ITY OF

TAG:  customer survey 

Published Time: -

Filetype: pdf

Filesize: 1105236

City of Longmont 350 Kimbark Street Longmont, CO 80501 (303)651-8691
































C ITY OF L ONGMONT Customer Survey



F INAL R EPORT OF R ESULTS August 2006






















Prepared by:
3005 30th Street • Boulder, CO 80301 • 303-444-7863 •
www.n-r-c.com T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 6 Survey Background ............................................................................................................... 10 Survey Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................................10 Methods..........................................................................................................................................................................................10 Understanding the Results .....................................................................................................................................................11 Longmont Quality of Life...................................................................................................... 13 Overall Quality of Life................................................................................................................................................................13 Quality of Life and Community ............................................................................................................................................16 Community Characteristics.....................................................................................................................................................21 Issues Facing the Community ............................................................................................... 27 Potential Problems in the Community ..............................................................................................................................27 Reasons for Optimism in the Community........................................................................................................................32 Growth............................................................................................................................................................................................33 Evaluation of City Services.................................................................................................... 34 Overall Satisfaction with City Services................................................................................................................................34 Satisfaction with City Services ................................................................................................................................................37 Importance of City Services ....................................................................................................................................................50 Balancing Quality and Importance ....................................................................................................................................55 Contacting City Government................................................................................................ 58 Contact with City Government ............................................................................................................................................58 City Employee Ratings ..............................................................................................................................................................63 Public Information................................................................................................................. 69 Public Information Sources.....................................................................................................................................................69 Computer and Internet Access ............................................................................................................................................72 Impact of the Economy ......................................................................................................... 76 Policy Questions .................................................................................................................... 81 Public Safety ..................................................................................................................................................................................81 Water................................................................................................................................................................................................82 Open Space...................................................................................................................................................................................84 Traffic ................................................................................................................................................................................................87 Code Enforcement.....................................................................................................................................................................94 Leisure..............................................................................................................................................................................................95 Appendix I. Survey Respondent Demographics.................................................................. 97 Appendix II. Comparison of Responses by Ward of Residence .......................................100 Appendix III. Verbatim Responses.....................................................................................103 Appendix IV. Detailed Survey Methodology.....................................................................108 Survey Administration............................................................................................................................................................ 108 Data Analysis and Weighting ............................................................................................................................................ 108 Appendix V. Complete Set of Frequencies ........................................................................110 Appendix VI. Survey Instruments ......................................................................................128 T ABLE OF T ABLES Table 1: Overall Quality of Life: Longmont and the Nation..........................................................................................14 Table 2: Overall Quality of Life: Longmont and the Front Range..............................................................................14 Table 3: Quality of Life Ratings ...................................................................................................................................................16 Table 4: Quality of Life Ratings: Longmont and the Nation .........................................................................................18 Table 5: Quality of Life Ratings: Longmont and the Front Range..............................................................................18 Table 6: Quality of Life Ratings by Demographics ............................................................................................................20 Table 7: Community Characteristics.........................................................................................................................................21 Table 8: Characteristics of the Community - General and Opportunities: Longmont and the Nation ....25 Table 9: Characteristics of the Community - General and Opportunities: Longmont and the Front Range..............................................................................................................................................................................................25 Table 10: Characteristics of the Community - Access and Mobility: Longmont and the Nation.................26 Table 11: Characteristics of the Community - Access and Mobility: Longmont and the Front Range .....26 Table 12: Biggest Problems Longmont Will Face in Next Five Years........................................................................28 Table 13: Potential Problems in Longmont ..........................................................................................................................30 Table 14: Biggest Reasons for Optimism for Longmont in the Next Five Years ..................................................32 Table 15: Reasons for Satisfaction Rating...............................................................................................................................34 Table 16: Overall Quality of Services: Longmont and the Nation..............................................................................36 Table 17: Overall Quality of Services: Longmont and the Front Range..................................................................36 Table 18: 2006 City Service Ratings..........................................................................................................................................38 Table 19: 2003 Ratings of Services Compared by Year...................................................................................................39 Table 20: Quality of Transportation Services: Longmont and the Nation..............................................................43 Table 21: Quality of Transportation Services: Longmont and the Front Range ..................................................43 Table 22: Quality of Leisure Services: Longmont and the Nation..............................................................................44 Table 23: Quality of Leisure Services: Longmont and the Front Range..................................................................44 Table 24: Quality of Utility Services: Longmont and the Nation.................................................................................45 Table 25: Quality of Utility Services: Longmont and the Front Range .....................................................................45 Table 26: Quality of Planning and Code Enforcement Services: Longmont and the Nation.......................46 Table 27: Quality of Planning and Code Enforcement Services: Longmont and the Front Range ...........46 Table 28: Quality of Public Safety Services: Longmont and the Nation ..................................................................47 Table 29: Quality of Public Safety Services: Longmont and the Front Range.......................................................47 Table 30: Quality of Services to Special Populations: Longmont and the Nation...............................................48 Table 31: Quality of Services to Special Populations: Longmont and the Front Range...................................48 Table 32: Quality of Maintenance Services: Longmont and the Nation.................................................................49 Table 33: Quality of Maintenance Services: Longmont and the Front Range.....................................................49 Table 34: 2006 Importance Ratings of City Services.........................................................................................................51 Table 35: Comparison of Ratings of Service Importance ...............................................................................................53 Table 36: Comparison of Services with Higher Importance and Lower Quality: Longmont Over Time.57 Table 37: Top Reasons for Most Recently Contacting the City of Longmont.......................................................61 Table 38: Ratings of Longmont City Employees.................................................................................................................63 Table 39: Ratings of City Employees Compared by Year................................................................................................64 Table 40: Ratings of Contact with the City Employees: Longmont and the Nation..........................................65 Table 41: Ratings of Contact with the City Employees: Longmont and the Front Range..............................65 Table 42: Ratings of Contact with the City Employees by Sociodemographics ..................................................67 