Arvada, Colorado. Citizen Survey. Report of Results October Prepared by:

Transcription

1 Arvada, Colorado Citizen Survey Prepared by: 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 Boulder, Colorado t: f:

2 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Arvada Citizen Survey Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 SURVEY BACKGROUND... 5 Survey Purpose... 5 Survey Methods... 5 SURVEY RESULTS... 7 Quality of Life... 7 Quality of Community... 9 Community Characteristics Safety in Arvada Living and Working in Arvada Community Participation Frequency of Walking and Bicycle Travel City Government Perceptions of City Government Services Perceptions of Non-City Government Services City Employees Public Trust Issues Affecting Arvada Problem Ratings The Economy Growth Management and Development Traffic Planning Arvada s Future Sustainable Community Potential Programs the City Might Pursue Technology and Sources of Information Television and Internet Information Sources APPENDIX A: RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS APPENDIX B: RESPONSES TO SURVEY QUESTIONS APPENDIX C: RESPONSES TO SELECTED SURVEY QUESTIONS BY GEOGRAPHY AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS APPENDIX D: BENCHMARK COMPARISONS APPENDIX E. COMMUNITIES INCLUDED IN BENCHMARK COMPARISONS APPENDIX F: SURVEY METHODOLOGY APPENDIX G: MAPS OF COUNCIL DISTRICTS AND POLICE SECTORS APPENDIX H: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

3 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Arvada Citizen Survey List of Figures Figure 1: Overall Quality of Life, Figure 2: Overall Quality of Life Compared Over Time... 7 Figure 3: Change in Quality of Life Over Next Five Years Compared Over Time... 8 Figure 4: Arvada as a Place to Live, Figure 5: Arvada as a Place to Live Compared Over Time... 9 Figure 6: Overall Quality of Neighborhood, Figure 7: Overall Quality of Neighborhood Compared Over Time Figure 8: Frequency of Communication with Neighbors Compared Over Time Figure 9: Types of Interactions with Neighbors, Figure 10: Quality of Community Compared Over Time Figure 11: Community Quality Benchmarks, Figure 12: Community Characteristics Compared Over Time Figure 13: Community Characteristics Benchmarks, Figure 14: The City of Arvada Action Chart Figure 15: Safety in Arvada Compared Over Time Figure 16: Safety Benchmarks, Figure 17: Victim of Crime Compared Over Time Figure 18: Crime Reported Compared Over Time Figure 19: Importance of Living and Working in Arvada, Figure 20: Importance of Living and Working in Arvada Compared Over Time Figure 21: Working Outside the Home Compared Over Time Figure 22: Work Commute Compared Over Time Figure 23: City of Employment Compared Over Time Figure 24: Commute Transportation Compared Over Time Figure 25: Community Participation Compared Over Time Figure 26: Reasons for Walking, Figure 27: Reasons for Riding a Bicycle, Figure 28: Overall Satisfaction with Arvada Government Services, Figure 29: Overall Satisfaction with Arvada Government Services Compared Over Time Figure 30: Satisfaction with Arvada City Services Compared Over Time Figure 31: City Services Benchmarks, Figure 32: Importance of Arvada City Services Compared Over Time Figure 33: Satisfaction with Non-City Services Compared Over Time Figure 34: Non-City Services Benchmarks, Figure 35: Importance of Non-City Services Compared Over Time Figure 36: Balancing Satisfaction and Importance, Figure 37: Services with Higher Importance and Lower Satisfaction Ratings Compared Over Time Figure 38: Contact with City Employees Compared Over Time Figure 39: Departments Contacted in the Last 12 Months Compared Over Time Figure 40: Overall Impression of City Employees, Figure 41: City Employee Ratings Compared Over Time Figure 42: City Employees Benchmarks, Figure 43: Public Trust Ratings Compared Over Time Figure 44: Public Trust Benchmarks, Figure 45: Perception of Potential Problems Impacting Arvada Compared Over Time Figure 46: Household Financial Status Compared Over Time Figure 47: Economic Impact on Household Income Compared Over Time Figure 48: Opinions on the Current Rate of Growth in Arvada Compared Over Time Figure 49: Quality and Variety of Development in Arvada Compared Over Time Figure 50: Arvada City Government s Ability to Plan for Growth Compared Over Time Figure 51: Support for or Opposition to More Retail Development in Arvada, Figure 52: Support for More Retail Development in Arvada Compared Over Time Figure 53: Shopping Preferences, Figure 54: Importance of Shopping in Arvada Compared Over Time... 49

4 Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. Arvada Citizen Survey Figure 55: Those Who at Least Sometimes Made Purchase in Arvada Compared Over Time Figure 56: Arvada Traffic Ratings Compared Over Time Figure 57: Support for City Actions for Future Sustainability Compared by Over Time Figure 58: Support for the City of Arvada Pursuing New Programs Compared Over Time Figure 59: New Programs: Top Priority Compared Over Time Figure 60: New Programs: First, Second and Third Priority Compared Over Time Figure 61: Computer with Internet Access Compared Over Time Figure 62: Accessed Information on City s Web Site Compared Over Time Figure 63: Aspects of the City s Web Site Compared Over Time Figure 64: Respondent Frequency of Using Sources of Information Compared Over Time Figure 65: Importance of Sources for Information about City Projects and Programs Compared Over Time... 62

5 Executive Summary Survey Background and Methods The 2015 Arvada Citizen Survey provided residents the opportunity to rate the quality of life in the City, as well as service delivery, and overall workings of local government. The survey also permitted residents to provide feedback to government on what is working well and what is not, and to share their priorities for community planning and resource allocation. This is the 18 th iteration of the Arvada Citizen Survey since its inception in A randomly selected sample of 2,400 residential addresses within Arvada was mailed the 2015 Arvada Citizen Survey. Of these, 2,339 were delivered to occupied households. A total of 785 completed surveys were received, for a response rate of 34%. Survey results were weighted so that respondent age, gender, tenure (rent versus own), and housing unit type (attached versus detached) were represented in the proportions reflective of the entire City. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points around any given percentage point reported for the entire sample. Benchmark comparisons to National Research Center s (NRC) database of over 500 communities have been made when comparisons were available to the nation and Colorado s Front Range. Where questions have been worded similarly among survey years, trends in results over time are presented. Key Findings Arvada residents experienced a high quality of life. Arvada residents continued to rate their overall quality of life highly; 93% of respondents rated their overall quality of life as very good or good. This evaluation was similar to the 2013 ratings and similar to the national and Front Range benchmarks. About 4 in 10 respondents believed that the quality of life in Arvada was likely to improve over the next five years, a higher percentage than in As in 2013, about 9 in 10 respondents believed that Arvada was a very good or good place to live; however, this rating was lower when compared to communities across the nation and much lower when compared to communities across the Front Range. The quality of neighborhoods has received consistently favorable marks since 1997 with no one rating the quality as very bad. The 2015 rating was higher than the national benchmark. Arvada residents frequency of communication with their neighbors was higher than that seen in households across the nation, with half reporting they spoke or visited with their neighbors several times a week or more. About two-thirds or more of respondents rated Arvada as a place to raise children and as a place to retire as very good or good. Respondents ratings of 17 community characteristics were correlated to their ratings of overall quality of life to reveal those aspects with the greatest likelihood of having influence over it. This analysis revealed that the aspects of attractiveness and cleanliness, sense of community, and access to neighborhood parks play the biggest role in how residents asses their overall quality of life. Page 1

6 Residents continued to feel safe in their neighborhoods and report a strong sense of personal safety in Arvada. About 9 in 10 respondents expressed feeling very or somewhat safe from violent crimes in their neighborhood and 75% felt very or somewhat safe from property crimes in their neighborhood. When rating their sense of personal safety in Arvada, 92% reported feeling very or somewhat safe, a rating much higher than the national and Front Range benchmarks. Residents gave higher ratings to their sense of personal safety in 2015 compared to Only 13% of respondents reported that they or someone in their household was the victim of a crime, a similar percentage that has been reported since 2009 and similar to the national and Front Range benchmark. More residents in 2015 than in 2013 reported their recent crime victimization to the police (83% in 2015 versus 75% in 2013). Evaluations of City services and non-city services mostly were stable over time; however there were several declines. Overall, a majority of residents were satisfied with Arvada government services, but this rating was much lower than evaluations given by residents across the country and in the Front Range. Ratings of the overall satisfaction with the City Government services have remained steady since Evaluations for 22 of the 23 City-provided services listed on the survey could be compared to 2013 ratings and most remained stable. However, street maintenance, ease of car travel, sidewalk maintenance, new street construction and expansion, ease of bicycle travel, government-assisted affordable housing, building inspection, and City outreach services received lower ratings in 2015 compared to 2013 ratings. Half or more of residents reported being very satisfied or satisfied with 14 of the 23 services with the most favorable ratings going to City parks, drinking water quality, police services, maintenance of City parks, water services, sewer services, and cultural activities at the Arvada Center. Fifteen of the 22 City services were available for comparison to the national benchmark. City parks received a rating higher than the national benchmark. Five services were rated similar (e.g., water services, sewer services, street sweeping) and nine were rated lower (e.g., police services, ease of car travel, municipal courts, and code enforcement). Respondents also evaluated 12 services that were provided by agencies other than the City. Nine of the 12 non-city services remained stable over time. A more positive rating was given to library services, while less positive ratings were given to programs for senior citizens and assistance programs for the poor and homeless. Ten of the 12 non-city services could be compared to the national benchmark. None were rated higher than the benchmark, one was similar (recreation programs) and nine were lower (e.g., fire services, library services, trash collection, and youth programs). In addition to rating the quality of City-provided services and those provided by other agencies/organizations, respondents were asked to evaluate the importance of each. Ratings of importance of City services were compared to ratings of satisfaction to determine which services among the most important were perceived to be delivered with the lowest quality. Those categorized as higher in importance and lower in quality were mass transit planning, high speed Internet services, youth programs, sidewalk maintenance, street maintenance, and ease of car travel. Youth programs and mass transit planning have fallen into this category for the last three survey administrations. Page 2

7 City of Arvada government performance and City employees were rated highly by residents. Since 1997, about half of respondents reported having contact with a City of Arvada employee in the 12 months prior to the survey, with the majority of those having contacted the police department. Between 73% and 85% of respondents gave City employees very good or good ratings for their professional attitude, willingness to help or understand, being knowledgeable, making the resident feel valued as a citizen/customer, and for their overall impression. A majority of residents (57% or more) agreed that City employees try to do quality work, Arvada City government welcomes citizen involvement, were pleased with the overall direction of the City, and that they get a good value for the taxes paid. All ratings were higher than or similar to the national benchmark comparisons. Aspects of traffic were seen as more of a problem in 2015 compared to past years. As in previous years, residents were most concerned with the traffic volume on major streets in the City and least concerned with the accessibility of commercial and retail centers and the volume of traffic on residential streets. Three-quarters of respondents stated that the volume of traffic on major streets such as Wadsworth or Ralston Road was a moderate or major problem, with one-third saying it was a major problem. About half of residents said that traffic movement within the City was at least a moderate problem and one-third said both the speed and volume of traffic on residential streets were at least moderate problems. Each of the five aspects of traffic listed on the survey were considered more problematic in 2015 compared to 2013, from an increase of 17% for the volume of traffic on major streets such as Wadsworth or Ralston Road to an increase of six percent for speed of traffic on residential roads and accessibility of commercial and retail centers. When asked how much of a problem, if at all, a list of 12 different potential problems were in Arvada, one of the top three problems was traffic congestion (21% major or extreme problem) and more respondents in 2015 than in 2013 reported that traffic congestion was a major or extreme problem (21% in 2015 versus 12% in 2013). Residents voiced concerns about growth and housing in the community. Of the 17 characteristics of the community assessed on the survey, affordability of housing received the lowest rating with one-quarter giving a very good or good rating. The quality of available housing was given a positive rating by about half of residents (49%). Each of these ratings has declined since When asked how much of a problem, if at all, a list of 12 different potential problems were in Arvada, respondents reported that the biggest problems facing Arvada were growth (27% major or extreme problem) and lack of entry-level housing (23%). More respondents in 2015 than in 2013 reported that growth was a major or extreme problem (27% in 2015 and 12% in 2013) along with lack of entry-level housing (23% versus 10%). When asked about rates of various types of growth, concerns about residential growth being too fast have increased from 2013 to 2015 (38% versus 65%, respectively). Page 3

8 Residents generally support efforts to improve walking and biking in the community, but only travel by either mode for exercise or for fun. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of support for a tax increase to allow the City to pursue a variety of potential new programs and 75% of respondents were supportive of making walking and biking easier around Arvada by connecting bike lanes and sidewalks, the fifth most supported new program in the list of nine. When asked to indicate how often, if at all, they walked or biked for a variety of reasons, half of residents reported they walked for exercise two times a week or more while only 19% biked for exercise two times a week or more. About 43% walked for fun two times a week or more while only 19% biked for fun two times a week or more. Less than 13% biked or walked two times a week or more to shop or run errands, to get entertainment, or to commute to work or school. Overall, residents supported the City taking actions for Arvada s future sustainability and the City pursuing new programs. As in 2013, Arvada residents liked the idea of the City taking actions for future sustainability. Generally, at least 6 in 10 respondents supported the 12 sustainability actions, and between 23% and 51% strongly supported each. About 9 in 10 respondents supported the City completing sidewalk connections throughout Arvada s streets and supported encouraging community gardening or farming. The idea of encouraging mixed-use development in the City received the least amount of support, though a majority still supported this initiative. Overall, support for most sustainability actions has been trending downwards since the question was first asked in 2007, although no significant change in ratings was seen between 2013 and Respondents were asked to indicate their level of support for a tax increase to allow the City to pursue a variety of potential new programs. The new programs that residents were most supportive of the City pursuing were providing additional funding for road maintenance and improving existing neighborhood parks, followed closely by providing additional funding for the construction of streets to improve the City s transportation system. While support for five of the new programs stayed the same from 2013 to 2015, fewer residents favored providing additional funding for day-to-day maintenance of parks, trails, open space, and medians in 2015 compared to 2013 (78% versus 86%, respectively). More residents favored building new community and regional parks (78% in 2015 versus 70% in 2013) and purchasing additional land for open space (70% versus 64%). Page 4

9 Survey Background Survey Purpose The City of Arvada contracted with National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) in 2015 to conduct a community-wide citizen survey. The Arvada Citizen Survey serves as a consumer report card for Arvada by providing residents the opportunity to rate the quality of life in the City, the community s amenities, service delivery, and satisfaction with local government. The survey also permits residents to provide feedback to government on what is working well and what is not, and to communicate priorities for community planning and resource allocation. The focus on the quality of service delivery and the importance of services helps council, staff, and the public to set priorities for budget decisions and lays the groundwork for tracking community opinions about the core responsibilities of Arvada City government, helping to assure maximum service quality over time. This type of survey explores the key services that local government controls to create a quality community. It is akin to private sector customer surveys that are used regularly by many corporations to monitor where there are weaknesses in product or service delivery before customers defect to competition or before other problems from disaffected customers arise. The 2015 survey marks the 18 th iteration of the Arvada Citizen Survey since its inception in Survey Methods A randomly selected sample of 2,400 residential addresses within Arvada was mailed the 2015 Arvada Citizen Survey. Of these, 2,339 were assumed to be delivered to occupied households. A total of 785 completed surveys were received, for a response rate of 34%, which was similar to the response in Survey results were weighted so that respondent age, gender, tenure (rent versus own), and housing unit type (attached versus detached) were represented in the proportions reflective of the entire City. More information about the survey methodology can be found in Appendix F: Survey Methodology. How the Results Are Reported For the most part, frequency distributions (the percent of respondents giving each possible response to a particular question) and the percent positive are presented in the body of the report. The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., very good and good, strongly agree and somewhat agree, very satisfied and satisfied ). On many of the questions in the survey, respondents could give an answer of don t know. The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions and is discussed in the body of this report if it is 20% or greater. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report, unless otherwise indicated. In other words, the majority of the tables and graphs in the body of the report display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. For some questions, respondents were permitted to select multiple responses. When the total exceeds 100% for a multiple response question, it is because some respondents are counted in multiple categories. When a question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to the customary practice of rounding percentages to the nearest whole number. Page 5

10 Precision of Estimates It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a level of confidence (or margin of error). The 95 percent confidence level for this survey is generally no greater than plus or minus three percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (785). For comparisons among subgroups, the margin of error rises to approximately plus or minus 5% for sample sizes of 400 to plus or minus 10% for sample sizes of 100. Comparing Survey Results Over Time The 2013 results are presented along with past survey ratings when available. Differences between 2013 and 2015 can be considered statistically significant if they are six percentage points or greater. Trend data for Arvada represent important comparisons and should be examined for improvements or declines. Deviations from stable trends over time especially represent opportunities for understanding how local policies, programs, or public information may have affected residents opinions. Comparing Survey Results by Demographic and Geographic Characteristics Selected survey results were compared by demographic characteristics, respondents Council District, and Police Sector, and are presented in Appendix C: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Geography and Demographic Characteristics. Maps detailing the boundaries of the Council Districts and Police Sectors are included in Appendix G: Maps of Council Districts and Police Sectors. Comparing Survey Results to Other Communities NRC s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 500 communities whose residents evaluated their services. Conducted with typically no fewer than 400 residents in each community, opinions are intended to represent over 30 million Americans. National and Front Range benchmark comparisons have been included in the report when available. Communities to which Arvada was compared nationally and in the Front Range can be found in Appendix E. Communities Included in Benchmark Comparisons. Benchmark comparisons have been provided when similar questions on the Arvada survey are included in NRC s database and there are at least five communities in which the question was asked, though most questions are compared to more than five other cities across the country or in the Front Range. Additional information on NRC s benchmarking database can be found in Appendix D: Benchmark Comparisons. Where comparisons for quality ratings were available, the City of Arvada s results were generally noted as being above, below, or similar to the benchmark. For some questions those related to resident behavior, circumstance, or to a local problem the comparison to the benchmark is designated as more, similar or less (for example, residents contacting the City in the last 12 months). In instances where ratings are considerably higher or lower than the benchmark, these ratings have been further demarcated by the attribute of much, (for example, much less or much above ). These labels come from a statistical comparison of Arvada s rating to the benchmark where a rating is considered similar if it is within the margin of error; above, below, more, or less if the difference between Arvada s rating and the benchmark is greater than but less than twice the margin of error; and much above, much below, much more, or much less if the difference between Arvada s rating and the benchmark is more than twice the margin of error. Data for a number of items on the survey is not available in the benchmark database (e.g., some of the services or aspects of the community or quality of life). These items are excluded from the benchmark tables. Page 6

11 Survey Results Quality of Life The 2015 survey questionnaire first asked respondents to evaluate several different aspects of quality of life, including the overall quality of life in Arvada. Almost all residents reported that the overall quality of life in Arvada was good (57%) or very good (36%). Six percent felt the overall quality of life in the City was neither good nor bad and no one gave a bad or very bad rating. When compared to previous survey years, ratings of the overall quality of life in Arvada have remained stable. Arvada s rating for the overall quality of life was compared to ratings given by residents in other communities across the nation and in the Front Range (see Appendix D: Benchmark Comparisons for a complete set of comparisons to the benchmarks). Arvada received evaluations similar to those given across the nation and in the Front Range. The 2015 survey results were compared by respondent demographic subgroups, as well as the Council District and Police Sector in which the respondent s household was located. Residents who lived in detached housing units, those in Council District 3 or 4 and Police Sector C tended to give higher ratings to the quality of life in Arvada compared to their counterparts (see Appendix C: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Geography and Demographic Characteristics). Figure 1: Overall Quality of Life, 2015 Overall, how would you describe the quality of life in Arvada? very good 36% very bad 0% bad 0% good 57% neither good nor bad 6% Figure 2: Overall Quality of Life Compared Over Time 100% 89% 93% 93% 91% 93% 93% 94% 95% 93% 93% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Percent "very good" or "good" Please note: In 1997, overall quality of life was asked on the scale excellent, good, just OK, poor, terrible Page 7

12 More than twice as many respondents felt the quality of life in Arvada would improve (37%) over the next five years as did those who felt it would decline (17%). About half of residents believed that the quality of life in the City would stay about the same over the next five-year period. More respondents in 2015 than in 2013 believed the quality of life in Arvada would improve over the next five years, marking the largest proportion of respondents to date feeling that the quality of life would improve in the coming years. Figure 3: Change in Quality of Life Over Next Five Years Compared Over Time Do you think the quality of life in Arvada is likely to improve, stay about the same, or decline over the next five years? Improve Stay about the same Decline % 47% 17% % 56% 14% % 65% 13% % 58% 17% % 59% 18% % 58% 21% % 64% 21% % 56% 24% % 57% 26% % 54% 33% % 49% 35% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of respondents Page 8

13 Quality of Community Nine out of 10 respondents (92%) said that Arvada was a good or very good place to live, similar to ratings given in Seven percent said it was neither good nor bad, 1% said it was bad, and no one felt it was a very bad place to live. These ratings were lower than ratings given by residents in other communities across the nation and much lower than those in the Front Range (see Appendix D: Benchmark Comparisons). These ratings were compared by the Council District and Police Sector that the respondent s household is located in. Those who lived in Council District 3 or 4 and Police Sector C tended to give higher ratings to Arvada as a place to live compared to their counterparts (see Appendix C: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Geography and Demographic Characteristics). Figure 4: Arvada as a Place to Live, 2015 How do you rate Arvada as a place to live? very good 37% very bad 0% bad 1% neither good nor bad 7% good 54% Figure 5: Arvada as a Place to Live Compared Over Time 100% 89% 92% 91% 90% 89% 91% 93% 94% 91% 92% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Percent "very good" or "good" Page 9

14 When asked to assess the overall quality of their neighborhood, 84% of respondents said it was good or very good, which was similar to Thirteen percent believed the quality of their neighborhood was neither good nor bad and only 3% rated it as bad. No one rated the quality of their neighborhood as very bad. Arvada received evaluations higher than those given across the nation (comparisons were not available to the Front Range; see Appendix D: Benchmark Comparisons). These ratings were compared by respondent demographics and the Council District and Police Sector that the respondent s household is located in. Those aged 35 or older and residents who had lived in the community for more than 20 years tended to give higher evaluations to the overall quality of their neighborhood compared to their counterparts. Residents living in Council District 4 and Police Sector C tended to give higher evaluations to the overall quality of their neighborhood compared to those living in other Council Districts and Police Sectors. (See Appendix C: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Geography and Demographic Characteristics). Figure 6: Overall Quality of Neighborhood, 2015 How do you rate the overall quality of your neighborhood? very good 32% very bad 0% bad 3% neither good nor bad 13% good 51% Figure 7: Overall Quality of Neighborhood Compared Over Time 100% 80% 84% 86% 84% 81% 82% 83% 81% 84% 85% 84% 60% 40% 20% 0% Percent "very good" or "good" Page 10

15 When asked how often, if at all, they spoke or visited with the neighbors who lived in the 10 or 20 households closest to them, 22% of respondents said they did so just about every day and one-third said several times a week. About one-fifth said they spoke or visited with their immediate neighbors several times a month and another one-quarter reported they had contact less than several times a month. The amount of contact with neighbors reported by Arvada residents was similar to the amount of contact reported in 2013 and higher than reported by residents across the nation (comparisons were not available to the Front Range; see Appendix D: Benchmark Comparisons). Figure 8: Frequency of Communication with Neighbors Compared Over Time Just about every day Several times a week Several times a month Less than several times a month % 30% 22% 26% 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)? % 33% 24% 25% % 34% 28% 21% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of respondents Page 11

16 A new question on the 2015 survey asked residents to indicate how often, if at all, they interacted with their neighbors in a variety of ways. Most residents had at least sometimes interacted with their neighbors while coming to/going from their home from/to somewhere else. About 8 in 10 had at least sometimes interacted with their neighbors during walks in their neighborhood and while doing outdoor chores and slightly fewer at least sometimes interacted with their neighbors on personal visits (75% often or sometimes ). Fewer than 2 in 10 residents had interacted with their neighbors through Nextdoor.com or through their Homeowner s Association. Figure 9: Types of Interactions with Neighbors, 2015 In the last 12 months, about how often, if at all, did you interact with your neighbors in each of the following ways: often sometimes never Coming to/going from my home from/to somewhere else 32% 54% 14% Walks in the neighborhood 35% 47% 18% Outdoor chores 35% 44% 21% Personal visits 30% 45% 25% Kids playing together 17% 20% 63% Block parties 3% 22% 74% Through the Homeowner s Association 4% 15% 82% Through Nextdoor.com 4% 13% 83% Other 13% 52% 35% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of respondents Page 12

17 Along with the overall quality of life and the quality of neighborhoods, Arvada residents also were asked to rate the City as a place to raise children, retire, and work. Eighty-five percent of respondents said that Arvada as a place to raise children was very good or good, and 63% said that Arvada was at least a good place to retire. About half of residents said that Arvada was a very good or good place to work. Fewer than 1 in 10 respondents gave bad or very bad ratings to each of these items. Evaluations of Arvada as a place to raise children, retire, and work remained stable from 2013 to Generally, Arvada ratings were lower when compared to the national and Front Range benchmarks (see Figure 11). However, the City as a place to retire was similar to the national comparison. Residents living in Council District 1 and 4 and Police Sector C tended to give higher evaluations to Arvada as a place to raise children compared to those living in other Council Districts and Police Sectors. Residents living in Council District 1 and Police Sector A gave more positive ratings to Arvada as a place to work compared to their counterparts. (See Appendix C: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Geography and Demographic Characteristics). Figure 10: Quality of Community Compared Over Time How do you rate Arvada as a place to raise children? How do you rate Arvada as a place to retire? 63% 64% 65% 65% 57% 55% 58% 62% 85% 84% 87% 85% 85% 83% 85% 86% 85% 84% How do you rate Arvada as a place to work? 47% 50% 51% 48% 40% 42% % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent "very good" or "good" Figure 11: Community Quality Benchmarks, 2015 National comparison Front Range comparison How do you rate Arvada as a place to raise children? Lower Lower How do you rate Arvada as a place to retire? Similar Lower How do you rate Arvada as a place to work? Much lower Much lower Page 13

18 Community Characteristics Of the 17 characteristics of the community assessed on the survey, 12 received very good or good ratings by at least half of respondents (see Figure 12 on the following page). At least 8 in 10 residents said that the access to neighborhood parks (93%) and water quality (83%) were at least good. The characteristics given the lowest evaluations were opportunities for continuing education (40% very good or good ), opportunities for employment (32%), and affordability of housing (26%). About 4 in 10 respondents felt that affordability of housing was bad or very bad (see Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions). Comparisons to the national benchmark were available for 12 of the 17 community characteristics (see Figure 13 on the following page). Six received ratings higher or much higher than the national benchmark: access to neighborhood parks recreational opportunities opportunities to attend arts and cultural activities opportunities for employment water quality sense of community Shopping opportunities received a rating similar to the national benchmark while air quality in the City, quality of K-12 schools in Arvada and ease of walking were lower and opportunities for continuing education and affordability of housing were much lower. Eleven of the 17 characteristics were available for comparison to the Front Range. Seven were rated much higher or higher than the Front Range benchmark: opportunities to attend arts and cultural activities opportunities for employment sense of community recreational opportunities Similar evaluations were given to water quality, quality of K-12 schools in Arvada and shopping opportunities when compared to the Front Range. Ease of walking, affordability of housing, air quality and opportunities for continuing education were lower or much lower than the Front Range benchmark. The ratings for quality of available housing and the affordability of housing decreased in 2015 compared to 2013 (see Figure 12 on the following page). All other characteristics received similar ratings in 2015 as in These ratings were compared by respondent demographic subgroups, as well as the Council District and Police Sector in which the respondent s household was located. Residents who rent their home tended to give higher evaluations to shopping and dining opportunities but lower evaluations to recreational opportunities, quality of available housing, and affordability of housing compared to those who own their home. Residents living in Council District 4 and Police Sector C tended to give higher evaluations to air quality, quality of K-12 schools, water quality, and quality of available housing, but tended to give lower evaluations to opportunities for dining out and shopping when compared to residents residing on other Council Districts. (See Appendix C: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Geography and Demographic Characteristics for additional comparisons). Page 14

19 It should be noted that more than 20% of respondents selected don t know when rating the quality of K-12 schools in Arvada and opportunities for employment. The ratings presented in the body of the report are for those respondents who had an opinion. (A complete set of responses to each question, including don t know, can be found in Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions.) Figure 12: Community Characteristics Compared Over Time Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to the Arvada community as a whole Access to neighborhood parks 93% 91% 93% 88% 91% 87% 90% 88% 85% 83% Water quality 83% 79% 84% 84% 84% 79% 79% 79% NA NA Attractiveness/cleanliness 79% 80% 80% 78% 75% 75% 72% 79% NA NA Recreational opportunities 77% 80% 75% 73% 72% 71% 73% 73% 68% 62% Opportunities to attend arts and cultural activities 74% 78% 69% 70% 68% 69% 67% 71% 72% 69% Air quality 71% 74% 73% 71% 62% 63% 60% 59% 59% 44% Opportunities for dining out 69% 71% 72% 65% 66% 66% 66% 62% 60% 57% Sense of community 68% 72% 69% 70% 68% 62% 58% 62% 59% 48% Quality of K-12 schools in Arvada 67% 68% 68% 70% 71% 68% 65% 67% 63% 62% Ease of biking in the City 61% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Ease of walking in the City 60% 63% 63% 61% NA NA NA NA NA NA Shopping opportunities 50% 55% 51% 52% 52% 52% 57% 54% 54% 48% Quality of available housing 49% 62% 65% 71% 65% NA NA NA NA NA Racial relations 48% 53% 49% 52% 45% 43% 48% 47% 47% 45% Opportunities for continuing education 40% 44% 45% 48% 45% 45% 46% 54% 58% 50% Opportunities for employment 32% 31% 24% 26% 26% 27% 23% 37% NA NA Affordability of housing 26% 45% 43% 48% 40% NA NA NA NA NA Percent very good or good. Please note: Prior to 2013, Opportunities to attend arts and cultural activities was Opportunities to attend cultural activities. Figure 13: Community Characteristics Benchmarks, 2015 National comparison Front Range comparison Access to neighborhood parks Much higher NA Water quality Higher Similar Recreational opportunities Much higher Higher Opportunities to attend arts and cultural activities Much higher Much higher Air quality Lower Lower Sense of community Higher Higher Quality of K-12 schools in Arvada Lower Similar Ease of walking in the City Lower Much lower Shopping opportunities Similar Similar Opportunities for continuing education Much lower Lower Opportunities for employment Much higher Much higher Affordability of housing Much lower Much lower Page 15

