Kalamazoo Township Citizen Engagement and Priority Survey

MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM© 2013 CobaltCommunityResearch2013121

December 2013

Kalamazoo Township Citizen Engagement and Priority Survey

Supporting Decisions | Inspiring Ideas

2 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 2

Background on Cobalt Community Research

501c3 not for profit research coalition Mission to provide research and education Developed to meet the research needs of

schools, local governments and nonprofit organizations


Measuring Where You Are: Why Research Matters

Understanding community values and priorities helps you plan and communicate more effectively about Township decisions

Perception impacts behaviors you care about

Understanding community perception helps you improve and promote the Township

Community engagement improves support for difficult decisions

Reliable data on community priorities aids in balancing demands of vocal minorities with the reality of limited resources

Bottom line outcome measurement of service and trust: Good administration requires quality measurement and reporting


Study Goals

Support budget and strategic planning decisions Explore service assumptions to ensure baseline service

measures are understood Identify which aspects of community provide the greatest

leverage on citizens’ overall satisfaction Discover key outcome behaviors such as recommending

the community, remaining in the community, volunteering and encouraging someone to start a business

Determine support for planning and zoning regulations and future service opportunities


Bottom Line Kalamazoo Township overall ACSI score = 72

Michigan Local Governments = 60 Michigan Local Governments (Population 10,001-25,000) = 64 Michigan County Governments = 56 Michigan State Government = 45

There are several areas where improvement can have significant impact on overall satisfaction: Drivers:

Township government management Economic health Property taxes Police services

Detailed information by specific demographic groups is available to aid in policy review Detail by: years of residency, own/rent, age, education, income, marital status,

household composition, gender and type of home


Preserving Voice: Looking Into DetailSample:


Methodology

Random sample of 1500 residents drawn from voter records

Utilized www.random.org, a well-respected utility used internationally by many universities and researchers to generate true random numbers

Conducted using two mailings in September and October 2013

Valid response from 353 residents, providing a conventional margin of error of +/- 5.2 percent in the raw data (95% confidence) Note: National surveys with a margin of error +/- 5% require a

sample of 384 responses to reflect a population of 330,000,000


Results


ACSI Dimensions(High score = 10)

7.9

7.4

6.9

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Overall satisfaction Compared to expectations Compared to ideal

Aver

age

Scor

e (H

igh

= 10

.0)


Outcome Behaviors(High score = 10)

7.37.5

6.46.4

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Recommend as a place tolive

Remain in community Plan to volunteer Encourage businesses tostart up

Aver

age

Scor

e (H

igh

= 10

.0)


Community Image(High score = 10)

7.5

7.0 7.06.8

7.1

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Safe placeto live

Physicallyattractive

Growingresponsibly

Safe place tobike and walk

Perfect communityfor me

Aver

age

Scor

e (H

igh

= 10

.0)


Understanding the Charts: Community Questions – Long-term Drivers

Higher scoring areas that do not currently have a large impact on engagement relative to the other areas. Action: May show over

investment or under communication.

Higher impact areas where the organization received high

scores from citizens. They have a higher impact on engagement if improved. Action: Continue

investment

Lower scoring areas relative to the other areas with lower

impact on engagement. Action:Limit investment unless

pressing safety or regulatory consideration.

Higher impact on engagement and a relatively lower score.

Action: Prioritize investment to drive positive changes in

outcomes. Perc

eived

Per

form

ance

Impact


Drivers of Satisfaction:

Strategic PrioritiesHigher Impact,Higher Satisfaction

Lower Impact,Lower Satisfaction

Fire & EMS Township Government

1. Fire coverage 19. Efficient and organized operation

2. Response time to fires 20. Well-trained employees3. Response time to emergencies

21. Communicates effectively with community

Transporatation Infrastructure

22. Spends dollars wisely

4. Public transportation options

23. Encourages citizen's ideas/involvement

5. Street maintenance/repair 24. Maintains a website that meets your needs

6. Accommodation for bike/foot traffic

25. Hours of operation (Township offices)

Utility Services Library Services7. Drinking water quality 26. Hours of operation8. Municipal sewer/water billing process

27. Adequate resources

9. Garbage collection Economic Health10. Recycling service 28. Affordability of housing11. Electrical and gas service reliability

