HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-26; City Council; MinutesMINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF: CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
DATE OF MEETING: January 26-27,2004
TIME OF MEETING: 8:OO a.m. - 500 p.m.
PLACE OF MEETING: Farmer’s Buildinq - Third Floor
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 8:23 a.m. All Council Members were present
plus the City Manager, the City Attorney and Joe Sterling, Sterling Insights, facilitator.
The Mayor announced that he must be excused at 3:45 p.m. The City Attorney stated
that in that event the closed session in the case Gheui v. City of Carlsbad, San Diego
Superior Court, Case No. GIN029390 scheduled for 4:OO p.m. that day would be
renoticed for a subsequent City Council meeting.
The Mayor then called on the City Manager for a discussion of projects and priorities
who then introduced Mr. Joe Sterling who then distributed the “Council and Leadership
Event #2” scenario development from the Council’s December 17, 2003 workshop (on
file in the office of the City Clerk). The City Manager explained that the structural
imbalance highlighted in the previous ten-year financial forecast has been addressed
and will be explained later in the workshop by the Finance Director. Council continued
its discussion of future financial scenarios including discussion of proposals for state
and regional fiscal proposals.
The Mayor then called on Mr. Sterling who introduced and Council discussed the above
report and discussed themes and issues surrounding basic, enhanced and non-core
services. The Council discussed ways and means to enhance future revenues. The
City Manager explained that a staff team is looking at this question and will present a
draft report to the Council for its consideration at a future meeting. The Council
continued the discussion of land use strategies as it pertained to scenario planning and
directed the City Manager to schedule future workshops on areas that may be
appropriate for specific plans.
Mr. Sterling emphasized the Council’s previous desire to anticipate future financial
impacts and the best way to involve the citizens in that process. Council discussed this
issue and the need to provide concrete information but not in the time frame where
there is a present financial crisis.
The Mayor called for a recess at 9:48 a.m. and the Council reconvened at 10:03 a.m.
The Mayor emphasized the need to share fiscal information with the citizens as soon as
it is available and the need for staff analysis of the state’s budget proposal, the impacts
of the state budget and fiscal issues now pending on the March ballot and the state’s
May revision to the proposed state budget.
The Mayor called for a recess at 10:48 a.m. and the Council reconvened at 11 :04 a.m.
The Mayor called on Mr. Sterling who outlined the process for the two-day workshop,
set the context of the workshop and outlined the event flow and established event
outcomes.
performing collaborative work:
Mr. Sterling discussed the five Cs of a high functioning organization
0 Confidence
0 Candor
Courage
0 Commitment
Creativity
leading to confidence in the Council’s ability to creatively solve any problem and quickly
seize any opportunity. Communication and trust are natural bi-products and he
reviewed the “Council and Leadership Event #2” document highlighting:
0 Fiscal fitness of the land use plan versus the state’s proposed fiscal restructuring.
0 The scenarios arranged according to proposed state budget cuts and local
budget conditions.
He then outlined and called for discussion of the various scenarios that had been
developed during the previous council workshop and asked for discussion of those
ideas that would be good ones regardless of the fiscal future.
The Council discussed the ideas from the prior workshop and highlighted the following
concepts:
0 Process improvement;
0 New financial resources;
0 Less dependency on the state and less dependency by the state on the City;
0 Inter-department collaboration;
0 Community engagement and communications; and
0 Levels of carekervices.
The levels of carekervices are explained by basic core services, enhanced core
services, non-core services. Mr. Sterling asked for a discussion of the criteria for the
triggers that would begin to increase or reduce services.
The Council then discussed the various levels of service as they pertain to local
government services.
The Mayor then adjourned the meeting for lunch at 1151 a.m. and the Council
reconvened at 12:30 p.m.
The Mayor called on the City Manager who introduced Finance Director Hildabrand who
explained last year’s state budget and this year‘s proposed state budget where the
legislative analyst’s office concluded that there will be a $15 billion structural deficit.
She further explained the state’s response to the expected deficits and its proposals for
dealing with that deficit and importantly its impact on local government, including the
City of Carlsbad. She explained the following items:
2
0 Proposed $1.3 million in the ERAF (Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund)
shift;
0 $200,000 booking fees reduction;
0 $100,000 suspension of certain state mandates; and
0 The so-called “Triple Flip” whereby the state increases its share of sales tax by
one-half cent with a corresponding reduction to the City’s share of sales tax. The
state obligates this one-half cent to pay off the deficit reduction bonds and
suspends payments to the ERAF. It is expected to take about five years to pay
off the deficit. This is the $1 1.7 billion existing proposal.
Ms. Hildabrand further explained that the proposal before the voters in March is for $15
billion in bonds and it contains the “Triple Flip Plan for 2005” which is on the ballot as
Proposition 57. This is expected to last for 9-14 years and involves a shifting in sales tax
of one-quarter cent. The slides of this presentation are on file in the office of the City
Clerk. Ms. Hildabrand further explained the impacts on Carlsbad of the proposed March
“Triple Flip”.
Ms. Hildabrand then discussed the five largest sources of City revenue and the state’s
involvement in taking away portions of three of those resources and continued with an
explanation of City expenditures and detailed forecasting.
The Mayor then called for a recess at 1:26 p.m. and the Council reconvened at 1:39
p.m.
Mr. Sterling discussed four future scenarios and returned to the discussion of core,
enhanced core and non-core services. The Council then discussed the nature of the
triggers and when it would be appropriate to use them.
The Mayor then called for a recess at 2:12 p.m. and the Council reconvened at 2:18
p.m.
Senior .Management Analyst Garuba introduced the “City of Carlsbad Public Opinion
Survey Report - 2003”.
This report is an appendix to the “State-of-Effectiveness Report” dated January 2004
and on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Mr. Garuba introduced Senior Management Analyst Diamond who further explained the
criteria that went into making up this survey and the process by which it was undertaken
and then introduced Allen Risley from the Social and Behavioral Research Institute who
acknowledged the authors of the study and report:
0 Richard T. Serpe, Ph.D., Director
0 Allen J. Risley, Ph.D., Associate Director
0 Michael D. Large, Ph.D., Quantitative Study Director
0 Lori Brown Large, M.A., Survey Study Director
0 Kevin G. Kilpatrick, M.A., Field Research Coordinator
3
Dr. Risley explained that trends can now be seen since this is the fourth year of the
survey. 1007 Carlsbad residents are randomly selected to participate in this 20-minute
telephone survey. There are no repeated interviewees from previous year’s surveys.
Dr. Risley further explained the purpose of the survey and the scope of the topics
including special topics of interest annually.
The overall rating of City services that were rated good or excellent was 95.5% and he
then further explained ratings for a host of individual services. (Council Member Hall
was excused at 3:13 p.m. and the Mayor was excused at 3:37 p.m.)
Dr. Risley concluded the presentation on the City survey.
Mr. Sterling then presented a model for lagging and leading outcomes for Council’s
further discussion in tomorrow’s workshop.
There was no closed session in accordance with the City Attorney’s previous
announcement.
There was no public comment and the Mayor Pro-Tern thanked everyone for their full
participation and adjourned the meeting at 4:lO p.m. to reconvene tomorrow at 8:30
a.m.
Council assembled informally for breakfast at 8:15 a.m. and the Mayor called the
workshop to order at 8:30 a.m. and reviewed the conduct of the day’s business for the
workshop. All Council Members were present plus the City Manager, City Attorney and
members of the Leadership Team (Jim Elliott, Administrative Services Director; Sandra
Holder, Community Development Director; Kevin Crawford, Fire Chief; and Tom Zoll,
Police Chief; and Lloyd Hubbs, Public Works Director) as well as Senior Management
Analysts Garuba, Diamond, and Kermott, Building and Code Enforcement Manager
Kelley, Recreation Services Manager Sue Spickard, Management Analyst Lenz, and
Management Intern Tan.
Joe Sterling reviewed yesterday’s workshop and explained the events for the day.
Council and staff discussed the issues and themes developed over yesterday e.g.:
0 How to defend against revenue take-aways;
0 How to maintain excellence;
0 How to anticipate threats and take offensive actions;
0 The importance of local government services;
0 How to manage and master our own fate; and
0 The importance of feedback from the community regarding performance on
Council goals.
Mr. Sterling introduced “City of Carlsbad Annual State-of-Effectiveness Report, January
2004” (on file in the office of the City Clerk). Building and Code Enforcement Manager
Pat Kelley introduced the subject and recognized the team members, listed above. Mr.
Kelley overviewed the organization and contents of the report and new items contained
in that including:
4
Executive Summary and the following strategic goals:
o Transportation
o Finance
o Communication
o Parkdopen SpadTrails
o Environment
o Water
o Learning
o Community Development
o Top Quality Services: Internal Services
o Top Quality Services: Safety Services.
Mr. Kelley also explained that this year the team conducted a “gap analysis” in an effort
to identify areas that were not contained in the report leading to further improvements
and refinements and indicating in what areas performance measures are appropriate.
Council Members discussed the report highlights, which were in turn further explained
by the team members.
The Council discussed each section of the report and thanked the team for their
excellent presentation and the Mayor called for a recess at 10:20 a.m. and the Mayor
Pro-Tem reconvened the meeting at 10:35 a.m. The Mayor joined the meeting at 10:36
a.m. and the discussion of specific strategic goals continued.
Mr. Sterling then asked for comments on the report from the Council and assembled
staff and Council Members commented on the report as follows:
0 The report is good news and contains an impressive amount of information.
0 It highlights the necessity of a strong revenue base.
0 It emphasized the necessity for continual review and improvement.
0 It acknowledged the desirability of identifying the “gaps” and including them in
next year’s report.
0 It indicates the importance of measuring those programs, services and
facilities that are of importance to the community.
0 It indicates the need for focus groups in particular areas and indicates the
possibility of diminishing returns in certain already excellent service areas.
The Mayor called for a lunch recess at 12:03 p.m. and the Council reconvened at 12:48
p.m.
Mr. Sterling introduced discussion of the information gathering leading to the
establishment of the Council’s Five-Year Vision statements, its Mission and Values and
its Quality of Life strategic goals for the 2004-2005 year and beyond. Mr. Sterling
continued with a discussion of the rise of the creative worker and its impact on the City
of Carlsbad. He sought a discussion of what infrastructure the City should provide to
accommodate the creative worker including collaborative spaces, communications,
5
mixed uses and noted that innovations are happening at a faster rate than the discovery
of their unintended consequences leading to greater and chronic volatility.
The Council then discussed these concepts and indicated the City should provide the
following qualities to its citizens including:
0 StabilityKafe harbors
0 Receptivity
0 Resilience
0 A clear set of priorities
Connectivity and networking
leading to self-reliance and sustainability. The Mayor then called for a recess at 2:lO
p.m. and the Council reconvened at 2:20 p.m.
The Council then divided itself into two working groups to discuss concepts leading to
economic growth and sustainability and returned to a full Council to make joint reports
and to review its quality of life strategic goals.
The Council will consider adding an economic development goal and delegated the
authority to the City Manager to redraft the City Council’s Five-Year Vision Statements,
Mission and Values and Quality of Life strategic goals to be reviewed, discussed and
adopted at a future Council meeting.
The Mayor thanked all for their complete participation and sharing of information.
There was no public comment and the Mayor adjourned the meeting at 4:27 p.m.
tfully submitted,
a.R.L
RONALD R. BALL
City Attorney as Clerk Pro Tem
6
January 2004
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
E
I
E
E
I
1
t
I
I
E
City Of Carlsbad
STATE-OF-EFFECTIVEI\IESS REPORT
January 2004
Submitted by
The Performance Measurement Team
Lynn Diamond, F’ublic Safety
Joe Garuba, City Manager’s Office
Kerry Jezisek, Administrative Services
Pat Kelley, Community Development
Linda Kermott, Public Works
Ingrid Lenz, Public Safety
Sue Spickard, Community Services
I
1
I
I
I
1
1
E
1
1
I
1
3
I
1
1
II
I
3
.. 11
I
I
I
I
1
I
i
I
I
II
I
I
E
I
I
I
1
1
I
TABLEOFCONTENTS
Executive Summary .................................... I .................................................... 1
Transportation Strategic Goal .................................................................. 5
Roadway Safety ............................................................................................ 7
Roadway Circulation .................................................................................. 12
Roadway Service Delivery ........................................................................... 17
Public Works .............................................................................................. 27
Growth Management - Circulation ............................................................. 29
Transportation Customer Satisfaction ........................................................ 27
Finance Strategic Goal ........................................................................... 33
Risk Management - General Liability Expenditures .................................... 35
Finance Report Distribution ....................................................................... 37
City Operating Budget ................................................................................ 39
General Fund Revenue ............................................................................... 41
Communication Strategic Goal ............................................................... 47
Citywide Communications .......................................................................... 49
Citywide Communications Cost .................................................................. 51
Parks/Open Space/Trails Strategic Goal ................................................. 55
Parks Customer Service And Satisfaction ................................................... 64
Growth Management - Parks ...................................................................... 67
Environmental Strategic Goal ................................................................ 73
Sewer Cost ................................................................................................. 84
Sewer Service Customer Satisfaction .......................................................... 86
Solid Waste Diversion ................................................................................ 88
Solid Waste Cost ........................................................................................ 91 Solid Waste Customer Service & Satisfaction ............................................... 95
Storm Water Service Delivery ..................................................................... 97
Storm Water Protection Cost .................................................................... 101
Storm Water Protection Customer Service And Satisfaction ...................... 104
Growth Management - Sewer Collection System ....................................... 107
Growth Management - Wastewater Treatment Facilities ........................... 109
Growth Management - Drainage ............................................................... 111
Long-Term Fiscal Condition ....................................................................... 44
Confidence In City Government .................................................................. 53
Park Service Delivery .................................................................................. 58
Park Maintenance Cost .............................................................................. 61
Growth Management - Open Space ............................................................ 71
Sewer System Service Delivery ................................................................... 78
... 111
Water Strategic Goal ............................................................................ 115
Water Delivery Cost .................................................................................. 120
Water Loss ............................................................................................... 121
Water Service Delivery .............................................................................. 124
Water Service Customer Satisfaction ........................................................ 127
Growth Management - Water Distribution System .................................... 129
Learning Strategic Goal ........................................................................ 131
State Library Ranking .............................................................................. 135
Potable Water Quality .............................................................................. 118
Library Operating Cost ........................................................................... (. 137
Satisfaction With Library Services ............................................................ 138
Growth Management - Libraries ............................................................... 139
Recreation Program Sportsmbship ......................................................... 141
Recreation 8z Park Planning Operating Costs ............................................. 146
Recreation Customer Service & Satisfaction ............................................. 147
Community Development Strategic Goal .............................................. 151
Section 8 Housing .................................................................................... 153
Code Enforcement Responsiveness ........................................................... 154
Code Enforcement Cost ............................................................................ 157
Growth Management - City Administrative Facilities ................................ 158
Top Quality Services Strategic Goal: Internal Services ......................... 159
Information Technology Network Operability ............................................ 166
Information Technology Cost .................................................................... 168
Information Technology Service 8z Satisfaction ......................................... 171
Human Resources - Injured Employee Time Off ........................................ 175
Human Resources - Employee Turnover Rate ........................................... 177
Human Resources Recruitment Time ....................................................... 179
Human Resources Cost ............................................................................ 181
Facilities Service Delivery ......................................................................... 186
Facilities Maintenance Cost ...................................................................... 190
Facilities Customer Service And Satisfaction ............................................ 194
Fleet Availability ....................................................................................... 198
Fleet Maintenance And Repair Cost .......................................................... 201
Fleet Customer Service And Satisfaction .................................................. 205
Top Quality Services Strategic Goal: Safety Services ............................ 209
Fire Response Travel Time ........................................................................ 213
Fire Confinement ..................................................................................... 215
Fire Operating Cost Efficiency .................................................................. 217
Fire Customer Service And Satisfaction .................................................... 219
Growth Management - Fire Stations ......................................................... 221
Police Responsiveness .............................................................................. 224
Crime Cases Cleared ................................................................................ 228
Community Perception Of Crime .............................................................. 232
Human Resources Service 8z Satisfaction ................................................. 182
.
iv
I
I
I
Police Operating Cost ............................................................................... 234
Police Customer Service & Satisfaction ..................................................... 236
Overall Citizen Satisfaction With City Services .......................................... 239
Appendix 1: Time Line ................................................................................. 241
Appendix 2: Program Risks And Benefits ..................................................... 242
Appendix 3: Public Opinion Survey Results ................................................. 245
V
vi
I
1
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I c
I
f
I
I
1
t
i
I
I
1
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report represents the fourth full year that the City of Carlsbad has been
involved in performance measurement. This executive summary is designed to
provide an overview of this year’s results. The performance measures, growth
management measures and citizen survey results are contained in this report.
The summaries for this report are organized by Council Strategic Goal and are
subdivided into service delivery areas where appropriate. The summary has an
overview of service standards, costs for that service, and customer satisfaction
level with the service. The City continues to develop measures in all three
areas: service standard, cost, and customer satisfaction. The summary also
indicates compliance with the Growth Management Standard for that
particular service, and highlights any relevant results from the annual citizen
survey. Since many of the efforts to accomplish the strategic goal involve
management goals, those goals are listed by title. Analyses of these
management goals are not included as this report is written at the mid-point in
the goal cycle.
Service areas are encouraged to developed outcome based measures. The
achievement of the desired outcomes is based on three related areas - service
delivery, cost efficiency, and customer satisfaction. This process of defining and
measuring these three areas helps provide a balanced approach in evaluating
the overall effectiveness of a service area.
The City of Carlsbad mission is to provide top quality services. The
performance measurement process represents the feedback loop between
organizational effort and achieving the desired outcomes. In Carlsbad,
performance measurement also represents the beginning of the next goal
development cycle.
Starting out a calendar year, the results of the citywide public opinion survey
are finalized and presented to Council at their annual goal-setting workshop
usually held in January. The state-of-effectiveness report is also completed
and reported at this time. The information contained in these reports helps
influence priorities set for the upcoming year. Based on direction from
Council, departments develop goals and cost estimates for new programs,
which are then included in the City’s budgeting and management goal process.
The second half of the year gives time to the departments to implement new
programs, measure results, contact other agencies for benchmarking, and
analyze data.
1
This year’s State-of-Effectiveness Report is similar to last year’s with some
notable differences. Over this past year, staff conducted a gap anaZysis of
service areas and active measures. The service areas were arranged under the
various Council Strategic Goals to help provide the connection between the
Council’s goals and the services that the City provides. Based on this analysis,
several new service areas were identified that could participate in the
performance measurement program, and staff will continue to develop these
areas over the coming year.
In conjunction with the gap analysis, staff is also focusing more attention on
the Service Area Summaries. These summaries function as the consolidator
of the information contained within each of the measures, and by providing
greater attention to the summaries, staff is able to better identify the overall
effectiveness of the service area.
Another significant change this year has been the alteration of the graph that
depicts the level of achievement in each service area. This year the graph was
reformatted into a bar chart that identifies current measures, related growth
management standards, and service areas yet to develop measures. The chart
is meant to be a representation of the general level of achievement. Measures
for which there is no benchmark indicate this in a text box. Measures for
which the benchmark was not achieved generally show this by a bar at the
two-thirds mark in the chart. Benchmarks achieved or exceeded are also
shown at 100%.
Quality of Life Strategic Goals
The following is a brief overview of each Council Strategic Goal. Looked at as a
whole, the City continues to maintain and improve in several areas. There
were no significant declines this year, and the performance measurement
program continues to develop in the organization.
Transportation
Provide and support a safe and efficient transportation system that moves goods,
services and people through Carlsbad.
This goal has five measures in place, two of the five measures exceed the
benchmark while the others are approaching the benchmark. Citizens still
voice traffic as one of their major concerns about the City of Carlsbad. The
City is in compliance with the Growth Management Standard for roadways and
a number of major roadway projects are under construction to alleviate traffic
concerns.
2
Finance
Pursue and implement proactive strategies that provide and manage fical
resources effectively .
This goal has five measures developed. A new measure for the City’s long-term
financial health indicates concern for a structural imbalance in the general
fund-operating budget in approximately FY 2007. This concern is being
evaluated and recommendations will be made in the FY 04-05 budget.
Communication
Ensure that community members, council and staff are well informed, leading to a
more responsive government and a high level of citizen confidence in government.
This area has three measures developed. Although the benchmark in external
communication was not reached, the citizens expressed a significantly higher
level of satisfaction with the City’s effort at providing them information that
was useful to them (up 20 percentage points from 2002). It is recommended
that a set of internal communication measures be developed this coming year.
Parks/Open Space/Trails
Acquire, develop and maintain a broad range of open space and recreational
facilities that adively address citizen needs that are fiscally responsible and are
consistent with the General Plan and Growth Management Standards.
This goal has three measures developed. The parks service area has fully
developed measures and those measures are close to meeting the benchmark.
The open space and trails portion of this Strategic Goal are not yet being
measured. The City is in compliance with the Growth Management Standard
although there are now park deficiencies in’all four quadrants. Park design
and future construction will mitigate those deficiencies.
Environmental Manage me nt
Be an environmentally sensitive community by focusing on: Clean storm water,
sewage collech‘on and treatment, solid waste, and cost effeective and efficient use
of energy including alternative energy sources.
This goal has fully developed measures in all service areas and is
accomplishing the benchmarks in many of the established measures. The City
is in compliance with the Growth Management Standards for sewer collection,
drainage, and wastewater treatment facilities. Citizen survey results are
positive for sewer and solid waste services. Improvements in the recycling
program are being developed as part of a management goal.
3
Water
Ensure in the most cost effective manner, water reliability to the maximum extent
practical, to deliver high quality potable and reclaimed water incorporating
drought-resistant community principles.
This goal has four measures in place, and three of the four measures are
meeting or exceeding the benchmdk. Measures are being developed for
reclaimed water. The City is in compliance with the Growth Management
Standard and 90% of the citizens rate water services as good or excellent.
Learning
Promote and support continuous learning opportunities within the community and
the City organization.
This area has six measures in place and generally these measures meeting or
exceeding their benchmark. The City is in compliance with the Growth
Management Standard for libraries. Both. Library services and Recreation
ranked high in the citizen survey.
Balanced Community Development
Be a community that connects community, place, and spirit through balanced and
well designed land uses.
This goal has two measures. The City is in compliance with the Growth
Management Standard for City Administrative Facilities. In the 2003 citizen
survey, citizens again generally rate the job the City is doing in providing a
balance of land uses as positive (6.3 on a 10 point scale).
Top Quality Services
Be a city that provides exceptional services on a daily basis.
The measures in this area are sorted into two categories: Internal Services, and
Safety Services. This strategic goal has 24 measures. Overall, the citizen
survey reports a very high level of satisfaction with overall City Services (96%).
Internal Services: Administrative Services has developed measures in Human
Resources and Information Technology. Public Works now has measures in
Facilities and Fleet Maintenance.
Safety Services: The Fire and Police Departments have fully developed
measures with results consistent with last year’s. The majority of the
measures meet or exceed the benchmark. The Fire Station Growth
Management Standard has been met.
4
Provide and support a safe and efficient transportation system that moves goods,
services and people through Carlsbad.
Service
Delivery
Service Delivery
Circulation Safety Cost Efficiency Satisfaction
Measure:
Results :
Measure:
Results:
Measure:
Results:
cost
Measure:
Results :
100% of road segments meet Caltrans collision rates by type of
roadway segment.
82%
Travel times on El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road will not
exceed baseline rates.
17 of the 36 baseline travel rates were met.
Average Overall Roadway Condition Index at 80 or higher
84
City of Carlsbad maintenance cost per mile of roadway will not
exceed $9,756.
$8,722
Customer Satisfaction
Measure:
Results:
90% of survey respondents rate the condition of city streets and
traffic circulation as good or excellent.
City streets 83%; traffic circulation 44%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% I Circulation
Growth
Management
5
Overall, results from the 2003 performance measures and Growth Management
Standards indicate the city is doing a fair job in supporting the Transportation
Strategic Goal. Safety guidelines for city streets are conservative and 82% of
road segments met Caltrans collision rates by type of roadway segment. This is
a decline from last year’s results of 98%. City staff members monitor collision
reports and perform trend analyses to determine collision patterns. Interim
measures are implemented when a collision pattern is identified until a
permanent solution can be implemented.
Traffic circulation as gauged by travel times north and south on El Camino
Real and east and west on Palomar Airport Road indicate that it is increasingly
difficult to reach the baseline travel times measured in 2000. However, road
widenings and traffic signal coordination have generally improved traffic flows
particularly on El Camino Real as reflected in the faster travel times since the
December 2002 study. Customer satisfaction continues to be low in respect to
traffic circulation with only 44% of respondents responding with good or
excellent. Results of the 2003 Growth Management Traffic Monitoring program
indicate that all roadway segments and intersections within the study meet the
Growth Management Circulation Standard except Rancho Santa Fe
RoadlMelrose Drive. The Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Widening
project, currently under construction, is expected to improve this intersection.
The overall roadway condition as monitored through the roadway condition
index reflected an average rating of 84 for roadways within the city, exceeding
the benchmark of 80 or greater. The road condition rating as reflected in the
annual City of Carlsbad public opinion survey shows 83% of responses as
either good or excellent.
Management Goals: Although not analyzed in this report, the management
goals associated with this strategic goal are listed below to demonstrate
resources allocated to the achievement of this strategic goal. Management
goals that support this strategic goal for 2003-04 include:
0 El Camino Real Widening
0 Traffic Signal Interconnect Design
0 Traffic Calming Program For School Areas
0 Rancho Santa Fe Road Phase I1
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
Public Works
ROADWAY SAFETY
THE OUTCOME
Roadway safety
THE MEASUREMENT
Collision rate per million vehicle miles.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Many factors contribute to a safe roadway system including design,
maintenance, traffic operations, and traffic enforcement. This measurement
brings the effectiveness of all these factors together to measure the safety
outcome. Both engineering and police currently measure data. Data is
gathered throughout the year and is summarized in the Engineering
Department, Transportation Division’s Annual Traffc 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 roadways
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
free ways
Major Arteriak 20-40,000 vehicles per day; four lanes; divided; access
controlled; provides intra-city circulation; provides connections to the freeways
Secondary Arterial: 10-20,000 vehicles per day; four lanes, striped median;
moves traffic between collector and larger arterial streets
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations, Engineering, and Police
BENCHMARK
100% of road segments meet Caltrans collision rates by type of segment.
7
RESULTS
ROADWAY SEGMENTS WITHIN CALTRANS COLLISION RATES
ROADWAY SEGMENT TYPE Benchmark 19991 20002 20012 20023
Secondary Arterials ( 14)4 100% 88% 86% 100% 79%
Major Arterials (13) 100% 100% 100% 100% 77%
Prime Arterials (1 9) 4 100% 95% 95% 95% 9 0%
Total Road Segments within
82% Caltrans Collision Rates: 100% 95% 95% 98%
1 8 secondary, 11 major, and 19 prime arterial segments
2 7 secondary, 11 major, and 18 prime arterial segments.
3 14 secondary, 13 major, and 19 prime arterial segments.
4 Although the same roadways have been used in this evaluation since 1999, smaller segmentation of the roadways in
2002 has resulted in an overall increase in the number of segments that have been evaluated.
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.
8
ALGA ROAD (major arterial) I I I ET Cammo Real to Melrose Drive 6 0.57 2.21
Palomar Arport Road to Poinsettia Lane I 0 I 0.00 I 2.21
AVIARA PARKWAY fsecondan arterial) I I
Poinsettia L&e to El C&o Real
Carlsbad Boulevard to Faraday Avenue
CANNON ROAD (maior arterial)
5 0.32 2.21
12 1.44 2.21
Rate -Number of collisions x one mdhon - - collisions per million vehicle miles Average daily traffic x section length (miles) x 36Hays
CARLSBAD BOULEVARD (major arterial) North City Limits to Mountain View Drive
Mountain View Drive to Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad Village Drive to Tamarack Avenue
Tamarack Avenue to Tierra Del Oro Street
Tierra Del Oro Street to Palomar Airport Road
Palomar Auport Road to Poinsettia Lane Poinsettia Lane to South City Limits
Carlsbad Boulevard to Harding Street Harding Street to Pi0 Rco Drive
Ro Pic0 Drive to El Camino Real
El Camino Real to Pontiac Drive
Pontiac Drive to Chatham Road
COLLEGE BOULEVARD (maior arterial)
EL CAMINO REAL (prime arterial)
CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE (secondary arterial)
Chatham Road to College Boulevard
Palomar mort Road to El Camino Real
North City Limits to Hosp Way
Hosp Way to Chestnut Avenue
Chestnut Avenue to Cannon Road
Cannon Road to College Boulevard
College Boulevard to Palomar Auport Road
Palomar mort Road to Aviara ParkwayjAlga Road Alga RoadjAviara Parkway to La Costa Avenue
La Costa Avenue to South City Limits
Interstate Highway 5 to El Camino Real
El Camino Real to 1,000 Feet East of El Camino Real 1,000 Feet East of El Camino Real to Rancho Santa Fe Road
Rancho Santa Fe Road to Camino De Los Coches
MELROSE DRIVE (prime arterial) Palomar mort Road to Rancho Santa Fe Road
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD (prime arterial)
Carlsbad Boulevard to Avenida Encinas
Avenida Encinas to Paseo del Norte
Paseo del Norte to College Boulevard
College Boulevard to Camino Vida Roble
Melrose Drive to East City Limits
Cannon Road to Palomar Arport Road Palomar Auport Rd to Camino Del Parque (N)/Sea Gate Road
Camino Del Parque (N)/Sea Gate Road to Poinsettia Lane
Carlsbad Boulevard to Aviara Parkway
Aviara Parkway to Black Rail Road
LA COSTA AVENUE (major arterial)
LA COSTA AVENUE (secondary arterial)
Camino Vida Roble to El Camino Real
El Camino Real to Melrose Drive
PASEO DEL NORTE (secondary arterial]
POINSETTIA LANE (major arterial)
~ RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD (mime arterial1 Melrose Drive to La Costa Avenue La Costa Avenue to Olivenhain Road
5 1.87 2.02
7 2.74 2.21
2.21 18 7 0.80 2.21
15 2.52 2.02 10 1.22 2.21
3 0.38 2.21
13 3.61 2.2 1 14 5.06 2.2 1
10 1.31 2.21
1(1) 0.36 2.21
1 0.50 2.02
0 0.00 2.21
3 0.41 2.10
21 3.09 2.21 16 1.54 2.21
11 0.57 2.21
4 0.39 2.21
18 1.03 2.21
18 0.83 2.21 16 0.88 2.21
11 0.81 2.21
16 0.82 2.21
1 0.75 2.2 1 11 1.26 2.21
0 0.00 2.2 1
5 0.59 2.21
0 0.00 2.02
12 2.83 2.21
15 0.79 2.21
1 0.06 2.21
6 0.47 2.21
16 0.72 2.21
15 0.84 2.21
11 2.80 2.21
1 0.38 2.21 2 0.47 2.02
7 0.79 2.21
0 0.00 2.02
25 1.12 2.02
7 0.61 2.21
2.64
~ ~
Olivenhain Road to Calle Acervo l(1) I 0.39 2.02
ANALYSIS
In 2002, 82% of the roadway segments measured were within the statewide
standard. Of note, ten additional roadway segments were added to this year’s
study in an effort to more closely match CalTrans’ segment measures: seven
secondary, two major, and one prime.
The roadway segments that did not meet the statewide standard are:
Carlsbad Boulevard from Mountain View Drive to Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad Boulevard from Carlsbad Village Drive to Tamarack Avenue
Carlsbad Boulevard from Tierra Del Or0 Street to Palomar Airport Road
Carlsbad Village Drive from Carlsbad Boulevard to Harding Street
Carlsbad Village Drive from Harding Street to Pi0 Pic0 Drive
El Camino Real from North City Limits to Hosp Way Palomar Airport Road from Avenida Encinas to Paseo del Norte
Paseo Del Norte from Cannon Road to Palomar Airport Road
The Carlsbad Village Drive segments from Carlsbad Boulevard to Harding
Street and from Harding Street to Pi0 Pic0 Drive are laden with driveway
entrances/exits from businesses. The short distance between these driveways significantly increases the starting/ stopping of vehicles allowing motorists to enter into traffic flow. This roadway environment requires extra safety
precautions by motorists.
The El Camino Real segment between North City Limits to Hosp Way, and the
Palomar Airport Road segment from Avenida Encinas to Paseo Del Norte
continue to be heavily traveled corridors. The El Camino Real segment suffers
from slow circulation patterns while the Palomar Airport Road segment includes a portion of road in the Caltrans right of way at the Interstate 5
interchange. Driver inattention in these corridors is a contributing factor in
the number of collisions.
The number of collisions has increased along many of the roadway segments
compared to last year’s numbers. City staff monitors collision reports on an
individual basis as well as performing trend analysis to determine possible
collision patterns. Much of the City’s analysis and action to improve safety at
individual roadway segments is addressed in the Annual Traffic Report
prepared by the Public Works Transportation Division. Additionally, every two
years the City reports on traffic signal needs and identifies a priority list of
intersections for placement of those signals. Interim measures are
implemented when a collision pattern is identified unless and until a
permanent solution is attainable.
In 2002, 869 collisions occurred where a police officer reported to the scene of
the accident as compared to 971 in 2001. Also in 2002, 113 collisions were classified as hit and run, which is an increase of 4 collisions compared to 2001
data. Thirty-four traffic collisions were a result of rainy conditions and/or wet
10
I
f
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
roadways or fog during 2002. There were 14 collisions in construction zones as compared to 10 in 200 1. Bicyclists were involved in 20 collisions in 2002,
which is a decrease of 17% from 200 1.
2002 was the second year the Carlsbad Police Department tracked cell phone
usage in a vehicle when a collision occurred. Of the 729 collision reports containing cell phone information, 10 reports listed a cell phone in use by the
responsible party. Three hundred and eight (308) reports listed a cell phone
present, but not in use by the responsible party. The remaining 41 1 reports
indicated no cell phone present.
An intersection collision rate is defined as the number of collisions occurring
per one million vehicles entering the intersection. Generally, an intersection is
considered to be functioning satisfactorily when the rate is 1.5 or below. All
intersections in Carlsbad function with a collision rate of less than .75. The
intersection with the highest number of collisions is Palomar Airport Road at
the 1-5 Southbound Ramps.
ACTION PLAN
Many of the collisions are outside the control of the City. Initiating preventive
measures is difficult due to the nature of the collisions (weather or driver
inattention.) All Carlsbad street segments have been fully improved to city
standards and have permanent signing, striping and traffic control devices in
place. However, it is expected that all roadway segments could meet the benchmark of being below the Caltrans collision rates, and staff will continue
to strive for this result.
Staff currently monitors and consistently addresses safety needs along roadway
segments where the number of collisions increases significantly or a pattern of
collisions is identified. Solutions are identified and interim measures are
implemented when needed unless a permanent solution is immediately
attainable. Permanent solutions are typically developed as part of the capital
improvement program.
11
Public Works
ROADWAY CZRCULATION
THE OUTCOME
Roadway circulation efficiency.
THE MEASUREMENT
Average travel time on El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. --
Travel time studies are conducted at least twice each year on these roadways.
This year, three studies were conducted. One additional study was conducted
to evaluate the impacts of implementing time-based coordination of the traffic
signals on El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road in December 2002.
The travel time study on El Camino Real was performed for the full length of
the roadway in the City, from the south city limit to Haymar Drive at the north
city limit. During each travel time study, three time periods were evaluated.
These were 7:OO a.m. to 9:00 a.m. (the a.m. peak period), 9:15 a.m. to 11:15
a.m. (the off-peak period), and 3:30 p.m. to 6:OO p.m. (the p.m. peak period).
The travel time study on Palomar Airport Road was performed for the full
length of the roadway in the City, from Carlsbad Boulevard at the west to the
east city limit. During each travel time study, three time periods were
evaluated. These were 6:45 a.m. to 8:15 a.m. (the a.m. peak period), 9:45 a.m.
to 11: 15 a.m. (the off-peak period), and 4: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 Airport Road (East City Limit to Carlsbad Blvd)
Ideal Travel Time (Eastbound or Westbound)
El Camino Real (South City Limit to Haymarl
Ideal Travel Time (Northbound or Southbound)
12
7 min, 21 sec
10 min, 53 sec
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Idea2 Trave2 Time is the length of time that it takes to travel from one point to
the other based on the posted speed limit assuming no delays for traffic
signals, construction, pedestrians, traffic congestion, etc. Average Travel
Time is the average of actual travel times from one point to the other, including
delays. Average travel time is most meaningful if reviewed in relationship to
peak and off-peak periods (morning commute/evening commute). Severd
factors contribute to an efficient roadway circulation system including design,
maintenance, traffic operations, and police enforcement. These measures can
serve as an initial red flag to help determine the effectiveness of the City’s
roadway system to ensure efficient and time-effective travel.
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 Benchmark I Dec.2002 I Jan2003 I June2003
A.M. Peak - 7:OO to 9:00
Northbound - South City Limit to Haymar 15.7 18.3 16.0 17.2
Southbound - Haymar to South City Limit 18.0 20.1 17.4 17.1
Northbound - South City Limit to Haymar 15.8 17.4 12.9 16.2
Southbound - Haymar to South City Limit 16.0 18.3 14.9 16.5
Northbound - South City Limit to Haymar 21.8 34.0 21.7 25.4
Off Peak- 9:15 to 11:15
P.M. Peak - 3:30 to 6:OO
I Southbound - Haymar to South City Limit 17.4 19.4 16.7 17.8
Palomar Airport Road Average Travel Times in Minutes* I Benchmark I Dec. 2002 I Jan2003 I June2003
A.M. Peak- 6:45 to 8:15
Eastbound - Carlsbad Blvd to East City Limit 11.4 10.7 12.0 11.7
Westbound - East City Limit to Carlsbad Blvd 11.3 10.5 9.8 11.6
Eastbound - Carlsbad Blvd to East City Limit 10.6 11.1 9.4 11.5
Westbound - East City Limit to Carlsbad Blvd 10.0 10.1 8.3 10.5
Eastbound - Carlsbad Blvd to East City Limit 13.9 11.6 10.8 11.7
Westbound - East City Limit to Carlsbad Blvd 12.0 11.7 11.4 11.8
OffPeak-9:45to 11:15
P.M. Peak - 4:OO to 6:OO
*Benchmarks were established from June 2000 Travel Time Studies
ANALYSIS
Staff obtained the average travel time information on both roads based upon
roadway conditions on the day of the study. Both roads are future six-lane
13
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 significantly higher due to the larger
volume of traffic on both the subject roads and side streets at that time of day.
El Camino Real
The ide-al travel time is 10 minutes, 53 seconds on El Camino Real. During
each study, averages were obtained for both the a.m. peak and p.m. peak travel
times as well as an off peak time period. Consistent with past reports, the most
significant delays on El Camino Real occur during the Northbound p.m. peak
time period. Additionally, the study conducted in December 2002 reflected the
slowest average travel time results in every direction. The subsequent
improvements to travel times may be attributed to the effects'of the time-based
signal coordination plan that was implemented on portions of El Camino Real at
the end of December 2002. The times shown in the January and June studies
reflect across-the-board decreases in travel times. However, continued
improvement in travel times is expected as the time-based signal coordination
plans along the full length of El Camino Real have not yet been fine tuned and
optimized.
The southbound travel times remain fairly consistent with the benchmark goals.
With the exception of the December study, which as mentioned was higher in
every direction, average travel times were generally less than the established
benchmark for southbound travel.
The major traffic congestion in the northbound direction once again remains
between Hosp Way and Haymar Drive occurring between about 4:30 p.m. and
6:OO p.m. This is primarily a result of the intersections between Marron Drive
and the northerly city limits. This delay is also influenced by the ramp meter
operations for State Route 78 at El Camino Real. Additional delays occurred at
the intersections of La Costa Avenue and Palomar Airport Road.
Palomar Airport Road
The ideal travel time is 7 minutes, 21 seconds on Palomar Airport Road.
During each study,. averages were obtained for both the a.m. peak and p.m.
peak travel times as well as an off peak time period. The results indicate that
all travel times are within the ranges established by previous studies. During
the p.m. peak, the time decreased to an average of 11.4 minutes (down from an
average of 13.1 last year) for the eastbound direction, and increased slightly to
an average of 11.6 minutes for the westbound direction (from an average of
11.5 minutes last year).
14
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The results show travel times are generally very similar to, or slightly less than,
those from previous studies. There appears to be a slight trend in reduced
travel times, especially in the eastbound direction. It is likely that the general
decrease in travel time is due to more vehicles using alternate parallel routes
such as Cannon Road and Aviara Parkway/Poinsettia Lane.
ACTION PLAN
Both Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real are required to be completed to
their full arterial width per the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
Completion of other missing circulation element roadways and widening
existing segments will help distribute traffic volumes to more lanes resulting in
shorter platoons of vehicles traveling between intersections. Portions of both
segments have traffic signals operating in coordination due to the closely
spaced intersections. Additional traffic signals will be constructed on both El
Camino Real and possibly on Palomar Airport Road in the future. At that time,
intersection spacing will be closer and will benefit from coordinated traffic
signals. Time-based traffic signal coordination and optimization has been
implemented on both El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road through a
consultant contract. 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. In spite.of the time-based traffic signal coordination
implementation, traffic volumes remain at peak levels. A current project
underway to assist with traffic flow is the new four-lane striping at the Highway
78 overpass exchange. Continued improvement in the travel time for this area
is expected with additional roadway segment openings. For example,
construction of the College Boulevard and Cannon Road extensions are
underway. In summer 2004, the opening of the College Boulevard connection
to Oceanside will provide congestion relief to El Camino Real through volume
reductions in the mall vicinity.
Additionally, future construction at the Rancho Del Oro interchange by the City
of Oceanside will reduce traffic volumes using El Camino Real at Highway 78.
This interchange has not yet entered design phase, and therefore, is not
expected to be complete for at least three to five years.
Businesses continue to be encouraged to implement aggressive Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) actions to reduce volumes and shift peak hours of
operation.
15
Additional travel time studies will be performed on El Camino Real and
Palomar Airport Road in December 2003. 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.
16
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
Public Works
ROADWAY SERVICE DELIVERY
THE OUTCOME
High quality roadway experience.
THE MEASUREMENT
A multi-modal approach combining:
Roadway Service
0 Roadway Environment
0 Overall Roadway Condition Index (OCI)
Roadway Service: The roadway service measure is tied to the Standards of
Care program and is achieved by completing 90% of the scheduled
maintenance activities for the various components of the roadway system such
as sidewalks, traffic signals, traffic striping, traffic signing, and street lighting.
Roadway Environment: The roadway environment measure is also tied to the
Standards of Care program and monitors such things as litter control, median
maintenance and weed control.
OueraZZ Roadway Condition Index (OC@ The OCI includes a target of 100%
of roadways achieving a minimum score of 70 or higher. The Pavement
Management software, based on the data collected during roadway condition
surveys, generates OCI values.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Roadway Service: In FY 2002-2003, staff developed a Standards of Care
program to help evaluate the condition of public facilities. This program
establishes and documents the frequency of recommended preventive
maintenance, then measures the level of accomplishment each year by
comparing percent of completed work to scheduled maintenance. The Public
Works Maintenance Management Program and work order systems are used to
collect and analyze performance data. Through use of the Standards of Care
program, the Roadway Service measure assess the effectiveness of roadway
preventive maintenance programs.
Roadway Environment: The Roadway Environment measure also utilizes the
Standards of Care program. In contrast to measuring the frequency of
preventive maintenance completed, observers from a pool of community
17
representatives, outside professionals, and city employees are used to rate the
overall quality of care that a roadway receives in relation to such items as litter
control, median maintenance and weed control. Observers complete a rating
form while conducting an on-site evaluation of various roadways, results are
tabulated and an overall score is obtained. Reviews will be scheduled
semiannually.
OueraZZ Roadway Condition Index: The OCI reflects the condition of the
roadway surface, which is related to the design and quality of the initial
installation, the age, and maintenance of the roadways. Exposure to the
elements and vehicle loadings cause pavement to deteriorate. Left untreated,
the pavement will develop large cracks and potholes that would impact the
structural integrity of the road as well as degrade the rideability or
“smoothness” of the road. Pavement overlays can prevent cracks from
occurring and help avoid more extensive and expensive roadway repairs. A
proactive pavement management program is the most cost effective way to
improve roadway reliability and protect the City’s investment in its roadways.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Public Works, Engineering and Maintenance and Operations/ Street
Maintenance
BENCHMARK
Roadway Service: 90% completion of all scheduled maintenance activities.
Roadway Environment: 90% of the ratings are at or above 7 on a 10-point
scale (1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest).
OueraZZ Roadway Condition Index: Average OCI of 80 including a target of
100% of roadways scoring a minimum of 70 or higher. The benchmark has
been raised from last year’s average score of 75. An OCI in the range of 70-85
indicates that the roadway is in “very good” condition, which means that the
pavement has very few minor defects.
RESULTS
Roadwug Service: This is a new measure. Achievement levels will be
determined at the end of the fiscal year from the results of the Standards of
Care Program. Results will be based on information obtained from the
Maintenance Management Program Productivity/ Performance Reports and the
Hansen Work Order System.
Roadway Environment: This is a new measure. Achievement levels will be
determined at the end of the fiscal year through review of the results obtained
from the Standards of Care Program.
18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Prime Arterial
City Wide
OueraZZ Roadway Condition Index: The following table identifies the OCI
Roadway Class
43.5 79.3 31.4 miles 72%
334.4 80 83.8 284.7 miles 85%
ANALYSIS
Roadway Service: This is a new measure that utilizes the Standards of Care
program. The Roadway Service index will utilize the Standards of Care
Program to monitor the completion of scheduled maintenance. The following
areas will be reviewed throughout the year:
0 Sidewalk Repairs
0
0
0
0
0 Scheduled maintenance completed
0 Hours traffic signals on flash compared
0 Hours traffic signals on recall
0 Scheduled striping completed
0 Striping meeting quality standards
0
0
0
0
0 Scheduled surveillance completed
High priority repairs completed within 30 days of notification
Medium priority repairs completed within 60 days of
notification
All other repairs completed within 100 days of notification
Temporary emergency repairs completed within 48 hours
0 Traffic Signals
0 Traffic Striping*
0 Traffic Signing
Warning signs replaced within 1 hour of reporting
Regulatory signs replaced within 24 hours of reporting
Guide and street signs replaced within 48 hours
Reported burnouts due to bulb or sensor failure replaced
within 10 days
0 Street Lighting
* Striping Standard: All arterials and school zones striped annually; residential
and collector streets every 2 yrs. Replace thermoplastic markings every 7 yrs.
19
Roadway Environment: This is a new measure that utilizes the Standards of
Care Program to obtain feedback from outside raters on the observable
condition of the roadway environment. Raters will review 30% of arterials twice
per year and 10% of local and collector streets twice per year. The following
areas will be reviewed:
0 Litter Control
0 Median Maintenance
0 Weedcontrol
Expenditures on
Pavement Mgmt. Average OCI
Year Projects (System Wide)
1998 N/A 75
2002 $2,830,000 82.5
2003 $2,935,000 83.8
OveraZZ Roadwag Condition Index: From 1998, when the previous roadway
condition survey was completed, to 2002 four pavement management projects
were constructed. These projects resulted in 38.5 miles of roadways being
sealed and 13.6 miles of roadways being overlaid. Prior to the construction of
these projects the citywide OCI value was 75. The cost of these four projects
was $2,830,000. After these projects were completed a new roadway condition
survey was completed. The analysis of the data collected from this 2002/03
survey resulted in a citywide OCI value of 82.5.
Miles of Roadway below an
OCI of 70 / % of miles
below an OCI of 70
N/A
53.2 miles / 15.9%
49.7 miles / 14.9%
Subsequent to the completion of the 2002/03 roadway condition survey, three
pavement management projects were constructed. These projects resulted in
2.4 miles of roadways being sealed and 9.1 miles of roadways being overlaid.
The cost of these three projects was $2,935,000. After these projects were
completed the OCI analysis was updated. The results of the analysis indicated
that the City Wide OCI value increased to 83.8 (see table below).
As of the writing of this document two overlay projects are underway and two
additional overlay projects are being advertised for construction bids. Once
these projects are completed the OCI values will be updated. The pavement
management software program will then be used to analyze the condition of the
roadway system and to help identify which streets should be'included in the
pavement management program projects for construction during the summer
of 2004.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Of note, for the roadway cost efficiency analysis, pavement management costs
per street mile were compared to our partner agencies. While Carlsbad
approved approximately $2.9 million for pavement management programs in
Fy 2003, $1.9 million was spent before the end of the year (the remaining $1
million was spent in the first quarter of FY 2004). This equals about $4,462
per street mile. During the same time period, Chula Vista spent approximately
$5 million on pavement management programs ($11,700 per street mile);
Escondido spent $900,000 ($3,147 per street mile); and our unidentified
partner agency spent $1.8 million ($10,000 per street mile). At this time, staff
has determined that it would not be valuable to use pavement management as
a benchmark with partner agencies since the budgeting of pavement
management funds may occur sporadically over a period of years.
ACTION PLAN
Roadwag Service:
0 Data on progress toward completing scheduled maintenance will be kept
up-to-date with Maintenance Management productivity/Performance
Reports and/or the Hansen Work Order Program. These data collection
systems will be reviewed to ensure that staff can accurately measure its
work activities and strive to achieve the goals set forth in this measure.
Roadway Environment
0 Data will be collected during semiannual Standards of Care Program
reviews. Data will be analyzed and compared against the established
benchmarks, if scores are below expectations, procedural changes and/or
corrective action will be taken.
OveraZZ Roadway Condition Index:
0 Utilize the Pavement Management software program to analyze the cost and
effectiveness of various management philosophies. The variables that will
be evaluated include budget, minimum OCI values and the various types of
pavement management construction tasks, Upon the completion of the
analysis, the activities for next year will include identifylng the scope of
work for future projects, design and construction. A schedule for the above
mentioned activities follows:
o September - November: Calculate the OCI results using pavement
management software and analyze data.
o November - December: Based on the results of the data analysis select
the scope of the project for construction in the summer of 2004.
o November - January: Based on the results of the data analysis, the OCI
calculation and historical tracking of funding relative to the OCI; the
funding request for future years will be incorporated into the CIP.
21
o December - February: Prepare design of projects for construction
during the summer of 2004.
o March - June: Bid and award the construction projects.
o June - September: Construct 2004 projects.
22
Public Works
ROADWAY COST
2000 2001 2002 2003
Maintenance Costsa $3,142,652 $3,52 1,132 $3,627,657 $3,724,147
Total Street Miles 365b 374b 406 427
$/Street Mile $8,610 $9,415 $8,935 $8,722
Benchmark $8,610 $9,103 $9,372 $9,756
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
THE OUTCOME
High quality roadway experience.
THE MEASUREMENT
Actual street maintenance expenditures (including traffic signals and street
lighting) per mile of roadway.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measures the use of tax dollars allocated for the City’s roadways.
reflects age, design and maintenance standards of the infrastructure.
It also
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/ Street Maintenance, Engineering
BENCHMARK
City of Carlsbad maintenance cost per mile of roadway will not exceed $9,756
per street-mile. This benchmark was established based on information
reported in the baseline year (2000) and has been adjusted annually by the
San Diego Consumer Price Index (200 1 = 5.73%, 2002 = 2.95%, 2003 = 4.10%).
The benchmark was updated this year to include street lighting and traffic
signals.
ANALYSIS
Staff attempted to find an industry standard benchmark for roadway cost
efficiency that would be more reflective of the best and most effective way to
perform maintenance. However, research with Caltrans and the American
Public Works Association (APWA), and talks with partner cities have lead to the
23
conclusion that neither an industry nor agency standard exists. Staff also
explored the development of a benchmark that would be approved and
accepted as a standard by benchmark partners. However, it was determined
that too many operational variables exist within each agency to establish a
meaningful partner agency benchmark.
The benchmark for actual maintenance expenditures was updated this year to
include street lighting and traffic signal expenditures. This results in a
benchmark that is more comprehensive and includes all street-related
maintenance expenditures.
The results for 2003 show that expenditures in Carlsbad decreased from the
previous year by $213 per mile. This decrease is due to the number of roadway
miles increasing by 5.1%, but actual expenditures increasing by only 2.6%.
Of the outside agencies contacted, most use street-miles as their measure
because this data is most readily available. The use of lane-miles was
discussed with partner agencies because it was thought it could provide more
meaningful information since this unit of measurement can take into
consideration the width of streets, as well as bike lanes, pedestrian crosswalks,
turn lanes, etc. However, there was no common definition for lane-miles
among the agencies. Therefore, street-miles were used in order to compare
costs using the same unit of measure.
Pavement Program: Pavement management is the replacement and/or
rehabilitation of existing roadways. Projects include slurry seal and pavement
overlay, as well as refreshing and restriping lane markings. The pavement
management program sets the parameters and schedule for when various
areas of roadway need to be rehabilitated. Factors include the type of roadway
(major arterial, prime arterial, collector, etc.), ambient conditions and the level
of use (heavy truck and/or construction equipment use versus passenger
vehicles).