20 A Closer Look at Quality of Life in Arvada By knowing what resonates most with residents as they rate their quality of life, Arvada stakeholders will have a window into the aspects that make their community livable, attractive, and a place where people want to be. Respondents ratings of the characteristics of Arvada were correlated with their ratings of the overall quality of life to reveal those aspects with the greatest likelihood of having influence over it. The 2015 City of Arvada Action Chart below combines three dimensions of performance: comparisons to the 2013 data (indicated by the arrows), comparisons to the national benchmark (indicated by the shading), and identification of the community characteristics most highly correlated with ratings of overall quality of life (indicated by a key icon). This analysis revealed that the aspects of attractiveness/cleanliness, sense of community, and access to neighborhood parks play the biggest role in how residents assess their overall quality of life. Of these three aspects, sense of community and access to neighborhood parks were higher than the benchmarks and had stable ratings when compared to 2013 results. Attractiveness and cleanliness, while similar to 2013 results, did not have a national benchmark comparison available. Targeting potential improvements in these three areas could help to elevate residents opinions about their quality of life. Figure 14: The City of Arvada Action Chart 2015 Page 16

21 Safety in Arvada Residents perceptions of safety in Arvada also were captured through the 2015 survey. The majority of respondents said that they felt very or somewhat safe personally and from various types of crime in and outside their neighborhood (see Figure 15 below). Ninety-two percent of residents rated their sense of personal safety as very or somewhat safe. Respondents felt the safest from violent crimes in their neighborhoods (89% at least somewhat safe ). About three-quarters felt safe from property crimes in their neighborhood (75%) and violent crimes outside of their neighborhood (73%). Residents felt less safe from property crimes outside of their neighborhood (62%). Comparisons to the benchmarks were available for three of the five safety questions. Arvada residents sense of personal safety and safety from violent crimes in their neighborhood received ratings higher or much higher than those given by residents in other communities across the country. Safety from property crimes in neighborhoods received similar ratings to the national benchmark. Arvada residents sense of personal safety received a rating much higher than the Front Range benchmark, while safety from violent crimes in neighborhoods was similar. Safety from property crimes in neighborhoods was rated lower than the Front Range benchmark. National or Front Range comparisons were not available for crimes outside of neighborhoods. Residents gave higher ratings to their sense of personal safety in 2015 compared to 2013.All other safety ratings received similar ratings in 2015 as in Residents living in Council District 2 and Police Sector B tended to feel less safe from violent crimes and property crimes in their neighborhood compared to those living in other Council Districts and Police Sectors. Residents 55 or older tended to feel less safe from violent and property crimes outside their neighborhoods compared to younger adults. Residents who had lived in Arvada for 6 to 20 years tended to feel safer from violent crimes outside their neighborhood compared to those who had lived in Arvada for other lengths of time (see Appendix C: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Geography and Demographic Characteristics for additional comparisons). Figure 15: Safety in Arvada Compared Over Time Sense of personal safety in Arvada 92% 86% 91% 89% 88% 86% 90% NA NA NA Violent crimes (e.g., rape, robbery, assault) in your neighborhood 89% 88% 88% 88% 86% 84% 89% 88% 87% 81% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft, vandalism, auto theft) in your neighborhood 75% 71% 71% 72% 68% 63% 72% 75% 73% 66% Violent crimes (e.g., rape, robbery, assault) outside your neighborhood 73% 70% 67% 65% 67% 62% 68% 68% 60% NA Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft, vandalism, auto theft) outside your neighborhood 62% 57% 55% 54% 52% 48% 57% 59% 52% NA Percent very safe or somewhat safe. Please note: In 1997, the survey only asked respondents one question: Please rate how safe you feel from the following... The question did not specify in your neighborhood or outside your neighborhood. Figure 16: Safety Benchmarks, 2015 National comparison Front Range comparison Sense of personal safety in Arvada Much higher Much higher Violent crimes (e.g., rape, robbery, assault) in your neighborhood Higher Similar Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft, vandalism, auto theft) in your neighborhood Similar Much lower Page 17

22 Since 2009, survey respondents have been asked if they or anyone in their household had been a victim of a crime in the last 12 months and, if so, was the crime reported to police. In 2015, 13% of residents reported being a victim of a crime in the last 12 months, which was similar to the rate of crime victimization in 2009, 2011 and Of those reporting having been a crime victim, about 8 in 10 (83%) said they reported the crime to police, higher than the rate of reporting crime victimization in 2013 (75%). When comparing crime victimization and crime reporting from residents to other communities across the country, a similar proportion of Arvada residents reported being victims of crime and had reported the crime to police. Compared to the Front Range benchmark, the rate of crime victimization was similar (a comparison was not available to the Front Range for crime reporting; see Appendix D: Benchmark Comparisons). Residents living in Council District 2 and 3 and Police Sector B tended to report more instances of crime victimization to them or someone in their household compared to those living in other Council Districts or Police Sectors. Residents who lived in detached housing units and who own their home tended to report fewer instances of crime victimization to them or someone in their household compared to their counterparts (see Appendix C: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Geography and Demographic Characteristics). Figure 17: Victim of Crime Compared Over Time During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? 13% 11% 14% 14% % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent "yes" Figure 18: Crime Reported Compared Over Time 83% If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? 68% 71% 75% % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent "yes" Page 18

23 Living and Working in Arvada Arvada residents were asked to assess different aspects of living and working in the City. Forty-one percent of respondents felt that it was essential or very important to be able to live and work in Arvada, 32% said it was somewhat important, and another 27% believed it was not at all important. These ratings remained steady from 2013 to Figure 19: Importance of Living and Working in Arvada, 2015 essential 12% very important 29% How important is it to you to have the opportunity to work as well as live in Arvada? not at all important 27% somewhat important 32% Figure 20: Importance of Living and Working in Arvada Compared Over Time How important is it to you to have the opportunity to work as well as live in Arvada? Essential 12% 15% 12% 11% 12% 33% 35% 34% 21% Very important 29% 31% 34% 33% 32% 31% 31% 36% 28% Somewhat important 32% 26% 27% 31% 29% 24% 23% 21% 30% Not at all important 27% 28% 27% 25% 26% 12% 12% 9% 21% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Please note: Prior to 2007, the scale was very important, somewhat important, not very important, not at all important. Page 19

24 About two-thirds of respondents reported working outside their homes in 2015, which was similar to Of those who reported working outside of their home, on average, they drove 14.4 miles from their homes to their work place. The distance for work commutes has seen little change over time. Figure 21: Working Outside the Home Compared Over Time 100% 80% 71% 76% 77% 78% 76% 77% 70% 69% 69% 66% 60% 40% 20% 0% Percent "yes" Figure 22: Work Commute Compared Over Time About how many miles is your work place from home? Less than 5 miles 11% 15% 17% 12% 13% 13% 10% 16% 17% 17% 5 to 9 miles 24% 23% 22% 20% 24% 23% 21% 21% 20% 22% 10 to 14 miles 27% 22% 24% 27% 24% 25% 28% 24% 27% 26% 15 to 19 miles 15% 15% 12% 17% 18% 17% 17% 17% 15% 15% 20 or more miles 22% 25% 25% 25% 21% 22% 23% 23% 21% 20% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Average distance in miles Please note: Asked only of those who reported they worked outside of the home. Page 20

25 Denver, Arvada, Lakewood, and Golden were the cities that the majority of Arvada residents said they worked in or closest to. In 2015 compared to 2013, although not significant, there was a slight increase in the number of respondents who reported working in Denver (31% in 2015 versus 27% in 2013). As in previous survey years, about 9 in 10 respondents reported that they drove alone for their work commute (89%). Figure 23: City of Employment Compared Over Time Which city do you work in or closest to? Denver 31% 27% 25% 31% 30% 30% 30% 31% 28% 30% Arvada 20% 23% 23% 18% 16% 20% 15% 17% 19% 21% Lakewood 8% 8% 11% 7% 8% 9% 7% 8% 8% 8% Golden 7% 8% 10% 11% 8% 8% 9% 8% 8% 9% Boulder 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 3% 6% 4% Broomfield 5% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 2% Wheat Ridge 4% 5% 5% 5% 7% 4% 7% 6% 6% 7% Westminster 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 4% NA NA NA NA Louisville 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% Lafayette 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% Other 15% 15% 11% 14% 13% 16% 21% 20% 20% 18% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Please note: Asked only of those who reported they worked outside of the home. Figure 24: Commute Transportation Compared Over Time How do you usually travel to work? Drive alone 89% 88% 91% 89% 91% 89% 93% 87% 86% 87% Car pool 4% 5% 3% 3% 5% 4% 3% 6% 6% 7% The bus 4% 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% 2% 4% 5% 4% Bike 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% Walk 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1% 1% 1% Scooter 0% 0% 0% 0% NA NA NA NA NA NA Other 1% 1% 1% 2% NA 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Please note: Asked only of those who reported they worked outside of the home. Page 21

26 Community Participation Respondents were given the opportunity to share their levels of participation in 16 different activities in the 12 months prior to the survey. Nearly all residents reported having visited Olde Town Arvada (97% said at least once in the last 12 months), dined at an Arvada restaurant that was not fast food (95%), and used a City park or trail (89%). About 8 in 10 said they tried to restrict water use for purposes of conservation (82%) and recycled used paper, cans or bottles from home (78%). Fewer participants reported attending an educational class or program in Arvada (19%), riding a local RTD bus within the City (15%), attending a public meeting about City matters (11%), or attending a City Council meeting (8%). About 80% or more of respondents had never done any of these four activities. A complete set of responses to each question can be found in Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions. Compared to 2013 ratings, fewer respondents reported having tried to restrict their water use for purposes of conservation (82% said at least once in the last 12 months in 2015 versus 90% in 2013). Participation rates in all other activities in 2015 remained similar to Figure 25: Community Participation Compared Over Time In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you done the following things: Visited Olde Town Arvada 97% 95% 95% 95% 92% 93% 88% 81% 80% 89% Dined at an Arvada restaurant (not fast food) 95% 96% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 93% 91% NA Used a City park or trail 89% 88% 85% 87% 90% 87% 87% 84% 84% NA Tried to restrict your water use for purposes of conservation 82% 90% 83% 87% 88% 90% 93% 67% 73% NA Recycled used paper, cans, or bottles from your home 78% 80% 74% 77% 72% 75% 76% 71% 76% 85% Used the public libraries 65% 68% 70% 75% 73% 72% 71% 60% 66% 78% Used the recreation centers 63% 65% 65% 65% 62% 63% 63% 55% 46% 60% Used a bicycle route in the City 48% 47% 45% 49% 49% 42% 48% NA NA NA Participated in Apex Park and Recreation programs or activities 47% 47% 46% 47% 45% 45% 42% 34% 35% 46% Volunteered your time to some group/activity outside of Arvada 45% 47% 44% 48% 44% 46% 42% 33% NA NA Attended a cultural activity at the Arvada Center 43% 42% 42% 46% 46% 48% 41% 36% 36% 53% Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Arvada 38% 38% 37% 44% 34% 37% 30% 27% 29% 38% Attended an educational class or program in Arvada 19% 21% 19% 19% 20% 23% 19% 13% 17% NA Rode a local RTD bus within the City 15% 15% 18% 18% 17% 22% 18% 15% 11% 16% Attended a public meeting about City matters 11% 14% 10% 10% 13% 15% 10% 8% 9% 16% Attended a City Council meeting 8% 9% 6% 6% 8% 10% 8% 5% 7% 13% Percent of respondents who participated at least once in past 12 months. Please note: Prior to 2013, Attended a cultural activity at the Arvada Center was Attended a theater or art program at the Arvada Center. Page 22

27 Frequency of Walking and Bicycle Travel A new set of questions on the 2015 survey asked residents to indicate how often, if at all, they walked or biked for a variety of reasons ranging from walking or biking for fun to walking or biking to commute to work or school. About half of residents had walked for exercise two times a week or more in the 12 months prior to taking the survey and an additional 3 in 10 had walked for exercise two to four times a month. Slightly fewer walked for fun two times a week or more (43%), but again about 3 in 10 walked for fun two to four times a month. About half had walked to shop or run errands at least once while fewer than half had walked at least once to get entertainment. Most residents had not walked to commute to school or work. Figure 26: Reasons for Walking, 2015 In the last 12 months, about how often, if at all, have you or another household member walked 2 times a week or more 2 to 4 times a month once a month or less not at all for exercise 50% 30% 10% 10% for fun 43% 32% 9% 16% to shop or run errands 13% 19% 19% 48% to get entertainment (e.g., a restaurant, the movies, etc.) 9% 16% 14% 61% to commute to school 6% 89% to commute to work 94% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of respondents Page 23

28 When asked about reasons for riding a bicycle, about 6 in 10 residents had ridden a bicycle for fun at least once in the 12 months prior to taking the survey and a similar proportion had ridden a bicycle for exercise. About 2 in 10 had ridden a bicycle to shop or run errands and to get entertainment at least once. One in 10 or fewer had ridden a bicycle at least once to commute to work or school. Figure 27: Reasons for Riding a Bicycle, 2015 In the last 12 months, about how often, if at all, have you or another household member ridden a bicycle 2 times a week or more 2 to 4 times a month once a month or less not at all for fun 19% 23% 15% 43% for exercise 19% 21% 14% 46% to shop or run errands 6% 6% 11% 78% to get entertainment (e.g., a restaurant, the movies, etc.) 5% 6% 7% 82% to commute to work 5% 89% to commute to school 93% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of respondents Page 24

29 City Government One of the main focuses of the Arvada Citizen Survey, which has spanned more than three decades, is to assess residents opinions about City services and government. A significant portion of the survey is dedicated to assessing resident satisfaction ratings of services provided by the City of Arvada and local government performance. The long trend line provides a solid foundation for performance measurement of City services. Perceptions of City Government Services About 6 in 10 Arvada residents reported being very satisfied or satisfied with the services provided by the City. Thirty-four percent had neutral opinions about their satisfaction with government services and only 6% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. While ratings for the satisfaction with the City government remained stable from 2013 to 2015, they were much lower than both the national and Front Range benchmarks (see Appendix D: Benchmark Comparisons). Residents living in Police Sector B tended to give a lower evaluation to their overall satisfaction with City services compared to those living in other Police Sectors. Significant differences did not emerge across Council Districts or respondent demographics (see Appendix C: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Geography and Demographic Characteristics). Figure 28: Overall Satisfaction with Arvada Government Services, 2015 Overall, how satisfied are you with the government services provided by the City of Arvada? neutral 34% dissatisfied 5% satisfied 50% very dissatisfied 1% very satisfied 10% 100% Figure 29: Overall Satisfaction with Arvada Government Services Compared Over Time 80% 60% 40% 35% 45% 49% 43% 46% 51% 52% 57% 55% 60% 58% 62% 61% 59% 58% 61% 20% 0% Percent "very satisfied" or "satisfied" Please note: From 1981 to 1991, the overall satisfaction with government services was rated on the scale excellent, good, adequate, poor, bad. In this figure, the percentages shown for 1981 to 1991 are the percent excellent or good. Page 25

30 A list of 23 City-provided services was given to residents who were asked to rate their satisfaction with each (see Figure 30 on page 28). Half or more of residents reported being very satisfied or satisfied with 14 of the 23 services. The most favorable evaluations were given to: City parks (89%) drinking water quality (81%) police services (emergency and non-emergency) (78%) maintenance of existing City parks, open space, and trails (78%) water services (75%) sewer services (75%) cultural activities at the Arvada Center for the Arts and Humanities (71%) At least one in three respondents said they were very satisfied with City parks, police services (emergency and non-emergency), and drinking water quality. A full set of frequencies for each question can be found in Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions. Fewer respondents reported being very satisfied or satisfied with new street construction and expansion (31%) and government-assisted affordable housing (21%). At least 20% of respondents selected don t know when rating the quality of the following City-provided services: City building inspection (44%), municipal courts (39%), programs to attract and keep businesses in Arvada (31%), flood control (30%), City outreach services (25%), government-assisted affordable housing (23%), and ease of bicycle travel (22%). The percentages shown in the body of the report are for those respondents who had an opinion. A full set of frequencies for each question, including don t know can be found in Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions. Arvada residents ratings of satisfaction with City services were compared to ratings given by residents in other communities across the country and in the Front Range (see Figure 31 on page 29). Fifteen of the 22 City services were available for comparison to the national benchmark. City parks received a rating higher than the national benchmark. The five services rated similar to the nation were: water services sewer services street sweeping City outreach services (KATV Channel 8, Web site, Facebook, Twitter, The Arvada Report, water bill inserts, etc.) street maintenance Police services; maintenance of existing City parks open space, and trails; snow removal or sanding on major streets; municipal court services; ease of bicycle travel; ease of car travel; sidewalk maintenance; code enforcement; and City building inspection were the services that received ratings lower than the national benchmark. Fifteen of the 22 City services were available for comparison to the Front Range benchmark. The six services that were given ratings similar to the Front Range included: City parks police services (emergency and non-emergency) snow removal water services street sweeping street maintenance Page 26

31 Nine City services were rated lower or much lower than the Front Range benchmark: maintenance of existing City parks, open space, and trails ease of car travel ease of bicycle travel sidewalk maintenance City outreach services (KATV Channel 8, Web site, Facebook, Twitter, The Arvada Report, water bill inserts, etc.) City building inspection Municipal court services sewer services code enforcement Compared to 2013 ratings, ratings declined in 2015 for the following services: street maintenance (50% reported very satisfied or satisfied in 2015 versus 63% in 2013) ease of car travel (46% versus 59%) sidewalk maintenance (42% versus 52%) new street construction and expansion (31% versus 40%) ease of bicycle travel (43% versus 51%) government-assisted affordable housing (21% versus 27%) City building inspection (34% versus 40%) City outreach services (KATV Channel 8, Web site, Facebook, Twitter, The Arvada Report, water bill inserts, etc.) (53% versus 59%) Evaluations for the remaining services remained stable from 2013 to The 2015 survey results were compared by respondent demographic subgroups, as well as the Council District and Police Sector in which the respondent s household was located. Few differences emerged across Council Districts and Police Sectors. Women tended to give higher evaluations to most City services compared to men (see Appendix C: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Geography and Demographic Characteristics). Page 27

32 Figure 30: Satisfaction with Arvada City Services Compared Over Time Please rate your satisfaction with the quality of the following services provided by the City of Arvada: City parks 89% 89% 83% 84% 85% 84% 83% 86% 83% 77% Drinking water quality 81% 79% 79% 81% 81% 79% 77% 78% 80% NA Police services (emergency and non-emergency) 78% 78% 81% 83% 81% 77% 78% 76% 82% 82% Maintenance of existing City parks, open space, and trails 78% 80% 76% 75% 75% 78% 76% 78% 78% 77% Water services 75% 75% 75% 74% 76% 75% 72% 78% 81% 80% Sewer services 75% 76% 74% 72% 74% 75% 74% 79% 81% 79% Cultural activities at the Arvada Center for the Arts and Humanities 71% 70% 68% 73% 67% 65% 67% 72% 67% 64% Development of new City parks, open space, and trails 67% 69% 63% 60% 55% 59% 57% 65% 60% 59% Street sweeping 64% 64% 62% 59% 56% 65% 61% 62% 65% 62% Snow removal or sanding on major streets 62% 64% 60% 59% 51% 68% 68% 64% 69% 69% Municipal court services 53% 52% 55% 49% 46% 49% 48% 53% 55% 52% City outreach services (KATV Channel 8, Web site, Facebook, Twitter, The Arvada Report, water bill inserts, etc.) 53% 59% 58% 61% 65% 67% 67% 62% 66% 62% Programs to deal with appearance and safety of neighborhoods 52% 49% 46% 49% 42% 45% 44% 42% 44% 38% Street maintenance 50% 63% 49% 51% 37% 51% 48% 57% 54% 53% Flood control 47% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Ease of car travel in the City 46% 59% 59% 57% 47% 47% 45% 41% 38% 38% Ease of bicycle travel in the City 43% 51% 52% 51% 53% 49% 51% 28% 28% 27% Sidewalk maintenance 42% 52% 51% 50% NA NA NA NA NA NA Code enforcement (weeds, junk cars, trash, etc.) 38% 38% 40% 37% 35% 42% 42% 44% 47% 45% Programs to attract and keep businesses in Arvada 37% 41% 33% 31% 31% 30% 23% 30% 34% 28% City building inspection 34% 40% 40% 37% 34% 35% 38% 35% 39% NA New street construction and expansion 31% 40% 38% 44% 41% 48% 43% 33% 33% 29% Government-assisted affordable housing 21% 27% 31% 30% 23% 29% 29% 24% 27% 21% Percent very satisfied or satisfied. Please note: Prior to 2013, police services (emergency and non-emergency) was split into two items: emergency and non-emergency. Code enforcement was Zoning enforcement, Cultural activities at the Arvada Center for the Arts and Humanities was Programs at... and Government-assisted affordable housing was Low income/subsidized housing. Facebook and Twitter references were added to the parenthetical note for City outreach services in In 2011 only, street maintenance was street patching and repairs. Prior to 2009, Programs to attract and keep businesses in Arvada was Business expansion and recruitment programs. Page 28

33 Figure 31: City Services Benchmarks, 2015 National comparison Front Range comparison City parks Higher Similar Police services (emergency and non-emergency) Lower Similar Maintenance of existing City parks, open space, and trails Lower Much lower Water services Similar Similar Sewer services Similar Lower Street sweeping Similar Similar Snow removal or sanding on major streets Lower Similar Municipal court services Lower Lower City outreach services (KATV Channel 8, Web site, Facebook, Twitter, The Arvada Report, water bill inserts, etc.) Similar Much lower Street maintenance Similar Similar Ease of car travel in the City Much lower Much lower Ease of bicycle travel in the City Lower Much lower Sidewalk maintenance Much lower Much lower Code enforcement (weeds, junk cars, trash, etc.) Much lower Much lower City building inspection Much lower Much lower Page 29

34 The importance of the same list of 23 City services also was measured (see the following page). The services residents believed to be the most important related to life and safety, including street maintenance (96% essential or very important ), water services (95%), drinking water quality (95%), police services (94%), and sewer services (94%). Less than half of respondents felt that government-assisted affordable housing (43%), cultural activities at the Arvada Center for the Arts and Humanities (41%), and City outreach services (KATV Channel 8, Web site, Facebook, Twitter, The Arvada Report, water bill inserts, etc.; 30%) was essential or very important. One-fifth of respondents said that City outreach services and government-assisted affordable housing were not at all important. A full set of frequencies for each question can be found in Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions. The relative order of importance of most City services has remained stable since 2007; however eight services saw an increase in their importance ratings including the following: new street construction and expansion (65% reported very satisfied or satisfied in 2015 versus 51% in 2013) sidewalk maintenance (73% versus 63%) code enforcement (weeds, junk cars, trash, etc.) (62% versus 53%) street maintenance (96% versus 89%) ease of car travel (75% versus 68%) street sweeping (63% versus 56%) development of new City parks, open space, and trails (59% versus 52%) City building inspection (60% versus 54%) Ratings of importance for the other services in 2015 were similar to ratings given in Page 30

35 Figure 32: Importance of Arvada City Services Compared Over Time Modifications in federal, state, and local funding may make it necessary to change some City services: Thinking of the services just listed previously, please rate on a five point scale, how important you think it is to have the City of Arvada provide these services Street maintenance 96% 89% 85% 86% 91% 78% 74% 81% 86% 83% Water services 95% 95% 92% 94% 93% 80% 80% 82% 82% 75% Drinking water quality 95% 95% 96% 95% 96% 86% 86% 88% 88% NA Police services (emergency and non-emergency) 94% 95% 96% 97% 97% 92% 93% 90% 93% 92% Sewer services 94% 94% 91% 92% 92% 77% 75% 79% 80% 74% Snow removal or sanding on major streets 91% 88% 90% 88% 92% 76% 77% 80% 82% 81% City parks 82% 79% 77% 78% 79% 67% 64% 72% 73% 66% Maintenance of existing City parks, open space, and trails 80% 78% 79% 78% 81% 70% 66% 74% 74% 65% Municipal court services 75% 72% 76% 76% 79% 57% 57% 60% 64% 55% Ease of car travel in the City 75% 68% 65% 67% 65% 62% 57% 63% 69% 63% Sidewalk maintenance 73% 63% 65% 66% NA NA NA NA NA NA Flood control 69% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Programs to deal with appearance and safety of neighborhoods 66% 65% 65% 69% 72% 67% 56% 58% 58% 56% New street construction and expansion 65% 51% 47% 51% 59% 51% 50% 60% 61% 58% Programs to attract and keep businesses in Arvada 64% 67% 72% 69% 67% 65% 47% 44% 39% 43% Street sweeping 63% 56% 59% 60% 58% 49% 47% 51% 55% 57% Code enforcement (weeds, junk cars, trash, etc.) 62% 53% 58% 62% 62% 54% 53% 55% 58% 55% City building inspection 60% 54% 59% 59% 59% 45% 41% 44% 45% NA Development of new City parks, open space, and trails 59% 52% 46% 51% 60% 54% 54% 60% 60% 55% Ease of bicycle travel in the City 50% 51% 47% 55% 52% 44% 37% 49% 50% 49% Government-assisted affordable housing 43% 39% 42% 38% 43% 38% 41% 44% 42% 41% Cultural activities at the Arvada Center for the Arts and Humanities 41% 45% 37% 44% 45% 43% 38% 38% 39% 34% City outreach services (KATV Channel 8, Web site, Facebook, Twitter, The Arvada Report, water bill inserts, etc.) 30% 30% 29% 35% 35% 34% 27% 27% 30% 25% Percent essential or very important. Please note: Prior to 2013, police services (emergency and non-emergency) was split into two items: emergency and non-emergency. Code enforcement was Zoning enforcement, Cultural activities at the Arvada Center for the Arts and Humanities was Programs at... and Government-assisted affordable housing was Low income/subsidized housing. Facebook and Twitter references were added to the parenthetical note for City outreach services in Prior to 2013, street maintenance was street patching and repairs. Prior to 2009, Programs to attract and keep businesses in Arvada was Business expansion and recruitment programs. Page 31

36 Perceptions of Non-City Government Services When asked to rate their satisfaction with 12 services provided by agencies other than the City, threequarters or more of Arvada residents gave positive marks to library services (85% very satisfied or satisfied ), fire services (83%), trash collection (75%), and recreation programs (75%; see Figure 33 on the following page). Programs providing health services for the poor (27%), mental health services (26%), and assistance programs for the poor and homeless (22%) were the non-city services receiving the lowest ratings. About a fifth of respondents reported dissatisfaction with cable television, high speed Internet services, programs providing health services for the poor, assistance programs for the poor and homeless, mental health services, and curbside of other recycling options. A full set of frequencies for each question can be found in Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions. It should be noted that between one-third to one-half of respondents selected don t know for these services: youth programs (39%), programs for senior citizens (42%), mental health services (46%), programs providing health services for the poor (47%), mental health services (50%), and assistance programs for the poor and homeless (48%). A full set of frequencies for each question, including don t know can be found in Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions. Ten of the 12 non-city services had comparisons available to the national benchmark (see Figure 34 on the following page). No services were given ratings higher than the national benchmark. Recreation programs were rated similar to the national benchmark. The nine services that received evaluations lower or much lower than those given by residents in other communities across the nation were: fire services library services trash collection curbside or other recycling options cable television youth programs programs for senior citizens mental health services assistance programs for the poor and homeless Nine of the 12 non-city services were available for comparison to the Front Range benchmark. Each of the nine services received ratings lower or much lower than the Front Range benchmark: fire services library services trash collection recreation programs curbside or other recycling options youth programs programs for senior citizens cable television programs for senior citizens Compared to 2013 ratings, more positive ratings were given to library services (85% reported very satisfied or satisfied in 2015 versus 79% in 2013). Less positive ratings were given to programs for senior citizens in 2015 compared to 2013 (41% versus 47%, respectively) and assistance programs for the poor and homeless (22% versus 31%). Evaluations of the remaining services remained stable from 2013 to Page 32

