The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002 Citizen SurveyAJbemarle County 2002 Citizen Survey REPORT OF RESULTS APRIL 2002 Albemarle County 2002 Citizen Survey REPORT OF RESULTS April 2002 Center for Survey Research, University of Virginia Prepared by: Kate F. Wood Associate Director Thomas M. Guterbock, Ph.D. Director Paul B. Schroeder Research Analyst and Jean L. McSween Graduate Research Assistant Center for Survey Research WELDON COOPER CENTER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE University of Virginia ALBEMARLE COUNTY CITIZEN SURVEY 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables and Figures Acknowledgements Executive Summary Introduction Quality of Life in ALbemarle County Goals for the Strategic Plan Satisfaction with Services Attitudes Toward Government Planning and Growth Concluding Summary 6 7 8 11 14 16 20 26 29 32 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Ouesh'onnaire Survey and Sample ~Iethodology Frequencies for Ail Variables List of Tables 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4-.3 4,4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 5.1 5.2 6.1 Goals for the Strategic Plan Ranked by Mean Importance Rating Comparison of 2002 Mean with 1994 Mean Importance Rating Public Safety Satisfaction Items Satisfaction with Education, Support for the Elderly, and Housing Satisfaction with Information and Opportunities for Citizen Input Satisfaction with Land Preservation and Managing Growth Satisfaction with Cultural Services Sa~dsfaction with Getting Around in Albemarle County Ranked List of All Satisfaction Items Goals for the Strategic Plan and Satisfaction with Services What Would Make Contacting the County More Convenient? Likelihood of Using the Internet Ranked List of Growth Items List of Figures 1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 6.1 Map of Albemarle County Overall Quality of Life Rating for Albemarle County 2002 Mean Quality of Life Rating by Length of Residence Mean Quality of Life Rating by Age of Respondent Mean Quality of Life Rating by Level of Education Overall Satisfaction with County Services Satisfaction with Safety for Walkers and Bicyclists Satisfaction with Managing Growth Comparison of Trust in Government Satisfaction with Helpfulness of Employees Opinion About Development Areas 6 ACKNOWLEDEGMENTS This report details the findings of a survey conducted ~.by the Center for Survey Research at the University of Virginia on behalf of the government of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, in 3anuary and February 2002. All those connected with this project are grateful to the Albemarle County residents who gave their time to answer many questions about their opinions on quality of life and policy issues in the County, their satisfaction with services, and contact with County government. This project received enthusiastic support from Mr. Robert Tucker, Albemarle County Executive. Ms. Lori Spencer, Strategic Management Coordinator, Office of Management and Budget, was CSR% pr/mary contact with the County and was particularly helpful in drafting the questionnaire. She was assisted by an active citizen survey team that included Ms. Lee Catlin of the Community Relations Office, Mr. Wayne Cilimber9 of Department of Planning and Community Development, Ms. 3udy Gough of the Department of Finance, Mr. Hugh Gravitt of the Purchasing Division, Mr. Roger Hfldebeidel of the Office of Management and Budget, Ms.. Kathy Ralston of the Department of Social Services, and Ms. Roxanne White of the County Executive's Office. In addition, the members of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County gave their support and advice to this project. The Albemarle County Department of Plannin§ and Community Development was very helpful in the geographic coding process, supplying maps, a street index, and information about the established boundaries for the County Comprehensive Plan areas. We especially appreciate the efforts of Mr. Tex Weaver, Mr. Rod Burton, and Ms. Elizabeth Garnett. The Center for Su_,vey Research is grateful to all those connected with Albemarle County who contributed to the successful completion of this study. Kate F. Wo~)d, Associate Director of CSR, served as project dire ~or. She assisted Thomas M. Guterbock, Director of :SR and Associate Professor of Sociology, in project pi arming and budgeting, and had principal responsibilil y for drafthng the questionnaire, training interviewer,~, planning the data analysis, and writing the final rE port. She was also primary liaison to Albemarle C )unty throughout the survey period. Dr. Guterbo( k was the principal investigator for this project. He supervised all aspects of the project, including bu~.geting, questionnaire drafting, logistical planning, data analysis, and editing this report, Larry Holleh managed the operation of the CATI laboratory d~rin§ the interviewing phase of this study. Paul Schroeder, Research Analyst, and Brian Meek/ns, Senior Research Analyst, were responsible for programming the survey text and the data analysis. They were amy assisted by 3ean McSween, Graduate Research Assistant at CSR. In addition, 3ean McSween and Paul Schroeder authored portions of this report with Kate Wood. David Borszich and Susan Wormington, graphic designers at the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service, wereI responsible for the design and layout of the final report. 3o Anne Cheatham, fiscal technician at CSR, proo~ead the final draft. The Center f~.r Survey Research is responsible for any errors or on~ssious in this report. Questions may be directed to the Center for Survey Research, P.O. Box 400767, Charlbttesville, Virginia22904-4767. CSR may also be reached by telephone at 434-243-5222; by electronic mail at surveys@virginia.edu, or via the World Wide Web at: http://v~r~v, virginia.edu/surveys. EXECUTTVE SUMMARY Albemarle County 2002 Citizen Survey Kate F. Wood, Assodate Director Thomas 1~. Guterbock, Ph.D., Director Paul B. Schroeder, Research Analyst and 3ean L. McSween, Graduate Research Assistant In 0anuary and February 2002, the Center for Survey Research at the University of Virginia conducted a telephone survey of 703 rem'dents of Albemarle County, Virginia, on behalf of the County's Board of Supervisors and executive management. The purposes of the survey were to determine residents' opinions about quality of life in Albemarle County and about the importance of goals for the County's strategic plan, to assess citizens' satisfaction with a number of services the County provides, their attitudes toward the County government, and to measure citizen opinion about policies for managing growth. A survey with similar purposes was conducted for the County of Albemarle, also by the Center for Survey Research, in 1994. While the 2002 survey was not designed to be a replication of the 1994 survey, we have compared the results of the two surveys where appropriate. Summary of Method At the outset of discussions about the survey, a committee of Albemarle County government staff members created a topical outline, from which CSR generated a questionnaire. Before it was finalized, comments were solicited from the survey committee, senior members of the executive staff, and the County Board of Supervisors. Two pretests were conducted to refine the survey instrument and adjust the length. CSR used Random Digit Dialing (RDD) to contact County residents. The survey calling was conducted January 24 through February 10, 2002, and resulted in 724 completed interviews, a response rate of 28 percent. DuKng the analysis phase, respondent's self-reported area of residence showed that several respondents lived in the City of Charlottesville, and several in surrounding counties. Those were eliminated from the data set as ineligible. The final number of completed interviews of Albemarle residents was 703, and yields a sampling error of +_3.7 percent. Data analysis for this survey included breaking down the responses for all opinion' items by demographic subgroups, in order to determine whether there were statistically significant differences between them. Statistically significant differences are those that probably did not result merely from sampling variability, but instead reflect real differences within the County's adult population. The fo[lowing demographic variables were used in ou~ subgroup analysis: length of residence in the County, employment status, presence of children under 18 in the household, education level, household income, race/ethnicity, age, gender, homeownership, and geographic area of the County. Significant differences in survey responses by sub-group are discussed in the full report. The survey results are briefly summarized below. Quality of Life in Albemarle County First of all, it is clear that Albemarle residents very much like Albemarle County as a place to live. Respondents were asked to rate the quality of life in the County on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best possible place to live, and 1 being the worst. · The mean rating was 8.10, somewhat higher than the mean of 7.92 in the 1994 survey. This change represents a statistically significant improvement. · Seventy-three percent rated the County's quality of life an "8" or better. · Eighteen percent rated the County a "10." · Those mostlikety to give ahigh rating to the County were those who had lived in Albemarle longer, who were older, who owned their homes, were working part time or were retired, the highly educated and the most affluent. Rural residents rated the County higher than those living in the development areas. Goals for the Strategic Plan Because the County is preparing to update the strategic plan, we asked respondents to rate a list of 20 possible goals as "very important," "somewhat important," or "not that important." Computing the mean response for each goal on this three-point scale allows a ranking 8 of the items by importance. We also compared the percent of residents who considered each item very important. 90 percent of our respondents said that prOviding quality education was very important, giving it first place among all the goals in importance, with a mean rating of 2.88 on the 3-point scale. Providing education was followed by safety items: fire service (2.85), protecting water quaUty (2.84), and providing police services (2.75). County residents also believe that preserving the environment is important. In the top half of the goals list are preserving natural resources and open space (2.60), and preserving farmland and forested land (2.57). · Providing services for the elderly (2.61), recreational programs for youth (2.52), and supporting affordable health care are also important (2.52). · In the lower half of the list were additional social items: programs for troubled youth (2.49), encouraging affordable housing (2.40), providing support for people in need (2.33), and supporting affordable child care (2.31). · Promoting economic grov~h (2.22) and supporting cultural opportunities (2.19) were the two least important goals on the list. Satisfaction with Services To report results on satisfaction with County services, we combined the percent "very satisfied" with the percent "somewhat satisfied." For the most general question, overall satisfaction with County programs and services, 92.7 percent of our respondents said they were satisfied. This finding represents a significant increase from 84.3 percent in 1994. · Public safety items showed a very high level of satisfaction, with levels of satisfaction at 90 percent or better for emergency rescue, police and fire protection, and safety in business and residential areas. The highest level of satisfaction was for emergency rescue services, at 97.5 percent. · The only safety-related item to show a lower satisfaction level was safety for walkers and bicyclists, at 68 percent. · The satisfaction rating for the quality of education in the County schools was 83.7 percent. · Efforts to protect natural resources and the environment received a satisfaction rating of 80.5 percent, while 79 percent of survey respondents were satisfied with the County's efforts to preserve open space. The item with the lowest level of satisfaction was getting around by public transportation, with 58.9 percent of our respondents reporting they were satisfied. 0nly about two-thirds of our respondents felt able to rate public transportation. Efforts to manage growth also received a relatively low 64.3 percent satisfaction level. Still, when our respondents were asked about specific policies aimed at managing growth, the vast majority favored each of them, as we report below. Attitudes Toward Government On the whole, citizens of Albemarle display a positive attitude toward their government. Residents of Albemarle County trust their government more often than Americans in general trust their local government or the national government. · About 68 percent of our respondents said they trusted the Albemarle government to do what is right most of the time or just about always. About 31 percent said they could trust the government only some of the time. Compared with national data about trust in local government, Albemarle County is far stronger. Nationally, about 49 percent of citizens say they trust their local governments most of the time or just about always.~ · About 85 percent said they were satisfied 0veralt with the value they received from Albemarle County for their tax dollar. Considering the interaction of taxes and services, two-thirds of our respondents (67.5 percent) favored keeping taxes and services at their current level. Slightly less than half of our respondents had contacted the County in the past year, but of those, more than half were very satisfied with the ~ Thomas M. Guterbock and 3ohn C. Fries, 3Iaintaining America's Sodal Fabric: l'he AAJ~ Survey of C~vic Involvement. Charlottesville Virginia, The Center fox Survey Research, 1997. 9 helpfulness of County employees, and an additional 28 percent were somewhat satisfied with them. To increase the convenience of interacting with the Count~j, our respondents favored expanding the County website, creating branch offices, and increasing the hours of availability of services. They were less favorable toward an automated phone service and kiosks in public areas. About 80 percent of our respondents said they had access to the intemet, and 44 percent of those had visited the Countffs website. Citizens said they would be interested in researching property records on the web, and in using the web- site to apply for permits. They were less likely to want to register for classes, pay fees, or reserve park space over the web. Planning and Growth Asked about policies directed at managing growth or land use in Albemarle County, the majority of our respondents favored them. · Seventy-nine percent of those who expressed an opinion favored the concept of development areas, though 14 percent of all respondents said they had no opinion about this issue. · More than two-thirds of Our respondents favored each of eight other measures the County is considering or has instituted. · The most popular, with 96 percent favoring it, is allowing localized services, such as stores, post offices, etc, in traditionally rural communities. · The least popular item is the development of an interconnected street system in development areas. Sixty-eight percent of our respondents favored that policy. · Seventy-four percent favored the ACE program for acqttiring development fi§hts (46.5 percent stton§ly favored ACE). Seventy-nine percent favored taxing agricultural and forested land at a lower rate in order to defer development. Restricting the number of lots into which a parcel can be subdivided was favored by 76.1 percent. · Providing public amenities in development areas received support from 90.6 percent of respondents. Encouraging a §reater variety and mLx of housing types in the development areas was favored by 83.9 percent of our respondents. Seventy-four percent favored encouraging a greater mix of offices, Stores, restaurants, and other urban services with residential areas in the County's development areas. · For some of these items, a significant number said that they had no opinion--indicating that the County could benefit from additional educational programs regarding planning measures. Conclusion The Center'for Survey Research presents these findings with the hope that they will be of help to the government of Albemarle County as it moves forward with its strategic planning and decision-making. We believe that the dtizen opinions expressed here can provide a useful tool in governing. The Board of Supervisors, executive management, and employees of Albemarle County can take pride in the high level of satisfaction and trust the citizens express. White this survey has also indicated where there is room for improvement, the residents of Albemarle are clearly pleased with their quality of life and with their government. 