In FY 2003, Carlsbad spent approximately $1.9 million on pavement
management programs. This equals about $4,462 per street mile. During the
same time period, Chula Vista spent approximately $5 million on pavement
management programs ($1 1,700 per street mile); Escondido spent $900,000
($3,147 per street mile); and our unidentified partner agency spent $1.8 million
($10,000 per street mile). Staff has determined that it would not be valuable to
use pavement management as a benchmark with partner agencies since the
budgeting of pavement management funds may occur sporadically over a
period of years.
24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Agency
Escondido
Carlsbad
Chula Vista
Street Light Study: In FY 2003, staff conducted a Street Light Study to
compare Carlsbad’s street light maintenance program to that of other agencies.
The purpose was to ensure that the City continues to provide top quality
services in an efficient, cost effective way. To achieve this, staff looked for ways
to improve our programs, such as through contracting and/or a relamping
program.
Maintenance Cost per
Street Miles costs Mile
286 $1,723,9 17 $6,028
427 $3,724,147 $8,722
427 $4,155,618 $9,732
The results showed that the cost of contracting out was marginally less than
performing the work in house, including a relamping program (one-quarter of
all lights per year) and time and materials for other repairs. However, City staff
performs preventive maintenance activities each time a light is repaired, as well
as providing customer service to citizens. Staff is proactive about improving
maintenance programs, and has switched to better, longer lasting, more cost
effective replacement parts in furtures that have made repair work more
efficient. It was decided that the customer service, preventive maintenance
activities and proactive attitude provided by City staff outweigh the difference
in the cost of contracting.
San Diego County City*
Carlsbad ranked the second lowest of four agencies in terms of cost per mile for
street maintenance. The significance of this data is difficult to discern since
agency expenditures can vary from year to year for a variety of reasons,
including budgetary constraints, weather conditions, the type and amount of
traffic, and underlying soil conditions. However, staff did note some differences
in expenditure levels between Carlsbad and it’s benchmark partners. On the
low end, Escondido spent significantly less money on street lighting and traffic
signals ($1,473 per street mile versus Carlsbad’s $5,453), which accounts for
that agency’s low overall cost per mile. On the high end, the unnamed San
Diego County City had a comparable level of expenditures on street sweeping
and vehicle maintenance, even though that agency has less than half the
number of street miles as Carlsbad.
180 I $2,014,960 I $11,194
25
ACTION PLAN
0 Staff will continue to work with partner cities to further develop
meaningful, comparable data by looking into partner agencies’ budgets in
greater detail, including organizational structures and standards of care.
During 2003, staff developed a Public Works Service Plan by which field
crews were given the opportunity to develop service proposals that could
potentially improve productivity and/or reduce operating costs. As
approved service plans are implemented, staff will evaluate the impacts
to operations and expenditures. Ideas that were approved this year
include:
0
9 Contracting out crack sealing;
9 Improved communication and coordination between Street
Conduct a pilot program for street line striping to compare cost, quality
and customer service ratings of contractor versus in-house staff, identify
efficiencies.
Staff will expand the number of benchmark partners to 5 agencies.
Maintenance and Engineering Inspections.
0
0
26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BENCHMARK
90%
Public Works
2000 2001 2002 2003
41% 45% 46% 44%
TRANSPORTATION CUSTOMER Sh TISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction
THE MEASUREMENT
City of Carlsbad public opinion survey.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Highly satisfied customers are an indication that we are providing services in a
manner that is desired and/or expected.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Engineering/Transportation and Design Divisions, and Maintenance and
Operations/ Construction Maintenance.
BENCHMARK
90% of customers rate the overall road condition and traffic circulation as good
or excellent.
RESULTS
Overall Road Condition
IBENCHMARK 12000 12001 12002 12003 I I I I 90% I 80% I 84% I 83% I 83% I
Traffic Circulation
ANALYSIS
Carlsbad residents were asked about the condition of city streets. Overall, road
conditions were rated positively, with four-fifths of the respondents giving a
rating of good or excellent in each year of the survey. Ratings for the condition
of city streets have consistently been rated in the 80s and have been consistent
across regions.
Ratings for traffic circulation are not as positive with a little less than half of
the respondents offering a rating of good or excellent. The traffic circulation
ratings increased in 200 1 after lane openings and intersection improvements
but has remained at the same level since then and no significant circulation
27
improvements have been completed since then. On a regional basis, residents
in the North Region rated traffic circulation lower than did residents of the
South Region.
ACTION PLAN
Continue to include transportation related questions in the citywide public
opinion survey. In addition, explore the possibility of adding open-ended
questions to explore reasons why residents rate traffic circulation and road
conditions poorly.
With the anticipated opening of several major thoroughfares within the next
several years, satisfaction with traffic circulation by region will be carefully
monitored.
28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Public Works
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - CIRCULATION
THE OUTCOME
An efficient and effective circulation system is maintained in the City.
THE MEASUREMENT
No road segment or intersection within the City, nor any road segment or
intersection outside the City, (which is impacted by development within the
City), shall be projected to exceed an unacceptable level of service (LOS).
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Comparison of traffk volumes to roadway and intersection capacities. A traffic
model of the City has been completed which projects traffic volumes through
the year 2020. This Carlsbad sub area-traffic model is maintained by SANDAG
and used by staff for analysis and to identify necessary roadway and
intersection improvements. The Annual Growth Management Traffic
Monitoring Program conducts traffic counts of existing volumes and analyzes
LOS conditions on critical roadways and intersections throughout the City.
The program helps identify and determine the timing of additional traffic
mitigations and improvements.
LOS is a quantative measure of traffic conditions that reflects how restrictive
vehicle movements are, or may become. For purposes of monitoring traffic
throughout the City, the capacity of an intersection or roadway segment is
compared to the actual volumes measured in the field. The six levels of traffic
service range from A to F. Level A represents the most ideal conditions; Level E
is at capacity; and Level F indicates forced flow, or stop and go traffic that is
often grid locked. The Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity
Manual further defines LOS based on specific measurements of traffic volumes
and roadway capacities.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Engineering
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
No road segment or intersection in the City, nor any road segment or
intersection outside the City, (which is impacted by development in the City),
shall be projected to exceed a service level as indicated for the following
conditions:
29
1 Condition 17 1
During off-peak hours
During peak hours
Impacted means where 20% or more of the traffic generated by an area will use
the road segment or intersection.
RESULTS
Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Program for 2003 included the same
29 roadway segments and 55 intersections as the 2002 program. Results
indicate that all roadway segments and intersections meet the Growth
Management Circulation Standard except the following intersection:
Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Drive (LOS E in the AM Peak Hour)
The following intersections and roadway segments currently meet the Growth
Management Standards and will continue to be monitored:
e
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
El Camino Real/Tamarack Avenue (LOS D in the AM Peak Hour)
El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road(L0S D in the PM Peak Hour)
Palomar Airport RoadlMelrose Drive (LOS D in the AM Peak Hour)
Carlsbad Boulevard/Cannon Road (LOS D in the PM Peak Hour)
1-5/Cannon Road Northbound Ramps (LOS D in the PM Peak Hour)
Palomar Airport Road between Melrose Drive & Business Park Drive (LOS
D in the Peak Hour)
Rancho Santa Fe Road between San Elijo Road & Cadencia Street (LOS D
in the Peak Hour)
ANALY SI6
The College Boulevard and Cannon Road project, which is currently under
construction, is expected to alleviate traffic at the El Camino Real/Tamarack I
intersection.
The Faraday Avenue and Melrose Drive extension project, which is scheduled
I to be under construction by late 2004, is expected to alleviate the following
intersections and roadway segments:
e El Camino Real/Palomar Airport Road intersection
e Palomar Airport Road/ Melrose Drive intersection
Palomar Airport Road between Melrose Drive & Business Park Drive
It should be noted that the Palomar Airport Road/Melrose Drive intersection I
I was reported at LOS of E in the 2002 Traffic Monitoring Report. This year it
30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
was reported at LOS of D. The improvement in LOS is attributed to the day-to-
day variation in traffic. This intersection will continue to be monitored and is
anticipated to remain the same, or further improve, when the Faraday Avenue
and Melrose Drive extension is completed and the additional westbound traffic
lane is constructed between the east city limit and Melrose Drive.
The Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment and Widening project, currently under
construction, is expected to improve the following intersection and road
segment:
0 Rancho Santa Fe Road/Melrose Drive intersection
Rancho Santa Fe Road between San Elijo Road and Cadencia Street
It should be noted that the Rancho Santa Fe Road/San Elijo Road intersection
and Rancho Santa Fe roadway segment between Melrose Drive & La Costa
Meadows Drive were reported at LOS D in the 2002 Traffic Monitoring Report.
This year it was reported at LOS C. The improvement at the intersection is due
to a reconfiguration of the intersection in preparation of the new roadway. The
improvement in the roadway segment is attributed to the day-to-day variation
in traffic. This intersection and roadway segment will continue to be monitored
and is anticipated to improve when the Rancho Santa Fe Road project is
complete.
Some intersections located on Carlsbad Boulevard are identified in the City’s
Traffic Impact Fee Report as future hot spots due to its unique character. Hot
spots are locations that primarily serve regional traffic and are within limited
control of the City. Because it abuts the ocean, most major intersections on
Carlsbad Boulevard are “T” intersections that tend to have high turning
movement demands. Studies by both the City and SANDAG indicate that
Carlsbad Boulevard is used by regional traffic as an alternative to 1-5. The
Carlsbad Boulevard/ Cannon Road intersection will continue to be monitored
with other major intersections on Carlsbad Boulevard.
It should be noted that the Interstate-5/Cannon Road northbound ramps
improved from LOS D reported in the 2002 Traffic Monitoring Report, to LOS B
in 2003 for the PM peak hour. This intersection, like all freeway ramps, is
identified in the current Traffic Impact Fee Report as a future hot spot. The
LOS improvement is due to an approximately 24% reduction of vehicles
accessing Interstate-5 from westbound Cannon Road. This reduction in
vehicles can be attributed to the completion of Cannon Road between Faraday
Avenue and El
northern access
to be monitored.
Camino Real, which provides an access to an alternative
route for drivers in the area. The freeway ramps will continue
31
ACTION PLAN
On-going analyses of new developments
0 Continue to conduct annual Growth Management Traffic Monitoring
Program
0 Complete construction of College Boulevard/ Cannon Road
Complete construction of Rancho Santa Fe Road Realignment &
widening
0 Construct Melrose DrivelFaraday Avenue
32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
RISK MANAGEMENT
City Operating General Fund
1
Budget Revenue
Service Delivery
Measure: Risk Management losses will not exceed $10.39 per capita
Results $7.35
FINANCE
Service Delivery
Long Term Satisfactlon Cos1 1 Report Satisfacbon
Financial Dslribuhon I Cost I ..;Zy1
Health 1
Measure:
Results:
Overall Finance
OVERALL
Rs k
Measure:
Results:
Measure:
Results:
Financial Reporting Completed within 15 days
10 of 12 monthly reports met standard
Long Term Financial Health
City has projected balanced budget for next 3-6 years
General Fund Revenue
City has 4th highest General Fund revenue per capita in San Diego
County
Measure:
Results:
City Operating Budget - No benchmark has been established
$896 General Fund Operating Expenditure Per Capita
33
In 2002/03, revenues totaled $91.1 million, which was $2.7 million above
projections. Total General Fund expenditures for fiscal year 2002-03 were $83
million.
The City of Carlsbad, like many other local jurisdictions, finds itself in a
precarious position with regards to the ongoing financial health of the City.
The City has been subject to financial moves from the State of California, and
the budget uncertainty at the State level is having major repercussions at the
local level. Additionally, while General Fund revenue continues to excel in
comparison to other North County cities, the rate of growth is less than the
increase in the Consumer Price Index.
Currently the City’s General Fund Operating Budget is less than General Fund
revenues. However, when the budget is projected out several years, there are
imbalances. These imbalances stem from the potentially decreasing revenues
allocated by the State. In order to better prepare the organization for future
significant fluctuations, staff has been working on developing various budget
scenarios as well as revenue enhancements to sustain Carlsbad’s fiscal
integrity .
Looking at the remainder of the measures for this goal, Finance has met its
intent on providing the organization with timely financial information in ten out
of twelve months. Based on the gap analysis that was performed as part of the
performance measurement program, staff identified possible measures for cost
and customer satisfaction for both the Finance and Risk departments. Staff
will work on the development of these measures over the coming year.
With the fiscal concerns at the State level and through the level of discussion
at the Council and staff level, Carlsbad’s finances are being closely monitored
and plans are being developed to deal with the fiscal condition as it develops.
The City organization has and will continue to value fiscal discipline. However,
significant uncertainty remains in the State and their financial imbalance, and
the State’s ability to remain solvent over the coming years continues to be a
concern.
Management Goals: Although not analyzed in this report, the management
goals associated with this strategic goal are listed below to demonstrate
resources allocated to the achievement of this strategic goal. Management
goals that support this strategic goal for 2003-04 include:
0 Lighting/ Landscape District 0 Storm Water Financing Program
0 Revenue Enhancement 0 Budget Forecast
0 Purchasing Mission 0 Internal Auditing
34
5
R
I s
S
I
I
I
3
I
1
I
I
3
I
R
P
1
1
I
1
t
I
t
pi
r
e
t
1
E
E
E
1
E
1
E
I
E
CARLSBAD
ICMA BENCHMARK
Administrative Services
RISK MANAGEMENT - GENERAL LIABILITY EXPENDITURES
FY 1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY 2002
$5.74 $2.94 $6.74 $7.35 - $6.7 1 $9.17 $10.39
THE OUTCOME
Minimization of liability expenditures.
THE MEASUREMENT
General liability expenditures per capita. The level of expenditures reflect
departments’ efforts to reduce liability exposure throughout the City.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The FY 2002 ICMA benchmark is the mean of general liability expenditures,
defined as miscellaneous claim expenditures, settlements, investigation fees,
attorney fees, court costs and liability insurance premiums, for four cities,
including Carlsbad, under 100,000 in population. The FY 2000 and 2001
ICMA benchmarks were for non-vehicular liability losses per capita for cities
under 100,000 in population (see more on “Benchmark” below). Carlsbad’s
results were limited to non-vehicular liability losses in FY 2001 only.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Risk Management, all other departments.
BENCHMARK
ICMA’s measure was previously entitled “Non-Vehicular Liability Losses” but
has been changed to incorporate all liability expenditures where covered under
one policy. All data, Le., population and expenditures, reflect the same period
of ICMA’s measurement.
The amount of $7.35 was derived by dividing the total FY 2002 City
expenditures of $613,702 by an approximate city population of 83,469 for this
same time period.
ANALYSIS
Carlsbad’s liability expenditures per capita for FY 2002 are only slightly higher
than 2001 even though vehicle liability losses have been included this time. In
35
addition, Carlsbad’s expenditures were significantly lower than the ICMA
benchmark for the same time period.
The slight increase in expenditures was due to the litigation costs centered in a
very small number of the total cases processed and does not represent across-
the-board increases due to any policy or operational changes from the previous
year.
Carlsbad continues to compare well against other cities of a comparable size.
ACTION PLAN
Risk Management will continue to use ICMA data for cost comparison
purposes, unless a better benchmark is identified.
36
I
is1
I
3
1
T
1
I
3 s
I
I
1
a
I
3
3
1
a
I
1
t
E
t
I
1
I
I
I
I
E
I
i
1
1
1
P
f
40
35
Administrative Services
6
/ I
FINANCE REPORT DISTRLBUTION
THE OUTCOME
Timely dissemination of financial information for decision-making
THE MEASUREMENT
Measures how soon after the end of each month financial data is available to
the users of the data (in business days)
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Managers and the City Council depend on accurate, timely financial data in
order to evaluate the progress of City programs and the ability of the City to
continue to fund the programs. The older the financial information, the less
valuable it is. This data is compiled based upon the City’s Fiscal Year.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Finance
BENCHMARK
The monthly financial status report is to be issued by the fifteenth business
day after the end of the month except for June, which is thirty business days.
This is due to the year-end close procedures, which hold the accounts payable
process open for most of the month of July in order to ensure an accurate
balance for fiscal year end reporting.
RESULTS
I Financial Status Report
45 1 1
30 I / 1 I 25 I I I
20- 15
5
04 I 8 I I I I I I
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
Date
I -t Business Days to Issue I
4- Benchmark
ANALYSIS
The benchmark was met in every month except two during the year. The May
report, which was issued on the 16th business day, was off by one day. The
June report was issued 11 days later than the benchmark of 30 days.
However, for fiscal year 2003, the average number of days to issue the report
was reduced by 1.5 days as compared to fiscal year 2002. Finance staff is very
conscientious of the monthly closing of the books, and the due date for issuing
the Financial Status Report. Year-to-date activity is posted in the department
so that staff can evaluate how well we are doing in achieving our goal.
For the year-end report, we have to evaluate the benefit of having the
information sooner against the benefit of having more accurate information.
Average Working Days to Issue Financial
Status Report
20
20
15
10
5
0
2003 2002 2001 2000
Fiscal Year
ACTION PLAN
We will continue to work towards issuing the reports earlier than targeted in
most months. For the year end report, we will target the issuance for 30 days
after year end with the understanding that if we are aware of significant
adjustments that need to occur, the report will be held until they can be made.
38
I
L
I
t
e
I
I
t
t
P
IE
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
t
Population
Cost Per Capita
Citywide
CITY OPERATING BUDGET
88,000 92,400
$917 $896
THE OUTCOME
Maintain cost efficient service delivery.
THE MEASUREMENT
General Fund operating expenditures per capita.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure evaluates the general fund cost per capita of the organization.
Due to the complexities of fund accounting and the variety of local government
services, this measure only takes into account the costs accrued to the General
Fund. However, by analyzing the operating expenditures per capita, the City
can begin to develop an understanding of baseline costs for the services we
provide. When compared to the Overall Satisfaction Ratings and Citizen
Confidence, “value” can begin to be ascertained.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
All City departments expending General Fund monies.
BENCHMARK
To be determined
RESULTS I I 2001-02 I 2002-03 I
I Total Expense I $80,700,000 I $82,800,000 I
ANALYSIS
The per capita cost for the FY 2002/2003 General Fund Operating Budget is
$896. This represents a decrease in expenditures per capita of more than $20
from the prior year. The reason for this reduction is that the population
increased more than the General Fund operating budget. For fiscal year
2002/03, the City expended approximately $83 million. While this is a net
decrease per capita, it was an overall increase in amount spent by nearly $2
million.
The results of this measure are to be taken into consideration with the overall
39
citizen satisfaction with city services and the confidence in city government. By
analyzing these measures in concert, the concept of “value” can begin to be
determined.
ACTION PLAN
Continue to evaluate this measure by identifying areas where costs are not
equivalent to service levels provided.
40
I
1
I
1
t
I
1
t
I
k
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
Citywide
GENERAL FUND REVENUE
THE OUTCOME
Maintain a financially healthy General Fund revenue stream.
THE MEASUREMENT
General Fund Revenue per capita
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Evaluating the level of General Fund revenue per capita and the sources of that
revenue provide vital information with regards to the stability and effectiveness
of the City’s financial strategy.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Citywide
BENCHMARK
Base year (2002) plus adjustments for Consumer Price Index (4.2%)
RESULTS
Carlsbad’s general fund revenue per capita is $1,009,
ANALYSIS
This measure highlights two significant factors of City revenue, generating
capacity (the total amount of revenue derived from the source) and balance
between the different revenue sources.
The following chart compares General Fund revenue per capita generated by
North County cities. While Carlsbad has a General Fund per capita revenue of
$1,009, which is fourth highest in San Diego County, and is 2 percent higher
than last year. The difference in growth can be attributed to a wide array of
factors, and staff will continue to monitor the changes in growth to further
identify financial trends in the North County.
41
NORTHCOUNTYGENERALFUND
REVENUES PER CAPITA
Encinitas
San Marcos
Poway
0 cean side
Escondido
Vista
1 City
$635 $661 $669 + 1%
$572 $596 $616 +3%
$556 $579 $612 +7%
$474 $494 $480 -3%
$446 $465 $463 Even
$414 $431 $441 +2%
Benchmark 2003 Benchmark +'- I I FY2002 1 Adjusted 1 FY 1
The other component of this measure is the evaluation of revenue generation
by specific sources. Local government has traditionally relied upon property
tax, sales tax, transit occupancy tax (TOT), revenue from development, and the
Vehicle License Fee (VLF) to provide revenues to the general fund. The
volatility of several of the tax sources, such as the TOT and Development, can
cause a pendulum effect in local government finances. Additionally, actions
taken by the State of California have and will continue to cause significant
fluctuations to the City's revenue. Through evaluation by source type, the City
can better understand the potential level of financial volatility in the General
Fund help to offset the cyclical nature of the revenue streams.
2002-03 General Fund Revenue Per Capita
$0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 $1.000 $1,100
Chula Vista
Encinitas
Escondido
Oceanside
Poway
San Marcos Development Rev.
Vista
As shown above, Carlsbad has almost equal revenue generation from the
Property Tax and Sales Tax. Transit Occupancy Tax generates nearly 10% and
42
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
r
Development Revenue generates 5%. Due to actions at the State level, revenue
derived from the VLF will be reduced over the coming year, the mount of
which is still uncertain.
The City of Del Mar and Solana Beach were removed from the analysis due to
their relatively small population.
ACTION PLAN
Carlsbad does not have a defined formula for its revenue streams, however, the
identification of the sources of revenue and their overall impact is critical for
the effective development and implementation of the City’s economic strategy.
Financial health is a necessity of local government and based upon Council
direction, staff will continue to monitor, evaluate, and adjust as circumstances
change and relevant information becomes available.
As part of the goal process for the current year, staff has been working towards
the identification of new/enhanced revenue opportunities. Results from any
changes in the revenue structure will take time to materialize and may not be
evident for several years.
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
t 43
Administrative Services
v) E
($8) -
($70)
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
I + Loss of VLF backfill -t- No loss from State
LONG-TERM FISCAL CONDITION
THE OUTCOME
' Long-term financial health for the City's General Fund
THE MEASURE
Projected expenditures versus revenues provides the City with an early warning
system that detects fiscal problems before they occur, which provides the City
an opportunity to change its financial structure well before fiscal problems
become unmanageable.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The 10-year forecast provides a visual representation of the City's long-term
financial health. As long as the revenue line is equal to or higher than the
expenditure line, the City's fiscal structure is considered healthy. If the lines
cross (revenue falls below expenditure), a financial problem is indicated. The
number of years between today and the crossing of the lines gives an indication
of the immediacy of the problem, and the magnitude of the correction can be
determined by the distance between the expenditure and revenue lines.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Citywide.
BENCHMARK
A 10-year financial forecast for the General Fund that shows that revenues will
be equal to or exceed expenditures in each year.
RESULTS General Fund Forecast Net Revenue over (under) Expenditures
ANALYSIS
Expenditures begin to exceed revenues in the 3 to 6 year range. Based on the
defined benchmark for this measure, the City is facing a picture of short-term
financial health, however long-term projections raise significant concerns.
Corrective fiscal action is called for in the next budget year. In addition, the
uncertainty over how the State of California’s fiscal problems could affect the
City gives additional importance to taking immediate action to assure
Carlsbad’s financial health.
Revenues exceed
expenditures over the life of
The 10-year forecast summarized in this measure takes into consideration the
City’s current operating plan including the construction of new facilities, labor
contracts, development projections, staffing projections, adjustments in
revenues and service level changes. Based on these inputs, the forecast is for
three years of General Fund surpluses followed by ongoing General Fund
operating deficits.
Benchmark achieved. The City’s long-term
financial health appears to be good into the
These deficits are related to the opening of a number of new parks and the
construction of a number of infrastructure projects, as well as growing
personnel costs. Revenues over the 10-year period are not projected to grow as
quickly as operating costs, causing the downward movement of the lines on the
graph.
the forecast.
Expenditures begin to exceed
As this is a new measure this year, staff proposes utilizing a system like the
chart below to assist in evaluating the level of financial concern and guiding
corrective actions.
foreseeable future.
Although the current financial health appears
may exist. Corrective action will be necessary
orrective action
require immediate attention.
45
ACTION PLAN
During 2003-04, each department will prepare a detailed forecast of its budget
needs for the next five years. These forecasts will take into consideration a
number of scenarios including operations under normal fiscal conditions, and
operation using a minimum of financial resources. Departments are
encouraged to look at service levels, alternate ways of delivering services, and
cost containment actions. In addition, staff has initiated an effort to identify
both new sources of revenue and ways to enhance existing revenue sources for
the General Fund. The results of this work will be incorporated into the
development of the 2004-05 operating budget. The goal will be to present the
City Council with both a balanced budget for 2004-05 and an operating plan
that will begin to bring the City’s long-term fiscal picture back into balance.
46
Ensure that Citizens, Council, and Staff are well informed, leading to a more
responsive government and a higher level of confidence
Service Delivery
Measure: 90% of citywide survey respondents rate City’s ability to
Results: 86%
communicate 6 or greater (scale of 0 to 10).
cost
Measure:
Results: $10.65
Benchmark is $6.94 per capita
Customer Satisfaction
Measure: 90% of citywide survey respondents rate confidence in local
Results: 79%
government 6 or greater on a scale of 0 to 10.
,
100%
90%
80%
1 70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
As reported in the Citywide public opinion survey, communications took a step
forward this year with increases in both service delivery and customer
satisfaction. There was also an increase in communication expenditures due
to the development of several new programs.
The ratings for service delivery showed a considerable increase, and staff is
working with Cal State San Marcos to help identify the possible causes for this
47
rise. When looked at over a three-year period, the survey responses to the
question, “How informed do you feel about issues that are important to you”
has increased by more than 30 percentage points, with an almost 20
percentage point gain this past year. The increase in this measure is
significant as it has been identified as a major contributor to the confidence
level citizens have in local government.
The same positive trend is also shown in the customer satisfaction measure
(Citizen confidence in local government). As a key indicator for the success of
the City, this measure has consistently shown improvement. Over a four-year
period, this measure has shown an increase of nearly 20 percentage points.
Per capita costs increased this year due in part to the development of new
programs such as Capital Project Updates and the Connecting Community,
Place, and Spirit outreach. At $10.65 per capita, City expenditures on overall
communications represent approximately one percent of the General Fund
budget, Staff continues to develop a comprehensive communications plan, and
with the addition of the Communications Manager, it is projected to be
complete by the 2004/05-goal cycle.
Another question contained on the citywide survey asked the level of contact
citizens had with the City over the past year. Over 50 percent of respondents
reported that they had contact with the City and of those, 83 percent rated
contact as either good or excellent. This result, while generally positive, leaves
room for improvement. Staff will continue to monitor this question and work
with the Customer Service team to develop strategies for improvement.
Staff recognizes that a vital part of effectively communicating to the community
rests in having an informed organization. However, efforts to communicate
within the organization have not been quantified. Looking forward to next
year, staff will be working on developing internal measures for communication.
Costs for internal communication may be difficult to estimate, as materials that
are generated for external use are also used internally.
Management Goals: Although not analyzed in this report, the management
goals associated with this strategic goal are listed below to demonstrate
resources allocated to the achievement of this strategic goal. Management
goals that support this strategic goal for 2003-04 include:
0 Growth Mgmt 86 General Plan Info 0 Recreation Web Site
0 Communication Plan 0 Performance Measurement
0 Communication Strategic Plan 0 Cable TV Channel
48
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
t
I
BENCHMARK 2001
90% 55%
Citywide
CITYWIDE COMMUMCATIONS
2002 2003
62% 86%
THE OUTCOME
A well-informed citizenry with a high level of confidence in local government.
THE MEASUREMENT
Survey results to the question in the citywide survey that asks, “Using a scale
of 0 to 10, where 0 means poor and 10 means excellent, how would you rate
the job the city does in providing you with information about issues that are
important to you?”
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The dissemination of information to the public is a key function of local
government. A more informed public should result in greater understanding of
local issues and positively impact the public’s confidence in local government.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Citywide
BENCHMARK
90% of respondents rate 6 or greater on a scale of 0-10.
RESULTS
ANALYSIS
This is the third year that the City has asked its residents how well a job the
City does in providing them with information on issues that are important to
them. The results from this year’s survey reflect a 24-point increase in the
percentage of positive responses (6 or higher) over the prior year. This increase
is significantly greater than the prior year’s ratings, and is a positive sign that
the City is improving its ability to effectively communicate with the citizenry.
This year’s results also reflect three years of upward trending.
Over the past several years, the City Council has identified communication as
one of its Strategic Goals, and staff has been working to develop a
communications strategy that includes print, television, news, direct mail,
Internet, and other electronic forms of media. Supplementing the development
49
of the communications strategy, staff continued to coordinate the dispersal of
City information through a cross-departmental work team.
The chart below illustrates the percentage of survey respondents that identified
where they access information regarding the City. Evident in the chart is the
consistency and in some instances, decrease, of the ratings from 2002 to 2003.
These numbers are perplexing, as they seem to contradict the overall increase
in how informed respondents felt. Staff is working with Cal State San Marcos
to help identify the cause of this scenario. One possibility is that while the
access frequency has not changed, the effectiveness of the message has,
resulting in the higher overall ratings as seen in this years’ survey.
Another reconciliation in the difference in the survey responses is that the
survey did not adequately ask about communication efforts that the City
conducts, and therefore failed to identify where respondents receive
information regarding the City. An example of this is the effort to inform
residents about construction projects that are occurring in their neighborhood
(Ex. Rancho Santa Fe road and the Carlsbad/Vista sewer/storm drain
interceptor). These efforts can be extensive, and deal with subjects that
directly impact large groups of residents. While specific questions regarding
these activities were not asked in the survey, these additional communication
efforts may be partly responsible for the increase in the overall rating.
ACTION PLAN
Continue to develop and coordinate a comprehensive communications effort.
In summer 2003, the City hired a Communications Manager that will help
oversee the efforts of the Communications Team. Both the Communication
Manager and the Communications Team will provide ongoing evaluation of the
various communication efforts, and will recommend changes where
opportunities arise.
Staff will work to ensure that the City’s communication efforts are accurately
reflected in the Citywide Survey.
50
I
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
I
1
2002
Population 88,400
Expenditure $586,000
Benchmark $6.65 per capita
Actual $6.65 per capita
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
t
I
2003
92,400
$984,900
$6.94 per capita
$10.65 per capita
Citywide
CITYWIDE COMMUNEATIONS COST
THE OUTCOME
A well-informed citizenry with a high level of confidence in local government.
THE MEASUREMENT:
Citywide communication costs per capita.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The dissemination of information to the public is a key function of local
government. A more informed public should result in greater understanding of
local issues and positively impact the public’s confidence in local government.
This measure evaluates the cost per capita spent by the City for
communication purposes.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Citywide
BENCHMARK
Base Year (2002) plus Consumer Price Index (4.2%)
ANALYSIS
This measure provides the ability for staff to better evaluate the effectiveness of
the City’s communications efforts. For the past several years, the City of
Carlsbad has expanded its communication endeavors with limited ability to
clearly analyze if those efforts were successful in achieving the desired results.
This measure takes into account the costs outlined in the Communication
Budget as well as other city communication endeavors such as Public Works
brochures, the Community Services Guide, etc.
This past year saw an increase in communication costs as new programs began
to come online and existing programs were expanded. An example of a new
51
program is the Capital Project communications that provides project updates
for our citizens on major capital projects in progress. Another new
development in 2003 was the beginning of the Connecting Community. Place,
and Spirit dialogue among the community. This effort, which has been
extensive, is designed to engage citizens in visualizing what the future of
Carlsbad will look like.
Ongoing programs for this past year included the Community Services
brochure, the Quarterly Update Video, the State of the City video, expanded
development of the City’s website, the City Avenues informational packets, the
“City Stuff“ packets developed for 3rd graders, the Desktop Calendar, various
informational pieces produced by Public Works, and flyers included in City
billing statements.
City costs for communication efforts this year were estimated to be $984,000, a
per capita cost $10.65. The costs of this measure need to be evaluated against
the responses in the Citywide Survey in order to better ascertain the
effectiveness of the communication program.
Due to the numerous ongoing and expanding efforts, it is anticipated that costs
for communications will continue to be a significant expenditure of city
resources. Staff is in the process of developing an overall Communication
Strategy, which will include an evaluation of how best to allocate City resources
to meet Council’s objectives.
ACTION PLAN
Complete the development of overall communication strategy. Staff will
continue to evaluate cost effectiveness of various communication tools and
adjust accordingly.
52
I
I
1
1
1
I
t
19
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Citywide
CONFIDENCE IN CITY G0VER"T
Benchmark 2000 2001 2002
90% 60% 68% 72%
Average 6.0 6.5 6.6
THE OUTCOME
High level of citizen confidence in the City's ability to positively affect the
community.
2003
79%
6.9
THE MEASUREMENT
Survey results to the question in the citywide survey that asks "HOW confident
are you in the Carlsbad City Government to make decisions which positively
affect the lives of its community members?"
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Evaluating citizen's confidence in the local government in conjunction with
other service rating measures, the City can determine those actions which have
a positive impact on the perception of the effectiveness of local government.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Citywide
BENCHMARK
90% of respondents rate confidence 6 or greater on a 0-10 scale.
ANALYSIS
This is the fourth year that the City has asked its residents how confident they
are in local government effectiveness. While the median confidence rate has
increased by almost a full point, the percentage of the respondents who have a
positive confidence level in local government has increased over the past three
years by roughly 19 percentage points The increased confidence levels
represents a continued upward trend for this measure, and reflects multiple
survey improvements. This past year saw a 7-percentage point increase in
confidence between 2002 and 2003, and is the second largest jump posted to
date
In evaluating what drives the confidence level, staff has determined that the
53
degree of information that the residents feel they have as well as the citizen’s
perception of how effective the City uses land have an impact on their
confidence rating in the City. Land Use has a greater impact in affecting the
confidence question than does communication, but one may be a function of
the other (citizens may not know our land use plan if we aren’t communicating
effectively on this subject).
ACTION PLAN
Continue to evaluate ways that positively impact the levels of information
Citizens receive as well as their understanding of the ways in which the City
balances the various land uses. Continue to further monitor trend
information.
54
Acquire, develop and maintain a broad range of open space and recreational
facilities that actively address citizen needs that are fiscally responsible, and are
consistent with the General Plan and Growth Management Standards.
Service Delivery
Measure:
Results: 83%
90% of ratings from the Public Works Standards of Care Program
receiving a rating of 7 or higher on a 10-point scale.
cost
Measure:
Results: $10,305
The annual park maintenance cost per acre will not exceed $9,692.
Customer Satisfaction
Measure:
Results: 94%
90% of respondents rate park maintenance as good or excellent on
the City of Carlsbad public opinion survey report.
Measure:
Results: 85%
90% of customers rate park maintenance as good or excellent on
the annual City of Carlsbad Recreation survey.
100%
90%
80%
60%
70%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0 Oh
No Measure No M easun?
Growth Trails Open Space
Management
55
Parks service delivery is a newly revised measure that utilizes the Public Works
Standards of Care program to obtain feedback on the condition of city parks.
The Standards of Care program utilizes community representatives, outside
professionals, and city employees to rate a park’s overall quality of care.
Observers complete a rating form while conducting an on-site evaluation,
results are tabulated and an overall score is obtained. The results from the
Standards of Care program reflected an overall rating of 83% for city parks,
More significantly, separate scores were obtained for each park reviewed along
with a breakout of which areas need more attention. Of note, restroom
maintenance, particularly at older facilities, was highlighted as an area of
concern.
Annual park maintenance costs per acre were higher than expected growing
9% from last year. Increases were attributable to electrical repairs at various
sports fields, resurfacing tennis courts, higher utility rates, irrigation supplies,
and other miscellaneous supplies. Additionally, Carlsbad had a higher cost per
acre than all but one of the benchmark partner agencies. In discussions with
our benchmarking partners, many differences were noted in the maintenance
programs between the cities. The frequency of restroom maintenance, lawn
mowing and other maintenance activities has a significant impact on both cost
and quality of care. Carlsbad will explore opportunities to maintain a high
level of quality care while minimizing costs by comparing procedures with our
partner agencies.
Customer satisfaction continues to receive strong ratings. Approximately 94%
of respondents to the City of Carlsbad Survey responded with a good or
excellent rating. In addition, the Recreation survey resulted in an overall rating
of good or excellent of 85%. While both ratings are favorable, the internal
Recreation survey represented a 7% decline from last year. The lowest scores,
consistent with the results from the Standards of Care program, were on the
condition of restrooms and picnic areas.
The trails program continues to develop with seven new miles of trails added in
the past year (Carrillo, La Costa Valley). Ongoing efforts to coordinate
volunteers in the construction and maintenance of trail segments continue.
In this year’s public opinion survey, citizens were asked about their preferences
regarding open space. In general, respondents indicated an even distribution
of preference for the four types of open space described (preserved space, trails,
passive, active).
Regarding the growth management standard, although there are now park
acreage deficiencies in each quadrant, capital projects are scheduled that will
56
I meet the growth management standard.
I
1
I
f
I
I
I
c
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Management Goals: Although not analyzed in this report, the management
goals associated with this strategic goal are listed below to demonstrate
resources allocated to the achievement of this strategic goal. Management
goals that support this strategic goal for 2003-04 include:
0 Habitat Management Plan Implementation
e Implementation Of Comprehensive Open Space Management Plan
0 LarwinPark
0 Aviara Community Park
0 Alga Node Community Park
0 City Wide Trails
0 Pine School Park
Carlsbad City Golf Course Project
57
Public Works
PARK SERVICE DELIVERY
THE OUTCOME
Well maintained and safe parks
THE MEASUREMENT
By utilizing the newly implemented Standards of Care program, rate the
condition of City parks based on observation by community representatives,
City employees, and outside professionals.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The newly implemented Standards of Care program utilizes community
representatives, outside professionals, and city employees to rate the overall
quality of care a park is receiving. Observers complete a rating form while
conducting an on-site evaluation, results are tabulated and an overall score is
obtained. By establishing an objective rating value for City parks, the data
from observers can be measured and compared to the established benchmark
and opportunities for improvement in procedures, policies and/ or methods of
operations can be explored.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
General Services / Parks Maintenance
BENCHMARK
90% of the ratings are at or above 7 on a 1 0-point scale (1 being the lowest and
10 being the highest).
RESULTS
I BENCHMARK I 2003 I 90% I 83%
ANALYSIS
This is a new measure that utilizes the Standards of Care program to obtain
feedback from outside observers on the condition of City parks. If the condition of a park is rated low, staff will investigate what caused the low
score, and take corrective action if appropriate.
In the spring of 2003 a pilot program was implemented where community
58
I
E
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
a
I
I
1
I
Litter Control
Restroom Maint.
Tot Lot Maint.
~~
75% 8 1% 100%
60% 49% 96%
9 1% 79% 94%
representatives and outside professionals were asked to rate the quality of care
at parks by going on site with a rating sheet and responding to questions
specifically relating to different aspects of park maintenance. The observers
evaluated the condition of several high usage parks including Poinsettia,
Calavera Hills and Stagecoach Parks. The evaluators gave high marks to the
condition of these three parks. Of note, evaluators for Stagecoach Park
observed brown spots on the sports fields and irregular irrigation coverage.
I
I
I
Recently, staff revised the process to enhance the program. The rating was
changed to a 10-point scale (1 being poor, 10 being excellent) to be consistent
with other City measures. In addition, City employees were added as observers
to gain a different perspective on how City parks are maintained.
On November 17, 2003, a new review was conducted. Three observer teams
consisting of three to four raters visited a total of six parks. Teams consisted of
one outside professional, one representative from the Parks 8r, Recreation
Commission and one City employee. The parks that were evaluated were
Laguna Riviera, Calavera Hills, Stagecoach, La Costa Canyon and Holiday. In
addition to the parks, the downtown area of Carlsbad was also rated.
A breakdown of the ratings for the areas that were evaluated follows:
PARK I Yo OF RESPONSES 7 OR GRI I I I I ATER BY
La costa
Canyon
Park
1 1 1 La::; 1 Calalara I StaKach
Turf Maint. 7 5% 78% 82%
Inigation 100% 94% 20%
Park I Downtown Overall rating 1
81%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
80% 92% I 9 1%
72% 97% I 89% 83% I I Tree Maint. I 50%1 82%1 100% 78% 96% I 93% 84%
8 1%
90%
I Groundcover I 80% I 89% I 81% 6 5%
100%
89%
92% 83%
100% 87%
53% 92% 71% I
94% 100% I N/A 92% I 1 Parking Lot Main. 1 N/A I 71% I 93% 93% 87% I 80% 85%
83%
87%
83%
1 Park Furnishings I 89% I 54% I 100% 93%
~ ~~
66% I 100% I SportsCourts I 77% I 76%) 100% 95% 35 84% 90% 85%
The most recent evaluation, as reported above, resulted in an overall park
59
rating of 83%. This fluctuated between locations from 73% at Calavera Hills to
90% in the downtown area. Older parks such as Calavera Hills, Laguna
Riviera, and Holiday Park received poor marks for restroom maintenance. Park
furnishings at Calavera Hills and Holiday Park also received low scores.
Stagecoach Park received very poor marks for irrigation coverage. Other areas
of concern were noted with turf and tree maintenance, although this will need
to be further scrutinized as the review took place in the late fall with many
trees and grasses in a dormant stage.
The downtown area is a highly visible area of the city and requires many of the
same types of maintenance activities as a park. It is frequented by tourists,
business people and citizens, and is a central location for a variety of special
events. While the downtown area received a good rating overall, trash
receptacles, particularly lids, were in need of cleaning, and vegetation needed
to be trimmed from around public parking signs and on the median of
Roosevelt Street.
ACTION PLAN
Analyze identified areas of concern and consider the submission of Capital
Improvement Projects during the 04-05 budget process. Areas to consider are:
0 Park furnishings and restrooms at Laguna Riviera Park
0 Restrooms at Calavera Hills Park
0 Irrigation systems at Stagecoach Park
Landscape issues at La Costa Canyon Park
0 Restrooms and park furnishings at Holiday Park
The Public Works MSA has implemented its five-year service plan. One of the
focuses of this plan is to review current procedures to ensure that the work is
being accomplished in the most efficient manner possible. Through this
process, staff will identify and implement new methods of operations to
improve the condition of City parks.
Staff will consider seasonal variances on park conditions and determine what
time of year provides the most accurate representation of park maintenance,
evaluations will be scheduled accordingly.
During the Standards of Care evaluations, a training program to educate the
observers on the types of things to look for in rating the parks could be
beneficial. An instructional video is being considered as a training program
option.
60
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
II
1
I
I
1
I
1
1
a
a
Public Works
CARLSBAD
2000
2001
2002
2003
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
P
BENCHMARK EXPENDITURES TOTAL ACRES $/ACRE
$8,329 $2,248,783 270 $8,329
$9,043* $2,418,122 270 $8,956
$9,310 $2,544,0 13 270 $9,422
$9,692 $2,782,299 270 $10,305
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PARK iWINl!EMNCE COST
THE OUTCOME
Park cost efficiency
THE MEASUREMENT
Maintenance cost per acre (annual actual expenditures/ total acres of developed
parkland). This measurement excludes costs for capital expenditures.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
A goal for park maintenance is to provide aesthetically appealing, well
maintained, and preserved parks. This measure can demonstrate fiscally
responsible use of funds allocated to park maintenance, and show how
resources are being used to achieve the identified goal.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
General Services / Parks Maintenance
BENCHMARK
Carlsbad annual park maintenance cost per acre will not exceed $9,469. This
benchmark is calculated by taking the base year’s benchmark and adjusting it
by the San Diego Consumer Price Index each year (5.73% in 2001, 2.95% in
2002, and 4.1% in 2003).
RESULTS
ANALYSIS
As part of the division’s benchmarking efforts, a template was distributed to
Carlsbad partner cities to collect data. The data includes personnel (salaries
and benefits for managers, field crews and clerical support), supplies (including
contract services), and water. Excluded are expenses for capital outlay
equipment purchases and capital improvement projects, as well as open space,
trails and golf courses. The total acreage is developed parkland that is used for
recreational purposes and maintained by City employees and/or by
61
contractors. The total acreage also includes 39 acres of school district owned
athletic fields that are maintained by the City and excludes landscaped
grounds for facilities that are maintained through in-house employees and/or
contractors.
AGENCY
San Diego Co City*
Chula Vista
Carlsbad
One of the reasons why the actual maintenance cost increased slightly (9%)
from last year is because of contract maintenance services. In FY03, the
division experienced an increase in cost for contract services for electrical
repairs at various sports fields ($48,000) and resurfacing the City’s tennis
courts ($20,000). In addition, lighting expenditures increased by $33,500
because of rate adjustments by SDG&E and the division spent an additional
$54,000 on miscellaneous supplies for irrigation and playground equipment
parts, fertilizer, batteries, pesticides, etc. The goal of this measure is to
determine and evaluate the cost efficiency of developed parks. Since
landscaped grounds are not considered developed parkland, staff felt it was
prudent to exclude this expenditure from the calculation. The data history was
also adjusted to reflect this change.
TOTAL
EXPENSES ACRES COST/ACRE
$1,466,008 222 $6,604
$3,063,038 370 $8,278
$2,782,299 270 $10,305
Staff has been unsuccessful in finding a benchmark based on accepted
industry standards. Staff contacted numerous agencies including the
California Parks & Recreation Society, National Recreation and Parks
Association, and the International City/ County Management Association
(ICMA). In addition, exhaustive searches on the Internet resulted in
generalized information, but did not turn-up specific industry standards.
National standards for park maintenance costs are elusive as the intensity of
use, the user groups and park amenities as well as seasonal and climatic
variations all contribute to these costs. As a result, our focus has centered on
comparisons with our partner cities. Staff will continue to meet with the
partner agencies to discover the cost differences and then establish a
benchmark that takes all of the factors into account.
Last year, staff compared data with six different benchmarking cities. This
year staff reduced the number of benchmarking cities to three to allow staff
more time to analyze the data and meet with the agencies to obtain details on
their operations.
I Escondido I $1,515,027 I 141 I $10,752 * City did not wish to be identified
62
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
After receiving the data staff met with representatives from the partner cities to
discuss data consistency issues and different maintenance
standards/ procedures. Staff learned that maintenance standards and
procedures have some similarities to Carlsbad; however, there were differences
in operational methods that could explain the cost differential. For example,
The San Diego County City has a similar maintenance standard for removal of
litter (seven days a week). But, they differ in restroom maintenance, requiring
a contractor to perform deep cleaning services once a week followed by in-
house staff performing spot-checks twice a day. Carlsbad performs a thorough
cleaning every day with a spot-check in the afternoon. The city would like to
mow lawns twice a week, but only has sufficient staffing levels to mow lawns
once a week. Of the 222 acres of developed parkland maintained by this
jurisdiction, 20 acres is maintained by a contractor. The 20 acres includes
small parks that are less than one acre.
Chula Vista park maintenance staff removes litter three days a week where
Carlsbad staff removes litter seven days a week. Chula Vista mows lawns one
day a week while Carlsbad mows lawns at some park sites twice a week. The
City of Escondido does not perform field renovations. Every year Carlsbad will
perform field renovations in preparation for the new soccer season. None of the
agencies have distributed surveys to determine the level of customer
satisfaction of their park system.
ACTION PLAN
0 Continue working with partner cities to learn more about the different
maintenance standards and/or procedures. Ultimately, develop and
implement new tools to perform maintenance activities more efficiently.
0 Submit findings from the pilot study of the Public Works Service Plan
that analyzes the use of private contractors to provide landscape
maintenance activities on multi-purpose school fields.
0 Add two more benchmarking partners and explore further reasons for
differences with partners.
63
Public Works
BENCHMARK 2000 2001 2002
9 0% 9 0% 9 5% 9 1%
PARKS CUSTOMER SERVICE AND SATISFACTION
2003
94%
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction.
Condition of Landscaping / Fields
Condition of Park Restrooms
Overall Rating
THE MEASUREMENT
A multi-modal approach combining:
0 Annual City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey.
0 Internal customer survey distributed through City of Carlsbad water
bills.
82% 88% 77%
77% 80% 65%
93% 92% 85%
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Highly satisfied customers are an indication that we are providing services in a
manner that is desired and/or expected.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
General Services / Parks Maintenance
BENCHMARK
90% of customers rate the condition of developed parks at good or excellent as
reported in both the annual City of Carlsbad public opinion survey and the
internal customer survey distributed through City of Carlsbad water bills.
64
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
ANALYSIS
While the benchmark has been reached for the fourth consecutive year with
the City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey, internal survey results are down
from previous years and reflect an overall rating of 85%. This represents a 7%
decline from last year.
In order to improve the integrity of the internal surveys, the surveys were
distributed with the August City Water Department billing. Returned surveys
were then forwarded to the Recreation Department where a sole individual,
who was not connected with Park operations, entered the data. In the previous
method, surveys were collected over the front counter at each Recreation
facility, and data was entered on-site. This change in methodology resulted in
a dramatic increase in the number of surveys returned from 346 to 1,033, a
200% increase in participation. However, the broader sweep of residents
coupled with the improved integrity of the data entry resulted in a 7%
reduction in the overall ratings for the department.
The picnic areas, park landscaping and the condition of restrooms received the
largest drop in satisfaction levels from the year before. Due to heavy usage of
the’ City’s park system, the Parks Maintenance Division experienced an
increase in litter removal activities around the picnic areas. In addition, the
restriction of using high-pressured water as a result of the Clean Water Act,
made it difficult to adequately clean picnic tables in an efficient and effective
manner. The division is currently researching new methods to clean picnic
tables efficiently.
All the city parks experienced an increase in weed germination this year. As a
result, many weeds have been growing in the parks and could be a
contributing factor to the low customer satisfaction. Park Maintenance staff
has been applying weed abatement chemicals and applying mulch at various
park sites to control the growth of excessive weeds.
According to the Public Works Maintenance Management System, staff is
spending over 2,100 hours a year cleaning restrooms seven days a week. In
most cases, the restrooms are cleaned twice a day. At Holiday and Magee
parks a contractor cleans the restrooms. Even with the current maintenance
frequency level, it appears that customers are dissatisfied with the restrooms.
The Park Maintenance Division is attempting to address these concerns in the
Public Works Service Plan, which is a collaborative approach to improve the
level of service and customer satisfaction.
65
ACTION PLAN
City officials have recommended expanding the internal survey to La Costa
residents who are not in the Carlsbad Water District. Staff will investigate
coordinating with Coast Waste Management to send our surveys through their
trash bills to these residents. This will enable us to survey the entire
community and receive valuable input from the southeast quadrant.
Leo Carrillo Ranch will be included in next year’s survey, as well as any other
new parks completed by July 2004.
New capital projects are being planned for next year that should improve
customer satisfaction. Projects that are expected to start work in the coming
year include new restrooms at Holiday Park, resurfacing the basketball court at
Cannon Park and improvements to the outdoor lighting at Chase Field.
Utilize feedback received from both surveys, as well as the Standards of Care
Program, to explore opportunities for improvement.
66
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
8
I
i
8
I
B
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Community Services
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - PARKS
THE OUTCOME
To provide adequate parkland that will support the recreational needs of those
that live, work and play in Carlsbad.
THE MEASURE
The Carlsbad Park Standard identified in the Parks and Recreation Element of
the City’s General Plan is as follows:
0 Special Use Areas:
0 Community Parks:
0.5 acres/ 1,000 population - 2.5 acres/ 1,000 population
3.0 acres/ 1,000 population. Collectible standard
Per Quimby Ordinance 86 Growth Management
Standard
2.5 acres/ 1,000 population 0 Special Resource Areas:
0 Overall Park Standard: 5.5 acres/ 1,000 population
*Provisions for recreation facilities in the industrial zone are based upon, and
provide by the collection of $ .40/square foot of industrial development. There
is no standard of acreage exclusively for the industrial based population.
WHAT THE MEASURE MEANS
According to the “Citywide Facilities and Improvement Management Plan”, the
growth management standard for parks that must be provided concurrent with
growth is 3-acres/l,OOO 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.
67
The overall park standard of 5.5 acres/1,000 population has been in existence
since 1982. The standard includes Special Use Areas, Community Parks and
Special Resource Areas. For the most part, the majority of those collective
acres within Carlsbad belong to the Special Resource Area classification. They
are typically sites that are over 100 acres in size and are of a unique character
such as lagoons and beaches. These amenities are typically outside the
operational jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad and require little if no operating
expense.
For the purposes of the Growth Management Monitoring Report, the 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.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Community Services Recreation Department, Park Planning Division
BENCHMARK
The park adequacy standard means 3 acres of Special Use Area and/or
Community Park, either active or passive per 1,000 population. The measured
park acreage needs to be existing and open to the public. If it is not existing, it
must be developed within a five year period or prior to construction of 1,562
dwelling units within the park district beginning at the time the need is first
identified in accordance with the Growth Management Ordinance.
