HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM III~
~
C1ty Of A,.U.bUr11
CITIZEN OPINIONS OF CITY
AND CITY GOVERNMENT
June, 2009
Et
ELWR~ ~~~RRCHf IMt.
Cit,y of Auburn
Citizens' Opinions of City and
City Government
,~une, 2oos
1.
Introduction ......................................................................1
Methods ..........................................................................2
Respondent Profile ........................................................3
2.
Key Findings
..4
3.
Summary
..6
4.
Overall Quality of Life Measures Higher
..9
5.
Opinions Split on Government Focus
..9
6.
Police, Parks Top Scales
11
7.
2 in 3 Satisfied with City Contact
16
8.
Specific Proposals
16
9.
City Good/Fair at Info & Involving
18
10.
Discussion
20
11.
Findings
21
12.
Appendix
52
Questionnaire with data
Cross-tabulation Tables........... Under Separate Cover
Et
;ELUtR+MRESERFtCH, tN[.
City of Auhurn
Citizens' Opinions of City
and City Government
June 2009
This report summarizes the results of a telephone survey conducted by Elway
Research for the City of Auburn. The survey interviewed Auburn residents
about the quality of life in Auburn, priorities for the future, and the levei of
satisfaction with city government and city services. This is the fifth year that
such a study has been conducted. Several adjustments were made in the
survey for this year.
Specificaily, the following subjects were addressed :
• Attitudes and perceptions regarding the overall quality of life in Auburn;
and the individual areas of the natural environment, recreational and
cultural opportunities, crime and safety, transportation, and job and
economic opportunities.
• Satisfaction with City government in general, and in terms of its
effectiveness, efficiency and accountability.
• Use of various City departments and services.
• Satisfaction with departments and services.
• Desire for additional services, and willingness to pay for more.
• Use of Downtown Auburn.
Demographic information was included in order to profile those with certain
opinions.
This report includes Key Findings and a narrative summary of the findings,
with analysis. The narrative is followed by annotated charts of the pertinent
survey results. A complete set of cross-tabulation tables is presented in the
appendix.
JLine 2009 9% ELttlAV RESEgR,rtt,1mt..
' Citv of Auburn 2
SAMPLE: 500 aduit heads of household in the City of
Auburn were interviewed. Quotas for each
neighborhood were established based on
population estimates provided by the City.
Voting precincts were used to approximate
neighborhood boundaries.
TECHNIQUE: Telephone Survey
FIELD DATES: June 8- 14, 2009
MARGIN OF ERROR: ±4.5% at the 95% confidence interval. That is,
in theory, had all similarly qualified Auburn
residents been interviewed, there is a 95%
probability that the results would be within
±4.5% of the results in this survey.
DATA COLLECTION: Calls were made during weekday evenings
and weekend days. Trained, professional
interviewers under supervision conducted ali
interviews. Up to four attempts were made to
contact a head of household at each number
in the sample before a substitute number was
called. Questionnaires were edited for
completeness, and a percentage of each
interviewer's calis were re-called for
verification.
OPEN-ENDED ITEMS A number of the questions were open-ended,
allowing the respondent to express answers in
his/her own words. Responses to these items
were recorded as close to verbatim as
possible, then categorized and coded for
analysis.
DATA WEIGHTING The data were statistically weighted to more
closely reflect the proportion of renters in the
population. The findings presented in this
report are based on this weighted data. The
weights applied were:
Home owners: 0.70
Renters: 3.28
It must be kept in mind that survey research cannot predict the future. Although
great care was employed in the design, execution and analysis of this survey,
these results can be interpreted only as representing the answers given by these
respondents to these questions at the time they were interviewed.
JuCie 20C° +Ct L'LttlAV;RESERRL'N, IIVC.,
til City of Auburn 3
In interpreting these findings, it is important to keep in mind the
characteristics of the people actually interviewed. This table presents a
profile of the 500 respondents in the survey, using the weighted data.
Note: Here and throughout this report, percentages may not add to 100%, due to
rounding.
GENDER:
49%
Male
51 %
Female
NEIGHBORHOOD:
13%
North
26%
South
8%
SE/Chinook
5%
West
14%
Downtown
14%
Lakeland
19%
Lea HIII
AGE:
16%
18-34
13%
35-44
21 %
45-54
17%
55-64
31%
65+
LENGTH OF RESIDENCE:
15%
0-1 Year
21 %
2-5 Years
15%
6-10 Years
18%
11-20 Years
32%
20+ ears
OWN / RENT:
59%
Own
39%
Rent
HOUSEHOLD TYPE:
32%
Couple with children at home
35%
Couple with no children at home
24%
Single with no children at home
8%
Sin le with children at home
ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD
19%
$35,000 or less
16%
Over $35
000 to $50
000
INCOME:
17%
,
,
Over $50,000 to $74,000
11%
$75,000 to $99,000
11 %
$100,000 or more
27%
No res onse
June 20009 +C+i ELtURS+;17,E'SERItGN, lMr..
1`1 City of Auburn 4
KEY FINDINGS
♦ Residents like living in Auburn:
• Half of respondents (49%) rated the overall quality of life in the city "highly"
positive (8 -10 on a 0-10 point scale), up somewhat from previous years.
. Three times as many this year as last said they had no problems or
concerns with living in Auburn (22%, compared to 8%.)
• 9 in 10 agreed that it was a"good place for families."
. More than 4 in 5 felt safe - in Auburn generally, and, even more so, in their
own neighborhood.
. All aspects of Quality of Life that were asked about directly were rated
higher this year than last, except for Jobs and Economic Opportunities
which held steady, even in an economic downturn.
. Nearly 2 in 3 respondents had visited Downtown Auburn 12 or more times
within the past year.
♦ Natural environment still rated highest aspect of quality of life:
. 54% rated the Environment "high" (8-10) as in 2008, followed by
Recreation and Cultural Opportunities (46%) and Crime and Safety (41%).
♦ The greatest quality of life improvements were in transportation.
. 39% rated this as "high" in 2009, vs. 11% last year.
. Half as many (23% vs. 50% in 2008) named transportation/traffic as one
of their problems or concerns with Auburn.
• Only 27% would spend an extra tax $1 on roads, down from 50% in 2008.
• Reviews of city government generally positive:
. 36% said that the City focused on the "right things;" and 32°/o said "wrong."
. Just over half (53%) respondents were generally satisfied with the level of
city services they received for the amount of taxes paid, with 30% at the
high end of that scale (8-10 on a 0-10 scale).
. 6 in 10 said that their tax dollars were "well spent."
• 55% said the city is "good" (45°/o) or "excellent" (10%) at keeping citizens
informed.
. 2 in 3 were generally satisfied with the result of any contact with city staff.
. 68% saw city government as "mostly" (55%) or "very effective" (11%)
. 64% saw city government as "mostly" (53%) or "very efficient" (11%)
June 2000, Z% ELtttAY ltESEAJiC°H,l1YC ,
Citv of Auburn 5
• 62% saw city government as "very"(19%) or "somewhat accountable" (43%).
• Just under half said that Auburn was "good" (37%) "excellent"(9%) at
invoiving residents in decisions.
♦ Police, Parks and Water were "star" services:
. Each of these departments were rated above average for importance and
performance scores (compared to other departments).
• Community Events aiso earned high grades, although this area was
relativefy less important.
• Parks, Arts and Recreation (including Community Centers) was by far the
most used department (53% within the past 12 months).
. If respondents were to spend an extra $1.00 in taxes, most would be
inclined to spend it on police.
• If there were to be a$1.00 decrease in taxes, fewer would take it from
police than from any of the other programs queried.
• Police volunteer programs were the programs with the most increased
awareness (44% were aware, up from 24% last year).
♦ Street conditions and maintenance scored as "imperatives":
. These were the two services that scored above average in importance, but
below average in performance.
. Their "grades" were C+/B-; 2.4 and 2.6, respectively, on a 0-4 scale.
• Arterial street repair was the funding option with the highest
proportion of support:
• Just over half said they would support funding arterial street repair,
followed by 48% for "continuing the economic development of downtown."
. Both had higher levels of support than there was for an environment park
and continuing investment in the Les Gove Campus.
JLirte2009 +C-C ELttJ'A'VRESERRM,1NC..
13 City of Auburn
6
SUMMARY
The perception of the Overall Quality of Life in Auburn was up from 2008:
49% rated the Quality of Life as "high" (8-10 on a 0-10 scale), compared to
42% last year;
46% rated the Quality of Life "moderately" (4-7) on the scale; while only
4% rated it "low" (0-3).
Last year had been similar to the years before, indicating that 2009 made a
break with all previous years.
Lower income residents and younger respondents were somewhat less
inclined to give Auburn's Quality of Life a"high" rating:
40% of those making under $50,000 did so, compared to
50% of those with higher incomes.
41% of those under 45 years of age gave a"high" rating, vs.
56% of respondents 65 years or older.
A Quarter Said "No Concerns"
In keeping with this level of satisfaction, concerns decreased from 2008:
• Three times as many this year as last said they had no problems or
concerns with living in Auburn (22%, compared to 8% in 2008.)
• Half as many (23% vs. 50%) were concerned with transportation/traffic.
Concerns about crime and safety were up somewhat from 2008, and as were
mentions of growth/land use/zoning:
25% brought up crime/safety, vs. 16% last year;
14% mentioned growth, land use and/or zoning as a problem or concern,
up very slightly from 10%.
All other issues were similar to last year, and were mentioned by fewer than
10% each.
June20t19 aCt Lttt1RllRESERttM,llYt..
I:::i Citv of Auburn 7
Atmosphere and Location Most Appreciated Attributes
What respondents most liked about living in Auburn was most often
described as:
• The atmosphere (28%- up slightly from 22% in 2008); and
• The location (16%, up from 8%).
A few specifics were mentioned by half as many as last year:
8% said "sense of community," compared to 16% in 2008; and
7% said "size," down from 17%.
In addition, this year:
8% said "pubiic service," twice the rate of 2008's 4%;
6% said "the economy," up from 2%; and
5% said "the physical environment," similar to last year.
Most Aspects of Life Quality Also Up in Structured Ratings
All aspects of Quality of Life that were asked about directly were rated higher
this year than last, except for Jobs and Economic Opportunities. This is not
surprising, given the economic situation. Indeed, it is notable that this
economic measure did not fall in Auburn.
Overall, only 1 in 8 or fewer rated any specific aspect of quality of life as
"low." Most likely to be rated "high" (8-10) were, as in 2008:
• The Natural Environment (54% gave a"high" rating, up from 46%.)
• Recreation and Cultural Opportunities (46%, same as 44% last year.)
Not far behind were:
• Crime and safety, 41% "high," up from 34% in 2008.
Transportation, with the greatest improvement in all the structured ratings
of quality of life:
39% of respondents rated this as "high,"
43% moderate, and
12% low; compared to last year's
11% "high," 55% "moderate" and 32% "low."
