HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/07/2008
STUDY SESSION AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
City Council Chambers
7500 W. 29th Ave.
..,-- ! Julv 7.2008
6:30 D.m.
Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings
sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information
Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are
interested in participating and need inclusion assistance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Item 1.
Staff Report: An Ordinance Amending Section 17.22 and 17.32 of
the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning restrictions of use of
Lakes and Waterways within the City.
Item 2.
Citizen Survey Presentation
Item 3.
Public Infrastructure Funding Information Program
Item 4.
Zoning Code Changes to support implementation of the NRS and
support efforts of WR 2020
Item 5.
Special Meetina - Executive Session
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Provision of Services and Aid
in preparation for and during the Democratic National Convention
\,
rrEM '\.
. b..I.(
~ _ ~ City of
A~WheatRl.-dge
~OLlCE DEPARTMENT
Memorandum
TO: Mayor Jerry DiTullio and City Council
THROUGH: Randy Young, City Manag~~
Daniel Brennan, Chief of P:ic: ~ -
FROM: Joe Cassa, Division Commander
Patrol Operations Division
DATE: June 26, 2008
SUBJECT: Staff Report: Code of Laws, Section 17-22
Recently, the department received a citizen inquiry regarding boating on City waterways. In
answering this question, along with a review of the applicable Code of Laws, Section 17-22,
Commander Cassa found that waterways were not specifically addressed. As is typical in the
month of June, water in Clear Creek rises, and the additional water volume and speed increases
the dangerousness of boating.
The purpose of the proposed amendments to the existing ordinance is to extend the authority of
Community Service Officers (CSO's) on City lakes and waterways by:
· Clarifying through the addition of the restriction of use oflakes and waterways whereas
the current City Code (Section 17.22) does not specifically address lakes and waterways;
· The added requirement of each person occupying the watercraft wearing an approved
personal flotation device, whereas the current City Code (Section 17.32 {5}) does not
require the wearing of such devices, but that they only be available and onboard for each
occupant. The requirement for a single throw floatation device now requires at least one
such device be onboard the watercraft.
· Section 17.32 (f) currently does not provide the authority for Commuuity Service
Officers to close City waterways due to inclement weather or other unsafe conditions
which in the judgment of the Community Service Officer constitutes a danger to the
health and safety of the public.
I have received and incorporated the suggestions of the Parks and Recreation Department
Director, the City Open Space Coordinator, the Community Service Officer Unit supervisor and
the Patrol Operations Division Lieutenants. All parties agree the proposed ordinance changes are
al'p'Vl',;ate and necessary to protect health and safety of the public using City lakes and
waterways. Staff is recommending City Council approve these changes.
A copy of the revised ordinance is attached for your review.
Attachment
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
1.
\
,
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
Council Bill No.
Ordinance No.
Series 2008
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 17.22 AND 17.32 OF THE WHEAT
RIDGE CODE OF LAWS CONCERNING RESTRICTIONS OF USE OF
LAKES AND WATERWAYS WITHIN THE CITY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado has authority to
enact ordinances for the protection of public health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, exercising this authority, the Council has previously adopted Chapter 17 of
the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws entitled "Parks and Recreation;" and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined it is necessary to amend Sections 17.22 and
17.32 of the Code to extend enforcement authority of code officers to lakes and
waterways.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO:
Section 1. Section 17.22 is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 17-22. Restriction of use.
The director may restrict the hours, days and weeks of use of any
recreation center or building, facilities, parks, open space-ef trails,
LAKE OR WATERWAY, and the director or all a CSO may restrict or
remove any user, individual or group for violation of any of the rules
and regulations set forth in this article.
Section 2. Section 17.32 is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 17-32. Boating.
a) All nonmotorized watercraft designed to be used as a means of
transportation on water, other than single-chambered air-inflated
devices, shall be allowed on any waters in the park and recreation
areas of the city as outlined in this section except for Bass Lake.
Boating is prohibited on Bass Lake.
l
(b) In order to boat on any water in the parks and recreation areas
of the city the following requirements shall be met:
(1) The watercraft shall be nonmotorized, propelled solely by
means of oars and paddles or by the use of sails. Any watercraft
which has a motor-driven means of propulsion shall be classified
as motorized and shall be prohibited upon the water of the city.
(2) Any sailboat must be properly registered with the Colorado
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation.
(3) All air-inflated devices, including inflatable canoes, kayaks,
rafts and belly boats, must have a minimum of two (2) separate
and distinct chambers. Inner tubes, air mattresses and other
similar beach toys are not permitted at any time.
(4) The watercraft shall be in seaworthy condition as defined by
these rules and regulations and determined by the CSOs.
(5) EACH PERSON OCCUPYING A +Ae watercraft shall BE
REQUIRED TO WEAR A have one (1) personal flotation device of
a type currently approved for use by the United States Coast
Guard WHILE THE CRAFT IS IN USE. IN ADDITION, EACH
WATERCRAFT SHALL HAVE on board AT LEAST for each
person occupyind ~r.~ ::raft and one (1) throw flotation device.
(f) All A CSO may order operators from the water when, in the
CSO's judgment, such operators constitute a safety hazard to
themselves or other OPERATORS operations. CSOs may also order
from the water persons or crafts operating in a reckless or careless
manner or in disregard of or in violation of any department of parks
and recreation rule or regulation. CSOs shall have the authority to
close ANY LAKE OR WATERWAY thE lake because of inclement
weather or any other unsafe condition which, in the judgment of the
CSO, constitutes a danger to the health and safety of the public.
(g) EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR HEREIN, THE
PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 13 OF TITLE 33 OF THE COLORADO
REVISED STATUTES, ENTITLED VESSELS, AS CURRENTLY
WRITTEN AND HEREAFTER AMENDED, SHALL APPLY TO
LAKES AND WATERWAYS WITHIN THE CITY.
Section 3. Severabilitv. Conflictino Ordinances Reoealed,. If any section,
subsection or clause of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall
not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the
provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen (15) days after
final publication, as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of _ to _
on this _ day of . 2008, ordered published in full in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge, and Public Hearing and consideration on
final passage set for , 2008 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council
Chambers, 7500 West 29'n Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by
a vote of _ to _, this day of , 2008.
SIGNED by the Mayor on this
day of
,2008.
Jerry DiTullio, Mayor
ATTEST:
Michael Snow, City Clerk
Approved as to Form
Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney
First Publication:
Second Publication:
Wheat Ridge Transcript
Effective Date:
" 4
~." _ ~ City of .
A~Wheat~dge
~ARKS AND RECREATION
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Randy Young, City Mana~
FROM: Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation Direct~
DATE: July 7, 2008
SUBJECT: Wheat Ridge Historical Society Contracts with the City of Wheat Ridge
As the City begins to look at making changes to the historic designation ordinance,
questions have surfaced regarding the relationship between the City and the Wheat Ridge
Historical Society in terms of ownership and maintenance of the historic park itself, as
well as the artifacts stored at the park.
Attached for your information are the following agreements:
Attachment #1 - Contract regarding the maintenance and operation ofthe Historic Park
and Museum
Attachment #2 - Acquisition Resolution - Baugh House property
Attachment #3 - Contract regarding the restoration, maintenance and operations of the
Baugh House.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or I can provide additional
information.
_........~
T
--=-1
---.1
~-f+~~ f'VU .be +- -4= /
"
CONTRACT
This Contract, made this ~3 day of a~ ' 1987,
by and between the City of Wheat Ridge, Colo~d~, a Home Rule
municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City"),
and the Wheat Ridge Historical Society, a Colorado nonprofit
corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Historical
Society") .
".;. ,
.. /. .
WHEREAS, the City owns certain real property;and building
situate thereon which are of historical significance;
WHEREAS, the Historical Society, which is not a City agency,
possesses, either through ownership or lease arrangement,
artifacts of historical significance;
.WHEREAS, the City and the Historical Society have in the
past cooperated, and.wish to continue in the future to cooperate,
in the care, preservation, and presentation of historical
exhibits and displays relating to the history of the city of
Wheat Ridge all for the benefit of the general public;
_::'..~';' WHEREAS, the parties wish to enter into a formalized
,':'''''''','-'. agreement whereby the purposes above specified may be carried on;
NOW, THEREFORE, for the consideration of the mutual promises
and .undertakings specified herein, the parties identified above,
for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, do hereby
covenant, warrant, and agree as follows:
1. The Historical Society agrees that it shall manage and
maintain, subject to the provisions hereof, the City-owned
facilities known and described as the Sod Rouse, the Brick Museum
and shed at 4610 Robb Street, and the Coulihan/Johnson Cabin,
together with any historical artifact collections or displays
maintained therein. The parties. specifically acknowledge and
agree, however, that the City shall maintain the grounds
surrounding said buildings and that the City shall further
perform repairs required upon said buildings.
2. The Historical Society agrees that it shall provide and
loan to the city those certain artifacts' identified on Exhibit A,
which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, for the purpose
of displaying the same within City-owned buildings.
)':~i:'f:. .
)
-.-J
3. The Historical Society agrees that it shall accept on a
loaned basis all City-owned artifacts which are identified in
Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, and
shall display and care for said artifacts.
4. The City agrees that it shall provide fire and casualty
insurance covering all of the artifacts listed in Exhibits A and
B, as the same presently exist or as the same may be amended in
the future, provided that said Exhibits A and B shall contain
updated listings of the artifacts owned by the respective
properties, and shall reflect appraised values for said
artifacts.
5. The City acknowle,dges that the Historical Society shall
be responsible for the lending of artifacts, whetqej.;owned or
controlled by the Historical Society or the city,;pursuant to the
rules of the Historical Society. Responsibility for loss of or
damage to said artifacits shall be assumed by the Historical
Society pursuant to the terms of its rules.
6. Any person employed or retained by the City to give
City-sponsored or conducted tours of the buildings or exhibits
maintained in City-owned buildings shall be subject to approval
and review by the Historical Society. It is understood that
Historical Society personnel and volunteers shall likewise be
authorized to give tours, and that special events shall be
coordinated and conducted by Historical Society volunteers.
,___~ 'A' 7. The parties agree to cooperate fully in any necessary
:",,""'~-""aspect when applications are made for grants relating to
expansion of historical facilities or exhibits.
8. The parties specifically 'agree that during any'
renovations or repairs to City-owned facilities, the Historical
Society shall coope.cate with the City regarding the preservation
and storing of any artifacts which may be affected during said
renovation.
9. This Contract shall continue in full force until the
same is terminated by a writing signed by either party and
delivered to the other party, or by the mutual written consent of
the parties.
THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
ATTEST: J'l'
V
!'\ I " /
L 12., f ' '
. .71-.d.~ j _ V ,/""" -
Wanda Sang, City C~tfk
APPROVEjl AS T~ FORM:
<<[1
c~f::At~rn:!< ~,
V i;:l
~'
By ~.//1:-.,.A A/da:_ ,
Frank Sti(~s, Mayor
WHEA:P RIDGE HISTORI,C;AL SOCIETY
BY
("'f, '. .'"
\
, ,
.{,~ ",
FC
.\ " --- , '
t . t t_.~,\
.,----
.,~:; \
2
,
~
~
!tt&c~ M- ~A. t-JfL.--
RESOLUTION NO. 1565
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
TITLE:
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE INTENT OF THE CITY OF WHEAT
RIDGE TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY AT '11361 WEST 44TH AVENQE IN
FEE SIMPLE FOR THE SPECIFIED PUBLIC PURPOSE OF PUBLIC
PARK ~~D RECREATION, FURTHER CONTINUANCE OF GOOD FAITH
NEGOTIATIONS TO ACQUIRE SAID PROPERTY INTEREST, AND
AUTHORIZATION TO INITIATE AN ACTION IN EMINENT DOMAIN TO
ACQUIRE SAID PROPERTY IN THE EVENT GOOD FAITH
NEGOTIATIONS DO NOT RESULT IN AN AGREEMENT TO ACQUIRE
SAID PROPERTY INTEREST.
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, is involved
in a project to preserve the Baugh Cabin located at 11361 West 44th
Avenue; and
WHEREAS, preservation of the Bau~h Cabin (hereinafter the
"Proj ect") was undertaken for the public purpose of public park and
recreation purposes; and
WHEREAS, acquisition of the property interests described
in Exhibit A .attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference (hereinafter the "Property"), is necessary for the
completion of, said Project; and
WHEREAS, negotiations to purchase the Property have, to
this point, been unsuccessful; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City of Wheat Ridge to
acquire immediate possession of the property in order to complete
the Project in a timely manner; and '
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge has determined that it
is necessary to acquire a fee simple interest in the Property, and
that, in the event that good faith negotiations do not result in
voluntary granting of a fee simple interest in the Property, it is
necessary that the City of Wheat Ridge acquire said interest in
said real property through the use of the City of Wheat Ridge's
power of eminent domain as reserved to the City of Wheat Ridge in
its' Horne Rule Charter, and in Article II, Section 15 of the
Constitution of the State of Colorado and in C.R.S. ~~ 38-1-101, et
sea., and 38-6-101, ~t sea.
MUR\53027\169327.1
OffICE Of! THE CnY ClERK
WHEAT RIDGE. CO 80033
THIS IS A TRUE AND CCRRECf
COP\' (EXACT) OFlHE ORIGINAL
OOCliMENTIN Pl<<CWiW",
DATE: ;~?-:9\,~c;,..., usu~~/
~D .~~r;, ".' , /'
.. i~,......,_,'.;f" ..".:\.A':;ctERK \
WANDA SAIIIG,! ,-.-J
.-J
~
o
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, THAT:
1. The City Council hereby finds that the Project will
serve a public purpose l:;j p:::'eserving the Baugh Cabin for park and
recreational purposes. The City Council further finds that it is
necessary to acquire the Property to achieve said public purpose.
2. The City Council does hereby declare its intent to
acquire a fee simple interest in the Property from the Owner and
all ethers having an interest therein.
3. The City Council specifically authorizes that
negotiations between the City and the Owner of the Property
continue in good faith, but in the event such negotiations are
unsuccessful, acquisition of a fee simple interest in the Property
from the record Owner thereof and all other owners having an
interest therein, through use of the City's powers of eminent
domain based upon the Constitution of the State of Colorado, by the
Charter of the City of Wheat Ridge and by Statutes of the State of
Colorado, is hereby authorized.
4. A copy of this Resolution shall be forwarded to the
record Owner of the Property.
DONE AND RESOLVED this 15thday of January
, 199*.
CITY COUNCIL
By:
Dan Wilde, Mayor
~~
ATTEST: 1
,/"'\J : r
'-:J'J~ .zJ.",~./
Wanda Sang, Clerk
[ SEA L ]
Date:
January 15, 1997
MUR\53027\169327.1
-2-
~
'~1rttZiuh T'A-e lA_+- ~J
,
CONTRACT
\ll
, This Contract, made this ~ day of,\~.li~' 1998, by and between the City of
Wheat Ridge, Colorado, a home rule municip~1 corporation (hereinafter referred to as the
"City"l, and the Wheat Ridge Historical Society, a Colorado nonprofit corporation
(hereinafter referred to as the "Historical Society") (together referred to as the "Parties':).
WHEREAS. the City owns certain real property and buildings situate thereon which
are of historical significance, including but not limited to, the Baugh House and surrounding
property, located at 11361 West 44'h Avenue, collectively referred to as the "Baugh
Property" ;
WHEREAS, the Historical Society, which is not a City agency, has received an I.R.S.
determination letter which classifies it under Section 501 (cI(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code as a, non profit corporation;
WHEREAS. the Historical Society is able to receive donations that are tax deductible
, as a Section 501 (c)(3) non profit corporation;
WHEREAS, the Historical S09iety has received in 1997 an anonymous donation in
the amount of $25,000, with an additional $25,000 pledge each year for the years 1998
and 1999, for a total of $75,000, for the purposes of preserving the Baugh House; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Historical Society have in the past, and wish to
continue in the future, to cooperate in the care, preservation, and presentation of historical
exhibits and displays relating to the history of the City of Wheat Ridge all for the benefit of
. the general public;
WHEREAS, the Parties wish to enter into a formalized agreement whereby the
purposes above specified may be carried out;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings
specified herein, the Parties, for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, do hereby
covenant, warrant and agree as follows:
1 . The City and the Historical Society shall commence a joint public
. participation process to determine uses and plans for restoration and
preservation of the Baugh Property.
2. Within the limitations of its budget and subject to apprOprtatlons, the City
shall restore and preserve the Baugh House, auxiliary buildings and
surrounding grounds. All improvements, shall be made in conformance with
the Department of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation.
3. The City shall apply for grants to help pay the costs associated with the
restoration and preservation of the Baugh Property, including but not limited
to the Colorado Historical Fund, Jefferson County Open Space, and GOCO
(Great Outdoors Colorado).
The Historical Society shall transfer to the City the anonymous donation of
$25.000 per year for three (31 years to s.atisfy the financial match required
for the grant applications described in Paragraph 3.
.roo .
~
--.J
,
5. It is anticipated that monies received for the restoratipn and preservation of
the Baugh Property will come from donations, grants, proceeds from fund-
raising events and monies budgeted and appropriated by the City. All funds
shall be placed in a special fund held by the City.
6. The Wheat Ridge City Council, upon the recommendation of the Historical
Society, shall approve the scope of work for any repairs or expenditures
associated with the restoration and preservation of the Baugh House.
7. The City and the Historical Society agree to cooperate fully in any necessary
aspect when applications are made for grants relating to preservation of the
Baugh Property or .exhibits.
8. The City shall be responsible for maintenance, operations, liability insurance
and all other reasonable and necessary expenditure related to the ownership
of the Baugh Property, to the same extent it is for all municipally owned
properties.
9. This contract shall continue in full force until the same is terminated by a
writing signed by either party and delivered to the other party, or by the
mutual written cons'ent of the Parties.
10. ,The financial participation of the Historical Society is predicated upon the
Baugh Property remaining in City Ownership. In the event (1) the City
transfers the Baugh Property to an entity not controlled by the City, or
(21 the Baugh House structure is moved from its present location, all funds
donated, transferred or made available to the City from the Historical Society
for restoration of the Baugh Property shall be returned to the Historical
Society.
AT~A / jl
~Al~~~
Wanda Sang, City Clerk ~
CIT*OF EAT RIDGE /7
By: ~ f.h() (~),?./~ .
r chen Cervany, Mayor-.>
APP~ TO FO~~~ ~
~A/4f1~
City Attorney .
ATTEST
--.--
We 1n:u JGE ms,.v;'-;j'-
BYutC~ I
(jED\53027\271752.01
2
rrEM 2.
\.,
\
\
,
\
,
\
\
\
\
,"~.i.4
~ _ ~ City of .
A~Wheat&"dge
~AoMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Memorandum
TO:
Mayor and City Council
Randy Young, City Manag~ f'\lJ
Patrick Goff, Deputy City ManageJ:..!b(j
Heather Geyer, Assistant to the City Manager/PIO ~
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
July 7, 2008
SUBJECT:
Draft 2008 Citizen Survey Results Presentation
On June 19,2008, staff provided City Council with a copy of the draft 2008 Citizen Survey
results. Shannon Hayden, Senior Analyst with the National Research Center will make a formal
presentation ofthese results to City Council at the July 7, 2008 Study Session. The purpose of
this presentation is to highlight data from both the, "Draft 2008 Citizen Survey Results" and the
"Benchmark Report." Following this presentation, the Citizen Survey Results will be finalized
the week of July 14,2008 and a copy of the final results will be provided to City Council.
With the bi-annual Citizen Survey serving the "consumer report card" for Wheat Ridge, a
summary of results from the survey will be included in the SummerIFall edition of the quarterly
Connections Newsletter. Additionally, the results will be made available via the City's Web site.
If you have any questions prior to the Study Session, please do not hesitate to contact me at
303-235-2826.
/hmg
,
I
,
,l
.. , C' f
~ _ ~ ItyO.
~Wheat&"-dge
~ADMINISTRAnVE SERVICES
Memorandum
FROM:
Mayor and City Council
Randy Young, City Manager ~
Patrick Goff, Deputy City ManagerW , 01:
Heather Geyer, Assistant to the City Manager/PIO ~- \j
TO:
THROUGH:
DATE:
June 19,2008
SUBJECT:
Draft 2008 Citizen Survey Results
The bi-annual Citizen Survey serves as the "consumer report card" for Wheat Ridge by
providing residents the opportunity to rate their satisfaction with the quality of life in the City,
the community's amenities and satisfaction with local government. The data collection phase for
the bi-annual Citizen Survey has been completed. Enclosed for your review are the draft survey
results presented in two reports prepared by the National Research Center. The first report is the
"Draft 2008 Citizen Survey Results" and the second report is the "Benchmark Report." The
National Research Center will present the Citizen Survey results to City Council at the
July 7,2008 Study Session. Final survey reports will be given to City Council following review
of the draft documents by Council and staff. The overall response rate for the survey was 38
percent, which is a very good response rate for this type of survey. If you have any questions
prior to the Study Session, please do not hesitate to contact me at 303-235-2826.
Attachments:
A. Draft 2008 Citizen Survey Results
B. Benchmark Report
Ihmg
~, ;,4
"~~ 4(
_ City of
W. ~eat
idge
'!P" 4 'j?'
7'
'~@..''';;:'
~;1
,
DRAFT Benchmark Report
June 2008
CLIENT CONFIDENTIAL
This document contains copyrighted and proprietary
information owned by National Research Center, Inc. (NRC)
and is intended for internal use by the employees and elected
officials of Wheat Ridge only. Neither this document nor the
information contained within it may be distributed externally
or reproduced for external distribution in any form without
express written permission of National Research Center, lnc.
Use of this information, in the same or different format, by
anyone other than those expressly permitted will create
financial hardship for National Research Center, Inc. for which
NRC will seek damages.
"(] ~ATIONAL
~EES~ATR;~ ",.
3005 30th Street
Boulder, CO 80301
ww,n-r-c.com.303-444-7863
i"
CONTENTS
Understanding the Benchmark Comparisons ...................................................................... 1
Comparison Data ....... .... ........................ ........... ........... ....... ................... .............. ............... ..... 1
Putting Evaluations onto the 1 DO-point Scale ............................................................................ 1
Interpreting the Results.... ...... ....... ................................. ................. ......... .................. ......... ...... 2
National Benchmark Comparisons...... ...... ........ ............... .......... ............................ ............. 3
Jurisdictions Included in National Benchmark Comparisons ..................................................... 7
Front Range Benchmark Comparisons .............................................................................. 10
Jurisdictions Included in Front Range Benchmark Comparisons ..............................................14
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 2008
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. Wheat Ridge chose to have
comparisons made to other jurisdictions across the nation and in the Front Range. 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 Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey was included
in NRC' s database and there were at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked. The
complete list of jurisdictions to which Wheat Ridge was compared is included following the
benchmarking tables.
Putting Eval uations onto the 1 DO-point Scale
Although responses to many of the evaluative questions were made on a four-point scale with I
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 mums 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"=O. 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) or equivalent to somewhere between "good" and "fair." An example of how to
convert survey frequencies into an average rating appears on the following page.
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 2008
1
Example of Converting Responses to the 1 DO-point Scale
How do you rate the overall quality of life in Wheat Ridge?
Step 1: Remove Total Step 2: Step 4: Sum
Total with the percent of without Assign Step 3: Multiply to calculate
Response "don't "don't know" "don't scale the percent by the average
option know" responses know" values the scale value rating
Excellent 13% =13/(100-1)= 13% 100 =13% x 100 = 13
Good 60% =60/(100-1)= 61% 67 =61%x67= 41
Fair 25% =25/(100-1)= 25% 33 =25% x 33 = 8
Poor 1% =1/(100-1)= 1% 0 =1%xO= 0
Pon't know 1%
Total 100% 100% 62
How do you rate the overall quality of life in Wheat Ridge?
1%
I
I
o
Poor
25%
60%
13%
I
100
Excellent
I
33
Fair
I
\ 67
i!1~Good
.iji~{,.;\:;
f'liZ~',
A~::S;\1~l\fA
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 city's rating on the lOO-point scale.
The second column is the rank assigned to your city's rating among jurisdictions where a similar
question was asked. The third column is the number of jurisdictions that asked a similar question.
The fourth column shows the benchmark, followed by a comparison of your city's average rating
(column one) to this benchmark.
The comparison: "above," ''below'' or "similar" comes from a statistical comparison of your city's
rating to the benchmark (the average rating from all the comparison jurisdictions where a similar
question was asked). Differences of more than two points on the lOO-point scale between your
city's ratings and the average based on the appropriate comparisons from the database are
considered "statistically significant," and thus are marked as "above" or "below" the benchmark.
When differences between your city's ratirigs and the benchmarks are two points or fewer, they are
marked as "similar to" the benchmark.
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 2008
2
NATIONAL BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
Quality of Life Benchmarks
Circle the number Wheat Ridge average Number of
that best represents rating (O=poor, Jurisdictions for National Comparison to
your opinion: 100=excellent) Rank Comparison benchmark benchmark
Wheat Ridge as a
place to live 70 95 230 68 Above
Your neighborhood
as place to live 65 118 181 68 Below
Wheat Ridge as a
place to raise kids 63 128 227 64 Similar
Overall quality of life
in Wheat Ridge 62 177 279 65 Below
Wheat Ridge as a
place to retire 61 57 208 55 Above
Place to work 51 84 156 52 Similar
Overall appearance
of Wheat Ridge 50 150 211 57 Below
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 2008
3
City Services Benchmarks
Following are services
provided by the City of Wheat Wheat Ridge Number of
Ridge. For each service, average rating Jurisdictions Comparison
please first rate the quality of (O=poor, for National to
each service. 100=excellent) Rank Comparison benchmark benchmark
Recreation centers or facilities 72 13 167 59 Above
Recreation programs or classes 68 48 210 61 Above
Park maintenance/appearance 64 117 190 65 Similar
Open space maintenance 64 6 15 58 Above
Services to seniors 62 48 183 56 Above
Police services 61 184 271 65 Below
Traffic enforcement 57 100 225 56 Similar
Services to youth 56 52 156 51 Above
Courts 56 32 92 54 Above
Snow removal 53 118 183 56 Below
Opportunities to participate in
social events and activities 53 5 8 56 Below
Street cleaning 52 126 201 54 Below
Building permits 52 2 19 45 Above
Building inspection 51 15 28 52 Similar
Street repair Imaintenance 49 103 276 45 Above
Cultural and arts programs 44 15 21 53 Below
Code enforcement (weeds,
abandoned buildings, etc) 43 132 227 45 Below
Land use, planning and zoning 43 80 180 42 Above
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 2008
4
Overall Quality of City Services Benchmarks
Overall, how
would you rate
the quality of
the services
provided by the Wheat Ridge average Number of
City of Wheat rating (O=poor, Jurisdictions for National Comparison to
Ridge? 100=excellent) Rank Comparison benchmark benchmark
Services
provided by the
City of Wheat
Ridge 61 120 255 60 Similar
Aspects of Transportation Benchmarks
Please rate the
following
aspects of
transportation Wheat Ridge average Number of
within the City rating (O=poor, Jurisdictions for National Comparison to
of Wheat Ridge: 100=excellent) Rank Comparison benchmark benchmark
Ease of car
travel in Wheat
Ridge 57 48 167 50 Above
Ease of bus
travel in Wheat
Ridge 55 23 116 44 Above
Streets 53 23 61 47 Above
Ease of walking
in Wheat Ridge 50 110 168 54 Below
Overall Government Performance Benchmarks
How would you
rate the overall
performance of
the Wheat Wheat Ridge average Number of
Ridge city rating (O=poor, Jurisdictions for National Comparison to
government? 100=excellent) Rank Comparison benchmark benchmark
City government 56 10 34 52 Above
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 2008
5
Public Trust Benchmarks
Wheat Ridge
average
rating
Please rate the following (O=strongly
statements by circling the disagree, Number of
number which best 100=strongly Jurisdictions for National Comparison to
represents your opinion. agree) Rank Comparison benchmark benchmark
Elected officials 69 2 19 56 Above
Job Wheat Ridge
government does at
welcoming citizen
involvement 67 52 204 61 Above
The overall direction that
Wheat Ridge is taking 65 39 191 59 Above
Value of services for the
taxes paid to Wheat Ridge 61 77 236 58 Above
Communication with
residents 49 50 67 56 Below
Perceptions of City Employees (Among Those Who Had Contact) Benchmarks
What was your
impression ofthe City of
Wheat Ridge employee
in your most recent
contact? (Rate each
characteristic below.)
City employee courtesy
City employee knowiedge
City employee
responsiveness
City employee
City employee made you
feel valued
Please rate how safe you
feel in the following
areas in Wheat Ridge:
Safety at home
Safety in parks
Safety in your
neighborhood
Wheat Ridge
average rating
(O=poor,
100=excellent)
75
70
Number of
Jurisdictions for
Comparison
66
208
National
benchmark
Rank
22
74
68
66
78
101
Not
available
207
232
64
Not available
Not available
Public Safety Benchmarks
Wheat Ridge
average rating
(O=very
unsafe,
100=very safe)
84
79
Rank
3
4
Number of
Jurisdictions for
Comparison
National
benchmark
75
65
6
29
77
11
23
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 2008
6
72
68
Comparison to
benchmark
Above
Above
65
65
Above
Similar
Not available
Comparison to
benchmark
Above
Above
70
Above
Jurisdictions Included in National Benchmark Comparisons
Agoura Hills, CA...............20,537
Alabas'er, Al.....................22, 169
Alamogordo, NM..............35,582
Albemarle County, VA ...... 79,236
Alpharetta, GA..................34,854
Ames,IA...........................50,731
Andover, MA....................31,247
Ankeny, IA........................27, 117
Ann Arbor, MI.................114,024
Archule'a County, CO ........ 9,898
Arkansas City, KS ..............11,963
Arlington County, VA .....189,453
Arvada, CO.....................l02,153
Ashland County, WI.......... 16,866
Ashland, OR .....................19,522
Aspen, CO..........................5,914
Auburn, AL .......................42,987
Austin, TX .......................656,562
Avondale, AZ....................35,883
8arns'able, MA .................47,821
Batavia, Il.........................23,866
Battle Creek, MI................53,364
Beekman, NY....................ll,452
Belleair Beach, FL ...............1 ,751
Bellevue, WA..................l09,569
Bellflower, CA ..................72,878
Bellingham, WA ...............67, 171
Benbrook, TX....................20,208
Bend,OR..........................52,029
Benida, CA.......................26,865
Bettendorf, IA....................31 ,275
Blacksburg, VA .................39,357
Bloomfield, NM ..................6,417
Blue Earth, MN ...................3,621
Blue Springs, MO..............48,080
Boise,ID.........................185,787
Bonita Springs, FL .............32,797
Borough of Ebensburg, PA..3,091
Bote'ourt County, V A........30,496
Boulder County, CO .......291 ,288
Boulder, CO .....................94,673
Bowling Green, KY ...........49,296
Bozeman, MT ...................27,509
Breckenridge, CO ...............2,408
Brevard County, FL .........476,230
Brisbane, CA.......................3,597
Broken Arrow, OK ............74,839
Broomfield, CO ................38,272
Bryan, TX..........................34,733
Burlingame, CA ................28,158
Burlington, MA .................22,876
Calgary, Canada..............878,866
Cambridge, MA ..............101,355
Canandaigua, NY ..............11 ,264
Cape Coral, FL................102,286
Capitola, CA .....................10,033
Carlsbad, CA.....................78,247
Carson City, NV................52,457
Cartersville, GA ................15,925
Carver County, MN .......... 70,205
Cary, NC .......................... 94,536
Castle Rock, CO ...............20,224
Cedar Creek, NE .................... 396
Cedar Falls, IA .................. 36,145
Chandler, AZ..................176,581
Chanhassen, MN ..............20,321
Charlotte County, Fl....... 141,627
Charlotte, NC ................. 540,828
Ches'erfield County, VA.259,903
Cheyenne, WY ................. 53,011
Chittenden County, VT... 146,571
Chula Vista, CA .............. 173,556
Claremont, CA.................. 33,998
Clark County, WA .......... 345,238
Clearwater, FL ................108,787
Cococino County, AZ.....116,320
College Park, MD ...........242,657
Collier County, FL ..........251,377
Collinsville, IL ..................24,707
Colorado Springs, CO..... 360,890
Columbia, MO .................84,531
Concord, CA...................121,780
Concord, NC .................... 55,977
Cookeville, TN .................23,923
Cooper City, FL ................ 27,939
Coral Springs, FL ............ 117,549
Corpus Christi, TX ..........277,454
Corvallis,OR....................49,322
Coventry, CT ....................11,504
Craig, CO ...........................9,189
Cranberry Township,
PA .................................... 23,625
Cumberland County,
PA ..................................213,674
Cupertino, CA .................. 50,546
Dakota County, MN .......355,904
Dallas, TX....................l,188,580
Oania Beach, FL ...0...........20,061
Davenport, IA ................... 98,359
Davidson, NC..................... 7,139
Daviess County, KY..........91,545
Daytona Beach, FL...........64,112
Deca'ur, GA ..................... 18.147
DeKalb, IL ........................ 39,018
Del Mar, CA .......................4,389
Delaware, OH .................. 25,243
Delhi Township, MI.......... 22,569
Delray Beach, FL .............. 60,020
Denver (City and County),
CO .................................554,636
Denver Public Library, CO ..... NA
Des Moines, IA...............198,682
Dillon, CO............................. 802
District of Saanich,Victoria,
Canada ........................... 103,654
Douglas County, CO ......175,766
Dover, DE......................... 32,135
Dover, NH........................26,884
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 2008
7
Dublin, CA....................... 29,973
Dublin, OH...................... 31,392
Duncanville, TX ............... 36,081
Durango, CO ................... 13,922
Durham, NC .................. 187,038
Duval County, FL ...........778,879
Eagle County, CO............. 41 ,659
East Providence, RI.'h"u", 48,688
Eau Claire, Wi.................. 61,704
Edmond, OK .................... 68,315
EI Cerri'o, CA ...................23,171
EI Paso, TX ..................... 563,662
Elmhurs', IL ...................... 42,762
Englewood, CO................ 31,727
Ephrata Borough, PA ........ 13,213
Eugene, OR.................... 137,893
Eus'is, FL .......................... 15,106
Evanston, IL...................... 74,239
Fairway, KS ........................ 3,952
Farmington, NM............... 37,844
Farmington, UT ................ 12,081
Fayetteville, AR ................ 58,047
Fishers, IN ........................ 37,835
Flagstaff. AZ ..................... 52,894
Florence, AZ .................... 17,054
Fort Collins, CO ............. 118,652
Fort Smith, AR .................. 80,268
Fort Worth, TX ............... 534,694
Fridley, MN...................... 27,449
Fruita, CO .......................... 6,478
Gainesville, FL ................. 95,447
Gaithersburg, MD ............ 52,613
Gal', CA ...........................19,472
Gillette, WY .....................19,646
Golden, CO ..................... 17,159
Grand County, CO ...........12,442
Grand junction, CO ......... 41,986
Grand Prairie, TX ........... 127,427
Grandview, MO ............... 24,881
Greenville, SC.................. 10,468
Greenwood Village, CO... 11,035
Gresham, OR ................... 90,205
Gurnee, IL........................ 28,834
Hiinau, Germany.................... NA
Hanover County, VA........ 86,320
Henderson, NV ..............175,381
High Point, Nc................. 85,839
Highland Park, IL ............. 31,365
Highlands Ranch, CO ...... 70,931
Hillsborough County,
FL................................... 998,948
Homewood, IL................. 19,543
Honolulu, HI.................. 876,156
Hopewell, VA .................. 22,354
Hoquiam, WA.................... 9,097
Hot Springs, AR................ 35,613
Ho' Sulphur Springs, CO....... 521
Hudson, NC....................... 3,078
Hudson, OH .................... 22,439
Hutchinson, MN ...............13,080
Independence, MO.........113,288
Indianola, IA .....................12,998
Iowa County, IA................15,671
Irving, TX........................191 ,615
Jackson County, OR........181,269
James City County, VA......48, 102
Jefferson County, CO ......527,056
Jefferson Parish, LA.........455,466
Joplin, MO........................45,504
Kansas City, MO .............441 ,545
Kearney, NE.......m............27,431
Keizer,OR........................32,203
Kelowna, Canada..............96,288
Kent, WA..........................79,524
King County, WA.........1,737,034
Kirkland, WA....................45,054
Kissimmee, FL...................47,814
Kitsap County, WA .........231,969
Knightdale, NC ...................5,958
Kutz'own Borough, PA .......5,067
La Mesa, CA......................54,749
La Pla'a, MD.......................6,551
La Vista, NE ......................11,699
Laguna Beach, CA.............23,727
Lake Oswego, OR.............35,278
Lakewood, CO................ 144, 126
Lakewood, CO................144, 126
Larimer County, CO........ 251 ,494
Lebanon, OH ....................16,962
Lee's Summit, MO ............70,700
Lenexa, KS ........................40,238
Lincolnwood, IL................12,359
Livermore, CA....................73,345
Lodi, CA ...........................56,999
Lone Tree, CO ....................4,873
Long Beach, CA..............461,522
Longmont, CO..................71 ,093
Louisville, CO...................18,937
Loveland, CO ...................50,608
Lyme, NH ...........................1,679
Lynchburg, VA..................65,269
Lynnwood, WA.................33,847
Lynwood, CA....................69,845
Manchester, CT................. 54,740
Mankato, MN....................32,427
Maple Grove, MN.............50,365
Maplewood, MN ..............34,947
Marion, IA...........................7,144
Maryland Heights,
MO ................. ........ .......... 25,756
Maryville, MO ..................10,581
Maui, HI .........................128,094
Mauldin,5C......................15,224
McAllen, TX....................106,414
Medina, MN .......................4,005
Melbourne, FL ..................71,382
Meridian Charter Township, .
