| 2003 Citizen Survey Results | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City Services |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This section asked respondents to rate the City’s performance in providing a specific set of services. Table 7 lists these services and the distribution of responses on a scale ranging from "very poorly" to "very well." Table 7: City Services and Distribution of Performance Rating Responses
Table 8 lists the services from highest to lowest average rating on a 100-point scale, along with the 95 percent confidence interval for each. Performance scores are above “average” for most services. Traffic law enforcement, street repair and maintenance, and traffic signal operations fall into the “average” range. The questionnaire asked respondents to comment on any items that they rated “poorly” or “very poorly”. Criticisms regarding traffic signal operations focus on signal timing and coordination. Respondents also commented that more resources should be devoted to street maintenance, and that greater efforts should be made to enforce speed limits and compel drivers to obey traffic signals. Table 8: City Services and Average Performance Ratings
Performance ratings for all of the services in Figure 3 remain statistically unchanged from their 2001 levels. Figure 3: City Services
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
