Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout71-03 RESOLUTION1 RESOLUTION NO. 71-03 • A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROPOSAL FROM THE SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER (SRC) AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS IN THE AMOUNT OF TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED THIRTY-NINE DOLLARS AND SIXTY-FOUR CENTS ($23,639.64) WITH A NOT -TO -EXCEED COST OF TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A CITIZEN SURVEY. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves a proposal from the Survey Research Center (SRC) at the University of Arkansas in the amount of Twenty -Three Thousand Six Hundred Thirty -Nine Dollars and Sixty -Four Cents ($23,639.64) with a not -to -exceed cost of Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) for the development and implementation of a citizen survey. PASSED and APPROVED this 20th day of May, 2003. FAYETp r . • F (f r Witt 4tE • �� 46Aie rre ' lS+�' By: SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk APPROVED: By: yt • • _ • it I k /w -j1-03 ORIGINAL UNIVERSITY/ARKANSAS MICIR OFTLIVIE» amino 123 Hot: Hall • Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701-1201 • (501) 575-4222 • (501) 575-2474 (FAX) • src@uark.edu Survey Research Center Memo To: Kevin Springer, Budget Manager, Budget & Research, City •f Fa tteville Front John K Stokes Director Research & Sponsored Programs CC: Molly Longstreth Ph.D, Director Survey Research Center Date: 7/24/2003 Re: Amendment to the agreement between the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas (UA) acting for and on behalf of the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Campus, Survey Research Center ("SRC"), 123 Hotz Hall, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701 and the City of Fayetteville The following statement replaces the first sentence under the heading of 'Cost of Services and Payment', The City of FayettevHle will pay SRC twenty-three thousand, six hundred, forty dollars ($23,639.64). One- half ($11,819.82) to be paid by August 17, 2003 and the balance ($11,819.82) within thirty (30) days after completion of the Project.' Replacing the original sentence of The City of Fayetteville will pay SRC twenty-three thousand, six hundred, forty dollars ($26,640.00). One-half ($13,320) to be paid by August 17, 2003 and the balance ($13,320.00).' 1 RECEIVED AUG 01 2003._ CITY OF FAYETT'EVILLE • CITY CLERK S OFFICE The University of Arkansas is an equal opportunity/af mnnative action Institution. • UNIVERSITY'ARKAN SAS meim 123 Horn hall • Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701-1201 • (501) 575-4222 • (501) 575-2474 (FAX) • src©uark.cdu Survey Research Center UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS SURVEY RESEARCH CEN'T'ER AGREEMENT This Agreement dated this 4th day of June, 2003, is by and between the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas (UA) acting for and on behalf of the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Campus, Survey Research Center ("SRC"), 123 Hotz Hall, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701 and the City of Fayetteville. PURPOSE This Agreement sets forth the work to be performed by the SRC for the City of Fayetteville as described in Exhibit A ("Project") and the terms and conditions governing the relationship between the parties. SURVEY The SRC will perform the work described in the Project in a timely fashion using standard academic survey research protocols, in a manner consistent with scholarly performance and with the utmost regard for privacy. COST OF SERVICES AND PAYMENT' The City of Fayetteville will pay SRC twenty-three thousand, six hundred, forty dollars ($26,640.00). One- half (S13,320.00) to be paid by August 17, 2003 and the balance (513,320.00) within thirty (30) days after completion of Project. City of Fayetteville shall make payment to University of Arkansas, ATTN: Survey Research Center. The cost center number of '0112 11081-22-3111' should be included on the remittance. The bases for the cost to perform the Project are as follows. The SRC will design a questionnaire in conjunction with the City of Fayetteville, critique and field test the questionnaire, submit questionnaire and related correspondence to the UA Institutional Review Board, mail letters to sample members with addresses, conduct telephone interviews, clean and analyze data; write a technical report and present findings to one or two audiences important to the City of Fayetteville. TERMS The SRC will begin the Project on approximately June 4, 2003 and complete the Project on approximately October 31, 2003. DELIVERABLES The SRC will deliver the following to City of Fayetteville within two weeks (10) working days after completion of Project: A Data Report, which will include a simple codebook and frequencies of the variables. The data will be delivered electronically in Excel. A Technical Report will also be written. It will include up to two charts or figures and up to six or so bivariatc analyses. Please note that the latter pertains to tables rather than variables. If numerous groups arc represented in one report, however, the means of responses will be reported for each group. CHANGES Any changes to this Agreement or its terms and conditions shall be mutually agreed to by a written amendment to this Agreement. For UA External Use Only 12-22-98 The University of Arkansas is an equal opportunity/affirmative action institution. • • IN WITNESS WIIEREOF, University and the City of Fayetteville entered into this Agreement effective as of the date first hereinabove written and have executed two (2) originals each of which are of equal dignity. CFIY OF FAYEITEVILLE, ARKANSAS By: Name: Title: Date: BOARD OF TRUSTEES UNI SITY OF ARKANSAS Nam By: hn K. Stokes Title: Director, Research & Sponsored Programs Date: C 7 "'Ca For UA External Use Only 12-22-98 UNIVERSITY/ARKANSAS mzfi 123 Hotz Hall • Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701-1201 • (501) 575-4222 • (501) 575-2474 (FAX) • src©uark.cdu Survey Research Center Exhibit A Project Description Survey of Fayetteville Citizens for the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas June 3, 2003 This is a description of the Project to survey the citizens of Fayetteville, Arkansas for the City of Fayetteville. Research Design Telephone survey The Survey Research Center (SRC) will conduct a telephone survey of citizens of Fayetteville, Arkansas, including initial letters, for the numbers of completed interviews needed to assure an estimated sampling error of+ 5 percent. Additional Fayetteville households will be screened in order to augment the number of surveys completed by African American and Hispanic/Latino households The interviews are scheduled to take 15 minutes. In addition, the data will be analyzed with at least one multivariate analysis so as to indicate with more confidence phenomena of interest. Table 1 shows the cost of the survey. Questionnaire Design & Field Testing The SRC will work with officials of the City of Fayetteville to design a questionnaire that addresses the City's objectives for the survey. The 2003 questionnaire will draw on the instrument that the City of Faycttevillc used to survey its citizens in 2001. With City officials, the SRC will develop additional and/or alternative questions to solicit opinions on issues germane to the current objectives. SRC staff will critique the questionnaire, in consultation with the City. In addition, the SRC, in conjunction with the City, will develop the letter, introductory scripts and any desired press releases. The questionnaire and related correspondence must he reviewed by the University of Arkansas (UA) Institutional Review Board (LRB), a process the SRC will facilitate. The IRB reviews the questionnaire and associated correspondence for its suitability for the people who will be surveyed. If the City has the equivalent of the institutional review hoard, the City will facilitate that review process. If time allows, the questionnaire will be tested in at least four ways. SRC staff will critique it. Experienced interviewers will administer it to each other and critique it. Thirdly, five community members, chosen conveniently, will be asked to review it and their responses the University of Arkansas is an equal opportunity/affirmative action uuutution. • • • Exhibit A Description of a Project to Survey the Citizens of Fayetteville for the City of Fayetteville Survey Research Center, University of Arkansas June 3, 2003 will be recorded and analyzed. The SRC will subsequently field test approximately 25 questionnaires before beginning the survey. These findings will be shared with City personnel for review. Adjustments to the telephone interview will be made to correct errors or implement desired changes. Prior to the start of telephoning, a letter will be mailed to all sample members for whom addresses are available up to 35 percent, informing them of the nature of the survey and their important role in taking it. The letter establishes credibility for the survey and prepares recipients to receive the call when it comes. City residents are more amenable to answering telephone surveys if they are aware of the survey. The letter is even more effective than general publicity in informing citizens of the survey. The letters will be printed on City of Fayetteville letterhead and mailed in City envelopes. Please note that the letters will be sent to approximately one-third of the 3,065 sample members. The remaining sample of 4,397 will be called only. These compose the screening sample. The effectiveness of the research design depends partially on personalizing the mailings. Therefore, the SRC will print the envelopes, rather than using labels and affix stamps rather than using a machine stamp. Furthermore it is optimal if the City' s representative(s) can personally sign the letters. if not, a printed signature may be used. Letters will likely need to be copied due to the signatures. It is the SRC's preference that the City, in conjunction with the SRC, prepare a press release or set of press releases so as to inform the 70 percent of residents who will not receive pre -interview letters of the survey and its purposes. Sample The SRC will complete surveys of at least 373 citizens of Fayetteville. The estimated sampling error associated with this number of surveys is + 5 percent if a simple random sample is drawn. A random sample of telephone numbers generated for the City of Fayetteville will be purchased. In order to garner the desired number of completed interviews, each telephone number will be called as many as six times. The SRC cannot guarantee response rates, however optimistic we may be about them. Although the SRC follows methods demonstrated to improve response rates, subject to the client' s preferences, we can only carefully follow the agreed-upon research design. Only adults (people age 18 or older) will be interviewed. To improve the gender ratio, 2 • • Exhibit A Description of a Protect to Survey the Citizens of Fayetteville for the City of Fayetteville Survey Research Center, University of Arkansas June 3, 2003 these estimates include costs of selecting household respondents based on the last birthday. To select by the last birthday, the interviewer asks to speak with the adult in the household who is at home, and who was the last to celebrate a birthday. Oversampling Minority Ethnicity Populations According to the 2000 Census of Population' African American and Hispanic/Latino residents compose approximately 5 percent each of Fayetteville's population. It is likely that citizens from these two groups hold opinions on the survey topics that differ from those held by citizens of the majority ethnicity. Both African American and Hispanic/Latino respondents tend to under -respond to surveys. Because they compose a small fraction of the population and they respond to surveys in percentages lower than their representation in the population, proportionately more households from these two groups will be surveyed. To obtain an estimated sampling error of+ 15 percent, approximately 42 people need to be surveyed. This will provide 22 African American and 22 Latino/Hispanic completed responses. Without the additional screening, it is estimated that 11 African American and 4 Hispanic/Latino residents will complete the survey. In order to obtain surveys from the additional 18 Hispanic/Latino and 11 African American households the SRC will call as many as 4,397 additional telephone numbers. These numbers will be screened only. Any household members who identify themselves as African American or Hispanic/Latino will be interviewed until the desired number of completed interview is obtained. Please note, however, these estimates guarantee only that the SRC will call all of these numbers at least six times, if appropriate. The SRC cannot guarantee that 22 surveys will be completed by African American and 22 by Hispanic/Latino Fayetteville residents however diligent the effort. Hispanic/Latino respondents will be interviewed by bi-lingual interviewers. All interviewers are trained to forward Spanish-speaking respondents to the Spanish-speaking 'Census of Population 2000. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, DP - 1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SFI) 100 -Percent Data Geographic Area: Fayetteville township, Washington County, Arkansas. Washington, DC. http://factfinder.census. gov/servlet/QTTable?ds_name—D&geo_id-06000US0514391283 &gr_na me=DEC_2000_SF 1 _U_DP 1 &_l ang=en. 3 • • Exhibit A Description of a Project to Survey the Citizens of Fayetteville for the City of Fayetteville Survey Research Center, University of Arkansas June 3, 2003 interviewers. It is also possible that the SRC maybe able to have a significant number of African American interviewers who will handle many of the interviews with African American respondents if it is possible to identify African American citizens in advance. Survey Publicity The SRC recommends that the City announce the survey in the issues of any of its publications or other appropriate communications media that will he published prior to or coincidentally with the survey. The SRC will gladly provide information needed in the announcement. Deliverables Communication about progress will be made to the principal investigator every week during the period of telephoning or mailing. After the study, the SRC will provide a Data Report. It will include a simple codebook and frequencies of the variables. The data will be delivered electronically in Excel. A Technical Report will also be written. It will include up to two charts or figures and up to six or so bivariate analyses. Please note that the latter pertains to tables rather than variables. If numerous groups are represented in one report, however, the means of responses will be reported for each group. Multivariate analyses. In addition, the SRC will devote approximately 40 hours to analyzing the findings using multiple variables to explain topic(s) of interest to the City. The form the analyses will take depend primarily upon the questions of interest. The SRC will work with the principal investigators from the City of Fayetteville to develop the questions of interest congruent with possible analyses and to prioritize the analyses desired. 4 • • Exhibit A Description of a Project to Survey the Citizens of Fayetteville for the City of Fayetteville Survey Research Center, University of Arkansas June 3, 2003 Table 1 Cost estimates of telephone survey implemented with an initial letter, over -sampling of African American and Hispanic citizens and a multivariate statistical analysis 1 2 Telephone survey 402 LE +/- .05 3065 4397 7462 15 Yes, partially Yes Completions Estimated sampling error Sample size for mail & phone Sample size for oversample Total sample size Questionnaire Length (min.) Letter Multivariate analyses WAGES Hourly rate pre -July 1 Total Production Hours Total wages pre -July 1 Hourly rate post -July 1 Total Production Hours Total wages post -July 1 Total Wages STAFF SALARIES Hourly rate pre -July 1 Staff time (Hours) Total staff pre -July 1 Hourly rate post -July 1 Staff time (Hours) Total staff post -July 1 Total Salaries DIRECT MATERIALS & SUPPLIES COSTS Printing costs Postage Stationary & envelopes Long Distance Travel 5 $9.71 540 $5,240.22 $10.20 540 $5,504.66 $10,744.87 $39.07 123 $4,803.90 $40.24 123 $4,947.76 $9,751.66 $100.00 $488.07 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 • • • Sample Translating • Ad in Hispanic newspaper Respondent incentives Interviewer rewards Other materials, equipment & supplies Total Materials & Supplies Total Indirect Costs (26 percent)(UA) TOTAL SURVEY • Exhibit A Description of a Project to Survey the Citizens of Fayetteville for the City of Fayetteville Survey Research Center, University of Arkansas June 3, 2003 $996.23 $320 00 $40.00 $50.00 $59.46 $1,019.34 $3,143.10 50.00 $23,639.64 Table 2. Proposed Time Line for Survey of Citizens of Fayetteville Design questionnaire Telephone Survey 15 -minute survey, with initial letter and screen for additional African American and Hispanic residents Weeks Dates 5 Evaluate questions and revise questionnaire Submit questionnaire and letter for IRB review Program telephone interviewing system and test 2 2 2 Conduct field tests and review responses Address, print and sign letters and mail 1.5 Conduct interviews Clean and analyze data and write report Revisions and final report 1 May 15 — June 20 June 16- June 24 June 20 June 27 — 11 July 14 —July 18 July 7 — July 15 4 July 20 — Aug 18 6 2 Aug 19 — Sept 26 Sept 29 — Oct 24 6 NAME OF FILE: CROSS REFERENCE: Item # Date • Resolution No. 71-03 . Document • 1 05/20/03 Res. 71-03 2 05/05/03 Staff Review Form w/attachments draft resolution" memo to mayor/city council copy of letter from U of A copy of proposal from U of A 3 05/27/03 copy of memo to Kevin Springer NOTES: • FAYET T'E\ LLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE To: Kevin Springer Budget & Research Division ��,p From: Clarice Buffalohead-Pearman "' 0 City Clerk's Division Date: 5/27/2003 Re: Resolution No. 71-03 Attached hereto is an executed copy of the above resolution passed by the City Council authorizing the proposal for citizen survey in the amount of$25,000.00 with the University of Arkansas, Survey Research Center. This information has been recorded in the city clerk's office and will be microfilmed for archives. If anything else is needed please let the city clerk's office know. /cbp Attachment(s) cc Nancy Smith, Internal Auditor • X AGENDA REQUEST CONTRACT REVIEW GRANT REVIEW STAFF REVIEW FORM For the Fayetteville City Council Meeting of: 411 ,S/ad/2a°3 5nwei 11-41441}' eatekt,/1/44 May 20, 2003 FROM: Kevin Springer Name Budget & Research Division Finance & Internal Services Department ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of a proposal from the Survey Research Center (SRC) at the University of Arkansas for the development and implementation of a Citizen's Survey. The cost of the proposal is $23,639.64 with a not -to -exceed cost of $25,000.00. COST TO CITY: 25,000.00 $ Cost of this request 1010.1330.5315.00 Account Number Project Number 34,100 Services and Charges Category/Project Budget $ Funds Used to Date $ Remaining Balance Program Category / Project Name 1,454 Budget & Research Program / Project Category Name 32,646 General Fund Name BUDGET REVIEW: Budget Ma ger X Budgeted Item '3o—o3 Date Budget Adjustment Attached CONTP.ACT/GRANT/LEASE REVIEW: %LfZ�Hn iv Accounting Manager [/ City Attlorney f/-2-7/aa Date • I Jt rnal Au tor 1 Purchasing Manager Date 5Ja1b3 Date STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposal from SRC. k. SpA -..,,,e Division Head Department D. ector Financ & Internal Services Chief A istra ve Off Mayor cer 4 Dir. Date S--)- -03 Date J ti -3 Date Date Date Cross Reference New Item: s/2/o3 Eli Yes No Previous Ord/Res#: Orig. Contract Date Orig. Contract Number Description • Staff Review Form - Page 241/ Citizen's Survey - UofA Survey Research Center Comments: Budget Manager Accounting Manager City Attorney Purchasing Manager Internal Auditor Finance & Internal Services Director Chief Administrative Officer Meeting Date Reference Comments: May 20, 2003 • • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROPOSAL FROM THE SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER (SRC) AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS IN THE AMOUNT OF TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED THIRTY-NINE DOLLARS AND SIXTY-FOUR CENTS ($23,639.64) WITH A NOT -TO -EXCEED COST OF TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A CITIZEN SURVEY. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkanss hereby approves a proposal from the Survey Research Center (SRC),.. }"i` e University of Arkansas in the amount of Twenty -Three Thousand S'• H nd d Thirty -Nine Dollars and Sixty -Four Cents ($23,639.64) wit a 1 i t- o-exee d cost of Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) or#crc' d; • oprne t and implementation of a citizen survey. te. PASSED and APPROVED this 20th day o A B% SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk DAN COODY, Mayor FAYETTATILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS TO: Mayor Dan Coody and City Council THRU: Hugh Earnest, Chief Administrative Officer Stephen Davis, Finance & Internal Services Director FROM: Kevin Springer, Budget Manager DATE April 29, 2003 SUBJECT: 2003 Citizen's Survey - Proposal from the University of Arkansas (Survey Research Center) Background During 2001, the Budget & Research Division mailed out a citizen's survey to 1,200 households. The purpose and benefit was to use the survey results as an informational and a public relations tool between the government and its citizenry. This report assisted City Council and upper management in determining citywide goals and to fulfill the need for gauging how well the City performs in its operations and programs. The goal after this survey was completed, was to send out additional surveys biennially. By performing a survey every other year a benchmark can be developed to show how newly formed programs are benefiting citizens. Current Status City staff has been in the process of conducting a Citizen's Survey for 2003. In looking at the whole process, it has been determined that it would be in the City's best interest to contract out the development and implementation of the survey. This is due to several reasons that are listed below. • Accuracy: A consultant who specializes in surveys is skilled in instrument and sampling designs, statistical reweighting of data, and data analysis. • Credibility: A consultant is perceived as unbiased and will have a neutral interpretation of results. • Cost: A consultant will have the skills and tools available to develop and conduct the survey with the most efficient use of time. A consultant will also have an employee base that can perform at a lower hourly rate of cost. • Staff Time: Currently, staff docs not have the required time to conduct a Citizen's Survey in 2003. 2003 is the year that the 2004-2008 Capital Improvements Program process is performed. In addition, City Council has requested that the 2004 Annual Budget process be started a month sooner than normal and that a zero -based budgeting process be started for three City departments. To meet the needs of the City in contracting out a Citizen's Survey, City staff has been in contact with the Survey Research Center (SRC) at the University of Arkansas. The Director of SRC, Molly Longstreth, Ph.D, has met with staff and has submitted a proposal to perform a Citizen's Survey for the City of Fayetteville. The proposal is attached to this memo for your information and consideration. Purchasing Considerations The City of Fayetteville is exempt from bidding procedures for this proposal. This is due to State Law § 19-11-251 allowing agreements between Intergovernmental Agencies such as the University of Arkansas. Budget Considerations The cost of contracting out the survey development and implementation will be $23,639.64. In addition to the base cost, staff is requesting an additional $1,360.36 (5.7%) of contingency to be included, making the total requested amount for approval of $25,000. Currently there is sufficient funding available in the Budget & Research Division to fund the requested $25,000 without using additional General Fund balance. This is due to six months of staff vacancies that occurred in 2003. Recommendations Staff recommends approval of the proposal from the University of Arkansas' Survey Research Center for $23,639.64 with a not to exceed amount of $25,000. If you have any questions concerning this survey proposal or the Citizen's Survey process in general, please feel free to contact either myself, Stephen Davis, or Hugh Earnest. Thank you for your attention to this matter. • • UNIVERSITYQ/ARKANSAS maw 123 Hotz Hall • Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701.1201 • (501) 5754222 • (501) 575-2474 (FAX) • src®uark.edu Survey Research Center MEMORANDUM DATE: April 29, 2003 FROM: Molly Longstreth, Ph.D. TA{ Director TO: Hugh Earnest, Chief Administrative Officer Stephen Davis, Finance and Internal Services Director Kevin Springer, Budget Manager City of Fayetteville The proposal with the revised schedule and budget is attached. If you have questions or need additional information, please let me know. Thank you, again, for this opportunity. The University of Arkansas is an equal opportunity/affirmative action institution. • • UNIVERSITY4ARKANS AS 123 Hot: Hall • Fayetteville. Arkansas 72701-1201 • (501) 575-4222 • (501) 575-2474 (FAX) • srcCuark.edu Survey Research Center Proposal to Survey Citizens of Fayetteville for the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas April 10, 2003; Revised April 23, 2003 The staff at the Survey Research Center (SRC) are pleased to have the opportunity to propose methods for surveying the citizens of Fayetteville, Arkansas for the City of Fayetteville. Research Design Telephone survey Table 1 provides estimate costs to conduct telephone surveys of citizens including initial letters, for the numbers of completed interviews needed to assure estimated sampling errors of+ 5 percent. Additional Fayetteville households will be screened in order to augment the number of surveys completed by African American and Hispanic/Latino households The interviews are scheduled to take 15 minutes. In addition, the data will be analyzed with at least one multivariate analysis so as to indicate with more confidence phenomena of interest. Table 1 shows the cost of the survey. Ouestionnaire Design & Field Testing The costs estimated herein presume that the SRC would work with officials of the City of Fayetteville to design a questionnaire that addresses the City's objectives for the survey. It is presumed that the 2003 questionnaire will draw on the instrument that the City of Fayetteville used to survey its citizens in 2001. With City officials the SRC would develop additional and/or alternative questions to solicit opinions on issues germane to the current objectives. The estimates include the costs of SRC critiques of the questionnaire, in consultation with the City. In addition, the SRC, in conjunction with the City, would develop the letter, introductory scripts and any desired press releases. The questionnaire and related correspondence must be reviewed by the UA Institutional Review Board (IRB), a process the SRC would facilitate. The IRB reviews the questionnaire and associated correspondence for its suitability for the people who will be surveyed. If the City has the equivalent of the institutional review board, similar to federal government agencies, the SRC would contribute, but presumes the City would facilitate that review process. If time allows, the questionnaire would be tested in at least four ways. SRC staff will critique it. Experienced interviewers would administer it to each other and critique it. Thirdly, a few community members would be asked to review it and their instantaneous responses (stream The University of Arkansas is an equal opporruntry/affumative action institution. • • Proposal to Survey the Citizens of Fayetteville for the City of Fayetteville Survey Research Center. University of Arkansas April 23, 2003 2 of consciousness) would be recorded and analyzed. A convenience sample of community members, chosen for their average or modest reading skills, would be paid an incentive for testing the questionnaire. The SRC would field test approximately 25 questionnaires before beginning the survey. These findings would be shared with City personnel for review. Adjustments to the telephone interview would be made to correct errors or implement desired changes. Prior to the start of telephoning, a letter would be mailed to all sample members for whom addresses are available informing them of the nature of the survey and their important role in taking it. The letter establishes credibility for the survey and prepares recipients to receive the call when it comes. City residents are more amenable to answering telephone surveys if they are aware of the survey. The letter is even more effective than general publicity in informing citizens of the survey. The estimates for interviews with initial letters presume that addresses would match with 30 percent of the randomly generated Fayetteville telephone numbers (Table 1). These estimates presume that the letters would be printed on City of Fayetteville letterhead and mailed in City envelopes. Please note that the letters will be sent to approximately one-third of the 3,065 sample members in Column 2. The remaining sample of 4,397 will be called only. These compose the screening sample. The effectiveness of the research design depends partially on personalizing the mailings. Therefore, the SRC prints the envelopes, rather than using labels and affixes stamps rather than using a machine stamp. Furthermore it is optimal if the City's representative(s) can personally sign the letters. If not, a printed signature may be used. Because the letter increases response rates, the time needed to conduct each survey is reduced. For these estimates, net savings are gained in each case. The larger the sample size, the larger the savings. In addition to the pre -interview letter, it is also recommended that the City, in conjunction with the SRC, prepare a press release or set of press releases so as to inform the 70 percent of residents who would not receive pre -interview letters of the survey and its purposes. Sample For telephone surveys of approximately 373 citizens, the estimated sampling error is + 5 percent if a simple random sample is drawn. The estimates in this proposal presume that a random sample of telephone numbers would be purchased. Initial reports indicate that the coverage of Fayetteville with these numbers would exceed 95 percent. S Proposal to Survey the Citizens of Fayetteville for the City of Fayetteville Survey Research Center. University of Arkansas April 23, 2003 3 In order to gamer the desired number of completed interviews, each telephone number would be called as many as six times. The SRC cannot guarantee response rates, however optimistic we may be about them. Although the SRC follows methods demonstrated to improve response rates, subject to the client's preferences, we can only carefully follow the agreed -upon research design. Only adults (people age 18 or older) would be interviewed. To improve the gender ratio, these estimates include costs of selecting household respondents based on the last birthday. To select by the last birthday, the interviewer asks to speak with the adult in the household who is at home, and who was the last to celebrate a birthday. Oversampling Minority Ethnicity Populations According to the 2000 Census of Population' African American and Hispanic/Latino residents compose approximately 5 percent each of Fayetteville's population. It is likely that citizens from these two groups hold opinions on the survey topics that differ from those held by citizens of the majority ethnicity. Both African American and Hispanic/Latino respondents tend to under -respond to surveys. Because they compose a small fraction of the population and they respond to surveys in percentages lower than their representation in the population, it may be desirable to select proportionately more household from these two groups to survey. In order to "over -sample" African American and Hispanic/Latino residents of Fayetteville, several factors are considered. To obtain an estimated sampling error of± 15 percent, approximately 42 people need to be surveyed. This would provide 22 African American and 22 Latino/Hispanic completed responses. Without the additional screening, it is estimated that 11 African American and 4 Hispanic/Latino residents would complete the survey. In order to obtain surveys from the additional 18 Hispanic/Latino and 11 African American households it is likely to be necessary to call 4,397 additional telephone numbers. These numbers will be screened only. Any household members who identify themselves as African American or Hispanic/Latino will be interviewed until the desired number of completed interview is obtained. Please note, however, these estimates guarantee only that the SRC will call all of these numbers at least six times, if appropriate. The SRC cannot guarantee that 22 surveys will be completed by African American and 22 by Hispanic/Latino Fayetteville 'Census of Population 2000. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, DP - 1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1) 100 -Percent Data Geographic Area: Fayetteville township, Washington County, Arkansas. Washington, DC. http:// fact finder.census.go v/servlet/QTTable?ds_name=D&geo_id=00000US0514391283 &gr_na me=DEC_2000_S F I _U_DP 1 &_tang=en. Proposal to Survey the Citizens of Fayetteville for the City of Fayetteville Survey Research Center. University of Arkansas April 23, 2003 4 residents however diligent the effort. Hispanic/Latino respondents would be interviewed by bi-lingual interviewers. All interviewers are trained to forward Spanish-speaking respondents to the Spanish-speaking interviewers. It is also possible that the SRC may be able to have a significant number of African American interviewers who would handle many of the interviews with African American respondents if it is possible to identify African American citizens in advance. Survey Publicity The SRC recommends that the City announce the survey in the issues of any of its publications or other appropriate communications media that would be published prior to or coincidentally with the survey. The SRC would gladly provide information needed in the announcement. Deliverables Communication about progress would be made to the principal investigator every week during the period of telephoning or mailing. After the study, the SRC would provide a Data Report. It would include a simple codebook and frequencies of the variables. The data would be delivered in ascii, Excel, SPSS or other mutually agreeable electronic format. Costs of a report interpreting the frequencies are included in Table 1. The report would include up to two charts or figures and up to six or so bivariate analyses. Please note that the latter pertains to tables rather than variables. If numerous groups are represented in one report, however, the means of responses would be reported for each group. Multivariate analyses. In addition, the SRC will devote approximately 40 hours to analyzing the findings using multiple variables to explain topic(s) of interest to the City. The form the analyses would take depend primarily upon the questions of interest. The SRC will work with the principal investigators from the City of Fayetteville to develop the questions of interest congruent with possible analyses and to prioritize the analyses desired. Proposal to Survey the Citizens of Fayetteville for the City of Fayetteville Survey Research Center, University of Arkansas April 23, 2003 5 Table 1 Cost estimates of telephone survey implemented with an initial letter, over -sampling of African American and Hispanic citizens and a multivariate statistical analysis 1 2 Telephone survey Completions 402 Estimated sampling error LE +/- .05 Sample size for mail & phone 3065 Sample size for oversample 4397 Total sample size 7462 Questionnaire Length (min.) 15 Letter Yes, partially Multivariate analyses Yes WAGES Hourly rate pre -July 1 $9.71 Total Production Hours 540 Total wages pre -July 1 $5,240.22 Hourly rate post -July 1 $10.20 Total Production Hours 540 Total wages post -July 1 $5,504.66 Total Wages $10,744.87 STAFF SALARIES Hourly rate pre -July 1 $39.07 Staff time (Hours) 123 Total"staff pre -July 1 $4,803.90 Hourly rate post -July 1 $40.24 Staff time (Hours) 123 Total staff post -July 1 S4,947.76 Total Salaries 59,751.66 DIRECT MATERIALS & SUPPLIES COSTS Printing costs $100.00 Postage $488.07 Stationary & envelopes $0.00 Long Distance $0.00 Travel $0.00 Sample $996.23 Translating S320.00 Ad in Hispanic newspaper $40.00 Proposal to Survey the Citizens of Fayetteville for the City of Fayetteville Survey Research Center. University of Arkansas April 23. 2003 6 Respondent incentives $50.00 Interviewer rewards $59.46 Other materials, equipment & supplies 51,019.34 Total Materials & Supplies $3,143.10 Total Indirect Costs (26 percent)(UA) $0.00 TOTAL SURVEY $23,639.64 Table 2_ Proposed Time Line for Survey,of Citizens of Fayetteville Telephone Survey 15 -minute survey, with initial letter and screen for additional African American and Hispanic residents Weeks Dates Design questionnaire 5 May 15 — June 20 .._......- - Evaluate questions and revise questionnaire - _ 2 __ .......__ _ ......_.., June 16- June 24 _.........._._. _. _ ._... Submit questionnaire and letter for IRB review __ ._...._.. ......_.;._ 2 _ _......._ June 20 Program telephone interviewing system and test 2 June 27 — 11 Conduct field tests and review responses 1.5 July 14 — July 18 Address, print and sign letters and mail 1 July 7— July 15 Conduct interviews 4 July 20 - Aug 18 Clean and analyze data and write report 6 Aug 19 - Sept 26 Revisions and final report 2 Sept 29 - Oct 24 • •f 71-03 UNIVERSITY'ARKANSAS 123 Hon Hall • Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701-1201 • (501) 575-4222 • (501) 575.2474 (FAX) • src@uark.edu Survey Research Center UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER AGREEMENT This Agreement dated this 4th day of June, 2003, is by and between the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas (UA) acting for and on behalf of the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Campus, Survey Research Center ("SRC"), 123 Hotz Hall, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701 and the City of Fayetteville. PURPOSE This Agreement sets forth the work to be performed by the SRC for the City of Fayetteville as described in Exhibit A ("Project") and the terms and conditions governing the relationship between the parties. SURVEY The SRC will perform the work described in the Project in a timely fashion using standard academic survey research protocols, in a manner consistent with scholarly performance and with the utmost regard for privacy. COST OF SERVICES AND PAYMENT The City of Fayetteville will pay SRC twenty-three thousand, six hundred, forty dollars ($26,640.00). One- half ($13,320.00) to be paid by August 17, 2003 and the balance ($13,320.00) within thirty (30) days after completion of Project. City of Fayetteville shall make payment to University of Arkansas, ATTN: Survey Research Center. The cost center number of '0112 11081-22-3111' should be included on the remittance. The bases for the cost to perform the Project are as follows. The SRC will design a questionnaire in conjunction with the City of Fayetteville, critique and field test the questionnaire, submit questionnaire and related correspondence to the UA Institutional Review Board, mail letters to sample members with addresses, conduct telephone interviews, clean and analyze data; write a technical report and present findings to one or two audiences important to the City of Fayetteville. TERMS The SRC will begin the Project on approximately June 4, 2003 and complete the Project on approximately October 31, 2003. DELIVERABLES The SRC will deliver the following to City of Fayetteville within two weeks (10) working days after completion of Project: A Data Report, which will include a simple codebook and frequencies of the variables. The data will be delivered electronically in Excel. A Technical Report will also be written. It will include up to two charts or figures and up to six or so bivariate analyses. Please note that the latter pertains to tables rather than variables. If numerous groups are represented in one report, however, the means of responses will be reported for each group. CHANCES Any changes to this Agreement or its terms and conditions shall be mutually agreed to by a written amendment to this Agreement. For UA External Use Only 12-22-98 The University of Arkansas is an equal opportunity/affirmative action institution. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, University and the City of Fayetteville entered into this Agreement effective as of the date first hereinabove written and have cxecuted two (2) originals each of which are of equal dignity. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS BOARD OF TRUSTEES UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS By: Nan Tith Dad By: Name: John K. Stokes Title: Director. Research & Sponsored Programs Date: For VA External Usc Only 12-22-98 t... __ UNIVERSITYARKANSAS 123 Hotz Hall • Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701.1201 • (501) 575.4222 • (501) 575.2474 (FAX) • src@uark.edu Survey Research Center Exhibit A Project Description Survey of Fayetteville Citizens for the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas June 3, 2003 This is a description of the Project to survey the citizens of Fayetteville, Arkansas for the City of Fayetteville. Research Design Telephone survey The Survey Research Center (SRC) will conduct a telephone survey of citizens of Fayetteville, Arkansas, including initial letters, for the numbers of completed interviews needed to assure an estimated sampling error oft 5 percent. Additional Fayetteville households will be screened in order to augment the number of surveys completed by African American and Hispanic/Latino households. The interviews are scheduled to take 15 minutes. In addition, the data will be analyzed with at least one multivariate analysis so as to indicate with more confidence phenomena of interest. Table 1 shows the cost of the survey. (Questionnaire Design & Field Testing The SRC will work with officials of the City of Fayetteville to design a questionnaire that addresses the City's objectives for the survey. The 2003 questionnaire will draw on the instrument that the City of Fayetteville used to survey its citizens in 2001. With City officials, the SRC will develop additional and/or alternative questions to solicit opinions on issues germane to the current objectives. SRC staff will critique the questionnaire, in consultation with the City. In addition, the SRC, in conjunction with the City, will develop the letter, introductory scripts and any desired press releases. The questionnaire and related correspondence must be reviewed by the University of Arkansas (UA) Institutional Review Board (IRB), a process the SRC will facilitate. The IRB reviews the questionnaire and associated correspondence for its suitability for the people who will be surveyed. If the City has the equivalent of the institutional review board, the City will facilitate that review process. If time allows, the questionnaire will be tested in at least four ways. SRC staff will critique it. Experienced interviewers will administer it to each other and critique it. Thirdly, five community members, chosen conveniently, will be asked to review it and their responses The University of Arkansas is an equal opportunity/affirmative action institution. Exhibit A Description of a Project to Survey the Citizens of Fayetteville for the City of Fayetteville Survey Research Center, University of Arkansas June 3, 2003 will be recorded and analyzed. The SRC will subsequently field test approximately 25 questionnaires before beginning the survey. These findings will be shared with City personnel for review. Adjustments to the telephone interview will be made to correct errors or implement desired changes. Prior to the start of telephoning, a letter will be mailed to all sample members for whom addresses are available up to 35 percent, informing them of the nature of the survey and their important role in taking it. The letter establishes credibility for the survey and prepares recipients to receive the call when it comes. City residents are more amenable to answering telephone surveys if they are aware of the survey. The letter is even more effective than general publicity in informing citizens of the survey. The letters will be printed on City of Fayetteville letterhead and mailed in City envelopes. Please note that the letters will be sent to approximately one-third of the 3,065 sample members. The remaining sample of 4,397 will be called only. These compose the screening sample. The effectiveness of the research design depends partially on personalizing the mailings. Therefore, the SRC will print the envelopes, rather than using labels and affix stamps rather than using'a machine stamp. Furthermore it is optimal if the City's representative(s) can personally sign the letters. If not, a printed signature may be used. Letters will likely need to be copied due to the signatures. It is the SRC's preference that the City, in conjunction with the SRC, prepare a press release or set of press releases so as to inform the 70 percent of residents who will not receive pre -interview letters of the survey and its purposes. Sample The SRC will complete surveys of at least 373 citizens of Fayetteville. The estimated sampling error associated with this number of surveys is + 5 percent if a simple random sample is drawn. A random sample of telephone numbers generated for the City of Fayetteville will be purchased. In order to gamer the desired number of completed interviews, each telephone number will be called as many as six times. The SRC cannot guarantee response rates, however optimistic we may be about them. Although the SRC follows methods demonstrated to improve response rates, subject to the client' s preferences, we can only carefully follow the agreed -upon research design. Only adults (people age 18 or older) will be interviewed. To improve the gender ratio, Exhibit A Description of a Project to Survey the Citizens of Fayetteville for the City of Fayetteville Survey Research Center, University of Arkansas June 3, 2003 these estimates include costs of selecting household respondents based on the last birthday. To select by the last birthday, the interviewer asks to speak with the adult in the household who is at home, and who was the last to celebrate a birthday. Oversampling Minority Ethnicity Populations According to the 2000 Census ofPopulation' African American and Hispanic/Latino residents compose approximately 5 percent each of Fayetteville's population. It is likely that citizens from these two groups hold opinions on the survey topics that differ from those held by citizens of the majority ethnicity. Both African American and Hispanic/Latino respondents tend to under -respond to surveys. Because they compose a small fraction of the population and they respond to surveys in percentages lower than their representation in the population, proportionately more households from these two groups will be surveyed. To obtain an estimated sampling error of+ 15 percent, approximately 42 people need to be surveyed. This will provide 22 African American and 22 Latino/Hispanic completed responses. Without the additional screening, it is estimated that 11 African American and 4 Hispanic/Latino residents will complete the survey. In order to obtain surveys from the additional 18 Hispanic/Latino and 11 African American households the SRC will call as many as 4,397 additional telephone numbers. These numbers will be screened only. Any household members who identify themselves as African American or Hispanic/Latino will be interviewed until the desired number of completed interview is obtained. Please note, however, these estimates guarantee only that the SRC will call all of these numbers at least six times, if appropriate. The SRC cannot guarantee that 22 surveys will be completed by African American and 22 by Hispanic/Latino Fayetteville residents however diligent the effort. Hispanic/Latino respondents will be interviewed by bi-lingual interviewers. All interviewers are trained to forward Spanish-speaking respondents to the Spanish-speaking 'Census of Population 2000. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, DP - 1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000. Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF1) 100 -Percent Data Geographic Area: Fayetteville township, Washington County, Arkansas. Washington, DC. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?ds_name=D&geo_id=06000US0514391283&qr_na me=DEC_2000_SFl_U_DP 1 &_lang=en. Exhibit A Description of a Project to Survey the Citizens of Fayetteville for the City of Fayetteville Survey Research Center, University of Arkansas June 3, 2003 interviewers. It is also possible that the SRC may be able to have a significant number of African American interviewers who will handle many of the interviews with African American respondents if it is possible to identify African American citizens in advance. Survey Publicity The SRC recommends that the City announce the survey in the issues of any of its publications or other appropriate communications media that will be published prior to or coincidentally with the survey. The SRC will gladly provide information needed in the announcement. Deliverables Communication about progress will be made to the principal investigator every week during the period of telephoning or mailing. After the study, the SRC will provide a Data Report. It will include a simple codebook and frequencies of the variables. The data will be delivered electronically in Excel. A Technical Report will also be written. It will include up to two charts or figures and up to six or so bivariate analyses. Please note that the latter pertains to tables rather than variables. If numerous groups are represented in one report, however, the means of responses will be reported for each group. Multivariate analyses. In addition, the SRC will devote approximately 40 hours to analyzing the findings using multiple variables to explain topic(s) of interest to the City. The form the analyses will take depend primarily upon the questions of interest. The SRC will work with the principal investigators from the City of Fayetteville to develop the questions of interest congruent with possible analyses and to prioritize the analyses desired. 4 Exhibit A Description of a Project to Survey the Citizens of Fayetteville for the City of Fayetteville Survey Research Center, University of Arkansas June 3, 2003 Table 1 Cost estimates of telephone survey implemented with an initial letter, over -sampling of African American and Hispanic citizens and a multivariate statistical analysis 1 2 Telephone survey Completions 402 Estimated sampling error LE +/- .05 Sample size for mail & phone 3065 Sample size for oversample 4397 Total sample size 7462 Questionnaire Length (min.) 15 Letter Yes, partially Multivariate analyses Yes WAGES Hourly rate pre -July 1 $9.71 Total Production Hours 540 Total wages pre -July 1 $5,240.22 Hourly rate post -July 1 $10.20 Total Production Hours 540 Total wages post -July 1 $5,504.66 Total Wages $10,744.87 STAFF SALARIES Hourly rate pre -July 1 $39.07 Staff time (Hours) 123 Total staff pre -July 1 $4,803.90 Hourly rate post -July 1 $40.24 Staff time (Hours) 123 Total staff post -July 1 $4,947.76 Total Salaries $9,751.66 DIRECT MATERIALS & SUPPLIES COSTS Printing costs $100.00 Postage $488.07 Stationary & envelopes $0.00 Long Distance $0.00 Travel $0.00 hl Exhibit A Description of a Project to Survey the Citizens of Fayetteville for the City of Fayetteville Survey Research Center, University of Arkansas June 3, 2003 Sample $996.23 Translating $320.00 Ad in Hispanic newspaper $40.00 Respondent incentives $50.00 Interviewer rewards $59.46 Other materials, equipment & supplies $1,019.34 Total Materials & Supplies $3,143.10 Total Indirect Costs (26 percent)(UA) $0.00 TOTAL SURVEY $23,639.64 Table 2. Proposed Time Line for Survey of Citizens of Fayetteville Telephone Survey 15 -minute survey, with initial letter and screen for additional African American and Hispanic residents Weeks j Dates Design questionnaire 5 May 15 — June 20 _—........._...—._....— .._—._._.... ..._._._... Evaluate questions and revise questionnaire —--- .............-----..__._..._..._... 2 1 —.—...._.......— June 16 -June 24 Submit questionnaire and letter for IRB review 2 June 20 Program telephone interviewing system and test 2 June 27 — 11 ---------...._.—_ _----.._....--�--- Conduct field tests and review responses -- ..._....------- 1.5 J July 14— July 18 Address, print and sign letters and mail 1 I July 7 — July 15 Conduct interviews 4 j July 20 - Aug 18 Clean and analyze data and write report 6 Aug 14-- Sept 26 Revisions and final report 2 I Sept 29 — Oct 24 6 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS SURVEY OF CITIZENS REPORT OF RESULTS PREPARED BY: MOLLY LONGSTRETH, DIRECTOR AND NOEL NAPIERALSKI SHARIF, PROJECT MANAGER WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF: THURMAN WILLIAMS, FIELD DIRECTOR PATTY GUY; PROJECT MANAGER PREPARED FOR CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE NOVEMBER'2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................. vi ExecutiveSummary .............................................................................................................................1 How the Survey Was Conducted.............................................:......................................................1 Fayetteville as a Place to Live.......................................................................................................... l Satisfaction with and Recommendations About City Services........................................................ l Citizen's Priorities for City Goals....................................................................................................2 Growthand Development................................................................................................................2 InformationPrograms ......................................... 3 ............. ................................................................ TheStudy .............................................................................................................................................4 Descriptionof the Study...................................................................................................................4 Objectives............................................... . . .............4 SubgroupAnalysis ............................................................................................................................4 StudyMethods .................................................................................................................................. 5 Characteristics of Survey Respondents............................................................................................5 Fayetteville as a Place to Live and City Service. Satisfaction..............................................................7 Opinionsof City Services.................................................................................................................... 8 Most Satisfactory Services: Group One..........................................................................................8 Most satisfactory Group One service by characteristics of citizens.............................................8 Most Satisfactory Services: Group Two..........................................................................................9 Most satisfactory Group Two service by characteristics of citizens..........................................10 ServicesNeeding Improvement.....................................................................................................11 Group One services needing improvement ... ......................................................................11 Characteristics of residents related to their opinions of services to improve .........................11 l l Commutetimes......................................................................................................................12 Aspects of streets needing the most attention........................................................................12 Willingness to pay for street improvements.......................................................................13 Aspects of transportation needing the most attention............................................................14 Willingness to pay for transportation improvements.........................................................14 Aspects of utilities needing the most attention ......................................................................15 City services needing the most improvement: Group Two.......................................................16 Characteristics of residents related to their opinions of services to improve .........................17 Aspects of growth and development needing the most attention...........................................18 Aspects of the development of downtown Fayetteville, the Dickson Street area and College Avenue needing the most attention........................................................................................ 20 Aspects of surface and ground water needing the most attention..........................................21 Aspects of housing needing the most attention...................................................................... 22 Aspects of a clean and green city needing the most attention.........................................:......23 Citizens' Desires for the Future..........................................................................................................24 Top Goal: Improved Mobility and Street Quality.........................................................................24 Characteristics of residents related to their preferred goals...................................................25 Top Goal: Planned and Managed Growth.....................................................................................26 Characteristics of residents related to their preferred city goals............................................26 Top Goal: A Beautiful City — Clean and Green............................................................................ 28 Characteristics of residents. related to their preferred city goals............................................28 Top Goal: Development of South Fayetteville.............................................................................30 11 Survey of Citizens Characteristics of residents related to their preferred city goals ..............................................30 " ... 30 Top Goal: Downtown Fayetteville, The Dickson Street Area And College Avenue Development .................................................................................... . g ....... Characteristics of residents related to their preference for city goals .....................................32 Growth and Development ................................... 34 Challenging Choices: Parks and Trails, Infill and Perimeter Development.................................34 Park or trail system ................................ ........34 ........................... .......................... ........ Preferences for park land or trail system by characteristics of citizens .................................34 34 Infill or perimeter development ..................................... 34 Preferences for land use by characteristics of citizens .. 34 ..................................... Opinions on Rates of Growth and Housing ................ ... 35 .......... .... . ................. Population growth ........................................ 35 Opinions on population growth by residents' characteristics ........................:..................... 35 Business and retail market growth ....................... ........... 35 . ... .............................. ...... Opinions on business and retail market growth by residents' characteristics ........................36 Jobgrowth........................................................... ...........................36 Opinions on job growth by residents' characteristics ... Preferences on growth management strategies .................. - .....37 .....:...................................... Buying land to preserve open or green space ........................:......: „37 Requiring city to use long-term land -use planning ................. .. 37 Limiting funding for development to only certain areas of the city........ .... .. 37 Willingness to Pay for Growth Management Techniques ...................................................38 Housing Preferences ........................... 39 Information ......... ................. ........ ..40 ... Obtaining Information from the City ............... .............. 40 Communicating with the City40 .... Summary .................................................. ................ 41 ............6.......... Fayetteville as a Place to Live41 Satisfaction with and Recommendations About City Services ......................................41 ... . . ... .. 41 ............... Citizen's Priorities for City Goals ................. . 42 Growth and Development ................................................ ....43 Information Programs...........................................I. . :Appendix A: Research methods .......................................... Sample.........................................................:. .... .................:..... .... .... ............... Questionnaire ........................................... - Al ............................ ...... - : Interviewing Procedures ...................................: ..........................:............................... A-2 ............... Estimated Sampling Error ...................... A-2 Geographic Assignments .................... A-2 Appendix B: English Language Survey........ ......................: -.... .._...B-1 .................................................... Appendix C: Spanish Language Survey ...................................... . _ . Appendix D: Descriptive Report ................................. Fayetteville's Circumstances ............................................ .. ...D-1 TheSurvey .......................................... ............D-1 ................................................................ The purpose of the survey................................................................................... .............. Advantages of a survey ............... ..., The Importance of Survey Results to Policymakers .............. ,D-1 ............................:....................... Research Methods ..................... ..................................................... D-2 How survey respondents compare with Fayetteville residents racially and ethnically............D-2 Reporting of the survey's findings ............................. .................................D-3 ............................. iii SurveyFindings ................. .................I...................... ............................... ........D-4 Citizens' perceptions of the city and its services ....................................... .....D-4 ....................... Satisfaction with city services..............................................................................................D-6 City services: Group One . ................D-6 Cityservices: Group Two....................................................................:....................D-7 City services needing the most attention: Group One..........................................................D-8 Residents' travel time to work or school ............... .. ................. ....D-9 City services needing the most attention: Group One — Utilities..