HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/17/2006
~UImlUJlB
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
Recreation Center
Dahlia Room
Julv 17.2006
Mayor Jerry DiTullio called the Study Session to order at 6:30 p.m. City Council
Members present: Karen Berry, Terry Womble, Wanda Sang, Dean Gokey, Karen
Adams, Mike Stites, Larry Schulz, Lena Rotola; Also present: City Clerk Pam Anderson,
City Treasurer Mary Cavarra; Randy Young, City Manager; Patrick Goff, Deputy City
Manager; Alan White, Director of Community Development; Tim Paranto, Director of
Public Works.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Consensus failed to remove Item 3 from the agenda.
AGENDA APPROVED
as printed.
Item 1.
REPORTS
No Staff Reports.
Outside Agency Reports
Mr Schulz announced that he was appointed to the DRCOG Regional Transportation
Committee.
Consensus by Council PreSident Stites was carried to place the Town Meeting (Open
House format) on the Calendar on Thursday, September 14th He also requested that
Council Members use the Council representatives as the contact person for the Outside
AgenCies. DISCUSSion followed.
Mrs. Adams and Ms. Berry presented a Wheat Ridge 2020 Update. Consensus was
camed to ask WR2020 Executive Director Rob Osborne to attend the study session the
third Monday of each month to present an update to Council. ActIOn item: Notify office
admimstrator ofWR2020 about process to acquire copies of agenda and minutes.
Tim Paranto and Alan White entered at 6:54 p.m.
Item 2.
Citizens Survey Presentation
Deputy City Manager Patrick Goff mtroduced the item, and Shalmon Hayden and Lori
Urban of NatiOnal Research Center, Inc. They made a PowerPoint presentation regardmg
the Report of Results of the 2006 Wheat Ridge CItizen Survey. This survey IS conducted
every two years. Discussion followed.
Recess was called at 7:51 p.m. The meeting resumed at 7.58 p.m.
Item 3.
Compensation Plan
Deputy City Manager Patrick Goff introduced the Item and presented the staffreport.
Karen Croom, Human Resources Manager, was present to answer questions from City
Council. Staff IS requestmg to realign the compensatiOn plans to a single effective date in
mid-year ThiS would require a budget amendment for 2006 for the mId-year market
adjustments.
In accordance With the StrategIc Plan and current City Council directIOn, staff
recommends an annual compensatlOn plan adjustments to remam competItive with the
70th percenrtiIe for Law Enforcement positions, and the 55th percentile for all other
positions. Discussion followed.
Consensus was carried to bring the recommendation forward as they are in the study
seSSlOn packet for the next regular meeting.
Item 4.
Wadsworth Subarea Plan
Director ofCommumty Development Alan White Introduced the Item. Jeff Winston, of
Winston and Associates made a PowerPoint presentation on the proposed Wadsworth
Subarea Plan. The proposals are descnptions and cross-sections of alternatives for the
future configuratIOn of Wadsworth Boulevard. City CounCil gave feedback and mput
regardIng the various alternatIves for the plan.
Consensus was camed to strongly support the 160' version with pedestrian access and
aWait the return of a final plan.
Item 5.
Tabor Issues
Deputy CIty Manager Patnck Goff presented the staff report to City Council. He stated
that for Budget Year 2006 the City will exceed ItS Tabor limit by approximately $54,000
He proceeded to discuss the elements ofT ABOR that apply and discussed projected
revenues exceeding the limit due to the "ratchet down" provision of the amendment.
Mrs. Sang suggested placmg two Issues on the ballot to ask citizens to retaIn the excess
revenues for the 2006 Budget year and a second question to ask the voters to "de-Bruce",
as the state dId. DIscussion followed. There was no consensus called for regarding an
earmark provisIOn for the revenue retention or for a sunset provIsion.
The Study SessIOn Notes are the City Clerk's record of staff direction and Council
dIscusslOn of agenda Items. No formal actlOn may take place by motlOn at a City Council
Study Session.
STUDY SESSION AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
City Council Chambers
7500 W. 29th Ave.
July 17, 2006
6:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Item 1.
Item 2.
Item 3.
Item 4.
Item 5.
a)
b)
Staff Reports
Outside Agency Reports
Citizen Survey Presentation
Compensation Plan
Type /I
Wadsworth Subarea Plan Type I
Tabor Issues
Type I
Type I
City of Wheat Ridge
Office of the Deputy City Manager
Memorandum
Item 2.
Agenda 7/17/06
(~~
'~
FROM
Mayor and City Council
City Clerk and City Treasurer ~
Patnck Goff, Deputy City Manager1~ '
TO'
DATE
July 11,2006
SUBJECT
2006 Citizen Survey - Report of Results
National Research Center, Inc IS Illvited to the July 1 th Study SessIOn to present to City Council the
results of the 2006 Citizen Survey
The final Report for the 2006 Citizen Survey was distributed to you III the same package as your July
loth City Council Agenda Packet. Please bring your copy of the final Report to the July 17th Study
SessIOn.
Of the 2,825 eligible households who received the survey, 1.051 responded to the mailed questIOnnaire,
glVlllg a response rate of 37%, slightly lower than the response rate III 2004 (41 %)
Item 3.
~~udy Session 7/1
Ci~r of" H l1('a( Ridge>
Human Rl''''ol1rce~
Memorandum
THROUGH
Mayor and Council nJ
Patnck Goff, Deputy City Manager ltJIJ I
TO'
FROM
Karen M. Croom, Human Resources Manager
DATE
July 1 I, 2006
SUBJECT
Compensation Plans - Market Adjustments
"'.....--.-.--...
""___-,.l..........."-_
Currcntly the City mamtains three (3) CompensatIOn Plans.
Intermittent Part-Time/Seasonal, effectivc January 1, 2004
Law Enforccment (Sworn), effective July 2. 2005
CivilIan. effectIve January 1,2006
l"/ote The Civilian and Law Enforcement salary ranges were based on 2005 market rates.
Rcccntly a markct study that mvolved a review of our market's 2006 salary ranges was completed for all
of the City'S pOSitIOns. As a result, the study mdlcates our CompensatIOn Plans reqUire upward
adJustmcnts m order to remain competItIve and wlthm the percentile the City has establIshcd. Thc
pcrccntlles the City has cstablished are 70th for Law Enforcement (Sworn) positIOns and 55th for all
others. Overall thiS mcrease IS approximately 3.2% for CivilIan and Sworn benefited pOSitIOns. and,
2 3% for Intcrmlttent Part-Time/Seasonal.
In ordcr to mamtam our competItiveness. It IS recommended that we make the applicable adjustments
through an amcndment to our current budget and take the opportumty to also realIgn our CompensatIOn
Plans With a slnglc effectIve date. It IS recommended that we elIminate a January I effective date and
rcplacc It with a Mld- Year date for all CompensatIOn Plans. This is based on the following:
. By the cnd of the first quarter of each year. all of the agencies have the applicable salary range
informatIOn available for companson. ThiS allows suffiCient time to prepare for any necessary
mid-year adjustments. With a January I effective date, as With the ClVllIan and PT/Seasonal Pay
Plans. thc data necessary to makc a determmatlOn for budget prcparatlon IS not fully available
and as a result. some of the salary range informatIOn can only be derived through estimates.
. Our current salary ranges are bascd on 2004 or 2005 rates, hence we are lagging the markct by
one (l) year for Civilian, six (6) months for Sworn. and two (2) years for Intermittent Part-
Time/Seasonal. With a 2006 Mid-Year adJ ustment, the salary ranges, as proposed. Will be based
on 2006 market rates, thus plaCing all salary ranges only SIX (6) months behmd.
The adoptIOn of thc proposed 2006-2007 Compensation Plans With an effective date of Julv 29. 2006 for
all positions would reqUire an amendment to our current budget of approximately $246,000 Although
the total for thc Intermittent Part-Time/Seasonal has not been calculated as yet, the projected cost
appears to bc mmlmal and may be absorbcd by salary savings as a result of positIOn vacancies.
Again, please note, With the adoptIOn of thiS Mid- Year practice for our compensatIOn programs, the
currcnt system of granting first-of-the-year market adjustments would be eliminated.
Item 4.
Study Session 7/17
City of Wheat Ridge
Office of the Deputy City Manager
Memorandum
FROM
Mayor and City Council
City Clerk and City Treasurer (\ h
Patrick Goff, Deputy City Manager--L0 I
TO'
DATE
July 12,2006
SUBJECT
TABOR Revenue Limit
In 1992, Colorado voters approved the Tax Payer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), a constitutIOnal amendment
deSigned to control the growth of government. The TABOR amendment contams numerous proVISIOns
that directly affect the government's ability to raise and spend revenue. TABOR applies to alllcvcls of
government from special distncts to local, county and state governments.
One ofthc most SignIficant proVisions of TABOR that affects the City of Wheat Ridge's ability to raise
and spend revenues IS the TABOR Revenue Limit. Referred to as spendmg limits m the state
constitutIOn, TABOR effectively limits the amount of revenue that a government can collect and keep
by prescnbmg a formula for growth m spendmg and requIrIng that all revenue m excess of that amount
be returned to taxpaycrs. In effcct, TABOR prescnbcs that local government cannot gro\\o faster each
year than the value of net new construction plus thc mcrease m mflatIon. Revenue collected m excess of
these limits must bc returned to the taxpayers m the followmg fiscal year by any "reasonable mcans,"
mcludmg refunds or temporary tax credits, unless voters approve of the government keepmg and
spcndmg It.
We have Just determined that the City of Wheat Ridge has exceeded ItS TABOR revenue limit by
approximately $50,000 m fiscal year 2005 An cxplanatlOn of how thiS occurred can be described as the
"ratchet down" cffcct which mhlblts the City's ability to retam futurc rcvcnue when economic conditIOns
pick up at1.er scvcral years of an economic downturn. Followmg are the factors that have lcd to the
TABOR ovcrage:
The City" s revenue decreased by 6 1 % between 2001 and 2004 from $20,840,173 to $19,645,173
(after deductIOns which are allowed by TABOR) and then increascd m 2005 to $ I 9,819,418
2. In 2004, growth m Wheat Ridge (net new construction plus the mcrease m mflatIon) was the
lowest smce the approval of TABOR (0 61%)
3 Whcn you multiply the 2004 revenue by the 2004 growth rate ($19,645, I 73 x 0 61 % = $1 19,836)
you get the amount the City's rcvenue IS allowcd to mcrease by in 2005
4 The TABOR revenue limit for the City In 2005 Increased to $19,765,009 ($19,645,173 +
$119,836)
5 Actual revenue In 2005 was $19,819,418 which accounts for the TABOR revenue limit overage
($19,765,008 - $19,819,418 = -$54,409).
InflatIOn and local growth both Increased In 2005; therefore, revenue will be allowed to Increase by
286% In 2006 which IS approximately $560,000 However, SInce the City's revenue limit has decreased
by over $1 0 million SInce 200 I, because of the "ratchet down" effect, and revenues are up by
approxImately 5.5% In 2006, the City will likely exceed its revenue limit agaIn in 2006 In addition,
when Cabela's comes online, the City may be in a permanent state ofT ABOR overages.
In conclUSIOn, the City must eIther refund $54,409 to Wheat Ridge taxpayers or ask voters on the
November 2006 ballot If they City may keep this money In addItion, because of the future pOSSibility of
TABOR overages, Staff recommends that City Council conSider a temporary or permanent "de-Brucmg"
of all City revenue whIch will exempt the City from the TABOR Revenue Limit.
Staff will be aVaIlable at the July 17th study session to discuss these optIOns WIth Council m further
detaIl
June 2002
From the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute
TABOR and Local Governments
Inclusion in TABOR
All cities, towns and counties are subject to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, and are included in the
amendment's broad definition of "district."
Fiscal Provisions ofT ABOR
There are three pnmary fiscal provisions in TABOR that apply to local governments. These are
revenue limits, tax rate limits, and specific provisions for the property tax. In addition, there are
provisions in TABOR that affect local governments and the way they organize themselves to do
business.
Revenue Limit
Revenues that a local government can keep and spend in any year are limited to the actual revenues
received in the pnor year plus a formula that includes the consumer price mdex plus "growth."
Growth is defined as the percentage change in actual value of real property from construction of
taxable real property improvements.. .."
A common misconception is that local governments' growth formula is based on increases in the
value of real property from general inflation. This is not true. Only the value of new constroction
and newly annexed property enter into the definition of growth.
If the local government's actual receipts exceed the limit, it must refund the difference by the end of
the following fiscal year, or seek voter approval to retain it. TABOR defines this difference as
"excess revenue." The term excess revenue presents perceptual issues for local governments, as it
implies that the funds are somehow excess to the needs of the government. In most cases, the total
revenue a government receives IS based on tax and fee rates that have been in place for years, and
fluctuate based on the economy, buildmg activity (for example, with development fees), etc. There
is no necessary logical relationship between the value of new construction, and the demands for
local government services.
If, in any year a local government's actual revenue falls short of the allowed TABOR limit, the
"base" from which the following year's formula is calculated is not the limit, but the (lower) actual
revenue received. Thus, there is a tendency to "ratchet down" a government's ability to retain
future year revenue when economic conditions pick up again.
The Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute is a project of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy
1490 Lafayette St, Suite 206" Denver, Colorado 80218" 303-573-3757 tel'" 303-573-4947 fax" cclponline.org
Tax Rate Limit
TABOR froze in place all existing local government tax rates. Increases in any tax rate must be
voter-approved. The primary taxes levied by local governments are the property tax mill levy, and
the sales tax.
Local governments also charge a wide variety of service fees and user charges, such as recreation
fees, building and development fees and charges, etc. These are not considered "taxes." Thus, local
governments may adjust them without voter approval. It should be noted that there is case law
limiting the revenue from such fees and charges essentially to the costs incurred by the government
in providmg the services for which the fees and charges are levied. This may include both direct
and indirect costs.
Revenue from fees and charges, however, are subject to the TABOR revenue limits. This means
that a local government could adjust fees to cover actual costs of serving, say, the development
community, only to find it having to return an equivalent amount of money to taxpayers if it
exceeds the overall TABOR revenue limit.
The ProPerty Tax
Property taxes receive special treatment in TABOR. Revenue from the property tax is separately
Iirmted by the same formula (inflation plus "growth''). Thus, a government could receive total
revenue below its overall TABOR limit, but still be required to refund money to taxpayers ifits
property tax revenue alone grows by more than the formula.
Enterprises
Enterprises are defined in TABOR as "a government-owned business authorized to issue Its own
revenue bonds and receiving under 10 percent of annual revenue in grants from. . governments. ..."
Court rulings have clarified that such local government operations as recreation, golf course, water,
sewer and drainage utilities, etc. are considered enterprises even though the revenue bondmg
authority they enjoy are derived from their status as part of the local government as a whole.
Legal interpretations caution, however, that particular government operations may not automatically
be considered enterprises purely on the basiS that they generate fees, WlthOut there being a true
"business" functIon involved.
Excess Revenue Refunds
TABOR provides that the money received in excess of the revenue limit must be refunded in the
year following Its receipt. The method of refunding may be .... . any reasonable method.. .including
temporary tax credIts or rate reductions.. .." Thus, for example, a city, town or county may lower its
mill levy for one year and return the levy to the prior level as a refund method. It IS not necessary to
determine the particular revenue source that contributed to the excess revenue condition and return
that money to its source.
Voter Approved Exemption from Revenue Limits (''De-Brucing',
The Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute is a project of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy 2
1490 Lafayette St, Suite 206 * Denver, Colorado 80218. 303-573-3757 tel * 303-573-4947 fax * cclponline.org
Since the passage of TABOR, many local governments have held so-called "de-brucing" electIOns
(after the author ofthe amendment). Such elections do not exempt the government from all
provisions ofT ABOR. Governments may obtain voter approval to "keep and spend" excess
revenue as defined in the amendment. The elections held to date provide either permanent or tIme-
limited authonty to retain excess revenues. For example, the City of Lakewood received voter
approval for 8 years. Boulder voters approved a permanent revenue-limit exemption.
A de-brucmg election may not, however, exempt a government from the election requirements for a
tax rate mcrease, from the property tax revenue limit provisions, or any other general provISIon of
TABOR.
Multiple-Year Fiscal Obh gatIon
TABOR prohibits the mcurrence of a debt or "multiple year.. . financial obligatIOn whatsoever
WIthout adequate present cash reserves pledged irrevocably..." without voter approval. Thus, both
debt, and any contractual obligatIOn that runs beyond the current fiscal year that involves the
exchange of money for services, is subject to this provision. Upon the adoptIOn of TABOR, local
governments have adopted the practIce of adding language to such contracts stating that its
proVIsions are "subject to annual appropnatlOns," or that the government has no obligatIOn to
continue the agreement beyond the current year.
Intergovernmental Revenue
Local governments receive revenue from other levels of government. Examples for a cIty mclude a
share of county road and bridge property taxes, and a share of state highway user trust fund money
TABOR does not exempt these non-federal intergovernmental sources (It only exempts "collectIons
for another government"). Thus, both governmental levels must count the same revenue WIthIn
their respectlVe TABOR caps.
ThIs situatIon results m a changed set of fiscal mcenuves relative to mtergovernmental cooperatIOn.
For example, aJomt project, which would previously have mvolved an mtergovernmentaI grant,
must now be set up so as to keep the respectIve funds separate, so that one government does not
make "constructive receIpt" of the other government's money, lest It push the former above Its
TABOR revenue cap.
Exempted Revenue
In additiOn to revenue received by an enterpnse, certam categories of revenue are exempt from
TABOR. These include federal funds, gifts, pension contributions and eanungs from employees,
damage awards, and property sales. It should be noted that increasingly, federal programs are
administered through state and local government, and require a non-federal match. The matching
funds are not TABOR exempt. This has implicatIons for federalism. To the extent that Colorado
local govemlnents are constrained in their ability to keep and spend revenue from local sources,
residents of these commurutJes face the potentIal of enjoymg a more limited set of federal services
than their counterparts in other states.
For More InformatIOn: TABOR: A GUIde to the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, Colorado Municipal
League, 1999.
The Colorado Fiscal Policy loshtute is a project of the Colorado Center 00 Law and Policy 3
1490 Lafayette St, Suite 206. Denver, Colorado 80218. 303-573-3757 tel · 303-573-4947 fax. cclponline.org
l- \ 1 ;~L&,_
\, . \
,J~(."l...\ ,) \L S--; ; LA.., fr--- '- t'C--::>
(' ct", Z" v.' /-
'"\<-. 'v'" ,,-~./
t c t t--=-
^
'* LUi)t.V\'0v\..-J- tz'l\'c. \ Ie. r",.l\
\ t t" VVl 3
r )
.,' 2_-(y
i U k.c'1 U-.\~J,->\..z
\ ~{j ';;'\z,\\ ~c f" \ ->-
L"'\..\"<;'d C C~{y 'It'--l ~yc I \ S
- )C~t l-L l 2. APf '-- \'",,- t 'c ( (c Dt2 C L C ~-) ( , ,I i.. \'\[L \ ~ \ f ?VV1'::f' v \?l Nt.. '-
(\.. I- n V"Vl itt ( c...
\ G' '-' ~ \ t,,\ 1:'{",Dk,), C \.... Vl~( VI S,-\ ~ \\...
Cf0 v, t-l'WH.. U'I) '-'\I.\l-dS.CtLj I S't r t
~)\C'-VI \'~\''--''l
\L~ \".::l
\~\((n....\1
\'-~ t~,,\y\C 1\
L \ ('~""'--\;\.\...1\ l\.~(
~"LVt\-CLUt- \C;l~
V\\.>IL'\Cli---t \''\'JT:) (\."\)ku,I-1~k.Lt I,ttv,\h,':l
-ILe' CL'Avl(\\ 2Cfl-\.',.djec.1i\J-<::) (, -tL~
~\..V l/V\.vs,,'de (>te;y:I.A.C1-fS \)\'x\..'\C~(~,l\... t,lkvv'c(
tQ llLkv\.c.....i \L V ^cV;z.ofV\) : W\.2 '2-{...J2..{j (t r'.) l--
\'0vt,c.) Cv;d CJ\"1U C.O\Y1.I'v\I\t.Cl:t1.v'- (,,>lel ~1Cl.- I n(() c
LA-+-( So Il. -. t"-. \. 5 \ /, (L iL:"; \ w.J \\\..\'t..t. 11',,,, lc-....l.-. ,\.< \ lc~
_~\;Vtd \ole'L'- G\-hc( \c CL::(I).....-- 'J'v~fL'" i 'v,-t...'C)r;.V'-LV lL I Cd v lC{"L-
t\tq\) Z IJ-e,c;t"\0<...vh.-L!;-d C \C.<v1-L-t.-P)
d .. r '(I
V\ CV\.\S(\lo"\;vJ Cll.\..n-cC' I'\:) Ccl\c C)((( C\--
L'\..-\\c.v\d ~IC S\hc~,- ~,-,,:>r.:'v'-' ....!L..i...<- -----3,((
1. 'ZL 7.-<...-:, I
I{Y\":"/+'\ L -. \0-.. C \ It ? v \"
\~d( (\t v0.J' L,~C\LC ((-'-.., ~"d("\ \.lY\-~' (\J,lVC\(-<,)
I
J
\2 u~~
t'- LL"\ C\..'-J
i--c
\
"I-
e__ ,
-c. ( l
C\.,,;c\ \ \\ 11-1.c.I...1 ( <5
.. ..., I '
\ II vi tc, C" h Ie ';
t\ \(,-, \ 'v-.\ \ \ \,
(....." \ k, c (
( ('
<<
f: sLi V VVl
t
.,---------------
-------
-\~
1-- \1-0 Co
~
( ~~S~>MW- v,.Y~
-" .-' , ~,)
..- t~\)-to ~i J5E'/'M?i. ~G, ~~ -,\",AVV'
~. >~~0
~ ~-'v ~vr'tr-- ~~
_~~.~r
~~jJ ~'t>~~J \""'US~,,-oJA..~'
, S \)~6-
. ~~v-<- \ / 0'4't. \~'tjc" -~ I'{.u.--t.-/
.rU~ 0~ ~
~' G
~ ALC<~ ~ \' ~>-(.N-
-T \iw.JvlJ >vr t\'" I Lt.y . I' t
~~-rW~~v~C~
v 4 ~~ 0Jl \JO"A \Nc UJNfI"^'(tt~6'l
~~ \W ~' v$'ZPZO ~vr -t
-t\. ~ O\)\l- ~ OJ..vwi V1. r A...jvL -
tJDb"-AA' ---\C> '1- ."v '(Ir'1\ ~O, ~-J
'3 V\' v0~ ~~
\'lV\!' V\)P---o ~ ff'^ ·
. ~ ~~0.' '" \0c:0-0 LMV' :{l.cw--'
1-. 0~:~1,.\... Y
~v
~ re\. ~\. UD u-'
"
-
~
~ ~ ~ ~ .-0t- 'L\iI' ~ i;,O~<vo,
vce..c. CL'T 1; t- O~
~\~< ~~@ bJ+ .
~ f.JVtA r,
__ ~~-uAC ~O -:v~~~
~~ ~~
Xr(~wI- '1.~~. ~ J;&MU.J c-
~ G4j" 8l, ~ ~~-\>V-.
~
~s ~'
~-
~
-:::ft0W>3. ~0*-0cU b-vl(\---"" ~ ~ol ~--\r' 4A ,
_~~ cbk " ~ ~ wtJ""~
~"" -t''''^ ~. \ -\0 ~ ~cJ-~
<q~~~~\'~"\'- ~ ~ ~
~ _ V,D'''' 8"",,-~J oviloK\ J ~~ "i"'-\ ~~
~~ ~",~lc \2~&'<\' 65-ry'~..J'J.<
~.Af\-.~ "r-..
~J- n~
~~
~ - ~, -"1 \I}J'!~
t4tw y~ q
_ ~ ~ &;f'v.~
~ ~
~b ~wM\ -" ~ ~~,
'1J -~~ ~'
-'"~\
~ ~ ~D"'" ,.fu~.
vPss ~ ,,~.ur.'ve(j . h - ~
jf~. ~~ ~-~ ~
aW--~ \.A.;J1ie -c4J~ ~ ,~
~ ~,~ ) ~ "'~,C?O>~'\ 1~'
oN- ~ ~"'\r~ wcJ..o",~ S'~ ~~-
~ 17"'(>>'I;\>'>fV' Jv ~~ ·
City of Wheat Ridge
Office of the Deputy City Manager
Memorandum
FROM.
