TOWN OF GILBERT HEADS-OF-HOUSEHOLDS SURVEY Attitudes on Planning and Services 2010 TOWN OF GILBERT HEADS-OF-HOUSEHOLDS SURVEY Attitudes on Planning and Services 2010 Prepared for John Lewis, Mayor Les Presm yk, Vice-Mayor Linda Abbott, Councilm em ber Ben Cooper, Councilm em ber Dave Crozier, Councilm em ber Jenn Daniels, Councilm em ber John Sentz, Councilm em ber Prepared by Margaret C. Kenski, Ph.D. Arizona Opinion Tucson, Arizona Decem ber 21, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Introduction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. DATA COMMENTARY AND TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1. General Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2. Satisfaction with Developm ent and Neighborhood.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3. Knowledge about Town Decisions and Sources of Inform ation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 4. Decision Making and Participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5. Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 6. Evaluation of Town Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Appendix A. Methodology and Dem ographics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Appendix B. Survey Instrum ent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Gilbert 2010, Page ii List of Tables Table Page 1.1. General Satisfaction with Living in Gilbert (%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 1.2. Reasons for Liking Living in Gilbert (%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 1.3. Reasons for Not Liking Living in Gilbert(%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1.4. Incidence of Contacting Town Hall or Other Departm ent/Official (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1.5. Town Departm ents or Officials Contacted in Past Year (%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 1.6. Incidence of Connection to an Individual or Voice Mail (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 1.7. Experience of Receiving a Call Back from the Town in a Reasonable Period of Tim e (%). . . . . 25 1.8. Satisfaction with Treatm ent W hen Calling the Town (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 1.9. Reasons for Dissatisfaction with W ay Treated W hen Call the Town. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2.1. Perceived Quality of Gilbert's Developm ent Com pared to Other Com m unities (%). . . . . . . . . . . 30 2.2. Satisfaction with Town Planning and Im provem ent of Public Facilities (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.3. Perceived Im provem ent in Quality of Residential Developm ents (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.4. Satisfaction with Com m ercial Developm ent (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2.5 Reasons for Satisfaction with Com m ercial Developm ent (%).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2.6. Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Com m ercial Developm ent (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.7. Satisfaction with Neighborhood of Residence (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.8. Reasons for Satisfaction with Neighborhood (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.9. Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Neighborhood (N) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2.10. Perceived Age of Neighborhood of Residence (%).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 3.1. Perceived Level of Knowledge about Town Decisions (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 3.2. Most Helpful Kinds of Inform ation about Gilbert (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 3.3. Inform ation about Town Policies and Decisions: A Com parative Profile (%).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 3.4. Inform ation Sources: Level of Usage (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 3.5. Preferred Means of Receiving Com m unications about Town Policies and Decisions (%). . . . . . 47 3.6. W ritten Sources Regularly Read (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 3.7 Types of Program m ing Preferred for Channel 11 (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 4.1. Satisfaction with Policy Decisions of Mayor and Council (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Gilbert 2010, Page iii 4.2. Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Mayor-Council Policy Decisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 4.3. Im pression: Town Officials' Encouragem ent of Citizen Participation (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 5.1. Preferred Means of Balancing Gilbert’s Budget (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 5.2. Satisfaction with Value from Tax Dollar for Services Provided by Gilbert (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 5.3. Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Value of Tax Dollar for Services (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 5.4. Im portance of Town Involvem ent in Select Program s: A Com parative Profile (%). . . . . . . . . . . . 62 5.5. Im portance of Town Involvem ent in Com m unity Parks and Specialty Parks (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 5.6. Im portance of Town Involvem ent in Multi-Purpose Trails and Open Space (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 5.7. Im portance of Town Involvem ent in Public Transportation and Bus Service (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 5.8. Im portance of Town Involvem ent in Recreation Program s (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 5.9 Im portance of Town Involvem ent in Com m unity Special Events (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 5.10. Im portance of Town Involvem ent in Fine Arts Projects and Program s (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 5.11. Im portance of Town Involvem ent in Historical Preservation (%).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 5.12 Im portance of Town Involvem ent in Facilities Like Recreation Centers and Riparian Preserves (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 5.13. Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars on Services: A Com parative Profile (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 5.14. Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars: Fire Departm ent (%).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 5.15. Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars: Police Departm ent (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 5.16. Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars: Developing Older Downtown Gilbert (%).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 5.17. Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars: Repairing and Maintaining Streets (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 5.18. Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars: W ater and Sewer Facilities (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 5.19. Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars: Parks Facilities (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 5.20. Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars: Recreation Program s and Facilities (%).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 5.21. Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars: Library (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 5.22. Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars: Public Transit (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 6.1. Satisfaction with Services Delivery by Gilbert: A Com parative Profile (%).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 6.2. Satisfaction: Street Repair and Maintenance (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 6.3. Satisfaction: Movem ent of Traffic (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 6.4. Satisfaction: Building Code Enforcem ent (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Gilbert 2010, Page iv 6.5. Satisfaction: W ater (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 6.6. Satisfaction: Garbage Collection (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 6.7. Satisfaction: Recycling Program (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 6.8. Satisfaction: Rem oval of W eeds, Junk Cars, and Sim ilar Annoyances (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 6.9. Satisfaction: Parks (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 6.10. Satisfaction: Recreation (%).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 6.11. Satisfaction: Library (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 6.12. Satisfaction: Fire Departm ent (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 6.13. Satisfaction: Police Departm ent (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 6.14. Satisfaction: Planning and Zoning (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 6.15. Satisfaction: Uncontained Refused Collection (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 6.16. Satisfaction: Econom ic Developm ent (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 6.17. Satisfaction: Public Transportation and Bus Service (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 6.18. Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Services (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 6.19. Most Im portant Service Priorities for Gilbert (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 6.20. Participation in Com m unity Events (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 6.21. Participation in Recreation Program s (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 6.22. Fam ily Usage of Parks and Recreational Facilities (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 6.23. Parks and Recreational Facilities Used (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 6.24. Reasons for Not Using Town Recreational Facilities (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 6.25. Evaluation of Residential Safety from Crim e (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 6.26. Evaluation of Personal Safety from Violent Crim e (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 6.27. Evaluation of Safety Driving on Gilbert’s Streets (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 A. Dem ographic Profile of Respondents (%). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Gilbert 2010, Page v Introduction This report contains the results of a telephone survey of 502 head-of-household residents in the Town of Gilbert. This is the sixteenth annual survey asking for residents’ opinions on Town policies and services. The fieldwork was conducted by telephone over the period of Novem ber 17 to Decem ber 7, 2010 by DataCall, Inc. of Phoenix with no calling done on the weekends and over the Thanksgiving holiday. Most of the questions were also asked in previous surveys and the overall responses to them are com pared to those of the past four years to show trends in resident satisfaction with various Town services and facilities. Respondents are heads-of-households random ly selected by com puter from our vendor file of Gilbert residential phone num bers. The econom ic turndown and housing crisis of the past two years has m ade it som ewhat m ore difficult to keep those num bers up to date, and consequently the field firm reported a longer tim e on average to find willing respondents. As in past surveys, we used fieldwork procedures, such as three calls back to prim ary num bers before m oving to alternates, qualifying filter questions on residence within Gilbert and head-of-household status, quotas for length of residence, rotating selection of m ale and fem ale respondents, and verification of 10% of each interviewer's work in order to insure the representativeness of the sam ple. The m argin of error for the sam ple of 502 is ±4% with the highest potential for error when responses are evenly divided. The error m argin increases for subgroups and is estim ated at ±5% for those with 383 to 499, ±6% for those with 266 to 382 respondents or m ore, ±7% for those with 196 to 265 respondents, and ±8.5% for subgroups with 150 to 195 respondents. Subgroups with fewer than 150 respondents m ay have error m argins of ±10% or m ore and the data for them should be used cautiously. The six m ajor areas of inquiry which correspond with those in past surveys include: (1) General Satisfaction, Questions 2-5 and Tables 1.1 through 1.9: Questions on general satisfaction with living in Gilbert, things respondents like and dislike about the Town, and incidence of and satisfaction with interaction with town departm ents and officials; (2) Satisfaction with Growth and Developm ent, Questions 6-10 and Tables 2.1 through 2.10: Questions on quality of developm ent in Gilbert com pared to other East Valley com m unities; satisfaction with planning, quality of residential and com m ercial developm ent; satisfaction with the respondents' neighborhoods; and perceived age of respondents’ neighborhoods; Gilbert 2010, Page vi (3) Level of Knowledge and Sources of Inform ation about Town Policies and Decisions, Questions 11-16 and Tables 3.1 through 3.7: Questions on perceived level of knowledge about Town policies and decisions; the m ost helpful kinds of inform ation about Gilbert; incidence of obtaining inform ation from a select list of resources; preferred m eans of receiving com m unications about Town policies and decisions; incidence of reading local newspapers and the Town newsletter; and preferred types of program m ing on Cable Channel 11; (4) Decision Making, Questions 17-18 and Tables 4.1 through 4.3: Questions about satisfaction with the policy decisions m ade by the Mayor and Council, and perceptions about Town officials' attitudes toward citizen participation; (5) Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars, Questions 19-21 and 24, and Tables 5.1 through 5.22: Questions about how to best balance the Town budget, satisfaction with value received for tax dollars; im portance of Town involvem ent in parks, trails and open space, public transportation and bus service, recreation program s, com m unity events, fine arts, historic preservation, and com m unity centers; and desired Town spending levels on each of eight areas of public program s and services; (6) Evaluation of Town Services, Questions 22, 23, and 25-30 and Tables 6.1 through 6.27: Questions on level of satisfaction with sixteen Town services; reasons for dissatisfaction with services; top priorities for Town services; attendance at com m unity events; utilization of the Town’s parks and recreational facilities; reasons for not using the Town facilities; Town facilities which are used; and perceptions of safety level in Gilbert in respondents’ hom es, persons, and when driving on Gilbert streets. The 2010 survey report uses the sam e form at as that found in previous Gilbert com m unity surveys. Responses were analyzed using standard descriptive statistics contained in SPSS software. The first section of the report is an Executive Sum m ary of the data and Com m entary on changes since last year where appropriate. The second section displays the data for each question in the six areas of inquiry as sum m arized for open-ended inquiries and crosstabulated by dem ographic groups of respondents for structured questions. The dem ographics and m ethodology are described in Appendix A; the survey instrum ent is reproduced in Appendix B. Gilbert 2010, Page vii I. EXECUTIVE SUM M ARY This section of the survey report sum m arizes responses to the questions in a telephone survey of 502 heads-of-household residing in the Town of Gilbert. The survey instrum ent was designed by Arizona Opinion of Tucson with input from Town officials. Field work was conducted from Novem ber 17 to Decem ber 7, 2010 by DataCall, Inc. of Phoenix. GENERAL SATISFACTION 1.1 Despite the slow economy and pressure on local governments, a very high percentage (98.0%) of Gilbert respondents are satisfied with life in Gilbert. The Tow n’s quiet small tow n atmosphere, safety, cleanliness, family-orientation, and friendly people are the main reasons for liking the Tow n. See Tables 1.1 and 1.2. Of 32 things respondents like about Gilbert, 10 were cited by 5% or m ore. • • • • • • • • • • 32.7% Quiet, sm all town atm osphere 16.1% Friendly people 15.8% Safe place to live 13.0% Clean, new town 10.0% Fam ily orientation 9.6% Good shopping 8.0% Good am enities nearby 5.0% Good house 5.0% Good parks, recreation 5.0% Good public schools Numbers are percentages of respondents. V=Very, G=Generally. 1.2 Respondents cited 59 things they dislike about Gilbert or suggestions for the Tow n’s improvement. Only tw o w ere cited by 5% or more - poor road conditions/ traffic congestion and high taxes. Three in ten (30.5%) said there is nothing they dislike about Gilbert. See Table 1.3. The percentages citing the two item s are below. • • 1.3. 9.6% Poor road conditions and traffic congestion 5.0% High taxes M ore respondents called the Tow n during 2010, an increase of 4% from 2009’s numbers. Of these callers, over 90% w ere satisfied w ith the w ay they w ere treated and 75.5% reached an individual, not the voice mail system. The Police and Solid W aste Departments w ere contacted most often, follow ed by the Fire and W ater Departments. See Tables 1.4 through 1.9. Fem ales are m ore likely to call the Town. Gilbert 2010, Page 1 Numbers are percentages of respondents in top pie and percentages of callers in the bottom pies. V=Very, G=Generally, Don’t Know=Don’t Know. SATISFACTION W ITH GROW TH AND DEVELOPMENT 2.1 Over 90% of respondents say Gilbert is as good as or better than other East Valley communities in quality of development and 87% are satisfied w ith the w ay the Tow n has planned and developed public facilities. See Tables 2.1 and 2.2. A belief that Gilbert is as good or better than other East Valley com m unities is higher am ong those who have lived in Gilbert 5 years or less. Satisfaction with planning is higher am ong those who have lived in the Town 5 years or less and those aged 18 to 35. 2.2 Over half of Gilbert respondents (53.6%) say residential quality has improved in the past few years and over eight in 10 are satisfied with commercial development in Gilbert. Closeness of everything and good planning of commercial areas are the primary reasons for satisfaction w ith commercial development. Among those w ho are dissatisfied w ith commercial development, the primary concern involves vacant offices and stores in Gilbert. See Tables 2.3 through 2.6. Feelings that Gilbert’s quality of residential developm ent has im proved increase with length of residence and are m ore com m on am ong those with som e college or a college degree. Satisfaction with com m ercial developm ent is higher am ong fem ales and residents of south and central Gilbert. 2.3 Over 95% of Gilbert respondents are satisfied w ith the neighborhood in w hich they live, and only 4.6% are dissatisfied. Satisfaction w ith neighborhoods comes from having good neighbors and living in areas that are safe, clean, quiet, and w ell-maintained. The few who are dissatisfied cited concerns including rentals, bad neighbors, and increasing crime. See Tables 2.7 through 2.9. Gilbert 2010, Page 2 Numbers are percentages of respondents. V=Very, G=Generally, DK=Don’t Know. 18.5% live in neighborhoods built within the past 5 years, 29.7% in areas built 6 to 10 years ago, and 52.8% in areas built over 10 years ago. Younger residents, those who m oved to Gilbert in the past two years, those with a college or postgraduate degree and those living in south Gilbert tend to live in newer neighborhoods. See Table 2.10. Numbers are percentages of respondents. V=Very, G=Generally, S=Somewhat. Gilbert 2010, Page 3 INFORMATION ABOUT TOW N POLICIES AND DECISIONS 3.1 There is an increase in the numbers of residents w ho have some or a great deal of know ledge of Tow n decisions and policies. W hile only 3.8% of respondents claim to know a great deal about Tow n policies and decisions, 57% say they hold some know ledge of these matters. See Table 3.1. Table 3.2 indicates that the inform ation respondents say would be m ost helpful to them include the item s listed below. • 16.9% Town intentions on planning and zoning m atters • 12.7% Budget and tax inform ation • 11.4% Town actions, rationales • 8.2% Com m unity events • 6.2% Inform ation on Town services • 6.0% Plans to im prove education • 5.4% Schedule of street repairs • 5.2% Plans for new business and econom ic developm ent • 5.2% Town m eetings, agendas Numbers are percentages of respondents. DK=Don’t Know 3.2 Among several sources of information respondents use to find out about Town policies and decisions, information from friends and local newspapers are the most popular. The Tow n new sletter, Your Town, has somew hat declined as an information source. See Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.6. Numbers are percentages of Gilbert respondents. Gilbert 2010, Page 4 Significant group differences in source utilization are: • • • • • • • 3.3 Tow n officials are used m ore by older and unm arried respondents. Friends are a source used m ore by fem ales. Local new spaper usage increases with length of residence and age. Cable Channel 11 is used m ore by longer term and older respondents. Gilbert’s W ebsite is used m ore by those with three or m ore children, residents of 3 to 5 years, those aged 18 to 35, central Gilbert and m arried respondents. The Arizona Republic is read m ore by those who are not em ployed. The Town website is read m ore by those aged 18 to 35, resident 3 to 5 years, m arried residents, and those with three children or m ore. Email surpassed Your Town as the most preferred source of information about Tow n policies and decision. Together the Your Town new sletter and email are chosen by nearly half the respondents. See Table 3.5. Means of com m unication preferred by 5% or m ore are listed below: • • • • • 3.4 24.7% 22.9% 13.3% 12.0% 11.8% Em ail from the Town, Your Town, Direct m ail, Newspapers, and Town website. Tw enty-six suggestions for programming on Channel 11 w ere made by survey respondents. They are listed in Table 3.7. The responses given by 5% or more of all respondents to the open-ended inquiry about preferred programming for Channel 11 w ere: • • • 8.4% 7.0% 5.2% Town Council m eetings and news, Local news and politics, and Com m unity Events, Town program s. A solid m ajority (58.8%) either do not have cable TV or say they are not interested in local program m ing. DECISION MAKING 4.1 Over three in four respondents say they are satisfied with the policy decisions made by the M ayor and Council. These figures are a 5.9% increase since last year. Satisfaction increases w ith length of residence in Gilbert. See Table 4.1. The 36 who are dissatisfied give 15 different reasons for that feeling. The m ost com m on as seen in Table 4.2 is a nonspecific feeling that the Town spends too m uch, leading to higher taxes. 4.2 A majority of respondents (53.2%) say that Gilbert Tow n officials encourage citizen participation. Belief that Gilbert officials do encourage participation is very slightly low er this year. A positive view of the Tow n’s encouraging participation increases with length of resident and the number of children at home. See Table 4.3. Gilbert 2010, Page 5 Numbers are percentages of respondents. V=Very, G=Generally, DK=Don’t Know. ALLOCATION OF TAX DOLLARS 5.1 Nearly half (47.6%) of Gilbert respondents w ould balance the Tow n budget by combining service cuts w ith raises in taxes and fees rather than relying on either method alone. See Table 5.1. 