RESULTS
The current population in each quadrant, compared to the existing and
planned park acreage in each quadrant determines park adequacy. That level
of adequacy is 3 acres of parkland for each 1,000 population. The required
park acres to population ratio is in a shortfall situation at this time in all of the
four city quadrants. In accordance with the Growth Management Ordinance,
acquisition, planning, and development efforts are taking place to ensure
compliance with the Ordinance. The Parks Performance Standard of the
Growth Management Plan is in compliance with the Growth Management
Ordinance.
ANALYSIS
For park planning purposes, the population figures that the department
currently uses is based upon the Finance Department’s “Growth Projection”
chart. This population figure includes units built through January 1, 2003.
The equation to determine population is based on the number of units built,
multiplied by 2.3178 people per unit.
68
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
QUADRANT CURRENT REQUIRED EXISTING
POPULATION ACRES ACRES
NW 27,171 81.5 AC. 79.9
NE 11.447 34.3 AC 20
The matrix presented below illustrates the status of the Park Performance
Standard in each of the City’s four park districts. Park acreage amounts are
based upon Community Park and Special Use Areas collective acreage totals,
CURRENT
SURPLUS/
DEFICIT
- 1.6AG
-14.3 AC I- -7 20.942 I 62.8 AC I 47 I -15.8 AC I r--EE -1 30.711 1 92.1 AC I 73.34 I -18.76 AC I
~~ The City is currently in a shortfall situation in the Northwest (-1.6), Northc
(-14.3ac), Southwest (-15.8ac) and Southeast quadrant (-18.7 ac.).
zast
ACTION PLAN
Northwest Quadrant The Quadrant is currently in a shortfall situation of 1.6ac
of parkland in the quadrant. The Northwest Quadrant Community Park at the
site of the former Pine School is presently undergoing the development of
construction documents, which will soon go out for the bidding process.
Construction is anticipated to begin by the third quarter of 2004 with
completion anticipated by the fourth quarter of 2005. This park will add an
additional 7+ acres to the inventory of the Northwest Quadrant.
Northeast Quadrant To meet the current park shortfall of 14.3 acres in the NE
Quadrant, the entire Larwin Park (22.2ac) will be developed shortly and the
quadrant will then be in compliance with the Growth Management Ordinance.
The Dog Park at the upper level of Larwin Park was completed in September of
2001. It is anticipated that the lower portion of the park site will be developed
by the third quarter of 2004. Another source of park acreage within the NE
Quadrant will be the acquisition of an additional 10-15 acres. Although
acquisition of that site is currently being pursued, at this time, its development
and subsequent acreage amount is not required to meet the park performance
standard for the quadrant.
Southwest Quadrant Although there is currently a shortfall situation of 15.8
acres in the Southwest Quadrant, within the last year the Master Plan for
Aviara Community Park has been approved, construction documents prepared
and the project is currently out to bid. Development of the site should be
complete by the second quarter of 2005. This will assure continued
compliance with the Growth Management Ordinance by the addition of 24.25
acres of developed parkland.
69
Southeast Quadrant The current park acreage shortfall in the quadrant is 18.7
acres. Staff is currently processing plans and specifications for the park
Master Plan for the 30+-acre Alga Norte site. Completion is anticipated by the
fourth quarter of 2005. This will assure continued compliance with the Growth
Management Ordinance as the site will add 30+ acres to the park inventory in
that quadrant.
70
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Community Development
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - OPEN SPACE
THE OUTCOME
A comprehensive, connected open space system that protects and conserves
the City’s natural resources.
THE MEASUREMENT
The amount of land set aside for permanent open space. At build-out of the
City, there will be approximately 40% of the land area in the City set-aside for
permanent open space.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
At the time of preparation of the Growth Management Plan, it was determined
that an additional amount of open space (15%) needed to be set-aside in all
areas of the City. This open space dedication is in addition to the
environmentally constrained land that cannot be otherwise.
The measure has been implemented in many parts of the City. Local Facility
Management Plans have also been adopted to designate which additional land
needs to be set aside.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Planning
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
Fifteen percent (15%) of the total land area in each of the 25 Local Facilities
Management Zones must be set aside for permanent open space and must be
available concurrent with development. This does not include environmentally
constrained, non-developable land.
RESULTS
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 when the
city is fully built out. 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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
E
E
t
E
e
1
P
D
E
E
1
e
t
t
I
P
0
I
Be an environmentally sensitive community by focusing on: Clean storm water,
sewage collection and treatment, solid waste, and cost effective and efficient use
of energy including alternative energy sources.
SEWER
Service Delivery
Measure:
Results :
Measure:
Re sul t s :
Measure:
Results:
Measure:
Results:
cost
Measure:
Results:
Annual volume of reported sewage spills will be zero gallons per
mile of sewer main,
32.5
Annual volume of reportable spills recaptured will be 100%.
22%
At least 90% of all pump station electrical moving parts, wet wells,
generators, valves and pumps are tested and repaired annually.
4 of 7 activities met or exceeded benchmark.
Clean 90% of priority sewer lines according to maintenance
schedule.
82%
Annual cost of service per million gallons of sewage will not exceed
$2,236
$1,873
Customer Satisfaction
Measure:
Results: 93%
90% of survey respondents rate sewer services as good or excellent.
SOLID WASTE
Service Delivery
Measure:
Results: 55% (projected)
Achieve 50% or more solid waste diversion
73
cost
Measure: Carlsbad service rates (adjusted) for commercial and residential
customers will rank in the lowest one-third when compared to
other cities in San Diego County.
Achieved - adjusted rates are lowest in county. Results:
Customer Satisfaction
Measure:
Results:
90% of customers rate Solid Waste Services as good or excellent
89% for trash collection; 83% for recycling
STORM WATER
Service Delivery
Measure: Each sampling measure (Dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform,
transparency or turbidity) to achieve a good rating 100% of the
time.
Results: 92%
cost
Measure: Various storm water costs - a benchmark has not yet been
Results:
established.
Cost per business inspected: $76.20
Cost per outfall monitored: $373.00
Outreach and education cost per capita: $0.04
Maintenance cost per mile of storm water system: $1070.63
Customer Service and Satisfaction
Measure:
Results: 66Yo
90% of reports of washing or dumping incidents in progress are
dispatched within 30 minutes.
Measure:
Results: 58%
90% of the public report having heard or seen messages regarding
ways to prevent water pollution.
74
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
I 1 GrowthManagement StormWater 1 SolidWaste I
Sewer: The benchmark for sewage spills was not met. Of the 7,550 gallons
spilled, 7,200 gallons were the result of one incident. To reduce impacts in the
future, staff has already implemented mitigation efforts such as monitoring and
more frequent cleaning. Since the outcome of this measure is the impact to the
environment, staff also measures the amount of spills that are recaptured and
returned to the sewer collection system, with the benchmark being 100%. Staff
was only able to recover 22% due primarily to the 7,200 gallon spill discussed
above, which flowed into Buena Vista Lagoon.
Operating costs for the sewer system achieved benchmark. Operating and
maintenance costs, including cost of services charged to the City by the Encina
Waste Water Treatment Facility for treatment of Carlsbad sewage flows, have
fluctuated over the past several years. This is reflective of a system that is
continuing to increase in size as development continues. When benchmarked
against our partner agencies, we had the lowest cost per million-gallons
treated. This may indicate that the city is within acceptable industry
standards.
Approximately 93% of survey respondents rated sewer services in Carlsbad as
good or excellent. This is above the desired benchmark of 90%.
Collectively, the sewer collection system performance measures indicate that
the system is meeting customer expectations in a cost efficient manner.
However, service delivery results are below the benchmark standard and could
indicate potential future problems. Staff will continue to research and evaluate
operating and maintenance practices to maintain a high level of customer
75
satisfaction at a reasonable cost when compared to other jurisdictions, and
improve service delivery standards to prevent potential future problems with
the integrity of the sewer system.
SoZid Waste: Diversion rates for 2002 are not yet available from the California
Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB); however, Staff expects the
diversion rate to continue to meet the benchmark with a projected diversion
rate of 55%.
Residential and commercial adjusted billing rates are currently the lowest in
the County. The adjusted rate removes the franchise fee and other City
imposed fees from the residential and commercial rate. The adjusted rate
represents what is paid to the hauler. However, a difference in ranking exists
between the adjusted and unadjusted rates. The unadjusted rate represents
what the residents and commercial customers actually pay each month.
Carlsbad rates were increased in 2003 to include a storm water fee for both
residential and commercial customers. This is the first increase in over seven
years, As a result, the unadjusted rate for residential customers now is the
sixth least expensive in San Diego County, which places the City in the middle
of the cost ranking structure. The commercial rate became the second most
expensive rate in San Diego County.
Over the past three surveys, the solid waste collection satisfaction has
decreased slightly each year. However, the survey provided no insight into the
reason for this decrease. Therefore, for the 2003 survey, the recycling and
trash collection services were rated separately in an attempt to better
understand customer service satisfaction levels. The trash collection rated
higher than the recycling services, Although customer satisfaction remained
high when compared to other contracted services surveyed, trash and recycling
collection customer satisfaction levels are below the benchmark for the fourth
consecutive year. Staff is currently conducting analysis of the existing solid
waste services for program enhancements.
Collectively, the solid waste performance measures indicate that the program is
operating effectively with respect to cost, quality and customer service.
However, the analysis performed in spring 2003 indicates the program will no
longer be AB 939 compliant, which mandates jurisdictions to divert at least
50% of waste from the waste stream, if services remain the same. As a result,
staff will be assessing services for enhancement such as automated trash,
automated single-stream recycling, curbside household hazardous waste
collection, special collection events for household hazardous waste and e-waste
and composting. Efforts will be taken to evaluate the efficiency of all programs
and identify opportunities for continued improvement.
76
I
t
Y
E
I
I
E
E
D
E
E
E
E
E
t
I
B
E
t
Stom Water: Three new measures to gauge the quality of the Storm Water
Protection Program have been added this year. The service delivery component
measures water quality in Carlsbad’s creeks and lagoons. Current efforts are
focused on Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Agua Hedionda Creek as an initial pilot
program. With this limited scope, and results from one sampling event,
conditions were rated “good” on 11 out of 12 samples. The benchmark has
been established to receive a “good” rating 100% of the time. There are many
factors that are not under the City’s control that can affect storm water and
surface water quality. As a result, it will be difficult to meet the benchmark for
this measure on a continual basis.
Cost efficiency looks at the cost to provide various services associated with the
Storm Water Protection Program and include; cost per business inspected, cost
per outfall monitored, outreach and education cost per capita, and
maintenance cost per mile of storm water conveyance system maintained.
Initial data has been gathered, but a benchmark has not yet been determined.
Customer service and satisfaction measures the response time for active
complaints and gauges the effectiveness of the outreach and education
program as reported by results from the citywide public opinion survey. Staff
was able to respond to active complaints within 30 minutes 66% of the time.
In addition, 58% of survey respondents reported that they had heard or seen
messages regarding ways to prevent water pollution.
All three of the growth management standards in this strategic goal are in
compliance.
Management Goals: Although not analyzed in this report, the management
goals associated with this strategic goal are listed below to demonstrate
resources allocated to the achievement of this strategic goal. Management
goals that support this strategic goal for 2003-04 include:
Environmental Education and Outreach
Batiquitos Sewer Lift Station Modifications
Sewer Monitoring & Review Outside District Agreements
Solid Waste Program Enhancements
NPDES BMP/ SWPPP Database
Storm Water Program Ministerial Permits
Storm Water Performance Measurement
Storm Drain Metal Pipe Analysis
Water Discharge BMPS
77
Public Works
SEWER SYSTEM SERVICE DELNERP
THE OUTCOME
Sewer system reliability.
THE MEASUREMENT
This measure uses a multi-modal approach combining:
VoZume of SpiZZs: Volume of reportable sewage spills (i.e., spills 2 50 gallons
per incident as mandated by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board) per mile of sewer mains. In this report, a spill is defined as any
untreated sewage flow that escapes from the sewer collection system and has
the potential for entering the city’s surface water and/or storrn drain system.
VoZume of SpiZZs Recaptured: Volume of reportable spills recaptured so that
contaminated water does not enter the city’s surface water and/or storrn drain
system. While the volume of spills component looks at spills that were caused
by a failure in the city’s sewer system, the volume of spills recaptured includes
spills from all sources including private sewer systems within the city.
Station Faci Zit9 Maintenance: Percentage of work activities completed
during the fiscal year based on a Standard of Care.
Sewer Main CZeaning: Percentage of work activities completed during the
fiscal year based on a Standard of Care.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measures the integrity of the sewer system, the ability of staff to respond
quickly and efficiently, and the effectiveness of preventive maintenance
operations.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/Construction Maintenance, Sanitation
Operations
BENCHMARK
VoZurne of SpiZlS: Annual volume of reported sewage spills due to system
failure will be zero. This benchmark is consistent with the requirements of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and is less than last year’s benchmark
of 29.5 gallons per mile.
78
Volume of Spills Recaptured: Recapture 100% of all spills from both the city
maintained sewer system as well as private sewer systems located within the
city so that they never enter the city’s surface water and/or storm drain
system.
Reportable Gallons
Spilled Due to Total Miles of
Fiscal Year System Fai lure1 Mains
Benchmark 0 --
2000 1,300 2 12
200 1 1,125 2 12
2002 7,835 2 12
2003 7,550 232
Station FaciZity Muintenunce: At least 90% of all pump station electrical
moving parts, wet wells, generators, valves and pumps are tested and repaired
annually.
Reportable Gallons Spilled Per
Mile2
0.0
6.1
5.3
36.9
32.5
Sewer Main Cleaning: At least 90% of all priority sewer wastewater main
lines will receive high velocity cleaning as follows to ensure proper conveyance
of sewage and to prevent sanitary sewer overflows and backups. Priority sewer
lines are scheduled for cleaning on either a 3-month or 6-month cycle
depending on the location of the lines, flow rates, and historical information on
the frequency of blockages:
0
0
9.6 miles of priority sewer lines scheduled for cleaning every 3 months.
7.4 miles of priority sewer lines scheduled for cleaning every 6 months.
Total Reportable Reportable Gallons Spilled Gallons Percentage of
Fiscal Year
Benchmark
2000
200 1
From All Sources1 Recaptured2 Gallons Recaptured
4,3 10 145 3.40/0
-- -- --
2,116,7603 2.640 0.1% I 2002 I 9,035 I 6,845 I 75.8%
2003 11,000 I 2,200 1 20.0%
the San Dego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Figures are adssted from previous report
Data is based on total reportable gallons spilledfrom all sources and includes private sewer systems.
Includes approximately 10,000 gallons that was inadvertently spilled dueprimarily to a contractor error during
construction work at the Fox Pump Station, and 2. I million gallons of recycled water lost during a recycled main break.
Y
79
Station Facilftu Maintenance and Sewer Main Cleanina
Activity
Station Facility
Maintenance
Station Maintenance
Annual Actual %
Production Production Maintenance
Units Units Achieved
Benchmark 90%
204.0 I 2 12.0 104%
Electrical Maintenance
Wet Well Maintenance
Generator Maintenance
Station Operations (Runs) I 4,554.0 I 4,758.0 I 104%
68.0 69.0 101%
103.0 65.0 63%
132.0 137.0 104%
Valve Maintenance
PumD Maintenance /ReDair
158.0 13.0 8%
102.0 88.0 86%
~~~
1 Percentage of completion reflects cleaning activity on all sewer lines. Sewer line cleaning data was not tracked and
collected by priority level. Staff began tracking and reporting data by priority level in 2003-04. This information will be
included in next year’s report.
Sewer Main Cleaning
Sewer Main Cleaning:
ANALYSIS
Volume of Spills: As our preventive maintenance system can only address
potential spills within our control, this component of the sewer system delivery
measure was adjusted from prior years to reflect reportable spills due
specifically to system failure instead of all reportable spills from public or
private sewer systems. Unfortunately, the data collected from our partner
agencies reflects spills from all sources, and as a result, differs from the
numbers reported under the results section. In future years, data will be
collected from our partner agencies based on system failures to correct this
inconsistency.
Benchmark 90%
125.0 103.0 82% 1
The number of gallons spilled per mile of sewer main as a result of system
failure was 32.5, down slightly from the previous year’s figure of 36.9 gallons
per mile. As listed in the table below, the number of gallons spilled per mile of
sewer main from all sources was 47.4.
Gallons spilled per mile of sewer line was higher than the established
benchmark of zero spills per year in 2003. However, of the 7,550 gallons
spilled due to system failure, one spill into Buena Vista Lagoon accounted for
7,200 gallons. This occurred from roots causing blockage in a main line.
Corrective action in the form of televising the main line to check for pipe
abnormalities and accelerating the regular cleaning schedule took place
immediately following the spill.
80
Compared to the benchmark agencies,
gallons spilled per mile from all sources.
number of spills that occurred, and
experienced larger volumes of spills as
agencies.
Total Reportable
Gallons Spilled
Agency from All Sources
San Diego County City1 2,948
Carlsbad 1 1,000
Chula Vista 18,422
Vallecitos Water Dist.2 4,155
Carlsbad ranked second highest in
This does not take into account the
indicates that Carlsbad may have
compared to two of the benchmark
Reportable
Gallons Spilled
Per Mile from AU
170 17.3
232 47.4
40 1 45.9
209 19.9
Total Miles
of Mains Sources
Total Reportable Reportable
Gallons Spilled Gallons
Agency from All Sources Recaptured
San Diego County City1 2,948 351
Carlsbad 1 1,000 2,200
Chula Vista 18,422 10,740
Vallecitos Water Dist.2 4,155 3,353
Percentage of
Gallons
Recaptured
11.9%
20 .O%
58.3%
80.7%
Standards of Care: In FY 2003, staff developed a Standards of Care program
to evaluate the condition of public facilities. This program establishes and
documents the frequency of recommended preventive maintenance and/or
responsiveness to repair needs, then measures the level of accomplishment
each year by comparing percent of completed work to scheduled maintenance.
A high maintenance standard equates to increased costs to provide the
preventive maintenance services. Conversely, a decrease in the amount of
preventive maintenance may decrease costs in the short-term, but puts the
overall system reliability at risk. When benchmarks are met or exceeded,
81
optimal operating efficiency and reliability of the sewer conveyance system is
achieved. This results in reduced repairs and sewage spills/ blockages, and
enhanced protection of the environment. The Public Works Maintenance
Management Program and work order systems are used to collect and analyze
performance data.
Station Facility Maintenance: The Standard of Care for station facility
maintenance includes the testing and repair of all pump station electrical
moving parts, wet wells, generators, valves and pumps to ensure easy access to
station locations and proper pumping (conveyance) of sewage. The benchmark
for these activities is 90% of all scheduled maintenance will be completed
during the year. Each component was tested and serviced in accordance with
the Maintenance Management Program, with the results shown in the table
above. Most activities exceeded the benchmark, with the exception of wet well
(63%) and valve maintenance (8%), due to unscheduled, reactive maintenance
work in the other activity areas (those shown as exceeding 100% of
maintenance achieved). As preventative maintenance helps limit the amount of
reactive work that must be performed during the year, the low scores in wet
well and valve maintenance, if not corrected, could jeopardize the overall
system reliability.
Sewer Main CZeaning: The Standard of Care for sewer main cleaning includes
the high velocity cleaning of all priority sewer wastewater main lines as
outlined above to ensure proper conveyance of sewage and to prevent sanitary
sewer overflows, as required by the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board. The benchmark for sewer main cleaning is 90% of all scheduled
maintenance will be completed during the year. As shown above, scheduled
sewer main cleaning was completed 82% of the time. This included cleaning of
all sewer main lines, but was not broken down by priority level since data was
not tracked and collected in this manner. Reactive maintenance work in other
activity areas, such as water main maintenance and repair, water service repair
and sewer lateral/main research, kept staff from reaching the benchmark.
ACTION PLAN
VoZume of SpiZZs: Staff will continue with preventive maintenance sewer line
inspection and monitoring work in a proactive attempt to minimize the volume
of spills. Staff will gather data from our partner agencies based on spills as a
result of system failure.
VoZume of SpiZZs Recaptured: Staff will continue to investigate and
implement mitigation efforts and enhancements to the Sewer Response Plan to
increase the gallons of spills recaptured. The measure of recaptured spills will
include any sewage spill that occurs, whether or not it’s the result of system
82
integrity failure or caused by other occurrences, e.g. line damage due to
construction and blockages caused by grease disposal into sewer system,
Station FaciZity Maintenance: To improve the level of maintenance in the
wet well and valve maintenance work activities, staff will investigate and
analyze alternative work methods to improve the balance of scheduled versus
unscheduled maintenance. This will include, but not be limited to, the use of
contract services, temporary help, and/or consolidation of services with other
Wblic Works divisions.
Sewer Main Cleaning:
Preventive maintenance in over all sewer main cleaning is close to the
benchmark. However, staff will investigate and analyze alternative work
methods to improve work in this activity. This will include, but not be
limited to, the use of contract services, temporary help, and/or
consolidation of services with other mblic Works divisions.
In order to track and collect sewer main cleaning data by priority level, staff
will revise the Maintenance Management Program and work order system
reports to include the levels as defined above.
Staff will compare sewer main cleaning procedures and standards with
benchmark partners.
Staff will expand the number of benchmark partners to five agencies.
83
Public Works
SEWER COST
$5,030,578
$4,670,575*
THE OUTCOME
Sewer operations cost efficiency.
2,278 $2,208
2,493 $1,873
THE MEASUREMENT
Cost of service per million gallons of sewage. Calculated by dividing the total
cost of service by the total sewer flow assessed to Carlsbad by the Encina
Wastewater Authority (Encina WWA).
2003
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measures the use of ratepayer dollars per million gallons of sewage treated.
The total cost of services includes payments to Encina WWA in addition to
maintenance and operation costs in the city's sewer enterprise fund. This rate
can then be compared to other agencies, which are also responsible for the
collection, treatment and discharge of sewage.
$2,199
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/ Construction Maintenance
BENCHMARK
Annual cost of service per million gallons of sewage will not exceed $2,199.
This benchmark was established based on information reported in the 1998-99
baseline year and has been adjusted each year by the San Diego Consumer
Price Index (4.75% in 2000, 5.73% in 2001, 2.95% in 2002 and 4.10% in
2003).
RESULTS
I Fiscal Year I Benchmark I Expenses I Flow (MG) I $/mg I 1999 I $1,852 I 2000 I $1,940
I I 2002 I $2,112
$4,042,365 I 2,183 I $1,852 I
$4,667,311 I 2,314 I $2,017 I
'30/03 as of November 3, 2003.
84
Agency
Carlsbad
Chula Vista
Vallecitos Water District I San Diego Countv Citv* I $3.633.760 I 1.399 I $2.597 I
Annu? Cost Per MG FY 2003
Expenses Flow (MG
$4,670,575 2,493 $1,873
$12,354,952 5,966 $2,071
$5.158.016 2.301 $2.24 1
*City did not wish to be identified
The range in cost per million gallons among the agencies can primarily be
explained by one factor. First, both Chula Vista and the unnamed San Diego
County City do not operate their own treatment plants, but are part of the San
Diego Metro Sewer System. Like Carlsbad, a member of the Encina Waste
Water Authority, these agencies have little control over sewer treatment costs.
ACTION PLAN
Staff will conduct an evaluation of the benchmark based on data received
from our partner agencies and their standards of care.
Staff will continue to use information from the Standards of Care program
to evaluate operational practices within the Utility Operations and
Construction/ Maintenance divisions.
Staff is currently implementing a proposal to privatize the maintenance of
sewer laterals. The effects of this privatization on sewer maintenance
activity levels will be analyzed in next year’s report.
Staff is researching a service plan proposal to turn over responsibility of
water and sewer lateral installation to the developer. The effects of this
proposal, if implemented, will be analyzed in next year’s report.
Staff will expand the number of benchmark partners to five agencies.
85
Public Works
SEWER SERVICE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
Benchmark 2000 2001
9 0% No data 92%
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction
2002 2003
91% 93%
THE MEASUREMENT
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Highly satisfied customers are an indication that we are providing services in a
manner that is desired and/or expected, contributing greater confidence in the
Construction Maintenance and Sanitation Operations divisions, and local
government in general, resulting in high quality of life for community members.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/ Sanitation Operations, Construction
Maintenance and Utility Account Maintenance; Finance/Utility Billing
BENCHMARK
90% of customers rate sewer services as “good or excellent.”
RESULTS
ANALYSIS
The benchmark for this measure has been achieved for the past three years. In
2003, 1.5% of respondents rated sewer services as “Poor.” The reasons for the
poor ratings ranged from frequent sewage blockage/ backup, too expensive,
environmental effects of the sewage spills or that there was an excessive sewer
smell in the area.
Sewer service citywide is provided by three separate agencies; the City of
Carlsbad, the Leucadia Wastewater District and the Vallecitos Water District.
..
The service areas that incorporate City of Carlsbad customers are described as
follows:
0 City of Carlsbad Service Area (CMWD). The City of Carlsbad sewer service
86
area covers approximately 65% of the city and generally covers the area
north of La Costa Avenue to El Camino Real, east of El Camino Real, and
north of Alga Road extending all the way to the northern City border.
Leucadia Wastewater District (LWD). The LWD service area is contained
within the Southeast Quadrant of the City and includes the area south of
Alga Road to the southern City border, bordered by El Camino Real to the
west, and to the eastern border of the City.
Vallecitos Water District Service Area (wv D1. The VWD service area is
contained within the central/eastern portion of the Southeast Quadrant of
the City.
Sewer system maintenance and operations, customer service and billing are all
administered independently within each agency service area. The data being
gathered citywide, however, does not categorize customers into those three
service areas. As a result, it’s difficult to determine if there is a variance in
customer service satisfaction between the CMWD and the other service
providers.
ACTION PLAN
Continue to include sewer services questions in the citywide public opinion
survey. In addition, the Social and Behavioral Research Institute (SBRI) at Cal
State San Marcos, which conducts the survey for the City, has the ability to
determine which quadrant of the City a citizen resides. Staff will work with
SBRI to develop a service area comparative analysis of customer satisfaction by
comparing SBRI’s list of respondents from the Southeast Quadrant to lists of
Carlsbad customers being served by LWD and VWD. This will allow staff to
differentiate sewer service customer satisfaction results between the City of
Carlsbad versus those who receive services from other service providers.
87
Public Works
SOHD WASTE DIVERSION
BENCHMARK 1996 1997 1998 1999
>So% 48% 50% 44% 50%
THE OUTCOME
Environmentally sound solid waste services
2000 2001 2002
59% 59%* 55%**
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 maintaining an
environmentally sound solid waste service for its citizens.
The diversion rate is a measurement tool for the California Integrated Waste
Management Board to assess compliance with AB 939. AB 939 requires all
local agencies to promote recycling and maximize the use of feasible source
reduction and recycling options in order to reduce the amount of municipal
solid waste disposed by land disposal by 50%. The diversion rate takes into
account a jurisdiction’s waste generation, waste diversion, population,
employment and adjustable taxable sales to determine the diversion rate.
Changes in these growth indicators are applied to the base year generation to
get an estimated reporting year generation. The base year is a one-year
snapshot of a jurisdiction’s disposal and diversion. Carlsbad’s base year was
calculated in 1990. The base year is used to calculate a diversion rate by
looking at the percent change in population, employment, and adjusted taxable
sales to estimate future generation until the jurisdiction sets a new base year.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Public Works Administration & Environmental Programs
BENCHMARK
Achieve 50% or more diversion annually to meet compliance with AB 939.
RESULTS
*Still waiting CIWMB Board approval of diversion rate at the biannual review in Spring 2004.
** Projected rate - all factors necessary to calculate rate are unavailable at the time of this publication.
88
ANALYSIS
The City of Carlsbad has reached the diversion goal for the past four years.
However, staff wants to ensure that the City continues to meet the diversion
rate in the future. During the spring of 2003, staff worked with consultants to
provide a diversion rate projection for the next five years. The projection looked
at population growth (based upon SANDAG estimates), waste generation
associated with population growth and the current available solid waste
services in the City of Carlsbad. The report determined that if diversion
services remain unchanged and the tonnage remains constant at the 2002
level, then the City would fall below the 50% diversion requirement in 2008.
Other projection scenarios included the enhancement of some diversion
programs and the introduction of new programs. Implementation of these
scenarios would potentially increase the diversion rate from 5% to 10% over the
5-year planning period. Based upon this report, staff will be conducting an
analysis of service enhancement and new programs for consideration to help
ensure the City of Carlsbad remains compliant with AB 939 in the future.
When reviewing the results, 2000 experienced a sharp increase in the diversion
rate, which was due to the method in which the CIWMB calculates the rate.
The diversion calculation includes an estimate for total solid waste generation
each year (trash + recycling + green waste). This estimate includes an
Adjustment Method Formula, which allows for population and economic
growth to be considered, so jurisdictions will not automatically fail to meet
diversion requirements as they develop. Prior to 2000, Carlsbad used the
default employment value, which is countywide employment. The calculation
for 2000, which included Carlsbad-specific employment data, resulted in a 25%
higher estimate for total solid waste generation than 1999. However, our
actual tonnage landfilled only went up by about three percent (3%), resulting in
an 8% increase in our overall diversion rate.
The 2002 Public Opinion Survey showed that 65.95 percent of Carlsbad
residents reported recycling. Those that reported less than 50 percent of their
recyclables waste were asked what kept them from recycling more. The most
frequent answer was that the material was not accepted at curbside then
followed by inconvenience.
The CIWMB has scheduled the due date for the annual AB 939 report in early
February 2004.
ACTION PLAN
It is anticipated that the Board will be more stringent with their inspections
and evaluations of local agency programs in future years. In 2003, staff will
develop a comprehensive plan to increase the City’s AB939 diversion rate. This
89
will include identifylng and recommending opportunities to increase diversion
through a variety of enhancements to programs such as recycling, household
hazardous waste collection, green waste collection and used oil recycling. The
enhancements and introduction of new programs will be based upon the five-
year diversion rate projection report.
--
I
90
Public Works
SOLID WASTE COST
THE OUTCOME
Solid waste services cost efficiency.
THE MEASUREMENT
Solid waste services rates adjusted for franchise and other City fees, as
reported in a semi-annual SANDAG survey.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measures the cost of providing solid waste services.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Public Works Administration & Environmental Programs
BENCHMARK
Carlsbad contracted solid waste service rates for commercial and residential
customers will rank in the lowest one-third when compared to other cities in
San Diego County.
RESULTS
RESIDENTIAL RATES
I CITY I ADJUSTEDRATE I I CITY I UNADJUSTEDRATE: 1 I I PAIDTOHAULER I I I WHATRESIDENTS I
I I I
_-
CITY
COMMERCIAL RATES
*Standard 3-yard once per week pick-up service used for comparison
UNADJUSTED RATE
WHAT BUSINESSES
PAY
CITY I ADJUSTEDRATE I
Year 2000 2001 2002
Residential 2 3 1
Commercial 3 1 1
PAID TO HAULER
2003
1
1
NOTES:
included due to differences in their fee structure.
because service is not provided by contract.
Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, National City and Santee are not
San Diego is not included
ANALYSIS
The ranking is based upon the adjusted rate, which factors out all of the
franchise and other city fees such as storm water and household hazardous
waste. The adjusted rate is what jurisdictions pay to the hauler. When
searching for a common denominator to compare cost efficiency, the adjusted
rate was chosen. It provides a universal point for cost comparison that
removes the individual fees imposed by the evaluated jurisdictions, which
directly affects the rates paid by residents and businesses. Each jurisdiction
provides varying solid waste services. Varying services include automated
trash and recycling collection, manual trash and recycling collection, door- to-
door household hazardous waste, electronic waste collection, permanent
household hazardous waste facilities and bulky-item collection.
Carlsbad’s solid waste service rates increased in 2003 after incorporating a
92
storm water fee to the monthly rate. This is the first increase for residential
and commercial rates in the past seven and one-half years. The storm water fee increased residential monthly rates by approximately 13%’ while
commercial rates increased by 15.1%. Commercial services vary depending
upon the bin size and the frequency of bin collection each week. The
commercial rates in this analysis are for a 3-yard bin collected once per week.
The residential rates in the analysis are for the standard once per week
collection service.
The newly instituted storm water fee does not affect the adjusted rate
comparison. As previously mentioned, the adjusted rate removes the franchise
fee and other city imposed fees. The adjusted fee is the amount paid to the
hauler. The City remains the lowest for the adjusted rate when compared to
the above named jurisdictions. The commercial adjusted rate remains the
lowest in the County as well.
However, the unadjusted rate, which represents the amount resident’s pay
monthly, changed from being the lowest in the County to the sixth lowest. The
unadjusted commercial rate paid by businesses becomes the next to highest
rate with the addition of the storm water fee.
The solid waste services achieves the cost efficiency benchmark of ranking in
the lowest one-third when compared to other San Diego cities. For both
commercial and residential services, the unadjusted rate is the lowest in the
San Diego County.
ACTION PLAN
Staff is conducting an analysis of the existing solid waste services in the City.
This analysis will identify potential program enhancements or additional
services and the associated costs. These additions or enhancements will
expand the current services as well as assist in continually meeting the
diversion rate requirements in the future.
Staff is also working with a consultant to conduct a rate study. The contractor
asked for a review of the rate structure since rates have remained the
unchanged for the past seven and one-half years.
While being in the lowest one-third for residential and commercial rates is
attractive, it doesn’t necessarily translate into providing top quality service.
The analysis previously mentioned will assess service enhancement options for
consideration. Staff will be assessing programs such as automated trash
collection, automated single stream recycling collection, curbside household
hazardous waste collection as well as special collection events. The -_
93
-.-
assessment will include the costs associated with each program. The
information will allow Council and staff determine if the current level of service
is in line with community interests.
94
Public Works
"GOOD" OR TRASH
YEAR "EXCELLENT" FOR COLLECTION
BOTH SERVICES
SOLID WASTE CUSToNlER SERVICE & SATISFACTION
RECYCLING
COLLECTION
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction with solid waste services.
Benchmark
2000
THE MEASUREMENT
Results of citywide public opinion survey.
>go% 290% 290%
83.3% NIA NIA
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Indicates how well solid waste customers' needs and expectations are being
met.
2001
2002
2003*
_-
8 1.5% N/A N/A
79.5% N/A N/A
NIA 88.6% 82.7%
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Public Works Administration & Environmental Programs
BENCHMARK
90% of customers rate Solid Waste Services as "Good" or "Excellent" in all
customer service survey categories.
RESULTS
*For the 2003 survey, trash and recycling were rated separately. Each survey
results will be addressed in the performance measure.
ANALYSIS
As the table above shows, previous surveys indicated a slight but steady
decrease in customer satisfaction for trash services. In an effort to identify the
cause of the decreasing customer service satisfaction, the 2003 survey
measured recycling and trash collection services separately while previous
studies measured the services together. The 2003 study identified recycling
collection with an 82.7% customer satisfaction and trash collection with an
95
88.6% satisfaction. The combined rating is an increase from the 2002 study.
However, since this is the first year of measuring the services separately, it will
take repeating this question in subsequent surveys to provide a statistically
significant measure. Preliminary results indicated a lower customer
satisfaction for recycling than trash collection, which provides a potential
source for the lower customer satisfaction.
Solid waste services continued to rank the highest among all contract services
surveyed. The trpes of complaints received are usually for missed pick up of
regular refuse, recycling or yard waste. When this occurs, staff contacts Waste
Management and arranges for collection, usually the same day.
ACTION PLAN
While both collection services rank below the benchmark level, the recycling
collection indicates a lower satisfaction rating between the two services. As
previously mentioned, in future surveys the trash and recycling collection
measures will continue to be separated for future comparisons.
During the interim, staff is conducting an analysis of the existing solid waste
services in the City. This analysis will identify potential program
enhancements or additional services and the associated costs for trash and
recycling programs. Among a variety of program assessments, staff is
reviewing enhancements for the recycling program such as single stream
automated collection. Single stream collection allows residents to recycle
additional materials such as mixed paper as well as increase the container
capacity. Currently, residents are furnished with two 12-16 gallon crates for
recycling of glass, plastic, aluminum, tin and newspaper. The automated
program would furnish the resident with a 96-gallon wheeled container, which
allows for additional recycling in volume and material. This recycling service
enhancement provides a more convenient and easier enhancement for
recycling.
These additions or enhancements will expand the current services as well as
assist in continually meeting the diversion rate requirements in the future.
During the past year, staff worked with Waste Management to enhance the
Household Hazardous Waste disposal options for residents. On June 24, 2003,
the City entered into an agreement with Waste Management that allowed City
residents to dispose of Household Hazardous Waste at the Oceanside drop-off
facility. This provides a closer location than the Vista and Poway collection
centers currently contracted through the Regional Solid Waste Association
(RSWA). However, residents are allowed to continue using the Vista and Poway
locations, as the AB 939 fees cover the costs collected from residents.
96
,-
I
.-
--
e
~ --
Public Works
STORM WATER SERVICE DELIVERY
THE OUTCOME
Water quality that maintains the beneficial uses of Carlsbad’s creeks and
lagoons.
THE MEASUREMENT
A multi-modal approach combining:
Drainage Service Delivery
Water Quality (Bacteria, dissolved oxygen concentrations, turbidity)
Water Quality: The City monitors storm water discharges and water quality of
various creeks, lagoons and the ocean (receiving waters) in Carlsbad as part of
the Coastal Lagoon and Outfall Monitoring program and the annual Dry
Weather Program. In addition, the City participates in regional monitoring
programs that collect data on local creeks and lagoons. The receiving water
results are compared to Water Quality Objectives listed in the State’s Basin
Plan, which are set by the State to be protective of beneficial uses. Fecal
coliform bacteria, dissolved oxygen and transparency or turbidity results will
be routinely monitored in Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Creek to help determine
if beneficial uses are being met. Results may also show if water quality is
improving or declining over time.
Drainage Service Delivery: In addition to these sampling events, the Drainage
Service Delivery index will provide a statistical comparison of completed
maintenance activities versus scheduled maintenance.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Water Quality: Beneficial uses are the uses of water necessary for the survival
or well being of man, plants, and wildlife. Examples include recreation,
industrial and agricultural water supply and the support of aquatic habitats.
Beneficial uses for all surface and ground waters in the San Diego Region are
designated by the State in the Basin Plan (Water Quality Control Plan for the
San Diego Basin, 1994).
Water quality objectives are defined as “the limits or levels of water quality
constituents or characteristics which are established for the reasonable
protection of beneficial uses of water or the prevention of nuisance within a
specific area.” If water quality objectives or other conditions are not met, the
97
State may designate a waterbody as being “impaired,” indicating that beneficial
uses may not be adequately protected, thus requiring additional costly
monitoring and pollution control programs.
Agua Hedionda Lagoon is a highly used waterbody that the State has identified
as being impaired by sedimentation and bacteria. This lagoon has many
designated beneficial uses including recreational, commercial, industrial and
habitat for aquatic organisms. This measure is currently focused on Agua
Hedionda Lagoon and Agua Hedionda Creek as a pilot program, and may be
expanded in the future to other lagoons and creeks in Carlsbad.
This measure determines if the numerical water quality objectives for fecal
coliform bacteria, dissolved oxygen and transparency/ turbidity are being met
in the Lagoon and Creek. Fecal coliform bacteria concentrations are measured
as human-health related indicators of sewage pollution. Fecal coliform levels
must be met in order to protect the recreation beneficial uses. Dissolved
oxygen in the water column is critical for respiration of most aquatic
organisms. It is one of the most universal indicators of overall water quality.
High dissolved oxygen concentrations represent good conditions, while low
concentrations can indicate organic pollution. A transparency tube or turbidity
measurement can be used to estimate the clarity of surface waters. High
transparency is indicative of clean water. Low transparency is typically
associated with degraded waters, indicating light limiting conditions which in
turn affect plant growth and the aquatic habitat. The turbidity standard applies
to the creek and the transparency standard applies to the lagoon. Meeting
water quality objectives for dissolved oxygen and transparency/ turbidity helps
demonstrate protection of aquatic life and habitat beneficial uses.
Drainage Sedce DeZiuery: The Drainage Service Delivery index will measure
the effectiveness of the drainage system maintenance program. In FY 2002-
2003 staff developed a Standards of Care program to help evaluate the
condition of public facilities. This program establishes and documents the
frequency of recommended preventive maintenance, then measures the level of
accomplishment each year by comparing percent of completed work to
scheduled maintenance. The Public Works Maintenance Management Program
and work order systems are used to collect and analyze performance data.
STATUS OF THE MEASURE
This is a new measure.
_-
I
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
PW Administration and Environmental Programs
Maintenance and Operations/ Street Maintenance
98
BENCHMARK
Water QuaZity: Each sampling measure to achieve a "good" rating 100% of the
time. The following table details the sampling benchmarks.
MEASURE
Dissolved
Oxygen
Fecal Coliform
Transparency
Turbidity (Creek)
GOOD
> 5.0 ppm
< 200/ 100 ml
> 50% of depth
< 20 NTU
FAIR I POOR 1
< 5.0 less than
half the time
> 200/ 100 ml less
than half the time
< 50% of depth
less than half the
time
> 20 NTU less
than
half the time
< 5.0 more than
half the time
> 200/ 100 ml more
than half the time
< 50% of depth
more than half the
time
> 20 NTU more
than half the time
Drainage Service DeZiuery: 90% completion of all scheduled maintenance
activities.
RESULTS
Water QuaZity: Results from the first sampling event during FY 03-04 are
shown below. I Site I Dissolved Oxygen I Fecal Coliform I Turbidity
Drainage Service Delivery: New measure.
99
ANALYSIS
Water Quality: The above numbers represent only one sampling event.
Samples will continue to be collected monthly, and it is expected that water
quality conditions and results will vary seasonally. Quality may decline in the
rainy season, due to increased washing of pollutants into the storm drain
system. Increased temperatures in the summer may also adversely impact
water quality. In addition, wildlife can be a cause of high bacteria counts.
Interpretation of the results must take these variables into account, and
consistently poor results that correspond to poor water quality from the storm
drain system will trigger field investigations. In the early go’s, the State listed
Agua Hedionda Lagoon as being impaired for bacteria and sedimentation,
meaning that it did not meet the Water Quality Objectives (Benchmarks). It is
expected that the benchmark will be difficult to meet continually, and it should
be noted that many factors that are not under the City’s control can affect
storm water and surface water quality.
Drainage Service Delivery: The Drainage Service Delivery index will
encompass the following three maintenance activities:
Drainage inlets inspected annually.
High priority inlets cleaned annually.
All other identified basins cleaned annually.
ACTION PLAN
Water Quality:
Continue monthly monitoring
Drainage Seruice Delivery:
In conjunction with the Standards of Care program, collect data as outlined
by the Drainage Service Delivery index, and incorporate results into this
measure linking storm water conveyance system maintenance and
inspection activities with water quality
100
Public Works
smmw WATER PROTEC~ON COST
THE OUTCOME
Storm Water Protection Program cost efficiency.
THE MEASUREMENT
A multi-method approach combining:
Cost per business inspected
Cost per outfall monitored
Outreach and education cost per capita
Maintenance cost per mile of storm water conveyance system
maintained
Staff time spent on inspection, monitoring and outreach activities is tracked in
a time sheet database. The total numbers of facilities inspected and outfalls
monitored are maintained in separate spreadsheets. Cost per business
inspected is the time spent on this activity multiplied by the employee hourly
rate (includes benefits) divided by the number of businesses inspected.
Monitoring costs is the time spent on this activity multiplied by the employee
hourly rate plus the laboratory costs for analyses divided by the total number
of outfalls monitored. Outreach and education cost is employee time spent on
this activity multiplied by the employee hourly rate plus printing costs and
promotional materials divided by population. Storm water conveyance system
maintenance activities and costs are electronically tracked in the Hansen work
order program. This last measurement is calculated by taking the total
maintenance costs divided by the total mileage of the system that is currently
maintained. Total mileage of the system currently includes the mileage of
drainageways and ditches that are regularly maintained by the City. It does
not include all of the pipelines, as this number is not available and the
pipelines are not routinely cleaned.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The City of Carlsbad is one of 20 jurisdictions in San Diego County covered
under the State issued NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System) permit. The NPDES permit required each jurisdiction to implement an
Urban Runoff Management Plan, which details how permit requirements will be
implemented and annually assessed. As this is still a new and evolving
program, implementation methods vary from one jurisdiction to the next.
Coastal jurisdictions have more monitoring requirements than inland
101
population and number of businesses, which prevents meaningful comparisons
of overall program costs. This measure breaks out some of the main required
program activities in order to provide unit costs for a more meaningful
comparison with other jurisdictions or contractors. Results may be used to
determine how specific program activities may be streamlined to improve cost
efficiency, with consideration still being given to quality and customer service.
Cost per business inspected
Cost Der outfall monitored
Storm Water Protection Program staff annually inspect hundreds of commercial
and industrial facilities in Carlsbad that fall under the storm water regulations,
Staff develops and distributes educational information and participates in
outreach events. Storm Water Protection Program staff also monitor
designated outfalls to the lagoons and ocean bi-weekly or monthly as required.
Maintenance Operations/ Streets conducts maintenance activities on the storm
water conveyance system, except for street sweeping which is a contracted
service.
QUARTER 1
$76.20
$373.00
FY 03-04
STATUS OF THE MEASURE
This is a new measure.
Maintenance cost per mile of storm
water conveyance system maintained
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Public Works Administration and Environmental Programs
Public Works Maintenance and Operations/ Streets
$1070.63
BENCHMARK
To be determined.
RESULTS
I Outreach and education cost per capita I $0.04 1
ANALYSIS
While this is a new measure and it may be too early to interpret these first
quarter results, some comparisons can be made. The cost per business
inspected includes all office and field time and represents 81 commercial
facilities and 51 industrial site inspections. Industrial sites are typically more
complex than commercial sites, thus requiring more field and office time
(individual cost of $126.09 per inspection vs. $44.79 for commercial). For
102
comparison, the City hired a consultant during Fiscal Year 02-03 to assist with
commercial and industrial inspections. Their costs were $185 per commercial
inspection and ranged from $185 - $295 per industrial inspection. The
contractor costs were significantly more than our current in-house costs, and
their services did not include any filing or data entry.
During FY 03-04, Storm Water Protection Program staff began conducting the
Coastal Outfall monitoring program in-house instead of contracting out this
service. This change was the result of a Public Works Service Plan proposal
that was approved during FY 02-03. As anticipated, current in-house costs are
significantly lower than contracted costs, which were over $1,000 per outfall
during FY 02-03.
The education and outreach costs shown here are currently very low, as few
activities were conducted and few materials were developed during the first
quarter of the FY 03-04. In comparison, the education and outreach costs for
FY 02-03 were approximately $0.35 per capita. This first quarter number
therefore is not a good representation of the annual costs. These numbers will
be tracked and a yearly cost will be reported next year.
The first quarter maintenance costs include catch basin, drainageway and
brow ditch cleaning, in addition to structure inspection (structures include
basins, inlets, headwalls, etc.). During this time, 281 catch basins were
cleaned at a cost of $55.71 per basin. Twenty-two structures were inspected at
a cost of $38.22 per structure. Brow ditch cleaning costs approximately $2.50
per lineal foot and drainageway cleaning costs $1.93 per lineal foot. The City
has been implementing a new maintenance work order system and new
inspection and cleaning procedures. These procedures will be evaluated in the
coming year in order to determine ways to increase cost effectiveness and
efficiency.
ACTION PLAN
0 Establish benchmark partners
0 Conduct a pilot program to evaluate ways to improve catch basin
cleaning efficiency
103
Public Works
STORM WATER PROTECTION CUSTOMER SERVICE AND SATISFACTION
-. .
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer service and satisfaction.
THE MEASUREMENT
A multi-method approach combining:
Complaint response statistics
Survey results
The SuiteResponse Request for Action (RFA) system is used by the Storm Water
Protection Program to document reports of illegal washing or dumping
incidents into the City’s storm drain system. When a caller reports a potential
discharge or dumping violation that is in progress, the person taking the report
creates an issue in the RFA system with a high priority code. Storm Water
Protection Program personnel are notified and respond to the site. This
measure focuses on the response time, which is the time from the creation of
the RFA issue to the time of the first action step, which is staff dispatch to the
site. This time will be tracked in the RFA system.
The survey measure is the results to the question in the citywide public opinion
survey that asks, “Have you seen or heard anything during the past year about
how residents can prevent the pollution of our creeks, lagoons or ocean?” If
yes, the citizen is asked where they heard or saw this information.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The complaints portion of the measure indicates how well customer
expectations are being met. The Storm Water Protection Program has a Hotline
number (602-2799) and investigates all types of reports of illegal discharges to
the City’s storm drain system, which discharges directly to our creeks, lagoons
and ocean. A person calling to report an illegal discharge that is happening
now expects an immediate response. In addition to meeting customer needs,
an immediate response also minimizes the potential for the harmful discharge
to enter our waterways. Being able to catch someone in the act also provides a
better opportunity for education or enforcement to prevent repeat occurrences.
The survey question can be used to determine if the storm water protection
program message is reaching the public. Current outreach materials include
the hotline number that the public can call for more information or to report
104
illegal discharges. Results from the survey question can be used to more
effectively direct education and outreach methods and efforts in order to
provide customer service through requests for action or information.
STATUS OF THE MEASURE
This is a new measure.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Public Works Administration and Environmental Programs
BENCHMARK
Complaint Response: 90% of reports of washing or dumping incidents
happening at the time of the report are dispatched within 30 minutes.
Survey Results: 90% of the public report having heard or seen
messages regarding ways to prevent water pollution.
RESULTS
Following are numbers from the first quarter of Fiscal Year 03-04 and from the
Public Opinion Survey.
Complaint response:
66% of high priority incidents were dispatched within 30 minutes.
Survey results:
58% of survey respondents reported that they had heard or seen
messages regarding ways to prevent water pollution.
ANALYSIS
During the first quarter of FY 03-04, there were only six complaints that met
the high priority criteria, although two of the six issues that exceeded the 30-
minute dispatch time occurred in early July before the new procedure had
been fully implemented. Tracking dispatch time required a change in the way
that information is entered into RFA. Under the new procedure, the incident
must be coded "high priority" and a code is entered in the action history at the
time of dispatch. Previously, all issues had the same priority code and the
inspector updated the action history after returning to the office, which may
have been several hours after responding to an incident. Storm Water
Protection Program personnel cannot respond like a Police Officer and speed to
a scene, so a 30-minute dispatch time is a high standard that is expected to be
reasonable under the current workload. Complaint response numbers will
continue to be collected during Fiscal Year 03-04.
105
The survey results appear appropriate for a relatively new public education
program. Public education can be a difficult process due to the different
methods, materials and time needed to reach various audiences. The survey
benchmark is a very high standard and it is too early to assess whether it is
achievable with existing resources. Staff will continue to develop the education
programs, reach out to citizens in a variety of ways and evaluate the data again
next year.
ACTION PLAN
Continue to develop and implement regular education and outreach
programs.
Research other surveys and statistics related to public awareness
campaigns to determine if the benchmark is appropriate.
Continue to implement and assess the new RFA procedures.
106
Public Works
GROWTH M4NAGE~N'T - SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
THE OUTCOME
Adequate sewer capacity for City residents and businesses.
THE MEASUREMENT
Trunk line capacity will have sufficient conveyance capacity to handle tributary
wastewater flows under peak flow conditions.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The sewer trunk capacity is greater than the flow from each respective sewer
basin.
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.
DEPAFtTMENTS INVOLVED
Engineering, Maintenance & Operations
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
Sewer trunk main capacities are estimated by comparing wastewater flow
projections to the capacity of the sewer system. The maximum depth of flow in
a sewer trunk main should not exceed 75% of the pipe diameter. Flow
projections are based on 220 gallons per day per equivalent dwelling unit and
1,150 gallons per day per 10,000 square feet of non-residential buildings.
Using a sewer model, the existing and future sewer demands are estimated and
compared to the capacity. In addition, annual flow measurement information
is also used to determine actual flows in the sewer trunk mains.
107
RESULTS
SEWER TRUNK/
INTERCEPTOR STATUS OF AVAILABLE CAPACITY
South Agua Hedionda
Buena
I Vista/ Carlsbad I Some Reaches Approaching 100% Capacity I
Future Pipeline - Not in Service
Some Reaches Approaching 1 OO%Capacity
I North Agua Hedionda I Some Reaches at 50% Capacity I
Vallecito s
North Batiquitos
Ponto
Some Reaches May be Approaching 50%
Capacity.
Adequate Capacity (Capacity under 50%)
Adequate Capacity (Capacity under 50%)
ANALYSIS
An update to the Sewer Master Plan is complete and identified virtually no
change in the City’s build out sewer flows. The sewer connection fee has been
updated based on the same flow with a lower number of equivalent dwelling
units projected at build out compared to the previous master plan.
ACTION PLAN
Adopt Sewer Master Plan update and revised sewer connection fees.
