Loading...
08/28/2012 02 Strategic Planning w 2012 Citizen Survey Results a 4t• ++ i{ BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. For Meeting of: August 28, 2012 ITEM TITLE: Strategic Planning SUBMITTED BY: Tony O'Rourke, City Manager CONTACT PERSON /TELEPHONE: SUMMARY EXPLANATION: See attached information. Resolution Ordinance Other (specify) Contract: Mail to: Contract Term: Amount: Expiration Date: Insurance Required? No Funding Source: Phone: APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: Ci Manager STAFF RECOMMENDATION: BOARD /COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: ATTACHMENTS: Click to download ❑ Memo re strategic planning ❑ City of Yakima National Citizen Survey draft 2012 ❑ draft benchmark report 10 draft geographic subgroup OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 1 IC E '' ,, ...i y 129 North Second Street %-".,( y City Hall, Yakima, Washington 98901 q Phone (509) 575 -6040 MEMORANDUM , TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Yakima City Council FROM: Tony O'Rourke, City Manager DATE: August 23, 2012 RE: Strategic Planning Work Session On Tuesday, August 28, the City Council will participate in the development of a strategic plan. The strategic plan will serve as a blueprint for what kind of organization and community we want. The results of the plan will serve as a foundation and alignment for policy decisions, the annual budget, a five -year financial plan and department workplans. _ In preparation of the August 28, 9:00 a.m. — 3:00 p.m., strategic planning work session at the Convention Center in suites 200 and 300, staff has prepared the following information: ➢ Work session Agenda ➢ Business Model ➢ SWOT Analysis ➢ Citizen Survey Results Mike Levinson, the former City Manager of Coral Springs, Florida, will facilitate the strategic planning work session. Should you have any questions, or need additional information, please let me know. Yakima rur 1991 , 1 ,� ��ATF. • y r Strategic Planning Work Session Agenda • Introductions • Business Model • SWOT Analysis • Citizen Survey Results • "Case for Change" • Strategic Planning • Priorities • Directional Statements • Core Values • Follow Up Actions o Strategic Priority Initiatives o Performance Measures o Five Year Financial Plan o Budget Priorities i r 4 \ $ a •' 111 � • .... p Q _ 11 1 ..N.. Table of Contents Tab #1 SWOT Analysis Tab #2 Background information Tab #3 National Citizens Survey Results 2012 Tab #4 Citizens Survey Results by Council Districts Tab #5 National Citizens Survey Benchmark Report . r • • .:41°S • i • I 1I k` ° P O ATF.I] t �� City of Yak City Council Strategic Planning Session August 28, 2012 Business Model CA -1-°\ N � data \gyp ,0 A nalysis Strategic Plan . . Le "Plan" Business Plan "Act" "Inform" Budget "Fund" Core Values = Culture • , • ± mac �. City Council SWOT Analysis • STRENGTHS o A wonderful city, that can be better o Citizens are loyal to the city o Wonderful agricultural area o Educational assets o Generous community o Recreational opportunities o Diverse population o Affordable low -cost of living and housing o Attractive to young families • WEAKNESSES o Self -image perception o Low paying jobs o Not perceived as "business friendly" o Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative • Graffiti • First Street • Highway view of Yakima o Trust and confidence in City government o Lack of revenue sources o Gangs o Public /City Council communications o Staff - driven versus City Council driven o Staff sheltered /protected o "But that's not the way we do it" o Infrastructure • OPPORTUNITIES o Vision /plan for mill site /trolley /year round market o Funding road improvements o Downtown events plaza o Aquatics Center o Soccer fields o Regional Fire Authority o Metro Parks District o City /County Service consolidation o Greenway /trails o Wine tour hub o Maximize Capitol Theatre and Convention Center o Ice arena o Parks & Recreation development o Pursue new industries /help existing businesses o Consumer friendly identity o Pro - active gang initiatives o Privatization of City services o Use of performance metrics o Exercise budget discipline • CHALLENGES o Lack of economic diversity o Shrink cultural /ethnical divide o Affordable place to live o Create safe community o City Council leadership — vision and goals o Focus on action — not on process o Conservative — change resistant community o Public communications o Enhance appearance of commercial corridors o Limited tax revenue o Create a sustainable city business model o Plan for new "normal" o Shift focus on City Hall to citizens o Reinvigorating community self- image /pride "LISTENING /LEARNING" Citizen Survey Input Resident Survey Methodology x National Citizen's Survey x Provides Comparative results (benchmarks) x 3,000 City residents were mailed survey + 837 completed the survey (40 completed in Spanish) + 29% response rate + Average response rate is 25 -40% x 95% "confidence level ", statistically valid with margin of error of 3% x Results include geographic /City Council district responses RESPONDENT PROFILE In interpreting these findings, it is important to keep in mind the characteristics of the people actually interviewed. This table presents a profile of the 837 respondents in the survey. DEMOGRAPHICS: 2010 Census GENDER: 31% Male I 51% 53% Female 49% AGE: 31% 18 -34 34% 32% 35 -54 I 33% DISTRICTS: 36% 55 and older 32% - YEARS LIVED IN YAKIMA: 4% <2 Years 1 294 9% 2 -5 I 12% 6 -10 I 2 141 16% 11 -20 I 59% 20+ 3 137 INCOME: 36% $25,000 or less 4 265 33% $25 to $50,000 23% $50- 99,000 I 8% Over $100,000 Tota I : 837 OWN OR RENT: 56% Own 55% 44% Rent 45% EMPLOYMENT: 40% Not employed 14% Part -Time I 46% Full -Time ETHNICITY: 72% Caucasian /White 67% 32% Other (identify 41% themselves as Spanish, Hispanic or Latino) What Are We Doing Well? Community Characteristics with 50% or higher (excellent /good rating) Excellent /Good Characteristic (% of residents) Provided help to a friend or neighbor 97% Remain in Yakima for next 5 years 73% Opportunities to volunteer 65% Ease of car travel 64% Ease of bus travel 63% Opportunity to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 62% Neighborhood as a place to live 61% Recommend living in Yakima 59% Contact with immediate neighborhood several times a week 56% Yakima as a place to live 50% Lowest Rated Community Characteristics (poor /fair rating) Employment opportunities Code enforcement 85% Availability of affordable quality housing 77% Overall appearance of Yakima 71% Cleanliness of Yakima 69% Sense of community 66% Openness and acceptance of people to diverse backgrounds 65% Shopping opportunities 61% Opportunities to attend cultural activities 58% Opportunities to participate in community matters 55% Place to retire 54% Educational opportunities 53% Ease of walking 52% Quality of overall natural environment 51% Air quality 50% Ratings of Service (excellent /good rating) Fire 84% • Ambulance 83% Garbage Collection 80% Sewer Services 71% Drinking Water 64% City Parks 56% Police 54% Public Information Services 48% Storm Drainage 46% Services to Seniors 46% Recycling 46% Public Schools 45% Recreation Centers 43% Municipal Courts 42% Public Parking 37% Snow Removal 36% Services to Youth 32% Planning/Development Services 28% Animal Control 28% • - Economic Development 23% Street Repair 22% Code Enforcement 15% Yakima City Council Strategic Priorities Adopted December 2008 #1 Maintain and Improve Public Health & Safety #2 Efficiently Manage Public Resources and Ensure Fiscal Stability #3 Promote Economic Development and Diversification #4 Preserve and Enhance Yakima's Quality of Life #5 Provide Responsive Customer Service and Effective Communications #6 Build and Utilize Strategic Partnerships PRIORITY: Efficiently manage public resources /fiscal sustainability Public Trust Benchmarks Yakima average Rank Number of jurisdictions Comparison to rating for comparison benchmark Value of services for the taxes paid to Yakima 35 334 347 Much below The overall direction that Yakima is taking 35 278 290 Much below Overall image or reputation of Yakima 25 286 287 Much below I Services provided by Local, State and Federal Governments Benchmarks Yakima average Rank Number of jurisdictions Comparison to rating for comparison benchmark Services provided by the City of Yakima 45 344 358 Much below Services provided by the Federal Government 35 214 231 Much below Services provided by the State Government 36 202 232 Much below Services provided by Yakima County 40 150 168 Much below Government PRIORITY: Public Health and Safety Community and Personal Public Safet Benchmarks ill Yakima average Rank Number of jurisdictions Comparison to rating for comparison benchmark In your neighborhood during the day 74 285 295 Much below In your neighborhood after dark 53 278 287 Much below In Yakima's commercial areas after dark 35 252 262 Much below Violent Crimes (e.g., rape, assault, robbery) 38 257 261 Much below Property Crimes (e.g., burglary, theft) 29 259 262 Much below Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 63 186 198 Much below Victim of crime 26 7 232 Much more Reported crimes 81 107 230 Similar PRIORITY: Customer Service and Communications Services Provided for Population Subgroups Benchmarks Yakima average Rank Number of jurisdictions for Comparison to benchmark . rating comparison Services to Seniors 46 249 271 Much below Services to Youth 35 236 252 Much below Services to low income people 40 179 224 Much below • Perceptions of City Employees (Among those who had contact) benchmarks Yakima average Rank Number of jurisdictions for Comparison to benchmark rating comparison Knowledge 63 272 298 Much below Responsiveness 58 269 294 Much below Courteousness 62 229 246 Much below Overall impression 57 308 337 Much below Participation in Civic Engagement Opportunities Benchmarks k Yakima average Rank Number of jurisdictions for Comparison to benchmark rating comparison Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other 18 200 227 Much below local public meeting Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other 47 50 184 Much below public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media Local Government Media Services and Information Dissemination Benchmarks Yakima average Rank Number of jurisdictions for Comparison to benchmark rating comparison Public Information Services 48 228 249 Much below Visited the City of Yakima Web Site 36 186 190 Much below PRIORITY: Preserve /Enhance Quality of Life Overall Community Quality Benchmarks Mr..,_ -- -- - ,1-.._... Yakima average Rank Number of jurisdictions Comparison to rating for comparison benchmark Overall quality of life in Yakima 44 380 390 Much below Your neighborhood as place to live 54 254 265 Much below i l Yakima as a place to live 48 321 327 Much below Recommend living in Yakima to someone who 53 197 203 Much below asks Remain in Yakima for the next five years 68 176 204 Much below Sense of community 39 268 273 Much below ." Openness and acceptance of the community 38 246 249 Much below toward people of diverse backgrounds Availability of affordable quality child care 34 193 218 Much below Fil 1 Yakima as a place to raise kids 41 321 325 Much below Yakima as a place to retire 43 287 314 Much below PRIORITY: Quality of Life Built Environment. Benchmarks Yakima average Rank Number of jurisdictions for Comparison to benchmark rating comparison Quality of new development in Yakima 41 231 248 Much below Overall appearance of Yakima 37 294 301 Much below CO mun' virort e ; e c Yakima average Rank Number of jurisdictions for Comparison to benchmark rating comparison Cleanliness of Yakima 37 200 205 Much below Quality of overall natural environment in Yakima 49 185 207 Much below Air quality 49 184 213 Much below Community Recreational Opportunities Benchmarks Yakima average Rank Number of jurisdictions for Comparison to benchmark rating comparison Recreation opportunities 40 246 267 Much below Cultural and Educational Opportunities Benchmar s • Yakima average Rank Number of jurisdictions for Comparison to benchmark rating comparison Opportunities to attend cultural activities 43 208 274 Much below Educational opportunities 46 198 234 Much below PRIORITY: Promote Economic Development Economic Sustainability and Opportunities Benchmarks Yakima average Rank Number of jurisdictions for Comparison to benchmark rating comparison Employment opportunities 25 223 268 Much below Shopping opportunities 41 204 257 Much below Yakima as a place to work 40 247 295 Much below Overall quality of business and service establishments 45 170 193 Much below in Yakima Economic Development Services Benchmarks Yakima average Rank Number of jurisdictions for Comparison to benchmark rating comparison Economic development 31 233 254 Much below Job and Retail Growth Benchmarks Yakima average Rank Number of jurisdictions for Comparison to benchmark rating comparison Retail growth seen as too slow 50 59 224 Much Mores Job growth seen as too slow 86 63 226 Much More Personal Economic Future Benchmarks Yakima average Rank Number of jurisdictions for Comparison to benchmark rating comparison Positive impact of economy on household income 17 108 219 Similar Public Trust (excellent /good rating) Benchmark /Rank Value of services for the taxes paid to Yakima 27% 334/347 Overall direction that Yakima is taking 28% 278/290 Overall image of Yakima 19% 286/287 Services provided by City of Yakima 45% 344/358 Services provided by Yakima County 36% 150/168 Services provided by State Government 30% 202/232 Services provided by Federal Government 29% 214/231 Custom Question Results The City of Yakima is considering :implementing a curbside recycling program. To what extent would you support or oppose a curbside recycling program in Yakima? Support: 88% Oppose: 12% Residents' Opinions to Increased Taxes and Fees Support Oppose Annual $20 "car tab fee 50% 50% Aquatic Center with property tax 39% 61% Aquatic Center with sales tax 39% 61% Repair existing aquatic facilities with sales 39% 61% tax Repair existing aquatic facilities with 34% 66% property tax Sales tax increase 24% 76% Property tax increase 19% 81% The Case for Change The Case for Change • Quality of Life - 2 above benchmark /25 below benchmark • Economic Development /Job Creation • Infrastructure Improvements • Community Appearances • Value /Tax Dollars + City Services - 1above benchmark /34 below THE CASE FOR CHANGE CITIZEN CONCER0 CHANGEA STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Community appearance Concern for cleanliness /code Preserve and enhance enforcement Yakima's quality of life Economic development Employment /shopping Promote economic opportunities are marginal development diversification Public trust /accountability Distrust in local government and Efficiently manage public value of services resources and ensure fiscal stability Public safety Concerns about violent and Maintain and improve public property crimes health and safety Infrastructure Street Conditions Customer service Less than favorable ratings for city services Communications Need for greater communication Provide responsive customer and trust service and effective communications Build and utilize strategic partnerships CONCLUSION x Directional Statements x Core Values x Follow Up Actions + Strategic Priority Initiatives + Performance Measures + Five Year Financial Plan + Budget Priorities The National Citizen SurveyTM CITY OF YAKI A. WA DRAFT 2012 LC NATIONAL RESEARCH 1C M/S C E N T E R ixc 2955 Valmont Road, Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500 Boulder, CO 80301 Washington, DC 20002 www n -r -c corn • 303 - 444-7863 www icma org • 202 - 289 -ICMA City of Yakima I 2012 CONTENTS Survey Background 1 About The National Citizen SurveyTM 1 Understanding the Results 3 Executive Summary 5 Community Ratings 7 Overall Community Quality 7 Community Design 9 Transportation 9 Housing 13 Land Use and Zoning 15 Economic Sustainability 18 Public Safety 21 Environmental Sustainability 27 Recreation and Wellness 30 Parks and Recreation 30 Culture, Arts and Education 32 Community Inclusiveness 34 Civic Engagement 37 Civic Activity 37 Information and Awareness 40 Social Engagement 41 Public Trust 42 City of Yakima Employees 44 From Data to Action 46 Resident Priorities 46 City of Yakima Action ChartTM 47 Using Your Action ChartTM 49 Custom Questions 51 Appendix A. Complete Survey Frequencies 52 Frequencies Excluding "Don't Know" Responses 52 Frequencies Including "Don't Know" Responses 64 Appendix B. Survey Methodology 80 To Appendix C. Survey Materials 90 r z > a N Ch N V a I z N H The National Citizen SurveyTM City of Yakima I 2012 SURVEY BACKGROUND ABOUT THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEY"' The National Citizen Survey' (The NCS) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc (NRC) and the International City /County Management Association (ICMA) The NCS was developed by NRC to provide a statistically valid survey of resident opinions about community and services provided by local government The survey results may be used by staff, elected officials and other stakeholders for community planning and resource allocation, program improvement and policy making. FIGURE 1 THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEY' METHODS AND GOALS Survey Objectives Assessment Methods • Identify community strengths and • Multi- contact mailed survey weaknesses • Representative sample of 3,000 households • Identify service strengths and 837 surveys returned, 29% response rate weaknesses • 3% margin of error • Data statistically weighted to reflect population Assessment Goals Immediate Long - term • Provide useful information for • Improved services • Planning • More civic engagement • Resource allocation • Better community quality of life • Performance measurement • Stronger public trust • Program and policy evaluation V The NCS focuses on a series of community characteristics and local government services, as well as issues of public trust Resident behaviors related to civic engagement in the community also were measured in the survey. To a a 1 The National Citizen SurveyTM 1 City of Yakima I 2012 FIGURE 2 THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEY' FOCUS AREAS . COMMUNITY QUALITY •• COMMUNITY Quality of life • ? INCLUSIVENESS Quality of neighborhood ENVIRONMENTAL Place to live Sense of community $U STAINABILITY Racial and cultural acceptance .. Cleanliness services COMMUNITY DESIGN Air quality 1 . Preservation of natural areas •• Transportation i Garbage and recycling ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Ease of travel, transit services, services CIVIC ENGAGEMENT • street maintenance •'•• Civic Activity • Housing ' Housing options, cost, RECREATION AND Volunteerism • • • affordability WELLNESS Civic attentiveness • Voting behavior • • Land Use and Zoning Parks and Recreation • • New development, growth, Recreation opportunities, use Social Engagement code enforcement of parks and facilities, Neighborliness, social and programs and classes religious events • Economic Sustainability Employment, shopping and Culture, Arts and Education Information and Awareness retail, City as a place to work Cultural and educational Public information, • • opportunities, libraries, publications, Web site schools • . • PUBLIC SAFETY Health and Wellness •• PUBLIC TRUST Availability of food, health services, social services Safety in neighborhood and Cooperation in community downtown Value of services Crime victimization Direction of community Police, fire, EMS services Citizen involvement Emergency preparedness Employees c t, The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and u directly comparable results across The National Citizen Survey' jurisdictions. Participating households are selected at random and the household member who responds is selected without ro bias. Multiple mailings give each household more than one chance to participate with self- a., To addressed and postage -paid envelopes Results are statistically weighted to reflect the proper • demographic composition of the entire community A total of 837 completed surveys were z obtained, providing an overall response rate of 29 %. Typically, response rates obtained on citizen surveys range from 25% to 40% cu O The National Citizen Survey' customized for the City of Yakima was developed in close Ch • cooperation with local jurisdiction staff Yakima staff selected items from a menu of questions about services and community issues and provided the appropriate letterhead and signatures for mailings. 0 To City of Yakima staff also augmented The National Citizen Survey' basic service through a variety of options including sending all surveys in English and Spanish, a Web survey (available in English and Spanish), geographic crosstabulation of results and several custom questions. L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 2 City of Yakima I 2012 UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS As shown in Figure 2, this report is based around respondents' opinions about eight larger categories community quality, community design, public safety, environmental sustainability, recreation and wellness, community inclusiveness, civic engagement and public trust Each report section begins with residents' ratings of community characteristics and is followed by residents' ratings of service quality For all evaluative questions, the percent of residents rating the service or community feature as "excellent" or "good" is presented To see the full set of responses for each question on the survey, please see Appendix A: Complete Survey Frequencies. Margin of Error The margin of error around results for the City of Yakima Survey (837 completed surveys) is plus or minus three percentage points. This is a measure of the precision of your results; a larger number of completed surveys gives a smaller (more precise) margin of error, while a smaller number of surveys yields a larger margin of error With your margin of error, you may conclude that when 60% of survey respondents report that a particular service is "excellent" or "good," somewhere between 57 -63% of all residents are likely to feel that way Comparing Survey Results Certain kinds of services tend to be thought better of by residents in many communities across the country For example, public safety services tend to be received better than transportation services by residents of most American communities. Where possible, the better comparison is not from one service to another in the City of Yakima, but from City of Yakima services to services like them provided by other jurisdictions Benchmark Comparisons NRC's database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions whose residents evaluated local government services and gave their opinion about the quality of community life. The 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 Yakima chose to have comparisons made to the entire database A benchmark comparison (the average rating from all the comparison jurisdictions where a similar question was • asked) has been provided when a similar question on the City of Yakima survey was included in NRC's database and there were at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked For most • questions compared to the entire dataset, there were more than 100 jurisdictions included in the To benchmark comparison. rTz Where comparisons for quality ratings were available, the City of Yakima 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 crime victims, residents visiting a park or residents identifying code enforcement as a problem.) • In instances where ratings are considerably higher or lower than the benchmark, these ratings have 0 been further demarcated by the attribute of "much," (for example, "much less" or "much above "). • These labels come from a statistical comparison of the City of Yakima's rating to the benchmark. 1 The National Citizen SurveyTM 3 City of Yakima I 2012 *Don't Know* Responses and Rounding On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer "don't know " The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item For some questions, respondents were permitted to select more than one answer When the total exceeds 100% in a table for a multiple response question, it is because some respondents did select more than one response. When a table for a question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100 %, it is due to the customary practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number. For more information on understanding The NCS report, please see Appendix B Survey Methodology. U U U U To O r z >- A 1 N V a Z The National Citizen SurveyTM 4 City of Yakima I 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY r MI This report of the City of Yakima survey provides the opinions of a representative sample of residents about community quality of life, service delivery, civic participation and unique issues of local interest A periodic sounding of resident opinion offers staff, elected officials and other stakeholders an opportunity to identify challenges and to plan for and evaluate improvements and to sustain services and amenities for long -term success Many residents experienced a good quality of life in the City of Yakima and believed the City was a good place to live The overall quality of life in the City of Yakima was rated as "excellent" or "good" by 44% of respondents. A majority reported they plan on staying in the City of Yakima for the next five years. A variety of characteristics of the community was evaluated by those participating in the study. The three characteristics receiving the most favorable ratings were opportunities to volunteer, ease of car travel and ease of bus travel The two characteristics receiving the least positive ratings were the overall image or reputation of Yakima and employment opportunities. Ratings of community characteristics were compared to the benchmark database. Of the 28 characteristics for which comparisons were available, two were above the national benchmark comparison, one was similar to the national benchmark comparison and 25 were below Residents in the City of Yakima were civically engaged While only 18% had attended a meeting of local elected public officials or other local public meeting in the previous 12 months, 97% had provided help to a friend or neighbor. A majority had volunteered their time to some group or activity in the City of Yakima, which was much higher than the benchmark In general, survey respondents demonstrated distrust in local government Less than half rated the overall direction being taken by the City of Yakima as "good" or "excellent " This was lower than the benchmark. Those residents who had interacted with an employee of the City of Yakima in the previous 12 months gave moderate marks to those employees A majority rated their overall impression of employees as "excellent" or "good " On average, residents gave less than favorable ratings to most local government services City • services rated were able to be compared to the benchmark database. Of the 35 services for which iv comparisons were available, one was above the benchmark comparison and 34 were below. u Respondents were asked to rate how frequently they participated in various activities in Yakima. L The most popular activities included providing help to a friend or neighbor and visiting a • neighborhood park or City park, while the least popular activities were riding a local bus and To attending a meeting of local elected officials. Generally, participation rates in the various activities rTz in the community were higher than other communities z > R a N 0 C N N V 76 c a I Z N L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 5 City of Yakima I 2012 A Key Driver Analysis was conducted for the City of Yakima which examined the relationships between ratings of each service and ratings of the City of Yakima's services overall. Those key driver services that correlated most strongly with residents' perceptions about overall City service quality have been identified By targeting improvements in key services, the City of Yakima can focus on the services that have the greatest likelihood of influencing residents' opinions about overall service quality. Services found to be influential in ratings of overall service quality from the Key Driver Analysis were • Animal control • Economic development • Police services • Public schools V C N C N U L U ro N N To C 0 r z 7- R A N 1 7 C N N V 76 C a 1 Z co L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 6 City of Yakima I 2012 COMMUNITY RATINGS OVERALL COMMUNLTY QUALITY Overall quality of community life may be the single best indicator of success in providing the natural ambience, services and amenities that make for an attractive community The National Citizen Survey' contained many questions related to quality of community life in the City of Yakima — not only direct questions about quality of life overall and in neighborhoods, but questions to measure residents' commitment to the City of Yakima Residents were asked whether they planned to move soon or if they would recommend the City of Yakima to others. Intentions to stay and willingness to make recommendations provide evidence that the City of Yakima offers services and amenities that work A majority of the City of Yakima's residents gave favorable ratings to their neighborhoods and the community as a place to live. Further, many reported they would recommend the community to others and plan to stay for the next five years. FIGURE 3 RATINGS OF OVERALL COMMUNITY QUALITY • Excellent • Good The overall quality of life 5% i Yakima 2I1 Your neighborhood as a 15% 46 place to live Yakima as a place to live 9% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents V FIGURE 4 LIKELIHOOD OF REMAINING IN COMMUNITY AND RECOMMENDING COMMUNITY Recommend living in Very likely Somewhat likely Yakima to someone who 21% 38% asks To Remain in Yakima for the Very likely mewhat likely next five years 44% 29% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent "likely" The National Citizen SurveyTM 7 City of Yakima I 2012 FIGURE 5 OVERALL COMMUNITY QUALITY BENCHMARKS I Comparison to benchmark I Overall quality of life in Yakima Much below Your neighborhood as place to live Much below Yakima as a place to live Much below Recommend living in Yakima to someone who asks Much below Remain in Yakima for the next five years Much below V C N C N U L U ro N N N To C 0 ro Z >- R A ■ N 1 C Ch C N N V C C a ro Z co L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 8 City of Yakima I 2012 COMMUNITY DESIGN Transportation The ability to move easily throughout a community can greatly affect the quality of life of residents by diminishing time wasted in traffic congestion and by providing opportunities to travel quickly and safely by modes other than the automobile High quality options for resident mobility not only require local government to remove barriers to flow but they require government programs and policies that create quality opportunities for all modes of travel Residents responding to the survey were given a list of six aspects of mobility to rate on a scale of "excellent," "good," "fair" and "poor " Ease of car travel was given the most positive rating, followed by ease of bus travel. FIGURE 6 RATINGS OF TRANSPORTATION IN COMMUNITY • Excellent • Good Ease of car travel in ° Yakima 15/0 Ease of bus travel in 16 °70 Yakima Ease of bicycle travel in 11 °/° Yakima Ease of walking in Yakima 14% Availability of paths and 15 °/° walking trails Traffic flow on major 6% °o streets U L I 1 1 • U 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents To _ FIGURE 7 COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Ease of car travel in Yakima Above Ease of bus travel in Yakima Much above Ease of bicycle travel in Yakima Much below 0 Ease of walking in Yakima Much below Availability of paths and walking trails Much below Traffic flow on major streets Similar The National Citizen SurveyTM 9 City of Yakima I 2012 Eight transportation services were rated in Yakima As compared to most communities across America, ratings tended to be negative. All eight services were below the benchmark. FIGURE 8 RATINGS OF TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING SERVICES • Excellent • Good Street repair 3% Street cleaning 6010 MU Street lighting 5% 36% Snow removal r 29% Sidewalk maintenance 3%1 23% Traffic signal timing 6% 138% I Bus or transit services 14% Amount of public 6% 31% parking V C c 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% cv u Percent of respondents L U ` cu FIGURE 9 TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING SERVICES BENCHMARKS III To Comparison to benchmar o Street repair Much below r z Street cleaning Much below a a Street lighting Much below Snow removal Much below • Sidewalk maintenance Much below N O Traffic signal timing Below '° c Bus or transit services Much above a z • Amount of public parking Much below cu