5.2 Nearly nine in 10 Gilbert respondents are satisfied w ith the value they get for their tax dollars in the form of services provided by the Tow n. This is a 3.8% increase in satisfaction since last year. See Table 5.2. Numbers are percentages of respondents. DK=Don’t Know. The 38 dissatisfied respondents gave 12 reasons for that opinion. The m ost com m on reasons were that taxes are too high and that the Town wastes m oney. See Table 5.2. Gilbert 2010, Page 6 5.3 Even during hard economic times, Gilbert respondents still say that it is important for the Tow n to be involved in each of eight service areas: community and specialty parks, multipurpose trails and open space, public transportation and bus service, recreational programming, special community events, fine arts projects and programs, historical preservation, and community and educational centers. It is also true that the mean importance score has declined for each service area since last year. See Table 5.4. The ‘Very’ and ‘Somewhat’ Important responses are combined into a general ‘Important’ category; the ‘Somewhat Unimportant’, ‘Not at All Important’, ‘Neutral’, and ‘No Opinion’ responses are combined into a general ‘Not Important, Neutral, DK category’. Numbers may add up to more than 100.0 percent due to rounding. The scale used by respondents to assess the im portance of these areas ran from 1=Very Im portant to 5=Not at All Im portant. Calculating the m ean im portance score by m ultiplying the num ber of responses for each point on the scale by the point value with the ‘Don’t Know’ responses elim inated allows ranking each of these areas by im portance from high to low (1 being the highest score to 5 the lowest) with the following result: Mean Score 1.75 1.87 2.06 2.08 2.09 2.22 2.23 2.32 Areas of Service Ranked by Mean Im portance Score Com m unity and Education Centers Recreational Program m ing Historical Preservation Public Transportation / Bus Service Multipurpose Trails and Open Space Com m unity and Specialty Parks Special Com m unity Events Fine Arts Projects and Program s. The im portance of these program s is higher am ong the respondent subgroups listed below. Also see Tables 5.5 through 5.12. • • • • • • • • Community and Specialty Parks: Respondents aged 18 to 35. Trails & Open Space: New residents, those with som e college or a college degree. Public Transportation/Bus Service: Fem ales and unm arried residents. Recreational Programming: Fem ales. Community Special Events: The em ployed, those resident 3 to 5 years. Fine Arts: Fem ales, the unm arried, those aged 18 to 35. Historical Preservation: Fem ales, those with som e college or less education. Recreation Centers, Riparian Preserves: Fem ales, non-Anglos. Gilbert 2010, Page 7 5.4 Since last year, the percentage of respondents preferring to maintain current levels of spending on nine key public services has increased, w hile declining percentages w ant to spend more. The Police and Fire Departments get the greatest net support (the percentage for more spending minus the percentage for less spending) for more spending, w hile developing old Dow ntow n Gilbert earns the least net support. See Table 5.13. Numbers are percentages of respondents. Tables 5.14 through 5.22 show that there were few significant group differences in willingness to spend in nine areas. Respondent groups m ore likely to support increased spending on services are listed below. . Police: Those resident over 5 years, those aged 18 to 50 Dow ntow n Development: Non-Anglos, those aged 18 to 50, Northwest and central residents Streets: South Gilbert residents Parks: Non-Anglos, those with one or two children, the em ployed Recreation: Fem ales, non-Anglos, those with one or two children, those aged 18 to 35 Library: Those with a college or postgraduate degree Public Transportation / Bus Service: Fem ales, non-Anglos 5.5. Compared to 2009, substantially lower percentages of Gilbert respondents are w illing to spend m ore on police, fire, dow ntow n development, streets, parks, recreation, and public transportation and bus service. Gilbert 2010, Page 8 Numbers are percentages of respondents. EVALUATION OF TOW N SERVICES 6.1 Gilbert respondents rem ain satisfied w ith the Tow n’s provision of services despite current budget pressures. On a scale of 1 (Very Satisfied) to 4 (Very Dissatisfied), all sixteen services, w ere rated above the 2.5 mean point of the scale. In fact, most services show some improvement in their mean satisfaction scores. See Table 6.1. The charts below show the 16 service areas and the percentages of respondents who were either Satisfied (‘Very’ and ‘Generally’ Satisfied com bined) or Dissatisfied (‘Som ewhat’ and ‘Very’ Dissatisfied com bined) with each of the services. The specific data for all four points on the scale are found in the data table following the charts. Numbers are percentages of respondents Gilbert 2010, Page 9 Numbers are percentages of respondents. Note that in the chart, the Fire Departm ent and Garbage Collection are tied for first place and the Police Departm ent and Uncontained Refuse Collect are tied for third place. Questions 22a to 22p. Service Areas Ranked by Mean Satisfaction Score Mean Score % Very Satisfied----->% Very Dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Garbage Collection 1.27 74.9 22.1 1.4 .6 1.0 Fire Department 1.27 69.9 24.1 .6 .0 5.4 Police Department 1.40 65.1 27.9 2.8 1.8 2.4 Uncontained Refuse Collection 1.40 60.4 28.9 2.6 1.2 7.0 Recycling Program 1.41 60.6 33.5 2.8 .4 2.8 Parks 1.42 60.6 35.1 2.0 .6 1.8 Library 1.44 51.6 31.1 2.2 .8 14.3 Recreation 1.62 38.8 47.4 3.8 .4 9.6 Nuisance Removal (Weeds, Cars, Etc.) 1.63 43.0 39.8 6.2 1.8 9.2 Water 1.69 45.8 42.4 6.8 4.0 1.0 Street Repair & Maintenance 1.77 37.8 48.4 9.8 2.8 1.2 Movement of Traffic 1.88 30.3 52.8 13.7 2.4 .8 Building Code Enforcement 1.89 15.5 36.5 4.6 2.2 41.2 Planning & Zoning 1.94 18.7 43.8 8.4 3.0 26.1 Economic Development 2.00 17.1 51.4 11.6 2.8 17.1 Public Transportation, Bus Service 2.38 6.4 29.1 10.2 8.4 46.0 Note: The Mean Satisfaction Score is the arithmetic mean of the responses with the Don’t Know responses eliminated from the calculation. The mean is calculated by multiplying the number of respondents giving each answer (from 1=Very Satisfied to 4=Very Dissatisfied) by the answer’s point value, adding the total number of points from the four categories, then dividing the total by the number of respondents who were able to assess the service. There are few differences am ong respondent subgroups which are significant. They are detailed in Tables 6.2 through 6.17 in part 6 of Section II of this report. The distribution of responses on the scale of satisfaction are displayed in the table below. Gilbert 2010, Page 10 6.2. W hen those w ho expressed dissatisfaction w ith any Town service w ere asked w hy they felt that w ay, 129 items of concern w ere offered by respondents. Of these only five item s w ere cited by 5% or more of the respondents. See Table 6.18. Reason Lack of frequent bus service Need for m ore route, bus stops in outlying areas Poor planning of developm ent inadequate nuisance rem oval Lack of quality developm ent, jobs 6.3 N 57 38 35 28 26 % of All 11.2 7.6 7.0 5.6 5.2 Asked to name the tw o services w hich should be the top priorities for Gilbert, survey respondents cited public safety services far more frequently than any others. M entions of police and fire services continued to rise as the top priorities. See Table 6.19. Below are listed the nine services m entioned by 5% or m ore of respondents. • 66.3% Police • 11.2% Internet Service • 51.2% Fire • 7.4% Downtown Developm ent • 19.5% Street Repair, Maintenance • 7.0% Library • 13.3% Public Transportation • 7.0% Em ergency Services • 12.5% Recreation Program s 6.4 About six in 10 Gilbert respondents have attended one or more community events during the year. Four in 10 report having participated in recreation programs at some time during the year. See Tables 6.20 and 6.21. The m ost frequently attended com m unity events out of 23 m entioned are listed below. • 39.8% Gilbert Days Events • 5.4% Holiday Nights of Light • 13.0% Fireworks, 4 th of July • 5.4% Events at Freestone, General • 8.0% Concerts in the Park • 5.2% Halloween Event Recreation program s and classes (not all are Town-sponsored) am ong 52 m entioned which are cited by 5% or m ore are listed below. • 7.4% Swim m ing classes • 5.4% Soccer leagues • 5.2% Dance classes • 5.0% Fitness program s at recreation centers • 5.0% Children’s program s and classes 6.5 Over 80% of Gilbert respondents use the Tow n’s parks or recreation facilities at som e tim e during the year. Over three in 10 use the parks and facilities at least once a w eek. See Table 6.22. Respondents who have lived in Gilbert 3 to 5 years, those aged 50 or younger, m arried residents, those with children at hom e, and those with incom es of $50,000 or m ore use the parks and recreation facilities m ore frequently. Table 6.23 lists all respondents • 37.2% • 14.8% • 12.6% • 10.2% • 6.6% • 5.0% 29 parks and facilities respondents say they use. The six used by 5% or m ore of are listed below. Freestone Park Cosm o Dog Park Discovery Park Basins, Preserves Neighborhood Facilities, Parks McQueen Park Gilbert 2010, Page 11 Table 6.24 lists the reasons given by the 189 who rarely or never use parks and recreational facilities for their non-usage. One hundred thirty-three cite personal reasons for not using the parks and facilities; 59 cite facilities related reasons. The three m ost com m on reasons are: • • • Numbers are percentages of respondents. 6.6 10.2% Lack of tim e, Too busy 8.2% Use own or HOA facilities 4.8% Age and/or health problem s. A solid 95% or more of respondents believe that they are ‘very’ or ‘generally’ safe in Gilbert in three major aspects of their lives - safety of their homes from vandalism, burglary, or theft; safety of their persons from violent crimes; and safety w hile driving on Gilbert streets. The belief in Gilbert’s safety has increased slightly since last year. See Table 6.25 through 6.27. Numbers are percentages of respondents. Non-Anglos are m ore likely to feel ‘very safe’ in their hom es than are Anglos. Males are m ore likely than fem ales to feel personally safe from violent crim e. Newer residents, the m arried, and the em ployed feel safer while driving in Gilbert Gilbert 2010, Page 12 GENERAL COMMENTS G ilbert respondents believe that their Town, its governm ent, and the services it offers are very satisfactory despite continuing econom ic pressures. There has been no loss of satisfaction felt with hom es, neighborhoods, and com m ercial developm ent. Residents still cite Gilbert’s sm all town atm osphere, safety, and am enities as reasons for liking the Town. The num ber of salient criticism s of Gilbert declines each year and now only streets/traffic and taxes are m entioned by 5% or m ore of respondents. The overall high satisfaction levels with residential and com m ercial developm ent, and the Town’s decision-m aking are accom panied by an increase in perceived knowledge about the Town’s policies. It appears that a m ajority of residents have at least som e knowledge of these m atters and that has not dim inished satisfaction. Difficult econom ic tim es are accom panied by an elevated attentiveness to Town business. Although the econom ic recession was likely related to slight declines last year in satisfaction with services, as we predicted, the decline reflected the nature of the tim es and concerns with the future rather than the perception that there were real declines in quality of services. Satisfaction increased this year to previous levels. There is, however, another decline in willingness to spend m ore on services and a continued greater inclination to want to hold Town spending on m ost services at their current levels. Respondents have a balanced approach to budget issues, preferring a com bination of service cuts and tax/fee increases to an exclusive reliance on either m ethod of balancing the Town budget. Finally, differences in opinion about Gilbert and Town services am ong the subgroups of the population rem ain low. Awareness and knowledge of Town decision m aking increases with length of residence which is expected. Utilization of recreational facilities and parks is sim ilarly tied to younger age and num ber of children in a household. O verall, there appear to be few deep divisions am ong resident subgroups and Gilbert respondents rem ain satisfied with life in Gilbert and with the services the Town provides. Gilbert 2010, Page 13 II. DATA COM M ENTARY AND TABLES Section II contains the aggregated responses to the survey questions in tabular form at. The responses to structured questions are crosstabulated by appropriate dem ographic categories. The responses to open-ended questions are tabulated and listed in order of frequency. W here there is statistical significance in the differences percentage responses between or am ong the dem ographic subgroups, that is indicated by asterisks. A single asterisk (*) indicates that differences am ong dem ographic subgroups (m ales v. fem ales, etc.) are statistically significant at the .05 level; a double asterisk (**) m eans that such differences are significant at the .01 level; and a triple asterisk (***) at the .001 level. A narrative on the results for the each question and significant subgroup differences precedes each set of tables. The results are found in the following subsections: (1) General Satisfaction: Questions 2-5, responses displayed in Tables 1.1 through 1.9; (2) Satisfaction with Developm ent and Neighborhood: Questions 6-10, responses in Tables 2.1 through Table 2.10; (3) Level of Knowledge and Sources of Inform ation about Town Policies and Decisions: Questions 11-16 with responses in Tables 3.1 through 3.7; (4) Decision Making: Questions 17-18, displayed in Tables 4.1 through 4.3; (5) Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars, Questions 18-21, and 24), in Tables 5.1 through 5.22; and (6) Evaluation of Town Services (Questions 22-23 and 25-30), in Tables 6.1 through 6.27. Gilbert 2010, Page 14 1. General Satisfaction W e first asked 502 Gilbert respondents about their satisfaction with living in Gilbert, the things they m ost liked and disliked about living in the town, and incidence of contacting a Town departm ent or official. Those who had called the Town were asked if they had been connected with an individual or the voice m ail system ; if they had received a call back in a reasonable period of tim e; how satisfied they were with the way they were treated when they called; and their reasons for any expressed dissatisfaction. General Satisfaction Data in Table 1.1 indicates that am ong Gilbert's respondents, • • • • 73.1% 24.9% 1.4% .6% are are are are very satisfied with living in Gilbert, generally satisfied, som ewhat dissatisfied, and very dissatisfied. Intensity of satisfaction with life in Gilbert is slightly higher than it was last year, notably am ong those aged 18 to 35 and m arried respondents. Positive Aspects of Living in Gilbert W hen respondents were asked what they liked about living in Gilbert, they offered 729 responses which are grouped in Table 1.2 into 32 categories. The quiet, sm all-town atm osphere rem ains the m ost liked quality of the Town and by a higher percentage than last year (32.7% com pared to 19.0% in 2009). Gilbert’s friendly people rose to the second m ost often m entioned Town quality, followed by the Town’s safety, and clean, new character. Those features m entioned by 5% or m ore of the respondents are listed below. • • • • • • • • • • 32.7% 16.1% 15.8% 13.0% 10.0% 9.6% 8.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Quiet, sm all town atm osphere Nice, friendly people and good com m unity feeling Safety as a place to live Clean, new town Fam ily-oriented Town Good shopping Good am enities nearby Good house and neighborhood Good parks and recreational facilities Good public schools Only six respondents "like nothing" about living in Gilbert, and six had “no opinion.” Negative Aspects of Living in Gilbert Table 1.3 lists the 326 item s grouped into 59 categories of reasons given for disliking living in Gilbert and/or suggestions for im provem ent. One hundred fifty-three respondents (30.5%) said there is nothing they Gilbert 2010, Page 15 dislike about living in Gilbert and 57 had “no opinion. Two item s were cited by 5% or m ore of Gilbert respondents as things they dislike about living in the Town. • • 9.6% Poor road conditions and traffic congestion 5.0% High taxes Concerns about Town services were m entioned by one in five respondents when we grouped individual item s into five areas: Town services, growth and developm ent, streets and traffic, political issues, and location problem s. These areas were cited by the percentages listed below. • • • • • 20.5% 15.7% 14.7% 10.0% 4.0% Town services Growth and com m ercial developm ent issues Roads, streets, traffic Political issues Location problem s W hile Town service issues were m entioned by significantly m ore respondents (20.5% com pared to 11.2% in 2009), the concerns were very dispersed with no large focal point of discontent. Contact w ith Tow n Hall A greater percentage of respondents contacted the Town in 2010 than had done in 2009. W e asked how m any had m ade contact, which offices and officials were contacted, experience with the voice m ail system , and the how satisfied they were with the response they received from the Town. Table 1.4 shows, • • 43.0% had called the Town, and 57.0% had not. Respondents aged 36 to 50, m ales, Anglos and those with three or m ore children are m ore likely to have called the Town. Table 1.5 lists the 22 departm ents, officials, and groups contacted by any of the 216 respondents who had called the Town. The Solid W aste Departm ent was called m ost frequently (by 13.3%); the Police Departm ent was the second m ost frequently called (by 11.0%), the W ater Departm ent was in third place (called by 7.0%), and the Streets Departm ents in fourth place with 4.8%. The 216 respondents who contacted the Town were asked whether or not they had talked to an individual or had been connected to the voice m ail system when they called. Table 1.6 shows only a slight drop in the percentage who talked directly to an individual (75.5% com pared to 79.2% in 2009). • • • 75.5% Talked to an individual 13.9% W ere connected to voice m ail 10.6% Couldn’t rem em ber. Of the 30 who were connected to voice m ail, 24 got a call back within a reasonable period of tim e, and just Gilbert 2010, Page 16 six claim ed their calls were not returned prom ptly. Am ong those who called the Town, Table 1.8 shows that • • • • • 76.4% 14.4% 4.2% 4.2% .9% were very satisfied with the way they were treated, were generally satisfied, were som ewhat dissatisfied, were very dissatisfied, and couldn’t say. Satisfaction with interaction with Town officials has risen slightly since last year to over 90% of callers to the Town. Table 1.9 shows that am ong the 18 who were not satisfied, six claim ed their call was not returned and five said their problem was not resolved. Gilbert 2010, Page 17 Table 1.1. General Satisfaction with Living in Gilbert (%) Question 2. Overall, how satisfied are you with living in Gilbert? Very Generally Somewhat Very N Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 73.1 68.8 70.7 66.9 72.0 24.9 28.5 25.9 28.9 26.3 1.4 2.0 2.5 3.0 .8 .6 .3 .7 1.2 .7 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 71.5 75.0 72.9 26.2 23.8 24.6 1.9 .6 1.7 .5 .6 .8 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 89.3 73.3 69.5 8.9 25.7 27.8 1.8 1.1 1.5 1.2 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 76.8 70.5 73.1 19.6 29.5 24.2 3.6 1.1 1.6 Sex Male Female 239 263 71.1 74.9 27.2 22.8 1.3 1.5 .4 .8 **Married? Married Not Married 336 160 75.3 70.0 24.4 25.0 3.8 .3 1.3 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 69.2 84.1 73.0 78.9 28.1 12.7 26.0 21.1 1.5 3.2 1.0 1.2 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 75.0 62.5 23.1 35.9 1.4 1.6 .5 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 64.1 76.4 70.7 77.4 30.8 22.0 27.3 21.9 2.6 .8 2.0 2.6 .8 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 73.3 72.6 24.8 25.3 1.3 1.6 .6 .5 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 73.6 72.4 77.9 22.6 26.4 21.5 2.8 .6 .7 .9 .6 *Age Group Gilbert 2010, Page 18 .7 Don’t Know .3 .2 .0 .2 Table 1.2. Reasons for Liking Living in Gilbert (%) Question 3. What do you like most about living in Gilbert? Things Liked about Living in Gilbert N % Quiet, Nice, Small Town Atmosphere Friendly People Safe Place to Live Clean, New Town Family-Oriented Town Good Shopping Opportunities Good Amenities Nearby My House and Neighborhood Good Parks and Recreational Facilities Good Public Schools 164 81 79 65 50 48 40 25 25 25 32.7 16.1 15.8 13.0 10.0 9.6 8.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 23 19 10 9 8 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 4.6 3.8 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 .6 .6 .6 .4 .4 .4 .2 .2 .2 .2 Good Location, Easy Access to Job & Freeways Good Town Services Rural Areas, Open Space, Green My Family Lives Here Good Climate Good Growth Management Good Public Safety Services Good Restaurants, Entertainment Good Streets and Traffic Everything Good Garbage, Bulky Pick Ups, Good Recycling Gilbert Is an Upscale Town Renewal of Old Downtown Gilbert Affordable Housing, Low Cost of Living My Church Is In Gilbert Limited Commercial Development We Have Horse Property People Like Me Live Here Low Taxes Diverse Population Good Community Events It Isn’t Mesa Nothing to Like 6 1.2 No Opinion 7 1.4 Note: Responses may not add up to 100.0% because of multiple answers allowed to and varying numbers of answers given by individual respondent. Gilbert 2010, Page 19 Table 1.3. Reasons for Not Liking Living in Gilbert (%) Question 4. Are there things you dislike about living in Gilbert? In other words, what changes or improvements would make Gilbert a better place to live? Dislikes / Needed Improvements N % Poor Roads, Congested Traffic, Changes in Number of Lanes High Taxes 48 25 9.6 5.0 Need for More, Better Trained Police Rapid Growth Lack of Economic Development for Jobs, Tax Revenue Constant Road Construction Poor Schools, Lack of Educational Resources Poor Public Transportation Lack of Parks, Recreation Facilities, Trails, Bike Paths Lack of Good Restaurants 20 19 18 16 14 13 11 10 4.0 3.8 3.6 3.2 2.8 2.6 2.2 2.0 Poor Political Leadership Lack of Arts Programs Limited Shopping Opportunities Poor Garbage Service Lack of Entertainment, Cultural Facilities Poor Traffic Signal Coordination Conservatism of Town 9 7 7 7 6 6 5 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.0 Bad Location - Far from Phoenix, Other Areas Need for More Locally Owned Businesses Need More Community Events, Fireworks Increased Crime, Drugs, Postal Theft Hot Climate. Lack of Shade Animal Smells Lack of Cultural Diversity Lack of Development of Old Downtown Gilbert High Cost of Utilities Intrusion of Religion into Politics Allowing New Mormon Temple Despite the Code Lack of Services for the Disabled Train Noises Bad Tasting, Smelly Water Field of Dreams Waste of Money High Residential Density Lack of Good Planning, Zoning High House Prices and Cost of Living Poor Street Lighting Strict Regulations Like Sign Code Discourage Business House Values Have Declined Poor Postal Service Poor Town Services and Lack of Response to Problems Town Council Land Purchase at a High Price 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 Gilbert 2010, Page 20 Table 1.3. Reasons for Not Liking Living in Gilbert (%), Continued Question 4. Are there things you dislike about living in Gilbert? In other words, what changes or improvements would make Gilbert a better place to live? Dislikes / Needed Improvements N % Need Access Channel for the Town Council Lack of Support for Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts Poor Cable Service from Cox Cookie Cutter Developments Dislikes Diversity of Population Poor Code Enforcement Fluoride Should Not Be Added to the Water Need More Green Pickups Imposition of Group Homes in the Neighborhood HOA Restrictions Lack of Services for Low Income Families Need Public Compost Bins Roadways Not Landscaped or Maintained Need More Seating at San Tan Mall Poor Senior Center Services Speeders Not Cited by Police More Trial Crossings at Major Roads Unfriendly People 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 Nothing to Dislike in Gilbert 153 30.5 No Opinion 57 11.4 Note: Responses may not add up to 100.0% because of multiple answers allowed to and varying numbers of answers given by individual respondent. Gilbert 2010, Page 21 Table 1.4. Incidence of Contacting Town Hall or Other Department/Official (%) Question 5a. In the past year, have you contacted any Town department or Town official for any reason? N Yes No Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 43.0 38.5 42.1 41.7 39.3 57.0 61.5 57.9 58.3 60.7 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 48.1 42.3 35.6 51.9 57.7 64.4 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 42.9 48.1 39.4 57.1 51.9 60.6 *Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 34.8 50.8 40.9 65.2 49.2 59.1 *Sex Male Female 239 263 47.3 39.2 52.7 60.8 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 44.9 40.6 55.1 59.4 **Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 38.1 44.4 44.0 59.2 61.9 55.6 56.0 40.8 **Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 45.4 29.7 54.6 70.3 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 46.2 42.3 41.4 45.3 53.8 57.7 58.6 54.7 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 43.1 42.5 56.9 57.5 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 37.7 47.1 46.3 62.3 52.9 53.7 Gilbert 2010, Page 22 Table 1.5. Town Departments or Officials Contacted in Past Year (%) Question 5b. Which department or official did you contact? [Total Callers = 216] N % of Those Calling % of All Respondents Garbage, Sanitation 67 31.0 13.3 Police Department 55 25.5 11.0 Water Department 35 16.2 7.0 Streets, Street Lighting 24 11.1 4.8 Fire Department, EMT, 911 20 9.3 4.0 Utilities 16 7.4 3.2 Planning and Zoning 8 3.7 1.6 Public Works 7 3.2 1.4 Sewer Department 7 3.2 1.4 Parks 6 2.8 1.2 Mayor, Council Member 4 1.9 .8 Code Enforcement 4 1.9 ,8 Recreation 3 1.4 .6 Recycling 3 1.4 .6 Town Hall 3 1.4 .6 City Court 2 .9 .4 Health Department - Insect Control 2 .9 .4 Neighborhood Services 2 .9 .4 School Board 2 .9 .4 Traffic Signals, Control 2 .9 .4 Building Permits 1 .4 .2 Library 1 .4 .2 Department or Official Contacted Unsure 1 .4 .2 Note: Responses do not add up to 100.0% because of multiple answers allowed to and varying numbers of answers given by individual respondents. Gilbert 2010, Page 23 Table 1.6. Incidence of Connection to an Individual or Voice Mail (%) Question 5c. When you called a Town official or department with a question or concern, were you connected to an individual or to the voice mail system? [Total Callers = 216] N Individual Voice Mail Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 216 231 252 251 236 75.5 79.2 79.0 74.7 83.9 13.9 13.9 16.3 17.7 11.4 10.6 6.9 4.8 7.6 4.7 Area North-West Central South 103 71 42 70.9 78.9 81.0 17.5 11.3 9.5 11.7 9.9 9.5 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 24 90 102 75.0 74.4 76.5 12.5 15.6 12.7 12.5 10.0 10.8 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 39 93 76 79.5 67.7 80.3 15.4 18.3 9.2 5.1 14.0 10.5 Sex Male Female 113 116 77.9 72.8 13.3 14.6 8.8 12.6 Married? Married Not Married 151 65 74.2 78.5 13.9 13.8 11.9 7.7 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 99 28 44 45 76.8 85.7 70.5 71.1 12.1 7.1 20.5 15.6 11.1 7.1 9.1 13.3 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 196 19 76.0 73.7 13.3 15.8 10.7 10.5 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 18 52 82 62 83.3 75.0 74.4 74.2 9.6 18.3 16.1 16.7 15.4 7.3 9.7 Employed? Employed Not Employed 134 79 74.6 75.9 15.7 11.4 9.7 12.7 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 40 82 69 77.5 74.4 75.4 10.0 14.6 14.5 12.5 11.0 10.1 Gilbert 2010, Page 24 Table 1.7. Experience of Receiving a Call Back from the Town in a Reasonable Period of Time (%) Question 5d. Did you receive a call back from the Town official or department in a reasonable period of time? [Total who were connected to the voice mail system = 30] N % of Those Connected to Voice Mail % of All Respondents 24 80.0 4.8 No, Did Not Receive Prompt Call Back 5 16.7 1.0 Can’t Remember 1 3.3 .2 Response Yes, Received Call Back in Reasonable Time Gilbert 2010, Page 25 Table 1.8. Satisfaction with Treatment When Calling the Town (%) Question 5e. As a customer of the Town's services, how satisfied are you with the way you are treated when you call a Town office with a question or concern? [Total callers = 216] Very Generally Somewhat Very Don’t N Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 216 231 252 251 236 76.4 70.6 66.7 67.1 68.6 14.4 18.2 23.0 18.1 22.0 4.2 6.1 4.4 8.4 5.9 4.2 3.9 5.2 6.0 2.5 Area North-West Central South 103 71 42 69.9 83.1 81.0 17.5 11.3 11.9 4.9 2.8 4.8 7.8 1.4 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 24 90 102 87.5 70.0 79.4 8.3 16.7 13.7 6.7 2.9 6.7 2.9 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 39 93 76 79.5 69.9 82.9 10.3 22.6 7.9 2.6 4.3 3.9 5.1 2.2 5.3 2.6 1.1 Sex Male Female 113 116 76.1 76.7 15.0 13.6 2.7 5.8 4.4 3.9 1.8 Married? Married Not Married 151 65 76.2 76.9 15.9 10.8 3.3 6.2 4.6 3.1 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 99 28 44 45 77.8 60.7 81.8 77.8 9.1 32.1 13.6 15.6 5.1 3.6 2.3 4.4 6.1 3.6 2.3 2.2 2.0 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 196 19 76.5 78.9 15.3 5.3 4.1 3.1 15.8 1.0 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 18 52 82 62 77.8 73.1 72.0 83.9 11.1 23.1 15.9 6.5 5.6 1.9 4.9 4.8 1.9 6.1 4.8 1.2 Employed? Employed Not Employed 134 79 73.9 79.7 17.2 10.1 4.5 3.8 3.7 5.1 .7 1.3 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 40 82 69 75.0 75.6 75.4 12.5 15.9 14.5 10.0 4.9 1.4 2.5 3.7 5.8 2.9 Length Resid Gilbert 2010, Page 26 .9 1.3 .8 .4 .8 1.4 2.4 4.2 1.0 3.1 5.6 Table 1.9. Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Way Treated When Call the Town. Question 5f. Please tell me why you are not satisfied with the way you are treated. [Total dissatisfied = 18] Reason Dissatisfied N % of Dissatisfied % of All Respondents Call Was Not Returned 6 33.3 1.2 Problem Not Resolved to Resident’s Satisfaction 5 27.8 1.0 Town Staff Who Answered Was Rude 4 22.2 .8 Slow Response 1 5.6 .2 Got the Run Around from Staff 1 5.6 .2 Water Cut Off without Warning 1 5.6 ..2 Gilbert 2010, Page 27 2. Satisfaction w ith Growth and Development Growth and developm ent issues in Gilbert occur in a continuing econom ic environm ent of recession, declining revenues, and foreclosures. W e asked respondents about the quality of developm ent in Gilbert com pared to that in other East Valley com m unities; satisfaction with the Town's planning and developm ent of public facilities; satisfaction with the quality of residential developm ent, com m ercial developm ent, and their own neighborhood; and reasons for both satisfaction and dissatisfaction with com m ercial developm ent and neighborhoods. Satisfaction w ith Quality of Development and Planning Public Facilities Table 2.1 shows that • • • • 54.2% 36.3% 3.8% 5.8% say Gilbert is better than other East Valley com m unities in quality of developm ent, say it is as good as others, say it is not as good, and have no opinion. The responses show an increase in satisfaction with Gilbert’s quality of developm ent. Belief that Gilbert’s quality of developm ent is better than other East Valley towns is higher am ong respondents who have lived in the Town for five years or less. The next question asked how satisfied respondents were with the Town’s planning and developm ent of public facilities. As seen in Table 2.2, • • • • • 36.7% 50.4% 4.2% 1.6% 7.2% are very satisfied with Town planning, are generally satisfied, are som ewhat dissatisfied, are very dissatisfied, and don't know. Satisfaction levels are relatively unchanged since last year and are higher am ong those aged 18 to 35 and those resident five years or less. Satisfaction w ith Residential and Commercial Development Views on im provem ents in the quality of new residential developm ents have im proved over the past few years and have changed little since last year. As seen in Table 2.3, • • • 53.6% see im provem ent in residential quality, 24.3% see no im provem ent, and 22.1% don't know. Respondents who have lived in Gilbert three years or m ore and those with som e college or a college degree are m ore likely to have either a m ore positive view of residential quality. Gilbert 2010, Page 28 W hen asked about their satisfaction with com m ercial developm ent, as seen in Table 2.4, • • • • • 29.1% 48.8% 15.9% 2.2% 4.0% are very satisfied with the com m ercial developm ent in Gilbert, are generally satisfied, are som ewhat dissatisfied, are very dissatisfied, and have no opinion. Satisfaction has declined very slightly over the past year. Respondents living in south and central Gilbert and fem ales are m ore positive about Gilbert’s com m ercial developm ent. W e asked the 391 who were satisfied with com m ercial developm ent and the 91 who were not for the reasons for their views. The 21 positive and 17 negative response item s are displayed in Tables 2.5 and 2.6. Reasons for satisfaction cited by 5% or m ore of all respondents were good shopping (26.3%), the closeness of everything (23.8%), and good planning of com m ercial areas (19.2%). The one reason for dissatisfaction offered by 5% or m ore was the large num ber of vacant stores and office buildings (7.0%). Neighborhoods Satisfaction with Gilbert neighborhoods increased in 2010. As seen in Table 2.7. • • • • 76.1% 19.3% 3.8% .8% are are are are very satisfied with the neighborhood in which they live, generally satisfied, som ewhat dissatisfied, and very dissatisfied. Thirty-three reasons were offered by the 479 who are satisfied with their neighborhood. As Table 2.8 shows, am ong all respondents • • • • • 16.3% 10.0% 12.9% 8.6% 7.0% say they have good neighbors, point to the quiet and niceness of the neighborhoods, like the safety of their neighborhood, like the fact that neighbors and the HOA m aintain their properties well, and say the neighborhood is clean and new. Am ong the 30 respondents who were dissatisfied, as seen in Table 2.9, the leading concerns were too m any rentals (4), bad neighbors (3), and an increase in crim e (3). Table 2.10 shows that, • • • • • • 2.2% 12.2% 29.7% 28.5% 24.3% 3.2% live in neighborhoods built 2 years ago or less, live in areas built 3 to 5 years ago, have hom es built 6 to 10 years ago, live in neighborhoods built 11 to 16 years ago, have hom es built over 16 years ago, and don’t know when their hom e was built. Respondents aged 18 to 35, resident in Gilbert five years or less , those living on the south side of Gilbert, and those with a college or postgraduate education tend to live in newer neighborhoods. Gilbert 2010, Page 29 Table 2.1. Perceived Quality of Gilbert's Development Compared to Other Communities (%) Question 6. How would you rate the Town of Gilbert in comparison to other East Valley Communities in terms of quality of development? Would you say it is better than, as good as, or not as good as other communities? N Better As Good Not As Good Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 54.2 51.3 56.0 49.5 49.0 36.3 39.0 35.1 41.5 39.3 3.8 3.3 4.2 4.2 2.7 5.8 6.3 4.7 4.8 9.0 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 54.2 53.6 55.9 35.0 38.1 34.7 4.2 3.0 4.2 6.5 5.4 5.1 *Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 60.7 56.1 51.4 39.3 37.4 34.7 2.1 5.8 4.3 8.1 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 58.0 51.4 53.8 34.8 41.0 33.3 3.6 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.8 9.1 Sex Male Female 239 263 52.7 55.5 35.6 36.9 3.8 3.8 7.9 3.8 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 53.0 56.3 37.5 34.4 4.2 3.1 5.4 6.3 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 52.7 63.5 53.0 52.6 34.6 33.3 39.0 42.1 4.6 3.2 4.0 1.3 8.1 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 54.2 53.1 36.1 37.5 3.7 4.7 6.0 4.7 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 64.1 53.7 53.5 51.8 28.2 39.0 36.9 35.8 2.6 1.6 6.1 2.9 5.1 5.7 3.5 9.5 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 55.0 52.7 37.0 35.5 3.2 4.8 4.8 7.0 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 60.4 51.1 53.0 31.1 37.9 38.9 3.8 2.9 4.7 4.7 8.0 3.4 Gilbert 2010, Page 30 4.0 3.9 Table 2.2. Satisfaction with Town Planning and Improvement of Public Facilities (%) Question 7. How satisfied are you with the Town's planning and development of public facilities in Gilbert? Generally Somewhat Very N Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 36.7 37.5 42.3 37.4 42.0 50.4 48.8 46.5 49.8 45.8 4.2 5.8 5.0 5.3 5.0 1.6 1.2 .7 3.0 1.5 7.2 6.7 5.5 4.5 5.7 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 32.2 36.9 44.1 51.4 51.8 47.5 4.2 5.4 2.5 1.9 1.2 1.7 10.3 4.8 4.2 *Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 50.0 35.3 34.7 39.3 56.1 48.6 3.7 5.4 1.1 2.3 10.7 3.7 8.9 ***Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 47.3 29.5 38.2 42.9 61.7 45.7 1.8 4.4 4.8 .5 3.8 8.0 3.8 7.5 Sex Male Female 239 263 40.2 33.5 46.9 53.6 4.2 4.2 1.7 1.5 7.1 7.2 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 36.3 38.1 51.8 48.1 4.8 3.1 1.8 1.3 5.4 9.4 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 34.6 42.9 43.0 31.6 49.6 47.6 51.0 56.6 4.2 4.8 3.0 3.9 3.1 8.5 4.8 3.0 7.9 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 37.0 35.9 49.3 57.8 4.6 1.6 1.6 7.4 4.7 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 35.9 33.3 36.4 40.9 46.2 56.9 50.0 46.0 7.7 2.4 4.5 4.4 2.6 .8 2.0 1.5 7.7 6.5 7.1 7.3 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 38.6 32.8 50.5 50.5 2.9 6.5 1.3 2.2 6.8 8.1 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 34.9 35.1 40.3 50.0 54.6 49.7 3.8 5.7 2.0 .9 1.7 2.0 10.4 2.9 6.0 Gilbert 2010, Page 31 Table 2.3. Perceived Improvement in Quality of Residential Developments (%) Question 8. Do you feel the quality of new residential developments in Gilbert has improved over the past few years? N Yes No Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 53.6 55.7 55.5 60.6 63.8 24.3 22.0 25.3 20.8 19.3 22.1 22.3 19.2 18.6 16.8 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 49.1 52.4 63.6 24.3 25.6 22.9 26.6 22.0 13.6 ***Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 42.9 54.5 55.2 14.3 23.0 27.4 42.9 22.5 17.4 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 56.3 54.1 53.2 17.9 25.7 26.9 25.9 20.2 19.9 Sex Male Female 239 263 53.6 53.6 25.1 23.6 21.3 22.8 *Married? Married Not Married 336 160 55.1 51.3 26.2 20.0 18.8 28.8 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 50.4 52.4 59.0 59.2 26.2 19.0 23.0 23.7 23.5 28.6 18.0 17.1 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 53.2 56.3 25.0 20.3 21.8 23.4 *Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 46.2 53.7 59.1 48.2 35.9 17.9 24.7 26.3 17.9 28.5 16.2 25.5 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 55.3 51.1 22.5 28.0 22.2 21.0 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 50.0 57.5 55.7 21.7 23.6 26.2 28.3 19.0 18.1 Gilbert 2010, Page 32 Table 2.4. Satisfaction with Commercial Development (%) Question 9a. How satisfied are you with the commercial development in Gilbert? Very Generally Somewhat N Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 29.1 31.3 39.1 35.9 36.7 48.8 47.0 44.6 44.7 43.5 15.9 15.8 12.9 12.6 13.5 2.2 2.8 1.7 4.2 3.3 4.0 3.0 1.7 2.7 3.0 **Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 21.0 32.1 39.0 50.0 49.4 46.6 21.5 13.7 9.3 2.8 1.2 2.5 4.7 3.6 2.5 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 33.9 31.6 26.3 50.0 50.3 47.5 5.4 13.4 20.1 1.8 1.1 3.1 8.9 3.7 3.1 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 27.7 26.2 33.3 50.0 52.5 44.1 16.1 16.9 15.6 .9 2.2 2.7 5.4 2.2 4.3 ***Sex Male Female 239 263 20.1 37.3 54.8 43.3 17.6 14.4 2.9 1.5 4.6 3.4 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 28.9 30.0 50.9 45.0 15.2 16.9 2.7 1.3 2.4 6.9 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 30.0 23.8 29.0 30.3 46.5 50.8 54.0 48.7 15.8 23.8 11.0 17.1 3.5 4.2 1.6 4.0 3.9 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 28.0 39.1 49.8 39.1 15.7 17.2 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 20.5 30.9 29.3 29.2 56.4 48.0 50.5 45.3 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 29.3 28.0 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 31.1 27.0 30.2 Gilbert 2010, Page 33 2.0 2.3 1.6 4.2 3.1 17.9 17.9 14.1 16.1 3.0 3.6 5.1 3.3 3.0 5.8 47.6 51.1 18.3 12.4 1.6 3.2 3.2 5.4 42.5 54.0 46.3 19.8 13.8 16.8 2.9 3.4 6.6 2.3 3.4 Table 2.5. Reasons for Satisfaction with the Commercial Development in Gilbert (%) Question 9b. Could you tell me why you feel satisfied with the commercial development in Gilbert? [Total Satisfied = 391] N % of Satisfied Who Answered % of All Respondents 103 26.3 20.5 Everything Is Close Now 93 23.8 18.5 Commercial Development Is Well Planned, Looks Good 75 19.2 14.9 More Business Is Still Needed, But Satisfied with Progress 23 5.9 4.6 Tax Revenue, Jobs Are Enhanced by Commercial Development 19 4.9 3.8 Nice, but Many Projects Are Left Unfinished 16 4.0 3.2 Satisfied, But There May Be Too Much 15 3.8 3.0 There Are Good Restaurants Now 11 2.8 2.2 Commercial Architecture Blends with Neighborhood 10 2.6 2.0 Now We Have Grocery Stores in Gilbert 7 1.8 1.4 New Hospital, Health Services 7 1.8 1.4 More, High Quality Amenities Have Been Brought to Gilbert 6 1.5 1.2 We Have Good Entertainment Facilities Now 6 1.5 1.2 It’s Been Slow in Coming, Overdue 5 1.2 1.0 We Need More Variety, Not Just Chain Stores 5 1.2 1.0 They Are Working to Preserve Downtown 4 1.0 .8 Hotels and Motels Are Needed 4 1.0 .8 Developments Have Nice Landscaping 3 .8 .6 Nice, but Too Close to Residential Areas 2 .5 .4 Nice, But Burger Joint Too Close to My Home 1 .3 .2 It Has Been Limited, Few Big Box Stores 1 .3 .2 15 3.8 3.0 Reason for Satisfaction There Is Good Shopping Now Not Sure Note: Responses do not add up to 100.0% because of multiple answers allowed to and varying numbers of answers given by individual respondents. Gilbert 2010, Page 34 Table 2.6. Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Commercial Development (%) Question 9c. Why are you dissatisfied with the commercial development in Gilbert? [Total Dissatisfied = 91] N % of Dissatisfied % of All Respondents There’s Too Much, Overbuilt, Vacant Buildings 35 12.5 7.0 More Commercial Development Needed 15 16.5 3.0 Not Enough Jobs, Need Bigger Businesses 11 12.1 2.2 More Needed for Tax Base, Revenue 7 7.7 1.4 Lack of Planning, Poor Distribution 5 5.5 1.0 Too Many Restrictions on Starting Businesses 4 4.4 .8 More Good Restaurants Needed 2 2.2 .4 Insufficient Development of Downtown Gilbert 2 2.2 .4 Need More Entertainment Facilities 1 1.1 .2 Need Higher Quality Development 1 1.1 .2 Cookie Cutter Look 1 1.1 .2 Commercial Developments Not Sufficient in Southern Gilbert 1 1.1 .2 Not Enough Gas Stations 1 1.1 .2 Need More Hotels 1 1.1 .2 Poor Quality Development 1 1.1 .2 Object to Mormon Temple in Residential Area 1 1.1 .2 Object to Grain Belt Restaurant Location 1 1.1 .2 Reason for Dissatisfaction Note: Responses do not add up to 100.0% because of multiple answers allowed to and varying numbers of answers given by individual respondents. Gilbert 2010, Page 35 Table 2.7. Satisfaction with Neighborhood of Residence (%) Question 10a. Overall, how satisfied are you with the neighborhood in which you live? Very Generally Somewhat N Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 76.1 69.7 71.2 71.1 75.5 19.3 25.3 23.7 24.4 20.8 3.8 4.3 4.3 4.2 3.3 .8 .7 .7 .3 .3 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 71.5 77.4 82.2 22.4 19.0 14.4 5.1 3.0 2.5 .9 .6 .8 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 78.6 72.7 78.0 19.6 23.0 16.6 1.8 3.2 4.6 1.1 .8 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 78.6 74.3 76.3 19.6 21.3 17.7 1.8 3.8 4.8 .5 1.1 Sex Male Female 239 263 77.8 74.5 17.6 20.9 3.8 3.8 .8 .8 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 76.5 76.3 18.8 19.4 3.9 3.8 .9 .6 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 74.6 77.8 73.0 82.9 20.0 14.3 25.0 14.5 4.2 7.9 1.0 2.6 1.2 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 76.4 76.6 19.2 18.8 3.5 4.7 .9 **Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 74.4 79.7 77.8 73.0 17.9 12.2 20.2 23.4 7.7 8.1 1.5 1.5 .5 2.2 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 76.2 76.3 19.9 17.7 3.5 4.3 .3 1.6 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 74.5 77.0 80.5 19.8 18.4 17.4 5.7 4.0 .7 .6 1.3 Gilbert 2010, Page 36 1.0 Table 2.8. Reasons for Satisfaction with Neighborhood (%) Question 10b. Could you tell me why you feel satisfied with your neighborhood? [Satisfied Who Answered = 479] % of Satisfied % of All Reason for Satisfaction N Who Answered Respondents Good Neighbors It’s a Safe Area Quiet, Nice Neighborhood, Little Traffic People, HOA Maintain the Properties It’s Clean and New 82 65 50 43 35 17.1 13.6 10.4 9.0 7.3 16.3 12.9 10.0 8.6 7.0 Nice Looking Area and Houses, Quality Construction Good Recreation Facilities Good HOA Good Amenities and Shopping Nearby Open Space, Acre Lots, Horse Property Good Schools Family-Oriented 24 20 15 13 13 12 10 5.0 4.2 3.1 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.1 4.8 4.0 3.0 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.0 Lake in Val Vista Stable Community, Long Time Residents, Old Area Green, Good Landscaping No CCRs or HOA Good Location, Easy Access to Freeway Feeling of Community Going Downhill with the Economy Diversity of Neighbors Satisfied, but Developer Went Bankrupt, Left Empty Lots Satisfied, but Too Many Rentals 7 6 6 5 5 4 3 2 2 2 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0 .8 .6 .4 .4 .4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 .8 .6 .4 .4 .4 Age Restricted, Adults Only 1 .2 .2 Gated Community Near My Church Nice Community Events Library Is Nearby Near My Job Property Values Have Held Up Pet Friendly Area Satisfied, but HOA Doesn’t Enforce Rules Satisfied, but HOA Too Restrictive Has Sidewalks for the Children 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 Like Everything about Gilbert 1 .2 .2 Note: Responses do not add up to 100.0% because of multiple answers allowed to and varying numbers of answers given by individual respondents. Gilbert 2010, Page 37 Table 2.9. Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Neighborhood Question 10c. Could you tell me why you are dissatisfied with your neighborhood? [Total dissatisfied = 23] Reasons for Dissatisfaction N Too Many Rentals Bringing the Quality Down 4 Bad Neighbors 3 Crime Increase 3 High Density, Cookie Cutter Housing 2 HOA Ineffective, Poorly Managed 2 Restrictive HOA 2 Slow Town Response to Problems 2 Too Many Street Lights 2 Too Many Homes for Sale 1 Inadequate Parking in the Community 1 Too Few Street Lights 1 Narrow Streets 1 Unfinished Developments 1 Yards Are Poorly Maintained 1 Note: Responses are given by number as they are minuscule percentages of the dissatisfied and of all respondents. Gilbert 2010, Page 38 Table 2.10. Perceived Age of Neighborhood of Residence (%) Question 10d. How long ago was your neighborhood built? Was it built two years ago or less, three to five years ago, six to ten years ago, eleven to fifteen years ago, or 16 or more years ago? 2 Yrs 3 to 6 to 11 to 16+ Don’t N or Less 5 Yrs 10 Yrs 15 Yrs Yrs Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 2.2 2.3 5.2 3.3 7.2 12.2 16.5 14.4 18.3 21.0 29.7 34.5 34.4 35.7 33.7 28.5 24.0 24.7 20.1 13.8 24.3 20.7 19.1 19.6 19.5 3.2 2.0 2.2 3.0 4.8 ***Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 3.6 4.2 3.3 19.0 17.8 13.1 32.1 56.8 31.3 33.9 15.3 49.1 6.5 5.1 3.3 4.8 .8 ***Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 8.9 1.1 1.5 17.9 18.7 6.2 25.0 31.6 29.3 16.1 23.0 35.1 19.6 23.0 26.3 12.5 2.7 1.5 ***Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 3.6 1.1 2.2 17.9 15.8 4.8 36.6 29.5 26.3 23.2 26.8 31.7 13.4 24.6 31.7 5.4 2.2 3.2 Sex Male Female 239 263 2.5 1.9 14.2 10.3 31.4 28.1 28.9 28.1 20.1 28.1 2.9 3.4 *Married? Married Not Married 336 160 1.8 3.1 13.1 10.6 30.1 27.5 31.0 23.8 22.3 28.8 1.8 6.3 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 3.1 1.6 2.0 7.7 15.9 17.0 17.1 26.9 31.7 31.0 35.5 29.2 28.6 28.0 26.3 28.5 19.0 21.0 19.7 4.6 3.2 1.0 1.3 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 2.5 12.5 10.9 28.2 39.1 29.2 23.4 24.1 25.0 3.5 1.6 ***Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 1.6 2.5 2.9 2.6 8.9 12.6 16.1 28.2 24.4 34.3 27.7 41.0 30.9 26.8 26.3 15.4 30.1 22.2 24.8 12.8 4.1 1.5 2.2 *Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 2.9 1.1 14.1 8.6 32.2 25.3 27.0 31.2 20.6 30.6 3.2 3.2 *Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 1.9 2.3 3.4 9.4 10.9 16.8 24.5 29.9 31.5 22.6 32.8 26.8 34.9 20.7 20.8 6.6 3.4 .7 Gilbert 2010, Page 39 3. Level of Know ledge and Sources of Information about Tow n Policies and Decisions The next set of questions explored how knowledgeable respondents are about Town decisions on services, which sources of inform ation about Town policies and decisions they use, the kinds of inform ation about the Town that would be m ost helpful to them , their preferred m eans of com m unication about Town m atters, and which newspapers they regularly read. Know ledge about Town Decisions Again this year, fewer than four in 100 respondents say they know a great deal about Town policies and decisions on services, but a solid m ajority say they do know som ething about services. Nearly three in four say they know very little. Table 3.1 shows that, • • • • 3.8% 57.0% 39.0% .2% say they know a great deal, claim som e knowledge, say they know very little, and don't know. Information Considered M ost Helpful Table 3.2 lists the 28 kinds of inform ation cited by respondents as item s m ost helpful to them . Inform ation types listed by 5% or m ore are listed below. • • • • • • • • • 16.9% Town intentions on planning and zoning m atters 12.7% Budget and tax inform ation 11.4% Town Council actions and rationales for those actions 8.2% Com m unity events 6.2% Inform ation about Town services and hours of operation 6.0% Plans to im prove public education 5.4% Schedule for street repairs 5.2% Plans for new businesses and econom ic developm ent 5.2% Schedule of Town public m eetings and m eeting agendas . Desire for inform ation about Town Council actions, Town services, and educational im provem ent, all increased this year. Information Sources Table 3.3 shows percentages of respondents using the various sources of inform ation available to Gilbert residents. Most use several inform ation sources, notably local newspapers, conversations with friends, and Your Town, Gilbert’s newsletter. • • • • 67.1% 64.7% 56.6% 41.8% Local newspapers Conversations with friends Your Town Town W ebsite • • • Gilbert 2010, Page 40 21.5% Cable television, 15.7% Conversations with Town officials 10.8% Other Print Source Read Your Town Arizona Republic Town W ebsite Tribune % Reading 57.2 54.2 31.7 31.3 Table 3.4 contains the crosstabulated data for the inform ation sources used by respondents. Significance is indicated by the asterisks at the top of each block of figures in each colum n. The subgroups significantly m ore likely to use each of the listed sources are indicated below. Source of Inform ation Groups More Likely to Use Town officials, staff The unm arried, Increases with age Conversations with friends Fem ales Local Newspapers The m arried, not em ployed, aged 51 or m ore, Increases with length of residence Cable Television Resident over 5 years, Increases with age. Town W ebsite Central Gilbert residents, Ages 18 to 50, Resident 3 to 5 years, Married, Incom e of $50,000 plus, Three or m ore children at hom e Preferred M eans of Communication about Tow n Policies and Decision Respondents volunteered fifteen m odes of preferred com m unication about Town policies and decisions. These are listed in Table 3.5. • • • • • 24.7% 22.9% 13.3% 12.0% 11.8% Em ail Your Town Direct m ail from the Town Newspapers (general reference) Town W ebsite. Print M edia Table 3.6 shows crosstabulated responses for print m edia regularly read by respondents. Three print source had som e significant intergroup differences in usage which are listed below. Newspaper Respondents More Likely to Read Arizona Republic Not em ployed Town W ebsite Resident 3 to 5 years, Ages 18 to 35, Married, Three or m ore children at hom e Your Town Fem ales Preferred Channel 11 Programming A final question asked about the program m ing residents preferred for Cable Channel 11. Twenty-six Gilbert 2010, Page 41 item s were cited, but only three by 5% or m ore of respondents. • • • 8.4% 7.0% 5.2% Town Council Meetings and news Local news and politics Com m unity Events Overall, 11.0% do not have cable TV, 47.8% are not interested in watching, and 10.2% had no opinion. Gilbert 2010, Page 42 Table 3.1. Perceived Level of Knowledge about Town Decisions (%) Question 11. Town officials make decisions that affect the services you receive. Which of the following statements comes closest to expressing what you feel you usually know about these decisions? N Great Deal Some Very Little Don’t Know .2 .5 1.5 1.3 .8 Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 3.8 3.8 4.5 6.1 9.8 57.0 47.7 50.2 52.0 53.7 39.0 48.0 43.8 40.5 35.7 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 4.2 3.0 4.2 53.3 61.3 57.6 42.5 35.7 38.1 *Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 4.3 4.2 39.3 61.5 57.5 60.7 34.2 37.8 *Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 5.4 3.3 3.2 44.6 61.7 59.7 50.0 35.0 37.1 Sex Male Female 239 263 5.4 2.3 54.8 58.9 39.3 38.8 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 3.6 4.4 60.4 51.3 36.0 43.8 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 3.5 7.9 3.0 2.6 55.0 54.0 59.0 65.8 41.2 38.1 38.0 31.6 .4 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 3.7 1.6 56.9 57.8 39.1 40.6 .2 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 2.6 3.3 4.5 3.6 56.4 53.7 59.1 58.4 41.0 43.1 36.4 37.2 .7 Employed Not Employed 311 186 4.5 2.7 55.3 60.2 40.2 36.6 .5 Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 2.8 2.9 5.4 50.9 60.3 61.1 46.2 36.8 33.6 Employed? Income Gilbert 2010, Page 43 .4 .4 .6 Table 3.2. Most Helpful Kind of Information about Gilbert (%) Question 12. What kind of information about the Town of Gilbert would be most helpful to you? Information Type N % 85 64 57 41 31 30 27 26 26 21 19 12 11 16.9 12.7 11.4 8.2 6.2 6.0 5.4 5.2 5.2 4.2 3.8 2.4 2.2 Everything Directory, Background on Town Council Members, Town Officials Neighborhood Meetings, Events Home Value Assessments School Information, News about Programs, Events Senior Services Town History 6 4 3 2 2 2 2 1.2 .8 .6 .4 .4 .4 .4 Chamber of Commerce Meeting Schedule Garbage Service, Brush & Bulky Pick Up Information Health Services Information on Internet Access Public Transportation Summary of Past Year’s Town Events, Actions Volunteer Groups Why An Expensive Conference Table Needed 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 14 45 75 2.8 9.0 15.0 Town Intentions on Planning and Zoning, Neighborhood Impact Budget and Tax Data Town Council Actions, Rationales Community Events, Entertainment Information General Information on Town Services, Hours of Operation Educational Improvement Plans Schedule for Street Repairs, Closures Schedule of Public Meetings, Agendas New Businesses, Shopping, Economic Development Basic Information as in Your Town, on the Website, in Newspapers Parks and Recreation, Facilities and Programs Construction Plans for New Developments, Infrastructure Information on Crime, Fire Safety Fine As It Is None Unsure Note: Responses do not add up to 100.0% because of multiple answers allowed to and varying numbers of answers given by individual respondents. Gilbert 2010, Page 44 Table 3.3. Information about Town Policies and Decisions: A Comparative Profile (%) Questions 13a-g. Do you usually learn about Town policies and decisions from any of the following sources? Conversations with Town officials? Conversations with friends? Reading local newspapers? The Town’s Cable Channel? The Town newsletter “Your Town”? The Town Website? Other? Questions 15a-f. Do you regularly read any of the following? The Arizona Republic? The Tribune? Town Page? The Town Website? The Town newsletter “Your Town” ? 