Vista/ Carlsbad Interceptor - Construction to replace pipelines at
capacity is almost complete. Additional pipeline reaches are scheduled
in the CIP to be replaced. Other reaches of concern will be monitored.
North Agua Hedionda Interceptor - Scheduled for continued field
monitoring to track existing flows. 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.
South Agua Hedionda Interceptor - Portions of the pipeline will continue
to be constructed concurrent with other road and development projects.
Buena Interceptor - Scheduled for continued field monitoring to track
existing flows.
108
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
The City’s average sewage flow to EWPCF is 6.83 MGD, or 74% of the City’s
9.24 MGD capacity rights. This is an almost 9% increase compared to last
year’s average flow.
ANALYSIS
An update to the Sewer Master Plan is complete and indicates that City’s
projected build-out flow is approximately 9.87 MGD.
Encina Wastewater Authority 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 capacity rights to 10.14 MGD
during the second phase of the expansion. This request for capacity is
approximately 3% higher than the projected build-out flow. The request for
capacity at the EWPCF is based on previous sewer master plans that projected
higher flows at build-out and was not adjusted since it is only considered
109
slightly conservative compared to the most current projection for build-out
flow.
ACTION PLAN
0 Monitor existing flows
-. .
-.
-.
-.
_.
110
Public Works
100
50
10
GROWTH MXNAGEMENT - DRAINAGE
Runoff shall not damage adjacent existing or potential
building and structure sites.
Runoff shall not overflow outside of property lines on
private property or right-of-way in public streets
Minimum storm drain and inlet size
THE OUTCOME
Adequate drainage facilities for protection against flooding and flood damage.
THE MEASUREMENT
Drainage facilities are adequate for runoff as determined by the Master
Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan.
WHAT THE DATA MEAN
The Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan is used to
identify the facilities necessary for development in the City. These facilities
include both new and existing facilities that require improvements. The
facilities are funded with developer fees and planned local drainage area (PLDA)
fees. New development areas are conditioned to either start construction after
required facilities are operational, or construct the facilities concurrently with
their projects.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Engineering, Maintenance & 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:
RESULTS
All areas of the City meet current Growth Management Standards with the
exception of the following:
111
New NPDES Permit requirements may require modifications to the City’s
existing drainage systems and additional drainage facilities. An assessment of
these modifications and additions is on going and includes such items as a
dredging desiltation basins and the possible installation of new test stations.
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 based on 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
not only impact expected run-off, but also expected PLDA revenues.
Drainage facilities required to meet NPDES standards require funding. A
separate fee structure was developed for the maintenance of NPDES facilities,
and was recently approved by Council.
Analysis of the Calavera Creek Channel was
Department. Facilities to help control this
Drainage Master Plan and Storm Water Quality
Basins BJ and BJB. Recommendations for
potential flooding includes the following:
completed by the Engineering
flooding are identified in the
Management Plan as Detention
additional facilities to reduce
Construct Basin BJB, which was constructed with the College Boulevard
extension project.
Construct Basin BJ, which is pending construction with the extension of
College Boulevard east of El Camino Real.
Construct two additional detention basins in the Faraday Avenue and Melrose
Drive extension project area. These will be constructed concurrent with the
roadway projects.
Analysis of the Agua Hedionda Creek channel near the confluence with the
Calavera Creek is on going and being reanalyzed due to environmental
restrictions.
112
Construct an overflow channel at the Calavera Creek in the Robertson Ranch
area. This work is pending development in the area.
ACTION PLAN
An update to the Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management
Plan is on going and scheduled to be complete by the end of 2004. The
program Environmental Impact Report necessary for environmental
approvals is expected to be complete at the end of 2005.
Construction of Basin BJ will begin with the construction of College
Boulevard between El Camino Real and Cannon Road.
Construction of the basins near Melrose Drive and Faraday Avenue will
begin with the associated roadway projects in late 2004.
Complete the preliminary design of the Agua Hedionda Creek channel
dredging.
Construction of the Calavera Creek overflow channel will occur
concurrent with the development of the Robertson Ranch area.
113
114
-.
Ensure a reliable, high quality, diversified potable and recycled water system
leading to a drought-resistant community, in the most cost effective manner.
Service Delivery
Measure:
Results:
M easure :
Results :
Measure:
Results:
Measure:
Results :
cost
Measure:
Results :
Measure :
Results:
98% of water samples free of coliform
99.9%
Annual number of hours per mile of distribution line a water main
is out of service will be zero
Zero
At least 90% of all valves in the Carlsbad service area are tested
and repaired bi-annually.
8%
At least 90% of all fire hydrants in the Carlsbad service area are
tested and repaired bi-annually.
10%
Annual water loss not to exceed six percent
5.2%
Cost of service per acre-foot of water will not exceed $920
$828
_-
Customer Satisfaction
Measure:
Results: 91%
90% of survey respondents rate water service as either good or
excellent
115
100%
90%
8 0 O/O
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0 Yo
/Managemen( I I
Four of the five reported components of water performance met their
benchmark in FY 2003. Potable water quality continues to exceed both City
and State standards for bacteriological testing. Water reliability, which
contains multiple measures, showed passing results on one of those measures
as annual hours per mile out of service was once again zero, and has been
since 2001. This shows that staff has been successful in efforts to ensure that
customers are not without water during planned or unplanned maintenance.
However, maintenance activities, as reported in the water reliability measure,
were below their 90% achievement level, and will be the area where
improvements occur.
In the coming year, staff will investigate and analyze alternative work methods
to improve the balance of scheduled and unscheduled maintenance so that
more scheduled maintenance can be accomplished. Water delivery efficiency
once again achieved the established benchmark. Water loss was kept to a
minimum and exceeded both industry and City standards, while cost of service
was 10% better than the benchmark. Finally, water service customer
satisfaction, a new measure in this year’s report, exceeded the benchmark with
91% of water customers rating water services as good or excellent.
The two growth management standards in this strategic goal are in compliance.
Management Goals: Although not analyzed in this report, the management
goals associated with this strategic goal are listed below to demonstrate
resources allocated to the achievement of this strategic goal. Management
goals that support this strategic goal for 2003-04 include:
116
0 Paseo Del Norte Recycled Pipeline Replacement
0 Recycled Water Retrofits
0 Potable Vulnerability Assessment
0 Desalination Project
117
Public Works
POTABLE WATER QUALITP
Fiscal Year
Benchmark
1998-99
THE OUTCOME
High quality water free of pathogenic organisms..
Number Total Total Percent
Collected Positive Bacteria- Bacteria-
Free Free - - - 98.0%
1,428 3 1,425 99.8%
THE MEASUREMENT
Monthly bacteriological samples.
1999-00
2000-0 1
200 1-02
2002-03
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Carlsbad purchases treated water from the Metropolitan Water District via 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 of the potential presence of pathogenic
organisms that cause waterborne diseases. Positive samples are indicators of
potential problems that are investigated and followed up with additional
samples. Monthly bacteriological reports are sent to the State Department of
Health Services. The goal is to achieve zero positive samples, with anything
less than five percent being acceptable.
1,615 1 1,614 99.9%
1,725 3 1,722 99.8%
1,7 19 1 1,718 99.9%
1,7 19 1 1,718 99.9%
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/ Utility Operations
BENCHMARK
98% of bacteria samples should be free of coliform. The State requires that at
least 95% of all samples collected during any month are total coliform-free.
RESULTS
118
Total
Samples
Agency Collected
San Diego County City* 669
Rincon del Diablo MWD 412
Total % of
Samples Samples
Bacteria Bacteria
Free Free
669 100.0%
412 100.0%
* City did not wish to be identified
Carlsbad MWD
Vallecitos Water District
ACTION PLAN
To ensure a high level of water quality and safety, staff will continue weekly
water sampling and testing in accordance with provisions of the California
State Department of Health Services.
1,719 1,718 99.9%
1,053 1,052 99.9%
119
Public Works
WATER DELIVERY COST
THE OUTCOME
Water operations delivery efficiency.
THE MEASUREMENT
This measure uses a multi-modal approach combining:
Water Loss: The percentage of unaccounted for water in the distribution
system. Water loss is defined as the amount of water produced (water
purchased plus or minus the amount of water held in storage) minus water
sold, and divided by water produced.
*
Cost of Service: The total cost of service using actual expenditures, including
potable water purchases from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) via the
San Diego County Water Authority, divided by the total acre-feet of potable
water produced (Le., purchased from MWD, plus water taken from Maerkle
Dam) per year.
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 potable water
delivered represents an efficient system when the benchmark is achieved. The
aim is to satisfy customer demands with safe, reliable water within a prudent level of expenditures. -
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED Maintenance and Operations -
- BENCHMARK
Water Loss: Annual water loss not to exceed six percent as set by the
California Department of Water Resources Standard Bulletin 166-4, Urban
Water Use in California, August 1994. Distribution system losses commonly
range between 6 and 15%.
Cost of Service: The cost of service per acre-feet of water produced will not
120
exceed $920. This benchmark was established at the 2003 level of revenue
received from providing potable water to the average single-family, residential
customer. Previously this benchmark was based on expenditures per acre foot
of water delivered, and established at the previous year’s expenditures plus
inflation.
Fiscal Year
Benchmark
1999
2000
200 1
2002
2003
RESULTS
Water Loss
Water Loss
<, 6.00%
4.87%
5.36%
4.29%
4.24%
5.18%
Fiscal Year
1999
2000
200 1
2002
2003
Cost of Sedce
Cost Per
Acre-Foot Benchmark
Produced
17,467 $14,162,422 $811 $852
19,427 $15,438,988 $795 $892
20,689 $16,409,947 $793 $970
20,241 $16,762,146 $828 $920*
Acre-Fee t cost of
Produced Service
18,949 $15,317,868 $808 $943
* Benchmark was adjusted based on actual costs
ANALYSIS
Water Loss: This is an internal measure that is used to monitor performance
over time and reflects that the established benchmark is being achieved. The
fluctuations of percentages could be the result of variances in water meter
reads. As water meters age or are affected by conditions within a vault pit
setting, mechanical meter registers can become less accurate.
The table below summarizes the data collected from partner agencies regarding
water loss. Each agency measures water loss by subtracting the amount of
water sold from the amount of water produced, divided by water produced. All
were in the 6% to 15% tolerance range described above. Carlsbad’s ranking
indicates that its water system is within, and is consistent with, industry
standards.
121
-..
Agency
Rincon del Diablo Municipal Water District
Vallecitos Water District
San Diego County City*
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
I Aeencv I Water LOSS I
Cost Per Acre-
Foot Produced
$605
$813
$818
$828
* City did not wish to be identified
Staff believes that a portion of water loss may be attributable to the inaccuracy
of older meters. In response, the Meter Services Division will implement a
more aggressive meter exchange program involving meters that are 15 years
and older. Once a significant number of meters have been exchanged, staff will
water loss. The Vallecitos Water District implemented an aggressive meter
exchange program in 1995 and since that time has noticed a significant
reduction in water loss.
-
recalculate water loss data and determine what impact meter exchanges has on -
Cost of Senice: The cost of service for water is all annual expenditures for
personnel, services and supplies, including the cost of potable water purchased
from the Metropolitan Water District. Carlsbad’s cost per acre-foot increased
from last year, due to a combination of less water produced and increased
interdepartmental, records management and information technology charges.
Of the comparable agencies from which data was obtained, Carlsbad ranked
the highest in cost per acre-foot produced. However, the difference between
Carlsbad and the two agencies above it was less than 2% per acre-foot. Rincon
del Diablo MWD ranked lowest due to lower operating costs reflective of fewer
accounts, but a large concentration properties that are of a larger size (Le.
agricultural). Rincon also experienced a larger drop in water sales over
previous year than the other agencies, due to the exchange of three large
meters which resulted in greater accuracy in meter readings.
ACTION PLAN
Water Loss: Staff will implement a more aggressive meter replacement
program involving meters that are 15 years and older.
122
Cost of Service:
Based on meetings with partner agencies, the comparability of this
measure seems to be valid. Staff will continue ongoing communication
with other agencies to ensure continued collection of comparable data as
well as investigate an industry standard for this measure. In addition,
staff will conduct a benchmark evaluation based on the level of service
provided.
Staff will expand the number of benchmark partners to five agencies.
123
Public Works
WATER SERVICE DELNERY
THE OUTCOME
Water system reliability.
THE MEASUREMENT
This measure uses a multi-modal approach combining:
Annual Hours Per Mjle Out of Service: Total hours per mile of distribution
line without service. This measure is calculated by taking the number of hours
that a water main is without service, including service interruptions due to
maintenance and development activity, divided by the total miles of
distribution line.
Maintenance Activities: Percentage of scheduled work activities completed
during the fiscal year, based on a Standard of Care. These activities include
Valve Maintenance and Fire Hydrant Maintenance.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure reflects the integrity of the water distribution system.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/ Construction Maintenance &i Water Operations
BENCHMARK
Annual Hours Per Mile Out of Service: Annual number of hours per mile of
distribution line a water main is out of service should be zero. This year the
benchmark was modified to include planned service interruptions, such as
valve and fire hydrant maintenance and repair.
Maintenance Activities: . Valve Maintenance: At least 90% of all valves in the Carlsbad service
area are tested and repaired bi-annually.
Carlsbad service area are tested and repaired bi-annually.
Eyre Hydrant Maintenance: At least 90% of all fire hydrants in the
-.
-.
-.
124
-
. _-
_I__
Total Hours
Miles Dist. Lines
Hrs/Mile Dist. Line
Benchmark 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
0 18 17 0 0 0
-- 350 400 410 43 1 43 1
0.00 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00
Activity
Annual Actual Yo of
Production Production Scheduled
Units Units Maintenance
ANALYSIS
Annual Hours Per Mile Out of Service: For the third reporting period in a
row, there were zero hours where customers were without water service. This
was accomplished by maintenance staff continuing their operations of turning
water off on the city’s side of the property’s water meter instead of the main,
and using water line “jumpers” to re-route the flow of water around a main
break or blockage. These means are also used during planned service
interruptions such as valve and fire hydrant maintenance and repair. As a
result, customers are not affected by interrupted water service due to
scheduled or unscheduled repairs.
Valve Maintenance
Fire Hydrant Maintenance
Partner agencies use similar practices to minimize the impact to customers
when water transmitted in the mains is interrupted. For some of these
agencies, the physical nature of certain customers’ water connections
(especially agricultural connections) results in the possibility that jumpers or
alternative sources of water cannot be used during outages. This results in
service interruptions to these customers.
5,050 422 8%
1,650 160 10%
AGENCY
Carlsbad MWD
Vallecitos Water District
Rincon del Diablo MWD
San Diego County City*
* City did not wish to be identified
HOURS PER MILE
DIST. LINE
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.55
Maintenance Activities: In 2002-03, staff developed a Standards of Care
program to evaluate the condition of public facilities. This program establishes
125
and documents the frequency of recommended preventive maintenance, then
measures the level of accomplishment each year by comparing percent of
completed work to scheduled maintenance. The Public Works Maintenance
Management Program and work order systems are used to collect and analyze
performance data. The Standard of Care for the maintenance activities listed
above includes the annual and bi-annual testing and repair of all water system
structures and appurtenances to ensure optimal storage, distribution and
quality of water in the Carlsbad service area. The benchmark for each of these
activities was set at 90%. Ongoing maintenance at the benchmark level
increases the structural integrity of the water distribution system.
Maintenance activities usually includes the inspection and testing of water
system structures. Potential system leaks or other types of system failures can
be detected and repaired prior to an incident occurring which may cause an
interruption of water service to our customers.
Work activity results in these areas fell below the benchmark due to the high
level of unscheduled, reactive maintenance work being done by Construction
Maintenance and Water Operations staff in other activity areas (water main
maintenance and repair, water service repair and sewer lateral/main research).
ACTION PLAN
Annual Hours Per Mile Out of Service:
To minimize and/or eliminate impacts to customers during those times
when the flow of water in a main was interrupted, staff will continue to use
current service mitigation procedures as described above.
Staff will increase the number of benchmark partners to five agencies.
Maintenance Activities:
0 Staff will investigate and analyze alternative work methods to improve the
balance of scheduled versus unscheduled maintenance. This will include,
but not be limited to, the use of contract services, temporary help, and/or
continued investigation and evaluation of service delivery alternatives using
the Public Works Service Plan program.
0 Staff will develop Standards of Care measures for the following maintenance
activities for FY 2003-04. This information will be reported in the 2004
State of Effectiveness report. - Reservoir Site Maintenance - Flow Control Station Maintenance - Regulating Valve Maintenance
Pump Station Valve and Check Valve Maintenance
126
”-
_-
I
Benchmark
9 0%
Public Works
WATER SERVICE CUSZUMER SATZSFACTZON
2000 2001 2002 2003
88% 91% 89% 91%
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction
THE MEASUREMENT
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Highly satisfied customers are an indication that we are providing services in a
manner that is desired and/or expected, contributing greater confidence in the
Maintenance & Operations Division and local government in general, resulting
in high quality of life for community members.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Maintenance and Operations/ Water Operations, Construction Maintenance
and Utility Account Maintenance; Finance/ Utility Billing
BENCHMARK
90% of customers rate water services as “good or excellent.”
RESULTS
ANALYSIS
Ratings for this measure have been at or near the benchmark for the past four
years. In 2003, 2.0% of respondents rated water service as “Poor.” Some of the
reasons for this rating were that respondents felt that the potable water was of
poor quality (bad taste and smell), the water was too expensive, the water
pressure was low, or the billing practices are too restrictive and overly-punitive
(late charges, short timeline to post a payment).
Water service citywide is provided by three separate water agencies; the
Carlsbad Municipal Water District, the Olivenhain Municipal Water District
and the Vallecitos Water District.
127
The service areas for these agencies are described as follows:
Carlsbad Municipal Water District Service Area fCMWD1. The CMWD
service area covers approximately 85% of the city and generally covers the
area north of La Costa Avenue.
0 Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD). OMWD serves several
thousand Carlsbad residents in the area generally south of La Costa Avenue
bordered by the southern and eastern boundaries of the incorporated area
of the City of Carlsbad.
0 Vallecitos Water District Service Area. The VWD service area resides
generally within the central/eastern portion of the Southeast Quadrant of
the City.
Water system maintenance and operations, customer service requests and
billing are all administered independently within each agency service area, The
data being gathered citywide, however, does not categorize customers into
those three service areas. As a result, it is difficult to determine if there is a
variance in customer service and satisfaction between CMWD and the other
service providers.
ACTION PLAN
Continue to include water services questions in the citywide public opinion. In
addition, the Social and Behavioral Research Institute (SBRI) at Cal State San
Marcos, which conducts the survey for the City, has the ability to determine
which quadrant of the City a citizen resides. Staff will work with SBRI to
develop a service area comparative analysis of customer satisfaction by
comparing SBRI’s list of respondents from the Southeast Quadrant to lists of
Carlsbad customers being served by OMWD and VWD. This will allow staff to
differentiate water service customer satisfaction results between the Carlsbad
Municipal Water District and those who receive services from other service
providers.
128
Public Works
GROWTH lyLANAGEMENI' - WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
THE OUTCOME
Adequate fire flow and water supply for City residents and businesses.
THE MEASUREMENT
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.
WHAT THE DATA MEAN
Provide water for the greater demand of the two conditions within the Carlsbad
Municipal Water District service area: 1) maximum day demand plus a fire
event, 2) peak hour demand. 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.
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.
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. This
computer model was calibrated using actual flow measurements collected in
the field to verify that it sufficiently represents the actual water system.
129
10 Average-dav Storage
678-1- C-d in FY 2002-03 = 18.5 MG/Day average
consumption
365 Days
(18.5 MG/Day) * (10 Days) = 185.0 MG Storage = 185 MG Storage currently
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 used to check pipeline sizes and facility capacities to make sure they
are adequate.
Adequate 10 average-day storage capacity exists for the existing customers in
the Carlsbad Municipal Water District based on 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 was recently updated. The update identified improvements
storage tanks to meet future 10 average-day storage requirements. Water
connection fees were updated based on these improvements.
required to meet future water demands and included two additional water -
I
In addition, the recycled water model has recently been updated and the use of
for irrigation was incorporated into the Water Master Plan. The use of seawater
desalination was not included in the Water Master Plan update, but is being
seawater desalination is currently under consideration. Recycled water used I._
considered in a separate study that incorporates future water demands. __
A minimum 10 average-day storage capacity is not provided for the areas of the
City served by a water district other than CMWD. However, Olivenhain
Municipal Water District (OMWD) constructed a new water treatment plant at
the San Diego County Water Authority Emergency Storage Reservoir so areas of
Carlsbad served by OMWD now meet this minimum storage capacity.
-_
__
- ACTION PLAN
Adopt update to the Water Master Plan and revised water connection fees
Complete water desalination study
130
Promote and support continuous learning opportunities within the community and
the City organization.
LIBRARY
Service Delivery
Measure:
Results: Achieved
90th percentile ranking among 32 California city libraries in a state
survey.
cost
Measure:
Results:
Cost per capita; no benchmark yet established.
Library services $82.80 per capita
Customer Satisfaction
Measure:
Results: 97%
90% of public opinion survey respondents rate their satisfaction
with Library services either as good or excellent.
RECREATION
Service Delivery
Measure: 90% f all survey resp ndents rate the Carlsbad Sportsmanship
program (TRUST) good or excellent.
78% (adult league) 96% (youth league) Results:
cost
Measure:
Results:
Cost per capita; no benchmark yet established.
Recreation and Park Planning services $52.80 per capita
Customer Satisfaction
Measure: 90% of Recreation Department survey respondents rate all
Results: 92%
Recreation services as good or excellent
131
In cu
0
._ L 2
-J
Growth
bnagemei
Arts I Recreation
c Vl 0 0
Library
Library: The Library is achieving its benchmark for customer service and
satisfaction. In the coming year staff will investigate surveying customers that
frequent the library to ascertain their level of satisfaction with specific services.
This is the first year for reporting the cost per capita for the delivery of library
services. Library satisfaction was rated overall at 97% by all respondents, with
65 ?LO of respondents giving a rating of excellent, with the number rating library
services as “excellent” higher than in the previous year.
Recreation: The Recreation department is achieving its benchmark in
customer service and satisfaction in both the Recreation Department and
citywide public opinion surveys. Carlsbad continues to be a leader in
addressing the concern of good sportsmanship in recreation programs. This
year the department has expanded the TRUST sportsmanship program to all
recreation activities including outside groups that utilize Carlsbad’s facilities
and fields. Overall the initiation of the sportsmanship program recreation wide
has met with an excellent response.
132
This is the first year for evaluating costs per capita for the delivery of services
by the Recreation department. In the coming year the department will make
efforts to benchmark with other comparable cities.
Citywide survey results indicate that 89 % of those surveyed rate recreation
programs as good or excellent. This is consistent with previous years results.
Arts: There are currently no measurements reflecting the costs, or program
satisfaction with the Arts. In the coming year the Performance Measurement
Team will work with Arts to develop valuable measures. Based on results from
the citywide survey, Cultural Arts programs continue with an overall rating of
80%.
The City of Carlsbad continues to provide an array of learning opportunities to
both its citizens and its employees. Every department offers staff opportunities
to gain knowledge and increase their skills. Human Resources has taken an
active role in the past year to provide many opportunities for Employee
Development. Many staff are taking advantage of the tuition reimbursement
program to further their education.
The Citizens Academy continues to be an extremely popular program, as are
the Connecting Community, Place and Spirit workshops. Both of these
programs provide an opportunity for citizens to gain a better understanding of
their local government and become more involved in their community.
Leo Carrillo Historic Ranch Park opened in 2003, offering educational
opportunities for all ages including a fourth grade educational program
established in cooperation with the schools.
Due to the popularity of many recreation programs, class registration can be
difficult and often times long waiting lists are developed. In the coming year the
Recreation department will begin providing opportunities for online registration
via the Internet. It is anticipated that this new opportunity for improved
customer service will be welcomed by participants, and will also improve
customer service.
Management Goals: Although not analyzed in this report, the management
goals associated with this strategic goal are listed below to demonstrate
resources allocated to the achievement of this strategic goal. Management
goals that support this strategic goal for 2003-04 include:
Employee Development
0 Carlsbad Citizens’ Academy Operational Guide
133
Recreation Volunteer Program
Sportsmanship
Calavera Curriculum
Training Facility
Leo Carrillo Ranch Historic Park Interpretive 8r, Educational Plan
Alternative Staffing Options
Supervisors Guide To HR Resources And Services
ARJIS education
Sculpture Garden Exhibition
134
--
I
Community Services
BENCHMARK
5TH OR HIGHER
STATE LIBRARY RANKIN0
2001 2002 2003
4TH 2ND 1ST
THE OUTCOME
Top quality Library services.
THE MEASUREMENT
The Library Development Services Bureau of the California State Library
collects statistical data annually from all California libraries. There are 13
basic ratings based on this data that appear annually in CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
STATISTICS covering data from the previous fiscal year. The State uses seven
population categories for public library rankings. Carlsbad is one of 32
libraries in the 60,000 to 100,000 population category.
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, are an accurate way to compare the
Carlsbad City Library to other top quality libraries in California. High index
ratings are an indicator of excellence and establish benchmarks for both
internal and external comparisons.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Library
BENCHMARK
The Carlsbad City Library will be ranked above the 90th percentile among
public libraries in the state in cities of 60,000 to 100,000 population. For 2003,
the 90th percentile equates to a ranking of fifth or better.
RESULTS
The benchmark was achieved by reaching an averaged ranking of first. This
was an improvement over Carlsbad's second place ranking last year among the
32 city libraries in California in the 60,000 - 100,000 population category.
Compared
(Librarian
ANALYSIS
Carlsbad was ranked against 31 other libraries in 13 measurement categories. - to the previous year, Carlsbad improved its ranking in 4 categories
FTE, Periodicals, Library Attendance, and Registered Borrowers),
135
Carlsbad dropped slightly in 2 categories (Videos and Reference Questions per
Capita) and stayed the same in all the others. The table below shows how
Carlsbad ranks with the top rated public libraries in California in the key
measurement categories:
TOP LIBRARY RANKINGS
ACTION PLAN
Staff will continue to analyze collection use, patron suggestions, and phasing of
new technologies to see if they lead to any changes in the Library’s
performance. Staff will also analyze the value of tracking and measuring
categories, such as collection holdings, that are more connected to multiple
branches in larger geographical areas. These may not be as valid as per capita
measures as indicators of quality or performance. Future measurements may
also need a weighting system, so that emphasis can be placed on categories
that are more significant than others.
136
Community Services
IJBRRRP OPERAIZIW COST
02 -03
THE OUTCOME
Efficient Use of Library funding
$82.80 $82.80
THE MEASUREMENT
Operating Costs per capita for Library Services
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Tracking the Library’s costs per capita provides an opportunity to compare
year-to year costs of Library services and an opportunity to compare costs to
other cities of similar size and economic composition.
BENCHlVIARK
The Operating Cost per capita will not exceed Baseline Budget plus annual CPI.
02-03 Library actual expenditures= $7,474,382 : 90271 pop. = $82.80/ capita
RESULTS
I FISCALYEAR I BENCHMARK1 CARLsBAD I
ANALYSIS
This is the first year for this analysis. The Library expenditures did not exceed
the Baseline General Fund budget.
ACTION PLAN
In 2004, Library staff will utilize the CALIFORNIA LIBRARY STATISTICS data
for expenditure comparisons. Future measurement may also include grant
funding and revenue utilized to offset General Fund expenditures.
137
Community Services
SATISFACTION WITH LIBRARY SERWCES
BENCHMARK
9 0%
THE OUTCOME
High level of citizen satisfaction with Library services.
2000 2001 2002 2003
96% 96Yo 96% 97%
THE MEASUREMENT
Satisfaction with Library services is measured in the citywide phone survey by
asking the question, “How do you rate the Library’s overall services?”
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Results of the annual phone survey provide feedback to staff on how citizens
rate their satisfaction with Library services. Changes in this rating give staff a
snapshot of how Library services are perceived by users and whether there are
any trends over a period of years.
BENCHMARK
90% of survey respondents rate their satisfaction with Library services either
as good or excellent.
RESULTS
ANALYSIS
This is the fourth year that the City has asked residents how they rate their
overall satisfaction with Library services. The results show significantly high
ratings. Staff will continue to track this measure.
ACTION PLAN
The department will continue to monitor and evaluate the overall satisfaction
rating of Library services through the citywide survey. One possible change
may be to have the word “services” more accurately defined in the citywide
survey. It would be helpful to know, for example, whether the public perceives
services to include resources, staff attitude, hours of opening, and condition of
facilities. It may be useful to break out these as separate components of
“services” so that staff can focus on specific areas that may need improvement.
If it is not possible to include these specifics in the citywide survey, the Library
may develop an in-house survey of patrons or possibly develop a focus group.
138
I
-
,-
--
I
Community Services
GROWTH MAMGEMENT - LIBRARIES
THE OUTCOME
Adequate facility space to house library services and resources.
THE MEASUREMENT
Square footage per capita. The current Growth Management Standard is 0.8
square feet of library space 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
RESULTS
Based on the benchmark standard and assuming a January 2003 estimated
population of 90,271, the library, with 92,240 square feet of leased and owned
space, is currently 16,479 square feet in excess of the standard.
ANALYSIS
The latest SANDAG forecast estimates the city’s build-out population will be
128,723 in 2030. Carlsbad’s population would need to reach about 115,000
before it would trigger the need for expanded library space. Growth to this
population level is projected to be achieved in 2016, when there will be an
estimated population of 115,245. Additional space needed will likely be
programmed into a new Cole Library. Future space may also be added with a
Learning Center and the possible relocation of existing resources at Cole, such
as Genealogy and Local History, to another facility. Some of these steps may
need to be taken in the next few years to enable the Library is to manage the
projected growth of collections until a major expansion occurs.
139
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.
140
Community Services
RECREATION PROGRAM SPORZSllUNSXZP
THE OUTCOME
Achieve a high level of customer satisfaction, program enrichment and safety
through sportsmanship and our TRUST program. The TRUST Program focuses
on Teaching Respect, Unity and Sportsmanship through Teamwork.
Sportsmanship is defined as respect, unity, safety, enrichment, encouragement
and teamwork.
THE MEASUREMENT
This measure uses a multi-method approach combining:
0 Survey results
0 Participant complaints/ compliments
Incident reports
The Recreation Department has surveyed participants, coaches and parents on
their perception of sportsmanship in our programs. The survey results rate
their responses to their perception of sportsmanship, their agreement with the
implementation of the Sportsmanship philosophy, and experiences they have
had involving sportsmanship in our current programs.
We have collected data on the number of ejections, suspensions and
“technicals” administered during our sports leagues.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The survey results measure the sense of sportsmanship our participants,
parents and coaches experience and observe in our programs.
The number of ejections, suspensions and “technicals” measure the actual
number of customers who are directly affected by their own unsportsmanlike
conduct.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Recreation
BENCHMARK
Since this measure is unique to the City of Carlsbad’s Recreation Department,
the benchmark for sportsmanship will be developed through city surveys and
calculations of our current and future programs. The initial benchmark was
set at 90% of all surveys received will rating Carlsbad Sportsmanship program,
141
enrichment and customer satisfaction as “very good” or better (4 or 5 on a 1-5
scale).
2002 2003
BENCHMARK (PRE) (INTRO) (ENFORCE) (EXPAND)
90% rating very good or better 55% 67% 74% 78%
Technicals/eiections/susDensions 46/37/37 25/27/ 15 171 1416 151714
2000 2001
RESULTS
2000 figures were statistics taken prior to the implementation of the TRUST
program. 2001 reflects statistics after introducing the program to league
officials, team managers, volunteer coaches, and/or City Staff. 2002 results
were after training, implementing and enforcing the program with league
officials, team managers volunteer coaches, and/or City Staff. 2003 numbers
represent statistics after expanding the TRUST program further in each
program area.
-
Results of the survey asking, “What are your observations regarding the level of
sportsmanship in our leagues?”
BENCHMARK
90% rating very good or better
Technicals/ ejections/ suspensions
CARLSBAD ADULT SPORTS LEAGUES
Softball and Basketball
2000 2001 2002 2003
(PRE) (INTRO) (ENFORCE) (EXPAND)
11% 22% 4 1% 96%
43/7/0 35/4/0 26/3/0 13/0/0
CARLSBAD YOUTH SPORTS LEAGUES
Basketball
ANALYSIS
Adult Sports Program: The expansion of our TRUST program in the adult sports
softball, basketball and soccer leagues continues to have a positive influence.
For 2003, attention was focused on the league spectators since that was one
area the team managers listed as a problem area. Literature with information
about our TRUST program was given to spectators and staff verbally
communicated and promoted sportsmanship during the games.
--
In the three years since implementing the program, there has been a significant
decrease in the number of technicals, ejections and suspensions within the
programs and the team manager’s perception of sportsmanship has risen. We
attribute this to the efforts made by the adult sports office staff to educate,
142
enforce and re-educate our sportsmanship philosophy to all of our adult
softball, basketball and soccer league managers, officials, spectators and City
staff. Training and certification of the team managers involves using the NAYS
(National Alliance of Youth Sports) training material that is used by our youth
sports program for its volunteer coaches. The overall response and feedback
from our league managers has been supportive of continuing this program. We
also introduced, educated and enforced sportsmanship at our community
centers during the uopen play” sessions by adding the TRUST philosophy to the
sign in sheet and displaying the TRUST community expectations at the centers,
Youth Sports Program: The youth sports office introduced our TRUST program
during the 2001 season of youth basketball. The initial introduction was done
at the volunteer coach’s level in addition to City staff. The program was met
with resistance initially as the returning volunteer coaches were questioning
our new policy and the new supervisor in charge of the program. The youth
sports program deals with four different populations that influence the level of
sportsmanship within the, program (officials, coaches, parents and youth
participants).
During the 2002 season, staff only selected volunteer coach’s who were
supportive of our TRUST philosophy. We also initiated a coach’s clinic to
educate and train the volunteer coaches regarding the TRUST program.
Our 2003 season focused on continuing our education with the coaches and
staff and introducing and educating the parents to our TRUST program. The
success of our TRUST program in the youth sports arena can be attributed to
the training material used from the National Alliance for Youth Sports (NAYS).
With this material, we have successfully trained and re-trained our volunteer
coaches through the National Youth Sports Coaches Association (NYSCA) and
the parents were educated and certified through the Parents Association for
Youth Sports (PAYS). The NAYS training program involves certification through
educational testing materials, brochures, and training videos.
ACTION PLAN
Adult Sports Program: The Adult Sports Staff will continue in its effort to
further educate and enforce the TRUST program to the league managers,
officials, spectators and City Staff. This will be accomplished by continuing to
use the NAYS training material, communicating with the team managers on an
on-going basis during the seasons, implementing harsher penalties to
discipline violators and mandating all managers to sign a Code of Ethics in
order to participate in our leagues. In 2004, we will begin implementing having
all participants sign the adult sports code of ethics, which would entail
conducting sportsmanship training prior to the beginning of each sports
143
league. (This endeavor involves over 4,000 program participants) The updated
Code of Conduct is in the final stages of development. Once the code is
established, it will allow us to introduce the TRUST program to all adult sports
programs, open play and adult sports enrichment classes held by the City of
Carlsbad.
Youth Sports Program: The Youth Sports staff will continue to educate, train
and enforce the TRUST program to City Staff, volunteer coaches and parents
through clinics and training opportunities. This will involve requiring re-
certification annually for all staff, coaches and parents through the NAYS
training program. In 2004, we will begin to train the youth sports contract
officials and staff officials as part our ongoing effort to raise the level of
sportsmanship through the National Youth Sports Officials Association (NYSOA) ,
The game officials are an important support system of the program since they
are required to interact with all other aspects of the program and, in essence,
control the sportsmanship level during the game. Educating this essential
personal will be key in maintaining our benchmark.
NOTE: NYSCA, PAYS and NYSOA are all programs developed by the National
Alliance for Youth Sports (NAYS).
Beginning summer 2004, all contractors of sports camps will be required to
sign the department wide code of conduct in order to establish our TRUST
philosophy in our youth summer sports camps.
Current and future goals of this program include:
Continue with the implementation of a “code of ethics” during other
youth programs (Le. middle school dances).
Continue to investigating the possibility of introducing and encouraging
this program to outside user groups who reserve and hold programs on
City fields or in City facilities. This involves cooperatively working with 9
different user groups and the City Attorney’s Office to formulate a
reasonable, legal and fair procedure.
Continuing to use the National Alliance for Youth Sports program to
further educate the youth participants in our youth sports programs.
Produce literature and marketing material using the newly designed
TRUST logo to promote the program throughout all City parks and
facilities. Our goal is to inform the entire community and all who “play”
in Carlsbad that we produce activities that are safe, fun, educational,
144
enriching and fair to all. The City of Carlsbad is a city that promotes and
mandates TRUST.
The TRUST Program focuses on Teaching Respect, Unity and Sportsmanship
- through Teamwork. Sportsmanship is defined as respect, unity, safety,
enrichment, encouragement and teamwork.
145
Community Services
RECREATION & PARK PLANMNO OPERATINO COSTS
FISCAL YEAR
02 -03
THE OUTCOME
Provide Recreation and Park Planning services in a cost effective manner
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD
$52.80 $52.80
THE MEASUREMENT
Operating Costs per capita for Recreation and Park Planning Services
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Tracking Recreation and Park Planning costs per capita provides an
opportunity to compare year to year costs of these services and an opportunity
to compare costs to other cities of similar size and economic composition.
BENCHMARK
The operating cost per capita will not exceed baseline budget plus annual CPI.
Fiscal year 02-03 recreation and park planning actual expenditures =
$4,765,942 + 90,271 population = $52.80 per capita.
RESULTS
ANALYSIS
This is the first year for this measure.
ACTION PLAN
In 2004, Recreation and Park Planning staff will look to compare themselves to
other Cities of similar size and economic composition. Staff may also use ICMA
for comparisons.
Future measurement will include revenue utilized to offset General Fund
expenditures. Park Planning may be removed from this measure in the future,
depending on which recreation departments will be used to benchmark
against. _.
Recreation has a required goal level of a self-sustaining percentage for many
programs. An intense analysis in the next year may dictate how this particular
measure may evolve.
146
Community Services
RECREATION CUSTOMER SERMCE & SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction.
THE MEASUREMENT
Customer surveys will be distributed through City of Carlsbad water bills.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Highly satisfied customers are an indication that the Recreation Department is
providing services in a satisfactory manner.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Recreation
BENCHMARK
90% of customers rate all Recreation services as “Good or Excellent” (4 or 5 on
a 1-5 scale) in all customer service survey categories.
RESULTS
ANALYSIS
At the recommendation of the Customer Service Committee the 2003 Survey
was distributed through the August City Water Department billing. Over 1,000
surveys were returned.
Last year, each facility in the Recreation Department collected surveys over the
front counter and entered their own data. The 2003 surveys were returned to
147
City with their water payment and then forwarded inter-office to the Recreation
Department. The completed survey data was entered by an individual who was
not connected with any Recreation facility. This was done to assure integrity of
the data. Surveys received prior to September 30, 2003 were included in the
survey totals.
Distributing the survey through the water bills provided a broader resident
perspective of customer service and satisfaction. This allowed the scope of the
survey to include our daily users as well as casual users. Consequently, the
number of surveys returned increased from 346 to 1033, a 200% increase in
participation.
The overall rating for Recreation (92%) remains above the benchmark of 90%. p
Upon examination of specific Recreation Department customer satisfaction
indicators, the following items require improvement: registration procedures,
quality of telephone contacts, programs offered and competitive fees.
ACTION PLAN
A Department representative contacted all respondents who rated the
department poor or lower. Statistics for each facility surveyed were provided to
supervisors and managers at all the sites for further analysis and site
improvement. Recreation Division Managers are discussing what actions can
be taken to address the many written comments received from the survey
results. -
This past year the Recreation Department and IT Department investigated and
received approval to purchase and install an Online Registration program. It is
hoped that online registration will be available citywide the Fall of 2004. This
system will decrease the concerns over the department’s registration
procedures and provide users with up-to date information on programs via the
Internet.
-- Market fee studies are conducted annually to ensure our fees are competitive
and programs are affordable to our customers.
-_ Customer service training remains a priority in the Recreation Department. We
Emphasis this year will be in the area of telephone procedures. The availability
of online registration should also help improves customer satisfaction.
Feedback from the City officials has recommended expanding the survey to the
La Costa residents who are not in the Carlsbad Water District. Staff will
investigate coordinating with Coast Waste Management to send surveys
through their trash bills to these residents This will enable us to survey the
148
entire community and receive valuable input from the southeast quadrant.
Leo Carrillo Historic Ranch Park will be included in next year’s survey.
We will continue to explore new ways to improve recreational services.
149
150
Be a city that connects community, place and spirit, through balanced and well
designed land uses.
I 4nageqnt I
Service Delivery
Measure:
Results: Achieved
Achieve a HUD rating of Standard Performer or higher.
I I
Measure:
Results:
90% of the Code Enforcement cases are resolved within expected
timeframes.
83% of the cases resolved within expected timeframes.
cost
Measure:
Results: $362
Average cost per case - a benchmark has not yet been established.
151
There are two service delivery measures and one cost measure. The citizen
survey asked how well of a job citizens felt that the City is doing at providing a
balanced mix of land uses. The average response was 6.3. This is considered a
generally positive response, although the greatest concern respondents gave for
their low assessment was “setting limits on growth.”
Generally, the strategic goal for Community Development must be more fully
developed next year. It is recommended that the service areas of housing,
redevelopment, planning, and capital projects develop service standards, and
cost and customer satisfaction measures. Code Enforcement must develop a
customer satisfaction measure. The Community Development MSA is working
on a strategic plan that may contain specific performance objectives and
measurements.
Management Goals: Although not analyzed in this report, the management
goals associated with this strategic goal are listed below to demonstrate
resources allocated to the achievement of this strategic goal. Management
goals that support this strategic goal for 2003-04 include:
Purchase of CUSD Administrative Facility
Arts Office Volunteer Project
Village Redevelopment Area Strategy
SCCRA Land Use Strategy
Community Development Strategic Plan
Village Parking Enhancement Program
North State Street Improvements
Fire Station 6
Affordable Housing
General Plan/Zoning Consistency Program
Civic Facilities (Connecting Community Place & Spirit Team)
Communications for CCP&S
Rental Property Owner Satisfaction
Guidelines For Exhibition Selection
152
Community Development
SECTION 8 HOUSING
THE OUTCOME
Maximize rental assistance opportunities for low-income residents of Carlsbad.
THE MEASUREMENT
The rating from the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development for the City’s Section 8 rental assistance housing program.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has
instituted a Section 8 Management Assessment Program. Using 15 adopted
indicators, HUD evaluates and certifies a local agency’s success of
administering individual federally funded housing programs. HUD’s ratings
include “High Performer,” “Standard Performer,” or “Troubled Performer.”
Repeated failure to secure a HUD rating of “Standard Performer“ or higher can
jeopardize a local agency’s continued federal funding for its Section 8 rental
assistance housing program.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Housing and Redevelopment
BENCHMARK
Achieve a HUD rating of Standard Performer or higher 100% of time.
RESULTS
The program results have been submitted to the HUD Office for review and we
have been notified that the City is a Standard Performer as of December 23,
2003.
ANALYSIS
ACTION PLAN
The City is appealing this ranking based on comments from HUD Office and
may be re-rated as a High Performer at some future time.
153
Community Development
CODE ENFORCEMENT REsP0"ENESS
THE OUTCOME
A high level of responsiveness by Code Enforcement
THE MEASUREMENT
This is a multi-modal approach combining:
Time for case resolution: The time increment required for closing complaints
Recidivism rate: The rate for similar complaints at the same address.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Time for case resolution: Responding to Code Enforcement is a fundamental
service provided by the City. Complainants want their call to Code Enforcement
to result in positive resolution of the case as soon as is reasonably possible.
Resolving cases in a timely manner preserves neighborhood integrity and
builds confidence in the value of local government. Code Enforcement has
developed a complaint resolution measurement system that will track the time
increments needed to resolve those complaints that have been found to be
violations of the municipal Code.
Recidivism rate: When open cases do not recur within a reasonable length of
time, this could be an indication that the Code Enforcement department has
created a level of understanding with the property owner about codes and
ordinances, their importance to the community well being, and the quality of
life for everyone in the community. A re-check of all open cases against the
history for the prior three years will determine the recidivism rate for all code
enforcement matters.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Code Enforcement, Building, City Attorney, Planning
BENCHMARK
The varying case types handled by Code Enforcement have differing degrees of
importance relative to the amount of time to needed to resolve those cases.
There are twenty (20) different categories into which complaints are filed and
tracked. Each type of case has a varying time increment at which 90% of the
cases are resolved.
-.-
154
L
Number of
calls
The 10 most common complaint categories’ standard for compliance and case
closure is:
Number of Standard for
Opened Compliance
casea 90%
Type of Call for
Service
Percent of Cases
Resolved within
Standard
200 1 2002
87% 88%
79% 77%
79% 79%
pngineering/ ROW
Signs
2001
111
114 I-
2002 2001 2002
80 71 75 30 Days
124 132 118 30 Days
Expired Bldg
Permit
179
60
onin k+ 163 97 50 60 Days
24 38 37 60 Days
[Abatement
Number of
cases
200 1 I 1.828
Number of Repeat Cases Yo of
162 8.9%
on Same Property Reopened Cases
I2002 I 2,302 1 22 1
177 991 531 481 60Days
9.6%
behicle Zoning I 111 821 841 791 60Davs I u I J-
IBuilding ’ I 4611 3031 20d 22d 90 Davs I I J
lGarbage&Junk I 8d 701 1041 1311 30Davs
I 75?4
pusiness License I 94 621 1611 1221 60 Days
frotal I 3404 2946( 29491 28821 Average
The expected recidivism rate (same violation at same address within 3 years) is
unknown and this will become the baseline rate for future comparisons.
Recidivism rate for FY-2003 (dating back three years) at same address is:
- ANALYSIS
Case closure improved in 7 of the 9 categories although none of the categories
improved to the desired benchmark levels. The overall rate of case closure
improved from 76% to 83%. This is likely due to an improved communication
system brought about by meeting regularly with the City Attorney’s office and
Planning staff and the nominally lower case load. Recidivism rate benchmark
and tendency is still an area needing time for development.
ACTION PLAN
Code enforcement staff, the City Attorney’s office and Planning Staff will
continue to meet routinely to diagnose the means by which certain groups of
155
.-
case-types are handled. Three of the categories proving toughest to resolve
within established timeframes (garbage and junk, Signs, and Expired Building
Permits) will be further analyzed in detail to look for specific areas of
improvement. Reports on Sign and Expired Building Permits will be run and
analyzed for possible areas of improvement. Content and direction given by
various courtesy notices and code enforcement letters will be the focus of these
improvement areas.
156
Community Development
CODE ENFORCEMENT COST
2003 .
THE OUTCOME
An efficient Code Enforcement operation.
$357,000 987 $362
THE MEASUREMENT
The specific measurement in this cost efficiency measure is: The number of
cases closed in the fiscal year divided by the fully burdened cost for the Code
Enforcement operation. Cases are those complaints found to be valid and
violations of a Municipal Code. Approximately 40% of complaints and citizen
inquiries result in a case being opened for further Code Enforcement action.
Costs include the fully burdened salaries of the code enforcement officers, the
clerical staff, allocated supervision, management, and Deputy City Attorney
salaries, along with vehicle and telephone costs.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The cost of providing Code Enforcement services will be tabulated each year for
comparative purposes in order to assist in determining the optimal level of
service in the community. The number of cases may vary, and the department
is reviewing case-types to determine means by which caseloads can be lowered.
This may be by providing more information to residents and businesses about
codes and standards most commonly violated. This may result in the cost per
case rising since some of the expenses are fured.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Code Enforcement
RESULTS 1 FISCAL YEAR I EXPENDITURES I CASES CLOSED I AVERAGE COST /CASE I
BENCHMARK
This is the first year for this measure, and subsequent years will be compared
to this year’s results. Benchmarking may be possible using ICMA database.
ANALYSIS
This is the first year for this measure.
ACTION PLAN
Continue tracking costs and begin surveying cities for comparables.
157
Administrative Services
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - CITY ADMIMSTRATNE FACILITIES
THE OUTCOME
Provide top quality services.
THE MEASUREMENT
Administrative facility square footage per 1000 population
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The standard of 1500 square feet per 1000 population is mandated per the
Citywide Facilities and Improvement Management Plan
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Citywide
BENCHMARK
1,500 square feet of administrative facilities per 1000 city population.
RESULTS
Based upon a current population of 92,400, the City is required to have at least
138,600 square feet of administrative office space.
At the current time, the city has approximately 300,000 square feet of
administrative facilities. This includes:
Farmers Building - 134,000 sq. ft
Faraday Center - 68,000 sq. ft
Public Safety Center - 64,000 sq. ft
City Hall - 13,000 sq. ft
Facility and Maintenance (Water Department) - 13,000 sq. ft
Oak Ave. - 5500 sq. ft
Redevelopment - 2000 sq. ft
- ANALYSIS
The city currently meets this growth management requirement. With the
acquisition of the Farmers insurance Building as the potential City of Carlsbad
Civic Complex, the City is not required per the growth management standard,
to acquire any additional administrative space.
ACTION PLAN
None required
158
--
I-
+
Be a city that provides exceptional services on a daily basis.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Service Delivery
Measure:
Results:
90% of all priority 1 service calls resolved in 60 minutes & 90% of
all priority 2 service calls resolved in 180 minutes.
Priority one calls 84%; priority two calls 98%.
cost
Measure: Annual cost of providing IT services per desktop will not exceed
$7,556.
Results: $4,774
Customer satisfaction
Measure:
Results: 81%
90% of customers rate Information Technology as good or excellent
Measure:
Results: 92%
Resolve 80% of all IT service calls effectively to the requestor’s
satisfaction requiring only one on-site visit effort by IT staff
HUMAN RESOURCES
Service Delivery
Measure:
Results: 3.9%
An employee turnover rate of less than 9.8%.
Measure:
Results: 7.5 days.
Injured employee time off will have an average of 6.0 days or less
lost per claim.
Measure:
Results: 41 days
Average recruitment cycle time of 57 days or less.
cost
Measure:
Results:
Human Resources annual operating expenditures per number of
full- time employees
$635 per employee; benchmark not yet established.
159
Customer Satisfaction
Measure:
Results: 78%
90% of customers rate their experience with Human Resources as
at least satisfied in all customer service categories.
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
Service Delivery
Measure:
Results: 89%
90% of the ratings are at or above 7 on a 10-point scale
cost
Measure:
Results: $5.66
Maintenance cost per square foot will be in the lowest one-fourth of
government institutions ($6.57 or less)
Customer Satisfaction
Measure:
Results: 83%
90% of internal surveys returned indicate overall service by
as “Good” or “Excellent” in all survey categories.
Measure:
Results: 97%
90% of Emergency work orders completed within 24 hours.
Measure:
Results: 98%
90% of High Priority work orders completed within 72 hours.
Measure:
Results: 92%
90% of Medium Priority work orders completed within 20 days.
Measure:
Results: 74%
90% of Low Priority work orders completed within 30 days
FLEET MAINTENANCE
I. Service Delivery
Measure: 90% of scheduled preventive maintenance work orders are
Results: 70%
completed the same day the vehicle is delivered to the shop.
160
Measure: 90% of fleet units are available to meet City needs.
Result: 98%
cost
Measure: Maintenance and repair costs per mile by type of vehicle - a
benchmark has not yet been established.
Results :
Sedan: $0.16 Class 3: $0.35
Class I: $0.10 Class 4: $0.42
Class 2: $0.22 Class 5: $1.65
Customer Satisfaction
Measure:
Results: 88%
90% of internal surveys returned indicate the overall service at
good or excellent in all survey categories.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Wrchasing Fleet I Facilites 1 Human Resources Information
~ Technology
Internal Services
Human Resources: The turnover rate for the City of Carlsbad continues to be
about 4 percentage points less than the ICMA average. The majority of the City
of Carlsbad's turnover was due to resignations. It is interesting to note that
the City continues to see an increase in retirements. This can be attributed to
the aging of the workforce and enhanced City employee retirement benefits.
The City anticipates a continuing increase in the number of retirements over
the next two to three fiscal years
161
Carlsbad’s average number of days lost per injured employee claim is 1.5 days
more than the average for cities under 100,000 reporting to ICMA. This
average increased by 3.9 days over last year.
Human Resources 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, the City is better equipped to monitor lost days of work, identify trends,
and make recommendations to management throughout the City to reduce the
number of days an employee is out of the workplace.
Human Resources has resumed the practice of distributing workers’
compensation loss data to executive management on a scheduled basis to
ensure this important subject receives attention
The customer service and satisfaction survey return rate was about 43% or 297
out of 683 distributed surveys. Overall, the mean satisfaction for Human
Resources services averaged a 7 on a 10-point scale.