Table 43: Sources of Information about the City of Longmont ..................................................................................70 Table 44: Amount of Information Received from the City of Longmont Compared by Year.......................71 Table 45: Resident Internet Use Compared by Year.........................................................................................................73 Table 46: Resident City Web site Use ......................................................................................................................................74 Table 47: Frequency of City Web Site Use............................................................................................................................75 Table 48: Support for or Opposition to Public Safety Tax ..............................................................................................81 Table 49: Support for or Opposition to an Increase to Monthly Water Bill to Manage Water Resources and Increase Water Flow in the St. Vrain Creek .........................................................................................................82 Table 50: Support for or Opposition to the City Issuing Bonds to Complete Storm Water Projects..........83 Table 51: Support for or Opposition to Extending the Open Space Tax................................................................84 Table 52: Support for or Opposition to Options for Extending the Open Space Tax.......................................85 Table 53: Support for or Opposition to Increasing the Open Space Tax ...............................................................86 Table 54: Traffic Congestion on Ken Pratt Boulevard......................................................................................................87 Table 55: Support for or Opposition to Construction of a Southern Bypass to Relieve Traffic Congestion on Ken Pratt Boulevard...........................................................................................................................................................88 Table 56: Traffic Congestion on Ken Pratt Boulevard Compared with Support for or Opposition to Construction of a Southern Bypass ...................................................................................................................................88 Table 57: Support for or Opposition to Construction of the Bypass Costing Between 15 and 20 Millions Dollars .............................................................................................................................................................................................89 Table 58: Traffic Congestion on Ken Pratt Boulevard Compared with Support for or Opposition to Construction of a Southern Bypass Costing Between 15 and 20 Million Dollars........................................89 Table 59: Support for or Opposition to Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Efforts...............................................91 Table 60: Support for or Opposition to the City Spending More Money on Code Enforcement...............94 Table 61: Support for or Opposition to Increasing the City Sales Taxes to Fund Construction of Leisure Facilities...........................................................................................................................................................................................95 Table 62: Support for or Opposition to a Lodging Tax...................................................................................................96 T ABLE OF F IGURES Figure 1: Overall Quality of Life..................................................................................................................................................13 Figure 2: Overall Quality of Life Compared by Year.........................................................................................................13 Figure 3: Overall Quality of Life: Longmont and the Nation .......................................................................................14 Figure 4: Longmont Quality of Life Ratings Compared by Year.................................................................................17 Figure 5: Quality of Life Ratings: Longmont and the Nation .......................................................................................18 Figure 6: Community Characteristics ......................................................................................................................................22 Figure 7: Characteristics of the Community - General and Opportunities: Longmont and the Nation ..24 Figure 8: Characteristics of the Community - Access and Mobility: Longmont and the Nation..................26 Figure 9: Potential Problems in Longmont Compared by Year..................................................................................31 Figure 10: Rate of Population Growth in Longmont ......................................................................................................33 Figure 11: Population Growth Compared by Year ..........................................................................................................33 Figure 12: Overall Satisfaction with City Services...............................................................................................................34 Figure 13: Overall Satisfaction with City Services Compared by Year ......................................................................35 Figure 14: Overall Satisfaction with City Services: Longmont and the Nation.....................................................36 Figure 15: Quality of Transportation Services: Longmont and the Nation............................................................43 Figure 16: Quality of Leisure Services: Longmont and the Nation............................................................................44 Figure 17: Quality of Utility Services: Longmont and the Nation...............................................................................45 Figure 18: Quality of Planning and Code Enforcement Services: Longmont and the Nation.....................46 Figure 19: Quality of Public Safety Services: Longmont and the Nation ................................................................47 Figure 20: Quality of Services to Special Populations: Longmont and the Nation.............................................48 Figure 21: Quality of Maintenance Services: Longmont and the Nation...............................................................49 Figure 22: Comparison of Quality and Importance .........................................................................................................56 Figure 23: Contact with the City to Request Services in the Past 24 Months .......................................................58 Figure 24: Contact with the City to Request Services in the Past 24 Months Compared by Year ..............58 Figure 25: Most Commonly Contacted Services in the Past 24 Months.................................................................60 Figure 26: Overall Impression of City Employees Compared by Year......................................................................63 Figure 27: Ratings of Contact with the City Employees: Longmont and the Nation .......................................65 Figure 28: Inappropriate Treatment of Minority Residents by City Employees ....................................................68 Figure 29: Percent Reporting Inappropriate Treatment to a Public Official ..........................................................68 Figure 30: Amount of Information from the City of Longmont .................................................................................71 Figure 31: Personal Computer at Home ..............................................................................................................................72 Figure 32: Resident Internet Access from Home ...............................................................................................................72 Figure 33: Resident Internet Use Compared by Year ......................................................................................................73 Figure 34: Resident City Web Site Use Compared by Year...........................................................................................74 Figure 35: Frequency of City Web Site Use .........................................................................................................................75 Figure 36: Currently Employed..................................................................................................................................................76 Figure 37: Lost a Job in the Last 12 Months........................................................................................................................76 Figure 38: Currently Employed Compared by Year .........................................................................................................77 Figure 39: Lost a Job in the Last 12 Months Compared by Year...............................................................................77 Figure 40: Length of Unemployment.....................................................................................................................................78 Figure 41: Salary Comparison between Old and New Job .........................................................................................78 Figure 42: Length of Unemployment Compared by Year* .........................................................................................79 Figure 43: Salary Comparison between Old and New Job*.......................................................................................79 Figure 44: Economic Impact on Family Income in the Next Six Months................................................................80 Figure 45: Economic Impact on Family Income in the Next Six Months Compared by Year* ....................80 Figure 46: Support for or Opposition to Public Safety Tax ............................................................................................81 Figure 47: Support for or Opposition to an Increase to Monthly Water Bill to Manage Water Resources and Increase Water Flow in the St. Vrain Creek .........................................................................................................82 Figure 48: Support for or Opposition to the City Issuing Bonds to Complete Storm Water Projects........83 Figure 49: Support for or Opposition to Extending the Open Space Tax..............................................................84 Figure 50: Support for or Opposition to Options for Extending the Open Space Tax ....................................85 Figure 51: Support for or Opposition to Increasing the Open Space Tax .............................................................86 Figure 52: Traffic Congestion on Ken Pratt Boulevard....................................................................................................87 Figure 53: Support for or Opposition to Construction of a Southern Bypass to Relieve Traffic Congestion on Ken Pratt Boulevard...........................................................................................................................................................88 Figure 54: Support for or Opposition to Construction of the Bypass Costing Between 15 and 20 Millions Dollars ............................................................................................................................................................................89 Figure 55: Support for or Opposition to Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Efforts.............................................92 Figure 56: Top Priority Efforts to Address Traffic Issues ...................................................................................................93 Figure 57: Support for or Opposition to the City Spending More Money on Code Enforcement ............94 Figure 58: Support for or Opposition to Increasing the City Sales Taxes to Fund Construction of Leisure Facilities...........................................................................................................................................................................................95 Figure 59: Support for or Opposition to a Lodging Tax.................................................................................................96

