the city will not be required to add additional space until the
189
population exceeds 110,000.
With a projected population of 125,000 at build out, the city would be required
to provide approximately 187,000 square feet of facility space. It is anticipated
that the City will be able to meet this requirement through proposed additional
construction and acquisition.
ACTION PLAN
None required
.
190
7
APPENDIX 1: GROWTH MANAGEMENT REPORT MEMO, NOVEMBER 2001
"
191
192
November 26. 2001
To: PERFORMANCE MEASURES RESOURCES TEAM
From: Growth Management Monitoring Group
STATUS OF THE CITY’S GROWTH MANAGEMENT FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Purpose: This memorandum is a report on the status of the facilities standards
for the eleven facilities subject to the City’s Growth Management Plan, as of
November 200 1.
Background: The Growth Management Monitoring Group was established in
the Fall of 2000 to review the adopted standards for the 11 classes of facilities,
to clarify what data should be collected in order to measure compliance with
each standard, and to review how this data should be used in such programs
as the CIP, the formulation of Local Facilities Management Plans, and the
review of individual, private, development proposals, among other topics. As
established, the Growth Management Program standards should be considered
minimums, not maximums, and the City should plan accordingly. Following
its initial report to the City Manager’s Leadership Team in May 2001, the
Monitoring Group was asked to provide information to the Performance
Measures Resource Team for inclusion in the annual performance measures
report to the City Council. This report is the result of that request.
Findings: Of the 11 growth management facilities, the group notes that the City
does not have full control over how certain facilities meet growth management
standards because these facilities are provided by another agency. While the
City can influence these agencies, we cannot absolutely assure compliance
with the adopted standards. These facilities include:
a. Schools (all four districts). By state statute the mitigation that the City can
bring to the impact of growth on schools is limited to developer fees set
according to state formulas. The revenue stream generated by developer fees
alone cannot assure adequate school construction. Each district must also
apply for and qualify for state funds and produce other funds locally. The City
has no control over these other funding sources.
b. Ten-day emergency water storage.
c. The treatment capacity of the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. While
the City has capacity rights in the plant, we neither control the flows generated
193
by other cities nor the response of the plant if another city’s flows exceed its
capacity rights.
d. Hotspot traffic locations. Traffic infrastructure that serves regional traffic
are sometimes only within limited control of the City due to the presence of
through-traffic generated from outside the City and the fact that some of these
facilities are owned and operated by the State of California or other
jurisdictions. These facilities include interstate interchanges and intersections
at or near the City limits.
Status of Individual Facilities/Services: Additional information about each of
the 11 growth management facilities and services is provided in the attached
facility status reports. The format of the reports has been designed to be in
keeping with the format used by the performance measurements program.
All these facilities have performance standards that are tied to demand.
Several are tied directly to levels of either housing or population. The rapid
pace of development over the last few years means that the demand for services
has also increased at a rapid rate. In some instances the margin between
meeting and not meeting the adopted growth management standards has
become narrow. This is particularly true for three facilities:
Circulation roads
Parks
Fire stations
The committee also recommends that the Fire Growth Management Standard
language be changed from “response time” to ‘travel time” for clarification
purposes. Each year the responsible departments bring the results of their
monitoring efforts into the CIP process so as to assure that priorities are given
to those projects that will preclude any facility failure.
For the Growth Management Monitoring Group:
Staff Revresentative
Geoff Armour
Keith Beverly
Joe Garuba
Michael Holzmiller
Carrie hya
Mike Smith
Dennis Turner
Facilitv/Resvonsibility
Libraries
Parks
Administrative Facilities
Schools, Open Space
Wastewater Treatment, Drainage, Circulation, Water, & Sewers
Fire Stations
Development Monitoring, Growth Forecasting
..
~-
194
rc
- APPENDIX 2: CITY PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY RESULTS
.-
-
:-
-
195
196
. ..
,-
”
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report
Conducted for:
City of Carlsbad
Conducted by:
The Social and Behaviorat Research Institute
Study Team:
Richard T. Serpe. Ph.D., Director
Allen J. Risley. M.A.: Associate Director
Michael D. Large, Ph.D.; Quantitative Study Director
Lori Brown Large, M.A.; Survey Study Director
Kevin G. Kilpatrick. M.A.; Field Research Coordinator
Richard V. Mason, M.A.: Field Research Coordinator
City ofCarlshad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
DATA
RESULTS ............................................
Respondent Demographics ..........................
Demographics by Region .....................
City Services and Facilities ..........................
Services ..................................
City-Provided Services ................
Contracted Services ...................
Service Ratings by Regions ..............
Programs and Facilities .......................
Park and Community Center Use . . , . . , , . .
Parks ........................
Community Centers .............
Park and Community Center Condition. ....
Parks ........................
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
I
...................... 3
...................... 3
...................... 6
..................... IO
..................... IO
..................... IO
..................... 14
..................... 14
..................... 17
..................... 17
..................... 17
..................... 18
..................... 19
..................... 19
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report. 2001 - SBRl
Community Centers .................................... I9
.. City Facilltles .............................................. .20
Libraries ........................................................ 24
CityFeatures ........................................................... 26
Best Liked Features of Carlsbad ..................................... .27
Biggest Concerns Regarding Carlsbad .................................. .3 I
Citystreets ...................................................... 33
TraficReduction .................................................. 38
Citylnformation ......................................................... 45
Information Resources ............................................. .45
lnterest in lnformation Sources ....................................... .48
Rating of Infomation Dispersal ....................................... .49
Calendar ........................................................ 50
CityMeetings ..................................................... 51
City Council Meetings ....................................... .5 1
Quarterly Quadrant Meetings ................................... 52
Other Methods of Obtaining City Information ............................. 53
Citywebsite ..................................................... 54
Payment via Internet ......................................... .59
CityConditions ......................................................... 60
PublicSafety ..................................................... 60
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 ~ SBRl
Feelings of Safety ........................................... .60
Recycling and Pollution. ............................................ .62
Recycling .................................................. 62
Greatest Contributor to Ocean Water Pollution Perceived by Residents .... 65
WaterFee ................................................. ~6
Graffiti .................................................... 67
Entertainment Venues .............................................. .6X
Contact with Code Enforcement or City Staff ................................... 76
Confidence in City Government ............................................ .SO
Improving the Quality of Life in Carlsbad ...................................... 82
SUMMARY X6
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 ~ SBRl
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Reprt
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of the City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey. This was a
telephone survey conducted with residents of the City of Carlsbad administered in the Fall of 2001.
The survey was conducted for the City of Carlsbad by the Social and Behavioral Research institute at
California State University, San Marcos.
The survey addressed the attitudes of city residents concerning city-provided services. facilities.
and issues, and included a number of demographic questions. The report contains a description orthe
data, and an elaboration of the results of the survey.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report. 2001 ~ SBRl I
DATA
The data come from 1.010 telephone interviews conducted in the fall of 2001. The
respondents were Carlsbad residents, 18 years of age or older. Respondents were randomly selected
from four regions in the City of Carlsbad (Northwest Northeast. Southeast, and Southwest) using a
computer-assisted-telephone-interviewing (CATI) system. There were at least 252 respondents from
each of the regions. The regions were specified as follows; Northwest included residents in the 92008
zip code west of El Camino Real, Northeast included residents in the 92008 zip code east of El Camino
Real, Southeast included residents in the 92009 zip code east of El Camino Real, and Southwest
included residents in the 92009 zip code west of El Camino Real. The interviews were conducted
between September 29Ih and December 6Ih.
This survey is similar to a survey conducted by the SBRl for the City of Carlsbad in 2000. For
some issues when the same questions were asked in both the 2000 and the 2001 surveys, comparisons
are made between these years. The interview questions are found in Appendix A and Appendix B
contains frequency distributions or descriptive statistics for key variables. Additionally, residents
offered ‘’poor” ratings of city services were asked their reason for offering a “poor” rating. Their open-
ended responses are found in Appendix C.
City ofCarlsbad Public Opinion SLIWK~ Report, 2001 ~ SBRl 2
RESULTS
Rewondent Demographics
Consistent with most telephone surveys, 40.2% of those responding were male and 59.8%
were female. These respondents had lived in Carlsbad an average of 10.49 years, and averaged 49.13
years of age. ranging from 18 to 91 years old. Table 1 shows the distribution ofthe raceiethnicity ofthe
respondents.'
Table 1: Respondent's RacelEthnicity.
Frequency Pcrccnt Valid Percent Percent
Valid I Whlte'Caucasian X0 I 79.3 85.4 85.4
2 African-Amencan I IJ I .O 1.1 86.5
3 Asian 51 5.0 5.4 'JI AJ
4 Anicncan Indian.
Alcul. tskmio .9 I .ll 92.0
5 Hispanic.'Latino hn .. 5 [J 6.4 94.3
h Othcr 7 .7 .7 100.0
Total 038 92.9 I on.0
Missing X Don't Know 4 .4
9 Kctiused 33 3.3
Systcm 35 3.5
Total 72 7. I
Total IO10 100.0
\&hich refers 10 rhe pcrccnt ofthe tovill umplc
City of parkbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 ~ SBRl 3
'Thc "Valid Perccnr" in the tahlc rcprescnts the pcroenr ofthe valid rcrpmses. as opposed to rhe "Pcrcunt"
Table 2 displays the annual household income of the respondents. The midpoint of the
respondents' income distribution was $75,000: half the respondents had total household incomes
below $75,000 and half were above $75.000. Incomes from $50,000 to under $75.000 were most
typical. Overall. 30.5 percent of the respondents said they worked in the City of Carlsbad.
Table 2: Household Income Last Year.
Frequency Pcrccnt Valid Percent Percent
Valid I Under $25,000 41 4. I 4.6 4.6
69
I I9
20 I
167
118
167
882
21
107
I28
6.8 7.8 12.5
11.8 13.5 26.0
19.9 22.R 48.8
16.5 18.9 67.7
11.7 13.4 81.1
16.5 18.9 1110.0
87.3 I 00.0
?.I
IO.6
12.7
Of the respondents, 77.7 percent indicated that they owned their home, and 22.3 percent said
they were renting. There was an average of 2.58 people in the households, and 42.7 percent of the
respondents reported having children in their household. Of those horrsehold.~ with children, there
was an average of I .75 children in the household. This is seen in Table 3a.' Further, 32.7 percent of
dewation ti a muahure of how variahlv thc rcsponrch \wrc tor that item.
-The tablu also d~rploys the "Sfd. Devlatlon" (standard deviation) fix each ofthesc variables. The standard
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report. 2001 ~ SBRl 4
the respondents said they had children under 12 years of age. and 18.9 percent said they had children
under 6 in the home. For those with children under 12, there were an avenge of 1.58 children under
12 in the household and 1.33 children under six in the households with at least one child under six.
Table 3a: Number of Children in Households with at Least One Child in the Age Group.
Std
N Minimum Maximum Mean Uevwllun
KIDLT18R Numberof
Children Under Thc Age of I8 354 I .MI S.(K) 1.7486 .xw
KIDLTI2R Numberof
Children Under Thc Age of I2
KlDLThR Number of
Children Under The Age of6
27 I I .oo s.on 1.5756 ,740')
157 I .oo 3.00 1.3312 i237
Considering all households, the average number of children in each of these categories is
displayed in Table 3b. Households averaged .61 children in the household. and .42 children under 12.
On average, there was .21 children under six years old in the household
Table 3b: Number of Children in the Household.
Std
N Minimum Maximum MCWl Deviation
KlDSLTlX Numberof
Ch~ldren Under the Agcof 18 1010 .on 5SXl .6 I29 11712
KlDSLTlZ Numberof
Childrcn Under the Ageof I2 1010 .I10 5.01) ,4228 .7Vh7
KlDSLTh Number of
Children Under thc Agc of6 I OOY .no 3.W ,2071 S24Y
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report. 2001 - SBRl 5
Demographics by Region
Analyses were performed to determine if there were differences in the demopphic
characteristics of the respondents by geogaphic region. The respondents did not differ by region with
respect to gender. There were differences by household structure. Specifically. the Northwest region
on average had fewer people per household than did the Northeast region. This is illustrated in Table 4.
Table 4: Number of People in the Household by Region.
ODEM03 Number of Peonle in Household (Includinz Resnondent~
Std.
N Mean Deviation
I Northwest 25 I 2.49 I .30
2 Nonheast
3 Southeast
4 Southwest
252 2.79 I .25
253 2.50 1.17
25 I 2.52 I .26
Additionally, as Table 5 shows, respondents in the Northwest region had fewer children less
than six years old in their household than did respondents in the Southeast or Southwest regions.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report. 2001 - SRRl 6
Table 5: Number of Children under 6 in the Household by Region.
KlDSLT6 Number of Children Under the Age of 6
Std.
N Mean Deviation
I Northwest 252 .I I I I ,3728
2 Northeast
3 Southeast
4 Southwest
252 ,2063 .5476
254 ,2795 .5802
25 I ,231 I 307
There were also differences by region with respect to income, home ownership, and length of
residence in Carlsbad. As illustrated in Table 6, the regions in the South were more likely to have
higher incomes than those in the North, especially the Northwest. Nearly 40 percent of the
respondents in the South had incomes of $100,000 or above compared to about 25 percent in the
North.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 ~ SBRl 7
Table 6: Annual Household Income by Region.
Carlsbad residents also differed by region with respect to home ownership. This is seen in
Table 7. Over a third (35. I%) of the residents in the Northwest region were renting their home
compared to 18. I percent in the other regions. That is. about twice as many residents are renting in the
Northwest than in the rest of the city.
city of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 8
Table 7: Home Ownership by Region.
Region was very strongly tied to length of residence in Carlsbad. Those in the northern regions
had lived in Carlsbad considelably longer than residents in the southern regions. In the Northwest
Region. residents had lived in Carlsbad for an average of 16.17 years - longer than any other region.
This is seen in Table 8. Those in the Northeast Region (10.95) had also lived in Carlsbad longer than
those in the Southeast (7.49) and Southwest Regions (7.42).
Table 8: Years Lived in Carlsbad by Region.
QDEMOI Number of Years L~vrd in Carlsbed
N
Std.
Mlran Devialion
I Northwest 252 16.17 14.62
1 Northeast 252 10.95 10.03
3 Southeast 254 7.44 7.49
4 Southwesl 252 7.42 7.86
Total 1010 10.49 10.9x
city of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 9
Citv Services and Facilities
Services
City-Provided Services
Respondents were asked about services provided by or through the City of Carlsbad. Each
respondent was asked how they would rate (from poor to excellent) a number of city-provided
services. Their answers are summarized in Table 9. All the city-provided services addressed in the
survey were rated as good or excellent by most people. The library and fire protection services
received particularly good ratings. Both of these were rated as excellent more often than not.
Enforcement of hafftc regulations and water services were not often given a rating of excellent, but both
were typically rated as at least good- The highest percentage of poor ratings (enforcement of traftic
regulations) was only 8.2 percent.
city of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 10
Table 9: City Services Ratings
Fire Protection Services
Pulicc Services
Enforcement of Traffic
Kegdations
CulNral Ads Programs
Water Services
Sewer Services
Overall City Servres
.6% 2.1% 41.3?'0 5h.O'% 'J7..V%,
I ,740 4.8% 43.7% JCJ.X"% U3.5",,,
8.2% 17.6% 54.5% 19.7'%, 74.2'k
2.3% 6.5% 63.00'0 28.3Lh 9 I .3%
4.8% 17.6% 47.8% ?').XU<, 77.hU4
I .n% 6. I % 67.2% xnv" 92.2%
.3% 4.1% 6 I .4u/0 34.2'k Y5.7"h,
Fire protection service ratings varied by year. This is seen in Table IO. There were
substantially more excellent ratings in 2001 (56.0%) than there were in the 2000 (48.6%).
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 ~ SBRl I1
Table 10: Fire Protection Services Rating by Year.
~~
ADMlN Suncy Administration
I 2rnx) 2 2WI
Administration Adminlrtr:ltion Total
QSEKV3 FIE I Poor count 7 5 12
Senices Rating
Protection
.X% .h% .7% %within ADMlN
Survey Administdon
%within ADMlN
Survey Administration 3.IX 2.l'!" 2.6%
3 Good Count 395 337 732
Oh within ADMlN
Survev Administration 41.4% 4 I .3'", 44.4%
4 Excellent Count
~~
405 456 86 I
within ADMlN
Survey Administration
Total Count x33 x15 I MX
%within ADMIN
Survey Administration lon.o% IOO.O~K, 100.0$;,
Respondents also provided a general, overall rating of the city services. Most often. residents'
overall rating of the city services was good. The overall city services were rated as good or excellent
by 95.6% of the respondents. These ratings were compared to ratings offered in the 2000 survey.
Table I I shows that the overall ratings of city services were higher in 2001 than they were in 2(HO.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report. 2001 - SBRl 12
Table 11: Overall City Services Rating by Year,
OGENSRV I Poor Count 9 3 I?
Ovenll City
Services
Rating
"1" within ADMIN
Suwey Administration .9"% .3'h .6','"
2 Fair Count 74 41 I I5
%within ADMlN
Survey Administration 7.5%
3 Good C"U"t 614 612 1226
90 within ADMlN
Survey Administration 62.5% 6 I .?"," 62.n~~~
4 Lxcellent Count 285 34 I 626
"%within ADMlN
Survey Administration 29.0% 34.2'!" 3 I .h'!%
City ofcarisbad Public Opinion Survey Report. 2001 ~ SBRl 13
Contracted Services
In addition to the city-provided services, respondents were also asked about services
contracted from outside agencies. Table 12 provides a summary of their responses. Trash and
recycling collection was rated as excellent by a third (34.2%) of the residents responding. Again. all the
services evaluated were rated as good or excellent by most people. The lowest ratings were for
hazardous waste disposal, but only 14.4%) indicated that they thought this service was poor.
Table 12: Contracted Services Ratings
I Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Excellent
5 Goodor
% %> Yo "A, VI
Trash and Recycling
Collection 4.3% 14.2% 47.3% 34.2% 8 I .5%
Street Sweeping 6.1% I8.Y/" 52.5% 22.5% 7jm"
Hazardous Wasfc
Disposal I4.4%, 20.3% 49.70~~ l5.6Y" 65.3%
Service Ratings by Regions
The ratings of the services provided by or through the City of Carlsbad were generally
consistent across regions. However, there were regional differences for three of the services provided
or contracted by the city: water. sewer, and hazardous waste disposal services. Table 13a shows the
ratings of the water services across the four regions. The majority of residents in all four reb' 'Ions rated
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Repolt, 2001 - SBRl 14
the water services as positive. However. the respondents in the Southeast Region rated water services
less positively than those in the other regions.
Table 13a: Water Services Ratings by Region.
There were also regional differences in the ratings of sewer services. The Northwest Region
residents were more likely to offer atypical responses. This is illustrated in Table 13b. While all regions
were most likely to rate sewer services as gd. those in the Northwest were more likely than those in
other regions to rate sewer services as excellent, poor. or fair
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 15
Table 13b: Sewer Services Ratings by Region.
Hazardous waste disposal services were also rated differently by people in different regions.
The ratings of hazardous waste disposal services by region are displayed in Tablelk. Those in the
Southeast were only half as likely as residents in other regions to rate hazardous waste disposal services
as excellent
City ofCarlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report. 2001 ~ SBRl 16
Table 13c: Hazardous Waste Disposal Ratings by Region.
REGION
Programs and Facilities
Park and Community Center Use
Parks. Respondents were asked about the use of public parks. Specifically, they were asked
if anyone in their household had used a Carlsbad public park in the past year. The responses are
summarized in Table 14. About three quarters (73.4%) of the respondents indicated that someone in
their household had used a city park.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 ~ SBRl 17
Table 14: Use of Parks and Community Center.