10 1 INTRODUCTION In 3anuary and February 2002, the Center for Survey Research at the University of Virginia conducted a telephone survey of 703 residents of Albemarle County, Virginia, on behalf of the County's Board of Supervisors and executive management. The purposes of the survey were to determine residents' opinions about quality of life in Albemarle County and about the importance of. goals for the County's strategic plan, to determine their level of satisfaction with a number of services the CounTy provides, and to measure citizen opinion about the way in which the County is managing population growth. A survey with similar purposes was conducted for the County of Albemarle, also by the Center for Survey Research, in 1994. While the 2002 survey was not designed to be completely comparable with the 1994 survey, we hope to be able to draw some comparative conclusions. This report summarizes the results of the survey. Chapter 2 concerns citizen opinion about the quality of life in Albemarle County, rated on a 10-point scale. Chapter 3 provides a ranked list of goals that might be included in the strategic plan. Chapter 4 provides the satisfaction ratings for a number of County services, and compares satisfaction on services with the importance ratings provided in Chapter 3. chapter 5 discusses citizens' view of government and their exper/ence with contacting the County. Chapter 6 discusses resident opinion on planning and development issues. Chapter 7 provides a concluding summary. The complete survey questionnaire is fOund in Appendix A of this report. Appendix B provides details of survey methodology, and Appendix C provides a table of the responses for all substantive and demographic questions. Appendix D is a list of respondents' comments and answers to open-ended questions. Summary of Method At the outset of discussions about the survey, a committee of Albemarle County government staff members created a topical outline, from which CSR generated a questionnaire. Before it was finalized, comments were solicited from the survey committee, senior members of the executive staff, and the County Board of Supervisors. A pretest was conducted 3anuary 8-10, 2002, resulting in 40 completed interviews. Analysis of the results indicated that the average survey length was 30 minutes, far too long to be feasible. In consultation with county staff, we then shortened the questionnaire, primarily through "question rationing' a mode in which some questions are asked of a limited proportion of the sample. The result is that each survey respondent receives a slightly different set of questions, allowing the maximum number of questions, while keeping the survey length reasonable. A second pretest showed that the survey length was significantly shorter, at about 16 minutes. CSR used Random Digit Dialing (RDD) to contact County residents. The survey calling was conducted 3anuanf 24 through February 10, and resulted in 724 completed interviews, a response rate of 28 percent. During the analysis phase, respondent's self-reported area of residence showed that several lived in the City of Charlottesville, and sevemlin surrounding counties. Those were eliminated from the data set as ineligible. The final number of completed interviews of Albemarle residents was 703, and yields a sampling error of +_3.7 percent. Data analysis for this survey included breaking down the responses for all opinion items by demographic subgroups, in order to determine whether there were statistically significant differences between them. Statistically significant differences are those that probably did not result merely from sampling variability, but instead reflect real differences within the County's adult population. The demographic variables listed below were those used in our subgroup anaiysis: Length of residence in Albemarle County. Homeownership. Homeowners were compared with renters. Employment Status. We compared those working full-time with those working part-time, retired, homemakers, students, and those looking for work. Presence of children under 18 in the household. We compared the responses of householders with children with those that did not have children living at home. Education level. Persons with less than high school, high school, some college, college degrees, and graduate, professional, and Ph.D. degrees were compared. 1I Household income. Five categories of self-reported annual household incomes were compared: less than $35,000, $35,000 to $50,000, $50,000 to $75,000 and $75,000 to $100,000 and more than $100,000. Race/ethnicity. Self-identified racial groups were compared. Age. Five categories were used to compare age groups. · Gender. Women were compared with men. · Geographic area of the County. We asked respondents where in the County they lived, either the name of their neighborhood or subdivision Or the nearest intersection to their homes. We then carefully coded their answers to locate each respondent in one of 8 key areas of the County, based on the Counters comprehensive plan. The districts were: County of _.oi.I,O¢ITLa, FI,¢ Figure 1.1 Map of Atbemarie County 12 Rural Area 1, the northwest quadrant of the County, Rural Area 2, the northeast, Rural Area 3, the southwest part of the County, and Rural Area the southeast part of the County. The urban neighborhoods 1 through 7 were combined into a single area for our analysis purposes. A sixth district was Crozet, another was composed of the Hollymead and Piney Mountain areas together, and the final district was the Rivanna growth area. Figure illustrates the County district boundaries. For purposes of analysis, we also collapsed these categories in order to divide the County into two areas: the rural areas and develOpment areas (which include the urban neighborhoods). Demographic Profile of the Sample An early task in the analysis of any survey data is comparing the demographics of the sample with the demographics of the population being studied. When there are discrepancies, it is wise to "weight" the data in order to compensate for the differences. The weighting procedure results in very small differences in the results, but increases their accuracy. For example, our sample of 703 respondents included significantly fewer men than women: about 59 percent were female. We therefore weighted the data so that the results provided here reflect the proportion of adult men and women in Albemarle County: 53 percent female and 47 percent male. We found also that our sample under-represented renters; as compared to homeowners, so we weighted for home' tenure status as well. After weighting, two- thirds of our respondents were homeoWners, while 31 percent were renters. Slightly more than 12 percent of our sample has lived in Albemarle County all their lives. The remaining respondents fall roughly equally into three categories: 30 percent have lived in Albemarle.5 years or less, 29 percent have lived in the County between 6 and 19 years, and 28 percent have lived in the County 20 years or more, but not all their lives. About 36 percent of our respondents reported having children under 18 living in their households. Four percent of respondents were in the Youngest age category of 18 to 25 years old, 22 percent were 26-37, 27 percent 38 to 49, 29 percent were between 50 and 64 years of age, and nearly 18.5 percent were 65 and older. Sixty percent were working full-thne, while 8.9 percent were working part-time, and 1.6 percent were looking for work. Nearly 18 percent were retired, 6 percent were homemakers, 2.7 percent were students. Sixty percent were married, 14 percent were separated or divorced, 8 percent widowed, and 18.5 percent had never been married. The education level reported reflected Albemarle's highly educated populace, as we would expect. A total of 5.9 percent reported that they had not finished high school, while 15.1 percent were high school graduates. About 79 percent of our respondents reported having at least some college education. Twenty-eight percent had a four-year degree, while and even larger number, 31 percent, had completed some graduate work, a masters or professional degree, or an advanced graduate degree. The median level of education was the four-year college degree. In terms of household income, the annual median was in the $50,000 to $75,000 category. Twenty-six percent reported incomes of less than $35,000~ Forty-two percent of our sample reported income between $35,000 and $75,000. Sixteen percent of households had incomes the $75,000 to 100,000 range, and 15 percent reported incomes over $100,000. 0nly 1.4 percent of our respondents reported that they considered themselves to be Hispanic~ Of our respondents who reported race, eighty-five percent were white, 9.3 percent were black, and 3.1 percent Asian. Fewer than one percent each reported being American Indian or Pacific Islander, and 1.2 percent gave their race as something else. Four percent of the total refused to answer the. question. Of our respondents, 15.5 percent lived in Rural Area 1, 10.3 percent in Rural Area 2, :14.6 percent in Rural Area 3, 11.2 percent in Rural area 4. The urban neighborhoods accounted for about one third of our respondents: 33.2 percent. Not quite 6 percent lived in Crozet, 8.3 percent in Hollymead/Piney Mountain, and 1.3 percent in Rivanna. These numbers reflect quite closely the actual percentage of households in the County that are located in each area. When the County is divided into rural areas and development areas, the percentages are approximately 51: percent in the rural areas and 49 percent in development areas. 13 QUALITY OF LIFE IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY The county government was interested in learning about citizens' perception of quality of life in Albemarle County. We asked each respondent, Please imagine a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 represents the worst possible community in which to live, and I0 represents the best possible community. Where on that scale would you rate Albemarle County as a place to live? 1 2 4 6 7 8 9 lO % o 5 lO 15 20 25 30 35 Percent of Respondents Figure2.10veratt OuaUtyof UfeRating for Atbemafle County2002 4O Nearly three-quarters (75 percent) of our respondents rated the County's quality of. life an eight or better. Thirty siz percent gave it an 8, 18.6 percent a 9, and 18.4 percent a 10, the best possible rating. The mean was an 8.10. Figttre 2.1 illustrates these findings. Those residents who rated the county a "10" were asked what were the main things they liked about Albemarle County. Almost everyone said that they enjoyed the beauty of the landscape. They liked the casual life- style, the hospitals, the people, the proximi~ to the University of Virginia. Several remarked about the appeal of a quiet rural area combined with cultural opportunities more typically available in urban areas. Those who rated the County a "6' or lower were asked what they disliked. Responses included high taxes, expensive rent, and the poor job market. Others thought there was too much §rowth, that the County had grown too big, too much traffic, or that there was nothing to do for the younger generation. The same "quality of life" question was asked in the 1994 Albemarle County Planning Needs Survey. At that time, the mean was 7.92. Interestingly enough in the 1994 survey, an additional question was asked, "where on the same scale would you say that the Charlottesville-Albemarle area stood five years ago7" In 1994, the mean rating for that question was 8.12, essentially the same as this year's current rating. On this question, there were some interesting differences lrf sub-group. In our sample, women rated quality of life in the County significantly higher than did men. The mean rating provided by men was 7.83, while the mean rating provided by women was 8.34. Length of residence in the County made a difference in the quality of life rating respondents gave the County. In general, the longer the length of residence <1 1-2 3-5 6-10 11-19 20+ Ufe 6 7 8 9 10 Mean Figure2.2 Mean QuaUtyof UfeRaUngbyLength of Residence 14 in Albemarle, the higher was the rating of quality of life in Albemarle County. Those residents who had lived in Albemarle 11-19 years rated the county 8.18. Those respondents who had lived in Albemarle twenty years or more rated it the highest, 8.27. Those who said they had lived in the County "all my life" rated the County an 8.23. On the other hand, the newer residents' mean ratings of the county were lower numbers. Those who had lived in Albemarle less than one year rated the county 7.59, those one to two years a 7.78. The middle level of length of residence provided ratings between the two extremes, with those living in the County from 3 to 5 years, rating the county, an 8.13 and those living in the County six to ten years rating it 8.08. Figure 2.2 illustrates these findings. The length of residence relationship is also reflected in a relationship with age on the quality of life question. In general, younger residents were [ess likely to rate the County as high as the older respondents. The highest average, 8.68, came from the group 65 and older, while the lowest, 7.20, came from the age group 18 to 25. See Figure 2.3. 18-25 26-37 38-49 50=~ 65+ 0 2 4 6 8 10 Mean Figure 2.3 Mean Quality of Life Rating by Age of Respondent Homeownership, employment status, education and income also were reflected in quality of life ratings. Homeowners rated the county 8.21, while renters rated it 7.82. In terms of employment, those working part time, homemakers, and retired persons provided higher ratings than those who were working full time or looking for work. Where education is concerned, the highest rating came from those people in our sample who had the least education. The few people who had less than a 9th grade education gave the county a mean rating of 9.43. Those who had some high school education, and high school graduated rated the County 7.81 and 7.97, respectively, while those with more education rated the County higher, on average, over an "8." The highest educated sector of the population, those with advanced graduate work or a Ph.D. rated the County 8.26, higher than any other group but the lowest educated. Figure 2.4 illustrates this relationship. <9 9-12 HS Some College 2 Yr.' College BA Some Grad. MA PHD 0 2 4 6 8 Mean Figure 2.4 Mean Quality of Life Rating by Level of Education 10 The relationship between quality of life rating and income/s interesting. As might be expected, those respondents with the highest incomes gave the County the highest ratings, with those having incomes in the $100,000 to $150,000 range rating the county 8.51 and those with incomes over $150,000 rating it 8.6. But those with the lowest income, less than $15,000 also rated the County highly, at 8.10. The middle categories of income all showed lower ratings than these groups. Considering district of the County, when rural residents are contrasted with those in the development areas, a significant difference emerges. The mean rating given by survey respondents in the development areas is 8.02, while the mean for rural residents was 8.21 15 3 GOALS FOR THE STRATEGIC PLAN As Albemarle County begins to update its strategic plan in the coming year, County officials were interested in knowing about the services and amenities of life in Albemarle that citizens considered most important. We asked, Over the next year, Albemarle County will be developing a strategic plan. I~e'd like your help in deciding which goals should be most important for the plan. I'm going to read a list of things that we might plan for to make Albemarle county a better place to live. After I read each one, please tell me how important you think it is for the County to devote resources to .... (GOAZ !~Eiq). Each respondent was asked a random subset of 14 items, taken from the total list of 20 items identified by county staff. In order to rank these items from most important to [east, we computed a mean response for each one. The higher the mean score, the higher was the importance level assigned to each by our respondents. Table 3.1 shows the goals ranked by mean, from most important to least important, along with the percent of our respondents who said that the goal was "ve~T important," the percent saying it was "somewhat Tabte 3.! Goats for the Strategic Ptan Ranked by Mean Importance Rating % Very % Somewhat % Not That Rank Item Mean Important Important Important 2 Providing fire service 2.85 86.7 12.0 1.0 4 Providing potice service 2.75 78.4 18.2 3.4 6 Presenting natural resources and open space 2.60 65.1 29.9 5.0 8 Providing support for affordable health care 2.52 58.7 34.6 6.6 10 Reducing traffic congestion 2.50 60.2 29.6 10.2 12 Making streets safer for watker and bicyclists 2.45 56.6 32.0 11.3 14 Providing parks and recreationa~ space 2.37 46.0 45.2 8.8 16 Providing support for people in need 2.33 45.0 42.5 12.5 ?roviding public transportation, such as buses 2.24 41.3 41.6 17.1 18 or 3^U NT service 20 Supporting cultural opportuniti, es 2.19 33.4 51.7 14.9 16 important," and the percent saying it was "not that important." In computing the mean importance rating, these responses were scored as 3, 2, and 1, respectively. There are several things to note on this table. In many citizen surveys of this type, education and safety are rated the most important of local government services. Albemarle County fits this pattern. The most important goal item is providing good public education. Of our respondents who rated that item, 89.8 percent said it was very important. Providing fire service, protecting water quality, and providing police service were also rated very important by well over three quarters of our respondents. Interestingly, making streets safe for walkers and bicyclists fell in the bottom half of the list of goals. Of goals pertaining to social services, the highest ranked was services for the elderly, ranking fifth with 64.7 percent of our respondents saying that it is very important. The lowest rated of the social service items was supporting affordable childcare, with 45.8 percent saying that was very important. Items pertaining to environmental protection were ranked relatively high by our respondents. As noted above, protecting water quality was third, with 85.2 percent saying it was very important, preserving natural resources ranked sixth, with 65.1 percent saying it was very important, and 63.8 percent of our respondents said that preserving farmland was very important. While reducing traffic congestion was considered very important by 60.2 percent of our respondents, so that it was tenth on the list, it is clear that most respondents do not believe that providing public transportation is equally as important; 0nly 41.3 percent thought that this goal was very important. The lowest rated item were promoting economic growth and supporting cultural opportunities, with 40.5 percent believing that promoting economic growth is very important and only 33.4 percent saying that supporting cultural, opportunities is very important. District Comparisons We compared the mean response on each item by district of the County. As we would expect there were some goats that were