37 Figure 33: Satisfaction with Non-City Services Compared Over Time Please rate your satisfaction with the quality of the following services provided by agencies other than the City of Arvada: Library services 85% 79% 80% 86% 86% 81% 83% NA NA NA Fire services 83% 82% 80% 81% 79% 79% 74% NA NA NA Trash collection 75% 78% 76% 74% 74% 79% NA NA NA NA Recreation programs 75% 73% 74% 71% NA NA NA NA NA NA Curbside or other recycling options 55% 55% 49% 47% NA NA NA NA NA NA High speed Internet services 49% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Youth programs 49% 53% 48% 45% 44% 40% 44% 44% 45% 42% Cable television services 46% 49% 55% 58% 54% 57% 51% 54% 35% 37% Mass transit planning (rail, bus, etc.) 44% 41% 37% 32% 33% 37% 31% 28% 27% 22% Programs for senior citizens 41% 47% 40% 40% 40% 41% 35% 43% 49% 47% Programs providing health services for the poor 27% 26% 30% 24% 20% 22% 23% 23% 30% 30% Mental health services 26% 24% 28% 25% NA NA NA NA NA NA Assistance programs for the poor and homeless 22% 31% 27% 28% 22% 23% 22% 23% 25% 25% Percent very satisfied or satisfied. Figure 34: Non-City Services Benchmarks, 2015 National comparison Front Range comparison Library services Lower Lower Fire services Much lower Much lower Trash collection Much lower Much lower Recreation programs Similar Much lower Curbside or other recycling options Much lower Much lower Youth programs Lower Much lower Cable television services Much lower Much lower Programs for senior citizens Much lower Much lower Mental health services Lower NA Assistance programs for the poor and homeless Much lower Much lower Page 33

38 The 12 non-city services were thought to be essential or very important by more than half of Arvada residents. As in previous years, fire services was viewed as the most important service provided by an agency other than the City (91% said it was at least very important ), followed by trash collection (85%). A new item on the 2015 survey, high speed Internet services, was seen as at least very important by 82% of residents followed by library services with 73% of residents deeming these services at least very important. A smaller proportion of respondents believed that cable television services (60%), programs providing health services for the poor (60%), and assistance programs for the poor and homeless (57%) were essential or very important. Sixteen percent of residents felt that cable television services were not at all important while the remaining 11 non-city services were deemed as not at all important by fewer than 1 in 10 residents. A full set of frequencies for each question can be found in Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions. Since 2005, resident priorities generally have stayed the same for non-city services. Ratings of importance for each of the 12 non-city services in 2015 were similar to ratings given in Figure 35: Importance of Non-City Services Compared Over Time Please rate how important you think it is to have these services provided in Arvada (these are services provided by agencies other than the City of Arvada): Fire services 91% 92% 93% 92% 96% 86% 86% NA NA NA Trash collection 85% 85% 82% 82% 85% 66% NA NA NA 58% High speed Internet services 82% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Library services 73% 76% 75% 78% 78% 67% 65% NA NA NA Youth programs 72% 74% 70% 70% 71% 64% 67% 69% 70% 65% Curbside or other recycling options 72% 67% 63% 64% NA NA NA NA NA NA Mass transit planning (rail, bus, etc.) 71% 72% 65% 69% 69% 66% 62% 62% 56% 54% Recreation programs 70% 66% 63% 67% NA NA NA NA NA NA Programs for senior citizens 67% 65% 63% 66% 65% 59% 61% 64% 60% 61% Mental health services 66% 65% 60% 59% NA NA NA NA NA NA Cable television services 60% 55% 53% 55% 46% 49% 49% 41% 33% 30% Programs providing health services for the poor 60% 58% 57% 59% 61% 56% 60% 57% 52% 53% Assistance programs for the poor and homeless 57% 58% 55% 57% 60% 52% 57% 59% 49% 51% Percent essential or very important. Please note: Prior to 2007, respondents rated these items on a 5-point scale ranging from less important to more important Page 34

39 Balancing Satisfaction and Importance As in past years, ratings of importance were compared to ratings of satisfaction to help guide City staff and officials with decisions on future resource allocation. Most government services are considered to be important, but when competition for limited resources demands that efficiencies or cutbacks be instituted, it is wise not only to know what services are deemed most important to residents quality of life, but which services among the most important are perceived to be delivered with the lowest satisfaction. It is these services more important services delivered with lower satisfaction to which attention may need to be paid first. To identify the services perceived by residents to have relatively lower satisfaction at the same time as relatively higher importance, all services were ranked from highest perceived satisfaction to lowest perceived satisfaction and from highest perceived importance to lowest perceived importance. Some services were in the top half of both lists (higher satisfaction and higher importance); some were in the top half of one list but the bottom half of the other (higher satisfaction and lower importance or lower satisfaction and higher importance) and some services were in the bottom half of both lists. Ratings of importance were compared to ratings of satisfaction (see the chart on the next page). Services were classified as more important if they were rated as important by 71% or more residents. Services were rated as less important if they received ratings less than 71%. Services receiving a satisfaction evaluation of 51% very satisfied or satisfied or higher were considered of higher satisfaction and those with a rating lower than 51% as lower satisfaction. This classification divided the services in half. Services which were categorized as higher in importance and higher in satisfaction were: police services; drinking water quality; water services; sewer services; fire services; snow removal or sanding on major streets ( snow removal ); trash collection; municipal court services; library services; maintenance of existing City parks, open space, and trails ( park maintenance ); City parks; and curbside or other recycling options ( recycling ). Higher in importance, lower in satisfaction: high speed Internet services ( internet ); mass transit planning (rail, bus, etc.) ( mass transit ); sidewalk maintenance; street maintenance ( street repair ); youth programs; and ease of car travel in the City ( car travel ). Lower in importance, higher in satisfaction: programs to deal with appearance and safety of neighborhoods ( neighborhood services ); street sweeping; development of new City parks, open space, and trails ( parks development ); City outreach services (KATV Channel 8, Web site, Facebook, Twitter, The Arvada Report, water bill inserts, etc.) ( outreach ); recreation programs ( rec programs ); and cultural activities at the Arvada Center for the Arts and Humanities ( Arvada Center ). Lower in importance, lower in satisfaction: mental health services; programs for senior citizens; cable television; programs providing health services for the poor ( health services ); assistance programs for the poor and homeless ( low-income services ); code enforcement (weeds, junk cars, trash, etc.); new street construction and expansion ( street construction ); programs to attract and keep businesses ( business programs ); City building inspection; ease of bicycle travel in the city ( bike travel ); flood control; and government-assisted affordable housing ( subsidized housing ). Page 35

40 Figure 36: Balancing Satisfaction and Importance, 2015 Page 36

41 Youth programs have been considered of higher importance and lower satisfaction by residents since these questions were first asked in Street maintenance has returned to being considered of higher importance and lower satisfaction as it had been in all past years except Ease of car travel has returned to being of higher importance and lower satisfaction after not being in this category since Mass transit planning has continued to remain in this category since High speed Internet services is new on the 2015 survey, and was considered of higher importance and lower satisfaction. Figure 37: Services with Higher Importance and Lower Satisfaction Ratings Compared Over Time Service Street maintenance X X X X X X X X X Youth programs X X X X X X X X X X Ease of car travel in the City X X X X X X Programs for senior citizens X X X X X Programs to deal with appearance and safety of neighborhoods X X X X X X Municipal court services X X X Programs to attract and keep businesses in Arvada X X X Mass transit planning (rail, bus, etc.) X X X X Snow removal or sanding on major streets Sidewalk maintenance X X Curbside or other recycling options X High speed Internet services X Please note: Prior to 2013, street maintenance was street patching and repairs. Prior to 2009, Programs to attract and keep businesses in Arvada was Business expansion and recruitment programs. X Page 37

42 City Employees For more than a decade, about half of survey respondents (45% in 2015) reported having had phone, online, or in-person contact with a City employee in the last 12 months, which was similar to both the national and Front Range benchmarks. Of those who had contact with the City, more than half contacted the Police Department (56%) and one-fifth contacted Parks/Golf (20%). Human Resources, Sales Tax, Streets/Snow Removal, City Attorney/Prosecutor and Traffic Engineering were the least contacted with three percent of residents indicating they contacted each of these departments. In general, the rates of contact with the various City departments in 2015 were similar to those in However, more residents in 2015 than in 2013 reported contact with Parks/Golf (20% versus 14%, respectively) and Building Inspection (15% versus 8%) while fewer reported contact with Water/Sewer (16% versus 32%) and Water Billing (10% versus 17%). 100% Figure 38: Contact with City Employees Compared Over Time 80% 60% 40% 20% 55% 52% 51% 53% 54% 51% 54% 53% 50% 45% 0% Percent "yes" Figure 39: Departments Contacted in the Last 12 Months Compared Over Time With which of the following departments have you had contact in the last 12 months? Police 56% 58% 54% 54% 58% 54% 56% 59% 44% Parks/Golf 20% 14% 19% 24% 23% 16% 16% 26% 0% Code Enforcement 18% 16% 12% 13% 16% 15% 15% 12% 0% Arvada Center 17% 16% 20% 22% 24% 23% 20% 22% 0% Animal Control 17% 15% 17% 17% 18% 22% 19% 21% 1% Water/Sewer 16% 32% 21% 20% 16% 19% 28% 18% 13% Building Inspection 15% 8% 16% 18% 11% 12% 11% 11% 3% City Clerk/Passport 12% 11% 10% 11% 14% 12% 0% 0% 0% Water Billing 10% 17% 14% 15% 10% 11% 15% 10% 0% Municipal Court 5% 4% 7% 10% 9% 8% 10% 11% 8% Housing 5% 2% 7% 6% 3% 3% 5% 5% 0% City Manager s Office 5% 7% 5% 4% 3% 5% 6% 9% 7% Community Development 4% 6% 2% 5% 3% 5% 3% 4% 13% Human Resources 3% 5% 6% 2% 5% 9% 6% 6% 0% Sales Tax 3% 2% 5% 5% 4% 6% 6% 5% 0% Streets/Snow Removal 3% 5% 5% 10% 12% 4% 7% 6% 0% City Attorney/Prosecutor 3% 0% 3% 3% 4% 5% 5% 0% 0% Traffic Engineering 3% 5% 4% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Economic Development 0% 3% 2% 1% 2% 6% 2% 3% 0% Other 9% 12% 11% 11% 11% 6% 6% 7% 10% Total may exceed 100% as respondents could give more than one answer. Please note: Percentages shown are of those who reported having contact with a City employee. Page 38

43 Those who had contact with a City employee in the 12 months prior to the survey were asked to evaluate their interactions. Of those who had contact, a majority gave positive assessments to their interactions with the employees. Eighty-five percent of respondents felt that the employee was knowledgeable and had a professional attitude. About 8 in 10 residents felt that the employee was willing to help or understand and 73% of residents said that the employee made them feel valued as a citizen or customer. Overall, 80% of respondents impressions of employees were believed to be at least good. The four characteristics of employees could be compared to the national benchmark and comparisons were mixed. The rating for the overall impression of employees was higher than the national and Front Range comparisons while the rating for knowledgeable was similar to both comparisons. Front Range comparisons were not available for willingness to help or understand or making you feel valued as a citizen/customer, but when compared to the national benchmark these were lower and similar, respectively. When compared over time, fewer residents gave positive ratings to employee s professional attitude (85% in 2015 versus 91% in 2013), willingness to help or understand (78% versus 85%), and overall impression (80% versus 86%). What was your overall impression of City employees in your most recent contact? Figure 40: Overall Impression of City Employees, 2015 good 34% neither good nor bad 11% bad 4% very good 46% very bad 5% Please note: Percentages shown are of those who reported having contact with a City employee. Figure 41: City Employee Ratings Compared Over Time What was your impression of City employees in your most recent contact? Professional attitude 85% 91% 87% 83% 84% 78% 82% 83% 81% 80% Knowledgeable 85% 90% 90% 82% 83% 81% 83% 82% 83% 81% Willingness to help or understand 78% 85% 83% 79% 78% 74% 75% 77% 76% 75% Making you feel valued as a citizen/customer 73% 78% 77% 73% 74% 68% 66% 68% NA NA Overall impression 80% 86% 82% 78% 79% 74% 77% 78% 78% 77% Percent very good or good. Please note: Percentages shown are of those who reported having contact with a City employee. Figure 42: City Employees Benchmarks, 2015 National comparison Front Range comparison Knowledgeable Similar Similar Willingness to help or understand Lower NA Making you feel valued as a citizen/customer Similar NA Overall impression Higher Higher Page 39

44 Public Trust Arvada residents were given a list of seven statements about the City government and asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each (see Figure 43 on the following page). Respondents voiced the most agreement with City employees trying to do quality work (75% strongly or somewhat agreed), followed by being pleased with the overall direction the City is taking (63%) and receiving good value for the taxes paid (60%). Fifty-seven percent of residents strongly or somewhat agreed that the City government welcomes citizen involvement. Just under half agreed that they were well informed on major City issues (46%) and slightly fewer respondents agreed that the government was run for the benefit of all people (44%). Roughly one-third agreed that elected officials cared what people like them thought (35%) and a similar proportion disagreed with this statement. A full set of frequencies for each question can be found in Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions. Five of the seven statements about trust in government could be compared to the national benchmarks (see Figure 44 on the following page). Ratings for the overall direction the City is taking, elected officials care what people like them thought, and value for taxes paid were higher than the national benchmarks. Evaluations of the government welcoming citizen involvement and the government is really run for the benefit of all the people were similar to the national benchmark. Three of the seven statements about trust in government could be compared to the Front Range benchmarks (see Figure 44 on the following page). Ratings for value for taxes paid were higher than the Front Range benchmark while ratings for the overall direction the City is taking was similar. The Arvada City government welcoming citizen involvement was lower than the Front Range benchmark. Where differences emerged, residents who lived in detached housing units, who owned their home, and who had lived in the community for 6 to 20 years tended to give higher evaluations of public trust compared to their counterparts. Residents living in Council District 4 and Police Sector C tended to report higher levels of agreement with the statement that they are well informed on major issues in the City of Arvada compared to those living in other Council Districts and Police Sectors (see Appendix C: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Geography and Demographic Characteristics). When compared to 2013 ratings, evaluations of public trust in 2015 were similar. Page 40

45 Figure 43: Public Trust Ratings Compared Over Time Please rate the following statements by circling the number that most closely represents your opinion: City of Arvada employees really try to do quality work 75% 73% 76% 78% 75% 70% 70% 63% 69% 58% I am pleased with the overall direction that the City is taking 63% 62% 65% 60% 60% 59% 52% 51% 49% 35% I receive good value for the City taxes I pay 60% 62% 65% 62% 63% 58% 52% 52% 55% 43% Arvada City government welcomes citizen involvement 57% 58% 59% 54% 57% 56% 51% 51% 50% 51% I am well informed on major issues in the City of Arvada 46% 49% 51% 48% 48% 51% 43% 37% 37% 31% Government is really run for the benefit of all the people 44% 45% 48% 49% 48% 47% 41% 40% 39% 34% Most elected officials care what people like me think 35% 37% 43% 43% 40% 41% 32% 32% 33% 33% Percent strongly or somewhat agree. Figure 44: Public Trust Benchmarks, 2015 National comparison Front Range comparison I am pleased with the overall direction that the City is taking Higher Similar I receive good value for the City taxes I pay Higher Higher Arvada City government welcomes citizen involvement Similar Lower Government is really run for the benefit of all the people Similar NA Most elected officials care what people like me think Higher NA Page 41

46 Issues Affecting Arvada Respondent perceptions about potential problems in Arvada were also measured through the survey. Household financial status, the economic impact on residents, and growth management and development were other topics covered on the survey. Resident perspectives about these issues are important for city governments to uncover and address to increase the quality of community life and well-being of residents. Problem Ratings When asked how much of a problem, if at all, a list of 12 different potential problems were in Arvada, respondents reported that the biggest problems facing Arvada were growth (27% major or extreme problem), lack of entry-level housing (23%), and traffic congestion (21%). The potential problems thought to be the smallest issues facing Arvada were identity theft (9% major or extreme problem), residential property maintenance (9%), and flooding (4%). About one-third of respondents felt that flooding (31%), lack of housing options for senior citizens (30%), and identity theft (28%) were not a problem in the City. A full set of frequencies for each question can be found in Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions. More respondents in 2015 than in 2013 reported that growth was a major or extreme problem (27% in 2015 and 12% in 2013), along with lack of entry-level housing (23% versus 10%), traffic congestion (21% versus 12%), and lack of housing options for seniors (15% versus 6%). Ratings for the other listed potential problems remained steady in 2015 compared to 2013 ratings. Residents living in Council District 4 tended to rate traffic congestion and growth as more of a problem compared to those living in other Council Districts. Residents living in Council District 2 tended to rate lack of entry-level housing and lack of housing options for seniors as more of a problem compared to those living in other Council Districts. Residents living in Police Sector C felt that growth was more of a problem while those living in Police Sector B felt lack of entry-level housing was more of a problem. Growth was considered less of a problem for residents who lived in attached housing units, rented their home, were aged 18 to 34, and those who had lived in Arvada for less than five years than it was for their counterparts (see Appendix C: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Geography and Demographic Characteristics). Figure 45: Perception of Potential Problems Impacting Arvada Compared Over Time To what degree are the following a problem in Arvada: Growth 27% 12% 10% 13% 22% 28% 29% 38% 44% 45% Lack of entry-level housing 23% 10% 9% 11% 16% 15% 18% 25% 20% NA Traffic congestion 21% 12% 14% 16% 22% 23% 25% 32% 40% 37% Lack of housing options for senior citizens 15% 6% 9% 7% 12% 12% 13% 15% 12% NA Broken/missing sidewalks 15% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Lack of mass transit service 14% 14% 22% 23% 27% 21% 17% 28% 24% NA Violation of traffic laws 14% 10% 11% 11% 14% 15% 18% NA NA NA Employment opportunities 12% 14% 19% 20% 17% 18% 20% 13% 12% 15% Dead-end/missing bike lanes 12% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Identity theft 9% 9% 8% 11% 14% 14% NA NA NA NA Residential property maintenance 9% 10% 9% 10% 14% NA NA NA NA NA Flooding 4% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% NA NA Percent major or extreme problem. Page 42

47 The Economy Assessments of the economic status and impact of the economy on Arvada households were captured through the survey. More residents felt they were financially better off (39%) than worse off (18%) now than they were a year ago and about 4 in 10 thought they were about the same financially as they were a year ago. (A full set of responses can be found in Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions.) The 2015 responses for these questions were compared to those given in previous years. A similar proportion of residents in 2015 and 2013 felt that they would be about the same or better off financially a year from now (87% both years) and more residents felt they were about the same or better off financially compared to a year ago (82% versus 76%, respectively). Figure 46: Household Financial Status Compared Over Time Financial status compared to a year ago 59% 62% 76% 82% % Financial status compared to a year from now 78% 84% 87% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent "about the same" or "better" Page 43

48 One-fifth of respondents believed that the economy would have a very or somewhat positive impact on their family income in the six months following the survey, while another quarter said that the economy would impact their family income negatively (21% somewhat and 3% very negative). Half reported that there would be no impact ( neutral ) on their family income over the following six months due to the economy. The percent of Arvada residents with an optimistic outlook on their household income was much lower than comparison communities across the nation and in the Front Range. After seeing large differences emerge in ratings from 2011 to 2013, ratings have stabilized and remained similar in 2015 compared to Figure 47: Economic Impact on Household Income Compared Over Time 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: Positive 22% 25% 10% 15% 21% 18% Neutral 54% 50% 39% 40% 46% 43% Negative 24% 25% 33% 39% 45% 51% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of respondents Please note: Economic impact was not assessed on the 2007 survey. Page 44

49 Growth Management and Development Respondents were asked to evaluate the rates of growth and development in Arvada. For most types of growth, about half or more of residents believed the rate of growth was about right. However, only 4 in 10 respondents felt that the rate of job growth was about right; and about 3 in 10 felt the rate of residential growth was about right. In fact, 65% of residents thought that the rate of residential growth was somewhat or much too fast. Seventeen percent or fewer said that the rates of the other types of growth were too fast. Concerns about residential growth being too fast have increased from 2013 to 2015 (38% versus 65%, respectively). Opinions about the rate of growth for the other types of industries have remained stable from 2013 to Figure 48: Opinions on the Current Rate of Growth in Arvada Compared Over Time What do you think about the current rate of the following types of growth in Arvada? Residential growth Retail (shopping) growth Job growth Light industrial/manufacturing Professional offices Recreational/entertainment Too fast 65% 38% 35% 46% 61% 66% 61% 70% 75% 72% About right 33% 59% 59% 50% 37% 33% 37% 28% 24% 27% Too slow 3% 3% 6% 3% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Too fast 17% 16% 10% 18% 24% 24% 22% 28% 31% 28% About right 47% 48% 47% 43% 46% 46% 49% 40% 44% 43% Too slow 35% 36% 43% 39% 30% 30% 29% 32% 25% 29% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Too fast 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 4% 7% 7% About right 44% 39% 22% 30% 40% 40% 31% 48% 56% 49% Too slow 54% 59% 77% 69% 57% 58% 67% 49% 37% 44% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Too fast 9% 6% 4% 7% 8% 9% 8% 12% 13% NA About right 60% 61% 48% 51% 63% 60% 59% 63% 64% NA Too slow 31% 33% 47% 42% 29% 31% 33% 25% 23% NA Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% NA Too fast 10% 9% 9% 14% 11% 14% 11% 12% 16% NA About right 65% 68% 62% 57% 63% 64% 65% 66% 61% NA Too slow 25% 23% 30% 29% 26% 22% 24% 22% 23% NA Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% NA Too fast 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 6% 7% 5% NA NA About right 62% 64% 66% 63% 62% 64% 63% 65% NA NA Too slow 34% 32% 30% 33% 33% 30% 30% 30% NA NA Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% NA NA Page 45

50 For more than a decade, the survey has measured attitudes about the quality and variety of residential and business/retail development. Six in 10 respondents said that the quality of residential development was very good or good followed by the quality of business/retail development (45%) and the variety of residential development (37%). Thirty-one percent stated that the variety of business/retail development was at least good, with 18% saying it was bad or very bad. A full set of frequencies for each question can be found in Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions. When compared over time, the rating for the variety of residential development decreased in 2015 compared to 2013 (37% versus 44%, respectively). Ratings for the other three aspects of development have remained stable when compared to 2013 and generally stable when compared to 1997 when these questions were first asked. Figure 49: Quality and Variety of Development in Arvada Compared Over Time The quality of residential development 62% 62% 60% 59% 63% 62% 59% 59% 64% 58% The quality of business/retail development 45% 42% 45% 45% 45% 43% 44% 42% 46% 45% The variety of residential development 37% 44% 42% 42% 42% 41% 38% 34% 40% 37% The variety of business/retail development 31% 33% 34% 36% 35% 34% 31% 27% 34% 34% Percent very good or good Page 46

51 In addition to assessing the rates of different types of growth, respondents were asked to rate the City s ability to plan for growth in a variety of ways. Planning for parks and recreation topped the list and was viewed as very good or good by 8 in 10 respondents. About 7 in 10 respondents felt that the City was very good or good at planning cultural activities and events. About half felt that the City was good or better at planning to preserve buildings and landmarks in the community and that the City did a very good or good job enhancing buildings and landmarks in the community. Fewer respondents stated that the City s ability to plan for economic development (26%) was good or better, with 25% rating it as bad or very bad. A full set of frequencies for each question can be found in Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions. When compared over time, the rating for planning to preserve buildings and landmarks in the community decreased in 2015 compared to 2013 (54% versus 62%, respectively). Ratings of the City s ability to plan for each other item listed were similar in 2015 to those given in Figure 50: Arvada City Government s Ability to Plan for Growth Compared Over Time Parks and recreation Cultural activities and events 80% 78% 74% 66% 66% 68% 71% Preserving buildings and landmarks in the community Enhancing buildings and landmarks in the community Future growth of the community Diverse housing choices (senior housing, affordable housing, etc.) Economic development (jobs, retail, etc.) 46% 44% 45% 40% 46% 29% 33% 37% 33% 28% 26% 26% 23% 26% 27% 54% 62% 65% 60% 62% 53% 56% 57% 55% 55% % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent "very good" or "good" Page 47

52 Seventy-seven percent of Arvada residents supported more retail development in the City. Fourteen percent of respondents somewhat opposed and eight percent strongly opposed this initiative. The level of support for more retail development in 2015 was similar to that reported in Differences in levels of support did not emerge across Council District or Police Sector of residency; however, those that have lived in the community for less than five years tended to show more support for this initiative compared to those who had lived in the community for more than five years (see Appendix C: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Geography and Demographic Characteristics). Figure 51: Support for or Opposition to More Retail Development in Arvada, 2015 More retail development in Arvada is likely to result in a stronger tax base and enhanced City services. At the same time, it is likely to result in more commercial buildings and increased traffic in the City. To what extent do you support or oppose more retail development in Arvada? Somewhat oppose 14% Strongly oppose 8% Somewhat support 50% Strongly support 27% Figure 52: Support for More Retail Development in Arvada Compared Over Time 100% 80% 69% 63% 71% 77% 77% 74% 78% 80% 73% 77% 60% 40% 20% 0% Percent "strongly" or "somewhat" support Please note: Prior to 2007, this question was worded as business development Page 48

53 About half of respondents said that, if given the choice, it was essential or very important to them to shop in Arvada as opposed to another city or on the Internet. All things being equal, 38% of respondents said it was somewhat important to them to shop in Arvada and 14% said it was not at all important. A similar percentage of residents in 2015 felt it was essential or very important to shop in Arvada versus elsewhere compared to Figure 53: Shopping Preferences, 2015 You have the option to shop in Arvada, other cities or on the Internet. All things being equal, please rate how important, if at all, it is to you to shop in Arvada. Somewhat important 38% Not at all important 14% Very important 35% Essential 13% Figure 54: Importance of Shopping in Arvada Compared Over Time All things being equal, please rate how important, if at all, it is to you to shop in Arvada. 48% 52% 50% % 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent "essential" or "very important" Page 49

54 Almost all respondents reported that they had purchased groceries (99%) and meals and entertainment (98%) in Arvada, with three-quarters always buying their groceries in the City. Purchasing clothes/personal items (89%) and home improvement/hardware items (89%) in the City was done at least sometimes by 9 in 10 Arvada residents. About 5 in 10 respondents purchased large household appliances (51%) and 4 in 10 purchased computers and electronics (43%) in Arvada. Residents purchasing habits in 2015 were similar to those in Figure 55: Those Who at Least Sometimes Made Purchase in Arvada Compared Over Time In the last 6 months, how frequently, if at all, have you purchased the following items of services IN the City of Arvada? Groceries Meals and entertainment Clothes/personal items Home improvement/hardware Large household appliances and furniture Computers and electronics Other items 51% 48% 54% 57% 43% 46% 50% 50% 99% 99% 100% 100% 98% 99% 98% 99% 89% 91% 93% 92% 89% 90% 91% 91% 93% 97% 96% 95% % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent at least "sometimes" Page 50

55 Traffic When provided a list of five aspects of traffic and asked to rate how much of a problem each was, threequarters of respondents stated that the volume of traffic on major streets such as Wadsworth or Ralston Road was a moderate or major problem, with one-third saying it was a major problem (see table on the following page). About half of residents said that traffic movement within the City was at least a moderate problem and one-third said both the speed and volume of traffic on residential streets were at least moderate problems. Twenty-three percent reported that the accessibility of commercial and retail centers were moderate or major problems; at least 4 in 10 residents said that this aspect of traffic was no problem. A full set of frequencies for each question can be found in Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions. Prior to 2015, residents concerns with traffic were steadily declining since 1997; however, concerns with each of the five traffic aspects listed have increased in 2015 compared to 2013 from an increase of 17% for the volume of traffic on major streets such as Wadsworth or Ralston Road to an increase of six percent for speed of traffic on residential roads and accessibility of commercial and retail centers. Page 51

56 Figure 56: Arvada Traffic Ratings Compared Over Time Volume of traffic on major streets such as Wadsworth or Ralston Road Traffic movement within the City Speed of traffic on residential streets Volume of traffic on residential streets Accessibility of commercial and retail centers 55% 54% 56% 46% 32% 29% 33% 38% 38% 40% 49% 53% 33% 27% 29% 36% 39% 41% 44% 52% 46% 50% 29% 17% 16% 18% 25% 27% 29% 39% 37% 43% 23% 17% 16% 15% 72% 66% 66% 71% 76% 79% 79% 62% % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent "moderate" or "major" problem Page 52