- ..... ......................D-15 City services needing the most attention: Group One - Parks and. recreation services D-16 City services needing the most. attention: Group One - Public safety services ............D-17 City services needing the most attention: Group One — Information programs............D-18 City services needing the most attention: Group Two.......................................................D-19 City services needing the most attention: Group Two — Growth and development .....D-20 City services needing the most attention: Group Two — Downtown Fayetteville, the Dickson Street area and College Avenue development ....... ...... City services needing the most attention: Group Two — Surface and ground water.....D-23 City services needing the most attention: Group Two _ Housing.............::....:......:...D-24 City services needing the most attention: Group Two - A beautiful city - clean and green.......................................... ........ ........ ......... ........ ................. ......: ........D-25 City services needing the most attention. Group Two Fayetteville Public Library D-26 Citizens' desires for the future .. ......... ................. ...........I..... ........ I........ ....................D-27 Citizens' top goal among the city's planning goals: Improved mobility and street quality................................................................................................................................D-28 Citizens' top goal among the city's planning goals: Planned.and managed growth........D-30 Citizens' top goal among the city's planning goals: A beautiful city — clean and green .D-31 Citizens' top goal among the city's planning goals: Development of south Fayetteville.D-33 Citizens' top goal among the city's planning. goals: Development of downtown Fayetteville, the Dickson Street area and College Avenue ................................. ................ .........D-35 Challenging choices: Parks and trails, infill and perimeter development ..........:.:.:.......:..:.D-36 Parksand trails........................................................................................................:....D-36 Infill and perimeter development ................ ......D-37 Opinionson Growth and Housing ...................................................................:.........::::D-38 Growth.............................................................................::..::.........::..::...:....::.:.....D-38 Preferences on growth management strategies.............................................................D-39 Willingness to pay for growth management techniques................................:................D-40 Housing preferences .................. .D-41 Information ........................ . Demographic characteristics of respondents ...................................::.... ........: :.,......D-44 Summary.................................................................................................. ................. ..........D-52 Appendix E: Frequencies ................................ .. E-1 Appendix F: Crosstabulations......................................................:........................ ..................... F-1 iv Survey of Citizens List of Tables Table 1 Rating of the quality of life in Fayetteville (2001) and Fayetteville as a place to live (2003)7 Table 2 Top reasons for living in Fayetteville , ............................... 7 Table 3 Most satisfactory city service: Group One .................................. .. 8 ....................................... Table 4 Most satisfactory city service: Group Two .............................................................10 .............. Table 5 City services needing the most improvement: Group One...................................................11 Table 6 Daily commute (one-way)................................................................................. .................. 12 Table 7 Most improvement: Street................... 13 Table 8 Most improvement: Transportationeast-west roads from 6th Street to the mall, and adding campus parking would facilitate transportation as well (Appendix D).......................................14 Table 9 Most improvement: Utilities ...............: ............................16 ..................................................... Table 10 Ciy services needing the most improvement: Group Two ..................................................17 17 Table 11 Aspects of growth and development services needing the most attention and willingness to pay..............................................................................:...........................................................19 Table 12 Aspects of the development of downtown Fayetteville, the Dickson Street area...............20 Table 13 Aspects of surface and groundwater that need the most attention and willingness to pay 21 Table 14 Aspects of housing needing the most attention and willingness to pay..............................22 Table 15 Aspects of a beautiful city — clean and green most in need of attention and willingness to pay........................................................ 23 Table 16 Residents' priorities for City goals ............. Table 17 Preferred ways to improve mobility and street quality and willingness to pay ..................25 Table 18 Preferred methods of managing growth and willingness to pay .........................................27 29 y Table 19 Preferred ways to enhance the beauty of Fayetteville and willingness to pa y....................29 20 Preferred methods for developing south Fayetteville and willingness to pay....................31 p y ..........:.........3131 Table 21 Preferred methods for developing downtown Fayetteville, the Dickson Street area.......... 33 Table 22 Preferences for park versus trail system ....................................... Table 23 Preference for infill versus perimeter development strategies ............................................34 . Table 24 Opinions about rates of growth in the past two years......................................................... 36 Table 25 Support for growth management techniques.......................................................................38 Table 26 Willingness to pay for growth management techniques .......................... 39 Table 27 Assessments of housing supply...............................................39 ............................................ Table 28 Methods of acquiring information about the city .................... ...."""'""'"""""""""""' 40 Table 29 Methods of communicating with the cit y............................................................................ 40 rA r ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Survey Research Center would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance in conducting the Fayetteville Citizens Survey and the subsequent writing of this report: The Citizens of Fayetteville The Fayetteville City Managers, especially Hugh Earnest, Stephen Davis, Kevin Springer, and Tim Conklin The Fayetteville City Council Mayor Dan Coody Kay Swanner, City of Fayetteville Pam Henson, City of Fayetteville Lana Broyles, City of Fayetteville John Goddard, Geographic Information System, City of Fayetteville Jane Powell, University Relations, University of Arkansas Brian Culpepper, Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies, University of Arkansas vi Survey of Citizens EXECUTIVE SUMMARY How the Survey Was Conducted The city of Fayetteville commissioned the Survey Research Center (SRC) at the University of Arkansas to survey citizens of Fayetteville in the summer of 2003. Four hundred randomly sampled adult residents of the city responded to the survey. Fayetteville as a Place to Live Residents currently consider Fayetteville a good or excellent place to live, similar to their feelings in 2001. The four top reasons citizens live in Fayetteville in order are: quality of life, to be close to family, work or the University of Arkansas. Satisfaction with and Recommendations About City Services Fayetteville residents are most satisfied with the first three of the following city services and in the order listed: parks and recreation, utilities, public safety, transportation, streets and information programs. Of these services, a majority of citizens assert that streets need the most improvement. Smaller, but sizable groups of citizens nominate transportation followed by utilities as the city services needing the most improvement. To improve street services citizens recommend attending to all five aspects of street services (street repair and maintenance, sidewalk maintenance and accessibility and cleanliness of streets). The second and third largest groups of residents rate street repair and maintenance as most merited upgrades. Overall, proportions of residents who are willing to pay match those unwilling to pay for the improvements. An even larger group of citizens may be willing to pay. The largest share of citizens who deem transportation services as those needing the most improvement prefer that all four aspects of transportation services offered for consideration (Ozark Regional Transit/Public transportation; alternative transportation, i.e. bicycling and walking; ease of car travel in the city and Razorback Transit) be upgraded. The first two of the four transportation services also garner sizable shares of citizens who advocate for that each be improved. Citizens desirous of transportation improvements are largely willing to pay and another large share may be willing to pay. Citizens claiming that utilities need the most improvement cite the following aspects as those needing the most attention, in order of citizens' preferences: Garbage collection; water and sewer maintenance; meter reading and utility billing, and all three of the given aspects. These citizens are mostly unwilling to pay for them. The largest groups of residents are also most satisfied with the top three of a second set of six city services in the following order: the development of downtown Fayetteville, the Dickson Street area and College Avenue, the Fayetteville Public Library, a clean and green city, growth and development, housing and surface and ground water. Of this group of city services, the largest group of residents considers growth and development services as those most needing improvement. Sizable, but smailer fractions of citizens in order identify the Dickson Street area and College Avenue, surface and ground water, housing, the city as a clean and green place and for a very small percentage, the Fayetteville Public Library, as the city services most needing improvement. Residents who rank growth and development services as those most needing improvement prefer stricter development standards and more environmental protection as well as the promotion of growth. Much higher percentages of advocates of advances to growth and development services are willing than unwilling to pay for them. q: M Proponents of improvements to the development of downtown, the Dickson Street area and College Avenue support upgrades to College Avenue above either of the other two or all three areas. Supporters of the development of these three areas are nearly equally as likely to be willing as unwilling or possibly willing to pay for these advances. Of citizens who support surface and groundwater upgrades, the highest percentage favor attending to all three ways to improve surface and groundwater: Water quality, storm drainage and flood control. Of these three aspects considered separately, greater percentages of citizens support upgrades in water quality than to either storm drainage or flood control. Willingness and unwillingness to pay are approximately equal over all. Citizen's Priorities for City Goals Citizens rank; five city goals in the following order: Improved mobility and street quality; planned and managed. growth; a beautiful city — clean and green; development of south Fayetteville, and development of downtown Fayetteville, the Dickson Street area and College Avenue. Citizens propose achieving the goal of improved mobility and street quality first, by improving traffic flow. The next most preferred methods for. improving mobility and street quality are, in order: Developing improved public transportation and more sidewalks, protecting neighborhoods from traffic impacts and developing a trail network throughout the city. Willingness to pay for improved mobility and street quality somewhat outweighs unwillingness to pay. Residents contend that the goal of planned and managed. growth can best be achieved by supporting quality development within existing neighborhoods consistent with neighborhood plans and upgrading infrastructure in older sections of Fayetteville. Growth paying for growth, developing affordable housing, and new planning standards and/or regulations to support alternative development enjoy moderate support. In general, citizens who are willing to pay to achieve better planned and managed growth outnumber those who lack willingness. To achieve the goal of a beautiful city — clean and green, approximately equal shares of its proponents favor enforcing codes, preserving trees and improving the appearance of major corridors. Willingness to pay to make the city cleaner and greener exceeds unwillingness substantially. The top two means for developing south Fayetteville, according to its supporters, are to develop single-family affordable housing and to redevelop industrial areas for non -industrial uses. Citizens prioritizing the development of south Fayetteville are significantly more willing to pay for some development options than others. For the two most popular development methods, those unwilling to pay outnumber the willing. Chief among methods for developing downtown Fayetteville, the, Dickson Street area and College Avenue is greater ease of access and parking to these areas. Overall much larger shares of residents who back of downtown, Dickson and College Avenue development are willing than unwilling to pay for costs associated with the development. Growth and Development Nearly equal shares of Fayetteville's citizens support buying land for a new multi -purpose park and implementing a new multi -purpose trail system. Those preferring park land slightly outweigh trail system proponents. In contrast, much larger fractions of residents prefer quality development within existing neighborhoods consistent with neighborhood plans compared with quality development on 2 Survey of Citizens current farmland consistent with city substantial groups of citizens also use regulations. numerous th b Citizens conclude, that over the past two years, Fayetteville's population grew too fast or the right amount while jobs grew too slowly or the right amount. Business and retail market growth grew the right amount according to most citizens, but the remainder divide evenly over whether the growth was too fast or too slow. Fayetteville's residents resoundingly support the growth management strategies of the city buying land to preserve open or green space and requiring the city to adopt long-term land - use planning. Margins of support are strong, but weaker for limiting funding of development to only certain areas of the city. A substantial portion of the citizens report willingness to pay an extra $10 to $20 annually in taxes for four growth.management techniques,. especially the first three, but none constitutes a majority. The, four techniques follow, in order of support: instituting a smart growth plan for the area; buying land for greenspace that would not,be developed; buying land to keep farmland from being developed, and buying land for parks. When asked about the :supply. of housing available„ citizens believe that while too many ..apartments exist, Fayetteville is short on housing for first-time buyers, affordable housing units and housing units for older :adults Information Programs Nearly all of Fayetteville's citizens say they seek information about. the city. The three sources on which the largest shares of citizens rely for city news are newspapers, personal =•contact and television stations other than public or government access channels, in that order. A very large percentage of Fayetteville's residents also contact the city. The telephone is citizens' most popular means by far for communicating with the city. Yet o er means oth for learning about the city and communicating with it. 3 1 THE STUDY Description of the Study This second survey of citizens of Fayetteville evaluates aspects of Fayetteville's strategic plan as well as growth issues. The survey also assesses citizens' satisfaction with city services. The study is designed to provide information for decision -making to policy makers, city administrators, activists and business people. It is also meant to inform all other members of the community about citizens' opinions on their government. Objectives The four objectives of the survey were: 1 2. 3. To examine residents' assessments of the quality of city services. The survey asked residents to assess the overall quality of life in Fayetteville and to name services with which they are most and least satisfied. Residents identified aspects of services that, in their opinions, need the most improvement and provided an estimate of their willingness to pay for the improvements. Additional questions garnered preferences for a park versus trail system and various types of development. To determine Fayetteville citizens' opinions of goals of the strategic plan developed by the mayor and city council of Fayetteville. To learn about residents' preferences on difficult decisions related to growth and development that the city faces regularly. Questions probed residents' perceptions of the rates of growth Fayetteville has experienced in recent years, the supply of housing, their preferences for growth management options and willingness to pay for these. 4. To investigate how residents obtain information from the city and how they communicate with the city. Each objective is discussed in a separate chapter. The final chapter summarizes the findings. Subgroup Analysis Certain responses are analyzed by characteristics of the respondents. In each case, we report only the variations between subgroups that are likely to reflect real differences of opinion. The demographic variables used to analyze opinions comprise age, education, ethnicity, gender, income, race, tenure and reasons for living in Fayetteville, residence type, -ward and work status. The demographic variables are defined as follows: ■ Age of respondent. Age is categorized into the following groups: 18-25, 26- 40,41-50, 51-64, or 65 and over. ■ Education level. Levels of education about which the questionnaire asked are: 12th`grade or less no diploma; high school graduate or G.E.D.; some college, no degree; associate's degree; bachelor's degree; and graduate or professional degree. ■ Ethnicity. Respondents identify themselves as being: Hispanic or Latino, or non -Hispanic or Latino. •■ Gender. ` Persons identify themselves as being either: male or female. ■ Income. Categories of anticipated 2003 household income are: -less than $15,000; $15,001 to $25,000; $25,001 to $35,000; $35001 to $50,000; $50,001 to $75,000; $75,001 to $100,000; or more than $100,000. ■ Race. Choices for racial identification were: White, Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or some other race. El C Survey of Citizens • Tenure. Tenure is classified as living in Fayetteville less than one year; 1 to 5 years; 6 to 10 years; 11 to 20 years; more than 20 years, but not all my life; or all my life. ■ Reasons for living in Fayetteville. Choices given were: Quality of life, close, to family, close to work, close to U of A, schoolquality, recreation opportunities, born here, high value for the tax dollar, the weather, all of the above, or other (enter response). ■ Residence type. Citizens describe their residences from the following categories: One -family house detached from any other houses, a building with two or more apartments, one -family house attached to one or more houses, mobile home, or other. • Ward. Residents were queried about the nearest intersections to their residences. Responses are reported as: Wards 1 through 4. • Work Status. The following categories were used to describe the work status of respondents: Working full-time (35+ hours/week); working part-time; looking for work; non -working retired; retired and working full- or part-time; full-time homemaker; student working full-time, student working part-time; non -working student; or disabled. o Work status was further categorized as:. Working (including those looking for work and homemakers), retired (working and non -working) and student (working and non- working). Study Methods The Survey Research Center (SRC) at the University of Arkansas surveyed Fayetteville residents at the request of the Fayetteville City government. A telephone survey was used so as to reach the widest possible group of Fayetteville residents. Random digit dialing of Fayetteville phone numbers enabled all households with working telephones to have an equal chance of participating. The SRC conducted a telephone survey between July 31 and August 29, 2003. Carefully trained interviewers, most with previous interviewing experience, conducted the interviews. Interviewers completed 400 surveys with residents of Fayetteville ages 18 or older. About 28 percent or more of the eligible households in the sample responded. A more complete description of research methods is given in Appendix A and the survey is in Appendix B. For all questions answered by residents of 373 households the potential sampling error is plus or minus 5.0 percent. This means that on average, the answers to the questions should be within 5.0 percent in either direction of answers that would have been obtained by having interviewed an adult resident in all households in Fayetteville with working telephones during the same time period. When responses of subgroups are analyzed the sampling error rises. Characteristics of Survey Respondents Respondents answered a series of questions about themselves and their households. The opinions respondents give on city governance are sometimes analyzed across subgroups in the population. Studying how opinions vary by respondents' characteristics enables the city to learn about the different interests held by its residents. Therefore, the city can better meet the needs of the various groups of citizens. Citizens responding to the survey range in age from 18, the minimum age of allowable response, to 91 years. Half of respondents are ages 44 or younger, and half are older. Sixteen percent of respondents are ages 18 to 25; 26 percent 26 to 40; 24 percent 41 to 50; 22 percent 51 to 64; and 12 percent are 65 years of age or older. 