more important to some residents, depending upon area of the County in which they resided. Protecting water quality, for instance, differed significantly, with those in the rural areas, Crozet, and Rivanna rating it higher than those in the urban ring of neighborhoods. When the rural areas are combined and contrasted with the combined development areas, the mean importance level for protecting water quality is 2.89 for the rural areas, while for the development areas it is 2.79. Similarly, the importance of preserving farmland differed by location in the County. The rural areas and Crozet rated it higher in importance than did the urban neighborhoods, the Hollymead/Piney Mountain area, or Rivanna. When we analyze the data taking the rural areas together, and the .development areas together, the difference is clear: The mean importance level for rural areas was 2.65, for the development areas it was 2.48. Using the same two-fold categorization suggests differences between the areas in terms of the importance of redudng traffic congestion. While the overall average importance rating was 2.50, it was higher in the development areas, at 2.58, and lower in the rural areas, at 2.43. Promoting economic growth ,was also less important to those in the rural areas than it was to other respondents. The importance ranged from a mean of 2.05 in PA1 to 2.22 in PAR (with RA3 at 2.15 and RA4 at 2.17). Rivanna was highest at 2.88, Hollymead/Piney Mountain next at 2.35, the urban ring at 2.28. Crozet on this issue was more like the rural areas than the other development areas, rating this goal a 2.18. More simply, the mean on this item for the rural areas together was 2.13, while it was 2.30 in the development areas. The importance of emphasizing programs for troubled youth also differed. Those in the development areas were somewhat less likely to rate this goal important than were those in the rural areas. While the mean for the rural areas was 2.55, the development areas' mean was 2.43. Strategic Goals:' 2002 and 1994 In the 1994 survey, a similar list of goals was rated by respondents. Some comparisons can be made between the findings, though they need to be considered carefully. The wording of the question asked in 1994 differed from the current question wording, in that it asked respondents about their opinion about the need for each item in the "Charlottesville-Albemarle area" and not just in Albemarle County. In' addition, the list of goals was modified for 2002. The wording of some of the items 17 in the list of goals was di~erent in 1994, a number of items included in the 1994 list were dropped for 2002, and a number of new items were added. In each case, where changes were made, the county staff decided that those changes were important enough to warrant the lack of comparability with the 1994 survey. Table 3.2 compares the means on comparable items between the two surveys. Items marked with one asterisk (*) have an identical wording to the 1994 survey. Items marked with two asterisks (**) have similar wording. Means from 1994 are not provided for those items that were not included in the list in that year. The table shows that there are 6 items in the goals list that are directly comparable between the two years. The table also suggests that there have been some changes in importance rating on these items. Protecting water quality stayed essentially at the same mean of slightly more than 2.8 in both years. Preserving natural resources and open space, preserving farmland and forested land, reducing traffic congestion, and preserving historic places and areas have all decreased in their level of importance to the public. Promoting economic growth has decreased in its level of importance, from a mean rating of 2.32 in 1994 to a mean of 2.22 in 2002. Table 3.2 Comparison of 2002 Mean with 1994 Mean Importance Rating: Items in botdface are statistically different. 2O02 Item Rank Mean 1994 Mean 2 Providing fire service 4 Providing po[ice service Presenting natural resources and open space 2.85 NA 2.75 NA 2.60 2.73 8 Providing support for affordable health care 2.52 NA 10 Redoing t~c conges~on * 2.50 2.63 ~2 Naking stree~ sa[er ~or walker and bicyc[is~ ~,45 NA ~4 Pro, ding parks and recrea~o~a[ space ** 2.37 16 Pro~ding. suppo~ for people in need 2.33 NA Pro~dJng public transpo~Uon, such as buses ** 2.24 2.10 18 or 3AUNT se~ice .... ~ ~ ~-,~. ;~t~~: ~,~ ~?~;~ , :::,~,~-, ,,~.~:,,r "~ ......... ~ ** 2.19 2.17 ~0 SuppoSing cultural oppo~unities *Item worded identicall~ to 1994 **Item v~o~ded similarlTf to 11994 18 For the five items that were similarly worded, though not identically, Table 3.2 also shows some changes. Providing quality education is at the top of the list in both years, with an even higher mean rating in 1994 than in 2002. Encouraging affordable housing has decreased in importance, while support for public transportation, and providing parks and recreation facilities have increased in importance. Supporting cultural opportunities has stayed at essentially the same level of importance. In the 2002 sur~ey, the list of goals included a number of social items: support for the elderly, affordable health care, support for troubled youth, etc. In the 1994 survey, there was one item, "expanding governmental social senrices", which received a "very important" rating from 31.5 percent of our respondents and had a mean of 2.05, the lowest of the 25 items in the survey. Perhaps because of the more specific way these items were identified this year, in 2002 the items received higher mean ratings of 2.61 for support for the elderly, 2.52 for support for affordable health care, 2.49 for emphasizing programs for troubled youth, 2.40 for encouraging affordable housin§ ~ and 2.33 for supporting people in need, as can be seen in Table 3.2. 19 4 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES Determining citizens' satisfaction with government senrices was an important par~ of this survey. We asked. respondents about a list of services. For each item, respondents could say that they were "very satisfied," "somewhat satisfied," "somewhat dissatisfied," or "very dissatisfied." For purposes of this report, the percent very satisfied was combined with the percent somewhat satisfied, for an overall "satisfaction level." In the tables below, we also present the percent of respondents reporting to be very satisfied, an indication of the intensity of satisfaction. Somewhat Dissat-isfied Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Very . Satisfied Satisfied Figure 4.! OveralL Satisfaction with County Services Overall, the news about citizen satisfaction is excellent for Albemarle County. Before asking about specific items, our interviewers asked, "I'd like to ask you how satisfied you are in general with the services the County provides." A total of 92.7 percent of our respondents said they were satisfied with County services overall Forty-one percent said they were very satisfied. Figure 4.1 illustrates the results for this most general and very important question. Table 4.1 Public Safety SatiSfaction Items Comparing our results from 1994, at that time 84.3 services overall, a statistically significant difference. Moving to the more specific items, for all twenty-one items in the list, the majority of citizens feel very or somewhat satisfied with the County's performance of services. Public Safety Some of the highest marks for Albemarle County concern issues of emergency services. Citizens feel overwhelmingly satisfied with the Count,s police protection (90.5%), fire protection (96.3%), and emergency rescue (97.5%). Further analysis showed that there were no significant differences among subgroups on these items. Two additional items questioned residents about their sense of safety at home and in business areas of the County. On the whole, citizens feel satisfied with their safety near their residence (91.3%) and business areas (93.4%). For these items, there were some differences by subgroup. Not surprisingly, satisfaction with safety near one% residence increases with household income. Persons with income less than $15,000 are 80.8% satisfied with safety compared with 100.0% for persons with income between $100,000 and $150,000. Residents of the urban zing around the City of Charlottesville were slightly less likely than residents of other areas of the County to express satisfaction with safety in business areas. White over ninety percent of respondents were very or somewhat satisfied in all districts of the county, citizens living close to the city had a satisfaction level of 86.8% --still high, but significantly lower. Table 4.1 shows satisfaction levels for these items. Percent Satisfied Percent Very (Very and Somewhat) Satisfied Fire protection 96.3 69.6 Safety in residence areas 91.3 59.6 Safe~ for walkers and bicyclists on street, traits 68.4 22.1 and sidewalks 20 Very Dissatisfied Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Somewhat Satisfied Figure 4.2 Satisfaction with Safety for WaEkers and 8icydists In one area regarding safety--safety for walkers and bicyclists--citizens are less satisfied than they are with other items, as Table 4.1 shows. Compared with the other high marks for emergencT~ services and safety, only 68.4% feel very or somewhat satisfied with safety of walkers and bicyclists. The complete set of responses for this item is illustrated in Figure 4,2. Nearly fourteen percent of citizens feel very dissatisfied with safety for walkers and bicyclists. Education, Support for the Elderly, and Housing Table 4.2 provides overall satisfaction ratings and percent "very satisfied" for several additional services. lV/ore than 83 percent of citizens are satisfied with the County's efforts to provide quality education. Other services, such as assistance for the elderly and supporting adequate housing receive high satisfaction ratings. It is important to note, however, that fewer of our respondents felt able to rate these items. While 86.1 percent of our respondents who rated the County's efforts to assist the elderly reported being satisfied, 29 percent of survey respondents were not able to rate that service. 'Similarly, 24 percent were unable to rate the County's Support of adequate housing. Of those who could, however, 77.5 percent were satisfied with it. It is also interesting to note that satisfactionwith housing efforts differs by age. When broken down by age, we find that those in the youngest age category, 18 to 25 years old, are the most satisfied, with 90 percent saying they are satisfied. Satisfaction declines for older citizens. Slightly fewer than 70 percent of those 50 to 64 years old report being satisfied with efforts to support adequate housing. Nearly 94% of citizens feel very or somewhat satisfied with public library services. The vast majority (65.6°/°) feels very satisfied with library senrices. Information and Opportunities for Citizen Input Nearly one thud of our respondents reported being very satisfied-with the County's efforts to make it more convenient to access County services and Table 4.2 Satisfaction with Education, Support for the Elderly, and Housing Percent Satisfied Percent Very (Very and Somewhat) Satisfied Providing programs to help the County's elderly ................. ~ ...... ~ ~:~,~t~!~ ~i~®~, ,~ ~' population 86.1 30.7 Public [ibra~, se~ices 93.6 65.6 Table 4.3 Satisfaction with Information and Opportunities for Citizen Input Percent Satisfied Percent Very (Very and Somewhat) Satisfied Efforts to make it more convenient to access County ......... services and information 87.6 32.3 21 information. When combined with the number somewhat satisfied, that satisfaction level is at 87.6 percent. Neaxt¥ 82 percent say they are satisfied with the job the County is doing in keeping citizens informed about County government programs and services, 28 percent saying they axe very satisfied. Eighty-ttuee percent of oux respondents said they were satisfied with the opportunities for citizen input into issues that come up for discussion in the County. Table 4.3 reports these items. Land Preservation and Managing Growth Citizens axe quite satisfied with Atbemaxte County's efforts to protect nattuat resources and preserve open space. A total of 80.5 percent said they were satLsfied with the protection of natu:al resources. A simitax number, 79 percent, report being satisfied on the question of preserving open space. See Table 4.4. Satis- faction with the County's efforts to preserve open space varies greatly according to one's length of residency. Citizens who have lived in Atbemaxte County for two years or less axe overwhelmingly satisfied (over 92%). However, satisfaction declines with length of residency. The picture is more complex when we turn to attitudes toward the County's efforts in managing growth. Sixty- fotu percent are satisfied, only 18.8 percent report being venj satisfied, and more than a third of oux respondents said they were dissatisfied. Figuze 4.3 illustrates the findings for this question. Some interesting results were found when the results were broken down by demographic subgroup. Satisfaction with the County's efforts at managing growth declines Very Very Dissatisfied Satisfied Somewhat D~ssat~sfied hat Satisfied Figure 4.3 Satisfaction with Managing Growth with education. Satisfaction is lower for white citizens than non-white citizens. While 36 percent of white respondents reported being dissatisfied with the Count'fs efforts to manage growth, only 20 percent of black citizens said they were dissatisfied. ALmost 40 pezcent of homeowners reported being dissatisfied, while 27 percent of renters say they are. Cultuzat Services As is show~ in Table 4.5, 92 percent of cit~ens are very (51.5%) o~ somewhat (40.4%) satisfied with the County's efforts in providing parks and =ecreationai space. The satisfaction with providing parks differs somewhat with households with chit~en versus those without. Citizens who have a child in the household axe less satisfied (86.4%) than those without children at home (94.9%). Citizens are quite satisfied with the County's efforts to promote tourism (92.6%). Ninety- one percent of citizens are very (47.8%) or somewhat (42.7%) satisfied with the County's efforts in p~eserving historic places. Table 4.4 Satisfaction with Land Preservation and Managing Growth Percent Satisfied Percent Very (Ver~ and Somewhat) Satisfied 80.5 30.1 Protecting natural resources ,. ; ..... ,. :~ ~ ~ ~.~. ,~,~ ~:~. ~,~::~; Table 4.5 Satisfaction with Cultural Senrices Percent Satisfied Percent Very (Very and Somewhat) Satisfied Efforts to preserve historic places 90.5 47.8 22 Getting Around in Albemarle County Citizens' views of transportation are more mixed. Citizens are far more satisfied with getting around by car (82.4%) than gettin§ around by public transportation (58.9O/o), which is one of the lowest levels of satisfaction for any of the services on the list. For satisfaction with getting around by car, satisfaction is higher among younger citizens than older citizens, and renters than homeowners. See Table 4.6. Table 4.6.SaUsfaction with Getting Around in A[bemarle County Percent Satisfied (Very and Somewhat) Percent Very Satisfied Ease of getting around by public transportation 58.9 18.3 Table 4.7 combines the complete set of foregoing satisfaction items into a single ranked Est. Of the 21 sercices in ou~ list, 9 achieved 'satisfaction levels of better than 90 percent. Emergency rescue and fire protection head the list. Only 5 services had satisfaction levels below 80 percent: preserving open space, supporting adequate housing, safety for walkers and bicyclists, efforts to manage growth, and getting around by public transportation. Table 4.7 Ranked List of Satisfaction Items Rank Item Percent Satisfied Overall Satisfaction ~dth Sendces 92.7 2 Hre protection 4 Safety in business areas 6 Providing parks and recreation space 8 Preserving historic places 96.3 93.4 91.9 90.5 10 Efforts to make it more convenient to access County services and information 87.6 12 Providing quality education to school children 83.7 14 Getting around by car 82.4 to protect natural resources and the environment 80.5 18 Effo~s to suppo~ adequate housing 77.5 20 Effo~s to manage gro~h 64.3 23 Do Satisfaction and Importance Coincide? The County staff hoped to compare the items we discussed in Chapter 3, goals for the strategic plan, with the satisfaction items discussed in this chapter. While there was not a perfect correlation between the two lists, for those topics that were included in both, it is possible to compare the results by examining ranking by importance and the level of satisfaction. When we compare the two lists, we find some interesting differences, which Table 4.8 shows. These can be highlighted as follows: o Foremost among these differences, we find that citizens rank public education as the most important goal for Albemarle County. However, dtizens do not give the County top satisfaction marks for this service, km0ng satisfaction items, public education ranks twelfth out of twenty-one items. · The goals analysis shows that police protection and services for the elderly also appea~ to have primary importance, and both also have high satisfaction ratings, with 90 percent satisfied with the police and 8.6 percent satisfied with programs to help the Countfs eldert:~ population. Considering envisonmentat issues, otu respondents ranked these issues among the top third in importance. The satisfaction ratings for them however, are lower than many other items. This pattern is continued with the issue of safety for walkers and bicyclists, and support for .adequate housing. Both items are mid-range goals with relatively low ranking for satisfaction. This disjunction between goals and satisfaction reverses itself for the Countfs ability to provide parks and recreation facilities, and preserving historic buildings Fi~e protection is ranked second in importance and is also very high in satisfaction Tabte 4.8 GoaLs for the Strategic PLan and Satisfaction with Services Percent Rank Goat for Strategic PLan Mean 2 Providing fire service 2.85 5 Supporting sereices for the eLderLy 2.61 Rank Satisfaction with Services Satisfied 2 Fire protection 96.3 Providing programs to help the 86.0 11 County's eLderLy population 7 Preserving farmland and forested Land 2.57 12 Making streets safer for walkers and 2.45 bicycEsts 14 Providing parks and recreational 2 37 ~adtlties , ~ ~ ' Providing public transportation, such 18 2.24 as buses or 3AUNT service 17 19 Preserving open space including 79.0 farmland and forests Safety for walkers and bicy~Usts 68.4 on streets, traiLs, and sidewalks Providing parks and recreation 91.9 6 space Getting around by pubUc 58.9 21 transportation 24 · Meanwhile, public transportation is not considered to be very important, and satisfaction with it is not very high. Clearly, in the .ideal world, the most important services in the minds of citizens would also have high levels of satisfaction. Perhaps County efforts at improving services should be focused in those areas for which there is a gap between citizens' rating of importance and satisfaction. 