Loading...
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