The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/09/2013 02 Citizen Survey Results - Mike LevinsonBUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. For Meeting of: 9/9/2013 ITEM TITLE: 9:30 a.m. Citizen Survey Results Review — Mike Levinson SUBMITTED BY: SUMMARY EXPLANATION: Resolution: Other (Specify): Contract: Start Date: Item Budgeted: Funding Source /Fiscal Impact: Strategic Priority: Insurance Required? No Mail to: Phone: APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: RECOMMENDATION: Ordinance: Contract Term: End Date: Amount: City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Description Upload Date Type ❑ survey 9/6/2013 - Cover Memo City of Yakima City Council Work Session September 9, 2013 Resident Survey Methodology National Citizen's Survey Provides Comparative results (benchmarks) 31000 City residents were mailed survey ❖ 762 completed the survey (837 last year) ❖ 27% response rate ❖ 66 items or 73% rated similarly to 2012 Statistically valid with margin of error of 4% 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 762 respondents in the survey. DEMOGRAPHICS: DISTRICTS: 1 251 2 142 3 106 4 263 Tota 1: 762 2012 Results 2013 Results 2010 Census GENDER: 31% 48% Male I 49% 53% 52% Female 51% GE: 31% 33% 18 -34 34% 32% 32% 35 -54 ' 33% 36% 34% 55 and older 32% EARS LIVED IN YAKIMA: 4% 6% <2 Years 9% 12% 2 -5 I 12% 12% 6 -10 I 16% 15% 11 -20 I 59% 55% 20+ INCOME: 36% 30% $25,000 or less 34% 33% 37% $25 to $50,000 I 30% 23% 24% $50- 99,000 26/° 8% 10% Over $100,000 10% OWN OR RENT: 56% 55% Own 55% 44% 45% Rent 45% EMPLOYMENT: 40% 35% Not employed 10% 14% 11% Part -Time I 38% 46% 54% Full -Time 52% ETHNICITY: 72% 76% Caucasian /White 67% 32% 27% Other (identity 33% themselves as Spanish, Hispanic or Latino) DISTRICTS: 1 251 2 142 3 106 4 263 Tota 1: 762 g i 1 •1 a MATI Community Characteristics with 55% or higher (excellent /good rating) Excellent /Good Characteristic (% of residents) Helped a friend or neighbor 83% Visited a neighborhood park or City park 83% Remain in Yakima for next 5 years 79% Opportunity to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 71% Ease of car travel 64% Neighborhood as a place to live 60% Opportunities to volunteer 56% Quality of overall natural environment in Yakima 56% Recommend living in Yakima 55% Lowest Rated Community Characteristics (poor /fair rating) 2012 2013 Code enforcement 85% 84% Overall image or reputation of Yakima 81% 79% Availability of affordable quality housing 67% 65% Overall appearance of Yakima 70% 72% Cleanliness of Yakima 68% 71% Sense of community 66% 69% Openness and acceptance of people to diverse 65% 67% backgrounds Shopping opportunities 61% 63% Opportunities to attend cultural activities 58% 56% Opportunities to participate in community 55% 60% matters Ratings of Service (excellent /good rating) 2012 2013 Fire 84% 82% Ambulance 83% 79% Garbage Collection 80% 81% Sewer Services 71% 62% Drinking Water 64% 62% City Parks 56% 57% Police 54% 54% Public Information Services 48% 47% Storm Drainage 46% 37% Recycling 46% 42% Public Schools 45% 55% Recreation Opportunities 43% 50% Public Parking 37% 41% Snow Removal 36% 42% Planning/Development Services 28% 27% Animal Control 28% 26% Economic Development 23% 24% Street Repair 22% 20% Code Enforcement 15% 15% PRIORITY: Efficiently manage public resources /fiscal sustainability Public Trust (excellent/good rating) 2012 2013 Comparison to benchmark Value of services for the taxes paid to Yakima 27 27 Lower The overall direction that Yakima is taking 28 31 Lower Overall image or reputation of Yakima 19 21 Much lower PRIORITY: Public Health and Safety Community and Personal Public Safety Benchmarks (excellent good rating) 2012 2013 Comparison to benchmark In your neighborhood during the day 61 74 Lower In Yakima's commercial areas during the day 62 60 Much lower Overall feeling of safety in Yakima N/A 23 Much lower Environmental hazards, including toxic waste 56 N/A Much below Victim of crime 26 29 Higher Reported crimes 81 42 Much lower PRIORITY: Customer Service and Communications Participation in Civic Engagement Opportunities Benchmarks (excellent /good rating) 2012 2013 Comparison to benchmark Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other 18 18 Similar local public meeting Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other public meeting on cable television, the internet or 46 38 Similar other media Local Government Media Services and Information Dissemination Benchmarks (excellent /good rating) 2012 2013 Comparison to benchmark Public Information