~~
0 No I Yes
Count %, Count 1%
Household Member Has
Used a Carlsbad Park in 268 26.6% 738 73.4%
Past I2 Monrhs
Household Member Has
Used a Community Center 733 73.8"'" 260 Zh.2'k>
Park use was different in 2001 than it was in 2000. Specifically, the likelihood that a
respondent said someone in his or her household had visited a city park in the past twelve months
declined from 79.0 percent in 2000 to 73.4 percent in 2001. Park use did not differ by region.
Comntrrt~it\~ Cettters. The use of community centem was also assessed. Table 14 shows that
abut a quarter (26.2%) of the respondents reported that a member of their household had used a
community center in a park in the past year.
The likelihood that a household member used a community center in the last year varied by
region. As Table 15 shows. the residents in the regions in the north were more likely to have a
household member use a community center than were those in the southem regions.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report. 2001 ~ SBRl ~~
18
Park and Community Center Condition
Parks. Those respondents who reported that a family member had used a city park in the last
year were asked to rate the condition of the park. Over half the respondents said the park was in
excellent condition. This is seen in Table 16. The park condition ratings did not vq by region.
Table 16: Ratings of Parks and Community Center.
Community Centers 3.Y?/" 5 I .%I 34.6% %.2'%,
Community Centers. Respondents who had said that someone in their household had used a
community center at a city park in the last year were asked For a rating of the condition of the
community centers. These ratings are summarized in Table 16. As with the condition ofthe parks,
City ofCarlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report. 2001 - SBRl IO
almost everyone rated the community center condition as either excellent or good. The condition
ratings of the community centers were consistent across regions.
City Facilities
Respondents were asked about other city facilities that they or a member of their family have
used in the past year. Table I7 summarizes the responses to this question. The Dove and Cole
libraries were the city facilities most often noted by the respondents; 24. I percent of the respondents
Table 17: Facilities Used in the Last Twelve Months.
0 Not Chosen I Chorn
Count 46 Count "k
Dove Lihrary Used m Past the
Twel\e Months
Cole Library Used in Past the
Twclvc Months
Senior Center Urd ~n the
Past Twclve Months
Swim Comples Urd ~n the
Past Twclve Months
Carlsbad Cify Hall Used in Ihc
Past Twcl~c Months
Faraday Building Used in thc
Past Twelve Months
Safety Complex Used in thc
Pas1 Twelve Months
Parks & Communiry Centers
Uscd ~n Pas1 Twelve Months
Ans Oflice Urcd in Past the
Twelve Months
Ccntmdc lnrurmncion Uscd
in the Pas1 Twclve Months
761 75.Y% 243 24.11%
814 mm 196 Io.4'>;,
964 95.4% 46 4.6%
968 YS.X'% 42 4.?':;,
970 'J6.On/o 40 4.0'%1
974 Y6.4X 36 3.6%
988 97.8%1 22 2.2%
YY4 98.4% I6 I .6?6
996 VWY" 14 I .4'%,
I(Hl5 'JM"% 5 .5%!
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report. 2001 - SBRl 2 0
said they had used the Dove Library and 19.4 percent said they had used the Cole Library. The other
facilities were used by less than five percent of the respondents.
Use of the Cole Library varied by region. Table 18a illushates that those in the north.
particularly the Northwest Region. were much more likely to use the Cole Libnry than residents in the
south.
Table 18a: Use of the Cole Library by Region.
REGION
I 2 3 4
Northwest Northcast Southeast Southwust Total
QCITYFA4 I1 Nor Count I69 I87 23 I 22; 814
Cole Library Chosen 4t ,\.ith,n
Used in Past REGION the Twelve
Month, I Chosen Count 83 65 23 25 I Yh
67. 1% 74.2". YO.Y'% YO. 1% no.ml
D,;, withm
RFfilON 32.9% Z5.W 9. I "X, %Y"% I Y .4'!'"
Table I8b shows the percentage of people by region who reported that a family member had
used the Dove Library. Use of the Dove Library was more likely among residents in the South than it
was among residents in the north.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report. 2001 ~ SBRl 21
Table 18h: Use of the Dove Library by Region.
RFGION
I - , 3 4
Nonhwesr Nonhcact Southeast Southwest TOtd
QCITYFAS n NOI Count IYX 20.3 187 17'1 767
Dove Library Chosen ","
Used in Past
rhc Twelve
nn.6':b 73.6"h 7 I .O"S 75.Y"%
Months I Chosen Count 54 4u 67 73 243
REGION 78.6%
"h within
RFGION 2 I .4% 1Y.4% 26.4% ?Y.O"l" 24. I ':I
Total C"""1 252 252 254 252 10111
"/u within
RFGtnN I no.o4t I no.o",o I oo.n"io I on.ox 101l.l)"~"
Residents' use of the swim complex also varied by region. Those in the north, particularly the
northwest, were more likely to use the swim complex than were residents in the south ofthe city. This
is illustrated in Table 18c.
Table 18c: Use of the Swim Complex by Region.
I 2 4
Northwest Nonhesst Southusst Southwest Total
QCITYFAY 0 Not Count 234 23x 250 246 Y6X
Past I Chosen Count I8 4 6 42
Totid Count 252 252 254 252 1010
City ofCarlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 22
Those who had used the various facilities were asked to rate the condition of those facilities that
they had used. These ratings are found in Table 19. Most of the facilities were rated i~s excellent by
those that had used them. All of the facilities were rated as good or excellent by the majority of their
users. Only the Dove and Cole libraries were used by enough respondents to allow an assessment of
regional differences. However, the ratings of these libraries was consistent across region
Table 19: Facilities Rating by Respondent
5 Good or
I Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Exccllcnt Exccllent
"A % "41 n, /o 'h,
Dovc Librq .n% 12.5% 86.7'% 9').2'?;,
Cole Library I .0'% 7.7% 33.8"4 57.4% VI .2'>b
Senior Centcr Z.Z'X, 6.5?+ 32.h?/o 58.7% v I .3%
Swim Cornplcx 2.4% 14.3%, 42.9% 40.5% 83.4'h1
Carlsbad City Hall 13.W 56.nv, 29.7% XX.3'%,
Faraday Buildlns 2.9% 28.6% hX.6"/I 47.?'%,
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report. 2001 ~ SBRl 23
Libraries
Tt le amount of library use w: 1s of intc :rest in this study. As noted above, when respondents
were asked an open-ended question about the use of city facilities by family members, the Cole and
Dove libraries were frequently mentioned. When asked explicitly about the respondent's use, the
responses parallel those reported above. Most (79.8%) of the respondents reported using one of the
Carlsbad library facilities in the past year. On average, Carlsbad residents visited a Carlsbad library
16.90 times in the past year. The amount of overall library use did not vary by region. The amount of -
use of the libraries individually is displayed in Table 20. As this table shows, the Dove Library is used
more than the Cole Library or the Centro de Informacion. Both the Dove Library and the Cole Library
are used substantially more often than the Centro de Informacion. -
-
-
Table 20: Frequency of Library Use.
How Often How Oflcn Rchpondcnt "
How Often Respondent Respondent Uscd Cole Used C'cntru du
Used Dove Library in Library in the Past Informacion in Ihc Past
thc Past Year Year Yuar
Count % Count 'H, Count '%,
-
I Never 147 18.3"h 340 42.3'%1 114 Vh.5%
2 Once or Twice in the
Past Year 213 34.09/, 216 26.9% 21 2.6%
3 Once or Twice a Month 278 34.6% I65 20.5% 0 .7%
4 Once a Week 62 7.1% 41 5.8% I , I '%,
5 More Than Once a Week 43 5.4% 36 4.5V"
city of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 ~ SBRl 24
Looking at these libraries individually, there are differences in usage by region. As one would
expect. the Dove Library is used more frequently by residents in the South than by residents in the
Northern regions. This is illustrated in Table 21a.
Table Zla: Frequency of Use of the Dove Libran by Region.
The Cole Library, on the other hand, is used more frequently by those in the Northwest and
Northeast Regions. This is seen in Table 21 b. The use of Centro de lnformacion was too infrequent to
determine ifthere were any differences in use by region at a statistically significant level. Librmy usage
did not differ significantly from the 2000 survey to 2001.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 ~ SBRl 25
Table 2lb: Frequency of Use of the Cole Library by Region.
3 Once or Twice Count 67 71 7
4 Once 3 Weel C"""1 24 21 17
Citv Features
Respondents were asked a number of questions about features of the City of Carlsbad such as
what they liked most about Carlsbad, and what their biggest concerns about Carlsbad were. This
section describes the responses to these questions.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 26
Best Liked Features of Carlsbad
Residents were cgiven an open-ended opportunity to say what they liked best about living in the
City of Carlsbad. The respondents offered a variety of different answers, which are summarized in
Table 22. The most commonly cited feature in response to this question was proximity to the beach.
Nearly a third (3 I .9%) of the respondents mentioned this as what they like most about living in
Table 22: Features of Living in Carlsbad Most Liked.
It Is Safe
QuietlPeaceful
TnilslParkdReorcation
Schools
No1 Crowded or OvcrdevelupedWo
Tnllic Problems 973 96.3% 37 3.7'X
AtmospherelAmbicncc
The Villqe
Housing
Other
EverythinglNothing I Don't Like
976 96.6% 34 3.4'%
979 96.9% 31 3.1%
994 YK4% I6 I .6'K
913 ~0.4~~ 97 V.6tY"
964 95.4'K 46 4.6%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 21
Carlsbad. The weather or climate (20.0%). the location in general (19.Yh). and the community and
people ( 18.7%) were also frequently cited as things people liked best about living in Carlsbad.
The features people liked most about living in Carlsbad differed by region. Those in the
Southwest Region were more likely to mention proximity to the beach as what they liked best about
living in Carlsbad than were other residents. As shown in Table 23a, 39.3 percent of residents in the
Southwest Region cited the ocean or the beach as the thing they liked most about living in Carlsbad
compared to 3 I .9 percent for all Carlsbad residents.
Table 23a: Proximity to the Beach as Best Liked Feature by Region.
Residents vaned by region in the likelihood that they would state that location in genenl as what
they liked best about living in Carlsbad. Table 23b shows that those in the South were more likely than
those in the North to offer location as what they liked best about living in Carlsbad.
City ofCarlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 28
Table 23b: Location as Best Liked Feature by Region.
REGION
I ? 3 4
QBADI-3 0 Not Count 214 ?OV I YO 1vo
Location
XI)')
Chosen within
Northwcst Northeast Southeast Southwest Total
REGION 81.9sj 82.9'K 77.2'% 75.4'k Xo.I~:,.
Total Count 252 252 254 252 1010
There was also variability across regions with respect to the likelihood of stating that the small-
town feel of Carlsbad is what they like most about living in the city. Residents in the Northwest Region
were most likely to say the small-tow feel is what they like most about living in Carlsbad. while those
in the southeast were least likely to state this as their best-liked feature. This is illustrated in Table 23c.
City ofcarlsbad Public Opinion Suwey Report, 2001 ~ SBRl 29
Table 23c: Small Town Feel as Best Liked Feature by Region.
REGION
Small Town Choscn ",i, aithin 76.2% X4.19" Yll.h'!. X7.1". S4.6"',,
Residents were also split by north and south regarding the likelihood of listing beauty and
cleanliness as what they liked most about living in the City of Carlsbad. Residents in the south were
more likely than those in the north to say that the beauty or cleanliness of the city was what they liked
best. Table 23d shows this difference.
Table 23d: Beauty and Cleanliness as Best Liked Feature by Reeion.
City ofCarlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 ~ SBRl 30
Biggest Concerns Regarding Carlsbad
-
Respondents were also queried regarding what concerns they had about Carlsbad.
Specifically, they were asked what their biggest concern is regarding the City of Carlsbad. These
concerns are displayed in Table 24. The most common complaint was traffic; 30.7 percent of the
respondents said traffic was their biggest concern regarding Carlsbad. Related are the concerns with
growth. expressed by 26.3 percent; and over-development, expressed by 18.2 percent. Some (6.5%)
residents said they had no concerns regarding Carlsbad.
Table 24: Biggest Concern Regarding the City of Carlsbad.
0 Not Chosen I Choscn
Count % Count Y"
Traffic 700 69.3% 310 30.7%
Growth 144 73.7?4 266 26.3%
OverdcvclopinglOverbuilding X26 8 I .X%, 1x4 I8.2"/1,
OvercrowdinglOvc~vplllation 9% 91.7?6 84 X.3%
Cost of LivinglHuusing 960 Y5.09/0 50 5SJ'%,
Lack oUPoor City Services 974 %.4% 36 3.6"X
City StreetsIFrccway Access 975 %.5% 35 3.m
PollutionJAir Quality 980 Y7m" 30 3.W)
Overcrowded SchoulslBussing
to San Marcvs
Losing Open
Spaces/Conscrvation of Land
Crim
Other
9x4 Y7.4V"
9x5 97.5%
26 2.6%
25 2.5%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report. 2001 - SBRl 31
Concern with traffic differed by region. As Table 25 shows. residents in the northeast were the
most likely (38.5%) to mention traffic as their biggest concern, and those in the southwest were also
somewhat likely (32.Th) to list traffic as their biggest concern.
Table 25: Traffic is Biggest Concern by Region.
RFGION
I 7 3 4
Northwest Northeast Southeast Sourhwcst
QBAD2-4 0 Not Count I88 155 I xx 16') 700
T~ll
Biggest
C0"CWIl
Chosen
74.6"h h1.5"h 74.0% 67.1"G 6'1.3"/i,
Regarding
Carlrbad is I Chosen Count 64 97 66 83 310
"A within
REGION
Total Count 252 252 254 252 1010
City ofcarlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report. 2001 - SBRl 32
City Streets
The respondents rated the city street conditions in Carlsbad. Overall road conditions were
rated quite positively. Most of the respondents rated the overall road conditions as good or excellent.
This is seen in Table 26. Respondents also rated the parking in the downtown Village area, and traffic
circulation efficiency, excluding freeways. Parking in the Village and hafic circulation received less
favorable ratings. Only about half the respondents rated parking and traff~c circulation as good or
excellent.
Table 26: City Street Conditions.
I Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Excellent Excellent
5 Good or
Yo YU % Y" ?4
Overall Road Condition 2. I Y" 13.7% 59.0% 25.3% 84.2%
Traffic Circulation Efficiency 17.0% 37.5% 38.2% 7.2% 45.4Y"
Parking Availability in
Downtown Village Area 15.2% 38.9% 39.1% 6.8Y' 45.9%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRI 33
There was a difference behveen traffic circulation ratings between the 2001 survey and the
previous one. Table 27a shows that residents were mnch less likely to rate the trafflc circulation
efficiency as poor in 2001 (17.0%) than they were in 2000 (25.3%).
Table 27a: Traffic Circulation Effkiency Rating by Year.
ADMIN Survey Administmian
I 2000 2 2001
Administration Administration Total
QSTREET5 I Poor Count 252 171 423
Traffic
Circulation
Efkiencv Rating.
%within ADMlN
Survey Administration 25.3% 17.0% 21.1%
"
Excluding 2 Fair count 338 377 715
Condition Rating
Freeways %within ADMlN
Survey Administration 33.9%, 37.5% 35.7%
3 Good Count 36 I 3x4 745
%within ADMIN
Survev Administration 36.2% 38.2% 37.2%
4 Excellent Count 46 72 I18
Yo within ADMIN
Survev Administration 4.6% 7.2% 5.9%
Total Count 991 I004 2001
%within ADMlN
Survey AdminisIration 100.0% 100.0% IOO.O'%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 34
c
The ratings of traffic circulation efficiency excluding freeways varied by region. Table 27h
shows that residents in the northeast were the most likely to express disapproval of the traffic circulation
efficiency. A quarter (25.2%) of those in the Northeast Region rated traffic circulation efficiency as
poor, compared to 14.3 percent for the other regions.
Table 27b: Traliic Circulation Efticiency Rating by Region.
I Northwest 2 Northeast 3 Suutheasl 4 Southwest Total
QSTREETS I Poor C0""t 43 63 35 30 171
Traffic
Circulation
EffiCie"Cy
"A within
REGION 17.2% 2S.2% I 3.8% I2.0% 17.0%
2 Fair C0,I"t 8 4 I 08 99 81 377
%within
REGION 35.6% 43.2% 39.0% 3 2 4% 37.5%
3 Good C"U"t 96 68 I 04 I I6 384
38.4% 27.2?4 40.9% 46.4% 38.2% %within
REGION
4 Excellent Count 22 II 16 23 72
8.8% 4.4% 6.3% 9.2% 7.2%
Total C"""t 250 250 254 250 I004
100.0'K I oo.a% l00.0% Illl).O"% I00.Q"A
Yo within
REGION
within
REGION
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRI 35
Parking availability ratings differed for residents across years. As with trafic circulation
efficiency, parhg availability in the Village was rated more positively in 2001 than it was in 2000. This
is revealed in Table 27c.
Table 27c: Parking Availability in the Village by Year.
ADMlN Survey Administntion
Administration Administralcon
I 2000 2 2001
Total
QSTREET6 Parking I Poor Count 207 149 356
Availability in
Downtown Village
Area Condition
'YO within ADMlN
Survey Administmlion 2 I .4% I5.2% 18.3%
Rall"g 2 Fair Count 389 381 770
%within ADMIN
Survey Administration 40.2% 38.9% 39.5%
3 Good Cuunt 328 383 71 I
%within ADMlN
Survey Administration 33.9% 39. I "h 365%
4 Excellent Count 44 67 Ill
U/o within ADMlN
Survey Administration 4.5% 6.8% 5.7%
Total count 968 980 I948
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 36
Parking availability ratings also differed for residents in different regions. This is shown in Table
27d. Those in the north were more positive about parkiig availability in the Village area than were
residents of south Carlsbad.
Table 27d: Parking Availability in the Village by Region.
I Northwest 2 Northeast 3 Southeast 4 Soulhwest Total
QSTREET6 I Poor Count 43 36 34 36
Parking
Availability
in Downlown
149
%within
REGION 17.3% 14.5% 14.5% 14.5% 15.2%
Village AC?~ 2 Fair Count 82 86 I13 IO0 38 I
%within
REGION 32.Y0h 34.7% 48.1% 40.3% 38.9”h
3 Good Count IO0 I07 80 Y6 383
%within
REGION 40.2% 43.1% 34.0% 38.7% 39.1%
4 Excellent Count 24 19 8 16 67
%within
REGION 9.6% 7.7% 3.4% 6.5% 6.8%
Total Count 24Y 248 235 248 Y80
% within
REGION 100.0% l00.0% 100.0% IOO.0% 1(10.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRI 31
Traffic Reduction
.-
Carlsbad residents were asked about any methods they use to reduce their total number of
commuting trips.) Their responses are summarized in Table 28. The most common method, reported
by over a third (38.9%) of the respondents, was flex hours. Carpooling and mass transit were each
used by nearly a third of the respondents.
Table 28: Methods Used to Reduce Commuting Trips.
0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen
Count % Count Yo
Flex Hours I I3 61.1% 12 38.9%
Carpooling 130 70.3% 55 29.7%
Mass Transit 130 70.3% 55 29.7%
Telecommuting I49 80.8% 36 19.5%
Bicycling 185 83.8% 30 16.2%
Other 179 96.8% 6 3.2%
gender) was not possihle due to limitations of thc data. A technical error resulted in the loss of thc responses to the
traffic reduction questions ball hut the first 185 respondents. This numhcr is sufficient for overall estimates, but
lnsrttficicnt for suhgroup analysts.