Mayor and City Council
City Clerk and City Treasurer rJ
Patrick Goff, Deputy City Manager-11L/
TO
DATE:
July 5, 2006
SUBJECT
2006 Citizen Survey - Report of Results
National Research Center, Inc. IS invited to the July 1 ih study session to present to City Council the
results of the 2006 Citizen Survey. Of the 2,825 eligible households who received the survey, 1,051
responded to the mailed questionnaire, giving a response rate of 37%; slightly lower than the response
rate m 2004 (41 %)
Attached for your review IS a copy of the complete Report of Results We are dlstributmg this to you
earlier than the normal packet distributIOn so you will have extra time to review the report before the
presentation on July 1 ih
7500 W 29th Ave.
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
(303) 235-2819
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
Citizen Survey
REPORT OF RESULTS
June 2006
Prepared by
-
(Ej NATIONAL
'-...1 RESEARCH
CENTERIIK.
3005 30th Street. Boulder, CO 80301 .303,444-7863. www.n-r-c.com
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary...... ........ ........ ....... ......... ........ ............ ................ ............. ......... ........... .......... ................. ......... .......... 1
Survey Background . ........ ...... ......... ...... ......... ......... .............. ....... ........... .................. ............ .......... ........ ......... ......... .......... 5
Survey Purpose.. 5
Survey Administration 5
Understanding the Results 5
"Don't Know" Response and Rounding.. 6
Survey Results..... ......... ..... ......... ...... ......... ...... ............ ............ ......... ......... ........ ............... ............ ........ ..... ......................... 7
Quality ot Life and Community 7
Evaluation of City Services 12
Balancing Quality and Importance 22
Community Issues 24
Community Participation.. 28
Community Safety 30
Public Trust 32
Contact with City Employees.. 37
Economic Development 40
Policy Questions 44
Information Sources and Internet Use.. 45
Appendix I: Respondent Characteristics ......................................................................................................................49
Appendix II: Survey Methodology ................................................................................................ ....................................53
Sample Selection 53
Survey Administration 53
Weighting the Data 53
Data Analysis 53
Appendix III: Verbatim Responses to Open-Ended Questions .........................................................................................55
Appendix IV: Complete Set of Frequencies......................................................................................................................57
Appendix V: Survey Instrument ....................................................................................................................................... 68
REPORT OF RESULTS
(j
c
Qj"
c
Q)
o
.s:::
u
ro
Q)
'"
Q)
0::
'"
c
o
~
Z
<D
o
o
N
@
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SURVEY BACKGROUND
. The City of Wheat Ridge contracted with National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) to conduct a community
wide citizen survey Three,thousand randomly selecled Wheat Ridge households were mailed the 2006
Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey The purpose of the survey is to monitor the quality of City of Wheat Ridge
services and the quality of community life in Wheat Ridge. Of the 2,825 eligible households who
received the survey, 1,051 responded to the mailed queslionnaire, giving a response rate of 37% The
margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points around any given percentage point, and plus or
minus two points around average ratings on al OO-point scale. This is the second iteralion of the Wheat
Ridge Citizen Survey
QUALITY OF LIFE AND COMMUNITY
. .,Four out of five respondents said Wheat Ridge was a "good" or "excellent" place to live: About three-
quarters of residents reported that "Wheat Ridge as a place to raise children" (74%), their "neighborhood
as a place to live" (73%) and the "overall quality of life" (75%) was at least "good" "Wheat Ridge as a
place to live" was rated by 68% of respondents as "good" or "excellent." The physical attractiveness of
Wheat Ridge was slightly lower (52% selecting at least "good")
. When results were converted to Ihe 1 OO'point scale, each category received a rating similar to those \
given in 2004 When compared to ralings across the nation, Iwo of the six community characteristics \~r ,A
received ratings above the average. "Wheat Ridge as a place to retire" received a rating higher than other 'f."AfF '0' -L-1 .
communities in the Front Range. ~" I-i x.....;J--
· ~~~J~~1f,~~~i~~~~~:~~~: 2Q66~~:~o~f~ ~~o~u~~~~Z:!olit~ ~~~;keIY to / ~ ~rv~~
(. (.. V
EVALUATION OF CITY SERVICES , v.1\ .Vlll
· T~\~~Jhe.City were recreation facilities (75), recreatiQ!l . --I. Qc...v-"
tfrograms (69) an pb'ff'ce~onsetrmetoemergency fl'lll<67), above "good" (67) on the 100-polnt
scale. All other City services received ratings above "fair" (33 points on the 1 OO'point scale) The lowest
average raling was given to code enforcement (40 points on the 100-point scale) When compared by
year, most services received similar ratings.
. Ten of 15 services for which ratings were available were given ratings above the national norm. A rating
similar to the average for other jurisdictions across the nation was given to maintenance of City parks.
Wheat Ridge received ratings below national norms for building inspections, code enforcement,
community/public art and general police services.
. Services receiving ratings above the average given in other jurisdictions in the Front Range include: snow
removal, street repair and maintenance, traffic enforcement, recreation facilities and programs and
services and programs for seniors. Five services were rated similar to the Front Range average by Wheat
Ridge residents and two services were rated below the norms for the Front Range.
IMPORTANCE OF CITY SERVICES
.
Residents were asked to rate the importance of each City service. P.Ql.il;;e.resppn'i'il_~rgency'
calls, general police services, police response time to non-emergency calls, street repair iH\{f
'~.w$:\"~,.._-~-~,,,~
'!'.JlQ .. '. .. "" '.. ". ". . ..... ,;,.J,~I?~Yal, traffic enforcement, maintenance of City
parks, municipal court an UI lIig inspections all received ratings of 67 points and abo\(.e, or at least
"very" important on the 1 OO'point scale. For all questions asked in both years, most ratings in 2006 were
similar to those given in 2004
Most of the remaining services received ratings just below "very" important (67 on the 1 OO'point scale)
Services that received the lowest ratings were street cleaning (54)fand community/public IIrt (45), but
both were still rated above "somewhat" important. "'''' I
.
REPORT OF RESULTS
<3
c
..:
Q)
c
Q)
o
.c
e
'"
Q)
'"
Q)
0::
0;
c
o
~
Z
to
o
o
N
@
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
BALANCING QUALITY AND IMPORTANCE
. Services which were categorized as higher in importance and higher in quality were: police response
time to emergency calls, general police services, municipal court, snow removal, traffic enforcement and
maintenance of City parks. Services rated higher in importance and lower in quality were: police
response time to non,emergency calls, street repair and maintenan~, services and programs for youth
and building inspections. (Building inspections also was rated below the average in comparison to other
communities across the nation and the Front Range.) Those services rated lower in importance and
higher in quality were: recreation facilities, recreation programs, services and programs for seniors and
maintenance of open space and trails. Services that rated lower in importance and lower in quality were:
code enforcement, busineSs expansion and recruitmenl programsf building permits, community/public
art and street cleaning.
COMMUNITY ISSUES
. When asked to rate issues of transportation with the City of Wheat Ridge, residents reported most
positively the conditions of City streets (68% said "good" or "excellent") About 6 in 10 respondents said
ease of car travel, bus travel and walking in the city were "good" or "excellent." Mass transit planning
was rated as "poor" or "fair" by just over half of respondents (52%) Wheat Ridge residents reported
similar ratings in 2006 as in 2004
. Residents rated conditions of City streels and ease of car and bus travel in the city as above the normative
ratings for other communities across the nation. Ease of walking in the city was given a raling similar to
the national average. Similar ratings were given in comparison to other Front Range communities.
. Survey respondents were also asked to rate how much of a problem, if al all, several community
characteristics were for the City of Wheat Ridge. About three,quarters of respondents felt that availability
of parks, bike paths and recreation programs were "not" a problem (67%, 65% and 65%, respectively)
Characteristics considered 10 be a "moderate" or "major" problem by 50% or more of residents were: run
down buildings (51 %), traffic congestion (53%), juvenile problems (57%), crime (62%), vandalism (62%),
graffiti (62%) and drugs (65%},; When ratingsQ{QowWlll1ml?rmllr "'il"f'~,b.v.~Ja.ck()f
growth...J.lli\iDt&lJ~~~9,\l4;~"gJ.bgw~~, condition of properties, run down bulrarngs.NV'eQ~
jproblems, crime, graffiti, vandalism and drugs were rated as more of a problem in 2006 than in 2004
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
. Respondents were given a list of 12 activities in Wheat Ridge and asked how many times, if any, they
had participaled in the past 12 months. More than three,quarters of respondents had dined at a Wheat
Ridge restaurant (90%), used a City park or trail (84%) and used a City bike or pedestrian path (75%) at
least "once." Less than 3 in 10 residents reported visiting the community senior center (29%), attending a
meeting of local elected officials or other public meeting (21 %), participating in a senior program (17%)
and using Ihe A,line service to DIA (8%)
. By year comparisons showed similar results between 2004 and 2006. A higher proportion of residents in
2006 had used a City bike or pedestrian path Ihan in 2004 Fewer respondents reported riding an RTD
bus in 2006.
c?
Cl
COMMUNITY SAFETY
. Wheat Ridge residents were asked to rate how safe they feel in various public areas in Wheat Ridge.
Most respondents said they felt at least "somewhat" safe in each area listed. Comparisons to previous
survey years were available for all areas except retaillcommercial areas. Each area received the same
rating on the 100'point scale in 2006 as in 2004 except safety in "your neighborhood" which received a
lower rating in 2006 (74 vs. 79 on the 100'point scale, respectively)
. Ratings given for safety in "parks and playgrounds" and in "your neighborhood" were higher Ihan ratings
in jurisdictions across the nation. No Front Range comparisons were available.
REPORT OF RESULTS
u
-=
~-
2
c
OJ
0
J::
U
ro
OJ
VJ
OJ
0::
(ij
c
0
~
Z
<D
0
0
N
@
2
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
PUBLIC TRUST
. About 1 in 10 residents (7%) felt th. overall performance .f the City government was "excellent." More
than half of respondents (55%) said 'it was "good" and one-third of respondents said the overall
performance was "fair" and 7% said it was "poor" When these responses were converted to the 100-
point scale to allow for comparison to the previous survey year, similar ratings were reported by Wheat
Ridge residen~
. . ~ati~~.~bo~e t~~~verage were given-,~Y.W~~~!"Ri9 'l},,<';W!l~~.m1ter
~*ri!~~~frr{;r;;;~irR~~:,~~~~:wri~~~ilv go:~~:r~~~=dto~er'
. Wheat Ridge residenls were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with six statements about the
City of Wheat Ridge government. About two-thirds of respondenls said they "somewhat" or "strongly"
agreed with three of the six statements. About 6 in 10 residents at least "somewhat" agreed thai they
were pleased with the overall direclion the City was taking (60%) and that they received good value and
services for the amount of City taxes they pay (59%) Forty-six percent of respondents at least
"somewhat" agreed thai they were well informed on major issues within the city Similar ratings were
given in 2006 to most statements regarding the Wheat Ridge City government when compared to 2004
. Comparisons to the national database were available for five of the six public trust statements above. All
were rated above the norm given in other jurisdictions across the nation except for residents feeling
informed on major issues within the city, which was given a rating below the national average.
. ,. Those rated above the nor!TI.tg!...l~..J.rqnt Range were 'City government welcomes citizen involvement,/,
and 'overall direction the City is takinl" "Good value and services for taxes" received a rating similar to
the average provided by other communities in the Front Range.
CONTACT WITH CITY EMPLOYEES
. The same percentage of Wheat Ridge residents reported that they had contact with a City employee in
the previous year in both 2004 and 2006 (43%)
. Of those respondents who said they had contact with a Wheat Ridge City employee in the past 12
months, more than Ihree,quarters reported the employees' courteousness (82%), knowledge (77%) and
responsiveness (76%) to be at least "good." About 7 out of 10 residents said that their contact with a City
employee made them feel valued (69%) Seventy-six percent of respondents rated their overall
impression of the employee with which they had contact as "good" or "excellent." Wheat Ridge residents
gave similar ratings for City employees in both survey years.
. Wheat Ridge City employees' courteousness was rated above the national average. "Knowledge,"
"responsiveness" and "overall impression" were given ratings similar to ratings reported in other
jurisdictions across the nation. Ratings of "courtesy," "knowledge," "responsiveness" and "overall
impression" were all below the average in comparison to other communities in the Front Range.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
f \
.\~~
'0'rf'
.
A list of five statements about the economic development in the City of Wheat Ridge was provided to
respondents and Ihey were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each
statement. About half of residents (51 %) 'strongly' agreed with revitalizing business corridors such iJA'
38th Avenue, 44th Avenue, Wadsworth Boulevard and Kipling Avenue. Aboul 8 in 10 respondents at
least 'somewhat" agreed with the remaining four statements: revitalizing the city's business areas (83%),-
revitalizing the city's housing areas (79%), attracting and recruiting new types of retail (78%) and
strengthening community image and identily (78%) Residents reported higher agreement in 2006 than in
2004 for most of the slatements regarding economic development in the City of Wheat Ridge.
Residents of Wheat Ridge were asked about their familiarity with two City revitalization plans and to
what extent they would support or oppose those plans. More than 6 in 10 survey respondents were
"very" unfamiliar with both Neighborhood Revitalization Strategies (NRS) and Wheat Ridge 2020
.
REPORT OF RESULTS
0
E
2
c
OJ
<.)
J::
e
'"
OJ
II)
OJ
0::
0;
c
0
.~
Z
to
0
0
N
@
3
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
J June 2006
1~ , '/(WR2020) Strong support was shown for NRS by 40% of respondents and 36% of respondents said they
~ "\ If" would "strongly" support WR2020 Five percent or less of respondents said they would "somewhat" or
~ .s- )~ v"'strongly" oppose both NRS and WR2020
.,Jf' iJ . Residenls were asked how frequently they do a variety of shopping in Wheat Ridge. More than 9 in 10
tJ l< residents said they "somewhat" or "very" frequently do their grocery shopping in Wheat Ridge. About
\r lrr one,third of residents said they made purchases of "household items" (34%) and "health services" (32%)
;j \ I "very" frequently in the city "Meals and entertainment" purchases were made at least "somewhat"
-0"'- frequenlly by 68% of respondents. Seventeen percent of residents said they "very" frequently made
general retail purchases. Forty,five percent of respondents said they "never" made "computer and
electronics" purchases in Wheat Ridge. Similar frequencies were reported for most categories of
shopping in 2004 and 2006.
. When respondents were asked why they shop outside of Wheat Ridge, two,thirds (66%) reported il was
because the desired item was not available. About 4 in 10 residents said they shop outside of Wheat
Ridge because they liked the range of quality goods and services (40%) and convenience (39%) Twenty
percent of survey respondents reported affordability, 3% said lack of malls and other major retailers and
5% reported "other" reasons for shopping outside of the city When comparing 2006 results to 2004,
affordability received a higher percentage of responses in 2006. "Desired item is not available in Wheat
Ridge" was lower in 2006.
POLICY QUESTIONS
. Respondents to the survey were asked for the second year to rate their support for or opposition to an
exemption from the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (T ABOR)'AIJI!'JlfIi~~f~~~ey,
least "somewhat" suppart allawing the City to. retain any excess revenues tobeiiS;;rrOrgenera ..'
operating expens,s./Abaut 4 in 10 residents were apposed to. a TABOR exemptian. The support for an
exemption from TABOR decreased from 2004 to 2006 (50% supparting in 2004 vs. 46% supporting in t
2006).
d~
INFORMATION SOURCES AND INTERNET USE r/:d~j O-\~
. About three,quarters of respondents to the survey said they get their information via "word of mouth," \ (Y'"'~" \\
"television news" and the "Denver Post or Rocky Mountain News" (76%, 71 % and 71 %, respectively)) M~
Sixty.eight percent of residents said Ihey get their information from the "City 'Connection' Newsletter" "J .~
More than 4 in 10 reported they get informalion from the "Wheat Ridge Transcript" (49%), "radio news" . j'.}
(48%) and "cable TV Channel 8" (45%) About one'quarter of residents used the City's Web site (27%)~t (,,.;1'; 'iVr
least once to get information. When compared to 2004, residents reported using "Ielevision news," the '" \v-.t. QIII;y.~if
"Denver Post or Rocky Mountain News, "radio news" and "cable TV Channel 8" less frequently in 2006. \
"City 'Connection' Newsletter" and the "City's Web site" were used by a higher percentage of
respondents in 2006.
. About the same percentage of respondents said they had a personal computer in their home with Internet
access, had a computer at home without Internet access and had no computer at home in 2006 as in
2004
. Twenly,six percent of respondents reported having used the City's Web site in the past year, an increase
from 2004 (22% of respondents)
. Respondents who reported having used the City's Web site in the last 12 months (26% of respondents)
were asked to rate certain qualities of the site. "Content" was reported as "good" or "excellent" by 66%
of residents." More than 6 in 10 said that the "graphics" and the "look and feel" of the Web site were at
least "good" (64% and 61 %, respectively) Ten percent of respondents said "ease of use" of the City's
Web was "excellent." In comparison to 2004, similar ratings were provided in 2006.
. Six in 10 respondents said they would be at least "somewhat" likely to conduct business with the City
over the Internet; 30% said they would be "somewhat" or "very" unlikely The likelihood of conducting
business with the City over the Internet was similar in past survey years.
REPORT OF RESULTS
~ <.i
-=
:i5
c
OJ
U
..c::
e
II>
OJ
'"
Q)
oc
Iii
c
0
~
Z
<JJ
0
0
N
@
4
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
SURVEY BACKGROUND
SURVEY PURPOSE
The Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey serves as a consumer report card for Wheal 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.
The 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 type of survey gets al the key services that local government controls to create a qualily 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 defecl to competition or before other
problems from dissatisfied customers arise.
The baseline Wheat Ridge Cilizen Survey was conducted in 2004 This is Ihe second 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 ADMINISTRATION
The Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey was administered by mail during early April of 2006 to 3,000 randomly
selecled households within the City of Wheat Ridge. Of the 2,825 eligible ho"use1i~ receiving the survey,
1,051 residents responded to the mailed questionnaire, giving a response rate(of37%,slightly lower Ihan Ihe
response rate in 2004 (41 %) The survey instrument ilself appears in Appendix Y. Survey Instrument.
Survey results were weighted so that gender, age and housing unit type were represented in the proportions
reflective of the entire city (For more information see Appendix II Survey Methodology.)
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 Ihan plus or minus three
percentage poinls around any given percent reported for the entire sample (1,051 compleled surveys)
PUTTING EVALUATIONS ONTO A 1 OO-POINT SCALE
Although responses to many of the evaluative or frequency questions were made on a four-point scale with
one representing the best rating and four the worst, the scales had different labels (e.g., "very satisfied,"
"excellent," "most important") To make comparisons easier, many of the results in this summary are reported
on a common scale where 0 is the worst possible rating and 100 is the best possible rating. If everyone
reported "excellent," then the result would be 100 on the 0,100 scale. If the average rating for quality of life
was "good," then the result would be 67 The new scale can be thought of like the thermometer used to
represent lotal giving to United Way The higher the thermometer reading, the closer to Ihe goal of 100 - in
this case, the most positive response possible. These adjustments take various characteristics of the question
inlo account, such as the type of response scale used, and whether a "don't know" option was permitted. The
95% confidence interval is two points on the 100,point scale.
COMPARING SURVEY RESULTS
Because certain kinds of services tend to be thought less well of than others, it is best to understand relative
quality ratings by comparing services in one jurisdiction to the same services in other jurisdictions. For
example, police protection tends to be better received than street maintenance by residents of most American
cities so it is better not to hold street maintenance services to the same standard as police services. Where
possible, the better comparison is between City of Wheat Ridge services and similar services provided by
REPORT OF RESULTS
(j
E
S
c
OJ
U
.c
e
'"
OJ
"'
OJ
[Y
(ij
c
0
~
z
CD
0
0
N
@
5
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
other jurisdictions. This way we can better understand if "good" is good enough for City of Wheat Ridge
service eval uations.
Comparisons to the Front Range' and the nation are provided when similar questions are included in our
database, and there are at least five other jurisdictions in which the question was asked. Where comparisons
are available, three numbers are provided in the table in addition to the mean rating. The first is the rank
assigned to Wheat Ridge's rating among jurisdictions where a similar question was asked. The second is the
number of jurisdictions that asked a similar question. Third, the rank is expressed as a percentile to indicate
its distance from Ihe top score. This rank (5th highest out of 25 jurisdictions' results, for example) translates to
a percentile (the 80th percentile in this example) A percentile indicates the percent of jurisdictions with
identical or lower ratings. Therefore, a rating at the 80th percentile would mean that Wheat Ridge's rating is
equal to or better than 80 percent of the ratings from other jurisdictions. Conversely, 20 percent of the
jurisdictions where a similar queslion was asked had higher ratings.
Alongside the rank and percenlile appears a comparison "above" the norm, "below" the norm or "similar to"
the norm. This evaluation of "above," "below" or "similar to" comes from a slatistical comparison of your
jurisdiction's rating to the norm (the average rating from all the comparison jurisdictions where a similar
question was asked) Differences of more than two points on the 100-point scale between Wheat Ridge'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 norm. When differences between Wheat Ridge's
ratings and the normative comparison are two points or less, they are marked as "similar to" the norm.
The national data are represented visually in a chart that accompanies each table. Wheat Ridge's percentile
for each compared item is marked with a black line on the chart.
"DON'T KNOW" RESPONSE AND ROUNDING
On many of the questions in Ihe survey, respondents gave an answer of "don't know" or "unsure." The
proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix IV
Complete Set of Frequencies. 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 lable for a multiple response question, it is because some respondents are counted in mulliple categories.
When a table for a question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to
the customary practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number
'The Front Range jurisdictions included in the comparison analysis Me as follows: Arvada, Boulder, Boulder County, Broomfield, Castle
Rock. Denver (City and County). Douglas County. Englewood. Fort Collins, Golden, Greeley, Greenwood Village. Highlands Ranch,
Jefferson County, Lafayette, ldkewood, Lar;mer County, Littleton, Longmont, Louisville, Loveland, North Jeffco Park and Recreation
District, Northglenn, Parker, Thornton, West Metro Fire Protf'ction District, Westminster and Whpat Ridge.
REPORT OF RESULTS
<3
E:
:i
c
Q)
U
.c
e
'"
Q)
IF)
Q)
0::
Iii
c
0
~
Z
en
0
0
N
@
6
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
SURVEY RESULTS
QUALITY OF LIFE AND COMMUNITY
Residents of Wheat Ridge were asked to rate their quality of life as well as other characteristics of the
community Four out of five respondents said Wheat Ridge was a "good" or "excellent" place to live. About
three-quarters of residents reported that "Wheat Ridge as a place to raise children" (74%), their
"neighborhood as a place to live" (73%) and the "overall quality of life" (75%) was at least "good." "Wheat
Ridge as a place to live" was rated by 68% of respondents as "good" or "excellent." The physical
attractiveness of Wheat Ridge was slightly lower (52% selecting at least "good").
Quality of Life
Circle the number that best represents Percent of respondents Average rating
(O=poor,
your opinion: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total 100=excellent)
How do you rate Wheat Ridge as a place to
live? 23% 58% 17% 2% 100% 68
How do you rate Wheat Ridge as a place to
raise children? 19% 55% 21% 5% 100% 63
How do you rate your neighborhood as a
place to live? 19% 54% 21% 6% 100% 62
How do you rate the overall quality of life in
Wheat Ridge? 12% 63% 23% 2% 100% 62
How do you rate Wheat Ridge as a place to
retire? 18% 50% 25% 8% 100% 59
How do you rate the physical attractiveness of
Wheat Ridge as a whole? 8% 44% 39% 9% 100% 50
REPORT OF RESULTS
cj
E
..c
2
c
Q)
0
.c
f:'
'"
Q)
<n
Q)
C<:
lij
c
0
~
Z
<D
0
0
N
@
7
CITY OF WHEAi RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Frequencies of different communily characleristics were converted to a 100-poinl scale where O~ poor and
100 ~ excellent for comparison to previous survey years as well as other jurisdictions across Ihe nation and in
the Front Range (see tables and charts on the following pages)
The average rating for Wheat Ridge as a place to live was &8 points on the 100,point scale, or "good"
"Wheal Ridge as a place 10 raise children," "overall qualily of life" and "neighborhood as a place to live"
received ratings of 63, 62 and 62, respeclively, or just below "good." A rating of 59 was given to "Wheal
Ridge as a place to retire." The lowest rating was given to "physical attractiveness of Wheat Ridge;" 50 points
on the 100-point scale. Each rating was similar 10 those given in 2004
Quality of Life Ratings Compared by Year
How do you rate Wheat Ridge as a place to live?
How do you rate Wheat Ridge as a place to raise
children?
How do you rate the overall quality of iife in Wheat
Ridge?
How do you rate your neighborhood as a place to live?
How do you rate Wheat Ridge as a place to retire?
How do you rate the physical attractiveness of Wheat
Ridge as a whole?
