City of Sugar Land Community Survey. Prepared by:

Transcription

1 City of Sugar Land Community Survey Prepared by: Creative Consumer Research

2 Table of Contents Snapshot of Result Trends 3 Objectives and Methodology 5 Key Findings 10 Research Findings 16 Demographics 17 City Overall 20 City Services 30 City Departments 38 Street and Transportation Services 47 Information and Communication Services 50 Parks and Recreation 60 Police Department 66 Fire Department 75 Comments and Suggestions 84 2

3 Snapshot of Result Trends Since the research began in, City of Sugar Land receives high ratings on almost all factors rated. There have been steady and significant increases in various scores since then seen in and again in. While this is an impressive performance by the City, it also raises the bar of expectations of the residents. In the next few years, it will be key to maintain the high quality currently in place as well as focus on those few areas with opportunities for improvements. Here are the factors which saw a positive shift in : Quality of life in Sugar Land Quality of life in Neighborhood Emergency Preparedness Medical Facilities Public Safety Enforcement of Noise Codes Enforcement of Weeds and High Grass Codes Overall City Services Mobility Condition of Major Streets Traffic Management Overall Traffic Mobility Overall Traffic Mobility During Peak Hours Turf Maintenance in Parks Sugar Land Police Department: Traffic Enforcement Reducing Juvenile Crime Addressing Citizen s Safety Concerns Police Visibility in Residential Areas Crime Prevention Efforts Courtesy and Professionalism Feeling Safe in Neighborhood During the Day and Night Feeling Safe in Sugar Land Parks Sugar Land Fire Department: Handling of Non-Emergency Calls Fire Prevention and Education Programs Competency of Agency Employees Employee Attitude/Behavior i Toward Citizen 3

4 Snapshot of Result Trends Quality of life in Sugar Land + + Quality of life in Neighborhood = + Emergency Preparedness + + Public Safety = + Mobility - + Enforcement of Noise Codes = + Enforcement of Weeds and High Grass Codes = + Overall City Services = + Medical Facilities + + Condition of Major Streets = + Traffic Management Overall = + Traffic Mobility Overall = + Traffic Mobility During Peak Hours = + Beautification of City + = Culural Activities + = Entertainment + = Local Shopping + = Local Job Opportunities + = Parks and Recreation + = Recreation = - Agreement: "Sugar Land is a well-planned community" + = Resident's Trash Collection + = Condition/Safety of Park Equiment + = Park Cleanliness + = Turf Maintenance = + Communication and Information City Calendar + = City Web Site + = E-News + = Municipal Channel + - City Community Newsletter + = Community Newspapers = - Web Site is User Friendly + = Overall Usefulness of City Web Site + = Information on Site + = Sugar Land Police Department: Traffic Enforcement = + Reducing juvenile crime = + Addressing Citizen s Safety Concerns = + Police Visibility in Residential Areas = + Crime Prevention Efforts = + Courtesy and Professionalism = + Competency of Agency Employees + = Feeling Safe in Neighborhood During the Day and Night = + Feeling Safe in Sugar Land Parks = + Sugar Land Fire Department: Handling of Non-Emergency Calls = + Fire Prevention and Education Programs = + Competency of Agency Employees = + Employee Attitude/Behavior Toward Citizen = + Effectiveness + = This chart specifically shows which factors have increased or decreased in or. Factors not listed here have stayed consistent since. + = Significantly higher than previous year Statistically consistent with previous year - Significantly lower than previous year 4

5 Objectives and Methodology Creative Consumer Research has conducted a Citizen Satisfaction Study for the City of Sugar Land since. This is a telephone study used to obtain citizens opinions about the city. The study is the third wave of this tracking study. Other waves were conducted in and. Each year the survey is revised to reflect the current issues facing the city, current questions of interest, and collect the most pertinent t and actionable information. While modifications are made for each survey, a core group of questions are maintained to track the city s progress through the years. In order to ensure its effectiveness in meeting the objectives as well as test the flow of the design changes, CCR prestests the survey prior to roll out. CCR obtained the sample for this study through a vendor which designated whether residents live north or south of Highway 59. Throughout the interviewing, CCR monitors specific quotas to represent the demographics of Sugar Land and mirror the respondent population from the previous studies so the results will be statistically comparable. There is less than a 5% variance between the and demographic results which are quota controlled with the exception of ethnic background which was adjusted to reflect the population change. 5

6 Objectives and Methodology In order to participate in the study respondents were required to: Be a resident of Sugar Land for at least 3 months; Not be a member of the Sugar Land City Council or be employed (nor any member of their household) by the City. Quotas were implemented for the following categories: West (North of 59) and East (South of 59); Gender; Age; Ethnic background. At the beginning of the interview, The City of Sugar Land was identified as the research sponsor. The survey was 19 minutes in length, on average. 6

7 Objectives and Methodology Dialing for this study occurred from October to November with a total of 509 interviews completed. - Dialing Summary - No answer % Busy % % % Answering machine % % Wrong number Call back % Disconnect % % Initial refusal % % Terminate in middle Language barrier Fax/modem Qualified refusal Over quota Not a resident of Sugar Land Resident less than 3 months Live in Missouri City Wrong neighborhood Complete Total dialings 37,630 74:1 23,969 48:1 24, :1 7