'Analysis of mc and interest in methods 10 reduce commuting trips by subgroups (e&, by region or by
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 38
r i
3-
The level of interest in various techniques to reduce commuting hips was assessed.
Specifically, respondents were asked to indicate their interest in a number of methods to reduce
commuting trips using a scale of zero to ten, where zero means not at all interested and ten means very
interested. The average responses are displayed in Table 29. The highest level of interest was
expressed in the use of flex hours to reduce commuting trips. On the zero-to-ten scale, the average
level of interest in flex hours was 6.01.
Table 29: Interest in Commuting Trip Reduction Methods.
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
Flex Hoors I73 0 10 6.01 3.70
Carpooling I76 0 IO 3.4 I 3.66
Mass Transit 181 0 IO 4.93 3.60
Telecommuting I72 0 IO 4.51 4.15
Bicycl~ng I78 0 10 3.12 3.47
Moving Closer to Work 164 0 IO 2.82 3.92
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 39
The average interest rating in flex hours was 6.01 on the zero-to-ten scale. While the average
interest score is not particularly high, a look at the distribution of responses may be more revealing.
Figure 1 shows the distribution of the level of interest responses to flex hours as a method to reduce
commuting trips. More than half (54.9%) of the respondents offered an interest rating of six or greater
in flex hours.
" I
No Interest 3 5 7 9
2 4 6 8 Very Interestf :d
Interest in Flex Hours
Figure 1: Level of Interest in Flex Hours
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 40
There was also a substantial portion of the respondents who expressed interest in using mass
transit as a means to reduce their number of commuting trips. As illustrated in Figure 2,41.4 percent of
the respondents rated their interest in mass transit as a six or higher on the zero-to-ten interest scale.
The average interest score in mass transit was 4.93.
30a 1
No Interest 2 4 6 8 Very Interested
I 3 5 7 9
Interest in Mass Tmsit
Figure 2: Level of Interest in Mass Transit
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBN 41
There was moderate interest overall in telecommuting to reduce commuting trips; the average
interest rating was 4.51. However, Figure 3 reveals that there are many who have high interest in
telecommuting, while a large percentage have no interest at all. In fact, two fifths (41.9%) of the
respondents expressed considerable interest in telecommuting, offering interest ratings of six or greater.
Other means assessed (carpooling, bicycling, moving) did not receive strong interest. This is illustrated
in Figures 4 through 6.
50
40
30
20
c 10
E
a0 8
NI 3 Interest 2 4 6 8 Vely Intercsted
I 3 5 7 9
Interest in Telecommuting
1
i .-.. Figure 3: Level of Interest in Telecommuting
7 I
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 42 ”
50
40
30
20
Y
IC
3 2
CY0
No Interest 2 4 6 R Very Interested
I 3 5 7 9
interest in Carpooling
Figure 4: Level of Interest in Carpooling
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRI 43
" I
No interest 2 4 6 X Very Interested
I 3 5 7 9
Interest in Bicycling
Figure 5: Level of Interest in Bicycling
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 44
60-
50-
40-
30-
20.
3 10-
8 a 0-
No Interest 2 4 6 8 Very lnteresled
I 3 5 7 9
Interest in Moving Closer to Work
Figure 6: Level of Interest in Moving Closer to Work
Citv Information
Information Resources
Respondents were asked what resources they used to get information about the City of
Carlsbad. Table 30 shows their responses. The most common source of infomation about Carlsbad
reported was the Community Services and Recreation Guide, used by 55.0%. Calling the city on the
telephone was also used by 40.8% of the respondents, and about a third of the respondents used flyers
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 45
in their city billing statements and the same used the city web page. Almost a quarter (22.3%) of the
respondents said they used the new city desktop calendar.
Table 30 Sources of Information about Carlsbad.
0 Not Chosen I Chosen
COUllt Yo Count %
Community Services
Recreation Guide 455 45.0% 555 55.0%
Calling City on Telephone 598 59.2% 412 40.8%
Flyers in City Billing
Statement 680 67.3% 330 32.7%
City Web Page 68 I 67.4% 329 32.6%
The New City Desktop
Calendar 785 77.7% 225 22.3%
City Council Meetings 832 82.4% I78 17.6%
Citizen Forums 939 93.0% 71 7.0%
Other IO05 99.5% 5 .5%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRI 46
There were also regional differences in the likelihood of gaining city information by calling the
city on the telephone. As with billing statements, residents in the northwest were more likely than others
to use this method to gain information about Carlsbad. This is seen in Table 3 1.
Table 31: Acessing City Information by Calling the City on the Telephone by Region.
REGION
I 2 3 4
Northwest Northeast Southeast Southwest Total
QINFOI-6 0 Not Count 134 155 I65 I 44 598
Carlsbad
Source of Chosen %within 53.2% 6 I .Soh 65.0% 57.1% 59.2%
on Telephone "YO within
REGION 46.8% 38.5% 35.0% 42.9% 40.8%
Total Count 252 252 254 252 1010
"h within
REGION 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 ~ SBRl 41
"
Interest in Information Sources -~
"
Carlsbad residents were asked about their interest in gaining information on the city through a
few different resources. Specifically, they were asked to rate their interest on the zero-to-ten interest
scale in receiving city information through a city newsletter or receiving e-mail notification from the city.
Residents were fairly interested in receiving a city newsletter, as indicated by an average interest rating
of 6.87. There was also moderate interest in receiving e-mail notices about the city, indicated by an
average interest rating of 4.87. The responses are summarized in Table 32.
"
-
Table 32: lnterest in Using Different Resources for Information about Carlsbad.
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
QNEWSLET Interest in
Receiving a City Newsletter I009 0 IO 6.87 3.08
QEMAIL Interest in
Receiving E-mail 992 0 10 4.87 3.88
Notification from City
Valid N (listwise) 99 I
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 48
Rating of Information Dispersal
Residents were asked to rate the job the city does in providing residents with information about
important issues. Respondents answered using a zero-to-ten scale where zero means poor and ten
means excellent. They offered an average rating of 5.95 on the zero-to-ten scale. The distribution of
responses to this question may be informative, and is illustrated in Figure 7.
300 I
Poor 2 4 6 8 Excellent
I 3 5 7 9
City Information Dispersal
Figure 7: Rating of City Information Dispersal
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRI 49
Calendar
Reactions to the new city desktop calendar were of interest. Residents were asked if they
received the City of Carlsbad desktop calendar that mailed to each household the previous December.
As Table 33 shows, 62.0 percent of the respondents reported receiving the city desktop calendar.
Those that said they had received a calendar were asked if they found it to, be useful. Two thirds
(67.1%) of those receiving calendars said they found them to be useful.
Table 33: City Desktop Calendar.
0 No I Yes
Count Yo Count %
.-
City Desktop Calendar
Received 313 38.0% 511 62.0%
City Desktop Calendar Useful 163 32.9% 332 67. I Yo
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRI SO
City Meetings
City Council Meetings
Respondents were asked how frequently they watch Carlsbad City Council meetings on TV
The responses of the residents are displayed in Table 34. The City Council meetings are never
watched by 45.2 percent of residents. However, 44.8 percent report watching the City Council
meetings on TV at least quarterly. Watching City Council meetings on TV did not vary by region.
Table 34: Frequency of Watching Carlsbad City Council Meetings on TV.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid I Never 456 45. I 45.2 45.2
2 Once a Year IO0 9.9 9.9 55. I
3 Once a Quarter I70 16.8 16.8 72.0
4 Once a Month 203 20. I 20.1 92. I
5 Once a Week 80 7.9 7.9 100.0
Total I009 99.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know I .I
City of Carkbdd Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 51
Quarterly Quadrant Meetings
Respondents were also asked if they had ever watched a Quarterly Quadrant meeting on cable
TV. As Table 35 shows, 15.5 percent of Carlsbad residents have watched a quarterly quadrant
meeting on cable TV. Watching Quarterly Quadrant meetings on cable TV did not vary by region.
Table 35: Respondent Has Watched a Quarterly Quadrant Meeting.
Frequency Percent Valid Pelrent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 No x35 82.7 845 x4.5
I Yes I53 15.1 15.5 100.0
Total 988 97.8 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 22 2.2
Total 1010 100.0
City of Cdrkbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRI 52
Other Methods of Obtaining City Information
Additional means of obtaining information about the City of Carlsbad were offered by
respondents. These are summarized in Table 36. The newspaper was the most commonly mentioned
method through which the respondents would like to get city information, but this was offered by only
7.3 percent of the respondents.
Table 36: Additional Means to Find Information on the City Suggested by
Respondents.
0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen
Count Yo Count Yo
Improve/Provide More
Information On the City
Web Site
Cableicity TV Channel or
City-Related Programming
9 67 95.7% 43 4.3%
973 96.3% 37 3.7%
FlyersNewsletters 987 97.7% 23 2.3%
Newspaper 936 92.7% 74 7.3%
Regular Mail 982 97.2% 28 2.8%
Other 956 94.7% 54 5.3%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRI 53
City Website
The use of the city website by residents was given attention in the survey. Respondents were
asked if they had accessed the city website in the past year. A third (36.2%) of the residents had
accessed the city website. Respondents saying they had accessed the website were asked how much
of the information they were looking for were they able to fmd. Table 37 displays their responses. Half
(5 1.7%) of the respondents said they were able to find all the information they sought. Neither the
likelihood of accessing the city website nor the amount of infomation found differed by repion.
Table 37: Amount of Information Found on City Web Page.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid I None 16 I .6 4.5 4.5
2 A Link 31 3.1 8.8 13.4
3 Some I23 12.2 34.9 48.3
4 All I 82 18.0 51.7 100.0
Total 352 34.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 9 .9
System 649 64.3
Total 658 65. I
Total IOIO 100.0
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRI 54
Type of Information Sought
Respondents were asked about the type of information they were looking for when they visited
the city website. The type of information sought is smarized in Table 38. There was a wide variety
of information sought, as the table indicates. The most common response from residents was that they
were seeking information about specific events. This was repoded by 7.6 percent of the respondents.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRI 55
Table 38: Type of Information Sought on the City Website.
0 Not Chosen I Chosen
Count % Count 0%
Specific City Events Calendar
(street fairs, parades or cult~ral 933 92.4% 77 7.6%
events)
General Information About the
City or City Services 956 94.7% 54 5.3%
Job Listings 970 96.0% 40 4.m
City Codes, Laws, Policies,
Licensing
Park InformationlCamping
ActivitieslProgramslClasses
Libraries
City Listings and Hours of
Operation
City Council & Planning
Information
973 96.3% 37 3.7%
973 96.3% 37 3.7%
977 96.7% 33 3.3%
979 96.9% 31 3.1%
980 97.091,
988 97.8%
30 3.0%
22 2.2%
Real Estate and Housing 993 98.3% 17 1.7%
School Information 996 98.6% 14 1.4%
Waste Disposal and Recycling 997 98.7% 13 1.3%
Demographics 998 98.8% 12 1.2%
Roads and Transportation 998 98.8% 12 1.2%
TourismlPoints of Interest 998 98.8% 12 I .2%
Traffic and Weather 998 98.8% 12 1.2%
Business Listings in Carlsbad 999 98.90% II 1.1%
Interest Groups and
Community Organizations 1003 99.3% 7 .7%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBN 56
Type of Information Not Found
Those respondents who indicated that they were unable to fmd the information they sought on
the city website were asked what specific type of information they were looking for that they could not
fmd. The responses are summarized in Table 39.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 51
Table 39: Information Respondent Could Not Find on City Website.
~~~
0 Not Chosen I Chosen
Count % Count %
General Information About the
City or City Services 1008
City Listings and Hours of
Operation
School Information
Specific City Events Calendar
(street fairs, parades or cultural
events)
ActivitiesiProgramsiC~asses
City Council & Planning
Information
Roads and Transportation
City Codes, Laws, Policies,
Licensing
Business Listings In Carlsbad
Park InformationiCamping
Libraries
Job Listings
Interest Groups and
Community Organizations
Waste Disposal and Recycling
TourismlPoints of Interest
Real Estate and Housing
Demographics
Traffic and Weather
1001
1003
998
997
1003
I004
987
1005
1002
1007
I000
I006
1005
1007
I005
I007
I005
99.8%
99. I%
99.3%
98.8%
98.7%
99.3%
99.4%
97.7%
99.5%
99.2%
99.7%
99.0%
99.6%
99.5%
99.7%
99.5%
99.7%
99.5%
2
9
7
12
13
7
6
23
5
8
I0 3
4
5
3
5
3
5
.2%
.9%
.7%
I .2%
1.3%
.7%
.6%
2.3%
.5%
.8%
.3%
I .0%
.4%
.5%
.3%
.5%
.3%
.5%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRI 58
Other 997 98.7% 13 I .3%
Payment via Internet
Residents were asked about their willingness to make city financial transactions via the Internet.
Specifically, they were asked if they would be willing to make payments for services provided by the
city via the Internet. As Table 40 shows, more than half (58.7%) the respondents indicated they were
unwilling to make payments for city services via the Internet. It is interesting to note that those who
Table 40: Respondent Willing to Pay for City Services via Internet.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 No 588 58.2 58.7 58.7
2 It Depends 57 5.6 5.7 64.4
3 Yes 356 35.2 35.6 100.0
Total 1001 99. I 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 9 .9
reported accessing information about the City of Carlsbad through the city website were more likely
(46.8%) than other residents (30.1%) to say they were willing to make payments for services provided
by the city via the Internet.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 59
Citv Conditions
Public Safety
Feelings of Safety
Residents were asked about how safe they felt walking alone in their neighborhood. The
residents answered using a zero-to-ten scale where zero means not at all safe and ten means very
safe. The results are shown in Table 41. When asked how safe they felt walking alone in their
neighborhood during the day, respondents gave an average rating of 9.56, suggesting that they felt very
safe. These ratings did not differ by region or by gender.
Table 41: Feelings of Safety Walking Alone in the Neighborhood.
N Minimum Maximum MC8" Deviation
Std.
QSAFEI How Safe
Alone in His/Cler
Respondent Feels Wnlking
Neighborhood in the Day
QSAFE2 How Safe
Alone in Hisitler
Respondent Feels Walking
Neighborhood after Dark
1010
1007
0
0
10 9.56 1.04
10 7.63 2.60
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 60
c
Residents were also asked about how safe they felt waking in their neighborhood at night. On
the zero-to-ten scale, residents provided an average response of 7.63, suggesting that they felt safe at
night as well. This is shown in Table 41. Residents did feel significantly more safe during the day than
they did at night.
Feelings of safety walking alone in their neighborhood after dark did differ by region. Table
42a shows average feelings of safety ratings by region. Those in the Northwest Region did feel less
safe (7.33) walking alone at night in their neighborhood than did residents in the Southwest Region
(7.96).
Table 42a: Feelings of Safety Walking at Night by Region.
QSAFE2 How Safe Respondent Feels Walking Alone in Their
Neighborhood AAer Dark
Std
N Mean Deviation
1 Northwest 252 7.33 2.98
2 Northeast
3 Southeast
4 Southwest
25 I 7.72 2.40
254 7.52 2.59
250 1.96 2.36
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 61
There was also a difference in feelings of safety by gender. That is, females felt less safe than
males walking in their neighborhood alone at night. This is illustrated in Table 42b. While males offered
an average feeling of safety rating of 8.56, females offered an average rating of 7.01.
Table 42b: Feelings of Safety Walking at Night by Gender.
Std.
GENDER Gender N Mean Deviation
QSAFE2 How Safe 0 Female
Respondent Feels Walking
Alone in His or Her
Neighborhood After Dark '
602 7.01 2.78
405 8.56 I .96
Residents reporting feeling safer walking alone in their neighborhood during the day in 2001
than they did in 2000. In 200 I, the average rating of feelings of safety walking alone during the day
was 9.56 compared to 9.46 in the 2000 survey. There was no difference by year of survey (2000
versus 2001) for feelings of safety walking alone in their neighborhood at night
Recycling and Pollution
Recycling
Respondents were asked about the amount of recycling they do. They were asked to estimate
the percentage of the waste items that their household disposes of via recycling. Ovenll, Carlsbad
residents reported recycling almost two thirds (63.34%) of the materials that they could. Figure X
displays the distribution of responses. A quarter (25.9%) of the respondents reported recycling over
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRI 62
90 percent of the material that could be recycled in their household, and 62.0 percent said they recycle
more than half the recyclable materials in their household.
20 -
0-10% 21.30% 41-50% 61.70% 81-90%
11.20% 31.40% 51.60% 71.80% 91-100%
Material Recycled
Figure 8: Percentage of Material Recycled.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 63
The percentage of recyclable materials recycled varied by region. This is seen in Table 43a.
Those in the Northeast Region reported recycling more materials (70.01%) than those in other regions,
Table 43a: Percentage of Recyclable Material That Is Recycled
by Region.
ALLRECYC Percentage of Recyclable Materials That Respondent
Recycles
N Mean Std. Deviation
I Northwest 250 61.80 34.96
2 Northeast 252 70.01 31.82
3 Southeast 253 59.94 34.19
4 Southwest 25 1 61.63 35.52
Total 1006 63.34 34.32
There was also variation in the percentage of material recycled by home ownership. That is,
those residents who own their home recycled a higher percentage of recyclable material than residents
who were renting. Those who own their home recycle 65.86 percent of recyclable waste material,
while those renting recycle 55.03%.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRI 64
r" Table 43b: Percentage of Recyclable Material That Is Recycled by Home Ownership.
- Std.
QDEM02 OwniRent Home N Mean Deviation
ALLRECYC Percentage 0 Own 780 65.86 33.96
That Respondent Recycles I Rent 224 55.03 34.12
" of Recyclable Materials
- I Greatest Contributor to Ocean Water Pollution Perceived by Residents
- Carlsbad residents were also asked what they thought was the greatest contributor to ocean
! water pollution. Their responses are displayed in Table 44. The most frequently identified contributor
," to ocean water pollution was contaminated storm water runoff. This was identified by 35.3 percent of
- the respondents as the greatest contributor to ocean water pollution. A quarter (27.3 Oh) of the
respondents identified car washing as the greatest contributor to ocean water pollution, and IO. 1
r I
I percent said pet waste.
r-
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRI 65
Table 44: Greatest Contributor to Ocean Water Pollution.
~~ ~~
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent
Valid Contaminated storm
waterlurban runoff 312 30.9 35.3 35.3
Car washing 242 24.0 27.3 97.4
Pet waste 89 8.8 10.1 66.7
Sewage treatment plants 63 6.2 7.1 42.4
Industries discharging into the
man 38 3.8 4.3 46.1
Trashllitter 31 3.1 3.5 56.6
Boats and ships: oillgas spills 30 3.0 3.4 50.1
other materials
Illegal dumping ofchemicals 01
Cars: oilg, leaks
Fertilizerlpesticides
Mexico
Sewage spills or overflows
Algae
Other
Total
Missing Refused
23
19
II
7
4
I
15
885
125
2.3 2.6 53.1
I .9 2. I 70. I
1.1 I .2 67.9
.7 .8 100.0
.4 .5 50.5
.I .I 99.2
1.5 1.7 99. I
87.6 100.0
12.4
Water Fee
Residents expressed willingness to pay an annual fee to improve coastal water quality. When
asked if they would pay a $50 annual fee per household to improve coastal water, over half (58.2%) of
the respondents said they would be willing to pay such a fee. Those who said they were not willing to
pay a $50 annual fee were asked how much they would be willing to pay on an annual basis. Most
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 66
(73.7%) said they would not be willing to pay anythmg. However, those who did not say zero, on
average said they would be willing to pay $21.84. Including those who said zero, the average is $5.75.
Graffiti
A number of questions were posed to the respondents regarding graffiti in the City of Carlsbad.