L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 10 City of Yakima I 2012 By measuring choice of travel mode over time, communities can monitor their success in providing attractive alternatives to the traditional mode of travel, the single - occupied automobile. When asked how they typically traveled to work, single- occupancy (SOV) travel was the overwhelming mode of use However, 2% of work commute trips were made by transit, 1% by bicycle and 4% by foot. FIGURE 10 FREQUENCY OF Bus USE IN LAST 12 MONTHS Once or twice 14% 3to12times 9% 13 to26 times Never 3% 68 ° I° More than 26 times 6% FIGURE 1 1 FREQUENCY OF Bus USE BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Ridden a local bus within Yakima Much more U U U U To O r z >- 1 N V a 1 Z The National Citizen SurveyTM 11 City of Yakima I 2012 FIGURE 12 MODE OF TRAVEL USED FOR WORK COMMUTE Motorized vehicle (e g , car, truck, van, motorcycle, ° etc) by myself 73 /° Motorized vehicle (e g , car, truck, van, motorcycle, 15 °I° etc) with other children or adults Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation 2% Walk 4% Bicycle 1% Work at home 4% Other 1% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of days per week mode used FIGURE 13 DRIVE ALONE BENCHMARKS I 11 1.111 11 Comparison to benchmark Average percent of work commute trips made by driving alone Similar u C Q1 C Q U L U ro °) N Q1 To C O Z > R A N 1 C C Cl) N V To c a ra Z a) L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 12 City of Yakima I 2012 Housing Housing variety and affordability are not luxuries for any community When there are too few options for housing style and affordability, the characteristics of a community tilt toward a single group, often of well -off residents While this may seem attractive to a community, the absence of affordable townhomes, condominiums, mobile homes, single family detached homes and apartments means that in addition to losing the vibrancy of diverse thoughts and lifestyles, the community loses the service workers that sustain all communities — police officers, school teachers, house painters and electricians These workers must live elsewhere and commute in at great personal cost and to the detriment of traffic flow and air quality. Furthermore lower income residents pay so much of their income to rent or mortgage that little remains to bolster their own quality of life or local business The survey of the City of Yakima residents asked respondents to reflect on the availability of affordable housing as well as the variety of housing options. The availability of affordable housing was rated as "excellent" or "good" by 33% of respondents, while the variety of housing options was rated as "excellent" or "good" by 46% of respondents The rating of perceived affordable housing availability was worse in the City of Yakima than the ratings, on average, in comparison jurisdictions FIGURE 14 RATINGS OF HOUSING IN COMMUNITY • Excellent • Good Availability of affordable 2900 quality housing Variety of housing options 3 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 15 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS BENCHMARKS L I Comparison to benchmark Availability of affordable quality housing Much below o Variety of housing options Much below z > a c Ch N V a 1 z c The National Citizen SurveyTM 13 City of Yakima I 2012 To augment the perceptions of affordable housing in Yakima, the cost of housing as reported in the survey was compared to residents' reported monthly income to create a rough estimate of the proportion of residents of the City of Yakima experiencing housing cost stress Close to half of survey participants were found to pay housing costs of more than 30% of their monthly household income. FIGURE 16 PROPORTION OF RESPONDENTS WHOSE HOUSING COSTS ARE "AFFORDABLE" Housing costs 30% or MORE of income 46% Housing costs LESS IL than 30 °I° of income 54% FIGURE 17 HOUSING COSTS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark I Experiencing housing costs stress (housing costs 30% or MORE of income) Much more U U U U To O i z 7 N 1 N V a I Z N H The National Citizen SurveyTM 14 City of Yakima I 2012 Land Use and Zoning Community development contributes to a feeling among residents and even visitors of the attention given to the speed of growth, the location of residences and businesses, the kind of housing that is appropriate for the community and the ease of access to commerce, green space and residences. Even the community's overall appearance often is attributed to the planning and enforcement functions of the local jurisdiction. Residents will appreciate an attractive, well - planned community. The NCS questionnaire asked residents to evaluate the quality of new development, the appearance of the City of Yakima and the speed of population growth Problems with the appearance of property were rated, and the quality of land use planning, zoning and code enforcement services were evaluated. The overall quality of new development in the City of Yakima was rated as "excellent" by 6% of respondents and as "good" by an additional 32% The overall appearance of Yakima was rated as "excellent" or "good" by 29% of respondents and was much lower than the benchmark When rating to what extent run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles were a problem in the City of Yakima, 37% thought they were a "major" problem The services of land use, planning and zoning, code enforcement and animal control were rated much below the benchmark. FIGURE 18 RATINGS OF THE COMMUNITY'S "BUILT ENVIRONMENT" • Excellent • Good Overall quality of new development in Yakima 6°,0 Overall appearance of Yakima 3 °I. V C `m 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents L FIGURE 19 BUILT ENVIRONMENT BENCHMARKS I Comparison to benchmark To Quality of new development in Yakima Much below Overall appearance of Yakima Much below V The National Citizen SurveyTM 15 City of Yakima I 2012 FIGURE 20 RATINGS OF POPULATION GROWTH Much too fast 17 °I° Somewhat too fast ,�N 34 °I° v iii■■ I •••••••■ — I ■■■■■■■■L ■■■■■■■■L ••••••••••••■ A••••••••••••• 4 •••••••••••••• li b Much too slow Somewhat too slow 9% Right amount 39% FIGURE 21 POPULATION GROWTH BENCHMARKS I Comparison to benchmark I Population growth seen as too fast Much more FIGURE 22 RATINGS OF N UISANCE PROBLEMS 1 EM I - - MN Major problem ■ ■■■■■■■ ■ ■■■■ 1 37°/° ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ INENNE■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■•••••••••••••••••••• ■∎ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■► •••••••••••••••• ' ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ I 'MENE■■■ I I I I I I I I \■■■■■■■ IIIIIIII `•••••••11111111 ••••••• Not a problem c N 3 % m v Moderate problem \Minor problem ro 46% 14 ° /° 0) m To c 0 ro Z A _c? FIGURE 23 NUISANCE PROBLEMS BENCHMARKS co I Comparison to benchmark I c Run down buildings, weed lots and junk vehicles seen as a "major" problem Much more N 0 0 c a ro Z co L I— The National Citizen SurveyTM 16 City of Yakima I 2012 FIGURE 24 RATINGS OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES • Excellent • Good Land use, planning and 3% % zoning Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned 2 ° / 13% buildings, etc ) Animal control 24% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 25 PLANNING AND COMMUNITY CODE ENFORCEMENT SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Land use, planning and zoning Much below Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) Much below Animal control Much below U U U U To O r z >- A 1 N V C a r z N L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 17 City of Yakima I 2012 ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY The United States has been in recession since late 2007 with an accelerated downturn occurring in the fourth quarter of 2008 Officially we emerged from recession in the third quarter of 2009, but high unemployment lingers, keeping a lid on a strong recovery Many readers worry that the ill health of the economy will color how residents perceive their environment and the services that local government delivers NRC researchers have found that the economic downturn has chastened Americans' view of their own economic futures but has not colored their perspectives about community services or quality of life. Survey respondents were asked to rate a number of community features related to economic opportunity and growth. The most positively rated features were the overall quality of business and service establishments in Yakima and shopping opportunities Receiving the lowest rating was employment opportunities. FIGURE 26 RATINGS OF ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY AND OPPORTUNITIES • Excellent • Good Employment opportunities2% Shopping opportunities 8 °0 Yakima as a place to work 7 %SJ "` -'c Overall quality of business and service 6 °0 establishments in Yakima 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents a' FIGURE 27 ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY AND OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS I I Comparison to benchmark I L Employment opportunities Much below Shopping opportunities Much below o Yakima as a place to work Much below Overall quality of business and service establishments in Yakima Much below > a N Ch N V a 1 Z The National Citizen SurveyTM 18 City of Yakima I 2012 Residents were asked to evaluate the speed of jobs growth and retail growth on a scale from "much too slow" to "much too fast." When asked about the rate of jobs growth I n Yakima, 86% responded that it was "too slow," while 49% reported retail growth as "too slow " Many more residents In Yakima compared to other jurisdictions believed that retail growth was too slow and many more residents believed that jobs growth was too slow. FIGURE 28 RATINGS OF RETAIL AND JOBS GROWTH Retail Growth Somewhat Jobs Growth Somewhat Ri ht too fast too slow Right g 50/0 amount 46 °/° amount 41 u \%%\Somewha t fast too fast A \ . Much too slow Much too fast Somewhat / 12 °/° 1% too slow J 37% Much too slow 40% FIGURE 29 RETAIL AND JOBS GROWTH BENCHMARKS I .millii.l. Comparison to benchmark I Retail growth seen as too slow Much more Jobs growth seen as too slow Much more FIGURE 30 RATINGS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Poor 34% o c ti Excellent m 3% U L U —arIM ro cu N N cv cv To o Fair 111111i Good z 43 ° I° 20 ° /° c a m c c N FIGURE 31 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BENCHMARKS To Com parison to b enchmark 0 Economic development Much below f5 z cu L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 19 City of Yakima I 2012 Residents were asked to reflect on their economic prospects in the near term Seventeen percent of the City of Yakima residents expected that the coming six months would have a "somewhat" or "very" positive impact on their family, while 39% felt that the economic future would be "somewhat" or "very" negative The percent of residents with an optimistic outlook on their household income was the same as comparison jurisdictions. FIGURE 32 RATINGS OF PERSONAL ECONOMIC FUTURE Somewhat negative 29% rr� ■■■■■■■■■ IIII ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■r • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■i Very negative `�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�, _. 10 °/° - I■■■■■■■■■r� I■■■i Neutral positive 43% �� 5% What impact, if any, do you Somewhat positive think the economy will have 12% on your family income in the next 6 months? FIGURE 33 PERSONAL ECONOMIC FUTURE BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Positive impact of economy on household income Similar U U U U To 0 O z >- A N 1 N V a 1 Z The National Citizen SurveyTM 20 City of Yakima I 2012 PUBLIC SAFETY Safety from violent or property crimes creates the cornerstone of an attractive community. No one wants to live in fear of crime, fire or natural hazards, and communities in which residents feel protected or unthreatened are communities that are more likely to show growth in population, commerce and property value. Residents were asked to rate their feelings of safety from violent crimes, property crimes, fire and environmental dangers and to evaluate the local agencies whose main charge is to provide protection from these dangers Many gave positive ratings of safety in the City of Yakima About 26% of those completing the questionnaire said they felt "very" or "somewhat" safe from violent crimes and 56% felt "very" or "somewhat" safe from environmental hazards. Daytime sense of safety was better than nighttime safety and neighborhoods felt safer than commercial areas FIGURE 34 RATINGS OF COMMUNITY AND PERSONAL PUBLIC SAFETY • Very safe • Somewhat safe In your neighborhood 37% during the day In your neighborhood after dark 14% In Yakima's commercial 21% areas during the day In Yakima's commercial 30/ areas after dark U Violent crime (e g , i u rape, assault, robbery) L N N Q1 Property crimes (e g , 2 o burglary, theft) r z > Environmental hazards, 20% including toxic waste 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% g Percent of respondents a0 The National Citizen SurveyTM 21 City of Yakima I 2012 FIGURE 35 COMMUNITY AND PERSONAL PUBLIC SAFETY BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark I In your neighborhood during the day Much below In your neighborhood after dark Much below In Yakima's commercial areas during the day Much below In Yakima's commercial areas after dark Much below Violent crime (e g , rape, assault, robbery) Much below Property crimes (e g , burglary, theft) Much below Environmental hazards, including toxic waste Much below V C N C N U L U ro N N N To C O ro Z 7- R A ■ N 1 7 C N N V 76 C a ro Z co L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 22 City of Yakima I 2012 As assessed by the survey, 26% of respondents reported that someone in the household had been the victim of one or more crimes in the past year. Of those who had been the victim of a crime, 81% had reported it to police. Compared to other jurisdictions many more Yakima residents had been victims of crime in the 12 months preceding the survey and about the same percent of Yakima residents had reported their most recent crime victimization to the police. FIGURE 36 CRIME VICTIMIZATION AND REPORTING During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? Yes \N 260' No 19% Yes 81% No If yes, was this crime (these crimes) 74% reported to the police? FIGURE 37 CRIME VICTIMIZATION AND REPORTING BENCHMARKS I Comparison to benchmark Victim of crime Much more Reported crimes Similar U N N U To 0 O z 7 A N V a z L The National Citizen SurveyTM 23 City of Yakima I 2012 Residents rated eight City public safety services, of these, all eight were rated much below the benchmark comparison. Fire services and ambulance or emergency medical services received the highest ratings, while crime prevention and emergency preparedness received the lowest ratings. FIGURE 38 RATINGS OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES • Excellent • Good Police services 12 ° I° Fire services 28% 56% Ambulance or emergency medical services 29% 5 Crime prevention 5% 18% Fire prevention and , education 8°0 Traffic enforcement 7%11 40 0 10 sa Municipal courts 7% To A _o Emergency preparedness 8% 27% a m N 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% U Percent of respondents The National Citizen SurveyTM 24 City of Yakima I 2012 FIGURE 39 PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Police services Much below Fire services Much below Ambulance or emergency medical services Much below Crime prevention Much below Fire prevention and education Much below Traffic enforcement Much below Courts Much below Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) Much below V C N C N U L U ro N N N To C O ro Z >- R A N 1 C Ch C N N V C c a ro Z N L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 25 City of Yakima I 2012 FIGURE 40 CONTACT WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT Have you had any in- person or phone contact with Fair Poor an employee of the City of Yakima Police 23% 17% Department within the last 12 months? NEB ■■■■■ ■■■■■■ % ■■■■■■ Nomm No illit Yes r 61 °/° ,./ Good Excellent 34% 26% What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City of Yakima Police Department? FIGURE 41 CONTACT WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT Have you had any in- person or phone contact with Good an employee of the City of Yakima Fire Department 38% within the last 12 months? Yes Fair 14% ` � � 8 ° /° -N. \ ■...... Excellent Poor No 50% 3% 86% What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City of Yakima Fire V Department? `m c m U L) FIGURE 42 CONTACT WITH POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS BENCHMARKS ro Com parison to To benchmark c ° ro Had contact with the City of Yakima Police Department Similar >. Overall impression of most recent contact with the City of Yakima Police a Department Much below c Had contact with the City of Yakima Fire Department Similar c Overall impression of most recent contact with the City of Yakima Fire } " - Department Much below 0 75 c a Z L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 26 City of Yakima I 2012 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY Residents value the aesthetic qualities of their hometowns and appreciate features such as overall cleanliness and landscaping In addition, the appearance and smell or taste of the air and water do not go unnoticed These days, increasing attention is paid to proper treatment of the environment At the same time that they are attending to community appearance and cleanliness, cities, counties, states and the nation are going "Green" These strengthening environmental concerns extend to trash haul, recycling, sewer services, the delivery of power and water and preservation of open spaces. Treatment of the environment affects air and water quality and, generally, how habitable and inviting a place appears Residents of the City of Yakima were asked to evaluate their local environment and the services provided to ensure its quality The overall quality of the natural environment was rated as "excellent" or "good" by 49% of survey respondents. Air quality received the highest rating, and it was below the benchmark. FIGURE 43 RATINGS OF THE COMMUNITY'S NATURAL ENVIRONMENT • Excellent • Good Cleanliness of Yakima 4 °. Quality of overall natural o, environment in Yakima �,o Air quality 8% 42% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents L i FIGURE 44 COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark r Cleanliness of Yakima Much below Quality of overall natural environment in Yakima Much below Air quality Much below a 1 The National Citizen SurveyTM 27 City of Yakima I 2012 Resident recycling was less than recycling reported in comparison communities FIGURE 45 FREQUENCY OF RECYCLING IN LAST 12 MONTHS 13 to 26 times 16% 4 ...... ••••• 11 i ••••• 1 ••••••• 1 •••••••• I_I MENEM ••••••••••• i •••••••••••• I■■■■■■■■■■■■ More than 26 times 1 •••••••••••• 1•••••••••••• — I 26% -4.11■ ■ ■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■ -1 1 ■ 1 1 _ •••••• _ 1 _ 1 _ 1 _ 1 1 1 1 _1 1 3to12 times Never 22% Once or twice 15% FIGURE 46 FREQUENCY OF RECYCLING BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home Much less U Q1 Q1 U Q1 To O z 7 > C Ch C Q1 V c 2 ro Z The National Citizen SurveyTM 28 City of Yakima I 2012 Of the seven utility services rated by those completing the questionnaire, all seven were below the benchmark comparison. FIGURE 47 RATINGS OF UTILITY SERVICES • Excellent • Good Power (electric and/or 1 7% gas) utility Sewer services 14 °I° Drinking water 1 6 Storm drainage 6% MM. Yard waste pick -up 17% RIM Recycling 9% 35% Garbage collection 27% V 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% c Percent of respondents cv U L ro FIGURE 48 UTILITY SERVICES BENCHMARKS cu I V ■ Comparison to benchmark I o Power (electric and/or gas) utility Below `° z Sewer services Below Drinking water Below cu Storm drainage Much below Yard waste pick -up Much below .0 Recycling Much below V 75 Garbage collection Below c a f5 z cu L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 29 City of Yakima I 2012 RECREATION AND WELLNESS Parks and Recreation Quality parks and recreation opportunities help to define a community as more than the grind of its business, traffic and hard work Leisure activities vastly can improve the quality of life of residents, serving both to entertain and mobilize good health The survey contained questions seeking residents' perspectives about opportunities and services related to the community's parks and recreation services Recreation opportunities in the City of Yakima were rated somewhat positively as were services related to parks and recreation City parks were rated lower the benchmark Recreation programs or classes and recreation centers received the lowest ratings and were lower than the national benchmark. Resident use of Yakima parks and recreation facilities tells its own story about the attractiveness and accessibility of those services The percent of residents that used Yakima recreation centers was greater than the percent of users in comparison jurisdictions Similarly, recreation program use in Yakima was much higher than use in comparison jurisdictions. FIGURE 49 RATINGS OF COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES Fair •••• i_ii -1 - Poor 31 °I° — 28% �••••■■■■ \ •••••••••• •••••••••• •••••••••• •••••••••• ••••••••••• •••••••••••••■ •••••••••••••■ � Excellent 9% Good 32% U FIGURE 50 COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark To Recreation opportunities Much below r a a I c - H The National Citizen SurveyTM 30 City of Yakima I 2012 FIGURE 51 PARTICIPATION IN PARKS AND RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES Used Yakima recreation centers 60% Participated in a recreation program or activity 52% Visited a neighborhood park or City park 87 °I° 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of respondents who did each at least once in last 12 months FIGURE 52 PARTICIPATION IN PARKS AND RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Used Yakima recreation centers More Participated in a recreation program or activity Much more Visited a neighborhood park or City park Similar FIGURE 53 RATINGS OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES • Excellent • Good City parks 10°%0 Recreation programs or classes 6 ' ° Recreation centers or facilities 7% U 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% m Percent of respondents To FIGURE 54 PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark • City parks Much below • Recreation programs or classes Much below • Recreation centers or facilities Much below V a r Z a L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 31 City of Yakima I 2012 Culture, Arts and Education A full service community does not address only the life and safety of its residents Like individuals who simply go to the office and return home, a community that pays attention only to the life sustaining basics becomes insular, dreary and uninspiring. In the case of communities without thriving culture, arts and education opportunities, the magnet that attracts those who might consider relocating there is vastly weakened Cultural, artistic, social and educational services elevate the opportunities for personal growth among residents. In the survey, residents were asked about the quality of opportunities to participate in cultural and educational activities Opportunities to attend cultural activities were rated as "excellent" or "good" by 42% of respondents Educational opportunities were rated as "excellent" or "good" by 47% of respondents Compared to the benchmark data, educational opportunities were below the average of comparison jurisdictions, as was cultural activity opportunities. About 60% of Yakima residents used a City library at least once in the 12 months preceding the survey This participation rate for library use was below comparison jurisdictions FIGURE 55 RATINGS OF CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES • Excellent • Good Opportunities to attend 8% 34% cultural activities Educational opportunities 7 4 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 56 CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS o Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to attend cultural activities Much below Educational opportunities Much below P_ N N Q1 To c o fo Z 7- R A N 7 c Q1 N V 76 c a 1 Z cu L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 32 City of Yakima I 2012 FIGURE 57 PARTICIPATION IN CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES Used Yakima public o libraries or their services 60 /0 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in 60% Yakima 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of respondents who did each at least once in last 12 months FIGURE 58 PARTICIPATION IN CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Used Yakima public libraries or their services Much less Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Yakima Much more FIGURE 59 PERCEPTION OF CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES • Excellent • Good Public schools 9% Public library services 19% m 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 60 CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL SERVICES BENCHMARKS ci) Comparison to benchmark o Public schools Much below Public library services Much below a a N Ch N V a r Z N L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 33 City of Yakima I 2012 COMMUNITY INCLUSIVENESS Diverse communities that include among their residents a mix of races, ages, wealth, ideas and beliefs have the raw material for the most vibrant and creative society However, the presence of these features alone does not ensure a high quality or desirable space Surveyed residents were asked about the success of the mix: the sense of community, the openness of residents to people of diverse backgrounds and the attractiveness of the City of Yakima as a place to raise children or to retire They were also questioned about the quality of services delivered to various population subgroups, including older adults, youth and residents with few resources. A community that succeeds in creating an inclusive environment for a variety of residents is a community that offers more to many About 38% residents rated the City of Yakima as an "excellent" or "good" place to raise kids and a moderate percentage rated it as an excellent or good place to retire. Some residents felt that the local sense of community was "excellent" or "good." About 35% respondents felt the City of Yakima was open and accepting towards people of diverse backgrounds The availability of affordable quality child care was rated the lowest by residents and was lower than the benchmark. FIGURE 61 RATINGS OF COMMUNITY QUALITY AND INCLUSIVENESS • Excellent • Good Sense of community 3% 31% Openness and acceptance of the community toward 5 %, 30% people of diverse backgrounds Availability of affordable quality child care 5 °, L Yakima as a place to raise children 5 °/, 33% To r A Yakima as a place to retire 11% 35% I 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents z The National Citizen SurveyTM 34 City of Yakima I 2012 FIGURE 62 COMMUNITY QUALITY AND INCLUSIVENESS BENCHMARKS 1M Comparison to benchmark Sense of community Much below Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds Much below Availability of affordable quality child care Much below Yakima as a place to raise kids Much below Yakima as a place to retire Much below V C N C N U L U ro N N N To C O ro Z >- R A ■ N 1 C Ch C N N V C C a ro Z co L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 35 City of Yakima I 2012 Services to more vulnerable populations (e g , seniors, youth or low-income residents) ranged from 32% to 46% with ratings of "excellent" or "good." All services were much below the benchmark. FIGURE 63 RATINGS OF QUALITY OF SERVICES PROVIDED FOR POPULATION SUBGROUPS • Excellent • Good Services to seniors 8% 38% Services to youth 5% 27% Services to low- income 11% 29% people 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 64 SERVICES PROVIDED FOR POPULATION SUBGROUPS BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Services to seniors Much below Services to youth Much below Services to low income people Much below U U U U To O z 7 A N 1 N V a r Z N H The National Citizen SurveyTM 36 City of Yakima I 2012 Civic ENGAGEMENT Community leaders cannot run a jurisdiction alone and a jurisdiction cannot run effectively if residents remain strangers with little to connect them Elected officials and staff require the assistance of local residents whether that assistance comes in tacit approval or eager help, and commonality of purpose among the electorate facilitates policies and programs that appeal to most and causes discord among few Furthermore, when neighbors help neighbors, the cost to the community to provide services to residents in need declines When residents are civically engaged, they have taken the opportunity to participate in making the community more livable for all. The extent to which local government provides opportunities to become informed and engaged and the extent to which residents take those opportunities is an indicator of the connection between government and populace. By understanding your residents' level of connection to, knowledge of and participation in local government, the City can find better opportunities to communicate and educate citizens about its mission, services, accomplishments and plans Communities with strong civic engagement may be more likely to see the benefits of programs intended to improve the quality of life of all residents and therefore would be more likely to support those new policies or programs. Civic Activity Respondents were asked about the perceived community volunteering opportunities and their participation as citizens of the City of Yakima Survey participants rated the volunteer opportunities in the City of Yakima favorably. Opportunities to attend or participate in community matters were rated less favorably Ratings of civic engagement opportunities were below ratings from comparison jurisdictions where these questions were asked FIGURE 65 RATINGS OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES • Excellent Good Opportunities to participate 9 in community matters U Opportunities to volunteer 19% To 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 z Percent of respondents a FIGURE 66 Civic ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to participate in community matters Much below Opportunities to volunteer Much below a The National Citizen SurveyTM 37 City of Yakima I 2012 Most of the participants in this survey had not attended a public meeting or participated in a club in the 12 months prior to the survey, but the vast majority had helped a friend. The participation rates of these civic behaviors were compared to the rates in other jurisdictions Watching a meeting of local elected officials, volunteering time to a group, participating in a club and providing help to a friend or neighbor showed much higher rates of involvement. Attending a meeting of local elected officials showed lower rates of community engagement FIGURE 67 PARTICIPATION IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other ° local public meeting 181° Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other City- sponsored public meeting on cable television, 47% the Internet or other media Volunteered your time to some group or activity in ° Yakima 54 /° Participated in a club or civic group in Yakima 38 ° I° Provided help to a friend or neighbor 97% i 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of respondents who did each at least once in last 12 months V c c FIGURE 68 PARTICIPATION IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS L5' U L Comparison to ra benchmark Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting Much less o Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other public meeting on cable z television, the Internet or other media Much more Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Yakima Much more R iu Participated in a club or civic group in Yakima Much more Provided help to a friend or neighbor More c N V 76 c a r Z cu L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 38 City of Yakima I 2012 Seventy -eight percent of Yakima residents reported they were registered to vote and 65% indicated they had voted in the last general election. This rate of self - reported voting was lower than that of comparison communities. FIGURE 69 REPORTED VOTING BEHAVIOR Ineligible Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction2 to vote 5% Ineligible Yes to vote 65% Yes 4% 78% No 30 °/° Do you remember voting in the last No general election 1O °1_ FIGURE 70 VOTING BEHAVIOR BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Registered to vote Much less Voted in last general election Much less U Q1 