At the bottom of the list was "Jobs and Economic Opportunities":
15% this year and 16% last year rated this "high."
51% and 54% gave it a moderate rating.
It is notable that a large percentage had no opinion about jobs and
economics (22% this year and 17% last year.) This was particularly true of the
oldest respondents, who are probabiy out of the job market:
47% of respondents age 65+ could not rate jobs/economy, vs.
25% of those under age 65.
June 2009 ERE"l.vGAv RESEflpxii, IXC..
I ' Citv of Auburn 8
It is notable that when queried specifically, "the Natural Environment" was
the highest rated Quality of Life aspect, but relatively respondents few
mentioned it on their own when asked what they like most about living in
Auburn. In addition, the ratings for Natural Environment and Crime and
Safety proved to have the highest positive correlation with overall the Quality
of Life rating, followed by Transportation. Recreational/Cultural Opportunities
and Job and Economic Opportunities did not enter into the equation.
This suggests that knowing how a respondent rated Crime and Safety, the
Environment, and Transportation would be the best way to predict how s/he
would rate Overall Quality of Life. Ratings on the other two factors do not add
to predictive ability.
"Good Place for Families" Continues
Related to safety, recreation and atmosphere ratings, this year and last, a
great majority of respondents agreed that Auburn was a"good place for
families." Both years were improvements over previous surveys:
89% agreed this year (46% "strongly"). This was equivalent to
90% in 2008 (44% strongly), and compares to
80% in 2007 (31% strongly),
85% in 2006 (39%), and
80% in 2005 (31%.)
Majority Feel Safe
More than 4 in 5 feel safe in Auburn, particularly in their own neighborhood:1
84% agreed that they felt safe in their own neighborhood, including
43% who "strongly" agreed
82% felt safe in Auburn in general
37% "strongly agreed."
The wealthiest were most inclined to feel safe:
54% of those with over $75,000 in income "strongly agreed" that they felt
safe in their neighborhood, vs. 39% of others; and
49% vs. 30% "strongly agreed" that they felt safe in Auburn in general.
The neighborhoods where the highest proportion felt safe were:
• Lakeland (64% "strongly agreed"); and
• West Auburn (51%).
Even neighborhoods with the lowest scores were thought safe by majorities
there:
34% of South Auburn residents "strongly agreed" that they felt safe, plus
35% somewhat;
37% and 52% of Downtown residents said the same.
1 This question was not asked in previous years.
,1Une 2009 Ot EL!lJRVIMSEl"lMrlNC.,
1, Citv of Auburn 9
Downtown Visitation Stayed Steady
Six in 10 respondents (61%) said they had visited Downtown Auburn 12
times or more in the past 12 months, essentially the same as last year. Only
4% had not been downtown at ail in the past year. Most others had visited 1
to 4 times (17%).
Frequency of downtown visits went up with income, and was highest among
the middle age groups. Those who visited 12+ times included:
69% with incomes of over $75,000; compared to
62% of $50-75,000 income households, and
56% with incomes of under $50,000.
67% of those between the ages of 35 and 64, vs.
47% of those under 35, and
58% of those over 65.
Those who had not visited at all explained that there was "no shopping
downtown" (6 comments), that they were generaliy housebound (6
comments), or that they were "not interested" (3). A few other reasons were
given by only one respondent, including parking problems, it was not safe,
and that they were "too oid."
Respondents were asked a series of questions about the opinion of City
Government, starting with how much they, themselves, pay attention to it.
52% paid at least some attention to Auburn City Government, including 2
17% who said they paid "a lot of attention;" and
35% who said "some."
The propensity to pay "a lot" of attention went up with age and years of
residence, including:
28% of those age 65+, vs.
7% of those under 45; and.
27% of those who have lived in Auburn 20+ years, compared to
7% of residents of fewer than 6 years.
When asked about the performance of City government, respondents were
evenly split on whether the focus was appropriate:
36% said that the City focused on the "right things;"
32%said "wrongthings:" and
32% did not know.
Respondents who had previously said that they paid "almost no attention" to
city government were consistent in having no opinion about its focus (61%).
z The next several questions about City Government were not asked in previous years.
JLine2009 EL11/AV,FkE5ERRC"H,INC..
Citv of Auburn 10
Those who paid "a lot of attention" were split between thinking that the City
focus was "right" (41%) and "wrong" (40%).
Among those with an opinion on city government's focus, the most variation
occurred between neighborhoods. Those more inclined to say the city was
focused on the "right" rather than the "wrong" things were from:
• Southeast Auburn (47% "right" vs. 22% "wrong");
• Lea H i I I(42% vs. 28%);
• Lakeland (40% vs. 27%); and
• West Auburn (35% vs. 26%).
More likely to say "wrong" than "right focus" were residents of:
• North Auburn (36% said "wrong," vs. 25% "right"); and
• Downtown (35% vs. 26%).
Asked for examples of being focused on the wrong things, respondents were
most likely to cite:
• Crime/Public Safety (16% of all who said the City's focus was wrong);
• Inefficient government (14%); and
• Downtown growth (8%).
The "right focuses" most often mentioned were:
• Road and street improvements (17% of all who said the focus was right);
• Downtown revitalization (14%);
• The government/mayor in general (13%); and
• The low crime rate (13%).
City Government Mostly Efficient, Effective, Accountable
In new questions this year aimed at general impressions of city government,
majorities of respondents said that City government was effective, efficient,
and accountable, although not usually to the utmost degree.
68% rated it effective (13% "very"; 55% "somewhat");
64% rated it "efficient" (11% and 53%); and
62% rated it "accountable" (19% and 43%).
One of the few consistent patterns in these data was related to years of
residence. However, it is notable how many residents of multiple years could
not answer this series of questions. For example,
16% of 2-19 year residents said "do not know" about both effectiveness
and efficiency, compared to
7% and 13% of those who had lived here 20+ years.
17% of residents of 2-19 years said "do not know" about accountability; vs.
11% of 20+ year residents.
June 2009 C'C ELttIA!V RESERArit iN+C..
Citv of Auburn 11
Parks Used by Most Residents
The Parks and Recreation Department was used significantly more than any
other city service, and usage increased notably from last year.
53% of respondents said they had used the Parks, Arts and Recreation
Department (including Community Centers) in the past 12 months.
This was an increase from 38% in 2008.
32% used Utility billing, "such as to discuss a water or sewer bili," up
slightly from 26%.
25% used Police service and patrols, an increase from 18%;
15% Finance and Utilities, up from 9%; and
14% the Public Work's Office, equivalent to last year's 12%.
All other departments were used by 10% or fewer, similar to in 2008. This
inciuded the Mayor's office (10%), the Permit Center (9%), Planning and
Community Development (8%), and Administrative services (7%).
There were variations in service usages. Some more typically users were:
• Parks/Recreation services:
69% of those ages 45 to 54;
60% of those with children at home;
65% who live in the Southeast; and
63% in Lakeland.
• Police services/patrols:
38% of 35-44 year olds;
35% of renters;
32% of inen (compared to 19% of women); and
31% of South Auburn residents.
Relatively few respondents used any public transportation, although use of
regional transportation between cities increased slightly from 2008:
18% used regional public transit, up from 13%; while
14% used public transit of any kind at least once a month for trips inside
Auburn (equivalent to 12% last year).
Most likely to ride either were those under age 35 and renters:
23% under 35 used public transit inside Auburn in the past month vs.
13% of those over 45 years old.
24% of renters used public transit inside Auburn monthly, vs.
8% of home owners.
26% of renters used regional transit, compared to
12% of home owners.
Jut3e 2009 ~.'qg ELIIIAVRESERRCH, I1Y1:. ,
City of Auburn
Police and Water Most Important
12
When asked to rate the importance of a list of city services on a scale of [0]
"not important to you" to [10] "very important to you," the top-rated services
were:
• Police, with an average rating of 8.5 among those who gave ratings. Some
78% of respondents said "high" importance (8-10 on the scale), with
48% rating it an absolute "10".
• The reliability and cost of water service, with an 8.1 average;
72% rated it of "high" importance (8-10).
Additional services rated highly (8-10) in importance by a majority were:
• The condition of streets (63°/o high, 7.5 average);
• Street maintenance (62%, 7.6);
• Parks and recreation services and programs (61%, 7.6);
• The condition of sidewalks (55%, 7.2);
• The availability of high speed internet access (54%, 7.0);
• The availability of parking (51°/o, 7.0).
Between a third and half gave "high" importance ratings to:
• Community events produced by the city (46% "high," 6.9 average);
• Sidewalk and street landscaping (41%, 6.6);
. Access to public transportation (36%, 5.5).
Almost as many called public transportation "low" in importance (30%
rated it 0-3, the most "low" ratings of any of the services tested.)
Lowest in importance was the Permit Center Staff and Process, with only of
27% respondents rating it "high." Among those who gave a rating, the
average score was 5.6.
Fewer than 1 in 5 could think of any additional services that they wished the
City would provide. Most often mentioned was more police services (13
respondents, or 3% of the total). Other mentions included: children's
activities (11 respondents), school improvements (6), more parks/ recreation
(6), senior programs (5), better access to city hall (4), downtown
improvements (4), handicapped services (4), and Medicare (4).
Police, Parks and Community Events Earn Highest Grades
When asked to grade the same City services on a grading scale of "Excellent"
(A), Good (B), Satisfactory (C), Unsatisfactory (D) to Failing (F), the highest
grades went to:
•"Police Services" - 38% said "A," with a"grade point average" of 3.0;
•"Community Events Produced by the City" (37% and 3.1);
•"Parks & Recreation Services and Programs" (36% and 3.1 average).
June20C90 C% ELrlitflV RESERttCH,INC.,
1:; Citv of Auburn 13
Just over 1 in 4 gave "A's" to:
• The availability of high speed internet access (29%, with a 2.9 average,
although 21°/o had no opinion.)
• The reliability and cost of water service (28%, 2.9 average); and
• Access to public transportation (26%, 2.8 average).
Fewer than 1 in 5 gave "A's" to:
• The availability of parking (18%, 2.6 average);
• The condition of sidewalks (16%, 2.6 average);
• Street maintenance (15%, 2.6 average); and
• Sidewalk and street landscaping (15%, 2.6 average).
The lowest grades went to:
• The permit center staff and process: 13% said "A," but 41% had no
opinion. Among those who gave a rating, the average was 2.6.
• The condition of the streets (12% said "A," with a 2.4 average, the lowest.)
Police, Water, Parks Rated City "Stars"
A quadrant analysis was used to explore the relationship between imporfance
and performance. This chart simultaneously indicates the average
importance and performance scores for each service. It then displays the
position of each service relative to all the other services on both dimensions:
importance and perFormance.