In general, the survey shows that employees liked their jobs, their co-workers
and supervisors, the work environment that the City provides, including the
reputation of Carlsbad, and the value that they make a difference in the
community. When the survey data was broken down by tenure, overall the
longer the service the more dissatisfied employees were with Training and
Development, Recruitment, and Salary Administration. Those with more than
10 years tenure show the lowest satisfaction.
The cycle time for recruitments at the City of Carlsbad continues to be better
than the benchmark. Human Resources has implemented the use of an
Employment Inventory selection tool for many entry-level positions that has
resulted in a faster turn-around time.
The results of the Human Resources Customer Satisfaction Survey
administered in March 2002 indicate that hiring managers are very satisfied
with the timeliness of the hiring process
A cost measure for the Human Resources Department is new this year - the
benchmark is based on Human Resources annual operating expenditures per
number of full-time employees. While still in development phase, the Human
Resources Department has identified several high performing agencies in the
County that have agreed to work with the department to establish comparable
measures.
162
Infonnartion Technology: Cost of service per desktop computer represents a
new cost measure for the Information Technology Department. For fiscal year
2002 - 2003 the cost per desktop of $4,774 is below the benchmark of $7,556.
In the upcoming year, Carlsbad IT Management will continue to leverage the
relationships with partner IT organizations involved with SANDAG. This group
has expressed interest in the development and distribution of comparable
benchmark data in future fiscal years taking into account the differing
operating practices.
The network operability measure is an indication of staffing levels, staff
knowledge, and staff initiative to ensure that calls are completed and resolved
in both a timely and effective manner. The benchmark was nearly .met for
priority one calls with a percentage of 84%. Priority two calls exceeded the
benchmark with a percentage rating of 98%.
This year reflects a different approach to gathering Information Technology
customer service satisfaction data from City staff. In years past, a survey was
delivered via email to customers when their service request was completed.
While this method was effective for handling specific service concerns, due to
the ticket / IT staffer relationship, it was recommended by the Performance
Measurement Team that the IT Department develop a more broad-based,
anonymous customer service survey.
Although 81% of respondents rated their overall experience with IT as good or
excellent, the benchmark for this measure was not met. This is down from
96% in 2001-02. A possible cause for this decrease in the satisfaction rating
can be linked to the format of the survey itself. The new survey included the
selection option of ‘Don’t Know“. After review it was determined that by
changing the survey format to exclude the option “Don’t Know“ and providing
City staff with the selection choice of “Did Not Use Service”, the selection
choices would result in a more accurate user satisfaction rating.
More than a third of the residents surveyed indicated that they had accessed
the City’s website in the past year. Those residents reported that they had not
only accessed- the website, but were highly likely to find the information that
they were seeking (86%).
When residents accessing the city’s website were asked how they would rate
the site, residents appear to be generally pleased. That is 6 1.8 percent of the
respondents who had used the website had rated it as good, and 21.0 percent
rated it as excellent. Only 1.8 percent rated it as poor. The rating of excellent
was typically given because respondents found the site easy to navigate or
163
because it contained everything they needed.
Those respondents indicating that they had not accessed the web site gave, as
the most common reason for not accessing the site, that they had no need to
access the site.
FZeet Maintenance: The fleet availability benchmark was modified from
previous years for the completion of preventive maintenance from 48 hours to
24 hours. This resulted in an initial drop in the results for this measure from
97% to 70%. It is believed that service delivery will improve now that staff is
aware of the new 24-hour service standard. Additionally, knits available for
use” was a new component of this measure and reflected the percentage of time
a vehicle was ready and available for use. Units were available for use 98% of
the time.
Staff developed a cost efficiency measure to demonstrate fiscally responsible
use of funds allocated to fleet maintenance. This new measure reflects the
maintenance and repair costs for various types of vehicles within Fleet
Services. Costs were compared against partner cities. At this time, further
analysis needs to be conducted to determine a reasonable benchmark for these
comparisons.
The level of customer satisfaction improved from last year’s rating of 81% to
88%. The improvement in customer satisfaction can be attributed to various
programs implemented such as a communication plan, a mobile mechanic
program and revising the vehicle acquisition and maintenance policy.
FaciZities Matntenance: The Standards of Care Program is a new measure
this year. The program uses outside professionals, community representatives
and City employees to evaluate the condition of City facilities. This program
should be a good resource to determine new methodologies for improving the
condition of facilities and achieving the division’s strategic goal.
The department received a customer satisfaction rating of 83%, which is fairly
consistent with the ratings for the last two years. The response time for
medium priority work orders improved, while response time for low priority
work orders declined. Medium priority work orders focus on requests and/or
repairs for scheduled activities that do not impede staff’s ability to effectively
perform his/her duties.
The division’s cost per square foot is in the lowest one-quarter when compared
to the “best in class” agencies as reported by the International Facilities
164
Management Association (IFMA). While achieving the benchmark in this
category, it was noted that costs varied greatly among partner agencies and
additional opportunities may be identified through further research.
Management Goals: Although not analyzed in this report, the management
goals associated with this strategic goal are listed below to demonstrate
resources allocated to the achievement of this strategic goal. Management
goals that support this strategic goal for 2003-04 include:
Learning Management System
Leadership Team Achievement of MSA Goals
Performance Measurement - General Services
HR BPR-Benefits Training
DMS - GIS Linkage (DMS Phase 5)
Online Registration
Disaster Recovery Plan
Capital Outlay Projects
Energy / Fuel Conservation Program
Standards Of Care
Improve Inter And Intra Departmental Communications
Contracts Business Process Review
Maintenance Management System
Public Works Service Plan - Public Works
Performance Measurement - Fleet
Public Works Service Plan - Vehicle Maintenance
Public Works Service Plan - Sanitation Operations
Public Works Service Plan - General Services
Continuation of PW Maintenance Classification
RFA Processing Review - M & 0
Performance Maintenance - M & 0
Personnel Rules/ Municipal Code Changes
Records Management Program
Guidelines For Performance Sponsorship
Electronic Records Retention
RFA Resource And Refinement
Public Works Service Plan - Trees
Update Engineering Standards
Public Works Service Plan - Parks
Mall Master Meter
Public Works Service Plan - Construction / Maintenance
Public Works Service Plan - Streets
Citywide Customer Service Initiatives
Supplemental Provisions Updates
I_
Administrative Services
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY NETWORK OPEWILITY
THE OUTCOME
A functional, reliable, operating information technology network.
- THE MEASUREMENT
Amount of time required to return users to operational status. Problems are
divided into two categories.
- priority 1
0 Server down - affects whole site
0 Core system down - Permits plus, IFAS, OPAC, RFA, etc.
City-wide Internet access down
0 Telephones - remote site loses access - no voice and / or data
0 Critical failures of technology services regularly provided to the public at
City facilities
0 User down / locked out / no access
Printer issues - can’t print and no alternate print source is available
Hardware failure - monitor / keyboard/ etc. I
Login issues - forgotten passwords, etc.
Public terminal with Internet access
priority 2 -
c WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The measure is an indication of staffing levels, staff knowledge, and staff
initiative to ensure that calls are completed and resolved in both a timely and
effective manner.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Information Technology
BENCHMARK
90% of all priority 1 service calls resolved in 60 minutes
90% of all priority 2 service calls resolved in 180 minutes
RESULTS
/Benchmark I2001 I2002 12003 I I I I I
PRIORITY 1 190% 185% 180% 184%
~~~ ~ I PRIORITY 2 190% 195% 198% 198% 1
166
ANALYSIS
Analysis of the call volume by priority showed the following results:
Priority 1
Priority 2
I CALLS 12001 12002 12003 I
107 245 236
676 1249 1874
The data collected tracks the elapsed time from when the service call was
opened until the time the service call was resolved and the user returned to full
operational status.
_-
_-
The reason for the overall increase in Priority 2 call volume is due to the
following:
0 The City has continued to implement additional systems
A new help desk vendor (#7500) was retained. General City staff were re-
educated on the process and then encouraged to report all technology
issues to this new service for evaluation.
0 The Safety Services MSA embraced the help desk service, where in past
years their calls were made directly to Safety Services IT staff.
ACTION PLAN
On the priority 1 problems, our analysis and corrective action begins when the
problem arises. We first deal with the problem and resolve the issue as quickly
as possible. In the future we will perform post-mortem analysis on each issue
to determine if there are proactive measures available to prevent such problems
from occurring.
Also in the works is a plan to leverage the new help desk services system
(Remedy). The new system will provide the IT department with improved data
tracking, reporting, and diagnosis capabilities. The enhanced functionality will
help support the two-fold goal of reducing the number of priority 1 and priority
2 tickets, as well as increasing the opportunities for more effective and efficient
responses to these types of service requests.
167
Administrative Services
INFORMATION TECHNOLDGY COST
THE OUTCOME
Value of the Information Technology service.
THE MEASUREMENT
Cost of service per desktop computer.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Measures the fiscal responsibility compared to other agencies. The total cost of
services includes all maintenance and operations costs incurred by Central IT
for items such as: IT staff salary, professional services, hardware and software
maintenance, travel, communication charges and capital asset depreciation. It
also includes actual central IT expenditures for computer equipment /
hardware costing over $1000 per item. The desktop computers includes the
number of desktops supported by Central IT including those desktops
designated as public access computers (libraries, kiosks, etc.). Once this data
has been calculated, it can then be compared with other agencies also
providing Centralized IT services.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Information Technology
BENCHMARK
Annual cost of providing IT services per desktop will not exceed $7,556. This
benchmark was established using data from the 1999-00 baseline, year and
has been adjusted each year by the San Diego Consumer Price Index (4.75% in
2000, 5.73% in 2001, 2.95% in 2002 and 4.10% in 2003)
The total cost of services includes all maintenance and operations costs
incurred by Central IT for items such as: IT staff salary, professional services,
hardware and software maintenance, travel, communication charges and
capital asset depreciation. It also includes actual central IT expenditures for
computer equipment / hardware costing over $1000 per item. The desktop
computers includes the number of desktops supported by Central IT including
those desktops designated as public access computers (libraries, kiosks, etc.).
Once this data has been calculated, it can then be compared with other
agencies also providing Centralized IT services.
168
FISCAL YEAR 'EXPENDITURES # DESKTOPS $/DESKTOP BENCHMARK
1999-2000 $2,484,958 375 $6,627 $6,627
12001-2002 I $3,557,7391 7441 $4.8931
ANALYSIS
Fiscal year 2002 - 2003 cost per desktop of $4,774 is below the benchmark of
$7,556. Review of the data submitted by partner agencies has indicated a
possible discrepancy in the expenditure information reported. It is likely that
differing agency operating practices create potentially significant variations in
areas such as depreciation and capital expenditures. These variances in
centralized IT operations will impact the ranking and should be identified and
corrected by the survey group at large.
This year's measure continues to be below the benchmark. Reasons for this
include: the number of desktops grew whereas the number of IT staff has not
increased since the baseline year, and strategic alliances with technology
partners has allowed the service base to expand while incurring only minimal
increases in cost. Agencies with higher costs per desktop may provide a
different range of services, such as more on-line processing, print and other
media services, and inclusion of GIS costs.
169
ACTION PLAN
This is the first year for this measure. In the upcoming year, Carlsbad IT
Management will continue to leverage the relationships with partner IT
organizations involved with SANDAG. This group has expressed a keen
interest in the development and distribution of comparable benchmark data in
future fiscal years taking into account the differing operating practices. Our
goal is to distribute this year's data sampling back to the contributing agencies,
and continue the momentum that has been building over the last several
months.
Another opportunity is to determine the best way to clarify, format and collect
other cost data so that additional meaningful comparisons can be made. The
results of this effort may be incorporated into next year's measure.
170
_." ,
Administrative Services
YEAR
Benchmark
II\IFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICE & SATISFACTION
GOOD OR
EXCELLENT
+ 90%
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer service satisfaction and a high level of customer
confidence in Information Technology (IT) staff's skills, knowledge and abilities.
2001 - 2002
2002 - 2003
THE MEASUREMENT
Results of an anonymous citywide employee opinion survey.
96.20%
8 1 .OO%
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 good
or excellent (3 or better on a 1-4 scale)
Customer Confidence: 80% of all service requests will be resolved in one on-site
visit effort by IT staff
RESULTS
The following results were based on 637 surveys distributed via citywide email,
202 surveys completed, for a response percentage of 31.7%)
Overall Customer Satisfaction with IT Services:
171
SURVEY RESULTS BY
IT SERVICE AREA
Tetephone Services
Quality of Service
Timeliness of Service
Overall Satisfaction
Yo RESPONSES AT
GOOD OR EXCELLENT
78
76
77
Network Services
Quality of Service
Timeliness of Service
Overall Satisfaction
Application Services
Quality of Service
Timeliness of Service
Overall Satisfaction
Desktop Services
Quality of Service
Timeliness of Service
Overall Satisfaction
90
90
90
74
74
74
89
91
91
I 80% I 2002 - 2003 I 92.06% I
SURVEY RESULTS BY
IT SERVICE AREA
% RESPONSES AT
GOOD OR EXCELLENT
Help Desk Services
Timeliness of Service 84
Technology Training Services
Timeliness of Service 72
Overall Satisfaction 72
Quality of Service 79
- Overall Satisfaction 77
Quality of Service 73
ANALYSIS
This year reflects a different approach to gathering customer service
satisfaction data from City staff. In years past, a survey was delivered via email
to customers when their service request was completed. While this method was
effective for handling specific service concerns, due to the ticket/IT staffer
relationship, it was recommended by the Performance Measurement Team that
IT develop a more broad-based, anonymous customer service survey.
2001 - 2002
172
ON-SITE VISIT
92.88%
. --
The data reflects one full fiscal year for the Customer Service portion of the
measure and one half fiscal year (or six months) for the Customer Confidence
portion. It is important to note that Information Technology is measuring not
only our customer’s level of satisfaction with the Information Technology
Department, but also our customer’s level of satisfaction with our outsourced
help desk vendor (ACS). While the survey information is reviewed for overall
satisfaction levels by IT management twice annually, it is the help desk services
portion of the survey that comes under particular examination.
The help desk is the functional area of the department that interfaces with City
staff over the phone, but is generally the first contact if City staff requires
assistance with technology resources - - - it is the help desk that receives,
records, services and routes all requests for service by City staff. This group
handles upwards of 6,000 customer requests annually. Because of its level of
importance, should the help desk receive a low rating (below 90% good or
excellent), the help desk vendor’s service premiums are reduced. The reduction
of payment premium remains in effect until the appropriate customer service
rating is received (at least 90% good or excellent.)
Analysis of survey comments submitted by City staff highlighted concerns in
two areas: help desk and system slowness. Also noted was an expression of
appreciation for the efforts of IT staff. Both the positive and constructive
feedback will be gleaned and used as the foundation for continuous service
improvement in the coming fiscal year and beyond.
In order for IT staff to achieve the 80% in one visit confidence measure, work
effort must occur at a high competency and effectiveness level. The Customer
Confidence measure has the benchmark goal of resolving 80% of all IT service
calls effectively, to the requestor’s satisfaction, and requiring only one on-site
effort or contact by the IT staff member. The benchmark was achieved again
this year, while showing a negligible decrease of less than 1%.
ACTION PLAN
Change the survey format to exclude the option “Don’t Know.” A better
option would be to provide City staff with the selection choice of “Did Not
Use Service.” This selection choice should result in a more accurate user
satisfaction ratings.
0 Continue twice yearly monitoring of the results of the citywide opinion
survey.
0 With the implementation of the new survey format, staff comments
173
(anonymous) are readily available to IT Management. Overall trending
and patterns in the survey comments will provide IT with the ability to
respond and address areas of specific concern.
0 An on-line, web-based, user-inquiry tool will be made available to City
staff FY 03 - 04. This tool will allow City staff to view their current and
past IT service requests. The new progress inquiry functionality will
provide staff with the ability to gain status, priority and contact
information on their IT requests.
0 Develop an internal rewards and recognition program for IT staff who
achieve the desired confidence and customer satisfaction results.
174
Administrative Services
BENCHMARK
CARLSBAD
H"RES0VRCES - INJURED EWLOYEE TIME OFF
FY 2001-02 FY 2 002-03
5.5 6.0
3.6 7.5
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, the City can reduce workers' compensation expenditures; 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
an efficiency comparison to other agencies. This data is tracked and posted at
sites throughout the City per Cal OSHA requirements. This measure is part of
Human Resources Total Disability Management Program.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Human Resources, all City departments
BENCHMARK
An average of 6.0 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.
175
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
days lost per claim is 1.5 days more than the average for cities under 100,000
reporting to ICMA. Our average significantly increased by 3.9 days over last
year. Based upon our analysis, Fire Department employees were responsible
for 50% of Carlsbad’s lost working days in this reporting period. Public Works
and Police employees were responsible for 25% and 23% of lost days
respectively. Several severe injuries requiring long-term absences in fiscal year
2002/2003 caused the spike in days lost per claim. The Police Department
had a claim that accounted for 115 lost days, and the Fire Department had
long-term claims lasting 118 days, 80 days, and 65 days.
ACTION PLAN
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, the City is better equipped to monitor lost days of
work, identify trends, and make recommendations to management throughout
the City to reduce the number of days an employee is out of the workplace.
Human Resources has resumed the practice of distributing workers’
compensation loss data for the Leadership Team and other managers on a
scheduled basis to ensure this important subject receives attention.
Human Resources has been promoting early return to work options over the
last few years in an effort to reduce the number of days an employee is out of
the workplace. This program has been very successful, especially in the Fire
Department and Public Works. Other recommendations to decrease the losses
associated with injured employee time off may include: expansion of the Illness
and Injury Prevention Program (IIPP), which is currently active only in Public
Works, implementation of fitness programs to ensure that employees are
physically able to perform the functions of their jobs in a safe manner. We
would also like to look for opportunities to partner with other departments
such as Risk Management to look for other ways to prevent injuries before they
happen.
The City will continue to monitor this data and encourage the implementation
of programs to reduce the number of days an employee is out of the workplace.
176 -.
Administrative Services
*Total for ICMA benchmarking
Carlsbad gross turnover rate
Carlsbad ICMA comparable turnover
rate
Average Turnover rate for ICMA agencies
I
22 19 25
7.0%
3.8% 3.2% 3.9%
H"RES0URCES - ElldpLoYEE TURNOVER RATE
THE OUTCOME
Minimization of costs to the organization that result from employee turnover.
THE MEASUREMENT
The number of full-time, permanent employees who left the organization during
the reporting period, divided by the total number of employees.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Human Resources, all City departments
BENCHMARK
A turnover rate of less than 9.8%. This benchmark is based on the average
turnover rate for agencies with population under 100,000 reporting to ICMA for
fiscal year 2002/2003, and will be reviewed annually.
*The ICMA turnover figure includes only resignations and non-probationary
terminations.
ANALYSIS
This measure is an indicator of the effectiveness of employee recruiting and
selection, quality of the organizational environment, effectiveness of the
177
employer’s wage and benefit structure, and age demographics of an
organization’s employees.
The turnover rate for the City of Carlsbad continues to be about 4 percentage
points less than the ICMA average. The majority of our turnover was due to
resignations. Although they are not included in the ICMA turnover figure, it is
interesting to note that the City continues to see an increase in retirements.
This can be attributed to the aging of the workforce and enhanced City
employee retirement benefits. The City anticipates a continuing increase in the
number of retirements over the next two to three fiscal years.
ACTION PLAN
The Human Resources Department has started performing exit interviews on
key resignations. Human Resources will introduce a more formal exit interview
program for all positions to refine the collected turnover data. The
“resignation” reason may be expanded into several different categories such as
resignation in lieu of termination, resignation for promotion, resignation for
more money or resignation to move out of the area. This data will help narrow
the focus to allow the City to address the reasons employees leave.
The Human Resources Business Partners have been, and continue to work
with departments to ensure that the right employees are performing the right
jobs, and that employees are held accountable. A turnover rate of up to 8% is
considered “healthy,” and may in fact prove to be beneficial in enhancing
accountability in the organization. -
In addition, Human Resources is working on creating formulas to calculate
turnover cost and cost per hire to quantify the savings of low turnover to the
organization.
178
Administrative Services
HUIWNRESOURCES RECRUITMENT TLME
CARLSBAD
ICMA
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction and recruitment staff productivity.
FY2001/2002 FY2002/2003
43 days 41 days
43 davs 57 davs
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. The continuous recruitments for clerical and police
positions and executive recruitments performed by outside consultants are not
included in the calculation.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Human Resources, Hiring Departments Citywide
BENCHMARK
The average recruitment cycle time is 57 days or less. This is an existing
standard derived from the ICMA performance measurement survey for cities
with less than 100,OO population.
ANALYSIS
The cycle time for recruitments at the City of Carlsbad continues to be better
than the benchmark and has improved from FY 2001/2002 to FY 2002/2003.
Human Resources has implemented the use of an Employment Inventory
selection tool for many entry-level positions that has resulted in a faster turn-
around time. The results of the Human Resources Customer Satisfaction
Survey, last administered in March 2002, indicate that hiring managers are
very satisfied with the timeliness of the hiring process. Out of 126 managers
who responded to the question the average score for satisfaction with the
timeliness of the hiring process was 9.25 on a 0 to 10 scale with 10 being
completely satisfied.
By streamlining systems, using innovative selection tools and partnering with
customers to accomplish tasks, Human Resources is able to respond more
179
rapidly to customers’ requests for recruitments and reduce the turnaround
time to hire staff. Human Resources staff is also able to handle more
recruitments over the same time period, increasing staff productivity.
ACTION PLAN
The Human Resources Department is continuing to explore new methods of
employee selection as possible alternatives or additions to the traditional oral
board interview process. Using alternatives to the oral board process may
further expedite the recruitment and selection process. Human Resources is
refining the employee selection process to place less of an emphasis on
technical abilities and a greater emphasis on core competency related skills
and abilities. Human Resources is also creating a measurement method to
collect information on the “quality of hire” so we can continue to examine and
improve our employee selection services. We will continue to monitor the
recruitment cycle time and work with hiring departments to find the optimal
balance between effective advertising and testing/ selection periods, and
desirable recruitment cycle time.
180
Administrative Services
HUlWN RESOURCES COST
Expenditures
# of full-time employees
Expenditures per employee
THE OUTCOME
Provide Human Resources services in a cost effective manner.
$572,490 $408,096
625.25 642.75
$916 $635
THE MEASUREMENT
Human Resources annual operating expenditures per full-time employee.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The goals of the Human Resources Department are to build people capability,
build employee commitment and alignment, and build organizational capacity.
This cost efficiency measure can monitor the fiscally responsible use of funds
allocated to Human Resources to provide the services stated in our mission.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Human Resources
BENCHMAFW
The department is in the process of developing benchmarking partnerships
with other high performing agencies. Once new measures are established and
data is collected, the benchmark will be established.
RESULTS
ICARLSBAD I FY 20021 FY 20031
ANALYSIS
The decrease in spending from FY 2002 to FY 2003 was mainly in the area of
Miscellaneous Professional Services. The department spent considerably less
for compensation and benefits consulting services.
ACTION PLAN
The Human Resources Department 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 potentially identify opportunities to change business
practices to improve the efficiency of the organization.
181
Administrative Services
HUMAN RESOLlRCES SERVICE & SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
A high level of employee satisfaction with Human Resources services.
THE MEASUREMENT
A customer service survey was conducted in the Spring of 2002 by the Social
and Behavioral Institute at California State University, San Marcos. Most
respondents completed the survey through the Internet while field staff
completed a paper questionnaire. The survey asked City of Carlsbad employees
to assess the performance of the Human Resources Department in eight service
areas. Respondents answered questions on a zero to ten scale in each Human
Resources service area regarding satisfaction with the content and quality of
the services HR provides, how well Human Resources staff communicate with
employees and managers, and satisfaction with the Human Resources staff
that provide information.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The product of the survey is an evaluation of Human Resources services and
employee satisfaction. The goal of the survey was to produce practical
information for the Human Resources Department to use to improve service to
city employees. The summary data, along with further detailed data on the
eight survey areas, significant relationships between data areas, and
correlations, provide important information for the Human Resources
Department to use when prioritizing programs and resources, designing
communication pieces and identivying areas for continued process and service
improvements.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Human Resources, all City employees
BENCHMARK
90% of customers rate their experience with the Human Resources Department
as at least satisfied in all customer service categories.
182
I
I.-
--
I
RESULTS
ANALYSIS
The survey, administered in Spring 2002, yielded a return rate of 43% or 297
out of 683 distributed surveys. Overall, the mean satisfaction for Human
Resources services averaged a 7 on a 10-point scale. In the areas of benefit
administration, training and development, recruitment and staffing, and
employee information record keeping, satisfaction levels were rated very good
(nearly 8). In the areas of employer/employee relations, salary administration,
and classification/job design the mean satisfaction averaged slightly higher
than midpoint (6).
The services provided by Human Resources in the three lower rated areas of
employer/ employee relations, salary administration, and classification/job
design may, by the nature of the type of employee encounter, lend themselves
to lower satisfaction ratings. Employees often associate employer/ employee
relations with discipline. Additionally, the areas of salary administration, and
classification/ job design are both directly related to individual compensation.
A correlation between satisfaction with compensation and satisfaction with
other areas of Human Resources may have an effect on how employees rate
these other compensation related areas. Human Resources will focus our
efforts in these areas on educating employees about the services Human
Resources provides, processes and procedures, and provide employees with a
forum to voice their concerns and ask questions.
When the survey data was broken down by tenure, overall the longer the
service the more dissatisfied employees were with training and development,
recruitment, and salary administration. Those with more than ten years
tenure show the lowest satisfaction. Reasons for this finding may include
frustration with reaching a plateau in career growth and lack of employee
development programs that address more tenured employees. Human
183
Resources will integrate tenure into considerations for training and
development programs, and opportunities to prepare employees for
promotional opportunities.
Responses analyzed by MSA show that Community Development (7.3) and
Public Works (7.4) rated satisfaction with Training and Development the
lowest, while Administrative Services rated it the highest at (8.5). Differences
in the Training and Development ratings may indicate that Human Resources
has focused on training offerings for the administrative departments or that
Human Resources has not done a good job marketing training opportunities to
departments outside of Administrative Services. Human Resources will
promote Training and Development is various forms of communication and
Human Resources Business Partners will pay particular attention to MSAs who
reported lower satisfaction levels.
Additionally, the Community Services (5.3) and Public Works (5.4) MSAs gave
the lowest satisfaction ratings in the area of salary administration procedures
and policies, while Administrative Services gave the highest rating (7.2). An
explanation for the differences in these ratings may be inadequate
communication to employees in departments outside of Administrative
Services. Again, Human Resources will concentrate efforts on communication
and information delivery to departments on these topics
When survey results were analyzed for correlations, a strong relationship
between satisfaction with current compensation and satisfaction with different
sections of Human Resources services delivery emerged. The data can be
interpreted two ways. The more satisfied one is with current compensation,
the higher their satisfaction with Human Resources department services.
Conversely, one could state the inverse relationship, that lower satisfaction
with current compensation yields lower satisfaction with Human Resources
department services.
The end of the satisfaction survey gave employees an opportunity to address
specific concerns in nine open-ended questions. In general, employees liked
their jobs, their co-workers and supervisors, the work environment that the
City provides, including the reputation of Carlsbad and the value that they
make a difference in the community. Some specific improvements employees
would like to see are in the services provided by the Employee Assistance
Program vendor and the Workers’ Compensation Third Party Administrator, in
the flexibility of their work, better communications, creating opportunities for
career development, better accountability for management to support
employees and better opportunities for hourly employees.
184
--
I
I
ACTION PLAN
Based on the data that came out of the survey conducted in 2002, Human
Resources created an action plan. The plan consists of items that fall into the
following three areas: Employee Development Programs, Communication of HR
programs, and Process and Service Improvements.
One of the most visible initiatives Human Resources has devoted resources to,
as a result of survey findings, is Employee Development. The Employee
Development goal team implemented a training calendar, catalog, and program
that address both core competency training and personal and professional
development. Training has been selected and designed to address gender,
tenure, and a variety of levels to address the needs of multiple groups.
Additionally, Human Resources held an Education Fair and Career Day to
promote the City Tuition reimbursement program and offer resources for career
development.
The areas of Salary Administration, Classification/ Job Design and Training
and Development (in some MSAs) were identified as subjects that would benefit
from increased communication to City employees from Human Resources.
Human Resources has committed to promoting its services and programs
through the continued publishing of the Human Resources newsletter, rolling
out the “HR is in” mobile service, enhancing Human Resources information on
the intranet, developing a supervisors’ orientation program to provide
information on benefits, salary and HR administrative procedures, and the
development of brochures on HR topics. Also, Human Resources will continue
to partner with City groups such as the Strategic Change Team, Customer
Service Team and PAL to promote and educate employees about the services
provided by HR.
Lastly, the Human Resources Department has worked on process and service
improvements. The Employee Assistance Program (EAP) was identified in the
survey as an area where employees had considerable dissatisfaction. As a
result, Human Resources changed the EAP provider in 2003 to better meet the
needs of our employees. Human Resources is also investigating service
concerns regarding our Workers’ Compensation provider and the subject of
availability of Human Resources data and reports for department staff use.
185
I
Public Works
FACLUTmS SERVICE DELIVERY
THE OUTCOME
Well maintained and safe facilities
THE MEASUREMENT
By utilizing the newly implemented Standards of Care program, rate the
condition of city-owned buildings based on observation by community
representatives, City employees, and outside professionals.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The newly implemented Standards of Care program utilizes community
representatives, outside professionals, and city employees to rate the overall
quality of care a facility is receiving. Observers complete a rating form while
conducting an on-site evaluation, results are tabulated and an overall score is
obtained. By establishing an objective rating value for City-owned buildings,
the data from observers can be measured and compared to the established
benchmark and opportunities for improvement in procedures, policies and/ or
methods of operations can be explored.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
General Services / Facilities Maintenance
BENCHMARK
90% of the ratings are at or above 7 on a 10-point scale (1 being the lowest and
10 being the highest)
RESULTS
1 BENCHMARK I 2003
9 0%
ANALYSIS
This is a new measure that utilizes the Standards of Care program to obtain
feedback from outside observers on the condition of City Facilities. If the
condition of a facility is rated low, staff will investigate what caused the low
score, and take corrective action if appropriate. --
In the spring of 2003 a pilot program was implemented where community
representatives and outside professionals were asked to rate the quality of care
186
at various facilities by going on site with a rating sheet and responding to
questions specifically relating to different aspects of facilities maintenance.
The observers evaluated the condition of several high usage buildings within
the City, including the Faraday Center, Dove Library, City Hall and Stagecoach
Community Center. Overall, observers gave a favorable rating to the condition
of City buildings. Of note, Stagecoach Community Center received several
comments on items that needed correction such as no GFI outlets, non-current
permits for the fire sprinkler system, and interior maintenance such as drywall
repair, new paint, dirty air vents, etc.
Recently, to enhance the program, staff revised the process to avoid averages
and standardize the rating scale. The rating scale was changed to a 10-point
scale (1 being poor, 10 being excellent) to be consistent with other City
measures. In addition, City employees were added as observers to gain a
different perspective on how City buildings are maintained.
On October 27, 2003, a new review was conducted. Two teams of four visited a
total of five City-owned buildings. Teams consisted of community
representatives, city employees and outside professionals. The buildings that
were evaluated were Calavera Community Center, Dove Library, Stagecoach
Community Center, City Hall and Fire Station No. 2. Staff selected these
buildings to get an overall sample of the different types of facilities that are
maintained throughout the City.
A breakdown of the ratings for the five buildings that were evaluated follows:
The most recent evaluation, as reported above, resulted in an overall Facilities
rating of 89%. This fluctuated between locations from 78% at Fire Station No.
2 to 98% at Calavera Community Center. Facilities maintenance generally
scored lower than custodial services with an overall rating for facilities
maintenance at 86% versus 96% for custodial services. Also, differences
between the groups of evaluators were noted as City employees tended to be
187
tended to be more critical of the facilities than either community
representatives or outside professionals.
Although the Calavera Community Center received high marks, comments were
noted by observers on some repairs that needed to be performed at this facility
such as replacing boards on the fascia, and the exterior wood trim appeared to
be rotted or infested with termites. Similar age related repairs were noted at
Stagecoach Community Center such as repairing the cracked wall base tile in
both the men’s and women’s restrooms.
Dove Library is a very heavily used building with over 1 million visitors a year.
With this large volume, the overall rating of 85 could be considered good.
Some of the observations that were noted at Dove Library included burned out
lights, caulking around the sinks and toilets, and smudges on walls and
windows.
City Hall received generally high marks, but comments were noted on the maze
of wires in the council pressroom, as well as an overabundance of boxes and
charts in the conference room. In addition, the parking area was noted to be in
need of restriping of parking spaces and/or resurfacing of the lot.
Originally built by the Rancho Fire protection District, Fire Station No. 2 is one
of the oldest fire stations in the City. The City took ownership of the building
when La Costa was annexed in the early seventies. Approximately ten years
ago the building was reconfigured to accommodate additional sleeping
quarters. The observers made comments such as worn out carpet, dirty walls,
and a need for new paint.
ACTION PLAN
Analyze identified areas of concern and consider the submission of Capital
Improvement Projects during the 04-05 budget process. Areas to consider are:
0 Upgrades at Fire Station No. 2
0 Repairs at Stagecoach Community Center
0 Repairs at Calavera Community Center
0 Resurfacing/restriping of City Hall parking area.
The Public Works MSA has implemented its five-year service plan. One of the
focuses of this plan is to review current procedures to ensure that the work is
being accomplished in the most efficient manner possible. Through this
process, Facilities staff will identify and implement new methods of operations
to improve the condition of city buildings.
188
- .-
I
Staff will consider enlarging the groups or adding more teams to review the
same buildings in order to minimize the impact a single rater can have on the
results.
During the Standards of Care evaluations, a training program to educate the
observers on what types of things to look for in rating the facilities could be
beneficial. An instructional video is being considered as a training program
option.
189
Public Works
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE COST
Fiscal
Year
2000
THE OUTCOME
Facility cost efficiency
Total Square Cost per
Benchmark Expenditures Feet Square foot
$4.45 $1,833,587 41 1,607 $4.45
THE MEASUREMENT
Maintenance cost per square foot of building space.
2002
This measurement excludes capital expenditures. Building space is defined as
City-owned facilities that the City is obligated to maintain (utilized by city staff
or leased to private and/ or non-profit organizations to operate a business).
$4.92 $2,144,77 1 403,527 $5.32
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure demonstrates the fiscally responsible use of funds allocated to
facilities maintenance, and shows how resources are being used to achieve its
objectives.
2003 $6.57* $2,286,155
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
General Services / Facilities Maintenance
403,527 $5.66 ~
BENCHMARK
Maintenance cost per square foot will be in the 25" percentile (lowest %) when
compared to government institutions as reported by the International Facilities
Management Association (IFMA).
RESULTS
ANALYSIS
In FY 2000, the benchmark was established based on baseline data to serve as
a starting point to implement this new program. The benchmark was adjusted
in the proceeding years based on the annual San Diego Consumer Price Index
and a cost of living market salary adjustment.
190
The previous benchmarks are based on historical data. Public Works decided
to research and develop a new benchmark based on accepted industry
standards. This year the new benchmark is from the International Facilities
Management Association (IFMA), which is the industry standard used by
professionals to compare their level of performance.
IFMA is the largest and strongest community of facility management
professionals in the industry. The organization offers facility-related
information and services such as benchmarking, and best practices reports.
The industry standards by IFMA were established after evaluating 800
returned surveys from IFMA professional members in the U.S. and Canada. Of
the 800 returned surveys, 116 of the surveys were from federal, state and local
government institutions. The IFMA standard for cost per square foot is based
on custodial, utility and maintenance of a facility. Maintenance, which is
repair, preventive, materials, direct labor and contract costs, includes the
following characteristics:
External Building
Roof
Skin (siding, masonry, windows, doors)
Signage
Interior Systems
Electrical systems (primary and secondary systems, fire alarms,
emergency electrical systems, UPS, lighting systems, master locks,
security)
0 Mechanical systems (HVAC, chillers, boilers, plumbing, extinguishing
systems, refrigeration, and non process related pumps)
0 Building and general maintenance (walls, doors, ceilings, partitions,
interior finishes)
Signage
The division is achieving its benchmark when compared to IFMA standards.
One reason why the division's cost is less than IFMA standards could be due to
staffing levels. An IFMA full time equivdent standard to maintain up to
500,000 square feet of buildings is 11.50. IFMA standards include
management, building maintenance workers and clerical staff. It does not
include custodial staff. In contrast, the division has 8.6 full time equivalents
maintaining over 403,000 square feet of buildings. Another contributing factor
could be a large difference in the salary ranges between the different
government institutions and the division.
191
In addition to IFMA standards, staff has worked with our partner cities to
share benchmark data, discuss data consistency issues and different
maintenance standards/ procedures. The table below shows how our partner
agencies compare.
Agency
SD County City*
Chula Vista
Carlsbad
Escondido
IFMA
Expenses Total Square Feet Cost Per Square Foot
$596,627 245,000 $2.43
$1,744,694 477,3 13 $3.65
$2,286,155 403,527 $5.66
$2,475,100 42 1,57 1 $5.87
$6.57
The City owns approximately 52 buildings; some of these facilities were not
calculated in the total square footage because Facilities Maintenance is not
responsible for the interior maintenance of these buildings. In addition, the
Farmers Insurance building is not included in the calculation because this
building is not occupied and requires very minimal maintenance.
Last year, staff compared data with six different benchmarking cities. This
year staff reduced the number of benchmarking cities to three to allow staff
more time to analyze the data and meet with the agencies to obtain details on
their operations.
As part of the division’s benchmarking efforts, a template was distributed to
the three partner agencies to collect data. The data includes personnel
(salaries and benefits for managers, field crews and clerical support), and
supplies (including contract services). It excludes expenses for capital outlay
equipment and capital improvement projects.
After receiving the data staff met with representatives from the partner
agencies to discuss data integrity issues and different maintenance
standards/procedures. Staff learned that maintenance standards and
procedures were very similar to Carlsbad. All agencies predominantly perform
reactive type maintenance duties rather than preventive maintenance.
Although Chula Vista noted they do preventive maintenance on HVAC
equipment and that a lot of the custodial tasks would be more accurately
described as preventive maintenance.
The unidentified San Diego County city maintains 35 small buildings.
Custodial service for all of their buildings is performed by a contractor.
Carlsbad uses a combination of in-house custodians for the high use facilities
and a contractor for medium to low uses facilities. They use a combination of
192
_c
in-house staff and contractors to perform maintenance on city buildings.
Officials from the San Diego County city admit that even though they have the
lowest cost per square foot their facilities are not funded adequately and
therefore are in fair shape. In addition, this jurisdiction is planning to build a
new 60,000 square foot city hall and a new 10,000 square foot fire station,
which will increase their maintenance cost per square foot.
--
_.
- At Chula Vista, all of the maintenance is performed in-house with little support
from contractors. Chula Vista has twelve full time building maintenance
employees compared to four in Carlsbad. The City of Escondido is responsible
for maintaining nearly 100 city owned buildings. Some of these buildings are
leased to the private sector; however, Escondido is still responsible for
maintenance, which is why their maintenance cost is on the high end. None of
the agencies have distributed internal surveys to determine the level of
customer satisfaction.
ACTION PLAN
0 Conduct a research analysis into the industry standards to identify the
reasons why there is such a wide range in maintenance costs per square
foot.
0 Continue working with partner cities to learn more about the different
maintenance standards and/ or procedures. Ultimately, develop and
implement new tools to perform maintenance activities more efficiently.
0 Add two more benchmarking partners and explore further reasons for
differences with partners.
--
193
Public Works
FACIUTlES CUSTOMER SERVICE AND SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
Buildings/ offices that are safe, attractive and comfortable allowing employees
to conduct City business and provide services to the Community
THE MEASUREMENT
This measure uses a multi-method approach combining:
Internal Customer Service Suruey: Survey results to questions in an annual
survey of City employees that asks, “Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means
very poor and 5 means Excellent, how would you rate your level of satisfaction
with Facilities Maintenance performance?”
Work Order Response Time: The length of time it takes to complete work
orders.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Internal Customer Service Suruey: This measure is an indication of how well
expectations are met while providing services to ensure buildings/offices are a
safe and comfortable place to work.
-_
Work Order Response Time: This measure is an indication of how quickly
staff can respond to work orders ensuring the safety, attractiveness, and
comfort of the workspace.
Emergency work orders eliminate hazards, unsanitary conditions and reduce
liabilities (e.g. broken plumbing or electrical, trip hazards, etc.).
High Priority work orders are repairs and alterations so the City can conduct its
business and provide services to the community (e.g. audio visual equipment,
furniture and HVAC repairs).
Medium m’orify work orders are requests and/or repairs for scheduled
activities that do not impede staff‘s ability to effectively perform his/her duties
(e.g. hanging pictures on the wall, moving surplus, replacing doorstops, etc.).
Low Priority work orders are requests and/or repairs to improve the working
194
.-
Distributed Surveys
Returned Surveys
Return Ratio
environment of City staff (e.g. painting an office, changing furniture styles, etc).
2000 2001 2002 2003
127 450 270 270
75 72 156 123
59% 16% 58% 46%
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
General Services / Facilities Maintenance
Courtesy of staff
Competence of staff
Completeness of service
Helpfulness of staff
BENCHMARK
InternaZ Customer Service Survey: 90% of internal surveys returned indicate
the overall quality of service by Facilities Maintenance at Good or Excellent.
78% 100% 96% 96%
65% 93% 93% 86%
N/A 81% 80% 81%
N/A 88% 92% 92%
Work Order Response Time:
90% of Emergency work orders completed within 24 hours.
90% of High Priority work orders completed within 72 hours.
90% of Medium Priority work orders completed within 20 days.
90% of Low Priority work orders completed within 30 days
RESULTS
Internal Customer Service Surveu
/BENCHMARK/2000 12001* 12002 (2003 I I 9 0% I 65% I 85% I 81% 1 83% I * Survey instrument revised from baseline year
I YO Good or Excellent I2000 I2001 I2002 12003 I 1 Timeliness of service { 56% I 67% I 67% I 63Yo 1
Listed below are the results of additional survey questions.
Is your building/office a safe place to conduct City business and provide services
I Yes I 93% I 92% I
2% 4 yo
195
Is your building/office a comfortable place to conduct City business and provide
seruices to the Community? I I 2002 I 2003 I
No
N/A
I _- -_ ____
15% 18%
19% 16%
90% 85%
11%
YEAR
00-0 1
0 1-02
02-03
Are you satisfied with the procedures you must follow to obtain services from
BENCHMARK EMERGENCY PRIORITY PRIORITY PRIORITY
90% 100% 97% N/A N/A
90% 97% 97% 84% 82%
90% 97% 98% 92% 74%
Facilities Maintenance? I 2002 I 2003 I
Emergency
High Priority
I Yes I 66% I 66Yo
93 97% 42 9 7%
279 97% 307 98%
Medium
LOW
Work Order Response Time:
HIGH I MEDIUM I LOW
482 84% 482 92%
330 82% 290 74%
ANALYSIS
InternaZ Customer Service Surveg:
Overall, the department received a customer satisfaction rating of 83%, which
is fairly consistent with the ratings for the last two years. The category that
consistently receives a low rating is timeliness of service, which received a 63%
approval rating. This is the third year that this category has been rated in the
sixtieth percent range. The difficulty of completing low priority work orders, or
the set amount of time to complete said work orders could be playing a role to
unsatisfied customers. For instance, completing medium priority work orders
within 20 days may not be considered timeliness for some customers.
_-
e.-
’ ’<
.
.-
Work Order Response Time:
I PRIORITY I 2002 I Yo COMPLETED I 2003 I Yo COMPLETED I
I Total I 1.184 1 I 1.121 I I
-.
196
--
--
I
When the division receives a work order in the Computerized Maintenance
Management System (CMMS) staff will assign the priority level and the time to
complete said work order begins. When the work is complete, staff will log in
the time of completion in the CMMS and close the work order. The CMMS will
automatically calculate the time it took to complete the work order.
Emergency and high priority work orders continue to achieve the benchmark
due to the immediate attention these work orders receive. Medium priority
work orders improved from last years rating of 84% to 92%. Due to fewer
Emergency work orders, staff was able to reallocate existing resources to
complete medium priority work orders within the target level. Another
contributing factor to the improved performance was the guidelines the division
established that determined when to use in-house personnel vs. contractors. If
it is determined work orders require highly technical service, a contractor will
perform the work.
Low priority work orders decreased from last years rating of 82% to 74%. The
contributing factor for not achieving this benchmark is due to furniture reconfiguration requests from other departments. Completing this type of work
order generally takes longer than 30 days to complete because of design and
manufacturing requirements from the contractor.
ACTION PLAN
Develop a new survey distribution method by distributing surveys to
customers after their work order request is closed in the CMMS. In the last
three years the timeliness of service category has been rated in the 60s.
Staff will enhance the survey to test customer expectations relating to turn
around time and inquire why they are rating timeliness so low.
Staff will begin notifying customers of the expected length of time to
complete their work order requests. In addition, staff will enhance the
division’s communication plan so that customers are educated about
response time standards.
Staff will evaluate methods to improve the benchmark target for priority 3
and 4 work orders, and the feasibility of contracting services, hiring
additional staff or reallocating existing resources to help achieve the
outcome of this measure. Staff will generate ways to improve response
times and ultimately improve service.
Compare division standards with industry standards for completing work
orders. If plausible, revise standards for completing medium and low
priority work orders in fewer days.
197
_-
Public Works
FLEET AVi4LLABIL3ITY
THE OUTCOME
Fleet vehicle availability
THE MEASUREMENT
This measure uses a multi-modal approach combining:
0
0
Percent of preventive maintenance work orders completed within 24
hours.
Percentage of time City vehicles are ready and available for use.
Preventive Maintenance Work Orders Completed in 24 hours: When a vehicle is
delivered to the shop for repair, a work order is prepared and a start time is
recorded in the Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) .
When the maintenance work is done, the completion time is logged and entered
into the CMMS. Monthly reports are generated that show the length of time for
completion of each preventive maintenance service.
Units Available for Use: This measure can now be calculated by using the new
CMMS. By calculating the total time all vehicles are actually available versus
the total time vehicles are potentially available (on a 24-hour clock - 365 days
a year), the percentage of time a vehicle is ready and available for use can be
calculated.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Preventive Maintenance Work Orders Completed in 24 hours: This measure
indicates the responsiveness of the preventive maintenance program.
Units Available for Use: This component reflects the quality of the preventive
maintenance program as indicated by the availability of City vehicles.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
General Services / Fleet Maintenance
BENCHMARK
90% of scheduled preventive maintenance work orders are completed within 24
hours.
90% of fleet units are available.
198
BENCHMARK 2000f 2001* 2002* 2003
90% 84% 76% 97% 70%**
Percent of Units Available for Use: J - - - - - - - I BENCHMARK I 2000 I 2001 I 2002 I 2003 I
* Six months worth of data
ANALYSIS
Preventive Maintenance Work Orders Completed in 24 hours: After discussions
with Carlsbad partner cities, it was noted that most other agencies strive to
complete preventive maintenance work order within 24 hours. Additionally, last year we were able to reach the benchmark by completing 97% of all
preventive maintenance work orders within 48 hours. Based on this data, it
was decided to aim for a turnaround time of 24 hours, this decision created
many challenges. First, staff had operated during the entire year under the
assumption that the benchmark was 48 hours. Second, a new maintenance
management software system had been installed at mid-year and neither the
old system nor the new system was setup to summarize data based on a 24
hour completion period.
With these challenges in mind, staff was able to obtain information from the
new maintenance management software that allowed them to manually
calculate completion rates for the last six months. Based on this data, 70% of
all preventive maintenance work orders were completed within a 24 hour
period. This was accomplished in spite of the fact that staff had operated
under the goal of completing all work orders within 48 hours.
Units Available for Use: The current benchmark of 90% was surpassed as the
results of the percentage of units available and ready for use achieved a 98%
rating. As the current system generated results for all vehicles based on a 24
hour clock - 365 days a year, staff had concerns that the results could be
inflated as most non-emergency vehicles are not utilized 24 hours a day.
ACTION PLAN
Preventive Maintenance Work Orders Completed in 24 hours:
Obtain a full year of data on percentage of preventive maintenance work orders
completed within 24 hours. Obtain this data from five partner agencies to
199
Ensure the quality of preventive maintenance work remains high and is not
compromised as a result of the expectations of a quicker turnaround time.
Units Available for Use:
Enhance the percentage of unit's available component to differentiate between
types and class of vehicles. Research how different agencies calculate this data
and determine if there is an industry standard.
200
Public Works
FLEET iUI.EMNCE AND REPALR COST
Vehicle Class
Sedan
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
THE OUTCOME
Fleet maintenance cost efficiency.
Description Quantity in Fleet
Intermediate vehicle (ex: Ford Taurus)
Compact pick-up truck 22
110
% ton pick-up truck 23
3/4 ton Dick-uD truck 23
THE MEASUREMENT
Maintenance and repair cost per mile by type of vehicle. The cost per mile
includes labor, parts, outside repairs, fuel and oil. The data excludes accident
costs, and overhead (managers and clerical support).
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure demonstrates fiscally responsible use of funds allocated to fleet
maintenance, and shows how resources are being used to achieve its
objectives.
Description of types and quantities of vehicles used in this analysis:
I Class 4 I 1 ton Dick-uD truck I 29 I I Class 5 I Truck over 15,000 pounds I 28 I
c
The vehicles listed above do not comprise the entire fleet. Information was
gathered based on the classes mentioned above, Vehicles such as medic units,
Sports Utility Vehicles (SUV), vans, buses and motorcycles are excluded.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
Fleet Maintenance
BENCHMARK
To be determined; the division will continue working with partner cities to learn
more about cost efficiency standards in order to develop a benchmark that can
be used as a tool for improvement.
L
c
201
RESULTS
Agency
San Diego County City*
Carlsbad
Escondido
Chula Vista
I Vehicle Class I 2003 ]
Sedan Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5
$0.09 $0.14 $0.21 $0.27 $0.35 $1.20
$0.16 $0.10 $0.22 $0.35 $0.42 $1.65
$0.17 $0.14 $0.24 $0.31 $0.39 $1.53
$0.17 $0.22 $0.21 N/A** N/A** $1.02
1 Sedan I $0.16 I I Class I I $0.10 I I Class 2 lS0.22 I I Class 3 I $0.35 I
Class 4 1-1
ANALYSIS
This is the first year data has been collected and analyzed utilizing the
division’s new Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS). The
cost data includes labor, parts, outside repairs, fuel and oil. The data excludes
accident costs, and overhead (managers and clerical support). During this
review, it was noted that the rate used by the City for labor rates has not
recently been updated. This will need to be reviewed before next years results
are compiled.
As part of the division’s benchmarking efforts, a template was distributed to
Carlsbad partner cities to collect fleet maintenance & repair costs. The
template provided guidelines on what types of costs should be included and
what costs to exclude. After the initial data was gathered, follow up visits were
scheduled to review the submitted data and discuss service procedures,
organizational structure, and other pertinent information that could contribute
to variations in the reported data.
Carlsbad has the lowest maintenance and repair costs for compact trucks
(Class l), but the division has the highest cost for Class 5 vehicles. In
discussion with other cities, it was noted that Carlsbad in general has an older
fleet than our partner agencies. In particular, the average age for heavy-duty
202
vehicles maintained by the City of Carlsbad is eight years. In contrast, Chula
Vista has a relatively new fleet where the average age of heavy-duty vehicles is
two and a half years. Older fleets require more maintenance (e.g. brake
repairs, transmission overhaul, axle repairs, etc). Chula Vista technicians are
essentially only performing oil changes because the vehicles are still under
warranty. Another contributing factor to the high cost of repairs for heavy-duty
vehicles in the City is the cost of transporting these vehicles to vendors for
repairs. Many of the vendor shops are located outside the City and it takes two
technicians to deliver the vehicles.
To address the high cost of maintaining heavy-duty vehicles, the division
recently implemented a pilot mobile mechanic program as part of the mblic
Works Department Service Plan. The expectation of the program is to reduce
the downtime of heavy-duty vehicles and reduce costs by having repair work
completed at the fleet yard, Data from this pilot program will help staff
evaluate the cost effectiveness of implementing such a program on a regular
basis.
The City of Chula Vista has a dedicated mechanic to maintain police vehicles
and an0 ther dedicated mechanic responsible for maintaining fire apparatus. In
Carlsbad, emergency response vehicles receive top priority when they are
delivered to the shop and mechanics often have to be pulled away from other
jobs to work on these vehicles.
The unidentified San Diego County City has the lowest repair costs for sedans
primarily due to the fact that this jurisdiction does not have to maintain law
enforcement vehicles. The city contracts with the San Diego County Sheriff's
Department. In addition, the City's replacement program is seven years, and it
currently has a newer fleet with an average age of three years versus an
average of five years for Carlsbad.