Q1 U Q1 To O i z 7 A Q1 V a 1 Z c The National Citizen SurveyTM 39 City of Yakima I 2012 Information and Awareness Those completing the survey were asked about their use and perceptions of various information sources and local government media services. When asked whether they had visited the City of Yakima Web site in the previous 12 months, 36% reported they had done so at least once Public information services were rated unfavorably compared to benchmark data FIGURE 71 USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES Visited the City of Yakima Web site 36% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of respondents who did each at least once in last 12 months FIGURE 72 USE OF INFORMATION SOURCES BENCHMARKS ME Comparison to benchmark .11MI Visited the City of Yakima Web site Much less FIGURE 73 RATINGS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEDIA SERVICES AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION • Excellent • Good Public information services 9% V Q1 Q1 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% iv Percent of respondents To 0 Z FIGURE 74 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MEDIA SERVICES AND INFORMATION DISSEMINATION BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark Public information services Much below a r c L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 40 City of Yakima I 2012 Social Engagement Opportunities to participate in social events and activities were rated as "excellent" or "good" by 37% of respondents, while even more rated opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities as "excellent" or "good." FIGURE 75 RATINGS OF SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES • Excellent • Good Opportunities to participate in social events and 6 °' °r71'i °� activities Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual 1 7% 45% events and activities 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 76 SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES BENCHMARKS Comparison to benchmark I Opportunities to participate in social events and activities Much below Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities Much below Residents in Yakima reported a strong amount of neighborliness. More than half indicated talking or visiting with their neighbors at least several times a week. This amount of contact with neighbors was much more than the amount of contact reported in other communities FIGURE 77 CONTACT WITH IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors2 Less than several times a month 25% V `m Several times a month L 19 °I° To Just about everyday z Several times a week 28% 28% m 0 FIGURE 78 CONTACT WITH IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS BENCHMARKS a Com parison to benchmark z Has contact with neighbors at least several times per week Much more The National Citizen SurveyTM 41 City of Yakima I 2012 PUBLIC TRUST When local government leaders are trusted, an environment of cooperation is more likely to surround all decisions they make Cooperation leads to easier communication between leaders and residents and increases the likelihood that high value policies and programs will be implemented to improve the quality of life of the entire community. Trust can be measured in residents' opinions about the overall direction the City of Yakima is taking, their perspectives about the service value their taxes purchase and the openness of government to citizen participation In addition, resident opinion about services provided by the City of Yakima could be compared to their opinion about services provided by the state and federal governments If residents find nothing to admire in the services delivered by any level of government, their opinions about the City of Yakima may be colored by their dislike of what all levels of government provide. Less than half of respondents felt that the value of services for taxes paid was "excellent" or "good." When asked to rate the job the City of Yakima does at welcoming citizen involvement, 30% rated it as "excellent" or "good " All four of these ratings were much below the benchmark FIGURE 79 PUBLIC TRUST RATINGS • Excellent • Good The value of services for the taxes paid to Yakima 4 ° I0 The overall direction that Yakima is taking 4 °I III The job Yakima government does at welcoming citizen 5% involvement Overall image or reputation of Yakima 3 ° I c N 1 1 I • U L) 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% ro Percent of respondents L To c 0 r FIGURE 80 PUBLIC TRUST BENCHMARKS Z I ll . C to benchmark I Value of services for the taxes paid to Yakima Much below The overall direction that Yakima is taking Much below N Job Yakima government does at welcoming citizen involvement Much below 0 Overall image or reputation of Yakima Much below 75 o' a fa z co L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 42 City of Yakima I 2012 On average, residents of the City of Yakima gave the highest evaluations to their own local government and the lowest average rating to the Federal Government. The overall quality of services delivered by the City of Yakima was rated as "excellent" or "good" by 45% of survey participants The City of Yakima's rating was below the benchmark when compared to other communities in the nation. FIGURE 81 RATINGS OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS • Excellent • Good Services provided by City of Yakima Services provided by the 4°/, % Federal Government Services provided by the % 26% State Government Services provided by Yakima County 3% Government 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents FIGURE 82 SERVICES PROVIDED BY LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS BENCHMARKS L r Comparison to benchmark Services provided by the City of Yakima Much below o Services provided by the Federal Government Much below z Services provided by the State Government Much below Services provided by Yakima County Government Much below a cu a 1 The National Citizen SurveyTM 43 City of Yakima I 2012 City of Yakima Employees The employees of the City of Yakima who interact with the public create the first impression that most residents have of the City of Yakima. Front line staff who provide information, assist with bill paying, collect trash, create service schedules, fight fires and crime and even give traffic tickets are the collective face of the City of Yakima As such, it is important to know about residents' experience talking with that "face." When employees appear to be knowledgeable, responsive and courteous, residents are more likely to feel that any needs or problems may be solved through positive and productive interactions with the City of Yakima staff Those completing the survey were asked if they had been in contact with a City employee either in- person, over the phone or via email in the last 12 months; the 42% who reported that they had been in contact (a percent that is much lower than the benchmark comparison) were then asked to indicate overall how satisfied they were with the employee in their most recent contact City employees were rated highly; 60% of respondents rated their overall impression as "excellent" or "good." FIGURE 83 PROPORTION OF RESPONDENTS WHO HAD CONTACT WITH CITY EMPLOYEES IN PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS Have you had any in- person, phone or email contact with an employee of Yakima within the last 12 months Yes No \ 44 /11//1__ 42 58% FIGURE 84 CONTACT WITH CITY EMPLOYEES BENCHMARKS o Comparison to benchmark Had contact with City employee(s) in last 12 months Much less U L U ro N N Q1 To C o r Z 7- R A ■ N 7 C Q1 N V 76 c a I Z L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 44 City of Yakima I 2012 FIGURE 85 RATINGS OF CITY EMPLOYEES (AMONG THOSE WHO HAD CONTACT) • Excellent Good Knowledge 25% J. Responsiveness 25% 37% Courtesy 32% 35% Overall impression Maki 1111. i 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents who had contact with an employee in previous 12 months FIGURE 86 RATINGS OF CITY EMPLOYEES (AMONG THOSE WHO HAD CONTACT) BENCHMARKS M IL Comparison to benchmark MI Knowledge Much below c ti Responsiveness Much below cii Courteousness Much below U Overall impression Much below ro ai cii To c 0 Z a R a 0 V) C a) N V 76 C a r Z L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 45 City of Yakima I 2012 FROM DATA TO ACTION RESIDENT PRIORITIES Knowing where to focus limited resources to improve residents' opinions of local government requires information that targets the services that are most important to residents However, when residents are asked what services are most important, they rarely stray beyond core services — those directed to save lives and improve safety In market research, identifying the most important characteristics of a transaction or product is called Key Driver Analysis (KDA) The key drivers that are identified from that analysis do not come from asking customers to self - report which service or product characteristic most influenced their decision to buy or return, but rather from statistical analyses of the predictors of their behavior. When customers are asked to name the most important characteristics of a good or service, responses often are expected or misleading — just as they can be in the context of a citizen survey. For example, air travelers often claim that safety is the primary consideration in their choice of an airline, yet key driver analysis reveals that frequent flier perks or in- flight entertainment predicts their buying decisions. In local government core services — like fire protection — invariably land at the top of the list created when residents are asked about the most important local government services. And core services are important But by using KDA, our approach digs deeper to identify the less obvious, but more influential services that are most related to residents' ratings of overall quality of local government services. Because services focused directly on life and safety remain essential to quality government, it is suggested that core services should remain the focus of continuous monitoring and improvement where necessary — but monitoring core services or asking residents to identify important services is not enough. A KDA was conducted for the City of Yakima by examining the relationships between ratings of each service and ratings of the City of Yakima's overall services Those Key Driver services that correlated most highly with residents' perceptions about overall City service quality have been identified. By targeting improvements in key services, the City of Yakima can focus on the services that have the greatest likelihood of influencing residents' opinions about overall service quality Because a strong correlation is not the same as a cause, there is no guarantee that improving ratings on key drivers necessarily will improve ratings. What is certain from these analyses is that key drivers are good predictors of overall resident opinion and that the key drivers presented may be useful focus areas to consider for enhancement of overall service ratings Services found to be most strongly correlated with ratings of overall service quality from the Yakima Key Driver Analysis were: To ° • Animal control r • Economic development • Police services • Public Schools ° 1 The National Citizen SurveyTM 46 City of Yakima I 2012 CITY OF YAKIMA ACTION CHART' The 2012 City of Yakima Action Chart' on the following page combines two dimensions of performance • Comparison to resident evaluations from other communities. When a comparison is available, the background color of each service box indicates whether the service is above the national benchmark (green), similar to the benchmark (yellow) or below the benchmark (red). • Identification of key services. A black key icon (S.) next to a service box indicates it as a key driver for the City 22 services were included in the KDA for the City of Yakima. Of these, all were below the benchmark Considering all performance data included in the Action Chart, a jurisdiction typically will want to consider improvements to any key driver services that are not at least similar to the benchmark In Yakima, animal control, economic development, police services and public schools were below the benchmark. More detail about interpreting results can be found in the next section. Services with a high percent of respondents answering "don't know" were excluded from the analysis and were considered services that would be less influential See Appendix A Complete Survey Frequencies, Frequencies Excluding "Don't Know" Responses for the percent "don't know" for each service. U U U U To O r z >- A 1 C Ch C N U C a I Z N H The National Citizen SurveyTM 47 City of Yakima I 2012 FIGURE 87 CITY OF YAKIMA ACTION CHART Overall Quality of City of Yakima Services ,ice __-'` ,, - �� ; Community Design `, , Public Safety Code Animal Traffic Fire enforcement control enforcement s ervices Economic Street Police EMS development Sidewalk repair services Snow `., �% maintenance removal Street Street i ll' lighting cleaning Recreation and Well ness Traffic signal tiLtiming City Public . ___ Recrparks schools Library et facilities a ion . , Environmental Sustainability Drinking Recycling ' ,` water Civic Engagement Garbage Power collection utility Public 1 information % ` Legend Above Similar to Below Benchmark Benchmark Benchmark U C WIT Key Driver a c U L U ro N N To C 0 ro Z > A N C Q1 N 0 76 c a ro Z a) L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 48 City of Yakima I 2012 Using Your Action Chart'' The key drivers derived for the City of Yakima provide a list of those services that are uniquely related to overall service quality. Those key drivers are marked with the symbol of a key in the action chart Because key driver results are based on a relatively small number of responses, the relationships or correlations that define the key drivers are subject to more variability than is seen when key drivers are derived from a large national dataset of resident responses. To benefit the City of Yakima, NRC lists the key drivers derived from tens of thousands of resident responses from across the country This national list is updated periodically so that you can compare your key drivers to the key drivers from the entire NRC dataset. Where your locally derived key drivers overlap national key drivers, it makes sense to focus even more strongly on your keys Similarly, when your local key drivers overlap your core services, there is stronger argument to make for attending to your key drivers that overlap with core services. As staff review key drivers, not all drivers may resonate as likely links to residents' perspectives about overall service quality. For example, in Yakima, planning and zoning and police services may be obvious links to overall service delivery (and each is a key driver from our national database), since it could be easy for staff to see how residents' view of overall service delivery could be colored by how well they perceive police and land use planning to be delivered But animal control could be a surprise Before rejecting a key driver that does not pass the first test of conventional wisdom, consider whether residents' opinions about overall service quality could reasonably be influenced by this unexpected driver For example, in the case of animal control, was there a visible case of violation prior to the survey data collection? Do Yakima residents have different expectations for animal control than what current policy provides? Are the rare instances of violation serious enough to cause a word of mouth campaign about service delivery? If, after deeper review, the "suspect" driver still does not square with your understanding of the services that could influence residents' perspectives about overall service quality (and if that driver is not a core service or a key driver from NRC's national research), put action in that area on hold and wait to see if it appears as a key driver the next time the survey is conducted. In the following table, we have listed your key drivers, core services and the national key drivers and we have indicated (in bold typeface and with the symbol "• "), the City of Yakima key drivers that overlap core services or the nationally derived keys In general, key drivers below the iv benchmark may be targeted for improvement. Additionally, we have indicated (with the symbol " ° ") those services that neither are local nor national key drivers nor are they core services It is these services that could be considered first for resource reductions Q1 To r A Q1 c a I H The National Citizen SurveyTM 49 City of Yakima I 2012 FIGURE 88 KEY DRIVERS COMPARED City of Yakima National Key Service Key Driver Driver Core S • Police services ✓ ✓ ✓ Fire services ✓ Ambulance and emergency medical services ✓ o Traffic enforcement Street repair ✓ o Street cleaning o Street lighting o Snow removal o Sidewalk maintenance o Traffic signal timing Garbage collection ✓ o Recycling Drinking water ✓ Power (electric and/or gas) utility ✓ o City parks o Recreation centers or facilities Code enforcement ✓ Animal control ✓ • Economic development ✓ ✓ o Public library Public information services ✓ • Public schools ✓ ✓ • Key driver overlaps with national and or core services o Service may be targeted for reductions it is not a key driver or core service U Q1 Q1 U U U 4) Q1 To O z >- A N 1 C Ch C Q1 N V To ro a Z 0) The National Citizen SurveyTM 50 City of Yakima I 2012 CUSTOM QUESTIONS "Don't know" responses have been removed from the following questions, when applicable. Custom Question 1 Please indicate how much you would support or oppose each of the following ways to fund future street/road repairs in Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Yakima support support oppose oppose Toial I Annual $20 "car tab" fee on all registered vehicles 23% 27% 17% 33% 100% Sales tax increase 5% 19% 24% 52% 100% Property tax increase 4% 15% 18% 63% 100% Custom Question 2 Please indicate how much you would support or oppose the City of Yakima Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly taking the following actions support support oppose oppose Total Funding the construction of a new aquatics facility with a property tax increase 14% 25% 19% 42% 100% Funding the construction of a new aquatics facility with a sales tax increase 14% 25% 21% 39% 100% Funding the repairs of existing aquatics facilities with a sales tax increase 10% 29% 25% 35% 100% Funding the repairs of existing aquatics facilities with a property tax increase 9% 23% 24% 44% 100% Custom Question 3 The City of Yakima is considering implementing a curbside recycling program To Percent of what extent do you support or oppose a curbside recycling program in Yakima? respondents Strongly support 60% Somewhat support 28% Somewhat oppose 5% Strongly oppose 7% To Total 100% 0 0 a cu 0 a r The National Citizen SurveyTM 51 City of Yakima I 2012 APPENDIX A: COMPLETE SURVEY FREQUENCIES FREQUENCIES EXCLUDING "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES Question 1 Quality of Life Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Yakima Excellent Good Fair "Poor Total Yakima as a place to live 9% 41% 37% 14% 100% Your neighborhood as a place to live 15% 46% 28% 12% 1 00% Yakima as a place to raise children 5% 33% 40% 22% 1 00% Yakima as a place to work 7% 31 % 40% 23% 100% Yakima as a place to retire 11 % 35% 27% 28% 1 00% The overall quality of life in Yakima 5% 39% 41% 16% 1 00% Question 2 Community Characteristics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Yakima as a whole Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Sense of community 3% 31% 47% 19% 100% Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 5% 30% 40% 25% 100% Overall appearance of Yakima 3% 26% 47% 23% 1 00% Cleanliness of Yakima 4% 27% 43% 25% 1 00% Overall quality of new development in Yakima 6% 32% 38% 23% 1 00% Variety of housing options 7% 39% 36% 18% 1 00% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Yakima 6% 38% 43% 13% 100% Shopping opportunities 8% 31 % 38% 23% 100% Opportunities to attend cultural activities 8% 34% 39% 19% 100% iv Recreational opportunities 9% 32% 31% 28% 1 00% • Employment opportunities 2% 13% 43% 42% 100% Educational opportunities 7% 40% 38% 16% 100% Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 6% 31 °/° 50% 12% 1 00% To Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and • activities 17% 45% 31% 7% 100% Opportunities to volunteer 19% 46% 28% 7% 100% Opportunities to participate in community matters 9% 36% 41°/0 14% 1 00% Ease of car travel in Yakima 15% 49% 29% 7% 100% • Ease of bus travel in Yakima 16% 47% 27% 10% 1 00% N 0 Ease of bicycle travel in Yakima 11 % 32% 34% 23% 1 00% • Ease of walking in Yakima 14% 34% 35% 17% 100% Availability of paths and walking trails 15% 34% 34% 17% 1 00% Traffic flow on major streets 6% 36% 42% 16% 1 00% The National Citizen SurveyTM 52 City of Yakima I 2012 Question 2 Community Characteristics L Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate jo Yakima as a whole Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Amount of public parking 6% 31% 38% 24% 100% Availability of affordable quality housing 4% 29% 39% 28% 100% Availability of affordable quality child care 5% 22% 43% 31% 100% Air quality 8% 42% 38% 12% 100% Quality of overall natural environment in Yakima 9% 40% 40% 11% 100% Overall image or reputation of Yakima 3% 16% 32% 49% 100% Question 3 Growth V Please rate the speed of growth Much in the following categories in too Somewhat Right Somewhat Much Yakima over the past 2 years slow too slow amount too fast too fast Total Population growth 2% 9% 39% 34% 17% 100% Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc) 12% 37% 41% 5% 4% 100% Jobs growth 40% 46% 12% 2% 1% 100% Question 4 Code Enforcement To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a Percent of Ir problem in Yakima? respondents Not a problem 3% Minor problem 14% Moderate problem 46% Major problem 37% Total 100% V c iv Question 5 Community Safety Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very ro cu Yakima safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe Total To Violent crime (e g, rape, assault, o robbery) 3% 23% 21% 31% 22% 100% z Property crimes (e g , burglary, • theft) 2% 15% 16% 30% 37% 100% R Environmental hazards, • including toxic waste 20% 36% 25% 15% 4% 100% C N V 76 c a r Z cu L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 53 City of Yakima I 2012 Question 6 Personal Safety Please rate how safe or Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very unsafe you feel safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe Total In your neighborhood during the day 37% 40°/° 9% 11% 3% 100% In your neighborhood after dark 14% 36% 15% 22% 14% 100% In Yakima's commercial areas during the day 21% 41% 19% 14 °I° 5 °I° 100% In Yakima's commercial areas after dark 3% 20% 18% 31% 28% 100% Question 7 Contact with Police Department Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Yakima Police Department within the last 12 months? No Yes Total Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Yakima Police Department within the last 12 months? 61 % 39 °I° 100% = Question 8 Ratings of Contact with Police Department What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City of Yakima Police Department? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City of Yakima Police Department? 26 °I° 34 °I° 23% 17 °I° 100% Question 9 Crime Victim During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of Percent of any crime? respondents 0 No 74% c Yes 26 °/° c u Total 100% L U ro N N Q1 To Question 10 Crime Reporting 0 Percent of z I f yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? respondents a No 19% a Yes 81% c Total 100% N V 76 c a ra Z cu L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 54 City of Yakima I 2012 Question 11 Resident Behaviors In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members Once 3 to 13 to More participated in the following activities in or 12 26 than 26 Yakima? Never twice times times times Total Used Yakima public libraries or their services 40% 27% 21 % 6% 6% 100% Used Yakima recreation centers 40% 24 °I° 23 °I° 9°I° 5 °I° 100% Participated in a recreation program or activity 48% 27 °I° 17 °I° 6 °I° 3 °I° 100% Visited a neighborhood park or City park 13% 23% 35% 16% 14% 100% Ridden a local bus within Yakima 68% 14 °I° 9% 3 °I° 6 °I° 100% Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 82 °I° 14 °I° 3% 0% 1% 100% Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other City- sponsored public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media 53% 26% 16% 2% 2% 100% Visited the City of Yakima Web site (at www yakimawa gov) 64% 20% 13% 3% 0% 100% Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 22 °I° 15 °I° 21% 16 °I° 26 °I° 100% Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Yakima 46 °I° 22 °I° 15% 7 °I° 10°1° 100% Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Yakima 40% 16% 13% 9% 22% 100% Participated in a club or civic group in Yakima 62% 1 7% 11% 4% 5% 100% Provided help to a friend or neighbor 3 °I° 18 °I° 40 °I° 18 °I° 21% 100% * Question 12 Neighborliness About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors Percent of (people who live in the 10 or 20 households that are closest to you)? respondents Just about everyday 28% • Several times a week 28% Several times a month 19% ro cu • Less than several times a month 25% To Total 100% 0 r Z > R a cu C Ch c N V To c 0 fo Z 0) L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 55 City of Yakima I 2012 Question 13 Service Quality I Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Yakima Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Police services 12 °I° 42 °I° 32% 15% 100% Fire services 28% 56% 14% 2% 100% Ambulance or emergency medical services 29 °I° 54 °I° 14% 3% 100% Crime prevention 5% 18 °I° 40% 38% 100% Fire prevention and education 8% 48% 36% 8% 100% Municipal courts 7% 35 °I° 42% 16 °I° 100% Traffic enforcement 7% 40% 38% 15% 100% Street repair 3% 19 °I° 31% 46% 100% Street cleaning 6% 36 °I° 41% 17 °I° 100% Street lighting 5% 36% 37% 22% 100% Snow removal 7% 29% 36% 28% 100% Sidewalk maintenance 3% 23% 41% 32% 100% Traffic signal timing 6% 38% 38% 17% 100% Bus or transit services 14% 48% 32% 6% 100% Garbage collection 27% 53% 17% 4% 100% Recycling 9% 35% 25% 31% 100% Yard waste pick -up 17% 42% 28% 14% 100% Storm drainage 6% 40% 39% 15% 100% Drinking water 16% 48% 26% 9% 100% Sewer services 14% 57% 27% 3% 100% Power (electric and/or gas) utility 17% 56% 23% 4% 100% City parks 10% 46% 35% 8% 100% Recreation programs or classes 6% 37% 43% 13% 100% Recreation centers or facilities 7% 36% 43% 14% 100% c iv Land use, planning and zoning 3% 25% 42% 31% 100% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 2% 13% 39% 46% 100% U Animal control 4% 24% 35% 37% 100% ro • Economic development 3% 20% 43% 34% 100% To Services to seniors 8% 38% 39% 15% 100% c o Services to youth 5% 27% 38% 30% 100% z • Services to low- income people 11% 29% 30% 30% 100% • Public library services 19% 51 % 24% 7% 100% • Public information services 9% 39% 39% 14% 100% N Public schools 9% 36% 37% 17% 100% 0 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community o for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 8% 27% 38% 27% 100% z w L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 56 City of Yakima I 2012 L Question 14 Government Services Overall Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The City of Yakima 5% 40% 41% 14% 100% The Federal Government 4% 25% 46% 26% 100% The State Government 4% 26 °I° 46% 25% 100% Yakima County Government 3% 33% 44% 19% 100% Question 15 Recommendation and Longevity = Please indicate how likely or unlikely Very Somewhat Somewhat Very i you are to do each of the following likely likely unlikely unlikely Total Recommend living in Yakima to someone who asks 21% 38% 22% 20% 100% Remain in Yakima for the next five years 44% 29% 14% 12% 100% Question 16 Impact of the Economy l What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in Percent of the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be respondents Very positive 5% Somewhat positive 12% Neutral 43% Somewhat negative 29% Very negative 10°1° Total 100% Question 17 Contact with Fire Department Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the City of o Yakima Fire Department within the last 12 months? No Total Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the City of • Yakima Fire Department within the last 12 months? 86% 14% 100% U L U ro N Question 18 Ratings of Contact with Fire Department To What was your overall impression of your most recent contact O ro with the City of Yakima Fire Department? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total z >- What was your overall impression of your most recent contact • with the City of Yakima Fire Department? 50 ° /° 38% 8% 3% 100% cu c N V 76 c a ra Z cu L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 57 City of Yakima I 2012 Question 19 Contact with City Employees Have you had any in- person, phone or email with an employee of the City of Yakima Percent of within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? respondents No 58% Yes 42% Total 100% Question 20 City Employees What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Yakima in your most recent contact? