State of Our Cities and Towns 2016 Report for Colorado Municipal League

Transcription

1 State of Our Cities and Towns 2016 Report for Colorado Municipal League Prepared By: Corona Insights CoronaInsights.com

2 CONTENTS Introduction... 1 Methodology... 1 Reporting Notes... 2 Responding Municipalities... 3 Key Findings... 5 Section 1: Facilities, Programs, and Community Events... 8 Section 2: General Municipal Revenue Appendix A: Survey Instrument... 40

3 STATE OF OUR CITIES AND TOWNS 2016 REPORT FOR COLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE INTRODUCTION Corona Insights is pleased to present The State of Our Cities and Towns 2016 report to the Colorado Municipal League. This report provides key findings from the 2016 survey of Colorado s municipalities. Complete findings for all closed-ended questions follow, including graphs and tables showing results on facilities, programs, and community events, as well as revenue and fiscal challenges. METHODOLOGY RESEARCH DESIGN The survey instrument was originally designed by Corona Insights with direction provided by the Colorado Municipal League (CML). The 2016 survey, which was significantly updated from the 2015 survey, sought to understand the types of amenities and programs that municipalities are providing currently or might provide in the future. Questions about overall revenue and fiscal challenges from previous surveys were also asked in order to track several key issues over time. DATA COLLECTION The survey was sent by mail to each municipality, and respondents could either return the paper survey by mail or respond via an online option. One survey was sent to each municipality, and municipalities returned completed surveys directly to Corona Insights offices or via Corona s online survey system with login information provided on the mailed survey. To boost response rates, CML staff made several attempts to contact non-responding municipalities. All data entry and cleaning was performed by Corona s internal staff. The survey was administered from July 6, 2015 through August 22, ANALYSIS This report provides tables and graphs of responses for the CML State of Our Cities and Towns Survey. Responses are provided for all municipalities (i.e., Overall) and are also broken down for municipalities of different sizes (i.e., population less than 2,000, between 2,000 and 24,999, and 25,000 or greater). Results are often segmented by two different geographic regions of Colorado, defined by CML (i.e., Eastern Plains and Western Slope). Page 1

4 The municipality size categories are provided below with the response rate for each category. Size ranges used for segments are the same as last year. Municipality Population Number of Cities in Colorado 2014 Census Number of Survey Responses: 2016 Response Rate 25,000 or Larger % 2,000 to 24, % Less than 2, % Overall % REPORTING NOTES When reading the following tables and graphs, please keep this in mind:! All percentages refer to the raw percentage of survey respondents giving a particular response. Percentages have not been weighted to reflect the proportion of municipalities of each size. As a result, the Overall results presented are the overall results of the survey respondents, and are not necessarily generalizable to the population of all municipal governments in the state. Weighting was not practical both because of the small sample size of the survey and because there is no way to determine whether those municipalities responding are representative of all municipalities of their size.! On all graphs, labels of three percent (3%) and less are sometimes removed for ease of reading.! On graphs that should sum to 100 percent, the labels occasionally may not add to 100 percent due to rounding or non-response.! Graphs represent all responses unless otherwise noted.! Comparing this year s data to previous years data (or future years data) could be misleading depending on which municipalities respond in any given year. Due to the relatively small sample size, and possible large differences between municipalities, even a slight change in the makeup of responding municipalities could cause the numbers to change significantly. Comparisons should be approached on a question-by-question basis. Page 2

5 RESPONDING MUNICIPALITIES One-hundred fourteen (114) Colorado municipalities responded to the 2016 survey; 29 were classified in the Western Slope region and 24 were classified in the Eastern Plains region. Responding municipalities are listed below by size classification and region, if applicable. (CML designated regions while Corona confirmed the appropriate population segment for each municipality.) Municipalities with populations of less than 2,000 > Ault > Bennett > Blue River - Western Slope > Calhan - Eastern Plains > Cheyenne Wells - Eastern Plains > Columbine Valley > Crested Butte - Western Slope > Crestone > Dillon - Western Slope > Eckley - Eastern Plains > Fairplay > Fleming - Eastern Plains > Foxfield > Fraser - Western Slope > Georgetown > Gilcrest > Grand Lake - Western Slope > Grover - Eastern Plains > Hugo - Eastern Plains > Ignacio - Western Slope > Jamestown > Julesburg - Eastern Plains > Kersey - Eastern Plains > Kiowa - Eastern Plains > Kit Carson - Eastern Plains > Kremmling - Western Slope > La Jara > La Veta > Lakeside > Larkspur > Limon - Eastern Plains > Log Lane Village - Eastern Plains > Mancos - Western Slope > Manzanola - Eastern Plains > Minturn - Western Slope > Moffat > Morrison > Mt. Crested Butte - Western Slope > Norwood - Western Slope > Nucla - Western Slope > Ordway - Eastern Plains > Ouray - Western Slope > Ovid - Eastern Plains > Paoli - Eastern Plains > Poncha Springs > Rockvale > Romeo > Sawpit - Western Slope > Silver Plume > Simla - Eastern Plains > Starkville > Sugar City - Eastern Plains > Telluride - Western Slope > Timnath > Walden > Wiggins - Eastern Plains > Williamsburg Page 3