Respondents were asked if they had seen graffiti anywhere in Carlsbad in the past year. As Table 45
shows, over half of the respondents reported seeing graffiti in Carlsbad in the past year. However, of
those that had seen grafflti, only 12.1 percent reported it to the city. Almost all ofthe respondents who
had seen grafflti said the graffiti had been cleaned up.
Table 45: Graffkti in Carlsbad.
n NO I Yes
Count % Count %
Gratitti Seen in Carlsbad
within the Past Year 470 47.1% 527 52.9%
Graffiti Reported by
Respondent 463 87.9% 64 12.1%
Graffiti Cleaned Up 37 8.4Yo 40 I 9 I .6%
The likelihood that the respondent had seen pfliti in the past year differed by region. That is,
those in the north regions were more likely to report having seen pffiti in Carlsbad in the past year
than were residents in the south regions. This is seen in Table 46. There were no regional differences
in the likelihood of reporting graffiti or the gmff~ti being cleaned up.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 67
" Table 46: Graffiti Sighting by Region.
REGION
I 2 3 4
Northwest Northeast Southeast Southwest Total
QGRAFI Grafilli 0 No Count 95 101 I40 134 470
Seen in Carlsbad
within the Past
Year
%within
REGION 38.0% 40.9% 56.0% 53.6% 47.1%
I Yes Count 155 146 I10 I I6 527
%within
REGION 62.0% 59.1% 44.0% 46.4% 52.9%
Total Count 250 247 250 250 997
100.0% IOO.O"/c 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% %within
REGION
Entertainment Venues
In the survey last year, the city of Carlsbad learned that residents in Carlsbad would like to see
more entertainment venues. As a follow-up, this year's respondents were asked more specifically
about what type of entertainment venues they would like to see in greater numbers. Respondents rated
the importance of each of these venues on a zero-to-ten scale where zero means not at all important
and ten means very important. These responses are summarized in Table 47. Live concert venues,
performing arts theaters, outdoor amphitheaters, and museums were all seen as fairly important, while
movie theaters were seen as less so.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 68
Table 47: Importance of Having More Entertainment Venues.
~
Std.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
~ Live Concert Venues 1001 0 10 6.56 3.20
Performing Arts Theaters 1002 0 10 6.54 3.13
Outdoor Amphitheaters I002 0 IO 6.33 3.26
Museums IO00 0 10 6.12 3.07
Movie Theaters 1007 0 10 4.40 3.48
The ratings of the importance of the different entertainment venues were somewhat variable
Therefore, it is useful to consider the distributions of the responses to these questions. The response
distributions for the importance ratings of each of these entertainment venues are displayed in Figures 9
through 13.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 69
300
200
100
C
I 3 5 7 9
Importance of More Live Concert Venues
Figure 9: Importance of More Live Concert Venues
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 70
300
200
L
Not At Ali Impork i 4 6
I 3 5 7 9
X Very lnlportant
Importance of More Perfoming Arts Theaters
Figure 10: Importance of More Performing Arts Theaters
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 71
300 -
200 -
100 -
x U C
3
E Lri 0-
Not A
Importance of More Outdoor Ampitheaters
Figure 11: Importance of More Outdoor Amphitheaters
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 12
r
r
c
Not At All Irnportsnc 2 4 6
I
n very Important
3 5 7 9
Importance of More Museums
Figure 12: Importance of More Museums
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 ~ SBRl 13
300
200
No, Al All Importilor 2 4
I
6
5 7 3
8 Very Importam
9
Importance of More Movie Theaters
Figure 13: Importance of More Movie Theaters
7
"
!
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 14
The perceived importance of movie theaters varied by region. This is seen in Table 48.
Residents in the northeast viewed having more movie theaters as more important than did those in the
southeast.
Table 48: Importance of Movie Theaters by Region.
QVENUEl Importance of More Movie Theaters
Std.
N Mean Deviation
I Northwest 250 4.59 3.50
2 Northeast 252 4.88 3.61
3 Southeast 254 4.01 3.4s
4 Southwest 25 I 4.14 3.3 1
Total I007 4.40 3.48
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRI IS
Contact with Code Enforcement or City Staff
Resident contact with the city was given attention in the survey. Respondents were asked
about calls they made regarding code enforcement, as well as calls in general. A total of 21.5 percent
of the respondents reported having contact with the City of Carlsbad to ask a question or report a code
enforcement matter. The likelihood that someone called the city depended on region. As Table 49
indicates, those in the northwest were considerable more likely to call the city than were residents in
other pats of the city.
Table 49: Respondent Contact with the City in the Past Year.
REGION
I 2 1 4
Northwest Northeast Southeast Southwest Total
QCALLI 0 NO COUM I74 20 I 21 I 205 19 I
Respondent %within REGION 69.0% 80. I Yo 83.1% 8 I .7% 78.5% Contact with the
Ciy m the Past I Yes Count 78 50 41 46 217
Year "A withm REGION 3 I .O% 19.9% I h.Y% 18.3% 2 I .5%
Total count 252 25 I 254 25 I loox
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRI 16
The 217 respondents who said they had called were asked about their contact with the city.
Most residents found the city to be responsive when they called. This is seen in Table 50, which shows
that 86.7 percent of the respondents said their calls were returned promptly, 81. I percent said they
received the information that they were after, and 7 1. I percent said their concerns were addressed to
their satisfaction.
Table 50: Perceived Responsiveness of the City to Code Enforcement Calls.
0 No I Yes
Call Was Returned Promptly 28 13.3% I X3 86.7%
Respondent Received
Information Sought 40 18.9% I72 81.1%
Respondent's Concern Was
Addressed to HisiHer 61 28.9% 150 71.1%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRI 77
The likelihood that the respondents said that their concerned was addressed to their satisfaction
varied by region. As illustrated in Table 51, those in the southeast were less likely to say their concern
was addressed to their satisfaction, while those living in the northeast were more likely to express
satisfaction.
Table 51: Satisfaction with Response by Region.
REGION
I 2 3 4
Northwesl Northeast Southeast Southwest Total
QCALL4 0 No Count 22 7 19 13 61
Respondent's
Concern Was %within REGION 28.6% 14.6% 46.3% 28.9% 28.9%
Addressed to I Count
HisiHer 55 41 22 32 I50
Satisfaction %within REGION 7 I .4% 85.4% 53.7% 71.1% 71.1%
Total Count 77 48 41 45 211
%within REGION 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRI 78
Respondents were also asked if they had any other contact with the city of Carlsbad by
telephone in the past year. Over a third (37.2%) of the respondents said they did have some other
telephone contact. These respondents were asked to rate the their contact with the city. Their
responses are summarized in Table 52. Only 5.6 percent rated their contact with the city as poor,
while 83.4 percent rated their contact as good or excellent.
Table 52: Overall Rating of Contact with the City by Those Reporting Other
Contact.
Valid I Poor
2 Fair
3 Good
4 Excellent
Total
Missing 8 Don't Know
System
Total
21
41
133
178
373
I
636
637
2. I 5.6 5.6
4. I 11.0 16.6
13.2 35.7 52.3
17.6 47.1 100.0
36.9 100.0
.I
63.0
63. I
Total 1010 100.0
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 ~ SBRl 19
Confidence in Citv Government
Respondents were asked the extent to which they were confident in the Carlsbad city
government to make decisions that positively affect the lives of its community members. Respondents
answered on a scale of zero-to-ten, where zero means not at all confident and ten means very
confident. On average, residents offered a confidence rating of 6.52, suggesting confidence in city
government The distribution of responses is displayed in Figure 14, which shows that most people
rated their level of confidence in the city government on the high side of the scale. In fact, two thirds
Not at All Contident 2 4 6 8 Very Contident
I 3 5 7 9
Confidence in City Government
Figure 14: Confidence in City Government to Make Decisions
That Positively Affect Residents.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRI 80
(67.6%) of the respondents offered a confidence rating over 5, and over a third (38.8%) rated their
confidence in the city government to make decisions that positively affected residents at 8 or higher
Confidence in the Carlsbad city government to make decisions that positively affect the lives of
its community members varied by region. This is illustrated in Table 53. Those in the northwest, on
average, expressed more confidence in the city government than did those in the southeast
Table 53: Confidence in City Government by Region.
QCONFID3 Level of Confidence in Carlsbad City Government to
Make Positive Decisions
Std.
N Mean Deviation
1 Northwest 240 6.82 2.47
2 Northeast
3 Southeast
4 Southwest
240 6.42 2.36
231 6.15 2.51
235 6.70 2.20
Total 952 6.52 2.40
The extent to which residents expressed confidence in the city government to make decisions
that positively impacted Carlsbad residents differed in the 2001 survey from the previous year. That is,
respondents were more confident in 2001 (6.52) than they were in 2000 (6.04) that the city
government would make decisions that would benefit residents
The association between confidence in the City of Carlsbad government to make decisions that
positively affect the lives of residents and ratings of the job the city does in providing information on
important issues was of interest. The responses to these two questions was positively correlated
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 81
(1=.482), indicating that the higher someone rated the job the city does in providing information, the
more confidence he or she has in the city government to make decisions that positively affect him or
her.
Improving the Oualitv of Life in Carlsbad
Residents were asked about improving tl. le quality of life in the community. They were given the
opportunity to offer suggestions regarding what the City of Carlsbad could do to improve the quality of
life. Their responses are summarized in Table 54. There were two issues that were more commonly
mentioned by respondents: setting limits on growth and development, and improving hafic circulation.
Setting growth and development limits was suggested by 28.0 percent of the respondents, and
improving traff~c circulation was offered by 16.8 percent.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 82
Table 54: Improving Quality of Life.
0 Not Chosen I Chosen
Count % Count Yo
Set Limits on Growth &
Development
ImprovingTraffic
CirculationlEfticiency
More or Better Parks and
Recreation Facilities
Road Construction and
Maintenance
More Responsive to
Community
WantsINcedslConcerns
Clean and Beautify City
Better inform Carlsbad City
Residents (general)
More Police and Enforcement
of Laws
More Community
EventslSpecial Events
(concerts, fairs, festivals)
More Entertainment Venues
Housing
More AffordablelLow income
MorelBetter Public
Transportation
ImprovelExpand Parking
More Schools
Programs, Activities, Facilities
for Children andlor Teens
Better Safcty
More Policy & Relief for
UnemployedlPooriHo~neless
721
840
941
941
950
967
980
984
987
987
990
992
994
994
995
997
999
72.0?h
83.2%
93.2%
93.2%
94. 1%
95.7%
97.0%
97.4%
97.1%
97.7%
98.0%
98.2%
98.4%
98.4%
98.5%
98.7%
98.9%
283
170
69
69
60
43
30
26
23
23
20
18
16
16
15
13
II
28.0%
16.8%
6.8%
6.8%
5.9%
4.3%
3.0%
2.6%
2.3%
2.3%
2.0%
I .8%
I .6%
I .6%
1.5%
1.3%
1.1%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 83
There was an effect of region on the likelihood that the respondent suggested improving traffic
circulation as a means to improve the quality of life in Carlsbad. Consistent with the fmdings (Table 25)
regarding residents' biggest concerns with the city, residents in the Northeast Region were more likely
to propose improving traffic circulation as the way to improve the quality of life in Carlsbad. This is
seen in Table 5%.
Table 55a: Residents Sugcesting Improving Traffic Circulation by Region.
I 2 1 4
Nonhwesl Nonhevst Southeast Soulhwesl Tolsl
LIFEQ.1 Carlsbad 0 Not Clmren Coulll
Could Improve
Quality of Life m "/D within REGION
the Community
Tratlic Circulatlod
216 IRX 219 217 840
85.7% 74.6% 86.2% 86.1% 83.2%
By: ImprUvlng
EAiclmy
I Chosen C0""l 16 M 35 35 I 70
% wifhm REGION 14.3% 25.4% 13.8% 11.9% I6.X"h
Total C0""l 252 252 254 252 1010
% wirhm IlEGlON IW.O% 10o.n~~ 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBN 84
There was also a difference in the likelihood of offering road construction and maintenance as a
means to improve the quality of life in their community. This is illustrated in Table 55b.
Table 5Sb Residents Suggesting Road Construction and Maintenance by Region.
REGION
I 2 3 4
Northwest N0llh~~1 Southeast Southwest Total
LIFEQ-2 Carkbad 0 No1 Chosen Count 243 224 238 236
Could Improve
94 I
Quality of Lire in % w8thtn REGION 96.4% 88.9% 93.7% 93.7% 93.2%
CO"", Road Construction 9 28 16 16 69
and Mai81tmance % wllhln REGION 3.6% 11.1% 6.3"h 6.3% 6.8%
Total COUllt 252 252 254 252 IOlO
Yo whin REGION IM).O% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% IM).O"h
the community By: I Chosen
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 85
SUMMARY
Generally, respondents viewed the City of Carlsbad rather favorably. Where comparisons to
2000 were possible, the survey this year showed improvement in respondent ratings. There was also
generally a good deal of consistency in attitudes across regions. The timing of the administration should
be considered in the interpretation of some of the fmdmgs. Because interviewing began shortly after the
events of September 1 lth, some unknown impact is possible, though the consistency with the 2000
fidings suggests otherwise. Some key findings are noted below.
All the city-provided services addressed in the survey were rated as good or excellent by most
people.
The overall ratings of city services were higher in 2001 than they were in 2000.
All of the city facilities were rated as good or excellent by the majority of their users.
Carlsbad residents visited a Carlsbad library an average of 16.90 times in the past year.
Proximity to the beach was the feature the highest number of residents liked best about living in
Carlsbad, while traffic was the biggest concern.
Overall road conditions were rated quite positively.
The Carlsbad Community Services and Recreation Guide was again the most common source
of Carlsbad information for residents, and use of the city web page increased dramatically.
Residents feel quite safe walking alone in their neighborhood, day or night.
Carlsbad residents reported recycling almost two thirds of the materials that they could.
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 86
Over half (58.2%) of the respondents said they would be willing to pay an annual fee ($50) to
improve coastal water quality.
Contact with code enforcement or other city staff was generally evaluated positively.
Most people rated their level of confidence in the city government to make decisions that
positively affected residents on the high side of the scale, and the confidence rating in 2001 was
higher than in 2000.
Setting growth and development limits was mentioned by residents more often than anythmg
else as a means to improve the quality of life in Carlsbad
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Report, 2001 - SBRl 87
Appendix A
Questionnaire Items
QAREAl. Are you currently a resident of Carlsbad?
0. No 8. Don’t Know
1. Yes 9. Refused
QAREA2. First, to be sure that you live in our study area, what is your zip
code?
1. 92008 8. Don’t Know
2. 92009 9. Refused
3. Other
QAREA3. To be sure we talk to people from all areas of Carlsbad, do you live
east or west of El Camino Real?
1. East
2. West
QWORK. Do you currently work within the City limits of Carlsbad?
0. No
1. Yes
2. Retired/Homemaker/Not Applicable 3 skip QTRAFIC questions
8. Don’t Know
9. Refused
City of Curlshod Public Opinion Survey Fall, 2001 -Final Druft IO/X/OI
QCBADI-1-21. What do you like most about living in the City of Carlsbad?
(oDen end)
1. Weather/Climate
2. The Beach/Close to the Ocean
3. Location (general)
4. Like that it's a "small town"
5. Quiet/Peaceful
6. Beautiful/Clean
7. Like the "cornrnunity"/the people
8. City government; planning; services provided by the City (general).
9. Safe
10.The schools
11.The housing
12. Not crowded or overdeveloped; no traffic problems
13.Trails, parks, recreation services
14.The Village
15.Atmosphere/Arnbiance
16.Other
17.Everything/Nothing I don't like
18. Nothing
19. Don't Know
QCBAD~-1-20. What is your biggest concern regarding the City of Carlsbad?
(oDen end)
1. Growth (general) /Growing too fast
2. Overcrowding / Overpopulation
3. Overdeveloping / Overbuilding
4. Traffic
5. Cost of Living/housing
6. Pollution/Air Quality
7. Lack of/ Poor City Services
8. Losing Open Spaces/Conversion of land
9. City Streets/Freeway Access
10.Crime
11.Overcrowded schools/bussing to San Marcos
12.0ther
13.No Concerns
14.Don't Know
15.No response
City of Curlsbud Public Opinion Survey Full, 2001 -Final Druft IO/8/OI 2
r-
-
r
I
.-
i
r-
QsERvi-8. I am going to read a list of services provided by the City of
Carlsbad. Please rate each one as refused (S), don't know (S),
excellent (4), good (3), fair (2), or poor (1).
o Recreational Programs
o Libraty Services
o Fire Protection
o Police Services
o Enforcement of Traffic Regulations
o Cultural Arts Programs
o Water Services
o Sewer Services
<QSERVl> ___
<QSERVZ>
<QSERV3>
<QSERV4>
<QSERVS>
<QSERV6> ___
<QSERV7>
<QSERVB>
QSERviP-BP. [If "poor'l is there a specific reason why you rated this service as
poor? (open end)
QGENSERV. In general how would you rate the overall services provided by the
City? Refused (9), don't know (S), excellent (4), good (3),
fair (2) or poor (l)?
1. Poor
2. Fair
3. Good
4. Excellent
8. Don't Know
9. Refused
QOUTSRV1-3. The City of Carlsbad contracts with outside companies for a variety
of services. Please rate each of the following services as refused
(9), don't know (S), excellent (4), good (3), fair (2), or poor
(1).
o Trash and Recycling Collection <QOUTSRVl> ~
o Street Sweeping <QOUTSRVZ> ~
o Hazardous Waste Disposal < QOUTSRV3 > ~
City of Curlsbud Public Opinion Survey Full, 2001 -Final Druft 10/8/0I 3
QPARKUSE. Has anyone in your household used a Carlsbad public park during
the past twelve months?
0. No 3 skip to QFACILTY
1. Yes + ask QPARKRATE
8. Don’t Know
9. Refused
QPARKRATE. How would you rate the condition of the park/s you or your family
used? Refused (9), don’t know (S), excellent (4), good (3),
fair (2) or poor (l)?
1. Poor
2. Fair
3. Good
4. Excellent
8. Don’t Know
9. Refused
QFACILTY Has anyone in your household used a community center at a park
during the past twelve months?
0. No 3 skip to QCITYFAC
1. Yes -3 ask QCTRRATE
8. Don’t know
9. Refused
QCTRRATE. How would you rate the condition of the community center at the
park you visited? Refused (9), don‘t know (S), excellent (4),
good (3), fair (2), or poor (l)?
1. Poor
2. Fair
3. Good
4. Excellent
8. Don‘t Know
9. Refused
4
QCTPIFAl-11. Aside from parks and community centers, have you or a member of
your family used any other City facility such as [ random insert from
&tJ or [ random insert from /isst ] during the past twelve months?
No (0), yes (l), don't know (S), refused (9).
[DO NOT READ LIST, MARK ALL THAT APPLY]
o Carlsbad City Hall
o Faraday Building
o ArtsOffice
o Cole Library
o Dove Library
o Centro de Informacion
o Senior Center
o Safety Complex
o Swim Complex
o Parks & Community Ctrs.
o Other
<QCITYFAl> __
<QCITYFAZ> ___
<QCITYFA3> __
<QCITYFA4> ~
<QCITYFAS> ~
<QCITYFA6> ~
<QCITYFA7> -
<QCITYFAS> __
<QCITYFA9> __
<QCITYFAlO> __
<QCITYFA11>-
QCrVOTHl Any other city facitities used in the past twelve months ?