8 Objectives and Methodology Note base changes throughout the report Bases: The number of people who were asked that particular question. For, in most cases, it is N=509. Certain questions have a smaller base because they are only asked of those respondents who gave a specific response to a previous question. s are reported beneath the appropriate bar chart, if applicable, and are based on total number of people who were asked the question (for the most part, N=509). 8

9 Objectives and Methodology Statistical testing is done at the 95% confidence level and marked where applicable throughout the report. Meaning there is a 5% or less possibility that the difference occurred by chance alone. In other words, if the study was to be recreated exactly, there is a 95% chance the difference would occur again. All significant differences between and are marked on the appropriate chart throughout the report with: Meaning is statistically higher than Meaning is lower than While there might be a difference in percentages, if it is not marked, it is not statistically significant and therefore can be considered consistent with previous findings. This document reports findings from the,, and total sample results. Detailed statistical tables are available under a separate cover. 9

10 Key Findings

11 Key Findings The City of Sugar Land continues to be highly rated by citizens, with almost all scores either remaining high or significantly increasing from. With the exception of the Municipal Channel which shows a significant decrease in usefulness. 97% rate the quality of life in Sugar Land Good (39%) or Excellent (58%; a significant increase from s 49% Excellent rating). Similar to previous waves, Local Shopping, Beautification of the City, Appearance of the Neighborhoods, and Medical Facilities receive the highest ratings (at least 9 Good and Excellent ). In, Emergency Preparedness also rates among the highest. Although still high, Cultural Activities, Entertainment, Mobility, and Local Job Opportunities receive the lowest percentage of Good and Excellent ratings (79%, 78%, 77%, and 7, respectively). However, in, Mobility significantly increased overall rating from (6 to 77%). 11

12 Key Findings 9 agree with the statement: Sugar Land is a wellplanned community that ensures compatible land use for residential, office, and retail purposes (which is consistent with at 9). At least 79% agree that the City adequately enforces Weeds and High Grass, Zoning, and Noise Codes. Overall, Noise Code Enforcement and Weeds and High Grass Enforcement significantly increased Excellent scores (2 to 29% and 25% to 3). Other than Traffic Mobility During Peak Hours (5) all of Street and Transportation services receive at least 7 Good and Excellent ratings. Condition of major streets (95%) Condition of neighborhood streets (88%) Adequacy of street t lights (79%) Condition of sidewalks (7) Traffic Mobility Overall (75%) Traffic and Mobility show increases across various factors throughout the study. The positive shifts are primarily from Fair to Good ratings, which is a positive improvement as it shows respondents moving from a negative to a positive rating. 12

13 Key Findings All city communication medias are considered useful, each receiving at least 74% Very Useful/Useful ratings. With the exception of the Municipal Channel which significantly decreased from 7 to 6 (which is similar to the wave, 58%). There appears to be a trend in respondents relying less on traditional news sources (newspapers, Municipal Channel), while showing a consistent use of other City sources. Consistent with previous years, in 9 of residents surveyed are satisfied with the City Services in return for dollars paid. City parks and facilities receive at least 88% Good and Excellent ratings on all factors: Accessibility (97%) Convenience of location (95%) Cleanliness (94%) Personal safety (9) Condition/safety of equipment (9) Turf Maintenance (9) Reservation Process (88%) 13

14 Key Findings Consistent with and citizens report feeling safe in Sugar Land in. All areas rated receive over 9 Safe and Very safe ratings. In neighborhood during the day (99%) In Sugar Land shopping areas during the day (99%) In neighborhood at night (95%) In Sugar Land parks (95%) In Sugar Land shopping areas at night (9) At least 8 are satisfied with almost all factors of the Sugar Land Police Department (Excellent + Good ratings shown). Overall competency of police employees (9) Addressing citizen s safety/concerns (9) Significant increase in Excellent ratings 26% to 4 Courtesy and professionalism (9) Significant increase in Excellent ratings 57% to 65% Speed in responding to calls (88%) Employee attitude towards citizen (87%) Crime prevention efforts (87%) Significant increase in Excellent ratings 26% to 36% Traffic Enforcement (87%) Effectiveness in handling the situation (8) Police visibility in residential areas (8) Significant increase in Excellent ratings 26% to 3 Although still high, consistent with previous years, Police Visibility in Parks (74%) and Reducing Juvenile Crime (76%) receive slightly lower ratings. Additionally in, Police Visibility in Shopping Areas (76%) is among the lower ratings. 14

15 Key Findings Similar to (8), in at least 8 are satisfied with all factors of the Sugar Land Fire Department. Those who had contact with the Fire Department rate specific factors: Handling of a medical call () Response time to fire call () Response time to EMS call (98%) Handling of fire call () Handling of non-emergency call (98%) All respondents rate other factors based on what they have seen or heard, regardless of whether they have had direct contact with the Fire Department: Responsiveness to emergency situations (9) Effectiveness (9) Employee attitude toward citizen (88%) Overall competency of employee (88%) Addressing citizen s fire safety (86%) Responsiveness to non-emergency situations (85%) Fire prevention and education programs (8) 15