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Knowledge 25 °I° 45 °I° 23% 7% 100% Responsiveness 25% 37% 24% 14% 100% Courtesy 32% 35% 20% 14% 100% Overall impression 27% 33% 23% 16% 100% Question 21 Government Performance Please rate the following categories of Yakima government performance Excellent Good Fair oor Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Yakima 4% 23 °I° 48% 25% 100% The overall direction that Yakima is taking 4% 24% 45% 27 °I° 100% The job Yakima government does at welcoming citizen involvement 5% 25 °I° 42% 29% 100% Question 22a Custom Question 1 Please indicate how much you would support or oppose each of the following ways to fund future street/road repairs in Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly iv Yakima support support oppose oppose Total I Annual $20 "car tab" fee on all registered vehicles 23% 27% 17% 33% 100% Sales tax increase 5% 19% 24 °I° 52% 100% To Property tax increase 4% 15% 18% 63% 100% a cu a r H The National Citizen SurveyTM 58 City of Yakima I 2012 Question 22b Custom Question 2 Please indicate how much you would support or oppose the City of Yakima Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly taking the following actions i support support oppose oppose Total Funding the construction of a new aquatics facility with a property tax increase 14% 25% 19% 42% 100% Funding the construction of a new aquatics facility with a sales tax increase 14% 25% 21% 39% 100% Funding the repairs of existing aquatics facilities with a property tax increase 9% 23% 24% 44% 100% Funding the repairs of existing aquatics facilities with a sales tax increase 10% 29% 25% 35% 100% Question 22c Custom Question 3 The City of Yakima is considering implementing a curbside recycling program To what Percent of extent do you support or oppose a curbside recycling program in Yakima? respondents Strongly support 60% Somewhat support 28% Somewhat oppose 5% Strongly oppose 7% Total 100% Question D1 Employment Status Percent of Are you currently employed for pay? respondents No 40% o Yes, full -time 46% c Yes, part -time 14% c0 Total 100% L U N N Question D2 Mode of Transportation Used for Commute To o During a typical week, how many days do you commute to work (for the longest Percent of days z distance of your commute) in each of the ways listed below? _ mode used R Motorized vehicle (e g , car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc) by myself 73% • Motorized vehicle (e g, car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc) with other children or adults 15% Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation 2% c N Walk 4% 70 Bicycle 1 c ° ra Work at home 4% • Other 1 L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 59 City of Yakima I 2012 M Question D3 Length of Residency Percent of How many years have you lived in Yakima? respondents Less than 2 years 4% 2 to 5 years 9% 6 to 10 years 12% 11 to 20 years 16% More than 20 years 59% Total 100% Question D4 Housing Unit Type IMMI Percent of Which best describes the building you live in? respondents One family house detached from any other houses 61 % House attached to one or more houses (e g , a duplex or townhome) 12% Building with two or more apartments or condominiums 22% Mobile home 3% Other 2% Total 100% 7 Question D5 Housing Tenure (Rent/Own) Percent of I s this house, apartment or mobile home respondents Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment 44% Owned by you or someone in this house with a mortgage or free and clear 56 °/° Total 100% V C Question D6 Monthly Housing Cost I U About how much is the monthly housing cost for the place you live (including N rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners" Percent of association (HOA) fees)? respondents f6 Less than $300 per month 6% 0 z $300 to $599 per month 26% $600 to $999 per month 37% cu $1,000 to $1,499 per month 19% $1,500 to $2,499 per month 11 % $2,500 or more per month 2% V 75 Total 100% c a ra Z cu L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 60 City of Yakima I 2012 Question D7 Presence of Children in Household Percent of Do any children 17 or under live in your household? respondents No 65% Yes 35% Total 100% 7 Question D8 Presence of Older Adults in Household Percent of Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? respondents No 73 % Yes 27% Total 100 % Question D9 Household Income How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources Percent of for all persons living in your household) responPercent dent Less than $24,999 36% $25,000 to $49,999 33% $50,000 to $99,999 23% $100,000 to $149,999 6% $150,000 or more 2% Total 100% Question D10 Ethnicity V of Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? respondents c u No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 68% L ro Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 32% Total 100% To c 0 ro Z > R a N C Ch C N N V C c a ro Z N L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 61 City of Yakima I 2012 Question D11 Race What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider Percent of * yourself to be) respondents American Indian or Alaskan Native 5% Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 2% Black or African American 1% White 73% Other 24% Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option Question D12 Age Percent of In which category is your age? respondents 18 to 24 years 7% 25 to 34 years 24% 35 to 44 years 15% 45 to 54 years 1 7% 55 to 64 years 12% 65 to 74 years 14% 75 years or older 10% Total 100% Question D13 Gender Percent of What is your sex? respondents Female 53% o Male 47% c Total 100% c N U L r o Question D14 Registered to Vote Percent of o Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? respondents z No 19% a Yes 78 0 /o R Ineligible to vote 4% c Total 100% N N V 76 c a ra Z N L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 62 City of Yakima I 2012 Question D15 Voted in Last General Election Many people don't have time to vote in elections Did you vote in the last general Percent of election? respondents No 30% Yes 65% Ineligible to vote 5% Total 100% Question D16 Has Cell Phone Percent of Do you have a cell phone? respondents No 16% Yes 84% Total 100% Question D17 Has Land Line Percent of Do you have a land line at home? respondents No 44% Yes 56% Total 100% Question D18 Primary Phone If you have both a cell phone and a land line, which do you consider your primary Percent of telephone number? respondents Cell 28% Land line 47% Both 25% Total 100% Q1 To A N Q1 a ro The National Citizen SurveyTM 63 City of Yakima I 2012 FREQUENCIES INCLUDING "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES These tables contain the percentage of respondents for each response category as well as the "n" or total number of respondents for each category, next to the percentage. Question 1 Quality of Life Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Don't Yakima Excellent Good Ik�ji IP'� _: >.Y° know Totaj Yakima as a place to live 9% 70 41% 333 37% 301 14% 113 0% 3 100% 821 Your neighborhood as a place to live 15% 119 46% 373 28% 226 12% 97 0% 3 100% 818 Yakima as a place to raise children 5% 41 31% 252 38% 307 20% 165 5% 43 100% 808 Yakima as a place to work 6% 51 30% 241 38% 309 22% 178 3% 27 100% 807 Yakima as a place to retire 10% 76 31% 251 24% 192 25% 197 11% 86 100% 802 The overall quality of life in Yakima 5% 39 39 °I° 315 40% 330 16% 126 1% 5 100% 815 Question 2 Community Characteristics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Mr Don't Yakima as a whole Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total Sense of community 3% 21 30% 238 46% 363 18% 144 4% 32 100% 798 c u Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of ro diverse backgrounds 4% 36 30% 241 39% 317 25% 199 2% 20 100% 814 cu Overall appearance of Yakima 3% 28 26% 211 47 °I° 385 23% 189 0% 3 100% 815 To Cleanliness of Yakima 4% 36 27% 220 43% 353 25% 204 0% 1 100% 814 c O z Overall quality of new development in Yakima 6% 48 31 °/° 253 37 °I° 300 22% 179 4% 30 100% 810 • Variety of housing options 7% 56 37% 300 35% 281 17% 139 4% 30 100% 805 • Overall quality of business and service establishments in c Yakima 5% 45 37% 305 43% 352 13% 108 1% 7 100% 816 N Shopping opportunities 8% 63 30% 248 38% 308 23% 188 1% 5 100% 812 0 Opportunities to attend cultural activities 7% 58 31% 255 36% 296 18% 147 7% 59 100% 814 To o Recreational opportunities 8% 68 31 % 255 30% 249 27% 223 3% 21 100% 816 z Employment opportunities 2% 13 13% 103 42 °I° 333 40% 321 4% 29 100% 799 cu L H The National Citizen Survey"' 64 City of Yakima I 2012 Question 2 Community Characteristics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Don't Yakima as a whole Excellent I Good Fair Poo know Total Educational opportunities 7% 52 39% 308 36% 292 16% 125 3% 23 100% 800 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 6% 49 29% 236 46% 378 12% 94 7% 57 100% 814 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 15% 126 40% 328 28% 228 6% 50 1 1 % 89 100% 820 Opportunities to volunteer 18% 143 44% 354 27 °I° 215 6 °I° 50 6% 49 100% 812 Opportunities to participate in community matters 8% 62 32% 258 36% 289 13% 102 11% 84 100% 794 Ease of car travel in Yakima 14% 118 48% 393 28% 233 7% 60 2% 16 100% 819 Ease of bus travel in Yakima 12% 95 35% 285 20% 160 8% 63 26% 207 100% 810 Ease of bicycle travel in Yakima 9% 72 25% 203 27% 220 18% 145 21 % 171 100% 811 Ease of walking in Yakima 14% 110 32% 261 33% 270 17% 136 4% 35 100% 812 Availability of paths and walking trails 14% 115 33% 265 32% 261 16% 133 5% 40 100% 814 Traffic flow on major streets 6% 48 36% 289 41 % 335 16% 128 1` 11 100% 811 Amount of public parking 6% 49 30% 242 37% 303 24% 192 3% 22 100% 809 • Availability of affordable quality housing 3% 26 26% 211 35% 284 25% 202 10% 82 100% 806 Availability of affordable quality child care 3% 24 14% 109 27% 215 19% 154 37% 295 100% 797 • Air quality 8% 63 41% 333 37% 297 11% 92 3% 25 100% 809 Quality of overall natural environment in Yakima 9% 71 39% 315 39% 314 10% 82 3% 24 100% 807 Overall image or reputation of Yakima 3% 26 15% 125 32% 259 48% 389 2% 13 100% 812 To Question 3 Growth a a Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Yakima over the Much too Somewhat too Right Somewhat Much too Don't past 2 years slow slo) amount too fast fast know Total • Population growth 2% 12 8% 65 33% 266 29% 232 14% 114 15% 122 100% 811 V Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc) 12% 93 36% 287 39% 315 5% 40 4% 33 5% 38 100% 805 To • Jobs growth 35% 288 42% 338 10% 84 2% 12 1% 6 10% 84 100% 812 The National Citizen Survey"' 65 City of Yakima I 2012 Question 4 Code Enforcement I To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicles a problem in Yakima? Percent of respondents Count Not a problem 2% 19 Minor problem 13% 102 Moderate problem 44% 348 Major problem 35% 281 Don't know 6% 46 Total 100% 795 Question 5 Community Safety Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel Somewhat Neither safe nor Somewhat Very Don't from the following in Yakima Very safe safe unsafe unsafe unsafe know Tota Violent crime (e g, rape, assault, robbery) 3% 23 23% 188 21% 167 31% 255 22% 1 78 1% 5 100% 815 Property crimes (e g , burglary, theft) 2% 18 15% 121 16% 128 30% 243 36% 293 1% 12 100% 814 V Environmental hazards, including toxic c waste 17% 141 31% 254 21% 174 13% 103 4% 30 14% 112 100% 814 U L U ro Question 6 Personal Safety To Please rate how safe or unsafe you Somewhat Neither safe nor Somewhat Very Don't feel Very safe safe unsafe unsafe unsafe know Total In your neighborhood during the a day 37 °I° 303 40% 331 9% 71 11% 88 3% 26 0% 3 100% 821 In your neighborhood after dark 14% 112 36% 292 15% 120 22% 1 78 14% 112 0% 4 100% 819 In Yakima's commercial areas during the day 21% 167 41% 330 19% 155 13% 109 5% 39 1% 12 100% 813 V To In Yakima's commercial areas after 1 dark 3% 26 20% 161 17% 141 30% 245 27% 220 3% 23 100% 816 z cu L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 66 City of Yakima I 2012 Question 7 Contact with Police Department Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Yakima Don't Police Department within the last 12 months? No Yes know otal Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Yakima Police Department within the last 12 months? 60 °I° 484 38% 308 2% 16 100% 808 Question 8 Ratings of Contact with Police Department What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with Don't the City of Yakima Police Department? Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City of Yakima Police Department? 26% 79 34% 102 23% 70 17% 52 0% 0 100% 304 O Question 9 Crime Victim During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? Percent of respondents (! i No 72% 582 Yes 26% 210 c Don't know 2% 13 Total 100% 805 U L U ro cu 1 Question 10 Crime Reporting To M I If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? Percent of respondents Cou ro No 19% 39 z • Yes 81% 166 • Don't know 0% 1 cu • Total 100% 205 C N V To c c ra Z cu L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 67 City of Yakima I 2012 Question 11 Resident Behaviors In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the Once or 3 to 12 13 to 26 More than 26 following activities in Yakima? Never twice times times times Iota Used Yakima public libraries or their services 40% 324 27% 222 21% 1 70 6% 51 6% 52 100% 818 Used Yakima recreation centers 40 °I° 322 24% 192 23 °I° 186 9°I° 73 5 °I° 39 100% 812 Participated in a recreation program or activity 48% 386 27% 215 17% 135 6% 52 3% 23 100% 810 Visited a neighborhood park or City park 13 °I° 102 23% 186 35 °I° 280 16 °I° 128 14 °I° 113 100% 810 Ridden a local bus within Yakima 68% 546 14% 114 9% 73 3% 23 6% 52 100% 809 Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 82% 666 14% 112 3% 28 0% 2 1% 6 100% 814 Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other City - sponsored public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media 53% 436 26% 216 16% 130 2 °I° 20 2% 16 100% 818 Visited the City of Yakima Web site (at www yakimawa gov) 64% 510 20% 160 13% 103 3% 25 0% 3 100% 801 Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 22% 175 15% 120 21% 168 16% 126 26% 204 100% 793 Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Yakima 46% 372 22% 178 15% 119 7 °I° 59 10°1° 77 100% 805 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Yakima 40% 318 16% 127 13% 106 9% 75 22% 179 100% 805 U Participated in a club or civic group in Yakima 62% 504 1 7% 141 11% 87 4% 36 5% 43 100% 812 Provided help to a friend or neighbor 3% 28 18% 145 40% 326 18% 143 21% 1 70 100% 812 To Question 12 Neighborliness About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors (people who live in the 10 or 20 Percent of households that are closest to you)? respondents Count Just about everyday 28% 225 0 Several times a week 28 °I° 225 To Several times a month 19% 156 z Less than several times a month 25% 202 Total 100% 808 The National Citizen SurveyTM 68 City of Yakima I 2012 Question 13 Service Quality Please rate the quality of each of the following services in * Don't Yakima Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total Police services 11% 89 39% 320 30% 243 14% 112 7% 55 100% 818 Fire services 24% 195 47% 387 12% 100 2% 13 15% 125 100% 821 Ambulance or emergency medical services 24% 199 45% 368 12% 98 2% 19 16% 133 100% 817 Crime prevention 4% 33 16% 129 36% 291 34% 277 10°1° 85 100% 815 Fire prevention and education 6% 51 37% 305 28% 231 6% 51 22% 175 100% 814 Municipal courts 5% 39 24% 198 30% 243 11% 92 29% 240 100% 813 Traffic enforcement 6% 49 36% 291 34% 278 14% 112 10% 84 100% 813 Street repair 3% 24 19 °I° 153 31% 249 45% 368 2 °I° 17 100% 812 Street cleaning 6% 49 35°1° 284 41% 328 1 7% 136 2 °I° 13 100% 810 Street lighting 5% 38 36% 290 37% 297 21% 1 72 2% 13 100% 811 Snow removal 6% 51 29 °I° 231 35% 285 27% 217 2 °I° 20 100% 804 Sidewalk maintenance 3% 26 22% 177 39% 312 30% 240 6% 52 100% 807 • Traffic signal timing 6% 49 37% 299 37% 300 1 7% 136 3% 26 100% 812 Bus or transit services 9% 74 32 °I° 260 21% 171 4% 32 33% 269 100% 805 L Garbage collection 26% 209 51% 413 16% 132 4% 32 3% 21 100% 806 Recycling 8% 62 30 °I° 242 22% 178 27% 218 13 °I° 106 100% 805 To Yard waste pick -up 13% 102 32% 256 21% 171 11% 85 23% 187 100% 802 • Storm drainage 5% 42 33% 265 33% 264 12% 98 16% 129 100% 798 Drinking water 16% 128 46 °I° 378 26% 209 9% 73 3% 26 100% 814 a Sewer services 12% 99 50% 398 23% 189 2% 18 12% 100 100% 804 Power (electric and/or gas) utility 16 °I° 132 54 °I° 436 22% 176 4% 33 3% 26 100% 803 • City parks 10% 80 43% 354 33% 273 8% 64 6% 45 100% 816 O Recreation programs or classes 4% 33 26% 208 30% 240 9% 74 31% 255 100% 810 To Recreation centers or facilities 5% 38 26 °I° 208 31% 246 10% 80 28% 225 100% 796 Land use, planning and zoning 2% 14 1 7% 137 28% 225 21% 166 33% 263 100% 805 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 2% 15 10 °I° 84 32% 259 38% 310 18 °I° 146 100% 814 The National Citizen Survey"' 69 City of Yakima I 2012 Question 13 Service Quality Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Don't Yakima Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total Animal control 3% 27 20% 163 29% 236 31% 251 16% 127 100% 805 Economic development 2% 18 16% 131 35% 283 27% 220 19% 153 100% 805 Services to seniors 6% 46 27 °I° 216 28% 225 10% 85 30% 241 100% 812 Services to youth 4% 29 20% 158 28% 228 23% 181 26% 206 100% 801 Services to low- income people 8% 64 22 °I° 174 23% 181 22% 1 78 25 °I° 199 100% 796 Public library services 15% 122 41% 331 19% 155 5% 43 20% 159 100% 811 Public information services 7% 52 28% 229 29% 230 10% 81 26% 212 100% 805 Public schools 8% 62 31% 246 31% 251 15% 116 15% 123 100% 799 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 5% 37 1 7% 130 24% 184 17% 132 37% 290 100% 773 Question 14 Government Services Overall i MMr Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided Mir Don't by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total The City of Yakima 5% 38 37% 301 39% 314 13% 109 6% 50 100% 812 The Federal Government 3% 26 21% 1 70 39% 317 22% 180 14% 115 100% 809 The State Government 3% 25 23% 180 40% 318 21% 1 70 14% 108 100% 802 Yakima County Government 3% 24 29% 235 38% 307 17% 137 13% 102 100% 805 To Question 15 Recommendation and Longevity Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do Somewhat Somewhat Very Don't A each of the following Very likely a likely a unlikely i unlikely know Total Recommend living in Yakima to someone who asks 21% 1 70 37% 300 21% 172 19% 157 2% 19 100% 818 Remain in Yakima for the next five years 43% 348 28% 227 14% 113 12% 97 3% 22 100% 806 To H The National Citizen Survey"' 70 City of Yakima I 2012 Question 16 Impact of the Economy What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think Percent of the impact will be respondents Count Very positive 5% 38 Somewhat positive 12% 101 Neutral 43% 349 Somewhat negative 29% 237 Very negative 10% 85 Total 100% 810 Question 17 Contact with Fire Department Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Yakima Fire Don't Department within the last 12 months? No Yes know Total Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Yakima Fire Department within the last 12 months? 86% 697 13% 110 1% 7 100% 814 Q1 Question 18 Ratings of Contact with Fire Department What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the Don't City of Yakima Fire Department? Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total A To What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City of Yakima Fire Department? 50 °I° 53 38% 41 8% 9 3% 4 1% 1 100% 108 Question 19 Contact with City Employees Have you had any in- person, phone or email with an employee of the City of Yakima within the last 12 months Percent of (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? respondents Count 0 No 58% 466 T Yes 42% 342 z Total 100% 808 The National Citizen SurveyTM 71 City of Yakima I 2012 Question 20 City Employees What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Yakima Don't in your most recent contact? Excellent Good Fair d Poor know Total Knowledge 25% 84 44 °I° 151 23% 77 7 °I° 24 1 % 4 100% 340 Responsiveness 25% 84 37% 125 24% 81 14% 47 1 % 3 100% 341 Courtesy 31% 107 35% 119 19% 66 14% 46 1% 3 100% 340 Overall impression 27 °I° 92 33 °I° 111 23 °I° 79 16 °I° 55 1 % 3 100% 340 Question 21 Government Performance Please rate the following categories of Yakima government Don't performance Excellent Good Poor know Total The value of services for the taxes paid to Yakima 3% 27 20% 165 42% 336 22% 175 13% 107 100% 811 The overall direction that Yakima is taking 3% 28 21°i° 169 40% 324 24 °I° 193 12% 97 100% 812 The job Yakima government does at welcoming citizen involvement 4 °I° 30 20% 162 34% 273 23 °I° 185 20% 159 100% 808 V Q1 Question 22a Custom Question 1 Please indicate how much you would support or oppose each of the following ways to fund future Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don't To street /road repairs in Yakima support j support oppose oppose know Total Annual $20 "car tab" fee on all registered vehicles 22% 179 26 °I° 209 16% 133 32 °I° 256 4% 35 100% 812 Z Sales tax increase 5% 41 18% 144 23% 179 49% 387 6% 44 100% 796 a Property tax increase 4% 28 13% 105 17% 134 58 °I° 457 8% 66 100% 790 To H The National Citizen SurveyTM 72 City of Yakima I 2012 Question 22b Custom Question 2 Please indicate how much you would support or I oppose the City of Yakima taking the following Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don't actions support support oppose oppose know Tota Funding the construction of a new aquatics facility with a property tax increase 13% 104 23% 185 18% 142 39% 317 7% 54 100% 802 Funding the construction of a new aquatics facility with a sales tax increase 13% 107 24% 189 20% 160 36% 290 7% 56 100% 802 Funding the repairs of existing aquatics facilities with a property tax increase 8% 67 21% 169 23% 180 41% 326 7% 56 100% 798 Funding the repairs of existing aquatics facilities with a sales tax increase 9% 73 27% 216 23% 186 32% 259 8% 68 100% 802 Question 22c Custom Question 3 The City of Yakima is considering implementing a curbside recycling program To what extent do you support or Percent of oppose a curbside recycling program in Yakima? respondents Strongly support 55% 449 c Somewhat support 26% 213 Somewhat oppose 4% 34 V Strongly oppose 7 °I° 56 To Don't know 8% 61 ° Total 100% 814 z > a N Ch N N V To ° z H The National Citizen SurveyTM 73 City of Yakima I 2012 Question D1 Employment Status Percent of Are you currently employed for pay? respondents U_ No 40% 318 Yes, full -time 46% 372 Yes, part -time 14 °I° 109 Total 100% 800 Question D2 Mode of Transportation Used for Commute During a typical week, how many days do you commute to work (for the longest distance of your commute) in each of the ways listed below? Percent of days mode used Motorized vehicle (e g , car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc) by myself 73% Motorized vehicle (e g, car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc) with other children or adults 15% Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation 2% Walk 4% Bicycle 1% iv • Work at home 4% L Other 1% V Q1 To Question D3 Length of Residency Percent of How many years have you lived in Yakima? respondents Count • Less than 2 years 4% 36 • 2 to 5 years 9% 74 6 to 10 years 12% 95 To 11 to 20 years 16% 132 • More than 20 years 59% 477 Total 100% 814 H The National Citizen SurveyTM 74 City of Yakima I 2012 Question D4 Housing Unit Type Percent of Which best describes the building you live in respondents siU_= One family house detached from any other houses 61 % 492 House attached to one or more houses (e g , a duplex or townhome) 12% 98 Building with two or more apartments or condominiums 22% 180 Mobile home 3% 23 Other 2% 13 Total 100% 806 7 Question D5 Housing Tenure (Rent/Own) Percent of I s this house, apartment or mobile home respondents Count Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment 44% 347 Owned by you or someone in this house with a mortgage or free and clear 56% 439 V c Total 100% 786 c uw U U ( Question D6 Monthly Housing Cost cu About how much is the monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property Percent of To tax, property insurance and homeowners" association (HOA) fees)? respondents Count 0 ro Less than $300 per month 6% 51 z • $300 to $599 per month 26% 205 R • $600 to $999 per month 37% 293 cu • $1,000 to $1,499 per month 19% 148 c N $1,500 to $2,499 per month 11% 84 U $2,500 or more per month 2% 15 To o Total 100% 795 ro z 0) L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 75 City of Yakima I 2012 Question D7 Presence of Children in Household Percent of Do any children 17 or under live in your household? respondents C. a mi No 65% 519 Yes 35% 285 Total 100% 803 Question D8 Presence of Older Adults in Household Percent of Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? respondents Cou No 73% 591 Yes 27 °I° 223 Total 100% 814 Question D9 Household Income How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please Percent of include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household) respondents Count c Less than $24,999 36% 277 $25,000 to $49,999 33% 258 $50,000 to $99,999 23% 175 To $100,000 to $149,999 6% 47 $150,000 or more 2% 17 a Total 100% 774 a To The National Citizen SurveyTM 76 City of Yakima I 2012 Question D10 Ethnicity Percent of Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? respondents C,.;sii _ No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 68 °I° 540 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 32% 250 Total 100% 790 Question D11 Race Percent of ■ What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be) r espondents Count American Indian or Alaskan Native 5% 37 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 2% 15 Black or African American 1% 8 White 73% 571 Other 24% 191 o Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option c U Question D12 Age ro cu Percent of To In which category is your age? respondents Count c ° 18to24years 7% 54 r > . 25 to 34 years 24% 198 R 35 to 44 years 15% 125 cu 45 to 54 years 17% 140 55 to 64 years 12% 100 N 0 65 to 74 years 14% 114 0 75 years or older 10% 77 z Total 100% 808 cu L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 77 City of Yakima I 2012 Question D13 Gender Percent of What is your sexy respondents Female 53 °I° 418 Male 47% 378 Total 100% 795 Question D14 Registered to Vote r Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? Percent of respondents Count No 18% 147 Yes 76% 615 Ineligible to vote 4% 29 Don't know 3% 21 Total 100% 813 V Question D15 Voted in Last General Election Many people don't have time to vote in elections Did you vote in the last general electionz I Percent of respondents Co Lodi U No 29% 236 Yes 64% 514 To Ineligible to vote 4% 36 Don't know 3% 24 p Total 100% 810 a To H The National Citizen SurveyTM 78 City of Yakima I 2012 Question D16 Has Cell Phone Do you have a cell phone? Percent of respondents Count No 16% 127 Yes 84% 684 Total 100% 811 Question D1 7 Has Land Line Do you have a land line at home? Percent of respondents Count No 44% 353 Yes 56% 458 Total 100% 811 Question D18 Primary Phone If you have both a cell phone and a land line, which do you consider your primary telephone number? Percent of respondents untl Cell 28% 98 Land line 47% 167 Both 25% 90 V Total 1 00% 355 To > a To H The National Citizen SurveyTM 79 City of Yakima I 2012 APPENDIX 8: SURVEY METHODOLOGY The National Citizen SurveyTM (The NCSTM) was developed to provide local jurisdictions an accurate, affordable and easy way to assess and interpret resident opinion about important community issues While standardization of question wording and survey methods provide the rigor to assure valid results, each jurisdiction has enough flexibility to construct a customized version of The NCSTM that asks residents about key local services and important local issues Results offer insight into residents' perspectives about local government performance and as such provide important benchmarks for jurisdictions working on performance measurement The NCSTM is designed to help with budget, land use and strategic planning as well as to communicate with local residents. The NCSTM permits questions to test support for local policies and answers to its questions also speak to community trust and involvement in community - building activities as well as to resident demographic characteristics. SURVEY VALIDITY The question of survey validity has two parts 1) how can a jurisdiction be confident that the results from those who completed the questionnaire are representative of the results that would have been obtained had the survey been administered to the entire population? and 2) how closely do the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do? To answer the first question, the best survey research practices were used for the resources spent to ensure that the results from the survey respondents reflect the opinions of residents in the entire jurisdiction. These practices include: • Using a mail - out /mail -back methodology, which typically gets a higher response rate than phone for the same dollars spent. A higher response rate lessens the worry that those who did not respond are different than those who did respond • Selecting households at random within the jurisdiction to receive the survey A random selection ensures that the households selected to receive the survey are similar to the entire population A non - random sample may only include households from one geographic area, or from households of only one type • Over - sampling multi - family housing units to improve response from hard -to- reach, lower income, or younger apartment dwellers • Selecting the respondent within the household using an unbiased sampling procedure, in this case, the "birthday method." The cover letter included an instruction requesting that the respondent in the household be the adult (18 years old or older) who most recently had a birthday, irrespective of year of birth • Contacting potential respondents three times to encourage response from people who may To have different opinions or habits than those who would respond with only a single prompt z • Soliciting response on jurisdiction letterhead signed by the highest ranking elected official or staff member, thus appealing to the recipients' sense of civic responsibility. • • Providing a self - addressed, postage -paid return envelope • Offering the survey in Spanish when appropriate and requested by City officials • • Using the most recent available information about the characteristics of jurisdiction residents to weight the data to reflect the demographics of the population The answer to the second question about how closely the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do is more complex. Resident responses to surveys are • influenced by a variety of factors For questions about service quality, residents' expectations for The National Citizen SurveyTM 80 City of Yakima I 2012 service quality play a role as well as the "objective" quality of the service provided, the way the resident perceives the entire community (that is, the context in which the service is provided), the scale on which the resident is asked to record his or her opinion and, of course, the opinion, itself, that a resident holds about the service Similarly a resident's report of certain behaviors is colored by what he or she believes is the socially desirable response (e.g., reporting tolerant behaviors toward "oppressed groups," likelihood of voting a tax increase for services to poor people, use of alternative modes of travel to work besides the single occupancy vehicle), his or her memory of the actual behavior (if it is not a question speculating about future actions, like a vote), his or her confidence that he or she can be honest without suffering any negative consequences (thus the need for anonymity) as well as the actual behavior itself How closely survey results come to recording the way a person really feels or behaves often is measured by the coincidence of reported behavior with observed current behavior (e g , driving habits), reported intentions to behave with observed future behavior (e.g., voting choices) or reported opinions about current community quality with objective characteristics of the community (e.g., feelings of safety correlated with rates of crime). There is a body of scientific literature that has investigated the relationship between reported behaviors and actual behaviors. Well- conducted surveys, by and large, do capture true respondent behaviors or intentions to act with great accuracy. Predictions of voting outcomes tend to be quite accurate using survey research, as do reported behaviors that are not about highly sensitive issues (e.g., family abuse or other illegal or morally sanctioned activities) For self - reports about highly sensitive issues, statistical adjustments can be made to correct for the respondents' tendency to report what they think the "correct" response should be. Research on the correlation of resident opinion about service quality and "objective" ratings of service quality tend to be ambiguous, some showing stronger relationships than others NRC's own research has demonstrated that residents who report the lowest ratings of street repair live in communities with objectively worse street conditions than those who report high ratings of street repair (based on road quality, delay in street repair, number of road repair employees) Similarly, the lowest rated fire services appear to be "objectively" worse than the highest rated fire services (expenditures per capita, response time, "professional" status of firefighters, breadth of services and training provided) Whether or not some research confirms the relationship between what residents think about a community and what can be seen "objectively" in a community, NRC has argued that • resident opinion is a perspective that cannot be ignored by government administrators. NRC principals have written, "If you collect trash three times a day but residents think that your trash • haul is lousy, you still have a problem " SURVEY SAMPLING To "Sampling" refers to the method by which survey recipients were chosen. All households within the ° City of Yakima were eligible to participate in the survey, 3,000 were selected to receive the survey r • These 3,000 households were randomly selected from a comprehensive list of all housing units within the City of Yakima boundaries. The basis of the list of all housing units was a United States Postal Service listing of housing units within zip codes Since some of the zip codes that serve the City of Yakima households may also serve addresses that lie outside of the jurisdiction, the exact • geographic location of each housing unit was compared to jurisdiction boundaries, using the most O current municipal boundary file (updated on a quarterly basis), and addresses located outside of the City of Yakima boundaries were removed from consideration 1 z The National Citizen SurveyTM 81 City of Yakima 1 2012 To choose the 3,000 survey recipients, a systematic sampling method was applied to the list of households known to be within the City of Yakima Systematic sampling is a procedure whereby a complete list of all possible items is culled, selecting every Nth one until the appropriate amount of items is selected Multi - family housing units were over sampled as residents of this type of housing typically respond at lower rates to surveys than do those in single - family housing units FIGURE 89 LOCATION OF SURVEY RECIPIENTS The National Citizen SurveyTM Yakima, WA 2012 ♦ • • . • i • •...• .•I .♦ •. ▪ •• •••• •••••..... • • r .t...• $» • %Iry .. •'1 •tt.• • • • f •• :.:•• ..• • _ ■• • ::• - ;.• : • •.w• .. t • » • • • t••� • • • .•• • • -• ••• • • r• :• .•• ••.. • - • • • •• • • is ' �P • • •.• C:; ••. :••••:••••y•: ;•• •••• • • .•:•S• . • • • . ; ••1•• • 1 . ••. •• • •• • .t • :. .• ... • -• . j •• ::•': iw:t.•.•.• :• . •.},r •► -• • • •••:.; .. • • •I • • • - • •.•. •. • :• • • •.. •.l • • .• • •... p • • • N • • r •• • . +••t � . t.. ...• •.•. •• i • • 1 r .. •�• . ; •• 1 r .._. • •. .. •.. 1. • . • •.. • •• ▪ 1: *•4.. • .• • • • .., • • • •:• •.:: ii• • :!•.!.• • •u•1• • • •�• -• • •,4 • .• • •.••.• • • . •.• . •... • • . .•.:. . .• st •'E..• :.•. .,8t (4.:***, '. • ••r • :. 1 . - -. t . • �.. •1 • • t•• *..: _ •• ..... •• :: • • .