MI.....................................38,987
Merriam, KS ......................11,008
Mesa County, CO ...........116,255
Miami Beach, FL...............87,933
Mil'on, Wi.......................... 5,132
Minneapolis, MN............382,618
Mission Viejo, CA............. 93,102
Montgomery County,
MD ................................. 873,341
Morgan Hill, CA ............... 33,556
Morgantown, WV.............26,809
Moscow,ID......................21,291
Mountain View, CA.......... 70,708
Mountlake Terrace,
WA...................................20,362
Munster, IN ...................... 21,511
Naperville,IL..................128,358
New Orleans, lA............484,674
Newport News, VA ........ 180,150
Newport, RI......................26,475
Normal, IL ........................45,386
North Branch, MN..............8,023
North Jeffco Park and
Recreation District, CO...........NA
North Las Vegas. NV ...... 115,488
North Port, FL...................22,797
North Vancouver,
Canada.... ................ ......... 44,303
Northampton County,
VA.................................... 13,093
Northern Tier Coalition
Community Survey, PA........... NA
Northglenn, CO................ 31,575
Novi, MI........................... 47,386
O'Fallon, IL ......................21,910
O'Fallon, MO ................... 46,169
Oak Ridge, TN.................. 27,387
Oakland Park, FL..............30,966
Oakville, Canada............ 144,738
Ocean City, MD ................. 7,173
Ocean Shores, WA ............. 3,836
Oceanside, CA ............... 161,029
Ocoee, FL.........................24,391
Oklahoma City, OK ........ 506,132
Olathe, KS ........................ 92,962
Oldsmar, FL......................11,910
Olms'ed County, MN ..... 137,521
Olympia, WA ...................42,514
Orange Village, OH............ 3,236
Orleans Parish, lA..........484,674
Ottawa County, MI.........238,314
Overland Park, KS .......... 149,080
Oviedo, FL........................26,316
Ozaukee County, WI........ 82,317
Pala'ine,IL........................65,479
Palm Bay, FL..................... 79,413
Palm Beach Gardens,
FL .....................................35,058
Palm Beach, FL................. 10,468
Palm Coast, FL.................. 32,732
Palm Springs, CA..............42,807
Palo AI,o, CA.................... 58,598
Park Ridge, IL ................... 37,775
Parker, CO........................23,558
Pasadena, TX..................141,674
Pasco, WA........................ 32,066
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 2008
8
Peoria County, IL............ 183,433
Peoria, AZ ...................... 108,364
Philadelphia, PA.......... 1,517,550
Phoenix, AZ ................ 1,321,045
Pickens County, SC ........ 110,757
Pinellas County, FL......... 921,482
Pitkin County, CO............ 14,872
Piano, TX........................ 222,030
Platte City, MO .................. 3,866
Polk County, IA.............. 374,601
Port Orange, FL................ 45,823
Portland, OR .................. 529,121
Poway, CA ....................... 48,044
Prescott Valley, AZ........... 25,535
Prince Albert, Canada....... 34,291
Prince William County, VA280,813
Prior Lake, MN ................. 15,917
Rancho Cordova, CA........ 55,060
Raymore, MO .................. 11,146
Redding, CA..................... 80,865
Reno, NV .......................180,480
Renton, WA ..................... 50,052
Richland, WA................... 38,708
Richmond, CA.................. 99,216
Riverdale, UT .....................7,656
Riverside, CA ................. 255,166
Rock Hill, Sc.................... 49,765
Rockville, MD.................. 47,388
Round Rock, TX ............... 61,136
Saco, ME ..........................16,822
Safford, AZ .........................9,232
Salina, KS ......................... 45,679
San Bernardino County,
CA............................... 1,709,434
San Francisco, CA .......... 776,733
San Jose, CA................... 894,943
San Marcos, TX ................ 34,733
San Ramon, CA ................ 44,722
Sandusky, OH .................. 27,844
Sanford, FL ....................... 38,291
Santa Barbara County, -
CA.................................. 399,347
Santa Monica, CA............. 84,084
Sarasota, FL ...................... 52,715
Sault Sain'e Marie, MI...... 16,542
Scott County, MN............. 89,498
Scottsdale, AZ ................ 202,705
Sedona, AZ....................... 10,192
Seminole, FL .................... 10,890
Sheldahl, IA........................... 336
Shenandoah, TX.................1,503
Shorewood, IL.................... 7,686
Shrewsbury, MA............... 31,640
Silverthorne, CO ................ 3,196
Sioux Falls, SD ...............123,975
Skokie, IL ......................... 63,348
Slater, IA............................. 1,306
Smyrna, GA...................... 40,999
Snoqualmie, WA................ 1,631
South Daytona, FL............ 13,177
South Haven, MI................ 5,021
Sparks, NV ....................... 66,346
Springfield, MO ..............151,580
SI. Cloud, MN...................59,107
SI. Louis County, MN......200,528
Stafford County, VA..........92,446
Starkville, MS....................21 ,869
S'a'e College, PA ..............38,420
Staunton, VA.....................23/853
Steamboat Springs, CO .......9,815
Stillwa'er, OK ...................39,065
Stock'on, CA...................243,771
Suamico, WI.......................8,686
Sugar Grove, IL...................3,909
Sugar Land, TX..................63,328
Summit County, CO .........23,548
Sunnyvale, CA ................131 ,760
Tacoma, WA...................193,556
Takoma Park, MD.............17,299
Tallahassee, FL................150,624
Taos, NM ............................4,700
Teton County, WY............18,251
The Colony, TX.................26,531
Thornton, CO ...................82,384
Thunder Bay, Canada......1 09,016
Titusville, FL .....................40,670
Troy, MI............................80,959
Tucson, AZ.....................486,699
Upper Merion Township,
PA ....................................28,863
Urbandale,IA...................29,072
Vail, CO ................................. NA
Vancouver, WA..............143,560
Village of Brown Deer, Wi12,170
Village of Howard City, MI. 1,585
Village of Oak Park, IL...... 52,524
Virginia Beach, VA .........425,257
Vol usia County, FL .........443,343
Wahpeton, ND...................8,586
Walnut Creek, CA ............64,296
Wal'on County, FL ...........40,601
Washington City, UT.......... 8,186
Washington County,
MN .................................201, 130
Washoe County, NV....... 339,486
Waukee, IA......................... 5,126
Wausau, Wi...................... 38,426
Wauwatosa, WI................47,271
West Des Moines, IA........46,403
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 2008
9
Western Eagle County Metro
Recreation District, CO .......... NA
WestelVille, OH ............... 35,318
Westminster ......_............100,940
Wheat Ridge, CO........... 100,940
We'hersfield, CT .............. 26,271
Wheat Ridge, CO ............. 32,913
Whi'ehorse, Canada......... 19,058
Whi'ewa'er, Wi................ 13,437
Wichita, K5 .................... 344,284
Williamsburg, VA............. 11,998
Willingboro Township, NJ 33,008
Wilmington, Nc............... 90,400
Windsor, CT..................... 28,237
Winter Park, FL ................ 24,090
Woodridge, IL .................. 30,934
Worcester, MA ...............172,648
Yellowknife, Canada........ 16/541
FRONT RANGE BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
Quality of Life Benchmarks
Circle the number Wheat Ridge average Number of
that best represents rating (O=poor, Jurisdictions for Front Range Comparison to
your opinion: 100=excellent) Rank Comparison benchmark benchmark
Wheat Ridge as a
place to live 70 12 18 73 Below
Your neighborhood
as place to live 65 12 15 71 Below
Wheat Ridge as a
place to raise kids 63 15 19 71 Below
Overall quality of life
in Wheat Ridge 62 22 23 72 Below
Wheat Ridge as a
place to retire 61 5 17 58 Above
Place to work 51 6 8 55 Below
Overall appearance
of Wheat Ridge 50 10 12 63 Below
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 2008
10
City Services Benchmarks
FOllowing are services
provided by the City of Wheat Ridge Number of
Wheat Ridge. For each average rating Jurisdictions Front Comparison
service, please first rate the (O=poor, for Range to
quality of each seniice. 100=excellent) Rank Comparison benchmark benchmark
Recreation centers or facilities 72 2 10 67 Above
Recreation programs or
classes 68 5 14 64 Above
Park maintenance/appearance 64 5 8 65 Similar
Not Not
Open space maintenance 64 available Not available available Not available
Services to seniors 62 5 13 58 Above
Police services 61 14 17 68 Below
Traffic enforcement 57 6 16 56 Similar
Services to youth 56 4 10 53 Above
Courts 56 4 9 56 Similar
Snow removal 53 5 18 46 Above
Opportunities to participate in Not Not
social events and activities 53 available Not available available Not available
Street cieaning 52 9 17 54 Beiow
Not Not
Building permits 52 available Not available available Not available
Building inspection 51 3 6 52 Similar
Street repair Imaintenance 49 7 19 46 Above
Not Not
Cultural and arts programs 44 available Not available available Not available
Code enforcement (weeds,
abandoned buildings, etc) 43 12 16 47 Below
Land use, planning and zoning 43 9 11 46 Below
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 2008
11
Overall Quality of City Services Benchmarks
Overall, how
would you rate
the quality of
the services
provided by the
City of Wheat
Ridge?
Services
provided by the
City of Wheat
Ridge
Wheat Ridge average
rating (O=poor,
100=excellent)
Rank
Number of
Jurisdictions for
Comparison
Front Range
benchmark
Comparison to
benchmark
61
9
15
62
Similar
Aspects of Transportation Benchmarks
Please rate the
following
aspects of
transportation Wheat Ridge average Number of
within the City rating (O=poor, Jurisdictions for Front Range Comparison to
of Wheat Ridge: 100=excellent) Rank Comparison benchmark benchmark
Ease of car
travel in Wheat
Ridge 57 3 12 51 Above
Ease of bus
travel in Wheat
Ridge 55 4 10 45 Above
Streets 53 6 6 60 Below
Ease of walking
in Wheat Ridge 50 11 12 62 Below
Overall Government Performance Benchmarks
How would you
rate the overall
performance of
the Wheat
Ridge city
government?
City government
Wheat Ridge average
rating (O=poor,
100=excellent)
56
Rank
3
Number of
Jurisdictions for
Comparison
6
Front Range
benchmark
52
Comparison to
benchmark
Above
Wheat Ridge. Colorado 2008
12
Public Trust Benchmarks
Wheat Ridge
Please rate the average rating
following statements by (O=strongly Number of
circling the number disagree, Jurisdictions Comparison
which best represents 100=strongly for Front Range to
your opinion. agree) Rank Comparison benchmark benchmark
Not
Elected officials 69 available Not available Not available Not available
Job Wheat Ridge
government does at
welcoming citizen
involvement 67 4 t6 64 Above
The overall direction that
Wheat Ridge is taking 65 3 16 62 Above
Value of services for the
taxes paid to Wheat
Ridge 61 7 13 62 Similar
Communication with Not
residents 49 available Not available Not available Not available
Perceptions of City Employees (Among Those Who Had Contact) Benchmarks
What was your
impression of the City of
Wheat Ridge employee
in your most recent
contact? (Rate each
characteristic below.)
City employee courtesy
City employee knowledge
City employee
responsiveness
City employee
City employee made you
feel valued
Wheat Ridge
average rating
(O=poor,
100=excellent)
75
70
Number of
Jurisdictions
for
Comparison
Rank
6
6
9
17
Front Range
benchmark
77
69
Comparison
to
benchmark
Similar
Similar
68
66
5
9
Not
available
13
16
66
66
Above
Similar
64
Not available
Not available
Not available
Public Safety Benchmarks
Wheat Ridge Number of
Please rate how safe average rating Jurisdictions Comparison
you feel in the following (O=very unsafe, for Front Range to
areas in Wheat Ridge: 100=very safe) Rank Comparison benchmark benchmark
Not
Safety at home 84 available Not available Not available Not available
Not
Safety in parks 79 available Not available Not available Not available
Safety in your Not
neighborhood 77 available Not available Not available Not available
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 2008
13
Jurisdictions Included in Front Range Benchmark Comparisons
Arvada, CO...... .......... .............................. .................... ........... .................... ........ ................... .......... .................. ...... 1 02, 153
Aspen, CO.............. ......... ...... .......... ........:. ........... ............ .......................... ............... ...... .......................... .................. 5,914
Boulder County, CO ...... ....... ........... .......... ......... ....... ............... .......................... ....................... ..... .......... ........ ......... 91 ,288
Boulder, CO ........ ......... .................. ...... .............. ............ .............. ................... ........................ ......... ...... ...................94,673
Broomfield, CO ...... ....... ..... ............... .......: ...... ............................ ................. ........ ........................... ................ .......... 38,272
Cas,le Rock, CO ......................... ..... ...... ..... ............... ................... .............................. .......... ..................... ................20,224
Colorado Springs, CO.... .................. ................... ....... .................. ......... .............. ...... .......................... ...... ...............360,890
Denver (City and County), CO .......... .... ............... ..... ...... ..... ..... ........... ................................. ............ .... ...................554,636
Denver Public Library, CO ..............................................................................................................................................NA
Douglas County, CO.. ....... ............... ........ ........ .......... ...... ............ ............... .......................... ..... ................ ........ ...... 175,766
Englewood, CO ................................. .............. ..... ...... .......... ......... ............. .... ............. ....... ....... ....... ................ .........31,727
Fort Collins, CO ............................................................................................................... ........................................ 118,652
Golden, CO ..................................................................................................................... ............................."........... 17,159
Greenwood Village, CO n... .... ......... ......" ........ ........ .... no. ...... ........ ..... n....... ..... .... ...... ....... _, '._. .... .... ...... ........ ............ 11,035
Highlands Ranch, CO.... ....... ............. ........ .................... ........... .......... ................ ............. .......... .............. ......... ......... 70,931
Jefferson County, CO .... ............. ............. ........ .......... .......... ........ ....... .................. ................ ....... ...................... ....... 527,056
lakewood, CO....... ............. .......... ...... .......... ............ ................. ....... ..... ....................... ............ ....... ....... .... ............. 144,126
larimer County, CO. ....................... .............. ....... ...... ............................ ...... ............. .............. ..... .............. .............. 251 ,494
lone Tree, CO . .......... ...... .................. ........ ......... ......... .................. ....... ............ ......... ........... .......... ....... ..... ........ .........4,873
Longmant, CO. .......... ......... ..... ...... ...... ...... .............. ...... ..... ._.... ..... ......, .......... ..... .... .... ........... ...... ...... .......... ............. 71,093
louisvi lie, CO.... ......... ....... ........... .......................... ............ ..... ............ ............ ...................... .......... ................ .......... 18,937
loveland, CO ... .................. .......... ............................... ....................... ........... ............................................................ 50,608
North JeffeD Park and Recreation District, CO ................................................................................................................. NA
Northglenn, CO. ................ .......... ........ ........... ........ ............................. ............. ...................... .................. .................31,575
Parker, CO ........... ......... ....... ...... ................ ..... .......... ........ ................... .......................... ................. .................... ....... 23,558
Thorn'on, CO ..................... ............................ .................... ..... ......... ................. .................................. ...................... 82,384
Westminster, CO . ..... ......... ........ ............ ...... ......... ......... ......... ....... ......... ... ....... .... ....... ........ ................ ..... ....... ........ 100,940
Wheat Ridge, CO.... ......... .................... ............ .................. ...................... ............. .................. ............. .............. ....u.. 32,913
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 2008
14
~,\ ~4,
,~~'
~,,~,~ g.;.
'P,c>
'"~...'.~."-;:~
,..:'"':7
.,
;,,:i
"J
City of
W- ~eat
idge
DRAFT 2008 Citizen Survey Results
June 2008
-r: :ATIONAL
~ RESEARCH
CENTERIK.
3005 30th 5t . Boulder, CO 80301 .303-444-7863 . www.n-r-c.com
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARy....................... ................................... ...... ........... ................................. 1
SURVEY BACKGROUND.................. ....................................... ....... ........................... ............... 5
Survey Purpose........................................................................................................................................ S
Su rvey Methods....................................................................................................................................... S
Understanding the Resu Its ........................................ ............................................................................... 6
QUALITY OF liFE AND COMMUNITY.........................................................................................9
EVALUATION OF CITY SERVICES ............................................................................................. 13
Overall Quality of City Services ............................................................................................................. 13
Quality of City Services............ ........................................................................................... ......... .......... 14
Importance of City Services.................................................................................................................... 17
Balancing Quality and Importance ............................................................................................... .......... 20
SAFETY IN WHEAT RIDGE............................................................... ....................................... 22
COMMUNITY PARTiCIPATION..... .............. .................. ............ ............................................... 24
COMMUNITY ISSUES................................... ............... ........ ......................................... ......... 26
Transportation........................................................................................................................................ 26
Potential Problems................................................................................................................................. 28
PUBLIC TRUST............... ............... ........ .......... .......................... .................................... ....... 30
City Performance........................................................ ........................................................................... 30
City Employees...................................................................................................................................... 34
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT............ ........ .................................... ................. .......................... 36
Shopping in Wheat Ridge ............................................................. ........................................... .............. 38
Mixed-use Development........................................................................................................................ 40
City Revitalization and Planning ...................................................... ......................................... ............. 41
POLICY ToPics....... .................................... ............ ........... ............................. ....................45
INFORMATION SOURCES....... ...................................... ........ ............................ ...................... 47
ApPENDIX A: RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................................... 49
ApPENDIX B: SURVEY METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 53
ApPENDIX C: COMPLETE SET OF SURVEY FREQUENCIES ............................................................. 56
ApPENDIX D: CROSSTABULATIONS OF SELECTED RESULTS BY RESPONDENT CHARACTERiSTiCS........ 71
ApPENDIX E: JURISDICTIONS INCLUDED IN BENCHMARK COMPARISONS ...................................... 75
ApPENDIX F: SURVEY INSTRUMENT.........................................................................................79
u
"
~'
Q)
E
<5
..c:
~
'"
Q)
~
Q)
""
<ii
"
o
.~
Z
>-
-"
."
~
'"
c.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
FIGURES
Figure 1: Overall Quality of Life ..................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2: Overall Quality of Life Compared by Year ....................................................................................... 9
Figure 3: Quality of Life Ratings ...................................................................................................................10
Figure 4: Quality of Life Ratings Compared by year...................................................................................... 11
Figure 5: Quality of Life in Wheat Ridge Over Next Five years..................................................................... 12
Figure 6: Quality of Life in Wheat Ridge Over Next Five Years Compared by year....................................... 12
Figure 7: Overall Quality of City Services ..................................................................................................... 13
Figure 8: Quality of City Services .................................................................................................................15
Figure 9: Quality of City Services Compared by year.................................................................................... 16
Figure 10: Importance of City Services ......................................................................................................... 18
Figure 11: Importance of City Services Compared by Year............................................................................ 19
Figure 12: Balancing Quality and importance.................................................................................... ........... 21
Figure 13: Safety in Public Areas .................................................................................................................. 22
Figure 14: Safety in Public Areas Compared by Year ....................................................................................23
Figure 15: Participation in Wheat Ridge Activities ........................................................................................24
Figure 16: Participation in Activities Compared by Year ............................................................................... 25
Figure 17: Aspects of Transportation ........................................................................................... ..................26
Figure 18: Ratings of Aspects of Transportation Compared by year............................................................... 27
Figure 19: Potential Problems in Wheat Ridge..............................................................................................28
Figure 20: Potential Problems Compared by year......................................................................................... 29
Figure 21: Overall City Government Performance ........................................................................................ 30
Figure 22: Overall City Government Performance Compared by Year .......................................................... 30
Figure 23: Pub I ic Trust................................................................................................................................. 32
Figure 24: Ratings of Public Trust Compared by Year ................................................................................... 33
Figure 25: Contact with City Employee Compared by year........................................................................... 34
Figure 26: City Employee Characteristics ........................ ............................................................... ............... 34
Figure 27: City Employee Characteristics Compared by Year........................................................................35
Figure 28: Economic Development ..............................................................................................................36
Figure 29: Economic Development Compared by year................................................................................. 37
Figure 30: Frequency of Shopping in Wheat Ridge ....................................................................................... 38
Figure 31: Frequency of Shopping in Wheat Ridge Compared by Year ......................................................... 38
Figure 32: Reasons for Shopping Outside of Wheat Ridge Compared by Year .............................................. 39
Figure 33: Support for or Opposition to Mixed-use Development.................................................................40
Figure 34: Familiarity with City Revitalization Plans .....................................................................................41
Figure 35: Familiarity with City Revitalization Plans Compared by Year .......................................................41
Figure 36: Support for or Opposition to City Revitalization Plans .................................................................42
Figure 37: Support for or Opposition to City Revitalization Plans Compared by Year ...................................42
Figure 38: Familiarity with City's Long-Range Planning Efforts ......................................................................43
Figure 39: Support for or Opposition to Transit-oriented Development......................................................... 44
Figure 40: Support for or Opposition to Transit-oriented Development......................................................... 44
Figure 41: Support for or Opposition to Single Trash Hauler.........................................................................45
Figure 42: Support for or Opposition to Traffic Enforcement Cameras...........................................................46
Figure 43: Support for or Opposition to Traffic Enforcement Cameras........................................................... 46
Figure 44: Information Sources..................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 45: Information Sources Compared by Year.......................................................................................48
u
.s
~-
2
c::
"
U
-"
i:!
'"
"
~
"
'"
"'iij
c::
o
.~
Z
>-
..0
."
~
'"
Q.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 200S DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Survey Background and Methods
The Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey serves as a conswner report card for Wheat Ridge by providing
residents the opportunity to rate their satisfaction with the quality of life in the City, the
community's amenities and satisfaction with local government. The survey also permits residents
an opportunity to provide feedback to government on what is working well and what is not, and to
communicate their priorities for community planning and resource allocation. This is the third
iteration of the survey.
The Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey was administered by mail to a random sample of 3,000 residents
of Wheat Ridge. About 6% of the postcards were returned as undeliverable because the housing
unit was vacant or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the 2,S14
households that received the survey, 1,065 respondents completed a survey, providing a response
rate of 3S%.
The margin of error for this survey is generally no greater than plus or minus three percentage
points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (1,065). For comparisons among
subgroups, the margin of error rises to approximately plus or minus 4% for sample sizes of 400 to
plus or minus 10% for sample sizes of 100.
Comparisons are made between 200S responses and those from prior years, when available. Wheat
Ridge also elected to have its results compared to those of other jurisdictions around the nation and
in the Front Range, comparisons made possible through NRC' s national benchmark database. This
database contains resident perspectives gathered in citizen surveys from approximately 500
jurisdictions, including cities and counties.
Survey Findings
In general, residents gave positive ratings to the different aspects of quality of life and the overall
quality of life in Wheat Ridge, which was similar to survey fmdings in 2006. Wheat Ridge as a place
to live and as a place to retire were rated above the national benchmark while the overall quality of
life was lower than ratings given across the nation. When compared to other jurisdictions across the
Front Range, Wheat Ridge as a place to retire was higher than the benchmark while all other
aspects of quality life were below the average in the Front Range.
Half of respondents expected the quality of life in the city to improve over the next five years while
about one-quarter each felt that it would stay the same or decline. While this was similar to ratings
given in 2006, the trend over time suggests that more residents each year may be expecting their
quality of life to improve.
For the first time in 2008, residents were asked to rate the overall quality of City services. Three-
quarters of respondent thought the overall quality of services was "excellent" or "good." This was
similar to ratings given across the nation and in the Front Range. The quality of most services was
viewed as "good" or better by at least half of respondents. Those services receiving top quality
ratings were recreation facilities, recreation programs, police response time to emergency police
Page 1
u
c:
.:
Q)
-
c:
a
..c:
I:;
'"
Q)
~
~
"iii
c:
o
.~
Z
>-
..0
-0
~
'"
c.
Q)
6:
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
calls and maintenance of existing city parks, which also were among the top rated services in 2006.
Among those who had an opinion; code enforcement; community/public art; land use, planning
and zoning; and business expansion and recruitment programs received the lowest quality ratings,
although high proportions of respondents answered "don't know" about most of these services.
Most service ratings were similar to those given in 2006.
Eighteen of the 21 services were available for comparison to the national benchmarks; nine services
were higher than the national average. Of the 14 services compared to the Front Range, six were
above the ratings given by residents of other Front Range jurisdictions.
After rating the quality of each service, residents were asked to rate its importance. Most services
were seen as at least "somewhat" important by a majority of respondents. Those reported to be
most important to residents were police response time to emergency police calls, general police
services, police response time to non-emergency police calls and street repair and maintenance.
While most of the services listed were thought to be "essential" or "somewhat" important by a
majority of respondents, some of the relatively more important services received lower quality
ratings, including street repair and maintenance and snow removal. Street repair was rated higher
than the national average although snow removal was rated lower than the national benchmark.
Typically, this would denote an area on which the city should focus; however, it should be noted
that all snow removal ratings in the Front Range were lower after the 2007 blizzards.
Overall, residents reported feeling safe in and around Wheat Ridge. Respondents felt the safest in
recreation centers and in their home and least safe on the trail system. Ratings were similar to those
provided by respondents in 2006. Safety at home, in their neighborhood and on parks and
playgrounds was higher than that reported across the nation.
Moderate levels of participation in activities in Wheat Ridge were reported by respondents. Most
Wheat Ridge residents had dined at a Wheat Ridge restaurant, used a city park or trail or used a
city bike/pedestrian path. Fewer residents reported attending a meeting of local elected officials or
other local public meeting, participating in a senior program or using A-line service to DIA. Levels
of participation in nearly all activities have remained stable over time.
The quality of several aspects of transportation was captured on the survey. Between half and two-
thirds of respondents felt each aspect was "good" or better. Results in 2008 were similar to those in
2006; however, fewer residents felt that the condition of city streets was "excellent" or "good" in
2008 than in 2006. Of the four aspects of transportation available for comparison to the
benchmarks, three were higher than the national average and two were above the Front Range
benchmark.
Of the list of 17 potential problems facing the City, one-third or more of respondents thought each
was at least a "minor" problem. As in 2006, vandalism, crime and graffiti topped the list with nearly
all respondents stating they were at least a "minor" problem. The availability of bike paths, parks
and recreation programs were thought of as less of a problem. While most ratings of potential
problems remained the same compared to 2006, lack of growth and availability of bike paths were
viewed as more of a problem in 2008 than in 2006.
Page 2
u
"
~
.lB
"
'"
U
-"
~
'"
'"
~
~
'"
"
o
.~
z
il
-0
'"
:;;
Q.
fl!
0..
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Overall, residents rated Wheat Ridge government favorably. The overall city government
performance was said to be "good" or better by a slight majority of respondents, although a high
proportion of respondents said "don't know" to this question. Results for the overall government
performance were similar to 2006 survey ratings and were above both the national and Front Range
benchmarks.
Residents agreed with most statements regarding public trust, although a smaller proportion at
least "somewhat" agreed that they felt well informed on major issues within the City. Ratings were
similar when compared to previous survey years; however, fewer respondents in 2008 agreed that
they felt informed on major issues with Wheat Ridge than in 2006. Where comparisons were
available, most were above the national and Front Range benchmarks.
Of those respondents who had contact with a City employee, most rated each characteristic of the
employee with whom they had contact favorably. Similar to 2006 ratings, Wheat Ridge employees'
courtesy and knowledge were regarded higWy along with the employees' responsiveness and
residents' overall impression. Slightly fewer respondents felt that the employee made them feel
valued. Most comparisons to the national benchmark were higher than average while comparisons
to the Front Range were similar.
In order to plan and budget for future development in Wheat Ridge, several survey questions were
asked to gauge residents' opinion on such topics. Eight in 10 or more respondents agreed with each
statement regarding economic development in the City, including revitalization efforts, efforts to
recruit and attract new types of retail, and strengthening the community's image and identity.
Residents voiced similar levels of agreement in 2006.
In general, survey respondents most frequently made purchases at Wheat Ridge grocery stores,
stores geared toward meals and entertainment and stores carrying household items. Computer and
electronic stores in Wheat Ridge were visited less frequently. The frequency of shopping at Wheat
Ridge stores in 2008 was similar to 2006. The reasons mentioned most for shopping outside of the
city were that the desired item was not available in Wheat Ridge or residents wanted to visit a mall
or other major retailer. Mixed-use residential, commercial and retail development in Wheat Ridge
was supported by a majority of residents.
While only about one-third of respondents stated that they were familiar with Wheat Ridge 2020
(WR2020) and Neighborhood Revitalization Strategies (NRS), more residents in 2008 said they
were familiar with WR2020 than in 2006. Support for these initiatives was high, although about
one-third of respondents answered "don't know" when rating their level of support for or
opposition to these City revitalization plans.
A small number of respondents were familiar with the City's long-range planning efforts. Half
reported they were "very" unfamiliar with the City's comprehensive plan and sub-area planning.
Most residents supported retail and office space development around transit areas, while just over
half supported housing development in transit areas. About one-quarter of residents neither
supported nor opposed each of the three types of transit-oriented development.
Page 3
v
.s
~
2
<::
Q)
U
-<=
~
'"
Q)
~
~
<::
o
.~
Z
E
"0
l'!
'"
Q.
l'!
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Respondents were split about whether or not they supported or opposed the City having a single
trash hauler. A similar proportion' of respondents "strongly" supported and "strongly" opposed this
issue. Half of residents supported the City implementing photo red light (to minimize the running
of red lights). Residents were split about photo radar to control speed with just under half
supporting this idea.
As in 2006, word of mouth and television news were among the top sources of information used
for news about Wheat Ridge. City "Connections" Newsletter and the Denver Post/Rocky Mountain
News also were used at least once in the last 12 months by a majority of respondents for information
about the City. The least commonly used source was the City's Web site; however, more people
reported using this source in 2008 than in 2006.
Page 4
<.i
.s
~
~
<::
"
U
..c:
"
'"
"
~
-;;;
<::
o
.~
Z
>-
..0
'0
i!!
'"
Q.
i!!
a..
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
SURVEY BACKGROUND
Survey Purpose
The Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey serves as a consumer report card for Wheat Ridge by providing
residents the opportunity to rate their satisfaction with the quality of life in the City, the
community's amenities and satisfaction with local government. The survey also permits residents
an opportunity to provide feedback to government on what is working well and what is not, and to
communicate their priorities for community planning and resource allocation.
Focus on the quality of service delivery and the importance of services helps Council, staff and the
public to set priorities for budget decisions and lays the groundwork for tracking community
opinions about the core responsibilities of Wheat Ridge City government, helping to assure
maximum service quality over time.
This kind of survey gets at the key services that local government controls to create a quality
community. It is akin to private sector customer surveys that are used regularly by many
corporations to monitor where there are weaknesses in product or service delivery before
customers defect to competition or before other problems from dissatisfied customers arise.
The baseline Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey was conducted in 2004. This is the third iteration of the
survey. This survey generates a reliable foundation of resident opinion that can be monitored
periodically over the coming years, like taking the community pulse, as Wheat Ridge changes and
grows.
Survey Methods
The Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey was administered by mail to a representative sample of 3,000
residents of Wheat Ridge. Each household received three mailings beginning in April. Completed
surveys were collected over the following six weeks. The first mailing was a prenotification
postcard announcing the upcorrting survey. Over the following two weeks, the survey mailings
were sent to residents, which contained a letter from the Mayor inviting the household to
participate in the 2008 Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey, a five-page questionnaire and self-mailing
envelope. The survey instrument itself appears in Appendix F: Survey Instrument.
About 6% of the postcards were returned as undeliverable because the housing unit was vacant or
the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the 2,814 households that
received the survey, 1,065 respondents completed a survey, providing a response rate of 38%.
Survey results were weighted so that the gender, age and housing unit type of respondents were
represented in the proportions reflective of the entire city. (For more information see Appendix B:
Survey MethodoIo8.J.)
Page 5
Li
<::
a;
-
<::
'"
U
-"
"
'"
'"
~
'"
'"
0;
<::
o
~
Z
>-
..Q
"1:l
~
'"
"-
~
<l.
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Understanding the Results
Precision of Estimates
It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a "level of confidence"
(or margin of error). The 95 percent confidence level for this survey is generally no greater than
plus or minus three percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample
(1,065). For comparisons among subgroups, the margin of error rises to approximately plus or
minus 4% for sample sizes of 400 to plus or minus 10% for sample sizes of 100.
"Don't Know" Responses and Rounding
On many of the questions in the survey, respondents gave an answer of "don't know." The
proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix
C: Complete Set if Survey Frequencies and is discussed in the body of this report if it is 20% or greater.
However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the
report, unless otherwise indicated. In other words, the majority of the tables and graphs in the
body of the report display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific
item.
For some questions, respondents were permitted to select multiple responses. When the total
exceeds 100% in a table for a multiple response question, it is because some respondents are
counted in multiple categories. When a table for a question that only permitted a single response
does not total to exactly 100%, itis due to the customary practice of rounding percentages to the
nearest whole number.
Cornparing Survey Results
Because this survey was the third in a series of citizen surveys, the 2008 results are presented along
with past ratings when available. Differences between years can be considered "statistically
significant" if they are greater than five percentage points. Trend data for Wheat Ridge represent
important comparisons and should be examined for improvements or declines. Deviations from
stable trends over time especially represent opportunities for understanding how local policies,
programs or public information may have affected residents' opinions.
National and Front Range normative comparisons also have been included in the report when
available (jurisdictions to which Wheat Ridge was compared nationally and in the Front Range can
be found in Appendix E: Jurisdictions Included in Benchmark Comparisons). Selected survey results were
compared to certain demographic characteristics of survey respondents and are presented as
Appendix D: Crosstabulations if Selected Results by Respondent Characteristics.
Page 6
u
.!;
~
~
c:
Q)
U
-"
~
'"
Q)
~
~
-;;; i.
c: i
.2
'iii
Z
>-
-"
-0
~
'"
Q.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Comparing to Other Survey Results
Certain kinds of services tend to be thought better of by residents in many communities across the
country. For example, police protection tends to be better received than pothole repair by
residents of most American cities. Where possible, the better comparison is not from one service
to another in Wheat Ridge, but from Wheat Ridge services to services like them provided by other
jurisdictions.
National Normative Database
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 the
International City/County Management Association (ICMA), we not only articulated the principles
for quality survey methods, we pioneered both the idea of benchmark data for citizen opinion and
the method for gathering benchmark data. We called it, "In Search of Standards," and argued for
norms. "What has been missing from a local government's analysis of its survey results is the
context that school administrators can supply when they tell parents how an 80 percent score on
the social studies test compares to test results 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
integrating the results of surveys that we have conducted with those that others have conducted.