The vehicle acquisition and maintenance policy for fleet services was recently
reviewed by a group of MSA representatives. Revisions to the policy included
lowering the target age for replacement of sedans, vans, compact pick up
trucks, and % ton trucks from ten to six years. Staff believes the revisions to
this policy will make a positive effect on the results of this measure.
ACTION PLAN
Review internal labor rates to determine if the current rate being used in
the system is still valid; document and revise as necessary.
Develop and implement new tools to perform maintenance activities more
efficiently.
203
--
0 Revise this measure to differentiate maintenance and repair costs of high
priority vehicles (police and fire) and other types of vehicles such as
SWs and vans that are not currently included.
0 Analyze data from the pilot mobile mechanic program and make
recommendations.
0 Research and report on alternative methods for delivering vehicles to
vendors.
0 Continue to research various replacement programs to determine at what
point the maintenance costs for older vehicles outweigh the cost of
replacement.
0 Add two more benchmarking partners including a private fleet manager,
and explore further reasons for differences with partners.
204
Public Works
BENCHMARK
90%
FLEET CUSTOMER SERVICE AND SATISFACTION
2000 2001" 2002 2003
7 1% 100% 81% 88%
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction
THE MEASUREMENT
City of Carlsbad Internal Customer Service Survey
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
This measure is an indication of how well fleet operations are maintained.
Surveys are distributed annually to City employees to evaluate fleets
performance. Customers were asked to rate their satisfaction with Fleet
Maintenance on a five point scale: l=Very Poor, 2=Poor, 3=Fair, +Good,
5=Excellent.
DEPARTMENT INVOLVED
General Services / Fleet Maintenance
BENCHMARK
90% of internal surveys returned indicate the overall quality of service by Fleet
Maintenance st good or excellent in all survey categories.
RESULTS
Distributed Surveys
Returned Surveys
Return Ratio
2001 2002
75 102 120
26 24 56
35% 24% 47%
2000 - 2003
120
43
36%
YO "Good " to "Excellent" 2000 200 1 2002 2003
Timeliness of service 62% 100% 79% 80%
Courtesy of staff 85% 96% 87% 9 6%
Competence of staff 73% 100% 91% 86%
Monthly Vehicle Cost Reports 92% 87% 88% 8 7%
Completeness of service N/A 9 1% 79% 80%
Helpfulness of staff N/A 100% 95% 93%
205
Listed below are the results of additional survey questions.
Are you satisfied with the quality of replacement units?
- 200 1 - 2002 2003
Yes 67% 52% 72%
No 4% 2 1% 12%
N/A 29% 27% 16%
Are you satisfied with the procedures you must follow to obtain services from
Fleet Maintenance?
2001 2002 2003
Yes 100% 86% 98%
No 0% 11% 0%
N/A 0% 3% 2 Yo
ANALYSIS
Last year staff began distributing surveys directly to customers assigned a City
vehicle. A follow up survey reminder was sent a few weeks later resulting in
more responses. There was an increase in satisfaction in the overall quality of
service from a rating last year of 81% to 88% this year. The increase in
satisfaction could be a result of implementing last year’s action plan. Staff
made an effort to improve communications between Fleet and the departments
by notifying employees, via e-mail or by phone, about the status of their
vehicles. In addition, as a result of the Public Works Service Plan, staff
developed and began disseminating a customer report card that identifies the
work that was performed on their vehicle and the reason why it may have
taken longer to complete. The report cards are placed on the rear view mirror
when the customer picks up his/her vehicle.
The recently implemented mobile mechanic program should also help improve
customer service and satisfaction. Less time will need to be spent shuttling
heavy-duty vehicles to repair centers, which will increase available mechanic
time to focus on standard vehicle repairs. This should reduce the downtime for
all types of vehicles, and limit the time a heavy-duty vehicle is away from the
shop and unavailable for an emergency situation.
ACTION PLAN
One of the on-going complaints staff receives from customers is the need for
loaner vehicles when vehicles are being repaired at vendors for a long period of
time. The action plan is to research initiating an open PO with a vehicle rental
agency as part of the division’s loaner program.
-
207 ..--
I.
In an effort to improve the return ratio and obtain more data, staff will begin
distributing surveys to customers after work orders are closed in the
Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) .
Add two more benchmarking partners and explore further reasons for
differences with partners.
-
I
208
Be a city that provides exceptional services on a daily basis.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Service Delivery
Measure:
Results: 82%
Travel time will be 5 minutes or less 90% of the time.
Measure:
Results: 77%
90% of all structure fires will be confined to the room of origin.
cost
Measure:
Results: $105
Net cost per capita will not exceed $113
Customer Satisfaction
Measure:
Results: 97%
95% of customers will rate Emergency Medical Services as good or
excellent in all customer service survey categories.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Service Delivery
Measure:
Results: 5.3 minutes
Average response time will be 5.6 minutes or less.
Measure:
Results:
Crime case clearance rate within top one-third of county
Achieved in 2 out of 3 categories
Measure:
Results: Day 88%; night 43%
At least 66% of respondents report feeling very safe during the day
and 35% during the night.
cost
Measure:
Results: $170
Cost per capita will not exceed $231
Customer Satisfaction
Measure: 90% of customers rate services as good or excellent; zero sustained
complaints
Results: 87%; zero sustained complaints
209
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
I Police ' Building Inspection
Safety Services
I Fire Growth I
nageynt
Overall
Fire Department: The Fire Department responds to over 6,600 annual
emergency calls for service, of which over 4,300 are for emergency medical aid.
The Fire Department achieved or exceeded the benchmarks in the cost and
customer service categories. The Department nearly achieved the benchmark
in the service delivery category regarding response travel time to calls within
five minutes 90% of the time, with an 82% achievement, and came close to
achieving the benchmark in the service delivery category regarding confining
structure fires to the room of origin 90% of the time, with an achievement rate
of 77%.
In FY 2002-03, the Fire Department achieved an 82% five (5) minute travel
time, nearly attaining the 90% five (5) minute travel time benchmark. These
statistics are impacted by population increases, call volume increases, new
housing locations and increases in traffic volume.
Fire confinement is the percentage of all structure fire incidents where flame
propagation is confined to room of origin. The benchmark is 90% of all
structure fires being confined to the room of origin. In FY 2002-03, the Fire
Department achieved a rating of 77% of all structure fires being confined to the
room of origin (10 out of 13 fires).
In the cost measure, the Department exceeded the benchmark by remaining
below the prior year benchmark adjusted for inflation. The FY 2002-03 Fire
Department cost per capita was $105, below the benchmark of $1 13.
In the Citywide survey, over 98% of responding residents rated overall fire
protection services as good or excellent. This perspective of customer service
excellence was also echoed by 97% of respondents to the Fire Department-
210
. .-
generated customer service survey who also rated the Department’s Emergency
Medical Services as good or excellent.
The City’s Growth Management Plan was designed to distribute emergency
response resources throughout the City in a manner that ensures effective and
efficient delivery of top quality emergency services to the community. The Fire
Department’s threshold is a maximum of 1,500 dwelling units existing outside
a five (5) minute travel time from the nearest fire station. Currently, all of the
City’s six (6) fire station response areas meet the Growth Management Plan
criteria. The Fire Department continues to monitor Growth Management
standard compliance as housing development projects are proposed within the
City.
Police Department: The police department met the benchmark for priority 1, 2
and 3 response times. Even with the benchmark met, further analysis
identified areas for future response time improvement. This will become
increasingly important as the city continues to grow and traffic congestion
continues. In addition, the implementation of the new computer-aided
dispatch system will likely cause a temporary increase in the dispatch time,
thereby adding to the total response time, until staff becomes thoroughly
familiar with the new system. The police department met the benchmark for
crime cases cleared in two out of three categories. Carlsbad was in the top
one-third of the county for overall crime and property crime case clearances
but did not meet the benchmark for violent crime case clearances.
Carlsbad continues to not only meet but exceed the benchmark with regard to
how safe citizens feel in their community. When asked in the public opinion
survey how safe they feel during the day, 88% of respondents reported feeling
very safe (9 or 10 on a 0-10 scale). This compared favorably to the ICMA
average of 66% for jurisdictions with less than 100,000 population. Similarly,
43% of Carlsbad respondents reporting feeling very safe at night compared to
the ICMA average of 35%. -
Carlsbad falls within the benchmark of the county average of $231 per capita
for the operating cost measure at $170 per capita. Even if the two largest
agencies in the county are excluded from the average, Carlsbad still is within
the benchmark.
-
-
With regard to customer service, the police department was close to the
benchmark of 90% with 87% of crime victims reporting good or excellent
service. This is consistent with the public opinion survey with 92% of
respondents rating the police department as good or excellent. With regard to
211
sustained citizen complaints, the department
sustained complaints.
Management Goals: Although not analyzed in
goals associated with this strategic goal are
resources allocated to the achievement of this
goals that support this strategic goal for 2003-04
1
met the benchmark of zero
this report, the management
listed below to demonstrate
strategic goal. Management
include:
Strategic Plan-Fire Department
Tactical Response Team Exercise
Library Security
Police Communications
Property and Evidence Manual
Police Complaint Process
CEMAT
New CAD System
EOC Operations Section Full-scale Exercise
Police Beat Realignment
Consolidated Fire Reference Manual
No. County JPA Records Management Integration
Fire Performance Standards
Fire Prevention Public Education Plan
Technical Rescue Program
212
-
Public Safety
THE OUTCOME
Maximization of positive outcomes in a medical, fire, or rescue emergency.
THE MEASUREMENT
Percentage of responses with a travel time of five (5) minutes or less.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
One of the critical factors in achieving a positive outcome in an emergency that
threatens life, property, or the environment is providing emergency services as
quickly as possible, Fire Department Operational Directive No. 5 states, ”The
Department’s response goal is to provide an engine company response within
five (5) minutes and an ambulance response within ten (10) minutes to ninety
percent (90%) of the emergency calls in the City.”
-
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Fire
BENCHMARK
Travel time on calls will be five (5) minutes or less ninety percent (90%) of the
time.
RESULTS I BENCHMARK 12001-02 12002-03
ANALYSIS
“Travel Time” is defined as the elapsed time between when the apparatus
begins traveling to the scene and its arrival on the scene. Travel time differs
from “Response Time” in that response time is the summation of the following
time intervals: 1) receipt of the 9 11 call; 2) dispatch; 3) personnel turn-out
time from dispatch to manned apparatus departure; and, 4) travel time to the
scene. Under the prior Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system, all of the
response time components could not be adequately measured. In FY 2003-04,
with the new CAD system and the data now available through the North
County District Joint Powers Authority (NCDJPA), the Fire Department can
begin tracking other response time components beyond travel time.
213
ACTION PLAN
The Fire Department continues to work on the following initiatives:
Develop a Strategic Plan to examine various staffing and station location
options in consideration of planned growth in the City, completion of the
City’s road network, and greater regional cooperation.
0 Continue to develop comparable reporting relationships with other San
Diego County fire agencies and other high performance fire agencies with
characteristics similar to Carlsbad.
214
Public Safety
FIRE CONFINEMENT
90%
Actual Number
THE OUTCOME
Minimization of property damage due to fire.
63% 77% 80% 77%
5 of 8 10 of 13 12 of 15 10 of 13
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
Ninety percent (90%) of all structure fires will be confined to room of origin.
This excludes structure fires extinguished prior to on-scene arrival.
RESULTS I BENCHMARK I 1999-00 1 2000-01 I 2001-02 I 2002-03 I
ANALYSIS
The number of structure fires within the City limits has not varied significantly
over the past three (3) years. In FY 2002-03, there were 90 structure fire
responses in the City, of those 34 were working structure fire responses. The
13 structure fires reported in this Fire Confinement Performance Measure were
significant fires and have been routinely analyzed to determine the source of
fire ignition, involvement of the structure at the time of on-scene arrival and
ability to confine the fire to room of origin based upon involvement of the
structure at the time of on-scene arrival. Achievement of the ninety percent
(90%) benchmark is largely dependent on the involvement of the structure at
the time the fire is reported. If, at dispatch, the fire has already spread beyond
the room of origin, the benchmark cannot be achieved relative to that
particular incident.
_-
I 215
FY 2002-03 Structure Fire Incidents
FY 2002/03 Structure Fires Confined to Room of Origin
Incident 02-3698
Incident 02-3986
Incident 02-4024
Incident 02-5965
Incident 02-6039
Incident 03-619
Incident 03-750
Incident 03- 1037
Incident 03- 1023
Incident 03- 165 1
Single family home.
Single family home.
Office.
Apartment building.
Single family home.
Single family home.
Single family home.
Single family home.
Vacant apartment unit.
Apartment unit.
FY 2002/03 Structure Fires Confined to Structure of Ongin
Incident 03-3 19
Incident 03-249 1 Restaurant.
Incident 03-927 Single family home.
ACTION PLAN
Performance Standards
The Fire Department continues to work with other North County fire agencies
in implementing performance standards and training evolutions for routine
fire-ground operations. These North County standards will help ensure that
Two-family duplex home.
City fire personnel
readiness standard
incidents.
Communication
At the close of this
and engine companies are maintaining an established
that ensures safe and responsive action at emergency
-
measurement period, the Fire Department will become a
member of the North County Dispatch Joint Powers Authority (NCDJPA). This
will improve the Fire Department’s ability to share regional resources across
incorporated boundaries and potentially result in faster response times under
certain conditions and areas of the City.
- Response Time
Two factors that contribute greatly to fire containment are the reporting of fire
in the incipient stage of the fire and an immediate response once the fire has
been reported. The Fire Department is exploring entering into a “Boundary
Drop” Agreement with the Encinitas Fire Department. This Agreement would
improve response times within the participating communities. The Fire
Department will also continue to make efforts to improve response times by
working towards additional Boundary Drop Agreements with other adjoining
Fire Departments. -
216 -
Public Safety
FIRE OPERATING COST EFFZCLENCY
THE OUTCOME
Efficient use and recovery of General Fund resources.
THE MEASUREMENT
Net operating cost per capita for Fire, Rescue and Emergency Medical Services
(EMS).
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The efficient use of City 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
Using FY 1999-00 as the base year and adjusting for inflation, the net cost per
capita should not exceed $100, The Consumer Price Index (CPI) for San Diego
County for FY 2002-03 was 4.1%, as reported by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. Applying the CPI to the $109.00 for FY 2001-02, the FY 2002-03
benchmark is $1 13.47.
RESULTS I FISCAL YEAR 1 BENCHMARK I CARLSBAD I
1999-00
2000-0 1
200 1-02
2002-03 $1 13 $105
The California Department of Finance reported that as of January 1, 2003, the
City of Carlsbad’s population was 90,300.
Actual FY 2002-03 Fire Department Expenditures: $1 1,046’90 1
Actual FY 2002-03 Fire Department Revenues: $ 1,609,052 Net Fire Department cost: $ 9,437,849
The net FY 2002-03 Fire Department per capita cost to provide fire services,
rescue services, emergency medical services, fire prevention services and
217
disaster preparedness and related services to City of Carlsbad residents,
businesses and visitors was $104.5 1.
(Expenditures $9,437,849/Population 90,300 = $104.5 1 per capita.
ANALYSIS
Given the nature of emergency services, Fire Department expenditures do not
directly follow incremental increases in population or development. Federal
and State emergency service level standards are applied to determine type,
location, staffing and deployment of emergency apparatus throughout the City
based upon population and development. Additionally, pursuant to the terms
of the City’s adopted Growth Management Plan, additional emergency service
level standards are applied to cover the City’s planned growth and development
within the City’s entire 42 square miles through planned build-out. As
increases in population and development occur, the cumulative impact of
growth can result in diminished emergency service levels.
In order to continuously achieve the proscribed Federal, State and local
emergency service levels, routine analysis and redeployment of emergency
apparatus and personnel occur to ensure the Department’s ability to meet all
required emergency service level standards. When these analyses reveal the
need for emergency service staffing level increases, these staffing increases
usually occur in multiples necessary to cover a 24-hour shift.
ACTION PLAN
The Fire Department also has developed a ten-year financial plan to assist the
Department in planning and managing resources in a more proactive manner.
This financial plan will be useful in managing the Department’s contingency
and reserve accounts over the longer term, given the significant financial
impact that can occur when positions need to be staffed on a 24-hour/365 day
basis.
In the coming year, the Fire Department also anticipates developing a
comprehensive strategic plan that will establish clear priorities and direction
for the Department as the City grows toward build-out. By anticipating future
growth, regional cooperation opportunities, and service level expectations,
associated financial requirements can be identified and carefully considered as
part of the decision making process.
In the coming year, the Fire Department also anticipates reviewing revenue
enhancement opportunities, including a comprehensive rate review for Basic
Life Support and Advanced Life Support Emergency Medical Services and
transport.
-_
-. .
218
Public Safety
FIRE CUSTolldER SERVICE AND SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction.
THE MEASUREMENT
A survey is mailed to a representative random sample of customers each month
after Emergency Medical Services (EMS) have been rendered. In Fiscal Year
2002-03, of the 631 mailed surveys, 309 surveys were completed and returned,
resulting in a return rate of 48.96%.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Highly satisfied customers are an indication that the Fire Department is
providing seicvices 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
Ninety-five percent (95%) of customers rate all EMS services as good or
excellent in all customer service survey categories, utilizing a rating scale of
1 =Very Poor, 2=Poor, 3=Fair, +Good, and 5=Excellent.
RESULTS
Although three (3) of the categories indicate a decrease in satisfaction, all areas
still remain above the ninety-five percent (95%) benchmark.
219
Survey
Question
FY 02-03
FY 01-02
FY 00-01
FY 99-00
ANALYSIS
The survey results continue to validate that the City’s dispatchers and
paramedics are providing excellent customer service. In FY 2002-03, as in
previous years, the vast majority of comments reflected a sincere appreciation
for the Fire Department’s assistance. A noted concern among survey
responding patients is the “bumpy ride” of Department ambulances. Six (6) out
of 26 survey recommendations were related to the “bumpy ride” of the
ambulance. Out of 309 survey respondents, in which only 26
recommendations for improvement were made, only six (6) recommendations
out of 309 survey respondents related to the ambulance ride.
911 Response Competence Courtesy of Transport
Dispatch time to scene of Paramedics Paramedics of patient
97.3% 99.3% 99.6% 99.3% 96.0%
99.2% 98.7% 99.0% 99.4% 97.1%
98.8% 97.9% 98.5% 98.9% 97.2%
97.9% 97.6% 97.1% 97.4% 95.6%
1. Bumpy Ride of Ambulance - Although new ambulances have been
placed into service, the “bumpy ride” is still a noted concern of survey
respondents. The Department will continue to monitor this issue.
2. Administrative - The Department has begun distributing survey data
results and verbatim comments on a quarterly, rather than annual basis,
to all fire and dispatch personnel. This will allow the Department to
more quickly identify and address trends, and provide feedback to
personnel in a timelier manner.
220
Public Safety
GROWTH MANAGEMENT - FIRE STATIONS
THE OUTCOME
Emergency response resources are distributed throughout the City in a manner
that ensures effective and efficient delivery of top quality services to the
community.
THE MEASUREMENT
The number of dwelling units outside a five (5) minute travel time from the
nearest fire station.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
It was the intent of the City’s Growth Management Plan (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
(5) minute “travel time” from a fire station to the emergency scene as a
reasonable means of locating fire station facilities throughout the community.
At the time the GMP was developed, scientific fire behavior information and
recognized best practices supported the position that a response time of five (5)
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 (5) 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 (5) 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 then current planned road network maps. This process enabled
the Fire Department to predict the need for six (6) 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 issue then became
timing future fire station installations. The threshold of 1,500 dwelling units
was adopted as the maximum number of dwellings that could exist outside a
five (5) minute response time, or a 2.5 road mile distance from the nearest fire
station. Hence, exceeding the 1,500-unit development threshold within a fire
station response area would halt further development until fire station facilities
were either relocated or added to achieve the required response time.
22 1
-. .
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
The Fire Department monitors this performance measure using data provided
by the Geographic Information System and the Planning Department regarding
growth in each LFMZ.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT STANDARD
No more than 1,500 dwelling units outside of a five (5) minute response time.
At the time of the development of the GMP, Response Time was intended to be
a measure of the time required to drive from the fire station to the scene of the
emergency. So, for the purposes of measuring adherence to the GMP fire
performance standard, the term “Response Time” should be understood to
mean “Travel Time.” -. .
RESULTS
None of the six (6) fire station response areas have experienced growth to the
extent that the 1,500-unit threshold has been exceeded. Four (4) fire stations
have been constructed at their permanent locations. Fire Station 3 (3701
Catalina Drive) and Station 6 (a temporary facility at 3131 Levante Street) will
be relocated as development occurs with the respective response areas. Fire
Station 3 will most likely need to be relocated farther east to coincide with
development in the northeastern section of the City. Fire Station 6 will need to
be relocated farther north to coincide with the housing development occurring
in the southeastern section of the City.
ANALYSIS
Because the GMP provides no other “trigger” mechanism for the installation of
additional fire stations, it follows that up to 1,500 dwelling units could exist
outside the five (5) 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 (6) (the current number of fire response areas),
9,000 dwellings could theoretically lie outside the five (5) minute limit. While
this would most certainly be unacceptable, it demonstrates the fact that the
five (5) minute response time measure was selected exclusively as a means of
logically positioning resources throughout the City. Therefore, the standard
should be applied as a means of measuring compliance with locating fire
facilities in accordance with the GMP, not the performance of the Fire
Department in meeting service responsibilities.
This analysis is upheld by the fact that the Department currently complies with
the GMP, but does not achieve the Fire Department’s performance goal of
arriving on scene to ninety percent (90%) of calls in five (5) minutes or less.
This is possible, due to the fact that although the travel time to a location
under ideal conditions is five (5) minutes or less, other factors such as out of
222
district responses, vague location descriptions, traffic and road conditions may
extend response times beyond five (5) minutes. These circumstances,
combined with the locations known to be outside the five minute travel time,
(in excess of 1,500 dwelling units spread among six (6) of the 25 LFMZs), result
in the Fire Department only arriving on scene in five (5) minutes or less eighty-
two percent (82%) of the time, as described in the Fire Department’s Response
Time Performance Measure,
ACTION PLAN
The Fire Department continues to monitor GMP standard compliance as
housing development projects are proposed in the City. This issue will also be
examined as a component of the Fire Department’s Strategic Plan, which is
anticipated to be completed in the corning year. In the interim, the
development of a permanent Fire Station 6 is proceeding and will coincide with
the completion of the Rancho Santa Fe realignment.
223
Public Safety
POUCE RESPONSIVENESS
THE OUTCOME
Minimize damage to life and property and increase probability of criminal
apprehension with a fast patrol response.
THE MEASUREMENT
All calls are assigned a priority. The determination of a call’s priority depends
on the severity of the crime and the time frarne 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, injury or
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 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
224
than one percent of the total police call volume, the response times for
priorities two and three are key to customer satisfaction.
CARLSBAD
BENCHMARK
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Police
CARLSBAD
2003
BENCHMARK
The FY 2002 ICMA mean average priority one response time for all jurisdictions
was 6.3 minutes (50 cities) and 5.6 minutes for cities under 100,000
population (38 cities). 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 calls other than priority one is an important customer
service measure, the police department is presenting both internal and ICMA
benchmarks.
Priority 1
Priority2
Priority3
# Calls
RESULTS
5.6 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.2 5.1 5.7 6.0 5.3
11.1 11.2 11.4 11.0 10.7 10.4 11.2 11.7 11.5 11.6
23.0 23.8 22.7 21.8 22.1 20.5 21.6 22.6 23.7 23.8
54,078 55,127 63.495 64.009 67,076 67,284 64,366 68,798 66,713 74,100
BENCHMARK
All Jurstictions
Priority 1 6.3 mins.
Priority 2
Priority 3
ICMA
BENCHMARK
Under 100.000
5.6 mins.
N/A
N/A
6.0 mins. I 5.3 mins.
15.0 mins. I 11.6 mins.
30.0 mins. I 23.8 mins.
The average response times for priorities 1 through 3 for 1994 through 2003
are as follows:
2003 Calls for Service by Priority
Priority 2
225
ANALYSIS
Even though response times for 2003 meet the benchmarks, trend data from
prior years suggest further analysis.
Between 1996 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 significant 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. As population and activity grew, it was projected
that we would first see an increase in average response times for priority two
and three calls, followed eventually by an increase in the average response time
to priority one calls.
Year 2001 and 2002 response times have supported this, and in part, 2003 has
as well. While the 2003 average priority one response time improved compared
to the previous year, the average response times for priorities two and three
continue to increase.
The total response time includes the time from the call being received to the
call being dispatched, and the time from the call being dispatched to an officer
arriving on scene. Even though the average priority one response time
decreased in 2003 compared to 2002, there as been an increase in the dispatch
time. For example, less priority one calls were dispatched in 2003 (30%) and
2002 (36%) in less than 30 seconds than in 2001 (46%). Instead, more were
dispatched in 30-90 seconds in 2003 (57%) and 2002 (52%) than in 2001
(46%). However, this increase in dispatch time was offset by a decrease in
travel time, resulting in a decreased overall priority one response time in 2003.
Priority two response time increased in 2003 compared to 2002 due to an
increase in calls in the three-to-nine minute dispatch time instead of the less-
than-three minute dispatch time. The improvements in travel time were not
enough to offset this increase in dispatch time.
It is likely that the increase in dispatch time is a result of the high amount of
turnover in the Communications Center in the past year. It is expected that
dispatching times increase while a communicator is in training.
ACTION PLAN
It is expected that dispatch times will decrease once current employees are
fully trained. This improvement however may be offset by an increase in
dispatch time as the new CAD system is installed and personnel learn the new
sys tern.
226
It is likely that priority two and three response times will continue to increase
as the community continues to develop. The best response time efforts may
result in simply maintaining response times at current levels. Staffing levels,
traffic circulation, beat realignment and patrol officer deployment practices
need to continue to be evaluated. Beat realignment is in progress and will be
complete with the installation of the new CAD system, and there may be
improvements in response time with the realignment.
The department will report response time in a call distribution format (ex: 95
percent of all priority one calls were responded to in six minutes or less) with
the implementation of the new CAD system. In addition, the automatic vehicle
locator (AVL) function of a new CAD system may help reduce response times by
making it easier to dispatch the closest available unit.
227
Public Safety
CRZ2ME CASES CLEARED
THE OUTCOME
Maximize the number of crimes solved.
THE MEASUREMENT
A case is considered cleared when at least one person is arrested, charged, and
turned over to court for prosecution, or the case is cleared exceptionally. A
case can be cleared exceptionally is there is cause to arrest the suspect but
there is some reason outside law enforcement that precludes arresting the
suspect. 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
228
crimes. The police department uses San Diego County data as clearance data
can vary greatly from state to state and even somewhat by county within
California. We are fairly confident in our local county data due to a shared
database that all agencies use and regular quality assurance audits that are
conducted.
BENCHMARK
OVERALL CRIME Top one-third
VIOLENT CRIME Top one-third
PROPERTY CRIME Top one-third
RESULTS
CARLSBAD 2002
Yes
No
Yes
RANK CITY
1 Lemon Grove
2 Poway
3 Santee
4 Carlsbad
Note: Individual city data is not yet available for 2003.
2002 OVERALL CRIME
CLEARANCE RATES
22%
22%
22%
19%
7
8
9
10
5 19%
La Mesa 19%
San Marcos 19%
Escondido 18%
National City 18%
11
12
Unincorporated/ Sheriffs 18%
San Dieeo 18%
13
15
16
17
18
19
14
229
Chula Vista 17%
Vista 17%
Oceanside 16%
Encinitas 16%
Coronado 10%
Solana Beach 10%
Del Mar 6%
Chula Vista
National City
14%
13%
Unincorporated
Encinitas
Oceanside
Imperial Beach
Solana Beach
Coronado
Del Mar
11%
11%
10%
9%
8 Yo
7%
3 yo
I 2002 PROPERTY CRIME 1
CLEARANCE RATES
17%
Carlsbad 16%
CLEARANCE RATES
CITY RATE
San Marcos 76%
Santee 75%
Unincorporated 67% I Lemon Grove I 16%1 I Santee I 16%1 k La Mesa 66%
Powav 61% I La Mesa I 15%1 I El Caion I 14%1
14% 1 I Escondido I 18 I
19 I I Vista I 12%l
San Marcos 11%
San Diego 11% I12 I
Coronado 52%
Del Mar
Carlsbad I 47%1
Oceanside I 47%1
CARLSBAD’S CLEARANCE RATES: 1993 - 2002
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Overallcrime 18% 11% 16% 21% 30% 24% 23% 23% 23% 19%
Violentcrime 39% 22% 43% 48% 52% 48% 45% 56% 60% 47%
hoPe*Crime 15% 9% 13% 18% 27% 22% 21% 19% 20% 16%
----
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 in the early 90s
and then climbed above the county average and has remained above the
county average since then. When looking at only violent crimes (homicide,
rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) Carlsbad’s clearance rate has
consistently been below the county average until recently. When looking at
230
ranked violent crime clearance rates, Carlsbad entered the top one-third in
2001 for the first time but then dropped back down below the top one-third in
2002. There are relatively few violent crimes in Carlsbad so the overall
clearance rate for the City is more influenced by the property crime clearance
rate.
Property crimes include burglary, larceny theft, and motor vehicle theft.
Carlsbad is generally at or above the county average, and is often well above
the county average for property crime clearances. When looking at ranked
property crime clearance rates, Carlsbad remains in the top one-third
countywide and was the top in the county in 2001 for the first time.
In general, clearance rates are higher for violent crimes since they are crimes
against persons and will usually have witnesses and suspect information. The
nature of property crimes leads toward lower clearance rates.
ACTION PLAN
An audit of violent and property crime cases resulted in changes and process
improvements implemented in the Investigations Division. This resulted in
improved clearance rates. To assure that clearances remain a valuable,
accurate measure, the department must remain committed to ongoing review
and improvement. In addition, the department will request that a countywide
data quality assurance audit be conducted by SANDAG as was done in 1994.
In addition, the communication between first responding patrol officers,
detectives, and evidence specialists needs to continue. This communication
has helped close many cases because of information gathered at the initial
crime scene. In addition, the department will continue to encourage patrol
officers to initiate investigations at the initial call. This is often the most
effective time as leads and information are fresh.
23 1
Public Safety
CARLSBAD
BENCHMARK
AVERAGE
COlMMuMTp PERCEPTION OF CRIME
2000 2001 2002 2003
86% 87% 87% 88%
62% 64% 67% 66%
9.5 9.6 9.6 9.5
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
Many factors influence citizens’ sense of safety in a community. Some of these
factors include the media, current events including high profile crime cases,
the age distribution in a community, neighborhood lighting, and personal
experiences. This measure may be less influenced by the police department
than any of the other police measures.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Police
BENCHMARK
The benchmark for community sense of safety is the ICMA “Citizen Rating of
Safety in Their Neighborhoods” for fiscal year 2002 for cities with a population
under 100,000. Although ICMA uses a four-category response (very unsafe,
somewhat safe, reasonably safe, and very safe), the City’s survey consultants
recommended using an 1 1-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?
232
How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood at night?
CARLSBAD
BENCHMARK
AVERAGE
2000 2001 2002 2003
4 1% 43% 39% 43%
3 1% 33% 37% 35%
7.5 7.6 7.6 7.8
ANALYSIS
Both Carlsbad's and the ICMA's average ratings have held fairly steady over the
past four years, with Carlsbad's ratings exceeding the ICMA average each year.
The ratings decrease expectantly for both Carlsbad and the ICMA average when
asked about safety during the night compared to the day.
Citizens' rating of safety may be influenced by a variety of factors such as
police visibility, media, current events, confidence in police service, lighting and
other physical aspects, personal experiences, and character of the
neighborhood.
ACTION PLAN
The department will continue programs that give citizens a strong feeling of
police presence such as bicycle patrol, and senior volunteer neighborhood
patrols, especially following residential burglaries. The department will develop
questions in next year's citywide survey to ascertain what the most important
factors are. This will help in the development of specific'actions to increase
citizens' sense of safety.
233
Public Safety
200 1-02 2002
Expenditures Population
Chula Vista $28,4 15,799 190,949
La Mesa $8,328,083 55,643
POLICE OPERATING COST
Per Capita
cost
$149
$150
THE OUTCOME
The efficient use of general fund resources.
Escondido
Carlsbad
THE MEASUREMENT
Operating cost per capita for police services.
$23,124,087 136,956 $169
$15,000,023 88,013 $170
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
The efficient use of financial resources allows the City to provide a higher level
of service, more public services, or a reduced cost of services to the taxpayer.
National City
Oceanside
El Cajon
Coronado
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Police
$10,299,39 1 58,107 $177
$18,104,108 96,530 $188
$5,296,178 25,939 $204
$30,290,843 167,240 $181
BENCHMARK
The operating cost per capita shall not exceed the San Diego County average.
San Diego
Sheriff-total
RESULTS
00-01 I 01-02 I
$273,8 14,364 1,255,742 $2 18
$237,859,4 13 805,380 $295
I I
BENCHMARK 1 $207 I $231
ICARLSBAD I $1881 $1701
I I
Average * * I '. $622,116,4901 . 2,689,5501 $23 1
234
Expenditures include salary and benefits, plus department services and
supplies. Capital expenditures are excluded.
For comparison purposes, the ICMA average per capital operating cost for
2001-02 was $201 for all jurisdictions and $166 for jurisdictions under
100,000 population. It is believed that San Diego County cities are a better
comparison due to the high cost of living and salaries found in Southern
California compared to other cities in the ICMA average.
ACTION PLAN
The police department must continue to carefully monitor its budget, seek out
alternative, non-general fund sources for funding such as grants, and
continually look for less costly options while maintaining service levels.
235
Public Safety
POLICE CUSTOII&ER SERVICE & SATISFACTION
THE OUTCOME
A high level of customer satisfaction.
THE MEASUREMENT
This measure uses a multi-method approach combining:
Survey results
Personnel complaints
The survey portion takes the results from the section of the police
department’s customer survey that relates to satisfaction with various police
services. The survey questions ask respondents to rate dispatch, patrol,
detectives, records, and administration. This customer satisfaction measure
has been in place for approximately 13 years.
The compZaints portion of the measure is the number of sustained formal
complaints made by citizens about police employees per 10,000 calls for
service. After investigation complaints are classified as sustained, non-
sustained, exonerated, or unfounded. A sustained complaint is one that
involves a citizen complaint of an incorrect action on the part of a police
employee that is upheld as an incorrect action. Using a ratio takes into account
increasing contacts as the population and size of the workforce increase. The
number of complaints by category has been measured for many years.
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Highly satisfied customers are an indication that we are providing services in a
manner that is desired and/or expected, contributing to greater confidence in
the police department and local government in general, resulting in high
quality of life for community members.
The sutvey portion of the measure reflects customer satisfaction among those
who have had a direct interaction with us through the filing of a crime report.
Over time, this measure can help us identify areas of strength and weakness,
as well as identify areas where changes in service level are occurring.
The compZaints 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.
236
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Police
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD 2003*
90% 87%
BENCHMARK
For the customer survey portion of the measure, 90% of customers rate police
services as good (4 on a 1-5 scale) or excellent in all customer service survey
categories, utilizing a rating scale of 1 =Unacceptable, 2=Poor, 3=Satisfactory,
+Good, and 5=Excellent. ICMA survey results report an average for all cities
of 81% good or excellent and 84% average for cities with a population of
100,000 or less.
BENCHMARK CARLSBAD 2003
0 0
The benchmark for the citizen compZaints portion of the measure is zero
sustained complaints per 10,000 calls for service - the lowest number on
record.
Administrative
Total
RESULTS
88% 87% 87% 85% 86%
8 7% 89% 86% 88% 87%
Yo RATING POLICE SERVICE AS GOOD OR EXCELLENT I 1999 I 2000 I 2601 I 2002 [2003* I
9 11 Dispatcher I 86% I 89% I 85% I 90% I 85% I
Uniformed Dersonnel I 94% I 94% I 93% I 90% I 91% I I I I I I
Detectives I 84% I 85% I 81% 1 86% I 80% 1
Records I 85% I 89% I 83% I 89% I 88% I
* Based on January - September data
SUSTAINED PERSONNEL COMPLAINTS PER 10,000 CALLS I 1996 1 1997 I 1998 1 1999 I 2000 I 2001 I 2002 120031 I 0.48 I 0.47 I 0 I 0.15 1 0.31 I 0.15 I 0.29 I 0 1
ANALYSIS
Traditionally, uniformed personnel have the highest customer service rating of
all the police service areas; they have consistently rated at 90% or higher. They
continue to meet the benchmark, however, their rating has decreased slightly
from previous years. There does not appear to be a trend in the other areas
measured. The detectives’ rating increased in 1998 with the implementation of
237
the victim follow-up program conducted by volunteers. In 2001, the detective
rating dropped, most likely due to a difficult transition period between
volunteers for the victim follow up program. In 2002, these duties were
transferred to a part-time employee and the ratings have again increased but
again dropped in 2003.
The total number of complaints filed each year, as well as the number of those
that are sustained, is a relatively small number. The rates per 10,000 calls for
service presented usually represent just a few sustained complaints per year
out of less than 20 total annual complaints. In 2003 we had no sustained
complaints out of a total of two. It is possible that training provided to
supervisors has helped proactively address citizen issues in the field before
they become complaints.
ACTION PLAN
It is recommended that the crime victim follow-up be carefully maintained, as
there was a direct relationship between the establishment of this program and
the increase in the investigations ratings. Decreases in detectives’ service
ratings have occurred when the program has faltered. Ideally, the program will
continue with a part-time employee making calls every day as this provides for
improved continuity. Every returned survey indicating any level of
dissatisfaction, and where there is identifylng information, will be followed up
with a personal phone call asking the citizen how we can improve. The
department will analyze problems and make corrections when appropriate.
With regard to citizen complaints, a review of the internal investigations policy
and procedure was completed in the previous year. An internal investigations
training was held for all supervisors in January 2002 and internal affairs were
centralized under one lieutenant on a trial basis. It is believed that the effective
handling of complaints can result in a higher level of customer satisfaction and
confidence and that an increased knowledge base yields better results. As a
result, the handling of the most time-consuming, complex citizen complaints
will be now be centralized with one sergeant on a permanent basis. Specialized
training will be provided to this sergeant and he will be able to serve as a
resource to others in the department.
238
-. .
-
.-
I 9 0% 92 Yo
Citywide
OVERALL CITIZEN SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES
96% 9 5% 96%
THE OUTCOME
High level of citizen satisfaction with the overall City services.
THE MEASUREMENT
Survey results to the question in the citywide survey, “HOW do you rate the
overall city services?”
WHAT THE DATA MEANS
Part of the City of Carlsbad’s mission is to provide top-quality services to all
those who live, work, and play in the City. This measure of how the citizens
rate their overall level of satisfaction with city services provides staff with a
better understanding of the overall effectiveness of city programs.
DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED
Citywide
BENCHMARK
90% of respondents rate their satisfaction with overall City services as “Good or
Excellent . ”
RESULTS
ANALYSIS
This is the fourth year that the City has asked its residents how they rate their
overall satisfaction with City services. The results from all four surveys show
significant positive ratings from the public at large. The consistency of the
rating is worth noting (mid 90’s %), and staff will continue to monitor the trend
of this measure.
Through evaluation, staff has determined that a positive correlation exists
between how respondents rate the City on land use, communication,
confidence in Local Government, and overall services that the City provides.
Staff will continue to explore this relationship to see how the City can positively
affect future results.
239
ACTION PLAN
Continue to monitor and evaluate the overall satisfaction of city services.
Evaluate other possibilities for determining general satisfaction levels with City
services.
240
APPENDIX 1: TIME LINE
PERFORMANCE MEASUl?.E~NT TIMELINE
January
February
March
May
June
July
September
November
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 preparation
241
APPENDIX 2: PROGRAM RISKS AND BENEFITS
BENEFITS AND RISKS OF PERFORMA MEASUREMENT
A performance measurement system can be used in a variety of ways, both
internally and externally.
Internal Use
a
a
a
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
Helps to create “the big picture” concept
Helps drive the strategic planning process
Helps define budget and planning priorities
Acts as the mechanism to build a culture of continuous improvement
External Use
a
Helps us “tell the story” to the public
Allows for more informed dialogue between the citizens and staff
Sets the stage for policy discussions
Promotes greater public trust and confidence
Shows accountability in a governmental system
Potential risks to implementing a performance measurement system include:
a
a
a
a
a
0
Employee fear regarding job security
Potential that performance measurement may be used as a negative
reinforcement tool
Could negatively impact morale if scores are low
May provide information that could be used for negative purposes
Data is subject to interpretation
Might be seen as additional work
“You get what you measure” - if the measures aren’t right, your
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 identify and work
towards delivering a high level of service. For the ongoing success of the
program, performance measurements should not be looked at as failure to
242
"measure up'', or used as an instrument of punishment. Instead, performance
measurement needs to be seen as another tool to evaluate services and
programs, making certain that they are in line with the organizations mission
and that they are delivered at acceptable levels set by the organization.
243
244
APPENDIX 3: PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY RESULTS
c
245
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report
Conducted for:
City of Carlsbad
Conducted by:
The Social and Behavioral Research Institute
January, 2004
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. Kilpahick, M.A.; Field Research Coordinator
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI
-- .
I-
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 1
-
.-
I_
I
DATA ....................................................................... 2
..
RESULTS .................................................................... 4
RespondentD~o~~cs .................................................. 4
CityServicesandFacilities .................................................. 8
City-Providedservices .............................................. 8
Citystreets ...................................................... 23
Maintenanceservices ............................................... 26
Contracted Services'. ................ ........................... 30
Landuse .............................................................. 40
ContactwiththeCityofC arlsbad ............................................ 42
Contact ......................................................... 42
Citywebsite ..................................................... 45
CityFdties ..................................................... 51
Libraries ................................................... 51
Cityparks ................................................. 55
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI
Openspaces ............................................... 57
Civic Center Complex ....................................... -66
City~o~on ......................................................... 69
InformationResoms .............................................. 69
Rating of Modon Dispersal ....................................... .77
Evaluation of City Govemment ............................................. .8 1
ResidentBehaviorsandAttitudes ............................................ 89
Recycling ........................................................ 89
StormWaterPollution .............................................. 93
Waterconservation ................................................ 99
FeelingsofSafety ................................................. 102
CityFeatures .......................................................... 105
Best Liked Features of Carlsbad ..................................... 106
Biggest Concerns Regarding Carlsbad ................................. 108
Improving the Quahty of Life in Carlsbad ............................... 1 1 0
SUMMARY ..............
APPENDIXA. ... ....
........................... 111
............................................ 113
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion 2003 Survey Report
INTRODUCTION
A public opinion survey of residents in the City of Carlsbad was conducted in the Fall of 2003.
This report sutlzmarizes the re-sults of this telephone survey. The survey was conducted for the City of
Carlsbad by the Social and Behavioral Research Institute at California State University San Marcos.
The survey addressed the attitudes of city residents concerning city-provided services, facilities,
and issues, and included a number of demographic questions. The report contains a description of the
data and an elaboration of the results of the survey.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 1
DATA
The idormation in this report is based on 1,007 telephone interviews conducted with adult
residents in the City of Carlsbad Respondent household telephone numbers were selected for contact
using randomdigitdial methodology. Using this methodology, all listed and unhted residential
telephone numbers within a geographic bounda~~ have an equal chance for inclusion in the sample. The
interviews were conducted with respondent households hm two regions in the City of Carlsbad: North
and South. The North Region included residents in the 92008 zip code, and the South Region included
residents in the 92009 zip code. Approximately 500 interviews were conducted per region. These
data were combined with data from surveys conducted in 2000,2001, and 2002.
This questionnaire used for this study is similar to surveys conducted by the SBFU for the City
of Carlsbad in the previous three years. The questionnak was designed by SBRI in consultation with
City of Carlsbad sM. Within the body of the report, comparisons are made between results for these
years. The interview questions can be found in Appendix A.
All interviews were conducted by paid SBRI staff members using the SBRI’s state-of-the-art
Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system, under the supervision of SBRI’s
professional staE Interviewers participate in a general, three-day training program when hired.
Additionally, a three to four hour training session was conducted at the outset of this project. During
the training session, the interviewers read through the questionnaire, conducted practice interviews, and
participated in a debriefing to resolve questions that arose during the training session. SBRI’s
supervisory staff employs a silent monitoring system to listen to interviews real-time for @ty control
purposes.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 2
Interviewing for this study was conducted between August Is' and September 4'h, 2003, on-
site at the SBRI office in the San Marcos civic center. Scheduling of the interviewing sessions was
arranged to insure that a representative sample of Carlsbad households were contacted. Up to 15 call
attempts were made to telephone numbers before retiring the numbers. The large number of call
attempts were made in order to allow Carlsbad residents with busy schedules and lifestyles to have
enough opportunities to participate in the survey.
SBRI interviewers made 59,349 telephone calls during the course of the study, with an average
completed interview length of 22.45 minutes. The response rate for the survey was 48.62 percent.
This response rate was calculated using methodology supported by the Council of American Survey
Research Organizations (CASRO) and the American Association of Public Opinion Researchers
(MOR). The formula used was CASRO response rate formula RR4.
The results presented in this report are based on a sample of Carlsbad residents, and as such
should be viewed as an estimate of the opinions of Carlsbad residents. The margin of error for this
sample survey is +A3 percent. SBRI conducted statistical analysis for this report using standard
appropriate statistical procedures and measures, reporting Statistically sigdicant results at the 95%-
confidence level. Documentation of the Statistical tests employed by SBRI are archived and available
for client raiew.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 3
RESULTS
Resuondent Demomau - hics
This section provides a desa&on of the Carlsbad residents surveyed this year (2003). These
findings m very consistent with the demogmphics in the previous years of the study. The data come
fiom interviews with 504 residents in the North and 503 residents in the South region of Carlsbad.
As is typical with telephone surveys and the previous Carlsbad public opinion surveys, 40.7
percent of those responding were male and 59.3 percent were female. These respondents had lived in
Carlsbad an average of 10.72 years, and averaged 49.57 years of age, ranging hm 18 to 95 years
old. Table 1 shows the distribution of the dethnicity of the respondents for 200 1 through 2003.
’The “Valid Percent” in the table represents the percent of the valid responses, as opposed to the “Percent”
which refers to the percent of the total sample.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI ~
4
Table 1: Race/Ethnicity of Respondent.
Cumulative
YEAR Ycar of study Fnsucncy P-t Valid Percent Pmt
2 2001 Valid 1 White/Caucasian 80 1 79.3 85.4 85.4
2 AfricanAmaicanorBlack IO 1 .o 1.1 86.5
3 Asian 51 5.0 5.4 91.9
_-.-
I
4 heticanIndian, Aleus
Eskimo
5 HispanicorLatino
6other
Total
Missing System
8 Don'tKnow
9 Refused
Total
Total
9 .9 1 .o 92.9
60 5.9 6.4 99.3
7 .7 .7 100.0
938 92.9 100.0
35 3.5
4 .4
33 3.3
72 7.1
1010 100.0
3 2002 Valid I WhitdCaucasian 842 82.6 85.9 85.9
2 African haican or Black 6 .6 .6 86.5
3 Asian 45 4.4 4.6 91.1
12 1.2 1.2 92.3 4 AmeticanIndian,Aleut,
Eskimo
5 HispanicorLatino
6 Other
Total
Missing 8 Don't Know
9 Refused
Total
Total
55 5.4 5.6 98.0
20 2.0 2.0 100.0
980 96.2 100.0
3 .3
36 3.5
39 3.8
1019 100.0
4 2003 Valid I White/Caucasian 825 81.9 84.8 84.8
2 African American or Black 7 .7 .7 85.5
3 Asian 24 2.4 2.5 88.0
4 American Indian, Aleut,
Eskimo
5 Hispanic or Latino
6 Other
Total
Missing 8 Don't Know
9 Re!imi
Total
4 .4 .4
49 4.9 5.0
64 6.4 6.6
973 96.6 100.0
3 .3
31 3.1
34 3.4
Total 1007 100.0
88.4
93.4
100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRT 5
Table 2 cllsplays the annual household income of the respondents. The table shows that over
half (55.1 %) of the respondents in 2003 had total household incomes of more than $75,000. The table
also shows that income distribution in 2003 looks very much like the income distriiution in previous
years.
Table 2: Total Income Previous Year Before Taxes.
Valid Cumulative Year of
study Frequency Percent Percent Percent
I 2000 Valid 1 UnderS25.000 60 6.0 6.0 6.0
2 $25,000 to Under $35,000 73 7.3 7.3 13.3
3 $35,000 to Under $50,000 127 12.7 12.7 26.0
4 $50,000 to Under $75,000 165 16.5 16.5 42.5
5 $75,000 to Under $100,000 188 18.8 18.8 61.2
6 $100,000 to Under $125,000 96 9.6 9.6 70.8
7 $125,000 to Under $150,000 149 14.9 14.9 85.7
8 $150,000 to Under $200,000 27 2.7 2.7 88.4
9 $200,000 and Above 116 11.6 11.6 100.0
Total 1001 100.0 100.0
I
--
2 2001 Valid 1 Under$25,000
2 $25,000 to Under $35,000
3 $35,000 to Under $50,000
4 $50,000 to Under $75,000
5 $75,000 to Under $100,000
6 $100,000 to Under $125,000
7 $125,000 to Under $150,000
8 $150,000 to Under $200,000
9 $200,000 and Above
Total
41
69
119
201
167
118
167
21
107
1010
4.1 4.1
6.8 6.8
11.8 11.8
19.9 19.9
16.5 16.5
11.7 11.7
16.5 16.5
2.1 2.1
10.6 10.6
100.0 100.0
4.1
10.9
22.7
42.6
59.1
70.8
87.3
89.4
100.0
City of Calsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBFU 6
J. -
I-
C
Table 2 continued from previous page.
Year of
~~
Valid Cumulative
study Frequency Percent Percent Percent
3 2002 Valid 1 UnderS25.000 50 4.9 5.7 5.7
2 $25,000 to Under $35,000
3 $35,000 to Under $50,000
4 $50,000 to Under $75,000
5 $75,000 to Under $100,000
6 $100,000 to Under $125,000
7 $125,000 to Under $150,000
8 $ 150,000 to Under $200,000
9 $200,000 and Above
Total
Missing 98 Don't Know
50
115
181
166
131
72
54
59
4.9
11.3
17.8
16.3
12.9
7.1
5.3
5.8
5.7
13.1
20.6
18.9
14.9
8.2
6.2
6.7
878 86.2 100.0
12 1.2
99 Refused 128 12.6
System
Total
Total
1 .I
141 13.8
1019 100.0
11.4
24.5
45.1
64.0
78.9
87.1
93.3
100.0
4 2003 Valid 1 Under$25,000
2 $25,000 to Under $35,000
3 $35,000 to Under $50,000
4 $50,000 to Under $75,000
5 $75,000 to Under $100,000
6 $100,000 to Under $125,000
7 $125,000 to Under $150,000
8 $150,000 to Under $200,000
9 $200,000 and Above
Total
Missing 98 Don't Know
99 Refused
Total
Total
49
63
107
175
152
132
68
63
68
877
19
111
130
1007
4.9 5.6
6.3 7.2
10.6 12.2
17.4 20.0
15.1 17.3
13.1 15.1
6.8 7.8
6.3 7.2
6.8 7.8
87.1 100.0
1.9
11.0
12.9
100.0
5.6
12.8
25.0
44.9
62.3
77.3
85.1
92.2
100 .o
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBFU 7
In 2003,77.2 percent Carlsbad residents owned their home, and 22.8 percent said they were
renting. These percentages are very consistent with previous years. Also similar to previous years,
there was an average of 2.60 people in the households, and 35.5 percent of the households had at least
on child. Of those households with chddren, there was an average of 1.78 children in the household,
and in all households there was an average of 0.63 children.
Citv Sem 'ces and Fachba .. .
City-Provided Services
Residents gave their opinions about the services provided by or through the City of Carlsbad.
Each respondent was asked how they would rate (hm poor to excellent) a number of city-provided
services. As the following tables show, all of the city-provided services addressed in the survey were
rated as good or excellent by most people, and have been consistently positive over the four years of
the surveys.
Table 3 displays the ratings of the recreation pmgmns by year of administration. This table
shows that the ratings are favorable, with 88.6 percent of the respondents offering a good or excellent
rating. The table also demonstrata that thm has been no sigmficant change during the three years of
this study.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 8
e-
-
-
Table 3: Recreational Programs Rating by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
1 2000 2 2001 3 2002 4 2003 Total
QSERVI 1 Poor Count 15 11 11 16 53
% within YEAR 1.8% 1.3% 1.3% 1.8% 1.5% Recreational
Programs Rating 2 Fair Count 81 73 86 83 323
% within YEAR 9.6% 8.5% 9.8% 9.5% 9.4%
3 Good Count 468 495 463 453 1879
% within YEAR 55.3% 57.8% 52.7% 5 I .9% 54.4%
4 Excellent Count 282 278 318 320 1198
% within YEAR 33.3% 32.4% 36.2% 36.7% 34.7%
Total
~ Count 846 857 878 872 3453
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % within YEAR 100.0% 100.0%
Table 4 shows the library services ratings. The table shows that almost two-thirds (64.4%) of
the respondents rate the library services as excellent. These ratings have not chged significantly hm
2000.