• 1 •y .. • • Survey Recipient An individual within each household was selected 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 The National Citizen Survey" 82 City of Yakima I 2012 In response to the growing number of the cell-phone population (so- called "cord cutters "), which includes a large proportion of young adults, questions about cell phones and land lines are included on The NCSTM questionnaire. As of the middle of 2010 (the most recent estimates available as of the end of 2010), 26 6% of U S households had a cell phone but no Iandline'Among younger adults (age 18 -34), 53.7% of households were "cell- only." Based on survey results, Yakima has a "cord cutter" population greater than the nationwide 2010 estimates FIGURE 90 PREVALENCE OF CELL -PHONE ONLY RESPONDENTS IN YAKIMA Overall 40 ° I° 55 + 16% 35 -54 40% 18 -34 69 • 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Percent of respondents reporting having a "cell phone" only SURVEY ADMINISTRATION Selected households received three mailings, one week apart, beginning June 22, 2012 The first mailing was a prenotification postcard announcing the upcoming survey The next mailing contained a letter from the mayor inviting the household to participate, a questionnaire and a postage -paid return envelope The final mailing contained a reminder letter, another survey and a postage -paid return envelope 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. Completed surveys were collected over the following six weeks All selected households were mailed surveys in both English and Spanish, and were given the • option of completing the survey online Of the 837 completed surveys, 40 were completed in Spanish and 34 were completed online. SURVEY RESPONSE RATE AND CONFIDENCE INTERVALS It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a "level of confidence" and accompanying "confidence interval" (or margin of error) A traditional level of confidence, and • the one used here, is 95 %. The 95% confidence interval can be any size and quantifies the z sampling error or imprecision of the survey results because some residents' opinions are relied on • to estimate all residents' opinions The confidence interval for the City of Yakima survey is no • greater than plus or minus three percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (837 completed surveys). • A 95% confidence interval indicates that for every 100 random samples of this many residents, 95 0 of the confidence intervals created will include the "true" population response This theory is 1 • applied in practice to mean that the "true" perspective of the target population lies within the 1 http / /www cdc gov /nchs/ data/ nhis /eariyreiease /wireless20l012 pdf The National Citizen SurveyTM 83 City of Yakima I 2012 confidence interval created for a single survey For example, if 75% of residents rate a service as "excellent" or "good," then the 4% margin of error (for the 95% confidence interval) indicates that the range of likely responses for the entire jurisdiction is between 71 % and 79 %. This source of error is called sampling error In addition to sampling error, other sources of error may affect any survey, including the non - response of residents with opinions different from survey responders. Though standardized on The NCS, on other surveys, differences in question wording, order, translation and data entry, as examples, can lead to somewhat varying results For subgroups of responses, the margin of error increases because the sample size for the subgroup is smaller For subgroups of approximately 100 respondents, the margin of error is plus or minus 10 percentage points SURVEY PROCESSING (DATA ENTRY) Completed surveys received by NRC were assigned a unique identification number Additionally, each survey was 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 were assigned a unique identification number, they were entered into an electronic dataset This dataset was 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 U U To O r z > 0 ■ N 1 7 Ch C N N V 0 a I z N C H The National Citizen SurveyTM 84 City of Yakima I 2012 SURVEY DATA WEIGHTING The demographic characteristics of the survey sample were compared to those found in the 2010 Census estimates and the 2005 -2009 American Community Survey and other population norms for adults in the City of Yakima Sample results were weighted using the population norms to reflect the appropriate percent of those residents. 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 housing tenure, housing unit type, ethnicity and sex and age 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 detecting differences of opinion among subgroups • The importance to the community of correct ethnic representation The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey sample reflective of the larger population of the community This is done by 1) reviewing the sample demographics and comparing them to the population norms from the most recent Census or other sources and 2) comparing the responses to different questions for demographic subgroups The demographic characteristics that are least similar to the Census and yield the most different results are the best candidates for data weighting. A third criterion sometimes used is the importance that the community places on a specific variable For example, if a jurisdiction feels that accurate race representation is key to staff and public acceptance of the study results, additional consideration will be given in the weighting process to adjusting the race variable. A special software program using mathematical algorithms is used to calculate the appropriate weights. Data weighting can adjust up to 5 demographic variables. Several different weighting "schemes" may be tested to ensure the best fit for the data The process actually begins at the point of sampling Knowing that residents in single family dwellings are more likely to respond to a mail survey, N RC oversamples residents of multi - family dwellings to ensure their proper representation 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 apartment dwellers The results of the weighting scheme are presented in the table on the following page. To r a a 1 The National Citizen SurveyTM 85 City of Yakima I 2012 Yakima, WA Citizen Survey Weighting Table Characteristic Population Norm' Unweighted Data Weighted Data Housing Rent home 46% 32% 44% Own home 54% 68% 56% Detached unit 64% 66% 64% Attached unit 36% 34% 36% Race and Ethnicity White 72% 81% 69% Not white 28% 19% 31% Not Hispanic 67% 86% 68% Hispanic 33% 14% 32% White alone, not Hispanic 60% 76% 60% Hispanic and/or other race 40% 24% 40% Sex and Age Female ' - 51% 56% 52% Male 49% 44% 48% 18 -34 years of age 34% 12% 31% 35 -54 years of age 33% 27% 33% 55+ years of age 32% 61% 36% Females 18 -34 17% 8% 19% Females 35 -54 1 6% 1 5% 1 6% Females 55+ 18% 33% 1 7% Males 18 -34 18% 5% 13% Males 35 -54 1 7% 12% 1 7% Males 55+ 14% 28% 18% ' Source 2010 Census /2005 -2009 ACS U U N To O z 7 0 A 1 7 Ch C N V 0 a r z L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 86 City of Yakima I 2012 S U RVEY DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORTING The survey dataset was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Frequency distributions were presented in the body of the report Use of the "Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor° Response Scale The scale on which respondents are asked to record their opinions about service and community quality is "excellent," "good," "fair" or "poor" (EGFP) This scale has important advantages over other scale possibilities (very good to very bad, very satisfied to very dissatisfied, strongly agree to strongly disagree, as examples). EGFP is used by the plurality of jurisdictions conducting citizen surveys across the U S The advantage of familiarity was one that NRC did not want to dismiss when crafting The National Citizen Survey' questionnaire, because elected officials, staff and residents already are acquainted with opinion surveys measured this way. EGFP also has the advantage of offering three positive options, rather than only two, over which a resident can offer an opinion While symmetrical scales often are the right choice in other measurement tasks, NRC has found that ratings of almost every local government service in almost every jurisdiction tend, on average, to be positive (that is, above the scale midpoint) Therefore, to permit finer distinctions among positively rated services, EGFP offers three options across which to spread those ratings. EGFP is more neutral because it requires no positive statement of service quality to judge (as agree - disagree scales require) and, finally, EGFP intends to measure absolute quality of service delivery or community quality (unlike satisfaction scales which ignore residents' perceptions of quality in favor of their report on the acceptability of the level of service offered). *Don't Know" Responses On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer "don't know." The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. Benchmark Comparisons NRC has been leading the strategic use of surveys for local governments since 1991, when the principals of the company wrote the first edition of what became the classic text on citizen surveying. In Citizen Surveys how to do them, how to use them, what they mean, published by ICMA, not only were the principles for quality survey methods articulated, but both the idea of benchmark data for citizen opinion and the method for gathering benchmark data were pioneered The argument for benchmarks was called "In Search of Standards." "What has been missing from a local government's analysis of its survey results is the context that school administrators can supply To when they tell parents how an 80 percent score on the social studies test compares to test results rTz from other school systems..." NRC's database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions whose residents evaluated local government • services Conducted with typically no fewer than 400 residents in each jurisdiction, opinions are • intended to represent over 30 million Americans NRC has innovated a method for quantitatively 0 integrating the results of surveys that are conducted by NRC with those that others have conducted. The integration methods have been thoroughly described not only in the Citizen Surveys book, but z also in Public Administration Review, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management Scholars who • specialize in the analysis of citizen surveys regularly have relied on this work (e.g., Kelly, J. & The National Citizen SurveyTM 87 City of Yakima I 2012 Swindell, D (2002) Service quality variation across urban space First steps towards a model of citizen satisfaction. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24, 271 -288.; 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, 331- 341). The method described in those publications is refined regularly and statistically tested on a growing number of citizen surveys in NRC's proprietary databases NRC's work on calculating national benchmarks for resident opinions about service delivery and quality of life won the Samuel C. May award for research excellence from the Western Governmental Research Association. 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 Role of Comparisons Benchmark comparisons are used for performance measurement Jurisdictions use the comparative information to help interpret their own citizen survey results, to create or revise community plans, to evaluate the success of policy or budget decisions and to measure local government 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" citizen evaluations, jurisdictions need to know how others rate their services to understand if "good" is good enough. Furthermore, in the absence of national or peer community comparisons, a jurisdiction is left with comparing its fire protection rating to its street maintenance rating. That comparison is unfair Streets always lose to fire More important and harder questions need to be asked; for example, how do residents' ratings of fire service compare to opinions about fire service in other communities? 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 it intends to protect believe services are not very good compared to ratings given by residents to their own objectively "worse" departments. The benchmark data can help that police department — or any department — to understand how well citizens think it is doing Without the comparative data, it would be like bowling in a tournament without knowing • what the other teams are scoring. NRC recommends that citizen opinion be used in conjunction with other sources of data about budget, personnel and politics to help managers know how to respond to comparative results Jurisdictions in the benchmark database are distributed geographically across the country and range from small to large in population size. Most commonly, comparisons are made to the entire To • database. Comparisons may also be made to subsets of jurisdictions (for example, within a given z region or population category) Despite the differences in jurisdiction characteristics, all are in the • business of providing local government services to residents. Though individual jurisdiction • 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 jurisdiction, like SAT scores in any teen household, bring pride and a sense of accomplishment. V Comparison of Yakima to the Benchmark Database The City of Yakima chose to have comparisons made to the entire database. A benchmark comparison (the average rating from all the comparison jurisdictions where a similar question was The National Citizen Survey"' 88 City of Yakima I 2012 asked) has been provided when a similar question on the City of Yakima Survey was included in NRC's database and there were at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked. For most questions compared to the entire dataset, there were more than 100 jurisdictions included in the benchmark comparison Where comparisons for quality ratings were available, the City of Yakima'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 crime victims, residents visiting a park or residents identifying code enforcement as a problem ) 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 the City of Yakima'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 your jurisdiction's rating and the benchmark is greater the margin of error, and "much above," "much below," "much more" or "much less" if the difference between your jurisdiction's rating and the benchmark is more than twice the margin of error. V C N C N U L U N N To C 0 r Z >- 0 R A ■ N 1 7 Ch C N N V 0 c a I Z N L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 89 City of Yakima I 2012 APPENDIX C: SURVEY MATERIALS The following pages contain copies of the survey materials sent to randomly selected households within the City of Yakima U U To O r z > 0 A N 1 7 Ch C N V 0 a I Z N H The National Citizen SurveyTM 90 Dear City of Yakima Resident, Estimado residente de la Dear City of Yakima Resident, Estimado residente de la Ciudad de Yakima, Ciudad de Yakima, Your household has been Your household has been randomly selected to Su hogar ha sido randomly selected to Su hogar ha sido participate in a citizen survey selecaonado para participar en participate in a citizen survey selecaonado para participar en about the City of Yakima You una encuesta anonima de about the City of Yakima You una encuesta anonima de will receive a copy of the ciudadanos sobre la Ciudad de will receive a copy of the ciudadanos sobre la Ciudad de survey next week in the mail Yakima Usted recibira una survey next week in the mail Yakima Usted recibira una with instructions for copia de la encuesta la proxima with instructions for copia de la encuesta la proxima completing and returning it semana por correo con instruc- completing and returning it semana por correo con instruc- Please be assured that your clones en completar y regresar Please be assured that your clones en completar y regresar answers will be kept la encuesta Gracias de answers will be kept la encuesta Gracias de anonymous Thank you in antemano por su ayuda con anonymous Thank you in antemano por su ayuda con advance for helping us with este proyecto advance for helping us with este proyecto this important project! importantei this important project! importantei Sincerely, Atentamente, Sincerely, Atentamente, ea LviriLit ear Mayor /Alcalde Mayor /Alcalde City of Yakima City of Yakima Dear City of Yakima Resident, Estimado residente de la Dear City of Yakima Resident, Estimado residente de la Ciudad de Yakima, Ciudad de Yakima, Your household has been Your household has been randomly selected to Su hogar ha sido randomly selected to Su hogar ha sido participate in a citizen survey selecaonado para participar en participate in a citizen survey selecaonado para participar en about the City of Yakima You una encuesta anonima de about the City of Yakima You una encuesta anonima de will receive a copy of the audadanos sobre la Ciudad de will receive a copy of the ciudadanos sobre la Ciudad de survey next week in the mail Yakima Usted recibira una survey next week in the mail Yakima Usted recibira una with instructions for copia de la encuesta la proxima with instructions for copia de la encuesta la proxima completing and returning it semana por correo con instruc- completing and returning it semana por correo con instruc- Please be assured that your clones en completar y regresar Please be assured that your clones en completar y regresar answers will be kept la encuesta Gracias de answers will be kept la encuesta Gracias de anonymous Thank you in antemano por su ayuda con anonymous Thank you in antemano por su ayuda con advance for helping us with este proyecto advance for helping us with este proyecto this important project! importantei this important project! importantei Sincerely, Atentamente, Sincerely, Atentamente, Loviti ear J Gar Mayor /Alcalde Mayor /Alcalde City of Yakima City of Yakima it: � Presorted i' `Y Presorted .- f First Class Mail First Class Mail `, "� ..ms' US Postage =`•' ' �t, US Postage 7 s OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL PAID :7 ` 7 OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL PAID • ' — : 1,' s 129 North Second Street Boulder co - •" .4 .% 129 North Second Street Boulde co � ' 'i' y Yakima, WA 98901 Permit NO 94 '; j ' . :� " Yakima, WA 98901 Permit NO 94 - -' C `:}�l�„ Presorted ---- ` ' t _ }, Presorted _ • y First Class Mail � First Class Mail • ' j US Postage = " "„•'• o'4 US Postage S; •. '....4 OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL PAID ,', • ' ; OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL PAID i 129 North Second Street Boulder CO i -- -1 . 129 North Second Street Boulder CO %U . • Yakima, WA 98901 Permit NO 94 '',,,,./ '. Yakima, WA 98901 Permit NO 94 >' -� 1 V " 'o, OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Micah Cawley, Mayor ti∎.• - ' ,l 'y 129 North Second Street Maureen Adkison, Assistant Mayor ' 's ' City Hall, Yakima, Washington 98901 Sara Bristol s Phone (509) 575 -6050 Fax (509) 576-6335 Kathy Coffey Rick Ensey .. ., Dave Ettl i . ".... Bill , .- Lover June 2012 Dear City of Yakima Resident The City of Yakima wants to know what you think about our community and municipal government You have been randomly selected to participate in Yakima's 2012 Citizen Survey Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed Citizen Survey Your feedback will help the City set benchmarks for tracking the quality of services provided to residents Your answers will help the City Council make decisions that affect our community You should find the questions interesting and we will definitely find your answers useful Please participate! To get a representative sample of Yakima residents, the adult (anyone 18 years or older) in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey Year of birth of the adult does not matter Please have the appropriate member of the household spend a few minutes to answer all the questions and return the survey in the enclosed postage -paid envelope Your responses will remain completely anonymous You may complete the survey online if you would prefer, at http / /www n -r -c com /su / yaki htm Your participation in this survey is very important — especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed If you have any questions about the Citizen Survey please call 509 - 575 -6050 Please help us shape the future of Yakima Thank you for your time and participation Sincerely, M icah Cawley Mayor ..) ''''' OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Micah Cawley, Mayor r �.• ' �, 129 North Second Street Maureen Adkison, Assistant Mayor f % City Hall, Yakima, Washington 98901 Sara Bristol r i r Phone (509) 575 -6050 Fax (509) 576 -6335 Kathy Coffey `� ' ••••' 2.1 Rick Ensey • ; ..... P° = Dave Ettl - --- Bill Lover July 2012 Dear City of Yakima Resident About one week ago, you should have received a copy of the enclosed survey If you completed it and sent it back, we thank you for your time and ask you to recycle this survey. Please do not respond twice. If you have not had a chance to complete the survey, we would appreciate your response The City of Yakima wants to know what you think about our community and municipal government. You have been randomly selected to participate in the City of Yakima's Citizen Survey Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed Citizen Survey. Your feedback will help the City set benchmarks for tracking the quality of services provided to residents Your answers will help the City Council make decisions that affect our community You should find the questions interesting and we will definitely find your answers useful. Please participate! To get a representative sample of Yakima residents, the adult (anyone 18 years or older) in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. Year of birth of the adult does not matter. Please have the appropriate member of the household spend a few minutes to answer all the questions and return the survey in the enclosed postage -paid envelope. Your responses will remain completely anonymous. You may complete the survey online if you would prefer, at. http• / /www n -r -c com /survey / yakima htm Your participation in this survey is very important — especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed If you have any questions about the Citizen Survey please call (509) 575 -6050. Please help us shape the future of Yakima. Thank you for your time and participation. Sincerely, 114 Glk Micah Cawley Mayor The City of Yakima 2012 Citizen Survey Please complete this questionnaire if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday. The adult's year of birth does not matter. Please select the response (by circling the number or checking the box) that most closely represents your opinion for each question. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only 1. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Yakima. Excellent Good Farr Poor Don't know Yakima as a place to live 1 2 3 4 5 Your neighborhood as a place to live 1 2 3 4 5 Yakima as a place to raise children 1 2 3 4 5 Yakima as a place to work 1 2 3 4 5 Yakima as a place to retire 1 2 3 4 5 The overall quality of life in Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Yakima as a whole. Excellent Good Farr Poor Don know Sense of community 1 2 3 4 5 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 1 2 3 4 5 Overall appearance of Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 Cleanl of Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of new development in Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 Variety of housing options ■ ■ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 Shopping opportunities F 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to attend cultural activities 1 2 3 4 5 Recreational opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 Employment opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 Educational opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to volunteer 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in community matters 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of car travel in Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of bus travel in Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of bicycle travel in Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of walking in Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of paths and walking trails 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic flow on major streets 1 2 3 4 5 Amount of public parking 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality housing 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality child care 1 2 3 4 5 Air quality 1 2 3 4 5 Quality of overall natural environment in Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 EDveral I image or reputation of Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 3. Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Yakima over the past 2 years. Much Somewhat Right Somewhat Much Don't too slow too slow amount too fast too fast know Population growth 1 2 3 4 5 6 Retail growth (stores, restaurants, etc) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Jobs growth 1 2 3 4 5 6 Page 1 of 5 jr ..-- he National Citizen Survey'' 4 To what degree, if at all, are run down buildings, weedy lots or junk vehicles a problem in Yakima? O Not a problem 0 Minor problem 0 Moderate problem 0 Major problem 0 Don't know 5 Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following in Yakima Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don t safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know Violent crime (e g , rape, assault, robbery) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Property crimes (e g, burglary, theft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don't safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know In your neighborhood during the day 1 2 3 4 5 6 In your neighborhood after dark 1 2 3 4 5 6 In Yakima s commercial areas during the day 1 2 3 4 5 6 In Yakima's commercial areas after dark 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Yakima Police Department, within the last 12 months? O No 4 Go to Question 9 0 Yes 4 Go to Question 8 0 Don't know 4 Go to Question 9 8 What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City of Yakima Police Department? O Excellent 0 Good 0 Fair 0 Poor 0 Don't know 9 During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? O No 4 Go to Question 11 0 Yes 4 Go to Question 10 0 Don't know 4 Go to Question 11 10 If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the police? O No 0 Yes 0 Don't know 11 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated to the following activities in Yakima? Once or 3 to 12 13 to 26 More than Never twice times times 26 times Used a public library or its services 1 2 3 4 5 Used Yakima recreation centers 1 2 3 4 5 Participated in a recreation program or activity 1 2 3 4 5 Visited a neighborhood park or City park 1 2 3 4 5 Ridden a local bus within Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public c meeting 1 2 3 4 5 a Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other City-sponsored u public meeting on cable television, the Internet or other media 1 2 3 4 5 5 Visited the City of Yakima Web site (at www yakimawa goy) 1 2 3 4 5 Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 1 2 3 4 5 ee Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 Participated in a club or civic group in Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 N Provided help to a friend or neighbor 1 2 3 4 5 5 12 About how often, if at all, do you talk to or visit with your immediate neighbors (people who live in the 10 or 20 0 households that are closest to you)? a 0 Just about every day • 0 Several times a week 0 Several times a month 5 0 Less than several times a month c N V ; C 0 Z a.) t H Page 2 of 5 The City of Yakima 2012 Citizen Survey 13 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Yakima- Excellent Good Fair Poor Don know Police services 1 2 3 4 5 Fire services ■ 1 2 3 4 5 Ambulance or emergency medical services 1 2 3 4 5 Crime prevention 1 2 3 4 5 Fire prevention and education 1 2 3 4 5 Municipal courts 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic enforcement 1 2 3 4 5 Street repair 1 2 3 4 5 Street cleaning 1 2 3 4 5 Street lighting 1 2 3 4 5 Snow removal 1 2 3 4 5 Sidewalk maintenance 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic signal timing 1 2 3 4 5 Bus or transit services 1 2 3 4 5 Garbage collection 1 2 3 4 5 Recycling 1 2 3 4 5 Yard waste pick -up 1 2 3 4 5 Storm drainage 1 2 3 4 5 Drinking water 1 2 3 4 5 Sewer services 1 2 3 4 5 Power (electric andlor gas) utility 1 2 3 4 5 City parks 1 2 3 4 5 Recreation programs or classes 1 2 3 4 5 Recreation centers or facilities 1 2 3 4 5 Land use, planning and zoning 1 2 3 4 5 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 1 2 3 4 5 Animal control 1 2 3 4 5 Economic development 1 2 3 4 5 Services to seniors 1 2 3 4 5 Services to youth 1 2 3 4 5 Services to low- income people 1 2 3 4 5 Public library services ] 1 2 3 4 5 Public information services 1 2 3 4 5 Public schools I I 1 2 3 4 5 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 1 2 3 4 5 14 Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don know The City of Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 The Federal Government 1 2 3 4 5 The State Government 1 2 3 4 5 Yakima County Government 1 2 3 4 5 15 Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following. Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don't likely likely unlikely unlikely know Recommend living in Yakima to someone who asks 1 2 3 4 5 Remain in Yakima for the next five years 1 2 3 4 5 16 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 0 Very positive 0 Somewhat positive 0 Neutral 0 Somewhat negative 0 Very negative Page 3 of 5 A e."- he National Citizen Survey'' 17 Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Yakima Fire Department within the last 12 months? O No 4 Go to Question 19 0 Yes 4 Go to Question 18 0 Don't know 4 Go to Question 19 18 What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City of Yakima Fire Department? 0 Excellent 0 Good 0 Fair 0 Poor 0 Don't know 19 Have you had any in- person, phone or email contact with an employee of the City of Yakima within the last 12 months (including police, receptionists, planners or any others)? O No 4 Go to Question 21 0 Yes 4 Go to Question 20 20 What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Yakima in your most recent contact? (Rate each characteristic below ) Excellent Good Fair Poor Don t know Knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 Responsiveness 1 2 3 4 5 Courtesy 1 2 3 4 5 Overall impression 1 2 3 4 5 21 Please rate the following categories of Yakima government performance Excellent Good Fair Poor Don t know The value of services for the taxes paid to Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 The overall direction that Yakima is taking 1 2 3 4 5 The job Yakima government does at welcoming citizen involvement 1 2 3 4 5 22 Please check the response that comes closest to your opinion for each of the following questions a Please indicate how much you would support or oppose each of the following ways to fund future street/road repairs in Yakima Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don't Support support oppose oppose know Annual $20 "car tab" fee on all registered vehicles 1 2 3 4 5 Sales tax increase 1 2 3 4 5 Property tax increase 1 2 3 4 5 b Please indicate how much you would support or oppose the City of Yakima taking the following actions Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Don't Support support oppose oppose know Funding the construction of a new aquatics facility with a property tax increase 1 2 3 4 5 u Funding the construction of a new aquatics facility with a sales tax increase 1 2 3 4 5 Funding the repairs of existing aquatics facilities with a u t property tax increase 1 2 3 4 5 2 Funding the repairs of existing aquatics facilities with a ee sales tax increase 1 2 3 4 5 c 0 i c The City of Yakima is considering implementing a curbside recycling program To what extent do you support or N oppose a curbside recycling program in Yakima? 5 O Strongly support o O Somewhat support ° 0 Somewhat oppose O Strongly oppose a O Don't know > 5 c N V c 0 0 Z a) t '— Page 4 of 5 The City of Yakima 2012 Citizen Survey 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 D1. Are you currently employed for pay? D8. Are you or any other members of your household aged O No 4 Go to Question D3 65 or older? 