FINAL L ONGMONT C USTOMER S ATISFACTION S URVEY 2006: R EPORT OF R ESULTS Page 6 © 2006 Nation al Re searc h
Ce n
t
e
r
,
Inc. Executive Summary S URVEY P URPOSE The Longmont Customer Survey serves as a consumer report card for Longmont
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 their priorities for
community planning and resource allocation. M ETHODS The 2006 survey used a stratified random sampling to select 1,000 residents in each
of three Wards to receive survey mailings. The 2006 report includes comparisons of
specific questions by Ward and illustrates where responses of residents from the
three Wards were significantly different from each other (see Appendix II). Of the 3,000 surveys mailed in June 2006, about 123 of the surveys were returned
because they either had incorrect addresses or were received by vacant housing
units. Of the 2,877 eligible households, 882 completed the survey, providing a
response rate of 31%. The margin of error is no greater than plus or minus 3.3
percentage points around any given percent based on community-wide estimates
and plus or minus two points around any given average rating on a 100-point
scale. The baseline Longmont Customer Survey was conducted in 1996. This was the
eighth iteration of the survey. Q UALITY OF L IFE Overall Quality of life About three-quarters of Longmont residents completing the survey reported that
their quality of life in the City was “good” or better. The average rating for overall quality of life in Longmont was 64, or “good.” This
rating was similar to the average ratings in 2004 and 2003 and to ratings in other
jurisdictions across the nation. The overall quality of life rating was lower than
other Front Range communities. Quality of Life and Community When asked additional quality of life and community questions, at least half of
respondents said that each was “good” or “excellent,” with 80% reporting that
Longmont as a “place to live” was “good” or better. All average ratings given by respondents in 2006 were similar to 2004 ratings,
except “neighborhood as a place to live” which was lower in 2006 (61 on a 100-
point scale) than in 2004 (66). Three out of the four quality of life ratings were rated below the national norms
and all of the quality of life ratings were below the Front Range norms.
FINAL L ONGMONT C USTOMER S ATISFACTION S URVEY 2006: R EPORT OF R ESULTS Page 7 © 2006 Nation al Re searc h
Ce n
t
e
r
,
Inc. Community Characteristics Longmont added a new set of questions to the Customer Satisfaction Survey in
2006 that asked residents to rate various community characteristics as they relate to
the City as a whole. Each was seen as “good” or “excellent” by about one-third to
two-thirds of respondents. Most frequently cited as at least “good” were:
“recreational opportunities;” the “overall appearance of the City of Longmont;”
and “air quality.” P OTENTIAL P ROBLEMS IN THE C OMMUNITY When asked to list the three most pressing problems facing Longmont in the next
five years, the problem most often identified was “growth and overpopulation;”
“traffic;” “general crime (vandalism, drugs, violence);” and “gangs.” Respondents also were asked to rate specific potential problems in Longmont. Five
of the top eight potential problems rated as “moderate” or “major” problems were
crime related. At least two-thirds or more of Longmont residents completing the
survey said that “drugs;” “crime;” “vandalism;” “methamphetamine labs;” and
“graffiti” were at least “moderate” problems in Longmont. Also, two-thirds or
more of those who gave an opinion rated “traffic congestion;” “too much growth;”
and “unsupervised youth” as “moderate” or “major” problems in Longmont. R EASONS FOR O PTIMISM IN THE C OMMUNITY Those responding to the survey were asked what three areas of Longmont
community life they were most optimistic about five years into the future. “Parks,
recreation, trails and opens space;” “restaurants and shopping;” “improved
economy, job market and cost of living;” and “a good place to live, community
spirit” were mentioned most often by respondents. “Parks, recreation, trails and
opens space;” “restaurants and shopping;” and “improved economy, job market
and cost of living” also were the top three areas of optimism in 2004. G ROWTH About 6 in 10 respondents felt that the rate of residential growth in the city was
“too fast” (similar to 2004) while only 1% believed the growth rate was “not fast
enough.” Thirty-six percent of those responding felt the growth rate in Longmont
was “about right.” E VALUATION OF C ITY S ERVICES Overall Satisfaction with City Services A majority of respondents (83%) were “satisfied” or “very” satisfied with City
services overall. The average rating on the 100-point scale was 75, equivalent to
“satisfied,” similar to previous years. This average rating was higher than the
national norm and to ratings given by other Front Range jurisdictions.
FINAL L ONGMONT C USTOMER S ATISFACTION S URVEY 2006: R EPORT OF R ESULTS Page 8 © 2006 Nation al Re searc h
Ce n
t
e
r
,
Inc. Satisfaction with City Services Respondents were presented a list of 31 services to rate as “excellent,” “good,”
“fair or “poor.” Eighteen of these services received average ratings of 64 points or
higher (“good” or better on the 100-point scale). Six of the 31 services were rated
higher in 2006 than in 2004. For 17 of the 28 services for which national normative comparisons were available,
Longmont residents gave ratings higher than ratings given by residents of other
communities. Ten services were rated as higher than the Front Range. Importance of City Services All services were thought to be at least “important” by more than half of the
Longmont residents responding to the survey. Fourteen of the 31 services received
average ratings of 77 points or higher on the 100-point scale (or higher than