5 AT1TrUDES TOWARD GOVERNMENT We asked several questions to gauge citizens' attitudes toward their govermuent. To determine the level of trust dtizens had in government, we asked, "How much of the time do you think you can trust the County to do what is rightmjust about always, most of the time, or only some of the time?' Neaxly 13% percent of citizens express that view that they can trust the County "just about always" to do what is right. The majority (54.9%) says that they can trust the County "most of the time" with 30.7% saying only "some of the time." Slightly fewer than 2 percent of our respondents volunteered that they could trust the government almost never. A similar question on a 1997 national survey, sponsored by the AARP, found that nationwide, a total of only 49 percent felt they could trust their local governments just about always or most of the time, as is shown in Figure 5,1.1 60 .5O 4O 3O 2O 10 0 Oust Most Only Never/ About of the Some of ALmost Never Always Time Time (voL) ~AtbemarLe IAARp ]~NES Figure 5.1 CompariSon of Trust in Government Reference to Figure 5.1 also allows comparison of these findings with the results of a similar question about trusting the government in Washington, asked on the National Election Survey (NES).2 Nationally, the majority of respondents (55.0%) said they could trust the'government "only some of the time, "with only 4.1% saying "just about always." Forty-two percent said they felt the~/could trust the government "most of the time." To summarize, the Albemarle County government enjoys fax higher levels of trust from its citizens than the national government does. An open-ended question followed those responses on the trust question that were negative. Those who said they trusted the government only some of the time or almost never were asked, "What could the County do to be more trustwortby?" The complete list of open- ended responses is included in Appendix D of this report. Some respondents said they had a fundamental distrust of government, some were unhappy with the County's relationship with developers, wished they would put more emphasis on citizens and less on buimess. Some wanted the size pf government reduced. Other suggestions included being open, honest, "keeping their word," letting people know what is going on, and creating more real opportunities for citizen input. Taxes With regaxd to taxes, the news for Albemarle County is very good. Asked how satisfied they were in general with the value for their tax dollar they receive from Albemarle County, about one-third (32.6 percent) said they were very satisfied, while an additional 52.5 percent said they were somewhat satisfied. Another question asked, "Considering all the County services on the one hand and taxes on the other, which of the following statements comes closest to your view: The County should decrease services and taxes; Th~ County should keep taxes and services about where they are; or The County should increase services and taxes?" Thomas 14. Gutezbock and 3ohn C. Fxies, Maintaining America's Social Fabric: The AARP Survey of Civic Involvement. Charlottesville, Virginia, The Center for Survey Research, 1997. z The 2000 National Election Study asked respondents, "How much of the time do you think you can trust the government fit Washington to do what is right - just about always, most of the time, or only some of the time?" 26 Citizens overwhelmingly support the status quo on this issue. More than two-thirds (67.5%) favored the second alternative, keeping taxes and services about where they are. Of those who favored change, more citizens support increasing taxes and services (13.1%) than decreasing them (9.3%). As we might expect, some citizens volunteered other alternatives: increasing services but keeping taxes where they are (2.8 percent), increasing services while decreasing taxes (4.1 percent), and keeping services where they are but decreasing taxes (1.5 percent). Nearly two percent had some other suggestion. Information and Contact With County The survey found that most citizens receive their information about the County from local newspapers (23.5%), and local radio or television (16.5%). A significant number said they heard the news from friends (5.7%); from County mailLugs (5.5%); and from the County website (3.1%). Slightly more than 7 percent said they got their information from some other source. Fewer than a majority (47.3%) of citizens contacted Albemarle County in the last year. Contact with the County varied substantially by age, gender, and whether one had a child in the household. Considering age, the youngest respondents (those 18-24 years old) and the oldest (those 65 and over) were less likely to contact the County than all other groups. By gender, men (51.4%) were more likely than women (43.4%) to contact the County. But the greatest difference in contact appears for citizens who have a child in the household, of whom 60.8 percent had contacted the County in the past year, compared with childless households, of whom 39.6 percent had contacted the County. Those who had contacted the County were asked about their experience with County employees. Most (53.7 Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 5.2 Satisfaction with Helpfulness of Employees percent) were very satisfied with the helpfulness of County employees, and an additional 28.5 percent were somewhat satisfied. 0nly 17.9 percent of citizens reported being very or somewhat dissatisfied. Figure 5.2 illustrates these results. Making Contact More COnvenient We asked about several potential changes that might facilitate greater convenience in contacting the County. We asked our respondents whether they felt that each change would be very helpful, somewhat helpful, or not at all helpful Of the potential changes, citizens supported three--expanded website, branch offices, and flexible or expanded hours for service. Thirty-seven percent of our respondents said that an expanded website would be very helpful, and an additional 36.5 percent said it would be somewhat helpful. About one third of our respondents felt that branch offices and more flexible or expanded hours for se~ice would be very helpful. An additional 35.8 percent thought branch offices would be somewhat helpful, and 42.2 percent thought more flexible or expanded hours would be somewhat helpful. Citizens are far less enthusiastic about the possibility of kiosks with computer terminals and an automated Table 5.1 What Would Make Contacting the County More Convenient? Rank Possible Change Very Helpful Somewhat Not at AU ~ - Helpful He[pfu[ 2 Bran ch offices 33.9 35.8 30.3 4 Automated phone system 16.5 34.3 49.2 27 phone system. In fact, a slim majority believes that kiosks would be not at all helpful, while nearly that many (49.2 percent) believe that the automated phone system would not increase convenience. Table 5.1 presents these results, ranked by percent that said that each item would be "very helpful." Internet Access and Use of the County Website Asked whether they had access to the internet, 80 percent of citizens in Albemarle County say that they do. Of those with access, 44 percent have visited the Countsfs website. Access to the internet is not uniform across all social groups. Access to the internet varies considerably according to age, children in the household, education and gender. Over ninety percent of younger citizens (those 18 to 37 years old) have access to the web. As we might expect, access to the intemet declines sharply with age. Fewer than 47 percent of citizens sixty-five years of age o~ older have access. We also find that citizens with children in the household are more likely to haie access to the internet than citizens who do not have children. Eighty-nine percent of the first group and 75 percent of the second have access to the web. Citizens with higher education are very likely to have access to the internet. 0nly B0% of citizens with less than a high school education have access to the internet, compared with over 90% of citizens with a college degree or higher. By gender, men are more likely to have access to the intemet (83.5%) than women (77.3%). We asked respondents how likely they would be to use the internet to take care of particular transactions. Considering eight potential internet services., a majority of citizens say that they would be very likely to use the County's website to research real estate or property records (53.6%) and apply for permits or licenses (52.6%). Citizens are less likely to express interest in registering for classes (40.7%), paying taxes, parking tickets and fees (40.1%) and reserving space in a park (34.5%). Citizens are the least likely to use the website to review County news in the form of e-mail updates on selected topics (30.8%) or review the Board of Supervisors meetin§ agenda (25.0%). Few citizens are very likely (27.8%) to express an interest in applying for a job with the County. Table 5.2 presents these results, ranked by the percent of. respondents who said they would be very likely to use the internet for a particular transaction. Table 5.2 LikeUhood of Using the Internet Percent Percent Not at Percent Very Somewhat Att Likety to Rank Task Ukety to Use Likety to Use Use 2 Apply for permits or licenses 52.6 22.8 24.6 4 Pay taxes, parking tickets, or fees 40.1 21.6 38.2 6 Receive emai[ updates on selected topics of interest 30;8 37.2 32.0 8 Review Board of Supervisor's meeting agenda 25.0 30.7 44.3 28 6 PLANNING AND GROWTH Respondents were asked how the7 felt about the steps that Albemarle County has been taking in order to manage growth in the area. Over the past 20 years growth has been steady in Albemarle County with a population increase of approximately two percent every year. Short of stopping the growth, Albemarle County has taken measures to control it. We saw in Chapter 4, above, that 64 percent of our respondents were satisfied withthe County's efforts to manage growth. This chapter further explores growth and plarming issues. The survey asked respondents a series of policy questions, to which they could respond that they strongly favored the measure, somewhat favored it, somewhat opposed it, or strongly opposed it. Where a respondent did not know about the measure, they were asked simply to say so. Development Areas The first item respondents were asked about was whether they wanted growth to be concentrated in what the County has designated to be development areas, while restricting growth in rural areas. Of those expressin§ an opinion, most people either strongly favored (47.2°/°) or somewhat favored (31.5%) this measure, as is shown in Figure 6.1. A minority either somewhat opposed (12.4%) or strongly opposed (9.0%) the concept of development areas. Slightly more than 14 percent said that they had no opinion. Somewhat 0 Oppose Other Measures Respondents were also asked to give their opinions on a list of other measures that the County has either implemented or is considerin§ for managing growth.~ These items included: 1. Providing public amenities such as sidewalks, bikeways, streetlights, parks and open spaces, street trees and neighborhood schools in the. countfs development areas. 2. Encouraging a greater mix of offices, store~, restaurants and other urban services with residential areas in the county's development areas. 3. Encouraging a greater variety and mix of housing types and price levels in the county's development areas. 4. Development of a more interconnected urban street system in the county's development areas to provide more alternative routes for traffic. 5. For rural property, restricting the number of lots a person can divide a large parcel of property into. 6. Purchasing property rights in rural areas to keep owners from sub-dividing: known as Acquiring Conservation Easements [ACE]. 7. Taxing agricultural and forested land at a lower rate than market value in order to defer development of rural land. 8. Allowing localized rural serdces, such as country stores, post offices, etc., in traditionally rural communities. Table 6.1 shows each of these items, ranked by percent favoring each one. Somewhat Favor Strongly Favor Respondents were most favorable to allowing localized rural services in traditionally rural communities with 95.9% of them saying, that they favored this measure.2 The development of a more interconnected urban street system in development areas garnered the least amount of support, although a majority of respondents (67.8%) still favored the measure. Hgure 6.10p~nlon About Development Areas Subgroup analysis showed differences on several of Not all of the respondents received each question. Question rationing was employed in order to obtain a critical number of responses for each item while maintaining a reasonable length for the survey as a whole. Each question was asked of approximately 75% of respondents. 2 Responses were measured on a four-point scale with I = strongly oppose, 2 = somewhat oppose, 3 = somewhat favor, and 4 = strongly favor. Unless otherw/se specified, percent favorable is the sum of those who responded they somewhat favor or strongly favor a particular measure. Likewise, the percent opposed is the sum of those who responded they somewhat oppose or strongly oppose a particular measure. Those who responded they did not know or refused to answer the questions were not included in the final percentages. 29 these items, though not on all of them. When asked about encouraging a greater variety and mix of housing units, men and women differ si§nificantly. Eighty percent of men favor the measure while 87.3% of women favor the measure. Age plays a significant role in how people feel about the interconnected street system. Older people do not favor it as much as their younger counterparts. There was a distinct difference between those over 38 years of age, compared with those 37 and youn§en The least likely to favor this measure were those 50- 64, of whom 60.3 percent favored it. Of those 38-49 years old, 62.8% favored the measure, while the 62.7% of those over 65 did. However, 76.5% of those respondents who were 18-25 years old favored the measure and 82.4% of those 26-37 did. Respondents who owned their homes (61.6%) were not as likely as those who rented their homes (82.4%) to support the idea of more interconnected streets. Most residents (73.6%) voiced support when asked about purchasing property rights in rural areas (ACE). Those who have lived in Albemarle County longer were less likely to favor the measure. Of respondents who had lived in the County all of their life, 66.7% of people favored it, similar to those who had lived in the County 20 years or more (62.3%). Eighty-nine percent of people who had lived in the County less than a year favored the measure while those who lived in the County for up to two years had a similar sentiment (82.6%)..Not surpfisin§ly, age had a similar effect. Older respondents were tess likely to be favorable toward the ACE program. Of those respondents who were over 65, 59.7% favored it, while 82.8% of respondents who were 25-37 favored it. In the middle categories, 78.4% of 38-49 year olds and 70.7% of those 50-64 years old favored the measure. Table 6.1 Ranked list of Policy Items (ranked by % Favor) % Favor % Oppose % (Somewhat and (Somewhat and Rank Item Strong[y) Strong[y) No Op~ n~on Providing public amenities such as sidewalks, b~keways, streetEghts, parks and open spaces, 90.6 9.4 5.9 2 street trees and neighborhood schools in the coun's development areas Taxing agricultural and forested Land at a Lower 4 rate than market vaLue ~n order to defer 79.4 20.7 11.3 Encouraging a greater m~x of offices, stores, restaurants and other urban services w~th 73.8 26.2 6.4 6 residential areas in the county's development 0eve[opment of a more ~nterconnected urban 8 street system in the county's devetopment areas 67.8 32.1 11.4 to provide more alternative routes for traffic 3O The more educated respondents were more likely to favor the ACE program. Of those who had completed advanced graduate Work, 86.0% favored it. The percentage rose for those who held a Master's Degree to 91.6%. 