We have described our integration methods thoroughly in Public Administration Review, journal of
Policy Analj-sis and Management and in our fIrst hook on conducting and using citizen surveys.
Scholars who specialize in the analysis of citizen surveys regularly have relied on our work (e.g.,
Kelly, J. & Swindell, D. (2002). Service quality variation across urban space: First steps towards a
model of citizen satisfaction,jaurnal 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 refmed regularly
and statistically tested on a growing number of citizen surveys in our proprietary databases.
NRC's work on calculating national norms 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 Role of Comparisons
Normative comparisons are used for benchmarking. Jurisdictions use the comparative information
to help interpret their own citizen survey results, to create or revi'se community plans, to evaluate
the success of policy or budget decisions and to measure local government performance. We do not
know what is small or large without comparing. Taking the pulse of the community has little
Page 7
u
.s
~-
Q)
"
d
-c
~
'"
Q)
~
'"
c
o
.~
Z
>-
-"
-0
l!!
'"
a.
l!!
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
meaning without knowing what pulse rate is too high and what is too low. When surveys of service
satisfaction turn up "good" citizen' evaluations, we 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. We need to ask more important and
harder questions. We need to know how 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 city it intends to protect believe services are not very good compared to ratings
given by residents in other cities to their own objectively "worse" departments.
The normative data can help that police department - or any city 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. We recommend 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 normative database are distributed geographically across the country and range
from small to large in population size. Comparisons may be made to subsets of jurisdictions (within
a given region or population category such as Front Range jurisdictions). Most commonly
(including in this report), comparisons are made to all jurisdictions. 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.
Comparison of Wheat Ridge to the Normative Database
Normative comparisons have been provided when similar questions on the Wheat Ridge survey are
included in NRC's database and there are at least five jurisdictions in which the question was asked,
though most questions are compared to more than five other cities across the country or in the
Front Range. Where comparisons are available, Wheat Ridge results are noted as being "above" the
norm, "below" the norm or "similar to" the norm. This evaluation of "above," "below" or ('similar
to" comes from a statistical comparison of Wheat Ridge's rating to the benchmark.
Page 8
U
E
~-
2
"
Q)
U
-"
u
:;;
Q)
~
<ii
"
o
.~
Z
>-
..0
"0
!!
'"
c.
!!
0..
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
QUALlTYOF LIFE AND COMMUNITY
Wheat Ridge residents were asked to rate several different aspects of quality of life including their
overall quality of life. One in 10 residents (13%) felt their overall quality of life was "excellent,"
61% said it was "good" and one-quarter said "fair." Only 1% of survey respondents reported the
overall quality of life in Wheat Ridge as "poor."
Comparisons of Wheat Ridge ratings for the overall quality of life were made to jurisdictions across
the country as well as those in the Front Range. Wheat Ridge residents rated their quality oflife
lower than residents in other jurisdictions across the nation and in the Front Range.
When compared to 2006, respondents provided similar ratings to the overall quality of life (74%
said "excellent" or "good" in 2008 versus 75% in 2006).
Select survey questions were compared by respondent characteristics. Renters were more likely to
give favorable ratings to the overall quality of life than homeowners. A higher proportion of older
respondents gave positive ratings to overall quality of life than their younger counterparts. (See
Appendix D: Crosstabulations rfSelected Results by Respondent Characteristics for more information.)
Figure 1: Overall Quality of Life
Excel I ent
13%
Good
61%
poor~"-<,<_
'~;~~"
Figure 2: Overall Quality of Life Compared by Year
How do you rate the
overall quality of life in
Wheat Ridge?
IGJ2008
tiJ2006
02004
77%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Percent reporting "excellent" or "good"
Page 9
u
c:
~
B
c:
Q)
U
-"
~
'"
Q)
~
Q)
'"
0;
c:
o
~
Z
>-
-0
'0
~
'"
"-
~
<l.
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Survey respondents were asked to rate the quality of six aspects of quality of life in Wheat Ridge.
More than 8 in 10 residents (86%) said that Wheat Ridge was an "excellent" or "good" place to live.
Three-quarters of respondents rated their neighborhood as a place to live and Wheat Ridge as a
place to raise children as "excellent" or "good" (77% and 74%, respectively). Wheat Ridge as a
place to retire was viewed as at least "good" by 68% of participants.
For the fIrst time in 2008, survey respondents were asked to rate the quality of Wheat Ridge as a
place to work; 55% said it was "excellent" or "good." Sixteen percent rated Wheat Ridge as a place
to work as "poor." The lowest rating among the six aspects was given to the physical attractiveness
of the city with about half of residents (48%) stating it was at least "good." (Please note that a high
proportion of respondents said "don't know" to Wheat Ridge as a place to raise children (23%) and
Wheat Ridge as a place to work (42%). Results presented in the body of the report are for those
who had an opinion. See Appendix C: Complete Set if Survey Frequencies for a full set of responses
including "don't know.")
Each of the six aspects of quality of life was compared to the national and Front Range
benchmarking data. Wheat Ridge as a place to live and as a place to retire were rated above the
national norm. Two aspects were similar to the national benchmark: the City as a place to raise
children and as a place to work. Neighborhood as a place to live and the physical attractiveness of
Wheat Ridge received ratings lower than those in other jurisdictions across the country.
When compared to the Front Range, Wheat Ridge as a place to retire was rated higher than ratings
given by residents in other Front Range jurisdictions. All other aspects of quality of life were rated
below the Front Range benchmark.
Ratings given to aspects of quality of life in 2008 were similar to those given in 2006.
When compared by respondent characteristics, homeowners gave less positive ratings to Wheat
Ridge as a place to retire and the phYSical attractiveness of Wheat Ridge than renters. Generally,
older residents gave more positive ratings to aspects of quality of life than younger residents. (See
Appendix D: Crosstobulations if Selected Results by Respondent Characteristics for more information.)
'~;~~;e}~~~~~&~b~~~f:h1stil,
How do you rate Wheat Ridge
as a place to live?
How do you rate your
neighborhood as a place to
live?
How do you rate Wheat Ridge
as a place to raise children?
How do you rate Wheat Ridge
asa place to retire?
How do you rate Wheat Ridge
as a placeto work?
How would you rate the
physical attractiveness of
Wheat Ridee as a whole?
Fijlure 3: Quality of Life Ratinjls
~1@!r~Ar71/ (J9c:l<1 I ,Fair' I EOpl I 191;\1 I ~Natiilnal
;.:. i-::toni'6~'d~oh';
"-,...,,....,>,.'.
25% 61% 13% 1% 100% Above
22% 55% 20% 3% 100% Below
19% 55% 23% 3% 100% Similar
23% 45% 25% 7% 100% Above
14% 41% 29% 16% 100% Similar
1 1% 37% 42% 9% 100% Below
Below
~6~~:~~;~ I
Below
Below
Below
Above
Below
Page 10
u
"
~
.&
"
Q)
U
.<::
~
'"
Q)
~
c1i
<ii
"
o
~
z
E
"0
Q)
~
c.
[1!
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Wheat Ridge as a place to
live
Your neighborhood as a
place to live
Wheat Ridge as a place to
raise children
Wheat Ridge as a place to
retire
Wheat Ridge as a place to
work
Physical attractiveness of
Whea' Ridge as a whole
Figure 4, Quality of Life Ratings Compared by Year
';2008
,]2006
LJ2004
68%
55%
0%
25% 50% 75%
Percent reporting "excellent" or "good"
100%
Page 11
u
"
~
~
"
Q)
U
..r;;;
<!
'"
Q)
~
Q)
""
-;;;
"
o
~
Z
>-
..Q
-0
~
'"
c.
~
~
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
When asked if they thought the quality of life in Wheat Ridge would improve, stay the same or
decline over the next five years, half of respondents felt that it would improve "a lot" or improve
"slightly." One-quarter of residents felt the overall quality of life would "stay the same" (28%) or
decline (22%) over the next five years. This is similar to ratings given in 2006; however, the trend
over time suggests that more residents each year may be expecting their quality of life to improve.
Figure 5: Quality of Life in Wheat Ridge Over Next Five Years
Stay the same
28%
Do you think the
quality of life in
Wheat Ridge is likely
to improve, stay the
same, or decline over
the next 5 years?
Figure 6: Quality of Life in Wheat Ridge Over Next Five Years Compared by Year
~50%
Improve ,'. '....: ",., - ", ", 46%
, _ . " :\" 36%
~
Stay the same_ - . - , _ ._,;' '.~: ~~_~~o_'~J 38%
.2008
1!l2006
(] 2004
..%
Decline ~~, ,_: _ ,_ : _",'.._n 2~::/o
I
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Percent of respondents
Page 12
u
"
i;
-
"
Q)
U
-"
~
'"
Q)
~
Q)
""
'"
"
.2
'iil
z
>-
.D
"'0
l';!
'"
Q.
l';!
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
EVALUATION OF CITY SERVICES
Survey respondents were given a list of 21 services provided to Wheat Ridge residents. Participants
were asked to first rate the quality of each service and then asked to rate the importance of each
service. Following the list of services, for the first time in 2008, residents were asked to rate the
overall quality of City services.
Overall Quality of City Services
Three-quarters of respondents felt the overall quality of City services was "excellent" or "good"
(76%). One in five felt that it was "fair" and only 2% said the overall quality of services was "poor."
Wheat Ridge residents rated the overall quality of City services similar to the national and Front
Range benclunarks.
Survey participants residing in attached units were more likely to give favorable ratings to the
overall quality of services provided by the City than were those who lived in detached units.
Respondents age 18-34 gave less positive ratings to the overall quality of City services than did
those 35 years and older. (See Appendix D: Crosstabulatians <1 Selected Results by Respondent
Characteristics for more information.)
Figure 7: Overall Quality of City Services
Excellent
9%
OV0r;di, hnw
would :/(ll! r<1r{~ the
qll;liilY oj" the
services providE'(J
by t.IH~ City of
\A/heelt Ridgf'?
Good
67%
"
poor~C:'-____
2% .
Page 13
u
"
~-
"
-
"
"
U
.c:
i:!
'"
"
~
"
""
-;;;
"
o
.~
Z
>-
..Q
-0
[1!
'"
c.
[1!
0..
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Quality of City Services
The services that received the highest quality ratings were recreation facilities (85%), recreation
programs (81 %), police response time to emergency police calls (not code enforcement) (79%),
maintenance of existing city parks (77%), maintenance of open space and trails (75%), general
police services (73%) and services/programs for seniors (72%), each with 7 in 10 or more
d . th "11 t" " d"
respon ents saymg ese were exce en or goo .
Fewer residents felt that the quality of code enforcement (45% said "excellent" or "good");
community/public art (45%); land use, planning and zoning (41%); and business expansion and
recruitment programs (33%) was at least "good."
(Please note that between 21 % and 63% of residents responded "don't know" when rating the
quality of the following services: land use, planning and zoning; building permits; building
inspections; recreation programs; community/public art; opportunities to participate in social
events and activities; services/programs for youth; services/programs for seniors; municipal court;
business expansion and recruitment programs; police response time to emergency police calls; and
police response time to non-emergency police calls. See Appendix C: Complete Set <1 Survey Frequencies
for a full set of responses including "don't know.")
Eighteen of the 21 services were available for comparison to the national benchmarks. Nine services
were rated above the national average: recreation facilities; recreation programs; maintenance of
open space and trails; services/programs for seniors; services/programs for youth; municipal
court; building permits; street repair and maintenance; and land use, planning and zoning.
Maintenance of existing city parks; traffic enforcement; and building inspections received ratings
similar to those given by residents in other jurisdictions across the nation. Services that received
ratings lower than the national benchmark were general police services; snow removal;
opportunities to participate in social events and activities; street cleaning; code enforcement (junk
vehicles, weed control, trash, outside storage); and community/public art.
Of the 14 services available for comparison to the Front Range benchmarks, six were higher than
the average: recreation facilities; recreation programs; services/programs for seniors;
services/programs for youth; street repair and maintenance; and snow removal. Municipal court;
maintenance of existing city parks; traffic enforcement; and building inspections were rated
similarly to the Front Range benchmarks. Those services that received ratings lower than other
jurisdictions in the Front Range were land use, planning and zoning; general police services; street
cleaning; and code enforcement (junk vehicles, weed control, trash, outside storage).
Residents gave higher ratings to services/programs for youth in 2008 than in 2006 (65% said
"excellent" or "good" in 2008 versus 54% in 2006). Snow removal (58% reporting "excellent" or
"good" in 2008 versus 69% in 2006), street repair and maintenance (51% versus 58%) and business
expansion and recruitment programs (33% versus 39%) were rated lower in 2008 than in 2006.
Differences in snow removal ratings may be due, in part, to the blizzards in the winter of 2007, and
this may be the first opportunity residents have had to express frustration about the extreme
snowfall. Other Front Range jurisdictions also experienced significant decreases in snow removal
ratings after the 2007 winter.
Page 14
u
c
~
l!J
c
"
U
.<:
~
'"
"
~
~
<il
c
o
.~
z
E
-a
~
'"
c.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Fillure 8: Qualitv of City Services
Following areservi~esprovided
pyth.e. (ity QfWhea.t Ridge.fi)r
. eacli.service,pIEjase firstraiethe E)(celleht.'Good Fair POor Total National F rbnt Range
qu"l\ty6f~asl)serviS\,,,hdne)(t . .~onip~ris9h co.!!1pari~q!1
rate the impoitilnce of each
service:
Recreation facilities 34% 51% 13% 2% 100% Above Above
Recreation programs 27% 54% 16% 3% 100% Above Above
Police response time to Not Not
emergency police calls (not 30% 49% 16% 4% 100% available available
code enforcement)
Maintenance of existing city 18% 58% 20% 3% 100% Similar Similar
parks
Maintenance of open space and 20% 55% 22% 3% 100% Above Not
trails available
General police services 17% 56% 20% 7% 100% Below Below
Services/programs for seniors 18% 54% 24% 4% 100% Above Above
Traffic enforcement 10% 60% 23% 8% 100% Similar Similar
Police response time to non- Not Not
emergency police calls (not 20% 49% 23% 9% 100% available available
code enforcement)
Municipal court 9% 57% 28% 6% 100% Above Similar
Services/programs for youth 13% 51% 27% 8% 100% Above Above
Opportunities to participate in 10% 49% 32% 9% 100% Below Not
social events and activities available
Snow removal 14% 44% 29% 13% 100% Below Above
Street cleaning 9% 49% 31% 11% 100"/0 Below Below
Building inspections 10% 47% 30% 13% 100% Similar Similar
Building permits 8% 48% 35% 8% 100% Above Not
available
Street repair and maintenance 6% 44% 39% 10% 100% Above Above
Community/public art 7% 39% 35% 19% 100% Below Not
available u
E
Code enforcement (junk ~
vehicles, weed control, trash, 8% 37% 30% 25% 100% Below Below .!B
c
outside storage) '"
U
Land use, planning and zoning 6% 35% 42% 17% 100% Above Below -"
~
"
Business expansion and Not Not '"
6% 28% 39% 28% 100% ~
recru itment programs available available ci';!
OJ
c
0
.~
z
E
"0
~
"
0-
~
"-
Page 15
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Fi.~ure 9: Qualilv of Cilv Services Comoared bv Year
Following are seIYicesprovi<leqpy the (;;tYpfWheatRidge. FPreachseIYice,
please first rate the quality of e~ch servic~ and ~e~t ratetheirnpqrtance qf each
service;
Recreation facilities
Recreation programs
Police response time to emergency police calls (not code enforcement)
Maintenance of existing city parks
Maintenance of open space and trails
General police services
Services/programs for seniors
Traffic enforcement
Police response time to non-emergency police calls (not code enforcement)
Municipal court
Services/programs for youth
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities
Snow removal
Street cleaning
Building inspections
Building permits
Street repair and maintenance
Code enforcement (junk vehicles, weed control, trash, outside storage)
Community/public art
Land use, planning and zoning
Business expansion and recruitment programs
*Percent reporting "excellent" or "good"
2008* 2006* 2004*
85% 87% 85%
81% 81% 81%
79% 79% 79%
77% 79% 76%
75% 80% 74%
73% 72% 76%
72% 74% 75%
69% 69% 66%
69% 64% 71%
66% 68% 66%
65% 54% 64%
59% NA NA
58% 69% 64%
58% 63% 62%
57% 52% 54%
56% 54% 56%
51% 58% 55%
45% 42% 42%
45% 43% NA
41% NA NA
33% 39% 30%
Page 16
U
<::
~
2!
<::
<Ii
U
.<:
><
'"
<Ii
~
<Ii
0<
0;
<::
.2
^'
z
>-
..Q
-0
l'!
'"
Q.
l'!
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Importance of City Services
In addition to rating the quality of City services, residents also were asked to rate the importance of
each service. As in previous years, the services viewed as most important by Wheat Ridge residents
were police response time to emergency police calls (97% stated "essential" or "very important"),
general police services (91 %), police response time to non-emergency police calls (88%) and street
repair and maintenance (86%). Maintenance of existing city parks, snow removal, maintenance of
open space and trails and services/programs for youth also were thought to be "essential" or "very
important" by 8 in 10 or more participants (85%, 83%, 82% and 81 %, respectively). Those
services that were ofless importance to residents were street cleaning (55% said at least "very
important"), opportunities to participate in social events and activities (49%) and
community/public art (46%). One in 10 respondents felt that community/public art was "not at
all" important. (See the figure on the following page.)
(Please note that a high percentage of respondents said they did not know how to rate the
importance of building permits (30% said "don't know"), building inspections (27%), municipal
court (23%) and business expansion and recruitment programs (25%). See Appendix C: Complete Set
if Survey Frequencies for a full set of responses including "don't know.")
More residents in 2008 felt that snow removal and community/public art were at least "very
important" than in 2006. A smaller proportion of respondents rated building inspections as
"essential" or "very important" in 2008 than in 2006. (See the figure on page 19.)
Page 1 7
U
.f
~'
"
-
"
"
U
-"
u
~
"
~
"
0<
<ij
"
o
.~
Z
>-
..0
-0
~
oj
c.
~
!l..
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Figure 10: Im,!ortance of City Services
.. FolloWIAg~reSl,,.yices proVip%rl /:)ytn~Ciiy
pi Wheat~idge.. For"~~b~ervi,,e,.ple~se.Essenlial
.first ratetheQ4ality Qfeachseryice and next ..
'We the irilpprtal1ceofeac:hseiVic:e.
Police response time to emergency police
calls (not code enforcement)
General police services
Police response time to non-emergency
police calls (not code enforcement)
Street repair and maintenance
Maintenance of existing city parks
Snow removal
Maintenance of open space and trails
Services/programs for youth
Municipal court
Services/programs for seniors
Traffic enforcement
Land use, planning and zoning
~ecreation facilities
69%
53%
42%
31%
25%
38%
27%
29%
29%
25%
26%
27%
23%
Very.
important
28%
38%
46%
55%
60%
45%
55%
51%
49%
52%
50%
49%
53%
Business expansion and recruitment 28% 45%
programs
Recreation programs 22% 50%
Building inspections 24% 47%
Code enforcement (junk vehicles, weed 21% 48%
control, trash, outside storage)
Building permits 20% 44%
Street cleaning 13% 42%
Opportunities to participate in social events 12% 37%
and activities
Community/public art 12% 34%
SomeWhat
important
3%
9%
12%
14%
14%
17%
18%
17%
20%
20%
22%
23%
23%
25%
25%
28%
28%
33%
42%
44%
44%
Noiafall . Toful
importal1t ..
0% 100%
0% 100%
0% 100%
0% 100%
1% 100%
0% 100%
1% 100%
3% 100%
2% 100%
3% 100%
1% 100%
1% 100%
1% 100%
3% 100%
3% 100%
1% 100%
3% 100%
2% 100%
2% 100%
7% 100%
10% 100%
Li
..!:
ii
-
c
Q)
U
..c
~
'"
Q)
~
Q)
""
'"
c
0
.~
z
>-
.0
'0
i'!
'"
c.
i'!
"-
Page 18
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Figure 11: Importance of City Services Comoared by Year
. . F6I1oWingareservicesprovidedbYtli~City6fV\fh!"atRid!le.For eath service!
pleasefi(st r~tethe.cjualityofeachserviceandnext rate theirriportarice6feach .2008*
....- : _<<c. - '-' sei:Vice.' - ," .' -,',.. "..-,---.
Police response time to emergency police calls (not code enforcement) 97%
General police services 91 %
Police response time to non-emergency police calls (not code enforcement) 88%
Street repair and maintenance 86%
Maintenance of existing city parks 85 %
Snow removal 83%
Maintenance of open space and trails 82%
Services/programs for youth 81 %
Municipal court 78%
Traffic enforcement 77%
Services/programs for seniors 77%
Land use, planning and zoning 76%
Recreation facilities 76%
Business expansion and recruitment programs 73 %
Recreation programs 72%
Building inspections 71 %
Code enforcement (junk vehicles, weed control, trash, outside storage) 69%
Building permits 64%
Street cleaning 55%
Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 49%
Community/public art 46%
*Percent reporting "essential" or uvery important"
2006* 2004'
97% 97%
94% 94%
89% 87%
87% 86%
83% 77%
77% 82%
77% 74%
83% 81%
79% 78%
78% 82%
79% 76%
NA NA
75% 74%
75% 66%
71% 69%
77% 70%
72% 67%
68% 65%
53% 55%
NA NA
38% NA
Page 19
U
E
~-
2
"
Q)
U
-"
"
'"
Q)
~
0;
"
o
.~
z
E
'0
~
'"
Q.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Balancing Quality and Importance
Ratings of importance were compared to ratings of quality to help guide City staff and officials with
decisions on future resource allocation. Most government services are considered to be important,
but when competition for limited resources demands that efficiencies or cutbacks be instituted, it is
wise not only to know what services are deemed most important to residents' quality of life, but
which services among the most important are perceived to be delivered with the lowest quality. It
is these services - more important services delivered with lower quality - to which attention needs
to be paid first.
To identify the services perceived by residents to have relatively lower quality at the same time as
relatively higher importance, all services were ranked from highest perceived quality to lowest
perceived quality and from highest perceived importance to lowest perceived importance. Some
services were in the top half of both lists (higher quality and higher importance); some were in the
top half of one list but the bottom half of the other (higher quality and lower importance or lower
quality and higher importance) and some services were in the bottom half of both lists.
Ratings of importance were compared to ratings of quality (see the figure on the next page).
Services were classified as ('more important" if they were rated as "essential" or "very important" by
77% or more of respondents. Services were rated as "less important" if they received a rating of less
than 77%. Services receiving quality ratings of "excellent" or "good" by 65% or more of
respondents were considered of "higher quality" and those with ratings lower than 65% positive or
at least "good" were considered to be of "lower quality." lbis classification divided the services in
half.
Services that were categorized as higher in importance and lower in quality were street repair and
snow removal. Street repair was rated above the national average and snow removal received
ratings below the national benchmark. Typically, services that are relatively higher in importance
and lower in quality but with ratings that are lower than the benchmarks would be potential areas
the City could improve upon. While snow removal in Wheat Ridge meets this criterion, due to the
blizzards in 2007 and the trends seen in other Front Range jurisdictions, we have found lower than
benchmark ratings in snow removal for all Front Range communities. Consequently, snow removal
may be a service whose rating readjusts naturally as time passes.
Higher importance and higher quality: police response time to emergency police calls (not code
enforcement); police response time to non-emergency police calls (not code enforcement); general
police services; maintenance of existing city parks; maintenance of open space and trails; municipal
courts; services for seniors; services for youth; and traffic enforcement.
Lower importance and lower quality: business expansion and recruitment programs; building
inspections; building pennits; street cleaning; community/public art; land use, planning and
zoning; code enforcement Gunk vehicles, weed control, trash, outside storage); opportunities to
participate in social events and activities.
Lower importance and higher quality: recreation facilities and recreation programs.
Page 20
<.i
.s
~
jlJ
"
'"
U
-"
l:!
'"
'"
~
3!
-;;;
"
o
.~
z
E
-0
i!!
'"
a.
i!!
"-
Ci..l of"""" IUd", ,,"" PM" c,wen ,~'" R,,",U
figure 12: 8alancing QuaUt\' and inll'ortance . ,..
\ ""he< """O,w"."",,,,, """'"
t-\Igner I\11Portaflce!IOWer qua ItY ~
!;
Ge_\\e"i~"\
serJ\ces
100'/'
o
Maintenance 0\ eilsting
.. parks
. Maintenance 0\ open
space!trails
ServiceS lor . . .
~ . . @l RecreatIon lacM.es
sen,ors
80'/.
police reSponse time (non- ..
emergency)
Street repair .. Sel'IlceS ior 'lout\>
Snow rell10val 111 ·
Land use, ?Iaoniog and
]Coning.
..
111 BusinesS e).'I'anslon! <II Building inspections
recruitment progla~lS code e\'\iorcerne\'\t
Municipal o:;ourl ·
4>
90'/'
,~
E
\
.;.
...
'i~
;!:'
o~
"":e
:s '"
'"
~
''6
'"
"
...
(I.
Rf_l:rf'(\t"t_'\\ \)\\)~J~\\\Y.;
70'/.
\I Building permilS
u
S
60'/'
slreel cleaning ·
opportunilieS to
.. ?allicipate in social
e\le\'\tslactiV"lies
VWier IC"[Jor'la\1(e!higner qualM
100'/'
.:
$l
c:
"
u
-D
~
"
'1,\
ct.
'"
5
.~
z
li
~
~
~
'"-
50'/.
corn\'Y\U\'II\'I!i"pl\b\\C art
90'/'
..
lower IfnpO\tonce{\Ower quality
80'{'
70'},
60'},
50'},
QualitY
percent "e)(celle\'\I" or "goOd"
40'/'
30'/'
40'}.
Page 21
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
SAFETY IN WHEAT RIDGE
Overall, Wheat Ridge residents reported feeling safe in the community. About 9 in 10 residents
reported feeling "very" or "somewhat" safe at recreation centers (92%) and in their home (88%).
Four in five respondents said they felt at least "somewhat" safe in retail/ commercial areas (83%), in
their neighborhood (83%) and in parks and playgrounds (82%). Fewer residents (70%) noted that
they felt "very" or "somewhat" safe on the trail system.
Three of the six areas of safety were available for comparison to the national benchmarks. Safety at
home, in their neighborhood and in parks and playgrounds were each rated higher than other
jurisdictions across the country. Front Range comparisons were not available.
When compared to 2006 results, a higher proportion of residents reported feeling safe in their
neighborhood in 2008 (78% said "very" or "somewhat" safe in 2006 versus 83% in 2008), which
was similar to 200+ ratings. Other ratings of aspects of safety were similar to 2006.
Residents who lived in detached housing units felt safer in their home than did those living in
attached units. Younger residents age 18-3+ felt safer at recreation centers than older residents.
Respondents who were White felt less safe on the trail system than those who were not White.
(See Appendix D: Crosstabulations if Selected Results by Respondent Characteristics for more information.)
Please rate hoW safe you feel.
.in the following areas in "
Wheat R,idge: ' .
Figure 13: Safety in Public Areas
\,"""'-'.\.,-
..~;'C~;:':;~:':. "<'$
,~',:,:~_::::~
(,~:_~ ',:'<C;,c
'-Q) tn'- "'_:J
E'''' "'c,
.'.~;>'~~ Q)
;:>.
, 65% 28% 6% 1% 0% 100%
54% 35% 5% 6% 1% 100%
34% 49% 13% 3% 1% 100%
36% 46% 6% 10% 1% 100%
39% 43% 11% 7% 0% 100%
23% , 46% 17% 10% 3% 100%
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Not available
Front Range
."'<:orr:1p~risorl
Recreation centers
In your home
Retail/commercial areas
In your neighborhood
Parks and playgrounds
On the trail system
Not available
Above
Not available
Above
Above
Not available
Page 22
u
"
~-
Q)
-
"
Q)
U
-"
~
'"
Q)
~
Q)
'"
'"
"
o
.'"
'"
z
E
-0
~
'"
a.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Figure 14: Safety in Public Areas Compared by Year
92%
Reereationeenters.. . ....H.. ..... ............... '......... ... ....._,..... _ 920,;"
:',. .... .".. .. ...... '''.'',.. .. ".u. .... .... ;"" '__" .."....-".' .. ",. .." 92,0
~
88%
11i12008
1<.12006
02004
I n your home
_83%
Retail/commerciill areas ".... .. 33%
_83%
In your neighborhood .. , ' .. .. .... 78%
. . .. .... .... ". ..... ....... . .. 185%
~
~%
Parks and playgrounds '::', ',,' ::'.""," "" '_:':~","_"~'.':_:,'" "_", ',_ '".,c,:",:,';:"',,"-_" ",",'" :::"",','" " " 82o~6%
~
On the trail system
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Percent reporti ng "very" or "somewhat" safe
Page 23
oj
"
i;
-
"
Q)
U
-"
"
'"
Q)
~
Q)
'"
<ii
"
o
.~
Z
>-
-"
-0 .
~
'"
"-
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
COMMU N ITY P ARTlel PATlaN
Wheat Ridge residents reported moderate participation in activities in and around their
community. A majority of respondents (92%) said they had dined at a Wheat Ridge restaurant
other than fast food at least once in the past 12 months; one in five said they had done this more
than 26 times in the past 12-month period. Eight in 10 noted they had used a city park or trail at
least once in the last 12 months with one-quarter saying they had participated in this activity more
than 26 times. Seventy-six percent of survey participants said they had used a city bike/pedestrian
path in the last 12 months (22% reported doing this more than 26 times).
Activities in which fewer Wheat Ridge residents reported participating were using A-line service to
DIA (89% said they had never done this in the last 12 months), participating in a senior program
(80%), attending a meeting oflocal elected officials or other local public meeting (73%), and
visiting the Community/Senior Center (67%).
When compared to the 2006 survey results, a higher proportion of residents reported riding an
RTD bus (44% said at least once in the last 12 months in 2008 versus 36% in 2006) and attending a
meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting (27% in 2008 versus 22% in 2006).
However, frequency of use of both of these services returned to 2004 levels. Use of other activities
in 2008 remained the same as in 2006. See the figure on the following page for by year
comparisons.
Fillure 15: Participation in Wheat Ridlle Activities
In Ihelas(lf)!nqriths,ab,.butho>>'rn?nyliV1"s,i(.
,eyerir?~"Y9WOF#iher hq8?~hqlp ll1ernb~rs. .....
)'. partiCipai@!n!"~(bUo\yiQwactiYitie?)~' Wheat.
. .. '. '.. . Ripg,,( ..... .. ..
Dined at a Wheat Ridge restaurant (other than
fast food)
Used a city park or trail
Used a city bike/pedestrian path
Used Wheat Ridge recreation centers
Used the Wheat Ridge library
Participated. in a recreationprogram or activity
Watched a meeting of local elected officials on
cable television
Rode an RTD bus
Visited the Community/Senior Center
Attended a meeting of local elected officials or
other local public meeting
Participated in a senior program
Used A-line service to DIA
8%
15%
24"!o
36"!o
46"!o
56"!o
56"!o
56"!o
67"!o
73"!o
80"!o
89"!o
H02
.tHi'l~s'",
16"!o
17"!o
14"!o
22"!o
21"!o
19"!o
19"!o
15"1,
18"!o
19"!o
9%
6%
38"!o
28"!o
24"!o
21"!o
17%
15"!o
17%
11"!o
1O"!o
7%
6%
4%
13to"
. 26
".;tin.i~~.,
21"!o
16"!o
16"!o
10"!o
8%
5%.
6%
7%
3%
1%
3%
0%
MOre
'th~~f6
;times
18"!o 100"!o
24"!o 100"!o
22"!o 100"!o
11"!o 100"!o
9% 100"!o
5% 100"!o U
5
~'
2% 100"!o '"
C
'"
11"!o 100"!o u
-c
3% 100"!o ~
'"
'"
~
'"
0% 100"!o ""
'iii
c
2% 100"!o 0
.~
0% 100"!o z
>-
.0
-0
i!!
'"
0-
'"
<:t
Page 24
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Fillure 16: Participation in Activities Compared bv Year
Ih. the!"st 12 months, aboytijow manytin1es,ilev~r,have yoU or other
ho.useholqmernbersparticipatffi inJl1efollp\Ving activitiesi n Wheat.Riqge?
Dined at a Wheat Ridge restaurant (other than fast food)
Used a city park or trail
Used a city bike/pedestrian path
Used Wheat Ridge recreation centers
Used the Wheat Ridge library
Participated in a recreation program or activity
Watched a meeting of local elected officials on cable television
Rode an RTD bus
Visited the Community/Senior Center
Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting
Participated in a senior program
Used A-line service to DIA
*Percent reporting at least once in the last year
12bOll* 12006*12004*1
92% 90"10 90%
85% 84% 82%
76% 75% 71%
64% 63% 63%
54% 49% 50%
44% 44% 42%
44% 41% 42%
44% 36% 40"10
33% 29% 30%
27% 21% 23%
20% 17% 15%
11% 8% 10%
Page 25
u
"
~
.al
"
<V
U
-<:
l,!
'"
<V
~
<V
'"
-;;;
"
o
.~
Z
>-
-"
-0
~
'"
c.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
COMMUNITY ISSUES
Transportation
As in previous survey years, participants were asked to rate the quality of different aspects of
transportation in the City of Wheat Ridge. Six in 10 or more respondents felt that the ease of car
travel in the city, the condition of city streets and the ease of bus travel in the city were "excellent"
or "good" (65%, 61% and 60%, respectively). Just over half of residents (56%) reported the ease of
walking in the city as at least "good"; 16% said it was "poor." Forty-seven percent of respondents
said that mass transit planning was "excellent" or "good" with more than 1 in 10 rating this aspect of
. " "
transportation as poor.
(Please note that 35% of respondents said "don't know" to the following aspects of transportation:
mass transit planning and ease of bus travel in the city. See Appendix C: Complete Set '!iSurvey
Frequendes for a full set of responses including "don't know.")
Comparisons to the national and Front Range benchmarks were available for four of the five aspects
of transportation. Ease of car travel in the city, condition of city streets and ease of bus travel in the
city received ratings higher than the national average. Ease of walking in the city was rated below
the national benchmark. When compared to other jurisdictions in the Front Range, ease of car
travel in the city and ease of bus travel in the city were rated above the benchmark. The condition
of city streets and ease of walking in the city were lower than ratings given by residents in other
jurisdictions in the Front Range.
In 2008, the condition of city streets was rated lower than in 2006 (61 % said "excellent" or "good"
in 2008 versus 68% in 2006). See the figure on the following page.
FiI:ure 17: Aspects of Transportation
..Pleas~iafethef(jllowing .
. aspects of translxirfution
: ''::'''',~' "'> ';',';"',''': ,:",,:., \'i:'. ': 'c_y.,'_' ;:.' -. "','< - ,
witnintheCityof Wheat
. Ridge! . .
Ease of car travel in the city
Condition of city streets
Ease of bus travel in the city
Ease of walking in the city
Mass transit planning
-' ,',. -,.
,FronfRange.
?':;':C6rrparisoh' .
6%
14%
10"1.
7%
Above
Above
Above
Below
Not available
Above
Below
Above
Below
Not available
47%
47% 28%
40% i 36%
100%
Page 26
u
.s
~-
2
c:
"
U
-"
u
:;;
"
~
"
""
'"
c:
o
.~
Z
>-
..Q
"Q
i!!
oJ
c.
i!!
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Figure 18: Ratings of Aspects of Transportation Compared by Year
65%
Ease of car travel in the city 65%
64%
Condition of city streets
Ease of bus travel in the city
Ease of walking in the city ,~,,~,
Mass transit planning
47%
. 47%
_.._..__J 46%
0%
25%
50%
75%
Percent reporting "excellent" or "good"
J2008
/]2006
iJ 2004
100%
Page 27
u
c
~-
"
"
"
U
.c
~
oj
"
~
"
'"
<ii
c
o
.~
Z
>-
..Q
"
~
oj
c.
~
a..