57 Planning Arvada s Future As a city plans for the future, it is good practice to elicit feedback from residents about programs and policies they would like to see established. Gathering opinions from residents helps local governments decide where to add or change programs and policies, and how to allocate available resources. Sustainable Community One question on the survey asked residents whether they supported or opposed a number of community sustainability initiatives. Overall, at least 6 in 10 respondents supported the 12 sustainability actions, and between 23% and 51% strongly supported each. A full set of frequencies for each question can be found in Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions. Nine in 10 respondents supported the City completing sidewalk connections throughout Arvada s streets and supported encouraging community gardening or farming. At least four out of five respondents supported the City taking the following actions: creating incentives for homeowners to increase energy efficiency in their own homes (85%), increasing recycling options for residents (84%), creating incentives for builders to build using environmentally friendly construction methods (83%), creating incentives for residents to increase water conservation at home (82%), and creating incentives for residents to increase water conservation with landscaping (81%). The least supported initiatives, though a majority still supported each, included encouraging mixed-use development in the City (62%) and increasing the number of bike lanes on Arvada s streets (67%). Each of the 12 sustainability actions asked about in 2015 could be compared to Overall, most actions have experienced less support since the question was first asked in 2007; however, no significant changes were seen between 2013 and 2015 ratings. Figure 57: Support for City Actions for Future Sustainability Compared by Over Time The City of Arvada is working to improve practices that help the environment, some of which may increase costs to taxpayers. To what extent do you support or oppose the City taking each of the following actions given that you may experience increased costs? Complete sidewalk connections throughout Arvada s streets 92% 89% NA NA NA Encourage community gardening or farming (i.e., planting, harvesting and distributing produce, etc.) 88% 86% 89% NA NA Create incentives for homeowners to increase energy efficiency in their own homes 85% 83% 86% 91% 94% Increase recycling options for residents 84% 83% 84% 91% 92% Create incentives for builders to build using environmentally friendly ( green ) construction methods 83% 78% 81% 87% 90% Create incentives for residents to increase water conservation at home (e.g., installing low flow faucets, toilets and shower heads, high efficiency washers, etc.) 82% 80% NA NA NA Create incentives for residents to increase water conservation with landscaping (e.g., xeriscaping) 81% 81% 84% 91% 92% Develop incentives for increasing public transit ridership 79% 76% 76% 81% 86% Reduce the City government s greenhouse gas emissions 76% 74% 74% 85% 89% Reduce the community s greenhouse gas emissions 75% 73% 72% NA NA Increase the number of bike lanes on Arvada s streets 67% 68% NA NA NA Encourage mixed-use development throughout the City (e.g., businesses and residential housing are combined in one building) 62% 64% 66% NA NA Percent strongly or somewhat support. Please note: Prior to 2013, encourage community gardening or farming included flowers in the parenthetical, create incentives for homeowners to increase energy efficiency included renewable energy, and create incentives for residents to increase water conservation with landscaping (e.g., xeriscaping did not include landscaping (e.g., xeriscaping). Page 53

58 Potential Programs the City Might Pursue Support for or opposition to a tax increase to allow the City to pursue a variety of potential new programs was measured on the 2015 survey as in past years (see chart on the following page). The vast majority of respondents were in favor of providing additional funding for road maintenance (84% somewhat or strongly support); improving existing neighborhood parks (84%); providing additional funding for the construction of streets to improve the City s transportation system (78%); and providing additional funding for day-to-day maintenance of parks, trails, open space, and medians (78%). Seventy-five percent of respondents were supportive of making walking and biking easier around Arvada by connecting bike lanes and sidewalks while slightly fewer were supportive of building new community and regional parks (70%) and purchasing additional land for open space (70%). Building a new Justice Center for the Police Department and Municipal Court was the least supported potential new program with 33% indicating support; this was a new item on the 2015 survey. When over time comparisons were available, support for five of the eight programs stayed the same from 2013 to Fewer residents favored providing additional funding for day-to-day maintenance of parks, trails, open space, and medians in 2015 compared to 2013 (78% versus 86%, respectively). More residents favored building new community and regional parks (78% in 2015 versus 70% in 2013) and purchasing additional land for open space (70% versus 64%). Page 54

59 Figure 58: Support for the City of Arvada Pursuing New Programs Compared Over Time Provide additional funding for road maintenance Improve existing neighborhood parks Provide additional funding for the construction of streets to improve the City s transportation system 84% 89% 91% 90% 94% 84% 82% 87% 86% 89% 78% 78% 70% 76% Provide additional funding for day-to-day maintenance of parks, trails, open space, and medians Make walking and biking easier around Arvada by connecting bike lanes and sidewalks 78% 86% 84% 83% 87% 75% 76% 70% 77% Build new community and regional parks Purchase additional land for open space Construct new trails Build a new Justice Center for the Police Department and Municipal Court 33% 70% 62% 57% 60% 72% 70% 64% 62% 70% 74% 66% 62% 56% 63% 71% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent "strongly" or "somewhat" support Please note: Prior to 2015, provide additional funding for day-to-day maintenance of parks, trails, open space and medians was fund day-to-day maintenance of parks, trails, open space and medians, provide additional funding for the construction of streets to improve the City s transportation system was fund the construction of streets to improve the City s transportation system and provide additional funding for road maintenance was fund ongoing maintenance of roads. In 2007, fund the construction of streets to improve the City s transportation system was worded as fund expansion of existing roads or build additional roads. Prior to 2013, improve existing neighborhood parks included (such as resurfacing tennis courts, and replacing deteriorated trails and playground equipment) and build new community and regional parks was build large community and regional parks. Page 55

60 Using the same list of nine potential programs the City could pursue, residents were asked to pick their top three priorities. Since the question was first asked in 2007, the top priority has remained providing additional funding for road maintenance, with 24% of respondents selecting this as their number one priority. About 23% of residents selected providing additional funding for the construction of streets to improve the City s transportation system as their top priority, followed by purchasing additional land for open space (16%) and making walking and biking easier around Arvada by connecting bike lanes and sidewalks (13%). Less than 10% of residents selected the other new programs as a top priority. Fewer residents in 2015 than in 2013 selected providing additional funding for road maintenance as their top priority (24% versus 34%), while more respondents selected providing additional funding for the construction of streets to improve the City s transportation system (23% versus 17%). The proportion of respondents selecting the other potential new programs as their top priority remained the same from 2013 to 2015, when over time comparisons were available. Figure 59: New Programs: Top Priority Compared Over Time Provide additional funding for road maintenance Provide additional funding for the construction of streets to improve the City s transportation system Purchase additional land for open space Make walking and biking easier around Arvada by connecting bike lanes and sidewalks Improve existing neighborhood parks Provide additional funding for day-to-day maintenance of parks, trails, open space, and medians Build new community and regional parks Construct new trails Build a new Justice Center for the Police Department and Municipal Court 24% 34% 39% 43% 23% 17% 12% 14% 8% 16% 11% 7% 15% 19% 13% 15% 10% 11% 9% 11% 11% 10% 16% 7% 9% 5% 6% 8% 5% 3% 3% 3% 4% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 55% Please see the note for Figure 58 to review wording changes over time. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent picking as top priority Page 56

61 When gauging residents top three priorities, overall, the relative order of importance for the programs was similar in 2015 as in 2013 (see chart on the following page). Providing additional funding for road maintenance was selected as the first, second, or third priority by about 6 in 10 residents (57%). Half of respondents selected providing additional funding for the construction of streets to improve the City s transportation system (50%) as one of their top three priorities. About one-third selected making walking and biking easier around Arvada by connecting bike lanes and sidewalks (37%); purchasing additional land for open space (34%); and providing additional funding for day-to-day maintenance of parks, trails, open space, and medians (32%). Only 10% of respondents selected building a new Justice Center for the Police Department and Municipal Court as their first, second, or third priority. A smaller proportion of respondents in 2015 than in 2013 selected providing additional funding for road maintenance (57% versus 69%, respectively); providing additional funding for day-to-day maintenance of parks, trails, open space, and medians (32% versus 52%); and improving existing neighborhood parks (32% versus 41%) as one of their top three priorities. A larger number of respondents in 2015 than in 2013 selected purchasing additional land for open space (34% in 2015 versus 26% in 2013); providing additional funding for the construction of streets to improve the City s transportation system (50% versus 43%); and building new community and regional parks (21% versus 13%) as one of their top three priorities. Page 57

62 Figure 60: New Programs: First, Second and Third Priority Compared Over Time Provide additional funding for road maintenance Provide additional funding for the construction of streets to improve the City s transportation system Make walking and biking easier around Arvada by connecting bike lanes and sidewalks 57% 69% 76% 64% 71% 50% 43% 39% 39% 28% 37% 39% 32% 38% Purchase additional land for open space Provide additional funding for day-to-day maintenance of parks, trails, open space, and medians Improve existing neighborhood parks 34% 26% 23% 33% 38% 32% 52% 57% 45% 58% 32% 41% 56% 41% Build new community and regional parks Construct new trails Build a new Justice Center for the Police Department and Municipal Court 21% 13% 14% 12% 19% 17% 15% 11% 10% 8% 10% Please see the note for Figure 58 to review wording changes over time. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent picking as 1st, 2nd or 3rd priority Page 58

63 Technology and Sources of Information Television and Internet When asked if they had a computer with Internet access in their home, about 9 in 10 indicated yes, similar to the proportion reported in Figure 61: Computer with Internet Access Compared Over Time Do you have a computer with Internet access in your home? 89% 87% % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent "yes" Prior to 2013, two questions were asked about computer use and internet access; Do you have a computer in your home? and if so, Does your computer have internet access? Due to the differences in wording over time, a comparison could not be made. As in previous years, residents were asked to indicate if they had accessed the City s Web site. About half of Arvada residents said that they had accessed the City s Web site, which was a rating similar to what was reported in 2013 and similar to ratings given since Figure 62: Accessed Information on City s Web Site Compared Over Time 51% 2015 Have you accessed the City's Web site at 25% 41% 54% 58% 56% 53% 51% % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent "yes" Page 59

64 Those who said they had accessed the City s Web site were asked to evaluate different aspects of the site as well as their frequency of use of various services provided on the site. Eighty-one percent of respondents thought the usefulness of the information on the Web site was very good or good, and about 7 in 10 said the site was easy to use (69% at least good ) and the look and feel was at least good (67%). Sixtyfour percent of residents positively rated the organization/location of information and 62% said the timeliness of information was very good or good. No more than 10% of residents rated each aspect as bad or very bad. A full set of frequencies for each question can be found in Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions. When compared over time, more respondents said that the look and feel was very good or good in 2015 than in 2013 (67% versus 61%, respectively). Ratings of the other aspects were similar over time. The rating for ease of use was much higher than the national benchmark comparison while the ratings for look and feel and timeliness of information were much lower than the national benchmark comparison (Front Range comparisons were not available for these items; see Appendix D: Benchmark Comparisons). Figure 63: Aspects of the City s Web Site Compared Over Time Usefulness of information Ease of use Look and feel Organization/location of information 81% 84% 81% 80% 83% 79% 80% 75% 69% 65% 76% 67% 72% 74% 72% 65% 67% 61% 66% 62% 71% 65% 71% 60% 64% 61% Timeliness of information 62% 67% 71% 69% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent "very good" or "good" This question was asked only of those who reported accessing the City s Web Site. Prior to 2013 look and feel was design and graphics. New in 2013 was organization/location of information. Page 60

65 Survey respondents were asked to rate how often they had used two different sources of information in the past 12 months. Almost all reported they had read something in print (98% at least once in the past 12 months). Seven in 10 reported they had used a social networking site, which is a similar usage rating when compared to 2013, but higher than reported in Figure 64: Respondent Frequency of Using Sources of Information Compared Over Time 98% Read something in print (e.g., newspaper, magazine, newsletter) 97% Used a social networking site (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest)* 52% 66% 71% % 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent who used at least once in past 12 months Please note: New questions in 2013 were read something in print... and attended a public meeting. The Pinterest reference in the item Used social networking site was added in Page 61

66 Information Sources Respondents were provided a list of 11 different information sources and asked to rate the importance of each in terms of gathering information about City projects and programs. About half or less felt that each source of information was essential or very important. The most important sources of information about City projects and programs were The Arvada Report (48% essential or very important ), friends and family (46%), and local TV news (43%). KATV Cable Channel 8 (12%) and the City s social media sites (18%) were believed to be less important, with over half saying each of these sources were not at all important for gathering information about City projects and programs. A full set of frequencies for each question can be found in Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions. It should be noted that at least one-quarter of respondents replied don t know when rating the importance of the City Web site (21%), the City s social media sites (29%), KATV Cable Channel 8 (32%), and the City s electronic newsletter (34%). When compared 2013, fewer residents in 2015 believed that each of the following information sources were important for getting information about City projects and programs: City water bill inserts (23% essential or very important in 2015 versus 5537 in 2013), The Arvada Report (48% versus 54%), and Denver Post/YourHub (weekly insert) (20% versus 26%). Figure 65: Importance of Sources for Information about City Projects and Programs Compared Over Time How important to you are the following sources for information about City projects and programs? The Arvada Report (bi-monthly City newsletter) 48% 54% 53% 48% 55% 67% 72% 66% 63% 67% Friends and family (word of mouth) 46% 49% 52% 44% 45% 55% 51% 56% 58% NA Local TV news 43% 48% 55% 51% 50% 63% 63% 67% 68% NA The City Web site at 41% 42% 44% 42% 40% 36% 42% 28% 24% 18% The Arvada Press (weekly community paper) 40% 44% 49% 43% 49% 68% 39% 46% 54% 60% Local radio broadcasts 29% 32% 39% 35% 36% 47% 48% 54% 54% NA City Water bill inserts 23% 37% 32% 29% 28% 46% 58% 46% 54% 51% The City s electronic newsletter 22% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Denver Post/YourHub (weekly insert) 20% 26% NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Arvada s social media sites (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, YouTube) 18% 22% 15% 14% NA NA NA NA NA NA KATV Cable Channel 8 12% 13% 17% 14% 19% 29% 30% 29% 31% 40% Percent essential or very important. Prior to 2013, Denver Post/Your Hub (weekly insert) were two individual items. After combining, a comparison over time could not be made for this item. New in 2013 were Arvada Listens.com and NotifyMe alerts. Page 62

67 Appendix A: Respondent Characteristics Characteristics of the survey respondents are displayed in the tables and charts on the following pages of this appendix. How many years have you lived in Arvada? Table 1: Years in Arvada Percent of respondents 2 years or less 18% 3 to 5 years 10% 6 to 9 years 10% 10 to 14 years 9% 15 to 19 years 10% 20 to 29 years 14% 30 years or more 28% Total 100% Average number of years What kind of residence do you live in? Table 2: Housing Unit Percent of respondents Single family home 73% Condo 4% Mobile home 0% Apartment 15% Townhouse 7% Senior/Assisted living 1% Total 100% Do you rent or own your residence? Table 3: Tenure Percent of respondents Rent 26% Own 74% Total 100% Table 4: Household Size How many people (including yourself) live in your household? Percent of respondents 1 person 22% 2 people 37% 3 people 16% 4 people 17% 5 or more people 7% Total 100% Average number of household members 3 Page 63

68 Table 5: Age of Household Members Please list the number of household members in each age category. (Please include yourself) Percent of respondents 0 to 5 years 16% 6 to 12 years 13% 13 to 17 years 18% 18 to 24 years 14% 25 to 34 years 17% 35 to 44 years 19% 45 to 54 years 21% 55 to 64 years 17% 65 to 74 years 16% 75 or more years 12% Table 6: Physical Handicaps or Disabilities Does any member of your household have a physical handicap or disability? Percent of respondents No 83% Yes 17% Total 100% Table 7: Respondent Education Which of the following categories best describes the amount of formal education you have completed? Percent of respondents 11 years, no diploma 1% High school graduate 19% Associate degree, some college 24% Bachelor's degree 34% Graduate or professional degree 22% Total 100% Table 8: Household Income How much do you anticipate your household's income before taxes will be for 2015? Percent of respondents less than $14,999 5% $15,000 to $24,999 7% $25,000 to $34,999 6% $35,000 to $49,999 12% $50,000 to $74,999 17% $75,000 to $99,999 16% $100,000 or more 36% Total 100% Page 64

69 What is your race? Table 9: Respondent Ethnicity Percent of respondents American Indian, Eskimo or Aleut 3% Asian or Pacific Islander 2% Black or African American 1% White/European American/Caucasian 92% Other 6% *Total may exceed 100% as respondents could give more than one answer. Table 10: Hispanic Are you of Hispanic origin? Percent of respondents No 93% Yes 7% Total 100% Table 11: Respondent Age Which of the following best describes your age? Percent of respondents years 5% years 21% years 16% years 23% years 13% ears 14% 75 or older 9% Total 100% What is your gender? Table 12: Respondent Gender Percent of respondents Woman 52% Man 48% Trans* 0% Genderqueer/non-binary 0% Other 0% Total 100% Page 65

70 Table 13: Where do you live? Census Tract Percent of respondents.00 0% 605 3% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Page 66

71 Census Tract Percent of respondents % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Total 100% Page 67

72 Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions Complete Set of Frequencies Excluding Don t Know The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, excluding the don t know responses. Please circle the number that best describes your opinion for each of the following questions: Table 14: Question 1: Quality of Life very good good neither good nor bad Overall, how would you describe the quality of life in Arvada? 36% 57% 6% 0% 0% 100% How do you rate the overall quality of your neighborhood? 32% 51% 13% 3% 0% 100% How do you rate Arvada as a place to raise children? 33% 52% 14% 2% 0% 100% How do you rate Arvada as a place to live? 37% 54% 7% 1% 0% 100% How do you rate Arvada as a place to retire? 23% 41% 30% 5% 2% 100% How do you rate Arvada as a place to work? 13% 34% 46% 5% 2% 100% Table 15: Question 2: Change in Quality of Life Over Next Five Years Do you think the quality of life in Arvada is likely to improve, stay about the same, or decline over the next five years? bad very bad Percent of respondents improve 37% stay about the same 47% decline 17% Total 100% Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to the Arvada community as a whole. Table 16: Question 3: Community Characteristics very good good neither good nor bad Sense of community 15% 53% 28% 3% 0% 100% Racial relations 8% 40% 48% 4% 0% 100% Air quality 13% 59% 24% 4% 1% 100% Quality of K-12 schools in Arvada 14% 54% 25% 6% 2% 100% Opportunities to attend arts and cultural activities 21% 53% 23% 3% 0% 100% Opportunities for employment 4% 27% 53% 13% 3% 100% Opportunities for continuing education 8% 32% 47% 11% 2% 100% Access to neighborhood parks 49% 43% 6% 1% 0% 100% Opportunities for dining out 20% 49% 18% 11% 2% 100% Shopping opportunities 12% 38% 34% 14% 2% 100% Recreational opportunities 23% 54% 19% 4% 0% 100% Attractiveness/cleanliness 20% 58% 16% 4% 1% 100% Water quality 30% 54% 12% 3% 2% 100% Quality of available housing 10% 39% 37% 10% 4% 100% Affordability of housing 4% 22% 36% 29% 9% 100% Ease of walking in the City 14% 46% 25% 13% 3% 100% Ease of biking in the City 16% 46% 28% 10% 1% 100% bad very bad Total Total Page 68

73 Table 17: Question 4: Personal Safety in Arvada Please rate your sense of personal safety in Arvada Percent of respondents very safe 43% somewhat safe 49% neither safe nor unsafe 5% somewhat unsafe 3% very unsafe 0% Total 100% Please rate how safe you feel from the following in your neighborhood: Table 18: Question 5: Safety in Neighborhood very safe somewhat safe neither safe nor unsafe somewhat unsafe very unsafe Violent crimes (e.g., rape, robbery, assault) 55% 35% 6% 4% 1% 100% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft, vandalism, auto theft) 23% 52% 12% 11% 2% 100% Please rate how safe you feel from the following in Arvada outside of your neighborhood: Table 19: Question 6: Safety Outside of Neighborhood very safe somewhat safe neither safe nor unsafe somewhat unsafe very unsafe Violent crimes (e.g., rape, robbery, assault) 19% 53% 19% 7% 1% 100% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft, vandalism, auto theft) 9% 53% 25% 12% 1% 100% Table 20: Question 7: Victim of a Crime During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? Total Total Percent of respondents No 87% Yes 13% Total 100% Table 21: Question 8: Reported Crime to Police If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? Percent of respondents No 17% Yes 83% Total 100% Page 69

74 To what degree are the following a problem in Arvada: Table 22: Question 9: Problems Impacting Arvada not a problem minor problem important problem major problem extreme problem Traffic congestion 7% 43% 28% 15% 6% 100% Lack of mass transit service 22% 35% 29% 11% 4% 100% Violation of traffic laws 22% 43% 20% 10% 4% 100% Growth 18% 28% 26% 17% 10% 100% Employment opportunities 19% 36% 33% 10% 2% 100% Lack of entry-level housing 20% 29% 28% 14% 8% 100% Lack of housing options for senior citizens 30% 31% 24% 9% 6% 100% Flooding 31% 46% 19% 1% 2% 100% Identity theft 28% 39% 23% 7% 2% 100% Residential property maintenance 23% 45% 22% 6% 3% 100% Broken/missing sidewalks 16% 47% 23% 9% 6% 100% Dead-end/missing bike lanes 26% 43% 19% 8% 4% 100% Please circle the number that best represents your answer. Would you say that you (and your household)... Table 23: Question 10: Household Financial Status much better somewhat better about the same somewhat worse much worse Are better off or worse off financially than you were a year ago 9% 30% 43% 14% 4% 100% Will be better off or worse off financially a year from now 8% 29% 50% 10% 3% 100% Table 24: Question 11: Economic Impact in Next 6 Months 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: Percent of respondents Very positive 3% Somewhat positive 19% Neutral 54% Somewhat negative 21% Very negative 3% Total 100% Total Total Page 70

75 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you done the following things: Table 25: Question 12: Community Participation never once or twice 3 to 12 times 13 to 26 times more than 26 times Total Used the public libraries 35% 23% 23% 9% 10% 100% Used the recreation centers 37% 22% 22% 10% 9% 100% Participated in Apex Park and Recreation programs or activities 53% 19% 14% 7% 6% 100% Visited Olde Town Arvada 3% 18% 41% 23% 14% 100% Rode a local RTD bus within the City 85% 6% 4% 1% 4% 100% Attended a City Council meeting 92% 8% 0% 0% 0% 100% Attended a public meeting about City matters 89% 9% 1% 0% 0% 100% Tried to restrict your water use for purposes of conservation 18% 12% 29% 16% 25% 100% Recycled used paper, cans, or bottles from your home 22% 6% 10% 11% 51% 100% Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Arvada 62% 16% 8% 6% 8% 100% Volunteered your time to some group/activity outside of Arvada 55% 19% 15% 5% 6% 100% Attended a cultural activity at the Arvada Center 57% 31% 9% 2% 1% 100% Dined at an Arvada restaurant (not fast food) 5% 13% 40% 25% 17% 100% Used a City park or trail 11% 12% 25% 20% 31% 100% Attended an educational class or program in Arvada 81% 14% 3% 1% 1% 100% Used a bicycle route in the City 52% 13% 16% 8% 12% 100% The City of Arvada is working to improve practices that help the environment, some of which may increase costs to taxpayers. To what extent do you support or oppose the City taking each of the following actions given that you may experience increased costs? Table 26: Question 13: Sustainable Community strongly support somewhat support somewhat oppose strongly oppose Increase recycling options for residents 43% 40% 10% 7% 100% Reduce the City government s greenhouse gas emissions 32% 44% 12% 12% 100% Reduce the community s greenhouse gas emissions 33% 42% 13% 12% 100% Develop incentives for increasing public transit ridership 32% 47% 11% 10% 100% Increase the number of bike lanes on Arvada s streets 27% 40% 17% 15% 100% Create incentives for homeowners to increase energy efficiency in their own homes 40% 46% 9% 6% 100% Create incentives for builders to build using environmentally friendly ( green ) construction methods 42% 41% 10% 7% 100% Encourage mixed-use development throughout the City (e.g., businesses and residential housing are combined in one building) 23% 39% 22% 16% 100% Create incentives for residents to increase water conservation at home (e.g., installing low flow faucets, toilets and shower heads, high efficiency washers, etc.) 33% 49% 11% 7% 100% Create incentives for residents to increase water conservation with landscaping (e.g., xeriscaping) 33% 48% 12% 6% 100% Encourage community gardening or farming (i.e., planting, harvesting and distributing produce, etc.) 43% 45% 9% 4% 100% Complete sidewalk connections throughout Arvada s streets 51% 41% 5% 3% 100% Total Page 71

76 Table 27: Question 14: Importance of Shopping in Arvada You have the option to shop in Arvada, other cities or on the Internet. All things being equal, please rate how important, if at all, it is to you to shop in Arvada. Percent of respondents Essential 13% Very important 35% Somewhat important 38% Not at all important 14% Total 100% Table 28: Question 15: Frequency of Purchases in Arvada In the last 6 months, how frequently, if at all, have you purchased the following items or services IN the City of Arvada? always frequently sometimes never Total Groceries 73% 22% 4% 1% 100% Clothes/personal items 11% 41% 38% 11% 100% Meals and entertainment 12% 57% 29% 2% 100% Large household appliances and furniture 8% 13% 30% 49% 100% Computers and electronics 4% 11% 28% 57% 100% Home improvement/hardware 25% 38% 26% 11% 100% Other items 8% 44% 41% 7% 100% Table 29: Question 16: Opinions on the Current Rate of Growth in Arvada What do you think about the current rate of the following types of growth in Arvada? much too fast somewhat too fast about right somewhat too slow much too slow Residential growth 32% 33% 33% 2% 1% 100% Retail (shopping) growth 6% 11% 47% 29% 7% 100% Job growth 1% 1% 44% 42% 12% 100% Light industrial/manufacturing 2% 6% 60% 25% 7% 100% Professional offices 2% 8% 65% 21% 4% 100% Recreational/entertainment 1% 3% 62% 28% 6% 100% Table 30: Question 17: Quality and Variety of Development in Arvada Thinking about the development in Arvada over the past years, please rate the following: very good good neither good nor bad The quality of residential development 10% 52% 29% 7% 2% 100% The quality of business/retail development 5% 40% 42% 10% 3% 100% The variety of residential development 4% 33% 47% 12% 3% 100% The variety of business/retail development 3% 28% 51% 14% 4% 100% bad very bad Total Total Page 72

77 Table 31: Question 18: Frequency of Communication with Neighbors 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)? Percent of respondents Just about every day 22% Several times a week 30% Several times a month 22% Once a month 7% Several times a year 9% Once a year or less 4% Never 5% Total 100% Table 32: Question 19: Ways of Interacting with Neighbors In the last 12 months, about how often, if at all, did you interact with your neighbors in each of the following ways: often sometimes never Total Through the Homeowner s Association 4% 15% 82% 100% Through Nextdoor.com 4% 13% 83% 100% Block parties 3% 22% 74% 100% Personal visits 30% 45% 25% 100% Outdoor chores 35% 44% 21% 100% Walks in the neighborhood 35% 47% 18% 100% Kids playing together 17% 20% 63% 100% Coming to/going from my home from/to somewhere else 32% 54% 14% 100% Other 13% 52% 35% 100% Table 33: Question 20: Arvada City Government Planning How do you rate the ability of the Arvada City Government to plan for the following: very good good neither good nor bad Preserving buildings and landmarks in the community 11% 43% 36% 6% 4% 100% Enhancing buildings and landmarks in the community 9% 45% 38% 6% 2% 100% Future growth of the community 6% 39% 34% 13% 8% 100% Diverse housing choices (senior housing, affordable housing, etc.) 4% 24% 40% 23% 8% 100% Economic development (jobs, retail, etc.) 3% 22% 49% 20% 5% 100% Parks and recreation 26% 54% 16% 3% 1% 100% Cultural activities and events 15% 53% 28% 3% 1% 100% Table 34: Question 21: Level of Support for Retail Development More retail development in Arvada is likely to result in a stronger tax base and enhanced City services. At the same time, it is likely to result in more commercial buildings and increased traffic in the City. To what extent do you support or oppose more retail development in Arvada bad very bad Total Percent of respondents Strongly support 27% Somewhat support 50% Somewhat oppose 14% Strongly oppose 8% Total 100% Page 73

78 Table 35: Question 22: Overall Satisfaction with Arvada Government Services Overall, how satisfied are you with the government services provided by the City of Arvada? Percent of respondents very satisfied 10% satisfied 50% neutral 34% dissatisfied 5% very dissatisfied 1% Total 100% Please rate your satisfaction with the quality of the following services provided by the City of Arvada: Table 36: Question 23: Satisfaction with Arvada City Services very satisfied satisfied neutral dissatisfied very dissatisfied Police services (emergency and non-emergency) 29% 49% 17% 3% 1% 100% City parks 38% 51% 9% 2% 0% 100% Street maintenance 12% 38% 25% 18% 7% 100% Water services 22% 53% 20% 4% 1% 100% Sewer services 21% 54% 23% 2% 1% 100% Municipal court services 13% 40% 42% 3% 2% 100% New street construction and expansion 5% 26% 46% 15% 8% 100% Code enforcement (weeds, junk cars, trash, etc.) 7% 32% 32% 20% 10% 100% Development of new City parks, open space, and trails 18% 49% 25% 7% 1% 100% Maintenance of existing City parks, open space, and trails 24% 54% 17% 4% 1% 100% City outreach services (KATV Channel 8, Web site, Facebook, Twitter, The Arvada Report, water bill inserts, etc.) 13% 40% 43% 3% 1% 100% Drinking water quality 31% 50% 12% 4% 3% 100% Programs to deal with appearance and safety of neighborhoods 9% 43% 36% 9% 3% 100% Snow removal or sanding on major streets 11% 51% 22% 12% 3% 100% Street sweeping 12% 52% 29% 6% 2% 100% Sidewalk maintenance 7% 35% 35% 17% 6% 100% Cultural activities at the Arvada Center for the Arts and Humanities 20% 51% 26% 2% 0% 100% Programs to attract and keep businesses in Arvada 8% 29% 48% 11% 4% 100% Government-assisted affordable housing 6% 16% 57% 16% 6% 100% Ease of car travel in the City 7% 39% 30% 18% 6% 100% Ease of bicycle travel in the City 10% 33% 40% 14% 3% 100% City building inspection 9% 26% 56% 6% 4% 100% Flood control 8% 39% 45% 6% 3% 100% Total Page 74

