Website home about our city
2003 Citizen Survey Results

City Government

The next section of the survey asked respondents to rate how well City Government performs in several areas. Table 5 lists these areas and the distribution of responses on a scale ranging from "very poorly" to "very well."

Table 5: City Government Performance Areas and Distribution of Performance Rating Responses

 

Percent of 785 Respondents

Very Poorly

Poorly

Average

Well

Very Well

No Opinion

Providing convenient access to City services

0.2%

2.7%

33.4%

42.4%

12.4%

8.9%

Managing growth

11.5%

20.7%

42.6%

16.4%

3.2%

5.7%

Managing/relieving traffic congestion

23.3%

34.5%

30.9%

7.8%

1.4%

2.1%

Land use planning

7.3%

13.2%

40.2%

25.9%

3.3%

10.1%

Providing sufficient supply of water

2.2%

5.0%

30.6%

46.7%

11.7%

3.8%

Providing affordable housing

10.3%

26.4%

32.2%

15.2%

3.0%

12.9%

Maintaining the community's visual appeal

1.5%

2.9%

16.6%

49.7%

27.1%

2.2%

Informing citizens about City issues and problems

2.9%

7.1%

35.4%

38.2%

11.2%

5.1%

Considering citizens' opinions before making decisions

7.0%

14.0%

39.1%

20.5%

3.4%

16.1%

Overall management of City services

1.6%

4.9%

45.3%

38.3%

3.8%

6.1%

Table 6 lists the items from highest to lowest average rating on a 100-point scale, along with the 95 percent confidence interval for each. In general, respondents judge the City as performing “well” or “average” in most areas. The one exception is in managing and relieving traffic congestion, where respondents gave the City a low rating.

Respondents commented on any items that they rated “poorly” or very poorly”. The prevailing themes in comments regarding traffic congestion are traffic signalization and roadway capacity. More specifically, respondents perceive the traffic signal system as lacking coordination and synchronization. They perceive the approach to infrastructure planning as reactive, rather than proactive.

Most comments regarding affordable housing focus on cost. The cost of purchasing a home is perceived to be beyond what many people can afford.

Regarding growth management, two themes are dominant. Most comments either point out that uncontrolled sprawl has been allowed to occur, or not enough planning effort is directed toward anticipating and accommodating growth.

Table 6: City Government Performance Areas and Average Performance Ratings

 

Number of Respondents
Expressing an Opinion

Average Rating Score
87.6 to 100 = Very Well
62.6 to 87.5 = Well
37.6 to 62.5 = Average
12.6 to 37.5 = Poorly
0 to 12.5 = Very Poorly

95 Percent
Confidence Interval

Maintaining the community's visual appeal

769

75

+/-3.1

Providing convenient access to City services

717

68

+/-3.4

Providing sufficient supply of water

756

65

+/-3.4

Informing citizens about City issues and problems

746

63

+/-3.5

Overall management of City services

739

60

+/-3.5

Land use planning

707

51

+/-3.7

Considering citizens' opinions before making decisions

660

50

+/-3.8

Managing growth

741

45

+/-3.6

Providing affordable housing

685

43

+/-3.7

Managing/relieving traffic congestion

770

33

+/-3.3

Statistically, most ratings in 2003 did not change compared to 2001. The only statistically significant changes are in two areas. Despite the fact that respondents gave a low performance score for the City’s efforts to manage and relieve traffic congestion, this score is significantly improved over 2001. Respondents also gave a significantly higher average rating for the City’s efforts to provide affordable housing.

Figure 2: Fort Collins City Government

City Government