Table 4: Library Services Rating by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
1 2000 2 2001 3 2002 4 2003 Total
QSERVZ 1 Poor Count 6 7 2 7 22
Rating 2 Fair count 31 31 38 22 122
YO within YEAR .6% .8% .2Yo .8% .6% Library
Services
%within YEAR 3.3% 3.3% 4.0% 2.4% 3.3%
3 Good Count 335 317 34 1 30 I 1294
YO within YEAR 36.1% 34.1% 35.9% 32.5% 34.7%
4 Excellent Count 556 575 568 596 2295
YO within YEAR 59.9% 61.8% 59.9% 64.4% 6 1.5%
Total Count 928 930 949 926 3733
%within YEAR 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
~_____
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 9
The fire protection services received very good ratings. Over haK(56.7%) of the respondents
in 2003 rated the fire protection services as excellent, and 98.3 percent rated fire protection services as
good or excellent. This is seen in Table 5, which shows an interesting pattern; the distribution of ratings
of fire protection seMces were higher in 2001 and 2003 than they were in 2000 or 2002.
Table 5: Fire Protection Services Rating by Year.
~~
YEAR Year of study
12000 2 2001 3 2002 4 2003 Total
QSFXV3 Fire 1 Poor count 7 5 4 1 17
%withinYEAR .8% .6% .5% .I% .5% Protection
Services Rating
2 Fair count 26 17 12 13 68
% within YEAR 3.1% 2.1% 1.5% 1.6% 2.1%
3 Good Count 395 337 395 344 1471
% within YEAR 47.4% 41.3% 48.2% 41.6% 44.6%
4 Excellent count 405 456 409 469 1739
%withinYEAR 48.6% 56.00h 49.9?? 56.7% 52.8%
Total count 833 815 820 827 3295
%withinYEAR 1 00.Wh 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
.- .
..
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 10
The opinion of fire protection services varied by geographic region in 2003. This is shown in
Table 6. Residents in the North Region of Carlsbad were more positive about fire protection services
than were those in the south.
Table 6: Fire Protection Services Rating by Region.
REGION2 Location of
Residence in Carlsbad
1 North 2 south Total
~ QSERV3 Fire 1 Poor count 1
YO within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad
Protection
Services Rating .2%
1
.I%
2 Fair count 8 5 13
1.3% 1.6% % within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 1.9%
3 Good count 151 193 344
% within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 35.4% 48.3% 41.6%
- ~~~~ 4 Excellent Count 267 202 469
62.5% 50.5% 56.7% % within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad
Total count 427 400 827
% within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
~~~~ City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 11
Police service ratings followed a pattern similar to that of fk protection services. That is, the
ratings were higher in 2001 and 2003 than they were in 2000 or 2002. This is seen in Table 7. As
with the fire protection services, over 90 percent of the respondents rated these services as good or
excellent.
Table 7: Police Services Rating by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
1 2000 2 2001 3 2002 4 2003 Total
QSERV4 1 Poor Count 24 16 15 14 69
% within YEAR 2.6% 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.9% Police
Services Rating Fair Count 64 45 66 57 232
YO within YEAR 7.0% 4.8% 7.0% 6.1% 6.2%
3 Good Count 445 408 470 412 1735
% within YEAR 48.7% 43.7% 50.1% 44.3% 46.7%
4 Excellent Count 380 465 388 448 1681
% within YEAR 41.6% 49.8% 41.3% 48.1% 45.2%
Total Count 913 934 93 9 93 1 3717
% within YEAR 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 12
r-
Police services mtings, while high in both ~gions, did differ across the two regions. Table 8
rev& that more people in the North Region rated police services as excellent than did residents in the
south, However, more people in the South Region (94.1%) rated police services as good or excellent
than did people in the north (90.8%).
Table 8: Police Services Rating by Region.
REGION2 Location of
Residence in Carlsbad
1 North 2 South Total
QSERV4 1 Poor Count 9 5 14
% within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad
Police
Services
Ratine
1.9% 1.1% 1.5%
a - ...~..~
2 Fair Count 35 22 57
% within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 1.3% 4.9% 6.1%
3 Good Count 188 224 412
% within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 39.2% 49.6% 44.3%
4 Excellent Count 241 20 1 448
YO within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 5 1.6% 44.5% 48.1%
Total Count 419 452 93 1
% within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 13
The edoment of traffic regulations was also rated by Carlsbad residents. The ratings of
traffic regulations &orcement were typically rated as good or excellent. This is shown in Table 9. The
pattern of ratings were highest in 2001 and 2003, as was the case with fire protection services and
police services.
Table 9: TrafEc Enforcement Rating by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
1 2000 2 2001 3 2002 4 2003 Total
QSERV5 1 Poor Count 123 74 69 58 324
% within YEAR 12.9% 8.2% 7.5% 7.5% 9.1% Traffic
Enforcement Rating 2 Fair Count 205 160 192 145 702
%within YEAR 21.5% 17.6% 20.9% 18.7% , 19.7%
3 Good Count 492 494 504 420 1910
%within YEAR 5 I .5% 54.5% 54.8% 54.1% 53.7%
Total Count 955 907 920 777 3559
%within YEAR 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
4 Count 135 179 155 154 623
%within YEAR 14.1% 19.7% 16.8% 19.8% 17.5%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBFU 14
Residents were asked for their opinions about water services in 2001 through 2003. These
ratings are s- in Table 10, which shows that 91.4 percent of the respondents in 2003 rated
these services as goad or excellent. The ratings in 2003 were higher than they were in 2001 and 2002.
Table 10: Water Services Rating by Year.
YEAR Year of study
2 2001 3 2002 4 2003 Total
QSERV6 1 Poor count 22 21 19 62
YO within YEAR 2.3% 2.1% 2.0% 2.1% Water
Rating Fair Count 63 92 64 219
YO within YEAR 6.5% 9.3% 6.6% 7.5%
3 Good Count 612 615 561 1788
% within YEAR 63.0% 62.1% 58.3% 61.1%
4 Excellent Count 275 262 319 856
% within YEAR 28.3% 26.5% 33.1% 29.3%
Total Count 972 990 963 2925
% within YEAR 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Residents were asked about cultd arts programs. Their responses are displayed in Table 1 1.
Four-fifths (80.0%) of the respondents indicated that they thought the cultud arts programs in
Carlsbad were good or excellent. These ratings did not diffkr by year.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI
Table 11: Cultural Arts Programs Rating by Year.
~~~
YEAR Year of Studv
2 2001 3 2002 4 2003 Total
QSERV7 1 Poor count 42 29 25 96
% within YEAR 4.8% 3.3% 2.9% 3.7% Cultural Arts
Programs Rating 2 Fair count 152 155 150 457
% within YEAR 17.6% 17.6% 17.2% 17.4%
3 Good Count 414 427 422 1263
% within YEAR 47.8% 48.4% 48.5% 48.2%
4 Excellent count 258 272 274 804
% within YEAR 29.8% 30.8% 31.5% 30.7%
Total count 866 883 87 1 2620
% within YEAR 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table 12 shows the ratings of the city’s sewer services. In 2003, over 90 percent of Carlsbad
residents thought the sewer services were good or excellent. These ratings have been mmistently
positive over the three years it has been assessed.
Table 12: Sewer Services Rating by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
2 2001 3 2002 4 2003 Total
QSERV8 1 Poor Count 15 15 14 44
% within YEAR 1.8% 1.6% 1.5% 1.6%
2 Fair Count 50 74 54 178
%within YEAR 6.1% 7.8% 5.8% 6.6%
Sewer Services
Rating
3 Good Count 554 642 597 1793
% within YEAR 67.2% 67.9% 63.9% 66.3%
4 Excellent Count 206 214 269 689
% within YEAR 25.0% 22.6% 28.8% 25.5%
Total Count 825 945 934 2704
% within YEAR 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 16
As indicated above, city services have been rated favorably by the majority of the respondents.
When a respondent gave a poor rating to a city service, they were asked why they rated the service as
poor. Their reasons for the poor ratings were coded, and are found in Tables 13a-h for 2003.
Table 13a: Reason for Poor Recreational Services Rating.
Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Lack of FacilitieslPrograms 10 1 .o 66.7 66.7
5 Other
Total
Missing 9 Refused
System
Total
Total
5 .5 33.3 100.0
15 1.5 100.0
1 .1
99 1 98.4
992 98.5
1007 100.0
Table 13b: Reason for Poor Library Services Rating.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent I Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Lack of Selection 4 .4 57.1 57.1
2 Other 3 .3 42.9 100.0
Total 7 .7 100.0
Missing System lo00 99.3
Total 1007 100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 17
Table 13c: Reason for Poor Fire Protection Rating.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent ValidPercent Percent
Valid 1 InactionDuringFue 1 .I 100.0 100.0
Missing System 1006 99.9
Total 1007 100.0
Table 13d: Reason for Poor Police Protection Rating.
~~ ~~
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
9 .9 69.2 69.2 Valid 1 No Positive Dealings with
Police/ Do Not Feel Protected
3 Slow to Amve at Scene of
Crime 1 .I 1.7
3 .3 23.1 4 Focus Is on Minor Violations
Total
Missing 9 Refused
System
Total
13 1.3 100.0
1 .I
993 98.6
994 98.1
Total 1007 100.0
16.9
100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 18
Table 13e: Reason for Poor Traffic Enforcement Rating.
Cumulative
FresUenCY Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 UnderEnforcement
of Traffic Regulations
2 Over Enforcement 3 .3 5.3 73.7
39 3.9 68.4 68.4
3 Poor Traffic Flow 9 .9 15.8 89.5
4 Other 6 .6 10.5 100.0
Total 57 5.7 100.0
Missing 9 Refused 1 .1
System
Total
949 94.2
950 94.3
Total 1007 100.0
Table 13f: Reason for Poor Water Rating.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Poor Water Quality 8 .8 42.1 42.1
2 Low Water Pressure
3 Too Expensive
4 Poorcustomer
ServiceProblems with Billing
5 Other
Total
Missing System
Total
3 .3 15.8 57.9
4 .4 21.1 78.9
2 .2 10.5 89.5
2 .2 10.5 100.0
19 1.9 100.0
988 98.1
1007 100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 19
Table 13g: Reason for Poor Cultural Arts Programs Rating.
Cumulative
F~uency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 FewActivities
Offered/Need More Variety
2 Activities Not Well
Publicized
3 Need Better Quality
Activities
4 Other
Total
Missing System
Total
16
5
3
1.6
.5
.3
64.0
20.0
12.0
64.0
84.0
96.0
1 *I 4.0 100.0
25 2.5 100.0
982 97.5
1007 100.0
Table 13h: Reason for Poor Sewage Rating.
Valid
Missing
Total
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Pmt
4 .4 30.8 30.8 1 F-tSewage
Blockage/Backup
2 TooExpensive
3 Cansmellsewer
4 Environment Effects
of Sewage Spills
Total
9 Refused
System
Total
4
1
4
13
1
993
994
1007
.4 30.8 61.5
.I 7.7 69.2
.4 30.8 100.0
1.3 100.0
.1
98.6
98.7
100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 20
Respondents also provided a general, overall rating of the city services. Almost all (95.5%) of
the residents gave an overall rating of the city services that was good or excellent. This is illustrated in
Table 14. The ratings were higher in 2001 than they were in 2000, and have stayed higher through
2003. These mtings did not vary by region.
Table 14: Overall City Services Rating by Year.
YEAR Year of Studv
1 2000 2 2001 3 2002 4 2003 Total
QGENSRV 1 Poor Count 9 3 7 5 24
% within YEAR .9% .3% .1% .5% .6% Overall City
~~ Rating 2 Fair Count
~~
14 41 45 40 200
% within YEAR 1.5% 4.1% 4.5% 4.0% 5.0%
3 Good Count 614 612 618 599 2443
% within YEAR 62.5% 6 1.4% 61.1% 59.8% 61.2%
4 Excellent Count 285 341 34 1 351 1324
% within YEAR 29.0% 34.2% 33.7% 35.1% 33.2%
Total Count 982 991 101 1 1001 399 1
% within YEAR 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRT 21
The relationship Ween length of residence in Carlsbad and the respondents' rating of the
overall city services was of intmst. For the purposes of this analysis, newer residents refers to
residents who have lived in the City of Carlsbad for six years or less, and long-time residents refers to
those who have lived in Carlsbad for more than six years. Table 15 shows that long-time residents
provided ratings of the general city services that were a little more positive, on the whole, than did
newer residents.
Table 15: Overall City Services Rating by Length of Residence in Carlsbad.
LENGRES Lengthof
Residence in Carlsbad
1 Newer 2 Long-time
Resident Resident Total
QGENSRV 1 Poor count 1 4 5
YO within LENGRES Length
of Residence in Carlsbad
Overall City
Services
Rating
.2% .8% .5%
Y 2 Fair count 14 26 40
% within LENGRES Length
of Residence in Carlsbad 2.8% 5.3% 4.0%
3 Good count 326 273 599
YO within LENGRES Length
of Residence in Carlsbad 64.3% 55.3% 59.8%
4 Excellent Count 166 191 357
YO within LENGRES Length
of Residence in Carisbad 32.7% 38.7% 35.7%
Total count 507 494 1001
% within LENGRES Length
of Residence in Carlsbad 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
L
City of Carlsbad 2003 public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 22
City Streets
Carlsbad residents were asked about the city street conditiofls in Carlsbad. Overall road
conditions were rated quite positively, with four-% of the respondents giving a rating of good or
excellent in each year of the survey. This is indicated in Table 16. These ratings were CoIlSistent across
EgiOllS.
Table 16: Overall Road Condition by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
1 2000 2 2001 3 2002 4 2003 Total
QSTREETI 1 Poor Count 26 21 32 24 103
% within YEAR 2.6% 2.1% 3.1% 2.8% 2.7% Overall Road
Condition 2 Fair Count 170 138 141 117 566
% within YEAR 17.0% 13.7% 13.9% 13.8% 14.6%
3 Good Count 585 595 628 528 2336
% within YEAR 58.5% 59.0% 61.8% 62.3% 60.3%
4 Excellent Count 219 255 216 179 869
% within YEAR 2 1.9% 25.3% 2 1.2% 21.1% 22.4%
Total Count 1000 1009 1017 848 3874
% within YEAR 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBFU 23
Respondents offered the ratings of the traffic circulation in the city, summanzed * in Table 17.
The ratings for traffic circulation, while not negative, were not as positive as the ratings for other
services and conditions in the city. A little less than half of the respondents offered a good or excellent
rating of the traffic circulation in the city. These ratings varied by year of
the ratings were a little lower in 2000 than they were in subsequent years.
‘on specifically, ..
Table 17: Traffic Circulation Efficiency by Year.
.. ,
YEAR Year of Study
1 2000 2 2001 3 2002 4 2003 Total
QSTREET5 1 Poor Count 252 171 186 171 7 80
% within YEAR 25.3% 17.0% 18.4% 20.2% 20.2% Traffic
Circulation Efficiency Fair Count 338 377 363 305 1383
%within YEAR 33.9% 37.5% 35.8% 36.1% 35.8%
3 Good Count 361 3 84 393 316 1454
% within YEAR 36.2% 38.2% 38.8% 37.4% 37.7%
46 72 71 54 243
%within YEAR 4.6% 7.2% 7.0% 6.4% 6.3%
Total Count 997 1004 1013 846 3860
100.0% %within YEAR 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 24
,-
There was a regional difference in the mtings of traffic ckuhm efficiency. This is seen in
Table 18, which shows that residents in the North Region rated traffic circulation lower than did South
Region residents.
Table 18: TMic Circulation Efficiency by Region.
REGION2 Location of
Residence in Carlsbad
1 North 2 South Total
QSTREET5 1 Poor count 98 13 171
Traffic Circulation
Efficiency % within REGION2 Location
of Residence m Carlsbad 23.8% 16.8% 20.2%
2 Fair Count 136 I69 305
33.1% 38.9% 36.1% %within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad
3 Good Count
YO within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad
I47 169 316
35.8% 38.9% 31.4%
4 Excellent Count 30 24 54
1.3% 5.5% 6.4%
Total count 41 1 43 5 846
%within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad
% within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBlU 25
Maintenance Services
City residents gave their opinions about the maintenance services provided by the city. Both in
2002 and in 2003, residents rated (a) the maintenance of street landscaping and medians, (b) tree
maintenance, and (c) the curb and sidewalk conditions. Each of these services were rated positively by
residents.
The maintenance of street landscaping and medians was rated as good or excellent by 83.3
percent of the respondents in 2003. The ratings m 2003 do not diffa hm the dngs in 2002. This is
seen in Table 19.
Table 19: Maintenance of Street Landscaping and Medians by Year.
YEAR Year of Stub
3 2002 4 2003 Total
QMAIN1 Maintenance 1 Poor Count 39 22 61
YO within YEAR 3.8% 2.6% 3.3% of Street Landscaping
and Medians 2 Fair Count 138 119 257
% within YEAR 13.6% 14.0% 13.8%
3 Good Count 561 470 1031
% within YEAR 55.3% 55.4% 55.4%
4 Excellent Count 276 237 513
% within YEAR 27.2% . 27.9% 27.6%
Total count 1014 848 1862
% within YEAR 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Repoa; SBFU 26
-- .
Resident ratings of the City of blsbad tree maintenance are found in Table 20. The table
shows that residents viewed tree maintenanCe positively, with 83.5 percent of the respondents in 2003
rating tree maintenance as good or excellent. This is consistent with the ratings in 2002.
Table 20: Tree Maintenance by Year.
YEAR Yearofstudy
3 2002 4 2003 Total
QMAIN2 Tree 1 Poor count 46 28 74
Maintenance % within YEAR 4.6% 3.4% 4.1%
2 Fair count 137 108 245
% within YEAR 13.8% 13.0% 13.5%
3 Good count 582 502 1084
% within YEAR 58.8% 60.6% 59.6%
4 Excellent count 225 190 415
% within YEAR 22.7% 22.9?! 22.8%
Total count 990 82 8 1818
% within YEAR 1 OO.O?? 1 OO.o?! 100.0%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 27
Curb and sidewalk conditions were also rated by respondents in 2002 and 2003. Table 2 1
shows that in both years about a fifth of the respondents mted curb and sidewalk conditions as
excellent.
Table 21: Curb and Sidewalk Condition by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
3 2002 4 2003 Total
QMAIN5 1 Poor Count 34 36 70
% within YEAR 3.4% 4.3% 3.8% Curb/Sidewalk
Condition
2 Fair Count 150 137 287
% within YEAR 15.1% 16.3% 15.7%
3 Good Count 60 1 486 1087
% within YEAR 60.6% 57.8% 59.3%
4 Excellent Count 207 182 389
% within YEAR 20.9% 2 1.6% 21.2%
Total Count 992 841 1833
% within YEAR lOo.O?h 100.0% 100.oo/a
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 28
The ratings of the curb and sidewalk mditim were qualdied by the region in which the
resident lived. That is, 53.3 percent of the residents in the North region rated the curb and sidewalk
conditions as good, and 62.0 percent of South residents gave a "good" rating. This is shown in Table
22. In both regions about 22 percent rated the curb and sidewalk conditions as excellent.
Table 22: Curb and Sidewalk Condition by Region.
REGION2 Location of
Residence in Carlsbad
1 North 2 south Total
QMAIN.5 1 Poor count 24 12 36
Curb/Sidewalk
Condition % within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 5.9% 2.8% 4.3%
2 Fair Count 79 58 137
YO within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 19.3% 13.4% 16.3%
3 Good count 218 268 486
%within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 53.3% 62.0% 57.8%
~~~
4 Excellent Count
% within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad
~
88 94 182
21.5% 21.8% 21.6%
Total count 409 432 84 1
% within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 29
Contracted Services
In addition to the city-provided services, respondents were also asked about services
contracted from outside agencies. The contracted services respondents were asked about are (1) trash
collection, (2) street sweeping, (3) hazardous waste disposal, (4) animal control, (5) recycling
collection, and (6) cable television. All of these services were rated as good or excellent by most
people.
Table 23 shows the ratings of the trash collection services contcacted by the city. This table
rev& a slight dropoff in the rating of the trash collection service in 2002, then an upswing to ratings
that are slightly higher in 2003 than they had been in 2000 and 2001. Overall, more than four-fifths of
the respondents gave a rating of good or excellent.
Table 23: Trash Collection Rating by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
1 2000 2 2001 3 2002 4 2003 Total
QOUTSRVl 1 Poor Count 35 43 63 16 157
% within YEAR 3.5% 4.3% 6.3% 1.6% 3.9% Trash
Collection Rating 2 Fair Count 131 142 142 98 513
% within YEAR 13.2% 14.2% 14.2% 9.9% 12.9%
3 Good Count 502 474 508 520 2004
%within YEAR 50.8% 47.3% 50.7% 52.4% 50.3% ~ ->
4 Excellent Count 32 1 343 289 359 1312
YO within YEAR 32.5% 34.2% 28.8% 36.2% 32.9%
Total Count 989 1002 1002 993 3986
% within YEAR 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 30
.-
,-
The street-sweeping service was also rated favorably, as can be seen in Table 24. Half
(50.8%) of the respondents in 2003 rated the street-sweeping service as good, and 21.4 percent rated
this service as excellent.
Table 24: Street Sweeping Rating by Year.
YEAR Year of Studv
1 2000 2 2001 3 2002 4 2003 Total
QOUTSRVZ 1 Poor Count 67 58 66 63 254
YO within YEAR 7.1% 6.1% 6.9% 6.7% 6.7% Street
Sweeping Rating 2 Fair Count 202 179 184 199 7 64
YO within YEAR 21.5% 18.9% 19.1% 21.1% 20.1%
3 Good Count 484 498 549 480 201 1
% within YEAR 51.5% 52.5% 57.0% 50.8% 53.0%
4 Excellent Count I87 213 164 202 766
% within YEAR 19.9% 22.5% 17.0% 21.4% 20.2%
Total Count 940 948 963 944 3795
% within YEAR 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 31
The ratings of the street-sweeping service in Carlsbad are dwplayed separately for residents in
the North and South regions in Table 25. These mhgs were contingent on region, with residents in the
south providing more favorable ratings than residents in the north. In the south region, 56.2 percent of
the respondents offered a “good” rating compared to 45.6 percent in the north.
Table 25: Street Sweeping Rating by Region.
REGION2 Location of
Residence in Carlsbad
1 North 2 South Total
QOUTSRV2 1 Poor Count 40 23 63
Street Sweeping
Rating % within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 8.4% 4.9% 6.7%
2 Fair count 110 89 199
23.1% 19.0% 21.1% % within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad
3 Good Count 217 263 480
% within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 45.6% 56.2% 50.8%
4 Excellent Count 109 93 202
% within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 22.9% 19.9% 21.4%
Total Count 476 468 944
% within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
-. .
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Swvey Report; SBRI 32
The residents’ ratings of the hazardous waste -sal Service also tended to be positive. Table
26 shows that in 2003, abut half (53.5%) of the respondents offered a good rating, and another 16.0
percent gave excellent ratings to the hazardous waste dqosal service contracted by the city.
Table 26: Hazardous Waste Disposal Rating by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
1 2000 2 2001 3 2002 4 2003 Total
QOuTSRV3 1 Poor Count 81 83 79 60 303
YO within YEAR 13.5% 14.4% 12.7% 8.7% 12.2% Hazardous
Waste Count 139 117 135 151 542 Disposal Fair
Rating %within YEAR 23.2% 20.3% 21.7% 21.8% 2 1.8%
3 Good count 2 94 287 323 370 1274
%within YEAR 49.1% 49.7% 52.0% 53.5% 5 1.2%
4 Excellent Count 85 90 84 111 370
%within YEAR 14.2% 15.6% 13.5% 16.0% 14.9%
Total Count 599 577 62 1 692 2489
%within YEAR 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 33
Thm was a slight difference in these ratings by region, as illustrated in Table 27. More people
(19.9%) in the Noah region rated the hazardous waste disposal service as excellent than did people in
the South (1 2.3%).
Table 27: Hazardous Waste Disposal Rating by Region.
REGION2 Location of
Residence in Carlsbad
1 North 2 south Total
QOUTSRV3 1 Poor Count 29 31 60
Hazardous
Waste Disposal YO within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 8.5% 8.8% 8.7%
Rating 2 Fair count 68 83 151
% within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 19.9% 23.6% 21.8%
3 Good Count 176 194 370
% within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 5 1.6% 55.3% 53.5%
4 Excellent Count 68 43 111
% within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 19.9% 12.3% 16.0%
Total Count 34 1 35 1 692
% within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 34
Starting in 2002 respondents were asked about another contracted service, animal control. A
summary of residents’ animal control service ratings is found in Table 28. Over four-fiih of the
respondents in both 2002 and 2003 rated this service as good or excellent.
Table 28: Animal Control Rating by Year.
YEAR Yearofstudy
3 2002 4 2003 Total
QOUTSRV4 1 Poor count 44 29 73
% within YEAR 5.1% 3.5% 4.3% Animal
Control
Rating 2 Fair count 126 105 23 1
% within YEAR 14.5% 12.7% 13.6%
3 Good count 549 519 1068
Yo within YEAR 63.3% 62.5% 62.9%
4 Excellent Count 148 177 325
% within YEAR 17.1% 21.3% 19.2%
Total count
100.0% %withinYEAR 1 00.o?h 100.0%
City of Carlsbad 2003 public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 35
Beginning in 2003, residents were also asked about recycling collection services as well as
cable television. The hgs of recycling collection services are found in Table 29. The ratings of the
recycling collection service were quite positive. Almost a third (32.9%) of the respondents rated the
recycling collection service as excellent.
Table 29: Recycling Collection Rating in 2003.
Cumulative
Valid 1 Poor 40 4.0 4.1 4.1
2 Fair 131 13.0 13.3 17.3
3 Good 49 1 48.8 49.8 67.1
4 Excellent 324 32.2 32.9 100.0
Total 986 97.9 100.0
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Missing 8 Don'tKnow 20 2.0
9 Refused 1 .I
Total 21 2.1
Total 1007 100.0
Table 30 displays the ratings of cable television service in 2003. As the table shows, 60.6
percent of the residents surveyed rated the cable television service as good or excellent. However,
1 5.3 percent of the respondents rated the service as poor. Of the services rated, only traffic circulation
efficiency had a higher percentage of respondents giving a poor rating.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 36
Table 30: Cable Television Rating io 2003.
Cumulative
Valid 1 Poor 1 42 14.1 15.3 15.3
2 Fair 224 22.2 24.1 39.4
3 Good 407 40.4 43.9 83.3
4 Excellent 155 15.4 16.7 100.0
Total 928 92.2 100.0
FrequenCY Percent Valid Percent Percent
Missing 8 Don't Know 76 7.5
9 Refimd 3 .3
Total
Total
79 7.8
1007 100.0
Respondents who offered a poor rating of any outside service were asked why they gave a
poor rating. Their responses were coded and are reported in Tables 3 1 a-f
Table 31a: Reason for Poor Trash Collection Rating.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Trashcrews
Do Sloppy Work
3 Intermittent
Trash Collection
8
3
.8
.3
50.0
18.8
50.0
68.8
4 Other 5 .5 31.3 100.0
Total 16 1.6 100.0
Missing System 991 98.4
Total 1007 100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRT 37
Table 31b: Reason for Poor Street Sweeping Rating.
Cumulative
Freauencv Percent Validpercent Percent I<
27 2.7 42.9 42.9 Valid 1 Sweepers Do Not Clean the
Streets
2 Street Sweepers Never Seen 22 2.2 34.9 77.8
4 Other 14 1.4 22.2 100.0
Total
Missing System
63 6.3 100.0
944 93.7
Total 1007 100.0
Table 31c: Reason for Poor Hazardous Waste Disposal Rating.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 2 Disposal Stations Far Away 10 1 .o 16.7 16.7
4 No Knowledge of Disposal
Sites 18 1.8 30.0 46.7
5 No Disposal Site in Carlsbad 17 I .7 28.3 75.0
6 Other 15 1.5 25.0 100.0
Total 60 6.0 100.0
Missing System
Total
947
1007
94.0
100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 38
Table 31d: Reason for Poor Animal Control Rating.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
16 1.6 55.2 55.2 Loose Everywhere
4 Other 13 1.3 44.8 100.0
Total 29 2.9 100.0
Valid 1 Animals Running
Missing System 978 97.1
Total 1007 100.0
Table 31e: Reason for Poor Recycling Collection Rating.
Cumulative
Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Limited Item Collection 19 1.9 47.5 47.5
5 Other 21 2.1 52.5 100.0
Total 40 4.0 100.0
Missing System 967 96.0
Total 1007 100.0
~ ~~ ~~
Table 31f: Reason for Poor Cable Television Rating.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Dissatisfied with Adelphia
2 Lack of Cable Provider
Choice
5 Other
Total
Missing 8 Don't Know
9 Refused
System
Total
65
47
27
139
2
I
865
868
6.5 46.8 46.8
4.7 33.8 80.6
2.7 19.4 100.0
13.8 100.0
.2
.I
85.9 '
86.2
Total 1007 100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRT 39
IdauLm
Beginning in 2002, residents were asked to rate how well they thought the City of Carlsbad
was doing balancing various land uses in the city such as midentd, ccxmn& industd, and
recreational. Respondents answeml on a scale of zero to ten, where zero indicated very poor and ten
indicated excellent. Table 32 shows that the average rating in 2003 was 6.34, suggesting residents
believe the city is doing a moderate job in this respect. This is not statistidly higher than the I-ating of
6.17 in 2002.
Table 32: Rating of the City's Balancing Various Land Uses.
YEAR Year of study N Mean Std. Deviation
QLAND City'sBalancing 3 2002
Various Land Uses Rating 2o03
1001 6.17 2.397
966 6.34 2.307
The land use ratings residents gave in 2003 varied by region. As illustrated in Table 33,
residents in the North Region (6.58) offered a higher rating on average than did residents in the South
Region (6.12).
Table 33: Land Use Rating by Region.
_____~~~~ ~ ~
REGION2 Location of Std.
Residence in Carlsbad N Mean Deviation
QLAND City'sBalancing 1 North
Various Land Uses Rating south
479 6.58 2.290 .
487 6.12 2.303
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 40
The land use ratings were very closely associated with the gemd city services ratings. This is
illustra-ated in Table 34, which shows that the higher the gend service rating, the higher the rating of the
job the city is doing in balancing various land uses.
Table 34: Land Use Rating by General City Services Rating.
QLAND City's Balancing Various Land Uses Rating
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
1 Poor 4 1.25 2.500 0 5
2 Fair 39 4.03 2.814 0 10
3 Good 572 6.05 2.070 0 10
4 Excellent 347 ' 7.14 2.264 0 10
Total 962 6.34 2.309 0 10
Those offering ratings below four on the zero-to-ten scale were asked what the city could do to
improve their rating on the issue. The suggestions residents gave are found in Table 35, the most
common of which was to set limits on pwth
Table 35: What Can Be Done to Improve Land Use Ratings.
0 NotChosen 1 Chosen
Count YO Count %
Set Limits on Growth 26 24.8% 79 75.2%
Create More Recreation
Facilities 102 97.1% 3 2.P!
Preserve Open Spaces 32 30.5% 73 69.5%
Other 29 27.6Yo 76 72.4%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 41
Contact m 'tb the Citv of Ca rlsbad
Contact
In 2003, residents were asked ifthey had any contact with the City of Carlsbad in the past
year. Half (5 1.1%) of the respondents reported having some contact with the City of Carlsbad in the
past year. This is seen in Table 36.
Table 36: Contact with City of Carlsbad in Past Year.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 No 490 48.7 48.9 48.9
1 Yes 513 50.9 51.1 100.0
Total 1003 99.6 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 4 .4
Total 1007 100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI
There was a difbence in the likelihood that someone had contact with the city depending on
region As Table 37 indicates, those in the north were sigdimtly more likely to call the city than were
residents in the south.
Table 37: Contact with City of Carlsbad in Past Year by Region.
REGION2 Location of
Residence in Carlsbad
1 North 2 South Total
QCONTACT Contact 0 No Count 229 26 1 490 with City of Carlsbad in
Past Year % within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 45.6% 52.1% 48.9%
1 Yes Count 273 240 513
% within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 54.4% 47.9% 51.1%
Total Count 502 50 1 1003
% within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
- The respondents who had contact with the city were asked how they would rate that contact.
-- Their responses are summarized in Table 38. Few people (6.1%) rated their contact with the city as
poor, while four out of five (82.4%) rated their contact as good or excellent. They did not differ by
region.
-
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 43
Table 38: Rating of Contact with City.
Cumulative
Frequency Pmt Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Poor 31 3.1 6.1 6.1
2 Fair 59 5.9 11.5 17.6
3 Good 187 18.6 36.6 54.2
4 Excellent 234 23.2 45.8 100.0
Total 51 1 50.7 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 2 .2
system 494 49.1
Total 496 49.3
Total 1007 100.0
Those that did rate their contact with the city as poor were asked why they did so. The
responses of the 3 1 people giving a poor rating in 2003 are sumfnarized in Table 39. Response time or
customer service was the most fkquent complaint.
Table 39: Reason Respondent Rates Contact with City as Poor.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent ValidPercent Percent
21 2.1 67.7 67.7 Valid 1 PoorResponse
TimdCustomer Service
2 Unorganized
Planning Department 4 .4 12.9 80.6
3 Other 6 .6 19.4 100.0
Total 31 3.1 100.0
Missing System 976 96.9
Total 1007 100.0
~~ ~~~~~ ~ City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 44
City Website
In 2001 and 2003 residents were asked if they had accessed the city's website in the past year.
Table 40 Summarizes the residents' responses. Both in 2001 and 2003, more than a third of the
residents indicated that they had accessed the city's website in the past year.
Table 40: Accessed City's Website in Past Year.
YEAR Year of Studv
2 2001 4 2003 Total
QWEBACSS AccessedCity's 0 No Count 642 612 1254
%within YEAR 63.8% 61 .O% 62.4% Website in Past Year
1 Yes count 364 392 756
% within YEAR 36.2% 39.0% 37.6%
Total count
~~
1006 1004 2010
100.0% % within YEAR 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBFU 45
Accessing the city’s website in the past year was quahfied by the age of the respondent. Figure
1 shows the likelihood of respondents in the 2003 survey accessing the city’s website in the past year
broken down by different age groups. The figure reveals that respondents over the age of 55 were less
than half as likely as younger respondents to report accessing the city’s website in the past year.
m .- 0 u
Figure 1: Acessed City’s Website by Age Group.
50 1
~ 20
10
18 to41 42 to 55 56 and Older
Age Group
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 46
Those residents reporting that they had accessed the City of Carlsbad's website were asked if
they found what they were looking fm. Residents accessing the city website were much more likely
(86.2%) than not to find what they were looking for, as Table 41 shows.
Table 41: Respondent Found What They Were Looking for on City Website.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 No 53 5.3 13.8 13.8
1 Yes 330 32.8 86.2 100.0
Total 383 38.0 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 9 .9
System 615 61.1
Total 624 62.0
Total 1007 100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 47
Residents accessing the city’s website were also asked how they would rate the city’s website.
As Table 42 indicates, residents generally appear to be happy with the city’s website. That is, 61.8
percent of the respondents who had used the site rated it as good, and 21 .O percent rated it as
excellent. Only 1.8 percent rated the website as poor.
Table 42: City’s Website Rating.
Cumulative
Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Poor
2 Fair
3 Good
4 Excellent
Total
Missing 8 Don’t Know
System
Total
Total
7
59
238
81
385
7
615
622
1007
.7 1.8 1.8
5.9 15.3 17.1
23.6 61.8 79.0
8.0 21.0 100.0
38.2 100.0
.7
61.1
61.8
100.0
Respondents who gave a rating to the city website of poor or excellent were asked for the
reason behind their rating. The responses residents gave to these questions were coded and appear in
Tables 43 and 44. Seven respondents gave poor ratings, and their reasons are listed in Tables 43, .
while the reasons the 81 respondents offering excellent ratings gave are in Table 44. Most of those
rating the website as excellent did so because they found the site easy to navigate or because it
contained everythltlg they needed.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 48
_-
Table 43: Reason for Poor Website Rating.
~~
Cumulative
Freuuencv Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Critical Information Not
Available
2 Difficult to Accesdcluttered
3 other
Total
Missing 9 Refused
system
Total
Total
3 .3 50.0 50.0
2 .2 33.3 83.3
1 .1 16.7 100.0
6 .6 100.0
1 .1
loo0 99.3
loo1 99.4
1007 100.0
Table 44: Reason for Excellent Website Rating.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 EasytoNavigate 35 3.5 43.8 43.8
2 Contains Everythmg I Need 38 3.8 47.5 91.3
3 Other 7 .7 8.8 100.0
Total 80 7.9 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 1 .1
System
Total
926 92.0
927 92.1
Total 1007 100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 49
Those respondents who indicated that they had not accessed the city's website were asked if
there was a specific reason why they had not accessed the city's site. As Table 45 shows, the most
common reason for not accessing the city website was that the respondent had no need to access the
site. It is also interesting to note that 16.5 percent of the respondents reported that they did not know
about the city's website.
Table 45: Reason Why Hasn't Accessed City's Website.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Don't Own Computer 88 8.7 16.3 16.3
2 Lack Computer Skills 21 2.1 3.9 20.2
3 Get Information
from Other Sources 18 1.8 3.3 23.5
4 Don't Need to Use 23 1 22.9 42.8 66.3
5 Didn't Know about
the Web Site 89 8.8 16.5 82.8
6 Don't Want to Use 65 6.5 12.0 94.8
7 Other
Total
Missing 8 Don't Know
9 Refused
28 2.8 5.2 100.0
540 53.6 100.0
32 3.2
40 4.0
System 395 39.2
Total 467 46.4
Total 1007 100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 50
City Facilities
Respondents were asked a number of questions regarding some clty facilities. Specifically, they
were asked about their use of libraries and their use of city parks. In addition to these questions, they
were asked about proposals for developing open spaces and about features of a proposed civic
cmter/city hall.
Libraries
In 2003 respondents were asked what the main reason they had for going to a Carlsbad city
library. The reasofls people gave for visiting Carlsbad libraries are found in Table 46. The most
common reason was to check out or read books or magazines for enjoyment. This reason was offered
by two-fifths (42.9%) of the respondents using the library.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 51
Table 46: Main Reason for Using a Carlsbad Library.
Cumulative
Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Get Answers to Questions or to
Do General Research
2 Help Meet Educational or
Jobrelated Goals
3 Check Out or to Read Books or
Magazines for Enjoyment
4 Take Advantage of Programs
the Library Offers
5 Use Internet, Word-processing
Computers, or Typewriters
6 A Quiet Place to Read and
Study
7 Help Your Children or Yourself
Improve Reading Skills
8 Other
Total
Missing System
Total
196
60
387
38
24
24
123
50
902
3 135
4037
4.9
1.5
9.6
.9
.6
.6
3 .O
1.2
22.3
77.7
100.0
21.7 21.7
6.7 28.4
42.9 71.3
4.2 75.5
2.7 78.2
2.7 80.8
13.6 94.5
5.5 100.0
100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 52
Respondents in 2000 and in 2003 who had used a Carlsbad library were asked how they
would rate the library with respect to the availability of the materials they wanted Table 47 reveals that
about half of the respondents rated the library as excellent in this respect both in 2000 and 2003.
Table 47: Rating of Carlsbad Libraries by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
1 2000 4 2003 Total
QLIBSERV 1 Poor Count 13 12 25
Rating of
Carlsbad
Libraries 2 Fair Count 73 60 133
% within YEAR Year of Study 9.3% 7.0% 8.1%
% within YEAR Year of Study 1.7% 1.4% 1.5%
3 Good Count 327 331 658
% within YEAR Year of Study 41.7% 38.5% 40.0%
4 Excellent Count 371 457 828
% within YEAR Year of Study 47.3% 53.1% 50.4%
Total Count
~~ ~~
784 860 1644
YO within YEAR Year of Study 100.0% 100.0Y0 100.0%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion SWey Report; SBRI 53
Those rating the availablllty of desired materials as poor or fair in 2003 wefe asked what
materials were unavailable to them. Residents' responses were coded and are summatlzed * inTable48.
Two thirds of these respondents indid that they wefe dissatisfied with the limited general book
selection.
Table 48: Library Materials That Were Unavailable.
Cumulative
FreqUenCY Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Specific Requested Books 8 .8 17.4 17.4
2 General Book Selection
Limited 31 3.1 67.4 84.8
3 Other 6 .6 13.0 97.8
8 Don'tKnow 1 *I 2.2 100.0
Total 46 4.6 100.0
Missing System 96 1 95.4
Total 1007 100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 54
City Parks
Respondents were asked about their use of city fidties. They were asked if anyone in their
household had used a Carlsbad public park or park facility during the past year. Table 49 shows that
similar to 2001,72.4 percent of the respondents in 2003 indicated that they or someone in their
household had used a city park in the past year.
Table 49: Use of Carlsbad Public Park or Park Facility in Past Twelve Months by Year.
YEAR YearofStudy
2 2001 4 2003 Total
QPARKUSE Useof 0 No Count 272 275 547
% within YEAR Year of Study 26.9% 27.6% 27.3% Carlsbad Public Park
or Park Facility in
Past Twelve Months 1 yes count 738 722 1460
% within YEAR Year of Study 73.1% 72.4% 72.7%
Total Count
~~~
1010 997 2007
% within YEAR Year of Study 100WO 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 55
Those who had reported that they or someone in their household had used a public park or
park facility in the past year were asked to rate the park that the respondent or respondent’s family
used. The vast majority (94.5%) of the respondents gave a favorable rating of the city parks, with 48.9
percent giving an excellent rating and mother 44.6 pemnt giving good ratings in 2003. Table 50
shows that these ratings are comparable to those given in 2001.
Table 50: Public Park or Facility Rating by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
2 2001 4 2003 Total
PARKRATE 1 Poor Count 3 7 10
YO within YEAR Year of Study .4% 1 .Ph .7% Public Park
or Facility
Rating 2 Fair Count 30 40 70
YO within YEAR Year of Study 4.1 Yo 5.5% 4.8%
3 Good Count 323 322 645
YO withii YEAR Year of Study 43.9% 4.6Yo 44.2%
4 Excellent Count 3 80 353 733
YO within YEAR Year of Study 5 1.6% 48.9% 50.3%
Total Count 736 722 1458
YO within YEAR Year of Study 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Only seven respondents gave a poor rating to a Carlsbad public park These seven people
were asked for the reason they gave a poor rating. Their responses are found in Table 5 1.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 56
Table 51: Reason for Poor Rating of a Public Park
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 2 Too Many People in Park 1 .I 14.3 14.3
3 Facilities Neglected 5 .5 71.4 85.7
4 Other 1 .1 14.3 100.0
Total 7 .7 100.0
Missing System
Total
1000 99.3
1007 100.0
Open Spaces
Respondents in 2003 were invited to give their opinions on four proposals about the use of land
and resources devoted to open space, trails, and parks. The four proposals were described to the
respondents who were then asked to imagine that they were to allocate $100 of city hds among the
four proposals. The proposals were labeled Preserved and Protected Open Space, Interconnecting
Trails, Open Space and Trails Park, and Active Use Parks. The proposals were presented to each
respondent in a randomized order. The descriptions of the proposals given to the respondents are
found on page 123 in Appendix A.
Table 52 sunmx&xs how respondents allocated these funds. As the table shows, the
distribution of hds was fairly even. The average allocation to active use parks was a little lower than
the allocations to the preserved and protected open space and interconnecting trails proposals. The
amount allocated to each proposal did not differ by region.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 57
Table 52: Average Amount of Money Allocated to Different Proposals.
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Preserved and Protected Open
space 977 0 100 26.02
~~
25.722
Interumnecting T&ls 977 0 100 25.91 23.045
Open Space and Trails Park 977 0 100 25.01 22.581
Active Use Parks 977 0 100 23.07 24.889
Valid N (listwise) 971
Figure 2 illusbates that the allocation for each of the four proposals did not deviate much hm
$25. Of the 1,007 respondents in 2003,118 allotted $25 to each proposal. One possible
interpretation of this pattern is that these individuals didn't have an opinion on these proposals, so we
also made comparisons of the allocations to the diffat proposals with these individuals removed from
the analysis. Removing these individuals hm the comparisons among the proposals had no sigwficant
impact on the results.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 58
Figure 2: Allotment to Open Space Proposals.
The dollar values that respondents assigned to each proposal were converted to rankings.
Proposals allotted more money than three other proposals were ranked first, those allotted more than
two other proposals were ranked second, and so forth. Table 53 shows the rankings residents gave to
the different proposals. This table rev& an interesting pattern that warrants Mer attention.
Specifically, though active use parks had the smallest avemge allocation, as indicated in Table 52 and
Figure 2,29.8 percent of those providing responses ranked active use parks first compared to 3 1 .O,
29.9, and 23.6 percent for the other proposals (preserved and protected open space, interconnecting
trails, and open space and trails park respectively). This fin- suggests a look at the ranlung
distributions may be informative. Figures 3 through 6 show these distributions.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 59
.-
Table 53: Rankings of the Open Space Proposals.
1 First Choice 2 Second Choice 3 Third Choice 4 Fourth Choice
Preserved and Protected Count 188 136 155 128
% 31.0% 22.4% 25.5% 21.1% Open Space Ranking
Interconnecting Trails count 162 194 170 16
YO 29.9% 35.8% 3 1.4% 3.0%
Open Space & Trails Count 140 188 214 52
YO 23.6% 31.6% 36.0% 8.8% Park
Active Use Park count 168 116 130 150
% 29.8% 20.6% 23.0% 26.6%
Figure 3: Preserved and Protected Open Space. 401
30-
20 -
10-
e E E
a 0- 0
First Choice Third Choice
Second Choice Fourth Choice
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRT 60
40
30
20
10
.-
Figure 4: Interconnecting Trails.
Y 8 2
$0
First choice Third Choice
Second Choice Fourth Choice
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 61
Figure 5: Open Space & Trails Park
40
30
20
10
Y d n First Choice Third Choice
Second Choice Fourth Choice
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 62
...
I
Figure 6: Active Use Park.
40-
30
10
First Choice ~hird Choice
Second Choice Fourth Choice
Previous data collected fbm Carlsbad residents suggests that the number of years the
respondent had lived in Carlsbacl was sigtllficantly related to the importance residents put on trails and
open spaces. Specifically, the longer the respondent had lived in Carlsbad, the less importance they
placed on trails and preserved open space. Given this relationship, it is worthwhile to examine how
newer and long-time residents allocated bds among the four open space proposals. For the purposes
of this analysis, newer residents refers to residents who have lived in the City of Carlsbad for six years
or less, while long-time residents have lived in Carlsbad for seven or more years.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 63
Table 54 shows the average allotment to the different proposals separately for newer and long-
time residents. As the table shows, newer and long-time residents differed in the amounts they allotted
to the interconnecting trails proposal. Specifically, newer residents allotted an average of $27.59 to the
interconnecting trails proposal compared to $24.15 for long-time residents. Figure 7 displays thts
infoIIIlation in graphical form.
Table 54: Allocations to Open Space Proposals by Length of Residence.
~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
Length of Residence in Carlsbad N Mean Std. Deviation
Preserved and Protected 1 Newer Resident 500 25.24 24.573
2 Long-time Resident 477 26.83 26.875 Open Space
Interconnecting Trails 1 Newer Resident
2 Long-time Resident
500 27.59 23.379
477 24.15 22.580
Open Space and Trails
Park
1 Newer Resident
2 Long-time Resident
500 25.08 22.018
477 24.93 23.179
Active Use Parks 1 Newer Resident
2 Long-time Resident
500 22.10 23.643
471 24.09 26.117
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBFU 64
Figure 7: Allocations by Length of Residence.
30 351
lpreserved &
I/Interconnecting
Protected Open Space
Trails
=Open Space & Trails
Park
=Active Use Parks
Newer Resident Long-time Resident
Length of Residence in Carlsbad
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Reqort; SBRI 65
Civic Center Complex
Carlsbad residents were given the opportunity to express their prefmce for the location of the
firture site of a Carkbad civic centerhity hall complex They were given three choices, their reactioIls
to which are Summarized in Table 55. Residents expressed a clear prefmce for the present city hall
location over the other options presented, with 58.6 percent of the respondents choosing the present
locatioa
Table 55: Preference for Location of Future Carlsbad Civic Center/City Hall Complex.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 NeartheGeographical
Center of the City 277 27.5 29.4 29.4
2 Along the Costal Corridor 113 11.2 12.0 41.4
3 At the Current City Hall
Location 553 54.9 58.6
Total 943 93.6 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know
9 Refix
Total
Total
56 5.6
8 .8
64 6.4
1007 100.0
100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 66
Residents' prefaence for the ldon of the fbture site of a Carlsbad civic center/city hall
complex was qualified by the region in which the respondent lived Table 56 shows that 64.8 percent
of the residents in the North Region preferred that the fhm site of a Carlsbad civic center/city hall
complex be the existing location of city hall compared to 52.4 percent of residents in the South Region.
Table 56: Preference for Location of Future Carlsbad Civic CenterKity Hall Complex by Region.
~_______ ~~____
REGION2 Location of
Residence in Carlsbad
1 North 2 South Total
QCOMPLEX 1 Nearthe count 123 154 271
YO within REGION2 Location Preference for Geographical
Location of Center of the City of Residence in carlsbad 25.8% 33.0% 29.4%
Future Carlsbad Civic 2 Along the Costal Count 45 68 113
9.4% 14.6% 12.0% Center/City Corridor % within REGION2 Location Hall Complex of Residence in Carlsbad
~~~ 3 Atthecurrent Count 309 244 553
64.8% 52.4% 58.6% city Location % within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad
Total count 477 466 943
100.0% 100.0% % within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 100.0%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBN 67
7
Respondents were asked about the sorts of things they would like to see in a civic center/city
hall complex. Their men are displayed in Table 57. An amphitheater venue was suggested by 2 1 .O
percent of the respondents. This coheres with findings on entertahnent venues from prior years’ (2000
and 2001) surveys.
Table 57: What Respondent Wants to See in Civic Center Complex.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Restaurant 5 .5 .8 .8
2 DayCare
3 Other Government Offices
4 Coffee Shops
6 Amphitheater Venue
7 Conference Rooms
8 Retail Shops
9 All City Offices in One
Place
11 Other
Total
Missing 10 Nothing
Total
15
71
7
136
39
4
75
296
648
359
1007
1.5
7.1
.7
13.5
3.9
.4
7.4
29.4
64.3
35.7
100.0
2.3
11.0
1.1
21.0
6.0
.6
11.6
45.7
100.0
3.1
14.0
15.1
36.1
42.1
42.7
54.3
100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 68
City
Information Resources
Respondents were asked what resources they used to get information alxmt the City of
Carlsbad Table 58 shows that the most common sources of information about Carlsbad were local
newspapers, local TV news, and the Community Services and Recreation Guide. For each of these
sources over 60 percent of the respondents indicated that they used that source for information about
the City of Carlsbad.
Table 58: Sources of Information about Carlsbad in 2003.
0 NotChosen 1 Chosen
count YO Count YO
Community Services
Recreation Guide
City Web Page
City Desktop Calendar
Flyer in City Water Bill
Citizen Forums
Calling City on Telephone
City Council Meetings
Carlsbad Community Update
Video
Local Newspapers
TV/Local News
Local Cable Channel
399
639
702
662
899
599
836
93 1
295
353
464
39.6%
63.5%
69.7%
65.7%
89.3%
59.5%
83.0%
92.5%
29.3%
35.1%
46.1%
608
368
305
345
108
408
171
76
712
654
543
60.4%
36.5%
30.3%
34.3%
10.7%
40.5%
17.0%
1.5%
10.7%
64.9%
53.9%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 69
The likelihood that residents accessed informaton about the City of Carlsbad through use of the
Community Services and Recreation Guide is shown in Table 59 by year. The table shows that use of
the Community Services and Recreation Guide differed by year. That is, use of the Community
Services and Recreation Guide to obtain infomation about Carlsbad was higher in 2002 and 2003 than
it was in 2001.
Table 59: Use of Community Services Recreation Guide as a Source of Carlsbad
Information by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
2 2001 3 2002 4 2003 Total
QINFOI-1 Source of 0 Not Chosen Count 455 364 399 1218
% within YEAR 45.0% 35.7% 39.6% 40.1% Carlsbad Information:
Community Services
Recreation Guide 1 Chosen count 555 655 608 1818
% within YEAR 55.0% 64.3% 60.4% 59.9%
Total count 1010 1019 1007 3036
% within YEAR 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
The city web site was used by over a third (36.5%) of the respondents in 2003 as a source of
information about the City of Carlsbad. Table 60 shows the percentages of respondents using the city’s
website to gain information about Carlsbad for each year.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 70
Table 60: Use of City Web Page as a Source of Carlsbad Information by Year.