0f those with a college degree, 69.6°/° favored the measure, while 60.6% of those with a high school degree favored it. We wondered whether district of the County would affect response to the questions about gro~h policy, particularly since we divided respondents into the four rura! areas and into the development areas. For this section, when examining differences between districts m Albemarle County, we analyzed the data two different ways. First, we used the standard 8 districts previously defined. When analyzed this way, none of the growth items showed significant differences between the districts. Second, district was redefined as 2 distinct areas within the County: rural areas and development areas (which include the urban neighborhoods). Even when the data was reanalyzed using the recoded categories, there were no real significant differences among districts on the growth items. Put another way, where one lived in Albemarle County did not influence their opinion on any one of these raeasures~ 7 CONCLUDI'NG SUMMARY The foregoing chapters have provided a wealth of information about the opinions of residents of Albemarle County. Residents talked openly to CSR interviewers about what they liked and what they did not like about Albemarle County government. They were clear in their preferences for future direction in' policy. In the next few paragraphs we offer a concluding summary of survey findings. Quality of Life First of all, it is very clear that Albemarle residents very much like the county, on the whole. Rating quality of life in the County on a scale of 1 to 10, the mean score was 8.10, significantly higher than the mean level of 7.92 in the 1994 survey. Strategic 6oals In ranking goals for the strategic plan, '90 percent of our respondents said that providing quality education was very important, giving it first place among all the goals in importance. Providing education was followed by safety items and an environmental item: fire service, protecting water quality, and providing police services. Also in the top half of the goals list are preserving natural resources and open space, and preserving farmland and forested land. Providing services for the elderly, recreational programs for youth, and supporting affordable health care are also ranked in the top ten. In the lower half of the list were additional social items (programs for troubled youth, encouraging affordable housing, providing support for people in need, supporting affordable child care). Promoting economic growth and supporting cultural opportunities were the two least important goals on the list. Satisfaction with Services In terms of satisfaction with County services, 93 percent of our respondents said they were satisfied overall, again an improvement over the 84 percent reported in 1994. Public safety items showed a very high level of satisfaction, with satisfaction at 90 percent or better for emergency rescue, police and fire protection, and safety in business and residential areas. The satisfaction level-with safety for walkers and bicyclists, however, was much lower, at 68 percent. Satisfaction with the quality of education in the county schools was at 83.7 percent, not as high as many other items. While education was ranked first in importance for the strategic plan, it ranked lower in satisfaction. Environmental items, also relatively high in the strategic goals list, were relatively low in the satisfaction list, with efforts to protect natural resources and the environment receiving a satisfaction rating of 80.5 percent and preserving open space receiving a rating of 79 percent. The item with the lowest level of satisfaction was getting around by public transportation, with 58.9 percent of our respondents reporting they were satisfied. Efforts to manage growth also received a relatively low 64.3 percent satisfaction level. Attitudes toward Government On the whole, citizens of Albemarle present a positive attitude toward their government. Residents of Albemarle County trust their government more often than Americans in general trnst their local or national governments. About 68 percent of our respondents said they trusted the Albemarle government to do what is right most of the time or just about always. The other 31 percent said they could trust the government only some of the time, while fewer than 2 percent said they felt the5' could hardly ever trust the government. Asked about value for their tax dollar, approximately 85 percent of survey respondents said they were satisfied overall with the value the[f received from Albemarle County for their tax dollm. Considering the interaction between services and taxes, most favored keeping taxes and services at the level they are currently. Slightl[f less than half of our respondents had contacted the County in the past [fear, but of those, more than half were very satisfied with the helpfulness of County employees, and kn additional 28 percent were somewhat satisfied with them. To increase the convenience of interacting with the County, our respondents favored expanding the County website, creating branch offices, and increasing the hours of availability of services. They were less favorable toward an automated phone service and kiosks in public areas. About 80 percent of our respondents said they had access to the internet, and 44 percent of those had visited the County's website. Citizens said they would be interested in researching property records on the 32 web, and in using the website to apply for permits. They were less likely to want to register for classes, pay fees, or reserve park space over the web. Planning and Growth Asked about policies directed at managing growth in Albemarle County, the majority of our respondents favored them. Seventy-nine percent of those who expressed an opinion favored the concept of development areas, though 14 percent of all respondents said they had no opinion about this issue. More than two thirds of our respondents favored each of the other measures the County has instituted for managing growth. The most popular, with 96 percent favoring it, is allowing localized services, such as stores, post offices, etc, in traditionally rural communities. The least popular item was the development of a more interconnected, grid-like street system in development areas. Sixty-eight percent of our respondents favored that policy. Nearly three- quarters favored the ACE program for acquiring development rights. For some of these items, a significant number said that they had no opinion-- indicating that the County could benefit from additional educational programs regarding planning measures. Conclusion The Center for Survey Research presents these findings with the hope that they will be of help to the government of Albemarle County as it moves forward with its strategic planning and decision-making. We believe that the citizen opinions expressed here can provide a useful tool in governing. The Board of Supervisors, executive management, and employees of Albemarle County can take pride in the high level of satisfaction and trust the citizens express. While this survey has also indicated where there is room for improvement, the residents of Albemarle are clearly pleased with their quality of life and with their government. Albemarle County 2oo2 Citizen Survey REPORT OF RESULTS April 2002 APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix G t~uest~'onnaire Survey and Sample 3Iethodology Frequencies for All Variables Center for Survey Research W~LDON COOPER CENTER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE University of Virginia Appendix A Albemarle County 2002 Citizen Survey Questionnaire {Q: INTRO} Hello. My name is from the University of Virginia Center for Survey Research. Albemarle County has asked us to survey residents to get your input to their Strategic Plan, and to learn how satisfied you are with County services. Albemarle County will use the results in an effort to improve its services and programs. Your household was selected at random to be part of our sample. Hello. My name is from the University of Virginia Center for Survey Reseat'ch. Albemarle County has asked us to survey residents to get your input to their Strategic Plan, and to learn how satisfied you are with County services. Albemarle County will use the results in an effort to improve its services and programs. Your household was s~lected at random to be part of our sample, and we had started a survey with. someone in your home but were unable to complete it. Would this be a good time to finish up the questions? INTERVIEWER: PRESS T TO GO ON, OR CTRL-END FOR DISPOSITION OR CAIJJBACK {Q: INTRO2} First, I need to confirm that you are at least 18 years old, and that you live at the residence I am calling. [IF NECESSARY SAY: Your answers are confidential, andwe don't use anybody's name. ] R IS RESIDENT ADULT, PROCEED R IS NOT RESIDENT OR ADULT, WE NEED TO GET ONE REFUSED Okay, I have a few preliminary questions. 1 RI READY, PROCEED 2 R1 CAIJ.BACK [WON'T NEED NAME] 3 Ri REFUSES {Q: ADGO} {Q: ADCOME} If R is not resident or adult in INTR02, ASK ['Q Can you ask someone 18 or older who lives in your house to come to' the phone? 1 YES, ASKING RESIDENT ADULT TO COME TO THE PHONE 2 NO, CAN'T ASK RESIDENT ADULT TO COME TO TI-rE PHONE 3 REFUSES TO ASK RESIDENT ADULT TO COME TO PHONE 1 The survey script is reproduced in abbreviated form. Question wording, instructions, and key definitions are reproduced in full from the actual computer-aided script used in interviewing. The sequence of questions follows the order in which they are presented to the respondent. Only responses in lower case were read by d~e interviewer, while responses in upper case were not read. A-1 {Q: ADCALLBK} If "No" to ADCOME, ASK Would it be possible to reach an adult at another time? 1 YES, SCHEDULE CALLBACK 2 NO (OR NOT SURE), ADULT NOT AVAILABLE DURING STUDY PERIOD 3 REFUSED {Q: REINTRO} Hello, My name is , and from the Center for Survey Research at the University of Virginia. Albemarle County has asked us to survey residents to get your input to the Strategic Plan, and to learn how satisfied you are with county services. Albemarle County will use the results in an effort to improve its services and programs. Your household was selected at random to be part of our sample this time. Would you be willing to help us out by answering a few questions? I R1 READY, PROCEED 2 R1 CALLBACK [WON'T NEED NAME] 3 R1 REFUSED {O: CONFIRM} I need to confirm that you are a resident of Albemarle County and not in the city of Charlottesville. In what city or county do you live? JIF R IS NOT SURE, ASK: Where do you go to get the tax sticker for your car or tmck?] I ALBEMARLE COUNTY 2 CITY OF CHARLOTI'ESVIIJ-JE 3 OTHER {O: LASTBDAY} To assure a random survey I need to speak with the person in this household who is over 18 and has had the most recent birthday. Is that you? [IF NECESSARY SAY: I don't mean the youngest person in your house; I mean the last one to have had a birthday according to the calendar.] 1 RI [ADULT ON PHONE] HAD LAST BIRTHDAY - PROCEED 2 R2 [OTHER ADULT] HAD LAST BIRTHDAY 3 RI REFUSES TO CONTINUE 4 R1 DOESN'T KNOW/REFUSED TO SAY WHO HAD LAST BIRTHDAY - TERMINATES A-2 {O: FI1GO} Okay, let's move on to the rest of the survey, which should take about 15 minutes. I want to remind you that all of your answers are confidential, 'and you can decline to answer any question at any time. If you have any questions as we go along, please feel free to ask. 1 R1 READY, PROCEED 2 R1 CAIJ,BACK [GET NAME OF R1 FOR CALLBACK MESSAGE LINE] 3 R1 REFUSES If LASTBDA Y is other adult, ASK Can you ask that person to come to the phone? {Q: R2COME} 1 YES, R1 ASKING R2 TO COME TO PHONE 2 NO, CAN"I' ASK R2 TO COME TO PHONE 3 R 1 REFUSES TO ASK PERSON TO COME TO PHONE If "No" to R2COME, ASK [ Would it be possible to reach this person at another time? {Q: R2CALLBK} 1 YES, SCHEDULE CALLBACK 2 NO (OR NOT SURE), R2 IS NOT AVAILABLE DURING STUDY PERIOD 9 REFUSED ff "No" to R2CALLBK, ASK Then I need to interview the adult with the birthday before that. Is that you? {Q: NEWBDAY} 1 R1 IS NOW SELECTED, PROCEED 2 R2 (OTHER ADULT) IS SELECTED 9 REFUSED {Q: R2GO} Okay, let's move on to the rest of the survey, which should take about 15 minutes. I want to remind you that all of your answers are confidential, and you can decline to answer any question at any time. If you have any questions as we go along, pl[ase feel free to ask. 1 R1 READY, PROCEED 2 R1 CAIJ~BACK [GET NAME OF R1 FOR CAIJ.BACK MESSAGE LINE] 3 R1 REFUSES A-3 {Q:RGENDER} ENTER THE RESPONDENT'S GENDER (ASK ONLY IF NECESSARY) 3 MALE 4 FEMALE 8 DON'T KNOW/CAN'T TELL {Q: SUBDIV} Do you happen to know the name of the area where you live? [If necessary--is there a name. for your neighborhood/community or subdivision?] 1 YES, R KNOWS A NAME FOR AREA OF ALBEMARLE 2 NAMED AREA IS IN CVll J,E 3 R GIVES STREET NAME ONLY 4 'THERE IS NO NAME FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD' 5 NO, R DOESN'T KNOW NAME FOR AREA 6 NEIGHBORHOOD NAME WAS NOT ON LIST... [SPECIFY] Thank you. I need to take just a second to look up the code for that neighborhood. INTERVIEWER: REFER TO POSTED LIST OF NEIGHBORHOOD NAMES {Q: SUBDIVCD} ENTER NEIGHBORHOOD CODE HERE . AND PRESS RETURN PLEASE TYPE 3 NUMBERS ENTER "998" FOR NOT ON LIST ENTER "999" FOR REFUSED {Q: INTRSCTN} If 3,4,or 5, or "REFUSED" to SUBDIV, ASK Please think of the nearest major intersection to your house. Could you tell me the names or route I numbers of the roads that cross there? [IF NECESSARY: We've dialed your number at random and we don't want to know your address--all your answers on this surwey are confidential.] [OPEN-END] A4 How long have you lived in Albemarle County? 1 LESS THAN ONE YEAR 2 ONE TO TWO YEARS 3 THREE TO FIVE YEARS 4 SIX TO TEN YEARS 5 ELEVEN TO NINETEEN YEARS 6 TWENTY YEARS OR MORE, BUT NOT AIJ. MY LIFE '7 ALL MY L1FE 8 NOT SURE/REFUSED {Q: HOWLONG} DEFINITION: COUNT TOTAL TIME THAT R HAS EVER RESIDED WITHIN THE COUNTY ITSELF--DON'T COUNT CITY RESIDENCE TIME. ff R rived in county less than ten years, ASK Where did you live before moving to Albemarle County? {Q: PREVRES} 11 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVIlJJE 12 GREENE COUNTY 13 RICHMOND CITY OR AREA 14 NELSON COUNTY 15 FLUVANNA COUNTY 16 ORANGE COUNTY 17 NORTHERN VIRGINIA 18 LOUISA COUNTY 19 AUGUSTA COUNTY 20 BUCKINGHAM COUNTY 21 WAYNESBORO 22 STAUNTON 23 OTHER VIRGINIA MARYLAND 25 WASHINGTON, D.C. 26 ANOTHER LOCATION [SPECIFY...] 99 DON'T KNOW/NO ANSWER A-5 {Q: QOLIO} We'd like first to get a sense of your overall impression about Albemarle County. Please imagine a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 represents the worst possible community in which to live, and 10 represents the best possible community. Where on that scale would you rate Albemarle County as a place to live? .12345678910 WORST BEST 98 DON'T KNOW 99 REFUSED {Q: POSOPEN} If QOLIO = 10 What are the main things that you like about Albemarle County? OPEN-END {Q: NEGOPEN} If OOLIO = 6 or Less What are some of the things you DISLIKE about Albemarle County? OPEN-END A-6 {Q:PLANLIST Over the next year, Albemarle County will be developing a strategic plan. We'd like your help in deciding which goals should be most important for the plan. I'm going to read a list of things that we might plan for to make Albemarle County a better place to live. After I read each one, please tell me how important you think it is for the County to devote resources to [RANDOMLY ASK 13 OF THE FOLLOWING] a. Providing good public education. b. Protecting water quality in reservoirs, streams and wells. c. Making the area's streets safer for walkers and bicyclists. d. Preserving natural resources and open space. e. Preserving farmland and forested land. f. Reducing traffic congestion. g. Encouraging affordable housing for low and moderate income people. h. Supporting recreational programs for youth. i. Promoting economic growth in the area. j. Supporting cultural and entertainment opportunities. k. Providing parks and recreational facilities. 1. Provi ding public transportation, such as buses or JAUNT service. m. Supporting services for the elderly. n. Emphasizing prevention and development programs for troubled youth. o. Providing support for affordable health and mental health services. p. Supporting affordable child-care. q. Preserving historic buildings and places. r. Providing police service. s. Providing fire and rescue service. t. Providing support for people in financial need. 1 VERY IMPORTANT 2 SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT 3 NOT THAT IMPORTANT 8 UNABLE TO RATE/DON'T KNOW 9 REFUSED A-7 {Q:SOURCE} Thanks for rating those goals. Now we' d like to ask some questions about your contact with the County. Where do you get most of your information about County services and issues? ENTER ALL THAT APPLY: MULTIPLE RESPONSE 1 LOCAL NEWSPAPER 2 LOCAL RADIO/TV SHOWS 3 HEAR FROM FRIENDS/NEIGHBORS/FAMILY ' 4 COUNTY WEBSITE 5 COUNTY MAILINGS WITH TAX BILLS 6 OTHER SOURCE (SPECIFY) 7 DON'T RECEIVE INFORMATION 8 DON'T KNOW 9 REFUSED {Q: CONTACT} Thinking back over the past twelve months, have you contacted anyone that provides County services about anything-- a problem, a question, a complaint, or just needing some information or assistance? I YES, CONTACTED IN LAST 12 MONTHS 2 NO, HAS NOT CONTACTED 9 CAN'T RECAI ,l fDON'T KNOW/REFUSED {Q: HELPFUL} If CONTACT When you contacted the County, how satisfied were you with the helpfulness of County- employees? 1 VERY SATISFIED 2 SOMEWHAT SATISFIED 3 SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED 4 VERY DISSATISFIED 8 UNABLE TO RATE/DONq~ KNOW 9 REFUSED A-8 {Q:CONLIST} Now I'm going to mention some things that might make interacting with the County government more convenient. For each one, please tell me if you think it would be very helpful, somewhat helpful, or not at all helpful. a. Kiosks with computer terminal for information in shopping centers, lobbies, the downtown mall, etc. [IF NEEDED: A kiosk is a free standing table or counter with a computer] b. More flexible or expanded hours for services c. An automated phone system d. Expanded website e. Branch offices 1 VERY HELPFUL 2 SOMEWHAT HELPFUL 3 NOT AT ALL HELPFUL 8 DON'T KNOW 9 REFUSED Do you have access to the internet? else] 1 YES 2 NO 8 DON'T KNOW 9 REFUSED {Q: NET1} JIF NECESSARY: either at home or at work, or somewhere ff NET1 = 1 Have you ever visited the Albemarle County government web site? {Q:, NET2} [DEFINITION: COUNTY WEBSITE IS LOCATED AT: www.albemarle.org] 1 YES 2 NO 8 DONZI' KNOW 9 REFUSED A-9 {Q:USELIST} If Net1 = 1 I'm going to mention some things that could possibly be taken care of using the internet. For each one, please tell me whether you would be very likely, somewhat likely, or not at all likely to use the intemet to do these things. [NOTETO PROGRAMMERS: RANDOMIZE ORDER, ASK 6 of 8l a. Pay taxes, parking tickets, or fees b. Review Board of Surpervisor's meeting agenda. c. Apply for a job with the County d. Apply for permits or licenses e. Reserve space in a park, such as a picnic shelter or ball field f. Register for classes g. Receive email updates on selected topics of interest h. Research real estate or property, records 1 VERY LIKELY 2 SOMEWHAT LIKELY 3 NOT AT ALL IJ1KELY 8 DON'T KNOW 9 REFUSED {O: CTYSAT} Moving on to the next part of the survey, one of our main purposes in doing this survey is to find out how satisfied residents of Albemarle County are with services they receive from the County or a County-supported agency. Before I ask you about any specific services, I'd like to ask you how satisfied you are in general with the services the County provides. Are you .... 