REPORT OF RESUL.. TS
68
69
U
E
oj
C
Q)
0
.<::
e
'"
Q)
'"
Q)
OC
~
c
0
'~
Z
<D
0
0
N
@
8
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Average rating (O=poor, 100=excellent)
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
When compared to ratings across the nation, two of Ihe six communily characteristics received ratings above
the average: Wheat Ridge as a place to live and as a place to retire. Characteristics that were similar to the
norm were "Wheat Ridge as a place to raise children" and 'overall quality of life." The remaining categories
received ratings below the national norm.
'Wheat Ridge as a place to retire" received a rating higher than other communities in the Front Range. The
remaining community characteristics received ratings below the average given in olher Fronl Range
jurisdictions. (See chart and tables on the following pages.)
Quality of Life Ratings: Wheat Ridge and the Nation
100
90
80
70
~ 60
c ,....
CI> 50
0 -
Q;
a.. 40
30
-
20
10
0
....
...
-
Wheat Ridge as a Wheat Ridge as a
place to live place to raise
children
Neighborhood as Overall quality of Wheat Ridge as a
a place to live life place to retire
Physical
attractiveness of
Wheat Ridge
Quality of Life Ratings: Wheat Ridge and the Nation
City of
Wheat
Ridge
Rating
Comparison of
Wheat Ridge Rating
to Norm
Rank
Number of
Jurisdictions for
Comparison
City of Wheat
Ridge
Percentile
Wheat Ridge as a
place to live 68 89 199
Wheat Ridge as a
place to raise
children 63 76 139
Neighborhood as a
place to live 62 88 118
Overall quality of life 62 101 178
Wheat Ridge as a
place to retire 59 42 120
Physical
attractiveness of
Wheat Ridge 50 10 13
56%
Above the norm
46%
Similar to the norm
26%
44%
Below the norm
Similar to the norm
66%
Above the norm
31%
Below the norm
REPORT OF RESULTS
..;
c
ai
-
c
<Il
()
.<:
<.l
ffi
<Il
'"
<Il
oc
OJ
c
o
'"
'"
Z
to
o
o
N
@
9
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
Quality of Life Ratings: Wheat Ridge and the Front Range
City of
Wheat Number of City of Wheat Comparison of
Ridge Jurisdictions for Ridge Wheat Ridge Rating
Rating Rank Comparison Percentile to Norm
Wheat Ridge as a
place to live 68 10 14 36% Below the norm
Wheat Ridge as a
place to raise
children 63 11 13 23% Below the norm
Neighborhood as a
place to live 62 8 8 13% Below the norm
Overall quality of life 62 14 17 24% Below the norm
Wheal Ridge as a
place to retire 59 5 12 67% Above the norm
Physical
attractiveness of
Wheat Ridge 50 5 5 20% Below Ihe norm
REPORT OF RESULTS
June 2006
0
E
Q;
C
OJ
0
.c:
e
rn
OJ
<f)
OJ
0::
ro
c
0
~
Z
to
a
a
N
@
10
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
About 1 in 10 Wheat Ridge residents (11 %) believed that the quality of life would improve "a lot" over the
next five years. More than one-third (35%) of respondents said the quality of life would improve "slightly" in
the next five years. Twenty,nine percent of those responding to the survey said they expected the quality of
life to "stay the same" over the next five years and one'quarter of respondents believed it would at least
decline "slightly"
In 2006, a higher proportion of Wheat Ridge residents believed that Ihe quality of life was likely to improve
over the next five years when compared to 2004 (46% in 2006 vs. 36% in 2004) The percent of respondents
who believed the quality of life in Wheat Ridge would decline was similar in 2006 as in 2004 (25% and
26%, respectively) A decrease from 2004 to 2006 was noted in the percenl of residents that felt the quality of
life in the City would stay the same over the next five years. This suggests that respondents who felt the
quality of life would stay the same in 2004 gave a more positive response in 2006. -
Quality of Life in Wheat Ridge Over Next Five Years
Do you think the quality of life in Wheat Ridge is likely to improve,
stay the same or decline over the next 5 years? Percent of respondents
Improve a lot 11 %
Improve slightly 35%
Stay the same 29%
Decline slightly 20%
Decline a lot 5%
Total 100%
Quality of Life in Wheat Ridge Over Next Five Years Compared by Year
Improve
46%
Slay the same
Decline
0%
30%
100%
40%
50%
60%
10%
20%
70%
80%
90%
Percent of respondents
REPORT OF RESULTS
u
.EO
:;j
C
Q)
0
J::
"
(ij
Q)
<I)
Q)
0::
ro
c
0
~
Z
<0
0
0
N
@
11
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
EVALUATION OF CITY SERVICES
Residents were asked to rate the quality of 19 City,provided services. Respondents were also asked to rate the
importance of each of those same services. The tables and charts on the following pages show responses
given by Wheat Ridge residents. Comparisons by year and comparisons to the national and Front Range
norms are available later in this section.
SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES
The most positively rated services provided by the Cily were recreation facilities (75), recreation programs
(69) and police response time to emergency calls (67), above "good" (67) on the 100,point scale. All other
City services received ratings above "fair" (33 points on the 100,point scale) The lowest average rating was
given 10 code enforcement (40)
(Please note: A higher percentage of "don't know" responses tended to be given to those services that were
less likely to be used by residents. In Wheat Ridge, these services received a "don't know" response from
33% to 62% ot residents and are noted in the table below See Appendix IV Complete Set of Frequencies.)
Quality of Services
For each service, please rate the Percent of respondents
quality of the service. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total
Recreation facilities 40% 47% 12% 1% 100%
Recreation programs 29% 52% 16% 3% 100%
Police response time to emergency
calls' 27% 51% 17% 5% 100%
Maintenance of open space and trails 21% 59% 19% 2% 100%
.-1 Maintenance of City parks 20% 59% 18% 3% 100%
! / Services and programs for seniors 21% 53% 23% 3% 100%
I'" General police services 16% 56% 22% 6% 100%
,yv Snow removal 13% 56% 22% 9% 100%
.:;r S \ Traffic enforcement 12% 57% 23% 8% 100%
N.~ \l; \l' \ Municipal court' 11% 57% 24% 8% 100%
R ~ \(Ii \ Street cleaning 10% 53% 31% 6% 100%
tJf' \ Police response time to non, 15% 49% 23% 13% 100%
' emergency calls'
11 Street repair and maintenance 7% 50% 33% 9% 100%
Services and programs for youth' 10% 43% 37% 9% 100%
Building permits' 7% 47% 35% 11% 100%
Building inspections' 6% 46% 31% 17% 100%
Community/public art' 6% 38% 41% 16% 100%
Business expansion and recruitment
programs' 6% 34% 40% 21% 100%
Code enforcement 6% 36% 30% 28% 100%
*A high percentage of Ndon't knowN responses were given to rhesp services.
Average rating (O=poor,
100=excellent)
75
69
67
66
65
64
61
58
58
57
56
56
52
52
50
47
44
41
40
REPORT OF RESULTS
u
c
Qi
c
<D
o
..c::
e
'"
<D
'"
<D
0::
ro
c
o
~
Z
CD
a
a
N
@
12
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
fI .
~#f
(' v\j~
June 2006
When compared by year, most services received similar ratings. Residents gave higher ratings to maintenance
of open space and trails, maintenance of City parks and business expansion and recruitment programs in
2006 than in 2004 Police response time to non,emergency calls and services and programs for youth were
all given lower ralings in 2006.
Ratings of Quality of City Services Compared by Year
Recreation programs
Police response time to emergency calls
Maintenance of open space and trails
Maintenance of City parks
Services and programs for seniors
General police services
Traffic enforcement
Snow removal
Municipal court
Police response time to non,emergency calls
Street cleaning
Services and programs for youth
Street repair and maintenance
Building permits
Building inspections
Community/public art
Business expansion and recruitment programs
Code enforcement
REPORT OF RESULTS
o
10 20 30 40 50 60
70 80 90 100
(j
E
~-
2
c
Q)
()
..c
e
'"
Q)
VI
Q)
0::
(ij
c
0
~
Z
<D
0
0
N
@
13
Average rating (O=poor, 100=excellent)
ii Average rating
- (O=not at all
0
t- important,
100=essential)
100% 89
100% 83
100% 76
100% 71
100% 70
100% 69
100% 68
100% 68
100% 68
100% 67
100% 66
100% 66
100% 66
100% 65
100% 64 <3
E
100% 62 oj
100% 62 C
Q)
100% 54 ()
..c
"
100% 45 (ij
Q)
'"
Q)
0:
<ii
c
0
~
z
CD
0
0
N
@
14
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
IMPORTANCE OF CITY SERVICES
Residents were also asked if the importance of each service was "essential," "very" importanl, "somewhat"
important or "not at all" important. The majority of services were reported as "very" important or "essential"
by about three,quarters of respondents. Fewer residents reported thai streel cleaning (53 %) and
community/public art (38%) were at least "very" important.
These results were converted to the 100'point scale for ease of comparison, where 0 = not at all important and
100 = essential Police response time to emergency calls, general police services, police response lime to non,
emergency calls, street repair and mainlenance, services and programs for youth, snow removal, traffic
enforcement, maintenance of Cily parks, municipal court and building inspections all received ratings of 67
points and above, or at least "very" important on the 100,point scale.
Most of the remaining services received ratings just below "very" important (67 on the 100'point scale)
Services Ihat received the lowest ratings were street cleaning (54) and community/public art (45), but both
were still rated above "somewhat" important.
(please note: Between 26% and 29% of respondents said "don't know" for building permils, building
inspections and business expansion and recruitment programs.)
Importance of Services
Percent of respondents
ii - -- - -
c .. l: - C
., ~~ J: .. ~~
c ~t:
OJ OJ 0 OJ 0 .. 0
III >0. E 0. -0.
For each service, please rate the III .5 o E ~.5
importance of the service. w VI '-
Police response time to emergency calls 71% 26% 2% 0%
General police services 57% 37% 4% 1%
Police response time to non-emergency
calls 39% 50% 10% 1%
Street repair and maintenance 28% 59% 12% 1%
Services and programs for youth 29% 54% 15% 2%
Snow removal 30% 47% 21% 1%
Traffic enforcement 28% 50% 21% 1%
Maintenance of City parks 21% 61% 17% 0%
Municipal court 28% 51% 20% 2%
Building inspections 25% 52% 22% 1%
Maintenance of open space and trails 21% 56% 22% 1%
Services and programs for seniors 22% 56% 20% 2%
Business expansion and recruitment
programs 27% 48% 22% 3%
Recreation facilities 22% 53% 24% 1%
Code enforcement 23% 49% 26% 3%
Recreation programs 18% 53% 27% 2%
Building permits 21% 47% 30% 2%
Street cleaning 12% 41% 45% 2%
Community/public art 8% 30% 50% 12%
REPORT OF RESULTS
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
For all questions asked in both years, most ratings in 2006 were similar to those given in 2004 Building
inspections and business expansion and recruitment programs received higher ratings in 2006.
Police response time to
emergency calls
General police sePJices
Police response time to
non'emergency calls
Street repair and
maintenance
SePJices and programs for
youth
Snow removal
Municipal court
Maintenance of city parks
Traffic enforcement
Building inspections
Business expansion and
recruitment programs
SePJices and programs for
seniors
Maintenance of open space
and trails
Recreation facilities
Code enforcement
Building permits
Recreation programs
Street cleaning
Community/public art
REPORT OF RESULTS
Ratings of Importance of City Services Compared by Year
o
10
20
40
70
80
.2006
.2004
90
100
<>
EO
oj
C
'"
()
.s;:
()
ffi
'"
'"
'"
0::
(ij
c
0
+"
'"
Z
CD
0
0
N
@
15
50
60
30
Average rating (O=not at all important, 100=essential)
Cl'fY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
COMPARISON TO NATIONAL NORMS
Ten of 15 services for which ratings were available were given ratings above the national norm: snow
removal, streel cleaning, streel repair and maintenance, traffic enforcement, municipal court, recreation
facilities and programs, maintenance of open space and trails and services and programs for seniors and
youth. A rating similar to the average for other jurisdictions across the nation was given to maintenance of
City parks. Wheat Ridge received ratings below national norms for building inspections, code enforcement,
community/public art and general police services. (See the charts and tables on the following five pages.)
COMPARISON TO FRONT RANGE NORMS
Thirteen services were available for comparison to other communities in the Front Range. Other services
receiving ratings above the average given in other jurisdictions in the Front Range include: snow removal,
slreet repair and maintenance, traffic enforcement, recreation facilities and programs and services and
programs for seniors. Street cleaning, municipal court, maintenance of City parks, services and programs for
youth and general police services were rated similar to the Front Range average by Wheal Ridge residents.
Two services were raled below the Front Range norms: building inspeclions and code enforcement Wheat
Ridge was ranked number one out of 11 other Front Range communities for recreation facilities.
REPORT OF RESULTS
<>
E
...-
2
c
<D
()
-c
2
'"
<D
'"
<D
0::
<ii
c
.Q
lij
Z
CD
0
0
'"
@
16
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
Quality of Street Services: Wheat Ridge and the Nation
100
90
80
70
oS! 60
-
"E 50
"
~
"
Q. 40
30
20
10
0
Snow removal
, ,",
Street cleaning
June 2006
....
Street repair and maintenance
Quality of Street Services: Wheat Ridge and the Nation
City of
Wheat
Ridge
Rating
58
56
Snow removal
Street cleaning
Street repair and
maintenance
Rank
52
Number of
Jurisdictions for
Comparison
58
62
133
149
City of Wheat
Ridge
Percentile
57%
59%
77%
Comparison of
Wheat Ridge Rating
to Norm
Above the norm
Above the norm
Above the norm
49
213
Quality of Street Services: Wheat Ridge and the Front Range
City of
Wheat
Ridge
Rating
58
56
Snow removal
Street cleaning
Street repair and
maintenance
Rank
52
Number of
Jurisdictions for
Comparison
8
8
20
14
City of Wheat
Ridge
Percentile
65%
50%
89%
Comparison of
Wheat Ridge Rating
to Norm
Above the norm
Similar to the norm
Above the norm
REPORT OF RESUL, TS
3
18
cj
oS
~-
$
c
Q)
0
J:::
e
ill
Q)
'"
Q)
a::
ro
c
Q
ro
z
CD
0
0
N
@
17
14 86% Above the norm
(j
7 71% Similar to the norm E
2
7 14% Below the norm c
<lJ
U
-c
15 20% Below the norm e
'"
<lJ
'"
Q)
n::
rn
c
0
~
Z
<D
0
0
N
@
18
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Quality of Traffic/Code Enforcement, Courts and Inspections: Wheat Ridge
and the Nation
100
90
80 -
70 -
E 60
c
.. 50
I.J
:;;
0.. 40
-
30
20 -
10
0
Traffic enforcement Municipal court Building inspections Code enforcement
Quality of Traffic/Code Enforcement, Courts and Inspections: Wheat Ridge and the Nation
City of Number of
Wheat Ridge Jurisdictions for
Rating Rank Comparison
City of Wheat
Ridge Percentile
Comparison of Wheat
Ridge Rating to Norm
Traffic
enforcement 58 46 148 70% Above the norm
Municipal
court 57 13 54 78% Above the norm
Building
inspections 47 21 25 20% Below the norm
Code
enforcement 40 109 162 33% Below the norm
Quality of Traffic/Code Enforcement, Courts and Inspections: Wheat Ridge and the Front Range
City of Number of
Wheat Ridge Jurisdictions for
Rating Rank Comparison
Traffic
enforcement 58 3
Municipal
court 57 3
Building
inspections 47 7
Code
enforcement 40 13
City of Wheat
Ridge Percentile
Comparison of Wheat
Ridge Rating to Norm
REPORT OF RESULTS
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Quality of Parks, Recreation and Community/Public Art: Wheat Ridge and the
Nation
100 "
90
....
80
70 ..
~ 60
c: 50
CD
l:!
CD
n. 40
30
20
10
0
'.' .
..
Recreation facilities Recreation programs Maintenance of open
space and trails
Maintenance of city Community/public art
parks
Quality of Parks, Recreation and Community/Public Art: Wheat Ridge and the Nation
Number of City of Wheat
Jurisdictions for Ridge
Comparison Percentile
City of Wheat
Ridge Rating
Rank
Comparison of Wheat
Ridge Rating to Norm
Recreation
facilities 75 6 118 96% Above the norm
Recreation
programs 69 27 168 85% Above the norm
Maintenance of
open space and
trails 66 3 7 71% Above the norm
Maintenance of
City parks 65 69 157 57% Similar to the norm
Community/public
art 44 19 22 18% Below the norm
Quality of Parks, Recreation and Community/Public Art: Wheat Ridge and the Front Range
Number of City of Wheat
Jurisdictions Ridge
for Comparison Percentile
City of Wheat
Ridge Rating
Rank
Comparison of Wheat
Ridge Rating to Norm
Recreation
facilities 75 11 100% Above the norm
Recreation
programs 69 3 13 85% Above the norm
Maintenance of
City parks 65 7 13 54% Similar to the norm
REPORT OF RESULTS
(j
E:
..:
Q)
C
Q)
t)
.c::
e
'"
Q)
<f)
Q)
c::
(ij
c
0
~
Z
<0
0
0
N
@
19
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
Quality of Services and Programs for Youth and Seniors: Wheat Ridge and
the Nation
100
90
80 -
70
~ 60 -
" 50
"
"
~
"
ll.. 40
30
20
10
0
Services and programs for seniors
Services and programs for youth
Quality of Services and Programs for Youth and Seniors: Wheat Ridge and the Nation
City of
Wheat
Ridge
Rating
Rank
Number of
Jurisdictions for
Comparison
Comparison of Wheat
Ridge Rating to Norm
City of Wheat
Ridge
Percentile
Services and
programs for
seniors 64 29 125 78% Above the norm
Services and
programs for
youth 52 47 109 58% Above the norm
Quality of Services and Programs for Youth and Seniors: Wheat Ridge and the Front Range
City of
Wheat
Ridge
Rating
Rank
Number of
Jurisdictions for
Comparison
Comparison of Wheat
Ridge Rating to Norm
City of Wheat
Ridge
Percentile
Services and
programs for
seniors 64 3
Services and
programs for
youth 52 4
12
83%
Above the norm
9
67%
Similar to the norm
REPORT OF RESULTS
June 2006
<.i
E
:i
c
<lJ
U
.s::::
l:'
'"
<lJ
'"
<lJ
a::
ro
c
0
~
Z
CD
a
a
N
@
20
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
Quality of Police Services: Wheat Ridge and the Nation
100
90
80
70
~ 60
c 50
"
"
~
"
Q. 40
30
20
10
0
f....
-,
General police services
Quality of Police Services: Wheat Ridge and the Nation
City of Number of
Wheat Ridge Jurisdictions for
Rating Rank Comparison
City of Wheat
Ridge Percentile
Comparison of Wheat
Ridge Rating to Norm
General
police
services
61
167
277
40%
Below the norm
Quality of Police Services: Wheat Ridge and the Front Range
City of Number of
Wheat Ridge Jurisdictions for
Rating Rank Comparison
City of Wheat
Ridge Percentile
Comparison of Wheat
Ridge Rating to Norm
General
police
services
61
8
14
50%
Similar to the norm
REPORT OF RESULTS
June 2006
cj
E
:;j
c:
Q)
0
.<:::
u
(;;
Q)
<Jl
Q)
a::
0;
c
0
~
Z
<D
0
0
N
@
21
~
i
t:
\:v, 1\
~",y'?/ \;~
#
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
BALANCING QUALITY AND IMPORTANCE
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 10 be
delivered with the lowest quality It is these services - more important services delivered with lower qualily-
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 Ihe top half of
both lists (higher quality and higher importance); some were in Ihe lop half of one list but Ihe 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 ot importance were compared to ratings of satisfaction (see the chart on the next page) Services were
classified as "more important" if they were rated 67 points or higher on the 100-poinl scale. Services were
rated as "less important" if they received an average rating of less than 67 Services receiving a quality rating
of 57 points or higher were considered of "higher quality" and those with an average rating lower than 57 as
"lower qualily "
Services which were categorized as higher in importance and higher in quality were: police response time to
emergency calls, general police services, municipal court, snow removal, traffic enforcement and
maintenance of City parks.
Services rated higher in importance and lower in quality were: police response time to non,emergency calls,
"-,streel repair and maintenance. services and programs for youth and building inspections. (Of those services
that were rated of higher importance and lower quality by residenls in Wheat Ridge, building inspections was
rated below the average in comparison to other communities across the nation and the Front Range)
Those services rated lower in importance and higher in quality were: recreation facilities, recrealion
programs, services and programs for seniors and maintenance of open space and trails.
Services that rated lower in importance and lower in quality were: code enforcement, business expansion
and recruilmenl programs, building permits, community/public art and streel cleaning.
REPORT OF RESULTS
(j
E
2
c
Q)
l)
.c
e
'"
Q)
'"
Q)
0::
rn
c
0
~
z
CD
0
0
N
@
22
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
]j
c:
Q)
'"
'"
Q)
"
<>
<>
<:'
'"
t
o
"-
~
OJ
1ii
<5
c:
"
e
0>
.5
~
Q)
0>
'"
Q;
.l:
90
80
~,,~
. ~\'
,.^.k
, v
70
( :':Ii':I~>'
'''XP,ll1.'-)lfll);l 'Ci ill!! ~
Balancing Quality and Importance
.
Police response litre to
C,rrPrq0nr.y C8liS
General police services .
June 2006
Street repair/rraintenance
Services/programs for: Snow rerroval
youth . . . .
tv'1unlclp<J1 court 0 . . ~Intenance of c!tY parks
· ~ 'f' f . ~lntpnClnC8 of oop.n
Building Illspectlons Ira! 1(' en Ulcelrem & . ' .
'''lei v Ices/prGql allts fc,! space/trails -
Recreation
facilities
60
prnqllrT1'- .
Code enforcerrent
Ins
50
40
30
.
RuilrJlnq pernjt:)
St"lIl'.lrs
.
Recreation
programs
.
Street cleaning
Cornrrunlty/public art
.
40
.", i,j
50 60
Average rating (O~poor, 100~excellent)
70
80
oj
-=
!f
c
Q)
0
.s:::
~
'"
Q)
<Jl
Q)
a::
(ij
c
0
~
Z
CD
0
0
N
@
23
REPORT OF RESULTS
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
COMMUNITY ISSUES
TRANSPORTATION
When asked to rate issues of transportation with Ihe City of Wheat Ridge, residents reported most positively
the conditions of City streets (68% said "good" or "excellent") About 6 in 10 respondents said ease of car
travel, bus travel and walking in the city were "good" or "excellent." Mass transit planning was reported as
"poor" or "fair" by just over half of respondents (52%) After conversion to the 1 OO'point scale, Wheal Ridge
residenls reported similar ratings in 2006 as in 2004
!Please note: A large portion of respondents reported "don't know" for ease 01 bus travel in the city (39%) and
mass iransit planning (37%) For results including "don't know" responses, please see Appendix IV Complete
Set of Frequencies.)
Aspects of Transportation
Please rate the following aspects of Percent of respondents Average rating
transportation within the City of (O=poor,
Wheat Ridge: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total 100=excellent)
Condition of City streets 7% 61% 28% 4% 100% 57
Ease of car travel in the city 10% 55% 28% 7% 100% 56
Ease of bus travel in the city 10% 52% 31% 8% 100% 54
Ease of walking in the city 11% 47% 28% 14% 100% 51
Mass transit planning 6% 41% 35% 17% 100% 45
Ratings of Aspects of Transportation Compared by Year
Condition of City streets
58
Ease of car travel in the city
Ease of bus travel in the
city
Mass transit planning
o
10
30
40
60
90
100
70
80
50
20
Average rating (O=poor, 100=excellent)
REPORT OF RESULTS
0
E
L
2
c
Q)
0
.<:
u
ro
Q)
<Jl
&
(ij
c
9
ro
z
<0
C>
C>
'"
@
24
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Ratings from other communities across the nation were compared to ratings given by residents of Wheat
Ridge. Residents rated conditions of City streets and ease of car and bus travel in the city as above the
normative ratings. Ease of walking in Ihe city was given a rating similar to the national average. Ralings were
similar in comparison to other Front Range communities.
Ratings of Aspects of Transportation: Wheat Ridge and the Nation
100
90
80
70
~ 60
l: 50
..
u
Iii
Q. 40
30
20
10
0
lIIIII!I
:>{>.'
..
-
,..,.
