AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.13
CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
AGENDA TITLE: Receive and file information related to The National Citizen Survey and resident Focus Groups
MEETING DATE: February 10, 2010
PREPARED BY: Kara Reddig, Assistant to the City Manager
DEPARTMENT HEAD: Laura S. Gil, City Manager
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that the City Council of the City of Elk Grove receive and fiie information related to The National Citizen Survey and resident Focus Groups.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
During fall 2009, the City embarked on a citywide survey through the International City/County Management Assocíation (ICMA). Developed by ieMA and National Research Center, Inc., The National Citizen Survey (The NCS) is a low-cost resident survey service for local governments. The NCS allows jurisdictions to survey resident opinion for program planning, goal setting, budgeting, and performance measurement.
Staff can use the results of The NCS to improve service delivery. Elected officials çanuse the results to set spending priorities. The City Manager can use:fhe results to measure progress and chart future steps.
The City selected from a set of standard questions to assess resident opinion about basic services and'- community life. Additional customized questions allowed the City to tailor the survey to our unique needs.
1 Elk Grove City Council February 10,2010 Page 2 of 4
The City selected this survey tool because it is cost effective, allows for national benchmarking, and corresponds to the ieMA Center for Performance Measurement (CPM), with which the City participates. Thus, Elk Grove can submit citizen satisfaction data obtained through The NCS survey instrument to CPM along with their other performance measurement data.
It is also important to note that The NCS is a survey that reflects resident opinions about the entire community and all services. Some questions asked in the survey are not under the direct influence of the City of Elk Grove, such as parks, some utilities, libraries, schools, etc. The City will forward the results to the various agencies mentioned in the survey so they
can also learn from the results.
The NOS mailed 1,200 surveys to random Elk Grove residences and
received a 220/0 return rate1. The results oftne survey canoe Viewèd in Attachment 1 and includes the following subsections:
Report Title TAB 1 Main Report
TAB 2 Benchmark Report TAB 3 Report of Open-ended Question
TAB 4 Report of Demographic Subgroup Comparisons TAB 5 Report of Geographic Subgroup Comparisons
TAB 6 Focus Group Findings
After staff's analysis of The NCS was complete, it was determined that a
series of resident focus groups would be beneficial to delve deeper into
some of the survey findings. In early January 2010, staff conducted four
focus groups where participants were asked a series of questions over an approximately two-hour period relating to public trust, the direction Elk Grove is taking, customer service, jobs/economic growth, public safety/police and code enforcement. The focus groups included residents selected at random based on pre-establíshed criteria as well as community
1 The 22% response rate appears to be in line with community response-type surveys as reviewed by a Google Answers posting concerning Community Survey Response Rates (August 2002). According to The NCS, typically, response rates obtain on citizen surveys range from 20% to 40%.
2 Elk Grove City Council February 10,2010 Page 3 of 4 and neighborhood leaders. The results of the focus groups can be viewed in T AS 6 of Attachment 1.
As a result of both The NCS and the Focus Group report, a series of next steps will be conducted, which include:
. Survey results will be considered during the creationlimplementation of the FY201 0/11 budget . The FY2010/11 budget and department work plans will callout specific measures that staff will report on throughout the budget year . Survey results wil be used in the City's ICMA performance measures . Survey will be conducted on a semi-annual basis so the City is able to measures progress
While the survey contains many valuable results, calls out areas of strength and improvement, it is important to highlight a few general areas and corresponding action, which include:
. C((~ation of a tourism / marketing community campaign .. results showad that residents aren't familiar with what services are provided by the City of Elk Grove as well as what the Elk Grove community has to offer residents and visitors.
. Bolster Economic Development efforts to attract and retain jobs and businesses .. results showed that good paying job opportunities in
town were lacking, and residents would like more opportunities to
work close to home. Residents also felt the speed of jobs growth in Elk Grove was too slow.
. Conduct Customer Service Training - results showed that many residents didn't have contact with City employees on a regular basis so when they do have contact, it is important that employees are knowledgeable, responsive, and courteous.
. Increase Civic Engagement Opportunities.. results showed that many residents don't attend public meetings, watch public meetings on TV, volunteer in Elk Grove, or participate in a club or civic group. Civic Engagement is important to the City so residents have the opportunity to voice their opinion on important City issues
3 Elk Grove City Council February 10, 2010 Page 40f 4
. Continue effective Public Information Campaigns.. results showed that residents read the City's newsletter and visit our website so it is important to continue with these mediums as well as incorporate new social media outlets.
. Improve Public Trust .. results showed public trust is an important component that can be improved by further community outreach,
education, and an open and responsive government.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This action has no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund. The City Manager's Budget for FY 2009-10 includes $40,000 for the
development of a citizen survey to assess the effectiveness of City services
and to explore the most effective methods to communicate with residents
and businesses2. The actual cost of the survey and focus group activities totals $28,850.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. The National Citizen Survey and Focus Group Findings Report
2 FY 2009-10 Annual Budget, page 26 and page 28.
4 ATTACHMENT 1
The National Citizen Survey and Focus Group Findings Results
The compilation of The National Citizen Survey and Focus Group Findings Results is attached under separate, bound cover.
"
5 ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF ELK GROVE
The National Citizen Survey and Focus Group Findings Results
January 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS
TAB 1 Main Report
TAB 2 Benchmark Report
TAB 3 Report ofOpen..endedQuestion
TAB 4 Report of Demographic Subgroup Comparisons
TABS Report of Geographic Subgroup Comparisons
TAB 6 Focus Group Findings ~
- National Citizen SurveyTM
C'ITY OF ELK GROVEi CA 2009
ICJ ~ATIONAL~EES~ATR;~ INC, I€MA 3005 30th Street 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500 Boulder, CO 80301 Washington, DC 20002 www.n-r-c.com · 303-444-7863 www.icma.org · 202-289-ICMA City of Elk Grove I 2009
, J~ ~r E ÉJ N. i-'E ;:.,nr s ,~;¡ % I '~':' " "" " 1s...... :J. ~ Survey Background...... 1 About The National Citizen SurveyTM ...... 1 Understanding the Results ...... 3 Executive Summary ...... 5 Community Ratings ...... 7 Overall Community Quality ...... 7 Community Design ...... 9 Transportation ...... 9 Housing ...... 12 Land Use and Zoning ...... 14 Economic Sustainabil ity...... 17 Public Safety ...... 21 Environmental Sustainability...... 25 Recreation and Wellness ...... 28 Parks and Recreation...... 28 Culture, Arts and Education ...... 30 Health and Wellness ...... 32 Community Inclusiveness...... 34 Civic Engagement...... 36 Civic Activity ...... 36 Information and Awareness ...... 39 Social Engagement ...... 40 Public Trust...... 41 City of Elk Grove Employees ...... 43 From Data to Action ...... 45 Resident Priorities ...... 45 City of Elk Grove Action ChartM ...... 46 Using Your Action ChartM ...... 48 ~ Policy Questions ...... 49 ~ Appendix A: Complete Survey Frequencies ...... 51 uv Frequencies Excluding "Don't Know" Responses ...... 51 ~ '" Frequencies Including "Don't Know" Responses...... 64 ~ ~ Appendix B: Survey Methodology ...... 81 .~ Z'" Appendix C: Survey Materials...... 89 ..0- I'? ~ V)
.",~ o 1 z'" ;! ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM City of Elk Grove I 2009
'" S~UR 'l"E~ l3~~lRKqfl a:l.~N,.g "I ABOUT THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEyTM The National Citizen Survey'M (The NCS) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The NCS was developed by NRC to provide a statistically valid survey of resident opinions about community and services provided by local government. The survey results may be used by staff, elected officials and other stakeholders for community planning and resource allocation, program improvement and policy making.
FIGURE 1: THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEy'M METHODS AND GOALS
Identify,corrÎmunity strengths and: Multi-contact mailedsurvey
weaknesses ~ Representâfive sample of 1,200'households . ' Identify se'rvice strengths and 259 surveystreturned; 22% responseTrate weaknesses 6% margin of error Data- statistically~weighted,to "; " r~flect & populationj' ~ "
Immediate Long-term . Provide useful information for: . Improved:;¿; ,;,,' services ", Ij,' _ . Planning ¡, n . More civic engagement . Reso~rce allocation . Better community quality of life . Performance measurement · Stronger puq,1 ic tryst . Program and pol icy evaluation -
~ The NCS focuses on a series of community characteristics and local government services, as well as ~ 8 issues of public trust. Resident behaviors related to civic engagement in the community also were -C measured in the survey. ~ :" -7 ~ 2 -¡:'" z'" :;- .D '~
~ en
.§ o ¿ -¡:o 0:2 ~ ¡=
The National Citizen SurveyTM
1 City of Elk Grove I 2009
FIGURE 2: THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEY'" Focus AREAS
...... ~;,~...... :. COMMUNITY : ..\: Q..UÀLlTY,'COMMUNITY ::' ...... :,...... as ,1 : Qu.ility of life : ...... : INd'USIVENESS : :1 QlJ~lityi 'Place,to ofmeighborhood live '": : 11 :": SenseofcomniunityENVIRONMENTAL '. : 1:
\;...... ;...;...;~...... ) 1 SUSIAINABILITY "1.:.:' 1..:::,.... Racial and"cultural acceptance i.::: .::".'...... '.". ::.'Cleanliness H . Senior,. .services yo'uth"andl()w;,,incomE;, ' . EOMMUNli:N DESIGN" Air' quality, :' Preservationof.,natural åreas., ¡ ...... '...... :
Transportation Garbage and recyCling ": ...... Ease of travel,. transit". s.,ervices,CIVIC '" ,~NGAGEMENT~! s:rv, i~:S ....: .::" .,.. .;/ street maintenance ...... ::-'(...... -¿ Civic Activity 'Housing,! ~ ~ Volunteerism : :. ";i;, RECREATION AND \ 'Housi';g options:' cost, . Civic attentiveness afforCtabîl ity " V~tingbehavior
¡ .'1:.1. Parks WELLNES and Recreation ::.¡ Land U~eand Zoning Social.. Engagement ~ : Recreation opportunities;'Jse : Ne~ developm(.mt, growth, Neighbor! iness, social and" . code enforcement .L of parks and facilities,. ":". religious events ,prögrams and classes ~~onomic Sustainability J: Information-and Awareness Employment, shopping and Culture, Arts and'Education retai,'1 C' Iity k Cultural as a'p and ace educati'onal to wor '" '" iPublic information, .. .' opportu n ities, Iibraries,'1:.' \...... p. .u. .b.I..i.c.a..t.io. .n. .s.,.w...e. .b. .s.i.t.e...... schools ...... :...... , .... Health and Well ness . . : PUBLIC SAFETY" " Availability onood, "PuBucTRUST. '" health ~ .:¡.' :::=. . ~ \ services, social services Safety inneighborhood'and Cooperation in community commercial areas ...... :' Value of sërvices . iCririe victimization Direction of community Police, fire, EMS services Citizenlinvolvement. Emergency preparedness' Employees . ~ ...... i;-...... ~~...... ,¡,~...... li'...... ~ The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and u:¡ directly comparable results across The National Citizen SurveytM jurisdictions. Participating households are selected at random and the household member who responds is selected without ~ :3: bias. Multiple mailings give each household more than one chance to participate with self- ~ addressed and postage-paid envelopes. Results are statistically weighted to reflect the proper ~ demographic composition of the entire community. A total of 259 completed surveys were zte obtained, providing an overall response rate of 22%. Typically, response rates obtained on citizen -"00. surveys range from 20% to 40%. '" ~ ~ The National Citizen SurveytM customized for the City of Elk Grove was developed in close iî cooperation with local jurisdiction staff. Elk Grove staff selected items from a menu of questions .¡:N about services and community problems and provided the appropriate letterhead and signatures for Ci mailings. City of Elk Grove staff also augmented The National Citizen SurveyTM basic service through a variety of options including crosstabulation of results, an open-ended question and 1'" z several policy questions. ~ ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 2 City of Elk Grove 12009
UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS
As shown in Figure 2, this report is based around respondents' reports about eight larger categories: community qual ity,communitydesign,.publ icsafety, environmental sustainabil ity,.recreation and
well ness, community inclusiveness, civic engagernent and public trust. Each section begins with
residents' ratings of community characteristics and is followed by residents' ratíngs of service
quality. For all evaluative questions, the percent .of residents rating the service orcommunity
feature as "excellent" or"good" is presented. To see the full set of responses for each question on
the survey, please see Appendix A: Complete Survey Frequencies.
Margin of Error
It is customary todescribethe precision of estimates made from surveys by a "Ievel ofconfidence"
and accompanying "confidence interval" (or margin of error). A traditional confidence level, and
the one used here,is95%. The 95% confidence interval can be any size and quantifies the
sampling error or imprecision of the estimates made from the survey results. The confidence
interval for the City oHlk Grove survey is no greater than plus or minus six percèntage points
around any given percent reportedforthe entire sample (259 completed surveys), A 95%
confidence interval indic:ates that for every 1 00 random samples of this many residents, the
population response to thatquestion would be within the stated interval 95 times. For example, if
75% of rèsidentsrate aservice as "excellent" or "good," then the5% margin of error(forthe95%
confidence interval) indicates that the range of likely responses for the entire jurisdiction isbetween 70% and 80%. . Comparing Survey Results
Certain kinds of services tend to be thought better of by residents in many communities across the
country. For example, public safety services tend to be received better than transportatioriservices
by residents of most American communities. Wherepossihle, the better comparison is not from one
service to another in the City of Elk Grove, hutfrom City oHlk G rove services to services like them provided byother jurisdictions. Ben c h ma r kCo m pa ri son s
NRC's database of comparative residerit opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in
Ù citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions whose residents evaluàtedlocalgovernment .E gave their opinion about the quality of community life. The City of 1._.. services and Elk Grove chose to ~ have comparisons made to the entire database. A benchmark comparison (the average rating from ir' U L alHhe comparison jurisdictions where asimilarquestion was asked) hasheen providedwhen a 2 similar question on the City of Elk Grove Surveywas included in NRC's database and there were at ~ jurisdictions in which the question was asked. For most questions comparedto the ¿¿ least five entire ;: dataset,there were morethanlOOjurisdictions included in the. benchmark comparison. :2 '" z Where comparisons were available, the City of Elk Grove results were noted as beirig "above" the ;, li, benchmark, iJbelow" the benchmark or "simllarto" the benchmark. Thisevaluation of"above," ,. OJ "below"or "similarto"comesfrom a statistical comparison of the City of Elk Grove's rating to the 2: if:: benchmark. . - c: OJ .",N "Don't Know" ResponsesandRounding o e.c On manyof the questions in the survey respondents may answer"don'tknow."The proportiori of ,g respondents giving this replyis shown inthe full set of responses included in AppendixA. Zno However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented inthebody ofthe .~GJ
The National Citizen SurveyTM 3 Cityof Elk Grove I 2009
report. In otherwords, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an
opinion about a specific item.
For some questions, respondents were permitted to select morethan one answer. When the total
exceeds 100% in a table for a multiple response question, it is because some respondents did select
more than one response. When a table for aquestion thatonlypermitted a single response does not
total to exactly100%,it is due to the customary practice of percentagesbeing rounded to the nearest whole number.
For more information on understanding TheNCS report, please see AppendixB: Survey Methodology~
~
B u~ u ;; ~ ¿¿
~. '~ô z .D:; ~ )0: ¡¡ "2: Vi
".¡~ o roc .g z'" W .ti-
The National Citizen. SurveyTM 4 City of Elk Grove I 2009
E;~~ig;,ÇóY,~T'1 V".' ~ e ÇJJry'rvt.A,.R'Y' This report of the City of Elk Grove survey provides the opinions of a representative sample of residents about community quality of life, service delivery, civic participation and unique issues of local interest. A periodic sounding of resident opinion offers staff, elected officials and other stakeholders an opportunity to identify challenges and to plan for and evaluate improvements and to sustain services and amenities for long-term success.
Most residents experience a good quality of life in the City of Elk Grove and believe the City is a good place to live. The overall quality of life in the City of Elk Grove was rated as "excellent" or "good" by 74% of respondents. A majority report they plan on staying in the City of Elk Grove for the next five years.
A variety of characteristics of the community was evaluated by those participating in the study. The characteristics receiving the most favorable ratings were the overall appearance of Elk Grove and the cleanliness of Elk Grove. The characteristic receiving the least positive rating was employment opportunities.
Ratings of community characteristics were compared to the benchmark database. Of the 30 characteristics for which comparisons were available, four were above the benchmark comparison, 14 were similar to the benchmark comparison and 12 were below.
Residents in the City of Elk Grove were somewhat civically engaged. While only 22% had attended a meeting of local elected public officials or other local public meeting in the previous 12 months, 94% had provided help to a friend or neighbor. Less than half had volunteered their time to some group or activity in the City of Elk Grove, which was lower than the benchmark. In general, survey respondents demonstrated mild trust in local government. Less than half rated the overall direction being taken by the City of Elk Grove as "good" or "excellent." This was lower than the benchmark. Those residents who had interacted with an employee of the City of Elk Grove in the previous 12 months gave high marks to those employees. Most rated their overall impression of employees as "excellent" or "good." On average, residents gave favorable ratings to many local government services. City services rated
~ were able to be compared to the benchmark database. Of the 36 services for which comparisons, were available, 13 were above the benchmark comparison, 17 were similar to the benchmark ~ comparison and six were below. o .r ~ '" ~ '" "" ~ i .n? ß â) è :: V) aJ .~ o
.;:g z'" F9=
The National Citizen SurveyTM 5 Cityof Elk Grove I 2009
A Key Driver Analysis was conducted for the City of Elk Grove which examined the relationships
between ratings of each serviceand ratings of the City of Elk Grove's services overalL. Those key
driver services that correlated most stronglywith residents' perceptions about overallCity service
quality have been identified. By targeting improvements in key services, the Cityof Elk Grove çan
focus on the services that have the greatest likelihood of influencing residents' opinions about
overallservice quality. Services found tobe influential in ratings of overall service quality from the Key Driver Analysis were:
· Pol ice services
· Land use, planning, and zoning · Code enforcement · SideWalk maintenance · City parks
Of these services, those deserving the most attention maybe those that were below or simìlar to the
benchmark comparisons: police services, land use, planning, and zoning, and code enforcement.
Forsidewalk maintenance and city parks services, theCity of Elk Grove is above the benchmark and should continue to ensure high quality performance.
~ 8" ~ ..u ~ ~ c.'" '" .9 z~ :; so ~ ;0, ~' vi:0 vr: ''¡N o "3 .g z'" c; ¡;
The National Citizen SurveyTM 6 City of Elk Grove i 2009
ii i:~ 9" tt.. ~~t.~.IÑ,n'T~' R ~ "'' i. IN. G. a OVERALL COMMUNITY QUALITY Overall quality of community life may be the single best indicator of success in providing the natural ambience, services and amenities that make for an attractive community. The National Citizen SurveyTM contained many questions related to quality of community life in the City of Elk Grove - not only direct questions about quality of life overall and in neighborhoods, but questions to measure residents' commitment to the City of Elk Grove. Residents were asked whether they planned to move soon or if they would recommend the City of Elk Grove to others. Intentions to stay and willingness to make recommendations provide evidence that the City of Elk Grove offers services and amenities that work.
Most of the City of Elk Grove's residents gave favorable ratings to their neighborhoods and the community as a place to live. Further, a majority reported they would recommend the community to others and plan to stay for the next five years.
FIGURE 3: RATINGS OF OVERALL COMMUNITY QUALITY
. Excellent . Good
The overall quality of life 61% in Elk Grove L- ~... =.. )
Your neighborhood as a 55% place to live -if i~: ~!J I
Elk Grove as a place to 60% live r: ~" ~ I
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents
~ FIGURE 4: LIKELIHOOD OF REMAINING IN COMMUNITY AND RECOMMENDING COMMUNITY
~~ (j Recommend living in Elk -: Somewhcit likely i:. G rove to someone who .. 47% :l asks ¿¿ :: '¡: z'" Remain in Elk Grove for Somew.hat likely .."" the next five years 39% ~". t¡ ~ 100% v; 0% 25% 50% 75%
~ Percent "likely" u:.e ~ z,~ ~ ;:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 7 City of Elk Grove I 2009
FIGURE 5: OVERALL COMMUNITY QUALITY BENCHMARKS to benchmark I I, Overall,Comparison quality of life in Elk Grove Below YourElk Groveneighborhood as a asplace place to to live live BelowSimilar Remain in Elk Grove for the next five years Similar Recommend living in Elk Grove to someone who asks Below
~ ~ uv -g '" ? à2
.~ z"' -";, ~). ~ :i V1 d) '¡:N o
.~ z;¡ '" F
The National Citizen SurveyTM 8 City of Elk Grove I 2009
COMMUNITY DESIGN Transportation The ability to move easily throughout a community can greatly affect the quality of life of residents by diminishing time wasted in traffic congestion and by providing opportunities to travel quickly and safely by modes other than the automobile. High quality options for resident mobility not only require local government to remove barriers to flow but they require government programs and policies that create quality opportunities for all modes of travel. Residents responding to the survey were given a list of six aspects of mobility to rate on a scale of "excellent," "good," "fair" and "poor." Ease of bicycle travel in Elk Grove was given the most positive rating, followed by availability of paths and walking trails.
FIGURE 6: RATINGS OF TRANSPORTATION IN COMMUNITY
Ease of car travel in Elk : 4~~ . Excellent i= Good Grove ~~J
Ease of bus travel in Elk 34%" !; Grove 1
Ease of bicycle travel in 'iM 48% Elk Grove Kj
Ease of walking in Elk 47%:, Grove = i
Availability of paths and ~ jOY~ walking trails =, ~ I
Traffic flow on major 32'i' streets 1
75% 100% -Š 0% 25% 50% ~ Percent of respondents .î' u FIGURE 7' COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION BENCHMARKS u j7 ;: ¡; Comparison to benchmark 1 ! I ,: Ease of bus travel in Elk Grove Similar § Ease of car travel in Elk Grove Below ~ Ease of walking in Elk Grove Similar -0;, , Ease of bicycle travel in Elk Grove Similar ;, ~ Availability of paths and walking trails Similar :: 'f, Traffic flow on major streets Similar "- .¡:N (j
§.;: z'" ;; ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 9 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Six transportation services were rated in Elk Grove. As compared to most communities across America, ratings tended to be somewhat favorable. Three were above the benchmark, and three were similar to the benchmark.
FIGURE 8: RATINGS OF TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING SERVICES
.. Excellent .. Good Street repair i' m :~o: ~ J
Street cleaning " 44% : x _ .1.
Street lighting 53%' l r. t; :' ~ i
Sidewalk maintenance ~1% ~l
Traffic signal timing 33%~ i
Bus or transit services _,~ 4~O/O : .1
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents
FIGURE 9. TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING SERVICES BENCHMARKS ,.1' I .L: ComparlsoQ to benchmark I ~ Street repair /maintenance Above Street cleaning Similar o~ .: Street I ighti ng Above ~ '" Above &~ Sidewalk maintenance ~ Light timing Similar g Similar "i..: Bus or transit services Z ..;". :f ?: ~ :0 V¡ ii .",N Ü ëi .2 z:¡ ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 10 City of Elk Grove I 2009
By measuring choice of travel mode over time, communities can monitor their success in providing attractive alternatives to the traditional mode of travel, the single-occupied automobile. When asked how they typically traveled to work, single-occupancy (SOV) travel was the overwhelming mode of use. However, 4% of work commute trips were made by transit, 2% by bicycle and 1 % by foot.
FIGURE 10: FREQUENCY OF Bus USE IN LAST 12 MONTHS
Once or twice 4%
1%
More than 26 times 6%
FIGURE 11: FREQUENCY OF Bus USE BENCHMARKS Comparison,to benchmark Ridden a local bus within Elk Grove Less
FIGURE 12: MODE OF TRAVEL USED FOR WORK COMMUTE
Motorized vehicle by myself : 172% '-; Motorized vehicle with others =: 16% ~ Ó Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation ) 4%
~ i rv Walk: 1% ~ ! ;¿ ~ Bicycle t 2% z Work at home J 5% ..;.. :f )- Other 1% ~ :: V) v 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% ''¡,"i o Percent of days per week mode used '" .~~ z F~
The National Citizen SurveyTM 11 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Housing Housing variety and affordability are not luxuries for any community. When there are too few options for housing style and affordability, the characteristics of a community tilt toward a single group, often of well-off residents. While this may seem attractive to a community, the absence of affordable town homes, condominiums, mobile homes, single family detached homes and apartments means that in addition to losing the vibrancy of diverse thoughts and lifestyles, the community loses the service workers that sustain all communities - police officers, school teachers, house painters and electricians. These workers must live elsewhere and commute in at great personal cost and to the detriment of traffic flow and air quality. Furthermore lower income residents pay so much of their income to rent or mortgage that little remains to bolster their own quality of life or local business. The survey of the City of Elk Grove residents asked respondents to reflect on the availability of affordable housing as well as the variety of housing options. The availability of affordable housing was rated as "excellent" or "good" by 50% of respondents, while the variety of housing options was rated as "excellent" or "good" by 62% of respondents. The rating of perceived affordable housing availability was better in the City of Elk Grove than the ratings, on average, in comparison jurisdictions.
FIGURE 13: RATINGS OF HOUSING IN COMMUNITY
- Excellent - Good
Availability of affordable 40% quality housing 1
Variety of housing options 51% i~ ': ~ ~ I
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% ~ Percent of respondents
~ FIGURE 14: HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS BENCHMARKS uî. ".., I~ Comparison to bel1chmark I I '" "V ~ Availability of affordable quality housing Above c;:¿ Variety of housing options Above '" .~ Z'" ?- .D .~,
:5 (n ai .~ 0
.",~ Z'" ~ ¡=
The National Citizen SurveyTM 12 City of Elk Grove I 2009
To augment the perceptions of affordable housing in Elk Grove, the cost of housing as reported in the survey was compared to residents' reported monthly income to create a rough estimate of the proportion of residents of the City of Elk Grove experiencing housing cost stress. About 48% of survey participants were found to pay housing costs of more than 30% of their monthly household income.
FIGURE 15: PROPORTION OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE HOUSING COSTS ARE "AFFORDABLE"
.~..~~~. Housing costs 30%
48% , /or MORE of income
Housing costs LESS than 30% of income 52%
FIGURE 16: HOUSING COSTS BENCHMARKS
i¡i Comparison to benchmark h 'i Experiencing housing costs stress (housing costs 30% or more of income) More
~ ~ 6 L'- ~ ~ i! ~ ~ È ~~ 0. ;- 5 en ~ "" N :~ U ~ .2 z'õ ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 13 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Land Use and Zoning Community development contributes to a feel ing among residents and even visitors of the attention given to the speed of growth, the location of residences and businesses, the kind of housing that is appropriate for the community and the ease of access to commerce, green space and residences. Even the community's overall appearance often is attributed to the planning and enforcement functions of the local jurisdiction. Residents will appreciate an attractive, well-planned community. The NCS questionnaire asked residents to evaluate the quality of new development, the appearance of the City of Elk Grove and the speed of population growth. Problems with the appearance of property were rated, and the quality of land use planning, zoning and code enforcement services were evaluated. The overall quality of new development in the City of Elk Grove was rated as "excellent" by 11 % of respondents and as "good" by an additional 42%. The overall appearance of Elk Grove was rated as "excellent" or "good" by 77% of respondents and was higher than the benchmark. When rating to what extent run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles were a problem in the City of Elk Grove, 35% thought they were a "major" or "moderate" problem. The services of land use, planning and zoning, code enforcement and animal control were similar to the benchmark.
FIGURE 17: RATINGS OF THE COMMUNITY'S "BUILT ENVIRONMENT"
. Excellent II Good Overall quality of new 42% development in Elk Grove I
Overall appearance of Elk ,-\ 60% Grove 'il II : :' ' i
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents
~ FIGURE 18: BUILT ENVIRONMENT BENCHMARKS ., d. Comparisonoo benchmark I ~ I '1' U Quality of new development in city Similar ~'" ~ Overall appearance of Elk Grove Above ¿¿ ~ s ¡; z'" ..,. ~/ ~ Ví a¡ .¡;N LJ
.~ z~ F~
The National Citizen SurveyTM 14 City of Elk Grove I 2009
FIGURE 19: RATINGS OF POPULATION GROWTH Much too fast 27% Somewhat too fast 35% Much too slow 0%
FIGURE 20: POPULATION GROWTH BENCHMARKS Co,mparison to benchrnark Population growth seen as too fast More
FIGURE 21: RATINGS OF NUISANCE PROBLEMS
. Not a problem x Minor problem _ Moderate problem !: Major problem
To what degree, if at all, , fJ are run down buildings, 28% æ"7°'i1 101 . weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in Elk Grove? __I Hí
~
~ 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 5 0% .: ~ r: ~ FIGURE 22: NUISANCE PROBLEMS BENCHMARKS ~ Comparison to benchmark ¿ -'" Run down buildings, weed lots and junk vehicles are a "major" problem Less z ;-- -D Co- '- if~ a; .~N o '" '';ê Z ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 15 City of Elk Grove I 2009
FIGURE 23: RATINGS OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
. Excellent .. Good Land use, planning and 31.% zoning
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned 33.% buildings, etc)
Animal control 45% .~ ... ,I (~~
0.% 25.% 50.% 75.% 100% Percent of respondents
FIGURE 24' PLANNING AND COMMUNITY CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES BENCHMARKS IPlanning and Community Code,Enforcement'Services,Benchmarks ,', ~ to " Comparison to benchmark Land use, planning and zoning Similar Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) Similar Animal control Similar
~ ~ î .:U ~ co:; Ii
''¡§ z .D;, -?: ? :5 ,j) V ''¡N o co
''¡~ z'" ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 16 City of Elk Grove I 2009
ECONOMIC SUSTAINABllITY The health of the economy may color how residents perceive their environment and all the services that local government delivers. In particular, a strong or weak local economy will shape what residents think about job and shopping opportunities. Just as residents have an idea about the speed of local population growth, they have a sense of how fast job and shopping opportunities are growing. Survey respondents were asked to rate a number of community features related to economic opportunity and growth. The most positively rated features were overall quality of business and service establishments in Elk Grove and Elk Grove as a place to work. Receiving the lowest rating was employment opportunities.
FIGURE 25: RATINGS OF ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY AND OPPORTUNITIES
. Excellent - Good
Employment 3% 11% opportunities
Shopping 36% xl_ opportunities i .~
Elk Grove as a place to work ! = :5%: I
Overall quality of busi ness and service 48% establishments in Elk Grove ~- 'i ~ 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% ~' o Percent of respondents ~ ~ FIGURE 26: ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY'j; --,k AND OPPORTUNITIES Comparison'to,benchmark BENCHMARKS I ¿¿ '" I., ..~ Employment opportunities Below ;; z Shopping opportunities Similar ;0 .D Below ~,. Place to work ;¡ Overall quality of business and service establishments in Elk Grove Similar ,n:3 a. .",N o g.~ z ;, ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 17 City of Elk G rove I 2009
Residents w t00 ereslow" asked to " to evaluate th resp d much too f" e speed of' b num~~r ed that ft was "to:~1 w~en asked abo~~ t~ growth and retail ro too slowo::~sidentsmore residents in Elk G~::e be I"ieved ;hile ompared 38%that to report:~a::to.\jobjob growthother' Jurisdictions . wasa~ growth too sgrow~ ow.i bel" asieved i~;~ko~"too si ow. thati growth r~ve,scale About retaï 81from e%th same"muchwas
FIGURE 27 : RATINGS OF RE
Retail GrowthSomewhat TAIL AND JOB GROWTHJob Growth Right too fast amount 13% 16%
_ fastMuch too 12%
9% 29% \ Moc",ooslow . 36%
FIGURE 28: RETAIL AND JOB G ROWTH BENCHMARKS Comparison to benc h mark Retail growth seen as to i Similar Jobs growthseen as 0too sslow ow More
u
" ~ uii'
¡: æ :£
.~ z'" ).. .D ¡~
2: :0 en 'i .8 o
.~ ~
¡:
The National Cit"izen SurveyTM 18 City of Elk G rove I 2009
FIGURE 29'. RATINGS OF Eco 36%Fair NOMIC~ ENT DEVELOPM SERVICES
FIGURE. CONOMIC 30' , ~DEVELOPMENT '",lIeol SERVICES 6% BENCH C'omparison MARKS to benchmark . Economic development Below
i ~' ~ uv
2'" ~ ~ ~ ~ ..;,. ~;, '"" :; v; " :'j) .8 o ~ z"t :L F
The National Cit"izen SurveyTM 19 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Residents were asked to reflect on their economic prospects in the near term. Fourteen percent of the City of Elk Grove residents expected that the coming six months would have a "somewhat" or "very" positive impact on their family, while 55% felt that the economic future would be "somewhat" or "very" negative. The percent of residents with an optimistic outlook on their household income was the same as comparison jurisdictions.
FIGURE 31: RATINGS OF PERSONAL ECONOMIC FUTURE
Somewhat negative 40%
What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the Neutral next 6 months? 31%
FIGURE 32: PERSONAL ECONOMIC FUTURE BENCHMARKS Comparison to .benchmark Positive impact of economy on household income Similar
~ ~ 8 .: ~¿ ~:?:
.~ z'" D;: .~ (l ~ V)
"..~ o '" "'¡§ z'"
The National Citizen SurveyTM 20 City of Elk Grove I 2009
PUBLIC SAFETY Safety from violent or property crimes creates the cornerstone of an attractive community. No one wants to live in fear of crime, fire or natural hazards, and communities in which residents feel protected or unthreatened are communities that are more likely to show growth in population, commerce and property value. Residents were asked to rate their feelings of safety from violent crimes, property crimes, fire and environmental dangers and to evaluate the local agencies whose main charge is to provide protection from these dangers. Some gave positive ratings of safety in the City Elk Grove. About 62% percent of those completing the questionnaire said they felt "very" or "somewhat" safe from violent crimes and 73% felt "very" or "somewhat" safe from environmental hazards. Daytime sense of safety was better than nighttime safety and neighborhoods felt safer than in commercial areas after dark.
FIGURE 33: RATINGS OF COMMUNITY AND PERSONAL PUBLIC SAFETY
Safety in Elk Grove's commercial areas after dark
Safety in Elk Grove's commercial areas during the day
Safety in your neighborhood after dark
Safety in your neighborhood during the day
~ Safety from environmental ~ o hazards :: '" :1 ~ Safety from property crimes .¡:§ Z È ~ ~ Safety from violent crime ~ t/1 /' c: '" .¡:N U 0% 100%
.~ z~ ~ ¡=
The National Citizen SurveyTM 21 City of Elk Grove I 2009
FIGURE 34' COMMUNITY AND PERSONAL PUBLIC SAFETY BENCHMARKS "'c 'fj Comparison to bençbmark 11i ", , I Safety in your neighborhood during the day Similar Safety in your neighborhood after dark Similar Safety in Elk Grove's commercial areas during the day Below Safety in Elk Grove's commercial areas after dark Below Safety from violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) Below Safety from property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) Below Toxic waste or other environmental hazard(s) Similar
~ ~ %l u'J) ~ ~ ~ ;1 .g z'" È' ~t 2: if:i ¿j N :£:u co .2 z~ ~ ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 22 City of Elk Grove I 2009
As assessed by the survey, 18% of respondents reported that someone in the household had been the victim of one or more crimes in the past year. Of those who had been the victim of a crime, 74% had reported it to police. Compared to other jurisdictions more Elk Grove residents had been victims of crime in the 12 months preceding the survey and about the same percent of Elk Grove residents had reported their most recent crime victimization to the police.
FIGURE 35: CRIME VICTIMIZATION AND REPORTING
During the past twelve months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime?
~NO 26%
No 82% If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reJ20rted to the police?
FIGURE 36: CRIME VICTIMIZATION AND REPORTING BENCHMARKS ~ . . " Comparison to benchmark I, . .~ .1 Victim of crime More Reported crimes Similar
~
~ uî'
~." .7; ~
.¡:~ z'" 1;' -,.:; ~ :; v-, :v ''¡N lJ
.;:~ z'" "" ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 23 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Residents rated seven City public safety services; of these, five were rated similar to the benchmark comparison and two were rated below the benchmark comparison. Fire services and ambulance or emergency medical services received the highest ratings, while crime prevention and emergency preparedness received the lowest ratings.
FIGURE 37: RATINGS OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES
- Excellent - Good ~ ';'".'
Police services I
Fire services I.~ 'j% " 1
Ambulance or emergency ~ ~ 55%" medical services ..... " J
Crime prevention "47~' ~I
Fire prevention and I! education ~ , ':"
Traffic enforcement 44% : i
~ Emergency preparedness :39% ~ I o .c ~ 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% '" 2 ~ Percent of respondents ~ FIGURE 38' PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES BENCHMARKS .;: , Comparison to benchmark .' Z I: /C "i :0 £J Police services Similar ~i,. ~ Fire services Similar 5 OJ EMS/ambu lance Similar 'i ~ Crime prevention Below o ('.; Fire prevention and education Similar .¡:§ Traffc enforcement Similar z Emergency preparedness Below ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 24 City of Elk Grove I 2009
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Residents value the aesthetic qualities of their hometowns and appreciate features such as overall cleanliness and landscaping. In addition, the appearance and smell or taste of the air and water do not go unnoticed. These days, increasing attention is paid to proper treatment of the environment. At the same time that they are attending to community appearance and cleanliness, cities, counties, states and the nation are going "Green". These strengthening environmental concerns extend to trash haul, recycl ing, sewer services, the del ivery of power and water and preservation of open spaces. Treatment of the environment affects air and water quality and, generally, how habitable and inviting a place appears.
Residents of the City of Elk Grove were asked to evaluate their local environment and the services provided to ensure its quality. The overall quality of the natural environment was rated as "excellent" or "good" by 60% of survey respondents. Cleanliness of Elk Grove received the highest rating, and it was similar to the benchmark.