6 Municipalities with population between 2,000 and 24,999 > Bayfield - Western Slope > Breckenridge - Western Slope > Buena Vista > Carbondale - Western Slope > Castle Pines > Cedaredge - Western Slope > Cherry Hills Village > Dacono > Delta - Western Slope > Durango - Western Slope > Eaton > Estes Park > Federal Heights > Firestone > Fort Lupton > Fort Morgan - Eastern Plains > Frederick > Frisco - Western Slope > Glendale > Golden > Granby - Western Slope > Greenwood Village > Hudson - Eastern Plains > Johnstown > Lamar - Eastern Plains > Lochbuie > Lone Tree > Louisville > Manitou Springs > Mead > Meeker - Western Slope > Milliken > Monte Vista > Monument > Palisade - Western Slope > Rifle - Western Slope > Snowmass Village - Western Slope > Steamboat Springs - Western Slope > Sterling - Eastern Plains > Vail - Western Slope > Windsor Municipalities with populations of 25,000 or greater > Arvada > Aurora > Boulder > Broomfield > Castle Rock > Centennial > Fort Collins > Fountain > Lakewood > Littleton > Longmont > Northglenn > Westminster > Wheat Ridge Page 4

7 KEY FINDINGS The following key findings are presented in a similar order as the questions were asked in the survey. FACILITIES! More than four in five municipalities are sole providers of parks, playgrounds, and gazebo/shade shelters: About half of municipalities are sole providers of athletic fields, trails, open space, and skate parks. While 23 percent of municipalities are the sole provider of a library and 21 percent are the sole provider of a museum, 38 percent of respondents provide a library in partnership with another entity and 29 percent partner with another entity to provide a museum. The most common facilities that respondents plan to provide are splash pads, outdoor fitness equipment, and amphitheaters. Few municipalities provide an indoor ice rink or a zoo/aquarium, although cities with major zoos (i.e., Denver, Colorado Springs, and Pueblo) did not respond to the survey. (Q1)! The top four most commonly provided facilities (i.e., parks, playgrounds, shade shelters, and athletic fields) are generally more likely to be supported by a dedicated tax, compared to other facilities: Parks have the highest proportion of dedicated tax support relative to being provided, solely or in partnership, by the municipality. Ninety-eight percent of respondents provide parks, of which one quarter have a dedicated tax. Dedicated open space, recreation centers, trails, and libraries are also relatively well supported by dedicated tax revenue. (Q1 and Q4)! Municipalities are hearing from residents that they want or want more trails and recreation centers. They are also hearing requests for swimming pools/water features, athletic fields, parks, splash pads, and playgrounds. They are hearing few requests for museums, indoor ice rinks, golf courses, libraries, and fine art galleries, which may indicate low demand for these facilities or possibly adequate current supply. (Q5)! Municipalities are most likely to be adding trails, playgrounds, and parks: One in four respondents have added a park in the past two years, and one in five have added a playground. But two in four added none of the listed facilities in the past two years. Very few municipalities discontinued facilities, programs, or community events, and very few had facilities, programs, or community events approved by voters. (Q6)! Parks are clearly popular in most municipalities: More than two thirds of municipalities indicated parks as a top-three most popular amenity with residents. Trails, playgrounds, and recreation centers are also popular at many cities and towns. Facilities are much more likely to be a top-three most popular amenity compared to programs or community events. (Q7) PROGRAMS! More than one-third of municipalities are sole providers of organized youth recreation programs, youth sport programs, and organized adult recreation programs: Among municipalities that provide youth and/or adult recreation and/or sport programs, slightly more than half provide them solely and slightly less than half provide them in partnership. Twenty-nine percent of municipalities do not currently provide broadband service, but plan to, although more than half of Page 5