“important”) and most were rated similarly to ratings given in 2004. Balancing Quality and Importance Services that were rated higher in importance and lower in quality were: “crime
prevention,” “street repair and maintenance,” “electric conservation programs,”
“street lighting,” “water conservation programs,” “planning” and “enforcing
traffic laws.” “Crime prevention” has been considered higher in importance and
lower in quality since 1996. C ONTACT WITH C ITY G OVERNMENT Of the 55% of respondents who reported having had contact with the City of
Longmont in the past 24 months, about three-quarters rated their overall
impression of the employee that they most recently spoke with as “good” or
“excellent.” When converted to a 100-point scale, respondents gave each city employee
characteristic (“treated you with respect,” “knowledge of issue,” “willingness to
help or understand” and “how easy it was to get in touch with the employee”) an
average rating of 66 or higher, “good” or better. These ratings were lower than
ratings given by respondents in 2006 than in 2004. Longmont City employees rated higher than or similar to national and Front Range
norms. When asked to indicate which City service they most recently contacted, the police
department was the most common reason. P UBLIC I NFORMATION S OURCES Respondents were asked how frequently they used various news sources. The
most frequently used news sources were reading the “Longmont Daily Times-Call”
newspaper (used “very” or “somewhat” frequently by 62% of respondents),
reading “City Line Newsletter (with utility billing statement)” (56%), using “word
of mouth/friends” (50%) and reading “another newspaper” (37%). About 8 in 10 respondents (80%) reported that they the get “just the right amount”
of information for the City, similar to previous years.
FINAL L ONGMONT C USTOMER S ATISFACTION S URVEY 2006: R EPORT OF R ESULTS Page 9 © 2006 Nation al Re searc h
Ce n
t
e
r
,
Inc. C OMPUTER AND I NTERNET A CCESS The percentage of Longmont residents with Internet access in their homes
increased tremendously from 1998 to 2000 and has steadily increased since the 2000
survey iteration. The percentage of respondents who used the Internet to make purchases or pay for
services one or more times in 2006 (66%) was similar to the percentage of
respondents in 2004 (65%). The percent of respondents reporting use at least one or
more times in the previous 12 months has increased over time. C ITY W EB S ITE U SE A higher proportion of respondents reported using the City of Longmont Web site
one or more times in 2006 than in 2004. Also, a higher proportion of those
completing the survey in 2006 than those in 2004 reported using the City Web site
for each listed reason, except for “downloading a City form.” P OLICY Q UESTIONS Longmont residents responding to the 2006 Customer Satisfaction Survey were
asked a set of policy questions to assess their opinions about salient issues
impacting the City government and the community, including public safety; water;
open space; traffic; code enforcement; and leisure. For each topic area, a majority of
respondents reported “somewhat” or “strongly” supporting the ideas.
FINAL L ONGMONT C USTOMER S ATISFACTION S URVEY 2006: R EPORT OF R ESULTS Page 10 © 2006 Nation al Re searc h
Ce n
t
e
r
,
Inc. Survey Background S URVEY P URPOSE The Longmont Customer Survey serves as a consumer report card for Longmont 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 their priorities for community planning and resource allocation. Focus on the quality of service delivery and the importance of services helps council, staff
and the public to set priorities for budget decisions and lays the groundwork for tracking
community opinions about the core responsibilities of Longmont City government, helping
to assure maximum service quality over time. This kind of survey gets at the key services that local government controls to create a
quality community. It is akin to private sector customer surveys that are used regularly by
many corporations to monitor where there are weaknesses in product or service delivery
before customers defect to competition or before other problems from dissatisfied
customers arise. The first Longmont citizen survey was conducted in 1994, and was quite different from the
survey conducted in later years. Therefore, the trend lines presented throughout this report
includes data back to 1996, when available. This customer survey generates a reliable
foundation of resident opinion that can be monitored periodically over the coming years,
like taking the community pulse, as Longmont changes and grows. M ETHODS The 2006 survey used stratified random sampling to select 1,000 residents in each of three
Wards to receive survey mailings. The 2006 report includes comparisons of specific
questions by Ward and illustrates where responses of residents from the three Wards were
significantly different from each other (see Appendix II). Of the 3,000 surveys mailed in June 2006, 882 responded to the mailed questionnaire giving
a response rate of 31% compared with 35% in 2004. The margin of error is no greater than
plus or minus 3.3 percentage points around any given percent based on community-wide
estimates and 2.0 points around any given average rating. Survey results were weighted so that the respondent gender, age, ethnicity and education
were represented in the proportions reflective of the entire city. (For more information see
Appendix IV.)
FINAL L ONGMONT C USTOMER S ATISFACTION S URVEY 2006: R EPORT OF R ESULTS Page 11 © 2006 Nation al Re searc h
Ce n
t
e
r
,
Inc. U NDERSTANDING THE R ESULTS “D ON ’ T K NOW ” R ESPONSES AND R OUNDING Unless otherwise indicated, reported responses are for those who had an opinion – “don’t
know” responses were removed from the analyses, but can be found in the complete set of
frequencies in Appendix V.