79 Table 37: Question 24: Importance of Arvada City Services Modifications in federal, state, and local funding may make it necessary to change some City services. Thinking of the services just listed previously, please rate how important you think it is to have the City of Arvada provide these services. essential very important somewhat important not at all important Police services (emergency and non-emergency) 78% 16% 5% 1% 100% City parks 38% 44% 17% 1% 100% Street maintenance 54% 42% 4% 0% 100% Water services 63% 32% 5% 0% 100% Sewer services 61% 33% 5% 0% 100% Municipal court services 35% 40% 21% 4% 100% New street construction and expansion 27% 38% 30% 5% 100% Code enforcement (weeds, junk cars, trash, etc.) 22% 39% 31% 8% 100% Development of new City parks, open space, and trails 22% 36% 33% 8% 100% Maintenance of existing City parks, open space, and trails 35% 45% 19% 1% 100% City outreach services (KATV Channel 8, Web site, Facebook, Twitter, The Arvada Report, water bill inserts, etc.) 9% 21% 49% 21% 100% Drinking water quality 67% 28% 4% 0% 100% Programs to deal with appearance and safety of neighborhoods 25% 41% 30% 4% 100% Snow removal or sanding on major streets 52% 39% 8% 1% 100% Street sweeping 22% 40% 33% 4% 100% Sidewalk maintenance 30% 44% 25% 2% 100% Cultural activities at the Arvada Center for the Arts and Humanities 13% 28% 44% 15% 100% Programs to attract and keep businesses in Arvada 26% 39% 30% 6% 100% Government-assisted affordable housing 17% 26% 34% 23% 100% Ease of car travel in the City 30% 45% 23% 2% 100% Ease of bicycle travel in the City 18% 32% 37% 13% 100% City building inspection 18% 42% 36% 5% 100% Flood control 27% 42% 28% 2% 100% Total Page 75

80 Please rate your satisfaction with the quality of the following services provided by agencies other than the City of Arvada: Table 38: Question 25: Satisfaction with Non-City Services very satisfied satisfied neutral dissatisfied very dissatisfied Cable television services 10% 36% 27% 15% 11% 100% High speed Internet services 9% 40% 26% 17% 8% 100% Mass transit planning (rail, bus, etc.) 8% 35% 43% 9% 4% 100% Programs providing health services for the poor 6% 21% 51% 17% 5% 100% Youth programs 10% 38% 42% 8% 1% 100% Programs for senior citizens 8% 34% 45% 11% 3% 100% Assistance programs for the poor and homeless 7% 15% 50% 19% 9% 100% Mental health services 8% 18% 49% 15% 10% 100% Fire services 33% 50% 16% 1% 0% 100% Library services 30% 55% 14% 1% 0% 100% Trash collection 23% 52% 18% 4% 2% 100% Recreation programs 20% 56% 23% 2% 0% 100% Curbside or other recycling options 13% 42% 26% 12% 7% 100% Please rate how important you think it is to have these services provided in Arvada (these are services provided by agencies other than the City of Arvada): Table 39: Question 26: Importance of Non-City Services essential very important somewhat important not at all important Cable television services 25% 35% 24% 16% 100% High speed Internet services 48% 34% 11% 8% 100% Mass transit planning (rail, bus, etc.) 33% 38% 24% 6% 100% Programs providing health services for the poor 24% 36% 32% 8% 100% Youth programs 27% 45% 26% 3% 100% Programs for senior citizens 23% 44% 29% 4% 100% Assistance programs for the poor and homeless 23% 34% 34% 9% 100% Mental health services 29% 37% 30% 4% 100% Fire services 67% 24% 7% 2% 100% Library services 33% 40% 22% 5% 100% Trash collection 50% 35% 11% 4% 100% Recreation programs 26% 44% 26% 4% 100% Curbside or other recycling options 32% 40% 23% 5% 100% Total Total Page 76

81 Table 40: Question 27: Support for or Opposition to the City of Arvada Pursuing New Programs To what extent do you support or oppose a tax increase to allow the City of Arvada to pursue the following programs or activities? strongly support somewhat support somewhat oppose strongly oppose Purchase additional land for open space 30% 40% 19% 11% 100% Build new community and regional parks 22% 49% 19% 10% 100% Improve existing neighborhood parks 29% 55% 11% 5% 100% Provide additional funding for day-to-day maintenance of parks, trails, open space, and medians 23% 55% 15% 7% 100% Construct new trails 19% 47% 25% 9% 100% Provide additional funding for the construction of streets to improve the City s transportation system 31% 47% 15% 7% 100% Make walking and biking easier around Arvada by connecting bike lanes and sidewalks 28% 48% 16% 8% 100% Provide additional funding for road maintenance 31% 53% 11% 5% 100% Build a new Justice Center for the Police Department and Municipal Court 6% 26% 36% 31% 100% Table 41: Question 27a: Priority to the City of Arvada Pursuing New Programs To what extent do you support or oppose a tax increase to allow the City of Arvada to pursue the following programs or activities? 1st Priority 2nd Priority 3rd Priority Purchase additional land for open space 45% 32% 23% 100% Build new community and regional parks 24% 37% 39% 100% Improve existing neighborhood parks 27% 34% 39% 100% Provide additional funding for day-to-day maintenance of parks, trails, open space, and medians 21% 38% 41% 100% Construct new trails 13% 32% 56% 100% Provide additional funding for the construction of streets to improve the City s transportation system 45% 34% 21% 100% Make walking and biking easier around Arvada by connecting bike lanes and sidewalks 34% 32% 34% 100% Provide additional funding for road maintenance 42% 37% 22% 100% Build a new Justice Center for the Police Department and Municipal Court 24% 12% 65% 100% Table 42: Question 28: Contact with City Employees During the Last 12 Months Have you had phone, online, or in-person contact with an Arvada City employee within the last 12 months (including police, municipal courts, receptionists, planners, or any others)? Total Total Percent of respondents No 55% Yes 45% Total 100% Page 77

82 Table 43: Question 29: Departments Contacted in the Last 12 Months With which of the following departments have you had contact in the last 12 months? Percent of respondents* Water/Sewer 16% Police 56% Economic Development 0% Parks/Golf 20% Human Resources 3% Code Enforcement 18% City Clerk/Passport 12% Community Development 4% Municipal Court 5% Housing 5% Arvada Center 17% Sales Tax 3% Animal Control 17% City Manager s Office 5% Building Inspection 15% Streets/Snow Removal 3% Water Billing 10% City Attorney/Prosecutor 3% Traffic Engineering 3% Other 9% *Total may exceed 100% as respondents could give more than one answer. What was your impression of City employees in your most recent contact? Table 44: Question 30: City Employee Ratings very good good neither good nor bad Knowledgeable 43% 42% 11% 1% 3% 100% Professional attitude 48% 37% 9% 1% 5% 100% Willingness to help or understand 46% 32% 11% 5% 6% 100% Making you feel valued as a citizen/customer 43% 31% 15% 6% 5% 100% Overall impression 46% 34% 11% 4% 5% 100% bad very bad Total Page 78

83 Please rate the following statements by circling the number that most closely represents your opinion: Table 45: Question 31: Public Trust strongly agree somewhat agree neither agree nor disagree somewhat disagree strongly disagree City of Arvada employees really try to do quality work 30% 45% 20% 4% 1% 100% I receive good value for the City taxes I pay 17% 42% 27% 9% 4% 100% I am pleased with the overall direction that the City is taking 18% 45% 22% 9% 5% 100% I am well informed on major issues in the City of Arvada 11% 36% 30% 17% 7% 100% Arvada City government welcomes citizen involvement 19% 38% 31% 8% 5% 100% Government is really run for the benefit of all the people 14% 30% 30% 18% 8% 100% Most elected officials care what people like me think 10% 24% 32% 20% 14% 100% Please rate the following aspects of traffic in Arvada: Table 46: Question 32: Arvada Traffic Ratings no problem slight problem moderate problem major problem Traffic movement within the City 11% 44% 32% 14% 100% Volume of traffic on residential streets 34% 37% 20% 9% 100% Volume of traffic on major streets such as Wadsworth or Ralston Road 6% 22% 36% 36% 100% Speed of traffic on residential streets 34% 34% 18% 15% 100% Accessibility of commercial and retail centers 44% 32% 17% 6% 100% Table 47: Question 33: Importance of Living and Working in Arvada How important is it to you to have the opportunity to work as well as live in Arvada? Total Total Percent of respondents essential 12% very important 29% somewhat important 32% not at all important 27% Total 100% Table 48: Question 34: Working Outside the Home Do you work outside of the home? Percent of respondents No 34% Yes 66% Total 100% Page 79

84 Table 49: Question 35: Work Commute About how many miles is your work place from home? Percent of respondents Less than 5 miles 20% 5 to 9 miles 15% 10 to 14 miles 27% 15 to 19 miles 15% 20 or more miles 22% Total 100% Average Number of Miles 14 Table 50: Question 36: City of Employment Which city do you work in or closest to? Percent of Respondents Arvada 20% Wheat Ridge 4% Boulder 5% Louisville 1% Lakewood 8% Lafayette 1% Golden 7% Denver 31% Broomfield 5% Westminster 4% Other 15% Total 100% Table 51: Question 37: Commute Transportation How do you usually travel to work? Percent of Respondents Drive alone 89% The bus 4% Bike 2% Car pool 4% Walk 0% Scooter 0% Other 1% Total 100% In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or another household member ridden a bicycle... Table 52: Question 38a: Reasons for Riding a Bicycle 2 times a week or more 2 to 4 times a month once a month or less not at all to shop or run errands 6% 6% 11% 78% 100% to commute to work 5% 2% 4% 89% 100% to commute to school 2% 2% 2% 93% 100% for fun 19% 23% 15% 43% 100% to get entertainment (e.g., a restaurant, the movies, etc.) 5% 6% 7% 82% 100% for exercise 19% 21% 14% 46% 100% Total Page 80

85 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or another household member walked... Table 53: Question 38b: Reasons for Walking 2 times a week or more 2 to 4 times a month once a month or less not at all to shop or run errands 13% 19% 19% 48% 100% to commute to work 2% 2% 2% 94% 100% to commute to school 6% 3% 2% 89% 100% for fun 43% 32% 9% 16% 100% to get entertainment (e.g., a restaurant, the movies, etc.) 9% 16% 14% 61% 100% for exercise 50% 30% 10% 10% 100% How important to you are the following sources for information about City projects and programs? Table 54: Question 39: Information Sources essential very important somewhat important not at all important The Arvada Press (weekly community paper) 14% 26% 38% 22% 100% Denver Post/YourHub (weekly insert) 5% 15% 30% 49% 100% The Arvada Report (bi-monthly City newsletter) 13% 34% 38% 15% 100% The City s electronic newsletter 5% 17% 37% 41% 100% City Water bill inserts 5% 18% 46% 31% 100% KATV Cable Channel 8 2% 9% 23% 65% 100% The City Web site at 14% 27% 38% 21% 100% Arvada s social media sites (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, YouTube) 5% 13% 29% 54% 100% Friends and family (word of mouth) 14% 31% 42% 12% 100% Local TV news 11% 32% 35% 22% 100% Local radio broadcasts 7% 23% 38% 32% 100% Table 55: Question 40: Access to Computers with Internet Do you have a computer with Internet access in your home? Percent of respondents No 11% Yes 89% Total 100% Table 56: Question 41: City Web Site Use Have you accessed the City's Web site at Percent of respondents No 49% Yes 51% Total 100% Total Total Page 81

86 How would you rate the following aspects of the City's Web site at Table 57: Question 42: Rating of the City's Web Site very good good neither good nor bad Usefulness of information 18% 63% 18% 1% 0% 100% Ease of use 15% 53% 27% 4% 0% 100% Look and feel 15% 52% 30% 3% 0% 100% Timeliness of information 15% 47% 34% 4% 0% 100% Organization/location of information 15% 49% 29% 7% 1% 100% Table 58: Question 43: Respondent Frequency of Using Sources of Information In the last 12 months, how often have you... never once or twice 3 to 12 times 13 to 26 times bad very bad more than 26 times Used a social networking site (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest) 29% 6% 7% 7% 51% 100% Read something in print (e.g. newspaper, magazine, newsletter) 2% 8% 17% 20% 53% 100% Total Total Page 82

87 Complete Set of Frequencies Including Don t Know The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, including the don t know responses. The percent of respondents giving a particular response is shown. Please circle the number that best describes your opinion for each of the following questions: Table 59: Question 1: Quality of Life very good good neither good nor bad Overall, how would you describe the quality of life in Arvada? 36% 57% 6% 0% 0% 100% How do you rate the overall quality of your neighborhood? 32% 51% 13% 3% 0% 100% How do you rate Arvada as a place to raise children? 33% 52% 14% 2% 0% 100% How do you rate Arvada as a place to live? 37% 54% 7% 1% 0% 100% How do you rate Arvada as a place to retire? 23% 41% 30% 5% 2% 100% How do you rate Arvada as a place to work? 13% 34% 46% 5% 2% 100% Table 60: Question 2: Change in Quality of Life Over Next Five Years Do you think the quality of life in Arvada is likely to improve, stay about the same, or decline over the next five years? bad very bad Percent of respondents improve 37% stay about the same 47% decline 17% Total 100% Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to the Arvada community as a whole. Table 61: Question 3: Community Characteristics very good good neither good nor bad bad very bad don't know Sense of community 15% 53% 28% 3% 0% 2% 100% Racial relations 7% 34% 40% 3% 0% 15% 100% Air quality 12% 57% 23% 4% 1% 3% 100% Quality of K-12 schools in Arvada 11% 43% 20% 5% 1% 21% 100% Opportunities to attend arts and cultural activities 20% 50% 22% 3% 0% 5% 100% Opportunities for employment 3% 22% 42% 11% 2% 20% 100% Opportunities for continuing education 6% 26% 38% 9% 2% 19% 100% Access to neighborhood parks 49% 43% 6% 1% 0% 1% 100% Opportunities for dining out 20% 49% 18% 11% 2% 1% 100% Shopping opportunities 12% 38% 34% 14% 2% 0% 100% Recreational opportunities 23% 53% 19% 3% 0% 2% 100% Attractiveness/cleanliness 20% 58% 16% 4% 1% 0% 100% Water quality 29% 53% 11% 3% 2% 2% 100% Quality of available housing 9% 35% 33% 9% 4% 9% 100% Affordability of housing 4% 20% 33% 27% 9% 6% 100% Ease of walking in the City 13% 45% 24% 12% 3% 3% 100% Ease of biking in the City 13% 39% 24% 8% 1% 14% 100% Total Total Page 83

88 Table 62: Question 4: Personal Safety in Arvada Please rate your sense of personal safety in Arvada Percent of respondents very safe 43% somewhat safe 49% neither safe nor unsafe 5% somewhat unsafe 3% very unsafe 0% Total 100% Please rate how safe you feel from the following in your neighborhood: Table 63: Question 5: Safety in Neighborhood very safe somewhat safe neither safe nor unsafe somewhat unsafe very unsafe Violent crimes (e.g., rape, robbery, assault) 55% 35% 6% 4% 1% 100% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft, vandalism, auto theft) 23% 52% 12% 11% 2% 100% Please rate how safe you feel from the following in Arvada outside of your neighborhood: Table 64: Question 6: Safety Outside of Neighborhood very safe somewhat safe neither safe nor unsafe somewhat unsafe very unsafe Violent crimes (e.g., rape, robbery, assault) 19% 53% 19% 7% 1% 100% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft, vandalism, auto theft) 9% 53% 25% 12% 1% 100% Table 65: Question 7: Victim of a Crime During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? Total Total Percent of respondents No 85% Yes 13% Don't know 2% Total 100% Table 66: Question 8: Reported Crime to Police If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? Percent of respondents No 16% Yes 79% Don't know 4% Total 100% Page 84

89 To what degree are the following a problem in Arvada: Table 67: Question 9: Problems Impacting Arvada not a problem minor problem important problem major problem extreme problem Traffic congestion 7% 43% 28% 15% 6% 100% Lack of mass transit service 22% 35% 29% 11% 4% 100% Violation of traffic laws 22% 43% 20% 10% 4% 100% Growth 18% 28% 26% 17% 10% 100% Employment opportunities 19% 36% 33% 10% 2% 100% Lack of entry-level housing 20% 29% 28% 14% 8% 100% Lack of housing options for senior citizens 30% 31% 24% 9% 6% 100% Flooding 31% 46% 19% 1% 2% 100% Identity theft 28% 39% 23% 7% 2% 100% Residential property maintenance 23% 45% 22% 6% 3% 100% Broken/missing sidewalks 16% 47% 23% 9% 6% 100% Dead-end/missing bike lanes 26% 43% 19% 8% 4% 100% Please circle the number that best represents your answer. Would you say that you (and your household)... Table 68: Question 10: Household Financial Status much better somewhat better about the same somewhat worse much worse don't know Are better off or worse off financially than you were a year ago 9% 30% 43% 14% 4% 0% 100% Will be better off or worse off financially a year from now 7% 28% 47% 9% 3% 6% 100% Table 69: Question 11: Economic Impact in Next 6 Months 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: Percent of respondents Very positive 3% Somewhat positive 19% Neutral 54% Somewhat negative 21% Very negative 3% Total 100% In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you done the following things: Table 70: Question 12: Community Participation never once or twice 3 to 12 times 13 to 26 times Total Total more than 26 times Total Used the public libraries 35% 23% 23% 9% 10% 100% Used the recreation centers 37% 22% 22% 10% 9% 100% Participated in Apex Park and Recreation programs or activities 53% 19% 14% 7% 6% 100% Visited Olde Town Arvada 3% 18% 41% 23% 14% 100% Rode a local RTD bus within the City 85% 6% 4% 1% 4% 100% Attended a City Council meeting 92% 8% 0% 0% 0% 100% Attended a public meeting about City matters 89% 9% 1% 0% 0% 100% Tried to restrict your water use for purposes of conservation 18% 12% 29% 16% 25% 100% Recycled used paper, cans, or bottles from your home 22% 6% 10% 11% 51% 100% Page 85

90 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you done the following things: never once or twice 3 to 12 times 13 to 26 times more than 26 times Total Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Arvada 62% 16% 8% 6% 8% 100% Volunteered your time to some group/activity outside of Arvada 55% 19% 15% 5% 6% 100% Attended a cultural activity at the Arvada Center 57% 31% 9% 2% 1% 100% Dined at an Arvada restaurant (not fast food) 5% 13% 40% 25% 17% 100% Used a City park or trail 11% 12% 25% 20% 31% 100% Attended an educational class or program in Arvada 81% 14% 3% 1% 1% 100% Used a bicycle route in the City 52% 13% 16% 8% 12% 100% The City of Arvada is working to improve practices that help the environment, some of which may increase costs to taxpayers. To what extent do you support or oppose the City taking each of the following actions given that you may experience increased costs? Table 71: Question 13: Sustainable Community strongly support somewhat support somewhat oppose strongly oppose don't know Increase recycling options for residents 42% 39% 10% 6% 3% 100% Reduce the City government s greenhouse gas emissions 29% 40% 10% 11% 10% 100% Reduce the community s greenhouse gas emissions 30% 39% 12% 11% 9% 100% Develop incentives for increasing public transit ridership 29% 44% 10% 10% 8% 100% Increase the number of bike lanes on Arvada s streets 26% 38% 16% 15% 6% 100% Create incentives for homeowners to increase energy efficiency in their own homes 38% 44% 9% 6% 3% 100% Create incentives for builders to build using environmentally friendly ( green ) construction methods 39% 39% 9% 7% 5% 100% Encourage mixed-use development throughout the City (e.g., businesses and residential housing are combined in one building) 20% 35% 19% 14% 12% 100% Create incentives for residents to increase water conservation at home (e.g., installing low flow faucets, toilets and shower heads, high efficiency washers, etc.) 32% 48% 11% 6% 3% 100% Create incentives for residents to increase water conservation with landscaping (e.g., xeriscaping) 32% 46% 12% 6% 4% 100% Encourage community gardening or farming (i.e., planting, harvesting and distributing produce, etc.) 40% 41% 8% 4% 8% 100% Complete sidewalk connections throughout Arvada s streets 48% 38% 5% 2% 7% 100% Total Page 86

91 Table 72: Question 14: Importance of Shopping in Arvada You have the option to shop in Arvada, other cities or on the Internet. All things being equal, please rate how important, if at all, it is to you to shop in Arvada. Percent of respondents Essential 13% Very important 34% Somewhat important 37% Not at all important 14% Don't know 2% Total 100% Table 73: Question 15: Frequency of Purchases in Arvada In the last 6 months, how frequently, if at all, have you purchased the following items or services IN the City of Arvada? always frequently sometimes never Total Groceries 73% 22% 4% 1% 100% Clothes/personal items 11% 41% 38% 11% 100% Meals and entertainment 12% 57% 29% 2% 100% Large household appliances and furniture 8% 13% 30% 49% 100% Computers and electronics 4% 11% 28% 57% 100% Home improvement/hardware 25% 38% 26% 11% 100% Other items 8% 44% 41% 7% 100% Table 74: Question 16: Opinions on the Current Rate of Growth in Arvada What do you think about the current rate of the following types of growth in Arvada? much too fast somewhat too fast about right somewhat too slow much too slow Residential growth 32% 33% 33% 2% 1% 100% Retail (shopping) growth 6% 11% 47% 29% 7% 100% Job growth 1% 1% 44% 42% 12% 100% Light industrial/manufacturing 2% 6% 60% 25% 7% 100% Professional offices 2% 8% 65% 21% 4% 100% Recreational/entertainment 1% 3% 62% 28% 6% 100% Table 75: Question 17: Quality and Variety of Development in Arvada Thinking about the development in Arvada over the past years, please rate the following: very good good neither good nor bad The quality of residential development 10% 52% 29% 7% 2% 100% The quality of business/retail development 5% 40% 42% 10% 3% 100% The variety of residential development 4% 33% 47% 12% 3% 100% The variety of business/retail development 3% 28% 51% 14% 4% 100% bad very bad Total Total Page 87

92 Table 76: Question 18: Frequency of Communication with Neighbors 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)? Percent of respondents Just about every day 22% Several times a week 30% Several times a month 22% Once a month 7% Several times a year 9% Once a year or less 4% Never 5% Total 100% Table 77: Question 19: Ways of Interacting with Neighbors In the last 12 months, about how often, if at all, did you interact with your neighbors in each of the following ways: often sometimes never Total Through the Homeowner s Association 4% 15% 82% 100% Through Nextdoor.com 4% 13% 83% 100% Block parties 3% 22% 74% 100% Personal visits 30% 45% 25% 100% Outdoor chores 35% 44% 21% 100% Walks in the neighborhood 35% 47% 18% 100% Kids playing together 17% 20% 63% 100% Coming to/going from my home from/to somewhere else 32% 54% 14% 100% Other 13% 52% 35% 100% How do you rate the ability of the Arvada City Government to plan for the following: Table 78: Question 20: Arvada City Government Planning very good good neither good nor bad bad very bad don't know Preserving buildings and landmarks in the community 9% 34% 28% 4% 3% 21% 100% Enhancing buildings and landmarks in the community 7% 36% 30% 5% 2% 20% 100% Future growth of the community 5% 33% 28% 11% 7% 16% 100% Diverse housing choices (senior housing, affordable housing, etc.) 4% 19% 32% 18% 6% 21% 100% Economic development (jobs, retail, etc.) 3% 18% 40% 16% 4% 19% 100% Parks and recreation 23% 48% 14% 3% 1% 11% 100% Cultural activities and events 13% 46% 24% 2% 1% 14% 100% Table 79: Question 21: Level of Support for Retail Development More retail development in Arvada is likely to result in a stronger tax base and enhanced City services. At the same time, it is likely to result in more commercial buildings and increased traffic in the City. To what extent do you support or oppose more retail development in Arvada Total Percent of respondents Strongly support 26% Somewhat support 49% Somewhat oppose 14% Strongly oppose 8% Don t know 3% Total 100% Page 88

93 Table 80: Question 22: Overall Satisfaction with Arvada Government Services Overall, how satisfied are you with the government services provided by the City of Arvada? Percent of respondents very satisfied 10% satisfied 50% neutral 34% dissatisfied 5% very dissatisfied 1% Total 100% Please rate your satisfaction with the quality of the following services provided by the City of Arvada: Table 81: Question 23: Satisfaction with Arvada City Services very satisfied satisfied neutral dissatisfied very dissatisfied don't know Police services (emergency and nonemergency) 28% 47% 16% 3% 1% 4% 100% City parks 37% 51% 9% 2% 0% 1% 100% Street maintenance 12% 38% 24% 18% 7% 1% 100% Water services 22% 52% 20% 4% 1% 2% 100% Sewer services 20% 51% 22% 2% 0% 4% 100% Municipal court services 8% 24% 26% 2% 1% 39% 100% New street construction and expansion 5% 23% 40% 13% 7% 11% 100% Code enforcement (weeds, junk cars, trash, etc.) 6% 29% 29% 18% 9% 10% 100% Development of new City parks, open space, and trails 18% 46% 23% 7% 1% 5% 100% Maintenance of existing City parks, open space, and trails 23% 52% 16% 4% 1% 3% 100% City outreach services (KATV Channel 8, Web site, Facebook, Twitter, The Arvada Report, water bill inserts, etc.) 10% 30% 32% 2% 0% 25% 100% Drinking water quality 30% 49% 12% 4% 3% 2% 100% Programs to deal with appearance and safety of neighborhoods 7% 35% 29% 8% 3% 18% 100% Snow removal or sanding on major streets 11% 50% 22% 12% 3% 3% 100% Street sweeping 12% 50% 28% 6% 2% 3% 100% Sidewalk maintenance 7% 34% 34% 16% 5% 4% 100% Cultural activities at the Arvada Center for the Arts and Humanities 16% 42% 21% 2% 0% 18% 100% Programs to attract and keep businesses in Arvada 5% 20% 33% 8% 3% 31% 100% Government-assisted affordable housing 4% 12% 44% 12% 5% 23% 100% Ease of car travel in the City 7% 38% 29% 18% 5% 3% 100% Ease of bicycle travel in the City 8% 26% 31% 11% 3% 22% 100% City building inspection 5% 14% 31% 3% 2% 44% 100% Flood control 5% 27% 31% 4% 2% 30% 100% Total Page 89

94 Modifications in federal, state, and local funding may make it necessary to change some City services. Thinking of the services just listed previously, please rate how important you think it is to have the City of Arvada provide these services. Table 82: Question 24: Importance of Arvada City Services essential very important somewhat important not at all important don't know Police services (emergency and non-emergency) 78% 16% 5% 1% 1% 100% City parks 38% 43% 17% 1% 1% 100% Street maintenance 54% 41% 4% 0% 1% 100% Water services 63% 31% 5% 0% 1% 100% Sewer services 60% 33% 5% 0% 1% 100% Municipal court services 33% 37% 20% 3% 7% 100% New street construction and expansion 26% 37% 29% 5% 2% 100% Code enforcement (weeds, junk cars, trash, etc.) 22% 38% 30% 7% 2% 100% Development of new City parks, open space, and trails 22% 36% 33% 8% 1% 100% Maintenance of existing City parks, open space, and trails 35% 44% 19% 1% 1% 100% City outreach services (KATV Channel 8, Web site, Facebook, Twitter, The Arvada Report, water bill inserts, etc.) 8% 19% 44% 19% 11% 100% Drinking water quality 67% 28% 4% 0% 1% 100% Programs to deal with appearance and safety of neighborhoods 25% 41% 29% 4% 1% 100% Snow removal or sanding on major streets 52% 39% 8% 1% 1% 100% Street sweeping 22% 40% 33% 4% 1% 100% Sidewalk maintenance 29% 43% 25% 2% 1% 100% Cultural activities at the Arvada Center for the Arts and Humanities 12% 27% 42% 14% 5% 100% Programs to attract and keep businesses in Arvada 25% 38% 30% 5% 3% 100% Government-assisted affordable housing 16% 24% 32% 21% 6% 100% Ease of car travel in the City 30% 44% 23% 2% 1% 100% Ease of bicycle travel in the City 17% 31% 35% 12% 5% 100% City building inspection 17% 38% 33% 4% 8% 100% Flood control 26% 40% 27% 2% 5% 100% Total Page 90

95 Please rate your satisfaction with the quality of the following services provided by agencies other than the City of Arvada: Table 83: Question 25: Satisfaction with Non-City Services very satisfied satisfied neutral dissatisfied very dissatisfied don't know Cable television services 8% 29% 22% 12% 9% 19% 100% High speed Internet services 9% 38% 25% 16% 8% 5% 100% Mass transit planning (rail, bus, etc.) 7% 30% 35% 8% 4% 17% 100% Programs providing health services for the poor 3% 11% 27% 9% 3% 47% 100% Youth programs 6% 23% 26% 5% 1% 39% 100% Programs for senior citizens 5% 20% 26% 6% 2% 42% 100% Assistance programs for the poor and homeless 4% 8% 26% 10% 5% 48% 100% Mental health services 4% 10% 26% 8% 5% 46% 100% Fire services 27% 42% 13% 1% 0% 17% 100% Library services 26% 47% 12% 1% 0% 15% 100% Trash collection 22% 49% 17% 4% 2% 6% 100% Recreation programs 17% 47% 19% 1% 0% 15% 100% Curbside or other recycling options 11% 37% 23% 10% 6% 11% 100% Please rate how important you think it is to have these services provided in Arvada (these are services provided by agencies other than the City of Arvada): Table 84: Question 26: Importance of Non-City Services essential very important somewhat important not at all important don't know Cable television services 24% 34% 23% 16% 4% 100% High speed Internet services 46% 33% 10% 7% 4% 100% Mass transit planning (rail, bus, etc.) 31% 37% 23% 5% 3% 100% Programs providing health services for the poor 22% 33% 30% 7% 9% 100% Youth programs 25% 42% 24% 3% 6% 100% Programs for senior citizens 22% 41% 27% 4% 6% 100% Assistance programs for the poor and homeless 21% 31% 31% 8% 8% 100% Mental health services 27% 34% 28% 3% 8% 100% Fire services 64% 23% 7% 2% 3% 100% Library services 32% 39% 21% 5% 4% 100% Trash collection 50% 34% 11% 4% 2% 100% Recreation programs 25% 42% 25% 4% 4% 100% Curbside or other recycling options 31% 39% 22% 5% 3% 100% Total Total Page 91