It is important to note that none of the services were rates as unimportant -
importance ratings averaged from 5.5 to 8.5 on the 0-10 scale. Similarly, the
"grade point averages" for performance ranged from 2.4 to 3.0 on the 0-4
scale. The quadrants, therefore show the departments' relative positions,
around the overall averages for importance and performance. The lines
dividing the quadrants on the chart are the average scores for all services.
"Stars" are services which scored above average for both importance and city
performance. These were:
• Police Services, Water Service, and Parks & Recreation;
"Successes" are services which scored above average for performance, but
below average on importance.
• Internet Access and Major Community Events were on the border between
"stars" and "successes." These two services performance grades were
above average, but they were just average or slightly below in importance.
• To a lesser degree Public Transportation was also a"Success."
Performance was about average, but importance was below average.
"Imperatives" are services rated high in importance, but below average for
city performance. These were:
• Street Maintenance and the Condition of Streets;
. The Condition of Sidewalks
Jutte 2009 C~'. EI:Lt►RVRF`SERRL'H, IIVC..
11i"I Ciry of Auburn
14
"Lesser Priorities" are services which were rated lower in importance and
performance than the average. These were:
• Parking Availability (just below the average score for importance);
• Sidewalk and Street Landscaping; and
• Permit Staff and Process.
CITY SERVICES BY IMPORTANCE, PERFORMANCE
9.00
I I - MPERATIVES
8.50
8.00
W
~ Street Maintenance#
~
V
Condition of Streets►
7.50
Z
Q
Condition of Sidewalks ♦
~
7.00 ' Parking Availability
0
Sidewalk/Street
Landscaping #
~
-
6.50.
E
6.00
I Permit Staff/Process ♦
5.50 i
iLESSER PRIORITIES
5.00 _
2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60
Mean
♦ Police Service
♦ Water Service
♦ Parks & Recreation
n erne ccess
*fvlajor Community
Events
♦ Public Transportation
STARS
SUCCESSES
2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80 4.00
PERFORMANCE
This chart plots the average score for importance and performance for each service. The quadrants are
created using the overall average rating for all services for each measure.
Increase Police; Cut Preservation
As another way to prioritize city services, respondents were asked how they
would spend an additional $1.00 in taxes and where they would cut if they
could save $1.00 in taxes.
Respondents would be most inclined to spend an extra dollar on police and
least likely to take it from police. The saved $1.00 most often would come
from "art and historic building preservation." This is a shift from last year,
when any increase was chosen to go to roads:
39% would spend an extra $1 on police, up from 27% last year.
27% would spend it on roads, down from 50% last year.
50% would take $1 from the Preservation of Historic Buildings and Art, if a
decrease were possible, similar to 55% in 2008.
June 2009 Ce ELrttFtV REs+£RFlCX, tJVC.
t'] Citv of Auburn 15
Support for spending on police over roads was highest among those with the
lowest income. The highest income respondents split their preference:
• Among those with under $50,000 in yearly income, 45% would spend any
extra $1 on police, and 20% on roads.
• Among those with $75,000+, it was 36% and 34%, respectively.
Awareness of Newer Services
Respondents were asked if they were aware of three additional programs, not
included in the rating list:
• Respondents were most aware of programs "that encourage recycling"
(72%, up slightly from 67% last year).
• Police volunteer programs registered a significant increase in awareness
from last year (44%, up from 24%).
• Least known were still "neighborhood improvement grants for individual
communities" (24%, equivalent to 21% last year).
The greatest single demographic difference was awareness of police
volunteer programs among income categories:
56% of those with household incomes of $75,000+ were aware, vs.
47% with $50,000 to $75,000, and
35% with under $50,000 in household income.
Homeowners were more aware than renters of all three programs:
76% vs. 67% were of the recycling program;
50% vs. 36% police volunteer program; and
26% vs. 21% neighborhood improvement grants.
For 2 of 3 programs, awareness was lowest among those under 35:
54% of those under age 35 were aware of recycling programs vs.
75% of those over age 35, and
31% were aware of police volunteer programs, vs.,
47% of those older.
Service for Tax Satisfaction Mostly Moderate
Overall, respondents were moderately satisfied with the level of city services
for the amount of taxes paid. Although the proportion "highly satisfied" (8-10)
was up slightly from last year - from 25% to 30% - the average on the 0-10
scale was 5.5, down slightly from 5.8 last year. And nearly half of
respondents (46%) placed themselves between 4-7 on the 0-10 scale. These
differences are not statisticaily significant and thus could be random
variation.
This level of satisfaction did not vary with income, nor was there any
measurable geographic variation. The only difference pattern was that:
37% of those with chiidren in the household were highly satisfied, vs.;
26% of those in childless households.
June 2009 CrC ELr1,tilifilWSF.AArm,i1Mt..
Citv of Auburn
16
At the very end of the survey, 59% said their tax dollars were "well spent" in
Auburn; 26% said "not well spent" and 15% were not sure.
The most recent arrivals (79% of those who lived in Auburn one year or less)
were most likely to say that the tax dollars were well spent. This compared to
56% of residents of two years or longer.
One third of these respondents (34%) had contacted the city in the past year,
usually by phone (54% of contacts). A third of contacts were in person (36%).
Contacts were most typically with:
• The police (24% of contacts, or 8% of all respondents);
• The mayor's office (21% of contacts, or 7% of all respondents); and
• Utilities/water department (14% and 5%).
Two of three (66%) of those who had contact said that they were "generally
satisfied" with the result. Nearly a third (30%) were dissatisfied and 4% could
not say.
The number of contacts per department was too low to report out
"satisfaction percentages" for individual departments. However, every
department had at least as any people satisfied as dissatisfied. The
percentages for the most frequently contacted departments were:
• The Mayor's office - 26 out of 36 contacts satisfied, or 72%;
• Police - 23 out of 40, or 60%; and
• Utilities/Water Department-11 out of 22, or 50%.
Respondents were asked about four specific proposals for potential city
projects. They were asked to indicate their level of support or opposition on a
6-point scale from "strongly support" to "strongly oppose." Specific dollar
amounts were not attached. These four issues had been inciuded in previous
surveys, although some were presented somewhat differently this year.
Arteriai Street Repair
Arterial street repair was approached in two different places in the
questionnaire. First, respondents were asked how likely they were to
"approve paying up to an extra $10 a month, or $120 a year, in property
taxes to repair major arterial streets including Auburn Way, A Street, M Street,
I Street, and others."
Likelihood to approve was slightly higher than last year but was still not at a
June 2009 Lqg E'L#t/tli+'RESERRC"N,11VC..
ICiry of Auburn
17
level that indicated sufficient support to pass a tax increase. Aithough the
difference is not statistically significant, any increase is notable in the current
economy:
42% were on the "support side" of the 10-point scale, with
27% registering strong support (8-10 on the 0-10 scale). Last year.
36% were on the "support side," with 23% registering strong support.
Likelihood to support the proposal this year went up with income, from
25% with under $50,000 a year in household income scoring 8-10 to
36% of those with over $75,000.
Later in the interview, in a question about "spending taxpayer dollars," but
with no specific doilar amounts attached, nor any tax increases proposed,
53% said they "support" (including 31% "strongiy") "Funding arterial street
repair - such as A Street, I Street, M Streets and Auburn Way."
Another 18% voiced "mild support."
Support was fairly even among categories of respondents for this proposai.
Downtown Development
The second most popular of the four proposals that were asked about in
terms of undisclosed "taxpayer's dollars" was "continuing the economic
redevelopment of Auburn's downtown." Overall,
48% were inclined to support spending tax dollars on here, including
29% who "strongly favored" doing so.
Support varied geographically:
• Support was highest in Lakeland (72% "support" or "strong support"), and
• Lowest in Southeast Auburn (38%).
Environmental Park and Les Gove Campus
The other projects tested, again with no dollar amounts, were:
•"An environmental park, including a half mile of ponds and trails along
Highway 167." It was supported by 38% including 24% who said "strongly."
• Support for the environmental park varied, including:
52% of those under age 45, vs.
36% of 45-64 year olds, and
28% of those 65+.
46% with children in the household, vs.
32% without.
46% of West Auburn residents, compared to
21% in the Southeast.
• Support for continuing investment in the Les Gove Campus was even lower:
40% supported this expenditure, including 15% "strongly" supporting.
64% of West Auburn residents "supported" or "strongly supported;" as did
49% of parents with children at home.
J11I1e 2009 9% iELtlJHy i+2ESERRCH,iIVC..
Citv ofAuburn 18
Auburn got generally positive marks for keeping citizens informed, and
involving citizens in city government decisions. Three-quarters of respondents
said either "good" or "only fair," however, resulting in a muted overall rating.
For "keeping citizens informed about what is happening in city government:"
10% rated the city as Excellent;
45% "Good"
29% "Only Fair"; and
10% said "Poor."
For "keeping citizens informed and involved:"
9% rated the city as Excellent;
37% "Good"
29% "Only Fair"; and
11% said "Poor."
Half Get Information from Newspaper
Almost all of the tested sources of information about City government were
said to be helpful by more respondents this year than last, including:
• The newspaper (47% of respondents, up from 41% last year).
This was usually the Reporter (36%) and the Seattle Times (6%);
• City mailings (36%, up from 27%);
• "Word of mouth" (35%, from 24%);
• The website (33%, from 19%, the largest increase);
• Public Access N(26%, from 17%);
• Signs and banners around the city (24%, from 14%);
• Through City parks, recreational programs or community events
(20%, from 11%);
• During major events like the 4th of July, Kidsday, or the Veterans' Day
Parade (17% from 6%).
Significantly fewer rated as helpful: City meetings (8%), the Mayor's weekly
email broadcasts (7%) and/or neighborhood meetings (7%). These
impressions of ineetings and the Mayor's emails did not change from 2008,
but "neighborhood meetings" was up from zero.
In a follow-up question, another 11% confirmed that they were on the
Mayor's email list, for a total of 17% on that list. Of those on the list, 39%
said that the emails were helpful sources of government information.
The differences in information sources were most notable above and below
age 35:
50% of those 35+ said "newspaper," vs. 32% of younger respondents.
50% under 35 said "website," compared to 29% of those older.
.ltane2l`~,09 C% iL'l.Li!lRi+rltFSEFI'tZt",i1,111►C ,
Citv of Auburn 19
Recycling Still Most Known; Police Volunteers Gaining
When asked about their awareness of programs that had not been rated:
• Respondents were most aware of those "that encourage recycling"
(72%, up slightiy from last year's 67%).
• Police volunteer programs registered a significant increase in awareness
(44%, up from 24%).
• Least known were still "neighborhood improvement grants for individual
communities" (24%, equivalent to last year's 21%).
For two of the three programs, awareness was lowest among those under 35:
54% of this age category were aware of recyciing programs, and
31% were aware of police volunteer programs.