29. Stability of property values

Police Services Telecommunications12. Respectful treatment of citizens

30. Cell phone reception

13. Fair/equitable enforcement

31. Speed of your internet conneciton

14. Safety education 32. Variety of internet access options

15. Response time to calls for service Parks and Recreation

Property Taxes 33. Facilities meet your needs

16. Fairness of property appraisals

34. Quality of facilities

17. Amount/quality of services for taxes paid

35. Variety of facilities

Township Government 36. Public safety/security18. Trustworthy leaders 37. Access for the disabled



Township Government Management

7.1 7.27.4

6.8

6.46.5

7.0

7.6

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Lead

ers

are

trust

wor

thy

Effi

cien

t and

orga

nize

dop

erat

ion

Wel

l tra

ined

empl

oyee

s

Effe

ctiv

eco

mm

unic

atio

nw

ith p

ublic

Wis

ely

spen

tm

oney

Enc

oura

ges

citiz

en id

eas

and

invo

lvem

ent

Web

site

mee

tsne

eds

Hou

rs o

fop

erat

ion

Aver

age

Scor

e (H

igh

= 10

.0)



Economic Health

7.3

6.6

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Affordability of housing Stability of property values

Aver

age

Scor

e (H

igh

= 10

.0)



Property Taxes

6.8 6.9

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Fairness of Townshipproperty appraisals

Amount and quality of services receivedfor the Township taxes paid

Aver

age

Scor

e (H

igh

= 10

.0)


Drivers of Satisfaction and Behavior:

Police Services

8.2

8.0

7.77.8

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Respectful treatment ofcitizens

Fair and equitableenforcement

Safety education Response time to calls forservice

Aver

age

Scor

e (H

igh

= 10

.0)


Planning and Zoning


Planning & Zoning:Increase Restrictions

18% 16% 16% 13%

24%

14%16%

55%

47% 41%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Build

ing

appe

aran

ce/a

ppea

l

Oth

er p

lann

ing

(par

king

,lig

htin

g, tr

affic

)

Land

scap

ing

requ

irem

ents

Scre

enin

g/bu

ffers

bet

wee

npr

oper

ties

Com

mer

cial

sig

ns a

long

the

road

Build

ing/

win

dow

sig

nage

Out

door

sal

es/d

ispl

ays

Pro

perti

es in

dis

repa

ir (b

light

)

Gra

ss/n

oxio

us w

eeds

Noi

se a

nd o

ther

nui

sanc

es

Gar

bage

/leaf

bur

ning

Increase Restrictions


Planning & Zoning:Maintain Current Regulations

75% 76% 76% 80%

68%77% 73%

41%47%

54%

64%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Build

ing

appe

aran

ce/a

ppea

l

Oth

er p

lann

ing

(par

king

,lig

htin

g, tr

affic

)

Land

scap

ing

requ

irem

ents

Scre

enin

g/bu

ffers

bet

wee

npr

oper

ties

Com

mer

cial

sig

ns a

long

the

road

Build

ing/

win

dow

sig

nage

Out

door

sal

es/d

ispl

ays

Pro

perti

es in

dis

repa

ir (b

light

)

Gra

ss/n

oxio

us w

eeds

Noi

se a

nd o

ther

nui

sanc

es

Gar

bage

/leaf

bur

ning

Maintain Current Regulations


Planning & Zoning:Reduce Restrictions

7% 8% 8% 7% 7% 9%12%

4% 6% 5%

11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Build

ing

appe

aran

ce/a

ppea

l

Oth

er p

lann

ing

(par

king

,lig

htin

g, tr

affic

)

Land

scap

ing

requ

irem

ents

Scre

enin

g/bu

ffers

bet

wee

npr

oper

ties

Com

mer

cial

sig

ns a

long

the

road

Build

ing/

win

dow

sig

nage

Out

door

sal

es/d

ispl

ays

Pro

perti

es in

dis

repa

ir (b

light

)

Gra

ss/n

oxio

us w

eeds

Noi

se a

nd o

ther

nui

sanc

es

Gar

bage

/leaf

bur

ning

Reduce Restrictions


Planning & Zoning: Combined

18% 16% 16%13%

24%14%

16%

55%

47% 41%

25%

75% 76% 76%80%

68%

77% 73%

41%

47% 54%

64%

7% 8% 8% 7% 7% 9% 12%4% 6% 5%

11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Build

ing

appe

aran

ce/a

ppea

l

Oth

er p

lann

ing

(par

king

,lig

htin

g, tr

affic

)