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Potential Problems
Survey respondents were provided a list of 17 potential problems facing the City and asked to what
degree, if at all, each was a problem in Wheat Ridge. As in previous survey years, vandalism, crime
and graffiti topped the list of potential problems with 9 in 10 saying each of these was at least a
"minor" problem (93%, 92% and 90%, respectively). Of these three potential problems, one in
five residents felt vandalism (17%) and graffiti (21 %) were "major" problems. Residents also voiced
strong concerns about juvenile problems, drugs, run down buildings, traffic congestion, the
condition of properties and the maintenance and condition of homes; between 81 % and 88% of
respondents felt these were at least a "minor" problem.
Respondents felt that the availability of bike paths, availability of parks and availability of recreation
programs were less problematic, with more than half stating these were "not a problem." (Please
note that between 20% and 43% of respondents answered "don't know" when rating the following
potential problems: drugs, too much growth, lack of growth, juvenile problems and the availability
of affordable housing. See Appendix C: Complete Set if Survey Frequencies for a full set of responses
. ldin"d 'kn ")
Incu g on tow.
Two areas were seen as more of a problem in 2008 than in 2006: lack of growth (70% said at least
a "minor" problem in 2008 versus 61 % in 2006) and the availability of bike paths (41 % in 2008
versus 35% in 2006). See the figure on the following page.
Fillure 19: Potential Problems in Wheat Ridlle
[foJd;~;~~j~:~:fi~tj~etie~~~~:I. p~bje~ .1.' P~~I~~ I~~o\~~~e .
Vandalism 7"10 34"10 42"10
Crime 8% 35% 47%
Graffiti 10"10 34"10 35"10
Juvenile problems 12"10 40"10 32"10
Drugs 13 "10 29"10 37"10
Run down buildings 13"10 34"10 35"10
Traffic congestion 16"10 33"10 33"10
Condition of properties (weeds, trash,
junk vehicles)
Maintenance and condition of homes
Taxes
Availability of affordable housing
Lack of growth
- - -- ---..-
Availability of sidewalks
Too much growth
______u___n__ _n _______..__
Availability of bike paths
Availability of parks
---- ---
Availability of recreation programs
16"10 38"10 32"10
19"10 41% 31%
26"10 31"10 32"10
27"10 27% 27"10
30"10 29"10 25"10
38"10 31"10 19"10
43"10 31"10 19"10
59"10 28"10 8%
64"10 24% 9%
64"10 23"10 10"10
M~jor I Total
......piol:!iem
17% 100"10
9% 100"10
21"10 100"10
16"10 100"/0
21"10 100"10
18"10 100"10
17% 100"10
14% 100% U
.5
9% 100"10 ~-
.,
C
11% 100"10 .,
u
19% 100% ..c
~
16% 100% oj
.,
~
.,
12"/0 100"10 '"
'"
7% 100% "
0
5% 100% .~
z
3% 100% >-
..Q
2% 100% -0
l!!
oj
c.
.,
0:
Page 28
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Fijlure 20: Potential Problems Comuared bv Year
To what degree, if at all, are thef()lIowi"gproblem~in Wheat Ridge: I 2008'
Vandalism 93%
Crime 92%
Graffiti 90%
Juvenile problems 88%
Drugs 87%
Run down buildings 87%
Traffic congestion 84%
Condition of properties (weeds, trash, junk vehicles) 84%
Maintenance and condition of homes 81 %
Taxes 74%
Availability of affordable housing 73%
Lack of growth 70%
Availability of sidewalks 62%
Too much growth 57%
Availability of bike paths 41 %
Availability of parks 36%
Availability of recreation programs 36%
*Percent reporting at least a ~mjnor~ problem
i
I 2006' I 2004'
94% 91%
94% 90%
90% 87%
91% 90%
91% 86%
87% 85%
85% 85%
87% 81%
80% 74%
69% 69%
75% 76%
61% 58%
59% 56'1"
60% 61%
35% 38"1,
33% 35%
35% 36%
Page 29
U
<::
~
l!J
<::
Q)
U
-<:
~
'"
Q)
~
~
-;;;
<::
o
.~
Z
>-
..c
"C
f!!
'"
0-
f!!
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
PUBLIC TRUST
City Performance
Overall, respondents rated the quality of the City government favorably. Seven percent felt the
quality of the City government was "excellent" and tln-ee in five (57%) said it was "good." About
one-third (29%) reported the City government performance as "fair" and 6% said it was "poor."
(Please note that 20% of respondents answered "don't know" when rating the overall quality of the
City government. See Appendix C: Complete Set if Survey Frequencies for a full set of responses
including "don't know. ")
The quality of the Wheat Ridge government was rated above the national and Front Range
benchmarks. Ratings given in 2008 were similar to those given in 2006.
Those residing in Wheat Ridge for five years or less gave more positive ratings to the overall
performance of the City government than those who had lived in the city longer than five years.
Residents living in detached housing units gave less favorable ratings to the overall city government
performance than did those living in attached units. (See Appendix D: Crosstabulatiom if Selected
Results by Respondent Characteristics for more information.)
Figure 21: Overall City Government Performance
i low would you r<lIp
(he over;,!!
Good
57%
P,.
l:;--';:;'
Poor ../f~~3013q:_
" \
pcf'fDnn;lilC(~ of 1h1'
VVheat Ridge city
govpnn,,'flt?
Fair
29%
Figure 22: Overall City Government Performance Compared by Year
How would you rate the
overall performance of the
Wheat Ridge city
government?
o 2004
65%
~, 2008
reJ2006
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Percent reporting "excellent" or "good"
Page 30
U
<::
i;
-
<::
<lJ
U
..<::
i:!
'"
<lJ
~
~
-;;;
<::
.2
1il
z
E
-0
<lJ
~
C.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
When asked to rate their agreement or disagreement with several statements regarding trust in the
Wheat Ridge government, a majority of residents agreed that elected officials act in the best
interest of the community at large (71 % "strongly" or "somewhat" agreed) and that City employees
perform quality work (69%). Six in 10 respondents agreed that the City government welcomes
citizen involvement and that they were pleased with the overall direction the city is taking (61 % of
respondents at least "somewhat" agreed with each of these statements). About half of participants
(55%) agreed that they receive good value and services for the taxes they pay and 4{)% agreed that
they were well informed on major issues within the City of Wheat Ridge. Two in 10 respondents
voiced "strong" disagreement with the statement "1 am well informed on major issues within the
City of Wheat Ridge" (see the figure on the following page).
(Please note that 20% or more of respondents did not know how to answer the following
questions: "I believe my elected officials generally act in the best interest of the community at
large," "City of Wheat Ridge employees perform quality work" and "Wheat Ridge city government
welcomes citizen involvement." See Appendix C: Complete Set if Survey Frequencies for a full set of
responses including "don't know.")
When compared to other jurisdictions across the nation, Wheat Ridge residents rated the following
statements above the average: "I believe my elected officials generally act in the best interest of the
community at large," "Wheat Ridge city government welcomes citizen involvement," "I am pleased
with the overall direction the city is taking" and "I receive good value and services for the amount of
city sales and property taxes that 1 pay." Residents feeling informed on major issues within the City
was rated lower than the national benchmark.
"Wheat Ridge city government welcomes citizen involvement" and "I am pleased with the overall
direction the city is taking" were rated higher than the Front Range average, and ratings given to
residents receiving good value and services for the amount of city taxes paid were similar to the
Front Range benchmark.
In 2008, fewer residents were in agreement with the statement "I am well informed on major issues
within the City of Wheat Ridge" than in 2006 (4{)% "strongly" or "somewhat" agreed in 2008
versus 46% in 2006). See the figure on page 33.
A higher proportion of older respondents (age 55 and older) agreed with each statement regarding
public trust than did those who were younger. (See Appendix D: Crosstabulations if Selected Results by
Respondent Characteristics for more information.)
Page 31
U
E
~-
2
<::
'"
U
-"
~
'"
'"
~
c!ii
-;;;
<::
o
.~
Z
E
-a
~
'"
c.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Please rate the following
statemehtSby qir~1i ngth(! .
number which best
represents Your opinion ,
I believe my elected
officials generally act in the
best interest of the
community at large
City of Wheat Ridge
employees perform quality
work
Wheat Ridge city
government welcomes
citizen involvement
I am pleased with the
overall direction the city is
taking
I receive good value and
services for the amount of
city sales and property
taxes that I pay
I am well informed on
major issues within the City
of Wheat Ridge
>-
,~,Q)
"C:';':~
,g'?J\
U'T,'
20%
20%
21%
18%
17%
8%
Fil\ure 23: Public Trust
'rt;'_
..<:
~
'",
E
o
Vl
51%
48%
40%
43%
39%
32%
.Q)-
:~r:'
'"
~
.'Q)
:;:.c'
--'-
'OJ
Z
16%
24%
29%
24%
24%
26%
~
o '"
c-Q.)-;
ci1-:';CI:f;
'" '"
).....:lI)
',b.O-;'-
t'tl,,-q
~
~ :aL
3:.....,')....;,
ClJ~,-~:
'E;;,Vl
0;.0
-<.rj
"-'ctj
~
o
f-
>-'"
:~,,:'Q)
b.O.,,-:
C"b.O
.e.,,;re,
--.-
c.n';"D
8% 4% 100%
6% 1% 100%
7% 3% 100%
12% 3% 100%
15% 6% 100%
17% 17% 100%
Natipnal
. comp,~~isq~_
Above
Not
available
Above
Above
Above
Below
Front
Range
:.cdrrmari~O'ri~
Not
available
Not
available
Above
Above
Similar
Not
available
Page 32
U
E
~'
.&
c:
'"
U
..<:
~
'"
'"
~
<ii
c:
o
.~
Z
>-
..0
"0
l!!
'"
a.
l!!
c..
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
I believe my elected officials
generally act in the best
interest of the community at
large
City of Wheat Ridge
employees perform quality
work
Wheat Ridge city
government welcomes
citizen involvement
I am pleased with the overall
direction the city is taking
I receive good value and
services for the amount of
city sales and property taxes
tha' I pay
I am well informed on major
issues within the City of
Wheat Ridge
Figure 24: Ratings of Public Trust Compared by Vear
I
0%
25%
50%
Percent reporting "strongly" or "somewhat" agree
75%
69%
70%
70%
1J!2008
!l;I2006
o 2004
100%
Page 33
<..i
c::
~'
OJ
-
c::
OJ
U
..c::
i::
'"
OJ
~
OJ
""
-;;;
c::
o
.~
Z
>-
.c
-0
~
'"
"-
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
City Employees
Four in 10 survey respondents said they had in-person or phone contact with a City employee in
the last 12 months. This was similar to the contact made in previous survey years.
Figure 25: Contact with City Employee Compared by Year
I n the last 12 months,
have you had any in-
person or phone contact
with an employee of the
City of Whea' Ridge?
l!l2008
!iil2006
02004
43%
43%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Percent who had contact in the last 12 months
The 40% of residents who had contacted the City were asked to rate a variety of characteristics of
the employee with whom they had contact. Wheat Ridge employees were rated positively. City
employees' courtesy and knowledge were viewed as "excellent" or "good" by 8 in 10 or more
respondents (85% and 82%, respectively). Three-quarters of respondents felt the employees'
responsiveness was at least "good" and 69% of residents reported the employee made them feel
valued. Overall, 72% of respondents said their impression was "excellent" or "good."
Four of the five employee characteristics were compared to the benchmark database. Wheat Ridge
employees' courtesy, knowledge and responsiveness were rated higher than the national average.
Residents' overall impression of City employees was rated similar to the national benchmark.
Employee responsiveness received ratings higher than those given by residents in other jurisdictions
across the Front Range. Ratings given to employee courtesy, knowledge and overall impression
were similar to the Front Range average.
Similar ratings were given to employee characteristics in 2008 as in 2006 (see the figure on the
following page).
What was your impression' of '
:emt~l~~~~&itri~.:~ent...
Cou rtesy
Knowledge.
Responsiveness
Making you feel valued
40"!o
48"!o
41"!o
35"!o 19"!o 12"!o 100"!o
Above
Above
Above
Not
available
Similar
34"!o
Not available
Similar
Overall imoression 33"!o 38"!o 21"!o 7"!o 100"!o
* Asked only of those who had contact with a City employee in the last 12 months.
Page 34
U
0::
~-
j!J
0::
OJ
U
-"
i:!
'"
OJ
~
OJ
0::
o
.~
Z
>-
-"
-0
~
'"
Q.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Courtesy
Knowledge
Responsiveness
Maki ng you feel val ued
Overall impression
Figure 27: City Employee Characteristics Compared by Year
76%
76%
76%
69%
69%
69%
0%
25%
50%
75%
Percent reporting "excellent" or "good"
:']2008
'j] 2006
U2004
100%
Page 35
U
E
~
2
"
"
U
-"
l:!
'"
"
~
~
'"
"
o
.~
z
E
-0
~
'"
c.
~
0..
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
To help the City plan and budget for future development, residents were asked whether or not they
agreed or disagreed with five statements regarding economic development in Wheat Ridge. A
majority of respondents agreed with each statement, with 8 in 10 or more "strongly" or
"somewhat" agreeing. The statement residents agreed most with was that the city should "promote
efforts to revitalize business corridors such as 38th Avenue, 44th Avenue, Wadsworth Boulevard
and Kipling Avenue" (85% said "strongly" or "somewhat" agree). The least amount of agreement
was with the city promoting efforts to revitalize the city's housing areas, although 79% of survey
participants agreed with this statement.
When compared to 2006 ratings, residents voiced similar levels of agreement with each of the five
statements in 2008 (see the figure on the following page).
Fi~ure 28: Economic Development
. Please rate the fOll9Wihg
statel1ientsbY9ircli~~\he ....
nlimper Whi9hbestrR"reSeilts'
yow q"irlign. Tpe9ity
. should;:'" .
Promote efforts to revitalize
business corridors such as
38th Avenue, 44th Avenue,
Wadsworth Boulevard and
Kipling Avenue
Promote efforts to revitalize
the city's business areas
Promote efforts to attract and
recruit new types of retail
business to Wheat Ridge
Strengthen Wheat Ridge's
community image and identity
Promote efforts to revitalize
the city's housing areas
Strongly
. agree
Neither
"-~gre.e-:nq'r', _ ~
disagree'
Total
. Somewhat
agree'
Strongly
. disagree
Somewhat
disagree
61%
24%
9%
4%
2%
100%
49% 34% 14% 2% 1% 100%
49% 33% 11% 5% 2% 100%
46% 35% 16% 2% 1% 100%
43% 36% 17% 2% 1% 100%
Li
.!:
~'
"
-
c
"
U
..r;;:
i:!
'"
"
~
"
""
'"
c
0
.~
z
>-
..Q
-0
l!!
'"
0.
l!!
"-
Page 36
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Figure 29: Economic Development Compared by Year
1
Promote efforts to revitalize business corridors such as
38th Avenue, 44th Avenue, Woosworth Boulevard and ~~~~~'f~
Kipling Avenue I
~
85%
imt ~~~~~m:~t>>;'~\~~~~~{j:~ 83%
79%
~
Strengthen Wheat Ridge's community image and
iden'ity
Promote efforts to revitalize the city's housing areas
0%
25%
50%
75%
Percent reporting "strongly" or "somewhat" agree
1i!l2008
182006
02004
100%
Page 37
<.i
.s
~
l!'
"
"
U
.<:
t!
'"
"
~
ci:i
'"
"
o
.~
Z
>-
..c
"'Cl
i!!
'"
"-
i!!
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Shopping in Wheat Ridge
Survey participants were asked how frequently they shopped at a variety of places in Wheat Ridge.
Most respondents reported that they "very" or "somewhat" frequently shopped for groceries in
Wheat Ridge (87%). T wo-tbirds of residents (68%) said they purchased meals and entertainment
in the city and 63% bought household items in Wheat Ridge. Few respondents noted that they
purchase computers and electronics in Wheat Ridge (41% said "never").
In 2008, residents' frequency of shopping in Wheat Ridge was similar to that reported in 2006.
Fil:ure 30: Frequencv of Shop pins: in Wheat Rids:e
. For each type of shopping, Vel')' $oiri~whai . SQri1~what Very
. pleas~ estimat~ how Never Total
frequ~~t1yYdu mak" irifreq~"ntly irifreq4ently freqUently frequently
pu rchasesin wheatRidge:
G rocel')' shopping 2% 7% 5% 14% 73% 100%
Meals and entertainment 3% 12% 17% 40% 28% 100%
Household items 6% 14% 17% 27% 36% 100%
Health services 18% 18% 11% 21% 30% 100%
General retail (shoes, 12% 25% 22% 24% 17% 100%
beauticians, clothing, etc.)
Computers and electronics 41% 30% 14"1. 7% 7% 100%
Figure 31: Frequency of Shopping in Wheat Ridge Compared by Year
Grocery shopping
Meals and entertainment
Household items
Health selVices
General retail (shoes,
beauticians, clothing, ete) ~~""'_
.14%
Computers and electronics ''"'..,,~ ~ 12?o
{,.",,';N;.,.;&i,Jili,,12Yo
.2008
1!!12006
02004
0%
25% 50% 75 %
Percent reporting "very" or "somewhat" frequently
100%
Page 38
U
E
~'
.&
c:
<lJ
U
-"
~
'"
<lJ
~
<lJ
""
<ii
c:
o
.~
Z
>-
-"
-0
1!
'"
c.
1!
0.
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
All survey respondents were asked when they shop outside of Wheat Ridge, why they do so. Two-
thirds stated that the desired item 'was not available in the city and half (54%) reported that they
visited a mall or other major retailer. Four in 10 said they liked the range of quality goods and
services outside of Wheat Ridge and one-third (36%) said it was more convenient for them to shop
outside of the city. One out of five residents (19%) noted affordability as the reason they shop
outside of Wheat Ridge and 17% said they had "other" reasons for shopping outside of the city. Five
percent of respondents reported that they do not shop outside of Wheat Ridge.
More residents noted "other" reasons for shopping outside of Wheat Ridge in 2008 than in 2006
(17% versus 5%, respectively).
Figure 32: Reasons for Shopping Outside of Wheat Ridge Compared by Year
Desired item is not
available in Wheat Ridge
.2008
II1II2006
/rJ]2004
54%
Visit a mall a,rather major 0%
retailers 0%
I like 'he range ofquali'y
goods and services
It is conven ient; on my
way to or from work or
near my home
.19%
It is more affordable 20%
- ,%
Don't shop outside of .5%
0%
Wheat Ridge 0%
F17%
Other 0
. 4%
0%
*Total may exceed 100% as respondents
cou Id select more than one answer
25%
50% . 75%
100%
Percent of respondents
Page 39
U
E
~'
2
c:
OJ
U
.c:
Ie
'"
OJ
~
'"
c:
o
.~
z
E
"0
~
'"
c.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Mixed-use Development
A new question was added to the 2008 survey asking residents whether or not they would support
or oppose mixed-use residential, commercial or retail development in Wheat Ridge. Forty-four
percent of respondents "strongly" supported this type of development and one-quarter "somewhat"
supported it. Fourteen percent neither supported nor opposed mixed-use development, 6%
"somewhat" opposed and 1 inlO "strongly" opposed.
Figure 33: Support for or Opposition to Mixed-use Development
Somewhat
support
25"10
, To what extent do you'
support or oppose
mixed-use residential,
commercial and retail
development in Wheat
Ridge?
Neither support
nor oppose
14"10
Somewhat
oppose
6%
~ Strongly oppose
10%
Page 40
u
c
~-
"
-
c
"
U
..c
~
'"
"
~
"
""
<ii
c
o
~
Z
>-
-"
-0
l'!
'"
c.
l'!
0..
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
City Revitalization and Planning
As in 2006, survey participants were asked their familiarity with the City's revitalization plans.
More residents reported being familiar with Wheat Ridge 2020 (33% said "very" or "somewhat"
familiar) than with Neighborhood Revitalization Strategies (26%). Half of respondents said they
were "very" unfamiliar with each of the two revitalization plans.
More residents in 2008 felt they were familiar with Wheat Ridge 2020 than in 2006 (33% said
"very" or "somewhat" familiar in 2008 versus 22% in 2006).
Fillure 34: Familiaritv with City Revitalization Plans
Please indicate how familiar Or
unfamiliar you are with the NRSand
. WR2020: . .
Wheat Ridge 2020 (WR2020)
Neighborhood Revitalization
Strategies (NRS)
Very .
familia~
Somewhat
. familiar
Somewhat
unfamiliar
Very
unfamiliar
Total
9%
24%
16%
51%
100%
5%
22%
20%
53%
100%
Figure 35: Familiarity with City Revitalization Plans Compared by Year
Wheat Ridge 2020
(WR2020)
33%
.2008
1!12006
Neighborhood Revitalization
S'ra'egies (NRS)
28%
0%
These questions were not asked in 2004.
25% 50% 75%
Percent reporting "very" or "somewhat" familiar
100%
Page 41
U
..5
~-
<IJ
-
<:
~
..c:
~
'"
<IJ
~
<IJ
'"
<ii
<:
o
.~
Z
>-
..Q
"0
~
'"
a.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Seven in 10 respondents said they would "strongly" or "somewhat" support Neighborhood
Revitalization Strategies (71 %) and Wheat Ridge 2020 (69%). Less than 1 in 10 residents voiced
opposition to these plans. (Please note that more than 20% of respondents answered "don't know"
when rating their level of support or opposition to Neighborhood Revitalization Strategies (32%)
and Wheat Ridge 2020 (36%). See Appendix C: Complete Set if Survey Frequencies for a full set of
responses including "don't know. ")
In 2008, the level of support for city revitalization plans was similar to that in 2006.
Fillure 36: Support for or Opposition to City Revitalization Plans
PleaseindicateJhe e~tenlt<)"
which you suppoitor
opposee~chQfthe .
fOllowing:
Neighborhood
Revitalization Strategies
(NRS)
Wheat Ridge 2020
(WR2020)
Strongly
support
Neither'
support nor
oppose
Total
Somewhat
oppose
Somewhat
~upport
Strongly
oppose
37%
34%
22%
5%
2%
100"1,
36%
34%
22%
6%
2%
100%
Figure 37: Support for or Opposition to City Revitalization Plans Compared by Year
Neighborhood Revitalization
Strategies (NRS)
Wheat Ridge 2020
(WR2020)
.2008
l1li2006
72%
69%
69%
0%
These questions were not asked in 2004.
25% 50% 75%
Percent reporting "strongly" or "somewhaf' support
100%
Page 42
u
c
~
2
c
"
U
-"
"
'"
"
~
OJ
c
o
.~
Z
>-
-"
."
~
'"
a.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
For the fIrst time in 2008, residents were asked their familiarity with the City's long-range planning
efforts. One-quarter of responderits said they were "very" or "somewhat" familiar with the City's
comprehensive plan. Twenty-two percent felt they were "somewhat" unfamiliar with it and half
(53 %) were "very" unfamiliar.
Residents noted similar levels of familiarity when asked about sub-area planning (including
Fruitdale, Northwest transit-oriented development and the Wadsworth Corridor). Three in 10
respondents (28%) stated they were "very" or "somewhat" familiar with sub-area planning, 20%
said they were "somewhat" unfamiliar and half (52%) said they were "very" unfamiliar.
...... ..... . . ..... .Fill~re3~:Fa~i1iarity with City's Lonll-Ranlle Planninll Efforts
PI",~s", i.ndicatehowfamilia~ qru~famiiiar
Uyouar\" with .th", PtY's loqgcrarige . ,y",.1)' .
plarininl1",fforts(incl~ding.the . (amiliar
cbmprehensive plali and .sub-areaplans).
City's comprehensive plan
Sub-area planning (including Fruitdale,
Northwest transit-oriented development
and the Wadsworth Corridor)
Somewhat
familiar
. Somewhat
.onfamiliar
Very Total
unfamiliar
4%
21%
22%
53% 100%
4%
24%
20%
52% 100%
Page 43
u
.s
~-
.Sl
<::
<J)
U
-"
~
'"
<J)
~
r!:2
'"
<::
o
.~
Z
E
-0
l'!
'"
a.
l'!
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
New to the 2008 survey was a question regarding support for or opposition to development around
future transit areas. A majority of residents (71%) said they would "strongly" or "somewhat"
support retail development in transit areas. Less than 1 in 10 said they would oppose retail
development. Sixty-three percent of respondents at least "somewhat" supported office space and
9% "strongly" or "somewhat" opposed it. Slightly fewer participants voiced support for housing
around future transit areas, with just over half (57%) noting they would "strongly" or "somewhat"
support this type of development. One in five residents opposed housing development in these
areas. Between 19% and 28% of respondents stated that they neither supported nor opposed each
type of transit-oriented development.
Fillure 39: Support for or Opposition to Transit-oriented Development
. To what extent would you I
support or oppose each of the
fo'lIowing types of
develor,ment aroundfu~'ure
frarlsitare<l~:':;.'
.' '~,~~~~X',
,.....,
Neither-
support ,
'nor
. Somewhat
'., oppose
, 'Somewnat.,
support
". oppose
Strongly .
. . ,. oppose'
Total
",:r.-;"";:. '"
Retail
Office space
Housing
41%
29%
33%
30%
34%
2S%
19%
28%
23%
5%
5%
10"1.
4%
4%
9%
100%
100%
100%
Figure 40: Support for or Opposition to Transit-oriented Development
Retail
SUPPOlt
72%
Neither
19%
Office space
Neither
23%
Neither
28%
Housing
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Percent of respondents
Page 44
u
.s
~'
Q)
'E
Q)
u
.c
~
'"
Q)
~
Q)
""
<ii
"
o
.~
Z
>-
-"
-0
i!!
'"
"-
i!!
0-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
POLICY TOPICS
When asked to what extent they would support or oppose the City having a single trash hauler
rather than multiple haulers, one-quarter of residents said they would "strongly" support (23%) or
"strongly" oppose (22%) the City taking such action. Fourteen percent said they would "somewhat"
support a single trash hauler and a third (31 %) stated they would neither support nor oppose it.
Ten percent "somewhat" opposed the city having a single trash hauler.
Figure 41: Support for or Opposition to Single Trash Hauler
Somewhat Strongly oppose
oppose 22 %
10%
I
To what extent do you
support or oppose
having a single trash
hauler in the City of
Wheat Ridge, rather
than multiple haulers?
Strongly
support
23%
Neither support
nor oppose
31%
Somewhat
support
14%
Page 45
U
<::
~
$
<::
'"
U
..<:
i::!
ill
~
'"
'"
-;;;
<::
o
~
Z
>-
-"
-0
i!!
'"
c.
i!!
0..
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Residents were fairly supportive of the city implementing traffic enforcement cameras, with half of
respondents (51 %) saying they would "strongly" or "somewhat" support photo red light cameras to
minimize the running of red lights. Eighteen percent said they would "neither support nor oppose"
and one-third (31%) opposed such an action. Residents were split regarding using photo radar to
control speed with 43% supporting and 37% opposing this action. One in five (20%) said they
would "neither support nor oppose" photo radar.
Fillure 42: Sup~ort for or Opposition to Traffic En:_. __...ent Cameras
'. J'O what e)(l~nt\-V()u.ldyou.
~upportorqpp()set~ec::;ity "I.. .
Wheat Ridge implementing the
uSe ofeach>ofthefollowing
typesoftr"ffi~ enforcement
.-cameras: -
Photo red light (to minimize the
running of red lights)
Photo radar (to control speed)
. Strongly
support
'Somewhat
support
29%
22%
23%
20%
Neither.
support
nor
oppose
18%
20%
Somewhat
oppose
Strongly
oppose
TOtal
11 "/,
20%
100%
14%
24"/,
100%
Figure 43: Support for or Opposition to Traffic Enforcement Cameras
Photo red light (to minimize
'he running of red lights)
Photo radar (to control
speed)
0%
25%
Neither
20%
50%
75%
100%
PerCEnt of respondents
Page 46
u
"
~
~
"
Q)
U
..<::
<!
'"
Q)
~
~
-;;;
"
o
.~
z
E
"0
l'!
'"
"-
l'!
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
INFORMATION SOURCES
As in previous survey years, word of mouth (79% used at least once in the last 12 months) and
television news (76%) were the information sources most frequently used by residents to get
information about Wheat Ridge. One-quarter of respondents reported using television news more
than 26 times in the last 12 months to get information about the City. Seven in 10 survey
participants used the City "Connections" Newsletter (70%) and the Denver Post/Rocky Mountain News
(69%) at least once in the last 12 months. The least commonly used source of information was the
City's Web site (34% used it in the last 12 months); however, usage of the Web site in 2008 has
increased from 2006 (34% used at least once in 2008 versus 27% in 2006). See the figure on the
following page.
Fillure 44: Information Sources
In the last 12 months, about how many time,S, if
ever, have you (lr other household members used Never J to 2
the following, sources of inform'ation for news' tfines
'about Wheat Ridge?
Word of mouth 21% 21%
Television news 24% 19%
City IIConnectionsll Newsletter 30% 25%
Denver Post/Rocky Mountain News 31% 16%
Radio news 48% 17%
-
Cable TV Channel 8 (Government Access 52% 17%
Channel)
Wheat Ridge Transcript 55% 18%
City's Web site: www.ci.wheatridge.co.us 66% 15%
Page 47
v
oS
~'
2
<::
"
U
-"
~
"
"
~
cii!
'"
<::
o
~
Z
E
-0
~
"
a.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Figure 45: Information Sources Compared by Year
Word of mouth ~"})}JJ}1>>})~fr'
~
Television news I'>>}J)}J.>>}~~))J))~~ 7;6,:'
City "Connec'ions" Newsletter ~~FZ'
Denver Post/Rocky Mountain News ~)..Ji}1!:Il)AJI.Ln;/:/,
--'.,': ""; " - - -- .''.''.''_''.,. .'- -174%
1IJJ!JJJ..I!~ 52%
Radio news '" _ _---~. : .,' _'~_', 48%
52%
Cable TV Channel 8 (Governmen' Access Channel) '~~i~,'/'
: ',.-'-:-,~_.::'_.., ..'-',', ',,',',.150%
Whea' Ridge Transcript .. WJ)})})J~519%
- " - 47%
~
City's Web site: www.ci.wheatridge.co.us ~. ~.,l4%
- 23%
,
0%
25%
50%
75%
Percent reporting at least once in the last 12 months
1l!I2008
!'il2006
o 2004
100%
Page 48
U
t:
~
2J
t:
'"
U
.<:
"
'"
'"
~
~
n;
t:
o
.~
z
E
-a
~
'"
c.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
ApPENDIX A: RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Characteristics of the survey respondents are displayed in the tables in this appendix.
I . Lengthbf,Residency
I . . AbouthoW 10nghaveyoJliyeditlWheafRidge?
Five years or less
6 to 10 years
11to 15 years
16to 20 years
More than 20 years
Total
Average length of residency
I' Percentof respondents
41%
17%
11%
8%
23%
100%
13.5
'~e~p6ridei1ICi!y()fEmplbyrnef,t
I' In1~atdtydo you~~r~f~I:~Wh~~r~Jrr~8~r.d~:~~~!~!0,iCl1eckt~ebbX fOf.l.percent6ffemondents
Arvada 6 %
Aurora 2%
Boulder 1 %
Broomfi~d 1%
Denver 21 %
Englewood 1 %
Golden 6%
Lakewood 9%
littleton 1 %
Louisville 0%
Northglenn
Thornton
Westminster
Wheat Ridge
Other
Do not work
Total
0%
1%
1%
15%
6%
26%
100%
Page 49
u
.s
~-
"
c
B
.c
~
'"
"
~
"
""
'"
c
o
.~
Z
>-
..Q
"0
i!!
'"
c.
i!!
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
· ResporidentHelusing .LJ~itType,
Ple~~esbeck the appropriatJbox indic~tingthe'iYpeofho~singu~it in \\ihidi .'1
" '" , '" YOu live. ' ,
Detached single-family home
Condominium or townhouse
Apartment
Mobile home
Total
Respondent Tenure
"D(ryo~'own" qr ,r~nt:y()uY"'i"~s!den~e?
Own
Rent
Total
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
Number of Household Members
How many people (including yoursel6 live in your household?
6 or more
Total
Average number of household members
" "'.'.'Nli'mberof Ho-usehold 'Members Upde,18'
,. How 'inanyof these-household members 'are 1 j-oryounger? ',. I
None
1
2
3
4 or more
Total
Average number of household members under 18 for households with at least
one child under 18
Percent.of}espondents
53%
15%
32%
0%
100%
j
PereJnfpfresponderlls ' I
55%
45%
100%
I Percent elf respondents
39%
33%
13%
9%
3%
1%
100%
2.1
, PercJntofnispondentS
70%
15%
10%
3%
1%
100%
1.7
Page 50
U
<::
i;
-
<::
<ll
U
..<:
i:!
'"
<ll
~
<ll
'"
'"
<::
.9
'iil
z
>-
-"
-0
l!!
'"
0.
l!!
c..
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
..RespondenlLevefofEducation
What isth"h ighestlev~l()f ~duc~iiofiyou"avecompl~tfidt.
o to 11 years
High school graduate
Some college, no degree
Associate degree
Bachelors degree
Graduate or professional degree
Total
I HooseholdlhcolTle
I. AbclUthow mUC~90X~~F6~rf%~~~:~S~~d~gu:rSTOTALINC;QME 'I
Less than $15,000
$15,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $124,999
$125,000 or more
Total
I'erc~ntof re'spondehts
5%
21%
28%
9%
20%
17%
100%
P"rcent ofre~pon<lents
10%
16%
15%
14%
20%
12%
6%
6%
100%
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75+
Total
3%
23%
14%
24%
12%
9%
15%
100%
Page 51
u
c:
~'
.lB
c:
"
U
-"
~
"
"
~
ci'!
-;;;
c:
o
.~
z
E
-0
~
"
Q.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
R~spondenl Race.
What is yourrace?(Please checkallthatapply.) ,
White
Black or African American
Asian or Pacific Islander
American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut
Other
*TotaJ may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one answer.
I
I
Yes
No
Total
I
I
Female
Male
Total
Respondent Ethnicity
Are you HispanidSpanish/latino?
Respondent Gender '
What is your gender?
Respondent Voting Behavior
Did YOU'yote in t1ielast,election?, ~
Yes
No
Total
.,1 Percenloffespondents*
90%
1%
1%
2%
9%
Percent of respdndents .
11%
89%
100%
Percent of respondentS
55%
45%
100%
I ' Percent of respondents
77%
23%
100%
Page 52
U
<::
i:;
-
<::
'"
U
..c
"'
'"
'"
~
'"
""
-;;;
<::
o
.~
Z
>-
-"
-0
~
'"
c.
~
a..
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
ApPENDlxB: SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Survey Instrument Development
The Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey was first administered in 2004. General citizen surveys, such as
this one, ask recipients their perspectives about the quality of life in the city, their use of city
amenities, their opinion on policy issues facing the city and their assessment of city service delivery.
The citizen survey instrument for Wheat Ridge was developed by starting with the version from the
previous implementation in 2006. A list of topics was generated for new questions; topics and
questions were modified to find those that were the best fit for the 2008 questionnaire. In an
iterative process between City staff and NRC staff, a final five-page questionnaire was created.
Sample Selection
Approximately 3,000 Wheat Ridge households were selected to participate in the survey using a
stratified, systematic sampling method. (Systematic sampling is a method that closely approximates
random sampling by selecting every Nth address until the desired number of households are
chosen.) To ensure households selected to participate in the survey were within the City of Wheat
Ridge boundaries, the latitude and longitude of each address was plotted to determine its location
within the city. Addresses that fell outside of the city boundaries were removed from the sample.
Attached units within the city were oversampled to compensate for detached unit residents'
tendency to return surveys at a higher rate. 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. )
Survey Administration
Households received three mailings, one week apart beginning in April of 2008. Completed
surveys were collected over the following six weeks. The first mailing was a prenotification
postcard announcing the upcoming survey. The other two mailings contained a letter from the
Mayor inviting the household to participate, a questionnaire and self-mailing envelope. About 6%
of the postcards were returned as undeliverable because the housing unit was, vacant or the postal
service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the 2,814 households that received the
survey, 1,065 respondents completed the survey, providing a response rate of 38%.