0 Yes, full time 4 Go to Question D2 0 No 0 Yes 0 Yes, part time 4 Go to Question D2 D9. How much do you anticipate your household's total D2. During a typical week, how many days do you income before taxes will be for the current year? commute to work (for the longest distance of (Please include in your total income money from all your commute) in each of the ways listed below? sources for all persons living in your household.) (Enter the total number of days, using whole 0 Less than $24,999 numbers) 0 $25,000 to $49,999 Motorized vehicle (e g, car, truck, van, 0 $50,000 to $99,999 motorcycle, etc) by myself days 0 $100,000 to $149,999 Motorized vehicle (e g, car, truck, van, 0 $150,000 or more motorcycle, etc) with other children or adults ays Please respond to both questions D10 and D11• Bus, rail, subway or other public transportation days D10 Are you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Walk days 0 No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino Bicycle days 0 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic Work at home days or Latino Other days D11 What is your race? (Mark one or more races to D3. How many years have you lived in Yakima? indicate what race you consider yourself to be ) 0 Less than 2 years 0 11 years 0 American Indian or Alaskan Native 0 2 -5 years 0 More than 20 years 0 Asian, Asian Indian or Pacific Islander 0 6-10 years 0 Black or African American 0 White D4. Which best describes the building you live in? 0 Other O One family house detached from any other houses 0 House attached to one or more houses (e g , a D12 In which category is your age? duplex or townhome) 0 18 - 24 years 0 55 -64 years 0 Bui lding with two or more apartments or 0 25-34 years 0 65-74 years condominiums 0 35-44 years 0 75 years or older 0 Mobile home 0 45 -54 years O Other D13. What is your sex? D5 Is this house, apartment or mobile home 0 Female 0 Male O Rented for cash or occupied without cash payment? D14. Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? O Owned by you or someone in this house with a 0 No 0 Ineligible to vote mortgage or free and clear? 0 Yes 0 Don't know D6 About how much is your monthly housing cost for D15. Many people don't have time to vote in elections. the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, Did you vote in the last general election? property tax, property insurance and homeowners' 0 No 0 Ineligible to vote association (HOA) fees)? 0 Yes 0 Don't know O Less than $300 per month 0 $300 to $599 per month D16. Do you have a cell phone? 0 $600 to $999 per month O No 0 Yes O $1,000 to $1,499 per month D17. Do you have a land line at home? O $1,500 to $2,499 per month 0 No 0 Yes O $2,500 or more per month D18 If you have both a cell phone and a land line, which D7 Do any children 17 or under live in your household? do you consider your primary telephone number? O No 0 Yes 0 Cell 0 Land line 0 Both Thank you for completing this survey Please return the completed survey in the postage -paid envelope to National Research Center, Inc., PO Box 549, Belle Mead, NJ 08502 Page 5 of 5 o l • Y o, OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Micah Cawley, Mayor :`=..• �1 129 North Second Street Maureen Adkison, Assistant Mayor ' ':1 ° 's City Hall, Yakima, Washington 98901 Sara Bristol ` s Phone (509) 575 -6050 Fax (509) 576-6335 Kathy Coffey rr+ Rick Ensey ; • N° . Dave Ettl " .4',,,......,.- Bill Lover Junio 2012 Estimado residente de Yakima La Ciudad de Yakima desea saber que piensa usted sobre la comunidad y el gobierno municipal Su hogar es uno de entre de algunos hogares seleccionados al azar para participar en Ia Ciudad de Yakima 2012 Encuesta de los Ciudadanos Por favor tome unos pocos minutos para Ilenar la Encuesta de Ciudadanos adjunta Sus respuestas ayudaran a que el Concejo de la Ciudad tome decisiones para mejorar Ia entrega de los services a nuestra comunidad Encontrara que las preguntas son interesantes y nosotros definitivamente encontraremos que sus respuestas son utiles jPor favor participe' Para obtener una verdadera muestra representative de los residentes de Yakima, solicitamos que Ilene Ia encuesta el adulto que haya tenido su cumpleanos mas recientemente La edad del adulto no importa siempre que tenga 18 aiios de edad o mas Al seleccionar de esta forma a Ia persona que debe Ilenar Ia encuesta, se asegura que Ia encuesta en los hogares de Ia cudad mejorara Ia exactitud de los resultados Por favor tenga usted Ia seguridad de que sus respuestas se mantendran anonimas Usted puede completar Ia encuesta en nuestro sitio en red, si usted prefiere, en http / /www n -r -c com/survey/audaddeyakima htm Por favor, haga que el adecuado miembro del hogar pase unos minutes contestando todas las preguntas y devuelva la encuesta en el sobre adjunto con el franqueo pagado Si tiene alguna pregunta acerca de la Encuesta de los Ciudadanos por favor Ilamenos al 509 - 575 -6050 Su participacion en esta encuesta es muy importante especialmente puesto que su hogar es uno del pequeno numero que esta siendo encuestado Por favor, ayudenos a darle forma al future de Yakima Gracias por su tiempo y participacion Si ncceerr Q Micah Cawley Al cal de o, OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Micah Cawley, Mayor :`=..• �1 129 North Second Street Maureen Adkison, Assistant Mayor : T ° 's City Hall, Yakima, Washington 98901 Sara Bristol ` s Phone (509) 575 -6050 Fax (509) 576-6335 Kathy Coffey rr+ Rick Ensey N° = Dave Ettl " .4',,,......,.- Bill Lover Julio 2012 Estimado residente de Yakima Aproximadamente hace dos semanas habra recibido usted una copra de la encuesta que se adjunta Si usted la Ileno y la devolvio, le damos las gracias por su tiempo y le rogamos que ignore esta encuesta Por favor no responda dos veces Si todavfa no ha tenido la oportunidad de Ilenar la encuesta, le agradeceriamos su contestacion La Ciudad de Yakima desea saber que piensa usted sobre la comunidad y el gobierno municipal Su hogar es uno de algunos hogares seleccionados al azar para participar en la Ciudad de Yakima 2012 Encuesta de los Ciudadanos Por favor tome unos pocos minutos para Ilenar la Encuesta de Ciudadanos adjunta Sus respuestas ayudaran a que el Concejo de la Ciudad tome decisiones para mejorar la entrega de los servicios a nuestra comunidad Encontrara que las preguntas son interesantes y nosotros definitivamente encontraremos que sus respuestas son utiles i Por favor participe! Para obtener una verdadera muestra representativa de los residentes de Yakima, solicitamos que Ilene Ia encuesta el adulto que haya tenido su cumpleanos mas recientemente La edad del adulto no importa siempre que tenga 18 aiios de edad o mas Al seleccionar de esta forma a Ia persona que debe Ilenar Ia encuesta, se asegura que Ia encuesta en los hogares de Ia Ciudad mejorara Ia exactitud de los resultados Por favor tenga usted Ia seguridad de que sus respuestas se mantendran anonimas Usted puede completar la encuesta en nuestro sitio en red, si usted prefiere, en http / /www n -r -c com /survey /ciudaddeyaki ma htm Por favor, haga que el adecuado miembro del hogar pase unos minutos contestando todas las preguntas y devuelva la encuesta en el sobre adjunto con el franqueo pagado Si tiene alguna pregunta acerca de la Encuesta de los Ciudadanos por favor Ilamenos al 509 - 575 -6050 Su participacion en esta encuesta es muy importante especialmente puesto que su hogar es uno del pequeno numero que esta siendo encuestado Por favor, ayudenos a darle forma al futuro de Yakima Gracias por su tiempo y participacion Si nceramente, 11 egb,R/ Micah Cawley Al cal de Encuesta Ciudadana del 2012 de la Ciudad de Yakima Por favor complete este cuestionario si usted es el adulto (18 anos o mas) de su casa que mas recientemente haya celebrado su cumpleanos. El ano de nacimiento del adulto no importa. Por favor encierre en un circulo la respuesta que mejor represente su opinion en cada pregunta. Sus respuestas son anonimas y solo serail reportadas en forma general 1. Por favor clasifique cada uno de los siguientes aspectos de la calidad de vida en Yakima. Excelente Bueno Pasable Sato No se Yakima como lugar en donde vivir 1 2 3 4 5 Su vecindario como lugar en donde vivir 1 2 3 4 5 Yakima como lugar para criar ninos 1 2 3 4 5 Yakima como lugar para trabajar 1 2 3 4 5 Yakima como lugar para lubilarse/retirarse 1 2 3 4 5 La calidad general de vida en Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 2. Por favor evalue la forma en que cada una de las siguientes caracteristicas se relaciona en general con la Ciudad de Yakima- Excelente Bueno Pasable Salo No se Sentido de cooperacion comunitaria 1 2 3 4 5 Aceptacion de la comunidad a gente de diferentes antecedentes 1 2 3 4 5 Aspecto general de la Ciudad de Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 Limpieza de Yakima _ 1 2 3 4 5 Calidad general de desarrollo nuevo en Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 Variedad de opciones de vivienda 1 2 3 4 5 Calidad general de empresas y establecimientos de servicio en Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 Suficientes lugares de compra 1 2 3 4 5 Oportunidades para asistir a actividades culturales 1 2 3 4 5 Oportunidades de recreacion 1 2 3 4 5 Oportunidades para empleo 1 2 3 4 5 Oportunidades educativas MI ==I 1 2 3 4 5 Oportunidades para participar en eventos y actividades sociales 1 2 3 4 5 Oportunidades para participar en eventos y actividades religiosos o espirituales 1 2 3 4 5 Oportunidades para ser voluntario 1 2 3 4 5 Oportunities para participar en asuntos de comunidad 1 2 3 4 5 Facilidad para andar en carro 1 2 3 4 5 Facilidad para andar en autobus 1 2 3 4 5 Facilidad para andar en bicicleta 1 2 3 4 5 Facilidad para caminar 1 2 3 4 5 Disponibilidad de caminos y senderos para caminar 1 2 3 4 5 Flujo de trafico sobre las calles principales _ 1 2 3 4 5 Disponibilidad de Estacionamiento Publico _ 1 2 3 4 5 Disponibilidad de viviendas a precios accesibles 1 2 3 4 5 Guarderias infantiles a precios accesibles 1 2 3 4 5 Calidad del medio ambiente (acre) 1 2 3 4 5 Calidad del ambiente natural general en Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 Imagen /reputacion general de Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 3. Por favor evalue la rapidez de crecimiento durante los ultimos 2 anos en las siguientes categorias. demasrado un poco cantidad un poco muy no lento lento aproprada raprdo rapid() se Crecimiento de la poblacion 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cream lento del comercio (tiendas, restaurantes, etc) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Aumento de oportunidad de empleo 1 2 3 4 5 6 Page 1 of 5 jr ..-- he National Citizen Survey'' 4 IHasta que grado son problema los edifiaos en ruinas, lotes de hierba mala o vehiculos chatarra en Yakima? O No son problema 0 Problema menor 0 Problema moderado 0 Problema mayor 0 No se 5 Por favor clasifique que tan seguro o inseguro se siente usted de lo siguiente en Yakima muy mas o menos n, seguro mas o menos muy no seguro seguro n,,nseguro ,nseguro ,nseguro se Crimen violento (E1 violacion, ataque, robo) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Crimenes de propiedad (E1 robo, asalto) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Peligros ambientales, incluyendo desecho toxic() 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 Por favor clasifique que tan seguro o inseguro se siente usted muy mas o menos n, seguro mas o menos muy no seguro seguro n,,nseguro ,nseguro ,nseguro se En su vecindario durante el dia 1 2 3 4 5 6 En su vecindario durante la noche 1 2 3 4 5 6 En las areas comerciales de durante el dia 1 2 3 4 5 6 En las areas comerciales de durante la noche 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 L Ha tenido algun contacto en persona o por telefono con un empleado del Ciudad del Departamento de Policia Yakima dentro de los albinos 12 meses? O No 4 Vaya a la Pregunta 9 0 Si 4 Vaya a la Pregunta 8 0 No se 4 Vaya a la Pregunta 9 8 ICual fue la impresion general de su contacto mas reciente con el Ciudad del Departamento de Policia Yakima? O Excelente 0 Buena 0 Regular 0 Deficiente 0 Nose 9 Durante los ultimos 12 meses, l usted o alguno de los miembros de su familia fue victima de algun crimen? O No 4 Vaya a la pregunta 9 0 Si 4 Vaya a la pregunta 8 0 Nose 4 Vaya a la pregunta 9 10 L SI usted marco si, denuncio esos crimenes a la polhaa? O No O Si O No se 11 Durante los (iIhmos 12 meses, icuantas veces (usted o alguun miembro de su familia) panccipo en las siguientes actuvidades en la Ciudad de Yakima? / o2 3 13a mas de Nunca veces veces veces 26 veces Utilizo una biblioteca publica o de sus servicios 1 2 3 4 5 Utilizo los centros de recreacion de Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 Participo en programas o actividades recreativas 1 2 3 4 5 Visito un parque del vecindario o de la Ciudad 1 2 3 4 5 Utilizo un autobus local dentro de la Ciudad 1 2 3 4 5 Asistio a una reunion de autoridades locales u otra reunion u c publica 1 2 3 4 5 Mira una reunion de oficiales locales electos u otra reunion piublica patrocinada por la Ciudad en television por cable, la Internet u u t otros medio 1 2 3 4 5 2 Visito la Ciudad del sitio en red Yakima (en www yakimawa goy) 1 2 3 4 5 ee Reciclo papel, latas o botellas en su casa 1 2 3 4 5 Trabajo de voluntario en algun grupo o actividad 1 2 3 4 5 0 Participo en actividades religiosas o espirituales en Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 z Participo en un club o grupo civico en Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 ° Proporciono ayuda a un amigo o vecino 1 2 3 4 5 0 0 12 L Como que tan a menudo, si lo hate, habla o tuene visita con sus veanos inmediatos (gente que me en los 10 o 20 ° 0 hogares mas cercanos a usted)? O Casi todos los dias a O Varias veces por semana > O Varias veces al mes 5 O Menos de varias veces al mes N u c 0 0 Z a) t H Page 2 of 5 Encuesta Ciudadana del 2012 de la Ciudad de Yakima 13 Por favor clasifique la calidad de cada uno de los siguientes servicios en Yakima. Excelente B ueno Pasable Bap No se Servicios de la Policia 1 2 3 4 5 Servicios de Bomberos 1 2 3 4 5 Servicios de Ambulancia / Medicos de Emergencia 1 2 3 4 5 Prevencion de Crimenes 1 2 3 4 5 Education y Prevencion contra Incendios 1 2 3 4 5 Cortes Municipales 1 2 3 4 5 Imposition de las Leyes de Transito 1 2 3 4 5 Reparation de Calles 1 2 3 4 5 Limpieza de Calles 1 2 3 4 5 Iluminacion de Calles 1 2 3 4 5 Removimiento de Nieve 1 2 3 4 5 Mantenimiento de Aceras /Veredas 1 2 3 4 5 Regulation de Semaforos / Senates de Transito 1 2 3 4 5 Servicios de Autobiis / Transporte 1 2 3 4 5 Recoleccion de Basura 1 2 3 4 5 Reciclale '"U 1 2 3 4 5 Recolection de Desechos del Patio (lardin) 1 2 3 4 5 Drenajes 1 2 3 4 5 Agua Potable 1 2 3 4 5 Servicios de Caneria 1 2 3 4 5 Servicio (electrico y/o gas) de energia 1 2 3 4 5 Parques de Ciudad 11 2 3 4 5 Clases o Programas Recreativos 1 2 3 4 5 Centros de Recreacion 1 2 3 4 5 Uso, Plan ificacion y Zon ificacion de Terreno 1 2 3 4 5 Imposition de las Ordenanzas (mala hierba, maleza, edificios abandonados, etc) 1 2 3 4 5 Control de Animales 1 2 3 4 5 1esarrollo Economico 1 2 3 4 5 Servicios para Personas Mayores (de la tercera edad, Ciudadanos de oro, "seniors ") 1 2 3 4 5 Servicios para la luvent 2 3 4 Servicios para Personas de Rajas Recursos 1 2 3 4 5 Servicios de Bibliotecas Publican 2 3 4 Servicios de Information Piublica 1 2 3 4 5 Escuelas Publicas 1 2 3 4 Preparation de emergencia (servicios que preparan a la comunidad para desastres u otras situaciones de emergencia) 1 2 3 4 5 14. En general, iconic, evalua usted los servicios suministrados por... Excelente Bueno Pasable Bay) No se la Ciudad de Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 el Gobierno Federal 1 2 3 4 5 el Gobierno Estatal 1 2 3 4 5 Gobierno del Condado de Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 15 Por favor mdique que tan probable o improbable es usted para hacer cada uno de los siguientes- Muy Algo Algo Muy No Probable probable Improbable Improbable se Recomendarle vivir en Yakima a alguien que pregunta 1 2 3 4 5 Permanecer en Yakima para los proximos tinco anon 1 2 3 4 5 Page 3 of 5 he National Citizen Survey' 16 iQue impacto, si existe, piensa usted que la economia tendra en los ingresos de su familia en los pr6xumos 6 meses? Usted plena que el impacto sera O Muy positivo 0 Mas o menos positivo 0 Neutral 0 Mas o menos negativo 0 Muy negativo 17 iHa tenido algun contacto en persona o por telefono con un empleado del Ciudad del Deparlmento de Bomberos Yakima dentro de los ultumos 12 meses? O No 4 Vaya a la Pregunta 19 0 Si 4 Vaya a la Pregunta 18 0 No se 4 Vaya a la Pregunta 19 18 L Cual fue la impresion general de su contacto mas reciente con el Ciudad del Departmentamento de Bomberos Yakima? 0 Excelente 0 Buena 0 Regular 0 Deficiente 0 Nose 19 L Ha tenudo contacto personal, telefono o por correo electronuco con algun empleado de la Ciudad de Yakima durante los albinos 12 meses (ncluyendo polucias, recepcuonustas, planuficadores u otros)? O No 4 Vaya a la pregunta 21 0 Si 4 Vaya a la pregunta 20 20 ICual fue su umpresu6n de los empleados de la Ciudad de Yakima en su mas recuente contacto? (Evalue cada caracterustuca abajo ) Excelente Bueno Pasable Balo No se Conocimiento 1 2 3 4 5 Simpatia 1 2 3 4 5 Cortesia 1 2 3 4 5 Impresi6n General 1 2 3 4 5 21 Por favor clasufuque las suguuentes categoruas del desempeno gubernamental en Yakima Excelente Bueno Pasable Balo No se El valor de servicios para los impuestos pagados aYakima 1 2 3 4 5 La direcci6n general que esta tomando Yakima 1 2 3 4 5 La labor del gobierno de Yakima para incluir la participacion ciudadana 1 2 3 4 5 22 Por favor marque la respuesta que represente mejor su opinion en cada una de las suguuentes preguntas a Por favor unduque cuanto apoyaria o se opondria usted a cada una de las suguuentes maneras para funancuar reparos futuros de calleskamunos en Yakima Fuertemente Algo En algo Fuertemente No Apoyana apoyaria me opondria me opondria se Cuota anual para "marchamo de carro" de $20 sobre todos los vehiculos registrados 1 2 3 4 5 Aumento en el impuesto de yentas 1 2 3 4 5 Aumento en el impuesto sobre la propiedad 1 2 3 4 5 u t b Por favor unduque cuanto apoyaria o se opondria usted a que la Ciudad de Yakima realizara las suguuentes accuones u Fuertemente Algo En algo Fuertemente No t V Apoyarfa apoyaria me opondria me opondria se a) Financiar laconstrucci6n de una instalaci6n publica acuatica ee nueva con un aumento en el impuesto sobre la propiedad 1 2 3 4 5 0 Financiar laconstruccu6n de una unstalacu6n publuca acuatuca 03 nueva con un aumento en el impuesto de yentas 1 2 3 4 5 0 Financiar los reparos de instalaciones publicas acuaticas o existentes con un aumento en el impuesto sobre la propiedad 1 2 3 4 5 5 Financiar los reparos de instalaciones piublicas acuaticas ° 0 existentes con un aumento en el impuesto de yentas 1 2 3 4 5 . a c La Ciudad de Yakima esta considerando implemental. un programa de reciclaje que se recoge al lado de la acera 5 t Hasta que punto apoya o se opone usted a un programa de recuclate que se recoge al lado de la acera en Yakima? 0 0 Fuertemente apoyo O Algo apoyo O En algo me opongo 0 O Fuertemente me opongo z O Nose t Page 4 of 5 Encuesta Ciudadana del 2012 de la Ciudad de Yakima Nuestras ultimas preguntas son acerca de usted y su hogar. De nuevo, todas las respuestas son anonimas y seran ■ reportadas en forma general D1 Z Actualmente esta empleado con sueldo? D8. Tiene usted o cualquiera de los miembros de su O No 4 Vaya a la Pregunta D3 familia 65 anos o mas? O Si, tiempo completo 4 Vaya a la Pregunta D2 0 No 0 Si O Si, medio tiempo 4 Vaya a la Pregunta D2 D9. iCuanto cree usted que sera el ingreso de su familia D2 Durante una semana tipica, Z cuantos dias hace antes de impuestos para el ano actual? (Por favor un recorrido hasta el trabajo (para la mayor incluya en su ingreso total todo ingreso de todas las distancia que recorre) de cada manera en la lista personas de su casa.) de abajo? (Ponga el numer) total de dias, usando 0 Menos de $24,999 mimeros enteros.) 0 $25,000 a $49,999 Vehiculo motorizado (Ej carro, carrion, 0 $50,000 a $99,999 motocicleta, etc ) solo dias 0 $100,000 a $149,999 Vehiculo motorizado (Ej carro, carrion, 0 $150,000 o mas motoacleta, etc ) con otros Winos o Por favor responda a ambas preguntas D10 y D11. adultos dias Autobus, via ferrea, metro u otro D10 Z Es usted Espanol, Hispano o Latino? transporte piublico dias 0 No, no soy Espanol, Hispano o Latino Caminar dias 0 Si, me considero Espanol, Hispano o Latino Bicicleta dias D11 ? Cual es su raza? (Marque uno o mas grupos que Trabajar en el hogar MINE dias indiquen lo que usted se considera.) Otro dias 0 Indio Americano o nativo de Alaska D3 Z Cuantos anos tiene usted viviendo en Yakima? 0 Asiatico o de las Islas del Pacifico O Menos de 2 anos 0 11 -20 anos 0 Negro, Afro- americano O 2 -5 anos 0 Mas de 20 anos 0 Blanco / Caucasico O 6-10 anos O Otro D4. iCual describe mejor el edificio en el que vive? D12 Z En que categoria esta su edad? O Casa de una sola familia separada de cualquier otra 0 18 -24 anos 0 55 -64 anos casa 0 25 -34 anos 0 65 -74 anos O Casa adjunta a una o mas casas (p e1 , un 0 35-44 anos 0 75 anos o mas duplex o townhome) 0 45 -54 anos O Edificio con dos o mas apartamentos o D13. iCual es su sexo? condominios 0 Femenino 0 Masculino O Hogar me wl D14 Est registrado para votar en su jurisdiccion? O Otro 0 No D5. iEs esta casa, apartamento o casa rodante / 0 Si trailer es 0 No tengo derecho a votar O Alquilada o la ocupa sin pago? 0 No se O Propia, o alguno de su familia la paga con D15 Muchas personas no tienen tiempo para votar en las hipoteca o ya esta pagado? elecciones. iRecuerda usted haber votado en la D6 Como cuanto es su costo mensual de vivienda para ultima eleccion general? el lugar donde vive? (incluyendo renta, pago de 0 No 0 No tengo derecho a votar hipoteca, impuesto de propiedad, seguro de 0 Si 0 No se propiedad y cuotas de asociacion de propietarios D16. Usted tiene un telefono celular? (HOA))? 0 No 0 Si 0 Menos de $300 por mes O $300 a $599 por mes D17 Z Usted tiene una linea de Berra (conexion a la pared) O $600 a $999 por mes en el hogar? O $1,000 a $1,499 por mes 0 No 0 Si O $1,500 a $2,499 por mes D18 Si usted tiene tanto un telefono celular como una O $2,500 o mas por mes linea de tierra, is cual considera como su numero D7. iAlgun niiio de 17 aims o menos vive en su hogar? primordial de telefono? 3 No 0 Si 0 Celular 0 Linea de tierra 0 Ambos Gracias por completar esta encuesta Por favor regrese la encuesta en el sobre prepagado a• National Research Center, Inc , PO Box 549, Belle Mead, NJ 08502 Page 5 of 5 Presorted First Class Mail US Postage }'.1 "o, PAID t ....• ' "••.i OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Boulder CO 129 North Second Street „� . Yakima, WA 98901 PermdN094 ,V:, ;�s The National Citizen SurveyTM CITY OF AKI A, WA 2012 DRAFT Benchmark Report LJ T NATIONAL RESEARCH I mis C E N T E R gee 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, CO 80301 Washington, DC 20002 www n-r-c com • 303-444-7863 www icma org • 202- 289 -IC MA City of Yakima 1 2012 CONTENTS Understanding the Benchmark Comparisons 1 Comparison Data Putting Evaluations onto the 100 -point Scale 2 Interpreting the Results 3 National Benchmark Comparisons 4 Jurisdictions Included in National Benchmark Comparisons 1 U U To O r z > 0 A N 1 7 Ch C N V 0 a I z N H The National Citizen SurveyTM City of Yakima I 2012 UNDERSTANDING THE BENCHMARK COMPARISONS COMPARISON DATA NRC's database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 500 jurisdictions whose residents evaluated local government services and gave their opinion about the quality of community life. The 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 jurisdictions in the database represent a wide geographic and population range as shown in the table below. Jurisdiction Characteristic Percent of Jurisdictions Region West Coast' 1 7% West 20% North Central West 11% North Central East 13% South Central 7% South 26% Northeast West' 2 °I° Northeast East' 4% Population Less than 40,000 46% 40,000 to 74,999 19% 75,000 to 149,000 1 7% 150,000 or more 18% U Q1 Q1 U U °) Cl) To O r z >- 0 N 1 Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Hawai • z Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico } N — 3 North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota V 4 Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas • 6 West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Maryland, Delaware, Washington DC • ' New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey a Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine The National Citizen SurveyTM 1 City of Yakima 1 2012 PUTTING EVALUATIONS ONTO THE 1 00- POINT SCALE Although responses to many of the evaluative questions were made on a four point scale with 1 representing the best rating and 4 the worst, the benchmarks are reported on a common scale where 0 is the worst possible rating and 100 is the best possible rating The 95 percent confidence interval around an average score on the 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, "excellent" =100, "good " =67, "fair " =33 and "poor " =0. If everyone reported "excellent," then the average rating would be 100 on the 100 -point scale. Likewise, if all respondents gave a "poor ", the result would be 0 on the 100 -point scale If half the respondents gave a score of "excellent" and half gave a score of "poor," the average would be in the middle of the scale (like the center post of a teeter totter) between "fair" and "good." An example of how to convert survey frequencies into an average rating appears below Example of Converting Responses to the 100 -point Scale How do you rate the community as a place to live? Total Step 2 Step 4 Sum Total with Step1 Remove the without Assign Step 3 Multiply to calculate Response "don't percent of "don't "don't scale the percent by the average option know" know" responses know" values the scale value rating Excellent 36% =36— (100 -5)= 38% 100 =38% x 100 = 38 Good 42% =42 — (100 -5) = 44% 67 =44% x 67 = 30 Fair 12% =12— (100 -5)= 13% 33 =13% x 33 = 4 Poor 5% =5— (100 -5)= 5% 0 =5% x 0 = 0 Don't know 5% -- Total 100% 100% 72 How do you rate the community as a place to live? 5% 1 3% 44% 38% 0 33 67 100 Poor Fair Good Excellent L ro U 4) Q1 To O r z 7- 0 A N 1 7 Ch C Q1 N V To 0 0 1 Z 0) L The National Citizen SurveyTM 2 City of Yakima I 2012 INTERPRETING THE RESULTS Average ratings are compared when similar questions are included in NRC's database, and there are at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked Where comparisons are available, three numbers are provided in the table The first column is your jurisdiction's rating on the 100 - point scale. The second column is the rank assigned to your jurisdiction's rating among jurisdictions where a similar question was asked The third column is the number of jurisdictions that asked a similar question The final column shows the comparison of your jurisdiction's average rating to the benchmark. Where comparisons for quality ratings were available, the City of Yakima'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 crime victims, residents visiting a park or residents identifying code enforcement as a problem.) 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 the City of Yakima'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 your jurisdiction's rating and the benchmark is greater the margin of error, and "much above," "much below," "much more" or "much less" if the difference between your jurisdiction's rating and the benchmark is more than twice the margin of error This report contains benchmarks at the national level U U ro To O r z 7- ■ N 1 N N V a I Z N C H The National Citizen SurveyTM 3 City of Yakima I 2012 NATIONAL BENCHMARK COMPARISONS IMMM Overall Community Quality Benchmarks Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating Rank Comparison benchmark Overall quality of life in Yakima 44 380 390 Much below Your neighborhood as place to live 54 254 265 Much below Yakima as a place to live 48 321 327 Much below Recommend living in Yakima to someone who asks 53 197 203 Much below Remain in Yakima for the next five years 68 1 76 204 Much below Community Transportation Benchmarks Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating Rank Comparison benchmark Ease of car travel in Yakima 57 119 265 Above Ease of bus travel in Yakima 56 30 190 Much above Ease of bicycle travel in Yakima 44 1 72 262 Much below Ease of walking in Yakima 48 191 259 Much below Availability of paths and walking trails 49 133 201 Much below Traffic flow on major streets 44 153 253 Similar IIIME Frequency of Bus Use Benchmarks Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating Rank Comparison benchmark Ridden a local bus within Yakima 32 40 166 Much more 0 C N v ` a Drive Alone Benchmarks Yakima Number of Jurisdictions Comparison to r. 4 average rating Rank for Comparison benchmark N Average percent of work commute o trips made by driving alone 73 127 192 Similar ro z a R a N Ch C Cl) N V 76 C a ro Z N L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 4 City of Yakima I 2012 Transportation and Parking Services Benchmarks Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating Rank Comparison + benchmark Street repair 26 347 375 Much below Street cleaning 44 233 260 Much below Street lighting 41 261 281 Much below Snow removal 38 233 247 Much below Sidewalk maintenance 33 235 246 Much below Traffic signal timing 44 151 215 Below Bus or transit services 57 61 194 Much above Amount of public parking 40 159 205 Much below Housing Characteristics Benchmarks Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison til rating Rank Comparison benchmark Availability of affordable quality housing 36 209 269 Much below Variety of housing options 45 1 66 198 Much below I- _ Housing Costs Benchmarks Yakima Number of Jurisdictions Comparison to average rating Rank for Comparison benchmark Experiencing housing costs stress (housing costs 30% or MORE of income) 46 28 194 Much more o Built Environment Benchmarks c Yakima average N umber of Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating Rank Comparison benchmark 1 v Quality of new development in Yakima 41 231 248 Much below ro m Overall appearance of Yakima 37 294 301 Much below To c 0 ro Population Growth Benchmarks z Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for 1 Comparison to R rating Rank Comparison benchmark a) Population growth seen as c too fast 50 65 224 Much more m N V 76 c a ro Z a) L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 5 City of Yakima I 2012 . Nuisance Problems Benchmarks Yakima Number of Jurisdictions Comparison to average rating Rank for Comparison benchmark Run down buildings, weed lots and junk vehicles seen as a "mayor" problem 37 5 225 M uch more 1. Planning and Community Code Enforcement Services Benchmarks Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating Rank Comparison benchmark Land use, planning and zoning 33 243 268 M uch below Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 24 310 312 Much below Animal control 32 282 282 Much below Economic Sustainability and Opportunities Benchmarks Yakima Number of Jurisdictions Comparison to average rating Rank for Comparison benchmark Employment opportunities 25 223 268 Much below Shopping opportunities 41 204 257 Much below Yakima as a place to work 40 247 295 Much below Overall quality of business and service establishments in Yakima 45 1 70 193 Much below 7 11111m. Economic Development Services Benchmarks Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to I rating Rank Comparison I benchmark Economic development 31 233 254 Much below o C t) Job and Retail Growth Benchmarks v Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating Rank Comparison benchmark N Retail growth seen as too slow 50 59 224 Much more o Jobs growth seen as too slow 86 63 226 Much more nz z a a) Personal Economic Future Benchmarks ■ Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to N rating Rank Comparison benchmark 0 Positive impact of economy on f household income 1 7 108 219 Similar c a ro Z a) L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 6 City of Yakima I 2012 Community and Personal Public Safety Benchmarks Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating Jankj Comparison benchmark In your neighborhood during the day 74 285 295 Much below In your neighborhood after dark 53 278 287 Much below In Yakima's commercial areas during the day 65 250 255 Much below In Yakima's commercial areas after dark 35 252 262 Much below Violent crime (e g , rape, assault, robbery) 38 257 261 Much below Property crimes (e g , burglary, theft) 29 259 262 Much below Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 63 186 198 Much below K Crime Victimization an Reporting Benchmarks Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating Rank Comparison benchmark Victim of crime 26 7 232 Much more Reported crimes 81 107 230 Similar Public Safety Services Benchmarks Yakima I Number of average Jurisdictions for Comparison to I rating Rank Comparison benchmark Police services 50 357 366 Much below Fire services 70 269 296 Much below Ambulance or emergency medical services 70 241 286 Much below Crime prevention 30 300 303 Much below o c `m Fire prevention and education 52 240 247 Much below • Traffic enforcement 46 295 316 Much below U Courts 44 169 1 74 Much