YEAR YearofStUdv
2 2001 3 2002 4 2003 Total
QINFO 1-2 0 Notchosen Count 68 1 638 639 1958
% within YEAR 67.4% 62.6% 63.5% 64.5% source of
Carlsbad
Information: City 1 chosen count 329 381 368 1078
%withinYEAR 32.6% 37.4% 36.5% 35.5% Web Page
Total count 1010 1019 I007 3036
%*YEAR 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Use of the city desktop calendar is displayed in Table 61 by year. The table reveals that use of
the city desktop calendar to access information about the City of Carlsbad varied by year. Use of the
city desktop calendar was much more likely in 2002 and 2003 than it had been in 2001.
Table 61: Use of the City Desktop Calendar as a Source of Carlsbad Information by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
2 2001 3 2002 4 2003 Total
QINFO 1-3 0 NotChosen Count 785 686 702 2173
YO within YEAR 77.7% 67.3% 69.7% 71.6% Source of Carlsbad
Information: City Desktop Calendar 1 Chosen Count 225 333 . 305 863
% within YEAR 22.3% 32.7% 30.3% 28.4%
Total count
~~
1010 1019 1007 3036
% within YEAR 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad 2003 public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 71
Use of the city desktop calendar is to obtain information about Carlsbad also varied by region
in 2003. This is illustrated in Table 62. Accessing information about the City of Carkbad was more
common in the North Region than it was in the South.
Table 62: Use of the City Desktop Calendar as a Source of Carlsbad Information by Region.
REGION2 Location of
Residence in Carlsbad
1 North 2 South Total
QINF01-3 0 Not Chosen Count 335 3 67 702
source of
Carlsbad % within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 66.5% 73.0% 69.7%
Information: City Desktop Chosen Count 169 136 305
Calendar % within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 33.5% 27.0% 30.3%
Total Count 504 503 1007
100.0% 100.0% % within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 100.0%
Table 63 shows that obtaining informaton about Carkbad through fliexs in the city water bill
dif€ii by year, Specifically, use of flim in the city water bill was a more common means of obtaining
information about the city of Carlsbad in 2002 than it was in either 2001 or 2003.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 72
c
Table 63: Use of the Flyer in City Water Bill as a Source of Carlsbad Information by Year.
YEAR YearofStudy
2 2001 3 2002 4 2003 Total
QINFOl-4 Source 0 NotChoeem Count 680 563 662 1905
%withinYEAR 67.3% 55.3% 65.7% 62.7% of Carlsbad
Information: Flyer in City Water Bill Chosen count 330 456 345 1131
% within YEAR 32.7% 44.7% 34.3% 37.3%
Total
~ count 1010 1019 1007 3036
% within YEAR 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Use of citizen fonuns to get information about the City of Carlsbad also varied by year. As
Table 64 shows, accessing infodon about the city through citizen forums increased hm 7.0 percent
in 200 1 to about 10 percent in 2002 and maintained that level in 2003.
Table 64: Use of Cin Forums as a Source of Carlsbad Information by Year.
YEAR YearofStudy
2 2001 3 2002 4 2003 Total
QINFOl-5 Source 0 Not Chosen Count 939 909 899 2747
of Carlsbad
Information: Citizen Forums Chosen count 71 110 108 289
Yo within YEAR 7.0% 10.8% 10.7% 9.5%
% within YEAR 93.0% 89.2% 89.3% 90.5%
Total count 1010 1019 1007 3036
Yo within YEAR 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 73
Anothe~ source of infdon about the city that was considered is calling the city on the
telephone. Table 65 shows the likelihood of residents calling the city for infomalion about Carlsbad for
each year. The likelihood that residents ded for Carlsbad information did not vary sigtuficantly by
Year.
Table 65: Calling the City on the Telephone as a Source of Carlsbad Information by Year.
2 2001 3 2002 4 2003 Total
QINFOl-6 Source 0 NotChosen Count 598 579 599 1776
Yo within YEAR 59.2% 56.8% 59.5% 58.5% of Carlsbad
Information: count 412 440 408 1260 calling city on 1 Chosen
Telephone % within YEAR 40.8% 43.2% 40.5% 41.5%
Total count 1010 1019 I007 3036
100.0% %within YEAR 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
The use of city council meetings to gain infdon about the City of carlsbad followed a
pattern similar to that of use of fliers in the city wata bill. That is, this source of information about the
city was used more in 2002 than it was in 2001 or 2003, as Table 66 indicates.
Table 66: Use of Citv Council Meetings as a Source of Carlsbad Information by Year.
YEAR Year of Study
2 2001 3 2002 4 2003 Total
QMFOl-7 Source 0 Not Chosen Count 832 789 836 2457
of Carlsbad % within YEAR 82.4% 77.4% 83.0% 80.9% Infomation: City
Council Meetings Chosen count 178 230 171 579
% within YEAR 17.6% 22.6% 17.0% 19.1%
Total count 1010 1019 1007 3036
% within YEAR 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad 2003 public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 74
The region that a respondent lived in was related to the likelihood that they obtained city
informaton fram city council meetings. llus is revealed in Table 67. Those in the North Region were
coflsiderably more likely than those in the South Region to gain information on Carlsbad hm city
council meetings.
Table 67: Use of City Council Meetings as a Source of Carlsbad Information by Region.
REGION2 Location of
Residence in Carlsbad
1 North 2 South Total
QINF01-7 0 Not Chosen Count 400 43 6 836
%within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad
source of
Carlsbad
Information:
79.4% 86.7% 83.0%
City Council 1 Chosen Count 104 67 171
Meetings %within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 20.6% 13.3% 17.0%
Total count 504 503 1007
% within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 75
The Carlsbad Community Update Video was used by 7.5 percent of the respondents in 2003
to obtain information about the City of Carlsbad. As Table 68 shows, this is almost identical to the
percentage of respondents in 2002 that used the Carlsbad Community Update Video to access
infodon about the city.
Table 68: Use of the Carlsbad Community Update Videa as a Source of Carlsbad Information by Year.
YEAR Yearofstudy
3 2002 4 2003 Total
QINFOl-8 Source of 0 Not Chosen Count 944 93 1 1875
YO within YEAR Year of Study 92.6% 92.5% 92.5% Carlsbad Information:
Carlsbad Community 1 Chosen count 75 76 151 Update Video
Yo within YEAR Year of Study 7.4% 7.5% 7.5%
Total count 1019 I007 2026
% within YEAR Year of Studv 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
~~ ~~ City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 76
In 2003, the use of the Carlsbad Community Update Video to obtain infodon about the
City of Carlsbad differed for residents in the north and south of Carlsbad. Table 69 shows that use of
the Carlsbad Community Update Video was more common in the North Region than it was in the
South Region.
Table 69 Use of the Carlsbad Community Update Video as a Source of Carlsbad Information by Region.
REGION2 Location of
Residence in Carlsbad
1 North 2 South Total
QINFOI-8 Source of 0 Not Chosen Count 457 474 93 1
Carlsbad Information:
90.7% 94.2% 92.5% Carlsbad Community
Update Video
1 Chosen Count 47 29 76
YO within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad
% within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 9.3% 5.8% 7.5%
Total Count 504 503 1007
% within REGION2 Location
of Residence in Carlsbad 100.0% 1 00.0% 100.0%
Rating of Information Dispersal
Residents were asked to rate the job the city does in providing residents with information that is
important to them. Respondents answered using a zero-to-ten scale where zero means poor and ten
means excellent. The ratings offered by residents in 2003 are Wlayed in Figure 8. Residents rated
the job the city has done providing important information quite favorably, as is indicated by the fact that
over half (57.1%) of the respondents offered a rating of 8 or higher on the zero-to-ten scale.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 77
Figure 8: Rating of City's Information Dispersal.
I'14
Poor 2 4 6 8 Excellent
1 3 5 I 9
Rating of City Information Dispersal
Table 70 shows that the average rating of the job the city has done in providing residents with
information that is important to them by year. The table reveals a clear positive trend in these ratings.
That is, the average rating rose fiom 5.95 in 2001 to 6.27 in 2002, and increased again in 2003 to 7.48
on the zero-to-ten scale. Figure 9 demonstrates this positive trend and provides a graphical depiction
of where the overall ratings fd on the zero-to-ten scale.
.
. ...
-
.-.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 78
Table 70: Rating of the City's Information Dispersal by Year.
5.0-
4.0 -
3.0 -
2.0 -
CITYINF2 Rating of City Information Dispersal
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
2 2001 967 5.95 2.490 0 10
3 2002 976 6.27 2.405 0 10
4 2003 953 7.48 1.760 0 10
Total 28% 6.56 2.340 0 10
Figure 9: Information Dispersal Rating by Year.
*"."
8.0
.d 2
2 Y
3 E 0.0
200 1 2002 21
Year of study
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 79
There was a slight difference in the respondents rating of the job the city has done in providing
residents with information that is important to them depending on what region in which the respondent
lived Table 71 shows that residents in the north had a more positive view of the job the city has done
in this regard than did residents in the south.
Table 71: Rating of the City's Information Dispersal by Region.
Region N Mean Std. Deviation
CITyTNF2 Ratingofcity 1 North 476 7.63 1.750
411 7.34 1.760 Information Dispersal South
The information dispersal ratings were very closely associated with the general city services
ratings. This is illustrated in Table 72, which shows that the higher the gend service rating, the higher
the rating of the job the city is doing in providing residents with idomation that is important to them.
..
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 80
Table 72: Information Dispersal Rating by General City Services Rating.
CITYINF2 Rating of City Information Dispersal
--
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
1 Poor 5 2.80 3.564 0 8
2 Fair 38 5.71 2.265 0 10
3 Good 566 7.15 1.555 1 10
4 Excellent 341 8.31 1.535 0 10
Total 950 7.49 1.758 0 10
The data also reveals a strong association between ratings residents offered for the job the city
is doing balancing various land uses and the job the city is doing providing important information to
residents. This is evidenced by a conelatior$ between these two ratings of .429, indicating that the
higher the rating of the city's land use, the better job the resident believes the city is doing providing
information to Carlsbad residents. Rating of the job the city is doing providing important information to
residents also was weakly wmlated to the age of the respondent. That is, the information dispersal
rating and age exhibited a correlation of. 108.
Evaluation of City C'bvernment
Respondents were asked the extent to which they 7 'ere C nfident in the Carlsbad city
government to make decisions that positively affect the lives of its community members. Respondents
*A correlation coefficient indicates the strength and direction of the relationship Ween
variables. It can range hm -1 to 1 , with 0 indicating no relationship between the variables.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 81
answered on a scale of zero to ten, where zero means not ut all confident and ten means very
conjdent. In 2003, Carlsbad residents gave an average confidence rating of 6.94. The distribution of
responses is found in Figure 10. This figure shows that just under half of the respondents offered a
rating of 8 or higher.
Figure 10: Confidence in City Government - 2003.
30
20
10
Y s
Not at All Confident 2 4 6
1 3 5 7 9
ht
The 2003 confidence in city govemment rating is higher rating than it had been in previous
years. In fa Table 73 reveals a positive trend in the confidence that Carlsbad residents have in the
city government to make decisions that positively affect residents. The city received higher ratings in
2001 and 2002 than it had in 2000, and a higher dng still in 2003.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 82
Table 73: Confidence in City Government to Make Decisions that Positively
Affect Residents by Year.
QCONFID3 Confidence in Carlsbad City Government to Make Decisions That Positively
N Mean Std.Deviation Minimum Maximum
1 2000 958 6.04 2.535 0 10
2 2001 952 6.52 2.402 0 10
3 2002 97 1 6.61 2.186 0 10
4 2003 968 6.94 1.990 0 10
Total 3 849 6.53 2.308 0 10
The confidence residents had in the city government was qualified by the region in which they
lived. As Table 74 shows, residents in the North Region expressed greater confidence (7.14) in the
city government than did residents in the South Region (6.75).
Table 74: Confidence in City Government to Make Decisions that Positively Affect
Residents.
~
REGION2 Location of Std.
Residence in Carlsbad N Mean Deviation
QCONFID3 Confidence in Carlsbad City 1 North 480 7.14 1.992
Government to Make Decisions That
Positively Affect Community Members South 488 6.75 1 .YO
____ ~ City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI ~ 83
The relationship betwm ratings of confidence in the Carlsbad city government to make
decisions that positively affect the lives of its Community memben and residents’ dngs of city services
was assessed. Table 75 shows that the higher the dng of oved city services, the greater the
confidenm respondents had in the Carlsbad city government.
Table 75: Confidence in City Government by Overall City Services Rating.
QCONFID3 Confidence in Carlsbad City Government to Make Decisions That Positively
Affect Community Members
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
1 Poor 4 2.00 4.000 0 8
2 Fair 36 4.58 2.687 0 10
3 Good 574 6.67 1.804 0 10
4 Excellent 349 7.69 1.761 0 10
Total 963 6.94 1.981 0 10
~~ City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 84
.-
Traffic circulation efficiency was also related to residents’ confidence in the Carlsbad city
govexnment to make decisions that positively affect the lives of its community members. This is
revealed in Table 76. Those who rated traffic circulation as fair had more confidence in the city
government than did respondents who rated traffic circulation as poor. Those who rated tmffic
circulation as good had more confidence in the city govemment than did respondents who rated traffic
circulation as tXr or poor, but those rating traffic circulation as excellent pmvided confidence ratings
that were statistically greater than only the respondents rating traffic circulation as poor.
Table 76: Confidence in City Government by Traffic Circulation Ratings.
QCONFID3 Confidence in Carlsbad City Government to Make Decisions That Positively
Affect Community Members
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
1 Poor 167 5.71 2.425 0 10
2 Fair 297 6.90 1.628 1 10
3 Good 304 7.35 1.699 0 10
4 Excellent 52 7.52 2.330 0 10
Total 820 6.86 1.985 0 10
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 85
Table 77 displays the correlations between confidence in the Carlsbad city government to make
decisions that positively affect the lives of its community members and respondents’ ratings of two other
issues: the job the city does in balancing various land uses, and the job the city does providing
infomation about issues important to thern. Thm was a significant positive correlation between
confidence in City government and these ratings. Egher confidence in city govemment is positively
associated with respondents’ ratings of the job the city does balancing land uses and providing
information about issues important to them.
Table 77: Correlations between Confidence in City Government and Other Ratings.
CITYINF2
QLAND City’s Rating of City
Balancing Various Information
Land Uses Rating Dispersal
QCONFID3 Confidence in Pearson Correlation .539** .478**
Sig. (2-tailed) Carlsbad City Government to
Make Decisions That Positively .ooo .ooo
Affect Community Members N 937 92 1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
~~ City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 86
I
.. .-
..-.
Residents whose confidence in the city government was low or high were asked why that was
the case. Table 78 displays the reasons people gave for reporting a low level of confidence.
Concerns about growth represent the largest portion of the responses, with 40.4 percent of the
respondents in 2003 identifying this as the reason fw their low confidence rating.
Table 78: Reason Why Confidence in City Government So Low.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 NotLimiting
&owth/Alignment with 21 2.1 40.4 40.4
Developers
5 Lack of Trust of City
OfficialdGovemment 15 1.5 28.8 69.2
7 Other 16 1.6 30.8 100.0
Total 52 5.2 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 5 .5
9 Refused 1 .1
System 949 94.2
Total 955 94.8
Total 1007 100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 87
The mons given for high levels of confidence in the city government to make decisions that
positively affect residents are displayed in Table 79. Most common among these reasons is that the city
is run very well.
Table 79: Reason Why Confidence in City Government So High.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Great Place to Live 19 1.9 13.1 13.1
2 City is Run Very Well 98 9.7 67.6 80.7
4 Other 28 2.8 19.3 100.0
Total 145 14.4 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 10 1 .o
9 Refused 11 1.1
System
Total
84 1 83.5
862 85.6
Total 1007 100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 88
Resident B-nd Attitude
Recycling
Respondents in 2001 through 2003 were asked about the amount of recycling they do. They
were asked to estimate the percentage of the waste items that their household @oses of via recycling.
In 2003, Carlsbad residents reported recycling 66.4 percent of the waste materials in their household
that were recyclable. Figure 1 1 shows the distribution of responses to this question. This distribution
shows that more than half of respondents recycling at least 80 percent of their recyclable waste.
Figure 1 1 : Percentage of Materials Respondent Recycles.
3mI
200 -
100 -
Std Dev = 31.38
Mean= 66.4
0 N = 997.00
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
10.0 30.0 50.0 70.0 90.0
Percentage of Waste Recycled
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 89
The percentage of recyclable waste mtex-ials that residents disposed of by recycling is reported
in Table 80 by year. As the table demonstrates the percentage of materials recycled does not differ
sigtllscantly by year.
.-
Table 80: Percentage of Waste Recycled by Year.
ALLRFZYC Estimate Percentage of Waste Disposed of by Recycling
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
2 2001 1006 63.34 34.32 1 0 100
3 2002 101 1 65.95 32.405 0 100
4 2003 997 66.37 3 1.379 0 100
Total 3014 65.22 32.744 0 100
Respondents that reported recycling less than 50 percent of their recyclable waste were asked
what kept them hm mycling more. The reasons respondents gave for not recycling more are found
in Table 81.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBFU 90
Table 81: Reasons for Not Recycling More.
Cumulative
FWemY Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid I Other Material Not 47 4.7 14.8 14.8 Accepted at Curbside Pickup
2 Lack of Storage Space 23 2.3 7.3 22.1
3 Containers Too Small 19 1.9 6.0 28.1
6 Laziness 54 5.4 17.0 45.1
7 Hassle/Inconvenience 61 6.1 19.2 64.4
11 Other
Total
Missing 98 Don'tKnow
System
Total
Total
113 11.2 35.6 100.0
317 31.5 100.0
19 1.9
67 1 66.6
690 68.5
1007 100.0
Respondents were asked about the types of materials that they would like to recycle that they
currently cannot. The most common material that residents wanted to recycle was catalogs. This is
seen in Table 82.
~~ City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 91
Table 82: Materials Residents Would Like to Recycle That They Currently
Cannot
0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen
Count % Count %
Catalogs 89 1 88.5% 116 11.5%
Juice Boxes 898 89.2% 109 10.8%
Magazines 898 89.2% 109 10.8%
White Paper 914 90.8% 93 9.2%
Packaging 920 91.4% 87 8.6%
Colored Paper 925 91.9% 82 8.1%
Empty Metal Paint and
Aerosol Cans 952 94.5% 55 5.5%
Paper Bags 952 94.5% 55 5.5%
Dry Food Boxes 954 94.7% 53 5.3%
Junk Mail 958 95.1% 49 4.9%
Letters
Phone Books
Aluminum Foil
Pie Tins
977 97.0% 30 3.0%
983 97.6% 24 2.4%
985 97.8% 22 2.2%
999 99.2% 8 .8%
Hangars 1000 99.3% 7 .7%
Steel 1000 99.3% 7 .7%
Other 80 1 79.5% 206 20.5%
The prevalence of attention to recycling in carlsbad was addressed. Specifically, respondents
were asked if they had seen, read, or heard anythmg about recycling in the past year. Just over half
(51.9%) of the respondents said that they had seen, read, or heard anythmg about recycling in the past
year.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 92
Storm Water Pollution
Storm water pollution was an important topic of this survey in 2003. Residents' beliefs and
experiences regarding storm water pollution were assessed. Respondents were asked what they
thought was the greatest contributor to ocean water pollution. Their responses, seen in Table 83, show
that close to half'(46.4%) of the respondents identified Contaminated storm water as the source of
ocean water pollution they believed to be the greatest.
Table 83: Greatest Contributor to Ocean Water Pollution.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Contaminated Stom Water 433 43.0 46.4 46.4
2 Sewage Treatment Plants 61 6.1 6.5 52.9
3 Industrial Plants
Discharging into the Ocean
4 Oil and Gas Spills h
boats and Ships
44 4.4 4.7 57.6
18 1.8 1.9 59.5
5 Sewage Spills or Overflows 103 10.2 11.0 70.6
27 2.7 2.9 73.4 6 Illegal Dumpiig of
Chemicals or Other Materials
7 Trashktter 71 7.1 7.6 81.0
8 Pet Waste 5 .5 .5 81.6
9 Fertilizers and Pesticides 14 1.4 1.5 83.1
10 Oil and Gas Leaks from
cars
11 carwashing
12 other
Total
Missing 99 Refused
Total
15 1.5 1.6 84.7
8 .8 .9 85.5
135 13.4 14.5 100.0
934 92.8 100.0
73 7.2
1007 100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 93
--
Exposure to information regarding storm water was assessed. Residents were asked if they
had seen or heard mythmg in the past year abut how residents can prevent the pollution of our creeks,
lagoons, and ocean As Table 84 conveys, 58.1 percent of the respondents had seen or heard
something about preventing water pollution.
Table 84: Seen or Heard about Ways to Prevent Water Pollution.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 No 418 41.5 41.9 41.9
1 Yes 580 57.6 58.1 100.0
Total 998 99.1 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 9 .9
Total 1 007 100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 94
Table 85 shows where respondents had heard about ways to prevent water pollution. The
table shows that newspapers (27.3%) and TV (22.1%) were the most common source of such
information
. Table 85: How Respondent Learned about Ways to Prevent Water Pollution.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1TV 122 12.1 22.1 22.1
2 Radio 24 2.4 4.3 26.4
3 Newspaper
4 Brochures
5 Posters
6 Movie Theaters
7 Website
8 Curbsigns
9 Newsletters
151 15.0 27.3 53.7
15 1.5 2.7 56.4
4 .4 .7 57.1
1 .1 .2 57.3
2 .2 .4 57.7
76 7.5 13.7 71.4
17 1.7 3.1 74.5
10 Family/Friends/Word IO 1 .o 1.8 76.3 of Mouth
11 Public Events/Booth 9 .9 1.6 77.9
12 Other 122 12.1 22.1 100.0
Total 553 54.9 100.0
Missing 13 Don't Know 27 2.7
System 427 42.4
Total
Total
454 45.1
1007 100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 95
Residents' understanding of storm water flow was examined. They were asked where they
thought materials that enter the street gutter or storm drain go. The answers residents gave are found in
Table 86. Two-thircls (68.4%) of the respondents acknowledged that storm water goes directly into
creeks, lagoons, or the ocean without treatment.
Table 86: Materials That Enter Street Gutter or Storm Drain.
Cumulative
Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Sewage Treatment Plant 87 8.6 8.7 8.7
2 Directly to Creeks,
Lagoons, or Ocean without 687 68.2 68.4 77.0
Treatment
3 Localcreeks,Lagoons,
or Ocean After Treatment 148 14.7 14.7 91.7
4 Brochures 16 1.6 1.6 93.3
5 Other
Total
67 6.7 6.7 100.0
1005 99.8 100.0
Missing 6 Don'tKnow 2 .2
Total 1007 100.0
-. .
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 96
.-
Residents' car washing practices were assessed. Table 87 shows where respondents indicated
that they wash their car most often. Over two-thirds (69.0%) of the respondents said their car is
washed most oRen at a commercial car wash, and 23.2 percent reported that their car is most often
washed in their driveway. Of those 300 respondents washing their cars at home (on the street, in the
driveway, or on the lawn), only 5.7 percent reported washing their car most often on their lawn.
Table 87: Location Car is Washed Most Often.
0 Not Chosen 1 Chosen
count YO count %
At a Commercial Car Wash 312 3 1 .W?? 695 69.0%
On the Street 958 95.1% 49 4.9%
In the Driveway 773 76.8% 234 23.2%
On the Lawn 990 98.3% 17 1.7%
Hires a Mobile Washer 998 99.1% 9 .9%
Other 1004 99.7% 3 .3%
Don't Wash Car/NAP 983 100.00?
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI
Awareness of the storm water hotline was assessed in the survey. Residents’ were asked if
they knew that thm is a storm water hotline they can use to report illegal discharges into the storm
water system or get infomtion on ways to prevent water pollution. Less than a quarter (24.6%) of the
respondents had been aware of the storm water hotline. This is shown in Table 88.
Table 88: Knowledge of Storm Water Hotline.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 0 No 758 75.3 75.4 75.4
1 Yes 247 24.5 24.6 100.0
Total 1005 99.8 100.0
Missing 9 Refused 2 .2
Total 1007 100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 98
Water Conservation
Table 89 displays the respondents beliefs about activities that waste water. They were asked
what they thought was the greatest waste of water. Outdoor irrigation was regarded by the most
people by far to be the greatest waste of Water. Over half (53.3%) of the respondents identified
outdoor irrigation as the greatest waste of water, and 30.0 percent listed running toilets as the greatest
waste of water.
Table 89: Greatest Waste of Water.
Cumulative
Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Outdoor Irrigation 474 47.1 53.3 53.3
2 Waiting for Water in 38 3.8 4.3 57.5 Shower or Sink to Warm Up
3 Toilets Running 267 26.5 30.0 87.5
4 Filling Swimming Pool 9 .9 1 .o 88.5
5 Hosing Off Sidewalks and
Driveways 52 5.2 5.8 94.4
24 2.4 2.7 97.1 6 Leaving Water on While
Brushing Teeth or Shaving
7 Leaks 25 2.5 2.8 99.9
8 Other 1 .1 .1 100.0
Total 890 88.4 100.0
Missing 9 Don't Know 117 11.6
Total 1007 100.0
~ ~~ ~~ City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBFU 99
Respondents were asked abut their own water conservation efforts. They were asked about
the effort they put into conservation as well as what specifically they did to conserve water.
Respondents were asked how often they make a conscious effort to conserve water. As Table 90
indicates, most respondents are making fkquent efforts to conserve water. However, 6.2 percent said
they never or rarely make an effort to conserve water, and another 14.6 percent say they conserve
water only sometimes.
Table 90: How Often Respondent Makes a Conscious Effort to Conserve Water.
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1 Never 16 1.6 1.6 I .6
2 Rarely 30 3.0 3.0 4.6
3 Sometimes 147 14.6 14.6 19.2
4 Often 439 43.6 43.7 62.9
5 Always 373 37.0 37.1 100.0
Total 1005 99.8 100.0
Missing 8 Don't Know 2 .2
Total 1007 100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 100
Respondents were also asked to list one thing they do to conserve water. Their responses are
summarized in Table 91. Turning off water while brushing teeth or shaving and djwtmg their irrigation
systems were the most commonly cited tactics residents used to conserve water.
Table 91: Ways Residents Conserve Water.
Cumulative
Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Percent --
Valid 1 Adjust Irrigation System 200 19.9 19.9 19.9 TimerS
2 Replace Old Toilets with
Ultra-low-flush Toilets 114 11.3 11.3 31.2
3 Use a Broom to Clean
Driveways and Sidewalks 34 3.4 3.4 34.6
4 Fix Leaks Immediately 38 3.8 3.8 . 38.3
5 Use Dishwasher and
Washing Machine for Full 1 02 10.1 10.1 48.5
Loads Only
26 1 25.9 6 Turn Off Water When
Brushing Teeth or Shaving 25.9 74.4
7 Take Shorter Showers 121 12.0 12.0 86.4
8 Don't Run the Hose while
Washing Car
9 Water Lawn Only When
Necessary
10 Water During Cool
Parts of the Day
11 Plant Drought-tolerant
Trees and Plants
13 None
Total
19
45
23
1.9
4.5
2 1
1.9
4.5
2.3
88.3
92.8
95.0
21 2.1 2.1 97.1
29 2.9 2.9 100.0
1007 100.0 100.0
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBFU 101
The prevalence of attention to water conservation in Carlsbad was addressed in the survey.
That is, respondents were asked ifthey had seen, read, or heard anythng about water conservation in
the past year. Two-thirds (66.3%) of the respondents said that they had seen, read, or heard
something about water conservation in the past year.
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 for 2003 are shown in Table 92. Generally, residents feel very safe walking alone in
their neighborhood, though more so during the day than at night. Respondents gave an average rating
of 9.5 1 when asked how safe they felt walking alone in their neighborhood during the day, and 7.80
when asked how safe they felt wallung alone in their neighbohd after dark.
Table 92: Feelings of Safety Walking Alone in Carlsbad.
N Minimum Mean Std. Deviation
QSAFEl How Safe to
Walk Alone in 1002 0 10 9.5 1 1.099
Neighborhood During Day
QSAFE2 How Safe to
Walk Alone in 983 0 10 7.80 2.245
Neighborhood After Dark
Valid N (listwise) 983
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 102
The distribution of responses to these questions about feelings of safety are displayed in Figures
12 and 13. Figure 12 shows that in 2003,87.9 percent of the respondents answered with a 9 or 10 on
the zero-to-ten scale. Figure 13 shows that 42.9 percent of the sample in 2003 answered with a 9 or
10 to represent how safe they felt walking alone in their neighborhood at night.
Figure 12: Feelings of Safety Walking in the Day.
80
Not at all Safe 2 5 7 9
1 4 6 8 Very Safe
Feelings of Safety
City of Carlsbad 2003 public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 103
Figure 13: Feelings of Safety Walking Alone at Night.
-" I
Not at all Safe 2 4 6 8 Very Safe
1 3 5 7 9
Feelings of Safety
The average feeling of safety ratings while walking alone by day are shown in Table 93 for each
year. The table shows that residents have felt extremely safe consistently over the four years of the
-v*
Table 93: Feelings of Safety Walking Alone in Their Neighborhood by Day.
QSAFEl How Safe to Walk Alone in Neighborhood During Day
12000
2 2001
3 2002
4 2003
Total
1001 9.46 1.196 0 10
1010 9.56 1.038 0 10
1009 9.55 943 3 10
1002 9.51 1.099 0 10
4022 9.52 1.073 0 10
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
City of Carlsbad 2003 public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 104
Table 94 indicates how safe Carlsbad residents feel walking around their neighborhood at night.
In each year, residents reported that they felt qyite safe walking in their neighborhood at night. On the
zero-to-ten scale, residents provided an average response of over 7.5 in year.
Table 94: Feelings of Safety Walking Alone in Their Neighborhood at Night,
QSAFJZ2 How Safe to Walk Alone in Neighborhood After Dark
N Mean Std. Deviation Minimum Maximum
1 2000 1000 7.54 2.548 0 10
2 2001
3 2002
1007 7.63 2.600 0 10
999 7.63 2.358 0 10
4 2003 983 7.80 2.245 0 10
Total 3989 7.65 2.444 0 10
City 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 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 105
Best Liked Features of Carlsbad
Residents were given an open-ended opportunty to say what they liked best about living in the
City of Carlsbad. The answers respondents provided were coded and are summasized in Table 95.
The most commonly cited feature in response to this question was proximity to the beach. Over a third
(35.8%) of the respondents mentioned this as what they like most abut living in Carlsbad The small
town feel and the weather or climate were also fkquently cited as things people liked best about Iiving
in Carlsbad.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 106
Table 95: Best Liked Features of Carlsbad.
2000 2001 2002 2003
Count % Count % Count % Count %
The BeacWClose to
ocean
Quiet Small Town
Village Ambience
W eatherlclimate
Like the
Community/The
People
City Government/
PlanninglServices
BeautifuVClean
Location
Convenience of
StoresEntertainment
TrailsParksRecreation
The Schools
Safe
Not Crowded or
Overdevelopedklo
Traffic F’roblems
The Housing
Other
308
214
20 1
153
99
121
189
88
50
74
30.8%
21.4%
20.1%
15.3%
9.9%
12.1%
18.9%
8.8%
5.0%
7.4%
322
260
202
189
116
133
201
53
42
84
37
16
97
3 1.9%
25.7%
20.0%
18.7%
11.5%
13.2%
19.9%
5.2%
4.2%
8.3%
3.7%
1.6%
9.6%
349
290
252
145
68
146
106
80
60
49
83
48
11
70
34.2%
28.5%
24.7%
14.2%
6.7%
14.3%
10.4%
7.9%
5.9%
4.8%
8.1%
4.7%
1.1%
6.9%
361
248
24 1
139
113
89
88
62
60
48
45
27
12
21
35.8%
24.6%
23.9%
13.8%
11.2%
8.8%
8.7%
6.2%
6.0%
4.8%
4.5%
2.7%
1.2%
2.1%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 107
Biggest Concerns Regarding Carlsbad
The survey assessed resident concerns about Carlsbad. Specifically, respondents were asked
an open-ended question about what their biggest concern is regarding the City of Carlsbad. These
concerns are displayed in Table 96. Overcrowding was the most common complaint, with 47.3
percent of the respondents mentioning this issue, while 35.4 percent idenming traffic as their biggest
concern.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBFU 108
Table 96: Biggest Concern Regarding Carlsbad.
2000 2001 2002 2003
count % Count % Count % count %
Growth, Overbuilding, ,779 and Overcrowding
City Street
TrafficlFreeway
Traffic
Government Planning
and Responsiveness/
Poor City Services
Increasing Cost of
Living, Cost of
Housing
Quality of Schools,
Overcrowding and
Busing
Crime
Losing Open Spaced
Conservation of Land
Pollution/Air Quality
Other
313
386
34
51
10
30
27
42
57.2% 49 1
38.6% 334
3.4% 36
5.1% 50
1 .O% 26
3.0% 16
2.7% 25
4.2% 30
96
48.6% 486
33.1% 345
3.6% 61
5.0% 47
2.6% 58
I .6% 19
2.5% 29
3.0% 4
9.5% 152
47.7% 476
33.9% 356
6.0% 80
4.6% 68
5.7% 47
1.9% 31
2.8% 29
.4% 3
14.9% 43
47.3%
35.4%
7.9%
6.8%
4.7%
3.1%
2.9%
.3%
4.3%
Improving the Quality of Life in Carlsbad
Residents were asked about improving the @ty of life in the community. They were given the
opportunity to offer suggestions regadmg what the City of Carlsbad could do to improve the quality of
life. Table 97 provides a summary of the residents’ responses. The most common recommendation
offered by respondents was setting limits on growth and development. This suggestion came hm a
quarter (24.5%) of the respondents in 2003. Improving traffic circulation was also recommended by
many (1 7.6%) of the respondents.
Table 97: Improving the Quality of Life in Carlsbad.
2001 2002 2003
count % count % count %
242
125
52
108
23.7%
12.3%
5.1%
10.6%
247
177
124
118
24.5%
17.6%
12.3%
11.7%
Set Limits on Growth and
Development
Improve Traffic
Circulation
Save Open Space
Improve Roads, Parking,
and Public Transportation
More Recreation and
Entertainment Venues
More Programs, Events and
Activities
More Relief for Poor and
Homeless
More Police and Better
Safety
Other
283
170
28.0%
16.8%
140 13.9%
89 8.8% 108 10.6%
5.3%
3.8%
77 7.6%
52
38
5.2%
3.8%
38
31
3.8%
3.1%
54
39
38
267
3.8%
26.4%
47
274
4.6%
26.9%
34
57
3.4%
5.7%
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 110
SUMMARY
The fmdmgs contained within this report provide a very positive view of the City of Carlsbad.
Generally, the trends over time were gendy in apositive directioa The hdmgs were typically
consistent across regions, though there were some differences by region. The regions differed across
most demogmphic characteristics, most notably, the years the respondent had lived in the city was
higher in the north than in the south of Carlsbad- When there were differences in ratings, residents in
the north were typically more positive than those in the south. That is, residents in the north gave higher
ratings than those in the south to (1) fire protection services, (2) hazardous waste disposal, (3) the city’s
balancing of various land uses, (4) informaton chpersal, and (5) confidence in the city government.
Residents in the south rated curb and sidewalk conditions more positively than did residents in the
north. Even where there are differences, the overall patterns of ratings are consistent between the
North Region and the South Region. Some key findings are noted below.
e All of the city-provided services addressed in the survey were rated as good or excellent by
most people.
b Residents gave an average ovd rating of the city services that was higher in 2001 than they
were in 2000, and have stayed higher hugh 2003.
b Contracted services were rated as high, though generally not as high as the city-provided
services.
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 111
0 Residents in 2003 thought the City of carisbad was doing a moderate job balancing various
land uses in the city such as residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational. The average
rating was 6.34 on a zero-to-ten scale.
0 Residents rated the job the city has done providing imp0aant information quik favorably. The
findings reveal a clear positive trend in these ratings rose bm 5.95 in 2001 to 6.27 in 2002,
and increased again in 2003 to 7.48 on the zero-&ten scale.
0 The survey results reveal a positive trend in the confidence that Carlsbad residents have in the
city government to make decisions that positively affect residents. confidence in the city
government was highe~ in 2001 and 2002 than it had been in 2000, and was higher still in 2003.
0 In 2003, Carlsbad residents reported recycling 66.4 percent of the waste materials in their
household that were recyclable.
0 Two-thirds of the respondents said that they had seen, read, or heard something about water
conservation in the past year.
0 Generally, residents feel very safe walking alone in their neighborhood both during the day and
at night"
_--
-I
-.
City of Cmlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 112
APPENDIX A
City of Carlsbad Public Opinion Survey 2003
Are you currently a resident of Carlsbad?
0. No
1. Yes
> skip to close
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSED
> skip to close
> skip to close
First, to be su~e that you live in our study area, what is your zip code?
1.92008
2.92009
3. Other, Specify: > skip to close
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSED
> skip to close
> skip to close
To be sure we talk to people fiom all areas of Carlsbad, do you live east or west of El
1. East
2. West
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QWORK Do you currenfly work within the city limits of Carlsbad?
0. No
1. Yes
2. RetiredMomemakeriDoesn’t Apply
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSED
~~ City of Carlsbad 2003 public Ginion Survey Report; SBRI 113
QCBAD 1 What do you like most about living in the City of Carlsbad? (open end)-
QCBAD2 What is your biggest concern regarding the City of Carlsbad? -(open end)-
QSERVl How would you rate: Recreatiod program?
4. Excellent
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QSERVl P [If '~oor"] is there a specific reason why you rated recreational programs as poor?
QSERV2 How would you rate: Library services?
4. Excellent
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QSERV2P Df "poor"] is there a specific reason why you rated libmy services as poor?
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 114
QSERV3
QSERV3P
QSERV4
QSERV4P
QSERV5
QSERV5P
poor?
How would you rate: Fire protection?
4. Excellent
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
[If ''poor"] is there a specific reason why you rated fire protection as poor?
How would you rate: Police Services?
4. Excellent
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
[If '~pooi'] is there a specific reason why you rated police services as poor?
How would you rate: Enfoment of Mc regulahons?
4. Excellent
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
"poor"] is thm a specific reason why you rated dorcement of traffic regulations as
~ City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 115
QSERV6
QSERV6P
QSERV7
QSERV7P
QSERV8
QSERV8P
How would you rate: Water services?
4. Excellent
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
[If "poor"] is there a specific mon why you rated water services as poor?
How would you rate: Cultural arts program (gallery, jazz concerts, art camps, etc.)?
4. Excellent
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
pf "poof'l is there a specific reason why you rated cultural arts programs as poor?
How would you rate: Sewer services?
4. Excellent
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
[If "poor"] is there a specific reason why you rated sewer services as poor?
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI __ 116
QGENSERV In general how would you rate the overall Services provided by the City?
4. Excellent
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QOUTSRVl How would you rate: Trash collection?
4. Excellent
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QOUTSVl P [If “pooi’l is there a specific reason why you rated trash collection as poor?
QOUTSRV2 How would you rate: Street Sweeping?
4. Exwllent
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QOUTSV2P [If “poor”] is there a specific reason why you rated street sweeping as poor?
City of Caslsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 117
QOUTSRV3 How would you rate: Hazardous Waste Disposal?
4. Excellent
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QOUTSV3P [If "poor''] is there a specific reason why you rated hazardous waste disposal as poor?
QOUTSRV4 How would you rate: Animal Contml?
4. Ekcellent
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QOUTSV4P [If "poor"] is there a specific reason why you rated animal control as pr?
QOUTSRV5 How would you rate: Recycling Collection?
4. Excellent
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QOUTSV5P pf "poor"] is there a specific reason why you rated recycling collection as poor?
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 118
QOUTSRV6 How would you rate: Cable television?
4. Excellent
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QOUTSV6P [If “poor”] is there a specific reason why you rated cable television as poor?
QCONTACT Did you have any contact with the City of Carlsbad this past year?
0. No
1. Yes
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QCONTCT 1 How would you rate your contact with the city?
4. Excellent
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QCONTCTP What type of contact with the city did you have, and why would you rate that contact
as ‘Poof’?
- (openend)-
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 119
QINFO 1
city? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
In the past year, have you used any of the following to access information about the
1. Community Services Recreation Guide
2. City Web Page (www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us)
3. City Desktop Calendar
4. Flyer in City Water Bill
5. Citizen Fonrms
6. Calling the City on the telephone
7. City Council Meetings
8. Carlsbad Community Update Video
9. Local Newspapers
10. TV-Local News
1 1. Local Cable Channel
12. Other, SpecifL:
13. DON’T KNOW
14. REFUSED
15. NONEMO MORE ANSWERS
> skip to QWBl
> skip to QWEBl
CITYINF2
you rate the job the city does in providing you with information that is irnpoxtant to you?
Using a scale of 0 to 10 where zero means poor and ten means excellent, how would
QWEB 1 Have you accessed the City’s website in the past year?
0. No
1. Yes
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QWEB2 Is there a specific reason why you haven’t accessed the city’s website?
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 120
QW3 If yes, did you find what you were looking for on the city’s website?
0. No
1. Yes
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QWEB4 How would you rate the city’s web site?
4. Excellent
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QWB4-1 Is there a specific reason why you rate the city’s website as poor? -(open end)-
QWEB4-2 Is there a specific reason why you rate the city’s website as excellent? -(open end)-
QSTREETl How would you rate: Overall road conditions?
4. Excellent
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSED
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 121
QMAIN1
QMAIN2
Qm5
QSTREET5
How would you rate: Maintenance of street landscaping and medians?
4. Excellent
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSED
How would you rate: Tree Maintenance?
4. Excellent
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSED
How would you rate: Curb/sidewalk condition?
4. Excellent
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSED
How would you rate: Traffic circulation efficiency, excluding &ways?
4. Excellent
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSED
sty of Czbad 2063hblic Opinion Survey Report; SBRI _. ., 122
QPARKUSE Has anyone in your household used a Carlsbad public park during the past twelve
months?
0. No
1. Yes
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QPARKRAT How would you rate the condition of the park/s and/or park facilities you or your fdy
used?
4. ExdkIlt
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QPRKRATP What was the name of the park or facility and why do you rate it as “poof’?
TOP
more land and resources devoted to open space, trails and parks. I would like to describe four
different proposals to you and then ask for your opinion about these proposals.
Previous feedback hm Carlsbad citizens has helped us learn that people would like to see
TOP 1 The first proposal is for the city to purchase or acquire undeveloped open space to preserve
and protect. This space would not be accessible by the public, but would be left untouched as habitat
for native plants and animals. I will refer to this proposal as “preserved and protected open space.’’
TOP2 The next proposal is for the city to, create waking and biking trails that inmnnect throughout
the city. These trails would be built across cumntly undeveloped land, and would provide connections
between other tt-ails built within and around neighborhoods and other public areas. I will refm to this
proposal as “interconnecting trails.’’
TOP3 The next proposal is for the city to purchase or acquire undeveloped open space to build a
nature park This park would include loop trails built within the park, and a limited number of picnic
areas. I will refer to this proposal as “open space and trails park.”
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion SurviRepo* SBRI 123
TOP4 The final proposal is for the city to develop additional traditional parks, with active uses such as
ball fields, tot lots, and picnic areas. These parks would be similar to other parks already in the city,
and provide more places for family activities and groups to play sports. I will refer to this proposal as
“active use parks.”
[Descriptions of the four proposals will be randormzed, with the words bt, next and
final inserted appropriately.]
QNl proposals. How much of the 100 dollars should go towad
Suppose that you had 100 doh of city hds to spend among these four different
QCHKl
1. Preserved and Protected Open Space
2. Interconnecbng Trails
3. Open Space and Trails Park
4. Active Use Parks
Amount of Money Spent So Far
Just to make sure I have the correct answers, you said that you would spend-
Is this Correct?
0. No
1. Yes
QLAND
such as residential, commercial, industrial and recreational. On a scale hm 0 tolo, where zero means
very poor and ten means excellent, how would you rate the job the City of Carlsbad is doing in
balancing the various land uses in the city?
One of the tasks of city government is to balance various land uses in the city - uses
--
QLAND2 What could the city do to improve your rating on this issue? - (open end)-
-
ALLMCYC If you had to estimate the percentage of waste items that you dqose of via recycling,
where 0% would be recycling nothing and 100% would be recycling everythmg you can recycle, what
would you say your percentage would be?
- %Percentage
~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 124
QRECYC2 What keeps you ftom recyclrng a greater percentage of these items? - (open end)-
QRECYC3 What types of materials would you like to recycle that you currently cannot?
[DO NOT READ LIST, MARK ALL THAT APPLY]
1. MAGAZINES
2. CATALOGS
3. PHONE BOOKS
4. DRY FOOD BOXES
5. PACKAGING
6. PAPER BAGS
7. JUICE BOXES
8. WHITE PAPER
9. COLORED PAPER
10. LETTERS
11. JUNKMAIL
12. EMPTY METAL PAINT AND AEROSOL CANS
13. ALUMINUM FOIL
14. PIE TINS
15. HANGARS
16. STEEL
17. OTHER
QOCEAN
[DO NOT READ LIST, CHOOSE ONE ANSWER]
What do you think is the greatest contributor to ocean water pollution?
1. CONTAMINATED STORM WATEWAN RUNOFF
2. SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
3. INDUSTFUES (DISCHARGING INTO THE OCEAN)
4. BOATS AND SHIPS: OWGAS SPILLS
5. WASHINGCARS
6. CARS: OIL & GAS LEAKS
7. ILLEGAL DUMPING OF CHEMICALS OR OTHER MATERIALS
8. TRASWLITTERING
9. PETWASTE
10. FERTILIZElUPESTICIDES
11. SEWAGE SPILLS OR OVERFLOWS
12. ALGAE
13. MEXICO
14. OTHER
15. NONE
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 125
QOCEANl
the pollution of our creeks, lagoons, and ocean?
Have you seen or heard anythmg during the past year about how residents can prevent
0. No
1. Yes
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QOCEAN2
- (open end)-
If yes - where do you recall seeing or hearing about ways to prevent water pollution?
[DO NOT READ LIST, CHOOSE ONE ANSWER ONLY]
1) Tv 2) RADIO
3) NEWSPAPER
4) BROCHURES
5) POSTERS
6) MOVIE TJEATERS
7) WEBSITE
8) CURB SIGNS
9) NEWSLETTERS
10) FAMILY/FRIENDS/OTHER WORD OF MOUTH
11) PUBLIC EVENTS/BOOTH
13) DON’T KNOW
12) OTHER
QSTORMl Where do you think materials that enter the street gutter or storm drain go?
[DO NOT READ LIST, CHOOSE ONE ANSWER ONLY]
1. SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
2. DIRECTLY TO CREEKS, LAGOONS, OR OCEAN WITHOUT TREATMENT
3. LOCAL CREEKS, LAGOONS, OR OCEAN AFTER TREATMENT
4. OTHER
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSEDhJO MORE ANSWERS
City of Carlsbad 2003 public Opinion Survey Report; SBFU 126
QSTORM;! Whm do you wash your car most ob?
[DO NOT READ, CHECK ALL THAT APPLY]
1. AT A COMMERCIAL, CAR WASH
2. ON THE STREET
3. IN THE DRIVEWAY
4. ON THE LAWN
5. HIRE A MOBILE WASHER
6. OTHER
7. DON'T WASH CAIUNAP
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED/NO MORE ANSWERS
QSTORM4
the storm water system or get information on ways to prevent water pollution?
Did you know there is a storm water hotline you can call to report illegal discharges into
0. No
1. Yes
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QSTORM6A What do you think is the greatest waste of water?
1. OUTDOOR IRRIGATION
2. WAITING FOR WATER IN SHOWER OR SINK TO WARM UP
3. TOILETS RUNNING
4. FILLING SWIMMING POOL
5. HOSING OFF SIDEWALKS & DRJYEWAYS
6. LEAVING WATER ON WHILE BRUSHING TEETH OR SHAVING
7. LEAKS
8. OTHER:
9. DON'T KNOW
10. REFUSED
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 127
QSTORM8 How often do you make a conscious effort to conserve water?
1. Never
2. Rarely
3. Sometimes
4. Often
5. Always
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QWATER What one thing do you do to conserve water?
[DO NOT READ LIST, CHOOSE ONE ANSWER ONLY]
1. ADJUST YOUR IRRIGATION SYSTEM TIMERS
3. USE A BROOM INSTEAD OF A HOSE TO CLEAN DRIVEWAYS AND
SIDEWALKS.
4. FIX LEAKS IMMEDIATELY.
5. USE YOUR DISHWASHER AND WASHING MACHINE FOR FULL LOADS
6. TURN OFF THE WATER WHEN BRUSHING YOUR TEETH OR SHAVING.
7. TAKING SHORTER SHOWERS.
8. DON'T RUN THE HOSE WHILE WASHING YOUR CAR.
9. WATER YOUR LAWN ONLY WHEN IT NEEDS IT.
10. WATER DURING THE COOL PARTS OF THE DAY.
1 1. PLANT DROUGHT-TOLERANT TREES AND PLANTS.
12. OTHER
13. NONE
2. REPLACE YOUR OLD TOILETS WITH ULTRA-LOW-FLUSH TOILETS.
ONLY.
QHEARDl
conservation?
Have you seen, read, or heard anythmg during the past year about: Water
0. No
1. Yes
8. DON'T KNOW
9. REFUSED
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBlU 128
QHEARD2 Have you seen, read, or heard anythmg during the past year about: Household
RXyCllIlg?
0. No
1. Yes
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFWSED
TSAFE The next few questions have to do with neighborhd safety and police services. For
each question, please use a scale of 0 to 10 where zero means not at all safe and ten
means very safe.
QSAFEl How safe do you feel walking alone in yom neighborhd during the day?
QSAFE2 How safe do you feel waking alone in your neighborhood after dark?
QCONFID3
confident are you in the Carkbad City government to make decisions which positively affect the lives of
its communitymemh?
On a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 is very confident and zero is not at all confident, how
QCONLOW Is there a specific reason why your rating for confklence in city government was so
low? ( open end)
QCONHIGH Is thm a specific reason why your rating for confidence in city government was so
high? ( open end)
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 129
QLIsUSE
what is the main reason you use a Library in Carlsbad? (SELECT ONE)
I’m going to read you a list of reasons for which you might use a library. Please tell me,
1. To get answers to questions or to do general research.
2. To help meet your educational or jobrelated goals (either formal schooling
3. To check out or to read books or magazines for enjoyment.
4. To take advantage of programs the libmy offers.
5. To use Internet, word-processing computers, or typewriters.
6. For a quiet place to read and study.
7. To help your children or yourself improve reading skills.
9. NONEDO NOT USE LIBRARY
or personal growth)
8. OTHER (Specify)
QLISSERV
want?
Overall, how would you rate the Carlsbad libraries as to the availability of materials you
4. Excellent
3. Good
2. Fair
1. Poor
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QLIBSRVP If “fair“ or “poor,” what materials were unavailable to you? ( open end)
QCOMPLEX Of the following three locations which would you prefer for the future site of a Carlsbad
Civic Center/ City Hall complex?
1. Near the geographical center of the city (on El Camino Real just north of the airport)
2. Along the coastal corridor of the city
3. At the current City Hall location (I-5 and Carlsbad Village Drive)
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSE
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 130
QCOhPLXl What would you like to see in a City WCivic Center complex?
[DO NOT READ LIST, CHOOSE ONE ANSWER ONLY]
1. RESTAURANT
2. DAY CARE
3. OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICES, (STATE, COUNTY)
4. COFFEE SHOPS
5. DELICATESSEN
6. AMPITHEAER VENUE
7. CONFERENCE ROOMS
8. RETAIL SHOPS
9. OTHER:
10. NONE
LIFEQUAL
-( open end)
What could the City of Carlsbad do to improve the quality of life in the Community?
DEMO1
DEMO2
DEMO3
DEMO4
QAGE
How many years have you lived in Carlsbad? (open end)-
Do you own or rent your home?
0. Rent
1. own
How many people currently reside in your household? (open end)
How many children in your household are under the age of 18? (open end)
What year wae you born?
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 131
QRACE What race do you consider yourself to be?
1. WhitdCaucasian
2. African American or Black
3. Asian
4. AmericanIn@ Aleut,Eskimo
6. Other [Specify]
5. Hlspanic or Latino
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFUSED
QTNCOME
income last year before taxes?
Please stop me when I reach the category that best describes your household’s total
1. Under $25,000
2. $25,000 to $34,999
3. $35,000 to $49,999
4. $50,000 to $74,999
5. $75,000 to $99,999
6. $100,000 to $125,000
7. $125,000 to under $150,000
8. $150,000 to under $200,000
9. $200,000 and above
8. DON’T KNOW
9. REFWSED
L
City of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey Report; SBRI 132