Page 53
u
c:
~'
2
c:
OJ
U
..c:
i::!
'"
OJ
~
OJ
'"
<ii
c:
o
~
Z
>-
-0
-0
~
'"
"-
OJ
.t
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Weighting the Data
The demographic characteristics of the survey sample were compared to those found in the 2000
Census estimates for adults in the city. Sample results were weighted using the population norms to
reflect the appropriate percent of those residents in the city. Other discrepancies between the
whole populatiou and the sample were also aided by the weighting due to the intercorrelation of
many socioeconomic characteristics.
The variables used for weighting were respondent gender, age and housing unit type. This decision
was based on:
The disparity between the survey respondent characteristics and the population norms for
these variables
The saliency of these variables in differences of opinion among subgroups
The historical profile created and the desirability of consistently representing different
groups over the years
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. A limitation of data weighting is that only 2-3 demographic variables can be adjusted in a
single study. Several different weighting "schemes" are 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, NRC oversamples residents of multi-family
dwellings to ensure they are accurately represented in the sample data. Rather than giving all
residents an equal chance of receiving the survey, this is systematic, stratified sampling, which gives
each resident of the jurisdiction a known chance of receiving the survey (and apartment dwellers,
for example, a greater chance than single family home dwellers). As a consequence, results must be
weighted to recapture the proper representation of apartment dwellers.
The results of the weighting scheme are presented in the figure on the following page.
Page 54
u
.s
~
'"
c:
'"
U
-"
I:!
OJ
'"
~
~
<ii
c:
o
.~
Z
>-
-"
-0
~
OJ
a.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
I
I c:harac:t~ri~tic.
Housing
Own home
Rent home
Detached unit
Attached unit
Race and Ethnicity
Hispanic
Not Hispanic
White
Non-white
Sex and Age
18-34 years of age
35-54 years of age
55 + years of age
Female
Male
Females 18-34
Females 35-54
Females 55 +
Males 18-34
Males 35-54
Males 55 +
1 Source: 2000 Census
Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey Weighting Table
Percent in Population. '
I Population Norm 1 I' Unweighted Data
j
I
I Weighted Data I
55%
45%
53%
47%
11%
89%
88%
12%
25%
38%
37%
55%
45%
13%
19%
22%
13%
19%
14%
55% 62"1.
45% 38%
53% 59%
47% 41%
13% 10%
87% 90%
92% 90"1.
8% 10%
26% 9%
38% 33"1.
35% 58%
54% 61%
46% 39%
13% 6%
19% 19%
22% 36%
13% 3%
19% 13%
14% 23%
Data Analysis
The surveys were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Frequency
distributions are presented in the body of the report. Chi-square and ANOV A tests of significance
were applied to breakdowns of selected survey questions by respondent characteristics. A "p-value"
of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between
groups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences
observed in the selected categories of our sample represent "real" differences among those
populations. Where differences between subgroups are statistically significant, they are marked
with grey shading in the appendices.
Page 55
u
c
~'
.'B
c
"
U
-<=
>!
'"
"
~
ci:!
<il
c
.2
'iO
z
E
"0
~
'"
Q.
~
c..
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
ApPENDIX C: COMPLETE SET OF SURVEY FREQUENCIES
, Question 1 '
~frd~'th~. ri~rnlJer ttlatb~str~pres~lltsyo~r
" -- opinio'n:: --,- ---.
How do you rate Wheat Ridge as a place to live?
How do you rate your neighborhood as a place to
live?
How do you rate Wheat Ridge as a place to raise
children?
How do you rate Wheat Ridge as a place to work?
How do you rate Wheat Ridge as a place to retire?
How would you rate the physical attractiveness of
Wheat Ridge as a whole?
How do you rate the overall quality of life in
Wheat Ridge?
IEX~y!lentl GOqJI Fairlpqorl "Ddh1i
kn()w
25% 61% 13% 1% 0%
22"10 54% 19% 3% 0%
15% 43% 17% 2% 23%
8% 24% 17% 9% 42%
19% 36% 21% 6% 19%
11% 37% 42% 9% 1%
13% 60% 25% 1% 1%
I Question 2
I, Dq you think the quality of life in Wheat Ridge is likely to improve, stay the same, 'I
or decline over the next.5 years?
Improve a lot
Improve slightly
Stay the same
Decline slightly
Decline a lot
Total
j
I Total I
100%
100%
100"/0
100%
100%
100%
100"10
.1
r::J~~~~~:~ ,: I
11%
39%
28%
19%
3%
100"/0
Page 56
U
.5
~'
2
"
d
..c:
u
@
"
~
"
""
<ii
"
o
.~
Z
>-
..Q
"0
1!
'"
0-
"
d:
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
I Question 3 - Quality
Following are se/Vices provided by Jhe City of Wheat
Ridge. For each se/Vice, please first rate the q~alitYof Excellent Good
each" se/Vice and nexl"rate the importance cif each "
s.erv:ice.
Fair Poor
:DOrl't
Total
know
Snow removal 13% 43% 28% 13% 3% 100%
Street repai rand mai ntenance 6% 43% 38% 10% 2% 100%
Street cleaning 8% 46% 29% 10% 7% 100%
Traffic enforcement 9% 55% 21% 7% 8% 100%
Code enforcement (junk vehicles, weed control, 7% 34% 27% 23% 9% 100%
trash, outside storage)
Land use, planning and zoning 4% 27% 32% 13% 25% 100%
Building permits 3% 19% 14% 3% 60% 100%
Building inspections 4% 18% 11% 5% 62% 100%
Maintenance of existing city parks 17% 54% 18% 3% 7% 100%
Maintenance of open space and trails 17% 48% 19% 2% 13% 100%
Recreation programs 21% 43% 12% 3% 21% 100%
Recreation facilities 29% 44% 11% 2% 14% 100%
Community/public art 4% 23% 21% 11% 41% 100%
Opportunities to participate in social events and 8% 38% 25% 7% 23% 100%
activities
Se/Vices/programs for youth 7% 27% 14% 4% 48% 100%
Se/Vices/programs for seniors 11% 32% 14% 3% 41% 100%
Municipal court 3% 21% 10% 2% 63% 100%
Business expansion and recruitment programs 2% 12% 17% 12% 57% 100%
-- -- - --- -
General police se/Vices 15% 48% 17% 6% 13% 100%
Police response time to emergency police calls (not 19% 31% 10% 3% 36% 100%
code enforcement)
Police response time to non-emergency police calls 13% 33% 15% 6% 32% 100%
(not code enforcement)
u
-"
~
2J
c
Q)
U
..c
i::!
'"
Q)
~
Q)
""
-;;;
c
0
.~
Z
>-
-"
-0
~
'"
c.
~
"-
Page 57
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
. .. Questioli'3...lmp6rcince .
Fo,ll{)',yinll ar~sT/Vic~spr9vi<lT<lJ!Y'
th~Cityof WheafRil:lge.F9reach. , Es~elitia.l very ~6m.eWhaf N6fatall Don't
s"rVi~e;p!~as~fi [sl rat~th"tqualit)i . import~nt important importanr knpw T61al..
. 6f~~chs~rvice anq nextr;w.' th"..
irnP9it~hceof~~ch se/Vice.
Snow removal 37% 45% 17% 0% 0% 100%
Street repair and maintenance 31% 55% 14% 0% 0% 100%
Street cleaning 13% 41% 41% 2% 2% 100%
Traffic enforcement 26% 49% 22% 1% 2% 100%
Code enforcement (junk vehicles, 21% 47% 27% 3% 2% 100%
weed control, trash, outside storage)
Land use, planning and zoning 24% 43% 20% 1% 13% 100%
Building permits 14% 31% 23% 2% 30% 100%
Building inspections 18% 34% 20% 1% 27% 100%
Maintenance of existing city parks 24% 59% 14% 1% 2% 100%
Mai ntenance of open space and 26% 52% 17% 1% 5% 100%
trails
Recreation programs 20% 47% 23% 3% 7% 100%
Recreation facilities 22% 51% 22% 1% 4% 100%
Community/public art 9% 28% 36% 8% 18% 100%
Opportunities to participate in social 11% 34% 40% 7% 9% 100%
events and activities
Se/Vices/programs for youth 24% 42% 14% 2% 18% 100%
Se/Vices/programs for sen iors 21% 44% 17% 3% 15% 100%
Municipal court 22% 38% 15% 1% 23% 100%
Business expansion and recru itment 21% 33% 18% 2% 25% 100%
programs
General police se/Vices 51% 36% 8% 0% 5% 100%
Police response time to emergency 63% 26% 3% 0% 8% 100%
police calls (not code enforcement)
Police response time to non-
emergency police calls (not code 39% 42% 11% 0% 7% 100%
enforcement)
Page 58
u
-"
~'
2J
c
Q)
U
..c
u
:;;
Q)
t1
-;;;
c
o
~
Z
>-
-"
-0
~
'"
c.
Q)
6:
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
QM"stibi14
..p"eralli..hi>w'Yo.lJldyou.ratelh~.ql.l~lit)iof\heserViWs. ptoVid~dbytfie~it)iof ..1.... per~e...n..l.o... fro e..sP. 0... n. d. e.~ts....
... . .. .. .vvheatRidge? . . . ..
Excellent 8%
Good 65%
Fair 22%
Poor 2%
Don't know 3%
Total 100 %
I Questi9n5 .
I Pleasera.t.e. i.h~..~.O.I.I()",i.ng.... as.p.e.ctsOft.HhsP6rtation .1 Ell. tl.G.. d......1 "......... .I.......p........ ..1
...."'ilhinthecrtyofwheafRidg~;Xc~~n.. ()Q"Ir .99r
Condition of city streets 6% 54% 32% 7%
Mass transit planning 4% 26% 24% 11 %
Ease of car travel in the city 13% 52% 29% 6%
Ease of bus travel in the city 9% 30% 19% 6%
Ease of walking in the city 9% 44% 26% 15%
Doli't
.kIi6W..
0%
35%
1%
35%
6%
ITOt~1
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Page 59
u
c
~
2J
c
Q)
U
..<:
i::!
'"
Q)
~
.!1i
-;;;
c
o
.~
z
E
-0
Q)
:;;
c.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Questi6ri6
To 'Yl1atdegr~~,i!atall;~rethe .N6ta' Minor M&Jerate Maj6r..'.. ;06n'f Total
.follo",ing'pr9lllem" inWh~at. problem ,!,!!()blem problem ...'.. problem know
. Rlcfge:. .
Crime 7% 29% 39% 8% 17% 100%
Vandalism 6% 29% 35% 14% 16% 100%
Graffiti 8% 29% 30% 18% 14% 100%
Drugs 7% 16% 21% 12% 43% 100%
Too much growth 35% 25% 15% 6% 20% 100%
Lack of growth 24% 23% 20% 13% 21% 100%
Run down buildings 11% 31% 32% 16% 10% 100%
Taxes 22% 26% 27% 9% 16% 100%
Traffic congestion 16% 32% 32% 16% 4% 100%
Juvenile problems 7% 25% 20% 10% 38% 100%
Availability of affordable 20% 21% 21% 15% 23% 100%
housing
Availability of parks 61% 23% 9% 3% 5% 100%
Availabil ity of bike paths 52% 24% 7% 4% 13% 100%
Availability of sidewalks 37% 30% 18% 11% 5% 100%
Availability of recreation 55% 20% 9% 2% 14% 100%
programs
Maintenance and condition of 17% 37% 28% 8% 9% 100%
homes
Condition of properties (weeds, 15% 36% 30% 13% 6% 100%
trash, junk vehicles)
Page 60
u
c
~-
Q)
-
c
Q)
U
..c
i::!
'"
Q)
~
Q)
""
-;;;
c
o
~
z
..6
-0
Q)
:;;
c.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Q&e~ti()n.7
Intbel~f1tlijq~th.s,~b6u(hq\Ym~~YVrn~~!.' if
eY~r,..h<lY.,,}'0~0(qtherh()~se.h91<lme.mpe~s. Never.
. . p"rli~iJlatedjnth~.fqllowi.n!l"ctivities.in Whl'~f..
. Ridge? . . .
Used Wheat Ridge recreation centers
Participated in a recreation program or activity
Used a city park or trail
Used a city bike/pedestrian path
Attended a meeting of local elected officials or
other local public meeting
Watched a meeting of local elected officials on
cable television
Participated in a senior program
Visited the Community/Senior Center
Dined at a Wheat Ridge restaurant (other than
fast food)
Used the Wheat Ridge library
Used A-line se/Vice to DIA
Rode an RTD bus
36%
56%
15%
24%
73%
56%
80%
67%
8%
46%
89% I
56%
j
Jt62 .3to 13.to.. More
i2 26 Ih~ri26 T6tal
t!~~'~'; times: limes times:,~:
22% 21% 10% 11% 100%
19% 15% 5% 5% 100%
17% 28% 16% 24% 100%
14% 24% 16% 22% 100%
19% 7% 1% 0% 100%
19% 17% 6% 2% 100%
9% 6% 3% 2% 100%
18% lQ% 3% 3% 100%
16% 38% 21% 18% 100%
21% 17% 8% 9% 100%
6% 4% 0% 0% 100%
15% 11% 7% 11% 100%
I Question 8
I' T? what extenldo Y.~::P~~g~ ~~~~~~h~~~~I~;~\:g~:~~:~~? haulerinthe City of .1
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Neither support nor oppose
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
Don't know
Total
I
F'l'fcelit()( ,........J
re"$p6ndeli~ ..... .
19%
12%
26%
8%
18%
16%
100%
Neighborhood Revitalization
Strategies (NRS)
Wheat Ridge 2020 (WR2020)
5%
9%
22%
20%
24%
16%
53%
100%
51%
100%
Page 61
u
c
~-
Q)
-
c
Q)
U
..c
i::!
'"
Q)
~
Q)
""
-;;;
c
o
.~
Z
>-
-"
-0
~
'"
c.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Please indicate how famj,liar.or 'unfamiliar
YO~a~~i~~t:~~::S~\~~j~d~~rt~:ge ,', f~~i~ar
c"omprehensive plan .~nd sub-area .pl,msf.., :...
City's comprehensive plan 4%
Sub-area planning (including Fruitdale,
Northwest transit-oriented development 4%
and the Wadsworth Corridor)
Pleasejlidicate the
"xtenll6 which you ..
support pr opp6se e~ch.
9fthe following.
Neighborhood
Revitalization
Strategies (NRS)
Wheat Ridge 2020
(WR2020)
To Whalextent Would.you.
support or oppose the.
. City of Wheat Ridge .
implementing the .use of. .
. each, 6fthe ~6l1bwirig :
., types.o(t'i',ffi~- ~..
'enforcemen't:-cam~r~s':::: '",
Photo radar (to control
speed)
Photo red light (to
minimize the running of
red lights)
Retail
Office space
Housing
. Strongly
support ,
Question 10
, .h
. Nelt er .
support
. nor
oppose
Total
SIrongly
., oppose
Somewhat .
support
Somewlial
oppose
Doh:'t
know
25%
23% 15%
3%
1%
32%
100%
23%
22% 14%
4%
2%
36%
100%
So~~wh"t . Very.,..
ulif~iniliar' unfamiliar.
21%
22% 53%
100%
24%
20% 52%
100%
22%
19%
20%
13%
23%
3%
100%
28%
21%
18%
11%
19%
3%
100%
27%
30%
4%
4%
9%
100%
100%
4%
10%
8%
8%
Page 62
j
u
-"
~'
2J
c
Q)
U
..c
i::!
'"
Q)
Ji
-;;;
c
o
.~
z
..6
-0
~
'"
c.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Question 14
How would yoi(rate the overall performalice of the Wheat ~Ridge city .
- gqverp me'n't? ;
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Don't know
Total
}1'1~<iser~teth~ .
...f6110o/iJ)llstat~p;ei1t~..
lJ>,~i rcJingth~,numqer.
. .~hiChlJeslrep,res~rits
, ,yq.~r(:qp!rri()n'~..
I believe my elected
officials generally act
in the best interest of
the community at large
City of Wheat Ridge
employees perform
quality work
I receive good value
and se/Vices for the
amount of city sales
and property taxes that
I pay.
I am pleased with the
overall direction the
city is taki ng
I am well informed on
major issues within the
City of Wheat Ridge
Wheat Ridge city
government welcomes
citizen involvement
Question 15
. ~eithe;
", ~g~~eipor
..d;sa~r"e
16%
41%
13%
16%
39%
19%
14%
32%
20%
15%
7%
16%
,;.., ,'"C
.-f::" ,"',,": -
So~ewhat
. .disagree
7%
5%
12%
Percent of
resp6ndents
6%
46%
24%
5%
20%
100%
J
I
3%
20%
37% 21% 11% 2% 13% 100%
u
26% 21% 14% 14% 18% 100% -"
~
2J
c
Q)
u
30% 22% 5% 2% 24% 100% ..c
i::!
'"
Q)
~
Q)
""
-;;;
c
0
.~
z
E
-0
~
'"
c.
~
"-
Page 63
1%
20%
5%
17%
100%
100%
100%
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
, Questioli 16
In the last 12 months, have you had any in-person or. phone contact with an
employee.of the City of Wheat Ridge?
Yes
No
Total
Question 17
What was your impression of the City of Wheat
Ridge employee in your most recent contact? (Rate Excellent Good
.each characteristic below.)
Fair. Poor
I
J
I
Percent of
respondents
40%
60%
100%
,Don'(
know
, Total
Knowledge 33% 46% 12% 5% 3% 100%
Responsiveness 34% 40% 16% 7% 2% 100%
Cou rtesy 45% 39% 10% 5% 1% 100%
Making you feel valued 33% 33% 18% 11% 4% 100%
Overall impression 33% 38% 21% 7% 1% 100%
*Asked only of chose who had contact with a City employee in the last 12 months.
rleas"iateho,w.safeyqu.
feel..i nlhefoI19\Vitlga.re~s..,...
. ,inyVheafRidge:.'
Parks and playgrounds
Recreation centers
In your neighborhood
In your home
On the trail system
Retail/commercial areas
Question 18.
. Neither
safe nor
. unsafe
10%
Very . Som~what
safe., . . safe.
36%
53%
36%
53%
19%
33%
40%
23%
46%
34%
37%
48%
5%
6%
5%
14%
12%
,Somewhat.. Very
Lins~fe . unsafe:
6% 0%
1% 0%
10% 1%
6% 1%
8% 3%
3% 1%
8%
18%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
3%
Page 64
u
c
~
2J
"
Q)
U
..c
i::!
'"
Q)
~
~
-;;;
c
o
.~
z
E
-0
~
'"
c.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
PI",~s~r~!~tHefpI16win~
stalemTntS. byci rclinll'.
the nUrDlJerWllichh",st
repre,entsyour opinion...
. Thecity~l1t>uld.....
Promote efforts to
revitalize the city's
housing areas
Promote efforts to
revitalize the city's
business areas
Strengthen Wheat
Ridge's community
image and identity
Promote efforts to attract
and recru it new types of
retail business to Wheat
Ridge
Promote efforts to
revitalize business
corridors such as 38th
Avenue, 44th Avenue,
Wadsworth Boulevard
and Kipling Avenue
Quesli61i 19
. Strongly
agree. ..
Somewhat
agree
. . Neither.
.., -;:igree;:nOf'
disagree
T6tal
Somewhat.. Strongly
disagree . disagree
Don~t
k~ow
39%
33%
16%
2% 1%
8%
100%
46%
32%
13%
2% 1%
6%
100%
43%
33%
15%
2%
1%
6%
100%
46%
31%
10%
5%
2%
5%
100"!o
58%
23%
8%
4%
2%
4%
100%
Grocery shopping 2% 6% 5% 14% 73% 0% 100% U
Health se/Vices 18% 18% 11% 20% 29% 4% 100% -"
~-
Meals and Q)
3% 12% 17% 40% 28% 1% 100% 1:'
entertainment 0
Household items 6% 14% 17% 26% 36% 1% 100% ..c
i::!
Computers and '"
100% Q)
39% 29% 14% 7% 7% 5% ~
electronics Q)
""
General retail (shoes, -;;;
c:
beauticians, clothing, 12% 25% 22% 24% 17% 1% 100% 0
.~
etc.) Z
>-
-"
-0
~
'"
c.
~
"-
Page 65
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
I
I
. Qu~sti9n2J
Wp~n you .shopo~~iq~()fWheat Ridge, wpydo yay: shpp 9uisidepf wheat
.Ridge?{Checkallthalapply.) . .
Don't shop outside of Wheat Ridge
It is convenient; on my way to or from work or near my home
I like the range of quality goods and se/Vices
Desired item is not available in Wheat Ridge
It is more affordable
Visit a mall or other major retailers
Other
Total
* TotaJ may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one answer.
I 'Questiqn22
I'. . 'fo\Vh~t ~~t~l1tdq YOYWPPorl()r()~fa~~thisiy"ebfgeviI9Prl1~l1rin vvheat!
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Neither support nor oppose
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
Don't know
Total
I Question 23.. .
.lnthe.'lasf 12:mimths,about howmanytimes,Jf .
ever,have'ycll;,'9r. other household members used .
!befiillowil1g:Sour~e"ofinformati()niornews ' '
,'. . :..about Wheat Ridge? . '
City "Connections" Newsletter
Denver Post/Rocky Mountain News
Rad io news
Percent of
respondel1ls"
5%
36%
39%
66%
19%
54%
17%
100%
,Perc~ntof
respond"lits
42%
24%
14%
6%
10%
5%
100%
Television news
Word of mouth
Cable TV Channel 8 (Government Access
Channel)
Wheat Ridge Transcript
City's Web site: www.ci.wheatridge.co.us
30"!o
31%
48%
24%
21%
25%
16%
17%
19%
21%
36%
20%
13%
19%
32%
52%
17%
16%
55%
66%
18% 17%
15% ; 13%
7% 3% 100% U
-"
9% 24% 100% ~'
7% 14% 100% 2J
c
Q)
13% 24% 100% U
..c
14% 13% 100% i::!
'"
Q)
~
7% 6% 100% ~
-;;;
5% 5% 100% c
0
4% 2% 100% .~
z
E
-0
~
'"
c.
~
"-
Page 66
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
. Q~estibli D1
AboutHowl<lng have Yo~livedincWheatRit;lg,,?
Five years or less
6 to 10 years
11to 15 years
16 to 20 years
More than 20 years
Total
Average length of residency
PerceniOffespondelitS J
41%
17%
11%
8%
23%
100%
13.5
Question 02
In what city do you work? (If you work in ..more than one city, check the box I.. Percent of. respond. ents
... for the. city in which you. most often work.), ,
A/Vada
Aurora
Boulder
Broomfield
Denver
Englewood
Golden
Lakewood
Littleton
Louisville
Northglenn
Thornton
Westminster
Wheat Ridge
Other
Do not work
Total
6%
2%
1%
1%
21%
1%
6%
9%
1%
0%
0%
1%
1%
15%
6%
26%
100%
Detached single-family home
Condominium or townhouse
Apartment
Mobile home
Total
53%
15%
32%
0%
100%
Page 67
u
c
~
2J
"
Q)
U
..c
i::!
'"
Q)
~
Q)
""
-;;;
c
o
.~
Z
>-
-"
-0
~
'"
c.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
.Question D4
Do:you;ownor:tenfyqUr.residence?
Own
Rent
Total
Question D5
How many people (including you.rselO live in your household?
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
Total
Average number of household members
Question D6
How m.any 6fthese hOllsehold,iriembers'~re:17 or younger?
I . Percent of respondents
55%
45%
100%
I.PerceriiClf resp6ndents
1%
38%
33%
13%
9%
3%
1%
0%
0%
0%
100%
2.1
'....
.;.,c.:,
I
Percent of reSfJ9ndenls. I
70%
15%
10%
3%
1%
0%
0%
100%
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Average number of household members under 18 for households with at/east
one child under 18
1.7
Page 68
u
c
~
2J
c
Q)
U
..c
i::!
'"
Q)
~
~
-;;;
c
.2
1il
z
E
-0
~
'"
c.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
I. Qu"sliohD7 .
/What .is the. highestlevel..ofeducalion. youhavecon'1tJl~te<Jl
o to 11 years
High school graduate
Some college, no degree
Associate degree
Bachelors degree
Graduate or professional degree
Total
I Qu~stionb8
I Abouth()wmuchd6,y()uestirnate.y6urHOUSEHOLD'S TOTAL. INCOME
.'. .. 'BEFORE T AliES wasin2007? .
Less than $15,000
$15,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $124,999
$125,000 or more
Total
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75+
Total
I
I', Percent of respondents j
5%
21%
28%
9%
20%
17%
100%
J
P~rG~lit6ftesPOr<Jen.ts j
10%
16%
15%
14%
20%
12%
6%
6%
100%
j
I. Percent of respondents .j
3%
23%
14%
24%
12%
9%
15%
100%
Page 69
u
-"
~'
Q)
'i:
d
..c
i::!
'"
Q)
~
Q)
""
-;;;
c
o
.~
Z
>-
-"
-0
~
'"
c.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Question D10
What is your race? (Please check all that apply.)
Percent of respondents'
90%
1%
1%
2%
9%
White
Black or African American
Asian or Pacific Islander
American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut
Other
* Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one answer.
Question~D11
'Are you HispanidSpanishiLatino?
I ~ Percent of respondents
11%
89%
100%
Yes
No
Totai
I
I
. Question Dl2
What isyourgender?,
. Percent of respondents
55%
45%
100%
Female
Male
Total
Yes
No
Total
77%
23%
100%
Page 70
u
c
~
2J
c
Q)
U
..c
i::!
'"
Q)
~
~
-;;;
c
o
.~
z
E
]
'"
c.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
ApPEN DIX 0: CROSST AB U LATIONS OF SE LECTED RES U L TS BY RESPON DENT
CHARACTERISTICS
The following appendix compares the key survey responses by specific respondent characteristics. Cells shaded grey indicate statistically
significant differences (p ~ .05).
Your opini<,1h;
._~_~~~_~__~~g~_~~.~.e!_~ce ~9__!!~e:_~_
_y~~~ _~~!~~~~r_~_~?_~~~~_e_I_~~~ t~!iy~?
_ _YY~_e:<i!_.~"i~g~_a~__~_pl_~_~~__!~__~~_i~e chi_19E~n_?
_.Y'{_~_c:a_t__~j_~.~~_~_~ ~pJace to work?
W~~~t,.~_~~~~_~~_~_.e~~~~_~~ re~~~?.
_.~_~:(si.~~_I_ att~~ct~ve~E!~~,of.YVheat Ri_~_gE!__~? a whole?
Overall quality of life in Wheat Ridge?
*Percent reporting "excellent" or "good"
, ,.;:~:."""': ',< :"<.:-;:"
c,__ '_', _
circle th.e nJmb~r thatbe,st.
r~presen~yqur;,9pini_~n: "
I' :Fiv({ye,~r$ b-f
less
84%
76%
74%
49%
62%
49%
75%
-:Cj,u_estlp~Tl:.b\rReSp_ondenfChar~tterjstrcs'-
Len~n-of residency
'6to 10 1 .
11 to 20 years
years
88%
74%
64%
62%
70%
44%
66%
87%
81%
81%
63%
70%
50%
81%
Rent or own
More than 1 Overell 1 Own 1 Rent I Overall
20 years
89% 86% 85% 88% 86%
77% 77% 77% 77% 77%
76% 74% 74% 75% 74%
55% 55% 51% 59% 55%
72% 68% 65% 71% 68%
48% 48% 40% 59% 48%
71% 74% 70% 78% 74%
':'~:"'::'Q~~sti~H)t:Jjy_:R~~P9h4ent 'Char~'cierf~1:i~s
Gender by age
I M18-1 M3S-
34 54
81 % 88%
> "tlo'usir1g~n#typ~:'
Detached I Attached I Overall'
85% 88% 86%
F
55+
~Yhe~t_~id~e as ~.P.J_~~~ !?_I_~v~!_ _ _
Your neighborhood as a place to
live?
Wheat Ridge as a place to raise
children?
Wheat Ridge as a place to work?
__________ ..n__'__
__~~~~t Rid~e a~_a_p_~~~~_!~ retire?
Physical attractiveness of Wheat
...~~9_~~_~~__~ ~hole?
Overall quality of life in Wheat
Ridge?
*Percent reporting "excellent" or "good"
81%
75%
50%
63%
41%
72%
73% 77%
74% 74%
60% 55%
72% 67%
56% 48%
76% 74%
1'8- I F 3S,
34 S4
83% 88%
73% 80%
90%
820/0
66% 79%
67% 74% 83% 79%
44% 56% 70% 35%
53% 67% 83% 49%
41% 45% 59% 37%
73% 73% 80% 58%
69%
I Race
M 1 Overall I White 1 Not 1 Overall u
-"
55+ White ~'
88% 87% 87% 88% 87% 2J
c
Q)
U
80% 78% 76% 85% 77% ..c
i::!
'"
Q)
75% 75% 74% 80% 75% ~
Q)
""
60% 55% 55% 55% 55% -;;;
c
76% 68% 67% 75% 68% 0
.~
Z
57% 49% 48% 56% 49% .5-
-0
80% 74% 73% 82% 74% ~
'"
c.
Q)
3:
Page 71
58%
60%
48%
75%
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
.. .\:cil!_est,i6H::-4-' I)Y:;~~$ponderit-~har~tierj~tics
. Le'ngth6f resid~n'cy,
6 t010 1 11to20 1 More than 20
years years years
Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided
by the City of Wheat Ridge?
*Percent reponing "excellent" or "good"
Five years or
less
76%
72%
80%
~(i~~stl~tf#:-BY"~~spo'rWehi:Char~~t~rJstics
. Housing unit type Gender by age
II F 18- 1 F 35- 1 F I M 18-1 M 35-1
Attached Overall 34 54 55+ 34 54
Overall, how would you rate the
quality of the services provided by 72%
the City of Wheat Ridge?
*Percent reporting "excellent" or "good"
79%
How would you rate the overall performance of the Wheat
Ridge city government?
*Percent reporting "exce/Jent" or "good"
. Hq(,isiii'g,unitlype
Deta~hed I Atta~hed 1 Overall
How would you rate the overall
performance of the Wheat Ridge city 600/0
government?
*Percent reporting "excellent" or I!good"
71%
65%
75%
Five years. or
, less
70%
70%
79% 84% 63%
73%
73%
5~+ 1 Overilll
80%
'"Length of ,res'fdenci
. 'I .6 to1 0 1 11 to 20 1 More than 20
yea~ yea~ yea~
63%
66%
F 18-
34
I F;t
Gender by age
1M 18-1 M.35-1
34 5~
F
55+
65%
60%
79%
50%: 64%
58%
M
55+
69%
Rentor own
Overall I Own I Rent 1 Overall
75%
73% 78%
75%
Race
I Not 1 Over,all
White White
76%
76%
78%
76%
Overall
Rem or own
Own I R~nt I Overall
65%
63% 68%
65%
Overall
Race
1 Not
White White
Overall
66%
65% 69%
66%
Page 72
u
c
~-
2J
c
Q)
U
..c
u
~
Q)
~
Q)
""
-;;;
c:
.Q
Oi
z
E
-0
~
'"
c.
Q)
6:
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
... . QVe$l;Cihilsby. Resp"ndehi.Characteristits .
I Length a/residency
I F,iy~years Qr I 6 t010 ,I 11 to 20, I More than 20
_ less years years years
Pleas.e ra~ethe following s~tements by circling the number which
,.,~",.;. ::'" ,," - , "~;,r,.,. :~~~tt~p'rese:hts_:YO.lir,,:opiniol1' .
I believe my elected .officials generally act in the best interest .of the
__ ~_~!!,~.~,~.!~.~t_,!~~~_ _"U_'_ _._
._~i~_'?~M~hea~_~J~~~ _~~.eJ_<:>x.:~~ P~~?~~,-9_~aJ it~"~~_~~~
I receive good value and services far the amount .of city sales and
property_taxes thati_pay.__ ._
._~_~_,:!:!.~I:.~:~~ ,~j~~._the .overall ~i_~~5ti?_~__~~~_~_i~ is taki~g ,
__La_~_~_~~l_ ~.~!,?r~~__~~_~~J?~..i,~~~~~~i~~!~"'t~e ~!!y_~f Wheat Ridge
Wheat Ridge city government welcomes citizen involvement
*Percent reporting nstrongly" .or "somewhat" agree
72% 68% 74% 70%
67% 62% 74% 71%
52% 51% 62% 57%
63% 58% 64% 56%
38% 42% 37% 42%
58'10 61% 64% 61%
. ,.. Ques.tionJ ~ byRespondent Characteristics
PleaJ;erMi;(he foliO:";ing siatementsr. .. . Housing unit type. I. Gender by age
by'circlingtne nurriberwhich best'. . .., F 18- F 35- F M M
represelits you.ropinion. 'Detached. 1 Attached 1 Overall 1 34 I 54 1 55 + 118-34135-541
MI..
55 + Overall
Rent or own
1 Overall Own I Rent I Overall
71% 72% 71% 72%
69% 71% 66% 69%
55% 55% 55% 55%
61% 61% 60% 61%
40% 39% 41% 40%
60% 62% 58% 60%
Race
White I ~~t~ 1 Overall
I believe my elected officials generally
act in the best interest of the 71% 72% 72% 59% 73% 79% 78% 65% 75% 72% 73% 69% 72%
_~o_~.~~~i~,.at I~~~~ <.J
City of Wheat Ridge employees "
68% 70% 69% 51% 68% 79% 73% 65% 77% 70'10 70% 65% 69% -
.P~!!~~~_g_~ality_~?~~._ . ~-
-- 2J
I receive good value and services for "
Q)
the amount of city sales and property 52% 60'10 .55'10 44% 64% 67% 41% 52% 59% 56% 56% 57% 56% U
taxes that I pay. ..c
i::!
I am pleased with the overall '"
59% 64% 61% 61% 66% 68% 49'10 59% 62% 62% 63% 56% 62% Q)
~
direction the city is taking Q)
---- --- ---- ""
I am well informed on major issues 40% 40% 40% 31% 43% 50% 25% 36% 50% 40% 41% 35% 40% -;;;
within the City of Wheat Ridge c
0
._-.-_m______________________.,_ _.__________ --- ------ .~
Wheat Ridge city government 60% 62% 61% 44% 63% 68% 54% 61% 67% 61% 61% 61% 61% Z
welcomes citizen involvement >-
*Percent reporting 'fstrongly" or "somewhat" agree -"
-0
~
'"
c.
~
"-
Page 73
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
"~:~:-".,:"\<:',('-:_:-':\:"",_,,_;__ --~.- _ _ _-:, ;,.:" :"",,"J :-,. :
, Please r~te how safe, you leeUn the following areas in .
, '.' Wheat Ridge: '
Parks and playgrounds
-- -----,---
Recreation centers
In your neighborhood
In your home
On the trail system
Retail!commercial areas
*Percent reporting "very" or "somewhat" safe
;-:pr~~~~;'~~f~,hd~:,::~~f~&~:~;:t~~f...in-"th'~
.Iollowinil"an;,as' in '!Vtieat Ridg~:
," ,._,,-,;-',--., .-
Parks and playgrounds
- -.-....-. .~_.-
Recreation centers
_~ y<?_~_~_e_~~_h~<?!~~od 83%
In your home 90%
On the trail system 70%
Retail/commercial areas 83%
*Percent reporting "very" or usomewhat" safe
Q'i.l'~~ti.pn,-:Y8:by R~$'pcirkJ~nt c:~afaCteristjcs
I Length ofresidency Rent or own
I Five-y~als6r I 6 tol0 I llto 20 I . More than 20 I Overall Own I Rent -I Overall
:Jess' years years years
83% 82% 87Ofo 79% 83% 83% 81% 82%
94% 87% 96% 91% 92% 93% 91% 92%
80% 83% 87% 83% 82% 84% 80% 82%
86% 91% 92% 88% 88% 90% 87% 88%
73% 66% 72% 64% 69% 69% 71% 70%
86% 79% 83% 82% 83% 84% 83% 83%
92%
82% 83%
86O/1i 88%
--.....---
69% 70%
84% 83%
M% ~%
89% 85%
H% ~%
D% ~%
86% n%
80%
87%:
72%
82%
74%_
74%
65%
87%
74%
87%
62%
87%
Race
5~+ I Overali White I Not IOverali
White
87% 83% 83% 83% 83%
95% 93% ,94% 85% 93%
91% 83% 82% 85% 83%
96% 89% 88% 90% 88% U
-"
80% 70% 68% 79% 70% ~-
2J
87% 84% 84% 85% 84% c:
~
..c
i::!