0. No
1. Yes
QFRATEI-11. [FOR EACH ITEM CHOSEN]
How would you rate the condition of this facility? Refused (9),
don't know (S), excellent (4), good (3), fair (2), or poor (l)?
o Carlsbad City Hall <QFRATE-l> ~
o Faraday Building <QFRATE-Z> ~
o ArtsOffice <QFRATE-3> ___
o Cole Library <QFRATE-4> ~
o Dove Library <QFRATE-S> ~
o Centro de Informacion <QFRATE-6> ~
o Senior Center <QFRATE-7> __
o Safety Complex <QFRATE-S> __
o Swim Complex <QFRATE-9> ~
o Parks & Community Ctrs. <QRATE_10> -
o Other <QRATE-ll>-
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey Fall, 2001 -Final Draft 10/8/01 5
-
4
QSTREET. Please rate the condition of each of the following items as refused
(9), don't know (8), excellent (4), good (3), fair (Z), or poor
(1).
o Overall Road Condition <QSTREETl> -
o Traffic Circulation Efficiency, Excluding Freeways <QSTREETS> -
o Parking Availability In The Downtown Village Area <QSTREET6> -
QTRAFIC. Citizens have identified traffic as a concern. In the past year have
you used any of the following methods to reduce your total number
of commuting trips. (O=No) (l=Yes)
[READ LIST, MARK ALL THAT APPLY]
o Carpooling
o Telecommuting
o Mass Transit (bus, trolley, or Coaster)
o Bicycle
o Flex-Hours Or Off-peak Hours
o Walking
o Other:
o Don't Know
<QTRAFICl> -
<QTRAFICZ> -
<QTRAFIC3> ~
<QTRAFIC4> ~
<QTRAFICS> ~
<QTRAFIC6> -
<QTRAFIC7> __
<QTRAFIC8> ~
QTRAVLI-6 Using a scale of 0 to 10 where zero means not at all interested
and ten means very interested, how interested would you be in
using any of the following to reduce your total number of
commuting trips? Refused (9), don't know (8).
[READ LIST, MARK ALL THAT APPLY]
o Carpooling <QTRAVLl> -
o Telecommuting <QTRAVLZ> ~
o Mass Transit (bus, trolley, or Coaster) <QTRAVL3> ~
o Bicycling <QTRAVL4> __
o Flex-Hours Or Off-peak Hours <QTRAVLS> __
o Moving Closer To Work <QTRAVL6> -
City of Carlshud Public Opinion Survey Full, 2001 -Final Drcrft 10/8/01 6
.-
".
QINFO1. In the past year, have you used any of the following to gain
information about the City? (O=No) (l=YeS)
[READ OPTIONS, CHECK ALL THAT APPLY]
o Community Services Recreation Guide <QINFO1-1> ~
o City Web Page (www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us) <QINFO1-2> __
o The New City Desktop Calendar <QINF01-3> ~
o Flyer in City Billing Statement <QINFO1-4> ~
o Citizen Forums <QINFO1-5> __
o Calling the City on the Telephone <QINF01-6> ~
o City Council Meetings <QINFO1-7> ~
o Other: <QINFOl-E> __
(combination water/trash bill for some homes)
QNEWSLET. Using a scale of 0 to 10, where zero means not at all interested
and ten means very interested, how interested would you be in
using any of the following to gain information about the City?
A city newsletter mailed to your home (just City news, not including
recreation class schedule)? (98=DK) (99=REF)
QEMAIL. How about automatic e-mail notification on topics of your choice?
(98=DK) (99=REF)
QOTHI-2-10. Are there any other methods through which you would like to
receive information about the City? (oDen end)
o Cable TV Channel/City-Related Programming <QOTHI-22 __
o Flyers/Newsletters <QOTHI-4> ~
o Newspaper <QOTHI-12> ~
o Regular Mail <QOTHI-13> ~
o Other <QOTHI-10> ___
CITYINFZ. Using a scale of 0 to 10 where zero means poor and ten means
excellent, how would you rate the job the city does in providing
you with information about issues that are important to you?
(98=DK) (99=REF)
City of Curl.dmd Public Opinion Survey Full, 2001 -Find Druft 10/8/01 I
QMETGI. On average, how frequently do you watch Carlsbad City council
meetings on television? Would you say once a week (5), once a
month (4), once a quarter (3), once a year (2) or never(1)
(8=DK) (9=REF)?
5. Once a Week
4. Once a Month
3. Once a Quarter
2. Once a Year
1. Never
8. Don't Know
9. Refused
QMETGZ. Have you ever watched a City quarterly quadrant meeting on cable
television?
0. No
1. Yes
8. Don't Know
9. Refused
QWEBACSS. Have you accessed the City's website in the past year?
(www.ci.car1sbad.ca.w)
0. No 3 skip to QWEBPAY
1. Yes 3 ask QWEBINF
8. Don't Know
9. Refused
City of Curlshud Public Opinion Survey Full, 2001 -Final Draft 10/8/01 8
r
QWEBII-39. What type of information were you looking for (when accessing the
City web site during the past year)? (ooen end)
1. General Information About The City Or City Services
2. Listings and Hours of Operation
3. School Information
6. Specific City Events Calendar (street fairs, parades, cultural events, etc.)
7. Adivities/Programs/CIasses
8. City Council Meetings/Planning
10. Roads and Transportation
11. City Codes, Laws, Policies
13. Business Listings
17. Park Information/Camping (location, hours of operation, etc.)
18. Libraries
19. Job Listings
20. Interest Groups & Community Organizations
21. Waste Disposal & Recycling
26.Tourism/Points of Interest
27. Real Estate/Housing
32. Demographics
34. Traffic &Weather
38. Other
39. None
QWEBFIND. How much of what you were looking for were you able to find?
Would you say all of the information, some, a little or none of
the information?
1. None 3 skip to QNOTFIND
2. A little
3. Some
4. All 3 skip to QTLIB
8. Don't know
9. Refused
City of Carlshad Public Opinion Survey Fall, 2001 -Final Draft 10/8/01 9
QNOTF~-39. What were you looking for that you were unable to find (when
accessing the City web site)? fooen end)
1. General information about the City or City Services
2. Listings and Hours of Operation
3. School Information
6. Specific City Events Calendar (street fairs, parades, cultural events, etc.)
7. Activities/Programs/Classes
8. City Council Meetings/Planning
10. Roads and Transportation
11. City Codes, Laws, Policies
13. Business Listings
17. Park Information/Camping (location, hours of operation, etc.)
18. Libraries
19. Job listings
20. Interest Groups & Community Organizations
21. Waste Disposal & Recycling
26. Tourism/Points of Interest
28. Real Estate/Housing
32. Demographics
34. Traffic &Weather
38. Other
39. None
QWEBPAY. Would you be willing to make payments for services provided by
the City via the Internet if available? (Ex: pay water bills, obtain
business licenses, etc.)
0. No
1. Yes
2. It Depends
8. Don't Know
9. Refused
QTLIB. How often have you used any of the Carlsbad City Library facilities
in the past year? times 3 If ZERO, skip to QSAFEl
3 If > 0, go to QLIBl
8. Don't know
9. Refused
City uf Curlshad Public Opinion Survey Full, 2001 -Find Draft 10/8/01 10
QUBl.
QLIB2.
QUB3.
The Dove Library (in south Carlsbad near El Carnino and Alga).
1. Never
2. Once Or Twice In the Past Year
3. Once Or Twice a Month
4. Once a Week
5. More Than Once a Week
8. Don’t Know
9. Refused
The Cole Library on (Carlsbad Village Drive next to City Hall).
1. Never
2. Once Or Twice In the Past Year
3. Once Or Twice a Month
4. Once a Week
5. More Than Once a Week
8. Don’t Know
9. Refused
Centro de Inforrnacion (near downtown on the Pine School
campus).
1. Never
2. Once Or Twice In the Past Year
3. Once Or Twice a Month
4. Once a Week
5. More Than Once a Week
8. Don’t Know
9. Refused
QSAFE1. The next few questions have to do with neighborhood safety. For
each question, please use a scale of 0 to 10 where zero means
not at all safe and ten means very safe. Don’t know (8),
refused (9).
How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood during
the day?
QSAFE2. How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood after
dark?
City of Curlsbud Public Opinion Survey Full, ZOO1 -Final Druft 10/8/01 11
ALLRECYC.
QOCEAN.
QWATRFEE.
WARTFEEZ.
If you had to estimate the percentage of waste items that your
household disposes of via recycling, where 0% would be recycling
nothing and 100% would be recyding everything you can
recyde, what would you say your percentage would be? YO
What do you think is the greatest contributor to ocean water
pollution?
[DO NOT READ LIST -- RECORD ONE ANSWER ONLY]
1. Contaminated Storm Water/Urban Runoff
2. Sewage Treatment Plants
3. Industries (Discharging To the Ocean)
4. Boats and Ships: Oil/Gas Spills
5. Sewage Spills or Overflows
6. Illegal Dumping Of Chemicals Or Other Materials
7. Trash/Litter
8. Pet Waste
9. Fertilizer/Pesticides
10. Cars: Oil/Gas Leaks
11. Car Washing
12. Algae
13. Mexico
14. Other:
98. Don‘t Know
99. Refused
Would you be willing to pay a $50 annual fee per household to
improve coastal water quality?
0. No 3 ask WATRFEEZ
1. Yes 3 skip to QGRAFl
8. Don’t know
9. Refused
[If no,] how much would you be willing to pay on an annual basis?
lopen end)
Citj of Curlsbnd Public Opinion Survey Fall, 2001 -Final Druft 10/8/01 12
QGRAFI. In the past year have you seen graffiti anywhere in Carisbad?
0. No 3 skip to QCALLl
1. Yes 3 ask QREPGRAF
8. Don’t know
9. Refused
REPGRAF. [If yes] did YOU report it?
0. No
1. Yes
CLNGRAF. Was the graffiti cleaned up?
0. No
1. Yes
8. Don’t know
9. Refused
QcALL1. In the past year, have you called the City to ask a question or
report a code enforcement matter such as illegal dumping of
garbage, abandoned vehicles, animal problems (such as barking
dogs), or any other complaint?
0. No 3 skip to QCALL5
1. Yes + ask QCALLZ
QCALLZ. [If yes] was your call returned promptly?
0. No
1. Yes
QCALL3. [If yes] did you receive the information you were seeking?
0. No
1. Yes
City of Curlsbud Public Opinion Survey Full, 2001 -Final Druft 10/8/01 13
QCALL4. [If yes] was your concern addressed to your satisfaction?
0. No
1. Yes
QCALLS. Have you had any other contact with the City of Carlsbad via
telephone in the past year?
0. No 3 skip to QCALNDRL
1. Yes 3 ask QCALL6
8. Don't know
9. Refused
QcALL6. Overall, how would you rate your contact with the city?
Refused (9), don't know (8), Bccellent (4), Good (3), Fair
(Z), or Poor (l)?
1. Poor
2. Fair
3. Good
4. Excellent
8. Don't know
9. Refused
QcALNDR1. The City of Carlsbad mailed a city desk top calendar to each
household this past December.
Did you receive this calendar?
0. No 3 skip to QVENUE1-5
1. Yes 3 ask QCALNDRZ
8. Don't know
9. Refused
QCALNDRZ. Did YOU find the calendar useful?
0. No
1. Yes
8. Don't know
9. Refused
City ojCurlsbud Public Opinion Survey Full, 2001 -Final Daft 10/8/01 14
QVENUEI-5. Citizens have previously identified the desire for more
entertainment venues. On a scale of 0 to 10, where zero means
not at all important, and ten means very important, how
important is it to you to see more of each of the following?
o Movie theaters <QVENUEl> ~
o Performing arts theater <QVENUEZ> ___
o Outdoor amphitheater <QVENUE3> -
o Museum <QVENUE4> ~
o Live concert venue <QVENUES> ~
o Other: <OTHVENUZ>
QCONFID3. On a scale of 0 to 10, where ten means very confident and zero
means not at all confident, how confident are you in the
Carlsbad City government to make decisions which positively affect
the lives of its community members? <QCONFID3> __
uFEQ1-44. What could the City of Carlsbad do to improve the quality of life in
the community? (ooen end)
1. Improve traffic circulation & efficiency (general)
2. Road Construction and Maintenance
5. More/better public transportation (buses, coaster hours of operation, etc.)
6. Set limits on growth, development, population
7. More affordable/low income housing
8. Better inform Carlsbad residents (general)
12. More entertainment venues (move theaters, performing arts, etc.)
14. More police/Enforcement of Laws
16. More/Better Parks & Recreation Facilities
17. Clean & Beautify City
20. Better safety (rid of gangs, drugs & criminal activity)
21. Programs, activities, facilities for children and/or teens
23. More Responsive to community wants/needs/concerns
24. Improve/Expand parking (general)
25. More policy & relief for the unemployed/poor/homeless
33. More schools
37. More community events/special events (concerts, fairs, festivals, etc.)
42. Other
43. Don’t Know
44. Refused
City of Curlsbud Public Opinion Survry Full, 2001 -Final Druft 10/8/01 15
QDEMO1. How many years have you lived in Carlsbad?
QDEMOZ. Do you own or rent your home?
0. Own
1. Rent
8. Don't Know
9. Refused
QDQB. In order to make sure that we speak with peopte of all age groups,
could you please tell me in what year were you born?
QDEMO~. How many people currently reside in your household including
yourself and any children?
3 If 1, skip to QRACE
QDEM04. How many children in your household are under the age of 18?
9 If zero, skip to QRACE
QDEM05. How many children are under the age of 12?
3 If zero, skip to QRACE
QDEM06. How many children are under the age of 6?
QRACE. What race do you consider yourself to be?
1. White/Caucasian
2. African-American
3. Asian or Pacific Islander
4. American Indian, Aleut, Eskimo
5. Hispanic/Latino
6. Other:
City of Curkhnd Public Opinion Survey Fall, 2001 -Final Dr@ 10/8/01 16
QSTREET. Could you please tell us the street you live on and the nearest cross
street? (ooen end)
QINCOME. Please stop me when I reach the category that best describes your
household's total income last year (2000) before taxes?
1. Under $25,000
2. $25,000 to under $35,000
3. $35,000 to under $50,000
4. $50,000 to under $75,000
5. $75,000 to under $100,000
6. $100,000 to under $125,000
7. $125,000 and above
QCOMENT. Do you have any comments you would like to add about the
subjects we have covered today? (ooen end1
GENDER. 1. Male 0. Female
City of Carlsbud Public Opinion Survey Full, 2001 -Final Druft 10/8/01 17
Appendix B
Frequencies and Descriptive Statistics
Valid I 92008 504 49.9 49.9 49.9
2 92009 506 50.1 50. I 100.0
QAREA3 EastlWest of El Camino Real
Frequency percent Valld Percent PUW"i
Cumulvtive
Valid I East 506 50. I 50.1 50.1
2 west 504 49.9 49.9 1nu.o
QWORK Heopondent Currently Works Within Carlsbad City Limits
Cumulative
Freqtlrncy Percent Valid Percent PWCC"l
Valid ON" 520 51.5 51.8 51.8
I YCS 306 30.3 30.5 x2 3
2 RetirediHomemukerlNot
hpplicoblc 178 17.6 17.7 I 0n.o
Total i 1104 99.4 100.0
Mirsmg X Don't Know 6 .6
QBADl-l Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: WeatheriClimate
Valid 0 Not Chosen 808 80 0 80.0 xO.O
I Chosen 2112 20.0 20 0 100.0
QBADI-2 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad The BeachIClose to Ocean
Frrqllency
Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent Percent
Vulid 0 Not Chosen 688 68.1 68.1 68.1
I Chosen 322 31.9 31.9 100.0
QBADl-3 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: Location
Freqmncy percent Valid Percent
Curnulatwe
Percent
Vnlid 0 Not Chosen 809 80.1 80. I 80.1
I Chosen 201 19.9 19.9 100.0
QBAD1-4 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad Like That it's a Small Town
Valid 0 Not Chosen 854 84 6 84.6 84.6
I Chosen 156 15.4 15.4 100,u
QBADI-5 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: QuietIPeaceful
FW4"C"CY P0Cf"t Valid percent Percent
Curnulnlive
Vvlitl 0 Not Chosen 945 93.6 93.6 93.6
I Chose,) 65 6.4 6.4 100.0
QBADl-6 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: BeautifuliClean
Curnulatlve
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Perceot
Valid 0 Not Choncn 877 86.8 86.8 86.8
I Chosen 133 11.2 13.2 IOO.O
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QBADl-7 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: Like the Comrnunilylthe People
Frcqucncy Percent Valid percent
Cumulative
PelCC"t
Valid 0 Nul Choson 82 I 81.3 81.3 81.3
I Chosen I 89 IX.7 18.7 100.0
QBADI-X Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: City Government/~~anning/Services
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Vnlid 0 Not Clmsen 894 88.5 88.5 88.5
I Chosen I16 11.5 11.5 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QBADI-9 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: Safe
Cumulative
Frequency Pcr~ent Valid Percent PWX"f
Valid 0 NOS Chosen 926 91.7 91.7 91.7
I Chosen 84 8.3 8.3 100.0
QBADI-IO Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: The Schools
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 968 95.8 95.8 95.8
I Chosen 42 4.2 4.2 100.0
QBADlLlI Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: The Housing
Frequency Percent Valid Percell1 PWCC"t
Cumulative
Valid 0 No1 Clmnen 994 98.4 98 4 98 4
I Chosen 16 I .6 1.b 100.0
QBAUILIZ Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: Not Crowded or OverdevelupedlNo Traffic Problems
~~ ~~~~~
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Vnlid 0 Not Chosen 973 96.1 96.3 96.1
I Chosen 37 1.7 1.7 100.0
QBADI-13 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: TrailslParksIRecreatiun
- Valid 0 Not Chosen 957 94.8 94.8 94.8
I Chosen 53 5.2 5.2 100.0
...