16 Research Findings

17 Demographics Gender^ Male 45% 48% 47% Female 55% 5 5 Age^ 18 to % 9% 26 to to 45 19% 28% 28% 46 to 60 39% 4 38% 61 to % 71 and over 6% 4% 4% Mean Age: Ethnicity^ White 59% 66% 64% Asian 26% 2 2 Hispanic 6% 7% 8% African American 4% 5% 6% Other ^ Quotas implemented 17

18 Demographics Income Under $15,000 $15,001 to $30,000 4% 5% 4% $30,001 to $50,000 8% 14% 15% $50,001 to $75, $75,001 to $100, % 17% 2 Over $100,000 44% 38% 37% Mean Income: $86,886 $84,030 $84,870 Education High school or less 7% 1 14% Some college 2 24% 2 Technical school College graduate 44% 4 4 Some grad school/degree 26% 2 2 Employment status Full-time 54% 6 54% Retired 15% 1 1 Part-time 8% 1 1 Homemaker Unemployed 4% 5% Student 7% 4%

19 Demographics Length of residence 3 months to 1 year 1 to 5 years 14% 27% 2 6 to 10 years More than 10 years 6 49% 55% Own or Rent Home Own 95% 9 9 Rent 4% 9% 9% Area^ North/West of Highway 59 38% 3 36% South/East of Highway % 64% Children in Household Yes % ^ Quotas implemented 19

20 The City Overall

21 Quality of Life in Your Neighborhood 75% (N=509) (N=501) 58% 45% 47% 48% 46% 39% 25% 7% 5% Excellent Good Fair Poor The ratings are high overall, with almost all respondents (97%) rating the Quality of Life in Their Neighborhood Good (39%) or Excellent (58%). In, there is a significant increase from Good to Excellent. Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 10. On a scale of excellent, good, fair, or poor please rate the quality of life in your neighborhood. 21

22 Quality of Life in Sugar Land as a Whole 75% (N=507) (N=501) 58% 49% 5 46% 4 39% 25% 4% 6% Excellent Good Fair Poor Again, almost all respondents (97%) rate the quality of life in Sugar Land Good (39%) or Excellent (58%). In, the number of Excellent ratings significantly increased for Quality of Life in Sugar Land as a whole. Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 10. On a scale of excellent, good, fair, or poor please rate the quality of life in your city as a whole. 22

23 Rating Factors of Quality of Life in Sugar Land 9 55% Local Shopping 4 49% Beautification of the City 46% 38% Medical Facilities 59% 4 34% % 5 47% 47% Excellent Good Fair Poor % 56% 1 4% 9% 5% 4% 4% 8% 7% 7% (N=509) (N=501) (N=509) (N=501) (N=509) (N=501) 4% 4% The majority of respondents (8 or more) give Good or Excellent ratings to these factors of life in Sugar Land: Slide 1 of 4 Local Shopping Beautification of the City Medical facilities In, there is a significant increase in Excellent ratings (4 to 59%) Appearance of the neighborhoods Parks and recreation Emergency preparedness Public safety Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 11. How would you rate in Sugar Land? 23

24 Rating Factors of Quality of Life in Sugar Land Appearance of the Neighborhoods Parks and Recreation Emergency Preparedness* % 4 37% 4 39% % 18% 59% % 55% 47% 49% Excellent Good Fair Poor % 1 1 4% 6% 8% 5% (N=509) (N=501) 5% (N=509) 4% (N=501) (N=509) 1 (N=501) 2 3 Emergency Preparedness has significantly and consistently increased from. 77% ( Excellent and Good ratings) 86% ( Excellent and Good ratings) 9 ( Excellent and Good ratings) Slide 2 of 4 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results * In, was worded: Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness 11. How would you rate in Sugar Land? 24

25 Rating Factors of Quality of Life in Sugar Land Public safety % 57% 25% 54% Cultural Activities + 26% 5 Excellent Good Fair Poor 1 3 Entertainment % 48% 55% 55% 29% % 2 19% 18% 6% 1 1 4% 7% (N=509) (N=501) (N=509) 6% (N=501) 1 9% (N=509) 4% (N=501) 6% 6% 4% Public Safety receive significantly higher Excellent ratings in than in (3 to 4). Cultural Activities and Entertainment have remained stagnant through the years. Slide 3 of 4 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 12. How would you rate in Sugar Land? 25

26 Rating Factors of Quality of Life in Sugar Land Mobility % 4 18% 57% Local job opportunities + 16% 19% 55% 55% 1 46% % 8% 25% 1 2 5% Excellent Good Fair Poor (N=509) (N=501) (N=509) (N=501) 29% 27% 2 2 7% 2 4% 3 6% Slide 4 of 4 Mobility receives significantly higher percentage of Good ratings in (4 to 55%). Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 11. How would you rate in Sugar Land? 26

27 Agreement with statement: Sugar Land is a well-planned community that ensures compatible land use for residential, office, and retail purposes 75% 25% % 3 (N=509) (N=501) 57% 58% 4% 4% 4% 4% Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly agree disagree 9 of respondents agree with the statement: Sugar Land is a well-planned community that ensures compatible land use for residential, office, and retail purposes. 12. Would strongly agree/disagree with the statement 27