96 Table 85: Question 27: Support for or Opposition to the City of Arvada Pursuing New Programs To what extent do you support or oppose a tax increase to allow the City of Arvada to pursue the following programs or activities? strongly support somewhat support somewhat oppose strongly oppose don't know Purchase additional land for open space 28% 37% 18% 10% 6% 100% Build new community and regional parks 21% 46% 18% 10% 5% 100% Improve existing neighborhood parks 28% 54% 11% 5% 3% 100% Provide additional funding for day-to-day maintenance of parks, trails, open space, and medians 22% 53% 14% 7% 4% 100% Construct new trails 18% 45% 24% 8% 5% 100% Provide additional funding for the construction of streets to improve the City s transportation system 30% 46% 15% 7% 2% 100% Make walking and biking easier around Arvada by connecting bike lanes and sidewalks 26% 46% 16% 8% 4% 100% Provide additional funding for road maintenance 30% 52% 11% 5% 2% 100% Build a new Justice Center for the Police Department and Municipal Court 6% 23% 32% 27% 12% 100% Table 86: Question 27a: Priority to the City of Arvada Pursuing New Programs To what extent do you support or oppose a tax increase to allow the City of Arvada to pursue the following programs or activities? 1st Priority 2nd Priority 3rd Priority Purchase additional land for open space 45% 32% 23% 100% Build new community and regional parks 24% 37% 39% 100% Improve existing neighborhood parks 27% 34% 39% 100% Provide additional funding for day-to-day maintenance of parks, trails, open space, and medians 21% 38% 41% 100% Construct new trails 13% 32% 56% 100% Provide additional funding for the construction of streets to improve the City s transportation system 45% 34% 21% 100% Make walking and biking easier around Arvada by connecting bike lanes and sidewalks 34% 32% 34% 100% Provide additional funding for road maintenance 42% 37% 22% 100% Build a new Justice Center for the Police Department and Municipal Court 24% 12% 65% 100% Table 87: Question 28: Contact with City Employees During the Last 12 Months Have you had phone, online, or in-person contact with an Arvada City employee within the last 12 months (including police, municipal courts, receptionists, planners, or any others)? Total Total Percent of respondents No 55% Yes 45% Total 100% Page 92

97 Table 88: Question 29: Departments Contacted in the Last 12 Months With which of the following departments have you had contact in the last 12 months? Percent of respondents* Water/Sewer 16% Police 56% Economic Development 0% Parks/Golf 20% Human Resources 3% Code Enforcement 18% City Clerk/Passport 12% Community Development 4% Municipal Court 5% Housing 5% Arvada Center 17% Sales Tax 3% Animal Control 17% City Manager s Office 5% Building Inspection 15% Streets/Snow Removal 3% Water Billing 10% City Attorney/Prosecutor 3% Traffic Engineering 3% Other 9% *Total may exceed 100% as respondents could give more than one answer. What was your impression of City employees in your most recent contact? Table 89: Question 30: City Employee Ratings very good good neither good nor bad bad very bad don't know Knowledgeable 42% 41% 11% 1% 3% 2% 100% Professional attitude 47% 37% 9% 1% 5% 1% 100% Willingness to help or understand 45% 31% 11% 5% 6% 2% 100% Making you feel valued as a citizen/customer 42% 30% 15% 6% 5% 2% 100% Overall impression 45% 33% 11% 4% 5% 2% 100% Total Page 93

98 Please rate the following statements by circling the number that most closely represents your opinion: strongly agree Table 90: Question 31: Public Trust somewhat agree neither agree nor disagree somewhat disagree strongly disagree don't know City of Arvada employees really try to do quality work 24% 35% 16% 3% 1% 21% 100% I receive good value for the City taxes I pay 16% 39% 25% 9% 4% 8% 100% I am pleased with the overall direction that the City is taking 17% 42% 21% 9% 5% 6% 100% I am well informed on major issues in the City of Arvada 10% 33% 28% 16% 7% 6% 100% Arvada City government welcomes citizen involvement 15% 30% 25% 6% 4% 20% 100% Government is really run for the benefit of all the people 12% 26% 26% 16% 7% 13% 100% Most elected officials care what people like me think 9% 21% 27% 17% 12% 15% 100% Please rate the following aspects of traffic in Arvada: Table 91: Question 32: Arvada Traffic Ratings no problem slight problem moderate problem major problem Traffic movement within the City 11% 44% 32% 14% 100% Volume of traffic on residential streets 34% 37% 20% 9% 100% Volume of traffic on major streets such as Wadsworth or Ralston Road 6% 22% 36% 36% 100% Speed of traffic on residential streets 34% 34% 18% 15% 100% Accessibility of commercial and retail centers 44% 32% 17% 6% 100% Table 92: Question 33: Importance of Living and Working in Arvada How important is it to you to have the opportunity to work as well as live in Arvada? Total Total Percent of respondents essential 11% very important 28% somewhat important 30% not at all important 26% don't know 5% Total 100% Table 93: Question 34: Working Outside the Home Do you work outside of the home? Percent of respondents No 34% Yes 66% Total 100% Page 94

99 Table 94: Question 35: Work Commute About how many miles is your work place from home? Percent of respondents Less than 5 miles 20% 5 to 9 miles 15% 10 to 14 miles 27% 15 to 19 miles 15% 20 or more miles 22% Total 100% Average Number of Miles 14 Table 95: Question 36: City of Employment Which city do you work in or closest to? Percent of Respondents Arvada 20% Wheat Ridge 4% Boulder 5% Louisville 1% Lakewood 8% Lafayette 1% Golden 7% Denver 31% Broomfield 5% Westminster 4% Other 15% Total 100% Table 96: Question 37: Commute Transportation How do you usually travel to work? Percent of Respondents Drive alone 89% The bus 4% Bike 2% Car pool 4% Walk 0% Scooter 0% Other 1% Total 100% In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or another household member ridden a bicycle... Table 97: Question 38a: Reasons for Riding a Bicycle 2 times a week or more 2 to 4 times a month once a month or less not at all to shop or run errands 6% 6% 11% 78% 100% to commute to work 5% 2% 4% 89% 100% to commute to school 2% 2% 2% 93% 100% for fun 19% 23% 15% 43% 100% to get entertainment (e.g., a restaurant, the movies, etc.) 5% 6% 7% 82% 100% for exercise 19% 21% 14% 46% 100% Total Page 95

100 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or another household member walked... Table 98: Question 38b: Reasons for Walking 2 times a week or more 2 to 4 times a month once a month or less not at all to shop or run errands 13% 19% 19% 48% 100% to commute to work 2% 2% 2% 94% 100% to commute to school 6% 3% 2% 89% 100% for fun 43% 32% 9% 16% 100% to get entertainment (e.g., a restaurant, the movies, etc.) 9% 16% 14% 61% 100% for exercise 50% 30% 10% 10% 100% How important to you are the following sources for information about City projects and programs? Table 99: Question 39: Information Sources essential very important somewhat important not at all important don't know The Arvada Press (weekly community paper) 12% 24% 35% 20% 9% 100% Denver Post/YourHub (weekly insert) 4% 12% 25% 41% 17% 100% The Arvada Report (bi-monthly City newsletter) 13% 32% 35% 14% 7% 100% The City s electronic newsletter 3% 11% 24% 27% 34% 100% City Water bill inserts 4% 16% 39% 26% 15% 100% KATV Cable Channel 8 2% 6% 16% 44% 32% 100% The City Web site at 11% 22% 30% 17% 21% 100% Arvada s social media sites (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, YouTube) 3% 9% 20% 38% 29% 100% Friends and family (word of mouth) 13% 29% 39% 11% 8% 100% Local TV news 10% 29% 32% 20% 9% 100% Local radio broadcasts 6% 19% 32% 27% 17% 100% Table 100: Question 40: Access to Computers with Internet Do you have a computer with Internet access in your home? Percent of respondents No 11% Yes 89% Total 100% Table 101: Question 41: City Web Site Use Have you accessed the City's Web site at Percent of respondents No 49% Yes 51% Total 100% Total Total Page 96

101 How would you rate the following aspects of the City's Web site at Table 102: Question 42: Rating of the City's Web Site very good good neither good nor bad Usefulness of information 18% 63% 18% 1% 0% 100% Ease of use 15% 53% 27% 4% 0% 100% Look and feel 15% 52% 30% 3% 0% 100% Timeliness of information 15% 47% 34% 4% 0% 100% Organization/location of information 15% 49% 29% 7% 1% 100% Table 103: Question 43: Respondent Frequency of Using Sources of Information In the last 12 months, how often have you... never once or twice 3 to 12 times 13 to 26 times bad very bad more than 26 times Used a social networking site (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest) 29% 6% 7% 7% 51% 100% Read something in print (e.g. newspaper, magazine, newsletter) 2% 8% 17% 20% 53% 100% Total Total Page 97

102 Appendix C: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Geography and Demographic Characteristics Responses to select survey questions are compared by City Council District, Police Sector and demographic characteristics in this appendix. Cells shaded grey indicate statistically significant differences (p.05). Comparisons by City Council District Table 104: City Council District Percent of respondents Count Council District 1 24% 186 Council District 2 19% 149 Council District 3 27% 211 Council District 4 30% 239 Total 100% 785 Percent rating as "very good" or "good". Table 105: Question 1: Quality of Life by Council District Council District 1 Council District 2 Council District 3 Council District 4 Overall Overall, how would you describe the quality of life in Arvada? 90% 86% 96% 97% 93% How do you rate the overall quality of your neighborhood? 85% 68% 83% 95% 84% How do you rate Arvada as a place to raise children? 89% 73% 82% 92% 85% How do you rate Arvada as a place to live? 92% 80% 95% 97% 92% How do you rate Arvada as a place to retire? 67% 59% 59% 68% 63% How do you rate Arvada as a place to work? 55% 42% 42% 48% 47% Percent rating as "very good" or "good". Table 106: Question 3: Community Characteristics by Council District Council District 1 Council District 2 Council District 3 Council District 4 Overall Sense of community 70% 63% 68% 71% 68% Racial relations 55% 45% 48% 47% 48% Air quality 64% 69% 72% 78% 71% Quality of K-12 schools in Arvada 60% 60% 66% 78% 67% Opportunities to attend arts and cultural activities 71% 73% 72% 78% 74% Opportunities for employment 32% 36% 28% 32% 32% Opportunities for continuing education 42% 40% 33% 45% 40% Access to neighborhood parks 92% 88% 94% 94% 93% Opportunities for dining out 69% 77% 80% 51% 69% Shopping opportunities 50% 61% 55% 38% 50% Recreational opportunities 74% 73% 76% 84% 77% Attractiveness/cleanliness 78% 75% 77% 83% 79% Page 98

103 Percent rating as "very good" or "good". Council District 1 Council District 2 Council District 3 Council District 4 Overall Water quality 84% 77% 80% 91% 83% Quality of available housing 48% 37% 49% 60% 49% Affordability of housing 24% 24% 24% 30% 26% Ease of walking in the City 64% 61% 59% 56% 60% Ease of biking in the City 66% 58% 57% 63% 61% Table 107: Questions 4, 5 and 6: Safety in Arvada by Council District Percent rating as "very" or "somewhat" safe. Council District 1 Council District 2 Council District 3 Council District 4 Overall Sense of personal safety in Arvada 97% 85% 93% 92% 92% Violent crimes (e.g., rape, robbery, assault) in your neighborhood 94% 80% 90% 92% 89% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft, vandalism, auto theft) in your neighborhood 81% 57% 74% 84% 75% Violent crimes (e.g., rape, robbery, assault) outside your neighborhood 76% 69% 73% 72% 73% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft, vandalism, auto theft) outside your neighborhood 65% 57% 64% 61% 62% Table 108: Questions 7 and 8: Crime Victimization and Reporting by Council District Percent responding "yes". Council District 1 Council District 2 Council District 3 Council District 4 Overall During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? 9% 21% 16% 8% 13% If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? 88% 75% 86% 86% 83% Percent rating as a "major" or "extreme" problem Table 109: Question 9: Problems Impacting Arvada by Council District Council District 1 Council District 2 Council District 3 Council District 4 Overall Traffic congestion 17% 21% 18% 28% 21% Lack of mass transit service 14% 11% 12% 19% 14% Violation of traffic laws 12% 20% 14% 11% 14% Growth 17% 28% 24% 39% 27% Employment opportunities 12% 11% 10% 15% 12% Lack of entry-level housing 16% 30% 28% 18% 23% Lack of housing options for senior citizens 11% 23% 16% 12% 15% Flooding 2% 5% 5% 3% 4% Identity theft 10% 9% 9% 9% 9% Residential property maintenance 8% 17% 7% 7% 9% Broken/missing sidewalks 9% 27% 15% 10% 15% Dead-end/missing bike lanes 7% 14% 14% 13% 12% Page 99

104 Table 110: Question 21: Support for More Business Development in Arvada by Council District Percent "strongly" or "somewhat" support. Council District 1 Council District 2 Council District 3 Council District 4 Overall To what extent do you support or oppose more retail development in Arvada? 81% 71% 76% 80% 77% Table 111: Question 22: Overall Satisfaction with Arvada Government Services by Council District Percent rating "very satisfied" or "satisfied" Council District 1 Council District 2 Council District 3 Council District 4 Overall Overall, how satisfied are you with the government services provided by the City of Arvada? 68% 60% 57% 58% 61% Table 112: Question 23: Satisfaction with Arvada City Services by Council District Percent rating "very satisfied" or "satisfied." Council District 1 Council District 2 Council District 3 Council District 4 Overall Police services (emergency and non-emergency) 83% 75% 75% 81% 78% City parks 86% 87% 92% 88% 89% Street maintenance 49% 46% 50% 55% 50% Water services 73% 71% 74% 81% 75% Sewer services 75% 70% 74% 79% 75% Municipal court services 58% 53% 51% 50% 53% New street construction and expansion 33% 30% 31% 32% 31% Code enforcement (weeds, junk cars, trash, etc.) 37% 41% 38% 38% 38% Development of new City parks, open space, and trails 63% 64% 69% 70% 67% Maintenance of existing City parks, open space, and trails 75% 76% 81% 78% 78% City outreach services (KATV Channel 8, Web site, Facebook, Twitter, The Arvada Report, water bill inserts, etc.) 54% 57% 47% 55% 53% Drinking water quality 81% 76% 78% 86% 81% Programs to deal with appearance and safety of neighborhoods 62% 38% 52% 53% 52% Snow removal or sanding on major streets 63% 63% 66% 59% 62% Street sweeping 61% 60% 66% 66% 64% Sidewalk maintenance 48% 33% 40% 46% 42% Cultural activities at the Arvada Center for the Arts and Humanities 76% 66% 71% 71% 71% Programs to attract and keep businesses in Arvada 42% 37% 35% 35% 37% Government-assisted affordable housing 24% 22% 17% 22% 21% Ease of car travel in the City 53% 47% 46% 42% 46% Ease of bicycle travel in the City 49% 46% 41% 37% 43% City building inspection 39% 26% 32% 40% 34% Flood control 49% 50% 48% 41% 47% Page 100

105 Percent "strongly" or "somewhat" agree. Table 113: Question 31: Public Trust by Council District Council District 1 Council District 2 Council District 3 Council District 4 Overall City of Arvada employees really try to do quality work 72% 68% 80% 77% 75% I receive good value for the City taxes I pay 66% 57% 60% 57% 60% I am pleased with the overall direction that the City is taking 65% 59% 69% 58% 63% I am well informed on major issues in the City of Arvada 45% 43% 39% 56% 46% Arvada City government welcomes citizen involvement 63% 48% 56% 58% 57% Government is really run for the benefit of all the people 49% 39% 46% 41% 44% Most elected officials care what people like me think 37% 29% 38% 34% 35% Page 101

106 Comparisons by Police Sector Table 114: Police Sector Percent of respondents Count Police Sector A 33% 262 Police Sector B 25% 196 Police Sector C 42% 327 Total 100% 785 Percent rating as "very good" or "good". Table 115: Question 1: Quality of Life by Police Sector Police Sector A Police Sector B Police Sector C Overall Overall, how would you describe the quality of life in Arvada? 89% 92% 97% 93% How do you rate the overall quality of your neighborhood? 82% 71% 94% 84% How do you rate Arvada as a place to raise children? 86% 76% 90% 85% How do you rate Arvada as a place to live? 91% 86% 97% 92% How do you rate Arvada as a place to retire? 65% 58% 66% 63% How do you rate Arvada as a place to work? 53% 41% 46% 47% Table 116: Question 3: Community Characteristics by Police Sector Percent rating as "very good" or "good". Police Sector A Police Sector B Police Sector C Overall Sense of community 67% 66% 71% 68% Racial relations 51% 45% 49% 48% Air quality 67% 68% 77% 71% Quality of K-12 schools in Arvada 63% 57% 77% 67% Opportunities to attend arts and cultural activities 71% 76% 74% 74% Opportunities for employment 33% 29% 32% 32% Opportunities for continuing education 40% 39% 41% 40% Access to neighborhood parks 91% 93% 94% 93% Opportunities for dining out 69% 83% 59% 69% Shopping opportunities 52% 57% 44% 50% Recreational opportunities 74% 72% 84% 77% Attractiveness/cleanliness 78% 74% 82% 79% Water quality 83% 77% 88% 83% Quality of available housing 45% 44% 57% 49% Affordability of housing 25% 24% 27% 26% Ease of walking in the City 61% 64% 56% 60% Ease of biking in the City 60% 61% 63% 61% Page 102

107 Table 117: Questions 4, 5 and 6: Safety in Arvada by Police Sector Percent rating as "very" or "somewhat" safe. Police Sector A Police Sector B Police Sector C Overall Sense of personal safety in Arvada 94% 89% 93% 92% Violent crimes (e.g., rape, robbery, assault) in your neighborhood 90% 83% 94% 89% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft, vandalism, auto theft) in your neighborhood 74% 67% 81% 75% Violent crimes (e.g., rape, robbery, assault) outside your neighborhood 75% 70% 73% 73% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft, vandalism, auto theft) outside your neighborhood 62% 61% 62% 62% Table 118: Questions 7 and 8: Crime Victimization and Reporting by Police Sector Percent responding "yes". Police Sector A Police Sector B Police Sector C Overall During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? 12% 18% 11% 13% If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? 84% 81% 84% 83% Table 119: Question 9: Problems Impacting Arvada by Police Sector Percent rating as a "major" or "extreme" problem Police Sector A Police Sector B Police Sector C Overall Traffic congestion 18% 22% 24% 21% Lack of mass transit service 13% 12% 17% 14% Violation of traffic laws 12% 20% 12% 14% Growth 19% 26% 35% 27% Employment opportunities 14% 11% 12% 12% Lack of entry-level housing 21% 32% 17% 23% Lack of housing options for senior citizens 15% 18% 13% 15% Flooding 2% 5% 4% 4% Identity theft 10% 7% 10% 9% Residential property maintenance 11% 13% 5% 9% Broken/missing sidewalks 16% 17% 12% 15% Dead-end/missing bike lanes 9% 16% 13% 12% Table 120: Question 21: Support for More Business Development in Arvada by Police Sector Percent "strongly" or "somewhat" support. Police Sector A Police Sector B Police Sector C Overall To what extent do you support or oppose more retail development in Arvada? 79% 73% 79% 77% Table 121: Question 22: Overall Satisfaction with Arvada Government Services by Police Sector Percent rating "very satisfied" or "satisfied" Police Sector A Police Sector B Police Sector C Overall Overall, how satisfied are you with the government services provided by the City of Arvada? 66% 55% 60% 61% Page 103

108 Table 122: Question 23: Satisfaction with Arvada City Services by Police Sector Percent rating "very satisfied" or "satisfied." Police Sector A Police Sector B Police Sector C Overall Police services (emergency and non-emergency) 82% 74% 79% 78% City parks 86% 88% 91% 89% Street maintenance 48% 46% 55% 50% Water services 71% 73% 79% 75% Sewer services 74% 72% 77% 75% Municipal court services 53% 55% 51% 53% New street construction and expansion 31% 31% 32% 31% Code enforcement (weeds, junk cars, trash, etc.) 37% 38% 39% 38% Development of new City parks, open space, and trails 62% 66% 72% 67% Maintenance of existing City parks, open space, and trails 74% 80% 79% 78% City outreach services (KATV Channel 8, Web site, Facebook, Twitter, The Arvada Report, water bill inserts, etc.) 54% 49% 55% 53% Drinking water quality 82% 74% 84% 81% Programs to deal with appearance and safety of neighborhoods 54% 43% 56% 52% Snow removal or sanding on major streets 63% 67% 59% 62% Street sweeping 59% 65% 67% 64% Sidewalk maintenance 45% 37% 44% 42% Cultural activities at the Arvada Center for the Arts and Humanities 72% 69% 72% 71% Programs to attract and keep businesses in Arvada 38% 39% 35% 37% Government-assisted affordable housing 23% 18% 22% 21% Ease of car travel in the City 51% 44% 45% 46% Ease of bicycle travel in the City 45% 42% 41% 43% City building inspection 34% 28% 39% 34% Flood control 48% 47% 45% 47% Percent "strongly" or "somewhat" agree. Table 123: Question 31: Public Trust by Police Sector Police Sector A Police Sector B Police Sector C Overall City of Arvada employees really try to do quality work 74% 73% 77% 75% I receive good value for the City taxes I pay 63% 56% 59% 60% I am pleased with the overall direction that the City is taking 63% 65% 62% 63% I am well informed on major issues in the City of Arvada 44% 38% 52% 46% Arvada City government welcomes citizen involvement 59% 49% 59% 57% Government is really run for the benefit of all the people 46% 41% 43% 44% Most elected officials care what people like me think 33% 34% 37% 35% Page 104

109 Comparisons by Demographic Characteristics Percent rating as "very good" or "good". Table 124: Question 1: Quality of Life by Demographic Characteristics Housing unit type Rent or own Gender Age Length of residency Detached Attached Rent Own Female Male Less than 5 years 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Overall, how would you describe the quality of life in Arvada? 94% 90% 91% 94% 94% 93% 95% 93% 92% 94% 94% 92% 93% How do you rate the overall quality of your neighborhood? 85% 80% 81% 85% 84% 85% 77% 88% 85% 81% 82% 89% 84% How do you rate Arvada as a place to raise children? 87% 79% 82% 85% 86% 83% 81% 89% 82% 82% 85% 87% 85% How do you rate Arvada as a place to live? 93% 89% 90% 92% 93% 91% 91% 94% 91% 89% 94% 93% 92% How do you rate Arvada as a place to retire? 65% 58% 62% 64% 66% 61% 60% 57% 73% 60% 61% 66% 63% How do you rate Arvada as a place to work? 45% 50% 50% 45% 51% 44% 42% 51% 46% 42% 44% 50% 47% Percent rating as "very good" or "good". Table 125: Question 3: Community Characteristics by Demographic Characteristics Housing unit type Rent or own Gender Age Length of residency Detached Attached Rent Own Female Male Less than 5 years 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Sense of community 70% 63% 67% 69% 74% 62% 63% 70% 71% 64% 70% 69% 68% Racial relations 49% 48% 46% 50% 48% 50% 42% 54% 49% 43% 50% 54% 48% Air quality 71% 72% 72% 71% 69% 75% 76% 74% 65% 73% 75% 69% 71% Quality of K-12 schools in Arvada 70% 58% 60% 70% 65% 70% 57% 74% 67% 59% 69% 70% 67% Opportunities to attend arts and cultural activities 75% 71% 76% 74% 79% 69% 64% 79% 75% 69% 74% 77% 74% Opportunities for employment 33% 27% 28% 33% 36% 28% 24% 34% 33% 20% 34% 37% 32% Opportunities for continuing education 42% 33% 33% 42% 44% 37% 22% 44% 47% 35% 43% 41% 40% Access to neighborhood parks 93% 90% 92% 93% 93% 92% 94% 93% 91% 93% 93% 92% 93% Opportunities for dining out 65% 78% 83% 64% 68% 71% 79% 68% 63% 72% 73% 63% 69% Overall Overall Page 105

110 Percent rating as "very good" or "good". Housing unit type Rent or own Gender Age Length of residency Detached Attached Rent Own Female Male Less than 5 years 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Shopping opportunities 48% 55% 63% 46% 51% 50% 51% 51% 49% 48% 57% 44% 50% Recreational opportunities 80% 71% 71% 79% 79% 75% 77% 81% 73% 73% 83% 76% 77% Attractiveness/cleanliness 81% 74% 75% 80% 78% 80% 79% 81% 76% 75% 82% 78% 79% Water quality 86% 77% 77% 86% 80% 87% 82% 86% 81% 74% 87% 88% 83% Quality of available housing 53% 41% 38% 54% 49% 50% 47% 52% 48% 50% 49% 48% 49% Affordability of housing 28% 19% 17% 29% 27% 24% 25% 24% 28% 26% 26% 24% 26% Ease of walking in the City 60% 58% 62% 59% 60% 59% 59% 63% 57% 58% 63% 58% 60% Ease of biking in the City 62% 59% 64% 60% 63% 60% 55% 65% 61% 63% 63% 59% 61% Percent rating as "very" or "somewhat" safe. Table 126: Questions 4, 5 and 6: Safety in Arvada by Demographic Characteristics Housing unit type Rent or own Gender Age Length of residency Detached Attached Rent Own Female Male Less than 5 years 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Sense of personal safety in Arvada 92% 93% 93% 92% 92% 93% 93% 94% 90% 90% 93% 93% 92% Violent crimes (e.g., rape, robbery, assault) in your neighborhood 90% 88% 88% 90% 89% 90% 88% 92% 89% 90% 88% 90% 89% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft, vandalism, auto theft) in your neighborhood 77% 69% 71% 76% 76% 75% 74% 76% 75% 77% 70% 76% 75% Violent crimes (e.g., rape, robbery, assault) outside your neighborhood 75% 68% 70% 74% 72% 75% 78% 76% 66% 72% 79% 68% 73% Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft, vandalism, auto theft) outside your neighborhood 64% 55% 57% 64% 61% 63% 67% 65% 55% 61% 64% 59% 62% Overall Overall Page 106

111 Percent responding "yes". Table 127: Questions 7 and 8: Crime Victimization and Reporting by Demographic Characteristics Housing unit type Rent or own Gender Age Length of residency Detached Attached Rent Own Female Male Less than 5 years 6 to 20 years More than 20 years During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? 11% 18% 19% 11% 13% 13% 15% 15% 10% 16% 15% 10% 13% If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? 78% 91% 91% 77% 79% 86% 84% 86% 75% 90% 78% 82% 83% Percent rating as a "major" or "extreme" problem Table 128: Question 9: Problems Impacting Arvada by Demographic Characteristics Housing unit type Rent or own Gender Age Length of residency Detached Attached Rent Own Female Male Less than 5 years 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Traffic congestion 23% 17% 19% 23% 22% 21% 14% 26% 22% 20% 18% 26% 21% Lack of mass transit service 15% 13% 12% 16% 16% 13% 13% 15% 15% 9% 18% 16% 14% Violation of traffic laws 15% 12% 14% 15% 14% 14% 14% 12% 17% 12% 12% 18% 14% Growth 30% 21% 19% 31% 29% 26% 19% 32% 29% 16% 30% 35% 27% Employment opportunities 11% 15% 12% 12% 12% 12% 11% 13% 12% 8% 15% 13% 12% Lack of entry-level housing 19% 32% 35% 18% 27% 18% 22% 23% 22% 22% 21% 24% 23% Lack of housing options for senior citizens 13% 20% 21% 13% 18% 12% 7% 14% 22% 11% 16% 17% 15% Flooding 4% 3% 7% 3% 5% 2% 6% 2% 5% 5% 2% 4% 4% Identity theft 9% 12% 9% 10% 10% 9% 9% 9% 10% 8% 12% 9% 9% Residential property maintenance 11% 5% 6% 10% 8% 9% 8% 9% 9% 8% 10% 10% 9% Broken/missing sidewalks 15% 14% 15% 14% 14% 15% 20% 13% 12% 15% 13% 14% 15% Dead-end/missing bike lanes 12% 13% 13% 12% 10% 15% 20% 9% 9% 15% 11% 10% 12% Overall Overall Page 107