FIGURE 39: RATINGS OF THE COMMUNITY'S NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
. Excellent . Good
iP~,l Cleanliness of Elk Grove ~l% " Ii;; " I
Quality of overall natural 5~% 'ff ~ environment in Elk Grove : i
Preservation of natural areas such as open space, 38°/': farmlands and greenbelts i
Air quality ~ J ~ Ò 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% .., Percent of respondents ~ Í r¿ -; FIGURE 40: COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT BENCHMARKS .;:g , Comparison to benchmark I ., " I z Cleanliness of Elk Grove Similar ..;; ~,. Quality of overall natural environment in Elk Grove Below OJ è '" Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts Below ,r¡ a; Air quality Below .~ (j ;: .~15 z ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 25 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Resident recycling was greater than recycling reported in comparison communities.
FIGURE 41 : FREQUENCY OF RECYCLING IN LAST 12 MONTHS
4%
More than 26 times 60% 3 to 12 times 12%
13 to 26 times 17%
FIGURE 42: FREQUENCY OF RECYCLING BENCHMARKS 'Ii ~omparison torbenchmark Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home More
~
~ o .," :t ¿¿ ~ .~ z ..;,. ,;, ~ en :Ü .¡:N o c,i .",§ z "" ~
The National Citizen SurveyTM 26 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Of the seven utility services rated by those completing the questionnaire, four were higher than the benchmark comparison, two were similar and one was below the benchmark comparison.
FIGURE 43: RATINGS OF UTILITY SERVICES
II Excellent II Good
Power (electric and/or gas) utility f .~ ~ ~ === 57% l
Sewer services f ~ :: = 55% I
Drinking water " 41,% :
Storm drainage £, .' =:~;50~o 'J
Yard waste pick-up ;54% L:, = i) : æ=.,.. Recycling 56% j = fi Garbage collection r 59% ~
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents
FIGURE 44' UTILITY SERVICES BENCHMARKS " ,., " Comparison to benchmark 1 ~ I Power (electric and/or gas) utility Similar ~ Similar Ò Sewer services Below ~ Drinking water ro ~ Storm drainage Above ¿¿ Yard waste pick-up Above ~ .;: Recycling Above 2i Above 1) Garbage collection ;i;,. 2: :0 Of
.;:~ iJ (üc ''¡o z'" 1:,.
The National Citizen SurveyTM 27 City of Elk G
RECREA TlONND WELL A mve I 2009 Quality parks d Parks d NESS busi~ess, . traffican andrecreaf h d ion opportunities an Re h I creation serving both to en ~r work. Leisure .: p to define a co ~:i~:~i~~i:;~~i~::'~b':U~ ~:p~~~e g~~~v~~:i~~s~~ec:~nities and services rel~edY im;~~~~~ea~:~~ contained questio ~~~~f ithe e of grind residents, of its Recreation op e to the com . ns seeking and recreafion were portunitiesr t d i Y of Elk inG the ci munity's parks and centers or facilitieswere a e positively.rated h' Cith Y roveparks were recr' rated am eratelyd 5 . Resident use of Elk G ig er than the benchi;~~n programs or ~i~:~:ces related to parks and accessibility of throve parks and recr .' and recreation was about the sase services. Th eation facilities tell . program ameuse in Elk as Grove the :=;ce~t ea percentout of the users same in com;sidenisasof us:r:son s its Jurisdictions. ownthat used st Ef:;:about Si~~vei therecreation attractivene cente~ FIGURE 45: RATINGSOF COMMUNI n TYcomparison RECREATIONAL jurisd" 0ICPPORTUNITIES ions.t"ar y, recreation
//'poor 7%
Good ~
;,"' ~ v FIGUREMMUNITY 46: Co 36°¡'RE ° ..U i: Comparison MARKS to benc h mark ~ Below ~ Recreat'ion opportunities CREAnONAI. PPORTUNITIS 0 BENCH ¿ ~ 1ì, )- ;J ~ Of, V N o '" .~ ~ ~ ¡:
The National Cit"izen SurveyTM 28 City of Elk Grove I 2009
FIGURE 47: PARTICIPATION IN PARKS AND RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES
Used Elk Grove recreation centers ' :: J 57%
Participated in a recreation program or activity ~' : : t 49%
Visited a neighborhood park or City park j 91% : : "it : 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of respondents who did each at least once in last 12 months I" ;i,Eomparison.toFIGURE 48: PARTICIPATION IN PARKS AND RECREATION OPPORTUNITISbenchmark BENCHMARKS I Used Elk Grove recreation centers Similar Participated in a recreation program or activity Similar Visited a neighborhood park or City park More
FIGURE 49: RATINGS OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES
. Excellent . Good
Parks 50% t: 'i¡l J
Recreation programs or 55% classes ~ I
'" ~ Recreation centers or 53% facilities ~ = J u;v ~' 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% ;j ~ '" Percent of respondents oc
.~ 'i FIGURE 50: PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES BENCHMARKS Z ;, ";' .. I. '. g, 'I Comparison to benchmark -i ~ City parks Above ;0i. ?: :: Recreation programs or classes Above if' t Recreation centers or facilities Above "¡:N (j ~ .~c Z -i-
The National Citizen SurveyTM 29 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Culture, Arts and Education A full service community does not address only the life and safety of its residents. Like an individual who simply goes to the office and returns home, a community that pays attention only to the life sustaining basics becomes insular, dreary and uninspiring to business and individuals. In the case of communities without thriving culture, arts and education opportunities, the magnet that attracts those who might consider relocating there is vastly weakened. Cultural, artistic, social and educational services elevate the opportunities for personal growth among residents. In the survey, residents were asked about the quality of opportunities to participate in cultural and educational activities. Opportunities to attend cultural activities were rated as "excellent" or "good" by 38% of respondents. Educational opportunities were rated as "excellent" or "good" by 51 % of respondents. Compared to the benchmark data, educational opportunities were below the average of comparison jurisdictions, as was cultural activity opportunities. About 63% of Elk Grove residents used a City library at least once in the twelve months preceding the survey. This participation rate for library use was below comparison jurisdictions.
FIGURE 51: RATINGS OF CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
. Excellent -Good
Opportunities to attend 3~% cultural activities I
Educational opportunities 37% ~ I
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents v FIGURE 52: CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS " , ". i. Comparison to,benchmark I ~ I uv Opportunities to attend cultural activities Below 12" ~ Educational opportunities Below ~
§ "¡:" Z ..".. ". ~ ~ ~ Ü'C "c .2 z;¡ ~ ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 30 City of Elk Grove I 2009
FIGURE 53: PARTICIPATION IN CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
'if Used Elk Grove public libraries or their services )63%
Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Elk \¡; isJ 44% Grove
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of respondents who did each at least once in last 12 months
I, W',FIGURE 54:~ PARTICIPATION Comparison IN CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL to OPPORTUNITIES benchmark BENCHMARKS I Used Elk Grove public libraries or their services Less Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Elk Grove Less
FIGURE 55: PERCEPTION OF CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES
- Excellent -Good
Public schools L ": ," '": ·
~'4J~ 11 Public library services 48%
1
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
~ Percent of respondents ~ 5 FIGURE 56: CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES BENCHMARKS -g Comparison to benchmark ." I . 1 :1; Public schools Above ¿¿ ~ Public library services Below z ..:;, :; c. ::2: V1
â) '¡:N Ü ." C .~o Z ~ F
The National Citizen SurveyTM 31 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Health and Well ness Healthy residents have the wherewithal to contribute to the economy as volunteers or employees and they do not present a burden in cost and time to others. Although residents bear the primary responsibility for their good health, local government provides services that can foster that well being and that provide care when residents are ilL.
Residents of the City of Elk Grove were asked to rate the community's health services as well as the availability of health care, high quality affordable food and preventive health care services. The availability of affordable quality food was rated most positively for the City of Elk Grove, while the availability for affordable quality health care and preventative health services were rated less favorably by residents. Among Elk Grove residents, 10% rated affordable quality health care as "excellent" while 43% rated it as "good." Those ratings were similar to the ratings of comparison communities.
FIGURE 57: RATINGS OF COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITIES
. Excellent II Good
Availability of affordable 43% l~ quality health care ~ 1
Availability of affordable "r ~ 51 %0 quality food L 'v ~ 1
Availability of preventive '~~% health services ~ 1
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents
FIGURE 58: COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELLNESS ACCESS AND OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS \~I benchmark I u .,. I Comparison to Ê Availability of affordable quality health care Similar ~ ~ Availability of affordable quality food Similar ó Availability of preventive health services Similar ¿ '" ~ ¿¿
-¡:§ ~ È, ài :;2: Uj ¿; ...N o ;: -¡:ë z'" ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 32 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Health services offered in the City of Elk Grove were rated "excellent" or "good" by 62% and were similar to the benchmark.
FIGURE 59: RATINGS OF HEALTH AND WELLNESS SERVICES
Poor 4% ~~~d/~
FIGURE 60: HEALTH AND WELLNESS SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparisontò benchmarK Health services Similar
~ ~ uî .r 2 ~ ~
.¡:ê ;i ..;, í! ?: ~ if:: ¿; .8 (j
.~g z
ï=
The National Citizen SurveyTM 33 City of Elk Grove I 2009
COMMUNITY INCLUSIVENESS Diverse communities that include among their residents a mix of races, ages, wealth, ideas and beliefs have the raw material for the most vibrant and creative society. However, the presence of these features alone does not ensure a high quality or desirable space. Surveyed residents were asked about the success of the mix: the sense of community, the openness of residents to people of diverse backgrounds and the attractiveness of the City of Elk Grove as a place to raise children or to retire. They were also questioned about the quality of services delivered to various population subgroups, including older adults, youth and residents with few resources. A community that succeeds in creating an inclusive environment for a variety of residents is a community that offers more to many.
About three quarters of residents rated the City of Elk Grove as an "excellent" or "good" place to raise kids and about half rated it as an excellent or good place to retire. A majority of residents felt that the local sense of community was "excellent" or "good." Even more survey respondents felt the City of Elk Grove was open and accepting towards people of diverse backgrounds. Availability of affordable quality child care was rated the lowest by residents but was similar to the benchmark.
FIGURE 61: RATINGS OF COMMUNITY QUALITY AND INCLUSIVENESS
. Excellent . Good
Sense of community 47% : j
Openness and acceptance of the community towards 60% : people of diverse backgrounds : :i
Availability of affordable quality child care ~2% I
Elk Grove as a place to raise children " ~5~ L ::~. I
~ 36% Elk Grove as a place to retire 1 ~ Î' u 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% -g '" Percent of respondents ~ ¿¿ ~ FIGURE 62: COMMUNITY QUALITY AND INCLUSIVENESS BENCHMARKS .",c omparison to Z in " '.' C' ?- .. . ,. " benchmark" I :~ I 0- Sense of community Similar ~ ~ Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse aJ Above .",N backgrounds U Availability of affordable quality child care Similar '" g Elk Grove as a place to raise kids Similar .-E z Elk Grove as a place to retire Below ~ ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 34 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Services to more vulnerable populations (e.g., seniors, youth or low-income residents) ranged from 53% to 68% with ratings of "excellent" or "good." Services to low-income people were above the benchmark while services to seniors and youth were similar to the benchmark.
FIGURE 63: RATINGS OF QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED FOR POPULATION SUBGROUPS
. Excellent a Good
Services to seniors 56%
Services to youth 51% ~¡ ,
Services to low-income 41%" ~ people 1
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents
FIGURE 64: SERVICES PROVIDED FOR POPULATION SUBGROUPS BENCHMARKS
'8."...... '.~. Comparison to berieJimark I " ,,¡ , I Services to seniors Similar Services to youth Similar Services to low income residents Above
~
~' Ó L: ~ ." ~ ¿¿ ~ .2 z 1ì ~,. ~ V)
:L N o ;; ,9 z~
¡=
The National Citizen SurveyTM 35 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Civic ENGAGEMENT Government leaders, elected or hired, cannot run a jurisdiction alone and a jurisdiction cannot run effectively if residents remain strangers with little to connect them. Elected offcials and staff require the assistance of local residents whether that assistance comes in tacit approval or eager help; and commonality of purpose among the electorate facilitates policies and programs that appeal to most and causes discord among few. Furthermore, when neighbors help neighbors, the cost to the community to provide services to residents in need declines. When residents are civically engaged, they have taken the opportunity to participate in making the community more livable for alL. The extent to which local government provides opportunities to become informed and engaged and the extent to which residents take those opportunities is an indicator of the connection between government and populace. By understanding your residents' level of connection to, knowledge of and participation in local government, the City can find better opportunities to communicate and educate citizens about its mission, services, accompl ishments and plans. Communities with strong civic engagement may be more likely to see the benefits of programs intended to improve the quality of life of all residents and therefore would be more likely to support those new policies or programs.
Civic Activity Respondents were asked about the perceived community volunteering opportunities and their participation as citizens of the City of Elk Grove. Ratings of civic engagement opportunities were below ratings from comparison jurisdictions where these questions were asked.
FIGURE 65: RATINGS OF Civic ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
. Excellent II Good
Opportunities to participate t 47% ~ in community matters J
Opportunities to volunteer 3'9%" c~ ~ I
~ 100% Ó 0% 25% 50% 75% L: ¿ Percent of respondents ~ ::u oc FIGURE 66: Civic ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS .. .¡:~ I è. '0); Çomparison to'benchmark I z'" Opportunities to participate in community matters Below ..;, :; ?" Opportunities to volunteer Below ? :5 '.f) a: .",N 0
.~ ~ Z '" 1=
The National Citizen SurveyTM 36 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Most of the participants in this survey had not attended a public meeting, volunteered time to a group or participated in a club in the 12 months prior to the survey, but the vast majority had helped a friend. The participation rates of these civic behaviors were compared to the rates in other jurisdictions. Those who had provided help to a friend or neighbor showed similar rates of involvement; while the other four ratings of community engagement were lower than comparison communities.
FIGURE 67: PARTICIPATION IN CiVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Attended a mee~~:a~:~ob~~~ ~:~~~~tficials or other ¡ :~'122%
Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other ~ local public meeting on cable television -- 28%
Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Elk Grove : . ¡¡ "J 36%
Participated in a club or civic group in Elk Grove""')'? 123%
,f ': ., Provided help to a friend or neighbor ~ l 94%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of respondents who did each at least once in last 12 months ....FIGURE 68:"'.Comparison PARTICIPATION IN CiVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS to I' .... benchmark I ~ Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting Less ~ Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on 8 cable television Less :: Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Elk Grove Less ;3 £ Participated in a club or civic group in Elk Grove Less ~ Provided help to a friend or neighbor Similar .¡: z .D,. :¡
Lr ~ aJ '¡:N o '" .¡:g z'" F
The National Citizen SurveyTM 37 City of Elk G rove I 2009
City. of .Elk rove G resid participation E' h ents showed th vo te Ind the. .last ig 0 ty-twpercent ereport large d s tamount of civ'voting was higher thO in icated they had comparison comgener~1munities. election. rate ofThis self-reported e they were register'~ e. to vote engagement and 80~ in .the ~:a of electoral FIGURE 6 . an that of
Aceyoo cegi;l"""9. voteREPORTED in your' 10Jurisdiction? . . OTtNG V BEHAVIOR
Yes 80%
18%
16%
Registered to vote Voted'in i ast general election
~
~ o .. :: OJ ~ ¿i s z -.' " )-. .i. è vi:0 a; N o OJ C ,g Z ~
The National Cit' 381zen SurveyTM City of Elk Grove I 2009
I nformation and Awareness Those completing the survey were asked about their use and perceptions of various information sources and local government media services. When asked whether they had visited the City of Elk Grove Web site in the previous 12 months, 63% reported they had done so at least once. Public information services were rated similarly compared to benchmark data.
FIGURE 71: USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES
Read Elk Grove ,"'i
Newsletter ;'-r It, M" : ) 85%
Visited the City of Elk , : ,-¡ Grove Web site (at www.elkgrovecity.org) = =" ~~ 163%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of respondents who did each at least once in last 12 months
FIGURE 72: USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BENCHMARKS LRead "./ Elk., GroveComparison Newsletter tO,benchmark More 1 Visited the City of Elk Grove Web site More
FIGURE 73: RATINGS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEDIA SERVICES AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
- Excellent - Good
Cable television 44% J ~
~ v Public information services , 49% U .: I '"i ,~ 'J, ~ 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% :" Percent of respondents '¡:3 Z'" ..?- FIGURE 74: LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEDIA SERVICES AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION BENCHMARKS :; '2 ""; " J '" !+Comparison,to benchmar~ , I ,. 'l I è :: CF Cable television Above V N Public information services Similar 0'+J 1 z'" ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 39 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Social Engagement Opportunities to participate in social events and activities were rated as "excellent" or "good" by 49% of respondents, while even more rated opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities as "excellent" or "good."
FIGURE 75: RATINGS OF SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
- Excellent - Good Opportunities to participate in social events and .~ .:;;41%tî activities 1
Opportunities to participate li in religious or spiritual ~ :' ~ =~ ,49% events and activities J
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents
FIGURE 76: SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS I ",x " ,...... ' '.¥J ;", Comparison to benchmark -: Opportunities to participate in social events and activities Below Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events Below
Residents in Elk Grove reported a fair amount of neighborliness. More than 73% indicated talking or visiting with their neighbors once a month or more frequently. This amount of contact with neighbors was about the same as the amount of contact reported in other communities.
FIGURE 77: CONTACT WITH IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS
About how often, if at all, do Less than once a you talk to or visit with your month immediate neighbors? 21%
~ ~ 12v .7; ci:v
.¡:ê At least once "' z month È 79% ~,. ~ V) a: ~o.~ FIGURE 78:~~~~~~~~~ CONTACT WITH IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS BENCHMARKS z.~ Has contact with neighbors at least once per month Similar ~ ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 40 City of Elk Grove I 2009
PUBLIC TRUST When local government leaders are trusted, an environment of cooperation is more likely to surround all decisions they make. Cooperation leads to easier communication between leaders and residents and increases the likelihood that high value policies and programs will be implemented to improve the quality of I ife of the entire community. Trust can be measured in residents' opinions about the overall direction the City of Elk Grove is taking, their perspectives about the service value their taxes purchase and the openness of government to citizen participation. In addition, resident opinion about services provided by the City of Elk Grove could be compared to their opinion about services provided by the state and federal governments. If residents find nothing to admire in the services delivered by any level of government, their opinions about the City of Elk Grove may be
colored by their dislike of what all levels of government provide. About four in ten respondents felt that the value of services for taxes paid was "excellent" or "good." When asked to rate the job the City of Elk Grove does at listening to citizens, 32% rated it as "excellent" or "good." Of these five ratings, all were below the benchmark.
FIGURE 79: PUBLIC TRUST RATINGS
. Excellent II Good il The value of services for the taxes paid to Elk Grove 38% 1
\ The overall direction that Elk Grove is taking
The job Elk Grove government does at welcoming citizen 3$1% involvement B If
The job Elk Grove government does at listening to citizens 5%
,- Overall image or reputation of Elk Grove 54%1': ~ j uò) ~ i= 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% '" :l ¡; Percent of respondents ~ .¡: z'" ..~ FIGURE 80: PUBLIC TRUST BENCHMARKS ~ Corrparison to'benchmàrk ã;" ê ;; Below Vl ¡¡ Below .~ o Below ~ Below z"; Below ~ ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 41 City of Elk Grove I 2009
On average, residents of the City of Elk Grove gave the highest evaluations to their own local government and the lowest average rating to state government. The overall quality of services delivered by the City of Elk Grove was rated as "excellent" or "good" by 66% of survey , participants. The City of Elk Grove's rating was similar to the benchmark when compared to other communities.
FIGURE 81: RATINGS OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS
- Excellent - Good == Services provided by 56% ~r;; C.ity 0f E GroveIk 10% 'i!i i : :~
Services provided by the 3% ~27% Federal Government 1
Services provided by the 3% State Government ¡:21%" j
S;::i~:~:~~~:"~ 2% L 30%'
it ..i.
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents
FIGURE 82: SERVICES PROVIDED BY LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS BENCHMARKS
I o ,Comparisonto benchmark I ~ Services provided by the City of Elk Grove Similar Services provided by the Federal Government Below ~ v'J; Services provided by the State Government Below ;: '" Services provided by Sacramento County Government Below ~ ~
'¡:§ Z." .t:: ~? "" ~ V) c :i .~::N LJ
~'¡: z'" ~
The National Citizen SUrveyTM 42 City of Elk Grove I 2009
City of Elk Grove Employees The employees of the City of Elk Grove who interact with the public create the first impression that most residents have of the City of Elk Grove. Front line staff who provide information, assist with bill paying, collect trash, create service schedules, fight fires and crime and even give traffic tickets are the collective face of the City of Elk Grove. As such, it is important to know about residents' experience talking with that "face." When employees appear to be knowledgeable, responsive and courteous, residents are more likely to feel that any needs or problems may be solved through positive and productive interactions with the City of Elk Grove staff. Those completing the survey were asked if they had been in contact with a City employee either in- person or over the phone in the last 12 months; the 37% who reported that they had been in contact (a percent that is lower than the benchmark comparison) were then asked to indicate overall how satisfied they were with the employee in their most recent contact. City employees were rated somewhat favorably; 66% of respondents rated their overall impression as "excellent" or "good."
FIGURE 83: PROPORTION OF RESPONDENTS WHO HAD CONTACT WITH CiTY EMPLOYEES IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of )y;~~"Elk Grove within the last 12 months
~NO 63%
FIGURE 84: CONTACT WITH CiTY EMPLOYEES BENCHMARKS ~ Comparisonto benchmark ~ Had contact with city employee(s) in last 12 months Less u ~ .-v ~ ~ ~ z'" .D? ~ ~êJ ::2: v; V '''N o
.~ z'" ~ r=
The National Citizen SurveyTM 43 City of Elk Grove I 2009
FIGURE 85: RATINGS OF CiTY EMPLOYEES (AMONG THOSE WHO HAD CONTACT)
. Excellent II Good
g¡ Knowledge 50% "'if;; (,,1'&: .. rt
.~ Responsiveness 38% r : : = I
Courtesy i3 "4~o L : ::;:
Overall impression ;¡tz; 'It; 32% l 4": J
0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents who had contact with an employee in previous 12 months I~ "',FIGURE 86: RATINGSComparispnto OF CiTY EMPLOYEES (AMONG THOSE WHO HADbenèhmarkl CONTACT) BENCHMARKS City employee knowledge Similar City employee responsiveness Below OverallCity employee impression courteousness Similar Below
~ ~ vco U -' '..¿
7: æ' '" .2 -i ..~ :¡,. ~ :; vo co V N o.= ~ '¡:o z'" ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 44 City of Elk Grove I 2009
"I;';' . ¡F.R,OliM'-. . A ;: . . 2'i D;;A.-r!A"t,c'l .ilb iF -t¡ CL .-.:¿ A. ri .-.C..i:al13 l) dlillÎ "; N.'~ RESIDENT PRIORITIES Knowing where to focus limited resources to improve residents' opinions of local government requires information that targets the services that are most important to residents. However, when residents are asked what services are most important, they rarely stray beyond core services - those directed to save lives and improve safety. In market research, identifying the most important characteristics of a transaction or product is called Key Driver Analysis. The key drivers that are identified from that analysis do not come from asking customers to self-report which service or product characteristic most influenced their decision to buy or return, but rather from statistical analyses of the predictors of their behavior. When customers are asked to name the most important characteristics of a good or service, responses often are expected or misleading - just as they can be in the context of a citizen survey. For example, air travelers often claim that safety is the primary consideration in their choice of an airline, yet key driver analysis reveals that frequent flier perks or in-flight entertainment predicts their buying decisions. In local government core services - like fire protection - invariably land at the top of the list created when residents are asked about the most important local government services. And core services are important. But by using Key Driver Analysis, our approach digs deeper to identify the less obvious, but more influential services that are most related to residents' ratings of overall quality of local government services. Because services focused directly on life and safety remain essential to quality government, it is suggested that core services should remain the focus of continuous monitoring and improvement where necessary - but monitoring core services or asking residents to identify important services is not enough.
A Key Driver Analysis (KDA) was conducted for the City of Elk Grove by examining the relationships between ratings of each service and ratings of the City of Elk Grove's overall services. Those key driver services that correlated most highly with residents' perceptions about overall City service quality have been identified. By targeting improvements in key services, the City of Elk Grove can focus on the services that have the greatest likelihood of influencing residents' opinions about overall service quality. ~ Services found to be most strongly correlated with ratings of overall service quality from the Elk ~ Grove Key Driver Analysis were: o ;: '" · Police services :1, · Land use, planning and zoning, ;¿ · Code enforcement ~ · Sidewalk maintenance :i .. City parks ..0- :r "' ~ a ij '¡:N o
'¡:§ z"' ~ ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 45 Cityof Elk Grove I 2009
CITY OF ELK GROVE ACTION CHART1M The2Q09 City ofElkGrove Action ChartTl on thefoUowing page combines two dimensions of performance:
· Comparison to resident evaluations from other communities. Whenacomparison is available,
the background color of each service box indicates whether the service is above the benchmark
(green), similar tothe benchmark (yellow) or below the benchmark(red).
. Identification of key services. Ablack keyicon(..) next to a service box indicates thatservice
is key(eithercore or key driver) .
Twenty three services were included in theKDA for the City of Elk Grove. Ofthese, ten were above
the benchmark,fourwerebelow the benchmark and ninewere similar to the benchrnark.A key
icon(..) indicates the five key drivers.
Considering all performancedata.includedinthe Action Chart, ajurisdictiontypically will want to
consider improvements to any keydriverservices that are not atieastsimilar to thebenchmark.ln
the case of Elk Grove, no key drivers were below the benchmark. Therefore, Elk Grove may wishto
seek improvements to police services, land use, planning ahdtoning, and code enforcernent, as
these key drivers received ratings similar to other benchmark jurisdictions. More detail about
interpretingresults can befoundin the next section. Services with a high percent òfrespondentsanswering"don't know" wereexduded frornthe analysis and were considered services that would be less influentiaL. See Appendix A: Complete
Survey Frequencies, Frequendes Including "Don't Know" Responses for the percent "don't know" for each service.
g 2~ u~ -§ m ~ ¿i m c: ';:o Zm -"À . ~. è !J:;
.~ o m c: ,g z'" "" ~
The National Citizen. SurveyTM 46 City of Elk Grove I 2009
FIGURE 87: CiTY OF ELK GROVE ACTION CHART
Overall Quality of City of Elk Grove Services
, r------, I Community Design / ,------, \ I \ Public Safety 1 Planning '"Economic I I and zoning development Traffic Police I c. 'I I Code II Street enforcement services I II 1 enforcement repair II Fire I I services I ,.idewalk,. Street I , Mai)1tenance Il cleaning ~ II Street '------~ Traffic signal , ~------, \ .. iighting timing I \ Recreation and Well ness 1 I '------~ I u I ------II City .. Public I "ii I ~ , I I , \ parks schools Environmental Sustainabilty I .. Recreatiòn 1 library I a facilities I i Drinking 1 'Recycling I water il \ , ------; , .. .. '~arbage Sewer n ,,------\ ,collection services : Civic Engagement Power Stori' i II .. Il I utility drainage I II 'Cable I television " Preservation~of I 'natural'areas I\,------I ------_/ '------~ , \ I I I Legend I I I I Above Similar to Bèlow I I I I Benchmark Benchmark Benchmark I I I I .. Key Driver I ~ \ '------; , § î, U .c l- '" ,~ :1 ¡y
~ -¡: :i ..?- :t :0 ~ ~ V -¡:N o
-¡:g Z'" F
The National Citizen SurveyTM 47 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Using Your Action Chart™ The key drivers derived for the City of Elk Grove provide a list of those services that are uniquely related to overall service qual ity. Those key drivers are marked with the symbol of a key in the action chart. Because key driver results are based on a relatively small number of responses, the relationships or correlations that define the key drivers are subject to more variability than is seen when key drivers are derived from a large national dataset of resident responses. To benefit the City of Elk Grove, NRC lists the key drivers derived from tens of thousands of resident responses from across the country. This national list is updated periodically so that you can compare your key drivers to the key drivers from the entire NRC data set. Where your locally derived key drivers overlap national key drivers, it makes sense to focus even more strongly on your keys. Similarly, when your local key drivers overlap your core services, there is stronger argument to make for attending to your key drivers that overlap with core services. In the following table, we have listed your key drivers, core services and the national key drivers and we have indicated, with shaded rows, the City of Elk Grove key drivers that overlap core services or the nationally derived keys.
FIGURE 88. KEY DRIVERS COMPARED City of,Elk Grové "National Key l Service': , :.Key,Driyers ;, Drivers , t~:e Services I City parks ./ . Code enforcement ./ ./ i Economic development ./ EMS ./ Fire ./ Garbage collection ./
Land use planning and"zoning ./ ./ ~
~ Police services ./ ./ ./ J Public information services ./ Public schools ./ Sidewalk maintenance ./ Sewer ./ ~ Storm drainage ./ g Street repair ./ o .: Water ./ '" '" ,~ ~
§ z'" ..~ ~/, ~ :; v-. ii '¡:N Ü ~ .g z" ~ ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 48 City of Elk Grove I 2009
;'.,y: ~'. ".;; . ." 'Sf, 1?"q¡LJI~,e,,~ Q,'y'~~"a 1;01 ÇI'N,S!y' ii! m J "Don't know" responses have been removed from the following questions, when applicable.