5 A quarter of survey respondents possess bachelor's degrees. A fifth hold graduate or professional degrees. Another, 21 percent have attended or attend college without having earned a degree. Nine percent of respondents have associate's degrees. About 17 percent are high school graduates or have obtained a G.E.D., and the remaining 8 percent have a twelfth grade education or less. About 5.5 percent of respondents describe themselves as Hispanic or Latino. All of the Hispanic/Latino respondents areconsidered white and white respondents compose 91.2 percent of all. Black or African American residents form 6 percent of the respondents; American Indian and/or Alaskan Natives l percent; Asian or Native Hawaiian and/or other Pacific Islander 13 percent and some other race 0.5 percent of all survey respondents. Women are overrepresented composing 59 percent of the respondents. About 60 percent of the respondents expect to have 2003 household incomes of $50,000 or less and half have higher incomes. About 13 to 15 percent of respondents each report that their 2003 household incomes will be less than $15,000, $15,001, to $25,000 or $25,001 to $35,000; and 19 percent each $35,001 to $50,000 or, $50,001 to $75,000. Households with incomes between $75,001 and $100,000 compose 9 percent of the respondents, with the remaining 12 percent reporting yearly incomes of more than $100,000. Citizens living in single-family detached housing compose 72 percent of the survey respondents and are overrepresented in this sample. Those living in apartment buildings compose the next largest group surveyed, at 19 percent of all respondents. People living. in single-family homes attached to. other units make up 8 percent of the respondents. The remaining respondents are mobile home. dwellers. Sixty-nine percent of citizens answering the survey have lived in Fayetteville for over 5 years. Another 27 percent have lived here over a year but fewer than 6 years and only 4 percent have lived in Fayetteville for less than a year. The, distribution of survey respondents by ward closely reflects the actual population in Fayetteville's four wards. Ward 1, containing a quarter of the city's population, is slightly overrepresented with 28.5 percent of survey respondents. Ward 2 is slightly underrepresented with 2.1.5 percent of respondents, although this represents the smallest ward in the city with 24.3 percent of the citizenry. Ward 3, encompassing 25 percent of the city's population, is the home of 24 percent of the survey respondents and Ward 4 with 26 percent of the survey sample contains 25.6 percent of the city's inhabitants. Fifty-seven percent of survey respondents describe themselves as employed with 50 percent working full-time and 7 percent part- time. Nine percent are full-time homemakers. Retirees constitute 18 percent of the respondents including 14 percent not working and 4 percent working full- or part-time. Students compose 12 percent 'of respondents and comprise those working full-time (3%), part-time (7%) and not working (2%). Residents who seek work and those who are disabled and not working compose another two percent of the population each. 6 Survey of Citizens 2 FAYETTEVILLE AS A PLACE TO LIVE AND CITY SERVICE SATISFACTION In 2001, the City asked a random sample of residents to rate the quality of life in Fayetteville and this year, about the city as a place to live.. The questions and scales differ somewhat, but in 2001, 93 percent of residents viewed the quality of life in Fayetteville as excellent or good, whereas 95 percent in 2003 say that the city is an excellent or good place to live (Table 1). In 2001, 7 percent deemed the quality of life in Fayetteville as fair and in 2003, 3 percent believe Fayetteville is neither a good nor poor place to live. In 2001, no residents felt that the quality of life in Fayetteville was poor, but 2 percent rate Fayetteville as a poor place to live in 2003 (Table 1). In 2000, a random sample of Arkansans were asked whether their city was an excellent, good, fair or poor place to live and 75 percent rated their cities as excellent or good places to live.' Thus, the citizens of Fayetteville rate Fayetteville highly in both 2001 and 2003 compared with state averages. Ratings of Fayetteville as a place to live are similar across gender, ethnicity (Hispanic or non -Hispanic) tenure in Fayetteville, wards and work status. Residents of single-family dwellings regard Fayetteville as a better place to live than those living in other types of housing. Assessments .of Fayetteville as a place to live rise slightly with levels of education and income, and decline with age. Members of racial minorities tend to regard the city less positively than white people do. 1 University of Arkansas at Little Rock Institute of Government. (2000). Growth in Arkansas. Little Rock Arkansas, p. 7. 2001 2003 Percent Excellent 27 46 Good 66 49 Fair/Neither good nor poor 7 3 Poor 0 2 Very Poor 0 Total 100 100 Table 1 Rating of the quality of life in Fayetteville (2001) and Fayetteville as a place to live (2003) We also asked residents the top reason that they live in Fayetteville. Nearly one-third (31%) of its residents live in Fayetteville because of its quality of life. A total of 55 percent reside in Fayetteville to be near family (22%), work (18%) or the University of Arkansas (15%). The other reasons listed in Table 2 appeal to 4 percent or fewer of Fayetteville's residents. Residents describe additional reasons for living in Fayetteville, including: all of the factors listed, job opportunities, cultural enrichment, proximity to hospitals, and/or affordability. They also mention the town's beauty, the feeling of home and simply liking Fayetteville. Percent Quality of life 30.9 Close to family 21.9 Close to work 18.6 Close toUofA 15.6 School quality 3.8 Recreation opportunities 2.0 Born here 1.3 High value for the tax dollar 0.8 The weather 0.3 All of the above 1.8 Other 3.3 Total 100 Table 2 Top reasons for living in Fayetteville 7 3 OPINIONS OF CITY SERVICES Most Satisfactory Services: Group One The survey presented citizens with two lists of city services and asked them to select one service from each list that they find most satisfactory. Of the list of city services in Table 3, Fayetteville residents are most satisfied with parks and recreation services, utilities or public safety services. Five percent or fewer regard transportation, streets and information services as most satisfactory. The high ranking of parks and recreation services agree with the findings voiced on the 2001 Citizen Survey. At that time about 75 percent of citizens rated city parks and park maintenance as good or excellent. The three recreational aspects garnered good to excellent ratings from 44 to 67 percent of citizens. Furthermore, citizens prioritized the Boys and Girls Club- and leisure and recreation services 6th and 7th, respectively, out of 14 traditional city services in 2001.2 ® Parks and Recreation Services 55 •Utilities 19 O Public Safety Services 14 it Total 100 Table 3 Most satisfactory city service: Group One Most satisfactory Group One service by characteristics of citizens Residents' education, ethnicity, gender and tenure in Fayetteville do not affect selections of the.most satisfactory Group One service. Opinions about Group One services needing the most improvement vary with the citizen's 2 City of Fayetteville, Budget and Research Division. (November 2001). 2001 Citizen Survey. Fayetteville, AR, p. 5. age, income, race, reason for living in Fayetteville, residence type, ward.. and work status. We describe, the variations below. Parks and recreation services. Citizens ages 18 to 40 cite parks and recreational services as most satisfactory in greater proportions than do their older neighbors. Among the latter group are non- working retirees. Larger shares of residents attracted to Fayetteville for quality of life compared with their neighbors living in Fayetteville for other reasons find parks and recreation services most satisfactory. Utilities. The likelihood of considering utilities as the most satisfactory service rises with age. Those with incomes less than $15,000, $35,000 to $50,000 and over $100,000 are more likely than those of other levels of income to count utilities as the servicethey find most satisfactory. White residents are more likely than their peers of racial minorities to regard utilities as the most satisfactory of Group One services (Appendix F). Larger fractions of those living in the city to' be near family or work compared with those motivated by quality of 'life claim` utilities are the most satisfactory services. Utilities are favored services of relatively more of those living in single-family residences and less of those in apartments; relatively fewer Ward 2, but more Ward 3 citizens. Non -working retirees are much more likely to be most satisfied with utilities but non -retirees working full-time less likely. Public safety services. Citizens over 64 are less likely than middle-aged citizens to designate public safety services as most satisfactory (Appendix F). Higher percentages of white residents and those with incomes exceeding $25,000 annually describe public safety services as most satisfactory. Lower proportions of Ward 1 and Ward 2 residents and higher proportions of those in Wards 3 and 4 identify public safety services as the most satisfactory. Those in 3 Survey of Citizens Fayetteville for proximity to work designate public safety services as most satisfactory relatively more than their neighbors who live here to be close to U of A or for other reasons. Furthermore, full-time workers are disproportionately represented among those most satisfied with public safety services whereas non -working retirees are underrepresented. Transportation. Citizens of racial minorities and those with incomes less than $25,000 figure disproportionately among those declaring transportation as the most satisfactory services Fayetteville offers (Appendix F). Transportation is the most satisfactory service according to larger portions of citizens younger than 26 and older than 50. Residents who live in the city to be close to the U of A. are much more likely than people here for any other reason to find transportation services most satisfactory and those in Fayetteville to be near family join. them. Their peers in Fayetteville for quality of life or proximity to work are less likely to say they are most satisfied with transportation. Transportation is named the most satisfactory service by relatively more of those not living in single-family homes (especially apartment dwellers). Wards 2 and 4 residents disproportionately consider transportation as the most satisfactory service, ,especially when compared with their peers in Ward 3. Students, particularly those working part-time, are much more likely than residents of any other work status to be most satisfied with transportation services and full-time workers much less likely. Streets. Racial minority residents and those with incomes $25,000 to $50,000 are comparatively most satisfied with streets. Residents who live in Fayetteville to be near family or work are less likely to denote streets as the most satisfactory city service while their peers here for quality of life, are more likely to do so. Streets are more favored by those living in duplexes and mobile homes than those in single-family homes and apartments. Greater fractions of Wards 2 and 3 but smaller segments of Ward 4 residents cite streets as the most satisfactory service. Those looking for work are more likely than their neighbors of other work status to be most satisfied with streets and full-time workers are least likely. Information programs. Information programs, say larger percentages of `residents ages 65 and over compared with those under age 26 and ages 41 to 64, are the most satisfactory services of Group One. Residents with incomes of $15,000 to $25,000 or $35,000 to $100,000 are more likely than those with higher and lower incomes to agree with older adults on information, programs. Citizens living in Fayetteville for quality of life are less likely than those here for other reasons to cite information programs as tops._ Greater shares of duplex dwellers than their neighbors living in other types of housing, especially apartments see information programs as most satisfactory. Citizens of Wards 1 and 4 identify information programs as the most satisfactory in larger proportions than do their counterparts in Wards 2 and 3. Full-time homemakers, full- and part-time workers, including students, nominate information programs as the most satisfactory service in, lower proportions than retired people, especially those not working. Most Satisfactory Services: Group two Of the second group of services,` residents register most satisfaction with the development of downtown Fayetteville, the Dickson Street area and College Avenue; the Fayetteville Public Library; and the' city as a clean and green place. The currently high level of satisfaction with the Fayetteville Library mirrors the ratings of citizens in 2001 when 83 percent evaluated library services as good or excellent. The citizens likewise assigned the Library a priority of 5 among 14 other traditional city services.3 Three to nine percent name growth and development, housing, or surface and ground water as the service of the second group they consider most satisfactory (Table 4). Other most satisfactory city services include all six of these for one respondent and none of them for another. One resident each specifies parks and playgrounds for children and youth services, particularly athletics, as most satisfactory. Excessive regulations and the damage to yards due to widening of streets are mentioned also. Percent ■ Downtown Fayetteville, Dickson Street area and College _ Avenue develment _ u Fayetteville Public library 33 _� �_ 26 ACleanandGreenCity 23 Growth and Development 9 • Housing 5 Surface and Ground Water 3 • Other ,1 Total 100 counterbalanced by those ages 65 and older. Students, especially compared with retirees - , and those with disabilities, disproportionately claim that the development of downtown, Dickson Street area and College Avenue is the.most satisfactory service of Group Two city services. Fayetteville Public Library. Working (and not retired) residents, including full-time homemakers, are more likely than students or retired or disabled to name the Fayetteville Public Library the most satisfactory service. A clean and green city. Citizens 65 and over are relatively more likely than others to find the clean and green nature of the city most satisfactory and those 26 to 40 less likely than those of other ages to do the same. Similarly, greater fractions of retirees than working citizens, especially,' but also students deem services to keep the city clean and green as most satisfactory. Table 4 Most satisfactory city service: Group Two Growth and development. Residents Most satisfactory Group Two service ages 26 to 50 say that growth and development services are the most by characteristics of citizens satisfactory while those ages 51 to 64 are The opinions about the most satisfactory of much less likely to do so. Compared with Group Two services hold across the students and retirees or residents with education, ethnicity, race, gender, income, disabilities, those working (and not retired) �. ward, tenure and reasons for living in name growth and development as the service. Fayetteville and residence typeof residents with which they are most satisfied. But residents' ages and work status sway selections of the most satisfactory Group Two Hous►ng. While citizens ages 51 and above service. We describe the relationships, below are more likely than others to name housing as the most satisfactory city service, those Downtown, Dickson Street area and ages 41 to 50 are less likely to do so. College Avenue development. The Similarly, retirees disproportionately find downtown, Dickson Street and College housing as most satisfactory city service of Avenue development is very slightly more Group Two compared with working citizens, likely cited as the most satisfactory city especially, but also students: service by those 18 to 25. Their opinions are Surface and ground water. Surface and City of Fayetteville, Budget and Research Division. groundwater is the most satisfactory of (November 2001). 2001 Citizen Survey. Fayetteville, Group Two services according to relatively AR, pp. 5 and 9. more residents ages 26 to 50, but fewer younger residents and those ages 51 to 64. 10 , Survey of Citizens Greater percentages of working (and not retired) than students, retirees or disabled residents claim surface and groundwater as the service from Group Two that satisfies them most. Services Needing Improvement Group One services needing improvement Fayetteville residents selected one service they believed needed the most improvement from each of two sets of city services. The first set of services among which residents chose is listed in Table 5. The majority of ,residents (51%) deem streets as the city service needing the most improvement and another 24 percent say the same about transportation. While for 12.6 percent of residents utilities are the services most needing improvement, 5 percent or fewer assess the following services similarly: Parks and recreation services, information programs, public safety services and other (Table 5).: Someresidents made other suggestionsfor city services needing improving. One resident considers that all of the services in Table 5 need improving. One each indicates that both streets and traffic and both transportation and streets need the most improvement. Economic growth, unfettered smoking opportunities and housing are city services needing the most improvement according to others. One resident recognizes Table 5 City services needing the most improvement: Group One Characteristics of residents related to their opinions of services to improve Residents hold similar opinions about the Group One city services most needing improvement regardless of their ages, levels of education, ethnicity, race, gender, income, tenure and reasons for living in Fayetteville and work status. Selections of Group One services needing the most improvement vary with citizens' residences and wards. We review the variations below. Streets. The opinion that of the six city services listed in Table 7, streets need the most improvement is held nearly uniformly, but slight variation by ward exists. Streets need the most improvement according to a majority (52% to 57%) of residents of Wards 2 through 4, but by 41 percent of Ward 1 inhabitants (Appendix F). Transportation. Relatively more residents living in apartments or Wards l or 2 and fewer in single-family detached houses or Wards 3 or 4 consider transportation as the city service needing the most improvement. Utilities. The selection of utilities as the city service needing the most improvement is not influenced by most of the characteristics of citizens that we have analyzed. Nonetheless, relatively more residents living in single family and duplex homes than those in apartments or mobile homes consider utilities the city service most needing improvement. Residents of Ward 4 disproportionately identify utilities as the city service most in need of improvement, but relatively fewer in Wards 1 and 3 feel likewise (Appendix F). Public safety services. Public safety services need the most improvement according to proportionately more mobile and fewer single-family detached home dwellers; more Ward 3 and 4 residents compared to those in Wards 1 and 2. 