1 very satisfied 2 somewhat satisfied 3 somewhat dissatisfied 4 very dissatisfied 8 UNABLE TO RATE/DONq? KNOW 9 REFUSED A-10 Now I'd like to ask you about some specific services provided by Albemarle .County. satisfied are you with... {Q:SATLIST} How [ASK 15 OF THE FOI J OWING] a. The job the County is doing in keeping citizens informed about County government programs and services? b. The County's efforts to make it more convenient to access County services and information? c. The County's efforts to promote tourism in our area? d. The opportunities for citizen input into issues that come up for discussion in the County? e. The job the County is doing in providing programs to help the County's elderly population? f. The County's efforts to manage growth in the County? g. The ease of getting around by car in Albemarle County? h. The ease of getting around by public transportation in Albemarle County? i. The County's efforts to preserve historic places? j. The County's efforts to protect natural resources and the environment? k. The County's efforts to preserve open space, including farmland and forests? 1. The County's efforts to provide parks and recreation space? m. The library services in Albemarle County? n. The job the County is doing in providing quality education to school children? o. The County's efforts to support adequate housing? p. The protection provided by police in Albemarle County? q. Fire protection in Albemarle County? r. Emergency rescue services in Albemarle County? s. Safety at or near your residence? t. Safety in business areas of the County? u. Safety for walkers and bicyclists on streets, trails, and sidewalks? 1 VERY SATISFIED 2 SOMEWHAT SATISFIED 3 SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED 4 VERY DISSATISFIED 8 UNABI.F. TO RATEfDON'T KNOW 9 REFUSED A-Il {Q: VIEW} Considering all the County services on the one hand and taxes on the other, which of the following statements comes closest to your view: The County should decrease services and taxes; The County should keep taxes and services about where they are; or The County should increase services and taxes? INCREASE SERVICES, KEEP TAXES TI-BE SAME [VOLUNTEERED] INCREASE SERVICES, DECREASE TAXES [VOLUNTF. ERED] KEEP SERVICES AS THEY ARE, DECREASE TAXES [VOLUNTEERED] SOME OTHER CHANGE [VOLUNTEERED] DON'T KNOW/NO OPINION {Q: SERVDEC} IF 1 on VIEW What services should be decreased'?. [OPEN END] {Q: SERVINC} IF 3, 4 or 5 on VIEW What services should be increased? [OPEN END] {Q: VALUE} And how satisfied are you, in general, with the job the County is doing in giving you value for your tax dollar? 1 VERY SATISFIED 2 SO1VIE~T SATISFIED 3 SOMEWHAT DISSATISF1-F.D 4 VERY DISSATISFIED 8 UNABLE TO RATE/DON'T KNOW 9 REFUSED {Q: TRSTGOV} How much of the time do you think you can trust the County to do what is right--just about always, most. of.the rime, or only some of the time? I JUST ABOUT ALWAYS' 2 MOST OF THE TIME 3 ONLY SOME OF THE TIME 4 NEVER/ALMOST NEVER [VOLUNTEERED] 8 DON'T KNOW/NO ANSWER 9 REFUSED A-12 If 3 or 4 on TRSTGOV, ask What could the County do to be more trustworthy? {Q: TRSTGOVO} [OPEN END] {Q: GROWINT} Now I'd like to ask a few questions about how local government is managing growth in the County. Albemarle has grown in population about 2% a year for the last 20 years; that's 17,000 additional residents since 1990, or about 85,000 today. While the COunty can't stop growth, it can take measures to control it. {Q: DEVAREA} County policy attempts to concentrate growth in designated development specific areas of the County. Do you support efforts to direct growth into the development areas of the County while restricting development in the rural areas? You can say that you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose this policy. If you have no opinion, simply say so. [ IF NEEDED: These areas are located primarily around city of Charlottesville, around 29 north to the airport, Crozet and. the area around Glenmore] 1 STRONGLY FAVOR 2 SOMEWHAT FAVOR 3 SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 5 NO OPINION 6 REFUSED A-13 {Q: GROLIST} Now I am going to ask about various things we are doing in Albemarle county to manage growth.. For each of the following, please tell me whether you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, strongly oppose, or have no opinion about the particular measure. a. Providing public amenities such as sidewalks, bikeways, streetlights, parks and open spaces, street trees and neighborhood schools in the county's development areas. b. Encouraging a greater mix of offices, stores, restaurants and other urban services with residential areas in the county's development areas. c. Encouraging a greater variety and mix of housing types and prices levels in the county's development areas. d. Development of a more interconnected urban street system in the county's development areas to provide more alternative routes for traffic. This'means a grid-like street system rather than cul-de-sacs. e. For rural property, restricting the number of lots'aperson can divide a large parcel of property into. f. Purchasing property rights in rural areas, to keep owners from subdividing, known as "Acquiring Conservation Easements" or ACE. g. Taxing agricultural and forested land at a lower rate than market value in order to defer development of rural land. h. Allowing localized rural services, such as country stores, post offices, etc., in traditionally rural communities. 1 STRONGLY FAVOR 2 SOMEWHAT FAVOR 3 SOMEWHAT OPPOSE 4 STRONGLY OPPOSE 5 NO OPINION 6 REFUSED {Q: DEMINT} We're nearing the endof the interview now. I have some more questions about your household. These questions are for statistical purposes only, and all your answers are confidential. If there is a question that you do not wish to answer, we will skip it and go to the next one. {Q: OLDER18} How many persons live in your household who are age 18 or older, including yourself? ENTER NUMBER HERE AND PRESS RETURN- ENTER "99" FOR REFUSAL A-14 And how many persons under 18 live in your household? ENTER NUMBER HERE AND PRESS RETURN ENTER "99" FOR REFUSAL CHILDREN = PERSONS 17 AND UNDER {Q: UNDER18} Ask if UNDER18 < > 0 r' Are any of those children less than 5 years old? {Q: KUNDR5} 1 YES 2 NO 9 REFUSED (As necessary) {Q: K5TO12} 1 YES 2 NO 9 REFUSED Ask if UNDER18 < > 0 (As necessary) lAnd are any of those children ages 13 to 177 I YES 2 NO 9 REFUSED {Q: KOVR12} In what year were you bom? ENTER YEAR HERE 19__ AND PRESS RETURN TYPE 2 DIGITS ONLY! ENTER "00" FOR ANY YEAR PRIOR TO 1900 ENTER" " 99 FOR REFUSED {Q: YRBORN} A-15 {Q: WORK} Which of the following best describes you? Are you working full time, working part time, looking for work, a homemaker, retired, or a student? INTERVIEWERS: IF YOU ARE GIVEN TWO ASK "WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOU?" I WORKING FULL TIME 2 WORKING PART TIME 3 LOOKING FOR WORK 4 HOMEMAKER 5 RETIRED 6 STUDENT 7 OTHER [SPECIFY:] 8 DON"r KNOW / REFUSED [35 HRS/WK OR MORE] Do you own your own home, or are you renting? 1 OWNS [DWELLING IS OWNER-OCCUPIED] 2 RENTS 3 OTHER [SPECIFY]: 8 DON'T KNOW/NO ANSWER Would you describe the area where you live as 1 out in the country 2 a rural village 3 a suburban area 4 an urban area close to the city? 8 DON'T KNOW/CAN'T SAY There are just a couple of final questions. confidential. What is your current marital status? never been married? {Q: OWNHOME} {Q: KINDPLCE} {Q: MARRIED} As I mentioned, all of your answers are strictly Are you marred, separated, divorced, widowed, or have you 1 MARRIED 2 SEPARATED 3 DIVORCED 4 WIDOWED 5 NEVER MARRIED 9 REFUSED A-16 What is the highest level of education you completed? 11 LESS THAN 9th GRADE 12 9th-12th, BUT DID NOT FINISH HIGH SCHOOL 13 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE 14 SOME COLLEGE BUTNO DEGREE 15 2-YEAR COLLEGE DEGREE/A.A./A.S. 16 4-YEAR COLLEGE DEGREE/B.A./B.S. 17 SOME GRADUATE WORK 18 COMPLETED MASTERS OR PROFESSIONAL DEGREE 19 ADVANCED GRADUATE WORK OR PH.D. 20 DONZI' KNOW 21 REFUSED {Q: EDUC} {Q: INCOME} I am going to read a list of income ranges. Would you please stop me when I read the range that best describes your annual household income from all sources. That would be before taxes and other deductions. 1 Less than 15 thousand? 2 Fifteen to 35 thousand? 3 Thirty-five to 50 thousand? 4 Fifty to 75 thousand? 5 Seventy-five to 100 thousand? 6 One hundred to 150 thousand? 7 Over 150 thousand? 8 .DON'T KNOW / REFUSED / NO [ PRECISE CATEGORIES: ] [ $0 --$14,999 ] [ $15,000--$34,999 ] [ $35,000--$49,999 ] [ $50,000--$74,999 ] [ $75,000--$99,999 ] [ $100,000 - $149,999 ] [ $150,000 + ] ANSWER Do you consider yourself to be of Hispanic origin? 1 YES 2 NO 9 DONZI' KNOW/REFUSED TO ANSWER {Q: HISPANIC} {Q: RACE} Finally, I am going to read a list of racial categories. Would you tell me what category best describes you? 1 White, 2 [READ ONE:] African American / Black, 3 Asian? [INCLUDING SOUTH ASIAN] 4 American Indian? [NATIVE AMERICAN; INCLUDES ESKIMO, ALF. UT] 5 Pacific Islander? 6 OTHER [SPECIFY] 9 REFUSED / NO ANSWER A-17 {Q: RCOMM} Those are all the questions I have for you. Before I say good-bye, are there any other comments you'd like to make? [OPEN-END] {Q: THANKYOU} Thank you very much for participating. We appreciate the time you have taken to complete this interview. The survey results will be reported to the County Board of Supervisors at a public meeting in the spring. [READ IF NECESSARY:] If you have any questions on the pdrpose of this study, you can call Lori Spencer at the County Executive's Office at Albemarle County. The telephone number is 296-5841. Or you can call my supervisor here at the Center for Survey Research. We're at 243- 5222--just mention the Albemarle county survey. Again, thank you and goodbye. INTERVIEWERS: HANG UP THE PHONE IF YOU ARE READY TO MOVE ON, PRESS "1" TO CONTINUE THE RESULTS OF THIS CALL WILL NOT BE SAVED UNTIL YOU COMPLETE THE REMAINING QUESTIONS {O: INTCOMM} INTERVIEWERS: PLEASE TYPE IN HERE ANY SPECIAL COMMENTS BY. THE RESPONDENT THAT YOU FEEL SHOULD BE RECORDED, OR ANY SPECIAL PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN THIS PARTICULAR INTERVIEW. IF THERE IS NOTHING ESSENTIAL TO REPORT, JUST PRESS RETURN... {Q: SS4} INTERVIEWERS: ENTER YOUR INTERVIEWER NUMBER (ASSIGNED BY YOUR SUPERVISOR) ENTER INTERVIEWER NUMBER HERE: .,. CHECK YOUR TYPING CAREFULLY!! THEN: PRESS "ENTER" TO COMPLETE THE INTERVIEW. THE SYSTEM WILL RECORD THE DATA AND THE TIMING CLOCK FOR THE INTERVIEW WILL BE RESET TO ZERO. A-18 APPENDIX B SURVEY AND SAMPLING METHODOLOGY The 2002 Albemarle County Citizen Satisfaction Survey was conducted by the Center for Survey Research (CSR) using a Computer-Aided Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system, employing random-digit dialing to select the sample. A discussion of the general methodology appears in Chapter I of this report. This appendix provides additional details on how the questionnaire was developed, how the sample was selected, how the survey was administered, how the sample was weighted, and how statistical testing was used to evaluate the results. Sample CSR employed random-digit dialing (RDD) to reach a random sample of the households in Albemarle County for citizen satisfaction. RDD produces a more representative sample of the population than do most other sampling methods because households are selected for contact at random and all househoIds with a working telephone can be reached. Listed and unlisted residential telephones have equal probability of being included in an RDD study. A sample of telephone numbers randomly geherated from five-digit call groups known to be in operation in Albemarle County was purchased from Survey Sampling, Inc. of Fairfield, CT, a commercial sampling company that uses state- of-the-art methodologies. Some of the working phone numbers in a sample so generated are for households in the City of Charlottesville or in other counties. Each contacted household was screened for location at the beginning of the interview. Questionnaire The questionnaire was developed in conjunction with key members of the Albemarle County staff. CSR also took special care to include comments and the opinions of Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the county executive staff in the survey development process. The questionnaire was pre-tested twice: first on January 8th through 10~, and second on January 21st. The first pre-test resulted in 40 completed interviews with households in Albemarle County using the RDD sample. The pre-test revealed that the survey took approximately 30 minutes to complete, considerably longer than had been planned. In conjunction with the county executive staff, certain questions were eliminated. In other cases, question rationing was employed. This is a system for asking certain questions of only 400 to 500 respondents, in order to ask a larger number of questions and obtain a sufficiently large sample of responses to each question, without making the survey substantially longer for any individual respondent. The second pre-test resulted in 30 completed interviews. This average length was reduced to 17 minutes. Based on the pre-tests, we refined our training procedures, and made minor corrections in the CATI program for the interview. Interviewing Procedures CSR conducted the telephone interviews from its Computer-Assisted Telephone. Interviewing (CATI) Laboratory at the University of Virginia. CATI is a system in which computers are employed to increase the efficiency, accuracy, and flexibility of telephone surveys conducted by trained interviewers. Questions appear on the computer screen in programmed sequence as the interviewer presses the keys on the keyboard to record the respondent's answers. Accurate, instantaneous data entry is assured by the system. The computer system stores the data base of telephone numbers and is used to control the sampling process, dial each sampled number, schedule call-backs, and record the disposition of each attempted call. CSR's CATI lab allows for audio monitoring of calls by lab supervisors. Production calling for the survey was carried out from January 24 through February 10, 2002. All telephone calls for the study were made from the CATI laboratory under the direct supervision of CSR staff. Numbers were dialed automatically by the WinCATI computer system. Calling was done on Sunday through Friday evenings and on Sunday afternoons. The interviewers received at least six hours of training prior to production interviewing. Many had prior interviewing experience on similar studies. Each phone number was given a maximum of 10 call attempts before it was treated as a "no answer" or "busy" number. Residential phones answered by automatic answering machines were treated the same as "no answer" calls (although counted separately); CSR interviewers did not leave messages on the answering machines of potential respondents but simPly returned the phone number to the sample pool for another calling attempt at a later time. However, answering machine announcements that identified the phone number as a place of business were recorded as such and not re-attempted. In order to reduce non-response bias, we conducted "conversion calling." Non-response bias results in surveys results when qualified respondents do not complete a survey, usually because they refuse to cooperate. In conversion calling, our most highly trained interviewers call back households in which we previously had someone refuse to take the survey. First, we kept track of the "tone" of initial refusals. "Hard" refusals, those in which people explicitly asked not to be called again, or were noticeably agitated or upset about our phone call, were not called back at ail. "Soft" refusals, those for which it seemed that we only caught someone at a bad time, were called back and contacted once more after an interval of at least three days. A total of 5,748 phone numbers were attempted in the course of the survey. The final disposition of each of the attempted phone numbers is shown in Appendix Table B-l, the Sample Disposition Report. The disposition report is presented in a format that has been recommended as an industry standard by the American Association for Public Opinion Research.