;':'~
"f
Condition of City streets Ease of car travel in the city Ease of bus travel in the Ease of walking in the city
city
Ratings of Aspects of Transportation: Wheat Ridge and the Nation
City of
Wheat
Ridge
Rating
57
56
54
51
Condition of City streets
Ease of car travel in the city
Ease of bus travel in the city
Ease of walking in the city
Number of
Jurisdictions
for Comparison
75
99
52
85
City of Wheat
Ridge
Percentile
83%
67%
88%
45%
Rank
14
34
7
48
Comparison of
Wheat Ridge
Rating to Norm
Above the norm
Above the norm
Above the norm
Similar to the norm
Ratings of Aspects of Transportation: Wheat Ridge and the Front Range
City of
Wheat
Ridge
Rating
57
56
54
51
Condition of City streets
Ease of car travel in the city
Ease of bus travel in the city
Ease of walking in the city
Rank
Number of
Jurisdictions
for Comparison
5
8
7
5
City of Wheat
Ridge
Percentile
80%
88%
71%
20%
Comparison of
Wheat Ridge
Rating to Norm
Above the norm
Above the norm
Above the norm
Below the norm
REPORT OF RESULTS
2
2
3
5
u
E
~-
C
<ll
0
.<:::
~
III
Q)
<Jl
<ll
0::
OJ
c
.Q
rn
z
CD
0
0
N
@
25
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
Survey respondents were also asked to rate how much of a problem, if at all, several community
characteristics were for the City of Wheat Ridge. About three,quarters of respondents felt that availability of
parks, bike paths and recreation programs were "not" a problem (67%, 65% and 65%, respectively)
( Characteristics considered to be a "moderate" or "major" problem by 50% or more of residents were: run
down buildings (51 %), traffic congestion (53%), juvenile problems (57%), crime (62%), vandalism (62%),
graffiti (62%) and drugs (65%)
(Please note: Drugs and juvenile problems received a large number of "don't know" responses: 41 % and
34% of respondents, respectively.)
Potential Problems in Wheat Ridge
To what degree, if at all, Percent of respondents
are the following Average rating
problems in Wheat Nota Minor Moderate Major (O=major problem,
Ridge: problem problem problem problem Total 100=not a problem)
Availability of parks 67% 22% 9% 2% 100% 85
Availability of bike paths 65% 21% 10% 4% 100% 82
Availability of recreation
programs 65% 20% 11% 3% 100% 82
Availability of sidewalks 41% 29% 20% 10% 100% 67
Too much growth 40% 28% 21% 11% 100% 66
Lack of growth 39% 23% 24% 13% 100% 63
Taxes 31% 29% 26% 13% 100% 59
Maintenance and
condition of homes 20% 44% 27% 9% 100% 58
Availability of affordable
housing 25% 28% 29% 17% 100% 54
Traffic congestion 15% 32% 37% 16% 100% 49
Condition of properties 13% 40% 29% 18% 100% 49
Run down buildings 13% 37% 34% 17% 100% 48
Juvenile problems 9% 34% 40% 17% 100% 45
Crime 6% 32% 49% 13% 100% 44
Vandalism 6% 33% 41% 21% 100% 41
Graffiti 10% 29% 37% 25% 100% 41
Drugs 9% 26% 39% 26% 100% 40
REPORT OF RESULTS
U
E
~
c
Q)
()
.J::
e
ro
Q)
<Jl
Q)
0::
ro
c
0
~
z
CD
0
0
N
@
26
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
When ratings of potential problems were compared by year, lack of growth, maintenance and condition of
homes, condition of properties, run down buildings, juvenile problems, crime, graffiti, vandalism and drugs
were rated as more of a problem in 2006 than in 2004 The category perceived to be less of a problem in
2006 than in 2004 was availability of affordable housing. The remaining items were rated similarly in both
years.
A vailability of parks
Availability of recreation
prograrrs
Availability of bike paths
Availabit~y of sidewalks
Too rruch grow th
Lack of grow th
Maintenance and cond~ion
of horres
Availability of affordable
hous ing
Cond~ion of properties
Traffic congestion
Run dow n buildings
Juvenile problerrs
Vandalism
REPORT OF RESULTS
Ratings of Potential Problems Compared by Year
Taxes
. 2006
. 2004
cJ
E
L
2
c
Q)
U
.<::
e
'"
Q)
<Jl
Q)
0::
Cii
c
0
~
Z
<0
0
0
N
@
27
Crirre
GrafUi
Drugs
o
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Average rating (O=major problem, 100=not a problem)
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
i
t::..:t
~ '~
/-, ~v I
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Respondents were given a list of 12 activities in Wheat Ridge and asked how many times, if any, they had
participated in the past 12 months. More than three,quarters of respondents had dined at a Wheat Ridge
restaurant (90%), used a City park or trail (84%) and used a City bike or pedestrian path (75%) at least once.
Sixty-three percent of residents said they had used the recrealion center at least "once." More than 4 in 10
used the library (49%), participated in a recreation program or activity (44%) and watched a meeting of local
"'- elected officials on cable television (41 %) at least once. One-third of residents (36%) rode an RTD bus at least
once in the previous 12 months and less than 3 in 10 residents reported visiting the community senior center
(29%), attending a meeting of local elected officials or other public meeting (21 %J, participating in a senior
program (17%) and using the A,line service to DIA (8%)
Resident Participation in Wheat Ridge Activities
In the last 12 months, about how many times,
if ever, have you or other household More
members participated in the following 1 to 2 3 to 12 13 to 26 Than 26
activities in Wheat Ridge? Never Times Times Times Times Total
Dined at a Wheat Ridge restaurant 10% 13% 38% 23% 15% 100%
Used a City park or trail 16% 15% 25% 21% 24% 100%
Used a City bike or pedestrian path 25% 13% 23% 17% 22% 100%
Used Wheat Ridge recreation centers 37% 17% 21% 11% 15% 100%
Used the Wheat Ridge library 51% 20% 15% 7% 6% 100%
Participated in a recreation program or activity 56% 19% 13% 6% 6% 100%
Watched a meeting of local elected officials on
cable television 59% 18% 16% 4% 3% 100%
Rode an RTD bus 64% 12% 11% 3% 10% 100%
Visited the Community Senior Center 71% 17% 7% 3% 2% 100%
Attended a meeting of local elected officials or
other public meeting 79% 14% 5% 2% 0% 100%
Participated in a senior program 83% 8% 5% 2% 2% 100%
Used A-line service to DIA 92% 5% 3% 0% 0% 100%
REPORT OF RESULTS
ti
.EO
~-
.ill
c
Q)
U
.c
e
'"
Q)
<Jl
Q)
t:<:
OJ
c:
0
~
Z
<0
0
0
N
@
28
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE: CITIZEN SURVEY
~~~
K'">,(}\'I")
l~ '1\J
June 2006
By year comparisons showed similar results between 2004 and 2006 A higher proportion of residents in
2006 had used a City bike or pedestrian path than in 2004. Fewer respondents reported riding an RTD bus in
2006.
Resident Participation in Wheat Ridge Activities Compared by Year
Dined at a Wheat Ridge restaurant
Used a city park or trail
Used a city bike or 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
public meeting
Participated in a senior program
Used A-line service to DIA
REPORT OF Re:SULTS
90%
90%
0%
25%
50%
75%
Percent of respondents reporting at least once
100%
<i
E
.:
III
C
III
()
.<:
"
~
'"
Q)
'"
Q)
0::
ro
c
0
~
z
(()
0
0
N
@
29
CITY OF WHEAT' RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
COMMUNITY SAFETY
Wheat Ridge residents were asked to rale how safe they feel in various public areas in Wheat Ridge. Most
respondents said they felt at least "somewhat" safe in each area listed. Two,thirds of respondents (66%)
reported that Ihey felt "very sate" in recreation centers. More than 8 in 10 of respondents said that they felt
"somewhat" or "very" safe in retail/commercial areas and in parks and playgrounds (83% and 86%,
respectively) Three,quarters of respondenls (77%) said Ihey felt at least "somewhal" sate in their
neighborhood and 67% said they felt "somewhat" or "very" safe on the trail system.
Safety in Public Areas
Percent of respondents Average
Please rate how safe rating (O=very
you feel in the Neither unsafe,
following areas in Very Somewhat safe nor Somewhat Very 100=very
Wheat Ridge: safe safe unsafe unsafe unsafe Total safe)
Recreation centers 66% 26% 6% 1% 1% 100% 89
Retaillcommercial areas 37% 46% 10% 6% 1% 100% 78
Parks and playgrounds 35% 51% 7% 6% 1% 100% 78
Your neighborhood 34% 43% 9% 9% 4% 100% 74
On the trail system 23% 44% 15% 14% 3% 100% 68
Comparisons to previous survey years were available for all areas except retaillcommercial areas. Each area
received the same rating on the 100'point scale in 2006 as in 2004 except safety in "your neighborhood"
which received a lower rating in 2006 (74 vs. 79, respeclively)
Ratings of Safety in Public Areas Compared by Year
Recreation centers
89
89
Retaillcommercial areas
Parks and playgrounds
Your neighborhood
On the trail system
o
10
20
30
60
90
100
50
70
80
40
Average rating (O=very unsafe, 100=very safe)
REPORT OF RESULTS
U
E
L
2
c
OJ
0
.c
e
'"
Q)
<n
OJ
~
0;
c
0
~
z
CD
0
0
'"
@
30
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
Ratings given for safety in "parks and playgrounds" and "your neighborhood" were higher than ratings in
jurisdictions across the nation. No Front Range comparisons were available.
Ratings of Safety in Public Areas: Wheat Ridge and the Nation
100
90 i~'
80
70
~ 60
E 50 '(;,1:"<'
..
U
Q;
Q. 40
30
20
10
0
-
Parks and playgrounds
Your neighborhood
Ratings of Safety in Public Areas: Wheat Ridge and the Nation
City of Number of City of Wheat
Wheat Ridge Jurisdictions for Ridge
Rating Rank Comparison Percentile
Comparison of Wheat
Ridge Rating to Norm
Parks and
playgrounds
Your
neighborhood
78
2
17
94%
Above the norm
74
16
47
68%
Above the norm
REPORT OF RESULTS
June 2006
oj
E
~'
.$
c
Q)
0
.c
f:!
'"
Q)
<Jl
Q)
a:
(ij
c
0
~
Z
<D
0
0
N
@
31
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
PUBLIC TRUST
Respondenls to the survey were asked to rate the overall performance of the Wheat Ridge City government.
About 1 in 10 residents (7%) felt the overall performance of the City government was "excellent." More than
half of respondents (55%) said il was "good" and one,third of respondents said the overall performance was
"fair" and 7% said it was "poor"
Overall Performance of the Wheat Ridge City
Government
Good
55%
Fair
31%
When thesf' responses were converted to the 100,point scale 10 allow for comparison to the previous survey
year, similar ratings were reported by Wheat Ridge residenls.
Rating of Overall Performance of the Wheat Ridge City
Government Compared by Year
How wouid you rate the
overall performance of the
Wheal Ridge City
government?
54
o
10
80
90
100
30
50
60
70
20
40
Average raling (O=poor, 100=excellent)
REPORT OF RESULTS
U
E
Qi
c
Q)
()
J::
"
ro
Q)
V)
Q)
r:r:
ro
c
0
~
Z
CD
0
0
N
@
32
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
Ratings above Ihe average were given by Wheat Ridge residents in comparison to residents from other
jurisdictions across the country for overall performance of City government. When compared to other
jurisdictions throughout the Front Range, Wheat Ridge City government was rated similarly
Rating of Overall City Government Performance: Wheat Ridge and the
Nation
100
90
80
....'
70
60 ~,
~
E
Ql 50
~
Ql
11. 40
30
20
10
0
Overall performance of City government
Rating of Overall City Government Performance: Wheat Ridge and the Nation
City of
Wheat
Ridge
Rating
Rank
Number of
Jurisdictions for
Comparison
Comparison of
Wheat Ridge Rating
to Norm
City of Wheat
Ridge
Percentile
Overall
performance of City
governmenl
54
17
61
74%
Above the norm
Rating of Overall City Government Performance: Wheat Ridge and the Front Range
City of
Wheat
Ridge
Rating
Rank
Number of
Jurisdictions for
Comparison
Comparison of
Wheat Ridge Rating
to Norm
City of Wheat
Ridge
Percentile
Overall
performance of City
government
54
5
7
43%
Similar to the norm
REPORT OF RESULTS
June 2006
<.i
E
2
c
"
(J
.c
u
ro
"
</)
"
oc
ro
c
0
~
Z
<D
0
0
N
@
33
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Wheat Ridge residents were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with six statements about the City
of Wheat Ridge government. About two,thirds of respondents said Ihey "somewhat" or "strongly" agreed with
the following slatements: "City of Wheat Ridge employees perform quality work" (70%), "Wheat Ridge City
government welcomes citiLen involvement" (64%) and "I believe my elected officials generally act in the best
interest of the community at large" (69%) About 6 in 10 residents at least "somewhat" agreed that Ihey were
pleased with the overall direction the City was taking (60%) and that they received good value and setVices
for the amount of Cily taxes they pay (59%) Forty,six percent of respondents at least "somewhat" agreed that
they were well informed on major issues within the city
Public Trust
Percent of respondents
1ii .... .. - Average rating
Please rate the following >. .... '" .. ,.... (O=strongly
-.. .<: .. .. 0.. .<: .. - .. ii
statements by circling the el.. ;: .. .<: c .... ;: .... elL. disagree,
c L. .. L. - ..01 ..01 cOl -
number which best represents Oel E el .; .. '" E :Jl 0'" 0 1 OO=strongly
~ '" '" L. '" ~.!! t-
o Z 01'- 0'-
your opinion. 00 00 ",'" 00'" 00'" agree)
City of Wheat Ridge employees
perform quality work 18% 52% 22% 6% 1% 100% 70
Wheat Ridge City government
welcomes citizen involvement 24% 40% 27% 6% 3% 100% 69
I believe my elected officials
generally act in the best interest
of the community at large 18% 51% 18% 9% 3% 100% 68
I am pleased with the overall
direction the City is taking 18% 42% 25% 11% 4% 100% 65
I receive good value and services
for the amount of City sales and
property taxes that I pay 16% 43% 25% 11% 6% 100% 63
I am well informed on major
issues within the City of Wheat
Ridge 11% 35% 26% 16% 12% 100% 54
REPORT OF RESUL. TS
<5
E
]i
c
Q)
0
.r:
u
ro
ill
<Jl
ill
0::
m
c
0
~
z
CD
0
0
'"
@
34
1-~ \Jr
) \\
" v
\] i'\'f'
<!\,~ Jf
u
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Similar ratings were given in 2006 to mosl statements regarding the Wheat Ridge City government when
compared to 2004 Higher ratings were reported in 2006 for "Wheat Ridge City government welcomes
citizen involvement," "I believe my elected officials generally act in the best interest of the community at
large" and "I am pleased with the overall direction the City is taking."
Ratings of Public Trust Compared by Year
City of Wheat Ridge employees perform quality work
70
70
Wheat Ridge City government welcomes citizen
involvement
69
I believe my elected officials generally act in the best
interest of the community at large
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
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Average rating (O=strongly disagree, 100=strongly agree)
Comparisons to the national database were available for five of the six public trust statements above. All were
rated above the norm given in other jurisdictions across the nation except for residents feeling informed on
major issues within the city, which was given a rating below the national average. Wheat Ridge was ranked
second out of 27 other jurisdictions across the nation for the elected officials acting in the best interest of the
community
Front Range norms were available for three of the six statements. Those rated above the norm were "City
government welcomes citizen involvement" and "overall direction the City is taking." "Good value and
services for taxes" received a raling similar to the average provided by other communities in the Front Range.
REPORT OF RESULTS
0
E.
al
c
'"
()
.c
<>
~
'"
<f)
Q)
0::
ro
c
0
+'
'"
Z
'"
a
a
'"
@
35
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Ratings of Public Trust: Wheat Ridge and the Nation
100
90
80
70
.!! 60
.,
l:
" 50
l!
" 40
a.
30
20
10
0
....
-
...
City government
welcomes citizen
involvement
Elected officials act in
best interest of
community
Good value and
services for taxes
Informed on major
issues within the City
Ratings of Public Trust: Wheat Ridge and the Nation
City of Number of City of
Wheat Jurisdictions Wheat
Ridge for Ridge
Rating Rank Comparison Percentile
City government welcomes
citizen involvement 69 10 112 92%
I Elected officials act in best
interest of community 68 2 27 96%
Overall direction the City is
taking 65 30 124 77%
Good value and services for
~ taxes 63 25 128 81%
"
"
~!;j Informed on major issues within
~ ____ the city 54 10 11 18%
...
-
Overall direction the
City is taking
Comparison of
Wheat Ridge
Rating to Norm
Above the norm
Above the norm
Above the norm
Above the norm
Below the norm
Ratings of Public Trust: Wheat Ridge and the Front Range
City of Number of City of
Wheat Jurisdictions Wheat
Ridge for Ridge
Rating Rank Comparison Percentile
Comparison of
Wheat Ridge
Rating to Norm
City government welcomes
citizen involvement 69 2 10
Overall direction the City is
taking 65 3 12
Good value and services for
taxes 63 3 9
90%
Above the norm
83%
Above the norm
78%
Similar to the norm
REPORT OF RESUL. TS
cj
E
~
2
c
'"
U
.c
u
(ij
'"
<n
Q)
0::
(ii
c
Q
'"
z
CD
0
0
('oJ
@
36
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
CONTACT WITH CITY EMPLOYEES
The same percentage of Wheat Ridge residents reported that they had contact with a City employee in the
previous year in both 2004 and 2006 (43%)
Contact with City Employee in Last 12 Months Compared by Year
In the last 12 months.
have you had any in-
person or phone
contact with an
employee of the City of
Wheat Ridge?
43%
43%
.2006
.2004
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of respondents who had contact
Of those respondents who said they had contact with a Wheat Ridge City employee in the past 12 monlhs,
more Ihan three-quarters reported the employees' courteousness (82%), knowledge (77%) and responsiveness
(76%) 10 be at least "good." Aboul 7 out of 10 residents said that their contact with a City employee made
them feel valued (69%) Seventy,six percent of respondents rated their overall impression of the employee
with which they had contact as "good" or "excellent."
City Employee Characteristics
Percent of respondents
What was your impression of the
employee of the City of Wheat Ridge in
your most recent contact?
Courtesy
Knowledge
Responsiveness
Making you feel valued
Overall impression
Good
43%
47%
42%
39%
44%
Fair
11%
16%
13%
15%
13%
Poor
7%
6%
11%
16%
12%
Excellent
39%
30%
34%
30%
32%
REPORT OF RESULTS
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Average rating
(O=poor,
100=excellent)
71
67
66
61
65
U
EO
~-
$
c
Q)
0
.<:
e
ro
Q)
III
Q)
0::
;;;
c
0
+'
'"
Z
<D
0
0
'"
@
37
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Results were converted to the 100'point scale for comparison to previous survey years and to other
jurisdictions in the nation and Front Range where 0 ~ poor and 100 ~ excellent. (Comparisons to the nation
and Front Range are illustrated on the following pages.) Wheat Ridge residents gave similar ratings for
employee characteristics in both survey years.
Courtesy
Knowledge
Responsiveness
Making you feel valued
Overall impression
REPORT OF RESULTS
Ratings of City Employee Characteristics Compared by Year
72
u
E
2
c
Q)
U
..c::
l'
rn
Q)
<n
Q)
n::
ro
c
0
~
z
CD
0
0
N
@
38
o
10
30
50
80
90
100
60
70
20
40
Average rating (O=poor, 100=excellent)
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Comparisons to the national normative dalabase were available for four of the five employee characteristics.
Wheat Ridge City employees' courteousness was rated above the national average. "Knowledge,"
"responsiveness" and "overall impression" were given ratings similar to ratings reported in other jurisdictions
across the nation. Ratings of "courtesy," "knowledge," "responsiveness" and "overall impression" were all
below the average in comparison to other communities in the Front Range.
Ratings of City Employee Characteristics: Wheat Ridge and the Nation
100
90
80
70
.!! 60 ........J:'.
~
.. 50
~
..
Q. 40
30
20
10
0
Courtesy
...
i".." ,~"""
Knowledge
Responsiveness
Overall impression
Ratings of City Employee Characteristics: Wheat Ridge and the Nation
City of
Wheat
Ridge
Rating
70
65
65
Courtesy
Knowledge
Responsiveness
Overall
impression
Rank
Number of
Jurisdictions for
Comparison
56
134
140
City of Wheat
Ridge
Percentile
57%
43%
53%
Comparison of Wheat
Ridge Rating to Norm
Above the norm
Similar to the norm
Similar to the norm
25
78
67
64
78
156
51%
Similar to the norm
Ratings of City Employee Characteristics: Wheat Ridge and the Front Range
City of
Wheat
Ridge
Rating
70
65
65
Courtesy
Knowledge
Responsiveness
Overall
impression
REPORT OF RESULTS
Rank
Number of
Jurisdictions for
Comparison
7
15
13
City of Wheat
Ridge
Percentile
29%
20%
31%
Comparison of Wheat
Ridge Rating to Norm
Below the norm
Below the norm
Below the norm
<i
E
~-
.l!l
c
Q)
0
.c
~
rn
C])
"'
C])
oc
(ij
c
0
~
Z
<D
0
0
N
@
39
6
13
10
64
11
15
33%
Below the norm
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
A list of five statements about the economic development in the City of Wheat Ridge was provided to
respondents and they were asked to rate the extent to wh ich they agreed or disagreed with each statement.
About half of residents (51 %) "strongly" agreed with revitalizing business corridors such as 38th Avenue, 44'h
Avenue, Wadsworth Boulevard and Kipling Avenue. About 8 in 10 respondents at least "somewhat" agreed
with the remaining four statements: revitalizing the city's business areas (83%), revitalizing the city's housing
areas (79%), attracting and recruiting new types of retail (78%) and strengthening community image and
identity (78%)
Residents reported higher agreement in 2006 than in 2004 for most of Ihe slatements regarding economic
development in the City of Wheat Ridge. Promoting efforts to revitalizing the city's housing areas was similar
in both survey years.
Economic Development
Please rate the following statements by circling the
number which best represents your opinion. The City
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 revitalize the city's housing areas
Promote efforts to attract and recruit new types of retail
business to Wheat Ridge
Strengthen Wheat Ridge's community image and identity
'"
0.$
c ...
Ocl
~ lG
en
-
lG
~ $
.. ...
e cl
o lG
en
-
lG ..
..c:..
it ...
"W
elll
~:o
r- :s Q)
~ c: e
.....GJg'
'4) e '"
z W:o
32%
37%
36%
9%
12%
17%
51%
46%
43%
45%
43%
33%
35%
13%
16%
6%
5%
3%
1%
100%
100%
Economic Development Compared by Year
Promote efforts to revitalize business corridors such as
38th Avenue, 44th Avenue, Wadsworth Boulevard and
Kipling Avenue
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 business areas
Promote efforts to tevitalize the city's housing areas
0%
40%
80%
Percent of respondents reporting "strongly" or "somewhat" agree
100%
60%
20%
REPORT OF RESULTS
"'..
-..
cl...
l: cl
o lG
... III
- .-
en-o
(ij
-
o
I-
<.5
E
~
.2l
c
Ql
<-)
..c
"
in
Ql
<Jl
&
'"
c
0
+>
'"
Z
<D
0
0
N
@
40
5%
3%
3%
3%
2%
1%
100%
100%
100%
83%
83%
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
CITY REVITALIZATION
Residents of Wheat Ridge were asked about their familiarity with two City revitalization plans. They were
then asked to what extent they would support or oppose those plans. More than 6 in 10 survey respondents
were "very" unfamiliar with both Neighborhood Revitalization Strategies (NRS) and Wheat Ridge 2020
(WR2020). About one,quarter of respondents said they were at least "somewhat" familiar with each
revitalization plan; 24% "somewhat" or "very" familiar with NRS and 22% at least "somewhat" familiar with
WR2020.
Strong support was shown for NRS by 40% of respondenls and 36% of respondents said they would
"strongly" support WR2020 Five percent or less of respondents said they would "somewhat" or "strongly"
oppose both NRS and WR2020
(Please note: More than 4 in 10 answered "don't know" when asked if they supported or opposed NRS (40%)
and WR2020 (43%).)
Familiarity with City Revitalization Plans
Please indicate how familiar or
unfamiliar you are with the NRS and
WR2020.
Neighborhood Revitalization Strategies
(NRS)
Wheat Ridge 2020 (WR2020)
Very
unfamiliar
Very
familiar
Somewhat
familiar
Somewhat
unfamiliar
Total
15%
16%
60%
62%
100%
100%
4%
4%
20%
18%
Support or Opposition to City Revitalization Plans
Please indicate the extent
to which you support or Neither
oppose each of the Strongly Somewhat support nor Somewhat Strongly
following. support support oppose oppose oppose Total
Neighborhood Revitalization
Strategies (NRS) 40% 32% 23% 2% 2% 100%
Wheat Ridge 2020 (WR2020) 36% 33% 26% 2% 3% 100%
~o~
r{).,uut f7&~t I <CdA.u:a.. 11 <--j..~
/
<"7 J
Z'd-u. CL, t\ , ... '---____.