QBAD1-14 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: The Village
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percellt
Valid 0 Not Chosen 979 96.9 96.9 96.9
I Chosen I1 1. I 3.1 100.0
QBADl-15 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: AtmospherelAmbience
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent Perceni
Valid 0 Not Chosen 976 96.6 96.6 96.6
I Chosen 34 1.4 3.4 100.0
QBAD1-16 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: Other
Cumulative
Frequency Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 911 YO 4 90.4
Vatlid Percent Peiccnt
90.4
I Cllosen 97 Y6 Y.6 100.0
Valid 0 Not Chosen 964 95 4 95 4 95 4
I Chosen 46 4.6 4.6 l0u.o
QBADI-18 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad: Nothing
Freq"e"Cy Percent
Cumulative
Valid Percellt PWCC"t
Vvlid 0 Not Chosen 1001 99.1 99.7 99.1
I Chosen 1 .I .I 100.0
Total 1010 1or1.0 100.0
QBADI-19 Thing Respondent Likes Most About Living In Carlsbad Don't Know
- QBADZ-1 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding CarlsbadGrowthIGrowing Too Fast
Fieq"e"CY Percent Valid Percent percent
Villid 0 Not Chosen 744 73.7 73.7 73.7
I Chosen 266 26.3 26.3 100.0
QBADZ-2 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad: OvercrowdingIOverpopulation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 926 91.7 91.7 91.7
I Chosen 84 8.3 8.3 IO0.0
QBAD2-3 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad: OverdevelopingIOverbuilding
C"m"latiVC
Fieq1W"CY Percent Vdid Percent percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 826 R1.8 81.8 81.8
I Chosen I 84 18.2 18.2 100.0
QBAD2-4 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad: Traffic
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Curnulalive
Valid 0 Not Chosen 700 69 1 69.3 69.3
I Chosen 3 I 0 30.7 30 7 l00.0
Total IO10 100.11 100.0
QBAD2-5 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad Cost of LivingiHousing
C"rn"lZ,tiW - Frequency Pcrcent Valid Percent percent
Valid 0 No1 Chosen 960 95.0 95.0 95.0
I Chosen 50 5.0 5.0 lOO.0 - Total I010 l0U.U 100.0
- QBADZ-6 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad: PollutionIAir Quality
FK"W"<Y Percmt Vaiid Pcrcmt
Culnulativa
Percent - Valid 0 Not Clmsen 980 97.0 97 0 97.0
I Chosen 1 0 3 .I1 3.0 l00.0
QBAD2-7 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad: Lack oflPoor City Services
Frequelwy Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 974 96.4 96.4 96.4
I Chosen 36 3.6 3.6 100.0
Total 1010 1ao.o 100.0
QBADZ-8 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlshad: Losing Open SpacedConservation of Land
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 985 97.5 97.5 97.5
I Chosen 25 2.5 2.5 100.0
QBAD2-9 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlshad City StreetsIFreeway Access
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Viil~l 0 Not Chosen 975 96.5 96.5 96.5
I Chossn 35 3.5 3.5 1no.o
QBADZ-IO Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad: Crime
C"m"l:,fi"e ~.~ ~
Frequency PUW"t Valid Percent percent
Vakl 0 Not Chosen 994 98.4 98.4 98.4
I Chosen 16 I .6 I ,6 lO0.U
QBAD2-I 1 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad: Overcrewded SchoolsIBussing to San Marcos
Frequency Percent Villid Percent
Cumulative
percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 984 97 4 97.4 97.4
I Chosen 26 2.6 2.6 I1111.0
QBADZ-12 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad: Othet
Fre""e"C" PeKe"t Valid percent PerCcllf
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 914 90 5 911.5 911.5
I Chosen 96 9,5 [J .5 1on.n
Tots! I I1 I 0 I Il0.U 100.0
QBAD2-13 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad: No Concerns
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent percent
Valid 0 Nor Chosen 944 93.5 93.5 93.5
I Charen 66 6.5 6.5 100.0
QBAD2-14 Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad: Don't Know
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 979 96.9 96.9 96.9
I Chosen 31 3.1 3.1 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QBAD2-IS Respondent's Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad: No Response
Freque~lcy percent Valid Percent PWCC"t
Culnulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 999 98.9 98.9 98.9
I Chosen I1 /.I 1.1 100.0
Total I010 100.0 100.0
QSEKVI Recreational Programs Rating
Freqwncy Perce~~t Valid Percent
Cumulative
PWCe"t
Valid I PDor II 1.1 I .3 13
2 Faic 73 7.2 8.5 Y.8
3 Good 495 49.0 57.8 67 6
4 Execllent 278 27.5 32.4 100.0
Total 857 x4 9 $00 o
M~ssing 8 Don't Know 151 I5.n
9 Refilsed 2 2
Total 153 15.1
,-
QSERVZ Library Services Rating
Fre""e"C" Percent Valid Pcrcent Percent
Cumulative
Valid I Poor 7 .7 .K .E
2 Fvir 31 3.1 3.3 4. I
3 Good 317 31.4 34.1 38.2
4 Excellent 575 56.9 61.8 100.0
Total 930 02. I 100.0
Missing K Don't Know KO 7.9
QSERV3 Fire Protection Services Rating
Cumulative
Percent FreqWllCy Percent Valid Percent
Vaiid I Poor 5 .5 .6 .6
2 Fair 17 I .7 2. I 2.7
3 Goad 337 33.4 41.3 44.0
4 Excellent 456 45. I 56.0 100.0
Total 815 80.7 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know I95 19.3
QSERV4 Police Services Rating
Freqtle"Cy percent Vnllrl percent
Cumulative
PVCC"t
Valid I Poor I6 I .b I .7 I .7
2 Filir 45 4.5 4.8 6.5
3 Good 40x 40.4 43.7 . 50,2
4 Exccllenl 465 46.0 49.8 I00 0
TOM 934 92.5 100.0
Missmg K Don't Know 76 7.5
QSERV5 Traffic Enforcement Rating
Freq"e"Cy Percent valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid I Poor 74 7.1 8.2 8.2
2 Fair I60 15.8 17.6 25.8
1 Good 494 48.9 54.5 80.1
4 Excellent I79 17.7 19.7 100.0
Total 907 89.8 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 102 10.1
9 Refused I .I
Total I01 10.2
QSERV6 Cultural Arts Programs Rating
Valid I Poor 22 2.2 2.3 2.3
2 Fair 63 6.2 6.5 8.7
1 Good 612 60.6 63.0 71.7
4 Excellent 275 27.2 28.3 iOO.O
Total 972 96.2 100.0
Mmsing 8 Don't KINW 18 3.8
QSERV7 Water Services Rating
Valid I Poor
2 Fair
3 Good
4 EIcellent
Total
Missing 8 Ihn't Know
9 Refused
Total
42
152
414
258
866
142
2
I44
42 4.8 4.8
15.0 17.6 22.4
41.0 47.8 70.2
25.5 29.8 100.11
85.7 iOO.O
14. I
.2
14.3
QSERV8 Sewer Services Rating
Frequency Percent Vulid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid I Poor I5 I .5 I .8 1.8
2 Farr 50 5.0 6.1 7.9
1 Good 554 54.9 67.2 75.0
4 Exccllcnt 206 20.4 25.0 100.0
Total x25 81.7 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 68 6.7
System I17 11.6
Total I x5 18.3
QTKaFIlO Walking Used to Reduce Number of Commuting Trips
Fre(l"e"C" Percent Vvlld Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 984 97.4 97.4 97.4
I Chosen 26 2.6 2.6 100.0
QCENSRV Overall City Services Rating
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumu1iltive
Percent
Wid I Poor 1 .3 1 .3
2 Fmr 41 4. I 4.1 4.4
1 Good 612 60.6 61.4 65.8
4 Excellent 34 I 11.n 14.2 I UO.(I
Total 997 98.7 IDO.0
Mlsslng 8 Don't Know I1 1.1
QOUTSRVI Trash and Recycling Collection Rating
FW"W"C" PerCc"t Valid Pcrcclll Percent
Culnulative
Valid I Poor 41 4.1 4.1 4.1
2 Fair I42 14.1 14.2 18.5
1 Good 474 46.9 47.1 65.8
4 Excellent 341 34.0 14.2 100 0
Total I002 99.2 1111).11
Mlsslng X Don't Know n .x
QOUTSRVZ Street Sweeping Rating
Frequency percent Valid Percent Percent
cumu1u1,ve
Valid I Poor 58 5.7 6.1 6. I
2 Fair 179 17.7 18,9 25.0
3 Good 49 8 49.3 52.5 77.5
4 Excellent 213 21.1 22.5 100.0
Total 948 93.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 59 5.8
9 Refused 3 .3
Total 62 6. I
Total lola 100.0
QOUTSRM Hazardous Waste Disposal Rating
Cumulvtlve
FIeCpe"Cy Percent Valid Percmt Percent
Wid I Poor 83 8.2 14.4 14.4
2 Fair 117 11.6 20.3 34.7
3 Good 287 28.4 49.7 84.4
4 Excellent YO 8.9 15.6 I n0.n
Toto1 577 57.1 1110.0
Misri~lg 8 Don't Know 427 42.3
9 Rcfwed 6 .6
Total 433 42.9
QPARKUSE Houschuld Member Has Used a Carlsbad Park in Past I2 Months
~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
Frequency Peiceill VSlid rcrcrnr
Cumulative
Percent
Valid ONo 268 26.5 26.6 26.6
I Yea 738 73.1 73 4 lno.0
Total I006 09.6 1oo.n
Missing 8 Don't Know 4 .4
PARKRATE Rating ofCarlsbsd Park
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent Vnlid Percenl PCCCWt
Valid I Poor 1 .I .4 .4
2 Far 10 1.0 4. I 4.5
1 Goad 321 32.0 41.9 48.4
4 Excellent 180 17.6 51.6 100.0
Total 716 72.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 2 .2
Sysfem 272 26.9
Total 274 27. I
QFACILTY Household Member Has Used a Community Center in Past 12 Months
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid UNO 711 72.6 71.8 71.8
I Yes 260 25.7 26.2 100.0
Total 991 98.3 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 17 I .7
QCTRRATE Rating of Community Center
FreLlUeW" Percent V*iid Perce,,, Percent
Cumulative
Valid 2 FIir 10 I .o 1.9 1.9
3 ti"0d 133 13.2 5 I .6 55.4
4 Excellent I15 11.4 44.6 100.0
Total 258 25 5 1110.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 2 3
system 750 74.1
TUtill 752 74.5
.-
QCITYFAI Carlsbad City Hall Used in the Past Twelve Months
Cumuliltive
Percent FreL,"e"Cy Percent Valid Percent
Valid I1 Not Chosen 970 96.0 96.0 96.0
I Chosen 4 0 4.0 4.0 IOO.0
QCITYFAZ Faraday Building Used in the Past l'welve Months
Frequency Percent Valid Percent PerCF"t
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 974 96.4 96.4 96.4
I Chosen 36 3.6 3.6 100.0
QCITYPA3 Arts Oflice Used in Past the Twelve Months
Frequency percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 996 98.6 98.6 98.6
I Chosen 14 1.4 I .4 100.0
QCITYFA4 Cole Library Used in Past the Twelve Months
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Perceilt
Valid 0 Not Chose81 814 80.6 80.6 80.6
I Chosen 196 19,4 19.4 1oo.n
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QClTYFA5 Dove Library Used in Past the Twelve Months
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 767 75.9 75.9 75.9
I Chosen 243 24. I 24. I 100.0
QClTYFA6 Centro de lnformaciun Used in the Pas1 Twelve Months
Cumulative
Frequency percent Valid Percent PerCellt
Valid 0 Not Chosen 1005 99.5 99 5 99.5
I Clloscn 5 .5 .5 100.0
QClTYFA7 Senior Center Used in lhe PastTwelve Months
QCITYFA8 Safety Complex Used in the Past Twelve Months
Volid 0 Not Cllosen 988 97.8 97.8 97.8
I Chosen 22 2.2 2.2 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QCITYFA9 Swim Complex Used in the Past Twelve Months
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen Y68 95.8 95.8 95.8
I Chosen 42 4.2 4.2 100.0
QClTYFl I Don't Know if any City Facilities Were Used in the Past Twelve Months
Frequency percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 11m6 99.6 99.6 99.6
I Chosen 4 .4 .4 100.0
QCrVFAl2 Parks & Community Centers Used in Past Twelve Months
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
V~lid 0 NO! Chosen 994 98.4 98.4 98.4
I Chosen I6 1.6 I .6 100.0
QCTYOIHI Other City Facility Used in the Past Twelve Months - Nut a City Facility
Cumulative
Valid 97 Not a C~ry Facility 21 2. I I1010.0 I 00.0
800 79.2
3 .3
186 18.4
9ny 97.9
QFRATE-I Rating of the Carlsbad City Hall
Frequency Percent Valid Pcrccnl
Cumulutive
Percent
Valid 2 Fair 5 .5 13.5 13.5
3 Good 21 2. I 56.8 70.3
4 Excellent I1 1.1 29.7 100.0
Total 37 3.7 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 3 .I
System 970 96.0
Total 973 96.3
rota1 1010 100.0
QFRATE-2 Rating of the Faraday Building
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent percent
Valid 2 soli I .I 2.9 2.9
3 Food 10 1.0 28.6 31.4
4 Excellent 24 24 68 6 100.0
Total 35 3.5 100 0
Missmg 8 Don't Know I .I
System 974 96 4
Total 975 96.5
QllRAlE-3 Rating ofthe Arts Office
C"m"l;,tiW
Frequency Prlcenl Valid Percent Percent
Valitl 3 Food 9 .9 64.3 64.3
4 EIcellent 5 .5 35.7 100.0
Total 14 I .4 100.0
Missing Systm 996 98.6
QFRATE-4 Rating of the Cole Library
~~ ~~
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Curnulativc
Percent
Valid I Poor 2 .2 I .n I .0
2 Fair I5 I .5 7.7 8.7
3 Good 66 6.5 33.8 42.6
4 Excellellt 112 11.1 51.4 100.0
Total I95 19.3 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 2 .2
System 813 80.5
Toto1 815 80.7
QFKATE-5 Rating of the Dove Library
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 2 Fair 2 .2 .x .x
3 Good 30 3.0 12.5 13.3
4 Exceilent 208 20.6 86.7 I 00.0
Total 240 23.8 1oo.n
Missing 8 Don't Know I .I
system 769 76. I
Total 770 76.2
QFRATE-6 Rating of the Centro de lnfurmacion
Ctwnulative
Frequency Percent Valid Pcrccnt Pcrcrnt
Valid I Poor I ,I 2k0 211.n
2 Fair I .I 20 0 40.0
3 Good 3 .I 60.0 100.0
Total 5 .5 100.0
Missing System I005 99.5
QFRATE-7 Rating of the Senior Center
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
PWCe"t
Valid I Poor I .I 2.2 2.2
2 Fair 3 .3 6.5 8.7
3 Good I5 I .5 32.6 41.3
4 Excellent 27 2.7 58.7 100.0
Totill 46 4.6 100.0
Missing System 964 95 4
Toral 1010 1oo.n
QFRATEK? Rating of the Safety Complex
Frequency Percent Valid Percent percent
Cumulative
Vdlld 3 Good 7 .7 33.3 33.3
4 Execllent 14 I .4 66.1 lOO.0
Total 21 2. I 1un.o
Missing 8 Don't Know I .I
System 988 97.8
Total 989 97.9
QFRATE-9 Rating afthe Swim Complex
FR0"e"C" Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percenr
Valid I Poor I I 2.4 2.4
2 Filii 6 .6 14.3 16.7
3 Good 18 I .x 42.9 59.5
4 Excellrn: 17 I .7 40,s 100.0
Total 42 4.2 100,o
Missing Systcm 968 95.8
QRATE-12 Rating of Public Parks & Community Centers
FCeLl"eliC" Percent Valid Percent Percenl
Culnulative
Valid 2 Fair 4 .4 25 u 25.0
3 Good 4 .4 25.1) 50.0
4 ExEcllent 8 .8 50.0 l00.0
Total 16 I .h 1110.0
Missins Sysrem 994 98.4
QSTREETI Overall Road Condition Rating
FWq"e"Cy Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
PerCellt
Wid I Poor 21 2.1 2. I 2. I
2 Fair 138 13.7 13.7 15.8
3 Good 595 58.9 59.0 74.7
4 Excellent 255 25.2 25.3 1on.n
To181 1no9 99.9 1nn.n
Missing 8 Don't Know I .I
QSTREETS Traffic Circulation Eiliciency Rating, Excluding Freeways Condition Rating
Frequsncy Percent Valid Percent
Culllulalive
Percent
Vnld I Poor 171 169 17,O 17.0
2 Fair 377 17.3 37.5 54.6
3 Good 384 38.0 38.2 92.8
4 Excellent 72 7.1 7.2 I n0.n
Total I on4 99.4 IOO.0
Missing 8 Doll't Know 5 .5
.I
.6
9 Refused I
TDtill 6
QSTREET6 Parking Availability in Downtown Village Area Condition Rating
Frequency Percent VOlid percent PeKellt
Valid I Poor 149 14.8 15.2 15.2
2 Falr 38 I 37.7 38 9 54.1
3 Goorl 383 17.9 39.1 93.2
4 Excellent 67 66 6.8 100.0
Total 980 97.0 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 10 3.0
QTRAFICI Carpooling Used to Reduce Number ofCommutingl'ripr
I Cl,aren 191 IX.9 32.6 I 00.0
Toto1 585 57.9 1oo.n
Missing System 425 42. I
QTRAFICZ Telecommuting Used to Reduce Number of Commuting Trips
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 456 45. I 77.9 77.9
I Chosen
Total
Missing System
129 12.8 22. I IOO.0
585 57.9 100.0
425 42.1
QTRAFIC3 Mass Transit Used to Reduce Number of Commuting Trips
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Vvltd 0 Not Chosen 397 39.3 67.9 67.9
I Chosen 188 18.6 32.1 100.0
Total 585 57.9 100.0
Missing System 425 42. I
QTRAFIC4 Bicycling Used to Reduce Number of Commuting Trips
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulvrivs
Valid 0 Not Chosen 487 48.2 53.2 83.2
I Choscn 98 9.7 16.8 100.0
Total 585 57.9 100.0
Missing System 425 42.1
QrRAFICS Flex Hours Used to Reduce Number of Cummuting Trips
Cumulative
Frequency percent Vdlid Percent Percent
Villid 0 Not Chosen 298 29.5 50 9 50.9
I Chosen
Total
Missing System
287 28.4 49.1 1on.o
585 57.9 100.0
425 42.1
QTRAFIC6 Other Technique Used to Reduce Number of Commuting Trips
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 565 55.9 96.6 96.6
I Chosen 20 2.0 3.4 100.0
Tots1 585 57.9 100.0
Missing System 425 42.1
QTKAFIC7 Don't Know
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent percent
Valid 0 Not Chasm 578 57.2 9R 8 98.8
I Chosen 7 .7 I .2 100.0
Total 585 57.9 100.0
Missing System 425 42. I
QlNFOl-l Source ofcarlsbad Information: Community Services Recreation Guide
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 455 45.0 45.0 45.0
I Chosen 555 55.0 55.0 100.0
QINFOI) SourceofCarlsbad Information: City Web page
Frequency PerCe"t Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chose,? 68 I 67.4 67.4 67.4
I Chosen 329 12.6 32.6 100.0
Total 1o1n 100.0 100.0
QlNFOl-3 Source ofcarlsbad Information: The New City Desktop Calendar
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Perce.1 PWCWt
Vviid 0 No1 Chosen 785 77.7 77.7 77.7
I Chosen 22s 22.3 22.1 1011.11
Total 1010 I00.(1 1011.11
QlNFOl-4 Source of Carlsbad Information: Flyers in City Billing Statement
Culnulutive
Frequeticy Percent Valid Percent Percent
Volid 0 Not Chosen 680 67.3 67.3 67.3
I Chow) 330 12.7 12.7 100.0
QINFOI-5 Source of Carlsbad Information: Citizen Forums
Fie0"e"CY Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulatwe
Valid 0 Not Chosen 939 93 0 93.0 93.0
I Chose#> 71 7.0 70 11m0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QINF01-6 Source ofCarlsbad Information: Calling City on Telephone
Valid 0 Not Chosen 598 TY.2 59.2 59.2
I Chosen 412 40.8 40,8 1m.o
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QINFOI-7 Source of Carlrbad Information: City Council Meetingdother
Vdid 0 Not Chow? 827 81.9 81.9 81.9
I Chosen I83 18 I 18.1 100.0
QINFO-II Other Source ofcarlrbad Information: City Council Meetings
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Peicrnl Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 832 82.4 82.4 82.4
I Chosen 178 17.6 17.6 l00.U
QINFO-21 Other Source ofCarlsbad Information: OTHER
Frequency Pcrce>~t Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Cilosell 1 005 99.5 99.5 99.5
I CLosell 5 .5 .5 100.0
QOTHI-I Other Method Respondent Would Like to Receive Info About the City: ImprovelProvide More Info On City Web Site
FE0"e"C" Percent Valid Percent PUC.e"t
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 967 95.7 95.7 95.1
I Chosen 41 4.3 4.3 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QOTHI-2 Other Method Respondent Would Like to Receive Info About the City:
CablelCity TV Channel or City-Related Programming
Frequency Percent Vnlid Percent percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 973 96.1 96.3 96.3
I Chosen 17 1.1 3.7 100.0
QOTHl-4 Other Method Respondent Would Like to Receive Info About the City: FlyersINewsletters
Frequency percent Valid Percent percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 987 97.7 91.7 97.7
I Chore,? 23 2.3 2.1 100.0
QOTHl_lO Other Method Respondent Would Like to Receive Info About the City: OTHER
Cumulative
Fleq"e"Cy Pcrcenr Valid Percent percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen Y56 Y4.7 94.7 94.1