2010 % Using 2009 % Using 2008 % Using 2007 % Using 2006 % Using Sources about Town Policies Conversations with Town Officials 15.7 14.2 12.2 11.8 13.7 Conversations with Friends 64.7 68.5 67.2 64.1 61.3 Local Newspapers 67.1 67.7 72.5 72.8 78.0 Town’s Cable Channel 21.5 23.3 24.8 28.2 31.2 “Your Town” 56.6 68.8 63.3 67.8 68.0 The Town Website 41.8 40.5 39.2 40.5 36.0 Other 10.8 31.0 16.0 18.3 .3 Arizona Republic 54.2 49.0 52.0 52.3 59.3 East Valley Tribune 31.3 28.8 33.3 32.1 34.2 Town Website 31.7 31.8 29.2 28.2 29.7 Your Town 57.2 68.8 64.5 65.6 65.8 Print Sources Read Gilbert 2010, Page 45 Table 3.4. Information Sources: Level of Usage (%) Question 13a-g. Do you usually learn about Town policies and decisions from any of the following sources? (% Yes) N G ilbert Area Length R esid Age G roup Sex M arried? C hildren < 19 R ace Education Em ployed? Incom e Tow n O fficials Fam ily, Friends Local N ew spprs Tow n C able Your Town Tow n W ebsite O ther 2010 502 15.7 64.7 67.1 21.5 56.6 41.8 10.8 2009 600 14.2 68.5 67.7 23.3 68.8 40.5 31.0 2008 600 12.2 67.2 72.6 24.9 63.4 39.3 16.1 2007 602 11.8 64.1 72.8 28.2 67.8 40.5 18.3 2006 600 13.7 61.3 78.0 31.2 68.0 36.0 12.5 N orth-W est 214 19.6 64.5 67.8 21.5 54.7 *37.4 *12.6 C entral 168 12.5 64.3 67.3 25.0 61.9 49.4 11.9 South 118 11.9 66.1 66.9 16.1 53.4 39.0 4.2 2 Yrs or Less 56 8.9 64.3 *57.1 **12.5 50.0 *44.6 7.1 3 to 5 Yrs 187 14.4 62.6 63.1 16.6 59.9 49.2 9.1 O ver 5 Yrs 259 18.1 66.4 72.2 27.0 55.6 35.9 12.7 18 to 35 112 *8.9 57.1 *63.4 **10.7 52.7 ***45.5 11.6 36 to 50 183 13.1 66.7 62.3 23.0 57.4 51.9 12.0 51 Plus 186 19.4 66.1 74.7 25.8 57.5 31.7 9.1 M ale 239 13.4 **58.6 65.3 22.2 53.1 *46.9 10.5 Fem ale 263 17.9 70.3 68.8 20.9 59.7 37.3 11.0 M arried 336 **13.1 66.1 66.7 20.2 59.2 **46.1 11.3 N ot M arried 160 21.3 61.9 68.8 25.0 53.1 34.4 9.4 N one 260 18.1 64.2 70.0 25.0 56.5 **34.6 10.0 O ne 63 14.3 63.5 58.7 12.7 50.8 49.2 12.7 Two 100 12.0 61.0 65.0 22.0 57.0 46.0 9.0 Three or M ore 76 14.5 71.1 65.8 17.1 61.8 56.6 14.5 Anglo-W hite 432 16.2 65.3 66.7 22.0 57.2 42.8 11.1 N ot Anglo 64 9.4 60.9 70.3 20.3 53.1 35.9 7.8 H S or Less 39 10.3 64.1 69.2 30.8 48.7 30.8 7.7 Som e C oll-Voc 123 17.1 69.1 65.9 25.2 56.1 42.3 12.2 C ollege G rad 198 13.6 63.1 70.7 19.7 61.1 42.4 10.1 Postgrad D eg 137 19.0 63.5 62.8 17.5 54.7 43.8 10.9 Em ployed 311 15.8 63.7 **63.7 19.9 55.6 **46.9 11.3 N ot Em ployed 186 15.1 66.7 73.7 23.7 58.1 33.3 10.2 U nder $50,000 106 13.2 63.2 64.2 20.8 54.7 *32.1 8.5 $50,000-$99,999 174 13.2 64.9 67.8 23.6 60.9 47.1 11.5 $100,000 Plus 149 16.8 65.1 69.1 18.8 57.0 48.3 10.1 Gilbert 2010, Page 46 Table 3.5. Preferred Means of Receiving Communications about Town Policies and Decisions (%) Question 14. What is your preferred means of receiving communications about Town policies and decisions? Means of Communication N % 124 115 67 60 59 24.7 22.9 13.3 12.0 11.8 Arizona Republic, azcentral.com Television Water Bill Insert Town Officials Friends, Family Flyers, Billboards Meetings Telephone Radio HOA Bulletin 13 12 9 6 5 4 3 2 2 1 2.6 2.4 1.8 1.2 1.9 .8 .6 .4 .4 .2 Multiple Sources None Wanted Unsure 1 7 12 .2 1.4 2.4 502 100.0 Email Your Town Newsletter Direct Mail Newspapers, General Town Website, Internet Total Gilbert 2010, Page 47 Table 3.6. Written Sources Regularly Read (%) Question 15a-d. Do you regularly read any of the following? Arizona Republic, East Valley Tribune, The Town Website, The Town newsletter “Your Town” (% Yes) Town N AZ Repub EV Tribune Website Your Town Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 54.2 49.0 52.0 52.3 59.3 31.3 28.8 33.4 32.1 34.2 31.7 31.8 29.3 28.2 29.7 57.2 68.8 64.5 65.6 65.8 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 49.1 57.7 58.5 33.2 30.4 29.7 26.6 37.5 32.2 58.9 58.9 52.5 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 50.0 49.7 58.3 28.6 33.7 30.1 **30.4 39.6 26.3 50.0 59.4 57.1 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 53.6 48.6 60.8 32.1 31.7 30.6 **39.3 36.1 24.2 50.0 57.4 60.2 Sex Male Female 239 263 53.6 54.8 32.2 30.4 33.5 30.0 ***50.2 63.5 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 53.3 57.5 31.3 31.9 *34.8 26.3 59.2 53.8 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 55.0 57.1 53.0 51.3 32.3 36.5 27.0 30.3 *26.5 36.5 35.0 42.1 56.2 55.6 58.0 61.8 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 52.8 62.5 30.8 34.4 31.9 28.1 57.4 57.8 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 56.4 49.6 57.1 53.3 30.8 25.2 36.9 29.2 25.6 29.3 33.3 33.6 48.7 56.9 60.6 56.2 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 ***49.2 63.4 31.5 30.6 33.8 29.0 55.6 60.2 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 50.0 55.2 55.7 26.4 35.1 32.9 28.3 35.6 34.9 59.4 58.6 60.4 Gilbert 2010, Page 48 Table 3.7. Types of Programming Preferred for Channel 11 (%) Question 16. What type of programming would you like to see on Cable Channel 11? Type of Programming Town Council Meetings, News Local News, Politics Community Events, Town Programs Just As It Is Now News about Development, Planning and Zoning Children’s, Family Programming N % of All Respondents 42 35 26 15 15 12 8.4 7.0 5.2 3.0 3.0 2.4 School News, Events 8 1.6 History of Gilbert, Local Area Public Education Programming Town Services Information Theater, Play Schedules Interviews with Town Officials Old Films Parks and Recreation Information and Events Cooking and Crafts Economy, Jobs, and Foreclosures BBCShows Information on New Businesses, New Stores Diverse Programs Fishing, Farming Sites Tips on Home Maintenance, Irrigation Road Construction Interviews with the Public Updates on Road Construction Spongebob Squarepants, Family Guy What the Town Is Doing about Train Noise 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 .8 .8 .8 .6 .6 .6 .4 .4 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 55 240 51 11.0 47.8 10.2 Do Not Have Cable TV None, Not Interested in TV No Opinion Note: Responses do not add up to 100.0% because of multiple answers allowed to and varying numbers of answers given by individual respondents. Gilbert 2010, Page 49 4. Decision M aking The fourth area of inquiry concerned satisfaction with policy decisions m ade by the Mayor and Council and respondent views on whether or not the Town encourages citizen participation. Satisfaction w ith Policy Decisions W e asked respondents if they are satisfied with the policy decisions m ade by the Mayor and Town Council. Table 4.1 shows that over seven in 10 are satisfied, a num ber that is close to last year’s level. This year • • • • • 11.6% 66.1% 5.0% 2.2% 15.1% are very satisfied with the Mayor and Council's policy decisions, are generally satisfied, are som ewhat dissatisfied, are very dissatisfied, and have no opinion. Satisfaction is higher am ong those resident in Gilbert 3 or m ore years. Table 4.2 lists the 15 reasons for dissatisfaction offered by 36 respondents. The m ost com m on of these was a general feeling that Town spends too m uch, leading to higher taxes. Encouragement of Participation Table 4.3 shows that a m ajority believe that Town officials encourage participation. • • • 53.2% say the Town does encourage participation, 18.7% say it does not, and 28.1% have no opinion. There has been little change in these percentages since last year. Belief that the Town encourages citizen participation increases with length of residence and is higher am ong those who have two or m ore children living at hom e. Despite continuing recession, unem ploym ent, and declining house prices, Gilbert respondents felt increased satisfaction with the Mayor and Council’s policy decisions and held steady in their view that the Town encourages participation. This level of increased satisfaction sets Gilbert apart in com parison to a level of dissatisfaction with governm ent that we have found in recent national and statewide polls. In Gilbert, satisfied respondents still outnum ber the dissatisfied by better than a nine-to-one m argin and those who say the Town encourages participation outnum ber those who say it does not by nearly a three-to-one m argin. Gilbert 2010, Page 50 Table 4.1. Satisfaction with Policy Decisions of Mayor and Council (%) Question 17a. How satisfied are you with the policy decisions made by the Mayor and members of the Town Council? Very Generally Somewhat Very Don’t N Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 11.6 13.0 15.2 17.4 21.5 66.1 58.8 57.5 61.5 54.5 5.0 5.2 8.0 6.6 5.5 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.5 15.1 20.5 16.7 11.6 16.0 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 11.2 11.9 11.0 66.4 65.5 67.8 6.5 2.4 5.9 1.9 1.8 3.4 14.0 18.5 11.9 *Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 14.3 12.3 10.4 55.4 68.4 66.8 1.8 3.7 6.6 1.1 3.5 28.6 14.4 12.7 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 13.4 9.3 12.9 62.5 67.8 66.7 2.7 6.0 5.4 1.8 1.6 2.7 19.6 15.3 12.4 Sex Male Female 239 263 11.7 11.4 65.3 66.9 4.6 5.3 3.3 1.1 15.1 15.2 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 11.3 11.9 67.6 65.0 5.4 4.4 2.4 1.9 13.4 16.9 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 12.3 17.5 7.0 10.5 65.4 61.9 63.0 77.6 5.4 1.6 9.0 1.3 3.5 1.6 1.0 13.5 17.5 20.0 10.5 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 12.3 7.8 65.7 68.8 5.1 3.1 2.5 14.4 20.3 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 12.8 10.6 10.6 13.1 64.1 67.5 66.7 65.0 7.7 2.4 5.6 5.8 2.6 1.6 4.0 12.8 17.9 13.1 16.1 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 10.6 12.4 66.9 65.6 5.1 4.8 1.9 2.7 15.4 14.5 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 9.4 12.1 12.1 67.9 67.2 68.5 7.5 6.9 2.0 1.9 2.3 2.0 13.2 11.5 15.4 Gilbert 2010, Page 51 Table 4.2. Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Mayor-Council Policy Decisions Question 17b. Can you explain why you feel [dissatisfied with Mayor-Council decisions]? [Total dissatisfied = 36] Reasons for Dissatisfaction N They Spend Too Much, Taxes Are Too High 8 Generally Poor Leadership 5 Citizen Views Are Ignored, Mayor and Council Have Own Agenda 3 Town Discourages Business, Jobs 3 Growth Has Been Mishandled, Poor Zoning Decisions 2 Intrusion of Religion into Politics 2 Land Purchase at Inflated Prices 2 Lack of Funding for Public Safety 2 Poor Communication on Traffic near Schools 1 Poor Traffic Signal Coordination 1 Unscheduled Changes in Town Events 1 Forced Annexation of the Islands 1 Bigoted against Minorities, Low Income People 1 Allowed Mormon Temple in Residential Area 1 Water Plant Is Offensive 1 Everything 4 Note: Responses are given by number as they are minuscule percentages of the dissatisfied and of all respondents. Gilbert 2010, Page 52 Table 4.3. Impression: Town Officials' Encouragement of Citizen Participation (%) Question 18. Would you say that Town officials encourage citizen participation in town government? N Yes No Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 53.2 54.8 52.8 53.5 59.7 18.7 18.5 22.4 21.4 13.8 28.1 26.7 24.7 25.1 26.5 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 50.9 53.6 57.6 22.0 17.3 15.3 27.1 29.2 27.1 *Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 48.2 52.4 54.8 12.5 16.0 22.0 39.3 31.6 23.2 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 50.9 52.5 57.0 15.2 19.7 18.3 33.9 27.9 24.7 Sex Male Female 239 263 53.6 52.9 20.9 16.7 25.5 30.4 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 54.2 51.3 19.3 17.5 26.5 31.3 *Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 50.4 42.9 60.0 63.2 21.9 17.5 19.0 7.9 27.7 39.7 21.0 28.9 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 53.2 51.6 18.5 18.8 28.2 29.7 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 64.1 52.8 50.5 54.0 12.8 16.3 20.7 20.4 23.1 30.9 28.8 25.5 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 51.1 56.5 17.4 21.5 31.5 22.0 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 60.4 54.0 55.0 11.3 20.1 16.1 28.3 25.9 28.9 Gilbert 2010, Page 53 5. Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars A fifth extensive set of questions concerned balancing the Town Budget and the im portance of spending on Town services. Respondents were asked about their preferred m eans of balancing the Town budgtet, satisfaction with the value they receive for their tax dollars; and the im portance of eight areas of am enities (com m unity and specialty parks, m ultipurpose trails and open space, public transportation and bus service, recreational program m ing, special com m unity events, fine arts projects and program s, historical preservation, and com m unity and educational centers like recreation centers and riparian preserves). Preferred M eans of Balancing the Tow n Budget Balancing the Town budget through a com bination of reduced services and increased taxes and fees is preferred by m ore respondents than exclusive reliance on either reduced services or increased taxes. Table 5.1 shows that to keep the Town budget balanced • • • • • 21.9% 14.3% 47.6% 11.8% 4.4% would reduce services and associated costs, would increase Town taxes and fees, would use a com bination of reduced services and increased taxes and fees, would use som e of other m eans of balancing the budget, and don’t know. There is m ore support for a com bination of reduced services and increased taxes in the central and southern areas of Gilbert and am ong those resident in Gilbert for 5 years or less. Satisfaction w ith Value of Tax Dollar for Services Received Respondents were very satisfied, even m ore so than last year, with the value they get from their tax dollars for the services provided by Gilbert. As seen in Table 5.2, • • • 89.6% are satisfied, 7.6% are not, and 2.8% have no opinion. Satisfaction rem ains high across subgroups of respondents. The 38 dissatisfied respondents gave 12 reasons for dissatisfaction which are listed in Table 5.3. The m ost com m on are beliefs that taxes in Gilbert are too high and that the Town engages in wasteful spending (each cited by 10 residents). Importance of Eight Areas of Services Respondents were asked to indicate on a scale of 1 (Very Im portant) to 5 (Not at All Im portant) the im portance of the Town’s involvem ent in eight areas: Com m unity and specialty parks, m ultipurpose trails and open space, public transportation/bus service, recreational program s, com m unity special events, fine arts Gilbert 2010, Page 54 projects and program s, historical preservation, and com m unity and educational centers like recreation centers and riparian preserves. Based on m ean scores derived by calculating the m ean average of responses of those able to rate the program s, com m unity and education centers are deem ed the m ost im portant, followed by recreational program s and historical preservation. All program areas score above the 3.0 m ean point on the im portance scale, but all also receive a lower m ean score than they earned last year. The im portance of these areas is com pared in Table 5.4. The m ean scores for im portance on the scale and the areas listed by relative im portance are listed below. Mean Score Areas of Service Ranked by Mean Im portance Score 1.75 1.87 2.06 2.08 2.09 2.22 2.23 2.32 Com m unity and Education Centers Recreational Program m ing Historical Preservation Public Transportation / Bus Service Multipurpose Trails and Open Space Com m unity and Specialty Parks Com m unity Special Events Fine Arts Projects and Program s. Tables 5.5 to 5.12 display ratings for these areas of Town service and show which dem ographic subgroups award greater im portance to each. Com m unity and • 33.1% • 37.1% • 10.6% • 11.4% • 7.4% • .6% Specialty Parks very Im portant som ewhat Im portant neutral som ewhat unim portant not at all Im portant no opinion Group Differences Im portance higher for respondents aged 18 to 35 Multipurpose Trails and Open Space • 34.3% very Im portant • 39.8% som ewhat Im portant • 13.5% neutral • 7.0% som ewhat unim portant • 5.2% not at all Im portant • .2% no opinion Group Differences Im portance higher for those living in Gilbert 2 years or less and those with som e college or a college degree Public Transportation / Bus Service • 37.3% very Im portant • 35.1% som ewhat im portant • 14.3% neutral • 7.0% som ewhat unim portant • 5.6% not at all Im portant • .8% no opinion Group Differences Im portance higher for fem ales and unm arried respondents Gilbert 2010, Page 55 Recreation Program m ing • 43.0% very im portant • 37.6% som ewhat im portant • 9.8% neutral • 6.2% som ewhat unim portant • 2.6% not at all im portant • .8% no opinion Group Differences Im portance higher for fem ales Com m unity Special Events • 25.1% very im portant • 45.6% som ewhat im portant • 14.7% neutral • 8.4% som ewhat unim portant • 5.6% not at all im portant • .6% no opinion Group Differences Im portance higher am ong fem ales, the em ployed, and those resident 3 to 5 years Fine Arts • 26.1% very im portant • 41.4% som ewhat im portant • 15.3% neutral • 8.2% som ewhat unim portant • 8.8% not at all im portant • .2% no opinion Group Differences Im portance higher for fem ales, those aged 18 to 35, the unm arried Historical Preservation • 38.0% very im portant • 37.3% som ewhat im portant • 11.4% neutral • 7.2% som ewhat unim portant • 6.0% not at all im portant • .2% no opinion Group Differences Im portance higher for fem ales and those with som e college or less education Com m unity and • 47.4% • 39.4% • 7.2% • 3.0% • 3.0% Group Differences Im portance higher for fem ales and non-Anglos Education Centers very im portant som ewhat im portant neutral som ewhat unim portant not at all im portant Spending on Nine Service Areas Table 5.13 com pares the percentages by which respondents endorse spending on nine areas of service. Net support for these services is calculated by subtracting the percentage who want to spend less from the percentage who wish to spend m ore with the results that appear below. The Police and Fire Departm ents are virtually tied for greatest net support at 19.7% and 19.9% respectively. Service Fire Departm ent Police Departm ent Developing older downtown Gilbert Repairing and m aintaining streets W ater & sewer facilities Parks facilities Recreation program s and facilities Library Public transportation / bus service % More 22.9 24.5 20.3 14.3 9.2 10.4 15.5 18.5 30.1 Gilbert 2010, Page 56 % Less 3.0 4.8 31.5 7.6 3.0 13.1 15.9 5.2 15.1 % Net Support 19.9 19.7 -11.2 6.7 6.2 -2.7 -.4 13.3 15.0 Spending for six services has a positive net score, but Table 5.13 shows a clear pattern of preference for m aintaining spending at current levels. Fire Department As seen in Table 5.14, there is a 4.8% decline in willingness to spend m ore on the Fire Departm ent. • • • • 22.9% 70.5% 3.0% 3.6% would spend m ore on fire services, would spend the sam e, would spend less and don't know. Police Department Table 5.15 shows an 11.5% decline in willingness to spend m ore the Police Departm ent since last year. Support for spending is higher am ong those resident over 5 years and those aged 18 to 50. • • • • 24.5% 67.1% 4.8% 3.6% would spend m ore on the Police Departm ent, would spend the sam e am ount, would spend less, and have no opinion. Developing Older Dow ntow n Gilbert Table 5.16 shows that support for spending m ore on developing older downtown Gilbert has declined by 9.4% since last year and is higher am ong em ployed residents, non-Anglos, residents of northwest and central Gilbert, and those aged 18 to 35. • • • • 20.3% 42.8% 31.5% 5.4% would spend m ore on developing older downtown Gilbert, would spend the sam e as now, would spend less, don't know. Repairing/M aintaining Streets W illingness to spend m ore on streets has declined 9.9% since last year. Table 5.17 shows that residents of south Gilbert are m ore supportive of spending on streets. • • • • 14.3% 75.7% 7.6% 2.4% would spend m ore on street repair and m aintenance, would spend the sam e, would spend less, and don't know. W ater and Sew er Facilities Table 5.18 shows a 2.3% decline in support for m ore spending on water and sewer facilities. • • • • 9.2% 82.1% 3.0% 5.8% would spend m ore on water and sewer facilities, would spend the sam e as now, would spend less, and don't know. Gilbert 2010, Page 57 Parks Facilities Table 5.19 shows a 6.8% decline in support for m ore spending on parks. Non-Anglos, the em ployed, those aged 18 to 35, and those with one or two children are m ore supportive of increased spending on parks. • • • • 10.4% 72.7% 13.1% 3.8% would spend m ore on parks facilities, would spend the sam e, would spend less, and don't know. Recreation Programs and Facilities Table 5.20 shows a 5.8% decline in support for m ore spending on recreation program s and facilities. Support for m ore spending is higher am ong fem ales, non-Anglos, those aged 18 to 35, and those with one or two children. • • • • 15.5% 63.3% 15.9% 5.2% would spend m ore on recreation program s and facilities, would spend the sam e, would spend less, and don’t know. Library Table 5.21 shows that support for m ore spending on the library declined 5.8% this year. It is higher am ong non-Anglos and those with a postgraduate degree. • • • • 18.5% 69.5% 5.2% 6.8% would spend m ore on recreation program s and facilities, would spend the sam e, would spend less, and don’t know. Public Transportation / Buses Support for m ore spending on public transportation has decreased 4.7% since last year. It is higher am ong fem ales and non-Anglos. Table 5.22 shows, • • • • 30.1% 40.4% 15.1% 14.3% would spend m ore on public transportation and buses, would spend the sam e as now, would spend less, and don't know. Gilbert 2010, Page 58 Table 5.1. Preferred Means of Balancing Gilbert’s Budget (%) Q19. The current economic turndown has reduced Gilbert’s sales and property tax revenues while the demand for public safety, street repairs, and other services is steady. The Town is considering various ways of keeping its budget balanced in these difficult times. If it were up to you, would you balance the Town budget by a reduction of Town services and associated costs, increases in some taxes and fees, or a combination of reduction of services and increased taxes and fees. Reduce Increase Services, Taxes, CombiOther, Don’t N Costs Fees nation None Know Gilbert 2010 502 21.9 14.3 47.6 11.8 4.4 *Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 20.6 22.0 24.6 17.3 10.1 15.3 42.5 53.6 48.3 14.0 8.3 11.9 5.6 6.0 **Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 23.2 17.1 25.1 14.3 15.5 13.5 53.6 55.1 40.9 7.1 8.0 15.4 1.8 4.3 5.0 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 22.3 20.2 23.1 13.4 15.8 12.9 53.6 53.0 41.9 7.1 9.3 15.6 3.6 1.6 6.5 Sex Male Female 239 263 25.1 19.0 12.1 16.3 49.0 46.4 11.3 12.2 2.5 6.1 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 23.8 18.1 12.8 17.5 47.9 47.5 11.6 11.3 3.9 5.6 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 21.9 28.6 22.0 17.1 12.3 14.3 22.0 11.8 45.0 49.2 46.0 56.6 14.6 4.8 9.0 10.5 6.2 3.2 1.0 3.9 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 23.6 10.9 15.0 9.4 46.1 60.9 10.9 14.1 4.4 4.7 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 20.5 21.1 21.7 22.6 17.9 11.4 13.6 17.5 38.5 48.0 47.5 50.4 12.8 13.8 12.6 8.0 10.3 5.7 4.5 1.5 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 21.9 22.6 14.1 14.5 50.2 43.0 10.9 12.9 2.9 7.0 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 24.5 23.6 20.8 9.4 18.4 14.8 51.9 43.1 50.3 10.4 8.6 13.4 3.8 6.3 .7 Gilbert 2010, Page 59 Table 5.2. Satisfaction with Value from Tax Dollar for Services Provided by Gilbert (%) Question 20a. Overall are you satisfied with the value you get from your tax dollar for the services provided by the Town of Gilbert? N Yes No Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 89.6 85.8 89.3 86.7 89.7 7.6 9.0 8.0 9.5 6.3 2.8 5.2 2.7 3.8 4.0 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 87.9 93.5 87.3 9.8 4.2 8.5 2.3 2.4 4.2 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 94.6 87.2 90.3 3.6 9.6 6.9 1.8 3.2 2.7 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 92.0 85.8 92.5 7.1 9.3 6.5 .9 4.9 1.1 Sex Male Female 239 263 90.4 89.0 7.5 7.6 2.1 3.4 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 90.2 89.4 7.7 6.9 2.1 3.8 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 90.0 88.9 87.0 93.4 8.1 9.5 6.0 5.3 1.9 1.6 7.0 1.3 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 89.4 93.8 8.1 3.1 2.5 3.1 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 89.7 86.2 89.4 93.4 7.7 10.6 9.6 2.2 2.6 3.3 1.0 4.4 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 88.4 91.4 8.4 6.5 3.2 2.2 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 93.4 88.5 93.3 4.7 10.3 4.0 1.9 1.1 2.7 Gilbert 2010, Page 60 Table 5.3. Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Value of Tax Dollar for Services (N) Question 20b. Please tell me why you are not satisfied with the value you get for your tax dollar. [Total dissatisfied = 38] Reasons for Dissatisfaction N High Taxes 10 Wasteful Spending 10 No Improvement in Services Despite Tax Increases 6 Poor Police and Fire Departments 4 School Money Is Not Well Spent 3 Have to Pay to Get Community Roads Paved 2 Should Not Have to Pay for Services Not Using Like the Schools 2 Falling Home Values But Property Tax Still High 1 Fees for Town Services Are Too High 1 Poor Garbage Service 1 Annex of County Islands 1 Rittenhouse, OtherStreet Repairs Not Finished 1 Note: The number giving each response category is listed rather than the percentages due to the small numbers of dissatisfied respondents. Gilbert 2010, Page 61 Table 5.4. Importance of Town Involvement in Select Programs: A Comparative Profile (%) Question 21a-h. How important do you think it is for Gilbert to be involved in the following? Would you say that it is (1) Very Important, (2) Somewhat Important, (3) Neutral, (4) Somewhat Unimportant, or (5) Not at All Important for Gilbert to be involved in. . ? q21a q21b q21c q21d q21e q21f q21g q21h Providing com m unity parks and parks with a specialty focus - like dog and equestrian parks, etc. Creating m ulti-purpose trails and open space. Providing public transportation / bus service. Providing recreation program s. Providing com m unity special events. Supporting fine arts projects and program s. Supporting historical preservation. Providing com m unity and educational facilities like recreation centers and riparian preserves. Program q21a Community and specialty parks q21b Multi-purpose trails and open space q21c Public transportation/bus service q21d Recreation programs q21e Community special events q21f Fine arts projects and programs q21g Historical preservation q21h Community and educational facilities Mean Score 2.22 2.09 2.08 1.87 2.23 2.32 2.06 1.75 % Very ------- % Not At All Important 1 2 3 4 5 33.1 34.3 37.3 43.0 25.1 26.1 38.0 47.4 37.1 39.8 35.1 37.6 45.6 41.4 37.3 39.4 10.6 13.5 14.3 9.8 14.7 15.3 11.4 7.2 11.4 7.0 7.0 6.2 8.4 8.2 7.2 3.0 7.4 5.2 5.6 2.6 5.6 8.8 6.0 3.0 Don’t Know .6 .2 .8 .8 .6 .2 .2 .0 Note: The mean score is the arithmetic mean of responses on the scale of 1=Very Important to 5=Not at All Important with the ‘Don’t Know’ responses eliminated from the calculation. The lower the mean, the more important the program. Gilbert 2010, Page 62 Table 5.5. Importance of Town Involvement in Community Parks and Specialty Parks (%) Question 21a. Please tell me . . . how important you believe it is for Gilbert to be involved in the [Providing community parks and parks with a specialty focus - like dog and equestrian parks, etc.]