8 respondents do not provide and do not plan on providing broadband. (Q1)! Few programs are supported by a dedicate tax: Ninety-one percent of respondents have no tax dedicated to programs listed on this survey. (Q4)! Most municipalities (about 70 percent) are not hearing requests for new or expanded programs. Broadband service provision or expansion is heard by the greatest percentage (14%) of municipalities. (Q5)! Few municipalities added programs in the past two years: The most common new adult and youth recreation and sport programs. (Q6) COMMUNITY EVENTS! Generally, community events are much more likely to be provided in partnership than solely by a municipality, especially auto-shows, running events, and farmer s markets: About half of municipalities are sole providers of community celebrations and another 36 percent provide these in partnership. Farmers markets and neighborhood block parties are the events most likely to be not provided but planned. More than half of respondents do not and are not planning on providing rodeos, beer and wine festivals, food festivals, or music festivals. (Q1)! Rodeos, music festivals, and farmer s markets are relatively well supported by dedicated tax revenue sources: Indeed, the ratio of tax support available compared to offering the event was higher than any ratios for facilities. For example, while only 20 percent of municipalities offer a rodeo (18 percent in partnership), more than half of those municipalities have a tax dedicated to rodeo. Sport competitions, community celebrations, food festivals, block parties, and concerts are the least supported by dedicated taxes. (Q1 and Q4)! Most municipalities (about 80 percent) are not hearing requests for new or expanded community events. Farmer market provision or expansion is heard by the greatest percentage (9%) of municipalities. (Q5)! Few municipalities added community events in the past two years: Three in four respondents added none of the community events listed on the survey. (Q6) SUCCESS AND BENEFITS! Most municipalities measure the success of amenities by use/attendance or other public feedback, such as council meetings: Two in five municipalities use resident satisfaction surveys to measure success. Larger municipalities are more likely than smaller municipalities to use surveys and revenue as success measures. (Q8)! Half of municipalities said that local businesses very frequently or frequently credit amenities in their economic development efforts: Another one in four said businesses occasionally credit amenities. Large cities are much more likely than smaller towns to say businesses very frequently credit amenities. (Q10) Page 6

9 MUNICIPAL REVENUE! About one-quarter of municipalities charge non-residents higher fees to use a facility: Large cities and municipalities on the Western Slope are more likely than small towns or eastern plains towns to charge non-residents more. One-third of municipalities impose a development impact fee to support at least one type of facility. (Q2 and Q3)! Almost half of all municipalities feel their economy is better than it was in FY Small and mid-sized towns are more likely than large cities to feel that their economy is worse than it was in Western Slope towns are more likely than Eastern Plains towns to feel that their economy is better than last year. One in five Eastern Plains towns feel their economy is worse than last year. Feelings of overall local economy generally mirror feelings of municipality revenue (Q11 and Q12).! Municipalities expect revenue to increase or stay the same: For every category we tested, 80 percent or more of respondents said they expected revenue increases or that revenue would stay the same in 2016 as Half expect sale and use taxes and property taxes to increase, while two in five expect licenses, permits, and fees to increase. While two-thirds of respondents believe state funding will not change, 20 percent believe it will decrease (Q13).! Similar to results from 2013, 2014, and 2015, unfunded street maintenance and improvement needs continues to be the greatest challenge. Among all respondents, 48 percent indicate this as a major challenge and another 26 percent said it is a moderate challenge. Unfunded water/wastewater improvement needs and increased health insurance costs remain top challenges, as they were in 2015 and Lack of affordable housing, which jumped up as a challenge between 2014 and 2015, is still a top-three challenge in (Q14). Page 7

10 SECTION 1: FACILITIES, PROGRAMS, AND COMMUNITY EVENTS Note: Respondents were asked to mark only one for each item in Q1. Some respondents marked Solely by municipality and In partnership with another entity. In these cases, responses were entered as In partnership with another entity. Exhibit 1: Table and Graph Q1 Facilities: Which facilities are currently provided by your municipality? For those that are not, are they planned for the future? Please check one in each row. (Q1: F1-F24) Number of Respondents Yes, provided solely by munic ipality Yes, provided in partnership with another entity No, not provided... but planning for the future No, not provided... and not planning at this time Park % 11% 1% 2% Playground % 8% 1% 5% Gazebo/shade shelter % 7% 4% 9% Athletic field % 21% 4% 23% Skate park % 8% 10 % 35% Bike park % 6% 15 % 56% Disc golf course % 8% 11% 58% In d o o r ic e rin k % 5% 3% 87% Swimming pool/ water feature Facilities % 13 % 14 % 44% Outdoor splash pad % 3% 24% 52% Outdoor fitness equipment % 5% 20% 50% Recreation center % 16 % 17 % 44% Senior center % 23% 8% 43% Golf course % 16 % 2% 64% Dedicated open space % 16 % 8% 25% Trails % 22% 12 % 16 % Dog park % 4% 14 % 50% Library % 38% 4% 36% Mu s e u m % 29% 8% 41% Z oo/a qua rium % 1% 9 8% Fine arts gallery % 17 % 4% 72% Performing arts facility % 15 % 7% 68% Amphitheater % 7% 20% 53% Other facility 47 40% 9% 4% 47% Page 8

11 Exhibit 1: Table and Graph (Continued) Page 9

12 Exhibit 2: Table and Graph Q1 Programs: Which programs are currently provided by your municipality? For those that are not, are they planned for the future? Please check one in each row. (Q1: P1-P10) Organized youth re c re a tion prog ra ms Organized adult recreation programs Number of Respondents Yes, amenity provided solely by munic ipality Yes, amenity provided in partnership with another entity No, not provided... but planning for the future No, not provided... and not planning at this time % 29% 5% 29% % 23% 6% 38% Programs for seniors % 29% 10 % 35% Recreation programs for the dis a ble d % 18 % 14 % 53% Youth sports programs % 27% 6% 33% Adult sports programs % 21% 9% 39% Community garden % 31% 15 % 37% Environmental outdoor education Mu n ic ip a l b ro a d b a n d service Programs % 13 % 14 % 58% % 5% 29% 59% Other program 30 20% 0% 0% 80% Page 10