The greatest single demographic differences were found in the awareness of
police volunteer programs among income categories:
56% of those with household incomes of $75,000+ were aware, vs.
47% with $50,000 to $75,000, and
35% with under $50,000 in household income.
Jurte20(}9 4:0. ELLI'1'AV itFSEA;'~CN,lNC.,
lk-'l City of Auburn
20
DISCUSSION
The City of Auburn is in an enviabie position in many respects. Residents are
satisfied with life there and most key measurements have improved from last
year.
For all the positive ratings of quality of life, impression of the City government
could be better. However, compared with other Washington cities, Auburn is
in the middle ranges of ineasures for value of tax dollars spent,
effectiveness, efficiency, accountability and focus. Cities with higher scores
have tended to have a wealthier citizen base.
These respondents gave several indications that improvements are most
needed in street repair and conditions. They were inconsistent in their
willingness to pay more for such repairs and maintenance. It is clear, though,
that roads are in line before parks and landscaping.
Citizens everywhere place the highest importance on police and other safety
measures. Auburn scored weil in satisfaction with police; still, respondents
would be most likely to spend any extra dollars there. Citizen evaluation of
funds raised/spent elsewhere probably need to be justified in light of not
takingfrom police services.
P~fl
JLine 2009 Cg EL,tl/R'YFlE'SEAR[H,1MC
I J City of Auburn
21
FINDINGS
JLine 2009 C! FLt#IAVIWSERitL'H, INC.
lk'fl Citv of Auburn 22
Perception of Overall Quality of Life Up Slightly
Mean
7.1
6.8
Question 3: Overall, how would you rate the quality of life in Aubum? Please give a rating on a
scale of zero to 10, where 10 means you think the city has an "excellent" quality of life> a"0" means
it has a"poor" quality of life. A rating of 5 is in the middle.
♦ Fewer lower income and younger residents gave the Quality of Life a
"high" rating:
. 40% of those making under $50,000 said "high", compared to
50% of those with higher incomes.
. 41% of those under 45 years of age gave a"high" rating,
56% of respondents 65 years or older.
JLane2009 Cqg EttttH+YAESE#1~taCH,iNt..
Citv of Auburn 23
Atmosphere in Auburn is "Liked Most"
Atmosphere
28
"Atmosphere" (Urban / Small City)
6
Quiet / Peaceful
12
"Nice" Area / Neighborhood
6
Comfortable / Slower Pace
2
Safety / No Crime
2
Freedom / Liberal Atmosphere
1
Location
16
Location/Convenience/Proximity
12
Proximity to Recreation
1
Proximity To Seattle/Other Cities
3
Other LOCATION
1
Public Services
8
Public Services
1
Schools / Education
3
Parks & Recreation
4
Police & Fire
1
Sense of Community
8
Sense of Community
3
Friendly People
4
Not Overpopulated
1
Diverse Population
<1
Size
7
Size ("Right Size")
1
Not Too Big
<1
Small
6
Other SIZE
<1
Economy
6
My Job is here / Live close to work
4
Cost of Living / Affordable
2
Housing
1
Physical Environment
5
"Physical surroundings"
2
Scenic beauty
1
Clean
2
Water (Bay, Lakes, Rivers)
1
Environmentally Conscious/Green
<1
Born Here / Family Here
5
Born here/Never lived elsewhere
2
Family is here/Friends
2
Transportation ! Traffic
2
Transportation is convenient
1
Traffic not bad / Not congested
1
Pedestrian Friendly/Can Walk
<1
Roads / Streets / Highways
<1
Amenities / Things to do
2
Variety of things to do
1
Cultural (Theater, museums, etc)
<1
Shopping/Businesses
1
Other AMENITIES (Non-Govt)
<1
Non-Specific
2
Climate /Weather Impact -Flooding
2
City Government
<1
"City GovernmenY" (non-specific)
<1
Runs Well
<1
Everything <1
Nothing 3
Other 1
DK/NA E
Question 4: What do you like most about living in Auburn?
♦ Location was mentioned as what they liked most by Lakeland and least
by Lea Hill residents (28% vs. 9%).
June2009 Et ELJI1BVliESE,iI1WH,1NrC ,
I, City of Auburn
24
Fewer Mentions of Problems or Issues
Crime / Safety
25
Crime / Public Safety
17
Drug Control
5
Police DepartmenUServices
3
Traffic / Transportation
23
Traffic Congestion
11
Street Repairs / Sidewalks
10
Mass Transit
<1
Parking
1
Other traffiGtransp
1
Growth / Land Use / Zoning
74
Annexation
1
City Image / Keeping Rural
2
High-Density Development
<1
Downtown Dev//Redev
6
Park Place Project
1
PropeRy/Zoning Restrictions
<1
Too Much Growth/Crowding
3
ConvenienUEasy Access
1
Amenities
8
Lack of Arts/Culture
<1
No Recreation/Activities
2
No Shopping / Restaurants
4
City Appearance / Clean Up
1
Other AMENITIES
1
Economy
6
The Economy
<1
Lack of Busin, Economic Activity
1
Lack of Jobs
2
Cost of living is high
2
Housing Costs
1
City Government
6
City Leadership/Direction/Focus
3
Money Is Handled Poorly
<1
Poor Commun/Doesn't Listen
<1
Taxes
2
Other City Govt
1
Non-Specific
5
Gambling / Casinos / Fireworks
2
Racism / Discrimination
<1
Poverty / Homelessness
2
Public Services
3
Lack of Public Services
<1
Schools Are Poor / Need Funding
1
Other PUBLIC SERVICES
1
Everything <1
Nothing 22
Other 1
Don't Know 3
Question 5: What would you say are some problems or issues that concern you about living in
Auburn?
J+ine 2009 at ELWR+VRESERRCH, /NC..
CitvofAuburn 25
♦ Crime and Safety were more often said to be problems by younger
people and renters:
. 30% of those under 45 years oid gave Crime and Safety as their
highest stated problem vs. 18% of respondents 65 or older.
. 30% of renters said Crime and Safety was a problem vs.
22% of home owners.
♦ Traffic and Transportation was stated as more of a problem among
higher income households, home owners, residents of 2 or more years
and respondents living in Lakeland and Southeast. This included:
. 31% of households with incomes of $75,000 or more vs.
15% of residents with incomes of $50,000 or less.
. 27% of home owners vs. 16% of renters.
. 35% of Southeast and 31% of Lakeland residents vs.
16% of Lea Hill residents.
. 25% of respondents living in Auburn 2 or more years vs.
11% residents 0-1 years.
♦ Females were twice as likely as males to say Growth, Land Use and
Zoning were problems (18% vs. 9%).
JLine 2009 9:~'. ELttJAVR,ESEARrIiI,INt.,
City ofAuburn 26
Transportation was the Greatest Quality of Life
Improvement in 2009
■ High (8-10) El Moderate (4-7) 0 Low (0-3) ❑ No Opinion
Natural
2009
4
2
Environment
2008
Recreation &
Cultural
2009
5.;
5
Opportunities
2008
B
; 5
Crime and
2009
9 '
Safetv
2008
8 !
2009
Transportation
2008 jjM
32 '2
jjjjffi1,F
Job &
2009
2
22
Economic
2008
13 17
Question 6: I'd like you to rate the quality of life in Aubum in several key areas. For each area I
mention, please give a rating on the 0-10 scale, where 0 means "poor" and 10 means "excellent."
♦ The natural environment was rated higher by middle income
respondents:
. 66% with incomes $50-75,000 rated it "high", vs.
51% $75,000+, and
49% $50,000 or less.
♦ Crime and safety was rated "low" by twice as many men as women
(12% vs. 6%)
♦ Transportation was rated "high" by 59% of North area residents vs. 28%
in West/Green and 29% of Lakeland residents.
♦ Almost half of older respondents were not able to rate Jobs and
Economy. Those with no children in the household or who lived in
Auburn longer were less likely to rate it high:
. 47% of respondents age 65+ did not rate Jobs/Economy, vs.;
25% of those under age 65.
. 10% of households with no children rated Jobs/Economy "high', vs.;
22% of those with children.
. 23% of residents of 5 years or less rated "high", vs.;
10% of those living in Auburn 6 years or more.
Mean
7.4
7.1
7.1
6.9
6.6
6.4
6.5
4.5
5.5
5.7
JLtrte 2009 +i:% ELl1lRi+rRESEAitC`H, [XG .
l'i-I Ciry of Auburn
27
Half of Respondents Pay at Least "Some" Attention
to Auburn City Government
Question 7: LeYs talk about the City Government. First, in general, how much attention would you
say you pay to Aubum City government? Would you say you pay...?
♦ Respondents who pay "a lot" of attention went up with age and length
of residence in Auburn:
. 28% of those age 65+ said "a lot," vs. 7% of those under 45.
. 27% of those who have lived in Auburn 20+ years, said "a lot,"
compared to 7% of residents of 0-5 years.
♦ The respondents who paid "almost no attention" were more likely to be
male, under 35 years old and renters, including:
. 24% of males vs. 14% of females.
. 39% age 18-34 vs. 15% 35 or older.
. 26% of renters vs. 14% of home owners.
June 2009 Z9 ELtllfi+l?rRE5EftRCN,fXrC .
ICity of Auburn
28
Split Over City Government Focus
Question 8: In your opinion, is the Auburn City govemment focused on the right things? Or does it spend
too much time on things it should not be doing? Question 8.118.2: What would you say is an example of
that (Wrong thingslRight things)?
Ri ht Thin s
Roads/ Streets Improvement
17
Downtown Revitalization
14
Govt/Mayor Did Good Job
13
Low Crime RatelPublic Safety
13
Parks & Recreation
4
Econ Dev/Attracting Business
4
Better Government Spending
4
Education Schools Kids
3
Good Communication
3
Traffic Issues Solved
2
Community Involvement
2
Keeping Up With Growth
2
Solution in a timely manner
2
Elderly I Senior Issues
1
Other
2
DK/NA
15
Wron Thin s
Crime I Public Safety
16
Inefficient Government
14
Downtown Revitalization
g
High Taxes
7
Govt SpendinglWasteful
6
Narrow Streets I Roads
6
Transportation Traffic
g
Econ Dev / Lack of Business
6
Construction/Tom Down Builtl
4
More Focus on School / Kids
4
Lack of Development Planning
3
Too Much Development
2
Keep Up The Parks
2
Casinos I Too Much Gambling
2
Police Department, Land
1 ga
Management, Parking
Nothing
1
Other
4
DKINA
7
♦ Younger respondents were
less likely to answer (48% 18-34 vs. 29% older).
♦ Focus on the "Right" things was said more by Southeast (47%) and
Lea Hill (42%) than by those in North (25%) or powntown (26%).