';: ';.' " ,Ii ' " Policy ~uestion~h ~ 'f ,,', , , '" ," if anyiof theJollowing local media sources do yOU use"'to st'!y informed? Percent of d Which, i
, (Please chedall that apply.) i "'"J respondent¿' Local news KCRA, Channel 3 67% Sacramento Bee 59% FM radio stations 54% Local news KXTV, Channel 10 47% Other news Web sites 45% Local news KTXL Fox 40, Channel 40 42% Local news KOVR TV, Channel 13 41% Elk Grove Citizen 40% AM radio stations 30% r Local news KMAX TV, Channel 31 17% Local news KUVS TV Univision, Channel 19 2% Local news KCSO TV Telemundo, Channel 33 0% Other source 11 % None at all 1%
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option
" ,I , Policy Question 2 ,I
Whichiif any, of the f6110wing sourêes do yo,u useto stay informed on City ôf Elb ,Percent of ; 'Grov~ issues? (Please check all that apply.) respondents City of Elk Grove newsletter 50% Elk Grove Citizen 44% Neighbors/word of mouth 40% u Sacramento Bee, Elk Grove online section 39% Elk Grove Online 19% ~ ó City of Elk Grove Web site 17% 2 '" None at all 11 % o ~ City of Elk Grove Council meetings or other public meetings 8%
§ City of Elk Grove press releases 5% z"E Elk Grove news blogs 3% l!0-, , City of Elk Grove email alerts 0% 0- City of Elk Grove text messages 0% ~ Vl Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option
'¡:Ñ ü ~ .:2 z~ 0- F
The National Citizen SurveyTM 49 City of Elk Grove I 2009
-" "
I'; m ", " 'Policy Question 3 ," " 'I, ,What is your primary,.source,for information during a local"emergency?,.(please Percent of ,;; ; a' ~ " , ,,"i ~L; respondents ~ H' select only one.) , " Local TV stations 74% Local radio stations 9% Telephone 5% News Web sites 5% Neighbors/word of mouth 4% Email 1% City or Elk Grove Police Department Web sites 1% Newspapers 1% Other sources 1% Total 100%
iF , rpolicy Question 4 , ,'I ,,' Hciw would,yoydike to~receive the City of,lk qrovene~slettèrNPlease selèct '~ -Percent of ¡J i 'i.onlyone.),- respondents As stand-alone, printed mailing piece 38% As an email (in HTML) 25% As an insert in the Elk Grove Citizen 13% I don't know/no opinion 12% I'd rather not receive it 7% As a downloadable file available on the City Web site 6% Total 100%
PòlicyQuestidh,s 'How many'times.per year, if at all, would yoù like40 receive theOty of Elk Grove Percent of ._'' newsletter? ~ respondents ~ Monthly (12 times per year) 50% ~ Bimonthly (current frequency) (6 times per year) 27% uî. 16% " Quarterly (4 times per year '" ;.; Annually (1 time per year) 5% ~ Semiannually (2 times per year 2% -;c i'¡:C Total 100% ..?- ~ fi" r: '" V) o-8 ~ .£ z~ ~ ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 50 City of Elk Grove I 2009
!U ~ EJ'e'E"~rQni~ ~,:J E:~,lpl~ze~\e:'" E ? LJ ~:VE~ f7'R E,¡Q.I!~~LNICI~E S. , , FREQUENCIES EXCLUDING "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES
, " ,,,: "', ~Question 1: Quålity or Life IT , "
Please ràte each'of'ihe following aspects of qlJal ity, ofHfé inElkja Wi , Grove:. "I, Excelli:mt ",Good Fáir Poor Total Elk Grove as a place to live 20% 60% 19% 1% 100% Your neighborhood as a place to live 24% 55% 20% 1% 100% Elk Grove as a place to raise children 25% 50% 23% 3% 100% Elk Grove as a place to work 14% 35% 30% 22% 100% Elk Grove as a place to retire 13% 36% 27% 25% 100% The overall quality of life in Elk Grove 13% 61% 25% 1% 100%
~
~ 8 i: =\ ~ ~ ~ ''; z È ~,. ~ cr, i: '" ''¡N o
'.;g z'" ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 51 City of Elk Grove I 2009
',,' '", , 11 ,;;, Question'2: Community Characteristics \' " w ,Please rate,each o.f ther-following'cnaracteristics as they,relate * ,'to Elk Grove as a whole; '. ',_ 'Excellent Good Fair Poor' Total Sense of community 8% 47% 39% 6% 100% Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 13% 60% 20% 7% 100% Overall appearance of Elk Grove 17% 60% 20% 3% 100% Cleanliness of Elk Grove 16% 61 % 20% 3% 100% Overall quality of new development in Elk Grove 11% 42% 34% 14% 100% Variety of housing options 11 % 51 % 32% 7% 100%
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Elk Grove - 7% 48% 36% 9% 100% Shopping opportunities 10% 36% 33% 20% 100% Opportunities to attend cultural activities 6% 32% 43% 20% 100% Recreational opportun ities 13% 36% 44% 7% 100% Employment opportunities 3% 11% 44% 42% 100% Educational opportunities 14% 37% 40% 9% 100% Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 8% 41% 44% 7% 100% Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 17% 49% 32% 2% 100% Opportunities to volunteer 13% 39% 42% 7% 100% Opportunities to participate in community matters 8% 47% 40% 6% 100% Ease of car travel in Elk Grove 10% 41 % 32% 17% 100% Ease of bus travel in Elk Grove 8% 34% 34% 24% 100% Ease of bicycle travel in Elk Grove 9% 48% 28% 15% 100% Ease of walking in Elk Grove 15% 47% 31 % 8% 100% Availability of paths and walking trails 18% 40% 30% 11 % 100% Traffic flow on major streets 7% 32% 39% 21 % 100% ~ Availability of affordable quality housing 10% 40% 43% 8% 100% ~ Availability of affordable quality child care 6% 32% 42% 20% 100% 5 Availability of affordable quality health care 10% 43% 31 % 16% 100% :: '\ ~ Availability of affordable quality food 14% 51 % 30% 5% 100% ~ Availability of preventive health services 12% 39% 42% 7% 100% ¿ Air quality 7% 48% 38% 8% 100% z'i ?- Quality of overall natural environment in Elk Grove 9% 51% 36% 5% 100% .D .~ Overall image or reputation of Elk Grove 10% 54% 24% 11 % 100%
~ Of, iü ''¡N U '" .¡:Ë z'" ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 52 City of Elk Grove I 2009
,(? , Question.' 3: Gr()wth ,;.: :.'¡ -'.. -:\ " :i: If Ple~se rate the speed),ofmrowthin, Much , l' . ~' the following-categories in Elk too Somewhat' ¡ ~Right Somewhat Much ,Groveoverthe pasF2 years:, 'slow too;slowli., amount tooJast too fast Total: Population growth 0% 2% 36% 35% 27% 100% Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc.) 9% 29% 38% 13% 12% 100% Jobs growth 36% 45% 16% 1% 1% 100%
" .,... -.: ¡'...- ':.J, 1:! \I, Question'4: Code Enforcement f JC ,,-To what degree, :f~" if at all,.-..:.. ar~rundown,buildings, ~ weedtlotsor junk,vehicles a problem.in Elk Grove? '" Percent of respondents , Not a problem 14% Minor problem 52% Moderate problem 28% Major problem 7% Total 100%
...... \ '" . , Question 5: Commuhity Safety if, .; .~ f~ Please ratehowsafe'Or.unsafe f~ f. yc5'Ufeel from Very the followingTin ~ Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewnat Elk Grove:' .. safe 2 safe ~or unsafe unsáfe ' :'u n safe ,Total Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 19% 43% 17% 18% 3% 100% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 8% 38% 19% 27% 9% 100% Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 34% 39% 19% 5% 2% 100%
,. " ~ " .Question 6: PersonalSafety J. 'f,',. ~' Please rate how safe or Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Yery . g :ti! 'l' U 1\; ¡J unsafe you feel: 11 safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe Total
~'" In your neighborhood :x during the day 56% 31 % 6% 5% 1% 100% ~ In your neighborhood after ~ dark 25% 44% 12% 16% 3% 100% Zco ~. In Elk Grove's commercial .n areas during the day 38% 45% 9% 5% 2% 100% ~~ ~ In Elk Grove's commercial ~ areas after dark 10% 32% 25% 26% 6% 100% õ) u:~ g.~ z ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 53 City of Elk Grove I 2009
t j¡ '~ c ~ '~ , (Question 7:'Crime Victim "'" , Percent,of 1t1Duringth~ past twelve months; were you'9;r anioni!i~¡¡your houseFioldtheviciiml , " ',' of any cn me. ;¡, ", ,II r¡, " respondents No 82% Yes 18% Total 100%
\..1, ,~', , (Question'8: CrimeReporiing¿ , ' ,'. , If yes, ,~as this crime'(these crinies),reported to the police? ";"'1" Percent ofrespondents No 26% Yes 74% Total 100%
, -:c ',' " " (Question'9:'Resident Behaviors" ! ~ 'I" 1 In theJast d 2inonths,about how, many timesì if , t~A ci ever"have you or otherhousenoldrmembers "Once "'3 to 13'to More" .participated inine following activities i¡i"Elk or ,12 26 than£26 \. , times ~ " Grove? ,', Never twice "times times Total' Used Elk Grove public libraries or their services 37% 30% 24% 5% 4% 100% Used Elk Grove recreation centers 43% 22% 20% 10% 5% 100% Participated in a recreation program or activity 51 % 22% 17% 5% 4% 100% Visited a neighborhood park or City park 9% 19% 30% 17% 24% 100% Ridden a local bus within Elk Grove 87% 4% 1% 2% 6% 100% Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 78% 16% 6% 0% 0% 100% Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on cable television 72% 18% 9% 1% 0% 100% Read Elk Grove Newsletter 15% 23% 45% 8% 9% 100% Visited the City of Elk Grove Web site (at ~ www.elkgrovecity.org) 37% 32% 23% 5% 3% 100% ~ o Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your u home 6% 4% 12% 17% 60% 100% ~ ~ Volunteered your time to some group or activity & in Elk Grove 64% 11 % 11 % 4% 9% 100% :1 ';: Participated in religious or spiritual activities in "0 11 % 4% 20% 100% Z Elk Grove 56% 9% .n"', Participated in a club or civic group in Elk i!:? Grove 77% 8% 4% 5% 6% 100% ~ ;: en Provided help to a friend or neighbor 6% 18% 50% 14% 13% 100% C V ''¡N o -; .~§ z ~ ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 54 City of Elk Grove I 2009
s Question '1 0: Neighborliness , . Percent of About how often, ifatall, dô.Ýóu'tatk to or visit with yourimmêdiate neighbors "! (people who live inthe 10 or iO'hoùsehólds that are c1osest.to you)? " respondents Just about everyday 15% Several times a week 32% Several times a month 22% Once a month 10% Several ti mes a year 10% Once a year or less 8% Never 3% Total 100%
~
~ uî' t 22 ': '¡: z :; .D ,. ~ :: ,n
'¡:~ u ~ ';0 z'" ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 55 City of Elk Grove I 2009
-- Question 1 l: Se,ryice Quality ~& " .,', ¡Please rate the quality oLeach,oflthefollowing services in,Elk ¡ , , Grove: Excellent Gob(¡, .Fair ',Poor Total: Police services 25% 51 % 19% 5% 100% Fire services 38% 54% 8% 0% 100% Ambulance or emergency medical services 35% 55% 10% 0% 100% Crime prevention 11% 47% 28% 14% 100% Fire prevention and education 18% 54% 25% 3% 100% Traffic enforcement 15% 44% 32% 9% 100% Street repai r 12% 40% 33% 14% 100% Street cleaning 15% 44% 31% 10% 100%
Street lighting 17% 53% 24% 6% 100% Sidewalk maintenance 16% 51 % 25% 8% 100% Traffic signal timing 11 % 33% 43% 14% 100% Bus or transit services 13% 40% 30% 17% 100% Garbage collection 29% 59% 11 % 1% 100% Recycling 32% 56% 12% 0% 100% Yard waste pick-up 31 % 54% 14% 2% 100% Storm drainage 18% 50% 27% 5% 100% Drinking water 9% 41% 36% 15% 100% Sewer services 18% 55% 27% 1 % 100% Power (electric and/or gas) utility 18% 57% 23% 1% 100% Parks 39% 50% 10% 1% 100% Recreation programs or classes 25% 55% 19% 0% 100% Recreation centers or facilities 26% 53% 20% 0% 100% Land use, planning and zoning 7% 31% 38% 24% 100% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 6% 33% 41% 20% 100% ~ Animal control 14% 45% 34% 8% 100% 6% 27% 36% 30% 100% ~ Economic development '¡' u Health services 10% 52% 34% 4% 100%
~ Services to seniors 12% 56% 25% 8% 100% :7 ¿¿ Services to youth 11 % 51% 30% 9% 100% s Services to low-income people 12% 41 % 38% 10% 100% õi Z Publ ic i ibrary services 26% 48% 20% 6% 100% ?- .D Public information services 11 % 49% 32% 8% 100% ¡¡;. 2 Public schools 27% 51 % 17% 5% 100% '" en Cable television 16% 44% 29% 11 % 100% ã; '¡:N Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community o for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 8% 39% 39% 14% 100% .~ê Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands z and greenbelts 11 % 38% 30% 21% 100% ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 56 City of Elk Grove I 2009
!I ,r i£1 " Question 12: Government Servicesl,OveralI , ? (,¡ the quality of,the services e,,; c, Overall, how would you rate , , provide8.by eachof1the'follow¡ng?, ' 'Èxcellêht Good Fair Poor, :rotal;" The City of Elk Grove 10% 56% 27% 6% 100% The Federal Government 3% 27% 48% 22% 100% The State Government 3% 21 % 45% 31% 100% Sacramento County Government 2% 30% 50% 19% 100%
,0' 'lQuestion,,,-c, 13:'Çofltactyvith ,,' " City Employees ~ , " 'D ;J' ,',;Have you had any in-person or phone contact'with an employeè of the"," City of Elk' ~ Grove within the.last 12 months (including police"receptionists, planners a"r~any ",Percentåf '" j'; W others)?' ii!, '" 0/ respondents No 63% Yes 37% Total 100% ~ , ,. ",",' "~. Question 14:bty'Employees m ii, Whlwas your&impressionrof the emplbyee(s)pf,the CitY,lóf Elk' ',', ',e .1" ", I., ' . ,,'GroveiÌn your; most recent contact? N" Excellent.,rG.ood., .Fair '" Poor; Totål" Knowledge 26% 50% 16% 8% 100% Responsiveness 30% 38% 18% 13% 100% Courtesy 31 % 42% 16% 11 % 100% Overall impression 34% 32% 22% 12% 100%
r Question 15: Government Perfòrmance T l ., ,:: i'-'" ., " , 'Please rate the.followingcategories of"Elk Grove government \J"
ff ", t, performance: Excellent Good, Fair Poor, Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Elk Grove 6% 38% 38% 17% 100%
The overall direction that Elk Grove is taking .. 4% 30% 42% 24% 100% ~' ~ The job Elk Grove government does at welcoming citizen Î' 7% 34% 38% 20% 100% U involvement The job Elk Grove government does at listening to citizens 5% 27% 36% 32% 100% ~." ;; i: , , Question .16: Recommendation and Longevity .~ ~ I?lease indicate how likely or unlikely Very Somewhat Somewhat Very -i you are,to do?eachwf the following: likely ,likely unlikely unlikely Total È" .' i!,. Recommend living in Elk Grove to 10% 100% ~ someone who asks 29% 47% 14% tn Remain in Elk Grove for the next five .¡:~ years 43% 39% 10% 8% 100% u ~ .g z'" ~ ¡=
The National Citizen SurveyTM 57 City of Elk Grove i 2009
, " c, "" Question, 17:,lmpact of the Economy " What impact, if any, do you,think theeconomy,will have on your familY'income in Percent of Jhe next6 months? Doyowthink the impact"will be: respondents Very positive 4% Somewhat positive 10% Neutral 31% Somewhat negative 40% Very negative 15% Total 100% ,,' ~ " 18a:,PolicyQuestion ) ,.,' :., 'i Question
,. Which, ifany"of the following"local media sources, do you use to ,stay informed? Percent of' i (Please check all that appiy:r ., . . respondentS Sacramento Bee 59% FM radio stations 54% AM radio stations 30% Other news Web sites 45% Other source 11 % None at all 1% Elk Grove Citizen 40% Local news KCRA, Channel 3 67% Local news KXTV, Channell 0 47% Local news KOVR TV, Channel 1 3 41% Local news KTXL Fox 40, Channel 40 42% Local news KMAX TV, Channel 31 17% Local news KUVS TV Univision, Channel 19 2% Local news KCSO TV Telemundo, Channel 33 0% ~ Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option
~ Ò ~ y ¿¿
.¡:~ z'" -'~ ). ~ en
'¡:~ u -; .~§ Z ~. ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 58 City of Elk Grove I 2009
1 I~ Question iab: PólicyQue?tion 2 2'~i%' '! "Which, if any,pf the followingv sources ,. do '" you. uSEbto' stayf'N' infonned Jon- Cityof -(¥ Elk rn J~ercent of ¡¡ Grove issues? (Please,check allthaVapply.) respppdents, Sacramento Bee, Elk Grove online section 39% City of Elk Grove Council meetings or other public meetings 8% Neighbors/word of mouth 40% None at all 11 % City of Elk Grove newsletter 50% Elk Grove Citizen 44% Elk Grove Online 19% Elk Grove news blogs 3% City of Elk Grove Web site 17% City of Elk Grove press releases 5% City of Elk Grove text messages 0% City of Elk Grove email alerts 0%
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option
" , , " Quesf¡on 18c:¡PolicyQuesfion 3 WhátJis your ~rimary'sourcefor information,during a locallJemergency? (Please Percenfof~ " . "select only one.) respondents Local TV stations 74% Local radio stations 9% Telephone 5% Email 1% News Web sites 5% City or Elk Grove Police Department Web sites 1 % Newspapers 1% 4% ~ Neighbors/word of mouth Other sources 1% ~ ù Total 100% ;: ~ Question 18d:Poliçy QlJestion,4 ¿¿ fc How would you like to receive the CityoHlkGrovenewsletter?'(Please select Perce'nt of " .~ ; onlyone.) respondel)ts z As stand-alone, printed mailing piece 38% lJ~, -,. As an email (in HTML) 25%
~ As an insert in the Elk Grove Citizen 13% en As a downloadable file available on the City Web site 6% "¡:~ o I don't know/no opinion 12% f',J I'd rather not receive it 7% "¡:g Z'" Total 100% 1:i-
The National Citizen SurveyTM 59 City of Elk Grove I 2009
c. , . Question 18e: PoliCy Question 5 "
How mciny4¡mes per year, ¡fat allr wdÙldyou,likeJo receive the City ofElk Grove 'Percentof , "" c' i'newsiètter?, ,,, , respondents Monthly (12 times per year) 50% Bimonthly (current frequency) (6 times per year) 27% Quarterly (4 times per year 16% Semiannually (2 times per year 2% Annually (1 time per year) 5% Total 100%
Jt . " ~ ,Question Dl;Employment,Status ii w .' ,.'~;. c Are you currently employed for pay? Percent of respondents . No 22% Yes, full-time 71 % Yes, part-time 7% Total 100%
" cO' ~ , 'Questiüri D2:,N1oae of Transportation Used for Commute c i', . Du~ing'a typical week, howrnany days dô you comiT,ute to work (for thêlongest Percent of days ,;; , distance of your commute) in each of the waysFlisted"below? imodé'used Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc...) by myself 72% Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc...) with other children or adults 16% Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation 4% Walk 1% Bicycle 2% Work at home 5% Other 1% ~ 2 Ã ." " Question''03: Length ofResidency o How many years have you lived inElkGrove~, Percent of~respondents . ;: '" '" Less than 2 years 18% ;£ 2 to 5 years 29% ~ 6 to 10 years 23% .; 11 to 20 years 15% È' -~ More than 20 years 15% "- è '" Total 100% v'¡
.§ o
.~§ 1 -i-
The National Citizen SurveyTM 60 City of Elk Grove I 2009
". '.' i '" '" 'f Question D4: Housing'Unit Type , . ,'" ~, ;'h) in ò! 'Which bestdescribes,thebuilding youilive in? ,.. Perceiìfof respondents One family house detached from any other houses 84%
House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a duplex or town home) 4% Building with two or more apartments or condominiums 11 % Mobile home 0% Other 1% Total 100%
'M " Question 05: Housing 'T enure,(RenfJown) ."
,. , Is,th iSl house, apartment or¡mobfié:'home... .. I. Percent of respondents Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment 18% Owned by you or someone in this house with a mortgage or free and clear 82% Total 100% " . .. . u; -; ',', ~Q\,estion D6:"Monthly Housing Cost .... '.,¡ A Abouthow much is you r montHly,housinitcost for the place you live (includirig rent; " mortgage payment, property tax~ prdpertyinsurance~nd,homeowners" 'àssociation Percentof .Cíf - .' - _ oj'" ¥1 I.. '(HOA).ees)? oi,¡ respondents " Less than $300 per month 2% $300 to $599 per month 2% $600 to $999 per month 9% $1,000 to $1,499 per month 21 % $1,500 to $2,499 per month 40% $2,500 or more per month 26% Total 100%
QuestionD7: Presence of Children in hlousehold ( ~ Do any children"l? or under liveiin your household? Percent of respondents ~ 47% uv No .: Yes 53% ;~ ~ Total 100% ¿¿ ~ Questio,n D8: Presence'üf Older Adults in'Household i .' ;,, Are you orariy otherlmembersofyourhousehold aged 65 or older? Percent of respondents .D ;, No 80% ~ Yes 20% ,.r ;j Total 100% "¡:N o ëuc '¡:o z'" :u F
The National Citizen SurveyTM 61 City of Elk Grove I 2009
, k " Questißn,09: Household Income m
Howmuch do you anticipate your household'sJotal incomebeforeJaxeswiirbe for the , curfsentyear?(Ple~seiincludê in your total income money from ~1I~()urèesfor all ~ Percent,of , " _..,per~ons living in'yourhousehold.) "" " respondents Less than $24,999 5% $25,000 to $49,999 22% $50,000 to $99,999 32% $100,000 to $149,000 26% $150,000 or more 15% Total 100%
-, i Question 010: Ethnicity " ,. Percentpf respondents ,l 'l\re,yoU~Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? -I No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 86% Yes, i consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 14% Total 100% , 'Question 011,,: Race .. " ," What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate,what race(s) you consider "" ~,yoursélf to be.) '" " I-" /i .resp~ndents_ -, Percent of American Indian or Alaskan Native 2% Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 21% Black or African American 9% White 65% Other 9% Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option
, '. Question,D12: Age :-" ~ In which category is yourage? Percent of respondents ~' " .~ 18 to 24 years 3% uî 25 to 34 years 28% ~.." ~ 35 to 44 years 26% ¿¿ 45 to 54 years 22%
'¡:~ 55 to 64 years 11 % 2! 65 to 74 years 6% .J?- , 3% 0-, 75 years or older ~ Total 100% ~
''¡;! ~J ¿ co Z":e ,' i=
The National Citizen SurveyTM 62 City of Elk Grove I 2009
'. ',. i 0 ,,: '?Question 013!'Genaer " .., ! ", ,;" What is your sex? ; Percent'of respondents ",. Female 52% Male 48% Total 100%
'i' " (t'; ;¡ Question Q14: Registered toNote , ;:0 , Are'youregistered to vote in your jurisdiction? lercent of respondents No 16% Yes 82% Ineligible to vote 1% Total 100%
" Question 015: Voted in last General,Election '?
Many people don'thave time to 'vote in,elections. Oi(l youvote'in the last general I Per2~nt of
~,;;; election?''.' n respondents No 18% Yes 80% Ineligible to vote 2% Total 100%
~ ~ (::
~ ,~ ¿¿
.¡: Zet ..;,, ~ ;0 ~ :: en
'¡:~ o 1 z~ "" i=
The National Citizen SurveyTM 63 City of Elk Grove I 2009
FREQUENCIES INCLUDING "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES These tables contain the percentage of respondents for each response category as well as the linli or total number of respondents for each category, next to the percentage.
. '. it' .., .. '. ". .ii 'r;...... ~ - :r: " ~ "' M P Questioní: QYèlity of Life ... ~Iease rat: ~ach ~f~the fOIlO~.~;v:~~e~s ofqu~ality óflife in Elk kj Don't' I ~;ll Excellent I c. ~Goop I FaIr pqor"1 know I Jq,tal_ Elk Grove as a place to live 20% 50 60% 154 19% 49 1% 3 0% 0 100% 257 Your neighborhood as a place to live 24% 63 55% 141 20% 50 1% 3 0% 0 100% 257 9 100% 255 Elk Grove as a place to raise children 24% 61 48% i 122 22% 57 2% 6 4% Elk Grove as a place to work 11% 27 27% 68 23% 58 17% 42 22% 56 100% 251 Elk Grove as a place to retire 11 % 27 29% 75 22% 56 20% 51 18% 47 100% 256 The overall quality of life in Elk Grove 13% 32 61% 156 25% 65 1% 4 0% 0 100% 256
~ " .. '.. '. ,,"" ¡g ~ ~ !i IlfO .... .'Wi . .. ~uestian 2: Cg;Jllunlty;1:h.aracteristics M ,-' M M ~ .;. h " '. Please '~atê each of the fgllowing characteristiçs ás they relate to Dbn;1 if Èxcellent Good Fair ~ '"k now M) .... Total . ro , , Elk '""Grove ';, as .,-.'" a whole: ""f. ;1 r L I,. "~poor cc; 8% 21 46% 116 39% 98 6% 14 2% 4 100% 254 ~- Sense of community ~ î Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of u diverse backgrounds 12% 32 57% 145 19% 47 7% 17 5% 13 100% 254 ¿ ." Overall appearance of Elk Grove 17% 44 60% 154 20% 50 3% 7 0% 0 100% 255 &; ~ Cleanliness of Elk Grove 16% 40 61% 157 20% 51 3% 7 0% 0 100% 255 ~ 15 100% 250 .g Overall quality of new development in Elk Grove 10% 26 39% 98 31% 79 13% 32 6% z Variety of housing options 11% 27 48% 122 30% 76 6% 16 6% 14 100% 255
È Overall quality of business and service establishments in Elk :0 7% 18 48% 121 36% 91 9% 23 1% 1 100% 255 ~ Grove ~ Shopping opportunities 10% 26 36% 91 32% 82 20% 51 1% 3 100% 253 N Opportunities to attend cultural activities 5% 12 28% 70 36% 92 17% 43 14% 36 100% 254 U r: Recreational opportun ities 13% 32 35% 88 42% 105 7% 17 5% 12 100% 254 .~ Employment opportunities 2% 6 8% 21 34% 86 33% 82 23% 58 100% 253 i 81 35% 89 8% 21 12% 30 100% 250 ;i Educational opportunities 12% 30 32% ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 64 City of Elk Grove I 2009
-: ';c" :.x .,*~" ,'t.... ,":."":: ~,.; ." '" .... "w ~Question 2:' C0!Tm.!nj!y Gharacteristics ~ ~ N '" - " '",. '.' , ,. Plê3se rateeach of thê f.óliowTng characteristics as they relate to .I~..' ..1 I " i Don't .' ~ ~ _ ~EI~~Gro~e as a w,hol~: .. ".Excellent Good . Fairæ ~PpOl;~ kqQ.w j ~TotaL Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 7% 18 37% I 93 39% 99 6% 16 11% 28 100% 253 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 13% 34 39% 100 25% 64 2% 5 20% 52 100% 253 Opportunities to volunteer 9% 24 29% 73 31% 78 5% 13 26% 65 100% 252 Opportunities to participate in community matters 6% 16 39% 98 33% 82 5% 11 18% 45 100% 252 Ease of car travel in Elk Grove 10% 26 40% 102 31% 79 16% 41 2% 4 100% 252 Ease of bus travel in Elk Grove 5% 11 19% 48 19% 47 13% 34 45% 114 100% 255 Ease of bicycle travel in Elk Grove 7% 17 37% 93 22% 55 11% 29 23% 57 100% 251 Ease of walking in Elk Grove 14% 35 44% 111 29% 73 8% 19 6% 14 100% 251 Availability of paths and walking trails 17% 44 38% 97 29% 73 10% 26 6% 15 100% 255 Traffic flow on major streets 7% 18 32% 81 39% 99 21% 54 1% 2 100% 254 Availability of affordable quality housing 9% 22 35% 89 38% 96 7% 18 11% 28 100% 253 Availability of affordable quality child care 3% 7 15% 36 19% 47 9% 22 55% 136 100% 249 8% 20 36% 90 26% 65 13% 32 18% 45 100% 252 ~ Availability of affordable quality health care ~' 14% 36 50% 128 30% 76 5% 13 100% 255 ~ Availability of affordable quality food 1% 3 Ò Availability of preventive health services 9% 22 30% 74 32% 79 5% 13 25% 61 100% 249 t Air quality 6% 16 45% 116 37% 94 7% 19 4% 11 100% 256 f. 21 127 35% 89 5% 12 100% 254 ~ Quality of overall natural environment in Elk Grove 8% 50% 2% 4 ~ Overall image or reputation of Elk Grove 10% 26 54% 138 24% 63 11% 29 0% 0 100% 256 ~, z~ .;"" :0 J. 2: 3; ;: .~ o -; .£i 1:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 65 City of Elk Grove I 2009
,.. , , 1"'; " ;N . s. ':"", ',. ',R " '# ~ m ~ ~ - . m ~ ,~ "Questiqn 3:,GroWth . ~ "! "~" J\ "~ ..;, l! ,. ,-" Please rate the speed of growtlï in the
i ., following categories in Elk Grove ovef thë. Much too.~ Somewhat Right Somewhat Much t60 "Don't.. ie' if .. :- " '" ~påst 2 years: top s fQ"Y", " knpw ~ slow . ""'0;clrpO!!l1t , tqofast _ fast ~ .,,J o.tål Population growth 0% 0 2% 4 34% 84 33% 82 25% 63 7% 18 100% 252 Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc.) 8% 21 27% 68 35% 88 12% 31 11% 27 6% 16 100% 251 Jobs growth 27% 67 33% 83 12% 30 1% 2 1% 3 27% 68 100% 253
'.. " .;S!~'9 ~ ~ " " '", ". " " ,., , ~ t Enforcement_ "'",- .. m ~ . m ;'8 !!'JI ~, - Question.4:"Code .. . \"I'l ~, " ,i~, .' , "'. ~ t 0 ~~¥atgegree, if al all, are run down buildings, weeâ lots or.jimk vehi,çle§ a prgblèm_iíìËI~ Gro;e? ....;I.~Per;cene of respondlnt~S I Count Not a problem 13% 33 Minor problem 49% 125 Moderate problem 27% 68 Major problem 6% 16 Don't know 5% 12 Total 100% 255
, , ~ ~ " ~." "'0 ~",.. ,s .. ¡ :i m . p ~ '" ...... Question,S: "Communi~ Safety - . , ~" .~, . - m somewhat! ! .:~ ~ --j pièâse,rate how safe'or unsafe youJeel Somewhat Very Oón't ~ ~ unsafe" unsafe .,: ~' .ur¡Silfe know 1T6tâl .,...' from'the fòllowing iQ Elk.,ÇJrq.vé: ~ I Very safe I safe I "N~ither safe nor l! rf ","" N II ¡.l I .7. ¿i Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 19% 48 43% 109 17% 44 17% 45 3% 8 1% 2 100% 256 ~ 9% 1% 3 100% 256 .g Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 8% 20 37% 95 19% 48 26% 67 22 ~ Environmental hazards, including toxic È waste 31% 80 36% 92 18% 45 5% 13 2% 5 8% 22 100% 256 '" ':C 2: ~ E; .~ u ~ i.§ f-
The National Citizen SurveyTM 66 City of Elk Grove I 2009
;; .. ", ',' ,-c":,; "", "' " ~~ ~ Mæ M ~",' "''''è Questlon 6: Persångil Safety :~;: \$ 1I:;~ ri ," ,~ " Pleasë rate how safe or unsafe you Somewflat Neith~r safe nor Very _I~, k~nJ?onwd~,I' 'Tptal ,feel: ' ., J"very safe~'" safe It." '~ Ljnsafe, 'I. ~ sO:i~~at unsafe -L~, __ In your neighborhood during the day 56% 146 31% 81 6% 17 5% 13 1% 2 0% o 100% 259 In your neighborhood after dark 25% 64 44% 115 12% 30 16% 41 3% 9 0% o 100% 259 In Elk Grove's commercial areas during the day 38% 99 45% 116 9% 24 5% 13 2% 5 1% 2 100% 259 In Elk Grove's commercial areas after dark 10% 26 32% 82 25% 64 26% 66 6% 15 2% 6 100% 259
" '",'" , ~ .; .... , ",.', ' , Que,Stion 7;, c:rin:eVictim 3', M n ~ ~ ~ '2' ,', ,,' ~ M ~ '.',' ""," ,,;, Count During the'past twelve mgQths,were Y.PMU or anyone in,your household tne victim of any Cri m~r M r ferçent, ofrespondents No 81% 207 Yes 18% 45 Don't know 1% 3 ú co Total 100% i 256
~ '" w,~ ~ ¡p ~ ~: ",\. '/, ",,": r,', i,;;,il ;,; ~ ;~ 5 'w, ' Questio.. 8: Çrim~ Reporting - ~ M ". ~ , .. ,."" ,- . . . ~o: ",' ',," ',.. ;L""'.Wt'" ,'C"''' 2 police? COlJnt " ø ~ Ifyes, was this crime (these crii:es) Îeporte,dJq the ,," ~ ~O! Rerç~nJ,9f respon'dents ~I. . .~, ~ No 24% 12 ~ Yes 71% 35 .g z Don't know 5% 2 )- .: Total 100% 50 )- ~ ~ :c .~ C ~ z ~ ¡=
The National Citizen SurveyTM 67 City of Elk Grove I 2009
" '--'C' ,,-, '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ~. . - !l" Qu~stjon9: Resident 'Behaviors._~ . ~ ~ . ~,.:. ,', _. " 'o' ,.~ .n llithelast12rnonths,about how many times,if ever, have ¡¡ ." ,i,' i yo~~~r other household mempers participated in the'" . On~e or _j,: 3 to 12 13t026 MOre than 26 , Total " following activitiesin,Elk Gjove? Nevßr twlce . limes ~ ~ i¡ timß.áw w "- times Used Elk Grove public libraries or their services 37% 94 30% 75 24% 61 5% 13 4% 11 100% 254 Used Elk Grove recreation centers 43% 110 22% 55 20% 51 10% 25 5% 14 100% 254 Participated in a recreation program or activity 51% 129 22% 56 17% 42 5% 13 4% 11 100% 251 Visited a neighborhood park or City park 9% 24 19% 49 30% 78 17% 44 24% 62 100% 256 Ridden a local bus within Elk Grove 87% 217 4% 11 1% 3 2% 4 6% 15 100% 251 Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 78% 198 16% 41 6% 15 0% 0 0% 0 100% 254 Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on cable television 72% 181 18% 45 9% 22 1% 3 0% 0 100% 250 Read Elk Grove Newsletter 15% 38 23% 59 45% 113 8% 19 9% 22 100% 251 Visited the City of Elk Grove Web site (at www.elkgrovecity.org) 37% 94 32% 80 23% 57 5% 13 3% 8 100% 253
~ Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 6% 16 4% 11 12% 31 17% 42 60% 152 100% 252 Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Elk 254 o Grove 64% 162 11% 29 11% 28 4% 11 9% 24 100% " Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Elk Grove 56% 141 9% 24 11% 28 4% 11 20% 50 100% 254 '" './', Participated in a club or civic group in Elk Grove 77% 195 8% 21 4% 11 5% 13 6% 14 100% 254 ~ ~ Provided help to a friend or neighbor 6% 14 18% 45 50% 128 14% 35 13% 34 100% 256 -¡:ë Z È" ~:: ~ ~
~ u ~ .2 z 1!f-
The National Citizen SurveyTM 68 City of Elk Grove I 2009
,t ~ ~ . M '" , "" . "., ..., ...... 1 '" QLJestiq,n 10: Neighbor! iness ~ ", " !''; About how often; itàt ~1I,Fd,p you lalk to or '\i§it with Y2'l~,immediate neigh"bor§ (people who live ir¡jhe 1 b oP:20 _ _..' ~ m hQuseQolg,Sth9t,.areJlos~sttP YPu)L' .,,:~ 1 "., J r::~~~~~:si:,. J ~ount Just about everyday 15% 39 Several times a week 32% 84 Several times a month 22% 57 Once a month 10% 25 Several times a year 10% 26 Once a year or less 8% 20 Never 3% 8 Total 100% 259 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~."' .. Qyestion 11: Se¡yrçeJ:~\;Jil1 i!y .~ ~ ~ ~ ',=", ".',.,'5J I.. b'on't i , ", i';"t ", Please, rare the qualitû:if each,pf tlie'followingservices in Elk ;. Gpod, F¡iir Poor . w ... ~ ff ,kJJa,'1 1 .. i - .. Grove: Excelleí1f I J T()tal Police services 22% 55 44% 109 16% 41 4% 10 15% 37 100% 252 ~ Fire services 27% 68 39% 98 6% 14 0% 0 29% 74 100% 255 ~ s: Ambulance or emergency medical services 22% 55 35% 89 6% 16 0% 0 36% 91 100% 252 U Crime prevention 8% 2136% 90 21% 54 10% 26 24% 62 100% 252 ~ Fire prevention and education 11% 2732% 81 15% 38 2% 4 41% 102 100% 252 c;t Traffic enforcement 13% 3338% 96 28% 71 8% 21 13% 32 100% 253 § Street repair 12% 30 38% 97 31% 79 13% 34 6% 15 100% 254 ~ È Street cleaning 14% 35 41% 104 28% 72 9% 24 7% 18 100% 253 ~ Street lighting 17% 44 52% 132 23% 59 6% 15 2% 4 100% 254 ,;¡;; 2 15% 37 48% 121 24% 60 8% 20 5% 12 100% 250 ~ Sidewalk maintenance Traffic signal timing 10% 26 32% 81 42% 106 14% 35 1 % 3 100% 252 .~ o Bus or transit services 6% 14 17% 42 13% 31 7% 18 57% 139 100% 244 ~ Garbage collection 29% 73 58% 147 10% 26 1% 2 2% 5 100% 252 i Recycling 31% 78 54% 137 11% 29 0% 0 3% 8 100% 252 '" ¡: Yard waste pick-up 29% 72 50% 126 13% 32 2% 5 7% 18 100% 253
The National Citizen SurveyTM 69 City of Elk Grove I 2009
n ~ , '" "". "¡ , A " " '" '" . ~ Quèstion'!l :,Service Qu.?Jity . ~ ø, ~ , q ',' ~, ,'è Please raiê'the quâlitY9f each'õf the fållowing services in Elk '" Don't i" "" iid,kn.Q.w n",~ .,,"ii $' " ,',' ,', Grove:' , ~I' Excellent d i'.'" Good Fai~ i~ Póor I ~_Total ~ Storm drainage 16% 39 44% 11 1 23% 59 5% 12 12% 31 100% 253 Drinking water 8% 21 37% 95 33% 83 14% 34 8% 21 100% 253 Sewer services 15% 38 46% 11 7 23% 57 1% 2 15% 38 100% 253 Power (electric and/or gas) utility 17% 44 55% 139 22% 56 1% 4 4% 10 100% 252 Parks 38% 95 49% 123 9% 24 1% 2 3% 7 100% 252 Recreation programs or classes 17% 42 37% 92 13% 32 0% 0 33% 83 100% 249 Land use, planning and zoning 5% 14 23% 58 29% 72 18% 45 25% 62 100% 250 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 5% 12 26% 64 32% 79 16% 39 22% 55 100% 250 Animal control 9% 22 29% 73 22% 55 5% 13 35% 89 100% 252 Economic development 5% 12 20% 51 27% 68 23% 57 25% 64 100% 252 Health services 7% 18 36% 89 23% 58 3% 7 31% 76 100% 249
Services to seniors 5% 12 22% 57 10% 25 3% 8 60% 152 100% 254 Services to youth 7% 18 32% 80 19% 47 5% 14 37% 93 100% 252 cc. Services to low-income people 5% 12 16% 40 15% 37 4% 10 60% 151 100% 250 Public library services 20% 50 36% 91 15% 38 5% 12 25% 62 100% 252 -u Public information services 7% 18 33% 82 22% 54 5% 13 33% 84 100% 252 '" Public schools 20% 52 39% 100 13% 33 4% 9 23% 59 100% 253
'"t Cable television 13% 33 36% 92 24"10 61 9% 24 17% 44 100% 254
~ Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for 4% 11 19% 49 19% 49 7% 17 50% 127 100% 253 ~ natural disasters or other emergency situations) È Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and '" greenbelts 9% 23 31% 77 24% 60 17% 42 20% 50 100% 252 ~ ,; Ii .~ C ~ .~ z 1:'-
The National Citizen SurveyTM 70 City of Elk Grove I 2009
~ ~ .': ~ ~ eN".", ., :~. ~ '.., ~ ~Question12: Gôvernr.enjsJ,vltes,QÝerall .. '" .;. ~".1 '.' " ,:., , -::-',' '~ir '¡,: .'..' _ d 'pv~rall,.how wo¡ild y,pu rate the quality of the services provided ":"DoiFt il R R"'~" gy each of the following? i, I .. '. Exè~lIent .'. ~ ~. ~oog : Pqor...... i k;ow "I I'... '1r4 R Fair~ " r!l ~Total .; The City of Elk Grove 9% 24 51% 129 25% 64 6% 15 9% 22 100% 254 The Federal Government 3% 7 23% 57 41 % 103 18% 47 16% 40 100% 253 The State Government 2% 6 19% 47 40% 101 27% 69 12% 31 100% 253 Sacramento County Government 2% 4 25% 63 42% 105 16% 39 16% 41 100% 253
. ~ .... ~ ;i . ~ 1'1 ., - Il~" ii~ ".. . Qi,e~tion J3:'Contact with.CitÝJ=qipLoyee~ '" - ._ww ~" .. .i .' Have youhaâ any in-person or phõnecont~lCtwith an emplòy.ee of the City of Elk Grove within the last 12 months Percent of resp6nMde.flts ~ ...... i?: ..' (including po(jce,,,re¿eptignists, pl,ãriners or any others)? ~ I '~i ~~ount No 63% 156 Yes 37% 90 Total 100% 246
. .. ~ -- ~ i~ .. .. ¡¡. .;1, . ~R .. ~ . . R ~ " Quéstipn 14: City EmBIQY~~ ., .. .- o i.' .. ~ c .. .' ...., ~ y ~" " . '.'" ~ " .1 , Whatwas your imprêssioñ of the employee(s) of the City of Elk Grove . Don't ~. ". .. ~ h Jri ypur.mpst reçenJ cont~ct? ~ I . Excellen.t;'.: ~ Gogg poor ,know R ToJaL.", c .". i ~ r ~ I. E~ ..- ... -I I !RIl "- V Knowledge 24% 26 47% 51 15% 16 7% 8 7% 7 100% 108 i: (",j Responsiveness 28% 30 35% 38 17% 18 12% 13 8% 8 100% 108 ~ ~ Courtesy 29% 31 39% 42 15% 16 10% 11 7% 8 100% 108 ;: 22 12% 13 6% 7 100% 109 § Overall impression 32% 35 30% 33 20% z"5 È ~~
~ ~ i: N v:~ .£i È
The National Citizen SurveyTM 71 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Ai¡ ~.~ ¿¿' ~C;. _ ~ Wi Q'yestion 15: GovernrreQ(Pgrformarice': ~ ,i£ '.' ,,,' .'" .. ~ " ." " " Pli;tse rate the follOwingdtegories ofElk Grove gOVeìhmênti.1 .. I.' ¡ "* ~on't _ "", ,. ~ '" performance:' ¡ ~ , ~ _ N' .. Extelient': ,Good Fair e' Poor.. ~ ~. ~n()w IgtaJ' ,..~. The value of services for the taxes paid to Elk Grove 5% 14 33% 84 33% 84 15% 38 14% 36 100% 256 The overall direction that Elk Grove is taking 4% 10 27% 70 37% 95 21 % 55 11 % 28 100% 257 The job Elk Grove government does at welcoming citizen involvement 5% 13 24% 61 27% 68 14% 36 30% 75 100% 253 The job Elk Grove government does at listening to citizens 4% 9 18% 46 24% 60 22% 55 33% 84 100% 254
~. ,. "
~ " .iC. ~ gGistibri 19: $ecoQ)rñ~ndåtion and Longevity ~ "' M - - "- , Somewha't SoÍDewhat Very Don.~f';""' Please i.ììdicåte hòwlikely ¡pr unlikeÎy you are to do ff RI ~ Iikel unlikely unlikely knQw TOt91 mR w each of tbe f()lIowing: i Vt~ likely j ~ ~_ Y'M~. I I J Recommend living in Elk Grove to someone who asks 29% 74 47% 118 14% 36 9% 24 1% 2 100% 253 Remain in Elk Grove for the next five years 42% 108 38% 97 9% 24 8% 20 3% 7 100% 256
.. .. " ",'~ ,:." . " Ques'tionJ7: Impact of the Ecpnorny¡¡~~":"" - ...... " ..... ~~~ii ø_ 'e j. w,,' Percent of ~ What impact, if any, do you think the economy will haye on yoûr ftmily ¡nconie in"the nêxr6months'? Do you' ._' ~espöndents , tco~ht ~ '" 00 N. thi,nk the impact ~illl;e: .\'.. .. "'. :.'" Very positive 4% 11 t: 10% 25 -; Somewhat positive &: 77 ~ Neutral 31% ~ Somewhat negative 40% 101 ,2 15% 38 :i Very negative È Total 100% 253 f j; ¿; .:: u ~ i ~ ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 72 City of Elk Grove I 2009
",'" "' ~ ~ ~ Questionll3a; eqlicyQuestion 1 ~"" æ . ~ ~il ~ " 'x" ,,"," .8 . '" ,- . '""", Whiè.Q; if any, of thefg.!JpwLQg loçal rnegiasources do youu'se to.stay iiifqrmedl (Ple~e~¡j.eAC~k all'thatapply.) I" Percept qfrespon9e¿ils 1.ç:Qu'pl Sacramento Bee 59% 154 FM radio stations 54% 141 AM radio stations 30% 78 Other news Web sites 45% 117 Other source 11 % 28 None at all 1% 2 Elk Grove Citizen 40% 103 Local news KCRA, Channel 3 67% 172 Local news KXTV, Channeli 0 47% 123 Local news KOVR TV, Channel 13 41% 107 Local news KTXL Fox 40, Channel 40 42% 108 Local news KMAX TV, Channel 31 17% 44 Local news KUVS TV Univision, Channel 19 2% 5
~ Local news KCSO TV Telemundo, Channel 33 0% 1
~' Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option Ú .: :: Æ
.§ .z È ~~ 2 .; .§ o c .~i ~ ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 73 City of Elk Grove I 2009
'" ,.'.."" ~ ",,:... , ...... "..,.',",,, Question 18b~P.9licy ~~. .."..~.Question 2 ~':" .R~' - . _. W'."" .. . ,.~ Which, if any/of thé followin& sources doyo~ u.se tostay informed on City of Elk Grove,issues? (Please check all "tc Percent àt$ .... ~ _ that,appl~.t ~." ", .... I" resrJondents .. R J CQL!ht' Sacramento Bee, Elk Grove online section 39% 102 City of Elk Grove Council meetings or other public meetings 8% 21 Neighbors/word of mouth 40% 103 None at all 11 % 27 City of Elk Grove newsletter 50% 128 Elk Grove Citizen 44% 113 Elk Grove Online 19% 50 Elk Grove news blogs 3% 8 City of Elk Grove Web site 17% 44 City of Elk Grove press releases 5% 13 City of Elk Grove text messages 0% 0 City of Elk Grove email alerts 0% 1 ~ Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option
y ~ .' .... ,~ " ~ % .. ~. ,. QuestionJ sc: PglicyQuestl9,'13 ~.. .. ~ ~ ~ .. ~ w . o - ~ . - , , -' 'G", What iSYQur,primary source for information .9t,rfng~aTocal em~ergencY((PJeas"'e select only one:) .. ~ - "." " '" "I ;; ~L eerçeQt 0(resR!)f)9ents ! Count '" ~. Local TV stations 74% 133 ~'- Local radio stations 9% 16 ...ë, 5% 10 z Telephone 1% 1 È" Email 2t News Web sites 5% 8 è ~ City or Elk Grove Police Department Web sites 1% 1 Newspapers 1% 3 :~ u Neighbors/word of mouth 4% 7 -; .~ Other sources 1% 1 ž Total 100% 181 ge
The National Citizen SurveyTM 74 City of Elk Grove I 2009
.,. ". - A òC. .. ~ ~. B . .., Quésli()n 1 §d: PQlicy Q!Je.liQn~4,. ", ",," . " '" e. M Ho~woula you like to rec~ivè the CitX of EJk...Groy~ne\"sletter? WI~aseselect only one.) . ¡ Pelc.e.nt of resRondenis. I'Co~unt As stand-alone, printed mailing piece 38% 95 As an email (in HTML) 25% 64 As an insert in the Elk Grove Citizen 13% 33 As a downloadable file available on the City Web site 6% 14 I don't know/no opinion 12% 29 I'd rather not receive it. 7% 18 Total 100% 253
~ ,; Q ." w .y.... ., '" ,," ~ "" w . Questjori 18è~'lo!!ç;xQuestigp5 .#i - .... ,.¿~ItNj 00 ,~, w.,..' .", .. - ..., H9\'/~¡ìny tirles per year, if aLalI, ~ould you like to receivethe City ofÊlk. Grewe Qewsletter,? ..PercenLof respondents 'i ~ I J::óunt Monthly (12 times per year) 50% 123 Bimonthly (current frequency) (6 times per year) 27% 67 Quarterly (4 times per year 16% 38
~ Semiannually (2 times per year 2% 4 ~. 5% 11 .8 Annuailly (1 time per year) ;; o Total 100% 243 -' ~ '" ..... 'B ...... ,e. M " ¡; 'S "' D1 t,EmpJoym.entStatus N -~. ~ F¡; "t - -- .,. .' '" R~ Q~~stign .. R - ~~', . ~ " --'.--,.., " . i" _ "Per.:ent qf respondents ..çount~ ~ k.. . ~. .. ~, ~re yg,ucurrentlyelDPloyed for pay? I ~ .. -. J .;:ö "0 22% 55 Z No È" Yes, full-time 71% 179 2 0- cr Yes, part-time 7% 18 t: ;; Total 100% 252 .è v ~ .9i ~ t:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 75 City of Elk Grove I 2009
i' "~N '"W _~ ~ " Question 02: Mo~e otJranspq,rtatLp¡' L¿s~d for Comrrute.~ N ..' W :,~ H ~,' .. N During a typical week, hpw many dars do'~ou commute. ~iówdrk (f.?r the longestdistan,ce ofy~ur commute) in each o(the ....1 Percent of days móde " '" ~ ,¡"', ~." ways I istèd belôw? ~ . '.; '" ,.i."," ,,: Huse~ , Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc...) by myself 72% WalkMotorizedBus, rail, vehicle subway (e.g., car, truck, or van,1% other motorcycle, public etc..,) withtransportation other children or adults 4% 16% WorkOtherBicycle at home1 %2% 5% - ,,' d ',' ',. ¡¡ ~ . Question 63~' Lengtl: ojResiçI'ency w "', M ~ iB!I .. 'š iii "'Percer;t õf¡'e~pongenJs" ., i Coun,t H i,. '" How many years have you lived,in Elk Grove? ~ ~ w' Li' ., Less than 2 years 18% 46 2 to 5 years 29% 75 6 to 10 years 23% 60 ~ 38 ~. 11 to 20 years 15% ~ 15% 39 U More than 20 years .. 100% 257 ¿ Total ~ -c- ~ .. " ~ .. ~ ~ .' "'~' ~uèstiQn'Ö'r._ H~ouSln.g NH " Y -~ .~ ., r¿ ~ R. VnitType ~ . . . ~ . '¡ ~ ," ,.-C .,~ ,,~ .8êërèe6t ofrispondents § i ço.~ri( WJiich best describes the buiJding ygu live in? æ . ~ ., " ! z È One family house detached from any other houses 84% 217 ¡.~;. 4% 10 House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a duplex or town home) 2 11% 28 ~ Building with two or more apartments or condominiums 0% 1 .~ Mobile home .:: Other 1% 1 Total 100% 257 .~i ~ ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 76 City of Elk Grove I 2009
,., M ""'~, ~ ," ',~, ~ " ._,", . ~ ~ "1M! .~. " " . . Que,?tion D5: H9uSj,g Temire (Rent/Own) '" ~ ,,. - . Iill' ,,', . ,. ':,'" 0:/,':'; ':_" '''.:m .;....-,) , ".,' ~ " ~ Percent ofrespondents ,,,Count rn ,.n ~ ~ !s this house, èpa~itnient9r mobile home...... M J Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment 18% 44 Owned by you or someone in this house with a mortgage or free and clear 82% 207 Total 100% 251 ~~- II( (;~i!ii .', ~' ~~" . QuesJ~pn 06: Monthl)'HRù~iflg ÇÖst ,,', :"""... ~ ,., ,( " About how much is your monthly hol.sing èost fpr the place youÍive (intludrng rent, mortgâge payHiènt: property tax, i Percent of ,~, "propertyinsurànce and hpmeowners"assodation (lj06)fee,.)? ~ 'M ii respona,en¿ts ~ I çount Less than $300 per month 2% 5 $300 to $599 per month 2% 6 $600 to $999 per month 9% 23 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 21% 51 $1,500 to $2,499 per month 40% 98 $2,500 or more per month 26% 64 Total 100% 245
-',~ .2 ~ ". ~ ,." ".,' .' , ",' .. ~, ,.~~ II ''07: Presence ofCnJldi;eñ J n,Hoùseb~old , ~ . . " '" , ~ " .x' "'Qgèstion -," u '. , ~-j ~ ~ -" Percent of~e§R.on'deQts Count w Do~any ch i Id reI' oJ 7 or under live in your:hous~bola? r .i . ~. No 47% 120 ~ Yes 53% 135 Total 100% 255 -i -;; ,~, È ~~ ,~ ,'-C--;;;; ~ i" Pres~nce of ÔI,derAdults in HOlJsehoÌd ~ ~ , ""~; " , Questian Q13: ~ ~., ,.-l, n_ ~'" . ~; Percent: Count f; aged 65 or plder? ~ '" J of ,tespgndenJs ..v I' V; Arè:YQlJ pr anypther membèrs'üt ypurßblJsehold No 80% 203 .~ 51 ¡.J Yes 20% Total 100% 254 -~i i" ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 77 City of Elk Grove I 2009
~ m In'cQme, ~ . ~ ~,,' ~ Q uesJJpG'b9;HQ.usghòld 1', , ~ . ~ w ....