'"
Q)
~
Q)
""
-;;;
c
0
.~
Z
>-
-"
-0
~
'"
c.
~
"-
Page 74
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
ApPENDIX E: JURISDICTIONS INCLUDED IN
BENCHMARK COMPARISONS
Jurisdictions Included in National Comparisons
The jurisdictions included in the national benchmark comparisons are listed below along with their
2000 population according to the u.s. Census.
Agoura Hills, CA ..............20,537
Alabaster, AL....................22, 169
Alamogordo, NM .............35,582
Albemarle County, VA .....79,236
Alpharetta, GA .................34,854
Ames, IA ..........................50,731
Andover, MA....................31,247
Ankeny, IA .......................27, 117
Ann Arbor, MI................114,024
Archuleta County, CO ........ 9,898
Arkansas City, KS..............11 ,963
Arlington County, VA..... 189,453
A/Vada, CO ....................1 02,153
Ashland County, Wi......... 16,866
Ashland, OR..................... 19,522
Aspen, CO .........................5,914
Auburn, Al.......................42,987
Austin, TX ......................656,562
Avondale, AZ...................35,883
Barnstable, MA.................47,821
Batavia, IL ........................23,866
Battle Creek, MI ...............53,364
Beekman, NY ...................11 ,452
Belleair Beach, Fl............... 1,751
Bellevue, WA .................1 09,569
Bellflower, CA.................. 72,878
Bellingham, WA...............67, 171
Benbrook, TX ...................20,208
Bend, OR .........................52,029
Benicia, CA ......................26,865
Bettendorf,IA...................31,275
Blacksburg, VA.................39,357
Bloomfield, NM .................6,417
Blue Earth, MN...................3,621
Blue Springs, MO .............48,080
Boise, ID ........................185,787
Bonita Springs, Fl.............32,797
Borough of Ebensburg, PA..3,091
Botetourt County, VA .......30,496
Boulder County, CO.......291,288
Boulder, CO.....................94,673
Bowling Green, KY...........49,296
Bozeman, MT...................27,509
Breckenridge, CO...............2,408
Brevard County, FL ........476,230
Brisbane, CA...................... 3,597
Broken Arrow, OK ........... 74,839
Broomfield, CO................ 38,272
Bryan, TX ......................... 34,733
Burlingame, CA................ 28,158
Burlington, MA ................ 22,876
Calgary, Canada............. 878,866
Cambridge, MA..............101,355
Canandaigua, Ny............. 11,264
Cape Coral, FL ............... 102,286
Capitola, CA .................... 10,033
Carlsbad, CA.................... 78,247
Carson City, NV ...............52,457
Cartersville, GA................ 15,925
Ca/Ver County, MN.......... 70,205
Cary, NC.......................... 94,536
Castle Rock, CO............... 20,224
Cedar Creek, NE ................... 396
Cedar Falls, IA.................. 36,145
Chandler, AZ ................. 176,581
Chanhassen, MN.............. 20,321
Charlotte County, FL ......141,627
Charlotte, NC................. 540,828
Chesterfield County,
VA........................... 259,903
Cheyenne, WY .................53,011
Chittenden County, VT .. 146,571
Chula Vista, CA.............. 173,556
Claremont, CA ................. 33,998
Clark County, WA..........345,238
Clearwater, Fl................ 108,787
Cococino County, AZ .... 116,320
College Park, MD........... 242,657
Collier County, FL..........251,377
Collinsville, Il.................. 24,707
Colorado Springs, CO.... 360,890
Columbia, MO.................84,531
Concord, CA.................. 121,780
Concord, NC.................... 55,977
Cookeville, TN................. 23,923
Cooper City, Fl................ 27,939
Coral Springs, FL........... 117,549
Corpus Christi, TX..........277,454
Co/Vallis, OR ................... 49,322
Coventry, CT ................... 11,504
Craig, CO .......................... 9,189
Cranberry Township, PA.. 23,625
Cumberland County,
PA...........................213,674
Cupertino, CA.................. 50,546
Dakota County, MN....... 355,904
Dallas, TX...................1,188,580
Dania Beach, Fl............... 20,061
Davenport, IA .................. 98,359
Davidson, NC.................... 7,139
Daviess County, Ky......... 91,545
Daytona Beach, Fl........... 64,112
Decatur, GA .................... 18,147
DeKalb, Il........................ 39,018
Del Mar, CA ...................... 4,389
Delaware, OH ................. 25,243
Delhi Township, MI......... 22,569
Delray Beach, FL ............. 60,020
Denver (City and County),
CO ..........................554,636
Denver Public Library, CO..... NA
Des Moines, IA .............. 198,682
Dillon, CO............................ 802
District of Saanich, Victoria,
Canada.................... 103,654
Douglas County, CO...... 175,766
Dover, DE........................ 32,135
Dover, NH....................... 26,884
Dublin, CA ...................... 29,973
Dublin, OH ..................... 31,392
Duncanville, TX............... 36,081
Durango, CO ................... 13,922
Durham, NC.................. 187,038
Duval County, Fl........... 778,879
Eagle County, CO ............ 41 ,659
East Providence, RI ..........48,688
Eau Claire, WI.................. 61,704
Edmond, OK.................... 68,315
EI Cerrito, CA................... 23,171
EI Paso, TX..................... 563,662
Elmhurst, Il...................... 42,762
Englewood, CO ............... 31,727
Page 75
u
c
~
2J
c
Q)
U
..c
i::!
'"
Q)
~
Q)
""
-;;;
c
o
.~
Z
>-
-"
-0
~
'"
c.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Ephrata Borough, PA ........13,213
Eugene, OR .................... 137,893
Eustis, FL .......................... 15,106
Evanston, Il...................... 74,239
Fairway, KS ........................3,952
Farmington, NM...............37,844
Farmington, UT ................12,081
Fayetteville, AR ................58,047
Fishers, IN ........................37,835
Flagstaff, AZ .....................52,894
Florence, AZ .................... 17,054
Fort Collins, CO .............118,652
Fort Smith, AR ..................80,268
Fort Worth, TX ...............534,694
Fridley, MN ......................27,449
Fruita, CO ..........................6,478
Gainesville, FL ................. 95,447
Gaithersburg, MD ............52,613
Galt, CA...........................19,472
Gillette, WY ..................... 19,646
Golden, CO .....................17,159
Grand County, CO ........... 12,442
Grand Junction, CO..........41,986
Grand Prairie, TX ...........127,427
Grandview, MO ...............24,881
Greenville, SC..................1O,468
Greenwood Village, CO...11,035
Gresham, OR ...................90,205
Gurnee, IL ........................28,834
Hanau, Germany....................NA
Hanover County, VA........86,320
Henderson, NV..............175,381
High Point, Nc.................85,839
Highland Park, 1l..............31 ,365
Highlands Ranch, CO....... 70,931
Hillsborough County,
FL ............................998,948
Homewood, IL .................19,543
Honolulu, H I.................. 876, 156
Hopewell, VA ..................22,354
Hoquiam, WA....................9,097
Hot Springs, AR................35,613
Hot Sulphur Springs, CO .......521
Hudson, NC.......................3,078
Hudson, OH ....................22,439
Hutchinson, MN .............. 13,080
Independence, MO ........113,288
Indianola, IA..................... 12,998
Iowa County, IA ............... 15,671
I/Ving, TX .......................191 ,615
Jackson County, OR .......181,269
James City County, VA .....48, 102
Jefferson County, CO......527,056
Jefferson Parish, LA ........455,466
.joplin, MO ....................... 45,504
Kansas City, MO ............441,545
Kearney, NE ..................... 27,431
Keizer, OR ....................... 32,203
Kelowna, Canada............. 96,288
Kent, WA ......................... 79,524
King County, WA........1,737,034
Kirkland, WA ...................45,054
Kissimmee, Fl..................47,814
Kitsap County, WA......... 231,969
Knightdale, NC .................. 5,958
Kutztown Borough, PA....... 5,067
La Mesa, CA..................... 54,749
La Plata, MD ...................... 6,551
La Vista, NE .....................11,699
Laguna Beach, CA............ 23,727
Lake Oswego, OR............ 35,278
Lakewood, CO............... 144,126
Larimer County, CO.......251,494
Lebanon, OH ................... 16,962
Lee's Summit, MO ........... 70,700
Lenexa, KS .......................40,238
Lincolnwood,IL...............12,359
Livermore, CA.................. 73,345
Lodi, CA........................... 56,999
Lone Tree, CO ...................4,873
Long Beach, CA.............461,522
Longmont, CO ................. 71,093
Louisville, CO.................. 18,937
Loveland, CO................... 50,608
Lyme, NH ..........................1,679
Lynchburg, VA................. 65,269
Lynnwood, WA................ 33,847
Lynwood, CA................... 69,845
Manchester, CT................ 54,740
Mankato, MN................... 32,427
Maple Grove, MN ............ 50,365
Maplewood, MN.............. 34,947
Marion, IA.......................... 7,144
Maryland Heights, MO .... 25,756
Maryville, MO ................. 10,581
Maui, HI........................128,094
Mauldin, SC .....................15,224
McAllen, TX................... 106,414
Medina, MN ......................4,005
Melbourne, Fl.................. 71,382
Meridian Charter Township,
MI.............................38,987
Merriam, KS ..................... 11,008
Mesa County, CO .......... 116,255
Miami Beach, FL .............. 87,933
Milton, Wi......................... 5,132
Minneapolis, MN........... 382,618
Mission Viejo, CA............ 93,102
Montgomery County,
MD ......................... 873,341
Morgan Hill, CA .............. 33,556
Morgantown, WV ............ 26,809
Moscow, ID..................... 21,291
Mountain View, CA......... 70,708
Mountlake Terrace, WA... 20,362
Munster, IN ..................... 21,511
Nape/Ville, IL ................. 128,358
New Orleans, LA ........... 484,674
Newport News, VA........ 180,150
Newport, RI..................... 26,475
Normal, IL ....................... 45,386
North Branch, MN ............. 8,023
North Jeffco Park and
Recreation District, CO ... NA
North Las Vegas, NV...... 115,488
North Port, FL .................. 22,797
North Vancouver,
Canada...................... 44,303
Northampton County,
VA............................. 13,093
Northern Tier Coalition
Community Su/Vey, PA... NA
Northglenn, CO............... 31,575
Novi, MI.......................... 47,386
O'Fallon, Il...................... 21,910
O'Fallon, MO .................. 46,169
Oak Ridge, TN ................. 27,387
Oakland Park, FL ............. 30,966
Oakville, Canada........... 144,738
Ocean City, MD ................ 7,173
Ocean Shores, WA ............ 3,836
Oceanside, CA............... 161,029
Ocoee, FL ........................ 24,391
Oklahoma City, OK ....... 506,132
Olathe, KS ....................... 92,962
Oldsmar, Fl..................... 11,910
Olmsted County, MN .... 137,521
Olympia, WA .................. 42,514
Orange Village, OH........... 3,236
Orleans Parish, LA ......... 484,674
Ottawa County, MI........ 238,314
Overland Park, KS.......... 149,080
Oviedo, Fl....................... 26,316
Ozaukee County, Wi....... 82,317
Palatine, Il....................... 65,479
Palm Bay, FL.................... 79,413
Palm Beach Gardens, FL.. 35,058
Palm Beach, FL............... 10,468
Palm Coast, FL .................32,732
Page 76
u
c
~
2J
c
Q)
U
..c
i::!
'"
Q)
~
-;;;
c
o
.~
Z
>-
-"
-0
~
'"
c.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Palm Springs, CA..............42,807
Palo Alto, CA ...................58,598
Park Ridge, 1l...................37,775
Parker, CO .......................23,558
Pasadena, TX..................141,674
Pasco, WA........................32,066
Peoria County, 1l............183,433
Peoria, AZ......................l08,364
Philadelphia, PA..........1,517,550
Phoenix, AZ ................1 ,321 ,045
Pickens County, SC ........110,757
Pinellas County, Fl......... 921 ,482
Pitkin County, CO............ 14,872
Piano, TX .......................222,030
Platte City, MO ..................3,866
Polk County, IA..............374,601
Port Orange, FL ................45,823
Portland, OR ..................529, 121
Poway, CA .......................48,044
Prescott Valley, AZ...........25,535
Prince Albert, Canada.......34,291
Prince William County,
VA ........................... 280,813
Prior Lake, MN .................15,917
Rancho Cordova, CA........55,060
Raymore, MO ..................11, 146
Redding, CA.....................80,865
Reno, NV ....................... 180,480
Renton, WA .....................50,052
Richland, WA...................38,708
Richmond, CA..................99,216
Riverdale, UT .....................7,656
Riverside, CA .................255, 166
Rock Hill, Sc....................49,765
Rockville, MD ..................47,388
Round Rock, TX...............61,136
Saco, ME ..........................16,822
Safford, AZ ......................... 9,232
Salina, KS .........................45,679
San Bernardino County,
CA ........................ 1,709,434
San Francisco, CA .......... 776,733
San Jose, CA...................894,943
San Marcos, TX ................34,733
San Ramon, CA ................44,722
Sandusky, OH ..................27,844
Sanford, Fl....................... 38,291
. Santa Barbara County,
CA........................... 399,347
Santa Monica, CA ............ 84,084
Sarasota, FL ...................... 52,715
Sault Sainte Marie, MI...... 16,542
Scott County, MN ............89,498
Scottsdale, AZ ................ 202,705
Sedona, AZ ...................... 10,192
Seminole, FL ....................10,890
Sheldahl, IA .......................... 336
Shenandoah, TX................. 1,503
Shorewood, Il.................... 7,686
Shrewsbury, MA............... 31,640
Silverthorne, CO ................ 3,196
Sioux Falls, SD ............... 123,975
Skokie, IL ......................... 63,348
Slater, IA ............................ 1,306
Smyrna, GA .....................40,999
Snoqualmie, WA................1,631
South Daytona, Fl............ 13,177
South Haven, MI................5,021
Sparks, NV ....................... 66,346
Springfield, MO ............. 151,580
St. Cloud, MN .................. 59,107
St. Louis County, MN ..... 200,528
Stafford County, VA ......... 92,446
Starkville, MS ................... 21 ,869
State College, PA.............. 38,420
Staunton, VA.................... 23,853
Steamboat Springs, CO ...... 9,815
Stillwater, OK................... 39,065
Stockton, CA..................243,771
Suamico, WI......................8,686
Sugar Grove, IL .................. 3,909
Sugar Land, TX ................. 63,328
Summit County, CO......... 23,548
Sunnyvale, CA ...............131,760
Tacoma, WA..................193,556
Takoma Park, MD ............ 17,299
Tallahassee, Fl............... 150,624
Taos, NM ...........................4,700
Teton County, WY ...........18,251
The Colony, TX................26,531
Thornton, CO................... 82,384
Thunder Bay, Canada..... 109,016
Titusville, FL .................... 40,670
Troy, MI........................... 80,959
Tucson, AZ .................... 486,699
Upper Merion Township,
PA ............................. 28,863
Urbandale, IA ..................29,072
Vail, CO ................................ NA
Vancouver, WA............. 143,560
Village of Brown Deer,
WI............................. 12,170
Village of Howard City,
MI............................... 1,585
Village of Oak Park, IL ..... 52,524
Virginia Beach, VA ........ 425,257
Vol usia County, Fl......... 443,343
Wahpeton, ND .................. 8,586
Walnut Creek, CA............ 64,296
Walton County, FL.......... 40,601
Washington City, UT ......... 8,186
Washington County,
MN .........................201,130
Washoe County, NV ......339,486
Waukee, IA........................ 5,126
Wausau, Wi..................... 38,426
Wauwatosa, Wi............... 47,271
West Des Moines, IA ....... 46,403
Western Eagle County Metro
Recreation District, CO ... NA
Weste/Ville, OH............... 35,318
Westminster, CO ........... 100,940
Wethersfield, CT .............. 26,271
Wheat Ridge, CO............. 32,913
Whitehorse, Canada ........ 19,058
Whitewater, Wi............... 13,437
Wichita, KS.................... 344,284
Williamsburg, VA ............ 11,998
Willingboro Township, NJ 33,008
Wilmington, NC .............. 90,400
Windsor, CT .................... 28,237
Winter Park, FL ................24,090
Wood ridge, IL................. 30,934
Worcester, MA............... 172,648
Yellowknife, Canada........ 16,541
Page 77
u
c
~-
Q)
c
Q)
U
..c
i::!
'"
Q)
~
Q)
""
-;;;
c
o
.~
Z
>-
-"
-0
~
'"
c.
Q)
ci:
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
Jurisdictions Included in Front Range Comparisons
The jurisdictions included in the Front Range benchmark comparisons are listed below along with
their 2000 population according to the U.S. Census.
A/Vada, CO ....................102, 153
Aspen, CO .........................5,914
Boulder County, CO.......291 ,288
Boulder, CO.....................94,673
Broomfield, CO................38,272
Castle Rock, co ...............20,224
Colorado Springs, co ....360,890
Denver (City and County),
co ..........................554,636
Denver Public Library, co .....NA
Douglas County, CO ......175,766
Englewood, CO................ 31,727
Fort Collins, CO ............. 118,652
Golden, co .....................17,159
Greenwood Village, co... 11,035
Highlands Ranch, co ...... 70,931
Jefferson County, CO ..... 527,056
Lakewood, CO............... 144,126
Larimer County, CO.......251,494
Lone Tree, CO ...................4,873
Longmont, CO ................. 71,093
Louisville, CO.................. 18,937
Loveland, co .................. 50,608
North Jeffco Park and
Recreation District, co ... NA
Northglenn, CO............... 31,575
Parker, co....................... 23,558
Thornton, CO .................. 82,384
Westminster, CO ........... 100,940
Wheat Ridge, CO............. 32,913
Page 78
u
-"
~.
2J
c
Q)
U
..c
i::!
'"
Q)
~
-;;;
c
o
.~
Z
>-
-"
-0
~
'"
c.
~
"-
City of Wheat Ridge 2008 DRAFT Citizen Survey Results
ApPENDIX F: SURVEY INSTRUMENT
The survey instrument appears on the following pages.
Page 79
u
c
~'
Q)
-
c
Q)
U
..c
i::!
~
~
Q)
""
-;;;
c
o
~
Z
>-
-"
-0
~
'"
c.
i!!
"-
2008 Wheat Ridge 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 I
adult's year Of birth does not maller. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only. Thank you.
I
Community and Services
1. Circle the number that best represents your opinion:
Excellent
How do you rate Wheat Ridge as a place to live? ..................................................1
How do you rate your neighborhood as a place to live?...................................... 1
How do you rate Wheat Ridge as a place to raise children? ................................ 1
How do you rate Wheat Ridge as a place to work? ............................................... I
How do you rate Wheat Ridge as a place to relire?...................:...........................1
How would you rate the physical attractiveness of Wheat Ridge as a whole? ... I
How do you rate the overall quality of life in Wheat Ridge? ............................... I
Good Fair Poor Don't know
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2. Do you think the quality of life in Wheat Ridge is likely to improve, stay the same, or decline over the next 5
years?
o Improve a lot 0 Improve slightly 0 Stay the same 0 Decline slightly 0 Decline a lot
3. Following are services provided by the City of Wheat Ridge. For each service, please first rate the quality of each
service and next rate the importance of each service.
OUality
Don't
f.xcellent Good Fair Poor know
Snow removal......................................... I
Street repair and maintenance.............. I
Street cleaning ........................................ I
Traffic enforcement................................ I
Code enforcement Gunkvehicles,weed
control, tra,<;h,outside storage) ....... I
Land use, planning and zoning............. I
Building pennits ..................................... I
Building inspections............................... I
MairJtenance of exislingcity parks....... I
Maintenance of open space and trails..... 1
Recreation pt'ogtl\it\s ...................,.......... I
Recreation facilities ................................ I
Community/public art........................... 1
Opportunities to participate in social
events and activities......................... I
Services/programs for youth ................ I
Services/programs for seniors .............. I
Municipal court....,....".....,...,;................ I
Business expansion and recruitment
programs........................................... I
General police serviCes........................... I
Police response time to emergency
police calls (not code enforcement) . I
Policei:'espbrise lime to tlorHfu"'etgehcy
police caI1s (noteade enforceinent) . I
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
F.!':.":ential
Tmnorll1.nce
Very Somewhat
imnortant imnortanf
Not at all
imnortant
I
I
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Z
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
I
1
I
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
4. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by the City of Wheat Ridge?
o Excellent 0 Good 0 Fair 0 Poor 0 Don't know
Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey
4
4
4
4
Don't
know
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
5
4
5
4
5
Page 1 of 5
5. Please rate the following aspects of transportation within the City of Wheat Ridge:
Excellent Good
Condition of city streets .............................................:..................................... 1 2
Mass transit planning....................................................................................... 1 2
Ease of car travel in the city ..................;......................................................... 1 2
Ease of bus travel in the city ............................................................................ 1 2
Ease of walking in the city............................................................................... 1 2
6. To what degree, if at all, are the following problems in Wheat Ridge:
Not a Minor Moderate Major Don't
nmhlem rmhl~m prohlem prohlem know
Crime................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Vandalism......................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Graffiti............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Drugs ................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Too much growth ............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Lack of growth................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Run down buildings ........................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Taxes ................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Traffic congestion............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Juvenile problems ............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Availability of affordable housing.................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Availability of parks......................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Availability of bike paths................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Availability of sidewalks.................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Availability of recreation programs............................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Maintenance and condition of homes ...........................................1 2 3 4 5
Condition of properties (weeda, trash, junk vehicles) ................. 1 2 3 4 5
7. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the
following activities in Wheat Ridge?
Fair
3
3
3
3
3
Don't know
Poor
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1-2 3-12 13-26 More than
Never limes times limes 2(; tim~s
Us~ Wheat Ridge recreation c;enters................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Participated in a recreation program or activity.............................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Used a city park or trail...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Used a city bike/pedestrian path ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Attended a meeting of 10caJ elected officials or other local public meeting. 1 2 3 4 5
Watched a meeting of local elected officials on cable television ................... 1 2 3 4 5
Participated in a selli6r program ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
Visited the Community/Sellior Center .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
Dined at a Wheat Ridge restaurant (other than fast food) ............................. 1 2 3 4 5
Used the Wheat Ridge library ............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Used A-line service to DlA..................................................................................1 2 3 4 5
Rode an RID bus.................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5
8. To what extent do you support or oppose having a single trash hauler in the City of Wheat Ridge, rather than
multiple haulers'?
1:1 Strongly 1:1 Somewhat 1:1 Neither support 1:1 Somewhat 1:1 Strongly 1:1 Don't
support support nor oppose oppose oppose know
9. Wheat Ridge is pursuing city revitalization with the goal of making this a community of choice for families and
businesses looking for a new home. As a part of this plan, the City has created Wheat Ridge Neighborhood
Revitalization S;'~;"'''';'es (NRS) and Wheat Ridge 2020 (WRZ020), a not-for-profit organization created to help
implement the NRS. Please indicate how familiar or unfamiliar you are with the NRS and WRZ020.
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very
,f!3miliar familiar llnfamiHar llnfamlHar
Neighborhood Revitalization Strategies (NRS)................................. 1 2 3 4
Wheat Ridge 2020 (WRZ020) .......................................................... 1 2 3 4
Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey
Page 2 of 5
10. Please indicate the extent to which you support or oppose each of the following.
Strongly Somewhat Neither support
snnnorl .~unnorl nor nnnose
Somewhat
~
Strongly
~
Don't
know
Neighborhood Revitalization Strategies
(NRS) .................................................,...... I 2 3 4 5 6
Wheat Ridge 2020 (WRZ020) ..................... I 2 3 4 5 6
11. Please indicate how familiar or unfamiliar you are with the City's long-range planning efforts (including the
cv...y"~hensive plan and sub-area plans).
Very
familiar
City's comprehensive plan................................................................. I
Sub-area planning (including FruitdaIe, Northwest
transit-oriented development and the Wadsworth Corridor)... I 2 3
12. To what extent would you support or oppose the City of Wheat Ridge implementing the use of each of the
following types of traffic enforcement cameras:
Strongly
snonort
Somewhat
fllmillllr
Somewhat
unfamiliar'
Very
nnfnmiliar.
2
3
4
4
Somewhat
Neither support
Somewhat
Strongly
Photo radar (to control speed) .................... I
Photo red light (to minimize the running
of red lights) ............................................ I 2 3 4 5 6
13. As more transit options come to Wheat Ridge (such as FasTracks), the City could consider developments around
transit stations. To what extent would you support or v>,>,v.v each of the following types of development around
future transit areas:
2
3
4
5
Don't
know
6
sunnort
nor ol1nose
V~/~/V,)";'
(moose
Strongly
SUYman
RetaiI................................................................ I
Office space.................................................... I
Housing........................................... ................ I
City Government and Employees
14. How would you rate the overall performance of the Wheat Ridge city government?
o Excellent 0 Good 0 Fair 0 Poor 0 Don't know
15. Please rate the following statements by circling the number which best represents your opinion.
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly Don't
a~ree ap'ee 1101" disaqree disllQl'ef': disaqree know
Somewhat Neither support Somewhat Strongly Don't
snonort, nor onnose oppose onnosf': know
2 3 4 5 6
2 3 4 5 6
2 3 4 5 6
I believe my elected officials generally act in the
best interest bfthe COmtnunity at large........................... I 2 3 4 5 6
City of Wheat Ridge employees perform quality work ........ I 2 3 4 5 6
I receive good value arid services for the amount of city
sales arid property taxes that I pay. ................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6
I am pleased with the overall direction the city is taking.... I 2 3 4 5 6
I am wei1 informed on major issues within the City of
Wheat Ridge ....................................................................... I 2 3 4 5 6
Wheat Ridge cily government welcomes citizen involvement... I 2 3 4 5 6
16. In the last 12 months, have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the City of Wheat
Ridge?
o Yes (go to question 17) 0 No (go to question 18)
17. What was your :....y.....;on of the City of Wheat Ridge employee in your most recent contact? (Rate each
characteristic below.)
F.xcel1ent
Knowledge ...........................;............................................................;................ I
Responsiveness ............................................... ................................................... I
Cqurtesy ................;............................................................................................ I
Making you feel valued.................................................................................... I
Overall impressibn.....................;.............;....................................................,... I
Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey
Good Fair Poor Don't know
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
Page 3 of 5
. II 18. Please rate how safe you feel in the following areas in Wheat Ridge:
I Very Somewhat Neither safe
safe safe nor ll11safe
Parks and playgrounds..................................... 1 2 3
Recreation centers............................................. I 2 3
In your neighborhood ...................................... I 2 3
In your home..................................................... I 2 3
On the trail system ........................................... I 2 3
RetaiVcommercial areas. ................................. I 2 3
,.
Somewhat Very Don't
unsafe unsafe know
4 5 6
4 5 6
4 5 6
4 5 6
4 5 6
4 5 6
Economic Development
19. Please rate the following statements by circling the number which best represents your opinion. The city should...
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly Don't
~ a~ee riOt' disagree disa91'ep. disa~ee know
Promote efforts to revitalize the city's housing areas ........... I 2 3 4 5 6
Promote efforts to revitalize the city's business areas........... I 2 3 4 5 6
Strengthen Wheat Ridge's community image and identity.. I 2 3 4 5 6
Promote efforts to attract and recruit new types of retail
business to Wheat Ridge ................................................... I 2 3 4 5 6
Promote efforts to revitalize business corridors such as
38th Avenue, 44th Avenue, Wadsworth Boulevard
and Kip1llig Avenue ........................................................... I 2 3 4 5 6
20. For each type of shopping, please estimate how frequently you make purchases in Wheat Ridge:
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don't
~ infreauentlv ,111freaup.ntlv fremu~nt1v frenllp.nt1v know
Grocery shopping .................................................... I 2 3 4 5 6
Health services ......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6
Meals and entertainment........................................ I 2 3 4 5 6
Household items....................................................... I 2 3 4 5 6
Computers and electronics ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6
General retail (shoes, beauticians, clothing, etc.) .... I 2 3 4 5 6
21. When you shop outside of Wheat Ridge, why do you shop outside of Wheat Ridge? (Check all that apply.)
o Don't shop outside of Wheat Ridge
o It is convenient; on my way to or from work or near my home
o I like the range of quality goods and services
o Desired item is not available in Wheat Ridge
o It is more affordable
o Visit a mall or other major retailers
o Other
22. The City of Wheat Ridge could consider developing a Civic Center area, similar 10 Be1Mar or the Pearl Street Mall.
This type of development would include mixed-use residential, commercial and retail. To what extent do you
support or oppose this type of development in Wheat Ridge?
o Strongly support
o Somewhat support
o Neither support nor oppose
o Somewhat oppose
o Strongly oppose
o Don't know
II Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey
P~ge 4 of J
Information Sources
23. In the last 12 months, about how many limes, if ever, have you or other household members used the following
sources of infonnation for news about Wheat Ridge?
1-2 3-12 13-26 More than
times times times 2~ fime~
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
Never
City "Connections" Newsletter ............................................................................... 1
Denver Post/Rocky Mountain News..................................................................... I
Radio news............................................................................................................... I
Television news ....................................................................................................... 1
Word of mouth ....................................................................................................... I
Cable TV Channel 8 (Government Access Channel) .......................................... I
Wheat Ridge Transcript......................................................................................... I
City's Web site: www.ci.whealridge.co.us ........................................................... 1
II Demographics
1'1 Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are completely anonymous and
wiII be reported in group fonn only.
D1. About how long have you lived in Wheat Ridge?
(Write 0 if six months or less)
years
D2. In what city do you work? (If you work in more
than one city, check the box for the city in which
you most often world
D Arvada D Louisville
D Aurora D Northglenn
D Boulder D Thornton
D Broomfield D Westminster
D Denver D Wheat Ridge
D Englewood D Other
D Golden D Do not work (student,
D Lakewood homemaker, retired, etc.)
o Lillleton
D3. Please check the ayy"vy":ate box indicating the
type of housing unit in which you live.
D Detached single-family home
D Condominium or townhouse
D Apartment
D Mobile home
D4. Do you own or rent your residence?
D Own D Rent
D5. How many people (including yourself) live in
your household?
people
D6. How many of these household members are 17
or younser?
people
D7. What is the highest level of education you have
completed?
DO-II years
D High school graduate
D Some college, no degree
D Associate degree
D Bachelors degree
D Graduate or professional degree
Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey
D8. About how much do you estimate your
HOUSEHOLD'S TOTAL INCOME "t~uKE TAXES
was in 2007? Please check the ayy.vy.:ate box
below.
D Less than $15,000
D $15,000 to $24,999
D $25,000 to $34,999
D $35,000 to $49,999
D $50,000 to $74,999
D $75,000 to $99,999
D $100,000 to $124,999
D $125,000 or more
D9. What is your age?
D 18-24 D 55-64
D 25-34 D 65-74
D 35-44 D 75 +
D 45-54
DI0. What is your race? (Please check all that apply.)
D White
D Black or African American
D Asian or Pacific Islander
D American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut
D Other
D 11. Are you Hispanic/Spanish/Latino?
DYes D No
D12. What is your gender?
D Female D Male
D13. Did you vote in the last election?
DYes D No
Thank you very muchlPleasereturn the cOmpleted
questiclllnajre, itL the postage-paid envelope proVided, to:
. National Research center, Inc.
30053OthSt.
BClUlder, CO 80301
Page50f5 I
frEM 3.
\
2f'ern 3
..,. \. A 4
~ _ ~ City of .
~~Wheat&"dge
~OFFlCE OF THE CrrY MANAGER
Memorandum
TO:
Mayor and City Council
Randy Young, City Manag~
THROUGH:
FROM:
Patrick Goff, Deputy City Manager
DATE:
July 1, 2008
SUBJECT:
Public Infrastructure Funding Information Program
On March 24, 2008, City Council approved funding for a Public Infrastructure Funding
Information Program to determine the feasibility and level of public support for bonding
questions on the November 200S ballot for the following projects:
1. Local Flood Control Improvements
2. Reconstruction of3Sth Avenue from Kipling Boulevard to Youngfield Street
3. Streetscaping of38th Avenue from Harlan Street to Wadsworth Boulevard
4. Expansion of the Wheat Ridge Recreation Center
Staff is currently working with George K. Baum on a public information program to educate
residents and to obtain citizen input about the proposed bonding projects. The following public
outreach activities have taken place or are scheduled for the near-term:
. A Key Influencer Letter was distributed to over 300 local residents and business owners
in April. The letter signed by the Mayor and City Council included backup materials
related to the findings of the D.I.RT. Task Force and project information and maps
related to the proposed infrastructure projects.
. A Community Improvements Planning Update brochure was mailed to all likely
voters (9,577 households) in the community during the second week of May. The
brochure contained information about the proposed projects and provided voters with
information on how to provide their input.
. A second Community Improvements Planning Update brochure was mailed to all
likely voters (9,577 households) in the community during the third week of May. The
brochure again included information about the proposed projects and in addition,
information concerning the proposed charter change in reference to height and density.
. On June 5th, a Recreation Center Expansion Open House was held to provide residents
the opportunity to view proposed expansion plans for the Wheat Ridge Recreation Center
and to ask questions of and provide input to staff and the architects of Barker Rinker
Seacat Architecture.
. A Pnblic Opinion Snrvey was mailed to 9,577 households in Wheat Ridge at the end of
May. The survey asked questions of residents concerning their unders1anding of and level
of support for the four proposed infrastructure projects and the proposed charter change
related to height and density. Over 1,200 surveys were completed and returned.
. A Phone Poll will be conducted during the week of July 7th. Approximately 300 to 400
residents will be contacted to determine their level of support for the proposed
infrastructure projects and charter change.
. Open Houses will be held in July and/or August to provide residents the opportunity to
learn about all of the proposed projects and charter changes and to provide additional
input to staff.
Mayor and Council Direction Requested
As additional public comment and input is received, staff will communicate this information to
the Mayor and City Council for further direction. Following are the key dates and deadlines to
continue this process and submit ballot questions to Jefferson County:
July 7th Study Session - Representatives from George K. Baum will be at the meeting to discuss
the results of the written survey.
July 25th - Last day to notify County Clerk of participation in election.
August 4th Study Session - Discussion with City Council to finalize questions for ballot.
August 11 th Council Meeting - 1 st reading of ordinance to certify ballot content and IGA with
County for coordinated election.
August 25th Council Meeting - 2nd reading of ordinance to certify ballot content
September 5th - Ballot content and order must be certified to County Clerk
September 19th - Last day written comments can be filed for inclusion in TABOR notice.
September 23rd - Last day to submit full text of TABOR notice to County Clerk.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
July 7, 2008
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Josh Magden & Paul Hanley
George K. Baum & Company
RE:
Public Opinion Survey (Mail Survey)
(Public Infrastructure Projects)
Public Information Program & Community Comment Phase:
. Key Influencer Letter (April)
. Planning Update Newsletter #1 (May)
. Planning Update Newsletter #2 (May)
. Open House - Recreation Center (May)
. Mail Survey (May)
. Phone Poll (July)
. Open Houses (July and/or August)
No. of Households Receiving Mail Survey: 9,572 likely voter households
"Likely Voter Household": Voted in 2004 and/or 2006, or registered since 2006
No. of Returned Surveys: 1,755 (18.3% participation; typically 8% - 15%)
Length of Residency:
14% - <6 Years
26% - 6 -15 Years
60% - >15 Years
Realities of Mail Survey:
. Gather input from a large number of residents vs. small number
attending public meeting
. Opportunity to gather input from everyone and not a random sampling
. Unlike phone poll, it is unscientific (there is limited control over who responds)
. Information is often helpful in refining the future phone poll
(especially open-ended questions)
. Do not rely heavily on results, wait for phone poll
10f3
",
Key Results:
A. Level of Awareuess of Infrastructure Projects?
65% - A Lot or Some
35% - Little or None
B. Generally speaking, do you think things in the City of Wheat Ridge are headed in
the right direction or do you feel things are off on the wrong track?