. % Very ------- % Not At All Important N 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 502 600 600 602 33.1 44.7 51.2 54.8 37.1 38.3 31.6 30.1 10.6 9.7 8.5 6.6 11.4 4.0 5.0 3.3 7.4 2.8 3.2 4.3 .6 .5 .5 .8 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 30.8 32.1 38.1 36.4 40.5 33.9 11.7 10.7 8.5 12.1 9.5 11.9 7.5 7.1 7.6 1.4 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 50.0 31.0 30.9 26.8 39.6 37.5 8.9 11.8 10.0 10.7 9.6 12.7 3.6 7.5 8.1 *Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 47.3 30.6 28.0 33.0 37.7 38.7 7.1 12.0 11.8 9.8 11.5 11.8 2.7 7.1 9.7 1.1 Sex Male Female 239 263 30.5 35.4 36.8 37.3 10.9 10.3 14.2 8.7 7.1 7.6 .4 .8 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 31.3 37.5 38.4 33.1 11.3 9.4 11.6 11.3 6.8 8.1 .6 .6 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 30.4 38.1 39.0 31.6 39.2 34.9 35.0 32.9 9.6 15.9 10.0 10.5 10.8 9.5 8.0 19.7 9.6 1.6 7.0 3.9 .4 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 32.6 34.4 38.0 29.7 9.7 17.2 11.8 9.4 7.2 9.4 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 35.9 30.9 36.9 27.7 35.9 38.2 33.3 42.3 15.4 11.4 11.6 7.3 10.3 12.2 10.6 11.7 2.6 5.7 7.6 10.2 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 37.3 25.8 34.7 40.9 10.0 11.3 11.3 11.8 6.1 9.7 .6 .5 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 34.0 30.5 37.6 35.8 43.1 29.5 13.2 10.9 10.7 10.4 12.1 10.1 6.6 3.4 11.4 .7 Gilbert 2010, Page 63 .5 .8 1.0 1.3 .7 1.6 .7 Table 5.6. Importance of Town Involvement in Multi-Purpose Trails and Open Space (%) Question 21b. Please tell me . . .how important you believe it is for Gilbert to be involved in [Creating multi-purpose trails and open space]. % Very ------- % Not At All Important N 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 502 600 600 602 34.3 51.0 57.5 56.3 39.8 37.7 29.8 29.7 13.5 6.7 8.0 7.3 7.0 2.8 2.8 3.3 5.2 1.0 1.7 3.0 .2 .8 .2 .3 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 34.6 31.5 38.1 34.6 45.2 42.4 17.3 9.5 12.7 7.9 7.1 4.2 5.1 6.5 2.5 .5 **Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 26.8 39.0 32.4 53.6 32.6 42.1 10.7 18.7 10.4 3.6 4.8 9.3 3.6 4.8 5.8 1.8 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 37.5 36.6 30.1 37.5 38.3 44.1 17.9 14.2 10.2 5.4 3.8 10.2 1.8 6.6 5.4 Sex Male Female 239 263 30.5 37.6 40.2 39.5 14.2 12.9 7.9 6.1 6.7 3.8 .4 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 34.8 34.4 39.3 40.6 14.0 11.9 6.5 8.1 5.1 5.0 .3 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 31.9 39.7 42.0 28.9 38.8 39.7 37.0 47.4 13.5 12.7 11.0 17.1 8.8 4.8 5.0 5.3 6.5 3.2 5.0 1.3 .4 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 33.3 40.6 41.2 31.3 12.7 18.8 7.2 4.7 5.3 4.7 .2 *Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 30.8 35.8 36.4 31.4 25.6 37.4 41.9 42.3 28.2 16.3 10.1 11.7 10.3 5.7 6.1 8.8 2.6 4.9 5.6 5.8 2.6 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 37.0 30.1 39.5 40.3 14.1 12.4 4.8 10.2 4.5 6.5 Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 37.7 26.4 45.6 34.0 46.6 34.2 17.0 16.7 10.1 7.5 5.7 4.7 3.8 4.0 5.4 *Income Gilbert 2010, Page 64 .5 .5 .6 Table 5.7. Importance of Town Involvement in Public Transportation and Bus Service (%) Question 21c. Please tell me . . .how important you believe it is for Gilbert to be involved in [Providing public transportation / bus service]. % Very ------- % Not At All Important N 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 37.3 49.8 49.7 51.2 46.8 35.1 27.0 29.4 24.9 30.3 14.3 11.0 9.4 10.5 12.2 7.0 6.3 6.5 6.5 6.0 5.6 4.5 4.0 6.3 2.7 .8 1.3 1.0 .7 2.0 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 38.8 34.5 38.1 34.1 36.9 34.7 16.4 13.7 11.9 3.7 10.7 7.6 6.1 3.0 7.6 .9 1.2 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 37.5 36.9 37.5 39.3 35.3 34.0 7.1 18.2 13.1 12.5 4.8 7.3 1.8 4.8 6.9 1.8 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 37.5 32.2 41.4 39.3 35.5 32.8 12.5 18.6 12.4 6.3 7.1 6.5 3.6 6.6 5.4 1.6 ***Sex Male Female 239 263 23.4 49.8 41.4 29.3 16.3 12.5 9.6 4.6 8.8 2.7 .4 1.1 *Married? Married Not Married 336 160 33.0 45.6 36.6 32.5 17.0 9.4 6.8 7.5 6.0 3.8 .6 1.3 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 41.5 39.7 32.0 28.9 31.9 34.9 34.0 46.1 12.7 12.7 19.0 15.8 6.9 6.3 9.0 5.3 5.4 6.3 6.0 3.9 1.5 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 35.0 51.6 36.6 26.6 14.8 10.9 6.9 7.8 5.8 3.1 .9 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 46.2 37.4 37.9 32.8 28.2 30.9 34.3 43.1 15.4 17.9 15.2 10.2 5.1 6.5 8.1 5.8 5.1 5.7 3.5 8.0 1.6 1.0 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 35.7 39.2 37.0 32.8 14.8 13.4 6.4 7.5 5.5 5.9 .6 1.1 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 43.4 33.9 36.2 30.2 38.5 37.6 14.2 14.9 11.4 8.5 5.2 7.4 2.8 6.3 7.4 .9 1.1 Age Group Gilbert 2010, Page 65 1.2 .9 Table 5.8. Importance of Town Involvement in Recreation Programs (%) Question 21d. Please tell me. . .how important you believe it is for Gilbert to be involved in [Providing recreation programs]. % Very ------- % Not At All Important N 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 502 600 43.0 52.2 37.6 37.5 9.8 6.7 6.2 2.2 2.6 1.2 .8 .3 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 47.2 39.3 40.7 35.5 37.5 42.4 9.3 13.7 5.1 4.7 6.5 7.6 2.8 1.8 3.4 .5 1.2 .8 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 46.4 46.0 40.2 35.7 34.2 40.5 12.5 9.6 9.3 1.8 8.0 5.8 3.6 2.1 2.7 1.5 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 51.8 40.4 38.7 33.0 38.8 41.9 11.6 9.3 9.7 2.7 8.2 7.0 .9 3.3 1.6 1.1 ***Sex Male Female 239 263 34.7 50.6 39.7 35.7 14.2 5.7 7.5 4.9 3.3 1.9 .4 1.1 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 45.2 39.4 35.4 41.9 9.8 10.0 6.5 5.0 2.1 3.1 .9 .6 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 37.7 47.6 52.0 46.1 39.2 34.9 34.0 39.5 12.3 7.9 7.0 6.6 6.5 6.3 7.0 3.9 3.1 3.2 1.2 2.6 1.3 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 42.1 50.0 37.7 35.9 10.2 7.8 6.3 4.7 3.0 .7 1.6 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 43.6 43.1 45.5 39.4 41.0 42.3 30.8 42.3 7.7 10.6 12.6 5.8 5.1 3.3 7.6 6.6 .8 2.5 5.1 1.0 .7 Employed Not Employed 311 186 45.0 39.2 36.0 40.3 9.6 10.2 6.4 5.9 2.9 2.2 2.2 Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 46.2 42.5 47.0 35.8 38.5 34.9 11.3 10.9 8.7 4.7 6.9 5.4 1.9 Age Group Employed? Income Gilbert 2010, Page 66 2.6 1.1 4.0 Table 5.9. Importance of Town Involvement in Providing Community Special Events (%) Question 21e. Please tell me. . .how important you believe it is for Gilbert to be involved in [Providing community special events]. q Denoted as “special community events in 2007 and 2008. % Very ------- % Not At All Important Don’t Know N 1 2 3 4 5 2010 2009 2008 2007 502 600 600 602 25.1 36.3 36.0 39.7 45.6 46.2 43.8 41.7 14.7 9.7 13.2 10.1 8.4 5.0 4.8 4.8 5.6 2.5 2.2 3.3 .6 .3 North-West Central South 214 168 118 26.6 22.6 26.3 43.0 47.6 48.3 14.5 18.5 10.2 8.4 7.7 8.5 6.5 3.6 5.9 .9 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 28.6 31.0 20.1 42.9 44.9 46.7 21.4 13.9 13.9 6.4 11.6 7.1 3.7 6.6 1.2 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 33.9 23.5 21.5 41.1 47.5 47.3 17.9 15.3 11.3 4.5 7.1 11.8 2.7 6.0 7.0 .5 1.1 Sex Male Female 239 263 20.9 28.9 44.8 46.4 15.9 13.7 10.5 6.5 7.5 3.8 .4 .8 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 23.5 28.1 46.7 43.8 15.8 13.1 8.3 8.8 5.1 6.3 .6 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 21.2 20.6 37.0 26.3 43.5 54.0 39.0 55.3 16.9 14.3 12.0 11.8 10.8 6.3 8.0 2.6 7.3 4.8 3.0 2.6 .4 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 25.0 25.0 45.1 48.4 15.0 14.1 8.8 6.3 5.6 6.3 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 30.8 25.2 23.7 25.5 48.7 49.6 42.9 44.5 10.3 15.4 18.2 10.9 5.1 7.3 8.1 10.9 5.1 1.6 7.1 7.3 **Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 26.7 21.5 47.6 43.0 15.8 13.4 6.4 11.3 3.2 9.7 .3 1.1 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 31.1 25.3 24.8 41.5 47.7 45.0 18.9 13.8 14.1 3.8 8.0 9.4 4.7 4.6 6.0 .6 .7 Gilbert Area *Length Resid Age Group Gilbert 2010, Page 67 .3 .8 1.0 1.3 .5 .8 .7 Table 5.10. Importance of Town Involvement in Fine Arts Projects and Programs (%) Question 21f. Please tell me. . .how important you believe it is for Gilbert to be involved in [Supporting fine arts projects and programs]. N % Very ------- % Not At All Important 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 26.1 32.3 38.8 38.0 41.2 41.4 43.8 36.6 40.5 41.5 15.3 13.5 13.0 8.8 10.5 8.2 6.0 7.5 7.0 2.8 8.8 4.0 3.7 5.1 3.7 .2 .3 .3 .5 .3 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 30.4 20.8 26.3 36.0 46.4 44.9 17.3 14.3 13.6 7.0 8.3 9.3 8.9 10.1 5.9 .5 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 28.6 27.8 24.3 48.2 40.6 40.5 10.7 14.4 17.0 3.6 8.6 8.9 8.9 8.6 8.9 .4 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 36.6 19.1 26.3 39.3 42.1 43.0 11.6 19.1 14.0 6.3 7.7 9.7 6.3 12.0 6.5 .5 Male Female 239 263 19.2 32.3 42.3 40.7 15.5 15.2 10.5 6.1 12.6 5.3 .4 *Married? Married Not Married 336 160 22.0 33.8 44.6 35.6 14.6 17.5 8.9 6.9 9.5 6.3 .3 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 27.3 28.6 25.0 21.1 38.1 47.6 39.0 52.6 16.5 11.1 15.0 15.8 8.8 6.3 7.0 7.9 8.8 6.3 14.0 2.6 .4 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 25.2 32.8 41.0 42.2 15.7 14.1 8.8 4.7 9.0 6.3 .2 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 28.2 28.5 24.2 26.3 43.6 37.4 42.4 43.1 17.9 17.1 13.6 15.3 5.1 9.8 7.1 9.5 5.1 7.3 12.1 5.8 Employed Not Employed 311 186 27.7 23.1 41.2 43.0 14.8 15.6 7.7 9.1 8.7 8.6 Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 38.7 25.9 20.8 34.0 43.1 45.0 13.2 16.1 17.4 11.3 6.9 6.7 2.8 8.0 10.1 *Age Group ***Sex Employed? *Income Gilbert 2010, Page 68 .5 .5 Table 5.11. Importance of Town Involvement in Historical Preservation (%) Question 21g. Please tell me. . .how important you believe it is for Gilbert to be involved in [Supporting historical preservation]. % Very ------- % Not At All Important N 1 2 3 4 5 Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 38.0 44.8 49.5 52.2 48.2 37.3 37.3 36.5 31.9 39.3 11.4 12.2 7.5 7.5 6.8 7.2 3.8 4.0 5.6 2.7 6.0 1.3 2.0 2.5 1.8 .2 .5 .5 .3 1.2 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 43.0 32.1 36.4 31.3 42.3 41.5 13.1 9.5 11.0 7.5 7.1 6.8 5.1 8.3 4.2 .6 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 41.1 36.9 38.2 39.3 36.9 37.1 10.7 13.4 10.0 5.4 7.5 7.3 3.6 4.8 7.3 .5 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 41.1 33.3 39.8 38.4 42.1 33.3 12.5 12.0 10.2 3.6 7.1 9.1 4.5 5.5 7.0 .5 Male Female 239 263 31.4 44.1 39.3 35.4 13.8 9.1 7.9 6.5 7.5 4.6 .4 Married Not Married 336 160 35.4 43.8 39.6 31.9 11.0 12.5 7.7 6.3 6.3 5.0 .6 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 38.8 49.2 38.0 27.6 32.7 36.5 38.0 52.6 14.2 4.8 10.0 9.2 5.8 7.9 9.0 7.9 8.1 1.6 5.0 2.6 .4 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 36.6 45.3 36.6 42.2 11.8 9.4 8.1 1.6 6.7 1.6 .2 *Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 43.6 46.3 32.3 35.8 30.8 30.9 39.9 41.6 7.7 8.9 13.1 12.4 7.7 9.8 7.1 5.1 7.7 4.1 7.6 5.1 2.6 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 39.9 34.4 37.6 37.1 12.2 9.7 6.1 9.1 4.2 9.1 Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 40.6 39.1 38.3 35.8 37.9 38.9 12.3 10.3 11.4 6.6 6.3 6.7 4.7 6.3 4.7 *Sex Married? Income Gilbert 2010, Page 69 .5 Table 5.12. Importance of Town Involvement in Facilities Like Recreation Centers and Riparian Preserves (%) Question 21h. Please tell me. . .how important you believe it is for Gilbert to be involved in [Providing community and educational facilities like recreation centers and riparian preserves]. % Very ------- % Not At All Important N 1 2 3 4 5 Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 502 600 600 602 47.4 60.8 68.4 66.9 39.4 32.7 25.3 23.3 7.2 4.5 3.3 5.5 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.2 3.0 .7 1.0 2.0 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 45.3 47.6 50.8 42.1 38.1 37.3 5.1 10.7 5.9 4.7 1.8 1.7 2.8 1.8 4.2 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 44.6 51.3 45.2 42.9 34.8 42.1 7.1 8.6 6.2 3.6 1.1 4.2 1.8 4.3 2.3 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 53.6 43.2 46.2 34.8 42.6 40.9 8.0 7.1 7.0 1.8 2.7 4.3 1.8 4.4 1.6 *Sex Male Female 239 263 40.2 54.0 44.4 35.0 7.9 6.5 2.9 3.0 4.6 1.5 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 47.0 48.1 41.1 36.9 7.4 6.9 2.1 4.4 2.4 3.8 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 42.7 50.8 50.0 56.6 41.2 41.3 37.0 36.8 8.1 4.8 9.0 3.9 4.6 1.6 1.0 1.3 3.5 1.6 3.0 1.3 *Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 44.9 64.1 41.2 26.6 7.4 6.3 3.0 3.1 3.5 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 56.4 55.3 43.9 42.3 30.8 37.4 38.9 45.3 10.3 4.1 10.6 4.4 2.6 2.4 2.0 4.4 .8 4.5 3.6 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 50.5 41.4 36.3 45.7 7.1 7.5 2.9 3.2 3.2 2.2 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 49.1 47.1 48.3 38.7 40.8 40.3 6.6 8.0 5.4 2.8 3.4 2.0 2.8 .6 4.0 Gilbert 2010, Page 70 Table 5.13. Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars on Services: A Comparative Profile (%) Question 24a-i. Now I am going to read a number of items and I would like to know if you think the Town should be spending more, spending about the same, or spending less tax dollars as now on each item. More Same Less Don’t Know 24a. Fire Department 22.9 70.5 3.0 3.6 24b. Police Department 24.5 67.1 4.8 3.6 24c. Developing older downtown Gilbert 20.3 42.8 31.5 5.4 24d. Repairing and maintaining streets 14.3 75.7 7.6 2.4 9.2 82.1 3.0 5.8 24f. Parks facilities 10.4 72.7 13.1 3.8 24g. Recreation programs and facilities 15.5 63.3 15.9 5.2 24h. Library 18.5 69.5 5.2 6.8 24i. Public transportation / bus service 30.1 40.4 15.1 14.3 Service/Policy Area 24e. Water & sewer facilities Gilbert 2010, Page 71 Table 5.14. Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars: Fire Department (%) Question 24a. [Should] the Town be spending more, spending about the same, or spending less tax dollars as now on [the Fire Department]? N More Same Less Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 22.9 27.7 27.8 33.2 36.5 70.5 61.5 64.4 58.6 53.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 1.2 1.0 3.6 7.8 4.3 7.0 9.0 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 25.7 17.9 25.4 65.9 75.6 71.2 4.2 2.4 1.7 4.2 4.2 1.7 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 17.9 20.3 25.9 76.8 71.1 68.7 1.8 4.3 2.3 3.6 4.3 3.1 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 20.5 24.0 24.2 72.3 70.5 70.4 .9 2.7 3.2 6.3 2.7 2.2 Sex Male Female 239 263 19.2 26.2 72.8 68.4 4.6 1.5 3.3 3.8 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 22.9 23.1 71.7 68.8 3.0 3.1 2.4 5.0 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 23.8 25.4 25.0 15.8 70.0 68.3 66.0 81.6 3.1 4.8 2.0 2.6 3.1 1.6 7.0 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 21.8 28.1 70.6 71.9 3.5 4.2 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 20.5 20.3 22.2 27.0 71.8 74.0 71.2 66.4 2.6 2.4 3.5 2.9 5.1 3.3 3.0 3.6 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 23.8 21.5 69.8 72.0 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.2 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 22.6 24.1 25.5 71.7 70.1 69.1 .9 3.4 3.4 4.7 2.3 2.0 Gilbert 2010, Page 72 Table 5.15. Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars: Police Department (%) Question 24b. [Should] the Town be spending more, spending about the same, or spending less tax dollars as now on [the Police Department]? N More Same Less Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 24.5 36.0 40.0 39.7 49.8 67.1 52.3 52.3 52.7 41.8 4.8 4.0 3.3 1.5 1.5 3.6 7.7 4.3 6.1 6.8 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 24.8 22.0 27.1 66.4 68.5 66.9 5.1 5.4 3.4 3.7 4.2 2.5 *Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 19.6 23.0 26.6 71.4 65.2 67.6 1.8 8.6 2.7 7.1 3.2 3.1 **Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 25.9 26.2 21.5 61.6 65.6 73.1 3.6 6.6 3.2 8.9 1.6 2.2 Sex Male Female 239 263 23.4 25.5 68.2 66.2 5.4 4.2 2.9 4.2 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 24.1 25.6 68.5 65.0 4.8 5.0 2.7 4.4 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 25.4 31.7 24.0 17.1 68.5 63.5 65.0 69.7 3.8 4.8 6.0 6.6 2.3 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 23.8 26.6 67.1 71.9 5.3 1.6 3.7 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 17.9 20.3 24.7 29.9 76.9 69.9 66.7 62.8 2.6 4.1 6.1 4.4 2.6 5.7 2.5 2.9 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 27.7 19.4 64.3 72.0 4.8 4.8 3.2 3.8 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 19.8 28.2 27.5 71.7 64.4 65.1 3.8 4.6 6.0 4.7 2.9 1.3 Gilbert 2010, Page 73 5.0 6.6 Table 5.16. Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars: Developing Older Downtown Gilbert (%) Question 24c. [Should] the Town be spending more, spending about the same, or spending less tax dollars as now on [Developing older downtown Gilbert]? N More Same Less Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 20.3 29.7 31.6 28.7 30.3 42.8 38.3 46.3 47.2 47.3 31.5 24.5 19.1 17.3 13.3 5.4 7.5 3.0 6.8 9.0 **Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 23.8 20.8 13.6 41.6 45.8 39.8 29.4 25.6 44.1 5.1 7.7 2.5 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 28.6 20.3 18.5 41.1 44.4 42.1 23.2 30.5 34.0 7.1 4.8 5.4 *Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 29.5 21.3 14.0 36.6 42.1 48.4 27.7 33.9 31.2 6.3 2.7 6.5 *Sex Male Female 239 263 20.5 20.2 38.9 46.4 36.8 26.6 3.8 6.8 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 21.1 18.8 43.5 41.9 31.8 31.3 3.6 8.1 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 18.1 30.2 18.0 22.4 42.3 47.6 42.0 43.4 32.3 22.2 33.0 34.2 7.3 **Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 18.1 35.9 43.3 40.6 32.9 21.9 5.8 1.6 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 20.5 25.2 19.2 17.5 51.3 46.3 39.4 42.3 23.1 22.0 36.9 35.8 5.1 6.5 4.5 4.4 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 20.6 19.9 45.7 38.2 30.2 33.9 3.5 8.1 *Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 23.6 20.7 22.1 41.5 46.0 40.9 25.5 30.5 35.6 9.4 2.9 1.3 Gilbert 2010, Page 74 7.0 Table 5.17. Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars: Repairing and Maintaining Streets (%) Question 24d. [Should] the Town be spending more, spending about the same, or spending less tax dollars as now on [Repairing and maintaining streets]? N More Same Less Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 14.3 24.2 28.6 36.7 32.3 75.7 67.5 67.7 56.1 61.3 7.6 3.7 2.3 2.5 1.8 2.4 4.7 1.3 4.7 4.5 **Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 10.3 13.1 23.7 79.4 75.6 68.6 9.3 6.5 5.9 .9 4.8 1.7 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 8.9 13.9 15.8 83.9 72.2 76.4 5.4 10.2 6.2 1.8 3.7 1.5 *Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 19.6 13.7 12.9 67.0 73.8 82.8 9.8 10.4 3.2 3.6 2.2 1.1 Sex Male Female 239 263 14.6 14.1 75.7 75.7 7.5 7.6 2.1 2.7 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 12.5 18.1 77.7 72.5 8.3 5.6 1.5 3.8 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 14.2 17.5 13.0 13.2 76.5 74.6 72.0 80.3 7.3 7.9 9.0 6.6 1.9 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 14.1 15.6 75.2 78.1 7.9 6.3 2.8 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 17.9 17.9 14.6 10.2 76.9 72.4 77.3 75.9 2.6 7.3 6.6 10.9 2.6 2.4 1.5 2.9 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 15.8 12.4 74.0 79.0 7.7 7.0 2.6 1.6 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 19.8 13.2 10.7 71.7 78.2 77.2 6.6 7.5 10.1 1.9 1.1 2.0 Gilbert 2010, Page 75 6.0 Table 5.18. Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars: Water and Sewer Facilities (%) Question 24e. [Should] the Town be spending more, spending about the same, or spending less tax dollars as now on [Water and sewer facilities]? N More Same Less Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 9.2 11.5 17.4 18.3 20.7 82.1 76.2 74.7 71.3 69.0 3.0 2.3 2.3 2.5 1.7 5.8 10.0 5.5 8.0 8.7 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 9.3 7.1 11.9 84.1 81.0 79.7 2.3 3.6 3.4 4.2 8.3 5.1 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 7.1 7.0 11.2 82.1 83.4 81.1 1.8 3.7 2.7 8.9 5.9 5.0 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 5.4 8.2 12.4 82.1 85.2 79.6 3.6 2.7 2.7 8.9 3.8 5.4 Sex Male Female 239 263 8.8 9.5 85.4 79.1 2.9 3.0 2.9 8.4 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 8.6 10.6 84.2 78.1 2.7 3.8 4.5 7.5 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 10.4 7.9 9.0 6.6 78.5 90.5 83.0 88.2 5.0 1.6 1.0 6.2 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 8.6 12.5 82.9 78.1 3.0 3.1 5.6 6.3 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 12.8 8.1 7.1 12.4 82.1 81.3 84.8 78.8 4.1 3.0 2.9 5.1 6.5 5.1 5.8 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 8.0 10.8 84.9 78.0 2.6 3.8 4.5 7.5 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 8.5 9.8 8.1 79.2 84.5 85.2 3.8 2.9 3.4 8.5 2.9 3.4 Gilbert 2010, Page 76 7.0 5.3 Table 5.19. Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars: Parks (%) Question 24f. [Should] the Town be spending more, spending about the same, or spending less tax dollars as now on [Parks facilities]? N More Same Less Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 502 600 10.4 17.2 72.7 71.8 13.1 5.2 3.8 5.8 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 9.8 9.5 12.7 72.4 73.8 71.2 13.6 11.9 14.4 4.2 4.8 1.7 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 12.5 12.3 8.5 69.6 71.1 74.5 14.3 12.3 13.5 3.6 4.3 3.5 **Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 17.0 12.0 4.8 65.2 73.2 77.4 13.4 13.7 12.4 4.5 1.1 5.4 *Sex Male Female 239 263 10.0 10.6 70.7 74.5 17.2 9.5 2.1 5.3 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 10.1 11.3 75.0 68.8 12.8 13.1 2.1 6.9 *Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 7.3 17.5 16.0 7.9 72.3 68.3 71.0 81.6 15.4 14.3 8.0 10.5 5.0 *Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 9.0 20.3 73.6 65.6 13.0 14.1 4.4 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 7.7 9.8 13.6 7.3 74.4 77.2 66.7 77.4 12.8 9.8 16.7 10.9 5.1 3.3 3.0 4.4 **Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 12.5 6.5 73.3 72.0 12.2 15.1 1.9 6.5 **Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 14.2 10.3 10.7 68.9 73.0 75.8 8.5 14.9 12.8 8.5 1.7 .7 Gilbert 2010, Page 77 5.0 Table 5.20. Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars: Recreation Programs and Facilities (%) Question 24g. [Should] the Town be spending more, spending about the same, or spending less tax dollars as now on [Recreation programs and facilities]? N More Same Less Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 502 600 15.5 21.3 63.3 63.7 15.9 9.5 5.2 5.5 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 13.1 17.3 17.8 66.8 60.7 60.2 14.0 15.5 20.3 6.1 6.5 1.7 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 16.1 16.6 14.7 62.5 62.0 64.5 16.1 17.1 15.1 5.4 4.3 5.8 ***Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 22.3 19.1 6.5 60.7 58.5 72.6 11.6 20.8 13.4 5.4 1.6 7.5 **Sex Male Female 239 263 12.1 18.6 61.9 64.6 21.8 10.6 4.2 6.1 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 16.1 14.4 64.3 61.9 16.1 15.6 3.6 8.1 ***Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 8.5 23.8 28.0 17.1 67.3 58.7 52.0 71.1 17.3 14.3 15.0 11.8 6.9 3.2 5.0 **Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 13.4 29.7 64.1 56.3 16.7 12.5 5.8 1.6 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 15.4 14.6 16.7 15.3 61.5 68.3 59.1 65.0 12.8 10.6 20.7 15.3 10.3 6.5 3.5 4.4 **Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 19.0 9.7 62.1 65.6 15.8 16.7 3.2 8.1 *Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 16.0 19.5 15.4 63.2 60.9 64.4 12.3 14.4 19.5 8.5 5.2 .7 Gilbert 2010, Page 78 Table 5.21. Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars: Library (%) Question 24h. [Should] the Town be spending more, spending about the same, or spending less tax dollars as now on [the Library]? N More Same Less Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 502 600 18.5 23.8 69.5 64.3 5.2 5.3 6.8 6.5 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 18.2 16.1 22.9 67.3 73.2 67.8 6.5 3.6 5.1 7.9 7.1 4.2 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 12.5 22.5 17.0 76.8 65.2 71.0 3.6 5.3 5.4 7.1 7.0 6.6 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 17.0 23.0 15.1 68.8 68.9 72.0 5.4 3.8 4.8 8.9 4.4 8.1 Sex Male Female 239 263 17.6 19.4 68.6 70.3 6.7 3.8 7.1 6.5 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 19.3 16.9 71.1 67.5 3.9 7.5 5.7 8.1 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 15.8 22.2 21.0 22.4 68.5 69.8 69.0 75.0 6.9 3.2 4.0 1.3 8.8 4.8 6.0 1.3 **Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 16.2 34.4 70.8 59.4 5.8 1.6 7.2 4.7 **Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 15.4 18.7 14.1 25.5 74.4 76.4 70.2 61.3 .8 9.1 5.1 10.3 4.1 6.6 8.0 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 18.0 18.3 71.1 68.8 4.8 5.9 6.1 7.0 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 20.8 19.0 20.1 67.9 72.4 67.8 3.8 2.3 7.4 7.5 6.3 4.7 Gilbert 2010, Page 79 Table 5.22. Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars: Public Transit (%) Question 24i. [Should] the Town be spending more, spending about the same, or spending less tax dollars as now on [Public transportation / bus service]? N More Same Less Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 30.1 34.8 40.3 38.2 39.0 40.4 37.0 39.0 38.2 34.8 15.1 12.8 11.2 11.8 11.8 14.3 15.3 9.5 11.8 14.3 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 29.4 28.6 33.1 42.5 44.0 32.2 13.6 13.1 20.3 14.5 14.3 14.4 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 19.6 32.6 30.5 48.2 38.0 40.5 14.3 18.7 12.7 17.9 10.7 16.2 **Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 27.7 30.6 31.7 45.5 40.4 38.7 17.0 19.7 8.6 9.8 9.3 21.0 **Sex Male Female 239 263 25.1 34.6 44.4 36.9 19.2 11.4 11.3 17.1 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 28.6 32.5 42.9 36.9 15.8 13.1 12.8 17.5 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 31.9 36.5 24.0 27.6 38.8 42.9 39.0 46.1 12.7 15.9 20.0 15.8 16.5 4.8 17.0 10.5 *Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 27.8 46.9 42.1 32.8 15.7 10.9 14.4 9.4 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 33.3 30.9 30.8 27.0 41.0 40.7 39.4 42.3 5.1 15.4 17.2 14.6 20.5 13.0 12.6 16.1 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 29.9 30.1 40.5 40.9 17.4 11.8 12.2 17.2 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 31.1 31.0 28.2 37.7 40.2 45.0 11.3 15.5 17.4 19.8 13.2 9.4 Gilbert 2010, Page 80 6. Evaluation of Town Services In the final set of substantive questions, Gilbert respondents evaluated sixteen Town services and were asked to cite specific causes of dissatisfaction with those services. W e asked them which two Town services are m ost im portant, which com m unity events they attend, how often they use the Town’s parks and recreational facilities, which facilities are used, and what reasons they have for infrequent use of the parks and facilities. Finally, respondents were asked how safe they feel their residence is, how safe they are personally from crim es of violence, and how safe they feel when driving. Evaluation of Service Delivery The 502 respondents rated all sixteen services on a scale of 1=Very Satisfied, 2=Som ewhat Satisfied, 3=Som ewhat Dissatisfied, and 4=Very Dissatisfied. A m ean score was calculated with ‘No opinion’ responses excluded. A 1.00 is the highest rating possible and 4.00 the lowest. The m ean score is used to rank services because it factors in the intensity of satisfaction and dissatisfaction and bases the rankings only on the responses of those who have an opinion of each service. Table 6.1 shows the rank-order of services from m ost to least satisfactory. Service Fire Departm ent Garbage Collection Police Departm ent Uncontained Refuse Collection Recycling Program Parks Library 2010 Mean Score 1.27 1.27 1.40 1.40 1.41 1.42 1.44 2009 Mean Score 1.31 1.35 1.46 1.49 1.46 1.42 1.45 2008 Mean Score 1.27 1.32 1.39 1.45 1.38 * * 2007 Mean Score 1.30 1.40 1.44 1.57 1.46 * * Recreation Nuisance Rem oval W ater Street Repair and Maintenance 1.62 1.63 1.69 1.77 1.60 1.66 1.65 1.79 * 1.68 1.55 1.76 * 1.65 1.63 1.88 Traffic Movem ent Building Code Enforcem ent Planning and Zoning Econom ic Developm ent Public Transportation, Buses 1.88 1.89 1.94 2.00 2.38 1.96 1.85 1.92 1.98 2.42 1.98 1.77 1.89 1.86 2.29 2.16 1.73 1.94 1.79 2.40 * Evaluation of parks and recreation were com bined until 2008 so com parisons cannot be m ade for 2008 and 2007. Sim ilarly, the library was added in 2009 and there is no data for com parison with 2008 and 2007. Satisfaction is close to last year’s levels with several services im proving on the m ean satisfaction score. Dissatisfaction with service is felt by relatively sm all percentages of residents, with the exception that nearly oneGilbert 2010, Page 81 quarter of Gilbert respondents are dissatisfied with public transportation. See Table 6.1. Tables 6.2 through 6.17 display the crosstabulated evaluations for these service areas. Below are listed the overall results and any significant subgroup variances in satisfaction. Street Repair and M aintenance As seen in Table 6.2, satisfaction with street repair and m aintenance has changed little since last year and rem ains ranked eleventh in overall satisfaction am ong 16 services. Am ong Gilbert respondents • • • • • 37.8% 48.4% 9.8% 2.8% 1.2% are very satisfied with street repair and m aintenance. are generally satisfied, are som ewhat dissatisfied, are very dissatisfied, and have no opinion. Relatively higher satisfaction levels are found am ong Anglos, the not em ployed, and those with two or m ore children at hom e. M ovement of Traffic Table 6.3 shows that Gilbert respondents continue to see im provem ents in the m ovem ent of traffic. Traffic has risen to rank twelfth am ong the 16 services in satisfaction. Am ong respondents, • • • • • 30.3% 52.8% 13.7% 2.4% .8% are very satisfied, are generally satisfied, are som ewhat dissatisfied, are very dissatisfied, and have no opinion. Higher percentages of respondents aged 18 to 35 and 51 or older are satisfied with traffic m ovem ent. Building Code Enforcement Respondents were again less satisfied with the Town’s enforcem ent of its building code. Enforcem ent dropped to thirteenth in resident satisfaction, with 41.2% having no opinion. Table 6.4's data indicate that • • • • • 15.5% 36.5% 4.6% 2.2% 41.2% are very satisfied, are generally satisfied, are som ewhat dissatisfied, are very dissatisfied, and have no opinion. Male residents are m ore satisfied with code enforcem ent than are fem ales. W ater Satisfaction with water has declined again since last year and it ranks tenth am ong services. Table 6.5 dem onstrates that Gilbert 2010, Page 82 • • • • • 45.8% 42.4% 6.8% 4.0% 1.0% are very satisfied with the Town water, are generally satisfied, are som ewhat dissatisfied, are very dissatisfied, and have no opinion. Satisfaction with Gilbert water is slightly higher am ong em ployed respondents. Garbage Collection Garbage collection is tied with the Fire departm ent for first place am ong the 16 services in respondent satisfaction which increased to 97%. As seen in Table 6.6, • • • • • 74.9% 22.1% 1.4% .6% 1.0% are very satisfied with garbage service, are generally satisfied, are som ewhat dissatisfied, are very dissatisfied, and have no opinion. Respondents aged 51 and older lightly m ore satisfied than their counterparts with Gilbert’s garbage collection service. Recycling The data in Table 6.7 shows that recycling rem ained in fifth place in respondent satisfaction. • • • • • 60.6% 33.5% 2.8% .4% 2.8% are very satisfied with the recycling program , are generally satisfied, are som ewhat dissatisfied, are very dissatisfied, and have no opinion. Satisfaction is uniform across dem ographic subgroups. Removal of W eeds, Junk Cars, and Similar Annoyances Table 6.8 shows that nuisance rem oval im proved to rank ninth in respondent satisfaction. Today, • • • • • 43.0% 39.8% 6.2% 1.8% 9.2% are very satisfied with nuisance rem oval, are generally satisfied, are som ewhat dissatisfied, are very dissatisfied, and have no opinion. Parks Parks in Gilbert dropped from third to sixth place am ong the 16 services rated but was in a cluster of services very close in their m ean satisfaction scores. Table 6.9 shows that, • • • • • 60.6% 35.1% 2.0% .6% 1.8% are very satisfied, are generally satisfied, are som ewhat dissatisfied, are very dissatisfied, and have no opinion. Satisfaction with parks is higher am ong Anglo respondents. Gilbert 2010, Page 83 Recreation Table 6.10 shows that recreation rem ains in eighth place in resident satisfaction am ong 16 Town services. Overall, • • • • • 38.8% 47.4% 3.8% .4% 9.6% are very satisfied, are generally satisfied, are som ewhat dissatisfied, are very dissatisfied, and have no opinion. Respondents with two or m ore children are relatively m ore satisfied with Gilbert’s recreation opportunities. Library Table 6.11 shows that the library ranks seventh in resident satisfaction, but was one of a cluster of services that earned scores very close together. • • • • • 51.6% 31.1% 2.2% .8% 14.3% are very satisfied, are generally satisfied, are som ewhat dissatisfied, are very dissatisfied, and have no opinion. Satisfaction with Gilbert’s library increased with age and length of residence. It is higher am ong those with two or m ore children at hom e. Fire Department Gilbert's Fire Departm ent is tied with Garbage Collection for first place am ong services in respondent satisfaction, which increases with age and length of residence. Table 6.12 shows that • • • • • 69.9% 24.1% .6% .0% 5.4% are very satisfied with the Fire Departm ent, are generally satisfied, are som ewhat dissatisfied, are very dissatisfied, and have no opinion. Police Department Gilbert's Police Departm ent now ties with Uncontained Refuse College for third rank in respondent satisfaction. Table 6.13 shows that am ong the 502 respondents, • • • • • 65.1% 27.9% 2.8% 1.8% 2.4% are very satisfied, are generally satisfied, are som ewhat dissatisfied, are very dissatisfied, and have no opinion. Planning and Zoning Planning and Zoning ranks fourteenth in satisfaction am ong services. Married respondents are m ore satisfied than the unm arried. Table 6.14 shows that Gilbert 2010, Page 84 • • • • • 18.7% 43.8% 8.4% 3.0% 26.1% are very satisfied, are generally satisfied, are som ewhat dissatisfied, are very dissatisfied, and have no opinion. Uncontained Refuse Collection Uncontained refuse collection has im proved from seventh rank to tie with the Police Departm ent for third place to fourth rank am ong services in respondent satisfaction. Table 6.15 shows that • • • • • 60.4% 28.9% 2.6% 1.2% 7.0% are very satisfied, are generally satisfied, are som ewhat dissatisfied, are very dissatisfied, and have no opinion. Satisfaction increases with length of residence. Economic Development Econom ic developm ent rem ains in fifteenth place am ong services but two of every three respondents were satisfied with the Town’s efforts in this area. As seen in Table 6.16, • • • • • 17.1% 51.4% 11.6% 2.8% 17.1% are very satisfied with the Town’s prom otion of econom ic developm ent, are generally satisfied, are som ewhat dissatisfied, are very dissatisfied, and have no opinion. Satisfaction with econom ic developm ent is higher am ong fem ale and m arried respondents, those with two or m ore children, and those with incom es of $100,000 or m ore. Public Transportation and Bus Service Once again public transportation is ranked last or sixteenth in satisfaction am ong services. Nearly half have no opinion on public transportation which m ay indicate little experience using it. Table 6.17 shows that • • • • • 6.4% 29.1% 10.2% 8.4% 46.0% are very satisfied, are generally satisfied, are som ewhat dissatisfied, are very dissatisfied, and have no opinion. Ratings of public transportation and bus service are higher am ong Anglo respondents. Reasons for Dissatisfaction Respondents who expressed dissatisfaction were asked to volunteer why they felt that way. The lack of frequent bus service rem ains the m ost cited reason for dissatisfaction (by 11.4% com pared to nearly 14.7% last year). Traffic, street, and public transportation issues together were cited by 47.2% of respondents. Table 6.18 details 129 specific reasons for dissatisfaction by service areas. Gilbert 2010, Page 85 Again, the responses were m ore dispersed and specific than in the past. Five reasons were listed by 5% or m ore of all respondents. These are: Reason Lack of frequent bus service Need for m ore routes, bus stops in outlying areas Poor planning of developm ent Inadequate nuisance rem oval Lack of quality developm ent, jobs N 57 38 35 28 26 % of All 11.2 7.6 7.0 5.6 5.2 Top Service Priorities Gilbert respondents placed em phasis on police and fire services, street repairs, public transportation, recreation program s, and internet service when asked which services should be the top priorities for the Town. Table 6.19 shows that the following services were listed by 5% or m ore. • • • • • • • • • 66.3% 51.2% 19.5% 13.3% 12.5% 11.2% 7.4% 7.0% 7.0% Police Fire Street Repair and Maintenance Public Transportation Recreation Program s Internet Service Downtown Developm ent Library Em ergency Services Participation in Community Events, Recreational Programs, and Usage of Parks and Recreation W e asked about attendance at Gilbert’s com m unity special events, enrollm ent in recreational program s, usage of Town parks or recreation facilities, reasons for not using these program s and facilities, and the specific parks or recreational facilities used by respondents. Table 6.20 shows that the respondents recalled attendance in 23 com m unity events. Som e respondents were uncertain about the precise nam e for events, and som e events m entioned were sponsored by churches or private organizations. The events m entioned by 5% or m ore include those listed below. • • • • • • 39.8% 13.0% 8.0% 5.4% 5.4% 5.2% Gilbert Days Fireworks, 4 th of July Concerts in the Park Holiday Nights of Light Events at Freestone Park, General Halloween Event Table 6.21 lists the 11 general recreation program s and leagues, 26 specific sport and athletic classes, and 15 craft and other classes and program s in which respondents or their fam ily m em bers have participated. Again, not all are Town-sponsored. Five item s were cited by 5% or m ore of all respondents. • • • • • 7.4% 5.4% 5.2% 5.0% 5.0% Swim m ing classes Soccer Dance classes General fitness program s at the Recreation Centers Children’s program s and classes Gilbert 2010, Page 86 Table 6.22 indicates that over eight in 10 Gilbert respondents use Town parks and recreational facilities either frequently or a few tim es a year. These usage rates have not changed in recent years. • • • • 31.3% 30.7% 19.7% 18.3% W eekly or More Frequent Usage 1 to 2 Tim es a Month 3 to 4 Tim es a Year No Usage. Respondents aged 18 to 50, the em ployed, the m arried, those resident 3 to 5 years, those with children at hom e, and those with incom es of $50,000 or m ore are the m ost frequent users of Gilbert’s parks and recreation facilities. Table 6.23 lists the 27 parks and recreation facilities cited by 311 frequent users as the facilities they use. Those m entioned by 5% or m ore of all respondents are listed below. • • • • • • 37.2% 14.8% 12.6% 10.2% 6.6% 5.0% Freestone Park Cosm o Dog Park Discovery Park Basins, Riparian Preserves Neighborhood Facilities and Parks McQueen Park Table 6.24 lists the seven personal and six program /facility reasons for lim ited participation given by the 189 respondents whose households have little or no usage of parks and recreation facilities. The top three reasons given are: Personal Reason Lack of tim e, Too busy Age, Health Concerns Not interested N 51 24 23 % of All 10.3 4.8 4.6 Facility Reason Use Own or HOA facilities 41 8.2 Of the reasons given for nonparticipation, 131 cited personal issues and preferences and 59 listed concerns about program s and facilities. Only 21 involved perceived inadequacies of Town facilities and program s. Residential, Personal, and Driving Safety A solid 95% or m ore of Gilbert respondents feel safe in their hom es, from personal attacks, and also feel safe when driving on Gilbert’s streets. As seen in Tables 6.25, 6.26, and 6.27 • • • • • 54.0% 42.4% 3.0% .2% .4% feel their residence is very safe from vandalism , burglary, or theft, feel their hom e is generally safe, feel it is som ewhat unsafe, feel it is very unsafe, and have no opinion. Gilbert 2010, Page 87 • • • • 61.2% 37.3% 1.0% .6% feel they personally are very safe from attack or being held up, feel generally safe, feel som ewhat unsafe, and have no opinion. • • • • • 56.8% 39.2% 1.8% .6% 1.6% feel they are safe driving on Gilbert’s streets, feel generally safe, feel som ewhat unsafe, feel very unsafe, and have no opinion. The only significant intergroup differences are that m ales feel som ewhat safer from violent crim es and the em ployed, m arried, and respondents with two or m ore children at hom e feel safer driving on Gilbert streets. Gilbert 2010, Page 88 Table 6.1. Satisfaction with Services Delivery by Gilbert: A Comparative Profile (%) Question 22a-p. Please tell me if you are Very Satisfied, Generally Satisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, or Very Dissatisfied with Gilbert's services in each of the following areas. [Services ranked by mean satisfaction score from high to low satisfaction based on respondents’ evaluations.] Questions 22a to 22p. Service Areas Mean Score % Very Satisfied----->% Very Dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Garbage Collection Fire Department Police Department Uncontained Refuse Collection Recycling Program Parks Library 1.27 1.27 1.40 1.40 1.41 1.42 1.44 74.9 69.9 65.1 60.4 60.6 60.6 51.6 22.1 24.1 27.9 28.9 33.5 35.1 31.1 1.4 .6 2.8 2.6 2.8 2.0 2.2 .6 .0 1.8 1.2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 5.4 2.4 7.0 2.8 1.8 14.3 Recreation Nuisance Removal (Weeds, Cars, Etc.) Water Street Repair & Maintenance 1.62 1.63 1.69 1.77 38.8 43.0 45.8 37.8 47.4 39.8 42.4 48.4 3.8 6.2 6.8 9.8 .4 1.8 4.0 2.8 9.6 9.2 1.0 1.2 Movement of Traffic Building Code Enforcement Planning & Zoning Economic Development Public Transportation, Bus Service 1.88 1.89 1.94 2.00 2.38 30.3 15.5 18.7 17.1 6.4 52.8 36.5 43.8 51.4 29.1 13.7 4.6 8.4 11.6 10.2 2.4 2.2 3.0 2.8 8.4 .8 41.2 26.1 17.1 46.0 Note: The Mean Satisfaction Score is the arithmetic mean of the responses with the Don’t Know responses eliminated from the calculation. The mean is calculated by multiplying the number of respondents giving each answer (from 1=Very Satisfied to 4=Very Dissatisfied) by the answer’s point value, adding the total number of points from the four categories, then dividing the total by the number of respondents who were able to assess the service. Gilbert 2010, Page 89 Table 6.2. Satisfaction: Street Repair and Maintenance (%) Question 22a. Please tell me if you are Very Satisfied, Generally Satisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, or Very Dissatisfied with Gilbert's street repair and maintenance. % Very Satisfied----->% Very Dissatisfied N 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 37.8 36.2 38.8 38.7 35.3 48.4 49.8 48.0 40.2 50.8 9.8 9.3 8.7 13.8 9.2 2.8 3.2 3.3 6.3 3.3 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.3 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 42.5 38.1 28.8 43.9 49.4 55.1 10.3 8.3 11.0 2.3 3.0 3.4 .9 1.2 1.7 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 35.7 40.1 36.7 57.1 49.7 45.6 3.6 8.6 12.0 1.8 1.1 4.2 1.8 .5 1.5 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 35.7 34.4 43.5 50.9 52.5 43.5 10.7 10.4 7.0 2.7 2.2 3.2 .5 2.7 Sex Male Female 239 263 37.2 38.4 46.9 49.8 10.9 8.7 3.8 1.9 1.3 1.1 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 40.5 32.5 46.4 53.1 10.1 8.1 2.1 4.4 .9 1.9 *Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 36.9 33.3 41.0 42.1 48.5 42.9 49.0 51.3 8.5 22.2 8.0 5.3 4.2 1.6 2.0 1.9 **Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 39.1 32.8 47.7 50.0 9.7 9.4 3.0 1.6 .5 6.3 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 48.7 47.2 35.4 30.7 41.0 43.1 49.5 54.0 7.7 5.7 11.1 10.9 2.6 2.4 3.5 2.2 1.6 .5 2.2 Employed Not Employed 311 186 35.7 41.4 50.2 45.7 10.9 7.5 3.2 2.2 3.2 Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 37.7 37.4 40.9 51.9 52.3 43.0 6.6 6.9 12.1 2.8 2.3 2.7 .9 1.1 1.3 **Employed? Income Gilbert 2010, Page 90 1.3 Table 6.3. Satisfaction: Movement of Traffic (%) Question 22b. Please tell me if you are Very Satisfied, Generally Satisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, or Very Dissatisfied with Gilbert's movement of traffic. % Very Satisfied----->% Very Dissatisfied N 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 30.3 25.5 29.6 23.1 16.3 52.8 55.0 47.0 46.3 50.8 13.7 16.7 16.7 19.9 22.0 2.4 2.3 5.7 9.6 8.5 .8 .5 1.0 1.0 2.3 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 29.9 32.7 28.0 52.3 50.0 56.8 14.5 13.7 12.7 1.9 3.0 2.5 1.4 .6 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 33.9 27.8 31.3 53.6 56.1 50.2 7.1 13.4 15.4 3.6 2.1 2.3 1.8 .5 .8 *Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 35.7 22.4 34.4 48.2 57.4 54.3 14.3 17.5 7.5 1.8 2.2 2.7 .5 1.1 Sex Male Female 239 263 31.8 28.9 48.5 56.7 16.7 11.0 2.5 2.3 .4 1.1 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 31.0 29.4 53.3 51.9 13.4 13.8 2.4 2.5 2.5 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 30.4 31.7 31.0 27.6 52.7 47.6 56.0 55.3 12.7 19.0 12.0 13.2 3.1 1.0 3.9 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 30.8 29.7 51.9 54.7 14.4 10.9 2.1 4.7 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 35.9 31.7 29.8 29.2 43.6 54.5 54.0 51.1 17.9 11.4 12.6 16.8 2.6 1.6 2.5 2.2 .8 1.0 .7 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 29.9 31.2 52.7 53.2 14.8 11.8 2.3 2.2 .3 1.6 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 32.1 31.0 29.5 55.7 51.1 55.7 8.5 17.8 10.7 2.8 .9 3.4 .7 Children < 19 Gilbert 2010, Page 91 1.2 1.6 .9 Table 6.4. Satisfaction: Building Code Enforcement (%) Question 22c. Please tell me if you are Very Satisfied, Generally Satisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, or Very Dissatisfied with Gilbert's building code enforcement. % Very Satisfied----->% Very Dissatisfied N 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 15.5 16.5 22.6 27.1 19.3 36.5 33.3 33.3 34.6 39.7 4.6 2.8 5.2 5.1 5.0 2.2 2.7 1.5 1.8 1.7 41.2 44.7 37.5 31.4 34.3 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 17.3 14.3 14.4 35.0 38.1 37.3 5.6 4.2 3.4 1.9 3.6 .8 40.2 39.9 44.1 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 8.9 17.6 15.4 37.5 34.2 37.8 1.8 3.7 5.8 3.6 2.7 1.5 48.2 41.7 39.4 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 18.8 13.1 17.2 39.3 40.4 34.4 3.6 2.7 7.0 1.8 2.2 1.1 36.6 41.5 40.3 **Sex Male Female 239 263 18.0 13.3 41.8 31.6 3.8 5.3 2.9 1.5 33.5 48.3 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 16.7 13.1 39.3 31.9 4.5 4.4 2.1 1.9 37.5 48.8 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 16.9 12.7 16.0 13.2 33.8 38.1 37.0 44.7 5.8 4.8 2.0 3.9 1.9 3.2 2.0 1.3 41.5 41.3 43.0 36.8 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 16.7 9.4 35.9 40.6 4.9 3.1 2.1 3.1 40.5 43.8 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 23.1 15.4 12.6 17.5 41.0 40.7 37.9 29.9 2.6 4.1 5.1 4.4 .8 3.5 1.5 33.3 39.0 40.9 46.7 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 16.1 14.5 38.3 33.9 3.9 5.9 1.9 2.2 39.9 43.5 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 15.1 15.5 20.8 37.7 42.5 35.6 5.7 5.7 2.0 .9 1.1 2.0 40.6 35.1 39.6 Gilbert 2010, Page 92 Table 6.5. Satisfaction: Water (%) Question 22d. Please tell me if you are Very Satisfied, Generally Satisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, or Very Dissatisfied with Gilbert's water. % Very Satisfied----->% Very Dissatisfied N 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 45.8 45.7 53.7 50.2 41.2 42.4 43.2 37.8 38.7 47.5 6.8 5.8 4.3 5.1 5.0 4.0 2.8 2.7 4.3 3.0 1.0 2.5 1.5 1.7 3.3 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 45.3 45.8 45.8 41.6 44.0 42.4 6.5 6.0 8.5 5.6 3.6 1.7 .9 .6 1.7 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 50.0 47.1 44.0 41.1 40.1 44.4 7.1 7.0 6.6 4.8 4.2 1.8 1.1 .8 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 53.6 41.5 45.7 41.1 47.5 38.7 .9 7.1 10.2 2.7 3.3 4.3 1.8 .5 1.1 Sex Male Female 239 263 50.2 41.8 41.0 43.7 5.0 8.4 2.9 4.9 .8 1.1 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 48.2 41.3 41.4 44.4 6.8 6.9 3.0 6.3 .6 1.3 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 43.5 42.9 51.0 50.0 41.9 47.6 39.0 44.7 7.7 7.9 6.0 3.9 5.8 1.6 3.0 1.3 1.2 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 45.8 45.3 42.8 39.1 6.7 7.8 3.5 7.8 1.2 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 38.5 41.5 49.0 48.2 53.8 42.3 40.4 40.9 7.7 9.8 6.1 5.1 5.7 3.0 5.1 .8 1.5 .7 *Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 44.4 47.3 46.3 36.6 4.8 10.2 3.2 5.4 1.3 .5 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 46.2 47.1 47.0 41.5 40.8 44.3 8.5 7.5 4.0 2.8 4.6 3.4 .9 Gilbert 2010, Page 93 1.0 1.3 Table 6.6. Satisfaction: Garbage Collection (%) Question 22e. Please tell me if you are Very Satisfied, Generally Satisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, or Very Dissatisfied with Gilbert's garbage collection. % Very Satisfied----->% Very Dissatisfied N 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 74.9 67.5 70.7 65.3 59.7 22.1 28.8 26.4 30.1 35.5 1.4 2.5 1.5 3.2 3.3 .6 .3 .8 1.0 .7 1.0 .8 .5 .5 .8 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 72.0 76.8 78.0 25.2 21.4 17.8 1.4 .6 2.5 .9 .6 .5 .6 1.7 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 69.6 74.9 76.1 28.6 24.6 18.9 .5 2.3 1.2 1.5 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 72.3 72.1 80.1 25.9 26.8 15.1 1.8 .5 1.6 1.6 .5 1.6 Sex Male Female 239 263 78.2 71.9 18.4 25.5 1.7 1.1 .8 .4 .8 1.1 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 74.4 75.6 22.9 20.6 1.2 1.9 .6 .6 .9 1.3 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 75.4 73.0 73.0 77.6 20.0 23.8 27.0 21.1 1.9 1.6 1.2 1.5 1.6 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 75.7 71.9 21.3 28.1 1.4 .7 .9 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 74.4 74.8 75.3 74.5 25.6 21.1 21.7 22.6 2.4 2.0 .5 1.5 1.6 .5 1.5 Employed Not Employed 311 186 74.0 75.8 24.1 19.4 1.3 1.6 1.6 .6 1.6 Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 75.5 77.0 77.2 22.6 18.4 22.1 1.9 2.3 1.7 *Age Group Employed? Income Gilbert 2010, Page 94 1.8 1.3 .6 .7 Table 6.7. Satisfaction: Recycling Program (%) Question 22f. Please tell me if you are Very Satisfied, Generally Satisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, or Very Dissatisfied with Gilbert's recycling program. % Very Satisfied----->% Very Dissatisfied N 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know .4 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.3 2.8 2.3 2.2 3.3 2.7 1.7 3.3 1.8 2.5 Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 60.6 59.7 65.4 58.3 59.5 33.5 32.7 28.9 33.7 32.5 2.8 3.8 2.3 3.5 4.0 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 60.7 60.7 61.0 34.1 33.9 31.4 1.9 3.6 3.4 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 50.0 65.8 59.1 39.3 28.9 35.5 5.4 1.6 3.1 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 55.4 55.7 67.7 39.3 37.2 27.4 2.7 3.8 1.6 Male Female 239 263 56.5 64.3 38.1 29.3 2.9 2.7 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 61.6 59.4 32.7 34.4 2.7 3.1 .6 2.4 3.1 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 59.2 57.1 62.0 65.8 33.8 38.1 29.0 34.2 2.7 3.2 5.0 .4 1.0 3.8 1.6 3.0 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 61.1 57.8 33.3 34.4 2.8 3.1 .2 1.6 2.5 3.1 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 59.0 59.3 60.6 63.5 35.9 35.8 34.3 28.5 5.1 1.6 1.5 5.1 .5 .7 3.3 3.0 2.2 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 59.8 62.9 34.7 30.6 3.2 2.2 .3 .5 1.9 3.8 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 65.1 60.9 63.1 28.3 33.3 32.2 2.8 2.3 3.4 Sex Gilbert 2010, Page 95 1.1 5.4 2.7 2.3 1.1 2.7 2.2 3.2 .8 2.5 3.0 3.8 3.4 1.3 Table 6.8. Satisfaction: Removal of Weeds, Junk Cars, and Similar Annoyances (%) Question 22g. Please tell me if you are Very Satisfied, Generally Satisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, or Very Dissatisfied with Gilbert's removal of weeds, junk cars, and similar annoyances. % Very Satisfied----->% Very Dissatisfied N 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 43.0 38.7 38.6 42.9 39.3 39.8 40.8 40.6 38.7 43.8 6.2 4.5 7.7 4.2 3.5 1.8 2.5 1.2 3.8 2.3 9.2 13.5 11.9 10.5 11.0 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 43.5 39.9 47.5 40.2 40.5 39.0 5.6 5.4 8.5 .9 3.6 .8 9.8 10.7 4.2 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 35.7 41.2 45.9 51.8 39.0 37.8 3.6 7.5 5.8 2.1 1.9 8.9 10.2 8.5 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 41.1 40.4 47.3 43.8 42.1 36.0 5.4 7.1 6.5 1.8 1.6 2.2 8.0 8.7 8.1 Sex Male Female 239 263 43.1 43.0 40.6 39.2 5.9 6.5 1.7 1.9 8.8 9.5 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 41.7 46.3 42.9 35.0 5.4 7.5 1.8 1.9 8.3 9.4 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 44.6 34.9 47.0 39.5 38.1 39.7 36.0 52.6 7.3 7.9 6.0 1.3 2.3 7.7 17.5 8.0 6.6 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 43.3 42.2 39.8 42.2 5.8 6.3 1.9 1.6 9.3 7.8 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 38.5 47.2 39.9 46.0 41.0 35.0 41.9 40.9 5.1 7.3 6.6 4.4 5.1 .8 2.0 1.5 10.3 9.8 9.6 7.3 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 44.4 40.9 38.9 41.4 6.1 6.5 1.3 2.7 9.3 8.6 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 45.3 43.1 45.6 40.6 