11 Parks andrecreationalservices. Parks and recreational services most need improving according to five percent or fewer of residents of all wards, but proportionately more in. Ward 1 and relatively fewer residents of Ward 3 (Appendix F). Information services. Greater fractions of apartment dwellers and residents of Ward 4, especially, but also Ward 3 than their counterpart neighbors cite information services as those most needing attention (Appendix F). Commute times To prepare for a review of streets and transportation as city services needing the most improvement, commute times reported by Fayetteville' s citizens are presented. About 82 percent of city residentsspend 15 minutes or fewer traveling to work or school each way (Table 6). Another •14 percent, commute to work or school in half an hour, and the commute for 4 percent exceeds half an hour. These times concur with findings of the 2000 Census which reports .the average travel time to work is 16.4 minutes in Fayetteville. Commuting time in Fayetteville is far shorter than the average of 21.4 minutes for the state of Arkansas and 25.5 minutesnationwide.4 Percent 15 minutes orless .: 82 .5 -hour 14 .75 hour 1 1, hour 1 1.25 hours 1 1.5 hours .. 0 2.25+ hours, , l Total 100 Table 6 Daily commute (one-way) 4 U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1, factfinder.census.gov Aspects of streets needing the most attention That 51 percent of Fayetteville's residents currently assess streets as the city service of Group One services needing the most attention is not surprising in light of the 2001 Fayetteville Citizen Survey findings. In 2001, the highest fraction of citizens judging as good or excellent any street -related service were the 48 and 47 percent who so rated street cleanliness and lighting, respectively. Only 34 and 32 percent, respectively, evaluated street and sidewalk maintenance as good or excellent.5 If ratings of good or excellent by 70 percent of a population are considered to indicate acceptable levels of service, both the 2001 and 2003 surveys indicate that streets in Fayetteville need attention. It is not surprising, therefore, that in 2003, 42 percent of residents who identify streets as the city service most needing improvement, further assert that all of the aspects of streets mentioned (street maintenance, cleanliness, repair, and sidewalk maintenance and accessibility) need the most attention (Table 7). Sizable groups of residents name the individual services of street repair and maintenance as most needing attention whereas very small contingents regard cleanliness of streets or sidewalk maintenance or accessibility similarly. The largest group of citizens proposing other aspects most needing improvement describe them as: more and wider streets both for thoroughfares and side streets; more east -west streets; better freeway access; and streets and street names that are continuous (Appendix D). Others counsel the city to improve curbs and sidewalks and add traffic lights. Planning is, heartily endorsed. Although only 33. percent of Fayetteville's residents assessed snow removal as a good or excellent city 5 City of Fayetteville, Budget and Research Division. (November 2001). 2001 Citizen Survey. Fayetteville, AR, p. 5. 12 Survey of Citizens service and 30 percent thought it poor in 2001, no one mentions it in 2003.6 Willingness to pay for street improvements In considering all the options to improve Fayetteville's streets, about 26 percent of residents are willing to pay for improving streets; 48 percent may be willing, and 26 percent are unwilling to pay to improve streets. As Table 7 shows, willingness to pay varies by the street enhancement proposed. City service: Streets Service percent: 50.8 Population size: 382 Service segment size: 194 Willingness to Pay Respondents Yes Maybe No Total City service aspect (%) given aspects All 81 19 43 19 81 (4.1.8) (23.5) (53.1) (23.5) (100.0) Street repair 46 10 21 13 44 (23.7) (22.7) (47.7) (29.5) (100.0) Street maintenance 29 7 14 8 29 (14.9) (24.1) (48.3) (27.6) (100.0) Other 21 6 .8 6 20 (10.8) (30.0) (40.0) (30.0) (100.0) Sidewalk maintenance 7 3 2 2 7 (3.6) (42.9) (28:6) (28.6) . (100.0) Sidewalk accessibility 7 5 2 0 7 (3.6) (71.4) (28.6) (0.0) (100.0) Cleanliness of streets 3 0 2 1 3 (1.5) (0.0) (66.7) (33.3) (100.0) Total 194 50 92 49 191 (100.0) (26.2) (48.2) (25.7) (100.0) Table 7- Most improvement: Street 6 City of Fayetteville, Budget and Research Division. (November 2001). 2001 Citizen Survey. Fayetteville, AR, p. 5. 13 } Aspects of transportation needing the most attention Of the 24 percent of Fayetteville residents who declare that transportation is the city service most needing improvement, 43 percent subsequently indicate that all four ways to improve transportation, including ease of car travel in the city, Ozark Regional Transit / public transportation, Razorback Transit and alternative transportation e.g., bicycling and walking need the most attention (Table 8). About 25 percent advocate improving Ozark Regional Transit/public transportation and 12 percent suggest improving alternative transportation. Additional ways to upgrade the city's transportation, say these residents, comprise improving both Ozark Regional and Razorback Transit. The city could supply buses citywide, transportation for people with disabilities and/or a public transportation system for regional intercity travel.. Other residents think that determining future traffic patterns and planning smartly to accommodate them; improving or providing east -west roads from 6th Street to the mall, and adding campus parking would facilitate transportation as well (Appendix D). All of these recommendations elucidate the problem of travel congestion indicated in 2001 by the 42 percent of the city's residents who evaluated it as fair and 35 percent who judged it poor. None of the residents who provided their own ideas for improving transportation noted traffic enforcement, although in 2001 only 62 percent regarded it as good or excellent.7 Willingness to pay for transportation improvements Among all transportation changes they favor, about 51 percent of these residents are willing to pay, 32 percent may be willing to pay and 17 percent are unwilling to pay for them. Table 8 shows willingness.to pay by individual aspects of Fayetteville's transportation system. City service: Transportation Service percent: 23.8 Population size: 382 Service segment size: 91 Willingness to Pay Respondents Yes Maybe No Total Cityservice aspect All given aspects 39 22 14 2 38 (42.9) (57.9) (36.8) (5.3) (100.0) Ozark Regional Transit/Public 23 8 8 6 22 Transportation (25.3) (36.4) (36.4) (27.3) (100.0) Alternative transportation, i.e. 11 9 1 1 11 bicycling and walking . (12.1) (81.8) " (9.1) (9.1) (100.0) Other 9 2 2 5 9 (9.9) (22.2) (22.2) (55.6) , . (100.0) Ease of car travel in the city 6 4 2 0 6 (6.6) (66.7) (33.3) , (0.0) (100.0), Razorback Transit 2 0 1 1 2 (2.2) (0.0) (50.0) (50.0) (100.0) Total 90 45 28 15 88 (98.9) (51.1) (31.8) (17.0) (100.0) Table 8 Most improvement: Transportation 7 City of Fayetteville, Budget and Research Division. (November 2001). 2001 Citizen Survey. Fayetteville, AR, p. 5. 14 Survey of Citizens Aspects of utilities needing the most attention The nearly 13 percent of residents who contend that utilities are the city service needing the most improvement split nearly evenly between the five options given, but show some reluctance to pay for the desired improvements. Overall, 19 percent claim willingness to pay for enhancing the utilities that Fayetteville provides, 17 percent may be willing, and 64 percent are unwilling to pay for utility changes. About 13 percent of the residents. who consider utilities as the city services needing the most improvement favor attention being devoted to the three utility services presented: garbage collection, water and sewer maintenance, and meter reading and utility billing (Table 9). Residents citing individual services for attention are about equally likely to indicate garbage collection (21%)as water and sewer maintenance (23.%) (Table 9). When the 12.5 percent who counsel the city to improve all the utility services listed are added to 20.8 percent who advocating for improved garbage collection, they constitute about 33 percent of all who assert than utilities are the city, service most in need of improvement. The total of 33 percent who answered this question and assert that garbage collection needs :the most attention represent about 4 percent of the>city's population. This is very congruent with the findings of the 2001 Citizen Survey in. which. 76, percent of residents rated solid waste collection as good or excellent, 18 percent fair and only 6 percent poor.$ The 35 percent, combined, who favor attending to water and sewer maintenance represent 5 percent of the citizenry. If these 5 percent are viewed as rating water and sewer maintenance as poor, they are similar in percentage to those who 8 City of Fayetteville, Budget and Research Division. (November 2001). 2001 Citizen Survey. Fayetteville, AR, p. 5. weighed water and sewer maintenance services as fair (18%) or poor (7%) in 2001.9 The next largest group of 17 percent describes the aggregated service of meter reading and utility billing, by itself, as needing the most attention. When combined with citizens assessing all aspects of utilities as needing attention, 30 percent of those who answered this question equal about 4 percent of the city's adult populace. These 4 percent avow that meter reading and utility billing merit attention. In 2001, a comparable fraction, 3 percent of citizens, appraised meter reading as poor and 15 percent rated it as fair.10 In other words, dissatisfactionwithmeter reading utility billing has held constant between 2001 and 2003. In 2003, no one indicated recycling alone as a utility needing the most attention but the 13 percent (2 percent of Fayetteville's adults) who think that all utility services need improvement, likely include recycling services. In the 2001 survey, 74 percent of city residents describe the quality of the city's recycling program as good or excellent and only 6 percent as poor.11 Although it is impossible to determine whether satisfaction with recycling services has changed since 2001, this evidence may point to the possibility that citizens are happier currently with recycling. services than in 2001. Another 17 percent of the residents recommend other ways to improve utilities. Four of the eight comments refer to electricity. One resident mentions electricity distribution and another prefers that power 9 City of Fayetteville, Budget and Research Division. (November 2001). 2001 Citizen Survey. Fayetteville, AR p. 5. 10 City of Fayetteville, Budget and Research Division. (November 2001). 2001 Citizen Survey. Fayetteville, AR, p. 5. City of Fayetteville; Budget and Research Division. (November 2001). 2001 Citizen Survey. Fayetteville, AR, p. 5. 15 L City service: Utilities Service percent: 12.6 Population size: 382 Service segment size: 48 Willingness to Pay Respondents Yes Maybe; No Total Cityserviceaspect (%) (%) (%), (%) (%) Water and sewer maintenance 11 3 0 8 11 ''. (22.9) (27.3) (0.0) (72.7) (100.0) Garbage collection 10 1 1 8 10 (20.8) (10.0) (10.0) (80.0) (100.0) Meter reading and utility billing 8 0 3 5 8 (16.7) (0.0) (37.5) (62.5) (100.0). Other 8 2 2 3 7 (16.7) (28.6) (28.6) (42.9) (100.0) All given aspects 6 2 1 3 6 (12.5) (33.3) (16.7) (50.0) (100.0) Total 43 8 7 27 42 (89.6) (19.0) (16.7) (64.3) (100.0) Table 9 Most improvement: Utilities lines be buried. One resident believes that Four percent also identify other services maintenance on power line easements could needing the most improvement. Of these, be strengthened and another refers to trees fewer than 1 percent recommend that all five around power lines asthe aspect of utilities of the options need the most improvement. needing the most attention. One resident each Most of the other improvements these contends that the cable system and phone ' ` residents suggest are from Group One company need the most attention. The city services. More than 1 percent refer to has jurisdiction or influence regarding some utilities, especially garbage pickup and water. of these suggestions and not others. About 1.2 percent recommend improving streets, including paving quality, maintenance City services needing the most and traffic flow. Comments propose keeping improvement: Group Two all of Fayetteville, rather than only certain Residents chose from the services listed in ' areas, clean. One each voices concern about water and "keeping things green"providing recreation for children and youth; the Table 10) to indicate their opinions of the one University of Arkansas, and attracting more needing the most improvement. More than industry to south Fayetteville (Appendix E). one -quarter maintain that city services related to growth and development need the most Percent • Growth and Developi ent 29 improvement. Otherwise, about 10 to 20 Downtown Fayetteville, ® " Dickson Street area and College 19 percent each assert that services related to ANenae develo meat four of the issues listed in Table 10 need the Surface and Ground Water 17 i ousin- ________.-.-. most improvement. Four percent deem the A Clean and Green Ci 11 __ Fayetteville Pub&c Library 4 Fayetteville Public Library as most in need of Other a improvement. Total 100 Survey of Citizens Table 10 Ciy services needing the most improvement: Group Two Characteristics of residents related to their opinions of services to improve Opinions about which of Group Two city services need the most improvement are unrelated to the age, education, ethnicity, income, tenure in Fayetteville of residents and ward. Perceptions of Group Two services needing the most improvement vary with citizens' gender, race, reason for living in Fayetteville, type of residence and work status. The variations are described below. Growth and development. While 34 and 40 percent of residents in single-family detached and mobile homes reckon that growth and development is the city service needing the most improvement, about 15 percent of their neighbors in duplexes and apartments share this view (Appendix F). Slightly to somewhat larger fractions of men than women, white residents than their neighbors of color and citizens working full- time regard growth and development as the city service most needing improvement. Development of downtown, the Dickson Starea and College Avenue. Citizens inhabiting duplexes and apartments are disproportionately represented and those in single-family detached homes under- represented among citizens who consider the development of downtown, the Dickson Street area and College Avenue as the city service that needs the most improvement (Appendix F). Relatively larger fractions of citizens choosing to live in Fayetteville for quality of life and school quality rather than to be near family or work view the development of downtown, Dickson Street and College Avenue as the set of Group Two city services most in need of improvement. Full-time workers and non -working students are slightly less likely than their fellow citizens to consider the development of downtown, Dickson Street area and College Avenue as needing the most improvement among the second group of city services. Surface and ground water. Surface and ground water is the city service needing the most improvement according to much higher proportions of single-family detached home residents than residents of other types of housing (Appendix F). Surface and groundwater need the most improvement say proportionately more citizens living in Fayetteville to be near work or the U of A compared to those living here for the other listed reasons. Residents who work part- or full-time are less likely to place surface and ground water at the top of their lists of city services needing enhancement, while full- time homemakers and retired, non -working citizens are more likely to do so. Housing. Housing needs the most improvements, contend larger fractions of citizens living in apartments or mobile homes than those in single-family homes, women versus men, and residents of racial minorities versus white residents. People who live in Fayetteville to be near family are much more likely and citizens living in the city for quality of life, much less likely, to cite housing as the service most needing improvement. Retirees and students who don't work are slightly underrepresented among citizens claiming that housing is the city service needing the most improvement (Appendix F). A clean and green city. Residents in single-family homes, attached or detached, are much more likely than their counterparts in apartments or mobile homes to consider a clean and green city as encompassing the set of Group Two city services most in need of improvement. Women and white residents are also more likely than men or residents of racial minorities to cite a clean and green city as the set of services most needing improvement (Appendix F). Services making Fayetteville cleaner and greener are those most in need of upgrading according to 17 proportionately more residents who live here for quality of life than those in Fayetteville to be near work. Services making Fayetteville cleaner and greener are those most in need of upgrading according to proportionately more residents who work part-time than full-time homemakers or employed retirees and those who live here for quality of life than those living in Fayetteville to be near work. The Fayetteville Public Library. The Fayetteville Public Library is the service needing the most improvement according toa much higher segment of apartment residents, women and citizens of color than those inhabiting any other type of housing, men, and white residents. Furthermore, residents who live in. Fayetteville to be near work or for the weather are more likely than those who reside here to be close to family, for quality of life or school quality to evaluate the Library as the city service needing upgrades the most. Residents who seek work, are full-time homemakers, non -working retirees or students or students working full-time are more likely than retired and non -retired working residents to list the Library as the city service needing the most improvement (Appendix F). Aspects. of growth and development needing the most attention The 29 percent of city residents who contend that growth and development services need the most improvement could choose more than one aspect of growth and development services needing the most attention. Although 36 percent of residents who assert that growth and development services need the most improvement support stricter development standards, 11 percent encourage the City to lower standards (Table 11). While 22 percent of residents favoring better growth 18 and development services back limited growth, 31 percent favor promoting growth. About 18 percent of the citizenry who want improved growth and development services advocate more environmental protection, but 12 percent believe the city needs less environmental protection. About 6 percent of residents encouraging better management of growth and development offer other ways to accomplish this goal. Residents suggest better planning for environmentalgrowth and enforcing standards because homeowners are more committed to community than renters. Some advocate maintaining development standards while encouraging home and business development and/or controlled growth as well. as more development.. One resident proposes infrastructure as the growth and development area most needing attention (Appendix D). Willingness to pay for growth and development improvements While 38 percent of all who indicate that growth and development need the most improvement espouse willingness to pay, 31 percent may be willing and,31 percent are not willing to pay for the improvements they suggest. Higher fractions of residents favoring any of the three means for tightening growth and development regulations are willing than unwilling to pay. In two of these three cases, stricter development standards and environmental protection, willingness to pay far exceeds lack of willingness. Residents preferring any of the three options for loosening growth and development standards, are disproportionately unwilling to pay for them (Table 11). This may be because eliminating city services costs less than. adding them. Survey of Citizens City service: Growth and development Service percent: 29.1 Population size: 347 Service segment size: 101 Willingness to Pay Responses Yes Maybe No Total City service aspect (%) (%) (%) (%) Stricter development standards 36 19 10 7 36 (35.6) (52.8) (27.8) (19.4) (100.0) Promoting growth 31 8 14 9 31 (30.7) (25.8) (45.2) (29.0) (100.0) Limiting growth 22 11 2 9 22 (21.8) (50.0) (9.1) (40.9) (100.0) More environmental protection 18 12 5 1 18 (17.8) (66.7) (27.8) (5.6) (100.0) Less environmental protection 12 2 4 