JLlne2CC9 alf ELtU`ff'Y/+iESEARrH,I1N[.,
' City of Auburn 29
Majority Said City Government at Least Somewhat
Accountable, Effective, Efficient
Question 9-11: Three ways that people often measure how well an organization is running are
effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability. Effectiveness means accomplishing what you are
supposed to accomplish. Thinking about the City of Auburn, how effective would you say city
government is? Compared to other cities or other levels of government, do you think that the City of
Aubum is...Very Effective, Mostly Effective, Mostly Ineffective, Very Ineffective?
How efficient would you say the City of Aubum government is? That is, does it deliver valuable
services at reasonable cost? Compared to other cities or other levels of government, do you think
that the City of Auburn is...Very Efficient, Mostly Efficient, Mostly Inefficient, Very Inefficient?
How accountable would you say the Ciry of Aubum government is? That is, does it answer to the
public for its action? Compared to other cities or other levels of govemment, do you think that the
City of Aubum is... Very Accountable, Somewhat Accountable, Not Very Accountable, Not at all
Accountable?
♦ Men were more likely than women to have stated that the city
government was "Not at all" accountable (11% vs. 5%).
♦ Residents of less than 2 years were more likely to have said that city
government was "very" effective (21% vs. 12% of residents of 2+ years.)
Ji.1ne 2009 ri'g E!'.#11'tZV RE'5ERRCXr l1NC..
I= Citv of Auburn 30
Strong Majority Continue to Agree Auburn is a
"Good Place for Families"
♦ There were no significant differences among the demographics or areas
for this question.
Jtine 2009 alc ELt1lFl+YiWSk.~IRCH,lNG..
Question 12.1: I am going to read a series of statements about life in Auburn. For each one, tell
me whether you Agree Strongly, Agree, Disagree or Disagree Strongly. The first one is... Auburn is
a aood qlace for families?
' : Citv of Auburn 31
Respondents Feel Safe in Auburn and Their
Neighborhood
■Agree Strongly M Agree 0 No Opinion ■ Disagree ■ Disagree Strongly
Feei Safe in
Neighborhood
. 3"7
Question 12.2 & 12.3: I am going to read a series of statements about life in Aubum. For each one,
tell me whether you Agree Strongly, Agree, Disagree or Disagree Strongly. The first second is... I
feel safe in my neighborhood? I feel safe in Aubum? _
♦ The residents with the highest incomes were most inciined to feel safe
in their neighborhood and Auburn:
. 54% of those with over $75,000 in income "strongly agreed" that
they felt safe in their neighborhood, and
49% "strongly agreed" that they felt safe in Auburn in general.
This compares to 39% and 30%, respectively, among those less
wealthy.
♦ All neighborhood residents felt equally safe in the City of Auburn, but
there were differences in how they felt about their neighborhoods:
. 64% of Lakeland residents "strongly agreed" that they felt safe in
their neighborhood, compared with;
51% in West/Green,
34% South,
37% Downtown,
38% North,
41% Southeast
46% Lea Hill.
Residents of South Auburn were more likely to "disagree strongly"
that they feel safe in their neighborhood (15%), vs.
0% Southeast,
2% Lakeland,
3% North,
3% West/Green,
4°/a Downtown.
JLine 2009 C+C El.tlJi#V RESEAPX14 ltY!C..
1Citv of Auburn 32
Transit Use Low Among Respondents
■ Use ❑ DK/NA N Do Not Use
2009
Public Transit
Trips/Month
in Auburn
~
2008 i !
2009 ~ j
Regional
Public Transit
Trips/Month
'
2008
•
Question 13: Do you use public transit of any kind at least once per month for trips inside Auburn?
Question 14: Do you use it for regional transportation between cities at least once per month?
♦ Most likely to ride were the youngest respondents and renters:
• 23% of 18-34 year olds used public transit inside Auburn in the past
month vs. 13% of those over 45 years old.
. 24% of renters used public transit inside Auburn monthly, vs.
8% of home owners.
26% of renters used regional transit, and
12% of home owners.
♦ Transit riders inside Auburn resided most often in Downtown Auburn
(25%). This compares to 5% from the Southeast and West Auburn
June 2009 Ct El.WF?+YIRlS'SF.1Fi:ttt`H,#MC:.
1.,' Citv of Auburn
City Department Use Up in All Areas
33
Parks and Recreation
Utility Billing
Police Services and Patrols
Finance Utilities
Public Works Office
Mayor's Office
Permit Center
Planning and Community Development
Administrative Services
Other
DKlNA
Question 15: Which of the following City departments, - if any have you used in the last 12
months?
♦ Parks/Recreation Services were most used by:
. 69% of those ages 45 to 54, vs. 43% 65+.
• 60% of those with children at home, vs. 48% with no children.
• 65% who lived in the Southeast and 63% in Lakeland; compared to,
43% from the North region.
♦ Police Services were used in the past year by:
. 32% of inen vs. 19% of women.
. 38% of 35-44 year olds compared to;
19% 65+, 20% 18-34, and 23% 55-64.
• 35% of renters vs. 19% owners.
♦ The Mayor's Office was used in the past year by:
. 17% of respondents 18-34 vs. 8% over 35 years old.
. 23% of respondents living in the Southeast and 20% North Auburn,
vs.
4% South , 5% West Auburn, and 8% in Lakeland or powntown.
JLine 20{}9 C% ERttlRV iMSERR[H, l1Vt..
It] Citv of Auburn
Police Services Get Most
"High" Importance Ratings
34
Question 16: Next I am going to read a list of services and facilities here in Aubum. As I read each
one, tell my how important that is to you and your household. We will use a scale of zero to ten,
where zero means it is Not something that is important to you and 10 means it is Verv Important to
you or your household. The first one is...?
The groups most likely to term each "important" (8-10) included:
♦ Public Transportation - those with lower incomes and who lived in the
Lea Hill area:
. 44% with incomes <$50,000 said "important" vs. 23% with incomes
over $75,000.
. 44% who lived in the Lea Hill neighborhood said "important",
compared to 17% in Southeast.
♦ Condition of Streets younger residents and renters:
. 78% of 18-44 year olds said "important" vs. 57% of respondents
over 45 years old.
. 73 % of renters said streets "important" compared to 57% owners.
♦ Condition of Sidewalks - women (63°/a) more than men (47%).
Mean
8.5
8.1
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.2
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.6
5.5
5.6
June 2009 ftig EL,ttJRV ,RESERRC14 tNt..
City of Auburn 35
♦ Availability of High Speed Internet Access the young, those with over
$50,000, renters, households with children, and certain areas:
. 76% of those under age 35, vs. 50% older.
• 63% with incomes $50,000+, vs. 46% with under $50,000.
. 63% of renters vs. 49% of home owners.
. 65% of households with children compared to 48% with none.
. 71% of Southeast and 70% in Lakeland, vs. South Auburn (41%),
Downtown (49%) and North Auburn (52%).
♦ Police Services - respondents with incomes over $50,000 (80%)
compared to those with less (68% - stili mostly important).
♦ Parks and Recreation - women and households with children:
. 69% of women said "high" vs. 53% of inen; as did
• 69% of homes with children, compared to 57% with no children.
♦ Community Events, produced by the city - women and those living in
the Downtown neighborhood:
. 52% female vs. 40% of males.
• 60% who lived downtown, compared to 37% in Lakeland and 39%
from Lea Hill.
Jttne2009 ~lc ELtttAVRJESERRC`X,1NC..
I ',Citv of Auburn
Public Transportation Gets Most
Low Importance Ratings
36
Mean
Access to Public Transportation
Permit Center Staff and Process
Availability of High Speed Internet Access
Community Events Produced by City
Sidewalk and Street Landscaping
Availability of Parking
Condition of Streets :
Condition of Sidewalks :
Parks & Recreation Services & Programs
Street Maintenance .
Reliability and Cost of Water Service
Police Services n
Rating Low (0-3)
Scale 0-10
Question 16: Next I am going to read a list of services and facilities here in Aubum. As I read each
one, tell my how important that is to you and your household. We will use a scale of zero to ten,
where zero means it is Not something that is important to you and 10 means it is Very Important to
vou or vour household. The first one is...?
More likely to term each "low" (0-3) in importance were:
♦ The Condition of Streets South and Downtown:
. 16% in South and Downtown said "not" important, compared to;
1% in Lea Hill;
2% in Southeast;
4% North;
5% Lakeland and West Auburn.
♦ Public Transportation - the Southeast:
. 53% of Southeast respondents said "not" important, vs.
20% in Lea Hill;
26% in the North and South auburn;
29% in Lakeland.
5.5
5.6
7.0
6.9
6.6
7.0
7.5
7.2
7.6
7.6
8.1
8.5
J1i11e 2009 r.% ELl11AVJ7E5ERRrH, INC..
I ' Citv of Auburn 37
♦ Condition of Sidewalks - Downtown:
. 14% Downtown said "not" important, vs.
3% in Lakeland; and
4% in the North.
♦ Parking Availability - those without children at home:
• 12% no children, vs.
6% with children.
♦ Street Maintenance - respondents over 45 (7%) years old compared to
2% age 18-44.
♦ Parks and Recreation - Downtown (18% compared to 6% or less
elsewhere.)
June2009 +C% EtulR+Y1E5ERPXH,lNC..
I Ciry of Auburn 38
Over Half Give "A" or "B" Grades to City Services of
Which They Were Aware
■A 111113 OC ■D ■F ❑No Opinion
Police Services
Community Events Produced by City
Parks & Recreation Services & Programs
Availability of High Speed Internet Access
Reliability and Cost of Water Service
Access to Public Transportation . 19 10
Availability of Parking
Condition of Sidewalks
Street Maintenance
Sidewalk and Street Landscaping
Permit Center Staff and Process 19 41
Condition of Streets
Question 18: I am going to read through that list again, this time; I would like you to tell me how
well you think the city is doing in that area. As I read each service, I'd like you to give it a letter
grade, like they give in school. A for Excellent, B for Good, C for Satisfactory, D for Unsatisfactory,
F for Failina.
"A-Excellent" grades varied by category, depending on the services:
♦ Public Transportation was given more "A-Excellent" grades by:
. Renters (33% vs. 21% of home owners).
• Residents of Downtown (39%) and North Auburn (34%), more than
Lea Hill (18%) and South (19%).
. Those who have lived in Auburn 0-1 year (41% vs. 23% of longer
residents).
♦ Condition of Streets:
. 18-34 year olds (29% vs. 8% over 35 years old).
. Women (15% compared to 9% of inen).
. Residents of 5 years or less (18% vs. 9% of 6+ year residents).
♦ Sidewalk Conditions:
. 18-34 year olds (30% vs. 13% 35+).
Mean
3.0
3.1
3.1
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.4
June 2009 t i E,1.UMi►ltCSEAR[H, l11tc..
' Ciry of Auburn
. Renters (20% vs. 13% owners).
. Southeast (30%) and Lakeland (29%) residents vs. 8% in South
Auburn, and 11% Lea Hill.