13 Exhibit 3: Table and Graph Q1 Community Events: Which community events are currently provided by your municipality? For those that are not, are they planned for the future? Please check one in each row. (Q1: C1-C13) Number of Respondents Yes, provided solely by munic ipality Yes, provided in partnership with another entity No, not provided... but planning for the future No, not provided... and not planning at this time Auto show % 43% 1% 47% Beer or wine festival % 29% 7% 58% Food festival % 30% 4% 55% Bicycle event % 36% 5% 47% Community celebration % 36% 4% 12 % Neighborhood bloc k party % 14 % 15 % 49% Farmer s market % 36% 15 % 39% Mu s ic a l fe s tiva l % 27% 8% 51% Running event (e.g., fun run, ra c e s ) Community Events Concerts % 33% 8% 37% Rodeo % 18 % 3% 76% % 39% 6% 38% Sports competition % 30% 7% 49% Other event 29 24% 17 % 0% 59% Page 11

14 Exhibit 4: Table and Graph Q2 Does your municipality impose development impact fees to support any of the above listed facilities? Municipality Imposes Development Impact Fees to Support Any Facility Mu n ic ip a l P o p u la tio n Region Overall Less than 2,000 2,000 to 24,999 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope Population Base Q2 Yes 33% 20% 46% 46% 21% 32% No 67% 80% 54% 54% 79% 68% Page 12

15 Exhibit 5: Table and Graph Q3 Does your municipality charge non-residents a higher fee for use of any of the above listed facilities? Q3 Municipality Charges Non-residents Higher Fee to Use a Facility Overall Less than 2,000 Mu n ic ip a l P o p u la tio n 2,000 to 24,999 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Region Western Slope Population Base Yes 27% 18 % 30% 50% 4% 36% No 73% 82% 70% 50% 96% 64% Page 13

16 Note: For Questions 4-7, respondents were asked to provide answers using the items listed in the previous questions (e.g., facilities, etc.). They also could describe other amenities that were not listed or simply write none Exhibit 5: Table and Graph Q4 Facilities: Of the facilities provided, which (if any) are supported through a dedicated tax revenue source? Facilities Supported by a Dedicated Tax (Among All Respondents) Mu n ic ip a l P o p u la tio n Region Less than 2,000 2,000 to 24,999 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope Population Base Q4 Facilities Park 25% 16 % 37% 21% 17 % 34% Playground 14 % 9% 23% 7% 8% 24% Gazebo/shade shelter 12 % 5% 23% 7% 4% 24% Athletic field 11% 4% 21% 7% 0% 21% Skate park 8% 2% 16 % 7% 0% 17 % Bike park 4% 2% 7% 7% 0% 14 % Disc golf course 5% 2% 9% 7% 0% 10 % In d o o r ic e rin k 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 3% Swimming pool/ water feature Overall 6% 0% 16 % 0% 4% 14 % Outdoor splash pad 4% 2% 7% 0% 0% 10 % Outdoor fitness equipment 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 7% Recreation center 9% 2% 19 % 7% 0% 17 % Senior center 3% 0% 7% 0% 0% 7% Golf course 2% 0% 5% 0% 0% 7% Dedicated open space 16 % 5% 21% 43% 0% 28% Trails 16 % 7% 23% 29% 4% 34% Dog park 4% 2% 7% 0% 0% 10 % Library 12 % 11% 16 % 7% 0% 24% Mu s e u m 6% 5% 9% 0% 0% 17 % Zoo/aquarium 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Fine arts gallery 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 7% Performing arts facility 3% 2% 2% 7% 0% 7% Amphitheater 2% 0% 2% 7% 0% 3% Other facility 3% 4% 0% 7% 0% 7% None of the above 61% 74% 49% 43% 83% 48% Page 14

17 Exhibit 5: Table and Graph (Continued) Page 15

18 Exhibit 6: Table and Graph Q4 Programs: Of the programs provided, which (if any) are supported through a dedicated tax revenue source? Less than 2,000 2,000 to 24,999 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope Population Base Q4 Programs Programs Supported by a Dedicated Tax (Among All Respondents) Organized youth re c re a tion prog ra ms Organized adult recreation programs 7% 2% 16 % % 6% 2% 14 % % Programs for seniors 4% - 9% % Recreation programs for the dis a ble d 5% - 14 % % Youth sports programs 7% 2% 16 % % Adult sports programs 7% 2% 16 % % Community garden 4% 2% 7% % Environmental outdoor education Mu n ic ip a l b ro a d b a n d service Overall Mu n ic ip a l P o p u la tio n Region 3% 2% 2% 7% - 3% 3% - 7% % Other program 1% - 2% - - 3% None of the above 91% 98% 81% 93% 10 0 % 79% Page 16