64% - Right Direction
18% - Wrong Track
18% - Don't Know
WHAT PRIORITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO....
C. Priority - Drainage Project
86% - High or Medium
14% Low or No Priority
D. Priority - 38th Ave Reconstruction
68% - High or Medium
32% Low or No Priority
E. Priority - 38th Ave Streets cape
55% - High or Medium
45% Low or No Priority
F. Priority - Recreation Center Improvements
58% - High or Medium
42% Low or No Priority
BALLOT QUESTIONS...
G. Ballot Test - Drainage Project
74% - Yes (33% strong and 40% soft)
22% - No (11 % strong and 10% soft)
5% - Undecided
I. Ballot Test - 38th Ave (Reconstruction & Streetscape)
60% - Yes (25% strong and 34% soft)
36% - No (17% strong and 18% soft)
5% - Undecided
J. Ballot Test - Rec Center Improvements
53% - Yes (23% strong and 30% soft)
41% - No (18% strong and 23% soft)
5% - Undecided
20f3
K. Ballot Test - Height & Density
47% - Yes (22% strong and 26% soft)
43% - No (25% strong and 18% soft)
9% - Undecided
L. OPEN-ENDED QUESTION. What is your main concern, if any....
Taxes (20%) (NOTE: Even 14%+ of Supporters Mention Taxes)
38th Avenue (18%)
Drainage (Positive) (10%)
Overall Plan - General (7%)
Costs Too Much (5%)
Misc. (all Less than 5%)
3j~~~ ~ Clj~I-
30f3
MAIL SURVEY (JUNE - 2008) CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
ITOTAL I Q6. BALLOTTEST-DRAlNAGE Q7. BALLOTTEST-3Bth CS. BALLOT TEST. REC CENTER Q9. BALLOT TEST. HEIGHT
I down% I SUP AGN UNO SUP AGN UNO SUP AGN UNO SUP AGN UNO
TOTAL
count 1755 1270 375 81 1029 616 80 923 717 92 819 751 157
2CfOSS% 100 74 22 5 60 36 5 53 41 5 47 43 9
Q1. AWARENESS
A lot or some 65 67 66 46 66 66 51 64 68 57 66 65 61
Little or none 35 33 34 54 34 34 49 36 32 43 34 35 39
Q2. PRIORITY: DRAINAGE PROJECTS
high or medium 86 98 43 92 95 71 91 93 76 94 89 81 92
low or no priority 14 2 57 8 5 29 9 7 24 6 11 19 8
Q3. PRIORITY: 38th RECONSTRUCTION
high or medium 68 79 32 60 93 26 60 77 54 80 77 55 75
low or no priority 32 21 68 40 7 74 40 23 46 20 23 45 25
Q4. PRIORITY: 38th STREETSCAPE
high or medium 55 65 24 50 75 23 52 69 36 64 63 45 61
low or no priority 45 35 76 50 25 77 48 31 64 36 37 55 39
Q5. PRIORITY: REC CENTER E: PANSION
high or medium 58 66 32 59 69 37 64 92 12 63 66 47 64
low or no priority 42 34 68 41 31 63 36 8 88 37 34 53 36
Q6. BALLOT TEST. DRAINAGE
YES 74 100 91 47 SS 86 57 76 82 6S 74
yes-strong 33 45 45 14 23 44 20 27 40 26 35
yes.soft 40 55 45 33 31 42 37 49 42 39 39
NO 22 100 7 48 14 11 38 7 15 31 13
no-soft 10 48 5 19 9 6 16 6 9 13 7
no-strong 11 52 2 29 5 4 22 1 6 18 6
UNO 5 100 3 5 31 4 5 17 4 4 12
+,- 52 100 ~100 0 84 -1 40 75 19 70 67 33 61
NUMBER OF CASES I 1703 1244 362 76 1009 597 79 910 694 88 804 732 153
Across % 100 74 22 5 60 35 5 54 41 5 48 43 9
---_._~~ ---------
REITER ASSOCIATES
CROSS TABS - Page 1
MAIL SURVEY (JUNE - 2008) CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
TOTAL Q6. BALLOT TEST - DRAINAGE Q7. BALLOT TEST - 38th Q8. BALLOT TEST - REC CENTER Q9. BALLOT TEST - HEIGHT
down% SUP AGN UND SUP AGN UND SUP AGN UND SUP AGN UND
TOTAL
count 1755 1270 375 81 1029 616 80 923 717 92 819 751 157
across % 100 74 22 5 60 36 5 S3 41 5 47 43 9
Q7. BALLOT TEST - 3'lh
YES 60 74 ,. 32 100 0 0 7S 40 60 71 46 6S
yes-strong 25 32 6 9 43 36 12 17 34 16 29
yes-soft 34 41 13 23 57 38 28 42 37 31 36
NO 36 23 78 38 0 100 0 21 57 17 24 51 22
no-soft 18 15 27 28 52 13 26 13 15 24 10
no-strong 17 8 51 10 48 8 31 4 9 27 13
UNO 5 3 3 30 100 4 3 23 5 3 12
+/- 24 51 -60 -6 100 -100 0 53 -17 42 46 -5 43
Q8. BALLOT TEST - R :C CENTE'l.
YES 53 63 26 42 67 32 48 100 0 0 62 44 5S
yes-strong 23 28 9 17 32 10 19 44 29 16 25
yes-soft 30 34 17 25 35 22 29 56 32 27 31
NO 41 32 72 40 28 66 26 0 100 0 33 53 28
no-soft 23 22 27 23 22 26 16 56 22 27 12
no-strong 18 10 45 16 6 40 9 44 11 26 16
UNO 5 5 2 19 5 3 26 100 5 3 17
+/- 12 31 -46 2 39 -34 21 100 -100 0 29 -9 27
Q9. BALLOT TEST. I EIGHT & I ENSITY
YES 47 53 32 37 56 33 49 5S 38 45 100 0 0
yes-strong 22 24 15 18 28 13 13 27 14 15 45
yes-soft 26 29 18 19 29 20 37 27 24 30 55
NO 43 38 62 3. 33 62 27 36 56 26 0 100 0
no-soft 18 19 18 13 17 21 10 18 20 11 42
no-strong 25 19 44 27 16 40 16 18 35 15 58
UNO 9 9 6 24 10 6 24 9 6 29 100
+,- 4 15 -30 -3 23 -29 23 19 .18 19 100 -100 0
Qll. RIGHT DIRECTION-WRONG TRACK
Right Direction 64 76 24 47 81 34 61 79 45 57 74 51 67
Wrong Track 18 9 52 17 5 42 6 9 32 12 11 29 8
OK 18 15 24 36 14 24 31 13 23 31 16 19 25
NUMBER OF CASES 1703 1244 362 76 1009 597 79 910 694 88 804 732 153
Across % 100 74 22 5 60 35 5 54 41 5 48 43 9
-----
REITER ASSOCIATES
CROSS TABS - Page 2
MAIL SURVEY (JUNE. 2008) CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
TOTAL Q6. BALLOT TEST - DRAINAGE Q7. BALLOTTEST-3Bth QS. BALLOT TEST. REC CENTER Q9. BALLOT TEST - HEIGHT
down% SUP AGN UNO SUP AGN UNO SUP AGN UNO SUP AGN UNO
TOTAL
count 1755 1270 375 81 1029 616 80 923 717 92 819 751 157
across % 100 74 22 5 60 36 5 53 41 5 47 43 9
Q12. RESIDENCY
<6yrs 14 15 9 15 17 9 14 15 12 16 15 12 16
6 -15yrs 26 28 19 23 27 24 23 27 23 27 27 24 30
>15yrs 60 57 71 62 56 67 63 57 65 56 58 64 54
Q13. ZIP
80033 82 82 83 75 83 78 84 82 81 85 82 81 82
80212 6 7 3 7 6 6 3 6 5 6 6 5 6
80214 6 5 6 11 5 7 8 5 7 6 6 5 7
80215 5 5 6 8 4 7 6 5 5 3 4 7 5
Ql0. MAIN CONCER~
taxes 20 14 36 20 12 31 14 11 30 22 17 22 18
gov'lwaste 2 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 3
critical of WR gov'! 2 1 3 1 2 5 2 1 2 1 2 1
don't need, don't want 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 2
cost, too much 5 5 5 4 4 6 7 5 5 2 6 4 6
bad economy 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1
drainage-positive 10 13 2 5 11 9 13 8 12 13 9 11 10
drainage-general 4 4 3 7 4 4 7 5 4 4 4 6
38lhAvenue 18 20 15 5 19 17 14 20 15 30 21 16 18
RecCenter-pos 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 0
RecCenler-neg 1 2 1 1 2 0 3 2 1
RecCenler-general 1 1 0 4 1 0 2 1 1 1 1
overallplan-posilive 3 5 5 1 2 6 0 3 6 1 1
overallplan-negallve 2 2 4 4 2 3 5 2 3 2 2 3 4
overanplan-general 7 6 8 5 7 7 4 8 5 6 8 5 4
need more Info 2 2 1 9 2 1 4 3 1 5 1 1 8
helghtreslriclions 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1
no-negalive 5 5 3 6 3 4 6 3 2 1 8 2
too much change for WR 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 1 4
construction-traffic 2 2 0 2 1 3 1 2 1 3
other 5 5 3 16 6 4 7 6 4 6 6 5 5
none, nothing 4 5 1 5 7 1 2 7 2 2 5 3 4
don't know, not sure 1 0 1 4 1 0 5 0 1 6 1 0 2
NUMBER OF CASES 1703 1244 362 76 1009 597 79 910 694 88 804 732 153
% 100 74 22 5 60 3S 5 54 41 5 48 43 9
REITER ASSOCIATES
CROSS TABS. Page 3
MAIL SURVEY (JUNE. 2008) CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
ITOT AL Q11. RIGHT-WRONGTRACK Q12. RESIDENCY Q1. AWARENESS
I down% Rij:/hl Wrong DK <6", 6-15yrs >15vrs lot-some little-none
TOTAL
count 1755 1041 301 296 240 446 1044 1138 604
acmss% 100 64 18 18 14 26 60 65 35
Q1. AWARENESS
A lot or some 65 67 70 5S 55 62 69 100
little or none 35 33 30 45 45 38 31 100
Q2. PRIORITY: DRAINAGE PROJECTS
high or medium 86 95 59 85 89 88 84 87 85
low or no priority 14 5 41 15 11 12 16 13 15
Q3. PRIORITY: 38th RECONSTRUCTION
high or medium 68 83 29 55 76 71 64 68 68
low or no priority 32 17 71 45 24 29 36 32 32
Q4. PRIORITY: 38th STREETSC \PE
high or medium 55 69 22 47 70 58 51 55 56
low or no priority 45 31 78 53 30 42 49 45 44
Q5. PRIORITY: REC CENTER E: PANSION
high or medium 58 69 29 47 61 59 56 56 61
low or no priority 42 31 71 53 39 41 44 44 39
QG. BALLOT TEST - DRAINAGE
YES 74 88 36 63 80 60 70 7S 71
yes-strong 33 45 7 19 36 38 30 35 30
yes-soft 40 43 28 44 44 41 39 40 42
NO 22 8 60 28 15 16 2G 22 21
no-soft 10 6 18 16 6 8 12 10 11
no-strong 11 2 42 12 9 8 13 12 10
UNO 5 4 4 9 5 4 5 3 7
+,. 52 80 .24 3S 66 63 44 S3 SO
NUMBER OF CASES I 1703 1024 293 290 233 437 1026 1110 587
Across % 100 64 18 18 14 26 60 6S 35
--~,-~
REITER ASSOCIATES
CROSS TASS. Page 4
MAIL SURVEY (JUNE. 2008) CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
TOTAL Q11. RIGHT.WRONGTRACK Q12. RESIDENCY Q1. AWARENESS
dov.n% RiQht WronQ DK <6yrs 6-15vrs >15yrs lot-some little-none
TOTAL
count 1755 1041 301 296 240 446 1044 1138 604
across% 100 64 18 18 14 26 60 65 35
Q7. BALLOT TEST. 38th
YES 60 77 18 4S 73 63 S5 60 59
yes-strong 25 36 8 11 34 29 22 27 22
yes-soft 34 42 9 34 39 34 33 33 36
NO 36 19 80 47 23 33 40 36 3S
no-soft 18 14 24 27 13 18 20 18 19
no-strong 17 5 57 20 10 15 20 18 16
UND 5 4 2 8 5 4 5 4 7
+,. 24 58 -62 -2 50 30 16 25 24
Q8. BALLOT TEST . R.~C CENTER.
YES 53 67 26 38 58 57 S1 S2 56
yes-strong 23 31 9 12 31 24 21 23 23
yes-soft 30 35 17 26 28 33 29 29 32
ND 41 29 71 S3 35 38 44 43 38
no-soft 23 21 22 34 24 21 24 24 23
no-strong 18 8 48 19 11 16 20 20 15
UND 5 5 3 9 6 6 5 5 7
+/- 12 38 45 -15 23 19 6 9 18
Qg. BALLOT TEST - f EIGHT & [ ENSITY
YES 47 56 28 42 51 50 46 48 46
yes-strong 22 27 11 16 27 21 21 23 19
yes-soft 26 29 16 26 25 29 25 25 27
NO 43 3S 68 46 38 40 46 43 43
no-soft 18 18 15 21 19 18 18 18 20
no-strong 25 17 53 25 19 22 28 26 24
UND 9 9 4 12 10 10 8 9 10
+/- 4 21 -41 -4 13 10 0 S 3
Q". RIGHT DIRECTION-WRONG TRACK
Right Direction 64 100 74 68 60 65 61
Wrong Track 18 100 11 18 20 20 16
DK 18 100 15 15 20 15 24
NUMBER OF CASES 1703 1024 293 290 233 437 1026 1110 587
Across % 100 64 18 18 14 26 60 65 35
REITER ASSOCIATES
CROSS TABS. Page S
MAIL SURVEY (JUNE. 200S) CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
TOTAL Q11. RIGHT-WRONG TRACK Q12. RESIDENCY Qi. AWARENESS
down% Riqhl Wronq DK <6"" 6-15yrs >15yrs lot-some little-none
TOTAL
count 1755 1041 301 296 240 446 1044 1138 604
3crOSS% 100 64 18 18 14 26 60 65 35
Q12. RESIDENCY
<6yrs 14 17 9 12 100 12 18
6-15yrs 26 28 26 21 100 25 28
>15yrs 60 55 65 66 100 64 54
Q13. ZIP
80033 82 82 83 77 82 80 82 83 79
80212 6 6 5 7 5 8 5 6 7
80214 6 6 4 8 9 6 5 5 7
80215 5 5 5 6 3 5 6 5 6
Q10. MAIN CONCERt
taxes 20 14 29 23 20 16 21 19 20
gov'twaste 2 1 4 1 1 2 2 0
critical of WR gov" 2 1 4 1 2 2 1 2 1
don't need, don't want 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 0
cosl, too much 5 6 4 5 7 3 5 5 5
bad economy 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2
drainage-positive 10 11 8 11 10 14 8 10 10
drainage-general 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 5
3BlhAvenue 18 18 14 21 16 20 17 18 18
Rae Center - pes 0 1 1 0 1 1 0
RecCenler-neg 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1
RecCenter-general 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 1
overallplan-posltive 3 5 1 1 4 3 3 4 1
overallplan-negalive 2 1 5 1 1 2 2 3 2
overall plan-general 7 6 7 8 7 6 7 6 7
need more info 2 2 3 2 4 1 1 3
heightrestricllons 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
no-negative 5 5 5 3 4 5 4 4 5
100 much change for WR 2 2 3 1 2 3 2 2 2
construction -lraffle 2 2 0 1 2 2 1 1 3
other 5 6 3 4 5 4 5 5 5
none, nothing 4 7 0 2 8 3 4 4 4
don'lknow,nolsure 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1
NUMBER OF CASES 1703 1024 293 290 233 437 1026 1110 587
Across % 100 64 18 18 14 26 60 65 35
REITER ASSOCIATES
CROSS TABS. Page 6
Public Opinion
urve
The City of Wheat Ridge is dedicated
to making our city one of the safest
and most attractive communities
along the Front Range. Right now,
our city needs to invest in vital
infrastructure and quality-of-life projects
that will help make Wheat Ridge an
even better place to live, work and play.
Projects currently under consideration
include local drainage upgrades to
help prevent local flooding in many
of our neighborhoods, improvements
along 38th Avenue and expansion of
the Wheat Ridge Recreation Center.
A Town Meeting From Your Kitchen Table
We understand that not everyone can attend city council
meetings. For those of you who cannot attend but still wanr to
provide feedback, we are asking if you (and/or your spouse)
will take a few minures to fill out the attached survey and
comment on some of the projects under consideration.
Consider this a townhall meeting around your kirchen table.
The survey should take only a few minutes to complere.
Thank you in advance for participating in this important
public opinion survey. Please use the enclosed self-addressed
envelope to return your survey.
Questions and Comments
If you have any questions about this survey, or about the
community improvement projects being considered by the
city, please contact:
Patrick Goff, Deputy City Manager
303.235.2805 pgoff@cLwheatridge.co.us
-.~J.~
-... _ r City of
~Wheat~dge
Just the Facts:
Key Infrastrucure & Quality-of-Life Projects
Proposed for City of Wheat Ridge
Challenge # 1 :
Wheat Ridge was originally &rmland, and when housing began
springing up many years ago, the streets were designed using
rural standards that elevated roadways and used irrigation
dirches to carry away stormwater. As Wheat Ridge became less
agriculrural, ditches were abandoned or neglected. Now,
stormwater has no place to flow and often floods many of our
neighborhoods each year.
Proposed Solution:
City Council has identified 21 drainage projects that will
significantly decrease flooding throughout Wheat Ridge. The
drainage projects would utilize storm sewers to collect runoff
and transport it to streams and existing pipelines in the
stormwater-collection system that can accommodate additional
flows. Sixteen of the 21 drainage projects could be accomplished
with a property tax increase of approximately $1.00 per month
per $100,000 of a home's marker value. The total estimated
cost of the 16 drainage projects is $9,255,000.
Challenge #2:
38th Avenue from Kipling Street to Youngfield Street is a
rural-design, two-lane road with no sidewalks and poor drain-
age that carries traffic from Wheat Ridge, Arvada, Golden and
Jefferson County into Denver. 38th Avenue is also Wheat
Ridge's "Main Street" and one of the most highly trafficked
areas of the city for businesses, residents and visitors. Over the
years, sections of 38th Avenue have been widened and pedes-
trian access has been improved, but a key section, from Harlan
Street to Wadsworth Boulevard, still needs improvements.
Proposed Solution:
A proposed reconstruction project will improve safety and
relieve congestion along this corridor by adding turn lanes,
sidewalks, stormwater drainage, street lighting and pedestrian
trails. The project also would include underground relocation
of overhead utilities. Furthermore, a streetscape project along
38th Avenue from Harlan Street to Wadsworth Boulevard,
including detached sidewalks, irrigated tree lawns, pedestrian
lights and street furniture, would create a more vibrant aesthetic
and pedestrian-friendly corridor and extend the "Main Street"
improvements already in place along 38th Avenue from
Sheridan Boulevard to Harlan. These improvements which
include 5 of the 21 drainage projects--could be accomplished
with a 6/10 of 1 cent sales tax increase. The total estimated cost
of the 38th Avenue improvements is $33,435,000.
Challenge #3:
The Wheat Ridge Recreation Center was completed about 10
years ago. The center offers numerous programs and facilities
for residents and continues to play an important role in improv-
ing our community's quality of life. The center is currently at
capacity and can no longer meer the needs of our growing
community.
Proposed Solution:
City Council is considering an additional full-size gymnasium,
new fitness and activity rooms and additional space for weight-
lifting and cardio exercise equipment. This project would also
include additional parking, including handicap spaces. These
improvements could be accomplished with a 2/10 of 1 cent
sales tax increase. The total estimated cost of the recreation
center improvements is $8,940,000.
Building Height & Density
Referendum
Wheat Ridge has building height and density restrictions in
BOTH its wning code and city charter. Neighboring
municipalities generally have height and density restrictions
exclusively in their zoning code (not in their city charter). The
City Council is considering placing a question on the ballot
that would eliminate the height and density restrictions from its
city charter, but NOT the wning code. This would put our
city charter back in line with neighboring municipalities and
allow the city to be more successful in attracting redevelopment
projects. The existing wning code would still contain height
and density restrictions consistent with the current city charter.
Any limited future changes to building height and density
would be subject to the public process of adopting an ordinance.
~~A~
rW~~:tRLdge )
Public Opinion Survey
"'~~.(
....... City of
~WheatR19ge
The City of Wheat Ridge is considering a plan to address key infrastructure and quality-
of-life projects, and we would greatly appreciate your opinion. Please take a few moments
to read the questions below, review with other adult family members and complete the
survey. A self-addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Please drop the survey
in the mail, or deliver to the front desk of the Wheat Ridge Municipal Building at 7500
West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 by June 11, 2008.
Ql:
Before receiving rhe enclosed informarion, how much would
you say you have read or heard abour rhe Ciry ofWhear
Ridge's proposal ro address srormwarer drainage problems,
make improvemenrs along 38rh Avenue and expand rhe
recreation center?
Alor
Some
Alirrle
_ Nothing ar all
Q2:
Drainage Projecrs. Whar prioriry should be given ro addressing
Whear Ridge's highesr prioriry srormwarer drainage projecrs
ro prevenr flooding in neighborhoods across rhe ciry?
_ High prioriry
_ Medium prioriry
_ Low prioriry
_ Nor a prioriry
_ Don'r know/No opinion
Q3:
38rh Avenue Reconsrrucrion. Whar prioriry should be given
ro the reconsrrucrion of 3Srh Avenue from Kipling Streer ro
Youngfield Street by adding turn lanes, sidewalks, srormwater
drainage, street lighting and pedestrian trails?
_ High prioriry
_ Medium prioriry
_ Low prioriry
_ Not a prioriry
_ Don't know/No opinion
Q4:
38th Avenue Streetscape Improvemenrs. What prioriry
should be given ro making streetscape improvemenrs along
38th Avenue from Harlan Street ro Wadsworth Boulevard,
including detached sidewalks, irrigated tree lawns, pedestrian
lights and street furniture, to create a more vibrant aesthetic
and pedestrian-friendly corridor?
_ High prioriry
_ Medium prioriry
_ Low prioriry
_ Not a prioriry
_ Don't know/No opinion
Q5:
Recreation Cenrer Expansion. What prioriry should be given
to expanding and improving the Wheat Ridge Recreation
Center, including an additional full-size gymnasium, addirion
of new fitness and activiry rooms, additional space for weight-
lifting and cardio exercise equipment, and additional parking
(including addirional handicap spaces)?
_ High prioriry
_ Medium prioriry
_ Low prioriry
Not a prioriry
_ Don't know/No opinion
Q6:
Ballot Question - Drainage Projects. If a local election were
held today, would you vote "yes" in favor, or "no" to oppose,
the funding of 16 local drainage projects to prevent local
flooding ciry-wide, at an estimated cost of $9,255,000 and
with an estimated monthly tax impact of $1.00 per $100,000
of a home's market value?
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Probably no
_ Definitely no
Don't know
Q7:
Ballot Question - 38th Avenue Improvements. If a local
election were held today, would you vote "yes" in favor, or
"no" to oppose, reconstruction of 38th Avenue from Kipling
Street to Youngfie1d Street, and streetscape improvements
from Harlan Street to Wadsworth Boulevard, at an estimated
cost of $33,345,000 and funded with a 6/10 of 1 cenr sales tax?
Definirely yes
Probably yes
Probably no
Definirely no
Don'r know
Q8:
Ballor Quesrion - Recreation Center Expansion. If a local
election were held today; would you vote "yes" in favor, or "no"
to oppose, improvements to the "Wheat Ridge Recreation
Center, including an addirional full-size gymnasium, addition
of new fitness and activiry rooms, additional space for weight-
lifting and cardio exercise equipment, and additional parking,
at an estimated cost of $8,940,000 and with a 2/10 of 1 cent
sales tax?
Definitely yes
Probably yes
Probably no
Definitely no
Don't know
Q9:
Ballor Quesrion - Building Height and Densiry Restrictions.
Unlike many neighboring municipaliries, the City of Wheat
Ridge has building height and densiry restrictions in both its
ciry charter and zoning code. Other communiries generally
do not have height and density restrictions in their city
charters. If an election were held today, would you vote "yes"
in favor, or "no" to oppose, the elimination of Wheat Ridge's
building height and densiry restrictions in irs ciry charter to be
more in line with neighboring municipalities and to allow rhe
city to be more successful in attracting redevelopment
projects?
Definirely yes
Probably yes
Probably no
Definirely no
Don'r know
QI0:
What is your main concern, if any, regarding the proposals to
address high-prioriry neighborhood drainage projects ciry-
wide, make improvements to 38th Avenue, make improve-
ments to rhe the city's recreation center and modify the ciry
charter regarding building height and densiry restrictions?
Qll:
Generally speaking, do you think things in the City ofWhear
Ridge are headed in rhe right direction or do you feel things
are off on the wrong track?
_ Righr Direction
_ Wrong Track
Don't' Know
Q12:
I have been a resident in the area for
years.
Q13:
Whar is your zip code?
Remember to mail, or drop off survey, on or before June 11,2008. Thank you!
\"fE"" 4.
\
, '
r~zj
,,\.A.(
~ _ ~ City of .
Ara;WheatB4-dge
~OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Memorandum
TO:
City Council
FROM:
Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director
Randy Young, City Manag~
July 2, 2008 (for July 7 Study Session)
THROUGH:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - Charter and Short Term Code
Amendments
Background: A major implementation component of the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy
(NRS) recommends additional amendments to Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code, the City's
zoning code. At the January 7, 2008 City Council study session, Community Development Staff
requested general City Council direction regarding a project to pursue a variety of amendments
to the City zoning code (Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws) to further meet that NRS
implementation goal. City Council voiced its general support for this effort at the study session.
In the intervening time, Community Development Department staff has been working with WR
2020 to develop a more detailed list of the proposed changes and a short, mid and long-term
schedule for implementing those changes. Many ofthe proposed changes relate to the City's
land use approval processes and provide opportunities to make those processes more streamlined
and nredictable. Another group of the proposed code amendments relate to the land use mix,
densities and development standards contained in our zoning districts. Over the past year in
working with WR2020 and looking at redevelopment opportunities in the City, staff believes that
our existing zoning district standards in some instances may not support the types of mixed use,
residential and commercial development projects that could be appropriate in areas such as the
proposed town center at 44th and Wadsworth and in our Northwest Transit Oriented
Development (TaD) planning area.
Staff acknowledges and appreciates that many of the changes that we are proposing represent
significant change and that the process of achieving that change needs to involve the community.
Over the past several months we have had opportunities to begin that conversation through
presentations to the WR2020 Planning Academy, WR2020 Planning Committee and the City's
Planning Commission. During the recent Planning Commission and City Council public hearing
process of adopting the NRS as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan the zoning code issues
were also discussed in general terms. We anticipate that additional public outreach will be
important as part of the process of moving forward these recommended zoning code changes.
Charter and Short Term Code Amendments EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
7/2/08
Considering the complexity and potential controversy of some of these amendments we are
recommending a phased implementation approach and have grouped them into four categories:
1) charter amendments, 2) short-term, 3) mid-term, and 4) long-term amendments. The general
intent of this list is to identify sections ofthe zoning code that are prohibitive to achieving the
goals of the NRS. A summary table of the proposed amendments for consideration is attached to
this executive summary.
Next Steps: If City Council is supportive of staffs recommended approach, staff would propose
to conduct a study session with the Planning Commission. That study session would provide an
opportunity to review our overall project apPFoach with the Commission and then to get into the
more detailed discussion and review of our short term amendments. We have already begun the
process of comparing various sections of our code to our peer jurisdictions in the Denver metro
area to determine whether we have any significant differences from other jurisdictions in some of
these specific zoning code issues. A very brief summary of our findings is included below and a
more detailed discussion and analysis is provided in the attached Technical Addendum to this
memo. From the Planning Commission, we would also request direction on their preferred
public outreach approach for the short term amendments.
Requested City Council Direction: We look forward to receiving City Council direction at the
July 7 study session. Specifically, we are looking for your support on the following:
. Are there things that we are missing on our short, mid and long term lists?
. Are there additional amendments that Council believes we should address sooner and
move to our short term list?
. Any input City Council has on types of community involvement.
The remaining sections of this memo include an overview of the proposed short-term code
amendments, as well as a table listing the mid and long term proposed amendments.
Short Term Zoning Code Amendments 1
This executive summary serves as an introduction to an accompanying memo that provides more
detail related to the short term code amendment items (the Technical Addendum). The short
term items proposed can generally be summarized as follows:
Amendment
I Charter amendments
I Dimensional standards
I Parking (Section 26-501)
Oiher amendments
Comments
Density and height restrictions in Chapter V ofthe Charter as prohibitive 10
desirable development in some areas ofihe city per the NRS.
Density, heighl, and residential setback restrictions as prohibitive to desirable
development in some areas of the city per ihe NRS.
Lack of allowance for parking reductions, shared parking, and high parking ratios
( overparked properties)
There are several other short term amendments under consideration. These include
addressing zoning district boundary discrepancies, assembly ofland for muiti-family
development, defming "extended stay lodging", addressing ihe role of the historical
society, city-initiated "up-zoning", and addressing residential group home densities.
Comparable Jurisdiction Research
I NOTE: "Short term" is intended to be an approximately 3-6 month process.
2
Charter and Short Term Code Amendments EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
7/2/08
Research was conducted on the main short term items as Wheat Ridge compares to 16 other
Denver area jurisdictions. The summary of which jurisdictions were included and the findings
are set forth in the accompanying memo (Technical Addendum). The findings support the
notion that Wheat Ridge differs from its peer jurisdictions as it relates to implementation of
many of the recommendations ofthe NRS in the zoning code - such as density, height, and
parking. For instance - none of the 16 jurisdictions have density provisions in their charter,
only one ofthe 16 has a height provision in their charter, and all allow higher densities in straight
residential zone districts.
Amendment
Charter height limitations of35 feet for
residential and mixed use containing
residential
Charter height limitation of 50 feet for
commercial
Charter limits residential density to 21
dwelling units/acre
Comments
This height limit allows 3 story residential development (at most) and likely 2
story mixed use development, which may be a lesser number of floors than is
desired to achieve walkable destination districts and to meet the fmancial
realities of redevelopment. Charter amendments require vote of approval.
While the majority of commercial redevelopment may be accommodated
within this standard, it does preclude commercial construction above
approximately 4 stories. Transit oriented de~elopment, class "A" office, and
many higher caliber lodging uses require greater height. Charter amendments
require vote of apl'roval.
This is likely insufficient density to achieve the development character desired
and needed to creatable walkable districts and to meet the fmancial realities of
redevelo ment. Charter amendments re uire vote of a roval.
Amendment
Minimum off-street parking
requirements establish high minimum
requirements and the code does a poor
job of allowing for creative shared
parking, mixed use parking, and parking
reductions
Extended Stay Lodging is not defmed in
the zoning code
Planned Residential Developments
(PRO) and Planned Mixed Use
Developments (PMUD) allow only 16
dwelling units/acre, less than the
Charter limitation of 21
Front setback in all straight residential
districts is 30 feet, which may be
excessive for some districts
Planned zoning districts cannot be
amended without the consent of all
affected prope!"\}' owners
I City cannot initiate any "upzoning"
Limitations on the ability to assemble
multi-family zoned land (Residential
Three) for redevelopment
Comments
Lesser parking ratios and allowances for parking reductions may encourage
more redevelopment, help create more pedestrian friendly environments, and
make it easier for redevelopment to occur.
Some hotel/motel properties can morph into short term housing solutions of a
sort that they were not intended for. The city has experienced crime and
property maintenance issues on these sorts of properties.
Align zoning maximum with charter maximum to give flexibility on
redevelopment projects in appropriate areas.
30 feet is a fairly suburban standard and may not provide for the pedestrian
friendly neighborhood context that is desired in some of the city's more urban
neighborhoods.
This policy makes it very difficult over time to adapt to ever changing realities
of the real estate market and adjust to new land uses and development patterns.
City-initiated up-zoning of property can be a very proactive activity to create
incentives for redevelopment by the private sector.
New high quality multi-family may be appropriate in certain areas of the city
with appropriate zoning. Current process discourages such assemblages to
occur.
3
Charter and Short Term Code Amendments EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
7/2/08
Historical Society (which is not a City-
appointed body) has an ability to apply
for and recommend in support ofthe
designation of a local historic landmark
designation without the affected
va VI-''-a ~ y owner's consent
Zoning district boundary discrepancies
Residential group home density
Floodplain administrator decision-
making authority
Few communities allow for historic designation without a property owner's
consent, particularly by a body that is not city-appointed.
Many properties in the city have "split zoning" - meaning more than one zone
district boundary on the property. This makes development/redevelopment
very difficult without a rezoning on these properties.
The current regulations for group homes for "protected classes" per federal
law of individuals does not address the number of occupants allowed for these
facilities. Such group homes are allowed in all residential zoning districts.
Having no limitation on the number of individuals allowed for such facilities
allows large structures with a substantial amount of residents (e.g., 16
residents) in residential zone districts.
Floodplain administrator has limited authority to make administrative
determinations/waivers to certain standards for floodplain permits. This
makes improvements to property in floodplain areas difficult where it clearly
will not have a detrimental impact on the floodplain.
Mid Term (6-12 months)
Amendment
Streamlining various land use
applications
I Evaluate yard and bulk requirements in
residential districts (setbacks, height)
Reduce reliance on planned
developments in favor of new straight
zone districts (e.g., mixed use district)
Allow vested rights to occur earlier in
the entitlement process
Evaluate need for neighborhood
meetings for some land use applications
Tree protection ordinance
Evaluate subdivision design standards
I Revi~e subdivision technical submittal
reqUIrements
Comlliehts .
Streamlining ofland use entitlement processes is a recommendation ofthe
NRS and will better facilitate redevelopment activities in the city.
Al'l'lications may include some subdivision platting procedures.
Ifhigher densities are implemented, the yard and bulk requirements in
residential districts should reflect this.
Planned zoning districts require a very discretionary negotiation process
between developer and city, with no predictability or certainty in the end
result.
Vested property rights often occur earlier in the entitlement process, such as
upon approval of a final development plan. The current vested property
rights provisions do not provide much certainty for a property
owner/developer who might incur substantial expense to go through an
ODPIFDP entitlement process, and still not have a vested Ilroperty right.
Neighborhood meetings may not be needed for all applications and the
timing ofthe meeting could be modified so that it is not a precursor to even
filing an application.
Protect the city's mature tree canopy when new development and
redevelopment occurs. Currently, there are no regulations restricting any
and all mature trees on a site from being removed. Regulations could allow
removal of trees where infeasible to retain them, but new trees of certain
caliper must be provided elsewhere on site. Further consultation is needed
with the Parks Department.
The current subdivision design standards provide little guidance for the city
to ensure logical block and lot layouts as well as road and pedestrian
connectivity.
Ensure consistency between Public Works submittal requirements and
procedures and language in zoning code.
4
,,~.44'
~_~ City of .
~~Wheat~dge
~OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Memorandum
TO:
City Council
THROUGH:
Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director
FROM:
Jeff Hirt, Planner II
DATE:
Jnly 2, 2008 (for July 7 study session)
SUBJECT:
TECHNICAL ADDENDUM - Charter and Short Term Code
Amendments -
This memo serves as a technical addendum to the executive summary provided for the July 7,
2008 city council study session related to the charter and short term code amendments proposed.
Each of the short term amendments proposed are summarized in this memo as follows:
A. Issue Summary
B. Summary of Current Code Regulations
C. Summary of Research from Comparable Jurisdictions
D. Proposed Amendments
A comprehensive list of the proposed amendments broken down by charter, short, mid, and long
term amendments is provided with the executive summary.