I Chosen 54 5.1 5.1 100.0
QOTHI-I I Other Method Respondent Would Like to Receive Info About the City: No Response
Frequellcy I'ercent %,lid Percent
Cumulotwe
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 242 24.0 24.0 24.0
I Chosen 768 76.0 76.0 100.0
Total 1010 100 0 100.0
QOTHI-I2 Other Method Respondent Would Like to Receive Info About the City: Newspaper
Curnhtivr
FWq"C"Cy Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid IJ Not Chosen 916 '12.7 Y2 7 92.1
I Chosen 74 7.3 1.1 100.O
TOU 1010 I 00.0 100.0
QOTHI-13 Other Method Respondent Would Like to Receive Info About the City: Regular Mail
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 982 97.2 97.2 97.2
I Chosen 28 2.8 2.8 100.0
Totdl 1010 100.0 100.0
QMETCI Frequency of Watching Carlsbad City Council Meetings on TV
Cumulative
Frequency PerCe"t Valid Percent Percent
Valid I Never 456 45. I 45.2 45.2
2 once a Year I00 9.9 9.9 55.1
3 Once a Quarter I70 16.8 16.8 72.0
4 Once a Month 203 20. I 20.1 92. I
5 Once n Week 80 7.9 7.9 100.0
Total 1009 99.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know I .I
QMETCZ Respondent Has Watched a Quarterly Quadrant Meeting
Cumulative
Valid 0 NO
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
838 82.7 84.5 84.5
I Yea I53 15.1 15.5 100.0
Total 988 97.8 1no.o
Missmg 8 Don't Know 22 2.2
Total lOl0 I00 0
QWEBACSS Respondent Accessed the CiQ Web Page in Past Ycar
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percenr Percent
Valid 0 No 642 63.6 63.8 63.8
I Yes 364 36.0 16.2 140.0
Total 1006 99.6 100 0
Missinb 8 Don't Know 4 4
QWEBI-I Type of Information Sought on City Web Site: General Information About the City or City Services
Cumulative ~~
Frequency Perceill Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 No1 Chosen 956 94.1 94.7 94.7
t Chow> 54 5.3 5.1 IOO.O
QWEBI-2 Type of Information Sought on City Website: City Listings and Houn ofoperation
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 980 97.0 97.0 97.0
I Chosen 30 3.0 3.0 100.0
QWEBl-3 Type of Information Sought on City Web Site: School Information
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 996 98.6 98.6 98 6
I Chosen 14 I .4 I .4 100.0
QWEBI-6 Type of Information Sought on City Web Site: Specific City Events Calendar (street fairs, parades or cultural events)
Freqllency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 933 92.4 92.4 92.4
I Chose,) 77 7.6 7.6 100.0
QWEBl-7 Type oflnformation Sought on City Web Site: ActivitieJProgramsIClasres
Frequency PCWCllt Valid Percent PeiCe"t
Cumulative
Vdlld 0 Not Choacn 977 96.7 96.7 96.7
I Chosen 33 1.3 3.3 lli0.0
QWEBI-8 Type of Information Sought on City Website: City Council & Planning Information
Frequency PeKe"t Valid Percent Percent
Vahd 0 Not Chosen 988 97.8 97 8 97.8
I Chosrn 22 2.2 2.2 1on.o
QWEBILIO Type of Information Soughton City Website: Roads and Transportation
r-
QWEBI-11 Type oflnformation Sought on City Website: City Codes, Laws, Policies, Licensing
Cumulative
Frequency PUCC"l Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 NotChoren 973 96,3 96.3 96.3
I Charen 37 3.7 3.7 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QWEBI-13 Type of Information Sought on City Web Site: Business Listings In Carlsbad
r-
~~~ ~
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Perecnt
Valid 0 Not Chosen 999 98.9 98.9 98.9
I Chosen /I 1.1 1.1 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QWEBI-17 Type oflnformation Sought on City Web Site: Park InformationlCamping (location, hours of operation, etc.)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulnlive
Valid 0 Not Chosen 973 96.3 96 3 96.3
I Chosen 31 3.7 3.7 100.0
QWEBl_lCl 'Type oflnformation Sought on City Web Site: Libraries
Freq"e"Cy P?WC"f Valid Percellt
Cumulative
Percent
Vdid 0 Not Cbusen 979 96 9 96.9 96.9
I Chosen 31 3.1 3.1 I0O.U
QWEBI-I9 Type oflnformation Sought on City Web Site: Job Listings
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulattve
Valid 11 Not (hosen 970 96 0 96 0 96.0
I Cllosen 40 4.0 4.0 10(1.0
QWEBI-20 lype of Information Sought on City Website: lntfrcst Croups and Community Organizations
Frequency rcrcent Valid Percent PerCC",
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Choscn 1003 99 3 99.3 99.3
I Chosen 7 .7 .7 1011.0
QWEBI-21 Type oflnformation Sought on City Website: Waste Disposal and Recycling
FVe0"e"C" Percent Valid Percent Percent
Culnuiative
Vvhd 0 Not Chosen 997 98.7 98.7 98.7
I Chosen 13 I .3 1.3 100.0
QWEBI-26 Type of Information Sought on City Web Site: TourismlPoints of Interest
~~~ ~
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 998 98.8 98.8 98.8
I Chosen I2 I .2 I .2 100.0
QWEBI-27 Type of Information Sought on City Website: Real Estate and Housing
Frequency Percenl Valid Percanl Percent
Culnulvtive
Valid 0 Not Chosen 991 98 3 98.3 98.3
I Chosen 17 1.7 I .7 100.0
QWEBI-32 Type of Information Sought on City Web Site: Demographics
FWalle"C" ~ercenr Valid Percant Percell1
Cumulative
VnM 0 Not Chosen 998 98 8 98.8 98.8
I Chosen 12 I .2 I .2 100.0
QWEBI-34 Type oflnformation Sought on City Website: Trafid and Weather
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Vulld 0 Not Chosen Y98 9X.8 98.8 9X.R
I Chosen 12 I .2 I .2 10u.u
Total 1010 lOU.0 104.0
QWEBl-38 Type of Information Sought on City Web Site: OTHER
Cumuiatiue
Frcq"e"Cy Percent Valid PElcent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 9x7 97.7 91.7 97.7
I Chosen 23 2.1 2.1 1uu.u
Total luln 1ou.n l0Q.0
QWEBI-39 Type oflnformation Sought on City Web Site: None
r
r
r
r
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 1009 99.9 99.9 99.9
I Chosen I .I .I 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QWEBFIND Amount of information Found on City Web Page
~~ ~~ ~~
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Culnuiative
Valid I None 16 1.6 4.5 4.5
2 Some 31 3.1 8.8 13.4
3 AL~ttle I23 12.2 34.9 48.3
4 All I82 18.0 51.7 100.0
Total 352 14.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 9 .9
Syslern 649 64.3
Total 658 65.1
Total I010 1on.u
QNOTF-l Information Not Found on City Web Site: General Information About the City or City Services
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chose#> 1008 99.8 99.8 99.8
I Chosen 2 .2 .2 100.0
Total 1010 100.I1 100.0
QNOTF-2 Type of Information Sought on City Webrite: City Listings and Hours ofoperation
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Vd~d 0 Not Chosen I001 99.1 99.1 99.1
I Chosen 9 .9 .9 100.0
Total I010 100,0 100.0
QNOTF-3 Information Not Found on City Web Site: School Information
Cumulative
QNOTF-6 Information Not Found on City Web Site: Specific City Events Calendar (street fain, parades or cultural events)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Vnlid 0 Not Chosen 998 98.8 98.8 98.8
I Chosen 12 1.2 I .2 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QNOTF-7 Informstion Not Found on City Web Site: ActivitieslProgramsIClasses
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Perccnt Percent
~~
Valid 0 Not Chosen 997 98.7 98.7 98.7
I Chore" 13 I .3 1.1 100.0
QNOTF-8 Type of Information Sought on City Website: City Council & Planning Information
QNOTF-10 Type of Information Sought on City Website: Roads and Transportation
~~~~~~ ~
Cumulative
Freqwney Percent Valid percent Percent
Valid (I Nor Chosen IO114 99 4 99.4 99.4
I Chosen b .h .b I00 0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QNOTF-I I Type of Information Sought on City Website: City Codes, Laws, Policies, Licensing
V;hd 0 Not Chosen 987 97 7 97.7 97.7
I Chosen 21 2.3 2.3 100.0
QNOTF-13 Information Nut Found on City Web Site: Business Listings In Carlsbad
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Villld Percent Percent
Vulid 0 Not Chosen 100s 99.5 99.5 99 5
I Chosen 5 .s .5 100.0
Tala1 1010 10~1.11 1tJO.O
QNOTF-I7 Information Not Found on City Web Site: Park InformationlCamping (location, hours of operation, etc.)
Cumulative
FXq"e"Cy Percent Valid Percent percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen I002 99.2 99.2 99 2
I Chosen X .x .X 100.0
QNOTF-18 Information Not Found an City Web Site: Libraries
Valid 0 Not Chose81 1007 99.7 99.7 99.7
I Chosen 3 .3 .3 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
QNOTF-I9 Information Not Found on City Web Site: Job Listings
FCeq"e"Cy Pelcent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid O Not Chosen I000 99.0 99.0 99.0
I Cllore" 10 I .0 I .0 100.0
Total I010 100 0 100.0
QNOTF-20 Type oflnformation Sought on City Website: Interest Croups and Community Organizations
FrCCpe"Cy
C"m"lati;e
Percell1 Valid Peicrnl Percenl
Valid 0 Not Chosen 1006 99.6 99.6 99.6
I Chose,, 4 .4 .4 IOO.O
Totill I010 100.0 ll10.0
QNOTFZI Type of Information Sought on City Website: Waste Disposal and Recycling
Frequency vercen1 Villid Percent Percent
Cumulat>ve
Vdlid O Not Chosen I005 9'1.5 99.5 99.5
I Chosen 5 .5 .i 100.0
QNOTF-26 Information Not Found on City Web Site: TaurismlPoints of Interest
Frequency percent Valid Percent Percent
Volld 0 Not Chosen 1007 99.7 99.7 YY.7
QNOTF-27 Type 01 Information Sought on City Website: Real Estate and Housing
Fre0"e"C" Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 10115 99.5 99.5 99.5
I Chosen 5 .5 .5 l00.0
QNOTF-32 Information Not Found on City Web Site: Demographics
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 1007 09.7 99.7 99.7
I Chosen 3 .3 .3 100.0
QNOTF-34 Type of Information Soughton City Website: Trafic and Weather
Cumulative
Frequency Pcrcent Vviid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 100s 99.5 99.5 99.5
I Chosen 5 .s .s 100.0
QNOTF-38 Inlormation Not Found on City Web Sik OTHER
QNOTF-39 Inlormation Not Found on City Web Site: Nune
Fre0"enC" Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Vd~d 0 Not Chosen 998 98.8 98.8 98.8
I Chosen 12 I .2 I .2 I un.0
Total 1010 100.0 IOU.0
QWEBPAY Respondent Willing to Pay for City Services via Internet
Cumulntlve
Frequency Percent Valid Percrnl Percent
Valid I No 588 58.2 58.7 58.7
2 It Depends 57 5.6 5.7 64 4
3 Yes 356 35.2 35.6 100.0
Tala1 1001 99.1 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 9 .9
QLlBl How Often Respondent Used Dove Library in the Past Year
~~ ~~~
Frequency percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumuiarlve
Valid I Never 147 14.6 18.3 18.3
Missing
2 Once or Twice in the Past
Year
3 Once or Twm a Month
4 Once B Week
5 More Than Once B Week
Total
R Don't Know
system
Total
273
278
62
43
803
5
202
207
27.0 34.0 52.3
27.5 34.6 86.9
6. I 7.7 94.6
4.3 5.4 100.u
79.5 100.0
.5
20.0
ZU.5
Tofai 1010 100.0
QLIBZ How Often Respondent Used Cole Library in the Past Year
Freqlle"Cy Percent Valid Percent Perccllt
C"i"Lli0liW
Vnlcd I Never 340 33,7 42.3 42.3
2 Once or Twice ~n the Past
Yea,
3 Once or Twice a Month I65 16.3 20.5 89 7
4 Once a Week 47 4.7 5.8 95.5
5 More Than Once a Week 36 36 4.5 IOOS)
Total x04 79.6 100.0
216 21 4 26.9 69.2
Mtsring 8 Don't Know 4 .4
System 202 211.0
Total 206 211.4
QLIB3 How Often Respondent Used Centro de lnformacion in the Past Year
Freq"e"Cy
Culnulative
Percent Valid Percent PeKe"t
Valid I Never 779 77.1 96.5 96.5
2 Once or Twice in the
Past Year 21 2.1 2.6 99. I
3 Once or Twice a Month 6 .6 .7 99.9
4 Once B Week I .I .I 1nn.n
Total 807 79.9 1on.o
Missing 8 Don't Know I .I
systcm 202 20.0
Total 203 20.1
QOCEAN Greatest Contributor lo Ocean Wster Pollution
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
C,,m"lati"e
Percent
Valid I Contaminated storm
wvteriurhan runoff
2 Sewage treatment plants 63 62 7. I 42.4
312 30.9 35.3 35.3
3 Industries discharging into the
ocean 38 3.8 4.3 46.7
4 Boats and rhtps: oillgus spills
s sewage spills or overflows
30 3.0 34 5n.1
4 .4 .5 5n.5
6 Illegal dumping of chemicals
or other mnterii~ls 23 2.3 2.6 53.1
7 Trmhilitter
8 Per waste
9 Fertillreriprsllcillfs
10 Cars: oiligils lcakr
I I Cor washing
12 Othcr
13 Aleile
14 Mexico
Total
Missmg 99 Rcfkcd
31
89
I1
19
242
IS
I
885
125
3.1
8.8
1.1
I .9
24.0
1.5
.I
.7
87.6
12.4
3.5
1n.1
I .2
2. I
27.3
1.7
.I
.8
Ion n
56.6
66.7
67.9
70.1
97,4
99.1
99.2
I 0o.n
QWATRFEE Respondent Willing to Pay Annual Fifty Dollar Water Quality Fee
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0No 174 17.0 41.8 41.8
I Yes 520 51.5 58.2 100.0
Tots1 894 88.5 100.0
Missing 8 Don'l Know I11 11.2
9 Refused 3 .I
Total 116 11.5
Total 1010 100.0
QCRAFl Grafini Seen in Csrlsbad within the Past Year
cumu1ativc
Frequency Percenr Valid Percenr Percent
Valld 0No 471) 46.5 47.1 47.1
I Yes 527 52.2 52.9 100.0
Total 997 98.7 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know I2 1.2
9 Refused I .I
Total 11 I .I
REPCRAF Graffiti Reported by Respondent
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 No 461 45.8 81.9 87.9
I Yes 64 6.3 12 I 100.0
Total 527 52.2 11)O.O
Missing System 483 47.8
rota1 inlo 100.0
CLNGRAF Graffiti Cleaned Up
FiCqlle"Cy Percent Valid Percent PErcent
Cumulative
Valid ON0 37 1.1 8.4 8.4
I Yes 40 I 19.7 91.6 100.0
Tofvl 438 43.4 100 0
Mtsiing 8 Don't Know 89 8.8
Sysleln 481 47.8
Total 572 56.6
Totill lolo 100.0
QCALLl Respondent Contact with the City in the Past Year Regarding Code Enforcement Matter
Freouenc" Percenr Valid Percest
Cumulative
Psrcent
Valid 0 No 79 I 78.3 78.5 78.5
I Yes 217 21.5 21.5 IOO.O
Total I008 99.8 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 2 .2
QCALLZ Call Was Returned Promptly
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent percent
Valid 0 No 28 2.8 13.3 13.3
I Yes I83 18.1 86.7 100.0
Total 21 I 20.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 6 .6
System 793 78.5
Total 799 79.1
Total IOIO IO0.0
QCALL3 Respondent Received Infnormatinn Sought
Cumllialive
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percen1
Valid 0 No 40 4.0 18.9 18.9
I Yes I72 17.0 81.1 100.0
Total 212 21.0 100.0
MWII~ 8 DO~'I K~OW 5 .5
Systeln 793 78.5
Total 7Y8 79.0
QCALL4 Respnndent's Concern Was Addressed tn HidHer Satisfaction
Frequency Pcreellt Valid Percent PSrce.1
Cumulative
Velid 0No 61 60 28.9 28.9
I Yes I50 14.9 71.1 100.0
Total 21 I 20.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 6 .6
system 793 78.5
Total 799 79.1
QCALLS Other Contact with lhe City in the Past Year
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 No 632 62.6 62.8 62.8
I Ye6 374 37.0 37.2 100.0
Total 1006 99.6 100.O
Missing 8 Don’t Know 4 .4
Total 1010 100.0
QCALL6 Overall Rating of Contact with the City
Cumulative
Frequmcy Percent Valid Percent percent
Valid I Poor 21 2.1 5.6 5.6
2 Fair 41 4.1 11.0 16.6
3 Good 133 13.2 35.7 52.3
4 Excellent 178 17.6 47.7 100.0
Total 373 36.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don’t Know I .I
System 636 63.0
Total 637 63. I
QCALNDRI City Desktop Calendar Received
Freqlle”Cy Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Petcent
Valid 0 No 313 31.0 38.D 38.0
I Yes 51 I 50.6 62.1) l00.0
Total 824 81.6 I 00.1)
Mlssing 8 Don’t Know 186 18.4
QCALNDRZ Cily Desktop Calendar Useful
Frequellcy Percellt Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0No 163 16.1 32.9 12.9
I Yes 332 32.9 67. I I 0o.o
Total 495 49.0 lllIi.0
Missing 8 Doll’t Know 14 I .4
9 Refused 2 .2
System 499 49 4
Total 515 s1.0
Total 1010 1110,fJ
OTHVENUI Respondent Would Like to See Other Venue
Valid 0 Not Chosen 824 81.6 . 81.9 81.9
I Chosen 182 18.0 18.1 I 00.0
Total 1006 99.6 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 4 .4
OTHVENU2 Type of Other Venue Rcspndent Would Like to See
Cumulative
FEq"e"Cy Percent Vslid Percent Percellt
Valid I Comedy Clubs 2 .2 5.6 5.6
2 MvrinalAiea for Boatmg
or water sports 2 .- 5.6 11.1
3 Dance ClobslNightclubs
4 Burs
5 Ice Rink
6 DinnerTheater
1 SporlB Complex
Tots1
M~ssing 91 Not B Venue
98 Don't Know
systm
Total
1
3
3
22
36
I45
2
827
914
.I 8.3 19.4
.I 2.8 22 2
.3 8.3 30.6
.I 8.3 38.9
2.2 61.1 l0n.o
3.6 100.0
14.4
.2
81.9
96.4
LIFEQ-I Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in thc Community By: Improving Tralfic CircuIationlEfliciency
Fre0"e"C" Percent Valid percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 840 81.2 83 2 81.2
I Chosen 170 16.8 16.8 100.0
Tots1 Inlo 1nn.a 100.0
LIFEQ-2 Carlrbad could Improve Quality ol'Life in the Community By: Road Construction and Maintenance
FWq"e"Cy Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 94 I 93.2 91.2 91.2
I Chosen 69 6.8 6.8 100.0
LIFEQ-5 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Communily By: MoreIBetter Public Transportation
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 'J92 98.2 98 2 98.2
I Chosen 18 1.8 I .8 100.0
Total tolo 100.0 100.0
LIFEQ-6 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: Set Limits on Growth & Development
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valtd 0 Not Chosen 727 72.0 72.0 72.0
LIFEQ-7 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: More ANordabldLuw Income Housing
FieLl"ellC" Percent Valid Percent PErCent
Culnuiative
Valid U Not Chose,, 990 98.0 98.0 98.0
I Chose,) 2 li 2.0 2.0 100.0
LIFEQ-X Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: Better Inform Carlsbad City Residents (general)
~~~ ~~
Cumulative
FreqWllCy Percent V;,lid percent Percent
Valid 0 Nor Chosen 980 97.0 97.0 97.0
I Chosen 30 3 . li 3.0 100.0
Toto1 1010 I 00.0 I 00.0
LIFEQ-I2 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality ofLife in the Community By: More Entertainment Venues
Freqwncy Percent Val,d percent Percent
Cumulative
Vnl8il 0 Not Chosen 987 97.7 97.7 97.7
I Chosen 23 2.1 2.3 100.0
To fa I 1010 1oo.o 100.0
LIFEQ-14 Carlsbad could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: Mure Police and Enforcement of Lawn
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Villlll Percell1 Percent
V;hd 0 Not Chosen 9x4 91 4 97.4 07 4
I Chosen 26 2.6 2.6 1no.n
Tots1 IOIO 100.1) 100.0
LIFEQ-I6 Carlsbad could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: More or Better Parks and Recreation Facilities
Cumulative
Freq"c"Cy percent Valid Percent percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 94 I 91.2 91.2 93.2
I Chosen 69 6.8 6.8 100.0
LIFEQ-I7 Carlsbad could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: Clean and Beautify City
Frequency Percent Valid Percent percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 967 95.7 95.7 95.7
I Chosen 41 4.3 4.3 100.0
Total I010 100,o 100.0
LIFEQ-18 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: Cleanllmprove Quality of Beaches
Frequency percent Vvlbd Percent Percent
Cumulative
Vahd 0 Not Chosen 989 97.9 97.9 97.9
I Chosen 21 2.1 2.1 100.0