REPORT OF RESULTS
t5
E
$
c
<1l
()
-'"
e
III
<1l
<f)
<1l
0::
0;
<=
0
~
z
<J)
0
0
'"
@
41
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
SHOPPING IN WHEAT RIDGE
Residents were asked how frequently they do a variety of shopping in Wheat Ridge and why they shop
outside of the city More than 9 in 10 residents said they "somewhat" or "very" frequently do their grocery
shopping in Wheat Ridge. About one,third of residents said they made purchases of "household items" (34%)
and "health services" (32%) "very" frequently in the city "Meals and entertainment" purchases were made at
least "somewhat" frequently by 68% of respondents. Seventeen percent of residents said they "very"
frequently made general retail purchases. Forty-five percent of respondents said Ihey "never" made "computer
and electronics" purchases in Wheat Ridge.
Frequency of Resident Shopping in Wheat Ridge
For each type of shopping,
please estimate how
frequently you make Very Somewhat Somewhat Very
purchases in Wheat Ridge: Never infrequently infrequently frequently frequently Total
Grocery shopping 1% 5% 3% 15% 76% 100%
Meals and entertainment 2% 11% 18% 40% 28% 100%
Household items 5% 14% 16% 31% 34% 100%
General retail 14% 23% 21% 26% 17% 100%
Health services 16% 16% 13% 23% 32% 100%
Computers and electronics 45% 29% 14% 8% 4% 100%
Similar frequencies were reported for most categories of shopping In 2004 and 2006 Frequency of
purchasing "health services" was lower in 2006.
Frequency of Resident Shopping in Wheat Ridge Compared by Year
Grocery shopping
Meals and entertainment
Household items
General retail
Health services
Computers and electronics
0%
20%
60%
100%
40%
80%
Percent of respondents reporting at least once
REPORT OF RESULTS
U
E
~
."J
c
Q)
tJ
.r:;
<.J
'"
Q)
<J)
Q)
n::
n;
c
.Q
'"
Z
<D
0
0
'"
@
42
CITY OF WHEAl' RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
When respondents were asked why they shop outside of Wheat Ridge, two-thirds (66%) reported it was
because the desired item was not available. About 4 in 10 residents said they shop outside of Wheat Ridge
because they liked the range of quality goods and services (40%) and convenience (39%). Twenty percent of
survey respondents reported affordability, 3% said lack of malls and other major retailers and 5% reported
"other" reasons for shopping outside of the city Only 1 % of respondenls said they don't shop outside of
Wheal Ridge.
When comparing 2006 results to 2004, affordability received a higher percentage of responses in 2006.
"Desired item is not available in Wheat Ridge" was lower in 2006.
Reasons for Shopping Outside of Wheat Ridge Compared by Year
Desired item is not available
in Wheat Ridge
I like the tange of quality
goods and services
It is convenient
It is more affordable
Go to mall and other major
retailers
Don't shop outside of Wheat
Ridge
Other
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
* Tora/s may exceed 100% as rpspondents were able to choose more than one answer
Percent of respondents'
REPORT OF RESULTS
0
E.
~.
2
c
Q)
0
.<:
"
l;;
Q)
Vl
Q)
0::
(ij
c:
0
~
Z
<D
0
0
'"
@
43
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
POLICY QUESTIONS
Respondents to the survey were asked for the second year to rate their support for or OppOSitiOn to an
exemption from the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) Forty,six percent of respondents reported they at least
"somewhat" support allowing the Cily to retain any excess revenues to be used for general operating
expenses. AboUI 4 in 10 residenls were opposed to a TABOR exemption.
Support or Opposition to Exemption
from the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights
Somewhat
oppose
16%
Strongly
Oppose
23%
Neither
support nor
oppose
15%
The support for an exemption from TABOR decreased from 2004 to 2006 (50% supporting in 2004 vs. 46%
supporting in 2006)
Support for or Opposition to Exemption from the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights
Compared by Year
Support
50%
Neither
Oppose
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percent of respondents
REPORT OF RESULTS
ti
E
$"
<::
Q)
0
J:::
e
'"
Q)
<Jl
Q)
a::
tii
<::
0
~
Z
<D
0
0
N
@
44
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
INFORMATION SOURCES AND INTERNET USE
To assess how residents of Wheat Ridge get their information, respondents were asked what sources they rely
upon to gel information about the City, whelher or not they have a personal computer and Internel access at
home and if they had used the City's Web site in Ihe previous year
About three,quarters of respondents to the survey said they get their information via "word of mouth,"
"television news" and the "Denver Post or Rocky Mountain News" (76%, 71 % and 71 %, respectively) Sixty-
eight percent of residents said they get their information from the "City 'Connection' Newsletter" More than
4 in 10 reported they get information from the "Wheat Ridge Transcript" (49%), "radio news" (48%) and
"cable TV Channel 8" (45%) About one-quarter of residents used the City's Web site (27%) at least once 10
get information.
Information Sources
In the last 12 months, about how many
times, if ever, have you or other household 13 to More
members used the following sources of 1 to 2 3 to 12 26 tha n 26
information for news about Wheat Ridge? Never times times times times Total
Word of mouth 24% 23% 28% 15% 10% 100%
Television news 29% 21% 19% 12% 19% 100%
Denver Post or Rocky Mountain News 29% 20% 17% 10% 23% 100%
City 'Connection' Newsletter 32% 25% 35% 5% 3% 100%
Wheat Ridge Transcript 51% 19% 18% 6% 5% 100%
Radio news 52% 19% 12% 6% 10% 100%
Cable TV Channel 8 55% 17% 16% 7% 5% 100%
City's Web site 73% 13% 12% 2% 1% 100%
When compared to previous survey years, "word of mouth" was reportedly used by the same percentage of
respondents in 2006 as in 2004 Residents reported using "television news," the "Denver Post or Rocky
Mountain News, "radio news" and "cable TV Channel 8" less frequently in 2006. "City 'Connection'
Newsletter" and the "City's Web site" were used by a higher percentage of respondents in 2006. (See the
chart on following page.)
REPORT OF RESULTS
U
E
2
c
Q)
0
.s:::
u
(ij
Q)
Vl
Q)
0::
lii
c
0
~
Z
<D
0
0
'"
@
45
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
Information Sources Compared by Year
Word of mouth
76%
76%
Television news
Denver Post or Rocky
Mountain News
City 'Connection' Newsletter
Wheat Ridge Transcript
Radio news
Cable TV Channel 8
City's Web site
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of respondents reporting at least once
June 2006
About the same percenlage of respondents said they had a personal computer in their home with Internet
access, had a computer at home without Internet access and had no computer at home in 2006 as in 2004
Personal Computer in Home Compared by Year
Computer at home with
Internet access
61%
61%
Computer at home without
Internet access
No computer at home
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of respondents who said "yes"
REPORT OF RESULTS
0
E
Qj
c:
<D
()
-c
u
ro
Q)
<Jl
<D
oc
ro
c
0
""
'"
z
<!)
0
0
'"
@
46
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Residents of Wheat Ridge were asked if they had used the City's Web site in Ihe previous 12 monlhs. Twenty-
six percent of respondents reported having used the City's Web site in the past year This was an increase
from 2004 (22% of respondenls).
Use of City Web Site in the Last 12 Months Compared by Year
26%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Percent of respondents who said "yes"
100%
Respondents who reported having used the City's Web site in the last 12 months (26% of respondents) were
asked to rate certain qualities of the site. "Content" was reported as "good" or "excellent" by 66% of
residents. More than 6 in 10 said Ihat the "graphics" and the "look and feel" of the Web site were at least
"good" (64% and 61%, respectively) Ten percent of respondents said "ease of use" of the City's Web was
"excellent." In comparison to 2004, similar ratings were provided for all Web site characteristics in 2006.
Please rate the following aspects
of the City of Wheat Ridge Web
site.
City of Wheat Ridge Web Site
Percent of respondents
Good
53%
55%
52%
47%
Poor
5%
9%
9%
13%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
Fair
29%
27%
30%
30%
Content
Graphics
Look and feel
Ease of use
Excellent
13%
9%
9%
10%
City of Wheat Ridge Web Site Ratings Compared by Year
Content
Graphics
Look and feel
Ease of use
o
10
20
50
60
70
30
40
Average rating (O=poor, 100=excellent)
REPORT OF RESULTS
Average rating
(O=poor,100=excellent)
58
55
53
51
80
90
100
0
.s
..c
2
c
Q)
0
L:
()
~
Q)
'"
Q)
a:
lii
c:
0
~
Z
<0
0
0
'"
@
47
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
In addilion to asking residents if they had Internet access at home and if they had used Ihe City's Web site in
the past 12 months, they were also asked how likely they would be 10 conduct business with the City over
the Internet. Six in 10 respondenls said they would he at least "somewhat" likely to conduct business with the
City over the Internet; 30% said they would be "somewhal" or "very" unlikely The likelihood of conducting
business with the City over the Internel was similar to 2004
Likelihood of Conducting Business
with the City Over the Internet
Somewhat
unlikely
6%
Neither
likely nor
unlikely
10%
Very likely
32%
Likelihood of Conducting Business with City Over the Internet
Compared by Year
60%
0%
20%
40%
70%
100%
80%
90%
50%
60%
10%
30%
Percent of respondents who were at least "somewhat" likely
REPORT OF RESUL. TS
cj
.EO
2
c
OJ
0
..c::
<.)
ro
OJ
<Jl
Q)
a::
ro
c
0
~
Z
<D
a
a
N
@
48
CITY OF WHEAl' RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
ApPENDIX I: RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
Characteristics of the survey respondenls are displayed in the tables and charts in this appendix.
Length of Residency
About how long have you lived in Wheat Ridge?
Five years or less
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16 10 20 years
More than 20 years
Total
A verage length of residency
Percent of respondents
39%
19%
14%
7%
21%
100%
13.31 years
District of Residence
In which district do you reside?
Percent of respondents
District J
District II
District III
District IV
Total
23%
28%
26%
22%
100%
In what city do you work?
Percent of respondents
Arvada
Aurora
Boulder
Broomfield
Denver
Englewood
Golden
Lakewood
Littleton
Louisville
Northglenn
Thornton
Westminster
Wheat Ridge
Other
Do not work
4%
2%
1%
1%
21%
1%
5%
11%
3%
1%
0%
2%
1%
12%
4%
30%
REPORT OF RE5UL 1'5
<>
c
2
c
'"
o
.c
()
ffi
'"
'"
'"
n:::
~
c
g
Iii
z
CD
o
o
'"
@
49
CITY OF WHEA'f RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Housing Unit Type
Please check the appropriate box indicating the type of housing unit in
which you live.
Percent of respondents
54%
18%
28%
100%
Detached single,family home
Condominium or townhouse
Apartment
Total
Tenure
Do you rent or own your residence?
Percent of respondents
60%
40%
100%
Own
Rent
Total
Number of Household Members
How many people (including yourself) live in your household?
Percent of respondents
0%
35%
36%
14%
10%
4%
1%
0%
100%
2.13
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
A verage number of household members
Number of Household Members 17 or Younger
How many of these household members are 17 or younger?
Percent of respondents
69%
13%
13%
4%
0%
0%
100%
o
1
2
3
4
5
Total
REPORT OF RE5UL 'f5
<5
EO
Qj
C
Q)
U
.r:::
\,l
11l
Q)
<Jl
Q)
0:
OJ
c
0
~
Z
<D
0
0
'"
@
50
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Household Income
About how much do you estimate your HOUSEHOLO'S TOTAL INCOME
BEFORE TAXES was in 2005?
Percent of respondents
11%
14%
16%
16%
18%
12%
8%
6%
100%
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
Level of Education
What is the highest level of education you have completed?
o to 11 Years
High school graduate
Some college, no degree
Associate degree
Bachelors degree
Graduate or professional degree
Total
Percent of respondents
4%
23%
26%
10%
23%
14%
100%
Respondent Age
What is your age?
Percent of respondents
4%
21%
14%
24%
10%
10%
16%
100%
18-24
25-34
35,44
45,54
55,64
65,74
75+
Total
Respondent Race
What is your race?
Percent of respondents"
93%
0%
1%
2%
7%
White
Black or African American
Asian or Pacific Islander
American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut
Other
,., Total may exceed 100% dS respondents were able to sefp.ct more than one response.
REPORT OF RESULTS
vJ.....'-' I
v
.EO
'-'
$
c
'"
()
.c
()
t;;
'"
</l
'"
a:
<ii
c
9
ro
z
<D
0
0
'"
@
51
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Respondent Ethnicity
Are you Hispanic/Spanish/Latino?
Percent of respondents
Yes
No
Total
8%
92%
100%
Respondent Gender
What is your gender?
Percent of respondents
Female
Male
Total
54%
46%
100%
Respondent Voting Behavior
Did you vote in the last election?
Percent of respondents
Yes
No
Total
81%
19%
100%
REPORT OF RESULTS
((~.
~
cj
E
2
c
Q)
U
.c
u
m
'"
<Jl
'"
~
\\l
c
.9
n;
Z
CD
0
0
N
@
52
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
ApPENDIX II: SURVEY METHODOLOGY
SAMPLE SELECTION
Approximately 3,000 households wilhin the city limits of Wheat Ridge were selected to participate in the
survey using a slratified, systematic sampling method on carrier routes' Attached housing unils were over,
sampled to compensate for detached housing unit residents' tendency to return surveys at a higher rate. An
individual within each household was selected using the birthday method'
SURVEY ADMINISTRATION
Households received Ihree mailings each beginning in early April of 2006. Completed surveys were collected
over Ihe following six weeks. The first mailing was a prenotification postcard announcing the upcoming
survey A week after the prenotification postcard was sent the first wave of the survey was sent. The second
wave was sent one week after the first. The survey mailings contained a letter from the mayor inviting the
household to participate in the 2006 Cilizen Survey, a 5'page questionnaire and self,mailing envelope. About
6% of the surveys were returned as undeliverable due to vacancy or invalid address. Of the 2,825 eligible
households, 1,051 completed Ihe survey, providing a response rate of 37%
WEIGHTING THE DATA
The demographic characteristics of the survey sample were compared to those found in the 2000 Census
estimates and other population norms for the City of Wheat Ridge and were slatistically adjusted to reflect the
larger population when necessary The results of the weighting scheme are presented in the table on the next
page. The shaded variables were the ones by which survey results were weighted.
DATA ANALYSIS
Completed questionnaires were checked for accuracy by National Research Center, Inc. staff. The data were
then entered, and the results analyzed by National Research Center, Inc. staff using the SPSS statislical
package. For the most part, frequency distributions and mean ratings are presented in the body of the report.
2Systematic sampling is a method that closely approximatf's random sampling by selecting every Nth address until the desired number of
households ar€' chosen. Carrier routes are mail carrier dE'Iivery zones defined by the USPS.
'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 as.'lumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way people respond
to surveys.
REPORT OF RESULTS
<.i
EO
~
C
(()
()
.c
u
<<;
(()
<Jl
(()
0::
m
c
0
i5
z
CD
0
0
'"
@J
53
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Characteristic
Housing
Own home
Rent home
Detached unit
Attached unit
Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey Weighting Table
Percent in Population
Population Norm' Unweighted Data
Weighted Data
55%
45%
53%
47%
72%
28%
69%
31%
60%
40%
54%
47%
Race and Ethnicity
Hispanic
Not Hispanic
White
Non-white
13% 7% 8%
87% 93% 93%
92% 92% 90%
8% 8% 10%
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+
26% 9% 25%
38% 33% 38%
35% 58% 37%
54% 60% 54%
46% 40% 46%
13% 6% 13%
19% 19% 19%
22% 34% 22%
13% 3% 13%
19% 14% 19%
14% 24% 14%
Household Income'
Less than $25,000
$25,000 to $99,999
$100,000 or more
27%
64%
8%
24%
63%
13%
25%
62%
14%
Education'
High school or less 44%
More than high school 56%
*Note: Shaded cpfls show the variables that the dara were weighted by
30%
70%
27%
73%
4 Source: 2000 Cpnsus
5 Household income in 1999
b Population 25 years and ovpr
REPORT OF RESULTS
<3
c
2"
c
<ll
()
.r:
~
ro
<ll
Vl
<ll
0::
ro
c
o
~
Z
<D
o
o
N
@
54
. I don't usually shop outside of Wheat Ridge.
. Sam's & Arvada army & navy are in Arvada.
. I shop online alot.
. Just Wheat Ridge.
. Catalog sales.
. Special occasions such as an auctions.
0 Not as dumpy/trashy
0 Cleanliness of Wheal Ridge retail is poor
0 I just prefer some stores outside of Wheat
Ridge.
0 A great experience is offered
0 I shop in lakewoodl
0 When I am with my daughter (Westminster)
0 I don't shop outside of Wheat Ridge.
0 Only if I ride with someone else.
0 There are no shopping malls.
0 No shopping mall or convenient, quality
stores in the area.
0 More familiar
0 Type of retail (Home Depot)
0 We used to have department stores. Now I
have to go miles away & the gas is out of
reach!
0 I shop in Wheat Ridge all of the time. <5
EO
Wheat Ridge doesn'l have access to a ..:
0 2
department store like Foley's, Penney's, etc. I c
Q)
don't wear Wal,Mart clothes. 0
r.
e
Habit from shopping in Arvada. '"
0 '"
<J>
'"
. I/we don't shop outside of Wheal Ridge. a:
<Ii
I shop by catalog. c
0 .9
ro
Arvada's Target is close. z
0 CD
0
0
'"
@
55
CITY OF WHEAT' RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
ApPENDIX III: VERBATIM RESPONSES TO OPEN-ENDED
QUESTIONS
Question 16: When you shop outside of Wheat Ridge, why do you shop outside of Wheat Ridge? (Check all
that apply).
Responses to "Other"
o Co sica' maybe once a month.
. Home Depot, lowes, Southwest plaza.
o Tourism.
o I like a small grocery store.
o Ward's was so convenient at lakeside for
Wheat Ridge residents. It would be nice if
Wheat Ridge had a department store.
o We have no department stores!
o Internet shopping.
o I like to shop in Wheat Ridge. They have alot
to choose from.
. I always shop in Wheat Ridge.
. No department stores.
o I do not shop Only food store.
o No department store except cheap one's.
o I shop on-line.
o Easy! You don't have a mall
o You got rid of good will. I like them better
than thrift stores.
o Retired army-commisonary
o Theatres & large shopping center in
Lakewood
o Retired military
o Only if unavailable.
o I don't shop oulside of Wheat Ridge.
o It is in Arvada.
o Spur of the moment, or need something
ASAP
o Ace check cashing. Good & fast service,
healthy organic food & cheap.
o Need shopping mall with department stores.
REPORT OF RESULTS
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
· No major slores in Wheat Ridge.. .zero.
. I don 'I shop.
. No large store(s), ete.
· Just out shopping with friends.
. Mall shopping.
· No major stores in Wheat Ridge.
· I shop as much as possible in Wheat Ridge.
· Too much congestion. I go to Wal,Mart in
Evergreen.
. No major department stores.
. Visiting malls outside of town.
. Restaurants at Belman or in Lakewood
shopping.
. Random shopping pattern accounts for
shopping outside of Wheat Ridge.
. Where I happen to be.
. I have a charge card there.
. Beller thrift stores.
. Habit.
. I shop at my own store online.
. King's at 32nd & Youngfield has grown too
big. Too far to walk & get necessary items.
. Large selection of goods in one place. I.e..
Targel, Wal,Mart.
. I can't remember the last time I shopped
outside of Wheat Ridge.
. No shopping malls in Wheat Ridge.
. No department stores.
· To be amongst a higher class of English-
speeking citizens.
. I don't have businesses.
. Internet shopping.
. King Soopers in Arvada is better
. Colorado Mills mall or American Furniture.
. I arn 82 years old & have been here only 4
months. I know very lillle about anylhing.
. Really no outlet malls here.
. It's close enough to Wheat Ridge anyway
REPORT OF RESULTS
June 2006
c..i
.EO
Qj"
C
Q)
U
.c
e
'"
Q)
V)
Q)
0::
rn
c
0
.15
z
(!)
0
0
N
@
56
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
ApPENDIX IV: COMPLETE SET OF FREQUENCIES
Question 1
Circle the number that best represents your Don't
opinion: Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total
How do you rate Wheat Ridge as a place to live? 23% 58% 16% 2% 1% 100%
How do you rate your neighborhood as a place to live? 19% 53% 20% 6% 1% 100%
How do you rate Wheat Ridge as a place to raise
children? 16% 44% 17% 4% 20% 100%
How do you rate Wheat Ridge as a place to retire? 16% 43% 21% 7% 12% 100%
How do you rate the physical attractiveness of Wheat
Ridge as a whole? 8% 43% 39% 9% 1% 100%
How do you rate the overall quality of life in Wheat
Ridge? 12% 62% 22% 2% 1% 100%
Question 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? Percent of respondents
Improve a lot 11%
Improve slightly 35%
Stay the same 29%
Decline slightly 20%
Decline a lot 5%
Total 100%
Question 3 . Quality
For each service, please rate the quality of the Don't
service. Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total
Snow removal 13% 54% 21% 8% 4% 100%
Street repair and mainlenance 7% 49% 32% 9% 2% 100%
Street cleaning 9% 50% 29% 5% 6% 100%
Traffic enforcement 11% 54% 22% 7% 6% 100%
Code enforcement 6% 32% 27% 26% 9% 100%
Maintenance of City parks 18% 56% 17% 3% 6% 100%
Maintenance of open space and trails 18% 52% 16% 2% 12% 100%
Recreation programs 23% 43% 13% 3% 19% 100%
Recreation facilities 35% 41% 11% 1% 12% 100%
Community/public art 3% 24% 26% 10% 37% 100%
Services and programs for youth 6% 23% 20% 5% 46% 100%
0
Services and programs for seniors 13% 32% 14% 2% 39% 100% E
Municipal court 5% 26% 11% 4% 54% 100% ..:
2
c
Building permits 3% 18% 13% 4% 61% 100% Q)
()
Building inspections 2% 17% 12% 7% 62% 100% L
l:<
Business expansion and recruitment programs 2% 15% 18% 9% 56% 100% '"
Q)
<J)
General police services 14% 49% 20% 5% 12% 100% Q)
a:
Police response time to emergency calls 17% 31% 10% 3% 39% 100% (\i
c
Police response time to non,emergency calls 10% 33% 15% 9% 33% 100% 0
iU
z
CD
0
0
'"
REPORT OF RESULTS @
57
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Question 3 - Importance
For each service, please rate
the importance of each Very Somewhat Not at all Don't
service. Essential important important important know Total
Snow removal 30% 46% 21% 1% 2% 100%
Street repair and maintenance 27% 58% 12% 1% 1% 100%
Street cleaning 11% 40% 44% 2% 3% 100%
Traffic enforcement 27% 49% 20% 1% 3% 100%
Code enforcement 22% 47% 25% 3% 3% 100%
Maintenance of City parks 21% 60% 17% 0% 3% 100%
Maintenance of open space and
trails 20% 53% 21% 1% 5% 100%
Recreation programs 16% 47% 25% 2% 10% 100%
Recreation facilities 20% 49% 23% 1% 7% 100%
Community/public art 7% 25% 42% 10% 15% 100%
Services and programs for youth 24% 44% 12% 2% 17% 100%
Services and programs for
seniors 19% 48% 17% 2% 16% 100%
Municipal court 22% 40% 16% 1% 21% 100%
Building permits 15% 34% 21% 1% 29% 100%
Building inspections 18% 38% 16% 1% 27% 100%
Business expansion and
recruitment programs 20% 36% 16% 3% 26% 100%
General police services 54% 35% 4% 1% 5% 100%
Police response time to
emergency calls 64% 23% 2% 0% 10% 100%
Police response time to non-
emergency calls 35% 45% 9% 1% 10% 100%
Question 4
Please rate the following aspects of transportation
within the City of Wheat Ridge:
Condition of City streets
Mass transit planning
Ease of car travel in the city
Ease of bus travel in the city
Ease of walking in the city
Excellent
REPORT OF RESULTS
7%
4%
10%
6%
10%
Don't
Good Fair Poor know Total
60% 28% 4% 2% 100%
26% 22% 11% 37% 100%
54% 28% 7% 2% 100%
31% 19% 5% 39% 100%
44% 26% 13% 7% 100%
0
E
..:
Q)
C
Q)
0
J:::
e
'"
OJ
VI
Q)
Cl:
ro
c
0
~
Z
<0
0
0
N
@
58
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Question 5
To what degree, if at all, are the
following problems in Wheat Nota Minor Moderate Major Don't
Ridge: problem problem problem problem know Total
Crime 5% 27% 41% 11% 17% 100%
Vandalism 5% 28% 35% 17% 16% 100%
Graffiti 8% 24% 32% 21% 15% 100%
Drugs 6% 15% 23% 15% 41% 100%
Too much growth 33% 23% 17% 9% 18% 100%
Lack of growth 32% 19% 20% 11% 18% 100%
Run down buildings 11% 33% 30% 15% 10% 100%
Taxes 27% 25% 23% 12% 14% 100%
Traffic congestion 14% 31% 35% 15% 4% 100%
Juvenile problems 6% 22% 26% 11% 34% 100%
Availability of affordable housing 19% 22% 22% 13% 24% 100%
Availability of parks 63% 20% 8% 2% 6% 100%
Availabiliiy of bike paths 56% 18% 9% 3% 14% 100%
Availabiliiy of sidewalks 39% 27% 19% 9% 6% 100%
Availabiliiy of recreation programs 52% 16% 9% 3% 20% 100%
Maintenance and condition of
homes 18% 41% 25% 8% 7% 100%
Condition of properties 12% 38% 28% 17% 5% 100%
Question 6
In the last 12 months, about how many times, if
ever, have you or other household members 13 to More
participated in the following activities in Wheat 1 to 2 3 to 12 26 than 26
Ridge? Never times times times times Total
Used Wheat Ridge recreation centers 37% 17% 21% 11% 15% 100%
Participated in a recreation program or activity 56% 19% 13% 6% 6% 100%
Used a City park or trail 16% 15% 25% 21% 24% 100%
Used a City bike or pedestrian path 25% 13% 23% 17% 22% 100%
Attended a meeting of local elected officials or
other public meeting 79% 14% 5% 2% 0% 100%
Watched a meeting of local elected officials on
cable television 59% 18% 16% 4% 3% 100%
Participated in a senior program 83% 8% 5% 2% 2% 100%
Visited the Community Senior Center 71% 17% 7% 3% 2% 100%
Dined at a Wheat Ridge restaurant 10% 13% 38% 23% 15% 100%
<J
Used the Wheat Ridge library 51% 20% 15% 7% 6% 100% E
Used A,line service to DIA 92% 5% 3% 0% 0% 100% :i
Rode an RTD bus 64% 12% 11% 3% C
10% 100% Q)
U
..c
u
ro
Q)
V)
Q)
oc
ro
c
0
~
Z
<D
0
0
N
REPORT OF RESULTS @
59
.. ..