How much do youantjcipate your household's totalincoQie beforétaxeswill be''¡or the c¡urrenryear~(PI~aseincllJ'de in'l Perè'ent:¿';" of living in yourlìóuseholq.) ~'.'. Count . ~ YQjJrtotai ii;eome moriey frgJD all sourèes for all persons xespondents "i ;, Less than $24,999 5% 13 $25,000 to $49,999 22% 52 $50,000 to $99,999 32% 77 $100,000 to $149,000 26% 62 $150,000 or more 15% 37 Total 100% 241
n ,,". ~ -.e,,; ,. ~~ .. I:: " ~ ~ - n ", ;:, Question D10:Ethnicjty ~n ;. ~ ¥ .... ~. .- . ;;, . ~ i"" i;Perc~nt otrespondênt~ . . t. II '" Are you'Spanish,.,Hispank or Latino? . ~ ~ I " I ~ .~ Cq!Jnt No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 86% 214 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 14% 34 Total 100% 249
1". ~ ~ ". ,i,", ~ '" .. ;C, Race ~ ," ':. . "." , . . ~ ~-- , Q'uestiqn D11: ~, Ji' - ,. .. - ~ - ~ ft' Count Ò '" "",.. ~ WKat is your race? (tv,årk One or m,ole races to indicate what .racè(st you consjqer ~P4rself to be.) ., r~ eercent,.gfrèj,gongents, .'1 -' 2% 6 ;: American Indian or Alaskan Native '" 3i Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 21% 51 ~G. 9% 22 ~ Black or African American .§ White 65% 162 z È Other 9% 23 "¡: Total may exceed 100% as respondents eould select more than one option
¡; ~
.~ o s ž 1: !-
The National Citizen SurveyTM 78 City of Elk Grove I 2009
t': " '" ;" "," , " " '" Questi9r,iD12: Age l" " ~' " ,", ,¡ ¡¡ . . ",., 9 , :-C';;1:," Kl M:. in wh içh category is youràgei *1 e~rç!=nt qLres¡;o¡ige'lts ~ M~ ~ I Count 18 to 24 years 3% 6 25 to 34 years 28% 72 35 to 44 years 26% 67 45 to 54 years 22% 56 55 to 64 years 11% 28 65 to 74 years 6% 15 75 years or older 3% 9 Total 100% 252
& ~ ~ , ~ , , II ~ ~ l' "," ,",", Question,Q1 J: Gend~r " M - ~ ~ M .. lj ~ ~ "j . " ~ If " " ~ ,. '', '\V,hat is yoiiršex? " " Percent åf respondents Count ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ - "i Female 52% 132 Male 48% 120 Total 100% 252
~' ~ , " .~,,' , '" " " ~ l8 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Question D1,4: Registerèdto Vote MM ~ .c ~ R1' " ~;;( ~ ~ ¿ gre ypu , Perc~nt of 'r,!:SP9£1deJit~" I'" '" '" "': registered to vote iayoqr jurisgictlonJ ~"' ','" " " ~ L "'", '" "T ,çount " ~ '" "" No 16% 40 ~ Yes 81% 203 § ~ Ineligible to vote 1% 4 l;- Don't know 2% 5 ii )- Total 100% 252 2 v: ¡¡ .è: U ~ .~i E
The National Citizen SurveyTM 79 City of Elk Grove I 2009
" , " ~ '" ~ ~ ,. q in Lilst' Gener~ N' Election ;,' " ''i ~, ~ Question QJ~: VQte,d " ,,'," .. . ". .' ~ "" . . .,~" , " ' ,," ~ irl'the lasf'generaL eLectiol1? Percent'pf respqnçlerits Count ro/" Many people don't have ti ire to vpte in elei;ti£lI)S,JSidyou vote ~ I I No 17% 44 Yes 79% 198 Ineligible to vote 2% 6 Don't know 2% 4 Total 100% 252
~ ~' * ~ .J ;: Æ z -''" -:; "- Jè: î .~ u ~
-l ~
The National Citizen SurveyTM 80 City of Elk Grove I 2009
~:~R(BE;'.~Jg~I.~~ B,':;o R LJ~~JV:i¡I:.Ý lXl~Ê.\i:,'I¡..Otq O.t.t;J.'~.)fg The National Citizen SurveyTM was developed to provide local jurisdictions an accurate, affordable and easy way to assess and interpret resident opinion about important community issues. While standardization of question wording and survey methods provide the rigor to assure valid results, each jurisdiction has enough flexibility to construct a customized version of The National Citizen SurveyTM that asks residents about key local services and important local issues.
Results offer insight into residents' perspectives about local government performance and as such provide important benchmarks for jurisdictions working on performance measurement. The National Citizen SurveyTM is designed to help with budget, land use and strategic planning as well as to communicate with local residents. The National Citizen SurveyTM permits questions to test support for local policies and answers to its questions also speak to community trust and involvement in community-building activities as well as to resident demographic characteristics. SURVEY VALIDITY The question of survey validity has two parts: 1) how can a jurisdiction be confident that the results from those who completed the questionnaire are representative of the results that would have been obtained had the survey been administered to the entire population? and 2) how closely do the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do? To answer the first question, the best survey research practices were used for the resources spent to ensure that the results from the survey respondents reflect the opinions of residents in the entire jurisdiction. These practices include:
. Using a mail-outlmail-back methodology, which typically gets a higher response rate than phone for the same dollars spent. A higher response rate lessens the worry that those who did not respond are different than those who did respond. . Selecting households at random within the jurisdiction to receive the survey. A random selection ensures that the households selected to receive the survey are similar to the entire population. A non-random sample may only include households from one geographic area, or from households of only one type. . Over-sampling multi-family housing units to improve response from hard-to-reach, lower š income, or younger apartment dwellers. . Selecting the respondent within the household using an unbiased sampling procedure; in this ~ ò case, the "birthday method." The cover letter included an instruction requesting that the .c respondent in the household be the adult (18 years old or older) who most recently had a '"i &: birthday, irrespective of year of birth. ¿: . Contacting potential respondents three times to encourage response from people who may ~ have different opinions or habits than those who would respond with only a single prompt. ~ . Soliciting response on jurisdiction letterhead signed by the highest ranking elected official or .0).. staff member, thus appealing to the recipients' sense of civic responsibility. ~ · Providing a self-addressed, postage-paid return envelope. ~ ~ . Offering the survey in Spanish when appropriate and requested by City officials. i) . Using the most recent available information about the characteristics of jurisdiction residents to .~ o weight the data to reflect the demographics of the population. '" The answer to the second question about how closely the perspectives recorded on the survey '''g z'" reflect what residents really believe or do is more complex. Resident responses to surveys are ~ influenced by a variety of factors. For questions about service quality, residents' expectations for ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 81 Cityof Elk Grove I 2009
service quality playa role as well as the "objective" quality ofthe service provided, theway the resident perceives theentire community (that is, the context in which theserviceis provided), the
scale on whichthe resident is asked to record his or her opinion and, ofcourse, the opinion, itself,
that a resident holds about the service. Similarly a resident's report ofcertain behaviors is colored
by what he or she believes is the socially desirable response (e.g., reporting tolerantbehaviors
toward '¡oppressed groups," likelihood of voting a tax increase for services to poor people, use of
alternative modes of travel to work besides the si ngleoccupancy veh icle), h is or her memory of the
actual behavior (if it is not a question speculating aboutfutureactions, I ike a vote),hisor her
confidence that he orshe can 'behonestwithout suffering any negative consequences (thus the
need foranonymity)as well as the actual behavior itself.
How closely sUrvey results come to recording the way a person really feels orbehaves often is
measured by the coincidence of reported behavior with observed current behavior (e.g.,driving
habits), reported intentions to behave with observed. future. behavior (e.g., voting choices) or
reported opinions about current community qualitywithobjectivecharacteristicsof the community body of scientific (e.g., feel i ngs of safety correlated with rates of crime). There is a I iterature that has
investigated the relationsh ip between reported behaviors and actual. behaviors. Wei konducted
surveys, by and large, do capture true respondent behaviors or intentions toact with great
accuracy. Predictions of voting outcomes tend to be quite accurate using survey research, as do
reported behaviors that are' not about high Iy sensitiveissues (e.g., fami Iy abuse or other illegal or
morallysanctionedactivities). For selfcreports about highly sensitive issues, statistical adjustments
can be made.to correctfor the respondents' tendency to report what they think the "correct" response should be.
Research on the correlation of resident opinion about service quality and "objective" ratings of
service quality tend to be ambiguous, some showing stronger relationships than others. NRC's own
research has demonstrated that residents who report the lowest ratings of street repair livein
commun ities with o bjettivel yworse street cond itionsthan those who report high ratings' of street
'repair (based on road quality, delay in street repair, number of road repair employees). Similarly,
the lowestrated fire services appear to be "objectively" worse than the highest rated fire services
(expenditures per capita, response time, '¡professional" status of firefighters, breadth of services and
training provided). Whether or not some research confirms the relationship between what residents
a think abouta community and whatcan be seen "objectively" in community, NRC has argued that ~ resident opinion is a perspective that cannotbe ignored by governmentadministrators. NRC
principals have written, "If you collecttrashthree times a day but residents think that yourtrash ~~ o haul is lousy, you still haveaproblem." l. tt¡, V SURVEY SAMPLING £ ~, '¡Sampling" refers to the method by which survey recipientswerechosen. All households within the ;: City ofElk Grovewere eligible to participate in the survey; 1 ,200 wereselected to receive the .~ survey. These 1 ,200 households were randomly selected from acomprehensivelistof all housing .0;,, :; units withintheCityof Elk Grove boundaries. Thebasisofthelistof all housing units was a United
housing units within zipcodes.Sincesomeofthezip codes that ~. States Postal Service listing of :: en serve the City of Elk Grove households mayalso serve addresses thatlieoutside of the jurisdiction, c '" 'çN the exactgeographiclocationof each housing unit was compared to jurisdiction boundaries,using o the most current municipal boundary file (updatedon a quarterly basis), and addresses located ~,- c: outside of the City ofElk Grove boundaries were removed from consideration. 'ço z'" ;! ¡:
The NationâlCitizen' Surv~yTM 82 City of Elk Grove I 2009
To choose the 1,200 survey recipients, a systematic sampling method wasapplied to the list of
households known to be within the City of Elk Grove. Systematic sampling is a procedurewhereby
a complete list of a.ii possible items is culled, selecting every Nth one until the appropriate amount
of items is selected, Multi-familyhousingunits were over sampled as residents ofthis type of
housingtypically respond atlowerratesto surveys than do those in single"family housing units.
An individual Within each household was selected using the birthday method. The birthday method
selects a personwithinthe householdbyaskingthe uperson whose birthday has most recently
passed" to completethequestíonnaire. The underlying assumption in thisniethodis that day of
birth has no relationshipto the way people respond to surveys. This instruction was contained in
the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire. SURVEVADMINISTRATION
Selectedhouseholds received three mailings, one week apart, beginning August 31 ,2009.The first
mailingwas a prenotification. postcard aíinouncingthe upcoming survey. The next mailing
contained a letter froni the mayor inviting the household to participate; a questionnaire and a
postagecpaid return envelope. The final mailing contained a reminder letter, another survey and a
postage-paid return envelope. The second cover letter askedthose who had not completed the
survey to do so and thosewho have already done so to refrain from turning in another survey. Completed surveys were collected overthefolJowingseven weeks.
SURVEY RESPONSE RATE AND CONFIDENCE INTERVALS
Of the 1,200 surveys mailed, 45 were returned because the. housing unit was vacant orthe postal
service was unable todeliverthesurvey as addressed. Of the 1,155 households receiving the
survey mailings, 259 completed the survey, providing a response rate of 22%. Ingeneral, response rates obtained on local government resident surveys range from 20% t040%.
In theory, in 95 cases out of lOa, the results based on the number of responses obtainedwill differ
by no.more.thansix percentage points in eitherdiredion fromwhat would have been obtained.had responses been colleçted from all City of ElkCrove adults. This difference from thepresumed population finding is referred to as the sampling error (orthe "margin oferrorÌl or 95% confidence
interval"). For subgroups ofresponses, the margin of sampling error is larger. In addition to sampl i ng error, the practicald ifficulties of conducti ng any survey of the publ icmayi ntroduceother ~ sources of error. For example, thefailureof some of the selected adults to participate inthesample
~ or the difficulty of including all sectors of the population, such as residents of some institutions or o group residences, may lead to somewhat different results. 1! co ~ In addition to sampling error, other sources oferrör may affectany survey,includingthe non- ~ that may affectsample f\. response ofresidents with opinions different from survey responders c: .~o findings. Though standardized on The NCS, on other surveys, differences in question wording,
Z order, translation and data entry, as examples, can lead to somewhat varying results. .n:; ~~. '" SURVEY PROCESSING (DATAENTRV) "2: en Completed surveys received by NRC were assigned a unique identification number. Additionally,
V may have asked .¡:N each survey was reviewed and "cleaned" as necessary. For example, a question a o respondent to pick two items out of a i ¡st offive,but the respondent checkedth ree; NRC staff -; would choose randomly two of the threeselectediternsto be coded in the dataset. .g .coZ GJ ¡£
The National Citizen SurveyTM 83 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Onceallsurveyswere assigned a unique identification number, theywere entered into an
electronic dataset. This dataset was subject to a data entry protocol of "key and verify," inwhich
surveydata were entered twice into an electronic dataset and then cOmpared. Discrepancies were
eval uatedagainst the origi nalsurvey form and corrected. Range checks as well as other forms of
quality control were also performed. SURVEY DATAWEICHTING
The' demographic characteristics of the survey sarnple were compared to' those found in the 2000
Census estimates for adultsinthe City of ElkGrove. Sample results were weighted using the
population norms toreflectthe appropriate percent of thoseresidènts. Other discrepancies betWeen
the whole population andthesamplewerealsoaided by the weighting due tothe intercorrelation of rnany SOcioeconomic characteristics.
The variables usedforweighting were housing tenure and gender age. This decision was based on:
. The disparity between the survey respondent characteristics and the population norms for these variables
. ThesaJiency of these variables in detecting differences of opinion among subgroups
Theprimaryobjectiveof weighting survey data is to make the surveys-ample reflective of the larger
population of the comrnunity.Thisis done by: 1 ) reviewing the sample demographics and
comparing thern to the population norms from the mostrecentCensus or other sources and 2)
cornparing the responses to different questions for demographic subgroups. The demographic
characteristics that are least similar to the Census and yieldthe most different results arethe best
candidates for data weighti ng. A th i rdcriterion sometimes, used is the i rrpo rtance that the cornmunityplaces on a specific variable. For example, if a jurisdiction feels that accurate race
representation is key to staffand publicacceptanceof the study results, additionalconsideration
will begiven in the weighting process to adjusting the race variable.
Aspecialsoftware program using mathematical algorithms is used to calculate the appropriate
weights. A i imitation of data weighti ng is that only 2-3 demographic variables can be adj usted ina
single study. Several different weighting "schemes" are tested hensure the best fit for the data.
The process actually begins at the point ofsampling. Knowing that residents in single family U E dwellings are more likely torespondto1 mail survey, NRCoversamples residentsofmulti-family dwellings to ensure their properrepresentation in the sample data. Rather than giving all residents 2c an equal chance of receiving the survey, thisis systematic, stratified sampling, which gives each (3 ~ resident ofthe jurisdiction a known chance of receivingthe survey (andapartment dwellers, for -g ~ example, a greater chancethansinglefamily homedwellers).'As a consequence, resultsrnust be ~ weighted to recapture the proper representation of apartment dwellers. ~-
.E on the following page. z'" The results ofthe weighting scheme are presented in the table lJ,. ¡§ à:- ~ Vl C '¡=~ o c'" '¡=o z'" F0!
The NationalCltlzen SurveyTM 84 City of Elk Grove I 2009
èi ... ¡, ., Elk Grove,Citizen Survey WeightingTable " . €haracteristic ,Population¡Norrr~, Unweighted Data ~eighted Dåta Housing 12% 18% i Renthome 18% . I 88% 82% ,i Own home 82% l Detached unit 91% 88% 85% Attached un it 9% 12% 15% Race and Ethnicity White alone, not Hispanic 57% 59% 54% Hispanic and/or other race 43% 41% 46% Sex and Age Female 52% 57% 52% Male 48% 43% 48% 18-34 years of age 32% 15% 31% 35-54 years of age 48% 43% 48% 55 + years of age 20% 42% 21 % Females 18-34 17% 10% 17% l Females 35-54 25% 25% 25% I 'Females 55 + 11 % 22% 11 % i
Males 18-34 15% 5% 15% I . , ! Males 35-54 23% 17% 23% ~
Males 55 + 9% 21% 9% I
~
~ uî. "f ~ õ2 '" co z'E3 ..;,. "). '" ~ V1 a; "'"N o '"c "¡:o z'" ¡: 1 2000 Census
The National Citizen SurveyTM 85 City of Elk Grove I 2009
SURVEY DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING
The survey dataset was analyzed usingtheStatisticalPackage for the Social Sciences (SPSS).
Frequency distributions were presented in the body of the report.
Use of the NExcellent,Good, Fair, Poor" Response Scale
The scale on which respoiidents are asked to record their opinions about service and community
quality is "excellent," "good,""fair" or "poor"(EGFP). This scale has important advantages over
other scale possibil ities(verygood to very bad; very satisfiéd to very dissatisfied; strongly agree to strongly disagree, as exampl es). EG F p. is used by the plurality of j u risd ictions cond ucti ng citizen
surveys acrosS the U.S. The advantage of familiaritywas onethatNRC'did not wantto dismiss
whencrafti ngThe NationalCiti zen SurveyTM questionnaire, becauseeleeted officials,. staff and
residents already are acquainted with opinion surveys measured thisway,EGFP also has the
advantage of offering three positive options, rather/than onlytwo,overwhich aresidentcan offer
an opinion. While symmetrical scales often are the tight choice in other measUrement tasks, NRC
has found that ratings of almost every local government service in almost every jurisdiction tend, on average, tobepositive(thatis, above the scale midpoint). Therefore, to permit finer distinctions among positively rated services,EGFP offers three options across which to spread those ratings.
EGFP is more neutral because it requires no positive statement of service quality tojudge (as agree-
disagree scales require) and, finally,EGFPIntends to measure absolute qual ity of service deliveryor
community quality (unlike satisfaction scales which ignore residents' perceptionsof quality in favor
of their report on the acceptability of the level of service offered). NOon 'tKnow" Responses
On many of the questions inthe survey respondents may answer "don't know." The proportion of
respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A.
However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the
report. In other words, the tables and graphsdisplay theresponsesfrorn respondents who had an opinion about a specific item.
Benchmark Comparisons
NRC hasbeen leading the strategic useof surveys for local governments since 1991, when the
principals of the company wrote the first editionof what became the classic text on citizen ~ surveying.ln Citzen Surveys: how to do them, how to use them, what theymean, publ ¡shed by
8 ICMA, not only were the principles for quality survey methods articulated, but both the idea of â5 u and the method for gathering benchmark data were pioneered. -" benchmark data for citizen opinion ;¿ " "What has been missing from a '" The argument for benchmarks was called "In Search of Standards. ;1 ~v localgoverniient'sanalysis ofits survey results is the contextthatschool administrators can supply when they tell parents how an 80 percent score on the social studies test compares to testresults 2- G from other school systems..." Z'fà ~ .n NRC's database of comparative residentopiníon is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in ¡i ~' citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions whose residents evaluated local government ::2: lJ services.Conductedwith typically no fewerthan400 residents in each jurisdiction, opinions are
intended to represent 30 mill ion Americans. NRC has innovated a method for quantitatively .~ over o integratingthe resulìSof surveys that condùctedby NRC with thosethatothers have conducted. õi The integration methods have been thoroughly described notonlyin theCitizén Surveys book, but .g z'" also in PublicAdministration Review, Journal of PolicyAnalysis and Management. Scholarswho citizen surveys regularly have relied on this work (e.g., Kelly, l.& :E specialize in the analysis of ¡:
The National Citizen .SurveyTM 86 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Swindell, D. (2002). Service quality variationacrossurban space: First stepstowards a model of
citizen satisfaction. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24, 271-288.; Van Ryzin, G., Muzzio, D.i Immerwahr,
5., Gulick, L.&Martinez, E.(2004). Drivers and consequences of citizen satisfaction:. An
application of the American Customer Satisfaction Index Model to New York City, Public
Administration Review, 64, 331- 341). The method described in those publications is refìned
regularly and statistically tested On a growing number of citizen surveys in NRC's proprietary
dàtabases.NRC's work on calculating national benchmarks for resident opinions about service
delivery and qual ityof life won the Samuel C. May award for research excellence fromtheWestem
Governmental Research Association.
The Role of Comparisons
Benchmark comparisons are used for performance measurement. Jurisdictions use the comparative
information to help interpret their own citizen survey results, to create or revise community plans,
to evaluate the success of policy or budget decisions, to measu re local government performance.
Taking thepulseofthe community has little mean ing without knowing what pulsérate is too high and what is too low. When surveys of service satisfaction turnup "good" citizen evaluations, j lÍrisd ictionsneed to know how others rate thei r services tounderstandif"good;' is good enough.
Furthermore, in the absence of national or peer community comparisons, a jurisdiction is left with
comparing its fire protection rating to its street maintenance rating. That comparison is unfair.
Streets always lose to fire. More important and harder questions need to be asked; for example,
how do residents' ratings of fire service compare to opinions about fire service in other communities?
Apolice department thatprovides the fastest and most effcient service-one that doses mostof its
cases, solves most of its crimes and keeps the crime rate low-still has a problem to fix if the
residents in the community it intends to protect believe services arenotverygood compared to
ratings given by residents to their own objectively '¡worse" departments. The benchmark data can
help that police department- or any department ., to understand how well citizens think it is doing.Withoutthe comparative data, it would be like bowling in atournament without knowing what theotherteams are scoring. NRC recommends that citizen opinion be used in conjunction with othersourcesof data about budget, personnel and politics to help managers know how to respond to comparative results.
~ Jurisdictions in the benchmark database are distributed geographically across the country and range from smalltolarge in population size. Most commonly, comparisons are made to the entire ~' v u database. Comparisons may also be made to subsets of jurisdictions (for example, within a given ~ -0 region or population category)~ Despite the differences in jurisdiction characteristics, all are in the ~ ~ business of providing local governmentservicesto residents. Though individual jurisdiction :u ~ is to ~, circumstances, resources and practices vary, the objective in every community provide .~6 services that are so timely, tailored and effective thatresidents conclude the services are of the z highest quality. High ratings in any ;, Jurisdiction, likeSATscoresinany teen household, bringpride .. and a sense . of accompl ishment. "~., è ~ Comparison of Elk Grove to the Benchmark Database c :u TheCityof Elk Grove chose tohavecomparisonsmadeto the entire database. Abenchrnark o.S3 cörrpälisónO(theaveragerating from all thecornparisonjurisdictions whereasimilarquestion was -; asked) has been provided when a similar question on the City of Elk Grove Survey WClS indudedin '""§ NRC's database and there were at least fivejurisdictions in which the question was asked. Formost .z ~ ¡:
The National Citizen. SurveyTM 87 Cityof Elk Grove 12009
questions compared to the entire dataset, therewere more than 100 jurisdictions included in the benchmark comparison.
Where comparisons are available, Elk Grove results are noted as being "above" the benchmark,
"below"thebenchmark or "similar to" the benchmark. This eva i uation of "above/, "below" or
"similarto"comes from a statistical comparison of Elk Grove's rating to the benchmark (the rating
from all the comparison jurisdictions where a similar question was asked).
-?
~' ..8 ;¿ ~ ~ '" .~g z ..). ;!~: ::~- V) c: (j .",N D 0;c .",o z'" -~ ¡:
The National Citizen" SurveyTM 88 City of Elk Grove I 2009
A'p e'E"NEli.t?' e,r:~ S::4'R V' E": M ~ ir'E~R'I~ L§ The following pages contain copies of the survey materials sent to randomly selected households within the City of Elk Grove.
~
~ u ~ .- :r è2 ~ z'ü ".. .D ~ t" ? u,S
.¡:~ (j "3 .~õ z ;i ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 89 .Ðeai ElkGrove lesldt, Dear Ok Grve Resldent,
Vourbousenas be..seiedat rando topamd:pae Yourhouseld hasbensel.edaliaOom topaidpãe iø an ..atyms.. citizen . suey ab. .tÐCi oj Hk..Grove. m ananymøscmzeßSUey .ahlhCäy GÍ EltGt-oe. You wi:N.iece1vea copy.o£ th. sUlvey. next week in the. maii Youwil r.eeive ..acop of .ih. søyaext we. li th ..ma wùlm.st(ociisÍCc~gaM tewfl:Úingit. Thakyou with mSkoctions for cømploogaMl7~lt;.lhiJ you in advance for. beg. us .wltu's. itrtproj.ct! li. advaoce .forh.l,pguswitb lbs~. pr. Slerely, Sioe!y, ~g¡. .. ~tJ .. lalrkkHum Patick Hui Mayor Mayor
Dear ElkGlove~, Dear E~Gio.ve Resæt, YOtOOseldhasbe. seæcied at random .to.pamcipa Your. housold. has .beQ seloat. ran. to. particip t,f .an.øny~scitlzensuvey ab thCityofEikGmve. Îiat ê\ymocmzen swveyablh Cit oi (Ie G~. Youwiliocelveacopy of lbswvey next week in.tb matt ¥() wi!irecciveacopy-o .li süfey .nxlwee .Ul .~..a wübmstfucllíoc~g.an re~ it. ~. you with iaocOOs ioc~gan re~g¡t .1l Y' Îiadv3flce .lOf hepig us. wi.. "is im projct! j; advaiefoihelpmgus witblls ~prof ~,lSißcer.ey, .. ~llSll\e~ely , .. Patrkk.Hu Patick.Hü Mayor Mayor PFeso Pr 1 Al Cl Mal FmCl Ma USPos USPQS PAI I PAl Bo, CO Bo,CO Peii NO. 94 Pemi li. 94 tin OF CITY OF
ELK GROVE ELK GROVE 'pROùoH'EmACE,BRIGHiF\.UiU, ' PROUO HERlI'G£.BRlGHT FUTRE, 841 LaPai Wa 8401laa PalWs ElkGre, Cal 95758 El Grove, Cal 95758
Plies .Pi FifClass Ma FtF Cl Ma US POsge USPÐ PAl PA1 Bo.CO Bo.CO Pemi 00.94 PeW..94 Cl;TV OF CiTY OF
ELK GROVE ELK GROVE PRouHEiUACE, BIÙGRTFÙTlRf. PROoH:ERIAGE. BRlGHTFUTR£ 841 .La Pa ~y 841.la Pals Way ElkGrve, Calfo 95758 Elk Grove, Calora. 95758 Phone: 9 I 6.683. 71 I I 840 I Laguna Palms Way Web: www.elkgrovecity.org Fax: 916.691.168 Elk Grove, California 95758 ELK GROVE -PROUD IIUlITI\GL ßiilGIIT rinURE..-.
August 2009
Dear Elk Grove Resident:
The City of Elk Grove wants to know what you think about our community and municipal government. You have been randomly selected to participate in Elk Grove's 2009 Citizen Survey.
Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed Citizen Survey. Your feedback will help the City set benchmarks for tracking the quality of services provided to residents. Your answers will help the City Council make decisions that affect our community. You should find the questions interesting and we will definitely find your answers usefuL. Please participate!
To get a representative sample of Elk Grove residents, the adult (anyone 18 years or older) in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. Year of birth of the adult does not matter.
Please have the appropriate member of the household spend a few minutes to answer all the questions and return the survey in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. Your responses wil remain completely anonymous.
Your participation in this survey is very important - especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed. If you have any questions about the Citizen Survey please call (916) 478-2201.
Please help us shape the future of Elk Grove. Thank you for your time and participation.
Sincerely, ~ll ., Patrick Hume Mayor Phone: 916.683.7111 840 I Laguna Palms Way Web: www.elkgrovcciiy.org Elk Grove, California 95758 Fax: 916.691.3168 ELK GROVE -I'R.()UD IIElllfAm. l\lllGlIT WrURE.-
September 2009
Dear City of Elk Grove Resident:
About one week ago, you should have received a copy of the enclosed survey. If you completed it and sent it back, we thank you for your time and ask you to discard this survey. Please do not respond twice. If you have not had a chance to complete the survey, we would appreciate your response. The City of Elk Grove wants to know what you think about our community and municipal government. You have been randomly selected to participate in the City of Elk Grove's Citizen Survey.
Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed Citizen Survey. Your feedback will help the City set benchmarks for tracking the quality of services provided to residents. Your answers will help the City Council make decisions that affect our community. You should find the questions interesting and we will definitely find your answers usefuL. Please participate!
To get a representative sample of Elk Grove residents, the adult (anyone 18 years or older) in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. Year of birth of the adult does not matter.
Please have the appropriate member of the household spend a few minutes to answer all the questions and return the survey in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. Your responses wil remain completely anonymous.
Your participation in this survey is very important - especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed. If you have any questions about the Citizen Survey please call (916) 478-2201.
Please help us shape the future of Elk Grove. Thank you for your time and participation.
