My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2020 Citizen Survey Results
PORTAL
>
CITIZEN and EMPLOYEE SURVEYS (40.340A)
>
2020 Citizen Survey Results
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/16/2020 8:04:30 AM
Creation date
11/16/2020 8:01:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITYWIDE
Doc Type
Survey Compilations
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
185
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc. City of Louisville Community Survey <br /> June 2020 <br /> <br />Report of Results <br /> 16 <br />Planning and Building Safety Department <br />Between 60% and 76% of those with an opinion rated the services provided by the Louisville Planning and <br />Building Safety Department as excellent or good. Overall customer service was rated most positively, while <br />the planning review process received less favorable ratings (see the figure on the following page). <br />Ratings for the overall performance of the Planning and Building Safety Department increased since the last <br />survey iteration, from 63% in 2016 to 72% in 2020, though it is worth noting that the difference in opinion <br />could be at least partially attributable to a change in question wording. Evaluations for the building permit <br />process overall also increased slightly since 2016, while scores for the public input process on City planning <br />issues declined. Where comparisons were available, all other ratings remained stable from 2016 to 2020. <br />The only item that could be compared to the benchmark database was the overall performance of the <br />Louisville Planning and Building Safety Department. This rating was much higher the national benchmark <br />(see Appendix D: Benchmark Comparisons). A Front Range comparison was not available.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.