.. e 0
e c - ~
al .. ..
al CO CO .. ;>... 0
CO - e e .t::. e -.. C 3
~ al..
;>. co alal al Cal '"
C. .t::. co co .. co o co - 0
~ .. III E III ... III 'c ~
c .. .. .- o .- - .-
0 E .t::."O 00'" 00'" 0
.. - 0
- 0 'a;
00 00 z
15% 43% 15% 8% 3% 16% 100%
15% 43% 19% 5% 1% 17% 100%
..;
13% 36% 21% 9% 5% 15% 100% .::
~
16% 37% 22% 9% 4% 12% 100% c
Q)
0
9% 30% 22% 14% 10% 15% 100% .r:
u
Ol
Q)
<Jl
Q)
tr
0;
c
0
:g
Z
CD
0
0
'"
@
60
CITY OF WHEAT' RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Question 7
Please indicate how familiar or
unfamiliar you are with the NRS and Very Somewhat Somewhat Very
WR2020. familiar familiar unfamiliar unfamiliar Total
Neighborhood Revitalization Strategies
(NRS) 4% 20% 15% 60% 100%
Wheat Ridge 2020 (WR2020) 4% 18% 16% 62% 100%
Question 8
Please indicate the Neither
extent to which you support
support or oppose Strongly Somewhat nor Somewhat Strongly Don't
each of the following. support support oppose oppose oppose know Total
Neighborhood
Revitalization Strategies
(NRS) 24% 20% 14% 1% 1% 40% 100%
Wheat Ridge 2020
(WR2020) 21% 19% 14% 1% 2% 43% 100%
Question 9
How would you rate the overall performance of the Wheat Ridge City
government?
Percent of respondents
6%
45%
25%
6%
18%
100%
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Don't know
Total
Question 10
Please rate the following statements by circling the
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
I receive good value and services for the amount of City
sales and property taxes that I pay
I am pleased with the overall direction the City is taking
I am well informed on major issues within the City of Wheat
Ridge
REPORT OF RESUL..TS
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Question 11
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
Percent of respondents
43%
57%
100%
Question 12
What was your impression of the employee of the Don't
City of Wheat Ridge in your most recent contact? Excellent Good Fair Poor know Total
Knowledge 29% 46% 16% 6% 3% 100%
Responsiveness 33% 41% 13% 11% 2% 100%
Courtesy 39% 42% 11% 7% 1% 100%
Making you feel valued 28% 37% 14% 16% 5% 100%
Overall impression 31% 43% 13% 11% 2% 100%
Question 13
Please rate how safe you Neither
feel in the following areas Very Somewhat safe nor Somewhat Very Don't
in Wheat Ridge: safe safe unsafe unsafe unsafe know Total
Parks and playgrounds 32% 47% 7% 5% 1% 9% 100%
Recreation centers 53% 21% 5% 1% 0% 20% 100%
Your neighborhood 34% 42% 9% 9% 4% 2% 100%
On the trail system 19% 36% 12% 11% 3% 19% 100%
Retaillcommercial areas 36% 44% 10% 6% 1% 4% 100%
Question 14
Please rate the following statements by circling the number
which best represents your opinion. The City should...
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 recruit new types of retail business
to Wheat Ridge
Promote efforts to revilalize business corridors such as 38th
Avenue, 44th Avenue, Wadsworth Boulevard and Kipling Avenue
Q) Q) Q)
f!! ... ~ e ... ~
Cl os os Q) :O-Q) 0
os j Q) ClCl .c l!! -Q) e l!
os os ~ Cl...
:0- f!! Cl eCl .><
C> Q) ... III Q) 01 001 ... 0
E Cl Q)'-
e 01 .c"C E III b.!! 'c I-
2 0 ... ... o .- UJ"C 0
UJ 'iij 0 UJ"C C
... ze
UJ
40% 34% 15% 2% 1% 7% 100%
43% 35% 12% 3% 2% 6% 100%
40% 34% 15% 5% 1% 5% 100%
42% 32% 12% 5% 2% 6% 100%
<>
49% 31% 9% 4% 3% 4% 100% E
~
2
c
Q)
0
r:
()
Oi
Q)
<Jl
Q)
0::
ro
c
g
ro
z
<0
0
0
'"
@
61
REPORT OF RESULTS
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Question 15
,.. -,.. -,.. ,.. :t
.., "'.., "'- .., 0
... c .c c .c-
CIl ~CIl :t CIl :t C ~; c Oi
> CIl ~ CIl ~ CIl CIl .lI: -
CIl >[ E [ E ;. CIl ~ - 0
z >.,. .c I-
... 0'" o e e 0
.... en '1:
For each type of shopping, please estimate how c en.... .... c
frequently you make purchases in Wheat Ridge:
Grocery shopping 1% 5% 3% 15% 76% 0% 100%
Health services 15% 16% 12% 23% 31% 2% 100%
Meals and entertainment 2% 11% 18% 40% 28% 1% 100%
Household items 5% 13% 16% 31% 34% 1% 100%
Computers and electronics 42% 28% 14% 7% 4% 6% 100%
General retail 14% 23% 21% 25% 17% 1% 100%
Question 16
When you shop outside of Wheat Ridge, why do you shop outside of
Wheat Ridge?
Percent of respondents
39%
40%
66%
20%
3%
1%
5%
II is convenient
I like the range of quality goods and services
Desired item is not available in Wheat Ridge
It is more affordable
Go to mall and other major retailers
Don't shop outside of Wheat Ridge
Other
Question 17
To what extent do you support or oppose allowing the City to retain any
excess revenues to be used for general operating expenses?
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Neither support nor oppose
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
Don't know
Total
Percent of respondents
17%
24%
14%
15%
20%
10%
100%
REPORT OF RESULTS
u
E
$-
c
Q)
()
-<:
u
to
Q)
<Jl
Q)
0::
ro
c
0
~
Z
lD
0
0
N
@
62
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Question 18
In the last 12 months, about how many times, if
ever, have you or other household members 13 to More
used the following sources of information for 1 to 2 3 to 12 26 tha n 26
news about Wheat Ridge? Never times times times times Total
City 'Connection' Newsletter 32% 25% 35% 5% 3% 100%
Denver Post or Rocky Mountain News 29% 20% 17% 10% 23% 100%
Radio news 52% 19% 12% 6% 10% 100%
Television news 29% 21% 19% 12% 19% 100%
Word of mouth 24% 23% 28% 15% 10% 100%
Cable TV Channel 8 55% 17% 16% 7% 5% 100%
Wheat Ridge Transcript 51% 19% 18% 6% 5% 100%
City's Web site 73% 13% 12% 2% 1% 100%
Question 19
Do you have a personal computer in your home?
Yes, computer at home with Internet access
Yes, computer at home without Internet access
No
Total
Percent of respondents
61%
11%
28%
100%
Question 20
Have you used the City's Web site in the last 12 months?
Percent of respondents
26%
74%
100%
Yes
No
Total
Question 21
If yes, please rate the following aspects of the City
of Wheat Ridge Web site. Excellent
Don't
Good Fair Poor know Total
52% 29% 5% 1% 100%
54% 26% 8% 3% 100%
51% 30% 9% 1% 100%
46% 29% 13% 1% 100%
Content
Graphics
Look and feel
Ease of use
13%
9%
9%
10%
Question 22
How likely would you be to conduct business (such as business
licenses, sales taxes, request for information, job applications,
recreation program registration, etc.) with the City over the Internet if
that opportunity were provided?
Percent of respondents
29%
25%
8%
60/0
21%
12%
100%
Very Likely
Somewhat likely
Neither likely nor unlikely
Somewhat unlikely
Very unlikely
Don't know
Total
REPORT OF RESULTS
0
E
..:
.l!J
c
Q)
()
~
ro
Q)
'"
Q)
cr::
(ij
c
Q
ro
z
<D
0
0
'"
@
63
CITY OF WHEAT' RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Question 23
About how long have you lived in Wheat Ridge?
Five years or less
6 to 10 years
11 to 15 years
16 to 20 years
More than 20 years
Total
Percent of respondents
39%
19%
14%
7%
21%
100%
Question 24
In which district do you reside?
Percent of respondents
23%
28%
26%
22%
100%
District I
District II
District III
District IV
Total
Question 25
Percent of respondents
Arvada
Aurora
Boulder
Broomfield
Denver
Englewood
Golden
Lakewood
Littleton
Louisville
Northglenn
Thornton
Westminster
Wheat Ridge
Other
Do not work
4%
2%
1%
1%
21%
1%
5%
11%
3%
1%
0%
2%
1%
12%
4%
30%
Question 26
Please check the appropriate box indicating the type of housing unit in
which you live.
Percent of respondents
54%
18%
28%
100%
Detached single-family home
Condominium or townhouse
Apartment
Total
REPORT OF RESUL.. TS
u
E
2
c
<l)
0
.<:
[J
'"
<l)
<f)
<l)
0::
ro
c
0
~
z
CD
0
0
'"
@
64
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Question 27
Do you rent or own your residence?
Percent of respondents
Own
Rent
Total
60%
40%
100%
Question 28
How many people (including yourself) live in your household?
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
Percent of respondents
0%
35%
36%
14%
10%
4%
1%
0%
100%
Question 29
How many of these household members are 17 or younger?
Percent of respondents
69%
13%
13%
4%
0%
0%
100%
o
1
2
3
4
5
Total
Question 30
About how much do you estimate your HOUSEHOLD'S TOTAL INCOME
BEFORE TAXES was in 2005?
Percent of respondents
11%
14%
16%
16%
18%
12%
8%
6%
100%
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
REPORT OF RESULTS
<5
EO
<i
c
'"
()
~
(J
~
'"
<Jl
'"
0::
ro
c
0
+'
ro
Z
<0
<>
<>
'"
@
65
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Question 31
What is the highest level of education you have completed?
o to 11 Years
High school graduate
Some college, no degree
Associate degree
Bachelors degree
Graduate or professional degree
Total
Percent of respondents
4%
23%
26%
10%
23%
14%
100%
Question 32
What is your age?
Percent of respondents
4%
21%
14%
24%
10%
10%
16%
100%
18-24
25,34
35,44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75+
Total
Question 33
What is your race?
Percent of respondents'
93%
0%
1%
2%
7%
White
Black or African American
Asian or Pacific Islander
American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut
Other
* Total may exceed 100% as respondents were able [0 sdec[ more than one rf'spon5e
Question 34
Are you Hispanic/Spanish/latino?
Percent of respondents
8%
92%
100%
Yes
No
Total
Question 35
What is your gender?
Percent of respondents
54%
46%
100%
Female
Male
Total
REPORT OF RESULTS
U
E
Qi
c
Q)
0
..c:
"
OJ
OJ
<Jl
OJ
0::
0;
c
.Q
1il
z
<D
0
0
'"
@
66
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
Question 36
Did you vote in the last election?
Yes
No
Total
Percent of respondents
81%
19%
100%
REPORT OF RESULTS
0
.s
'-'
.&
c
Q)
0
.<:
e
III
Q)
<Jl
Q)
0::
ro
c
0
~
Z
<0
0
0
'"
@
67
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITIZEN SURVEY
June 2006
ApPENDIX V: SURVEY INSTRUMENT
The survey instrument appears on the following pages.
REPORT OF RESULTS
ci
E
:ri"
c
Q)
()
.<::
e
ro
Q)
<Jl
Q)
OC
(ij
c:
0
~
Z
CD
0
0
N
@
68
2006 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
adult's year of birth does not matter. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only. Thank you.
Community and Services
1. Circle the number that best represents your opinion:
Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know
How do you rate Wheat Ridge as a place to live? ................................................... 1 2 3 4 5
How do you rate your neighborhood as a place to live? .......................................1 Z 3 4 5
How do you rate Wheat Ridge as a place to raise children?.................................. 1 2 3 4 5
How do you rate Wheat Ridge as a place to retire? ...................................1 Z 3 4 5
How would you rate the physical attractiveness of Wheat Ridge as a whole? ....1 2 3 4 5
How do you rate the overall quality of life m Wheat Ridge? ................................ I 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 Dechne a lot
3. Following are services provided by the City of Wheat Ridge. For each service, please first rate the quaIityof the
service and next rate the importa.nce of each service.
Ouality
Don't
Know
5
5
5
5
Essential
I
I
1
I
Importance
Very Somewhat
Important Important
2 3
2 3
2 3
Z 3
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Snow removaL........................................ I 2 3 4
Street repair and maintenance I 2 3 4
Street cleaning......................................... I 2 3 4
Traffic enforcement................................ I 2 3 4
Code enforcement Gunk vehicles, weed
control, trash, outside storage) .......... 1
Mamtenance of existing city parks ... 1
Maintenance of open space and trails.. I
Recreation programs ................. 1
Recreation facilities................................. I
Commumty/pubhc art ................ I
Services/programs for youth................. 1
Services/programs for semors............... I
Municipal court ...................................... I
Building permits .................... t
Building inspections ............................... t
Business expansion and recruitment
programs........................................... [
General police services........................... 1
Police response time to emergency
police calls (not code enforcement) I
Police response time to non-emergency
police calls (not code enforcement) .. I 2 3 4 5 I 2
4. Please rate the following aspects of transportation within the City of Wheat Ridge:
Excellent Good
Condition of city streets.................................................................................... 1 2
Mass transit planmng ............................................................................... I Z
Ease of car travel in the city ............................................................................. 1 2
Ease of bus travel in the city ........................................................... 1 Z
Ease of walking in the city ............................................................................... t 2
2
Z
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Z
2
Z
Z
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
z
z
5
5
Z
2
3
3
4
4
1
1
2
5
2
3
4
Wheat Rid.<;:e Citizen Survey
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Fair
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Not at all Pon'l
Important Know
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
3
3
Poor
4
4
4
4
4
Don't know
5
5
5
5
5
Page 1 of 5
5. To what degree, if at all, are the following problems in Wheat Ridge:
Not a Minor Moderate Major Don't
problem problem problem problem know
Crime................................................................................................. I 2 3 4 5
Vandalism ......... I 2 3 4 5
Graffiti............................................................................................... I 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......................................................................... I 2 3 4 5
Taxes 1 2 3 4 5
Traffic congestion ............................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5
Juvenile problems I 2 3 4 5
Availability of affordable housing .................................................. I 2 3 4 5
Availabihty of parks .........1 2 3 4 5
Availability of bike paths................................................................. I 2 3 4 5
Availability of sidewalks ... I 2 3 4 5
Availability of recreation programs ............................................... I 2 3 4 5
Maintenance and condition of homes............................................ I 2 3 4 5
Condition of properties (weeds, trash, junk vehicles) .................. I 2 3 4 5
6. 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?
Never
Used Wheat Ridge recreation centers ................................................................ I
PartiCipated in a recreation program or activity ........................................ I
Used a city park or traiI....................................................................................... I
Used a city bike/pedestrian path........................................................................ I
Attended a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting... I
Watched a meetmg of local elected offiCials on cable televisIOn..................... I
Participated in a senior program........................................................................ I
Visited the Community/Semor Center I
Dined at a Wheat Ridge restaurant (other than fast food)............................... I
Used the Wheat Ridge library .......... I
Used A-line service to DIA .................................................................................. 1
Rode an RTD bus ..................... I
1-2 3-12 13-26 More than
times times times 26 times
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
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
7. 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 Strategies (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
familiar familiar unfamihar
Neighborhood Revitalization Strategies (NRS) ................................. 1 2 3
Wheat Ridge 2020 (WR2020) I 2 3
8. Please indicate the extent to which you support or oppose each of the following.
Strongly Somewhat Neither support Somewhat Strongly Don't
support support nor oppose oppose oppose know
Neighborhood Revitalization Strategies
(NRS) ........................................................ I
Wheat Ridge 2020 (WRZ020) .... I
2
2
3
3
Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey
Very
unfamiliar
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
Page 2 of 5
City Government and Employees
9. How would you rate the overall performance of the Wheat Ridge city government?
o Excellent 0 Good 0 Fatr 0 Poor 0 Don't know
10. Please rate the following statements by circling the number which best represents your opinion.
Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat
agree agree nor disagree disagree
I believe my elected officials generally act in the
best interest of the community at large............................ I
City of Wheat RIdge employees perform quahty work. 1
I receive good value and services for the amount of city
sales and property taxes that I pay. .................................. I
I am pleased with the overall direction the City is takmg. I
I am well informed on major issues within the City of
Wheat Ridge. ...................................................................... I
Wheat Ridge City government welcomes citizen
mvolvement ..................................................................... I
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
Strongly Don't
disagree know
5 6
5 6
5 6
5 6
5 6
5 6
3
3
4
4
3
4
3
4
11. 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 12) 0 No (go to question 13)
12. What was your impression of the employee of the City of Wheat Ridge in your most recent contact? (Rate each
characteristic below.)
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
Somewhat Vcry Don't
unsafe unsafe know
4 5 6
4 5 6
4 5 6
4 5 6
4 5 6
Excellcnt
Knowledge ............. ............... ...................... .................................................... ... I
Responsiveness ..................................................... I
Courtesy ........................................... .................................................................. I
Making you feel valued .................................................................................... I
Overall impression.... ............... ...................... ................................................... 1
13. Please rate how safe you feel in the following areas in Wheat Ridge:
Very Somewhat Ncithcr safe
safe safe nor unsafe
Parks and playgrounds ..................................... I 2 3
Recreation centers. .. I 2 3
In your neighborhood ...................................... 1 2 3
On the trail system............................................ I 2 3
Retail/commercial areas. .................................1 2 3
Economic Development
14. Please rate the following statements by circling the number which best represents your opinion. The city should. ..
Strongly Somewhat Neither azree Somewhat Strongly Don't
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree 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 Kipling Avenue............................................................ I 2 3 4 5 6
15. For each type of shopping, please estimate how frequently you make purchases in Wheat Ridge:
Vcry Somewhat Somewhat Very Don't
Never infrequentlv infrequentlv frequently frcquently know
Grocery shopping .................................................... I 2 3 4 5 6
Health services ....... I 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...................................... I 2 3 4 5 6
General retail (shoes, beauticians, clothing, etc.) ... I 2 3 4 5 6
Wheat Ridge CItizen Survey
Page 3 of 5
16. When you shop outside of Wheat Ridge, why do you shop outside of Wheat Ridge? (Check all that apply.)
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 m Wheat RIdge
o It IS more affordable
o Other:
17. The Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) requires that the City return to the citizens any revenue collected annually
over the state imposed limits. To what extent do you support or oppose allowing the city to retain any excess
revenues to be used for general operating expenses?
o Strongly support
o Somewhat support
o Neither support nor oppose
o Somewhat oppose
o Strongly oppose
o Don't know
Information Sources
18. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members used the following
sources of information for news about Wheat Ridge?
1-2 3-12 13- 26 More than
tunes times times 26 times
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 "Connection" Newsletter .......................................................................... I
Denver Post/Rocky Mountain News I
Radio news................. ....... ...................................... ..................................... ...... I
TeleviSIOn news .............................. I
Word of mouth.... ............................. ................ ........ ............... ............... ........... I
Cable TV Channel 8 (Government Access Channel) .......................... 1
Wheat Ridge Transcript...... ........................ ................ ........ .............................. 1
City'S Web site: www.cl.wheatndge.co.us 1
19. Do you have a personal computer in your home?
o Yes, have a computer at home with Internet access
o Yes, have a computer at home without Internet access
o No
20. Have you used the city's Web site in the last 12 months?
DYes
o No (go to question 22)
21. If yes, please rate the following aspects of the City of Wheat Ridge Web site.
Excellent
Content.. ............................. .............................. ....................... ........................... I
Graphics ........................... I
Look and feel ..................................................................................................... I
Ease of use I
22. How likely would you be to conduct business (such as business licenses, sales taxes, request for information, job
applications, recreation program registration, etc.) with the city over the Internet if that opportunity were
provided?
o Very likely
o Somewhat likely
o Neither likely nor unlikely
o Somewhat unlikely
o Very unlikely
o Don't know
Wheat Ridge Clhzen Survey
Good Fair Poor Don't know
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
Page 4 of 5
Demographics
Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are completely
anonymous and will be reported in group form only.
23. About how long have you lived in Wheat Ridge?
(Write 0 if six months or less)
years
24. In which district do you reside? (Please see map on
the letter at the front of this packet.)
o District 1 (south of W 38th Ave, and east of
Wadsworth)
o Districtll (north of W 38th Ave. and east of
Carr St and Clear Creek)
o District III (south of Clear Creek and W 38th
Ave, and west of Wadsworth)
o District IV (north of Clear Creek and W 38th
Ave, west of Carr St and Clear Creek)
25. 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 work.)
o Arvada
o Aurora
o Boulder
o Broomfield
o Denver
o Englewood
o Golden
o Lakewood
o Littleton
o Louisville
o Northglenn
o Thornton
o Westminster
o Wheat Ridge
o Other
o Do Not Work (student, homemaker, retired,
etc.)
26. Please check the appropriate box indicating the type
of housing unit in which you live.
o Detached single-family home
o Condominium or townhouse
o Apartment
o Mobile home
27. Do you rent or own your residence?
o Own
o Rent
28. How many people (including yourself) live in your
household?
29. How many of these household members are 17 or
younger?
people
30. About how much do you estimate your
HOUSEHOLD'S TOTAL INCOME BEFORE TAXES was
in 2005? Please check the appropriate box below.
o Less than $1 5,000
o $15,000 to $24,999
o $25,000 to $34,999
o $35,000 to $49,999
o $50,000 to $74,999
o $75,000 to $99,999
o $100,000 to $124,999
o $125,000 or more
31. What is the highest level of education you have
completed?
o 0- 1 I years
o High school graduate
o Some college, no degree
o Associate degree
o Bachelors degree
o Graduate or professional degree
32. What is your age?
o 18-24
o 25-34
o 35-44
o 45-54
o 55-G4
o 65-74
o 75 +
33. What is your race? (Please check all that apply.)
o White
o Black or African American
o Asian or Pacific Islander
o American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut
o Other
34. Are you Hispanic/Spanish/Latino?
o Yes
o No
35. What is your gender?
o Female
o Male
people 36. Did you vote in the last election?
o Yes
o No
Thank you very muchT Please return the completed questionnaire to National Research Center, Inc.;
3005 30th St., Boulder, CO 80301 in the postage-paid envelope provided.
Wheat Ridge CItizen Survey
Page 5 of 5
1+f-" jlyt 1-1
./
'ljme u'
City of Wheat Ridge
Community Development Department
Memorandum
TO:
Mayor and CIty Council
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Alan White, Community Development Director ~
Wadsworth Corridor Subarea Plan
DATE:
July 10, 2006
Attached are descriptions and cross-sections of three basic alternatives for the future configuration of
Wadsworth Boulevard. Each alternative has a dIfferent implication for land uses in the comdor.
We are presenting these alternatives to Council to: 1) provide a briefing on where we are in the
process and 2) ascertain if there are any fatal flaws in any ofthe alternatives that we should no
longer consider.