19 Exhibit 7: Table and Graph Q4 Community Events: Of the community events provided, which (if any) are supported through a dedicated tax revenue source? Community Events Supported by a Dedicated Tax (Among All Respondents) Less than 2,000 2,000 to 24,999 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope Population Base Q4 Community Events Auto show 6% 0% 16 % 0% 4% 14 % Beer or wine festival 4% 2% 7% 0% 0% 10 % Food festival 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 7% Bicycle event 9% 2% 19 % 7% 0% 17 % Community celebration 3% 0% 7% 0% 0% 7% Neighborhood bloc k party 2% 0% 5% 0% 0% 7% Farmer s market 16 % 5% 21% 43% 0% 28% Mu s ic a l fe s tiva l 16 % 7% 23% 29% 4% 34% Running event (e.g., fun run, ra c e s ) Overall Mu n ic ip a l P o p u la tio n Region Concerts 4% 2% 7% 0% 0% 10 % Rodeo 12 % 11% 16 % 7% 0% 24% 6% 5% 9% 0% 0% 17 % Sports competition 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Other event 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 7% None of the above 70% 84% 60% 43% 96% 55% Page 17

20 Exhibit 8: Table and Graph Q5 Facilities: What facilities (if any) are you hearing from residents that they want your municipality to provide or expand? Less than 2,000 2,000 to 24,999 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope Population Base Q5 Facilities Park 16 % 11% 16 % 36% 13 % 17 % Playground 13 % 16 % 5% 29% 8% 14 % Gazebo/shade shelter 6% 5% 2% 21% 4% 3% Athletic field 16 % 9% 21% 29% 4% 34% Skate park 7% 9% 7% 0% 13 % 14 % Bike park 6% 2% 12 % 7% 0% 17 % Disc golf course 4% 4% 5% 0% 0% 10 % In d o o r ic e rin k 2% 2% 0% 7% 0% 3% Swimming pool/ water feature Facilities that Residents Want Provided or Expanded Overall Mu n ic ip a l P o p u la tio n Region 20% 16 % 19 % 43% 17 % 24% Outdoor splash pad 14 % 7% 19 % 29% 13 % 14 % Outdoor fitness equipment 5% 4% 2% 21% 8% 3% Recreation center 32% 18 % 42% 57% 25% 31% Senior center 5% 2% 7% 14 % 4% 7% Golf course 2% 0% 2% 7% 0% 0% Dedicated open space 11% 5% 9% 36% 0% 14 % Trails 35% 26% 42% 50% 13 % 48% Dog park 9% 4% 12 % 21% 0% 14 % Library 2% 4% 0% 0% 4% 0% Mu s e u m 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 3% Zoo/aquarium 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Fine arts gallery 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% 3% Performing arts facility 10 % 7% 14 % 7% 4% 17 % Amphitheater 8% 5% 12 % 7% 0% 17 % Other facility 18 % 16 % 16 % 36% 13 % 17 % None of the above 28% 40% 19 % 7% 42% 14 % Page 18

21 Exhibit 8: Table and Graph (Continued) Page 19

22 Exhibit 9: Table and Graph Q5 Programs: What programs (if any) are you hearing from residents that they want your municipality to provide or expand? Less than 2,000 2,000 to 24,999 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope Population Base Q5 Facilities Organized youth re c re a tion prog ra ms Organized adult recreation programs 11% 12 % 7% 21% 0% 14 % 7% 7% 2% 21% 4% 7% Programs for seniors 11% 7% 9% 29% 8% 3% Recreation programs for the dis a ble d 2% 2% 0% 7% 0% 0% Youth sports programs 10 % 5% 12 % 21% 8% 14 % Adult sports programs 6% 5% 5% 14 % 4% 7% Community garden 8% 9% 2% 21% 0% 3% Environmental outdoor education Mu n ic ip a l b ro a d b a n d service Programs that Residents Want Provided or Expanded Overall Mu n ic ip a l P o p u la tio n Region 4% 4% 2% 14 % 0% 3% 14 % 9% 19 % 21% 8% 31% None of the above 69% 79% 63% 50% 88% 62% Page 20

23 Exhibit 10: Table and Graph Q5 Community Events: What community events (if any) are you hearing from residents that they want your municipality to provide or expand? Less than 2,000 2,000 to 24,999 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope Population Base Q5 Community Events Community Events that Residents Want Provided or Expanded Auto show 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% Beer or wine festival 4% 2% 5% 7% 0% 7% Food festival 2% 2% 0% 7% 0% 3% Bicycle event 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Community celebration 6% 5% 7% 7% 4% 10 % Neighborhood bloc k party 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 3% Farmer s market 9% 9% 9% 7% 0% 14 % Mu s ic a l fe s tiva l 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% 3% Running event (e.g., fun run, ra c e s ) Overall Mu n ic ip a l P o p u la tio n Region Concerts 5% 4% 7% 7% 0% 14 % Rodeo 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 3% 2% 0% 5% 0% 0% 3% Sports competition 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% None of the above 82% 88% 77% 79% 96% 79% Page 21