Sincerely, ~ll ., Patrick Hume Mayor The City of Elk Grove 2009 Citizen Survey Please complete this questionnaire if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had. a birthday. The adult's year of birth does not matter. Please select the response (by circling the number or ! checking the box) that most closely represents YO,ur"opinion for each question. Your responses are anonymous ~ and wil be repprted in groupJorm only. ,; 1. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Elk Grove: Excellent , Good Fair Poor Don't know Elk Grove as a place to live...... 1 2 3 4 5 Your neighborhood as a place to live ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Elk Grove as a place to raise children...... 1 2 3 4 5 ElkGrove as a place to work...... :'...... 1 2 3 4 5 Elk Grove as a place to retire...... 1 2 3 4 5 ,The overall quality of life in Elk Grove ...... 1 2 3 4 5
2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Elk Grove as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Sense of community...... 1 2 3 4 5 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall appearance of Elk Grove ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Cleanliness of Elk Groye .....;...... :...... :...... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of new development in Elk Grove...... 1 2 3 4 5 Variety of housing options .....:~...... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Elk Grove ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Shopping opportunities...... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to attend cultural activities...... 1 2 3 4 5 r Recreational opportunities ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Employment opportunities ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Edùcational opportunities ...... J...... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities...... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportun ities to vol unteer ...... 1 2 3 4 5 'Opportunities to participate in community matters...... 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of car travel in Elk Grove...... 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of bus travel in Elk Grove ...... ~...... 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of bicycle travel in Elk Grove ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of walking in Elk Grove...... ,...... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of paths and walking trails ...... :...... 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic flow on major streets ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality housing ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Ayailability of affordable quality child care ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality health care ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality food ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of preventative health services...... 1 2 3 4 5 Airquality...... 1 2 3 4 5 Quality of overall natural environment in Elk Grove ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall image or reputatiqri of Elk Grove...... 1 2 3 4 5
3. Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Elk Grove over the past 2 years: Much Somewhat Right Somewhat Much Don't too slow too slow amount too fast too fast know Population growth ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 Retail growth,,(stores, restaurants, etc.)...... ~...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 Jobs growth ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6
Page 1 of 5 ..~ationai Citizen SurveyrM
4. To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in Elk Grove? o Not a problem 0 Minor problem 0 Moderate problem 0 Major problem 0 Don't know
5. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in Elk Grove: Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don't safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) ...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 Property crimes (e.g., burglary, t,left)...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 Environmental hazards, including toxic waste...... 1 2 3 4 5 6
6. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don't safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know In your neighborhood during the day...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 In your neighborhood after dark...:.,...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 In Elk Grove's commercial areas during the day...... 1 2 3 4 5 6 In Elk Grove's commercial areas after dark...... 1 2 3 4 5 6
7. During the past twelve months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? o No -+ Go to Question 9 0 Yes -+ Go to Question 8 0 Don't know -+ Go to Question 9
8. If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? o No 0 Yes o Don't know 9. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in Elk Grove? Once or 3 to 12 13 to 26 More than Never twice times times 26 times Used Elk Grove public libraries or their services ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Used Elk Grove recreation centers ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Participated in a recreation program or activity...... 1 2 3 4 5 Visited a neighborhood park or City park...... 1 2 3 4 5 Ridden a local bus within Elk Grove ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Attended a meeting of local elected offcials or other local public , meeting ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on cable television ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Re,ad Elk Grove Newsletter ...... ;"...... ,~...... 1 2 3 4 5 Visited the City of Elk Grove Web site (at www.elkgrovecity.org) ...... 1 2 3 4 5 u Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home...... 1 2 3 4 5 -= Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Elk Grove ...... 1 2 3 4 5 ~- ~c Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Elk Grove ...... 1 2 3 4 5 u'" 5 .. Participated in a club or civic group in Elk Grove ...... 1 2 3 4 ~ 5 '" Provided help to a friend or neighbor ...... 1 2 3 4 ~ '" 10. About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors (people who live in the 10 or 20 0. (ic households that are closest to you)? .2 o Just about every day z:0 0\ o Several ti mes a week 0 o Several ti mes a month ~ o Once a month ;; N0 o Several ti mes a year 'I o Once a year or less . ~:: o Never '" C: :: V' c '" N 0'0: (ic .~0 z '" ¡:
Page 2 of 5 The City of Elk Grove 2009 Citizen Survey
11. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Elk Grove: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Police services ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Fire services ...... ~...... 1 2 3 4 5 Ambulance or emergency medical services...... 1 2 3 4 5 Crime prevention ...... ~...... ::...... 1 2 3 '4 5 Fire prevention and education ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic enforceme_nt...... ::...... :...... 1 2 3 4' 5 Street repai r ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Street c1ea.f,lng .,...... ,...... ~...... 1 2 3 4 5 Street lighting...... 1 2 3 4 5 Sidewalk maintenance ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic signal timing ...... 1 2 3 4 5 ~us or transit services...... 1 2 3 4 5 Garbage collection...... 1 2 3 4 5 Recycling...... 1 2 3 4 5 Yard waste pick-up ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Storni drainaage...... "...... 1 2 3 4 5 Drinking water...... 1 2 3 4 5 ~Sewer services ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Power (electric and/or gas) utility...... 1 2 3 4 5 Parks...... -:...... ,. 2 3 4 5 Recreation programs or classes ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Recreation centers or facilities...... 1 2 3 4 5 Land use, planning and zoning ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Animal control ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Economic development ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Health services ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Services to seniors...... 1 2 3 4 5 Services to youth...... 1 2 3 4 5 Services to low-income people,...... 1 2 3 4 5 Public library services ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Pûblic inforrration services ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Public schools...... 1 2 3 4 5 Cable television ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts...... :,...... 1 2 3 4 5 12. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? , Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know The City of Elk Grove...... 1 2 3 4 5 The Federal Government ...... 1 2 3 4 5 The State Government ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Sacramento County Government ...... 1 2 3 4 5 13. Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Elk Grove within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? o No -+ Go to Question 15 0 Yes -+ Go to Question 14 14. What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Elk Grove in your most recent contact? (Rate each characteristic below.) Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Knowledge...... 1 2 3 4 5 Responsiveness ...... :'...... 1 2 3 :c. 4 5 Courtesy ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall impression...... 1 2 3 4 5
Page 3 of 5 ..~ationai Citizen SurveyrM
15. Please rate the following categories of Elk Grove government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know The value of services for the taxes paid to Elk Grove...... 1 2 3 4 5 The ov~rall direction that Elk Grove is taking ...... ;,"...... 1 2 3 4 5 The job Elk Grove government does at welcoming citizen involvement.. 1 2 3 4 5 The job Elk Grove government does at listening to citizens...... 1 2 3 4 5 16. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don't likely likely unlikely unlikely know Recommend living in Elk Grove to someone who asks ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Remain in Elk Grove for the next five years...... 1 2 3 4 5 17. What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact wil be: o Very positive 0 Somewhat positive 0 Neutral 0 Somewhat negative 0 Very negative 18. Please check the response that comes closest to your opinion for each of the following questions: a. Which, if any, of the following local media sources do you use to stay informed? (Please check all that apply.) o Sacramento Bee 0 Local news KMAX TV, Channel 31 0 FM radio stations o Elk Grove Citizen 0 Local news, KUVS TV Univision, 0 AM radio stations o Local news KCRA, Channel 3 Channel 19 0 Other news Web sites o Local news KXTV, Channell 0 0 Local news, KCSO TV Telemundo, , 0 Other source o Local news KOVR TV, Channel 13 Channel 33 0 None at all o Local news KTXL Fox 40,
Channel 40 b. Which, if any, of the following sources do you use to stay informed on City of Elk Grove issues? (Please check all that apply.) o Sacramento Bee, Elk Grove online section o City of Elk Grove press releases o City of Elk Grove newsletter o City of Elk Grove text messages o Elk Grove Citizen o City of Elk Grove email alerts o Elk Grove Online o City of Elk Grove Council meetings or other public meetings o Elk Grove news blogs o Neighbors/word of mouth o City of Elk Grove Web site o None at all
c. What is your primary source for information during a local emergency? (Please select only ~.) o Local TV stations 0 News Web sites 0 Neighbors/word of mouth o Local radio stations 0 City or Elk Grove Police 0 Other source U o Telephone Department Web sites .5 o Email 0 Newspapers ~' ~ d. How would you like to receive the City of Elk Grove newsletter? (Please select only ~.) ..d o As stand-alone, printed mailing piece 0 As a downloadable file available on the City Web site ¡: o As an email (in HTML) 0 I don't know/no opinion ~ OJ o As an insert in the Elk Grove Citizen 0 I'd rather not receive it '" '¡ c: e. How many times per year, if at all, would you like to receive the City of Elk Grove newsletter? ,Q :; (Please select only one.) z Cj o Monthly (12 times per year) 0 Semiannually (2 times per year) 8 ~ o Bimonthly (current frequency) (6 times per year) 0 Annually (1 time per year) o o Quarterly (4 times per year) '"o " f. What three services does Elk Grove do the best at providing? . !
1. :if '" c: OJ 2. .~ o '¡ 3. c: .~o Z OJ ..I-
Page 4 of 5 The City of Elk Grove 2009 Citizen Survey
Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are completely anonymous and wil be reported in group form only. 01. oAre No you -+currently Go employedto Question for pay? 07.00 03 any 0 childrenNo 0 17Yes or under live in your household? o Yes, full time -+ Go to Question 02 08. Are you or any other members of your household aged o Yes, part time -+ Go to Question 02 65 or older? 02. Ouring a typical week, how many days do you o No 0 Yes commute to work (for the longest distance of 09. How much do you anticipate your household's total your commute) in each of the ways listed below? income before taxes wil be for the current year? (Enter the total number of days, using whole numbers.) (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, o Less than $24,999 motorcycle, etc...) by myself ...... _ days a $25,000 to $49,999 Motorized vehicle (e.g., car, truck, van, I o $50,000 to $99,999 motorcycle, etc...) with other ,j 0$100,000 to $149,999 children or adults ...... _ days 0$150,000 or more Bus; Rail, Subway or other public transportation ...... days Walk ...... == days~ Please respond to both question D10 and D11: Bicycle ...... _ days 010. Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Work at home ...... _ days' o No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino Other ...... _ days o Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic 03. How many years have you lived in Elk Grove? or Latino o Less than 2 years 0 11-20 years 011. What is your race? (Mark one.or more races to o 2-5 years 0 More than 20 years indicate what race you consider yourself to be) 06-10 years o American Indian or Alaskan Native 04. Which best describes the building you live in? o Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander o One family house detached from any other houses o Black or African American o House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a o White o Other duplex or town home) o Building with two or more apartments or 012. In which category is your age? condominiums o 18-24 years a 55-64 years o Mobile home 025-34 years a 65-74 years o Other a 35-44 years a 75 years or older 05. Is this house, apartment or mobile home... a 45-54 years o Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment? 013. What is your sex? o Owned by you or someone in this house with a o Female
mortgage or free and clear? o Male 06. About how much is your monthly housing cost for 014. Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, o No property tax, property insurance and homeowners' o Yes association (HOA) fees)? o Ineligible to vote o Less than $300 per month o Don't know o $300 to $599 per month 015. Many people don't have time to vote in elections. Oid o $600 to $999 per month you vote in the last general election? o $1,000 to $1,499 per month o $1,500 to $2,499 per month aNo o $2,500 or more per month aYes a Ineligible to vote a Don't know
Thank you for"'completing this survey. Please return the completed survey in the postage paid envelope to: National Research Center, Inc., POBox 549, Belle Mead, NJ 08502
Page 5 of 5 8401 Laguna Palms Way Elk Grove, California 95758 l EIY¡(GRoVE
-PROUD HERITAGE. BRIGHT FUTURE.-
, .1:--
"L
;: ..
.. National Citizen SurveyTM
C:ITY OF ELK GROVE, CA 2009
Benchmark Report
~~S~ATR;~ IN'. ( C1 ~ATIONAL I€Må 3005 30th Street 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500 Boulder, CO 80301 Washington, DC 20002 wW.n-r-c.com · 303-444-7863 www.icma.org . 202-289-ICMA City of Elk Grove I 2009
E:i a, N~ J!'e:i t'' h 5: .1 Understanding the Benchmark Comparisons ...... 1 Comparison Data ...... 1 Putting Evaluations onto the 1 OO-point Scale ...... 2 Interpreting the Results ...... 3 National Benchmark Comparisons...... 4 Jurisdictions Included in National Benchmark Comparisons ...... 12
~
~ u;: -g '" ;¡ ¿¿ ~ .¡; z .n;: ,-;: ~ ~ îJ .¡:N o
.~ z'" 1: r-
The National Citizen SurveyTM ...' City of Elk Grove i 2009 L.,N DrE-RS"TA N'P1iN'a ~1"~l;íE' B;æE; NIC;1j M~A,ÆK C~ëI;;!'iP1A R'I:S CJ K1.st COMPARISON DATA NRC's database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions whose residents evaluated local government services and gave their opinion about the quality of community life. The City of Elk Grove chose to have comparisons made to the entire database. A benchmark comparison (the average rating from all the comparison jurisdictions where a similar question was asked) has been provided when a similar question on the City of Elk Grove Survey was included in NRC's database and there were at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked. For most questions compared to the entire dataset, there were more than 100 jurisdictions included in the benchmark comparison. The jurisdictions in the database represent a wide geographic and population range as shown in the table below.
I Jurisdiction Char'acteristic . ?, (Jercent of Jurisdictions 1 Region West Coast' 16% Wese 20% North Central West 10% North Central East' 13%
South CentralS 7% South6 26% Northeast West! 3%
Northeast EastB 4% Population Less than 40,000 45%
40,000 to 74,999 , 20% 75,000 to 149,000 17% 150,000 or more 19% ~ ~ uv
~'" ;¡ ¿¿
'¡:§ Zco 0- .D ¡. )0 ~ 1 Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii V) , Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico ~ 3 North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota u:~ 4 Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin -; S Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas .g 6 West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Maryland, Zco Delaware, Washington DC 7 New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey .r:i ¡. B Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine
The National Citizen SurveyTM
1 City of Elk Grove I 2009
PUTTING EVALUATIONS ONTO THE 1 DO-POINT SCALE Although responses to many of the evaluative questions were made on a four point scale with 1 representing the best rating and 4 the worst, the benchmarks are reported on a common scale where 0 is the worst possible rating and 100 is the best possible rating. The 95 percent confidence interval around an average score on the 1 DO-point scale is no greater than plus or minus four points based on all respondents.
The 1 DO-point scale is not a percent. It is a conversion of responses to an average rating. Each response option is assigned a value that is used in calculating the average score. For example, "excellent" = 1 DO, "good" = 67, "fair" = 33 and "poor" = O. If everyone reported "excellent," then the average rating would be 100 on the 1 DO-point scale. Likewise, if all respondents gave a "poor", the result would be 0 on the 1 DO-point scale. If half the respondents gave a score of "excellent" and half gave a score of "poor," the average would be in the middle of the scale (like the center post of a teeter totter) between "fair" and "good." An example of how to convert survey frequencies into an average rating appears below.
Example of Converting Responses to the 1 DO-point Scale y Iii How do you ,rate the commui'ityas a place to live? .. ,Total 'Step.2: Step 'l:Sum " Total with Step1: Remove,~he without Assign Step 3: Multiply to calculate ,j Ii, percent of "don't "dò~'t scale the percent by the average' "Response ¡ "don't ~option know" know" responses know"" values the scale value rating Excellent 36% =36+ (100-5) = 38% 100 =38% x 100 = 38 Good 42% =42+(100-5)= 44% 67 =44%x67= 30 Fair 12% =12+(100-5)= 13% 33 =13%x33= 4 Poor 5% =5+(100-5)= 5% 0 =5% x 0 = 0 Don't know 5% - Total 100% 100% 72
How do you rate the community as a place to live?
5% 13% 44% 38% ~ I I I ~ o 33 67 100 Excellent (3 Poor Fair Good A L: ~ 7, ~ ~ .¡: z'" ?- .D :. â) "ê en a; .8 o ~ z"' ;: ¡=
The National Citizen SurveyTM 2 City of Elk Grove I 2009
INTERPRETING THE RE5Ul T5
Average ratings are compared when similar questions are included in NRC's database, and there
are at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked. Where comparisons are available,
three numbers are providedinthe table.The first column is your jurisdiction's rating on the 100~
point scale. The second column isthe rank assigned toyourjurisdíetion'sratingamong
jurisdictionswhere a similar question was asked. The third column is the number of jurisdictions
that asked a similarquestion.The final column shows the comparison of your jurisdiction's average rating tothe benchmark. The comparisoli:"above," ,ibelow"or "simílar"comes from a statistical comparison of your
jurisdiction'sratin¡lto the benchmark (the average rating from all the comparison jurisdictions
whereasirnilar question was asked). Differences of more than four points onthe lOO~point scale
between your jurisdiction's ratings and the average based . on the appropriate comparisons from the
database are considered "statisticallysignificant," and thus are marked as "above" or "below" the
benchmark. When differences between your Jurisdiction's ratings and the benchmarks are four points or fewer, they are marked as "similar to" the benchmark.
This report contains benchmarks atthe national leveL.
~
2c Ó "2 '" ~ ii ;V. -2 zoj ..;, ~? 'V_ i: :: vi :v .~ o ~c .",o z'" F~
The National Citizen SurveyTM 3 City of Elk Grove I 2009
N,:ßi: ljgN~A L ElleNeilr~~.Ä.flK" ~dEJ;I);eA ~q S..CliN.9"
", ., '" OverallLCommunity Quality. Benchmarks " Elk Grove Number of,Jurisdictionsfor Comparison to \~ benchmark , ,I average rating ,Rank Comparis~n ' Overall quality of life in Elk Grove 62 227 344 Below Your neighborhood as place to live 68 122 221 Similar Elk Grove as a place to live 66 196 285 Below Remain in Elk Grove for the next five years 72 69 89 Similar Recommend living in Elk Grove to someone who asks 65 78 90 Below
, CommunitylT ransponation, Benchmark~¡' " Elk Grov~ average ~, Number of Jurisdictions for COn;parisonJo ,benchmark ~ II " " rating" Rank Compa~ison
Ease of bus travel in Elk Grove 42 86 147 Similar
Ease of car travel in Elk Grove 48 137 211 Below Ease of walking in Elk Grove 56 95 208 Similar
Ease of bicycle travel in Elk Grove 50 80 209 Similar Availability of paths and walking trails 55 41 90 Similar Traffic flow on major streets 42 85 153 Similar
~ ,', , .. Frequency of Bus Use Benchmarks "" Comparison to ¡Elk Grove average ',I" Number o(Jurisdictionsfor . .. rating Rank Comparison benchmark Ridden a local bus within Elk Grove 13 81 123 Less g " . Transportation andParking Services Benchmarks' ~ Comparison to~ î: Elk Grove average Number oUurisdictions for U benchmark .: rating Rank " Comparison , I ¿ ,." Street repair 1 50 117 342 Above ¿¿ /maintenance Street cleaning 55 129 240 Similar .~ 42 253 Above z'õ Street lighting 61 ). 58 37 216 Above .D Sidewalk maintenance , 46 80 162 Similar ?" Light timing ~ Bus or transit services 50 95 170 Similar 'f' ij o¡:N o
.~ z'õ 'l i=
The National Citizen SurveyTM 4 City of Elk Grove I 2009
:¡ ,: ~i-òilsing Characteristics,:Benchmarks : .. Elk Grove average" j Number of Jurisdictions for "Conlparison to ~ "' Comparison benchmark , w rating Rank Availability of affordable quality housing 50 28 240 Above Variety of housing options 55 32 86 Above
, j:: 11: ,~ , Housing Costs Benchmarks':l, ~, li 4f Elk Grove ":Number of Jurisdictions Comparison to ,¥ ~ average rating Rank ",,,for Comparison " benchmar,k Experiencing housing costs stress (housing costs 30% or more of income) 48 9 86 More . Built Environment Benchmárks ? ;, , Elk Grove'average :1, Number oMurisdictlons for Comparison to ~.- b~nchmark rt " , rating Rank Comparison Quality of new development in city 50 110 176 Similar Overall appearance of Elk Grove 64 88 257 Above
" i+ , - l' Population Growth Benchmarks " ;;' Elk Grove average Number,of Jurisdictions for Comparison to !! 'i benchmark "I rating ,Rank Comparison Population growth seen as I too fast 62 47 177 More
" N " I: Nuisance Problems Benchmarks Ii Elk Grove Number of Jurisdictions · Comparisoriito I, Rank for,Comparison , benchmark " ii, ii' average rating", Run down buildings, weed lots and junk vehicles are a "major" problem 7 111 172 Less
~ ~ ~i Planning and Community Code Enforce,;nent Services Benchmarks , ,;; -j, ~ 'i r", Comparison to o EIi(Grove Numbe;of'Ju~isdictions,for .: 't average rating Rank Comparison benchmark 2 40 129 222 Similar ~ Land use, planning and zoning ¿¿ Code enforcement (weeds, ;i abandoned buildings, etc) 42 173 274 Similar .~e z Animal control 55 128 243 Similar .n~ :. ~ ? ~ aJ '¡:N U
.~g z'" ;e ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 5 City of Elk Grove I 2009
" "' " "EconomiêSustainabilty ilnd Opportunities'Benchmarks
~Elk Grove ,¡ Number" of Jurisdictions ~Comparison to I' average rating Rank for Comparison "I '" benchmark 0 Employment opportunities 25 184 229 Below Shopping opportunities 46 137 217 Similar Place to work 47 147 217 Below Overall quality of business and service establishments in Elk Grove 51 58 81 Similar
~ , EconomicTDeveloPlTen(Sêrvices Benchmarks "Elk Groveave~age Number of)ùrisdictions for I, Comparison to b " benchmark , " rating Rank Comparison Economic development 36 172 216 Below
I", , ~, Job and Retail Growth Benchmarks "' -- ,sfr ~"
',.' Elk Grove average Number of;Jurisdictions for Comparison to
i ,rating " Rank u ;"Comparison I 'benchmark Retail growth seen as too slow 37 74 177 Similar Jobs growth seen as too slow 81 49 178 More
, Personal Economic Future 'Benchmarks ., Elk Grove 'Number of Jurisdictions for ~ Comparison to:l Comparison.. benchmark " average rating Rank Positive impact of economy on household income 14 103 176 Similar
'" '. Community and Personal'Public Safety Benchmarks ,~ , " , !l Elk Grove Number of Jurisdictions'for' Comparisoiito , , average rating Rank Comparison benchlTark ~ Safety in your neighborhood during 84 162 248 Similar 2 the day uî, Safety in your neighborhood after dark 68 154 243 Similar '2 '" Safety in Elk Grove's commercial .0/ Below g¿ areas during the day 78 146 207 Safety in Elk Grove's commercial .~ 54 152 216 Below z'" areas after dark j;' Safety from violent crime (e.g., 5' rape, assault, robbery) 64 153 212 Below ,.. ':L ~ Safety from property crimes (e.g., V) burglary, theft) 52 165 211 Below ~ '¡:N Toxic waste or other environmental (j hazard(s) 74 54 89 Similar ~ z~ 1:,.
The National Citizen SurveyTM 6 City of Elk Grove I 2009
L ", " ''i ,~ 'Crime Victimization and Reporting Benchmarks ,)1 ," ,Elk Grove average .. Nuinber ofJurisdictions for Compârlson t~ " '. . rating Rank ~. Comparison, benchmark , ! Victim of crime 18 39 181 More Reported crimes 74 105 179 Similar
Public. SafelyServi¿es, Benchmarks " "", IElk Grove average "'" . Number of Jurisdictions for Compar!son to 't '.1 rating Rank ., Çomparison benchmark Poi ice services 66 170 338 Similar Fire services 77 139 277 Similar EMS/ambulance 75 129 262 Similar Crime prevention 52 160 244 Below Fire prevention and education 62 128 201 Similar Traffic enforcement 55 162 269 Similar Emergency preparedness 47 90 107 Below
. .' " -Community Environmenf'BenclÍmarks .. '.~' Comparison toC; Elk Grove " Number of,urisdictions ø , average rating., Rank .~ for Comparison lienchmark Cleanliness of Elk Grove 63 48 95 Similar Quality of overall natural environment in Elk Grove 54 73 88 Below Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 47 73 96 Below Air quality 51 120 152 Below
-,'- Frequency of..Recylcing Benchmarks ,. Elk Grove Number ofJurisdictions for I ComparisonJo .! ,'9 average rating Rank ~ Comparisom berichmark,. ~ Recycled used paper, cans or ~ bottles from your home 94 24 164 I More o -: '" .' '" '" 'Utilty Services Benchmarks P-Ã ~ :: ce ¡" Elk Grove average Number ofJurisdictions for Comparisc:m to rating Rank Comparison.. benchmark ~ " . I ". :¡ Power (electric and/or z gas) utility 64 20 46 Similar ..~, , Sewer services 63 92 223 Similar -'). Drinking water 48 175 221 Below ~ 'F' C Storm drainage 60 54 268 Above ~ Yard waste pick-up 71 35 177 Above u:~ Recycling 73 38 246 Above ~ '¡;Q Garbage collection 72 88 281 Above z'" F;k
The National Citizen SurveyTM 7 City of Elk Grove I 2009
, , Community Recreational Opportunities, Benchmarks k " " Comparison to t~ Number of Jûrisdictions for , ; C(;mparison, '" bÊ!Í1èhmark .i, x " y I ;,Elk Groveaveragetrating , Rank Recreation
opportunities I 52 146 225 Below
~ . Xii, Participation in Parks and Recreation OPPQrtunlties Benchmarks " . ,,' r¡ F" Elk Grove Numb~r of JurisdiCtions for Comparison to . average rating 'Rank :; ; Comparison' " 'M benchmark ~! Used Elk Grove recreation centers 57 69 139 Similar Participated in a recreation program or activity 49 76 168 Similar Visited a neighborhood park or City park 91 39 176 More
'i " ; , Parks and Recreation Servi,ces Béncnmarks ,. " Elk Grove average Numberôf Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating ;.¡ Rank Comparison , benchmark City parks 76 36 242 Above Recreation programs or classes 69 61 264 Above Recreation centers or facilities 69 42 205 Above
,Cultural and EducationalOpportunities Benchmarks 'i .; ~ Elk Grove average Numb~r of Jurisdictions for Comparison to 'jJ rating Rank €omparison benchmark Opportunities to attend cultural activities 41 183 223 Below Educational opportunities 52 110 161 Below
'" "' ~ ,~ Participation in Cultural anr! Educationål Opportunities Benchmarks , , ,Elk Grove .,Comparison.to ~ , average rating, 'Rank , ',. for Comparison '." "benchmark ua: I Number of J~risdictiöns Used Elk Grove public libraries or ~. c; their services 63 131 152 Less ~ ¡:'" Participated in religious or spiritual ~ activities in Elk Grove 44 46 57 Less '¡:3 c; z " "'., ~, Cultural' and Educational Services B,enchmarks -D ~~ Elk Grove average " ~NlImber ~f Jurisaictions for,?; Compilrison to, " rating Rank ,';' Comparison' ' benèhmark :0 en c Public schools 67 51 187 Above :J '+=N Public library U services 65 193 241 Below
'¡:g zc; ~ ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 8 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Community Health and Well ness Access and Opportunities Bendiiiarks , '; Elk Groyéaveragel Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating " Rank Comparison ,benchmark Availability of affordable quality health care 49 65 169 Similar Availability of affordable quality food 58 40 104 Similar Availability of preventive health services 52 32 66 Similar
'" !! , '. ",' Health and Well ness Services':Benchmarks " 0 ,c. ., ii' r¡iê Elk Grove average Number of,urisdictionsfor ,Cofuparison to "I ,e, rating Rank :"" ,"i ,Comparison benchmark Health services 56 66 149 Similar
,.¡: Community, Quality aml(lnclusivenéss, Benchmarks " oi". " Elk Grove Number ofJurisdicti~ns Comparison to , rating Rank benchmark , ,', average, I fòr Comparison ~; Sense of community 53 152 229 Similar Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 60 57 194 Above Availability of affordable quality child care 42 85 168 Similar Elk Grove as a place to raise kids 65 157 278 Similar Elk Grove as a place to retire 46 215 255 Below
, Services Provided for population Subgroups Benchmarks
Elk Grove average Number of;u~isdictiorÎs for ,Comparison to ': rating Rank ,Comparison benchmark ,: Services to seniors 57 102 224 Similar Services to youth 55 78 200 Similar ~ Services to low income residents 51 20 179 Above ~ 3 Civic Engagement Opportunities Benchmarks :, ~~.:: "' i:. Elk Grove ~Number of jurisdictions for Comparison to g¿ I: average rating" Rank Compá~ison~ , benchmark '" '¡: Opportunities to participate in i community matters 52 60 83 Below .5 Opportunities to volunteer 52 77 83 Below ,-,. ~ ~ ií '¡:N o
.~~ z '" ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 9 City of Elk Grove I 2009
'" ,~, I'articipation in CivicrEngagementOpportunities Benchmarks~ " 'U '" Number of l' 'f Elk Grove ;Jurisdictionsfor Comparison to , ~, ' ,average rating Rank Comparison benrhmark Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 22 138 177 Less Watched a meeting of local elected offcials or other local public meeting on cable television 28 122 134 Less Volunteered your time to some group or , activity in Elk Grove 36 128 177 Less Participated in a club or civic group in Elk Grove 23 51 65 Less Provided help to a friend or neighbor 94 28 65 Similar
'-',;,- c " " ,t; Voter Behavior Benchmarks' , '" " if , Elk Grove average Number of,Jurisdictionsfor Comparison to rating RanI( Comparison " benchmark Registered to vote 82 110 188 Similar Voted in last general election 80 59 188 More
;¡, " ,~ !i "~' ,! Use of Information Sòúrces Benchmarks " . Elk Grove a\Íerage Number o!Jurišdict!pns for Comparison to , " ¿ , rating Rank Comparison " ;i! benchmark Read Elk Grove Newsletter 85 59 123 More Visited the City of Elk Grove Web site 63 29 78 More
Local Government Media Services and Information Dissemination Benchmarks ~ Elk Grove average 'Number"of Jurisdictions for " Comparison to , "rating ,Rank Comparison benchmark Cable television 55 40 149 Above ~ Public information ~ services 54 142 224 Similar 5 .: ~ ;, '" 'i SoêialEngagement Opportunities Benchmarks , Í ,', ~ Elk Grove Number ofjurisdictions Eomparison to ;it average rating ',' Rank fór Cómparison benchmark , § '¡; Opportunities to participate in social -z 85 Below ". events and activities 50 66 .D ~?, Opportunities to participate in Below ~ religious or spiritual events 60 55 66 :3 (El !(' a; 'n '¡;N '" Contact with'lmmediate NeighbtifsBenchmarks ¿, it Ü . ElkGrove '" Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to average rating , Rank , Comparison " benchmark .~g z Has contact with neighbors at 76 Similar ~ least once per month 79 53 ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 10 City of Elk Grove I 2009
" "" '" T '" Public Trust Benchmárks ,~ '" " Elk Grove Numbe'r of,urisdictions Comparison to 'l ! , t~ average rating ~ Rank for Comparison benchmark Value of services for the taxes paid to Elk Grove 45 240 293 Below The overall direction that Elk Grove is taking 38 222 237 Below Job Elk Grove government does at welcoming citizen involvement 43 225 254 Below Job Elk Grove government does at listening to citizens 35 198 219 Below Overall image or reputation of Elk Grove 54 131 202 Below
, ,i; \\ '" ~Services' Provided by local, State and Federal Governments Benchmarks ., " ;' " Comparison to !.Elk Grove ',; Number of Jurisdictions for , average rating Rank RComparisom benchmark Services provided by the City of Elk Grove 57 207 323 Similar
Services provided by the Federal Government 37 164 194 Below Services provided by the State Government 32 190 196 Below Services provided by Sacramento County Government 38 72 78 Below
',' '., -- -, "' ,. Contact with City Employees Benchmarks T Ii' 7Comparison to Elk Grove Number of Jurisdictions for -, average rating ¡ Rank Co~par¡son benchmark ft .. ,-~- Had contact with city employee(s) in last 12 months 37 189 195 Less " Perceptions of City Employees (Among Those.'ho HadContact) Benchmarks M.' ~ ~Elk Grove average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to b Rank (Comparison , benchmark ~ , rating , -r;. u City employee 65 169 251 Similar ~ knowledge :~ City employee ~ responsiveness 62 169 248 Below ~ .;: City employee courteousness 64 153 203 Below i:; .. Overall impression 63 178 287 Similar ~ î;' ~ :: V1 ~ V .;:N Ü
~.~ z ~ ¡=
The National Citizen SurveyTM 11 City of Elk Grove I 2009
JURISDICTIONS INCLUDED IN NATIONAL BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
Valdez,AK;...... 4,036 Mission Viejo, CA...... ,...... 93, 102 Auburn, AL...... ;.;...... 42,987 Morgan Hill, CA ...... 33,556 Gulf Shores, Al ...... ,..... 5,044 MountaìnView, CA ...... 70,708 Tuskegee, AL...... 11 ,846 Newport Beach,CA ...... 70,032 Fayetteville,AR ...... ;...... 58,047 Palm Springs, .CA...... ,...... 42,807 Fort Smith,AR ...... 80,268 Palo Alto, CA...... 58,598 Hot Springs,AR...... 35,613 Poway, CA...... '...... 48,044 littleRock, AR...... 183,133 Rancho Cordova, CA ...... 55,060 Avondale,.AZ...;...... 35,883 Redding, CA ...... 80,865 Chandler, AZ...... ;...... 176,581 Richmond, CA...... 99,216 CococinoCounty,AZ...... ;...... 116,320 Riverside,.CA ...... ;...... ;...... ;...... 255,166 Dewey.Humboldt, AZ...... 6,295 San Bernardino County, CA ...... ;1,709,434 Flagstaff, AZ...... ,...... 52,894 S~n Francisco,.CA..;...... i76,733 Florence, AZ ...... 17,054 San lose,CA ...... ;894,943 Gilbert, AZ .,...... ;...... 109,697 San luisObispoCounty, CA...... 247,900 Goodyear, AZ ....,...... ;...... 18,911 San Rafael, CA...... ,...... 56,063 Kingman, AZ...... 20,069 San Ramon, CA...... 44,722 Marana, AZ...... 13,556 Santa Barbara County, CA...... 399,347 Mesa, AZ...... 396,375 Santa Monica,CA ...... 84,084 Peoria, AZ ...... 108,364 Southlake Tahoe, CA...... 23,609 Phoenix,AZ ...... 1,321,045 Stockton, CA...... 243,771 Prescott Valley,.AZ...... 25,535 Sunnyvale, CA ...... ;...... ;.....131,760