Land

scap

ing

requ

irem

ents

Scre

enin

g/bu

ffers

bet

wee

npr

oper

ties

Com

mer

cial

sig

ns a

long

the

road

Build

ing/

win

dow

sig

nage

Out

door

sal

es/d

ispl

ays

Pro

perti

es in

dis

repa

ir (b

light

)

Gra

ss/n

oxio

us w

eeds

Noi

se a

nd o

ther

nui

sanc

es

Gar

bage

/leaf

bur

ning

Increase Restrictions Maintain Current Regulations Reduce Restrictions


Budget Priorities and Support


Budget PrioritizationPercent selecting, could select top (7) for prioritization

77%

72%

63%58%

41% 39%36%

33%30%

28% 25%

20% 19%

15% 13% 12%10%

6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Roa

dm

aint

enan

ce

Law

enf

orce

men

t

Fire

resp

onse

Em

erge

ncy

med

ical

resp

onse

Eco

nom

icde

velo

pmen

t

Sid

ewal

k re

pair

Add

bik

e/w

alk

path

sW

ater

/sew

erse

rvic

eR

ecyc

ling

colle

ctio

nFa

ll le

af p

ick

up/d

rop

off

Par

ks

Rec

faci

litie

s

Cod

e en

forc

emen

t

Gar

bage

col

lect

ion

Com

mun

icat

ion

(web

, cab

le, p

rint)

Pub

licpa

rtici

patio

n

Rec

pro

gram

min

g

Tran

sfer

stat

ion/

dum

p da

y

Perc

enta

ge S

peci

fyin

g


Support for Budget Actions if Revenues Not Adequate to Maintain Current Levels:

Reduce Service Levels

10%6% 8%

28%

11%

36%

21%23% 28%

11%

24%27%

34%

25%

36%

27%24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Law

enf

orce

men

t

Fire

resp

onse

Em

erge

ncy

med

ical

resp

onse

Sid

ewal

k re

pair

Roa

d m

aint

enan

ce

Add

bik

e/w

alki

ng p

aths

Gar

bage

col

lect

ion

Rec

yclin

g co

llect

ion

Tran

sfer

sta

tion/

dum

p da

y

Wat

er/s

ewer

ser

vice

Par

ks

Rec

reat

ion

faci

litie

s/pr

ogra

mm

ing

Cod

e en

forc

emen

t

Eco

nom

ic d

evel

opm

ent

Pub

lic p

artic

ipat

ion

Com

mun

icat

ion

(web

, cab

le,

prin

t, et

c.)

Fall

leaf

pic

k up

/dro

p of

f

Reduce Service Levels



Raise Taxes

60% 60%

49%

27%

51%

21%14%

18%

10%

36%

22%

12%

25% 26%

13%10%

16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Law

enf

orce

men

t

Fire

resp

onse

Emer

genc

y m

edic

al re

spon

se

Side

wal

k re

pair

Roa

d m

aint

enan

ce

Add

bik

e/w

alki

ng p

aths

Gar

bage

col

lect

ion

Rec

yclin

g co

llect

ion

Tran

sfer

sta

tion/

dum

p da

y

Wat

er/s

ewer

ser

vice

Park

s

Rec

reat

ion

faci

litie

s/pr

ogra

mm

ing

Cod

e en

forc

emen

t

Eco

nom

ic d

evel

opm

ent

Pub

lic p

artic

ipat

ion

Com

mun

icat

ion

(web

, cab

le,

prin

t, et

c.)

Fall

leaf

pic

k up

/dro

p of

f

Raise Taxes



Raise User Fees

26%29%

32%

20%

13%

26%29% 28%

31%

37% 38%

44%

28%

13%

20%24%

28%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Law

enf

orce

men

t

Fire

resp

onse

Em

erge

ncy

med

ical

resp

onse

Sid

ewal

k re

pair

Roa

d m

aint

enan

ce

Add

bik

e/w

alki

ng p

aths

Gar

bage

col

lect

ion

Rec

yclin

g co

llect

ion

Tran

sfer

sta

tion/

dum

p da

y

Wat

er/s

ewer

ser

vice

Par

ks

Rec

reat

ion

faci

litie

s/pr

ogra

mm

ing

Cod

e en

forc

emen

t

Eco

nom

ic d

evel

opm

ent

Pub

lic p

artic

ipat

ion

Com

mun

icat

ion

(web

, cab

le,

prin

t, et

c.)