6 12 (11.9) (16.7) (33.3) (50.0) (1000) Lower development standards 11 3 1 7 11 (10.9) (27.3) (9.1) (63.6) (100.0) Other ', 6 2 2 2 6 (5.9) (33.3) (33.3) (33.3) (100.0) Total Respondents 101 37 30 97 -- (38.1) (30:9) :30 (.9) (100.0) Table 11 Aspects of growth and development services needing the most attention and willingness to pay 19 Aspects of the development of downtown Fayetteville; the Dickson Street area and College Avenue needing the most attention About 19 percent of city residents emphasize the development of downtown Fayetteville, the Dickson Street area and College Avenue as that among the Group Two options needing the most improvement. The residents assert that College Avenue, all three areas, the Dickson Street area and downtown Fayetteville, in that order, need attention the most (Table 12). One resident expresses an opinion that the downtown development project. should incorporate more business and quality of life issues than what this resident views as a focus on the cosmetic improvements proposed by the current plan (Table 12). Willingness to pay for improvements to develop downtown Fayetteville, Dickson Street and College Avenue Overall, the citizens who opine that the development of downtown and College Avenue need the most improvement are about equally as likely to be willing, possibly willing or unwilling to pay for the improvements they advocate. Those wanting improvements to the Dickson Street area are about twice as likely to be willing as unwilling to pay, but those who want to see all three areas improved, are somewhat less willing to pay for them (Appendix D). City service: Downtown Fayetteville, the Dickson St. area, and College Ave. Service percent: 18.7 Population size: 347 Service segment size: 65 Willingness to Pay Respondents Yes Maybe No Total City service aspect College Avenue 27 9 9 9 27 (41.5) (33.3) (33.3) (33.3) (100.0) All three areas 16 4 6 6 16 (24.6) (25.0) (37.5) (37.5) (100.0) The Dickson Street area 15 6 5 3 14 (23.1) (42.9) (35.7) (21.4) (100.0) Downtown Fayetteville 6 2 2 2 6 (9.2) (33.3) (33.3) (33.3) (100.0) Other 1 0 0 1 1 (1.5) (0.0) (0.0) (100.0) (100.0) Total 65 21 22 21 64 (100.0) (32.8) (34.4) (32.8) (100.0) Table 12 Aspects of the development of downtown Fayetteville, the Dickson Street area and College Avenue and willingness to pay 20 Survey of Citizens Aspects of surface and ground water needing the most attention About 17 percent of Fayetteville residents declare that surface and ground water need improving more than any of the other services in Group Two. The greatest share of these, by far, holds that all three aspects of surface and ground water mentioned in Table 13 need the most attention. These are water quality, storm drainage and flood control. Otherwise residents are twice as likely to support attention to water quality as to either storm drainage or flood control. In 2001, 63 percent of residents evaluated Fayetteville's services providing water quality as good or excellent and 47 percent judged drainage and flood control services similarly. Therefore, the finding that twice as many citizens currently believe that water. quality services need more improvement than either storm drainage or flood control services seems incongruous. It may reflect growing knowledge or increasing misperceptions about water quality that have occurred in recent years. This ranking may also be a generalization of the concerns about water quality voiced by the State of Oklahoma regarding water quality of the Illinois River. Two of the five residents who note other aspects of surface and ground water needing attention, suggest replacing older water lines. One has a leak and another indicates that the city's water has an off flavor while the lake turns over. Willingness to pay for improvements to surface and ground water The citizens of Fayetteville who believe that surface and ground water need the most improvement are nearly equally. willing and unwilling to pay, 37 and 35 percent, respectively. The remaining 28 percent may be willing to pay (Table 13). City service: Surface and ground water Service percent: 16.7 Population size: 347 Service segment size: 58 Willingness to Pay Respondents Yes Maybe No Total City service aspect (%l All given aspects 24 7 9 8 24 (41.4) (29.2) (37.5) (33.3) (100.0) Water quality 14 8 4 2 14 (24.1) (57.1) (28.6) (14.3) - (100.0) Storm drainage 7 : .. 4 0 3 7 (12.1) (57.1) (0.0) (42.9) (100.0) Flood`control 7 0.. 3 , . 4 7 (12.1) (0.0) . (42.9) (57.1) (100.0) Other 5_ `. 1 0 3 4 (8.6) (25.0) (0.0) (75.0) (100.0) Total 57 .20 16 20 56 (98.3) (35.7) (28.6) (35.7) (100.0) Table 13 Aspects of surface and groundwater that need the most attention and willingness to pay 21 Aspects of housing needing the most attention Nearly half of the residents who contend that housing is the city service most in need of improving promote affordable housing as the housing service needing the most attention (Table 14). More than one-third of those believing that housing needs the most improvement maintainthat: all given aspects of housing listed in Table 14 most need attention. About nine percent total argue that code enforcement, public housing or funding for safety or handicap accessibility need the most attention. Additionally, residents suggest that the housing or housing services should be more varied and that low-income housing be upgraded (Appendix D). Willingness to pay for improvements to housing Overall, residents who identify housing as the Group Two service most in need of improvement are five times (36%) more likely to say they would pay for these improvements than not pay (7%). Furthermore, 58 percent may be'willing to pay for the housing improvements they suggest (Table 14). City service: Housing - Service percent: 16.1 Population size: 347 Service segment size: 56 Willingness to Pay Respondents Yes Maybe No Total City service aspect Promote affordable housing 25 8 8 8 24 (44.6) (33.3) (33.3) (33.3) (100.0) All given aspects 22 8 13 , 1 22 (39.3) (36.4) (59,1) (4.5) (100.0) Code enforcement 4 2 2 0 4 (7.1) (50.0) (50.0) (0.0) (100.0) Public housing 2 1 1 0 . 2 (3.6) (50.0) (50.0) (0.0) (100.0). Other 2 0 2 0 2 (3.6) (0.0) (100.0) (0.0) (100.0) Funding for safety or handicap accessibility 1 0 0 1 1 (1.8) . (0.0) (0.0) (100.0) (100.0) Total 56 19 26 10 55 (100.0) (34.5) (47.3) (18.2) (100.0) Table 14 Aspects of housing needing the most attention and willingness to pay 22 Survey of Citizens Aspects of a clean and green city needing the most attention All services related to a clean and green city need the most attention according to a majority of the residents who say that of the Group Two city services, a clean and green city needs the most improvement (Table 15). About 10 to 18 percent each advocate for tree planting and landscape, removal of power lines from street frontage and litter pick-up and cleanliness of streets, in order. About 3 percent each of respondents to this question contend that hillside preservation or improved code enforcement are the aspects of a clean and green city needing the most attention } (Table 15). One person adds that the city should allow development of forested land only if it protects the needs of future generations and wildlife (Appendix D). Another comment reflects a belief that a lottery should be used to pay for public services rather than additional tax dollars (Table 15). Willingness to pay for improvements to a clean and green city When summed over all the selected aspects of a` clean, and green city, 56 percent of Fayetteville's residents estimate they are willing to pay, 21 percent may be willing to pay and 23 percent are not willing to pay for the improvements they favor (Table 15). City service: A beautiful city-- clean and green Service percent: 11.2 Population size:. 347 Service segment size: 39 Willingness to Pay Respondents Yes Maybe No Total City service aspect (%) (%), f%1 M.I. Iof-I All given aspects 20 13 5 2 20 (51.3) (65.0) (25.0) (10.0) (100.0) Litter pick-up and cleanliness of streets 7 3 1 . 3 ; 7 (17.9) (42.9) (14.3) (42.9) (100.0) Removal of power lines from street frontage 5 2 1 2 5 (12.8) (40.0) (20.0) (40:0) (100.0) Tree planting and landscaping 4 3 . 1 0 4 (10.3) (75.0) (25.0). , (0.0) (100.0) Hillside preservation' 1 0 .0 1 1 (2.6) (0.0) (0.0) (100.0) (100.0) Improved code enforcement 1 1 : 0 0 l (2.6) (100.0) (0.0) (0.0) (100.0) Other 1 0 0 1 1 (2.6) (0.0) (0.0) (100.0) (100.0) Total 39 22 8 9 39 (100.0) (56.4) (20.5) (23.1) - (100.0) Table 15 Aspects of a beautiful city — clean and green most in need of attention and willingness to pay 23 -n Top Goal: A Beautiful City - Clean and Green More than one -fifth of the residents who identify a beautiful city — clean and green as their top priority for the city opt for accomplishing the goal by enforcing codes -regarding such issues as trash on streets and integrity of structures (22%) and preserving trees (21 %) (Table 19). Although tree preservation ranks highly as a means for retaining the ecological health of Fayetteville, citizens it ranked 11th out of 11 city services of other types in 2001.18 Willingness to pay for each of these methods of beautifying the city differs substantially. About 21 percent of those favoring enforcing codes as the best way of keeping Fayetteville clean and green contend they will pay but 36 percent will not pay to support this effort. In contrast, half of citizens wanting to preserve trees are willing (52%) to pay and 16 percent are unwilling to pay for tree preservation. Improving the appearance of major corridors such as College Avenue or enacting a rental property inspection program are the best ways to keep Fayetteville clean and green as indicated by 17 and 14 percent, respectively, of the citizenry who name a beautiful city as their top city goal. Proponents of the improving corridor appearance are more than twice as likely as supporters of rental property inspection to be willing to pay for these means of achieving the overarching goal, 60 versus 24 percent, respectively (Table 19). The remaining methods of meeting the goal of a beautiful city garner support from about 8 and 9 percent of citizens who think the city's beauty should be its top goal. These subgoals are: preserving hillside, improving the quality of parks throughout the city, and creating more attractive streetscapes and gateways or entrances. About 57 percent of the fans of 18 City of Fayetteville, Budget and Research Division. (November 2001). 2001 Citizen Survey. Fayetteville, AR, p. 9. improving park.quality,,whereas 36.and 33 percent of advocates for preserving hillsides or enhancing streetside appearance, respectively, are willing to pay for these upgrades (Table 19). Characteristics of residents related to their preferred city goals Residents' ages, ethnicity, types of residence, wards and work status influence the choice of a beautiful city as the city's top priority. The types of influence follow. Relatively more Ward l and 2 and Hispanic/Latino residents than their counterparts favor a beautiful city — clean and green asthe city's top priority. In addition, citizens who prefer that a clean and green city head the list are more likely to be younger (18 to 40 years old) and/or living in apartments than older citizens and those living ,in othertypes of housing. Supporters of this goal include higher proportions of students and others working part-time, full- time homemakers and non -working retirees than their neighbors (Appendix F). 11 Survey of Citizens Goal: A beautiful city - clean and green Goal percent: 20.4 Possible respondents: 758 Goal respondents: 155 Willingness to pay Respondents Yes Maybe No Total Sub -goal (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Enforce codes: less trash on streets/integrity of structures 33 7 14 12 33 (21.9) (21.2) (42.4) (36.4) (100.0) Preserve trees 31 16 10 5 31 (20.5) (51.6) (32.3) (16.1) (100.0) Improve appearance of major comdors such as College 26 15 7 3 25 Avenue (17.2) (60.0) (28.0) (12.0) (100.0) Enact a rental property inspection program 21 5 10 6 21 (13.9) (23.8) (47.6) (28.6) (100.0) Preserve hillsides 14 5 5 4 14 (9.3) (35.7) (35.7) (28.6) (100.0) Improve quality of parks throughout the City 14 8 4 2 14 (9.3) (57.1) (28.6) (14.3) (100.0) Create more attractive streetscapes & gateways or entrances 12 4 7 1 12 (7.9) (33.3) (58.3) (8.3) (100.0) Total 151 60 57 33 150 (100.0) (40.0) (38.0) (22.0) (100.0) Table 19 Preferred ways to enhance the beauty of Fayetteville and willingness to pay 29 Top Goal: Development of South Fayetteville South Fayetteville's development ranks paramount or second among the strategic goals for about 17 percent of the city's residents (Table 16). Of these, nearly 37 percent profess willingness to pay for efforts to develop south Fayetteville, 30 percent possible willingness and 34 percent unwillingness to pay (Table 20). Nearly 39 percent of Fayetteville's citizens deem developing affordable single-family housing, including condominiums, as the best of seven options to revitalize south Fayetteville. The advocates of single-family housing for south Fayetteville are about evenly split in their willingness to pay — 32 percent each are willing or possibly willing to pay and 36 percent are unwilling to pay for housing development (Table 20). Redevelop industrial areas for non -industrial uses, say 25 percent of Fayetteville's residents who assert that developing south Fayetteville should be the city's top priority. Of these, lack of willingness to pay far outstrips willingness to pay — 48 versus 19 percent, respectively (Table 20). Much smaller fractions of citizens prioritizing the development of south Fayetteville believe that its renovation will be best effected by connecting all residents to the city sewer system (12%) and developing new parks (11%) (Table 20). High percentages of proponents of each effort are willing to pay — 53 and 46 percent, respectively. About 7 percent or fewer of residents who propose the development of south Fayetteville as the city's top priority think it will be accomplished best by improving the area's existing parks (4%), developing sidewalks (7%) or improving sidewalk maintenance (3%). At least 60 percent of the advocates of each of these improvements express a willingness to pay for them (Table 20). Characteristics of residents related to their preferred city goals Residents' ethnicity, race, types of residence, wards and work status influence the goals they recommend as top priority for the city. The development of south Fayetteville emerges as the top, goal of relatively more residents who are Hispanic/Latino or of a racial minority than non-Hispanic/Latino or white residents. Higher percentages of those living in duplexes or Ward 1 than their counterparts champion the development of south Fayetteville as the city's top priority. Residents working full-time and working retirees, especially, are more likely than those in other types of work to nominate the development of south Fayetteville as the city's most important goal (Appendix F). 30 Survey of Citizens Goal: Development of South Fayetteville Goal percent: 16.9 Possible respondents: 758 Goal respondents: 128 Willingness to pay Sub -goal Respondents Yes Maybe No Total (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Developaffordable singe family housin g1 g including condos 47 15 15 17 47 (38.5) (31.9) (31.9) (36.2) (100.0) Redevelop industrial areas for non -industrial uses 31 6 10 15 31 (25.4) (19.4) (32.3) (48.4) (100.0) Connect all residents to the City sewer system 15 8 3 4 15 (12.3) (53.3) (20.0) (26.7) (100.0) Develop new parks 13 6 6 1 13 (10.7) (462) (46.2) (7.7) (100.0) Develop sidewalks 8 5 0 3 8 (6.6) (625) (00) (37.5) (1000) Improve existing parks 5 3 1 1 5 (4.1) (60.0) (20.0) (20.0) (100.0) Improve current sidewalk maintenance 3 2 1 0 3 (2.5). (66.7) (33.3) (0.0) (100.0) Total 122 45 36 41 122 (100.0) (36.9) (29.5) (33.6) (100.0) Table 20 Preferred methods for developing south Fayetteville and willingness to pay { 31 .. r Top Goal: Downtown Fayetteville, The Dickson Street Area And College Avenue Development More than 8 percent of allresidents select the development of downtown Fayetteville, the Dickson Street area and College Avenue as the highest or second highest priority among the five goals from which they could choose (Table 16). Of these, nearly three-quarters are willing (48%) or may be willing (26%) to pay for it (Table 21). In 2001 citizens assigned the Downtown Dickson Enhancement Project a priority of 11 out of the 14 service areas with which they compared the Project.19 Considering the basic nature of many of the services, such as public safety and transportation with which the Downtown Dickson Enhancement Project was compared in 2001 this ranking is hardly surprising. The same may be true for the goal of developing downtown. Fayetteville, the Dickson Street area and College Avenue in 2003 Of the five methods for achieving the goal of developing downtown, the Dickson Street area and College Avenue, the largest group proposes greater ease of access and parking (47%) and smallest group favors adding housing units (1.6%). Of the advocates for greater ease of access and parking, 72 percent contend they are willing to pay. (41%) or may be willing to pay (31%) for the access, but 28 percent are not (Table 21). More than 20 percent of the proponents of the development of downtown, the Dickson Street area and College Avenue maintain that adding entertainment businesses and venues are the strongest methods to achieve this goal. Backers profess willingness to pay for costs associated with soliciting more entertainment businesses at more than four times the rate of 19 City of Fayetteville, Budget and Research Division. (November 2001). 2001 Citizen Survey. Fayetteville, AR, p. 9. those not willing to pay (70 versus 14 percent, respectively) (Table.21). About 16 and 13 percent of supporters of the goal to develop downtown Fayetteville, the Dickson Street area and College Avenue prefer to effect it through more attractive buildings and streets and more unique retail opportunities attracting shoppers. Two-thirds of the proponents of both methods are willing or may be willing to pay for these upgrades and the remaining third are not (Table 21). Characteristics of residents related to their preference for city goals Preference for the development of downtown, the Dickson Street area and College Avenue reflect residents' ages, ethnicity, race, types of residence, wards and work. We elaborate the effects below. Ward 2, Hispanic/Latino and racial minority residents support the development of downtown, Dickson Street area and College Avenue in greater proportion than their neighbors in all other wards and non -Hispanic or white residents. Larger fractions of citizens ages 18 to 25 and 41 to 64, and apartment dwellers versus their peers ages 26 to 40 and 65 and over, and those living in any other housing to endorse the development of downtown, Dickson Street and College Avenue as Fayetteville's chief goal. The development of these three areas is proposed as the highest city goal also by relatively more part-time workers, students who work part- or full-time, full-time homemakers and non -working retirees than people of other work states (Appendix F). 32 Survey of Citizens Goal: Development of downtown Fayetteville, the Dickson Street area, and College Avenue Goal percent:; 8.3 Possible respondents: 758 Goal respondents: 63 Willingness to pay Respondents Yes Maybe No Total Sub -goal (%) (%) (%) (%) Greater ease of access and parking 29 12 9 .8 29 (46.8) (41.4) (31.0) (27.6) (100.0) More entertainment businesses and venues 14 10 2 2 14 (22.6) (71.4) (14.3) (14.3) (100:6) More attractive buildings and streets 10 4 2 3 9 (16.1) (44.4) (22.2) (33.3) (100.0) More unique retail opportunities attracting shoppers 8 3 ' 3 2 8 (12.9) (37.5) (37.5) (25.0). (100.0) More housing units in these areas 1 0 0 1 1 (1.6) (0.0) (0,0) (100.0) (100:0). Total 62 29 16 16` 61 (100.0) (47.5) (26.2) (26.2) (100.0) 33 The City buying land to Requiring City long-term Limiting funding for, preserve, open or green land use plans development to only. spaces certain areas of the. City N Percent N Percent . N Percent Verysupportive 137 35.2 78 21.5 39 10.6 Supportive 134 34.4 183 50.6 148 403 Neither supportive nor unsupportive 58 14.9 69 19.1 71 19.3 Unsupportive 39 10.0 28 7.7 89 24.3 Very unsupportive 21 5.4 4. 1.1 20 5.4 389 100.0 362 100.0 367 100.0 Table 25 Support for growth management techniques Mobile home residents tend not to support targeted funding for development, while residents of the other housing types, are largely supportive or neither supportive nor unsupportive of limiting funding for development to only certain areas of the city. Support for this method of growth management is weaker among residents of single-family; detached dwellings and stronger among those living in duplexes. Willingness to Pay for Growth Management Techniques In 2003, Fayetteville's residents say they are willing to pay an additional $10 to $20 in taxes annually in order to institute a smart growth plan: for the area (40%) (Table 26). In response to a similar questionasked statewide in 2000, about 46 percent of Arkansans claim they would pay an additional $10 per year in taxes to create a community growth plan 24 When asked if they would pay an additional $20 for this or any of the other growth management measures on the 200O survey, Arkansans who were willing to pay the additional $10 in taxes tended to be willing to pay $20 instead.s 24 University of Arkansas at Little Rock Institute of Government. (2000). Growth in Arkansas. Little Rock Arkansas, p. 11. 