♦ Parking Availability:
. 32% of 18-34 year olds vs. 15% of those 35+.
. 23% of women, compared to 13% men.
♦ Street Maintenance:
. 22% of households with children, vs.
. 10% without.
♦ Sidewalk and Street Landscaping :
. 20% of households with children, vs.
. 11% without.
♦ Landscaping Southeast (23%) vs. South Auburn (10%).
♦ Availability of High Speed Internet:
• 36% of househoids with children, vs. 24% with none.
. 36% with incomes of $50,000+, vs. 23% with under $50,000.
• 53% in Lakeland and 41 % in West, vs. 17% in South Auburn.
♦ Police Services:
. 46% of women vs.
. 30% of inen.
♦ Cost and Reliability of Water Service:
. 42°/o 18-34 year olds vs. 26% over 35 years old.
. 43% of Lakeland residents vs. 17% in Lea Hill.
♦ Park and Recreation Service and Programs:
. 43% of women, compared to
. 28% of inen.
♦ Community Events produced by the City:
. 41% of respondents with $50,000 or less in income, vs.
. 28% of those with $50,000 to $75,000.
39
Jurte 2009 elc ELtl1RV RE'SERRrIm,/N+C..
ICity of Auburn
40
1 in 3 Have
Contacted the City
in Past 12 Months
Half of Contacts
were by Telephone
Question 19.1: The last time you contacted a city official, was your most recent contact...?
♦ Oider and higher income respondents were more likely to have
contacted the city. This was true of:
. 37% of respondents over age 35, compared to
19% ages 18-34.
. 39% with incomes over $50,000 vs.
25% with less.
♦ Men more often contacted the city in person (43%) than did women
(28%).
♦ In person contact also more likely with 45+ year olds (42%) vs. those
18-44 (15%).
June 2009 CIC LLttiRV RL'SEiiM, llVC. ,
I ICitv of Auburn 41
Two-Thirds of Those who Contacted City
Were Satisfied with the Response
Question 19.3: Were you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the response you got?
♦ Respondents over 45 years old had higher satisfaction with city
contacts than those younger:
. 70% over 45 years olds said that they were "generally satisfied" vs.
46% age 44 or younger.
♦ The number of contacts per department was usually too low to report
out "satisfaction percentages." The percentages for the most frequently
contacted departments were:
. The Mayor's office - 26 out of 36 contacts satisfied, or 72%;
. Police - 23 out of 40, or 60%; and
. Utilities/Water Department-11 out of 22, or 50%.
JLine2009 C'g Et1t1AV ,RE5ERRt"H,l1VC..
1,111 Citv of Auburn 42
Slight Increase in Satisfaction
with the Level of City Taxes
♦ 37% of those with children in the household were highly satisfied,
vs. 26% of those in a childless household.
Jut1e 2009 +fi.% Lltt►f,iSfiltESFRRtH,1N+C..
Question 20: The average house in Aubum is assessed at $300,000. The owner of that average
house would pay $3,700 in total property taxes, of which the City would receive around $434 per
year. Thinking about your situation and the value of all the City services that Aubum provides how
satisfied are you with the level of city taxes? Use the same scale where 10 is "highly satisfied" and
0 is "not at all satisfied?
I"I Citv of Auburn 43
Less Likelihood to Approve Extra $10 a Month
for Street Repairs
♦ Those with higher incomes, and children were most likely to give a
"highly likely" rating to a$10/month increase in property tax for street
repair, including:
• 36% of those with over $75,000 a year in household income, vs.;
29% with $50,000 to $75,000, and
25% with under $50,000.
• 35% of households with children, compared to 21% with none.
June 2009 C% ELltlAt+RE'SFARtIiylNC..
Question 21: How likely would you be to approve paying up to an extra $10 a month, or $120 a
year, in property taxes to repair major arterial streets including Aubum Way, A Street, M Street, I
Street, and others? Use a 0-10 scale, where 10 is "highly likely" and 0 is "not at all likely?
'Citv of Auburn 44
$1 More Spending on Police and
$1 Less on Historic Buildings & Art
■ Police Y Roads 0 Parks 8 Recreation 0 Preservation of Historic Buildings & Art O No Opinion
Spend Extra
$1 in Taxes
Pay $1 Less
i n Taxes
2009
2008
Zoos
2008
Question 22: If you had an extra $1 to spend in taxes, which one of the following major areas in
City services would you want it spent on?
Question 23: If you were to pay $1 less in taxes, which one area of services would you
recommend cuttin4 back on?
♦ Support for spending on police over roads was highest among the
lowest income group; the wealthiest were even in their preferences:
. Among those with under $50,000 in yearly income, 45% would
spend any extra $1 on police, and 20% on roads;
. Among those with $75,000+, the spiit was 36% and 34%,
respectively.
JLine 2009 C'C Et.ttlF#i+RE'SEARM,INC.,
I Citv of Auburn
Newspaper Still Most Useful for
Learning about City Government
45
Newspaper
141
Mailings from City
WordofMouth
Website
Public Access N
SignslBanners Around City
~S )s52
Through City Parks/Recreatlonal
■ 2009
Programs/Community Centers
02008
During Major City Events
. m
City MeeUngs
Mayor's Weekly Email Broadcasts
, ,
Neighborhood Meetings
.
0
Other
~
DK/NA
~
Question 24: We are interested in how people get information about City Govemment here in
Auburn. Which of the following have been useful to you to learn about city government?
♦ Differences in how respondents get information was related to age:
. 50% of those 35+ said "newspaper," vs. 32% of younger respondent.
. 50% under 35 said "website," compared to 29% of those oider.
. The Mayor's email" was termed helpful mainly by those 55+
(9%, vs. 4% of younger respondents.
♦ Households with children used the city website (43%) more often than
those without children (26%).
June2G09 9:19 L'L!1/AVRF5E~',fi[N,l1YC.,
1"I'. City of Auburn
46
About 1 in 6 on City E-mail List
Question 25: Are you on a city sponsored email list of updates?
♦ There were no significant differences among the demographics or areas
for the follow-up question.
June 2009 +Clc ELYMY:R65EAlux1rNt..
1-1' Citv of Auburn 47
More than Half Rated the City "Good" at Keeping
them Informed, Fewer for Involved
■ Excellent Ell Good 0 No Opinion ■ Only Fair ■ Poor
City Keeps Citizens
Informed
City Involves Citizens in
City Govt Decisions
Question 26: In terms of keeping citizens informed about what is happening in ciry govemment
How good a job do you think the City of Aubum does at that? Would you say...?
Question 27: How would you rate the city's performance in providing residents the opportunity to
be involved in decisions that affect city government? How good a job do you think the City of
Aubum does at that? Would you say
♦ More younger and lower income rated the City "poor" at keeping them
informed:
. 21% age 18-34 termed the City "poor" vs. 8% of respondents 35 or
older.
. 14% with income under $50,000 said "poor" compared to 6% with
higher incomes.
♦ Those most likely to call the City "poor" at involvement were:
• 55 - 64 years old (20% did); and
. Men (14%, vs. 9% of women).
June 2009 +~'g El.ulF#V tWSERRCH, l1vC. ,
Citv of Auburn 48
Awareness of Police Volunteer Program
Increased Significantly in Past Year
Programs that
Encourage Recycling
Neighborhood
Improvement Grants
for Individual
Communities
■ 2009
02008
Question 28: Before this survey, which of the following City programs were you aware of - if any?
♦ For two out of three programs, awareness was lowest among those
under age 35:
. 54% age 18-34 were aware of recycling programs vs.;
75% of respondents age 35+.
. 31% age 18-34 knew of the Police Volunteer program vs.;
47% of those older.
♦ Awareness of police volunteer programs among income categories was
less in lower incomes:
56% with household incomes of $75,000+ were aware vs.;
47% with $50,000 to $75,000, and
35% with $50,000 or less.
JLine2009 at ElLt#IRi+l2E5'EAFIrH,INIC.,
II Citv of Auburn 49
6 in 10 Visit Downtown at Least Once a Month
■ 2009 El 2008
3F ~ •
G
0 1-4 5-7 8-11
O =
DK/NA
Question 29: How often have you visited Downtown Aubum in the last 12 months, for any reason ?
♦ The frequency of downtown visits went up with income, and was
highest among the middle age groups. Those who visited 12+ times
in the past 12 months included:
. 69% with incomes of over $75,000; compared to
62% of $50,000 to $75,000 households, and
56% with incomes of under $50,000.
• 67% of those between the ages of 35 and 64, vs.
47% of younger respondents, and
58% of those older.
JLine 2009 WE ELIURV RESERRtH, lNC..
12+
1~1 Citv of Auburn 50
Stronger Support for Arterial Street Repair
■Support E3 MOderate DOppose ONo Opinion
Funding for 2009 18 3
Arterial 2008"
Streets
Economic Zoos
Redevelopment 2008
Downtown
Environmental 2009
Park Along 167 2008
Les Gove 2009
Campus
2008
ivor Hsrcea In Zvvo
Question 30: There are questions facing City leaders right now that will require spending taxpayer
dollars. As I read this list, please tell me whether you support or oppose spending taxpayer dollars
on that project. We'll use a scale of 6= Strongly Support, 5=Support, 4= Mildly Support, 3=Mildly
Oppose 2=0ppose or 1= Strongly Oppose. The first one is? (For this chart, as in previous years,
codes 5 and 6 have been combined into "support," 3 and 4 into "moderate," and 1 and 2"oppose.")
♦ Support for the continued Downtown Economic Development was
highest in Lakeland (72%), and lowest in the Southeast (38%).
♦ The Environmental park was supported by:
. 52% of those under 45, vs. 36% of 45 - 64 year olds, and 28% 65+.
. 46% with children in the household, vs. 32% without.
. 6% of West Auburn and Lea Hill residents, compared to 21% in
Southeast.
♦ Les Gove Campus investments were supported by:
. 36% with children, vs. 24% without.
. 36% under age 45, compared to 25% of those 45+.
. 41% of West auburn residents, compared to 21% from Lakeland.
JLine 20(}0, 4% ELIt+tAV itESERFt04 lN[..
1~ Citv of Auburn 51
Over Half of Citizens said Tax Dollars Well Spent
Question 31: Thinking now about all the things we have talked about, as a citizen of Auburn, do
you think that your tax dollars are being well spent here?
♦ Respondents who lived in Auburn one year or less were most likely to
say that the tax dollars were well spent (79%).
♦ This compared to 56% of residents of two years or longer.
June 2009 +~M Et.WRY ,R€5€HRGx, aN[ .
3 Citv of Auburn 52
P 1 a;J 111
~ -
JR,ne2009 C% ELWfiV REsERAM,INr..
City of Auburn Citizen Survey TOPLINE DATA
TOPLINE DATA
This summary presents response frequency distributions for the survey of Auburn residents on behalf of the
City of Auburn.