LIFEQ-20 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: Better Safety (rid of gangs, drugs & criminal activity)
Frequellcy percent Valid percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Not Chosen 997 98 7 98.7 98.7
I Chosen I1 I .I 1.3 100.0
LIFEQ-21 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: Programs, Activities, Facilities for Children andlor Teens
LIFEQ-22 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: MoreIBctter Bike Lanes or Walking Trails
FlC"W"C" Percent Valid Percent percent
Curnuliitivc
Villitl (1 Not C:l,osen 999 98.9 '18 9 98 9
I Chosen I1 1.1 /I 100.0
LIFEQ-~~ Carlshad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: More Conscientious of Community WantsINeedslConcerns
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumuivtive
percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 950 94.1 94. I 94. I
I Chosen 60 5.9 5.9 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
LIFEQ-Z~ Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: ImprovdExpand Parking (general)
Cumulative
Fi.Zq"e"CY Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 994 98.4 98.4 98.4
I Chosen I6 I .6 I .6 1on.o
LLFEQ-2s Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: More Policy & Relief for UnemployedlPooriHomeless
Cumulative
FWq"e"Cy Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 999 98.9 98.9 98.9
I Chose#> I/ I./ I./ 100.0
LIFEQ-30 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: Sports CenteriColf CourseIRecreation Facilities
Cumulative
FKCpr"Cy Perccnt Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 9 8 9 97 9 97.9 97.9
I Chosen 21 2.1 2. I lU0.0
LIFEQ-j3 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Cummunity By: More Schools
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Vnl~ 0 Not Chosen 994 98.4 98.4 98.4
I Chusen 16 I .6 I .6 100.0
Total 10lO 100.0 1011.0
LIFEQ-34 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: Aesthetic
lmpruvements (landscaping, trces, repair old huildings)
FWqWllCy Percent Valirl Percent Percent
Cumtliative
Vvlld 11 Not Chosen 9H4 97.4 97.4 97.4
I Chosen 26 2.6 2.6 100.0
Total 101(1 100.0 l00.I)
LIFEQ-35 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: Enforce Laws (general)
Frequency Percent Valid Pcreenf
Cumulvtwe
Percent
Volid 0 Not Chosen 995 98.5 98.5 98.5
I Chosen is I .5 1.5 100.0
LIFEQ-37 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: More
Community EventsISpecial Events (concerts, fairs, festivals)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 987 97.7 97.7 97.7
I Chosen 23 2.3 2.3 100.0
LIFEQ-42 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: Other
Freq"C"Cy Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 827 81.9 81.9 81.9
I Chosen I83 18.1 18.1 100.0
Toto1 1010 100.0 100.0
LIFEQ-43 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: Don't Know
Cumulative
Frequency Perccot Valid Percent Percent
Valld 0 Not Chosen 79u 78.2 78.2 78.2
I Chosen 220 21.8 21.8 100.0
Total 1010 100.0 100.0
LIFEQ-44 Carlsbad Could Improve Quality of Life in the Community By: Refused
Frequency Percent Villid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 0 Not Chosen 1007 99.7 99.7 99.7
I Cllosen 3 .3 .I 100.0
QDEMOZ OwnIRent Home
Frea"e,,C" Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Own 783 77.5 77.7 77.7
I Rent 225 22.3 22.3 100.0
Total 1008 99.8 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 2 .2
QRACE Respondent's Race
Missing
I WlliteiCvucvsian
2 Afrmn-American
3 Asian
4 American Indian,
Aleul. Eskimo
5 HispvniclLntino
6 Other
Total
8 Don't Know
9 Refused
system
Tot81
x0 I
IO
51
9
6 0
7
938
4
33
35
72
79.3 85.4 85.4
I .0 1.1 86.5
5.0 5.4 91.9
.9 I .0 92.9
5.9 6.4 99.3
.7 .7 100.0
92.9 100.0
.4
3.3
3.5
7. I
QINCOME Huuschold Income Last Year
FW""ellC" Percent Valid Percent Perccnt
Cum"la1,ve
Vnlid I Under $25.000 41 4. I 4.6 4.6
2 $25.000 IO Undei'635.000
3 ~35.000 to Under 550.000
4 $sn.oon IO under s7s.0~0
5 $75.000 IO Uoder ~100,000
6 $I(J0.000 to $125,000
7 $125.000 and Above
Total
Missing 8 Don't Know
9 Refused
ToLal
69
I19
20 t
167
I18
I67
882
21
I07
128
6.8 7.8 12.5
11.8 13.5 26.0
1'1.9 22.8 48.8
16.5 18.9 67.7
11.7 13.4 81.1
16.5 18.9 I o0.o
87.3 100.0
IlJ 6
2.1
12.7
GENDER Gender
FrcCl"e"C" Percent Valid Percent Percent
Cumulative
Valid 0 Female 604 59 8 59.8 59.8
I Male 406 40.2 40.2 100.0
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mea"
Sfd.
Deviation
QTRAVLI Level of Interest 8"
Carpooling
QTRAVL2 Level of lntere~t in
Telecommuting
QTRAVLI Level of lntcre~t in
Muss Transit
QTRAVL4 Level of Interest in
Bicycling
QTRAVLS Level of Interest in
Flex Hours
QTRAVL6 Level of lntcre~t in
Moving Closer lo Work
QNEWSLET Interest in
Receiving 8 Cxfy Newsletter
QEMAIL lntrrrst in Receiving
E-mail Notification from ClIy
ClTYlNF2 Rating of City
Information Dispersal
QTLlB How Often Respondent
Used Any Carlshild City Library in
the Past Yew
QSAFEI tlow Safe Respondent
Feels Walking Alo81e in Their
Neighborhood During llle Day
QSAFE2 How Safe Respondent
Feels Walking Alone in Their
Neighborhood After Dark
ALLRECYC Percentage of
Recycltlble Materials That
Respondent Recycles
WATRFEE2 Annual Amount
Respondent IS Willing lo Pay for
Water Quality
QVENUEI Importance ofMore
Movie Thestem
QVENUEZ hnportance of More
Perfomling Am Theaters
QVENUE3 llnportilnec of More
Outdoor Amptlheslers
QVENUE4 Importance of Mare
566
559
572
573
S62
547
I 009
992
967
I002
1010
I007
1006
323
1007
I002
I1)02
I noo
0
'0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
365
10
10
I no
I I)O
10
I I1
I 0
10
149
4.75
4.84
3.04
6.26
2.78
6.87
4.87
5.95
16.90
9.56
7.63
63,34
5.75
4.40
6.54
6.33
6.12
3.65
4.15
3.72
3.50
3.73
3.85
3.08
3.88
2.49
32.79
I .04
2.60
34.32
12 67
1.48
3.11
1.26
3.07
QVENUES Imporlance of More
Live Concert Vcnuer 1001 0 10 6.56 3.20
QCONFID3 Level of Confidence
in Carlshvd City Government to 952 0 10 6.52 2.40
Make Positive Decisions
QDEMOI Numberofyears
Lived ill Carisbad 1010 0 62 10.49 10,98
AGE Respondent Age 956 18 91 49.13 15.45
QDEM03 NumherofPeople in
Household (Including Respondent) 1007 I '8 2.58 1.25
QDEMO4 Number ofchildren
Under Age of I8 830 0 5 .75 1.02
QDEMOS Number ofchildren
Under Age of I2
QDEMO6 Number ofchildren
Under Age of6
354 0 5 1.21 .91
270 0 3 .77 .77
Appendix C
Reasons for "Poor" Ratings of City Services
QSERVlP Recreational Programs
a club team for recreation. The
11. I They need more for kids.
12. 1 We do not know of any recreational programs.
QSERVZP Library Services
1. 1 don't know what they did to the one on Carlsbad village drive, but when
they renovated they took everything of value to the new library where the
bigger homes are and left very little here.
2.
There is only one major library in Carlsbad and that one is in La Costa. Why 4.
There book selection is out of date; too many kids running around in there. 3.
Lack of books for youth
5. They robbed all the library materials from the Cole to the new one, so the
can't the city expand the library on Carlsbad Village Drive?
service is poor for those who don't live in La Costa.
I
QSERV3P Fire Protection
1. Because I work on an ambulance and my Mom had an attack and the fire
department did not follow proper protocol in treating her, and when.1 called
to complain about it they didn't do anything about it. My mom doesn't even
want to call 9 I1 anymore because of how badly they treated her.
2.
They sent his garage plan to the fire department to be approved and they 4.
Her home burned in Harmony Grove. 3.
Had to put out fire on my property.
5. Well again my only experience is 5 qears ago in this location I thought my
never got back to him in 3 months.
house was gone, this is what happened 5 years ago.
QSERV4P Police Services
1. I 3 years ago the neighbor called the cops on the neighbor for being drug 1
dealers and they didn't do anything.
2.
Had reported a burglary about 6 to7 years ago. Officer had me walk 3.
A lot of people that don't listen to the older residences.
through the house looking before he did. I had to insist that they dust for
fingerprints. Not good follow up either.
I had some small boys skateboarding and going in the street during the rush
hours for their safety and the police didn't come because they had too many
emergencies and they need more officers to handle nomemergencies for the
safety of the citizens of Carlsbad.
I often see them camping out by the library not doing much and my friends
have been severely assaulted by the police.
1 think the police force in Carlsbad is simply a revenue-generating function
"
in the city. ' They give out more tickets than they need to. -
I.
On several occasions 1 haw been completely disappointed in their lack of 9.
Not that I want to go on record as saying. 8.
Ln my area I have called them in several occasions and they take there time.
action, tkir indifference, and you know I have no problem with them
coming on time. It's disappointing. And I'm not judging them on one officer
(the whole police force.) 1 think they've become discriminatory.
10. The location of the police department is far away from the community.
11. The police seem to talk to each other in clusters other than managing the
12. There are no police about anywhere on Tamarack or Victoria and people are
traffic.
racing.
13. They are just raising there revenue by giving us tickets. They refuse the
services when the residents complain.
14. They are very unfriendly.
15. They supposed to investigate and they do not.
16. We needed the police because of a break-in; it took % (hr) for someone to
L
r QSERVS.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
of speeding in the area.
Because the amount of traffic lights going in by me is extreme and there is _"
no U-turn optioq so they are going to the residential area to make U-turns on
highway 101; and the signs are poor and don't tell you where you need to he;
and the light are poor on Palomar Airport road.
Because there are too many people speeding on the streets and the freeway.
Because when people see cops they slow down and cause traffic accidents.
There are just too many cops in Carlsbad. Their focus is just to give tickets.
Because (I've) witnessed how people drive around here
Because you see people break the laws. There are not police men to enforce
the law.
Because of the traffic signals; and the down town area is confusing.
City won't reduce the speed limit near Coreo elementary.
Don't think the city job should be traffic enforcement. Too many home " break-ins in the city and no fiup.
Good on the weekdays and poor on Sat. and Sun. and holidays.
1 live on a street where it supposed to be 25 mph and people do 50 all the
time! People speed too much in front of the Post Office, they should lower
the speed there!
I don't feel my kids are safe in my own neighborhood the way people speed
around here.
I had a Carlsbad police officer was going the opposite side of the street he
turned around and followed me for awhile and then he pulled me over
because of my head light; their hiring rookies and not experienced cops.
I have 2 to 4 commercial trucks parked in front of my house and I can't get
the city to do any thing about it.
1 have to go through ElCamino Real and I never see a policeman and I see
all kinds of traffic violations.
1 have tried to turn on El Camino from Chestnut. People are running lights
3
I 1 with out blinkers on.
49. I There is nobody out their checking the speed.
50. 1 There are a lot of speeders around El Camino Real & Casa.
4
51.
There is no regulation of traffic. There are no tickets being giving & no way 53.
There is a school nearby and the students speed by. 52.
There are people speeding all over the place and I never see any police
officer's pulling them over.
that they are slowing down the speeders. - " -
54.
There is too much concentration on things that are not problems and not 55.
There is speeding on residential streets, and the police do nothing to stop it.
enough emphasis on things that I feel are a problem. - 56.
There seems to be speed traps, especially in area near the coaster station on 57.
There aren't enough traffic lights and stop signs in the residential areas. ~
1 Poinsettia.
58. I They do not have the signals right, some signals are too long some are too I short.
59. I They do not enforce parking control as they should, and it is a speed way on
the Blvd; they need io get it under control..
60.
They don't seem to have plan for routing traffic when there is constructionor 61.
They don't stop bikes for running red lights especially groups of them.
I a problem.
62. 1 They don't need to enforce those things.
63. j They give too many speeding tickets too easily.
64. 1 They have major intersections with improper turning lanes.
65.
They wait for speeders and put them places were they know people are going 66.
They never set speed traps for speeders.
to speed like hills. They are either at an accident or non existent.
67. I Too many people run red lights.
68. I We live right on Carlsbad blvd.; we live right across the street from the sea - wall. There are lots of older folks that walk there. There are lots of
skateboards, roller-bladers, and bicycles on the sidewalks. There is lots of
speeding on Carlsbad blvd from Clubbed village Dr. to Cannon. Cars &
people ignoring crosswalks.
69. We need more stop lights, the ones we have need to be regulated better.
70. Whena stop light is off or broken there is nobody there to stop traffic. They
should have traffic police to direct the traffic. 78 & El Camino Real need
police presence to direct traffic & to keep it flowing.
71. Whenever you get out in El Camino people run red lights and block traffic
and make you miss your light ..... all through Carlsbad.
QSERV6P Water Services I 1. I Because our bills are all the same. If we have a water main break and there is I
wasted water, we still have to pay for it, even though it is not our fault.
2.
Because the water tastes like chlorine and it builds up on my dishwasher and 3.
Because she did not get her refund for when she was gone.(trash pick up)
I my washer.
4. I Because the water is undrinkable with out a filter, to many chemicals in the
21.
22.
r QSERV7
b- r-
water.
Because the water tastes bad.
Because they're too hard to get through on the phone and they didn't answer
my questions very well, and I haven't received my water bill yet.
Because they put chemicals in tk water
Expense is high.
I can't drink the water here, it has a funny taste.
I have a lot of sediment in my water. It might be in my pipes, I do not know.
I think the water tastes unsafe, bad and poor and makes a messel (?)of any
metal contact!
I try to pay my bills on the first and the bills never come on time or (they)
send me two. bills.
If you got the exact the same amount on your water bill for 4 straight months.
Required resident deposit for two years.
The cost!
The price of the water!
The taste of the water is bad.
The water tastes terrible
There is no flexihilitvwhen discussing a problem. People came out and -. could not understand it. The hill was dry, the grass was dry and had to pay
the bill as they would not discuss or offer a compromise.
They misread my water meter last month.
They restrict the builders too allow us to have grass onour lawns.
When they test the water it is bad.
Cultural Arts Programs
Because I don't see that many cultural arts programs in Carlshad not like you
would in San Diego. The ones that are here are not very good quality.
Because that's my business (a non profit organization), and there's not
enough cultural art programs in Carlsbad.
Because they're not really supported. There's the art portion of the library,
but there's nit really an art community other than the few people that sell
their paintings outside of that resort off of 101.
Because we do not have any.
1 don't really see a lot of cultural programs here.
1 don't see any available here in Carlsbad.
. ..
g
6
c I
t-
18. 1 Never used them
19. 1 Not enough culture and art! Not enough night clubs to go to for an older
crowd!
about it; they're not getting the info out.
anywhere.
20.
There are no galleries or music festivals here, at least not that I am aware of. 22.
There is no art in Carlsbad and there are no committees and no cultural stuff 21.
Nothing available as far as arts go, and if there is I don't know anything
23. There is not very much of it and what they have is superficial.
24. There is only one cultural arts program that I know of and that is during the
summer time. They don't have galleries that I know about. There is no
reason why we can't have more concerts. Make use of the libraries and do art
exhibits there.
25. There is very little. - 26.
They don't interest me I don't know of them. 28.
They don't have any culture-they don't know what culture is. 27.
There should be more. -
29.
They only have one cultural arts (program). 30.
They don't have much.
We've never become aware of them if there are any. We take the local 32.
We need more music programs, and theater. We need more culture. 31.
newspaper, but we don't see any.
33.
Well, there are not that many things going on here. 34.
Well, the lack of the events.
When you compare it to other cities along the coast, Carlsbad doesn't seem to 36.
When they have them they are not advertised enough. 35.
offer as much. Encinitas & Del Mar seem to offer more from what I've seen.
37. Yes there aren't any of them and what we do have is not very sophisticated.
c
7
QSERV8P Sewer Services
1.
Because it backs up sometimes and 1 think there working on a sewer pipes on 3.
Because going to have the runoff go into the lagoon right behind me. 2.
Bad sewer lines.
- " Jefferson and grand, sometimes we have to flush twice.
4.
Became the sewerage plant gives an awful stench to tk residents 5.
Because of the lagoon up the street in Buena Vista.
6. Because they are too hard to get on the phone and they don't answer my I questions very well.
7. I Because if we do get a lot of rain they clog up and no one cleans them up.
8.
11.
The smell; I live right on a line. 10.
Problems with sewer services.
They're very expensive! 12.
The treatment is only a primary treatment, not a secondary treatment, which
13. What 1 mentioned earlier I'm not completely knowledFable of the city of
Carlsbad in treatment sewers I don't know if Carlsbad has direct influence; is
it more state or local? The sewer system that drains in the lagoon
9. Problems with spillage.
would kill more viruses. I am afraid to get into the ocean because of this.
14. You can smell the sewers by driving down the street.
8