24 Exhibit 11: Table and Graph Q6 Facilities: In the past two years, what amenities (if any) have been added, discontinued, or approved by voters? Facilities Added, Discontinued, or Approved By Voters Added Discontinued Approved by voters Park 20% 0% 2% Playground 20% 0% 2% Gazebo/shade shelter 14 % 0% 0% Athletic field 5% 0% 2% Skate park 2% 0% 0% Bike park 3% 0% 0% Disc golf course 2% 0% 0% In d o o r ic e rin k 2% 0% 0% Swimming pool/ water feature 3% 0% 3% Outdoor splash pad 5% 0% 0% Outdoor fitness equipment 5% 0% 0% Recreation center 4% 0% 3% Senior center 2% 0% 0% Golf course 0% 1% 0% Dedicated open space 9% 0% 1% Trails 24% 0% 2% Dog park 3% 0% 0% Library 4% 0% 0% Mu s e u m 0% 0% 0% Zoo/aquarium 0% 0% 0% Fine arts gallery 0% 0% 0% Performing arts facility 0% 0% 0% Amphitheater 3% 0% 0% Other facility 14 % 0% 3% None of the above 41% Page 22

25 Exhibit 11: Table and Graph (Continued) Page 23

26 Exhibit 12: Table and Graph Q6 Programs: In the past two years, what amenities (if any) have been added, discontinued, or approved by voters? Programs Added, Discontinued, or Approved By Voters Added Discontinued Approved by voters Organized youth recreation programs 8% 2% 0% Organized adult recreation programs 9% 1% 0% Programs for seniors 5% 0% 0% Recreation programs for the disabled 3% 0% 1% Youth sports programs 8% 0% 1% Adult sports programs 7% 1% 0% Community garden 4% 1% 1% Environmental outdoor education 3% 0% 0% Mu n ic ip a l b ro a d b a n d s e rvic e 3% 0% 4% Other program(s): 4% 1% 1% None of the above 79% Page 24

27 Exhibit 13: Table and Graph Q6 Community Events: In the past two years, what amenities (if any) have been added, discontinued, or approved by voters? Community Events Added, Discontinued, or Approved By Voters Added Discontinued Approved by voters Auto show 4% 0% 0% Beer or wine festival 6% 0% 0% Food festival 6% 0% 0% Bicycle event 5% 1% 0% Community celebration 6% 1% 0% Neighborhood bloc k party 6% 0% 0% Farmer s market 4% 0% 0% Mu s ic a l fe s tiva l 1% 1% 0% Concerts 7% 0% 0% Rodeo 1% 1% 0% Running event (e.g., fun run, races) 6% 0% 0% Sports competition 2% 0% 0% Other event(s): 3% 0% 0% None of the above 75% Page 25

28 Exhibit 14: Table and Graph Q7 Facilities: What would you consider to be the three most popular amenities with residents? Less than 2,000 2,000 to 24,999 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope Population Base Q7 Facilities Park 68% 73% 61% 69% 86% 58% Playground 21% 37% 11% 0% 43% 23% Gazebo/shade shelter 3% 7% 0% 0% 7% 0% Athletic field 8% 2% 14 % 8% 0% 15 % Skate park 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% Bike park 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Disc golf course 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% In d o o r ic e rin k 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Swimming pool/ water feature Most Popular Facilities with Residents Overall Mu n ic ip a l P o p u la tio n Region 14 % 7% 25% 8% 21% 23% Outdoor splash pad 9% 5% 8% 23% 7% 4% Outdoor fitness equipment 2% 5% 0% 0% 0% 4% Recreation center 20% 7% 31% 31% 7% 19 % Senior center 6% 7% 6% 0% 21% 4% Golf course 2% 0% 6% 0% 0% 4% Dedicated open space 11% 7% 6% 38% 0% 4% Trails 32% 27% 28% 62% 0% 42% Dog park 4% 5% 6% 0% 0% 12 % Library 14 % 10 % 17 % 23% 29% 4% Mu s e u m 4% 2% 6% 8% 0% 4% Zoo/aquarium 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Fine arts gallery 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Performing arts facilities 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 4% Amphitheater 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 8% Page 26

29 Exhibit 14: Table and Graph (Continued) Page 27

30 Exhibit 15: Table and Graph Q7 Programs: What would you consider to be the three most popular amenities with residents? Less than 2,000 2,000 to 24,999 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope Population Base Q7 Programs Organized youth re c re a tion prog ra ms Organized adult recreation programs 3% 2% 3% 8% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Programs for seniors 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Recreation programs for the dis a ble d 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Youth sports programs 8% 7% 8% 8% 29% 0% Adult sports programs 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% Community garden 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 4% Environmental outdoor education Mu n ic ip a l b ro a d b a n d service Most Popular Programs with Residents Overall Mu n ic ip a l P o p u la tio n Region 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 4% Page 28