112 Percent "strongly" or "somewhat" support. Table 129: Question 21: Support for More Business Development in Arvada by Demographic Characteristics Housing unit type Rent or own Gender Age Length of residency Detached Attached Rent Own Female Male Less than 5 years 6 to 20 years More than 20 years To what extent do you support or oppose more retail development in Arvada? 78% 75% 77% 78% 77% 79% 78% 80% 75% 83% 77% 73% 77% Overall Percent rating "very satisfied" or "satisfied" Table 130: Question 22: Overall Satisfaction with Arvada Government Services by Demographic Characteristics Housing unit type Rent or own Gender Age Length of residency Detached Attached Rent Own Female Male Less than 5 years 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Overall, how satisfied are you with the government services provided by the City of Arvada? 61% 59% 61% 61% 60% 62% 60% 60% 62% 61% 65% 57% 61% Overall Percent rating "very satisfied" or "satisfied." Table 131: Question 23: Satisfaction with Arvada City Services by Demographic Characteristics Housing unit type Rent or own Gender Age Length of residency Detached Attached Rent Own Female Male Less than 5 years 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Police services (emergency and nonemergency) 80% 73% 76% 79% 80% 77% 64% 80% 85% 72% 83% 81% 78% City parks 89% 87% 89% 88% 90% 87% 94% 89% 84% 92% 93% 83% 89% Street maintenance 52% 45% 44% 53% 52% 48% 46% 53% 51% 45% 59% 48% 50% Water services 77% 69% 68% 77% 75% 75% 75% 76% 73% 72% 77% 76% 75% Sewer services 77% 68% 69% 77% 73% 77% 78% 74% 73% 71% 78% 76% 75% Municipal court services 54% 47% 53% 52% 58% 45% 56% 51% 53% 49% 54% 55% 53% New street construction and expansion 32% 29% 31% 32% 35% 27% 25% 33% 35% 29% 34% 31% 31% Code enforcement (weeds, junk cars, trash, etc.) 37% 41% 42% 37% 39% 38% 44% 36% 37% 41% 41% 36% 38% Development of new City parks, open space, and trails 68% 64% 68% 67% 72% 62% 64% 69% 69% 62% 73% 66% 67% Overall Page 108

113 Percent rating "very satisfied" or "satisfied." Housing unit type Rent or own Gender Age Length of residency Detached Attached Rent Own Female Male Less than 5 years 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Maintenance of existing City parks, open space, and trails 77% 78% 80% 77% 81% 75% 80% 77% 78% 77% 82% 74% 78% City outreach services (KATV Channel 8, Web site, Facebook, Twitter, The Arvada Report, water bill inserts, etc.) 56% 44% 38% 58% 58% 48% 46% 53% 58% 45% 60% 55% 53% Drinking water quality 83% 73% 74% 83% 77% 84% 79% 83% 79% 70% 85% 84% 81% Programs to deal with appearance and safety of neighborhoods 51% 53% 54% 51% 48% 56% 53% 50% 51% 50% 63% 45% 52% Snow removal or sanding on major streets 63% 62% 62% 63% 58% 67% 62% 64% 61% 60% 70% 59% 62% Street sweeping 66% 59% 60% 66% 62% 67% 68% 65% 61% 63% 67% 63% 64% Sidewalk maintenance 43% 41% 38% 44% 41% 44% 36% 46% 43% 36% 50% 40% 42% Cultural activities at the Arvada Center for the Arts and Humanities 70% 73% 74% 70% 77% 65% 75% 66% 75% 70% 74% 68% 71% Programs to attract and keep businesses in Arvada 38% 34% 38% 36% 42% 31% 44% 33% 36% 38% 42% 31% 37% Government-assisted affordable housing 21% 21% 23% 20% 23% 19% 18% 24% 21% 20% 26% 19% 21% Ease of car travel in the City 45% 50% 51% 45% 47% 46% 52% 46% 43% 49% 50% 42% 46% Ease of bicycle travel in the City 42% 42% 44% 42% 43% 41% 40% 43% 43% 40% 44% 43% 43% City building inspection 35% 32% 32% 36% 36% 34% 40% 33% 33% 28% 44% 31% 34% Flood control 47% 45% 44% 48% 46% 47% 50% 41% 51% 31% 58% 48% 47% Overall Page 109

114 Percent "strongly" or "somewhat" agree. Table 132: Question 31: Public Trust by Demographic Characteristics Housing unit type Rent or own Gender Age Length of residency Detached Attached Rent Own Female Male Less than 5 years 6 to 20 years More than 20 years City of Arvada employees really try to do quality work 77% 67% 68% 77% 76% 73% 75% 71% 78% 63% 83% 75% 75% I receive good value for the City taxes I pay 63% 50% 49% 63% 63% 58% 54% 60% 64% 51% 68% 59% 60% I am pleased with the overall direction that the City is taking 63% 63% 66% 63% 65% 63% 66% 66% 60% 65% 67% 59% 63% I am well informed on major issues in the City of Arvada 52% 30% 31% 51% 46% 46% 35% 55% 45% 34% 54% 49% 46% Arvada City government welcomes citizen involvement 58% 52% 51% 58% 56% 58% 57% 60% 53% 54% 66% 51% 57% Government is really run for the benefit of all the people 45% 41% 43% 44% 46% 43% 36% 47% 46% 40% 49% 42% 44% Most elected officials care what people like me think 35% 33% 37% 34% 38% 33% 30% 34% 41% 33% 35% 36% 35% Overall Page 110

115 Appendix D: Benchmark Comparisons Understanding the Benchmark Comparisons Communities use the comparative information provided by benchmarks to help interpret their own resident survey results, to create or revise community plans, to evaluate the success of policy or budget decisions and to measure local government or organizational performance. Taking the pulse of the community has little meaning without knowing what pulse rate is too high and what is too low. When surveys of service satisfaction turn up good resident evaluations, it is necessary to know how others rate their services to understand if good is good enough or if most other communities are excellent. Furthermore, in the absence of national or peer community comparisons, a community is left with comparing its police protection rating to its street maintenance rating. That comparison is unfair as street maintenance always gets lower ratings than police protection. More illuminating is how residents ratings of police service compare to opinions about police service in other communities and to resident ratings over time. A police department that provides the fastest and most efficient service one that closes most of 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 rate police services lower than ratings given by residents in other cities with objectively worse departments. Benchmark data can help that police department or any department to understand how well citizens think it is doing. While benchmarks help set the basis for evaluation, resident opinion should be used in conjunction with other sources of data about budget, population demographics, personnel, and politics to help administrators know how to respond to comparative results. Comparison Data NRC has designed a method for quantitatively integrating the results of surveys that we have conducted with those that others have conducted. These integration methods have been described thoroughly in Public Administration Review, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, and in NRC s first book on conducting and using citizen surveys, Citizen Surveys: how to do them, how to use them, what they mean, published by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). Scholars who specialize in the analysis of citizen surveys regularly have relied on NRC s work. 1,2 The method described in those publications is refined regularly and statistically tested on a growing number of resident surveys in NRC s proprietary databases. Communities in NRC s benchmark database are distributed geographically across the country and range from small to large in population size. Comparisons may be made to all communities in the database or to a subset (i.e., Front Range communities), as in this report. Despite the differences in characteristics across communities, all are in the business of providing services to residents. Though individual community circumstances, resources, and practices vary, the objective in every community is to provide services that are so timely, tailored, and effective that residents conclude the services are of the highest quality. High ratings in any community, like SAT scores in any teen household, bring pride and a sense of accomplishment. 1 Kelly, J. & Swindell, D. (2002). Service quality variation across urban space: First steps towards a model of citizen satisfaction, Journal of Urban Affairs, 24, Van Ryzin, G., Muzzio, D., Immerwahr, S., 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, Page 111

116 NRC s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 500 communities whose residents evaluated local government services and gave their opinion about the quality of community life. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each jurisdiction; most communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. The City of Arvada chose to have comparisons made to the entire database as well as to the Front Range. Putting Evaluations onto the 100-point Scale Although responses to many of the evaluative questions were made on a five-point scale with 1 representing the best rating and 5 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 100-point scale is no greater than plus or minus two points based on all respondents. The 100-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, very good =100, good =75, neither good nor bad =50, bad =25 and very bad =0. If everyone reported very good, then the average rating would be 100 on the 100-point scale. Likewise, if all respondents gave a very bad rating, the result would be 0 on the 100-point scale. If half the respondents gave a score of very good and half gave a score of very bad, the average would be 50, in the middle of the scale (like the center post of a teeter totter) or neither good nor bad. An example of how to convert survey frequencies into an average rating appears below. Example of Converting Responses to the 100-point Scale Total with don t know How do you rate the sense of community in Arvada as a whole? Step1: Remove Total Step 2: the percent of without Assign don t know don t scale responses know values Step 3: Multiply the percent by the scale value Step 4: Sum to calculate the average rating Response option Very good 15% =15 (100-2)= 15.3% 100 =15.3% x 100 = 15.3 Good 53% =53 (100-2)= 54.1% 75 =54.1% x 75 = 40.6 Neither good nor bad 26% =26 (100-2)= 26.5% 50 =26.5% x 50 = 13.3 Bad 3% =3 (100-2)= 3.1% 25 =3.1% x 25 = 0.8 Very Bad 0% =0 (100-2)= 0% 0 =0% x 0 = 0 Don t know 2% -- Total 100% 100% 70 How do you rate the sense of community in Arvada as a whole? 0% 3% 26% 53% 15% 0 Very bad 25 Bad 50 Neither good nor bad Good 100 Very good Page 112

117 Interpreting the Results Average ratings are compared when similar questions are included in NRC s database, and there are at least five communities in which the question was asked. Where comparisons are available, three numbers are provided in the table. The first column is Arvada s rating on the 100-point scale. The second column is the rank assigned to Arvada s rating among communities where a similar question was asked. The third column is the number of communities that asked a similar question. The fourth column shows the comparison of Arvada s average rating (column one) to the benchmark. Where comparisons for quality ratings were available, the City of Arvada s results were generally noted as being above the benchmark, below the benchmark or similar to the benchmark. For some questions those related to resident behavior, circumstance or to a local problem the comparison to the benchmark is designated as more, similar or less (for example, the percent of residents having contacted the City in the last 12 months.) In instances where ratings are considerably higher or lower than the benchmark, these ratings have been further demarcated by the attribute of much, (for example, much less or much above ). These labels come from a statistical comparison of Arvada s rating to the benchmark where a rating is considered similar if it is within the margin of error; above, below, more or less if the difference between Arvada s rating and the benchmark is greater than but less than twice the margin of error; and much above, much below, much more or much less if the difference between Arvada s rating and the benchmark is more than twice the margin of error. National Benchmark Comparisons Table 133: Overall Community Quality Benchmarks Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall, how would you describe the quality of life in Arvada? Similar How do you rate the overall quality of your neighborhood? Higher How do you rate Arvada as a place to live? Lower How do you rate Arvada as a place to raise children? Lower How do you rate Arvada as a place to retire? Similar How do you rate Arvada as a place to work? Much lower Table 134: Contact with Immediate Neighbors Benchmarks Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark 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)? Higher Page 113

118 Table 135: Community Characteristics Benchmarks Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Sense of community Higher Air quality Lower Quality of K-12 schools in Arvada Lower Opportunities to attend arts and cultural activities Much higher Opportunities for employment Much higher Opportunities for continuing education Much lower Access to neighborhood parks Much higher Shopping opportunities Similar Recreational opportunities Much higher Water quality Higher Affordability of housing Much lower Ease of walking in the City Lower Table 136: Safety Benchmarks Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Please rate your sense of personal safety in Arvada Much higher Violent crimes (e.g., rape, robbery, assault) Higher Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft, vandalism, auto theft) Similar Table 137: Overall City Services Benchmark Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall, how satisfied are you with the government services provided by the City of Arvada? Much lower Table 138: City Services Benchmarks Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Police services (emergency and non-emergency) Lower City parks Higher Street maintenance Similar Water services Similar Sewer services Similar Municipal court services Lower Code enforcement (weeds, junk cars, trash, etc.) Much lower Maintenance of existing City parks, open space, and trails Lower City outreach services (KATV Channel 8, Web site, Facebook, Twitter, The Arvada Report, water bill inserts, etc.) Similar Snow removal or sanding on major streets Lower Page 114

119 Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Street sweeping Similar Sidewalk maintenance Much lower Ease of car travel in the City Much lower Ease of bicycle travel in the City Lower City building inspection Much lower Table 139: Non-City Services Benchmarks Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Cable television services Much lower Youth programs Lower Programs for senior citizens Much lower Assistance programs for the poor and homeless Much lower Mental health services Lower Fire services Much lower Library services Lower Trash collection Much lower Recreation programs Similar Curbside or other recycling options Much lower Table 140: Contact with City Employees Benchmarks Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Have you had phone, online, or in-person contact with an Arvada City employee within the last 12 months (including police, municipal courts, receptionists, planners, or any others)? Similar Table 141: City Employees Benchmarks Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Knowledgeable Similar Willingness to help or understand Lower Making you feel valued as a citizen/customer Similar Overall impression Higher Page 115

120 Table 142: Public Trust Benchmarks Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark I receive good value for the City taxes I pay Higher I am pleased with the overall direction that the City is taking Higher Arvada City government welcomes citizen involvement Similar Government is really run for the benefit of all the people Similar Most elected officials care what people like me think Higher Table 143: Crime Victim Benchmarks Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? Similar If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? Similar Table 144: Economic Impact Benchmarks Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark 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? Much lower Table 145: Aspects of the City's Web Site Benchmarks Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Ease of use Much higher Look and feel Much lower Timeliness of information Much lower Page 116

121 Front Range Benchmark Comparisons Table 146: Overall Community Quality Benchmarks Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall, how would you describe the quality of life in Arvada? Similar How do you rate Arvada as a place to live? Much lower How do you rate Arvada as a place to raise children? Lower How do you rate Arvada as a place to retire? Lower How do you rate Arvada as a place to work? Much lower Table 147: Community Characteristics Benchmarks Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Sense of community Higher Air quality Lower Quality of K-12 schools in Arvada Similar Opportunities to attend arts and cultural activities Much higher Opportunities for employment Much higher Opportunities for continuing education Lower Shopping opportunities Similar Recreational opportunities Higher Water quality Similar Affordability of housing Much lower Ease of walking in the City Much lower Table 148: Safety Benchmarks Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Please rate your sense of personal safety in Arvada Much higher Violent crimes (e.g., rape, robbery, assault) Similar Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft, vandalism, auto theft) Much lower Table 149: Overall City Services Benchmark Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall, how satisfied are you with the government services provided by the City of Arvada? Much lower Page 117

122 Table 150: City Services Benchmarks Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Police services (emergency and non-emergency) Similar City parks Similar Street maintenance Similar Water services Similar Sewer services Lower Municipal court services Lower Code enforcement (weeds, junk cars, trash, etc.) Much lower Maintenance of existing City parks, open space, and trails Much lower City outreach services (KATV Channel 8, Web site, Facebook, Twitter, The Arvada Report, water bill inserts, etc.) Much lower Snow removal or sanding on major streets Similar Street sweeping Similar Sidewalk maintenance Much lower Ease of car travel in the City Much lower Ease of bicycle travel in the City Much lower City building inspection Much lower Table 151: Non-City Services Benchmarks Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Cable television services Much lower Youth programs Much lower Programs for senior citizens Much lower Assistance programs for the poor and homeless Much lower Fire services Much lower Library services Lower Trash collection Much lower Recreation programs Much lower Curbside or other recycling options Much lower Table 152: Contact with City Employees Benchmarks Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Have you had phone, online, or in-person contact with an Arvada City employee within the last 12 months (including police, municipal courts, receptionists, planners, or any others)? Similar Page 118

123 Table 153: City Employees Benchmarks Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Knowledgeable Similar Overall impression Higher Table 154: Public Trust Benchmarks Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark I receive good value for the City taxes I pay Higher I am pleased with the overall direction that the City is taking Similar Arvada City government welcomes citizen involvement Lower Table 155: Crime Victim Benchmarks Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? Similar Table 156: Economic Impact Benchmarks Average rating Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark 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? Much lower Page 119

124 Appendix E. Communities Included in Benchmark Comparisons Listed below are the communities included in the National comparisons provided for the City of Arvada followed by the 2010 population according to the U.S. Census. At the end of this section, are listed the communities included in the Front Range comparison. Communities Included in National Comparisons Adams County, CO ,603 Airway Heights city, WA... 6,114 Albany city, OR... 50,158 Albemarle County, VA... 98,970 Albert Lea city, MN... 18,016 Algonquin village, IL... 30,046 Aliso Viejo city, CA... 47,823 Altoona city, IA... 14,541 American Canyon city, CA... 19,454 Ames city, IA... 58,965 Andover CDP, MA... 8,762 Ankeny city, IA... 45,582 Ann Arbor city, MI ,934 Annapolis city, MD... 38,394 Apple Valley town, CA... 69,135 Arapahoe County, CO ,003 Arkansas City city, AR Arlington city, TX ,438 Arlington County, VA ,627 Arvada city, CO ,433 Asheville city, NC... 83,393 Ashland city, OR... 20,078 Ashland town, VA... 7,225 Aspen city, CO... 6,658 Auburn city, AL... 53,380 Auburn city, WA... 70,180 Augusta CCD, GA ,777 Aurora city, CO ,078 Austin city, TX ,390 Bainbridge Island city, WA... 23,025 Baltimore city, MD ,961 Bartonville town, TX... 1,469 Battle Creek city, MI... 52,347 Bay City city, MI... 34,932 Baytown city, TX... 71,802 Bedford city, TX... 46,979 Bedford town, MA... 13,320 Bellevue city, WA ,363 Bellingham city, WA... 80,885 Beltrami County, MN... 44,442 Benbrook city, TX... 21,234 Bend city, OR... 76,639 Benicia city, CA... 26,997 Bettendorf city, IA... 33,217 Billings city, MT ,170 Blaine city, MN... 57,186 Bloomfield Hills city, MI... 3,869 Bloomington city, MN... 82,893 Blue Springs city, MO... 52,575 Boise City city, ID ,671 Boone County, KY ,811 Boulder city, CO... 97,385 Bowling Green city, KY... 58,067 Brentwood city, MO... 8,055 Brentwood city, TN... 37,060 Brighton city, CO... 33,352 Bristol city, TN... 26,702 Broken Arrow city, OK... 98,850 Brookfield city, WI... 37,920 Brookline CDP, MA... 58,732 Broomfield city, CO... 55,889 Brownsburg town, IN... 21,285 Bryan city, TX... 76,201 Burien city, WA... 33,313 Burleson city, TX... 36,690 Cabarrus County, NC ,011 Cambridge city, MA ,162 Canton city, SD... 3,057 Cape Coral city, FL ,305 Cape Girardeau city, MO... 37,941 Carlisle borough, PA... 18,682 Carlsbad city, CA ,328 Carroll city, IA... 10,103 Cartersville city, GA... 19,731 Cary town, NC ,234 Casa Grande city, AZ... 48,571 Casper city, WY... 55,316 Castine town, ME... 1,366 Castle Pines North city, CO... 10,360 Castle Rock town, CO... 48,231 Centennial city, CO ,377 Centralia city, IL... 13,032 Chambersburg borough, PA... 20,268 Chandler city, AZ ,123 Chanhassen city, MN... 22,952 Chapel Hill town, NC... 57,233 Charlotte city, NC ,424 Charlotte County, FL ,978 Charlottesville city, VA... 43,475 Chattanooga city, TN ,674 Chesterfield County, VA ,236 Chippewa Falls city, WI... 13,661 Citrus Heights city, CA... 83,301 Clackamas County, OR ,992 Clarendon Hills village, IL... 8,427 Clayton city, MO... 15,939 Clearwater city, FL ,685 Cleveland Heights city, OH... 46,121 Clive city, IA... 15,447 Clovis city, CA... 95,631 Page 120

125 College Park city, MD... 30,413 College Station city, TX... 93,857 Colleyville city, TX... 22,807 Collinsville city, IL... 25,579 Columbia city, MO ,500 Columbia city, SC ,272 Columbus city, WI... 4,991 Commerce City city, CO... 45,913 Concord city, CA ,067 Concord town, MA... 17,668 Cookeville city, TN... 30,435 Coon Rapids city, MN... 61,476 Copperas Cove city, TX... 32,032 Coronado city, CA... 18,912 Corvallis city, OR... 54,462 Creve Coeur city, MO... 17,833 Cross Roads town, TX... 1,563 Crystal Lake city, IL... 40,743 Dade City city, FL... 6,437 Dakota County, MN ,552 Dallas city, OR... 14,583 Dallas city, TX... 1,197,816 Danville city, KY... 16,218 Dardenne Prairie city, MO... 11,494 Davenport city, IA... 99,685 Davidson town, NC... 10,944 Decatur city, GA... 19,335 Del Mar city, CA... 4,161 Delray Beach city, FL... 60,522 Denison city, TX... 22,682 Denton city, TX ,383 Denver city, CO ,158 Derby city, KS... 22,158 Des Peres city, MO... 8,373 Destin city, FL... 12,305 Dorchester County, MD... 32,618 Dothan city, AL... 65,496 Douglas County, CO ,465 Dover city, NH... 29,987 Dublin city, CA... 46,036 Duluth city, MN... 86,265 Duncanville city, TX... 38,524 Durham city, NC ,330 Eagle town, CO... 6,508 East Baton Rouge Parish, LA ,171 East Grand Forks city, MN... 8,601 East Lansing city, MI... 48,579 Eau Claire city, WI... 65,883 Eden Prairie city, MN... 60,797 Edgerton city, KS... 1,671 Edgewater city, CO... 5,170 Edina city, MN... 47,941 Edmond city, OK... 81,405 Edmonds city, WA... 39,709 El Cerrito city, CA... 23,549 El Dorado County, CA ,058 El Paso city, TX ,121 Elk Grove city, CA ,015 Elk River city, MN... 22,974 Elko New Market city, MN... 4,110 Elmhurst city, IL... 44,121 Encinitas city, CA... 59,518 Englewood city, CO... 30,255 Erie town, CO... 18,135 Escambia County, FL ,619 Estes Park town, CO... 5,858 Fairview town, TX... 7,248 Farmington Hills city, MI... 79,740 Fayetteville city, NC ,564 Fishers town, IN... 76,794 Flower Mound town, TX... 64,669 Forest Grove city, OR... 21,083 Fort Collins city, CO ,986 Fort Smith city, AR... 86,209 Fort Worth city, TX ,206 Fountain Hills town, AZ... 22,489 Franklin city, TN... 62,487 Fredericksburg city, VA... 24,286 Fremont city, CA ,089 Friendswood city, TX... 35,805 Fruita city, CO... 12,646 Gahanna city, OH... 33,248 Gaithersburg city, MD... 59,933 Galveston city, TX... 47,743 Gardner city, KS... 19,123 Geneva city, NY... 13,261 Georgetown city, TX... 47,400 Gilbert town, AZ ,453 Gillette city, WY... 29,087 Glendora city, CA... 50,073 Globe city, AZ... 7,532 Golden Valley city, MN... 20,371 Goodyear city, AZ... 65,275 Grafton village, WI... 11,459 Grand Blanc city, MI... 8,276 Grand Island city, NE... 48,520 Grass Valley city, CA... 12,860 Greeley city, CO... 92,889 Green Valley CDP, AZ... 21,391 Greenville city, NC... 84,554 Greenwich town, CT... 61,171 Greenwood Village city, CO... 13,925 Greer city, SC... 25,515 Guilford County, NC ,406 Gunnison County, CO... 15,324 Hailey city, ID... 7,960 Haines Borough, AK... 2,508 Hallandale Beach city, FL... 37,113 Hamilton city, OH... 62,477 Hanover County, VA... 99,863 Harrisonburg city, VA... 48,914 Harrisonville city, MO... 10,019 Hayward city, CA ,186 Henderson city, NV ,729 Herndon town, VA... 23,292 High Point city, NC ,371 Highland Park city, IL... 29,763 Highlands Ranch CDP, CO... 96,713 Hillsborough town, NC... 6,087 Holland city, MI... 33,051 Honolulu County, HI ,207 Hooksett town, NH... 13,451 Hopkins city, MN... 17,591 Hopkinton town, MA... 14,925 Page 121

126 Hoquiam city, WA... 8,726 Hudson city, OH... 22,262 Hudson town, CO... 2,356 Hudsonville city, MI... 7,116 Huntersville town, NC... 46,773 Hurst city, TX... 37,337 Hutchinson city, MN... 14,178 Hutto city, TX... 14,698 Hyattsville city, MD... 17,557 Independence city, MO ,830 Indian Trail town, NC... 33,518 Indianola city, IA... 14,782 Iowa City city, IA... 67,862 Issaquah city, WA... 30,434 Jackson County, MI ,248 James City County, VA... 67,009 Jefferson City city, MO... 43,079 Jefferson County, CO ,543 Jefferson County, NY ,229 Jerome city, ID... 10,890 Johnson City city, TN... 63,152 Johnston city, IA... 17,278 Jupiter town, FL... 55,156 Kalamazoo city, MI... 74,262 Kansas City city, KS ,786 Kansas City city, MO ,787 Keizer city, OR... 36,478 Kenmore city, WA... 20,460 Kennedale city, TX... 6,763 Kennett Square borough, PA... 6,072 Kettering city, OH... 56,163 Key West city, FL... 24,649 King County, WA... 1,931,249 Kirkland city, WA... 48,787 Kirkwood city, MO... 27,540 Knoxville city, IA... 7,313 La Mesa city, CA... 57,065 La Plata town, MD... 8,753 La Porte city, TX... 33,800 La Vista city, NE... 15,758 Lafayette city, CO... 24,453 Laguna Beach city, CA... 22,723 Laguna Hills city, CA... 30,344 Laguna Niguel city, CA... 62,979 Lake Oswego city, OR... 36,619 Lake Stevens city, WA... 28,069 Lake Worth city, FL... 34,910 Lake Zurich village, IL... 19,631 Lakeville city, MN... 55,954 Lakewood city, CO ,980 Lane County, OR ,715 Larimer County, CO ,630 Las Cruces city, NM... 97,618 Las Vegas city, NV ,756 Lawrence city, KS... 87,643 League City city, TX... 83,560 Lee's Summit city, MO... 91,364 Lehi city, UT... 47,407 Lenexa city, KS... 48,190 Lewis County, NY... 27,087 Lewisville city, TX... 95,290 Lincoln city, NE ,379 Lindsborg city, KS... 3,458 Littleton city, CO... 41,737 Livermore city, CA... 80,968 Lombard village, IL... 43,165 Lone Tree city, CO... 10,218 Long Grove village, IL... 8,043 Longmont city, CO... 86,270 Longview city, TX... 80,455 Los Alamos County, NM... 17,950 Louisville city, CO... 18,376 Lynchburg city, VA... 75,568 Lynnwood city, WA... 35,836 Macomb County, MI ,978 Madison city, WI ,209 Manhattan Beach city, CA... 35,135 Mankato city, MN... 39,309 Maple Grove city, MN... 61,567 Maple Valley city, WA... 22,684 Maricopa County, AZ... 3,817,117 Maryland Heights city, MO... 27,472 Matthews town, NC... 27,198 McAllen city, TX ,877 McDonough city, GA... 22,084 McKinney city, TX ,117 McMinnville city, OR... 32,187 Medford city, OR... 74,907 Menlo Park city, CA... 32,026 Mercer Island city, WA... 22,699 Meridian charter township, MI... 39,688 Meridian city, ID... 75,092 Merriam city, KS... 11,003 Mesa County, CO ,723 Miami Beach city, FL... 87,779 Miami city, FL ,457 Middleton city, WI... 17,442 Midland city, MI... 41,863 Milford city, DE... 9,559 Milton city, GA... 32,661 Minneapolis city, MN ,578 Mission Viejo city, CA... 93,305 Modesto city, CA ,165 Monterey city, CA... 27,810 Montgomery County, VA... 94,392 Monument town, CO... 5,530 Mooresville town, NC... 32,711 Morristown city, TN... 29,137 Morrisville town, NC... 18,576 Moscow city, ID... 23,800 Mountain Village town, CO... 1,320 Mountlake Terrace city, WA... 19,909 Muscatine city, IA... 22,886 Naperville city, IL ,853 Needham CDP, MA... 28,886 New Braunfels city, TX... 57,740 New Brighton city, MN... 21,456 New Hanover County, NC ,667 New Orleans city, LA ,829 New Smyrna Beach city, FL... 22,464 Newberg city, OR... 22,068 Newport Beach city, CA... 85,186 Newport News city, VA ,719 Newton city, IA... 15,254 Page 122