For some questions, respondents were permitted to select multiple responses. When the
total exceeds 100% in a table for a multiple response question, it is because some
respondents are counted in multiple categories. When a table for a question that only
permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to the customary
practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number.

Open ended responses and “other” responses appear verbatim in Appendix III.
P RECISION OF E STIMATES It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of
confidence” (or margin of error). The 95 percent confidence level for this survey is
generally no greater than plus or minus 3.3 percentage points around any given percent
reported for the entire sample (882 completed surveys) and 2.0 points around any average
rating on a 100-point scale. For comparisons by Ward, the margin of error rises to
approximately plus or minus 6.1 percentage points (or 3.6 points on a 100-point scale) since
sample sizes were approximately 262 for Ward 1, 312 for Ward 2 and 308 for Ward 3. P UTTING E VALUATIONS ONTO A 100-P OINT S CALE Although responses to many of the evaluative or frequency questions were made on four-
or five- point scales with one representing the best rating, the scales had different labels
(e.g., “very satisfied,” “excellent,” “very important”). To make comparisons easier, many
of the results in this summary are reported on a common scale where zero 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 and if everyone reported “good,” then the average
rating would be 67 points. The new scale can be thought of like the thermometer used to
represent total giving to United Way. The higher the thermometer reading, the closer to the
goal of 100 – in this case, the most positive response possible. The .95 confidence interval
around a score on the 0-100 scale based on all respondents typically will be no greater than
plus or minus two points on the 100-point scale. C OMPARING S URVEY R ESULTS As this survey was the eighth in a series of citizen surveys, the year 2006 results are
presented along with data from previous survey years when available. A survey was also
conducted in 1994, although there are only a few questions that are comparable to this 2004
survey. Comparisons also are made with the 1994 service ratings where possible.
FINAL L ONGMONT C USTOMER S ATISFACTION S URVEY 2006: R EPORT OF R ESULTS Page 12 © 2006 Nation al Re searc h
Ce n
t
e
r
,
Inc. 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 from City of Longmont services to similar services provided by other
jurisdictions. This way we can better understand if “good” is good enough for City of
Longmont service evaluations.