31 Exhibit 16: Table and Graph Q7 Community Events: What would you consider to be the three most popular amenities with residents? Less than 2,000 2,000 to 24,999 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope Population Base Q7 Community Events Auto show 1% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% Beer or wine festival 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Food festival 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Bicycle event 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Community celebration 9% 10 % 8% 8% 14 % 4% Neighborhood bloc k party 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Farmer s market 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 4% Mu s ic a l fe s tiva l 2% 2% 3% 0% 0% 4% Running event (e.g., fun run, ra c e s ) Most Popular Community Events with Residents Overall Mu n ic ip a l P o p u la tio n Region Concerts 2% 2% 3% 0% 7% 4% Rodeo 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Sports competition 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Page 29

32 Exhibit 17: Table and Graph Q8 How do you measure the success of amenities offered by your municipality? Please check all that apply. Measures of Success of Offered Amenities Overall Less than 2,000 Mu n ic ip a l P o p u la tio n 2,000 to 24,999 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Region Western Slope Population Base Q8 Resident satisfaction surveys 40% 20% 51% 86% 17 % 41% Attendance 75% 64% 81% 10 0 % 58% 86% Other public feedback (e.g., c ounc il meeting s) Revenue 34% 16 % 44% 71% 17 % 38% 68% 64% 67% 86% 63% 62% Other 11% 13 % 9% 7% 17 % 7% Page 30

33 Exhibit 18: Table and Graph Q9 Have you seen a link between resident satisfaction and the amenities offered by your municipality? In other words, as amenities have either increased or improved, resident satisfaction has changed. Observed Link Between Amenities Provided and Resident Satisfaction Mu n ic ip a l P o p u la tio n Region Overall Less than 2,000 2,000 to 24,999 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope Population Base Q9 Yes, strong positive link 28% 20% 33% 46% 17 % 31% Yes, moderate positive link 50% 49% 52% 46% 38% 59% No impac t, positive or negative Yes, moderate negative link 21% 29% 14 % 8% 42% 10 % 1% 2% 0% 0% 4% 0% Yes, strong negative link 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Page 31

34 Exhibit 19: Table and Graph Q10: How frequently are municipal amenities cited as a factor by the private sector in economic development efforts for your municipality? Frequency that Amenities are Cited in Economic Development Efforts Q10 Overall Less than 2,000 Mu n ic ip a l P o p u la tio n 2,000 to 24,999 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Region Western Slope Population Base Very frequently 15 % 7% 14 % 50% 13 % 15 % Frequently 32% 24% 38% 43% 21% 41% Occasionally 25% 30% 24% 7% 17 % 33% Rarely 9% 9% 12 % - 25% 4% Never 5% 7% 5% - - 4% Not applic able 14 % 22% 7% - 25% 4% Page 32

35 SECTION 2: GENERAL MUNICIPAL REVENUE Exhibit 20: Table and Graph Q11: Do you feel the overall economy in your municipality is better or worse in FY 2016 compared to FY 2015? Q11 Overall Feeling of the Economy Overall Less than 2,000 Mu n ic ip a l P o p u la tio n 2,000 to 24,999 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Region Western Slope Population Base Mu c h b e tte r 9% 11% 7% 7% 0% 11% Somewhat better 39% 32% 43% 57% 17 % 43% About the same 40% 44% 36% 36% 54% 36% Somewhat worse 9% 9% 12 % 0% 17 % 7% Mu c h wo rs e 1% 2% 0% 0% 4% 0% Don't know 3% 4% 2% 0% 8% 4% Page 33

36 Exhibit 21: Table and Graph Q12: Do you feel your municipality s revenue is better or worse in FY 2016 compared to FY 2015? Overall Feeling of Municipality Revenue Q12 Overall Less than 2,000 Mu n ic ip a l P o p u la tio n 2,000 to 24,999 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Region Western Slope Population Base Mu c h b e tte r 9% 11% 7% 7% 0% 11% Somewhat better 41% 33% 38% 79% 21% 39% About the same 35% 37% 38% 14 % 38% 39% Somewhat worse 13 % 14 % 17 % 0% 29% 11% Mu c h wo rs e 1% 2% 0% 0% 4% 0% Don't know 2% 4% 0% 0% 8% 0% Page 34