Queen Creek, AZ ...... 4,31 6 Temecula, CA ...... ;...... 57,716 Safford, AZ ...... 9,232 Thousand Oaks, CA...... 117,005 Scottsdale, AZ ...... 202,705 Visalia, CA...... ;.. 91,565 Sedona, AZ ...... 10,192 WalnutCreek, CA...... 64,296 Tempe,AZ ...... 158,625 Calgary, Canada...... 878,866 Tucson, AZ...... 486,699 District of Saanich, Victoria, Canada ...... 103,654 Yuma, AZ...... 77,515 Edmonton, Canada...... ; 666, 104 Yuma County,AZ...... 160,026 Guelph, Ontario, Canada...... 114,943 Agoura Hills, CA...... 20,537 Kamloops, Canada ...... ;...... 77,281 Bellflower, CA...... 72,878 Kelowna, Canada...... 96,288 Benicia, CA ...... 26,865 North Vancouver, Canada...... 44,303 Brea, CA...... 35,410 Oakville, Canada ...... 144,738 Brisbane, CA ...... 3,597 Prince Albert, Canada ...... 34,291 ~ Burlingame, CA...... ;...... 28,158 Thunder Bay, Canada...... 109,016 . . Capitola, CA...... ;...... 10,033 Victoria, Canada ...... 78,057 ~ Whitehorse, Canada...... 19,058 cÎ Carlsbad, CA ...... 78,247 u Chula Vista,CA...... ,...... 173,556 Winnipeg, Canada ...... 619,544 Claremont,CA ...... 33,998 Yellowkn ife, Canada...... 16,541 ~ Concord, CA ...... 121,780 Arapahoe County, CO ...... 487,967 ¿¿ Cupertino, CA ...... 50,546 Archuleta County, CO...... ;...... ;. 9,898 ~. .g Davis, CA...... 60,308 Arvada, CO...... 102,153 ~ Del Mar, CA.;...... 4,389 Aspen, CO ;..;...... 5,914 .."' Dublin, CA...... 29,973 Aurora, CO...... 276,393 , EICerrito,CA...... ,...... 23,171 Boulder, CO...... ,...;..;.... 94,673 53 è Galt,CA...... 19,472 ffoulder County,CO ...... 291 ,288 '" en la Mesa, CA...... ;...... 54,749 Breckenridge, CO ...... 2,408 Broomfield, CO ...... 38,272 .",~ laguna Beach,CA ...... 23,727 LJ Livermore, CA ...... 73,345 Castle Rock, CO ...... 20,224 Colorado Springs, CO...... :360,890 õic lodi, CA...... 56,999 .~::o long Beach,CA...... 461,522 Craig, CO ...... ;...... 9,189 z'" lynwood, CA ...... ;. 69,845 Crested Butte, CO ...... ;..;...... ;...... 1 ,529 ~ MenloPark, CA...... 30,785 Denver (City and County), CO ...... 554,636
The National Citizen SurveyTM 12 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Douglas County, CO ...... u...... 175,766 Eustis, FL...... ,...;...... u...... 15,106 Durango, CO ...... u...... ".u.,....,...... u13,922 Gainesvi lie, FL. .;..... ,..,.... .;...... ,...... 95 ,447 Eagle County, CO...... u..u...... 41 ,659 Hillsborough County, FL..u...... 998,948 Englewood, Co...... ;...... u...... 31,727 Jupiter, FL u....;...... ,...... ,...... 39,328 Fort Collins, CO ...... 118,652 Kissimmee, FL...... 47,814 Frisco, CO...... ,...... 2,443 Lee County, FL...,...... ;...... ,454,918 Fruita,.CO...... ,...... ,.6,478 Martin County, FL ...... u...... 126,731 Georgetown,.CO...... l,088 Melbourne, FL...... ;.....71,382 Golden, CO...... ,.....;...... 17,159 Miami Beach, .FL ,...;...... 87,933 Grand County, CO ....u...... u...... u..... 12,442 North Palm Beach,H ...... 12,064 Grand Junction, CO...... u;...... ,...... 41,986 North Port, FL .....,...... ;..;...... 22,797 GreenwoodVillage, CO...... ,...... 11,035 Oakland Park, FL ...... ;u...... uu...... 30,966 Gunnison County, CO...;...... ,..... 13,956 Ocoee, FL,...... 24,391 Highlands Ranch, CO...... 70,931 Oldsmar, FL ...... ,.u...... l1, 910 Hot Sulphur Springs, CO ...... ,...... 521 Oviedo,FL...... ,...... u.u...... 26,316 Jefferson County, CO...... ;.u...... 527,056 Palm Bay, FL...... ;...... u....79,413 Lakewood, CO...... ,...... 144, 126 Palm Beach, FL...... 1 0,468
Larimer County, CO ...... u. 251,494 Palm Beach County, FL....u.u...... 1,131,184 Lone Tree, CO...;...... ,...... 4,873 Palm Beach Gardens, FL ...... u...... ;...... 35,058 Longmont, CO ...... ,...... 71,093 Palm Coast, FL ...... u...... ,...... 32,732 Louisvile, CO ...... ;...... 18,937 Pasco County, FL ...... u...... u..344,765 Loveland, CO...... ,...... u...... 50,608 Pinellas County, FL .....u...... 'u...... 921 ,482
Mesa County, CO...... 116,255 Pinellas Park, FL...... uu...... ;.....45,658 Montrose, CO ...... ,...u...... 12,344 PortOrange, FL...... 45,823 Northglenn, CO ...... u...... u... 31,575 Port St. Lucie, FL...... u...... 88,769 Parker, CO ...... u...... 23,558 Sanford,. FL...... ;...... ,38,291 Pitkin County, CO ...... u...... 14,872 Sarasota, FL.....,...... ;....u...... 52,715 Silverthorne, CO ...... u...... 3,196 Seminole, FL...... ;...... 10,890 Steamboat Springs, CO...... 9,815 South Daytona,FL u...... ,...... 13, 177 Sterling, CO ...... ,...... 11 ,360 St.Cloud, FL ...... u...... 20,074 Summit County, CO ...... u...... 23,548 Tallahassee, FL.u...... 150,624 Thornton, CO...... u.,...... 82,384 Titusville, FL...... 40,670 V;;il, CO...... u...... u....4,531 Vol usia County, FL...... 443,343 Westminster, CO ...... u...... 1 00,940 Walton County, FL...... "...... 40,601 wheat Ridge, CO ...... u...... 32,913 Winter Garden, FL ...... 14,351 Coventry, CT...... ;.....;...... 11,504 Wi nterPark, FL...... ,...... 24,090 Hartford, CT...... 121,578 Albany,.GA...... ,...... ,.....,..,...... 76,939 Manchester, CT ...... u...... 54,740 AI pharetta,. GA...... ; ..... 34,854 ~ Wethersfield, CT ...... ,...... 26,271 Cartersville, GA...... 15,925 ~ Windsor, CT...... ;...... 28,237 Conyers, GA ...... 1 0,689 v u Dover, DE...;...... ;...... 32,135 Decatur, GA...... ;...... ,.,18,147 2 Belleair Beach, FL...... 1,751 Milton,GA.u...... u...... ;..;....30, 180 ~ Bonita Springs, FL...... 32,797 Roswell,CA ..,...... 79,334 ~ Brevard County, FL...... ;...... ,.... 476,230 Savannah, GA ...... ;...... u...... 131,51 ° ~- c: CapeCoral, FL u...... 102,286 Smyrna, GAu...... 40,999 -;:o Charlotte County, FL u...... 141,627 Suwanee, GA...... 8,725 Z ~ Clearwater, FL ...... 1 08,787 Valdosta, GA ...... 43,724 .n Honolulu, HI ...... ;...... 876,156 ~~.. Collier County,FL.;...... u.....u.... 251,377 , ? Cooper City, FL .;...... u...... u...... ;. 27,939 Maui, HI...... u...... ,...... 128,094 :; Ames, IA...... u50,731 Vi Coral Springs, H ...... 117,549 Dania Beach,FL ...,...... 20,061 Ankeny,IA.....;...... u...... 27, 117 ~ ''¡ DaytonaBeach,FL ...... 64,112 Bettendorf, IA...;...... ;... 31 ,275 .~o Delray Beach, FL...... 60,020 Cedar Falls, IAu...... u...... ;...... 36, 145 11 ,119 Davenport, IA...... u...... ,...... 98,359 .g Destin, FL...... ;...... co Des Moines, IA ...... ,...... ,.....; 198,682 Z Duval County, FL...... ;.. 778,879 Escambia County, FL ...... u, 294,410 Indianola,IA u...... ;...... 12, 998 ~¡-
The National CitizenSurveyTM 13 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Iowa County/IA...... ; 15/671 Andover, MA...... ;...... 31 ,247 Mariòn, IA...... ;.,...... ;...... 7,144 Barnstable, MA ...... ,...... 47/821 Polk County, IA...... 374,601 Bedford, MA...... 12/595 Sheldahl, IA...... ;...... 336 Burlington, MA ...... 22/876 Slater, .IA ...... ,...... 1 ,306 Cambridge, MA ...... 1 01 ,355 Urbandale, IA...... ,. 29,072 Needham,MA...... 28,911 Waukee, IA...... ,...... 5, 126 Shrewsbury, MA .;...... 31,640 West Des Moines, IA...... ,...... 46,403 Worcester, MA...... ,...... 172/648 Boise, 10 ...... u....;.....;...... 185,787 College Park, MD...... ,...... 24/657 MOscow, 10...... 21/291 Gaithersburg, MD...... 52,613 Twin Falls,.ID...;...... ;...... ;...... 34,469 La Plata, MD ...... ;...... ;...... 6/551 Batavia, IL ...... ;...... 23,866 MontgomeryCounty, MD ...... 873/341 Centralia/IL...... ;.....14,136 Ocean City/MD...... ,...... 7/173 Clarendòn Hills, IL ...... 7/610 Ròcklfille, MD...... ,...... 47/388 Collinsville, IL...... ;...... 24,707 Takoma Park, MD...... 17,299 DeKalb, IL ...... ;...... ;...... ; 39;018 Saco, :ME...... 16,822 Downers Grove,IL...... ;...... 48/724 Ann Arbor, MI...... 114,024 EI mhurst,IL...... 42,762 Battle Creek, MI...... ,....53,364 Evanston, IL...... ;...... 74/239 Delhi Tòwnship/MI...... 22,569 Freeport, IL...... ;...... 26,443 Escanaba, MI...... ,...... 13,140 Gurnee, IL...... ;...... 28,834 Gladstone/MI...... 5,032 Highland Park, IL...... 31,365 Howell/MI...... 9/232 Homewood/IL ...... 19,543 Jackson Còimty, MI...... ;...158,422 Lincòlnwòod, IL...... 12,359 Meridian Charter Township, MI ...... 38,987 Naperville,lL ...... 128,358 NOvi/MI...... 47/386 Nòrmal, 1L...... ;..,...... ;...... 45,386 Oakland Township, MI ;...... 13,071 Oak Park, IL ...... ,...... 39,803 Ottawa County, MI...... ,238,314 O'Fallon, IL...... 21/91O Rochester/MI...... ,...... 10/467 Palatine, IL...... 65,479 Sault SainteMarie, MI...... 16,542 Park Ridge, IL ...... ;...... 37/775 South Haven, MI...... 5/021 Peoria County, IL...... ;...... 183,433 Troy, MI...... ,...... 80,959 Riverside, IL...... 8,895 Village of Howard City, MI ...... 1,585 Sherman, lL ...... 2,871 Blue Earth, MN ...... ;...... 3,621 Shorewòod, IL...... ;...... 7,686 Carver County, MN...... 70/205 Skokie, IL ...;...... 63/348 Chanhassen, MN ...... 20,321 Sugar Gròve/IL ...... ,...... 3,909 DakotaCountyl MN...... ,...... 355/904 Wilmingtòn,IL ...... 5, 134 Duluth, MN ...... 86,918 o Woodridge, IL ...... 30,934 Fridley, MN ...... ,..27,449 E ~. Fishers, IN...... ,..;...... 37,835 Hutchinson, MN ...... 13/080 ~ Munster, IN ...... ;...... 21,511 Mankato,MN ...... 32,427 o ArkansasCity/KS.,...... 11/963 Maple Grove, MN...... ,...,...... 50/365 -5 Chanute, K$ ...... 9,411 Maplewoòd, MN...... ;,...... 34/947 ~ ~ FairwaY/KS ...... 3/952 Mayer,MN ,...... 554 '" "" Lawrence, KS...... ;...... ;...... 80,098 Medina, MN ...... ;...... 4/005 '" '" Lenexa, KS ...... 40/238 Minneapolis, MN...... 382,618 ,-: .~ North Branch, MN ...... 8,023 z Merriam, KS...... ,..:...... 11,008 :: Mission, KS ...... 9,727 Olmsted County, MN...... ,...... 124,277 .. Prior Lake, MN ...... 15,917 ~ Olathe, KS...... ;...... ,...92,962 ~' Overland. Park, KS ...... 149,080 ScottCòunty, MN ...... 89,498 ::2: vi Salina/KS.....,...... ,...... 45,679 St. Cloud/MN ...... ;.59,107 ã) Wichita, KS ...... ,...... ;...... 344,284 St. LouisCounty/MN ...... ,...... 200/528 ''¡N Bowling Green, KY...... 49,296 WashingtonCounty, MN...... ;.201, 130 o Daviess County, Ky...... 91,545 Woodbury,'MN ...... 46/463 "3 .£ Jefferson Parish, LA...... ,...... 455/466 Blue Springs, MO...... ,...... A8/080 z'i New Orleans, LA...... ;...... 484/674 Branson, MO ...... :...6/050 1; Orleans Parish, LA...... 484,674 Clay County, MO...... ;...... 184/006 t:
The National Citizen' SurveyTM 14 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Columbia, MO ...... ;...... ;...... 84,531 Dublin,OH ...... ;...... 31 ,392 Creve Coeur, MO...... ;.....;..;...... 16,500 Hudson, OH...... ;..;...... 22,439 Ellisville, MO ...... 9,104 Kettering,OH ...... ;...... 57,502 Grandview, MO...... ,...... 24,881 Lebanon, OH ...... 16,962 Independence, MO...... 113,288 OrangeVillage,OH ...... 3,236 Joplin, MO...... ;...... 45,504 Sandusky,OH...... ;...... 27,844 Kansas City, MO...... 441,545 Springboro,OH ...... 12,380 Lee's Summit, MO...... 70,700 Westerville,OH...... ;.....35,318
Maryland Heights, MO...... ;...... 25,756 Broken Arrow, OK ...... 74,839 Maryville, MO...... ;...... 10,581 Edmond,OK...... 68,315 O'Fallon, MO...... ;...... ;...... 46,169 Oklahoma City, OK.....;...... ;..;...... 506,132 Raymore,MO ...... ,;...... ;...... 11,146 Stiiiwater, OK ...... ,...;...... 39,065 Richmond Heights, MO..;...... ;...... 9,602 Ashland, OR ..;...... ;...... 19,522 Starkville,MS ...... ;... 21,869 Bend, OR...... 52,029 Billings, MT...... ;...... 89,847 Corvallis,OR...... ,49,322 Bozeman,.MT...... ;...... ; 27,509 Eugene,OR ...... ;...... 137,893 Missoula, MT ...... 57,053 Gresham, OR...... 90,205 Asheville,NC...... ;...... 68,889 Hermiston, OR...... 13,154 Cary, NC...... 94,536 Jackson County, OR ...... 181 ,269 Charlotte, NC...... ;...,...... 540,828 Keizer,OR...... 32,203 Concord, NC...... 55,977 Lake Oswego,OR...... 35,278 Davidson, NC...... ;...... 7,139 Lane County, OR ;...... ;...... 322,959 Durham, NC...... 187,038 Multnomah County, OR...... 660,486 High Point, NC...... 85,839 Portland,OR...... 529,121 Hudson, NC...... 3,078 Borough ofEbensburg, PA...... 3,091 Kannapolis, NC ...... ;...... 36,910 Cranberry Township, PA...... ;...... 23,625 Knightdale, NC...... 5,958 Cumberland CountY,PA ...... 213,674 Mooresville, NC...... ;...... 18,823 Ephrata Borough; PA...... 13,213 Wîlmington, NC....;...... ;...... 90,400 Kutztown Borough, PA...... 5,067 Winston-Salem, NC...... 185,776 Lower Providence Township, PA...... 22,390 Wahpeton,ND...... ;...... 8,586 Peters Township, PA...... 17,556 Cedar Creek,NE...... 396 Philadelphia, PA ...... 1 ,517,550 Kearney, NE ...... ;...... 27,431 State College, PA...... 38,420 La Vista, NIL...... 11,699 Upper Merion Township, PA ...... 28,863 Dover, NH ...... ;...... 26,884 East Providence, ,RI...... 48,688 Lebanon,. NH ...... ;.....;...... 12,568 Newport, RI...... ;...... 26,475 Lyme, NH...... 1,679 Greenville, SC ....;...... ,...... 10,468 Willingboro Township, NJ ...... 33,008 Mauldin, Sc...... 15,224 ~ Alamogordo, NM ...... 35,582 Pickens county,Sc...... 11 0,757 Rock Hill, SC...... 49,765 ric Albuquerque, NM ...... 448,607 (j Bloomfield, NM ..,...... 6,417 Sioux Falls, SD....;...... ;....;...... 123,975 Farmington, NM...... 37,844 Cookeville,. TN...... 23,923 55,469 L Rio Rancho, NM...... S 1,765 Johnson City, TN...... ,...... i2 Sanjuan County,NM...... ;..;...... 113,801 Nashville, TN...... ;...... 545,524 æ. Carson City, NV...;...... 52,457 Oak Ridge, TN....,...... 27,387 .2 Henderson,NV...... 175,381 White House, TN ...... 7,220 ZOJ ;, North Las Vegas, NV...... 115,488 Alabaster, TX ...... 22,169 -' Arlington, TX ...... 332,969 ~,., Reno,.NV...... ,...... 180,480 OJ Sparks,.NV...... 66,346 Austin,TX ...... :656,562 2: Benbrook, TX...... 20,208 viOJ Washoe County, NV ...... 339,486 Beekman, NY...... ;...... 11,452 Bryan, TX...... ;...... 34,733 áj :~ Canandaigua, Ny...... 11,264 Corpus Christi, TX...... ;...... ;.277,454 u New York City, NY...... 8,008,278 Dallas, TX ...... ;...... 1,188,580 õ; Duncanville, TX...... 36,081 .§ Village of Rye Brook, Ny...... 8,602 EI Paso, TX;..;...... ;563,662 3i Blue Ash,OH...... ;..;...... 12,513 Delaware, OH...... ;...... 25,243 Fort Worth, TX ...... ;...... 534,694 F~
The National CitizenSurveyTM 15 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Georgetown, TX .,...... ,.....,...... 28,339 Williamsburg, VA ...... ,...... 11,998 Grand Prairie, TX ...... ,.....,....,...... 127,427 Chittenden County, VT ...... 146,571 Houston, TX...... ,...... 1,953,631 Montpelier,VT ...... ,...... 8,035 Hurst, TX..,...... ,...... 36,273 Auburn,WA...... 40,314 Hutto,TX ...... ,...... ,...... 1 ,250 Bellevue, WA...... ,.....l 09,569 Irving, TX ...... ,...... 191,615 Bellingham, WA...... ,...... ,...... 67, 171 McAllen, TX.....,...... 106,414 Clark CQunty,WA...... 345,238 Pasadena, TX...... ,...,...... 141,674 FederallNay,WA,...... ,.....83,259 Plano, TX ...... ,...... 222,030 Gig Harbor,WA .,...... 6,465. Round Rock, TX ...... 61, 136 Hoquiam, WA...... 9,097 Rowlett,.TX .,...... ,.....,...... ,...... 44,503 Kent, WA...... ,...... 79,524 San Marcos, TX ..,...... ,....,.... 34,733 King County, WA...... 1 ,737,034 Shenandoah, TX...... 1,503 Kirkland, WA.,...... ,...... ,.,.....o45,054 Southlake, TX...... 21,519 Kitsap County, WA...... ,...... ,..231 ,969 Sugar .Land, TX...... ,...... 63,328 Lynnwood, WA...... ,...... 33,847 The Colony, TX...... ,...... ,..,...... ,.... 26,531 Mountlake Terrace, WA.,...... 20,362 Tompall,.TX ...... 9,089 OceanShores,WA .,...... 3,836 Farmington,UT...... ,...... 12,081 Olympia, WA ...... ,...... 042,514 Riverdale, UT ...... 7,656 Pasco,WA...... ,...... ,....32,066 Saratoga Springs, UT ...... ,...... 1,003 Renton,WA...... 50,052 Springville, UT ...... ,...... 20,424 Richland, WA ...... 38,708 Washington.City, UT,...... ,...... 8,186 Snoqualmie, WA.,...... ,..,...... 1,631 Albemarle County, VA ...... 79,236 Spokane Valley, WA...... ,...... 75,203 Arlington County, VA...... ,...... 189,453 Tacoma, WA....,...... 193,556 Blacksburg, VA...... ~...... 39,357 Vancouver,WA ...... ,...... 143,560 Botetourt County, VA ...... 30,496 AshlandCounty,.WL...... 16,866 Chesapeake, VA...... ,...... 199,184 De Pere, WI...... ,...... ,....20,559 Chesterfield County, VA ..,...... 259,903 Eau Claire, WI...... ,...... 61 ,70 4 Hampton, VA...... ,...... 146,437 Madison, WI...... ,...... 208,054 Hanover County, VA ...... 86,320 Merrill, WI...... ,...... 10,146 Hopewell, VA ...... ,...... 22,354 Milton,WI...... 5,132 James City County, VA ...... 48,102 Ozaukee County, WI...... 82,317 Lexington;VA ...... ,....,...... 6,867 Suamico, Wi...... ; 8,686 Lynchburg,VA ..,...... 65,269 Village of Brown Deer, WI...... ,...... 12, 170 Newport News,VA...... ,.... 180,150 Wausau, WI....,...... 38,426 Northampton County, VA...... 13,093 Wauwatosa, Wi ...... ,...... 47,271 Prince William County, VA...... 280,813 Whitewater, Wi ..,...... 13,437 Radford, VA ...... 15,859 Morgantown, WV.....,...... ,..26,809 ~ Roanoke, VA,...... ,...... 94,911 Cheyenne; Wy...... ,...... 53,011 B Spotsylvania County, VA ...... 90,395 Gillette, WY...... 19,646 ~ u Stafford County,. VA...... ,...... ,..92,446 Laramie, WY...... "...... 27,204 "u Staunton,VA ...... ,...... 23,853 Teton County, WY...... 18,251 ~ ~ Virginia Beach, VA...... ,... 425,257 ,~'" ".¡o -i ..;, :i t" ? :; V) (j .¡:N U -; .g :i '" .=i-
The National Citizen. SurveyTM 16 ~
- National Citizen SurveyTM
CITY OF ELK GROVE,. CA 2009
Report of Open-ended Question
~EES~ATR;~ I.C. (C1 ~ATIONAL I€MA 3005 30th Street 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500 Boulder, CO 80301 Washington, DC 20002 wW.n-r-c.com · 303-444-7863 www.icma.org · 202-289-ICMA City of Elk Grove I 2009
lttt¡ C;" E1 Nrr1e;,~, 1i~S :;¡ Survey Background ...... 1 About The National Citizen SurveyTM ...... 1 Understanding the Results ...... 2 About Closed-ended and Open-ended Questions ...... 2 Verbatims...... 2 Verbatim Responses to Open-ended Questions ...... 4 WHAT THREE SERVICES DOES ELK GROVE DO THE BEST AT PROVIDING? ...... 4 Parks and Recreation...... 4 Law Enforcement...... 5 Schools ...... 7 Fire ...... ,...... 7 Waste management services (garbage collection, recycling) ...... 9 Code enforcement and Appearance (cleanliness, maintenance, animal control) ...... 9 Economic Development (shopping and dining opportunities, support for businesses)...... 1 0 Transportation (traffc management) ...... 10 Housing and Human Services...... 11 EMS ...... 11 Streets (repair, lighting, maintenance) ...... 11 Community services and events...... 12 Libraries ...... 12 Don't Know/Not related to question ...... 12 Other ...... 13
~ ~ u¡;
~," &: ;¿
.~ zc; È ~,. ~ ,,) C ~ '¡:N o ~ z;¡ F;k
The National Citizen SurveyTM City of Elk Grove I 2009
"S'UB~,IViÈ"w B~,~gK e.. ~.El,.U:!:'p.~ ABOUT THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEyTM The National Citizen SurveyTM (The NCS™) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality survey methods and comparable results across The National Citizen SurveyTM jurisdictions. Participating households are selected at random and the household member who responds is selected without bias. Multiple mailings give each household more than one chance to participate with self-addressed and postage paid envelopes. Results are statistically weighted to reflect the proper demographic composition of the entire community.
The National Citizen SurveyTM customized for this jurisdiction was developed in close cooperation with local jurisdiction staff. The City of Elk Grove staff selected items from a menu of questions about services and community problems; they defined the jurisdiction boundaries NRC used for sampling; and they provided the appropriate letterhead and signatures for mailings. City of Elk Grove staff also determined local interest in a variety of add-on options to The National Citizen SurveyTM Basic Service.
~
~ uî' l2 oj" ;£ ~ ~ )- .D ~)- ~ if:3
'¡:~ G ~ .~o Z .£'l ¡-
The National Citizen SurveyTM 1 City of Elk Grove I 2009
~ L:,,,N'i;.. E;,R'§I'T'A ~;Q, i.,,!:~. l;, 1;'141 § '~~E, S i! L:-r' §. ABOUT CLOSED-ENDED AND OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS Questions can either be asked in a closed-ended or open-ended manner. A closed-ended question is one where a set of response options is listed on the survey. Those taking the survey respond to each option listed. Open-ended questions have no answer choices from which respondents select their response. Instead, respondents must "create" their own answers and state them in their own words. The verbatim responses are categorized by topic area using codes. An "other" category is used for responses falling outside the coded categories. In general, a code is assigned when at least 5-10% of responses will fit the code.
Advantages of an open-ended question include:
. Responses are not prompted, allowing respondents to provide answers that are not anticipated or well known. . This type of question tends to capture response options that come to mind most quickly. . The final result can be richer, since verbatim responses are included in an appendix, giving you and others a chance to "hear" the voice of respondents in their own words. · There is a smaller risk of missing important dimensions. VERBATIMS Respondents were asked to record their opinions about Elk Grove in the following question: · What three services does Elk Grove do the best at providing?
The verbatim responses were categorized by topic area and those topics are reported in the following table with the percent of responses given in each category. Because some comments from residents covered more than a single topic, each topic mentioned by a resident was categorized and counted for the table below. Those verbatim responses are grouped by the first topic listed in each comment whenever a respondent mentioned more than a single topic. Verbatim comments that contain more than one topic nevertheless appear only once (in the category of the
first topic listed), however the analysis in the table below counts each of the topic areas given by all respondents regardless where those topics appeared in the comment.
~ Results from the open-ended question are best understood by reviewing the table of frequencies ~' that summarize responses as well as the actual verbatim responses themselves. ~ u-v
~ ;l Æ
'¡:§ Zco ..0- t ti£; :¡ '¡:N o 1 Zco ~ ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 2 City of Elk Grove I 2009
Wi What three services does Elk Grov~ dotl1e'bèst át providingl ift ". ",. '"
.... , .'h' ..... "' T Percent of'Rêspondentsi Parks and Recreation 44% Law Enforcement 35% Schools 22% Fire 21% Waste management services (garbage collection, recycling) 19% Code enforcement and Appearance (cleanliness, maintenance, animal control) 16% Economic Development (shopping and dining opportunities, support for businesses) 16% Transportation (traffc management) 10% Housing and Human Services 7% EMS 7% Streets (repair, lighting, maintenance) 5% Community services and events 5% Libraries 4% Don't Know/Not related to question 11% Other 18%
Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one category.
~ ~ u':' .. ~ '" :; ~ ~ z £ ~,.. ~ if:: ~ u:~
.~g z 1=f-
The National Citizen SurveyTM 3 City of Elk Grove I 2009
" , ViE!R'EI,~ T;I'IY Ról E~S,e'C,N,s'¡E,Si' . ~ _.... (j..;; --,' __"~c. ;¡iEl" ØI-~;:" ,Q'PE"N-E -...... ,-, .. ;:-'.;'NÐE.D
to i.V iii . " ., , i¡IICtiE S,,~I.C N S The following pages contain the respondents' verbatim responses as written on the survey and have not been edited for spelling or grammar. Responses have been organized by coded topic areas. WHAT THREE SERVICES DOES ELK GROVE DO THE BEST AT PROVIDING? Parks and Recreation · Abundance of parks · Dog parks · Good parks during the day · Maintaining parks · Maintenance · More recreational centers · New parks that are well maintained · Park · Park & rec · Park! · Park/recreation · Parks · Parks · Parks · Parks · Parks · Parks · Parks · Parks · Parks · Parks · Parks · Parks · Parks Ë · Parks · Parks ~ · Parks uv -= · Parks ~ · Parks ~ ¿; · Parks · Parks · Parks Æeu Z · Parks £ · Parks ~. ? · Parks :3 'f, · Parks ~ · Parks u:~ · Parks & Open space · Parks & rec 1 z~ · Parks & rec "- · Parks & rec. activities F
The National Citizen SurveyTM 4 City of Elk Grove I 2009
· Parks & recreation
· Parks & Recreation · Parks & recreation · Parks & recreation · Parks & recreation ., Parks & recreation · Parks & recreation - CSO is great
· Parks & recreation for youth programs · Parks & recreational fadl ities
· Parks & schools
· Parks (QuaIHy& quantity, although maintenance is falling short.)
· Parks and open spaces · Parksandrec.
· Parks and recreation · Parks and recreation · Parks system · Parks, recreation · Parks/Firedept · Public parks · Public parks · Rec · Reccenter · Rec faCilities indudingparks/pools · Recreation · Recreation · Recreation · Recreation
· Recreation fad i ities · Recreation opportunities · Recreation service · Recreational programs · Recreatiónal service · Youth programs/rec. · Youth sports ~ Law Enforcement ~c v · ElkCrove provides greatpolice presence availability & assistance ..U ~ · Great police work ~ . "Lawenforcementonthe big things. ""Butthey wash to much time on the little things. Like parking '" c. lots tickets." ~- · Lawenforcementlpolice .2 z'" · Leanerpolice officers .J?- · More police í:,. · Neighborhood watch ~ . Never see & police officer c patrolling ~ c · Police '" .",N · . Police o · Police .Police Police ;¿ · Police i=
The National Citizen Survey ™ 5 City of Elk Grove I 2009
. Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police . Police ~ love them, they helped ourfamily 0 MS: . Police - Pop units excellent!!! ~' . Police& ernergency ~ r¡ U . Police (A distant third). -C . Police dept/fire dept. '"t &t . Police presence '1 æ: . Police protection ~- i: . .g Police protection Z'" . Police protection ~ -D . Police protection :; ":0 . Police service OJ è OJ . Police services V1 i: . Police services :v -3 . Police services 0 . services- Housing (ã Police services " e.g. in regards to abandon houses unplanned extensions of yard i: ''¡0 - Trafficflowat schools (H. School) '" Z . Police services/crime prevention ~ . Police servicing ¡=
TheNational CitizenSurveyTM 6 City of Elk Grove I 2009
· Police/Fire · Police/fire dept/ambulance service · Probably one of the safest towns in Sac area (Sac is not very safe!) · Residentialdríve through by police · Safe neighborhood · Safe streets.
Schools · Education · Education · Education · Education · Education · Education · Education · Education · EGUSD · Elk Grove school district · Good elementary school · Goodpublic schools · Good schools · Good schools · Great schools · K-12 Education (Public schools) · Kids pre-school · Public schools · Public schools · Publi. schools · Public schools · 'Public schools r · School
· School teachers are the best. · Schools -~ · Schools ~ ~ · Schools uv · Schools · Schools ~ · Schools vf7 '" · Schools ~- · Schools .2 z't · Schools :; · Schools _'0. ". · Schools & Educatíon is great & respected .andfollowed by other cities, ~. · Schools! lf:0 vC Fire .f3 o . ~ .9 . z;i .
The National Citizen.SurveyTM 7 City of Elk Grove I 2009
· Fire · Fire · Fire · Fire · Fire · Fire · Fire · Fire · Fire · Fire · Fire · Fire · Fire · Fire · Fire · Fire · Fire · Fire · Fire - emergency response · Fire & medical response is the best · Fi re & rescue · Fire andemergency services. · Fire department · Fire departments · Fire DepL · Fire dept. · Firëdept. · Fire fighting · Fireprevention & education · Fireprotectiön · Fire;protection · Fire protection · Fire protection · Fire service Ù E · Fire services
~' · Fire services ¡, u · Fire services J: ~ · Fire services '" ~ · Fire, EMT, paramedics r!J c¿ · Fire/Emergency response (i. c: · Firemen .S? zjf · . Great fire department ..). · ThebestfiredepL Ever ~ àî ~ :i vi ff .¡:N o City of Elk Grove I 2009
Waste management services (garbage collection, recycling) · E-waste · Garbage · Garbage · Garbage · Garbage · Garbage - Still too expensive · Garbage & recycling picked up withoutanyproblemsevery week. · Garbagecollection · Garbage collection · Garbagecollectionc Bus services around town.
. Garbage collection weekly & tri-annual cleanups
· Garbage Collection/Recycling · GarbagePlU · Garbage services · Garbage seWer · Garbage/recyclelrefuse · Greatgarbage pickup · Providing services(Garbage, recycle, refuse) · Rei:ycle/Greencanister · Recycling · Recycling · Recycling · Recycling
· Recycling from home & ewasteevents · Recycling programs · Timely garbage collection · Trash collection · Trash/Recycles pick-up
· Waist removal · Waste · Waste & recycling
· Waste disposal (Garbage) ~ · Waste management · WasteManagement & law enforcement ~' iÐ U -5 Code enforcement and Appearance (cleanliness, maintenance, ~ ~ animal control) ~"- ~ · Animal control '~õ · Animalcontrol (Most friendly and caring people.) z · Clean community ;0 -0 · Clean parks i!~:. · Clean streets è (JOJ · Clean streets c :v · Cleanlíness .~ o · Cleanliness City of Elk Grove I 2009
· Cleanliness of the community · Codeenforcemeht responds very quickly to citizens' complaint · Graffiti removal is quick when I call itin to CSD. · Greatanimalcontrol · "Green belt ""trees grass along streets." · G rounds maintenance · Keep road & parks clean · Keeping parks dean
· Keeping streets. clean. Wishthe streets On tree swallow could be keptciean..Keep the black grease
that leak from cars clean from the streets. Elder people come &slip and fall after walking in grease. · Keeping up the appearance (Overall) c1ea.nl iness & attractiveness · Landscaping · Onea vearjunkcleaning- Pickup · Park cleanliness · Streetdeaning
· Well mainta.ined landscaping that makes an attractive environment Economic Development (shoppinga~ddining opportunities, support for businesses)
. Big box retail businesses (Target,Walmart etc). . Economic development . Fine dining/restaurants . Cood.numberof restaurahts . Good restaurants . Good shopping options . Creat shopping . Lots of shopping . Lots of stores . Newbusinesses . Plentyof shopping . Restawrants . Retail . Retailers . Shopping ~ . Shopping .8c . Shôpping 'l .. ..U Shopping ~ . Shopping co ~ v . Shopping -But Iwishfor major stars, so far away. c. . Shopping (Variety . Shopping centers . Shopping Malls . Shopping-Restaurants Vari etyöfrestau rants. City of Elk Grove 12009
· E~Tran · E-Tran · E~Tran · Public transportation · Publictransportation · Trafficcontrol · Traffic control. · Traffic enforcement · Traffichandling · T råffic/pol ice · Transportation · Transportation · Various E-Tran schedules. Housing and Human Services
· Few homeless people · Helpfor seniors · Housing · Housing · Housing · Housing
· Lots of homes for buyers · Lowincome housing · Senior services EMS · Ambulance · Ambulance · Ambulance · Ambulanceassistance · Ambulance or emergency medical services · Ambulanceservice . · Emergency · Emergency ~ · Emergency medical services ~ · Emergency response u~ · Emergency services .J · Emergency services ~ ~ :::u ¡; Streets (repair, lighting, mainte.nance) -; c; · Home roadrepaired after SOyears+ .~o Z · InfostrLcture .r~, · Maintaining roads .Publicworks ~$treets -landscaping. · Road construction "Roads · Sidewalkmåil1tenånce Street Ijghting Strëetmaintenål1ce StreètrejJair...... 5treetlsideyvalklpark maintenance City of Elk Grove 12009
Community services and events . Activities for children · Community activitiesforchildren · Community enhancement · Community event
· Community events ie;Western festival, Strauss festival
· Community events. Local newspapercrimes-(Local)
· Community involvement · Community service department · Community services district · Parades & festivals Libraries · Libraries · Libraries
· Libraries - The absence of mass transitespeèiallylightrail service need improvement or reconsiderations. · Library · Library · Library · Library · Library
Don't KnowlNot related to question
. Ask me what the worst are - Where is the quality construction? Planning - Allowing too much
growth i Allowing lower level commerèial & residential construction. . Can't think of)
. i cannot think of any thingthecity does well.Thecity needs to get smaller and less expensive.
. i don't know. Hence no comments
. I'm very upset about Elk Grove approving the new Wal Mart On Bruceville. If! could sell my house. I would move outof Elk Grovel
. Lip service- Sorry but itstrue~ Note: Elk grove could be somuch betterl So much potential has been
wasted. The people of Elk Grove deserve far better. v s: . N/A . N/A ti v . U N/A L . ~ No comment '" ~ . No police presence "- ¡; . None ~. c: . None .OJ . -~Z None sol can't .s?- . None, I haven 't1 ived in' my apt..for ayr yet, so I Don'tknow much.about the community, ~?- Answer page #2-questions for#2 +#3 +#17 OJ 2: . Notatallit shoUld neVer have bèconieacity.Thiscitycán'trunitself,thecouncii members stink ;; vi Theybit~ffmore than theycouldchew,that'swhyThereare so many empty houses, andrepos. Theyraisedtaxes,whentheypromIsedtheywou Id not......
Note: Very unhappywithElkGrove water, their staff and ;rates Nåthing stándsout. WhatJ. dünot i ikei n....the..propèrtytaxjs.sohigh,'"arIFsóhigh~
", .. . The NâtiQl"al. "12 CitizenSlJrveyiM . . . City of Elk Grove I 2009
Other
. Adding expenses to households . Building on every square inch of property . CSD . CSD . CSD -fire & parks
. Customer service
. Do not have to drive to Sacramento to getwhat I need. . ElkGrove -Galt cert . Expert witnesses (I &11) were by the hospital entrance. . Family . . Free trees for shade . Health . Health facilities . Health. service . Health services . Information mail info . Internet/cable . Job announcement . Lacköfrecognition towards old town, the real eg, and its residents
. Making residents move. 4.Spending moiieyfor services outside Elk Grove or evehCaliforniafor this survey . Medical-Mercy . Messing up students way toschool (E. Trancuts)
. New areas to live . News
. Overcharging for property rent- Businesses/homestaxes . Over Growth . P/Ùps . Pathior walkingor bike riding . Planning/Development . Public gardening . Public services . Security ~ . Theater movies E . ~ Tips for cònservation U . To many low housing apartments .~ . Volunteer citizens ~ (l . aó Water . Website info. ~- .9 zii .n;,. ..
.. National Citizen SurveyTM
CITY OF ELK GROVE, CA 2009 Report of Demographic Subgroup Comparisons
((1 :ATIONAL~EES~ATR~~ INC, I€Må 3005 30th Street 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500 Boulder, CO 80301 Washington, DC 20002 wW.n-r-c.com . 303-444-7863 www.icma.org . 202-289-ICMA City of Elk Grove i 2009
'Y:
I, Q:El.IN¡.l?e::'N~.i;:S,¡ " ,,' Survey Background...... 1 About The National Citizen SurveyTM ...... 1 Understanding the Results ...... 2 "Don't Know" Responses ...... 2 Understanding the Tables...... 2 Comparisons ...... 3
~ ~ o
~'" 7: ;¿
.~ Z'" ..0. ~S- ~ ti c OJ .¡:N U ~ Õ z~ ~ ¡=
The National Citizen SurveyTM City of Elk Grove I 2009
~ti Ejiy~1¡ ~¡'Ej¥" El:~P:~ê,eC Ltt""e ABOUT THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEyTM The National Citizen SurveyTM (The NCSTM) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality survey methods and comparable results across The National Citizen SurveyTM jurisdictions. Participating households are selected at random and the household member who responds is selected without bias. Multiple mailings give each household more than one chance to participate with self-addressed and postage paid envelopes. Results are statistically weighted to reflect the proper demographic composition of the entire community.
The National Citizen SurveyTM customized for this jurisdiction was developed in close cooperation with local jurisdiction staff. The City of Elk Grove staff selected items from a menu of questions about services and community problems; they defined the jurisdiction boundaries NRC used for sampling; and they provided the appropriate letterhead and signatures for mailings. City of Elk Grove staff also determined local interest in a variety of add-on options to The National Citizen SurveyTM Basic Service.