below N Emergency preparedness (services that prepare • the community for natural disasters or other c emergency situations) 38 210 216 Much below 0 az z A _c Contact with Police and Fire Departments Benchmarks Yakima v., average Number of Jurisdictions Comparison to N rating 1 Rank for Comparison benchmark v Had contact with the City of Yakima Police a Department 38 47 102 Similar c °- Overall impression of most recent contact ro Z with the City of Yakima Police Department 56 98 105 Much below a) L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 7 City of Yakima I 2012 Contact with Police and Fire Departments Benchmarks Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions Comparison to rating Rank for Comparison benchmark Had contact with the City of Yakima Fire Department 13 45 77 Similar Overall impression of most recent contact with the City of Yakima Fire Department 78 61 79 Much below Community Environment Benchmarks J Yakima average rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to Comparison benchmark Cleanliness of Yakima 37 200 205 Much below Quality of overall natural environment in Yakima 49 185 207 Much below Air quality 49 184 213 Much below Frequency of Recycling Benchmarks Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating Rank Comparison benchmark Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 78 144 216 Much less 7 Utility Services Benchmarks ' Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating Rank Comparison benchmark Power (electric and/or gas) utility 62 74 111 Below Sewer services 61 1 79 263 Below Drinking water 57 1 75 277 Below Storm drainage 46 264 31 6 Much below o Yard waste pick -up 54 190 225 Much below Q.) Recycling 40 292 303 Much below L Garbage collection 67 230 308 Below U ro N N a1 To Community Recreational Opportunities Benchmarks c Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to z rating Rank Comparison benchmark a R Recreation • opportunities 40 246 267 Much below c c m N V 76 C a r6 Z a) L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 8 City of Yakima I 2012 Participation in Parks and Recreation Opportunities Benchmarks Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating Rank Comparison benchmark Used Yakima recreation centers 60 59 185 More Participated in a recreation program or activity 52 57 21 7 Much more Visited a neighborhood park or City park 87 95 225 Similar Parks and Recreation Services Benchmarks Yakima average of Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating Rank + Comparison benchmark City parks 53 269 279 Much below Recreation programs or classes 45 276 282 Much below Recreation centers or facilities 45 229 239 Much below TMIL Cultural and Educational Opportunities Benchmarks Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating Rank Comparison benchmark Opportunities to attend cultural activities 43 208 274 Much below Educational opportunities 46 198 234 Much below l Participation in Cultural and Educational Opportunities Benchmarks T J Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating Rank Comparison benchmark Used Yakima public libraries or o their services 60 1 79 197 Much less t) Participated in religious or spiritual • activities in Yakima 60 23 140 Much more U L U ro a Cultural and Educational Services Benchmarks To Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to o rating Rank Comparison benchmark nz z Public schools 46 190 222 Much below a a Public library • services 61 273 293 Much below c c m N V 76 c a ro Z a) L I— The National Citizen SurveyTM 9 City of Yakima I 2012 Community Quality and Inclusiveness Benchmarks Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions Comparison to rating Rank for Comparison benchmark - Sense of community 39 268 273 Much below Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 38 246 249 Much below Availability of affordable quality child care 34 193 218 Much below Yakima as a place to raise kids 41 321 325 Much below Yakima as a place to retire 43 287 314 Much below 7 dr Services Provided for Population Subgroups Benchmarks Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating Rank Comparison benchmark Services to seniors 46 249 271 Much below Services to youth 35 236 252 Much below • Services to low income people 40 179 224 Much below Civic Engagement Opportunities Benchmarks ri min Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison t rating Rank Comparison benchmark Opportunities to participate in community matters 46 184 197 Much below Opportunities to volunteer 59 143 196 Much below Participation in Civic Engagement Opportunities Benchmarks Yakima Number of c ' average Jurisdictions for Comparison to t) Ma rating Rank Comparison benchmark • Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 18 200 227 Much less N Watched a meeting of local elected officials or • other public meeting on cable television, the To Internet or other media 47 50 184 Much more c o nz Volunteered your time to some group or activity z in Yakima 54 58 224 Much more a a Participated in a club or civic group in Yakima 38 43 165 Much more Provided help to a friend or neighbor 97 28 164 More c c N V 76 C a ro Z a) L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 10 City of Yakima I 2012 Voter Behavior Benchmarks Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating Rank Comparison benchmark Registered to vote 78 187 229 Much less Voted in last general election 65 192 229 Much less Use of Information Sources Benchmarks Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating Rank Comparison benchmark Visited the City of Yakima Web site 36 186 190 Much less S i Local Government Media Services and Information Dissemination Benchmarks Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating Rank Comparison benchmark Public information services 48 228 249 Much below 7 Social Engagement Opportunities Benchmarks Yakima Number of Jurisdictions Comparison to average rating Rank for Comparison benchmark Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 44 1 76 191 Much below Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 57 140 154 Much below o In II Contact with Immediate Neighbors Benchmarks Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating Rank Comparison benchmark c Has contact with neighbors at least u several times per week 56 33 183 Much more L ' U ra N N Q1 To Public Trust Benchmarks o Yakima Number of Jurisdictions Comparison to i ° average rating Rank for Comparison benchmark z Value of services for the taxes paid to > . Yakima 35 334 347 Much below m The overall direction that Yakima is m taking 35 278 290 Much below Job Yakima government does at v welcoming citizen involvement 35 272 287 Much below Ta o Overall image or reputation of Yakima 25 286 287 Much below is Z a) L I— The National Citizen SurveyTM 11 City of Yakima I 2012 Services Provided by Local, State and Federal Governments Benchmarks Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison rating Rank Comparison benchmar Services provided by the City of Yakima 45 344 358 Much below Services provided by the Federal Government 35 214 231 Much below Services provided by the State Government 36 202 232 Much below Services provided by Yakima County Government 40 150 168 Much below Contact with City Employees Benchmarks Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating Rank Comparison benchmark Had contact with City employee(s) in last 12 months 42 217 263 Much less Perceptions of City Employees (Among Those Who Had Contact) Benchmarks Yakima average Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison to rating Rank Comparison benchmark - Knowledge 63 272 298 Much below Responsiveness 58 269 291 Much below Courteousness 62 229 246 Much below Overall impression 57 308 337 Much below U N U To O z 7 0 A N 1 7 Ch C Cl) N V 0 a ro Z L The National Citizen SurveyTM 12 City of Yakima I 2012 JURISDICTIONS INCLUDED IN NATIONAL BENCHMARK COMPARISONS Valdez, AK 3,976 Menlo Park, CA 32,026 Auburn, AL 53,380 Mission Viejo, CA 93,305 Gulf Shores, AL 9,741 Newport Beach, CA 85,186 Tuskegee, AL 9,865 Palm Springs, CA 44,552 Vestavia Hills, AL 34,033 Palo Alto, CA 64,403 Fayetteville, AR 73,580 Pasadena, CA 137,122 Fort Smith, AR 86,209 Richmond, CA 103,701 Little Rock, AR 193,524 San Diego, CA 1,307,402 Casa Grande, AZ 48,571 San Francisco, CA 805,235 Chandler, AZ 236,123 San Jose, CA 945,942 Cococino County, AZ 134,421 San Luis Obispo County, CA 269,637 Dewey - Humboldt, AZ 3,894 San Mateo, CA 97,207 Flagstaff, AZ 65,870 San Rafael, CA 57,713 Florence, AZ 25,536 Santa Monica, CA 89,736 Gilbert, AZ 208,453 Seaside, CA 33,025 Goodyear, AZ 65,275 South Lake Tahoe, CA 21,403 Green Valley, AZ 21,391 Stockton, CA 291,707 Kingman, AZ 28,068 Sunnyvale, CA 140,081 Marana, AZ 34,961 Temecula, CA 100,097 Maricopa, AZ 43,482 Thousand Oaks, CA 126,683 Maricopa County, AZ 3,817,1 17 Visalia, CA 124,442 Mesa, AZ 439,041 Walnut Creek, CA 64,173 Peoria, AZ 154,065 Adams County, CO 441,603 Phoenix, AZ 1,445,632 Arapahoe County, CO 572,003 Pinal County, AZ 375,770 Archuleta County, CO 12,084 Prescott Valley, AZ 38,822 Arvada, CO 106,433 Queen Creek, AZ 26,361 Aspen, CO 6,658 Scottsdale, AZ 217,385 Aurora, CO 325,078 Sedona, AZ 10,031 Boulder, CO 97,385 Surprise, AZ 117,517 Boulder County, CO 294,567 Tempe, AZ 161,719 Broomfield, CO 55,889 Yuma, AZ 93,064 Centennial, CO 100,377 Yuma County, AZ 195,751 Clear Creek County, CO 9,088 • Apple Valley, CA 69,135 Colorado Springs, CO 416,427 iv Benicia, CA 26,997 Commerce City, CO 45,913 • Brea, CA 39,282 Craig, CO 9,464 u Brisbane, CA 4 l 282 Crested Butte, CO 1 l 487 L Burlingame, CA 28,806 Denver, CO 600,158 ro cu Concord, CA 122,067 Douglas County, CO 285,465 To Coronado, CA 18,912 Eagle County, CO 52,197 o Cupertino, CA 58,302 Edgewater, CO 5,1 70 z Davis, CA 65,622 El Paso County, CO 622,263 Dublin, CA 46,036 Englewood, CO 30,255 • El Cerrito, CA 23,549 Estes Park, CO 5,858 cu Elk Grove, CA 153,015 Fort Collins, CO 143,986 C Galt, CA 23,647 Frisco, CO 2,683 } Laguna Beach, CA 22,723 Fruita, CO 12,646 ✓ Laguna Hills, CA 30,344 Georgetown, CO 1,034 75 o Livermore, CA 80,968 Gilpin County, CO 5,441 z Lodi, CA 62,134 Golden, CO 18,867 r Long Beach, CA 462,257 Grand County, CO 14,843 1- The National Citizen SurveyTM 13 City of Yakima I 2012 Greeley, CO 92,889 Palm Beach County, FL 1,320,134 Gunnison County, CO 15,324 Palm Coast, FL 75,180 Highlands Ranch, CO 96,713 Panama City, FL 36,484 Hudson, CO 2,356 Pasco County, FL 464,697 Jackson County, CO 1,394 Pinellas County, FL 916,542 Jefferson County, CO 534,543 Port Orange, FL 56,048 Lafayette, CO 24,453 Port St Lucie, FL 164,603 Lakewood, CO 142,980 Sanford, FL 53,570 Larimer County, CO 299,630 Sarasota, FL 51,917 Lone Tree, CO 10,218 St Cloud, FL 35,183 Longmont, CO 86,270 Titusville, FL 43,761 Louisville, CO 18,376 Winter Garden, FL 34,568 Loveland, CO 66,859 Albany, GA 77,434 Mesa County, CO 146,723 Alpharetta, GA 57,551 Montrose, CO 19,132 Cartersville, GA 19,731 Northglenn, CO 35,789 Conyers, GA 15,195 Park County, CO 16,206 Decatur, GA 19,335 Parker, CO 45,297 McDonough, GA 22,084 Pueblo, CO 106,595 Milton, GA 32,661 Rifle, CO 9,1 72 Peachtree City, GA 34,364 Salida, CO 5,236 Roswell, GA 88,346 Teller County, CO 23,350 Sandy Springs, GA 93,853 Thornton, CO 118,772 Savannah, GA 136,286 Westminster, CO 106,114 Smyrna, GA 51,271 Wheat Ridge, CO 30,166 Snel Iv' Ile, GA 18,242 Windsor, CO 18,644 Suwanee, GA 15,355 Coventry, CT 2,990 Valdosta, GA 54,518 Hartford, CT 124,775 Honolulu, HI 953,207 Dover, DE 36,047 Ames, IA 58,965 Rehoboth Beach, DE 1,327 Ankeny, IA 45,582 Brevard County, FL 543,376 Bettendorf, IA 33,217 Cape Coral, FL 154,305 Cedar Falls, IA 39,260 Charlotte County, FL 159,978 Cedar Rapids, IA 126,326 Clearwater, FL 107,685 Clive, IA 15,447 Collier County, FL 321,520 Des Moines, IA 203,433 Cooper City, FL 28,547 Dubuque, IA 57,637 Dade City, FL 6,437 Indianola, IA 14,782 Dania Beach, FL 28,448 Muscatine, IA 22,886 u Daytona Beach, FL 61,005 Urbandale, IA 39,463 Delray Beach, FL 60,522 West Des Moines, IA 56,609 cu Destin, FL 12,305 Boise, ID 205,671 cu Escambia County, FL 297,619 Jerome, ID 10,890 To • Gainesville, FL 124,354 Meridian, ID 75,092 Hillsborough County, FL 1,229,226 Moscow, ID 23,800 z • Jupiter, FL 55,156 Pocatello, ID 54,255 a Lee County, FL 618,754 Post Falls, ID 27,574 Martin County, FL 146,318 Twin Falls, ID 44,125 Miami Beach, FL 87,779 Batavia, IL 26,045 c N North Palm Beach, FL 12,015 Bloomington, IL 76,610 O Oakland Park, FL 41,363 Centralia, IL 13,032 c Ocala, FL 56,315 Collinsville, IL 25,579 • Oviedo, FL 33,342 Crystal Lake, IL 40,743 z Palm Bay, FL 103,190 DeKalb, IL 43,862 L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 14 City of Yakima I 2012 Elmhurst, IL 44,121 Freeport, ME 1,485 Evanston, IL 74,486 Lewiston, ME 36,592 Freeport, IL 25,638 Saco, ME 18,482 Highland Park, IL 29,763 Scarborough, ME 4,403 Lincolnwood, IL 12,590 South Portland, ME 25,002 Lyons, IL 10,729 Ann Arbor, MI 113,934 Naperville, IL 141,853 Battle Creek, MI 52,347 Normal, IL 52,497 Escanaba, MI 12,616 Oak Park, IL 51,878 Farmington Hills, MI 79,740 O'Fallon, IL 28,281 Flushing, MI 8,389 Orland Park, IL 56,767 Gladstone, MI 4,973 Palatine, IL 68,557 Howell, MI 9,489 Park Ridge, IL 37,480 Hudsonville, MI 7,116 Peoria County, IL 186,494 Jackson County, MI 160,248 Riverside, IL 8,875 Kalamazoo, MI 74,262 Sherman, IL 4,148 Kalamazoo County, MI 250,331 Shorewood, IL 15,615 Midland, MI 41,863 Skokie, IL 64,784 Novi, MI 55,224 Sugar Grove, IL 8,997 Otsego County, MI 24,164 Wilmington, IL 5,724 Petoskey, MI 5,670 Brownsburg, IN 21,285 Port Huron, MI 30,184 Fishers, IN 76,794 Rochester, MI 12,711 Munster, IN 23,603 South Haven, MI 4,403 Noblesville, IN 51,969 Albert Lea, MN 18,016 Abilene, KS 6,844 Beltrami County, MN 44,442 Arkansas City, KS 12,415 Blaine, MN 57,186 Fairway, KS 3,882 Bloomington, MN 82,893 Garden City, KS 26,658 Carver County, MN 91,042 Gardner, KS 19,123 Chanhassen, MN 22,952 Johnson County, KS 544,1 79 Dakota County, MN 398,552 Lawrence, KS 87,643 Duluth, MN 86,265 Mission, KS 9,323 Edina, MN 47,941 Olathe, KS 125,872 Elk River, MN 22,974 Roeland Park, KS 6,731 Fridley, MN 27,208 Wichita, KS 382,368 Hutchinson, MN 14,1 78 Bowling Green, KY 58,067 Inver Grove Heights, MN 33,880 New Orleans, LA 343,829 Maple Grove, MN 61,567 Andover, MA 8,762 Mayer, MN 1,749 u Barnstable, MA 45,193 Minneapolis, MN 382,578 Burlington, MA 24,498 Olmsted County, MN 144,248 cu Cambridge, MA 105,162 Savage, MN 26,911 cu Needham, MA 28,886 Scott County, MN 129,928 To • Southborough, MA 8,781 Shorewood, MN 7,307 • Annapolis, MD 38,394 St Louis County, MN 200,226 z • Baltimore, MD 620,961 Washington County, MN 238,136 a Baltimore County, MD 805,029 Woodbury, MN 61,961 Dorchester County, MD 32,618 Blue Springs, MO 52,575 c Gaithersburg, MD 59,933 Branson, MO 10,520 N La Plata, MD 8,753 Cape Girardeau, MO 37,941 O Montgomery County, MD 971,777 Clay County, MO 221,939 c Prince George's County, MD 863,420 Clayton, MO 15,939 Rockville, MD 61,209 Columbia, MO 108,500 cu Takoma Park, MD 16,715 Ellisville, MO 9,133 L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 15 City of Yakima I 2012 Harrisonville, MO 10,019 Hamilton, OH 62,477 Jefferson City, MO 43,079 Hudson, OH 22,262 Lee's Summit, MO 91,364 Kettering, OH 56,163 Maryland Heights, MO 27,472 Orange Village, OH 3,323 Platte City, MO 4,691 Piqua, OH 20,522 Raymore, MO 19,206 Springboro, OH 17,409 Richmond Heights, MO 8,603 Sylvania Township, OH 18,965 Riverside, MO 2,937 Upper Arlington, OH 33,771 Rolla, MO 19,559 Broken Arrow, OK 98,850 Wentzville, MO 29,070 Edmond, OK 81,405 Billings, MT 104,1 70 Norman, OK 110,925 Bozeman, MT 37,280 Oklahoma City, OK 579,999 Missoula, MT 66,788 Stillwater, OK 45,688 Asheville, NC 83,393 Tulsa, OK 391,906 Cabarrus County, NC 178,011 Albany, OR 50,158 Cary, NC 135,234 Ashland, OR 20,078 Charlotte, NC 731,424 Bend, OR 76,639 Davidson, NC 10,944 Corvallis, OR 54,462 High Point, NC 104,371 Forest Grove, OR 21,083 Hillsborough, NC 6,087 Hermiston, OR 16,745 Huntersville, NC 46,773 Jackson County, OR 203,206 Indian Trail, NC 33,518 Keizer, OR 36,478 Mecklenburg County, NC 919,628 Lane County, OR 351,715 Mooresville, NC 32,711 McMinnville, OR 32,187 Stallings, NC 13,831 Medford, OR 74,907 Wake Forest, NC 30,117 Portland, OR 583,776 Wilmington, NC 106,476 Springfield, OR 59,403 Winston - Salem, NC 229,617 Tualatin, OR 26,054 Wahpeton, ND 7,766 Umatilla, OR 6,906 Grand Island, NE 48,520 Wilsonville, OR 19,509 La Vista, NE 15,758 Chambersburg, PA 20,268 Lincoln, NE 258,379 Cumberland County, PA 235,406 Papillion, NE 18,894 Kennett Square, PA 6,072 Dover, NH 29,987 Kutztown Borough, PA 5,012 Lebanon, NH 13,151 Radnor Township, PA 30,878 Summit, NJ 21,457 State College, PA 42,034 Albuquerque, NM 545,852 West Chester, PA 18,461 Farmington, NM 45,877 East Providence, RI 47,037 u Los Alamos County, NM 1 7,950 Newport, RI 24,672 Rio Rancho, NM 87,521 Greer, SC 25,515 ro cu San Juan County, NM 130,044 Rock Hill, SC 66,154 Carson City, NV 55,274 Rapid City, SD 67,956 To Henderson, NV 257,729 Sioux Falls, SD 153,888 North Las Vegas, NV 216,961 Cookeville, TN 30,435 z Reno, NV 225,221 Johnson City, TN 63,152 a Sparks, NV 90,264 Morristown, TN 29,137 Washoe County, NV 421,407 Nashville, TN 601,222 Geneva, NY 13,261 White House, TN 10,255 c N New York City, NY 8,1 75,133 Arlington, TX 365,438 0 Ogdensburg, NY 11,128 Austin, TX 790,390 75 Blue Ash, OH 12,114 Benbrook, TX 21,234 Delaware, OH 34,753 Bryan, TX 76,201 Dublin, OH 41,751 Colleyville, TX 22,807 cu L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 16 City of Yakima I 2012 Corpus Christi, TX 305,215 Newport News, VA 180,719 Dallas, TX 1,197,816 Norfolk, VA 242,803 Denton, TX 113,383 Purcellville, VA 7,727 Duncanville, TX 38,524 Radford, VA 16,408 El Paso, TX 649,121 Roanoke, VA 97,032 Flower Mound, TX 64,669 Spotsylvania County, VA 122,397 Fort Worth, TX 741,206 Virginia Beach, VA 437,994 Georgetown, TX 47,400 Williamsburg, VA 14,068 Houston, TX 2,099,451 York County, VA 65,464 Hurst, TX 37,337 Montpelier, VT 7,855 Hutto, TX 14,698 Airway Heights, WA 6,114 La Porte, TX 33,800 Auburn, WA 70,180 League City, TX 83,560 Bellevue, WA 122,363 McAllen, TX 129,877 Clark County, WA 425,363 McKinney, TX 131,117 Edmonds, WA 39,709 Plano, TX 259,841 Federal Way, WA 89,306 Round Rock, TX 99,887 Gig Harbor, WA 7,126 Rowlett, TX 56,199 Hoquiam, WA 8,726 San Marcos, TX 44,894 Kirkland, WA 48,787 South lake, TX 26,575 Lynnwood, WA 35,836 Temple, TX 66,102 Maple Valley, WA 22,684 Tomball, TX 10,753 Mountlake Terrace, WA 19,909 Watauga, TX 23,497 Pasco, WA 59,781 Westlake, TX 992 Redmond, WA 54,144 Park City, UT 7,558 Renton, WA 90,927 Provo, UT 112,488 SeaTac, WA 26,909 Riverdale, UT 8,426 Snoqualmie, WA 10,670 Salt Lake City, UT 186,440 Spokane Valley, WA 89,755 Sandy, UT 87,461 Tacoma, WA 198,397 Saratoga Springs, UT 1 7,781 Vancouver, WA 161,791 Springville, UT 29,466 West Richland, WA 11,811 Washington City, UT 18,761 Woodland, WA 5,509 Albemarle County, VA 98,970 Chippewa Falls, WI 13,661 Arlington County, VA 207,627 Columbus, WI 4,991 Ashland, VA 7,225 De Pere, WI 23,800 Botetourt County, VA 33,148 Eau Claire, WI 65,883 Chesapeake, VA 222,209 Madison, WI 233,209 Chesterfield County, VA 316,236 Merrill, WI 9,661 u Fredericksburg, VA 24,286 Oshkosh, WI 66,083 Hampton, VA 137,436 Racine, WI 78,860 ro cu Hanover County, VA 99,863 Wauwatosa, WI 46,396 Herndon, VA 23,292 Wind Point, WI 1,723 To James City County, VA 67,009 Casper, WY 55,316 Lexington, VA 7,042 Cheyenne, WY 59,466 z Lynchburg, VA 75,568 Gillette, WY 29,087 Montgomery County, VA 94,392 c C N V 76 c a Z cu L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 17 The National Citizen SurveyTM CITY OF AKI A WA 2012 DRAFT Report of Geographic Subgroup Comparisons C NATIONAL eRESEARCH 1 C mA C E N T E R •ee 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Boulder, CO 80301 Washington, DC 20002 www n-r-c com • 303-444-7863 www icma org • 202- 289 -IC MA City of Yakima l 2012 A CONTENTS Survey Background 1 About The National Citizen Survey' 1 Understanding the Results 2 "Don't Know" Responses 2 Understanding the Tables 2 Comparisons 3 0 C N C N U L , .-2 N N To c 0 fo Z >- 0 R A N 1 0 Ch 0 N N V 0 c 0 I Z N L H The National Citizen SurveyTM City of Yakima I 2012 SURVEY BACKGROUND ABOUT THE NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEY The National Citizen SurveyTM (The NCSTM) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc (NRC) and the International City /County Management Association (ICMA) The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality survey methods and comparable results across The National Citizen SurveyTM jurisdictions. Participating households are selected at random and the household member who responds is selected without bias. Multiple mailings give each household more than one chance to participate with self - addressed and postage paid envelopes. Results are statistically weighted to reflect the proper demographic composition of the entire community. The National Citizen SurveyTM customized for this jurisdiction was developed in close cooperation with local jurisdiction staff The City of Yakima staff selected items from a menu of questions about services and community problems, they defined the jurisdiction boundaries NRC used for sampling; and they provided the appropriate letterhead and signatures for mailings. City of Yakima staff also determined local interest in a variety of add -on options to The National Citizen SurveyTM Basic Service. U U ro N To 0 O r z 7- A N 1 N V a I z N H The National Citizen SurveyTM 1 City of Yakima I 2012 UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS "DON'T KNOW" RESPONSES On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer "don't know." The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item UNDERSTANDING THE TABLES In this report, comparisons between geographic subgroups are shown For most of the questions, we have shown only one number for each question. We have summarized responses to show only the proportion of respondents giving a certain answer, for example, the percent of respondents who rated the quality of life as "excellent" or "good ", or the percent of respondents who felt the rate of growth was "about right " ANOVA and chi - square tests of significance were applied to these comparisons of survey questions by geographic subgroups A "p- value" of 0 05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between subgroups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed are "real " Where differences were statistically significant, they are marked in grey. The 95 percent confidence level for this survey is generally no greater than plus or minus three percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (837 completed surveys). For each District (1, 2, 3 or 4), the margin of error rises to approximately + or - 8% since sample sizes were approximately 294 for District 1, 141 for District 2, 137 for District 3 and 265 for District4 The National Citizen SurveyTM Yakima, WA 2012 Geographic Comparison Areas District 1 District 2 (\ District s In District4 rY s 0 i z J — L The National Citizen SurveyTM 2 City of Yakima I 2012 COMPARISONS Cells shaded grey indicate statistically significant differences between subgroups. 6 Question 1 Q uality of Life (Percent "excellent" or "good ") District Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Yakima District 1 District 2 I District 3 District 4 Overall Yakima as a place to live 49% 47 °l0 48% 53 °l0 49% Your neighborhood as a place to live 81% 50 °l0 _32% 68% 60% Yakima as a place to raise children 44% 31 % 37% 39% 38% Yakima as a place to work 39% 38% 31% 41% 38% Yakima as a place to retire 49% 41 °l0 44% 48 °l0 46% The overall quality of life in Yakima 46% 41 °l0 36% 50% 44% Question 2 Community Characteristics (Percent "excellent" or "good ") District Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Yakima as a whole District 1 District 2 I District 3 District 4 Overall u Sense of community 35 % 23% 34 °I 40 °I 34% Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 41 % 35% 32% 30% 35% u Overall appearance of Yakima 25% 24% 41% 28% 29% L Cleanliness of Yakima 30 °I 26% 40 °I 30 °I 31% U N Overall quality of new development in Yakima 39% 36% 39 °I 40% 39 °I 0) Variety of housing options 50% 44% 42% 47% 46% To o Overall quality of business and service establishments in Yakima 45% 43% 43% 42% 43% fo r Z Shopping opportunities 31% 39% 47 °l0 39 °l0 39% a R Opportunities to attend cultural activities 38% 40% 42% 46% 41 a Recreational opportunities 43% 36% 36% 46% 410/ Employment opportunities 11% 18% 18 °I 14% 15% N Educational opportunities 46 °I 47% 48 °I 45% 46% Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 39% 33% 33% 44% 38% 75 c Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 73% 55% 47% 67% 62% is z Opportunities to volunteer 73 °I 58% 56 °I 69 °I 65% m L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 3 City of Yakima I 2012 Question 2 Community Characteristics (Percent "excellent" or "good ") District Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Yakima as a whole District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 Opportunities to participate in community matters 51°i° 34% 45% 45% 45% Ease of car travel in Yakima 67% 55% 62% 67% 64% Ease of bus travel in Yakima 62% 60% 72% 56% 63% Ease of bicycle travel in Yakima 41 °I° 38% 54% 38 %■ 43% Ease of walking in Yakima 49% 43% 55% 43% 48% Availability of paths and walking trails 52% 45% 50% 48% 49% Traffic flow on major streets 43% 34% 44% 46% 42% Amount of public parking 34% 33% 37% 44% 37% Availability of affordable quality housing 36% 30% 31 % 34% 33% Availability of affordable quality child care 26% 23% 31 % 25% 27% Air quality 53% 47% 49% 51% 50% Quality of overall natural environment in Yakima 50% 41% 50% 54% 49% Overall image or reputation of Yakima 1 3% 1 7% 30% f 19% u a Mil Question 3 Growth (Percent of respondents) District L Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in Yakima over the past 2 years District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 Overall I '2 ro Population growth too fast 39% 48% 62% 54% 50% Retail growth too slow 56% 44% 41 % 53% 50% To Job growth too slow 92% 87% 77% 88% 86% 0 z A a 1 Question 4 Code Enforcement (Percent a "major" problem) 1 District District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 Overall � Run down buildings, weed lots or junk vehicle a major problem in Yakima 34% 44% 39% 35% 37 ° 75 c a z L H The National Citizen SutveyTM 4 City of Yakima I 2012 Question 5 Community Safety (Percent "very" or "somewhat" safe) District Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel from the following m Yakima District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 Over Violent crime (e g , rape, assault, robbery) 28% 28% 22% 26% 26% Property crimes (e g , burglary, theft) 21% 1 6% 14% 1 7% 1 7% Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 62% 54% 57% 52% 56% _ Question 6 Personal Safety (Percent "very" or "somewhat" safe) M 1 1 District lease rate how safe or unsafe you feel District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 Overal In your neighborhood during the day 87% 76% 61% 82% 77% In your neighborhood after dark 67% 42% 36% 48% 50% In Yakima's commercial areas during the day 60% 57% 66% 65% 62% In Yakima's commercial areas after dark 15% 1 7% 41% 24% 24% Question 7 Contact with Police Department (Percent "yes ") c District ✓ District District District District L 1 2 3 4 Overall ro m • Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Yakima Police Department To within the last 12 months2 37% 40% 44% 37% 39% c 0 fiz Z _0 Question 8 Ratings of Contact with Police Department (Percent "excellent" or "good ") R li 2 T District (A District District District J District N 1 2 3 I 4 Overall O What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City of Yakima Police 75 Department 72% 44% 63% + 55% 60% a ra Z 0) 0 H The National Citizen SutveyTM 5 City of Yakima I 2012 Questions 9 and 10 Crime Victimization and Reporting (Percent "yes ") III District ■ District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 C %'_,___ During the past 12 months, were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime2 19% 26% 37% 27% ■ 26% If yes, was this crime (these crimes) reported to the policez 92% 79% 68% 88% 81% • IN Question 11 Resident Behaviors (Percent at least once in past 12 months) I District In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members District District District District participated in the following activities in Yakima? 1 2 3 4 Overall Used Yakima public libraries or their services 57% 57% 69% 60% 60% Used Yakima recreation centers 58% 67% 58% 60% 60% Participated in a recreation program or activity 52% 53% 53% 52% 52% Visited a neighborhood park or City park 89% 91% 86% 84% 87% Ridden a local bus within Yakima 24% 31% 46% 32% 32% Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting 22% 23% 12% 16% 18% c Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other City- sponsored public meeting on cable television, c the Internet or other media 49% 49% 43% 46% 47% L Visited the City of Yakima Web site (at www yakimawa gov) 41% 43% 23% 37% 36% U ro Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from your home 75% 74% 83% 80% 78% • Volunteered your time to some group or activity in Yakima 61% 49% 41% 60% 54% o Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Yakima 67% 61% 53% 60% 60% z Participated in a club or civic group in Yakima 47% 39% 27% 36% 38% • Provided help to a friend or neighbor 96% 99% 97% 94% 97% R a c Question 12 Neighborliness (Percent at least several times a week) N District V IMIM 75 District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 Overall c o Visit with neighbors at least several times a week 59% 37% 58% 64% 56% ra Z L H The National Citizen SutveyTM 6 City of Yakima I 2012 Question 13 Service Quality (Percent "excellent" or "good ") District District District District District I Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Yakima 1 2 3 4 Overall Police services 52% 57% 49% 56% 54% Fire services 87% 91% 74% 84% 84% Ambulance or emergency medical services 80% 89% 77% 86% 83% Crime prevention 1 7% 27% 31% X1 8% • 22% Fire prevention and education 58% 58% 51% 56% 56% Municipal courts 39% 43% 43% 42% 41% Traffic enforcement 47% 45% 46% 48% 47% Street repair 18% 24% 29% 119% 22% Street cleaning 44% 41% 38% 43% 42% Street lighting 45% 36% 34% 47% 41 % Snow removal 40% 33% 31% 38% 36% Sidewalk maintenance 29% 24% 28% 25% 27% Traffic signal timing 39% 47% 46% 47% 44% u Bus or transit services 61% 59% 66% 61% 62% c `m Garbage collection 80% 80% 67% 87% 79% m • Recycling 39% 40% 45% 49% 43% U Yard waste pick -up 68% 56% 45% 62% 58% N Storm drainage 47% 41% 44% 50% 46% m Drinking water 65% 61% 64% 66% 64% To o Sewer services 72% 65% 64% 78% 71% z Power (electric and/or gas) utility 80% 65% 70% 75% 73% a _0 City parks 52% 56% 52% _ 65% 56% • Recreation programs or classes 47% ° 37% 46% ° 42/° 371° 46/° 431° v, Recreation centers or facilities 51% 40% 38% 40% 43% c N Land use, planning and zoning 34% 37% 19% 21% 28% V Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 16% 1 7% 1 6% 12% 15% 75 o Animal control 29% 29% 24% 29% 28% z Economic development 20% 19% 25% 26% 23% m 1- Services to seniors 47% 40% 39% 55% 46% The National Citizen SutveyTM 7 City of Yakima I 2012 Question 13 Service Quality (Percent "excellent" or "good ") District District District District District I Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Yakima 1 2 3 4 Overall Services to youth 27% 24% 35% 38% q 31% Services to low- income people 48% 32% 34% 44% 40% Public library services 75% 64% 58% 79% 70% Public information services 50% 36% 50% 52% 48% Public schools 47% 41% 49% 44% 46% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 39% 28% 31% 38% 35% UV Question 14 Government Services Overall (Percent "excellent" or "good ") District Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? District 1 District 2 I District 3 I District 4 Ove The City of Yakima 40% 45% 48% 47% 45% The Federal Government 22% 29% 32% 32% 28% c The State Government 23% 30% 34% 34% — 30% m Yakima County Government 35% 40% 37% 36% 37% c m U L U ro Question 15 Recommendation and Longevity (Percent "somewhat" or "very" likely) a) District To ■ Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following District 1 District 2 1 District 3 District 4 Over z Recommend living in Yakima to someone who asks 57% 57% 65% 57% 59% a Remain in Yakima for the next five years 77% 73% 72% 70% 73% a a) c v) c a) N V 76 c a ra Z a) L H The National Citizen SutveyTM 8 City of Yakima I 2012 Question 16 Impact of the Economy (Percent "somewhat" or "very" positive) District District I District District District 1 2 3 4 Overall 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 16% 13% 30% 13% 18% Question 17 Contact with Fire Department (Percent "yes ") District District District District District I 1 2 3 4 Overall Have you had any in- person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Yakima Fire Department within the last 12 months? 