40.8 39.6 5.7 4.6 7.4 2.8 2.3 .7 5.7 9.2 6.7 Gilbert 2010, Page 96 3.0 Table 6.9. Satisfaction: Parks (%) Question 22h. Please tell me if you are Very Satisfied, Generally Satisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, or Very Dissatisfied with Gilbert's parks. % Very Satisfied----->% Very Dissatisfied N 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 502 600 60.6 57.5 35.1 36.3 2.0 1.5 .6 .2 1.8 4.5 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 60.3 60.1 61.0 36.0 35.1 33.9 1.4 1.8 3.4 .5 .6 .8 1.9 2.4 .8 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 60.7 60.4 60.6 35.7 34.8 35.1 1.8 3.2 1.2 .5 .8 1.8 1.1 2.3 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 61.6 57.4 62.9 34.8 38.3 32.3 2.7 2.7 1.1 .5 1.1 .9 1.1 2.7 Sex Male Female 239 263 56.9 63.9 39.3 31.2 1.7 2.3 .8 .4 1.3 2.3 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 60.7 60.6 36.0 33.1 2.1 1.9 .3 1.3 .9 3.1 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 59.2 60.3 59.0 69.7 34.6 39.7 37.0 28.9 1.9 1.2 3.1 4.0 1.3 **Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 61.3 56.3 35.0 34.4 1.2 7.8 .5 1.6 2.1 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 66.7 62.6 59.1 59.1 28.2 32.5 36.9 36.5 2.6 2.4 1.5 2.2 .8 .5 .7 2.6 1.6 2.0 1.5 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 60.5 60.8 36.3 32.8 2.3 1.6 .3 1.1 .6 3.8 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 61.3 59.2 65.8 34.0 37.9 30.9 2.8 1.7 2.7 .9 .6 .9 .6 .7 Gilbert 2010, Page 97 Table 6.10. Satisfaction: Recreation (%) Question 22i. Please tell me if you are Very Satisfied, Generally Satisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, or Very Dissatisfied with Gilbert's recreation. % Very Satisfied----->% Very Dissatisfied N 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 502 600 38.8 41.3 47.4 45.2 3.8 3.7 .4 .5 9.6 9.3 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 40.7 38.7 36.4 47.7 47.0 47.5 2.8 3.0 6.8 .5 .8 8.4 11.3 8.5 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 39.3 43.9 35.1 42.9 44.4 50.6 3.6 4.3 3.5 .8 14.3 7.5 10.0 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 38.4 38.3 41.4 50.9 47.5 44.1 5.4 5.5 1.1 Sex Male Female 239 263 33.9 43.3 51.0 44.1 3.8 3.8 .8 10.5 8.7 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 39.0 39.4 48.5 44.4 4.5 2.5 .3 7.7 13.8 *Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 35.8 31.7 52.0 39.5 48.8 52.4 37.0 51.3 2.7 3.2 7.0 3.9 .4 12.3 12.7 4.0 5.3 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 38.7 42.2 47.9 42.2 3.2 7.8 .5 9.7 7.8 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 38.5 38.2 39.4 39.4 51.3 48.8 46.5 46.0 2.6 2.4 4.5 4.4 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 37.6 40.3 49.8 43.5 3.9 3.8 .3 .5 8.4 11.8 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 42.5 39.1 40.9 48.1 46.0 43.6 2.8 4.0 5.4 .6 6.6 10.3 10.1 Length Resid Age Group Gilbert 2010, Page 98 .9 .5 1.0 4.5 8.7 12.9 7.7 10.6 8.6 10.2 Tables 6.11. Satisfaction: Library (%) Question 22j. Please tell me if you are Very Satisfied, Generally Satisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, or Very Dissatisfied with Gilbert's library. % Very Satisfied----->% Very Dissatisfied N 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 502 600 51.6 51.2 31.1 29.0 2.2 4.3 .8 .2 14.3 15.3 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 55.6 46.4 50.8 27.6 35.7 31.4 2.3 3.0 .8 .9 .6 .8 13.6 14.3 16.1 *Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 39.3 47.1 57.5 32.1 37.4 26.3 3.6 2.7 1.5 1.5 25.0 12.8 13.1 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 43.8 48.1 59.7 36.6 33.3 25.8 3.6 3.8 *Sex Male Female 239 263 47.7 55.1 31.4 30.8 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 53.9 47.5 ***Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo Education *Age Group 1.1 15.2 14.8 13.4 1.3 3.0 .8 .8 18.8 10.3 31.0 31.9 2.7 1.3 .6 .6 11.9 18.8 49.2 50.8 53.0 59.2 30.4 25.4 34.0 34.2 1.2 6.3 3.0 5.3 19.2 17.5 10.0 1.3 432 64 51.9 50.0 31.0 31.3 1.9 4.7 .7 1.6 14.6 12.5 HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 66.7 52.8 48.0 51.1 17.9 32.5 33.8 29.9 3.3 2.0 2.2 1.0 1.5 15.4 11.4 15.2 15.3 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 47.9 58.6 33.4 26.9 2.3 1.6 .3 1.6 16.1 11.3 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 54.7 52.3 50.3 31.1 31.6 28.9 2.8 2.9 1.3 .6 .7 11.3 12.6 18.8 Gilbert 2010, Page 99 .9 Table 6.12. Satisfaction: Fire Department (%) Question 22k. Please tell me if you are Very Satisfied, Generally Satisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, or Very Dissatisfied with Gilbert's fire department. % Very Satisfied----->% Very Dissatisfied Don’t N 1 2 3 4 Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 69.9 64.3 69.9 69.1 64.7 24.1 26.5 23.6 25.4 26.8 .6 .7 .5 .5 1.0 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 68.7 69.6 72.9 24.8 23.2 24.6 .9 *Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 51.8 70.6 73.4 35.7 24.1 21.6 1.8 1.1 *Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 69.6 65.0 76.3 23.2 29.5 20.4 1.6 7.1 3.8 3.2 Sex Male Female 239 263 67.4 72.2 25.5 22.8 .8 .4 6.3 4.6 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 70.5 68.8 24.7 22.5 .6 .6 4.2 8.1 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 68.5 76.2 69.0 71.1 24.2 17.5 28.0 23.7 .8 6.5 6.3 3.0 3.9 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 70.6 65.6 22.9 31.3 .7 5.8 3.1 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 82.1 67.5 70.7 68.6 12.8 27.6 22.7 24.8 2.6 .8 .5 2.6 4.1 6.1 6.6 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 68.8 71.5 25.1 22.6 .6 .5 5.5 5.4 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 74.5 72.4 68.5 19.8 20.1 28.9 1.7 5.7 5.7 2.7 Gilbert 2010, Page 100 .8 1.3 .0 .2 .2 .8 .2 5.4 .2 .2 .8 .2 5.6 7.1 1.7 10.7 4.3 5.0 Table 6.13. Satisfaction: Police Department (%) Question 22l. Please tell me if you are Very Satisfied, Generally Satisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, or Very Dissatisfied with Gilbert's police department. % Very Satisfied----->% Very Dissatisfied N 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 65.1 57.3 65.1 61.6 58.2 27.9 34.0 27.1 29.4 34.7 2.8 4.0 2.5 3.7 2.7 1.8 .8 1.8 1.8 1.2 2.4 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.3 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 64.0 64.3 68.6 27.6 29.8 26.3 3.3 1.8 2.5 1.9 2.4 .8 3.3 1.8 1.7 *Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 53.6 68.4 65.3 33.9 23.5 29.7 1.8 3.2 2.7 1.8 3.2 .8 8.9 1.6 1.5 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 67.0 62.3 67.2 27.7 29.5 26.9 .9 3.8 2.7 1.8 2.2 1.1 2.7 2.2 2.2 Sex Male Female 239 263 63.6 66.5 31.4 24.7 2.5 3.0 1.3 2.3 1.3 3.4 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 65.2 65.0 28.0 27.5 2.7 3.1 1.5 2.5 2.7 1.9 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 64.2 61.9 67.0 68.4 29.2 23.8 26.0 28.9 2.7 7.9 1.5 3.2 3.0 2.3 3.2 4.0 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 66.4 60.9 26.4 32.8 3.0 1.6 1.6 3.1 2.5 1.6 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 71.8 65.9 62.6 67.2 28.2 27.6 27.8 27.0 2.4 3.0 3.6 1.6 3.0 .7 2.4 3.5 1.5 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 66.6 62.9 27.0 29.0 2.9 2.7 2.3 1.1 1.3 4.3 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 64.2 64.9 70.5 29.2 26.4 26.8 .9 5.7 1.3 .9 1.7 .7 4.7 1.1 .7 Gilbert 2010, Page 101 2.6 Table 6.14. Satisfaction: Planning and Zoning (%) Question 22m. Please tell me if you are Very Satisfied, Generally Satisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, or Very Dissatisfied with Gilbert's planning and zoning. % Very Satisfied----->% Very Dissatisfied N 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 18.7 20.8 25.8 25.4 24.3 43.8 45.5 41.5 45.2 45.2 8.4 8.3 11.4 11.8 8.7 3.0 3.2 2.7 4.3 3.0 26.1 22.2 18.7 13.3 18.8 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 20.1 17.9 17.8 41.1 43.5 49.2 9.3 6.5 9.3 5.1 1.8 .8 24.3 30.4 22.9 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 21.4 19.3 17.8 44.6 46.5 41.7 1.8 10.2 8.5 1.8 1.1 4.6 30.4 23.0 27.4 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 21.4 19.1 17.7 43.8 51.4 37.6 8.0 8.2 9.1 .9 1.6 5.4 25.9 19.7 30.1 Sex Male Female 239 263 21.3 16.3 43.1 44.5 9.2 7.6 3.8 2.3 22.6 29.3 *Married? Married Not Married 336 160 20.5 15.0 45.5 41.3 9.8 5.6 2.7 3.8 21.4 34.4 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 17.3 17.5 20.0 23.7 38.8 47.6 48.0 52.6 9.2 6.3 7.0 9.2 5.0 1.6 1.3 29.6 27.0 25.0 13.2 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 20.1 10.9 42.1 57.8 8.3 4.7 3.2 1.6 26.2 25.0 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 12.8 18.7 18.7 19.7 41.0 44.7 48.0 38.0 5.1 8.1 8.1 10.2 5.1 2.4 3.5 2.2 35.9 26.0 21.7 29.9 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 19.3 17.2 46.3 39.8 8.0 9.1 1.9 4.8 24.4 29.0 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 17.0 16.1 24.8 40.6 47.1 47.7 8.5 9.2 6.7 3.8 4.6 30.2 23.0 20.8 Gilbert 2010, Page 102 Table 6.15. Satisfaction: Uncontained Refuse Collection (%) Question 22n. Please tell me if you are Very Satisfied, Generally Satisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, or Very Dissatisfied with Gilbert's uncontained refuse collection. % Very Satisfied----->% Very Dissatisfied N 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 60.4 53.0 55.5 52.7 43.3 28.9 31.7 31.9 30.9 38.2 2.6 5.8 3.3 5.6 4.8 1.2 .5 .8 3.5 1.8 7.0 9.0 8.4 7.3 11.8 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 57.5 64.3 61.0 31.3 26.8 28.0 2.8 3.6 .8 1.9 6.5 5.4 8.5 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 48.2 60.4 62.9 26.8 32.1 27.0 1.8 2.1 3.1 5.4 1.2 17.9 5.3 5.8 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 51.8 56.8 68.3 33.9 34.4 21.5 2.7 2.2 2.7 .9 1.1 1.6 10.7 5.5 5.9 Sex Male Female 239 263 61.1 59.7 29.3 28.5 2.1 3.0 .8 1.5 6.7 7.2 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 62.5 56.9 28.6 30.0 2.1 3.8 1.2 1.3 5.7 8.1 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 61.2 55.6 63.0 59.2 26.2 30.2 29.0 36.8 3.1 4.8 2.0 1.9 1.3 7.7 9.5 6.0 2.6 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 62.3 53.1 27.3 37.5 2.8 1.2 1.6 6.5 7.8 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 64.1 55.3 60.1 65.0 28.2 31.7 29.8 24.8 5.1 3.3 2.5 1.5 2.6 1.5 1.5 9.8 6.1 7.3 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 60.8 59.1 29.6 28.0 1.9 3.8 .3 2.7 7.4 6.5 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 64.2 61.5 60.4 22.6 28.2 33.6 4.7 2.3 1.3 .9 1.7 .7 7.5 6.3 4.0 **Length Resid Gilbert 2010, Page 103 1.7 Table 6.16. Satisfaction: Economic Development (%) Question 22o. Please tell me if you are Very Satisfied, Generally Satisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, or Very Dissatisfied with Gilbert's economic development. % Very Satisfied----->% Very Dissatisfied N 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 17.1 17.2 26.1 34.1 27.3 51.4 50.2 46.8 42.7 50.2 11.6 11.0 11.7 8.1 7.0 2.8 2.2 1.3 3.5 1.7 17.1 19.5 14.0 11.6 13.8 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 16.4 16.1 20.3 50.5 56.0 47.5 14.5 8.3 11.0 3.3 2.4 2.5 15.4 17.3 18.6 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 16.1 19.3 15.8 51.8 53.5 49.8 8.9 10.7 12.7 1.6 4.2 23.2 15.0 17.4 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 20.5 14.8 17.2 53.6 56.8 46.8 12.5 12.6 10.8 .9 2.7 3.2 12.5 13.1 22.0 *Sex Male Female 239 263 15.5 18.6 53.6 49.4 12.6 10.6 4.6 1.1 13.8 20.2 **Married? Married Not Married 336 160 17.6 16.3 53.0 48.8 13.1 8.1 3.3 1.3 13.1 25.6 *Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 16.5 11.1 23.0 17.1 50.0 54.0 47.0 61.8 8.8 14.3 14.0 14.5 3.8 20.8 20.6 12.0 6.6 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 17.1 18.8 52.8 43.8 11.6 9.4 2.8 1.6 15.7 26.6 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 17.9 14.6 21.7 12.4 59.0 49.6 47.0 56.9 7.7 11.4 12.1 12.4 2.6 .8 4.0 2.2 12.8 23.6 15.2 16.1 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 17.4 15.6 53.1 49.5 11.9 10.8 2.3 3.8 15.4 20.4 *Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 15.1 15.5 21.5 50.0 53.4 52.3 6.6 12.6 14.1 .9 3.4 1.3 27.4 14.9 10.7 Gilbert 2010, Page 104 4.0 Table 6.17. Satisfaction: Public Transportation and Bus Service(%) Question 22p. Please tell me if you are Very Satisfied, Generally Satisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied, or Very Dissatisfied with Gilbert's public transportation / bus service. % Very Satisfied----->% Very Dissatisfied N 1 2 3 4 Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 6.4 8.0 10.7 10.1 14.0 29.1 23.0 27.8 31.7 35.7 10.2 16.2 14.9 16.3 14.2 8.4 7.3 6.7 10.8 7.8 46.0 45.5 40.0 31.1 28.3 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 7.5 7.7 2.5 31.3 29.2 25.4 12.1 8.3 9.3 8.4 6.5 11.0 40.7 48.2 51.7 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 5.4 5.9 6.9 25.0 30.5 29.0 7.1 11.2 10.0 3.6 10.7 7.7 58.9 41.7 46.3 Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 8.0 6.0 5.9 33.9 29.0 27.4 8.9 10.9 10.8 6.3 8.7 9.1 42.9 45.4 46.8 Sex Male Female 239 263 5.4 7.2 32.6 25.9 10.9 9.5 5.0 11.4 46.0 46.0 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 6.5 6.3 28.9 30.6 9.8 10.0 8.6 8.1 46.1 45.0 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 7.7 4.8 4.0 5.3 28.5 28.6 30.0 31.6 10.0 14.3 7.0 11.8 9.2 11.1 8.0 3.9 44.6 41.3 51.0 47.4 **Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 6.9 3.1 30.1 23.4 9.3 17.2 6.9 18.8 46.8 37.5 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 10.3 9.8 5.1 4.4 23.1 35.8 32.3 20.4 12.8 7.3 10.6 10.9 2.6 7.3 9.1 9.5 51.3 39.8 42.9 54.7 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 6.4 5.9 31.8 24.7 10.6 9.1 6.1 11.8 45.0 48.4 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 8.5 4.6 7.4 33.0 28.7 26.8 10.4 9.8 10.7 6.6 8.6 8.7 41.5 48.3 46.3 Gilbert 2010, Page 105 Table 6.18. Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Services (%) Question 23. Please tell me why you are dissatisfied with the service or services you indicated. N % of All Repairs Take Too Long to Complete Constant Road Construction, Not Done Right the First Time Bad Condition of Streets, Potholes, Etc. Poor Planning of Streets Narrow Streets, Lane Changes from 4 to 2 Many Repairs Not Needed Little Advance Notice of Repairs Street Lights Out for a Long Time Developers Do Not Complete Streets Inadequate Disabled Access Had to Pay for Own Street Paving Upscale Areas Get More Attention 19 15 14 8 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 3.8 3.0 2.8 1.6 .6 .6 .6 .4 .2 .2 .2 .2 Traffic (81) Poor Coordination of Traffic Signals Wider Roads, More Turn Lanes Are Needed Streets Repairs Poorly Planned, Make Congestion Worse Traffic Congestion, Gets Worse with Growth Higley Road Is a Mess, Has Been for a Long Time Traffic Is Poorly Planned Inadequate Policing of Traffic Don’t Like Right Turns on Red Don’t Like Lagging Left Turn Signals Light Rail Is Needed Speed Limits Are Too Low on Gilbert Road Traffic Is Blocked by Police Too Long after Accidents 24 19 18 8 7 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 4.8 3.8 3.6 1.6 1.4 .8 .4 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 Code Enforcement (34) Building Codes Too Lax Restrictive Building Codes Uneven Granting of Variances Too Much Growth, Empty Buildings Need More Publicity on Code Decisions Commercial Signs Are Too Small Old Homes in New Areas Outside Utility Meters Accessible to Anyone Town Gives Out Too Many Permits Don’t Know 19 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3.8 1.0 .6 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 Water & Sewer (54) Water Is Hard, Not Clear Bad Tasting, Smelling Water High Cost of Water Two Years to Fix Water Leak Treatment Plan Is a Nuisance Water Is Too Hot Poor Drainage around the Pipes Slow to Process New Accounts Water Fees Should Be Raised to Encourage Conservation 24 21 9 3 2 1 1 1 1 4.8 4.2 1.8 .6 .4 .2 .2 .2 .2 Service Area Complaint Streets (63) Gilbert 2010, Page 106 Table 6.18. Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Services (%), Continued Question 23. Please tell me why you are dissatisfied with the service or services you indicated. Service Area Complaint N % of All Garbage Service (10) Need Pick Ups Twice a Week Rude, Sloppy Drivers, Scatter Garbage Should Contract Garbage Service to a Private Firm Service Too Expensive 3 2 2 2 .6 .4 .4 .4 They Should Bill Separately for Water and Garbage 1 .2 The Garbage Trucks Come Too Early 1 .2 Not Clear What They Will Take Too Limited List of Acceptable Items 5 2 1.0 .4 Not Available Everywhere 2 .4 Recycling Is a Waste of Time, Money 2 .4 Not Enough Containers 1 .2 Not Enough Containers Green Pick Up Is Needed 1 1 .2 .2 Items Are Not Really Recycled Need Hazmat Information Sweepers Don’t Come Any More 1 1 1 .2 .2 .2 28 8 1 1 1 1 5.6 1.6 .2 .2 .2 .2 6 2 2 2 1 1 1.2 .4 .4 .4 .2 .2 13 2 2 2 1 1 2 2.6 .4 .4 .4 .2 .2 .4 Recycling (16) Nuisance Removal (40) Inadequate Weed, Car Removal, Enforcement Clean Up of Roadways, Medians Needed Foreclosed Homes Have Messy Yards, Not Cleaned Up Town-HOA Conflict Precludes Action on Clean Up HOA Can’t Enforce Rules Train a Nuisance, Not Dealt with Parks (13) No Parks Nearby, More Needed More Trails and Preserves Needed Parks Are Poorly Maintained Too Much Spent on Parks More Equipment at Parks 1Needed Ball Field Use Is Too Restrictive Recreation (21) More Classes Are Needed Recreation a Waste of Money More Programs Are Needed for Children Fees Are Too High Programs Are Poor in Quality More Adult Programs Are Needed Don’t Know Gilbert 2010, Page 107 Table 6.18. Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Services (%), Continued Question 23. Please tell me why you are dissatisfied with the service or services you indicated. Service Area Complaint N % of All Library (15) Library Resources Are Too Limited Library Is Too Far From Home Library Hours Are Too Limited Need More Programs for Children Need More Large Print Books Don’t Know 5 3 3 2 1 1 1.0 .6 .6 .4 .2 .2 Fire Department (3) Allowed Squatter to Burn Things in Empty House Better Response Times Are Needed Overdeploy to Accidents That Police Could Handle 1 1 1 .2 .2 .2 Police (23) Some Officers are Prejudiced, Arrogant, Uncaring Poorly Trained Officers Slow Response Times, Poor Priorities in Deployment Overdeploy to Minor Incidents More Officers Are Needed No Services Provided to Elderly Don’t Know 14 3 2 2 1 1 1 2.8 .6 .4 .4 .2 .2 .2 Planning/Zoning (57) Poor Planning Too Much Growth in Gilbert for Infrastructure, Schools Lack of Commercial Development High Density Housing, Cookie Cutter Designs Residents’ Views Ignored Takes Long Time to Get Permits, Approvals Disapprove of Big Box Stores Town Involvement Is Intrusive Allowed Mormon Temple in Residential Area Allowed Liquor Sales at Walgreen’s Poor Communication with the Public Need to Give Notice of Road Closures Island Issue Handled Poorly Not Dealing with the Impact of the Economic Crisis 35 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 7.0 .8 .8 .6 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 Uncontained Refuse Collection (19) Pick Ups Not on Schedule, Refuse Lies Around Too Long 10 2.0 3 2 2 1 1 1 .6 .4 .4 .2 .2 .2 Need Advance Notice of Pick Up Dates Pick Ups Should Be Done in Alleys Poor Cleanup When Trucks Dump Refuse Animal Waste Bins Needed in the Parks Trucks Damaged My Property Waste of Money, Too Expensive Gilbert 2010, Page 108 Table 6.18. Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Services (%), Continued Question 23. Please tell me why you are dissatisfied with the service or services you indicated. N % of All Economic Development (72) Lack of Quality Development, Jobs Poor Planning Overall Overbuilding Has Led to Empty Stores Lack of Small Local Businesses Against Economic Development More Large Businesses Needed for Tax Revenues, Jobs Recession Precludes Development Now Need More Entertainment Venues Declining Home Values Planning Is Influenced Too Much by Special Interests Wasted Money Buying Land at Inflated Prices 26 23 6 5 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 5.2 4.6 1.2 1.0 .8 .8 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 Public Transit (93) 57 38 5 2 1 1 1 11.4 7.6 1.0 .4 .2 .2 .2 Service Area Note: Complaint Lack of Frequent Bus Service Need More Routes to Outlying Locations, More Bus Stops Not Used Enough to Justify Expense Need Light Rail Inadequate Information on Schedule, Changes Need Express Bus Service to Phoenix Don’t Use It Responses in these tables do not add up to 100.0% because of multiple answers allowed to and varying numbers of answers given by individual respondents. Numbers in parentheses are numbers of dissatisfied with each service. Gilbert 2010, Page 109 Table 6.19. Most Important Service Priorities for Gilbert (%) Question 25. We have mentioned a number of services which the Town of Gilbert provides. Please tell me which two services you think are the top priorities. Service Priorities N % of All Police Department Fire Department Street Repair, Maintenance Public Transportation Recreation Programs Internet Water & Sewer (Combined) Downtown Development Public Safety, Emergency Services Library Don’t Know Note: 333 257 98 67 63 56 55 37 35 35 66.3 51.2 19.5 13.3 12.5 11.2 11.0 7.4 7.0 7.0 1 .2 Responses in these tables do not add up to 100.0% because of multiple answers allowed to and varying numbers of answers given by individual respondents. Gilbert 2010, Page 110 Table 6.20. Community Events and Recreational Programs Attended (%) Question 26a. What community events do you or members of your family attend? what recreational programming have you or members of your family enrolled in? Community Events N % of All Gilbert Days Events Fireworks, Fourth of July Concerts in the Parks Holiday Nights of Light Events at Freestone Park, General Halloween Event Constitution Week Global Village Festival Events at the Schools Veterans Day Event Library Events Riparian Preserve Events So Long to Summer Movies at the Park Fine Arts Festival Sports Events Neighborhood Meetings, Get Togethers Farmers’ Market Theater Church Events Concerts at San Tan Village Emergency Preparedness Fair Solar Event Many, General None Gilbert 2010, Page 111 199 65 40 27 27 26 39.8 13.0 8.0 5.4 5.4 5.2 17 13 10 10 9 8 8 7 7 5 4 4 3 2 1 1 1 3.4 2.6 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.0 .8 .8 .6 4 .2 .2 .2 5 188 1.0 37.6 Table 6.21. Participation in Recreation Programs (%) Q26b. What recreation programs have you or members of your family enrolled in? Recreational Programs, Classes N % of All General Programs, Leagues Recreation Center Fitness, General Children’s Classes, Programs, General Parks and Recreation Classes, General Sports Events, Leagues, General Library Programs Senior Center Programs Boys & Girls Clubs Riparian Program, Trails Summer Camp for Children Events at the Schools Special Needs Program 25 25 20 16 5 5 3 3 3 2 1 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.2 1.0 1.0 .6 .6 .6 .4 .2 Specific Athletic & Fitness Classes Swimming Classes Soccer Dance Classes Baseball Softball Football T-Ball Karate Tennis Basketball Gymnastics Volleyball Wrestling Cheerleading Equestrian Activity Golf Lessons Yoga Running, Fun Runs Biking Fishing Hiking Kayaking Racquetball Rock Climbing Rugby Track, Cross Country 37 27 26 19 17 13 9 8 8 7 6 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7.4 5.4 5.2 3.8 3.4 2.6 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.2 .8 .8 .6 .6 .6 .6 .4 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 Gilbert 2010, Page 112 Table 6.21. Participation in Recreation Programs (%), Continued Q26b. What recreation programs have you or members of your family enrolled in? Other Classes, Programs, Meetings Art Classes Ceramics, Crafts Guitar Lessors Science Fair, Classes Astronomy Computer Classes CPR Training Dog Park Events HOA Activities Jewelry Making Model Airplane Club Music in General Mythbusters Class Photography Volunteer Work for Police, Fire 9 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.8 .6 .6 .4 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 Can’t Remember 9 1.8 302 60.4 None, Use Other Facilities Note: Responses in these tables do not add up to 100.0% because of multiple answers allowed to and varying numbers of answers given by individual respondents. Gilbert 2010, Page 113 Table 6.22. Family Usage of Parks and Recreational Facilities (%) Question 27a. How often do you or members of your family use parks or recreation facilities provided by the Town? 1-2 Times 3-4 Times N Once a Week a Month a Year Never Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 31.3 30.0 34.4 27.7 35.3 30.7 32.8 31.6 27.6 30.7 19.7 21.5 17.6 23.1 16.5 18.3 14.7 15.9 20.8 16.8 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 31.8 31.5 29.7 31.8 32.7 26.3 19.2 16.7 25.4 17.3 19.0 18.6 *Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 33.9 35.3 27.8 30.4 35.3 27.4 23.2 17.1 20.8 12.5 12.3 23.9 ***Age Group 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 38.4 36.1 24.2 36.6 32.8 24.7 14.3 20.8 21.5 10.7 10.4 29.6 Sex Male Female 239 263 31.0 31.6 33.5 28.1 19.2 20.2 16.3 20.2 *Married? Married Not Married 336 160 32.4 30.0 34.2 24.4 18.5 20.6 14.9 25.0 ***Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 23.1 38.1 43.0 39.5 28.1 33.3 31.0 38.2 21.9 14.3 18.0 18.4 26.9 14.3 8.0 3.9 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 30.8 35.9 31.0 28.1 19.0 23.4 19.2 12.5 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 23.1 27.6 32.3 35.0 25.6 33.3 34.8 24.8 20.5 21.1 16.2 23.4 30.8 17.9 16.7 16.8 ***Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 35.4 24.2 32.8 28.0 18.6 21.0 13.2 26.9 **Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 35.8 26.4 40.9 21.7 37.9 27.5 20.8 22.4 17.4 21.7 13.2 14.1 Gilbert 2010, Page 114 Table 6.23. Parks and Recreational Facilities Used (%) Question 27b. Which Town parks and recreational facilities do you use? [Total Frequent Users = 311] Park, Recreational Facility Freestone Cosmo Dog Park, Other Dog Park Discovery Park Basins, Riparian Reserves Neighborhood Facilities, Parks McQueen Crossroads Recreation Center at Freestone Public Trails Southeast Regional Library Gilbert Soccer Complex Tumbleweed Park Big League Dreams Ball Park Gilbert Community Center Nichols Park Public Swimming Pools (Not Named) John Allen Park Oak Tree Park Public School Facilities Rodeo Park Recreation Center at McQueen Zanjero Park Circle G Park Golf Courses (Not Named) Neely Park Page Park Rancho Del Verde Park Don’t Know the Name None, Not a Frequent User Note: N % of Frequent Users % of All Respondents 186 74 63 51 33 25 59.8 23.8 20.3 16.4 10.7 8.0 37.2 14.8 12.6 10.2 6.6 5.0 20 18 14 10 8 7 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 6.4 5.8 4.5 3.2 2.6 2.3 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 .6 .6 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 4.0 3.6 2.8 2.