Comparisons to the Front Range 1 and the nation are provided when similar questions are included in NRC’s database of surveys from across the county, and there are at least four
other jurisdictions in which the question was asked. Where comparisons are available,
three numbers are provided in the table in addition to the average rating. The first is the
rank assigned to Longmont’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 the 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 Longmont’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 question was asked had higher
ratings.

Alongside the rank and percentile 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 statistical comparison of Longmont’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 Longmont’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
Longmont’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.
Longmont’s percentile for each compared item is marked with a black line on the chart.

Finally, results for all Longmont residents were compared to results for each of the three
Longmont Wards and are presented in Appendix II.
1 Loveland, Littleton, Boulder, Lakewood, Douglas County, Westminster, Thornton, Lafayette, Northglenn, Parker, Louisville, Greeley, Castle Rock, Broomfield, West Metro Fire Protection District, North Jeffco Park and Recreation District, Englewood, Arvada, Denver (City and County), Boulder County, Fort Collins, Jefferson County, Larimer County, Golden, Wheat Ridge, Greenwood Village and Highlands Ranch.
FINAL L ONGMONT C USTOMER S ATISFACTION S URVEY 2006: R EPORT OF R ESULTS Page 13 © 2006 Nation al Re searc h
Ce n
t
e
r
,
Inc. Longmont Quality of Life O VERALL Q UALITY OF L IFE As in past surveys, residents gave an overall rating to their quality of life in Longmont (see
figure below). Seventeen percent of residents rated quality of life in Longmont as
“excellent,” while 60% rated the quality of life as “good.” About one in five respondents
rated their overall quality of life in Longmont as “fair” and 2% said it was “poor.” Figure 1: Overall Quality of Life Good 60% Fair 21% Poor 2% Excellent 17% C OMPARISON BY Y EAR These ratings also were converted to a 100-point scale where zero equals “poor” and a 100
represents “excellent” for comparison to past Longmont results and evaluations of
residents in Colorado’s Front Range and the nation as a whole. The average rating for
overall quality of life in Longmont was 64, or “good.” This rating was similar to the
average ratings in 2004 and 2003 and lower than in other years, though the lower trend that
began in 2003 was at least partially attributed to a change in survey methodology (when
Longmont changed from a phone survey to a mail survey). Figure 2: Overall Quality of Life Compared by Year 73 73 73 73 69 62 65 64 0 20 40 60 80 100 1996 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006
FINAL L ONGMONT C USTOMER S ATISFACTION S URVEY 2006: R EPORT OF R ESULTS Page 14 © 2006 Nation al Re searc h
Ce n
t
e
r
,
Inc. C OMPARISON TO N ATIONAL AND F RONT R ANGE N ORMS The average rating for overall quality of life in Longmont was similar to other jurisdictions
in the nation and below average ratings of other Front Range jurisdictions. Figure 3: Overall Quality of Life: Longmont and the Nation 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Overall quality of life Table 1: Overall Quality of Life: Longmont and the Nation
City of Longmont Rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Longmont Percentile Comparison of Longmont Rating to Norm Overall quality
of life in
Longmont 64 100 178 44% Similar to the norm Table 2: Overall Quality of Life: Longmont and the Front Range
City of Longmont Rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Longmont Percentile Comparison of Longmont Rating to Norm Overall quality of life in
Longmont 64 14 18 28% Below the norm
FINAL L ONGMONT C USTOMER S ATISFACTION S URVEY 2006: R EPORT OF R ESULTS Page 15 © 2006 Nation al Re searc h
Ce n
t
e
r
,
Inc. C OMPARISON OF R ATINGS BY D EMOGRAPHICS This rating was compared by specific respondent sociodemographic characteristics (see
table below). Significantly different answers were given by residents of different
sociodemographic groups, except for gender, education and income. Respondents of
Hispanic origin and those who said that their race was something other than White rated
their overall quality of life in Longmont higher than those respondents who were not of
Hispanic origin and those who reported that their race was White.