28 Satisfaction With City Services in Return for Dollars Paid % 44% Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied % 2 1 5% 7% 6% (N=509) (N=501) The satisfaction ratings for Services for dollars paid remains very high, with 9 saying they are Somewhat (4) or Very (5) satisfied. 14. Considering all of the services mentioned in this survey, are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, neutral, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the level of city services you receive in return for the dollars you pay? 28

29 Enforcement of Codes Weeds and high grass % 25% 27% 6 57% 6% 5% 8% 5% 3 54% Zoning 25% 6 Strongly agree Agree 26% 54% Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 9% 5% 1 1 7% 29% 1 6% Noise 2 58% 1 7% 17% 56% (N=509) (N=501) (N=509) (N=501) (N=509) (N=501) 6% 7% 1 1 7% 9% 9% 1 1 6% At least 79% of respondents agree that the City adequately enforces all three codes mentioned (Weeds and high grass, Zoning, and Noise). Significantly more respondents Strongly Agree that Noise Codes and Weeds and High Grass Codes are adequately enforced in than. Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 20. How satisfied are you with the city adequately enforcing in your neighborhood? 29

30 City Services

31 Rating of City Services 9 Resident Trash Collection 46% % + Parks 36% 3 36% Curbside Recycling 34% % 59% 56% 5 5 Excellent 4 Good Fair 3 Poor % 7% 8% 1 1 9% (N=509) (N=501) (N=509) 5% 6% 6% (N=509) 5 59% 1 9% Services receive very high ratings with only 2 of the 18 services receiving below an 8 top box score (Good or Excellent ratings): Traffic Management (77%) Sidewalk Maintenance (7) Slide 1 of 6 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 13. How would you rate? 31

32 Rating of City Services 9 Recreation 25% 3 28% 37% Overall City Services 29% 25% 3 Water 29% 25% % 6 57% 6 67% 59% 6 6 Excellent 4 Good Fair 3 Poor % 7% 7% 8% 7% 8% 4% (N=509) 7% 8% 7% (N=509) (N=509) Although staying similar between Good and Excellent scores combined, Recreation receives significantly fewer Excellent ratings in and Overall City Services receives significantly more. Slide 2 of 6 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 13. How would you rate? 32

33 Rating of City Services 9 Sanitary Sewer/ Wastewater 3 28% 26% Storm Water and Drainage 28% 28% 2 27% Street Maintenance and Repair 27% 25% % 6 55% 59% 57% 59% 56% 59% Excellent 4 Good Fair 3 Poor 2 1 6% 7% 1 15% 17% 15% % 5% (N=509) (N=509) (N=509) 4% 4% 4% 6% Slide 3 of 6 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 13. How would you rate? 33

34 Rating of City Services Animal Control Resident Communication Drop-off Recycling 9 26% 25% 24% 28% 24% 2 24% 2 18% % 57% 54% 5 54% 54% 59% 56% 6 6 Excellent 4 Good Fair 3 Poor % (N=509) 28% 1 5% 18% 16% 17% 17% 6% 14% (N=509) 19% 5% 5% 4% 14% 17% 15% 4% (N=509) 35% 36% 35% Animal Control, Resident Communication, and Drop-off Recycling have kept consistent and high ratings since with no significant increase or decrease. Slide 4 of 6 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results * New question in 13. How would you rate? 34

35 Rating of City Services 9 Sidewalk Maintenance 18% 2 17% Permits and Inspections 18% 19% 17% Traffic Management 17% 14% % 58% 6 65% 6 57% 6 Excellent 4 Good Fair 3 Poor 24% % 17% 18% 15% 1 1 7% 8% 8% 4% 4% 5% 8% 7% (N=509) 28% 6% (N=509) 39% (N=509) 35% Significantly more Good ratings are given to Traffic Management in showing that respondents are increasing their Fair ratings to Good ratings. This is important to note as it means they moved from negative to positive on this issue. Slide 5 of 6 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 15. How would you rate? 35

36 Rating of City Services Trail and Bike Paths* Landscaping Along Major Highways* City Hosted Special Events* 9 26% 5 44% Excellent Good Fair Poor % % 5% 8% 4% (N=509) (N=509) (N=509) 1 5% Slide 6 of 6 * New question in 13. How would you rate? 36

37 Currently Participate in Curbside or Drop-off Recycling 86% 75% (N=509) 25% 14% Yes No The majority of residents participate in some sort of recycling. Those who do not participate say it is because they are unfamiliar with it or just are not in the habit. Why not participate? Not aware/not familiar with how it works 18% No reason/just don't/not in the habit 15% Do not have time 1 Too lazy to separate trash 1 Recycling is not cost effective 8% Do not have container 8% Base: 73 Other mentions by 7% or less of respondents 15. Do you currently participate in the curbside recycling program or at the City s drop-off recycling center? 16. Why don t you participate in the curbside recycling? 37