21% 11% 1 1 % 9% 14% u ill Question 18 Ratings of Contact with Fire Department (Percent "excellent" or "good ") District c c IIIIII District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 I Overall c What was your overall impression of your most recent contact with the City of Yakima Fire Department? 89% 89% 77% 98% I 89% U L U ro Question 19 Contact with City Employees (Percent "yes ") 11 To District c 0 District District District District nz Z 1 2 3 4 Overall >- R Have you had any in- person, phone or email with an employee of the City of Yakima within the last 12 a) months (including police, receptionists, planners or any gP P ,P others)? 48% 41% 42% 37% 42% c c N V 76 C a ro Z a) L H The National Citizen SurveyTM 9 City of Yakima I 2012 1 Question 20 City Employees (Percent "excellent" or "good ") IIIIII District r I What was your impression of the employee(s) of the City of Yakima in your most recent contact? District 1 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 Overall Knowledge 74% 69% 68% 67% 70% Responsiveness 70% 38% 70% 62% • 62% Courtesy 76% 48% 63 °I 72% 67 °I Overall impression 64% 41% 66 °I° 65% 60 °I° Question 21 Government Performance (Percent "excellent" or "good ") District Please rate the following categories of Yakima government performance + District 1 District 2 District 3 1 ' i,_ i_ "i =! Ov The value of services for the taxes paid to Yakima 26% 26% 22% 33 °I° 27% The overall direction that Yakima is taking 28% 22% 35% 25% 28% The job Yakima government does at welcoming citizen involvement 34% 19% 31 % : 29% 0 Question 22a Custom Question 1 (Percent "strongly support" or "somewhat support ") 1 c District L Please indicate how much you would support or oppose each of the following ways to fund future District District District District no street /road repairs in Yakima 1 2 3 4 Ova m • Annual $20 "car tab" fee on all registered vehicles 47% 50% 51% 52% 50% To Sales tax increase 29% 19% 25% 25% 25% 0 Property tax increase 16% 23 °I° wmi lMIEEM 1 °I° z a R a a) c v) c N V 76 c a Z a) L H The National Citizen SutveyTM 10 City of Yakima I 2012 Question 22b Custom Question 2 (Percent "strongly support" or "somewhat support ") District lease indicate how much you would support or oppose the City of Yakima taking the following District District District District actions 1 2 3 4 Overall I Funding the construction of a new aquatics facility with a property tax increase 33% 42% 54% 30% 39% Funding the construction of a new aquatics facility with a sales tax increase 39% 46% 44% 32% 40% Funding the repairs of existing aquatics facilities with a property tax increase 26% 36% 45% 24% 32% Funding the repairs of existing aquatics facilities with a sales tax increase 43% 39% 38% 37% 39% Question 22c Custom Question 3 (Percent "strongly support" or "somewhat support ") District District District District District 1 1 2 3 4 Overall The City of Yakima is considering implementing a curbside recycling program To what extent do you support or oppose a curbside recycling program in Yakima 1 87% 88% 92% 86% 88% 0 C 0) C Q1 U L '2 no a) N Q1 To C 0 no Z >- 0 R A N 1 0 C (1) N V C 0 no Z a) L H The National Citizen SutveyTM 11 ot,3 jn bafed di 2012 Yakima Citizen Survey ?MI la- el?C" Key Findings Policy Questions Rating of ( "Strongly Support" or "Somewhat Support" responses) Government Services ( "Excellent" or "Good" responses) On -line On -line Implementation of a curbside 88% ' 84% , Fire Services ,' 84% 84% : recycling program j Implementation of an annual 50% 60% Ambulance 'Services 83% 75% $20 car tab fee to pay for street repairs Garbage Collection .- 80% 85% Implementation of a sales tax 24% 40% ' increase to pay for new Drinking Water 64% 72% aquatics facility Implementation of a property 19% 29% City, Parks 56 %''I 56 %. , tax increase to pay for new aquatics facility Police Services 54% 52% Funding street repair's with N/A 37% sales tax ;Public Information 48% ` ' 44% :Services _ Quality of Life and Government Storm Drainage 46% 50% Performance Questions ( "Excellent" or "Good" responses) Services to Seniors e , 46% {; ° 49 % On -line , ;, w'., Recreation Programs 43% 48% Ease of car travel 64% 66% Neighborhood as a place to 6i% 68% Public Parking , 37% t 40% live ..., W : Yakima as a place to live ' 50% 45% Services to Youth 32% 24% Services provided by the City 45% 40% of Yakima Street Repairs 21% 11% Services provided by Yakima 36% 28% Code Enforcement 15% 12% County Services provided by the State 30% 33% The overall direction that 28% 18% Yakima is taking ' Value of services for taxes 27% 37% paid D istributed_ t t e ~' ee e." �' 's Meeting , ak a 3 Buda to kr� •+ R o Lookout Point Dr l sndm \ • - iwistvt °I V • Rest., - pi R r , ..... Heights Rd \'y <7 4o \ 841 \'''-'1". - or S El 41 4 11?I la. � Ehi Nach 04 f• - � - eQ es N e \ Q H \w �!r r. k4a 9 a ilyr ., r ER \\ - k L E O St \` '4./' u 4, SSe Canyon �e . r $ '`' /ya /e w £ fir\ Rd Rest Have, >b' P River Rd e// Z River Rd • 3 a c r z a • z \, i t . a c heater ty Madison E KSt \ E Rai c_` p/ O • a Park - .-- / r 4r' r \Q? • W J St I R " Wd Sr t • Vertner Rd Pr F . N p to oSory • 4 ` Hartford Rd > • r Hathawa Ave �I 51 I C " �cade Rd 0 ge r CastlevaleRd < Frd le BI� • v a r 5 f; St Scenic Or `')r r Kern Rd z Willow St r % t cs t ` > 5 } • r A Q d A r • Swan • Ave s • s t ` \ z . > ,, y Jerome Ave co 4 n Z } 4 o Av . Vi e ° ° N \ Englewood Av = Z ¢ Englewood Ave er e Englewo� Ave z r ', , le. w IP ' 4 tm 41k +' a Heights Or � • • S Douglas D r Ro' S t e �� E E 9 9t •r% 7 . ` t•tc 9 . cS` • ds • z • •` O Z • • 1 \ S 4 • t. F; Ricr Gilbert ' Q • Garkel• «� 7 Ya B7>t F PS t N • 11 „ 0. 0 �o W Lincoln Ave W Lmcdn Ave p a i • n 6 r u u > W Lincoln Ave Mar.. g t 7 Mtma've $0e `\ c3 tn o, d n Q .e ¢ > to e 4 4 a r= Pa • • li es` E �' U E C • r o w Sn , Avalanche Ave n £ Z n o 5 > E > 4 4 r r e F• corn . . • ASt a r! • • \ 33 e Z r u o Wrh us Z ev ,° '„ a n a z > •Browne Ave W ►Aee 4 "rill KlWeafte vl > r } Z Avalanche Rd Z us S 4 z a Mv T Summilvoew } v Ave ip o e Z z z p z m w e v Is m �•i T. PWt u > Ave e Q a S a 4 Summilvie 5 �elSeon 4 Summitview Ave < i • n ti ■ Z N c Y �I�rttview Ave O S \ . 4 r , ne Way 2 Z N a , 00 te a E N in n m Z z Z Alp Park n £ $ fi BargeSl Z Z 4 r 'e Z 0. • Mpt Ave �T -P S t •r3 EBeeth 3l� ` 0. er z Z z + = en W Yakima Ave > Y) cor ? a • 't :Hard Ave W Chestnut Ave t \ . 4 ; U > W C hestnut Ave z U z r ? a n a � ° ,� N t 4> 4 St Kra Rd 4 a 4 a 4 ,g - a � E Alder S 1 No a v • 5 £ r = o WWatnut L r Ftenklln Bell r w SpNw iens • `, 0. N C 4 ; io 2 > v , < 4 n a > w ~ " t. r a } 4 • • J r Perk E s 3` � ! �, .n Thelon Dr o 4 H y . N • $ Tinton a H 5 £ • Q ° � ton > > • 1 ` , ' y z > „ > g 5 ¢> a Q¢ M r fic Avs H Westwo'±c' @ ' Q e c > ` , • West Ge,'1 m 5 vi • m Q in ~ 4 o. a , v y � e Peacli SI s Vf co • m N $ •k St + ft q �I:itf ` } �:O Ur {f r M to N N fA y O � � • •, 5 G ' , SlH > { U) rai. ( "rr 9 7nd Ave 4 Midvale Rd ri Arf�ttri Ste r a r r w ` • . Arlington St a • 4 w \ iE Arlington St • on w , e' w Olmstead Cl a 4 a< > e 4 4 4• . t Pa er S t • y fn f a ° w 5 a Q i o • a o Q ry N Bonnie Doon Ave 7 Q . , \ • i a n n N Y¢ & O Q 4 a t d r'f n • rr r , • ,„ ' ' s W W Nob Hrf vd 0 in 5 sr N • n of y h • r r a g D r N w s • m yi • r, �` } > } •� N H ill Blvd • a y 6 • Q Q ° 0 UP 4 �i U • Q v, h Clinton Wry n 4 ? W Prasch 11e e 4 ' V• Wilson Ln • , , , i H H 24 ' A es A Gr S lew _ ¢ a t in Wide Hollow Rd • C ar a Q • H > Q o i > 5 6 W Viola Ave �+ s r 5 a 5 W Vidalia?. di va ,,E Vida Ave WtltVellry v; d ean 0r } m V. Community Randall N' y • y ` J r Slmpsontn Pt W Logan Ave 1e ¢ Park Past Y n u A U U L > > v ,A 4 W Mead Ave i3 £ N W Mead Ave E Mead Ave A 5 Emil io i_ le v Nrs crl •:20 d • • VI N WKIn St CareySt n P ark > s ele 4 • g Zie Rd > 5 4 5 w Name 31 Lilac Ln Q 4 � S Terri Aver W Was hington ,� , '0 , i Per ry St I' N y S r < y £ ti; St 3 ! ° A ° Fr y e'�" Frern�St \ Cr 0 ve W Washington Ave W Washington Ave q Z • u > > 4 a W Washington Ave E Washington Ave w , - ° > Q > & o .. E Q . 5 i o • ° r r re S aki erg r - VI c °> > >4 4 in Coolidge Rd v) H 4 Yakima ATt Whitma St • 4 ¢ Q a e c Lyons 5 TerminalMcent% > O c ."- c o Valle a - > N A J ! y 1 :50 000 )L_ider, till R:1 w Occidental Rd r N Pioneer St .� ' > ,n v W Valley Mall Blvd _ _ > > Q > C .. H -- a r ¢ 5 ¢ j O 5 W Larch Ave o An Port in r, Oak Ave y Graffiti Complaints Ahtanum Rd < v, Ahtanum HO Anlsnum Rd Ahtanum Rd Ter min aviscalllstei E 3 dia W CnbusSt lid y 0 825 Complaints received from January 2011 to August 2012 U N A A Emma Lit Sources: Egri;4E City of Yakima, Washington - Information Technology Services - GIS 08123/2012 r Emma Ln a Baggarley Dr o ,^ U $ ti n e.� ., Hods P1 Lookout Point Dr Landes , .n'avis'M Dr \ \ P a r, Rest Nave, R M,ches heights Rd - \ 8.400 a'�� P t °1\ 12 Ne-mhe, 4 � . • £hl DhtS if � o� 'P a m� ' 12 '' i . q hiache h..., re -. ,. Kra.., u C t • e ; • {7 - u ' ¢d _ r C a', � Rd Ca Y $ n 'i, e Rest Nave c z River Rd @i te, Z • • 4.„ k r � o cheshov E Safi ° c `e v / P Mk • W , S t I 41111 • roaa s "� . • Vertner Rd Pros 3 u e \\ • 11 arttord Rd �1 p c ery a 0 . "cale Rd s Cl) it ` • • It • • z SO t Castlevale Rol v • Scenic Dr � a a Q Kern Rd ' ID • $ Q E. i w q • •• £ • e � o+r • • . m z m < r Z o € Z ' O • Englewood Av to Englewood Ave • • � heights Or ` v • Dar as O ' j c Rd z „ es 4 ' o C} F9 Ric > Q a • t • 7 n fi ' �oh • W Linco Av e a W Lincoln Ave ,, z fi • 9 ? • M o Z ,� v Sno,v Avalanche Ave c., fi � _ + • � a o > Z m ountain Rd o Z ` on 2 2 fi 2 • • o S ummitvicw Ave > < Q Summ Niew Ave a Z • w • • • > Q > Q a Summitview Ave > o • ft ry 2 a £ o a n Ave Way au"- £ a ' L c • Z Z •• u m z z z 0 ° e s Barge St •• • • • 4 • 't \ \ ..6 c. Z ^n W Yakima Ave • and Ave W Chestnut Ave > • a a o W Chestnv' Z Z a u • ° ^ c R SI > 0/ WWatnutSt > VS O. N s> N N a Q Q • • • Yakima �r o T ieton Dr in o a _ _ Y N r N • e • • • M Sporhman to N a Westwood Q ^ • q en ° • �� • State P Nifi • o in West Gall vs • N • • fi N •_ • • • 1111, < > N Course .n h • f. 97nd Ave m M N W Art* N ` • • • • 111 • °� °D olmzte o .; OP • O� • N • N N • e it; v . > o O C c. Q <Q Q Q'K ,�'+n \\k14.1t4 • • N • N T.: _ • y N N • •• • • N • ■ • d Dr y • N N co • • • < Clinton Way • • • S in N 24 L oi r o\Ave > n fi ; Wide hollow Rd si 1e W Viola Ave C a • • < N West Valley bean Dr < N • _ N N E Viola Ave ,� v ' Simpson Ln r.ommunity Randall K E \ >t A k h Park Park Y o " Ave Q < W M eal :7 • L E Mead A it = ti on K Tahame N N a Cemetery • Carey St Zi Rd a Zler Rd > 4 • a c S Qr D Tern AVC W W q v e H Perry St a • • • St w Lilac N a n Fr fi • K W Washington v „Ave N • Ave W Washington Ave N g ; e • > > _- - a < W Washingt0 A ve E Washington Ave w w < > < Q _ fi c on er if at Coolidge Rd � N Cl, °A a Yakima Air N Whitman n St a < < n > Lyans ' S Terminal/McAllister > 1.11 c a 0 .c > h Fld _ '" N NE ` S APpoe Trr- Q N h J e. 1:50 000 °' G:nit: car r W ' ItIg re ,/,:..dental Rd N Occidental Rd i, cv - St, � Pioneer St J� e r a 9 cc < < L 4 5 4 9' r. m W Lards Ave n Airport Lo 1 fo CD a , ,, N Oak A N co Graffiti 1.1 ot potS Ahtanum Rd a N Ahtanum Rd Ahtanum Rd Yakima Air o Ahtanum Rd TermtnaYMcatllstet Q F id ro 3 W Columbus sl { N Ave a 825 Complaints received from January 2011 to August 2012 a 6 a Emma ln Bapgarl eY Or EmmaLn Sources: Esri; c en City of Yakima, Washington • Information Technology Services • GIS 0812312012 a Y to qs,, \ \` ° c4 e ho ° =H • ' .� • Bogs °jf t Rd �° \ Lan \, it,„. Of 4 II Lookout Point Dr ' - Par Rest Ha • n,� t \� �� • - Naeries Heights Rd dp - E f: , if 4 - _ '� �„ - _ ■ Qhlee)b Nacho H & ir e !ir > n ✓ ask � O u 9a • • E R a t, • t12s •E OSI ) t ° z•AV 411. - e. Ld —Dr P F ivi/ 5 \ y \. ' R d p \' - ca oa 5 > • . \ Rest Hav Y c = River Rd 0 4, 0 , z O rvar Rd • Z \\ Rd o • o '( Park h t - - -� Maths= Ave • • E K St 1 E Re, / _ ° e •" --T, Vertner Rd Prot 3 Y•'Oe W J St Hathawa •Ave W I • ,, E et , p o S/ `"� tP P • t c • N t • t Hartford Rd `4cade Rd o ` e°- • a Castle�eRd a Fruitvale Blvd ` E S iy - o c Z. 5 • • ,� o • S £ FSt 5 7b ° Scenic Dr '"Dr ° Q • KemRtl z• W ° • nn EF•g x > > Q • o • • 4 Swan Ave I. M T \ m \ Y 411. « • t o d Jerome Ave « Z 2 N i4 a \ '° 4 • = z > °h ori m ° ks Av = N ° to P w 7 N � \ % +x ood Avi r • glewood Ave m° En glewootive z • < y Ave ut y c N a k.0`° 1 1. 46 `a t • z Douglas Dr 4 a > • 3 St ° E E 9 St �• ttt• HNphla Dr c o s • • � R d z • • 4 �O y / m $ 4, ' � o � t? • ° • W Lincoln Ave R dirt a < • Gartieid Ave _ ' y Ya ma E P `'t i , \ g \ n « > a W Lincoln Avo Park a • v, , > > a W Lfnt r Ave w v • St ° y V •ktm• Pv h it • o Pi • \ c `= �\� • ' « >^ C 4 4 4 • 1 ism Jefferson Ave YI ° E N ti G t \ u c 04 &• r 2 n a z » n $ ° ° > • • Fdsttm Ave St r tn � t 8 • 3 n z ° n ,,, Sn,,: Avalanche Ave r ., r Z n rn C 5 a 4 ry > • > P ' a g FYI• a• u > 2 • Domain Rd ^' n fi z a s 4 Brot Ave M ama v N Manila a • ;' > 4 • v, 17 p o L V s St park • Swum' tview Ave > a� S umm i tvrew Ave > Sum mitvi Av > z • • a ^ e umm Av YI car Q • • 4 5 5 m ne Way t Q > < a ry rv _ N ry f , tO - ° J tiS4jJ N • W m AID P ant • • •fi 4 S 4 • z i z z 4 � Pvt mo • est r « co L w •• z lb z n m g fi Barge St e z aya +o t n t o t-r •M' s E h or G z Z a 7 � � i W Yakima Ave • a Vol C $ +' "' y • ` hard Ave W Chestnut Ave • • • • • ; > • • • ; W Chestnut Ave z ; • < • .c. �' N RarcSt • Rd 4 « • 4 a 4 4 a Q fi a • • St ° e N E Ater St ;° • a ° r_ • WWa• itSt$ ° L ‘•4 II\ & Franklin Bell St N S pNCO Loons o rn e < • > VI 0 > '+ < • y ^' Park > w • N Park c E Adams St u VI - Meson' Or E. n 4 0 r w 4 N 4 °> `> 4 « Q a � 1 w ° Triton 5 fi • • lli•ton Dr > a a s • 5 • Pacific Ave • • • • n Wcstwcod 4 ^ y ° « 4• • « w , d •a ePeat t N \ 4 l • f� wt t Gait vi « � 5 to te a a Madmen Sto z • • e S 4 u • h �nurs• ^ _ ` ^ • • •N� al ` v) • StHele ° N i 4 • F Park F 'I e 92nd Ave r Midvale Rd v) W Arlington St • • V1 Werli on St ° > to 4 a °' ea • , ; , > • > u • • < Lamm Artington St . • Olmstead Ct • 4 4 4 > 4 • o > 4 a 4 • Paris Bs�St c e • in t T.; o 5 • 4 c • > • p a N Bonnie Door Ave ° • 1O n N Q e 4 4 » a • W Nob Hill Blvd h r7 • H s "' �^ I `n AP • • • a t i 3 Dr • • • w $ H G 4 a c ` E Nob Hill • ry u • • • > Wt • of • N • • 4 e co Cllntan Way - a n • W Prisch Ave > c ai q N Wilson Ln • V1 q 2 3 s > « 5 Wide Hollow Rd C \Ave • d « ( �in t S : 4 5 vi tl r ' 4 • • e W V io l a A ve :arts, fi viaa e� e y yE Vr d a A.. west Vaney N • � rn a .ean Dr > • • ° c� • H '° y communl Ra ndall • • K• • a • ' • �N > r « Simpson H • Perk Pad Logan Ave e • • n • • a • a • $ <Q • N « • « E.,,,, W Mead At• a e W Mead Ave E Mead Ave o. y • V1 Park • , '. , • • • % ''' W King S Carey St i > 4 Ler Rd • Zier Rd > S a 5 • W Pietce St > < T Ave,. W 1 r &' Pd St > LilacLn • Q c 4 O t hingtnn Ave ry ry a y w y 5 Sp e31 fi ro • FreF v °i Ave • • °1 °• W Washington Av• W Washington Ave U) • Fremont IP re p g > e i t a Q W Washinplon Ave E Washin a Washington Av• H , w 4 > a s _ - fi z a 5 7 • w H 1•411 a $ 4 a$ • o c • e •Q Q I 0 in > > > 0/1 a Coolidge Rd g e in < Yakima A Whitman St • • < `t a a t, • r� Termtn > v ;° • • •LYOns F1d 4 es ry H n C d' 1, i,,,• h N J o r'• • a y n J ,e N ),,,tiers,,' R,I Occoectal it • • C • Pioneer St y Mal 4 i 1 W V > n valley Blvd _ r •• • y,C L,r 5 : • • W Larch Ave S Air - Zr ` °n Port Ln r e g to e Oak Ave ca Ahtanum Rd > Atrtanum R Ahtanum Rd Yakima Aii Weedy Lots Complaints a H c Ahtanum Rd TermtnaGMCallister E '- W Columbus St t Fld °' Ave ° N • 450 Complaints received from January 2011 to August 2012 • Emma Ln t Baggarley Dr • Emma Ln Sources: E `s r r m , C City of Yakima, Washington - Information Technology Services - GIS 08/23/2012 +J a- ^. • e ll R e nv \ Har ` _ R Or Lookout Point Dr '''d' Meet. p� Rest Haush R N acne$ Heights Rd ^ Vista., :ie'17bet +.. sa -i • _ Lane .. - ,j 4r EMT, Nachos ° • • Q Haghts 1 , ° P• • • E R " Arran t o t• '12 E O St u Z e t • e • • • 4. U. 44, O • r A' Q • a GS • p 0 „Or • • S vin, m • to y ' Rtl ° Canyon e js eV Rest Havg b = River Rd a /Y 2 • River Rd 56 \�' Rd c o c h•st•r1y \ E oPi _ Madison Ave F K St ty , - Rao c - » \ Park W J St • W y SI _ A Vertner Rd Pr t F fia thaw Ave t E 1 SI c 3 4 O 't aY • - 4" \t, Hartford Rd ° ac a de Re • in • • N c O Er e Sc 4 Card•`•* 4 Fruttvale Blvd S a .' a y • • G 5 i Scenic Dr • ° Dr • ` • E 1Z • Q Kern Rd = Willow St • ne EE 4 4 £ A • 4 • '.' r • sc • m > Z da p Jerome Ave W • Swan Ave • Z Z 1 ' H4t 4` E `.• t p ¢ z .c 4 , • 4 o• a 'a \'.�' o Fairban A % t, N N t o P's $ \� FnptewoodAv • .. EnglewoodAve 4j °,9 •glewoodAv Z • 4 > � r ry a e N r i eo s N �� s ce he,yhl. Of w l 2 N 7 t \ �a = Dou as Dr a • > 4 S t E 5 a • • N \_ S 1•t ti a Oe <I; pi S > z < • Gar field Ave n E • = r Ya a e p5 N . • j P > 4 °04.,t 4 > W coin • Ave < W Lincoln Av• pert 6. e • � � a W Lincoln Ave lMk 6 St v Y sV PY` Jt p`e • • » K = a £ Q e 4 Q d •= pa* Jefferson Ave W e E N E G 9t , 3 z. < °' ? Avalanche Ave ^ e z ^ �* °> £ > a • • • FdsO ve p 5' • rp P ,N • ,\ 1 r • z 4;.' ; < _ _ • SnoiY �ountain Rd • Z M z z z £ Z £ £ z a 4 v •• B rowne Ave W wytd' ` ^ a � st' > 4 Klet tt • Summitview Ave n £•R Summihnew Ave > • S•nmitview Ave > • Z n N r Z ,� c y • Summitwew AY W r ocs u \\\ a 5 m • ne way • t')elrefio 4 < Q z z r Z `r `N E t t in 'o ° Z Z Z AIP ^ o S n • Barge St z z 4 `. Z • .. "e u y . N Ept 0 % if E Beech S/\ s. z z • ^ w Yakima Ave W i • vd Ave WCh•stnutAve • z z • • • 4 v' 7 • > • • • • • • • • W Chestnut Ave • • 4 > • e y a. is ac e St • a ' 4 , 4 a • » 4 • • 4 4 g 9 • o ip EAl • `• • > £ 5 E • £ • W W alni.t St 5 • M1 a: feieiltlm B�st p • in W 5p9 t T l . rehc • ,� • • N c 4 • 'a • A > > r n Q ? y w �R > > C N PGA • • I � V E Adams St y y Q 4 N •• 4 d• )r to • Tieton to o a �• Ti•lon Dr S N • £ 4 • Ti Dr > < < 5 r • • "� PacdicAye r • �r Westwood 4> r 4 > A 0 4 > £ £ * > < m 4 a • West i r^ = N H • 5 w yr 3 a Maclare • S tr £ :Peach St ; • r • • y Stale h ¢ d u a H ours° n • n • to p N • St Helena S• ° y ! • d +�� H • o. Fair Park r C 52nd Ave £ Midvale Rd m W Arlington St„ • > • • y ` • o Arlington St m • •[ Larson N • ° '€ Arlington St in G a a a a a a • Q a o > a Q • • = Park Baker St �• • • • w Olmstead Ct 4 4 4 > • > 4 4 • ,p j v '^ V w o $ • a c • • • c Q ;, •Bonnie Doon Ave „ a • � • E • • > • \ • • r "IligliVI n n 41 d > r > 4 > Q• 5 ry to Q N N N � 4 I • 4 z et n • ti •• V t 110„ • • Nye Hill Blvd { Y a $ o • a' , • • • , E �b Hill Blvd r n in 4 • • N b ; • • • • > • • N . 4 Clinton Way 4 • • w • • W Prasch Ave > a Q ` • d m L I T, • N n 24 Wide Hollow Rd + • o1 Av• • • �£ Grant St a • :n • > 4 ' < H ', •b ro W Yi a Ave Car • • �£ idaAve� " E VidaAv •an Or • > • V • in J ' a t%r N VYaerWNN a c\ a > > .3 Y. Simpson Ln COMNIMaty • Randall Ik E • 4 • 'o d Park Park n • Logan AV r £ a n • • Y > > ♦ to • • <' •! Mead Ave E W Mead Ave E Mead Ave • 5 o ^ Enid n u Iahtena Car y N • V1 W Part • ^ ..T.Merr Q W King N S1 IP Zrer Rd • Der Rd > g • \ 4 • w Pierce sl Oa Terry Av , cli tY Washin ton t Pa St • > Lilac Ln N i r £ 43 •> S. _ g Ave Spokane St in E .e • Fi et n � • Fre�t51 n eve • N W Washington Ave W Washington Ave • • • H > • W Washington Av• E Wa•hinglon Av• N E (4) • a a 4 4 c to 4 Q 4 4 4 - £ r 6 • > to K yr c 5 4t a „..6 • ' .- e ;•; Q 4 N Coolidge Rd • 8 m r v a Yakima ATF in Whitma St • eta n v • ..,' = TerminaMfitg.Rlster > a Lyons"' q in N c o VN r 0 a ^ 5 p e! y J J '''� Mall 4 P Y, � P. 1:50,000 U C i, _,1, i.,i =, i Occid•ntel Rd • n Pione St v W Valley Ma!I Blvd a • • • N > Cr �, h L (' > > 4 4 5 a E. m ; D r 5 W Larch Ave Almon ` n in Oak Avey in Anteroom Rd 4 a AAlanum Rd Anteroom Rd • Ahlanum Rd Ter atrMeallllstar Yard Debris Complaints a 3 W Columbus St c Fld y Ave > • 285 Complaints received from January 2011 to August 2012 in 4 � Emma ln a 4. BaggarlN Dr • Emma Ln Sources: E C City of Yakima, Washington - Information Technology Services - GIS 08/23/2012 fa , .1 's' '` \v:♦ U f Jcy ee R 4 ' "' . t ... k ar y \ suds FI h M Lookout l■:,.nt Or \` Linde, ` \ �K' ervieN 131 Park Rest Haven .„ •, *4‹, �`, Neches Helghta Rd ` � i ''c \'... ti.)lar. \ .„ 9e+ ate aso 1, 4 a 0 , 12 �w./r, w ^..,. . � -- !'Gordon:" --.,� 4 rF Chi Nachos y °4s „ s0 --...N.., e/ghk f e1 & 0 -' r�` to e a 0 E R' .c BFOSt u C' 0 d z - O \\ f� C o Pd 4/ = i 3 o C anv 00 .' i s R d Ret c a River Rd % a O z O River Rd O O z 0 �`\ rip. ® ' � ' � 4 0 P a i t k hasten/ Madison Ave EK .`•,.. E Rar / r oa 0P/ Veriner Rd Pros �' . t , csi' © 0 O O O t .l O o 0 S /-_ t 0 3 r, a glathaway Ave LJ W i St L I St ® a 7 d e 40 err a ` 0 O� a O O O � 0 l Haraord Rd ° 4cade Rd c v s. O astle e 124D F tv e H ^ 01. _ ,� v cenlc Dr a OOO r t O 0 0 i 000 0. s' o - ` s± z tr "Or i . Kern Rd Z � �B�•.., �^1�• a 0 f ' q i f , \ m ki 0 m 0 M 0 % �r,,,:$ 'F /. O y y - fi ",1: 4 z a m u h 0 a o j a ••^ H , F ` n waodAvt a 0 <' p Q I Olr O OP c rn L 5r<c oto P � . v O 11 to Z OO Q v _Fn Iew o�Ave � :P��•� . � u t r:" 0OO 0 Douglasef f 2tl o O a o S S ` . QS t e E [P1 99 s <ct i re M er eight; Dr 4 ti s • • V v ,�e` } � � { L y O N P ' $ ° © VI-Lincoln © t � Rrc c:ttbert = 0 O 0 u > O 0 � . O.` l YA Ma A � = ' fin O O O n a' 0 a W LWC OIn PaAt fj 4 . © o Q yr b ..I � ... - 'F,, w / r 0 i ll y v a Pv • , ` O c'. O le 1: Y o b c Q < �/ t e• tl � Q St 0 < �+ ,~Q • sr �r i O O o f n Z ® n .r, S , A va l anc h e A '- - $ c q r u .' r I t it h 51 • �. O a u a z �o unta+n Rd Z fl „ Summitvi Ave Q ry a N a .5 4 r O 14 4p " e a.(� 3 r4wani2 Alm. ew v e ' Q SUM Ave ID u • e z O cy z fo g 0 ° -c 0 r � v `� 1, L , °. O 0 Park 0; r 3 n ne 1V.,, `. , 0 ¢ > � mmi w Ave 1. a 0 N z n a h • tV r� r e . Sui I., }_.cps \ •(1 ?''s_c'o'co ` 0 u Z ©O Z z Atlf O } Park O s i O 8 ar g e S � z O O V `J r N 0 V ?? r 0 O _ Z v t e .; t ;. ' . ee ch s . O t z a z e ^ © Yakima Ave :'yard Ave a z 0 o 0 "" ;t 1 0 ° .r0.I J W Chestnut Ave e .0„ W Chestnut Ave z O 6 u O °' O � 00 0. 0 D. `� s 9, O r 0 w w a w „ 0 O Fr anklin Bell Si Q O Q L 0 1 I, a 0 Q ny � vi VS � s a y � Y � � ¢ ^ 6 N � n Pa rk 4 a s 0 � ' . . � c�},.� .. 5 0 � O 0 ?r Tieton Dr S Q - ® H v: w a Q-+ m 0 Than Dr £ � a ° � ueton D* � �e � r V 5 0 � �� ; . ,,�, � Yakima v • W d o estwoo < '1; '$ a eel o O a s 0 O ` Sportsman } O e 0 O DO WestG w H 5 a ® � =a � 0 �' _, n State Par SD v'� N M \ ? i N �Q - _ F� t ' :. O 1 0 st a u , a Cou rse W W✓\ Q� © [ l �� r;�+ U St ` P' s3 0 a r Fair Park y a 92nd Ave ® MidresleRd O N W A rtmgton St ; 4 z u u� "" "�,)^"' St n ?! t arsM ® � . � 0 Aninglon St ° � ? O Olmstead® / `; y am} \ .. y�'' '``rt� ," /7��� _ /(�/� O t, .- o ! ® Q 1 ` J2 C: CJ vd o nnl U e tA \!l OO O a • 1. POr: C .: : 7 0 0 Ora H h er > . \J O O W Nab Hill Blvd 41 id 5 5 w N� ^ � - � ' �L - 0 , 0 O O O �O } n -� � , O OO ® • O� `- l-.f O ( � � - O O O 0 - O •' 0 V is -? - O O E b Hi1 Bova O � ( �) !)r 0 O ` y `LJ f � LJ AO j 0 O• ,� m _: - 0 O O ` Y � ( '•/Z � e v > - O �• O ^ VP Wide Hollow Rd t� O . q. i O y�J C 'CO 1 � Q O Q ` G ti J J 20 West vatl, y O to Oa 0 O _ O OD Vda 0 N O C ; � .: . C rnnmunity O O A t ,� O 0 -� .O „ ur . 0 Park „ 00 • R • • 4i ,-0` " 0 0 d 0 ' 0 � - > > O � � .' 4 V' to © c r 0 0 O .. ' � •� • ., C _ - ` d Gr, _ L Mead Ave 006 Erni ,n N h ¢ . > . ' © O O 0 ,, �~ 0 W K�q �Q� O O Carey Sr 4 nn • Zrer Rd „ bet Rd a s W c6c0 0 O W F' ,,r O iii > Ave 5 5 0 W ashington qv 1 Perry Si Q ��{{�� u , Lilac In . , lig n CJ r� O O (� S O F'-:..' O K N A ve o H w Washington Ave W wasn,ng on Ave „ „ u O - - > �'�{ W W'.iShington Ave E Washington Ave H - m Q u Q Q Q v q l� ._ Q N rr y a Sqa a g u �� Ti- o e u > Q ,n Coolidge Rd e y H rn Q Yakima Air All, h N Whitman a a Q L Iril a Lyons fi Terminal!Mcatlister % St > e c et ° o <.ur C Apple ' u y e0 FiFief a r7 ry N m e: PPt 0 a 5 e° rn o s ' Mal. a. GotlCourse l J 1:50 000 • Occidental Rd O y n err, Pio neaSt +, la >cctdental Rd n `P/ „ „ „ 'Iv rr W Valley M Blvd _ Q 4 L N Q oei ce N 'r � 'e Dr 5 w W Larch Ave w Airport L '� va Port Ui d Oak Ave v, A l l Other Co rm I a i n ts Ahtanum Rd > H Ahtanum Rd Ahtanum Rd o Yakima Air „ Ahtanum9d TerrnMatlAcatlister re ' L. W Columbus St a Fld rr 3 z Ave 1222 Complaints received from January 2011 to August 2012 rn 5 „EmmaLn 6 B 0 FmmaLn Sources: Esri, C City of Yakima, Washington - Information Technology Services - GIS 08/23/2012 i f ° 6 e U ? S uds Pi ea Rd ' t t \ liar Lookout Point Dr ta n �., � t \Pa k ^eme'� 1:$ Rest Ha Neches Heights Rd <, \ a er Ser�l., , 14 r `i Lain �� � o Ehle� e " .y - 2 c. , '� h a A. a +ii.... ■ 7 .- r te- - � ',7 ,. Q Nache -! '! s� rri" la _ • 0 Q "�2_ _ `` " � O •` 0O • . 1 Li a OS le Y $ 5 r1, .e \\ a y • • o Q Rorer Rd e �t• z ID . rver Rd cp & Ro Ret H • n nwterk � 1 ' `v VMi Rtl P d ''y ° Pm* r ° ° ` Y Q MadrsonAvc .� • ro O ® > O V �t 4, Q' La O Ha Rd astl Scenic Dr Dr O ^ • O _ , 1 • D Ws • Ke kd O •« ! • Q • O •- �•� �' 5t 5 1 a k j • • A o • o • o A A e • • �E O 1 �l w nodAv ©O / �� - 1 ✓ - � � � rd(� A e - a Z o � ^ /V - • MM V Q i v e re a egg • Doupta g 4. z E41ki �• • ` ; • � rl . r,` • r. 0 • O ka • ° can Ave • f w 1 Rl!✓ "' ` a ° O � • , 1 Yaim a S °.O . ,,re z � e `-Y W t Ave r,l I., • 4..;.1, ••, • n p„ e'�l e O • O ° • e e n Sn ? Avalan the Ave L Z n Li a , � � 3 � a • Summttvrew Ave Z 3 a 4 Q 'V a s • z O „ tr m r • • � Q ( � nn � t w r, w O ° Z Z AI P O 6 r.1 • C p z a a • O i H n i `e T64.6 'Fe), _ . Ir' •� ■ ® t Q ° ; ark \ . Ow c. • z O $ • O Barge s® z �.{� • ° 0 O • n •1p 1• * r GO :Hard Ave WCheslnutAve • • Z ° " c b r,i Ave • 0-) a • e 0 • e W Chestnut Ave Z e Q O �• a ® H e eh s r a O 0 a e • L • eel b O • a a • ° L �, • 4.111:s4r;,,c � .Q • 4 :o ° a e c • V • e w` 5 • W Nev : �, t = , O w �i..J •� • �© ,' y P, ! ?r . Tieton t� H Q m a h p ® a a ° e n ° ry Fr3rrkltn �S � • o ®s • • Q E AIHu ® ° , Q ° i Tian N_6 • f , :i • ¢ v? • rte Park ® a c • •, • •, o - ° ._ ® c .�•.._ � • • Q • • 0 �O westwoc+d ¢ ® y • v O ¢ M (� Yakima 4° ;r Wrrt ' = -: H ®N • • W 0 4 y ,��' Q .: ,< . • c - a® ° t• L Mwe SPartam • 92nd Ave ° Mi a Rd 0 N 6Q:::),7994•0-;, �(�q •' �r F • • 7 • n� Sta rs a w W Ari.ton St, • • Q� .. .3., • v 1JISt • � M - °� S t + :' �\ \MinSt : i rk • O m Ilk fe • as o 6 a a �r • q` > 7 ap, �+ "R-1 r - • ` • i';arF •J • • • • • v! __ • • Q W�bHfIC•IYd n N a = • • &r t a •. O • • i.° li` F O • Y -. • O °• H m h -, ." L,, O , O O *•t. Q • e► O • 0 • • ° • • < • °� 4 O 0 Q 80•0 �Q O� 9 ® o i l /OWN d rip O •e O� Wide Hollow Rd • o i,ny- 0 (� • W P e v • r l c 0 Wd•n Ln '` ° �✓ Av �J • 0 • N 24 A eel V il4y C� re • W� a Ave a Q t ' '° Q .; ° a n• P • N rTh se rmanrty vlJ QQ • Randall I Mean • Dr • • ° -16 1!) ," • A t � oQ `u o x � _, • � ° b ^E ViatAve 2 � • < Palk :U7 Qj 1 t f4; . ;0 Z� p • • • s• to m � � rr E Mead Ave O En I clt.. v 4 , r2 SID Lei Rd Zier Rd S rn Part • • O y • ° • y au 'Q sod? l o CataYSt T. Ter.ry 40 Avg_ a sh i npton Av e I' ° S t • ^' O CD • LJ t ' r a 0 ti Lilac Ln r Ve 0 • W Washington Ave W Washington Ave 0 -�- Fre Q r W „ a i a to a - ' l 7 J C a W W hrnylon Ave y Ave a w a E Washln plot H e Coolidge Rd • ° $ 4s g e -• t g E a ® s 6 rc a • • Lyons' n Yakima Air m u > i Q a o - Terminanicelftster Whitman St • < ¢ € m Alf, 7, ` • O • 4 n Fld a n ro n q p . , O )cctden tat Rd '(J a r m y in - 0 vamp • Occ�ental Rd • Q a la •+ N '! • • UP a • • i a • • • 0 e r' Pioneer St , w i 1:50,000 y •• L , r a a s v W Valley Mail Blvd _ W Larch Ave ' to a a! $ at vi Oak Ave w Port Ahtanum Rd > O an AAlanum Rd Ahtanum Rd Yakima McalI CO mposite Map of Co mplaints ° o . Columbus i Ahtanum d Ter mtn aVMcallister y 3 Ave W C a Fld c 0 a 2,782 Complaints received from January 2011 to August 2012 e Emma Ln K HaggareyOr a EmmaLn Sources: E City of Yakima, Washington - Information Technology Services - GIS 08/2312012 n M f ' �g ( Ma I Satellite I Hybrid Terrain W R o, a 97 d VI r+1 Ne hee Heights Rd � „.,,,, l,,,..„ S Mar -, afreezi_ �-4 t e.1. N&. L a t: CD i y � � �? ' ?[L -4 "�48e � . • , �. , - W Kam Dr O f ? ,q0. la , 12 Bot kr err ' ' I�i fall 1 — t Sceric Dr a ©t K`�endon`Z - r 1. ` Z z s tea` ( �� � �I i �QI . L 4r vi Marble Rd ,� t m T a ,r �ae 4 kk i + 1 . Engiewood "r t ©0ie coo Avz 1011 r r I g Terrace Heights Dr Tarr' trace iv, Roza I-ill c. a _ _ a pue l Axe Heights i w -� Qii �OtR _ Lincoln Ave t `n W i -rn A ve s a ( 5 , . ,. Ss�rg CP W . QI Q: r” Q Huard Par T errace frJ, EA!) SurnmmnecvE d Sum r Si+ttrmitviewAve Su i Ave ' Summ ve I � 4i 14 ( © RI' Q P 4 —." urge St 1131, . � � m - , i ranldi ; Q _ ar Orchard A•re Summitview i W Chestnut Ave � I � Pa � +� Q ��, l i .. l r N e!un Or Ireton Dr W Teton Dr ifJ e3t valley Tieton Dr F t Park I I 6 e D � 111 1 ell ■! I� K '" d I � Q, Golf Coulee - -r (� f H 1 �'p Rd A Arlrigtan Ave , reon Park Yakima e a Ui t Q * Imp g � � �7 Sportsman Li Rd 11 W No b Hill Blvd 0 0 _ State Park 101 , Q s ur s l - . YY Nob � (* yob H a � ( E Nob Hill Blvd 24' Harwood Wide Hotaw Rd w If ' E . as c S 3 r I s 17 z N o A - v, a m ut co in 1 Randal Park i- a _ m 3 I ! g � "- = 1 � s r a) a ,„,... Rd �� P . ` n b 0 d ( . �: m a 4 I� ,3 a Zier Rd w W II p d ab ro a s h rr.gtonA ve m t Se z g I W •ashirrgtonAve 4- glkaihinglon Ave c. Yakima Air ; 5 g Terminal S . > McAllister Field Broadwadw ay y� • 24 11 N L Occidental Ave y Ocxideritel Occidental Ave � a ' ' P nclmand El co a 1 Ahtanum j � a. pntanum Rd 0 Ahtanum Rd f+ht anurn Rd AManum Rd W Ahtanum Rd Union Gap Rd en En w ,..- BO S 0, y is +^ .. i 4r` C g Emma Ln �e . n 5 KU �' i' Amami., ` r Gilbert Re . W GrfofJ R 4 a a Youth Park a {� 1 ml I • 0 ill F Beauchene Rd Po W. E Y " fi p `'w. Go le I 1 km I' rn p m m Map data ®2012 Google - Terms of Use Yak ima Police Department Burglary Incidents 8/10/12 - 8/24/12 'me'rmaId% .noteiisa. ,iii,„, Q _ W —_ x + 4. m � � ( Map Satellite I Hybrid I Terrain P 'ff a a: a 97 3 Neches Heights Rd ' Rc,r g 1 ,Ar 4 y °�` or an 4 Na S S I �m 823) ''�'r•8 fhc v's ta f'p 1' W Karr, or C Ca", Fruitvale =Lk � � 1 e rr Scenic br d 4, u d 5 101 I6417- - 1 Marble Rd 5 CI 6, rg _ iV 4 %'- Englewood A ,¢ va z Ave FngletiKnad I O i Terrace p Iii T e rrace Hei ghts Dr Roza Hill Dr z Uk at vP ,,�dreeAve tleiglAS W L1nooin Ave '4 'W Lincoln Ave _ ;a I :I le 1 ! Sorg ace K�1111d hir�ard Park ?err `Ern Surnrnitview`Exd Sum mitwierrAwe Surnmilview Ave SummrtvleaAve Sum mmarevrAve 1 I 1 ' 1 N Blt *. Barge St Klv:anrs C Rankin) ( I Park Orchard Awe Summdview W Chestnut Ave Park vn 11 I — _s Ireton Dr W Ireton Dr - e,or� +r Tleton Dr , er ar " Valley Fialh Pk n m West Val Gof Goa tee a ` 5 ' ('—'� �i lie I * n l.a raa n Park Yaki 41 Midvale Rd lORrin Arlington — "`-r 7Q`' 37 Sports cn HO Blvd _ State Park M q d W Nob H o W Nob Hill Blvd ' W Nob l ,r E Nob #1111 Blvd ' -' 24 Harwood Wide Holow Rd to z l 3 3 `a io r3 s Rand Park 0 v � � a J�.. S f{ n rs d =, � e 1 , Ave al 5 ` l ) z to - rt } a M teas Rd ao ad ° di et Rd m 3. I _ @ n, 1,*( 9 ➢V tNes n;.ngton Ay W u W Washington Ave 'A l iNashinglan Ave V Yakima Air 3 Terminal; South ' rro .1' tMMcAliister Field s Broadway s7 ,74 Occidental Ave u, Occidental Ave Occidental Ave co v' n z Pantme Rd > ' cn Ak kt an urn ` , 73 a 1-itanum Rd so Ahlarrum Rd Ahtanurn Rd Ahtanum Rd W Abtanum R Union Clap' t ` - - ' " gd . fl Rd a g E mma i _n a a ro `�' a. w 1' u7 AhleTturn 0 „ Q Gilbert 1 m W G11a Rd = ici a ti Youth Park m a POYrEREO BY ^ s. = m n S F Beau none Rd �rC)4 I 1 km I a Map data 02012 Google - Terms of Use Yakima Police Department Assault with Deadly Weapons Incidents 2/24/12 - 8/24/12 wP, m � F$ , � Map I Satellite I Hybrid I Terrain +� 5, Nachee Heights Rd , ` ,., tf b x . ; yr�- 4 N a``''S al,. ' 411 J l ' " ' . � y " 1 � °- - *. .-� i/p4 12 a s � "` 52. 1454 6''d As s icin 1011 � Q i j - D e °as r4n.• Frultvale � !� 11#I 1 � �- 8ohaskey - ,. rr c i �r � r Yy Z I I � I — s t if -Pv Scenic Dr 110411 I Y KieRdon ; 4 v � Marble Rd ¢ 'V � � r 4 jh E r Engtewood Fnglei.ti»od Ave r .. Terrace Heights Dr a Roza Hill Dr Terrace O i 9Q Z z I CI - � J R � . - Avs :... 9 Heights Sarg W Lincoln Ave p W Lincoln Ave I r tiff Hubbard Park Terace. • ''.3".0 Yak R i 1, 1 — ` I 101' :. b Exrr SummRwewEKd Sum inevrewAve SummitviewA've Summrtmew Ave Sum rniviewAvd. IQl TM 1 I„t q I 1 ' K iwanis t - -s Orchard Ave Summitvlew W Chestnut Ave F� III Park ITBfn ' - rtun Dr iieton Dr W Tieton Dr West Valley Tieton Dr Fisher Park in r I I I9I N Q Golf Course y N 4 Midvale Rd 'Ai Al ingt an Ave ri Low Park EU INTO �;� Yak ma 0 Sportsman i r i s a cn 1141 IQ) 101 1 14 B . 1 I 11 114111101 r. _ State Park -<d W +-Sb Hill Blvd 101 W Nob Hill Siva W N _ , Bt d a E Nob Hill Blvd (24 j w cii -a 7 Harwood Wide Holey. Rd v: z I I ' � h I f 3 N 03 2 I S Ifs - 171 . E o g p Randal Park A v m m __ 'p) ' n S 10 NA G gyp. 1 D Av rc II n A I w 2d a We Rd S �y 0 S _s a Zier Rd W ' r v, 'Ue rpa s aah ingto riAvg �� I a I I k (ta A. n W WashirctonAvve } W Washing Ave m ui a y Yakima Air g 5 Terminal South II a McAllister Field Broadway 1 24) v, o i r f: Occidental Ave u Occidental Ave Occidental Ave n 0., ff ' a z- ,. p,,,,,,, RA p o cn Ahtanum a Ahtanum Rd W Ahtanum Rd 110:!, n pntanum Rd Ahtanum Rd Ahtanu Rd r n L Bel Rd c n l W t io 9 s �d 3 N g p y ' n m e D A . ,,,,..00 '- IL I :n a g Emma Ln AhtarlitRr v a2 r n v D u, 0 Gilbert Rd W CGiro°� �" r 7 m Youth Park a a POWERED BY 1 ml .a P n 3 ^ ...3 F neau: hone Rd Goggle 1 1 km I w ry 13 1 (i 1J Map data ®2012 Google - Terms of Use fi► Y akima Police Department Robbery Incidents 2/24/12 - 8/24/12