Services 48 47 Lower Contacted Yakima for help or information (website, in 42 33 Lower person, phone) PRIORITY: Preserve /Enhance Quality of Life Overall Community Quality Benchmarks (excellent /good rating) 2012 2013 Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of life in Yakima 44 41 Much lower Your neighborhood as place to live 61 60 Lower Yakima as a place to live 50 50 Much lower Recommend living in Yakima to someone who asks 59 51 Much lower Remain in Yakima for the next five years 73 73 Similar Sense of community 34 31 Much lower Openness and acceptance of the community toward 35 33 Lower people of diverse backgrounds Availability of affordable quality child care 27 50 Similar Yakima as a place to raise kids 38 42 Much lower Yakima as a place to retire 46 45 Lower PRIORITY: Quality of Life Built Environment Benchmarks (excellent /good rating) 2012 2013 Comparison to benchmark Quality of new development in Yakima 38 33 Lower Overall appearance of Yakima 29 28 Much lower Community Environment Benchmarks (excellent /good rating) 2012 2013 Comparison to benchmark Cleanliness of Yakima 31 29 Much lower Quality of overall natural environment in Yakima 49 56 Lower Air quality 50 53 Similar Community Recreational Opportunities Benchmarks (excellent /good rating) 2012 2013 Comparison to benchmark Recreation opportunities 41 50 Lower Cultural and Educational Opportunities Benchmarks (excellent /good rating) 2012 2013 Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to attend cultural activities 42 43 Similar Educational opportunities 47 54 Lower PRIORITY: Promote Economic Development Economic Sustainability and Opportunities Benchmarks (excellent /good rating) 2012 2013 Comparison to benchmark Employment opportunities 15 19 Similar Shopping opportunities 39 37 Lower Yakima as a place to work 38 40 Lower Overall quality of business and service establishments in Yakima LII me Economic Development Services Benchmarks (excellent /good rating) Lower 2012 2013 Comparison to benchmark Economic development 23 24 Lower Custom Question Results The City of Yakima is considering implementing a curbside recycling program. Please indicate how much you would support or oppose paying each of the following proposed fees, if any. Proposed monthly fee $0.00 per month $2.50 per month $5.00 per month $7.50 per month Support 0 ose 80% 20% 69% 31% 37% 63% 24% 77% Custom Question Results How important (essential /very important) is it that the City invest in each of the following: Public Safety 90% Economic Development 90% Fire Service 84% Community Appearance 76% Infrastructure Improvements 75% Community Events /Activities 56% Yakima Citizen Survey Key Findings 2012 compared to 2013 Policy Questions ( "Strongly Support" or "Somewhat Support" responses) Distributed at the Meeting -q- & 2013 2013 54% S O a Implementation of a .curbside N recycling program ellent" or "Good" responses) $0:00 per month 8;0% 8676 $2.50 per month 69% 76'7o-, $5.00 per month . 37% . , 5576 $7.50 per month ': 24% 8 %, Distributed at the Meeting -q- & The overall direction that 28% '�31% ' 18%,-39% Yakima is taking Value'of services for 27% 26% 37% 31% taxes paid ELegend fic res ults , non - scientific results Rating of 54% 54% Quality of Life and Government E vernment Services ellent" or "Good" responses) 2012 2013 2012 2013 48% S S O O Fire Services 84% 83 %• 847. 87% Ambulance. , 83% 79% 75% 85 %` Services ' 50% ` 54% S S Garbage 80% 81% '85% 84% Collection,' Ease of car travel = 64 %. '64% . 66% '75% Recreation . , 43% Drinking Water 64% ; 61:% �72% City`Parks" 56% 57% -56% 62% A 68% :, 72 % -; v Public Parking, 37% 4076 -o 40% ' Al % . place to live, The overall direction that 28% '�31% ' 18%,-39% Yakima is taking Value'of services for 27% 26% 37% 31% taxes paid ELegend fic res ults , non - scientific results Ponce Services 54% 54% Quality of Life and Government Performance Questions Public Information 48% ',47176 4476- 51% ( "Excellent" or "Good" responses) Services 2012 2013 2012 2013 Storm Drdinage' 46%",''1137% 50% ` 54% S S o 0 Ease of car travel = 64 %. '64% . 66% '75% Recreation . , 43% 40% 48 %, 54% Programs > - Neighborhood as a 61% 60% ' 68% :, 72 % -; v Public Parking, 37% 4076 -o 40% ' Al % . place to live, Yakima as a place to live 50% 50% . 45% . 51'o -. Street Repairs 21,% 19% 1.1 % 18% Services provided by the 45% 47% 40% 51% Code. 15% ; > 15% ; 12% .13 %, City of Yakima- Enforcement x, The overall direction that 28% '�31% ' 18%,-39% Yakima is taking Value'of services for 27% 26% 37% 31% taxes paid ELegend fic res ults , non - scientific results