37 Exhibit 22: Tables and Graphs Q13: For each of the following revenue categories, please first indicate whether you expect an increase, decrease, or no change for that source of revenue in 2016, and then indicate the estimated percent change from Revenue Changes by Source Mu n ic ip a l P o p u la tio n Region Sales and use taxes Include all municipal sales/use tax revenues and all shared re ve nue s Property taxes Include general, capital expenditure, bond redemption and special fund property tax revenues. State funding Other taxes Charges for services Licenses, permits, and fees Fines and forfeits Overall Less than 2,000 2,000 to 24,999 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope In c re a s e 55% 40% 61% 10 0 % 21% 57% Decrease 9% 7% 15 % 0% 21% 4% No C hange 30% 42% 24% 0% 54% 32% In c re a s e 53% 40% 61% 79% 42% 43% Decrease 5% 5% 7% 0% 4% 18 % No C hange 38% 51% 27% 21% 54% 36% In c re a s e 10 % 5% 17 % 7% 4% 14 % Decrease 20% 14 % 29% 14 % 21% 25% No C hange 67% 77% 49% 79% 71% 57% In c re a s e 20% 14 % 20% 43% 4% 25% Decrease 10 % 7% 15 % 7% 8% 11% No C hange 67% 74% 63% 50% 83% 57% In c re a s e 29% 16 % 44% 36% 25% 29% Decrease 4% 0% 7% 7% 0% 4% No C hange 63% 79% 46% 50% 71% 64% In c re a s e 40% 33% 37% 79% 13 % 32% Decrease 9% 4% 20% 0% 4% 11% No C hange 48% 60% 41% 21% 79% 57% In c re a s e 21% 16 % 27% 21% 17 % 14 % Decrease 13 % 7% 15 % 36% 8% 14 % No C hange 64% 75% 56% 43% 71% 71% Page 35

38 Exhibit 22: Tables and Graphs (Continued) Revenue Changes by Source Mu n ic ip a l P o p u la tio n Region Overall Less than 2,000 2,000 to 24,999 25,000 or more Eastern Plains Western Slope In ve s tme n t a n d in te re s t in c o me In c re a s e 21% 14 % 24% 36% 4% 29% De c re a s e 7% 7% 10 % 0% 8% 11% No C hange 68% 72% 63% 64% 79% 57% Other revenue In c re a s e 24% 24% 20% 33% 0% 22% De c re a s e 12 % 0% 3 0% 3 3% 0% 11% No C hange 65% 76% 50% 33% 10 0 % 67% * The number of responses varied for each item above, but slightly fewer than all respondents answered each question, except for Other Revenue, which was answered by 34 respondents. Page 36

39 Sales and use taxes Include all munic ipal sales/use tax re ve nue s a nd a ll s ha re d re ve nue s. Property taxes Include general, capital expenditure, bond re de mption a nd s pe c ia l fund property tax revenues. Average Percent Increases in Revenue Number of Replies Overall (Avg. % ) Less than 2,000 (Avg. % ) Mu n ic ip a l P o p u la tio n 2,000 to 24,999 (Avg. % ) 25,000 or more (Avg. % ) Eastern Plains (Avg. % ) Region Western Slope (Avg. % ) 55 +8% +9% +7% +7% +7% +5% 53 +9% +5% +13% +8% +5% +5% State funding 9 +24% +2% +31% +3% +8% +11% Other taxes 19 +6% +6% +4% +9% +6% +6% Charges for services 30 +9% +3% +13% +8% +7% +8% Licenses, permits, and fees % +16% +15% +8% +26% +12% Fines and forfeits % +26% +13% +8% +17% +20% In ve s tme n t a n d in te re s t in c o me % +6% +97% +17% +37% +10% Other revenue 7 +80% +84% +110% +5% +0% +5% Average Percent Decreases in Revenue Mu n ic ip a l P o p u la tio n Region Sales and use taxes Include all munic ipal sales/use tax re ve nue s a nd a ll s ha re d re ve nue s. Property taxes Include general, capital expenditure, bond re de mption a nd s pe c ia l fund property tax revenues. Number of Replies Overall (Avg. % ) Less than 2,000 (Avg. % ) 2,000 to 24,999 (Avg. % ) 25,000 or more (Avg. % ) Eastern Plains (Avg. % ) Western Slope (Avg. % ) 8-10% - 26% - 4% - 0% - 14% - 2% 6-12% - 9% - 15% - 0% - 25% - 10% State funding 17-49% - 11% - 75% - 16% - 14% - 9% Other taxes 10-11% - 16% - 9% - 0% - 6% - 15% Charges for services 4-9% - 0% - 7% - 12% - 0% - 2% Licenses, permits, and fees 20-5% - 10% - 5% - 0% - 0% - 8% Fines and forfeits 12-18% - 40% - 18% - 10% - 30% - 32% In ve s tme n t a n d in te re s t in c o me 11-3% - 4% - 7% - 0% - 2% - 5% Other revenue 15-22% - 0% - 30% - 0% - 0% - 10% Page 37

40 Exhibit 23: Graphs Q14: Taking into account both the magnitude of the following issues and the ease or difficulty of addressing them, please rate the following potential fiscal challenges that your municipality may face in (All responding municipalities, n 112) * Average scores were calculated by assigning numeric values to each response category: Not A Challenge = 1, Minor Challenge = 2, Moderate Challenge = 3, and Major Challenge = 4. Page 38

41 Exhibit 23: Graphs (Continued) Page 39

42 APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT The 2016 State of Our Cities and Towns survey follows. A cover letter from CML was also included. Page 40