One of the add-on options that Elk Grove chose was to have crosstabulations of evaluative questions 1-17 by demographic questions 03 (number of years in Elk Grove), 05 (rent or own home), 07 (presence of children 17 or under in household), and 08 (presence of adults 65 or older in household).
~' ~ aJ U "' '" 7: ~' ~ .¡: 2! .n;: :-~,
?- 5 v-, a: .",N o
.~~ z F;i
The National Citizen SurveyTM 1 City of Elk Grove I 2009
L.'N¡¡!DE.R0S.1i~A. N.P.'IN'a. TI¡~E .~ E S..L(L;t''SY "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer "don't know." The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item.
UNDERSTANDING THE TABLES In this report, comparisons between demographic subgroups are shown. For most of the questions, we have shown only one number for each question. We have summarized responses to show only the proportion of respondents giving a certain answer; for example, the percent of respondents who rated the quality of life as "excellent" or "good", or the percent of respondents who felt the rate of growth was "about right." ANOVA and chi-square tests of significance were applied to these comparisons of survey questions by demographic subgroups. A "p-value" of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probabil ity that differences observed between subgroups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed are "reaL." Where differences were statistically significant, they are marked in grey.
~
~ ò ,. ;; ~ ~
-;:ê 2! È ¡; ;,i. ? if:3 a; -;:N o c -;:c z'" t:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 2 City of Elk Grove I 2009
l' $J , 1'Z'( ~.~. ';; 'C 0 M PA'RI S Q0N S I. ~. -' N &" . ," ,. ~ Cells shaded grey indicate statistically significant differences between subgroups. ~ ~ ,,'," ", ,
Please rate each of thefollowing"'aspects ..of qualityof ~ life~. in Elk. Grove: Elk Grove as a place to live Your neighborhood as a place to live Elk Grove as a place to raise children 72% 75% 75% 76% 70% Elk Grove as a place to work 45% 51% 50% 49% 48% 56% Elk Grove as a place to retire 52% 54% 40% 61% 46% 54% 45% ""44\;/0 466% ~' The overall quality of life in Elk Grove 79% 71% 65% 85% 71% 78% 70% '73% 79%
", M ~ '" - ~ ~ ~, ~ "- T ~ " ',~ "~Questipn2: Com~uniiyçl,araçteristlcs (Perqmt "ex~ellent~ or'í'good") ~ c/ ~ ,,~ c Please rate each of the following ,,Nu~ber.;¡ ¡¡ 1....';Ren(or~n Bfyearsjl)'Elk 'ii Pres~nc~of Grov!, chii~re!) """,.' 17/ô.r hO,me I preOsl~dn'ecrel;nõfhãoduûs'elihŠ~od615dk ' ùnder in hoJsehold ~ or..~ c: characte.ristics as they relate to Èìk Grove as a L:~;;,~~nJ6y:~~~J ~~:~;~n'Reht I Own I Not ~ 'Y~s w t~£ . No .J .)':s ~~ c~- ~ _ I'". "1i. ,.,. ò2ii whole: ~ ""~,' .;¡ '" ',' . "" . u Sense of community 45% , '67%!l 6155% % 57%55%53% 'd 69"1'"51°ìo''' 81 , -" í: Openness and acceptance of the community i towards people of diverse backgrounds 73% 70% 78% 62% 76% 72% 76% 74% 76% ~"- c:. Overall appearance of Elk Grove 89% .i 67%, 6Z./e, "' 81% 77% 78% 78% 77% 82% ~ " ë , " Cleanliness of Elk Grove aS% 64% 2'4% ." 83% 76% 75% 80% 76% 82% ",,'" ,,,,, '~ ,'1 z Overall quality of new development in Elk " ¡ I. ~ ~ £ Grove 66% ll" 48% '" 37% 61% 50% 52% 54% 51% 60% '" (C Variety of housing options 68% 54% 57% 63% 61% 60% 63% 63% 59% ~ '5:~" if Overall quality of business and service ;: 45% 70% 51% ¡; 55% 54% 56% 50% .~ establishments in Elk Grove 59% 58% u Shopping opportunities 48% 41% 48% 59% 43% 44% 49% 47% 47% .. . Opportunities to attend cultural activities 40% 33% 36% 35% 37% 35% 39% 35% 43% .~ ž Recreational opportunities 52% 45% 47% 60% 46% 45% 53% 49% 51% Employment opportunities 15% 13% 12% 12% 13% 11% 15% 13% 14%
The National Citizen SurveyTM 3 City of Elk Grove I 2009
~ ~ ~ " a' ~ ~ H " Question 21 Cpi~lmunity cìîaraçteristifsjPércent "excellent~' or':'good") 'l ~ ~ m .. , ~ ''x 'AA "" " , "'~ ~:; ~ Please rate"each of ~he following M N,um~bei; of years ilJ Elk:ÇrQve ~r;,xRent" m q home or 6wn' ,j under",iri,J, Presen~e household õf chil(J~n 17_ 'or " older~iriI ~~ešeñc,e household of adults 65 or~' i !G Móre'thañ " ,x , ,'" char~cteristics asth~~~~iate to ~I~ Grove as a'i less than 6 tel' 10 ¡¡~ ", ~:i ("10 , woe: ~~ ,n """..,"',~ ~ ~N '5 years I ~,years 11' yéars s Rent Ôwn~ "f NO' ~ Yes' No yês Educational opportunities 47% 48% 57% 58% 48% 53% 49% 49% 55% Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 48% 42% 54% 52% 48% 50% 49% 48% 52% Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 62% 62% 73% 70% 64% 70% 62% 65% 74% , '", ,', 4'1 °/~ ','" Opportunities to volunteer 59%" ~;' ~4';Ío ";'S ' 31N~~ ~54O¡o 50% 53% 50% 58% Opportunities to participate in community matters 53% 51% 61% 44% 58% 51% 58% 54% 57% '~ Ease of car travel in Elk Grove F ~ ~62% 52% 33%'" 50% 52% 44% ,,"' 'I ,58°/;: ~ 50% 59% Ease of bus travel in Elk Grove 50% 42% 31% 33% 43% 42% 44% 42% 45% Ease of bicycle travel in Elk Grove 64% 49% 52% 44% 61% 58% 57% 57% 57% Ease of walking in Elk Grove 61% 66% 58% ~48% 65% 66% 59% 61% 65% l1 '" '" ~ ¡¡ Availability of paths and walking trails ~ 67% 59% " 44% 53% 61% 60% 59% 57%, , !3,~/'; l Traffic flow on major streets 43% 43% 31% , 23°(0 42°/~ 35% 44% 38% 50% ~ ~ Availability of affordable quality housing 46% 47% 57% 33% 53% ' 49% 50% 50% 49% 2 Availability of affordable quality child care 32% '31% ~, 6go/~'l" ~ 44% 36% 46% 36% 36% 54% ê i:' .... Availability of affordable quality health care 42% i¡;¡ 58% 65%~ 35% 57% 57% 51% 53% 58% 2: c; ~ Availability of affordable quality food 62% 61% 74% 64% 66% 71% 61% 65% 72% ~ Availability of preventive health services 46% 53% 55% 49% 52% 52% 52% 50% 56% :! Air quality 56% 46% 56% 52% 55% 56% 53% 54% 61% ~ Quality of overall natural environment in Elk È Grove 65% 53% 53% 61% 59% 57% 62% 59% 66% F~ "" '" Overall image or reputation of Elk Grove J5% . '59.%. 50~% - 77% 61% 67% 62% 64% 64% è ~ :¡ .~ u ~ .~ ž ~ ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 4 City of Elk Grove I 2009
~ ~ " ~, ~ h !,¡ ~'!( - . m W;'ii .. - ~ .. ùi Ql,estln 3.,; G.rolY~ (Percent 'ito.o iast'l~ ~ M ~ u ~ ,- _. ~ ~ ~~_ ~_ø ~ . ~ ~ "" i'¡ I Presence of cHildren 1 i' or 1 'Presence of adùlts 65 or Nurnlter af year~ in Elk Gro~e .: . older iilhQ.us,ehold Pleâsé rate the speed of growth in the I t ~fRenthome_ or own J æ __ uÎlc:~r in..ousehold ~ ,. ii ". following categories in Elk Grove over the past Less than Mô'104 J Moretha,;¡ 2 years: years _ I;~ . M ,,t-; ~ Ii e 1 5, years I 11 years"n llent L ~ No. .~ ~es "J ~ No" ~." " ..Yes"ç I"o:n -, Population growth 55% 63% 73% 61% 62% 70% ~56% ;j 61% 65%
Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc,) 21% 29% 28% 20% 26% 30% 21% I 23% 33%
Jobs growth 1% 4% 3% 0% 3% 4% 1% I: ""lOla M !; 9% M 1
, : ~ "":, ...... ''''" " " " ... Q~estion 4: CòdeEnfp~cemèht..' c-,i (Percent,Rent àt leastor a own"minor" problem) . - . '" ". Presence~ ~, of adults .: 65w or Nl,mb~r of years in Elk''Grave ..; home: i, Presenceof under ii childrenhousehold. 170r m oldetin household -, ',C' . H' " ~';Ul ,,;¡b Less than 6 to 10 More th~n '.' ~ ~ 5 years years 11.years Rent Own No Yes No ~ Yes" " " .., I I "~'-,,,--,,.- i J r ..~.~ . I i " .,.. ,,'X To what degree, if at all, are run down . buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem , ~ _. 94~/~_ if¡; 87% 86% 87% 82% in Elk Grove? In% - í ~ §~%R 77% 88% ,,', _ _" " ,~!,~ ;'j _ ''C C. a: Ml _ '¥ ~ , ~ ~ QUestion 5: Community Safety (Percent "vëí," pr "sQme",hat" safe) .= "" .... .,'. ., ,r¡ '.' L' , - " ~ ," 0- Rent or own Presence of children 17 or Presence of ädults 65 oJ x ~nd_er i~ ñOl!,sehald .~.., plO'derin hpLisehÔ,ld ~ I Numbèr of years in Elk Gr9ve .. home "'' I U ~ "" ~ ." -' Please 'fate ,~ow safe or unsafe yoû'feel 'I ¿ Les~ th~n'l 6 to 10 More ttiàrt r; from the following i.n Elk Grove: 5 years "years 11 year~' Rent Own No~ No i Yes ~ " ",.' ~ I I I I ... " I .' Yes .,.... '.1 i ~ De Violent crime (e,g., rape, assault, robbery) 64% 51% 65% 65% 62% 66% 59% 64% 56% ~ :7,"~ ,0- 52°/0 30% ~5% 42% 47% 51% 40% 46% 43% .2 Propert crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) -~ ~ c . z7= Environmental hazards, including toxic È waste 80% 70% L 63%~ 77% 73% 78% 69% 73% 74% ~?-,
2£ 3 I: .~ u ~ .2 Z
The National Citizen SurveyTM 5 City of Elk Grove I 2009
:'~~"O, QuestIgn~: ~ers(jnal Safety (~eri;ent Iveryl"OrJ:so'le~hat" safè)~ . "". ~q I', ~ & ,~ ," 17 or I 'Presence of adults 65 or
~ Number~ "'i Rent of or yearsown 8 I PresenceinJIk ofGrove children E ,~~ h,orre N ~ '" ~,!d~rin.,hoúseli~ld "J, ." .,oider in li~useh~ld
Please rate how safe or unsafê 6 to 10 More than J'~" 'I" I i Yes I ~ you',-c_ feel: Ii Il II years j1.year,~& _~el1~ w~:O\yn' ... No. '," ' No Yes '" ,*' ~ In your neighborhood during the &i day 91%' 77% 89% ~ 83% 89% 91% 85% 88% 90%
In your neighborhood after dark 77':10 '" ~, 52'% ¡:69% "", 64% 71% 68% 71% 72% 62% i;~ In Elk Grove's commercial areas II II '" "" during the day 88% .,' ?3~/o 8S% :; 7~%". 86%ll 88% 80% 83% 90% In Elk Grove's commercial areas after dark 46% 29% 46% 46% 42% 43% 43% 44% 40%
y, " ~ ~ . m . ~, , Q¡¡~stionsi'oiañd 8: Crime ViCtimizatiori and Reporting (Pèrcent "yes") . ~ ~, ~ .~, , I Rent or own Presen~e of childr~n 170rl Pr~senèe of adults 6,5 or
Number of year~ in Elk Grove"" J" home under in household ." ,',' ,older iÍl household ',' Cij. " Less than ",6 to 10 L More than' "'" ,,,5 year's 11 years Rerit ~ownj~i No Y,es. N(j, Yes æ ~ & & . M ¡ years , I i ~ ~ ", "'. i .'q .. ~ ~ During the past twelve months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any ~¡ ~ .- ~ ¥' crime? 15% 28% 15% 32% 14% 17% 19% 19% 15% o -' If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to t: 77% 62% 84% 70% 94% '" the police? 81% 70% 76% 67% 7; 22 ~ .2 z;: È ;, 2: ~
.~ u ~ .2i 1:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 6 City of Elk Grove I 2009
, .' .. '" ," - " , *;.QùêstLon, 9':Rè1id.~nt Be11axi,grs (fercerit at least price i'A pasf 1~, months)" ~, ..~ ,. ~ " '" .1 '" Presènce of children · Presence òf adults 65 Number of years¿ Iin Rent Elk Grove or own ~ home "17 ~ ,~~r h,QuJeltold ú~der in ,,~... I or',.'CO',' older i'l~ousehold' '.'" In iheJast 12 m"onths,abaüt how many times/If èver, have ,~ less ~ ~ More .1...... ~ yo~ or other household members participated in the th~:n 5 6 to 10 than 11 , ~ " ~ ii followingKi... activities r,!i in "" Elk Grove?li., . ~" years ~ years years.,'Rent Own No Yes No Yes Used Elk Grove public libraries or their services 60% 70% 64% 61% 64% :iió¡:~ ."~ ''', 77%~ ~ 64% 62% Used Elk Grove recreation centers 52% 64% 59% 56% 57% 41 òj. k 7;./. 55% 61% 'a"54% Participated in a recreation program or activity 40% 59%d 40% 50% 29,~/., 66°/. 48% 51% Visited a neighborhood park or City park 94% 87% 90% 94% 90% 84% 97%a 9~% "''8íòì~'' 1 Ridden a local bus within Elk Grove 11% 21% 12% 7% 15% 12% 15% 12% 21% Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local ~ ~~ ~ public meeting '0 8% 26% 42ô/~", 6~. fI 26"Ì. 24% 21 % 21 % 30% Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local 1I public meeting on cable television 22% 31% 34% 17% 29% 27% 28% 240/. 44°;'' J Read Elk Grove Newsletter 83% 91 % 84% 86% 85% 82% 88% 84% 89% "."", ","i¡" .'~' ~ 'd Visited the City of Elk Grove Web site (at ., .. ~ .. !l ~~,," !m '" ~,; ii' ~ www,elkgrovecity.org) '70~/. ~ 49% '''~ 63./.;~ 56% 65% 57% 67% '~" 67,% 43% '-~' '(i3;ì.' . ,9,7,%, 91% 91% ,~ Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 93% 94% 96% 97% 95% Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Elk Grove 19~. 43% š'~O¡~ . 32% 38% 30% 01 %;;/. '34õì~ 50% 6 " Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Elk Grove ~31 òì. 50ó/. ~ ~ 6l .(~,. .i, 43% 45% 39% 49% 4D% 60./. ~ .h.~ 37% ~ Participated in a club or civic group in Elk Grove 14% 2'5% 11%,%' 26~/. ¿¿ ""';"5% ':, 30%" 21% 32% ~ ,. 96% 92% 95% 97% 94% '~O:(. ~ '38.jJ'" 9"Jo ..:'S3.j."" ~ Provided help to a friend or neighbor . .., _, " m ~,,~,' ~ .~ ~ È "" w è ~ ;: N u -; .~i
The National Citizen SurveyTM 7 City of Elk Grove I 2009
~ ,;' %~. .'j..' ,," ' _ _ ~"., -;',Ú¥.Ù -_~ i.~'" ø; l' ," ~ '"' ~ " , 'il " .1;'1 - ~ ~ .QUestion 10:~eigh~,llrlin,es.s (~erq;nt'at1east onc~ per'nionth) ~ """" ,"' /$ .,' '" ~ ,"",~ ~ i! Rent or own Pr~se",ce~f children 17 ~I Presence of adults 65 NUlQber of yeêr§.in ~'k Grave" 'home -"",' ~I or undlr in household, ~or ~Ider,iii housêhold ~ " R '" ~More i -; ;;1 Less than%' 6 to 10 ~th~n 11 .,. ' ,! No Yes '" , '" '. lyears years years ~ ~Rëñt~ ~qwn No ," Yes I"ro About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your ~ ~ immediate neighbors (people who live in the 10 or 20 ~. "~; households that are closest to you)? 75% 84% 82% 77% 79% "" 72% - 8S:/. 78% 83%
~ u¿¡ :~ i 1 z È ~ '" :: ~ ¿¡ .~ u r: i~ È¡.
The National Citizen SurveyTM 8 City of Elk Grove I 2009
'-, 'i "' "" ii q, ~ '$ ~. '" ~ Qúestion 11: Service Q~alify (Per'êent "exc~lIent'l;;'or "gbod").,. ir, '" ~ ,."" ~ ~ " " "" , 'I Numbèr'of years in Elk Grove'~ 'I Ren~:~:wn I:;;~~;:r ~~,t~~~~i~i¥ 1 I.'',', Presence",older in of hou..ehold adults 65 or~ Please rate thê quality of each of the following ifk' '" Wi""services ., in"Elk Grove: '" ,Ii:s;:;~n I 6y~:~~ I: ~~r~:~~n I R~tnt'" i~~n r N() ,i, '~Yes I )~o L, Yes, Police seivices 83% 72% 70% '60% 80%' 78% 76% 75% 83% Fire seivices 91% 89% 96% 89% 93% 96% 89% 92% 93% Ambulance or emergency medical seivices 92% 90% 88% 94% 90% "".97% ;¡ 8Š~/0 ii '\ 89% 95%
Crime prevention 62% 56% 54% )6°,g 164°(': 58% 59% 59% 59% Fire prevention and education 77% 69% 68% 76% 71% 74% 71% 71% 82% Traffic enforcement 59% 60% 57% 46% 61% 52% 65% 57% 68% ti 47~/0 r \\,,~po/~ z Street repair ",'§6~/0 ;¡ 53% 53% ~45o/;"ç " '§OO!,\" 50% 61% Street cleaning ?1%,,~ ,'49.~/ó s? o~'\ 63% 59% 56% 63% 59% 61%
Street lighting 78%" e, "60%,, 66%i! 69% 70% 69% 71% 69% 73% Sidewalk maintenance ~75%' 63% '~"56% 68% 66% 68% 65% 66% 66% "'''" Traffic signal timing 48% 44% 35% 44% 42% 44% 42% 40% ~ 57°/: Bus or transit seivices 48% 68% 44% 64% 50% 61% 48% 55% 54% ~ Garbage collection 86% 88% 93% 88% 88% 90% 88% 89% 90% L' ~ Recycling 86% 89% 90% 95% 87% 92% 86% 88% 88% ;: u Yard waste pick-up 81% 83% 89% 89% 84% 89% 81% 85% 85% -' ,- Storm drainage 71% 70% 63% 69% 69% 73% 65% 70% 64% ~ ~ Drinking water 54% 48% 42% 48% 51% 50% 51% 48% 61% ~ Sewer seivices 72% 75% 70% 74% 72% 76% 70% 72% 78% .~ i Power (electric and/or gas) utility 77% 71% 77% 73% 76% 81% 71% 75% 81% Parks 89% 86% 93% 89% 90% 92% 87% 1;" ~ 91%¡¡"' 80% !i1 ~:! 0- Recreation programs or classes 77% 82% 84% 88% 78% 86% 78% 83% 74% ~ 86% 74% 76% 84% 78% 79% 80% 79% 81% .; Recreation cent~rs or facilities :; land use, planning and zoning 'SQoío ~'" ,"; 25"io 1%, 16%"'~ 34% 38% 33% 41% 35% 49% .~ (j Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, ~ etc) 47% 33% 33% 51% 37% 39% 39% 36% 54% .§ Animal control 70% 42% "~ 56ô/o 55% 58% 59% 58% 57% 65% '~'" '., i Economic development 46% _28% .~.20Yo. 34% 34% 31% 36% 33% 38% 1:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 9 CiN of Elk Grove I 2009
"~'. ,,', ~ ~ " ,s',' .co, '0 """ ~M !l, ~ ,. QuestionJJ: Serxjce Quality (lercen( '~é~celtent".or~"good") " l1ii1l1l (l \:;.\ ~ ~ " Rentor ~own j. Presence of children 17 § æ ,N:mb:r of ye:rs inEIk Gr::e m J ~ home'M . "p.r under ,.in hOlisehold I :~~~:t~~~::~~~:i~c:r Pleasê rate. the q"!ality of each 8f the followirig M j ..~ w ~" ~ ".1 ~'1." , servic~sin ElkGrove: '~, ¡¡ IO!rMl li _ _:: ;m l! "" I ~L;St:;;r(~ ~6yi:~O I~~:;:;~n Rent pOwn. p ..No m Yes~ l' No I Yes Health services 62% 70% 56% 58% 64% 68% 59% 60% 72% Services to seniors 73% 72% 60% 57% 72% 75% 62% 64% 76% Services to youth 64% 61% 58% 55% 63% 68% 58% 60% 73% Services to low-income people 45% 65% 50% 57% 50% 57% 49% 50% 63% Public library services 77% 76% 69% 81% 74% 72% 76% 75% 74% Public information services 64% 60% 53% 64% 61% 60% 61% 62% 59% Public schools 82% 70% 79% 75% 80% 75% 81% 79% 77% Cable television 59% 59% 61% 59% 60% 62% 59% 58% 69% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 51% 44% 42% 51% 47% 54% 41% 48% 49% Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 50% 63% 39% 46% 51% 50% 51% 51% 48%
~ L' '"
:5 -= i= c; £ ~ .2 Ž È ',,~, ~ jc: .~ u i 1:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 10 City of Elk Grove I 2009
~ i:'" ~ ' ~ m.: ,. ~ ~ ~ Question.12:Goy.ernmeQt Se.rvices Overall~(Per,cent~lè~tellent" or "go'òi:Ö .. a_ -- ~ M~ ~ . lIt; . ._~ - ,~, " m i! Rtmtorown Presence of children 17 or 'Presence ofadults 65 or older in l1QusehQ"Id Over~lI, how wotild)ou,råtethe quality of~~ ;1. !i~ NJ!lUber of ~yearsjñ. Elk~ G.iove~ ~. .~.~w hgme,. m ~: ~:u.ri~~rin hq,usehold I: ., ,'l " .' the services provi~ed by each ~f the lèss than 6 to 10 More than G fallowing? 5~years Own Nõ ¡ YeS'~ No Yes ~ - 9 "~ ,w::m ." .. . I I ~years 1 )1 years I~ Rènt:,1 L i :\ I ~ 1'57%ß The City of Elk Grove 76% :'59% ii 63% 68% 68% 65% 66% 71% The Federal Government 28% 40% 24% 40% 28% 32% 29% 28% 40% The State Government 19% 32% 25% 17% 26% 26% 23% 22% 36% 42% Sacramento County Government 30% 36% 30% 25% 33% - ~Q% M )5o/i - 11.; 30%
.. i. ,. _if 'i ..~ . " ~_",','~" .'", . .: , " Ques:i§!i'13:,Çont~ct"with City Employèes (Percént r.yes") . .. ~ ".li ~ . . - :. Presence of children Rent or own ' 17 or under ifi Prêsence of adults 65 ~I I N!Jmber of years in Elk Grave or older in household . I I home household . m. - ~ ~ " ,: less ..Morel' e, '.~ than 5 6 to 10 than 11"'1 '::',;~ ~ years. , Rent O~wn No Yes i., '.' .. " . years years " Yes, ,No Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an ~ employee of the City of Elk Grove within the last 12 months ,'. (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? 33% 43% 38%I 34% 37% 34% 38% 35% 44%
ò .' "r'~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ " ~ ~ o.~ ~.H.o..'C. '" , ~ Question 11: City Employees (Perc,ent ':t!~cet!t!ñt¡¡ or "good'i).,. - ~ ~ . ~ ¿ ~ ~ rc Presence of children 17 &; I "dient o~ own d Nuiiller of years in Elk Grove :.r. under, in ..ti9!Jsehald ,older in household ~ What was your jmpressi6n.' òf'. t~e employee(s)~ :",', of 1" i. home, m i r~pre~ence of~dults 65. or "3 the ç~ty of Èík Çrove in yòLir mast recent i less than 6 to 10 More,than' ''': .... g " contact?:: ., '5 y~å.rs' years I 1 years , Rent ¡"own J" " No,. Yes ~ Yes ~ , ,. . 1 I r' ~ No. .1 i Knowledge 78% 83% 66% 66% 79% 75% 80% 79% 73% È y ~ Responsiveness 72% ,. 81~) 50% 55% 71% 64% 74% 70% 68% ~ ~ Courtesy 70% 77% 73% 55% 77% 66% 80% 73% 78% ~ 78% 54% 51% 69% 56'óo 65% 73% 3: Overall impression 66% ~ 25%; a .~ u ~ .9i 1
The National Citizen SurveyTM 11 City of Elk Grove I 2009
.. ~ ~ " !I ~ '~ " 1W i.~~-j -,'-" ;,,'~ 'f.'"";., ".' :-", ',,0.' "';". ""cc,,r,C.'7,,.,. . ,",'C.",:." "",_ ....::... ",'" -Ii ,,--,- -"'...... o ,'" '" .. - ~ ~ - ...... Questip_n15:.Governm.ent l'erforllanceJPercent "excellent".ßr ~good") .. .. ~' Jß ", ,'N . ~ ," ~ ~ ~ ~ Rent or own Pfesence of children 17 oroo ,Presencé of adùits 65 or" ~ ~ .. NlImber of years in Elk Grove home .under in hausehold c'i ~olderJn household. I ~ i - - ~ .. .' Please ratethe f,!JI!?:-ing~~tegories of Elk less than "' 6 to 10 Morethar' ", ,¡. Grove government performance: 5 years, .;: years 11 Rent ~Yes. ~ Yes_ "'.¡¡ '": ,;- ~ i;\ ". ".n._ I years J ,i 9'-n ,i ..,:Nom_~ J_ 1S0 ~,~ - The value of services for the taxes paid to Elk Grove 52% 44% 35% 51% 44% 48% 42% 44% 49% '. The overall direction that Elk Grove is if. """ I! 'd' ~ taking ,_43% ',W ," '" )7.l~ :l, 20./õ" " 46% 32% 39% 31% 32% 47% The job Elk Grove government does at welcoming citizen involvement 45% 41% 35% 33% 43% 47% 37% 39% 52% ~, ~ il ~~ The job Elk Grove government does at .~ .. '" listening to citizens 34% 39% 22% 30% 33% . ~!:4.. . . ;;J,f!:I. 'i w 31% 40%
~ ' 'v I~ fi!l Question'16:Rec,ommendation and longevity,(Percent"somewhat" or "very~'.likely)
Ii, Refit'or awn "ilpresènc,,~ ôf,childre, ",17 or~ Presence'ôf adults 65,or I Number~ ~"of yearsin,Eik ~ Grove. . ~ hd'rnl. ~ .. . under iahouseho!d ill . older in hoúsehoJd .. Please in"dicate höw'(likei~,fôr unlikely 'You ~ ", ,i ¡í are,W'C1o each of the following: I: . 5 years '" years 11 years No "" Yes~ ~ ~ ~ - ' , ' f'",'., less than I' 6"io 10 I More than I Re:t Own ~ No I ~ Xes '", '''il°' ~ .~~l ~ '! Recommend living in Elk Grove to ¡J U'lt~ ~ someone who asks 90Ò¡~, 66./~ gii%' 83% 75% '" 82% 71% 76% 81% u .. Remain in Elk Grove for the next five years 88% 76% 77% 84% 82% 85% 80% 82% 83% ? ~ M " " " Impact ô(tHeEconomy (Percent "soínewhat"or ",yery" positiv~e): ~,' , ~ '" "" ," ..~ , Qi.'estion 17: - ~ G . 9 ~ ,"~ æ ~~ " .~ c' 'Ii w ~,c ~ i Rentotôwn Presence of children 17 Presence of adults 65 I ki z or under in househ.old .1 Number of years in Elk Grove I home I I 9,r ol~~r.iri~i:usße,lJold ::" ".. 2":: iesstlìan"'l 6 to 10 .~ 11 years Own No Yes ~ ~ ~ . ~r~ M M ... I ~ years years r;Mor~thån i Rent,. ~I I No ". I l' Xes i ~ I ~ What impact, if any, do you think the economy will c .~ have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do 14% 20% 11% 8% 16% 14% 15% 14% 18% u you think the impact will be: I ~ ,9 ž 1:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 12 ..
.. National Citizen SurveyTM
CITY OF ELK GROVEi CA 2009
Report of Geographic Subgroup Comparisons
~~S~ATR~~ IN.. ((J ~ATIONAL I€Må 3005 30th Street 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500 Boulder, CO 80301 Washington, DC 20002 wW.n-r-c.com · 303-444-7863 www.icma.org. 202-289-ICMA City of Elk Grove I 2009
"* E;~ D,.,N, T" SiN, '1 !:t Survey Background...... 1 About The National Citizen SurveyTM ...... 1 Understanding the Results ...... 2 "Don't Know" Responses ...... ,...... 2 Understanding the Tables...... 2 Comparisons ...... 3
~ ~ uî'
~'" &: ~ ~ '¡: 3i :;. .D )0 a; 2: '" en ~ '1-= U -; '¡:§ 3i ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM City of Elk Grove i 2009
,~ ~.~l;.,R~ "~Ef'6 El ~,g'K;ì; i~(J.¡,LJ~lQ ABOUT THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEyTM The National Citizen SurveyTM (The NCS™) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality survey methods and comparable results across The National Citizen SurveytM jurisdictions. Participating households are selected at random and the household member who responds is selected without bias. Multiple mailings give each household more than one chance to participate with self-addressed and postage paid envelopes. Results are statistically weighted to reflect the proper demographic composition of the entire community.
The National Citizen SurveyTM customized for this jurisdiction was developed in close cooperation with local jurisdiction staff. The City of Elk Grove staff selected items from a menu of questions about services and community problems; they defined the jurisdiction boundaries NRC used for sampling; and they provided the appropriate letterhead and signatures for mailings. City of Elk Grove staff also determined local interest in a variety of add-on options to The National Citizen SurveytM Basic Service.
~
~ o 2 eu :w £
.~§ z D;,. ¡; )-. ;¡ ~ en
.¡:~ (j e, .9 z;¡ .£'" f-
The National Citizen SurveyTM 1 City of Elk Grove I 2009
y, LJ,~N P'~:B ~."FA N, qflj~NtlG¡¡ "1 AiE R E:(~ U:L l' S;'æ "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer "don't know." The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item.
UNDERSTANDING THE TABLES In this report, comparisons between geographic subgroups are shown. For most of the questions, we have shown only one number for each question. We have summarized responses to show only the proportion of respondents giving a certain answer; for example, the percent of respondents who rated the quality of life as "excellent" or "good", or the percent of respondents who felt the rate of growth was "about right." ANOVA and chi-square tests of significance were applied to these comparisons of survey questions by geographic subgroups. A "p-value" of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between subgroups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed are "reaL." Where differences were statistically significant, they are marked in grey.
The 95 percent confidence level for this survey is generally no greater than plus or minus six percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (259 completed surveys). For each Zip Code (95624, 95757, and 95758) the margin of error rises to approximately + or - 12% since sample sizes were approximately 97 for 95624, 71 for 95757 and 91 for 95758.
~ ~. ~ u~ ~ ." ~ ¿¿
~ .-= i:: -D , t;- ~ a; ,~ o ~ ".:Õ :i '" F
The National Citizen SurveyTM 2 City of Elk Grove I 2009
tI ~ II db M PARI SON 5 Ii' )4' l'; ') 8l\ b m ;",! ~I Cells shaded grey indicate statistically significant differences between subgroups.