25 University of Arkansas at Little Rock Institute of Government. (2000). Growth in Arkansas. Little Rock Arkansas, p. 11. While,51 percent of Arkansans avowed they would pay an extra $10 in taxes for green - space to be bought statewide in 2000, 39 percent of Fayetteville's residents are willing to pay an extra $10 to $20 in taxes to buy land for greenspace locally. Again, the prices in the Fayetteville question exceed that in the question asked statewide.26 On the other hand, even with the higher tax costs, in 2003, 35 percent of Fayetteville's residents say they would pay an extra $10 to $20 annually to buy land to prohibit farmland development, versus 32. percent of state residents who showed willingness to do the same for an additional $10 annual tax (Table 26).2' Although 63 percent of state residents in 2000 expressed willingness to add $10_annually to their taxes to buy land for parks, 25 percent of Fayetteville residents are currently willing to add $10 to $20 annually.28 More than one fifth of. Fayetteville's residents (21%)' currently are unwilling to pay any additional taxes to support any of these growth management techniques (Table 26). 26 University of Arkansas at Little Rock Institute of Government. (2000). Growth in Arkansas. Little Rock Arkansas, p. 11. 27 University of Arkansas at Little Rock Institute of Government. (2000). Growth in Arkansas. Little Rock Arkansas, p. 11. 28 University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Institute of Government. (2000). Growth in Arkansas. Little Rock Arkansas, p. 11. 3% 38 Survey of Citizens Frequency Percent Instituting a smart growth plan for the area 156 40 Buying land for greenspace that would not be developed 152 39 Buying land to keep farmland from being developed 138 35 Buying land for parks 98 25 Unwilling to pay any additional taxes . 81 21 Total Responses 433 Total Respondents 395 Table 26 Willingness to pay for growth management techniques Housing Preferences Residents. assessedthe supply of six types of housing in Fayetteville as "too many" "too few" or "just about the right amount". Sixty percent of residents claim that too, few homes for first-time buyers exist, but nearly 36 percent conclude Fayetteville has just about the right amount of housing for first-time buyers. An opinion that the prices of housing are too high for first-time buyers is expressed (Appendix D). Opinions on the availability of apartments in Fayetteville are the converse of those for first- time buyers: 'About 59 percent deem apartments in Fayetteville as too numerous; 32 percent just the right amount and 8 percent feel there are too few (Table 27). Four residents comment about the supply of apartments. In three of these comments residents discuss discrepancies between apartment demand, and supply. One resident each notes that too few apartments allow pets and that apartment supply varies by area of Fayetteville. Another reflects that sufficiency is a function of design, e.g. if large numbers of bedrooms are needed, too few apartments exist (Appendix D). Half of the citizenry evaluate the number of condominiums. in Fayetteville as just about right, 32 percent too few, and 18 percent too many. Incomments, residents proffer that the condominiums in Fayetteville are too costly for first-time buyers and that condominiums are not needed. Forty-six and 48 percent of Fayetteville's residents think there are either too few or just about the right number of single-family homes in Fayetteville, respectively. Eighty percent of citizens conclude that too few housing units for older adults are available in Fayetteville while 18.3 percent avow that just about the right number exist. Only 1.3 percent maintain that Fayetteville has too many housing units for older adults. One resident holds older adults need higher quality condominiums than currently exist. Another large group, 73 percent, appraise.: Fayetteville as having too few affordable housing units, 25 percent the right amount;: and 2 percent too many (Table 27). Just About the Right Total Too Many Too Few Amount Other - Responses N % N 5, M O/_ Housing for first-time buyers 12 3.5 206 60.4 122 35.8 tv 1 70 0.3 N 341 %o 100.0 Apartments 216 58.5 30 8.1 119 32.2 4 1.1 369 100.0 Condominiums 57 18.2 99 31.5 156 49.7 2 0.6 314 100.0. Single-family homes 21 6.1 158 45.8 164 ` 47.5 2 0.6' 345 100.0 Housing units for older adults 4 1.3 249 80.1 57 18.3 1 Affordable housing units 7 2.0 257 73.0 88 25.0' 0 0.3 311 . 100.0 0.0 352 100.0 Table 27 Assessments of housing supply 39 6 INFORMATION Obtaining Information from the City Presented with the eight methods of obtaining information about or from the city listed in Table 28, about half of city residents use one to three and the other half use four to eight of them. Six percent of residents report not seeking information from the city. City residents obtain information from or about the city predominantly via newspapers (62%) and personal contact (48%). While 40 percent obtain their information about the city from television stations other than community access television (CAT) or the government access channel (PEG), sizable shares of residents also garner information from PEG and/or CAT. All of the other ways of obtaining information about the city (utility bill inserts, Internet and radio) are employed by at least one-third of residents (Table 28). Frequency Percent Newspapers. 245 62 Personal contact 189 48 Television stations other than CAT or PEG 158 40 Public access television (CAT) on cable 125 32 Government access channel (PEG) on cable 84 21 Inserts in utility bills 149 38 Internet 144 37 Radio 135 34 I do not seek information from 25 6 the city Total Responses 1254 Total Communicative 369 Respondents Total Respondents 394 Table 28 Methods of acquiring information about the city Communicating with the City When asked how they communicate with the city, 81 percent affirm that they do communicate with the city and nearly 60 percent use only a single method. The greatest fraction, nearly two-thirds of residents, communicate with city personnel via the telephone. The smallest portion, about one - seventh, communicate via the Internet. Approximately 16 to 18 percent of the respondents employ each of the other methods for communicating with the city listed in Table 29. About 19 percent- of the citizens of Fayetteville maintain that they do not contact the city. Frequency Percent Communicate via telephone 254 65 Attend City Council meetings 69 18 Visit with City Council Representative 70 18 Communicate via e-mail 66 17 Visit with other governmental' representatives (mayor, et al) 63 16 Communicate via letter : 62 16 Communicate via the website 55 14 Do not contact the city 73: 19 Total Responses 712 Total Communicative Respondents 318 Total Respondents 391 Table 29 Methods of communicating with the city 40 Survey of Citizens 7 SUMMARY The city of Fayetteville commissioned the Survey Research Center (SRC) at the University of Arkansas to survey citizens of Fayetteville in 2003. SRC interviewers contacted a random, sample of households in Fayetteville by telephone. The telephone survey was employedso as to reach the .broadest possible cross-section of Fayetteville's citizens. Four hundred adult residents of the city responded to the survey during the summer of 2003. Fayetteville as a Place to Live Residents are. nearly consensual in considering Fayetteville a good or excellent place to live. The percent of Fayetteville's residents who feel similarly remains is nearly unchanged since 2001. Fayetteville residents' tend to rate Fayetteville much higher than other Arkansans rated their towns and cities in 2000. Assessments of Fayetteville are more positive among citizens living in single- family dwellings, those who are white and as levels of education and income rise, but decline; with age. The four top reasons for living in Fayetteville in order are: quality of life, to be close to family, work or the , University of Arkansas. School quality ranks a distant fifth. Satisfaction with and Recommendations About City Services Out of the six following city services, parks and recreation, utilities, public safety, transportation, streets and information programs, Fayetteville residents are most satisfied with the first three and in that order. Age, income, race, reason for living in Fayetteville, residence type, ward and work status influence residents' selections of most satisfactory city services from the first group. Which of these city services needs the most improvement? A majority of citizens respond, "Streets". About half as many say, "Transportation" and a third, though much smaller group replies, "Utilities". The relatively low percentages of citizens who assigned aspects of both streets and transportation good or excellent ratings on the 2001 Fayetteville Citizen Survey reinforce citizens' calls in 2003 for improvements to street and transportation services.29 Decisions about which services need the most improvement vary by ward and type of residence in which citizens live. Nearly half of the citizens who report streets as the city service most needing improvement claim that all five aspects of street services need the most attention. The five aspects are: street repair and maintenance, sidewalk maintenance and accessibility and cleanliness of streets. Street repair and maintenance rank second and third as street services citizens identify as needing the most attention. Citizens' willingness to pay for these improvements is ambiguous. Over all 6 options for improving streets proportions of residents who are willing to pay match those unwilling to pay for the improvements. The largest group of citizens needs to be convinced — they may be willing to pay. The largest share of citizens who assert that transportation needs the most improvement prefer that all four aspects of transportation services offered for consideration be upgraded. The first two of the following four transportation services also garner sizable shares of citizens advocating that each of them be improved: Ozark Regional Transit/Public transportation; alternative transportation, i.e. bicycling and walking; ease of car travel in the city and Razorback Transit. In contrast to citizens hailing improvements to streets, those proposing transportation improvements are largely 29 City of Fayetteville, Budget and Research Division. (November 2001). 2001 Citizen Survey. Fayetteville, AR, p. 5. 41 willing to pay, and another large share may be willing to pay. • Of those claiming that utilities need the most improvement the aspects needing the most attention follow, in order of citizens' preferences: Garbage collection;. water and sewer maintenance; meter reading and utility billing, and all three of the given aspects. The citizens who promote utilities as the city services most needing improvements are largely unwilling to pay for them. The largest percentages of residents are also most satisfied with the top three of a second set of six city services. In order of "most satisfactory" the second set of city services are: the development of downtown Fayetteville, the Dickson Street area and College Avenue, the Fayetteville Public Library, the city as a clean and :green place, growth and development, housing and surface and ground water. Services citizens consider most satisfactory from both groups are related to citizens' ages and work status. Out of this group of city services, the largest group of residents considers growth and development services as those most needing improvement. Sizable, but smaller fractions of citizens in order identify the Dickson Street area and College Avenue, surfaceand ground water, -housing,; the city as a clean and green place and for a very small percentage, the Fayetteville Public, Library, as the city services most needing improvement. Choices among these six services about which needs the most ;improvement are related to the gender, race,, reason for living in Fayetteville, type of residence and work status of the citizens. Residents who rank growth and development services as those most needing improvement show preferences for stricter development standards and more environmental protection but also the promotion of growth, Advocates of improvements to growth and development are much more likely to be willing than unwilling to pay for them. Proponents of improvements to the development of downtown, the Dickson Street area and College Avenue support upgrades to College Avenue above either of the other two areas or all three areas. Supporters of the development of these three areas are nearly equally as likely to be willing as unwilling or possibly willing to pay for the improvements to them. The highest percentage of citizens who support surface and groundwater upgrades favor attending to all three ways to improve surface and groundwater: water quality, storm drainage and flood control. Of these three aspects considered separately, greater percentages of citizens support upgrades in water quality than to either storm drainage or flood control. Willingness and unwillingness to pay are approximately equal over all. Citizen's Priorities for City Goals Citizens rank five city goals in the following order:. Improved mobility and street quality; planned and managed growth; a beautiful city — clean and green; development of south Fayetteville, and development of downtown Fayetteville, the Dickson Street area and College Avenue. The selection of improved mobility and street quality as the top goal citizens propose for. Fayetteville concurs with their low levels of satisfaction with transportation and street services and their emphatic choices of streets and transportation as the city services most in need of improving. It is, however, something of an enigma in light of the 15 minute one- way commute to work or school that the overwhelming majority of Fayetteville residents report. While the goal of improved mobility and street quality is nearly uniformly held, its choice is related to residents' ethnicity, race, ward and work status. 42 Survey of Citizens Citizens propose achieving the goal of improved mobility and street quality first, by improving traffic flow. The next most preferred methods for improving mobility and street quality are, in order: Developing improved public transportation:. and more sidewalks, protecting neighborhoods from traffic impacts and developing a trail network throughout the city. Willingness to pay for improved mobility and street quality, somewhat outweighs unwillingness to pay. The goal of planned and managed growth can best be achieved by supporting quality development within existing neighborhoods consistent with neighborhood plans -and upgrading infrastructure in older sections of Fayetteville, say residents. Moderate percentages of citizens also favor the other three methods for planning and managing growth, namely growth paying for growth, developing affordable housing, and new planning, standards/regulations to support alternative development. In general, the segment of citizens who are willing to pay to achieve better planned and managed growth is larger than the group wholack willingness. In addition, a large portion of citizens who favor this goal may be willing to pay which may. imply a need or for education. To achieve the goal ofa beautiful city — clean and green, approximately equal shares, of its proponents favor enforcing codes, preserving trees and improving the appearance of major corridors. Smaller groups back the following methods for beautifying the city in order: enacting a rental property inspection program, preserve hillsides, improve quality of parks throughout the city and create more attractive streetscapes and gateways or entrances to the city. Willingness to pay to make the city cleaner and greener exceeds unwillingness substantially. Yet, nearly as many who are willing to pay may be willing to pay. They may need additional information in order to support or deny additional taxes, if needed to fund beautification projects. Thetop two means for developing south Fayetteville, according to its supporters, are to develop single-family affordable housing, including condominiums and to redevelop industrial areas for non -industrial uses. Smaller portions of residents also advocate for the following in order: connecting all residents to the sewer system, developing new parks, developing sidewalks, improving existing parks and improving current sidewalk maintenance. Citizens who prioritize the development of south Fayetteville are significantly more willing to pay for some of the development options than others. For the two most popular development methods, those unwilling to pay outnumber the willing. Sizable percentages of citizens may be willing to pay in both of these cases. Chief among methods for developing downtown Fayetteville, the Dickson Street area and College Avenue is greater ease of access and parking to these areas. Smaller, but not insignificant fractions of proponents of the downtown, Dickson and College Avenue development counsel the city to solicit additional entertainment outlets, encourage more attractive buildings and streets and more unique retail opportunities for shoppers. Overall much larger shares of residents who back of downtown, Dickson and College Avenue development are willing than unwilling to pay for costs associated with the development. Growth and Development When faced with having to choose between two desirable public goods, citizens of Fayetteville nearly evenly divided their votes between buying land for a new multi -purpose park and implementing a new multi -purpose trail system. Park land supporters slightly outweigh trail system proponents. A relatively` small contingent also voted for neither option. Preferences are related to age, education and race. 43 Residents chose again between alternative means of development. In this case, residents clearly prefer quality development within existing neighborhoods consistent with neighborhood plans compared :with quality development on current farmland consistent with city regulations. As in the first set of choices, a small group of residents favors neither of these methods of development. Gender and ethnicity influence residents' inclinations, toward these development options. In opinions about the rates of growth of population, business and retail markets and jobs in Fayetteville over the past two years, citizens conclude that the population grew too fast or the right amount while jobs grew too slowly or the right amount. Business and retail market growth grew the right amount, but minorities of citizens divide evenly about whether the growth was too fast or too slow. Education, income, and race matter to decisions citizens' make about Fayetteville's growth pace. Fayetteville's residents resoundingly support the growth management strategies of the city buying land to preserve open or green space and requiring the city to adopt long-term land - use planning.. For limiting funding of development to only areas of the city, margins of support are strong, but weaker than for the first two options. In all three cases, substantial fractions of citizens are neither supportive nor ;unsupportive., thus, may be interested in additional information on these growth management measures. How willing are Fayetteville's citizens to: pay an extra $10 to $20 per year in taxes in order to support growth management techniques? None of the four techniques about which citizens were queried in this regard solicited a majority of citizens who are willing to pay the extra_ taxes to support them. Nonetheless, :a substantial portion of the citizens reports willingness to pay the extra annual taxes for all four of the techniques, especially the first three. The four techniques follow in order of support: instituting a smart growth plan for the area; buying land for greenspace that would not be developed; buying land to keep farmland from being developed and buying land for parks. When asked about the supply of housing available, citizens express opinions that while too many apartments exist, Fayetteville is short on housing for first-time buyers, affordable housing units and housing units for older adults. Information Programs Nearly all of Fayetteville's citizens say they seek information about the city. The three sources on which the largest shares of citizens rely for city news are newspapers, personal contact and television'' stations other than public or government accesschannels, in that orders 'However, sizable portions of citizens also turn to the public and government access channels, utility bill inserts, the internet and radio to garner information about Fayetteville. A very large percentage of Fayetteville's citizens also contact the city. The telephone is citizens' most -popular means by far for communicating with the city. ' Yet substantial segments of citizens also contact the city by attending council meetings, .visiting with city council and/or other city representatives, e- mail, letter and/or website. The website is the least popular means of citizens' communication with the city.