Residents who live in attached or detached housing units rated their overall quality of life
in Longmont differently, as did those who rent or own their own residences.
Overall Quality of Life by Demographics Average rating (0=poor, 100=excellent) Overall quality of life in Longmont 18-34 59 35-54 67 Respondent Age 55+ 64 Female 64 Sex of Respondent Male 64
Hispanic origin 67 Ethnicity Not of Hispanic origin 63 White 62 Race Non-White 68 High School degree or less 65 Level of Education More than High School
education 63 Less than $25,000 63 $25,000 - $99,999 62 Income of
Respondent $100,000 or more 68 1-4 years 63 5-9 years 69 10-14 years 66 15 -19 years 57 Length of Residency 20+ years 63 Detached 65 Housing Unit Type Attached 62 Rent 60 Rent or Own Own 65 Gray shading notes statistically significant differences between responses
FINAL L ONGMONT C USTOMER S ATISFACTION S URVEY 2006: R EPORT OF R ESULTS Page 16 © 2006 Nation al Re searc h
Ce n
t
e
r
,
Inc. Q UALITY OF L IFE AND C OMMUNITY The 2006 Longmont Customer Satisfaction Survey asked additional questions about quality
of life and community. About 8 in 10 respondents (80%) rated “Longmont as a place to
live” as “good” or better. About 7 in 10 (72%) felt that their neighborhood was at least a
“good” place to live and two-thirds (66%) felt that Longmont was a “good” or “excellent”
place to raise children. Reported as the least favorable quality of life aspect was “Longmont
as a place to retire,” with 54% of respondents saying it was “good” or better. These ratings were converted to a 100-point scale for comparisons to previous survey years
and other jurisdictions throughout the Front Range and the nation. “Longmont as a place
to live” was given a “good” average rating by Longmont residents (67 points on the 100-
point scale). “Your neighborhood as a place to live” and “Longmont as a place to raise
children” received average ratings of 61 and 60 points, respectively, or about “good” on the
100-point scale. Those responding to the survey rated “Longmont as a place to retire”
slightly lower than the other quality of life characteristics with 52 points on the 100-point
scale, which was still between “good” and “fair.” Note that 12% answered “don’t know”
when asked to rate “Longmont as a place to retire.” (The complete set of frequencies can be
found in Appendix V. Complete Set of Frequencies.) Table 3: Quality of Life Ratings Please rate the following aspects of life in Longmont. Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Average rating (0=poor, 100=excellent) How would you rate
Longmont as a place to live? 21% 59% 19% 1% 100% 67 How would you rate your
neighborhood as a place to
live? 23% 49% 18% 10% 100% 61 How would you rate
Longmont as a place to raise
children? 18% 48% 29% 5% 100% 60 How would you rate
Longmont as a place to retire? 14% 40% 33% 13% 100% 52
FINAL L ONGMONT C USTOMER S ATISFACTION S URVEY 2006: R EPORT OF R ESULTS Page 17 © 2006 Nation al Re searc h
Ce n
t
e
r
,
Inc. C OMPARISON BY Y EAR All ratings given by respondents in 2006 were similar to 2004 ratings, except
“neighborhood as a place to live” which was lower in 2006 (61 on a 100-point scale) than in
2004 (66 points). Figure 4: Longmont Quality of Life Ratings Compared by Year 52 62 66 68 52 60 61 67 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Longmont as a place to retire Longmont as a place to raise children Neighborhood as a place to live* Longmont as a place to live Average rating (0=poor, 100=excellent) 2006
2004 *Notes statistically significant differences between 2006 and 2004. (Significant at p<.05.) C OMPARISON TO N ATIONAL AND F RONT R ANGE N ORMS Three out of the four quality of life ratings were rated below the national norms: “your
neighborhood as a place to live,” “Longmont as a place to raise children” and “Longmont
as a place to retire.” “Longmont as a place to live” received an average rating similar to
other jurisdictions in the nation. All of the quality of life ratings were below the Front
Range norms.
FINAL L ONGMONT C USTOMER S ATISFACTION S URVEY 2006: R EPORT OF R ESULTS Page 18 © 2006 Nation al Re searc h
Ce n
t
e
r
,
Inc. Figure 5: Quality of Life Ratings: Longmont and the Nation 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Longmont as a place to live Your neighborhood as a place to live Longmont as a place to raise children Longmont as a place to retire Table 4: Quality of Life Ratings: Longmont and the Nation
City of Longmont Rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Longmont Percentile Comparison of Longmont Rating to Norm Longmont as a place
to live 67 96 198 52% Similar to the norm Neighborhood as a
place to live 61 88 116 25% Below the norm Longmont as a place to raise children 60 86 135 37% Below the norm Longmont as a place
to retire 52 81 117 32% Below the norm Table 5: Quality of Life Ratings: Longmont and the Front Range
City of Longmont Rating Rank Number of Jurisdictions for Comparison City of Longmont Percentile Comparison of Longmont Rating to Norm Longmont as a place
to live 67 12 15 27% Below the norm Neighborhood as a
place to live 61 9 9 11% Below the norm Longmont as a place to raise children 60 14 14 7% Below the norm Longmont as a place
to retire 52 12 13 15% Below the norm
FINAL L ONGMONT C USTOMER S ATISFACTION S URVEY 2006: R EPORT OF R ESULTS Page 19 © 2006 Nation al Re searc h
Ce n
t
e
r
,
Inc. C OMPARISON OF R ATINGS BY D EMOGRAPHICS The ratings were compared by specific respondent sociodemographic characteristics (see
table on the following page). Significantly different answers were given by residents of
different sociodemographic groups. Respondents of Hispanic origin and those who
reported their race was something other than White rated Longmont as a “place to live,” as
a “place to raise children” and as a “place to retire” with higher average ratings than
respondents who reported they are not of Hispanic origin or White. “Your neighborhood
as a place to live” received a lower average rating by respondents who reported they are of
Hispanic origin than those who said they are not of Hispanic origin.