38 City Departments

39 Contacted City of Sugar Land About a complaint, request for service, or information in the past 12 months (N=509) (N=501) 75% % 25% 37% 27% 3 Yes No There has been a significant increase from in residents contacting the City for a complaint, request, or information in the past 12 months Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 21. Have you or a member of your household contacted the City of Sugar Land about a complaint, request, for service, or for information in the past 12 months? 39

40 Satisfaction With Contact Results 9 Ask City Note: Small Base Size Fire Department Police Department 7 75% 86% 6 59% Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1 27% (N=1) 1 (N=3) 7% 2 (N=14) 1 (N=3) 25% (N=4) 14% (N=7) 15% 2 9% 2 1 9% 8% (N=40) (N=22) (N=26) While base sizes for most are too small to measure changes, all departments appear to be providing residents with satisfactory results. It should be noted that satisfaction scores remain high even with the increase in number of contacts to City Departments. Slide 1 of How satisfied are you with the results you got? 40

41 Satisfaction With Contact Results Note: Small Base Size Public Works Planning/ Zoning Permits and Inspections % 5 67% 3 Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied % 9% 17% 5% 1 8% 25% 16% 3 25% 25% (N=66) (N=60) (N=73) (N=3) (N=4) (N=12) (N=6) 5% 3 8% 8% 17% 25% Slide 2 of How satisfied are you with the results you got? 41

42 Satisfaction With Contact Results Note: Small Base Size Animal Control Parks and Recreation % 29% 3 29% 2 35% Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 17% 17% % 67% 8% 24% 1 29% 25% (N=23) (N=17) (N=12) (N=7) (N=3) (N=10) 3 2 Slide 3 of How satisfied are you with the results you got? 42

43 Satisfaction With Contact Results 9 Note: Small Base Size Code Enforcement* Treasury* Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied (N=4) (N=2) Slide 4 of 4 * New question in 23. How satisfied are you with the results you got? 43

44 City Officials Were Helpful and Courteous Note: Small Base Size Fire Department /EMS Animal Control Parks and Recreation (N=3) (N=23) (N=7) Almost all respondents (at least 87%) report the offices contacted were Courteous and helpful Ask City and Planning/Zoning receive lower ratings, but have an extremely small base size (3 or less respondents) Slide 1 of Were the people you contacted at helpful and courteous? 44

45 City Officials Were Helpful and Courteous Note: Small Base Size Planning/Zoning Public Works Treasury % 7 67% (N=3) (N=67) (N=2) Slide 2 of Were the people you contacted at helpful and courteous? 45

46 City Officials Were Helpful and Courteous Note: Small Base Size Ask City Permits/ Inspections Police Department Code Enforcement 9 85% (N=1) (N=12) (N=40) (N=4) Slide 3 of Were the people you contacted at helpful and courteous? 46

47 Street and Transportation Services

48 Ratings of Street and Transportation Services 9 Condition of major streets 38% 29% 24% Condition of neighborhood streets 3 28% 2 Adequacy of street lights* 27% % 56% 65% 56% 6 64% 5 54% 4 3 Excellent Good Fair Poor 2 1 5% (N=509) 18% % % 4% 6% (N=501) (N=509) (N=501) (N=509) (N=501) Other than Traffic mobility during peak hours all factors of Street and transportation services continue to be rated high (at least 7 of respondents giving a Good or Excellent rating). Condition of Major Streets significantly increased Excellent scores from 29% in to 38% in. Slide 1 of 2 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results * New question in 13. How would you rate? 48

49 Ratings of Street and Transportation Services Condition of Sidewalks 18% 5 56% 1 57% Traffic Mobility Overall* 15% 6 17% 5 Traffic Mobility During Peak Hours* 8% 1 8% 4 45% Excellent Good Fair Poor % 29% % (N=509) 7% 18% 7% (N=501) 4% 2 9% 2 4% (N=509) 2 16% (N=501) 8% (N=509) 18% 16% (N=501) (N=492) While Traffic mobility during peak hours continued to receive the lowest percent of Good and Excellent ratings (5), a positive shift occurred from Poor to Fai ratings. The percent of residents rating this factor Poor declined significantly from while the percent of Fai ratings increased. Slide 2 of 2 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results * Wording change from, Traffic Mobility was read Traffic Management 13. How would you rate? 49

50 Information and Communication Sources

51 9 Usefulness of Information Sources 37% City Web Site 34% 25% 3 City Calendar 3 2 City Community Newsletter 34% 3 25% % 57% 6 57% 59% 66% 55% 6 66% 4 3 Very useful Useful Not too useful Not useful at all 2 1 7% 1 9% 6% 7% 1 7% 5% 8% 5% 4% (N=509) (N=501) (N=509) (N=501) (N=509) (N=501) 25% 36% 3 17% 2 18% 1 17% 14% Over 8 of respondents rate all city information sources useful with the exception of the Municipal Channel. Slide 1 of 3 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 38. How would you rate the? 51

52 Usefulness of Information Sources Fort Bend Weekly/ Daily Newspapers E-news % % 57% % 57% 55% Very useful Useful 4 Not too useful 3 Not useful at all % 8% 1 9% 4% 15% 14% 8% 8% (N=509) (N=501) (N=509) (N=501) (N=218) 1 17% 9% 54% % Fort Bend Newspapers decreased its Very Useful scores in from 3 to 2. Slide 2 of 3 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 38. How would you rate the? 52