Research from Comparable Jurisdictions
Research was conducted on 16 comparable jurisdictions related to some of these issues,
including density, height, residential front setbacks, and parking regulations. The communities
surveyed are as follows:
..'J~\jI~\j"I..II. ........, I' ~..Y1. ..0I1_a.1. ~...,~ leu... .3U.ft':4 "'~""DI""IIJ~"'IIIlt..'.~~
1. Arvada 7. Englewood 13. Louisville
2. Aurora 8. Golden 14. Northglenn
3. Boulder 9. Jefferson County 15. Thornton
4. Broomfield 10. Lafayette 16. Westminster
5. Centennial 11. Lakewood 17. Wheat Ridge
6. Denver 12. Littleton
Charter and Short Term Code Amendments TECHNICAL ADDENDUM
7/2/08
Density
A. Issue Summary:
Wheat Ridge has one of the lowest density maximums in the Denver metro area.
Density in this context is defined as the number of dwelling units allowed per acre in
the city. Having this in place has been successful in preserving some ofthe lower
density, more "rural" feeling suburban neighborhoods in the city. It has also made it
difficult for desirable development and redevelopment to occur in some areas of the
city that may benefit from higher densities. Having such restrictive density standards
makes it difficult to promote the type of development the Neighborhood Revitalization
Strategy (NRS) recommends - walkable and mixed use neighborhoods. Additionally,
the financial and economic realities of development many times cannot be met with low
density maximums. Allowance for higher densities may not be appropriate in many
areas ofthe city, but there may be areas that could benefit from it (e.g., Transit-
Oriented Development area around 52nd and Ward, town center redevelopment at 44th
and Wadsworth). Our neighbors for example (Arvada, Lakewood, and Denver) all
allow higher densities and have benefited from this with the type of development and
redevelopment that the NRS is trying to promote.
B. Current Code:
Both the city charter and zoning code (Chapter 26) specify maximum densities. The
highest density straight residential zone district is the R-3 district, and higher density
allowances are provided for Planned Residential Developments. The zoning code
currently does not allow maximum densities that are near or exceed the city charter
limitation of 21 dwelling units per acre.
. City charter maximum density: 21
dwelling units per acre in any zone
district or planned development. [Sec.
5.10.1 of the charter]
. Zoning code specifies maximum
densities as follows:
o Residential-Three (R-3) zone
district (highest density base zone
district): 12 dwelling units per
acre [Sec. 26-21 I]
o Planned Residential (PRD) and
Planned Mixed Use (PMUD)
Developments: A maximum of
16 units per acre. [Sec. 26-303,
26-306.5]
. .' 'I '1 li'~ . I. ~ i.1 "r
1\l;;\!~~i!Yi'~~ttiiili;>ilS
ili~'~iili'rtei~i';' ," - '
I Atvada
I Aurora
Boulder
Broomfield
Centennial
Denver
En~ewood
Golden
Lafavette
Lakewood
Littleton
LouisviUe
Northgleml
Thornton
Westminster I
* Jefferson County excluded from this list.i
~~~~7CtionS .
Wheat Rid2e
2
Charter and Short Term Code Amendments TECHNICAL ADDENDUM
7/2/08
(
TABLE 1: Maximum Density in Base Zone Dist,ids
Note: Higher densities typically allowecJ in Planned Unit Developments
70
60
30
20
10
o
0<0' ~ ,,0<:- f':o<:- 01:> 1:>0' 01:> 1:>"'< ~~'" 0<:- it ",< ",< ",<:- :;..1:> >10'" 0.,'"
,,< 0'" .~'" ?l ~o <!-O' ~o ;S .,;. ~ f':o<:' .f':ol!>' ;f- :;..?> '!..,'" -A'" ~?>
~ () '-> ~ ~'" ~ :;..'" 'QO 0'" ,\,<:-0 ~'" !}<? 'V'" (:p 00'" ~O' A"
~O<:- ~o 'v0' ",<:-0) 'J 0'" ~ '" 'Q< 'vV _;;<:-",v
'!J::.",< ....-
..,'"
C. Research Summary: 1
All I? jurisdictions surveyed have higher density allowances than Wheat Ridge. None
of the jurisdictions have any density provisions in their charter except Wheat Ridge.
The average maximum densitr (excluding Wheat Ridge's 16 units/acre) from the
survey of 16 jurisdictions was 31. Note that these densities are for straight zone
districts, not any Planned Unit Development (PUD) districts, which are the comparable
jurisdiction's version of Wheat Ridge's planned development districts. Nearly all
communities have higher density allowances in PUD districts, many without any
maximum amounts specified in their code. Table 3 above is a summary of the
jurisdictions and their respective density maximums in straight zone districts.
D. Proposed Short Term Amendments:
1. Initiate ballot ouestion to eliminate density nrovisions in the charter. The NRS
notes the need for allowances for higher density throughout the report and
recommendations for key areas of the city? The 21 dwelling units per acre in the
charter, while not allowed as a maximum density in the zoning code, is certainly in
line with comparable jurisdictions relative to straight zone districts. Most other
1 NOTE: Density figures for comparable jurisdiclions were either stated as a density maximum in their zoning
codes, or calculated based on minimum lot size requirements per dwelling unit. For example, in the 4R district in
Lakewood, 1750 square feet oflot area is required per dwelling unit, which equates to 24.89 dwelling units per acre
(1/(1750/43560), where 43560 ~ one acre). In the R-3 district in Wheat Ridge, 3,630 square feet oflot area is
required for each dwelling unit ~ 12 dwelling units per acre.
2 NOTE: This number comes from the maximum densities allowed in a straight zone district, excluding PUDs, and
does not include any allowances for density bonuses. In some communities, Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is used as a
baseline for density that exceeds the maximum density in some zone districts. For instance in Denver, the maximum
density specified in a base zone district (R2A) is 21.8 units per acre but higher density districts are dictated by FAR.
Only the density numbers were used in calculating this average.
3 NOTE: From the most recent version of the NRS posted on the city's website (8 Y, X II version) pages where this
is indicated include 25,50,59, and 73.
3
Charter and Short Term Code Amendments TECHNICAL ADDENDUM
7/2/08
jurisdictions have higher density allowances and many have no maximums in their
PUD districts. This limitation restricts the city's ability to allow for higher densities
in certain areas and in planned residential and mixed use developments.
2. Increase the maximum density allowance in Planned Residential Develonments
(PRD) and Planned Mixed Use Develonments (PMUm to match the citv charter at
21 dwelling units ner acre.
Dimensional Standards - Setbacks and Height
Issue Summary:
1. Height
Like the density maximums in the city's charter, the height limitations in the charter
have been successful in preserving a low rise development pattern in the city. It can
be argued that the maximum of 35 feet for residential structures and 50 feet for
commercial structures is appropriate in most areas of the city. Having these
restrictions in the city's charter is very unusual though as the research below
suggests. Certain types of development that the NRS considers desirable (e.g.,
Transit Oriented Development and class "A" office space) may require greater
height to be feasible. At this time, s1aff is not proposing any changes to the
maximum height of any straight zone district, but rather eliminating it from the
charter to provide more flexibility to accommodate such development in the future.
2. Residential Front Setbacks
Front setbacks are the distance from the front property line to the front of the
structure on a lot. In all ofthe city's residential straight zone districts, the minimum
front setback is 30 feet. One ofthe major goals of the NRS is to create walkable,
pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. Having such a substantial front setback
minimum stands in contrast to this goal in many cases, where structures are
mandated to be pushed back from the street and sidewalk.
Current Code:
Charter:
. 35 foot maximum height for all
residential buildings [Sec. 5.10.1 of
the charter]
. 50 foot maximum height for all
commercial buildings, with some
allowance for up to 65 feet for
hospital buildings [Sec. 5.1 0.1 of
the charter].
A.
B.
.. h"il!i.. , .. ZH~im!i\>ffiiaioilli,iri
{~O~h~eti;~!tJf~?~.;,.: ;~";:: .... ......... ....... ..,
An.ada Boulder
Aw'ora Wheat Rid!!e
Broomfield I
Centemrial I
Denver I
Engkwood I
Golden I
Lafayelle I
Lakewood I
Lillleton I
Louisville I
NOllludenn I
Thornton I
Westminster I
· Jefferson COlmty excluded from this list.
Zoning Code:
. All residential zone districts
(excluding Planned Residential
Developments): 30 foot front
setback.
. All residential zone districts: 35
foot maximum height
. All commercial zone districts: 50
feet, some allowances for up to 65 feet in Planned Hospital District
4
Charter and Short Term Code Amendments EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(
Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
overlay district
Amendment
Lack of mixed use or medium to higher
density straight zone districts
Overall poor code organization
Evaluate lot area and yard and bulk
requirements in R-2 and R-3 districts
I Address nonconforming duplexes in R-
2 per minimum lot size of 12,500
I Evaluate radius (e.g., 600 foot) for
{lublic notice
Evaluate legal protest provision that
triggers supermajority vote on land use
applications
I Evaluate group home regulations
Provide allowances and regulations
addressing Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADU).
\.
7/2/08
Evaluate the need for an overlay district encompassing the area around the
proposed light rail station at 52nd and Ward. District-specific standards may
include increased allowances for density, reduced parking, and other
incentives for desirable develo men!.
. Comments
If the city were to reduce its reliance on planned development districts, it
would need to develop new zoning districts that encompass the land use and
development characteristics recommended for redevelopment areas and to
implement new subarea 1llans
A Unified Development Code or Form Based Code might be more "user
friendly" and create more desirable urban form as redevelopment occurs
over time.
Want to encourage reinvestment in quality duplex and quality multi-family
projects on a!J,.uv!J~~ately zoned land.
Want to encourage reinvestment in quality duplex properties so that existing
l'roperties do not deteriorate.
I Consider different distance for certain meetings or for minor applications.
In addition the practical difficulty of the greater voting requirements, the
provision sends a message to the development community that the city will
defer to neighbors when it comes to making difficult land use decisions.
Not "open for business".
Modify group home regulations to be consistent with what is required by
state and federal law.
Allowances for ADUs are increasingly common in cities to encourage infill
reinvestment, allow for diverse family housing situations in an aging
population, and to increase housing affordabiIity. Carriage houses are a
common form of an ADU.
5
Charter and Short Term Code Amendments TECHNICAL ADDENDUM
7/2/08
C. Research Summary:
All 17 jurisdictions surveyed have lesser front setbacks allowed in at least one
residential straight zone district than Wheat Ridge. Most jurisdictions have higher
height allowances in commercial districts than Wheat Ridge (9 out of 17 allow greater
than 50' in at least one commercial district). Similarly, most jurisdictions have higher
height allowances in residential districts (11 out of 17 allow greater than 35' in at least
one residential district). 14 of the 15 jurisdictions4 with home rule charters, excluding
Wheat Ridge, do not have any height provisions in their charter for residential or
nonresidential buildings. Maximum height standards in this research are based on
standards in straight zone districts, not as part of any Planned Unit Development (PUD)
district. Figure 1 below provides a summary of the jurisdictions surveyed related to
residential front setbacks. Figures 2 and 3 provide illustrations of height limitations in
these jurisdictions.
1. Figure 1: Typical Front Setbacks in Other Denver Jurisdictions in Straight
Residential Zone Districts
3D'
Wheal Ridge
25'
Boulder
Broomfield
Centennial
Englewood
lakewood
Littleton
Louisville
Northglenn
Westminster
25'
4 NOTE: Does not include Jefferson County.
20'
Aurora
Denver
Golden
Jefferson County
Lafayelte
l!!:
A/Vada
20'
~
Thornton
5
Charter and Short Term Code Amendments TECHNICAL ADDENDUM
7/2/08
2. Figure 2: Typical Commercial Building Height Maximums (in straight zone
districts, excluding Planned Unit Developments) in Other Jurisdictions5
!.
75'
Thornton
Note: Taller buildings are typically allowed in Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), whereas they are not in Wheat Ridge
3. Figure 3: Typical Residential Building Height Maximums (in base zone
districts, excluding Planned Unit Developments) in Other Jurisdictions
27'
Lafayette
30'
Broomfield
35'
Arvada
Jefferson
County
Louisville
West.
Minster
Wheat Ridge
~
Boulder
45'
Golden
~
Lokewood
~
Centennial
Note: Taller buildings are typically allowed in Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), whereas they are not in Wheat Ridge
D. Proposed Short Term Amendments:
I. Eliminate all building height restrictions in the charter to orovide more flexibility to
accommodate desired develooment recommended bv the NRS. This is unusual to
have such provisions in a charter as the research above suggests. We are not
proposing any increased building height allowances for any straight zone districts at
this time.
2. Evaluate front residential setbacks and oronose reductions in some straight zone
districts. This evaluation will look at existing conditions in various residential
neighborhoods in the city and any potential impacts.
5 NOTE: Denver was excluded from this graphic as the height limitations are generally dictated by Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) and bulk plane requirements. Also note that the horizontal lines indicate a distance of 12 feet, a typical
height for one story.
6
Charter and Short Term Code Amendments TECHNICAL ADDENDUM
7/2/08
(
Parl{ing
A. Issue Summary:
Like a lot of the city's suburban counterparts, Wheat Ridge has an abundance of large,
underutilized, and unattractive parking lots. One of the main reasons is the city's
zoning code and its lack of attention to reduced parking ratios as well as the location
and aesthetics of parking lots. Certainly a zoning code should appreciate a residential
or commercial development's need to provide parking for its residents and patrons, but
it should also provide allowances for reduced parking in instances where the land use
simply does not need that much parking. Additionally, the NRS recommends attracting
more pedestrian friendly and mixed use developments and the city's parking standards
should be updated accordingly.
B. Current Code: [Sec. 26-501]
. Parkinll ratios (examples)
o Restaurants: 1 space175 square feet
o Drive-in restaurants: I space/l00 square feet
o Office and Retail: 1 space/200 square feet first floor, 1 space/300 square feet other
floors
. Parkinll reductions
o None allowed, except in planned developments
. Shared narkinll
o Shared parking allowed "off-lot" within 300 feet of property with shared parking
agreement
. Parkinlllot landscaninll
o Landscape buffering required for parking lots adjacent to street and residential
areas
o Landscaped "islands" required for groupings of 30 spaces or more
C. Research Summary:
Parking ratios in Wheat Ridge on a citywide basis for particular land uses are generally
consistent with most jurisdictions in metro Denver. Where Wheat Ridge is not
consistent with nearly all jurisdictions surveyed is in the lack of allowance for parking
reductions, whether it be for particular districts (e.g. transit oriented development
overlay districts) or citywide. In other words, while most other jurisdictions have
citywide standards generally consistent with Wheat Ridge's they provide much more
flexibility and in many cases encourage reductions in the number of parking spaces.
Table 2 below provides a summary ofthe research on this topic.
7
Charter and Short Term Code Amendments TECHNICAL ADDENDUM
7/2/08
TABLE 2: Parldng Reductions in Com para hie .Jurisdictions6
Parking reductions allowed in
specific straight zone districts
or by location 7
1. Aurora
2. Arvada
3. Boulder
4. Denver
5. Englewood
6. Golden
7. Lakewood
8. Littleton
9. Louisville
10. Thornton
Parking reductions
allowed by separate
orocedure 8
1. Aurora
2. Boulder
3. Centennial
4. Englewood
5. Jefferson
County
6. Lafayette
7. Louisville
8. Thornton
9 . Westminster
No parking reductions
allowed in straight zone
districts or orocedure
1. Broomfield
2. Northglenn
3. Wheat Ridge
Other issues as part of the short term amendments relating to the implementation of the
NRS include shared parking, bicycle parking, and establishing maximum parking
amounts. Wheat Ridge is generally consistent with other jurisdictions relating to shared
parking but more flexibility may be beneficial. A summary of the comparable
jurisdictions in metro Denver relating to bicycle parking and maximum parking is
provided in Table 3 below.
Bicvcl' Parkin!\.
Mandatory bicycle No mandatory bicycle
parking parking
Maximun Parkin!\.
Required in certain Not required at any
locations or zone districts location
9
1. Arvada 1. Broomfield 1. Arvada
2. Aurora 2. Centennial 2. Lakewood
3. Boulder 3. Golden
4. Denver 4. Jefferson County
5. Englewood 5. Lafayette
6. Lakewood 6. Louisville
7. Littleton 7. Northglenn
8. Westminster 8. Thornton
9. Wheat Ridge
1. Aurora
2. Boulder
3. Broomfield
4. Centennial
5. Denver
6. Englewood
7. Golden
8. Jefferson County
9. Lafayette
10. Littleton
II. Louisville
12. Northglenn
13. Thornton
14. Westminster
15. Wheat Ridge
6 NOTE: Parking reductions here are either in the form of zone districts that require less parking than the citywide
standards (e.g., mixed use districts) or a specific parking reduction or deferral procedure where applicants can
request waiverslreductions to the number of parking spaces.
7 NOTE: These do not include Planned Unit Developments (PUD) but are for straight zone districts. "By location"
means for example that parking may be reduced within a certain distance to a transit station.
8 NOTE: Most of these procedures are administrative.
9 NOTE: Arvada requires a 110% maximum for its "activity centers", which are larger shopping centers. Lakewood
requires a maximum for some overlay districts, including their TaD overlay district.
8
Charter and Short Term Code Amendments TECHNICAL ADDENDUM
7/2/08
Other issues for consideration as part of the short term amendments include:
. Parking lot landscaping
. Location of parking areas
. Counting public lots and on-street parking
D. Proposed Short Term Amendments
Staff proposes to revise this section to be better organized and implement the
recommendations set forth below. Existing language will be carried forward where no
amendments are proposed. The recommended amendments include:
1. Evaluate narkinll ratios (# of snaces reouired for various land uses) and nrooose
reductions..
2. Evaluate land use list ("schedule of reauired off-street oarkinq" in Sec. 26-
501.D) and add/revise uses where needed with corresnondinq oarkinll ratios,
3. Provide oarkinll reductions for tameted areas that may include:
o Within area in and around a transit station (end of Gold Line)
o For redevelopment/new development along 38th Avenue
o In traditional overlay areas per the Architecture and Site Design Manual
(ASDM)
4. Provide oarkinll reduction orocedure (administrative, or requiring public
hearing) with review criteria
5. Provide incentives for locatinll oarkinll areas on the side and rear of the
buildinll. Some areas per the ASDM already cannot have parking in the front of
the building. Incentives may include reduced parking ratios and reductions in
required parking lot landscaping.
6. Revise shared oarkinlllanllualle to allow more flexibilitv for aoolicants.
7. Reauire bicvcle oarkinll consistent with surroundinll jurisdictions.
8. Reauire maximum oarkinll ratios (e.g., 125% of the required spaces) in targeted
areas - traditional overlay in Architectural and Site Design Manual (ASDM)
and in and around a transit station (end of Gold Line)
9. Evaluate COuntinll oublic oarkinlllots and on-street oarkinll towards reauired
narkinll. This may be particularly beneficial to properties along 38th and 44th
Avenues.
Other Short Term Am . ts Proposed
There are various other potential short term amendments proposed. Research has not
been conducted from other jurisdictions on these topics. Most do not require substantial
re-drafting, but rather cleaning up existing language to address particular issues.
A. Extended Stay Lodging
1. Issue Summary:
The zoning code currently does not define this land use. Some hotel/motel
properties can morph into short term housing solutions of a sort that they were not
intended for. The city has experienced crime and property maintenance issues on
these sorts of properties.
9
Charter and Short Term Code Amendments TECHNICAL ADDENDUM
7/2/08
2. Current Code: [Sec. 26-123]
Extended stay lodging is not defined in any manner in the current code.
Hotel/motel is defined as follows:
A building containing sixteen (16) or more transient guest rooms in which
lodgingfor compensation is provided, with or without meals.
3. Proposed Short Term Amendments:
Define short term 10Minl! to address this use so it can be adequately regulated in the
zoning code.
B. Zoning District Bound~ry Discrep~ncies
1. Issue Summ~ry:
There are numerous properties in the city that contain
multiple zoning district boundaries. Some boundaries
even run through buildings. This presents substantial
challenges to developing or redeveloping these
properties. If one half of a property is zoned for
residential and the other for commercial it is nearly
impossible to accommodate any type of development
that will conform to the zoning regulations without a
rezoning. Just during the month of May 2008,
planning staff has had two such instances where
applicants are interested in redeveloping property and
are realizing how limited their options are.
2. Current Code:
There is limited language in Sections 26-115.E and
26-203 that give some relief for zoning map errors,
either administratively or at a public hearing before
the Board of Adjustment. In order to qualify for an
administrative correction it must be shown that there
is a "verifiable error" in the zoning map, which has
been difficult to achieve given that the city adopted
the Jefferson County zoning map when it was
incorporated in 1969. There has not historically been a widely used or effective
manner of dealing with these properties.
2 recent examples of
properties with split zoning.
One property owner adjacent
to the top example stated
that property has been mostly
vacant and in disrepair for "8
to 10 years."
3. Proposed Short Term Amendments:
Create a clearer. exnedited nrocess for dealinl! with narcels with "snlit zoninl!", To
this date, most applicants that have encountered this problem have either walked
away from their plans to improve the property or had to work around the boundaries
creatively.
10
Charter and Short Term Code Amendments TECHNICAL ADDENDUM
7/2/08
(
C. Historical society and their ability to designate historic sites
1. Issue Summary:
Property can be designated as historic in the city without consent of the property
owner. Moreover, the designation may be done by the Wheat Ridge Historical
Society (WRHS), which is not a city-appointed body. It is unusual not only to not
have the property owner's consent, but also to have the designation done by a non-
city-appointed body.
2. Current Code: [Article IX of Chapter 26]
. Any building or structure in the city is eligible for historic designation.
. Application for historic designation may be submitted by the property owner,
the WRHS, or by a member of city council.
. The WRHS reviews and makes a recommendation to city council for historic
designations.
3. Proposed Short Term Amendments:
Eliminate the ability of the Historical Society to nominate and recommend in
sunnort of a historic landmark designation unless thev have the sunnort of the
affected nronertv owner.
D. Assembly of multi-family land in the R-3 zone district
1. Issue Summary:
Section 26-117 of the code restricts the ability for an applicant to consolidate lots
for multi-family development. Most types oflot consolidations are administrative
without requiring a public hearing. This section requires any lot consolidation for
multi-family to go before planning commission and city council under the same
procedure as a planned building group. There are also additional restrictions in
certain zone districts for multi-family lot consolidations. This makes land assembly
in areas where multi-family development may be desirable and appwp,iate difficult.
2. Current Code: [Sec. 26-117]
. Most lot consolidations are administrative (no public hearing required).
. Any lot consolidation for multi-family development however requires public
hearings before planning commission and city council under the same procedure
as a planned building group.
. Lot consolidations in the R-3 and R-3A zone districts are not allowed in some
instances, depending on lot sizes.
3. Proposed Short Term Amendments:
Evaluate the need to nrovide less restriction on multi-familv develonment as it
relates to lot consolidation. and nronose revised language.
E. City-initiated "up-zoning"
1. Issue Summary:
The city can initiate zone changes on property per Section 26-113 of the code.
These zone changes, however, can only be to a "less intensive" zone district. For
11
Charter and Short Term Code Amendments TECHNICAL ADDENDUM
7/2/08
example a zone change from residential to commercial is not allowed under this
procedure, but a zone change from commercial to residential is allowed. This
restricts the city's ability to initiate zone changes to zone districts that may be
appropriate to provide an incentive for redevelopment.
2. Current Code: [Sec. 26-113]
City cannot initiate a zone change from a "less intensive" zone district to a more
intensive district. For example a zone change from residential to commercial is not
allowed under this procedure, but a zone change from commercial to residential is
allowed.
3. Proposed Short Term Amendments:
Potential1v eliminate the 3rd and 4th sentences in 26-113-A.
F. Amendments to planned zoning districts
1. Issue Summary:
There is a substantial amount of property in the city with planned development
zoning (see map below). Property that is zoned as a planned development in the
city, whether it is Planned Residential, Planned Commercial, or Planned Industrial,
contains a unique set of development standards and allowed land uses specific to
that planned development. Often times market conditions change from when the
original development plan was approved and new types of development may be
proposed that don't fit within the confines of those standards. In order to vary
significantly from these S1andards, an amendment to the development plan must be
processed. This process is essentially the same as a rezoning. Often times there are
multiple properties, and multiple property owners involved in one planned
development. Under the current regulations, any amendment to a planned
development must have the written consent of all property owners within the
planned development. This may present an obstacle to encouraging investment in
many of the city's planned developments.
12
Charter and Short Term Code Amendments TECHNICAL ADDENDUM
7/2/08
Planned Development Districts (shaded)
,IU
.111\\
1--"-";1'. '
II j: 111
II' .
.~",,"C>.kI
~.-.--
-.,
~~;.
,.
2. Current Code: [Sec. 26-311]
Any amendment to a planned development district must be approved of in writing
by all property owners within the area approved for the district.
3. Proposed Short Term Amendments:
Allow city councilor some minimum aIJI.ount of affected urouertv owners to submit
annlications for amendments to develonment nlans.
G. Floodplain Administrator Duties
1. Issue Summary:
Many properties in the city lie within a floodplain, which presents a challenge to
developing or constructing anything. To use a recent example, something as simple
as constructing a fence to enclose a dumpster can be a challenge with required
floodplain permitting and mitigation to address any flooding occurrence. The
Floodplain Administrator (Public Works Director) has limited authority to use
discretion to approve construction that clearly will not impact the floodplain.
2. Current Code:
There are two types of floodplain permits for any construction in the floodplain:
. Class I: Structures for non-human occupancy (e.g., fences, sheds), additions to
structures for human occupancy, and fill and deposit material.
. Class II: Construction or "substantial improvement" to existing structures for
human occupancy.
Class I permits can only be approved upon finding "that the structures do not create
a negative impact on the base flood elevation or flow velocity". This means for
example a shed in the floodplain may have to be elevated a certain distance where it
13
Charter and Short Term Code Amendments TECHNICAL ADDENDUM
7/2/08
clearly is not in a flood prone area.
3. Proposed Short Term Amendments:
Provide lamrna!!e allowin!! the Floodnlain Admini';"a~v~ to use discretion in
allowin!! some Class I nermits. Permits may be allowed that clearly will not have a
detrimental impact on the floodplain without any need for mitigating the impacts on
the "base flood elevation or flow velocity".
H. Residential Group Home Densities
1. Issue Snmmary:
The residential zone district regulations recognize the following classifications of
group living situations.
. Residential group homes for children require a special use permit.
. Residential group homes, nursing homes, and congregate care facilities for 8
or fewer elderly persons as a permitted use.
. Residential group homes, nursing homes, or congregate care facilities for 9 or
more elderly persons require a special use permit.
. Single family homes for residents considered to be a "protected class" have no
limitation on the maximum residents permitted in a single housekeeping unit.
These protected classes of citizens include the following: developmentally
disabled, mentally ill, physically impaired, and persons undergoing drug or
alcohol treatment.
While clearly this group living arrangement does not meet the traditional definition
of a household, these classes are protected by federal law and are exempted from
the city's definition of "family".
In the past, it has been department policy to limit the maximum number occupants
for these group facilities to 16 as that is considered a change in occupancy codes in
the International Building Code (IBe). Pursuant to the IBC, group living situations
for 16 or less persons are considered a residential occupancy. Any number of
residents over 16 will require the structure to be built in accordance with the
institutional occupancy requirements dictated by the IBC.
A group home for sixteen people would be a very large struc1ure which may be
inconsistent with the character of a low density neighborhood. If there are two
residents per bedroom this would require an eight bedroom home and would need to
include common space such as dining rooms, rooms for live-in care takers and 12
off-street parking spaces.
2. Current Code: [Sec. 26-123]
The definition offamily from the current code (Section 26-123) is as follows:
One (1) or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal
custody plus domestic servants employedfor service on the premises, or a
14
Charter and Short Term Code Amendments TECHNICAL ADDENDUM
7/2/08
group of not more than three (3) persons who need not be so related living
together as a single housekeeping unit. Five (5) people over the age of sixty
(60) years sharing one (1) housekeeping unit shall also be deemed to be a
family. Notwithstanding the foregoing, afamily shall be deemed to include four
(4) or more persons that are not related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal
custody occupying a residential dwelling unit and living as a single
housekeeping unit if the occupants are handicapped persons as defined in title
III of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing
Amendments Act of 1988, or disabled persons as defined by S 24-34-301,
CR.S. A family shall not include more than one (1) person required to register
as a sex offender pursuant to S 18-3-412.5, CR.S., as amended, unless related
by blood, marriage or adoption.
A household that includes four (4) or more persons identified above shall not
be excludedfrom the definition of "family" by the residence in the household of
additional necessary persons (and their families) employed in the care and
supervision of such handicapped or disabled persons.
3. Proposed Short Term Amendments:
a. Amend definition of familv to limit the number of nrotected class occunants
able to live tOllether in a home as a sinllle housekeeninll unit.
15
Zoning Code Amendments to
::ijl~T"~rllJl~~'", "," ,:""''':;';';-'::''''''::,'"','':';' , "".
4. Review.next steps and public process
- Request Council direction
i7w~R8,...
. More yet to be done . . .
jir-Wt~~tp&'>e
Zoning Code Changes to
~'Couricil direction-,:'comebackwithmore
specificsanda phasedimpJementation
approach
#W~Rm.""
Zoning Code Amendments -
I
-'" -',~pf, :. ",_~.::,~.~;:":
_"""CreateWR'2020
"';'DevelopTOwn Center
- Redevelop Wadsworth and 44th
- Accelerate redevelopment on 38th Avenue
- Develop and adopt subarea plans
#W~tI~
;:><_i\".:.""", ;": ""/\:,:':":::',',''''.'':'':'''''':'' ,\,:~""-;::::,'.;'::i_:;::-:'"",;,, "'" :..:"-,, ..:"'''' _, _,
. N RS hasrec~nily been a opted by .
Council
. Additional zoning code and charter
changes have been assembled by 2020
and City Staff -tonight's discussip[1 _
JP'w~~""
Recommended Project Approach
.. '..a
':','_,:"1"':>"'-"'-::':'::-'::',-'" _,::::::",-",::'::',"'J.""'-;-'~:":::':"," " ",: ',' .,.,,: ,>,':::",::,,', "",:':, :', ;,.
.Sh6rt (3-6 mO);Mid (6-12 mol; Long (12~
24mo)
. What determines priority
- Potential community support
- T echnicai compiexity
- Timing relative to Comp Plan update. co._
-''WhC.ittRi!Jboe
Short Term List -
'.#W~t.R8,,'e
Mid and Long Term Amendments
Imp~~~_',:,c_Clrt~~','ame'n~m'~iits::'":,{",-";,,,,,'"
:' ~"'~en~_fit fromne\oV ComprehenSiv'e Plan
;... Ongoing Community Education
#W~~l.l~
.. City Council Direction
. Public Outreach Approach
#w~~
Short Term Amendments-
. Example: Parking Reg's ~ page 7
#w~i:'tRi$,.>C
Proposed Next Steps on
.';':>:: ;.: ..,:: 'ii:':~:'/: , c",' , , "" '_"" "."
.E>tliff (OornmD13v, 20~0,OitYAtl9rney)
draft ordinance language ~Fa1l2008
. Planning Commission public hearings -
late 2008
. City Council public hearings -late.20Q.~
J?Whei>.l.~
97w~~
#W~';-tR!9ge
gr~tR8..'C
itrwE:.~tRi!!ge
.
:.... ""'"
:?WllCall~
!irW~~lRa'C
'W~lR.iS.""
#W~]~>e
.>"'- <>Yo!
:?WhCat.l~
#W~R!!:!gc
;prw~1.Ra.'C
#W~;:1.R!8!"'C
#W~~
#w~id.R8.'<>
.,.... Dr'"
-~WnciitR.l8gc
,
97W~R!!Jge
i7W~;:ll~'"
#Wl~~ll~
#wfi.'1tt~
\
\
,
\
\
..
\
\
\
,
\
\
.,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,
\
\
\
#W~~ll~>c
#W6Z;ll~!,,'C
#M:f.1n~
\
\
\
.,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
July 3, 2008
Mayor and Members of Wheat Ridge City Council
City of Wheat Ridge
7500 W. 29th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Dear Mayor and Members of City Council,
RE: Proposed Amendments to Zoning Code
This letter is written in support of the proposed amendments to the zoning code being presented
to you at the July 7th study session. The WR2020 Board of Directors and Planning Committee
have reviewed the amendments and unanimously endorse their adoption.
Over the past six months the Community Development and WR2020 staff has worked
collaboratively on these amendments. The city's zoning code is an older document (originally
from Jefferson County) that has been amended on numerous occasions over the years. In any
community a zoning code is a fundamental document setting land use patterns as well as
facilitating real estate development on a parcel by parcel basis. In many respects, the Wheat
Ridge code is dated and restrictive and has lost its ability to efficiently manage land uses and the
development process. No municipal code is everlasting and from time to time all zoning codes
need to be reevaluated and amended to reflect the goals of the community and current real estate
market trends.
The package of amendments before you is a first phase in beginning to address some of the issues
identified the NRS related to the redevelopment process needed in many areas of the city. Other
amendments to the code will likely be forthcoming as part of the city's Comprehensive Plan
update.
In closing, WR2020 is enthusiastic about this process moving forward as another building block
of the revitalization strategy.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Osborn, Esq.
Executive Director
cc. Randy Young City Manager
P.O. BOX 1268 WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80034-1268 WWW.WHEATRIDGE2020.0RG PH: 7202591030 FAX: 303 940 9332
rrEtA 5.
\.
",I";",
-, " v City of .
~Wheat&'-dge
~OFFlCE OF THE MAYOR
City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29'" Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2800 F: 303.234.5924
June 27, 2008
Michael Snow, City Clerk
City of Wheat Ridge
7500 W. 29th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, Colorado
Re: Request for Special Meeting
Dear Mr. Snow:
Pursuant to Charter Section 5.2(a), I hereby request that you call a special meeting of the
City Council for Monday, July 7, 2008 in the City Council Chambers at the Municipal
Building, 7500 W. 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, to commence at the conclusion
of the regularly scheduled study session. The purpose of "the meeting will be the
following:
· Convene an executive session under Charter Section 5. 7(b)(1) and CRS 24-6-
502( 4)(b) for consultation with the City Attorney for legal advice on specific legal
questions concerning the Intergovernmental Agreement for police services in
connection with the Democratic National Convention.
As required by the Charter, please post notice of the special meeting at the municipal
building and in your offices, publish it in the manner allowed for ordinances pursuant to
Charter 5.12(h), and deliver a copy to all Council members prior to 24 hours before the
special meeting.
Thank you for your assistance.
/'
,
ayor
www.ci.wheatridge.co.us
~
.......,
\~ (.... .
....J '^,""",,-
tell \.r,; Uf\ ~ Is AO
f\\~-~s.~~ ~'J'~
~~ ~~~\~~
~'O ,
'1"\~a" (\J.J;<~ t\(<{~ ~l\l-ol"< ~
~-<:l.~}";,il',,, \l'~~ ~'\J.).t
c..1,~~\ qy; P"'"
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
Notice of Special Meeting of City Council
Please take notice that pursuant to a request by the Mayor under Home Rule Charter
Section 5.2, the Wheat Ridge City Council will meet on Monday, July 7, 2008 at the
conclusion of the regularly scheduled study session in the Council Chambers of the
Wheat Ridge Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. The
agenda for the meeting will be as follows:
1. Call to order and roll call.
2. Convene an executive session under Charter Section 5.7(b)(I) and CRS 24-6-
502(4)(b) for consultation with the City Attorney for legal advice on specific legal
questions concerning the Intergovernmental Agreement for police services in
connection with the Democratic National Convention.
3. Adjourn
Given and posted this 30th day of June, 2008, on the City's website and in the lobby of
the Wheat Ridge Municipal Building in accordance with Section 5.l2(h) of the Home
Rule Charter.
Delivered to each member of the Wheat Ridge City Council on this 3rd day of July, 2008.
cSkh~k1\9-o
Publish Wheat Ridge Transcript:
Posted City Hall:
July 03, 2008
June 30, 2008