Telephone interviews were completed with 500 Auburn heads of household between June 8-14, 2009. The
overall margin of sampling error is ±4.5%. That means, in theory, there is a 95% probability that the results of
this survey are within ±4.5% of the results that would have been obtained by interviewing all Auburn heads of
household.
•The data are presented here in the same orderthe questions were asked in the interview.
•The figures in bold type are percentages of respondents who gave each answer.
•The data have been statistically weighted to bring the proportions into line with previous year's surveys.
•Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.
•The data have been statistically weighted to more closely reflect the proportion of renters in the population.
NEIGHBORHOOD: AUBURN NORTH...13
AUBURN SOUTH...26
AUBURN SOUTH EAST / CHINOOK...8
AUBURN WEST / GREEN...S
DOWNTOWN 14
LAKELAND...14
LEA HILL+ANNEX...19
SEX: MALE...49 FEMALE...51
1. Do you live within City limits of Auburn? Yes - 100
2. How long have you lived in the City of Auburn?
0-1 years...15
2-5 years...21
6-10 years...15
11 to 20 years...18
More than 20 years...32
[NA... <1 ]
3. Overall, how would you rate the quality of life in Auburn? Please give a rating
on a scale of zero to 10, where 10 means you think the city has an "excellent"
quality of life, a"0" means it has a"poor" quality of life. A rating of 5 is in the
middle.
POOR = 2...0...2...1...3...11...10...21...30...8...11 = EXCELLENT [ 1= DK/NA]
4. What do you like most about living in Auburn?
DATA AT END PAGE 1
5. What would you say are some problems or issues that concern you about living
in Auburn?
DATA AT END PAGE 13
08/11109 Page 1 of 13 ELWAY RESEARCH, INC.
City of Auburn Citizen Survey TOPLINE DATA
6. I'd like you to rate the quality of life in Auburn in several key areas. For each
area I mention, please give a rating on the 0-10 scale, where 0 means "poor"
and 10 means "excellent."
ROTATE <POOR EXCELLENT> DK
i. The Natural Environment 1... 0...1...2...4...9 ....11 ....17.... 23.16.15...2
2. Recreational & Cultural Opportunities... 1... 0...1...2...3.11 ....12 ....18.... 24.10.11...5
s. Crime and Safety 4... 0...1... 3...7 .14 ....12 ....17.... 25... 9... 8...1
4. Transportation 3... 2... 2... 5...6 .12 ....12 ....12.... 22... 6.12...6
5. )ob & Economic Opportunities 3... 3...2...4.10.16....11 ....14.... 11...3...2.22
7. Let's talk about the City Government. First, in general, how much attention
would you say you pay to Auburn City government? Would you say you pay...?
ROTATE TOPIBOTTOM
A Lot of Attention...17
Some...35
Not Very Much...28
Almost No Attention ...19
[DK/NA...1 ]
8. In your opinion, is the Auburn City government focused on the right things? Or
does it spend too much time on things it should not be doing?
RIGHT THINGS...36
TOO MUCH TIME ON WRONG THINGS...32
[DK/NA...32]
08111109 Page 2 of 13 EL WAY RESEARCH, INC.
City of Auburn Citizen Survey TOPLINE DATA
8.1 What would you say is an example of that? ASKED OF RESPONDENTS WHO SAID
"WRONG THINGS" IN Q8, N=158
Crime / Public Safety
Inefficient Government
Downtown Revitalization
High Taxes
Govt Spending/Wasteful
Narrow Streets / Roads
Transportation Traffic
Econ Dev / Lack of Business
Construction/Torn Down Build
More Focus on School / Kids
16
Lack of Development Planning
3
14
Too Much Development
2
8
Keep Up The Parks
2
7
Police Department
1
6
Land Management
1
6
Too Much Gambling
1
6
Parking
1
6
Casino Issues
1
4
Nothing
1
4
Other
4
DK/NA
7
8.2 What would you say is an example of that? ASKED OF RESPONDENTS WHO SAID "RIGHT
THINGS" IN Q8, N=180
Roads/ Streets Improvement
Downtown Revitalization
Govt / Mayar Did Good Job
Low Crime Rate/Public Safety
Parks & Recreation
Econ Dev/Attracting Businesses
Better Government Spending
Education Schools Kids
17
Good Communication
3
14
Traffic Issues Solved
2
13
Community Involvement
2
13
Keeping Up With Growth
2
4
Solution in a timely manner
2
4
Elderly / Senior Issues
1
4
Other
2
3
DK/NA
15
08111/09 Page 3 of 13 ELWAY RESEARCH, INC.
City of Auburn Citizen Survey TOPLINE DATA
9. Three ways that people often measure how well an organization is running are
effectiveness, eff'iciency, and accountability. Effectiveness means accomplishing
what you are supposed to accomplish. Thinking about the City of Auburn, how
effective would you say city government is? Compared to other cities or other
levels of government, do you think that the City of Auburn is?
ROTATE TOPIBOTTOM
Very Effective 13
Mostly Effective...55
Mostly Ineffective 14
Verv Ineffective...4
DK/NA...14
10. How efficient would you say the City of Auburn government is? That is, does it
deliver valuable services at reasonable cost? Compared to other cities or other
levels of government, do you think that the City of Auburn is...?
ROTATE TOPIBOTTOM
Very Efficient...11
Mostly Efficient...53
Mostly Inefficient...16
Very Inefficient...6
DK/NA...14
11. How accountable would you say the City of Auburn government is? That is, does
it answer to the public for its action? Compared to other cities or other levels of
government, do you think that the City of Auburn is...?
ROTATE TOPIBOTTOM
Very Accountable...19
Somewhat Accountable...43
Not Very Accountable...14
Not At All Accountable...7
DK/NA.... 16
12. I am going to read a series of statements about life in Auburn. For each one,
tell me whether you Agree Strongly, Agree, Disagree or Disagree Strongly.
The first one is...
STRONGLY STRONGLY
AGREE AGREE DISAG DISAG
NA
1.
Aubu
rn in a good place for families....
46
43............
7
3............
2
2.
I feel
safe in my neighborhood............
43........
41............
9
7............
0
3.
I feel
safe in Auburn
37........
45...........
12...............
4............
1
08I11109 Page 4 of 13 ELWAY RESEARCH, INC.
City of Auburn Citizen Survey TOPLINE DATA
13. Do you use public transit of any kind at least once per month for trips inside
Auburn?
YES...14 N0...85
[DK/NA]...1
14. Do you use it for regional transportation between cities at least once per
month?
YES...18 N0...81
[DK/NA]...1
15. Which of the following City departments, - if any have you used in the last 12
months?
READ: CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY
Parks, Arts & Recreation (including community centers)...53
Utility billing (such as to discuss a water or sewer bill)...32
Police services and patrols...25
Finance Utilities...15
Public Works office...14
Mayor's Office...10
Permit Center...9
Planning and Community Development...8
Administrative services (such as legal services, finance, human resources or other)...7
< Other...6
[DK/NA]...14
08I11/09 Page 5 of 13 ELWAYRESEARCH, INC.
City of Auburn Citizen Survey TOPLINE DATA
16. Next I am going to read a list of services and facilities here in Auburn. As I read
each one, tell my how important that is to you and your household. We will use a
scale of zero to ten, where zero means it is Not something that is important to
you and 10 means it is VM Important to you or your household. The first one
is...
ROTATE
<NOT
VERY>
DK
i.
Police services
2
1....
1
0
....2...
5.
...2
.......7
16..14
.....48
...3
2.
Reliability and cost of water service
3
1....
1
1
....2...
7.
...4
.......7
18..15
.....39
...3
3.
Condition of streets
3
1....
1
3
....3
6
....6
.....13
27..13
.....23
...0
4.
Street maintenance
1
2....
1
2
....2...
8
....6
.....15
25..14
.....23
...1
5.
Parks & Recreational services & programs..
3
2
0
1
....3...
7
....4
.....15
24..13
.....24
...3
5.
Condition of sidewalks
4
1....
1
2
....3 .10
....9
.....13
25..13
.....18
...1
7. Availability of high speed internet access.... 8 2....4 3....3 7....4.......7 ....15..13.....26 9
a. Availability of parking .....................................3 2....2...3....3.13....8.....13 24....9.....18...2
9. Community events produced by the City, such
as the Santa parade, Shades of Summer
Bravo Services, 4th of July & Clean Sweep..5...0 ....4...3....5... 7....8.....17 ....16..12.....19 ...6
io.Sidewalk and street landscaping ..................3 0....4...4....4.15..10.....17 21....6.....14...0
ii.Access to public transportation ..................16 4....4...5....4.14....6.......7 ....13....7.....17 ...3
12.The City's permit center staff and process
of getting a permit ..........................................9 4....4 4....4.13....6 .....10 14....3.....10 .19
17. Is there a service or program that the city does not currently provide, that you
believe should be provided. One that you would be willing to pay taxes to
support? [What is that service or program?]
Police / Emergency Services
3
City Center
1
Youth Prog/Activities For Kids
2
Annexation
<1
Food Banks
<1
Dept of Motor Vehicles
<1
Drainage Dam
<1
Campaigning
<1
Neighborhood Watch
<1
Handicap Services
1
Theme Park / Disneyland
<1
Trains
<1
Homeless / Shelter
1
Medicare
1
School Improvements / Education
1
Parks & Recreation
1
Better Transportation
1
Performing Arts Center
<1
Childcare
<1
Anti-Gang Unit
<1
Road / Bridges
<1
Sewer Services
<1
Landscaping
<1
None
62
Senior Programs
1
Other
1
Community Programs
<1
Don't Know
20
Downtown Improvements
1
08111/09 Page 6 of 13 ELWAYRESEARCH, INC.
City of Auburn Citizen Survey TOPLINE DATA
18. I am going to read through that list again, this time; I would like you to tell me
how well you think the city is doing in that area. As I read
each serv
ice, I'd
like
you to give it a letter grade, like they give in school. A for Excellent, B for Good,
C for Satisfactory, D for Unsatisfactory, F for F
ailing.
ROTATE
F
D
C
B
A
DK
i. Police services
3.......
4.......
18
......34
......38
3
z. Community events produced by the City, such
as the Veterans Day parade, Shades of Summer,
BRAVO perFormances, 4th of July and
Clean Sweep
1
4.......
12
......37
......37
8
s. Parks & Recreational services & programs
1
4.......
15
......37
......36
8
4. Availability of high speed internet access
3.......
6.......
14
......27
......29
21
s. Reliability and cost of water service
3.......
5.......
19
......37
......28
8
6. Access to public transportation
5.......
5.......
19
......35
......26
10
7. Availability of parking
3.......
9.......
32
......35
......18
3
a. Condition of sidewalks
5.......
7.......