Winston Associates and staff will be presenting the alternatives and the land use Implications in
more at the study sessIOn.
Also attached IS a meeting summary handed out at the last Wadsworth public workshop held on May
91h.
I:IComdevlWadsworth Subarea PlanlAltematives Memo CC.doc
WIN$1,()N
DRAFT:
WADSWORTH CORRIDOR SUBAREA PLAN
Wheat Ridge, Colorado
Background/lntroduction:
The Wadsworth Charrette (worksession). the 2nd public meeting
regarding the Wadsworth Sub-area Plan, was held during
January 26th, 27th and 28th at the former Bellco Credit Union
building on 38th Avenue. The objective of the worksession was
to see whether the 1999 Corridor plan was still applicable or
whether the potential widening of Wadsworth, and other needs,
warranted modifications of the previous plan. During the 2 V.
day work session a wide range of participants (see below)
worked together to evaluate existing conditions and future
opportunities, including traffic design, potential land uses and
pedestrian needs (walks, crossings, etc.). Approximately 70
people participated during this three day charrette. In order to
facilitate the conceptualization of feasible ideas, concepts were
sketched in 3D on a computer-projection on the wall. This
enabled the participants to get a realistic idea of their vision.
Participants Included:
Public
. Citizens
. Business owners
City representatives
. Public Works Department
. Community Development Department
. Planning Commission members
. City Council members
Other government/district representatives:
. The Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT)
. The Regional Transportation District (RTD)
. Wheat Ridge Water District
. Wheat Ridge Fire District
. Jefferson County Housing Authority
Consultants
. Winston Associates - urban design
. Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig (FHU) - traffic
. Thomas Consultants Inc - retail
w
,\SSOCIA TF.S
Figure l' The Safeway Shopping Center
along Wadsworth
Figure 2: Wadsworth small businesses
Figure 3: The memorable form of the
Wardle Feed building.
The challenge facing the corridor is balancing increased future traffic while still allowing convenient access
so that the existing businesses will be successful and future businesses will be attracted. In other words, if
WINSTON ASSOCIATES 4696 Broadway. Boulder CO 80304 (P)303.440.9200 (F)303.449.6911 w#w.winstonassocia\es.com
Wadsworth is widened to 6 lanes, how many buildings will the widening impact, and if many of the current
driveways are closed (to reduce traffic conflicts) will Wadsworth businesses still be easy to get to? If it is
widened, can Wadsworth be Wheat Ridge's "main street" or will it become a through highway?
Contemplating the design
The focus of the Thursday session was the "middle" section of Wadsworth-from 38th Avenue to 44th
Avenue. A number of alternatives for the street itself were suggested and discussed, including: keeping
Wadsworth at four through-lanes, widening it to 6 lanes, and even several more radical ideas such as
realigning Wadsworth to the west, and lowering Wadsworth. Each alternative had implications for how
commercial development (current and future) would relate to the street and how parking and pedestrian
access would work best. Alternatives were discussed in a large group session as well as in smaller break
out groups. For example, the idea of realigning the Boulevard to the west (as a bypass) to allow the current
street to recapture the feeling of "main street" was rejected as the cost of land acquisition became
impractical.
On the other hand, an analysis of existing conditions revealed that most of the buildings on the west side of
Wadsworth were set back behind small parking lots. This led to a concept of creating a "frontage road" on
the west side of Wadsworth-a one-way road southbound, separated from Wadsworth by a planted median,
with on street parking and a sidewalk. Southbound cars could then divert to the frontage road with slow
speed and access to on-street parking or to the driveways that would lead to parking behind the stores.
After some testing with the Public Works Department staff, COOT staff and FHU consultants it was
determined that the idea had enough merit to continue to test it on other sections of Wadsworth.
The Friday sessions were devoted to the north end of Wadsworth (44th Avenue to 1-70) and the south
section of Wadsworth (38th Avenue to 26\h Avenue). Saturday morning was devoted to consolidating the
three plans for a noon presentation.
Traffic Considerations
A Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT) representative (Paul Jesitis), the lead engineer for the
Wadsworth area, attended most of the work sessions. He was supportive of the Wadsworth planning
process and indicated that the Wadsworth plan would be helpful to COOT as they prepared future plans for
WINSTON ASSOCIATES 4696 Broadway, Boulder CO 80304 (P)303.440.9200 (F)303.449.6911 www.winstonassociates.com
the roadway Community-based plans are often influential in determining the COOT planning process. Thus
the Sub-area Plan may have an influence on the roadway design.
With regard to timing, COOT indicated that they have allocated $14m to Wadsworth improvements, but they
are currently beyond the 10 year plan. However, if there is a community plan, and public support for the
plan, it is possible that COOT could move Wadsworth higher on the priority list. Any COOT plan for
Wadsworth would have to go through an Environmental Assessment process, which alone will take 2 years.
During the charrette Felsburg Holt and Ullevig (FHU) traffic engineers collected traffic volume information to
determine whether the previous traffic projections were correct. The roadway counts actually came out
slightly lower than the previous counts obtained for the 1999 study While this may reduce the necessity of
widening in the short term increases in traffic above what was projected in the 1999 study would require
widening to six lanes. Widening is recommended in the Countywide Transportation Plan.
Retail Futures Presentation
On Thursday night Chris Letourner from Thomas Consultants gave a presentation on Emerging Trends in
Retail Development to help the charrette participants better understand the market trends and the type of
retail development that may be attracted to Wadsworth. Thomas Consultants also outlined key attributes
that quality designed retail brings to a community, including:
. revitalizes community
. fosters community pride
. encourages community reinvestment
. provides a community gathering place
The presentation contained hundreds of graphic examples of how market trends are shaping retail
development and emphasized the transition of the Wheat Ridge commercial market to reflect new trends.
F rom this
To this
There are obvious strengths associated with the corridor (such as the current 40,000 cars per day that pass
by on Wadsworth) and yet also challenges in the reinvention of Wadsworth as a retail place that people
want to visit. Three main issues relating to Wheat Ridge's retail market:
. Wheat Ridge has no downtown, no place for community pride
. Wheat Ridge's new retail should tend towards Health, Outdoors/Sports, Arts and Culture, Smaller
Boutiques
. When analyzing retail needs, the city should analyze the retail within the city as well as the retail in
the greater area.
WINSTON ASSOCIATES 4696 Broadway, Boulder CO 80304 (P)303.440.9200 (F)303.449.6911 www.winstOl1associatescom
Chris recommended that the City undertake a study of spending patterns and consumer preference in order
to gain all the empirical evidence necessary to provide the most accurate assumptions.
Comments:
Throughout the Charrette people had a chance to raise issues and comment on an aspect of the developing
plan. Some citizens were eager to redevelop and were excited that plan would provide the necessary land
use stability to provide that opportunity More than one expressed an interest in assembling parcels to
provide for greater redevelopment prospects. People often had opinions about what type of development
they wanted to see, One comment was, "Let's not develop another Belmar, but mimic the mixed
architecture styles and mix of uses characteristic in locations throughout Wheat Ridge. For the commercial
area attendees requested a scale similar to the Tennyson neighborhood in Denver Several people
mentioned that crossing Wadsworth was dangerous. To address this concern, numerous solutions were
discussed, including separate pedestrian crossings, overpasses, underpasses, increasing signal timing, and
inclusion of a median to provide a safe haven when crossing the Boulevard.
Wadsworth Corridor Concepts
Listed below are some of the key concepts that emerged from the charrette worksession. They are
illustrated on the following map:
WINSTON ASSOCIATES 4696 Broadway, Boulder CO 80304 (P}303.440,9200 (F)303.449.6911 www.winstonassociates.com
Begin 6 lane expansion
at htghway mlo If ra rrps
Cu~de-soc 481h,
elllrunate Wa<!sw<>rlh
Inlersecllon
Add slgn~ed 4 way
Inlersecbon at 46th and
Wadsworth
Frontage road wesl side
of Boulevard 4611 to 44lh
MIXed use commerCial
1) Opportunity for
parcel assembly
2) Road god
Improve roonts
Fronlage roa<! wesl
Side of Wadsworlh
441h 1033lh
11 Signal al41s1
2) EllmH1ale Three
kre laneN-/a<!sworth
Inlersechon and Slgn~
~portL>111y for
parcel assembly
Weiland A"eservallon
Signalize 35th &
Wadworlt1lf1lefsecllon
~portunlly for trail
along canal
POlenllal
muth.famlly housing
Red",e curb culs
along wadsworth, 6 lane
expansion & raised
median between 170 and
32nd.lapenng 10 4 lane
'0'10 medlan belW€en
32nd and 28th
Preliminary
Wadsworth Subarea Plan
Bike access to Arvada
-- through Johnson Pari<
and regional ~all
axess
1) Augment
blkelpedestnan
occess to and vIsibility
of Johnson Par\<
2) Red",e road grade
3) I rrprove gateway
Three quarter
uns at 471h
and Wadsworlh
Mxed use
rkdlum densrly
resldenllallnfill
(Iownhomes .)
Town Center at 41 sl
foce ITIIXeO use
developmentlnlo park
Retail Core
Wadsworth
Preserve hlstonc
nature of 331h
build II rooless
bUlld"gs'll1lh
conbnuous foca<!e
New roa<! connection
bet'Mlen 331h and
35th Wesl of
Wadsworlh
Opportunlly for
neighborhood
park
welcorre 10
Wheal Ridge sign
Polenllal for parcel
assembly, tulure
resldenlial
Infill and neighborhood
par\<
WINSTON ASSOCIATES 4696 Broadway, Boulder CO 80304 (P)303.440.9200 (F)303.449.6911 www.wlnstonassoclates.com
r-" I
Image: Frontage road concept
Perspective: Southwest frontage road on East side of Wadsworth, North of 44th
Mixed Use
,
'-.
'--.r--
Mixed Use along 44th between Wadsworth and Upham
Perspective: Northeast
WINSTON ASSOCIATES 4696 Broadway, Boulder CO 80304 (P)303.440.9200 (F)303.449.6911 www.winstonassociates.com
Image: Retail core
Perspective: South along the East side of Wadsworth
WINSTON AsSOCIATES 4696 Broadway. Boulder CO 80304 (P)303.440.9200 (F)303.449.6911 www.winstonassociates.com
Goals
1,
2.
3.
4
Improve the success of businesses along Wadsworth Boulevard,
Create an attractive, welcoming front door to Wheat Ridge.
Create a downtown center with vitality, attractive shopping and a gathering place for the
community
Develop a plan that will create predictability-that will alleviate the current uncertainties and allow
investment, and development to occur
5. Improve traffic flows to provide better vehicular access to, and through, the Wadsworth Corridor-
balanced with the "livability" needs of businesses and residents.
Key Elements of the Plan
Wadsworlh Boulevard
. Traffic and congestion and low levels of service (level "E" and lower) not consistent with regional
transportation and emergency requirements.
. Widened to 6 lanes, and most of the existing curb cuts to individual properties will be consolidated
or closed.
. a planted median that will also accommodate left turn lanes and provide a refuge for pedestrians
. street trees and broad sidewalks
Increased Connectivity
. New streets, interconnecting parking and shopping areas, creating/moving intersections
. Safe street crossings
. Continuous sidewalk with street trees, benches and wide enough for sidewalk activities (outdoor
dining, sidewalk sales, etc,).
. Trail connections to Johnson Park, Clear Creek and Arvada
FrontaGe road
. West side of Wadsworth from 46th Avenue to 38th Avenue (takes advantage of the existing
parking)
. One (wide) travel lane (southbound)
. Parallel parking
. Continuous sidewalk
. Curb cuts to side and rear parking
. Will allow businesses to continue to face, and be visible from Wadsworth, with store front parking,
and pedestrian continuity
East Side "Villaae" Street
. Existing north-south road upgraded to a "village" street with shops on both sides.
. Allow development to infill portions of the existing parking areas (either sectionunorth or south-- or
both)
. Lost parking will be compensated in two ways:
o Shared parking (d'lfferent peak hours for various types of businesses)
o Parking structure(s) eventually
Expanded Town Center Park on Wadsworlh
. Extend Town Center Park north and west to Wadsworth Boulevard.
. Park to be a major civic gathering space, as well as front stores and offices (shape to
accommodate future commercial development.
WINSTON ASSOCIATES 4696 Broadway. Boulder CO 80304 (P)303,440,9200 (F)303.449,6911 www.winslonassociates.com
Transitional mixed-use residential @ 44th/Upham
. Commercial uses facing 44th and the new "main street"
. Residential uses facing Upham
Infill development on 38th
. Relocate middle school parking and infill with commercial to make two-sided 38th Avenue "Main
Street"
Implementation Policies
Over/av zonina district:
To accomplish the goals of the Wadsworth Sub Area Plan, it proposed to establish an Overlay District. The
Overlay District will extend from approximately 48th Avenue to 35th Avenue, and from Yukon to Upham
Street. Within the Overlay District the following conditions would apply'
Densitv
To provide a critical mass of households to help support a retail mixed-use area, the density of the area will
be set to allow up to 16 units per acre, over and above commercial uses. Densities will be "feathered"
(gradually decreased) along the edges of the Overlay District to make a transition to adjacent zoning.
Frontaae road
1 It is anticipated that the Frontage Road will be constructed by CDOT as a part of the Wadsworth
widening.
2. In the interim, the Frontage Road concept can be partially implemented on individual properties at
the time of redevelopment applications. To accomplish this, individual properties are encouraged to
remove barriers (curbs and planters) between adjacent parcels and to provide continuous driving
lanes through parking lots.
Parkina:
1 Shared parking is encouraged in the Overlay District. For properties that implement the Frontage
Road concept (see above), and/or desire to take advantage of shared parking, the City will reduce
parking requirements by considering the varying parking needs of the entire block throughout the
course of a day Credit will be given for parking that can be shared.
2. Other than the parallel parking on the Frontage Road, all parking is desired to be at the side or rear
of buildings.
Desian Standards
1 All new buildings will be subject to the Wheat Ridge Streetscape Design Standards, as modified by
the specific standards of the Wadsworth Sub Area.
2. New buildings are required to locate front facades from 0' to 5' from the anticipated ROW for the
Frontage Road.
Non-conformina uses
1 Existing buildings and uses will be considered "conforming uses" until Wadsworth Boulevard is
widened.
2. However, the City will encourage property owners to make site improvements consistent with the
Sub Area Plan objectives.
WINSTON ASSOCIA1ES 4696 Broadway, Boulder CO 80304 (P)303.440.9200 (F)303.449.6911 wwwwinstonassociatescom
Implementation of a Special Improvement District/Business Improvement District
To provide a mechanism for implementation within the Overlay District, the City encourages the creation of
a special district (e.g. Special Improvement, or Business Improvement District). Among other things the
special district could:
. sponsor programs and special events to promote Wadsworth businesses;
. provide input to design review;
. provide design assistance for deserving projects;
. work with property owners and merchants to establish and maintain aesthetic and maintenance
standards;
. develop streetscape improvements;
. develop consolidated parking lots and structures;
WINSTON ASSOCIATES 4696 Broadway, Boulder CO 80304 (P)303.440.9200 (F)303.449.6911 wwwwinstonassociates.com
~~:t f~ 1( 11/0b
~~
Wheat Ridge Citizen Survey
Summary of Findings
June 2006
NIIbonIIR_rchCenler,lnc
Study Background
Primary purposes of survey:
. To assess resident satisfaction with
community characteristics and amenities
. To evaluate Wheat Ridge local government
. To further understand resident priorities
regarding government services in Wheat
Ridge
. This is the second iteration of the survey
Nltionl! Renarch Center. In<:
1
Study Methods
Mailed survey to 3,000 households in
April 2006
1,051 households returned the survey; an
overall response rate of 37%
The survey results were weighted by
tenure, age and gender to better
represent the community
Margin of error is +/- 3%
NltiorlIIR_rchCenter,lnc
Quality of Life and Community
How do you rate the physical attractiveness of
Vvteat Ridge as a whole?
I- 20001
.2004
How do you rate Vv'I1eat Ridge as a place to live?
How do you rate VVheat Ridge as a p~ce to raise
children?
How do you rate the overall quality of life in Vllheat
Ridge?
How do you rate yoU'" neigt-bomood as a place 10
live?
How do you rate Vvtleat Ridge as a place to retire?
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Average rating (O=poor, 100=excellent)
NationllR_rchCenter,11'I(:
2
Quality of life Compared
Wheat Ridge Comparison to Comparison to
Rating Nation Front Range
Wheat ridge as a place to live 68 Above the norm Below the norm
Wheat Ridge as a place to raise 63 Similar to the norm Below the norm
children
Neighborhood as a place to live 62 Below the norm Below the norm
Overall quality of life 82 Similar to the norm Below the norm
Wheat Ridge as a place to retire 59 Above the norm Above the norm
Physical attractiveness of Wheat Ridge 50 Below the norm Below the norm
N.oon~ R_rctl C.mw, lnc
Expected Quality of Life in Wheat
Rid~e Over the Next Five Years
rrprove a lot
11%
rrprove
slighW
29%
~ioo.IR_chCenter.lnc
3
Evaluation of City Services
Snow removal
1.20061
_2004
Recreation programs
Police response time 10 emergency calls
Maintenance of open space and trails
Maintenance of City parks
Ser.-ices and programs for seniors
Genera! police services
Traffic enforcement
MlJ1lcipal com
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Average rating (O=poor, 100=excellent)
NationllResalrchCenter,lno:;
Evaluation of City Services,
continued
Street cleaning
[i2OO6]
~
Police response time to non-emergency calls
Services and programs for youth
Street repair and maintenance
Building permits
BUlldln;:JlnspectlOns
CommUl1lty/pubhc art
Business expansion and recrtitment programs
Code enforcement
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Average rating (O=poor, 100=excellent)
NMIonal R....rcl1 Center, lno:;
4
City Services Compared
Wheat Ridge Comperllon to Comperllon to
Rating Nltlon Front Range
Snow removal 58 Above the norm Above the norm
Street cleaning 56 Above the norm Similar to the norm
Street repair and maintenance 52 Above the norm Above the norm
Traffic enforcement 58 Above the norm Above the norm
Municipal court 57 Above the norm Similar to the norm
Building inspections 47 Below the nann Below the norm
Code enforcement 40 Below the norm Below the norm
N.uonel Rn'arch Cenl..., 1m:
City Services Compare
continued
Wheat Ridge Comperllon to Comperllon to
Rating Natton Front Range
Recreation facilities 79 Above the norm Above the norm
Recreation programs 69 Above the norm Above the norm
Maintenance of open space and 66 Above the norm N/A
trails
Maintenance of City parks 65 Similar to the norm Similar to the norm
Community/Public art 44 Below the norm N/A
Services and programs for seniors 64 Above the norm Above the norm
Se<vices and programs fa, youth 52 Above the norm Similar \0 the norm
General police services 61 Below the norm Similar to the norm
NationalR_rcnCMter,lnc 10
5
Importance of City Services
Snow remolJal
10'''<\
.2004
Police response time to emergency calls
General police services
Police response lime to non-emergency calls
Street repair and maintenance
Services and programs for youth
Municipal court
Maintenance of city paril.s
Traffic enforcement
Building inspections
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Average rating (O=not at all important, 100=essential}
NtItIon.IR_rct1Center,1nc
"
Importance of City Services,
continued
Street cleanng
10'''"1
02004
Busi ness expansion am
recrUlmenl: programs
Sel'\lices and programs for
seniors
Mallltenal"(:e of open space
and trails
Recreationfadlities
Code enforcement
BtJlding permits
Recreation programs
CommiXIitylplblic art
o
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Average raUng (o=not at all Important, 100=essentfal)
100
N8bonalR_chCWIt"-,lnc
"
6
Quality and Importance
High importance/Low quality
. police response time to non-
emergency calls
. street repair and maintenance
. services and programs for youth
. building inspections
Low importance/Low quality
. code enforcement
. business expansion and
recruitment programs
. building permits
. community/public art
. street cleaning
NationalR_fchC.m:er,loe
High Importance/High quality
. police response time to
emergency calls
. general police services
. municipal court
. snow removal
. traffic enforcement
. maintenance of City parks
Low importance/High
quality
. recreation facilities
. recreation programs
. services and programs for
seniors
. maintenance of open space
and trails
13
Tran sportation Issues
ConditIOn of City streets
Ease of car travelrn the
city
Ease of bus travel In the
city
Ease of walking in the
city
Mass transit p~nnirg
57
58
. 2006
. 2004
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Average rating (O=poor, 100=excellent)
NlItionalR-....rchCenler,lnc
,.
7
Transportation I ssues Compared
Wheat Ridge Comparison to Comparison to
Rating Nation Front Range
Condrtion of City streets 57 Above the norm Above the norm
Ease of car travel in the city 56 Above the norm Above the norm
Ease of bus travel in the city 54 Above the norm Above the norm
Ease of walking in the city 51 Similar to the norm Below tlle norm
N8tionel Rne.rch Center, Inc
15
Potential Problem s
Taxes
1_2000\
_2004
Availability of parks
Availability of recreation programs
Availability of bike paths
Availability of sidewalks
Too much growth
Lack of growth
Maintenance and condition of homes
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Average rating (O=major problem, 100=not a problem)
NatIonIIR_r<:;hCent"',lnc
"
8
Potential Problems, continued
Crime
55
Availability of affordable housing
Condition of properties
Traffic congestion
RIJI down bLildings
Jl.l\.€rlle problems
1_2OO6l
.'00'
Graffiti
Vandalism
Drugs
10 2.0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Average rating (O=maJor problem, 100=nol a problem)
National R_rch C.mer, Inc 17
Community Participation
Used a City park or trail
Watched a meeting of local
elected officials on cable
television
41%
Rode an RTD bus
42%
Dined at a Wheat Ridge
restaurant
Used a city bike or pedestrian
path
ViSited the Community Ser\lor
Center
Used Wheal Ridge recreation
centers
Attended a meeting of local
~ecled officials or other publiC
meeting
IUOO'l
~
Used the Wheat Ridge library
Participated in a senior
program
participated in a recreation
program or actiVIty
Used A-line service to DkA.
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Percent of respondents reporting at least once
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Percent of respondents reporting at least once
NCion.IRnnrcnCenter,lne
"
9
Safety in Wheat Ridge
On the trail system
89
89
Recreation centers
Relail\commercial areas
Parks and playgroLl1ds
. 2006
. 2004
Your nelghbomood
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Average rating (O=very unsafe, 100=very safe)
Number of Comparison of
Jurisdictions City of Wheel Wheel Ridge
City of Wheel for Ridge ReUng 10
Ridge ReUng R.nk Comparison Percentile Nonn
Par1<.s and playgrounds 78 2 17 94% Above the norm
Your neighborhood 74 16 47 68% Above the norm
Natioll.IR_rchCent<<,lnc 19
Performance of Wheat Ridge City
Government
How woukl you rate the
overall performance of the
Wheat Ridge City
government?
54
. 2006
. 2004
o
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Average rating (O=poor, 100=excetlent)
Performance of Wheat Ridge City
Government
Wheat Ridge
Retlng
5-4
Comparieon to
NeUon
Above the noon
Comparilon to
Front Renge
Similar to the norm
NIItIonaIR_rcIlCenter,lnc:
20
10
Public Trust
I believe my elected officials generally act in the
best Interest of the commmity at large
70
70
City of Vllheat Ridge employees pertorm quality
wo"'
\o"vteal Ridge City govel1'YT1ent welcomes citizen
invotvement
I am pleased with the overall direction the City IS
taking
\_2000!
.2004
'receive good value and services for the amolflt of
City sales and property taxes that t pay
I am well Informed on major ISSueS within the City of
\tVheat Ridge
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Average rating (O=strongly disagree, 100=strongly agree)
N-.on_t R"Nrc:h Cent_, Inc
21
Public Tru st Compared
Wheat Ridge Comparison to Comparison to
Rating Nation Front Range
City government welcomes citizen 69 Above the nonn Above the nonn
involvement
Elected officials act in best interest af 66 Above the norm NIA
community
Overall direction the City is taking 65 Above the nonn Above the nann
Good value and services for tax.es 63 Above Ihe nann Similar to the norm
Informed on major issues within the city 54 Belaw the nann NIA
~tF!""rehCenl..lnc
"
11
Contact with City Employees
Courtesy
,- 20061
.2004
Knowledge
Respons!veness
Mak\Ng you feel valued
Overall impression
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Average rating (O=poor, 100=excellentl
N-'lOI'IaJR_rchC."tw,1nc
Wh..l Ridge Comparison to Comparllon to Front
R.dng N.lIan Range
70 Above the noon Below the norm
65 Similar to the norm Below the norm
65 Sinmar to the norm Below the norm
64 Similar to the norm Below the norm
23
Courtesy
Knowledge
Responsiveness
Overall impression
Economic Development
Promote efforts to attract and recruit new types of
retail business to VVheat Ridge
I_ 20001
.2004
Promote efforts to revitalize business corridors such
as 38th AverllJe, 44th Avenue. Wadsworth Boulevard
and Kipling Avenue
Strengthen VV'heat Ridge's community image ard
identity
Promote efforts to reVitalize the city's buslress areas
Promote efforts to reVitalize the city's hoUSIt"lQ areas
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of respondents reporting "strongly" or "somewhaf' agree
NWOr'181 R_ch Cenl_, Inc
"
12
City Revitalization
~, ="'
VVR2020 22%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of respondents who are "very" or "somewhaf' familiar
~'==".