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 .8 .8 .8 .6 .6 .6 .6 .4 .4 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 1 189 .3 .2 37.6 Responses do not add up to 100.0% because of multiple answers allowed to and varying numbers of answers given by individual respondents Gilbert 2010, Page 115 Table 6.24. Reasons for Not Using Town Recreational Facilities (%) Question 27c. Are there any particular reasons why you and your family do not use the recreational facilities? [Total Non-Users and Infrequent Users Who Responded = 189] N % of Non-Users Who Responded % of All Too Busy with Other Things 51 27.0 10.2 Age and/or Health Concerns 24 12.7 4.8 Not Interested, Just Don’t 23 12.2 4.6 No Children at Home 17 8.0 3.4 Other Interests 13 6.9 2.6 Weather Is Too Hot 3 1.6 .6 Children Too Young 2 1.1 .4 Use Own or HOA Facilities 41 21.7 8.2 Facilities Are Poorly Located, Too Far from Home 11 5.8 2.2 Have No Information about Parks/Recreation 3 1.6 .6 Facilities Are Crowded 2 1.1 .4 Programs, Facilities Are Too Expensive 1 .5 .2 Disapprove of Free Parks, Recreation 1 .5 .2 Reasons for Not Using Parks/Recreation Personal (133) Program & Facility Issues (59) Note: Responses do not add up to 100.0% because of multiple answers allowed to and varying numbers of answers given by individual respondents Gilbert 2010, Page 116 Table 6.25. Evaluation of Residential Safety from Crime (%) Question 28. How safe do you feel that your residence is from vandalism, burglary, or theft? Generally Somewhat N Very Safe Safe Unsafe Very Unsafe Don’t Know .4 Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 54.0 52.5 48.8 47.3 51.5 42.4 42.8 45.5 46.2 40.8 3.0 4.5 4.8 5.6 6.5 .2 .2 .2 .7 .5 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 49.1 57.7 56.8 45.3 39.9 41.5 5.1 1.8 .8 .5 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 60.7 50.3 55.2 33.9 43.9 43.2 5.4 5.3 .8 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 59.8 50.8 55.4 37.5 43.2 42.5 2.7 4.9 1.6 Sex Male Female 239 263 56.5 51.7 39.3 45.2 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 52.7 57.5 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo Education Length Resid Age Group .6 .8 .4 .5 .4 .5 .5 .5 3.3 2.7 .4 .4 .4 43.5 39.4 3.0 3.1 .3 .6 56.2 52.4 52.0 51.3 42.3 38.1 45.0 42.1 1.5 6.3 3.0 5.3 1.6 1.6 432 64 53.5 60.9 43.3 34.4 2.8 4.7 HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 48.7 50.4 55.1 58.4 51.3 43.9 41.9 38.7 4.1 2.5 2.9 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 54.0 53.8 42.1 43.0 2.9 3.2 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 56.6 50.6 57.7 39.6 45.4 38.3 3.8 3.4 3.4 Gilbert 2010, Page 117 1.3 .2 .2 1.6 .5 .3 .6 .6 .7 Table 6.26. Evaluation of Personal Safety from Violent Crime (%) Question 29. How safe do you feel in Gilbert from violent crimes like being attacked or held up? Somewhat N Very Safe Generally Safe Unsafe Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 61.2 59.2 58.0 54.5 54.5 37.3 38.7 38.3 42.5 40.2 1.0 1.3 3.5 2.5 4.5 .6 .3 .2 .2 .2 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 57.9 64.9 61.0 39.7 33.9 38.1 1.9 .6 .5 .6 .8 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 60.7 63.1 59.8 37.5 35.8 38.2 1.8 .5 1.2 .5 .8 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 69.6 61.7 57.0 30.4 37.2 39.8 1.1 1.6 1.6 Male Female 239 263 67.4 55.5 32.6 41.4 1.9 1.1 Married? Married Not Married 336 160 61.0 62.5 37.5 35.6 1.2 .6 .3 1.3 Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 59.6 60.3 60.0 69.7 38.5 39.7 39.0 27.6 1.2 .8 1.0 1.3 1.3 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 60.0 71.9 38.7 26.6 .9 1.6 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 69.2 59.3 57.1 67.9 28.2 39.0 41.4 31.4 .8 1.0 .7 Employed? Employed Not Employed 311 186 63.3 57.5 35.7 39.8 .6 1.6 .3 1.1 Income Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 62.3 59.2 65.8 35.8 39.7 34.2 .9 1.1 .9 Age Group **Sex Gilbert 2010, Page 118 .5 2.6 .8 .5 Table 6.27. Evaluation of Safety Driving on Gilbert’s Streets (%) Question 30. How safe do you feel driving on Gilbert’s streets? N Very Safe Generally Somewhat Safe Unsafe Very Unsafe Don’t Know Gilbert 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 502 600 600 602 600 56.8 51.8 49.2 48.2 48.2 39.2 43.7 44.3 45.2 43.0 1.8 3.8 5.4 5.0 6.7 .6 .5 .8 1.5 2.0 1.6 .2 .3 .2 .2 Area North-West Central South 214 168 118 53.7 60.1 56.8 42.1 35.7 39.8 1.4 2.4 1.7 .5 .6 .8 2.3 1.2 .8 Length Resid 2 Yrs or Less 3 to 5 Yrs Over 5 Yrs 56 187 259 55.4 61.5 53.7 35.7 37.4 41.3 3.6 2.7 .5 .8 5.4 .5 1.5 18 to 35 36 to 50 51 Plus 112 183 186 57.1 57.9 55.9 37.5 40.4 39.2 3.6 .5 1.6 .9 1.1 Sex Male Female 239 263 54.4 58.9 41.4 37.3 2.1 1.5 .8 .4 1.3 1.9 **Married? Married Not Married 336 160 56.8 56.9 40.8 35.6 1.5 2.5 .6 .6 .3 4.4 *Children < 19 None One Two Three or More 260 63 100 76 55.0 52.4 58.0 65.8 39.6 41.3 41.0 32.9 2.7 3.2 3.2 Race Anglo-White Not Anglo 432 64 57.4 53.1 38.9 40.6 1.9 1.6 Education HS or Less Some Coll-Voc College Grad Postgrad Deg 39 123 198 137 51.3 53.7 57.1 60.6 46.2 41.5 39.4 35.0 1.6 2.5 1.5 1.6 .7 2.6 1.6 1.0 2.2 Employed Not Employed 311 186 57.9 54.8 39.2 39.8 2.3 1.1 .6 .5 3.8 Under $50,000 $50,000-$99,999 $100,000 Plus 106 174 149 57.5 56.3 59.7 36.8 41.4 38.9 1.9 1.1 .7 .9 .6 .7 Age Group **Employed? Income Gilbert 2010, Page 119 .9 3.2 2.7 1.0 1.3 .5 1.6 1.4 3.1 2.8 .6 APPENDIX A: M ETHODOLOGY AND DEM OGRAPHICS Gilbert 2010, Page 120 This report presents the findings of a telephone survey of 502 Gilbert respondents interviewed by DataCall, Inc. of Phoenix between Novem ber 17 to Decem ber 7, 2010. Respondents were random ly selected from a com puter file of Maricopa residents who lived in Gilbert and who had provided a publicly accessible record of their nam es, addresses, and phone num bers. The data tables are displayed in both overall num bers and responses by dem ographic subgroups of residents. Callers rotated asking to speak to the m ale or fem ale head-of-household and filtered out others at the beginning of the interview process. The questionnaire used in the fieldwork is found in Appendix B. Calling was done from 2:00 p.m . to 9:00 p.m . on weekdays and from 10:00 a.m . to 4:00 p.m . on Saturdays with no calling over the Thanksgiving weekend. Gilbert residents generously shared their tim e and opinions about Town services and developm ent. A change first noted last year that continued in 2010 was the large num ber of disconnected telephone num bers, a product of recession and foreclosures. Those Gilbert residents who were willing to answer the survey questions available were cooperative, and only 22 respondents term inated part way through the interview despite its 33-m inute average length. Standard control procedures like three calls back to prim ary num bers and norm al validation procedures were applied to the survey fieldwork. W e used gender, age, and zip code to set quotas to ensure a group of respondents representative of Gilbert’s heads-of-household. The data were either used in their raw form or transform ed as appropriate to create dem ographic categories for statistically m eaningful and useful analysis of the substantive questions. Open-ended questions were read , coded, and grouped into com m on categories of response. Questions about voter registration status, hom e ownership, distance to work (in both m iles and m inutes), type of em ploym ent, and city or town where em ployed give us useful inform ation about residents’ characteristics, but the data are not used in the crosstabulations. A dem ographic profile of the respondents begins on the next page in Table A. W e com pare this year’s data to that from the 2005 survey to track changes in the dem ographic characteristics of the Town’s heads-of-household. Com pared to five years ago, this year’s respondents are less likely to be new residents, to be in the 36 to 50 age group, to own their residence, or to be em ployed full tim e. They are m ore likely to have a postgraduate education, and to have an incom e of $100,000 or m ore. They are m ore likely to have no children at hom e present. Other respondent characteristics such as gender, distance and tim e to work, etc. have changed little. Overall, we believe that the 502 survey respondents from the Town of Gilbert are representative of the universe of heads-of-households who are attentive to Town policies and services. Gilbert 2010, Page 121 Table A. Dem ographic Profile of Respondents (%) Total N = 502 in 2010, 600 in 2005 2010 N % 0f All Demographic Characteristic 2005 N % 0f All Length of Residence (Few Months to 52 Years) Resident 2 Years or Less Resident 3 to 5 Years Resident over 5 years 56 187 259 11.2 37.3 51.6 126 224 250 21.0 37.3 41.7 Age Group (Age Range 18 to 87) Age 18 to 35 Age 36 to 50 Age 51 or Older Refused to State 112 183 186 21 22.3 36.5 37.1 4.2 131 273 181 15 21.8 45.5 30.2 2.5 Voter Status Registered Voter Not Registered to Vote Refused to State 489 12 1 97.4 2.4 .2 555 44 1 92.5 7.3 .2 Gender Male Female 239 263 47.6 52.4 295 305 49.2 50.8 Marital Status Single Married Widowed Divorced Refused to State 70 336 40 50 6 13.9 66.9 8.0 10.0 1.2 101 409 32 56 2 16.8 68.2 5.3 9.3 0.3 Number of Children at Home (0 to 7) No Children at Home One Child at Home Two Children at Home Three or More Children at Home Refused to State 260 63 100 76 3 51.8 12.5 19.9 15.1 .6 285 112 131 72 1 47.5 18.7 21.8 12.0 0.2 Racial-Ethnic Self-Identification White-Anglo Hispanic or Mexican American Black or African-American Asian-American Other Refused to State 432 29 7 10 18 6 86.1 5.8 1.4 2.0 3.6 1.2 521 42 11 11 10 5 86.8 7.0 1.8 1.8 1.7 .8 Gilbert 2010, Page 122 Table A. Dem ographic Profile of Respondents (%), Continued. Total N = 502 in 2010, 600 in 2005 Demographic Characteristic 2010 N % 0f All 2005 N % 0f All Residence Type Single Family Home Apartment or Condominium Duplex or Townhouse Other Refused to State 472 18 10 1 1 94.0 3.6 2.0 .2 .2 583 13 4 0 97.2 2.2 .7 0.0 Home Ownership Residence Owned Residence Rented Refused to State 418 80 4 83.3 15.9 .8 569 30 1 94.8 5.0 0.2 85233 85234 85295 85296 85297 85298 Other 90 124 78 90 69 49 2 17.9 24.7 15.5 17.9 13.7 9.8 .4 Note: Zip Codes used in 2005 were not comparable to those currently designated for Gilbert. Area North-West (Zip Codes 85233, 85234) Central (Zip Codes 85295, 85296) South (Zip Codes 85297, 85298) Not Able to Calculate 214 168 118 2 42.6 33.5 23.5 .4 Note: Area variable was not used in 2005. Educational Level Some High School or Less Education High School Graduate Some College College Graduate Postgraduate Degree Vocational-Trade School Training Other Refused to State 7 32 118 198 137 5 2 3 1.4 6.4 23.5 39.4 27.3 1.0 .4 .6 7 68 172 225 101 23 2 2 1.2 11.3 28.7 37.5 16.8 3.8 .3 .3 Employment Status Employed Full Time Employed Part Time Retired Not Employed Now Homemaker Student Refused to State 269 41 124 20 36 7 5 53.6 8.2 24.7 4.0 7.2 1.4 1.0 393 49 83 13 56 4 2 65.5 8.2 13.8 2.2 9.3 .7 0.3 Zip Codes Gilbert 2010, Page 123 Table A. Dem ographic Profile of Respondents (%), Continued. Total N = 502 in 2010, 600 in 2005 2010 N % 0f All Demographic Characteristic 2005 N % 0f All Type of Employment Farming General Labor Skilled Labor White-Collar Mid-Level Professional, Manager High Level Professional, Executive Government, Public Service Other Refused to State, Not Employed 2 7 29 58 86 31 43 52 194 .4 1.4 5.8 11.6 17.1 6.2 8.6 10.4 38.6 0 8 44 93 128 61 43 64 159 .0 1.3 7.3 15.5 21.3 10.2 7.2 10.7 26.5 Distance to Work: Range 0 to Unlimited 0 Miles to Work 1 to 5 Miles to Work 6 to 10 Miles to Work 11 to 20 Miles to Work 21 to Unlimited Miles to Work Not Working or Refused to State 42 47 54 84 82 193 8.4 9.4 10.8 16.7 16.3 38.4 64 52 98 136 92 158 10.7 8.7 16.3 22.7 15.3 26.3 Commute to Work Time: Range 0 to Variable 0 Minutes to Work 1 to 10 Minutes to Work 11 to 20 Minutes to Work 21 to 40 Minutes to Work 41 to Variable Minutes to Work Not Working, Refused to State 42 49 75 100 43 193 8.4 9.8 14.9 19.9 8.6 38.4 64 52 98 136 92 158 10.7 8.7 16.3 22.7 15.3 26.3 Household Income Household Income under $15,000 Income $15,000 to $24,999 Income $25,000 to $34,999 Income $35,000 to $49,999 Income $50,000 to $64,999 Income $65,000 to $79,999 Income $80,000 to $99,999 Income $100,000 or More Refused to State 10 15 28 53 54 59 61 149 73 2.0 3.0 5.6 10.6 10.8 11.8 12.2 29.7 14.5 6 14 30 65 92 90 75 149 79 1.0 2.3 5.0 10.8 15.3 15.0 12.5 24.8 13.2 Gilbert 2010, Page 124 Table A. Dem ographic Profile of Respondents (%), Continued. Total N = 502 in 2010, 600 in 2005 Demographic Characteristic City / Town of Employment Gilbert Phoenix Mesa Tempe Chandler Scottsdale All Over - Arizona and Elsewhere Glendale Queen Creek Laveen Coolidge El Mirage Florence Higley Not Working, Refused to State 2010 N % 0f All 97 54 37 38 40 22 19.3 10.8 7.4 7.6 8.0 4.4 8 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 192 Gilbert 2010, Page 125 2005 N % 0f All 122 68 78 76 45 26 20.3 11.3 13.0 12.7 7.5 4.3 1 .2 All other towns grouped into one category of ‘Other’: There were 26 (4.5%) such citations in 2005. 37.8 158 26.5 APPENDIX B: SURVEY INSTRUM ENT Gilbert 2010, Page 126 TOW N OF GILBERT RESIDENT SURVEY Novem ber 15, 2010 Final Hello, m y nam e is ________and I'm calling from DataCall, a local research firm . Our firm is conducting a survey for the Town of Gilbert to find out how satisfied Gilbert residents are with som e of the services the town provides. FILTER: Are you the head of a Gilbert household? [If no: Thanks and terminate. If yes: Continue] This survey also asks for your opinion on several local m atters. Your local governm ent representatives believe that actual citizen contact is the best way of learning what can be useful in providing you with better service. Your phone num ber was selected at random and your answers are com pletely confidential. May we take about 20 m inutes of your tim e to answer som e questions? [If no: Is there a more convenient time w hen I could call back to talk to you or your spouse?] q1a Please tell m e how m any years you have lived in Gilbert? [Enter Number] _______ q1b Length 1 2 3 q1c W hat is the zipcode for your hom e address? 1 85233 2 85234 3 85295 4 85296 5 85297 6 85298 7 Other: q1d of Residence [Interview er: Code from 1a] 2 Years or Less 3 to 5 Years Over 5 Years [Enter other zip given] q1e In what year were you born? [Enter year] _________ q1f Age Group. [Interview er: Code from q1e or list] 1 18 to 35 [born 1975 to 1992] 2 36 to 50 [born 1960 to 1974] 3 51 Plus [born 1910 to 1959] 9 Missing / Refused q1g Sex [Interview er: Code; Ask only if can't tell by voice] 1 Male 2 Fem ale General Satisfaction q2 Overall, how satisfied are you with living in Gilbert? W ould you say that you are . . .? 1 Very Satisfied 2 Generally Satisfied 3 Som ewhat Dissatisfied 4 Very Dissatisfied 5 Don't Know q3 W hat do you like m ost about living in Gilbert? [Open-ended; probe.] Gilbert 2010, Page 127 q4 Are there things you dislike about living in Gilbert? In other words, what changes or im provem ents would m ake Gilbert a better place to live? [Open-ended; probe.] The Town of Gilbert is responsible for providing m any governm ental services such as fire and police protection, parks and street m aintenance, water, sewer, and refuse rem oval. q5a In the past year, have you contacted any Town departm ent or Town official for any reason? 1 Yes [Go to q5b] 2 No [Go to q6] q5b W hich departm ents or officials did you contact? [Open-ended; enter all cited] q5c W hen you called a Town official or departm ent with a question or concern, were you connected to an individual or to the voice m ail system ? 1 Individual [Go to q5e] 2 Voice Mail [Go to q5d] 3 Don't Know [Go to q5e] q5d Did you receive a call back from the Town official or departm ent in a reasonable period of tim e? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Don't Know q5e As a custom er of Gilbert's services, how satisfied are you with the way you are treated when you call a Town office with a question or concern? Are you . . . ? 1 Very Satisfied [Go to q6] 2 Generally Satisfied [Go to q6] 3 Som ewhat Dissatisfied [Go to q5f] 4 Very Dissatisfied [Go to q5f] 5 Don’t Know [Go to q6] q5f Please tell m e why you are not satisfied with the way you are treated. [Probe] Satisfaction with Developm ent and Neighborhood q6 How would you rate Gilbert in com parison to other East Valley Com m unities in term s of quality of developm ent? W ould you say it is better than, as good as, or not as good as other com m unities? 1 Better Than 2 As Good As 3 Not As Good As 4 Don't Know q7 How satisfied are you with the Town's planning and developm ent of public facilities in Gilbert? Are you . . . ? 1 Very Satisfied 2 Generally Satisfied 3 Som ewhat Dissatisfied 4 Very Dissatisfied 5 Don't Know q8 Do you years? 1 2 3 feel the quality of new residential developm ents in Gilbert has im proved over the past few Yes No Don't Know Gilbert 2010, Page 128 q9a How satisfied are you with the com m ercial developm ent in Gilbert? Are you . . .? 1 Very Satisfied [continue w ith q9b] 2 Generally Satisfied [continue w ith q9b] 3 Som ewhat Dissatisfied [Go to q9c] 4 Very Dissatisfied [Go to q9c] 5 Don't Know [Go toq10a] q9b Could you tell m e why you feel satisfied with the com m ercial developm ent in Gilbert? [Probe; Go to q10a] Could you tell m e why you are dissatisfied with the com m ercial developm ent in Gilbert? [Probe] q9c q10a Overall, how satisfied are you with the neighborhood in which you live? Are you . . .? 1 Very Satisfied [Continue w ith q10b] 2 Generally Satisfied [Continue w ith q10b] 3 Som ewhat Dissatisfied [Go to q10c] 4 Very Dissatisfied [Go to q10c] 5 Don’t Know [Go to q10d] q10b Could you tell m e why you feel satisfied with your neighborhood? [Open-ended; probe; Go to q10d] q10c Could you tell m e why you are dissatisfied with your neighborhood? [Open-ended; probe] q10d How long ago was your neighborhood built? W as it built two years ago or less, three to five years ago, six to ten years ago, eleven to fifteen years ago, or 16 or m ore years ago? 1 Two Yrs Ago or Less 2 3 to 5 Yrs Ago 3 6 to 10 Yrs Ago 4 11 or 15 Yrs Ago 5 16 or More Yrs Ago 6 Don’t Know Knowledge about Town Decisions and Sources of Inform ation q11 Town officials m ake decisions that affect the services you receive. W hich of the following statem ents com es closest to expressing what you feel you usually know about these decisions? 1 Generally I know a great deal about Town policies and decisions. 2 Generally I know about som e Town decisions, but there are som e I don't know m uch about. 3 Generally I feel I know very little about Town decisions. 4 Don't Know q12 W hat kind of inform ation about the Town of Gilbert would be m ost helpful to you? [Open-ended] Do you ever learn about Town policies, decisions, and services from any of the following sources? [Randomize q13a to q13g] q13a Conversations with Town officials q13b Conversations with friends q13c Reading local newspapers q13d The Town’s Cable Channel q13e the Town newsletter “Your Town” q13f the Town W ebsite q13g Other 1 Yes, Learn from Source 2 No, Don’t Use Source Gilbert 2010, Page 129 q14 W hat is your preferred m eans of receiving com m unications about Town policies, decisions, and services? [Open-ended] Do you q15a q15b q15c q15d regularly read any of the following? [Randomize q15a to q15e] the Arizona Republic the East Valley Tribune the Town W ebsite the Town newsletter “Your Town” 1 Yes, Learn from Source 2 No, Don’t Use Source q16 W hat type of program m ing would you like to see on Cable Channel 11? [Open-ended] Decision Making and Participation q17a How satisfied are you with the policy decisions m ade by the Mayor and m em bers of the Town Council? Are you . . . ? 1 Very Satisfied [Go to q18] 2 Generally Satisfied [Go to q18] 3 Som ewhat Dissatisfied [Go to q17b] 4 Very Dissatisfied [Go to q17b] 5 Don't Know [Go to q18] q17b Can you explain why you feel that way? [Open-ended; probe] q18 W ould 1 2 3 you say that Town officials encourage citizen participation in town governm ent? Yes No Don't Know Preferred Allocation of Tax Dollars q19 The current econom ic turndown has reduced Gilbert’s sales and property tax revenues while the dem and for public safety, street repairs, and other services is steady. The Town is considering various ways of keeping its budget balanced in these difficult tim es. If it were up to you, would you balance the Town budget by . . .? [rotate1 through 3] 1 A reduction of Town services and associated costs 2 Increases in som e taxes and fees 3 A com bination of reduction of services and increased taxes and fees 4 Other, None of the above 5 Don’t Know q20a Overall are you satisfied with the value you get from your tax dollar for the services provided by the Town of Gilbert? 1 Yes [Go to q21] 2 No [Go to q20b] 3 Don't Know [Go to q21] q20b Please tell m e why you are not satisfied with the value you get for your tax dollar. How im portant do you think it is for Gilbert to be involved in the following? W ould you say that it is (1) Very Im portant, (2) Som ewhat Im portant, (3) Neutral, (4) Som ewhat Unim portant, or (5) Not at All Im portant for Gilbert to be involved in. . ? [randomize q21a through q21h] q21a Providing com m unity parks and parks with a specialty focus - like dog and equestrian parks, etc. q21b Creating m ulti-purpose trails and open space. q21c Providing public transportation / bus service. Gilbert 2010, Page 130 q21d q21e q21f q21g q21h Providing recreation program s. Providing com m unity special events. Supporting fine arts projects and program s. Supporting historical preservation. Providing com m unity and educational facilities like recreation centers and riparian preserves. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very Im portant Som ewhat Im portant Neutral Som ewhat Unim portant Not at All Im portant Don’t Know Evaluation of Services Please tell m e if you are Very Satisfied, Generally Satisfied, Som ewhat Dissatisfied, or Very Dissatisfied with Gilbert's services in each of the following areas. [Randomize q22a-o] q22a q22b q22c q22d q22e q22f q22g q22h q22i q22j q22k q22l q22m q22n q22o q22p Street repair and m aintenance Movem ent of traffic Building code enforcem ent W ater Garbage collection Recycling program Rem oval of weeds, junk cars, and sim ilar annoyances Parks Recreation Library Fire Departm ent Police Departm ent Planning and Zoning Uncontained refuse collection Econom ic Developm ent Public transportation / bus service 1 Very Satisfied 2 Generally Satisfied 3 Som ewhat Dissatisfied 4 Very Dissatisfied 5 Don't Know q23a-p. Please tell m e why you are dissatisfied with the service or services you indicated. [Open-ended: Probe] Now I am going to read a num ber of item s and I would like to know if you think the Town should be spending m ore, spending about the sam e, or spending less tax dollars as now on each item . [Randomize q24a-q24i] q24a q24b q24d q24d q24e q24f q24g q24h q24i Fire Departm ent Police Departm ent Developing older downtown Gilbert Repairing and m aintaining streets W ater & sewer facilities Parks facilities Recreation program s/facilities Library Public transportation/ bus service 1 More Gilbert 2010, Page 131 2 3 4 The Sam e Less Don't Know q25 W e have m entioned a num ber of services that Gilbert provides. Please tell m e which tw o services you think should be the top priorities. q26a W hat com m unity events do you or m em bers of your fam ily attend? [Probe q26b W hat recreational program m ing have you or m em bers of your fam ily enrolled in? [Probe] q27a How often do you or m em bers of your fam ily use parks or recreation facilities provided by the Town? Do you use them . . . ? 1 At Least Once per W eek [Go to 27b] 2 Once or Twice Each Month [Go to 27b] 3 Three or Four Tim es a Year [Go to 27c] 4 Never or Rarely [Go to 27c] 5 Don't Know [Go to 28] q27b W hich Town parks and recreational facilities do you use? [Go to 28 after answ er.] q27c Are there any particular reasons why you and your fam ily do not use the recreational facilities m ore often? [Open-ended; prompt for issues of appearance, quality, range of amenities, or safety.] q28. How safe do you feel that your residence is from vandalism , burglary, or theft? Do you feel it is . ...? 1 Very Safe 2 Generally Safe 3 Som ewhat Unsafe 4 Very Unsafe 5 Don't Know q29 How safe do you feel in Gilbert from violent crim es like being attacked or held up? Do you feel . . . ..? 1 Very Safe 2 Generally Safe 3 Som ewhat Unsafe 4 Very Unsafe 5 Don't Know q30 How safe do you feel driving on Gilbert’s streets? Do you feel. . . ? 1 Very Safe 2 Generally Safe 3 Som ewhat Unsafe 4 Very Unsafe 5 Don't Know Dem ographics Finally, in order to validate our survey, I need to ask you som e inform ation so that we m ay categorize your answers with those of others who have responded. Gilbert 2010, Page 132 q31. Is your ethnic or racial background . . .? 1 W hite-Caucasian 2 Hispanic/Mexican-Am erican 3 Black/African-Am erican 4 Asian-Am erican 5 Other 9 Refused / Missing q32 Are you currently a registered voter? 1 Yes 2 No 9 Refused / Missing q33 Is the type of residence you live in a . . .? 1 Single Fam ily Hom e 2 Apartm ent/Condom inium 3 Mobile Hom e 4 Duplex/Townhouse/Patio Hom e 5 Other 9 Refused / Missing q34 Do you . . . ? 1 Own Your Own Hom e 2 Rent 9 Refused / Missing q35 How m any children under the age of 19 live in your hom e? [Enter number] q36 W hat is the highest grade or year of school you have com pleted? 1 Som e High School or Less 2 High School Graduate 3 Som e College (1-3 Years) 4 College Graduate 5 Postgraduate Education 6 Trade-Vocational School 7 Other 9 Refused / Missing q37 Is your current m arital status . . . ? 1 Single, Never Married 2 Married 3 W idowed 4 Divorced 9 Refused / Missing q38a Are you . . . ? 1 Em ployed Full Tim e [Go to 38b] 2 Em ployed Part Tim e [Go to 38b] 3 Retired [Go to 39] 4 Not Em ployed Now [Go to 39] 5 Hom em aker [Go to 39] 6 A Student [Go to 39] 9 Refused / Missing [Go to 39] q38b Into which of the following categories best describes the job you do? 1 Farm ing 2 General Labor Gilbert 2010, Page 133 __________ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Skilled Labor W hite-Collar W orker Mid-Level Professional, Manager High-Level Professional, Executive Governm ent / Public Service Other Refused q38c How m any m iles is it from your hom e to your work site? [Enter number] q38d In which com m unity is your work site located? 1 Phoenix 2 Gilbert 3 Mesa 4 Chandler 5 Tem pe 6 Scottsdale 7 Other: [Enter city/tow n] q38e How m any m inutes does it take to drive from your hom e to your work site? [Enter number] q40 For statistical purposes only, please tell m e into which of the following categories your total annual household incom e falls? Is it . . . ? 1 Under $15,000 2 $15,000 to $24,999 3 $25,000 to $34,999 4 $35,000 to $49,999 5 $50,000 to $64,999 6 $65,000 to $79,999 7 $80,000 to $99,999 8 $100,000 or More 9 Refused Thank you for your answers. They will help determ ine what Gilbert residents want for their com m unity. Gilbert 2010, Page 134