Laserfiche WebLink
City of Louisville Citizen Survey <br />July 2004 <br /> <br />Residents were asked to rate the importance of watering specific areas without restriction <br />under drought conditions. Watering parks and athletic fields were considered at least <br />nrnldvg`sohlonqs`msax`antsdhfgshmsdmqdsidents. Three quarters of respondents (77%) <br />thought that watering schools was at leassnrnldvg`sohlonqs`ms`mc`antsg`kene <br />respondents (53%) said that watering City landscaping areas (medians, etc.) was at least <br />nrnldvg`sohlonqs`ms- <br /> <br />Evaluation of City Services <br /> <br />City services rated the most positively were fire services, ambulance/emergency medical <br />services, public schools, services to seniors, health services and services to youth. All of <br />sgdrdrdquhbdrqdbdhudc`udq`fdq`shmfrne`skd`rs54onhmsri <br />100-point scale. <br /> <br /> <br />City services rated least positively were bus/transit services, amount of public parking <br />downtown, cable television and services to low-income people. All three services received <br />ratings of less than 65 points on a 100-point scald+atsvdqdrshkkadsvddmnfnnco`mcne`hq-o <br /> <br /> <br />For six of the eight services for which national normative comparisons were available, <br />Louisville residents gave ratings significantly higher than ratings provided by residents of <br />other communities. For cable television, the average rating given by Louisville residents <br />was similar to the rating given by members of other communities. Louisville received <br />ratings below national norms for services to low-income people. <br /> <br /> <br />Front Range comparisons were included for six services, five of which were rated higher <br />than the Front Range norms. The rating for services to low-income people was similar to <br />the Front Range average rating and no services were rated below <br /> <br />City Government <br />City Administration <br /> <br />Information about City Council, Planning Commission and other official City meetings and <br />the overall performance of the Louisville City government received average ratings of about <br />5/onhmsrnqghfgdq+nq`antsnfnnc-oHmenrmation about City plans and programs, <br />availability of City employees, City response to citizen complaints or concerns and <br />programming on Louisville cable TV, municipal channel 8 received slightly lower average <br />ratings, but were still considered between nfnnco`mcne`hqonmsgd0//,onhmsrb`kd- <br /> <br /> <br />The overall performance of the Louisville City government was rated higher than other <br />communities in the nation and similar to Front Range communities. The Louisville Web <br />site and City response to citizen complaints or concerns received average ratings that were <br />similar to national ratings. <br /> <br />Contact with City Employees <br /> <br />Employee ratings were 77 points or higher nmsgd0//,onhmsrb`kd+nq`anudnfnncoax <br />those respondents who reported having contact with a City employee in the last 12 months. <br />Each City employee rating was higher than the national average and three of the four were <br />above the Front Range average. Survey participants rated knowledge of Louisville City <br />dloknxddrljmnvkdcfdrhlhk`qkxsnnsgdr communities across the Front Range. <br /> <br />Report of Results <br />4 <br />