~ The AAPOR rate was calculated automatically by the Sawtooth WinCATI 4.1 CATI software, based on the full call history of each attempted number. This new tool increases' the accuracy of the calculation. CSR completed a total of 724 interviews with self-identified County residents in the production phase of calling (this number includes 5 interviews that were not fully but substantially completed, plus others deleted later because the reported residence location of the household was outside Albemarle County), for an overall response rate of 28 percent2. The final version of the interview took an average of 20 minutes to complete, with a median completion time of 17 minutes. The overall interview production rate was 1~23 interviews per hour. Geographic Representation and Sample Weighting When RDD sampling is employed, the surveying organization does not have any exact prior information on the location of the household. To protect respondent confidentiality and preserve a sense of privacy in the interview, CSR does not usually ask respondents to supply their address. Instead, we asked respondents to identify the neighborhood, subdivision, apartment complex, or community area of the County in which they reside. CSR interviewers looked up the responses on a list of some 300 ~ea names in the County, develoPed by CSR from information supplied by the County Planning Department and from commercial maps. Respondents who could not supply an area name, or who gave a name not on our list (about 40.2% of the cases) were hsked to give the names of the nearest major intersection. This information allowed us to code almost all respondents into one of eight geographic regions that we used in our analysis. While this procedure has a satisfactory degree of accuracy for our purposes of comparison, the procedure includes some inevitable inaccuracies due to errors on the part of respondents or occasional inexact matches between the area names used in the community and the formal. map boundaries we used for coding purposes. About 3.5% could not give sufficient information to allow their information 'to allow their location to be coded. They are excluded from any analysis involving comparison of geographic areas. There were 21 cases that turned out .not to live in Albemarle County, and these were deleted from the final data set. Overall, the geographic distribution was very close to population estimates for Albemarle County and thus geographic weighting was not necessary. As expected when using telephone survey method, the sample composition did not exactly match the composition of the entire population of households. This is because of random sampling error, differences in 'rates of refusal between different groups, and differences among householdS in the amount of time that someone is home to answer the phone. The net result i s a sample that somewhat overrepresents females but underrepresents white renters. To correct these imbalances, CSR weighted the sample ~ The American Association for Public Opinion Research. 1998. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys and In-Person Household Surveys. Ann Arbor, Michigan: A~OR. See also the AAPOR website, www. aapor.org. 2 Calculated according to AAPOR suggested formula~ RR3, w~th' "e"=.77. We estimated "e" based on an analysis of the occurrence of out-of-area households in our RDD sample. Partial interviews are not counted in the numerator of the RR3 formula. data. Statistical weighting is larger for those respondents who are in underrepresented groups, and smaller for those who are in overrepresented groups, so that the aggregate result is what we would have obtained from a fully uniform, random sample of the whole population. In order to calculate the correct weights, CSR drew upon information from the 2000 US Census in order to get the correct proportions of the adult population. The proportion of male/females from the population was then a basis for our weight based on gender. The intersection of race and tenure was somewhat more difficult to obtain due to the fact that the necessary information from the 2000 Census had not yet been released. In order to estimate the correct proportion in the population, CSR took the joint race/tenure proportion from the 1990 Census and then separately compared race and tenure from both the 1990 and 2000 Census in order to estimate the intersection of the two in 2000. Race was dichotomized into black and non-black categories in these calculations. This approximated distribution of race/tenure was then used to set the target proportions for our data. Often, when weighting by two different proportions (.in this case sex and race/tenure), a procedure known as raking is employed to gain parity between the two proportions. Raking is an iterative process which helps the final weight successfully account for both proportions. (There can only be one weight applied on at any given time in the dataset). CSR raked the weight through two iterations and then calculated the final weight based on the most recent weights for sex and race/tenure. Sampling Error and Statistical Testing Based on a sample of 703 Albemarle respondents, the survey has a sampling error of plus or minus 3.7 percent. This means that in 95 out of 100 samples of this size drawn from Albemarle County, the results obtained in the sample would fall in a range of +_3.7 percentage points of what would have been obtained had every household in the County with a working telephone been interviewed. Larger sampling errors are present when analyzing subgroups of the sample or questions that were not asked of all respondents; smaller sampling errors are present when a lopsided majority gives thc same answer (e.g., 80 percent of the sample are satisfied with a given service). Statistical significance tests were used to verify the existence of satisfaction differences among various subgroups. We used the Pearson Chi-Square test of independence and independent-sample t-tests for differences in means. We report in these pages differences that yield a "p-value" of :05 or less. A level of .05 indicates that there is only a 5 percent chance that the difference we find is due to sampling error, rather than reflecting a real relationship within the study population. In chi-square tests of,, .satisfacti°n. . ,, items, thc four response categories were collapsed into two, "satisfied" and dmsatlsfied. The statistics for evaluating statistical significance do not measure error from sources other than random sampling error. Such error can occur in any poll or survey. Final Disposition Code 1100 1200 '2110 2120 2210 2221 2222 2310 2320 2330 2340 3120 3130 3140 3150 3210 3220 4100 4200 4310 4320 4410 4420 4430 4510 4520 4530 4700 4800 Disposition Total Complete 724 Partial 5 Eligible: Refusal 57 Eligible: Break-off 16 Eligible: Resp Never Available 256 Eligible: Aris Mach, No Message 168 Eligible: Ans Machine, Message 0 Eligible: Dead 0 Eligible: Phys/Mentally Unable 20 Eligible: Language Unable 10 Eligible: Misc Unable 22 Busy 59 No Answer 545 Aris Mach (Don't Know if HU) 420 Technical Phone Problems 81 HU, Unknown Eligible: No Scrnr 653 HU, Unknown Eligible: Other 0 Out of Sample 736 Fax/Data Line 292 Non-working Number 1128 Disconnected Number 26 Number Changed 35 Cell Phone 0 Call Forwarding 0 Business/Government/Other Org 478 Institution 0 Group Quarter 0 No Eligible Respondent 15 Quota Filled 0 Group Group Total Complete Interview 724 Partial Interview 5 Refusal and break-off 73 Non-contact 424 Other 52 Unknown if household 1105 Unknown if other 653 Results: (Estimated = O. 77) Response Rate 1: 0.24 Response Rate 2: 0.24 Response Rate 3: 0.28 Response Rate 4: 0.28 Response Rate 5: 0.57 Response Rate 6: 0.57 Cooperation Rate 1: 0.85 Cooperation Rate 2: 0.85 Cooperation Rate 3: 0.90 Cooperation Rate 4: 0.91 Refusal Rate 1: 0.02 Refusal Rate 2: 0.03 Refusal Rate 3: 0.06 Contact Rate 1: 0.28 Contact Rate 2: 0.33 Contact Rate 3: 0.67 Appendix C: Frequency Tables for Substantive and Demographic Variables Weighted by Gender, Race and Tenure Response numbering for select questions does not match the questionnaire due to recoding QOL10 Overall Impression of Albemarle County. Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 2 7 1.0 1.0 1.0 3 3 .4 .4 1.4 4 4 .5 .5 1.9 5 18 2.5 2.5 4.4 6 40 5.7 5.8 10.2 7 116 16.6 16.7 26.9 8 251 35.7 36.0 63.0 9 130 18.4 18.6 81.6 10 Best 128 18.2 18.4 100.0 Total 695 99.0 100.0 Missing 98 Don't know 5 .7 99 Refused 2 .3 Total 7 1.0 Total 703 100.0 PLNLST_I Providing Good Public Education Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Not that important 8 1.2 1.7 1.7 2 Somewhat important 43 6.1 8.5 10.2 3 Very important 451 64.2 89.8 100.0 Total 502 71.5 100.0 Missing 8 Unable to rate/DK 2 .2 System 199 28.3 Total 200 28.5 Total 703 100.0 C-1 PLNLST_2 Protecting Water Quality Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Not that important 5 .7 .9 .9 2 Somewhat 68 9.6 13.8 14.8 important 3 Very important 415 59.1 85.2 100.0 Total 488 69.4 100,0 Missing 8 Unable to rate/DK 1 .2 System 214 30.5 Total 215 30.6 Total 703 100.0 PLNLST_3 Making Streets Safe Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Not that important 52 7.4 11.3 11.3 2 Somewhat 147 20.9 32.0 43.4 important 3 Very important 260 36.9 56.6 100.0 Total 458 65.2 100.0 Missing 8 Unable to rate/DK 8 1.2 System 236 33.6 Total 245 34.8 Total 703 100.0 PLNLST_4 Preserving Natural Resources Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Not that important 24 3.4 5.0 5.0 2 Somewhat important 144 20.6 29.9 34.9 3 Very important 315 44.8 65.1 100.0 Total 484 68.8 100.G Missing 8 Unable to rate/DK 10 1.5 System 209 29.7 Total 219 31.2 Total 703 100.0 PLNLST_5 Preserving Farmland Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Not that important 30 4.3 6.5 6.5 2 Somewhat important 139 19.8 29.6 36.2 3 Very important 299 42.5 63.8 100.0 Total 468 66.6 100.0 Missing 8 Unable to rate/DK 8 1.1 System 227 32.2 Total 235 33.4 Total 703 100.0 PLNLST_6 Reducing Traffic Congestion Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Not that important 53 7.6 10.2 10.2 2 Somewhat 154 22.0 29.6 39.8 important 3 Very important 314 44.7 60.2 100.0 Total 522 74.3 100.0 Missing 8 Unable to rate/DK 8 1.1 System 173 24.6 Total 181 25.7 Total 703 100.0 PLNLST_7 Encouraging Affordable Housing Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid I Not that important 47 6.7 10.1 10.! 2 Somewhat 184 26.2 39.8 49.9 important 3 Very important 232 33.0 50.1 100.0 Total 463 65.9 100.0 Missing 8 Unable to rate/DK 7 1.1 System 233 33.1 Total 240 34.1 Total 703 100.0 C-4 PLNLST_8 Supporting Recreational Programs for Youth Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Not that important 32 4.5 6.6 6.6 2 Somewhat important 169 24.1 35.2 41.8 3 Very important 280 39.8 58.2 100.0 Total 481 68.5 100.0 Missing 8 Unable to rate/l)K I .2 System 220 31.3 Total 222 31.5 Total 703 ! 00.0 PLNLST_9 Promoting Economic Growth Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Not that important 90 12.8 18.4 18.4 2 Somewhat important 200 28.5 41.1 59.5 3 Very important 197 28.1 40.5 100.0 Total 487 69.3 100.0 Missing 8 Unable to rate/DK 10 1.4 System 206 29.3 Total 216 30.7 Total 703 I00.0 PLNLST10 Supporting Cultural Opportunities Valid Frequency Percent Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 Not that important 72 10.3 14.9 14.9 2 Somewhat 251 35.8 51.7 66.6 important 3 Very important 162 23.1 33.4 100.0 Total 486 69.2 100.0 Missing 8 Unable to rate/DK 2 .2 9 Refused 1 .1 System 214 30.4 Total 217 30.8 Total 703 100.0 PLNLSTll Providing Parks and Recreational Facilities Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Not that important 45 6.4 8.8 8.8 2 Somewhat 229 32.6 45.2 54.0 important 3 Very important 233 33.2 46.0 ! 00.0 Total 507 72.1 100.0 Missing 8 Unable to rate/l)K 1 .1 System 195 27.7 Total 196 27.9 Total 703 100.0 PLNLST12 Providing Public TranspOptation Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Not that important 85 12.1 17.1 17.1 2 Somewhat important 207 29.4 41.6 58.7 3 Very important 206 29.3 41.3 100.0 Total 498 70.8 100.0 Missing 8 Unable to rate/DK 6 .9 9 Refused 1 .2 System 197 28.1 Total 205 29.2 Total 703 100.0 PLNLST13 Supporting Services for Elderly Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Not that important 16 2.3 3.3 3.3 2 Somewhat important 159 22.6 32.0 35.3 3 Very important 322 45.8 64.7 100.0 Total 497 70.7 100.0 Missing 8 Unable to rate/DK 3 .5 System 203 28.8 Total 206 29.3 Total 703 100.0 PLNLST14 Emphasizing Programs for Troubled Youth Valid Frequency Percent Percent Cumulative Percent Valid I Not that important 32 4.5 6.7 6.7 2 Somewhat 180 25.6 37.7 44.4 important 3 Very important 265 37.7 55.6 100.0 Total 477 67.8 100.0 Missing 8 Unable to rate/DK 13 1.9 System 213 30.3 Total 226 32.2 Total 703 100.0 PLNLST15 Providing Support for Affordable Health Care Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Not that important 32 4.6 6.6 6.6 2 Somewhat 168 24.0 34.6 41.3 important 3 Very important 286 40.6 58.7 100.0 Total 486 69.2 100.0 Missing 8 Unable to rate/DK 5 .7 System 212 30.1 Total 217 30.8 Total 703 100.0 PLNLST16 Supporting Affordable Child Care Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Not that important 68 9.7 14.3 14.3 2 Somewhat important 190 27.0 39.9 54.2 3 Very important 218 31.0 45.8 100.0 Total 476 67.7 100.0 Missing 8 Unable to rate/DK 12 1.7 System 215 30.6 Total 227 32.3 Total 703 100.0 PLNLST17 Preserving Historic Places Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Not that important 55 7.8 11.5 11.5 2 Somewhat important 201 28.6 42.2 53.7 3 Very important 220 31.4 46.3 100.0 Total 476 67.7 100.0 Missing 8 Unable to rate/DK 5 .7 System 222 31.6 Total 227 32.3 Total 703 100.0 C-9 PLNLST18 Providing Police Service Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Not that important 17 2.4 3.4 3.4 2 Somewhat 89 12.7 18.2 21.6 important 3 Very important 385 54.7 78.4 100.0 Total 490 69.8 100.0 Missing 8 Unable to ratefDK I .2 System 211 30.0 Total 213 30.2 Total 703 100.0 PLNLST19 Providing Fire Service Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Not that important 6 .9 1.3 1.3 2 Somewhat 60 8.5 12.0 !3.3 important 3 Very important 433 61.6 86.7 100.0 Total 499 71.0 100.0 Missing 8 Unable to rate/DK 2 .2 System 202 28.7 Total 204 29.0 Total 703 100.0 C-10 PLNLST20 Providing Support for People in Need Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Not that important 59 8.4 12:5 12.5 2 Somewhat important 203 28.8 42.5 55.0 3 Very important 215 30.5 45.0 100.0 Total 476 67.8 100~0 Missing 8 Unable to rate/DK 8 1.2 9 Refused 1 System 217 30.9 Total 226 32.2 Total 703 100.0 CONTACT Has R Contacted County in Past Year Valid Frequency Percent Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 Yes, contacted in last 12 months 327 46.5 47.3 47.3 2 No, has not contacted 3.64 51.8 52.7 100.0 Total 691 98.3 100.0 Missing 9 Can't recali/DK/Refused 12 1.7 Total 703 100.0 C-11 HELPFUL Helpfulness of Employees Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Very dissatisfied 29 4.2 9.1 9.1 2 Somewhat 28 4.0 8.8 17.8 dissatisfied 3 Somewhat satisfied 92 13.0 28.5 46.3 4 Very satisfied 173 24.5 53.7 100.0 Total 321 45.7 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 5 .8 System 376 53.5 Total 381 54.3 Total 703 100.0 CONLIST1 Kiosks with Computer Terminals Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Not at all helpful 343 48.8 50.6 50.6 2 Somewhat helpful 252 35.8 37.1 87.7 3 Very helpful 84 11.9 12.3 100.0 Total 678 96.5 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 23 3.2 9 Refused 2 .3 Total 24 3.5 Total 703 100.0 C-12 CONLIST2 Flexible/Expanded Hours Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid ! Not at all helpful 165 23.5 24.4 24.4 2 Somewhat helpful 285 40.6 42.2 66.6 3 Very helpful 226 32.1 33.4 100.0 Total 676 ' 96.2 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 24 3.5 9 Refused I .1 System 2 .2 Total 27 3.8 Total 703 100.0 CONLIST3 Automated Phone System Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Not at all helpful 325 46.3 49.2 49.2 2 Somewhat helpful 226 32.2 34.3 83.5 3 Very helpful 109 15.5 16.5 100.0 Total 661 94.0 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 40 5.6 9 Refused 1 .1 System 2 .2 Total 42 6.0 Total 703 100.0 C-13 CONLIST4 Expanded Website Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1 Not at all helpful 170 24.2 26.1 26.1 2 Somewhat helpful 237 33.8 36.5 62.6 3 Very helpful 243 34.6 37.4 100.0 Total 650 92.5 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 50 7.1 9 Refused 1 .1 System 2 .2 Total 52 7.5 Total 703 100.0 CONLIST5 Branch Offices Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Not at all helpful 203 28.9 30.3 30.3 2 Somewhat helpful 239 34.0 35.8 66.1 3 Very helpful 227 32.2 33.9 100.0 Total 669 95.2 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 31 4.4 9 Refused 2 .2 System 2 .2 Total 34 4.8 Total 703 100.0 NET1 Does R Have Access to Internet? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Yes 564 80.3 80.3 80.3 2 No 139 19.7 19.7 100.0 Total 703 100.0 100.0 C-14 NET2 Has R Visited Co. Website? Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Yes 246 35.0 44.0 44.0 2 No 313 44.6 56.0 100.0 Total 559 79.6 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 5 .7 System 139 19.7 Total 144 20.4 Total 703 100.0 USELIST1 Pay Taxes, Tickets, Fees Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Not at all likely 162 23.1 38.2 38.2 2 Somewhat likely 92 13.0 21.6 59.9 3 Very likely 170 24.2 40.1 100.0 Total 424 60.3 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 1 .1 System 278 39.5 Total 279 39.7 Total 703 100.0 C-15 USELIST2 Review Meeting Agenda Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1 Not at ali likely 176 25.1 44.3 44.3 2 Somewhat likely 122 17.4 30.7 75.0 3 Very likely 99 14.1 25.0 100.0 Total 398 56.6 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know I .2 System 304 43.2 Total 305 43.4 Total 703 100.0 USELIST3 Apply for a Job Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1. Not at all likely 214 30.5 50.4 50.4 2 Somewhat likely 92 13.1 21.7 72.2 3 Very likely 118 16.8 27.8 100.0 Total 425 60.4 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 2 .2 System 277 39.4 Total 278 39.6 Total 703 100.0 C-16 USELIST4 Apply for Permits Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Not at all likely 103 14.7 24.6 24.6 2 Somewhat likely 95 13.6 22.8 47.4 3 Very likely 220 31.4 52.6 100.0 Total 419 59.6 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 1 .1 System 283 40.3 Total 284 40.4 Total 703 100.0 USELIST5 Reserve Space in Park Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Not at all likely 148 21.0 34.3 34.3 2 Somewhat likely 135 19.1 31.2 65.5 3 Very likely 149 21.1 34.5 100~0 Total 431 61.3 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 3 .5 System 269 38.2 Total 272 38.7 Total 703 100.0 C-17 USELIST6 Register for Classes Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1 Not at all likely 137 19.5 33.2 33.2 2 Somewhat likely 108 15.3 26.1 59.3 3 Very likely 168 23.9 40.7 100.0 Total 413 58.7 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 3 .5 System 287 40.8 Total 290 41.3 Total 703 100.0 USELIST7 Receive E-mail Updates Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Not at ali likely 143 20.3 32.0 32.0 2 Somewhat likely 166 23.6 37.2 69.2 3 Very likely 137 19.5 30.8 100.0 Total 446 63.5 100.0 Missing System 257 36.5 Total 703 100.0 USELIST8 Research Property Records Valid Frequency Percent Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 Not at all likely 70 10.0 16.8 16.8 2 Somewhat likely 123 17.6 29.5 46.4 3 Very likely 224 31.9 53.6 100.0 Total 418 59.5 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know ! .1 System 284 40.4 Total 285 40.5 Total 703 100.0 C-18 CTYSAT Satisfaction with County Services Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Perce~t Valid 1 Very dissatisfied 14 1.9 2.0 2.0 2 Somewhat dissatisfied 35 4.9 5.2 7.2 3 Somewhat satisfied 348 49.5 52.2 59.5 4 Very satisfied 270 38.4 40.5 100.0 Total 666 94. ~ 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 37 5.2 Total 703 100.0 SATLT_I Keeping Citizens Informed Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Very dissatisfied 34 4.8 7.3 7.3 2 Somewhat dissatisfied 50 7.2 11.0 18.3 3 Somewhat satisfied 245 34.8 53.3 71.7 4 Very satisfied 130 18.5 28.3 100.0 Total 458 65.2 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 45 6.5 System 199 28.3 Total 244 34.8 Total 703 100.0 C-19 SATLT_2 Access to Services and Information Valid Frequency Percent Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 Very dissatisfied 19 2.6 4.4 4.4 2 Somewhat 34 4.8 8.0 12.4 dissatisfied 3 Somewhat satisfied 234 33.3 55.3 67.7 4 Very satisfied 137 19.5 32.3 100.0 Total 423 60.2 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 75 10.6 System 205 29.2 Total 280 39.8 Total 703 100.0 SATLT 3 Efforts to Promote Tourism Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Very dissatisfied 9 1.3 2.2 2.2 2 Somewhat 21 3.0 5.2 .7.4 dissatisfied 3 Somewhat satisfied 187 26.6 45.3 52.7 4 Very satisfied 195 27.7 47.3 100.0 Total 412 58.6 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 92 13.0 System 200 28.4 Total 291 41.4 Total 703 100.0 C - 20 SATLT_4 Opportunity for Citizen Input Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Very dissatisfied 31 4.4 7.4 7.4 2 Somewhat dissatisfied 39 5.6 9.4 16.9 3 Somewhat satisfied 217 30.9 52.2 69.1 4 Very satisfied 129 18.3 30.9 100.0 Total 416 59.2 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 86 12.2 System 201 28.5 Total 287 40.8 Total 703 100.0 Ill SATLT_5 Helping the Elderly Population Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Very dissatisfied 13 1.8 4.4 4.4 2 Somewhat dissatisfied 28 3.9 9.5 14.0 3 Somewhat satisfied 160 22.8 55.4 69.3 4 Very satisfied 89 12.6 30.7 100.0 Total 289 41.1 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 206 29.2 System 208 29.7 Total 414 58.9 Total 703 I00.0 C -21 SATLT 6 Managing Growth Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid I Very dissatisfied 74 10.5 15.9 15.9 2 Somewhat 92 13.1 19.9 35.7 dissatisfied 3 Somewhat satisfied 211 30.0 45.5 81.2 4 Very satisfied 87 12.4 18.8 100.0 Total 464 66.0 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 69 9.8 System 170 24.2 Total 239 34.0 Total 703 100.0 SATLT_7 Getting Around by Car Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Very dissatisfied 32 4.6 6.5 6.5 2 Somewhat 54 7.7 11.0 17.5 dissatisfied 3 Somewhat satisfied 207 29.5 42.2 59.8 4 Very satisfied 198 28.1 40.2 100.0 Total 491 69.9 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 8 1.1 System 204 29.0 Total 212 30.1 Total 703 100.0 C - 22 SATLT_8 Getting Around by Public Transportation Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Very dissatisfied 62 8.8 22.8 22.8 2 Somewhat dissatisfied 50 7.1 18.3 41.1 3 Somewhat satisfied 111 15.7 40.6 81.7 4 Very satisfied 50 7.1 18.3 100.0 Total 272 38.7 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 222 31.6 9 Refused l .2 System 207 29.4 Total 431 61.3 Total 703 100.0 SATLT_9 Preserving Historic Places Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Very dissatisfied 14 2.0 3.2 3.2 2 Somewhat dissatisfied 28 4.0 6.3 9.5 3 Somewhat satisfied 189 26.9 42.7 52.2 4 Very satisfied 212 30.2 47.8 100.0 Total 444 63.1 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 73 10.4 9 Refused I .2 System 185 26.3 Total 259 36.9 Total 703 100.0 C - 23 SATLT_10 Protecting Natural Resources Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Very dissatisfied 27 3.9 6.2 6.2 2 Somewhat 58 8.3 13.3 19.5 dissatisfied 3 Somewhat satisfied 220 31.3 50.4 69.9 4 Very satisfied 131 18.7 30.1 100.0 Total 436 62.1 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 66 9.3 9 Refused t .2 System 200 28.4 Total 267 37.9 Total 703 100.0 SATLT 11 Preserving Open Space Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Very dissatisfied 40 5.7 9.4 9.4 2 Somewhat 49 7.0 11.6 21.0 dissatisfied 3 Somewhat satisfied 214 30.4 50.4 71.4 4 Very satisfied 121 17.3 28.6 100.0 Total 424 60.4 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 68 9.7 System 211 30.0 Total 279 39.6 Total 703 100.0 C - 24 SATLT_12 Providing Parks Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Very dissatisfied 16 2.3 3.4 3.4 2 Somewhat dissatisfied 22 3.1 4.7 8.1 3 Somewhat satisfied 188 26.8 40.4 48.5 4 Very satisfied 240 34.2 51.5 100.0 Total 467 66.4 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 33 4.7 System 204 29.0 Total 236 33.6 Total 703 100.0 SATLT_13 Library Services Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Very dissatisfied 12 1.7 2.7 2.7 2 Somewhat dissatisfied 16 2.3 3.6 6.3 3 Somewhat satisfied 124 17.6 28.0 34.4 4 Very satisfied 289 41.1 65.6 100.0 Total 441 62.7 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 74 10.6 System 188 26.8 Total 262 37.3 Total 703 100.0 C - 25 SATLT_14 Providing Quality Education Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 Very dissatisfied 26 3.8 6.4 6.4 2 Somewhat 41 5.9 9.9 16,3 dissatisfied 3 Somewhat satisfied 176 25.1 42.3 58.6 4 Very satisfied 172 24.5 41.4 100.0 Total 416 59.2 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 69 9.8 9 Refused 2 ~3 System 216 30.8 Total 287 40.8 Total 703 100.0 SATLT_15 Supporting Adequate Housing Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Very dissatisfied 25 3.5 7.3 7.3 2 Somewhat dissatisfied 52 7.3 15.2 22.5 3 Somewhat satisfied 191 27.2 56.5 79.0 4 Very satisfied 71 10.1 21.0 100.0 Total 339 48.2 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 167 23.8 System 197 28.0 Total 364 51.8 Total 703 100.0 C - 26 Valid 1 Very dissatisfied SATLT_16 Police Protection Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent 14 1.9 2.8 2.8 2 Somewhat dissatisfied 33 4.7 6.8 9.6 3 Somewhat satisfied 192 27.4 39.5 49.0 4 Very satisfied 248 35.3 51.0 100.0 Total 487 69.3 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 23 3.3 System 193 27.4 Total 216 30.7 Total 703 100.0 SATLT 17 Fire Protection Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Very dissatisfied 3 .4 .7 ,7 2 Somewhat dissatisfied 13 1.9 3.0 3.7 3 Somewhat satisfied 119 16.9 26.7 30.4 4 Very satisfied 308 43.9 69.6 100.0 Total 443 63.1 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 45 6.4 System 215 30.5 Total 260 36.9 Total 703 100.0 C - 27 SATLT_18 Emergency Rescue Services Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid I Very dissatisfied 3 .4 .7 .7¸ 2 Somewhat 8 1.1 1.8 2.5 dissatisfied 3 Somewhat satisfied 111 15.9 25.4 27.9 4 Very satisfied 316 45.0 72.1 100.0 Total 438 62.4 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 58 8.2 System 207 29.4 Total 265 37.6 Total 703 100.0 SATLT 19 Safety Near Residence Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Very dissatisfied 11 1.5 2.2 2.2 2 Somewhat 32 4.5 6.5 8.7 dissatisfied 3 Somewhat satisfied 155 22.0 31.7 40.4 4 Very satisfied 291 41.5 59.6 100.0 Total 489 69.5 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 10 1.4 System 204 29.1 Total 214 30.5 Total 703 100.0 C - 28 SATLT_20 Safety in Business Areas Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Very dissatisfied 6 .8 1.3 1.3 2 Somewhat dissatisfied 24 3.4 5.3 6.6 3 Somewhat satisfied 212 30.1 46.4 53.0 4 Very satisfied 214 30.5 47.0 100.0 Total 456 64.9 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 44 6.3 9 Refused 1 .1 System 202 28.8 Total 247 35.1 Total 703 100.0 SATLT_21 Safety for Walkers on Streets Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Very dissatisfied 61 8.7 13.5 13.5 2 Somewhat dissatisfied 82 11.7 18.1 3 t.6 3 Somewhat satisfied 210 29.9 46.3 77.9 4 Very satisfied 100 14.2 22.1 100.0 Total 454 64.5 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 41 5.9 System 208 29.6 Total 249 35.5 Total 703 100.0 C - 29 VIEW View of Taxes and Services Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Decrease services 63 9.0 9.3 9.3 and taxes 2 Keep taxes and 462 65.8 67.5 76.8 services the same 3 Increase services 90 12.8 13.1 89.9 and taxes 4 Increase services, keep taxes same (vol) 19 2.7 2.8 92.6 5 Increse services, 28 4.0 4.1 96.8 decr taxes (vol) 6 Keep services, decr 10 1.5 1.5 98.3 taxes (vol) 7 Other change (vol) 12 1.7 1.7 100.0 Total 685 97.4 ! 00.0 Missing 9 DKfNo opinion 18 2.6 Total 703 100.0 VALUE Value for Tax Dollar Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Very dissatisfied 41 5.8 6.1 6.1 2 Somewhat 58 8.3 8.7 14.9 dissatisfied 3 Somewhat satisfied 350 49.8 52.5 67.4 4 Very satisfied 217 30.9 32.6 100.0 Total 666 94.8 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 36 5.2 Total 703 100.0 C - 30 TRSTGOV R's Trust in County Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Just about always 87 12.4 12.7 12.7 2 Most of the time 376 53.5 54,9 67.6 3 Only some of the time 210 29.9 30.7 98.3 4 Never/almost never (vol) 12 1.7 1.7 100.0 Total 685 97.5 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know/No answer 16 2.2 9 Refused 2 .3 Total 17 2.5 Total 703 100.0 DEVAREA Support Development Areas Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Strongly oppose 54 7.7 9.0 9.0 2 Somewhat 74 10.6 12.4 21.4 oppose 3 Somewhat favor 189 26.9 31.5 52.8 4 Strongly favor 283 40.3 47.2 I00.0 Total 600 85.4 100.0 Missing 8 No opinion 100 14.2 9 Refused 3 .4 Total 103 14.6 Total 703 100.0 C - 31 GROLISTI Providing Amenities in Development Areas Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Strongly oppose 15 2.2 3.2 3.2 2 Somewhat 30 4.3 6.2 9.4 oppose 3 Somewhat favor 147 20.9 30.0 39.4 4 Strongly favor 296 42.2 60.6 100.0 Total 489 69.5 100.0 Missing 8 No opinion 42 5.9 9 Refused 1 .2 System 171 24.3 Total 214 30.5 Total 703 100.0 GROLIST2 Mix of Business and Residential Areas in Development Areas Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Strongly oppose 55 7.9 l 1.6 11.6 2 Somewhat · 69 9.9 14.6 26.2 oppose 3 Somewhat favor 187 26.6 39.3 65.5 4 Strongly favor 164 23.3 34.5 100.0 Total 475 67.6 100.0 Missing 8 No opinion 45 6.4 9 Refused I .2 System 181 25.7 Total 228 32.4 Total 703 100.0 C - 32 GROLIST3 Variety of Housing Types in Development Areas Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Strongly oppose 32 4.6 6.9 6.9 2 Somewhat oppose 43 6.1 9.2 16.1 3 Somewhat favor 159 22.6 33.8 49.9 4 Strongly favor 235 33.5 50. t 100.0 Total 469 66.8 100.0 Missing 8 No opinion 66 9.5 9 Refused 1 .1 System 166 23.7 Total 234 33.2 Total 703 100.0 GROLIST4 Grid-like Street System Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Strongly oppose 78 11.1 17.5 17.5 2 Somewhat 65 9.2 14.6 32.2 oppose 3 Somewhat favor 132 18.8 29.7 61.9 4 Strongly favor 169 24.1 38.1 100.0 Total 444 63.1 100.0 Missing 8 No opinion 80 11.4 9 Refused I .2 System 178 25.3 Total 259 36.9 Total 703 100.0 C - 33 GROLIST5 Restricting Division of Rural Property Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Strongly oppose 57 8.1 12.1 12.1 2 Somewhat 55 7.9 11.7 23.9 oppose 3 Somewhat favor 110 15.6 23.2 47.1 4 Strongly favor 250 35.5 52.9 100.0 Total 472 67.1 100.0 Missing 8 No opinion 69 9.9 9 Refused 3 .5 System 158 22.5 Total 231 32.9 Total 703 100.0 GROLIST6 Acquiring Conservation Easements Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Strongly oppose 64 9.1 14.4 14.4 2 Somewhat 53 7.5 12.0 26.4 oppose 3 Somewhat favor 120 17.1 27.1 53.5 4 Strongly favor 206 29.3 46.5 100.0 Total 443 63.0 100.0 Missing 8 No opinion 79 11.2 9 Refused 1 .2 System 180 25.6 Total 260 37.0 Total 703 100.0 GROLIST7 Taxing Rural Land at Lower Rate Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Strongly oppose 56 8.0 12.7 12.7 2 Somewhat 35 5.0 8.0 20.6 oppose 3 Somewhat favor 127 18.1 28.6 49.2 4 Strongly favor 226 32.1 50.8 100.0 Total 444 63.2 100.0 Missing 8 No opinion 80 11.3 9 Refused 1 .2 System 177 25.2 Total 258 36.8 Total 703 100.0 GROLIST8 Allowing Localized Rural Services Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Strongly oppose 8 1.2 1.8 !.8 2 Somewhat oppose 11 1.6 2.3 4.1 3 Somewhat favor 157 22.3 33.3 37.4 4 Strongly favor 295 41.9 62.6 100.0 Total 471 67.0 100.0 Missing 8 No opinion 38 5.4 System 194 27.7 Total 232 33.0 Total 703 100.0 C - 35 Group $SOURCE (Value tabulated = 1) Dichotomy label Local Newspaper Local Radio/TV Hear from Friends County Website County Mailings Other Source Don't Receive Inf~ Don't know Refused/No more Name SOURCE 1 SOURCE 2 SOURCE 3 SOURCE 4 SOURCE 5 SOURCE 6 SOURCE 7 SOURCE 8 SOURCE 9 Total responses 0 missing cases; 703 valid cases Count 446 313 108 59 105 140 13 14 703 1900 Pct of Responses 23.5 16.5 5.7 3.1 5.5 7.4 .7 .7 37.0 100.0 Pct of Cases 63.4 44.5 15.3 8.4 14.9 19.9 1.9 1.9 100.0 270.3 C - 36 RGENDER R's Gender Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 3 Male 328 46.6 46.7 46.7 4 Female 374 53.2 53.3 100.0 Total 702 99.8 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know 1 .2 Total 703 100.0 AGECAT5 Age [5 Categories] Valid Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent I 18-25 26 3.7 3.8 3.8 2 26-37 149 21.3 21.9 25.7 3 38-49 184 26.2 26.9 52.6 4 50-64 197 28.0 28.9 81.5 5 65 and Older 126 18.0 18.5 100.0 Total 683 97. ! 100.0 Missing 9 Missing 20 2.9 Total 703 100.0 MARRIED R's Marital Status Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Married 409 58.2 59.6 59.6 2 Separated 17 2.5 2.5 62.2 3 Divorced 79 11.2 11.5 73.6 4 Widowed 54 7.6 7.8 81.5 5 Never married ! 27 18.1 18.5 100.0 Total 685 97.5 100.0 Missing 9 Refused 18 2.5 Total 703 100.0 C - 37 CHILD Are There Any Children in the HH Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 0 No 446 63.5 63.7 63.7 I Yes 254 36.2 36.3 100.0 Total 700 99.6 100.0 Missing 99 Missing 3 .4 Total 703 100.0 RACE R's Race Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I White 574 81.7 85.2 85.2 2 Black 63 8.9 9.3 94.5 3 Asian 21 2:9 3.1 97.6 4 American Indian 4 .5 .6 98.2 5 Pacific Islander 4 .6 .6 98.8 6 Other 8 1.2 1.2 100.0 Total 674 95.8 100.0 Missing 9 REFUSED / NO 29 4.2 ANSWER Total 703 100.0 HISPANIC ~Is R of Hispanic Origin Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Yes 10 1.4 1.4 1.4 2 No 683 97.2 98.6 100.0 Total 693 98.6 100.0 Missing 9 Don't know/Refused 10 1 .~4 Total 703 100.0 C - 38 WORK Employment Status Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Working full time 416 59.3 59.6 59.6 2 Working part time 62 8.9 8.9 68.5 3 Looking for work I 1 1.6 1.6 70.1 4 Homemaker 44 6.2 6.3 76.4 5 Retired 125 17.7 17.8 94.2 6 Student 19 2.7 2.7 96.9 7 Other 21 3.1 3.1 100.0 Total 699 99.4 100.0 Missing 9 Don't know/Refused 4 .6 Total 703 100.0 EDUC R's Education Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 11 Less than 9th grade 15 2.2 2.2 2.2 12 9th-12th, did not finish HS 25 3.6 3.6 5.9 13 High school graduate 105 14.9 15.1 21.0 14 Some college 89 12.6 12.8 33.8 15 2-year college degree/A.A./A.S. 55 7.8 7.9 41.7 16 4-year college degree/B.A./B.S. 191 27.1 27.5 69.3 17 Some graduate work 36 5.2 5.3 74.5 18 Completed masters or professional degree 113 16.1 16.4 90.9 19 Advanced graduate work or Ph.D. 63 8.9 9.1 100.0 Total 692 98.4 100.0 Missing 99 Missing 11 1.6 Total 703 100.0 C - 39 INCOME R's Income Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative Percent Percent Valid 1 Less than 15 thousand 32 4.5 5.5 5.5 2 Fifteen to 35 thousand 121 17.3 21.0 26.4 3 Thirty-five to 50 115 16.4 19.9 46.4 thousand 4 Fifty to 75 thousand 130 18.5 22.5 68.9 5 Seventy-five to 100 92 13.1 16.0 84.9 thousand 6 One hundred to 150 52 7.4 9.0 93.9 thousand 7 Over 150 thousand 35 5.0 6.1 100.0 Total 578 82.3 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know/Refused/No 125 17.7 answer Total 703 100.0 HOWLONG Length of Residence in County Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 1 Less than one year 66 9.4 9.4 9.4 2 One to two years 69 9.8 9.8 19.2 3 Three to five years 79 11.2 11.2 30.4 4 Six to ten years 100 14.2 14.2 44.6 5 Eleven to nineteen 104 14.8 14.8 59.4 years 6 Twenty years or more, but not at my all life 197 28.0 28.1 87.5 7 All my life 88 12.5 12.5 100.0 Total 702 99.9 100.0 Missing 8 Notsure/Refused 1 .1 Total 703 100.0 C - 40 PREVRES R's Previous Residence Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid 11 City of Charlottesville 45 6.4 14.5 14.5 12 Greene County 4 .5 1.2 15.7 13 Richmond City or area 9 1.3 2.9 18.6 14 Nelson County 7 .9 2.1 20.7 15 Fiuvanna County 9 1.2 2.8 23.5 17 Northern Virginia 13 1.8 4.1 27.5 18 Louisa County 6 .9 1.9 29.5 19 Augusta County 2 .2 .5 30.0 20 Buckingham County 4 .6 1.3 31.3 21 Waynesboro 1 .2 .5 31.8 23 Other Virginia 21 3.0 6.7 38.5 24 Maryland 9 1.2 2.8 41.3 25 Washington, D.C. 1 .1 .3 41.6 26 Another location 180 25.7 58.4 100.0 Total 309 44.0 100.0 Missing 999 Missing 394 56.0 Total 703 100.0 >Warning # 859 in column 9. Text: M:\ADMIN~CSRLISTS\DMVX21ook.tlo >The TLOOK subcommand of the SET command has an invalid parameter. >parameter must be either the keyword NONE or a file specification. The C - 42 OWNHOME Homeowner Status Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Owns 466 66.3 66.6 66.6 2 Rents 216 30.8 30.9 97.6 3 Other 17 2.4 2.4 100.0 Total 699 99.5 100.0 Missing 8 Don't know/No 4 .5 answer Total 703 100.0 KINDPLCE R's Home Area Type Valid Cumulative Frequency Percent Percent Percent Valid I Out in the country 231 32.9 33.5 33.5 2 A rural village 97 13.8 14.1 47.6 3 A suburban area 220 31.3 32.0 79.6 4 An urban area close to the city 140 20.0 20.4 100.0 Total 689 98.0 100~0 Missing 8 Don't know/Can't 14 2.0 say Total 703 I00.0 C-41