53 Usefulness of Information Sources Ask City Information Line 19% 2 14% 14% 2 8% 56% % Municipal Channel SLtv Very useful Useful 4 Not too useful 3 Not useful at all 26% % 6% (N=509) (N=501) (N=234) (N=509) (N=501) (N=242) 59% % 48% % 28% 14% 5 The Municipal Channel significantly decreased its ratings from 7 to 6 of respondents considering it useful (this is back in line with s 58%). Slide 3 of 3 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 38. How would you rate the? 53

54 Internet Access Locations 75% 69% 6 66% (N=509) (N=501) 25% 27% 29% 24% 7% 7% Both Home Work No access The majority (69%) have Internet access at both home and work which has increased significantly since. Only of respondents do not have any access to the Internet. Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 39. Do you have Internet / online access at home, work, or both? 54

55 Visited City Web Site (N=509) (N=501) 75% 66% % 48% 3 25% Yes No About three-fifths have visited the City web site, a significant increase from Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 40. Have you or a member of your household visited Sugar Land s web site either from a home computer or some other computer? 55

56 Ratings of Web Site Attributes Base = Those who used the web site 9 Overall usefulness User-friendly Information on the site 38% 38% 2 36% 3 24% 39% 3 24% % 5 55% 5 54% 4 3 Excellent Good Fair Poor 2 1 8% (N=336) 1 (N=259) 17% 15% 1 1 (N=251) (N=336) (N=259) (N=251) 8% (N=336) 1 (N=259) 15% (N=251) 5% 4% 5% 4% The web site receives at least 88% of respondents Good or Excellent ratings for: Being user-friendly (Good: 5; Excellent: 36%) Information on the site (Good: 5; Excellent: 39%) Overall usefulness (Good: 54%; Excellent: 38%) Although not significant, Information on the Site continues to trend to higher ratings each year. Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 41. How would you rate the Sugar Land web site on being? 56

57 Preferred Method to Hear About City Events First Mention Direct mail 35% 24% City web site - information, news and alerts 1 Community signage - billboards, signs, banners 1 Print publications 8% Online publications 6% Base: 509 Other mentions by or less The top two responses are Direct Mail and , which tells the City it is important to continue both of these methods to reach the majority of residents. 42. How would you prefer to learn about City events, activities, programs, updates, etc? 57

58 Effectiveness of Emergency Communication % 5% (N=509) 15% Very effectice Effective Neutral Not very effective Not at all effective 7 of respondents feel the Emergency Communication from the City is Effective or Very Effective. Only 8% say it is Not very or Not at All effective. Slide 3 of How would you rate the? 58

59 Need for City Communications to Be in Another Language 94% 75% (N=509) 25% 5% Yes No Which language? Spanish 7 Chinese 6 Urdu 6 Hindi 4 Mandarin Chinese 2 Other 6 Base: 27 Number of respondents shown, due to small base size Only 5% of respondents request the City s information be offered in a language other than English. Among those respondents, Spanish, Chinese and Urdu are the top mentions. 44. Do you have a need for any of the City s communications to be available in another language? 45. In what language would you like to have the City s publications available? 59

60 Parks and Recreation

61 Used a City Park or Recreational City Facility (N=509) (N=501) 75% 55% 57% 54% 45% 4 46% 25% Yes No 45% of respondents have visited a City park or recreational facility. 17. In the past year, have you or a member of your household used a city park, rented a recreational facility, or attended an event at a city facility? 61

62 Activities Participated In Base: Those who have used a City Park or Facility 75% (N=224) 7 25% 2 8% Taken a Leisure Class Participated in a Sports Program Attended a City Sponsored Event Most of those who have visited a City s recreational facility have done so for a City Sponsored Event 19. In the past year, have you or a member of your household used a city park, rented a recreational facility, or attended an event at a city facility? 62

63 User Satisfaction With City Parks/Facilities Base = Those who used a city park or facility Convenience of Location Condition/Safety of Equipment Cleanliness 9 65% 6 59% % % 8 Very satisfied 7 6 Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 45% 47% % 36% 3 36% 3 34% 2 1 (N=224) (N=211) (N=229) 6% (N=224) 9% (N=211) 5% 5% (N=229) 5% 4% (N=224) (N=211) 4% (N=229) Overall, the satisfaction ratings for the factors of the park/facility are high. All factors of the City parks/facilities received at least 9 satisfied ratings with the exception of the reservation process (84%). Slide 1 of 3 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 18. How would you rate? 63

64 User Satisfaction With City Parks/Facilities Base = Those who used a city park or facility Personal Safety Accessibility 9 58% 59% 5 64% 57% 54% Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied % 34% 44% 3 38% % 6% (N=224) (N=211) (N=229) (N=224) (N=211) (N=229) Slide 2 of 3 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 18. How would you rate? 64

65 User Satisfaction With City Parks/Facilities Base = Those who used a city park or facility Turf Maintenance % 37% 5 49% 44% Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 4 Reservation Process 37% 45% 3 48% % 7% 4% % 5% (N=224) (N=211) (N=229) (N=224) (N=211) (N=229) 5% 5% 44% 38% 36% Slide 3 of 3 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 18. How would you rate? 65