Fall

leaf

pic

k up

/dro

p of

f

Raise User Fees



Privatize/Outsource the Service

9% 10%

18%

30% 30%

23%

40%37% 36%

22% 23% 23%19%

41%38%

44%

37%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Law

enf

orce

men

t

Fire

resp

onse

Emer

genc

y m

edic

al re

spon

se

Side

wal

k re

pair

Roa

d m

aint

enan

ce

Add

bik

e/w

alki

ng p

aths

Gar

bage

col

lect

ion

Rec

yclin

g co

llect

ion

Tran

sfer

sta

tion/

dum

p da

y

Wat

er/s

ewer

ser

vice

Park

s

Rec

reat

ion

faci

litie

s/pr

ogra

mm

ing

Cod

e en

forc

emen

t

Eco

nom

ic d

evel

opm

ent

Pub

lic p

artic

ipat

ion

Com

mun

icat

ion

(web

, cab

le,

prin

t, et

c.)

Fall

leaf

pic

k up

/dro

p of

f

Privatize/Outsource the Service



Preferred Options for All Services

10% 6% 8%

28%

11%

36%21% 23% 28%

11%24% 27%

34% 25%36%

27% 24%

60%60%

49%

27%51%

21%

14%18% 10%

36%

22%12%

25%

26%13%

10% 16%

26%29%

32%

20%13% 26%

29%28% 31%

37% 38%44%

28%

13% 20%

24%28%

9% 10% 18%

30% 30%23%

40% 37% 36%

22% 23% 23%19%

41%38%

44%37%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

Law

enf

orce

men

t

Fire

resp

onse

Emer

genc

y m

edic

al re

spon

se

Side

wal

k re

pair

Roa

d m

aint

enan

ce

Add

bik

e/w

alki

ng p

aths

Gar

bage

col

lect

ion

Rec

yclin

g co

llect

ion

Tran

sfer

sta

tion/

dum

p da

y

Wat

er/s

ewer

ser

vice

Park

s

Rec

reat

ion

faci

litie

s/pr

ogra

mm

ing

Cod

e en

forc

emen

t

Eco

nom

ic d

evel

opm

ent

Pub

lic p

artic

ipat

ion

Com

mun

icat

ion

(web

, cab

le,

prin

t, et

c.)

Fall

leaf

pic

k up

/dro

p of

f

Reduce Service Levels Raise Taxes Raise User Fees Privatize/Outsource the Service


Consideration of Future Options


Interest and Support for Future Service Improvements

44%

29%

51%

24% 23% 24%

17%

26%

18%

34%33% 32%

39%

45%

32%

42%44% 44%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Police services(maintain service

levels)

Police services(expand service

levels)

Roadmaintenance/repair

Publictransportation

Parks and rec(expand

options/capitalimprovements)

Recyclingcollection (Twp-

wide contract with1 company)

Perc

enta

ge S

peci

fyin

g

Support Additional Funding Oppose Additional Funding Need More Information


Text Cloud: Additional Comments Regarding the Township

Note: See full list of comments for context

Top Themes:1. Roads– fix the

roads, congestion, improve the plowing

2. Sidewalks –add to busy areas, repair

3. Businesses –attract new businesses, retain family friendly


Implementing Results


Perception v Reality: Minimize Distortion or Fix Real Performance Issues


The diagram at the right provides a framework for following up on this survey. The first step (measurement) is complete. This

measurement helps prioritize resources and create a baseline against which progress can be measured.

The second step is to use internal teams to further analyze the results and form ideas about why respondents answered as they did and potential actions in response.

The third step is to validate ideas and potential actions through conversations with residents and line staff – do the ideas and actions make sense. Focus groups, short special-topic surveys and benchmarking are helpful.

The fourth step is to provide staff with the skills and tools to effectively implement the actions.

The fifth step is to execute the actions. The final step is to re-measure to ensure progress

was made and track changes in resident needs.

Strategy is About Action:Improve Performance to Improve Outcomes

1 Measure

2 Ideas/

Brainstorm

3Validate/ Confirm

4Train

5Implement

Outcomes


Be Clear About Your Strategic Outcomes

What are the characteristics of an ideal community through residents’ eyes?

MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM© 2013 CobaltCommunityResearch2013121

Your residents want you to succeed.

Documents

Kalamazoo Township Citizen Engagement and Priority Survey