Residents responding to the survey who reported an annual income of $100,000 or more,
those who reported living in a detached housing unit and those who reported owning their
own home typically gave higher ratings to each quality of life question, than lower income
renters living in attached units, except for Longmont as “place to retire.”
FINAL L ONGMONT C USTOMER S ATISFACTION S URVEY 2006: R EPORT OF R ESULTS Page 20 © 2006 Nation al Re searc h
Ce n
t
e
r
,
Inc. Table 6: Quality of Life Ratings by Demographics Average rating (0=poor, 100=excellent) Longmont as a place to live Your neighborhood as a place to live Longmont as a place to raise children Longmont as a place to retire 18-34 64 56 53 45 35-54 67 61 64 51 Respondent
Age 55+ 69 66 61 59 Female 67 59 61 54 Sex of Respondent Male 67 64 59 49 Hispanic origin 70 47 69 61 Ethnicity Not of Hispanic
origin 66 65 57 49 White 66 65 58 50 Race Non-White 68 47 65 57 High School degree or less 68 56 60 55 Level of Education More than High
School education 66 66 60 49 Less than
$25,000 68 52 61 61 $25,000 -
$99,999 65 61 57 46 Income of
Respondent $100,000 or
more 70 75 65 52 1-4 years 68 68 61 54 5-9 years 72 60 65 56 10-14 years 70 52 67 54 15 -19 years 57 60 49 46 Length of Residency 20+ years 65 61 58 50 Detached 68 69 63 50 Housing Unit
Type Attached 65 50 56 55 Rent 65 50 57 56 Rent or Own Own 68 67 61 50 Gray shading notes statistically significant differences between responses.
FINAL L ONGMONT C USTOMER S ATISFACTION S URVEY 2006: R EPORT OF R ESULTS Page 21 © 2006 Nation al Re searc h
Ce n
t
e
r
,
Inc. C OMMUNITY C HARACTERISTICS Longmont added a new set of questions to the Customer Satisfaction Survey in 2006 (see
table below). It asked residents to rate various community characteristics as they relate to
the City of Longmont as a whole. Each was seen as “good” or “excellent” by about one-
third to two-thirds of respondents. Most frequently cited as “good” or “excellent” were
“recreational opportunities” (70% of respondents), the “overall appearance of the City of
Longmont” (69%) and “air quality” (68%).

The least commonly identified as “good” or “excellent” were “access to affordable quality
housing” (32%), “job opportunities” (31%) and “access to affordable quality child care”
(31%).

Average ratings on the 100-point scale ranged from the equivalent of “fair” to close to
“good.”
Table 7: Community Characteristics Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to the City of Longmont as a whole Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Average rating (0=poor, 100=excellent) Recreational opportunities 19% 51% 25% 6% 100% 61 Overall appearance of the City of
Longmont 10% 59% 29% 3% 100% 59 Air quality 12% 56% 27% 6% 100% 58 Opportunities to attend cultural
activities 11% 50% 31% 8% 100% 55 Sense of community 7% 52% 36% 6% 100% 53 Shopping opportunities 13% 43% 28% 15% 100% 51 Openness and acceptance of the
community towards people of
diverse backgrounds 9% 41% 38% 12% 100% 49 Ease of car travel in the City of Longmont 7% 35% 41% 17% 100% 45 Ease of bus travel in the City of
Longmont 7% 40% 33% 19% 100% 45 Access to affordable quality health
care 9% 33% 34% 24% 100% 44 Access to affordable quality child
care 4% 27% 44% 25% 100% 42 Access to affordable quality
housing 5% 27% 40% 29% 100% 36 Job opportunities 2% 29% 43% 27% 100% 35
FINAL L ONGMONT C USTOMER S ATISFACTION S URVEY 2006: R EPORT OF R ESULTS Page 22 © 2006 Nation al Re searc h
Ce n
t
e
r
,
Inc. Figure 6: Community Characteristics 35 36 42 44 45 45 49 51 53 55 58 59 61 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Job opportunities Access to