66 Police Department

67 Rating of Safety Neighborhood During the Day Sugar Land Shopping Areas During the Day Neighborhood at Night % 4 44% 4 34% % 54% 5 48% 47% 4 Very safe 39% Safe 3 Unsafe Very unsafe 2 1 (N=509) (N=501) (N=509) (N=501) 54% 4% (N=509) 6 6 5% (N=501) 5% Similar to previous years, all areas of Sugar Land which are rated receive above 85% Safe or Very Safe ratings. There is a significant increase among Very Safe ratings for Neighborhood During the Day and Evening, as well as Parks. Slide 1 of 2 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 28. On a scale of very safe, safe, unsafe, or very unsafe, please rate how safe you feel 67

68 Rating of Safety 9 Sugar Land Parks 3 26% 26% 25% Sugar Land Shopping Areas at Night % 69% 66% Very safe Safe Unsafe Very unsafe 67% 65% % 5% 5% 1 1 8% (N=509) (N=501) (N=509) (N=501) 1 15% 1 7% 9% 6% Slide 2 of 2 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 28. On a scale of very safe, safe, unsafe, or very unsafe, please rate how safe you feel 68

69 Contact With Police Services in Past Two Years (N=509) (N=501) 75% 64% 67% 6 35% 3 39% 25% Yes No 35% of respondents report having contact with police services in the past two years. 29. Has anyone in your household had contact with City of Sugar Land police services within the past 2 years 69

70 Ratings of Performance of the Sugar Land Police Department Base = Those who had contact with the Sugar Land police department 9 Courtesy and Professionalism 65% 57% 56% Speed in Responding to Calls 58% 5 5 Effectiveness in Handling the Situation % Excellent Good Fair Poor % 35% 38% 3 29% 34% 3 25% 2 1 7% (N=179) 8% 7% 6% 9% 5% 4% 7% 5% (N=165) (N=192) (N=179) 7% (N=165) 8% 7% (N=192) 6% 7% 1 8% 9% 9% 1 (N=179) (N=165) 4% (N=192) At least 8 of respondents give police performance Good or Excellent ratings for Speed in Responding to Calls, Courtesy and Professionalism, and Effectiveness in Handling the Situation. There is a significant increase in of Excellent ratings for Courtesy and Professionalism. Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 30. On a scale of excellent, good, fair, or poor, how would you rate the performance of the Sugar Land Police Department in the following areas? 70

71 Satisfaction With Police Services Overall Competency of Police Employees Employee Attitude/Behavior Toward Citizens Crime Prevention Efforts 9 38% % 36% 26% % % 5 Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied 4 Neutral 3 Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 7% % % 1 4% 5% (N=509) (N=501) (N=509) (N=501) (N=509) (N=501) 6% 8% 6% 7% 9% 7% 7% 8% 5% All factors, other than Police Visibility in Parks and Reducing Juvenile Crime, receive 8 or more satisfied ratings. In, there is a significant increase in Very satisfied ratings of Crime Prevention Efforts, Addressing Citizen s Safety/Security, Police Visibility in Residential Areas, Reducing Juvenile Crime, and Traffic Enforcement. Slide 1 of 3 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 31. Would you say you are very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with City of Sugar Land police services in the following areas? 71

72 Satisfaction With Police Services Addressing Citizen s Safety/Security Police Visibility in Residential Areas Police Visibility in Shopping Areas % 25% 3 26% 24% 24% 2 17% % 56% Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 56% 5 9% 1 9% 1 16% 16% 17% 7% 1 7% 7% 9% 7% 7% 8% (N=509) (N=501) (N=509) (N=501) (N=509) (N=501) 4% 6% 4% 4% 6% 54% 58% Slide 2 of 3 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 31. Would you say you are very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with City of Sugar Land police services in the following areas? 72

73 Satisfaction With Police Services Traffic Enforcement Police Visibility in Parks Reducing Juvenile Crime % 15% 2 14% 1 57% 8% 4% (N=509) % 6% (N=501) 4% 9% 19% 7% (N=509) 5 Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neutral Somewhat dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 19% 2 56% 18% 1 1 6% (N=501) 15% 18% 1 (N=509) 2 59% 2 56% 2 5% 1 (N=501) 2 17% Slide 3 of 3 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 31. Would you say you are very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with City of Sugar Land police services in the following areas? 73

74 Top Responses From Open-ends What recommendations/suggestions do you have for the City of Sugar Land Police Department? No comment/suggestions 45% Satisfied/they are doing a good job 16% More visibility in neighborhoods 1 Enforce traffic violations 5% More visibility during peak hours 5% More visibility in shopping areas 4% More visibility overall 4% Treat citizens with more respect 4% Base: 509 Other responses by or less of total sample * * * * * 2 mention some form of visibility More police officers patrolling neighborhood at night. The visibility is poor at night. Visibility in public streets and residential streets. There are not many police vehicles out and about. I think they really need to do a better job patrolling to catch people who are speeding. I would say just to continue to do the best and be more visible where people congregate, like at the AMC theatres. 32. What recommendations and/or suggestions do you have for improvements of the City of Sugar Land Police Department? 74