. " ~, ,., ~ " " , Question 1: Qiìality of lie (Percent;"excellent'~or :good") . . ~ ~ " '... " ~ ~ =~ ~ ~ '" '" * ~ ~ H Zip Code. i ~ - ~ l- ~ '~Pleas"e rate ,each ofthe foilowingaspects of q~uality of life inElk'Grove: 95757 ~ .. . ". li". ,'" "" ". "' M. _ w:ii ..", ~~ "'ê , , , 95624 I ~,~ ",95758 . Elk Grove as a place to live !I 73% ii'%' ~~8§% , Your neighborhood as a place to live 79% 83% 77% Elk Grove as a place to raise children 68% 73% 82% Elk Grove as a place to work 46% 39% 57% Elk Grove as a place to retire 45% 50% 51% The overall quality of life in Elk Grove 68% 72% 80%
" " =', - ,"" " ~ ~ ~ "'~ .',,~ .. ", ... ,Question'"2:Çómmunity Characteristics (Percent "excellent" or ,ígood~) - ~ ~ ., " . - . '" m ;;: ..Zip Code ,; Please rate each of tile following characteristics as they relatito Elk Grove as a whole: 9~62~" I'i'." 95757' 95758 ~ . ~ .~ _ . . "'. '''.~ ',' ..., '.' ~ 1 Sense of community 50% 59% 57% ~ Openness and acceptance of the community towards people of diverse backgrounds 75% 78% 68% .. ,i 83'ilo Overall appearance of Elk Grove '69%~ 83% l ~ o Cleanliness of Elk Grove 74% 81% 78% -' Overall quality of new development in Elk Grove 46% 58% 57% ~ "- Variety of housing options 54% 63% 70% "" Overall quality of business and service establishments in Elk Grove 51% 54% 60% 'S Shopping opportunities 51% 36% 51% z Opportunities to attend cultural activities 37% 32% 43% 1; " 2':; Recreational opportunities t. 4i'% 45% ¡¡~;.,64"1o" l 2 12% 15% 15% ~ Employment opportunities 47% 52% 53% :: Educational opportunities .:: 52% u Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 43% 54% '; Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 67% 63% 67% .9 Opportunities to volunteer 55% 50% 50% i 56% 54% ;; Opportunities to participate in community matters 55% ¡:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 3 City of Elk Grove I 2009
, " , %, i'S " i Rl,jj B Question 2: Community Characttris,tics (~ércent "éx-Zellerh:'or, :gogd") 'lL w ~M Ðjk ,~,,,,,", ",,, "'~'" '",'", "'" - . ,'" , ,'" ~ , ¡¡ '" ~ "' "!, ~ Zip Code I = w M "7 ~ Please rate each of the followirì èharâcteristics as they relat~ to Elk Grove as a'whole: 9,âfi~i", ",,951s~ ~ "' B '" ..,e ,;~- '! I\ ;" ,¿. ''1 ~,l"''! "" ~ " ''C,~ "''' I i" ~5ZS8" Ii Ease of car travel in Elk Grove " 42°(0 ~ '"",,, 5l%, ','.. 62Xo.!i "" ¿; Ease of bus travel in Elk Grove ,'" "29%, "~ 56% 45% I Ease of bicycle travel in Elk Grove 46% 62% 64% ~ Ease of walking in Elk Grove sri;; 64°1; !§' 71% I Availability of paths and walking trails 53% 60% 64% Traffic flow on major streets 31% 47% 42% Availability of affordable quality housing 39% 53% 57% Availability of affordable quality child care 31% 39% 44% Availability of affordable quality health care 54% 50% 55% Availability of affordable quality food 66% 61% 67% Availability of preventive health services 42% 55% 56% ¡:i Air quality %'12°/ô 69% 55;0 I i~ i,,, Quality of overall natural environment in Elk Grove ,45,% 68% 68% J :i ~ Overall image or reputation of Elk Grove ~ ",S5~l0 67°1''1 ~ J m 72°/~i;,, I 2 " ~ " '" , ~, ~ ¡¡ "," ~' ,. ,~ ,'k, " '"" ~ B ~ ~ w" , ,ii, 'Qòestion 3: Crowth(Percent", "" , "too fast") ~ . " B = .. m " ~ "" ~, , " M " c ') Zip C()de~ . o - .. -' Please rate the speed of growthin the following categories in Elk Grove ove~r the past 2 years: 95624 95757B 95758 i: M . 0' ::~ ..: ,-, "",¡: - . it ": 19 . ~ ,i' . I I '" Population growth 65% 59% 61% £ 26% 21 % 27% ~ Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc.) .§ Jobs growth 2% 2% 3% z~ ?: ", '" ~, , '" II Questioi; 4: Code Ei;torceinent (Pexcent at lèast a "minor!! problem) ¡ ~ -~~:s ll " ,,', ')- ìi . -,., i"'" ",' I Zip CodéM_ i,' 2: ~ '" j; I 95624 95757 95758 "" a i$ ,~, I ~i i~ x .': To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in Elk Grove? I 91% I 85% I 83% o ~ i .È
The National Citizen SurveyTM 4 City of Elk Grove I 2009
" .' , \ì, ' ,," ,', ,,".... ", ',' . ~ æ M R . Question 5:~Community,Safety (Peri:ent "very" 9r "s9rnewhat" safe) , . 1l_ B .. M " .. ii 'I~ i .~ Zip C9de .~ Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in Elk Grove: '9562'4 95758 %' . ~ '\l ,,', 'i: :"1'.k :; a '\W ~ . "" M 95757 ',', I Violent crime (e,g" rape, assault, robbery) 61% 62% 62% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 37% 46% 54% Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 65% 77% 79%
- .,' ." "somewhat" safe).'" . . B . Quêstion,6: Per~onal Safety (P'iúnt "vêry: or . - ~ . - ~ .. '" i " iipC9de ,,' ", please rate how safe ortinsafe you feel: 95~24 ... ~ . I' IU I!i;"' -ll i¡ i' i= Vi l:it . ~ l!iI"l . ~'. J ~,," ~F57. ,- 'b" ,~5758 , In your neighborhood during the day 85% 88% 91% In your neighborhood after dark 67% 64% 75% In Elk Grove's commercial areas during the day 80% 89% 84% In Elk Grove's commercial areas after dark 38% 44% 47%
~ " " ~ ~ ,,~,F '''~... ~ o. ,,' Questiori~Z ang)l:CrimeVrctimjzaiìônârid Reportiríg fPerèenr"ýestÌ) " ," ~ ~ '?""C'" ~ I " y Zip Cm!if '." '.. ~ it ;; ~ . !i !'.' ¡¡ ff~¡' ~ ('- ~" . .. " " I 95624 ,i 95757 I. .95758 ~~ During the past twelve months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? I 21% I 19% I 14% o -' If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? I 73% I 73% I 79% y ~ ~ .~ :Z È '" '" ~ v:
.~ u ~ .2i 1:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 5 City of Elk Grove I 2009
c. 'd. ~ ~ ';": ~ - Qu~stion9:. Résident Bellavi~rsJl,eIcent e.t least.qn,te in past~12 months)~ ~ - ~ .. . - ..~ ",' ~ In tile last 12 ';onth~abo~th~~ mariytim~s, if eve!, hâve youßr other, h§usehòldme~b~rs p~rticip~te(¡in th~ foll?wing activiti~in :I".d.. :.. iipÇQ'de .,' ~ _ ~ ~ e . .. ~. _ Elk~ ~. Grove?"" ~ ~ ~.il ~ ¡95 .' 24",95757 6'1 .'1 . 957.58~ Used Elk Grove public libraries or their seivices 63% 66% 60% Used Elk Grove recreation centers 51% 56% 63% Participated in a recreation program or activity 48% 55% 45% Visited a neighborhood park or City park 94% 92% 87% Ridden a local bus within Elk Grove 14% 12% 15% "' t~*'~ Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 30%. ,21%\$ ..14% ~ Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on cable television 27% 19% 35% Read Elk Grove Newsletter 87% 87% 82% Visited the City of Elk Grove Web site (at www.elkgrovecity.org) 64% 64% 60% Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 97% 90% 93%
Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Elk Grove .~ .48% 25% "32% f53% ¡i, Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Elk Grove 47% 33% Participated in a club or civic group in Elk Grove 36% ¡¡17% 14% Provided help to a friend or neighbor 94% 97% 93% ~ ~ . rn.Question'JO: Neighb~r,lin~ss (Percent atJeast onc~ per moTith)" î I ~ .. , U " ~ ;~ -" il ~ if d', "'ii = .~ I .... Zip Code~ .... 7- _ '.d... ~ _ ~ ~ " . " ~ . ~",;R "" ~ "'. I ?5"624 J 95157 I' 957S.8 '" "" About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors (people who live in the 10 or 20 households that are i- -I~~""I"- .it1' closest to you)? i "87% .. .'69°io ...~. 79% . . z È ~~ si Jc :. .:: u ~ i 1:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 6 City of Elk Grove I 2009
ú , d " ~ " ,d" !i ,,, .. ~ ~ - '"" " ~ QIJestioõ 1 l¿ S,srviceQuality (Percent "ê'xcellent': or "good") .. MM H ~ ~ ,eM M ,. d j '" '" ~"Zip ,!=ode ~T; i ~ "~; :t "" Please râte thequaliy'bf eâch of the following servi'tes in Elk Grove: .,'t 9575Z 95758 d M R M ~ ,.,_',' ,,:i- C,' '.... '.,. !F;, .-:' ,.-~ ~ ? -, )s6i4d J Police services 71% 84% 78% Fire services 93% 96% 88% Ambulance or emergency medical services 89% 91% 91%
Crime prevention 47% '" 69~0 64°t: 1 Fire prevention and education 68% 75% 74% Traffic enforcement 55% 63% 60% Street repair 4iì1jo ~ " 'š6°¡~' " 62°/0~ I
Street cleaning 46"'0 ~¡iB/~, 68%.. -R'
Street lighting 71% 75% 65% Sidewalk maintenance 62% 73% 66% Traffic signal timing 37% 47% 46% Bus or transit services 55% 55% 50% Garbage collection 92% 85% 88% Recycling 90% 84% 89%
~- Yard waste pick-up 85% 83% 85% ~ Storm drainage 64% 77% 66% ô Drinking water 47% 58% 46% ~ '" Sewer services 73% 80% 66% £ Power (electric and/or gas) utility 70% 77% 80% Parks 85% 97% 88% .§. ".'1;,....,," :i Recreation programs or classes 77% " 92°/~ 74%"', i ~ Recreation centers or facilities 77% 84% 79% :- land use, planning and zoning 30% 49% 38% ',.!- ','-"',',,, ~ w i1 ~ vo Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) ,,28%' .~ 41% 51% li' N Animal control 53% 70% 57% u 34% 32% 33% -; Economic development 54% 76% 61% .g Health services i Services to seniors ",57ïl0 "" I~ . 86% 66°£0". c. ¡. Services to youth 53% 73% 61%
The National Citizen SurveyTM 7 City of Elk Grove I 2009
" !1 ~ :~,'", ~ K ~ ,~ -- ~ l!ia~"I .. ~ Question 11:'Service Quålitý"(Percent"èxcêlleiì" 'or "g~Ód") ~ ,'," '; ß "ß '" ~ ~ \; " "'",,"" ,',' n " ,'" I ~ ~, ? ~ :rip Coi;ê~ ~ 'Please rate the quality of each of the folló'wing service's in Eí~G¡ôve: '! ~95',.5'8 "" ~, "',' " n,',,~v, _ ~~" .. .,' ~ \~ I 9562~ ~ 95757 "i Services to low-income people 47% 69% 45%
Public library services 73%",:: "" 89% 64% .".~.. Public information services 59%'¡; 78% ",,49% . Public schools 71% 85% 80% Cable television 63% 59% 56% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 38% 48% 55% Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 45% 61% 45%
i. r~' n "' i/_.-" ~~ "", ¡;'" .. ~ ~ " ~ " Question 12: GoyernrnentServjçes Oyerall (Percent:'exctllent\~i:r:'g()od") , ,,'" " ~ 8, ,'", ~ _f., ~, " ~ -, ". "- ,~ ,,~ , '" " i-' ~ ., Zip Coi;e - ~ " " ,',"" """' ~ 9verali,'how would you rate the quality of the services provided by eac" of the foÎìowing? '.. ,r" . ....,' ~ "CO" ._.~ ., ',:', ~ i', 'f I 95624 "'I 95757 I 95758, The City of Elk Grove \ 63% 74% 63% The Federal Government 24% 37% 30% ';; "4''£''" The State Government , ,,1 ::òil' 34%" 22% J ~ Sacramento County Government 28% 43% 26% ., " . , l . ""Question 13: Contact with City EmploYe,es (Percent :yes"). . m u r e, ,~ ~ i: I,",. Zip Code t~ " ~ ", I' !!562i!9575Ž,1:9S,758 c¿ Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Elk Grove within the last 12 months (including police, ~ receptionists, planners or any others)? I 44% I 39% I 27% z , ;. ~ '" "' 'ìi .: " . ,), m . '" ~Question 1l: City ~mploýees (eei;çent "excei.ent" or "goqc,") ~ '" . ~, , '.' ..,',., ,"'.' ;. . "" ~ ~, m ~ 'J '. 0- I - Zip Code . ~ What was your impression òf the employee(s) o(the ÇitYóf Elk Grove in your most recent contact? 95624 95757 V' ~ ii i; w M''\ ;ç ~ "" -.,' ..", "" 'i,'.-.- .'oi,,', '." ", ".' I~ h '''95.758 76% 73% 81% .~ Knowledge o Responsiveness 65% 63% 77% ~ Courtesy 72% 65% 81% .9 76% Ž Overall impression 60% I 65% -f-
The National Citizen SurveyTM 8 City of Elk Grove I 2009
" 15: Government Performance (Percent "excelleiit"'or "good")~, QuestiOn ~ - ~ '" .'. 'j .Y', ',' Zip Cod!,, N x;;, i M '" Pleire rate the foiìowingcategóries of E.i~ Gr6ve gover~nment performance: 95674". ¡95Z,57 R.I 9575iL 'l " ',,- :* :'.'. - lI' Ii . il \.~ . .. " ~ i I b The value of services for the taxes paid to Elk Grove "33% I 51% ~-52% , The overall direction that Elk Grove is taking 26% 41% 38% The job Elk Grove government does at welcoming citizen involvement 43% 37% 43% The job Elk Grove government does at listening to citizens 28% 37% 35%
;;. ,.~ '" ..... ~ '" . ~ ~. Questiun.1(i: Recomrnen~atiQn and Lo¡nge~ity (P~fc~ni¡:some~hat" or, ':Ve.ry: ifkely) "" ',¡ .. ,~ " " .""" " ~ !" '" ~ ., ,¡¡, ZipCôde j¡, Please iñdicáte how likely brunliJ(ely you are to do each of the following: R 95621. I .~95ZŠZ . ~i- ~'9,sr5ll ,,,:c -',j,/ '-:-, ,-,-.::' "I: " ",.:" 'l! ;lJ b Recommend living in Elk Grove to someone who asks .' ~67¡'/o¡ ..... ~I 8Ô% -I~ 'íB% I
Remain in Elk Grove for the next five years 79% I 82% I 86%
¡" Q'ùestioii 17: Impact of the Ëcoòòmy (P,ei:cent."someßwlÎat" õr,~~y.!ry" positive) ., ~', .. ,ft .E', I, " Zip Çode'l " ¡ 95,758 ~ ~ p w ,m¡, ,.1. 956ìl19Šisi' I What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: I 18% I 14% I 13% S: Ó
~ './', ¿¿
': Ž È ~:; ~ 3 î N v 1i 1:
The National Citizen SurveyTM 9 )) .. ;P ~ "F,ocu.so F.¡,.di .! .Report
:Pre?ènted .f tity of Uk 'Grove
l"Ø
II
II
I' I"
" Co Communications Introduction
OnJanuary 5 and 6,201 0, the city of Elk Grove conducted four focus groups to follow upon the
N ationalCitizen Surey conducted in 2009.. The quantitative pen-and-paper survey queried a
samplig ofresidents about qualtyoflife, service delivery, civic participation and utiqueissues of local interest; Elk Grove staffhaddetermned afterreviewingthe National Citizen Survey results they wanted to delve further into particular opinions from the residents in a focus group setting.
Methodology
Participants were asked a series of questions over an approxiately two-hour period relatig to
public trst, the diection Elk Grove is takig, customer service, jobs/economic growt, public safety ¡police. and. code enforcement.
It is important to note that focus group findings are qualitative, not quantitative. In other words, the
findings cannot be generalzed across the broader population. However, they can provide insight
into perceptions that drve behaviors and opitions.
The natueoffocusgroup recrutment ensures that a representative sample of members of the
community provide input into issues which affect them rather than a self-selection process.
Screetinghelpsproduceparticipants who engage in discussion with theissuesandinterests being represented.
Thirty residents participated in three general population groups; Screeting criteria were developed to
ensUre representation from the areas where the city was seekig more information and the overall population base withn the city.
The community leaders group included participants representing the priary areas beìngdiscussed.
Almost all lived in Elk Grove although afewrepresenting the jobs! economicimpact area were not residents.
Commutityleader representatives were from the following:
. Elk Grove Auto Mall Association . Fallbrook NeighborhoodAssociation
. Frankln Reserve Neighborhood Association . Frontier.Communications . GSREHA& Sheldon Commutity Association . KaiserPermanente . LagunaWestAssociation . OldTown Elk Grove Foundation . River City Bank . SMOG'N.Go
The followig report presents a summar of responses received. The focus groups were led through
Lucy the same discussion gude by Lucy Eidam of Co C01ntutications, although the community
leaders' discussion assumed a highedevel of famiarity with city services and more frequent city contact.
1 Key Summary Points
. No particular topíc stood out in the community leaders group when asked their feelings
about the overall diection Elk Grove was taking; general population participants expressed
concerns about the mall, too many strp malls, traffcandloss of the small town feeling.
. Wheriqueriedabout their opinions about how well the city listened to its citizens,
COtniinity leaders fdt the. city did an excellent job; nothig stood out in the general
population groups.
. When questioned in a top-of-mind format, po1iceservices was by far the most commonly
mentioned servcehythe general population participants as city services. Close behid was
waste management and utities/water.
. Overall, there was a feeligamongcomtunity leaders and genetalpopulation participants that there were not enough employment opportunities in the city. Themes included too
mal1ylowpaying jobs,the economy making it even more diffcult tofind employment and
not enough jobs in Elk Grove as compared to other dties.
. Specific jobs listed as desirable were white collar, state, medical; high tech, sports-related, jobs with benefits, call centers, manufacturing, computer servces and industry. . About half of participantswould change toasimarjob ìnElkGrove.
. The communty leaders group felt the city could help people start their businesses in the city
by providing a systematic process onhow to do so.
. Overall, participants felt safewithin the city limits and, of those who felt unsafe,the feeling
was usually at night.
. About a quarter would like to see more police patrols to reassure them and their famiy's safety.
. Of the two neighborhood associations with active Neighborhood Watch programs, they felt the program was very effective.The community leaders provided highly positive feedback
about the police department's involvement and customer servce.
. Coinri1Ul1ityleaders had a highly positive perception of the city's police department;
however, the general populationgroup was split more evenly with negative and positive feelings and experiences.
. More than half ofthe general population group participants did not know the meaning of
code enforcement, but onCe participants understood, the codeel1forcement department receivedmosùy positive comments.
2 Public Trust Initially, participants were asked to provide comments about the overall direction Elk Grove is taking and whether itsinovingin the wrong or right direction and why.
Community.Leaders
Nothing reallystood outîtl this initialdiscussion. T6picsmentioned more than once included the tleed to keep taxes and money in Elk Grove, the citywas tring to be more business friendly and was involving the community more.
Comments included:
. I have some concerns aboil! the proposed charter thry areputting together. Most people don 'tknow what a charter dty means.
. I think. the dty ìs. m01)ing in apositive. lìght involvng thi! community more and injòrmÌ1Jg residents more.
. I'm glad tosee thedtyformingwiththe Elk Groi)eEconomii:Devclopmcnt Corporation. Wehavealarge bedroomt'ttmJmity with not a lot ojgreatjobs.
. The cìty needs to strilJe tobiing bi/sinesse into the dty. We arc going in that direction.
. There is a perception that Elk Grove is separate from everyone else; It started with breakfromRegional
TraJisitand not being involvedin regional planning. . What ìs happening with the mall?!s there aplan?
General Population
The topics that stood out more than other were concerns about the mall, too many strip malls, too much traffc and thelossof the small town feeling/"Old Elk Grove." Afew alsomentiotled that
wh en growth occurred too quickly the citywasincorporated. There was a desire to have shopping all in one place, atopicthatarose partly from the discussion of too many strip malls.
Comments. included:
. There are series oj strip malls and houses, but no businessinfrastrutiiire,
. I'm glad growth has settled down. The busr)stemù not running asfrequently. It has ftwerservæs.
. In relation to the malL, thrysho¡¡/d have kejtmoving on it and not stalled on it. Thryshould have lìstened to
us (community).and notdo it as an open mall but a dosedmall.
. OveralL, thedtyis moiiing inthe.right direction. . TheJhipmal1s killedElk Grove oj what it used to be. . Businesses areptlllingoutbecause J seea lot ti Jor lease sìgns.
. I used to workasû pizza dcliverydriver.BusinesJi!s never stqyedJor too longin the area where I worked.
. Lwashoping to seethe mall open so I'mdìsappointed thatit's not. I would like more shops.
. Lused to be able to getfrom PointA to Point B qukkly, but now trafc ù horrble.
Patticipants were asked how weUElk Grove as .agovernmententity does atlistening to its citizens and why they felt that way. The community leaders were also asked to describe situations theywete aware ofthatmembers oftheirorganizationshad in this area.
Community.Leadets The city received high marks from community leaders.The planning commission, staff and "city overall" were specifically mentioned as doitlgan excellent job, being helpful, going above and beyond and communicating well by more than one participant. The many communications methods the city implements were also noted.
Several mentioned the city has had challenges, has overcome them and needs to publicize it to take credit. Areas thatwöuld help enhance the city "listenig" even more included individual council members holdig meëtingsand developing more neighborhoodassöciatioiis.
Commeiits included:
. Planning. commission docs an exællentjob. . Thepoliæ o.ærs arc unbiased and represent citizens. oj the
community welL Council doesn't alwqys listen to the commission.
. Wewentthrough (1 reæntplanningpriject in Old Town. It was open to the citizens to give input. It was not done quickly.It took several months and a lo oJgood came out oj it.
. The dty is very cooperative.They lîsten to our concimis.
. It's interesting about stqll Thry are not 9 to 5ers.lfyou run into them onthe stret, they respond. I cance'¡l
a'! council member, and they. will call me back.
. They usc every means oj communù'ation available. B-mail blasts. Faccbook. TwittCl:
. Thereis outreach to community, butwe nlid to do more to getpeoplcznvolt1ed.We need to know what has
been overcome 1¿ dty sopeople can have greater confidenæin the dty; ThO' need togetpeople involved in forums - mqybe online... The city needs to findwhatpeoplearc. emotionallY. 'tied to and get them involved. . Mqybemore council membersnced toholdindùJidùal public meetings. People getnervou5 at ,"ouncil meetings. Theseindividiial meetings arc less formaL . Citystqilmuldhold smalUownhal1 meetings. Neighborhood associations area big deaL The âty needs to
fostcrassocieitionsand matum environmentto make it ea.rer for them tofiinction and establîsh aisociations. The dtyshouldgivc them a seatatthe table to give inplltin their neighborhood.
. The citywide biidgetmeetingsshowedwillingncssto reach outto residents and getinput.
General Population
Nothing stood out in the general population groups. One group did not seem to know whether the city listened to its residents as part of theinitialset of questions. This particulargroupwas also the least irtformedabout whatis involved incitygövernmeiit and the services provided. When this
informed,. several saidtmough a . newsletter group was. asked how they .couldbe better (they did not know the city had one), Elk Grove Onliiie or the Elk Grove Citizen would be a good place to inform them about City information.
4 Customer Service The general populatîon groups were asked to conduct a written exercise to list servces they
thought were provided bytbe city. No prompts were provided.
Overwhelmgly, the most noted service was police with al but one participant listingit. Close behind was waste management andutilitieslwater.About half of thepartdpants stated fire, parks
andrecreation and schook A thid of the participants stated E-tran/buses.About one in five lis ted
codeenforcementi street servces, library and the Cosumnes Coimurity Services District (as
separate from fie and parks and recreation) as city-ptòvided services.
The moderator thenpr6vided a general listing of services provided by the city as:
. Stormwater, buidig safety and inspection . Business license
. Corntnurity enhancement( code enforcement and animal services) . Economicdeve1opment . Integrated waste (trash) . Planning . Police . Public works . Transit . Utity. bilg
The moderator also provided a list of servicesprövided by other agencies, which were fire
protection, all other water services, parks and recreation and schools.
Stil while talking to the general population partieipants,themoderator asked about
customer servce experiencesfromemployeesofthe city of Elk Gtoveandwhether they had
been positive or negative and why.
General Population
One in three, which was thernost highly ranked experience, shared positive experiences with the
police serices. E-Tran received almost equal positive andnegativecomrnents. The negative
comments werernostiyín one group and were about buses drving by bus-takers withoutstopping. .. Coiments included:
. E-Tran is great.lvyfriend losther walleton the bus and she got it back.
. Polke dpar/mentencourages tis to keep inlotlch regarding ÎssiJs. IV"e call the regular number and they are qiiick to comeoitt åndhelp.
. Misty andOffcer Trim respond through the iity'sWebsite. Irea/ly appreciate them.
. My20-year-old sontlses the bus to getto work. Thebtls drivesrightpasshùn ¡mdhe neverispkkedtp;
. When.there.are.loose.dogsin the. neighborhood, thrywerevery responsive, came ()utand took care. of the dog.
. I go/a business liænsefor massage therapy, No om knew what I needed to. do to get my license.. It would have
been betterl! the person would have rifreedme to someone else who might have known without guessing or sending me in the. wrong. direCtion !misC()mmUl1icatiol1.
5 . My hotisback.r tpto park. I ha1J bad good responsc fmm police on thenon-entegen~J'number when Lhad
issues at the park. They were very nice andrespondedquickfy to investigate.
. The neighbors behind me got a pig andmostpeopledon'thavepig hlElkGmpe.Code Enforcement scrs
they should not have a pig, but thepig is stillthere.J wish it Were resolved. I'm not sure now where i!stands with the city.
. Getting the permit took awhile for my new rotiltwas.asif ito one was in a htl1yto get it processcd. I felt blown r!from thecity. Ittookalong time.
6 Growing. Jobs/Employment
The participants were asked about employment opportunities în ElkGrove and how it compared with other cities. .
Community.Leaders
Duringthe opening discussion, community leaders initiated their comments by talkig about more
employment needs in Elk Grove so this topic area generated considerable discussion. Several felt
Elk Gtoveshouldpursue more government jobs, the city suffered a reputation of (state) being diffcult to do business with (although both who stated this noted thatthe city had becoine easier lately), more reasonable fees would help stiulate more employers to theareaandtoomanystrip malls were not beneficiaL. Two participants shared experierices from large employers, ALLDATA and Kaiser Permanente, which had worked with Elk Grove.
Cotnents included: . Elk Grove needs toshowgovernllentagencies thatgovernmentbusinessesshouldmove into the ciry. We have
what they need- land and buildings to supportthat tye'!work.
. Itis important to have cityt'ouncil members who understand the viabiliry'! having good quah"tsmall
businesses int'ommuniry. Ma'! in government don't understClnd the contept of how small businesses run and
how to make a payrolL They need to understand howto makedollarsgeneratemoneyJorthe city;
. Business folk,sneed to and not pay fees, but reasonable fees have fees out '! reat.h for anew business.
. There needs to be a one~stopshopatthe dtyjorthoseintersted Ì/i startingabusinesJin the ciry.There needs
to be someone who l'n walk me through the wholeproæss and align me with loca/banks for small loans. Use
businesses within the t'ommuniry to biindle rea/estate, t'apita!, eft. together to help streamline getting busineûesrunning.. Thecityshouldspread outfees over time.
. The general impression islhatit's difcult to do business Ì1IElk Grove. That has chang(J, but it hasn't been advertised.
. We needprofssionalserlJim, technology, government andmedicalfieldhereso thatpeople.who live.here can
work here. We ned to keep our revenue Ì11 the dry. We need 10 realfypiish the angle 4 how 10 get over
superioriry mmplexof the city. Befre, if you r:ouldn't cird to run a business in Elk Grove, then you were
toldto leave, And biisiness did. Now we are stutk We need to market what we have -space,good schools, an educatedivorkjòræand good semndary edut'ation facilities close /:;
. Kaiser Permanente is opening a newfatiliry in 2011. Kaiser felt the dry helped make that happen.
. The ciry gotinvolvedwith ALATA and made it easièrforthemto stay. AILATAfeltgood about how the ciryapproat'hed them and made them feel wanted. Cilyshouldget testimonials like that out there to
help spread the word.
. An ad campaign would be good and bene.tia~fortheci"t. We.shouldnot be ciraid to spend dollars to invest now and bring businwesin noW. We tYJlildgainso much more jòrthe fiitiire.
General Population There was an overall feeling that Ell( Grove does not offerenoughjobopporronities; Jobs that were available wereonlyinvery specific "low paying" segments such as retail, restaurants, etc. Several participants noted that the city did not plan for jobs. Ofthosewho werelooking for work or knew
someone lookig for work said that there were fewerjobsavailableinElk Grove than other
areas! cities; Some noted that more businesses had closed recently because of the economy. A few
others noted the AAACal Center had left Elk Grove.
7 Comments included:
It seems to be either/ow pqyingjobsorstrip mall l)c jobs inElkGrove.
ElkGrovejob postingson Craig'sUst arc very low. . Temp agencies.inElk Grove arc sendingpeople.outr!Elk Groveforclericall)e jobs. . Sen/it'theciryfor tyejobs,.such.as insurance,ftnancial those planning, etc. arc notservt's. in Elk Grove ' so people need togo out of
. Elk GroV!/ docs not seem to attrad or retain higher endjobs.
. It isadomitlo cfd rihousesnotJellingand people not being able to find jobs.
. The dry built 30,000 homes but never had thejobs to supportlhecommttniry. Evcryonehastodrivcto
Sacramento for work.N ow we arc all stuck iti gridlock on the freewqys.
. I've been lookingjor yearsto work close to home but I tan't find at!)thing in themedicalfield. There's not a whole lot here for me.
. I've been. tojob fairs in town and it's all jor larger companies olJtsideriElk . Grove.
. Five perænt ri the j(Jbs areavc¡Zlable,ifthat, in Elk Grove. I don't Watit to travel far due to gas prit's and
time. Everywhere is limited and matfgo qfer the same open positions so it's a tougbcompetitiotl.
. The dry needs to have more state oft's. S omeof us in IT (fr state) live inElk Gro1)e~We lookedtoopen
an rike hereandthe rents were too high. We considered Natomasinstead jorreasonable rent.
. Ican'tfinda job in a medÙ'alfaciliry where J am trained, secretarial, etc. lam findingmorejob opportunitie.r outside of Elk Grove. . It IJsed tobe the fastest growing dry in the fOuntry, but now the malland schools are ha!fbttilt. Opportunities mqy not be better than. atfwhere else, but there arc not a lot riwhite-collar jobs here. regardless..1 need to fOmmute awqy fromElk Grove tawork.
. My 26-:ear-old daughter cannot findemplqymentin Elk Grove to be ableto live on her own.
The community leaders were askedwhattypesofjobs they felt would be beneficial to members of their organizations and the city.
Community Leaders TIie participants looked at this issue from a quality of life standpoint ,.. spendig time with their famiy - and an economic sta.ndpoint ~ businesses that give backto the community.
Comments included:
. We should bring in businesses that can git)e back to thecommuniry - tax dol/ars, etc.
. The ciryshouldbting inprojiJsionaljobs,such asjìnancial insurant', taxgeneratingbusinesses,call centers, non profts,. sports, ek . The ciry should keep the monry in the tommuniry so people work and spctidtimeeating and entertaining here in ElkGrove.
Desired jobs (Tis list also includes input from one general population focus group)
. White collar . State . Medical . High tech Sports
. Jobs with benefits
8 . N on profits . Call centers . Manufacturing . No more small retail ( except to fùl vacancies) . Computer services . Industr
Participants were asked whether theywouldchange to a similarjòb in Elk Grove and why
they would do so~
Community Leaders and General Population There were no significant differences between the groups. About half of the participants would
change jobs to work in thecotnunitytheylive in. The reasons stated by the cotnunity leadersfor
themselves and members of their organizations were no different from those of the general
population groups. Answers centered on quality of life issues, such as saving timeoncomtute and spending more time .with. famiy. A few said. they would.llot change jobs.because .of their longevity with their employer.
Comments included:
. I would move doserbetause offinandal stabilityand qualiryof lif. When you have oppoitunities to work
closer to home, everythingelseflows better. You save time andmonry, and tax dollars stcrlocal.
. I'dtakea smallpcrcutifbenefts andthe i'(reerpathwas ai/ailable here. I'd give up a bit of monryto stcr doserto home atid have more time at home. . Twould not change becaiise I have longeviry with empl'Der
. I'd work here ifajob were here. J would love to onlY drive 10 minutes to work.
. I would move her. I would like to work in Elk Grove.
The discussion proceeded to whether any of the participants had thought about starting
their own business, what their experience was, and if they would like to, what was keeping them from duing so.
Community Leaders
Several in the community leaders group said thatifthe city was able to assist people who were
a business business to come to the city), it would be highly startig (or big beneficialto provide a systematic process on how to do so. Rosevile was mentioned as an example, About half the participantsinentioned that an advertising and marketing campaign would be essential. Durg brainstortng ideas, they shared that different audiences would requie different messages and mediums.
Comments included:
. Afriendis looking into it butitis dauntingforher. She wishes there was an adtJoftte to help with the business.overwhelmingprocess. Itsacomplù'(ted process; It would be helpful to have .a how-to guide to start a . The dry needs to be caJltious as to what infrmation is given as.. "dry" infrmation. It needs to show dry is
fostering business development.
9 . It depends on whomyouadvertseto -btlJÎnesseJ otltojElk Groúe needonerype oj campaign. In town, the ciryshouldtarget resident. difrentlY to make them ftel good intheircommuniry.
. Again, havingpositive testimonials arc good to chatige perception. The ciryshould also think about having online testimonials. .
. Thcdry should do multijaceted outreach campaign. Elements to rcognizeElkGrovC11eeds togrow with
business ryes.Also, theciryshould market what makes Elk Grove pedaL. The âtyshouldstartwith grassroots ifòitJforsmallbusinesses. OpBdpieces. The ciryshouldholdsmall town hall meetings. '" . The dry needs to look at wIl) businesses arc cloJing¡;nd address it. Thecity should usc incentives to .fll existing. inventory. . Tberemustbe incentivesjor businesses to move business from Sacramento to Elk Grove.
Gentral Population Afew had thoughtaboutstarting theitown business, andonewasintheprocessof startngher own
massage therapy business and was frustrated by highenents in Elk Grove than outside the dty.
Start-up capital and the current state of theeconomywerethe ptimaryreasons stated for not starting
a business as mentionedby those thinking of startng a business.
Comments included:
. I'mmrrntly lookingjora place to hang a shingle. lts hard to open in Elk Grove when rent is $200-300 more thanùi Sacramento. I wouldlovetowork in Elk Grove, butlcan'tqfrd it.
. High schools cannot provide things to do so I'd like to open a place jor teenagers togo tobcfre Òr qjierschooL. . I'd liketo knowhow to gela business license. . I wotlld n%pen abusinessuntilmorebusinessesdei)elop and.fll in vacancies. . Some cities ofrgrants jor small businesses, thercfore,Elk Grove should ofr low rents and thengradually raise rents to help yotl get started in a location.
10 Public Safety/Police. Department
The next discussion was about whether the participants felt safe within the city limits. The
moderator asked if theyfeltsafeduriiig the day and at night and why they feltthatway.
There was no significant difference betWeen thecommunityJeaders group andthe general population group. Overall, more participants felt safe. Of those participants who felt unsafe, they
seemed to. feel safer durig the day than at night. Ahand full of participahts - more males than
females-said that they felt safe doing a1kindsofactivitiesin the city day and night.
Of those who said they felt unsafe, about half of them based their feelingsonexperiendng/hearing
about property crimes and half on experiencing/hearing about violentcrîes. Some of the reasons
of feeling unsafe included graffti, speedig traffc, not enough police patrols and police being too
quick to judge.
Coinents.included:
. The crime rate in rura/area is so low. We arc happy and ftc/saf in theSheldon area.
. There was a youth maJ'ter plan in Franklin area. We did need the asmsmcntwith yoiith safty. . Teens were
things likegangJ' and violence. We wantedtosccmorepolice and afraid of other teetlbecallJ'e of better
relationship with Elk Grove UnijiMSchoolDistrictpolice and Elk Grove police dept.
. Crimes increased inour neighborhood Franklin and Fallbrook andLaglina. It's more of ane~'onomic have of isstI,not safty.issiie. There arc lotsofpropert.crmes, biit not safty.concerns,
. I don't leel saf. My car got broken into diiring the middle of dqy at Ip.m.in my drivewer. I hear of a lot
aboiitbreak-ins. Idon't see a lot of police.
. I leel saj.MYfOurt has a lotofpeopleworkingfromhomeduririg thedqy.
. I wotildnot letmy wif or kid walk to school/ store~ It's not saf for trqflÙ" reasons. People are hit l¿carj,
. Ileel saf.! never had bad issues. I lived here since I was young. 1 live around the comer from this city
building. My son can go to the park withotltmewoirying.
. It depends on where youare. I live in a quiet area, and it's fine, btit some areas would not be saf.
. I leel safr during thedqy than night. LwolildlJottakeawalkatnight. There 's a general salety isstI even in
parking lots. There arc weapons piiiled outinparking lots. I would not send my wif out at night becauseri robberies a/night. I would not lether walk arotmdlate because of drugdealm. . . I lee/saf. Ihearabout things, bilt that'se1Jrywhere;
. There arc carbreak~ins, biit overall! ftc/saf.
. Iwouldn't walk aroundmyneighborhoodatnight. I sec lots of grqfti:
. I don't ftclsajè evengoirig tostorc at night '?tJ!yself We heard aboiitrobberies happening inlheshopping compkx!?my house.
The partcipants were asked what would help reassure them and their family's safety within
the city limits of Elk Grove.
The corrunty leaders and general population groups did not differ in their comients signficantly.
About one in four participants mentioned more patrols would give them. feeligs of safety, with
severalspecifically mentioning patrols in neighborhoods as . something they woiildlike to see more.
Otherídeas mentioned more than once were cameras. and.Neíghborhood.Watch.
11 Coinents included:
. There needs to he more patrolling. Police offùm need to drive into neighborhoods and not just patrol main roads.
. We needmore neighborhood watch progtams.
. We need more patrolling. We have se¿'trity patrolling,biitthcy do not come evcry dqy. In the paper, it tells you aboutincidents, bu/not solt/ed cases.
. We need more cameras. I'm notconcer1ed ciboiit invasion ri privary.l'drather sec cameras to keep ancye on things.
. We 'lCedJoot patro/mid police need/aget to know whopeople arc in neighborhoods or biisiness owners in
strip malLr.
Of the four neighborhood associations, two had active Neighborhood Watch programs and one had
a semi-active program: The association representing the rural area did not have a program. The participantsfeltNeighborhood Watch Was highly effective andthatthe city's Neighborhood Watch
coordinator was extremely easy to work with, They also felt that the police department was highly accoinodating and that officerswete always willng to come outro helpthetn.
Comients included:
. Wehaue some neighborhood watthes.We usc a coordinator/o reach streets. It'scjctive. Again, Denise is amaifng. Jheshowed us lots ri programs and topícs toprescnt to our members; The police attend meetings if
thitre are concerns. Ourong complaint is that signs arc getting old andtheri's no moncy/o replace them. It
ivouldbe niceif there. would be a grant /0 pay Jornew signs:
. Thisùarural area so it's difrmt. We knoweadJ other. Mymighbors watthpropertics whcnwego on vacation and such.
The participants were asked their perception of the city of Elk Grove Police Departinent and why they felt that way.
Coininunity Leaders The coinents Were all positive. The participants comiented on areas from handling drgissuesto treating thecoinunityequal to being personable.
Comients included:
. Itis very good. Thcy areexcellent.lt was a big challenge With areas in town with vacancicsanddmgissues andthepolicc have managedwell through it. . Fîve~star rated.
General. Population The perceptionofthe policedeparttent by the general population group was an even.splitbetween
positive andnegative among thosewho responded. The negative coinents centered on being too
"aggressive" or "rude" durng traffic. stops and an over abundance of police cars · for one incident when it was not necessary.
12 Comments included:
. The trijc cops pick on you for so milch. Thry piiil YON over forsmallinfractions even on ciry strets.
. I iised a wrong lane change pi¡lling into theparking lot tonight and got a ticket. I've been pulled over and hape gotten harassed for no reason. I was piilled over fora bogus reasonjustso thry cQuldshine lights in my fate.
. Tsawthree cop cars pull overa littleoldla4Y. Itseemedioo much and probablyscaredihe person.
13 Code Enforcement.. Customer Service The partcipants were asked about their familarity with code enforcement servces.
"More than half of the participants in the general population group seemed unaware of whatthe term code enforcement meant unti othersin the group started talkg about the services. The moderator explained code enforcement in general tenus as addressing eonc.ernsaboutunsâfe,unhealthy or unsighdy conditions in homes and neighborhoods, neighborhood services and animal servces. The discussion picked up after the participants had a better understanding of code enforCement.
The moderator asked participants who interacted with the code enforcementdepartmentto describe them.
In generål,. the. department received high marks.. The most overarching area of concern Was .the length of tie it took to resolve issues. Although they realized in most cases there were legal processes that must be followed; a few participants said they would like to be kept apprised of how a particular situation wasprogressi.g when it is a lengthy process (e.g. barking dogs) ratherthan wonderingwhether the situation was handled or how it would be resolved.
The situations specificallymentioned included graffiti abatement, junk vehicles, street light replacements, electrical work and basketbal hoops needing tobe brought in at night
Coinents included:
. Cars have to be maintained and kept insîde.
. I had an experienæwîthgrafti; Renters on mystret were tagging. I had apositiveexperienæ Ùt deaning ît
up. Thestqfhelp dimt me to the right peopkifìt's nottheîr job to handle. . Thry were responsive about my neighbor's little dog barkÎltg.
. I can't have my basketball hoop on my s/reet at night.. Igottagged jor ît.. I talked with code .enfræment and
learned there was a code.
. I called about tooma'!y mustang tyecars in my neighborhood and that thry were running a garage out of the house. They put a stop to it. When I checked online, ît shows/hat you (an;t operate a ('garage" oiitofyour garage.
. Thry. take too long to respond. I know there are legal îssuesat times. BIt/barking dog issues take a long time
to resolve,jòr example. We try to.resolve.Î/ ourselves~ Weare gratefuljorprogram,. but it takes a 10ngtîme..I
don't know if it's legal oradminîstrative flti
14 At the end, the participants in the general population group were asked whether there were
any criticalissuès affecting the weU:'being ofthe city. Due to time, the community leaders were not asked this question.
The comments . included: . I am.cancerned aboutgrowtb.outside tbe tity limits andwbetber or noti! will be the tity or COttnty thatbtlÌlds there.
. Iwoiild not/ike to seeapartinentbuildings added to the tiry.
. I am concerned about growth and flood planning.
. The roads and sidewalks on the eastside rfH ighwqy 99 seem to be degrading. Other areas have nicelY paved roads, but/he road west rfHighwtl 99 has potholes, etc. .
15