28
......39
......16
5
9. Street maintenance
3......
10......
28
......43
......15
1
io.Sidewalk and street landscaping
5.......
7.......
29
......41
......15
3
ii.The City's permit center staff and process
of getting a permit
4.......
3.......
19
......19
......13
41
ia . Condition of streets
7......
12......
30
......38
......12
2
19. During the past 12 months, have you contacted any City Official or City
Department to seek service or information, or to make a compliment or
complaint?
YES...34
SKIP TO Q20 F N0...65
SKIP TO Q20 F NA...1
19.1. The last time you contacted a city official, was your most recent
contact...ASKED OF RESPONDENTS WHO SAID "YES" IN Q19, N=168
In Person...36
By Telephone...54
Via The Internet...8
By Some Other Means...1
[DK/NA]...1
08111109 Page 7 of 13 ELWAYRESEARCH, INC.
City of Auburn Citizen Survey TOPLINE DATA
19.2. What department did you contact? ASKED OF RESPONDENTS WHO SAID "YES" IN Q19
N=168
Police Department
Mayor's Office
Utilities / Water Dept.
Department of Sanitation
Planning
Parks & Recreation
Permit Department
City Hall
Road Department
Animal Control
Parking Department
Passport Office
24
Engineering
<1
21
Justice System / Courts
<1
14
Administrative Services
1
6
Transit System
<1
5
Emergency 911
1
4
Fire Department
1
3
Transportation Department
1
3
Don't Know
8
2
2
2
2
19.3 Were you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the response you got?
ASKED OF RESPONDENTS WHO SAID "YES" IN Q19, N=168
SATISFIED...66 DISSATISFIED...30
[DK/NA]...4
20. The average house in Auburn is assessed at $300,000. The owner of that
average house would pay $3,700 in total property taxes, of which the City
would receive around $434 per year. Thinking about your situation and the
value of all the City services that Auburn provides how satisfied are you with
the level of city taxes? Use the same scale where 10 is "highly satisf'ied" and 0
is "not at all satisfied."
NOT AT ALL =6...1...5...5...7...16...10...13...18...6...6= HIGHLY [DK/NA = 7]
21. How likely would you be to approve paying up to an extra $10 a month, or $120
a year, in property taxes to repair major arterial streets including Auburn Way,
A Street, M Street, I Street, and others? Use a 0-10 scale, where 10 is "highly
likely" and 0 is "not at all likely"?
NOT AT ALL =27...3...4...5...3...11...7...8...11...6...10= HIGHLY [DK/NA = 6]
22. If you had an extra $1 to spend in taxes, which one of the following major areas
in City services would you want it spent on?
ROTATE
Police... 39
Roads. . . 27
Parks And Recreation... 20
Preservation of Historic Buildings and Art 8
[DK/NA...5]
08111/09 Page 8 of 13 EL WAY RESEARCH, INC.
City of Auburn Citizen Survey TOPLINE DATA
23. If you were to pay $1 less in taxes, which one area of services would you
recommend cutting back on?
ROTATE
Preservation of Historic Buildings and Art ...50
Parks And Recreation...19
Roads...11
Police...8
[DK/NA...12]
24. We are interested in how people get information about City Government here
in Auburn. Which of the following have been useful to you to learn about city
government?
READ LIST: CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY
Newspaper 47
Mailings From City (Bill Inserts, Brochures, Postcards, Etc.)...36
Word of Mouth (Friends, Neighbor, Church, Etc.)...35
Website...33
Public Access TV, N21...26
Signs Around the City, Banners, Etc...24
Through City Parks, Recreational Programs or Community Events...20
During Major Events That Held Like The 4th Of July, Kidsday Or Veterans Day Parade...17
City Meetings...8
Mayor's Weekly Email Broadcasts...7
Neighborhood Meetings...7
< OTHER...2
DK/NA...5
25. Are you on a city sponsored email list of updates? IF DID NOT MENTION CITY EMAIL LIST
IN Q24 (#3 ) ASK, N=466
YES...11 N0...76
DK/NA...12
26. In terms of keeping citizens informed about what is happening in city
government How good a job do you think the City of Auburn does at that?
Would you say...?
Excellent...10
Good...45
Only Fair...29
Poor...10
[DK/NA...7]
08111/09 Page 9 of 13 ELWAY RESEARCH, INC.
City of Auburn Citizen Survey TOPLINE DATA
27. How would you rate the city's performance in providing residents the
opportunity to be involved in decisions that affect city government? How good a
job do you think the City of Auburn does at that? Would you say...?
Excellent. . .9
Good...37
Only Fair...29
Poor...11
[DK/NA...13]
28. Before this survey, which of the following City programs were you aware of - if
any?
CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY
Programs that encourage recycling...72
Neighborhood improvement grants for individual communities within Auburn...24
Police volunteer proiaram...44
[DK/NA. ..18]
29. How often have you visited Downtown Auburn in the last 12 months, for any
reason?
TIMES 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12+ DK/NA
4 3 6 6 3 3 6 2 2 1 3 1 61 0
29.1. What are the main reasons why you haven't made any visits? ASKED IF 0
VISITS IN Q29, N=18.
No Shopping Downtown...35
Housebound / Don't Go Out Much / Disabled...30
No Need / Not Interested / Nothing To Do There...15
Parking Is Terrible...4
Age...4
Safety...4
[DK/NA... 9]
08111109 Page 10 of 13 ELWAY RESEARCH, INC.
City of Auburn Citizen Survey TOPLINE DATA
30. There questions facing City leaders right now that will require spending
taxpayer dollars. As I read this list, please tell me whether you support or
oppose spending taxpayer dollars on that project. We'll use a scale of 6=
Strongly Support, 5=Support, 4= Mildly Support, 3=Mildly Oppose 2=0ppose
or 1= Strongly Oppose. The first one is...
ROTATE <OPPOSE
SUPPORT>
DK
i. Funding arterial street repair - such as
"A" Street, "I" Street,"M" Streets and
Auburn Way ..........................................10 .......8
9.......18
22
......31
3
z. Continuing the economic redevelopment
of Auburn's downtown ........................14 .......8
12......15......
19
......29
3
s. An environmental park, including
a half mile of ponds and trails along
H ighway 167 22 ......10
12......15
14
......24
3
4. Continuing investment in the
Les Gove Campus ................................14 ......10
16......11......
44
......15
21
31. Thinking now about all the things we have talked about, as a citizen of Auburn,
do you think that your tax dollars are being well spent here? Or not?
WELL SPENT...59 NOT...26
fDK/NA...151
32. I have just a few last questions for our statistical 18-34...16
analysis. How old are you? 35-44...13
45-54... 21
55-64...17
65+...31
[NA...1 ]
33. Which of the following best Couple with children at home...32
describes your household: Couple with no children at home...35
Single with children at home...8
Single with no children at home...24
34. Do you own or rent the place in which OWN.... 59 RENT.....39 DK/NA...2
you live?
35. Finally, I am going to list some
ROTATE TOPIBOTTOM
broad categories. Just stop me
$35,000 or less..
.19
when I get to the category that best
Over $35,000 to $50,000..
.16
describes your approximate
Over $50,000 to $74,000..
.17
household income - before taxes -
$75,000 to $99,000..
.11
for this year.
Over $100,000...11
[DO _NOT READ: _ NO ANSWER]..
.27
08111109 Page 11 of 13 ELWAY RESEARCH, INC.
City of Auburn Citizen Survey TOPLINE DATA
4. What do you like most about living in Auburn?
Atmosphere
28
Phvsical Environment
5
"Atmosphere" (Urban / Small City)
6
"Physical surroundings"
2
Quiet / Peaceful
12
Scenic beauty
1
"Nice" Area / Neighborhood
6
Clean
2
Comfortable / Slower Pace
2
Water (Bay, Lakes, Rivers)
1
Safety / No Crime
2
Environmentally Conscious/Green
<1
Freedom / Liberal Atmosphere
1
Born Here / Familv Here
5
Location
16
Born here/Never lived elsewhere
2
Location/Convenience/Proximity
12
Family is here/Friends
2
Proximity to Recreation
1
Proximity To Seattle/Other Cities
3
Transqortation / Traffic
2
Other LOCATION
1
Transportation is convenient
1
Traffic not bad / Not congested
1
Public Services
8
Pedestrian Friendly/Can Walk
<1
Public Services
1
Roads / Streets / Highways
<1
Schools / Education
3
Parks & Recreation
4
Amenities / Thinqs to do
2
Police & Fire
1
Variety of things to do
1
Cultural (Theater, museums, etc)
<1
Sense of Communitv
8
Shopping/Businesses
1
Sense of Community
3
Other AMENITIES (Non-Govt)
<1
Friendly People
4
Not Overpopulated
1
Non-Specific
2
Diverse Population
<1
Climate /Weather Impact -Flooding
2
Size
7
Citv Government
<1
Size ("Right Size")
1
"City GovernmenY" (non-specific)
<1
Not Too Big
<1
Runs Well
<1
Small
6
Other SIZE
<1
Everything
<1
Nothing
3
Economv
6
Other
1
My Job is here / Live close to work
4
DK/NA
6
Cost of Living / Affordable
2
Housing
1
08111/09 Page 12 of 13 EL WAY RESEARCH, INC.
City of Auburn Citizen Survey TOPLINE DATA
5. What would you say are some problems or issues that concern you about
living in Auburn?
Crime / Safetv
25
Economv
s
Crime / Pubiic Safety
17
The Economy
<1
Drug Control
5
Lack of Busin, Economic Activity
1
Police Department/Services
3
Lack of Jobs
2
Cost of living is high
2
Traffic / Transportation
23
Housing Costs
1
Traffic Congestion
11
Street Repairs / Sidewalks
10
Citv Government
6
Mass Transit
<1
City Leadership/Direction/Focus
3
Parking
1
Money Is Handled Poorly
<1
Other traffic/transp
1
Poor Commun/Doesn't Listen
<1
Taxes
2
Growth / Land Use / Zoning
14
OTHER CITY GOVT
1
Annexation
I
City Image / Keeping Rural
2
Non-Specific
5
High-Density Development
<1
Gambling / Casinos / Fireworks
2
Downtown Dev//Redev
6
Racism / Discrimination
<1
Park Place Project
1
Poverty / Homelessness
2
Property/Zoning Restrictions
<1
Too Much Growth/Crowding
3
Public Services
3
Convenient/Easy Access
1
Lack of Public Services
<1
Schools Are Poor ! Need Funding
1
Amenities
8
Other PUBLIC SERVICES
1
Lack of Arts/Culture
<1
No Recreation/Activities
2
No Shopping / Restaurants
4
Everything
<1
City Appearance / Clean Up
1
Nothing
22
Other AMENITIES
1
Other
1
Don't Know
3
08111109 Page 13 of 13 ELWAY RESEARCH, INC.