75 Fire Department

76 Called Sugar Land Fire Department in the Past Two Years 89% 9 89% 75% (N=509) (N=501) 25% 1 9% 1 Yes No 1 of respondents report having contacted the Fire Department. 33. Have you or anyone in your household called the Sugar Land Fire Department for fire or EMS assistance in the past 2 years? 76

77 Rating of Fire Department Performance Base = Those who called Sugar Land Fire Department Response Time to EMS Call Handling of a Medical Call Response Time to Fire Call 9 88% 86% 75% % 84% 75% 74% Excellent Good Fair Poor % 24% % (N=56) (N=47) (N=54) (N=56) 1 16% 5% (N=47) (N=54) (N=56) 6% (N=47) (N=54) 7% 6% 6% 1 1 7% 45% 2 3 Of the 1 who contacted the Fire Department, at least 98% rate all factors Good or Excellent (Handling of a medical call, Response time to EMS call, Response time to fire call, Handling of a non- emergency call, and Handling of a fire call). Slide 1 of Using a scale of excellent, good, fair, or poor, how would you rate the City of Sugar Land fire department's performance in the following areas? 77

78 Rating of Fire Department Performance Base = Those who called Sugar Land Fire Department 9 Handling of a Non- Emergency Call Handling of a Fire- Related Call % 89% 74% 6 78% % 26% 3 Excellent Good Fair Poor 2 (N=56) (N=47) (N=54) (N=56) (N=47) (N=54) 24% 4% 3 6% 38% 28% 28% 68% 47% 37% Handling of a Non-Emergency Call receives more Excellent ratings and fewer Good ratings in. Slide 2 of 2 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 34. Using a scale of excellent, good, fair, or poor, how would you rate the City of Sugar Land fire department's performance in the following areas? 78

79 Satisfaction With Sugar Land Fire Department 9 Responsiveness to Emergency Situations Addressing Citizen s Fire Safety Employee Attitude/Behavior Toward Citizen 44% 38% 46% 4 37% % (N=509) 16% 4 1 (N=501) 2 47% 15% 16% 4 1 (N=509) 14% 4 Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 14% (N=501) 18% 48% 14% 1 38% 1 (N=509) 18% 46% 4 1 (N=501) 2 18% 15% Regardless of whether or not they had contact with the Fire Department, all respondents were asked their satisfaction with different factors of the Fire Department (based on what they have seen or heard). Residents rated each factor of the Fire Department at least 8 or more on satisfaction. Slide 1 of 3 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 37. How would you rate the Sugar Land Fire Department on 79

80 Satisfaction With Sugar Land Fire Department Effectiveness Overall Competency of Agency Employees 9 45% % 37% % 49% % 49% Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied % 1 15% 19% (N=509) (N=501) (N=433) (N=509) (N=501) (N=431) 1 18% 1 15% 2 14% Overall Competency of Agency Employees receives more Very Satisfied ratings in. Slide 2 of 3 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 37. How would you rate the Sugar Land Fire Department on 80

81 Satisfaction With Sugar Land Fire Department 9 Responsiveness to Non-emergency Situations 4 37% 29% 39% 3 Fire Prevention and Education Programs 34% % 46% 49% 4 44% Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied % 16% 17% 17% (N=509) (N=501) (N=398) (N=509) (N=501) 24% 29% 2 24% 24% 17% Fire Prevention and Education Programs receives more Very Satisfied ratings in, although the top box ratings remained consistent with. Slide 3 of 3 Significantly higher than previous year s results Significantly lower than previous year s results 37. How would you rate the Sugar Land Fire Department on 81

82 Participation in Fire Department Prevention Education Program, Event, or Tour (N=509) (N=501) 84% 86% 8 75% 25% 16% 14% 18% Yes No Only 16% participated in a program, event, or tour. 35. Have you or anyone in your household participated in a Sugar Land Fire Department prevention education program, event, or fire station tour? 82

83 Rating of Prevention Education Program, Event, or Tour Base = Those who participated in program, event, or tour % 68% 6 Excellent Good Fair Poor % 3 37% 1 (N=78) (N=69) (N=91) 8% 1 4% Of this 16% that participated, 97% gave a Good (29%) or Excellent (68%) rating. 36. How would you rate the program, event or tour you attended? 83

84 Comments and Suggestions

85 Top Responses From Open-ends What other comments, recommendations and/or suggestions do you have for the City of Sugar Land? Happy - City is doing a good job 17% Better traffic control 6% Improve/maintain sidewalks 4% Sugar Land is a great place to live Police - more visibility Improve communication (during Ike, on the web site, etc.) Regular trash collection Nothing 4 Base: 509 Other responses by or less of total sample Just keep doing the great job they are doing. I think overall, all of the departments do an excellent job. I think that they are doing a great job. I like the appearance of the city as a whole, landscaping on the roads, and a good variety of shopping. I feel very fortunate that we live here. I think they handle the growth of the city very well. They have plenty of activities for families and adults, as a whole community. 46. What other comments, recommendations and/or suggestions do you have for the City of Sugar Land? 85