127 Noblesville city, IN... 51,969 Nogales city, AZ... 20,837 Norfolk city, VA ,803 Northglenn city, CO... 35,789 Novato city, CA... 51,904 Novi city, MI... 55,224 O'Fallon city, IL... 28,281 O'Fallon city, MO... 79,329 Oak Park village, IL... 51,878 Oakland Park city, FL... 41,363 Oakley city, CA... 35,432 Ogdensburg city, NY... 11,128 Oklahoma City city, OK ,999 Olathe city, KS ,872 Old Town city, ME... 7,840 Olmsted County, MN ,248 Olympia city, WA... 46,478 Orland Park village, IL... 56,767 Oshkosh city, WI... 66,083 Otsego County, MI... 24,164 Overland Park city, KS ,372 Oviedo city, FL... 33,342 Paducah city, KY... 25,024 Palm Coast city, FL... 75,180 Palo Alto city, CA... 64,403 Papillion city, NE... 18,894 Park City city, UT... 7,558 Parker town, CO... 45,297 Parkland city, FL... 23,962 Pasadena city, CA ,122 Pasco city, WA... 59,781 Pasco County, FL ,697 Pearland city, TX... 91,252 Peoria city, AZ ,065 Peoria city, IL ,007 Peoria County, IL ,494 Petoskey city, MI... 5,670 Pflugerville city, TX... 46,936 Phoenix city, AZ... 1,445,632 Pinal County, AZ ,770 Pinehurst village, NC... 13,124 Piqua city, OH... 20,522 Pitkin County, CO... 17,148 Platte City city, MO... 4,691 Plymouth city, MN... 70,576 Pocatello city, ID... 54,255 Polk County, IA ,640 Port Huron city, MI... 30,184 Port Orange city, FL... 56,048 Portland city, OR ,776 Post Falls city, ID... 27,574 Prince William County, VA ,002 Prior Lake city, MN... 22,796 Provo city, UT ,488 Pueblo city, CO ,595 Purcellville town, VA... 7,727 Queen Creek town, AZ... 26,361 Radnor township, PA... 31,531 Ramsey city, MN... 23,668 Rapid City city, SD... 67,956 Raymore city, MO... 19,206 Redmond city, WA... 54,144 Rehoboth Beach city, DE... 1,327 Reno city, NV ,221 Reston CDP, VA... 58,404 Richmond city, CA ,701 Richmond Heights city, MO... 8,603 Rifle city, CO... 9,172 River Falls city, WI... 15,000 Riverdale city, UT... 8,426 Riverside city, CA ,871 Riverside city, MO... 2,937 Rochester Hills city, MI... 70,995 Rock Hill city, SC... 66,154 Rockford city, IL ,871 Rockville city, MD... 61,209 Rogers city, MN... 8,597 Rolla city, MO... 19,559 Roselle village, IL... 22,763 Roswell city, GA... 88,346 Round Rock city, TX... 99,887 Royal Oak city, MI... 57,236 Saco city, ME... 18,482 Sahuarita town, AZ... 25,259 Sammamish city, WA... 45,780 San Anselmo town, CA... 12,336 San Antonio city, TX... 1,327,407 San Carlos city, CA... 28,406 San Diego city, CA... 1,307,402 San Francisco city, CA ,235 San Jose city, CA ,942 San Juan County, NM ,044 San Marcos city, CA... 83,781 San Marcos city, TX... 44,894 San Rafael city, CA... 57,713 Sandy Springs city, GA... 93,853 Sanford city, FL... 53,570 Sangamon County, IL ,465 Santa Clarita city, CA ,320 Santa Fe County, NM ,170 Santa Monica city, CA... 89,736 Sarasota County, FL ,448 Savage city, MN... 26,911 Scarborough CDP, ME... 4,403 Schaumburg village, IL... 74,227 Scott County, MN ,928 Scottsdale city, AZ ,385 Seaside city, CA... 33,025 SeaTac city, WA... 26,909 Sevierville city, TN... 14,807 Shawnee city, KS... 62,209 Sheboygan city, WI... 49,288 Shoreview city, MN... 25,043 Shorewood city, MN... 7,307 Shorewood village, IL... 15,615 Shorewood village, WI... 13,162 Sioux Center city, IA... 7,048 Sioux Falls city, SD ,888 Skokie village, IL... 64,784 Snellville city, GA... 18,242 Snowmass Village town, CO... 2,826 South Kingstown town, RI... 30,639 South Lake Tahoe city, CA... 21,403 South Portland city, ME... 25,002 Page 123

128 Southborough town, MA... 9,767 Southlake city, TX... 26,575 Sparks city, NV... 90,264 Spokane Valley city, WA... 89,755 Spring Hill city, KS... 5,437 Springboro city, OH... 17,409 Springfield city, MO ,498 Springfield city, OR... 59,403 Springville city, UT... 29,466 St. Charles city, IL... 32,974 St. Cloud city, FL... 35,183 St. Cloud city, MN... 65,842 St. Joseph city, MO... 76,780 St. Louis County, MN ,226 St. Louis Park city, MN... 45,250 Stallings town, NC... 13,831 State College borough, PA... 42,034 Steamboat Springs city, CO... 12,088 Sterling Heights city, MI ,699 Sugar Grove village, IL... 8,997 Sugar Land city, TX... 78,817 Summit city, NJ... 21,457 Summit County, UT... 36,324 Sunnyvale city, CA ,081 Surprise city, AZ ,517 Suwanee city, GA... 15,355 Tacoma city, WA ,397 Takoma Park city, MD... 16,715 Tamarac city, FL... 60,427 Temecula city, CA ,097 Tempe city, AZ ,719 Temple city, TX... 66,102 The Woodlands CDP, TX... 93,847 Thornton city, CO ,772 Thousand Oaks city, CA ,683 Tigard city, OR... 48,035 Tracy city, CA... 82,922 Tualatin city, OR... 26,054 Tulsa city, OK ,906 Twin Falls city, ID... 44,125 Tyler city, TX... 96,900 Umatilla city, OR... 6,906 Upper Arlington city, OH... 33,771 Urbandale city, IA... 39,463 Vail town, CO... 5,305 Vancouver city, WA ,791 Vestavia Hills city, AL... 34,033 Victoria city, MN... 7,345 Virginia Beach city, VA ,994 Wake Forest town, NC... 30,117 Walnut Creek city, CA... 64,173 Washington County, MN ,136 Washington town, NH... 1,123 Washoe County, NV ,407 Watauga city, TX... 23,497 Wauwatosa city, WI... 46,396 Waverly city, IA... 9,874 Weddington town, NC... 9,459 Wentzville city, MO... 29,070 West Carrollton city, OH... 13,143 West Chester borough, PA... 18,461 West Des Moines city, IA... 56,609 West Richland city, WA... 11,811 Western Springs village, IL... 12,975 Westerville city, OH... 36,120 Westlake town, TX Westminster city, CO ,114 Weston town, MA... 11,261 Wheat Ridge city, CO... 30,166 White House city, TN... 10,255 Wichita city, KS ,368 Williamsburg city, VA... 14,068 Wilmington city, NC ,476 Wilsonville city, OR... 19,509 Winchester city, VA... 26,203 Windsor town, CO... 18,644 Windsor town, CT... 29,044 Winnetka village, IL... 12,187 Winston-Salem city, NC ,617 Winter Garden city, FL... 34,568 Woodbury city, MN... 61,961 Woodland city, CA... 55,468 Woodland city, WA... 5,509 Wrentham town, MA... 10,955 Yakima city, WA... 91,067 York County, VA... 65,464 Yorktown town, IN... 9,405 Page 124

129 Communities Included in Front Range Comparisons Adams County, CO ,603 Arapahoe County, CO ,003 Arvada city, CO ,433 Aurora city, CO ,078 Boulder city, CO... 97,385 Brighton city, CO... 33,352 Broomfield city, CO... 55,889 Castle Pines North city, CO... 10,360 Castle Rock town, CO... 48,231 Commerce City city, CO... 45,913 Denver city, CO ,158 Douglas County, CO ,465 Edgewater city, CO... 5,170 Englewood city, CO... 30,255 Erie town, CO... 18,135 Fort Collins city, CO ,986 Greeley city, CO... 92,889 Highlands Ranch CDP, CO... 96,713 Lafayette city, CO... 24,453 Lakewood city, CO ,980 Larimer County, CO ,630 Littleton city, CO... 41,737 Lone Tree city, CO... 10,218 Longmont city, CO... 86,270 Louisville city, CO... 18,376 Monument town, CO... 5,530 Northglenn city, CO... 35,789 Parker town, CO... 45,297 Pueblo city, CO ,595 Thornton city, CO ,772 Westminster city, CO ,114 Windsor town, CO... 18,644 Page 125

130 Appendix F: Survey Methodology Developing the Questionnaire The Arvada Citizen Survey was first administered in General citizen surveys, such as this one, ask recipients their perspectives about the quality of life in the city, use of city amenities, policy issues facing the city, and city service delivery. The citizen survey instrument for Arvada was developed by starting with the version from the previous implementation in A list of topics was generated for new questions; topics and questions were modified to find those that were the best fit for the 2015 questionnaire. In an iterative process between City staff and NRC staff, a final 10-page questionnaire was created. Selecting Survey Recipients Sampling refers to the method by which survey recipients are chosen. The sample refers to all those who were given a chance to participate in the survey. All households located in the City of Arvada were eligible for the survey. Because local governments generally do not have inclusive lists of all the residences in the jurisdiction (tax assessor and utility billing databases often omit rental units), lists from the United States Postal Service (USPS), updated every three months, usually provide the best representation of all households in a specific geographic location. NRC used the USPS data to select the sample of households. A larger list than needed was sampled, so that a process referred to as geocoding could be used to eliminate addresses from the list that were outside the study boundaries. Geocoding is a computerized process in which addresses are compared to electronically mapped boundaries and coded as inside or outside these boundaries. All addresses determined to be outside the study boundaries were eliminated from the sample. A random selection was made of the remaining addresses to create a final list of 2,400 addresses. The Council District and Police Sector for each address also were identified so that geographic comparisons could be made. Attached units were over sampled as residents of this type of housing typically respond at lower rates to surveys than do those in detached housing units. An individual within each household was randomly selected to complete the survey using the birthday method. The birthday method selects a person within the household by asking the person whose birthday has most recently passed to complete the questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way people respond to surveys. This instruction was contained in the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire. Survey Administration and Response Each selected household was contacted three times. First, a prenotification announcement, informing the household members that they had been selected to participate in the 2015 Arvada Citizen Survey was sent. Approximately one week after mailing the prenotification, each household was mailed a survey containing a cover letter signed by the mayor enlisting participation. The packet also contained a postage paid-return envelope in which the survey recipients could return the completed questionnaire to NRC. A reminder letter and survey, scheduled to arrive one to two weeks after the first survey was the final contact. The second cover letter asked those who had not completed the survey to do so and those who have already done so to refrain from turning in another survey. Additionally, both cover letters provided respondents with a Web link to complete the survey online, if desired. Page 126

131 The mailings were sent in August Completed surveys were collected over the following seven weeks. About 3% of the 2,400 surveys mailed were returned because the housing unit was vacant or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the 2,339 households presumed to have received a survey, 785 completed the survey (725 via mail and 60 via the Web), providing a response rate of 34%, similar to what was seen in 2013, 2011, 2009 and 2007 (34%, 36%, 37% and 36%, respectively). Response rates by area range from 25% to 48%. The response rates for each Council District and Police Sector are presented in the table below. Council Districts Area Response Rate by Area Response Rate Council District 1 33% Council District 2 25% Council District 3 31% Council District 4 48% Police Sectors Police Sector A 30% Police Sector B 30% Police Sector C 40% 95% Confidence Intervals The 95% confidence interval (or margin of error ) quantifies the sampling error or precision of the estimates made from the survey results. A 95% confidence interval can be calculated for any sample size, and indicates that in 95 cases out of 100, the results based on the number of responses obtained will differ by no more than three percentage points (785 surveys) in either direction from what would have been obtained had responses been collected from all City of Arvada adults. The practical difficulties of conducting any resident survey may introduce other sources of error in addition to sampling error. Despite our best efforts to boost participation and ensure potential inclusion of all households, some selected households will decline participation in the survey (referred to as non-response error) and some eligible households may be unintentionally excluded from the listed sources for the sample (referred to as coverage error). While the 95 percent confidence level for the survey is generally no greater than plus or minus three percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample, results for subgroups will have wider confidence intervals. For comparisons among subgroups, the margin of error rises to approximately plus or minus 5% for sample sizes of 400 to plus or minus 10% for sample sizes of 100. Survey Processing (Data Entry) Mailed surveys were returned via postage-paid business reply envelopes. Once received, staff assigned a unique identification number to each questionnaire. Additionally, each survey is reviewed and cleaned as necessary. For example, a question may have asked a respondent to pick two items out of a list of five, but the respondent checked three; NRC staff would choose randomly two of the three selected items to be coded in the dataset. Once all surveys have been assigned a unique identification number, they are entered into an electronic dataset. This dataset is subject to a data entry protocol of key and verify, in which survey data were entered twice into an electronic dataset and then compared. Discrepancies were evaluated against the original survey form and corrected. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also performed. Page 127

132 Because the online survey data is automatically entered and stored electronically, data entry was not necessary. These data were merged with the electronic dataset from the completed mailed surveys. Survey Analysis Weighting the Data The demographic characteristics of the survey sample were compared to those found in the 2010 Census and the 2011 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates for adults in the city. Sample results were weighted using the population norms to reflect the appropriate percent of those residents in the city. Other discrepancies between the whole population and the sample were also aided by the weighting due to the intercorrelation of many socioeconomic characteristics. The variables used for weighting were respondent gender, age, tenure (rent versus own), and housing unit type (attached versus detached). This decision was based on: The disparity between the survey respondent characteristics and the population norms for these variables The saliency of these variables in differences of opinion among subgroups The historical profile created and the desirability of consistently representing different groups over the years Several different weighting schemes are tested to ensure the best fit for the data. The weighting process actually begins at the point of sampling. Knowing that residents in single family dwellings are more likely to respond to a mail survey, NRC oversamples residents of multi-family dwellings to ensure they are accurately represented in the sample data. Rather than giving all residents an equal chance of receiving the survey, this is systematic, stratified sampling, which gives each resident of the jurisdiction a known chance of receiving the survey (and apartment dwellers, for example, a greater chance than single family home dwellers). As a consequence, results must be weighted to recapture the proper representation of multi-family housing dwellers. The results of the weighting scheme are presented in the table on the following page. Page 128

133 Arvada, CO 2015 Weighting Table 2010 Census Unweighted Weighted Rent 27% 17% 26% Own 73% 83% 74% Detached* 72% 74% 73% Attached* 28% 26% 27% White 92% 91% 89% not White 8% 9% 11% not Hispanic 89% 93% 93% Hispanic 11% 7% 7% Female 52% 61% 52% Male 48% 39% 48% Age % 12% 26% Age % 29% 39% Age 55 and over 36% 59% 36% Female % 8% 13% Female % 19% 20% Female 55 and over 19% 34% 19% Male % 4% 13% Male % 11% 19% Male 55 and over 16% 25% 16% *Source: The 2011 American Community Survey 5-year estimates Analyzing the Data The electronic dataset was analyzed by NRC staff using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). For the most part, frequency distributions and the percent positive (the combination of the top two most positive response options, such as very good and good, strongly agree and agree ) are presented in the body of the report. A complete set of frequencies for each survey question is presented in Appendix B: Responses to Survey Questions. Also included are results by geographic area (Appendix C: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Geography and Demographic Characteristics). Chi-square or ANOVA tests of significance were applied to these breakdowns of selected survey questions. A p-value of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between groups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed in the selected categories of the sample represent real differences among those populations. Where differences between subgroups are statistically significant, they have been marked with grey shading in the appendices. Page 129

134 Appendix G: Maps of Council Districts and Police Sectors Below are maps of the Arvada Council Districts and Police Sectors by which comparisons were made to select survey questions. Arvada City Council Districts Page 130

135 Arvada Police Sectors Page 131

136 Appendix H: Survey Questionnaire The following pages contain a copy of the questionnaire that survey participants were asked to complete. Page 132

137 2015 Arvada Citizen Survey Please have the adult age 18 or older who most recently had a birthday complete this survey. Year of birth plays no role in the selection. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only. Thank you for completing this survey! QUALITY OF COMMUNITY 1. Please circle the number that best describes your opinion for each of the following questions: very neither good very good good nor bad bad bad a. Overall, how would you describe the quality of life in Arvada? b. How do you rate the overall quality of your neighborhood? c. How do you rate Arvada as a place to raise children? d. How do you rate Arvada as a place to live? e. How do you rate Arvada as a place to retire? f. How do you rate Arvada as a place to work? improve stay about the same decline 2. Do you think the quality of life in Arvada is likely to improve, stay about the same, or decline over the next five years? Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to the Arvada community as a whole: very neither good very don t good good nor bad bad bad know a. Sense of community b. Racial relations c. Air quality d. Quality of K-12 schools in Arvada e. Opportunities to attend arts and cultural activities f. Opportunities for employment g. Opportunities for continuing education h. Access to neighborhood parks i. Opportunities for dining out j. Shopping opportunities k. Recreational opportunities l. Attractiveness/cleanliness m. Water quality n. Quality of available housing o. Affordability of housing p. Ease of walking in the City q. Ease of biking in the City

138 very somewhat neither safe somewhat very safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe 4. Please rate your sense of personal safety in Arvada Please rate how safe you feel from the following in your neighborhood: very somewhat neither safe somewhat very safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe a. Violent crimes (e.g., rape, robbery, assault) b. Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft, vandalism, auto theft) Please rate how safe you feel from the following in Arvada outside of your neighborhood: very somewhat neither safe somewhat very safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe a. Violent crimes (e.g., rape, robbery, assault) b. Property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft, vandalism, auto theft) During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? No go to question #9 Yes go to question #8 Don t know go to question #9 8. If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? No Yes Don t know 9. To what degree are the following a problem in Arvada: not a minor important major extreme problem problem problem problem problem a. Traffic congestion b. Lack of mass transit service c. Violation of traffic laws d. Growth e. Employment opportunities f. Lack of entry-level housing g. Lack of housing options for senior citizens h. Flooding i. Identity theft j. Residential property maintenance k. Broken/missing sidewalks l. Dead-end/missing bike lanes Please circle the number that best represents your answer. Would you say that you (and your household) much somewhat about the somewhat much don t better better same worse worse know a. Are better off or worse off financially than you were a year ago b. Will be better off or worse off financially a year from now 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: Very positive Somewhat positive Neutral Somewhat negative Very negative 2

139 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 12. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you done the following things: once or 3 to to 26 more than never twice times times 26 times a. Used the public libraries b. Used the recreation centers c. Participated in Apex Park and Recreation programs or activities d. Visited Olde Town Arvada e. Rode a local RTD bus within the City f. Attended a City Council meeting g. Attended a public meeting about City matters h. Tried to restrict your water use for purposes of conservation i. Recycled used paper, cans, or bottles from your home j. Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Arvada k. Volunteered your time to some group/activity outside of Arvada l. Attended a cultural activity at the Arvada Center m. Dined at an Arvada restaurant (not fast food) n. Used a City park or trail o. Attended an educational class or program in Arvada p. Used a bicycle route in the City The City of Arvada is working to improve practices that help the environment, some of which may increase costs to taxpayers. To what extent do you support or oppose the City taking each of the following actions given that you may experience increased costs? strongly somewhat somewhat strongly don t support support oppose oppose know a. Increase recycling options for residents b. Reduce the City government s greenhouse gas emissions c. Reduce the community s greenhouse gas emissions d. Develop incentives for increasing public transit ridership e. Increase the number of bike lanes on Arvada s streets f. Create incentives for homeowners to increase energy efficiency in their own homes g. Create incentives for builders to build using environmentally friendly ( green ) construction methods h. Encourage mixed-use development throughout the City (e.g., businesses and residential housing are combined in one building) i. Create incentives for residents to increase water conservation at home (e.g., installing low flow faucets, toilets and shower heads, high efficiency washers, etc.) j. Create incentives for residents to increase water conservation with landscaping (e.g., xeriscaping) k. Encourage community gardening or farming (i.e., planting, harvesting and distributing produce, etc.) l. Complete sidewalk connections throughout Arvada s streets You have the option to shop in Arvada, other cities or on the Internet. All things being equal, please rate how important, if at all, it is to you to shop in Arvada. Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Don t know 3

140 15. In the last 6 months, how frequently, if at all, have you purchased the following items or services IN the City of Arvada? always frequently sometimes never a. Groceries b. Clothes/personal items c. Meals and entertainment d. Large household appliances and furniture e. Computers and electronics f. Home improvement/hardware g. Other items COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 16. What do you think about the current rate of the following types of growth in Arvada? much somewhat about somewhat much too fast too fast right too slow too slow a. Residential growth b. Retail (shopping) growth c. Job growth d. Light industrial/manufacturing e. Professional offices f. Recreational/entertainment Thinking about the development in Arvada over the years, please rate the following: very neither good very good good nor bad bad bad a. The quality of residential development b. The quality of business/retail development c. The variety of residential development d. The variety of business/retail development 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)? Just about every day Several times a week Several times a month Once a month Several times a year Once a year or less Never 19. In the last 12 months, about how often, if at all, did you interact with your neighbors in each of the following ways: often sometimes never a. Through the Homeowner s Association b. Through Nextdoor.com c. Block parties d. Personal visits e. Outdoor chores f. Walks in the neighborhood g. Kids playing together h. Coming to/going from my home from/to somewhere else i. Other

141 20. How do you rate the ability of the Arvada City Government to plan for the following: very neither good very don t good good nor bad bad bad know a. Preserving buildings and landmarks in the community b. Enhancing buildings and landmarks in the community c. Future growth of the community d. Diverse housing choices (senior housing, affordable housing, etc.) e. Economic development (jobs, retail, etc.) f. Parks and recreation g. Cultural activities and events More retail development in Arvada is likely to result in a stronger tax base and enhanced City services. At the same time, it is likely to result in more commercial buildings and increased traffic in the City. strongly somewhat somewhat strongly don t support support oppose oppose know a. To what extent do you support or oppose more retail development in Arvada? SERVICES PROVIDED IN ARVADA very very satisfied satisfied neutral dissatisfied dissatisfied 22. Overall, how satisfied are you with the government services provided by the City of Arvada? Please rate your satisfaction with the quality of the following services provided by the City of Arvada: very very don t satisfied satisfied neutral dissatisfied dissatisfied know a. Police services (emergency and non-emergency) b. City parks c. Street maintenance d. Water services e. Sewer services f. Municipal court services g. New street construction and expansion h. Code enforcement (weeds, junk cars, trash, etc.) i. Development of new City parks, open space, and trails j. Maintenance of existing City parks, open space, and trails k. City outreach services (KATV Channel 8, Web site, Facebook, Twitter, The Arvada Report, water bill inserts, etc.) l. Drinking water quality m. Programs to deal with appearance and safety of neighborhoods n. Snow removal or sanding on major streets o. Street sweeping p. Sidewalk maintenance q. Cultural activities at the Arvada Center for the Arts and Humanities r. Programs to attract and keep businesses in Arvada s. Government-assisted affordable housing t. Ease of car travel in the City u. Ease of bicycle travel in the City v. City building inspection w. Flood control

142 24. Modifications in federal, state, and local funding may make it necessary to change some City services. Thinking of the services just listed previously, please rate how important you think it is to have the City of Arvada provide these services. very somewhat not at all don t essential important important important know a. Police services (emergency and non-emergency) b. City parks c. Street maintenance d. Water services e. Sewer services f. Municipal court services g. New street construction and expansion h. Code enforcement (weeds, junk cars, trash, etc.) i. Development of new City parks, open space, and trails j. Maintenance of existing City parks, open space, and trails k. City outreach services (KATV Channel 8, Web site, Facebook, Twitter, The Arvada Report, water bill inserts, etc.) l. Drinking water quality m. Programs to deal with appearance and safety of neighborhoods n. Snow removal or sanding on major streets o. Street sweeping p. Sidewalk maintenance q. Cultural activities at the Arvada Center for the Arts and Humanities r. Programs to attract and keep businesses in Arvada s. Government-assisted affordable housing t. Ease of car travel in the City u. Ease of bicycle travel in the City v. City building inspection w. Flood control Please rate your satisfaction with the quality of the following services provided by agencies or companies other than the City of Arvada: very very don t satisfied satisfied neutral dissatisfied dissatisfied know a. Cable television services b. High speed Internet services c. Mass transit planning (rail, bus, etc.) d. Programs providing health services for the poor e. Youth programs f. Programs for senior citizens g. Assistance programs for the poor and homeless h. Mental health services i. Fire services j. Library services k. Trash collection l. Recreation programs m. Curbside or other recycling options

143 26. Please rate how important you think it is to have these services provided in Arvada (these are services provided by agencies or companies other than the City of Arvada): very somewhat not at all don t essential important important important know a. Cable television services b. High speed Internet Services c. Mass transit planning (rail, bus, etc.) d. Programs providing health services for the poor e. Youth programs f. Programs for senior citizens g. Assistance programs for the poor and homeless h. Mental health services i. Fire services j. Library services k. Trash collection l. Recreation programs m. Curbside or other recycling options To what extent do you support or oppose using a tax increase to allow the City of Arvada to pursue the following programs or activities? First, please rate your level of support for each of the following programs or activities. Then, rank the three highest priorities (where 1=highest priority, 2=next highest priority, 3=third highest priority of the items listed): strongly somewhat somewhat strongly don t top 3 support support oppose oppose know priorities a. Purchase additional land for open space b. Build new community and regional parks c. Improve existing neighborhood parks d. Provide additional funding for day-to-day maintenance of parks, trails, open space, and medians e. Construct new trails f. Provide additional funding for the construction of streets to improve the City s transportation system g. Make walking and biking easier around Arvada by connecting bike lanes and sidewalks h. Provide additional funding for road maintenance i. Build a new Justice Center for the Police Department and Municipal Court Have you had phone, online, or in-person contact with an Arvada City employee within the last 12 months (including police, municipal courts, receptionists, planners, or any others)? No go to question #31 Yes go to question # With which of the following service agencies have you had contact in the last 12 months? (Check all that apply.) Water/Sewer Community Development Building Inspection Police Municipal Court Streets/Snow Removal Economic Development Housing Water Billing Parks/Golf Arvada Center City Attorney/Prosecutor Human Resources Sales Tax Traffic Engineering Code Enforcement Animal Control Other City Clerk/Passport City Manager s Office 30. What was your impression of City employees in your most recent contact? (Rate each characteristic below.) very neither good very don t good good nor bad bad bad know a. Knowledgeable b. Professional attitude c. Willingness to help or understand d. Making you feel valued as a citizen/customer e. Overall impression

144 PUBLIC TRUST 31. Please rate the following statements by circling the number that most closely represents your opinion: strongly somewhat neither agree somewhat strongly don t agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree know a. City of Arvada employees really try to do quality work b. I receive good value for the City taxes I pay c. I am pleased with the overall direction that the City is taking d. I am well informed on major issues in the City of Arvada e. Arvada City government welcomes citizen involvement f. Government is really run for the benefit of all the people g. Most elected officials care what people like me think TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 32. Please rate the following aspects of traffic in Arvada: no slight moderate major problem problem problem problem a. Traffic movement within the City b. Volume of traffic on residential streets c. Volume of traffic on major streets such as Wadsworth or Ralston Road d. Speed of traffic on residential streets e. Accessibility of commercial and retail centers very somewhat not at all don t essential important important important know 33. How important is it to you to have the opportunity to work as well as live in Arvada? Do you work outside of the home? No go to question #38 Yes go to question # About how many miles is your work place from home? Miles 36. Which city do you work in or closest to? Arvada Boulder Lakewood Golden Broomfield Other Wheat Ridge Louisville Lafayette Denver Westminster 37. How do you usually travel to work? Drive alone Bike Walk Other The bus Car pool Scooter 38. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or another household member 2 times a week 2 to 4 times once a month not ridden a bicycle or more a month or less at all to shop or run errands to commute to work to commute to school for fun to get entertainment (e.g., a restaurant, the movies, etc.) for exercise walked to shop, get a meal, or run errands to commute to work to commute to school for fun to get entertainment (e.g., a restaurant, the movies, etc.) for exercise

145 SOURCES OF INFORMATION 39. How important to you are the following sources for information about City projects and programs? very somewhat not at all don t essential important important important know a. The Arvada Press (weekly community paper) b. Denver Post/YourHub (weekly insert) c. The Arvada Report (bi-monthly City newsletter) d. The City s electronic newsletter e. City Water bill inserts f. KATV Cable Channel g. The City Web site at h. Arvada s social media sites (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, YouTube) i. Friends and family (word of mouth) j. Local TV news k. Local radio broadcasts COMPUTER AND INTERNET USE 40. Do you have a computer with Internet access in your home? No Yes 41. Have you accessed the City s Web site at No go to question #43 Yes go to question # How would you rate the following aspects of the City s Web site at very neither good very good good nor bad bad bad a. Usefulness of information b. Ease of use c. Look and feel d. Timeliness of information e. Organization/location of information In the last 12 months, how often have you once or 3 to to 26 more than never twice times times 26 times a. Used a social networking site (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest) b. Read something in print (e.g. newspaper, magazine, newsletter)

146 DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are completely anonymous and will be reported in group form only. 44. How many years have you lived in Arvada? (Please mark 0 if less than 6 months.) years 45. What kind of residence do you live in? Single family home Condo Mobile home 46. Do you rent or own your residence? Rent Own Apartment Townhouse Senior/Assisted living 47. How many people (including yourself) live in your household? 48. Please list the number of household members in each age category. (Please include yourself.) how many age category 0 to 5 years 6 to 12 years 13 to 17 years 18 to 24 years 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 64 years 65 to 74 years 75 or more years 49. Does any member of your household have a physical handicap or disability? No Yes 50. Which of the following categories best describes the amount of formal education you have completed? 11 years, no diploma High school graduate Associate degree, some college Bachelor s degree Graduate or professional degree 51. How much do you anticipate your household s total income before taxes will be for 2015? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Less than $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more 52. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to be.) American Indian, Eskimo or Aleut Asian or Pacific Islander Black or African American White/European American/Caucasian Other 53. Are you of Hispanic origin? No Yes 54. Which of the following best describes your age? years years years years years years 75 or older 55. What is your gender? Woman Man Trans* Genderqueer/non-binary Thank you for completing this survey. Now please turn over to the last page and mark which area of the city you live in. Please return the survey in the enclosed postage-paid envelope to: National Research Center, Inc., PO Box 549, Belle Mead, NJ

147 56. Where do you live? Find the number inside the thick lines that bound the area in which you live. Please circle that number. If you live outside of these areas, please check this box: 11