Website home about our city

2001 Citizen Survey Results

City Government

The survey asked residents to rate the performance of City government in overall management of City services and in eight specific areas. The graph, below, lists these areas and the average score for each of them. Residents gave City government low performance ratings in several areas, all of which are tied to Fort Collins’ tremendous growth in recent years.

Residents' Ratings of City Government Performance
100=Very Well, 75=Well, 50=Neither well nor poorly, 25=poorly and 0=Very poorly
Scores in the range of 63 to 100 are generally considered "well" to "very well."
City Government Performance

 

Residents were asked to give reasons for ratings of "poorly" or "very poorly." The summary of these comments, below, sheds considerable light on the reasons underlying these low performance ratings. By their comments, residents seem frustrated with the consequences of growth, and they hold City government responsible for these consequences. Comments for each area with an average rating score below 60 are summarized and ranked by the number of times residents mentioned them. The number of mentions for similar comments appears in brackets.

Managing/relieving traffic congestion

(67) Poor traffic signal timing.

(14) Infrastructure not keeping up with needs/outdated system; perimeter roads needed.

(12) Too much emphasis on widening and paving, and not enough emphasis on alternative transportation; poor transit system/need better public transit.

(8) Low priority, no evidence of doing anything; too much planning and not enough action.

Providing affordable housing

(32) Affordable housing not included in new development; new development favors upper income groups; little choice for middle and lower income households, seniors and singles.

(24) Housing costs too high; low-wage workers and young people starting out are forced out of the market; imbalance between wages and housing costs.

Managing growth

(19) Too much sprawl permitted; no limits on growth; City is too open to development; too much residential building; growth is taking natural areas.

(13) No effort to set development standards or manage growth; developers are steering the course, rather than the City.

(11) Unprepared for growth; do a better job of predicting and planning.

Considering citizens' opinions before making decisions

(64) Citizens' have no real say; citizen input given lip service but little weight; citizens' opinions ignored or not acted upon. Some 36 of these respondents cited the proposed roundabout as a specific example.

Land use planning

(4) Too much new development on vacant land and farmland; not enough open space.

(3) Land use planning is haphazard or non-existent.