\l\lR2020 69%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of respondents who "strongly" or "somewhat" support
Nation.IR_rchCent....lnc
"
Reasons for Shopping Outside of
Wheat Ridge
. is convenient
. 2006
. 2004
Desired Item is not
available in W1eat Ridge
Ilike the rarge of quality
goods and services
It IS more affordable
Go to mall ard other
major retailers
Don't shop oLtside of
W'1eat Ridge
Ott'er
0%
20% 40% 60%
Percent of respondents*
80%
100%
NationaIR_rchCerrtef.ln<:
,.
13
Support for or Opposition to Exemption
from the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights
Neither
support nor
oppose
15%
Strongty
Oppose
23%
Somewhat
support
27%
Neither
. 2006
. 2004
Support
Oppose
0%
20%
40% 60% 80%
Percent of respondents
100%
NatJOrl.IR.....reIlCeIlt...., Inc
27
Information Sources
Radio news
1_20001
. 2004
Word of mouth
Television news
Denver Post or Rocky
Mountain News
City 'Connection' Newsletter
Wheal Ridge Transcnpt
Cable TV Channel 8
City's Web site
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of respondents reporting at least once
Nlltiorl.IR_rchCent....lnc
"
14
Computer and Internet Use
Personal Computer in Home Compared by Year
No computer at home
61%
61%
Computer at home with Hemel access
Computer at home withoullntemet access
1-20001
_2004
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of respondents who said "yes"
Use of City Web Site in the last 12 Months Compared by
Year
-'"'
22%
. 2006
. 2004
0%
20% 40% 60% 80%
Percent of respondents who said "yes"
100%
Nation.IR....rchCenter,lnc
"
Conducting Business with the City
Over the Internet
Neither
likely nor
unlikely
10%
Somewhat
lllllkely
6%
Very likely
32%
60%
. 2006
. 2004
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of respondents who were at least "somewhat" likely
Nation.IR..n.rc:l1Center, Ine
30
15
Respondent Demographics
39% of respondents have lived in Wheat Ridge
for 5 years or less; 21 % have lived in Wheat
Ridge for 20 years or more
21% of respondents work in Denver; 30% of
respondents do not work
64% of respondents earn more than $25,000
but less than $100,000 per year
38% of respondents are ages 35 to 54; 36% of
respondents are older than 55
54% are female; 46% are male
81 % of respondents voted in the last election
NatIonIil R"Mfch en.. Inc
31
Respondent District
District I
23%
District III
26%
District II
28%
N<<lon.IR_ctlCenter,lnc
32
16
IDU LAB
,ute road, and, more recentlv, many local
,uburban roads have souj(ht to emulate
And. franklv. the Inter'tate Sntem "
.1muml;. Ju>\ look at how it has moved u,.
.xcording to tht., Automobilt' A'$OClatlon
of America. m 19S6. Amencan, drove 62H
million mIle,; 10 2002. 2.8 billion. The even
bl~~er 'IOrv " truck,. In 1997. J((ordmg
to the Depanment 01 Tramponauon. the
[nterotate 'i\'Stem h.mdlcd more Ihan 1 tnl
lion ton~mi'I~\ of "futt. ;1 teat ex{-cuted in
21 nllihon (ruck.c:P~ dn'..m~ approXJIll.1tely
412 billion miles.
But th.. Intentate ""stem h.. .1'0 >;,ven
u, a 1m Itl." we (lIdn , npecl. In bUlldmg
It dunn>; ,he &0". ,he LJ S. de'tro)cd
nearlv as much public hou"nl( as" pu' up.
Then .I>;am. 10 . backlunded wav. ,he
Imn"alC Sy'tem help'.d 'pawn ,hc mod.
nn t"nvlronmt-fllJ.l move-men I with the
battle owr 1-40 throul(h Ovenon Park Ifl
Memph.., for example, and WIth the fight
over 1-7, thoul(h the Everl(lade" II I(a"<,
us h..tonc pre<;ervauon, alter wiping out
nllddle-dol" black n..~borhoo.h m New
Orleolns. It al,o I(Jve us ,prawl. It !:'Ive us
Atlanta. It I(Jve u, the modem South.
The lim Bush adnufll'tratiCJn's plan for a
",cond I ntentate System thankfully never
took off, and the o1ltemative bas become
nf'W ,we-grown pIam to build different
kllld. of road.. State hi~.....y departments have been lakinJ big roads
and narrowlIlj; them, adding bike lanes and trails. In 1M last 10 yeao,
engineers holve iocreasingly looked for ways not to .pud can .Jonl(
but to slow lhem down. "You can deSign a road thai addrases mobil-
Ity but also makn lbem wanl to gel out of the car," uys Tom Warne,
a form~r exe.:utive director of Utah.s Depanmenl of Tr.uIIpOfUtjon
who is worlun!! with New HamJ'$hire's D.O:r. "It', lhe Sluff thai's
a1onl( the.- street - wmdows. bencbes, strut fumltlll'~. gJeelK'ry.
'There's memdenng." In Pennsylvania, where general traffic il1Cr~ased
by 63 percent and lruck Iraff,e by 82 percent betwun 1984 and 2004.
Ih~re are plans to make communities across the.- Slate more walkabk,
10 build new /ughways al Rr3de rather than c1evate the.-m, 10 build on
Route 202 10 the.- eastern pan of lhe.- sUle what looks less like . free-
way and more like an old parkway.
It's nothmg shon of a revolutionary change 10 thinking rn about
Whal - in a nation whe.-re the overal(e number of people in a house-
hold (1.8) wa, recently J>3."ed by the average number of cars (1.9) -
can still seem so mundane. New Hampshire holS been rt.'training sUle
trans porta lion en!;ineer' and ,m.'tmg communny m~mbers to lbe
lramrnl( courses. In Meredith, N.H.. the 'tate recently threw ou'
plan, for a S 1 million enl(meer-driven w.demnl( of Rout~ 2,. whICh
A Slow-Road Movement?
The 50th anlll\,('rSill1 (If tfw Intf>rsliltl. SySlt'lI1 offers il ('hitllf ,.
I It., ()/l.w!t-r till' d""IL(1I of ollr 11I!.;:h\',a\", By Robert Sullivan
"... WMII. Ia celebrallon of ,he SOth anmversary of tbe Interstate
hl~way system. a convoy will arnve in Washington. D.C., .fter
dnvon!; 1-80 iJCross the countl')'. It bel(Jn 10 San Franc..", and con-
SISts of ecstallC h.!;hway ~ngoneers and road hlSlorlans; automobile-
dub repr~sentalives eager to build more Interstate hi~ways; a lead-
er of the.- "Go RVing" camp..gn, which serves the nation's eight mil-
lion reer~allonal-veh,d~ users; a descendant 01 PreSIdent Dwi~1
Eisenhower, who rode on th~ convoy that IS he.-in!; commemorated,
as a younll army oificer on 1919. when he ,aw firslhand how Ineff~c-
tive tIK- roads were; and Andrew Firestone. a descendant of Ihe lire
mallnate Harvey Fir~'ton~. The ongonal two-month-Ionl( convoy
w.a.s sponsored by th~ Unll~d Stales Army. ThIS on~, expected to Io1st
t3 days. " 'pon,ored by Bndge'tone Amencas, the tire comp.,"y,
and the American Auocl3l1on of Stare Hi~way and Transportallon
Officials. known m IlK- road busone.. as Aashto (pronounced ASH-
t(><,); Bndgestone is callin!; " the "I;rea.." roM trip In history."
WhICh can't p'",ibly turn out 10 be true. Just think of Jack
Kerouolc or the Merry Pranksters or Odvsseus or Ihe Cannonball
Run or even ILWIS and Clark. Ju,t to name a te-.... Also arguable IS
AashlO\ desenption of tbe Interstate J\ a "'ymbol of freedom."
The Interstate IS no longer about IUSI freedom. In 2006, wnh con-
l(eStlon n"nll and traffic delavs up nationWIde. " also ,ymbolize, a
kind olcofllmerClal and personal "ra/ll(uL1IIon.
At lea't Since the (,()'" the Interstate ha, been ,he 'p,em that .111
! J i ' !, ".' .1; ~1 r I;, J [ I( . \ \ ' ,!i j.
Robert Su/llvan " the au/hoT, most Tteem/y, uf "CTOSS Country," a
book about tTawl",? alo"y' the yoads and hipa)'s 01 Am",,,'a.
17
NYTIITIeS, SII1lIay Magazile, June 4, 200Il
do!;, up each ,urn mer with tourist, headed (0 L1ke
Winnipesaukee and the White Mounwns. "Are we
gomg to de>lgn a road llut Slop. traffic from baclong
up on the Fourth of July?":uks Carol Murray,the
New Hampshire commissioner of transportation.
"No. but If you're stuck in traffic. you're going to
have something to look at besides pavemml." UwIS
Feldstein. president of the New Hampshire Char-
itable Foundation, says, "I think what we're seeing IS
transportation is too Imponant to be leEr to the
transporution plannen." Feldstein is chairman of t~
panel that wrote the 'Ute's next to-year t:rall$porta-
lion plan - alongside representatives from the health
care industry. children's-services providers. environ-
menulist5 and business promoters.
Some road enginee... remain tenitorial, but many
of them are suddenly showmg up at meetingJ not so
much geared to tight but to listen to issues beside.
congestion. "'They are realizjng." says Andy Wiley-
Schwartz. vice president for tr:tnsportation for the
Proie<;t for Public Places, a group faciliutlng the
planner-commuDlty dia~. "that they are 10 the
community-devdopment business and not just 10
the Eacililie.-deve\opment buslnes....
Call It the Skrw Road movement, but not the No
Road movement. because another tiling that a 50-
year-old crumbling Intenute System brin~ IS oppot'-
tunity, a chance for a giant retrofit. The entire system
might be regeared for rapid-transit buses (see Bogota.
Colombia) or for regional train. (see Chi!l.1) or for
light rail (see Los Angeles, where they're IIOt qUite
MIre what to do with the 'Y,tftn just yt't. as well..
Uenver and Phoenix). In Indianapolis. where the old
Llllcoln Highway. an Intersute prototype. crosses the
\Vh,le River, the roatl i. now . park, alongside a pro.
posed W21kinl/: trail that will be partly supported bv
,Ute money devoted to fighting obesity.
Road. are even bemg promOled by envlfonmen-
tali." a. opportunitIes to fix the A~ric.n bnd-
"ape. tor while the Inlerstate unite, human popu!;,-
lion centers. it divides everythml( else. "What we've
done i. cut the land iDlo these little pieces - II'S
almost like a megawo," says Richard Forman,
author of "Road fcolOllY" and a landscape ecolol(l"
at Harvard UnIVerSIty. Smaller and smallrr com-
munities of road-bound plant and animal life are
reconnecting YIa wildlife over- and underpasses 10
Canada, Holland and - are you ready? - Flonda
and New Jersey. In M.ryland. storm-water runoff
has been tied to road reconstructIOn 10 the
Anacostla waurshed. "I tlimk we're on the verge of
understanding not only the impact of roads but how
to eventually restore the watershed.... says Neil
WelllStrin, director of the Low Impact Development
Center, a nonprofit engmeerinll: and sustainable.
planntng organiutlOn.
It.s a hIStone summer all nght. because soon after
the A.1shto convoy lint.he. its lrip, the recre:non of
Lewis and Clark'. t804 to 1806 Corps of Discovery
convoy pulls IOta St. Louis. The Lewi. and Clark trip
laid the groundwork for the Interstate. Now we have
to decide whether our roads will contmue to m'anl\le
us. to dnve us crazy, to pollute and poison our alf and
waler or maybe ,low us down m .. lI:ood way and give
us a chance to enjoy everythml( we still have left ~nd
have worked so hard to build. .
~
~
'5
!:l
~
:)
'-'
'-
%
~
"
c:
'"
~
'-
"-
<:
'"
c:
~
Q
Z
~
o
:E
~
2)
I~'I
~
~
-<:
::E
CI
Z
-<:
o
~
o
u
r::
o
>ll
(j
CI
;:;z
f-<
;;j
;t:
::::
~
f-<
<5
E-<
U)
F-I
<
R
i2
~
z
o
f-<
U)
Z
'"
'"
i:::
o
(j
Ul
-<:
0-1
(j
0-1
~
p..
"
Z
~
tJ
i.
j
p..
~
~
:;::
co
;:J
YO
~
o
~
C/l
CI
~
~
I
~
(j
CI
~
f-<
~
>ll
;t:
;:;::
:i;j
o
0::
'"
~
U
tl;l Iii
iil' !;;
~ i:l
'0
o
o
'"
;.,
0-1
;:J
~
~
"
u
&~
.5~
" ;;;
u ~
c:: ~
(jJ
"
" u
,... y
.s r
.DJs
~
" "
~.g
<.;:: ~
" "
..s ;:... .
~:t
.- u 'i-
"0 '"
~ E c:
~ v ~
h-5
~~~
"
~ ~ t
"'0 C ~
::: '" 1:1
'" .r;
"
C ~
.Q ~ E
~ ~ u
~ "
~'c ~
u v-5
~~c
00 "'0 }~
Z '" -
o G g
t]~
o v: U
"0
"
u
:l
"0
o
~
~
g ~ ~
o.:g ~
0'\ ;:; ~
~ L: VJ
""-"
::..s8=-.
"'i3<..o........
8 o-B
" 11
c: .,
~ E
c
'P
'"
bJ;
.~
"
~ .E
.:l
~
"0
"0
"
"
o u
";::j q::
Q..'~
~ "
.~ '......
-5 c
1!
~~
;:; 8
;)
u
u
.D
~ :5
O..c ......;
bJ):l
:l 0
8""
.s~~
::J :::::
5 ~
':T::J
"'13
~
D
. "
'" u
'ii "
.~ ~
,,:>:>
~"
'~
,..; ~
!
~
"
OJ
g S
~ ~
(J 0..::::
~ gf~'
.~ 8 b
." Of;
'~ "
;:::: ::
-5~
.... ~
'"' ~'5
'-" ...... or.
~ ~~ u
'-2c..gc€
...c "-i i:; ...
........c: :l c
(':l ..... v.~
~ C
,~ (.)
g'<<
.:..: "'0
~ t
..5 :l
;3 ~
if, :",
~
" "
w :.;
u ~
" ~
c
"
-5
'-
o ]
O~ 6 '"
.~ 8
R] ~
.g i"~
~ S ~
"'?
,~ ;::::
""," c C'd
t: "'0_ _~
o ''C1 :,
'&,~ 8 ~
o ~' .D u
c~ ~ C:
o ".... B & ..........
'~.a ~ a ~ .~
:) [.""1.-e ~ ~
~ 0 ~ = '""V
-. (f) '-' U:;
t;::l+=uv~
j5 - ;d ~..........
~ ~ f=: 2'~
-B ;..- CJ....... 0 ::J 1-<
..... ~ # C .f -5 ..g
c U'- ;2 v .g
::: tf= B, g ~ '
] g z ~ ';tt 'B ~ ~
e=-5~"i3~~E
~ ;~-E3'~.l'1
..... -5 -E ~ 'r;::.: H
~~ E-:::-2'~
-0 - -6 g.'~ .... 2 ;
1~ a~ 2 ~ c. ~
~Z;~]@B"'c
~.s -E E g? 'g
t: t.G C ~ ~ '"'...c
] l ~ ; ~ t~ t
,.2--9c~6~r:"'B
E '-' b 2 -0 iJ ,... i:
~ ~..o 0.. ~ t: ~
e t; ~t<! .... -- ~ c
8~-B E~ c..""
& ~g ~ b ~ '~,_ j;~
v~c-. ~"~__.
c:: ,5 ~o ~ -
ocva.c'"Cc::C~
u .~ ~ Q,. ~ -a ~ -E
~ t:'-::: 5 ~ ;:: ..s
~ ~ 0 ,........ t.!:; 1'"
~ ~ <r, b.C c... c: ~
............ </} c::..2 :U-::l
E ~ ~ ~'8 ~ E ~
~ E .:a 'B. 8 ~ f-;
~ -:: 2 ~,'"t) .... ~ ~
...., -::l ern:.. C ~ ..0
...... u u ~ ~ '2.f I
o f;-....c ..., . :l -c ,j..,
:u ii. to .9.;j E :::..g
~ = v E ~'c
:l~gG~8 ~
C t ~ <<:u ~ '-'
~ ~~] ~-E~--5
..0 v_ ~U~~C
<<EQ~D,.sSl
V! 'iJ ~ N b t ~.<<
b.C E- 0.. ~.tr -a.~ b=
.~ 0 ... '""0 a OL c;
~..&;:i:2 b t:"S"5
;l5 ,..." ~ ~ ~ '5 ;; ~
<2eu~;1~t
c.;'r: M:::::; or; '"'4,.... ~
-:E t: ~ '-<_ ~ (': (OJ _
"ti ~ ~..:: ~ E"'tl
B>---<......,~...~c
g c/) if. ~ ~_ t:'<:
o , ~,~ ~ ~;:l
g.~ if. ~ U ~ - .::;
~ '1: t1 r-'.S 5: ~ {;
tI) ~ c...;; if. C l-. t
<; tiE:i~8<,:
Ii
.$2
1;
"
'0
o
~
E
-
~
"
~
~ ~~
... ~ ~ s <-
~ w > ::l
...=; <l.f ~"
-......... ~ ~
u 2 ~ :J....... ,
4:: ~ ~
~]g -5
,tj :u 'J; '""' 0
~ g ~ ~ ,j..,
- - "0 ~
u.f:?~<<-o
:-g ~ or; ~ <<
O~5J:~58:
c....o -::l ',,;::
.<< i2
.....;::::::....
~ or; <<
~ ~ 1=
u ~ ~
c C.....c 01-
<< t; ~-j-
0....;;:::""':1
.- 8 j::; =:
,s 0... --E <<
9v>50
~ -E (':! r-<l
~ 'c ~
-~ '1:
;:::
gp
,..
~
o
==
~
v,
o
a :
~ "
~
Q..> U
~ ~ <<
:,.. .. "ti
g~~
:::l 3 ~
('j ~
~ c:: t
-B.g ~ ~
t: 9-~ :.-
-..I ,<,:..0
~ ~ 3
~
2
~
"3
u
i:I
~
"
N
"
,S
E-
o
~ -c "':l 'J)
0--
.""9 .B .E "E
~~-!c~
~ t g ~
~ '-', ,.... <<
~~5 b
~'-
o
~
ffc
~
o
g~
~ ;<
o
u
~ .-
l:~
~
.9 '8
c..u
o .
"..c
tE --
, -
j::; :::
c.. ~ ,d
gl~
o
~
iE;
~~
,.t ?J
'0,5
9
'il
cc
o
~,.S~
r< ~
o 'l)
u '-' 'f,
~ g t :~
~ ~ ~
'J; ,....
~_..D
g ..., j;
~:g
-" ..8 ~
:u ::::
"'0
':r; c::
~ ~
OJ
~
u
~]
J2
~.E ~.
~ ~,
~
~ .~
'tj ~
~-E
."
~ C
"
'"
~
," "0
::J co;:
lj 2
'J) E
~~
i3 c;
~'G ~
~ "
0-"
'~ ....
S t
~~
- 2
~
'^ -
'l) ~
.~.~
u -"
~ -
~
"
~
~
~
_ t;
4......
"
~"'O
..c: c
~.2;
~ ~-3
i c~
b'8::a
"'..c
--=: l,; :::
~~
',-
~
~ g
~ ~
"'0 ~ ..,
~ .E_ '""0__-..
~ ~-
~ 2:=
c_ :;.l;2i
:3 '5:::
;::: ... :<!
';j"O ~ ~
E] ~ ~
~ ~ ~ '
:-.c:..-::2
~ ,= ~ -
rE...c ;:;' J
~~.E~
...c
B ~
Q~
'5"'
g-d'
~ ;::
g.~
~ g ~ ~
~] ~ ;
~ 0 <<
'c .5
.~
~
"
:6
i3
;; ..s \J 1.1'~
~-~2c
~~~~
~ ~..5 ~
'C:i t
,0:::: '4
~ .... ~.f"
-B_~t.2v
"'u
C c ~-:S
s~~21
<< 0:::: & u"";l
.f~'(F;~~
-5 ~ .~ ~ ,;
- ,.... ~.2.~
~.;:; ,- ......
3]l~~
R"E
~ ~ r:
?; ~ ~
~ ~ :: J
".c
~ 1J ~
:J ~ ~ u ~
::J ~ ,;; ~
:: ~ E _
~ -.J: ,~~
'!~~-
~ i 2
::: ~
-0 ~ ~
0:::: V ~
~~
i
-e
u
""
o
-
.~ 1:
~
u
-' Q :3
::J :" '"S:
~ . ,
]is
~ .~
t;
o
cc
.5 ~ ,~
~
S!
o
~
e:~
.2 i3:
~..o
-6 .~
~ b::
i:;
o
~(l>
~~
;:::: (/:,
E
"'"
;E -
v-:,t:=
1: ~~
'" ~
== ~ -'
5 Cl.. '-f":.
~ <u......
;; ef..s
...=s-:::
"
5
0.
~
lJ
o 'l)
,..,.~ ..c
.$ o--g
:c.:.@ g
o ~ ~
;;;
0.
u
."
;::
;)
-
cc
-;;
cc
~
..;;i
2
- ,..;
~ 2
B ~
~.~
~ 'g
g
::J U
U
'-
:::: .....
,,1
4 ~,
'i'
~
'3 '-"
'-'
~
i:;
" c..
t :t:
.u f::-
~""
5..c
0-: ',,-,
.~
'!..!.
o
u
::S-ci
1 ~
"
,.:) 'J)
~."
'"
~
." ~
~;.2
i:;:-
~..c
.:5 t
E p
i::; ~
'- ..s
- '"
'f, ;::.
~
.J @
gt.t;
.E 'l)
,:::-;.=:, g ~
D 2 ;..-"'B ~
J.) .... "TI J-i ~ ~
""9 '"Eo '(;:2 '-' :..;
~ s ~
] ~ 'g ~
cc'-
~"B ?~
::J ~
~Bg
_ '::;1 -..I ~
~ ~'5.Q 'l)
- :::; ~ .::: ..e
:r. 5 b u
g ~
"
u
~
~
--g i::
E ~
5JJ
;2
c
,.):J
;;;
'J::
f
8 ~
"
~
"
u
u
~
.- v ~
~"S ('j
'~ :..-
t; C t
g..c..9
Q 8 .1
; v ;;
- ~ E:::
.@ u r
)-;..D cE:
2 s, u
<<E
:;
-
u
~
6
o
u
~
"
"
v
~
~
~
'~
t
. ~
-a;
~ u
;-: & -'
~ ~ ~
,g ~
E ~
.E
."
"3
c~
u ~
E
if.
~
~2
B z:
"
~c.
...., u
:r: or.
~
'"
'"
'OJ-
'OJ-
""'
o
~
,.2:;- u:
~~n-B;;;~
G ~ ~ ~
:J\Z-]B
~.J-,b;-D
0/,
'"
,..
:%
CJ
~
Ch
</l
-<
z
2
Uo
'"
~
o
o
N
~
~
'OJ-
-<i
o
~
.5
~
'OJ-
00
""'
00
'"
""
~
~
'"
~
t:
-
"
:g
5
co
~
~
.g
"
8
""
~
'2
..:'
'"
~
;j!
o
~
'El:
r;
u
"
",
TABLE OF FIGURES
OPTION 1- 8 LANE ROADWAY
Figure A: ROADWAY DIMENSIONS
Figure B: CIRCULATION
Figure C: ROADWAY SECTION
OPTION 2 - 6 LANE ROADWAY
Figure D; ROADWAY DIMENSIONS
Figure E: CIRCULATION
Figure F: ROADWAY SECTION
OPTION 3 - MULTILANE BOULEVARD
Figure G: ROADWAY DIMENSIONS
Figure H: CIRCULATION
Figure I: SECTION
Figure J: FRONTAGE ROAD INTERSECTION
Figure K: INTERSECTION
Figure L: FRONTAGE ROAD INTERSECTION WITH ELEPHANT EARS
City of Wheat Ridge
In this space there is a large scale map that could not be scanned at
the this time. Please see the Wheat ridge Clerks office if you would
like to see the map.